Aron C. Wall *
The other day I was at a physics colloquium
in which the speaker was discussing
a claim that a certain sort of crystal
could cause small amounts of fusion.
One experimenter had claimed to see the effect,
but the speaker resolved to test it again--on television.
He played the clip from the TV show,
in which he informed the readers that (check source)
"Science is based on repeatable, testable experiments.
That's what makes it different from religion."
Off-hand remarks like this,
routinely delivered from the pulpit
by eminent, obviously intelligent authorities,
probably do more to convince people
that religion is irrational
than any explicit philosophical argument could do.
After all, arguments
can be discussed and criticized
--in other words, they can be checked.
This statement, on the other hand
(despite the fact that it ostensibly
takes the side of critical thinking)
has clearly not been checked.
The (implicit) implications
of the statement are
1) that all sensible people
know that religion is wrong
because it is not based on evidence;
2) Science on the contrary, is based on evidence;
3) the way to know the difference between
evidence and non-evidence-based disciplines
is repeatable experiments.
If the speaker had bothered
to think it through this far, though,
he might have noticed that there are
many evidence-based subjects
which do not admit of repeatable experiments.
The most obvious example
I can think of is History.
Historical events
only happened once;
they cannot be repeated.
Primarily we know
about historical events
because of the writings
of those who were
contemporary to those events
(for historians of the recent past,
the primary sources
may also include oral testimony).
Preferably the historian works
with firsthand eyewitness accounts,
but normally the historian
must settle for secondhand accounts
written by the historians
and observers of that period.
These written accounts
may be supplemented
by archaeological evidence;
which starts to touch the fringes
of what might be called Science.
However, the archaeological evidence
can normally only confirm
very large-scale events
like the occupation
of a region by an empire,
or the rule of some king.
If you want to know
who said what to whom,
or who killed whom and why,
the evidence for these events
comes almost entirely
from written documents.
Written documents are finite in number:
for any particular historical event
there are only so many documents recording it.
The historians cannot "repeat"
the experiment by calling
for a new set of eyewitnesses
to e.g. the assassination of Julius Caesar.
They are usually stuck
with the data set they have
(though sometimes
there are unexpected new finds).
Of course,
although the data is unrepeatable,
the historian's analysis can be repeated.
[Nobel Physics Laureate, Gerard 't Hooft,
wrote in his book: In Search of the Ultimate Building Blocks
that 'History repeats in a way we cannot predict'.
Anyone else is free
to look again at the primary sources
(assuming they are published)
and come to their own conclusion.
(This kind of repeatability, however,
applies to every kind of scholarship,
including in the Religious Studies department.)
Historical knowledge
can be obtained only to the extent
that the historian trusts his primary sources.
And yet, no one goes around
saying that History is bunk
because History is not Science.
No one would ever say that,
because it would not fit properly
into the meta-narrative of secular rationalism.
Rationalists need History,
if for nothing else,
as something to vaguely gesture at
when trying to force all religions
into the mold of either the Witch Doctor
(animists postulating demons to explain crop failures),
or the Inquisition (dogmatic ecclesiastics
trying to suppress right-thinking empiricists).
More importantly though,
it is simply obvious that History
is an evidence based discipline.
Another example
that could be cited is Law,
specifically judicial
fact-finding by a judge or jury.
Here again,
the primary form of evidence
is (written or oral) testimony,
although supplementary
forensic evidence
may be important as well.
Although our law courts
are far from perfect,
no one could say
that they are not based on evidence.
So what is the moral of this story?
Although it might be nice
if scientists could be relied upon
to act as intellectual leaders
championing critical thought
in all areas of life,
a scientist forfeits that respect
when their pronouncements
are based on the prevailing
intellectual culture rather than
on independent critical thinking.
Another moral, of course,
is that one cannot simply assume
that there is no valid evidence
for religious claims apart from
repeatable experimentation,
since after all, History takes this form.
And in fact, if one looks,
much of the evidence for religious claims
takes exactly the same form as History,
because in fact, it is History
(i.e. documents from the past
purporting to say what has happened).
I refer to the
numerous historical documents
in which it is claimed that events
have occurred by supernatural agency,
which are not possible by normal natural means.
In other words, claims of miracles.
One might object that miracles
should not be accepted,
even when they appear in Historical texts,
because Science has shown
that miracles do not happen.
This claim, however, makes no sense.
You can only rule out a claim
by experiment if the claim
is contradicted by that experiment.
Now most religions
do not claim that miracles
are an every day event.
Rather, they are claimed
to be an exception
to the usual course of nature,
as a result of the intervention of God
granted to a few privileged people.
It is true that e.g.
dead people do not normally
come to life again.
I think it is a little strange
to call this fact a discovery of Science;
I cannot myself recall
any great experiments on this topic,
and I suspect that people
actually knew that most people
stay dead long before
the Scientific Revolution;
surely even the founders of religions
were acquainted with this fact!
The skeptic might take
a broader view and say,
it used to be
that there were all kinds
of unexplored regions
in our knowledge,
but now we know enough
about physics and chemistry
to have a reasonably
complete understanding
of the dynamics of matter
(even if a complete theory
of physics does not yet exist).
There are a variety of different views
of the supernatural held by different religions;
many religions either do not accept,
or do not place any great importance
in, claims of miracles
(e.g. most sects of Buddhism).
Mohammed repeatedly stated
that the only "miracle"
he would provide
to prove the authenticity
of his teachings
was the beauty of the Koran,
and challenged his opponents
to produce other verses like it.
(Though Mohammed's disciples
did make a few claims after his death
that he had nonetheless performed miracles.)
But for Christianity, miracles are critical.
Jesus is purported
to have performed numerous miracles
including healing the blind and the lame,
restoring the dead, multiplying bread,
and walking on water.
Most importantly for Christian theology,
he is supposed to have risen from the dead himself,
acquiring by this means a new mode of life
which he promises to also give
to those who believe in him.
Now what is one to make of claims like this?
One possible attitude to take
is that the claims are so silly
that no respectable person
could believe them,
no matter how great
the amount of evidence.
(Unless perhaps the evidence
were so great that
no one could really doubt it:
e.g. God appearing visibly in the sky
and speaking to everyone every decade or so,
striking trees with lightening upon request,
or at least ensuring that modern day
miraculous occurrences
are a regular feature on CNN,
rather than being confined
to overcredulous Catholics, Pentecostals,
and missionaries to Third World nations).
But why are these claims silly?
Is it because
you have a visceral sense
that such things simply cannot happen?
Others have
a visceral sense of God's love,
but this is hardly regarded
as proper evidence by rationalists.
Normally,
rejecting serious claims
without examining the evidence
is simply a sign of bias.
Nor is it fair to construct
an entire worldview
of naturalistic materialism
based on the presupposition
that miracles do not happen,
and then say that
anything that doesn't fit well
into this worldview
should be regarded
with grave suspicion
as an "extraordinary claim".
That would be circular.
What claims are
or are not extraordinary
depends on the worldview
you already possess.
If the task is to construct
a worldview on the basis of evidence,
than one of those world views
cannot be appealed to
in order to make
the other ones look ridiculous.
Nor is God really
so extraordinary
a hypothesis as all that?
Quite a few,
perhaps a majority,
of people on the planet
have had some sort
of religious experience or another.
True, these people
have wildly divergent interpretations
of what these experiences mean.
Some interpret them as insights
into the connectedness of life,
but some experience it
as a deity speaking to them.
They may go on to invent
all sorts of fanciful conjectures
about the nature of the experience,
but the experience itself
is surprisingly common,
perhaps even hardwired into our brain.
Even atheists-
-and I offer this merely
on the limited sample of people
I have talked to-
-seem to me to mostly differ
based on how they interpret
(and whether they believe)
these experiences,
not on whether they have them.
Such experiences may not be
the strongest possible argument,
but they should at least be
strong enough to balance
an inarticulate distaste
against all religious hypotheses.
Now do not get me wrong here:
I am not making
an "Argument from Religious Experience"
in the sense that I claim that religious experiences
can be used to prove with certainty
that some, or any, religion is correct.
Rather I am simply saying
that there are multiple
possible interpretations
of this phenomenon,
both religious and irreligious,
and that the religious ones
ought not to be disregarded a priori.
If a person experiences
God speaking to them (as I have),
it is certainly possible to doubt afterwards
whether this is really occurring.
There are possible atheistic explanations.
But what seems clear enough
is that the experience
superficially suggests
the existence of God.
It is not as though God
were an arbitrary hypothesis
imposed on one's experiences,
instead God
is a natural interpretation
of certain experiences.
It therefore seems like
it should be a hypothesis
which is allowed to be
"on the table",
within the realm
of rational discourse.
And if there were a God
who causes religious experiences,
I cannot see how we could rule out
a priori that this God would be able
to perform miracles as well.
One could also try to show
that miracles are unreasonable
by some sort of philosophical argument;
either (like Hume) targeting
the idea of miracles themselves,
or perhaps targeting
the underlying religious claims
which the miracle is supposed to support
(the most popular example here
being the Argument from Evil).
But of course,
Philosophy isn't based
on repeatable experiments either.
In fact, it seems to me
that generally speaking,
Philosophy ranks third
after Science and History
in its ability to conclusively
demonstrate propositions.
(Although of course,
the Philosophy of Science and History
is implicitly required in order to know
what Science and History
are themselves capable of.)
Philosophy as applied to Religion
goes by the name of Theology.
On a number of occasions
I have heard scientists
mock other scientist's beliefs
(such as string theory)
by calling them "theological".
What they mean to insinuate
is that the beliefs in question
are based on dubious
a priori speculation
about the way things
seemingly ought to be,
without a sufficiently
close connection
to actual empirical data.
This of course
is another example
of the prejudice with which
I began my essay.
But let me call for consistency here.
If the human mind
is capable of great insight
into the structure of metaphysics
by means of armchair
philosophical reasoning,
then Theology
is a valid form of reasoning.
Let the religious folks
present their Cosmological,
Ethical, and Teleological Arguments
(and also I suppose
the patently nonsense Ontological Argument)
while the atheists retort with various forms
of the Argument from Evil,
and perhaps some claims
that the properties
ascribed to God
are logically inconsistent.
We can have that fight if you want.
But, some may say,
all of this theological speculation is bogus.
Have we not learned
from philosophies of the past,
that the unaided mind
is weak and untrustworthy?
Speculative reasoning
comes to all manner
of absurd conclusions
when operating on the basis
of armchair reasoning alone.
Without empirical correction,
it is almost certain to go astray.
Fine then!
By all means,
base your beliefs
on the empirical evidence instead!
But then you must not adopt
a criterion whereby secular rationalism
is allowed to use Theology to trump Empiricism,
while mocking Religion for doing the same thing.
What is the alternative to deciding
whether religion is right or wrong
through philosophical speculation?
The alternative is to look
at the documents with an open mind,
using the principles of History
to try to inquire into their reliability,
without any severe a priori prejudice
towards claims of the supernatural.
I do not mean
that a mild skepticism
towards supernatural events
is uncalled for.
After all religions
do make specific claims
regarding the existence
of unusual entities and events,
and it is fair to say
that they must make
a decent case in order to be believed.
What is not fair is to pretend
to do a historical analysis
while in fact setting the bar so high
that no amount of historical evidence
could clear that bar.
A little over 2,000 years ago,
Julius Caesar was assassinated.
The actual assassination
was witnessed only by Roman Senators,
but there several historians who describe the event.
Counting only those who were alive at the time,
I was able to find about five or six mentions of the event,
although only a couple go into significant detail.
And of course,
the assassination affected
the ongoing institutions
of Roman governance.
I regard this as extremely
convincing evidence
that the assassination really occurred.
In fact, I would go further
and say that anyone
who disbelieves
in Caesar's assassination
is delusional.
It could only be untrue
if there were a highly
implausible conspiracy
to conceal the true facts from us.
This is an example
of a strong historical case,
about as well supported
as one has any right to expect
an ancient historical event to be.
A few decades after that,
the disciples of Jesus
claimed to have seen him
rise from the dead
and appear to separate groups
of up to 500 individuals,
on at least ten occasions,
giving "many convincing proofs"
that he was alive,
by offering visual, auditory,
and tactile support for his state of life.
Since they also claimed
he was capable of appearing
and disappearing instantaneously,
it would be hard to explain
this in naturalistic terms.
Some people say,
that is circular reasoning
because I am relying
on the authority of the Bible itself
to prove these claims!
Not so.
It would be circular
to appeal to the religious authority
of a religious text
in order to establish that religion is true.
I do not deny
that some Christian apologists
have the annoying habit
of simply citing scripture texts
at nonbelievers,
as though they were oblivious
to the fact that their audience
does not start out by believing the Bible.
But as applied here,
the objection misses the point.
I am not asking you
to assume that the Bible
has any divine authority.
I am simply asking you
to treat it just like
any other ancient historical text,
and decide whether or not to believe it
on the basis of it being claimed testimony.
Since the New Testament
is actually a compilation
of different sources
by different authors,
it is actually a number
of separate documents
claiming these events occurred.
Five of the New Testament authors
(Matthew, John, Peter, James, and Paul)
are among the claimed eyewitnesses,
while the rest are second-hand sources,
based on the testimony of others.
Some of the eyewitnesses described,
such as Thomas and Paul,
were skeptical or hostile
before being converted by seeing Jesus.
There is also good evidence
(including outside the New Testament)
that most of these people,
after lives of self-denial and poverty,
were tortured to death for making this claim.
Yet they made it all the same.
Reading these texts,
I find that they report these events,
not as a mythic cosmic drama
filled with stylized superheros
(as in e.g. Homer or the Epic of Gilgamesh),
but as a soberminded factual narrative
filled with mundane
corroborating details of person,
place and happenstance,
with bystanders that act plausibly
and sometimes oppositionally.
They include,
not just those events
that support their story,
but also the sayings of Jesus
that might at first sight seem
to contradict their theological claims
(such as his cry of forsakenness on the cross).
It is clear that the events
are being put forward
as factual historical claims,
not as an inspiring work of fiction.
The only reasonable
atheistic alternative explanation, I think,
is that it was a conspiracy to lie,
adopted by a diverse group of claimants
and upheld for decades
without internal dissent
under the strongest possible motives to recant.
Yet it is difficult for me to believe
that the custodians of the intensely
strict ethical system of Jesus
would be able to lie,
and so convincingly, about these events.
It seems abundantly clear to me
that if the claims in question
concerned ordinary natural events,
everyone would believe it,
everyone except
a few cranks of the sort
that write books saying things
like 9/11 was really planned
by the American government,
or that somebody else
besides Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare.
The evidence is approximately
as good as the assassination of Julius Caesar,
though perhaps Caesar has a slight edge.
Recall though,
that Julius Casesar's assassination
is about as good
as ancient historical evidence can get.
If you won't accept this level
of historical evidence for a claim
that challenges your worldview,
you are crippling the ability
to learn anything really important
about the world from History.
Even so, no one can stop you
from putting your hands
over your eyes
and your fingers in your ears.
___________________________________
*: The author is a young theoretical physicist
(Born in June 7, 1984)
who obtained his Ph.D. in physics
from the University of Maryland
on the subject of black hole thermodynamics
His advisor was a top rate
theoretical physicist, Ted Jacobson.
This work won the prestigious
Bergmann-Wheeler Prize
awarded by the Institute of Physics
to the best thesis in the last three years
on the broad area of quantum gravity.
He has now a postdoctoral position
in the University of California at Santa Barbara,
generously funded by the Simons Foundation.
He regular publishes in the best journals
(Physical Review, Classical and Quantum Gravity,
Journal of High Energy Physics, Foundations of Physics...)
of his specialty, collaborating with renowned
experts such as Ted Jacobson, Donald Marolf
and cosmologist Alex Vilenkin, among others.
________
On October 26, 1929,
The Saturday Evening Post published
an interview with Albert Einstein,
entitled "What Life Means to Einstein",
where he recognize being captivated
by the person of Jesus:
"As a child I received instruction
both in the Bible and in the Talmud.
I am a Jew, but I am enthralled
by the luminous figure of the Nazarene...
No one can read the Gospels
without feeling
the actual presence of Jesus.
His personality pulsates in every word.
No myth is filled with such life.
Jesus is too colossal
for the pen of phrase-mongers,
however artful.
No man can dispose
of Christianity with a bon mot
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario
COMENTE SIN RESTRICCIONES PERO ATÉNGASE A SUS CONSECUENCIAS