But given that agreement spells death for discussion, it may appear complacent and possibly even defeatist to say I’m glad we agree on most things. The fact is I believe we do.

It remains for me to thank you for the weight and quality of your contribution, for now and to close with the indelible words of Dave Allen.

“And may your god go with you.”
Ken Allans last blog post..Reflecting on what I’ve learnt so far

I could challenge the somewhat solipsistic-sounding “your problem is your problem entirely, like the air you breathe” (I paraphrase) comment, and counter that the air I breathe, if toxic, is not only my problem in any pragmatic sense.

But I sense you’re talking on a more abstract level?

As for talking about the same Jesus, I’m not sure. “The” Christ is a title applicable to anyone who has achieved the same insights Jesus allegedly did, and thus have “the Christ” in them. Jesus “the” Christ is in this view not part of any holy Trinity, not a god, but simply one of many other philosophical types throughout history that realized that “the Kingdom of Heaven is within us.” So that Jesus is a person, and a teacher of Good News that has nothing to do with believing he’s God and died so the rest of us could die and go to heaven.

Anyway, not too many words in me tonight. (And being an American mongrel, I have the blood of the Irish and probably just about every other race you can imagine in me. We Americans are mutts. But I am a lover of words, for sure, as you are.)

‘Til next time.

You said that you “have no problems at all, at all, with long comments”. Do I detect an Irish dialect? Or does your keyboard have a stammer?

I acknowledge that a civilised question deserves a civilised answer. Your question was anything but uncivilised.

The ‘it’ you refer to is ‘the idea that a parallel could be drawn between the wave-particle duality in physics and the concept of knowledge being either a thing or a flow’. I took the trouble to insert the explanatory parenthesis “(not the paradox, but that the parallel was drawn)” in order to clarify this. I apologise for not being explicit enough.

In your 2nd bulleted argument, the point of my exposition of the word ‘problem’ was an attempt to convey the relationship between the belief that a problem may exist and the problem as defined by the person who thinks that it is a problem.

I have no disagreement with your contextual definition “as a situation in which the confusion between knowledge and belief causes less than optimal consequences in society’s attempts to effectively handle problems (social, environmental, political, more)”.

I must admit that the way you express this tends to verify what I’d assume about your use of an Irish dialect and possible related idiosyncrasies - that you would not say something in 100 words if you could express it in 101.

I also agree with your expanded elucidation, though I feel that it is expedient to stay nearer the point rather than explore sinuous ramifications of it.

You said that in your belief “(c)limate change, poor public works, and disease and illness” qualify as problems. At the same time you raised the point that perhaps I meant otherwise.

No Clay. I certainly do not suggest that any problem you perceive could be anything other than your problem. Nor would I dispute the ownership of such a perceived problem. The problem belongs entirely to you, as does the air you breath.

I did not use the description “Jesus the Christ”. But I do recognise that by using it in your discourse to exemplify the existence of a hierarchy of orders of belief, you needed to draw some distinction between Jesus the Christ and my less specific description. I believe that you and I are taking about the same person here.

Your commentary in parenthesis which immediately follows, seems to confirm what I said about verifiability, whether from the standpoint of religion or not. In this regard I wonder at your need to clarify what I meant by “Jesus Christ”.

I am not suggesting otherwise that “(b)elief contrary to the evidence is no argument.” In fact, you have underlined my conviction that belief could indeed be construed as sophistry.

Your point about the need for me to clarify the ‘science’ is well taken. You say you are a humanities specialist with a background in the history of ideas, not a scientist. I am a specialist in philosophy with a background in science. It seems that the overlap of our respective backgrounds and understanding is considerable.

And so I agree with you. The child’s belief, that it is scientific to use the result of 18 tosses yielding 18 consecutive heads, would be naive. I would not go so far as to describe it as pseudo-science. I’d reserve that description for someone who had more knowledge and experience than a child and who believed it was scientific to use that sort of result as certain proof of the outcome of the next toss being a head.

In essence, the scientific method is simply one where a hypothesis is put to the test. This is done by drawing together as much reproducible observational evidence as possible in support of that hypothesis.

But it does not finish there. There also has to be some way the hypothesis can then be used to predict some hitherto unobserved, but nevertheless observable phenomenon (or outcome).

Verification of the hypothesis becomes strengthened when observations are made that show the prediction to be correct. This is an iterative and exhaustive process which, in fairness to those who dispute the scientific method, can never provide certain, unequivocal proof. Good scientists know this.

That the sun rises tomorrow is implicit in all that is known and understood about the sun, the earth and how these bodies appear to behave with respect to each other. The knowledge of this can be, and usually is, diverse in the extreme and can originate from a wide variety of seemingly unrelated disciplines. That this is so simply shows the verifiability of the hypothesis that the sun rises tomorrow – nothing more.

As you say, true scientists go back to the drawing board to improve their understanding of everything they thought they knew. They do this when they are confronted with new evidence that puts their original and seemingly verifiable hypothesis into dispute.

I’d say we were well matched on the weigh-ins. I look forward to the next bout.

Ka kite
from Middle-earth

I’m having a hard time following your points, though. Help me out.

1. What is the “it” referring to in the last line of your first long paragraph? And which, if any, of the three metaphors are you suggesting is the (most?) correct one?

2. What is the point of your exposition of the word “problem”? I define it, in this context at least, as a situation in which the confusion between knowledge and belief causes less than optimal consequences in society’s attempts to effectively handle problems (social, environmental, political, more).

To expand on that, as responses to global warming, scientific answers seem preferable to faith-based shoulder shrugs that “it won’t matter when we’re in heaven” (and yes, thank Goodness, some green types from the Abrahamic traditions interpret “dominion” as a call for “stewardship” of Nature and earth, and even the Pope recently decreed energy waste a “sin”); as a response to hurricane defense, science and engineering are more reliable than prayer; similarly, in the case of illness and disease, a trip to the physician is a more reliable solution than a trip to the faith healer.

Climate change, poor public works, and disease and illness qualify as “problems” to me. Are you suggesting otherwise?

The question of whether Jesus the Christ - important, that “the” - ever walked the earth is a “problem” of a lower order, though belief in it has secondary effects in problems of a higher order, like the examples I just named.

(By the way, historians have long been aware that there is very little compelling evidence that the Jesus of the Gospels, who performed miracles and rose from the dead, ever did exist. Priest, theologian, and New Testament professor Tom Harpur’s The Pagan Christ extensively catalogs all the evidence and arguments of historians and theologians against the existence of an historical Jesus, and Earl Doherty’s The Jesus Puzzle includes much of this online.

For the record, there are counter-arguments such as the “argument from embarrassment,” so I’m not saying the question is closed. Most people, though, don’t seem to realize it’s open.)

My point, though, is that I can’t see how your response helps us with pragmatic questions of historical and natural “fact.” Did Jesus walk the earth? Do I? Does Ronald McDonald? We can seek evidence to “know” the answer. “Belief” contrary to the evidence is no argument. If you’re suggesting otherwise, how is that not sophistry of the least helpful sort?

Given that a finite probability exists that the child may succeed in tossing 18 heads in a row, such results could seriously be construed as being definite proof that the 19th throw shall return a head like all the rest. The child may well believe that this is a true and correct scientific way of going about verifying it, and after proving it, may see no reason to attempt to verify it again.

I’m a humanities specialist with a background in the history of ideas, not a scientist, and that preface is necessary before I respond to this last argument. Maybe a more qualified specialist in science can weigh in here.

My response is this: The case of a child tossing 18 heads in a row could by no means be “seriously construed as … a definite proof” of anything. That’s naive pseudo-science that omits the most vital elements of any real scientific verification, namely: peer review, duplication of the experiment, and falsifiability. The species-wide community of scientist would repeat the experiment, get different results, and put that child’s theory to rest.

(I’m talking about the coin-toss, not the sun “rising” - two wildly different examples that don’t belong in the same argument, but interestingly, if the earth ever DID stop spinning, thereby giving evidence that the sun does NOT always rise, scientists would be the first to say, “Back to the drawing board, boys. There’s more to this rotation and momentum of the earth thing than we ever knew, so we have to study it afresh.” We may as well add that as soon as evidence surfaces that Jesus definitely existed or the fossil evidence has been misinterpreted, true scientists - humble and respectful before evidence, wherever it leads and whatever sacred cows, scientific or otherwise, it flattens in its course - true scientists, as I say, would go back to the drawing board to improve their understanding of everything they thought they “knew” in light of this new evidence.)

–

That’s about as much as I have in me right now. Please let me know if I’ve misunderstood you, and thanks for taking the trouble to weigh in.

Clay

Knowledge is a very complex entity. Recently I have had a conversation with some of the leading lights in how civilised humans presently regard knowledge. I was amazed at the conceptualisation that had to arise so that a parallel could be drawn between the wave-particle duality (paradox) in physics and the way that knowledge is currently viewed (as a thing or a flow). The third ‘thing’ that was brought into the conversation alluded to the possible existence of knowledge being of a form that paralleled a quantum (these are my words). At first I could not believe it (not the paradox, but that the parallel was drawn). Sadly, I have to admit to you here, I found it to be true.

Another consideration I’d like to broach is that of ‘the problem’. I use this expression to describe any entity that we may have bother with, misunderstanding over or just puzzlement about. Problem solvers tell us that before a problem can be solved it must first be recognised as a problem. I have no problem with that idea. Others who differ with that opinion may find it problematic – get my drift? I sleep at nights while they continue discussing.

It comes down to belief. Mrs Credo believes the problem exists. Mr Faith does not.

I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow at some predictable time, given my location and pending the weather allowing a clear observation to be made so that this belief can be verified. Others may claim that it doesn’t need any verification; that is simply not scientific of course. Argue as another may, there is no way that it can be proved (or disproved) until that point in time occurs. For some, belief is implicit.

I believe that Jesus Christ walked this earth. I introduced the last sentence that way for, frankly, the statement that Christ walked this earth is scientifically verifiable whether I am religious or not.

What we (you and me perhaps) understand about the ‘scientific’ way is based entirely on what we may agree to call a ‘scientific method’. It’s like the discussion going on at the moment about whether kids should have a few print based verifications rather than what may amount to a thousand and one citations on the Internet in support of their assignment. It is a premise about verification, a hypothesis that’s based entirely on belief.

Even the scientific method cannot prove or disprove things with any surety without having belief. A high-school child who tosses a coin in the air 6 times and records 6 heads may be misled into thinking that a pattern has arisen that makes it almost certain that the seventh toss will also be a head. If the same child decides to take the experiment further by using a verification method, the same result may be obtained the exact same probability exists that another six heads can be thrown consecutively. And it is the same for the third set of six throws (not so all three sets one after the other

Given that a finite probability exists that the child may succeed in tossing 18 heads in a row, such results could seriously be construed as being definite proof that the 19th throw shall return a head like all the rest. The child may well believe that this is a true and correct scientific way of going about verifying it, and after proving it, may see no reason to attempt to verify it again.

Will the sun rise tomorrow?

My favorite link in return is Bishop John Shelby Spong. This hour-long lecture (video) he gave a few years back is as riveting in its honesty as it is perplexing in its claim that there’s still something godly there. And his Call for a New Reformation is Martin Luther meets the Enlightenment. I’m not exaggerating. It’s the most piercing critique from a man of the cloth about the challenges of science to the credibility of the creed. Luther didn’t challenge the basic dogma on scientific grounds. Spong does. Historical stuff.

I think much of this conversation supports the idea that people can’t seem to come to an agreement as to what it means to “know” something.

As for my own experience as a public school teacher in Central Florida, the schools in our district fully respect a student’s right to practice his/her faith during school hours. We have strict policies about not planning tests or “important” instructional periods on days that would interfere with religious observances. The majority of our school board also believes that ID should be taught along side evolution. As a non-believer, I’m in the minority and I dare not share my views with my students. I’ve learned to respond to their questions about my “faith” with a patient, “How I practice my faith is a private matter.” It’s sad really; it’s the only thing about who I am that I keep from my students (and the rest of the faculty as well).

Adrienne - I think, maybe, the reference to the UN is a stab at their support for IB programs. That’s how I interpreted it.