Friday, July 26, 2013
No Contradiction between Genesis and Darwin
Note: The text below uses "true" and "false" in a manner that perhaps provides a useful illustration of Ludwig Wittgenstein's concept of Sprachspiel or language-game. However, in positing the Genesis account as an example of "other practices than dividing truth from falsehood" it incorrectly implies that true and false are concepts which belong particularly in the realm of science. This does not do justice to Wittgenstein's complex understanding of truth.
Most of us wonder about our origins.
There have been two apparently contradictory accounts of it.
There is the account in Genesis of how God created heaven and earth and all living things in six days. And there is Darwin's account of how things evolved over enormously long periods, the mechanism of which is genetic variation and natural selection.
To many there is a hopeless contradiction between these two accounts.
The notion of language games helps us here, for it focuses on action rather than truth and falsehood.
We use the terms "true" and "false" in certain contexts.
Chiefly when we are investigating whether something is so or not, as in a scientific investigation.
Darwin was imbued with the methods of science, observing, sorting the true from the false; using the methods of scientific inquiry to give an account of the origins of things.
But why can't there be other ways of accounting for the origin of things, using other language games, ones that focus on other practices than dividing truth from falsehood?
A person for whom the practices of worship and prayer are central to his or her life might respond to fundamental questions in a different way and might find the account of origins in Genesis more real.
His search would be conducted differently from a scientist's. He might pray for guidance. This would not necessarily produce an answer in the scientific sense, for he would be seeking different satisfactions.
So there need be no contradiction between Genesis and Darwin, but what is important is to be clear on the nature of one's commitments.
Source: John M. Heaton & Judy Groves. Introducing Wittgenstein: a Graphic Guide. (Icon Books, 2009) pp. 120-122.
Most of us wonder about our origins.
There have been two apparently contradictory accounts of it.
There is the account in Genesis of how God created heaven and earth and all living things in six days. And there is Darwin's account of how things evolved over enormously long periods, the mechanism of which is genetic variation and natural selection.
To many there is a hopeless contradiction between these two accounts.
The notion of language games helps us here, for it focuses on action rather than truth and falsehood.
We use the terms "true" and "false" in certain contexts.
Chiefly when we are investigating whether something is so or not, as in a scientific investigation.
Darwin was imbued with the methods of science, observing, sorting the true from the false; using the methods of scientific inquiry to give an account of the origins of things.
But why can't there be other ways of accounting for the origin of things, using other language games, ones that focus on other practices than dividing truth from falsehood?
A person for whom the practices of worship and prayer are central to his or her life might respond to fundamental questions in a different way and might find the account of origins in Genesis more real.
His search would be conducted differently from a scientist's. He might pray for guidance. This would not necessarily produce an answer in the scientific sense, for he would be seeking different satisfactions.
So there need be no contradiction between Genesis and Darwin, but what is important is to be clear on the nature of one's commitments.
Source: John M. Heaton & Judy Groves. Introducing Wittgenstein: a Graphic Guide. (Icon Books, 2009) pp. 120-122.
Labels: philosophy, religion and science, truth, Wittgenstein
Sunday, April 04, 2010
Quotable: Natural
Student: Professor Wittgenstein, (slaps self hard on face) you can't know this pain. Only I can.
Ludwig Wittgenstein: Are you sure you know it? You don't doubt you had a pain just then?
Student: How could I?
Ludwig Wittgenstein: If we can't speak of doubt ... we can't speak of knowledge, either ... It makes no sense to speak of knowing something in a context where we could not possibly doubt it therefore to say I know I am in pain is entirely senseless ...
Student: I just can't see it, professor. It somehow just seems natural to me to say I know I'm in pain.
Wittgenstein: Oh, natural. Tell me, why does it seem more natural for people to believe that the sun goes around the earth rather than the other way around?
Student: Well, obviously, because it looks that way.
Wittgenstein: I see, and how would it look if the earth went around the sun?
Student: Um, well I suppose ... yes, I see what you mean.
Source: Derek Jarman's film Wittgenstein, beginning at 34:12, 45:35.
Ludwig Wittgenstein: Are you sure you know it? You don't doubt you had a pain just then?
Student: How could I?
Ludwig Wittgenstein: If we can't speak of doubt ... we can't speak of knowledge, either ... It makes no sense to speak of knowing something in a context where we could not possibly doubt it therefore to say I know I am in pain is entirely senseless ...
Student: I just can't see it, professor. It somehow just seems natural to me to say I know I'm in pain.
Wittgenstein: Oh, natural. Tell me, why does it seem more natural for people to believe that the sun goes around the earth rather than the other way around?
Student: Well, obviously, because it looks that way.
Wittgenstein: I see, and how would it look if the earth went around the sun?
Student: Um, well I suppose ... yes, I see what you mean.
Source: Derek Jarman's film Wittgenstein, beginning at 34:12, 45:35.
Labels: art and literature, philosophy, quotations, truth, Wittgenstein
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Quotable: "facts of science are not enough"
... when Logic congeals into all-encompassing and perfect-seeming theories, then it can actually become a very evil con trick. Wittgenstein has a point, you see: "All the facts of science are not enough to understand the world's meaning."Source: Character of Bertrand Russell in Logicomix: An Epic Search for Truth by Apostolos Doxiadis, Christos H. Papadimitriou, Alecos Papadatos, and Annie Di Donna (New York: Bloomsbury, 2009) p. 296.
Labels: art and literature, philosophy, quotations, religion and science, truth, Wittgenstein
