Spirituality and Science: the Reductionism Fallacy
Reductionism comes up quite often in discussing religion and spirituality in relation to science. From time to time I find myself discussing this subject here and on the discussion threads of other blogs and thought it worth doing another post on this topic.
One of my professors had a memorable phrase for reductionism: “nothing buttery.” Examples:
Jane Doe is a collection of subatomic particles interacting in a particular manner. Therefore, she's “nothing but” a bunch of subatomic particles. But if this were true, then back when she was a kid, her mom would have called her in for supper with, “Hey! Subatomic Particles! Time to eat!” Probably not.
Another example: We know that brain wave activity occurs when we think or have any kind of experience – say, for example, a religious or spiritual one. So any thought or experience is supposedly reduced to being nothing but patterns of brain waves. But notice how nobody ever says, “A penny for your pattern of brain waves . . .”
The fact is that qualitatively new phenomena emerge when subatomic and biological stuff is put together in certain ways. It's informative and often useful to know how our working parts work, but you and I are not nothing but collections of subatomic particles and our thoughts and experiences aren't nothing but brain waves.
One of my professors had a memorable phrase for reductionism: “nothing buttery.” Examples:
Jane Doe is a collection of subatomic particles interacting in a particular manner. Therefore, she's “nothing but” a bunch of subatomic particles. But if this were true, then back when she was a kid, her mom would have called her in for supper with, “Hey! Subatomic Particles! Time to eat!” Probably not.
Another example: We know that brain wave activity occurs when we think or have any kind of experience – say, for example, a religious or spiritual one. So any thought or experience is supposedly reduced to being nothing but patterns of brain waves. But notice how nobody ever says, “A penny for your pattern of brain waves . . .”
The fact is that qualitatively new phenomena emerge when subatomic and biological stuff is put together in certain ways. It's informative and often useful to know how our working parts work, but you and I are not nothing but collections of subatomic particles and our thoughts and experiences aren't nothing but brain waves.
Posted by Paul at 10:38 PM Permalink
13 Comments:
I found out that some of the burden is on the
Sciences to prove there ain't
even if they have to bother any saint
But they disproved Aether in the twentieth century.
Yet te rest is upon religion to prove there is a God
and not just some romantic shepherd, his ideas on his hod,
Ah, what the hey
To everyday
this waste of time
an expensive dime.
And when all the while
make a non-existant devil smile.
They're wrapped up in stupidity
while the folks all just watch and see
What's the next thing on TVEEEEE?
(ok, it's a bit of a song,
and please don't get me wrong,
I've no tune to sing along,
just a beautiful girl in a sarong)
Anyway while the (non-existant)devil's snickering....
The whole world goes on bickering
about the dumbest things I ever heard
Like should we even save this bird
If there's no others for it to continue?
I dunno...I leave it up to you.
But I love the creation
with all my heart mind and soul,
And I keep helping others in the best ways that I know.
And now I've added yet another to this, and;
We're only here for a spell. Get all the good laughs you can.
(Will Rogers)
Maybe another way of putting it is OK, whether you believe or don't believe in X, Y, or Z - how are you going to live?
MOMMYMYSTIC: I feel the same. Reductionism doesn't work, but neither do attempts to use science to demonstrate spiritual truths.
Still, like you, I find the relationship between science and spirituality interesting. If this is a UNI-verse, then somewhere down the road the two must connect…
When I was a youngster I realized one day that my thoughts followed each other, that they were connected to each other. One thought precipitated another. One thought followed another. If I was thinking about swimming, I might start thinking about the concession stand at our lake followed by thoughts of the hot dogs they sold there. I discovered that I could backtrack several thoughts to some of the original ones I had had. I found this both interesting and troubling.
It was troubling because I wondered if I had any control at all over what I was thinking or if my brain was merely mechanical. I didn't like that thought at all. I wanted to have some measure of control. So, I found myself deliberately trying to conjure up a thought that was completely my own and had not sprung up from a previous thought or arose from any influence outside of myself.
I do not know if I succeeded in my little exercise of the will, if I came up with a truly original thought. But I wonder if the fact that I even tried to assert my will is what makes me (and other human beings) more than just a conglomeration of subatomic particles and brain wave patterns.
To me too, it does feel as if I have some degree of control - although that feeling could itself be determined!
Whether we do or don't have free will, speaking personally I can say that the best things about me weren't of my making - at best I got out of the way and let them develop. (By choice?? By predetermination?? I don't know!)
But it's those best things about us, like love and faith, that matter most to me and not the degree to which we can claim responsibility for being that way (or, conversely, blame others for not being that way).
A good video discussion by Keith Ward of scienc amd religion that kind of says what you siad is here.
I wish they taught religion in the schools not in a sectarian way but as an academic subject. A lot of contemporary discussion rehashes matters that have been well thought out already, sometimes decades ago - and sometimes centuries. For example, when people today repeat the teleological argument for God's existence not knowing that's what they're doing and that its logical flaws were articulated in the Middle Ages.
If we do not have free will, does this necessarily mean we have no will at all and no power at all to make conscious choices and decisions for ourselves that are important? Choices that go way beyond deciding between vanilla and chocolate ice cream?
I suppose it is true that we can't take much credit for turning out nicely if we were blessed with good parenting and a good education and good health. But I can't imagine not giving lots of credit to the person who was disadvantaged from the start and had to struggle to overcome it all and then succeeded. That person deserves credit. Don't you think so? What could possibly be wrong with giving that person credit for his success?
I wish you would write some more about free will.
I've just used your comment as the basis for my next post... thanks!
So while we can experience our part and parcelness to the universe, so to speak, there is also a sense in which we're not the universe, isn't there?
Love and Blessings,
AngelBaby
Post a Comment