Schnappschuss # 6, 10. Februar 2025 | Quantenmechanik trifft Theater: COLLISIONS Uraufführung am 14. März. Ein philosophischer Diskurs über Gott, Wissenschaft und die Grenzen des Wissens.
The truth conditions (repeatability, falsifiability etc.) for scientific statements all involve an ability to reliably predict and manipulate what might be called "states of the world".
Scientific truth is inescapably pragmatic - the power to predict and the power to instrumentalize.
As such it is enormously useful, but not more than this. At any one moment it is the set of currently most practically efficient cognitive nets that we have available to project upon the world. It helps us to survive and flourish and its interpersonal character is a vitally important glue for society.
But...
It has no metaphysical or ontological implications.
In particular, it cannot deny the legitimacy of alternative cognitive nets for other (less instrumental) aspects of our existence. To talk of gods, souls, beauty, goodness, qualia, etc. is to invoke a different cognitive enterprise that aims at a completely different understanding of human experience. Science is ultimately about control. Art, religion, morality, spirituality, mythology, superstition etc. are about something more like a personal awakening to more fundamental, non-instrumental regions of experience. They do not conflict with (and cannot be disproved by) science because they they are engaged in a wholly different pursuit.
You are right, I think. I would just make one point, which is the most important of all, for me, in this discussion around religion and atheism: As I say in the article, I see God as something coming from the personal need of a person to project some kind of non-real power into their life and their environment. There is nothing wrong with that.
I can 100% accept this personal need, and as you do, I put it on the same level as souls, beauty, goodness, hope, etc. I am a theatre guy, fiction is my daily business, after all.
There is one big point for me, though: I do not accept if the level is changed. In other words: God does not exist as gravity exists.
This, I think, is essential in communication, and in society. If we, as a society, talk about WHAT IS, then God is excluded. Not religion, of course, this freedom must be protected (although I do not anything positive in religion). But God must not be on the table when we talk about how things are (in a society), and how to live together as a society. May this man marry that man? There must be no God in this kind of decision. In other words: I must not be obliged to deal with your God.
In theatre, as in art, in music etc, there is always a clear line when fiction begins, and where it ends. This line in religion is often blurred, in most of the cases it is nonexisting. There IS an important difference between truth and fiction. There IS a difference between *this is the world as it is* and *this is the world as I want it to be*.
We must fight for keeping this line sharp. If we don’t, we are in big trouble.
Oh wie spannend! Mit meiner unschuldigen Frage wollte ich keineswegs einen Gottesbeweis heraufordern- weiss ich doch, dass die Existenz dessen, was wir Gott nennen, nicht bewiesen werden kann. Ebenso wie die Nichtexistenz nicht bewiesen werden kann. Das alles befindet sich jenseits dessen, was wir wissen können, ist also Glaube. Auch dass Menschen womöglich einen Gott brauchen, beweist nicht dessen Existenz. Berge, Seen, Wälder sind auch nicht da, weil ich sie brauche.
Ach, Christine, SO unschuldig ist die Frage ja nu nicht!
Es ist, wie Du sagst. Allerdings gehe ich einen Schritt weiter und sage: Wir wissen heute ziemlich genau, dass es einen Gott NICHT gibt. Alles andere ist Fantasie. Die ist auch wichtig, keine Frage. Aber die Unterscheidung zwischen Realität und Fantasie ist wesentlich, denke ich. Da sie meist NICHT getroffen wird, werden Kriege geführt, Menschen aufgehängt, Frauen in die Küche geschickt und Mädchen mit 10 verheiratet.
Das sehe ich anders. Wir wissen unglaublich viel, aber es scheint unendlich viel zu existieren, was wir (noch) nicht wissen. Dann gibt es bekannte Grenzen des Wissbaren. Z.B. können wir niemals wissen, was vor dem Urknall war. Dafür wurde der mathematische Beweis erbracht. Wir wissen auch nicht, was sich in Zukunft ereignen wird. Zum anderen gibt es spirituelle ERFAHRUNGEN. Die haben mit Fantasie nichts zu tun.
I see it like this:
The truth conditions (repeatability, falsifiability etc.) for scientific statements all involve an ability to reliably predict and manipulate what might be called "states of the world".
Scientific truth is inescapably pragmatic - the power to predict and the power to instrumentalize.
As such it is enormously useful, but not more than this. At any one moment it is the set of currently most practically efficient cognitive nets that we have available to project upon the world. It helps us to survive and flourish and its interpersonal character is a vitally important glue for society.
But...
It has no metaphysical or ontological implications.
In particular, it cannot deny the legitimacy of alternative cognitive nets for other (less instrumental) aspects of our existence. To talk of gods, souls, beauty, goodness, qualia, etc. is to invoke a different cognitive enterprise that aims at a completely different understanding of human experience. Science is ultimately about control. Art, religion, morality, spirituality, mythology, superstition etc. are about something more like a personal awakening to more fundamental, non-instrumental regions of experience. They do not conflict with (and cannot be disproved by) science because they they are engaged in a wholly different pursuit.
Here I am again!
Thank you, Richard.
You are right, I think. I would just make one point, which is the most important of all, for me, in this discussion around religion and atheism: As I say in the article, I see God as something coming from the personal need of a person to project some kind of non-real power into their life and their environment. There is nothing wrong with that.
I can 100% accept this personal need, and as you do, I put it on the same level as souls, beauty, goodness, hope, etc. I am a theatre guy, fiction is my daily business, after all.
There is one big point for me, though: I do not accept if the level is changed. In other words: God does not exist as gravity exists.
This, I think, is essential in communication, and in society. If we, as a society, talk about WHAT IS, then God is excluded. Not religion, of course, this freedom must be protected (although I do not anything positive in religion). But God must not be on the table when we talk about how things are (in a society), and how to live together as a society. May this man marry that man? There must be no God in this kind of decision. In other words: I must not be obliged to deal with your God.
In theatre, as in art, in music etc, there is always a clear line when fiction begins, and where it ends. This line in religion is often blurred, in most of the cases it is nonexisting. There IS an important difference between truth and fiction. There IS a difference between *this is the world as it is* and *this is the world as I want it to be*.
We must fight for keeping this line sharp. If we don’t, we are in big trouble.
Thank you very much, Richard!
It is a very intriguing consideration.
Of course, I agree only partly. But for laying it out, I need more time. I'll be back with a longer, more differentiated answer!
Thanks again!
Richard, part of my answer to the question you raise is in my comment to Christine's post below!
Oh wie spannend! Mit meiner unschuldigen Frage wollte ich keineswegs einen Gottesbeweis heraufordern- weiss ich doch, dass die Existenz dessen, was wir Gott nennen, nicht bewiesen werden kann. Ebenso wie die Nichtexistenz nicht bewiesen werden kann. Das alles befindet sich jenseits dessen, was wir wissen können, ist also Glaube. Auch dass Menschen womöglich einen Gott brauchen, beweist nicht dessen Existenz. Berge, Seen, Wälder sind auch nicht da, weil ich sie brauche.
Ach, Christine, SO unschuldig ist die Frage ja nu nicht!
Es ist, wie Du sagst. Allerdings gehe ich einen Schritt weiter und sage: Wir wissen heute ziemlich genau, dass es einen Gott NICHT gibt. Alles andere ist Fantasie. Die ist auch wichtig, keine Frage. Aber die Unterscheidung zwischen Realität und Fantasie ist wesentlich, denke ich. Da sie meist NICHT getroffen wird, werden Kriege geführt, Menschen aufgehängt, Frauen in die Küche geschickt und Mädchen mit 10 verheiratet.
Das sehe ich anders. Wir wissen unglaublich viel, aber es scheint unendlich viel zu existieren, was wir (noch) nicht wissen. Dann gibt es bekannte Grenzen des Wissbaren. Z.B. können wir niemals wissen, was vor dem Urknall war. Dafür wurde der mathematische Beweis erbracht. Wir wissen auch nicht, was sich in Zukunft ereignen wird. Zum anderen gibt es spirituelle ERFAHRUNGEN. Die haben mit Fantasie nichts zu tun.