Election 2010 and philosophy of science!

In the light of this years election, I thought I would write a series of blog posts regarding the intersection of religion and politics. This will all be losely tied together, but maybe not in a thematic manner - after all, this is a blog.

So why write about religion and politics at the same time anyway? As I've taken a closer look at these two different topics and their connections, I've started to think that they're really not that different. In fact, I think they are, for the most part, the same topic. This off course may seem totally confusing, displaced, anti-modern, or just simply a matter of poor judgment. However, of this series of posts, I will try to demonstrate my point from various perspectives (that, again, sometimes quite losely tied to each other).

So where to start? I'm not starting with today's topic because it is necessarily the one that have to be started with. In my view, three fair staring points are

- Empirical = legitimate?

- The trouble with defining religion

- Religious sciences and theology / empirical research and political ideology

and so these three parts is what I will try to elaborate on, first and foremost. I will start by addressing the first headline:

Empirical = Legitimate?

We live in a world of science. Especially natural science forges the way we see the world. Not only in an academic context we do away with the metaphysical (things above/beyond the physical world as we can measure, weigh and test it). When people start talking about beliefs, religion, god, ghosts or aliens even, the rest of the room generally gets uncomfortable, wondering when the crazy person will shut up about this nonsensicle topic, and return to conversating about something normal (measureable), like Comspopolitans, Sex and the City 2 (gotta be good right?), and the (generally depressing) breaking news of the day.

So what are we doing here? We are effectively saying that "everything that we cannot talk about with a relative amount of certitude is not really worth talking about". I beg to differ. Ludwig Wittgenstein (the great philosopher focused on language's function on "organizing" reality) once wrote that the only meaningful way of using language is by way of science and describing factual states in the world. Apart from scientific language there are no meaningful language. But, Wittgenstate adds, the most important questions in life are of a different kind. These questions are the mystical or the unsayable which we have to stay quiet about. Wittgenstein's Tractatus consists (according to himself) of two parts; the written and the unwritten. And it is the unwritten part - about the unsayable - that is the important one (again, according to himself).

Be it as it may with Wittgenstein's position. We humans still (although not comfortable speaking about ghosts or the likes) have still found holes in this theory of not talking about wimsical mystical stuff, thus making life unbearable. There are indeed topics that we cannot stay off, blurry as they may be. One perfect example would be love. Even though we may not have much of value to say in terms of empirical evidence towards love, this is a topic that we have agreed that it is probably not best viewed through the lense of science. This I would argue is an important feature in humanhood.

Ok, so we don't view as a topic where science provides all the answers, but trust other things; experiences, emotions, and so forth. Admittedly no one can give an account of exactly all the things love is in their life, nor describe in a precise surgical manner how an emotion feels "on the inside". Still it doesn't hinder us from getting to grips with, and taking seriously, this aspect of life. The same thing goes for the purpose within life. [Here it is relevant to distinguish between the purpose "of/in life" and "within life", as the purpose of/in is more often than not a type of statement connected with a revelatory divine purpose. Purpose within life however is something that all humans create for themselves, insofar as they have the possibility of choice - for instance; I choose a career in medicine/interior design/being a stay-at-home-mum/dad.] Even though science cannot exactly attribute to us the best path to pursue in life, this is not stopping us from pursuing somekind of interest, dream, hobby or line of work. In fact, if science told us to divorce our spouse and quit or job we would probably refuse adamantly.

So why is all this important? Because this happens to be the model in which science came about and is undertaken today as well. Science starts from a presupposition about what questions are worth pursuing and looking further into, and are dependent on a view of how the world is constituted and that there is a possibility of gaining knowledge about this state of things. What questions scientists pursue is not dealt out randomly via the big science-machine - people pursue a career in science by the same reason people pursue a career in architechture or music or road construction: because it seems like a good and purposeful enough thing to do. So even though science have standards of empirical testing and "objectivity" (we'll get back to you later mr objectivity!) these standards are set by way of presupposing that the world is arranged in a manner where it is possible to apply these standards, and that the outcome of this scientific undertaking will somehow be meaningful and contribute to something.

This science of philosophy 101 is adamant to understanding how reality is percieved and constructed, and to remind us that the way we lead our lives in general is not informed by science, even though our way of talking about the world (in the second instance) may be informed by this. This arrangement begs the question of what competence science really have, and leaves a more open-ended answer than "it's not worth talking about things we don't understand (yet)", or that of Wittgenstein's. There may not be a scientifical way of talking about this, that is meaningful within the scientific context itself, but this shouldn't allude us to think that the important mystical stuff (like love of spouses, humans or even God for that matter) is not worth talking about. I would say that this is the cornerstone on which all great art is built: there is something within that needs to be expressed and it takes a non-verbal expression (or in the case of music: a musical underlining of the verbal matter) in order to celebrate and convey the feeling.

That's all for today. And believe it or not, there will follow a connection to this topic that will tie it together with religion and politics as I've promised.

best

Jonatan