The following is a conversation I've been a part of on a good friend's (N) wall:
N
"The foundation of morality is to give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibilities of knowledge." (T. H. Huxley)
Bill Cobabe
This is an interesting quote. It seems to say - and I could be reading this wrong - that the foundation of morality is to give up belief (or faith). If that's the case, what is the basis for one's moral foundation? In my experience, the foundation of morality is the hope for a better world - and I'm not talking strictly about some eternal reward. Things like altruism, self-sacrifice and discipline, and a desire to improve the world around one's self are all centered in the hope and idea that such things are achievable, although not seen. In short, to quote John Lennon - You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. He was also the one who - in the same song - said that he could envision a world with no religion, nothing to live or die for. Yet that very vision implied something higher, something worth living or dying for... Just because things are not known to me does not mean that they are not known or unknowable. It just means that my knowledge is imperfect.
Bill Cobabe
Even the empirical method in science, which is used to help ascertain scientific fact or theory by use of hypothesis and the study of empirical evidences is based in a kind of faith. If I did not believe, for example, that ice would freeze at 32 degrees, I would not try it out. My hypothesis may be incorrect, and the evidence produced may be flawed. But the beginning of the experimentation is the idea - the faith or hope or desire or theory or goal that something can be discovered if appropriate experiment can be made. For me, faith - even and perhaps especially religious faith - implies a need for experimentation and exploration. We have been given intelligent, rational minds - we have the right and obligation to use them in pursuit of truth and a better world and society.
Bill Cobabe
I think, though, in some respects I would agree with Mr. Huxley. He was the first to coin - or at least popularize - the term agnostic, meaning without knowledge. We are certainly without knowledge in almost every aspect of everything in our lives. There is just so very much that we don't know. I believe, however, that the search for truth is what defines us as individuals and as a society. Truth is a fiddly thing - what may seem true for one may not be true for another. Some of the beliefs we have held near and dear are easily wiped away, like a wisp of smoke. Others become strengthened and tempered in the furnaces of trial and experience. And as each one's experience is different from any others, those who really seek for truth are those who would open themselves up to the possibility, however unlikely, that they are wrong...
N
I know that Huxley was speaking about religion specifically in this quote, but I think a world without a god-based faith is not a faithless world, buy rather a world full of faith in more tangible, provable things.
While faith may extend beyond religion, religion rarely can argue itself beyond the boundaries of faith.
I can reject the existence of a God whom I have never seen or spoken to, but I cannot reject gravity. It will not permit me to deny it's existence. That, to me, is a universal truth.
Bill Cobabe
Yet we understand that something as universally understood and applied and simple as gravity may not be so universal. At the very large scale of black holes and the very small scale of string theory, it is hypothesized that gravity does not apply...
Mental gymnastics aside, it is my experience that the only true knowledge is one's experience. Anything more or less than that is the realm of faith; faith in authority, faith in experimentation and measurement, and/or faith in empirical data - that is, data that are experienced with the five senses. It is also my experience that all experience is unique. I cannot judge or disparage another's experience at all. I only have my own set of experience.
N
Wait. I'm talking provable truth, and you just threw in hypothesized black hole exceptions as part of your argument. Are those proven?
And yes, all we have is our experience. Totally agree. But should we simply sit back and allow others to suffer from what we feel is delusion? Or rather speak up to suggest an alternative rationale for their experience? Is it hopeless to try and persuade others?
On a quantum level, what's to say my persuasive argument should not be part of another person's life experience? Gotta try, right? I'm not gonna muscle anyone into my shoes, but I can't just walk on without saying something. Isn't that the basis of most Christian missionary efforts?
Bill Cobabe
Depends on whom you ask about proof. Quantum physicists and mathematical theoreticians all think they've got it figured out and using equations that I can't even begin to understand can prove it all... But again, that's just mental gymnastics. It's interesting to peruse, but almost impossible to experience first hand - no one outside of Disney has been to a black hole - if they even exist.
Bill Cobabe
Everyone has the right and responsibility to advocate what they feel is right and best. I feel nothing is hopeless, but that we should respect each other and that out experiences may be different. Those of us who are truly intelligent (like you and me, for sure!) allow for a flexible and evolving understanding of the universe based on new input. Hopefully, THAT is the position that I can convert people to - the position where they seek knowledge for themselves, rather than closing themselves off from any one point of view, dismissing it out of hand as being deluded or those who feel that way as being delusional. Particularly when there are enough of those that collusion could not be a real factor.
Bill Cobabe
Your desire to promote your viewpoint is laudable. Cynicism, however satisfying it feels at first, brings neither light nor warmth. (with apologies to Alexander Solzhenitsyn) It's like telling a child there's no Santa Claus. Yes, you're right. But sometimes it sucks to be right. Ultimately, I've discovered that life is too short to be too caught up in what others think. I'm too busy trying to figure that out for myself...
Jo
Huxley's basic assertion that God is 'beyond the possibility (sic) of knowledge' is incorrect.
R
I think I shall just watch the fur fly. But having said that, what is that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibilities of knowledge." If one looks historically there is a lot that was "proven" and then disproven. Provable truth is pretty tricky, especially when someone else comes along with "better knowledge or add info that the last party didn't have. There is so much we do not know! But I have faith in a lot of things!
R
Nm you are just too cute for words
Ja
I'm sorry. I feel that I don't understand the rabbit trails this quote has produced. I think it is certainly worthy of debate, but it seemed to me to quickly derail (although the arguments are very interesting). I think it is because I interpret this saying differently than Bill. Maybe it is because I have a different background, I certainly feel our world views are probably dissimilar. When I read this I see a very logical assertion that we must be cautious of narrow-mindedness. A seemingly benign affliction until you realize the havoc it has caused. Death upon war upon oppression. Evil, in point of fact. If you are Christian then you could postulate that this sort of parochialism that caused the fall of man. Postulation seems to be a good word in this discussion.
The assumption that a man who questions dogmatic orthodoxy is one who "gives up" his moral foundation because it doesn't fit ours strikes me as arrogant. The foundation of morals is to give up pretending to believe that which there is no evidence. This has nothing to do with altruism or justice, self-sacrifice or discipline. This has to do with a rare breed of people who have questioned everything that they were taught. Every theory and every doctrine. In order to get to this point you must start with, "I don't know." These people have contributed to civilization as long as it has been recorded. Longer. Archimedes, Plato, Da Vinci, Martin Luther, Thomas Jefferson, Galileo, Thomas Newton. Where would we be without these people, some of whom had shocking beliefs to you and me. Some of whom were murdered by the church. Copernicus theorized we lived in a heliocentric galaxy. I think we can safely assume that these men had families and a system of beliefs that upheld those sentiments. This is not about value system. Or string theory. Or the theory of unification for that matter. It is simply a statement that proposes that we possess a modicum of humility and tolerance of others. A refusal to say, "I know." Because surely we don't. Sometimes that is the sincerest form of faith we have.
Ja
And you know what? God is beyond the possibility of knowledge. He's a mystery. He's bigger than all of us. We can't even look at him with our human eyes. Who knows what he is. Or she. Or it. Maybe he's the universe. Maybe he's a bunch of molecular mass vibrating. I'm not afraid to say I don't know. But I will say this. I will not persecute. I will not harm. I will not hate based on beliefs that I have built in my very short lifetime comprised of my similarly limited world view.
Bill Cobabe
For me, the fundamental difference between faith and doubt is that faith assumes there is an answer to each question, and that patient and careful exploration will yield that answer. Doubt assumes there is no answer. I have a firm belief that we are to question, but to question from a position of humility, willing to accept any answer without presupposing anything. Only when our minds and hearts are open can we begin to understand the Infinite. I believe that God, if He does in fact exist (and I believe He does) wants us to know Him. I have never found in all of the works of scripture a place where the Infinite says - do not seek to know me, for I am unknowable. To the contrary, I find it repeated that we are to ask, to seek, and to knock. There may be no more frequently repeated commandment. In fact, all of the commandments to which people of faith adhere are rooted in the understanding that such adherence leads to a more pure life, greater sensitivity to spiritual things, the acknowledgment of one's position to the Infinite, and an effort to procure a closer relationship with Him. The great thing about any Mystery is when the fog of obfuscation, doubt, and fear are lifted in the burning light of peace and understanding. That sublime moment is where God exists and can be known, not with empirical evidences, but written upon the fleshy tables of the heart...
N
I find it interesting that I am continually cautioned NOT to push for others to adopt my world view.... By Christians who profess to want to "save the world" from it's sinful state. Is the only difference that I am alone, instead of having a church behind me to back up and agree with my views?
Bill Cobabe
I'm not sure who you're referring to. I mentioned that I thought your desire to share your experience is laudable. And I think you'll find that there are many who agree with you - at least in part. I am one of those, actually. I am all about the free expression and exploration of ideas. As a seeker of truth myself, I am one who loves to be shown the error of my ways. But my experience is my experience, and I cannot deny what I have experienced - however different it may be from any one else's...
Bill Cobabe
I think it's arrogant to assume that because I have NOT had the same experience as someone else that the experience is invalid. I believe it is also quite arrogant to assume that just because I don't know something it must be unknowable. There are vast amounts that I do not know. The more I learn the more I realize I do not know. But I have had experiences that are indelible and undeniable, experiences within myself that fill me with light and peace, experiences with the Infinite that I cannot describe but which are not any less real because of my inability to express them. How would one quantify the peace and joy that comes from watching a dramatic sunrise? Or the love of a child for it's mother? Or the incredible and unspeakable freedom and joy that comes from new knowledge and understanding gained after much effort and patience and sacrifice (i.e., my entire physics classes...)? We all have these brushes with the spiritual, the sweet and amazing flashes of light that allow us - just for a moment - to see eternity. We do NOT see in full, but that does not mean that the fullness is not there. Nor does it mean that there are those who have not seen.
N
"The foundation of morality is to give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibilities of knowledge." (T. H. Huxley)
Bill Cobabe
This is an interesting quote. It seems to say - and I could be reading this wrong - that the foundation of morality is to give up belief (or faith). If that's the case, what is the basis for one's moral foundation? In my experience, the foundation of morality is the hope for a better world - and I'm not talking strictly about some eternal reward. Things like altruism, self-sacrifice and discipline, and a desire to improve the world around one's self are all centered in the hope and idea that such things are achievable, although not seen. In short, to quote John Lennon - You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. He was also the one who - in the same song - said that he could envision a world with no religion, nothing to live or die for. Yet that very vision implied something higher, something worth living or dying for... Just because things are not known to me does not mean that they are not known or unknowable. It just means that my knowledge is imperfect.
Bill Cobabe
Even the empirical method in science, which is used to help ascertain scientific fact or theory by use of hypothesis and the study of empirical evidences is based in a kind of faith. If I did not believe, for example, that ice would freeze at 32 degrees, I would not try it out. My hypothesis may be incorrect, and the evidence produced may be flawed. But the beginning of the experimentation is the idea - the faith or hope or desire or theory or goal that something can be discovered if appropriate experiment can be made. For me, faith - even and perhaps especially religious faith - implies a need for experimentation and exploration. We have been given intelligent, rational minds - we have the right and obligation to use them in pursuit of truth and a better world and society.
Bill Cobabe
I think, though, in some respects I would agree with Mr. Huxley. He was the first to coin - or at least popularize - the term agnostic, meaning without knowledge. We are certainly without knowledge in almost every aspect of everything in our lives. There is just so very much that we don't know. I believe, however, that the search for truth is what defines us as individuals and as a society. Truth is a fiddly thing - what may seem true for one may not be true for another. Some of the beliefs we have held near and dear are easily wiped away, like a wisp of smoke. Others become strengthened and tempered in the furnaces of trial and experience. And as each one's experience is different from any others, those who really seek for truth are those who would open themselves up to the possibility, however unlikely, that they are wrong...
N
I know that Huxley was speaking about religion specifically in this quote, but I think a world without a god-based faith is not a faithless world, buy rather a world full of faith in more tangible, provable things.
While faith may extend beyond religion, religion rarely can argue itself beyond the boundaries of faith.
I can reject the existence of a God whom I have never seen or spoken to, but I cannot reject gravity. It will not permit me to deny it's existence. That, to me, is a universal truth.
Bill Cobabe
Yet we understand that something as universally understood and applied and simple as gravity may not be so universal. At the very large scale of black holes and the very small scale of string theory, it is hypothesized that gravity does not apply...
Mental gymnastics aside, it is my experience that the only true knowledge is one's experience. Anything more or less than that is the realm of faith; faith in authority, faith in experimentation and measurement, and/or faith in empirical data - that is, data that are experienced with the five senses. It is also my experience that all experience is unique. I cannot judge or disparage another's experience at all. I only have my own set of experience.
N
Wait. I'm talking provable truth, and you just threw in hypothesized black hole exceptions as part of your argument. Are those proven?
And yes, all we have is our experience. Totally agree. But should we simply sit back and allow others to suffer from what we feel is delusion? Or rather speak up to suggest an alternative rationale for their experience? Is it hopeless to try and persuade others?
On a quantum level, what's to say my persuasive argument should not be part of another person's life experience? Gotta try, right? I'm not gonna muscle anyone into my shoes, but I can't just walk on without saying something. Isn't that the basis of most Christian missionary efforts?
Bill Cobabe
Depends on whom you ask about proof. Quantum physicists and mathematical theoreticians all think they've got it figured out and using equations that I can't even begin to understand can prove it all... But again, that's just mental gymnastics. It's interesting to peruse, but almost impossible to experience first hand - no one outside of Disney has been to a black hole - if they even exist.
Bill Cobabe
Everyone has the right and responsibility to advocate what they feel is right and best. I feel nothing is hopeless, but that we should respect each other and that out experiences may be different. Those of us who are truly intelligent (like you and me, for sure!) allow for a flexible and evolving understanding of the universe based on new input. Hopefully, THAT is the position that I can convert people to - the position where they seek knowledge for themselves, rather than closing themselves off from any one point of view, dismissing it out of hand as being deluded or those who feel that way as being delusional. Particularly when there are enough of those that collusion could not be a real factor.
Bill Cobabe
Your desire to promote your viewpoint is laudable. Cynicism, however satisfying it feels at first, brings neither light nor warmth. (with apologies to Alexander Solzhenitsyn) It's like telling a child there's no Santa Claus. Yes, you're right. But sometimes it sucks to be right. Ultimately, I've discovered that life is too short to be too caught up in what others think. I'm too busy trying to figure that out for myself...
Jo
Huxley's basic assertion that God is 'beyond the possibility (sic) of knowledge' is incorrect.
R
I think I shall just watch the fur fly. But having said that, what is that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibilities of knowledge." If one looks historically there is a lot that was "proven" and then disproven. Provable truth is pretty tricky, especially when someone else comes along with "better knowledge or add info that the last party didn't have. There is so much we do not know! But I have faith in a lot of things!
R
Nm you are just too cute for words
Ja
I'm sorry. I feel that I don't understand the rabbit trails this quote has produced. I think it is certainly worthy of debate, but it seemed to me to quickly derail (although the arguments are very interesting). I think it is because I interpret this saying differently than Bill. Maybe it is because I have a different background, I certainly feel our world views are probably dissimilar. When I read this I see a very logical assertion that we must be cautious of narrow-mindedness. A seemingly benign affliction until you realize the havoc it has caused. Death upon war upon oppression. Evil, in point of fact. If you are Christian then you could postulate that this sort of parochialism that caused the fall of man. Postulation seems to be a good word in this discussion.
The assumption that a man who questions dogmatic orthodoxy is one who "gives up" his moral foundation because it doesn't fit ours strikes me as arrogant. The foundation of morals is to give up pretending to believe that which there is no evidence. This has nothing to do with altruism or justice, self-sacrifice or discipline. This has to do with a rare breed of people who have questioned everything that they were taught. Every theory and every doctrine. In order to get to this point you must start with, "I don't know." These people have contributed to civilization as long as it has been recorded. Longer. Archimedes, Plato, Da Vinci, Martin Luther, Thomas Jefferson, Galileo, Thomas Newton. Where would we be without these people, some of whom had shocking beliefs to you and me. Some of whom were murdered by the church. Copernicus theorized we lived in a heliocentric galaxy. I think we can safely assume that these men had families and a system of beliefs that upheld those sentiments. This is not about value system. Or string theory. Or the theory of unification for that matter. It is simply a statement that proposes that we possess a modicum of humility and tolerance of others. A refusal to say, "I know." Because surely we don't. Sometimes that is the sincerest form of faith we have.
Ja
And you know what? God is beyond the possibility of knowledge. He's a mystery. He's bigger than all of us. We can't even look at him with our human eyes. Who knows what he is. Or she. Or it. Maybe he's the universe. Maybe he's a bunch of molecular mass vibrating. I'm not afraid to say I don't know. But I will say this. I will not persecute. I will not harm. I will not hate based on beliefs that I have built in my very short lifetime comprised of my similarly limited world view.
Bill Cobabe
For me, the fundamental difference between faith and doubt is that faith assumes there is an answer to each question, and that patient and careful exploration will yield that answer. Doubt assumes there is no answer. I have a firm belief that we are to question, but to question from a position of humility, willing to accept any answer without presupposing anything. Only when our minds and hearts are open can we begin to understand the Infinite. I believe that God, if He does in fact exist (and I believe He does) wants us to know Him. I have never found in all of the works of scripture a place where the Infinite says - do not seek to know me, for I am unknowable. To the contrary, I find it repeated that we are to ask, to seek, and to knock. There may be no more frequently repeated commandment. In fact, all of the commandments to which people of faith adhere are rooted in the understanding that such adherence leads to a more pure life, greater sensitivity to spiritual things, the acknowledgment of one's position to the Infinite, and an effort to procure a closer relationship with Him. The great thing about any Mystery is when the fog of obfuscation, doubt, and fear are lifted in the burning light of peace and understanding. That sublime moment is where God exists and can be known, not with empirical evidences, but written upon the fleshy tables of the heart...
N
I find it interesting that I am continually cautioned NOT to push for others to adopt my world view.... By Christians who profess to want to "save the world" from it's sinful state. Is the only difference that I am alone, instead of having a church behind me to back up and agree with my views?
Bill Cobabe
I'm not sure who you're referring to. I mentioned that I thought your desire to share your experience is laudable. And I think you'll find that there are many who agree with you - at least in part. I am one of those, actually. I am all about the free expression and exploration of ideas. As a seeker of truth myself, I am one who loves to be shown the error of my ways. But my experience is my experience, and I cannot deny what I have experienced - however different it may be from any one else's...
Bill Cobabe
I think it's arrogant to assume that because I have NOT had the same experience as someone else that the experience is invalid. I believe it is also quite arrogant to assume that just because I don't know something it must be unknowable. There are vast amounts that I do not know. The more I learn the more I realize I do not know. But I have had experiences that are indelible and undeniable, experiences within myself that fill me with light and peace, experiences with the Infinite that I cannot describe but which are not any less real because of my inability to express them. How would one quantify the peace and joy that comes from watching a dramatic sunrise? Or the love of a child for it's mother? Or the incredible and unspeakable freedom and joy that comes from new knowledge and understanding gained after much effort and patience and sacrifice (i.e., my entire physics classes...)? We all have these brushes with the spiritual, the sweet and amazing flashes of light that allow us - just for a moment - to see eternity. We do NOT see in full, but that does not mean that the fullness is not there. Nor does it mean that there are those who have not seen.
Comments