Does Science Lead to Atheism?

Posted 1 July 2009 by Matt Young

No.

That was the short answer. The longer answer is that scientists are more likely to disbelieve in God than are nonscientists, and eminent scientists are more apt to be disbelievers than journeyman scientists. But does science lead them to atheism? Possibly, but it seems more likely that freethinkers or skeptics are attracted to science than that science creates atheists. I studied this question a few years ago, when John Lynch and I prepared an article for the New Encyclopedia of Unbelief. What follows the horizontal rule is an excerpt from that article. One of the conclusions we drew was that biologists, anthropologists, and psychologists were more likely to disbelieve in God than physical scientists and engineers. That conclusion has recently been called into question, and I will discuss the new data after the second horizontal rule.

Measuring Unbelief among Scientists (1914 and 1933). ... the psychologist James H. Leuba surveyed a large number of US scientists in order to learn their beliefs about God and immortality. In both polls, disbelievers (not including doubters or agnostics) represented a plurality over believers and doubters (Table 1). Further, the least likely to be believers were psychologists, followed by sociologists, biologists, and physicists, in that order. The order stood firm across the years. Distinguished scientists (as identified by American Men of Science) exhibited a substantially greater rate of disbelief than "lesser" scientists. Leuba's poll was, however, not without problems. First, because the U. S. was almost monolithically Christian, Leuba formulated two questions that asked, in essence, whether respondents believed in a particular Christian conception of God. Asking his questions in that way militated against getting positive responses from, for example, pantheists such as Robert Millikan and Albert Einstein, who associated God with the universe and its laws and thus did not revere, in Leuba's words, "the God of our Churches." Leuba asked respondents whether they believed in "a God to whom one may pray in the expectation of receiving an answer" (a question specifically defined to exclude psychological or subjective consequences of prayer), disbelieved in such a God, or had no definite belief. Second, several questionnaires were returned with remarks intended to justify the respondents' refusals to answer the questions. According to Leuba, most of these were from disbelievers; hence, he concluded, the percentage of disbelievers may have been understated in his poll. Scientists are more educated than the general population, and Leuba, a religious humanist, thought that increasing education would decrease rates of belief in God. To test his hypothesis, he surveyed college students at two unidentified colleges: a high-ranking college that was divided among the major Protestant denominations, and a college that was "radical" in its leanings. In both colleges, the number of believers in both God and immortality decreased with age or academic advancement (freshman through senior years). Leuba also cites a decrease in belief at one of the colleges between 1914 and 1933, as well as similar results found at Syracuse University in 1926. Leuba, a professor at Bryn Mawr College outside Philadelphia, does not identify the two colleges in his study, but they are probably in the northeast, if not the Philadelphia area. If the major Protestant denominations means the mainline Protestant churches, then Leuba's studies of college students may not be representative, inasmuch as they omit students affiliated with churches not heavily represented in the northeast. Oddly, Leuba does not mention the Roman Catholic Church. Measuring Unbelief among Scientists (the 1990's). In 1996 and 1998, Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham replicated Leuba's surveys. For consistency, they did not edit Leuba's questions, despite the cultural changes that had occurred in 80 years. Additionally, American Men and Women of Science no longer highlights eminent scientists, so Larson and Witham derived their "greater" scientists from the membership of the National Academy of Sciences; comparison with Leuba's "greater" scientists is therefore problematic, because the NAS probably contains substantially more-eminent scientists than the highlighted scientists of the earlier surveys. Larson and Witham found that nearly 50 percent of the scientists and nearly 75 percent of the "greater" scientists surveyed disbelieve in both God and immortality. An additional 15-20 percent are doubters. It is hard to make much of three numbers, but during the century the percentage of disbelievers increased monotonically in every category, except for a peak in the percent of scientists who disbelieved in 1933. Disbelief in immortality more than doubled among scientists in general and nearly tripled among "greater" scientists. It is thus hard to credit Larson and Witham's claim that belief among scientists has remained more or less steady for 80 years. C. Mackenzie Brown has analyzed Leuba's data and also suggested that demographics may make comparison between Leuba's and Larson and Witham's surveys difficult. For example, more scientists now are women, and women are more likely to be religious than men. This factor reduces the number of disbelievers in the later surveys and possibly disconfirms Larson and Witham's conclusion that scientists' religious beliefs have not changed much since 1914. Brown has similarly noted that applied scientists are underrepresented among the greater scientists and adds drily that their underrepresentation may be relevant to any discussion of the beliefs of eminent scientists. In 1998, Laurence Iannaconne and his colleagues examined existing data gathered between 1972 and 1990, and tried to assess the prevalence of scientists' belief in God. They found that 19 percent of "professors/scientists" have "no religion" and 11 to 21 percent "oppose religion" (Table 2). It is hard to compare these figures with those of Leuba and Larson, but arguably between 27 and 40 percent of professors/scientists may be doubters or disbelievers. The study broke the data down further by discipline and found a hierarchy similar to that found by Leuba: Social scientists, at 36 percent, were most likely to have no religion, followed by physical scientists and mathematicians (27 percent) and life scientists (25 percent). Among the social scientists, sociologists (35 percent), psychologists (48 percent), and anthropologists (57 percent) were most likely to have no religion. According to a 2003 Harris poll, by contrast, 90 percent of all adults [in the U.S.] believe in God and 84 percent in survival of the soul after death; that is, 10 percent disbelieve in God or are doubters, and 16 percent disbelieve in immortality or are doubters. Interpreting the Data. Leuba speculated whether scientists become disbelievers or whether independent thinkers willing to confront reigning orthodoxies become scientists. The greater scientists are presumably on average more-independent thinkers than the lesser; the fact could account for the increase of disbelief among greater scientists. That conclusion is supported by a study by Fred Thalheimer, who concluded that religious beliefs are frequently set during high school or college and that nonreligious students may choose more-intellectual or -theoretical endeavors. Scientists who study biology, psychology, and sociology and anthropology are more likely to disbelieve in God and immortality than physical and applied scientists. Leuba speculated that physicists and engineers see a creator in the lawfulness of the physical and engineering worlds. Social and biological scientists may be less likely to see lawfulness in their studies, and Brown asks, further, whether social and biological scientists are perhaps influenced by the suffering that they see and physical scientists do not see. Thus, the question may be why biological and social scientists are more likely to disbelieve, rather than why physical scientists and engineers are less likely. Arguably, then, science leads to disbelief, at least among those already inclined to be independent thinkers. Leuba predicted that increasing scientific knowledge would lead to increasing disbelief. That prediction is apparently (at least partly) correct. He further predicted that the religions would adapt to the best scientific insights and "replace their specific method of seeking the welfare of humanity by appeal to, and reliance upon divine Beings, by methods free from a discredited supernaturalism." That prediction, at least so far, is largely incorrect.

Measuring Unbelief among Scientists (2004-2007). Elaine Ecklund and Christopher Scheitle have recently examined the religious beliefs of scientists as a function of discipline. They discuss a survey of faculty at 21 elite research universities. Among the questions they asked were, "Which one of the following statements comes closest to expressing what you believe about God?" The statements ranged from "I have no doubts about God's existence" through "I have some doubts, but I believe in God" to "I do not know...and there is no way to find out" and "I do not believe in God." To compare their results with Leuba's and others, I identified "I do not believe in God" with disbelief and identified "I believe in God sometimes" and "I do not know...and there is no way to find out" with doubt. The comparison is problematic, if only because Leuba's survey concerned a God who potentially answers prayers. The results are presented in Table 3. They support the conclusion that scientists are more apt to be disbelievers than the general public, but they are at odds with the conclusion that the rate of disbelief correlates with discipline. Ecklund and Scheitle, however, performed a statistical analysis that suggests nevertheless that biologists may be somewhat less inclined toward religion than physicists; they speculate that the correlation, if it is real, may result from what they call the contentious relationship between evolution and certain religious groups. Ecklund and Scheitle's study is marred somewhat both by its restriction to elite scientists and by its mechanism for choosing those elite scientists. Not every faculty member at an elite university is an elite scientist, certainly not on a par with members of the National Academy of Sciences. Nevertheless, they found that the best predictor of their scientists' religious practice is the scientists' childhood religious practice and conclude, more or less in agreement with Thalheimer, that freethinkers or doubters to some extent self-select when they become scientists. Thus, science may not lead to disbelief; rather, disbelievers or skeptics are led to science. Finally, Ecklund and Scheitle found that younger scientists are more apt to be religious than are older scientists and note without comment that this finding "could indicate an overall shift in attitudes towards religion among those in the academy." Unbelief outside the US. I do not know of any studies similar to Leuba's outside the United States. Europe is generally thought to be less religious than the United States, but Andrew Curry, writing in Science, notes some disquieting appearances of creationism in Europe. He cites a German study, which I have not read, to the effect that students' openness to creationism is less a result of religion than of their failure to appreciate or understand science. Pierre Clément and his colleagues report on a study of the creationist beliefs of teachers, as opposed to professors and practicing scientists. The cohort of "teachers" comprises both practicing teachers and students studying to become teachers. The study included 19 countries, mostly from Europe, the Levant, and northern Africa. Approximately one-third of the teachers were biology teachers, and the remainder taught the national language. Among 14 of those countries, 12.5 % of respondents were agnostic. In France and Estonia, more than 50 % were agnostic. The authors give no indication whether the biology teachers were more or less likely to be agnostic than the language teachers. The study asked questions such as, "Which of the following four statements do you agree with most? ... 1. It is certain that the origin of the humankind results from evolutionary processes. 2. Human origin can be explained by evolutionary processes without considering the hypothesis that God created humankind. 3. Human origin can be explained by evolutionary processes that are governed by God. 4. It is certain that God created humankind." A similar set of questions asked about the origin of life, as opposed to the origin of humanity. The questions were translated into each national language. Clément and colleagues considered those who ticked question 4 to be (anti-evolutionist) creationists, whereas those who ticked question 3 were designated creationist-evolutionists - most probably what in the United States are called theistic evolutionists. Only about 2 % of the respondents from France, for example, were creationists; more than 80 % of respondents from Morocco and Algeria were creationists, even among biology teachers. Creationism was more likely in those who were more religious, either in belief or in observance, irrespective of religion. Those who said that the theory of evolution contradicted their own beliefs ranged from a few percent among agnostics, through approximately 25 % among Catholics and Protestants, and 40 % among Orthodox, to nearly 75 % among Muslims. Acceptance of evolution, including theistic evolution, among the entire cohort of teachers, however, increased with years of training, from about 45 % among those with less than 2 years of training through 80 % among those with 4 or more years of training. These numbers are all rough, because I had to pick most of them off some fairly small graphs. I suspect that the correlation with religion is partly the result of demographics; the study did not compare, for example, Catholics and Muslims within a single country, such as France. The study included five countries in western Europe: France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Portugal, and Italy. Approximately 10 % of biology teachers in the UK and 15% in Portugal responded that it was certain that God created life - the response that Clément and his colleagues consider the creationist response. Nearly 20 % of the language teachers in Italy responded similarly. On the other hand, roughly 15 % of biology teachers in the UK and Germany, a bit over 20 % in Portugal and Italy, and 35 % in France responded that the origin of life resulted from natural processes (Table 3). The language teachers' responses to the same question ranged from a low of perhaps 12 % in the UK (which at 35 % also had a relatively high fraction of theistic evolutionists) to 52 % in France. In four of the five countries, the percentage of language teachers who thought that life had resulted from natural processes exceeded the percentage of biology teachers; I haven't the foggiest idea why. Finally, the percentage of both biology and language teachers who ticked natural causes or theistic evolution was least in the Muslim and Orthodox countries, Lebanon, Malta, and Poland. Conclusion. Paul Strode and I tried to show that science is not necessarily incompatible with religion, though it certainly falsifies the specific claims of some religions. Nevertheless, both atheists and creationists (some of them, anyway) want to think that science necessarily leads toward atheism or agnosticism. It is hard to say, but it seems more likely that skeptics or freethinkers, who may be already inclined toward disbelief in God, are more likely to become scientists or, perhaps, science teachers. The claim that social scientists are less likely to believe than are physical scientists may not stand up to scrutiny. References. Anonymous, "Harris Poll: The Religious and Other Beliefs of Americans 2003," Skeptical Inquirer, July-August, 2003, p. 5. Brown, C. Mackenzie, "The Conflict between Religion and Science in Light of the Patterns of Religious Beliefs among Scientists," Zygon 38(3): 603-632 (September), 2003. Clément, Pierre, and Marie-Pierre Quessada, "Les convictions créationnistes et/ou évolutionnistes d'enseignants de biologie: une étude comparative dans dix-neuf pays," Natures Sciences Sociétés 16, 154-158, 2008; in French. Clément, Pierre, Marie-Pierre Quessada, Charline Laurent, and Graça Carvalho, "Science and Religion: Evolutionism and Creationism in Education: A Survey of Teachers' Conceptions in 14 Countries," XIII IOSTE Symposium, Izmir, Turkey, The Use of Science and Technology Education for Peace and Sustainable Development, 21-26 September 2008. Curry, Andrew, "Creationist Beliefs Persist in Europe," Science 323: 1159, 2009. Ecklund, Elaine Howard, and Christopher P. Scheitle, "Religion among Academic Scientists: Distinctions, Disciplines, and Demographics," Social Problems, 54(2): 289-307, 2007. Iannaconne, Laurence, Rodney Stark, and Roger Finke, "Rationality and the 'Religious Mind'," Economic Inquiry 36(3): 373-389, 1998. Larson, Edward J., and Larry Witham, "Scientists Are Still Keeping the Faith," Nature 386: 435-436, 1997. --, "Leading Scientists Still Reject God," Nature 394: 313, 1998. --, "Scientists and Religion in America," Scientific American 281(3): 89-93 (September), 1999. Leuba, James H., Belief in God and Immortality, Boston: Sherman, French, 1916. --, "Religious Beliefs of American Scientists," Harper's Monthly Magazine, August: 291-300 1934. Thalheimer, Fred, "Religiosity and Secularization in the Academic Professions," Sociology of Education 46: 183-202 (spring), 1973. Young, Matt, and John Lynch, "Unbelief among Scientists," New Encyclopedia of Unbelief, Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus, 2007, pp. 687-690. Young, Matt, and Paul Strode, Why Evolution Works (and Creationism Fails), New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers, 2009, chap. 18.

182 Comments

James F · 1 July 2009

*braces himself for the incoming e-sh*tstorm*

Personally, I only really care that methodological naturalists, regardless of belief/nonbelief, are fighting on the same side for good science education and public understanding of science. This does not translate to "New Atheists should SD&STFU;" it does mean I'm pro-outreach. We need allies in the non-scientific community.

I'm out.

DavidK · 1 July 2009

Of course the validity of any survey depends on the fundamental accuracy, or vagueness, of the questions asked and how each respondent interprets those questions. As such, any survey might be more or less skewed to represent the surveyors intent, e.g., the DI.

fnxtr · 1 July 2009

Interesting that the phrasing is "more likely to disbelieve", as if it were some kind of pro-activity, as opposed to "less likely to believe", which would, logically, be the default position, wouldn't it? I'm less likely to believe in unicorns and ESP, too. I don't actively disbelieve, it just never enters the conversation.

Keelyn · 1 July 2009

Someone should send this to Patty B. Considering the last bit of claptrap I just read, I am certain he could find some way of twisting it into any lie for Jesus.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/34078_Pat_Buchanan_vs._Evolution

Flint · 1 July 2009

I don't think these results and tabulations really quite address the question.

There's a qualitative difference between the notion that scientific thinking causes atheism, and the notion that a profession where the supernatural is disallowed tends to recruit people less inclined to swallow supernatural "explanations".

I think fnxtr has also made an important observation - the number of things we all "disbelieve in" is limited only by our imaginations. It would be more interesting to investigate what scientists think is "probably true despite the lack of any direct or unambiguous evidence."

John Harshman · 1 July 2009

Two comments:

First, on a couple of terms. Whether the existence of religious scientists shows that religion and science are compatible depends on what you mean by "compatible". This point has been done to death, and you really should take note of that past discussion rather than just continuing to talk about "compatibility". The other term is "necessarily"; I doubt anyone is claiming that science necessarily leads to atheism, not even creationists. It may be claimed that science inclines one that way.

Second, I wonder what would happen if evolutionary biologists were considered as a separate category from other biologists. I have a snippet of anecdotal evidence here: Will Provine had lunch with grad students in evolution at U. of Chicago in the early '90s. The event was well attended (free pizza!), and Provine took the opportunity to ask how many believed in god, defined very vaguely as any sort of intelligent power in the universe. Out of about 20 students, only one affirmed even this weak position. I generally assume that any evolutionary biologist I meet is an atheist, and I am seldom disabused.

If there is such a correlation, of course we have three options: evolutionary biology predisposes to atheism, atheism predisposes to evolutionary biology, and some third factor predisposes to both. And we can't choose among alternatives based on that correlation.

wamba · 1 July 2009

There actual examples of people who have been led towards atheism by science. This is precisely the same sort of evidence presented for the "science and religion are compatible" argument, so the case that science leads to atheism is at least as strong as the case that science and religion are compatible.

wamba · 1 July 2009

Or, if we are willing to grow up and admit that people can hold contradictory ideas at the same time, and that people do things for illogical reasons, we could throw out the citing of examples and concentrate on the philosophical considerations.

snex · 1 July 2009

wamba said: There actual examples of people who have been led towards atheism by science. This is precisely the same sort of evidence presented for the "science and religion are compatible" argument, so the case that science leads to atheism is at least as strong as the case that science and religion are compatible.

say what? who was led towards religion *by science?* francis collins describes what exactly led him to his religion, and it weren't science that done it. regarding the OP: why do you suppose people who are already atheists would be more inclined to be scientists, if indeed religion is compatible with science?

Mike Elzinga · 1 July 2009

Flint said: I don't think these results and tabulations really quite address the question. There's a qualitative difference between the notion that scientific thinking causes atheism, and the notion that a profession where the supernatural is disallowed tends to recruit people less inclined to swallow supernatural "explanations". I think fnxtr has also made an important observation - the number of things we all "disbelieve in" is limited only by our imaginations. It would be more interesting to investigate what scientists think is "probably true despite the lack of any direct or unambiguous evidence."

There may also be many hidden social and emotional variables influencing responses among those who don’t unequivocally reject sectarian gods. Nearly all these questionnaires seem to have questions derived from an implicit understanding of the Western version of those religions derived from the traditions of Abraham. People raised in that milieu could very likely have reservations about rejecting outright the beliefs that are predominant in their society and history. The people formulating the questions may themselves have a limited perspective on what ranges of belief or non-belief may be possible; including suitably nuanced concepts about the deities of other religions. Both of these can severely limit the scope of the questions and the answers that are possible. A questionnaire that reflects a broader perspective of the deities that have been conceived by humans might actually get better answers. Most of the questions I have seen over the years seem childish, somewhat like those asked by reporters and amateurs who don’t know the concepts well enough to ask an intelligent question, yet who attempt to pass themselves off as “deep”. As to older scientists being more likely to reject belief in supernatural deities and explanations, I’m not so sure it is just scientists. Many thoughtful non-scientists who have come to appreciate the nature of hard evidence come to similar conclusions. One has only to be engaged with life to notice that fundamentalism, for example, doesn’t hold up but tends to be the refuge of gullible rubes and tax-evading charlatans. And simply watching the behaviors of sectarians over a lifetime of observation, comparison, and contemplation of what it all means is quite likely to lead many people to reject much of what they see in organized religion. One doesn’t have to be a scientist to come to such conclusions; just reasonably alert and informed. I don’t know if it is the case generally, but the more exposure in the media that fundamentalists and politically active sectarians have, the stupider they look, and the more likely that people observing them will harbor doubts about our historical religions and deities. Thus, if there are any trends toward more rejection of sectarian religion, it may be simply because we all have a lot more information from improved communication among ourselves.

wamba · 1 July 2009

snex said: say what? who was led towards religion *by science?*

Who said that anyone was? I said that one claim for the science and religion are compatible is the existence of scientists who hold religious belief.

snex · 1 July 2009

wamba said:
snex said: say what? who was led towards religion *by science?*
Who said that anyone was? I said that one claim for the science and religion are compatible is the existence of scientists who hold religious belief.

you did. "There actual examples of people who have been led towards atheism by science. This is precisely the same sort of evidence presented for the 'science and religion are compatible' argument..."

Matt Young · 1 July 2009

I think fnxtr has also made an important observation - the number of things we all "disbelieve in" is limited only by our imaginations.

I chose the term "disbelieve" carefully. Disbelief is stronger than mere lack of belief: To disbelieve in something is to reject it, not merely to question it or doubt it. The question, to my mind, was how many scientists are disbelievers, not doubters or unbelievers. I should have defined disbelief more explicitly, but note the first sentence after the first horizontal rule: "… the psychologist James H. Leuba surveyed a large number of US scientists in order to learn their beliefs about God and immortality. In both polls, disbelievers (not including doubters or agnostics) represented a plurality over believers and doubters" [italics added].

John Lynch · 1 July 2009

A PDF copy of the original entry that Matt and I wrote is available here for those that want to see the full article.

Flint · 1 July 2009

I don’t know if it is the case generally, but the more exposure in the media that fundamentalists and politically active sectarians have, the stupider they look, and the more likely that people observing them will harbor doubts about our historical religions and deities. Thus, if there are any trends toward more rejection of sectarian religion, it may be simply because we all have a lot more information from improved communication among ourselves.

Um. In a highly sectarian society, media exposure of fundamentalists will meet the same enthusiastic response that Dembski gets from his fan club. There is nothing more persuasive than a shared prejudice. To the extent that such people look stupid, I think it reflects a social trend generally toward a secular outlook. This is probably not a matter of information directly - those who believe see ratification for their beliefs everywhere they look, so the more information they get, the more ratification they find. I believe that the scientific view (evidence matters, assertions can be tested, conclusions are always tentative, probabilities are important, reality is composed of continua, etc.) is unnatural for people. We are dichotomizing engines, we like certainty, we are uncomfortable with maybe and usually and partially. Consider that in every legal dispute, we arbitrarily demand that one side be entirely right and the other wrong. Judges can't say, well, you're mostly right, so I'll decide 75% in your favor. So you won't find questions that allow the respondent to believe in supernatural entities a little bit, or sometimes, or no with respect to weather but yes with respect to fate. People don't think in these terms. Scientific thinking is an acquired trait, and clearly many people are unable and/or unwilling to acquire it.

GvlGeologist, FCD · 1 July 2009

Other scientific fields that might be expected to have variable levels of religious belief include astronomy and geology. I've sometimes wondered whether certain geological fields (crystallography, mineralogy, petrology, economic geology, environmental geology, for example) might be more inclined (because they can be studied without reference to time) to have more creationists than other fields (paleomagnetism, stratigraphy, paleontology, paleoceanography, plate tectonics, for example) which do use concepts of deep geologic time.

Incidentally, Flint, in civil cases, judges and juries can determine partial responsibility, so it's not necessarily true that "in every legal dispute, we arbitrarily demand that one side be entirely right and the other wrong". This doesn't really change your argument, I just wanted to set the record straight. IANAL, but I do know this from a friend who was sued over an auto accident, and that person was found partially but not wholly responsible. The other driver (who sued my friend) was found partially responsible as well.

Glen Davidson · 1 July 2009

Naturally it's good to question the assumed causality in the tendency of biologists (and other scientists) to disbelieve in religion/god. Yet the idea that unbelievers tend to be attracted to science as the cause seems equally questionable. Why would unbelievers be attracted to science? Is it because science mirrors their thinking processes already? For myself, I think that not believing in god and interest in science are quite intimately tied together. I am not satisfied with the easy answers of religion, and so I wish to utilize the processes that do provide reliable answers. Is this unlike the disbelief of most scientists? I tend toward preferring accommodation myself, since I think it's a necessary position for teaching most people. Sure, have the bad cops along with the good cops. I'm not one who thinks that one position alone will do. It occurs to me that science might very well do best if, for the most part, religion and science appear compatible, however. Nevertheless, I can't help but see, both from experience and from empirical studies, that the thought processes used in science are not very accommodating to religious and wishful thinking. Here is the reference information and an abstract from a paper which purportedly has empirical data that religious thinking and scientific thinking tend to be antagonistic in the human mind:

FlashReports Science and God: An automatic opposition between ultimate explanations Jesse Preston a,*, Nicholas Epley b a Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 603 E Daniel St. Champaign, IL 61820, USA b University of Chicago, 5807 South Woodlawn Avenue Chicago, IL 60637-1610, USA a r t i c l e i n f o Article history: Received 14 May 2008 Revised 8 July 2008 Available online 22 August 2008 Keywords: Causal explanation Religion Science a b s t r a c t Science and religion have come into conflict repeatedly throughout history, and one simple reason for this is the two offer competing explanations for many of the same phenomena. We present evidence that the conflict between these two concepts can occur automatically, such that increasing the perceived value of one decreases the automatic evaluation of the other. In Experiment 1, scientific theories described as poor explanations decreased automatic evaluations of science, but simultaneously increased automatic evaluations of God. In Experiment 2, using God as an explanation increased automatic evaluations of God, but decreased automatic evaluations of science. Religion and science both have the potential to be ultimate explanations, and these findings suggest that this competition for explanatory space can create an automatic opposition in evaluations. 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

If their conclusions are correct, unbelievers may very well be attracted to science because they lack the religious thinking which tends to cause scientific thought to recede. Glen Davidson http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Mike Elzinga · 1 July 2009

Flint said: Scientific thinking is an acquired trait, and clearly many people are unable and/or unwilling to acquire it.

But there are communities with which I am familiar (farming and tourist-dependent communities) that have a large segment of “Reformed” church-goers who are quite pushy and “influential” in the community. Yet these same communities also have a large component of people who don’t go to any church and generally reject organized religion. These are people, with high school educations or less, working in the trades or who are just general laborers, or who have their own businesses. If you were to offer a questionnaire or ask questions about why these folks reject religion, you aren’t likely to get any candid responses. But if you get to know them better and gain their trust, you’d find the reason for that lack of candidness is because these people sense that they would receive some kind of retribution from the sectarians in their community; things like loss of business or employment opportunities, blame for community ills, social isolation, or any number of slights and snubs that would make life harder for them in the community. If one asks an educated, self-assured scientist who rejects religion about his/her reasons, one is more likely to get candid answers because the consequences perceived by the scientist are not seen to be threatening in the way someone with lesser leverage and standing in the community might perceive about such questions. This is another reason why I think questionnaires about religious beliefs are so tricky and hard to interpret; you simply don’t know why you are getting the answers you get, and people with perspectives they perceive might get them into “trouble” simply won’t respond. So the results are likely to be skewed.

386sx · 1 July 2009

The "No." should be blinking text, with rainbow colors.

Les Lane · 1 July 2009

Analytical thinking is a factor likely to incline one towards both religious unbelief and science. Tendencies to rationalize, on the other hand, are likely to incline one towards religious belief and away from science.

Flint · 1 July 2009

IANAL, but I do know this from a friend who was sued over an auto accident, and that person was found partially but not wholly responsible. The other driver (who sued my friend) was found partially responsible as well.

Yes, auto accidents have a "no fault" exception, where partial decisions can be made. IANAL either, but I think this is atypical.

these people sense that they would receive some kind of retribution from the sectarians in their community; things like loss of business or employment opportunities, blame for community ills, social isolation, or any number of slights and snubs that would make life harder for them in the community.

But I should think this would be true where the preponderance of the faithful is large enough to HAVE that sort of influence. I agree, we have no good way of getting a handle on what the pattern of belief really is.

This is another reason why I think questionnaires about religious beliefs are so tricky and hard to interpret; you simply don’t know why you are getting the answers you get

I was for a while in the business of doing such questionnaires. I could write a book. But rather than write a book, I'll just give you the punchline: tell me who paid for the study, and I'll tell you the results.

GaryB, FCD · 1 July 2009

Are there any surveys which show the numbers of believers upon entry to science who have become doubters or atheists?

Joe Shelby · 1 July 2009

Well, my next impression is that the survey also continues to ignore the community factor (which is mentioned in a comment above). Lots of people don't believe in things (and certainly not obviously false things) merely because they've not seen the evidence.

They believe because that belief ties them to a community. We are and remain social animals, and there are those that use that trait to create their own power by controlling the beliefs of others. So not only do the "sheep" believe stupid stuff because they're told do, they're told NOT to believe in science or anything that contradicts what they're taught because, well, that allows scientists or "liberals" to control them. In short, they are controlled by being told others will try to control them. Brilliant, no?

I did not leave the Church because I lost my beliefs (though they have changed over the last few years). I left the Church because of the actions of its members, promoting hate and division, living in fear of the different, and feeding lies.

And while my own local church and community played no part in that, the actions of the larger Church, of so many who call themselves "Christians" has left me in total disgust of the word. My identity and belief changed not by evidence of non-believers, but by evidence of the actions of the believers.

Joe Shelby · 1 July 2009

John Lynch · 1 July 2009

Flint said:

But rather than write a book, I'll just give you the punchline: tell me who paid for the study, and I'll tell you the results.

Zogby? :)

John Lynch · 1 July 2009

Damn, I meant to say "the Discovery Institute" (who uses Zogby).

John Pieret · 1 July 2009

Flint said:
IANAL, but I do know this from a friend who was sued over an auto accident, and that person was found partially but not wholly responsible. The other driver (who sued my friend) was found partially responsible as well.
Yes, auto accidents have a "no fault" exception, where partial decisions can be made. IANAL either, but I think this is atypical.

Ow! Ow! Please stop! Do NOT handle legal concepts unless you are a trained professional. In negligence cases in most (if not all) jurisdictions in the US there is what is called "comparative negligence," whereby two or more participants in an accident can be assigned partial liability for the accident. This is, by far, the largest category of lawsuits in the US. In a number of the remainder of cases, something similar can happen, either because partial liability is allowed or because the damages can be reduced because of the plaintiff's own misconduct. Even in criminal trials, a defendant can be convicted of a "lesser included crime" instead of the crime actually charged. I still have no idea why this is important in this discussion but I cannot rest while someone on the internet is wrong about the law.

ckc (not kc) · 1 July 2009

...I cannot rest while someone on the internet is wrong about the law.

You must be VERY tired!

Flint · 1 July 2009

I still have no idea why this is important in this discussion but I cannot rest while someone on the internet is wrong about the law.

It's important because we're talking at least in part about how it's natural for people to think in black-and-white terms. I admit I'm unaware of Supreme Court decisions where parties are partly wrong, though I understand that decisions are frequently split, and that compromises and deals of all kinds permeate the system. But while I'm definitely not a lawyer, I think we're talking about two different things. Decisions in law are (from my very ignorant view) typically up or down. How the case is framed is something a bit different, is it not? What pre-decision deals are cut, how awards are determined, how extenuating factors are figured in, these determine what's being decided. But at the end, isn't there usually a yes/no decision within that frame?

ckc (not kc) · 1 July 2009

I like to think of human (population) characteristics as a multidimensional cloud, through which various axes can be drawn. The axis that describes the religious faith/skepticism spectrum is not necessarily the same axis that describes the spectrum of scientific understanding (or skill, or capacity, or what-have-you). Whether or not our position in the cloud is a function of nature or nurture (or more likely both), and how it changes through time, is an interesting question, but I thing it's a mistake to imagine an axis with religious faith/atheism endpoints that coincides with science.

Mike Elzinga · 1 July 2009

ckc (not kc) said: ... but I think it's a mistake to imagine an axis with religious faith/atheism endpoints that coincides with science.

Using that analogy, I would suspect that some would say the axes are not orthogonal. In order for them to be orthogonal, there would be no dependence on either axis on what appeared on the other axis. I think that is the particular point that is being discussed.

Mike Elzinga · 1 July 2009

Mike Elzinga said:
ckc (not kc) said: ... but I think it's a mistake to imagine an axis with religious faith/atheism endpoints that coincides with science.
Using that analogy, I would suspect that some would say the axes are not orthogonal. In order for them to be orthogonal, there would be no dependence on either axis on what appeared on the other axis. I think that is the particular point that is being discussed.

Just a further note: a complete set of linearly independent parameters characterizing human thought is probably not a realistic way to describe human belief systems and their influences.

ckc (not kc) · 1 July 2009

Mike Elzinga said:
Mike Elzinga said:
ckc (not kc) said: ... but I think it's a mistake to imagine an axis with religious faith/atheism endpoints that coincides with science.
Using that analogy, I would suspect that some would say the axes are not orthogonal. In order for them to be orthogonal, there would be no dependence on either axis on what appeared on the other axis. I think that is the particular point that is being discussed.
Just a further note: a complete set of linearly independent parameters characterizing human thought is probably not a realistic way to describe human belief systems and their influences.

True...nor is a set of contingency tables.

John Pieret · 1 July 2009

Flint said: ... I think we're talking about two different things. Decisions in law are (from my very ignorant view) typically up or down. How the case is framed is something a bit different, is it not? What pre-decision deals are cut, how awards are determined, how extenuating factors are figured in, these determine what's being decided. But at the end, isn't there usually a yes/no decision within that frame?

That's closer but still not correct. Appellate courts will often decide for one side or the other in toto. But in a significant number of cases they will take some middle ground. Just for one example: one side may have succeeded in having a law struck down in its entirety by a lower court, and the other side now wants it restored in its entirety; but the appellate court restores only some portion of the law while ruling that another portion is improper. In my state, it is quite frequent that a verdict on liability will be upheld but the verdict on damages will be overturned. There are some limitations on what an appellate court can do with the case that is before it but it would not be correct to say that it is limited to a yes/no decision.

fnxtr · 1 July 2009

My good lady works for a consulting engineering firm. She says a couple of their geo-engineers actually left the trade because the geological record clashed with their religious beliefs. Not sure how they got that far in geology in the first place.

stevaroni · 1 July 2009

She says a couple of their geo-engineers actually left the trade because the geological record clashed with their religious beliefs.

Now there's a thought process for you. "Hey Self" "Wha?" "Have you noticed that easily observed reality seems to conflict with our religion?" "Yeah, I had started to notice that" "Well, what do you think we should do? Maybe try hard to reconcile the two?" "Naw, that might be theologically inconvenient." "Then let's just ignore reality instead" "Ok"

Rob · 1 July 2009

A world without time: The Forgotten Legacy of Godel and Einstein. If the present is not privileged, and no more real than past and future it has interesting consequences.

If all religious statements, and value statements in general are metaphorical there are also consequences.

Thus when you ask a person regarding religion, or for that matter anyone who asserts values in general, what their values or beliefs are, it might be useful to ask how metaphorical they would label their various beliefs, be they religious or secular.

GvlGeologist, FCD · 1 July 2009

Interesting - this is exactly the opposite of what happened to Glenn Morton, who left YEC when the "the geological record clashed with (his) religious beliefs", a much wiser and more honest path. As far as I know, he still didn't leave his faith, just YEC. I wonder what the difference is between Glenn and the geo-engineers? Could it be that he was bright enough and had enough experience to recognize the dishonesty inherent in creationism, and the hypocrisy of its leaders?

fnxtr said: My good lady works for a consulting engineering firm. She says a couple of their geo-engineers actually left the trade because the geological record clashed with their religious beliefs. Not sure how they got that far in geology in the first place.

Ray Martinez · 1 July 2009

Matt: All Atheists are evolutionists.

GvlGeologist, FCD · 1 July 2009

Wow, this has gone far longer than I had intended when I commented on this. While what you said, John, is in agreement with my limited knowledge and experience, I think the larger point that Flint was trying to make is largely true:

(this prefaced his first comment about the law, which I and then you responded to) I believe that the scientific view (evidence matters, assertions can be tested, conclusions are always tentative, probabilities are important, reality is composed of continua, etc.) is unnatural for people. We are dichotomizing engines, we like certainty, we are uncomfortable with maybe and usually and partially.

Even if the law doesn't dichotomize (is that really a word?), I would guess that most people probably do. Now that would be an interesting study, to see how many people are comfortable with shades of gray!

John Pieret said:
Flint said: ...
... There are some limitations on what an appellate court can do with the case that is before it but it would not be correct to say that it is limited to a yes/no decision.

Ray Marttinez · 1 July 2009

GvlGeologist, FCD said: Interesting - this is exactly the opposite of what happened to Glenn Morton, who left YEC when the "the geological record clashed with (his) religious beliefs", a much wiser and more honest path. As far as I know, he still didn't leave his faith, just YEC. I wonder what the difference is between Glenn and the geo-engineers? Could it be that he was bright enough and had enough experience to recognize the dishonesty inherent in creationism, and the hypocrisy of its leaders?

All Creationists were Atheists (= non-believers) at some point.

DS · 1 July 2009

Ray wrote:

"All Creationists were Atheists (= non-believers) at some point."

I doubt it. But even if they were, the important thing is on what basis they changed their minds. If thier beliefs are not based on evidence then they are irrelevant. Everyone is free to believe in anything they choose without any evidence and everyone else is free not to care.

"All Atheists are evolutionists."

I doubt it. But even if they are, the imporant thing is what convinced them. If it was the evidence then there is nothing wrong with that. Everyone is free to have beliefs based on evidence and anyone who ignores the evidence does so at their own risk.

Not all those who believe in evolution are atheists.

fnxtr · 1 July 2009

Ray Martinez said: All Creationists were Atheists (= non-believers) at some point.

Really? My experience with creationists is that they've been programmed from day one, and have either been denied access to real evidence, or lied to about it. I met a gal once who said she believed in "micro-evolution". Turned out that, even though she was studying entomology, she'd lived most of her life in a Lutheran fishbowl. I often wonder how creationist she is, now that she's been out in the real world for a few years.

Dave Luckett · 1 July 2009

The problem is one that should be familiar to scientists: criticism of the data, specifically the method of collecting it.

Asking people what they believe is a very tricky business. The questioner is working at the very limits of the ability of language to impart precise meaning. What does "believe" mean?

One sense is obvious. "Belief" can mean active acceptance of a proposition for which sufficient evidence has been provided, or at least, for which convincing evidence is available. (Except that some would object that this is not belief, being beyond opinion. We could call it "conviction" instead, perhaps. Or use some other word.)

But I would also say that "belief" can be taken to mean:

2) Non-rejection pending conclusive evidence against.

3) Acceptance without thinking about it.

4) Admission as a possible hypothesis, pending conclusive evidence for. 4.1) Ditto, with the rider that conclusive evidence cannot exist.

5) Inward certainty, with implied rejection of the requirement for evidence altogether. 5.1) Ditto, except that the requirement for evidence is overtly and specifically rejected. (The last is what I would mean by "faith", and is fairly close to St Paul's definition.)

6...n) Other positions.

Mind, I am not saying what 'belief' means to me or to a rigorous philosopher, because that's not the point. The point is what the question, and the word, means to the person answering, or attempting to answer.

Now, the questioner can define the word "belief" with exquisite precision, but this does not solve the problem. It requires the respondent to fully understand and fully apply the definition, which is not a given, but even so, it only removes the difficulty one step.

For here's the problem: as soon as the quesioner defines 'belief' in terms not completely identical with what the respondent means by it, (and complete identity is practically impossible) the questioner is by definition no longer asking about what that person would refer to as their 'beliefs'. Hence, any answer is likely to be somewhat non-responsive.

I think this difficulty is intractible.

Richard Wein · 2 July 2009

Matt, it seems rather incongruous that you begin your article with the answer "NO" in enormous type face, and then in the very first paragraph weaken this to "possibly", though you think "no" seems more likely. More importantly, the case you make here for this conclusion seems extremely weak.

I can find only two passages that attempt to support your conclusion. First: "Leuba speculated whether scientists become disbelievers or whether independent thinkers willing to confront reigning orthodoxies become scientists. The greater scientists are presumably on average more-independent thinkers than the lesser; the fact could account for the increase of disbelief among greater scientists. That conclusion is supported by a study by Fred Thalheimer, who concluded that religious beliefs are frequently set during high school or college and that nonreligious students may choose more-intellectual or -theoretical endeavors."

Given the vital role Thalheimer's conclusion plays in supporting your own, I would have expected a clearer statement of his conclusion, as well as some mention of the evidence that led him to it. As it stands, it's far from clear that his conclusion justifies yours. How frequently is "frequently"? Of course, if you're only trying to make the case that not all atheist scientists were led to atheism by science, then you only need one counterexample. But that's an extremely weak claim, and no one claims the converse. If, on the other hand, you want to argue that science never or rarely leads to atheism, you need stronger support than Thalheimer's conclusion as you describe it here. (And even if a scientist was led to atheism during her high school or college years, it doesn't follow that she wasn't led by science, since she almost certainly studied science during those years.)

Second: "Ecklund and Scheitle’s study is marred somewhat both by its restriction to elite scientists and by its mechanism for choosing those elite scientists. Not every faculty member at an elite university is an elite scientist, certainly not on a par with members of the National Academy of Sciences. Nevertheless, they found that the best predictor of their scientists’ religious practice is the scientists’ childhood religious practice and conclude, more or less in agreement with Thalheimer, that freethinkers or doubters to some extent self-select when they become scientists. Thus, science may not lead to disbelief; rather, disbelievers or skeptics are led to science."

Again, "to some extent" is too weak to justify any worthwhile claim about whether science leads to atheism.

John Harshman · 2 July 2009

Richard Wein said: Matt, it seems rather incongruous that you begin your article with the answer "NO" in enormous type face, and then in the very first paragraph weaken this to "possibly", though you think "no" seems more likely. More importantly, the case you make here for this conclusion seems extremely weak.

Exactly. All the data, such as there are, involve simple correlation. Do I have to repeat the cliche? Now what would be needed here would be a longitudinal study: randomly select a cohort of kids. Depending on just what your hypothesis is, you might select a control group from the general population and a study group that you think might be enriched in future scientists. Assay their current beliefs. Then follow them for several years, until all those who will become scientists have actually done so. Did a greater percentage in the study group than in the control group begin as atheists? Did a greater percentage become atheists? If so, when? Why? At this point you might actually have data bearing on the question. I have one data point: my own. I lost my initial religion at around the age of 12-14, and science had little to do with it. It was the silliness of religious doctrine and its failure to match the real world. So this single data point suggests not that scientists become atheists, or that atheists become scientists, but that the same impulse to measure hypotheses against data incline to both science and atheism. Hey, if you did the study you might actually arrive at the conclusion Matt did. But you have to do the study.

John Pieret · 2 July 2009

GvlGeologist, FCD said: Wow, this has gone far longer than I had intended when I commented on this. While what you said, John, is in agreement with my limited knowledge and experience, I think the larger point that Flint was trying to make is largely true:
(this prefaced his first comment about the law, which I and then you responded to) I believe that the scientific view (evidence matters, assertions can be tested, conclusions are always tentative, probabilities are important, reality is composed of continua, etc.) is unnatural for people. We are dichotomizing engines, we like certainty, we are uncomfortable with maybe and usually and partially.

I did not, as I indicated, go back through the thread and try to understand the context of Flint's attempted example from the law. I was just exercising my pedantic muscle. I'd also tend to agree with that point and I'd go further and say most judges (and, dare I say it, scientists) are dichotomizing engines but science (and to a lesser extent, the law) has a mechasism for eliminating or reducing the dichotomies from the final result.

wamba · 2 July 2009

snex said: you did. "There actual examples of people who have been led towards atheism by science. This is precisely the same sort of evidence presented for the 'science and religion are compatible' argument..."

I said "This is precisely the same sort of evidence presented for the 'science and religion are compatible' argument..." I did not say "this is precisely the same sort of evidence presented for the 'science has led people to religion' argument." See? It has different words and everything.

Matt Young · 2 July 2009

Mr. Wein (Hi Richard! I haven't heard from you in a long time) and Mr. Harshman are more or less correct - but you make what you can of the available data, and I think my conclusion is not inappropriate. The correlation with field of study, as I also noted, may be incorrect. As for the big typeface, I blame that on an administrator who initially wanted a giant red "No" and will be left nameless to protect the guilty. My original draft simply said, "No," in the default typeface. I find no evidence that science leads to atheism. I can discuss Thalheimer's paper another time or privately, but I do not have the time right now to review it and write anything up.

Peter Henderson · 2 July 2009

Does science lead to Atheism ? In my experience, definitely NO. However, YECism might very well do: http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm

But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question. "From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ," That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him. And being through with creationism, I very nearly became through with Christianity. I was on the very verge of becoming an atheist.

John Harshman · 2 July 2009

Matt Young said: As for the big typeface, I blame that on an administrator who initially wanted a giant red "No" and will be left nameless to protect the guilty. My original draft simply said, "No," in the default typeface. I find no evidence that science leads to atheism.

Do you see the very large difference between "I find no evidence that science leads to atheism" and "I find evidence that science doesn't lead to atheism"? In order to turn the first into the second, you need reasons why, if the claim were true, we ought to have found evidence for it.

Henry J · 2 July 2009

It's not whether there's one or two cases of A leading to B, it's whether it happens in a significant percentage of cases.

Just my 2 cents.

Henry J

Pierce R. Butler · 2 July 2009

Though judges often have (and need, and use) a lot of leeway, attorneys usually find themselves having to work dichotomously:

My client is innocent, virtuous and deserving of all benefits of any doubt, whereas your client bears direct responsibility for all sins of omission and commission we can imagine. Furthermore, all ambiguities break down in my client's favor [or disappear from discussion], and it is the court's solemn responsibility to finalize this issue forever. Etc, etc.

It is routine for scientists to highlight discrepancies and call for more research; lawyers (and, I suspect, most judges writing decisions) proceed with the opposite priority. Let's wrap this thing up! Is science therefore incompatible with law? There are, after all, many fewer scientists who are also lawyers than those who are also religious...

ckc (not kc) · 2 July 2009

There are, after all, many fewer scientists who are also lawyers than those who are also religious…

(that's going to sting!)

Richard Eis · 3 July 2009

Since belief in something is heavily cultural I would ask whether being around non-believers or in a non-believing culture would cause new scientists to lose their belief.

Chip Poirot · 4 July 2009

Dave Luckett said: What does "believe" mean? One sense is obvious. "Belief" can mean active acceptance of a proposition for which sufficient evidence has been provided, or at least, for which convincing evidence is available. (Except that some would object that this is not belief, being beyond opinion. We could call it "conviction" instead, perhaps. Or use some other word.)

I would suggest a simpler way of approaching the issue. Belief is what one accepts as true. We should keep true as an absolute predicate, but acknowledge that there are degrees of warrant to believe something is true. This does admittedly lead into "what constitutes warrant"? And that is where my belief that science is in fact perilous to at least some forms of religious belief comes in. If one acknowledges that the systematic application of experience and reason leads one to believe that some passages in Genesis cannot be true in the sense that it is true Abraham Lincoln was assasinated, then one's warrant of belief for other passages of the Bible will be subsequently undermined. Granted, one can always "cling come what may" provided on is willing to make suitable adjustments in the remainder of their belief structure. So one may say "I accept Genesis as metaphor but retain my belief in the physical resurrection of Jesus." At some point however I think the bough has to break. Once you admit that reason and experience is the best guide to warrant of belief over revelation, dogmatic a priorism, or tradition in all facets of one's life, it becomes more and more tenuous to cling to religious doctrine. If you throw in enough metaphors, you can make anything metaphorically true-but that sort of misses the point IMO. I'm not saying that science must of necessity lead to atheism, but it does lead one away from the belief in a God that is tri-Omni. Of course, one can always wall off areas from the spirit of scientific inquiry. But is it cognitively rational to do so?

Chip Poirot · 4 July 2009

Pierce R. Butler said: Is science therefore incompatible with law? There are, after all, many fewer scientists who are also lawyers than those who are also religious...

I guess it depends on what Science is. Regardless, there are some pretty glaring inconsistencies between good science and how it does and does not get incorporated into law, or for that matter, public policy. The courts still don't have a good, clean definition of what constitutes valid scientific testimony (though I think they have gotten a lot better), or how to apply that criterion to expert testimony outside of the natural sciences. Sometimes courts and policy makers do a good job of incorporating strongly warranted conclusions into their decisions and policies. More often, it seems they do not. Instead, much of it seems to proceed based on bias, prejudice, wishful thinking and moral panics.

Morgan-LynnGriggs Lamberth · 4 July 2009

I agree with my friend ,Jerry Coyne, in his article," Seeing and Believing ' that from the side of science, science and religion are indeed incompatible, but from the side of religion ,indeed compatible. Victor Stenger notes what reality would have to be like were there God. @ Talk Reason, Amiel Rossow in his essay on Kenneth Miller, shows theistic evolution to be an oxymoron.
The teleonomic/ atelic argument is that since the weight of evidence, pace Ernst Mayr [" What Evolution Is"] and George Gaylord Simpson,there is no cosmic teleology, and thus no need to postulate Him and to do so would contradict natural selection, the non-planning, anti-chance of Nature.
To argue that He planned for some being of our stature merely begs the question and is the new Omphalos argument as Coyne and someone @ Skeptic magazine note that it was not inexorable for a species like us to arrive.
We don't find creationists who fall for theistic evolution all that much, so accommodation might be alright but who knows. But we new atheists prefer the truth to the obfuscation of theistic evolution, that oxymoron.
Well, be accommodationist but quit nagging at us for telling it like it is!
rationalist griggsy world wide in several languages as Googling would show.

harold · 4 July 2009

Morgan-LynnGriggs Lamberth -

I cannot comprehend your comment, and I do not care much about either religion or atheism.

However, I am impressed that you seem to have a double-double-barrelled name.

Dave Luckett · 4 July 2009

Chip says

Belief is what one accepts as true.

Ah. But jesting Pilate asked "What is truth?" He was showing off his education before the rubes. But all the same, it's an interesting question.

Chip Poirot · 5 July 2009

Dave Luckett said: Chip says
Belief is what one accepts as true.
Ah. But jesting Pilate asked "What is truth?" He was showing off his education before the rubes. But all the same, it's an interesting question.

To roughly paraphrase Aristotle: To say something is true is to way what it is and to say something is false is to say what it is not. Tarski made an effort to capture this sense with his famous: "P", just in the case that P: The sentence snow is white is true, just in the case that snow is white (as this sentence is commonly understood by speakers of the English language). Some object to Tarski's formulation for being more cumbersome than it needs to be and for its reliance on semantic formality and that Tarski only meant it to apply to formal languages-not to natural languages. But I disagree: I think it lays out a pretty common sense understanding of the term "truth" and is a good place to start anyway: It's true that Dave Luckett wrote the above message. Theories are often more complex than just single sentences so determining truth can be difficult. Truth does not require that every single linguistic sign in a sentence match exactly with every signed reference-of necessity, we rely on abstraction and metaphor in our everyday lives. But still, we have a pretty good common sense idea of what we mean when people lie to us or speak in error, or when what people say has some true content and some inaccurate or false content.

Stephen Wells · 6 July 2009

The initial "No" is simply wrong. "Sometimes", "Maybe" or even "Often" would be accurate, but "No" is wrong.

Richard · 6 July 2009

I think an interesting case here is Salvador Dali's. He apparently thought that physics was actually providing proof for God's existence. Of course, he wasn't a scientist himself. Perhaps it might be useful for these studies to look at non-scientists who happen to be scientifically literate.

Another point, some people here seem to assume that creationists also go for the whole "science leads to atheism" line, but I don't see much of that. In my experience, creationists often assert that science (or "true science") can only support their beliefs, or that the Bible can be a foundation for good science.

Matt Young · 6 July 2009

The initial "No" is simply wrong. "Sometimes", "Maybe" or even "Often" would be accurate, but "No" is wrong.

Of course it is wrong. It is wrong in the sense that "All crows are black" or any other statistical statement is wrong. Crows can be albino, and they are not truly black anyway. But what evidence I could find suggests that science does not generally or inevitably lead to atheism, even though there seems to be a correlation between science and dis- or unbelief.

Richard · 7 July 2009

Here's a Raelian view of the subject:

"There is nothing glorious about what our ancestors call history,
it is simply a succession of mistakes, intolerances and violations.
On the contrary, let us embrace Science and the new technologies
unfettered, for it is these which will liberate mankind from the
myth of god, and free us from our age old fears, from disease,
death and the sweat of labour." - Rael

Of course, the Raelians prefer ID over evolutionary biology.

Interestingly, one anthropology book I've read argues that, far from replacing religion, science has triggered a religious boom. Could UFO cults be examples of this?

John Stephenson · 7 July 2009

Here is the one thing that has my attention on this subject. At the cellular level all components must exists at the same time or the cell dies. This is harder to explain then it is to explain one group of animal to another in the evolutionary process. Each to its own kind in the genetic pool can adapt to the environment and have adaptable changes. It's amazing to me that as you look at the universe and all that is in it to not see intelligent design. To believe that all elements can come together at the same time in the right environment to complete the complexity of the most simplest form of a cell is ridiculous and absurd. Look for instance at the D.N.A strand alone and you realize the complexity that the letters, words, sentences, paragraphs, and story must be precise in the information code or we get mutation of cell and almost always if not always leads to the death of the cell. This is a mutation that is not supportive of natural selection and the advancement of life forms. This is a degenerative system to the death of all life forms. Mathematicians have try ed to calculate the odds of all components of a cell coming together simultaneously. The mathematical odds are so ridiculous that they simply conclude that it is impossible and not even by a close margin. Takes more faith in evolution then it doe's creation period!!!!!!!!!! Beware of the great deceiver SATAN and the indoctrination of mans belief in evolution!!!!!

Dave Luckett · 7 July 2009

That has to be the most complete creationist bingo card I've seen. But I'm calling "Poe", rather than "bingo".

John Stephenson · 7 July 2009

ddddd

John Stephenson · 7 July 2009

Dave Luckett said: That has to be the most complete creationist bingo card I've seen. But I'm calling "Poe", rather than "bingo".

What ever do you mean?

Dave Luckett · 7 July 2009

John Stephenson said: What ever do you mean?

Yep, Poe. "Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing." The word is used on this blog to flag a post that attempts to take advantage of Poe's Law, by knowingly producing a grotesque parody of rational thought that will nevertheless be taken to be genuine, because it's impossible to tell grotesque irrationality from what fundamentalists actually believe. After all, what they believe is grotesquely irrational. It was the word "ever" in the last that did it. If the question had been simply "What do you mean?" I might have accepted a diagnosis of simple terminal cluelessness. It was the mental image the word called up, of the writer spreading his hands and opening his eyes wide in studied innocence that convinces me. This is a troll, not a rube. He's just trying for a flamewar. Ignore him.

Stephen Wells · 7 July 2009

Matt Young said:
The initial "No" is simply wrong. "Sometimes", "Maybe" or even "Often" would be accurate, but "No" is wrong.
Of course it is wrong. It is wrong in the sense that "All crows are black" or any other statistical statement is wrong. Crows can be albino, and they are not truly black anyway. But what evidence I could find suggests that science does not generally or inevitably lead to atheism, even though there seems to be a correlation between science and dis- or unbelief.

Inasmuch as there's a nonzero incidence of scientific study leading to freedom from religious belief, you are wrong to answer the title question with a flat "No". "Not always" or "only sometimes" would have been accurate; "no" is wrong. If you had written an article titled "Does science inevitably lead to atheism?", you'd have been right, but you didn't do that. Why not?

Henry J · 7 July 2009

Maybe the question should be does science lead to atheism more, or less, often than Creationism (and its offspring I.D.) lead to atheism?

Henry J

Raging Bee · 7 July 2009

Inasmuch as there’s a nonzero incidence of scientific study leading to freedom from religious belief, you are wrong to answer the title question with a flat “No”.

No, that "nonzero incidence" does not mean he's wrong to say a flat "no." The "nonzero incidence of scientific study leading to freedom from religious belief" is still not large enough to indicate causation -- especially since there are still plenty of religious people who do a LOT of scientific study and don't give up their beliefs; therefore we can still say "no" when asked whether scientific study CAUSES atheism. There's correlation, but that's not the same as causation.

Chip Poirot · 7 July 2009

Would it not be more interesting to pose the question as:

Does the study of science logically lead to atheism?

and/or

Is there a causal relationship between the study of science and atheism?

Correlation does not have to be 100% in order for there to be a causal relationship. Besides, most causal relationships also have mediating factors. If I drop a feather from a very high building, gravity will cause it to fall. But wind shears might keep it aloft for a very long time. Gravity still causes objects to fall.

We could design a controlled study, say for example of people who began their undergraduate studies as deeply religious and see if there is a significant difference between people who, for example, who failed to complete college, completed an undergraduate science degree vs. another undergraduate degree like for example business administration, those who completed different kinds of graduate degrees and see to what degree getting a graduate degree in different kinds of science predicts one's loss of religious faith.

But why is it so hard to believe that there is some relationship between studying science and atheism, or even just adopting a more secular framework. Perhaps we can also allow for continua.

My hypothesis is that at a minimum the study of science is a significant factor in abandoning fundamentalist beliefs.

And why would we attribute any definitive answer to one poorly designed poll?

John Kwok · 7 July 2009

To everyone -

It's been brought to my attention that noted evolutionary biologist David Sloan Wilson, a frequent commentator at the Huffington Post, wrote a series of essays - which I believe began in late 2007 - on the very question as to whether or not atheism is a "veiled religion". I haven't read most of the posts yet, but among his contentions is that it is possible - and may even be desirable - to do a scientific study of religion, provided that one isn't biased by the "tenets" of atheism.

Stanton · 7 July 2009

""tenets" of atheism" is exactly like having hairgel for the fatally bald.

Dean Wentworth · 7 July 2009

Fatally bald?

Do you mean that in the sense of pattern baldness being genetically predetermined at conception or in the sense of baldness causing death?

fnxtr · 7 July 2009

John Kwok said: To everyone - It's been brought to my attention that noted evolutionary biologist David Sloan Wilson, a frequent commentator at the Huffington Post, wrote a series of essays - which I believe began in late 2007 - on the very question as to whether or not atheism is a "veiled religion". I haven't read most of the posts yet, but among his contentions is that it is possible - and may even be desirable - to do a scientific study of religion, provided that one isn't biased by the "tenets" of atheism.

How would you do that? "One of these might be true"? Wouldn't that make the study more biased than "All of these may be false"?

Stanton · 7 July 2009

Dean Wentworth said: Fatally bald? Do you mean that in the sense of pattern baldness being genetically predetermined at conception or in the sense of baldness causing death?

More the former than the latter.

Dean · 7 July 2009

Recycling Frederic Maitland's phrase: "science is a seamless web". Thousands of years ago, pre-scientific animist religions asserted that every ripple in every stream was caused by a sprite that moved the waters. Science has progressively expanded the realm of non-god-driven phenomena so that nowdays there are very few places in the structure of the universe where supernatural intervention is possible, outside of the initial symmetry-breaking conditions of the big bang. Even everyday quantum randomness is slowly being pushed out of existence by decoherence theory. Philosopher John Searle has argued that this is an inevitable consequence of the way science works.

There are four ways out of this inevitability: (1) naive ignorance: the world of science is so enormous that it's possible to simply be unaware of the areas where your religion has provided an answer pending the reality and evidence-based answers provided by scientific results, (2) accept an unimaginably omniscient, omnipotent god that can influence individual personal events from a distance of 16 billion years (3) accept atheism, or (4) follow the Red Queen in Alice's looking-glass land, and believe six impossible things (or more!) before breakfast.

Sadly, most religions demand solution (4) on pain of banishment from their fellowship. The distinction between eminent scientists and journeyman scientists is good evidence that as people becomes more knowledgeable about the linkages between scientific fields and more rigorous in their thinking along the way towards eminence, they find it more and more difficult to sustain a belief in god that depends either on ignorance or willful incoherence.

Dave Luckett · 7 July 2009

Dean said: (...)Science has progressively expanded the realm of non-god-driven phenomena so that nowdays there are very few places in the structure of the universe where supernatural intervention is possible, outside of the initial symmetry-breaking conditions of the big bang. Even everyday quantum randomness is slowly being pushed out of existence by decoherence theory. Philosopher John Searle has argued that this is an inevitable consequence of the way science works. There are four ways out of this inevitability: (1) naive ignorance: the world of science is so enormous that it's possible to simply be unaware of the areas where your religion has provided an answer pending the reality and evidence-based answers provided by scientific results, (2) accept an unimaginably omniscient, omnipotent god that can influence individual personal events from a distance of 16 billion years (3) accept atheism, or (4) follow the Red Queen in Alice's looking-glass land, and believe six impossible things (or more!) before breakfast.

If I may, (and accepting all the others) I would amend one of the "ways out of the inevitability" to read "(2) accept an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent Creator God." Think about the implications of such a description. Such a God has by definition created space and time and therefore is present not only within them but transcends them. To such a God, all space/time is a single entity, one gestalt, because that God is transinfinite and supereternal, existing beyond the bounds of the Universe as well as within them. Further, omniscience and omnipresence implies that God knows of and is present in every interaction of every quantum and every particle that has ever existed or will ever exist, simultaneously, as a single action. Time as we experience it simply is not relevant to such a God. The "distance of 16 billion years" is not a distance, nor any removal at all. Causation itself consists solely of God's will, seen as "natural law" simply because the creator wills that His creation be largely orderly and predictable. Please, before lowering the boom on me, observe the disclaimer: I do not necessarily believe this myself, simply because there is no evidence for it. Nor am I denying the other "ways out of the inevitability", which certainly exist. Nevertheless, I do not see as how it is logically impossible, nor even how it violates the principle of parsimony. Something caused the Universe, after all, and we don't know what that something was.

degustibus · 7 July 2009

Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.....

anair · 13 July 2009

Scientists need to rely on a nature that has consistent physical laws, and they need to rely on their own minds having the ability to understanding the nature around them. Atheism as a worldview does nothing to provide these necessary starting points, and scientific inquiry itself does not provide them. So thankfully the only way that we have such good scientists that are also atheists is that they are executing their research in a way inconsistent with their views of ultimate reality.

Stanton · 14 July 2009

anair the bigot said: Scientists need to rely on a nature that has consistent physical laws, and they need to rely on their own minds having the ability to understanding the nature around them. Atheism as a worldview does nothing to provide these necessary starting points, and scientific inquiry itself does not provide them. So thankfully the only way that we have such good scientists that are also atheists is that they are executing their research in a way inconsistent with their views of ultimate reality.

So, can you provide an example of atheist scientists doing inconsistent research as a direct result of them thinking that there are no supernatural forces and or entities affecting the Universe, or shall we just ignore your bigoted and false statement and get on with our lives?

Henry J · 14 July 2009

Scientists need to rely on a nature that has consistent physical laws, and they need to rely on their own minds having the ability to understanding the nature around them.

Actually, our very survival from second to second depends on nature having consistent behavior (which we sometimes refer to as "laws"). The abilities of our (and scientists') minds is part of that.

Atheism as a worldview does nothing to provide these necessary starting points, and scientific inquiry itself does not provide them.

No, those "starting points" are a result of the way nature operates; they are not a result of any "worldview".

So thankfully the only way that we have such good scientists that are also atheists is that they are executing their research in a way inconsistent with their views of ultimate reality.

That doesn't follow. Henry J

Matt Young · 14 July 2009

anair the bigot said:

Anair is completely mistaken, but please let us not stoop to name-calling.

fnxtr · 14 July 2009

anair said: Scientists need to rely on a nature that has consistent physical laws, and they need to rely on their own minds having the ability to understanding the nature around them. Atheism as a worldview does nothing to provide these necessary starting points, and scientific inquiry itself does not provide them. So thankfully the only way that we have such good scientists that are also atheists is that they are executing their research in a way inconsistent with their views of ultimate reality.

What does that even mean, if anything? How are consistent physical laws inconsistent with a 'worldview' that does not accept fairy tales without proof?

fnxtr · 14 July 2009

Something caused the Universe, after all...

(shrug) Maybe. Maybe it's just here. We have no way of knowing at the moment, and no other universe to compare it to.

anair · 21 July 2009

fnxtr said:
anair said: Scientists need to rely on a nature that has consistent physical laws, and they need to rely on their own minds having the ability to understanding the nature around them. Atheism as a worldview does nothing to provide these necessary starting points, and scientific inquiry itself does not provide them. So thankfully the only way that we have such good scientists that are also atheists is that they are executing their research in a way inconsistent with their views of ultimate reality.
What does that even mean, if anything? How are consistent physical laws inconsistent with a 'worldview' that does not accept fairy tales without proof?

A better question is: how does any atheistic worldview lead to thinking that physical laws should be consistent and that humans should be able to understand nature?

anair · 21 July 2009

Henry J said: Actually, our very survival from second to second depends on nature having consistent behavior (which we sometimes refer to as "laws"). The abilities of our (and scientists') minds is part of that.

So we know that consistent behavior of nature and the ability to understand it are real experiences that everyone has. Shouldn't an accurate worldview incorporate or have an explanation of these experiences then?

No, those "starting points" are a result of the way nature operates; they are not a result of any "worldview".

A good worldview is in line with the way nature operates. So, do you consider atheism not as good of a worldview because of how it doesn't anticipate or justify those "starting points"? Or would you argue that a scientist doesn't need to start with trusting in a consistent understandable nature? What philosophical presuppositions does a good scientist need to make?

stevaroni · 21 July 2009

anair says... A better question is: how does any atheistic worldview lead to thinking that physical laws should be consistent and that humans should be able to understand nature?

Um, why would it not? Why, frankly, should physics give a crap about what humans think? Why shouldn't physical laws be consistent, and why would the human worldview influence that? Does physics not yet operate on Mars just because humans haven't been there to choose a philosophical framework? And, God or no God, why shouldn't humans be able to understand physics?

fnxtr · 21 July 2009

anair says… A better question is: how does any atheistic worldview lead to thinking that physical laws should be consistent and that humans should be able to understand nature?

What a bunch of mind-wanking. Trusting our sense experience that the sun will rise again tomorrow, and the apple always falls from the tree to the ground and never the other way, has nothing to do with whether we believe in Yahweh/Allah, Odin, Zeus, FSM, or none of the above. Even crows know that if they drop a nut over a road, it'll fall to the road and (hopefully) break open.

Dan · 21 July 2009

anair said: Or would you argue that a scientist doesn't need to start with trusting in a consistent understandable nature?

I'm not sure what your point is, but quantum mechanics is not consistent, and many regard it as not understandable. But it *is* scientific. Nor is quantum mechanics a pre-existing "worldview" -- the people who discovered it thought of the word as classical, but their own experiments proved them wrong.

fnxtr · 21 July 2009

anair said: Or would you argue that a scientist doesn't need to start with trusting in a consistent understandable nature?

No, the argument is that a scientist doesn't have to be a theist or deist of any stripe to trust in said nature. It's not even an argument, it's an empirical observation. They do it.

anair · 21 July 2009

fnxtr said: No, the argument is that a scientist doesn't have to be a theist or deist of any stripe to trust in said nature. It's not even an argument, it's an empirical observation. They do it.

I wasn't arguing that someone has to hold a certain worldview to trust in nature. I said the exact opposite: that people can still trust in nature in spite of holding a worldview that can't account for the trustworthiness of nature that we all experience. This should lead a reasonable person to seriously question the veracity of such a worldview, namely, atheism.

anair · 21 July 2009

Dan said: I'm not sure what your point is, but quantum mechanics is not consistent, and many regard it as not understandable. But it *is* scientific. Nor is quantum mechanics a pre-existing "worldview" -- the people who discovered it thought of the word as classical, but their own experiments proved them wrong.

But in many ways quantum mechanics IS consistent and understandable. If it wasn't there could be no study of it. It couldn't be a field of physics. Experiments in this field can consistently provide a probability that is understandable.

anair · 21 July 2009

fnxtr said: Trusting our sense experience that the sun will rise again tomorrow, and the apple always falls from the tree to the ground and never the other way, has nothing to do with whether we believe in Yahweh/Allah, Odin, Zeus, FSM, or none of the above. Even crows know that if they drop a nut over a road, it'll fall to the road and (hopefully) break open.

Of course we all experience the consistency and understandability of nature. That is not in question. The question is if the worldviews we hold justify this experience. Atheism is one of the worldviews that doesn't, but to be a good scientist many atheists can just assume these qualities of nature are real, and proceed with research.

fnxtr · 21 July 2009

anair said:
fnxtr said: Trusting our sense experience that the sun will rise again tomorrow, and the apple always falls from the tree to the ground and never the other way, has nothing to do with whether we believe in Yahweh/Allah, Odin, Zeus, FSM, or none of the above. Even crows know that if they drop a nut over a road, it'll fall to the road and (hopefully) break open.
Of course we all experience the consistency and understandability of nature. That is not in question. The question is if the worldviews we hold justify this experience. Atheism is one of the worldviews that doesn't, but to be a good scientist many atheists can just assume these qualities of nature are real, and proceed with research.

Bullshit. It just does, that's all. We know the universe is consistent because, so far, it has been. Atheism doesn't have to "justify" anything. E=mc^2, whether you're PZ Myers or Francis Collins. That's just the way it is. When a certain aspect of reality (like c) surprises us, we go figure out why. Methodological naturalism does not care if there is One True God, or a pantheon, or none, because for the sake of observation and understanding, it does not matter.

stevaroni · 21 July 2009

anair babbles... ..but to be a good scientist many atheists can just assume these qualities of nature are real, and proceed with research.

Um, yeah. You mean it'll work if I just go ahead and assume that physical reality is real? OK, I'll do that anair. Thanks for the hint.

Mike Elzinga · 21 July 2009

anair said: Scientists need to rely on a nature that has consistent physical laws, and they need to rely on their own minds having the ability to understanding the nature around them. Atheism as a worldview does nothing to provide these necessary starting points, and scientific inquiry itself does not provide them. So thankfully the only way that we have such good scientists that are also atheists is that they are executing their research in a way inconsistent with their views of ultimate reality.

I have no clue what this guy is saying, but if a neural system and a mind exist in a universe, it must be consistent with that universe. So whatever processes take place in that mind regarding the universe must have something to do with its having survived and evolved. So it is not surprising that creatures, including humans, can figure out things well enough to survive and eat. More advanced nervous systems and brains figure out physics. What do sectarian beliefs or lack of sectarian beliefs have to do with any of that if the physics works? If a raccoon can pry open garbage can lids, what difference does it make if that raccoon has a particular sectarian belief system or not? It is using perfectly good physics. Who cares?

tresmal · 21 July 2009

Anair, are you a presup?

anair · 21 July 2009

fnxtr said: It just does, that's all. We know the universe is consistent because, so far, it has been.

You are willing to just end it at that? Do you think there could be an explanation why the universe acts the way it does?

Atheism doesn't have to "justify" anything. E=mc^2, whether you're PZ Myers or Francis Collins. That's just the way it is. When a certain aspect of reality (like c) surprises us, we go figure out why. Methodological naturalism does not care if there is One True God, or a pantheon, or none, because for the sake of observation and understanding, it does not matter.

I agree. That is the "how" to do science. But shouldn't we also consider the "why" science works? If your view of the world ignores the "why" (just saying "It just does, that's all") maybe it isn't a complete enough view. Maybe science shouldn't be considered trustworthy under your view.

Stanton · 21 July 2009

Mike Elzinga said: If a raccoon can pry open garbage can lids, what difference does it make if that raccoon has a particular sectarian belief system or not? It is using perfectly good physics. Who cares?

Unless you point out that it's a Christian raccoon, and that it pries open garbage can lids specifically with the aid of an indeterminate number of angels, you're going to be punished for being a nonbeliever.

DS · 21 July 2009

anair wrote:

"Scientists need to rely on a nature that has consistent physical laws, and they need to rely on their own minds having the ability to understanding the nature around them. Atheism as a worldview does nothing to provide these necessary starting points, and scientific inquiry itself does not provide them. So thankfully the only way that we have such good scientists that are also atheists is that they are executing their research in a way inconsistent with their views of ultimate reality."

So then your answer is no, science does not lead to atheism. Good, glad we cleared that up. Of course the evidence suggests that science does not often lead to religion either, so I guess good siceince is just good science, fine.

According to your argument, God is required in order for consistent physical laws to exist. Why? Lots of people thought God existed before consistent physical laws were discovered. In fact, for many, God was the explanation for lots of physical phenomena they didn't understand. Lots of people don't believe in God even after the discovery of consistent physical laws. Seems these people disagree with you.

Which law in particular do you think requires God? All of them? One of them? Which God is responsible? All of them? None of them? Why is it that those who don't believe in God can still do good science? Why is it so easy to just take God out of the equations? If proof of God can be found in consistent physical laws, why are so many religious people antiscience? Why do they remain so willfully ignorant of these physical laws? Why do organized religions try so hard to suppress science and knowledge? Shouldn't religion be all about discovering new physical laws that prove the existence of God? Surely E = mc2(god) would be a good thing to discover! And if there is proof of God, then why do we need faith?

fnxtr · 21 July 2009

anair said: (snip) I agree. That is the "how" to do science. But shouldn't we also consider the "why" science works? If your view of the world ignores the "why" (just saying "It just does, that's all") maybe it isn't a complete enough view. Maybe science shouldn't be considered trustworthy under your view.

(shrug) Maybe. Maybe not. You are free to disagree. We've all heard the "nothing makes sense without God" saw over and over and over. It just a baseless assertion, I find it unconvincing.

Stanton · 21 July 2009

anair said:
Atheism doesn't have to "justify" anything. E=mc^2, whether you're PZ Myers or Francis Collins. That's just the way it is. When a certain aspect of reality (like c) surprises us, we go figure out why. Methodological naturalism does not care if there is One True God, or a pantheon, or none, because for the sake of observation and understanding, it does not matter.
I agree. That is the "how" to do science. But shouldn't we also consider the "why" science works? If your view of the world ignores the "why" (just saying "It just does, that's all") maybe it isn't a complete enough view. Maybe science shouldn't be considered trustworthy under your view.

The thing is, anair, is that you have yet to demonstrate exactly how atheists can not do good science due to their "world view" clouding/contaminating their judgment. How exactly is not specifically mentioning God or Jesus or any other supernatural entity in whatever scientific topic offensive and or unscientific?

anair · 21 July 2009

fnxtr said: (shrug) Maybe. Maybe not. You are free to disagree. We've all heard the "nothing makes sense without God" saw over and over and over. It just a baseless assertion, I find it unconvincing.

But I didn't make a baseless assertion. I specifically based it on the fact that we all experience the consistency and understandability of nature and good scientists need to rely on this. (I agree that we are free to disagree.)

Stanton · 21 July 2009

anair said:
fnxtr said: (shrug) Maybe. Maybe not. You are free to disagree. We've all heard the "nothing makes sense without God" saw over and over and over. It just a baseless assertion, I find it unconvincing.
But I didn't make a baseless assertion. I specifically based it on the fact that we all experience the consistency and understandability of nature and good scientists need to rely on this. (I agree that we are free to disagree.)

And yet, you continue to refuse to demonstrate your assertion. Ergo, your assertion is baseless.

anair · 21 July 2009

Stanton said: The thing is, anair, is that you have yet to demonstrate exactly how atheists can not do good science due to their "world view" clouding/contaminating their judgment. How exactly is not specifically mentioning God or Jesus or any other supernatural entity in whatever scientific topic offensive and or unscientific?

I think some of the best scientists are atheists. I said that in my initial post (that we have "such good scientists that are also atheists"). The problem for the atheist is not in the "how" to do science, but the "why" their science works.

Henry J · 21 July 2009

I wasn’t arguing that someone has to hold a certain worldview to trust in nature. I said the exact opposite: that people can still trust in nature in spite of holding a worldview that can’t account for the trustworthiness of nature that we all experience. This should lead a reasonable person to seriously question the veracity of such a worldview, namely, atheism.

In an atheistic universe, the universe, or at least the part of it we live in, in would have to be consistent in order to support life. In a theistic universe, science does have to assume that the one in charge isn't deliberately misleading us. Henry J

Mike Elzinga · 21 July 2009

anair said: But shouldn't we also consider the "why" science works? If your view of the world ignores the "why" (just saying "It just does, that's all") maybe it isn't a complete enough view. Maybe science shouldn't be considered trustworthy under your view.

Is there a point here? Why shouldn’t science work? We exist. We evolved in a universe which itself evolves and continues to produce billions of emergent phenomena. If our neural systems and the consciousness that emerges from that were not consistent with the universe, we wouldn’t exist (or if we existed for an instant, nothing would make sense as we winked out of existence). You seem to be straining at a point about atheism. Are you afraid of atheists? Do you think atheists can find no meaning or purpose in existence? Are you accusing them of complete nihilism? Are you suggesting that atheists can’t do real science? Are you suggesting that some kind of sectarian belief in a deity is the only possible route to meaning? A more legitimate argument could be made that certain sectarian beliefs are inconsistent with science and with the laws of the universe. The only reason they exist and can persist for a period of time is because those who hold such beliefs are able to maintain a parasitic relationship with the larger society in which they live. Place them in a society in environmental peril where a deep understanding of the environment and the universe is imperative for survival, such parasites would be seen as a severe threat to the survival of the entire society because they would divert scarce resources into fruitless directions. All one has to do is look at Answers in Genesis, the Institute for Creation “Research”, and the “Discovery” Institute. No science is being done at these places because everything that has been constructed in the nearly five decades of their existence is pure pseudo-science. It has no purchase in the real world. And this pseudo-science has been politically motivated and constructed by individuals who purport to have the correct understanding of a specific deity. They make their living by selling books and propaganda to sectarians who don’t know anything about science and live off the secular society that protects and feeds them. Why wouldn’t an atheist have a more honest motivation to understand the universe? There is no need to bend evidence to preconceived sectarian dogma. Such a person would be free to explore and follow evidence wherever it leads with no fear of offending any deity or those who claim to speak for the deity. Wouldn’t such an individual be more likely to grope his or her way to a more honest and accurate understanding of science? So what is your point about atheists? What particular perspectives on the existence of deities is the “proper” one that allows people to do science “properly”?

fnxtr · 21 July 2009

It's not a problem for the scientists who actually, you know, do the work.

If it's a problem for you, well, tough darts. You work it out.

DS · 21 July 2009

anair wrote:

"The problem for the atheist is not in the “how” to do science, but the “why” their science works."

No, that isn't a problem for an atheist. You have already admitted that they can do science just fine without invoking God for anything.

You have not demonstrated why science works, so I guess it is a problem for you. You claim God is necessary for consistent physical laws. This is a mere assumption and not based on anything but wishful thinking. Until you can demonstrate this conclusively you are the only one with a problem. And since lots of people on both sides obviously disagree with you you have quite some task ahead of you.

anair · 21 July 2009

DS said: So then your answer is no, science does not lead to atheism. Good, glad we cleared that up. Of course the evidence suggests that science does not often lead to religion either, so I guess good siceince is just good science, fine.

I don't disagree with the blog post.

According to your argument, God is required in order for consistent physical laws to exist. Why?

Something is required for consistency, and since we are talking about physical laws it has to be something outside the jurisdiction of those physical laws.

Lots of people thought God existed before consistent physical laws were discovered. In fact, for many, God was the explanation for lots of physical phenomena they didn't understand.

Not all conceptions of God are the same. For example, a pantheistic view were everything in nature is part of God and just an illusion, doesn't provide such a good basis for science.

Lots of people don't believe in God even after the discovery of consistent physical laws. Seems these people disagree with you.

We can't discover the total consistency of physical laws. It is one of the assumptions that good scientists start with.

Which law in particular do you think requires God? All of them? One of them?

All of them (including laws of logic). The very nature of a law requires a lawgiver. Do you think laws could always exist or come about from nothing?

Which God is responsible? All of them? None of them?

Whatever set the big bang in motion that is therefore in the position to place laws on nature.

Why is it that those who don't believe in God can still do good science? Why is it so easy to just take God out of the equations?

Doing good science only requires a mind and access to nature. You don't always need to ask "why" science works in order to know "how" to do it well.

If proof of God can be found in consistent physical laws, why are so many religious people antiscience?

People are not perfect, and science is not perfect.

Why do they remain so willfully ignorant of these physical laws? Why do organized religions try so hard to suppress science and knowledge? Shouldn't religion be all about discovering new physical laws that prove the existence of God? Surely E = mc2(god) would be a good thing to discover!

You tell them that. I agree. But don't overgeneralize the religious or mischaracterize organized religion. Keep in mind a lot of religious people now and throughout history are great scientists. And also a lot of atheists know nothing about science.

And if there is proof of God, then why do we need faith?

I don't think there is total proof of God. I just think atheism as a worldview lacks in accounting for "why" science works, and to be a good scientist the atheist has to make certain assumptions about nature that they can't get from nature and can't get from their worldview.

anair · 21 July 2009

Henry J said: In an atheistic universe, the universe, or at least the part of it we live in, in would have to be consistent in order to support life.

Yes, it would have to be consistent to support life, but why does it have to be consistent? Consistency comes first before life. Not the other way around. So, what made the universe consistent? Was there some natural law that started the consistency? What started that law? Does it have to be outside something nature?

In a theistic universe, science does have to assume that the one in charge isn't deliberately misleading us.

I agree.

anair · 21 July 2009

DS said: anair wrote: "The problem for the atheist is not in the “how” to do science, but the “why” their science works." No, that isn't a problem for an atheist. You have already admitted that they can do science just fine without invoking God for anything.

If the end goal is to just do science, then yes there is no problem, but if the end goal is to have an understanding about as many aspects of reality as possible and a worldview that accounts for everything you experience (specifically the consistency and understandability of nature) then there is a problem for the atheist.

Stanton · 21 July 2009

anair said: If the end goal is to just do science, then yes there is no problem, but if the end goal is to have an understanding about as many aspects of reality as possible and a worldview that accounts for everything you experience (specifically the consistency and understandability of nature) then there is a problem for the atheist.

So how come you can not spit out this alleged problem for the atheist?

Henry J · 21 July 2009

The problem for the atheist is not in the “how” to do science, but the “why” their science works.

Why is that a problem? Why is it a problem any more for atheists than for theists? In what way does this supposed problem impact a person's ability to do science? It seems to me that the fact that the scientific method does work is demonstrated by its track record, and I don't see how that is impacted by whether somebody happens to be an atheist, a theist, or something else. Henry J

fnxtr · 21 July 2009

Ah. Now we get to the sophistry part.

Human laws need a human lawgiver.

The 'laws' of nature are really just characteristics. We as humans express them as 'laws'. Next you'll be saying the sky can't be blue without a painter.

An omnipotent god who has no creator is no more believable than a godless universe that has no creator.

What you're really saying is the atheist worldview is a problem for you, because you don't understand it. You don't get that "everything you experience" does not, for some of us, require a god.

Again, tough darts.

Henry J · 21 July 2009

anair,

I think you're confusing what we call laws of nature with laws enacted by authority to control behavior of people in a society. What we call laws of nature are simply descriptions of what has been observed. The concept of jurisdiction does not apply to those.

Henry J

DS · 21 July 2009

anair,

Thanks for responding to my questions. Needless to say I do not agree with your conclusions.

"Yes, it would have to be consistent to support life, but why does it have to be consistent? Consistency comes first before life. Not the other way around. So, what made the universe consistent? Was there some natural law that started the consistency? What started that law? Does it have to be outside something nature?"

It doesn't have to be consistent. Your unspoken assumption here is that life has to exist. It does not. Why does consistency have to come from outside nature? Why can't nature simply be self consistent? You have explained exactly nothing.

"If the end goal is to just do science, then yes there is no problem, but if the end goal is to have an understanding about as many aspects of reality as possible and a worldview that accounts for everything you experience (specifically the consistency and understandability of nature) then there is a problem for the atheist."

If the end goal is to have understanding then simply assuming a God for which there is no evidence and assuming that it enforces some arbitrary consistency for some unknown reason explains exactly nothing. Why do science at all if God enforces the rules and God can change the rules at any time for any reason?

"Something is required for consistency, and since we are talking about physical laws it has to be something outside the jurisdiction of those physical laws."

Once again simple assumption without evidence. You can claim this all you want but you have nothing to back it up. Therefore, no one must accept it. This is just the old intelligent falling routine all over again.

"I don’t think there is total proof of God."

But your entire argument is prredicated upon the assumption that the reality of consistent laws requires a God to initiate and enforce them. The fact of the existence of consistent laws is indisputable. Therefore you have presented a proof for the existence of God. Do you deny your own argument? You seem to have left no room at all for faith. Fine with me, I'm just sayin.

I guess we must respectfully agree to disagree. Thanks for at least being polite.

Mike Elzinga · 21 July 2009

anair said: Something is required for consistency, and since we are talking about physical laws it has to be something outside the jurisdiction of those physical laws.

Our existence is sufficient. That implies rules that can be understood by a sufficiently evolved intelligence. It doesn’t make any difference what the rules are as long as they produce a universe that persists and evolves for a period of time (as seen by creatures in that universe). Any sentient being that exists in such a universe will find itself consistent with that universe and will find such rules to make sense.

Not all conceptions of God are the same. For example, a pantheistic view were everything in nature is part of God and just an illusion, doesn’t provide such a good basis for science.

What is your basis for making such a statement? Do claim to have some superior religion that gives you some insight that other religions can’t provide? If so, how do you know?

We can’t discover the total consistency of physical laws. It is one of the assumptions that good scientists start with.

Why do you claim this is an assumption?

All of them (including laws of logic). The very nature of a law requires a lawgiver. Do you think laws could always exist or come about from nothing?

Another unjustified claim. Why is this so? There are models of the universe that certainly do suggest that the “laws” came from nothing. Remember, whatever sentient being exists in a universe is going to find itself consistent with that universe. Whatever “laws” it discovers are going to make sense eventually.

Whatever set the big bang in motion that is therefore in the position to place laws on nature.

Your creationist misconceptions of science are beginning to show. And you also have to explain the “thing” or deity that “set the big bang in motion”; what determined its properties?

Doing good science only requires a mind and access to nature. You don’t always need to ask “why” science works in order to know “how” to do it well.

Surely you must know by now that a mind and access to nature is not enough. Look how badly the “minds” at AiG, ICR, and DI have screwed up their so-called science. That pseudo-science can’t discover anything and produces no insight whatsoever into the workings of the universe.

I just think atheism as a worldview lacks in accounting for “why” science works, and to be a good scientist the atheist has to make certain assumptions about nature that they can’t get from nature and can’t get from their worldview.

You clearly don’t know anything about atheism, and have some sectarian revulsion about people who don’t subscribe to religions. This is treading the line close to bigotry.

tresmal · 21 July 2009

Anair said: Something is required for consistency, and since we are talking about physical laws it has to be something outside the jurisdiction of those physical laws.

Why?

Dave Lovell · 22 July 2009

fnxtr said: An omnipotent god who has no creator is no more believable than a godless universe that has no creator.

Far less believable, surely. It may be stupid to believe a tornado in a junk yard can generate a 747, but even more so to suggest that the tornado achieves this by generating a being capable of designing and building a 747, and letting him/her get on with it.

Dan · 22 July 2009

anair said: Of course we all experience the consistency and understandability of nature. That is not in question. The question is if the worldviews we hold justify this experience. Atheism is one of the worldviews that doesn't, but to be a good scientist many atheists can just assume these qualities of nature are real, and proceed with research.

Okay, so scientists can't explain "the consistency and understandability of nature", they just work with it and "proceed with research". But theists can explain "the consistency and understandability of nature" by ascribing it to God. But when asked to explain God ("Who created God?", "Why does God like consistency and understandability?") theists have no answers, they just work with it and "proceed with research". The two approaches seem to me effectively identical -- the theist approach simply inserts an extra (and perhaps unnecessary) cog between the observation ("the consistency and understandability of nature") and the result ("proceed with research").

Dan · 22 July 2009

anair said: Something is required for consistency

Is something really required for consistency? Must there be a reason for consistency? Let's be concrete: I throw two marbles into an empty bowl. Then I throw in three more. I count the marbles in the bowl and find five. This expresses the law that 2 + 3 = 5. Now, I take five marbles out of the bowl, and find that the bowl is again empty, expressing the law that 2 + 3 - 5 = 0. These two laws together are required for consistency. So, Anair, do you really claim that if God didn't exist, then 2 + 3 - 5 might be equal to 4? ================================================ And if you do make that claim, "something is required for consistency", let's think about the consequences. You might call this something "God" or "Yahweh" or "X-factor". I don't care what you call it, but I do care about its properties. By your own claim that "something is required for consistency", then something is required to explain the consistency of X-factor. Suppose you call it Y-factor. But then, again by your own claim, something is required to explain the consistency of Y-factor. You see my point ... your argument does not justify the existence of God, it justifies the existence of an infinite number of Gods. And even when we get to this point, we're not done, because we have to ask what is required for the consistency of these infinite number of Gods! (Even for the supernatural, it must be hard to coordinate and render consistent the actions of an infinite number of actors. I can only begin to imagine the committee meetings ... ) And so, according to your claim, the cycle begins anew: We need something to explain the consistency of those infinite number of Gods, and we need something to explain the consistency of that entity, and ... . Ultimately, we can only stop at "they just are consistent, and I have no way to justify it, I just observe it". Why not stop there in the first place? ================================================ I ask these questions not to insult you or to belittle you, nor to commend you or to exalt you, but because I'm genuinely interested in your answers.

eric · 22 July 2009

anair said: The problem for the atheist is not in the "how" to do science, but the "why" their science works.

You are assuming that's a problem. Why are you making that assumption? How does 'not knowing why' impact my life? Does it make me despondent? Nope. Depressed? Nope. Immoral? Nope. Bad at my job? Nope. Can I be a good scientist without answering the why question? Yes. As far as I can tell, the only people who get wrapped around the axel when it comes to the why question are theologians and missionaries. Everyone else just shrugs their shoulders and gets on with their lives. What's particularly ironic about your "problem for the atheist" is that Feynman, one of the greatest theoretical physicists in the last 50 years, happily admitted that he didn't know why nature worked the way it did. And yet somehow, despite being "crippled by the anair problem," he was able to live a rich life and make incredibly valuable contributions to science.

The next reason that you might think you do not understand what I am telling you is, while I am describing to you how Nature works, you won't understand why Nature works that way. But you see, nobody understands that. [R. Feynman, QED, 1985 (2006 ed.), p10]

Heck, if not knowing why didn't bother Feynman, why should it bother me?

anair · 22 July 2009

DS said: It doesn't have to be consistent.

We can't prove that the universe is consistent. There is no scientific test for that. Do you think there is? If your position is that physical laws don't have to be consistent, what is preventing the frequent occurrences of little (or big) phenomena that are outside the characteristics of nature. Or are you willing to say that the universe is consistent even though we can't prove it; just because it works to assume that?

Why does consistency have to come from outside nature? Why can't nature simply be self consistent?

Throughout all other human experience we do not see anything else that is simply self consistent. Everything else is in a state of flux even the universe itself. Why should it's physical laws (or characteristics) alone be stable?

If the end goal is to have understanding then simply assuming a God for which there is no evidence and assuming that it enforces some arbitrary consistency for some unknown reason explains exactly nothing.

Maybe man is not privy to certain reasons for things, but at least it is a view that increases the logical consistency of what we experience in the world. It is more logical to have something that is able to make the laws consistent doing so, then to have the laws being self consistent just because it works for us.

Why do science at all if God enforces the rules and God can change the rules at any time for any reason?

It takes a certain view of God that involves trust. It is similar to the trust the atheistic scientist needs to have in the consistency and understandability of nature, but it is actually in something that is capable in making nature such a way.

But your entire argument is prredicated upon the assumption that the reality of consistent laws requires a God to initiate and enforce them. The fact of the existence of consistent laws is indisputable. Therefore you have presented a proof for the existence of God. Do you deny your own argument? You seem to have left no room at all for faith. Fine with me, I'm just sayin.

It is possible that the universe is consistent and understandable just because it is. It think it just takes more faith to believe that then to believe in God.

I guess we must respectfully agree to disagree. Thanks for at least being polite.

likewise, thanks for being polite.

anair · 22 July 2009

Dave Lovell said:
fnxtr said: An omnipotent god who has no creator is no more believable than a godless universe that has no creator.
Far less believable, surely. It may be stupid to believe a tornado in a junk yard can generate a 747, but even more so to suggest that the tornado achieves this by generating a being capable of designing and building a 747, and letting him/her get on with it.

Actually fnxtr's statement is a category error. It would be similar to saying: A Michael Jackson who cannot be danced is more believable than a dance that cannot be danced.

eric · 22 July 2009

anair said: Throughout all other human experience we do not see anything else that is simply self consistent. Everything else is in a state of flux even the universe itself. Why should it's physical laws (or characteristics) alone be stable?

This is sophistry. Whenever we have strong evidence for some consistency in nature we call it a 'law.' Its a matter of human naming convention, not deep philosophical meaning. Asking why laws are consistent while non-laws aren't is like asking why bicycles have two wheels while tricycles have three. The reason is no deeper than the name.

It takes a certain view of God that involves trust. It is similar to the trust the atheistic scientist needs to have in the consistency and understandability of nature, but it is actually in something that is capable in making nature such a way.

No trust is needed. 300 years of experiments have shown that quite a lot about nature is consistent and understandable. We would have to be utter fools to ignore this evidence and leap to the assumption that future attempts to find consistency in nature will fail.

DS · 22 July 2009

I wrote:

"It (the universe) doesn’t have to be consistent."

anair wrote:

"We can’t prove that the universe is consistent."

Fine, the two statements arn not incompatible. However, since you admit that we really don't know that the physical laws of the universe are consistent, then that cannot possibly be taken as evidence for the existence of God. Therefore, there is no problem at all for the atheist, or anyone else.

Thanks for playing.

anair · 22 July 2009

Dan said: Okay, so scientists can't explain "the consistency and understandability of nature", they just work with it and "proceed with research". But theists can explain "the consistency and understandability of nature" by ascribing it to God. But when asked to explain God ("Who created God?", "Why does God like consistency and understandability?") theists have no answers, they just work with it and "proceed with research". The two approaches seem to me effectively identical -- the theist approach simply inserts an extra (and perhaps unnecessary) cog between the observation ("the consistency and understandability of nature") and the result ("proceed with research").

I agree that both approaches do not hinder with the actual use of methodological naturalism to "proceed and research". That is, if we only want to know about nature from the inside of nature. Many atheists find meaning for their lives in learning about the nature in front of them. But, it is like Plato's cave. There are certain aspects of nature that we experience that seem to be shadows of something beyond nature. We have a few options when confronting these. We can: 1. Not ask questions and just continue to be safe working in other areas within the cave. 2. Only look within the cave and try to find an explanation. 3. Make some conclusions about what is outside the cave. The atheist has the first two available, whereas the theist has the third one as well. It is a problem that many people confuse the three. Often atheists rightfully critique how theists sometimes mix some aspects of the the third option with the other two. Somethings that seem to be shadows from outside may actually originate from inside. This is the process of science at work. It is not true that theists have no answers to questions about God. It is that any answer they give necessarily falls into the third option which is not available for atheists.

Dave Lovell · 22 July 2009

anair said: 1. Not ask questions and just continue to be safe working in other areas within the cave. 2. Only look within the cave and try to find an explanation. 3. Make some conclusions about what is outside the cave. The atheist has the first two available, whereas the theist has the third one as well.

If you substitute "Fantasize about" for "Make some conclusions about", then that is fine as far as it goes. The problem comes when theists further insist that knowledge of anything in the cave which appears to contradict their fantasies must be suppressed at all costs.

anair · 22 July 2009

Dan said: ... We need something to explain the consistency of those infinite number of Gods, and we need something to explain the consistency of that entity, and ... . Ultimately, we can only stop at "they just are consistent, and I have no way to justify it, I just observe it". Why not stop there in the first place?

"something is required for consistency" is not true for all categories of things. I was using that to describe physical laws which are within this category. Why are physical laws in the category of things that cannot be consistent by themselves but a God is not in that category? It requires trust to make the statement that "they just are consistent, and I have no way to justify it" We could put that trust on nothingness or on something. What could be trustworthy here? For this case of consistency it has to be something in the category of things that are self consistent. There has to be something that is self consistent and something powerful enough to be so fits in that category. Either way it takes a faith. One view has faith in nothing and the other has faith in something that is inherently able to act in the way necessary to provide consistency. This is a conceivable situation. There need not be an infinite regression. But there needs to be at least one regression.

fnxtr · 22 July 2009

Your "Plato's cave" analogy assumes

1) there is a cave,

2) we are in the cave, and

3) there is an outside the cave.

You have proven none of this.

anair · 22 July 2009

eric said:
The next reason that you might think you do not understand what I am telling you is, while I am describing to you how Nature works, you won't understand why Nature works that way. But you see, nobody understands that. [R. Feynman, QED, 1985 (2006 ed.), p10]
Heck, if not knowing why didn't bother Feynman, why should it bother me?

I agree. It is fine to have that kind of faith. It is not a problem of the sort that should negatively impact your life. It is a problem of the sort that begs to be explored.

fnxtr · 22 July 2009

Why are physical laws in the category of things that cannot be consistent by themselves but a God is not in that category?

Physical laws (characteristics) of the universe can be self-consistent. In fact, as far was we've been able to tell up to this point, they are. Why, as mentioned before, is the hobbyhorse of theologians and missionaries.

fnxtr · 22 July 2009

anair said:
eric said:
The next reason that you might think you do not understand what I am telling you is, while I am describing to you how Nature works, you won't understand why Nature works that way. But you see, nobody understands that. [R. Feynman, QED, 1985 (2006 ed.), p10]
Heck, if not knowing why didn't bother Feynman, why should it bother me?
I agree. It is fine to have that kind of faith. It is not a problem of the sort that should negatively impact your life. It is a problem of the sort that begs to be explored.

Explore away, pal. We're busy getting the job done.

anair · 22 July 2009

DS said: I wrote: "It (the universe) doesn’t have to be consistent." anair wrote: "We can’t prove that the universe is consistent." Fine, the two statements arn not incompatible. However, since you admit that we really don't know that the physical laws of the universe are consistent, then that cannot possibly be taken as evidence for the existence of God. Therefore, there is no problem at all for the atheist, or anyone else. Thanks for playing.

I didn't admit that "we really don't know that the physical laws of the universe are consistent." I admit that it cannot be proven by science. Knowing things is not only limited to scientific investigation or proofs. We go about our daily lives as if we know plenty of things that we didn't prove.

anair · 22 July 2009

Dave Lovell said: The problem comes when theists further insist that knowledge of anything in the cave which appears to contradict their fantasies must be suppressed at all costs.

I agree. But just because some theists incorrectly follow that option doesn't mean that other theists shouldn't follow the third option I mentioned above.

anair · 22 July 2009

fnxtr said: Your "Plato's cave" analogy assumes 1) there is a cave, 2) we are in the cave, and 3) there is an outside the cave. You have proven none of this.

Yes, it is an unproven assumption. But what is the alternative (another unproven assumption)? 1) There is no cave. Then what is there? 2) We are not in a cave. Then where are we? Why do we experience boundaries on human experience? 3) There is no outside. Then what is the explanation for the things that seems to come from outside?

anair · 22 July 2009

fnxtr said: Explore away, pal. We're busy getting the job done.

What job? Who's the boss? What is the salary? Are there benefits?

Matt Young · 22 July 2009

I think anair and his critics may be at cross purposes. I do not think that anair is talking about science, but rather about philosophy of science or metaphysics - why empiricism (or induction) works. He seems to be saying that empiricism works because God created certain regularities, and atheists therefore cannot explain why empiricism works. The question, why empiricism works, is a fair question, but anair has adduced no evidence in favor of his hypothesis that God makes it work.

eric · 22 July 2009

anair said:
fnxtr said: Explore away, pal. We're busy getting the job done.
What job? Who's the boss? What is the salary? Are there benefits?

1) Scientist. 2) Some form of government for 1/3 of us, some form of private corporation/institution for the rest. 3) Lower than we'd like. 4) Knowing you have contributed positively to the human race's understanding of nature, disovered things that no one in in the history of the world knew before you came along. As an aside, Plato's cave metaphor implies there is a world beyond the one we can directly access. The reply "there is no cave" would thus mean the speaker thinks we access the world as it is. That's it. Answers to your 1, 2, and 3 simply done. Honestly, your attempts to take these metaphors too literally is one reason you keep making philosphical mountains out of molehills.

fnxtr · 22 July 2009

As a qualifier to the cave idea, almost certainly there are events/characteristics of the universe we haven't yet experienced/perceived/measured/recognized as a pattern/whatever.

To go from that to GODDDIDIT is, I think, a bit of a stretch, or maybe a short circuit, and intellectually lazy.

Mike Elzinga · 22 July 2009

anair said: We can't prove that the universe is consistent. There is no scientific test for that. Do you think there is? If your position is that physical laws don't have to be consistent, what is preventing the frequent occurrences of little (or big) phenomena that are outside the characteristics of nature. Or are you willing to say that the universe is consistent even though we can't prove it; just because it works to assume that?

Why are you asking for a proof of consistency of physical laws? Why does one have to prove that blue is blue? Are you confusing “consistency” for what is required for a set of axioms in mathematics; that they can’t be mutually contradictory, for example? If sentient beings exist in an existing universe, how can that mean the rules governing the universe might be “inconsistent” and therefore need proof of consistency? Do you understand, for example, why Lenz’s Law comes from Maxwell’s equations? Do you know the significance of the minus sign in the equation for electromagnetic induction? What would happen if by moving a magnet toward a conducting loop of wire you induced an opposite pole that attracted instead of the same pole that repelled? What would happen if light did not take the path of least time but instead took the path of least distance between two points in different media? Do you understand what this has to do with stability, consistency, and the existence of things, including sentient life in the universe? You seem to be claiming that there is no proof of consistency of physical laws, yet you ignore the fact of existence itself.

Throughout all other human experience we do not see anything else that is simply self consistent. Everything else is in a state of flux even the universe itself. Why should it’s physical laws (or characteristics) alone be stable?

This is an example of why arguing “philosophy” from a position of complete ignorance of science is deadly. The statement is simply untrue. You only see inconsistency because you don’t understand what you are seeing. Even the flux one sees in the universe follows well-understood rules such as conservation of matter and energy, conservation of momentum, charge, as well as a number of other rules. Asking why physical laws should be stable is simply another side of asking why the universe exists. What we as evolved, sentient beings in a relatively stable universe observe is possible because of self-consistency of the laws. It is quite conceivable that there were, are, or could be other universes with other laws and with other sentient beings. If they exist and are stable long enough for those sentient beings to contemplate their existence, then those beings would find their universe and its laws “consistent”. There is no deep “philosophical issue” here. You are simply asking why blue is blue.

It is more logical to have something that is able to make the laws consistent doing so, then to have the laws being self consistent just because it works for us.

What then are you going to say about the “thing” (you really mean the God of Abraham) that makes the universe “consistent”? Does your question simply stop there because you think that such a deity requires no explanation? Aren’t you being inconsistent in your requirements for consistency?

It takes a certain view of God that involves trust. It is similar to the trust the atheistic scientist needs to have in the consistency and understandability of nature, but it is actually in something that is capable in making nature such a way.

You seem to be confusing “trust” with “recognition”. When you see the color blue, do you trust that you see blue or do you recognize that you see blue? Why do you need proof or “trust?” In fact, why does it even matter if the manifestation of “blue” in the nervous system of another human matches its manifestation in your own nervous system? If you both agree the same numerical wavelength of electromagnetic radiation is “blue”, what difference does it make?

It is possible that the universe is consistent and understandable just because it is. It think it just takes more faith to believe that then to believe in God.

It seems that all you have done is transfer questions you can’t formulate and answer onto a being for which you feel no obligation to answer such questions. Yet you apparently find it difficult to recognize the fact of our existence as sufficient enough to resolve a question that need not have been asked in the first place. It helps to learn some science before attempting to do “philosophy”.

stevaroni · 22 July 2009

anair tortures logic all morning... But, it is like Plato’s cave. There are certain aspects of nature that we experience that seem to be shadows of something beyond nature.

Um, like what? Be specific please.

Yes, it is an unproven assumption.

No, dark matter is an unproven assumption. We assume some sort of unseen mass must exist because we can see and measure an appreciable effect that is not yet accounted for, ergo, we logically assume an unknown factor is at work and create a plausible model to help explore it. What you propose is something called an unproven wild-assed speculation, which is an entirely different thing, seeing as it is totally unsupported by any evidence at all.

Mike Elzinga · 22 July 2009

eric said: This is sophistry. Whenever we have strong evidence for some consistency in nature we call it a 'law.' Its a matter of human naming convention, not deep philosophical meaning. Asking why laws are consistent while non-laws aren't is like asking why bicycles have two wheels while tricycles have three. The reason is no deeper than the name.

Sometimes when I am too tired to do anything else, I flip to one of the religion channels on TV to see what’s up, or to watch this kind of sophistry. One can see programs that go on for a complete hour in which supposedly “deep philosophical issues” are being discussed; endless word-gaming that apparently gives the audience the “feeling of fullness” when in fact all the air has been pumped out of the room and they are left totally brain-dead.

DS · 22 July 2009

anair wrote:

"I didn’t admit that “we really don’t know that the physical laws of the universe are consistent.” I admit that it cannot be proven by science. Knowing things is not only limited to scientific investigation or proofs. We go about our daily lives as if we know plenty of things that we didn’t prove."

Yes you did and you were correct. You cannot prove, scientifically or otherwise, that E = MC2 in distant galaxies beyond the limit of detection or that it will not change tomorrow. And there is no other way to prove such things other than scientifically. Scientists assume the constancy of such laws provisionally. If they do change we will deal with it. And even if that happened, it would not prove that God does not exist.

Now I am not denying you the right to believe in God. I am only pointing out that you go about your daily life as if you know that God exists. You can believe in God based on faith. No one can deny you this right. Theologicans agree with this. No scientific proof of God is necessary or desirable. Go on, believe in God all you want. You just don't have a scientific argument that will convince unbelievers. Why is that such a problem for you? Why would you want it any other way? Haven't you
read the Bible?

fnxtr · 22 July 2009

What would happen if light did not take the path of least time but instead took the path of least distance between two points in different media?

I thought it was the shortest space-time geodesic, or am I thinking of the path of objects in a gravitational field? ...and I second DS's point. Go believe in God (I assume you mean the God of Abraham, Isaac and Moses) all you want, just don't pretend consistent natural laws are any indication of His existence, cause we're not buying it. What you have is the argument from incredulity: "how can this exist without God?". To which, again, I shrug. Who knows? And how would you ever find out? Aristotlean mind-wanking? Biblical exegesis and hermeneutics? Meditation, maybe? Peyote?

fnxtr · 22 July 2009

3) There is no outside.
Then what is the explanation for the things that seems to come from outside?

Such as? Emotions? Could just be the way we're wired. The feeling that someone is watching us? Dim childhood memories and impressions, maybe. "God", again, is a lazy shortcut. I have a friend who claims he once felt the presence of God in his apartment. I asked how he knew it was God. He said, "I just knew". Maybe it was a god-helment phenomenon. How would he know one way or the other?

Henry J · 22 July 2009

Then what is the explanation for the things that seems to come from outside?

Somebody left the window open?

eric · 22 July 2009

anair said:
Heck, if not knowing why didn't bother Feynman, why should it bother me?
I agree. It is fine to have that kind of faith.

What? You are making no sense. I said one specific unanswered question doesn't particularly bother me. In what way is that faith? What have I professed belief in? It is just insane the lengths to which some folks will go to make every behavior, every thought, the philosophical equivalent of their religion. As the saying goes, "bald" is not a hair color. And "lack of an explanation" is not a type of faith, even if some explanations count as faiths.

Dan · 22 July 2009

anair said:
eric said:
The next reason that you might think you do not understand what I am telling you is, while I am describing to you how Nature works, you won't understand why Nature works that way. But you see, nobody understands that. [R. Feynman, QED, 1985 (2006 ed.), p10]
Heck, if not knowing why didn't bother Feynman, why should it bother me?
I agree. It is fine to have that kind of faith. It is not a problem of the sort that should negatively impact your life. It is a problem of the sort that begs to be explored.

That's exactly the problem. People have been exploring these sorts of "why" questions for at least 4000 years, and made zero progress. People have been exploring "how" questions for 400 years, and made enormous progress. All experience suggests that these "why" questions "beg to be explored" but in fact are a waste of time.

Dan · 22 July 2009

on July 21, 2009 at 10:50 PM anair claimed, without giving any reasons: Something is required for consistency

[Notice the lack of qualifiers.]

on July 22, 2009 at 10:26 AM anair claimed, without giving any reasons: "something is required for consistency" is not true for all categories of things

This is good evidence that if you don't give reasons, you can change your claims with impunity.

ryanm · 22 July 2009

Mike Elzinga said: It seems that all you have done is transfer questions you can’t formulate and answer onto a being for which you feel no obligation to answer such questions.

I think Dirk Gently said it best: ‘I have transformed the problem from an intractably difficult and possibly quite insoluble conundrum into a mere linguistic puzzle. Albeit, an intractably difficult and possibly insoluble one.’

Mike Elzinga · 22 July 2009

fnxtr said: I thought it was the shortest space-time geodesic, or am I thinking of the path of objects in a gravitational field?

In the vacuum of empty space, yes; within physical matter there are the added complications of re-radiation from the atoms making up the substance. Crossing boundaries from one material to another introduces more complications. Even passing through materials in which the properties change continuously along the path essentially introduces the same issues.

…and I second DS’s point. Go believe in God (I assume you mean the God of Abraham, Isaac and Moses) all you want, just don’t pretend consistent natural laws are any indication of His existence, cause we’re not buying it.

I think I have made the point on other threads that, although I don’t subscribe to any religion myself, I also don’t presume to tell others how to deal with religious questions in their lives. Everybody embarks on their life journey with different experiences and starting knowledge, so they will have to work these things out for themselves in the time they have available to them. I have religious friends I admire; and the world is better off having them around. But I also encounter the nagging Ferengi-like angst of the proselytizers who somehow have the idea that they must meddle in the affairs of everyone else, including the science educations of other people’s children. One can also find it easily on the religion channels on TV. Our current protagonist, anair, seems to be unhappy with “atheists” (I don’t know exactly what his conceptions of them are), and feels the need to justify his own sectarian beliefs with some kind of agonizing “philosophical” rationalizing. But “rationalizing” religions beliefs is not something he is likely to accomplish without developing some form of subtle or not-so-subtle bigotry. So many of these sectarians speak of “trust” in their deity and then go about attempting to portray to the world that their sectarian beliefs are somehow “on a better foundation” of reason. One would think that any deity that created an entire universe (and all the deceitful, petty little human creatures that purport to have the correct insight into the characteristics and mind of that deity) would be more amused than upset. But that’s not my problem: I would simply prefer they not mangle the science in attempting to convince me. I can check those things out; and it looks bad for them when they attempt to bluff.

Peyote?

Better insights have probably come from that than from some of the stuff we get from Aig, ICR, or the DI.

fnxtr · 22 July 2009

Ooops. That should be "helmet", of course.

fnxtr · 22 July 2009

Nor should it be godhelminthes. That would be Shai-Hulud, wouldn't it.

Mike Elzinga · 22 July 2009

fnxtr said: Nor should it be godhelminthes. That would be Shai-Hulud, wouldn't it.

:-) Ok; that took a while. But it is quite funny.

anair · 24 July 2009

Mike, The example of blue = blue doesn't really get to the heart of how consistency is seen in the universe, because you are comparing one physical wavelength (450-495 nm) to one semantic value judgment that is subjective, existing only in thought and without having any external physical effects. It might make it more clear to think of the consistency of including not only those laws that logically must be true such as the law of non-contradiciton, but also laws of how things are ordered that could have been ordered in other ways. A better word that relates to this aspect of consistency is "symmetry". The deeper we look into nature the more symmetry we see. A greater order begets the order we see in, say, a crystal. We need order in the carbon atoms. Why? Because the electrons need to be the same. Why does every electron have the same mass and charge? Why is the electron field so consistent? This is not a logical necessity. There are new theories emerging to explain this. This is a pattern in the discovery of the characteristics of nature. We discover crystals look symmetrical, then carbon atoms, and then electrons, then a deeper and more symmetrical theory. Each of these is exhibiting greater and greater order. Why wouldn't we expect the deepest parts in the big bang singularity to be complete infinite order.

Mike Elzinga said: Asking why physical laws should be stable is simply another side of asking why the universe exists.

There is stability in physical laws and also a stability in logic that I think you are combining. You say yourself that:

It is quite conceivable that there were, are, or could be other universes with other laws and with other sentient beings. If they exist and are stable long enough for those sentient beings to contemplate their existence, then those beings would find their universe and its laws “consistent”.

Then what does "consistent" even mean? With a multiverse there could be universes that conform to physical laws from most of the time to infrequently. Ours could be one that most often conforms, but not always. Do you think that even logic itself could vary within different universes? Does logic need to be stable throughout all the universes? Do you think we can't "trust" logic we can only "recognize" it? If you think that x = x doesn't have to always be true, I think you should suspect the truthfulness of your worldview.

DS said: Scientists assume the constancy of such laws provisionally. If they do change we will deal with it.

What if our universe is the kind that mostly follows the physical laws (or even logical laws) but sometimes doesn't. Or what if the universe is understandable most of the times but sometimes infrequently it is not. How can science which is based on these assumptions that universe is consistent and understandable deal with this?

Mike Elzinga said: Why shouldn’t science work? We exist. We evolved in a universe which itself evolves and continues to produce billions of emergent phenomena.

I may be mistaken, but it seems to me that you think even logic evolves. I think the deeper within the atheistic worldview we look the more profoundly illogical it becomes.

anair · 24 July 2009

Mike Elzinga said: Our current protagonist, anair, seems to be unhappy with “atheists” (I don’t know exactly what his conceptions of them are), and feels the need to justify his own sectarian beliefs with some kind of agonizing “philosophical” rationalizing. But “rationalizing” religions beliefs is not something he is likely to accomplish without developing some form of subtle or not-so-subtle bigotry. So many of these sectarians speak of “trust” in their deity and then go about attempting to portray to the world that their sectarian beliefs are somehow “on a better foundation” of reason. One would think that any deity that created an entire universe (and all the deceitful, petty little human creatures that purport to have the correct insight into the characteristics and mind of that deity) would be more amused than upset.

I am not upset (I hope you read that out of my posts, I try to remain civil). Also I am not arguing out of a psychological unhappiness with atheism or a psychological need to justify my own beliefs. It really is only about an interest in the philosophy of science and a need for logical consistency. So, yes, I am not-so-subtly bigoted that x = x always.

But that’s not my problem: I would simply prefer they not mangle the science in attempting to convince me. I can check those things out; and it looks bad for them when they attempt to bluff.

You seem to be trying to use science to get at philosophy of science. It is great to be able to check out the scientific facts used in arguments, but the philosophical basis behind science is important too.

Dave Lovell · 24 July 2009

anair said:
DS said: Scientists assume the constancy of such laws provisionally. If they do change we will deal with it.
What if our universe is the kind that mostly follows the physical laws (or even logical laws) but sometimes doesn't. Or what if the universe is understandable most of the times but sometimes infrequently it is not. How can science which is based on these assumptions that universe is consistent and understandable deal with this?

As DS said, it can only deal with it when evidence is found that the assumption is false. Until then there is effectively an infinite number of possibilities as to how and/or when the explanations we have may fail. Perhaps investigating these will give scientists continuing employment once they have managed to explain everything we have actually observed in the universe.

DS · 24 July 2009

Aj wrote:

"What if our universe is the kind that mostly follows the physical laws (or even logical laws) but sometimes doesn’t. Or what if the universe is understandable most of the times but sometimes infrequently it is not. How can science which is based on these assumptions that universe is consistent and understandable deal with this?"

Well that isn't really a problem. In fact, before the "laws" of the universe were discovered. that is exactly what people thought. They were probably even surprised when it turned out that the laws were constant and there was no evidence for magic and no miracles.

Even if the laws change, our default assumption will not be God. We already tried that, it got us exactly nowhere. Scientists should always admit that they don't know everything. They are used to it. They are fine with it. That is why they have jobs. The job of science is to accurately describe the universe as it exists. If it changes, then we can observe and describe that. The point is that so far the universe is understandable. Why stop describing and understanding it because it might not be in the future?

Religious people are the ones who want the universe not to be understandable or predictable or ammenable to scientific investigation. They are the ones obsessed with magic and miracles. They are the ones who want the priests and sorcerers to have the power while scientists are reduced to impotent simpering fools. Why would anyone wish for such a universe? I don't know, ask Harry Potter.

Look, if God decides to change the rules, you can ask her to explain it to you.

Dave Lovell · 24 July 2009

DS said: Religious people are the ones who want the universe not to be understandable or predictable or ammenable to scientific investigation. They are the ones obsessed with magic and miracles. They are the ones who want the priests and sorcerers to have the power while scientists are reduced to impotent simpering fools. Why would anyone wish for such a universe? I don't know, ask Harry Potter.

Perhaps those with power based on their supposed knowledge of how gods behave think they have good reason to fear the real knowledge that may give men the power to behave like gods.

fnxtr · 24 July 2009

anair simply does not get that "it just is" is a sufficient ansswer for many of us.

Anair, as I said, explore away. You simply cannot convince many of us that your quest is in any way important.

eric · 24 July 2009

anair said: What if our universe is the kind that mostly follows the physical laws (or even logical laws) but sometimes doesn't. Or what if the universe is understandable most of the times but sometimes infrequently it is not. How can science which is based on these assumptions that universe is consistent and understandable deal with this?

In that case science will provide accurate predictions of the consistent phenomena and innacurate predictions of the inconsistent ones. This, however, is one step better than religion, which empirically speaking has provided innaccurate predictions of both.

anair · 24 July 2009

fnxtr said: anair simply does not get that "it just is" is a sufficient ansswer for many of us. Anair, as I said, explore away. You simply cannot convince many of us that your quest is in any way important.

No, I get that it is a sufficient answer. I posted earlier that you don’t always need to ask “why” science works in order to know “how” to do it well. It is perfectly fine for the scientist to say "it just is" and then do some great research that benefits everyone. This is a wonderful calling for many people, and there are many historical examples to back this up. DS seems to be misrepresenting religious people here:

DS said: Religious people are the ones who want the universe not to be understandable or predictable or ammenable to scientific investigation. They are the ones obsessed with magic and miracles. They are the ones who want the priests and sorcerers to have the power while scientists are reduced to impotent simpering fools. Why would anyone wish for such a universe?

The original blog post suggests that "science is not necessarily incompatible with religion." Currently and historically there are many examples of "religious people" who are nothing like DS's caricature above. If people really act like that (which I doubt many do) just ignore them, and engage in discussion with the religious people who like science, are scientists, or lead in the sciences. Currently about a fourth of the "greater scientists" believe in God and immortality, and throughout history the majority of science was built on the work of religious people.

Mike Elzinga · 24 July 2009

anair said: It might make it more clear to think of the consistency of including not only those laws that logically must be true such as the law of non-contradiciton, but also laws of how things are ordered that could have been ordered in other ways.

You are talking about axioms in mathematics or premises in logic, not the physics of the universe.

A better word that relates to this aspect of consistency is “symmetry”. The deeper we look into nature the more symmetry we see. A greater order begets the order we see in, say, a crystal.

I don’t think you have any idea of what you are talking about. The concept of symmetry in physics has a far more important and specific relationship to conservations laws than you know; time-reverse symmetry implies conservation of energy, translational symmetry implies conservation of momentum, rotational symmetry implies conservation of angular momentum. There here are other symmetries implying other conservation laws also. There are such things as ignorable coordinates in equations called Lagrangians that imply conservation laws for those coordinates. Your example of crystalline ordering is false and irrelevant. The organization of crystals, the ordering and organization of all other compounds – including hydrocarbons and other organic compounds – right on up to the organization of complex systems such as living organisms is bottom up, not top-down. There has never been any evidence of top-down ordering in physics; only emerging constraints as systems become more complex or larger or as effects such as viscosity or surface tension come into play. (A simple example is the gravitational constraints placed on structures as they increase in size. This is because strength increases with cross-sectional area whereas weight increases with volume. There are literally thousands of other examples from nearly every area of physics and chemistry that could be given as well.)

We need order in the carbon atoms. Why? Because the electrons need to be the same. Why does every electron have the same mass and charge? Why is the electron field so consistent? This is not a logical necessity. There are new theories emerging to explain this.

You obviously aren’t a physicist if you think you are pointing out something profound to a physicist. The Standard Model in physics, while explaining what we know in great detail, doesn’t address the questions of where mass comes from (probably from the Higgs field, but we don’t know for sure until the Higgs boson is found). It doesn’t account for the sameness of every member of each particle species, but the universe would be an entirely different place or even nonexistent if this were not the case. There are models, including models involving a number of higher dimensions, that can answer such questions. As of yet there is insufficient experimental evidenced to decide among such models. But you have missed the point of existence entirely.

There is stability in physical laws and also a stability in logic that I think you are combining.

It is you who are making this mistake; I was explicitly pointing out that our existence is sufficient. That tells us that the rules governing the universe are sufficiently stable and consistent even though humans pretending to be philosophers are illogical and inconsistent in their thinking and knowledge. There is a huge difference between the two. So don’t attribute that mistake to me. Humans on psychedelic drugs who think they can fly when they jump off tall buildings will die when they hit the bottom. Physics rules, human logic doesn’t.

Then what does “consistent” even mean? With a multiverse there could be universes that conform to physical laws from most of the time to infrequently. Ours could be one that most often conforms, but not always.

You need to think about that more carefully. You apparently can say it but not understand what you are saying.

Do you think that even logic itself could vary within different universes? Does logic need to be stable throughout all the universes?

Look around you. There are illogical people everywhere; even in a self-consistent universe. That should tell you that that what it takes for a universe to exist and what transpires among humans are completely different subjects. Irrational and illogical humans are able to survive and exist in societies that are robust enough to absorb such nonsense.

Do you think we can’t “trust” logic we can only “recognize” it? If you think that x = x doesn’t have to always be true, I think you should suspect the truthfulness of your worldview.

This misconstrues the point and in think you know it.

What if our universe is the kind that mostly follows the physical laws (or even logical laws) but sometimes doesn’t. Or what if the universe is understandable most of the times but sometimes infrequently it is not. How can science which is based on these assumptions that universe is consistent and understandable deal with this?

What does this hypothetical have to do with reality? Where is you evidence that our universe behaves this way?

I may be mistaken, but it seems to me that you think even logic evolves. I think the deeper within the atheistic worldview we look the more profoundly illogical it becomes.

You would not be mistaken that I think logic is abused. What the “evolution of logic” has to do with it, I have no idea. If by “evolution of logic” you mean the development and honing of its use in humans, then it is a trivial statement about learning. I suspect this is another made-up hypothetical that has no meaning but to raise the appearance of “deep thinking”. What does it have to do with existence?

fnxtr · 24 July 2009

anair said: The original blog post suggests that "science is not necessarily incompatible with religion." Currently and historically there are many examples of "religious people" who are nothing like DS's caricature above. If people really act like that (which I doubt many do) just ignore them, and engage in discussion with the religious people who like science, are scientists, or lead in the sciences. Currently about a fourth of the "greater scientists" believe in God and immortality, and throughout history the majority of science was built on the work of religious people.

So we mostly agree, anair. I know some truly pious, generous, grounded, well-educated religious individuals. DS and many here have raw nerves because there are individuals of certain religious sects who are attempting, through political power and deliberately misleading mainstream propaganda, to insert their religion into public school science classes, and publicly-funded research. They want, in short, their particular God in charge of the government. I have met the kind of individual DS is talking about, not only do they not understand how things work, they don't want to understand it, nor do they want anyone else to understand it, or even try, because somehow that would take away the mystery. I have no truck with the supernatural (except in fiction), nevertheless sometimes I think "holy" is the only appropriate description of some things. Like the drive through Cathedral Grove. Or the fact that I got my first "happy father's day" phone call this year. Life can be astounding without resort to superstition.

Mike Elzinga · 24 July 2009

anair said:
But that’s not my problem: I would simply prefer they not mangle the science in attempting to convince me. I can check those things out; and it looks bad for them when they attempt to bluff.
You seem to be trying to use science to get at philosophy of science. It is great to be able to check out the scientific facts used in arguments, but the philosophical basis behind science is important too.

What I said stands. Don't attempt to misconstrue it.

DS · 24 July 2009

anair wrote:

"Currently and historically there are many examples of “religious people” who are nothing like DS’s caricature above."

Precisely. That is exactly why I never wrote "all religious people". Please try to criticize the things I actually write unstead of things you make up.

"If people really act like that (which I doubt many do) just ignore them, and engage in discussion with the religious people who like science, are scientists, or lead in the sciences."

I would love to ignore them. However, they have proven that they are out to destroy science in this country, so we do not have that luxury.

DS · 24 July 2009

anair wrote:

"Currently about a fourth of the “greater scientists” believe in God and immortality, and throughout history the majority of science was built on the work of religious people."

Correct. And most likely, the majority of them believe in miracles, virgin births, ressurection from the dead, angels and ghosts. See, no problem at all, they can still do good science. They just can't invoke any of those things as scientific explanations for any of the things they study. Presumably, they are just fine with the consistent laws of nature being violated by their favorite diety every now and then. However, since they never have any scientific proof of any of these things, they simply leave it out of their science and choose to believe it on faith, just like the Bible says. For them, no scientific proof of God is neccessary or desirable.

phantomreader42 · 24 July 2009

Mike Elzinga said:
anair said:
But that’s not my problem: I would simply prefer they not mangle the science in attempting to convince me. I can check those things out; and it looks bad for them when they attempt to bluff.
You seem to be trying to use science to get at philosophy of science. It is great to be able to check out the scientific facts used in arguments, but the philosophical basis behind science is important too.
What I said stands. Don't attempt to misconstrue it.

It's been clearly established that misconstruing things is all anair knows how to do.

Mike Elzinga · 24 July 2009

phantomreader42 said: It's been clearly established that misconstruing things is all anair knows how to do.

I could be wrong (although I doubt it), but this seems to be another example of what happens when someone “puts on the armor of God” and swaggers into the “enemy” camp and stomps on the toes of the “infidels”. I have no idea why these guys think they can “philosophize” on something about which they know absolutely nothing. It is probably an attempt to play to an audience or to practice a shtick they will take back with them to their churches. His distain for “atheists” is obviously a clue. But all he is producing, as near as I can tell, is a pseudo-philosophy of science; not even a philosophy of pseudo-science. There has been an up-tick of this kind of pseudo-philosophizing on the religion channels on TV.

DS · 24 July 2009

I agree. First. consistent laws are evidence of the existence of God. Then we don't know if the laws are consistent or not, but somehow it is still evidence of God. Then, if the laws are not consistent that is evidence of God. Heads I win, tails you lose and no matter what I get to keep the coin!

Man, if the speed of light is a constant, then God must exist. But if the speed of light has changed, then that proves the earth is 6000 years old and so God must exist. Now, if one thousand angels can dance on the head of a pin, will the laws of the universe be constant? If the pope is a scientist, is he still Catholic?

Henry J · 24 July 2009

Are Newton's laws consistent if Mercury doesn't fully obey them? ;)

Morgan-LynnGriggs Lamberth · 24 July 2009

DS, faith doth that to people! Teleology contradicts natural selection, and so is not compatible with it: science thus can lead to atheism as Dawkins and Victor Stenger would note. Stenger has a series of books presenting the case for naturalism against theism. Natural causes and explanation are not only efficient and necessary but also primary and sufficient: they are the sufficient reason,Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz notwithstanding.
Hi, phantom.
Firengi- the Carousel of nescience.

Mike Elzinga · 24 July 2009

Henry J said: Are Newton's laws consistent if Mercury doesn't fully obey them? ;)

Now that is the intelligent way to ask the question. It places the burden on human understanding of the way the universe works. We would say that Newton’s laws (note: the then-current human understanding of how nature works) are either incomplete, incorrect, or a limiting approximation of a more accurate understanding. The existence of the universe and our existence within it are not what are in question. The mere persistence of these indicates that whatever rules operate, whether or not some living creature understands the rules, these rules are “consistent”. I don’t think anyone would argue that because a baboon doesn’t understand them, they must be inconsistent. Why would one then extend such a criterion to require human understanding of the rules?

I agree. First. consistent laws are evidence of the existence of God. Then we don’t know if the laws are consistent or not, but somehow it is still evidence of God. Then, if the laws are not consistent that is evidence of God. Heads I win, tails you lose and no matter what I get to keep the coin!
— DS

:-) That sums it up pretty well from what I have seen of various ID/creationist arguments.

gregwrld · 27 July 2009

Matt Young said: I think anair and his critics may be at cross purposes. I do not think that anair is talking about science, but rather about philosophy of science or metaphysics - why empiricism (or induction) works. He seems to be saying that empiricism works because God created certain regularities, and atheists therefore cannot explain why empiricism works. The question, why empiricism works, is a fair question, but anair has adduced no evidence in favor of his hypothesis that God makes it work.

Thank you...meanwhile we await anair's evidence that some deity caused the "Big Bang".

Henry J · 27 July 2009

Thank you…meanwhile we await anair’s evidence that some deity caused the “Big Bang”.

But which one(s)? Odin? Zeus? YHWY? Allah? Osiris? Vishnu? FSM? Q? Organians? Time Lords from Gallifrey? Quetzalcoatl?

Mike Elzinga · 27 July 2009

gregwrld said: Thank you...meanwhile we await anair's evidence that some deity caused the "Big Bang".

I had been expecting he might come up with the old saw that life is “inconsistent” with the second law of thermodynamics. But then it’s possible that this is a newer version of a “philosophical” shtick that claims “inconsistency” (or its possibility) by being vaguer and allowing rubes to think, “Yeah, that’s deep; gotcha, evolutionist!”