Conflict of Science with Theocracy

From http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1052251535435&call_pageid=970599109774 :

Science can`t supersede religion: Einstein


TOM HARPUR

``Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.``

Albert Einstein, May 19, 1939.


Humanists with an axe to grind like to list famous people who, they dogmatically affirm, had no use whatever for religion. This is a tempting ploy in the attempt to gain credibility for their particular cause. But, over-eagerly, they often miscue and twist the truth.

For example, a recent list of allegedly anti-religion ``greats`` in a Star feature included Socrates and Albert Einstein. Since they`re obviously the right kind of brains to have on one`s side of the argument, they are frequently cited as key examples of ultra-rationalists, as humanists - in the anti-religion use of this term - par excellence.

Nothing could be more erroneous. Socrates spoke openly about his ``daemon,`` that is, his guardian angel, spirit-guide, or Quaker-like ``inner light.`` Plato, the ultimate believer in the sanctity and power of reason constantly used Socrates in his renowned Dialogues as his mouthpiece for some of the highest teaching ever conceived of regarding the soul and a mystical view of reality. Condemned to death, Socrates` last words, after drinking the poisonous hemlock, were those of religious piety: ``Crito, I owe a cockerel to Asclepius; will you remember to pay the debt?`` Asclepius was a mythical Greek god of healing.

Albert Einstein, the most brilliant scientist of the modern era, is even more interesting because of the widespread lie in our culture that science and religion are two mutually contradictory incompatibilities. Anyone who counts Einstein as an opponent of religion simply hasn`t read what he had to say on the subject.

For example, in the address at Princeton Theological Seminary, from which the quotation at the beginning was taken, he stated categorically that ``a legitimate conflict between religion and science cannot exist.`` Where conflicts do happen, he argued, it`s always because of a poor, mistaken understanding of the true nature of either one of these approaches to reality or of both.

Science deals with the issue of ``how facts are related to, and conditioned by each other,`` he said. It is the `` ... endeavour to bring together by systematic thought the perceptible phenomena of this world into as thorough-going an association as possible.``

Religion, on the other hand, is concerned with the goals, the values, and the meanings of human existence both individually and collectively. It tells us how we should relate to the universe and to each other.

In a little paperback, ``Ideas And Opinions - Albert Einstein`` (Three Rivers Press, 1954), most of his thinking on such issues has been collected under the general heading of Science and Religion. Einstein notes that the efforts of humanity to obtain knowledge through the scientific method have been even more than ``heroic.``

Yet, he powerfully insists upon the truth that, no matter how much you learn about what is, this still leaves you sitting very far away from what should be. You can have the clearest and most complete knowledge of what is and yet ``not be able to deduct from that what should be the goal of our human aspirations,`` he declares.

In other words Ñ and this is precisely where our world at the moment stands most at a loss Ñ ``Objective knowledge provides us with powerful instruments for the achievement of certain ends, but the ultimate goal itself and the longing to reach it must come from another source.``

What he says about a scientist`s need for a religious outlook seems very moving: ``You will hardly find one among the profounder sort of scientific minds without a religious feeling of his own.``

He goes on to explain: ``His (or her) religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.

``This feeling is the guiding principle of his life and work, in so far as he keeps himself from the shackles of selfish desire. It is beyond question closely akin to that which has possessed the religious geniuses of all ages.`` (My italics.)

I wouldn`t want someone to take from all this the wrong conclusion, however, that ultra-religionists can therefore now ape the humanists by claiming Einstein for their camp instead. He always made it abundantly clear that his religion was definitely not that ``of the na•ve man`` who has a wholly personal God, a sort of super-daddy, from whose care ``one hopes to benefit`` and ``whose punishment one fears.``

He had no use, for example, for the kind of religion that insists upon the ``absolute truthfulness of all statements recorded in the Bible.`` Apart from being self-evidently false, he regarded the consequences of such belief to be an immediate and unjustifiable intrusion into the ``sphere of science`` proper.

Religion, he said, can never be superseded by science. But, only by losing its anthropomorphism (making God like ourselves) and striving after rational knowledge, can it play its true role.

sattar2 #60 In response to my post to hamidm2, you write ``And initiate a discussion on Islam with you? I`d rather watch dr. Phil...``

You, my friend, are lying. I say this based on the last discussion I had with you (described below). If you wish to prove me wrong, I suggest you cut and paste any subsequent discussion you think we had (I know that is the last discussion we had, and that is what I told hamidm).

I went back and found the discussion I was referring to: On the board ``Telic Chowk: A Personal Odyssey``, when I was discussing something with YLH, you wrote your post # 72 on August 15 where you addressed me a presented your views on the subject. In response, I wrote my post #97 on that baord, which I ended as follows: ``Anyway, I think I have spent way too much time trying to discuss religion on chowk and dont plan to engage in discussions again. ``

That was a polite but very clear way of telling you that I did not wish to engage in discussion with you on religion. What kind of a religious man are you anyway, if you are unable to speak the truth? Like I said, mullahs come in all shades: shia, sunni, ahmedi, atheist, hindu, christian what-not. They hide behind religions and philosophies, when it is in fact their own lack of character that is the problem.

ironman #59 Historically, I think it is correct to say that there have been two categories of the concept we call God: (a) in the Greek tradition, a god is like a court politician: uncaring about humans, busy trying to outdo or take revenge on other gods. (b) in the Jewish tradition, the monotheistic God is caring about humans. In (a), God does not go far enough in helping humans, and in (b) I think he goes too far (promising land to Abraham if only the latter would believe in His existence - a very good real estate deal, incidentally).

These were gods of a primitive society. I think we need to move beyond that, and understand God for what science tells us: He sets rules whereby the heavenly bodies go about their business (as noted in the Quran, e.g.), and by the same token the rules whereby life flourishes. But, He does not bend his rules because someone is a member of a Chosen People. In other words, our brains and hands and feet are all we have to improve the human condition. God wont cure disease. Only the scientist can through use of his God-given faculties.

It is for this reason that I think that prayer should be restricted to thanking God for giving us life and family and other good things. Begging God for small favors (as we muslims do every time we have a little problem like a life-threatening disease) is demeaning both to God and to ourselves as individuals.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Ironman on God:

``human suffering moves Him not the slightest.``

well ironman -- you might as well say that Human suffering will move only a Human God -- not an inhuman(e) God.....:-)

sattar2:
``Stories of men of god parting the ocean, turning sticks into snakes, flying above clouds … have largely resulted in a madrissah culture, where people are required to blindly accept absurdities as reality. ``

There are even more absurd stories in the Hindu religion. The only difference is that not too many hindus believe in them and there is absolutely no risk in expressing disbelief in them. But there is a downside to that, too. Just because a Hindu can believe in everything and nothing, often at the same time, he is a fertile ground for anyone who really believes in what he says.

tahmed32: ``And that is all i am saying: God is the vast unknown and unknowable.``

dost-mittar: ``Now, if you add that He is omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, merciful, just, blah, blah, blah..... we may have a problem.``


Quite Sir!

God may be unknowable...but we expect to see the effects of His mercy and kindness (at least) in this world.

But our daily experience tells us just the opposite...that human suffering moves Him not the slightest.

Digit (#39):

Events in the Muslim world may very well fall in the pattern of European history … if it has not already happened. Furthermore, a mullah does not need an advanced degree in physics to understand the threat posed by education to his halwa, jihad fund, and the following of devotees … his age-old formula simply being … keep people ignorant, and stay in the driver’s seat …

Moving on …

Quran and Mohammad form the core of Muslim thought process. The teachings are ingrained in the minds of believers from childhood and shape their perception of human relations, community living, science, and more. Stories of men of god parting the ocean, turning sticks into snakes, flying above clouds … have largely resulted in a madrissah culture, where people are required to blindly accept absurdities as reality. Hints of disagreements are likely to earn disapproval of others, if not harsh penalty from the authorities.

Such an atmosphere makes it difficult for an inquiring mind to reconcile the obvious conflicts while continuing to seek knowledge. “What the hell was god thinking when he authored the quran?”, a curious mind is bound to wonder as it attempts to square away this nonsense. Sooner or later these conflicts intercept one’s intellectual progress and reduce it to a crawl. Faith devoid of reasoning turns religion into a fairy-tale. Such fairy-tale notions fundamentally distort one’s perception, and produce not innovative thinkers and scholars, but below-average minds, and at best, loads of mediocrity. Likes of Dr. Salam, who manage to think past mullah’s ranting … are disowned and chased out of the mosques for heresy. Christians had their Gallileo …and we have our Salam. We refuse to be outdone by the western infidels.

As an additional comment …

Coming to grips with this reality is now more important then ever. Mainstream Muslim perversion is not limited to merely Quran and science … but has distorted their social and political outlook as well. Muslim world can no longer screw around in the name of jihad and Islam and get away with it … as we have recently seen. Stakes are now higher … and margin for error continues to shrink. As we repeat mistakes from the past, hundreds and thousands of innocents will continue to perish and suffer, as we witnessed in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, New York, and more.

For one to point to Iranian nuclear program as a sign of “Islamic” progress … or accept that Quran only has to be followed and not necessarily understood … or argue that actually it was the church that corrupted Muslim ranks … is futile, as well as dangerous. It may give one the delusion of comfort for a while … but will only make matters worse over time.


hamidm,

… granted you want to take panga with tahmed and urstruly … but sahib, why prop this gun on my shoulder when firing? And what’s with forcing quran on kids? I thought the deal was if she got a 1600 in SAT … no more quran. Did you renege, or what?

tahmed Sahib,

… correction … last time few times we interacted, I asked you to cut back on incessant fatwas of kuffr … let it be against Naqshbandi, his deceased pir sahib, or the camel he stands to inherit from his jihadi uncle in hazara. And initiate a discussion on Islam with you? I’d rather watch dr. phil on nbc after a long day at work …

tahmed32:
``And that is all i am saying: God is the vast unknown and unknowable.``

Even an agnostic like me has no problem with that definition. Now, if you add that He is omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, merciful, just, blah, blah, blah..... we may have a problem.

Alephnull #52 you write ``I can’t see a single good reason why those who divide based on religion should not be considered ‘truly religious’, or at least as truly religious as those who do not. ``

Here is one good reason: you dont call an apple and an orange by the same name. similarly, a philosophy (or mindset) that divides mankind cannot be seen as a philosophy that unites mankind. When I read the Quran, I see it treating all mankind as one and downplaying differences between religions. e.g. it says ALL individuals (not just muslims) will be judged on the Judgement Day. When I listen to the Mullah, I see him preaching differences between the muslims vs. jews, christians etc. Logic dictates that what the mullah preaches is the antithesis of what the Quran teaches. Logic also dictates that Islam is what the Quran teaches, not what the mullah preaches. Hope this explains why I distinguish between the two.


you write ``Religion in practice almost invariably contains aspects of tribal identity, with designated in-groups and out-groups, disputes about who is and who is not a `truly religious`, a ‘true’ believer, etc. etc. ``

THis is not ``almost invariably true``. It has been largely true in hindu societies due to the caste system (and even in pakistan we have many people drawing distinctions based on ``zaat``, which is the same as tribal affiliations). However, most religions in the world are in fact forces that unite individuals of different ethnic groups, tribal affiliations etc. And, as is generally agreed, Islamic societies have generally been very good in this respect. I remember reading about how the brit Toynbee (a learned man, but quite racist consistent with his times) was surprised to see a white egyptian student acting in a sincerely deferential manner to a black egyptian student.

I will wholeheartedly agree that religions (except perhaps in China and Japan) have tended to replace tribal differences with religious differences. Thus, for centuries, we have had the Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus at each others throats. All I am saying is: this need not be so. There is nothing in the holy books that supports this religious strife: I can speak with confidence about the Quran since I am most familiar with it and it amkes it clear and explicit that all faiths are to be respected. Christians came to this conclusion formally in the 1960`s when the Pope issued a statement saying that non-christians need not suffer damnation and as such missionaries need no longer seek to convert people to save their souls.

So, once again we draw the distinction between what the great religions of the world teach vs. what the theocracy preaches. The former seek to unite all people, they downplay religious differences. The latter do the opposite. And for the same reason that the military bureaucracy encourages differences between nations.

I hope this explains why I think it is so important to distinguish between Religion and Theocracy. It is necessary if we are to survive as a species.

Alephnull #54 You seem determined to make Einstein say what you want him to say. I need to do some work now, so will leave off this discussion on what Einstein meant by God. If you wish to believe that when referring to God Einstein meant Little Green Apples, that is fine with me too.

SameerJB #35

{{Supporters of the concept of god do like to run with one statement from the entire life of well-known personalities ignoring the extensive available material in the form of lectures, speeches and books.}}

Bingo! But don’t expect those who want to inject god and their religion into every damn thing to appreciate that remark.

Tahmed #43

{{so you are saying that when einstein refers to God, he doesnt really mean God as generally understood in plain english. … or is it perhaps that, like the maulvi who twists religion to fit his own mindset, you are determined to twist what einstein meant so it fits with your view?}}

Maulvi Tahmed sahib, you might want to consider some other possibilities. Such as, for instance, that your interlocutors, for reasons of prior personal interest, might have dug into this matter somewhat deeper than you seem to have. And that you – whether by innocence or design – have managed, after absorbing a remark or two of Einstein’s out of its context, to twist his conceptions to fit your own preconceived notions. Witness for instance your ignorance of the physical context and significance of the remark to Niels Bohr “God does not play dice with the world”.

{{Too bad einstein didnt make all this clear.}}

So says Maulvi sahib. The facts are different, and are a matter of record, for those who can be bothered to look them up. Einstein repeatedly refers to Spinoza’s god and identifies himself as a Spinozist, with some reservations. Spinoza’s conception is of a rationally intelligible order to the universe and of a strict determinism – as opposed to, say, a sustaining deity that can interfere at any moment in the unfolding of events. Spinoza’s conception has been called pantheistic though Einstein rejected that specific term to characteristic his own cosmic religiosity. Spinoza’s and Einstein’ s conceptions absolutely rule out the Old Testament or Quranic notion of a personal god, i.e. a consciousness concerned with human beings and judging, rewarding and punishing their thoughts, words and deeds, with attributes such as beneficient, merciful, etc.

{{in your post you presume that i have a certain concept of God while ignoring what i have been writing below.}}

Not everyone has poor reading comprehension as you do. Suffice it to say that I have read your recent posts and many of your past acrimonious polemics on religion with care and not a little amusement.

{{As i said before, i am defining religion in terms of the essence of the message}}

How do you know you have managed to distill the correct ‘essence of the message’ – assuming that such a thing even exists - that your so-called essence is not a selection conveniently chosen to fit your preconceptions? It is at best the essence of your (mis-?)understanding of the message. The observed fact that two believers rarely agree, whether on the essence or the details, should be reason enough to doubt anyone’s claims to having isolated the ‘essence of the message’ in some religious text or other.

{{Less seriously, whats the deal with writing einstein`s phrases in German and then in english?}}

“Raffiniert ist der Herrgott…” is one of Einstein’s most famous pronouncements involving ‘god’, and arguably the one statement that gives the best insight into his worldview. In English translation, as “Subtle is the Lord…”, it is the title of a well-known scientific biography of Einstein by Abraham Pais. The German has an Old Testament flavour which I wished to expose precisely because I wanted to make the point that the words might be utterly misleading.

{{you think perhaps that I understand German better than English??}}

Sahib, I am well aware that your command of German is tenuous. Witness your use of “Grund” (cause, ‘grounds’) for ‘reason’ in a context where “Vernunft” would have been appropriate. What was the deal with that, BTW? I guessed though that you would be able to parse “Herrgott” into its constituents. It seems I guessed wrong.

{{and thanks for pointing out my ``little knowledge`` of things.}}

I specifically pointed out your apparent ignorance of the context and significance of Einstein’s remark about god and dice, which led you to impose your own preconceptions on him. You have a problem with that? Would you rather continue to wallow in ignorance?

If you wish to get a better idea of what Einstein’s religiosity might have been, rather than merely trying to fit his conceptions into the Procrustean bed of your preconceptions – I suggest you try to read – really read – Max Jammer’s Einstein and Religion (1999). Though given your past track record, it may not do you much good …

ref 40#

This is not my posting. Somebody has used my name.
Ahmed Madani,Karachi,Sindh,Pakistan

Tahmed #24

{{I would not characterize such inspiration as being a ``denatured neutered...`` feeling.}}

I’ll grant that ‘denatured’ was an exceptionally poor word to choose since I was implying that cosmic religiosity is nature-inspired and nature-centred rather than god-directed and god-obsessed. Perhaps ‘natured’ as a neologism might have been just right.

The point is that diffuse ‘cosmic religiosity’ is light-years away from traditional religiosity with its anthropomorphic, often jealous personal gods, revealed scriptures, moral precepts, immortal souls, reincarnation or resurrection, etc. etc. It has nothing to do with human hopes and aspirations and struggles.

{{While theocrats (and many people on chowk) get their jollies by emphasizing differences between people based on religion, the truly religious person gets his or her jollies by nurturing exactly the feeling you characterize as being ``neutered``.}}

That may be your preferred definition of ‘truly religious’. I can’t see a single good reason why those who divide based on religion should not be considered ‘truly religious’, or at least as truly religious as those who do not. Religion in practice almost invariably contains aspects of tribal identity, with designated in-groups and out-groups, disputes about who is and who is not a `truly religious`, a ‘true’ believer, etc. etc.

{{And he or she sees all religions as pointing exactly to this feeling (Brahma in hinduism, Allah in Islam, the Source of Knowledge for the scientist).}}

Your ‘truly religious’ person may choose to see it that way. That doesn’t make it true. Theistic religions come with a mass of superfluous dogma starting with the notion of personal god creating and sustaining the universe, absolutely useless to the scientist. They also vitally depend on the notion of ‘revealed truth’, which is epistemologically the antithesis of the scientific method.

{{it was exactly this feeling that led darwin to overthrow man`s conceit of being created in God`s image}}

The real error was probably for some men to create a god in their image in the first place.

{{The Quran fittingly says, in effect, that if mankind does not get its act together it will be replaced by another species.}}

How about an irreligious point of view: it matters not a whit to nature whether humans survive or not; though it evidently matters to humans.

Tahmed #25

{{Only ignorant people (Theocrats, Atheists) are 100 percent that what they know is the ultimate truth. Religious people and scientists recognize that we can never know everything - there will always be unpredictabilities, and the more we know the greater will be our awareness.}}

Amusing choice of associations and contrasts: “ignorant people (Theocrats, Atheists)” contrasted with “religious people and scientists”. Talk of false dichotomies and prejudicial language! Let us hope it was caused by befuddlement rather than intellectual dishonesty.

Theocracy by definition (go to the Greek roots) is primarily about the exercise of power. A theocrat need not be ignorant. He could easily have a shrewd if cynical inkling about the untenability of the religious dogmas in whose authority he wields power.

Atheists need not be “100 percent that what they know is the ultimate truth”. In fact, they typically are not so disposed. They typically reject ‘existence of god’ on epistemological grounds because it is an untestable hypothesis and therefore meaningless.

hamidm2# if you have a problem with anything i write, i suggest you try to be a man and respond directly to what i said. I dont see you doing that. Thus, on the other board, you clearly implied that i had said the meaningless mullah (``koran is infallible``), when in fact i never said that. On this board i see you offering your sympathies to sattar2 for having to interact with me (we havent intercted in a long time, and the last time we did - a couple of months back - it was in fact i who advised mr. sattar that i did not wish to engage in a religious discussion with him).

So:

my understanding of your problem is this - you dont like the fact that i sometimes expose your weaknesses (your desire for your drinking habits to be noticed, the contradictions inherent in having your ridiculing mullahs and inflicting the mullah practice on your child by having her read the Quran in a language she does not understand, your blanket ridicule of indian and pakistani traditional culture which indicates a superficial mindset, and above all my refusal to accept your equation of the message in the quran with mullah culture). you have never been any of these things. so, instead of ever taking up my invitation to cut and paste what i have written if you disagree with it (or else simply being man enough to indicate agreement with it if you cant argue against it), you take the ``chawwal`` way out by attributing things to me that i never said or bad mouthing me when writing to sattar2. great job!!