On Becoming a Domestic and Laboratory Goddess

"The vast majority of the religiously indoctrinated accept the patently absurd religious fantasy shit *as* reality."

Citation please.

Posted by: Dennis | July 12, 2009 8:50 PM

Isis:
Word.
Having been a teacher for four years (admittedly, not in science, but I was friends with many science teachers), I can tell you that misinformed public is much more likely to have been caused by lack of funding than by "religious indoctrination."
I guess by that logic I must have been lobotomized because I attended--gasp--a Catholic high school.
Also, IMO, my religion *wants* me to be paying attention to this world, to love people and help those less fortunate. The sermon at my church this morning was actually about helping the hungry like Jesus did. If being "indoctrinated" means to ignore this world, I guess I'm not.

Posted by: Minerva | July 12, 2009 9:32 PM

"You are an outlier."

In the two months I dated one particular atheist, I explained to him four times that most of the Christians I knew, myself included, did *not* read the Bible literally and *did* accept evolution. Four times he looked at me with an expression of earnest disbelief and said "I've never heard a Christian say that before!"

Posted by: Claire | July 12, 2009 9:55 PM

I actually suspect that a large part of the reason the religious folk "treat the fantasy shit *as* reality" is the complete disdain and lack of respect the teachers of science often have toward their faith.

I somehow doubt that most people's science teachers are very disdainful of religion because I doubt that most people's science teachers are less religious than most people.

If you force a person to choose between the faith they already have and the science you want to teach, you will lose them.

And you don't think that's a major problem?

Posted by: LostMarbles | July 12, 2009 10:28 PM

Straw men, ad hominem arguments...scratch certain supposedly rationsl individuals, and there's a very good chance that you'll find a bubbling cauldron of irrationality, even hysteria, lurking just below the surface.*

Arguing against the validity of any statements made by non-atheists on the basis of a belief system that you yourself have constructed and projected onto them, a construct based on your own fears, prejudices, and fragmentary knowledge of any actual belief system that individuals may or may not adhere to to varying degrees, is itself an invalid argument. That hasn't stopped millions of people from constructing arguments and taking actions based on what they believe all people of a given political, philosphical, or religious affiliation, nationality, ethnicity, or race believe, think, or are likely to do.

Dr. Isis is an outlier? To make such a statement in the absence of supporting data is - to put it politely - incorrect.

*P.Z. Myers, I'm looking at you. You never did call of the pitchfork-and-torch mob you were organizing here -
Pharyngula: YouTube has banned the James Randi Educational Foundation!?!?
- when it turned out that you were completely wrong in your assumptions about the cause, and the conclusions you - and all but a few of the people leaving comments on that post - jumped to in the absence of real information.

Posted by: Harold | July 12, 2009 10:42 PM

Carlie, if you followed that JREF incident link and scrolled through the comments, you would see that I did. Several times. Without the slightest response. Nor even the mildest admission of his error when the dust settled. Which is why I'm citing him here as an example of the muddy thinking that leads to these attacks based on the attacker's own ignorance and prejudice - see the link in Dr. Isis's second paragraph to his blog post attacking this book's authors.

Posted by: Harold | July 12, 2009 11:22 PM

Here's the thing: to the non-believer, it is the act of faith itself that is completely and utterly irrational. The issue is not the choice of story. Whether one chooses to believe in the fundamentalist Christian god who created the universe six-thousand years ago, or chooses to believe in some kind of Prime Mover who omnisciently set things up to allow evolution to unfold over billions of years, doesn't matter as much as that one is saying to oneself:

Here's a story I like -- because I learned it at my parent's knees, or because it comforts me, or because it would disrupt my life to stop believing it, or for any other reason that is not evidential -- so I'm going to keep believing it.

Both the fundamentalist's attempts to deny evidence contrary to the story and the accommodationist's rewriting of the story to avoid contrary evidence are simply coping mechanisms for clinging to the make believe. The latter is more practical for someone who wants to practice science. Asserting that the earth is 6,000 years old can limit one's career prospects in the natural sciences. Compartmentalizing faith can put it where it doesn't obtrude into one's career. And maybe even help one overlook that, ultimately, the irrationality of faith isn't determined by the belief chosen, but by the manner in which it is believed.

Posted by: Russell | July 13, 2009 12:00 AM

the accommodationist's rewriting of the story to avoid contrary evidence are simply coping mechanisms for clinging to the make believe

Since when were accommodationists avoiding scientific evidence?

Posted by: Brandon | July 13, 2009 12:36 AM

Isis the Scientist: I'm not sure I understand what this means.

About a third of the overall US population consider scripture to be the Literal and Inerrant Word of God... including in matters of natural history.

The Roman Catholic Church's attitude is more in touch with reality, and the RC are a significant chunk of the US and global Christian population, so categorizing you as an outlier is pretty loose with the term. On the other hand, pope Benny isn't as careful not to step in stupid as JP was, and Benny is hardly an atypical Catholic (aside from the hat).

Volcanista: I agree, this is a straw majority. Vast majority? where??

Only a majority in deepest Red state territory. Check "Interpretation of Scripture" under "Beliefs and Practices" for detailed breakdown. I don't notice it under 10% anywhere in the US, though....

Posted by: abb3w | July 13, 2009 12:52 AM

I, frankly, don't give a fuck.

I do. Had I gone to Berkeley as a skeptical atheist instead of a magical thinker, I would be a lot closer to where I want to be in life. I wouldn't be a near-suicidally depressed nobody having to start over at thirty after foolishly listening to people who thought they were "superior" to me. (And no one here would be able to sneer at me.) Magical thinking has done me a world of harm in terms of shaming me into mental illness denialism and away from critical thinking; magical thinkers-- including those who taught me that I'm not "saved" because I'm not baptized and that I'm not "chosen" because I'm not Jewish-- have never respected my contradictory ideas.

Some of us don't have professors or elite professionals for parents; we had to figure out how to become sophisticated thinkers largely on our own. Some of us became skeptics and aspiring scientists despite the efforts of religious people to put us in our "place". Some of us are working-class and black-skinned and-- despite the dozens of SciBloggers and commenters who mysteriously have no problem admitting that women still face sexism while scolding me and others for daring to say GUESS WHAT IT STILL ISN'T EASY BEING BLACK-- have more to prove in terms of intelligence and academic achievement. Magical thinking keeps people like me down. I will continue to applaud all efforts for excoriating it for what it is: a bad way to make conclusions about the world and decisions about one's life.

Posted by: Juniper Shoemaker | July 13, 2009 1:01 AM

"I, frankly, don't give a fuck."

As is your right.

However, let me pass on two cents worth of my thoughts.

Imagine going two thousand years into the past, and asking people about what is the nature of thunder and lightning. You would get thousands of answers. Most of them would revolve about a subject of a bearded guy walking through the clouds and tossing down a hammer, or a big rock, or something similar. Many would be in the lines of "Father Sky having sex with Mother Earth", or somesuch. And then there would be a variety of other stories.

One universal truth about all of these stories is that they were universally wrong.

Now, the people who thought them up weren't idiots. They were just unwise: instead of saying the truth, they made up a story. They made up a lie. And the truth is so, so simple. Four little words: we don't yet know.

There are many stories your Church has made up in the past - stories we now know to be false. About the nature of mental illness. About the source of the plagues, and the nature of earthquakes. Famously, about the nature of Earth and its position in the Solar system. And there are many more.

There are many stories your Church still teaches today. About the origin of the universe. About the nature of humankind. About the way to become a better person. About moral authority, and its hierarchy. About the nature of life.

We cannot fully verify or reject those stories, not yet. But given the history, we have no reason to expect any of them to be true. In fact, we can expect the opposite: the chance of any of those stories being true is equal to the chance that a tribal shaman 2000 years ago could have understood the nature of lightning.

There are big questions here. Why is there something rather then nothing? What is the nature of consciousness? Do we end in death, or do we in some way continue? Etc.

You have actively chosen to not seek an answer to these questions. You have chosen to believe stories that your Church has made up instead. You have chosen to never apply your scientific, logical thought to these problems, to try and collect and analyze data, or to seek the real truth - if there is one.

You may be an excellent scientist, Isis - within your field. But you have chosen to abandon science for faith in many important areas. This is your choice, and you have a right to "not give a fuck" what anyone else thinks.

But you do *not* have the right to pretend that you are just like other scientists - that you seek answers with fully open mind, answers to all questions. Nor do you have the right to be offended when someone else notices that.

Posted by: M. | July 13, 2009 1:59 AM

Oops. The first sentence of that last post was directed to Juniper. Hi, Juniper!

Posted by: Scrabcake | July 13, 2009 2:08 AM

"PhysioProf's stance on scientific illiteracy isn't that there is a fundamental problem with science education in the U.S .. It's that those that follow organized religion do not pay attention to "reality" ..."

No, that is not what he said. "Religion" is not the same thing as "those that follow organized religion". Religion is an official history, a set of institutions, a creed, a prescribed mindset. It's a separate thing from whther or not those that follow it (or like to think and say they do) really do credit that history, respect those institutions, follow that creed or adopt the mindset.

Oh, and obey the officials. That's top of the list.

Sure, it's a True Scotsman argument: that St Augistine was "really" being a true catholic when he stated that having a bright and curious mind was a character flaw. Nevertheless, there's a lot of history that gives it some weight.

Posted by: Paul Murray | July 13, 2009 2:44 AM

You have actively chosen to not seek an answer to these questions. You have chosen to believe stories that your Church has made up instead. You have chosen to never apply your scientific, logical thought to these problems, to try and collect and analyze data, or to seek the real truth - if there is one.

You may be an excellent scientist, Isis - within your field. But you have chosen to abandon science for faith in many important areas. This is your choice, and you have a right to "not give a fuck" what anyone else thinks.

But you do *not* have the right to pretend that you are just like other scientists - that you seek answers with fully open mind, answers to all questions. Nor do you have the right to be offended when someone else notices that.

Except for the one about Isis having a right to "not give a fuck," everything single sentence there is wrong. I'm sorry, but you just don't get it. Isis has dedicated her career to one particular branch of science. She does not have the time or resources to deeply investigate every single mystery about the nature of man and the universe. But I can guarantee you that if scientific evidence came out that conflicted with her world view, she would examine it closely and either reconcile or abandon her faith. That is the difference between people like Isis and creationists. The distinction, I'm sad to say, has completely whooshed over your head. You are more extreme than people like PZ Myers and Dawkins, who acknowledge that there are religious scientists who don't let their religion interfere with their science.

Posted by: Brandon | July 13, 2009 3:39 AM

I don't think that the New Atheists (for lack of a better term) have a problem with the way you do your science or religion. (I don't recall the goddess Isis ever telling us poor Hell-bound schmucks to turn or burn. ;D)

It seems like the New Atheists' problem with the accommodationists' (again, for lack of a better term) camp is that it seems like they don't want atheistic scientists to ever tell a religious person, "No, that [religious] idea is contradicted by the evidence" except in the most egregious of cases like young-earth Creationism.. and even then each and every one of us should patiently explain what the evidence indicates, politely responding to each and every fallacy and counter-argument, pointing out with humble deference the whole way how it can be reconciled with their belief system. After all, the belief that evolution was directed by God with Christ as its pinnacle is perfectly unfalsifiable, so long as God was subtle enough, and the text is flexible enough (and God can do whatever He wants, right? He is God after all!)...

Of *course* it's unreasonable for my atheist self to say that all religious people are ignorant fucksticks who are single-handedly responsible for holding back science education - which is why I don't say that shit. But it's also unreasonable for a Christian (or an accommodationist) to expect me to do anything but eyeroll at a Gish gallop, or to explain a scientific issue from a religious perspective that I don't personally hold to be true (or feel like is supported by the evidence). You don't like the way I, or Dawkins, or PZ explain this shit? That's A-OK. Go read Ken Miller, or Francis Collins, or Isis.

I totally know that your way of integrating religious and scientific perspectives is the norm and not the exception. On the atheist side... CPP is more of the exception. Most of us atheists understand well that the majority of religious people we interact with lead a reality-based lifestyle and aren't strict textual literalists. (Though we may have other issues with liberal believers.. and despite the poor showing in this thread by some. Protip to other commenters: 20-40% does not a majority make, though I'm not saying that it's all cool beans.) It's just that the most vocal/noticeable/irritating believers and atheists alike make it *seem* that way for the other camp. If you're going to complain about others' use of a broad brush, you may want to use a narrower one yourself.

And, of course, I say all of that with the due-est of due respect to my personal Egyptian goddess. :)

Posted by: Muse142 | July 13, 2009 4:47 AM

Isis-- I havent read Unscientific America. I called foul on some shit Mooney wrote in 2006 he has yet to address, I would have been shocked if he sent me a copy.

My issue with Mooney initially had nothing to do with atheism, nor does my problem with him today have anything to do with atheism.

PZ defended Mooney against all kinds of shit in the past, yet Mooney made the decision to attack PZ in a dead-tree format-- No links to posts so readers can analyze what happened themselves, no trackbacks so readers can see PZs response, no comments section for commentors to come in with their perspectives-- the portion on PZ might as well have been posted on 'Evolution News and Views' or 'Uncommon Descent'. Luskin and Mooney can go on a speaking tour together, calling me a male sexual pervert and PZ a 'destructive' site-hit slut.

Assuming Luskin would even agree to tour with a backstabbing bitch.

If my views on Mooney must be connected to religion, let me be clear that I too dont give a fuck what you believe. While I think its interesting you get mad at SciBlogs for having mail-order-bride ads, yet you financially and socially support an organization that institutionalized child rape, I wouldnt 'call you out' on this by name in a print book where you couldnt defend yourself.

But Mooney might in his next book.

Posted by: ERV | July 13, 2009 8:57 AM

I am an atheist, and also I am not a scientist. I teach liberal arts to trades-people via a community college in the bible belt via the Internet. I therefore would like to respectfully stand up for myself and my fellow atheistic believers in magical realism. Because seriously, if there is no magic then how is ANYTHING possible. I mean, hello, Pandora can tell what ass-shaking jams I might enjoy simply from my typing in "Black Eyed Peas." The denial of magic is closed-mindedness in the extreme, and the hilarity behind it does tickle my funny bone (which *doesn't appear on any of my doctors' bone-map thingies, so THERE*), yea verily.

Posted by: MFA Mama | July 13, 2009 9:29 AM

@Isis

An insult (and a rather lame one) instead of a response! Nice!

I take that as an admission that you still dont understand the patently absurd religious shit that some scientists take part in.

Given your inability to comprehend, or possibly your ability to ignore the contradictions in your own behaviour ... there is officially nothing worthy to see on this blog ... time to carry on back to the real science blogs.

Everyone who agrees, I encourage you to follow me out of here.

Posted by: Ken | July 13, 2009 10:10 AM

Brandon, there are different ways one defends a make-believe story. One route, as exemplified by fundamentalists, is to deny contrary evidence. "My friend Zik did too dig up those petunias, no matter the dirt on my jeans." "The earth is too 6,000 years old, no matter evidence to the contrary." A second route is to continually accommodate the story to evidence that comes along. "Of course you don't see Zik -- he's invisible."

The Catholic Church excels at accommodationism. It goes out of its way in its theology to avoid conflict with evolution, geology, physics, and other sciences. Its believers are still practicing make-believe. And that is no more rational than when fundamentalists do so. But by avoiding conflict with contrary evidence wherever possible, Catholicism makes it easier for its members to work with and even practice science. And yes, they can be good scientists.

What they can't be is rational in their practice of faith. Which is no more possible than being sanitary in one's practice of sharing needles with random, fellow drug addicts. See, people are missing where the issue lies. The accommodationists want the issue to be how to avoid conflicts between faith and science. The problem is that people like Dawkins and Hitchens and Dennett are pointing to the irrationality of faith itself. They're looking over that wall the accommodationists have constructed, and saying: Look, even if you manage to frame your stories about your magic man so that they don't bump against current science, you're still just practicing make-believe, and you shouldn't expect anyone else to take your stories about your magic man any more seriously than we do a child's stories about his make-believe friend.

Posted by: Russell | July 13, 2009 10:16 AM

Isis the Scientist: I hope he'll educate me some more because my own beliefs are apparently a mystery to me.

Was that Catholic joke deliberate?

Posted by: abb3w | July 13, 2009 10:55 AM

Nice post Russell about where the "real issue lies". I agree, and are always frustrated when reading these discussions with people missing the point, as I see it.

It's obviously true that many, many people manage to believe certain scientific ideas while being religious of one form or another. The point that uncompromising atheists are making is that the method of knowledge gathering called science, that seems to work so fantastically well at figuring out the nature of reality, if consistently applied (as I believe it should be) destroys religious faith. You shouldn't claim to know things to be true that are unfalsifiable or contradict the evidence at hand just by hiding behind the copout that is "faith".

Posted by: howzat | July 13, 2009 11:15 AM

Isis: 'If I knew dudes, don't you think I'd have done it?' (a test for god existence).
Could it be that the reason there's no test is that there's no god? On the other hand god is not needed to explain any natural feature, past or present. When some scientists claim otherwise (anthropic principle, moral law, etc.) they are just supporting the claim that science and religion are not compatible, not because god should be discarded before hand but because they're discarding natural explanations for those questions before hand.
Cheers.

Posted by: hazur | July 13, 2009 11:27 AM

We're supposed to look to the teackings of Christ as a road map for living our lives and dealing with humans, not an explanation of how the natural world works."

So you don't believe that God exists? That Jesus actually existed and performed miracles? That people have souls that will survive bodily death? This has nothing to do with your ability as a scientist. You can go to Mass on Sunday and run a wicked PCR on Monday. People who say you can't be a scientist and religious are wrong. But this is not what Russel was talking about. We are saying that you do not have the evidential basis to make these claims. The criticism is not of religious "aught" beliefs, but of the "is" beliefs. Religious "is" beliefs are unscientific (I refer you to post #31.)

Also, I question the word choice in your description of your theology. Christ came "...not to start a new religion, but reinvigorate the practices of the Jews...", which he did by throwing out 99.9% of the old practices and introducing some new ones? By that logic, we as a species are much more closely related to yeast than Christianity is to Judaism. As to the throwing out the OT, you're making a "No True Scotsman" fallacy. There are plenty of Christians who think that the OT laws are still in force. I direct you to Matthew 5: 17-19.

Furthermore, I think it can safely be said that religion (not some hypothetical ideal religion, religion as it is actually practiced) is on the whole anti-scientific. 38% of American Christians, Muslims, and Jews (according to the Pew poll) believe that their scripture is 100% literally true. This means that a sizable minority believe that in spite of the entire body of scientific evidence, the world is only 6,000 years old, evolution didn't happen, and the Great Flood did. Note that I am not saying that all religious people are anti-science, or than no religious people are pro-science, and I'm nowhere near the question of religious scientists. What I AM saying is that there is a sizable group of people who, because of their religion, reject science, and there is no comparable group of people who say "If I stopped believing in Jesus, I'd stop believing in antibiotics." In fact, I'd be comfortable stating that that second group is negligible, if not entirely nonexistent.

Posted by: Roi des Foux | July 13, 2009 12:34 PM

I agree, this is a straw majority. Vast majority? where??

lessee...

Virgin (human) Birth
Resurrection after three days dead in the desert
Cows are more special than any other mammal
Pigs are less special than any other mammal

Are you trying to tell me that that at least one of those doesn't cover a majority of the human race?

Posted by: Gruesome Rob | July 13, 2009 12:52 PM

@ Roi:

Furthermore, I think it can safely be said that religion (not some hypothetical ideal religion, religion as it is actually practiced) is on the whole anti-scientific. 38% of American Christians, Muslims, and Jews (according to the Pew poll) believe that their scripture is 100% literally true. This means that a sizable minority believe that in spite of the entire body of scientific evidence, the world is only 6,000 years old, evolution didn't happen, and the Great Flood did. Note that I am not saying that all religious people are anti-science, or than no religious people are pro-science, and I'm nowhere near the question of religious scientists. What I AM saying is that there is a sizable group of people who, because of their religion, reject science, and there is no comparable group of people who say "If I stopped believing in Jesus, I'd stop believing in antibiotics." In fact, I'd be comfortable stating that that second group is negligible, if not entirely nonexistent.

Yes, a sizable minority of people (Christians all) do believe in the literal interpretation of Scripture - and thus I would wager reject modern scientists. What gauls me about this "debate" however, as both a believer and a scientist, is the need by so many to excoriate that minority based on one trait in the name of defending another. Sadly, many of my Christian breatheran do exactly the same thing, in clear violation of Christ's teachings.

And to clear a few things up - I do believe in God as described in Christian Scripture. I also believe that Christ is His Son, and that Christ was a human who lived on earth at a certain point in human history. I also believe in the Virgin birth, because whether it was parthogenesis or a divine mystery, it is still a powerful image. I am not convinced on physical ressurection of all the dead, but I'm open to alternative interpretations of that part. I do believe in a soul, because there are too many traits and actions in humans that, in the aggregate, can't be explained as simply the sum of all parts.

Finally, I have often written that I think Christians can be rude, intolerable, insane, violent beings, capable of inflicting the most horrible actions on othe rhuman beings in the name of their religion. Doing so, however, violates the central core of that religion, and in my view makes them unworthy of the label they claim for themselves.

It also no excuse fo the "New Athesists" or anyone else to go calling believers the names we get called. If the New Atheist rational only approach, based strictly in natural law and science, is such a better path, I would expect much better behavior.

Posted by: Philip H | July 13, 2009 1:11 PM

I don't think Isis ever said anything defending the Catholic church, at least not in recent memory. She defends her right to her own personal religious practices and beliefs, though. And as the goddess said, I'm sure those of you who think feminist Catholics are hypocrites have never paid taxes. Or bought basically anything.

Furthermore, I think it can safely be said that religion (not some hypothetical ideal religion, religion as it is actually practiced) is on the whole anti-scientific. 38% of American Christians, Muslims, and Jews (according to the Pew poll) believe that their scripture is 100% literally true. This means that a sizable minority believe that in spite of the entire body of scientific evidence, the world is only 6,000 years old, evolution didn't happen, and the Great Flood did.

38% is, as you say, a [sizeable] minority, and therefore not representative of anything "on the whole."

I see a big logical disconnect in the comments here that say in one breath that being religious does not make a person a bad scientist, and in the next that it's unscientific for a person to be unable to base every part of their worldview on substantiated evidence.

First, what human being that exists on this planet has a worldview composed entirely of ideas based on wholly substantiated evidence, with no personal opinions, no bias, no illogical ideas or misconceptions or unsubstantiated hunches thrown in? I challenge any of you in this thread to prove that you are in fact that robotic. This is not actually a question of all-fiction vs. all-reality, even if people keep framing it that way. We're all in the gray area. Everyone is human, everyone gathers evidence from what they witness in their lives to produce their own worldview, and for everyone, some of that evidence is unscientific. None of you are vulcans.

Second, what the fuck do you care if someone's personal way of seeing the universe includes some unscientific ideas based on, you know, their feelings? If it interferes with our communal exploration and understanding of that universe because it biases their measurements or interpretations, then yeah, that is worthy of scientific challenge. But if I both conduct fabulous scientific experiments and simultaneously feel the universe has some supernatural order to it, it doesn't take away from the fabulousness of my experiments. It also doesn't mean i have to compartmentalize, which was suggested above - I don't have to be scientist-by-day and religious-fanatic-by-night. The idea of a synthesized worldview is... synthesis.

I don't happen to think supernatural forces are likely, fwiw. My point is that it's no one's business how you reconcile your observations and experiences, and that kind of attack on a personal belief system is awfully tangential to a post about how flinging poo with a broad brush is nasty and inaccurate (except insofar as it's kind of flinging more poo).

Posted by: volcanista | July 13, 2009 1:34 PM

Few lay people develop the clarity of vision you espouse. More often then not, the only lens they choose to see the world through is the one provided for them by their new religious master.

And again - your experiences are not data. Few lay people? really? how do you know?

Gruesome Rob, a whole lot of people who believe those doctrines do so with varying degrees of literal-ness. (literality?) Humans are, in fact, rather complex.

Posted by: volcanista | July 13, 2009 1:40 PM

The wrench I always want to throw in this wheel is love. Do atheists love? Yes, you say. But what's the evidence? Are you perfect in your love, or do you do snarky stuff to your beloved and have bad times? When you do snarky stuff, doesn't that provide evidence against this "love" that you claim you feel? Do you use "faith" to get through bad times, or do you use rational utilitarian arguments? How can you justify it, either way?

Does that make you a bad scientist, if you love irrationally?

Atheists don't understand faith. That's fine; there is room in this world for all types. They claim that religious folks have no evidence. I say I had a mystical experience where I met God. They say that it's simply a chemical delusion, flashes of electricity in my brain. I say so is love. So is everything we do. Does that make your love invalid, atheist?

And if your love, and the effects it has on your life, is not invalid, why is my faith?

Posted by: kt | July 13, 2009 2:15 PM

And again - your experiences are not data. Few lay people? really? how do you know?

Posted by: Onkel Bob | July 13, 2009 2:31 PM

@ Philip H:

What gauls me about this "debate" however, as both a believer and a scientist, is the need by so many to excoriate that minority based on one trait in the name of defending another.

@ volcanista:

38% is, as you say, a [sizeable] minority, and therefore not representative of anything "on the whole."

I see a big logical disconnect in the comments here that say in one breath that being religious does not make a person a bad scientist, and in the next that it's unscientific for a person to be unable to base every part of their worldview on substantiated evidence.

First, what human being that exists on this planet has a worldview composed entirely of ideas based on wholly substantiated evidence, with no personal opinions, no bias, no illogical ideas or misconceptions or unsubstantiated hunches thrown in?

Second, what the fuck do you care if someone's personal way of seeing the universe includes some unscientific ideas based on, you know, their feelings?

Posted by: Roi des Foux | July 13, 2009 2:54 PM

Kt, there's an important distinction to be made. I don't know of any atheist that denies the existence of "faith" - at least, in the sense of the operational definition you've proposed above. It's clearly as existent and real a phenomenon as love.

The entities people have faith in, on the other hand... not so much. There are quite a few faiths - with mutually incompatible 'faith claims' - that extoll their martyrs. Despite (rather) disparate creeds, the differences that I can see between religions seem to be ones of degree and not kind. And since they can't all be right...

As to "why is [love] good and [faith] bad?", I provided at least one distinction in comment 59 above. Once you decide something's "unknowable", you stop trying to understand it. A (probably pedantically over-detailed) analysis here.

Posted by: Ray Ingles | July 13, 2009 3:19 PM

Religion, once introduced to and adopted by broad swaths of the population, will color and distort any subsequently introduced social construct. (authors note: I inserted missing commas to quote)
Something tells me that hypothesis will be difficult to disprove.

Contrary to what Bob gives us in 64, we don't "prove" hyspotheses in science. We fail to disprove them.

Posted by: Onkel Bob | July 13, 2009 3:46 PM

ti writes:

What the "new athiests" or whatever you would like to call them seem to miss is that the vast majority the ills they blame on religion are generally not caused by religion itself, but are the result of tribalism.

I agree a bit with this. Which is why I commented earlier that I am leery of sweeping claims of how much better the world would be without religion.

Yet however much some of the New Atheists may fall into the trap of tribalism, the only alternative to tribalism and to ideological thinking is to expose them and to resist them, always recognizing that in doing so one risks creating yet a new form of such.

Posted by: Russell | July 13, 2009 4:02 PM

How the fuck can I *not* care? What kind of a person would I have to be to not care?

Objecting to action that interferes with education or civil rights is different from objecting to them having ideas to themselves. Seriously, what a hateful person thinks to themselves isn't my problem, except insofar as I might be able to have discussions with them and change their minds, because hateful people are probably more likely to be violent and disruptive. I'll protest having to teach creationism in schools up and down, no contest. And that has nothing to do with whether or not my students to go to church and think what they want to think.

Helooooo, strawman! First off, I'm only talking about the "is" beliefs. "Ideas" and "worldviews" contain a lot of "aught" beliefs. Secondly, I would say that 100% of the time, I work to make the strength of my "is" beliefs exactly as strong as the evidence supporting them. I certainly make mistakes, think sloppily from time to time, forget to take certain biases into account. But exactly 0% of the time do I say, "X is unfalsifiable, but a lot of people believe it, so I'm going to believe it too", or "There's no evidence that Y is true, but it makes me feel good, so I'm going to believe it."

Not really a strawman. There are implications in this thread that belief in things unsupported by data compromises a person's scientific perspective, or at least makes them somehow a hypocrite or [TOPIC OF THE POST] worthy of insult. I'm saying what Ray Ingles mentions in #70 - that all humans have "beliefs" insomuch as they take some things on "faith" that haven't been entirely supported by scientific enquiry. That kind of "faith" (is there another word? that we assume some things, maybe?) exists across the board, so it seems a little rich to call label people with some assumptions idiots. A great many people who are religious are not saying the statements at the end of your paragraph, either - that's a strawman, unless you're still just talking about that minority that everyone here seems to think is so representative.

I'm leery of worldviews, however derived. We all grow up with our own background stock of belief, of course. The question is what we do with them when we start to look at why we hold those things. Should I really inherit my father's view of LBJ and the Lost Cause, and my mother's view of heaven and hell? I stopped believing in Santa Claus and in Jesus. I'm not claiming perfection, so if you see me clinging to some other myth with pretense to facticity, feel free to prod me on why I'm still clinging to it.

Wait, who said "worldview" = "myth?" You don't see the things in your life and ascribe some philosophical system to how you think they work, scientific or otherwise? I mean, it's very Buddhist to let it all go like that, but most of us are trying to understand how the universe works. Hence studying science. And no, I'm not saying science and religion are the same. They are different approaches to understanding some rather different aspects of existence.

There's another aspect of religiosity that is not being given fair credit here, and maybe that's why I'm disagreeing with people even though I am myself not religious. Among religious folks, are those people seeking answers, who learn the dogma, and sometimes those people parrot it back and don't want to think twice about it. That's the belief side of religion/faith/spirituality, if you will - the concrete things that are taught.

But many people participate in a religion for the practice, which has basically nothing to do with belief. It's about ritual, and how ritual makes you feel. Maybe that seems pointless to people who don't feel anything when they participate in rituals, which is perfectly fair, because in that case the practice probably seems pointless. But I think it's probably not unlike enjoying music or other forms of art - the purpose of listening to music is kind of murky, and the experience is fulfilling on a level that's more emotional than mental.

Would I write off someone who finds listening to certain pieces of music rapturous (maybe for entirely brain-chemical reasons) because that emotional experience means they can't run a science experiment? If I find out that that particular person uses that emotional experience to say that the words of whatever song they like are telling them how to run that experiment, then yeah, I'd be pretty put off. But there is a difference between being religious or spiritual or faithful, and being an asshole about it. Isis is complaining here about feeling like she is being painted an asshole just because she is religious, when only some religious people are dogmatic assholes. If I don't know why a person finds participating in a religion valuable, I choose not to assume that they do so just because they want someone to hand them beliefs; and I likewise do not assume that those beliefs preclude learning about scientific inquiry just because they fall into a category ("religion") within which there are groups that disdain science. If my colleague at work feels ecstatic during his yoga practice, I mean, whatever; his brain's chemicals are none of my business. If he starts mandating yoga during intro geology or teaching about yogic philosophy during his structure class because he had a revelation, I would have a problem with it because he'd be losing perspective and not being a good scientist. But having a brain that gets off on that stuff doesn't mean that must happen, you know?

Posted by: volcanista | July 13, 2009 4:12 PM

ti writes:

What the "new athiests" or whatever you would like to call them seem to miss is that the vast majority the ills they blame on religion are generally not caused by religion itself, but are the result of tribalism.

I agree a bit with this. Which is why I commented earlier that I am leery of sweeping claims of how much better the world would be without religion.

Yet however much some of the New Atheists may fall into the trap of tribalism, the only alternative to tribalism and to ideological thinking is to expose them and to resist them, always recognizing that in doing so one risks creating yet a new form of such.

Okay, that's an interesting discussion. I think I agree with this, too. Although these days it is easier to separate religious traditions from each other and from our culture, I really think that religious dogma and social practice co-develop, and it might be as useful to blame history as religion. We had an interesting discussion of this at Shapely Prose a week or two ago. Someone pointed out that no matter what its origin, religion provides a cultural means by which harmful social inequity is held onto and kept entrenched. Anyway, it was interesting.

Posted by: volcanista | July 13, 2009 4:16 PM

Hm, not sure what happened with my tags there. The first three paragraphs are all quoted.

Can we use blockquote tags here? Is that how people are doing that? That would look nicer than italics. Sorry!

Posted by: volcanista | July 13, 2009 4:20 PM

Dr. Isis writes:

Neither one of us has data the other would find acceptable.

You're a scientist. You know the frailty of data that is not openly described, that is not examined from different directions for various explanations, that is not contrasted with other relevant data, that is not poked and prodded. I suspect you never would let a graduate student stop with that. Are you really happy stopping with it?

Posted by: Russell | July 13, 2009 4:28 PM

I like very much the observation by TL that much of the harm attributed to religion is actually the result of tribalism. I get it, and I agree. However, what TL seems to discount is that, for many, religion has replaced other identifiers that used to underlie tribalism: ethnicity, family or clan (tribe), nationality, and so on. Christian dogma says that everyone who does not accept Christ and his teaching will go to hell (or to limbo, I suppose, if that particular bit of special pleading is still on the books). If you are not Jewish, then you are not among the chose of God. Islam divides all the world into us and them as well. And that's just the Abrahamic religions. I'll go a bit farther, and argue that tribalism based upon religion is especially pernicious, as the bases of damaging tribal actions cannot be refuted--after all, they are revealed and and their sanctity authorized by the religious tribe's leaders. Finally, let me add one point that has been made before by many others, including PZ, Dawkins, Hitchens, and others. While there is a rarefied, theoretical theology that exists in academia, and these people don't take scripture literally (to hear it told), this sort of religion is really pretty atypical, isn't it? Political arguments about abortion, sex education, birth control, gay marriage, global warming, all have at their base religious doctrine -- doctrine that religious adherents are not content to use to find their own way in life, but rather doctrine to be codified in law for society in general and enforced as law. Sharia, anyone? I can only speak for myself, but I am content to allow you to hold whatever beliefs makes sense to you, comfort you, uphold your family traditions, or are revealed to you out of burning bushes. However, the second you tell me that I must live my life according to the particular dictates of your specific religious doctrine, then I must call foul. If your religious doctrine makes claims about the physical world, and those claims are almost certainly false based upon the evidence, you are welcome to hold them yourself if you like, but don't insist that my children learn them in history or science class. When you seek to impose those doctrines on me, don't be surprised when I strenuously object.

Posted by: Immunologist | July 13, 2009 4:39 PM

kt writes:

"Atheists don't understand faith. That's fine; there is room in this world for all types. They claim that religious folks have no evidence. I say I had a mystical experience where I met God."

Which means, quite in contrast to many believers, you have evidence from which to work. If you deal with that honestly, you don't need faith. You can investigate your experience as evidence. You can ask yourself what it implies about the world that you had such an experience. In short, you can pursue that line of evidence. One possible approach is this: Did God speak with you in this meeting? Could you capture his words? Can you repeat that? Does he say anything that provides you knowledge you couldn't possibly have yourself? Does he, for example, prophesy the future?

See, faith isn't about having an experience. Faith is something quite different: it is about how one believes.

"They say that it's simply a chemical delusion, flashes of electricity in my brain. I say so is love. So is everything we do. Does that make your love invalid, atheist? And if your love, and the effects it has on your life, is not invalid, why is my faith?"

If the only experiences I had with my lover were private, if she never appeared where others also could see her and hear her, or having done so, if others could not see her and hear her, I would indeed start to question the meaning of my private experiences with her. I don't have any doubt about your love for your god. What I doubt is the existence of your god. That doubt would be resolved if your god would show himself to the rest of us.

Posted by: Russell | July 13, 2009 4:51 PM

"Do you have an experiment that will allow us to test our hypotheses?"

Does your god a) communicate with his followers, b) desire others to know his existence, and c) see the future? Because that's easy to test.

Posted by: Russell | July 13, 2009 4:56 PM

If you suck the god out of the universe what you have left is atheism and a lot less methane gas released in the air.

Posted by: Carl | July 13, 2009 5:05 PM

@ #85
You say,
"No, actually they don't. The point here - the point you missed is that religion is a source for tribalism.,

and without breaking a step continue,

"During my childhood, I was unaware that there are multiple religions in the area... Then several nationalists came to power, and guess what? Used religion to redefine tribes."

One minute religion is the cause, the next it's the tool; which is it?

"the simple fact of the matter is that you have chosen not to apply your logic or your rational thinking in the analysis of many deep questions of existence. Instead, you have accepted stories provided by the Church"

But how do you approach presuppositional matters of revelation with "logic" and "rational" thinking? In addition, we have a considerable way to go before our empirical methodology is sufficient to even parse the "deep questions of existence", let deliver answers to them.

Epistemology, Teh Scientific Method included, is not settled philosophy, by the way. It's still a raging discussion in which Karl Popper hasn't had the last word (although I hold he's had by far the strongest so far).

The firm ground from which to engage theism and its palpably negative aspects in relation to dealing with the world as our current knowledge dictates it to be. When the evidence tells us one thing, and such-and-such a cult tells us another, then it's the time to draw battle lines. But it's senseless to try and appeal to philosophical naturalism when dealing with the world that we haven't even come within a several million light years of comprehending.

Posted by: DSKS | July 13, 2009 5:14 PM

"One minute religion is the cause, the next it's the tool; which is it?"

Both. In Serb/Croat dichotomy, there were few distinctions except for religion and the nominal difference. If not for religion, no nationalist could use the nominal difference to produce a problem.

In case of Bosnian Muslims, there is even less doubt. These are the descendants of local people who accepted Islam during the Turkish occupation. There was literally nothing setting them aside as a "tribe" except for religion.

"But how do you approach presuppositional matters of revelation with "logic" and "rational" thinking? In addition, we have a considerable way to go before our empirical methodology is sufficient to even parse the "deep questions of existence", let deliver answers to them."

We say that we don't know yet.

For aspects of reality that we don't have the tools to comprehend, we admit our incomprehension.

For personal-revelatory things, we keep those at the personal level.

"When the evidence tells us one thing, and such-and-such a cult tells us another, then it's the time to draw battle lines."

So, when evidence tells us that, say, Catholic Church is having a very negative influence on civil rights, while the Church itself tells us that its influence is positive and protective...what do we do?

Posted by: M. | July 13, 2009 5:40 PM

"Description of proposed tests, methods or procedures should be explicit, sufficiently detailed, and well defined to allow adequate evaluation of the approach to the problem. Describe any new methodology and its advantage over existing methodologies."

Claimed communicant with an alleged future-seeing god is asked to provide the final digit (one's digit) of the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) for the next 20 closes. Success at doing so will provide proof that the communicant is indeed in touch with a god capable of predicting the future. This methodology has several advantages:

1. Transparency. The predicted sequence is made public beforehand, and its failure or success can be verified by anyone after the next twenty DJIA closes.

2. Non-consequence. A god or prophet might be hesitant to predict a consequential aspect of the future, such as an earthquake or economic boom or bust. Unlike the first few digits, on which large sums of money routinely ride, the final digit of the DJIA has no direct impact on people.

3. Specificity. There are famous contradictions dealing with omniscience, and many quandaries with other properties of gods. This requires of any proposed god only one ability that humans lack: the ability to see today what happens tomorrow.

4. Rigor: Despite the specificity described above, the requirement that this is done in a numerical fashion twenty days in a row eliminates many issues with testing prophecy, such as telling when a prediction is successful, or leeriness that it was mere chance.

"Clearly describe overall design of the study, with careful consideration to statistical aspects of the approach, the adequacy of controls, and number of observations, as well as how results will be analyzed. Include details of any collaborative arrangements that have been made."

While the DJIA is the result of a calculation of social processes -- the sale of stocks -- its final digit is essentially random. The odds against correctly predicting this digit for the next 20 closes is 1 in 10**20. Of course, there are many claimed communicants, and if this test is run repeatedly, the odds of one of them eventually passing is considerably greater than a one-shot test: 1 - (1-p)**N. Straightforward calculation shows that p = 1/10**20 gives long odds for quite a few tests. The fact that DJIA is the result of a complex social interaction involving hundreds of millions of people and billions of dollars each day makes it difficult for a claimed communicant to rig the results.

"Discuss the potential difficulties and limitations of the proposed procedures and alternative approaches to achieve the aims."

Claimed communicants with god tend to avoid rigorous tests. They provide a variety of defenses for doing so. Some of these defenses are countered by the transparent and non-consequential properties of the proposed test. The test relies, of course, on the claim that the communicant is in touch with a god, that that god has the ability to predict the future, and that that god desires the rest of us to know its presence. Many of the defenses for refusing this test should be seen as a denial of the preceding hypothesis. In particular, a god who won't be tested is a god who doesn't want its presence known.

I've proposed this test in the past. I'm still looking for someone in communication with a god willing to take it.

Posted by: Russell | July 13, 2009 5:46 PM

"I've proposed this test in the past. I'm still looking for someone in communication with a god willing to take it."

Can you state the hypothesis being tested, here?

Posted by: DSKS | July 13, 2009 6:04 PM

DSKS, the hypothesis is that there is a god a) who communicates with his followers, b) who desires others to know his existence, and c) who sees the future. Given only those assumptions, the methodology provides a proof of such a god's existence, to very high degree of probability.

BTW, I consider the failure of any claimed communicant with god to themselves propose and execute this or similar methodology as a refutation already of the claimed hypothesis. The interesting thing is that many Christians claim their god has all three properties. If their god doesn't want thus to reveal himself, they at least should ask him why he doesn't. Needless to say, the answers I've heard so far don't suggest they are in communication with anything other than their own imaginations.

Posted by: Russell | July 13, 2009 6:13 PM

"DSKS, the hypothesis is that there is a god a) who communicates with his followers, b) who desires others to know his existence, and c) who sees the future. Given only those assumptions, the methodology provides a proof of such a god's existence, to very high degree of probability."

Well, there are a series of hypotheses here, but all of them are rendered problematic by virtue of being unfalsifiable. If the claimant fails, then all you have proven is that the claimant cannot, at that time, communicate with God (to say anymore is to side with inductivism over critical rationalism).

Compounding this further, the unfalsifiable hypotheses concern themselves with the existence of a conscious entity that presumably exhibits free will and the choice to simply be uncooperative. In addition, in order to at least prove the positive, the hypotheses would require the entity to act in violation of its own theological framework (at least in the Christian paradigm, because your asking God to reveal himself in totality and render faith redundant, and also asking that he perform magic tricks that could be used to enrich the communicant).

Inre c) this is a contentious theological issue, and so isn't settled to the point where we, as materialists, can approach it empirically. To say that God sees the future requires a belief in predeterminism, which raises all sorts of ugliness inre Free Will and the problem of Evil. Now, in these are some very interesting conversations, but they are purely philosophical and cannot be approached empirically.

Posted by: DSKS | July 13, 2009 6:37 PM

DSKS:

"If the claimant fails, then all you have proven is that the claimant cannot, at that time, communicate with God..."

The test is purposely framed not as a one-shot bet, but as something that can be done at any time. The fact that theists need to face is that no one has yet done this.

"To say that God sees the future requires a belief in predeterminism..."

That is theologically problematic only with regard to human behavior. Arguably, this test fails in that regard, since its source of future random numbers is aggregate human behavior. It could be modified to use a mechanical source, say, a beta emitter. Then the claimed god doesn't have to know the future, but only be willing to affect the polarization of detected electrons. The nice thing about the DJIA is its transparency and public visibility.

In addition, in order to at least prove the positive, the hypotheses would require the entity to act in violation of its own theological framework (at least in the Christian paradigm, because your asking God to reveal himself in totality and render faith redundant...

That, of course, is the ultimate response. A god who requires irrationality in his followers may purposely hide himself from those who don't already practice faith. That doesn't show the test wrong, but pulls a leg out from under the hypothesis, b) that the god desires others to know his presence.

Posted by: Russell | July 13, 2009 7:06 PM

If all of life were about respecting others' psychological crutches, Mal Adapted would have a point. Some of us have an interest and regard in furthering our understanding of the world, including both as subject and method the various intellectual edifices that people bring to that. I don't go into churches for the purpose of dissuading the congregants, or drop into AA meetings for the purpose of telling the friends of John that there is no higher power. But here is the place to call a spade a spade, right?

Posted by: Russell | July 13, 2009 8:40 PM

Russell, your experimental design assumes that God is a phenomenon, not a thinking being.

A phenomenon obeys rules, and you can test those rules, and if the test repeatedly fails then you know you formulated the rule wrong and you need a new rule with which to describe the behaviour of the phenomenon. This is, as I understand it, pretty much the fundamental principle underlying all science. Correct me if I'm wrong.

A thinking being, on the other hand, decides its actions based on a whole shitload of things; let's talk about principles, though, because they're analogous to rules. I define "principle" here to mean "code of behaviour which an individual mostly tries to follow".

Let's say I claim to know a guy who's vegetarian. You say "Great! Let's get your vegetarian buddy in here and I'll hold a gun to his head and say 'Eat this steak'. If he refuses, he's a vegetarian. Otherwise, we've got good reason to doubt his claim of vegetarianism, because vegetarians don't eat meat!"

This is of course a completely ridiculous experiment on many levels, but if you actually did it, do you think your results would indicate anything about my buddy's vegetarianism? They'd indicate something about the interaction of his vegetarianism with his drive for self-preservation, maybe, but in practical terms you couldn't use the result of that experiment to say anything about whether or not my buddy avoids meat when not constrained by your experimental conditions.

The experiment you propose with which to test God does not, on the surface, appear to involve holding any guns to any heads. But God could perfectly well exist, want humans to know his presence, be able to predict the future, and obey some other principle (analogous to the self-preservation drive of my hypothetical vegetarian buddy) that precludes him participating in your experiment in the way you expect. It wouldn't even have to be a particularly arcane or unguessable principle-- the first one that springs to mind is that he might be a contrary bastard, and the second is that he might have a specific plan for how to reveal himself to humanity at large and the DJIA doesn't figure therein.

I'd say that before anybody tries to test God's existence or nonexistence, you'd need a much more specific concept of God. That's where it gets hazy, because every person with a religious belief experiences that belief in a slightly different way and defines their God (or god or gods or Flying Spaghetti Monster) slightly differently.

And then, of course, there's the fact that people who blithely declare "Oh, yeah, I can just call God up and say there's this guy who wants him to cough up some numbers..." are few and far between, at least in my experience.

Posted by: Learn Hexadecimal | July 13, 2009 9:14 PM

I live in a part of the world where I do regularly encounter people who are told by their religion that science is bad, evolution is bad, that most of science cannot be reconciled with the Bible. So unfortunately I have had a number of experiences like this.

HOWEVER, the majority of my experience over my lifetime suggests that this is NOT the norm for people who are religious. And though I am an atheist, I have no problem with people who have faith and who use the scientific method. Faith requires belief in the supernatural, which is not naturally occurring and cannot be observed. You CANNOT use the scientific method on things you have faith in. So I'm ok with people having faith. I only get worried when people actually try to apply the scientific method (whose definition is the observation of naturally occurring phenomena) to the supernatural (creationism, intelligent design, etc). Scientists who have faith easily separate these things, because THEY ARE SEPARATE. I trust Isis and all other religious scientists.

Posted by: Kate | July 13, 2009 9:41 PM

Kate writes:

Faith requires belief in the supernatural, which is not naturally occurring and cannot be observed.

I've never heard a good explanation of what distinguishes the "natural" from the "supernatural." I'll point out, though, that most religions posit gods that can be observed. The majority of Christians believe their god was incarnated in Jesus, who came to earth and performed miracles. Muslims believe an angel relayed the Qu'ran to Mohammed. Mormons believe an angel revealed the golden plates to Joseph Smith.

Joseph Priestly, Thomas Jefferson, and the other deists and rational theists of the 18th century believed in a god who set the universe in motion then stood apart from it. Some varieties of Buddhism teach a god that is unobservable in principle.

But most religions have gods that are quite a bit more active, in ways that people can observe. Or at least, could observe if that action were current, rather than in ancient scripture or selectively to a handful of prophets. The evidential problem those religions have is that those alleged actions all occurred in ways that prevent their broader validation. That their gods choose to be so selective in revealing themselves is quite different from saying their gods are theoretically unobservable.

Posted by: Russell | July 13, 2009 10:47 PM

Brian X says, "if it can be observed, it's not supernatural."

I don't have much stake in how "supernatural" is defined. I'll only note that any definition requiring the impossibility of observation thereby excludes vampires, Jesus, Moroni, and a host of other beings normally viewed as supernatural. Depending on what other elements are made part of the definition, naked quarks may be supernatural.

Posted by: Russell | July 13, 2009 11:15 PM

Depending on what other elements are made part of the definition, naked quarks may be supernatural.

That doesn't really make sense, considering what's been observed directly and indirectly in high-energy physics labs. That's like arguing that since you can't see air, you can't say it exists -- never mind that you can see the sky when the sun shines on it, and you can feel its effects and test its components in a chemistry lab.

The fundamental problem is that these things that people conventionally define as "supernatural" turn out with a very high frequency to either be misinterpretations of more mundane phenomena or beings, or simply figments of someone's imagination. In order to assert the existence of YHWH, one must be able to observe phenomena for which the intervention of a divine being is the most likely answer. Barring the alleged miracles "investigated" by the Catholic Church (many such investigations often seeming to end with "well, *we* can't explain it, so no one can"), no such thing has ever been observed by someone with a properly open mind and no axe to grind.

Please sketch out a hypothesis of the divine. How would we recognize a phenomenon as divine intervention? What evidence would we need to create a Theory of God?

Posted by: Brian X | July 14, 2009 12:29 AM

TheEnigma2, some interesting points there but you make the mistake of mixing in a strawman argument about the criticism of accomodationism.
The major objection is the non-accomodationists to the idea of religion and science co-existing is not that it is logically impossible. So long as your religion is a first mover deistic belief then there is absolutely no problem.
The objection is to religions that teach about Gods that interact with the universe (basically most large religions - Christianity, Islam, Hinduism etc). Even then the point is not that a scientist, even a good or great scientist cannot be a believer in these religions. The non-accomodationist stance is that to be such a religious scientist one needs to completely compartmentalize the religious part of your thinking (where normal scientific skepticism is simply not allowed) from the scientific part which doesn't function without a skeptical approach to evidence. If such compartmentalization is allowable in general then science would be compatible with all manner of things (astrology, flat earthism, etc).

Posted by: Sigmund | July 14, 2009 3:34 AM

I also read volumes of the World Book Encyclopedia cover to cover that long ago summer.

It was a helluva great education, wasn't it?

The decline of printed encyclopedia, especially the old World Book, is a blow to education and the culturing of genius, I think.

Posted by: Ed Darrell | July 14, 2009 5:18 AM

Isabel, thank you for your compassion. By preemptively rebuking me for claims I never made and ignoring my needs, you have just proven my point about commenters who scold me for daring to talk about being black.

I do not like you, have never liked you and have no interest in discussing such a painful subject with you. I have no interest in engaging with people who don't think of me as fully human. And I'm going to killfile you now.

Posted by: Juniper Shoemaker | July 14, 2009 5:54 AM

What ever happened to tolerance?

I have strong religious beliefs. At the same time, science and facts are what make my world go round. To me, they don't clash at all. Science is facts, the here-and-now I can lay my hands on and work my mind around. Religion is faith, my emotions and belief. It's the transcendal, the incorporeal, the things we can't prove and don't need to, because it's not about what factual or 'real' or measurable, but about what I believe in my heart.
It's abstract concepts, not hard data. Condemn religion for this reason, and you might as well condemn ethics or philosophy or anything else that is purely conceptual.
I don't understand why some people are so virulently opposed to religion and religious views. When fundamentalists ignore or attack science because they believe it conflicts with their religion, I can understand opposing that... but just normal, more-or-less rational people with faith in the ethereal? I don't get it. It just seems so emphatically closed-minded to me... not only because it's so inflexible to religion itself, but because it dismisses and discards those people who are religious as lesser in some way because of their faith.
And that's bigoted and prejudiced on a very strong level.

Posted by: Ace | July 14, 2009 7:04 AM

Ace, to say you have strong religious beliefs can mean a lot of things. For instance it can mean you believe in the literal truth of the bible (7 day creation, Noahs Ark etc), or it can mean you believe in a deistic type of spirituality in which some mysterious entity created the universe but doesn't physically intervene since that point on.
The deistic type of religion has not come under fire from the non-accomodationists. This belief doesn't contradict anything we know about the workings of the universe.
In contrast theistic beliefs do come in for some criticism.
What many theists fail to accept is that the exact criteria that allow us to point out that the story of Noahs Ark is impossible also force us to the conclusion that other religious miracles are likewise impossible.
The non-accomodationists have examined the evidence and simply drawn the most parsimonious conclusion from the data.
They are not calling you names, just pointing out the phenomenon of compartmentalization whereby one person can believe completely contradictory ideas - for example imagine a physiologist who believed that occasionally non-inseminated females can give birth to a male child, or that sometimes a body that has been dead for three days (with the resultant necrotic fragmentation of every one of the trillion of so cells present) can defy the laws of thermodynamics and reassemble itself and come back to life.
Now I'm fairly sure that people like this physiologist exist. I'm also pretty sure that the phenomenon of compartmentalization, or cognitive dissonance, has the useful effect of allowing people like this physiologist to function as a good scientist.
Unfortunately to use terms like 'bigoted' and 'prejudiced' against those who are simply following the evidence says more about you than those you try to insult.

Posted by: Sigmund | July 14, 2009 8:30 AM

Russell, so far as I've ever been able to tell, "supernatural" means "incomprehensible". Note that only things we don't have a good explanation for are considered "supernatural". As soon as we think we understand something (e.g. lightning, molecular biology, etc.) it's no longer considered "supernatural".

See the link I posted up in comment #70.

Posted by: Ray Ingles | July 14, 2009 8:43 AM

TheEgnima23 writes:

Believing in a higher power or even prayer does not all of a sudden mean you'll believe in fairies, magic, or aliens, nor does it mean that believing in prayer is the same thing as believing in unicorns.

How is prayer not an example of magic? How is a higher power any less an example of a magical being than fairies or unicorns? And how are the various defenses made here for religion any less applicable to those who do believe in unicorns or vampires? There are a lot of people who seem to think that religion should be respected when it is popular and established, despite the fact that its advocates cannot distinguish their reasoning about religion from that of a new cult. We can be critical of the neighborhood youths who have formed a cult of vampirism and claim to gain superhuman powers by drinking each other's blood. But are expected to respect the Pope and Catholics, who claim to drink the blood of their god. Why? For all the learned words spilled in defense of the latter, it still boils down to faith. If they want respect for their beliefs, let the vampire cult demonstrate how drinking blood gives them superhuman strength, and let a priest transubstantiate that wine, then put it under a microscope and show us erythrocytes.

The atheist is merely someone who applies the same critical reasoning to established religions that he does to a new cult. The believers are carving out special rules for their own religion, if no place else, then in their own minds. All the atheist is doing is pointing out that special-casing.

Ace, I'm not condemning religion because it makes use of abstract concepts, but because it calls for people to believe things about the world on faith. Much of philosophy does not require that. And that which does, I condemn for the same reason, often describing it as religious in nature. No one is denying the importance of feelings or of ethical commitments. Those are vital parts of human behavior. I'm denying that those constitute evidence or argument for the existence of gods.

Posted by: Russell | July 14, 2009 9:34 AM

Would be important if everybody understand what the non-accommodationist stance actually is (which I share, and I know it's been clarified so many times ..., let's try one more as it seems necessary). I think these are valid different ways of expressing the stance:
a) "Not ALL of science is compatible with (almost any) religion".
b) "SOME religious tenets are incompatible with SOME fields of science"
c) "You can be a good scientist AND a good believer (in your specific cult) as long as you keep your feet out of the areas of incompatibility"
d) "Many areas of science don't conflict with scientific activities, BUT some do"

So, if the above points are valid, with the additional requirement of consistence among ALL science, science considered as a coherent body of knowledge, then the stance "science and religion (at least those with elements in conflict with science) are incompatible" is justified in my view

The non-accomodationists that I take issue with (who seem prevelent accross Scienceblogs) seem to take the stance that "science and religion are incompatible", without your minor modification. Just look through this thread. Most of your posts come accross as making that statement, whether that is your intent or not.

Additionally, the best you can logically conclude from the points you list is "Some religious beliefs are incompatible with science." Which sounds like the accomodationist position to me.

Posted by: tl | July 14, 2009 10:47 AM

minror modification to post 134, I confused hazur with another poster. I apologize for the mix up. His posts do not come across as making the statement I ascribed to him.

Posted by: tl | July 14, 2009 10:49 AM

I'll never forget the "camp meeting" sermon my parents took me to back in the 1950's. The preacher told us of the scientist who grafted a butterfly with a spider, so that while the butterfly yearned to fly off among the flowers, the spider dragged it down to the grime and gore of the gutter! The point was something about souls vs. carnal natures, I guess, but it was salted with disdain for science. There was another story about the scientist who kept rattlesnakes under bell jars.

I gave one of my nephews Singh's history of the Big Bang theory (plus some money) as a high-school graduation present. He sent a polite thank-you saying that he wasn't going to read it because science keeps changing so it can't be true, whereas religion is unchanging truth. He also noted that evolution can't be true because how could males and females have developed at exactly the same time? And how could people find their one true soul-mate except by God's will?

My nephew is a good person (I don't know about that preacher). People like them are not apt to comment here because they don't read blogs about science. Most of the comments here are reasonable on both sides (by my scoring, Russell is winning in a blowout). I think we are all agreed that we don't want people to be brought up to disregard science, as most of my relatives and friends were. How can we accomplish this?

A previous commenter suggested we stop indoctrinating people into religions as children, but that won't fly among the faithful, since they think they are preaching the truth. Well, if it's true then it's important - important enough to study scientifically. Yes, let's write proposals, get grants, and do studies. Studies on the archaeological and historical evidence. Studies on the evidence for and against miracles, and the power of prayer (already done - doesn't work). At the end, there will remain unfalsifiable claims. Then let religion make those claims and only those claims uncontested (while noting their unknowability).

(I'm not going to check for a response to this because, while I can take being called an idiot or a moral degenerate or whatever, the thought of being called "a delicious little muffin" instead any substantive counter argument gives me a fingernails-on-blackboard sensation.)

Posted by: JimV | July 14, 2009 11:10 AM

"for example imagine a physiologist who believed that occasionally non-inseminated females can give birth to a male child, or that sometimes a body that has been dead for three days (with the resultant necrotic fragmentation of every one of the trillion of so cells present) can defy the laws of thermodynamics and reassemble itself and come back to life."

These particular examples are miracle claims, though, and attempting to reject them empirically takes you on a round of question begging. In addition, the premise of the argument, which is already circular, is flawed by the fact that it is difficult/unfeasible to apply, and draw conclusions from, probabilities for things that have already happened, no matter how intuitively unlikely they might seem *. It is, in fact, bad science, which is why Ray Hyman was right to encourage overzealous skeptics to understand science before they step out in defence of it.

* this is the root of the fallacy appealed to by creationists when they try to say that evolution couldn't have happened because it's too improbable

The best strategy for challenging most of these more abstract theistic claims is to engage them on theological grounds (Biblical contradiction, bias testimony &c).

Posted by: DSKS | July 14, 2009 11:15 AM

Russell, I think we agree, when we have inconsistency or incoherency in science we look further to figure out where the problem might be. Which doesn't mean to discard what we have so far that is useful. I also agree with what you express next, but I think some of the things you say there are going to be perceived as a bit excessive by some here.

tl: I'm glad you feel my posts come across well. You say: 'the best you can logically conclude from the points you list is "Some religious beliefs are incompatible with science."' Well, if that is your religion that we are talking about and you take both science (our whole body of knowledge) and your beliefs (the set of beliefs that makes you christian, or muslim, etc.) seriously then you should be in trouble. Also, I see very few possible exceptions to that.
Cheers,

Posted by: hazur | July 14, 2009 11:55 AM

@Ace

"And that's bigoted and prejudiced on a very strong level."

See comments #79 and #89.

Then suggest an alternative plan of action.

The current belief systems of major religions are causing vast amounts of damage and misery. Minority of the adherents of these belief systems (such as yourself) proclaim their rationality, and support for science. So, do we refrain from fighting against a destructive system of belief because of that minority? Allow it to do a lot of damage because some people claim it might do a bit of good, occassionally?

What are we supposed to actually do? Doing nothing is not really an option.

Posted by: M. | July 14, 2009 12:17 PM

Suppose that much of the civilized world is destroyed some decades from now by massive nuclear war. While that seems far less likely now than it did during the height of the Cold War, it nonetheless remains a possibility. If that were to happen, there would be a very real sense in which "nuclear physics poisons everything." Would that then falsify the claims of nuclear physics? Would it vitiate the investigational and reasoning process by which those theories were discovered?

Even if it is the case that religion poisons everything, that doesn't necessarily disprove the claims of religion. The gods may not be intent on improving human life. Perhaps the gods that exist spoke to prophets and created religion for the purpose of sowing trouble. Or for reasons entirely their own, the human consequence, good or ill, being irrelevant side effect. The Old Testament Yahweh might respond to Hitchens, "yes, I did poison everything -- or at least, flood everything -- so pay attention, damn it."

The following are both fallacies:

1) Belief in X has bad consequence, so X is false.

2) Belief in X has good consequence, so X is true.

Trying to determine whether Christianity, as example, had net good or net bad consequence is as hard a historical problem as determining whether the Holy Roman Empire had net good or net bad consequence. About all one can say is that it had a lot of both, and the modern world wouldn't look the same without it.

It is, in any case, completely irrelevant to the issue of whether Christian beliefs are true or rational.

Posted by: Russell | July 14, 2009 1:25 PM

What a mess. There is no way I am going to read 145 comments first, so maybe this is a repeat, but I just want to say this:

This particular sniping match started when Mooney wrote that it was unacceptable for atheists to assert that science and faith are incompatible. Mooney's position here is untenable: One can have a meaningful debate over the compatibility of science and faith, but to imply that one side has some kind of twisted social responsibility to keep their mouth shut lest they hurt anyone's feelings is absurd.

Here, in fact, Isis is living proof that those who have internally reconciled faith and science are under no compunction to get all up in a twist by those of us who happen to think that reconciliation is a contradiction. Except for when there are flare-ups like this, she appears to get along just fine with her atheistic sciblings -- even the non-accomodationists.

So I blame Mooney for starting it. At the same time, I do fault Coyne, PZ, et al., (as well as Mooney) for keeping on about it. Everyone has made their point. It's time to move on.

And I think it's fair to be offended by some of the "broad brush" comments made by PZ and others -- though to be fair, the reason for some of these over-the-top characteristics of religious folks are to let us skeptics blow off some steam while living in a world which demands unreasonable deference towards religion. It's unfortunate that it is playing out like this.

Bottom line: Sorry, Isis, for the times us skeptics may have lumped you in with the "whackaloons". At the same time, I'm sure you appreciate my right to respectfully assert that, in my opinion, the internal reconciliation you have reached between your science and your faith is contradictory and superfluous. That doesn't say anything at all about your integrity or your science ability! It is just my opinion, and I don't think I should be asked to lie about what I think for fear that it would result in hurt feelings. That's the beef we have with Mooney, and it's unfortunate if people like you are getting needlessly insulted in the crossfire.

Posted by: James Sweet | July 14, 2009 1:45 PM

"At the same time, I'm sure you appreciate my right to respectfully assert that, in my opinion, the internal reconciliation you have reached between your science and your faith is contradictory and superfluous."

But you have to support that assertion, for it is not deductive and self-evident. Unless you really mean it as a subjective opinion, in which case it has little value as a defence of reason. What is it that Isis, for the sake of argument, has stated inre her faith that is directly and completely rejected by modern empirical study? For many theists, there are tangible examples - e.g. YEC - but this is not the case for all, and it may not be the case for this blog's author (and then it may, I haven't read it all).

You might say, "Ah, but she's a Catholic and here's what RCC doctrine has to say on this, that and the other". But how much of that refers to matters of revelation, of miracles, of things that can neither be validated one way or the other by the contemporary empirical paradigm?

It seems to me, but I'm interested in being challenged here, that to "assert" that religion, broadly, is absolutely oppositional to the empirical search for models reflecting our observed reality (which is likely but a fraction of the story) requires one to make assumptions that are not compatible with our current knowledge and what passes for scientific method these days.

Posted by: DSKS | July 14, 2009 2:28 PM

@DSKS
"Are you inferring that the majority of religious adherents are dangerous, and more so than secular ideologues?"

The word "dangerous" is excessive, as it tends to imply physical danger.

Let me try to be as clear as possible. I'll divide the idea into points, and you can tell me which ones you disagree with.

1. Any ideology that is based on incorrect or made up information about the world leads to problems and destruction. This is completely independent of supernatural elements - one can easily point to Marxism as a case in point. If you believe something that is not true, and if you act upon that belief, chances of a positive outcome are slim.

2. Religions are by definition based on made up information, as evidenced by great disagreement between various religions we see in the world, and on past experience. They do not answer questions about the world, they posit answers which turn out to be false as soon as we gain the ability to check them out. (Please note that I'm talking about religions as in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. I am not talking about personal revalatory experiences.)

3. While some religious followers can be highly rational in most areas of their life, most religious followers will tend to apply a literal, tribal, exclusionary form of the religion. Compare the number of religious scientist to the number of Young-Earth creationists, for example.

4. Even the otherwise rational followers of an ideology have chosen to limit their understanding of the world, and have resigned themselves to cognitive dissonance. For example, compare Isis' activity regarding women's rights vs. her support of the intensely anti-female Catholic faith.

5. The social activity of followers of non-fact-based ideologies is evidently destructive. See my response to volcanista in comment #61. Personal thoughts on the purpose or nature of the world are not the issue. The issue is the shared belief, and the tribal community set around those beliefs.

6. In our current society, here, today, non-religious ideologies are relatively marginal annoyances. Sure, libertarianism and communism exist, and can do damage, but not on the scale of religious ideologies. While Republican ideology isn't religious per se, it is closely tied to, and derives most of its support from religion.

7. Given point #5, we cannot do nothing. So, exactly what are we supposed to do?

8. People have tried an accomodationist stance for decades. Notably Steven Jay Gould, with his "Rock of Ages", "divided magisteria" stuff. What has happened? Nothing. Why? Because believers do not care about evidence. The average creationist does not actually care about facts of evolution. They care about their tribe, their social group, which is in turn defined by common beliefs. Creationism is just one aspect of this common belief.

I think this fact here, #8, is the one that Moonies of this world miss entirely. Your average creationist isn't going to read books about evolution, any more then he's going to read Islamic theology. He is going to read exclusively creationist literature, since that is where he'll learn the beliefs he has to espouse in order to fit in with the rest of the tribe. The purpose of that literature isn't to teach him or her about the nature of the world. The purpose is to define "us" as opposed to "them".

To reuse an example, he'll read shallow, twisted stories about Islamic teachings, which enable him to feel that his group is superior to those dangerous others out there. Just the same, he'll read creationist fiction, which serves to enable him to feel superior and chosen, above all those stupid, deluded, evil scientists out there.

The above are facts as I see them. What follows are my conclusions.

The only way we can change people's minds is to make them care about the subject. People don't care about science or about evolution. As long as we "leave their beliefs alone" and just try to "communicate the facts", we will fail. The facts will simply be ignored as unimportant.

If we strike at their beliefs, the core of their group identity, then we have a different story. I'm not saying that we should start going door-to-door and attacking people's beliefs. But when those beliefs are stated in a public forum, we should stand up and say "I don't believe that is the truth, and here are the reasons why". Then, in the process of defending their beliefs - which they DO care about - the believers are forced to examine and research the actual evidence of the matter, thus exposing themselves to the facts.

This is a tentative strategy. We'll see if it works.

So far, we are running into tried-and-true defense that creationists have been using for over a century. Just like they won't read a biology book, but will instead rely on the creationist literature to explain to them why biology is wrong, most people who criticize the New Atheists have not actually read their arguments, but have instead formed a priori opinions - or just bought a Ray Comfort-style book which will "explain" to them why Dawkins is wrong without having to think for themselves.

(This is also the case with most anti-atheist criticisms on this forum as well: most people attack those aggressive New Atheists for saying things they never actually said.)

The thing that, so far, has worked is activation of the dialogue. Thanks to New Atheists, there are many more people standing up and saying "What you just said isn't true, and here's why" all over the place. This makes it much, much harder for believers to avoid exposure to discussion about things they care about. Which is, at least according to the above hypothesis, the first step towards greater acceptance of facts. I see some encouraging trends being born from here.

What remains as an absolute is that we shouldn't just keep doing what hasn't worked before.

Posted by: M. | July 14, 2009 2:53 PM

But how much of that refers to matters of revelation, of miracles, of things that can neither be validated one way or the other by the contemporary empirical paradigm?

Uh, how exactly is it that the existence of miracles cannot be validated one way or the other by the contemporary empirical paradigm?

I'll grant that you can never prove the null hypothesis, but I think that one can, from a purely scientific point of view, be as certain about (for example) the impossibility of a virgin birth just as much as one could ever be certain of any null hypothesis.

Posted by: James Sweet | July 14, 2009 3:21 PM

Have you guys even read the bible?

Posted by: Total Fundie | July 14, 2009 4:03 PM

So 1/3 of the US population believes in scripture and 1/2 think the electron is the size of the atom. Even if there is a perfect correlation - and no evidence has been presented despite being requested all the way back at comment #2 - there remains a large area due to poor education. And, I will add from my teaching experience, I just don't see the evidence that fundamentalists reject all of science. They reject only the tiny little bits they have been told to reject, and happily learn about all the rest. And, in some cases, good teaching about biology has converted them from their Old Tyme Religion.

The Proof By Emphatic assertion from Comrade PP does not constitute either good teaching or solid evidence of the alleged problem. Are there poll data with cross tabs indicating a strong correlation between religious beliefs - lets say, specifically, in evangelical fundamentalism - and thinking an electron is the size of an atom? That is, are the half of the population that are mostly indifferent to religion better informed about science? Was general knowledge of science better at a time when the US was dominated by hierarchical religions (e.g. Episcopalians, Congregationalists, Catholics) than when it is dominated by evangelical mega-churches that are more democratic (responsive to their local populace)? Where are the data to back up this claim?

For example, Comrade PP's thesis would imply that science literacy should be particularly bad in Italy, which is true, but also bad in Ireland, which is not true. It would also imply that there are absolutely no instances of "magical thinking" on the part of people who are not evangelical fundamentalists, yet there are all sorts of "earth mother" folks hanging around at Sierra Club meetings and no shortage of people playing the lottery.

On the other side, there are tons of data that K-12 science education is either nonexistent or, when it does exist, is pathetically bad. My own personal experience includes talking to a person who was teaching physics (not "physical science", but actual "physics") in high school despite only being certified to teach physical education.

Ken@40, you clearly don't realize that Isis' response accurately described the logical flaw in your assertion, just as you don't seem to realize that it is silly to complain about the lack of science in a discussion of religion.

Posted by: CCPhysicist | July 14, 2009 4:34 PM

"Scientific philosophy is based purely on logic, rationalization, deduction..."

This is a common misconception. Some branches of mathematics are based purely on deductive logic. In contrast, although there have been various tweaks applied to strengthen the process of empirical study, and thus the conclusions that can be derived from it, the scientific method is nevertheless an essentially inductive process.

Posted by: DSKS | July 14, 2009 5:45 PM

So 1/3 of the US population believes in scripture and 1/2 think the electron is the size of the atom.

*surprise*
Seriously? Wow.

Wel,, I suppose in light of that information, geographic location will make a difference to your views on this topic... I come from Australia, and we don't have anything like those numbers, here.
What I mean is, if there's a lot of religious poeple where you come from with those kind of views, well, that'll affect your opinion of religious people in general, won't it?

Posted by: Ace | July 14, 2009 7:46 PM

The Catholic church teaches many things that many Catholics reject or don't really realize they're supposed to believe to begin with.

For example, the Catholic church's teaching on transsubstantiation is that the wafer & wine LITERALLY become the body & blood of Christ. The Catholic church is very clear that this is not a metaphor. How does one reconcile that teaching with science?

I think many scientists who also have religious beliefs that conflict with science simply separate those two aspects of their lives.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 15, 2009 2:13 AM

You say strident anti-religious belief is bigotry and prejudice.

No. No, no, no. I don't say that. I do however think people should be allowed to believe in some higher power, without being belittled or dismissed as a lesser being because of it. As far as I'm concerned, you or anyone else can think what they like about my religion.
What distresses me is people making assumptions about my intelligence and education and adherence to science based on the fact that I belong to a religion.

Posted by: Ace | July 15, 2009 4:28 AM

Ace: Is saying, "I don't believe that is the truth, and here are the reasons why" an example of belittling or dismissing someone as a lesser being?

My own problem with religion is just what I said in comment 59. Religions always include some form of the supernatural. (The 'religions' that don't - e.g. Confucianism, some forms of Buddhism - are already noted as special, or called 'quasi-religious philosophies' or whatever.) And the supernatural is just a code word for 'unknowable' - not just 'we don't understand this' but 'we can't understand this'.

But I don't see the point of giving up trying to understand things. Even if there were things humans can't ever grasp... how do you tell the difference between something you don't understand yet and something you can't ever understand? The only thing to do is try to understand it. If you succeed, it was understandable. If you fail... all you can conclude is that you didn't understand it yet. You or someone else might figure it out eventually.

The "unknowable" is a useless concept... even if there are things that actually are unknowable. And so many things that have been confidently asserted to be 'supernatural' or 'unknowable' have turned out to be anything but. However, that's never been discovered by someone who thought they were supernatural.

I don't think people are 'lesser beings' if they believe in the supernatural. Nobody's perfect (least of all me). However, I do think they are wrong - about that, at least.

Posted by: Ray Ingles | July 15, 2009 9:39 AM

I just love how it's "higher power" this and "other ways of knowing" that when the atheists are in the room, but it's back to the religious hating on each other when we leave to get a refill on Patron. Which is it, folks? The OT tyrant advocating genocide, the NT hippie dude (except for when he's throwing hissy fits and smiting fig trees), Allah, Krishna, or thetans (just to name a few currently in fashion)?

I was raised Catholic, and since I don't compartmentalize well, it went by the wayside when I became a feminist and a scientist. It took a while because the brainwashing was strong in this one; I emotionally feared hell long after I intellectually recognized the bankruptcy of most of the church's teachings.

When I realized Isis still supported the evil empire it was like seeing a hottie lad across the room at a party and then seeing him light up a cigarette...

I come here for your taste in shoes, you yummy little whole-grain muffin, you!

Posted by: ildi | July 15, 2009 10:33 AM

Ray Ingles writes:

But a powerful alien isn't 'supernatural'...

No one has yet provided a clear definition of supernatural, so I have no idea which powerful aliens are, and which aren't. So... you're saying Chthulu wouldn't be? What about Xenu?

It's (ultimately, eventually) comprehensible...

I don't think we know what is ultimately comprehensible until we comprehend it, or at least, have some theory about how to do so. Nor do I see any reason to think that everything we study in the sciences is ultimately comprehensible. Some may not be. There are some hard problems, and some may remain our ability to crack. Forever.

Part of what goes on with theology is that words with ordinary meaning, such as "comprehensible," and words with no clear meaning at all, such as "supernatural," are used to create an artificial distinction between how we talk about the gods and how we talk about numbers, butterflies, aliens, and alternate universes. I see no sense in that, but merely the attempt to protect the theologian's alleged domain. The dialogue goes something like this:

"You can't reason about the gods in that fashion -- they're supernatural."

"Can you define supernatural for me?"

"Well, uh... it means something you can't reason about in that fashion."

See the trick? It's not unique to theologians. All sorts of occultists pull the same stunt, often with different words. For some reason, though, when the theologian says that reasoning about the gods is a "category error," we are supposed to respect him, but not so much the occultist who says we can't apply statistics to astrological forecasts.

Posted by: Russell | July 15, 2009 12:34 PM

I just used bride/babby-boinking as an example of how you and I disagree and could have a lengthy, layered conversation in blagworld-- yet it would be totally inappropriate for me to bring this up in print format where I could twist/over-simplify your views, and you couldnt defend yourself.

God, this remark makes me feel old.

It's not appropriate to bring up an issue like this in print format because the person can't defend himself? Ah, to be young and think that anything critical that's not on a blog is unfair because the person can't respond right there on the written page.

Yes, your remark does make me feel very, very old.

Posted by: Orac | July 15, 2009 1:50 PM

Dammit Orac, now you are making me feel old because I know wtf you are talking about. Stop it!!!!! LOLspeak and WEb2.0 evangelism ONLY!!!!

Posted by: DrugMonkey | July 15, 2009 2:17 PM

You did post Warren G.--a telltale sign of the pre-hipster generation.

Still, embrace it, late 80s and early 90s style is timeless.

Posted by: Sheril R. Kirshenbaum | July 15, 2009 8:48 PM

But, I think PZ would beg to differ....

And I think you are right about that.

Posted by: Orac | July 16, 2009 8:16 AM

Hm, that seems to be stuck in a queue. Let's try in smaller pieces.

Isis the Scientist: Do you have an experiment that will allow us to test our hypotheses?

With all respect due to both Isis and Zombie Feynman, testing in science is not in experiment itself, but in the bookkeeping afterward. The distinction is philosophically critical, especially when moving from areas avoided by science as anthropological practice but not necessarily beyond the reach of science as a philosophical discipline.

Posted by: abb3w | July 18, 2009 9:34 AM

hazur: I think these are valid different ways of expressing the stance

The problem is an ambiguity in the word "science". Science is a philosophical discipline distinct from the cononymous anthropological practice. There's a similar difference between uses of "religion". Most people, however, don't think closely about these differences when discussing the interaction of Science, Science, Religion, and Religions.

Mooney, for example.

DSKS: Bayesian inference is extremely limited when it comes to assessing probability post hoc and/or when the relative probabilistic context of an event or events is not known.

Less than you seem to be implying; see (doi:10.1109/18.825807). It still remains powerful enough to muster a greedy search algorithm.

The problem with creationist probability claims is slightly different. They aren't using said greedy search correctly, mostly because they merely test on conjecture length, not the hypothesis length with "conjecture, plus data sufficient to infer which evidence was produced". They also tend to compute the probability for having pulled a particular five-card sequence out of a pack, and try passing it off as the probability for having pulled any five-card sequence out of a pack... or even for having that pack of cards.

CCPhysicist: Are there poll data with cross tabs indicating a strong correlation between religious beliefs - lets say, specifically, in evangelical fundamentalism - and thinking an electron is the size of an atom?

In a word: YES.

You can poke at the GSS yourself; trying row of FUND(1,2,3) or BIBLE(1,2,3) with column SCITEST1 gives the most painfully clear result, but you can also look at SCITEST2 through SCITEST5. Running SCIFROM and SCITEXT are also kinda cool, if less relevant; and SCIIMP5, SCIIMP6, and SCIFAITH are also fun, if irrelevant here.

Of course, if you run versus WORDSUM, you might note an underlying factor. Running the assorted SCI* variables against this while using BIBLE or FUND as control suggests the correlation is generally a byproduct, although SCITEST4 is a little different.

Posted by: abb3w | July 18, 2009 9:45 AM

Incidentally, the specific GSS variable for the electron size question is ELECTRON.

Posted by: abb3w | July 18, 2009 12:21 PM