This article is a response to “Things on Heaven and Earth”, which was published last week.
Jimi Hendrix is a god. When I hear “Voodoo Chile (Slight Return),” chills run down my spine. I cannot escape the thought that he is a deity exiled to Earth for some transgression, and he is using his guitar to call out to the pantheon to take him home. What words can possibly do this image justice? The closest I can come is to say again that Jimi Hendrix must be a god.
So is that statement true? Is Jimi Hendrix a god? It depends on how you look at it. If you take the definition of a god (someone with supernatural powers, immortal, etc) and compare it to what we know of Hendrix (human being, born in Seattle in 1942, died in 1970) then the statement is clearly false. But if we analyze the statement differently and look at it as an expression that compares the transcendental emotions brought on by his music to a religious experience, then it seems the statement carries an element of truth, albeit a metaphorical one.
As Karen Armstrong states in her book, Battle for God, the Greeks had two concepts of truth, which they referred to as mythos and logos. Logos expressed scientific or logical truths, and mythos expressed truths that were metaphorical. Logos is objective truth and the domain of logic and mathematics; mythos is subjective truth, the domain of art, literature and myth.
From the perspective of logos, then, the statement about Jimi Hendrix is false. From a perspective of mythos, it can be true, depending on your point of view.
It has often been said that science and religion ask different questions, and this is true. Science wonders how old the universe is, for example, while religion ponders what it means to have a soul. More important, though, than the questions they ask is the language they use.
Science uses the language of mathematics. Its questions are asked, and its responses are given using math. If there is a debate, both sides agree that scientific observation, experimentation and logical reasoning must be used to resolve it.
Religions, on the other hand, use a language of symbols. As Joseph Campbell illustrated in Masks of God: Occidental Mythology, religions are not talking about events in the past in the same way as a history book, but instead they are trying to use narrative and symbol to illustrate those transcendent religious ideas that are impossible to explain in mere words.
The Hindus say that atman (soul or true self) is Brahman (life force or God). The Buddhists speak of karma, reincarnation and nirvana. The Christians say that you must follow Christ to live forever in heaven. None of these claims conflicts with science. They are not subject to proof or measurement, and at least historically they were not meant as factual claims in the same way we think of things today. They are expressing ideas using a particular system of mythological symbols and following a set of rules different from those of science.
In basic math, we all know that if you add a+b, you get the same answer as if you add b+a. However, there are some mathematical objects where this is not true. If you try to prove something using the rules of one system, arithmetic, in a place where they don’t apply (a non-commutative group for example) you get gibberish. If you try to prove something in logos using the rules of mythos, the same thing happens.
This is the why religion runs into so much trouble when it tries to answer scientific questions or attack scientific conclusions using the Bible as a source. It is trying to prove something scientific using a religious set of rules.
In the late 1700s and early 1800s, the discoveries of Newton showed the world to be a carefully organized mechanical place, where precise physical laws governed the interaction of all things. As James Turner pointed out in his book Without God, Without Creed: The Rise of Unbelief in America, religious groups, particularly American Protestants, were quick to take advantage of these new discoveries and remind everyone that the machine needed a designer. Hence, the world of science reinforced the world of religion, and religion moved from relying on symbols to illustrate beliefs towards using science to justify beliefs.
With the discovery of evolution in the 1860s, the laws of magnetism in the 1880s, (and later relativity and quantum mechanics in the early 1900s) the world of science no longer appeared to be one of a carefully designed machine. The scientific determinism that religion had used to support its position had turned into evidence against it.
There was another movement that took place in the late-1800s. The idea that the Bible was a work of historical fact, rather than one of symbols and metaphors, began to gain traction. At the Niagara Bible Conference from 1878 to 1897 and in 1910 at the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, the doctrine of inerrancy of the Scriptures was confirmed.
This moved a section of Protestant Christianity out of the realm of symbol and metaphor, the realm of mythos, and into the realm of science, logos.
Now here is the narrow context in which my colleague, Alex Knapp, was correct in his article “Things on Heaven and Earth”, in which he stated that science rests on four assumptions (it is interesting to note that these assumptions, though credible, cannot be proven):
(1) There is an objective reality;
(2) This objective reality can be correctly perceived by human beings, directly or indirectly, through the operation of the physical senses;
(3) The mechanisms of this objective reality are governed by certain, unchanging natural laws; and
(4) Said natural laws are discoverable through deductive and/or inductive reasoning through the observations of the senses.
When fundamentalist Christian interpretation claims that the Bible is inerrant, it is making a factual claim that can either be verified or falsified through scientific means. The claim that Earth is only 4,000 years old can be measured and shown to be false. The claim that evolution did not and does not occur because God created all the creatures in Genesis can be attacked scientifically and shown to be false. Even the claim that homosexuals are cursed by God can be tested using studies on genetic predisposition.
So in a broad sense, science answers questions about the observable world using observation, experimentation and mathematical reasoning. Religion, on the other hand, deals with metaphysical questions using symbols and narratives. One is logos, one is mythos, and both of them have their place. It is only when religion tries to usurp the realm of science that the two become irreconcilable.
Most religions do not challenge the principles of science, and science likewise does not challenge religious tenets. Just as it is impossible to disprove the existence of a sufficiently vague God, it is similarly impossible to prove the existence of one. The idea that religion and science can coexist still holds true.
It is science and fundamentalism that cannot.
“Shaka…when the walls fell.”
Well put.
What if Logos becomes your religion by changing god to a math equation? And simply changing the unknown to not yet discovered.
Jon, do you suggest that one is immune from criticism for making wholly unjustifiable assertions about objective reality, such as the existence of souls and of apodictic ethics that control our eternal fate? Assertions that affect our lives here on earth?
Adam,
I am suggesting that whenever religions make claims about objective reality that they are open to criticism and disproof thru scientific methods. However, a claim about the existence of a soul or an afterlife is not a claim about objective reality; it is a metaphysical one, and it can’t be verified or falsified using science. Historically these ideas were understood to be symbolic attempts to express those things beyond direct human comprehension. It is only in recent times that some religious adherents have tried to express symbolic ideas as objective ones, and that is where science has the upper hand.
As for the role of religious reasoning in public discourse, that is different topic. Many people feel, and I would agree, that dialogue about public policy should be conducted in secular language using secular ideals, but again, that’s a whole other debate.
Paul,
Then you would agree (more or less) with mathematician Paul Erdos, who said that God wrote all the elegant proofs in a Book. He didn’t always believe in God, but he believed in the Book.
I find your dichotomy misleading and dishonest. Whether an omnipotent entity that has a plan for our lives exists, whether we will live forever, whether our actions determine our eternal fate, whether there exists an ethical code that governs that determination are all questions about objective reality and not mere symbols. The metaphysics tag may be appropriate here, but it’s certainly not exclusive.
But let’s say I buy your definition. Are you suggesting it’s OK to assert things if there’s nobody around to prove you wrong? Isn’t that… just a terrible f**king ethos?
Jon,
I beg to differ on this. These are philosophic metaphysical assumptions, and they are entirely subject to proof, if need be.
I have to agree with Adam on one point. The assertions that I possess a soul, there is a supernatural arbiter of right conduct, and if my actions do not conform to that arbiter’s determination of right conduct, my soul will experience torture after my physical death are all assertions about the nature of objective reality. One does not need to be a fundamentalist to believe any of these statements to be literally true. That these statements cannot be proven or disproven by science has no bearing on the fact that they are clearly assertions about how objective reality works.
I might further submit that concepts like ‘truth’ and ‘fact’ are at the root of logos and cannot be applied to anything that comes out of mythos. facts are, by definition, statements of information concerning objective reality, and truth is merely the set of all correct facts. You would clearly not describe your claim that Jimi Hendrix is a god as a fact in the literal sense. But even the most laid back Christian would still tell you that the existence of a soul and the commands from God to behave in certain ways are literally true facts. Assertions of this nature cannot be realistically be described as symbolic.
Thanks for the reference Jon. I am now a Paul Erdos fan. I enjoyed the piece.
Adam,
However you wish to describe questions about souls, an afterlife, god, etc, those are not scientific claims because they are not verifiable or falsifiable. I think we all agree on that?
As for asserting things when no one is around to disprove them: If I assert that the Flying Spaghetti Monster has blessed me with his Noodly Appendage, that is a claim that cannot be disproved (the Noodly Appendage is undetectable, and maybe only a metaphor). Now, since the claim can’t be supported by sufficient evidence, I would suggest that no one listen to me. But if I want to wander about claiming making obscure metaphysical statements about a pasta-based deity, I don’t see why that should be prohibited.
Alex,
If you can prove the existence of objective reality, please go rite ahead.
Prohibited, probably not. Considered undesirable, loathsome, irresponsible, unethical, or just plain crazy? Absolutely.
Tom,
You and Adam do have a point about people making religious or metaphysical assertions as objective. I will agree that most Christians today think of the soul, for example, as a real physical thing that people have, and heaven/hell as a real places where people go after death. I think this is an example of how the conception of religion has moved towards the realm of science, and how religion has lost its trappings of mystery and symbol.
I don’t think that a conception of a soul, or god, or an afterlife must be objective however. As you pointed out, people today, particularly in the West, view these claims as objective. It is possible to think of the soul, for example, not as a thing made of particles and possessing energy, but as a symbol for the inexpressible quantity that makes you ‘you’, or as something similarly vague. Historically, and particularly in the East, religious ideas were not viewed as accurate descriptions, but rather attempts to describe things which are beyond human understanding. Think of the famous story of the blind men and the elephant.
So I agree that these claims are generally put forth as objective. I’m not sure that they must always be.
I disagree with your historical analysis, but I take the point.
The central idea behind both science and religion is the ability to predict an outcome. While science focuses on the ability to test an expectation, religion is based on faith. Science can provide reproducible experiments that will establish theories into laws, where religions are philosophies that attempt to provide an expectant outcome for the most unreliable test subject there is: humanity. Religion is the search for a defintion to humanity’s role in nature, not the defining actions of nature itself.
As a long-time victim of fundamentalist Christianity, there is no doubt that there are many that are trying to define nature through religion. The fact that they cannot be dissuaded is similar between all fundamentalist groups, regardless of their beliefs and intentions. Religion and science can co-exist, as long as they each stay in their respective fields. The thought that a person’s soul can be tested like the Monty Python witch/duck scene is ludicrous.
And by the way, Immortal is not a defining trait of a god (big or little “g”). Christ, Buddha, most of the 330,000 Hindu gods, and others all had a birth and a death. The ability to die and come back may be a better defining attribute. See if Hendrix comes back during judgement, or is reincarnated as the next Joe Montana or something.
“Prohibited, probably not. Considered undesirable, loathsome, irresponsible, unethical, or just plain crazy? Absolutely.”
That’s a matter of opinion. Personally I find the idea of a pasta deity harmless, amusing, charming, and highly probable. Opinion is never absolute.