Reflection by Red State Rabble

It is a self-evident fact that some of the most ardent and scientifically eminent defenders of evolution have been people of faith, including the likes of Francisco Ayala and Theodosius Dobzhansky. All of these people would take issue, as do I, with any thesis that evolution, as a matter of science, rules out God. Does that make us all "creationists" who would throw our colleagues to the wolves? Of course not.

Many of you accused me of "mocking God" for pointing out that remarkable frequency of extinction would make an "intelligent designer" look ridiculous. In fact, it was exactly because I do not mock God that I pointed out how ridiculous this view of an "intelligent designer" would be. It is those who advance the opposite view, in favor of ID, who must actually argue that the "designer" isn't competent enough to make organisms that would last.

I would like the comments on this thread to stay on the topics raised by Pat. This old post by Ken Miller on Uncommon Descent, no matter how worthwhile a discussion it might lead to, is really not on-topic here.

Those non-believers who don't learn this lesson, I believe, run the danger of ceding more political power to the religious right. Although I'm optimistic about our ultimate chances for success, in the end, it all comes down to the strategy we adopt. If we adopt a strategy that unites us with those who are willing to defend the nation's secular heritage --- whatever their religious or philosophical beliefs --- we can create a powerful movement to defeat those who demand an authoritarian form of government. Those who seek some unattainable purity, who would divide believers from non-believers in this movement, may someday find themselves, like Brian, in a dungeon of their own making.

I have a proposal to test this wonderful unity we're now all going to have.

I'm also going to sit back and enjoy my new immunity from criticism by anyone else who opposes the teaching of creationism in the schools. Remember, if you disagree with me, it means we're all going to be thrown into a Roman dungeon.

I like RSR.

I moved some posts to the bathroom wall. Please see Comment #129422 above.

I like RSR, too. It's one of my regular reads.

I also like kitty cats.

This new positive attitude we're all going to have is sure going to help us get things done.

I have a proposal to test this wonderful unity we're now all going to have.

That would be antagonistic. We're all about cooperation, remember.

I don't understand the flippant attitude here, and I'd like to point out that the person's ideas which are the focus of this post are Pat Hayes', not Ken Miller's.

There are theists and non-theists in the world. Pat is not saying that everything is going to be hunky-dory between them. He is saying that the political reality is that those who are for mainstream science and for the secular nature of our country - one which makes room for a wide diversity of belief, need to put a higher priority on defending those things than on being divisively concerned about whether people beieve in God or not.

I have a [link blog post] proposal to test this wonderful unity we're now all going to have.

— PZ Myers

And I am saying that if we are going to accept this diversity of belief, you're all going to have to get used to the fact that atheists don't believe in god. The demand for acceptance always seems to go one way.

I am also saying that the only way to work towards that unity is to recognize that there are differences of opinion, and we are free to express them. There is definitely an oppressive current here that is trying to use a demand for unity against a common enemy to suppress dissent; the members of the bland and happy majority are always going to be content to demand that we all just get along and stop complaining. This is not how we progress. This is how we stagnate.

And I am saying that if we are going to accept this diversity of belief, you're all going to have to get used to the fact that atheists don't believe in god. The demand for acceptance always seems to go one way. I am also saying that the only way to work towards that unity is to recognize that there are differences of opinion, and we are free to express them.

Those are some wildly out of context quotes you're tossing around there.

PZ, I don't see anything in what either Pat or I have written that wants to "oppress atheists."

You'll have to explain further then what Pat's post is about. What exactly is the proposal? What is the complaint? Because what seems to be driving it is that I have objected to a substantial bit of Ken Miller's approach to combatting creationism, and in fact think that that part of his strategy is wrong and counterproductive.

Somehow, I don't think it was a request to Ken Miller to stop blaming atheists for creationist's opposition to evolution. It sounded more to me like a request to those who disagree with Miller to stop rocking the boat.

There is definitely an oppressive current here that is trying to use a demand for unity against a common enemy to suppress dissent;

— PZ Myers

Are they? How do you interpret the pope's speech?

— normdoering

Those who seek some unattainable purity, who would divide believers from non-believers in this movement, may someday find themselves, like Brian, in a dungeon of their own making.

If you're going to establish yourself arbiter of who is or isn't part of the movement against creationism, I find it awfully hard to take seriously claims the next week that the same thing is being done to you.

though I have a lot of trouble seeing RSR's 'I refuse to stop working with the religious' message here as "oppressive"

Anti-creationist movement? That's odd, I'm part of the pro-science movement. I oppose creationism as part of my larger goal of supporting science. Why should I sabotage that goal by allying with people who oppose it, just to accomplish that minor subgoal?

If opposing creationism is so all-fired vital to the theistic evolutionists, let them learn to live with the people who oppose their theism.

After all, if the Judean People's Front hated the other Fronts more than the Romans, the reasonable thing to do would have been to ally themselves with the Romans against the other groups. Setting aside their differences in order to take down the Romans would've been against their goals, and that would be madness. Methinks someone should have reconsidered their metaphor.

Ask the atheists to sit down and shut up about their disbelief, because it annoys the Christians. That's what this is actually about.

— PZ

I would like the comments on this thread to stay on the topics raised by Pat. This old post by Ken Miller on Uncommon Descent, no matter how worthwhile a discussion it might lead to, is really not on-topic here.

When it comes down to atheists or Christians, both are wrong to conflate science and their own metaphysics.

"if there is no point in the universe that we discover by the methods of science, there is a point that we can give the universe by the way we live, by loving each other, by discovering things about nature, by creating works of art. And that -- in a way, although we are not the stars in a cosmic drama, is the only drama we're starring in is one that we are making up as we go along, it is not entirely ignoble that faced with this unloving, impersonal universe we make a little island of warmth and love and science and art for ourselves. That's not an entirely despicable role for us to play."

PZ's words about working the religious tend to conflict with his history of attacking any theistic evolutionist who he thinks has betrayed science. I thought the Collins incident would be a hard lesson in jumping to conclusions without available information, perhaps recalling the Mims inicident on the IDist side. I guess I was wrong, because now we have PZ shooting off even harsher premature posts about how Miller is in league with the anti-evolutionists. That, to me, does not say anything about a spirit of cooperation in advocating science, it instead gives the impression that Professor Myers is more interested in attacking theists and being hostile towards religious people, regardless of their stance on science, to the point of outrageous conflations and wild accusations.
In short, this sort of thing gives the appearance of knee-jerk reactionism and prejudice, and of promoting a more extreme form of Scientism rather than a general acceptance of the sciences by the public. The fact that this kind of thing has happened not once, but TWICE, with prominent theistic evolutionists who have been outspoken against the anti-evolution movement and have made efforts to break down the religious opposition to science is very disheartening.
This sort of behavior also giving more credence to the false impression proferred by IDists that all this Evolution stuff is about staunch Metaphysical rather than methodological naturalism. It looks to the reader that Dr. Myers is saying that the first, rather than the later, is what is at stake in these Evolution arguments, not simply a popular rejection of religious objections to established facts and scientific methodology.

I think it was; "Dreams of a Final Theory: The Scientist's Search for the Ultimate Laws of Nature," that "the more the universe seems comprehensible the more it seems pointless.

though I have a lot of trouble seeing RSR's 'I refuse to stop working with the religious' message here as "oppressive"

— PZ Myers

Funny...I don't recall saying that I refuse to work with the religious. Why was that complaint even made? Is someone refusing to work with them?

Anti-creationist movement? That's odd, I'm part of the pro-science movement.

— Caledonian

I oppose creationism as part of my larger goal of supporting science. Why should I sabotage that goal by allying with people who oppose it, just to accomplish that minor subgoal?

— Caledonian

My viewpoint would be that, as someone whose viewpoint is fundamentally pro-science, my position is harmed by anyone who intertwines science with religious viewpoints.

I admire PZ Myers for his bravery and honesty, and for not hiding behind any pseudonyms to advance his views. However, I can't help but feel that he is helping create an ever deepening divide between the religious and science. Or rather I should say, justifying the disdain of religious people for any kind of science they find "problematic."

While his quest is noble, I beg PZ and those who agree with his approach take a quick look at this link:

http://www.dhemery.com/cwd/2003/05/meet_people_where_they_are.html

Hold onto your vision. It's the source of your energy and passion. And just for now, let go of asking people to meet you where you are. Right now, they can't see what you see. They hear you asking them cross a treacherous chasm into a murky, uncertain future. They hear you asking a great deal. Instead, meet people where they are. Hear and acknowledge the confusion and risks and losses that fill their field of vision. Accept that their fears are real for them. Let them know that you will take the journey with them, supporting them in the ups and downs of Chaos.

And I am saying that if we are going to accept this diversity of belief, you're all going to have to get used to the fact that atheists don't believe in god.

which is why I don't ask them to become atheists, or demand that you have to be an atheist to support evolution, or even that you have to be an atheist to be a good scientist.

I would even argue that the only people that have a chance at ultimately defeating this ridiculous cultural movement are people like Ken Miller - scientists of faith who see ID for what it is and won't stand for seeing science co-opted by religious fears. Since the creationists see this as a cultural war, they expect evolutionists not to listen, to be devious and dishonest in fighting back. But a blow from someone theologically aligned with them is an unexpected upper-cut.

Not only are science and faith not incompatible, but many scientists find that their works draws them to faith, as Francis Collins is so fond of saying. I know I've found that to be the case in my work.

PZ has responded to my post as though it were directed at him. I was careful to write, however, that this post was prompted by "comments to a number of posts here, at Panda's Thumb, Pharyngula, and the KCFS public discussion forum."

As I have written elsewhere, I'm in almost complete agreement with PZ's "Conversations With Ken Miller" post. I decided to write my "manifesto" after a fellow non-believer posted a comment to one of the threads on the debate over Miller's KU speech referring to him as a "scumbag." I also noticed that many other commenters, claiming to speak for reason, also used highly emotional and inaccurate adjectives to describe Miller's beliefs.

As a skeptic who takes pride in his secularism, it embarrasses me when my fellow non-believers make themselves look foolish by making such remarks.

Science has been enormously productive, in part, because it has been able to make careful distinctions. Astronomers recently voted that Pluto, an object orbiting the Sun in our solar system, is not, as previously thought, a planet. Biologists are able to look at strands of DNA made up of millions of pairs of molecules composed of just four nucleotides. From this information, they are able to distinguish sequences that make up our genes.

That is why it surprises me that some of those who practice science as a profession -- or who see its power as a method of inquiry -- are unable to make careful distinctions between the varieties of religious belief.

If, as some have asserted here an elsewhere, Ken Miller is a creationist, then that term has no meaning. It's useless and ought to be discarded.

PZ accuses me of trying to silence him. That's not true. In the first place, s a practical matter, I don't see how I could silence him. Then there's the fact that, despite my disagreement with him on this issue, I think that on the whole he does an enormous amount of good.

I don't want to silence anyone. I do want to point out that there are consequences to our actions. We are currently under attack from the religious right. They want to create a society in which many of the freedoms we currently enjoy -- separation of church and state, the right to say what we think, for example -- are against the law.

If they are successful, there will be enormous consequences: for teachers in the classroom, for scientists in the laboratory, for bloggers on the Internet.

That's why I think we should set aside our differences over religion, for now, to unite against those who are determined to erect an authoritarian form of government. If we can't do that, then we could, I think, at least be more careful with our language. Advocates for reason, I think, should take care to sound reasonable.

This strategy is based on the recognition that non-believers are a tiny minority. We can't defend ourselves, much less prevail, without the help of believers who understand the nature and importance of secular government.

The battle between doubt and belief is a long-term battle. It's been going on for Millennia. It's not going to end anytime soon. The battle over science education, separation of church and state is in the here and now. If we lose, we'll lose much more than that.

Here, in Kansas, we recently defeated the creationists on the state school board. None of the moderate defenders of science who ran for the board are atheists. If we'd waited for an atheist to be elected, intelligent design would have become a part of the standards. The defeat of the right-wingers by moderate theistic evolutionists -- who very much resemble Ken Miller in outlook -- means that won't happen now.

Atheists have every right to defend themselves and to advance their ideas, but let's tone down the name calling, and let's make a reasonable judgment about what can be achieved in the here and now.

Advocates for reason, I think, should take care to sound reasonable.

That's why I think we should set aside our differences over religion, for now, to unite against those who are determined to erect an authoritarian form of government. If we can't do that, then we could, I think, at least be more careful with our language. Advocates for reason, I think, should take care to sound reasonable.

There's a difficulty. Why should we set aside our differences over religion, if, as some say, it's orthogonal to the creation-evolution fight? Why should we set aside differences, period?

Here, in Kansas, we recently defeated the creationists on the state school board. None of the moderate defenders of science who ran for the board are atheists. If we'd waited for an atheist to be elected, intelligent design would have become a part of the standards.

If, as some have asserted here an elsewhere, Ken Miller is a creationist, then that term has no meaning. It's useless and ought to be discarded.

This is my objection: the complaints only go one way. If I hadn't shouted out, everyone would be saying Miller's talk was wonderful, and there wouldn't be the slightest expression of protest anywhere that he had mixed up his Catholicism with his evolution.

Are you saying that if an ID proponent speculates a god implemented a design by being sneaky and hiding in quantum mechanics to cause genetic mutations, they are a creationist, but if Miller speculates the same thing (and more), he is not a creationist?

I am reminded of a quote from Terry Pratchett. I do not have it exactly right, but essentially

"In this city, if the Creator said 'let there be light' he'd have never gotten any further because people would have asked 'what color?'"

My largest concern in dealing with the anti-science forces is that pro-science forces will fall to fighting among themselves, while the anti-science groups, with their funding, their fanatics, their political allies, will eventually march the hell over all of us while we bicker.

So the burning questions for pro-science people are not how much unity, atheism, the Pope, etc. The burning questions is how do we win, and what plan is going to work - and all else is tangental. Anything else is just handing the anti-science forces one more shot at victory.

As a skeptic, I'm not convinced by arguments for a creator god, whether or not s/he/it uses quantum mechanics or not.

What I am saying is that Ken Miller -- and theistic evolutionists like him -- are unlikely to stop stem cell research in this country, de-fund various research projects in the biological sciences that have evolutionary implications, re-write science and history textbooks, try to fire university professors -- like PZ -- who speak out on controversial issues, try to disprove evolution by packing the Supreme Court with Neanderthals (sorry Afarensis, I don't mean to demean Neanderthals), demonize gays, censor what we read in books or watch on television or the movies, outlaw contraception and abortion, keep our brain-dead relatives in a vegetative state against their expressed will...

On the contrary, I believe the Ken Millers of the world stand shoulder to shoulder with us in these battles. In fact, I can attest to the fact that in Kansas, some of the most active, able, and effective defenders of science education are religious -- theistic evolutionists -- just like Ken Miller.

Without them, we'd be dead in the water.

There seem to be two more-or-less consistent goals being expressed here:

1) To streamline, assist, and promote the process of discovering as much about our universe as humans as a species can possibly discover, as efficiently as possible.

2) To free ourselves as a species from the scourge of irrational religious faith, which often (but not always) works against goal #1, and certainly never promotes that goal in any way.

When both of these goals are borne in mind simultaneously, Miller's position is at the very least uncomfortable. Maybe Miller can keep his religious convictions from interfering with his science, but only through a Rube Goldberg system of distorted rationalizations Miller substitutes for letting go of a scientifically useless faith. Surely not every scientist can compartmentalize as well as Miller; religous faith remains a millstone around the neck of even the strongest.

If this model is correct, then Miller's position becomes ambiguous. He's unquestionably an ally in the fight to keep creationism out of science classes. But his approach to science is at least tainted, and his depiction of those scientists NOT tainted by irrational beliefs (probably a comfortable majority) as being guilty of polarizing the debate is probably driven by the faith rather than the rational side of his rather schizophrenic approach to reality.

Miller's primary value is as an illustration that it's possible, but emphatically not easy, to do good science while married to irrational beliefs ranging from irrelevant to dangerous to that science. We can point to Miller and say "You see, you don't have to abandon your faith to be a good scientist; you only need to anesthetize it into irrelevance."

normdoering wrote:

>What metaphysics?

>I think PZ is arguing ontology and epistemology which do touch on
>the scientific issues involved in evolution.

Uuuummmm.... ontology IS metaphysics in every philosophy class I ever took and every philosophy book I ever read. Plus, my dictionary at hand says ontology is "the branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of existance". Ontology is explicitly what science does not claim to deal with, hence the whole notion of "provisional truth" as the basis of scientific knowledge. As soon as one claims to know what truly "is" as opposed to having a workable description of how what "is" manifests itself in human experience, you have stepped outside of scientific discourse. This is true, in my humble opinion, whether or not one's claim is that "God exists" or that "God does not exist". Regardless of what one thinks of the validity of such statements, they are clearly both metaphysical postions, not scientific ones.

Epistemology can be metaphysical as well, depending upon how it is framed.

Those who seek some unattainable purity, who would divide believers from non-believers in this movement, may someday find themselves, like Brian, in a dungeon of their own making.

"May someday?" They already are. Or, to put it more accurately, they're in the dungeon, though they may not have "found themselves" to be in it.

For a good look at the sheer stupidity of some atheists' arguments, not to mention their brittle, thin-skinned overreaction to any hint of respect for people not exactly like themselves, check out the response to Ed Brayton's post on pretty much the same subject -- that people who don't agree on everything should work together to achieve important common objectives.

If I hadn't shouted out, everyone would be saying Miller's talk was wonderful, and there wouldn't be the slightest expression of protest anywhere that he had mixed up his Catholicism with his evolution.

These Folks are supposed to be scientists, and one might think that science---dealing with the material---should have nothing to say about religion---which deals with the spiritual.

"In the final analysis, absolute materialism does not triumph because it cannot fully explain the nature of reality" (Ibid. p. 219).

For purely practical reasons.

We're not supposed to say anything about religion, because Ken thinks that we shouldn't, and because he gives lip service to NOMA? The second quote above shows just how well he adheres to NOMA in the end, attacking the strawman of "absolute materialism" as his sock puppet for "atheism", and denouncing it for some faulty notion that the lack of a possible "full explanation" is an actual objection to godlessness.

We're not supposed to say anything about religion, because Ken thinks that we shouldn't, and because he gives lip service to NOMA? The second quote above shows just how well he adheres to NOMA in the end, attacking the strawman of "absolute materialism" as his sock puppet for "atheism", and denouncing it over some faulty notion that the lack of a possible "full explanation" is an actual objection to godlessness.

If this model is correct, then Miller's position becomes ambiguous. He's unquestionably an ally in the fight to keep creationism out of science classes. But his approach to science is at least tainted, and his depiction of those scientists NOT tainted by irrational beliefs (probably a comfortable majority) as being guilty of polarizing the debate is probably driven by the faith rather than the rational side of his rather schizophrenic approach to reality. Miller's primary value is as an illustration that it's possible, but emphatically not easy, to do good science while married to irrational beliefs ranging from irrelevant to dangerous to that science. We can point to Miller and say "You see, you don't have to abandon your faith to be a good scientist; you only need to anesthetize it into irrelevance."

Caledonian wrote:

More to the point, I don't see how we can accomplish our goal of getting competent and accurate science instruction in schools by allying ourselves with people who flagrantly misrepresent the nature of the scientific method.

There's a lot you don't see, including the need for adult social skills, which is why you got yourself kicked off of Ed's blog. Your statement that Christians like those who opposed the creationists in Dover "flagrantly misrepresent the nature of the scientific method" proves you have no clue -- and probably don't care -- what you're talking about.

PZ wrote:

Why not say it plainly? Ask the atheists to sit down and shut up about their disbelief, because it annoys the Christians. That's what this is actually about.

Wrong again: it's about asking the atheists to show respect for others, treat them as equals, and stop calling people "stupid" and making wildly idiotic misstatements about beliefs they clearly don't understand. Why are you misrepresenting the statements of others, when you have plenty of time to examine them before posting? Are you really that clueless, or is this a deliberate attempt to provoke discord?

I don't see how someone who falls for creationism is going to be persuaded to accept evolution because the advocate takes communion every week.

— PZ Myers

Everyone is very quick to say we need to hide the atheists away because they'll scare off the moderates...but does this actually work? It sorta sounds like an announcement that you have a charm against tigers, and your evidence is that you haven't been eaten by tigers yet.

That analogy is like Hitler at an ice rink.

LOL. "Tainted". So this really is all about the atheists demanding that everyone else accept their version of metaphysical purity. Never mind that atheism is an ambitious metaphysical extra-scientific conclusion just like theism. Never mind that it is as unprovable as theism.

Towards the end of antiquity, pagan thinkers tried to represent themselves as more pious and monotheistic than the emerging and politically aggressive Christians. Some of their protestations were surely sincere--it was a generally superstitious era--but a lot of the swarminess reflected a strategy of appeasement. The more tough-minded philosophical schools--the skeptics, the cynics, the Epicureans--were advised to shut up since their tone was likely to alienate the people and irritate the emperor...

Sorry, have I gotten off topic?

Meanwhile, I was hoping someone would make an attempt to explain how irrational, non-evidence-based beliefs *assist or support* the effort to do good science.

You mean like childish curiosity, a sense of wonder, a desire to understand how one's (alleged) God(s) made things work, or a belief that making people's lives easier with new inventions is a good thing to do? Not a shred of objective evidence to support any of that, is there?

Also, good old fashioned imperialism and conquest also help the discovery process along now and then -- but that's a bit more rational than the examples above...

Methinks PZ's trying to say that while Ken Miller is allowed to insult and misrepresent atheists while spouting his religious beliefs, he (PZ) is not allowed to insult and misrepresent Christians while spouting his religious beliefs. Or at least he's told to sit quietly so he doesn't scare away the Christians, all in the name of "torelance".

Flint: I notice you quote Nick's "tainted" paragraph, but you completely ignore his subsequent statements about Ken Millers' accomplishments -- and thus the main point of his post. Avoiding an uncomfortable truth, perhaps?

The mere existance of an atheist seems to bother a theist.. and vice versa. It's almost that a person cannot embrace theism without hating that atheist part of himself, nagging with questions in the back of his brain. Inevitably, he attacks the atheist outside of himself who voices the questions he constantly works to keep down in his own head. And the atheist maybe likewise has to shut up his sub-conscious theist, always longing for the comforting answers. Maybe only agnostics can get along.

There's a difficulty. Why should we set aside our differences over religion, if, as some say, it's orthogonal to the creation-evolution fight? Why should we set aside differences, period?

For purely practical reasons.

I'm all for those. However, there also needs to be some actual, like, REASON to think something will work, and it's especially useful if there's some EVIDENCE.

My point is that it can be counter productive to try to break the fundamental beliefs of an audience in order to make a point which only requires their beliefs be bent a bit.

So this really is all about the atheists demanding that everyone else accept their version of metaphysical purity.

How did Ken Miller "insult and misrepresent atheists" exactly?

Flint,

re: Comment #129724, collecting quotations is a hobby, and you made my quotations collection. LOL.

No. It's about recognizing that atheists are not at fault for creationism.

Where did that contention enter into ANY recent dustup over atheists' statements? I've not heard any such sentiment expressed in any of the on-line arguments I've jumped into so far.

I know that Miller has done good science and published good books and done good work for the evolution movement. It doesn't exempt him from criticism or make him less fallible than us peons. It doesn't make him the Pope of Evolution.

No, but it DOES make uninformed ankle-biting criticism of his religious beliefs irrelevant to the overall scientific debate. If he does good work and he's on the right side in the important political battles, then why is anyone wasting any time whingeing about his religion?

You mean like childish curiosity, a sense of wonder, a desire to understand how one's (alleged) God(s) made things work, or a belief that making people's lives easier with new inventions is a good thing to do? Not a shred of objective evidence to support any of that, is there?

you completely ignore his subsequent statements about Ken Millers' accomplishments --- and thus the main point of his post. Avoiding an uncomfortable truth, perhaps?

Everyone is very quick to say we need to hide the atheists away.

Pat said it exactly right. What we need to concentrate on - first and foremost - is maintaining the openness of science and society and the integrity and credibility of science. We all can have different takes on the ultimate metaphysical lessons to take from what science tells us about the world. Beyond the apparent facts, covering laws and processes in nature, which are already somewhat underdetermined (but, I believe, are clearly determinable enough in practice and within reasonable bounds), speculative metaphysics, which can only come from integration and extrapolation from both common experience and scientific knowledge (unless you're a strict Kantian), is vastly more underdetermined. The extra-scientific conclusion of the truth of atheism (because modern science shows that the natural world does not seem to require anything more) may seem clear enough to some of us, but it is not so clear to everybody, especially in light of its potential significance. So the important thing is to keep an open society and maintain the corresponding element of good faith between those with differing views that an open society requires. Perhaps everyone will eventually come to the same opinion on the existence of God. Perhaps not. We don't need to force a consensus and we certainly don't need one next week. In constantly provoking such fights now we may, in fact, simply provoke a reaction powerful enough to elevate authoritarianism above tolerance and openness among a large number of our fellow citizens and effectively discredit those liberal ideals in their minds.

First, what evidence is there that a head on attack will work any better?

It's about recognizing that atheists are not at fault for creationism.

What's behind the unending back and forth warfare we see everywhere in this country, and that we see exemplified in the rising and ebbing tides of creation and evolution in a state like Kansas? ... Many people...draw a conclusion from evolutionary theory which is fundamentally anti-theistic: a philosophical interpretation that having a material origin for living things denies meaning and purpose to our lives and denies a deity. ... Faced with such unremitting hostility to religion, and that is exactly what these books [recent books by Dennett and Dawkins] exemplify, I think the advocates of religion react, and they react in a predictable way. The creation scientists, for example, decided we've got to do something about it. Their solution, however, was to ignore this interpretation and go after evolution itself.

... ontology IS metaphysics in every philosophy class I ever took and every philosophy book I ever read.

... my dictionary at hand says ontology is "the branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of existance". Ontology is explicitly what science does not claim to deal with, hence the whole notion of "provisional truth" as the basis of scientific knowledge.

my dictionary at hand says ontology is "the branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of existance".

Those people who do not believe in god not only deny meaning and purpose to people's lives, we're behind the culture wars. It's like we sneak up on babies and inject them with nihilism and despair, and then we goad nice Christian folk into fighting to get Genesis taught in the schools.

— PZ Meyers

1) The US situation- constant and dangerous religious threats to secular governance and education- is pretty much unique as far as "advanced" countries go. 2) In many other countries it took a long, hard, very confrontational struggle before the attempts of religion to meddle in secular matters were decisively defeated. 3) In the US, by contrast, appeasement rather than confrontation has been the rule. Not nearly conclusive, of course- but suggestive.

I was by no means confining my remarks to attempts to inject c'ism into public schools. The level of religiosity, the level of clerical influence on public policy, and the sacred cow status of organized religion and its mouthpieces, are all completely off the charts in the US compared to any other industrialized country. My point stands.

1) The US situation- constant and dangerous religious threats to secular governance and education- is pretty much unique as far as "advanced" countries go. 2) In many other countries it took a long, hard, very confrontational struggle before the attempts of religion to meddle in secular matters were decisively defeated. 3) In the US, by contrast, appeasement rather than confrontation has been the rule.

— Steve LaBonne

I don't know how anyone familiar with, say, French history- or even the much milder struggles against the established churches from the 18th century on in Britain- could possibly imagine that Europe secularized through "gradual evolution". In the latter country, intellectuals like Hume and Gibbon were at least as outspoken relative to the mores of their time as Dawkins in ours, and courted much more serious consequences if they allowed the gossamer-thin veil of perfunctory obeisance in their writings to slip too far. That took a lot more courage than is needed to oppose the influence of religion in the US our time.

"I don't know how anyone familiar with, say, French history- or even the much milder struggles against the established churches from the 18th century on in Britain- could possibly imagine that Europe secularized through "gradual evolution""

Well, the British example does appear to have been a gradual evolution. Afterall, in science, evolution doesn't mean it is all peace and amity. While it may not be all 'nature red in tooth and claw', still there's some eating and fighting going on. As to France, if PZ, Caledonian, normdoering and yourself want to offer up The Terror as your model, I think you'll pretty much be on your own. I don't, though, suggest that any of you are actually looking to that model.

PZ-
I don't understand why you are so hostile toward those of religious faith. Science can never disprove that there is a god(s). This is why we are people of "faith." How does it benefit science to attack faith? It doesn't. So don't go there. It can only harm science.
I saw E.O. Wilson speak recently on conservation. He called for an alliance between science and religion to educate the public on the need for conservation, as he recognizes religion for the social force that it is. This is very wise, and the same can be done in the evolution/creation "debate." I'm not saying we need to "pussyfoot" and make it sound as though science proves God, I'm saying we need to educate them on the importance of understanding evolution. Whether you believe it or not, science and religion can co-exist, though one doesn't really have anything to do with the other.

I was by no means confining my remarks to attempts to inject c'ism into public schools. The level of religiosity, the level of clerical influence on public policy, and the sacred cow status of organized religion and its mouthpieces, are all completely off the charts in the US compared to any other industrialized country. My point stands.

No "evolution" would have happened even in Britain without the courageous struggles of generations of free-thinking intellectuals. And as I noted, in the earlier stages of this distinctly "guided" evolution, there were genuine and serious risks being courted by such people.

You can't reduce the influence of something without, you know, actually OPPOSING it.

PZ,

"The claim that it is necessary to persuade people of faith to join with us has not been supported, as near as I can tell,... "

Well, the evidence that you need some people of faith would be that atheists are a small minority in America and the idea that this is a fruitful would seem to be supported the evidence of recent events: anti-creationist folk being elected to the board of education in Kansas and Dover, Judge Jones' ruling in Kitzmiller. But perhaps I'm mistaken. Which of those do you ascribe to the actions of atheists, unaided by people of faith, and what is your evidence?

In the meantime, it appears likely that most of the people actually opposing creationism in the USA are people of faith, even though I'm sure atheists are represented among the foes of creationism in disproportion to their share of the population.

The claim that it is necessary to persuade people of faith to join with us has not been supported, as near as I can tell....

— PZ Myers

Judge Jones was doing his duty by enforcing the law. He quite properly disclaimed any influence, on way or another, of his personal beliefs.

My position is that all people, whatever their metaphysical belief system may be, should feel free, comfortable, and open about expressing what they believe. The fact that materialism, atheism, secular humanism or whatever you want to call it is being demonized by the anti-evolutionist creationists is one of the cultural issues that we need to resolve.

"Creationists," biologist Ken Miller, told a large, receptive audience at the University of Kansas last night, "are shooting at the wrong target." Showing a slide of the cover art of "The Lie," an anti-evolution tract by Ken Ham, that prominently features a serpent tempting us with a poisoned apple labeled evolution, Miller said creationists mistakenly take aim at Darwin's theory because they believe science to be anti-religious. Evolution isn't anti-religious, said Miller. Rather, it's the non-scientific philosophical interpretations some humanists, such as Richard Dawkins, draw from the evidence that challenges the role of religion.

PZ: The words of Ken Miller that you quote are not a misrepresentation; they are, in fact, a perfectly fair and true description of what many atheists have explicitly and repeatedly said on this and other blogs: science leads to atheism because it can't prove God's existence; and atheism is supported by science and rationality. Miller did NOT say that atheists were "at fault for creationism," as you claim he said. If anyone is "misrepresenting" here, it's you, not Miller.

No "evolution" would have happened even in Britain without the courageous struggles of generations of free-thinking intellectuals. And as I noted, in the earlier stages of this distinctly "guided" evolution, there were genuine and serious risks being courted by such people.

It did take generations indeed (I still remember vaguely some of my philosophy classes). The thing is can we take this model, can we apply it - and are we ready to think long-term (generations as you note) - and what its the relevance to science?

My take, seeing some of the conversations here, is that some of the pro-science crowd is "spoiling for a fight" with religion. I don't think that does far less to help science than, well, promoting science. Or, putting it bluntly, my concern is that in the current time and place if science is associated with a "come get some, you theists" attitude, those of us who are pro-science are seriously going to loose.

Though we may also have to remember one hard fact - people may not learn the lessons of ignoring science until such ignorance has serious repercussions in their daily lives. I dread the idea of a more ignorant America. In that case . . . I'll be in Canada. Folks are welcome to visit.

Flint wrote:

I spoke of (and you quoted) "irrational, non-evidence-based beliefs". I don't see how anything on your list meets those qualifications. Curiosity is not a belief despite lack of what ought to be in-your-face overwhelming evidence if it were true. Nor is a sense of wonder, a desire to understand how things work (how is this different from curiosity?), nor a desire to make life easier. So I think you missed my point.

I didn't miss anything: what I cited in answer to your question were emotions, and unspoken beliefs based on emotions. Most of the beliefs we call "irrational" are based on some emotion or other. Curiosity, for example, implies an unexamined belief or feeling that it's important to find or learn something; therefore it meets your demand for an "irrational, non-evidence-based belief." The same goes for all of my other examples. You asked for examples of irrationality advancing knowledge, and you got them. Stop moving your goalposts; you're not fooling anyone. (Would "curiosity" fit your criteria if it was expressed as a religious doctrine?)

Ummm, that "chain of reasoning" I put up there? Those were Miller's words, transcribed from the recording. He starts by asking, "What's behind the unending back and forth warfare," and concludes with waving Dennett's and Dawkins' books before us. It's awfully hard not to see that as saying it's the interpretations of Dawkins and Dennett and others that are "behind the unending back and forth warfare." In his book, he calls the creationist's response a "righteous reactionism".

Re "Creationists have a problem with evolution because if falsifies their religious beliefs in any or all of the following: special creation, no death before the fall, Noah's flood, and a young earth."

Course, weren't at least two of those falsified by geology (and perhaps astronomy?) before evolution even got noticed?

Henry

"You can't reduce the influence of something without, you know, actually OPPOSING it."

You may have mistaken me. Here you and I likely have different goals. I'd like to see good science done and promulgated and properly taught, but I'm not a philosophical materialist.

But back to Britain, most of the early opposition in Britain to an established church came from religious folk who didn't want to be part of that particular established church, and, indeed, many of whom wanted to supplant one established church for another or maintain the independence of their own established church(the Kirk). The 'freethinkers' were a tiny minority. In Britain, as in much of the rest of Europe, much of the turn away from religion was occasionaed by two disastrous world wars and their evocation of the problem of evil as well as the tendency of institutional religion to become entangled with governments (the latter being a reason many religious folk are for keeping church and state separate - and thus your allies in a fight against established religion). Personally, I hope the US doesn't have to go through what Europe did in the last century to get quality science education.

To support the thesis that you atheists can defeat creationism all on your own, you need examples of atheists achieving similar ends on their own with no significant support from people of faith and doing it in a manner that you would approve today (thus ruling out the mob and the guillotine).

Maybe this is a little off subject, maybe not. A couple of years ago I visited a section of the Smoky Mountains known for synchronized fireflies. After their appearance about an hour after sunset, a woman standing next to me remarked, "I don't know how anyone can watch this sight and not know that God designed this in all his wisdom." The first words out of my mouth were "To each his own." Not being a trained biologist or professional scientist, I don't know that any other comment would have made much of an impact. But what should someone do in a public setting like this? Attack? I don't know. Something needs to be said but you won't be changing any attitudes about religion and science. Maybe PZ could publish a "how to" guide for encountering creationist zealots in public.

Flint,

"We can point to Miller and say "You see, you don't have to abandon your faith to be a good scientist; you only need to anesthetize it into irrelevance."

How well do you know Miller personally? Well enough to know that his religion is irrelevant in his life? Please let us know your evidence for your conclusion that Miller's faith has been anesthetized into irrelevance.

Comment #129713 Posted by Raging Bee on September 14, 2006 11:06 AM (e) Those who seek some unattainable purity, who would divide believers from non-believers in this movement, may someday find themselves, like Brian, in a dungeon of their own making. "May someday?" They already are. Or, to put it more accurately, they're in the dungeon, though they may not have "found themselves" to be in it. For a good look at the sheer stupidity of some atheists' arguments, not to mention their brittle, thin-skinned overreaction to any hint of respect for people not exactly like themselves, check out the response to Ed Brayton's post on pretty much the same subject --- that people who don't agree on everything should work together to achieve important common objectives.

Again, Mike, if all you're interested in is keeping creationism out of public schools, you simply need a Judge Jones to do his job, "person of faith" or not. There's no question there of "forming alliances", nor has the job been done by any such alliances- it's been done by the Constitution. (Parenthetically, how far we've backslid since the Founders' time! But that's another topic.)

If however, like me, you are more generally tired of the intrusion of religion into all sorts of questions of public policy where it does not belong, you'll get nowhere by "forming alliances" with religionists who, however much they might differ from, say, the Bush Administration on the specifics, think such influence is in principle just hunky-dory. The only way to even begin moving toward a more European situation is to actively oppose the influence of organized religion, period. Yes, that's a struggle likely to last many generations. But it will last an infinite amount of time if we never even start! That's been the situation in this country up till now, and the results, in comparison to other countries, are just what one would expect.

Curiosity, for example, implies an unexamined belief or feeling that it's important to find or learn something; therefore it meets your demand for an "irrational, non-evidence-based belief."

Comment #129715 Posted by Glen Davidson on September 14, 2006 11:08 AM (e) Then a lot of drones agree with him on Pharyngula, writing the same things that have been rehashed a thousand times. Big deal.

PZ: The words of Ken Miller that you quote are not a misrepresentation; they are, in fact, a perfectly fair and true description of what many atheists have explicitly and repeatedly said on this and other blogs: science leads to atheism because it can't prove God's existence;

Miller did NOT say that atheists were "at fault for creationism," as you claim he said. If anyone is "misrepresenting" here, it's you, not Miller.

You can't reduce the influence of something without, you know, actually OPPOSING it.

Am I out of line here in stating that the major division of the pro-science crowd as a whole is:

A) Some actively oppose religious institutions, and that in turn they see as part of being pro-science.
B) Others do not actively oppose religious institutions, or if they do, either way this does not significantly affect or is involved in their pro-science activities?

Simplistic statements, I know.

Please let us know your evidence for your conclusion that Miller's faith has been anesthetized into irrelevance.

Miller was searching for the answers. He never said he had them. It is a start, though.

Don't rule out the possibility that people can have a real personal relationship with God. It's not about evidence to most, and they don't give a rats ass about proving it. Faith is personal, and it is real.

Wanna be an atheist, fine. Have friends who are atheists, fine. Want everyone else to join your party, um.. they reserve the right to politely decline, and go on believing whatever irrational things they wish, if they believe they have a personal relationship with a loving God. If you don't want that for yourself, OK.

So what does science have to do with it? I know that my husband's sperm fertilized my egg successfully, and I know master genes directed the development that ensued. And yet I hold my baby and look into her eyes and see her as a special gift from God. I feel that a special assignment was laid upon me by a higher authority. You may say it's not necessary for me to be a theist in order to be a loving parent, and I agree. But that is what I feel, and it is not up to anyone else but me to parent the child, so the decision rests with me because the responsibility is mine.

As someone reminded us earlier, (AtheistHumanist?) America is all about freedom of religion. We have a great constitution that allows for this. And I intend to practice that freedom as well as trust in the scientific consensus about evolution, medicine, geology, and the rest. It doesn't change my feeling of there being a higher authority, or my need to humble myself in spite of being able to explain the mechanics of nature. Having explanations, or seeking explanations, is not necessarily related to having faith in something greater than nature.

I agree with Miller on his basic premises, but I agree with PZ that he needs to work out some kinks as well.

Here, in Kansas, we recently defeated the creationists on the state school board. None of the moderate defenders of science who ran for the board are atheists. If we'd waited for an atheist to be elected, intelligent design would have become a part of the standards.

That is a profound and subtle misrepresentation of the argument, and I believe it is an intentional one. The issue is not whether we associate with theists, but whether we permit people to present false ideas about the nature of science. To accept Intelligent Design as 'scientific', the definition of science would need to be stretched to include all other kinds of nonsense. That is precisely what was so offensive about it.

I don't give a damn whether our school boards are staffed with atheists or theists. I care about preventing our school boards from eliminating science from the curriculum - the personal beliefs are irrelevant, the public actions in the official positions are paramount.

To imply that this is just petty bigotry against theists is vile.

Don't rule out the possibility that people can have a real personal relationship with God.

The first 100 posts on this thread have (largely) been unusually good. I, just now, liked what 'Meet People Where They Are' wrote.

Yes, a "feeling of there being a higher authority". Which for many is then their source of ethics and morals. And these latter are perhaps deontic, prescriptive, and I know of no anthropological literature which adequately describes why we have these principles, often attributed to a 'higher authority'. But then it is probably that I haven't even yet checked out the books that McNeil suggested...

That's why I think we should set aside our differences over religion, for now, to unite against those who are determined to erect an authoritarian form of government. If we can't do that, then we could, I think, at least be more careful with our language. Advocates for reason, I think, should take care to sound reasonable. This strategy is based on the recognition that non-believers are a tiny minority. We can't defend ourselves, much less prevail, without the help of believers who understand the nature and importance of secular government.

Why should we set aside differences, period?

Here, in Kansas, we recently defeated the creationists on the state school board. None of the moderate defenders of science who ran for the board are atheists. If we'd waited for an atheist to be elected, intelligent design would have become a part of the standards.

I was by no means confining my remarks to attempts to inject c'ism into public schools. The level of religiosity, the level of clerical influence on public policy, and the sacred cow status of organized religion and its mouthpieces, are all completely off the charts in the US compared to any other industrialized country. My point stands.

Er, I meant "unusually good" in comparison to what usually happens...

I can't believe I'm jumping in this, but here goes.
The thing I notice in reading theist/atheist skirmishes (at least on forums like this, where the fundies seem to be minimal) is that theists are accused not just of irrationality, but of irrationality which MUST somehow taint their science. Whereas if a biologist in a university somewhere really believed his wife was working late every night when she'd been seen kissing her personal trainer in the middle of the Sciences building, no one would think that made him less of a biologist, even though there was excellent refuting evidence for his belief.

Everybody has irrational ideas. Yes, "faith" can be a pernicious one for science, but it doesn't have to be. It just seems that when the topic is not religion, people are much more inclined to shrug and let others have their necessary delusions.
Okay, now everybody pile on...

normding,

You gave me no reason to share my reasons with you, except that you demand an explanation. However, I do not owe you one.like I said, It's personal, so find out for yourself if you wish. If not, ding off.

Wanna be an atheist, fine. Have friends who are atheists, fine. Want everyone else to join your party, um.. they reserve the right to politely decline, and go on believing whatever irrational things they wish, if they believe they have a personal relationship with a loving God. If you don't want that for yourself, OK.

I agree completely, gloom raider. The problem here is that Miller has made public statements that inaccurately portray the nature of the scientific method. I don't care what else the man has done - that simply cannot be tolerated if we hope to promote quality science teaching.

If he didn't misrepresent science, I wouldn't care about his religion even if he were a Scientologist.

This debate is not about whether we should tolerate theism or ostracize theists.

— Caledonian

normding, You gave me no reason to share my reasons with you, except that you demand an explanation. However, I do not owe you one.like I said, It's personal, so find out for yourself if you wish. If not, ding off.

I'm an evangelical atheist, and I can say right off - as far as anyone else is concerned it's completely irrelevant. I'd love it if all the nasty religions went away, but they won't. Ever. And even if I could persuade people to abandon the faith they love - why should I?

Dr Miller is perfectly free to cleave to his faith, and even to use his intellectual gifts to debate atheism. But he is actively and brilliantly pro-science. And he tells Christians that you can be faithful and accept evolution and the historical record.

He says that scientific rationalism is not a department of atheism, and I would be prepared to guess that he has enlightened more Christians to the beauty of evolution than pretty much any scientist or writer contributing to this blog. Leave him alone. He is our friend.....

Meet People Where They Are wrote: Don't rule out the possibility that people can have a real personal relationship with God.

Normdoering,

I was not aware that it is against the rules to post under different names. I apologize to everyone, and will not do that again. The other names I used were: I can be rude right back, and Agnostic. Sorry.

Your questions are rude because I told you that faith was personal and did not rest on proof, yet you ask me for proof and raise the possibility that my god could be a trickster. That is not only rude, it is insulting. Though my behavior wasn't much better.

But if you REALLY want answers to your questions from me, we should probably a) move to the bathroom wall or b) have an e-mail exchange, so as not to fly off topic here at the PT thread. I am willing to engage in honest discourse, but for things that I feel are personal, I am not willing to put my emotions on the line so you can mock me.

I told you that faith was personal and did not rest on proof

Your questions are rude because I told you that faith was personal and did not rest on proof,...

... yet you ask me for proof and raise the possibility that my god could be a trickster.

That is not only rude, it is insulting.

... if you REALLY want answers to your questions from me, we should probably a) move to the bathroom wall or b) have an e-mail exchange, so as not to fly off topic here at the PT thread. I am willing to engage in honest discourse, but for things that I feel are personal, I am not willing to put my emotions on the line so you can mock me.

infamous wrote: How does it benefit science to attack faith? It doesn't. So don't go there. It can only harm science.

I disagree. If thousands of scientists attacked faith every day for several years, it could only benefit science. Religion has a long history of being anti-science. The more religious a nation is, the more anti-science it is. The USA has almost the same percentage of creationists as Turkey. The USA will remain a backward country forever unless scientists and others start attacking religion.

I have really loved watching the republican party become totally ineffectual while they clobber themselves with their infighting. It leaves a nice opening for the Democratic party.

What? I'm in the wrong place? Are you sure??

I hope Ohio passes some really stupid standards. Then we can have a trial and everyone can get back on-topic.

With all due respect to the Rev, I don't think PZ and his ilk are suggesting that we strategically jettison--or set out to do any other nasty things to--all those good Up With Science folk who also happen to be "down with" religion.

(However religiously-deluded PZ et al. may consider them to be.)

The intitial complaint about Miller's remarks was that it sounded, on some level, like he was trying to sic the fundamentally-religious on the out-and-proud atheists "instead of" the evolutionary scientists (some of whom practice good science, Miller as-initially-interpreted would apparently allow, so long as they didn't let their atheism interfere...).

As we've looked harder at what Miller said--and what he has since had to say about it--maybe he was only trying to get the anti-atheist Christians to distinguish between evolutionary-scientists-some-of-whom-are-incidentally-loud-atheists and evolutionary science, as such, which--from Miller's perspective, with which I suspect most of us would agree--is not only not "atheistic," but which says nothing at all--indeed, does not deal in or with, the whole realm of religion and morality.

(...so long as religion and morality are not foolhardy enough to make disputable claims about physical phenomena in the material world...)

If Miller was making the "larger" point that it first seemed like he may have been making, then PZ et al., it seems to this pinhead, had every reason to get a little teed off: first, because PZ, Dennett, Dawkins et al. are themselves being misrepresented when their personal atheism is improperly conflated with the claim (that none of them makes) that science/evolution somehow "prove" there is no god/spiritual world/validity to religion.

(That they may think that science and evolution are consistent with no-god/no-spiritual world/no-valid religion--and that they may likewise have concluded that religion is silly and, when perverted by the wacky and the evil, downright pernicious--are very different things, and we do neither science nor religion any favors by confusing their actual positions with their misrepresented ones.)

And, second, because whether we agree with PZ, Dennett, and Dawkins (none of whom, I suspect, would be entirely comfortable to be thus grouped together) or not, they have as much right to their opinions as Miller does to his--

--and, more importantly, Miller should be, from a strategic perspective, embracing them as pro-science advocates just as heartily as most of you here say they should be embracing Miller--

--rather than going out of his way to misprepresent or strategically "sacrifice" them to a bunch of folks who persist in ignorantly confusing science with atheism.

So long as we confine ourselves to verbal persuasion--and leave each other and our religious or non-religious behaviors alone--then we remain entirely free to disagree about this whole religion/atheism thing, while we are equally free to combine forces to promote science and science education.

But even Miller's "smaller" point (if that's what it was, since I haven't been able to track through all his rather confusing verbiage with any better success than most of you)--that his anti-evolution, religious audience needs to stop mistakenly confusing science (which has nothing to say "about" sufficiently-circumspect religion, pro or con) with some scientists (who may have a fair amount to say "against" religion)--is a questionable and dangerous one: it affords his anti-atheist audience with little reason to embrace science and every reason to scapegoat atheists, some of whom are not only hard-working scientists, but many of whom have already proven to be far more-reliable allies than the audience to whom he was speaking/mis-speaking.

Speaking out in favor of one's atheism--or one's religion--is NOT the same as attempting to legally, physically, or violently suppress religion or atheism.

Vocal atheists are not the same as, whatever, the Taliban, the fascists, the extreme Christian-Nation fundamentalists.

And, with all due respect to the Rev--may his pizzas always arrive hot and tasty; may his snakes all slither smoothly and slinkily--he seems to be having difficulty making the distinction between speaking up and squashing down.

I did not say I "know" anything. Just that I believe, and that I am entitled to that belief, as well as a belief in modern scientific consensus. And I have no reason other than your say-so to accept the scary but inevitable truth that the two are incompatible.

I did not make any testable claims, nor did I claim I made testable claims. If you wish to put questions to me, that is another matter. But if you are baiting me so you can puff up your chest and bang on it a few times, I will only nibble. And that is just what you are doing.

I do not know how to start an "After the Bar Closes" thread.If you want to have further discussions with me, start the "After the Bar Closes" thread and I will try to address any sincere questions, if you promise they are sincere. I'll just take your word for it.

In either case, I've been up since before 5 this morning, and will have to stop for the night.

By all means, sleep well!

Oh my! I can't beleive I did that, used another name again. After saying I wouldn't. Now Normdoering and the rest will rightly attack my integrity. It was a slip, I'm sorry -again- and I'd better get some rest before I mess up again.

Steve LaBonne said:

Again, Mike, if all you're interested in is keeping creationism out of public schools, you simply need a Judge Jones to do his job, "person of faith" or not. There's no question there of "forming alliances", nor has the job been done by any such alliances- it's been done by the Constitution.

Well, actually no. You need a group of people who are willing to bring a lawsuit in the first place, and you need experts in the Creationism/Evolution debate who have the time and energy to work with their lawyers to win the case. In short, you need political activists.

Successful political campaigns make alliances with people who share a particular viewpoint for the purpose of winning the issue at stake. Part of the reason why the US left is in such a shambles is that they are often unable to tarnish even a scintilla of their ideological purity for the purposes of achieving a goal. Part of the reason why the US right dominates the US right now is that they care about winning, not about ideological purity. If you doubt me, have a look at the budget deficit that this supposedly conservative administration is running right now.

We are very fortunate that there are a dedicated group of activists in the US who are working to defeat creationism wherever it rears its ugly head. Not just the NCSE, but the volunteers who start "Concerned Citizens for Science" movements in states where creationism is a problem. The NCSE can't do this on their own --- the battle has to be fought at the grassroots level by organizing people locally, by talking to the press, by holding meetings, by writing to newspapers and all the other things necessary in a political campaign. Most importantly, they build coalitions of people who do not all march in step when it comes to religion, but who all agree on the dangers of creationism.

PZ, and you (and I) are not pro-evolution activists. We just read (or write) blogs. PZ does not need to make nice with Christians (or even just overlook their faith in something he thinks is ridiculous) in order to achieve a political goal, because he has no political goal. He has a general desire for the world to be a more rational and less superstitious place, but he isn't involved in a political campaign to achieve that. If you like, he's a pundit, not a politician. He doesn't need to compromise. I'm on record as saying I think his approach is wrong. Specifically, I think that given the wide readership of his blog, he should tone down his rhetoric, which reached its peak (or nadir) this week when he labeled Ken Miller --- one of the most dedicated political fighters against creationism - a creationist. Before he gets all thin-skinned on me, I'm not saying he isn't entitled to criticize Miller. I'm just objecting to the tone, not the message.

If we want to defeat creationism in the US at the moment, we should go with the approach described by Pat and Jack. If we want to defeat unreason in the world, we should go with the approach of PZ and Steve. PZ's response is to say the first approach hasn't worked, to which I counter --- if you think that's been unsuccessful, just wait until you try it your way.......

which---from Miller's perspective, with which I suspect most of us would agree---is not only not "atheistic,"

— Steviepinhead

Specifically, I think that given the wide readership of his blog, he should tone down his rhetoric, which reached its peak (or nadir) this week when he labeled Ken Miller --- one of the most dedicated political fighters against creationism - a creationist. Before he gets all thin-skinned on me, I'm not saying he isn't entitled to criticize Miller. I'm just objecting to the tone, not the message.

Yes, Caledonian, I agree. In the literal sense, science and a lot of other ways in which we relate to the world, are a-theistic, having nothing to do--one way or the other--with gods.

But there's a difference--which I suspect you realize--between your correct/literal parsing of "atheism" as gods-indifferent/irrelevant and the sense in which--I suspect--Miller well knew that his audience would choose to interpret the term "atheism": as actively god-denying (and atheists as actively promoting god-denial).

I appreciate Andy Groves comments about political activists. I consider myself a citizen for science and a science activist. I am interested in results at the grass-roots level, and in the political outcome of those results. I am not by nature one who does political things well - I have to both learn some things about being politically effective and I've also had to modify some of my natural tendencies. Fortunately, I've discovered that most of the time doing the right thing and doing the politically correct thing can be approximately the same if one has the correct mindset.

My friend Sue Gamble, the most active of the moderate pro-science state Board members, put one of these principles this way: don't do things that eneregize the opposition. My addition to that goes like this: don't give people emotional hooks that give them the excuse to ignore all the reasonable things you have to say. Way too many times I've seen people write posts on discussion forums where after seveal paragraphs of substantial comment, they end with a personal zinger, which just gives the other person the excuse to respond to the zinger and ignore the substance.

Just that I believe, and that I am entitled to that belief, as well as a belief in modern scientific consensus. And I have no reason other than your say-so to accept the scary but inevitable truth that the two are incompatible.

Norm, you are being unnecessarily rude.

I've moved your last post to the bathroom wall. Please let this antagonistic set of replies to Katarina stop.

Norm, you are being unnecessarily rude.

And I have no reason other than your say-so to accept the scary but inevitable truth that the two are incompatible.

Of course evolutionary biology is atheistic. So is all of science. So is plumbing, and car repair, and architecture...

No, it isn't. Science pre-supposes a. that the laws of nature are rational, and b. that the world in which these laws operate is stable (the laws are dependable). Neither of these presuppositions is self-evident.

No, it isn't. Science pre-supposes a. that the laws of nature are rational, and b. that the world in which these laws operate is stable (the laws are dependable). Neither of these presuppositions is self-evident.

Scientists routinely deny the possibility of various things, perpetual motion, for example, or the arbitrarily accurate measurement of the position and momentum of the same particle. They can disprove the existence of such things because they can be described in scientific language. They can't deny the possibility of God's existence, however, because there is no conceptual or mathematical representation of God to deny. Since God isn't in the language, neither the affirmation or the denial of his existence is in the language either. (To be accurate, I should hedge that statement. Maybe somebody does have a conceptual representation of God that would make either a theistic of atheistic science possible, and I just haven't heard about it. Has anybody ever done a dimensional analysis of the Creator?)

They can't deny the possibility of God's existence, however, because there is no conceptual or mathematical representation of God to deny.

Normdoering,

Did I say I was a biblical literalist? Did I even say I was a Christian? I said I believed in a higher authority; I could be wrong, but I am hanging in there. It is a choice, and many others have made it who are also entitled to be taught the theory of evolution in the public schools.

As I said, this country is founded on ideals of religious freedom. As a kid in America, when I go to a public school, the teachers there can tell me what science has tested about the material world we occupy. But the conclusions it can offer are limited. We really don't even know all that much; we can only test things in a forward direction because we are caught in this expanding universe. We are fish in a bowl.

One thing you guys have to realize is that the rest of us look up to you and others as leaders in defending evolution. We look to you for answers, and tools to help us win the battle against the ID snakes. If you don't respect or acknowledge religious beliefs, some of those tools are useless in the classroom, even dangerous. If I were to teach, defending evolution and the rest of science with the argument that all supernatural beliefs are irrational, I would not remain a teacher much longer.

Of course, everyone here is free to express their views. I am not trying to get anybody to shut up, America is all about freedom of speech too. That is why I get to sit here and make you all nausious with my sandy religious statements that don't hold up to scientific scrutiny.

I have been derided here at PT before, but I haven't given up on reading, and I mostly simply look past insults to religion hoping I will learn something substantive about defending science in the world we live in. Ken Miller happens to be a hero in my eyes, and a great role model. He is not perfect, but who is? Luckily, I have a thick skin, unlike some atheists. I wasn't raised religious, so I don't take religious insults too personally. But there must be many religious folks out there wanting to learn more about this "controversy" surrounding evolution, and when they tune into PT, boy will they learn that the creationists were right to think there is a philosophical as well as a practical naturalism dominating science today!

I don't usually take sides in conflicts that arise in threads I moderate, and I usually try to steer discussion back towards issues and away from individuals.

But here I am going to step in in support of Katarina (who accidentally posted as "Meet People Where They Are" again.) I do this partially to highlight a difference in behavior that is perhaps central to this issue of this thread.

Katarina is telling us how she feels and what she believes. She is trying to describe herself, presumably with the hope that others will learn about how people that are different than they are look at the world.

Norm has attacked Katarina, and as she points out, has jumped to a lot of conclusions about her beliefs. He is responded angrily more to concerns that reside inside him than he is to Katarina herself.

Genuine dialogue only happens when people can listen to others without feeling threatened. That doesn't mean one can't forcibly defend one's positions and it doesn't mean one can't state clearly one thinks the other person is wrong (accompanied, we would hope, with rationale for that.) But civil discourse requires that these things be done, well, civilly.

I expect civil discourse in the threads I moderate.

I'm also going to sit back and enjoy my new immunity from criticism by anyone else who opposes the teaching of creationism in the schools. Remember, if you disagree with me, it means we're all going to be thrown into a Roman dungeon.

But if you are baiting me so you can puff up your chest and bang on it a few times, I will only nibble. And that is just what you are doing.

With all due respect to the Rev, I don't think PZ and his ilk are suggesting that we strategically jettison---or set out to do any other nasty things to---all those good Up With Science folk who also happen to be "down with" religion.

Sometimes, absence of evidence is evidence of absence - providing that the thing we're searching for is sufficiently large. I can't prove that the Loch Ness monster doesn't exist, since it's logically impossible to prove a negative.

don't do things that eneregize the opposition.

Be afraid.

Popper - Like I said, I can be insulting right back, but I only do it in response to other people's insults. Do you recommend I sit here and say nothing while others throw stones at me?

I appreciate Jack Krebs' defense. I started commenting on this thread as "Meet People Where They Are," so I thought I'd stick to that. I dislike using my real name because then the attacks feel too personal, since I predicted I would be attacked for presenting a religious view, and I was right.

My primary interest is not religion, but I did want to bring my point of view to the discussion because I know it is shared by many others. Many of whom don't even bother to give PT a second look since the tone is so anti-religious in the comments sections and sometimes in the posts as well. Which is too bad because this is the most informative - and honest - blog on the subject. The honesty is possible since atheists have their say too, I applaud that. But there is a difference between being a-religious, a-theist that is, and ANTI-religious or ANTI-theist. And the rejection of the possibility of compatibility of religion and science is in my opinion the greatest stumbling block in this whole debate. I'm not saying it's easy to find common ground, but at least some have bravely made an attempt, while others sneer at them instead of offering something that makes more sense.

I see no reason to get into a defense of religion in general, or continue to respond to inflammatory remarks about my character. It is precisely because these issues are personal that they need to be overcome in a tolerant fashion.

Yes, Caledonian, I agree. In the literal sense, science and a lot of other ways in which we relate to the world, are a-theistic, having nothing to do---one way or the other---with gods. But there's a difference---which I suspect you realize---between your correct/literal parsing of "atheism" as gods-indifferent/irrelevant and the sense in which---I suspect---Miller well knew that his audience would choose to interpret the term "atheism": as actively god-denying (and atheists as actively promoting god-denial).

Don't rule out the possibility that people can have a real personal relationship with God.

Popper - Like I said, I can be insulting right back, but I only do it in response to other people's insults.

I appreciate Jack Krebs' defense.

I have some question for Mr. Krebs. What exactly do Katarina's professions of faith have to do with the text of Pat Hayes' thoughts? How do religious apologia relate to the arguments he expressed? Given that they seem grossly inappropriate, why were they not moved to the Wall?

Is it that you don't want to appear hostile to theists?

If you care to re-read the post, I don't see how my comments are off-topic. However, the comments are getting quite personal, which I admit is rather childish. If Jack Krebs wishes to move some of the rude ones to Bathroom Wall or banish them, that is his call and I won't complain. Obviously Popper et al. would love for me to just shut up. Seems to me the discrimination goes both ways, but as far as I know this site is not set up for anti-theists to moan about how they are treated by society while attacking religion.

/I don't rule out the possibility that people can have a real fantasy about something they call "God". /

Katarina is telling us how she feels and what she believes. She is trying to describe herself, presumably with the hope that others will learn about how people that are different than they are look at the world.

However, I can't help but feel that he is helping create an ever deepening divide between the religious and science. Or rather I should say, justifying the disdain of religious people for any kind of science they find "problematic."

Obviously Popper et al. would love for me to just shut up.

I don't rule out the possibility that people can have a real fantasy about something they call "God".

Thanks for your permission!

Popper - how is it an insult to point out the obvious - that I am being attacked for saying that theism and evolution are compatible? There is no need for Jack Krebs to defend me, because I am leaving the discussion.

BTW, I do appreciate all the comments made in the past by the very people attacking me now, that are relevant to our shared fight against evolution-denial. I have learned a lot BECAUSE I don't think atheists, or even anti-theists, have nothing of value to say. So thank you. See ya.

I am being attacked for saying that theism and evolution are compatible

But even Miller's "smaller" point (if that's what it was, since I haven't been able to track through all his rather confusing verbiage with any better success than most of you)---that his anti-evolution, religious audience needs to stop mistakenly confusing science (which has nothing to say "about" sufficiently-circumspect religion, pro or con) with some scientists (who may have a fair amount to say "against" religion)---is a questionable and dangerous one: it affords his anti-atheist audience with little reason to embrace science and every reason to scapegoat atheists, some of whom are not only hard-working scientists, but many of whom have already proven to be far more-reliable allies than the audience to whom he was speaking/mis-speaking. Speaking out in favor of one's atheism---or one's religion---is NOT the same as attempting to legally, physically, or violently suppress religion or atheism.

God is big. Like, um, really big, and according to most of the major J/C religions, intimately involved in every aspect of every life all the time. Yet, in trillions of hours of searching, the worlds religions have found nothing of substance to point to and say "he was here". Ever. This is really only logically conceivable if God has no interaction at all with the world - if his effects are too tiny to be sifted. That's the point we're at. No, I can't say that God doesn't exist, it's just that if he does exist he seems to have no interaction at all with his creation, which he built to (apparently) not need him.

Flint, my comments weren't directed at you. You do pose a very good problem. Someone should show why religion and science are NOT incompatible. This starts with defining the religion. This thing is difficult to do, since there is so much diversity in belief. Why can't we be content with saying, not all religion is opposed to science? I do think that mainstream Christianity needs some modifications and more unity in order to fit the modern scientific picture better. But I admit that I myself to not have the answer.

That aphorism perfectly sums up how America is in the position we're in today. If we stand for something that some other group opposes, hush, don't say it... ... both those groups [supporters of science and Democrats] seem to be dominated by do-nothings who think the path to victory is to avoid standing up for what they do believe in, and all because of the sentiment in that quote. Here's a shorter, pithier version for you: Be afraid.

When I give talks about energy, the audience already knows about the problems. That's not what they've come to hear. So I don't talk about problems, only solutions. But after a while, during the question period, someone in the back will get up and give a long riff about all the bad things that are happening---most of which are basically true. There's only one way I've found to deal with that. After this person calms down, I gently ask whether feeling that way makes him more effective.

norm: first, like a typical dishonest creationist, you repeat the same old overgeneralizations that have already been addressed and refuted by more than one party on this very forum. Then you react like a bitter old spittle-spraying drunk to a perfectly civil post by a theist who --be she right or wrong -- completely fails to conform to your rigid negative stereotype of theists. And you expect to be taken seriously? (Did your horoscope in WorldNutDaily predict you'd win this argument? :-D)

Grow up two decades and call us in the morning.

Strange. Mr. Krebs seemed to have more than enough energy to remove Popper's comments.

Perhaps he has enough energy to moderate some kinds of posts, but not others.

Popper - how is it an insult to point out the obvious - that I am being attacked for saying that theism and evolution are compatible?

And that a "theistic scientist" is required BOTH to absolutely require and absolutely NOT require evidence, both at the same time.

Strange. Mr. Krebs seemed to have more than enough energy to remove Popper's comments.

Flint wrote:

(And I will repeat, once again, that beliefs as I intend the word are generally used as *substitutes* for curiosity)

You're not "repeating" that, you're stating it for the first time.

So, to sum up: you ask for examples of irrational, unproven beliefs, feelings or opinions that advance science; I provide such examples; and now you say you're only considering beliefs that "are generally used as *substitutes* for curiosity." In other words, you're redefining your terms on the fly (while pretending that's what you meant all along), to rule out answers you didn't expect to hear.

Consistency is the hobgoblin of the foolish mind

He also knows that if he wants to delve into the spiritual, a search for empirical evidence will be fruitless.

This starts with defining the religion. This thing is difficult to do, since there is so much diversity in belief. Why can't we be content with saying, not all religion is opposed to science?

In other words, you're redefining your terms on the fly (while pretending that's what you meant all along), to rule out answers you didn't expect to hear.

So you are saying that people can successfully time-slice their beliefs, laying them aside (and pretending they don't believe) when doing science, then forgetting the requirements of science when it comes time to pray. I admit, I had envisioned religious faith as being more pervasive than that, which is why it's called a worldview. A worldview is *by definition* not something that can be set aside when convenient, and trotted out as necessary. It informs the basic personality. But you may be right; maybe Miller DOES exchange one personality for another profoundly different as required. I could not do this, so it didn't occur to me.

Meanwhile, I was hoping someone would make an attempt to explain how irrational, non-evidence-based beliefs *assist or support* the effort to do good science.

Flint wrote to Atheistichumanist:

So you are saying that people can successfully time-slice their beliefs, laying them aside (and pretending they don't believe) when doing science, then forgetting the requirements of science when it comes time to pray.

No, the paragraph you quote very plainly did NOT say that. Once again, you're completely misrepresenting what was actually said, twisting it to fit what you expect others to say; and it's getting as tiresome as it is blatant. Who do you want to talk to -- us, or your mental construct of us? If it's us, please be advised that we didn't get the script you seem to expect us to use, and we have no use for it anyway (so save youself the FedEx bill).

First, if a scientist's specific religious belief allows, or encourages, or requires, him to do honest science, then he has no need to "lay his belief aside" to do science, nor does he have to "pretend he doesn't believe."

Second, when the said scientist is seeking guidance or strength from the voice/presence of God within himself, he does not have to "forget the requirements of science." That's a bit like saying I "forget" how to do basic math whenever I turn my attention to a subject that has nothing to do with math.

If you can't understand that science is agnostic (not atheistic), and silent on questions of wants, values, morals and ethics (among the subjects people tend to pray about), then it is you who are "forgetting the requirements of science."

I'm having a hard time understanding why anyone cares how Miller reconciles his faith with science. If he's doing good work like other theistic evolutionists, or agnostic or athestic scientists, and getting consistent results with them, his religious life is irrelevant. So he thinks you can be a Christian and still observe empirically. You disagree? Prove it. Dispute his scientific work. Show how faith has distorted the results of his scientific experiments. If you can't, belt up. You may disagree with a lot of what he's written in his Christian apologetic mode, but tuff darts. That ain't science, and he's not pretending it is.

That cause-and-effect claim clearly goes against the evidence; Creation Science long predated those books.

One can certainly address a strawman version of this and explain how arational non-evidenced-based attitudes assist or support the effort to do good science, but the critical thing to note is that these attitudes do not depend upon theism

Jack, I am not calling you a do-nothing. I am saying that the sentiment in that quote, urging us to avoid energizing our opponents, is false and destructive -- it only ends up weakening us.

The evidence is in the results. Republicans and creationists do not hesitate to say and do things that ought to energize their opponents, and they are succeeding, to the consternation of anyone with half a brain who looks at their idiotic ideas. Liberals and evolutionary biologists do intentionally muzzle themselves to avoid offending the mythical, elusive middle ground of wafflers and fence-sitters, and all we accomplish is to look like a weak mob of ditherers.

You don't want mere outrage, but we do need clarity, vigor, and a very strong message -- a message that will annoy and probably energize our opponents. That's preferable to muddling about and letting the opposition win with little effort, on the shakiest ground.

Since I doubt Miller does research in the pew, or worships in his lab, in fact he doesn't have to do both at the same time.

If you can't understand that science is agnostic (not atheistic), and silent on questions of wants, values, morals and ethics (among the subjects people tend to pray about), then it is you who are "forgetting the requirements of science."

If he's doing good work like other theistic evolutionists, or agnostic or athestic scientists, and getting consistent results with them, his religious life is irrelevant.

Katerina wrote:

Why can't we be content with saying, not all religion is opposed to science?

And Flint responded:

Because it begs the question...

That's not "begging the question;" that's an OBSERVATION, which has been repeatedly corroborated.

If it relies on evidence, it's science. If it does not, it's not science.

So now you're saying a religion can be "science" if it relies on "evidence?" How much "evidence," exactly, before it crosses the magic threshhold? A creationist -- whose job, after all, is getting HIS religion defined as "science" -- would be proud of your efforts. (Or he'd shake his head and say "Nah, that didn't work when we tried it.")

So you seem to be saying, some religious belief is actually science in disguise.

No, YOU are saying that, and pretending someone else is saying it, by redefining others' words out from under them and pretending everyone else is using the same definitions you choose to impose at the moment.

For simplicity, why not say it's science?

Because a) it's wrong, and b) it doesn't simplify anything. (Are you channelling Carol Clouser or something? The real Carol is more convincing.)

Meanwhile, I was hoping someone would make an attempt to explain how irrational, non-evidence-based beliefs *assist or support* the effort to do good science.

Meanwhile, I was hoping someone would make an attempt to explain how irrational, non-evidence-based beliefs *assist or support* the effort to do good science.

But you may be right; maybe Miller DOES exchange one personality for another profoundly different as required. I could not do this, so it didn't occur to me.

Flint wrote:

But you may be right; maybe Miller DOES exchange one personality for another profoundly different as required. I could not do this, so it didn't occur to me.

You actually think a guy has to have two separate personalities to do both religion and science? That's both laughable and sad at the same time. No wonder you twist everyone's words on the subject -- your mind simply can't comprehend what we're saying.

Republicans and creationists do not hesitate to say and do things that ought to energize their opponents, and they are succeeding, to the consternation of anyone with half a brain who looks at their idiotic ideas. Liberals and evolutionary biologists do intentionally muzzle themselves to avoid offending the mythical, elusive middle ground of wafflers and fence-sitters, and all we accomplish is to look like a weak mob of ditherers.

I was hoping someone would make an attempt to explain how irrational, non-evidence-based beliefs *assist or support* the effort to do good science.
Excellent question. With the exception of one religion, I think the answer is, irrational beliefs simply can't.

However, let's entertain:

Irrational belief #1. The world was created by a rational being. (see Book of Wisdom)
Irrational belief #2. Being the creation of a rational being, the world must operate according to rational, dependable laws of nature (which we can test). (see St. Paul, St. Augustine, Aquinas, etc etc etc)

Now...I know this may come as a total shock, but you can believe both of these irrational axioms...and do some pretty damned good science as a result.

Like Ken Miller.

:)

A while back I did a short philosophy course. The tutor made an interesting point. He stated that many animal species (and some humans) were colour blind and only saw things in black and white. His point was (I think), that since many animals (and some humans) have absolutely no concept of colour, how do we know that our observable universe is the real universe ? I thought it was an interesting statement, especially in relation to science/religion.(he was not a Christian as far as I know).

That's simply a lie, not an insult.

Although it does seem that you actually believe that criticism of or questions about your comments are "attacks" or "rude"

How about ruling out the possibility that you can actually know if what you are relating to is God or some other thing, like a delusion or perhaps merely a trickster from the planet Zarkuba with very advanced technologies.

I really think this sums up the issue: Norm attempted to engage you in the process of justifying your claims and beliefs

a process that lies at the heart of scientific inquiry and rational investigation, by asking you a series of questions

Well, calling such inquiries rude and other attempts to shut them up won't stop the questions from being asked.

the idea of atheism, being promoted by some scientists, such as Dawkins.

You may be right, Steviepinhead. I've read more about Dawkins written by creationists then I've read Dawkins (I did enjoy "The Ancestor's Tale"), so that is something I should correct by reading more Dawkins. If Miller is misrepresenting Dawkins, bad on him.

My primary point, though, was I still think there is nothing wrong with trying to convince christians that evolutionary theory doesn't require or prove the nonexistence of god, and the battle of ideas should be between theism and atheism, and evolutionary science shouldn't be caught in the crossfire (of argument, not actual bullets).

There also isn't anything wrong with Dawkins promoting atheism, if he chooses to do so.

Meanwhile, I was hoping someone would make an attempt to explain how irrational, non-evidence-based beliefs *assist or support* the effort to do good science.

A while back I did a short philosophy course. The tutor made an interesting point. He stated that many animal species (and some humans) were colour blind and only saw things in black and white. His point was (I think), that since many animals (and some humans) have absolutely no concept of colour, how do we know that our observable universe is the real universe ? I thought it was an interesting statement, especially in relation to science/religion.(he was not a Christian as far as I know).

— Peter Henderson

the battle of ideas should be between theism and atheism, and evolutionary science shouldn't be caught in the crossfire (of argument, not actual bullets)

Well, that's getting better again. For a while there I thought this thread was going to completely degenerate.

Just a note: For practitioners of Bayesian reasoning absence of evidence is evidence of absence, but in the sense that there must be some means of observing the purported evidence...

if you were both an attorney and a parent, would you put a judge in timeout during a hearing, or would you cite caselaw to your toddler to show her that you are legally authorized to make decisions for her?

So does religion assist or support the effort to achieve peace in the middle east because it could motivate people to love their neighbors? Or does the astrology column in the newspaper assist or support our decision making because it could coincide with what's in our best interests? Since these memes aren't anchored in reason, we can't expect desirable outcomes; the mere possibility of desirable outcomes is beside the point. Surely, if we want people to be motivated to do good science, we could look toward something less arbitrary, like the effectiveness of using reason and observation to produce consistent models that make accurate predictions, which allows us to increase lifespans, reduce suffering and toil, and in various other ways satisfy our desires.

I think the substance of this thread boils down to the following - empirical results vs. logical/philosophical consistency.

There is a lot argument here about whether evolutionary theism is logically consistent. I could care less. I really don't care why people do what they do unless that is relevant to solving a problem. I care about what they do. The empirical evidence is clear that many people through history up to right this very minute have done excellent science while believing unverifiable things. I don't see this as a problem that needs to be solved. Suicide bombing is a problem. Teaching intelligent design or young earth creationism as valid science to children is a problem. Global warming denialism is a problem. Ken Miller putting a lot of effort into an argument that religion and science have some sort of synergistic relationship doesn't even register on my problemometer.

As far as I can tell this whole thing started because Prof. Miller made some statements that were not well thought out. Prof. Myers responded with statements that were similarly hasty. I think criticism of Prof. Miller's remarks and a request for clarification was certainly warranted. His comments did imply a lack of respect/consideration for those who are not religious. On the other hand it is not clear to me what Prof. Myers thought he would accomplish through his intemperate reply (and general use denigrative adjectives to describe religious belief). A statement was made in an earier thread that went more or less as follows.

Of course Miller should attack atheism and Myers attack religion.

I don't understand that at all. Attacking the opinion of another has value if you think their opinion is wrong/damaging to yourself or others and/or there exists the possiblility of a resolution based on evidence. I fail to see the value of attacking the personal religious beliefs (or lack thereof) or of attacking the general concept of religious beliefs (or lack thereof). If the beliefs include specifics that are manifestly untrue (as in YEC) or impose societal changes that are undesirable (e.g. religious coercion) than they should be vigorously resisted. However the existence or non-existence of a god is a non-resolvable issue and as a general concept I fail to see how someone holding a different opinion than yourself harms you in any way.

An obvous reply to my statements is to point to social harm caused by organized religion. Authoritarian religious organizations pose a major problem in today's world and I believe firmly in working to oppose their influence in society. Catholics and Quakers are both Christian groups and presumably share many fundamental beliefs. However they differ in other beliefs which are not metaphysical. Quakers are non-authoritarian and do not believe in attempting to convert others. The Catholic Church is authoritarian and attempts to influence societies globally to fall into line with its moral code. What is the more effective strategy for opposing the damage caused by the Catholic Church? Attacking the central tenets of Christianity as fairy tales? Or combatting the goals of the church and its authoritarian nature?

I want my neighbor to be a tolerant and open-minded person. I could care less what they believe as long as there is no way to prove it right or wrong and they don't want to impose their beliefs on me or anyone else.

That's simply a lie, not an insult.

I really think this sums up the issue: Norm attempted to engage you in the process of justifying your claims and beliefs

My only assertion was that I am entitled to my beliefs

and the U.S. Constitution protects me

and everyone else taught in public schools, where these issues are being played out.

Well, calling such inquiries rude and other attempts to shut them up won't stop the questions from being asked.

Sure, but we have to deal with the world as it is, not as we want it to be. Religious memes aren't going away anytime soon, and most people are infected with one.

And we aren't talking about the "mere possibility" of desireable outcomes; many of histories greatest scientists have been theists.

Challenging me on my beliefs is off-topic and requires a time-consuming, in-depth dissection of each question. That is why I asked Norm to take it off the thread if he was serious about pursuing the answers.

I do not feel obligated to post here, and the fact that you keep dropping hints that my posts here are unwanted reveals considerable hypocrisy. I have no control over the moving of other people's comments by the moderator, nor did I ask that anyone's comment be removed. The fact that you feel the need to point out perceived flaws in my reasoning, or character, leads nowhere that has anything to do with atheists and theists defending evolution "shoulder to shoulder." If anything, it is off-topic trolling.

I hope someday PT will be a place where everyone can feel welcome.

Its infinitely preferable that they are infected with memes which promote peace, love and reason than those which promote violence, hate and irrationality.

Thus we should encourage the notion that science is compatible with a version of christianity which doesn't demand that ancient myths be treated as incontrovertible facts.

Challenging me on my beliefs is off-topic and requires a time-consuming, in-depth dissection of each question.

I do not feel obligated to post here, and the fact that you keep dropping hints that my posts here are unwanted reveals considerable hypocrisy.

I've read, I think, all of his books but one. Every single one of them is spent on effectively explaining larger and smaller ideas in evolution and zoology.

But an industrious "promoter" of "the idea of atheism"?

Let's retire the "evil atheist" hobby horse. That's playing their game, not ours.

Why are people motivated to become scientists or doctors?

For some, at least, their religious upbringing. Here is a (partial) list of those raised as Quakers (religious Society of Friends). That means, I believe, they received early motivation to assist everyone.

William Tuke, John Dalton, William Allen, Thomas Young, Thomas Hodgkin, Joseph Lister, Arthur Eddington, Kathleen Lonsdale, Len Lamberton, Jocelyn Bell Burnell, G. Gordon Steel.

For some, at least, their religious upbringing. Here is a (partial) list of those raised as Quakers (religious Society of Friends). That means, I believe, they received early motivation to assist everyone.

It is perfectly possible to prove negatives. This old canard needs to be stopped. Universal negatives cannot be proven by referencing non-universal empirical observations - to do that you need universally-applicable arguments, such as logical proofs built off of generally-accepted premises.

stevaronion --- In the real world, no deductive proof suffices. But for a Bayesian, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Lets pick a better example than Nessy:

I've never seen a purple cow.
I've seen over one thousand cows.
I conclude, on that basis alone, that it is exceedingly unlikely that purple cows exist. Hence, for all practical purposes, it is simply easier to convert this to an absolute, "there are no purple cows."

Popper's ghost --- Your first two sentences are correct. The rest is your misunderstanding of my post, simply reading into it something which wasn't there.
Pick a couple of the scientists in that list and read their biographies. Even better, I do hope there is a Friend's Meeting (Unprogrammed) near you. Try it out, just for itself.

Why is it evil to promote the idea of atheism?

Pat Hayes: I have said here and elsewhere that Miller is such. However, I have also stressed that creationism comes in degrees of incompatibility with findings and methods of science. The current Catholic position (asserting the special creation of human psychological faculties) is much more mild than (say) 6000 year old Earth/global flood of Noah, etc. guys. I am relying on an intuitive principle that perhaps results in genuine disagreements as to some orderings, but I don't see the need to discard it altogether for that reason.

normdoering: One of the founding documents in ontology and knowledge representation as it is used in computing was published in a volume Studies on Mario Bunge's Treatise. The aforementioned treatise is a work of philosophy designed to be compatible with and mutually support / be supported by scientific research. Subsequently the metaphysics volumes are not fuzzy-headed musings of Germans, but exact, scientifically respectable hypotheses of a very general nature. It is for this reason that they became congenial to computing people. Ontology (used by Bunge as a near synonym for metaphysics) in the philosophical sense is not alien to the computing usage at all.

wheels: "not scientific but philosophical" you said. Once again, what is the argument to the effect that they are seperate? (See the above aside to normdoering for an example.) If we want a consistent world view (to avoid cognitive dissonance if nothing else), we're best to adopt a philosophy continuous with and supported by / supporting the best scientific research of our time.

Popper's ghost: It is worse than that for the believer, since many of the great scientists in question were heretics. (Newton, Leibniz, Descartes, Galileo, Kepler ...)

PZ Myers wrote: Ask the atheists to sit down and shut up about their disbelief, because it annoys the Christians. That's what this is actually about. .... There is definitely an oppressive current here that is trying to use a demand for unity against a common enemy to suppress dissent;

Stevaroni:

Caledonian seems to have been arguing that you can prove some universal negatives -- for instance, there is no greatest prime. But that's a strawman, as there are no "logical proofs built off of generally-accepted premises" that there is no Loch Ness monster. His statement about "evidence to the contrary" in regard to absence of evidence is also somewhat off-base, because "absence of evidence" means absence of evidence for the claim under discussion, but the negation of that claim is a quite different claim. To be precise, your "Sometimes, absence of evidence is evidence of absence" means "Sometimes, absence of evidence of X is evidence of absence of X" -- specifically in the case where X is the Loch Ness monster. However, you would have to stipulate that evidence of X had been sought -- and failure to find such evidence would indeed be "evidence to the contrary"; Caledonian is right about that. Your "providing that the thing we're searching for is sufficiently large" doesn't really meet that; the supposed size of the Loch Ness monster isn't alone sufficient that we can expect to have seen it if it existed, beyond the anecdotal sightings that have been reported over the years. But people have sought evidence at some length, with complete sonar scans of the Loch, and did find evidence, on more than one occasion, of large aquatic creatures. However, the most thorough investigation, by the BBC in 2003, found nothing (according to Wikipedia). The whole question of what is evidence and what would constitute absence of evidence is rather tricky, because anything that supports a claim, no matter how weakly, can be taken as evidence for the claim. In the case of Nessie, even photographs that people have admitted to staging can be taken as weak evidence (the photo might be real and the people may have lied about staging it for unknown reasons).

David Benson:

I disagree that I misunderstood your post, and that you suggest reading biographies suggests that you misunderstood mine. My statements that you say were reading something that wasn't there weren't reading anything; they were part of an argument that "religion factors out": that your examples don't demonstrate what they purport to demonstrate, or they are addressed to a strawman. No one has claimed that there are no scientists who have been motivated by their religious upbringing; the claim from Flint, as I understand it, was that religion brings nothing that couldn't be had without it. Effectiveness, sense of curiosity, and ethics are more than adequate secular motivations for doing good science.

Steviepinhead:

"I know you're having some gentle fun with me": not as much as you're having with me. :-) As for "Why is it evil to promote the idea of atheism?", I was just responding to your two phrases "an industrious "promoter" of "the idea of atheism"" and "the "evil atheist" hobby horse"; if the latter doesn't refer to the former, then I don't get what it does refer to. As for Dawkins claiming that science or evolution proves that god doesn't exist, he's explicitly said otherwise -- we had this conversation recently. But promoting the idea of atheism, or arguing that science as incompatible with religion, doesn't imply such a claim (or proof), certainly not for Dawkins's
a-teapot-orbiting-Mars type of atheism.

Keith Douglas:

I agree that non-believing great scientists + heretical great scientists is a larger set than just non-believing great scientists. :-)

Cordova:

Eff off with your concern trolling.

Normdoering, Did I say I was a biblical literalist?

Did I even say I was a Christian?

Have fun with (yet another) pointless and silly religious war, guys.

Oh, and hey, Sal, I have some questions for you to answer.

Whaddya say?

Ever notice that every time we have this silly and pointless religious war, it's always the same five or six people?

Ever wonder why?

Popper's Ghost wrote to Cordova: Eff off

I said I believed in a higher authority;

Yes, my higher authority is going to send you straight to hell:)

I don't know, Norm. I just don't know. I go between agnosticism and theism at least 3 times a day. Personally, I cannot claim to have the answers, but I do admire those who seek them.

What I DO know is that the defenders of evolution should be neutral about the issue of religion when educating the general public. Because a) the majority of them are theists, in this country, of one kind or another, and b) science does not speak about thing it can't test, and evolution is science.

I could be wrong, but I am hanging in there. It is a choice, and many others have made it who are also entitled to be taught the theory of evolution in the public schools.

You are right, the argument needs to go on. That is clear. And the claims have to be honest on both sides, and examined on both sides, just as you are trying to do. Everyone should have a say, so long as they engage in civil discourse, and have something substantive to add to the discussion.

I think you mis-spelled the word you intended to say. :-)

PZ's right, you guys suppress dissent around these parts

You are right, the argument needs to go on. That is clear. And the claims have to be honest on both sides, and examined on both sides, just as you are trying to do. Everyone should have a say, so long as they engage in civil discourse, and have something substantive to add to the discussion.

normdoering --- Maybe you want to change that to "conflict between SOME religions and science". First, there cannot be a conflict between Zen and science, since Zen isn't about anything, according to Lenny. Does this mean Zen is not a religion, or anyway, a part of one? Remember I once knew a Zen Quaker...

More seriously, I just posted a list above of scientists raised in the Quaker tradition. I know something of Quaker ways and sayings. Whilst it grows out of Christianity, little attention is placed on the traditional literature.
Much more important is: "What sayest thou?"

Hence an emphasis on honesty, right (or fair) dealing, a great appreciation of the natural world. And none on traditional authority. Yet the Religious Society of Friends is ordinarily considered to be a religion. Yes?

normdoering --- Maybe you want to change that to "conflict between SOME religions and science".

Caledonian seems to have been arguing that you can prove some universal negatives --- for instance, there is no greatest prime. But that's a strawman, as there are no "logical proofs built off of generally-accepted premises" that there is no Loch Ness monster

— Popper's ghost

Yeah, Sal, now that you've done your monthly drive-by, drivel on off.

Okay, getting back to rational commentors.

We have here a several-cornered problem: atheist, agnostic, or at least non-religious science promoters in one corner; religious-but-rational, tolerant, etc. science promoters in another; and wacky, ignorant, deluded, politically-motivated, or religiously-motivated, or otherwise-motivated anti-science cranks in a distant third corner. Of the latter, a reasonably noisy and largely-disingenous subset is made up of the fundy religious cranks (with a fair smattering of sincere but ignorant/misled non-cranks).

"Can't we all just get along?"

Well, yes and no.

I see no reason that the two groups of science promoters can't effectively ally for at least the limited purpose of opposing the anti-science cranks and dimwits (I would hope the same two "groups" could likewise combine to oppose the over-the-top fundy religious hate-mongers on other issues too, though this isn't critical for the pro-science focus), even while some of those erstwhile allies indulge themselves in the occasional side-debate about the virtues vel non of (non-cranky) religious belief or lack thereof.

In allowing for the side-argumentation about religion and atheism, though, it would be my hope that the pro-science/pro-religion crowd would avoid the temptation to flog the (to my mind) crank-religious/anti-science "atheism=evil" hobby horse. Atheism may or may not be wrong, or unprovable, or unfulfilling, or a waste (in the sense of "spiritually-unrewarding") of an otherwise productive life, or subject to abuse, perversion, or political hijacking, but I would hope most rational pro-science religious folk would avoid the obvious error of automatically equating "atheism" or "atheists" with Evil.

And that's the basis for (one of) my problem(s) with (what still appears to be a tenable, though perhaps not a charitable, interpretation of) Miller's remarks here.

Likewise,it would be my hope that the less-religious pro-science crowd would refrain--even while questioning religious belief as silly, lacking in logic, evidence, consistency, and subject to well-documented instances of abuse, perversion, hijacking, whatever--would yet manage to refrain from indicting all the religious believers or religiously-tolerant as cranks, idiots, morons, rascals, and drooling fundies.

Despite various hot-under-the-collar threads we've all known and loved, I think most of us, most of the time, remember that "our" atheists--however silly and deluded--aren't actively evil and are still on "our" side and that "our" religious--however silly and deluded--aren't actively evil and are still on "our" side.

Except, of course, when we temporarily don't manage to remember those things.

Which is what some of "us" initially (and I would argue understandably--even if ultimately, perhaps, incorrectly) thought Miller had done here.

And which--to my mind, but I'm still willing to stand corrected--some on this thread are still doing in re PZ, Dawkins, and Dennett, since I still haven't seen the evidence that any of these folks are either (a) claiming that science "proves" atheism (in the sense that I'm talking about, as opposed to what Flint and Caledonian or some others may be talking about) or (b) rejecting the aid of the rational religious in combatting the wackos.

So, no, it's not "evil" to promote atheism, any more than it's "evil" for the-person-posting-as-Katarina to believe in a "higher authority" or for someone else to affirm the goodliness of Quaker scientists. But equating atheism with evil is an evil, not to mention several different kinds of logical fallacy, one in which the "other side" engages but which the "allied" religious ought, I would hope, to avoid.

Even whilst wincing--or chuckling, counterattacking, or whatever--under the slings and arrows of PZ's (or Dawkins' or Dennett's) purely-verbal barrages.

Can you logically prove finite negative?

Yet the Religious Society of Friends is ordinarily considered to be a religion. Yes?

There seems to be some confusion here about the nature of science. It is true that there is no necessarily contradiction between the findings of science at any one time and religious tenets in general. Obviously a specific religion might have tenets that were incompatible with current scientific understanding, but this isn't inevitable.

Science, however, is ultimately not its findings. Science is a method, and that method is how we justify its findings - they have no credibility taken by themselves alone, only through passing the gauntlet of the method (and being able to do so next time, and the next time, etc.).

The method of science is inherently incompatible with the essence of religion. Religions permit belief (and in some cases mandate it) without the standards that science requires. A sufficiently stringent 'religion' is actually part of science by definition, and a sufficiently accepting 'science' is really a religion. (See astrology, phrenology, and palm reading for examples - none of those practices are logically impossible in general, but the evidence is very, very strongly against them, so they survive not as scientific theories but beliefs held on faith.)

Science and religion are thus not compatible. They are necessarily incompatible. The key principles that define those two concepts are mutually exclusive. I could say it a hundred different ways, but the truth is constant.

There seems to be some confusion here about the nature of science. It is true that there is no necessarily contradiction between the findings of science at any one time and religious tenets in general. Obviously a specific religion might have tenets that were incompatible with current scientific understanding, but this isn't inevitable.

Science, however, is ultimately not its findings. Science is a method, and that method is how we justify its findings - they have no credibility taken by themselves alone, only through passing the gauntlet of the method (and being able to do so next time, and the next time, etc.).

The method of science is inherently incompatible with the essence of religion. Religions permit belief (and in some cases mandate it) without the standards that science requires. A sufficiently stringent 'religion' is actually part of science by definition, and a sufficiently accepting 'science' is really a religion. (See astrology, phrenology, and palm reading for examples - none of those practices are logically impossible in general, but the evidence is very, very strongly against them, so they survive not as scientific theories but beliefs held on faith.)

Science and religion are thus not compatible. They are necessarily incompatible. The key principles that define those two concepts are mutually exclusive. I could say it a hundred different ways, but the truth is constant.

But, Caledonian, of the possible places that takes us, isn't one of them straight to Miller-Gould's "separate magesteria"?

Ok, Popper's ghost! The Religious Society of Friends is oddly theistic and certainly pacifist. Perhaps the most important point is that it is one of the least authoritarian of the Christian sects. It seems clear enough to me that the practices are such as to encourage careers in science and especially medicine.

Whatever theism there is does not seem to stand in the way of the practice of good science and good medicine. None of the Friends I know find any contraction whatsoever between their 'faith' and the conduct of their science.

Whatever theism there is does not seem to stand in the way of the practice of good science and good medicine. None of the Friends I know find any contraction whatsoever between their 'faith' and the conduct of their science.

That's a little harsh - I never suggested that one could prove that there is no Loch Ness monster anywhere in the universe through logical observations alone.

I can't prove that the Loch Ness monster doesn't exist, since it's logically impossible to prove a negative. On the other hand, if I were to empty the loch one bucket at a time and find nothing, I would functionally demonstrate the same thing - there is no monster.

It is perfectly possible to prove negatives. This old canard needs to be stopped. Universal negatives cannot be proven by referencing non-universal empirical observations - to do that you need universally-applicable arguments, such as logical proofs built off of generally-accepted premises.

How can we achieve the goal of quality science education when most of the people on "our side" can't manage even basic scientific reasoning?

Ok, Popper's ghost! The Religious Society of Friends is oddly theistic and certainly pacifist.

Conjoint but separable magesteria?

(Don't mind me. Like Katarina said last night, it's *yawn* time to call it an evening, go round up the pizza, and herd them back into their pizza-stalls, where they'll be cozy and warm--but hardly safe from predation!--for the night.)

Cripes!

Make that "magisteria..."

Now to rustle up some pizza!

Whatever theism there is does not seem to stand in the way of the practice of good science and good medicine. None of the Friends I know find any contraction whatsoever between their 'faith' and the conduct of their science.

More commonly, you can produce arguments which fall short of true formal proof, but are extremely convincing inductive proofs. This is what science is all about (and technically, logic as well, since we assume inductively that we will come to the same conclusions if we apply the same methods to the same data - sometimes we screw this up. Uncertainty is irreducible, unfortunately).

But, Caledonian, of the possible places that takes us, isn't one of them straight to Miller-Gould's "separate magesteria"?

— steviepinhead

the consequences of things which cannot be tested are the same whether they are true or false, so they are meaningless

Incorrect statements. Negative existentials and positive universals can both in theory be verified empirically - it's just so difficult to do in practice that it's generally not feasible.

The statements are still testable. Untestable statements cannot even potentially be verified or falsified, and that is only possible if they have no consequences whatsoever. A statement that has logical consequences can be shown to be incompatible with evidence and thus falsified.

My "incorrect statements" are widely held to be true, and appear prima facie true. But if you say otherwise, hey, whatever.

Um... no, no they don't.

For example, identifying meaning and truth value as equivalent itself has logical consequences which can be shown to be true or false. It doesn't contradict itself.

Whatever you say. After all, you apparently consider statements to by true by virtue of your having stated them.

Please provide an example of a meaningful yet nontestable statement.

Please provide an example of a meaningful yet nontestable statement.

Please provide an example of a meaningful yet nontestable statement.

Please provide an example of a meaningful yet nontestable statement.

[The fact is that the real threat is against rational thinking and appeals to evidence and logic; talk about theist bashing is misdirection.]

Misdirection is one thing, playing right into the creationists' hands are another thing altogether.

Caledonian: In a reply here, you wrote that "negative existentials and positive universals can both in theory be verified empirically - it's just so difficult to do in practice that it's generally not feasible."

I'm intrigued. How would one go about testing the proposition 'at this very moment, there are no 10-leaf clovers in the universe?' It seems to me that any problem with a Heraclitean attachment is not merely difficult, but impossible to really test in any framework, naturalistic or otherwise.

Sorry, normdoering, but that statement has logical consequences that permit us to differentiate between its truth and its falsehood. In theory, it could be checked merely by examining... everyone.

We don't know that the population of the universe is infinite, or even unbounded. It's possible that the population is in fact limited to Earth.

Hatfield: finite empirical data in an infinite universe wouldn't cut it; not even in a finite universe with significant unknowns. But as long as the truth of the statement makes a difference from the falsehood of the statement, it can in theory be shown to be true or false. Some practical problems are so immense that their solution isn't humanely possible in any imaginable timeframe, but they're still possible.

If the consequences of truth and consequences of falsehood are identical, those possibilities are really identical, and that means that asserting one over the other carries no implications whatsoever.

the consequences of things which cannot be tested are the same whether they are true or false, so they are meaningless

I know I am gonna take the heat for this here, but I have to say it, someone has to. Religion is about more than just providing good reasons why people should believe. So much more. It has helped so many people who were otherwise unreachable, especially drug addicts. I know of at least one case where I am certain nothing would have reached the person other than someone who believes that what is inside of her is a soul that is special, loved, and can still be forgiven. I don't know if humanism can reach that deep to save people, but I have seen it with religion. So it is nto meaningless, it is not useless, and it is not without value. It gave me my sister back from an abyss to which I thought she was lost forever.

— Meet People Where They Are

I agree. It's psychological power is immense, and can be used for both good and evil. It's presence in human life has been a constant in all of our history. I think we should acknowledge its value though, as we explore ways in which it is, and is not, compatible with the practice and philosophy of science. Not just as a matter of political correctness, but as a matter of truth.

Christian wrote, quite reasonably... Religion is about more ... It has helped so many people ... it is not useless, and it is not without value.

Caledonian: Thanks for your reply, it was helpful. OK, it seems to me that we can identify certain categories of claims and how they would be evaluated according to your framework:

1) Claims which are falsifiable on the basis of direct contradiction (the moon is made of green cheese)

2) Claims which are falsifiable on the basis of their consequences (special creation)

3) Claims which are non-falsifiable, because they can not be directly contradicted nor can their consequences be examined

I further assume that, from your point of view, claims of type #3 are also meaningless and can be treated as if they have been falsified? If I misread you, or if you disagree with the categories in some way, please let me know.

Given that, let me ask you this: with respect to the alleged existence of a 10-leaf clover, what are the consequences of this statement being true versus being false?

It seems to me that the consequences of either are trivial, and that your criteria of meaning has more weight when we're being asked to evaluate some claim that has sweeping implications, such as special creation

I'm wondering, therefore, if meaning implies a certain degree of predictive or explanatory power? Comments?...Scott

... problem is that there is not "religion" but different religions that contradict each other.

And the fact that you can use many of these different religions to achieve the same goal only proves that religion is a powerful psychological tool no matter whether the claims a particular religion makes are true or not. The only thing that matters is that they are believed to be true and not that they are true.

@normdoering

OK, maybe my first post wasn't very clear but actually I agree with you and I'm also aware that there are non-religious drug recovery programs. However, that was not quite the point I was driving at.

My point was that you can use different religions - religions that contradict each other - to achieve the same goal i.e. getting people off drugs (whether they are better off afterwards is a different matter).
But as these religions disagree with each other on crucial points, they cannot all be true at the same time, so this only proves that a false religion can have the same effect as The One True Religion^TM (whichever that may be, if any at all).
So in other words it only proves that religions can have a lot of power over people's minds but not that their doctrines make any sense at all.
And people usually don't believe a religion because it is useful in some way or an other but because they think it is true.

Christian,

If you agree with this: "...then it's not religion that is a powerful tool for drug recovery, but rather that drug recovery is a powerful tool for religious recruitment and conversion."

Then why are you saying this: "... it only proves that religions can have a lot of power over people's minds ..."

I'm not saying that religion isn't a powerful psychological weapon, but only that drug recovery doesn't prove it. How could it if there are non-religious methods to get off drugs? Maybe the religious methods burry non-religious tools in their methodology.

All drug recovery programs require you to:

1) admit you have a problem
2) focus your insight on that problem
3) watch your behavior
4) give you insights from others who have quit

That alone may be the powerful force at work.

Science and religion are thus not compatible. They are necessarily incompatible. The key principles that define those two concepts are mutually exclusive. I could say it a hundred different ways, but the truth is constant.

No. At least, not in terms of Christianity. Xty is different as a matter of historical/philosophical record from other religions in its attitude to the natural world. And Science inherited its presuppositions about the natural world directly from Christianity. Christianity is a worldview. Science (quite correct) is a methodology. The methodology indeed may contradict aspects of the faith that some Christians (fundies) are dumb enough to insist are demonstrable. See Stanley Jaki's book The Bible and Science for the many examples of Christians down through the ages trying to explain Genesis (as one example) in terms of fact. St. Augustine had harsh words for this kind of concordism. And yet it has been a temptation over and over again.

In the larger picture of other religions, I would say Caledonian is correct. Let's face it, you're not going to see science as a methodology growing inside a culture whose religion basically asserts that the world is a miasma generated by the battle between two or more pissed off dieties.

Of course religion is usually a good thing.

Christianity... is different as a matter of historical/philosophical record from other religions in its attitude to the natural world. And Science inherited its presuppositions about the natural world directly from Christianity.

Xty is different as a matter of historical/philosophical record from other religions in its attitude to the natural world.

Ok, now maybe we are all ready to properly defend science. Science established contingent universals. That is, 'laws' which can, in principle, be falsified by evidence. (Yes, yes, I know I am taking the Popperian view only. It is to ask a question coming up.)

But to practice science requires that scientists behave ethically (no lying or cheating, not even fudging data).

And now to the question raised in a short address by a nearby philosophy professor who teaches the bioethics class required of all pre-meds and pre-nurses:

From whence comes ethics? If we establish that ethical principles are deontic, prescriptive, then these are not contingent truths. So these do not come from the practice of science itself. Besides, these have to pre-exist in order for science to be conducted. (He makes a very good case for ethical principles being deontic. I am sure I have not done him full justice.)

Well, one possibility is that the scientist just follows the rules laid down by some organization. Indeed, many engineers do not think so much about ethics, just following the guidelines of their professional organization. But this begs the question. For the writers of the 'code of ethics', from whence came these ethical laws? (End of his address)

Worse, being deontic, prescriptive in terms of the necessity to do certain things (be honest) and lack of permission do to others (certain experiments of mammals), these are authoritarian. We have seen, in this thread, that some authoritarians (FUNDIES) oppose the scientific method. So how to distinguish? And still, from whence cometh our ethical principles?

From whence comes ethics?

normdoering --- Of course a 'recognized' need. I think his point was that we cannot use the scientific method to establish ethical principles. Worse, these are deontic. How do we recognize a 'true' deontic statement? Can't use the scientific method.

Worse yet, these are authoritative. By whose authority?

Still, you have made a fine start. I don't have an answer that satisfies even me. I am certainly under the impression this remains an outstanding problem in philosophy. Neither the philosophers not I will be satisfied with the authoritarian answer: MY RELIGION!

Still asking, as I think everyone who supports the practice of science needs some sort of temporary, somewhat unsatisfactory answer. Why? Well, one reason is to point out that IDiots are behaving unethically...

Worse yet, these are authoritative. By whose authority?

Maybe some ethical principles can be found via reason alone, but I fear your example fails to qualify. Under the tenants of utility theory, if lying to people brings me sufficient utility ($$$) then I ought to do it.

I do like the thought of using ideas of cultural evolution (of memes) from some ethical amemegenesis...

"amemegenesis" - intersesting. Did you just make that up, or is that really a word?

Maybe some ethical principles can be found via reason alone, but I fear your example fails to qualify. Under the tenants of utility theory, if lying to people brings me sufficient utility ($$$) then I ought to do it.

I do like the thought of using ideas of cultural evolution (of memes) from some ethical amemegenesis...

Like I've said before, science is a method. It ain't a philosophy, it ain't a worldview, it ain't a social/ethical/political system. And those who, like Norm, attempt to turn it into one, are abusing and mis-using science just as surely as the creationuts are.

And those who, like Norm, attempt to turn it into one, are abusing and mis-using science

Under the tenants of utility theory, if lying to people brings me sufficient utility ($$$) then I ought to do it.

Like I've said before, science is a method. It ain't a philosophy, it ain't a worldview, it ain't a social/ethical/political system. And those who, like Norm, attempt to turn it into one, are abusing and mis-using science just as surely as the creationuts are.

Ultimately, we need to be able to teach science without religious or anti-religious implications.

Sorry, normdoering, but that statement has logical consequences that permit us to differentiate between its truth and its falsehood. In theory, it could be checked merely by examining... everyone.

We don't know that the population of the universe is infinite, or even unbounded. It's possible that the population is in fact limited to Earth.

I'm having a hard time understanding why anyone cares how Miller reconciles his faith with science.

But to practice science requires that scientists behave ethically (no lying or cheating, not even fudging data).

with respect to the alleged existence of a 10-leaf clover, what are the consequences of this statement being true versus being false?

And Science inherited its presuppositions about the natural world directly from Christianity.

Thus, the claim that, because these statements have logical consequences, they are testable, rests upon a fallacy of affirmation of the consequent.

"We've tested everyone ... as long as there isn't anyone other than those whom we've tested" --- a lovely circularity.

It's not a matter of "If P, then Q." It's a matter of "If P, then Q; if Q, then P."

If there are no instances of a thing to be found anywhere, then that thing does not exist. If a thing does not exist, then there are no instances of that thing to be found anywhere.

It's not possible to prove a universal negative with less than universal data. If that universal data is possessed, though, it's possible.

You're not a professional philosopher by any chance, are you, Popper's Ghost? The only people I've known to be so bad at it were professionals.

That's a contradiction in terms, and as such isn't even possible in theory.

Geez where is everyone? Am I the only person here not interested in watching football?

OK, Popper's Ghost, let me make sure I understand your critique of Caledonian's position:

In essence, you claim the argument "if something doesn't exist, then you can't find it" is valid; whereas, "if you can't find something, then it doesn't exist" is affirming the consequent, and invalid.

Is that a fair summation of your views, and is that in fact what Caledonian is saying, in your opinion?

I look forward to your reply...Scott

"amemegenisis": I made it up. But than "abiogenisis" is also a made-up word, just made-up sometime ago.

In deductive logic, "if you can't find X, then X does not exist" is not valid reasoning unless you can also fairly state that you have looked everywhere that an X might be.

However, in Bayesian reasoning, the more you look without finding a X, the less likely that X exists. After looking long enough most simplify the language to "X does not exist", leaving off qualification of "with probability of 0.9999..."

It's not a matter of "If P, then Q." It's a matter of "If P, then Q; if Q, then P."

In essence, you claim the argument "if something doesn't exist, then you can't find it" is valid; whereas, "if you can't find something, then it doesn't exist" is affirming the consequent, and invalid.

Is that a fair summation of your views, and is that in fact what Caledonian is saying, in your opinion?

The whole point of the fallacy of affirmation of the consequent is that it mistakes "Q if P" for "Q iff P". But while "the logical consequences of P> if P" is necessarily true, "P if the logical consequences of P" is not.

— Popper's Ghost

That's true, but failing to find an instance of something does not mean that there isn't one.

And there is no way to verify that every instance has been found.

There's no such thing as "univeral data" outside of your fevered imagination.

That existential positives and universal negatives cannot be verified in theory of course entails that they can't be verified in practice.

Ultimately, we need to be able to teach science without religious or anti-religious implications.

You seem to be misunderstanding the nature of the point I'm making. If a thing is shown to be nonexistent everywhere, we can conclude that it doesn't exist anywhere.

It does if you look everywhere.

C: "We can theoretically verify that there are no 10-leaf clovers if we look everywhere and don't find any."

P: "How do we theoretically verify that we have looked everywhere?"

C: "We look everywhere."

P: "And how do we theoretically verify that we have looked everywhere?"

C: "You seem to be misunderstanding my point. We look everywhere."

P: "And how do we theoretically verify that we have looked everywhere?"

C: "It's logically possible to look everywhere."

P: "So you claim, but how can we verify that we have?"

C: "You must be a professional philosopher, you're so bad at this."

P: "Goodnight and good luck, bozo."

...If a thing is shown to be nonexistent everywhere, we can conclude that it doesn't exist anywhere.

The problem with your point is that you want to assume god-like powers of investigation. We can't do what you ask.

Since the point was being made about logical arguments, not actual investigation, it doesn't matter that we can't do what I spoke about.

Normdoering,

Your response is right on target. I wish religious leaders would do more. I really hate to interject into your philosophical conversation here, or nag you, nor am I anywhere near as smart as you guys (though it seems to me Popper's Ghost is making the most sense). I am not looking for what you think though, I don't care if you ever become religious, or acknowledge anything positive about religion.

I want people to see PT as religiously neutral, and most of the time I feel compelled to comment here it is toward that goal. Oh well, fail again.

BTW, Sam Harris sounds just like normdoering, Popper's ghost and caledonian. Coincidence?

Popper has been arguing against the wrong point.

Whether we possess the capability to verify something is irrelevant

if the negation of a condition has the same implications as the assertion of the condition, then the condition has no implications. It follows that the condition is meaningless.

Even ignoring the fact that logic is unconcerned with our limited capacities, even a being with an arbitrarily great skill in detection and investigation cannot detect implications that don't exist!

BTW, Sam Harris sounds just like normdoering, Popper's ghost and caledonian.

Coincidence?

I want people to see PT as religiously neutral, and most of the time I feel compelled to comment here it is toward that goal. Oh well, fail again.

Then your point is nothing but a tautology.

Goodness gracious, all of my symbolic logic textbooks include a symbol that pertains to all of something! They foolishly assume that they can discuss every instance of a thing, when Popper has elegantly demonstrated that Einstein (Einstein!) showed that to be impossible. I'd better write to the publishers and have that changed.

Oops, did I say all of my symbolic logic textbooks said that? I meant the textbooks which were available to me and could be detected.

They foolishly assume that they can discuss every instance of a thing, when Popper has elegantly demonstrated that Einstein (Einstein!) showed that to be impossible.

Popper's ghost-

Yeah, thanks for the friendly advice. Such nice people as you are hard to find.

This has nothing to do with whether every instance can be observed.

"The difference between you and Jack is that he has a dog in the fight in Kansas and you don't. As a result, you can keep your ideological purity, but he doesn't have that luxury."

I believe this is mistaken. On the basis of various posts at Pharyngula, it seems PZ is active in the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party. If that is so, I'm sure when he attends their meetings and undertakes any other activities on their behalf, he expresses his contempt for religion and the religious as vociferously as he does here and at Pharyngula. Unless, that is, he can compartmentalize his life enough to lay aside his hostility to religion for a time in pursuit of other aims. Of course, if he's compartmentalizing like that, I'm sure he'll get the same denunciation here as a hypocrit that Miller is suffering.

that part of the Universe which can affect the observer in some way

Flint,

"I carefully explained that science requires deep respect for evidence, while theism requires acceptance despite, or in the absence of evidence. And that a "theistic scientist" is required BOTH to absolutely require and absolutely NOT require evidence, both at the same time. I submit that these postures are mutually exclusive. I haven't yet seen anyone explain why they are NOT incompatible."

Here you are carefully avoiding the evidence that folk like Ken Miller present when they do good science yet profess religious faith. In the face of this you earlier invented the notion that Miller had anesthetized his faith into irrelevance in order to do good science. This does not show the respect for evidence that your posts seem to claim for you.

"Communicating with words does involve the assumption that those trying to communicate assign reasonably similar meaning to the words being used."

As in 'anesthetize into irrelvance' being just another way of saying 'compartmentalize'? Your condescending tone doesn't go well with your own lax approach to words.

"Theism, belief in gods, *necessarily* must take the position that evidence does not matter, since there is no evidence for any gods."

Asterisks. Always the sign of reliability. Or not. Actually, belief in a god (or more, if you like) must take the position that evidence, going to its root (i.e. being evident), does not matter for this particular belief. I suspect you are aware that actual theists do not reject evidence in all areas. Indeed, folk like Ken Miller prove that is not so by doing good science. Given the condescension you have show in your posts to others over the use of words, I'm afraid I can only conclude your misrepresentations have been deliberate.

BTW, Sam Harris sounds just like normdoering, Popper's ghost and caledonian.

wheels: "not scientific but philosophical" you said. Once again, what is the argument to the effect that they are seperate? (See the above aside to normdoering for an example.) If we want a consistent world view (to avoid cognitive dissonance if nothing else), we're best to adopt a philosophy continuous with and supported by / supporting the best scientific research of our time.

— Keith Douglas

Nah, we don't drown conversations of this kind.

We ship them off on a train. On a track that's already got another train coming the other way...

Even that doesn't necessarily wind things up. PT evolves very hardy conversations.

Here you are carefully avoiding the evidence that folk like Ken Miller present when they do good science yet profess religious faith. In the face of this you earlier invented the notion that Miller had anesthetized his faith into irrelevance in order to do good science.

Unless you only believe in N-rays on Sundays...

The definition of science requires that faith not be brought into things - if Miller is able to carry out proper scientific inquiry in a specific field, it follows that either a) his religious faith had no implications within that field, or b) he was able to negate his faith for the duration of his inquiry.

c) he was able to believe in a god who made nature behave in a predictable, regular way, and limits himself to studying those kinds of events, as he must.

It requires a leap of faith in our own powers to assume that all of reality is accessible to our observation.

Your c) is equivalent to Caledonian's a).

So, I'm trying to turn science into a social/ethical/political system?

Did you arrive at that conclusion using the same method you used to arrived at the conclusion that Christians, except for fundies, mostly don't think the Bible is any more true than they do Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey? Or the method you used to determine that the Dalai Lama didn't really believe in reincarnation?

In fact I would go so far as to say that it requires a leap of faith in our own powers to assume that any of reality is accessible to our observations.

I think therefore I am?

Well, "I think therefore I am," never did it for me. I am convinced there is a reality. I am not convinced we can observe all of reality.

My c) permits the scientist to do all kinds of science that is observable, predictable, etc. He can produce falsifiable results like anyone else practicing science.

I am convinced there is a reality

Maybe if many people can use the same methods, and have the same findings about the nature of something they have all independently observed, that thing is "real."

So, I'm trying to turn science into a social/ethical/political system?

@ Popper's ghost

I am really curious to know if you are related to ts and Morbius. Your wit and lightness of touch seems so similar.

'

@ Popper's ghost I am really curious to know if you are related to ts and Morbius. Your wit and lightness of touch seems so similar.

Maybe I get what you're saying: without a "predictable " and "regular" universe, the scientific method doesn't work.

God could've made the Universe this way, (i.e. experiments repeated in different places and times by different people will yield the same results)

What the attack dogs are saying is that such a belief (God caused the Universe to work) is not a requirement for doing good science.

In fact, a belief in God entails letting go of one's skepticism

I assume you mean that our observations accurately reflect reality>

normdoering,

I will get back to you when I read your links.

self-correcting nature of science.

Also notable in this extraordinary example provided by normdoering is that it was the skeptics that pursued the issue to the end. Yes, skepticism is a great asset to science. Are religious people by nature less skeptical? Perhaps.

If the argument goes

religiosity = lack of skepticism

skepticism = science

It does follow that religiosity cannot equal science. No one is trying to make that argument though. The argument is that religiosity and science can peacefully coexist.

But since N-rays were expected to be part of the natural world and didn't show up with any predictability, they were proven false. For something that isn't necessarily a part of the predictable natural world, it cannot be proven false. Like I said. it depends on the claims made by the religion.

Yes, norm, we're all quite aware that many religious people have said stupid and/or dishonest things. No one here disputes that, even habitual liars like Fafarman and Cordova. Your insistent citing of such stupid and dishonest things does not refute, nor does it even address, anything that Meet People Where They Are actually said.

In response to Meet People, who said:

Did I even say I was a Christian?

norm "answered:"

It doesn't matter if you are or you aren't because what you say about relating to God is also said by Christians like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell. Because it is said by them you are as credible as they are when you say it.

Really? I missed the bit where Meet People said that 9/11 was God's punishment of the US for letting gays live.

You sound like a racist insisting that "those people" all look alike to him. Do you have trouble telling one Oriental from another as well? Your repeated insistence that people who are visibly different from each other are really exactly the same, is a sure sign of bigotry. Way to advance the cause of honest secular education, nimrod.

This is an adult science blog. Can't you at least TRY to act like an adult?

Another thing, norm -- you said:

It doesn't matter if you are or you aren't because what you say about relating to God is also said by Christians like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell. Because it is said by them you are as credible as they are when you say it.

Does this mean that the credibility of all atheists can be judged by the dumbest statements of the dumbest atheist?

David B. Benson wrote:

normdoering --- Maybe you want to change that to "conflict between SOME religions and science".

And norm dodged thusly:

Split your hairs anyway you want, I've got other work to do today.

So you weren't too busy to tell us that you're too busy to address a simple point that cuts to the heart of the credibility of nearly all of your statements about religion. And you weren't too busy to post seventeen more replies since then, but you're presumably still too busy to address Benson's point.

Running away from something, are we?

"It doesn't matter if you are or you aren't because what you say about relating to God is also said by Christians like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell. Because it is said by them you are as credible as they are when you say it."

Ahh, it's the old 'Hitler Was a Vegetarian' trick. Second time I've fallen for that one this week.

"It doesn't matter if you are or you aren't because what you say about relating to God is also said by Christians like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell. Because it is said by them you are as credible as they are when you say it."

Because so many contradictory things are said about god by those who think they're in touch with him we can know that none of them are actually in communication with him.

First you attempt to trash Meet Others' credibility on the grounds that what she said was (according to your notoriously shabby logic) somehow similar to things Falwell and Robertson said. Now you're saying that religious people can never be believed because they all say different things.

You're a hypocrite and you know it.

Earlier 'Meet People' posted something about not knowing all of reality. Yes, certainly. For example, there was not a germ theory of disease before microscopes. Currently there are the mysteries of 'dark matter' and even 'dark energy'.

Scientists cannot begin to offer potentially satisfactory explanations, i.e., contingent universals, without data to be explained...

The wide variety of answers to a question that can only have one right answer tells you that most of them are wrong even when you don't have the answer yourself.

Scientists cannot begin to offer potentially satisfactory explanations, i.e., contingent universals, without data to be explained...

First you attempt to trash Meet Others' credibility

Meet People: Please forgive me if this sounds disrespectful, but I wasn't really trying to defend you, since I haven't followed what you've said closely enough to know whether I agree with all of it or not. (I'm a Pagan, and I'm not sure how well the voices in my head square with those in yours.) My main objective, truth be told, was to point out norm's dishonest thought processes, pig-ignorant overgeneralizations, and totally unnecessary insulting behavior toward non-wacko persons of faith like yourself who -- whether they're right or wrong -- deserve to be treated with more respect than norm seems capable of showing. All of this is embarrassing to people like myself, who look to this blog for mature and informed discussion of issues relating to evolution and science education, and for discussion that actually tries to engage open-minded persons of faith, rather than simply brushing them all off as idiots, and making enemies out of people who could easily be allies.

You may think norm is being sincere, since Popper's Ghost makes him sound sincere by comparison, and since you're seeing his thoughts for the first time. I've been here awhile, and his arguments are nothing new -- most of his "questions" have been repeatedly answered long ago, and he's been repeatedly called on his uninformed overgeneralizations, but he hasn't changed his tune one bit. For all I know, norm and his ilk are really Christian fundies trying to reinforce their own worst stereotypes of atheists and secualrists. But don't let me stop you -- if he actually listens to what you say (as opposed to what his prejudices expect you to say), and acknowledges your points without distorting them, then perhaps we should consider that a miracle. Hey, stranger things have happened.

I share your wishes for PT, and it makes my life easier that other people defend the idea of tolerance too. I don't blame you for not reading through all the comments... this thread is way too long.

I have conversed with Popper's ghost before, not norm. The behavior you describe is typical of Popper's ghost and his predecessors ts and morbius. If norm is now attempting to correct some hasty behavior from pervious comments or on previous threads, maybe he should have the benefit of the doubt. He said he could be wrong. He helped me see that honest, critical conversation is needed to really examine if science and religion can co-exist. If we just yell past each other we've already given up on communicating and are only throwing fuel on the fire. I hope the merits of arguments can be separated from the people making them and whatever their motives may be.

I did my best to explain my point of view in this thread, and hopefully the "attack dogs" will hear some of it. If not, at least onlookers can know that not everyone agrees with their rigid view of the world.

The wide variety of answers to a question that can only have one right answer tells you that most of them are wrong even when you don't have the answer yourself.

...not even the people you mention.

I always have to think hard to find a way to interpret what I think God is saying to me, if I think he is communicating at all. And much of the time, I don't get a clear message, just a feeling that He is there.

What goes into the Bible reader's imagination, those highly emotional and secretly irrational processes within the subconscious, may just be objectively collected there at first as he tries to determine for himself what the truth is. The Bible reader tries to learn, but secretly wants to dream of a supernatural realm where his deepest desires might be fulfilled, and also where his darkest fears might come true. Fantasy may be a natural and healthy way to explore our desires and fears, and so discover their nature, and then develope realistic plans for getting what it is we desire and avoiding what we fear, but Christian fantasy is almost totally detached from any contact with reality. The desires and fears generated by the biblical texts are ambiguous, extreme, and unrealistic. The Bible, and especially New Testament, is bewildering, difficult, obscure, and confusing. The Bible creates an unhealthy uneasiness, it stimulates fear and hope with both subtle and direct threats and promises. The New Testament aims to turn the truth seeker inward and work on his subconscious mind. A seed is planted within the prospects subconscious. Any objective determination about the truth or falsity of Biblical claims is difficult for those who do not understand the psychology. The Christian finds that he is dependent on priestly authority in order to understand his faith. The material that goes in to the mind, Biblical stories, rituals, impressive church structures, the herd instinct, mass media support, and peer pressure can be analyzed and so tell us something about this psychology and how the final effect is produced, and even something of the purposes that lay behind its design. Supernatural fantasies are generated when the Bible reader speculates on the meaning of the text. And these fantasies are given implicit support by a media that tells us our politicians, presidents, generals, and celebrities are mostly Christian. A media that rarely contradicts the Christian assumptions of our culture. As the Bible reader reads of miracles, the promise of life everlasting, supernatural powers, angels, transcendent realms, and magical healings his desire and fantasy, his fears and hopes, will motivate, develop, and grow as he continues his studies. (One of the darkest aspects of religion's appeal to hope is its appeal to the desperate. To the terminally ill who seek to be healed.) Talk to any Christian and you'll find out that they've created a very personal vision, a private reality map that is uniquely their own. While different Christian groups with different labels, such as Pentecostal, Fundamentalist, Charismatic, or Evangelical will advocate different interpretations of this supernatural fantasy each individual creates his own particular vision out of the mix of possibilities. For some people, once the Biblical seed of unreal hope and uncertain fear has been sown, a process of desire, expectation, and imagination begins in the hidden workings of the unconscious mind, in a secret world of mystical ideas, a world of ignorance and enormous possibility. The Bible reader begins to develope a murky image of his supernatural expectations and he seeks to clarify that image with further study. Instead of having his murky ideas clarified he is instead drawn further and further in to the trap. In time those things merely imagined, but still either feared or desired, may become part of our potential believer's reality map. The ideas are no longer just possibilities and speculations he entertains in his mind but are now 'real' to him. But 'real' only in the sense that they are emotionally loaded concepts that influence his desire and aversion behavior. The believer can no longer imagine, comfortably, a world view without his faith, his illusions. The emotion attached to these religious ideas is stronger than the emotion attached to the concepts and ideas in a more rational mind. While I have little experience with it, there seems to be a drug like emotional kick of joyous expectation associated with this process. At least this is what many Christians seem to claim when they talk about being 'born again.' None of us use logic and reason alone to create our theories and reality maps, or even to solve problems. The ideas seem to just come to us, popping into our heads, or picked up out of books we've sought out, or welling up out of some dark and mysterious depth within our minds. Sometimes when this happens we want to scream 'Eureka!' because we have solved an important problem, as did Archimedes when he discovered a way to determine the purity of gold. We use logic later, to check the work and put it in presentable order after the new ideas and insights have been attained. This does not invalidate the use of reason and logic as tools for understanding our world because the insights and ideas must survive the checking and ordering process which makes them valid, at the very least, if not demonstratably true. A gestation process seems to be involved in genuine conversion. New insights, beliefs, concepts, and perspectives emerge days, weeks, perhaps even years after exposure to the information. The fuel for the Christian transformation is obviously those deep seated hopes and fears that biblical psychotechnology exploits. The computer programmer's jargon of "garbage in, garbage out" applies to the human mind as well. Cram your head full of scientific data about a problem that needs to be solved and you'll arrive at a technological solution to the problem. Cram your head full of Biblical mysticism and you'll find yourself with superstitious fears of damnation and a desperate quest for salvation. It's the checking and ordering process that is often not carried out when it comes to religion, or if it is, it's carried out improperly. In most cases, it's not even possible to carry out this checking process. Much of the information given to us by our trusted authority figures, our priests and politicians, goes unchecked, for checking is a hard and time consuming process. It's a lot harder to think for oneself than it is to just trust our culture's properly accredited experts, be they priests, politicians, or scientists. The Bible discourages this checking process and asks for faith, and that's one good clue to its false nature.

And much of the time, I don't get a clear message, just a feeling that He is there.

One woman believed her dead mother had materialized beside her. Another felt a presence so powerful and benign that she wept when it faded. British journalist Ian Cotton understood that he was, and always had been, a Tibetan monk. Psychologist Susan Blackmore, writing in New Scientist, said she felt something "get hold of my leg and pull it, distort it, and drag it up the wall...

Norm --- THAT is an excellent link! Thank you!

Wow, so many generalizations, so little time...

Any objective determination about the truth or falsity of Biblical claims is difficult for those who do not understand the psychology.

First, we've already established that the truth or falsehood of most Biblical claims cannot be objectively determined at all, psychology or no. Second, the idea that only someone who understands psychology can determine whether said claims are true for themselves is just silly. What about people who just have a way of understanding people, but no psychological training?

The Christian finds that he is dependent on priestly authority in order to understand his faith.

That's different for different denominations. The entire Reformation began as a rejection of "priestly authority" and its abuses, and a claim that (with the invention of the printing press at least) every adult could interpret the bible for themselves.

Supernatural fantasies are generated when the Bible reader speculates on the meaning of the text.

That really depends on what speculation each "Bible reader" engages in, doesn't it?

And these fantasies are given implicit support by a media that tells us our politicians, presidents, generals, and celebrities are mostly Christian. A media that rarely contradicts the Christian assumptions of our culture.

Ah yes, that ever-present, non-specific Monopolistic Mainstream Media Monolith, making sure everyone thinks the same thoughts at the same time. That meme had more resonance back when we only had three or four channels to watch on TV. Care to tell us WHICH "assumptions of our culture" are specifically "Christian" (as opposed to, say, "capitalist")?

Also, if "the media" are so busy reinforcing "Christian assumptions of our culture," then why do so many Christian groups spend so much time attacking the pernicious influence of "the media," and explicitly advising their followers to avoid watching it?

As the Bible reader reads of miracles, the promise of life everlasting, supernatural powers, angels, transcendent realms, and magical healings his desire and fantasy, his fears and hopes, will motivate, develop, and grow as he continues his studies.

Again, it's different for different Christians. Some go whole-hog for the "supernatural" stuff, while others flatly reject such "fantasies" as parts of everyday life. (My Catholic father and kinda-sorta-non-denominational mother both told me in no uncertain terms that there were no such things as ghosts, demons or psychic powers; and none of the Christians I grew up with contradicted that.)

(One of the darkest aspects of religion's appeal to hope is its appeal to the desperate. To the terminally ill who seek to be healed.)

It's only "dark" if it leads to dark thoughts or wrong or dishonest actions. There's a difference between promising an eternal afterlife and promising that your terminal illness will be cured by giving money to Pat Robertson.

Talk to any Christian and you'll find out that they've created a very personal vision, a private reality map that is uniquely their own.

Which means that all of the preceding generalizations about Christians and their spiritual experiences are untrustworthy.

No, norm, that doesn't describe my religious experiences. Though I enjoy reading the bible because of it's poetry, it's savagery at times, and Jesus' still controversial views about loving one's enemy and turning the other cheek, it wasn't the source of my religious belief. And neither was a magnetic helmet.

I can't understand the point of your tiresome presentation. Even if I told you why I am religious, I doubt it would help our conversation to be productive. I hesitate to do so here anyway, lest I be accused of preaching.

Your reference to Pat Robertson is likewise pointless. I am no fan of the man. I first heard what he had to say in the late 1990s. I came to this country in the late 1980s as a child and had no idea what kind of hate and stupidity was inside its politics and religion. These people have nothing to do with me.

But even Hitler was right about something: finding a scapegoat, a common enemy, united Germany. And I'm certainly no fan of his either!

The fuel for the Christian transformation is obviously those deep seated hopes and fears that biblical psychotechnology exploits.

Please define the word "psychotechnology," and describe the differences between "biblical psychotechnology" and, well, someone else's "psychotechnology." It sounds like something that archaeologists might find traces of in the Holy land. Where'd those wily Hebrews get it from -- space aliens?

Because so many contradictory things are said about god by those who think they're in touch with him we can know that none of them are actually in communication with him.

I don't get a clear message, just a feeling that He is there.

Please define the word "psychotechnology," ...

psychotechnology n. practical use of psychology in solving problems etc. psychotechnological, a.

and describe the differences between "biblical psychotechnology" and, well, someone else's "psychotechnology."

You may think norm is being sincere, since Popper's Ghost makes him sound sincere by comparison

This conversation can only keep going in circles, it seems. So your opinions are justified by rationality, while someone else's opinion is delusionary to the point of mental illness and requires a cure. Great, I hope society will someday cure itself of this virus called religion that infects the brain of otherwise intelligent people. Fortunately, I am leaving for a long car trip.

Ciao!

No, norm, that doesn't describe my religious experiences.

Your reference to Pat Robertson is likewise pointless. I am no fan of the man.

I came to this country in the late 1980s as a child and had no idea what kind of hate and stupidity was inside its politics and religion. These people have nothing to do with me.

Wouldn't it be just as reasonable to suppose that each person is in touch with a different god?

psychotechnology
n. practical use of psychology in solving problems etc...

ALL of psychology is used to solve problems; therefore, by the above definition, there is no practical distinction between "psychology" and "psychotechnology." You're using a new word where the old one suited just fine, and it adds nothing to the dialogue. (Do we distinguish between "physics" and "physiotechnology?") And no, it doesn't make you sound smarter -- not here, at least. Creationist chicks might dig it, though, especially the ones who read WorldNutDaily. :-D

Psychotechnology includes a wide variety of technical means by which to shape beliefs, control behavior and get what you want from people.

So now you're using the word differently from the definition you yourself quoted. That's either careless at best, or knowingly dishonest at worst.

So tell us, norm, which "technical means" did the ancient Hebrews employ in their nefarious mind-control program?

"Technology" is understood, by the vast majority of English-speaking people, to mean man-made physical tools, such as travertine, swords, cars, computers, drugs, etc. Any use of the word outside this context, twists the word well beyond its understood meaning. And no, you don't have the right to redefine words on the fly -- words mean what the vast majority agree that they mean, not what one person says they mean; that's what makes them useful for communication between people.

Flint wrote:

I wouldn't be at all surprised if our knowledge of the human brain becomes detailed enough to elicit this response with well-placed electrodes or designer drugs. Such knowledge might lead directly to a cure.

It might just as easily lead to a "cure" for atheism -- or for whatever opinion is out of favor at any given moment (subject to change without notice).

Treating differing opinions as "illnesses" in need of a "cure" is pure bigotry, no better than racism or homophobia. Did you even intend that to be a serious statement? I'm surprised that anyone would post such crap in an adult science blog without a trace of shame or irony. This is what the KGB used to do to dissidents in the old USSR. Getting tips from the pros, are we?

GuyeFaux: if "acerbic yet honest" means "falling back on name-calling whenever one loses an argument," then I concede your point.

norm, if you knew anything about religion, you would know that not all of the Gods and Godesses we've worshipped claim to be "the One True God." You really don't understand what other people really believe, do you?

(One of the darkest aspects of religion's appeal to hope is its appeal to the desperate. To the terminally ill who seek to be healed.)

falling back on name-calling whenever one loses an argument

norm, if you knew anything about religion, you would know that not all of the Gods and Godesses we've worshipped claim to be "the One True God."

You really don't understand what other people really believe, do you?

Talk to any Christian and you'll find out that they've created a very personal vision, a private reality map that is uniquely their own.

Actually I don't [understand what other people really believe] --- and neither do you.

So why is your opinion worth anything? If you don't understand this, then how can you possibly judge others' understanding? (A quantum physicist can tell me whether I understand quantum physics; a plumber cannot.) What you're basically saying is: "I'm clueless, and I refuse to admit the possibility that someone else may know something I don't." Who died and made you George W. Bush?

And why should we allow you to dumb this debate down to your admittedly low intellectual level? If you can't keep up in an adult forum, then find someone else to teach you remedial logic and manners; don't expect us to slow down and wait for you to catch up.

It's general outlines cover everything from fundy Christianity to new age psychics or Carlos Castaneda or Muslim miracle workers.

No, the "theory" you quoted only talked about "Bible readers." Get your generalizations straight.

My theory is based, like Darwin's, on observation. I observe what religious people say and notice the patterns.

Don't kid yourself, boy. Your "theory" depends on the knowing and deliberate exclusion of facts and observations that contradict your prejudices -- facts and observations that have been repeatedly pointed out to you here for several months, at least. As Lloyd Bentsen might have said, "You're no Charles Darwin."

Hello, all. Long-time reader, very infrequent commenter here.

A point was made awhiles back that ... (let's see if I can get this right) ... the power of religious thought cannot be proven by religious addiction-recovery programs, because non-religious addiction recovery programs also have a successful track record.

It reminds me of my friend's assertion that Alcoholics Anonymous doesn't work--at all. When pressed to reconcile this statement with its documented successes, he said that since AA has a 5% success rate, and not using AA has a 5% success rate, that proved that AA was no more successful than anything else.

The problem with both statements is they presume that each kind of program's successful track record describes the same set of people, as if the 5% for whom AA worked were the same 5% for whom another program worked. If Betty tried AA and that worked, and then she got hooked on heroin and a non-religious program helped her kick that addiction, then you could possibly say (albeit by jumping to conclusions regarding the interchangeability of alcohol and heroin) that both sorts of programs worked equally well for Betty. But generally the people who succeed with AA are not the same people who succeed in other programs. Saying religious programs are no better than non-religious programs is perhaps true when applied to the entire society, because the one helps out no greater a percentage of the population than the other. But it's manifestly untrue when applied to most individuals.

For some people, a religious program works better, because religion for them is a powerful thing. For others, a non-religious program works better, because religion is a turn-off for them or at least not relevant. For some, AA is a bust because they're not Christian, but a program based on the religion they do follow works well. The power of religious thought is in the minds of the people who believe in a religion, and the power it has in the mind of a believer cannot adequately be denied by the lack of power it has for a non-believer--no more than my finding brussel sprouts delicious can be invalidated by my husband's finding them yucky.

Now, I grant you that if I tried to force him to eat brussel sprouts, there'd be trouble. But there'd equally be trouble if he said that my taste for brussel sprouts rendered me incapable of cooking a good dinner for him or for anyone else who doesn't like them, and that before I set foot in the kitchen I must vow never to eat a brussel sprout again. I may get unadulterated bliss out of eating them, but that doesn't mean I don't know how to refrain from putting them in every meal.

...which metaphor is probably trying to address too many points at once. I'll stop there.

How many gods do you think there are? Are all these little gods liars that claim to be the one true God?

How do gods percieve other gods? Maybe there's something in god psychology that prevents them from percieving other gods as their equals. Or maybe they do percieve the other gods as equals and therefore no big deal. Maybe gods are atheist, so in the best traditions of powerful rulers everywhere, they feel the only god worth worshiping is themself.

— stevaroni

How do gods percieve other gods?

Maybe there's something in god psychology that prevents them from percieving other gods as their equals.

Or maybe they do percieve the other gods as equals and therefore no big deal.

Maybe gods are atheist, so in the best traditions of powerful rulers everywhere, they feel the only god worth worshiping is themself.

By the way, norm, have you found the time to address Benson's point about using the word "some" in your statements about religion?

So why is your opinion worth anything?

Karl Popper wrote: "The more we learn about the world, and the deeper our learning, the more conscious, specific, and articulate will be our knowledge of what we do not know, our knowledge of our ignorance. For this, indeed, is the main source of our ignorance -- the fact that our knowledge can be only finite, while our ignorance must necessarily be infinite." The physician/essayist Lewis Thomas went further: "The greatest of all the accomplishments of twentieth-century science has been the discovery of human ignorance." ... This new awareness of our ignorance should not be taken as permission to indulge the superstitions we are born into. Rather, it should cause us to to be modest and skeptical, parsimonious in our creeds, ever richer in reliable knowledge but ever more demanding in the caliber of proof.

By the way, norm, have you found the time to address Benson's point about using the word "some" in your statements about religion?

The physician/essayist Lewis Thomas went further: "The greatest of all the accomplishments of twentieth-century science has been the discovery of human ignorance."

That's only an "accomplishment" if it leads to a spirit of HUMILITY -- the idea, learned by most of us at the grade-school level, that since we don't know everything, we should therefore listen to others with an open mind, because we never know who might have some insight we missed.

Without that humility, your "militant agnosticism" is nothing more than an admission on your part that you have no real authiroty to talk about anything -- and you won't listen to anyone else, either, which means you won't get any less ignorant.

Refusing to admit that others may know something you don't is closed-minded and counterproductive; it contributes nothing to any debate; and admitting your own ignorance doesn't make it any better -- it just proves that you know what a hypocrite you are.

For me to think otherwise would be for me to give up my own authority over my life and perception to people who may be delusional or lying.

How does treating others with respect constitute "giving up authority over your life?" You can't treat others with respect because they might be wrong or lying? That sounds downright paranoid. Have you considered professional help?

You can make all the claims you want about how they don't --- but if you can't back them up, I'll ignore you.

That's nothing new; like those fine folks at WorldNutDaily, you've ignored every statement that debunks your prejudices, and simply repeated the same old falsehoods without modification in thread after thread. Even Larry Fafarman showed more mental agility than you: at least he was responsive enough to switch from one bogus argument to another as they got debunked.

How many gods do you think there are? Are all these little gods liars that claim to be the one true God?

A bigger mystery to me--and one which I'm fully aware has been addressed by mightier mind's than mine--

--is what the heck do they need us for?

Er, that shoulda been "minds" plural, not possessive, in the pinhead's latest comment.

The physician/essayist Lewis Thomas went further: "The greatest of all the accomplishments of twentieth-century science has been the discovery of human ignorance." That's only an "accomplishment" if it leads to a spirit of HUMILITY --- the idea, learned by most of us at the grade-school level, that since we don't know everything, we should therefore listen to others with an open mind, because we never know who might have some insight we missed.

Without that humility, your "militant agnosticism" is nothing more than an admission on your part that you have no real authiroty to talk about anything ---

On the other hand, consider all the questions for which we have answers. Why does the sun go dark at midday? Why does the comet appear in the sky? Why the plague? Why the drought? Why the infestation of locusts? Why the mountains and the valleys? Why the fossils on the mountain top? How did the universe begin? And on and on. As long as our answers to these questions invoked the gods -- as they did for thousands of years -- no reliable public knowledge was possible. Only when a few curious people said "I don't know" did science begin. Admission of ignorance is a prerequisite of scientific discovery, and by the same token, the more we learn, the more we are aware of what we do not know.

... and you won't listen to anyone else, either, which means you won't get any less ignorant.

falling back on name-calling whenever one loses an argument

I'll have to take your word for it. To be honest I haven't bothered to read any of the flame-wars (they can go on for a long time), so I may have missed this.

norm: the blog post you quote does not justify your attitude.

I have no more humility than any scientist.

You have a lot less than most scientists, and it shows.

By your attitude you'd have to reject any scientific theory that contradicted your's or anyone's religious belief because you give religion more authority.

Now you're just lying about my statements to conceal your inability to deal with what I actually said. Even you should know that I never said anything of the sort -- if I had, you would have quoted it.

Why don't you just admit that you've lost the argument, and you're way out of your depth, and go to bed?

normdoering:

I'd like to learn more about your views, as I have not been a frequent reader of comments at PT. Thus I lack the context to enter the conversation. Can you direct me to a source that would summarize your position here, or else send me an e-mail?

It would be much appreciated, if you can spare the time:

epigene13@hotmail.com

Sincerely....Scott

steviepinhead asks, "What do they need US for?" I like Susan Blackmore's explication of 'memes'. Some memes are helpful, some not actively deleterious. The latter are just along for the ride, so to speak.

See her book "The Meme Machine", Oxford, 1999.

I've read Blackmore, thanks (not claiming that the pin-sized head grew any as a result, mind you).

The meme approach is a possible explanation for what existing-in-this-material-world beliefs in god(s) get out of riding around in our minds, but it doesn't adequately deal with that portion of the spectrum of thought--possibly represented here by Meets People and Raging Bee, though I certainly wouldn't be presumptuous enough to speak for them--that "some" pro-science people's beliefs respecting god(s) and/or spritual/supernatural "higher authority(ies)" could actually (and so long as they don't make scientifically-falsifiable truth-in-the-material world claims) be valid.

That is, if we hypothetically entertain the position that "some" people's god(s)-beliefs could be valid, (regardless of whether they are buried in a cultural cloud of vacuous meme-driven god(s)-beliefs) and we, therefore, extend provisional respect--or at least tolerance--or at least non-aggression--to such believers, then--as to the god(s) of "some" such people--my mystery remains:

What do "some" people's god(s) need with the likes of us?

Most of the "theories" I've heard come down--in effect--to entertainment value, of one form or another (some with flavors of sadism or quasi-scientific experimentalism, some on the rocks).

But it continues to puzzle me how genuinely *entertaining* such as us'ns could realistically seem to such as them. I mean, we're talking "higher" entities of some exceptional degree of awesomeness here. How entertaining is "Go Fish" when you know how to play Bridge or Poker? How entertaining is checkers when you've got chess? How entertaining is "The Young and The Restless" when you've got "King Lear"?

Just sayin'.

By treating Raging Bee as a person whose ideas are worth listening to and debating, you've already lost, normdoering. She's repeatedly taken advantage of your good faith to twist and misrepresent your argument, deny basic logic, and promote her own personal version of reality.

The only way to win this game is not to play.

I'd like to learn more about your views, as I have not been a frequent reader of comments at PT. Thus I lack the context to enter the conversation. Can you direct me to a source that would summarize your position here, or else send me an e-mail?

steviepinhead --- I won't follow your hypothetical. As has been hashed and rehashed and corn-beef-hashed, science deals only with observable, recordable data. I, at least, am aware of no such data. Only a bit of data about 'memes' or 'beliefs' or whater-you-want-to-call these subjective experiences.

No sweat, David.

It's not really a mystery that requires explanation from your POV, in any event.

Nor, lacking an "explanation" that makes sense to me, would I necessarily fail to extend respect/tolerance/mutual non-aggression to an otherwise science-sensible believer.

Which is saying something different than respecting the unevidenced belief(s) it/themselves.

Norm,

I read your linked essays with interest. It saddens me that as a product of your upbringing you, like millions (if not billions) of others, consider christianity to be the only religious approach to the Bible, at least the Old Testament part. You seem to never have considered the views of the people who created and nourished that document for millennia long before Jesus even put on diapers. These are the folks who are primarily responsible for the Bible's existence. If you got to consider their religious views of the original (Hebrew) Bible, you would at least be exposed to the stark alternative view - that the christian interpretation and understanding of the Bible is nothing but a gross distortion, both as to content and form.

How disappointing.

A bigger mystery to me --- and one which I'm fully aware has been addressed by mightier mind's than mine--- ---is what the heck do they need us for?

— Steviepinhead

---is what the heck do they need us for?

---is what the heck do they need us for?

normdoering:

Thanks for the links, and I look forward to whatever you can send me. Peace...Scott

Comment #130121 Posted by Popper's ghost on September 15, 2006 08:05 AM (e) Don't rule out the possibility that people can have a real personal relationship with God. I don't rule out the possibility that people can have a real fantasy about something they call "God". I do, however, rule out that they can have a real personal relationship with Odin, Croesus, Oliver Twist, or any other fictional character. However, I seem to have missed what these proclamations of personal belief by Ms. "I can be rude right back" have to do with Pat Hayes's comments. IMO, the most relevant comments were PZ's (mischaracterized as "flippant"), pointing out hypocrisy of those who moan about theist-bashing but turn a blind eye to, or engage in, atheist bashing. The fact is that the fraction of scientists who are atheists is much larger than the fraction of the general population who are atheists, and as long as the general population sees atheists as evil and UnAmerican, science will be vulnerable to attack by DI, the Bush administration, etc. The concern about theist bashing is much like the phony "war on Christmas", the phony "liberal media" myth, men who complain that "wife abuse" is sexist even though 98% of spousal abuse is man on woman, homophobes who murder gays and then blame the gays for coming on to them, whites who blame not getting a job or a college slot on reverse discrimination, etc. Boo hoo hoo for the poor oppressed majority. The fact is that the real threat is against rational thinking and appeals to evidence and logic; talk about theist bashing is misdirection.

— Popper's ghost

Keep your mind too open and people will just throw garbage into it.

I guess that's your fundie upbringing talking: openmindedness is weakness; new ideas are dangerous because they might be wrong; contradiction and complexity cannot be tolerated; allowing others to be your equals lets them take advantage of you; you can't trust yourself to process and assimilate new ideas while holding onto your concept of your self, therefore you must keep them all out instead. Beneath all your attacks on the narrow religious mindset, all you're able to do is replace one narrow religious mindset with another, because that's all you learned.

Keep your mind too closed and you'll have no way to throw garbage OUT of it.

You need help, norm. I mean, you really really really need help.

Comment #130184 Posted by Flint on September 15, 2006 10:56 AM (e) ... As I wrote earlier, he does good science BECAUSE he has found a way to render his religious faith irrelevant, at least while he's doing science. He trots out his faith when it doesn't get in the way of his science. Which is as close to discarding his faith in favor of his profession as you can come; effectively, this is what he has accomplished.

— Flint

Hi, Caledonian, thanx for joining us. Learn any new social skills since you got kicked off of Dispatches?

By treating Raging Bee as a person whose ideas are worth listening to and debating, you've already lost, normdoering. She's repeatedly taken advantage of your good faith to twist and misrepresent your argument, deny basic logic, and promote her own personal version of reality.

The only way to win this game is not to play.

I guess that would be "no." You giving advice on how to relate to others is either a huge joke, or an artfully crass insult to norm. Sort of like Carol talking down to him and actually sounding sensible.

Regarding your last sentence, are you saying that people like norm can only "win" by refusing to engage with people who disagree with him? What does he "win" exactly, and why wasn't I told about the prize earlier?

And what makes you think I'm female? If it's my writing ability, I'll take that as a compliment, even though you've guessed wrong. Not that I'm surprised, given how wrong you've been about so many other things, and how eager you are to jump to conclusions without admitting your data is insufficient.

Comment #130249 Posted by Popper's ghost on September 15, 2006 03:31 PM (e) ... This has nothing to do with science and religion (other than that science is based on reason and religion is irrational). ..

— Popper's ghost

Comment #130350 Posted by Popper's ghost on September 15, 2006 08:47 PM (e) Whatever theism there is does not seem to stand in the way of the practice of good science and good medicine. None of the Friends I know find any contraction whatsoever between their 'faith' and the conduct of their science. This is a strawman. Again, the issue we were discussing was Flint's point that theism doesn't add anything that can't be had without it. And that Quakers don't find any contradiction between their faith and conducting science does not mean there are no such contradictions to be found upon careful examination.

— Popper's ghost

This is what annoys me. Katarina says religion is something personal to her and does not effect her outlook on science and she's told she's an idiot.

It was asked how someone can believe in God and she responded and pointed out that it has nothing to do with her belief in science.

Is loving someone based on "reason"?

Should you not love someone because it is not based on "reason".

"Religion is irrational" is your opinion because, like IDers, you feel that religion needs to be have a scientific basis.

Much of what we do as humans has little to do with "reason".

Some people might feel that it is also "irrational" but you seem to think your opinion should be law.

Nor, lacking an "explanation" that makes sense to me, would I necessarily fail to extend respect/tolerance/mutual non-aggression to an otherwise science-sensible believer. Which is saying something different than respecting the unevidenced belief(s) it/themselves.

— steviepinhead

When I suggested it, she felt insulted, but all I suggested was thinking critically and skeptically. She only slowly opened up to the possibility that her religious experience might be subject to the same sort of critical inquiry that anything else in nature is. I don't think she ever fully opened up to that.

normdoering,

No BS. Yes I am open to having my religious experiences examined. Like I told you I go between agnosticism and theism an average of 3 times a day. Some things happened to me that I have trouble forgetting. I feel like God made some things possible for me when I took a chance on praying, even though I was raised atheist, and told never to believe in something beyond nature. As a child, I wasn't indulged about Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, or any of it. Which I appreciate. But then I went through some difficult times, prayed, and my prayers were answered in such a way that may have been just eery coincidence. More than once.

An observation doesn't necessitate belief. I am not sure about whether I believe or not. But I am afraid to insult a God that may have been the hand that moved my life into order. May not have been. But may have been. Why should I take the chance? I feel grateful.

If you are interested in a full description, then you may e-mail me at katarinaaram@yahoo.com

I doubt you are qualified to examine my experiences, but if you are really curious, I am willing to disclose them.

The only way to win this game is not to play.

Both sides need to just shut up about other peoples religious beliefs/non beliefs if it doesn't effect the scientific issues.

I'll have to take your word for it.

As I noted before, Norm and the other ober-atheists don't make any distinctions. It simply doesn't matter to them if a theist lets his/her theism affect his/her science or not. All that matters is that they HAVE theism.

— Lenny

A religionist is theoretically capable of utilizing science, just as long as he turns off his faith-justified beliefs for the period of time it takes to do the science. His faith is still not compatible with basic scientific principles, including but not limited to the utter rejection of supernatural events, but humans have a remarkable capacity to compartmentalize. Thus science can be accepted as well as faith at the cost of some sanity and general intelligence.

So now you can verify Universals in theory, as long as you restrict your search to that part of the Universe which can affect the observer in some way.

Unfortunately you have to decide ahead of time what "observable" means; you'll need axioms of causation, such as those given by the laws of physics, to decide when you can terminate your search.

religious faith and scientific faith because they are two "ways of knowing" our universe.

This is what annoys me. Katarina says religion is something personal to her and does not effect her outlook on science and she's told she's an idiot.

This has nothing to do with science and religion (other than that science is based on reason and religion is irrational)...

Your no better then any of the IDers we are fighting agianst.

...to call religious faith "knowledge" is sheer arrogance; it is to assert that one's personal and unsubstantiated opinions are actually facts about the world.

Let me just clarify that last comment a little. The first part of it refers to individual chance events. The second part (answering my own question) refers to all the chance events of evolution combined, producing just another species, us, after all the countless trials and errors of a few billion years.

Not sure if that helps to clarify it or not... Let me know if this is confusing.

Allow me to revise my statement. Religious and scientific belief are different ways of perceiving.

Popper's ever-less-substantial ghost wrote:

...to call religious faith "knowledge" is sheer arrogance; it is to assert that one's personal and unsubstantiated opinions are actually facts about the world.

That's YOUR personal and unsubstantiated opinion. Care to back it up with something more than name-calling and brittle verbal bullying?

It's also demonstrably wrong: to call religious faith "knowledge" is to assert that one's personal and unsubstantiated opinions are facts about ONE'S OWN WORLD, affecting ONE'S OWN ACTIONS in pursuit of ONE'S OWN VALUES AND NEEDS. That, at least, is what nearly all of the theists I've talked to (Christian and Pagan) say, along with a good many of the atheists. If the theists in your life say otherwise, then you're hanging with the wrong peeps.

(Many of those personal opinions aren't "unsubstantiated" either, but let's not go too far above your level of debate in one day.)

Your talent for name-calling -- limited though it is -- far outstrips your talent for understanding what other people believe. It also has no place on an adult science blog. Perhaps you'll find a warmer welcome in the far-right or far-left dittosphere. (Free Republic maybe? Ankle-Humping Pundits?)

Flint wrote:

You can't say religious faith is a "way of perceiving" because there is nothing to be perceived beyond the imagination of the faithful.

In my experience, religious faith -- including personal understanding of what's right and wrong, important and umimportant -- is, in fact, based on, and daily modified by, one's personal perceptions and experiences -- which are far from "imagination."

Perhaps the phrase should have been that religious faith is a way of processing what one perceives and ordering all of it into a useful picture for personal decision-making purposes. It's not "scientific," as in objectively testable and repeatable; it's personal and idiosyncratic; and is not repeatable because people are all different in too many ways. That alone does not make it any less "true" or "valid."

In my experience, religious faith --- including personal understanding of what's right and wrong, important and umimportant --- is, in fact, based on, and daily modified by, one's personal perceptions and experiences --- which are far from "imagination."

Flint wrote:

While I agree that such things are not imaginary...

Then why did you choose to use the word "imagination?"

...I certainly would never regard our individual mental models of the world around us as "religious faith".

I clearly did not say the two were equal or the same. I didn't even come close to implying it. You are misinterpreting my statements by such a wide margin (as in changing the subject altogether), that I have to question your honesty.

I guess I need to be more specific to try to head off these misunderstandings. [*Chortle*...sorry...] By religious faith, I'm talking about the propensity to take for granted the "reality" of the supernatural (whatever that phrase might mean). Specifically, the belief that there are gods or that forces "outside" of nature (whatever that means) have effects on the natural world.

So you 'guess' you need to be more specific, then you explicitly fail to do so. Not only that, but the very validity or usefulness of your "definitions" depend entirely on how one defines the very terms you refused to define (noted in bold text).

Either you don't really care about heading off misunderstandings, or you can't because you don't understand the issues yourself.

Your definition strikes me as too broad...

Now you've gone and made me spew tea out my nose all over my keyboard. You owe me a new keyboard -- not to mention a new irony-meter (preferably the kind used by the military).

Oh, and...

...so let's keep it simple...

Sorry, pal, but human nature, and human spirituality, are not simple things. Once you start experiencing real life for yourself, you'll see this, whether or not you end up believing in this or that pantheon. You want to keep things simple? Stick to simple subjects on a simple blog.

religious faith --- including personal understanding of what's right and wrong, important and umimportant --- is, in fact, based on, and daily modified by, one's personal perceptions and experiences

Yes I am open to having my religious experiences examined. Like I told you I go between agnosticism and theism an average of 3 times a day.

Some things happened to me that I have trouble forgetting.

... then I went through some difficult times, prayed, and my prayers were answered in such a way that may have been just eery coincidence. More than once.

But I am afraid to insult a God...

...Why should I take the chance?

How many times do how many people have to repeat to you before you understand that religious faith does NOT include ANY of these things? These are not "religious faith" and they are not "included" in religious faith.

Really? People who actually HAVE religious faith have explicitly repeated, to me and others, that their faith does indeed include -- or interact with -- these things. And since they're the ones who actually have the faith, and actually incorporate it into their daily actions, their word on this subject is more reliable than yours.

People devoid of any and all religious faith nonetheless have a sense of right and wrong, based on personal experiences. That's because these things are not included in religious faith.

That is a non-sequitur. Just because "these things" are not included in one person's faith (because he has none) does not mean they're not included in someone else's.

Generalizing about theists from the beliefs of atheists is just beyond ridiculous. What's next -- "The Pope says [x], therefore Shintoists believe [Y]"?

...to call religious faith "knowledge" is to assert that one's personal and unsubstantiated opinions are facts about ONE'S OWN WORLD, affecting ONE'S OWN ACTIONS in pursuit of ONE'S OWN VALUES AND NEEDS.

norm wrote:

Consider, someone here said, "I am afraid to insult a God."

What kind of a God can be insulted? That version of God sounds like that kid on the Twilight Zone episode, played by Billy Mummy, who would send people out to the cornfield. It was a nightmare scenario.

Are you for real? Some woman mentions God and you get nightmares? Like I said before, you REALLY need help. You actually sound like a character from Chick Publications: the rigid atheist who freaks out at any mention of God because he can't help thinking he might actually be dead wrong and HEADED FOR HELL!!!

Sounds like a weird state of mind. Sometimes you feel its there, and other times you're not so sure, eh?

It's called being open-minded and letting new ideas and experiences influence your thoughts, even when they endanger your core assumptions about God and reality. You should try it sometime, instead of making fun of it and pretending it makes you superior.

Consider, someone here said, "I am afraid to insult a God." What kind of a God can be insulted? That version of God sounds like that kid on the Twilight Zone episode, played by Billy Mummy, who would send people out to the cornfield. It was a nightmare scenario.

I'm pooping out. When people start getting into endless semantics and picking apart each other's sentances with a toothpick, I start feeling tired.

Flint- I am not confused. Belief is just as good as approach. OK, use approach if you want to. They don't mean the same thing, but I don't see a problem with using either one. My religious beliefs are not as substantiated as my scientific beliefs. My religious approach is not as well defined as my scientific approach.

Also, your "whatever that means." You just keep typing, but are getting no closer to logical refutation of the main point. Let's type just to amuse ourselves. I am getting so tired... maybe that's the point.

Can you insult god? Or are you afraid too?

Why should I? Is this a test of manhood where you come from? It sure didn't make YOU sound manly -- I was able to say the same things before I hit puberty. So what?

Why is your superior ability to insult God relevant to us again?

I thought you said you were going to ignore me. Can't get enough of me?

Can you insult god? Or are you afraid too?

Can't get enough of me?

I am said I was afraid to insult God, but norm, you took it out of context. I would be afraid to insult anyone who has done me huge favors. Not because I fear the reprocussions, but because it would be ungrateful. Fear of not showing gratitude when it's due.

I hope this clears things up for you.

Sorry, that was supposed to be

I am the one who said I was afraid of insulting God

I wasn't kidding when I said I was getting tired.

I am said I was afraid to insult God, but norm, you took it out of context.

I would be afraid to insult anyone who has done me huge favors.

Not because I fear the reprocussions, but because it would be ungrateful. Fear of not showing gratitude when it's due.

Wow! All of that about this memeplex versus that memeplex...

Maybe, as was the original point of this thread, we can simply ignore all those not-actively-deleterious memes to concentrate on defending the actively helpful memes which constitute the scientific method.

Whew! I'm tired just reading all this...

Things are getting intense down in the Psychodrome:

A hush steals over the often-raucous crowd.

The flung gloves smack the blood-soaked sand.

The tired toes dig deep for firmer footing.

Tired muscles twitching, forearms swipe blood and sweat from glazed eyeballs. Futile effort: as fresh adrenaline spikes the blood, a red haze suppresses all vision but that of the foe.

Even the paeans of the peanut and beer vendors fall away to guttural grunts.

Will any be left standing in the ring after this final cataclysmic clash?

Suddenly, a fragile figure vaults the wall and, with deceptive speed, steps between the gladiators:

Surely every slack-jawed onlooker feels the same chill as the theme from A Fistful of Dollars cuts across the straining silence...

Will the idealistic interloper pacify the two titans before yet more claret stains the dust?

Or will the combatants rend her to stray tatters as they slam together in a final orgy of enmity?

Don't miss next week's exciting episode of Panda-monium! And, if we've whetted your appetite and stirred your spirits, don't forget to patronize our day-sponsors, Flank's Fabulous Pizza Emporium and Popper's Tricks & Illusions!!

Religious and scientific belief are different ways of perceiving. Scientific belief is based on more rigorous criteria. Religious belief is based on things we aren't sure about, and which we'll never be sure about. Such as whether something that appeared to be chance was actually a supernatural event.

...to call religious faith "knowledge" is sheer arrogance; it is to assert that one's personal and unsubstantiated opinions are actually facts about the world. That's YOUR personal and unsubstantiated opinion.

It's also demonstrably wrong: to call religious faith "knowledge" is to assert that one's personal and unsubstantiated opinions are facts about ONE'S OWN WORLD, affecting ONE'S OWN ACTIONS in pursuit of ONE'S OWN VALUES AND NEEDS.

"There is a God", "this didn't happen by chance, it was a supernatural event", etc., are assertions about the world, not just "one's own world".

We're talking about the supernatural here. Period. If it's not supernatural, it's not religious. Period. But I guess even this is too difficult for you (or alternatively, it might involve admitting error, something even MORE difficult for you). But whatever. You are wrong. And no longer worth talking to, since I can see you aren't making any attempt whatsoever to discuss anything in good faith. Whatever you decide that means today, of course.

I said I was afraid to insult God, but norm, you took it out of context.

At least they become that when you post them in the comments section of Panda's thumb. It's no longer a private suspicion then, it becomes a claim or a hypothesis due to the context of making it public.

Are your beliefs not based on anything in the Old Testament?

Flint, Norm: It seems we can boil this down to: are bad faith and/or animism incompatible with science?

We ask scientific questions and examine things skeptically, critically and rationally.

The issue that we're objecting to is the idea that religious faith is somehow 'compatible' with science, which it is not.

Science thrives on precise and clear definitions. Without them, it can't function.

Notice that Lenny doesn't define 'moral', 'philosophical', 'worldview', 'way-of-life', or even 'method'. Without definitions, we cannot analyze his statements, nor can we affirm or negate them. We can't attack them, because he can simply deny that we're using the term properly. To defend, he doesn't need to explain, he can simply state the same point over again.

According to the definitions I've found, science is most certainly a philosophy - in several senses of the word. It can be a worldview and/or way-of-life. It is most certainty a method. It includes both morality and ethics.

Shame Lenny can't argue against those points...

And, after that brief word from one of our day-sponsors, we return for another exciting segment of...

PANDA-monium!!

The show that dares you to put your money where your thumb is...!

Science thrives on precise and clear definitions. Without them, it can't function. Notice that Lenny doesn't define 'moral', 'philosophical', 'worldview', 'way-of-life', or even 'method'.

According to the definitions I've found, science is most certainly a philosophy - in several senses of the word. It can be a worldview and/or way-of-life. It is most certainty a method. It includes both morality and ethics.

So what? As long as someone's religion doesn't interfere with their science, then why do you give a flying fig about their religious views? How do they pick your pocket, or break your leg? Or do you simply object to the fact that ANYONE, ANYWHERE has a religious opinion? Or, as I put it earlier, is it the mere fact that they are a theist, intolerable to you?

We ask scientific questions and examine things skeptically, critically and rationally.

It can be a worldview and/or way-of-life.

Just want to second Popper's ghost statement to the effect that an increase in Bayesian reasoning is going to help, before we now start digging into the irrational (physiological and neurological basis for morality, ethics and all that...)

Looks like we are going to solve ALL the world's problems, just on this thread ALONE! Now if everybody would just BELIEVE us...

Norm, please explain to us how to use the scientific method to answer moral or philosophical questions. Go ahead, Norm.

Sure, easy. Just read up on how it has already been studied. There's the work of Stanley Milgram: http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/psychology/milgra... Lawrence Kohlberg has a theory of moral development: http://www.nd.edu/~rbarger/kohlberg.html Just how ignorant of what's actually going on in science are you?

And for a relatively-modest contribution to the TalkOrigins foundation, you too can be a Panda-monium day-sponsor!

Is that cool, or what?

Aint' [insert polity of your persuasion] great?

Well, Norm, perhaps, unlike you, I understand the difference between using science to STUDY HOW ethical decisions are answered, and using science to ANSWER ethical questions.

And perhaps, unlike you, I don't use rhetorical bait-and-switch to avoid answering the simple question "how do we use the scientific method to ANSWER MORAL OR PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTIONS?"

Notice the capitalized words in that question, Norm.

Notice that science CAN'T answer them, Norm.

Meet People Where They Are contrasted "scientific belief" with "religious belief" --- public vs. private was not the issue, nor was she referring to such things as moral judgments, but rather judgments as to whether things happen "by chance" or are "supernatural events". Of course, that's a false dichotomy, based on an apparent misunderstandings of scientific epistemology and Bayesian statistics, and the ontological implications of a term such as "supernatural".

Well, Norm, perhaps, unlike you, I understand the difference between using science to STUDY HOW ethical decisions are answered, and using science to ANSWER ethical questions.

Then perhaps you should have asked that question instead.

Message Number 132340: Norm, please explain to us how to use the scientific method to answer moral or philosophical questions.

Do you want me to answer every possible moral problem for you with some definitive answer?

When did I ever claim I could do that?

Interesting, though, that you seem to take such a "biological" view of ethical/philosophical decisions, Norm. Does this mean, in your view, that your own atheism is simply the result of particular genes or proteins in your brain, and that if you had been born with different genes or proteins, that you'd be a Catholic or a Zoroastrian instead? After all, if science can, in your view, answer ethical/philosophical questions just by studying brains and the genes which produce them, then there wouldn't seem to be much place in your world for all this "rational evidence and argument" that you think you are giving to everyone, eh? It all comes down to what genes are in their brains, right Norm ... ?

So what? As long as someone's religion doesn't interfere with their science, then why do you give a flying fig about their religious views? How do they pick your pocket, or break your leg? Or do you simply object to the fact that ANYONE, ANYWHERE has a religious opinion? Or, as I put it earlier, is it the mere fact that they are a theist, intolerable to you?

This is not a rhetorical question, by the way. I'd like an answer.

It can be a worldview and/or way-of-life.

Reeeaaaallllllyyyyyy. Tell me, then, according to this worldview way-of-life, should I be a Democrat or a Republican? Should gays be allowed to marry? Is abortion OK? Is infanticide OK? Should we invade Iran? Should I marry this girl, or that one over there? Should I keep my current job, or move to another one? Show us all, please, how this worldview way-of-life works, and how we can apply it to make ethical and moral decisions. Be as specific as possible.

I am going to have to study Wickepedia before I get back to you on that one.

This appears to be the thread that will never die! :-)

I haven't read all of the last 200 posts or so, but it does look like you guys have managed to keep at it without erupting into flames. I consider that a plus.

Carry on.

Not all of them in one post on panda's thumb. But one or two examples, your choice, might point the way.

This appears to be the thread that will never die! :-)

Answering that question will require two more definitions, one for "question" and one for "mark" (the little squiggle-dot thing at the end of the question).

And then there's defining each of the words used in each of the definitions.

And then each of those words, until we run out of new words.

At which point someone will accuse someone else of using "circular" logic, because some of the words used to define some of the words were themselves defined by some of the words...

Uhh, I can see this could take a while. I'll check back in after dinner, if that's okay.

Norm, please explain to us how to use the scientific method to answer moral or philosophical questions.

Do you want me to answer every possible moral problem for you with some definitive answer?

Where the experiment was conducted in a nondescript office building rather than within the walls of a prestigiously ornate hall on Yale's old campus the percentage of subjects who were prepared to administer the maximum voltage dropped to 47.5%.

Is murder wrong? Please go ahead and use the scientific method to answer that question.

In some cases, at least, religion results from being poorly informed or from employing a faulty conceptual framework.

Wow, at least one atheist has learned how to use the word "some." It took you guys long enough -- what, a year or more? There's hope for the religion-bashers yet.

Notice how the word "some," in bold in the quote above, leaves me completely unable to refute the statement in which it appears? The effect is almost magical. Oh wait, atheists don't believe in magic. There must be a perfectly rational explanation for this effect, but I'm an irrational theist, from a preliterate religion at that, so I can't quite put my finger on it just yet. I guess I'll have to ask the Gods about it at our Fall Equinox ritual during the animal sacrifice...

Please use the scientific method to answer the question "is murder wrong" for us. And, to avoid your predictable hand-waving about "definitions", please feel entirely free to define those terms in any way you see fit.

Is murder wrong? Please go ahead and use the scientific method to answer that question.

Depends on your values. Do you want to live in a society where anyone can shoot you for any reason and walk away unpunished? I don't. Since murder is a legal concept more than a moral one, I'll agree, it's wrong to murder. There should be laws against it. That law makes society function better. But to aswer that scientifically, you'd actually have to conduct an experiment no one wants to conduct or be part of and create a society where anyone can kill anyone else and go unpunished. One might assume it was the results of not having enfoced laws that made us create them though. I think the results might look like Iraq today.

So what? As long as someone's religion doesn't interfere with their science, then why do you give a flying fig about their religious views? How do they pick your pocket, or break your leg? Or do you simply object to the fact that ANYONE, ANYWHERE has a religious opinion? Or, as I put it earlier, is it the mere fact that they are a theist, intolerable to you? This is not a rhetorical question, by the way. I'd like an answer.

nteresting, though, that you seem to take such a "biological" view of ethical/philosophical decisions, Norm. Does this mean, in your view, that your own atheism is simply the result of particular genes or proteins in your brain, and that if you had been born with different genes or proteins, that you'd be a Catholic or a Zoroastrian instead? After all, if science can, in your view, answer ethical/philosophical questions just by studying brains and the genes which produce them, then there wouldn't seem to be much place in your world for all this "rational evidence and argument" that you think you are giving to everyone, eh? It all comes down to what genes are in their brains, right Norm ... ? If it's all just simple scientific study of genes and brain biochemistry, Norm, then why do you bother arguing with anyone? Can your arguments change their genes or their biochemistry, Norm?

That's not hand-waving, that's SCIENCE! Y'know, the thing you're always accusing others of not valuing... and that you seem to know surprisingly little about.

It can be a worldview and/or way-of-life.

The Milgram experiments illustrated that people chose not to think.

Provide me with useful definitions of those terms, and I will analyze them and provide you with a conclusion.

Gee, all the hyper-atheists like to crow to all the theists about how "scientific" their opinions are, but it seems that when pressed for some details of their "scientific" decision-making process, they get, uh, kind of vague all of a sudden . . . . .

Kind of like the fundies . . . . .

Like I said, under their feathers, they are the same bird. Both want science to support their philosophical opinions. And both mis-use and abuse science by doing so.

Science simply doesn't give a flying fig about their philosophical opinions. If it makes them feel any better, science doesn't give a flying fig about anyone else's philosophical opinions, either.

Most people don't mind that. Some people, apparently, do.

Depends on your values.

I didn't see anything anywhere in your big long post that answered my question about how to, ya know, use the scientific method to answer moral or ethical or philosophical questions.

Depends on your values.

The source of those values?

If one person says their values come from their grandmother, and another person says their values come from their religious views, and another person says their values come from reading "Aesop's Fables", how do we determine which of these values is better than the other? Are values rank-able according to their source?

Whether you agree with them? Are values that you agree with, inherently more valid than those you disagree with?

Are values held by the majority inherently better than those held by a minority --- or a minority of one?

Whether the person who holds them ranks higher in society than you do?

If the President holds one set of values, and your shoeshine boy holds another, are the President's values inherently better?

How, precisely, can we determine whose values are better than whose? Other than your say-so?

As long as they don't want you dead because you don't worship their God or something like that there's not really a big deal with multiple values.

Comment #132157 Posted by Popper's ghost on September 21, 2006 08:07 AM (e)

This is what annoys me. Katarina says religion is something personal to her and does not effect her outlook on science and she's told she's an idiot.

— Popper's ghost

What annoys me is that you are a liar. I didn't tell her she was an idiot, in the text you quoted or anywhere else. But considering your apparent complete inability to grasp what I wrote, I'm willing to call you one.

Comment #132160 Posted by Popper's ghost on September 21, 2006 08:13 AM (e)

This has nothing to do with science and religion (other than that science is based on reason and religion is irrational)...

— Popper's ghost

Is loving someone based on "reason"? Should you not love someone because it is not based on "reason". "Religion is irrational" is your opinion because, like IDers, you feel that religion needs to be have a scientific basis. Much of what we do as humans has little to do with "reason". Some people might feel that it is also "irrational" but you seem to think your opinion should be law.

Your no better then any of the IDers we are fighting agianst.

Comment #131026 Posted by Popper's ghost on September 17, 2006 07:57 PM (e) ... There's no such thing as "univeral data" outside of your fevered imagination. ...

— Popper's ghost

Comment #132307 Posted by Popper's ghost on September 21, 2006 04:23 PM (e) ... One way tends to lead to accurate predictions abou future events, and the other doesn't. ...

— Popper's ghost

Comment #132317 Posted by Popper's ghost on September 21, 2006 05:05 PM (e) Are your beliefs not based on anything in the Old Testament? He beliefs are apparently based in part on confirmation bias and mistaking a priori for a posteriori probability: she prays, her prayers come true, this provides evidence that God exists. A good education in Bayesian statistics might help.

— Popper's ghost

John 8:7 He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her

— Some guy claiming to be John

Wayne, if you were trying prove that I was right that you're an idiot, you've done an excellent job of it.

I wouldn't say I tried to separate "chance" from "supernatural events."

At least I didn't mean to. I meant that everything that looks like chance to us, may in fact not be.

As for the rest, I admit you lost me starting at "scientific epistemology and Bayesian statistics, and the ontological implication of a term such as 'supernatural.'" I admit I never studied Bayesian statistics, though I had an introductory logic course and vaguely remember Bayesian logic. I am going to have to study Wickepedia before I get back to you on that one.

As long as they don't want you dead because you don't worship their God or something like that there's not really a big deal with multiple values.

Why would I insult a "God" I don't even believe in?

The gods offer no rewards for intellect. There was never one yet that showed any interest in it... - Mark Twain's Notebook

I don't see us developing scientific tools powerful enough to control and predict everything. There will always be logical room for god.

So explain why it matters what religion someone has or has not, if it doesn't affect their ability to do science like everyone else?

I would suggest by which are the most naturally and universally human. That would be a humanistic frame of reference.

The definition of science requires that faith not be brought into things - if Miller is able to carry out proper scientific inquiry in a specific field, it follows that either a) his religious faith had no implications within that field, or b) he was able to negate his faith for the duration of his inquiry.

You can believe as you wish.

Because this world would probably be a much better place if people faced reality, rather than escaping into religious delusions.

He's an atheist, says religious belief is "a cognitive virus" and proclaims on his web page that his research has been "encouraged by the historical fact that most wars and groups degradations are coupled imlicitly to god beliefs." But he wants to be clear: he is worrid not about religion itself, but about the way it polarizes society. In fact, he says, being religious might be a valuable adaptive strategy, letting us "minimize the fear of death," through "the possibility of immortality." It has to be, or we wouldn't have evolved the capacity for it. "Suppose you can anticipate your personal demise. Well, that precipitates tremendous anxiety, and anxiety is devastating to cognitive processes. So from a natural selection point of view, you can see why individuals would have been selected if they could minimize that anxiety," he explains. "The minute a person can affiliate themselves with this concept of infinite and forever, there is no personal death, and consequently there is no reason to have anxiety. You can see why people become addicted to it." When Karl Marx wrote that religion is the opiate of the masses, he thought he was being metaphysical. Persinger thinks there's a good chance that Marx was writing the literal neurochemical truth.

Because religion in general, if not always in specifics, is a destructive force.

[something inane and uncomprehending]

— (shrug) (sigh) (snicker) (belch) (fart)

Hey Popper, if religion is simply a matter of biochemistry, and beliefs are just the result of genes, then why do you spend so much time offering your, uh, rational and scientific arguments against religion? What's the point? Can your arguments change someone's biochemistry? Can your arguments change someone's genes? If your arguments are effective against religion, then it seems biochemistry is irrelevant, and you are just flapping your gums by bringing them up. If your arguments are ineffective against religion because it's all genetic, then it seems that all your gum-flapping is pointless, so why waste everyone's time with it?

Which is it?

Norm doesn't want to answer that question. How about you?

Posted by Popper's ghost on September 22, 2006 07:04 AM (e) (shrug) (sigh) (snicker) (belch) (fart) wrote: [something inane and uncomprehending]

Because some of those religions effect people's desire to fly airplanes into skyscrapers. Thety start to value death. And if that's not enough, that "or something like that" phrase actually has a lot more in it I could ever talk about. Because the religious moderates can't really deal with the fundies and only help mask their deep insanity by making bat-shit crazy people like Robertson seem less crazy when they debate obviously bat-shit crazy books like the Bible with them. Because this world would probably be a much better place if people faced reality, rather than escaping into religious delusions. Because religion in general, if not always in specifics, incorporates incredible absurdities and as Voltaire said, "those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Because religion in general, if not always in specifics, is a destructive force.

Yah, Puppy, that's about the level of "response" I've come to expect of you.

But then, being an asshole is probably genetic anyway, right?

Comment #132477 Posted by Popper's ghost on September 22, 2006 04:33 AM (e) Wayne, if you were trying prove that I was right that you're an idiot, you've done an excellent job of it.

— Popper's ghost

Comment #132491 Posted by normdoering on September 22, 2006 05:27 AM (e) Wayne Francis asked:

Why would I insult a "God" I don't even believe in?

— normdoering

Because you have a sense of humor. Same reason you might insult aliens this way: "So, these greys came half-way across the galaxy to give you an anal probe. You must think you have one hell of an ass-hole. Don't let it go to your head." But since you don't have a sense of humor, I guess you wouldn't say that. Besides, saying; "God is a psychotic killer, an immature child emotionally, he/she/it is the supreme asshole of the universe who needs worshippers to kiss its ass constantly because its so insecure about being loved," is also an accurate description the Old Testament regardless of it being an insult or joke. Have you ever bothered to read it? The Old Testament version of God is a lot like that kid from the Twilight Zone episode I mentioned. He is portrayed as stern, hard, resentful, jealous and cruel, but in the New Testament he's supposed to be the opposite... gentle, merciful, forgiving, loving. He's really much crueler than he was in the Old Testament... Meek and gentle? That's sarcasm in light of the hell which he invented. The gods offer no rewards for intellect. There was never one yet that showed any interest in it... - Mark Twain's Notebook

My observation that "chance event" and "supernatural event" aren't mutually exclusive alternatives (aside from my observation that "supernatural event" is incoherent --- at least it's hard to determine what it might mean)

If god, which doesn't even have a brain to think with, thinks (or "wills") something to happen and then it happens, what logical basis is there to say that god caused it? It doesn't appear to be logically possible for something immaterial to affect something material

norm wrote:

Because religion in general, if not always in specifics, is a destructive force.

Translation: "My generalization is true except in (uncounted, unspecified) specific instances in the real world when it is false."

Or, in the racist's parlance, "Hey, don't get me wrong, some of my best friends are..."

In response to this question:

How, precisely, can we determine whose values are better than whose?

norm wrote:

I would suggest by which are the most naturally and universally human. That would be a humanistic frame of reference.

Bigotry, tribalism, laziness, refusal to accept change, closed-mindedness, irresponsibility, greed, disregard for others, the drive to propagate our DNA by fucking whoever we can, and, yes, religion -- these are among the values that are "naturally and universally human:" they're found all over the world, and they're natural to the human animal. In fact, these values are more universal than freedom of speech, freedom of religion, rule of law, and rational inquiry -- so what does that say about which values are "better?"

So much for your science-based "humanistic frame of reference."

The idea that science can answer moral questions is, IIRC, called "scientism," and is flatly rejected by most real grownup scientists, who, unlike you, have enough real-world experience (and HUMILITY) to know their own limits. Most scientists would be appalled to think that they were expected to tell the rest of us how to live our lives. (Don't they have enough on their plate already? Can't you appreciate what they've done without demanding they do more?)

First you reject Gods as "sky-daddies." Now you're trying to pretend that science is the new sky-daddy who will make all the rules, settle all the arguments, and protect you from the big bad chaotic world you're not grown up enough to handle yourself. That's not just ridiculous, it's pathetic.

Bottom line: ANY discussion of "the supernatural" is guaranteed to be fundamentally incoherent; the term doesn't REFER to anything.

Say what? "Supernatural" refers to any alleged event or ability that science and reason deny or can't explain: telekinesis, astral projection, ghosts and hauntings, miracles, creation of whole universes out of nothing, etc. etc.

Just because YOU can't be coherent about something, does not mean it's "guaranteed to be fundamentally incoherent" to anyone else.

Norm:

I should have spelled out that my question about why religion matters if it doesn't affect science was to be taken in the context of the original thread, which was, I think, the question about why a scientist's (specifically Miller) religion matters if it doesn't affect his/her (Miller's) science.

Your answer is that Religion is Bad whether it affects science or not?

Is that an accurate summation of your response?

... about why religion matters if it doesn't affect science was to be taken in the context of the original thread, which was, I think, the question about why a scientist's (specifically Miller) religion matters if it doesn't affect his/her (Miller's) science. Your answer is that Religion is Bad whether it affects science or not?

Whose polls, norm? WorldNutDaily's?

So do you like going up to a stranger that is Polish and telling polish jokes to them?

Whose polls, norm? WorldNutDaily's?

Even the most devout believer would have to say that when God does act in the world, he does so with care and with subtlety. At a minimum, the continuing existence of the universe itself can be attributed to God. The existence of the universe is not self-explanatory, and to a believer the existence of every particle, wave, and field is a product of the continuing will of God. That's a start which would keep most of us busy, but the Western understanding of God requires more than universal maintenance. Fortunately, in scientific terms, if there is a God, He has left Himself plenty of material to work with. To pick just one example, the indeterminate nature of quantum events would allow a clever and subtle God to influence events in ways that are profound, but scientifically undetectable to us. Those events could include the appearance of mutations, the activation of individual neurons in the brain, and even the survival of individual cells and organisms affected by the chance processes of radioactive decay. Chaos theory emphasizes the fact that enormous changes in physical systems can be brought about by unimaginably small changes in initial conditions; and this, too, could serve as an undetectable amplifier of divine action.

norm: all three of your links refer to the same poll, whose results do NOT support your assertion that "a majority of people in America reject evolution."

Why are you repeating the fundies' lies, and using the fundies' style of dishonest misrepresentation of data to reinforce them?

Two words: Get Help.

Hmm.

Meet People (sorry, but every time I type or think that, my brain goes off on a tangent involving the grunge rockers, the Meat Puppets), I wasn't intending to portray you as involved in a showdown, but as attempting to head one off.

Now if others here find the Stetson fits, of course, they are welcome to tickle their ears.

Popper's Ghost, of course, is perfectly capable of defending itself (as long as we are treading where science won't, do ghosts have gender?), but I somehow doubt that it has been its intent to portray you--personally--as a "loser." Popper, it seems to me, is taking you seriously and would not--given his notoriously "acerbic" character--still be dealing with you if he didn't find something of continung interest to him in your discussion.

While I appreciate Lenny's points--more, certainly, than does Popper--I do think there is a difference between "the fundies" and "our" atheists. Our guys seem content to expound their opinions via verbal persuasion and do not seem to me to be attempting to enforce their opinions by way of violence, overthrow (or illegitimate overtaking of) the government, etc. Equating them is, therefore, a tad hyperbolic.

But then, if some of us were less hyperbolic and/or acerbic, then we wouldn't work up these excellent appetites for our virtual pub's virtual pub grb 'n' glub...

On with the show!

Er, "continung" ==> "continuing."

"Grb" ==> "grub."

Seems to be some kind of a problem with the "u" on my keyboard.

Possibly all that drool.

Partly. But you can't say "religion" doesn't effect science because Miller is the exception, not the rule, (in America at least). Polls show a majority of people in America reject evolution.

norm: all three of your links refer to the same poll, whose results do NOT support your assertion that "a majority of people in America reject evolution."

How many of these are scientists? Or, conversely, how many scientists believe in God? I would like to see that poll before I believe that Miller is the exception.

First, norm, the correct term is "plurality," not "majority." Second, belief (by non-scientists, mind you) that God guided the process of evolution is not a "rejection" of evolution, any more than a different interpretation of the Bible is a "rejection" of Christianity. (There's that fundie absolutist mindset again...) Third, according to this poll, those who favored God-guided evolution and those who favored the unguided kind, together OUTNUMBERED the YECs. That is not "rejection of evolution" by a majority.

'Meet People', I find you are doing jus' fine. It is quite a subtle, difficult point you raise. I'll simply say, that like most scientists, there are some questions for which we have no data, hence no means to posit 'scientific laws'.

Popper's ghost --- A slight change to your brief description of deductive logic. The rules of inference have to be sound. I have previously given the example of the Law of the Excluded Middle, which is no longer considered to be a universally permissible rule of inference.

Carry on, carry on. But please DO try not to be repetitious. This thread is finally becoming a bit boring, I am sorry to say...

... about why religion matters if it doesn't affect science was to be taken in the context of the original thread, which was, I think, the question about why a scientist's (specifically Miller) religion matters if it doesn't affect his/her (Miller's) science. Your answer is that Religion is Bad whether it affects science or not?

Partly. But you can't say "religion" doesn't effect science because Miller is the exception, not the rule, (in America at least). Polls show a majority of people in America reject evolution.

While I appreciate Lenny's points---more, certainly, than does Popper---I do think there is a difference between "the fundies" and "our" atheists. Our guys seem content to expound their opinions via verbal persuasion and do not seem to me to be attempting to enforce their opinions by way of violence, overthrow (or illegitimate overtaking of) the government, etc. Equating them is, therefore, a tad hyperbolic.

my brain goes off on a tangent involving the grunge rockers, the Meat Puppets

45% of Americans accept the idea of Special Creation. Sad, in my view, but that's not a majority

There's that fundie absolutist mindset again

Give them that power, and *then* watch what happens.

Hmm. [...] On with the show!

— Steviepinhead (#132603)

I find it just as revealing to look at the posts that Norm does NOT respond to, as the ones he DOES respond to. . . .

Sweden has about 85% non-believers in God, Denmark about 80%, Norway 72%.

Comment #132585 Posted by normdoering on September 22, 2006 01:18 PM (e) Wayne Francis wrote:

So do you like going up to a stranger that is Polish and telling polish jokes to them?

— normdoering

Wow! What a context shift. Raging Bee is no stranger, he's been chasing after my comments with logic so twisted Stephen Colbert could use it. You're the one who walked into it. Popper's Ghost was right about you.

Posted by normdoering on September 22, 2006 07:41 PM (e) 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote: Give them that power, and *then* watch what happens.

It isn't what people personally believe that generally causes problems. Disaster comes when people decide everyone else should believe the same (as they do) and take action to make it so.