Tro og viden

En tilbagevendende debat i danske medier handler om forholdet mellem religion og videnskab. Tilsyneladende mener man, at der kun findes de to måder at forholde sig til verden på. Debatten føres kun i religiøse - ikke i naturvidenskabelige - kredse og formålet er altid at redde troen fra videnskaben. Det gøres naturligvis bedst i form af et angreb, og angrebet består altid i at forsøge at vise, hvor fattig "naturvidenskaben" er i sit "menneskesyn".

Noget meget mærkeligt ved den debat er, at den næsten altid fremstilles som en debat om forholdet mellem "tro" og "viden". Man forestiller sig åbenbart, at man på den ene side har "tro" og "religion" - og på den anden side "viden" og "videnskab". Det er tydelivis en ekstremt sejlivet opfattelse, at så snart man taler om tro, er man inden for religionens domæne. Engang imellem opdager religionernes forsvarere dog, at videnskabsmænd også taler om tro - hvilket straks får dem til at forsøge at bevise , at videnskab i virkeligheden er religiøs tro! Men tro er jo på ingen måde noget specielt religiøst. Efter den mest almindelige definition er viden "justified true belief" - altså en begrundet sand tro/formodning. Jeg tror, at der er kameler i Sahara. Jeg har rigtig mange gode grunde til at tro, at der er kameler i Sahara. Hvis der faktisk er kameler i Sahara, så kan jeg sige, at jeg ved, at der er kameler i Sahara. Hvis jeg ikke tror, at der er kameler i Sahara, selvom der faktisk er det, kan jeg ikke sige, at jeg ved, at der er kameler i Sahara.

Tro er altså en forudsætning for viden - uanset om man kalder sig videnskabsmand eller religiøs. Heraf følger *intet* om videnskabens karakter af religion. Religion har på ikke patent på begrebet "tro". Lige nu *tror* jeg, at klokken er ca. kvart i ti om aftenen. Det giver mig på ingen måde et religiøst forhold til spørgsmålet om, hvad klokken er.

Det, denne debat i virkeligheden drejer sig om, er altså forholdet mellem videnskab og religion. F.eks. vil man gerne have svar på, om man ikke fornuftigvis er nødt til at antage, at universet blev skabt og ikke bare opstod af ingenting. Man synes at mene, at hvis svaret er "jo", så må videnskaben bøje sig for religionen. Men det spørgsmål, man her stiller er jo et fuldstændigt neutralt logisk spørgsmål. Man er slet ikke nået til religion endnu. Selv hvis svaret er "jo", følger der *intet* om, hvad vi så skal mene om - eller stille op med - en evt. skaber af universet. Hvem siger, at skaberen er god? Hvem siger, at skaberen skal tilbedes? Hvem siger, at vi skal gøre, hvad han ønsker? At forsøge at svare på de spørgsmål er en helt anden diskussion end at forsøge at svare på, hvorvidt universet er skabt eller ej. Kreationisme-debatten efterlader meget stærk det indtryk, at tilhængerne af ideen om intelligent design på ingen måde gør sig det klart. De synes at mene, at når først man har fået vist, at verden er skabt, så følger alle de normative spørgsmål af sig selv. Formentlig er det aldrig gået op for dem, at der skulle være nogen vanskeligheder ved at slutte fra "er" til "bør".

Desværre synes det også at gælde de, der går direkte til de normative spørgsmål. For eksempel de, der mener, at religion har en fordel i forhold til "begrundelsen af moralen". Det synes ikke på nogen måde, at være faldet dem ind, at uanset, hvad nogen kunne finde på af udlede af påbud eller forbud af påstanden om denne eller hin guds eksistens, ville man altid kunne stille spørgsmålet: "Hvorfor?"

Forholdet mellem religion og videnskab er, kort sagt, det, at en religion er et tankesæt, der under henvisning til en eller flere løst funderede *logisk/videnskabelige* hypoteser (f.eks. at universet må være skabt) forsøger at udlede forskrifter for, hvordan livet bør leves. That's it. Og kan vi så ikke komme videre...

Winchester ' 73 - Groundbreaking or deeply traditional?

It seems to me that Anthony Mann's Winchester '73 (1950) suffers severely from a heavy-handed and highly moralistic script by Borden Chase. Much has been said about the fact that James Stewart's character is at the verge of madness and some see this as a sign of complex morality. The logic seems to be that the presence of a mentally unstable hero surely must express an attempt to deconstruct the myth of the hero. However, this view overlooks the simple fact, that the extreme emotions of the hero are not first and foremost expressions of his own disposition but caused by the severity of the crime committed by the bad guy. It is true that one could imagine less extreme reactions to this crime - but that is just what makes Lin McAdam a hero: his sensitiveness and his deep moral integrity. A Western Hamlet, so to speak.

In other words, the morality of the movie is disturbingly primitive. We have a sensitive and highly moral hero on one hand and an extremely slimy bad guy on the other. This is stressed right after Lin McAdams has killed his brother. High Spade - the trusty friend of Lin McAdams who throughout the movie has served as our source to the history of the McAdams-family, is sitting on the doorstep to a stagecoach together with Lola. She is anxiously waiting for Lin to return but High Spade slowly rolls a cigarette and says:

"Well, that's how it was. The old man sired two sons. One was no good...never was any good"

and then gives us a list of the crimes of the bad brother. He is in no hurry. He knows that the good brother will be the one returning from the shoot-out. He does, and after the obligatory enthusiastic embrace by the worried girl, the camera zooms in on the sign on the "1 in a 1000"-rifle which states that it was won in a competition. The whole scene is one long justification of the murder and the effect is that the movie seems to be disappointingly traditional in its morality: there are good guys and bad guys and the bad guys has to die for their sins whereas the good guys are rewarded with a pretty girl with a heart of gold and with the admiration of society.

The Searchers - An anti-revenge movie?

In my opinion, John Ford's The Searchers (1956) is an anti-revenge movie that makes the point that love, not revenge, is the cure for bitterness. Ethan is exceedingly bitter when the search begins. But face to face with Debbie, his love for her wins over his hate of anything indian and he appears to be much more at peace with himself at the end of the movie.

But it is not a sappy resolution of bitterness such as the one in "The Naked Spur" og "The Far Country" (both by Anthony Mann and from 1953 and 1954, respectively) where James Stewart (once again) gets the girl and everything is good. Ethan is still a loner at the end of the movie. With all his experience and knowledge of the dark sides of humanity, he does not belong in the almost satirically portrayed "normal life".

An interesting parallell is Henry King's The Bravados (1958), which is clearly an anti-revenge movie. Gregory Peck is on a very similar search for a girl abducted by ruthless bandits whom he has very personal reasons to hate. He finds the girl, and kills the bandits - except the one which makes him realize that the bandits are not guilty of the crime he hates them for! At his return to the village of the abducted girl he is celebrated as a hero - but the irony is very sharp! "You will always be in our hearts", the sherif says in his speech. "Thank you - and in your prayers...please", Gregory Peck answers. The priest of the village, to whom Peck has just confessed, praises Peck for not being like other men in his shoes, who would excuse their crime by saying that the bandits were evil and deserved to die anyway. It is heavily hinted that the villagers are not among those who understand the fine line between justice and murder.

In this day and age where so many seem to think that a really good western is one where a tough guy gives the bad guys what they deserve, it is interesting to see that two of the most powerful westerns ever made are anti-revenge movies.

Venstre - et bredt og folkeligt parti?

Anders Fogh Rasmussen sagde idag på Venstres landsmøde:

- I sidste århundrede var det som om, at det var Socialdemokraterne, der havde førstefødselsretten til regeringsmagten i Danmark. Men nu har vi vist, at Venstre får en tredje valgperiode og kan lede det politiske arbejde. Dermed er der skabt et nyt mønster. Et nyt mønster med Venstre som det brede folkelige parti, der ligeværdigt kan påtage sig den politiske ledelse af Danmark.

(Citeret fra Berlingske Tidende, lørdag d. 17/11 2007)

Han har tilsyneladende glemt, at Socialdemokraterne dengang, de var brede og folkelige, var et langt større parti end Venstre. Venstre er nu langt om længe blevet ligeså store som Socialdemokraterne på disses hidtige lavpunkt!

Venstre er med andre ord langt fra at være et bredt, folkeligt parti. De er snarere end højre-version af Socialdemokraterne. Spørgsmålet er, om denne opsplitning af socialdemokratisk politik er udtryk for, at danskerne dybest set er meget enige - eller meget splittede?

Formentlig først og fremmest forvirrede. Ingen - hverken Anders eller Helle - har endnu fundet den tidsvarende model for det brede folkelige parti.

Some recent shots

Just to get this blog going again are here three shots from a fairly recent visit with my son, Sikker, to our family retreat near Gribskov, Denmark. click on the images, if you would like to see them in larger versions.

A rose in late sunlight

Shot across the fence of a small garden in Guldbergsgade - one of the strangest streets in all of Copenhagen because of its intense mix of people with all kinds of income-level and ethnic background. On the one hand it's a street that's kind of tucked away - for years it was a street with *very* little traffic. For this reason it was often used by less kind people to dump worn out (or stolen) cars. It was not uncommon to see "new" old cars every week - without license plates and with broken windows (often without doors and seats as well). In recent years the area has seen a tremendous growth in small shops, restaurants, kindergartens - and one of Copenhagen's most popular cinemas. For this reason it is now a very popular street with all kinds of trendy people moving around between the local drunks :-)

First day at the next level

Kirstine had her first day in kindergarten today. The kids in the kindergarten always enjoy the new kids first day (or first days). It's great to meet the new cellmate - and it's also interesting to meet the new parents. Do they listen to kids? Will they play? Will they help getting the pears down from the pear-tree?

Just testing mobile blogging...

I should be sleeping now...

A few more "After the rain"-shots

The wheather changes fast in Denmark this summer - so it is quite challenging to plan anything that depends on the wheather. On the other hand this gives lots of possibilites for photography. Massive bursts of rain suddenly stops and strange and beautiful light rules for a while. Grabbed these shots while playing with Kirstine after taking her home from daycare yesterday.

A Rainbow over Copenhagen

A fantastic rainbow over the popular café-area, Sankt Hans Torv, on Nørrebro in Copenhagen. People were all over the place taking photographs of this rainbow - coming out of the cafés where they had been hiding for the massive rain today :-) I had to look after my kids who were busy dancing in the pits of water around the most ugly fountain in Copenhagen (possible even: in the world) - so I couldn't concentrate very hard on photography :-) But I do promise to get my sensor cleaned very soon!

A very short visit to the National Museum

Went to the National Musem of Denmark with my son, Sikker. Unfortunately, we had been too slow to get going, so the musem were closing only twenty minutes after we arrived. As usual the museum guards were awfully pushy when they were telling the children and their parents that time was up. We went for a quiet stroll through an "after the rain" Copenhagen instead.