In Defense of Philosophy of Science

If “God exists” is a religious claim (and it surely is), why then is “God does not exist” not a religious claim?

This may be a valuable question, but it has no relationship to any valid question in philosophy of science. Science does not make any claims about God.

(Creationists make the claim that certain things have to be scientifically true for God to exist – the earth must be about 6000 years old or their conception of God is false, for example. This is not the fault of science. Science can only test whether or not the earth is about 6000 years old. It cannot test whether that age of the earth is required for God, or whether God exists. The latter two are not scientific questions.)

It is unequivocally illegal for a US public school teacher to announce to a class that God does not exist, for exactly the same reason it is illegal for a public school teacher to announce that one or another god does exist.

I think these points are pretty obvious.

I don’t attack philosophy or philosophy of science in general, but I do condemn that misleading quote, which clearly and falsely implies that science involves direct statements about God. If it is not an attempt to pander to creationists, it is a very good imitation of such.

I have cross posted on Panda’s Thumb.

The first sentence above should have been blockquoted - they are Ruse's words (but also referenced by Wilkins).

However, somewhere about the middle of the 20th century, those studying philosophy began loosing touch with science and were beginning to make pronouncements that no scientist could recognize or identify with.

I found philosophy fascinating when I was in college, but now have issues with it (or what passes for it). Too often philosophy is simply a euphemism for ideology – a way to make rationalizing sound like reasoning. If philosophy isn't grounded in science, you may as well be arguing about how many angels dance on the head of a pin. How can you talk about morality, for example, if you don't discuss its evolutionary, psychological and neuroscientific determinants?

On a related topic, I just started reading "Einstein's God" and have been deeply disappointed with the many lame arguments and fuzzy thinking. When an interviewee makes a claim, half the time I want to ask them "how do you know that?" or tell them "are you aware that there exists a body of study on the topic you blithely tossed around as though it were purely a matter of opinion?"

I read Wilkins' posting. Many words obscured whatever point there was.

Perhaps Wilkins should post a YouTube video that would go viral along the lines of "Mikey bit my finger!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OBlgSz8sSM

Markey, not Mikey!

harold said: It is unequivocally illegal for a US public school teacher to announce to a class that ... one or another god does exist.

Doc Bill said: I read Wilkins' posting. Many words obscured whatever point there was.

While I agree that the statement, "God does not exist," is a religious assertion, and thus, not scientific, the statement "there is--to date--insufficient evidence to demonstrate that a god or gods exist," is not a religious statement.

However, depending on how the god in question is defined (i.e. what properties are attributed to said god), one may find internal inconsistencies and logical errors in the definition as well as incompatibilities with the observed world and dismiss such gods as have these problems out of hand.

--W. H. Heydt

Old Used Programmer

However, somewhere about the middle of the 20th century, those studying philosophy began loosing touch with science and were beginning to make pronouncements that no scientist could recognize or identify with.

Just a quick question though, for those who are claiming that philosophers in the latter half of the 20th century have abandoned science altogether, I'm curious as to which philosophers they are thinking of in particular. I mean as a graduate student working in philosophy of math, two philosophers of biology that I know have done graduate level studies in biology, and one teaches population genetics for undergrads at my university.

It strikes me as a hard line to take that recent philosophers in general have completely disregarded science in developing their views. What about Dennett, Pat Churchland and others?

However, somewhere about the middle of the 20th century, those studying philosophy began loosing touch with science and were beginning to make pronouncements that no scientist could recognize or identify with.

While I agree that the statement, “God does not exist,” is a religious assertion, and thus, not scientific, the statement “there is–to date–insufficient evidence to demonstrate that a god or gods exist,” is not a religious statement

I made a philosophical response to John on his website. Here I just want to point out that the usual attacks on philosophy in these parts are, from a structural point of view, rather similar to the thinking behind racism. The guys who flew the planes into the buildings on 9/11 were Muslims, ergo Muslims have a lot of nerve building a mosque in the neighborhood because they somehow share in the guilt = There are scientifically naive philosophers, therefore philosophy in general is hogwash, etc. Well, I've met some pretty absurd assistant profs in physics departments so I guess I'm entitled to reject the whole subject by the same logic.

Jim Harrison said: I made a philosophical response to John on his website. Here I just want to point out that the usual attacks on philosophy in these parts are, from a structural point of view, rather similar to the thinking behind racism. The guys who flew the planes into the buildings on 9/11 were Muslims, ergo Muslims have a lot of nerve building a mosque in the neighborhood because they somehow share in the guilt = There are scientifically naive philosophers, therefore philosophy in general is hogwash, etc. Well, I've met some pretty absurd assistant profs in physics departments so I guess I'm entitled to reject the whole subject by the same logic.

“there is–to date–insufficient evidence to demonstrate that a god or gods exist,” is not a religious statement

...not likely to be publishable as science either

Perakh:PT :: Egnor:ENV :: Skell:Forbes.com

John Kwok said:

Jim Harrison said: I made a philosophical response to John on his website. Here I just want to point out that the usual attacks on philosophy in these parts are, from a structural point of view, rather similar to the thinking behind racism. The guys who flew the planes into the buildings on 9/11 were Muslims, ergo Muslims have a lot of nerve building a mosque in the neighborhood because they somehow share in the guilt = There are scientifically naive philosophers, therefore philosophy in general is hogwash, etc. Well, I've met some pretty absurd assistant profs in physics departments so I guess I'm entitled to reject the whole subject by the same logic.

Sorry Jim, but your invocation of the Ground Zero Mosque controversy is not helpful here. Incidentally there are many Muslims and Muslim Americans who oppose its construction, simply because they recognize that building it near Ground Zero is needlessly offensive to the families of the victims and the survivors of the 9/11 attack. Some of the most prominent critics - who are Muslim Americans - include Wall Street businessman Mansoor Ijaz (who tried to assist the Clinton administration in extraditing Osama bin Laden from the Sudan) and former United States Navy officer Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser.

Malchus said:

John Kwok said:

Jim Harrison said: I made a philosophical response to John on his website. Here I just want to point out that the usual attacks on philosophy in these parts are, from a structural point of view, rather similar to the thinking behind racism. The guys who flew the planes into the buildings on 9/11 were Muslims, ergo Muslims have a lot of nerve building a mosque in the neighborhood because they somehow share in the guilt = There are scientifically naive philosophers, therefore philosophy in general is hogwash, etc. Well, I've met some pretty absurd assistant profs in physics departments so I guess I'm entitled to reject the whole subject by the same logic.

Sorry Jim, but your invocation of the Ground Zero Mosque controversy is not helpful here. Incidentally there are many Muslims and Muslim Americans who oppose its construction, simply because they recognize that building it near Ground Zero is needlessly offensive to the families of the victims and the survivors of the 9/11 attack. Some of the most prominent critics - who are Muslim Americans - include Wall Street businessman Mansoor Ijaz (who tried to assist the Clinton administration in extraditing Osama bin Laden from the Sudan) and former United States Navy officer Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser.

Freedom means that you have the right to be offended. Nor is it needlessly offended. Those who oppose the mosque are, in general, bigots.

Given the vitriolic opposition now to the proposal to build a Muslim community center two blocks from ground zero, one might say something else has been destroyed: the realization that Muslim people and the Muslim religion were part of the life of the World Trade Center. Opponents of the Park51 project say the presence of a Muslim center dishonors the victims of the Islamic extremists who flew two jets into the towers. Yet not only were Muslims peacefully worshiping in the twin towers long before the attacks, but even after the 1993 bombing of one tower by a Muslim radical, Ramzi Yousef, their religious observance generated no opposition.

Freedom means that you have the right to be offended. Nor is it needlessly offended. Those who oppose the mosque are, in general, bigots.

If there were Muslims working and even WORSHIPPING at the World Trade Center itself before it was destroyed, how can anyone be offended by the presence of an Islamic center two blocks from where it once stood???

Malchus said:

John Kwok said:

Jim Harrison said: I made a philosophical response to John on his website. Here I just want to point out that the usual attacks on philosophy in these parts are, from a structural point of view, rather similar to the thinking behind racism. The guys who flew the planes into the buildings on 9/11 were Muslims, ergo Muslims have a lot of nerve building a mosque in the neighborhood because they somehow share in the guilt = There are scientifically naive philosophers, therefore philosophy in general is hogwash, etc. Well, I've met some pretty absurd assistant profs in physics departments so I guess I'm entitled to reject the whole subject by the same logic.

Sorry Jim, but your invocation of the Ground Zero Mosque controversy is not helpful here. Incidentally there are many Muslims and Muslim Americans who oppose its construction, simply because they recognize that building it near Ground Zero is needlessly offensive to the families of the victims and the survivors of the 9/11 attack. Some of the most prominent critics - who are Muslim Americans - include Wall Street businessman Mansoor Ijaz (who tried to assist the Clinton administration in extraditing Osama bin Laden from the Sudan) and former United States Navy officer Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser.

Freedom means that you have the right to be offended. Nor is it needlessly offended. Those who oppose the mosque are, in general, bigots.

Many good points here (in the posts of John Lynch/John Wilkins, not in the Cordoba House sideshow which is way, way, off-topic -- although anyone who believes in religious tolerance ought to condemn the crazies who created opposition to Cordoba out of thin air for crass political gain in the election. My last comment. I won't take any action now but if the sideshow takes over the thread I will start moving comments to the Bathroom Wall).

Ahem. Like I was saying, many good points here.

However, Ruse could have avoided annoying someone like Perakh by making his point more clearly. Half of the critics of Ruse's post are saying (like Perakh, and Rosenhouse), "Duh, obviously science is constitutional, because atheism isn't a claim of science/evolution!" A careful, sympathetic reading of Ruse (and some vague recollection of his work over the years) would have told them that... this is exactly the point Ruse was making!

Ruse is criticizing the people, basically the more extreme wing of the New Atheists, who say that atheism *is* a claim of science/evolution. *If* one takes this position, says Ruse, *then* you've got a constitutional dilemma on your hands. Obviously, if you don't, you don't -- although Ruse uses this as an argument for a fairly strong version of science/religion independence which is more than he needs to argue for here, and which is part of what annoys pretty much all New Atheists, even the more moderate ones.

Wednesday, December 29, 2010 Answering Michael Ruse Michael Ruse asks a question, and John Wilkins at Evolving Thoughts thinks he has a point. I don't. Here is Ruse's question:

The first amendment of the U.S. Constitution separates science and religion. (Don’t get into arguments about wording. That is how it has been interpreted.) You cannot legally teach religion in state schools, at least not in biology and other science classes. That was the issue in Arkansas and Dover. (I am not talking about current affairs or like courses.) But now ask yourself. If “God exists” is a religious claim (and it surely is), why then is “God does not exist” not a religious claim? And if Creationism implies God exists and cannot therefore be taught, why then should science which implies God does not exist be taught?

Let me field that one, Michael. "God exists" is NOT a fundamentally religious claim. "God does not exist" is not a fundamentally scientific one. The specific reason WHY the claims are made is what separates religion from science. This question is a point of confusion only for those who argue that belief in God or the supernatural is BY DEFINITION, a non-scientific issue, something that I have argued in the past is bullshit. Science makes claims about things that are real vs. imaginary, not things that are "natural" vs. "supernatural", and the latter terms don't really mean anything anyway. If the REALITY of the "supernatural" (i.e. forces acting outside of the known laws of physics and chemistry) could be demonstrated by repeatable scientific testing, they would be scientific...but it can't, so it is unscientific, and also therefore probably imaginary (i.e. bullshit). Disbelief in God is not necessarily scientific; people can certainly reject God for irrational and emotional reasons (although this is not the case for most atheists I know), just as they can accept His existence for irrational and emotional reasons. However, atheism as I "practice" it is scientific. Rejecting claims for which there is no evidence is about as scientific as you can get. Ruse's confusion is yet another reason why I consider the NOMA approach to be not just misleading, but downright destructive of to our understanding of what it is that science actually does. If Michael Ruse, someone who has been writing on the Creationism-Evolution debate for some time, can actually be confused about why rejection of the supernatural is a scientific AND non-religious position, how can the general public be expected to understand what science is at all? LNJ Posted by Jeffrey W. Martz, PhD at 5:36 PM

Ruse wrote, “If “God exists” is a religious claim (and it surely is), why then is “God does not exist” not a religious claim? And if Creationism implies God exists and cannot therefore be taught, why then should science which implies God does not exist be taught?”

This is an asinine question. It can only be asked by nitwit creationists, or philosophers of science.

The creationist claim is that the action of the transcendent/divine is observable, and identifiable. The creationist cannot have any truth argument unless first they are correct in assuming a supernatural agent exists.

The materialist claim is that what is observable is the result of natural properties of matter. There isn’t a necessary assumption in the sciences that if no evidence for a supernatural agent can be found, that one cannot exist. The existence, or non-existence of a supernatural agent does not need to be determined for scientific work to proceed.

The scientific rejection of the creationist claim is that there is no supernatural agency manifested, things are explained by the properties of matter, NOT that there is no supernatural agent. The sciences do not need to say that there is no God. In fact, it is outside the competence of science to do so. The sciences can say, in the words of Laplace, "[Sire,] je n'ai pas eu besoin de cette hypothèse."

And this is why I think that the question was a good example of philosophical circle-jerk; Ruse has mixed definitions, and misrepresented arguments. He posed a question that should seen to have an obvious resolution, he echoes creationist bafflegab, and sits back a laughs. Very philosophical, unless you wonder what the point of philosophy or philosophers of science might be. At the very, very best they might be helpful as independent, external observers of those of us who do real science. Mark Perakh merely hoped for entertainment. Ruse has provided neither; not accurate observation, nor entertainment. He has, at most, fed a few more creationists with quote mines that they didn’t need.

Evangelical atheists, like Dawkins, Hitchens, Coyne, or Myers, make the identical mistake that the extremist creationsits like Ham, Sarfati, Wells, or Meyer have made. They all insist on the same "false duality" that was found against in Kitzmiller v Dover, "Dr. Miller testified that a false duality is produced: It “tells students . . . quite explicitly, choose God on the side of intelligent design or choose atheism on the side of science.” (2:54-55 (Miller))."

You want it both ways? You cannot have it both ways.

Gary, please reread Nick's 11:59 post, because you're doing just what he warned against. Ruse is arguing that IF you think science implies atheism, THEN you end up in the position you find asinine. He, like you, thinks that this is an absurd conclusion, so he concludes (like you) that science does NOT say anything about God's existence. Philosophers call this little move modus tollens, and it's a perfectly valid form of argument. You seem to be in agreement with this view, so where's the beef?

I offered a comment over at Jason Rosenhouse's orginal discussion, and think it might be relevant here: the issue that is being danced around is a variant on Gould's NOMA: there is a NOMA2 divide, but it is not between science and religion but between decidable versus undecidable propositions. Religions usually straddle the line because they have inherited loads of mythical baggage that makes claims about the decidable realm (where science is the analytical tool of choice).

But "scientism" comes in when folks try to apply the wrong tools to the undecidable realm (that of ethics, purpose, etc, where philosophy is the tool of necessity).

As a devout agnostic (and functional atheist) I don't feel I'm giving away any turf to note that science can say a lot about the decidable issues of life but very little about the undecidable. A seasonal fictional illustration:

When Jack Skellington tries to figure out what Christmas "means" in The Nightmare Before Christmas he slides down the logical positivist rabbit hole by examining cranberries under a microscope and performing thermal tests on Christmas balls. He gets nowhere, and rightly so.

Once you get a grip on the decidable/undecidable dichotomy all sides can avoid making category mistakes, as though "science" can ever rule on the claimed reality of Buddha's enlightment or Jesus' resurrection in the way it decidedly can squash the ripping people's hearts out Quetzalcoatl/sun rising theory or that there was a global flood per YEC mythology.

Ruse arguing that a scientific proposition is unconstitutional is a political argument, not a philosophical one. If the claim that science shows no evidence of god is religious, and to teach it violates the US first amendment, that doesn't make the science wrong.

And furthermore is any philosopher of science going to argue that Darwin didn't address Natural Theology by arguing against Paley in the Origin? Does that mean that the Origin is a religious work and not science?

Nick (Matzke) said: However, Ruse could have avoided annoying someone like Perakh by making his point more clearly. Half of the critics of Ruse's post are saying (like Perakh, and Rosenhouse), "Duh, obviously science is constitutional, because atheism isn't a claim of science/evolution!" A careful, sympathetic reading of Ruse (and some vague recollection of his work over the years) would have told them that... this is exactly the point Ruse was making! Ruse is criticizing the people, basically the more extreme wing of the New Atheists, who say that atheism *is* a claim of science/evolution. *If* one takes this position, says Ruse, *then* you've got a constitutional dilemma on your hands. Obviously, if you don't, you don't -- although Ruse uses this as an argument for a fairly strong version of science/religion independence which is more than he needs to argue for here, and which is part of what annoys pretty much all New Atheists, even the more moderate ones.

The first problem with Ruse's argument is the word “implies.” So far as I know, nobody is claiming that evolution implies that Christianity is false, if we are using that word in the way it is used in logic. Certainly Barash made no such claim in his post. What many of us do claim is that it is very difficult to reconcile evolution and Christianity, to the point where a reasonable person should not accept both. But that, you see, is a matter of opinion.

Jason Rosenhouse said: Victor Stenger comes closest to making that claim, given the subtitle of his book, but if you read past the cover it becomes clear that he is not suggesting that science logically implies that God does not exists, which is what Ruse needs for his analogy to work.

I will note that there is now very little discussion on Wilkins essay, and one of its central points, namely the general hostility of scientists in general to philosophy of science. I just wish he had wrote this 6 months ago than I could have cited him in my thesis. The lack of attention paid to philosophy of science and some of the more useful things it has to offer practicing scientists is not good, and even damaging to the actual training and education of the next generation of scientists. Every scientist should be familiar with Kuhn, Popper, and Lakatos. Just because they weren't successful in the conventional sense of finding a definite resolution doesn't mean that they don't provide a great way to have young scientists think a bit more thoroughly about there work. To say nothing of the particularly valuable reading of Mayr and Sober for any biologist.

As long as God is such a diffuse term - it can mean just about anything, statements about God are about as meaning -full or -less as statements about the FSM.

I have an understanding of god - or God if you want, and it quite far from the more common ideas about God that we find among worshipers of what they perceive as the God of the Bible, the Koran or Mohammad, and so on.

Rolf Aalberg said: As long as God is such a diffuse term - it can mean just about anything, statements about God are about as meaning -full or -less as statements about the FSM.

JGB said: I will note that there is now very little discussion on Wilkins essay, and one of its central points, namely the general hostility of scientists in general to philosophy of science. I just wish he had wrote this 6 months ago than I could have cited him in my thesis. The lack of attention paid to philosophy of science and some of the more useful things it has to offer practicing scientists is not good, and even damaging to the actual training and education of the next generation of scientists. Every scientist should be familiar with Kuhn, Popper, and Lakatos. Just because they weren't successful in the conventional sense of finding a definite resolution doesn't mean that they don't provide a great way to have young scientists think a bit more thoroughly about there work. To say nothing of the particularly valuable reading of Mayr and Sober for any biologist.

Nick (Matzke) said: However, Ruse could have avoided annoying someone like Perakh by making his point more clearly. Half of the critics of Ruse's post are saying (like Perakh, and Rosenhouse), "Duh, obviously science is constitutional, because atheism isn't a claim of science/evolution!" A careful, sympathetic reading of Ruse (and some vague recollection of his work over the years) would have told them that... this is exactly the point Ruse was making! Ruse is criticizing the people, basically the more extreme wing of the New Atheists, who say that atheism *is* a claim of science/evolution. *If* one takes this position, says Ruse, *then* you've got a constitutional dilemma on your hands. Obviously, if you don't, you don't -- although Ruse uses this as an argument for a fairly strong version of science/religion independence which is more than he needs to argue for here, and which is part of what annoys pretty much all New Atheists, even the more moderate ones.

The debate over whether either "God exists" or "God does not exist" are scientific statements merely indicate that those doing the arguing don't completely understand science. Both statements are clearly religious, as the very word "religion" in all of its forms deals with our relations with belief or lack of belief in God or gods. "I am a Christian", "I am a Bhuddist", "I am a deist" and "I am an atheist" are all statements about the nature of our relationship to a real or imagined God or gods. The language of religion, and of atheism is filled with references to belief, faith and doubt.

Science on the other hand, eschews statements of belief, faith and doubt in favor of logic, evidence, proof and statistical certainty. As such, the existence or lack of existence of a God or gods is outside of the realm of science.

All scientists are atheists, in one form or another. At a minimum, we are methodological atheists, in that we do not invoke God or gods when doing science. As a glacial geologist, I can't answer why ice ages start by invoking God's actions. I need to invoke Milankovich cycles to explain the timing of glacial advances and retreats, and of changes in ocean circulation to explain the onset of the Pleistocene glacial cycles. That presupposes that sediment dting techniques are valid, that orbital mechanics of the Sun, Moon, Earth and Jupiter are correct, and that a host of other scientific concepts are true.

Some scientists go further and state that they are true atheists, that no God exists. Others do not. In my non-scientific life, I am a liberal, Evangelical Christian, worshiping at an Episcopal Church. My pastor has signed Michael Zimmerman's "Clergy Letter Project", but we have never participated in "Evolution Sunday" because creationism is not an issue in my parish. Both of these responses to religion go beyond the bounds of science, and are fundamentally (excuse the wording) religious in nature.

Where science and religion DO interface is that as a scientist, there are certain forms of religion which are so incompatible with science that no serious scientist could believe in them. That would include any form of fundamentalist Christianity, or fundamentalism of any other faith tradition. Therefore, I can be an Anglican, but can't be a Bible-thumping Baptist.

Mike Clinch said: The debate over whether either "God exists" or "God does not exist" are scientific statements merely indicate that those doing the arguing don't completely understand science. Both statements are clearly religious, as the very word "religion" in all of its forms deals with our relations with belief or lack of belief in God or gods. "I am a Christian", "I am a Bhuddist", "I am a deist" and "I am an atheist" are all statements about the nature of our relationship to a real or imagined God or gods. The language of religion, and of atheism is filled with references to belief, faith and doubt. Science on the other hand, eschews statements of belief, faith and doubt in favor of logic, evidence, proof and statistical certainty. As such, the existence or lack of existence of a God or gods is outside of the realm of science. All scientists are atheists, in one form or another. At a minimum, we are methodological atheists, in that we do not invoke God or gods when doing science. As a glacial geologist, I can't answer why ice ages start by invoking God's actions. I need to invoke Milankovich cycles to explain the timing of glacial advances and retreats, and of changes in ocean circulation to explain the onset of the Pleistocene glacial cycles. That presupposes that sediment dting techniques are valid, that orbital mechanics of the Sun, Moon, Earth and Jupiter are correct, and that a host of other scientific concepts are true. Some scientists go further and state that they are true atheists, that no God exists. Others do not. In my non-scientific life, I am a liberal, Evangelical Christian, worshiping at an Episcopal Church. My pastor has signed Michael Zimmerman's "Clergy Letter Project", but we have never participated in "Evolution Sunday" because creationism is not an issue in my parish. Both of these responses to religion go beyond the bounds of science, and are fundamentally (excuse the wording) religious in nature. Where science and religion DO interface is that as a scientist, there are certain forms of religion which are so incompatible with science that no serious scientist could believe in them. That would include any form of fundamentalist Christianity, or fundamentalism of any other faith tradition. Therefore, I can be an Anglican, but can't be a Bible-thumping Baptist.

Mike Clinch -

I agree with every word you wrote, except for the part about Baptists.

I was raised as a nominal Baptist. Some people I greatly admire have been or are religious Baptists, without being creationists, most notably Martin Luther King Jr and former president James Carter.

I was raised at a time when to be a Baptist meant to lead a pretty disciplined life, but I was vaguely aware of personal creationism only as something that some even more disadvantaged people in other denominations believed (Pentecostals, Jehovah's Witnesses, and so on). I only became fully aware of political creationism in 1999. The rather Spartan old rural Baptist church I was taken to as a child was New Testament oriented. Creationism just didn't come up. Whether those Baptists were "Bible thumping" is hard to say.

I don't practice religion now, but I was neither traumatized, fed hate or intolerance, nor misled about science by the church I was raised in.

I am a Christian. When I do science, I am not operating as a "methodological atheist," I am operating as a "methodological naturalist." Other than this point, I am in substantial agreement with Mike Clinch's post.

What's surprising about the science-versus-religion discussions here on PT recently is that, not so long ago, any expression of anything less than total war on religion would lead to angry denunciations by the "religion has got to get it every time" crowd.

Are we seeing a shift away from the "total war" position? Can we expect, hopefully, to stop hearing sneers about "accommodationism"? Or maybe the "total war" crowd is just on winter vacation?

And again, this is drifting off the topic of the thread.

Wow. This argument has gotten very, very confused.

Do quarks exist? Does the luminiferous aether exist? Both scientific questions. Does X exist is a scientific question. Does god exist is a scientific question.

Does logic and common sense rule out god? Certainly not. Logic and common sense do not rule out the luminiferous aether either, the MM experiment did that.

People make funny conclusions because they interpret statements with the word "god" in them differently than the same statement about anything else. Just shows how much this is an emotional issue. Nobody is discussing FACTS.

Renee Marie Jones said: Does logic and common sense rule out god? Certainly not.

I should have added that I do not make such a case. But I know people who do.

Renee Marie Jones said: Does X exist is a scientific question.

Mike Clinch said: All scientists are atheists, in one form or another. At a minimum, we are methodological atheists, in that we do not invoke God or gods when doing science. As a glacial geologist, I can't answer why ice ages start by invoking God's actions. I need to invoke Milankovich cycles to explain the timing of glacial advances and retreats, and of changes in ocean circulation to explain the onset of the Pleistocene glacial cycles. That presupposes that sediment dating techniques are valid, that orbital mechanics of the Sun, Moon, Earth and Jupiter are correct, and that a host of other scientific concepts are true.

John Kwok said: I am a Deist, but when I deal with scientific issues, then I operate as an Atheist. Even a devout Christian like Ken Miller has observed that those who embrace faiths hostile to science should reject them. Am sure he would endorse your comments, especially your final paragraph.

SWT said: I am a Christian. When I do science, I am not operating as a "methodological atheist," I am operating as a "methodological naturalist." Other than this point, I am in substantial agreement with Mike Clinch's post.

I still think "Does X exist?" is a scientific question. I did not mean to imply that the answer must always be "yes" or "no." We have learned over the last century and a half that even the most simple seeming questions can have more complicated answers than that.

Sometimes the answer is: "that question does not make sense" or "that cannot be determined even in principle" or "we do not know."

It's still scientific.

Renee Marie Jones said: Does god exist is a scientific question. Does logic and common sense rule out god? Certainly not. Logic and common sense do not rule out the luminiferous aether either, the MM experiment did that.

Renee Marie Jones said: I still think "Does X exist?" is a scientific question.

One normally thinks of "scientific questions" as "questions that can be reasonably addressed using science." At least, I do. Science, as practiced in the 21st century to date, seeks to verify observations and to explain verified observations in terms of natural phenomena. Since deities are pretty much by definition supernatural, they are outside the scope of scientific endeavor.

"Does God exist?" is as much a scientific question as "Does Gouda resolve to the tonic?" is a music theory question. In each case, the object of the question is outside the domain of the discipline invoked.

SWT said: Since deities are pretty much by definition supernatural, they are outside the scope of scientific endeavor.

Urk -- little double-negative there, my bad. But I think the idea is clear.

Jason Rosenhouse said:

Nick (Matzke) said: However, Ruse could have avoided annoying someone like Perakh by making his point more clearly. Half of the critics of Ruse's post are saying (like Perakh, and Rosenhouse), "Duh, obviously science is constitutional, because atheism isn't a claim of science/evolution!" A careful, sympathetic reading of Ruse (and some vague recollection of his work over the years) would have told them that... this is exactly the point Ruse was making! Ruse is criticizing the people, basically the more extreme wing of the New Atheists, who say that atheism *is* a claim of science/evolution. *If* one takes this position, says Ruse, *then* you've got a constitutional dilemma on your hands. Obviously, if you don't, you don't -- although Ruse uses this as an argument for a fairly strong version of science/religion independence which is more than he needs to argue for here, and which is part of what annoys pretty much all New Atheists, even the more moderate ones.

Ruse's point was perfectly clear, thank you, and I addressed it appropriately. I pointed out that he is simply caricaturing the views of those with whom he disagrees. I wrote:

The first problem with Ruse's argument is the word “implies.” So far as I know, nobody is claiming that evolution implies that Christianity is false, if we are using that word in the way it is used in logic. Certainly Barash made no such claim in his post. What many of us do claim is that it is very difficult to reconcile evolution and Christianity, to the point where a reasonable person should not accept both. But that, you see, is a matter of opinion.

Who, exactly, believes that God's nonexistence is an implication of evolution? David Barash certainly said no such thing in the post that triggered Ruse's reply. Richard Dawkins certainly doesn't say that, he expresses his argument in terms of probabilities. Jerry Coyne made the same point I did in his own reply to Ruse. Victor Stenger comes closest to making that claim, given the subtitle of his book, but if you read past the cover it becomes clear that he is not suggesting that science logically implies that God does not exists, which is what Ruse needs for his analogy to work. Ruse has simply created a strawman, as have you.

Nature 454, 1049 (28 August 2008) | doi:10.1038/4541049d; Published online 27 August 2008 Atheism could be science's contribution to religion Matthew Cobb1 & Jerry Coyne2 1. Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK Email: cobb@manchester.ac.uk 2. Department of Ecology and Evolution, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637, USA Sir We were perplexed by your Editorial on the work of the Templeton Foundation ('Templeton's legacy' Nature 454, 253–254; 2008). Surely science is about finding material explanations of the world — explanations that can inspire those spooky feelings of awe, wonder and reverence in the hyper-evolved human brain. Religion, on the other hand, is about humans thinking that awe, wonder and reverence are the clue to understanding a God-built Universe. (The same is true of religion's poor cousin, 'spirituality', which you slip into your Editorial rather as a creationist uses 'intelligent design'.) There is a fundamental conflict here, one that can never be reconciled until all religions cease making claims about the nature of reality. The scientific study of religion is indeed full of big questions that need to be addressed, such as why belief in religion is negatively correlated with an acceptance of evolution. One could consider psychological studies of why humans are superstitious and believe impossible things, and comparative sociological studies of religion using materialist explanations of the rise and fall of the world's belief systems. Perhaps the Templeton Foundation is thinking of funding such research. The outcome of such work, we predict, will not bring science and religion (or 'spirituality') any closer to one another. You suggest that science may bring about "advances in theological thinking". In reality, the only contribution that science can make to the ideas of religion is atheism.

JGB said: The lack of attention paid to philosophy of science and some of the more useful things it has to offer practicing scientists is not good, and even damaging to the actual training and education of the next generation of scientists. Every scientist should be familiar with Kuhn, Popper, and Lakatos.

And then there's PaleoErrata, who I quoted on page 1 of this thread.

Who, exactly, believes that God’s nonexistence is an implication of evolution? David Barash certainly said no such thing in the post that triggered Ruse’s reply. Richard Dawkins certainly doesn’t say that, he expresses his argument in terms of probabilities. Jerry Coyne made the same point I did in his own reply to Ruse. Victor Stenger comes closest to making that claim, given the subtitle of his book, but if you read past the cover it becomes clear that he is not suggesting that science logically implies that God does not exists, which is what Ruse needs for his analogy to work. Ruse has simply created a strawman, as have you.

Nick --

So your argument seems to be that since Coyne and Cobb did not preface their letter to the editor by saying, “What follows is our opinion about the relationship between science and religion, and not a logical deduction about the way things have to be,” they are placing the teaching of science in constitutional jeopardy. They probably considered it so obvious they were stating an opinion and not a fact that they did not need to call attention to it. You spoke earlier of sympathetic readings, but that is a courtesy you seem unwilling to extend to the NA's.

Renee Marie Jones said: I still think "Does X exist?" is a scientific question. I did not mean to imply that the answer must always be "yes" or "no." We have learned over the last century and a half that even the most simple seeming questions can have more complicated answers than that. Sometimes the answer is: "that question does not make sense" or "that cannot be determined even in principle" or "we do not know." It's still scientific.

Nick (Matzke) said: There is no reason the Supreme Court would find any of that sort of discussion to be appropriately called "scientific" -- instead, they would say it is philosophy, theology, speculation, dealing with imponderable matters, far removed from empirically testable claims, etc. Thus evolution and science would have no Constitutional problems. But note that if you accept this, you've ditched most of the “conflict” rhetoric of the Gnus! Which was precisely Ruse's point.

Robin said: Take black holes, microwave background radiation, and Dark Energy. These items were posited and/or predicted as 'things that must exist' because hypotheses require them.

eric said:

Robin said: Take black holes, microwave background radiation, and Dark Energy. These items were posited and/or predicted as 'things that must exist' because hypotheses require them.

Hold on there. You're giving examples of things posited based on theoretical requirements and you don't mention the neutrino??? That's scientific blasphemy!!

:)

Okay, just thought I'd inject a little levity. You may now return to your regular 'is philosophy useful' discussion and whether 'does X exist' is a science question. My own take on that last bit is that existence is not really as important to science as relevance. When I write an equation such as PV=nRT, I am trying to describe the factors relevant to a phenomenon. Not everything that exists. Sure, I could add a +k(God's action) to the right hand side if I really want to. I could also add +k(gravitational force at surface of earth) or +k(phase of moon), but as long as those k's = 0, those factors are irrelevant.

I will note that there is now very little discussion on Wilkins essay, and one of its central points, namely the general hostility of scientists in general to philosophy of science.

Philosphy itself has/is undergoing a sort of crisis. The so called big questions of free will, consciousness, causation, time, the nature of reality, ethics are being looked at in new and (to my mind) far more scientific ways. A number of those questions are addressed, but only in part, by physics. A more important issue is just how does a human (the mind, whatever that is) comprehend these things. And as always "is versus ought" remains.

Res our understanding of physics-mathematical statements as metaphor. I don't see how one can escape concurring. The metaphors are very good, correspond to phenomena to a very high degree. But as an example, lots of discussion on galaxy rotation that either (more probable) dark matter invovled or gravity has to be changed. Or even more probable current understandings do not entirely reflect reality/phenomena.

Inescapably our understanding of 'our' universe is metaphorical - what else could it be given the nature of the human mind?

raven said: IMO, Philosophy of Science is running into Sturgeon's Law. 90% of everything is garbage.

RobLL said: Inescapably our understanding of 'our' universe is metaphorical - what else could it be given the nature of the human mind?

eric said: If all our understanding is metaphorical, what is the thing PV=nRT is a metaphor for?

Who, exactly, believes that God’s nonexistence is an implication of evolution?

THANK YOU.

seriously, am SO FUCKING TIRED of that strawman being trotted out by accomodationists.

sorry Nick, but Ruse must be inventing the people who say science=atheism, just like you and Mooney do.

again, having read through your responses to Nick, it's readily apparent you entirely evaded a simple answer to his question I quoted above. What you quoted from Coyne does not bear on his question to you at all. It does NOT support your statement, or Ruse's, for that matter.

Jason hit it right on the head. Not for the first time, btw, but likely the 100th.

When someone who is intelligent enough to have been accepted into a science PhD program, can CONTINUALLY repeat the same refuted strawman, over and over again, shouldn't you be concerned that there might be something broken in your thinking on that issue?

seriously Nick, if it isn't a deliberate attempt at intellectual dishonesty on your part (which I believe it IS with Ruse), then you really need to take a time out and consider WHY you keep saying this shit, cause it certainly implies some kind of mental block on your part.

God, as defined by the prime source for it, the bible, can be shown not to exist easily enough by science. A god, that is vaguely defined, of course can't be. The problem is that we need to define what we mean by "God". Is it only the J/C/I version or something that can always retreat into the shadows as soon as science gets near it? That's why I find any religion or philosophy to be simply pointless navel gazing. Religion and philosophy always retreat in front of science to be left on the dunghill of history. Wilkins does nothing more than try to claim who the "real" philosophers are and just more "non-overlapping magisteria" attempts to say "you can't look at my god/philosophy with science because everything tells you they don't exist and that's not "fair".

and to address the claim that saying "God doesn't exist" being religous, I don't see where it is, other than by the sole fact that it talks about God. It is a declaration that there is no evidence for a being called God and thus little reason to claim there is one. Is there any? No. This seems to be the usual old saw that theists use when trying to claim atheism is a "religion". Would anyone claim that saying that "Darth Vader doesn't exist as a being." as religious? I rather doubt it.

again, having read through your responses to Nick Jason

fixed.

I will note that there is now very little discussion on Wilkins essay, and one of its central points, namely the general hostility of scientists in general to philosophy of science.