The Nature of Belief
A very interesting discussion on the nature of belief on radio program "All in the Mind" last weekend
"Why do you believe what you do? Is the human mind an organ designed for belief? Why are we so convinced of the existence of things we can't prove or see? Are some beliefs healthy and others pathological? Margaret Wertheim, author of Pythagoras' Trousers, and The Pearly Gates of Cyberspace; cognitive scientist Professor Max Coltheart, co-editor of Pathologies of Belief, and theologian, film-maker and cult-buster, Reverend Dr David Millikan, join Natasha Mitchell to unravel the perplexing power of belief."
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/allinthemind/stories/2006/1717032.htm#
Transcript and mp3 available.
The discussion ranges across a wide variety of issues surrounding belief, religion, science, cognitive science and philosophy. I've picked out just one of the many interesting points below - a comment from Margaret Wertheim - to rant about:
"But I think many people feel that there is as it were some aspect of humanness that isn't reducible to neuro-physiological processes, which doesn't necessarily mean to say they're suggesting that it exists independently of the body."
The use of the word "reducible" always gets me in these discussions. "Reducible" as if its a bad thing. I've sometimes heard arguments dismissed with a wave of the hand as "oh that's just reductionism". A better word to use in this context, to try and avoid the pejorative use of the word, is simply to say "explained". I don't see any contradiction between explaining mental processes in neuro-physiological terms, and talking about humanness in terms of self, soul, spirit, etc etc - they are different levels of explanation and usefulness. Explaining something doesn't make it meaningless, doesn't "reduce" anything (as if something important has been boiled away, leaving some sort of scum in the beaker). Explanation adds to understanding, but may well lead to discarding of some other beliefs.
Ultimately I'm with John Lennon, with respect to the future of relgious belief:
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...
Yes I'm dreaming.
"Why do you believe what you do? Is the human mind an organ designed for belief? Why are we so convinced of the existence of things we can't prove or see? Are some beliefs healthy and others pathological? Margaret Wertheim, author of Pythagoras' Trousers, and The Pearly Gates of Cyberspace; cognitive scientist Professor Max Coltheart, co-editor of Pathologies of Belief, and theologian, film-maker and cult-buster, Reverend Dr David Millikan, join Natasha Mitchell to unravel the perplexing power of belief."
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/allinthemind/stories/2006/1717032.htm#
Transcript and mp3 available.
The discussion ranges across a wide variety of issues surrounding belief, religion, science, cognitive science and philosophy. I've picked out just one of the many interesting points below - a comment from Margaret Wertheim - to rant about:
"But I think many people feel that there is as it were some aspect of humanness that isn't reducible to neuro-physiological processes, which doesn't necessarily mean to say they're suggesting that it exists independently of the body."
The use of the word "reducible" always gets me in these discussions. "Reducible" as if its a bad thing. I've sometimes heard arguments dismissed with a wave of the hand as "oh that's just reductionism". A better word to use in this context, to try and avoid the pejorative use of the word, is simply to say "explained". I don't see any contradiction between explaining mental processes in neuro-physiological terms, and talking about humanness in terms of self, soul, spirit, etc etc - they are different levels of explanation and usefulness. Explaining something doesn't make it meaningless, doesn't "reduce" anything (as if something important has been boiled away, leaving some sort of scum in the beaker). Explanation adds to understanding, but may well lead to discarding of some other beliefs.
Ultimately I'm with John Lennon, with respect to the future of relgious belief:
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...
Yes I'm dreaming.
1 Comments:
i dont know that anything can really be said to be either "explained" or "reducible". Once you think something has been "explained" then you stop thinking about it and stop looking for better ways of explaining and understanding it. In much the same way that believing in something in an absolute religious sense stops you from noticing or thinking about anything that contradicts that belief.
We make models and maps that help us to understand and survive. Neurology along with all the other sciences and practices which might be called "reductionist" or "materialist" are models that have been created by many people over many years and have proven to be incredibly useful in understanding ourselves and our universe and most importantly have lead to great improvements in our ability to treat certain illnesses, or build new technologies, etc.
BUT they do not describe or "explain" all of the universe, or all of the human mind, or "humanness", they are just models that are useful for certain things, in certain circumstances.
I don't believe anything, but I have many suspicions.
I strongly suspect that a world "external to," or at least independent of, my senses exists in some way.
I also suspect that this world shows signs of intelligent design, and I suspect that such intelligence acts via feedback from all parts to all parts and without centralized sovereignity, sortof like Internet; and that it does not function hierarchically, in the style an Oriental despotism, an American corporation or Christian theology..
I somewhat suspect that Theism and Atheism both fail to account for such decentralized intelligencce, rich in circular-causal feedback.
These suspicions have grown over 22 years, but as a rather slow and stupid fellow I do not have the confidence to proclaim any of them as certitudes or "beliefs". Give me another 22 years and maybe I'll arrive at firmer conclusions.
Post a Comment
<< Home