B5 Part 9 – Some Loose Ends
Pop Culture September 8th, 2007Grey 17 is Missing
Carrying on my series on the depiction of religion in the TV series Babylon 5:
Garibaldi, an agnostic, stumbles upon a cult in an abandoned and forgotten area of the station. They refuse to let him leave and seem to try to convert him to their beliefs. They do not make any decernable progress as all Garibaldi wants to do is to leave.
They have adapted belief systems from the basic Mimbari beliefs and consider them spiritually advanced culture. These themes recur several times in the TV series.
“The universe is sentient, aware, alive.” “We are the universe, the universe made manifest.” “We try to understand it because in so doing, well, we will understand ourselves.” “One day the universe will truly understand itself. And at that moment, it will transcend itself.” “…next time it’ll be perfect.”
The cult also strives for their own self perfection to achieve a form of enlightenment. This is verging on suicidal since they look forward to “rejoining” the universe upon their deaths. Although not stated, the might move towards being a suicide cult – they have one charasmatic leader and many drone like followers – does that fit the profile?
“We’ve isolated ourselves in order to attain a purity of thought. Because purity of form and putity of intent, purity of execution, that is the on way. The only way the door will open.” “The door of the mind”
They seem to prefer their beliefs from a more existential mindset. “People like you suffer from the fact that you do not remember having been part of the universe.” “You know, driven mad by the silence, the terrible isolation.”
But their leader, Sebastian, is rather pretentious, claiming “I am as pure as I am ever going to be!”.
The episode is also notable for not being very good. “There are bits in that I like a lot. And some parts of it just fell down dreadfully. That’s simply the nature of the beast.” (JMS)
Let us never speak of that episode again…
Christianity Adapting to the Times
Brother Alwyn is a leader in a religious order (to some extent affiliated with Catholic church) in a post apocalyptic earth in about the year 3261. I guess religion had to move with the times in the last 1254 years! The order plans to re-industrialize Earth; all technology was blamed for a collapse in civilization 500 years earlier. This is an interesting reversal on todays outlook – the Church is usually warning agains new trends and generally fears change (consider Galileo, Darwin, etc). This futuristic order now leads the technological movement against the fear and opposition of the population. It is mentioned that “Rome” has again turned down recognition for the churches work – I guess some things don’t change!
Side Note
There is an interesting post on a catholic blog which reads like a condensed version of my series of posts, but written by a believer.
September 8th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
“the Church is usually warning agains new trends and generally fears change (consider Galileo, Darwin, etc).”
Thats a bit harsh!
Re: Feyerabend, the Church’s opposition to Galileo was ironically based on grounds of ‘reason’. As much of what Galileo was presenting was counter-intuitive. One aspect that is interesting in this case was the Church’s opposition to the use of observational data gleaned from the use of a telescope. In the absence of optical theory there was much rejection of the ideas out of a fear of instrumentalism.
Likewise Darwin was not roundly condemned.
It is perhaps a little unfair to make such a general statement about the Church fearing change when in fact it played an enormous role over many centuries in developing what we now know as modern science.
The post Vatican II years has seen an extensive philosophical programme by the Catholic Church to affirm its support for the sciences. And an attempt to synchronise faith and reason.
Where there is conflict is on two grounds:
1) Where a scientific theory, or observation is said to contradict a doctrine of the Church… and
2) Where a scientific theory, or observation is contrary to the philosophical basis of the Church.
1- is a cause of obvious conflict. But it is seen by some observers as a language game phenomena. Lets consider two doctrines a) God exists and b) Transubstantiation.
a) according to some language games theorists is an unresolvable doctrine. If the classic understanding of God as spirit is maintained then it would appear to be beyond the remit of the physical sciences. Therefore attempts at physical proofs or denials are seemingly futile. (note I am just going for a simple doctrine ‘God is a spirit and exists’ and am not adding further attributes such as omnipotence, each of which would require analysis).
b) Transubstantiation is perhaps less irresolvable. As the wording of the doctrine is that something physical in the substance of the eucharist changes. Bread changing into the literal Body of Christ. This doctrine is more liable to cause conflict as the boundaries of differing ‘language games’ would appear to have been transgressed.
As for 2, where science appears to contradict the philosophical basis of the church, this is less to do with conflict than it is to do with institutional change. The Catholic Church basis much of its philosophy on scholastic reinterpretation of Aristotelian principles. When this occurs there is either an outright rejection of the idea (i.e. abortion, where the concept of aristotelian form is the basis of the idea that ‘life’ begins at conception) or there is an attempt at assimilation (Darwinian Evolution is a case in hand).
September 8th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
Just to clarify a couple of things.
-Transubstatiation hovers close to crossing-over language games. As it makes a declaration that a physical transformation of the ‘particles and substance’ of the material has changed. This doctrine would then seem to open itself to materialist analysis and therefore an element of conflict. However the cross-over is not so straight forward, as the language game involved would seem to be closer to pseudo-science. Something physical is said to have happened but it is ‘defined’ as being beyond explanation. Thus the description tends to go in circles. No attempt is made to offer a precise ‘scientific’ analysis of what occurs, even though a physical claim is made.
Eastern Orthodoxy that maintains a similar belief in Transubstantiation (though they prefer not to define it) enter into less conflict mainly because they are not so closely tied to Aristotelian philosophy. They do not feel oblisged to investigate the matter in terms of reason, and adopting a via negativa are happy to simply say that the doctrine is a mystery.
-Catholic support for Darwin is based on a non-materialist, or non-exclusively materialist interpretation of his theories. They are happy to accept physical evolution, but maintain that the soul is individually created. This is an example of what I mean by the assimilation of a ‘scientific’ theory into a position whereby it is compatible to aristotelian philosophy.
-I should be fair and say that some Christian churches are opposed to change. It is my opinion that such conflict has a political tendency where ‘the conflict of interests’ between science and religion says more about the relationship between church/science and state than it does about the reality of metaphysics.
As such Protestantism, despite having connections to the enlightenment, often finds itself in conflict with science. I would surmise that along with the political dimension (that is less relevant to transnational churches such as Catholicism) this is caused by the biblical literalism and philosophical stagnation evident in the ‘sola scriptura’ (scripture alone) approach advocated by Luther.
September 9th, 2007 at 10:19 am
I agree the situation is a little more complicated than I initially presented. You have made a start at least. I think we should make a separate discussion of it some time.
Just to outline my view on the Catholic Church and Science,
1) The Church has in the last decades put prohibitions on certain areas for research. e.g. big bang research, stem-cell research.
2) As you said above, the Church claims miracles physically happen but this is contrary to scientific observation (when done rigorously). (However, statements that occur in alternate states of consciousness are not in the scientific scope and are not in conflict.)
3) The current pope seems to think reason and religion are inseparable and interdependent.
Although these views are not overtly anti-science, they are at least an interference and at worst a subversion of science.
AC1
September 9th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
I meant to add a clarification last night which would have corresponded with your follow up comment. You are right perhaps at some point this would be worth a more indepth investigation.
1) You are right in pointing out prohibitive statements made by the Church with regards to certain research projects. I’ve not heard of the Church being anti-Big Bang (i’ve even heard and have evidence of strong support for it), but certain areas such as stem cell research are ‘logically’ opposed on philosophical and ethical grounds. (By logical here I mean that it is entirely consistent with the Church’s aristotelian metaphysics to state such opposition.)
Predominantly these prohibitions are ethical responses. Therefore the conflict is again not essentially doctrinal as such but a conflict between what one ought to, or not to, do in the name of scientific research.
For me both positions are contradictory to the spirit of intellectual freedom and to the notion of progress.
In an ‘ideal’ open debate the right to posit a research programme and the right to oppose it on ethical grounds are equally valid and entitled to be heard. The opposite a guided debate (i.e. Church veto over science, or the primacy of science because only science produces results/is useful/is rational etc.) is undesireable.
Conclusion: religious ethical opposition to certain research programmes is not anti-science. It is not a subversion of science*, and at worst is only a partial interference.
* This is probably a terminological issue, but why shouldnt science be subverted if its ‘methods’ or ‘results’ become an oppressor to society? Also are not the polemics of anti-theist materialists a subversion of religion?
2)Physical Miracles I would agree is a more contentious area as it would appear that a language game transgression is taking place. I used transubstantiation as an example. I would modify my original view though (perhaps not anymore to your liking) by saying that its transgressions are not as anti-science, or as much of a conflict with science as it would at first appear. In transubstantiation a descriptive explanation is being given about a physical event that is being claimed. Bread turning into Flesh. As such it would appear to be open to the vigourous analysis of science, concerned as it is with material events. However if we look closer at the doctrine of transubstantiation we actually find there is little substantial explanation as to how a claimed event has taken place. It simply tells you what has happened, bu beyond stating it is a miracle or a mystery makes no attempt at explaining the physics or chemistry of it. It would seem that the claim being made therefore is non-natural even super-natural. As such then it could perhaps be seen as being beyond the remit of science. But more pertinently the doctrine of transubstantiation looked at this way could be seen as psuedo-science, pre-science or meta-science.
If this is the case then the only ‘conflict’ with science would appear to be the uncredited language game transgression that is occuring, where something unscientific is described in near-scientific terms.
In this case a degree of subversion (albeit I would counter unintentional) could be said to be occuring.
I would propose that this example demonstrates two things.
i) The limitations of language in describing non-ordinary events. How can one describe the mystical, mysterious and inneffable?
ii) The Church basing itself on a fides et ratio (faith and reason) platform is engaging in a language game that bears family resemblances to the science language game. Indeed they share common philosophical ancestry.
3) You are correct the current Pope does hold this view. As did his predecessor. They would appear to hold a middle ground between the via negativa (agnostic theology) of the Fideists (Faith alone) and the materialist atheism of the ultra-rationalists. This syncretism of two worldviews (which as we know at their extremes are diametrically opposed) has its origins in the philosophy of the greeks. And interestingly has an ancient pedigree in theology. It is only fairly recent (post-enlightenment) that Fideism and Via Negativa have re-emerged as a force (reaction) to the enlightenment divorce of faith and reason.
(This topic though to do it justice requires an extensive series of posts, which I shan’t do).
I am interested in the final comment again, about subverting and interfering with science, as though science were a coherent singular edifice, as opposed to a chaotic bubbling cauldron of competitive theories and worldviews with vastly differing aims and motives. Could the events of a paradigm shift not be seen by those unmoved by the new theories as an interference or subversion of ‘true’ science? Was Galileo not subverting the accepted science of the day?
I’m often reminded of Max Planck who once said that a paradigm shift did not involve the mass conversion of the adherents of science rejecting the errors of the old and adopting with full confidence the revolutionary new. Rather it involved the gradual dying out of the old and its gradual replacement with the new.
September 9th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Also meant to add.
My defence of the Church not being anti-science is limited to Roman Catholicism. As a transnational church it has less of a political agenda against institutional science.
On the contrary certain smaller Protestant sects are percieved to have a strong anti-science agenda.
I would consider much of this to be political powerplays particularly in America where the Christian Right has grown in influence of late.
This is somewhat ironic as Protestantism had its roots in the European enlightenment and the age of Reason, hence less emphasis on the ‘magic’ and ‘hocus pocus’ of the sacraments. Yet paradoxically at the same time Luther one of the fathers of the reformation promulgated the method of ‘sola scriptura’ that belief and its inferred maxims came solely from Scripture, and that tradition (reason, aristotelianism, the magisterium of the Church) was non-divine and irrelevant.