Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
When I was in San Francisco last weekend, I was accompanied by my MCFS colleague Rob Pennock. While I flew home on Sunday, Rob was flying instead to San Diego where he was to give an address to all of the incoming freshmen at UCSD. His address was part of what the university calls their Convocation Series, where each quarter a different prominent scholar is invited to speak. The speech is free, but all incoming freshmen from that quarter are required to attend the address in order to introduce them to a variety of scholarly viewpoints.
The ID folks have made a big deal out of Rob's speech. Sal Cordova has declared it to be "Darwinian indoctrination" and he portrays it as a panicky and "drastic" reaction to a now nearly 3 year old survey that found that 40% of incoming freshmen at UCSD do not believe in evolution (without any evidence of a connection, of course, or even any acknowledgement of the fact that Rob's speech is one of 4 speeches by different scholars in different fields every year).
Cordova also makes a profoundly silly argument about church/state separation:
If this is a one-sided lecture, this has constitutional issues. If, as Judge Jones ruled, ID is a religion, a University Provost has no business funding a lecture that denigrates someone's religious beliefs, and professors have no business requiring the freshman class to have it shoved down their throats. If on the other hand, ID is science, then the Provost and professors have no business attacking it in this manner either....
What a neat little force field Sal attempts to build around ID. Apparently, no one at any public university can ever criticize ID - or any other idea that any religious person holds - without violating the constitution. If his legal theory were true - and frankly, it's so silly that it hardly warrants debunking - then we would have to close down all the medical schools because, after all, there are religious groups that reject the germ theory of disease and therefore any advocacy of that theory "denigrate's someone's religious beliefs."
This is quite absurd, of course. Public universities pay professors for their scholarly work. Some of those professors may well take positions that "denigrate someone's religious beliefs", while others may well take positions that support someone's religious beliefs. In neither case is this a church/state problem at all, as the views expressed represent the view of the scholar, not the government. Again, if Sal's legal theory had any validity, public universities could teach virtually nothing because almost every position on any subject is going to be critical of, or supportive of, someone's religious belief.
But far more disturbing than the unjustified reactions of my opponents are the unjustified and dangerous reaction of at least one of my colleagues. Larry Moran is a biochemist and a long time TalkOrigins regular. He's been firmly on the right side of the evolution/creationism debates for a long time. He's a brilliant guy and a serious scholar in his field. Unfortunately, his reaction to this situation is profoundly disturbing and dangerous. He writes:
I agree with the Dembski sycophants that UCSD should not have required their uneducated students to attend remedial classes. Instead, they should never have admitted them in the first place. Having made that mistake, it's hopeless to expect that a single lecture--even one by a distinguished scholar like Robert Pennock--will have any effect. The University should just flunk the lot of them and make room for smart students who have a chance of benefiting from a high quality education.
I can't tell you how unsettling and disturbing I find this to be. It annoys me to no end when ID advocates portray us pro-science types as enforcers of a "Darwinian orthodoxy" with a zeal to purge all dissent from the ideas we advocate from academia; it is far more disturbing when a few folks on our side of this debate go out of their way to actually match that crude caricature being foisted on us. Nothing good can possibly come from this.
My high school French teacher, a very important influence on my life and my thinking, told me when I graduated that education is the process of disillusionment. When I entered college at 18, I believed all sorts of things that I can now recognize at patently absurd. Did that make me an idiot at 18? Of course not. Yet Moran is here suggesting that universities expel every 18 year old who holds a single position that he considers stupid. I dare say that if Moran himself were judged by those standards at 18 years old, he would never have gone to college at all.
To be honest, I'm rapidly becoming convinced that there are two very different groups involved in fighting against the ID public relations campaign to distort science education. The distinction between the two groups is that one is fighting to prevent ID creationism from weakening science education while the other is fighting, at least in their minds, to eliminate all religious belief of any kind, even those perspectives that have no quarrel with evolution specifically or science in general, from society.
I am firmly a member of the first group, as are the vast majority of those I work with on this issue. Genie Scott, Rob Pennock, Wes Elsberry, Nick Matzke, Jack Krebs and nearly everyone I consider colleagues in this regard recognize that the dispute is over evolution and creationism, not over theism and atheism. But some, like Larry Moran, PZ Myers, Richard Dawkins, Gary Hurd and others, are involved in an entirely different battle. For them, it's not enough to protect science education from the attacks of some religious people; religion itself, in any form, is to be attacked and destroyed by any means necessary.
How else to explain Moran's earlier comments here that bluntly accuse Ken Miller, the single most effective and tireless advocate of evolution and critic of ID creationism in the nation, of being anti-science merely by virtue of the fact that he attempts to reconcile science with his religious faith? In the battle Moran is fighting, theistic evolutionists are the enemy despite their advocacy of evolution, because his battle is not for evolution or against ID creationism, it is against theism, hence theists, in any form.
A few months ago, I was accused by some members of this second group of being a traitor because my political views are not in complete agreement with theirs. To them, I am the enemy, but only because they are defining their enemies and allies in terms of their anti-theist agenda; they are simply fighting a different battle than I am. If their goal is to destroy theism, then I am indeed not on their team. Not only is that goal not mine, it is clear to me that trying to achieve it makes the battle I'm fighting, for good science education free from the influence of creationists, less achievable.
Declaring that anyone who does not accept evolution at 18 years old should be expelled from school so that "smart" people can take their place is precisely the kind of ego-driven, arrogant nonsense that feeds their caricatures of us. It does nothing but provide support for their claims of persecution, which are otherwise almost always false and exaggerated. It is the biggest favor one can do for ID advocates. It provides them with evidence for a set of claims that, in the real world, really aren't true.
It's simply the last thing we need, and I refuse to be associated with such authoritarian dogmatism. The fact that both groups reject ID does not mean that we are fighting the same battle. So let me go on the record right now that I find this sort of thing not only wrong, but appalling and vile. I will fight against such attempts to damage and punish those who disagree with us just as strongly as I will fight against the attempts of ID advocates to impose their views on public school science classrooms. They do not speak for me, or for the vast majority of advocates against ID creationism.
Email this entry to a friend
View the Technorati Link Cosmos for this entry
Comments
Not to justify his statements, but just to say:
When I am calm and relaxed I agree with you entirely, Ed, and I cannot say that evolutionary theory disproves god - all it does is disprove idiotic literal interpretations of biblical creation myths. Getting non-scientific teaching out of science class is a very specific goal, which often leads to a very general argument.
However, I don't have to listen to too many religious arguments (well, usually deranged polemics rather than arguments) before my blood starts to boil and I get very close to the 'well if you really believe that evolution is wrong then you clearly have no ability to process information properly and are hence an idiot' kind of statement.
Not to justify his comments, which are daft, but I don't have to listen to too much 'rise of the immoral godless baby-raping atheists' bollocks to get very close to it myself at times.
Posted by: Matthew Young | November 20, 2006 10:20 AM
Today on PZs' blog, he launches a jeremiad against Eugenie Scott for not being sufficiently antagonistic against religion. It is unfortunate that PZ and his syncopants fail to realize that generals who fight a two front war usually lose.
Posted by: SLC | November 20, 2006 10:21 AM
Yay, lets attack PZ Meyers, that cretin!
Posted by: Will | November 20, 2006 10:36 AM
"But some, like Larry Moran, PZ Myers, Richard Dawkins, Gary Hurd and others, are involved in an entirely different battle. For them, it's not enough to protect science education from the attacks of some religious people; religion itself, in any form, is to be attacked and destroyed by any means necessary."
This is over the top. Dawkins, et al. think that evolution is only a skirmish in a larger war and that religion itself is the problem--or specifically the idea of accepting anything at all on faith without any evidence. Yes, they all attack religion. Why not? But "destroyed by any means necessary" is perfectly silly. I'm not familiar with Moran's writing, but it flatly contradicts what Dawkins and Myers actually say.
Posted by: Susan Brassfield Cogan | November 20, 2006 10:51 AM
I thought about this all weekend, and I think your best bet on this whole "re-framing the debate" quest is to reply to the "It's science vs. religon!" with "No, it's science vs. BAD religion -- and ID creationism, like geocentrism or a flat earth, is bad religion, not to mention bad science."
This accomplishes two goals. First, it's setting up a clear delineation between the listener's particular religion and the bad religion espoused by the ID crew. It implies that "science" is fine with most religion -- the two are not antithetical. Second, it conflates the arguments being made by the opposing side with familiar, classical examples of religion being flat-out wrong.
I'd also recommend that we stop call it just "ID" and start calling it "ID Creationism". Labels matter, and the more we can hammer home in the public consciousness that ID is just a different flavor of creationism, the better.
Regarding the "different wars" meme, if the US and the USSR could ally to defeat the Axis powers, even while they were at philosophical war, I am pretty sure your camp and PZ's can manage to get along well enough to defend science standards, even if their larger war is not one you care to be involved with. Fight that battle when it comes, we've got plenty of incoming artillery to dodge without having to worry about friendly fire.
Posted by: Jeff Hebert | November 20, 2006 11:01 AM
The line "classical examples of religion being flat-out wrong" in my post above should read "classical examples of religion being flat-out wrong about scientific issues" to avoid the implication that science is just wrong, period. I certainly didn't want to make that argument, as I think it's silly.
Posted by: Jeff Hebert | November 20, 2006 11:09 AM
Susan said:
Why? Why must religion be attacked? Christian beliefs (as well as most other religious beliefs) in today's world are, for the most part, harmless until they are combined with political agendas, or are part of an extremist sect of the religion. Just because someone believes in god, they should be ridiculed, attacked, insulted? That's ridiculous. Belief in a higher power does not indicate stupidity or maliciousness. Attacking religion out of spite for religion does exactly what Ed says: enlarges the specter of the evil atheist out to destroy god. And that just makes the political right fight all that much harder to destroy science standards and try and teach religion in public schools.
Posted by: Jason I. | November 20, 2006 11:17 AM
SLC: "syncopants?" funny.
Posted by: Bob Carroll | November 20, 2006 11:30 AM
CITOKATE: criticism is the only known antidote to error.
Forgive me if I am incapable of seeing this quarrel over attitudes and tactics as a "front" in a "two-front war", something comparable to invading Russia in wintertime while simultaneously driving tanks into France. Perhaps one is right to indulge the puerile fantasies of the reptile brain by applying the congratulatory word warfare to the quest for good science education; maybe this is the moral equivalent of war we need to tell ourselves we're fighting until our civilization needs war no longer.
But this schism — to use a theological turn of phrase — between Dawkinsites and Millerians — let's make it sound really like dogmatism! — is not a war. It's keeping each other honest. We are in the business of being our brothers' keepers.
When anybody claims that the existence of morality in humans, say, is evidence for Almighty Jove, PZ Myers is there to call them out. If Myers or Dawkins ever sounds callous or forgetful of the human frailties which lead our fellow humans to seek solace in belief, well, Brayton will lead a host of bloggers to point out the sin and let it stand in the historical record.
"If men were angels," said James Madison, "no government would be necessary." We have learned at some cost that no single human should be trusted to rule (an Enlightenment discovery summarized perfectly by Douglas Adams, bless his memory). Instead of asking "Who should rule the state?", as they did in the ages of kings, we ask what combination of agencies can minimize the evil of those seeking power — what groupings of individuals can allow for reasonably efficient action while still preventing the rise of factions? Democratic government is an exercise in emergent properties: we seek to create a corpus more honest than its component cells can be.
The same holds true for science. Frauds, hoaxes and ordinary human sloppiness are weeded out through perpetual cross-criticism. Drives of ego and vanity — "What will you do to win the Nobel Prize?", asks the admissions interviewer — are harnessed to benefit the scientific community and the species at large. The body has more wisdom and integrity than its component cells can display.
If science behaves in this way, it would be disingenuous to pretend otherwise about science education. Don't tell me that this is a war. It's error correction. We are witnessing the price of vitality. These are not battles among men; they are the growing pains of a community. Think about it: if we scientists and humanists and skeptics were in truly dire straits, if the creationist cannons were outside our walls and all were almost lost, could we even take the time to argue? Nobel laureates who might quarrel volubly at scientific conferences formed a legion of Roman solidarity when Edwards v. Aguillard reached the Supreme Court.
Skepticism is a new thing! Thinkers have voiced ideas like ours all the way back to Democritus of Abdera and before, but how old is the notion of skepticism as a movement, with its own conferences, heroes and history? It is an interesting age when defenders of science, even those who are professional scientists themselves, are more famous for their educational work than any science they have done! (We know Einstein as a physicist but Sagan as a popularizer, with Dawkins and Gould perhaps somewhere in the middle.) Because we haven't done this for very long, we are still figuring out how. We are learning from mistakes like the astronomers' response to Velikovsky, and thanks to the Internet, we are slowly teaching ourselves the art of "flexible response", replying to threats without making pseudoscience seem more credible by dignifying it with excessive attention.
We are learning! This process takes integrity and a willingness to swallow bitter medicine, neither of which are ever in copious supply, but nor are they completely absent. The Enlightenment is not a nation of clones. We're all going to take our lumps ere we shuffle off this mortal coil, but at least we can take them like members of a civilization.
If scientists were angels, we would have no need for peer review, and if bloggers were angels, we would have no need for comments.
If we were angels, we would have no need for each other.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | November 20, 2006 11:41 AM
It really needs to be pointed out that this post is not really directly related to the previous post about framing the evolution debate and whether science and religion are inherently in conflict; this post is about becoming something we absolutely should not become. They're connected in the sense that they both represent reasons why they're really are two distinct groups battling against the anti-evolution movement (groups whose goals are aligned some of the time and not aligned some of the time), but those reasons are quite distinct. Regardless of how one feels about the question of science and religion, we ought to at least agree that it is not only impractical but unjust to expel people from public universities for not accepting evolution or to destroy their careers over it. This is exactly what the ID movement always accuses us of, but so far without any real evidence (truth be told, nothing happened to Sternberg other than a few rude comments from colleagues - cry me a river). But Moran is bluntly declaring that universities should apply some sort of loyalty pledge, where a student either agrees that evolution is true or they are expelled. You don't have to agree with me on the subject of science and religion in order to recognize that this is a very, very bad idea. So let's try and keep those two issues separate.
This post is about authoritarian tactics by those with whom we agree on almost everything else. It's something I must speak out against, just as I spoke out earlier against the notion of denying tenure to anyone who accepts ID and to "outing" ID advocates to hurt their career. These are not only bad ideas, they are immoral ideas. The moment we begin to apply litmus tests of ideological purity to access to education is the moment we become that which we most despise.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | November 20, 2006 12:15 PM
The big, underlying battle is science vs. pseudoscience. Beneath all the weighty psychological, ethical, and social baggage it carries, religion is pseudoscience. The claim that intelligence, intention, values, and consciousness can actively create, underly, and act upon the cosmos is similar to assertions about ESP, psychokensis, and vitalistic life forces. It might be prudent in the short term to get the it's-really-only-harmless-water homeopaths to fight against dangerous quack cancer cures, but in the long run it could be self-defeating.
That said, I can still agree with Ed regarding the idiocy and bigotry of Larry Moran's suggestion that ignorant students be kept from learning. I'm hoping it was meant just a little bit tongue in cheek, or he was venting steam. If not, it's truly awful.
And great post up above on CITOKATE. Like Meera Nanda, Blake Stacey is one of my heroes... ;)
Posted by: Sastra | November 20, 2006 12:23 PM
Sure...if students arrive at university not believing in evolution, it's definitely the best plan to boot them out immediately so that there's no chance they may learn about it and change their minds!
I was never taught about evolution in school (go, Kansas school system). I had only a vague idea of what it was until university, when it was introduced apologetically in an anthropology class with the caveat that we "didn't have to believe it if we didn't want to." If you had singled me out before that class and asked if I believed in evolution of humans, I would have to have said "No" simply because I didn't know enough about it to profess belief. And yet now I'm an atheist studying religion using the theories and tools of cognitive science, which rest firmly on evolutionary theory. Would it really have been a score for the good guys to have kicked me out of uni when I was 19?
Posted by: Gretchen | November 20, 2006 12:31 PM
Ed Brayton wrote:
I apologize for posting a lengthy comment in what was probably the wrong thread — these are the sort of ideas which bubble in my head and occasionally demand release!
On the restricted topic of Moran's "loyalty pledge", I agree with you wholeheartedly that this is a rotten idea. It strikes the perfect balance between moral reprehensibility and utter stupidity. After all, we all started from a state of ignorance, and we're not gonna get anywhere if we make people stay that way. I suspect his comments are the sort of thing one says when has been royally pissed about the whole situation for far too long. It's regrettable, but when the number of angry people tends to infinity, the probability of such remarks tends to 1.
This is one reason why we don't grant regular speakers at TalkOrigins the analogue of papal infallibility.
Sastra wrote:
=)
To outsiders, I should say that the Nanda reference is an inside joke from deep down on a Pharyngula comment thread.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | November 20, 2006 12:42 PM
Ed, i think your choice of words enflates the basic proposal of the Dawkins-Harris-Dennet camp beyond what is intended.
I have never seen any of these people write about "destroying religon by any means neccessary".
What they are proposing, is that ALL claims be held to the same standards of evidence and argument that we use everywhere else in life. None of these writters is talking about rounding up theists and shooting them or anything remotely like that.
Further, they are not oppossed to working with religous moderates in order to accomplish pragmatic goals (like protecting science education from ID zealots) as Sam Harris states in his new book:
"In Letter to a Christian Nation, I engage Christianity at its most divisive, injurious, and retrograde. In this, liberals, moderates, and nonbelievers can recognise a common cause."
Frankly, i don't think that what Dawkins/Harris/Dennet are proposing is any differant that what Carl Sagan was proposing 20 years ago in his book "The Demon Haunted World". His ideal of science being a candle in the darkness of superstition and ignorance is really not that differant from what today's atheist science writters are advocating.
Posted by: Caliban | November 20, 2006 12:42 PM
All issues of anti-religionism aside, I have to agree with basic point as stated by Mr. (or should that be Dr?) Moran.
Universities shouldn't be in the business of remedial education.
This lecture doesn't seem to be an example of remedial education, however.
Sastra,
You may wish to re-phrase this --
"The claim that intelligence, intention, values, and consciousness can actively create, underly, and act upon the cosmos is similar to assertions about ESP, psychokensis, and vitalistic life forces."
I act with intelligence, intention, values and conciousness all the time, and and am constantly engaged with creating things (such as lunch) and acting upon that wee bit of the cosmos in my immediate vicinity. I understand that you are attempting to make a point about the presumed attributes of deity/supernatural intelligence, but it does need to be more clearly stated.
Posted by: PennyBright | November 20, 2006 12:48 PM
Yes, Larry Moran says stupid things (let's get that out of the way first). But for somebody who claims to be an agnostic, you sure spend a lot of time railing against atheists. The reason why people like PZ and Dawkins fight religion at the same time as creationism is that they consider them both symptoms of the same problem: an intellectually lazy worldview. Now, you may not agree with this, and frankly it's not something I'm all that interested in debating. But the only time I've seen religion mentioned in your blog is when its proponents do something patently stupid, usually involving evolution or gay marriage.
I've never seen you talk about proselytizing by the religious, but you do seem to dislike it a whole lot when atheists proselytize. What, atheists don't have the right to tell other people why they should think like they do? Atheists have this worldview because they think it's right- like everybody else in the world, they think that their worldview is the best one. But because atheists proselytizing "destroys the united front" of the secular, you feel you have to fight against them.
An analogy: you're a person who is clearly very interested in civil liberties. You're also a libertarian (usually, the freedom that most libertarians seem interested in is the freedom to not pay taxes- that's why I'm separating civil libertarian from libertarian). Most people that are interested in protecting civil liberties are markedly socialist compared to you. So, in the interest of keeping the Party clean, and presenting a united front to the outside world, I guess it's time to give you your walking papers from all of us socialist civil libertarians.
Posted by: Brian | November 20, 2006 12:53 PM
Well, isn't this a fine how-do-you-do. No longer any room in the big tent for the fellow travelers? Purges all around! Ideological purity rules. You're either with us or against us.
Posted by: Ted | November 20, 2006 1:14 PM
Susan said:
Yes, they all attack religion. Why not?
Jason I replied:
Why? Why must religion be attacked? Christian beliefs (as well as most other religious beliefs) in today's world are, for the most part, harmless until they are combined with political agendas, or are part of an extremist sect of the religion. Just because someone believes in god, they should be ridiculed, attacked, insulted? That's ridiculous. Belief in a higher power does not indicate stupidity or maliciousness. Attacking religion out of spite for religion does exactly what Ed says: enlarges the specter of the evil atheist out to destroy god. And that just makes the political right fight all that much harder to destroy science standards and try and teach religion in public schools.
Susan replies back:
Religion is bad in general because it encourages people to accept silly ideas without examining them or requiring evidence. That's an extremely BAD habit to encourage.
There's no particular reason that religion should get a free pass from criticism or ridicule. Even if YOU may not be stupid and malicious, some of your unexamined ideas may be. Religion is just another idea like millions of other ideas that humans have had down through the ages. And there's a big difference between criticism and ridicule and "destroying by any means necessary."
Posted by: Susan Brassfield Cogan | November 20, 2006 1:16 PM
You know what I think the debate is about... Rationally defensible ideas vs. not rationally defensible ideas. That's it.
In any case, I'd put money on the fact that Moran has no intention of advocating any such policy. Rotten comment? Yes. Plan for social change? Really doubt it.
Posted by: Leni | November 20, 2006 1:41 PM
Two points.
First, religion is not pseudo-science - at least not for me. My religion has nothing to do with science - except where science and it's explanation of the universe has shaped them. I have never made any sort of claim that science "proves" my beliefs, or that it could. The furthest I have gone is to claim that it doesn't disprove them either.
Second, Brian, Ed has never, to my knowlege, come out against proselytizing atheists. He comes out strong against those, like Dawkins or Myers, who attack everyone and anyone who has any sort of religious/spiritual beliefs. I think an analogy for the sort of "proselytizing" they do, is Chirstians who stand outside gay pride festivals, screaming about how the queers are all going to hell, that "god hates fags." As apposed to Christians like me, who proselytize by trying to be reasonable, kind and loving to those around me - or atheists who proselytize by explaining - without insulting - the sensability of looking at the evidence, and basing belief on the evidence.
Telling people that they are stupid and irrelevant, or that they are hell bound cause' god hates them, are not effective ways to bring people around. I would even go as far as calling them cop-outs. It shows that rather than wanting to, respectively, bring them around to common sense, or bring them into the grace of god, the antagonists simply wish to put people in their place. To belittle them because their view is far superior.
Posted by: DuWayne | November 20, 2006 1:48 PM
I guess I'm just mystified as to the bad things that religion brings about. Yes, there have been times when religion has been responsible for horrid atrocities. Yes, there are people today who want to use religion as a bludgeon of authority. Outside of those examples, however, I'm fairly indifferent. If people want to believe in god, where's the harm? I don't believe in god, but other people doing so has almost no impact on me. And there are a lot of benefits that many people see to being a member of a church, including an incredibly strong support group to turn to in times of need. So I really don't see the point in people attacking religion, and attempting to belittle all of those associated with it. It doesn't further the debate of evolution vs. ID/creationism one bit, and it can create enemies where enmity doesn't exist.
Posted by: Jason I. | November 20, 2006 2:02 PM
Brian said:
What blog have you been reading? Ed has many posts about religious fundies proselytizing, especially in inappropriate forums. He takes them to task for it every time.
Posted by: Jason I. | November 20, 2006 2:03 PM
DuWayne, Claiming that science hasn't disproved your religous beliefs is akin to a young-earth creationist saying the same thing. Admittedly, i'm not a biologist, but the last time i checked, bringing dead organisms back to life is impossilbe and donkeys don't talk. Which, of course, is the point: Science disproves religous beliefs every where you turn. One would have to render the entire bible into one long, mythical fiction in order for science not to disprove it.
Second, I have read nothing Dawkins has written or said that is comparrable with Fred Phelps and his like. Dawkins pleads for rationality and criticises those beliefs that do not pass muster. This is completely removed from someone screaming on a street corner with a "GOD HATES FAGS!" sign. They are not even remotely equivalent.
Posted by: Caliban | November 20, 2006 2:15 PM
Ed,
Way to go! Keep writing about this. Perhaps if we can define the group sufficiently we can push the discussion forward in a positive way.
I see a pro-science group with a fundamentalist wing that is also anti-religion. As you and others have said, it is not just anti-bad-religion but anti-all-religion -- a position that to me is both silly (they have no reasonable argument) and ignorant (they don't show any knowledge of the variety of religious belief).
Posted by: AndyS | November 20, 2006 2:23 PM
Jason I. said -
What blog have you been reading? Ed has many posts about religious fundies proselytizing, especially in inappropriate forums. He takes them to task for it every time
He takes them to task for doing it in innapropriate forums. He has never said that it is wrong to proselytize, just that there are places it is innapropriate and methods that are innapropirate.
Posted by: DuWayne | November 20, 2006 2:23 PM
I don't think it would be worth the trouble of a lawsuit, but I think the spirit of the law was violated, if indeed the Provost(s) were interested in changing what they believed someone's religious beliefs are.
Professors have the academic freedom to criticize religious views, offer their opinions, but proseletizying is taboo. Requiring large numbers of freshman to listen to an anti-ID lecture is not the same as students hearing a professors offer their opinions in class. There is circumstantial evidence the university wants to eradicate ID beliefs, and if it views those beliefs as religious (whether ID is true or not), it is still violating the spirit of constitutional law if the university is receiving taxpayer funding. It may be a moot point since I don't think anyone cares enough to file a legal complaint.
In any case, I'm not here to quibble over this. I think you calling Moran out on what he's doing is commendable, and I am personally appreciative.
For what it's worth, Happy Thanksgiving. And if you have a P.O. Box where you receive mail from your fan club, I have Christmas card I'd like to send in thanks for your upholding of free speech rights and freedom of commerce. We disagree intensely on many things, but I am appreciative of your stand on free speech issues.
Sal
Posted by: Salvador T. Cordova | November 20, 2006 2:31 PM
Claiban:
Science doesn't disprove (Christian) religious beliefs. The Resurrection is proclaimed as miraculous. You have it quite backwards: if science could explain the resurrection, walking on water, parting of the red-sea, etc., then it might have a chance to disprove religious claims which rely on the fact that these events are inexplicable.
Do you really connect the dots this way: science proves miracles cannot happen therefore science disproves religious claims? Do you know how absurd that is? Do you know why they are called miracles? Do you know what supernatural means, and how religion states that the supernatural exists?
Mostly because the bible makes very few scientifically testable statements (only a couple, that I am aware of), it is virtually impossible for science to disprove it. Your thinking on this matter is not at all clear. This should be obvious to the atheist and to the believer.
Posted by: David Heddle | November 20, 2006 2:40 PM
Caliban said -
DuWayne, Claiming that science hasn't disproved your religous beliefs is akin to a young-earth creationist saying the same thing. Admittedly, i'm not a biologist, but the last time i checked, bringing dead organisms back to life is impossilbe and donkeys don't talk. Which, of course, is the point: Science disproves religous beliefs every where you turn. One would have to render the entire bible into one long, mythical fiction in order for science not to disprove it.
First, I do believe the bible is one long, mythical fiction in a sense. Second, you have no clue what my religious beliefs are - they are not contradicted by science. Third, and most important - they are irrelevant to any discussion about public policy.
Second, I have read nothing Dawkins has written or said that is comparrable with Fred Phelps and his like. Dawkins pleads for rationality and criticises those beliefs that do not pass muster. This is completely removed from someone screaming on a street corner with a "GOD HATES FAGS!" sign. They are not even remotely equivalent.
Of course not. His accusations that I am abusing my child by sharing my religious beliefs with him, is nothing like people screaming god hates fags. Myers' assertions that I am the enemy, even though I agree more with him, than my brother Ed, on political issues, is nothing like telling people they are headed for hell - because they are sinners.
The similarity lies in the idea that both groups are writing off everyone who dissagrees with them. The notion that rather than bringing people around to their point of view, or allying themselves on issues where there is agreement, they would rather maintain some superiority over them.
Posted by: DuWayne | November 20, 2006 2:43 PM
Let me clarify a few things.
First, I have no problem whatsoever with atheists advocating for their position (or with Christians doing so, for that matter), telling people they're wrong, or ridiculing stupid beliefs. I do all of those things on this blog every single day and I certainly don't think I'm the only one who should be allowed to do so. I am objecting to two things, primarily:
A) the notion that those who don't believe in God are more intelligent than those who do, an idea rather explicitly advocated by Richard Dawkins when he says that some people (his daughter, Stephen Colbert, etc) are "too intelligent" to believe in God. There's certainly nothing wrong with arguing over whether God exists or does not exist (though I frankly couldn't care much less about the subject), but using it as a measure of intelligence is, ironically, quite stupid. I reject the silly idea of calling atheists "brights" for the same reason, because it implies the same thing. There is a significant difference between making fun of religious people who are stupid or who behave stupidly (and there is a vast supply of them), as I do often, and claiming that religion itself is a sign of stupidity. There are some brilliant people in this world who are religious. If you really think that you're vastly more intelligent than a guy like Lawrence Collins by virtue of not believing in God when he does, it's time to deflate that ego.
B) advocating tactics of punishing people for advocating ideas we don't like. I obviously object to ID, as they do, but I think it's both unjust and unjustified to expel students from school for rejecting evolution, or to deny tenure to an otherwise qualified person for believing in ID. College students believe lots of stupid things. If we set up litmus tests of rejecting students based on what someone decides is stupid, no one is going to be allowed to go to college. Likewise, we have professors who believe lots of idiotic things and still get tenure. We have professors at prestigious universities who believe that the design of the New Jersey turnpike is inherently sexist (I'm not making that up), that UFOs regularly visit the earth, that the Soviet Union was a worker's paradise and that 9/11 was a CIA plot. The moment we begin to subject professors to orthodoxy tests is the moment that Joe McCarthy is reincarnated. We cannot criticize the tactics of the right while simultaneously engaging in them ourselves.
Second, I am not and have never advocated the notion that religion is a wonderful thing. I fully recognize the long history of barbarism in religion. Indeed, I write about that history and the continuing attempts to reimpose those things every day. I just don't think that's the entire picture. Of course religion motivates a wide range of terrible things, but it also motivates a wide range of wonderful things. Religion motivates wars and oppression on a wide scale, but it also motivates immense efforts, both individually and collectively, to feed, clothe and house the poor, to heal the sick, and to comfort the distressed. And while I'm more than happy to join the battle against the negative aspects of religion, it would be irrational to pretend the positive aspects don't exist.
Reality rarely falls into the simple black and white categories we too often seek to impose upon it. If you really think that that reality is as simple as "religious people dumb" and "atheists smart", you are engaging in exactly the sort of simple-minded nonsense that you object to on the part of religious people (who far too often fall for such simple dichotomies themselves). And if you really think that not believing in evolution should get one expelled from school or fired from their job, then again you are doing the very thing you object to when religious people impose strict orthodoxies of belief and punish heretics and blasphemers. We do no one any favors by emulating the other side, least of all ourselves.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | November 20, 2006 2:47 PM
Sal Cordova wrote:
No, this legal theory is still absurd. There are people who believe all sorts of things as a matter of religious faith. By your reasoning, if a university sponsored a speaker to speak about the sphericity of the earth then they are violating the first amendment by advocating an idea and "proselytizing" against the religious belief that the earth is flat. Likewise, a sponsored address on heliocentrism would be an establishment clause violation because it would "seek to convert" those whose faith demands a belief in geocentrism. You may not take such religious beliefs seriously and so you may dismiss them as irrelevant, but they apply perfectly to your argument. One could go on and on. A speech advocating germ theory would contradict those who are members of the Christian Science faith. For that matter, conventional meteorology or seismology would conflict with those who believe that hurricanes and earthquakes are sent by God as punishment for sin. There is virtually no idea anyone can advocate that doesn't conflict with some religious idea, which means that if your argument is true, public universities could not endorse any idea at all.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | November 20, 2006 2:56 PM
David, I fail to see how placing the adjective "miraculous" before a claim renders it immune to the light of science.
Why should religous claims have this special immunity to science when other "miraculous" claims do not?
You might have a case if there was any evidence to support the existence of anything "supernatural", but there isn't. The wholle march of science through history has been a slow, progressive accumulation of facts where once superstition and ignorance held sway.
In light of everything we know about the cosmos today, it is simply not rational to believe that at one time in our past a donkey could talk, a prophet could raise people from the dead, cast out demons etc.
To do so would completely disreguard everything our species has learned about the natural world. Without the assumption of consistency, science itself becomes impossible because every fact loses it's descriptive authority if at any moment, they can be overturned by "magic".
Posted by: Caliban | November 20, 2006 3:02 PM
Mostly because the bible makes very few scientifically testable statements (only a couple, that I am aware of), it is virtually impossible for science to disprove it.
If a scientifically testable statement fails the scientific test, then how do you know it's not a miracle. If a scientifically testable statement passes the scientific test, then how do you know it's not a miracle that just looks like a scientifically testable statement. How come something has to be inexplicable in order to be a miracle. Can't everything, no matter what is is, right or wrong, true or false, be described as a miracle?
Do you know why they are called miracles?
Yeah, it's so you can have everything just the way you want it.
Posted by: 386sx | November 20, 2006 3:02 PM
Yeah, I hate it when Dawkins "attacks" religion. I mean, he clearly attacked the Pope and Catholicism for advocating that free speech is good except when religion is involved. And he clearly attacked Judaism for their anti-gay and anti-free speech actions against the pride parade. Dawkins just loves to attack religion when it makes claims that are either stupid or harmful, and often both, and clearly he's a monster for doing so, and unjust, and obviously not on the side of pure science (he'll just upset all the religious people and that will hurt us because then they'll get REALLY mad).
Okay, obviously, I meant "Ed Brayton" whenever I said "Dawkins." And whenever I said "attack" I meant "criticize." Unfortunately, I couldn't find a bizarre post or quote from someone on Ed's mythical side of the debate to then attribute by association to him and with which to frame my criticism. But I'm pretty sure Ed's idea of Dawkins "attacking" religion isn't too different than his action of "criticizing" religion--Dawkins just takes it one step further and criticizes the source, the foundation, for the illogical ideas and actions that Ed likes to make fun of. Anyway, I'm sure religious zealots don't see much of a difference.
Surely, Ed, we can all get behind you advocating that we not destroy all religion. However, could you get behind those speaking out against the anti-intellectualism that most religions promote?
When you paint Dawkins and others as spear-wielding warmongers, complete with a mythical goal of destroying religion "by any means necessary," then you're, excuse me, little better than the same ID and religious zealots who do the exact same on the other side. At least you're certainly not any less wrong in your characterization.
And when the evolution vs. creationism debate is over (or stalled for a few years), and gays are able to get married, then I bet there will still be clashes between rational thinking and dogmatic religion. In fact, I'll bet it'll have something to do with faith-healing, or mind-body connection mumbo-jumbo, or similar pseudo-science couched in religious importance. Sam Harris, in fact, is an advocate of eastern meditation (and so the endorsement of his book from Dawkins is baffling).
So then, Ed, will you be ready to gear up for another "war?" When they want to teach some other pseudo-science to school children? You could save yourself some time and keystrokes by addressing (or criticizing, or, alright, even "attacking") the rooted ideas of anti-intellectualism couched in most religions that leads to these sort of battles in the first place.
Posted by: David H. | November 20, 2006 3:09 PM
David H-
I am more than happy to attack anti-intellectual ideas in any form, religious or otherwise. Where I part company is with those who claim that any belief in anything divine or supernatural is, by definition, anti-intellectual. I've made that distinction quite clear, but I cannot force you to recognize it if you choose not to.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | November 20, 2006 3:23 PM
The quip i heard Dawkins make on public radio about his daughter being "too intelligent to be religous/believe in God" was not a sweeping generalisation about theists as much as it was a display of arrogant pride in a father's daughter. It was an off-handed quip, not a thesis under which he bases the thrust of his arguments.
On the same radio interview he was pressed on the issue and said that he did NOT think that all religous people were idiots or unintelligent; only those that believed in litteral Creationism were.
I think this quote is used as a kind of bomb to throw into a debate to render anything Dawkins says irrelevent.
It is not one's humility or arrogance that determines the quality of an argument. Dawkins, despite whatever displays of arrogance, is rigorously through. I don't think that what he says should be discounted because of a flippant comment about how great he thinks his daughter is.
Posted by: Caliban | November 20, 2006 3:27 PM
PennyBright wrote:
Thank you. You are of course correct -- I neglected to put in the word "disembodied" or something similar to indicate that supernatural theories generally define themselves by positing Mind (and/or the products of Mind) as existing prior to, outside of, separable from, and causal on matter.
Dawkins approaches the existence of God from a scientific standpoint, as a claim that our intuitive belief in some form of mind/body dualism is still plausible in light of our discoveries in nature. He believes that the "God" hypothesis is more like the ESP hypothesis than it is like "we should be fair to each other," the existence of numbers, the fact that humans form strong emotional bonds, or "chocolate tastes good." He is attacking religion with the same fervor he and other scientists reserve for bad, misleading theories.
The question of whether he is right to do so is different than the question of whether it is *politic* to do so.
Posted by: Sastra | November 20, 2006 3:37 PM
I love Heddle speak. DO you know what supoernatural means David? Please define it for us in a way that would really matter.
And a man rising from the dead would have to have been a result of a natural interaction with the natural world and as such is available to the process of science.
I agree it's not necessarily anti-intellectual but at the same time I don't think one can honestly say it's remotely rational thinking either.
Yes it does and so does good old logic. There was no global flood. Science says so not only so but says it's essentially impossible for a whole host of reasons.
And one would have to define Christian beliefs as they are so varied as to ensure that there is someone out there who is Christian who believes whatever we may be discussing.
I think if one teaches their child religious beliefs that make them believe mythical places exist that may cause them harm after they die Dawkins is correct. It's simply pathetic for an adult to do so while bemoaning Janet Jacksons nipple on TV. It's a child for goodness sakes.
Posted by: Uber | November 20, 2006 3:39 PM
The thread has wandered away from Ed's original point. The question is, where is our focus to be? If it is on protecting and strengthening science education in this country and around the world, then all that is required is for all of us to have that as a goal; our reasons for supporting it are irrelevant. Thus to egregiously attack another supporter is misguided.
It is also true that people support more than one thing in life, and people who agree on one idea may well differ. Several commenters have raised this objection. However, they have to recognize that it depends upon priorities. The US and USSR could work together in WWII because, while they held opposite worldviews, at the time all that mattered was the destruction of the worldview which threatened both. So yes, Moran can make this argument if he truly believes that ignorant people should be denied education or that religion must be opposed with rationalism, or whatever. Having made that choice, however, he may not then object when Ed points out that he is no longer helping with the goal of science education.
As Ed points out, this was precisely what happened in the attacks on Ken Miller. Some people decided that the fact that Miller is a Christian was more important than those ideas they held in common, such as the promotion of science education.
As a person who has worked in politics for many years, I am used to the notion of forming a coalition and the fact that the constituents of that coalition will not be agreement on all issues. Sometimes, yes this means that certain ideas are taken off the table and not to be discussed if such would break the overall sense of agreement.
For instance, when Jim Wright was Speaker, he did a masterful job of protecting moderate to conservative democrats from having to vote on abortion issues, among other things. It is not a coincidence that the House democratic majority broke up within a few uears of Wright stepping down. In the long run, one may see this as good or bad, that is a separate issue. But if you want your coalition to contunue and achieve its basic goals, it makes all the difference in the world.
Posted by: kehrsam | November 20, 2006 3:44 PM
Show me a supernatural or divine belief that withstands the test of reason or logic, and doesn't then require the person who continues to believe in it to disregard said reason or logic (or stick their fingers in their ears and go "la-la!"), do those things and I'll recognize your distinction.
To put it another way (because I'm young and not very good at this), you speak as if there is more than one kind of supernatural belief. If someone believes in the supernatural, of any sort, doesn't that require intellectual dishonesty in ignoring reason and logic when they are applied to it?
Posted by: David H. | November 20, 2006 3:49 PM
Caliban,
It's not subtle at all: miracle, by its true definition, means something that cannot be explained by science. Now sometimes we use a weaker form as a figure of speech, for example "it was a miraculous catch," but clearly this is not the message the bible intended it when described, to use your favorite example, talking donkeys. It meant to convey something that could not be explained, not matter how hard you tried.
I'll give you a suggestion--if you really want to use science to disprove the bible there is only one obvious place to go, that is with the Noahic flood. It won't be easy, because there are many (like myself) who believe that it was a localized flood in Mesopotamia. However, the bible does not declare that "miraculously all evidence of the flood was removed." Even a localized flood leaves evidence behind--that evidence is subject to scientific scrutiny.
As for the irrationality of believing that a donkey can talk "given everything we know about the cosmos today" I'll point out two things. One is that this was a one-time, localized event--which is the hallmark of all miracles. The second is, you are engaging in a bit of chauvinism. It would have been just as absurd for an Moses-era ancient (at which point in history vast civilizations had come and gone) to believe in a talking donkey. The "irrationality" of a talking donkey has nothing to do with the advent of modern science. The ancients were not idiots--a common misconception. They may not have known about big-bang cosmology, but they were no more susceptible to a belief that donkeys could talk than you are. But they did seem to know that "that can't happen" is not a rational criticism to the claim that "miraculously, it did." "You're and idiot for believing thata donkey talked" might be a reasonable approach, but offering a proof that it couldn't happen is meaningless. No doubt it can be shown to be impossible. Once again, that's the point.
As a Christian and a scientist, I never expect to witness a miracle. There are about a hundred or so described in the bible, and they seem to be relegated to a few important moments in redemptive history. Thus I don't approach science with the thought that what I can't explain must be a miracle, or that it is a fools-errand because at any moment a miracle might spoil the works. Even if all scientists were believers, science would be done the same way. It is not rendered impotent by the admission of miracles.
386sx
Because, as I stated above, the assumption of any Christian doing science is that he will not be privileged to witness a miracle.Besides, miracles are friggin' obvious. They do not take the form of an experiment not producing the data I expect. They are radical intrusions on the natural order. They are unmistakable.
Yeah, many people say that and it doesn't get smarter with each repetition. You must really believe that the biblical writers, in (miraculous) anticipation of the advent of modern science, wrote events in terms of miracles just so their claims would be exempt from testing.The bottom line is that miracles comprise a small fraction of the biblical text and are well isolated and documented. The bulk of scripture does not describe the miraculous, and you can subject it to rigorous scientific, archeological, and historical testing without fear that any discrepancy will be excused as a miracle. Of course, it's easier to invoke the possibility of that response as an excuse to avoiding your homework.
Uber:
It is easy: supernatural means beyond the natural. That is, science cannot explain it. Though it may be denied, the concept should be simple enough to grasp.
As fo the flood, see my comments above.
Posted by: David Heddle | November 20, 2006 3:52 PM
Judge Jones did not rule that ID is a religion. He ruled that it was an idea born out of religion. The government can not take sides on religion, but they can take sides on ideas (religious or otherwise).
Posted by: Matthew | November 20, 2006 3:54 PM
I find those who take the direct approach much more honest personally. I find them morally repugnant though. This analogy isn't good. If you believe in mythical places where people are currently suffering(and suffering forever) and then you drive to church on Sunday and worship the being who is allowing it to happen that IS something but call it what you wish. Conversly all many atheist are doing is saying there isn't a shred of evidence that you should think such mythology is remotely real.
See this is nearly fall of the chair funny. You equate an atheist with common sense and then discuss your version of God as if it's the only one and the correct version at that.
But I see your point. The truth of the matter is the religious don't like outspoken atheists likely for years of being told how evil they are and atheists need and should have a voice. The more they speak out the better this nation will be. If fellas like Dobson, Robertson, Olsteen, The Pope, and Warren can spew whatever they spew on the airwaves it speaks volumes to the truth of Dawkins and Myers and their ilk that people speak to silence them but not the others.
I mean seriously these other fellas are quite literally saying think like I do or bad things will happen to you after you die and this is the side people back? As opposed to those that say perhaps the king is naked? Odd world.
Posted by: Uber | November 20, 2006 4:01 PM
Ok David. Give one thing that is not natural and how would this pertain to the raising of a dead body which is firmly in this natural world. Your definition doesn't work and is simply hand waving.
Why would science not be able to explain the reanimation of a living body? It has nothing to do with denial other than the fact that you seem to be denying the obvious.
Yeah like apologetics.
No it just fails in many of those areas as well and while the bulk of the book may not be miraculous it certainly rests on those events.
Thats correct as if the more one studies the more likely that a donkey somehow grew enabled vocal chords for human speech. The real homework that should be done is figuring out why a few intelligent humans delude themselves into thinking it happened at all.
I know of no one who thinks they where. Idiots would best be described as people then and now who think animals talk to them. Perhaps idiot is to strong a word and a person in need of mental health care would be better. Even smart people go off the tracks now and again.
And as such are 1: observable and if it happens here the process of science can work through it.
Posted by: Uber | November 20, 2006 4:13 PM
Sal said: Professors have the academic freedom to criticize religious views, offer their opinions, but proseletizying is taboo. Requiring large numbers of freshman to listen to an anti-ID lecture is not the same as students hearing a professors offer their opinions in class. There is circumstantial evidence the university wants to eradicate ID beliefs, and if it views those beliefs as religious (whether ID is true or not), it is still violating the spirit of constitutional law if the university is receiving taxpayer funding. It may be a moot point since I don't think anyone cares enough to file a legal complaint.
As Ed points out, this is incorrect. First, there is assumed to be a difference between high schoolers and those entering college. College is not forced, and no one is ever compelled in the legal sense to attend anything. Second, the whole point of a college education is to challenge the assumptions of the students. If their ideas are in any sense correct, they will be strengthened by the challenge, not undermined.
The notion that religious ideas are verboten in higher education is just weird, even if (as here) a state school is involved. Take the case from last year of UNC making incoming freshmen read a book about islam. Seeing as none of the young people I know have the slightest notion about Islam, it seems pretty timely to me. The same would be true if they had studied the Velikovsky brouhaha, or racism, or...lots of other things. I see no reason why religious topics need be taken off the table, particularly if the University in question has pretense to be a bastion of the Liberal Arts.
Posted by: kehrsam | November 20, 2006 4:14 PM
"I'd also recommend that we stop call it just "ID" and start calling it "ID Creationism". Labels matter, and the more we can hammer home in the public consciousness that ID is just a different flavor of creationism, the better."
"Creationism" traditionally starts with a particular religious view (typically from the Bible) and attempts to harmonize the physical evidence with that. As far as I can tell, ID does no such thing. Rather if looks at the evidence for indications of design and attempts to let the evidence speak for itself without an a prior commitment to "materialism at all cost". I don't think they've proven their case, but I don't find the same mindset among those who are primarily ID-friendly (be they theist or agnostic, such as David Berlinski and myself) and those who are primarily (Biblical) creationists. They seem to be the same on a certain front, but with different motivations, as Brayton has similarly indicated regarding the anti-theist Darwin's camp, and Ken Miller types. Moreover, these two groups are often at odds. The creations have denounced the ID proponents right and left. They obviously have a different agenda.
Now for a question: for those of you who are not anti-theist, but simply "pro science", committed to materialism, and are anti-ID, what sort of evidence would it take to convince you that there was elements of design within a genome?
Posted by: kb | November 20, 2006 4:24 PM
My high school French teacher, a very important influence on my life and my thinking, told me when I graduated that education is the process of disillusionment.
How French. :)
Posted by: Jake | November 20, 2006 4:34 PM
The issue is not about taking discussion of religion off the table, but whether a one-sided approach is being used to specifically target and change the minds of certain student's religious beliefs. Discussion and debate are encouraged, proseletyzing is taboo.
At Moran's on school, a PhD in biology was awarded to a creationist. What does that say about how convincing evolutionary theory is compared to real sciences like quantum theory, electromagnatism, or information science, or the approximations in classical mechanics? It is highly inappropriate to suggest evolutionary theory is scientifically and empirically on par with other empirical observations and theoretical conclusions.
The issue of origins is not a done deal. The approximate spheriphicity of the Earth (the geodetic ellipsoid model is more accurate than a pure sphere) can be directly observed. In contrast, events of the past can only be concluded via inference.
Until evolutionary thoery is as well established as gravity and God's existence and special creation of the universe is disproven as convincingly as perpetual motion machines have been disproven, Provost(s) at taxpayer funded schools have no business systematically trying to change the religious beliefs of students via one-sided presentations with mandatory attendance requirements.
In any case, I don't wish to be too negative about what Ed said. On the whole, I applaud his criticism of Moran.
Posted by: Salvador T. Cordova | November 20, 2006 4:37 PM
Uber:
Sorry I have no idea what that means. Or what you are asking for. I'm not trying to avoid your question (I never do) I simply cannot parse what you wrote.
Perhaps someday something akin to that will be routine. However it won't be as described in the bible, where one man (Jesus) simply commands another to rise. That will remain firmly in the miraculous category. Are you agreeing with Caliban? He seems to argue that miracles can't happen (via science) and therefore religious beliefs are demonstrably wrong. You seem to argue that perhaps the miracles can be explained--or am I missing the boat? As I said, the ability of science to explain the miracles would be devastating to religious belief, while science stating that they are impossible is, contrary to Caliban's argument, expected.
Again, I'm not sure what you mean. If Peter had a cell phone camera, he could have recorded Jesus walking on water. However, once again, it was a miracle. As such, the recorded observation would not have facilitated a scientific explanation.Posted by: David Heddle | November 20, 2006 4:38 PM
But it seems like there must be some distinction between religious beliefs and obviously wacky beliefs like invisible leprechauns, but I have trouble thinking of one other than the amount of testimony of believers. It's obvious that religious beliefs aren't necessarily anti-intellectual, Heddle and Henry Neufeld easily disprove that, but you can be intellectual about how ESP works also. At least ESP is testable and an argument can be made that it is 'anti-intellectual' to believe in ESP when studies do not support it. As Heddle said though, there really isn't anything testable about Christianity; if the material world is all there is then nothing can falsify it (just like invisible leprechauns).
I believe it is possible to rationally believe in God, but I think at it's foundation it is based on what I'd call 'invisible' evidence, or evidence that cannot be examined by others. I can see how a religious people can look at the physical world and see support for their belief in God, but I think to be honest even religious people must acknowledge that the mere existence of the world on it's own can reasonably be evidence for God, Zeus, or no god at all. In my experience, believers have a lot of different answers to, 'why do you believe in God?', and at it's core it always seems to be internal and essentially unexaminable (an amazing coincidence, "I feel God's presence when I pray", etc). Again, I don't know what the distinction is between religious belief and any other belie