…and this is a 
They let anybody onto the faculty at Oxford nowadays
Category: Godlessness • Religion
Posted on: August 2, 2007 10:55 AM, by PZ Myers
A few readers sent me a link to this interview with Alister McGrath; most thought it was worth a laugh, but one actually seemed to think I'd be devastated. I'm afraid the majority were correct: everything I've read by McGrath suggests that here is a man whose thoughts have been arrested by a temporal lobe seizure that he has mistaken for a lightning bolt from god. He'd probably be flattered to be compared to C.S. Lewis, but I see some similarities in the shallowness of their thinking that they believe they've deepened by tapping into theological tradition, but I'm sorry — my bathroom tap could drip for millennia, but it's a nuisance, not Niagara.
It also doesn't help that his argument is basically one of dogma and contradiction.
I think Richard Dawkins approaches the question of whether God exists in much the same way as if he'd approach the question of whether there is water on Mars. In other words, it's something that's open to objective scientific experimentation. And of course there's no way you can bring those criteria to bear on God. I think Dawkins seems reluctant to allow that God may not be in the same category as scientific objects. That's an extremely important point to make in beginning to critique him.
He's actually right on one thing: we are approaching the question of god as a scientific problem, and the question of water on Mars is a pretty good analogy. We can't see it here, we aren't there, we have to build a case on inference from evidence and we have to design tests to evaluate the possibilities. That's been an eminently successful strategy for humanity. So why can't we bring them to bear on the god question? I've highlighted his answer: he says we just can't. He doesn't say why we can't, it's just a dogmatic assertion. Keep this in mind, though, because he's going to contradict himself in a moment.
Also, I'd like to know what he means by this category of "scientific objects". Everything is a scientific object, from distant stars to grains of dirt, from the first picoseconds of the Big Bang to pillow talk between lovers. If we can ask a question about it, it can be science. McGrath may think this is a useful strategy for a critique, but all it amounts to is setting up his premises as unquestionable. We simply do not have to accept that.
A second point, which clearly follows on from this, is that Dawkins clearly believes that those who believe in God must prove their case and atheists have nothing to prove because that's their default position. But I think that's simply incorrect and it's obviously incorrect.
Really, the only obvious position is to say: We don't know, we need to be persuaded one way or the other. The default position in other words is: not being sure.
For a guy who is about to claim to understand science, he sure is clueless about the fundamentals. This is not about proof. Science does not use proof. We favor evidence, and the work consists largely of the slow accumulation of evidence in support of ideas, not magically potent proofs that establish an idea as unassailable. What we have on the atheist side is a growing body of evidence that demonstrates the sufficiency of natural processes in generating phenomena that were once considered "obviously" the handiwork of a god — the steady decline of the relevance and support for the god hypothesis. At the same time, we see theologians like McGrath and pseudoscientists like those of the Discovery Institute trying to support their god/designer hypothesis with handwaving, sloppy logic, mangled evidence, and bald-faced assertions of unquestionable premises. Our side is growing in strength and has a solid foundation, theirs is a shambles. That's why scientific thinking will favor atheism.
Now of course, maybe they'll get their act together, throw out the charlatans, discard the historical relics cluttering up their beliefs, and actually assemble some evidence of their own; then we'll have some real competition. I don't think it will happen, but I could be surprised.
As for his claim that the default position is "not being sure" — he's being dishonest. His position and the religious position in general is one of certainty in their dogma in spite of the lack of evidence (this is called "faith," and is considered a virtue by the religious; it's called "gullibility" and is considered an error by the rational). The scientific position is that they've had a few thousand years to make their case and they've failed, while a few centuries of scientific progress has revolutionized human culture, and theirs is a dead argument.
As someone who has studied the history and philosophy of science extensively, I think I've noticed a number of things that Dawkins seems to have overlooked. One of them is this: One of the most commonly encountered patterns in scientific development is seeing a pattern of observations and then saying, in order to explain these observations, we propose that there exists something that is as yet unobserved but we believe that one day will be observed because if it's there, it can explain everything that can be observed.
Of course, if you're a Christian you'll see immediately that that same pattern is there in thinking about God. We can't prove there's a God but he makes an awful lot of sense of things and therefore there's a very good reason to suppose that this may, in fact, be right.
Whoa. What happened to "of course there's no way you can bring those criteria to bear on God"? What about "God may not be in the same category as scientific objects"? One moment he's claiming you can't study god like you would the possibility of water on Mars, and next he's claiming the validity of using observation and theory to justify the existence of the remote and directly unseen. How … inconsistent.
It's true, scientists do use chains of observation to make reasonable inferences about the cause of a pattern, make hypotheses about that cause, and then design experiments based on those hypotheses to assess their ideas about the cause. Theologians do the first part. They observe phenomena, and make assertions based on traditional mythology (i.e., not reasonable), but then they refuse to test their ideas — they enthrone them as dogma and insist that you cannot bring scientific (i.e., logical and empirical) criteria to bear on them. And then when someone like Dawkins dares to apply the next step in scientific reasoning to their claims, they cry "Unfair!" and stamp their feet and try to take their ball home.
We examine the pattern of evidence, and in biology for instance, we don't see evidence of any kind of god meddling in our history. Even those biologists who believe in a god will tell you that they don't see evidence, they see possibilities: maybe God flipped this nucleotide that way to generate that useful mutation. It's indistinguishable from a chance event, though, and they can't show any causal agent, but they find solace in the idea that maybe it happened. There is no good reason to insert a god into the pattern, other than that the scientist may have been brought up in a superstitious tradition that demands one.
So my question, therefore, is: How on earth can Dawkins base his atheism on science when science itself so to speak is in motion, in transit?
That's pretty funny.
Well, heck, how can anything be based on science, then? I'm listening to the stereo right now: if the physics and electronics and materials engineering behind that widget are scientific subjects in constant flux, how can it possibly be working?
That's actually the powerful secret of science. We embrace the change. We build on a foundation of good observation, but we are free to abandon old paradigms to find better ones that more accurately describe the universe and that are more productive in leading us deeper into understanding it. Gods are the old paradigm, the one that has failed, the useless idea that takes us nowhere.
Another thing of interest to you, seeing as we're talking to a Catholic audience, is that I've spoken in many lectures about Richard Dawkins and critiqued him. And very often atheists will stand up and say: "How dare you criticize Richard Dawkins!"
It's almost as if there's a new dogma of the infallibility of Richard Dawkins in certain circles and I find that bizarre.
Now I find that claim bizarre, especially since earlier in his screed McGrath claims that the "most serious, negative reviews" of Dawkins' work have come from his fellow atheists. Are we his claque or are we his most serious critics? And good grief, read the comments at RichardDawkins.net — this is not a coterie of fan boys and girls praising their leader, but an undisciplined mob, each with their own idea of what atheism means, agreeing with Dawkins in some points and nit-picking him on others (and this diversity, while a negative as far as getting a coordinated response from atheists, is also one of our strengths, since there is a kind of Darwinian savagery about the internal workings of the atheist movement.) And, by the way, I think one of the goals of the Out Campaign (which is a good example of Dawkins' ideas not being automatically accepted) should be to get more representatives of atheism up there so that the religious apologists have to quit pretending that atheism consists of Richard Dawkins and his army of clones.
I also don't see this kind of event McGrath describes happening often. More likely, someone would stand up and say, "How dare you criticize Richard Dawkins so stupidly!"
One last nugget of foolishness, and then I'll drop McGrath.
The second point I'd want to make is that certainly I believe in the Nicene Creed, but I don't believe it because someone has rammed it down my throat. I believe it because I've looked at it very closely and I believe it to be right. I am very happy to be challenged about that because I believe in being open and accountable.
Amazing. He's not dogmatic, but he accepts the Nicene creed.
I've read it. Actually, the Nicene creed was probably the major trigger for my own abandonment of religion. It's a statement of the major premises of Christian belief, and I was required to memorize it in my confirmation classes, and we also went through it and discussed each clause. I quickly realized that the first line, "We believe in one God," was not true for me. Further, the subsequent lines were further assertions that I found either false (that there was a "maker of heaven and earth") or self-contradictory (there's also a Jesus, who is a god, and a Holy Spirit, who is a god?) or gibberish (the Virgin Mary nonsense and the resurrection, which somehow redeems us). It doesn't hold up under the critical examination of a 14 year old, so I'm baffled about how an educated adult can find it at all persuasive. I've found my own preferred version of the creed on a t-shirt:
Christianity: The belief that some cosmic Jewish Zombie can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
That's patent humorous insanity, but the Nicene creed is worse: it's patent insanity that takes itself seriously. That anyone could look at it "very closely" with any objectivity at all and accept it, from triune god to virgin birth to 'dead' god to resurrection and ascent to final judgment, and argue that it is right is incredible. McGrath was adamant in insisting that atheists need to prove the nonexistence of god, but what I'd like to see is one scrap of evidence for any piece of the exceptionally silly Nicene creed — not proof, but just some rational reason for me to believe one single line of this dogma that McGrath accepts.
My confirmation teacher (a very nice and enthusiastic lady) and my pastor (also a decent fellow) couldn't do it. Neither could any of the books I'd read after and since. McGrath sure hasn't. McGrath claims that atheists misrepresent Christianity, but if the Nicene creed is the core of the belief, I don't see how we're misrepresenting it: it's a collection of absurdities. Maybe Mr McGrath should try spending more time actually defending that nonsense convincingly than simply whining about the atheists who are picking on his beliefs…but I don't think he can do that, either.
Comments
Wonderful post, PZ. It's obvious McGrath is just playing to his audience (see: Fox News), distorting atheism and, as a figurehead, Dawkins. And, even better, claims their views are distorted.
No one is safe or, for lack of a better term, religiously followed in atheism. Sure, we have our more popular guys like Dawkins, et. al, but I don't know anyone who believes they are infallible. That's one of the best parts of atheism: there are many viewpoints and perspectives, united by a cause. It's much different than a theist perspective, which is wholly to indoctrinate a perspective and muffle original thought.
Posted by: Tom @Thoughtsic.com | August 2, 2007 11:07 AM
And very often atheists will stand up and say: "How dare you criticize Richard Dawkins!"
Is that all they say, or do they follow it up with a vicious rebuttal that McGrath just side-steps?
Posted by: AL | August 2, 2007 11:14 AM
If we can ask a question about it, it can be science.
Not too sure about that. For example, what about the question: "are there fairies under your garden?". How can that be a scientific question, or a well-formed hypothesis?
Posted by: jeff | August 2, 2007 11:15 AM
Thanks for the ciritque PZ. Spot on.
Posted by: John Danley | August 2, 2007 11:20 AM
There's a good bit in Avalos' The End of Biblical Studies (2007) critiquing McGrath. Apparently, McGrath claimed that none of the translation difficulties and troublesome variants of Biblical texts affect key questions of doctrine.
To which the rational response is, "Hello? Pericope Adulterae. Comma Johanneum. Hell, what about that snake-handling thing in Mark 16? Oxbridge theology may be secure from these — because it's based on the sanctification of vagueness — but the authenticity of these passages does actually matter to people out there beyond the ivy."
I bring this up partly to shill for The End of Biblical Studies, which I quite enjoyed reading, and partly to note that it seems odd for McGrath to say, "I've looked at [the Nicene creed] very closely" but not consider the scriptural foundations of Trinitarianism. If he had looked very closely at the Nicene creed, then surely he must have researched the arguments about the Trinity which pervade the history of Christian theology. I mean, you can't avoid them. Why, then, would he say that the disputed authenticity of Biblical passages doesn't matter?
On another note, does an assertion that a "dogma of infallibility of Richard Dawkins" exists count as a violation of Blake's Law?
Posted by: Blake Stacey, OM | August 2, 2007 11:22 AM
It's funny he mentions the Nicene creed. It was the version of the Creed that they ask you about during Confirmation that got me OUT of Catholicism without getting confirmed.
I put this argument to my parents: Taking it as given that I was uncertain (to say the least) about the existence of ANY gods, let alone Triune ones, let's assume that Catholicism were correct even if I didn't believe it at the time.
That would mean the church in which confirmation was to take place, and the bishop who would be grilling me as to whether or not I believed in such things, were holy and also representative of an omniscient being. Were I, as an unbeliever, to lie to this holy man, in this holy place, that I believed in Catholic dogma, surely the omniscient being would KNOW and take my irreverance and deceit as in insult?
Would not affirming those core beliefs for the sake of pleasing my family or attaining "acceptance" within the church community, rather than because I actually believed them, ultimately prove worse for me if Catholicism were true? Wouldn't the BEST thing be NOT getting confirmed, just in case my unbelief were wrong and their Catholic beliefs were correct?
That sort of inverse Pascal's Wager formed the core of my logical argument against confirmation and against the ridiculous nature of the Creed, and I was only 14 at the time. Thankfully, because it played to my parents' religious superstitions, it worked...I never went through Confirmation and never will. I'm very much with you, PZ, when you snigger at how McGrath finds persuasive bits of dogma that many of us saw through as hormonally-challenged teens.
Posted by: Jared | August 2, 2007 11:31 AM
Why is it that religious types and fundamentalists always substitute the person for the idea? "Dawkins" for "atheism," "Darwin" for "natural selection," etc.
Maybe it's because their world is so based on obeying authority figures that they assume ours is, too?
Posted by: Daniel | August 2, 2007 11:32 AM
Well, we do train graduate students in basic parsimony: you do a little background research to see if there haven't been studies already done that knock down your glorious hypothesis, and that there is some grounds for thinking your idea is actually a question of interest. So in that sense asking that question is quickly off the table.
But in the purest sense, it is legitimate. We'd have to get some definition of the properties of fairies, some preliminary evidence to suggest that there is a problem worth pursuing, but sure, we could address the question scientifically. Put remote cameras in the garden. Sample species present. Install traps. We could pretty quickly get to the point (and we already have) where garden fairies are an untenable hypothesis.
Just as we have for the god hypothesis.
Posted by: PZ Myers | August 2, 2007 11:33 AM
McGrath obviously doesn't understand that if there is an observation that provides evidence for something, then the lack of such observations provides evidence against it, by induction. Saying something is non-scientific cuts both ways. You can neither provide any evidence for it or against it. This means there is effectively no difference between its existence and non-existence.
Posted by: miller | August 2, 2007 11:34 AM
PZ wrote:
PZ, any ideas on how to make a god trap? We can use evil or suffering as bait, but I just don't know how we'll contain him. Questions, questions!Posted by: Tom @Thoughtsic.com | August 2, 2007 11:37 AM
Posted by: Glenn | August 2, 2007 11:38 AM
"On another note, does an assertion that a "dogma of infallibility of Richard Dawkins" exists count as a violation of Blake's Law?"
Oh yes. Pretty much any attempt to chastise one's opponent for the crime of thinking that they're right in their convictions and daring to speak out on it should be considered a losing argument.
Posted by: Rey Fox | August 2, 2007 11:39 AM
Experiment: We look for fairies under said garden. If through several trials we fail to spot fairies, we can be fairly confident the answer is "no."
Posted by: Bronze Dog | August 2, 2007 11:41 AM
@3:
That depends. If the fairies are in any way detectable in the real world then it's possible to test whether they exist or not. The question itself can quite easily be scientific, the problem starts when you discover that magic fairies are invisible, intangible, and only come out when nothing is looking.
Posted by: Mechalith | August 2, 2007 11:42 AM
Daniel #7,
Yes. But there's a subtlety here. I do, often, defer to authority figures such as Dawkins and PZ when it comes to matters of science. I'm not a scientist, though I do have a passionate interest in science, so my arguments often have to come from authority figures. But the catch is, my authority figures aren't imaginary and/or deluded.
Still, you have a valid point. My reasons for accepted the arguments from authority figures doesn't follow from my dogmatic acceptance of everything they say; it's based upon my understanding of science and reason and how the world works. If one day PZ up and started spouting nonsense about the sky turning neon orange, and offered no evidence to this point, I'd blow him off just as quickly as I ignore the street corner preachers and the pope.
So, to a certain extent, non-scientist atheists like myself do, in fact, rely on authority figures in science. It just doesn't form the foundation of our beliefs (or non-belief).
Posted by: Mike P | August 2, 2007 11:48 AM
McGrath, also known as Mister "Avoid the freakin' question."
I have seen Dawkins try and get MacGrath to answer a single question for like 45 minutes with McGrath saying over and over again, "You raise an interesting question" and then babbling on about an unrelated subject matters for 3-4 minutes, to which Dawkins responds, "You seem to have missed the point." and tries again...
The guy is a BS artist and has no evidence for his position outside of, "I desire it to be so."
Posted by: Lago | August 2, 2007 11:54 AM
Um, as someone who HAS temporal lobe epilepsy, I know what effect you're getting at here. But is he really epileptic? Or is this just usage for comic effect?
Posted by: bug_girl | August 2, 2007 11:55 AM
Ahhh -- so if fairies only come out when nothing is looking -- then can they also come out when *they* are looking?
Is a fairy a *thing* or a *no-thing*.
If the former, then your definition fails, because they cannot, self-referentially, ever come out (per your definition)
if the latter, then they do not exist since they are then by definition, nothing!
Posted by: tony | August 2, 2007 11:57 AM
PZ says:
Also, it acknowledges a powerful dominate alpha male to be submissive to.
Posted by: RamblinDude | August 2, 2007 12:01 PM
They've done studies on people who they manage to induce frontal lobe seizures on.
They're then interviewed the experience. They often say it felt "spiritual" or transcendant.
Some interpret that as a religious experience.
Posted by: Steve_C | August 2, 2007 12:03 PM
I would say that, absent a coherent definition of "fairies", it isn't -- it's a nonsensical sentence. But given some clear idea what fairies are, and what real-world effects they might have, the question certainly falls into the realm of science. Now, its possible that our answer will be: "Not answerable given currently available, or easily obtainable data". Empirical uncertainty about well-formed hypotheses is a perfectly respectable scientific position.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | August 2, 2007 12:03 PM
PZ:
He said that you aren't allowed to bring science to bear on God.
He never said that he wasn't.
Posted by: John Marley | August 2, 2007 12:04 PM
"about" would of been hand in my last post.
Posted by: Steve_C | August 2, 2007 12:05 PM
Which then begs the question, "What made you think there were any there in the first place?"
Posted by: tsg | August 2, 2007 12:05 PM
Hey now PZ, temporal lobe seizures don't ALWAYS inhibit one's ability to think coherently and rationally! ;P
/epileptic
Posted by: LM | August 2, 2007 12:24 PM
Beware of the common "begs the question" misuse. See here:
http://begthequestion.info
Posted by: cm | August 2, 2007 12:34 PM
cm,
Thank you, I was about to point that out myself.
Posted by: Mike P | August 2, 2007 12:44 PM
McGrath's assertion that he has looked at the Nicene Creed very closely and found it to be right is indeed amazing. What does he mean, though, by "looked at it closely"? Repeated careful reading the brief Creed can't in of itself provide any confidence in its accuracy--it's just a bunch of incredible assertions that could be true or false.
So he must mean he has researched the veracity of the propositions in the Creed. Since the events in the Creed are believed to have occurred two thousand years ago, this then amounts to doing history. However, many of the propositions in the creed are "extra-historical", in the sense that they are not events that humans observed, but metaphysical propositions (like the Trinity). Also, for the events that are historically assessable, there is the basic problems of lying, error, distortion through retelling, etc.
And so, that any modern can expect to read the Creed and commit to believing it is an incredible thing. I would love to temporarily be made to believe it just so I could remember what that would feel like.
Posted by: cm | August 2, 2007 12:45 PM
"Dawkins clearly believes that those who believe in God must prove their case and atheists have nothing to prove because that's their default position. But I think that's simply incorrect and it's obviously incorrect."
Uh, why is this "incorrect?" Dawkins uses Russell's celestial teapot argument to back his statement. Why is that wrong again?
Oh, hang on, it isn't.
Posted by: Tim | August 2, 2007 12:45 PM
Mike P at #15:
I'll second Mike. I'm also not a scientist, feel passionate about science and thus rely on scientific authorities. (And I would guess a scientific authority relies on other scientific authorities in matters outside his or her own specialty.)
I'll add that I know when a scientific authority strays from the demonstrable truth--through error or intention--s/he'll be spanked by colleagues and/or (more importantly) further evidence.
Not true with religious authorities.
Posted by: Glenn | August 2, 2007 12:47 PM
But, then again:
I'm sorry, was that intended as a humorous pot/kettle/black example? Even assuming you can make a case for your assertion about everything being a scientific question, how much more unquestionable could you make your premise? And why should McGrath and other theists simply have to accept your premise, any more that you have to accept theirs?
Posted by: John Pieret | August 2, 2007 12:49 PM
"At the same time, we see theologians like McGrath and pseudoscientists like those of the Discovery Institute trying to support their god/designer hypothesis with handwaving, sloppy logic, mangled evidence, and bald-faced assertions of unquestionable premises."
*Snort!*
You're too kind, PZ... they have no evidence to speak of, mangled or otherwise.
Posted by: LM | August 2, 2007 12:50 PM
cm wrote:
Sorry for going OT, but my short-hand rule is that if you say "That begs the question..." and then you have to say what the question is, then you're not talking about begging the question, you're talking about raising the question.
Posted by: Glenn | August 2, 2007 12:52 PM
Why isn't this a scientific question. I can think of several experiments to determine this. The fact that I can confidently predict that answer to be "No" or at least "Apparently not" in no way makes the question unscientific.
Now, if you define your fairies as "invisible, in audible and intangible" the I have to ask "In what way can these things be said to exist at all?"
Posted by: John Marley | August 2, 2007 12:54 PM
Oops. Loks like a few people beat me to it.
Posted by: John Marley | August 2, 2007 12:57 PM
The reason I can say that is because I can ask a question about those subjects. McGrath is simply asserting that we can't ask those questions, when it's rather clear that we are.
Obviously, I'm not denying that people can question the premise that we can ask questions.
Are you suggesting that that there are subjects which we are not allowed to inquire about, perhaps? Could you list some? Or are you just playing village sophist again?
Posted by: PZ Myers | August 2, 2007 12:59 PM
As PZ makes so clear, McGrath's grasp of logic and critical thinking is minimal, at best. I wonder if it's possible for someone like him to learn to think more clearly, or is his brain just not structured for it?
I fear it may be the latter. Just as my brain is very poorly structured to understand many things, such as, for example, the mathematics of quantum mechanics. But I differ in that I am willing to admit my ignorance and defer to the expertise of others.
I'd also suggest that, if he wishes atheists to take him seriously, McGrath must demonstrate the he has fully read and understood all the material at The Internet Infidels. As has been pointed out several times, it's clear his knowledge of the philosophy of religion is severely deficient.
Posted by: Tim Tesar | August 2, 2007 12:59 PM
Easy answer:
http://www.toadking.com/6x9=42/ghostbusters.jpg
Ugh, this line of argument is quite possibly the stupidest of all theistic arguments. I should have gone into theology: no accountability, cushy gigs at Oxford, no evidence required to support your positions, le sigh. Oh what might have been.
Posted by: commissarjs | August 2, 2007 1:03 PM
PZ writes: "what I'd like to see is one scrap of evidence for any piece of the exceptionally silly Nicene creed -- not proof, but just some rational reason for me to believe one single line of this dogma."
That simply won't happen. The religious can't produce scientific evidence. But for many, the god hypothesis makes sense, it gives a sense of purpose and meaning to life and a reason for living. No proof, no evidence other than the non-scientific personal affirmation of a God working in one's life.
A choice then to believe, based on faith, nothing else. Call it a crutch, whatever but for a lot of people (rational or not), it works. And if it doesn't work for you, that's fine.
Posted by: peak_bagger | August 2, 2007 1:05 PM
I've got to say, the best version of the Nicene creed I've ever encountered was that due to "Not the Nine O'Clock News" in the early 80's. I can't find a transcript or a recording of the original online, though. Can anybody help?
Posted by: Brain Hertz | August 2, 2007 1:11 PM
McGrath answering how laypeople should prepare for meeting a "Dawkins disciple": "The arguments are not good; they are not going to lose their faith as a result."
I wonder if Oxford's favourite comedian has perused http://richarddawkins.net/convertsCorner?
Alister reminds me of Chicken Little, although this time it really is a lump of his (faith-based) sky that's landed on his head, with a lot more to follow.
Posted by: David | August 2, 2007 1:12 PM
"As for his claim that the default position is "not being sure" -- he's being dishonest. His position and the religious position in general is one of certainty in their dogma in spite of the lack of evidence"
No, no, PZ -- obviously, you just don't *get* it. What he means is that the default position for *us* science-minded types is uncertainty. Whereas the default position for *them* faith-minded types is certainty. Thus, we lose, they win. See?
Posted by: "Q" the Enchanter | August 2, 2007 1:14 PM
Posted by: Tulse | August 2, 2007 1:19 PM
PZ, any ideas on how to make a god trap? We can use evil or suffering as bait, but I just don't know how we'll contain him. Questions, questions!
If Star Trek V is any indication, all we'd need is a planet near the center of the galaxy.
And, for some reason, we'd also need to keep this hypothetical god from getting access to a starship, since it such a craft would enable it to escape its otherwise inescapable prison planet.
Actually, that never made a lot of sense to me. Get Shatner in here, I have some questions about this whole "god trap" business.
Posted by: Seraphiel | August 2, 2007 1:23 PM
P.S. Just for a giggle, I wrote in to http://ncregister.com/ suggesting they publish this article to "address the balance".
Posted by: David | August 2, 2007 1:26 PM
Jared (#6) - great story! I love it when I hear about these loopholes that play to the superstitions of the religious.
I have a friend who lives some distance from her staunchly Catholic family. She never voluntarily goes to mass or confession, but goes with her family at Christmas to avoid upsetting them. If she were to tell the priest that it has been one year since her last confession, she would get a whole load of grief and penances to do (and she would probably do them - she's a lapsed Catholic, but had enough of a scary religious upbringing to never ignore a direct order from the family preist). Instead, she gives the much more acceptable answer that it has been 2 weeks since her last confession. Then, when asked to confess her sins, she replies "lying". She gets a couple of hail Marys and is out with little more than a slap on the wrist.
Genius.
Posted by: VWXYNot? | August 2, 2007 1:36 PM
#38, theology is the best scam job there is for an academic. Say whatever you want, write whatever you want, and you don't have to provide any evidence. If anyone should actually question you, just use the "it's all metaphor" response. In fact, you don't even have to personally believe in any of it.
Posted by: Chayanov | August 2, 2007 1:42 PM
BronzeDog (#13) made the sensible suggestion:
Er, how would I know when I found a fairy? Could I see one unaided? Or smell one? Do I need to wear any protective clothing? How far down should I dig? How much of my garden should I dig up (or randomly sample)? And so on...
Yes, this perhaps could be experimentally decided, but I, at least, am unclear on just how to do an experiment, much less a series of them, specifically intended to search for fairies.
If I was searching for carrots, I'd have a decent idea. Admittedly, I'd be starting from a position of knowing something about carrots, so perhaps that isn't too good of an analogy?
As least part of the point here is that if you are looking for something specific, you at least have some ideas (hypothesises) about what you are looking for. I myself don't know any hypothesis about either fairies or goddessies, and could use a few references to what, perhaps, I should be looking for should I wish to dig up my garden.
Posted by: blf | August 2, 2007 1:44 PM
Great post! McGrath: Liar, Lunatic, or... no that's about it. (Loon?)
As for the fairies, they are always leaving their slimy trails in my garden. It's disgusting.
Posted by: OsakaGuy | August 2, 2007 1:47 PM
Steve said:
I know all about those studies; I live with that experience every day. I'm just sick of people treating it as the butt of a joke.
I think there should at least be a disease rotation. Maybe diabetic hallucinations could be next, so epilepsy gets a break?
Posted by: bug_girl | August 2, 2007 1:50 PM
I'm also a non-scientist who relies on the authority of scientists for information about the way the universe works. I would not, however, give any heed whatsoever to PZ Myers if he told me I would go to hell for masturbating, or to Phil Plait if he told me I mustn't use the same dishes for meat and dairy products. There is a limit.
Posted by: Sepiida | August 2, 2007 1:56 PM
So why can't we bring scientific scrutiny to bear on the God hypothesis? For the same reason it's hard to "properly test" dowsing. If the results are positive, then dowsing is open to scientific examination. If the results are negative, then ...uh...you can't test this with science. It's beyond science's ability to consider, because it wasn't confirmed. So just try it for yourself and see if it "works." That's common-sense science. Dowsing may be outside of mainstream science, but inside of the common-sense science the little guy can do, on his own.
This sort of dishonest tactic is often clear enough to intelligent, science-minded theists when it comes to dowsing, but when it comes to religious claims (particularly their religious claims) they shift their perspective to defense mode. "There exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it" is placed in the same non-scientific categories as "I love my mother" or "chocolate tastes better than vanilla."
Can you prove you love your mother? Huh? Can you? Can you open up your head and show people the little "love" light? No, you can't -- but you know it, because you feel it. God's like that. Try believing in Him and see if it "works." Are you better off? That's a good experiment in common-sense science. See if God is to your taste.
Apologetics is one category error after another, elevated to an art form and bathed in smugness.
Posted by: Sastra | August 2, 2007 1:58 PM
All good questions. All of which need to be answered when designing the experiment.
The point, however, is that no question can be ruled out of the bounds of science. Maybe qusetions about subjective, abstract concepts like beauty, but just because you and I can't think of a way to test it doesn't mean it can't be tested.
Posted by: John Marley | August 2, 2007 2:15 PM
To VWXYNot: (comment #46)
That's exactly what I did! I knew if I told the priest it had been a whole month since my last confession, I'd get yelled at.
So I said "Bless me father for I have sinned. It's been one week since my last confession." Then, when I got to the lies, I'd tack on an extra one.
It worked.
Posted by: Lana | August 2, 2007 2:16 PM
That's a pretty good definition of sophistry.
Posted by: John Marley | August 2, 2007 2:19 PM
We'd have to get some definition of the properties of fairies, some preliminary evidence to suggest that there is a problem worth pursuing, but sure, we could address the question scientifically. Put remote cameras in the garden. Sample species present. Install traps. We could pretty quickly get to the point (and we already have) where garden fairies are an untenable hypothesis.
Just as we have for the god hypothesis.
What if fairies are said to be invisible? Or disappear when an attempt is made to observe them? Or have inconsistent or unknowable "properties"? At least two of the above questions also apply to common conceptions of "God". That's why I think it's not necessarily a scientific question, since science assumes at least 1) observation and 2) consistency ("repeatable observation").
Posted by: jeff | August 2, 2007 2:21 PM
I don't see why subjective questions are outside of science. Where do people think subjective assessments take place? There seems to be some latent dualism in the assumption that they're unquantifiable. Subjective assessments are things brains have. We can study brains. You could answer the question, "Is this painting beautiful?" with "'Yes' for people with properties A, B, and C but 'no' for people with properties X, Y, and Z."
Posted by: poke | August 2, 2007 2:22 PM
Boy, for scientists, you guys sure are dumb.
The first step is to hire a grad student as an RA and get them to do a lit review.
Posted by: Brownian | August 2, 2007 2:25 PM
Before responding to that I should point out this.
Now, you're right that a purely subjective question has no general scientific answer. But that does not put art, or beauty, purely outside of the realm of things science can ask about. For example, if I want to know if PZ thinks a painting is beautiful, I could just ask him. If I want to know what kind of paintings most people find beautiful, I could ask a whole bunch of people their opinions of a variety of paintings, and try to sift out the commonalities. If I want to find out what the neurology of "experiencing beauty" is, I could try something tricky with MRIs or wire probes. The point is that the question "is this work of art beautiful?" is only unanswerable because the attribute "beauty" does not adhere to the painting itself, but to how a human mind experiences that painting, and the experience of beauty is complex and subjective. This does not imply that beauty is some special metaphysical property having nothing to do with physical, scientifically-accessible phenomena.
Posted by: K. Signal Eingang | August 2, 2007 2:32 PM
jeff:
Observation does not mean direct observation.
If the fairies (and God) have no observable effect on the physical world, then there is no evidence of their existence. Until there is something more than unfounded assertation, science will not accept them.
Posted by: John Marley | August 2, 2007 2:32 PM
And then to write a grant application detailing how the discovery of fairies is the first step to curing a disease, preferably cancer.
Posted by: VWXYNot? | August 2, 2007 2:36 PM
Lana,
What's the point of lying to the priest when you can just skip the beads and prayers anyway. None of it matters. If you're really worried about the crap your family will give you then don't go.
Do they really browbeat you that much?
Posted by: Steve_C | August 2, 2007 2:38 PM
Observation does not mean direct observation.
I didn't say it did.
If the fairies (and God) have no observable effect on the physical world, then there is no evidence of their existence.
Until there is something more than unfounded assertation, science will not accept them.
Exactly. Then it's not a scientific question.
The question is whether or not you take the next philosophical leap and assert non-existence from non-measurement. These are deep positivist philosophical waters that Bohr and Heisenberg first swam in, in the 1920's.
Posted by: jeff | August 2, 2007 2:42 PM
I thought this question from Edward Pentin was the hilarious highlight of the entire interview: Read this in the knowledge that McGrath has now published two books with "Dawkins" in the title, and is making money off his opponent's name.
Posted by: quork | August 2, 2007 2:45 PM
The only way something can be outside the bounds of science is if it's so incoherent that nothing further can be said about it. Things have to meet a minimum standard of linguistic meaning before science can analyze them.
If you put your God beyond the ability of science to examine, you are declaring that the concept you're so concerned about is nonsensical and your beliefs about it "aren't even wrong", to paraphrase a famous scientist, because they don't express enough meaning to rise to the level of wrongness.
A few of the theist scientists on ScienceBlogs have taken to embracing the idea that their Invisible Sky Daddy isn't in conflict with science. I wondered how long it would take PZ to correct them - I guess the issue wasn't "how long", but "what would it take".
Posted by: Caledonian | August 2, 2007 2:52 PM
In the unlikely event anyone is interested in an interview Prof Dawkins conducted with Prof. McGrath, a link is provided below.
http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,1212,Richard-Dawkins-and-Alister-McGrath,Root-of-All-Evil-Uncut-Interviews
Posted by: SLC | August 2, 2007 2:53 PM
Inquire scientifically I'm sure you mean, since you are claiming that everything is a scientific question. That, of course, would require you to at least give some indication as to what scientific means and methods you will use. So:
Do supernatural souls exist? Show your work.
Which is more beautiful, a Mozart or a Salieri sonata? What tests have you made?
Who is the better author, Shakespeare or Stephen King? Show your calculations.
Oohh! I like that! I may put it on my card. Of course, sophistry, while a poor philosophy to live by, is a good explanation of the problem of knowledge. And it's better, in my opinion, to be the village sophist than the village know-it-all.
Strange, I took it to mean that not everything is amenable to scientific investigation. To assert that everything is amenable to science sort of requires that you know what "everything" consists of. Do you really claim to know everything?
Posted by: John Pieret | August 2, 2007 2:58 PM
No, it requires that you know what the definition of 'real' is. Science doesn't concern itself with the parts of "everything" that aren't real.
Posted by: Caledonian | August 2, 2007 3:00 PM
It's interesting to note that Denyse O'Leary, William Dembski's sidekick over at Uncommon Descent, is quite the fan of McGrath and has blogged about him on her own Blogs:
http://mindfulhack.blogspot.com/2007/07/is-this-twilight-of-atheism-oxford.html
and
http://mindfulhack.blogspot.com/2007/07/more-on-twilight-of-atheism.html
Of course this is no surprise, as O'Leary is the queen of mindless assertions on matters related to atheism and "materialism".
If you haven't discovered her Blog yet, it's worth a look, if nothing else just to be amazed that somebody who calls themself a journalist can write such pointless, meandering drivel. Most of her blog entries are anti-atheist, anti-evolution, anti-materialistic tirades, often with no point but it does have some entertainment value. She is also the queen of nasty, snarky comments and you at least have to admire her grasp of language.
Posted by: TImcol | August 2, 2007 3:01 PM
I would say that the question of the existence of faeries (or of god) is a scientific question , just a poorly constructed one.
Posted by: Lunacrous | August 2, 2007 3:02 PM