Dispatches from the Culture Wars

Long time reader, first time commenter.

That op-ed is well written and reasonably thought out; something that is often lacking in a discussion of the subject. I have to wonder, however, if the audience (to put it quite undiplomatically: religious yahoos, I'm guessing) will accept that while their god may have created the system, he/she/it is uninvolved with the day-to-day operations of said system. From my (admittedly few) discussions with creationists, they do not stop at believing that "god did it", they further go on to believe that "god is doing it".

Posted by: Doug | January 17, 2008 10:21 AM

He lost me when he started talking about "God" as a belief that should be respected.

Let's face it... real science and religion do NOT have a common ground. Science does not yet allow the suspension of disbelief required by the supernatural.

DaskSyde sounds too much like a battered wife here for my admittedly bitter tastes.

Posted by: Gingerbaker | January 17, 2008 11:07 AM

I thought it was a great article. I have a special fondness for DarkSyde-- my few interactions with him were always interesting and respectful--a refreshing contrast to the nastiness one encounters at, say, Pharyngula.

Gingerbaker:

Let's face it... real science and religion do NOT have a common ground. Science does not yet allow the suspension of disbelief required by the supernatural.

What do you mean by that? You cannot mean that one cannot be religious and be a "real scientist" because there are quite a few of us that fit that description, and so proof by counterexample is a trivial matter. If you mean that science has nothing to say about the supernatural, then that goes without saying. The common ground DarkSyde is discussing, if I understood him correctly, is that science can be embraced by the religious as demonstrating the beauty and majesty of creation, rather than looked upon as an enemy. Is that what you dispute?

Posted by: heddle | January 17, 2008 11:41 AM

You cannot mean that one cannot be religious and be a "real scientist" because there are quite a few of us that fit that description, and so proof by counterexample is a trivial matter.

Posted by: H. Humbert | January 17, 2008 12:07 PM

H. Humbert, would you mind explaining in more detail why science and religion are incompatible? I myself am not religious and I can see how many religions would inhibit one's ability to view evidence without bias. But to extend that and say that all religions are incompatible does not logically follow for me.

Posted by: Abby Normal | January 17, 2008 12:42 PM

While I agree with the effort to reconcile religion and science, which many devout scientists, including Ken Brown, have been able to do, the article is nothing more than wishful thinking, and I think, naive. It just ignores fundamentalism. It basically says, please don't be a fundamentalist. Well that's not going to happen. Fundys believe we are made in God's image, Adam and Eve, and on down the line. What the article suggests is that fundys change their beliefs...good luck with that.

Posted by: Lawdog | January 17, 2008 12:58 PM

Abby, some people mistakenly think of science as a collection of facts, and so mistakenly conclude that they are free to hold religious claims as personal truths so long as they don't directly conflict with any of those facts. But as Gingerbaker rightly points out, science is a method. When this method is applied to religious claims, it finds them unsupported, and thus, unjustified. Theists try to wriggle out of this uncomfortable dilemma by special pleading, as heddle as done. They try to pretend that religious claims of fact should be immune from critical evaluation. But let us not delude ourselves. Such an exception absolutely constitutes a rejection of the scientific method. When one applies the scientific method arbitrarily -- accepting it in places, rejecting it when it doesn't provide the answers one wishes -- then one necessarily isn't practicing science. When one forgets on Sunday what one practices Monday through Friday, we call this compartmentalization.

Science is the only method we have at determining the truth of reality. It's the only valid method of "knowing" we have. Faith is the antithesis of knowledge. Faith is a rejection of the reality we can discover and test and a retreat into unverifiable fabrication. That's as anti-science as it gets.

Note that this has nothing to do with subjective opinions. Scientists are free to hold beliefs which do not require objective evidence, such as who they love or what their favorite color is. It is only when they make claims about our shared, objective reality--such as that Jesus actually rose from the dead, for instance--that they overstep they bounds of what they can justify. And simply calling an objective claim a personal opinion doesn't exempt them from having to justify their claim, either. Scientists are beholden to the results of the scientific method. If they reject the method in some instance, then they cease to be scientists in that instance. Thus, one cannot be a scientist and religious at the same time.

Well, they could with one exception--if they were able to substantiate their religion by using the scientific method. If the two were truly compatible, then that really shouldn't be a problem.

Posted by: H. Humbert | January 17, 2008 1:22 PM

Here's a question. We can argue all day on the philosophical implications of the scientific method and whatnot. But the real problem is that a large portion of the population rejects science, or worse, condemns it. With that in mind, which is more practical: encouraging people to reconcile their beliefs with modern science, or encouraging people to give up religion altogether? I don't care about what we "should" be doing, or what your long-term goals are a thousand years down the road. I just want to know how you can possibly get better results by converting religious fundamentalists into atheists instead of into religious moderates.

And I would love to see heddle's challenge met. I find it offensive that I am somehow now a "true" scientist, even though I've done good work. Who defines what a true scientist is, anyway? Is there a committee where I can submit an application for trueness?

Posted by: Brandon | January 17, 2008 1:32 PM

That's a very interesting challenge from Heddle. Well done.

Posted by: H. Humbert | January 17, 2008 1:42 PM

I think the basic confusion here stems from the people who think that religious scientists are both scientists and religious simultaneously. This is actually never the case. Sort of like a water-skiing farmer. A person can be both, just not at the same time. When a religious scientist is practicing science, they don't assume supernatural agents are mucking up their results. And when they pray to supernatural agents, they aren't subjecting them to scientific protocols. The binary nature of this compartmentalization is what's under discussion. Any "challenge" which fails to address it is thus irrelevant.

Posted by: H. Humbert | January 17, 2008 1:50 PM

"Religion defines "faith" as belief without evidence."

More accurately, both religious and non-religious persons define faith thusly. But I don't see that as possible. To believe any concept you must have been introduced to it and there must have been a narrative attached. (Imagine someone saying "there is a concept called God, about which I have nothing to say - will you believe in that concept?".) And whatever that narrative, I take that to count as evidence.

I have come to view the differences between scientific belief and religious belief as being the types of evidence accepted, how that evidence is weighted as to credibility, and how specific beliefs change with new evidence. Each group has its "scripture", its "authorities", and it's "empirical data", but the two groups weight differently the credibility of those with respect to specific topics. And hopefully, those of a scientific bent are more amenable to modifying beliefs in the face of new evidence that they consider credible than are the more conservative religious.

For example, with respect to human origins, a religious fundamentalist will presumably weight the credibility of Biblical accounts close to one and scientific consensus low; a non-religious scientist presumably will reverse those weights. But with respect to the existence of a deistic god, the credibility weightings of the various evidence types by a religious moderate and a non-religious scientist might not be that far apart.

Since IMO the general belief processes are functionally much more similar than is suggested by the dismissive "faith is belief in the absence of evidence", my guess is that the compatibility of a scientific perspective and a religious perspective is not binary but is a continuous function of the parameters stated above (and no doubt many others). Ie, although at the extremes the compatibility may approach zero (totally incompatible), there can be (and as noted in earlier comments, actually are since they occur in the same persons) religious and scientific perspectives that even if not perfectly compatible (one) can rate relatively high.

Disclaimer: not being a person "of faith", I am not arguing as an apologist. A convincing counterargument would effect no loss to me beyond the foolish feeling that accompanies being proved wrong.

- Charles

Posted by: ctw | January 17, 2008 2:28 PM

heddle,

When scientists make love to their spouse, they are still "real" scientists? When they take a dump they are still "real" scientists? When they cheat on their taxes, they are still "real" scientists? If they engage in serial rape, are they still "real" scientists? If they seek mystical experiences, a la Sam Harris, are they still "real" scientists?

Doing these things is not incompatible with being a scientist, because they do not require you to believe in things for which you have no evidence.

Believing in God IS incompatible with being a scientist, because it requires you to believe in things for which you have no evidence.

See the difference?

Posted by: Gregory Earl | January 17, 2008 2:50 PM

(I actually dispute that we believe in God without evidence, but that's another matter.)

I figured we would end up going down this road. What possible evidence could one produce that an invisible being not only exists but created everything? I can understand belief, but to posit real evidence is entirely another matter. I mean the usual suspects are the world is so wonderful, fine tuning, and other such rubbish.

we do not feel we are "compartmentalizing" any more at at bible study than at a football game. Nobody is really a scientist 24/7. If compartmentalizing is real, then we all do it. A lot.

Of course you don't feel it. Why would you? The more primitive emotional brain seems almost the default for the human brain. Your actually agreeing with the premise from above. Your not a scientist when you are doing religion.

And of course we all do it. Alot. But for the purposes of this discussion scientists do it with whatever religion they have grown with or adopted.

Posted by: GH | January 17, 2008 3:14 PM

"What possible evidence could one produce that an invisible being not only exists but created everything?"

Genesis; my mom told me; I see it in a sunset.

Implicit in this question is "evidence that is credible to me". This evidence isn't credible to me either, but that isn't the issue. Is it credible to some?

It's one thing to say a religious person is wrong - in my terminology, that they are putting unwarranted credibility weights on their preferred "evidence". It's something else entirely to say that their belief process is completely different from ours. If so, how does each work? How do they differ? Any similarities? Can a person operate in different modes for different types of belief?

Having no formal background in cognitive studies, I may well be wrong in guessing that the processes are functionally similar. But mere reassertions aren't sufficient to dissuade me. Anyone have any hard "evidence"?

- Charles

Posted by: ctw | January 17, 2008 4:05 PM

if you cannot distinguish the science that a believer does from the science a non-believer does, that is if you won't take my challenge, then any discussion about compartmentalizing is sort of meaningless.

I'd take your challenge but it would be pointless because I agree a religious person can do good science. It would validate nothing. The issue is why they don't apply science to their religious beliefs except when the wish to go through the most amazing mind flips to validate beliefs arrived at outside of reason.

the discussion of compartmentalizing is a text book example of bad science, since it leads to no prediction about the quality of one's science, and yet it is a provided as something that distinguishes a "real" scientist from a religious scientist.

Ug, it's not bad science because no one is hypothesizing that compartmentalization leads to bad science. Your hung up on the word 'real' perhaps consistent is better.

Science is a meritocracy, plain and simple. I do research in a national lab. Nobody there gives rat's ass what I do away from the lab. They only want to know if what I do professionally is of value to the collaboration of which I am a member.

Science as an industry is a meritocracy, science as a methodology is not. Nor do I give a rats ass what you do away from the lab. But that is neither here nor there. The point being you do your day job(whatever that is) with one aspect of your mind and then you prefer not to use that aspect when you practice your version of religion. Compartmentalization. One is rational, the other emotional.

We can leave it at (a) I see evidence and (b) you would dispute that evidence.

How do you know that? I wouldn't dispute any evidence that would appeal to any logical person. I may even share your beliefs. If we had such evidence it would be well known by everyone. In the science texts and well vetted. It isn't simply because it doesn't exist or isn't of sufficient quality to be remotely persuasive.

Posted by: GH | January 17, 2008 5:25 PM

Is the fact that religious scientists must compartmentalize the only argument you're trying to make? If so, it's completely irrelevant to Darksyde's thesis: that evolution does not imply atheism, and that science and religion can be compatible. Perhaps a professional scientist needs to compartmentalize when he's on the job, not that I see anything wrong with that. But there's no reason a layman cannot hold the thoughts, "God is great," and, "We descended from monkeys," simultaneously. I think that's the point he was trying to make, and that's our biggest weapon against the creationist movement.

Posted by: Brandon | January 17, 2008 5:43 PM

heddle said:

And I agree with Brandon. What Darksyde's was saying is that many religious people falsely believe that it would require cognitive dissonance to be religious and accept science--when in fact it is not necessarily so, as many of us can attest.

It is this distinction, I think, that is missed by Dawkins and Dennett when they imply that Eugenie Scott and friends are being deceitful when they maintain that a person can be religious and believe in evolution at the same time. They think that belief in evolution should cause cognitive dissonance when maintained at the same time as "traditional" theism, but that doesn't mean it necessarily does.

Posted by: Gretchen | January 17, 2008 6:05 PM

They think that belief in evolution should cause cognitive dissonance when maintained at the same time as "traditional" theism, but that doesn't mean it necessarily does.

This is true. But I also think they may be correct. Just because it doesn't cause the dissonance doesn't mean Scott and others are wrong. In fact given the depth to which most think about things in the USA it may just mean they haven't thought it through.

I think many fundies have and it leads to the problem we have in the courts.

Posted by: GH | January 17, 2008 6:13 PM

You can't be a real scientist and a believer.

I mean, you can't be a real scientist while you're acting religious.

I mean...

Catch those goalposts!

And either rise to heddle's challenge or admit you overstated your case. I strongly suspect the latter will be easier, and earn considerably more respect.

Posted by: James Hanley | January 17, 2008 6:17 PM

I wasn't aware that "tacos" were a way of knowing. You are aware that the entire conflict NOMA seeks to address is competing epistemologies and not food items, right? Or am I expecting too much?

The rest of us will be busy making real progress in convincing people to accept evolution.

Posted by: H. Humbert | January 17, 2008 6:46 PM

That was brilliant.

Posted by: Brandon | January 17, 2008 7:00 PM

Definitions, people, definitions. People can be religious without compartmentalization as long as their god doesn't infringe on the natural world (the amorphous "spirit") or is simply a redefinition of natural law (Einstein, Spinoza, etc.).
If God has some interaction with the natural world (apart from and in opposition to natural laws) then he lands squarely under the scientists microscope and it is this type of God that requires compartmentalization - see Newton.

Posted by: Phaedrus | January 17, 2008 10:40 PM

Lot said above so I'll be quick as I can to vent off the steam.

Found the article SICKENING and framing at its worst. For christsake the "god of the gaps" screams from it; that has NO place in science; NONE!!

Furthermore religion (at least the type assumed under discussion) has as its underpinning MAGIC - and MAGIC (the BELIEF that there is a MAGIC operating or that has operated) has NO place in science. There are things we don't yet understand - very complicated and wonderous things - those things are not assumed scientifically magical for fucking-sake - EVER!

A scientist ceases to act like a scientist when the method of science is not employed in the person's undertaking. PERIOD! What makes a SCIENTIST is the APPLICATION of the METHOD and not the knowledge of the facts and formulas, else scientists would be say encyclopedias. What is so hard to understand about that and how can you confuse how religion operates with how science operates. The minute a so-called scientist says for all practical purposes "I will now flip my hat around and accept on FAITH that there is MAGIC" that scientist is NOT a practicing scientist in the undertaking no matter how accomplished and knowlegleable that person is in science.

Good god that article sucked and was framing and pandering at its core. Warning: never never never compromise rigor in definition for the sake of soothing the bottom 30%. That only brings you down to their level and by definition allows them to be self-satisfied with their staying fixed in their deluded world.

Posted by: ConcernedJoe | January 18, 2008 7:16 AM

ConcernedJoe,

The only question is, does your theory permit you to distinguish the science of those scientists who also believe in MAGIC from those who don't. It does not, so your theory is in the same category as ID--it is just philosophy that predicts nothing.

Posted by: heddle | January 18, 2008 9:07 AM

Heddle -- "The only question is, does your theory permit you to distinguish the science of those scientists who also believe in MAGIC from those who don't." WTF?!?

Can you read Heddle -- I said when a person is NOT applying the scientific method with all that the method rightfully and explicitly demands, that person is NOT ACTING like a scientist. That is something that is measurable. I have no THEORY -- it is a statement of FACT based on a reasonable and cogent definition of what being a scientist entails... as opposed to one that knows scientific facts but does not practice the methodology. And BTW titles are not the issue. If a bona fide titled and licensed modern surgeon waves a holy relic over a patient to cure an inflamed appendix that "surgeon" in that act is NOT acting like a modern surgeon; I don't care how expert the person is in the art and science of modern medical surgery otherwise.

Geeezzzz.

Posted by: ConcernedJoe | January 18, 2008 9:26 AM

I stand in awe of your ALLCAPS and exclamation marks !!approach to logic ConcernedJoe. You've said all that needs to be said. And I mean that sarcastically.

Unless someone can show how people of faith actually do science less well than those not of faith, and science is a method not a state of being, who cares how they "compartmentalize" things? That's their business. It's only when they try to adjust the methodology of science itself to make it more consilient with some facet of their faith that it becomes my business.

Posted by: Dave S. | January 18, 2008 9:33 AM

DarkSyde writes:

... it is intended for a wide audience of non scientific, religious people who only hear one admittedly inaccurate but nevertheless highly persuasive talking point issued from the pulpit and the mega-church TV every week; that accepting evolution means giving up their faith; ...

I agree with this entirely. However, there is a hard core on both sides of this issue who would disagree that this is "admittedly inaccurate" at all. Not only have we those hard liners of faith who say this, but also some hard liners of no faith. Naturally the former assumes faith wins, and the latter science. It's like watching a game where one side is playing chess and the other checkers and both are certain they're gonna win because the other guy is playing the wrong game.

Posted by: Dave S. | January 18, 2008 9:52 AM

Regarding the issue of compatibility of science and religion, a number of analogies were offered (farmer/water skier; person employed as a scientist making love to their spouse, etc).

It is important to note that (unlike the above examples) in many areas religion and science address the same ultimate questions: origin of the universe, the start of life, the origin of species, the basis of consciousness, the existence of a non-material soul, the basis of "miracles" etc. In these areas, science and religion are in direct conflict, philosophically and methodologically. In these areas, you can't approach these topics from both a religious and scientific perspective at the same time; you gotta chose one or the other.

Posted by: divalent | January 18, 2008 9:56 AM

Dave S: My tone is heavy but I really have no intention of being personal; I have no idea who you are -- I have no reason nor right to not respect you as a person. However you are stating things here that are incomprehensible to me and misstated to boot. Without churning more I will say I never came close to saying "believers" cannot be good scientists. All I said was that when they practice science as scientists they must not bring magic into it (accept god or other magic agent as a cause) and they must rigorously follow the data and results in their conclusions. Period. The fact that one can be a good scientist yet really (not just socially go along with the ritual) believe that a priest can change bread and wine into the body and blood of christ (or any other such thing) seems patently ridiculous if not insane to me; but that is an aside and was not addressed nor important to the points I made (or hoped to make) above.

DarkSyde: sorry but I am not swayed that eloquent framing is effective. I think it is counterproductive. To me honesty is best policy. If I was involved I'd say: "Frankly whether learning science like evolution kills god belief or enhances it is not a concern of mine; that is your business. I can only tell you the scientific method and evidence and questions raised by the evidence that I will try to teach you will be devoid of any agent like god in this science class." I stick by what I said above. I try; so what.

Posted by: ConcernedJoe | January 18, 2008 10:17 AM

GH - thank you .. if course I was not implying or saying that which Engr Tony said of me. Thanks for rightly pointing that out.

Ok maybe my english sucks - but geez.. can people read?? Mamma mia!

Posted by: ConcernedJoe | January 18, 2008 10:22 AM

GH read!!! I said magic has no place in scientific endeavours. That one cannot practice good science by definition if magic is an acceptable conclusion in the end result of the so-called scientific activity. For godsake .. where did I say that "anyone who has any measure of religious faith (or as he proclaimed - magic) is fully incapable of carrying out any endeavor based in science" ??? I clearly say - magic has no place in good science, NOT that it has no place in a person's unscientific life (whether I think it does or not is unimportant). I have no problem with the surgeon saying a prayer before the operation -- I have a problem if prayer is a method in the operation (as in "we will now cease cutting and pray that Jesus removes the cancer"). Wouldn't you have a problem with that? Wouldn't any sane person?

Posted by: ConcernedJoe | January 18, 2008 10:35 AM

GH Read -- LOL - sorry GH -- not you. LOL - I should stop. And Engr Tony let's call a truce. Have a good day. Thanks for lettin me vent people.

Posted by: ConcernedJoe | January 18, 2008 10:38 AM

So, DarkSyde, that means we should deal with their ignorance by ignorantly "uncle tomming" and politely not mentioning the man behind the curtain? I understand what you're trying to do but gimme a break. We have done too much ass-kissing to silly beliefs already in the name of tolerance and all encouraging those beliefs does is encouragement mistreatment of our sorry butts that are living in the really real world. No, too much already. It is time for them to act tolerant of those who don't see fairies prancing at the bottom of the garden.

Posted by: Donna | January 18, 2008 12:45 PM

In Romans 1 Paul claims that God can been seen through nature. I never really thought much about this when turned away from Atheism to embracing God. I was taught a bunch of do's and dont's that were supposed to make me a better person. But as I began to travel in Asia and learn more about the Eastern way of thinking, I began to see the beauty around me. I saw Tibetan China, the Oregon Coast, Southern California, The Navajo Deserts, The Colorado Mountains, and my personal favorite: The Florida Gulf Coast. In fact I am staring outside my Father's window at the sun glaring over the Chesapeake Bay right now.

I am by no means a scientist. I did poorly in school in this subject. I never really read about evolution much. In fact, I would leave botany class quite regularly in panic when I started to think about science and where all the plants came from. I remember walking on a path at Calvert Cliffs in Calvert County and getting to the Bay I grew up boating on. I saw it and thought about death and got scared. Nature somehow pointed me to death because I only believed in what I could see. I had no idea where it came from really. I really did not think about it.

When I did think I would try and go back and figure out how all this came about and then how I came about. Then I would think about how of all the sperm my Father generated that I was in the one who made it to the egg. I was the egg that made it too. Did each time he masterbated kill a life? What if I would have been one of the ones who did not make it? What if that shell that landed two feet to the left of my Grandfather at D-Day had not gone left?

All these questions brought great doubt and a sense of worthlessness to me. I was not a planned pregnancy at all. Was all this chance? I was a miracle of all miracles or just random luck. Was it random or not? When I started to think maybe there was a God and in fact did believe I still never really looked at the nature part of it. That is until I began to travel. Those rocks in Oregon cried out to me that there is a God. The beauty of Tibet cried out to me that something must be out there that I could not grasp fuly without some meditation about nature and its origins and functions.

Modern Christianity seeks to put so much emphasis on a conversion experience that is final and one will know for sure where He will end up when this life is over. It seems to then ask you to live by a moral code and go out and get others to pray see how bad they are and convert them. I did it for years. Then I finally saw enough of nature and beauty to read about evolution. I do not get it all yet and may never. Some of it is compatible with what I believe and what I see in the Bible, some of it is not, and much of it is neutral. The point is that as I saw nature I began to see God in it. Romans 1 stated above became real to me. I became less dogmatic and began to see the truth of other arguments.

The short of it is that I now see the value of man. The modern Christian movement is based a great deal on the teachings of John Calvin. He had an overly pessimistic view about the nature of man in my view. I agree with him that we are fallen and seperated from God. But that is not the thing people need to see. They need to see the beauty around them, the beauty within them, and their value in light of the value that God places on them. If the Bible is true we were created to reflect this beauty.

Bono was cast aside by Christians for singing about still not having found what he was looking for. Some thought is heresy for a Christian to say this. To me it is yes and yes. I found God and know where I stand. Yes I am still searching for the fullness of this revelation. It took me getting to know God to interest me in Science or nature. I think this is what the author of the article is trying to point out. I am not academically qualified to comment on the science of it all. I wish more Pastors would see this too and shut up. But I can share my journey from atheist to believer to stronger believer as I examined nature. What if Romans 1 is right?

Posted by: King of Ireland | January 18, 2008 1:43 PM

And even after all that, Glenn still considers himself a Biblical literalist. Not a YE Creationist to be sure, but a literalist.

emotional brain vs. rational brain

And that compartmentalization idea again. I have always found Glenn to be an odd one in this area. Good fella though.

Posted by: GH | January 18, 2008 2:49 PM

Peter read your post and your blog article. Essentially agree and you more eloquently express what I have tried to express above. However, one thing I sense in your article -- a thing that Dawkins, et al fall prey to -- is something that could be (mis)construed as an attempt at a "scientific refuting of god." I think it is important that we do not commingle roles when we discuss these god issues. It obscures and undermines the method we seek to defend.

Talking as a philosopher you would be allowed to explore the logic of god belief and expose logic or illogic, talking as a scientist (includes all disciplines that follow the method and are naturalist) you are allowed to examine the evolutionary (biological and historical), and psychological and neurological underpinnings of belief, and what constitutes delusion and at what stage delusion becomes deleterious.

But talking as a scientist of any sort you cannot comment on the existence of god. That is a "gotcha" for a scientist. Why not? Not because it ain't polite, but because the scientific method demands that all hypotheses are falsifiable and the concept of god ain't falsifiable. We can say god has no place in science -- meaning scientists must assume natural causes and results as they go about scientific business -- but scientists true to their method have no way of concluding there is no god other than a backhanded way (showing natural causes). We may expose our atheist leanings but that is it in the public PR game we must play.

My point: Science is science - it has strict rules. Those rules for public consumption I boil down to this pretend statement to the class: Frankly whether learning science like evolution kills god belief or enhances it is not a concern of mine; that is your business. I can only tell you the scientific method and evidence and questions raised by the evidence that I will try to teach you will be devoid of any agent like god in this science class.

When scientists stray from the rules of the scientific method they are not acting in the capacity of scientists nor are their conclusions scientific. When defending science we must not be drawn into defending our atheist leanings over conveying what the public really needs to understand and accept. That is, that scientists play by strict rules, rules that are uncompromisingly honest, fair, rigorous, and probing, and that by design must drive constantly toward the truth while never accepting anything as The Truth. It must be made clear that there are downsides of the scientific method for the human psyche. That is, the public must accept that nothing is above examination and that the scientific approach consequently drives brutally blunt and uncomfortable conclusions and exposures empty suits behind the curtain. They must know and accept that science is not for the squeamish or for people incapable of intellectual honesty. The plus is that it makes the world even more wondrous and discovers things useful to us all. And people of good will (in and out of science, believers and non-believers) can and do accept and use this gift of scientific reasoning to make the world a better place for all. This collectively is the truth; this must be hammered home.

Posted by: ConcernedJoe | January 19, 2008 4:01 AM

I ordinarily stay out of this fight because I've been trashed enough times by both sides. But I can see plenty of compartmentalizing going on here, and not all of it by the religious folks.

Here are two facts about the world, both overwhelmingly supported by the evidence:

Fact 1. Humans evolved from other organisms; most recently other primates, but ultimately single-celled prokaryotes.

Fact 2. Millions of people accept Fact 1., and also believe in a god or gods.

The devout atheists here accept Fact 1. But when they're confronted by Fact 2, they behave exactly like Ken Ham confronted by Australopithicus. They don't like Fact 2, they don't think that's the way the world logically "should" be, so they twist their heads around to explain that isn't "really" the way the world is.

Well sorry, guys, but that is precisely the way the world is. I agree, it isn't logical. But you know, Fact 1 isn't logical either-- all those extinctions, and atavisms and vestigial organs. Pretty messy way of putting the world together. But that's how the world works. The world is a messy place. So why don't you stop undercutting the people who are trying to save American public schools, and just learn to deal with the world the way it is?

Posted by: hoary puccoon | January 19, 2008 9:23 AM

OK, no one's going to read this but I'm putting it in anyway!! :)

Way, way, way up in the thread someone claimed that one can't be both religious and be a true scientist, because we must reject anything we can't quantify as being BS. I respectfully disagree.

First of all, we ALL do serious compartmentalization in our minds. Cognitive dissonance demands it. It doesn't matter what you believe, there's a damn good chance you're fudging the numbers somewhere.

Second, we can't quantify everything that exists. Long, long, long, loooong before we could measure the atom it was presumed that they existed. We're talking back to the Greeks. And was it scientific research that made that concept fall into the dusty tomes of history for thousands of years? Nope... it was the exact opposite... a rejection of scientific thinking that pushed aside the eventual scientific discovery of the atom.

So it is quite possible to reasonably presume that something exists and not be able to quantify it.

In fact, if you're a true scientist, you HAVE to! The whole point of scientific experimentation is to test the reality of things that we presume exist in an attempt to disprove their existence. A scientist who doesn't reasonably presume that something might exist that has not been measured is a worthless scientist who likely does nothing but verify other people's measured assumptions.

And more so... because we can measure it doesn't necessarily mean our measurements are accurate. We must be careful of presuming that everything we assume is universal... take the law of gravity as an example. The standard for gravity on Earth is not the universal standard. Something that was presumed to be accurate based on measurements we had made, we were fundamentally wrong on because our model didn't have all of the information...

So don't write off belief so quickly. We all have it. We all use it. Now that DOES NOT mean that religion and science are directly compatible... but the ability to be a scientist is the ability to accept that your beliefs may be wrong after logical analysis... regardless of what those beliefs are.

Posted by: Barry F | January 19, 2008 10:27 AM

This is stupid. I must be missing something. Where the fuck does Dawkins or any thoughtful person above emphatically say if you are religous (i.e., profess god belief) you cannot be a good scientist? What I believe premier atheists, and certainly this lowly one (me) are saying is that you cannot bring religion i.e., any magic or faith (as in I believe in dogma/doctrine over evidence) or lack of the method (i.e., violate the rules of the science method) into science and do good science. That is FACT by definition. Woo woo or dogma in science of any type invalidates scientific validity. I know lots of smart people. Many claim to be religion. Although I think it is a silly and intellectually dishonest and a weak people pleasing position on their part - as well as burdening them with a cognitive dissonance problem they could easily avoid - my opinions don't mean shit relative to their ability to do science or be smart. If they can turn off the religion when they do science they certainly can and do great science. And yes I know people that do! Who says this cannot be? Dawkins? He's never worked with someone who professes belief? He's never seen their good work currently or historically? I doubt it re: him; and I doubt it re: us. And what the fuck gives you the right to say this: "The devout atheists here accept Fact 1. But when they're confronted by Fact 2, they behave exactly like Ken Ham confronted by Australopithicus" what you do a survey? and what is your criteria?

Read this slowly: saying god has no place as a cause or as a result in a method is not the same as saying god has no place in an individual's life. I accept that people - good scientists included - float their boat in different ways and are not one dimensional; and I bet Dawkins, and a host of other rabid atheists do too. Read carefully those above and do not cherry-pick.

Posted by: ConcernedJoe | January 19, 2008 10:57 AM

What darksyde has done is BLASPHEME! Er, I mean 'not supported by scientific observation'. When one chases dragons too long, one begins to resemble a dragon. Dawkins and other strident Movement Atheists have fallen into the trap of becoming mirror images of what they detest most. So much of their discussion is a knee-jerk reaction against Abrahamic fundamentalism. What darksyde asks is that we should all act a little more human; yet that garners witch-hunt mentality from some quarters.

Posted by: Gene | January 19, 2008 11:22 AM

Scientists believe a whole class of things that are not subject to scientific verification: history. No one alive saw Napoleon, or the Hanging Gardens of Babylon. But nobody says if you believe the history that you can't be a scientist.

Also, I find it interesting that people believe that science has anything to say about things outside its scope. It has a scope, which is roughly sense data. To assume that this is the only scope that exists, then claim that science proves that no other scope is valid, is circular. Science cannot tell you the meaning of science.

Posted by: Dan Lewis | January 19, 2008 11:30 AM

Wow, what a phenomenal waste of disk space this thread turned out to be.

Posted by: Bored | January 19, 2008 1:29 PM

OK, now that everyone has left, I'll put in my paragraph. Because I'm here and, why not?

Science, by definition, cannot say anything about things outside its jurisdiction. So a scientist is free to believe that there is SOMETHING beyond the reach of science. Where we get into trouble is when we try to claim a belief that we KNOW WHAT THAT SOMETHING IS. To believe that a particular theocracy, or a particular story, is literally true without any scientific evidence, would I think be difficult for most scientists. However, that doesn't mean that stories are not useful, or even that they are not "true" in some sense other than literal interactions of matter and energy. Whether or not one accepts the use of TRUTH in the broader sense that can include things beyond science, it is to the impoverishment of scientists that they so often think that nothing can be IMPORTANT unless it has been proven with the scientific method.

Posted by: jockyoung | January 19, 2008 3:21 PM

Just as people in our culture make assumptions about religion that they clarify or let go of after thinking more deeply about them, we might do the same for some assumptions about science. Gregory Bateson, atheist anthropologist, iconoclastic scientist, and one of the early contributors to cybernetic and information theory, wrote a serious book about the epistemology of religion called "Angels Fear." There he analyzed how religion functions in individuals and cultures (much as he analyzed in his 1978 book "Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity" how the information-flow system we call "mind" functions in a material world). He concludes that "unknowing," or gaps in flows of information, actually helps all systems to function by avoiding the confusing of distinct logical orders, by, for example, taking the map for the territory, the menu for the meal, the word for the thing, the member for the class. He sees religion as one way humans have developed to preserve unknowing when they think of big questions -- they employ secrets, revelation, the holy, the sacred, the other, authority, mystery, awe, respect, paradox, limits on logical thinking, ritual, sacrament, and all sorts of other concepts we think of collectively as religious. The same thing happens in play, and in poetry and stories and art generally: we suspend disbelief, we imagine, to find meaning. He posits that this gap in knowledge may make "belief" an essential characteristic of religion because of the paradox that what we are trying to know is a whole system that includes us, the knower, as a part. It is this gap in knolwedge, this leap of faith, that is so obvious and so unacceptable to anyone outside the belief system, whatever it may be (not just conservative Christianity, but other religions, political systems, etc.) What is interesting is that creationists' deadly seriousness constitutes constitutes a lack of appreciation for the aesthetic aspect of their own beliefs, a lack of playfulness leading to a lack of humility. This is a widespread human phenomena, not limited to religious people, as some of the comments above show.

Carl Jung is another scientist who brought a new approach to religion, recognizing the complementarity of contradictory concepts (good-evil, rest-action, thinking-feeling, something-nothing) about the same time Heisenberg and Bohr were doing the same thing in their explanations of sub-atomic phenomena. Modern religious liberals appreciate Jung because he gives an intellectually meaningful context for god-talk as a psychological and evolutionary phenomenon, related to the collective unconscious. But conservative religious people look at his bottom line -- we know nothing whatsoever about any thing-in-itself, either in religion or science (so he does not posit that god "exists" or not) -- and they reject Jung as "psychologizing" religion, a sin Jung would easily admit. But since meaning is itself a psychological phenomenon for humans, psychologizing god-concepts does not make them less meaningful to humans. The very point I wish creationists would admit -- that creation stories in every culture are myths, including their own creation stories (plural, because the Bible has more than one, which some creationists haven't yet bothered to notice) -- is ironically the point that, according to Jung at least, preserves their meaning. As stories or poetry about humans' relation to nature and each other, creation myths can be as meaningful as any other art or poetry.

In the end, the debate about teaching the (Christian-Jewish) creation myths in schools is framed in terms of "what's actually out there." Conservatives insist that children must be taught that the answer is "somebody," and not just "anybody" -- always "he," never "she," "it" or "they" -- and possessed of certain attributes, including a certain personality, while scientists say either "nothing" or "natural law" or "we don't know," any of which psychologically scares the conservatives, because these answers eliminate what Jung would call the most important part, the emotive force of the myth. Creationists are locked into the idea that their poetry is also science, not recognizing that when you read our most thoughtful science theorists, our science is also poetry. It is no less poetry for the general consensus in our culture that what it describes is "knowledge." As we know, a previous version of this poetry, Newtonian determinism, with all its cultural implications that befuddled smart people for over a century, is no longer accepted as gospel truth as it once was. And we generally expect our present scientific poetry to change with succeeding generations, because we recognize that our science is also a human cultural endeavor with human cultural assumptions and viewpoints. Remember Lord Kelvin noting at the end of the 19th century that there were just a few unknown details to fill in before we attain a complete scientific understanding of the universe? This was before relativity, quantum theory, Godel's theorem, the uncertainty principle, information theory, computers, "non-local" (faster-than-light) effects among sub-atomic particles, chaos theory, complexity theory, and all the other new and exciting poetry about what the world is like and who we are in it.

So here we are, creatures who evolved on this chunk of rock revolving around one of the 100,000,000,000 suns of the Milky Way, an ordinary galaxy among 100,000,000,000 others, where all of our history is an eye-blink of a few millennia in a universe already 14,000,000,000 years old, and we're coming up with ideas about -- about what? About whether it means anything at all that, of all the stuff in the universe, we are the only part that we know of (so far) that is asking what it's about! Stated differently, we are the universe reflecting on itself, the universe's self-consciousness. We are an evolutionary product talking about the evolution we are still subject to, assemblages of star-dust asking how stars exploded and their ashes precipitated to this place in this form (earth and the humans that grew from it) to ask this question. The fact that we are having this discussion at all makes us a unique part of the universe, at least as far as we know now. But that idea, too, may change as we learn more through science, maybe find other conscious "people" or other lines of evolution culminating in self-conscious species -- maybe even billions upon billions of them, making us commonplace. Or not. Hmmm... Plenty of food for thought, paradox, poetry, science, myth, awe, art, humility, humor. When neither religion nor science find meaning in their own poetry, they both become dogmatic, a shell to exclude meaning, repeating an easy answer when it's really the question itself that prompts wonder.

I think DarkSyde's article was trying to say more or less the same thing. It is very useful to change the terms of the debate. He made a good effort at it by respecting creationists' search for meaning as much as anyone else's. After all, they are fellow creatures who have evolved as we have, from the same rock made of the same star dust, and today are filled with the same wonder we have at our self-consciousness, and the same sense of mystery we have about our place in this whole thing we've bubbled up from.

Posted by: JanKees | January 19, 2008 6:04 PM

H. Humbert wrote:

But as Gingerbaker rightly points out, science is a method. When this method is applied to religious claims, it finds them unsupported, and thus, unjustified

Actually, it is invalid to apply the scientific method to religious claims, because science is only capable of uncovering information about the natural world. It makes no more sense to apply the scientific method to religion than it does to use prayer to determine a gene sequence.

Science is the only method we have at determining the truth of reality.

Correction. Science is the only method we have for investigating the natural world. There are plenty of things which cannot be determined by science, such as ethics. Also, as Dan Lewis touched on, the study of history does not exactly employ the scientific method. One does not carry out repeatable experiments to determine whether Abraham Lincoln was the 16th president of the United States.

Science is a powerful tool which has greatly advanced human civilization (and by which I make my own livelihood). But when people elevate it to the position of "the only way we can know anything" I'm reminded of the old saying that when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

Posted by: Eric Seymour | January 22, 2008 4:59 PM

No - they form from a human experience of what works and what does not work in a society contemporaneous with the situations they portend to address. They are bounced in experiments and/or in the commerce of the market-place of life against BIOLOGICAL evolved things like the sense of fairness all primates have to some degree, and against other instincts like protect your family and the pack.

Ethics are not just revealed. They evolve (although often not thought of by the players of the game in this way but most probably by the rule makers) via hypothesis, testing as stated, and by a rigorous evaluation of findings and results to come to conclusions. We seek: what works, and what does not to achieve the best we can for all concerned. That is the purpose of ethics really.

Our operating ethics have not remained static very long. Why? Because they are being tested, discarded or reshaped, added to, every day in this great experiment going on that is called life.

And yes social SCIENTISTS often specialize in ethics and propose new rules of the game all the time - and real professional ones - not just idiot woo woo ones or brilliant ones constrained by their affiliation to and investment in their religion - look to results, statistics, experiments, the economics (risks/benefits, gain/loss) of things and the politics of things (what can play in an environment) before proposing the ethics. They seek ethics that make sense, do the most good and least harm, and help people navigate the real world at a point in time without destroying mankind in the present or in the future.

You are a scientist? You cannot see this obvious process? You don't recognize it as a scientific process? Or are you confusing ethics with dogmatic rules; something I have no use for in life or in discussion.

Posted by: ConcernedJoe | January 23, 2008 7:19 AM

doctorgoo wrote:

Eric, why do you assume that there actually is a supernatural world?

The comment I wrote does not assume that a supernatural world exists. But science, by definition, is only capable of investigating the natural world. If there is anything beyond the natural world, science cannot address it. So, to attempt to use science to prove the non-existence of the supernatural is circular logic.

CJ--your description of the way ethics change over time is similar to how some biologists describe evolution (e.g. "nature" creates new varieties, which either succeed or fail in the "ongoing experiment" of life). But no one would seriously say that evolution has proceeded according to the scientific method. For my part, I wasn't referring to the way that social mores "evolve" over time--I was speaking of how ethicists attempt to apply accepted principles to certain situations. They do not conduct experiments.

I will repeat what I said before--to say that the scientific method is the only way we can know anything is both arrogant and short-sighted.

Posted by: Eric Seymour | January 24, 2008 10:19 AM

Eric you are giving your meanings to my words, erroneous meanings and conclusions as far as I am concerned. But put that aside here's what I gather from your words: you believe ethics are immutable. To me this is silly as ethics are developed all the time to fit new situations or address new mores. Yes "ethicists [do] attempt to apply accepted principles to certain situations"

But here is the rub: "accepted" is a point in time thing.. what is accepted today is not necessarilly what was accepted yesterday, nor what will be accepted tomorrow. They change as results in new environments dicate they should, and as new hypotheses are tested.

And "attempt" implies testing and try for fit. Ethicists (ones founded on rational methods and objective vision) do tries for fit all the time at least in their minds and with their peers -- they seek the best possible guide given gain/loss, risk/reward, etc. they'd never know what achieves this unless they could run tests and evaluate results in some fashion.

Read what I wrote. To assume ethics are not based on hypotheses and are not tested on the bench or in the marketplace would be absurd. Life is one big experiment to those that are listening and observing. Results count, one must read them, if they point to change, change or die. Ethicists know this.

As for "the scientific method is the only way we can know anything is both arrogant and short-sighted" you perhaps limit "scientific method" to formalized chemistry or something like that experiments. I believe most of us here believe it is a process of critical thinking, that applies broadly. It is a method - subconscious most of the time - that rational people use to evaluate situations to make judgements or take actions. I know my wife loves me because this hypotheses I (poor her) test every day with "destructive" experiments. Point is - rational people, that sanely view things and use critical thinking, have subconscious hypothses in their minds, they look at actions and reactions to things to test these hypotheses, thay draw conclusions from results. I propose, test, evaluate results -- or accept trusted and tested sources that do this for me -- that's how I know things in an operational sense. What other way do you know things? Revelation via dreams? Talking trees? Tell us and give examples.

Peace out

Posted by: ConcernedJoe | January 24, 2008 12:42 PM

Eric - Accepted that we seem in same ballpark -- thought we were not for awhile. Good enough for time being else we'll be batting around fluff. I will just say that by subconscious I mean without thinking about the mechanics of the thought process while in the process. Piano players, chess players, outfielders, golfers, reasoning thinkers, etc. don't much involve themselves in the metamodel of thinking/performing while they are in it. But I'll spare you. Again I accept as reasonable what I now understand from you. I don't agree 100% but no big deal. Thanks for your time. Have a good rest of day.

Posted by: ConcernedJoe | January 24, 2008 2:45 PM

The comment I wrote does not assume that a supernatural world exists. But science, by definition, is only capable of investigating the natural world. If there is anything beyond the natural world, science cannot address it.

Sorry Eric, but you cannot claim "It makes no [...] sense to apply the scientific method to religion" and then write that such a comment "does not assume that a supernatural world exists". It is apparent that you think that the supernatural actually exists... you just add the one (mostly) false caveat that science cannot be used to judge anything supernatural.

I added the word "mostly" there because if one only discusses the supernatural in a purely abstract manner where it doesn't relate with or impact the natural world at all... then yes, you are correct that science can neither confirm nor deny the existence of the supernatural.

However, most people who discuss the supernatural describe it in terms of how it interacts with the natural world... eg, whether prayers come true or whether miracles really happen. Clearly science can be used to determine if the supernatural impacts the natural world, so therefore what you wrote is mostly false.

Furthermore, not only can science be used to determine the truth of most religious claims, in many case it SHOULD happen. As a peon on the payroll of Big Pharma Inc., I'm not satisfied at all when I hear a claim that someone was healed of a terrible disease by the power of prayer... I'm not satisfied with 'Goddidit' as an explanation... I want to investigate if there's any scientific or medical explanation why that person was able to be healed without any known reason. Perhaps this person has some previously unknown genetic difference, and a new class of drugs could be developed to mimic this difference as a way to keep others from suffering?

The same thing with claims of miracles... If there's a news report of a statue of the Virgin Mary crying blood, the compassionate side of this atheist would be worried that some mentally ill person is cutting him/herself in a plea for attention. I don't believe for a second that 'It's a miracle!' is a valid (or moral) response to such a claim.

So, to attempt to use science to prove the non-existence of the supernatural is circular logic.

Science cannot prove that the supernatural doesn't exist, but it doesn't matter... science can be used to prove that supernatural explanations aren't at all necessary to explain anything in the real world.

So the question remains as I posed above (in a more general, paraphrased form):

Why would anyone assume that there actually is a supernatural world?

Posted by: doctorgoo | January 24, 2008 7:18 PM