Hi Billy, On Oct 28, 2011, at 2:01 PM, [email protected] wrote: > Yes, indeed, there is a vital place for reason in the life of faith --and > generally. > But Freud, and many others, have made it clear that the most reasonable-reason > has a major irrational foundation. We are all crazy to some extent, some > more than others. It is self deception to think that pure reason guides anyone > all the time, maybe even most of the time. We think with our emotions > and some theories say this is dominant in life.
Funny, I just got into a debate on that last night with a philosophy podcast... -- Ernie P. http://2transform.us/2011/10/27/partially-examined-questions I assume you are all familiar with Kuhn, and plan to cover The Structure of Scientific Revolutions at some point in the future. Within that framework, I think Harris’ claim applies well to “normal science” — and indeed, I concede that “normal religion” is certainly far less rational and empirical than “normal science.” However, Harris’ framework seems to completely overlook the role of “supra-rational” beliefs in creating Kuhnian paradigm shift. By definition, every new paradigm shift is a) not provable within the existing paradigm, and b) not immediately obvious from the existing data. For a scientist to innovate in that way requires believing that an alternative theory both a) exists, and b) is possible for him or her to prove, before they have conclusively demonstrated that either is the case. In fact, it is both common and historically accurate to refer to such “pre-paradigmatic” beliefs a “religious”, as demonstrated by the cult of Pythagaros, the numerology of Newton, and the deism of Einstein. You have to be a little irrational to break with the herd. Indeed, this is why both innovators and crackpots are pariahs, and you don’t know until much later which is which. If you don’t believe me, try asking a group of random physicists whether string theory is “real” physics. That doesn’t mean we can believe anything we want. In fact, as I always told my first-year physics students, the issue is not “faith vs. reason”, but “bad faith vs. good faith.” Good faith means we: State our assumptions explicitly Derive our predictions rigorously Measure the results precisely Adapt our hypotheses scrupulously In short, good faith actively puts its assumptions to the test. Like James, I find little value in religious (or scientific) attitudes than neither affect behavior nor measure results. More specifically, as mentioned in the post I linked, there is an apparently “irrational belief” at the heart of modern physics: that the fundamental forces of the universe must follow elegant mathematical rules. Why? Ironically, this is an area where the theologians actually have a rational answer: my MIT calculus textbook in 1985 simply stated, “God is a mathematician.” Conversely, I dare say Hume could make a strong case that believing such a theory must exist is nothing more than a superstition, no? -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
