![[cc-by-sa]](http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by-sa/3.0/88x31.png){kind=small}
It's very irritating to come to my blog and see the advertisement at top for a book proclaiming loudly " GOD: The Failed Hypothesis. How science shows that God does not exist." I haven't clicked on the link, and won't, because its very title indicates to me that it's hogwash.
This bugs me on two levels. First, it sets off my bullshit-o-meter in a big way. God is not a scientific concept, and as such science cannot disprove the existence of God. Science has obviated the need for God or gods for many people, and science assuredly has disproven a lot of things people claim in the name of god (e.g. all of the absurdity claimed by creationists), but that's different from disproving God itself.
On the second level: if you are a scienceblogger regular and you go to a site that may have interesting and enlightening material, but you read at the top "How the Scientific Establishment is Destroying America!!!!" in big letters, what would you think? You'd be turned off to the site from the very beginning, and would approach everything you read there with suspicion. And, perhaps rightly so. But do we really want people who are religious but also interested in and open to the full implications of modern scientific knowledge to be turned off from the get-go when they arrive at this site?
Yes, scienceblogs is a site generally overrun with atheists of one stripe or another; the debate is between the radical atheists who think that anybody religious is soft-headed, ignorant, intellectual dishonest, or confused, vs. the "Neville Chamberlain" atheists who subscribe to a "live and let live" philosophy, and have no problem with people of other religious views as long as they still support good science. So, here's me, way out on a wing as being actually religious, not just tolerant of people of religion-- and, yet, still considering myself a fairly hard-line supporter of good science.
I'm very thankful for the Neville Chamberlain atheists. I'm very grouchy about this "go away religious people, you have to accept atheism into your heart to be approved as a science supporter" attitude that the advertisement showing up at the top of the site right now is supporting.
But if you're a science blogs regular, perhaps even a PZ sycophant, you may wonder: how the hell can Rob be so deluded as to think that he's a hard-line science supporter while still being religious?
Well, first, I should point to a post I wrote some time ago at my blog's former location, and avoid restating all of that. (I won't be able to avoid restating some of it, of course.) That post is : "On Being a Scientist and Not an Atheist".
Alas, the term "Christian" has been subverted by the religious right recently, so that when somebody comes out and claims to be Christian, people make all sorts of unfortunate assumptions. So let me get some things out in the open:
The whole notion of Biblical literalism is laughably absurd. It always surprises me that people who are intelligent and capable of thinking still manage to cleave to this notion. The Bible contradicts itself, for heaven's sake. But the fact is that it was written in a pre-scientific age when people didn't know about things like the roundness of the Earth, the near-Solar center of mass of our Solar System, the age of the Universe, biological Evolution, and so forth. All of the things we have learned make it clear that the creation stories in Genesis are just that-- stories. This does not mean that they're useless; you can find inspiration and enlightenment from reading stories that are fictional or mythological.
Many people also like to pull out quotations from St. Paul in the New Testament to support one position or another. But St. Paul contradicts himself. Anti-religious types sometimes argue that this invalidates the whole thing, which is just as stupid as thinking that every individual thing that St. Paul writes should be accepted uncritically. What's really going on is that St. Paul's own thinking and understanding is evolving. The message one should take away from that is that what he wrote should hardly be considered the last word in theological thought. Start from St. Paul, go through St. Augustine and Martin Luther and others, and it's clear that the Christian religion is one that has a tradition of people who don't always just accept the doctrine of the day, but see value in critical thought and intelligent consideration of the issues. It's too bad that so many who call themselves "Christian" today have eschewed that tradition in favor of jingoistic adherence to obsolete and absurd doctrine.
I do not believe that Christians have exclusive access to theological truth. As I said in the previous post, I think that Christians and Wiccans and Hindus and Muslims are all searching after and talking about ultimately the same thing; they are just seeing it in different ways. Too often, religion comes with statements that "you must accept this doctrine or be damned;" you can find quotes from Jesus that are most directly interpreted that way in the Gospel of John. I think that's a destructive notion, and has led to all the wars and other evil things that have made many today think that religion needs to be rejected altogether.
One does not need to be a Christian or otherwise religious to be moral and Good. I've known lots of atheists with a clear moral sense. I don't view "is a Christian" as either an endorsement or a condemnation of anybody. Many Christians, alas, do; Politician X may have flaws, some say, but at least he's a God-fearing Christian! Foo to that, I say. We should elect politicians and everybody else based on how well we think they're going to do their job, not based on their own private views on religion.
Religion is not for explaining the processes of the natural world. Once upon a time it was. There is a natural drive for humans to be able to explain and understand the world around us; that's why science is so popular! That's why there's value in sciences like astronomy that have no hope of ever producing some "useful" consumer good. In ages past, without the scientific tools to describe very much, people resorted to mythology to explain the natural world. In recent centuries, science has shown to be an amazing tool with a tremendous track record in explaining the processes of the natural world. It has completely supplanted religion in that arena, to the point that people who still try to use religion to explain the natural world (e.g. creationists) are missing the boat by more than a hundred years. Those who say that "science proves God doesn't exist" are making the mistake of thinking that explaining the natural world is the only purpose of religion, just as assuredly as the religious who reject science based on their doctrine think that religion are making a serious mistake in thinking that religion still has any role to play in explaining the processes of the natural world.
What I just wrote begs a lot of questions. First of all, if religion isn't for explaining the processes of the natural religion, then what the heck is it for? Why do I still see any value in religion in today, given that I recognize that science has hands down become the method whereby we can understand the natural world? Second, I go and say that I think all religions are talking about the same thing; do I think think that all religions are equally valid? And why do I call myself a Christian if I don't think Christians have exclusive access to theological truth?
I won't answer any of those right now; I'll save them for future posts. I write them here to indicate that, yes, I'm aware that those are unanswered questions. If I didn't, assuredly some commenter would post those questions with an annoyingly supercilious air as if they had just found a way to take all of the air out of everything that I'm saying. I eagerly look forward to intellectual engagement, but I have little patience for the radical atheists who are so convinced of their own position that they are unable to tell the difference between that and a childish, shallow insult.
Comments
I just read what you wrote and I enjoyed your perspective. I've heard all of points you made by both atheists and theists. But I would love to hear why, after knowing there is that there is no exclusive theolocical truth in christianity, you believe in a god. Without starting a flame war, do you think that the scientologists and raeliens have the same type of theological truth that christians and hindus have?
Posted by: ilya zlatkovsky | March 11, 2007 1:28 PM
Hey Rob,
This "Neville Chamberlain" atheist doesn't much care for that ad either. Of course, I didn't like the Discovery Channel "Jesus' Buried Bones Bonanaza" ad either. :)
It sounds to me like you will add a vert interesting perspective SB mix. I'm glad you're here!
Dave
Posted by: Dave Carlson | March 11, 2007 1:32 PM
Oops. That should be "add a very interesting perspective to the SB mix."
Posted by: Dave Carlson | March 11, 2007 1:33 PM
source
I'll be looking forward to your explaining why you call yourself a "Christian," rather than a "theist" or "deist," when you acknowledge that the Bible is not a reliable source of information, and do not consider Christianity to have an inside track over other faiths. Do you selectively accept some parts of the Bible? Does that include the bits about Jesus working miracles and being God/the son of God? Or do you just consider him to be human, but to have made some moral/philosophical contributions? At your leisure.
Posted by: Mustafa Mond, FCD | March 11, 2007 1:42 PM
Posted by: Mustafa Mond, FCD | March 11, 2007 1:44 PM
My but Luther was a prolific writer: Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has: it never comes to the aid of spritual things, but--more frequently than not --struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.
Posted by: Mustafa Mond, FCD | March 11, 2007 1:49 PM
I've long considered myself an agnostic with atheistic tendencies. I happen to believe that it is impossible to prove the existence or nonexistence of god. I also happen to believe that it is impossible to prove or disprove anything beyond mathematics, in which things are true by definition or strict deduction.
I have observed that religion can be used for good or for evil; for bringing a meal to an elderly shut-in, or justifying a war. I have observed that science can be used for good or for evil; for eradicating smallpox, or developing biological weapons.
I think it makes sense to find a way to live that takes the good things that religion can do, and put those things into practice; and to find the good things that science can do, and put those things into practice; and to constantly refine one's ability to distinguish good from bad.
Posted by: Joseph j7uy5 | March 11, 2007 1:52 PM
Rob - I'm not religious, but I completely agree with your annoyance at the ad. I never thought I'd see the day when the market was flooded with atheistic best-sellers. Considering that, to give two examples, neither the expansion of the universe nor the neutron had been discovered when my father was born, I think it's premature (at best) for anyone to make definitive statements about the nature of reality.
Posted by: Luke | March 11, 2007 1:53 PM
That you are a believer does not really bother me. However, I get annoyed 1) when believers try to push their religious norms onto me (Creationism in the schools, etc.) It sounds like you're not one of those, which is good. I also don't like it 2) when believers try to tell me that their belief is somehow rational. That always turns out badly, because they have to ***** reason to make that argument. In extreme cases, you may end up with someone like Alvin Plantinga.
The position I can respect is someone saying, "I just believe, but I cannot produce any convincing evidence or argument why you should do so." An example of such a person is Martin Gardner.
Posted by: Mustafa Mond, FCD | March 11, 2007 1:55 PM
CR McClain of Deep-Sea News is also a believer of some sort:
Posted by: Mustafa Mond, FCD | March 11, 2007 1:59 PM
I'll answer a bunch of these questions later, as I said in my post.
Re: Martin Luther, yeah, you can find lots of nasty stuff he wrote. He said nasty things about Copernicus and Galileo also. But he's famous for saying that the Catholic Church of his day had been ossified by tradition, and by saying that a re-consideration of present practices was in order. That's why I list him as one of the people who indicate that thought should be applied to religion -- even if you don't happen to like some of the things you can find that he wrote.
Posted by: Rob Knop | March 11, 2007 2:07 PM
Religion is not for explaining the processes of the natural world.
But if you're going to claim a traditional theistic God who actively intervenes in the world through prayer, miracles and historical stuff like resurrections and immaculate conceptions, you inevitably make claims about the natural world. Those things are no less empirical than claims about ESP and alternative medicine (whose practioners also often epistemological games to exempt their claims from empirical testing). As well, not all gods are equal. A noninterventional deistic god is less easy to disprove than a traditional theistic one.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | March 11, 2007 2:08 PM
Rob,
Good piece and a welcome perspective. You definitely should answer those last two questions. I don't think having those questions takes the air out of the rest, but it certainly seems to leave the rest of it on incomplete ground. Before I even reached that last paragraph, I found myself wondering 'what makes him a Christian rather than just a moral and ethical person with no supernatural baggage?'.
Posted by: Greg Kucharo | March 11, 2007 2:22 PM
Rob,
Thanks for bringing a much-needed perspective to SB. The majority of practicing scientists that I work with every day take a position much closer to you than to Dawkins, and it's good to see that reflected here.
-Crow
Posted by: Crow | March 11, 2007 2:36 PM
Republican and Christian all in one week? Pace yourself ...
Ilya: the idea of whether or not any one group has exclusive access to theological truth is independent of whether or not there is a god. If there is a god and no one group has all the dips on theological truth, then it just means that no one group has it all figured out yet. (And, of course, if there is no god, then all the theologically inclined modes of thinking are equally valid in how wrong their views are.)
Posted by: mollishka | March 11, 2007 2:42 PM
By the way, we of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy do not avocate shooting Christians, at least not openly. So how did you find out? Is there a mole?
Posted by: Mustafa Mond, FCD | March 11, 2007 2:43 PM
As soon as you declare that there is no one true religion and christians, jews & muslims are essentially both acceptable choices, you are talking about some kind of philosophy, not religion.
Since you are already comfortable with picking and choosing sentences from the bible, it makes more sense to talk about things that you can't deny as a christian: that there is an almighty, unequaled being, that we exist because of his intention and there's afterlife with reward and punishment.
How did *you* come to know all this? These are all assertions propagated by human beings that lived before us. Scientific reasoning and skepticism *does* come into play to analyze these claims. No, it's not physics or biology first; it's perhaps psychology because they do study deceit and self-delusion.
Do you realize what a fertile ground religion is for fabrication of all kinds of delusions and pursuit of personal goals? You can get away with anything, and when you get caught people find ways to keep believing (e.g. literalism is absurd).
Posted by: Koray | March 11, 2007 2:47 PM
But on the other hand...
Atheists are the target of many childish, shallow insults, in fact much more so than Christians. It is quite bothersome that Christians feel "under attack" when atheists are a vast minority compared to Christians and are constantly under attacked by them.
So just be aware that in some senses, you are like the white guy complaining about reverse racism. The cards are way stacked on your side and as a Christian you have very little to complain about.
I thought that ad was pretty bad, too, but I can't drive down the street without seeing just as inane crap about Jesus, and Christ and how atheists are a bunch of baby killers. So I don't actually have very much sympathy that you Christians are getting a little of that back.
Posted by: Michael | March 11, 2007 2:56 PM
You know, I wonder how gays and Muslims and atheists feel when invited to church. Wouldn't it be better if they weren't turned off from the get go by all the hateful rhetoric? Wouldn't they feel better if they were treated with respect both in the building and outside of it?
I see this as a two-way street. It seems religious people want all the tolerance they can get, but they're just not willing to give it.
You're upset about an advertisement. As a gay man, I'm upset about the anti-marriage amendments and battles over equality. As an atheist, I wonder about the "you're going to hell" BS and constant badgering about this being a Christian nation (when, in fact, it's never been any such thing.) I wonder which is more important, and which tells more about its advocates and supporters. Every argument you make is disconcerting because they're the same arguments we infidels have been screaming for years. Amazing what happens when the shoe's on the other foot...
Posted by: jason | March 11, 2007 3:02 PM
*shrug* Oh by all means, be offended at a book you havent read yet. Not that I have read it either, I just find your response to be bizarre and your jab at other bloggers here rude.
If you really find this ad unbearable, get FireFox and download the AdBlockPlus extension. Its great.
Posted by: ERV | March 11, 2007 3:08 PM
There is no need for atheists to go for a "shooting" of Christians, other religionists will do that pretty well.
This is the only nice point about religions they tend to be self-regulating up to the point that most sects end up in collective suicide (Apocalypse anyone?).
The atheists only object at being part of this game, as I have put it in another similar thread:
There is a BIG difference between willing to enforce something on others (religious thought police!) and not willing to have others enforce their nutty fantasies on you.
May be you, Rob, don't do that but the majority of religionists, Christian or otherwise, do EXACTLY that :
An Israeli couple being married in India have found that you may not kiss the bride
Isn't that oppression from CRETINS?
Posted by: Kevembuangga | March 11, 2007 3:23 PM
That's why I list him as one of the people who indicate that thought should be applied to religion...
Luther's words do show that he thought that thought should be applied to religion, but his words also show clearly that he felt this should be thought that is without reason. That's not a helpful kind of thought, IMO.
Posted by: QrazyQat | March 11, 2007 3:25 PM
"So how did you find out? Is there a mole?"
Yes, I'm on your left cheek and I desperately need surgical removal.
Rob, if you do not fully accept the dogma of the Church, what do you mean when you say "I am Christian"? I mean, what makes you Christian compared to, say, Pat Robertson or a stoner-philosopher hippie? I tend to think that Christianity in particular is inundated with questions about what Christianity means. I'd like your position, if you are willing.
I am one of those hard-lining atheists, and I think the problem is faith. Entirely too often we apply faith, a very particular form of non-reason, as a doctrine, into realms where faith simply does not belong (faith in leadership, for example). Faith finds its place when we need action but are insufficiently wise. I promote the pursuit of wisdom through reason, and resorting to faith hampers this process. Reason and faith are at odds. For that matter, proof is not in the realm of faith, as God is.
Is it irrational? It might be considered irrational to believe to be true something which is not shown to be true. But really, it's clear human beings are anything but rational creatures.
Posted by: Patness | March 11, 2007 3:25 PM
I have purposefully chosen an innocuous and non Abrahamic exemple to emphasize the point that the problem with religions is rejection of rational evidence a.k.a. STUPIDITY!
Posted by: Kevembuangga | March 11, 2007 3:31 PM
Rob, Thank you for writing that.
I am an atheist and do not believe there is or ever was any sort of supernatural influence in the universe. With that said, I also very strongly believe that every person should be free to follow their own conscience in what they chose to believe or not believe.
I found what you wrote to be very refreshing; a religious person who does understand the role of science - to understand and explain the natural world. If most religious people in the world thought like you do, I don't think there would be any problem with science and religion coexisting. There would be no Taliban, no "Religious Right," no large-scale attempts to force religious myths on people over scientific knowledge.
Thank you for being an example of how it could (and should) be.
Posted by: Jeff Knapp | March 11, 2007 3:55 PM
it makes more sense to talk about things that you can't deny as a christian: that there is an almighty, unequaled being, that we exist because of his intention and there's afterlife with reward and punishment.
I don't uncritically accept that entire laundry list, and yet still manage to call myself a Christian.
If you don't like that, be aware that I don't recognize your authority to define what "Christian" means....
Like I say in the post, I will write more on it later. I hoped to avoid a lot of the "trying to superciliously trip Rob up with the obvious questions" responses, but of course I'm seeing some....
-Rob
Posted by: Rob Knop | March 11, 2007 3:56 PM
I see this as a two-way street. It seems religious people want all the tolerance they can get, but they're just not willing to give it.
Please go back and read my post again.
You may recognize in there me (a) claiming to be religious, and (b) being willing to allow that people who disagree with me on philosophy may be tolerated.
It does happen sometimes.
Please, folks, try to avoid the classic anti-religion straw-man attacks.
-Rob
Posted by: Rob Knop | March 11, 2007 3:58 PM
If I believe there are twelve gods living in crystal palaces on Mount Olympus, you would be within your rights to Google Earth the mountain top and ask me point point out those residences. If I say they are therw but are invisible, you'd be right to scoff -- or to invite me to join you on a trip to the summit, where you will swing a hammer everywhere, and should eventually shatter one of the crystal palaces. If I then insist that the gods and their palaces don't exist in our four dimensions but instead are in some other dimensions, they you can point out that I'm admitting they don't exist in the world of physics, which is the world you and I live in. And you'd be right.
Kindly explain to me how you can see any sense to my arguments.
Posted by: Roy | March 11, 2007 4:02 PM
Posted by: llewelly | March 11, 2007 4:10 PM
Straw man? Hardly. I see the religious blinders come with the label.
Posted by: jason | March 11, 2007 4:24 PM
Posted by: llewelly | March 11, 2007 4:30 PM
Posted by: Mustafa Mond, FCD | March 11, 2007 5:16 PM
Since you have acknowledged that the Bible is not a reliable source of information, this brings to attention the thorough lack of extra-Biblical documentation of the existence, let alone the activity, of Jesus H. Christ.
At any rate, the post-counter will be spinning wildly by morning.
Posted by: Mustafa Mond, FCD | March 11, 2007 5:19 PM
Rob:
You've taken Bly's 12 pieces of silver, so what standing do you have to complain about his adverts? If you don't like them, what's stopping you from going back to your university server?
Posted by: Lab Lemming | March 11, 2007 5:24 PM
You don't have to say you haven't read the book, your categorization of it proves that.
I'm sorry you're offended by the ad for it, but when you move to a commercial site these things come along with it.
Posted by: The Ridger | March 11, 2007 5:35 PM
You've taken Bly's 12 pieces of silver, so what standing do you have to complain about his adverts?
You pay taxes. Do you like everything that your government does? If not, why haven't you emigrated?
Posted by: Rob Knop | March 11, 2007 5:38 PM
You don't have to say you haven't read the book, your categorization of it proves that.
If that's the case, then the book is seriously mis-titled and mis-advertised.
On the other hand, if every person redefines words to suit his/her purpose, discourse becomes impossible, or at least pointless.
True, but you can hardly expect me to accept the definition of somebody who wants to attack me for being Christian! On the other hand, I really do not accept the definition of the religious right fundamentalists. I would just about be willing to accept the definition of "Christian" as "somebody who wants to call himself a Christian" -- it sounds silly, but if you stop and think about it, it's not to terrible a definition. It's not too far from "followers of Jesus Christ," but carries even less inferred baggage. (I deliberately say "inferred" rather than "implied".)
Beyond that, what most atheists seem to want is acceptance, which is a unit above tolerance and a unit below equal rights.
I thought they wanted, and think that they should get, equal rights. And, yes, I recognize that in today's America, being labeled an "atheist" can add challenges in many areas. Not on scienceblogs, though, which is where we are; on scienceblogs, the religious are the persecuted minority, which is why I get all defensive, and which is why accusations that it's out of place to defend religion against attacks by atheists are off base.
Posted by: Rob Knop | March 11, 2007 5:44 PM
mollishka- of course they're independent, i didn't think i was stating that they're not.
but... lots of christians (and folks of other religions) act as if they're version is the true version. i see this the most with judaism/christianty because they're prominent in my area and they have the "there is no god but me" commandment.
people have touched on this already, but what i wish rob would explain is why he, and all the people who have a similar viewpoint to his, follow some of the teachings of jesus instead of some of the teachings of a different religious figurehead. why not all? why not at all?
rob- don't explain yourself now if you don't want to, but i would like to read why you consider yourself christian.
Posted by: ilya | March 11, 2007 6:26 PM
It is rather unfortunate that Prof Knop mentioned Martin Luther who was the second worst antisemite (second only to Hitler) in the history of the world. Attached is a link from a thread on Braytons' blog with a quotation from him.
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/02/berkowitz_on_kennedy_darwin_an.php
Posted by: SLC | March 11, 2007 6:33 PM
rob- don't explain yourself now if you don't want to, but i would like to read why you consider yourself christian.
Stay tuned. It will come.
Re: Martin Luther, of course he had all sorts of backwards attitudes. So did everybody else on that list I gave. But if you all want to demonize him, than drop him from my list; that specific name isn't specifically relevant. The point is that unless you've got really, really, really thick anti-Christian blinders on, you have to admit there have been a host of deep thinkers and thoughtful writers in the Christian tradition over the centuries-- and I think it too bad that the fundamentalists of today are rejecting that part of the Christian tradition wholesale in favor of less savory parts of the tradition.
Posted by: Rob Knop | March 11, 2007 6:50 PM
Posted by: Mustafa Mond, FCD | March 11, 2007 6:52 PM
Posted by: Mustafa Mond, FCD | March 11, 2007 6:59 PM
Rob wrote:
In the interest of fairness and, I think, rationality, it shouldn't matter who the definition comes from. The laundry list was a pretty apt description of what most mainstream Christians think. If you aren't in the mainstream, fine. That doesn't mean you're not a Christian, but it also doesn't mean that the description was bad. I don't think it is part of some sinister plot to "attack" you :)
I understand that you feel defensive, but I do think you're over-reacting a bit. No one is "attacking" you. They are attempting to engage you in a verbal argument over a philosophical topic. There might be a tone you don't like, but it is not an attack and framing it that way is not helpful.
Also, a word on your defintion of a christian as being "someone who calls himself one". I see the appeal of it's simplicity, and while I know you aren't seriously suggesting it, it clearly wouldn't work. I mean, it says absolutely nothing about what a christian actually is. If you didn't know what a christian was before you read it, this definition would do precisely nothing to enlighten you.
Posted by: Leni | March 11, 2007 7:39 PM
I see that Mustafa has already outed me. I enjoyed the post and found it refreshing here at Sb. I not too crazy about the ad but felt it was beyond the scope of my website to comment.
Posted by: CR McClain | March 11, 2007 7:44 PM
If you don't like that, be aware that I don't recognize your authority to define what "Christian" means....
But that doesn't give the authority either. There are a lot of Christians who would read through your post and say that you are not a Christian. Not trying to make you mad but there are some requirements, as defined in various creeds, in the book that you do need to align with, otherwise why have the book?
You sound like someone who enjoys the experience of the church, perhaps the ritual. Lots of Jews and Catholics that feel that the ritual is what unlocks the experience of god. Daniel Dennett and Robert Price both enjoy religious services but also don't believe in any god.
I think the demographics of this site would tend to favor the PZ sycophants and thus the advertisement appears. Being about half way through the book myself, from what you posted above you may not have as big a disagreement with the author as you might suppose.
Neville Chamberlain atheists and moderate Christians may not cause much of a stir but they implicitly give cover to the fundamentalists. If moderates don't speak up, it's assumed that you agree the fundamentalists. You agree because you let them frame the argument, you let them define Christianity whether you like it or not. The PZ sycophants are speaking up to try to get a different perspective in front of the masses, but I think you picking an argument with people who are more sympathetic towards you than you realize.
Posted by: reboho | March 11, 2007 7:54 PM
"Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."
-- Isaac Newton
Anyone want to take a crack at the greatest scientific genius the world has ever known? Who was by the way, a devout Christian.
Posted by: Ed Minchau | March 11, 2007 8:10 PM
I suggested at a certain biologist's blog that there was nothing to be gained by scorning common ground with believers and, well, I'm officially unwelcome there now. But conflict sells; I bet he is half the SB traffic all by himself.
It sounds corny but believers and unbelievers breathe the same air; we need each other's community. World's getting too small for hurling epithets. And I know too many counterexamples to that "believers are fools" meme. I guess that makes me a Neville Chamberlain atheist.
So briefly, Rob, good one.
Posted by: decrepitoldfool | March 11, 2007 8:13 PM
Neville Chamberlain atheists and moderate Christians may not cause much of a stir but they implicitly give cover to the fundamentalists.
As a Neville Chamberlain atheis, I take offense at your comment. I most certainly do not give cover--whether implicit or explicit--to fundamentalists. In fact, I criticize their idiocy quite frequently. Believe me, just because I don't see the need to criticize the ideas of everyone who classifies themselves as Christians (even if I do disagree with many of those ideas) that doesn't mean I loathe guys like Dobson, Robertson, Kennedy, etc. any less than you do.
Posted by: Dave Carlson | March 11, 2007 8:27 PM
We need to, I think, be very accurate when we engage in conversations like these- conversations between atheists, of which I am one, and religious believers. We need to separate beliefs from values: we learn values before we learn beliefs, and as we pick up personal beliefs (some say in our adolescence) we choose those, religious and otherwise, that conform to our set values. Both Hitler and Galilleo were Catholic, but one would stretch credibility lumping them together as "religious types."
I look forward to hearing your personal feelings on what "Christian" means to you, Rob. I'm an atheist, but to crowd "religious types" under one heading is being VERY uncritical, and I see WAY too many atheists make this unfortunate mistake.
Posted by: Tyler | March 11, 2007 8:27 PM
My "sycophants," if there are any, will be relieved to hear that your opinion of them is not a "childish, shallow insult."
Say, dof, who is this certain biologist? Last time I looked, I had something less than a third of sb's total traffic, and I don't think anyone else was very close, but at the same time, I've never made you officially unwelcome. You must not be talking about me, then.
Oh, but hey, if conflict sells, that must be why Rob here disparages readers of my site.
Posted by: PZ Myers | March 11, 2007 8:34 PM
If moderates don't speak up, it's assumed that you agree the fundamentalists.
But I do speak up. Read back on my blog a bit. Indeed, I was more unforgiving than most about whatshisname the geologist who wrote a PhD thesis that needed to implicitly assume an old earth while all the while not believing any of it.
As for everything else : yipers, the commenting rate is going to get too high for me to be able to keep up with this thread. So, if I don't respond to everything, please forgive.
Rest assured that I WILL have more blog posts on all of this in the future. After all, if I'm going to maintain that one can be a good scientist and not an atheist all at the same time, I suppose it's up to me to try and describe what the heck I'm talking about.
-Rob
Posted by: Rob Knop | March 11, 2007 8:35 PM
I like scienceblogs.com and visit every day, but the fierce and proselytizing atheism is…surprising. More puzzling is the notion that many now appear to have that religion is actually bad for human society and that they are doing charity work by ridiculing it.
Posted by: Dirk | March 11, 2007 9:22 PM
PZ, one-third of SB's traffic ain't too shabby. You may not remember telling me "please go away" and calling me a hypocrite. But I am no troll and I can take a hint.
You keep your brass knuckles - maybe in the end that'll turn out to be the right way but I think it's counterproductive.
Posted by: decrepitoldfool | March 11, 2007 9:28 PM
As a Neville Chamberlain atheist, I take offense at your comment. I most certainly do not give cover--whether implicit or explicit--to fundamentalists. In fact, I criticize their idiocy quite frequently. Believe me, just because I don't see the need to criticize the ideas of everyone who classifies themselves as Christians (even if I do disagree with many of those ideas) that doesn't mean I loathe guys like Dobson, Robertson, Kennedy, etc. any less than you do.
But this isn't a battle for your mind or my mind, it is a battle for the minds of the masses. Controversial titles and outrageous statements are getting the attention. No matter your god, belief or lack there of, we have to call bullshit when the claims are made. If moderate Christianity is worth having, a case has to be made. If atheism fits, a case has to be made because it's the fundies that have the power and the masses agreeing with them now, so silence is complicity.
Rob, I will go back and read your blog, I owe you that. You can see the results a controversial title received for your blog and the same can be said for the title for the book author.
I only want to point out that you don't have that much of a bone to pick with the author or me, but your faith and my lack thereof is in danger unless we stand up to these fundie thugs. They have an agenda and it will swallow all of us if we don't stand up to them. School boards are just a small part of the overall goal to turn this country into a theocracy. I'm not saying you have to speak up but you will have to choose at some point.
Posted by: rebo | March 11, 2007 9:29 PM
I totally need my own flock of sycophants. ... they come in flocks, right?
Posted by: mollishka | March 11, 2007 9:58 PM
Mollishka, I think you need to get the 1-day-old hatchlings and raise them yourself. :-)
Posted by: Monado | March 11, 2007 10:13 PM
Good post, and even better comments (IMHO).
As for Newton being a devout Christian, it again depends on your definition. Here's a quote from Freeman Dyson's book, "The Scientist As A Rebel":
That was my conclusion also, from verses such as, "But not my will, but thy will, be done" - separate wills, separate entities. Showing again that great and smaller minds sometimes think alike.
In the main though, I think neither Newton nor I nor anyone else is rational about everything. (Newton also wasted a lot of time on alchemy.) Reason is not what drives us, it is a tool which we use to rationalize the emotions that drive us.
I look forward to your answers to the questions posed above, and good luck - I think you'll need it.
Posted by: JimV | March 11, 2007 10:27 PM
Write a book about your experiences. Write a book about your philosophies of reconciling religion and science. I'd read it. And I'm sure sciblogs would advertise it.
Posted by: cephyn | March 11, 2007 10:34 PM
interesting, I am looking forward to future installments to see what you actually believe.
However I think you are arguing with a straw-atheist somewhat. Most atheists were once religious, and even if not, most of the people they know (just by statistics) are religious, and most have no problems with religiosity of a type such as yours.
As for the book, I haven't read it either, but I did read the blurb on the front cover, and it seemed to be saying that it was an attempt to answer all those "science proves god exists" books that come out from time to time. I also tend to think that the existence of god is something that science can provide evidence for or against (not prove) and that would be a legitimate thing to write a book about. Of course it's completely reasonable for you to not want to advertise for a book you disagree with.
In any case, I'm looking forward to more on this, and am especially interested in why you believe in god despite not believing that religion describes the natural world.
Posted by: MaxPolun | March 11, 2007 10:42 PM
Woo-hooo! Go, Rob. Just a quick word of thanks from a deist paleontologist who always found the assertion that I can't be a good deist and a good scientist pretty laughable. When deists or Chamberlain atheists (LOVE that term!) ask "Why not?", the best the hardliners seem to be able to come up with is, "Uh, because your mind is divided against itself, eventually your mental partitions will shatter and your science will become contaminated with mysticism, blah blah grumble grumble." To which my first response is, "You can keep saying that, but it won't be any more true."
And my second response is (usually), "Go do some science of your own, you lonely net-addicted poser, and let me get back to publishing on evolution."
Anyway, don't let the smug assholes get you down.
Posted by: Dr Vector | March 11, 2007 10:47 PM
Hi Rob! I'm a sun-worshipper. I don't actually think the sun is a fiery chariot carrying a god or anything, I just think it's pretty. But I'm totally a sun worshipper, because it makes me feel good to say so.
Also, I share daily rituals and values with the sun-worshipping community. For example, I go outside in the daytime. Further, sometimes I think about how nice infrared radiation feels. This is a sentiment that I share with the global fellowship of sun-worshippers. I find that calling myself a sun-worshipper makes me look totally deep and philosophical, because it's a word that makes people think stuff. Also, then I get to say that I'm persecuted, because mean people say being a sun worshipper is, like, teh lame.
Seriously, that's what you sound like. It's pusillanimous hand-wringing. If you're only a theist, say so. Don't lie.
Posted by: cbutterb | March 11, 2007 11:14 PM
Unfortunately the perspective this post brings to the table is easily seen to be prejudiced, by such statements as
or by complaining about advertisements for other beliefs. The later is also what other beliefs have to put up with from christians all the time, so it seems a bit hypocritical.
Funny enough, this is what sets of my> bullshit-o-meter. This is equivalent of saying that an object of study is not available to us to empirically measure, experiment with, and model.
Of course, we have no means to predict exactly what empiricism can or can not do, since we lack good models of useful methods and have few ideas of how to predict their results. There are three viable projects currently pursued that constrains the claims of religions including on their gods, by studying them directly (Dennett et al), by studying the claims of practiced religion (Dawkins et al), and by constraining the gaps of science. Any selfconsistent models of cosmology and fundamental physics would seriously put even the blodless non-interventionist gods of philosophy in question.
Classic projection. You could as well accuse the bible for a "go away non-christian people, you have to accept christianity into your heart to be approved as a moral individual" attitude.
It is telling that lies beyond the first apologist defense (courtier - 'not discussing religion'), and the second (scorched earth - 'can't discuss religion'), is the insult that a relevant analysis of for example practiced religion is childish and shallow.
But if we accept for a moment your suggestion that your own analysis is not going to be childish and shallow, I welcome your future efforts. It seems even books proclaiming loudly "GOD: The Failed Hypothesis. How science shows that God does not exist." has their uses.
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson | March 11, 2007 11:19 PM
Vector, assuming you are serious, how is "Go do some science of your own, you lonely net-addicted poser, and let me get back to publishing on evolution." when posed on the net anything but smug?
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson | March 11, 2007 11:29 PM
The best Christians I know define their practice as "being Christ-like." They don't do a lot of taking the Bible literally, and they don't do a lot of arguing why they're right--they just try to follow the example set forth by someone they see as having been the best kind of person anyone can be.
I don't think they owe it to anyone to explain why their practice works for them, and I don't think, Rob, that you owe it to anyone to explain why your thing, whatever it is, works for you.
I'm a little taken aback by the ridicule of faith in these parts. I'm more than a little taken aback by the size of the egos that make themselves apparent in some parts of this community. There's an ugly combination of rage and insecurity in much of the God-related discussions here, the likes of which I haven't seen since similar conversations in high school. You're brave to even get into the discussion, and both wise and strong to maintain an even temper when being attacked.
To sum up, WORD.
Posted by: Signout | March 11, 2007 11:34 PM
I always get frustrated with the language in these debates. "God" and "religious" are terms that can encompass a HUGE range. My feeling is that when they are used they are personal ideas, not ones that apply to others (at least not without a lot more description). For example, I would imagine you'd agree that your God and religion are radically unlike that of the dominionist YEC's. Unfortunately our language really doesn't allow a short hand approach to these things. So when someone argues against the "God" the YECs adore it's hard for more sensible believers to NOT hear that as an attack on them.
I haven't read Stenger's book (but I have read two of his previous ones on more counter-New Age topics), but I'd guess that his target is the literal, historical God required by the literalists. Like the God "proven" by the argument from design or one of the cosmological argument or YEC fantasies. As you say, and I agree, God is not a scientific concept. But the Creationists, literalists and others, have defined their God _as_ something amenable to science. Worse, they often argue themselves into an all or nothing belief that any flaw in their arguments destroy their faith in toto ("if the Bible has any flaw then it cannot be trusted at all" sort of logic). When science tests their claims and finds them wanting science is cast as the enemy. So, yes, science _can_ disprove "God", but only when believers first make testable claims in the realm of science. But this "God" is not God in a general sense. The fact that literalists are wrong doesn't mean your faith is flawed. I imagine it's hard for a believer _not_ to hear it as general though. And that sucks.
I'm sort of an outsider to this. I'm a strong atheist, but have no problem with religion. I have huge issues with specific ideologies that claim a religious mantle, but I can distinguish faith from what I would consider abuses of it. In fact, the richness of faith makes those abuses all the more distasteful in my eyes. I can rip on the ID crowd or the theocratic right and still have genuine respect and affection for faith. Probably one of the reasons I suck in these debates.
As for being religious and a scientist... Ok. I don't see a problem. Martin Gardner, grandaddy of the skeptic movement, is a theist. My grad school research partner was an evangelical Christian and a damned fine physicist. IMHO people who see faith and science as in opposition are playing into the hands of the fundamentalist, anti-science narrative. It's shallow thinking and reeks of a quest for ideological purity.
Posted by: Barron | March 11, 2007 11:36 PM
Guess what? Nobody is planning to shoot you.
No one has said "go away religious people, you have to accept atheism into your heart to be approved as a science supporter"...except for you, of course.
You're going to have to work on this persecution complex a little harder, O Member of the Dominant Religious Culture Who Is Completely Oblivious to the Default Discrimination Against Non-Church-Goers. Go all the way. Try to match my favorite characterization of all time: "PZ has endorsed the idea of concentration camps and forced sterilization for religious believers." Work up a little more indignation and you too can imagine me with a horsewhip prodding you along on the Judeo-Christian Trail of Tears. You know you want to.
It's pretty much the standard Christian whine. No one is going to fire you or shoot you or banish you from civilized discourse for being Christian; no one has even threatened to do so, not Dawkins, not me. We haven't even said that it's impossible for a Christian to be a good scientist. We have pointed out that you believe in one truly stupid idea, this whole obsolete, silly notion of gods. That's all. We have said that this idea is incompatible with science; you even agree, I suspect, and are careful to leave the supernatural behind in the lab. The Stenger book you object to says that god is a "failed hypothesis", and so it is -- that hypothesis explains nothing, has no particular virtue, and is clung to out of a sense of tradition and as an awkward-to-escape pattern of indoctrination. That the world was created by and is being manipulated by a super-powerful intelligence certainly is a kind of hypothesis, one that ought to be testable if it weren't so badly mangled by theists (intentionally!) to be utterly useless. It's not atheist's fault that you believe in a version of Sagan's invisible dragon, and have retreated to worshipping a supreme being who is operationally indistinguishable from a vacuum.
But please...stop this absurd and rather cowardly blustering that having someone point out the foolishness of god-belief is like being threatened with a gun. That claim is your fault and your invention.
Or perhaps you think that when we tell you that believing in Jesus sure is a silly and unscientific bit of nonsensical pap, it hurts as badly as getting shot. That, of course, is your problem. Learn to live with it. You'll still find that all your elected representatives, you know, the people with any power in your community, still profess a belief in your magic sky-fairy, and that your churches are still all tax-exempt no matter how much they influence the secular management of your town, and that you still get to indoctrinate your children into the most ridiculous nonsense, and that being in the right church is still the number one criterion for getting elected to the school board. Some imaginary stings from some imaginary bullets from your imaginary enemies in that tiny atheist community seem like a small price to pay for all that.
Posted by: PZ Myers | March 11, 2007 11:41 PM
PZ,
Whoa, I just read some of the comments from that TT thread you linked to. Where exactly are they getting the "PZ endorse concentration camps and forced sterilization for religious believers" nonsense from?
Posted by: Dave Carlson | March 12, 2007 12:08 AM
Vector, assuming you are serious, how is "Go do some science of your own, you lonely net-addicted poser, and let me get back to publishing on evolution." when posed on the net anything but smug?
Man, thanks for getting to that before me. After reading Vector's comment my irony-meters explosion was so huge that I still have shrapnel stuck in me from the blast.
I'd say his accusation of "smugness" is just good old fashioned projection, but it's really more like ray-tracing (hardcore graphics geeks will get the humor in that).
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | March 12, 2007 12:18 AM
On the "Shoot me": Come on now, it's called hyperbole. Like "steel-toed boots and brass knuckles" or "Somebody shoot me now." (Feb 19).
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/02/the_dumbening_of_america_conti.php
Hey, it's just an expression.
Hasn't all of this 'theist & appeaser vs hardliner' rancor gone too far? Can't we all just get along?
Posted by: Colugo | March 12, 2007 12:26 AM
PZ:
When Rob said "don't shoot me," I think the shooting to which he referred was the destructively pejorative language people use when they talk about this. You and Dawkins just aren't helping. The aggressive atheism wins some supporters and pisses of people of more moderate temperance. This is not productive.
When he goes to the trouble of raising your objections for you, phrases like "believing in Jesus sure is a silly and unscientific bit of nonsensical pap" don't really help anybody. They serve no purpose other than to turn some people off of an important conversation and foment rabid spewing of insults.
-An atheist
Posted by: Elliott Day | March 12, 2007 12:33 AM
Don't you know? Daring to mock religion, that sacred cow, means one is gearing up to do ghastly things to all believers. It's a very familiar reaction. Rob is responding in the same way, to a less extravagant degree, right here.
Posted by: PZ Myers | March 12, 2007 12:34 AM
"Anyone want to take a crack at the greatest scientific genius the world has ever known? Who was by the way, a devout Christian."
Devout though Newton was, he was hardly a typical Christian. Most notably, he was anti-Trinitarian. In fact, many modern Christians would deny that Newton was one.
http://www.galilean-library.org/snobelen.html
http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/prism.php?id=76
Posted by: Colugo | March 12, 2007 12:42 AM
The aggressive atheism wins some supporters and pisses of people of more moderate temperance. This is not productive.
I'm getting pretty sick of "moderate" being used as a euphemism for hypersensitivity to rational criticism of sacred cows. That some people go bonkers over a few intellectually honest books making the NYT bestsellers isn't our problem. People should stop pretending it is.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | March 12, 2007 12:42 AM
Unfortunately, I know from experience that there is no language, no matter how polite, that will both express disbelief in the superstition of religion and not piss people off. Note the reaction to the statement that "god is a failed hypothesis" here.
And yes, my phrasing is helpful. It's clear, unambiguous, and does not leave any room for others to think that I'm supportive in any way of religiosity of any kind. Somehow, in these discussions, someone always thinks "compromise" means the atheist should be nice to religious foolishness, rather than merely tolerating everyone's right to believe in whatever foolishness they choose.
Posted by: PZ Myers | March 12, 2007 12:43 AM
Don't you know? Daring to mock religion, that sacred cow, means one is gearing up to do ghastly things to all believers. It's a very familiar reaction. Rob is responding in the same way, to a less extravagant degree, right here.
Sorry, I should have been more specific. Was there a specific quote of yours that the person who said that was distorting? Either way, it's inexcusable, I'm just curious because I think I've read most everything you've written here, and I can't think of anything that, even with a good ol' helping of distortion, could be construed in the way that person claimed.
Posted by: Da | March 12, 2007 1:08 AM
Argh! I really mangled that last one. Here's what I meant to say:
Sorry, I should have been more specific. Was there a specific quote of yours that the person who said that was distorting? Either way, it's inexcusable, I'm just curious because I think I've read most everything you've written here, and I can't think of anything that, even with a good ol' helping of distortion, could be construed in the way that person claimed.
Posted by: Dave Carlson | March 12, 2007 1:10 AM