dogmatism in religion and in science

CSGnet Archive CSG1999
1

[From Bruce Nevin (991006.1439 EDT)]

Kenny Kitzke (991006.1128)--

<Bruce Nevin (991005.1108)>

<Dogmatism about exactly what the truth will turn out to be of course
doesn't work on either side. So if you're talking about people with literal
interpretations of e.g. 7 days of creation, I agree.>

And, if I understand you position, you would also agree concerning people
with scientific interpretations of the creation by a big bang?

If they're dogmatic about it and assert it as unassailable truth that will
never change, yes. But the science of the big bang theory is based on
evidence, and that is an important difference. (BTW, Georges Lemaitre
[1894-1960], who first formulated the big bang theory mathematicaly, was a
Belgian priest. Of the theory, he said "it had to have begun with light.")

Moses could see God, but only His hinder parts -- where God has been, not
where God is going. The big bang theory looks at where things have been,
what it says about where things are going is far less clear. Evidence,
again. And of course it refers only to this particular physical universe.

Rick Marken (991005.1240)--

You seem to be saying that dogmatism
(controlling for zero skepticism) doesn't work for doing
either science _or_ religion. I am saying that dogmatism
_does_ work for doing religion; indeed, dogmatism is
essential for doing religion well.

I agree that there are many people who adhere to a dogma and call it
religion, and to do what they are doing well (as judged e.g. by their
coreligionists) clearly dogma is essential. At its best, religious dogma is
like training wheels, expedients and signposts to give some help to those
who for various reasons aren't open to experiencing some things for
themselves, milk for babes vs. meat for grownups. Dogma is most often not
at its best -- ecclesiasticism, institutionalized roles, patronizing of
"the little people" (a term used by the early church fathers and by more
recent clerics), exploitative guru trips, "and points south" as they used
to say in announcements at the bus terminal.

On the other hand are people saying "I can't tell you, words don't cut it"
or "I'm trying to show you by this analogy, but you're confusing the
pointing finger with the thing pointed at," or "those who know don't say,
those who say don't know," and so on. The monk asks "how deep is this
river" and the teacher pushes him in.

This is what I mean when I say religion, as opposed to ecclesiasticism.
People who are rigid about religious dogma are not doing religion well.
They're clinging to those training wheels. They need to start experiencing
directly some of what religious dogma only talks about. They're like the
students of "science" in Brazil that Richard Feynman talks about in _Surely
you're Joking_. They learned a particular rote formulization to pass their
exams, but they don't know where it comes from or where it's going, or how
to move with it.

Others cling to dogma as a framework to explain and verbally rationalize
experiences they may have had -- it's hard to remember -- and to protect
them from ever being so terrified again. Proverbs says "The beginning of
wisdom is the fear of God." Any kind of direct experience is terrifying, or
at least for toddlers like me. Even Arjuna, no wimp, said "C'mon, Krishna,
show me what you really look like," and then very quickly he said "No, no,
take it away!" A coccoon is so much more cozy.

There are perceptions that some people have and most people do not. The
"freely replicable" clause of scientific method rules them out of science,
but that is a limitation of science, not an invalidation of the
perceptions. If 80% of people were color blind, we would not have a theory
of color that accounted for the perceptions of the minority. In fact,
minorities of people do have perceptions that most people do not have, and
we do not have accepted theories accounting for these perceptions. As you
will recall, I live with these issues because my wife is a psychic and
teaches people how to become aware of and control psychic perceptions. This
stuff loses out with both science and religious dogma. Tant pis.

This could be a can of worms, and I have spent way too much time on it
here. I am not interested in defending or promoting religion or my views,
and in any case what I said was addressed to Kenny.

  Bruce Nevin

···

At 11:29 AM 10/06/1999 -0400, Kenneth Kitzke Value Creation Systems wrote:
At 12:41 PM 10/05/1999 -0700, Richard Marken wrote:

2

[From Bruce Gregory (991006.1502 EDT)]

Bruce Nevin (991006.1439 EDT)

The big bang theory looks at where things
have been,
what it says about where things are going is far less clear. Evidence,
again. And of course it refers only to this particular
physical universe.

You were hoping for a description of some other physical (or
nonphysical) universe?

Bruce Gregory

3

[From Rick Marken (991007.0840)]

Bruce Nevin (991006.1439 EDT)

Bruce, I sent a letter describing CSG to the BU conference
person (Shelley Warren). I can handle the arrangements directly
with her from now on if you like.

Dogmatism about exactly what the truth will turn out to be of
course doesn't work on either side [science or religion].

I can think of instances where science "worked" due to the
absence of dogmatism (just about everything Galileo discovered,
for example). But I can't really think of an instance where
religion "worked" due to the absence of dogmatism. Can you?
Judaism still works despite overwhelming evidence that
maintaining this belief can be very bad for one's health.

People who are rigid about religious dogma are not doing
religion well.

A person who is not rigid would be a person who would abandon
a religious idea when confronted with evidence that that idea
is false. The only people I have met who are non-rigid in this
way have also abandoned their religious beliefs based on the
evidence. I have never met a religious person who is non- rigid
in this way; that is, I have never met a religious person (any
believer in the supernatural) who is skeptical of their own
beliefs and who continuously subjects those beliefs to
experimental test.

Do you continuously subject your own beliefs in the supernatural
to rigorous test? Of course not. If you did, you would have to
reject them or maintain those beliefs in the face of evidence
(doing the latter is called "faith" and some people actually
consider themselves blessed to be able to have it; they are
happy to be able to believe things like "God is good" despite
things like the holocaust; a good religionist is not troubled
by evidence at all; that is, they are comfortably dogmatic).

The difference between science and religion is not in the
content of the beliefs so much as in the attitude toward
those beliefs. Science is based on skepticism; religion
(including your belief in a spirit world) is based on faith.
This is why science and religion are incompatible; they are
simply different ways of determining "truth". The beliefs that
are currently true in science are those that have survived
rigorous and continuous experimental test; the beliefs that
are currently true in religion are those that the believer
_wants_ to be true.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates mailto: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

4

[From Bruce Nevin (991007.1335 EDT)]

Rick Marken (991007.0840) --

···

At 08:44 AM 10/07/1999 -0700, Richard Marken wrote:

I can think of instances where science "worked" due to the
absence of dogmatism (just about everything Galileo discovered,
for example). But I can't really think of an instance where
religion "worked" due to the absence of dogmatism.

Perhaps you are right to ignore the distinction that I have described
between religion as experience (e.g. mysticism) and religion as institution
(ecclesiasticism, dogma) as though I had never mentioned it. Certainly,
nothing that I can say could convince you of it, nor do I have any interest
in doing so.

  Bruce

5

[From Rick Marken (991007.1210)]

Bruce Nevin (991007.1335 EDT)--

Perhaps you are right to ignore the distinction that I have
described between religion as experience (e.g. mysticism)
and religion as institution (ecclesiasticism, dogma) as
though I had never mentioned it.

Sorry, I didn't mean to ignore it. I guess I just didn't
notice it -- or, perhaps, understand it. Maybe you could
explain it again: what is the difference between religion
as experience and religion as institution?

I think my problem may be that, to me, "religion" (of any
sort) means _unskeptical belief_ in explanations of our
experience. If religion as experience involves skepticism
(carefully design tests of any particular explanation of
an experience) then, from my point of view, it's not religion.

I should also say that I do _not_ consider practices to be
religious if they are aimed only at pointing to experiences,
with no explanation provided. From what I know of Zen, for
example, I would _not_ call it a religion; it's just a
method (much like the MOL) that, for some reason, allows
people to have certain experiences.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates mailto: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

6

[From Bruce Nevin (991008.1608 EDT)]

Rick Marken (991007.1210)

to me, "religion" (of any
sort) means _unskeptical belief_ in explanations of our
experience. If religion as experience involves skepticism
(carefully design tests of any particular explanation of
an experience) then, from my point of view, it's not religion.

"Religion as experience" (to continue with that phrase) is neither of
these, since it has nothing to do with explanations, however much
explanations try to have to do with it. It does involve openness of mind,
an appreciation that "boss reality" is not identical to the universe of our
perceptions, an expectation that present understandings, however hard won
and cherished, are likely to be, even bound to be supplanted, and this
openness of mind is also characteristic of doing science well.

I do _not_ consider practices to be
religious if they are aimed only at pointing to experiences,
with no explanation provided. From what I know of Zen, for
example, I would _not_ call it a religion; it's just a
method (much like the MOL) that, for some reason, allows
people to have certain experiences.

IMO, the proper purpose of religious practices is just this, to point the
practitioners toward having certain experiences. There can be other
purposes too, such as political and economic purposes on behalf of
religious institutions and of people in institutionalized roles there, but
those are what I consider "ecclesiastical" purposes, e.g. filling the
collection plate. They are called religious by extension, the way tools can
be garden tools without being a garden or having any of the characteristics
of a garden.

In science, the point of experience (disciplined by methods such as
skeptical tests) is to refine the explanation; in religion, the point of
explanations and of methods is to point one to experiences.

Given your definition I guess I have to distinguish between
"religion-as-experience" and "religion" in order to reply to you. (I was
saying "religion" vs. "ecclesiasticism" to make the same distinction, but
let's be flexible.) Using your example, zen is not
"religion-as-experience," its practices are not "religion-as-experience,"
but zen and its practices can point you to experiences that are
"religion-as-experience".

There are certainly buddhists and practitioners of zen for whom buddhism or
even zen is a religion in your sense. Not so many years ago I read an
account of an aspirant in a zen monastery who was set the koan "How do you
stop a moving freight train with your mind?" So zealous was he that in the
frustration that often follows from persisting with a koan he sat himself
down on the tracks in front of an oncoming train, which ran him over and
killed him. Dogmatism? A too-literal interpretation, anyway. Would you call
it faith? I suppose it is the speed and efficiency of the train that makes
his error obvious to us, even comical in a tragic way; not so obvious maybe
when dogma limits and cripples over long years, referring here to scientism
as well as to religion as you define it (dogmatic ecclesiasticism).

Trying to make this at least a bit relevant for PCT: Rokeach identified two
aspects of dogmatism, closed-mindedness and rigidity.

What is the difference between someone who is open minded and someone who
is closed minded? Someone who can set aside their familiar, accepted
conceptual framework and "try on" an alternative (e.g. conventional
psychology vs. PCT). Are they controlling different perceptions, such as a
principle of trying alternatives? Are they controlling the same perceptions
differently, for example perhaps with fear and anger increasing gain, so
that alternatives don't become available? I don't know if that is a
plausible mechanism; what would be?

What is the difference between someone who is flexible and someone who is
rigid in their thinking? Someone who resists change even in the face of
counterevidence or unwanted consequences, vs. someone who identifies
general principles and tries alternative ways in which they might be
realized in a situation. Are they controlling different perceptions, or are
they controlling the same perceptions differently?

When a person is being dogmatic, why are they less likely to analyze the
content and implications of what is said and more likely to depend on the
reputation of the source, and on how attractively the message is packaged?
Do they simply lack skills (input functions, control loops, connectivity)
to perceive ramifications and analyze them? Is their capacity to perceive
and to control in these regards disrupted by internal conflict?

Figuring this out could help us communicate.

  Bruce Nevin

···

At 12:11 PM 10/07/1999 -0700, Richard Marken wrote:

7

[From Kenny Kitzke (991011.1500 EDT)]

<Bruce Nevin (991006.1439 EDT)>

<If they're dogmatic about it and assert it as unassailable truth that will
never change, yes. But the science of the big bang theory is based on
evidence, and that is an important difference. (BTW, Georges Lemaitre
[1894-1960], who first formulated the big bang theory mathematicaly, was a
Belgian priest. Of the theory, he said "it had to have begun with light.")>

If Mr. Lemaitre could see the evidence of the folds in space recently
discovered by our space telescope which totally contradicts the big bang,
would he have been so sure about this evidence for a big bang model as you
seem to be? It had to have begun with light? Well, that he probably got
from the Bible rather than evidence.

<And of course it refers only to this particular physical universe.>

What other physical universe is there?

<The "freely replicable" clause of scientific method rules them out of
science,
but that is a limitation of science, not an invalidation of the perceptions..

And further, replicability of bad science is still bad science. How many
have done Pavlov's science and come to the same wrong conclusion about what
dogs do?

<This could be a can of worms, and I have spent way too much time on it
here. I am not interested in defending or promoting religion or my views,
and in any case what I said was addressed to Kenny.>

And, well said and much appreciated. For some reason, the subject of
religion does not want to subside on PCT and the unreligious seem most
interested in keeping it going. I want to explore the spirit nature of man
compared to animals (non physical nature of man above body and mind
perceptions which all men also have) which is there regardless of ones views
or convictions or needs for "religion" or "science."
Its there in human perception whether or not physical or mental closed
circuits can explain its function.

Kenny

8

[From Bruce Gregory (991011.1532 EDT)]

Kenny Kitzke (991011.1500 EDT)

If Mr. Lemaitre could see the evidence of the folds in space recently
discovered by our space telescope which totally contradicts the big bang,
would he have been so sure about this evidence for a big bang model as you
seem to be?

Ken, I don't know where you are getting your scientific "information" from,
but it is all wet. Nothing observed by Space Telescope contradicts the Big
Bang model. But of course you'll believe anything that allows you maintain
your errors at a low level. I suggest you simply avoid quoting science
rather than quoting bad science. But what do I know, here at the
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics we are babes in the woods
compared with your authorities.

And further, replicability of bad science is still bad science. How many
have done Pavlov's science and come to the same wrong conclusion
about what
dogs do?

Dogs salivate. Or has that been shown to be wrong too?

Bruce Gregory

9

[From Rick Marken (991011.1300)]

Kenny Kitzke (991011.1500 EDT)

For some reason, the subject of religion does not want to
subside on PCT and the unreligious seem most interested in
keeping it going.

For me, the topic is important because I think the problems
have been addressed by religion (human nature, good and evil,
personal improvement, the meaning of life, etc) are too
important to be left to religion.

Best

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates mailto: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

10

[From Kenny Kitzke (991011.2100)]

<Rick Marken (991011.1300)>

<For me, the topic is important because I think the problems
have been addressed by religion (human nature, good and evil,
personal improvement, the meaning of life, etc) are too
important to be left to religion.>

Well, your behavior is consistent with what you claim captures your
attention. If you have anything to contribute to the understanding of such
religious subjects, and the scientists on this net can stand it, I am all
ears.

OTOH, some might feel that if you want to discuss music in any kind of depth,
you should get some musicians together. :sunglasses:

But, why would anyone turn to science to discover the meaning of life or the
nature of humans

11

[From Bruce Gregory (991011.1532 EDT)]

12

[From Kenny Kitzke (991011.2000 EDT)]

<Bruce Gregory (991011.1532 EDT)>

<But what do I know, here at the

Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics we are babes in the woods

compared with your authorities.>

As a good scientist in the Marken tradition of skepticism, I am sure you
reflect their humble attitude that they are probably wrong but are trying
hard to find evidence for what they believe.

Of course, credentials and degrees may mean a lot to you. I suppose the
vaulted psychology center at Harvard is a scientific bastion of PCT, right?
And, does it still have a Theology Department we should all believe?

13

[From Bruce Gregory (991011.2057 EDT)]

Kenny Kitzke (991011.2000 EDT)

Of course, credentials and degrees may mean a lot to you. I suppose the
vaulted psychology center at Harvard is a scientific bastion of
PCT, right?
And, does it still have a Theology Department we should all believe?

I'm sure this response seems reasoned and intelligent to you. Since it meets
neither of those standards as far as I am concerned, I'm bowing out. You
win.

Bruce Gregory

14

[From Rick Marken (991011.2115)]

Kenny Kitzke (991011.2100) --

But, why would anyone turn to science to discover the meaning
of life or the nature of humans

Because it works so well.

Why would anyone -- especially someone who understands science--
turn to anything other than science to discover _anything_?

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/

15

[from Matthew Heaney (991012.0400)]

[From Kenny Kitzke (991011.2100)]
But, why would anyone turn to science to discover the meaning of life or the
nature of humans?

Clearly they wouldn't, since that's beyond the purview of science. To
reason about "the meaning of life" one turns to religion, philosophy,
and humanism.

···

--
Those who believe in the supernatural should be required to learn
computer programming. This would force them to discover that things
which appear to be completely mysterious and incomprehensible, in fact
have a logical, and usually simple, explanation.

J. B. R. Yant, Mortal Words

16

[From Matthew Heaney (991012.0401)]

[From Rick Marken (991011.2115)]

Why would anyone -- especially someone who understands science--
turn to anything other than science to discover _anything_?

No. Science is a process for acquiring knowledge of the natural world.
If you want to reason about morality and aesthetics, then you use
philosophy (the general term that includes religion).

This is what Gould means by "non-overlapping magisteria," which is
described in his new book, Rocks Of Ages.

Matt

···

--
The political forces that try to eliminate evolution from science
classrooms impose a narrow, sectarian doctrine on our educational
systems. This imposition represents an affront not only to the
constitutional separation of church and state but also to the moral and
intellectual integrity embedded in that constitution.

<http://www.nabt.org/evolutionks.html&gt;

17

[From Bruce Gregory (991012.1053 EDT)]

Rick Marken (991011.2115)

Why would anyone -- especially someone who understands science--
turn to anything other than science to discover _anything_?

Science is not very popular simply because it continues to tell people
what they do not want to hear. Although that may be difficult to
believe, there are even some examples of this on CSGnet.

Bruce Gregory

18

[From Rick Marken (991012.0810)]

Me:

Why would anyone -- especially someone who understands science--
turn to anything other than science to discover _anything_?

Matthew Heaney (991012.0401)

No. Science is a process for acquiring knowledge of the
natural world.

Aren't living systems part of the natural world?

If you want to reason about morality and aesthetics, then you
use philosophy (the general term that includes religion).

I think reasoning about morality and aesthetics, using
philosophy and doing religion are all natural (purposive)
processes which can be subjected to scientific scrutiny.

This is what Gould means by "non-overlapping magisteria,"
which is described in his new book, Rocks Of Ages.

I'm reading this book at the moment; that's one reason
I would like to discuss this topic. I think Gould is a
wonderful writer but I also think he is completely wrong
about the relationship between science and religion. I
don't think they are "non-overlapping magisteria". First
of all, I don't think religion qualifies as a "magisterium"
(domain of expertise); I see no evidence that religious
experts have any better understanding of human nature,
morality, supernatural beings or the meaning of life than
laymen (such as myself). Second, the overlap between these
"magisteria" keeps shifting because the domain of religion
keeps shrinking as science progresses; physics and biology
replaced religious creation myths; now control theory
replaces religious myths about the "human spirit".

I think we have reached a point where religion can largely
be replaced by science; and what can't be replaced by
science (the great stories, for example) can take its
proper place among the arts.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates mailto: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

19

[From Bruce Gregory (991012.1109 EDT)]

Matthew Heaney (991012.0401)

If you want to reason about morality and aesthetics, then you use
philosophy (the general term that includes religion).

Is there any evidence that this approach represents an advance over
examining the entrails of small animals?

Bruce Gregory

20

[From Bruce Gregory (991012.1115 EDT)]

Rick Marken (991012.0810)

I think we have reached a point where religion can largely
be replaced by science; and what can't be replaced by
science (the great stories, for example) can take its
proper place among the arts.

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. I know of no evidence to suggest
otherwise.

Bruce Gregory