Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Two old friends have left a fascinating set of comments on an earlier thread and I liked them so much that I'm moving them up here to make sure everyone sees them. I have known Henry Neufeld for about 15 years, since first meeting him in the Compuserve religion forum. I have known Sastra for probably 10 years, since meeting her in a religious debate channel on IRC. Henry is a Christian, a Hebrew scholar and the director of a Bible school; Sastra is an atheist and longtime activist. Despite those differences, they are two of the clearest thinkers I have ever known. I'll paste the exchange below the fold. First, Sastra's comment:
I suspect that ID advocates haven't bothered to condemned Stein's statement because they have all intuitively translated it into what Stein actually meant. They translate everything into their own idiom, because they are fighting a different war. It's not about the science."Science leads to killing people" doesn't really mean what it appears to say. Instead, it means:
"If you base your world view only on science -- and leave out God -- then you are an atheist. Atheism leads to killing people. Atheism is the real enemy. We're going after atheism."
Darwinism = atheism. Flat out. That's why even educated cdesign proponentists don't feel strange confusing evolution with abiogenesis. It's why they can ask how "Darwinism" explains how the planets got here, or where the universe comes from, with a straight face, and get nods of approval from their listeners.
I think this is why those who defend the theory of evolution are somewhat polarized on this issue. The obvious rebuttal is to point out that evolution does NOT mean atheism. You need not follow it strictly all the way down: there are many theists who feel comfortable incorporating any and all scientific findings into their faith. Make this clear, and the ID tactic will fail. And you don't get into the quagmire of defending atheism.
BUT -- because the ID issue has been framed by its advocates as a full-scale attack on atheism -- atheists feel required to fight back. What group wouldn't, under the same circumstances? Otherwise, it feels as if the evolutionary side is conceding that yes, atheism is immoral, and atheism leads to immorality -- but evolutionists aren't all atheists, so that makes it okay.
And Henry's response, agreeing with her:
Sastra: The problem I've found is that it is very easy to be misunderstood when defending evolution by making it clear that it is not atheism, which of course it isn't. But it can easily sound like, "The ToE would be bad if it was atheism or fit well with atheism, but it isn't, it doesn't, so it's OK."The only reason the theory of evolution is OK is that it is good science, and correct insofar as we know to date. Whether it helps me as a theist fill out my theological system, or whether it helps one be a fulfilled atheist as Dawkins noted is irrelevant.
I agree with what you're saying, but the propaganda against atheism is so pervasive and has been so effective, that when one quite properly separates the theory of evolution from atheism, one can be readily misunderstood as acknowledging that atheists are immoral or that if the theory of evolution supported atheism, it would be thereby be a bad theory.
To repeat myself redundantly, a scientific theory is valid based on the science involved, not on what philosophical or theological systems make use of it, what people feel comfortable with it, or what ideas propagandists associate with it.
I agree with all of this. And I think it's important to make it clear that when we say that evolution is not synonymous with atheism, that doesn't mean that atheism is a bad thing. It's not. Sastra suggests, tongue in cheek, attaching the Seinfeldian phrase "not that there's anything wrong with that" to such statements.
Comments
I've always felt that when angry atheists say that science leads to atheism, they're playing right into the fundies' hands.
Posted by: Brandon | May 13, 2008 9:55 AM
And I always cringe when others put up straw men like "angry atheists" and exploit the fervor against atheism to attempt the get the religious on their side.
Posted by: David H | May 13, 2008 10:07 AM
But calm, loving and attentive atheists say it also - because it happens to be true for many people.
Science and religion are in rational opposition in several areas.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | May 13, 2008 10:12 AM
Brandon: Yes, they are being imprecise. What they mean to say is, "My understanding of science has contributed to my being an atheist." That some also add, "And any intelligent person looking at the same evidence should also chose atheism," is where the problems start.
On the general matter of framing, I am curious as to when science started to become an evil thing in public discussion. Yes, we've always had Frankenstein and Godzilla, I'm talking about where did a nation in love with cell phones and plasma TVs get the meme of scientists as evil atheists?
Posted by: kehrsam | May 13, 2008 10:14 AM
And when fundies say that evolution must be false because it leads to atheism and atheism is eeevil, I've always felt a little angered.
Posted by: Morgan | May 13, 2008 10:15 AM
People who have the philosophical view that science implies atheism usually understand the difference between a philosophical view and science itself.
Posted by: Taz | May 13, 2008 10:20 AM
Brandon said:
While much of the creationists' rhetoric is either illogical or extends beyond the facts, I do concede one of their points when its modestly presented:
When a evangelical or fundie does an effective job of researching the history of the development of the Bible and religious beliefs in general, coupled with learning and understanding scientific methodology and the resulting theories; their belief in a god as understood by most evangelical and fundie laymen will be transformed to something different. While it's true accepting the reality of evolution does not guarantee the student will reject belief in a theistic god with the attributes fundie's assign him, it will for many cause them to change to either a less theistic notion, and perhaps a more deistic notion of God, if not outright agnosticism or atheism.
Therefore, the threat the uneducated masses of evangelicals and fundies and their leaders perceive that is presented by the increasing body of knowldege discovered through scientific methodolgy is legitimate. To ignore that reality by our side would be virulent ignorance on our part.
Posted by: Michael Heath | May 13, 2008 10:29 AM
Science is, at base, the process of understanding the world. The puritanical strain in U.S. culture has always viewed the world as corrupt and irredeemable, and so any systematic study to understand that world must be equally nefarious. So part of our nation's distrust of scientists comes from that. The rest, I think, is just human nature; people resent the idea that someone else could know more than they do, and so hate the educated out of a sense of wounded pride.
Posted by: Julian | May 13, 2008 10:31 AM
Ah, but the believers are correct about this. Science does lead to atheism. There is plenty of empirical evidence for that fact. Surveys of the general population, of those with undergraduate degrees in science, of those with graduate degrees, of science faculty, and of members of the National Academy of Sciences clearly show that the more one progresses in the study and practice of science, the more likely one is to lose religious belief. If we're going to discuss this from an empirical viewpoint, it would be pretty silly to ignore that salient fact. When a fundamentalist couple hears their son announce that he has been accepted into a physics doctoral program, they are quite correct to fear for his faith.
It's true, as the conciliators point out, a) that science doesn't logically entail atheism, and b) that there are religious scientists. Alas, it's a bit like suggesting there is no conflict between basketball and being short, by pointing out that playing basketball doesn't logically entail being tall, and that there have been some pro players who were under six feet. Nonetheless, we all understand the practical connection, that there is a tactical advantage in basketball to reach around and above one's opponent.
Similarly, to the assertion that the universe includes a god, the scientist naturally asks: What does that mean? What is the evidence for that? How could anyone tell? Where can we find the relevant data? What experiment might we run to test the relevant claims?
The scientist isn't required to go down that path. And some who believe won't. But it's a natural (not logical) consequence of the kind of thinking behind science. When that kind of thinking is applied to theology, the results are universally negative. Scientists generally don't believe in a god for the same reason that scientists generally don't believe in a unicorn.
Posted by: Russell | May 13, 2008 10:32 AM
I always like to point out that Evolution does not rule out the idea of God, just the Judeo/Christian/Muslim God of the completely refuted Book of Genesis
There could be all kinds of deist Gods or other creator-type Gods who used massive timescales and natural laws to get the job done. However, given the amount of waste and pain in nature, we cannot say that this would, by any means, be a good God.
And pointing this out tends to make heads implode, one way or another.
Many religious-defenders see any general argument for a God (such as the first-over argument) as supporting their particular God and any evidence against their particular God (such as evolution) as supporting atheism.
When you decouple the (for example) Christ versus Atheism dichotomy, and unfold it into the atheism-agnosticism-deism-all particular Gods spectrum, it not only clarifies the discussion, but can make it less adversarial, and may even lead a religious individual to wonder why and how any true religion could ever come into conflict with science at any point.
Posted by: Jason Failes | May 13, 2008 10:45 AM
Sorry, I meant "first-mover argument"
Posted by: Jason Failes | May 13, 2008 10:56 AM
@Russell:
Actually, I think the evidence only shows a strong correlation between scientific training and atheism. A causal relationship is certainly reasonable, but not necessarily an established fact.
There was even a recent study that argued that atheism causes an interest in science, rather than vice versa (can't find the link just now).
Posted by: qetzal | May 13, 2008 11:01 AM
Russell - Studies have shown that countries that are less relgious (of all types) have lower rates of homicide, childhood STDs, teen pregancies & etc. Therefore science leads to atheism leads to a higher standard of living and general happiness.
Damn those evvvvilll scientists straight to H*ll. :) DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | May 13, 2008 11:10 AM
Exactly. Somebody's personal experience is his business. But when you say, "Once you accept evolution you have to eventually except atheism," guess what? You're bosom buddies with Pat Robertson.
Posted by: Brandon | May 13, 2008 11:12 AM
Qetzal, I suspect you're correct that the causality flows in both directions. Fundamentalists may steer away from studying the sciences, or feel less comfortable doing so. But does it really matter to the believers, whether it is science that weakens faith, or that science is more amenable to those who already have a weakness in their faith?
Posted by: Russell | May 13, 2008 11:13 AM
To expand a bit on what Russell said: there is no particular conflict between religion and evolution, but there is one between religion and science.
One demands faith, the other demands questioning and evidence. The two approaches do not compat.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | May 13, 2008 11:13 AM
It's obviously wrong to say science inevitably leads to atheism. It's even more wrong to equate the two--they are clearly not the same thing, and one need not necessarily involve the other. One could be atheist without science, or a scientist without atheism.
But it's just as wrong to deny any connection between science and atheism. People like to point out that 40% of AAAS members believe in God. But think about that. In the general public, god-belief is closer to 90%. Science enormously increases the chances of a person being an atheist. If you pick a random person from the population at large, there's only maybe a 1 in 10 chance he's an atheist. But the same random sample from the most prestigious scientific organizations will be more likely to pick out an atheist than a theist.
Is this because science nudges people towards atheism, or because atheists are more attracted to science? Maybe both. It's hard to tell which way the causation goes. But the empirical correlation is undeniable. There's some kind of connection there, whatever it might be. Sometimes apologists tend to gloss this connection over, but it's there. Very devout religionists are not incorrect in seeing science as a threat to their beliefs. In some ways, it really is. Science has a long history of overturning traditionally held beliefs and challenging what people thought they knew with certainty, so this shouldn't be surprising. And I disagree with people who say God is (somehow) completely immune to this process. To say science poses no threat to religion is a blatant falsehood--science poses a threat to any and all established ideas, whether religious, political, philosophical or, for that matter, scientific.
That's what makes it so great. :D
Posted by: Wes | May 13, 2008 11:16 AM
And of course those who accept "microevolution" but deny "macroevolution" (in other words, almost all creationists) are doing precisely that, following science to the point that they disagree with it on religious grounds. Just as those who are Young Earth Creationists follow geology down to the point where the age of the earth is concerned.
I have a great deal of respect for Sastra, but frankly science means "following the process strictly all the way down" -- if you don't do that, if you let some extra-scientific concern cause you to reject where the evidence leads, then you're not doing science. You don't get to pick and choose your science on the basis of your extra-scientific commitments.
Evolutionary theory is compatible with deism -- beyond that, not so much. And while it may be politically expedient to paper over this fact, so that the religious won't do stupid things like demand evolution be booted out of schools, it is ultimately disingenuous to suggest that evolution doesn't indeed lead to the rejection of almost all religious accounts of the origin of species, including humans.
Posted by: Tulse | May 13, 2008 11:18 AM
As a 5'10" atheist, I have to say I love Russell's basketball analogy. I have never felt closer to dunking the ball as I do right now. Thanks, Russell. :)
Posted by: Gingerbaker | May 13, 2008 11:21 AM
"I've always felt that when angry atheists say that science leads to atheism, they're playing right into the fundies' hands."
I am not sure what you are getting at here.
Are you denying that studying science can lead to people reassessing their views on religion and becoming atheists as a result ? Only there is plenty of evidence that studying science does lead to some people becoming atheists. You only need to read what PZ Myers or Richard Dawkins have written on this. It is important to note that it is not science itself that led them to become atheists, but the re-evaluation of their world-view following their exposure to science.
Or are you saying that some atheists may well have become atheists for the reasons described by Myers and Dawkins but they should not say so ? In which case you had better explain why their lying about why they are atheists would be
better.
"There was even a recent study that argued that atheism causes an interest in science, rather than vice versa (can't find the link just now)."
The argument was put forward by Matt Nisbett, and as usual he got it wrong. He cited a study that suggested advanced scientific study has little effect on whether a person was an atheist or not, and quoted Richard Dawkins saying he had become an atheist because of his study of science. Unfortunately for Nisbett, Dawkins became an atheist in his mid-teens, long before he had even started at university and studied what could be called advanced science. I believe PZ states he became an atheist at much the same time. Nisbett seems to have failed to consider that any adjustment in a person's world-view resulting from exposure to science would seem to come in the mid-teens, and in their 20's.
Posted by: John Doe | May 13, 2008 11:24 AM
Brandon writes:
And I've never heard anyone say that, except for some fundamentalists.
Posted by: Russell | May 13, 2008 11:25 AM
Sorry if I am a bit brutal, but what rational person cares about "theological systems"? Theology is entirely summed up by trying to count the number of angels on the head of a pin.
"Henry is a Christian, a Hebrew scholar and the director of a Bible school;"
So he believes mythology, he studies mythology, and teaches mythology.
Posted by: bernarda | May 13, 2008 11:25 AM
Read through the comments here:
http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/2008/03/why_the_pz_myers_affair_is_rea.php
Ignoring the post itself (in which I personally feel Nisbet was out of line) I'm not pulling this out of my ass. I'm not saying all angry atheists feel this way, or even a majority. But the sentiment is there. PZ Myers and Dawkins have also said on multiple occassions that evolution and religion are inherently incompatible.
Posted by: Brandon | May 13, 2008 11:32 AM
kehrsham said:
"On the general matter of framing, I am curious as to when science started to become an evil thing in public discussion. Yes, we've always had Frankenstein and Godzilla, I'm talking about where did a nation in love with cell phones and plasma TVs get the meme of scientists as evil atheists?"
Sunday mornings in church is where.
When - perhaps when Bush started talking about stem cell research?
Posted by: Gingerbaker | May 13, 2008 11:36 AM
And which religion is evolution compatible with? Which religion does not offer some supernatural explanation for the origin of humans?
Posted by: Tulse | May 13, 2008 11:43 AM
Wes -
You need to be more careful conflating causation and correlation. An inquisitive nature, for example, or an unwillingness to blindly follow the "common wisdom", could lead someone to both study science and question theology.Posted by: Taz | May 13, 2008 11:43 AM
They have every right to believe that, just like the religious have every right to believe that religion and evolution are inherently incompatible. Just like other people believe they are compatible.
None of those positions are verboten, nor should they be. People can believe whatever they like about the philosophical, moral, or theological implications of a scientific theory. None of it impacts the validity of the science itself.
If it's true that atheism and science aren't the same thing, then it is necessarily true that some scientists will believe that atheism and science are compatible, and others that religion and science are compatible, and vice versa. It would be foolish to try and stifle any of those views; far more productive is to point to them all and say "See? You can start with a true scientific theory and end up with completely opposite religious conclusions. So don't be afraid of it."
It's vanishingly rare historically to see censorship -- i.e. "Meyers and Dawkins and atheists should shut the hell up" -- work. Far better to fully air all of the various positions and reinforce the point that none of them impact the truth or falsehood of the science itself.
Posted by: Jeff Hebert | May 13, 2008 11:49 AM
Brandon writes:
If you can find quotes from either where they assert that evolution logically entails atheism, or that it's impossible to be both a biologist and a believer, I would be interested in that. I think it's important, when discussing the tension between science and religion, to try to be precise about the various kinds of relationship to which one alludes. "Inherently incompatible" is a pretty generic term, and depending on the meaning assigned to it, I could assent or dissent or simply stand puzzled at the assertion that evolution and religion stand in that relationship.
Posted by: Russell | May 13, 2008 11:50 AM
I never knew that the phrase "not that there's anything wrong with that" was a Seinfeldism. (I never could stomach that show.) I'd wondered why it suddenly became so popular a few years ago. Glad to finally know.
Carry on.
Posted by: Abby Normal | May 13, 2008 11:57 AM
My religion. Any further questions?
Jeff Hebert: I don't want to censor anybody. I am simply saying that many atheists believe that evolution and religion are incompatible. I am stating that they are wrong, and that by saying so they are hurting their own cause.
Russel: PZ Myers never said that it's impossible to be a religious scientist. But he seems pretty uncritical of these Larry Moran quotes:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/07/moran_on_theistic_evolution.php
Posted by: Brandon | May 13, 2008 12:03 PM
So.. I'm interested, do miserable, stupid, selfish, over sexed, violent bastards become relgious, or does relgion make them that way? ;) -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | May 13, 2008 12:06 PM
Here's what gets me: what is it about evolution in particular that leads to atheism, as opposed to science in general?
When it comes down to it, it's the methodological naturalism of science that ultimately puts the notion of God into a smaller and smaller box. In science, any time a belief and evidence are at odds, the evidence wins. All too often, that means religious texts are contradicted by all fields of science, including cognitive psychology, astronomy, meteorology, archeology and geology. The more we can understand and explain the world as natural forces, the less we feel the need to understand the divine will of God as a method of dealing with them.
So what is it specifically about biology, and evolution in particular, that drives fundamentalists to single out evolution in particular? Is it simply because this was the last great gap that God was driven out of by scientific thought? Or is it something personal, the idea that human beings are just another animal, as opposed to being something special and chosen by God?
Personally, I can't say it was evolution that drove the notions of God out of me. I've never been terribly religious, but I always cast about for notions of God and the Spiritual, even while taking college-level courses in Biology. But the scientific nature of skepticism in general that finally caused me to reject religion completely in offering understanding of the world around us, and accepting an atheistic worldview.
Posted by: Left_Wing_Fox | May 13, 2008 12:10 PM
Yes -- does your religion postulate a supernatural origin for humans?
Posted by: Tulse | May 13, 2008 12:15 PM
Personally, I think that increasing security, wealth, education, mobility and access to information are the factors that have led to the decline in organised relgion. This happens in all mature societies, eventually we "grow out" of needing an imaginary friend.
Posted by: DingoJack | May 13, 2008 12:16 PM
Wes,
That's an interesting claim. Does science pose a threat to the established idea that the scientific method is a reliable way to investigate/learn about anything/everything?
Tulse,
Mine. Kenneth Miller's. Henry Neufeld's.
Posted by: JuliaL | May 13, 2008 12:16 PM
JuliaL, I'll repeat my question to Brandon -- does your religion postulate a supernatural origin for humans?
Posted by: Tulse | May 13, 2008 12:25 PM
Left Wing Fox,
I suspect being exposed to biology, rather than physics or science, would show how many religious groups simply lie about the science. I can imagine learning that a religious group to which you have been exposed lies would make many people question other aspects of their teachings.
As to why biology seems to be singled out, as opposed to physics or chemistry I suspect there are a number of elements at play. First the theory of evolution has been around a bit longer than either relativity or quantum theory. You do get the impression that a good number of the groups opposed to evolution are unaware of any science done in the C20th. They have heard of Darwin but the synthesis of Darwin's theories and genetics is something that seem to be an alien concept to them. They would seem to be oblivious to the fact that the two main theories in physics are also killers for the idea the earth is a mere 6000 years old. I suspect this may in part be because whilst the theory of evolution at its simplest is pretty easy to understand (unless you are disposed to not understanding because you think your religious teachings trump reality) those of relativity and QM are not. There aee plenty of people who think they understand what evolution says, but don't, and so cannot tell when religious leaders are lying to them. Those who think they understand relativity and QM are probably more likely to really understand them (at least the basics) and so would not get taken in by the lie.
Posted by: John Doe | May 13, 2008 12:34 PM
Tulse,
Perhaps, depending on exactly what you mean by "supernatural." And apparently worked out through evolution.
Posted by: JuliaL | May 13, 2008 12:37 PM
"Mine. Kenneth Miller's. Henry Neufeld's."
Incorrect, at least as far as Miller goes.
Miller is a Catholic. Try reading the Catholic teachings on the matter, and you will realise that they do not consider humans arose solely as a result of evolutionary forces acting over millions of years. They consider humans also a require a soul, and the soul part is down to god, not nature.
I have not idea what your religion is, or Neufeld's, but given your ignorance about Miller's please forgive me for asking to supply some supporting evidence to support your claims.
Posted by: John Doe | May 13, 2008 12:39 PM
"Does science pose a threat to the established idea that the scientific method is a reliable way to investigate/learn about anything/everything?"
Good question. I think the answer is "Yes.", since one could imagine science not working: no consistent results to work with. But I don't think it's correct to imply that science deals with "anything/everything": our subjective experience of the world is beyond its reach. If I think I can talk to God, you really can't disprove it, for example.
Posted by: uncle noel | May 13, 2008 12:40 PM
Yes. But I can only speak for myself. :D
Posted by: kehrsam | May 13, 2008 12:41 PM
John Doe,
You are exactly right. To a great extent, fundamentalists create their own problems by lying to their young people.
Posted by: JuliaL | May 13, 2008 12:43 PM
"If I think I can talk to God, you really can't disprove it, for example."
That could depend on what you claim god is telling you. If you claim god is giving facts about the world that you could otherwise not know, that is a checkable claim.
It is also possible to monitor brain activity during times when you claim to be talking with god. If the scan shows nothing other than the normal activity connected with internal dialogue, then that would tend to disprove your claim.
Posted by: John Doe | May 13, 2008 12:46 PM
I'll object to the Larry Moran quote, and more generally, to the claim that science requires methodological naturalism. That presumes exactly what science lacks, some a priori metaphysics that says, "things like this are natural, and other things aren't, and we study only the first." Thinking like a scientist is dangerous to religion precisely because it doesn't have such limits. To the claim that there is a god, the scientific reaction is not some run to safe boundaries: "ah, that god-thing is defined as supernatural, whatever that means, and so I can't think about it the way I think about anything else." The scientific reaction of the scientist is just the opposite: What does it mean for there to be a god? What would be evidence for that?
Scientific thought is dangerous to religion not because god falls outside the boundary of science, but because it is the nature of scientific thought to not credence such boundaries.
On the smaller matter, I'll point out that PZ has written plenty in his own words, and when I asked if you can find him saying something you claimed he has said, it's a pretty poor response to say, "no, but here he is approvingly quoting Larry Moran saying something close."
Posted by: Russell | May 13, 2008 12:48 PM
I think some semantic clarifications need to be made. The following statements are not identical in meaning:
1. Evolution/science logically entails atheism.
2. Once you believe in evolution/science, you will become an atheist.
3. Learning about evolution/science contributed to my personally becoming an atheist.
4. Evolution/science makes belief in God logically incoherent.
Richard Dawkins believes #3 and #4. Daniel Dennett believes at least #4, though he told me he became an atheist quite independently of learning about evolution. I couldn't say about PZ Meyers. #1 implies to me that evolution means atheism, which just doesn't sound right.
Posted by: Gretchen | May 13, 2008 12:49 PM
John Doe,
Clarification, please.
As Kenneth Miller indicates his religion does not conflict with evolution, are you saying that he is a liar? Or that he is ignorant, meaning that he somehow believes things he doesn't know he believes? Or what?
And you are saying that science claims that humans arose ONLY as a result of evolution and that no god could have been involved?
Posted by: JuliaL | May 13, 2008 12:51 PM
kehrsam - Yes but which? Scientific minds need to know :D DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | May 13, 2008 1:03 PM
Evolution vs mythology. There can only be one winner in this game, And the victory will go to evolutionary biological sciences. You see it is much easier to work with scientific fact than mythological mumbo jumbo. Welcome to the modern ago of scientific enlightenment. Yes it would be nice and comfortable to maintain the old primitive mentality by explaining all of life's mysteries using a single name.
But in todays modern scientific arena. You just know for certain that compound evolutionary generational biological development and advancement is how life works.
If you have a problem accepting scientific fact let me email you a kleenex
My information is based on more the 7500 hours of research into the worlds most advanced form of life ever discovered. This era of advanced prehistoric marine biology became extinct 540 million years ago. The Hallettestoneion Seazoria dragons. Discovered in Utah by earth moving construction workers just below an ancient seashore five years ago. The discovery of the true sea dragons officially recognized as the Hallettestoneion Seazoria dragons will bring about a much greater understanding of how compounded evolution works.
Simple minded people should not even bother going to the Seazoria website at www.hszoria.com And you will know if you have a primitive mentality. Because if your fisrt thought is these remains are just rocks than this new science called Hallettestoneology is not for you. Go back and stick with your current text book ideology. You need to ask the true in depth scientific questions like what was the triggering event that occurred 540 million years ago that created these extremely specialized repeating configurations of individual stones that are in the exact configurations of large scale highly evolved prehistoric sea dragons right down to the very finest details.
The Hallettestoneion Seazoria dragons are from a recently discovered new era of advanced prehistoric marine biology.
The Seazorias are currently the worlds oldest, largest , and more importantly the most advanced forms of (marine) life ever discovered
Seazoria
www.hszoria.com
Posted by: Seazoria | May 13, 2008 1:03 PM
"As Kenneth Miller indicates his religion does not conflict with evolution, are you saying that he is a liar? Or that he is ignorant, meaning that he somehow believes things he doesn't know he believes? Or what?"
I am saying that if he is holding to the standard Catholic teaching on this issue, then yes, he is wrong.
"And you are saying that science claims that humans arose ONLY as a result of evolution and that no god could have been involved?"
No, I am saying there is no evidence any god was involved. So to claim, as the Catholic church does, that a god was involved conflicts with science. The Catholic church does not teach god COULD have be involved, the teach he WAS involved. A scientific claim, not supported by the evidence.
It is possible that Miller does not follow the standard Catholic line on this, in which I case I would withdraw my objection to your mentioning him. However he is then not then representative of the Catholic church's position on the matter.
Posted by: John Doe | May 13, 2008 1:06 PM
Ken Miller's religion is Ken Miller's Religion. Just because he says he's a Catholic does not mean he agrees with the Catholic Church on every single issue.
Posted by: Brandon | May 13, 2008 1:15 PM
John Doe,
That's a bit clearer to me.
So you are actually saying that the Catholic Church's position that evolution does not conflict with its view of God is incorrect. It is the Catholic Church, rather than Miller, that is either lying about this issue or is too ignorant to grasp what you grasp, which is that no scientific evidence any god is involved is the same as scientific evidence that no god is involved, because if there were any god, it would be detectable by human beings using the scientific method.
Have I got it right? I trust you agree there's no point in my attempting any other reply to you until I've understood you.
Posted by: JuliaL | May 13, 2008 1:19 PM
"Ken Miller's religion is Ken Miller's Religion. Just because he says he's a Catholic does not mean he agrees with the Catholic Church on every single issue."
Then people need to stop using him as an example of someone who embraces a mainstream religion and yet accepts evolution.
You cannot have it both ways. Either he accepts the teachings of his religion, in which case he is not a good example to be used when discussing the role of god in human evolution, or he does not, in which he is not a good example to be used of someone who follows the teaching of his religion with regards evolution.
The simple fact is that the current teaching of the Catholic church on human evolution is not supported by the scientific evidence. So anyone disagreeing with that position is not a good example of how you can be a Catholic and accept evolution.
So I take it you take issue with Julia using him as an example ?
Posted by: John Doe | May 13, 2008 1:25 PM
"So you are actually saying that the Catholic Church's position that evolution does not conflict with its view of God is incorrect. It is the Catholic Church, rather than Miller, that is either lying about this issue or is too ignorant to grasp what you grasp, which is that no scientific evidence any god is involved is the same as scientific evidence that no god is involved, because if there were any god, it would be detectable by human beings using the scientific method.
Have I got it right? I trust you agree there's no point in my attempting any other reply to you until I've understood you."
I am not sure what Miller's position is on the matter. I do know he identifies himself as a Catholic, and thus when used as an example of a religious scientist can be considered to be an example of a Catholic religious scientist.
If his views do not conform with those of the faith he professes then why did you use him as an example ? If his views do not confirm then Miller's religion still conflicts with the science, it is just he chooses to ignore that part of his relgion. Not quite the example you were claiming he sets.
And if Miller does not wish to have his views confused with those of the Catholic church then would need to stop referring to himself as a catholic.
Posted by: John Doe | May 13, 2008 1:31 PM
Here's Matt Nisbet's aforementioned thread about the RAAS study that seems to show that science doesn't cause atheism:
http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/2008/04/does_advanced_science_educatio.php#comments
I am increasingly suspicious of the framing Matt and the study's authors put on it, but there's interesting stuff there. (Especially in the comments.)
Bear in mind that the study was funded by the Templeton Foundation.
The study seems to show that by and large, advanced science education doesn't cause atheism. Rather, religious folks self-select out of advanced science education.
Either way, it's interesting.
Consider the fact that about 10 percent of Americans are nontheists. Yet about 93 percent of top scientists are. (If we take the National Academy of Science as representative of top science.)
A small minority of the population is doing the vast majority of top science.
Nontheists do about 100 times as much top science, per capita, as theists. (And several hundred times as much as fundamentalists, I think.)
Wow.
The study results are stated in a way that makes me skeptical. They stress that advanced science education doesn't "necessarily" lead one to "drop" religion, and things like that.
That doesn't mean that advanced scientific education isn't corrosive of religious belief.
I suspect that even if there is huge self-selection going into science, advancing in scientific knowledge is correlated with becoming less religous and less orthodox in religion.
If the study's authors had evidence against that, I suspect they'd have made that clear. Instead they chose to stress the filtering going into science. I do believe that's a big thing, but I seriously doubt it's the whole story, or the only big thing.
When you have a two-orders-of-magnitude difference in performance between two populations, you likely have several interesting effects that are all major.
The study conclusions say that the best predictor of scientists religiosity is the religiosity of their household of origin---if a scientist is religious, he/she was very likely raised religious.
Talk about "best predictors" can be confusing, however. It may be the case that religion of origin is a better predictor of scientists' religion than race, sex, or income level, but is nowhere near as good a predictor as you'd like. If your other predictors are bad, your best predictor isn't necessarily good.
I have a candidate predictor that I suspect is much better---religion of origin minus 2 on a 5-point scale of orthodoxy from scriptural literalism to atheism.
That is, most fundamentalists would become theologically liberal theists, most theists would become agnostic nontheists, and most nonbelieving "agnostics" would become (disbelieving) atheists.
I'd also like to see the RAAS folks show how good a predictor atheism is of scientific achievement, and especially of top science. It's clearly miles ahead of race and income, and apparently well ahead of sex.
I'll bet the Templeton Foundation wouldn't be happy if they stressed those things, though.
Posted by: Paul W. | May 13, 2008 1:31 PM
Julia,
To address another your points.
You seem to be implying that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If you are then you are simply wrong. Whilst a lack of evidence is not as strong evidence in favour of something, it is none the less evidence of absence.
The claim by the Catholic church that humans require a soul to be fully human is a scientific claim. They do not have any scientific evidence to support it. People have tried looking for souls, and have never once found any evidence they exist. That failure to find evidence that they exist means something. It does not mean souls cannot exist, but it does mean those wishing to claim they do have to do a bit more than just assert they do if they want to be taken seriously.
Posted by: John Doe | May 13, 2008 1:38 PM
John Doe,
You didn't answer my question directly, but I am concluding that you do think that:
Am I right about that?
Posted by: JuliaL | May 13, 2008 1:40 PM
Okay, I'm going to stop listening to John Doe until he reads through this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy
Posted by: Brandon | May 13, 2008 1:42 PM
Wes wrote:
In my case the atheism was completely seperate. My pursuit of an astrophysics degree, with which it was my intent to eventually study cosmology, began (more or less) with the pursuit of god.
If you can imagine the sound of the raw steak dropped on the tile floor, well- that would have been the sound my belief made not too far into my undergraduate degree :)
I don't think we should let philophy off the hook so easily though either- those classes were probably more to blame for my atheism than anything :)
Posted by: Leni | May 13, 2008 1:43 PM
Paul W - You said "Consider the fact that about 10 percent of Americans are nontheists. Yet about 93 percent of top scientists are. (If we take the National Academy of Science as representative of top science.)"
Could this be evidence that relgious folks find science to threatening to thier mindset and so shy away from it?
Surely this position could also be postulated by this study? - curious DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | May 13, 2008 1:44 PM
"The study results are stated in a way that makes me skeptical. They stress that advanced science education doesn't "necessarily" lead one to "drop" religion, and things like that."
And this why I took issue with Nisbett. When you look at what people who have become atheists as a result of studying science they tend to say it happened either in the mid-teens, or early on at university. You see far fewer claiming it happened once they were embarked on a PhD.
Certainly the courses studied even by bright kids in the mid-teens would not qualify as advanced science, and I am not sure that even the first scientific courses taken by undergrads would either.
In otherwords I suspect that if a person is liable to become an atheist as a result their studying science it probably will happen before they get to the stage of studying advanced science (which I take to mean either later under-grad studies or post-grad).
Posted by: John Doe | May 13, 2008 1:44 PM
John Doe:
Well... that depends on what evidence one would expect. The absence of evidence for the traditional Christian god very clearly is a problem for it. That has motivated significant effort by Christians to explain that away, or to fabricate evidence where there isn't any. This isn't done just for the sake of the non-believer. Christian inspirational literature is full of excuse for the seeming absence of a god with whom every Christian is expected to have a personal relationship.
On the other hand, the absence of evidence is pretty much mute with regard to a Deist's god. Or with regard to Bostrom's hypothesized future descendants of ourselves who have created the simulation of the past in which we now might reside.
Posted by: Russell | May 13, 2008 1:45 PM
"Well... that depends on what evidence one would expect. The absence of evidence for the traditional Christian god very clearly is a problem for it. That has motivated significant effort by Christians to explain that away, or to fabricate evidence where there isn't any. This isn't done just for the sake of the non-believer. Christian inspirational literature is full of excuse for the seeming absence of a god with whom every Christian is expected to have a personal relationship."
I did have in mind the traditional Christian (or Islamic, or Jewish god) when I wrote that. And yes, I agree that the lack of evidence is a real problem for those of those faiths who want to make claims that their god gets involved in the universe.
Posted by: John Doe | May 13, 2008 1:50 PM
Julia,
If the Catholic church claims that souls are real things, and my understanding of what they say on the subject is that they do, then that is a scientific claim. In which case it requires evidence to support it. There is no such evidence, and thus no need for any rational person to take their claim seriously.
You can try to claim there is no evidence that disproves the existence of souls, and you would be correct. However you would also have accept the same for leprechauns.
Bradon,
I read it. Care to tell my why you wanted me to ?
At the same time care to stop being a boorish arsehole ?
Posted by: John Doe | May 13, 2008 1:57 PM
Uh, Mr. Doe? The Tulse?
"The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, insofar as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter."
Humani generis, courtesy of Pope Pius XII in the 1950s. This is the official position of the Catholic Church.
As evidence that people were mistaking evolution back then as well, there's that 'as coming from pre-existent and living matter' clause at the end. Which is rather like a boy being allowed into a baseball game by his mother, but ONLY IF HE PROMISES to hit the ball with a bat instead of his forearm.
Posted by: Glazius | May 13, 2008 2:01 PM
Just in case anyone thinks I was being rude accusing Brandon of being a boorish arsehole, you are right. I was.
No more rude than he was though, in deciding rather than address the points I have made, he will ignore them. I assume he did so because he found it to difficult to address them and so decide to be go all pretentious on us.
I have come across Brandon before. He is not noted for being intellectually honest.
Posted by: John Doe | May 13, 2008 2:03 PM
"The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, insofar as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter."
Exactly. Totally supports my position, if you read it.
Not at all sure why think this contradicts what I have said. Care to explain ? I am assuming you picked up on where it says "The human body", and not the human body and mind. Care to explain their omission ?
Posted by: John Doe | May 13, 2008 2:08 PM
If you believe that humans appeared through supernatural intervention, then your religious beliefs aren't compatible with evolution. To the extent that Kenneth Miller's and Henry Neufeld's religious beliefs involve divine intervention, their beliefs are not compatible with evolution.
It is not sufficient to simply say that one believes in evolution and is religious, as if that settles whether the two positions are intellectually consistent. One has to actually make the argument. And to the extent that any explanation demands some sort of supernatural intervention, I would argue that such explanation is inherently non-scientific.
Posted by: Tulse | May 13, 2008 2:08 PM
Hey DingoJack, a while back you mentioned studies on different countries showing less religious countries having less issues with homicide/teen pregnancy/etc. Do you have some links for that handy? Not that I disbelieve you, I've only found a few though (there was one good one on divorce recently) and I'm interested in more studies along those lines.
As for the topic at hand, being a physics grad student I know of only one seriously religious person among us (someone who would probably broadly say he believes in most of the bible literally). One of my close friends as it happens. I had a fun argument with him trying to figure out exactly what his and mine positions on God&co actually is. In practice while his views are broadly religious they would've sent him right to the stake in the good old days.
So can a good scientist be seriously religious? I'd say yes, but his/her conception of religion and god has little to do with the common conception of those things by most people nominally in his/her faith. That or they don't really give a damn.
Posted by: Coriolis | May 13, 2008 2:13 PM
DingoJack,
Sounds good to me. I suspect that several things are going on. One is that some people find science threatening and shy away from it for "emotional" reasons. Another is that some people simply think a lot of science is wrong, because it conflicts with things they "know," and they lose respect for science, and therefore interest in it. Still another is that some people just find science much less interesting because they don't think science can even touch the "most important" subjects, and religion or New Age woo can.
I'm pretty tired of theologically liberal Christians, New Agers, etc., with whom I can't have a reasonable discussion of the nature of life, thought, emotions, morality, etc. They have no idea that science can even study those things, and therefore find science more irrelevant than really "threatening." That steers them away from the only thing that offers any real knowledge of those subjects.
Posted by: Paul W. | May 13, 2008 2:28 PM
Hey Mike, if them dragons was so advanced, how come they went extinct?
Kidding.
Serious comment:
The claim that God was involved in evolution is not a scientific claim; no evidence is used for the claim (by the Church, anyway) and none could refute it. I think the statement that such a belief "conflicts with science" confuses how the belief is arrived at with the belief itself. Belief in God only conflicts with science in the sense that it is not a scientific belief!
Personally, I think belief in God is more of a political position than anything else for most Americans.
Posted by: uncle noel | May 13, 2008 2:36 PM
Not that there's anything wrong with that. :)
Posted by: uncle noel | May 13, 2008 2:38 PM
To the extent that one's belief in God also entails supernatural intervention in the natural world, then such belief is a scientific claim.
I suppose one could be a Deist and argue both that God existed, but that after Creation did nothing, although I fail to see why one would bother to worship such a disinterested entity, and in practice none of the religions we're discussion are that kind of watered-down Deism.
Posted by: Tulse | May 13, 2008 2:42 PM
"The claim that God was involved in evolution is not a scientific claim; no evidence is used for the claim (by the Church, anyway) and none could refute it. I think the statement that such a belief "conflicts with science" confuses how the belief is arrived at with the belief itself. Belief in God only conflicts with science in the sense that it is not a scientific belief!"
How can it not be a scientific claim ? It makes a specific claim about material events within the universe. What could refute it ? Try lack of evidence that it happens.
The same goes for any claims of god intervening in the universe. Such an claim is one concerning material events that happen within the universe and thus entirely within the purview of science. Any religious person who allows for such intervention does have a conflict with science.
Posted by: John Doe | May 13, 2008 2:47 PM
I think that's likely. I was an atheist before I became a scientist, but scientific knowledge was important in leading me to atheism. It's what gave me the confidence that religion was riddled with falsehoods, and generally a hindrance to actually understanding anything important.
The fact that it happened when I was a schoolkid doesn't change that. It also doesn't mean that it wasn't "advanced scientific knowledge" that killed my religion, for an appropriate value of "advanced." I knew things about evolution and psychology in high school that most college grads still manage not to know.
Part of the phenomenon here is that our education system tries hard to avoid the theological implications of science.
Sure, we may teach kids that the world is older than 6000 years, but we do NOT generally stress the most interesting things for the big picture, which conflict with majority religious views---for example, what science has learned about the evolution of the mind and morality.
(Not only are the biblical literalists wrong, but the Pope and theologically moderate protestants are too. God never gave us free will, there was never a Fall of Man, and you therefore don't have much use for a Savior. Oh, and by the way, the mind is something the brain does, and when you die and your brain stops doing it, you're dead.)
These are things that science knows, even if some scientists manage to comparmentalize and avoid accepting them.
BTW, I too like the basketball analogy. Francis Collins is the Spud Webb of science---a 5'6" dunker. Outliers like them don't mean that there's no systematic conflict between shortness and basketball greatness, or between religion and science, for fundamental reasons.
Posted by: Paul W. | May 13, 2008 2:54 PM