Yet There Is Method In It

The Via Negativa (the way of negation) is a theological/philosophical position that emphasises a non-descriptive and negative series of terminology and concepts concerning God. It is the opposite of the Via Positiva (the positive way) which is generally the standard in scholastic works on the matter.

An example of the difference between the two ways is easily demonstrated:

Via Positiva “God is good”

Via Negativa “God is not not good”

The difference between the two is fairly obvious. The positive statement sounds very much like a proposition – this could therefore render it a testable hypothesis. For this to be so we must formulate a sense in which we can understand the terminology – what is God? and what is goodness? Many will argue that neither of these concepts are definable or testable therefore rendering the proposition nonsensical. If the proposition is meaningless then we must ask ourselves whether we ought to invest our time in it. In other words shouldn’t we simply abandon it and its constituent parts?

The Via Negativa very very simply can be defined as the approach to the Divine that considers the Divine by definition non-definable!

I.e. once we start to make definitive or positive statements about what the Divine is then we attempt to formularize the wholly abstract – and this inevitable leads to mistakes and errors and false propositions.

This has an interesting effect on discussions concerning Science and Religion. In a recent Channel 4 series of documentaries called “Christianity: A History” in the episode entitled “God and the Scientists” Neurobiologist Colin Blakemore discussed God-concepts (my terminology) and their relation to Scientific-Datum with Vatican Astronomer Guy Consolmagno.

Blakemore was fascinated to discover that here with Consolmagno was a Scientist and Jesuit brother who saw no contradiction in believing in God (as espoused by the Bible) and the scientific worldview. (His speciality is Planetary Astronomy and Meteorites). He found a belief in God and a belief that the world/universe is several billions of years old was reconcileable. That evolution was not as Dawkins later argued a primary reason to not believe in God. “The Bible is not a scientific book” he argued and it should not be treated as such!

But, Blakemore asked, if this is the new modern face of the Catholic Church (and therefore not representative of all of Christendom – i.e. intelligent design advocates, creationists, biblical literalists etc.) why does the Church have such a bad record in its historical relationship with science?

Consolmagno’s answer was refreshingly simple. The scientific method looks, describes and attempts to explain and predict the workings of the universe. And the scientific paradigm of hypothesis and experimentation provides a series of checks and balances that allow scientists (indeed anyone) to place greater “factual” authority upon certain of its propositions than other initiatives (i.e. theology) can do. Whereas Theology and Philosophy by virtue of its methods is interpretive, speculative and narrative – in essence it is a form of literature and therefore is subject to the same problems. Consolmagno stated quite happily: The Church as an institution (like any other) was comprised of intellectual men who didn’t like to be told they were wrong.

Consolmagno’s proposition then was that science provides the objectivity around which theology and philosophy can shape itself and its doctrines and not vice versa. He once famously declared: “Religion needs science to keep it away from superstition and keep it close to reality, to protect it from creationism, which at the end of the day is a kind of paganism – it’s turning God into a nature god.””

Blakemore though not convinced enough to suddenly want to adopt this rational religous approach, was somewhat pleasantly satisfied. But he had one nagging doubt: Isn’t your God then something of a plasticine God?

(In other words arent you just moving the goalposts in order to maintain your survival against insurmountable scientific evidence?)

Consolmagno responded that the Plasticine is not the divinity but the human mind. And this question and answer prompted this post and my speculations on it.

Blakemore assumed that the authority of scripture, the teaching tradition of the Church and centuries of theology rendered the God-concept solid. And that this solid concept – or objective ideal – was eventually challenged by scientific evidence. He wasnt altogether comfortable with the ineffability of God – which renders the God-concept outside of the scientific remit and which meant that rationalism could be reconciled with Faith to the extent that (as Steven Jay Gould argued) there could be partially overlapping magisteria (POMA’s) and there was no obstacle or contradiction to scientists having a religious belief, or that a religious belief must necessarily set one against the scientific worldview.

It seemed to me – and it would be an interesting (though ultimately futile) exercise to undertake – that some of the anti-religious sentiment expressed in certain quarters of the scientific world are based upon a God-concept that belongs to the Via Positiva and as such is a mistaken or error strewn objection. (If positive theology is meaningless then so too is a positive atheology). But the exercise would be futile on two grounds: 1) anti-religious fundamentalism as with all fundamentalisms is emotionally loaded, remove one reason for the sentiment and another will be discovered (i.e. my imgainary Dawkins may agree upon the abandonment of the Via Positiva but would still object to religion on other grounds, perhaps its tendency to group-think say). 2) As Gould acknowledged with his model of non and partially overlapping magisteria the scientific and religious laguage games are independent of each other, and as such a Via Negativa may (to use Wittgensteins phrase) Dissolve the question. But is this ever wholly satisfactory to the scientific worldview? If the God-concept is fluid then it is a question that can never be formulated, and ineffability doesnt sit easily with scientific rationalism.

The Via Negativa would seem to dissolve the debate and the controversy and allow a degree of freedom from this tedious culture war. It may or even ought to allow a synthesis of worldviews to flourish such as Gould hoped. But can the Via Negativa ever be reconciled with organised religion?

In a refreshing break from current social norms, various artists at the Free Art Fair have been giving pieces away to members of the public for free. I applaud this because it notes that something is worth while even if it does not have a financial price tag. It also blurs line between professional and amateur – this distinction is often unhelpful when placing value on their work.

The ironic thing about altruistic acts is, if it is truly selfless, then the giver should not expect anything in return. The question that might be posed to a moralist, is if selfless action is the best action, why do we try to give gifts to people in the expectation they will be received? Isn’t receiving an unworthy action compared to altruism? This at least encourages others to act in an “unworthy” fashion.

A close relation is the action of giving (or bestowing) but without the baggage of altruism or even the baggage of expected rewards. (The action is not even its own reward, perhaps.) Perhaps the best is to give as a choice and, if a person is inclined, as necessity.

In other news, I was disturbed but unsurprised to read this:

With so many scientific papers chasing so few pages in the most prestigious journals, the winners could be the ones most likely to oversell themselves—to trumpet dramatic or important results that later turn out to be false. This would produce a distorted picture of scientific knowledge, with less dramatic (but more accurate) results either relegated to obscure journals or left unpublished. The Economist

I notice financial rewards are linked to a researcher’s publication record. Perhaps scientific journals could do with a little more of the bestowing virtue?

Anti Citizen One

PS Interesting news item on economic growth destroying the ecosystem.

I saw Steve Jones (the geneticist) talking about the future of the human species. It was a very slick presentation. It seemed to be an expanded discussion of an article he published in the telegraph. He claimed that human evolution has come to a halt. The reasons for this are perhaps not interesting in this blog’s context. I was immediately skeptical of his conclusion but he did add two important conditions: he was only referring to the western world and the halt in evolution was temporary.

Any claims of constancy or certain knowledge in the apparent world should be examined closely since they can only come from two lines of reasoning:
1) A priori – there is no reason why constancy (or even inconstancy) should be expected, so no certain claim can be made.
2) A posteriori – basing a theory on past observations can never provide certainty since the next observation might disprove a theory.

The purists would try to apply this reasoning to my argument. An uncertainty might be the possibility of other sources of knowledge apart from a priori and a posteriori. What we can say is any claim about the apparent world without an element of doubt is, at best, misleading*. Since the apparent world is different at different times, we can speculate that change is possible. It seems the universe has changed greatly through out its existence, and it is therefore conceivable that constancy is illusionary. We could say some things are constant and some things are transitory. There is also a possibility that an seeming constant in the world is in fact going through a slow transition – too slow for us to perceive. As Heraclitus said, “All things are flowing.” Also Nietzsche, “Insofar as the senses show becoming, passing away, and change, they do not lie.” (A luck “guess” by Heraclitus – that everything is made of one primordial element (fire) is not so far from the modern concept of mass/energy equivalence.)

A few blogs have attempted to rebut Steve Jones on practical grounds which might be interesting for some.

Anti Citizen One

* probably

Part 7 of the “A Secular Age” review on the Only a Game Blog is here.

This is entitled The Imminent Frame and is a discussion on materialism versus transcendentalism.

It raises the contentious issue of belief in epistemology.

Richard Dawkins for example holds what is considered a naive interpretation of Faith when he says:

“Faith, being belief that isn’t based on evidence, is the principal vice of any religion,” whereas Science “is free of the main vice of religion, which is faith”.

As a counterpoint Charles Taylor quotes evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin as an example of a materialist who maintains a lucidity about “their prior ontological commitments”.

“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to understanding the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori allegiance to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door.”

There has been several creationism news articles recently. Instead of the usual analysis, I present four thought experiments that relate indirectly to the issues.

Thought experiment:

You have won a lottery (by random draw of a winner). There are three explanations for your winning:
1) It was part of God’s plan for you to win.
2) You were the only one to enter the lottery so winning was inevitable.
3) Many tickets were distributed and you won by chance.

If you don’t know how many tickets were distributed, is it possible to decide which possibility is correct?

Thought experiment:

You see a rock archway in a sea cliff. If any part of the arch was removed, the structure would collapse. The rock archway could have been formed by:
1) Being created in its current form.
2) Created by erosion to form its current shape.

If you are uncertain about the truth of 2, can you infer 1?

Thought experiment:

You see an illusion in which the magician appears to vanish and reappear. You might conclude one of the following:
1) The magician can really vanish and reappear at will.
2) The magician has performed an illusion and you do not know the method.

If you are uncertain about the truth of 2, can you infer 1?

Thought experiment:

If belief X causes life to be full of unhappiness, reckless behavior, materialistic concerns or immorality, is it
1) false
2) true
3) unknown as to is truth or falsity.

If we are unclear as to the religious instinct, it is stated thus:

There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiosity. It is this which drives us to try to discover the secrets of nature which are beyond our understanding, which can avail us nothing, and which man should not wish to learn. St Augustine

Further reading: Who are the British creationists?

Anti Citizen One

In other news, India’s use of brain scans in courts dismays critics

PS. I have been thinking about these ideas for a while but it seems they are half remembered examples from Dawkins.

PPS “Nitimur in vetitum, semper cupimusque negata” (Ovid), we strive after the forbidden.

Update: ‘Creationism’ biologist quits job

I was reading the Gene Expression blog and it claims that generation of scientific knowledge is generated through the scientific community acting as the overall arbiter and gatekeeper. Without this collaboration, science would not function. Individual scientists are not fully rational and presumably the rationality of the scientific process arises through ‘”wisdom of the crowds” at its apotheosis’.

Because at the end of the day science does not rely on the rationality of a scientist. It relies on the cumulative and self-correcting rationality of the scientific community.

[...]science is such a superior method of extracting information about the world around us[...]

[...]the power of science arises from the intersection of the communal wisdom of tens of thousands of individuals over decades with the nature of the subject at hand. Gene Expression blog

The author implies that no individual scientist is capable of really doing science in isolation.

Granted, there are individual geniuses of great brilliance such as the great Isaac Newton, but the outcomes of his dabbling in alchemy and scriptural hermeneutics should go to illustrate that cognition applied to a fool’s errand only results in glorious foolery.

I picture this as an infinite amount of research monkeys almost randomly striking keys on type writers and the gate keeper of science, the community, allows anything that happens to be scientific. As Newton said, possibly with sarcasm, “If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants”.

Peer review and the scientific community is not what distinguishes science from other areas of knowledge. After all history community decides what is good history knowledge, theology community decides what is good theological knowledge and the law community decides what is good law knowledge. Since they have similar process for publication and dissemination of knowledge, why are they not also “a superior method of extracting information about the world”?

What distinguishes science from other fields of knowledge is empiricism. Production of scientific knowledge occurs when we use our personal experience about the world to form predictive theories and we attempt to verify them. When Galileo looked through a telescope and saw dots circling Jupiter and him realizing they were moons was a scientific achievement. Since there was no community, it is clearly false to say the community is necessary to progress science.

Referring to the scientific community as this monolithic truth machine is not helpful considering that good science is decided by a very small subsection of the community who have the relevant background knowledge to review cutting edge research. In some fields, everyone knows the other researchers by name. I will admit that science has progressed more quickly because collaboration and teamwork is more efficient than solo working. But teamwork it is not necessary for science to occur.

Anti Citizen One

Interesting news from the New Scientist which tells of a demonstration of unconscious learning and therefore knowledge that cannot be linguistically expressed.

Also of interest is a piece in Scientific American on the honesty of people being compromised after being told there is no such thing as free will. But strictly speaking this doesn’t mean free will is true – it is just certain ideas might cause good or bad behavior.

The results were clear: those who read the anti-free will text cheated more often![...] Moreover, the researchers found that the amount a participant cheated correlated with the extent to which they rejected free will in their survey responses. Scientific American

As FN said:

[...] delusion and error are conditions of human knowledge and sensation [...] Honesty would lead to nausea and suicide. The Gay Science, 107.

Guess what book I am reading?

Anti Citizen One

A group within the Institute of Medical Science at University of Toronto in Canada devised this oath for scientists:

I promise never to allow financial gain, competitiveness or ambition cloud my judgment in the conduct of ethical research and scholarship. I will pursue knowledge and create knowledge for the greater good, but never to the detriment of colleagues, supervisors, research subjects or the international community of scholars of which I am now a member.

The part that particularly caught my eye is serving “the greater good”. The greater good of what? Who decides what is in the interests of that greater good? How very utilitarian!

If we decide that the greater good is “humanity”, that supposes it is a static thing. If a non-human were to perform science, would this oath apply? Their oath outlines a little of what science isn’t and gets that little bit muddled too…

I mostly concur with GrrlScientist’s blog post and share her concerns on the integrity of science, but this oath is not an answer. I might have a stab at defining what science is but the attempt might be futile (according to PF).

Anti Citizen One

There is an interesting piece in New Scientist on falsification in science. (Sorry, subscription only.)

Even when scientists accept that a theory has failed some test, they rarely junk it as being false. Popper recognised this too. Krauss points to the classic case of Newton versus Einstein. During the 20th century, Newton’s theory of gravity was repeatedly “falsified” by observations: for example, by predicting only half the observed bending of light by the sun’s gravitational field.

The point that some theories where previously considered unfalsifiable and therefore not scientific was discussed.

The false assumption is made that a so called “falsification” is always valid. If a mistake is found in the falsification, a “disproven” theory becomes an un-disproven theory. Also what is called pseudo scientific by scientists need not always remain so. If a theory is found to make testable predictions, it becomes scientific. The boundary of what is empirically testable and untestable is always changing.

But whatever one regards as the essence of science – black-and-white falsification or subtle shades of grey – in the end it is still empirical observations that decide if a theory gets taken seriously. “At some level, you cannot give up the idea of falsification,” says Krauss. “Rumours of the death of science have been greatly exaggerated.”

AC1

PS Feyerabend was not mentioned if you were wondering.

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed was recently released in the cinemas. It apparently argues that Darwinism is incompatible with religion (which is a false dichotomy) and that it caused the holocaust. I almost want to watch it out of morbid curiosity!

AC1