Here's a thought provoking passage I came across, from one of Dr. Arbab's essays on science and religion. I think it presents a really key insight about the nature of truth, and how one can avoid the extremes of becoming either too ideological or skeptical. Would love to hear your thoughts on this, dear reader...
"I find quite inadequate the approach to the study of religion according to which the researcher is divided into two separate entities, the scientist and the believer, the first bound to the rules of academia and the second obliged to ignore the absurdities that this duality introduces into his or her belief system. That so untenable an approach should have achieved widespread acceptance is due to the impositions of secularism acting as a kind of fundamentalist creed. As a result, much of the reality of science, religion and the forces that transform society has ended up hidden behind a veil created by false objectivity.
The alternative to the prevailing situation is not apologetics or sectarian controversy. What is called for is a new look at the interpenetration of reason and faith, as well as a systematic exploration of rational approaches that are not tied to materialism...
An immediate consequence of this realization, it could be argued, is to require the researcher in certain fields to make explicit relevant aspects of his or her own belief and experience. To do so in a meaningful way, one must be convinced that it is possible to be firm in one's convictions without being judgmental. Although the statement, "if I believe something to be right, then he whose opinions differ from mine must be wrong" passes the tests of formal logic, and although it is applicable in countless situations, its usefulness vanishes once the object of discussion becomes relatively complex. It is not that "A" and "not A" can both be true, but that the vastness of truth does not allow most matters of belief, if there is any depth to them at all, to be reduced to such comparisons. The only options this simplistic posture finally leaves open are either religious and ideological fanaticism or the brand of relativism that does away with faith, embraces skepticism, and idolizes doubt. It is instructive to note how the assaults of such relativism on belief, initially launched against religion, have been directed in the postmodern era to the very foundations of science."
I find the last paragraph particularly illuminating on this search for truth. I have often struggled with the very quandary he states, of being firm in one's belief without becoming judgmental of others - and the insight provided here shows (in my opinion) a clear way to overcome this hurdle, by understanding one of the fundamental characteristics of reality, and our respective understandings of reality - that they are ultimately too complex to subject to such comparisons and judgments.
God Hates Figs
-
A blog I encountered argued that God hates certain groups of people, and
that therefore believers in God—specifically, Christians—should also hate
them. Bi...
4 years ago
Posts
3 comments:
The article makes many assertions but does not explain them. It seems the main point, in summary, is: "These issues are too complex to admit neither a purely logical approach nor a purely belief based approach", or something like that. But why? Why is the author so sure the issues are so complex that reasoning apparently is not enough? I have a problem with reading passages like this as well as many similar ones, which is that there are often lots of assertions without reasons. The Book of Law also comes to mind.
Furthermore, as NKS suggests at least with strong empirical evidence, many systems that seem very complex are not that complex. Or at least, many simple logical systems can quickly produce unexpected complexity. Just because something is complex doesn't mean there's no hope for a purely reason-based approach. One could also argue that we don't ever truly understand a system until we can pin it down with science and reason. Did we really understand music without music theory? Did we really understand physics without concrete laws? As another example, axioms from which conclusions can be logically deduced have yet to arrive in psychology, and as a consequence it is not even considered a science yet.
Lastly, regarding making assertions that one is right and someone else is wrong based on one's beliefs -- I see no problem with that, it is logical. The only problem could be that stating this so explicitly will often not have the desired effects of conversion or persuasion, and perhaps even undesirable consequences. But we can still safely think this explicitly to ourselves.
Anonymous - first, this is just an excerpt from a whole essay, so I don't think one can glean everything you seem to want to just from looking at this in isolation. The entire article is called "Promoting a Discourse on Science, Religion, and Development", and is available as part of a book called "The Lab, the Temple and the Market - Reflections at the Intersection of Science, Religion, and Development". One should probably read the whole thing (and other writings by the same author) before making any conclusions about whether he is making assertions without reasons. If it seems like he does, the fault is entirely mine, for picking out just an isolated passage :)
I'm not aware of the Book of law, so can't say anything about that...
No doubt many systems that seem very complex aren't. I don't think anyone is making any such argument. However, are all systems in this world (including the world itself) very simple? I doubt anyone would make such an assertion... The existence of many deceptively complex systems does not of course prove that every seemingly complex system is simple :)
I completely agree with your statement that "Just because something is complex doesn't mean there's no hope for a purely reason-based approach" - I don't think the excerpt makes any such argument. If anything, it suggests exactly what you are saying - that even matters of faith, religion etc should be treated scientifically and reasonably.
As to whether we truly understand something unless we understand it through scientific laws - I guess I really can't be as certain as you are. One might understand all of music theory and still be tone deaf; and it is questionable as to whether the deep connection one feels to some pieces of music can be written down as mathematical formulae. Appreciation and understanding of many things in world is no doubt enhanced by scientific understanding - but I would not go so far as to claim that it is ONLY when we pin something down through scientific and mathematical equations that we truly understand it.
I think Abdu'l Baha once said that you can analyze a tear all you want under a microscope, and do a rigorous chemical analysis - but none of that will tell you whether it was a tear of joy or tear of sadness. I find the metaphor in that thought experiment particularly alluring...
Finally, wrt your last point about judgment - I think the author is making the exact claim that sometimes it is not the right thing to do (even if it might seem logical), because all humans who make such claims are finite and cannot truly understand reality, which is far more multi-dimensional. Lets take a simple example - suppose we lived in a 2-dimensional world, and one day were visited by a cylinder, a 3d object. From my viewpoint, I could only see a circle - but from your viewpoint you only see a rectangle. And so we decide we fundamentally disagree each of us concludes the other person is wrong. However, is that right? The problem is that the truth of the situation really goes beyond what either of us can individually understand/perceive; but once we put both perspectives together and expand our vision to include 3 dimensions, we arrive at the truth - that the object is a cylinder. Therefore, in this situation, taking the view that "i believe i am right, and so the other person is wrong because he disagrees with me", though logically defensible, leads us away from the truth. I'm sure you can think of other such examples, including many that correspond to the real world...
Note that the author clearly states that a judgment like "if I believe something to be right, then he whose opinions differ from mine must be wrong" does apply in countless situations - just not in all. So lets not see things in black and white... :)
As for thinking someone is wrong, but maintaining a superficial level of agreement in order to please/appease them, or because of some other ulterior motives - being non-judgmental is not about having secret judgments you don't say loudly - its about truly understanding others and not judging them in your heart. I'm pretty sure that's the spirit in which it is meant in this excerpt... :)
Post a Comment