Ken Miller's talks at KU

Could we agree with Miller that both faith and science are gifts from God? Why, or why not?

I think that a huge problem with "moving on" to matters other than scienceis that one has to confront the claims of religious evolutionists which we tolerate as meaningless in science, but which cannot be supported by science, philosophy, or epistemology. Science is limited, of course, however it follows the basic evidentiary processes that are just about all that can be considered to lead us to "factual truth".

And of course it's true that it isn't about the science, and ID is "dead" in the Johnsonian sense of attempting to get academia to think well of ID (how long ago did that boat sink?). That's why ID or some other version of creationism will be with us for a very long time, because the results of all evidence-based investigations, from science to philosophy, fail to support the beliefs of the religionists.

Many know that we're completely willing to tolerate their beliefs, like we do astrology and alien visitations, which is exactly what they don't like. Such tolerance is at least somewhat contemptuous, no matter what our intentions are, because we're simply putting up with nonsense so long as it isn't directly harmful.

So sure, argue beyond the science. Many of us do that most of the time anyway, and of course those who want science to verify their religion are unreceptive to what we say. UD writers definitely know that the issue isn't science, which is exactly why they complain about science as atheistic--it doesn't allow for "God" as the Cause without a good chain of evidence leading up to the "god conclusion".

Like it or not, science is atheistic (or more broadly, non-theistic)in the sense that UD claims that it is. It doesn't rely upon God, it doesn't find God, and it considers the whole "God issue" to be irrelevant. In the traditional sense, this is atheistic, for past cultures did not separate spiritual claims from the rest of life, while science quite obviously does (there being no evidence for these "spirits").

For more philosophical religionists this can be tolerable. For many Americans, the sense that science is "of God" is their operating "principle", so that if science finds God to be irrelevant in factual matters, ipso facto this is a strike against this science. Science is judged by its agreement with their religion, and not the other way around.

So they will continue to raise the science issue even if we do not, since they are affronted by the fact that science doesn't support religion. We will simply be stuck in the same sorts of arguments that we have been in for the last decade or so, arguing on many fronts, but with the same theme of scientifically ignorant people whining about science excluding God simply because it is "atheistic". The fact that they clearly don't know what they're talking about has never stopped them in the past, and it won't stop them in the future.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

One thing I really liked about his talk was the revised textbook warning sticker warning students that this book deals with science etc. I liked it because often times the ID people tend to try to isolate evolution from the rest of science, as if scientific knowledge is a series of little isolated fiefdoms. For instance I have had students ask me if I believe in God at some point when I am talking about evolution. I point out to them that no where else in science do we expect God or other metaphysical concepts to enter into the discussion-we talk about cellular respiration or protein synthesis and not once is God or the soul or any sort of supernatural causation for life invoked* and if we think of what happens with evolution as an extension of the processes and laws we see here and now, then there is no logical reason to invoke supernatural causation in the past as an explanation about HOW living things came to be in their current form. The metaphysical WHY is a different sort of question.

*students may invoke their favorite deity for help with my exams though.

Almost forgot, more good reporting on the talk is by the angry astronomer at:

http://angryastronomer.blogspot.com/2006/09/miller-at-ku-part-1.html

"Let's move the discussion away from science - ID is dead - and onto the real issues of the religious and philosophical beliefs we hold and how we can live well in a society in which there is a wide diversity of such beliefs."

One of those "real" issues, indeed the elephant in the room, is the perceived conflict between a literal reading of the Bible and science. And there is much to debate in this regard, as I have pointed out many times in this forum. I am persuaded by recent scholarship that the original Hebrew version of the Bible, as opposed to the popular but demonstrably sloppy and erroneous English translations, can very reasonably be interpreted literally and yet not conflict with any tenet of science, including evolution, the age of the earth and universe, and many other issues.

This must become part of any program to heal the divide between secularists and religionists. Otherwise, it seems to me, we are just going to do more spitting in the wind.

Thanks for making this available. I have boosted the volume slightly using Cool Edit Pro and put all 8 files into one MP3 here

http://www.bringyou.to/KenMillerKS092006.mp3

Lowered the bit rate, final size is about 22 meg. Download at will.

Phil P

The old problem of demarcation between science and religion. I think the idea of separate magisteria is correct, but that people often don't notice when religions make scientific claims. I don't like it when children are indoctrinated with religious ideas, but if you can prove that the ideas are false (in the "beyond-reasonable-doubt" scientific sense) then you are dealing with lies.

For example, the Catholic claim that Mary rose bodily into heaven is a scientific claim. By any scientific standards, it's false. As are water-into-wine, the 6-day creation and any number of flood myths. The fundamentalists in the US would therefore argue that if you teach in a publicly-funded classroom that human beings don't float in air, that water doesn't change into wine but is only an ingredient of it, that the world was never submerged in a flood and didn't come into existence in 6 days, that you are contradicting a religious tenet and therefore falling foul of the First Amendment.

So if Catholic little Johnny asks his science teacher "Did Mary rise bodily into heaven?", then the teacher should be able to say "no". It seems to me that the definition of religion for First Amendment purposes must exclude any reference to the possibility of gods/spirits etc having any effect on the physical world. Any such religious claim should be permitted to be contradicted in a science classroom. That includes Christ physically coming to life again after being crucified. Fine, he can live on in our hearts or in heaven or wherever, but did that man really come back to life? No. Is there any contemporaneous evidence for his existence? No.

Does praying help you get better? No. Is Kennewick Man one of our tribe? No. Is science a gift from God? I object to that question as it presupposes God's existence, but science won't give you the answer.

A religion shorn of any reference to the physical world has nothing to fear from science.

Roland: "For example, the Catholic claim that Mary rose bodily into heaven is a scientific claim."

No it is not. It is a historical and faith claim. The Catholic teaching is that she probably died although this part is not explicitly defined (the Latin has expleto terrestris vitae cursu or "having completed the course of her earthly life"), and that she was taken to heaven immediately after her death. It is called the dogma of the Assumption of Mary celebrated August 15. No Catholic claims to be able to demonstrate that using the scientific method. It is not a scientific claim. Yes, I understand Dawkins thinks it is. I have read where he talks about the Assumption in Devil's Chaplain or his other books and articles.

Roland: "So if Catholic little Johnny asks his science teacher 'Did Mary rise bodily into heaven?', then the teacher should be able to say "no"."

The Catholic science teacher at a private Catholic institution should be able to answer, "Yes, I accept it as a matter of faith. But science can say nothing about such miracles."

Same with the resurrection of Jesus. It is a historical claim, and argued on historical grounds by folks like William Lane Craig and Gary Habermas. It only presupposes that God exists.

Biologist Darrel Falk explains in Coming to Peace with Science:

"The fact is that Christianity has core beliefs that are not accessible to the scientific method....The resurrection, existence of the Holy Spirit and immortality are all beyond the realm of scientific testability. Even testing the power of prayer will probably not bring scientists to their knees. The history of life on earth, however, is in a much different category. It has been possible to explore this using scientific methods....For the past century and a half, thousands of scientists from disciplines as diverse as physics, geology, astronomy and biology have amassed a tremendous mass of data, and the answer is absolutely clear and equally certain. The earth is not young, and the life forms did not appear in six twenty-four-hour days. God created gradually....We now know more about the nature of divine action. We now know a little about how God created life, and any time we understand something new about the activity of God, it brings us one step closer to God." (Falk, Coming to Peace with Science: Bridging the Worlds Between Faith and Biology, page 213, 214)

Phil P

One of those "real" issues, indeed the elephant in the room, is the perceived conflict between a literal reading of the Bible and science. And there is much to debate in this regard, as I have pointed out many times in this forum. I am persuaded by recent scholarship that the original Hebrew version of the Bible, as opposed to the popular but demonstrably sloppy and erroneous English translations, can very reasonably be interpreted literally and yet not conflict with any tenet of science, including evolution, the age of the earth and universe, and many other issues.

— Carol

Jack, what you have made clear, and what is also clear from posts from Brady, Les Lane, et al, at your site, is that the idea that science and religion are compatible is just lip service for the massess.

And it is doubly aburd that you are putting a spin on Kens remarks by saying that "he might not agree with everything he said then".

Baloney!!! We are supposed to rely on some remarks that "he told you at dinner" and your claim that he just slapped some of this together on the way out here?

I don't believe it. I lack belief in your claim.

But as far as civil discussions, that is not going to happen as far as most of the atheists are concerned.

Just look at PZ Myers tone over at his site, and the tone of the aforementioned posts at your site.

Although I thought at one time that ther could be accomodation, it is clear that the atheists are the ones who will have no respect for opposing views and that this so called "reconciliation is a joke".

If the atheists ever get control, they will try to bend us all to their will, just have they have always done historically. Atheism is, in the end, an irrational belief.

Materialism and atheism are not "metaphysical" conclusions that don't necessarily follow from the nature of science. They're necessary consequences of the application of logic to our attempts to understand our world.

The scientific concept of 'material' extends itself every time a new discovery about the composition of the world is made. Everything that we know about is 'material'. The things which we don't know about right now, but that interact with the material world (that is, the things that exist in some way), are material. If a thing exists, we call it material, and thus it is logically impossible for an existant thing to be nonmaterial. One is just another way of talking about the other, and vice versa.

As for god -- the traditional conception of gods makes as much sense as an immovable object meeting an irresistable force. The very category is logically inconsistent. Concepts of divinities that do not discard reason are available, and those gods are certainly possible -- but there is absolutely no evidence that any of them exist, in the same way that there is absolutely no evidence that the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus exist, despite both being logically permissable, though perhaps not compatible with current physics.

If Miller thinks he can cause his irrational faith to become rational by asserting that it is over and over again, he's a fool. We need to reject his false arguments as invalid; no matter how beneficial his correct arguments about evolution are to our cause, we cannot value truth while pandering to convenient falsehood.

Oh yes, YOU CAN CALL ME, atheism is the irrational position. The people who believe in an all-pervasive intelligence that exists, cannot be detected, constantly directs the world without ever changing it, changed it in obvious and grotesque ways in the past while loudly communicating with various people, and now has erased all evidence of its past actions, except for a series of Iron Age writings, which emphasize faith and belief in this entity despite the absolute lack of physical evidence for it and the hostility of logic to the very possibility, yes, they're the ones who are being rational.

To Call me what you want: Panda's Thumb policy is that "Posting under multiple identities or falsely posting as someone else may lead to removal of affected comments and blocking of the IP address from which those comments were posted, at the discretion of the management."

You need to pick an identity and stick with it rather than changing your posting name at will.

If the best strategy atheists have come up with to combat 1) intolerance towards scientific theories and 2) intolerance towards atheists, is to stoop to stereotyping and name-calling their Christian pro-science counterparts, then I am afraid this whole endeavor, as embodied by PT, is a complete failure.

PZ wants Ken Millers of the world to tell their fellow religionists that "we're not threatening to you." LOL

Come on atheists. Do you realize just how stupid and naive that sound?

Let me ask for a clarification. It is not ok for Ken Miller to redirect the focus of Christians towards combating atheists. It is, however, quite ok for PZ Myers to redirect the focus of atheists towards combating Christians?

To lurker: Several things. One is civility - you need to find a less antagonistic way to express your thoughts if you want to particpate in this thread.

Second, your statement about PT is out of line. PT is a group of people who don't agree on everything, and we've made it very clear that the thoughts of any one poster do not speak for the whole PT group.

Last, of course atheists and theists disagree with each other. Whether any particular person feels threatened by the existence of people with other metaphysical beliefs is an individual matter - it is not a necessary consequence of having different belief systems.

I've just listened to Ken Miller's main talk and, speaking as a Christian, I agree with everything he has said. I have said it before, and I'll say it again, this is not a debate about whether or not God exists. Those are philosophical arguments. This debate is about science/reason versus religious dogma.

I had no problem with the geology I learned at school, or the astronomy I studied through the Open University. It came as a total shock/surprise to me that many of my fellow Christians believed in young Earth creationism etc. From when I first heard Carl Baugh talking nonsense on TV through to reading anti-science rubbish on the AIG website, I soon realised that YECism was something I could or never will accept. It still mystifies/puzzles me that so many well educated people in the church so willingly accept this (YECism). I am also appalled as to why so few leaders in the evangelical wing of the church cannot see why this so wrong and I am surprised that so few speak out against groups like AIG, ICR etc. Mark my words, the church will lose this battle, in the long run.

In a fairly recent TV series by the BBC, Journeys to the centre of the Earth, Dr. Iain Stewart talked a little bit about the history of science. One of the events that changed the thinking of scientists, apparently, was the great earthquake in Lisbon in 1755:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1755_Lisbon_earthquake#Social_and_philosophical_implications

Seemingly, every church in Lisbon was destroyed. If phenomena like earthquakes were acts of God, then why did God destroy the very places that were erected to worship him ? It had huge philosophical implications across Europe.

Lurker, to whom are you addressing your comment? Who in this thread has made the statements about it being OK to do X or Y?

My point, and I beleive Ken's point, is that people of different metaphysical positions need to address those issues directly with each other rather than making evolution the target of the discussion. Discussing things with people is different than "combatting them."

This thread is not about PZ Myer's post - it is about my post. If you want to respond to PZ, you should go comment there, I think.

Well, Jack, you wrote regarding defaming atheists:

"We have to resist..."

Who is "we?" That's quite my point. Why does a Christian have to resist attacking atheists as the scourge of society?

You also had mentioned PZ twice in relation to Ken Miller. Clearly those statements aren't devoid of context. So why suddenly are we not allowed to discuss the context of this post?

"Second, your statement about PT is out of line."

What statement? I said that if we condone members of PT bashing, then whole proscience enterprise of PT is doomed to failure.

What is terribly uncivil about that observation, when in the previous post, we had a poster claim that theists were irrational?

Lurker, you make some reasonable points here, and I'll try to answer.

You wrote, "Well, Jack, you wrote regarding defaming atheists: "We have to resist..." Who is "we?" That's quite my point. Why does a Christian have to resist attacking atheists as the scourge of society?"

As part of my personal comment I said, and I'm willing to expand on this, that the demonization of materialism and atheism as the cause of all of societies ills is flat out wrong. You may "attack atheists as the scourge of society" if you wish, and you may think that is a Christian thing to do, but I think that doing so is in fact part of the problem, not part of the solution.

You wrote, "You also had mentioned PZ twice in relation to Ken Miller. Clearly those statements aren't devoid of context. So why suddenly are we not allowed to discuss the context of this post?"

I mentioned PZ blog in passing, but I didn't discuss his thesis. If you want to respond specifically to what he wrote you should do that on his site.

You wrote, "I said that if we condone members of PT bashing, then whole proscience enterprise of PT is doomed to failure."

Not at all. People who support science differ on other issues. In fact part of the "proscience enterprise" of PT might in fact be making that clear. Note also the PZ moved all comments to his own site because he thought that was a better place for responses to take place. All of us PT'ers have a life beyond PT: PT doesn't rise or fall based on any one person or one event.

You wrote, "What is terribly uncivil about that observation, when in the previous post, we had a poster claim that theists were irrational?"

I didn't make clear what part of what post I was referring to, but I'd like us to move on rather than drag my concerns back up. Your comments are welcome if we can stay on issues.

The rationality of faith is something I find fairly slippery. There are beliefs based on evidence (I believe it's raining), beliefs based on the inability to prove otherwise (I believe there are precisely 117 gods), and beliefs in flat defiance of all known evidence (I believe evolution never happened). Which of these categories of belief is irrational?

My reading is that nearly everyone here (but by no means everyone) considers the first sort of belief to be rational, and the third sort to be irrational to the point of pitiful (meaning, those trained to actually believe this have been intellectually crippled).

So the real focus is on the category of beliefs inaccessible to science. And the issue then becomes not what posture science should adopt toward such beliefs. They lie outside the scope of science. Instead, the issue should be how helpful, useful, supportive, or whatever such beliefs are to those who hold them.

An effort is being made here, as I read it, to distinguish between non-science and anti-science. And this distinction hinges on the concept of evidence. Does evidence matter? Is the claim that Mary ascended bodily to heaven an evidence-based claim, or a statement of pure faith to which evidence is irrelevant?

Conversely, if evidence both matters and is rejected because it violates faith-based doctrine, this position can only be regarded as irrational. If it is not, rationality itself loses all meaning and utility.

Surely there are many scientists who are not atheists (whether it be Christian, Hindu, Muslim or whatever) ? Conversely, not all evangelical Christians are anti-science/anti-evolution/pro YEC.

In my opinion, a person's faith is irrelevant (despite what AIG says) in this debate, and a private matter for that individual.

"Instead, the issue should be how helpful, useful, supportive, or whatever such beliefs are to those who hold them."

And who else should evaluate this sort of beliefs in the manner you propose than the person who holds them?

"if evidence both matters and is rejected because it violates faith-based doctrine, this position can only be regarded as irrational."

But that says nothing about how this form of irrationality is not "helpful, useful, supportive, or whavever". Denial is a very human trait, precisely because all of us need time to absorb the impact of a supposed framework shattering piece of evidence. Parents have faith in their children. They want to believe that they will succeed. So, go to a PTA meeting sometime to see how parents act irrationally when told their child is a delinquent, or an underachiever.

Here's another example. It is not rational to antagonize the majority with an offensive minority viewpoint. It is not helpful, useful, supportive, or whatever. But yet PT members do it all the time. And then they hide behind the escape clause that their views do not represent all of PT. But, how does one rationally deduce this? What is different about the credibility or universality of a PT member's debunking an ID claim vs. a PT member's debunking of Christians? Nothing, except for the voice of the commenters who make it explicit. Such vigilance should neither be viewed as uncivil nor as undesired.

Posted by Flint on September 10, 2006 11:14 AM (e) The rationality of faith is something I find fairly slippery. There are beliefs based on evidence (I believe it's raining), beliefs based on the inability to prove otherwise (I believe there are precisely 117 gods), and beliefs in flat defiance of all known evidence (I believe evolution never happened). Which of these categories of belief is irrational?

Richard Wein over on PZ's blog Pharyngula ... wrote, "It seems to me that what he [Miller] is saying to creationists is this: if you want to argue against atheism then argue against atheism, not against evolution."

In my opinion, a person's faith is irrelevant (despite what AIG says) in this debate, and a private matter for that individual.

This was succinctly summarized in a comment by Richard Wein over on PZ's blog Pharyngula today when Richard wrote, "It seems to me that what he [Miller] is saying to creationists is this: if you want to argue against atheism then argue against atheism, not against evolution."

Here's another example. It is not rational to antagonize the majority with an offensive minority viewpoint. It is not helpful, useful, supportive, or whatever. But yet PT members do it all the time. And then they hide behind the escape clause that their views do not represent all of PT. But, how does one rationally deduce this?

I'd like to pick up on Jack's point that, "we need to frame issues as spanning a spectrum rather than as being dichotomous."

Creationists want to frame all evolutionists -- indeed all scientists -- as atheists. That's part of their Wedge Strategy. To do this, they are compelled to ignore scientists such as Ken Miller who combine faith with reason.

Unfortunately, some of my fellow skeptics are guilty of conflating all religious belief with biblical literalism, as well.

We non-believers need to recognize there's a wide range of belief on both sides of this divide. There is a difference -- a real difference -- between Ken Miller and Michael Behe, Reinhold Niebuhr and Jerry Falwell, John Danforth and Rick Santorum.

For skeptics to do so concedes nothing to faith. This strategy is both consistent with reality and an unanswerable refution of the creationist's Wedge Strategy.

At bottom, the creationist challenge to evolution isn't scientific. It's a political and cultural battle between authoritarians on the one hand, and proponents of tolerance, free inquiry, and democracy on the other.

The art of politics is in uniting your friends and dividing your enemies. To do that, you have to know which is which.

To defeat authoritian fundamentalism, skeptics and believers must find common ground.

Roland: "For example, the Catholic claim that Mary rose bodily into heaven is a scientific claim." No it is not. It is a historical and faith claim.

— PhilVaz

Same with the resurrection of Jesus. It is a historical claim, and argued on historical grounds by folks like William Lane Craig and Gary Habermas. It only presupposes that God exists.

The basic problem is that we have two groups of people here, the fundie Christians and the evangelical atheists, who not only believe what they believe, but won't rest until **everyone else** believes it too. And they both mis-use "science" to justify what are, in essence, philosophical opinions.

... Miller is saying to the creationists; "Your beliefs that a god specifically created humans and there was no death before the fall have been falsified by evolution." That's why Miller's attempt to placate creationists is really lame on his part. They're going to continue to see him as an atheist heathen posing as a theist.

... some of my fellow skeptics are guilty of conflating all religious belief with biblical literalism, as well.

The basic problem is that we have two groups of people here, the fundie Christians and the evangelical atheists, who not only believe what they believe, but won't rest until **everyone else** believes it too. And they both mis-use "science" to justify what are, in essence, philosophical opinions.

— Lenny

Phil P: And why is historiography not a science? (Or, more broadly, why cannot it not make use of it?)

A few people said things like "but X is not science, it is instead a philosophical view". Well, okay, maybe, but why shouldn't one's philosophy be consistent with one's science? (Or better, mutually supporting with it?)

For every shade of literal interpretation there will be a thousand more metaphorical and allegorical interpretations. Thus you'll always have a surplus of meaning for the signs in your text and if you can't come up with any, you put it aside and just believe there is one you don't know about yet. Making the Bible out as metaphor and allegory makes it easy to slide between different definitions and evade being pinned down to any meaning. No metaphorical or allegorical meaning can ever give you certainty.

Oops, misplaced a quote marker there.

Sorry.

I have argued against metaphor and allegory models of interpretation as not being a good enough model

"Not good enough" for WHOM ... ?

... but why shouldn't one's philosophy be consistent with one's science? (Or better, mutually supporting with it?)

"For every shade of literal interpretation there will be a thousand more metaphorical and allegorical interpretations. Thus you'll always have a surplus of meaning for the signs in your text and if you can't come up with any, you put it aside and just believe there is one you don't know about yet. Making the Bible out as metaphor and allegory makes it easy to slide between different definitions and evade being pinned down to any meaning.

No metaphorical or allegorical meaning can ever give you certainty."

Ah, but here's the rub: Why must we be "certain"? One of the problems I see with teaching science is that students ask for "truth". I tell them there is no "truth", just an explanation or explanations that best fit the available evidence. Sometimes Christians (and those of other faiths, too) are "certain" that what they know is right. Most things are subject to interpretation. Even scientific theories, as they explain the best available evidence, but can change as new evidence emerges. We need to let go of our demand for "certainty". Although most people would see that as "squishy" when it comes to morals, I see it as humility in the face of much that is unknown.

... here's the rub: Why must we be "certain"?

... students ask for "truth". I tell them there is no "truth",

...just an explanation or explanations that best fit the available evidence.

Sometimes Christians (and those of other faiths, too) are "certain" that what they know is right. Most things are subject to interpretation.

Even scientific theories, as they explain the best available evidence, but can change as new evidence emerges. We need to let go of our demand for "certainty".

Why we must we have faith?

Seems to me plenty of the "evils" creationists associate with "evilution" existed in abundance even back in the Old Testament days.

Homosexuality, abortion, incest, murder, war, tyranny, divorce, and most of the "evils" they list as stemming from evolution were around long before 1859, when Darwin published "Origin of Species." All of these things are just part of the human condition.

If something pre-existed Darwin, how could it be caused by his ideas?

Not that rationality has anything to do with it.

Someone here objected to what s/he thought Ken Miller was saying: that creationists ought to stop attacking evolution and attack atheists instead.

In fact, that is not what Ken said. What I believe he was saying is that some anti-theists (like Dawkins) like to claim that their science led them to atheism. In fact, science is silent on the subject of religious faith. Those who, like Dawkins, claim that science supports their atheism, are wrong. Science supports neither belief or non-belief in philosophical or religious ideas.

What Ken was emphasizing was that a clear distinction needs to be made between that which is scientific fact and that which is personal belief, whether theistic or non-theistic.

He also alluded to the great strength of science: that an atheist, a Buddhist, a Catholic and an evangelical could work together harmoniously in science, because regardless of personal faith beliefs, they all adhere to the same scientific standards.

Ken was not suggesting anyone attack atheists. He was suggesting that anti-theism supposedly based on science is a canard.

It's not good enough for anyone who wants to communicate with precision. It's not good enough to account for evidence of anything because the evidence being referred to as well as the meaning is purposely obscured. It's not good enough for it's original meaning to survive 2000 years.

Not to the degree religious texts are. Consider, no one argues about most of what Aristotle meant when he expressed a flawed theory gravity that stated all bodies move towards their natural place and, I think, heavier things fell faster than lighter things. Galileo proved him wrong and there's no arguing about interpretation. 2000 years later people are still arguing about what the Bible stories mean. Aristotle gave us a clear expression of his belief. The Bible writers did not.

He was suggesting that anti-theism supposedly based on science is a canard.

2000 years later people are still arguing about what the Bible stories mean.

At bottom, the creationist challenge to evolution isn't scientific. It's a political and cultural battle between authoritarians on the one hand, and proponents of tolerance, free inquiry, and democracy on the other.

Norm and Lenny: I moved one post of each of yours to the bathroom wall. Please don't get into personally antagonistic back-and-forths here. I want the discussion stay on issues, not people.

Thanks

People are still arguing today about what the symbolism in the last scenes of "2001: A Space Odyssey" means, too.

Of course, that doesn't shoot down a general theism, like a Deist or gnostic theism or many other weird beliefs about God. So, some vague idea of a God that uses evolution to create whatever that God wanted to (or still wants eventually to) create is still a possibility --- just like we use genetic algorithms to design things. Evolution only knocks out one supporting line of evidence for that "General Theism": The "Life appears to have been designed like a watch" Paley arguement. Only one highly specific belief about how God worked is invalidated by the evidence for evolution.

What line of argument is left for them? The anthropic universe?

Of course, that doesn't shoot down a general theism, like a Deist or gnostic theism or many other weird beliefs about God. So, some vague idea of a God that uses evolution to create whatever that God wanted to (or still wants eventually to) create is still a possibility --- just like we use genetic algorithms to design things. Evolution only knocks out one supporting line of evidence for that "General Theism": The "Life appears to have been designed like a watch" Paley arguement. Only one highly specific belief about how God worked is invalidated by the evidence for evolution.

What line of argument is left for them? The anthropic universe?

Miller, like the IDists, is trying to create a big tent that the creationists can fit into. But I don't see him having anything to build that big tent with. Where is his argument against atheism? He needs that to make a big tent. He could still have an argument against creationists and have them on his side in other arguments --- but without any arguments he has nothing.

The basic problem is that we have two groups of people here, the fundie Christians and the evangelical atheists, who not only believe what they believe, but won't rest until **everyone else** believes it too. And they both mis-use "science" to justify what are, in essence, philosophical opinions
-----------------------------------------------

Well, the "evangelical atheists" are indeed in a strange and uncomfortable position. If you walk into work and find yourself surrounded by people who believe that invisible faeries orbit Neptune and telepathically send them messages of purpose and comfort, then the obvious, instinctual gut feeling would be that these people are loonies, and you definitely wouldn't consider their beliefs to be reasonable and intelligent. Ditto for "aliens talk to my cat" or "my goldfish knows math." There is a wide swath of beliefs that we wouldn't consider rational, normal, or intelligent if a co-worker confided them to us, even if they assured us that they knew in their "heart." Revelations are not generally accepted means of information gathering, but all of a sudden....

But when 90% of the population believes it, then suddenly norms change and you have to "respect their beliefs." Suddenly you can't be dismissive. To say "we shouldn't believe in entities for which there is no physical evidence" suddenly makes you a bigot, because now you've gone and hurt the feelings of people who believe that benevolent angels watch over them. To say "you can't possibly expect me to believe something just because you told me that God spoke to you" offends pepole who do, in fact, believe that Jesus guides them in everything down to their daily shopping decisions. Belief in God is just as rational as belief in Santa Claus, but when we come to this one subject, we are expected to, instantly and on demand, suspend our normal rational faculties and not call a ridiculous belief ridiculous.

Obviously believing "in your heart" that there are leprechauns doesn't mean a lot as to the actual existence of any leprechauns, but somehow "God" is a magical word and we can't point out the glaringly obvious once that word is used. So "evangelical atheists" are a bit abrasive and intolerant at times, because they don't understand why this one subject is off-limits to rationality, and they aren't good at shutting down the part of their consciousness (i.e. their reason) on demand. So they occasionally find themselves in the difficult position of pointing out something that is both obvious and unwelcome, which of course makes them incredibly unpopular.

You replied to a post that lists two specific beliefs that evolution falsifies; special creation and no death before the fall.

Do you see those as just one belief for some reason?

And the evidence supporting evolution also falsifies the global flood and young earth beliefs.

Miller does a good job falsifying all of those beliefs in his book.

That and a god still showed up as a human and turned some water into wine and other magic tricks that Miller calls miracles.

Does Miller believe all that is historical and true, not metaphor like Lenny Flank would claim? How does one separate what is disproved claim from what is factual claim? How does he separate what he believes is myth from what he believes is fact? Does he set those claims before us as truth propositions to consider as facts? Are they up for scientific examination?

This thread expanded a lot after I crashed last night; please let me explain a little of what I meant by my statement:

I don't see the word "truth" as terribly useful in science, as our ideas must change and grow the more we know. I hope my kids are beyond even considering really old outdated ideas like "the earth is flat" to making statements like "the earth is not flat" useful (is it a perfect sphere? THAT is an interesting question). The use of the word "truth" in religion is a problem, as people have "faith" in what they believe, absent of evidence. If you call one person's belief "truth", then someone else's belief, if different, becomes "lie" or "untruth". When a particular denomination, group, tribe decides that their belief is truth and that they alone have the key to salvation, they feel compelled to either judge others who are different, convert them, or in extreme cases, hurt or kill them. All based on belief? Or based on the reading of a text that has been edited, modified, translated, etc for centuries? Here is where "truth" leaves no room for diversity of ideas or the possibility that one can expand or adjust their belief system as they learn more about the great variety of people and cultures on this planet.

I am not a religious scholar or a philosopher, so I may be approaching this with only my own interpretation of the word "truth".

Now, you can treat the Bible as such a story and enjoy it as art, but that's not faith, that's not belief, that's not being a Christian in any meaningful sense.

FYI: I deleted a recent post because it is against PT policy to post under multiple names.

All this has shown is that atheists no more want reasoned discussion than any fanatic does.

Fundamentalists come in all guises.

By the way Jack, I am gratified that you have admitted that you are deleting posts.

When Dembski or someone in that camp takes that action, they are excoriated for a sin against open discussion.

Of course, when your side does it, that is somehow different.

Right?

In the process of trying to set a world record for "most consecutive posts trying to beat a dead horse that has nothing to do with what the rest of us are talking about," norm wrote:

Aristotle gave us a clear expression of his belief. The Bible writers did not.

Um...not quite. Aristotle gave a clear expression of his understanding of an objective, real-world phenomenon. The Bible writers gave us a broad mess of insights into subjects far more complex, contradictory, and subjective than physical phenomena, such as human nature and Man's relationship to God; and we're still arguing about them because our understanding is both evolving and terminally imperfect and incomplete.

...most religion I'm exposed too is simply incohorent and it's a lie to claim it is coherent in modern forms.

If it's coherent to someone else, then his/her claim that it's coherent is not a lie; and if you said he/she was lying, you'd only look like a twit. (REMINDER: Argument from incomprehension is a logical fallacy.) Besides, just because you can't get a coherent and meaningful message out of a religious message, does not mean the rest of us have to share your limitations.

It's not good enough for anyone who wants to communicate with precision.

Speak for yourself, norm. I've known plenty of persons of various faiths, who are quite capable of communicating both moral and factual messages with precision. Not that all important ideas are "precision" in their nature...

You really have trouble with non-literal ideas, don't you? You need to get out more. Ever take a literature course?

to JB:

1. You can't generalize to "all atheists" based on the behavior of a few. I'm sure there are many atheists, including many who have posted here or on Pharyngula, that have engaged in reasonable discourse.

2. I deleted a post for the clear reason that I have warned both you and another person about: posting under multiple identities is against PT rules. That's not censorship.

The basic problem is that we have two groups of people here, the fundie Christians and the evangelical atheists, who not only believe what they believe, but won't rest until **everyone else** believes it too.

I call myself an atheist. But for those who don't understand what "atheist" means --- I might be defined as a militant agnostic: I don't know and neither do you, no matter what you care to claim without proof or evidence.

Sorry, norm, but your "militant agnostic" pose is pure BS: if you don't know which belief is right, then you cannot possibly know whether others know, either. All you're doing, in effect, is rejecting other people's beliefs and understandings out of hand, and pretending, almost as a matter of -- dare I say it? -- religious faith, that everyone else is blinded by the same fog as you are. Your intellectual posture constitutes a form of know-nothingism, in an almost literal sense of the phrase; and it mirrors almost exactly the know-nothingism of the fundie theists.

Actually, Shaffer, there have been plenty of instances in which some atheists have explicitly called for large-scale efforts to "educate" ("re-educate?") people away from all forms of religious belief; and have said that all religious beliefs should be ridiculed and debunked at every opportunity. These atheists (normandoehring and Caledonian come to mind at this moment, though there are others) have repeatedly asserted that "science" and "religion" are not at all compatible, and that "religion" must therefore be defeated in order that "science" and "rationality" be upheld. They have also, on occasion, repeatedly and deliberately misrepresented others' religious beliefs (or, at the very least, grossly oversimplified them), in the manner of wartime propagandists, to support their claims.

One prominent example of such an atheist is a guy named Harris, who recently published a book in which he pretends, among other things, that the most brutal and deranged acts of the Taliban can be said to represent "the true face of Islam."

But then, if you "don't give a flying fig whether or not anyone agrees" with you, then why are you posting here?

Please, let's not forget that we face a serious challenge.

It's not just the young earthers and IDers and their ilk who frame the debate as science vs religion - we've been doing so here as well.

But the YECs and IDers flourish because we have a scientifically illiterate society.

If we wish to change that we have to educate children and adults.

Given that most Americans identify themselves as persons of faith and that most of those are theists, framing issues in their terms may well produce good results.

You don't have to agree with him or them.

As already noted, the vast majority of Christians do indeed treat the Bible as metaphor.

...there have been plenty of instances in which some atheists have explicitly called for large-scale efforts to "educate" ("re-educate?") people away from all forms of religious belief;...

...and have said that all religious beliefs should be ridiculed and debunked at every opportunity. These atheists (normandoehring and Caledonian come to mind at this moment,...

... though there are others) have repeatedly asserted that "science" and "religion" are not at all compatible,...

... and that "religion" must therefore be defeated in order that "science" and "rationality" be upheld. They have also, on occasion, repeatedly and deliberately misrepresented others' religious beliefs (or, at the very least, grossly oversimplified them), in the manner of wartime propagandists, to support their claims. One prominent example of such an atheist is a guy named Harris, who recently published a book in which he pretends, among other things, that the most brutal and deranged acts of the Taliban can be said to represent "the true face of Islam."

But then, if you "don't give a flying fig whether or not anyone agrees" with you, then why are you posting here?

"For a modern example of the kind of society that can be fashioned out of an exclusive reliance on the tenets of Islam, simply recall what Afghanistan was like under the Taliban"

— Sam Harris

"Life under the Taliban is, to a first approximation, what millions of Muslims around the world want to impose on the rest of us.

There are three issues here. Science, religion and politics. The first two become one in the third. Ken Miller has gained prominence because of his actions in the political arena. He is respected by me because he is politically effective in combating the Christian fundamentalist assault on our public schools.

Having said that it is disconcerting to see that he is urging his fellow Christians to not attack science but instead go after atheists. This might make him more politically effective with his fellow Christians, but there are dangers down that road and he deserves critism for doing this.

I call myself an atheist. But for those who don't understand what "atheist" means --- I might be defined as a militant agnostic: I don't know and neither do you, no matter what you care to claim without proof or evidence.

All you're doing, in effect, is rejecting other people's beliefs and understandings out of hand,...

... and pretending, almost as a matter of --- dare I say it? --- religious faith, that everyone else is blinded by the same fog as you are.

Your intellectual posture constitutes a form of know-nothingism, in an almost literal sense of the phrase; and it mirrors almost exactly the know-nothingism of the fundie theists.

In fact, a quick skim of Chapter Four of The End of Faith, entitled "The Problem with Islam," does not reveal the phrase "the true face of Islam" at all.

It is certainly true that Harris pulls no punches in his examination of Islam. But when one attributes a quotation to an author, one ought to be actually quoting the source. Harris makes his arguments extremely explicit. There's no advantage to be gained putting words in his mouth.

In fact, a quick skim of Chapter Four of The End of Faith, entitled "The Problem with Islam," does not reveal the phrase "the true face of Islam" at all.

These atheists (normandoehring and Caledonian come to mind at this moment, though there are others) have repeatedly asserted that "science" and "religion" are not at all compatible, and that "religion" must therefore be defeated in order that "science" and "rationality" be upheld.

One prominent example of such an atheist is a guy named Harris, who recently published a book in which he pretends, among other things, that the most brutal and deranged acts of the Taliban can be said to represent "the true face of Islam."

They have also, on occasion, repeatedly and deliberately misrepresented others' religious beliefs (or, at the very least, grossly oversimplified them), in the manner of wartime propagandists, to support their claims.

But then, if you "don't give a flying fig whether or not anyone agrees" with you, then why are you posting here?

...the true face of Islam, which is: apostasy is punishable by death. That is a fact that no liberal exegesis of Islam is going to change. We have to find some way to change it, of course. Islam needs a reformation. But at present, it's true to say that the real word of God in Islam is that if you change your religion, you should die for it.

— Sam Harris

...a book in which he pretends, among other things, that the most brutal and deranged acts of the Taliban can be said to represent "the true face of Islam."

Part of the scientific method is the use of skeptical investigation and critical thinking. Do you see people applying those things to their religious beliefs?

Actually, norm, I do: many Christians and Pagans have, over time, explicitly changed their opinions, and their interpretations of their holy texts or other received wisdom, to accomodate new knowledge and experiences. Furthermore, those persons of faith whom I have encountered show, in general, no less capacity to think critically or assimilate new information than the atheists I've encountered. (The fact that Chiefly could post so many links to the publications of established Christian churches on this subject, right here on PT, and get no acknowledgement from you, speaks volumes about your own ability to think critically.)

So, are you taking a stand against education? Are you taking a stand against educating kids in skeptical investigation and critical thinking?

No, I'm taking a stand against uninformed and defamatory assertions about others' religious beliefs disguised as "education." You sound -- again -- like a bigoted fundie accusing all of his critics -- including the Christian ones -- of being "anti-God."

re Harris: yes, he said that in the Salon interview. Then he contradicted himself in the very next sentence, without acknowledging there was a contradiction. Harris is a shameless bigot, twisting what little he knows of religion to suit his own prejudices.

[doubletake]Bloody 'ell, norm, you're actually citing a WorldNutDaily poll as evidence to support your opinions? Then you're saying the rest of us "don't know the Bible?" ("You do not know the Bible" is a standard refrain of fundies, wingnuts and religious simpletons, and your repeated use of it, again, speaks volumes about your own mind-set and where it comes from.)[/doubletake]

CJ O'Brien wrote:

Sam Harris wrote:

"For a modern example of the kind of society that can be fashioned out of an exclusive reliance on the tenets of Islam, simply recall what Afghanistan was like under the Taliban"

The emphasis is mine. What is objectionable or misleading about this?

First, Sam Harris has not demonstrated enough knowledge of the Koran, or of how Muslims interpret it, to tell us which "kind of society that can be fashioned out of an exclusive reliance on the tenets of Islam." Second, I've heard, from sources I consider more reliable than HArris, that a lot of what the Taliban do (specifically, their treatment of women) doesn't really come from the Koran, but from the "soft Hadiths," which not all Muslims consider central to their faith. All this leads me to believe that there is more than one interpretation of the tenets of Islam (just as there are more than one interpretation of the Bible), and Harris' use of Afghanistan, on the war-torn fringes of the billion-strong Islamic world, is ignorant at best, and bigoted at worst.

Materialism and atheism are not "metaphysical" conclusions that don't necessarily follow from the nature of science. They're necessary consequences of the application of logic to our attempts to understand our world.

Having said that it is disconcerting to see that he is urging his fellow Christians to not attack science but instead go after atheists. This might make him more politically effective with his fellow Christians, but there are dangers down that road and he deserves critism for doing this.

I found fairly little objectionable in Miller's talk, at least the first 50 minutes or so. From 52:10 to 55:30, I was irritated that he was oblivious or dismissive of the efforts of Nick Matzke, and Barbra Forrest in the Dover trial, particularly as they were central in exposing the creationist antecedents for "Of Pandas and People." He did admit in passing that he had opposed attempting subpoena for early manuscripts of "Pandas." Happily his advice was ignored, and yet in his presentation one could almost imagine it was all his idea. I was rather amused by the "soto voce" (Jack?) at about 53:32 that makes the observation that Nick had been ignored.

The controversial stuff does not even start until 55:30 "Why is Evolution Under Attack?"

Did any of you actually listen carefully? Did you take notes? I have not seen anyone making even an undergraduate effort at commentary.

Sorry, norm, but your "militant agnostic" pose is pure BS: if you don't know which belief is right, then you cannot possibly know whether others know, either.

— Raging Bee

First, Sam Harris has not demonstrated enough knowledge of the Koran, or of how Muslims interpret it, to tell us which "kind of society that can be fashioned out of an exclusive reliance on the tenets of Islam." Second, I've heard, from sources I consider more reliable than HArris, that a lot of what the Taliban do (specifically, their treatment of women) doesn't really come from the Koran, but from the "soft Hadiths," which not all Muslims consider central to their faith.

— Raging Bee

All this leads me to believe that there is more than one interpretation of the tenets of Islam (just as there are more than one interpretation of the Bible), and Harris' use of Afghanistan, on the war-torn fringes of the billion-strong Islamic world, is ignorant at best, and bigoted at worst.

As already noted, the vast majority of Christians do indeed treat the Bible as metaphor.

A poll that shows at least six in ten Americans

As already noted, the vast majority of Christians do indeed treat the Bible as metaphor.

— 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

no calls to atheist arms, no cries to defeat or destroy religion, nothing of the sort.

A certain set of beliefs was given free reign, for everyone to see. Wherever, however, it happened, it still happened, and it happened under the banner of Sharia.

Are you apologizing for the Taliban?

Lenny, I've already asked you to stop the attacks on individuals, and then moved one of your posts to the Bathroom Wall.

And to everyone: the conversation about Muslims, the Taliban, this Harris guy, etc. have wandered pretty far off topic. Unless someone has something new and hopefully constructive to say, I'll close this thread soon and we'll move on.

Yes, part of the evidence is geology which encodes something of a historical record we should accept over the stories in a book. But geology isn't evolution. And there's no doubt good evidence to be had that the tower of Babel never happened either and I think we might venture to say the same about Joshua making the sun stand still. That's why so many people are apt to consider those metaphors and not factual truth claims.

Not good enough for some creationists it appears. The question is why not? Why isn't that evidence good enough for them? What holds them back from doing the rational thing?

Does Miller believe all that is historical and true, not metaphor like Lenny Flank would claim? How does one separate what is disproved claim from what is factual claim? How does he separate what he believes is myth from what he believes is fact? Does he set those claims before us as truth propositions to consider as facts? Are they up for scientific examination?

Lenny, I've already asked you to stop the attacks on individuals

Lenny, remarks like "Perhaps you want to wipe the spittle off your computer screen," are inappropriately aimed an individual as opposed to an idea. I appreciate many of your comments on PT, but these feuds with individuals are not interesting to the rest of us.