California Expert Software

Introduction

Lately I find myself absorbed in philosophy. While engaged in it, I sometimes recognize that "normal" people aren't interested in it. Common philosophical knowledge amounts to a few glib phrases, such as "my philosophy of life." Many people confuse religious or superstitious beliefs with philosophy.

Richard Dawkins latest book, The God Delusion (see NY Times review), attacks religion. I don't plan on reading the book, but it's an opportunity for me to comment on religion.

I don't write much about religion, probably because it has no useful function in my life. It is just not important to me. I think more about which coffee I will buy than religious issues. For that reason, I consider myself non-religious. There are several consequences of my feelings and beliefs in the matter, starting with my inability to have sympathy for religious believers who are not consoled by their habit. I generally dislike those whose vocation is proselytizing, as I feel their beliefs are too strong and intolerant for the rest of us. I despise and abhor those who take proselytizing to the extreme: Crusaders and Jihadists who kill for their Cause. Most of the evil of religion has been at the hands of those extremists. For that reason, I am firm advocate of tolerance, even tolerance of non-violent religious believers and their wacky ideas.

In my view, religion is an outgrowth of culture. All of the societies I know about have religions (note the plural) because human beings are cultured animals. Homo sapiens is not genetically programmed in every way; rather, we come with tool boxes and dispositions. The reason of our species' success is its adaptability. That adaptability combined with the possibility of different solutions to problems is the reason we have different cultures and religions. There is more than one way to survive in the wild. There was more than one way to live off the lands of our early settlements. The plural nature of ways to make a living leads straight to the pluralism of human societies.

We are taught over and over in our early schooling about the universal commonality of human nature. Supposedly people everywhere have similar thoughts, feelings and aspirations. After school, the reality of our experience is the immense range of different thoughts, feelings and needs that people have. One person's tasty hot dog is another's revulsion. The only way I can reconcile these two incongruent worlds is to assume there is some common "human nature" buried underneath layers and layers of acquired characters. In fact, what we don't see is the commonality.

Unlike Prof. de Waal and all the others trying to explain human behavior by reference to primates, or the religionists who see humans as the handiwork of whichever god they praise, I think the commonalities and the differences are our own doing. We made ourselves what we are without godly intervention or benefit of generic primate parents. This is my understanding of the matter, because self-consciousness - the capability of reflection - is our mechanism for making choices. Those choices accumulate over the millennia and alter what eventually became us. It made a difference whether our ancestors grew wheat or barley or rice, or whether they domesticated sheep, goats or cattle. Inspection of modern farms, or watching a few cattle rancher vs. sheep herder cowboy films should illustrate this point well enough. Modern cultures and religions are the results of long, detailed evolution, which is the fundamental reason Buddhism, Islam and Christianity are quite different. Circumstances change cases.

Religion, on my accounting, is a subset of culture. As such, it should be studied within cultural anthropology, which is, as the name suggests, the study of human cultures. That sort of study does not give credence to any particular set of social interactions. It just determines what people do, how they interact, and what function rituals have in people's lives and societies. There is no determination of what is good, better or best, or what is worse or evil, in such studies. Things are what they are. Of course, cross-cultural comparisons can be made, which lead to books like Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, Steel. Cultural comparisons can show why one society is able to build an H-bomb, but another is satisfied with the old ways. Again, such a comparison is a comparison: any value judgements made as a result of a study are not within the study. Therefore, adherents or opponents of any particular culture or religion cannot use such studies to validate their views.

There is a fundamental difference between observers and participants. I have had little use for religious practices or beliefs. Despite the claims of the superstitious that those near death become religious, I have not had that experience during several "close calls" or earlier this year when I thought I was done for. So, I don't count myself as a participant in religion. I do consider myself an adherent and practitioner of a long cultural tradition that was invented in ancient Peloponesia by Thales, Heraclitus, Parmenides and Socrates, and carried on by Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle and a thousand others. This is the so-called Western Tradition within which consideration of religion and theology is one of the oldest discussions. By my participation in the intellectual life of the West, I thereby become an observer of religion and culture. The trick for a scientific observer is not to "go native," but to remain aloof. That is what I try to do.

Philosophy is not religion and not culture, although it is a contributor to sub-components of culture. For the most part, philosophy is NOT about proving or disproving the existence of gods, or laying down moral rules ex cathedra. Religion is an object of study in philosophy, not the other way around. Oddly enough, one of the last things one gains by participating in philosophy is a "philosophy of life; " things just aren't that simple. What philosophy is about are quirky little problems that turn out to be very hard to solve. Some major successes of modern philosophy - philosophy beginning in the Renaissance and Enlightenment - are the developments of physics, chemistry and, best of all, mathematics. Mathematics has gone far beyond what was known just 300 years ago, in large part because of intensive studies in what is now called "foundations of mathematics." Computer and Information Sciences are just the latest developments in the explosion of modern mathematics. But, is our basic understanding of mathematics perfect? NO - not at all. There are still major problems in the philosophy of mathematics despite our improved understanding. For example, the war between the Platonists and Constructivists (extreme materialists) and everyone in between goes on unabated. I doubt it will end any time soon, but the struggle continues to energize philosophers and mathematicians.

Does anyone want to venture what Cardinal 0 (or 1) means?

I think the proper role of philosophers with respect to religion should be as follows. Philosophers should encourage tolerance and debate, while pointing out that most theological propositions have pretty shaky foundations. Philosophers should not encourage people to succumb to superstition out of fear or intimidation, and should actively oppose the influential and powerful who engage in such practices. All philosophers, particularly, should know the stories of people like Socrates, Buddha and Jesus. Those lives are important cases in considering the role of intellectuals and do-gooders in society. For myself, it was the injustice of delivering hemlock to Socrates that inspires civil action. Ancient Athens paid dearly for its abuse of intellectual freedom, when it was defeated by Sparta and later subjugated by Macedonia and Rome. A strong and healthy society is filled with vituperation and contention, Schumpeter's "creative destruction." Its Agora does not entertain the peace of the dead.

So, I don't think books like Dawkins' attack on religion do much good, even if they raise the loudness of the shouting. They don't prevent people from holding ideas I consider absurd. What does some good is ensuring that children are taught the scientific facts in their schools, and that they are provided the intellectual tools to sort things out for themselves. While I think most children will not turn out "seriously" religious if they are properly taught, there will always be some who turn to fundamentalism and other authoritarian cults. Our efforts don't always succeed. The basic goal should be to turn out young adults who are capable of reason, so they will be susceptible to the blandishments of the arts and sciences. It would be wonderful if the young were inspired to become Renaissance people. What we don't want is a nation of zombies and clones. Thus, the proper attack on the Religious Right, Jihadists and like-minded people is the education of the young, as well as preventing the spread of their influence.

Introduction
Lately I find myself absorbed in philosophy. While engaged in it, I sometimes recognize that "normal" people aren't interested in it. Common philosophical knowledge amounts to a few glib phrases, such as "my philosophy of life." Many people confuse religious or superstitious beliefs with philosophy. Richard Dawkins latest book, The God Delusion (see NY Times review), attacks religion. I don't plan on reading the book, but it's an opportunity for me to comment on religion.

Puzzles and Craziness