Once again I had some very interesting dialog on an online forum. Last time it was with Christian fundamentalist, this time with folks on the other end of the spectrum, atheists and agnostics.
They were talking about logic and reason as the only value so I wanted to bring in other parts of our senses into the equation. I started with some of my favorite quotes:
Here are two of my favorite quotes for you folks to chew on. Its from G-d in Search Of Man by A. J. Heschel.
“Only those will apprehend religion who can probe its depth, who can combine intuition and love with the rigor of method.”
"The worship of reason is arrogance and betrays a lack of intelligence. The rejection of reason is cowardice and betrays a lack of faith.”
-------------------------------------
Jerry responded to my quotes:
See, this is a perfect example of a theologian being guilty of the old saw of "To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail." Because worship is often integral to theological methodology, they cast science in the same mold when they wish to compete with it. They often use such pseudo-profundity to poison the well against scientists as well-meaning but unenlightened patsies to a false god. Patsies who couldn't even tie their own shoes without theologians to hold their hands for them while showing them the proper way to behold the mysteries of the Universe through mysticism.
Scientist and freethinkers don't _worship_ reason, it's a tool. The mental equivalent of an opposable thumb, it allows you to do grasp things not open to those who lack it and despise its cultivation.
-----------------------------
I responded to Jerry:
A tool for what end? Rabbi Heschel is pointing out that reason is not enough, we have to engage all our senses. Nor does he dismiss reason in the slightest. Its about balance and utilizing all our abilities including but not exclusively reason. Take a look at the following paragraphs from his brilliant book:
“Our age is one in which usefulness is thought to be the chief merit of nature; in which the attainment of power, the utilization of its resources is taken to be the chief purpose of man in G-d’s creation. Man has indeed become primarily a tool-making animal, and the world in now a gigantic tool box for the satisfaction of his needs.
The Greeks learned in order to comprehend. The Hebrews learned in order to revere. The modern man learns in order to use. To Bacon we owe the formulation, “Knowledge is power.” This is how people are urged to study: knowledge means success. We do not know any more how to justify any value except in terms of expediency. Man is willing to define himself as “a seeker after the maximum degree of comfort for the minimum expenditure of energy.” He equates value with that which avails. He feels, acts, and thinks as if the sole purpose of the universe were to satisfy his needs.
To the modern man everything seems calculable; everything reducible to a figure. He has supreme faith in statistics and abhors the idea of a mystery. Obstinately he ignores the fact that we are all surrounded by things which we apprehend but cannot comprehend; that even reason is a mystery to itself. He is sure of his ability to explain all mystery away. Only a generation ago he was convinced that science was on the way to solve all the enigmas of the world.
…In the place of G-d, humanity – the grand etre – becomes the supreme object of adoration. However, what is considered an achievement from the perspective of modern man may be judged a privation by the post-modern man. “In future generations, people will find difficulty in understanding how at one time generations existed who did not regard the idea of G-d as the highest concept of which man is capable, but who, on the contrary, were ashamed of it and considered the development of atheism a sign of progress in the emancipation of human thought” (Walter Schubart - 1950)
-----------------------------
Jerry went to town on my response and on the excerpts from Rav Heschel:
“A tool for what end?”
Well, here you sit, on a electronic network that spans the globe, making the Gutenburg press look laughable in comparison. You don't go hungry, you're probably not overly concerned that you'll die of the Bubonic Plague and you're likely to live to be a relatively pain-free octogenarian. You even have enough leisure time to contemplate questions like these. Yet, you still want to give credit to religion for all this by subjugating science to the role of the Ugly Sister.
“Rabbi Heschel is pointing out that reason is not enough, we have to engage all our senses. Nor does he dismiss reason in the slightest.”
And what senses are those? Let's be precise here, because it's that precision that makes the difference. If those 'senses' are quantifiable, then do so. If not, then explain why they merit an exception and on what ethical grounds.
“Its about balance and utilizing all our abilities including but not exclusively reason. Take a look at the following paragraphs from his brilliant book:
“Our age is one in which usefulness is thought to be the chief merit of nature; in which the attainment of power, the utilization of its resources is taken to be the chief purpose of man in G-d’s creation. Man has indeed become primarily a tool-making animal, and the world in now a gigantic tool box for the satisfaction of his needs."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most theologians teach that Man was given dominion over the earth? Weren't most theologians on the wrong end of the debate about slavery? You want to talk about man making tools, what about men making tools of other men in those halcyon days when Religion virtually ruled the Earth? Of how many religious men still believe that a woman's highest purpose is to be a vessel for a man's progeny?
“The Greeks learned in order to comprehend. The Hebrews learned in order to revere. The modern man learns in order to use. To Bacon we owe the formulation, “Knowledge is power.” This is how people are urged to study: knowledge means success. We do not know any more how to justify any value except in terms of expediency. Man is willing to define himself as “a seeker after the maximum degree of comfort for the minimum expenditure of energy.” He equates value with that which avails. He feels, acts, and thinks as if the sole purpose of the universe were to satisfy his needs.”
As opposed to a theologian who would have us on our knees worshipping his Boss? This whole line of 'reasoning' is just pure sophistry meant to indict those who won't be bound by superstition and ecumenical fiat.
“To the modern man everything seems calculable; everything reducible to a figure. He has supreme faith in statistics and abhors the idea of a mystery.”
Rhetorical nonsense. The best scientists know what they _don't_ know, and appreciate mystery as a hungry man salivates over a big steak. One can appreciate the dilemma mysticism and those that practice it have-- unable to prove much of what they say, they then say it's because we're basically stupid and should just accept that. A prescription, IMHO, which serves to keep people ignorant and pliable.
“Obstinately he ignores the fact that we are all surrounded by things which we apprehend but cannot comprehend; that even reason is a mystery to itself. He is sure of his ability to explain all mystery away. Only a generation ago he was convinced that science was on the way to solve all the enigmas of the world.”
And theologians conveniently use the (mis)conception of mystery as sophistry to say to the reader "Stop thinking here." Those not so bound become, in the theologian's mind and those of his followers, one of The Arrogant Heavy who will bring about the denouement of mankind that most theologians predict is perpetually imminent. As they have for about the last 2000 years.
-----------------------
My response to Jerry:
“Well, here you sit, on a electronic network that spans the globe, making the Gutenburg press look laughable in comparison. You don't go hungry, you're probably not overly concerned that you'll die of the Bubonic Plague and you're likely to live to be a relatively pain-free octogenarian. You even have enough leisure time to contemplate questions like these.
…Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most theologians teach that Man was given dominion over the earth?”
Jerry you bring up a number of great points. It is incredible what mankind has accomplished using reason and logic. Reason and logic are great gifts and must be used to examine the how of all the things. Mankind has done a phenomenal job of it and today we sit in 2008 with technology and medicine that elevates our standard of life. Bravo!
You are also correct that most religions believe that Man was given dominion over the earth to do just that – increase our ability to survive.
I am not opposed to any of it nor did I mean to take away its importance and significance. As you write that by conquering earth we are able to sit and contemplate questions like these.
But that is in fact the point. It is not enough to conquer the world for a better life. We also then must take it to the next level and understand the WHY of things. Why are we here? What is our ultimate purpose?
Without conquering the world (technology, moving beyond survival mode) we could not have the frame of mind necessary to really delve into the next crucial mission of life – the WHY part. So the HOW part is crucial, but only as a first step to getting to the WHY part.
Rav Heschel’s point was that if you stop at the HOW part and say that reason and logic is all that there is, then we are just “a seeker after the maximum degree of comfort for the minimum expenditure of energy.”
Now lets get to the WHY part.
You wrote:
“And what senses are those? Let's be precise here, because it's that precision that makes the difference. If those 'senses' are quantifiable, then do so. If not, then explain why they merit an exception and on what ethical grounds.”
…And theologians conveniently use the (mis)conception of mystery as sophistry to say to the reader "Stop thinking here.”
Ahaaa… Once again you make a very good argument. If I say that we must use our intuition, instinct, and all our inner senses as well as reason to understand the WHY part, then you have dismissed me because you want me to exclusively use my reason and logic because intuition and instinct can not be explained logically.
Well let’s see if I can break it down and show that there is knowledge and understanding outside of logic and reason.
Logic and reason has left the scientific world with the notion that there is no knowable reason WHY we are here. Based on logic alone we apparently are here as random accidents in a cosmic collision. Yet most people can sense, intuitively and instinctually, that it is not so. The sheer number of random happenings for survivability to happen doesn’t “feel” like an accident. We also can sense something greater at work here. Many define that in different ways, but nonetheless they can sense something very awesome in the world.
I saw somewhere (What the bleep do we know) that we are only aware of 2000 bits of information out of the 400 billion bits of information we are processing per second. That would partially explain our intuitive process. More importantly it’s a great example of the concept of knowing but not really knowing. We can comprehend that our mind has many capabilities, yet we don’t understand the extent of its powers.
It very much reminds me of playing Poker. The greatest poker players are not the mathematicians who can calculate the best possible odds. Poker requires knowledge of the odds, combined with a keen sense of intuition, ability to control one’s emotions and pick up all the human cues and clues that you opponent inadvertently leaves.
Poker has taught me that we pick up far more information than we can rationally explain. I happen to be very good at poker and just by watching how a player touches his chips or cards, by his expressions and words, by his or her choice of dollar amount; I can “feel” what cards s/he has. Yes, a lot can be rationally explained, but a lot more info is gathered by my mind then I can rationally point to, that goes into my intuitive process.
Religion is the same. A dry rationalist will be missing half or three quarters of the necessary information to see the whole picture. That is not to say that reason and logic don’t play a crucial part, they do, but they are only one part of the necessary tools that humans have to comprehend the WHY of the world.
End of my response.
----------------------
I think I covered most of his issues. What I really find fascinating is to see Rav Heschel’s concepts directly brought to life in response to an obviously intelligent person who sees life through an exclusively “logical” prism. Its not just rhetoric by Rav Heschel, this attitude permeates a large part of society, particularly within the scientific community.
They were talking about logic and reason as the only value so I wanted to bring in other parts of our senses into the equation. I started with some of my favorite quotes:
Here are two of my favorite quotes for you folks to chew on. Its from G-d in Search Of Man by A. J. Heschel.
“Only those will apprehend religion who can probe its depth, who can combine intuition and love with the rigor of method.”
"The worship of reason is arrogance and betrays a lack of intelligence. The rejection of reason is cowardice and betrays a lack of faith.”
-------------------------------------
Jerry responded to my quotes:
See, this is a perfect example of a theologian being guilty of the old saw of "To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail." Because worship is often integral to theological methodology, they cast science in the same mold when they wish to compete with it. They often use such pseudo-profundity to poison the well against scientists as well-meaning but unenlightened patsies to a false god. Patsies who couldn't even tie their own shoes without theologians to hold their hands for them while showing them the proper way to behold the mysteries of the Universe through mysticism.
Scientist and freethinkers don't _worship_ reason, it's a tool. The mental equivalent of an opposable thumb, it allows you to do grasp things not open to those who lack it and despise its cultivation.
-----------------------------
I responded to Jerry:
A tool for what end? Rabbi Heschel is pointing out that reason is not enough, we have to engage all our senses. Nor does he dismiss reason in the slightest. Its about balance and utilizing all our abilities including but not exclusively reason. Take a look at the following paragraphs from his brilliant book:
“Our age is one in which usefulness is thought to be the chief merit of nature; in which the attainment of power, the utilization of its resources is taken to be the chief purpose of man in G-d’s creation. Man has indeed become primarily a tool-making animal, and the world in now a gigantic tool box for the satisfaction of his needs.
The Greeks learned in order to comprehend. The Hebrews learned in order to revere. The modern man learns in order to use. To Bacon we owe the formulation, “Knowledge is power.” This is how people are urged to study: knowledge means success. We do not know any more how to justify any value except in terms of expediency. Man is willing to define himself as “a seeker after the maximum degree of comfort for the minimum expenditure of energy.” He equates value with that which avails. He feels, acts, and thinks as if the sole purpose of the universe were to satisfy his needs.
To the modern man everything seems calculable; everything reducible to a figure. He has supreme faith in statistics and abhors the idea of a mystery. Obstinately he ignores the fact that we are all surrounded by things which we apprehend but cannot comprehend; that even reason is a mystery to itself. He is sure of his ability to explain all mystery away. Only a generation ago he was convinced that science was on the way to solve all the enigmas of the world.
…In the place of G-d, humanity – the grand etre – becomes the supreme object of adoration. However, what is considered an achievement from the perspective of modern man may be judged a privation by the post-modern man. “In future generations, people will find difficulty in understanding how at one time generations existed who did not regard the idea of G-d as the highest concept of which man is capable, but who, on the contrary, were ashamed of it and considered the development of atheism a sign of progress in the emancipation of human thought” (Walter Schubart - 1950)
-----------------------------
Jerry went to town on my response and on the excerpts from Rav Heschel:
“A tool for what end?”
Well, here you sit, on a electronic network that spans the globe, making the Gutenburg press look laughable in comparison. You don't go hungry, you're probably not overly concerned that you'll die of the Bubonic Plague and you're likely to live to be a relatively pain-free octogenarian. You even have enough leisure time to contemplate questions like these. Yet, you still want to give credit to religion for all this by subjugating science to the role of the Ugly Sister.
“Rabbi Heschel is pointing out that reason is not enough, we have to engage all our senses. Nor does he dismiss reason in the slightest.”
And what senses are those? Let's be precise here, because it's that precision that makes the difference. If those 'senses' are quantifiable, then do so. If not, then explain why they merit an exception and on what ethical grounds.
“Its about balance and utilizing all our abilities including but not exclusively reason. Take a look at the following paragraphs from his brilliant book:
“Our age is one in which usefulness is thought to be the chief merit of nature; in which the attainment of power, the utilization of its resources is taken to be the chief purpose of man in G-d’s creation. Man has indeed become primarily a tool-making animal, and the world in now a gigantic tool box for the satisfaction of his needs."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most theologians teach that Man was given dominion over the earth? Weren't most theologians on the wrong end of the debate about slavery? You want to talk about man making tools, what about men making tools of other men in those halcyon days when Religion virtually ruled the Earth? Of how many religious men still believe that a woman's highest purpose is to be a vessel for a man's progeny?
“The Greeks learned in order to comprehend. The Hebrews learned in order to revere. The modern man learns in order to use. To Bacon we owe the formulation, “Knowledge is power.” This is how people are urged to study: knowledge means success. We do not know any more how to justify any value except in terms of expediency. Man is willing to define himself as “a seeker after the maximum degree of comfort for the minimum expenditure of energy.” He equates value with that which avails. He feels, acts, and thinks as if the sole purpose of the universe were to satisfy his needs.”
As opposed to a theologian who would have us on our knees worshipping his Boss? This whole line of 'reasoning' is just pure sophistry meant to indict those who won't be bound by superstition and ecumenical fiat.
“To the modern man everything seems calculable; everything reducible to a figure. He has supreme faith in statistics and abhors the idea of a mystery.”
Rhetorical nonsense. The best scientists know what they _don't_ know, and appreciate mystery as a hungry man salivates over a big steak. One can appreciate the dilemma mysticism and those that practice it have-- unable to prove much of what they say, they then say it's because we're basically stupid and should just accept that. A prescription, IMHO, which serves to keep people ignorant and pliable.
“Obstinately he ignores the fact that we are all surrounded by things which we apprehend but cannot comprehend; that even reason is a mystery to itself. He is sure of his ability to explain all mystery away. Only a generation ago he was convinced that science was on the way to solve all the enigmas of the world.”
And theologians conveniently use the (mis)conception of mystery as sophistry to say to the reader "Stop thinking here." Those not so bound become, in the theologian's mind and those of his followers, one of The Arrogant Heavy who will bring about the denouement of mankind that most theologians predict is perpetually imminent. As they have for about the last 2000 years.
-----------------------
My response to Jerry:
“Well, here you sit, on a electronic network that spans the globe, making the Gutenburg press look laughable in comparison. You don't go hungry, you're probably not overly concerned that you'll die of the Bubonic Plague and you're likely to live to be a relatively pain-free octogenarian. You even have enough leisure time to contemplate questions like these.
…Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most theologians teach that Man was given dominion over the earth?”
Jerry you bring up a number of great points. It is incredible what mankind has accomplished using reason and logic. Reason and logic are great gifts and must be used to examine the how of all the things. Mankind has done a phenomenal job of it and today we sit in 2008 with technology and medicine that elevates our standard of life. Bravo!
You are also correct that most religions believe that Man was given dominion over the earth to do just that – increase our ability to survive.
I am not opposed to any of it nor did I mean to take away its importance and significance. As you write that by conquering earth we are able to sit and contemplate questions like these.
But that is in fact the point. It is not enough to conquer the world for a better life. We also then must take it to the next level and understand the WHY of things. Why are we here? What is our ultimate purpose?
Without conquering the world (technology, moving beyond survival mode) we could not have the frame of mind necessary to really delve into the next crucial mission of life – the WHY part. So the HOW part is crucial, but only as a first step to getting to the WHY part.
Rav Heschel’s point was that if you stop at the HOW part and say that reason and logic is all that there is, then we are just “a seeker after the maximum degree of comfort for the minimum expenditure of energy.”
Now lets get to the WHY part.
You wrote:
“And what senses are those? Let's be precise here, because it's that precision that makes the difference. If those 'senses' are quantifiable, then do so. If not, then explain why they merit an exception and on what ethical grounds.”
…And theologians conveniently use the (mis)conception of mystery as sophistry to say to the reader "Stop thinking here.”
Ahaaa… Once again you make a very good argument. If I say that we must use our intuition, instinct, and all our inner senses as well as reason to understand the WHY part, then you have dismissed me because you want me to exclusively use my reason and logic because intuition and instinct can not be explained logically.
Well let’s see if I can break it down and show that there is knowledge and understanding outside of logic and reason.
Logic and reason has left the scientific world with the notion that there is no knowable reason WHY we are here. Based on logic alone we apparently are here as random accidents in a cosmic collision. Yet most people can sense, intuitively and instinctually, that it is not so. The sheer number of random happenings for survivability to happen doesn’t “feel” like an accident. We also can sense something greater at work here. Many define that in different ways, but nonetheless they can sense something very awesome in the world.
I saw somewhere (What the bleep do we know) that we are only aware of 2000 bits of information out of the 400 billion bits of information we are processing per second. That would partially explain our intuitive process. More importantly it’s a great example of the concept of knowing but not really knowing. We can comprehend that our mind has many capabilities, yet we don’t understand the extent of its powers.
It very much reminds me of playing Poker. The greatest poker players are not the mathematicians who can calculate the best possible odds. Poker requires knowledge of the odds, combined with a keen sense of intuition, ability to control one’s emotions and pick up all the human cues and clues that you opponent inadvertently leaves.
Poker has taught me that we pick up far more information than we can rationally explain. I happen to be very good at poker and just by watching how a player touches his chips or cards, by his expressions and words, by his or her choice of dollar amount; I can “feel” what cards s/he has. Yes, a lot can be rationally explained, but a lot more info is gathered by my mind then I can rationally point to, that goes into my intuitive process.
Religion is the same. A dry rationalist will be missing half or three quarters of the necessary information to see the whole picture. That is not to say that reason and logic don’t play a crucial part, they do, but they are only one part of the necessary tools that humans have to comprehend the WHY of the world.
End of my response.
----------------------
I think I covered most of his issues. What I really find fascinating is to see Rav Heschel’s concepts directly brought to life in response to an obviously intelligent person who sees life through an exclusively “logical” prism. Its not just rhetoric by Rav Heschel, this attitude permeates a large part of society, particularly within the scientific community.
No comments:
Post a Comment