…and this is a 
Matthew Cobb and Jerry Coyne write a letter
Category: Godlessness
Posted on: August 27, 2008 4:47 PM, by PZ Myers
It's a very nice letter to Nature. I especially like the last line.
We were perplexed by your Editorial on the work of the Templeton Foundation ('Templeton's legacy' Nature 454, 253-254; 2008). Surely science is about finding material explanations of the world -- explanations that can inspire those spooky feelings of awe, wonder and reverence in the hyper-evolved human brain.
Religion, on the other hand, is about humans thinking that awe, wonder and reverence are the clue to understanding a God-built Universe. (The same is true of religion's poor cousin, 'spirituality', which you slip into your Editorial rather as a creationist uses 'intelligent design'.) There is a fundamental conflict here, one that can never be reconciled until all religions cease making claims about the nature of reality.
The scientific study of religion is indeed full of big questions that need to be addressed, such as why belief in religion is negatively correlated with an acceptance of evolution. One could consider psychological studies of why humans are superstitious and believe impossible things, and comparative sociological studies of religion using materialist explanations of the rise and fall of the world's belief systems.
Perhaps the Templeton Foundation is thinking of funding such research. The outcome of such work, we predict, will not bring science and religion (or 'spirituality') any closer to one another. You suggest that science may bring about "advances in theological thinking". In reality, the only contribution that science can make to the ideas of religion is atheism.
Comments
Posted by: Cruzrad | August 27, 2008 4:55 PM
Beautiful!
Posted by: John Sullivan | August 27, 2008 4:56 PM
Wish Nature would allow unfettered access to such letters...
Posted by: Charles Tye | August 27, 2008 4:56 PM
10 points for defining 'spirituality'
100 points for using it in a sentence that actually means something
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 27, 2008 4:57 PM
In reality, the only contribution that science can make to the ideas of religion is atheism.
bra-fucking-vo.
I eagerly await this to be the loud voice, rather than the soft voice, of science.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | August 27, 2008 5:00 PM
Excellent! Particularly the well-justified kick at the use of that ultimate weasel-word, "spirituality".
Posted by: Richard Harris | August 27, 2008 5:03 PM
This kind of logical argument can't be made too often.
There's no evidence for any gods, & science thrives on evidence.
A lot of people, maybe even a majority in most countries, seem to need superstitious crap to give their pathetic lives 'meaning'. Most of them probably don't have the brains to think for themselves, & those that do are crazy, but in democracies, they count. That's the worry.
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | August 27, 2008 5:05 PM
For an alternative view, Paul Campos sez:
So apparently Campos is not committed to believing science.
Posted by: Alex | August 27, 2008 5:06 PM
"In reality, the only contribution that science can make to the ideas of religion is atheism."
'nuff said. bra-fucking-vo is right.
Posted by: Holbach | August 27, 2008 5:07 PM
"Advances in theological thinking?" Good grief, what a morbid interplay of senseless words! Religion will not advance anything beneficial to humankind but only retard it. Thinking, rational that is, is so far removed from anything that religion purports to engender that it is a farce in the most extreme. The Templeton Foundation is just the venue for propagating this compatable nonsense, and in the end we will be no more removed from religions insane grasp than if we revert back to the dark ages. I am one who totally divorces himself from anything to do with religion, whether benignly covert or perniciously overt. To be as blunt as I can, screw religion.
Posted by: Grey | August 27, 2008 5:09 PM
The templeton foundations main purpose is to create arguements for the use by atheists in a remarkebly inefficient way.
PS: Pz, you look like a carbon copy of my father. He's a biologist too. Odd.
Posted by: jeremy | August 27, 2008 5:14 PM
I concur: bra-fucking-vo!
Posted by: ben | August 27, 2008 5:19 PM
"I believe in stupid shit I know isn't true, and I'm embarrassed to tell you exactly what it is."
"'Spirituality' doesn't mean squat."
What do I win?
Posted by: Screechy Monkey | August 27, 2008 5:20 PM
*pulls out Moderate Concerned Atheist bingo card*
Ok, I'm ready for this comment thread.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | August 27, 2008 5:21 PM
Only if the religion isn't open to learning. Is it really true that science can't contribute to Unitarian-Universalism's conception of religion?
I don't at all doubt that science will always push religions away from the mystical and toward the empirical, that is, away from religion as it has been conceived. But there is nothing that prevents future religion from being something quite different, something far more in tune with reality (and yes, not that far from non-theism). I would assume that sort of outcome was indeed what the Nature editorial (I more or less skimmed it some time back, so I don't remember the details) was hoping would be produced.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Jag | August 27, 2008 5:22 PM
"In reality, the only contribution that science can make to the ideas of religion is atheism."
Damn. Short and to the point.
I may have finally found the quotation for the tattoo I've been looking to get.
Posted by: Sastra | August 27, 2008 5:30 PM
The "advances in theological thinking" which come from the scientific method run along two lines:
1.) Blur the distinction between religion and ethics; religion and philosophy; religion and human well-being; religion and community; religion and neurology. Use scientific experiment and investigation to find out something significant or interesting about how humans deal with ethics, philosophy, well-being, community, and neurology, and then claim this says something very important about "religion."
2.) Blur the definition of God till it becomes vague, incoherent, or a symbolic placeholder for meaning, hope, and feelings of significance, and then make more and more elaborate, impassionated arguments that science can say NOTHING about God -- it only illuminates how "He" works. Looking at God as a factual claim in light of the discoveries of modern science is "scientism." NOMA, NOMA, NOMA.
Posted by: Matt Heath | August 27, 2008 5:33 PM
Not MY definition as such but it bears repeating. Charlie Brooker wrote:Worth 110 points in itself I think.
Posted by: Norman Doering | August 27, 2008 5:36 PM
I'm confused. What was the context of the letter? I don't subscribe to Nature and I don't know what was said about the Templeton Foundation. This letter only gives me vague clues.
If anyone could, please, sum up what this is a reaction too?
Posted by: Holbach | August 27, 2008 5:39 PM
I neglected to include a slight change to the last line. I would word it; "In reality, the only contribution that science can make ON THE ASHES of religion is atheism.
Posted by: BobC | August 27, 2008 5:40 PM
I plan to use this the next time I hear creationist retards call magical creation "creation science", or when they claim intelligent design magic is a scientific idea.
I also plan to use this quote when Christian retards call themselves theistic evolutionists.
I don't have a problem with Christians who accept evolution, but when they attach the adjective theistic to my favorite branch of science, they need to be told they're full of shit.
Posted by: Dídac | August 27, 2008 5:44 PM
Really, spirituality is a distorted form of sexual fetishism. That said with full respect and reverence to fetishists.
Posted by: Holbach | August 27, 2008 5:47 PM
BobC @ 20 Good. How about another version; "In reality, the only contribution that science can make from the shit pile of religion is atheism."
Posted by: Jake Basson | August 27, 2008 5:48 PM
I'm with Glen D on this one, and as a result I don't think the Templeton Foundation is necessarily totally worthless. Neuroscientists Gerald Edelman and Giulio Tononi have recently proposed something called the 'dynamic core hypothesis' (in a book called 'A Universe of Consciousness') as the fundamental neural correlate of consciousness. The dynamic core is defined in terms of the processes and structural relationships that exist within a network, in particular the network of neurons in the brain. However similar relational properties and process exist in the worldwide network of humans and conceivably this implies the existence of, literally, a 'higher consciousness.' This higher consciousness is no god, certainly not omnipotent, but it might well be emotionally appealing to many people who want to belong to something bigger but who know enough to be skeptical of the idiocies of religions as they exist now. For that reason it might be exactly the sort of reconciliation of religion and science the templeton foundation is after...if, as Glen D says, they are willing to consider an evolved religion that seeks emotionally satisfying 'spiritual' (whatever that means) truths that are nevertheless, well, true.
Posted by: Snarly Old Fart | August 27, 2008 5:48 PM
Woooooooo Hooooooooo!!!!!
Posted by: The Moderate Concerned Atheist Alliance | August 27, 2008 5:56 PM
Actually #13, the MCAA agrees with this spirit of this letter. However we feel that we should reiterate that the following progression
Young Earth Creationist -> Old Earth Theistic Evolutionist -> Pro-Science Bibilical Metaphorist -> Atheist Rationalist
does in fact constitute an "advance in theological thinking" at the level of the individual, and should be encouraged by any means possible. We therefore endorse a system of Graduated Response whereby fundamentalists are confronted and exposed, and moderate pro-science believers are engaged with in a mutually respectful dialogue.
The MCAA expresses hope that the Templeton Foundation may play a part in developing this desired background to public debate. However we recognize that this is not its likely purpose or stated intention, and as such we withold our full support.
However we reiterate for the record that the narrative which fails to distinguish between types of believer, and instead holds that "they're all part of the problem", has a dangerous tendency to reverse the arrows in the above progression, and so act as a push towards extremism, rather than a lure towards rationalism. This is counterproductive to the interests of all atheists.
The MCAA wishes the best of luck to bingo-players of all beliefs, and none.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | August 27, 2008 5:58 PM
the narrative which fails to distinguish between types of believer, and instead holds that "they're all part of the problem", has a dangerous tendency to reverse the arrows in the above progression, and so act as a push towards extremism - MCAA@25
Evidence for this claim?
Posted by: Patricia | August 27, 2008 6:01 PM
HUZZAH! Good for them.
I'm in with #18, why did they feel the need to send such a letter?
Posted by: llewelly | August 27, 2008 6:01 PM
I don't agree with the sentiment that everything Templeton foundation has done is worthless. For example - given that hundreds of millions of people make decisions based on assumptions about the effect of prayer, it is valuable that someone has studied the effects prayer carefully. It's important that all of those studies came up negative. (A positive result would have been important as well - but that's not what happened.) Nonetheless ... as far as I know, every study the Templeton foundation has funded has ended up supporting the concluding line of Cobb and Coyne's letter.
Posted by: CJO | August 27, 2008 6:01 PM
This is mention, not use. 0 points.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | August 27, 2008 6:05 PM
No.
Anyone who has studied the generally non-theistic continental philosophy knows that the "spiritual" is readily understood outside of mere gawping at the "wonder of the universe".
Husserl (not religious) went so far as to say that science began in the spiritual. Perhaps what he calls "spiritual" is not what Coyne (and Cobb) does, but then it is Coyne who is missing the expansiveness of meaning that the word "spiritual" can have.
Arguably, the "spiritual" sense can be an impetus to doing science, although such a scientist must be willing and able to demystify "awe and wonder."
"Spirituality" does refer to something in the human psyche (not the soul, if anyone might mistake me). It's a fairly nebulous concept, and it almost certainly has varying degrees of more precisely named mental aspects, but it is not something to be merely denied, as Coyne and Cobb appear to desire.
This is why so many scientists really are not very good at dealing with public concerns. It is one thing to say that science has no place for God, neitherr does it mark off some imaginary realm called the "supernatural" in which people can place their fantasies and suppose that they are meaningful and "real". It is quite another matter to suggest that science and spirituality are inherently at odds, that there is something fake about one's "spiritual" sense.
Templeton will have the upper hand in the public imagination as long as they take "spirituality" seriously while prominent atheistic scientists merely dismiss a sizable portion of the manner in which people experience the world. The "spiritual" is nothing except a constellation of brain states, of course, but it is at least that.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: rickflick | August 27, 2008 6:11 PM
To Basson, #23, it seems the value of believing in something higher, a "Universe of Consciousness", or whatever, is equivalent to culture. I'd ask them to consider joining a bowling league.
Posted by: BobC | August 27, 2008 6:12 PM
The Christians who call themselves theistic evolutionists are most definitely part of the problem. They are trying to give their sky fairy credit for inventing or using or guiding evolution. That's just plain dumb. I have zero respect for them. I can almost forgive the creationists because they were born brain-dead, but there's no excuse for both accepting evolution and trying to stick Mr. God in there somewhere. The science of evolution doesn't need any religious adjectives like theistic.
Posted by: Philip H. | August 27, 2008 6:14 PM
As both a scienctists (fisheries oceanographer) and a practicing Christian, I am getting really tired of the artificial line I keep being told I have to draw. It goes like this:
"If you are a Christian, you can't think rationally, so therefore you can't contribute to anything, and you CERTAINLY can't be a scientist. If you are a scientist, you ONLY think rationally, therefore you can't believe in religion, and you MUST only operate rationally."
PLEASE people. Humans are not that neatly categorized, any more then sea floor vent communities can be characterized as "life" because they are sulfur based, not carbon based. So I think you all need to take a clooective step back, breathe deeply, and realize that you are, in fact, attacking mnay of your colleagues when you make such statements.
And while I'm at it, let's dispense with this third grade notion that religion does bad things. People claiming a religious mantle, and MIS-READING the central texts of religion do bad things. True CHristians, for instance, abhor war recognizing that Christ called mankind to live in harmony. True Muslims recognize the rightoueness of both the Jewish and Christian traditions as predecessors to Mohammad. And let's not forget that most of what we know today as mathematics came from religious Muslims in the library in Alexandria. Sad that they didn't contribute to the world because they had faith.
Posted by: s | August 27, 2008 6:26 PM
I can't wait till Martin Nowak hears that all of his Templeton-funded research is worthless. Things like, you know:
Five Rules for the Evolution of Cooperation. Science, 2006.
Evolution of indirect reciprocity. Nature, 2005.
Evolution of cooperation by multilevel selection. PNAS, 2006.
Via Freedom to Coercion: The Emergence of Costly Punishment. Science, 2007.
Active linking in evolutionary games. J. Theor. Biol., 2006.
Evolutionary games on cycles. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B., 2006.
I could go on for several pages, but you get the picture.
Posted by: noodles | August 27, 2008 6:26 PM
#25 is a troll.
There is no such organization as the
Moderate Concerned Atheist Alliance (MCAA)
There are only 3 legitimate atheist groups:
United Atheist Alliance (UAA)
the true atheists
Allied Atheist Alliance (AAA)
a bunch of illogical frauds
Unified Atheist League (UAL)
morons if you ask me
Posted by: Inky | August 27, 2008 6:28 PM
Yes, for a while I also called myself a Christian and also had no problem with science.
That being said, you do realize that those two spheres of thinking are completely different?
They don't have anything to do with each other, and applying the rules of one to the other is fundamentally destructive.
You can figure out which side lost, for me.
However, you are right that religion doesn't do bad things. People do bad things. I would say that religion is like guns. What say you?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | August 27, 2008 6:34 PM
sigh
oh boy
Queue Heddle.
Posted by: kmarissa | August 27, 2008 6:34 PM
Because obviously the central texts of a religion would never explicitly instruct people to do bad things.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | August 27, 2008 6:37 PM
Mis reading by who's interpretation?
True Christians© and True Muslims© ?
Posted by: Matt Heath | August 27, 2008 6:37 PM
This is what we mathematicians term "bollocks". Arab and Persian mathematicians did a lot to keep mathematics alive in the European dark ages, but "most of what we know today as mathematics"? Not by a long chalk. Less than the Ancient Greeks and MUCH less than post enlightenment moderns.
Also the Alexandrian library was gone by (or at) the time of the Islamic conquest of Egypt,
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | August 27, 2008 6:40 PM
sorry one more bit
I think you'll find that the vast majority if not all of everyone who comments here would never make the assertion that people of faith can not make contributions to society. What you will find many saying however is that people of faith have a roadblock to pass when dealing with subjects such as science and rational thought.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 27, 2008 6:42 PM
That's nice. And no true Scotsman eats vegetarian haggis.
Hypatia, the last Alexandrian mathematician of any note, was murdered by a mob in 415 CE, over two hundred years before the Hegira.
Posted by: Chiroptera | August 27, 2008 6:47 PM
noodles, #35:
I'd also include the Atheist Peoples' Front and the Peoples' Front of Atheism, but they're a bunch of splitters.
Posted by: frog | August 27, 2008 6:50 PM
And while I'm at it, let's dispense with this third grade notion that religion does bad things. People claiming a religious mantle, and MIS-READING the central texts of religion do bad things.
I've read that same quote from Satanists -- it's just those cwazyyy kids who misunderstand the worship of Lucifer! Has nothing to do with the inherent (and sometimes explicit) implications of those texts.
Hallalujah and pass the bagels!
Posted by: LisaJ | August 27, 2008 6:50 PM
Beautifully written, and very impressive!
On a somewhat, but not so much related note... I was very proud to learn last night that may 12 year old brother, who is grieving for his cat that just died and has been told my many people trying to comfort him that she's in 'cat heaven', got upset at my mom for telling him this and proclaimed 'why do you keep saying that? How can you believe that there's a heaven?'. Wow, I was so proud. As long as that rational thought keeps trickling down I'll be happy.
Posted by: noodles | August 27, 2008 6:59 PM
RE: "True Christians©"
Actually, if you had a correct understanding of the Gospel and were properly guided by the Spirit you would know that all the "love your neighbor" hippie-stuff is allegory, metaphor, or a reference to the purified world after the end-times. You clearly are not a True Christian.
Posted by: Sastra | August 27, 2008 7:00 PM
Phillip H. #33 wrote:
Of course a Christian can think rationally and be a scientist, and vice versa. But a Christian cannot apply the scientific method to examining God.
That is the distinction. You have the theists on the one side insisting that God is nothing at all like an empirical fact claim (it's more like feelings or ethics), and the atheists on the other side arguing that oh yes it is so an empirical fact claim. If you're going to be a scientist, you shouldn't draw arbitrary lines.
And then you have the creationists and New Agers explaining that yes indeed, God is a fact claim, and science shows it's REAL.
From what I can tell, the Templeton Foundation started out trying to scientifically demonstrate the reality of supernatural or paranormal phenomenon (and undermine materialism), and then shifted to studying the benefits of religion and religious belief -- and blurring the distinction between religion and other areas (see s's post at #34 for examples) -- when it looked like that first strategy wasn't such a good idea after all.
Posted by: JStein | August 27, 2008 7:02 PM
Realistically, this letter is not going to accomplish much, though it's often fun to vent (I did it with the McCain Campaign).
Still, it's greatly written and, as most people have been quick to point out, right.
The people who think of "spirituality" in these terms are just going to blather about intolerance when they see this.
Posted by: Patricia | August 27, 2008 7:02 PM
Noodles - You forgot to list Freedom From Religion Foundation.
Posted by: The Chimp's Raging Id | August 27, 2008 7:05 PM
@ noodles & Chiroptera
Don't forget the Popular Front of Atheists. I can forgive you for overlooking him as he old, skinny and generally sits alone being ignored by passers by.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | August 27, 2008 7:13 PM
Hear, hear.
Nice. What about agnosticism, though?
I love that word, because it leads straight to "scientist"... =8-)
Man, have you misunderstood what "sulfur-based" means. :-o
Instead of having the food chain start with photosynthetic organisms, it starts with hydrogen sulfide-eating organisms down there. That's the whole difference. The organisms down there all belong to groups that are known from elsewhere: there are real crabs, real clams, real polychaetes, real hydrogen sulfide-eating bacteria etc. etc. down there. Carbon-based, as in consisting of amino acids, fats, sugars and so on.
Same for cold seeps, BTW, where methane-eating bacteria are at the base.
Posted by: dogmeatib | August 27, 2008 7:14 PM
Young Earth Creationist -> Old Earth Theistic Evolutionist -> Pro-Science Bibilical Metaphorist -> Atheist Rationalist
I think there is a gap in there, between Biblical Metaphorist and Rationalist, there should be:
Skeptical Agnostic Rationalist
Posted by: Patricia | August 27, 2008 7:16 PM
#33 - Phillip - How can you say you are a scientist and a true christian at the same time? Doesn't your mind warp every time you try to see evidence of Gawd?
You have certainly been able to surprise me.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | August 27, 2008 7:18 PM
In other words, it was reduced to making arguments from consequences. Pathetic, that.
Posted by: Max Verret | August 27, 2008 7:20 PM
"Only contribution science is going to make to religion is atheism".
To take the human mind with its hard-wired proclivity to transcend the natural universe, to embrace the shadow of the all knowing, to reflect in image and likeness the will and intellect of its Maker and to reduce all of that to an ephemeral piece of protoplasm seeking distractions for a few years but always looking at the finality of the open coffin, is truly pathetic. The pathos is palpable. The theist looks to the beautific vision = the vision of ultimate beauty which must natrually correspond to his limited perception of beauty. No perception of beauty makes sense except as a reflection of the ultimate.
Just happened to see last night the History Channel's presentation of "jaws", the history (evolution) of jaws, intestines, lungs, etc. Very often scientists recognized that they had hit a "dead end". So what do you do when that happens. Well, you go over to the Field Museum in Chicago and find an old fossil that somehow resembles what you need to move forward and guess what; "Eureka" we found it. We have discovered the "transitional" species. What a crock.
The difference between the theist and the evolutionist is this: When the theist runs into an exlanatory block, they say "God did it", when the evolutionist runs into an explanatory block, they go to the Field Museum.
Posted by: JoJo | August 27, 2008 7:25 PM
Besides being a prime example of the No True Scotsman fallacy, there's another problem with this idea. The central texts of Judaism, Christianity and Islam do tell people to do bad things. The Old Testament tells Jews and Christians to stone kids who are disrespectful to their parents. St. Paul was an unmitigated misogynist who taught that women are inferior and primarily culpable for sin and the fall of humanity. The Koran says things like "...slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers."
Posted by: BobC | August 27, 2008 7:25 PM
#33: And while I'm at it, let's dispense with this third grade notion that religion does bad things.
I have questions for Philip H who said he is both a scientist and a Christian.
What switch do you turn on in your head when you want to think, and turn off when you want to praise Jebus?
Do you believe in heaven? If you do believe in heaven, don't you think you're setting a bad example for the Muslim terrorists who use the heaven belief as an excuse to fly airplanes into buildings? Don't you think you're indirectly part of the terrorism problem?
Also, if you do believe in heaven, don't you think your wishful thinking is incredibly childish?
Why do you bother with the "Jebus was a god" idiocy? Don't you think that's an insane idea? Do you ever wonder why you're so gullible?
Posted by: Danio | August 27, 2008 7:31 PM
*girly sigh*
Ahh Jerry. I love that hairy guy.
JStein, At the risk of sounding like a Pollyanna, I have a glimmer of hope that this letter will accomplish something, if only to draw a line in the sand to denote the limits of what can pass for scientific inquiry in the professional sphere. Science is withstanding woo-woo attacks from all sides, not only from creationists and their ilk but from a whole passel of other denier-types with a few pseudoscientific spokes(wo)men out front to try and sneak their 'alternative way of knowing' into the realm of mainstream science. IMHO, the science/reason side has been too diplomatic and, dare I say, complacent about this, dismissing the alternaloons as an insignificant minority and expecting the public to judge their shoddy science on its merits rather than on its packaging. As a result, the woo has gained alarming ground on us. I think more gauntlets need to be thrown down, more stands need to be taken, more noise needs to be made, because we all have a stake in protecting the meaning of scientific integrity and clearly delineating what doesn't make the cut. Trying to get this message to the Nature reading segment of the population is a necessary first step in what will undoubtedly a protracted counteroffensive against the rampant bullshit that plagues us.
Posted by: Tim | August 27, 2008 7:33 PM
Seems to me that christians concerned about the next world might not worry that much about evolution, they might just thank you for revealing the glory of creation, and go on their way. Intelligent design looks more like a grab for temporal power, one more in a dreary continuum of power grabs.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 27, 2008 7:34 PM
NOMA, NOMA, NOMA.
Fails, Fails, Fails.
...as anything other than chewing gum in a radiator hole.
Posted by: kel | August 27, 2008 7:35 PM
Science should never lead to atheism, the question of God is entirely irrelevant to the process. The problem arises when people attrbute certain events to God, rather than processes. That way when the event is explained naturally, God becomes obsolete.
Posted by: The Chimp's Raging Id | August 27, 2008 7:36 PM
Max Verret @ #55
No. An accurate statement would be when a theist runs into an explanatory block, s/he thows up his/her hands and proclaims, "I cannot possibly explain this, therefore it must be evidence of the intervention of the creator!" I hope I need not point out how this is both an extraordinary cop-out and an act of spectacular egocentrism ("If I can't explain it, surely nobody else can!"). When a rationalist - in this case an evolutionist - finds himself or herself facing the same hurdle, s/he will investigate further and try to find more evidence for that will lead to a testable explanation grounded in reality.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 27, 2008 7:38 PM
"If you are a Christian, you can't think rationally, so therefore you can't contribute to anything, and you CERTAINLY can't be a scientist.
if you're really tired of hearing that, why do you keep saying it to yourself.
certainly nobody on Pharyngula says that.
show me ANYWHERE PZ for example has ever said that.
what you have there, sir, is a very nice strawman.
suggest you put the match to it.
Posted by: dubiquiabs | August 27, 2008 7:38 PM
@ Philip H #33
Science tries to represent landscapes in veridical maps.
Religion makes up maps without regard for landscapes.
Mutually exclusive pursuits, no?
Posted by: The Chimp's Raging Id | August 27, 2008 7:42 PM
Danio @ #58
Hell yeah!!!
Oh, and I wish I could type. I may have to start appending KoT to my name, just as the Rev does...
Posted by: Sastra | August 27, 2008 7:53 PM
Max Verret #55 wrote:
"Pathetic?" Or do you mean it's not "satisfying" enough for you?
The human mind has a natural egocentric tendency to see itself as the point, purpose, focus, and basis of the entire cosmos. Considering this fact and then leaping to the conclusion that this must be because the human mind really IS the point, purpose, focus, and basis of the entire cosmos looks as if someone isn't being very objective.
Kel #61 wrote:
Ah, I see. The problem arises when someone makes any claim at all about God other than "it's behind everything in a way that can't be examined or thought about too hard." This rescues God from science and reason by the clever strategy of making it vacuous and "irrelevant to (any) process." But it looks nice on the mantelpiece.
Posted by: J. D. Mack | August 27, 2008 7:57 PM
All this talk about science and religion is very interesting, but I want to know the answer to the big question: is Jerry Coyne related to Wayne Coyne of The Flaming Lips?
J. D.
Posted by: Bro. Bartleby | August 27, 2008 7:59 PM
Sometimes in places like Kansas, or the Mojave desert, one is not distracted by the razzle-dazzle of nature that seems to fascinate and occupy so many, but to the point, last night flat-on-my-back on the desert sand and staring straight up, I attempted to visualize what exactly is taking place above (and all around) my head. I suppose because I have two sensors in my skull that react to photons, the conundrum of "wave-particle" light got me to thinking. And forgive me for my most un-astronomy-like description of what my mind began to imagine. First off, I've always been puzzled by the description of emptiness in space, the "vacuum" in space, the vast nothingness between the floating stuff here and there. And darkness? We look up into the night sky and between the twinkling stars we think we view blackness, emptiness. But wait! It is all an illusion! Because the two light sensors in my head are my point-of-view, I cannot conclude that the dark places are really dark. For every star sends its wave-particle photons out, out in "every direction" and the "light" of each star is like a "continuously expanding" sphere, ever growing larger, a luminous sphere that continues to grow! And "behind" each expanding sphere is another, and another, and infinite anothers (so long as the star's thermonuclear fusion continues). And me, a single "point-of-view" can travel anywhere in the universe and "catch" some photons from that star. That star's photons (and every other star) are everywhere! Think of a zillion stars, each sending outward an infinitely expanding sphere, and these spheres of photons covering the universe, and nowhere dwells a place where photons are not whizzing by -- so light is everywhere! Human eyes, telescopes, are all single points-of-views. So they catch only an infinitely small "piece of the ever expanding sphere" of starlight. If that star is 10 light-years away, then if someone dwelled 10 light-years on the other side of that star, or 20 light-years from me, that being would also be catching photons from that exact same star. And a zillion beings in a zillion different places in the universe would all catch photons from that exact same star. So, last night for the first time I imagined that the darkness of space is just a grand illusion, and the sky is ablaze with light, light everywhere. My mind told me so, even when my eyes tell me not.
Posted by: kel | August 27, 2008 8:05 PM
Pretty much sums it up there Sastra. In that sense, it should not be possible for science to push people towards atheism by finding naturalistic causes.
But in reality, how many people have a purely transcendental view of God? Most of them at one stage have one defining factor that "God did it", where science and religion intersect. In practice, yes science becomes very atheistic because of a believers attribution of God to certain events that to them show the necessity for belief.
At one point or another, a theist will show where they view God's place in reality. A deistic worldview, though still absurd at least doesn't have the problem of resolving an absence of evidence with a need for explanation on the complexity of reality. A pantheistic view seems even more self-contained in reality, though again an absurd notion.
The point is that science operates without any regard to any belief, and thus should only tread on the toes of beliefs that have no credence in the first place.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | August 27, 2008 8:07 PM
TCRI # 65
I've mentioned to the Rev that he should bestow lesser titles upon us who are less than perfect typists. He doesn't seem to want to take the trouble.
Posted by: Screechy Monkey | August 27, 2008 8:07 PM
"However we reiterate for the record that the narrative which fails to distinguish between types of believer, and instead holds that "they're all part of the problem", has a dangerous tendency to reverse the arrows in the above progression, and so act as a push towards extremism, rather than a lure towards rationalism. This is counterproductive to the interests of all atheists."
I await your examples of people who went from being a "Pro-science Biblical Metaphorist" to being a Young Earth Creationist just to spite us Mean New Militant Angry Don Imus Atheists.
Posted by: Max Verret | August 27, 2008 8:08 PM
Chimp @62
"Investigate"? "grounded in reality"? If you go to the Field Museum to investigate, you can ground almost anything you want. A dilemma looking for a fossil. A sure fire "AHA" experience.
Posted by: Holbach | August 27, 2008 8:09 PM
Philip H @ 33 The overwhelming reality is that all you have expressed is totally unnecessary for you to live a normal life without the needless baggage religion imposes. Many of us have gone through the same process and finally discovered and realized that you can do everything you do now, but without the crutch of religion. Why is this so difficult to comprehend? Your life is not going to change or end, you will still be able to brush your teeth, sing, swim, watch a movie and do all the other things you do now without an imaginary vengeful god to smite you down. You are deluding yourself needlessly in thinking that an imaginary being that was created by the human mind has any bearing on your life and direction. Why is it that we can live without this crutch and you cannot? Our minds are free of this mental vise and yet your mind is beset with it. Can't you see and understand that if we can do it, why aren't you able to do the same and give up the idea of gods who made everything. The human brain gave birth to all religions, and yet animals have brains also but do not entertain these silly and unprovable notions of a supreme creator. We are a higher animal because of our advanced brains which evolution has fashioned over millions of years. There is no mystery here, neither should there be any in contriving to understand it all. Sure you can do science, but science without religion is that more of honest and rational science, free from unnecessary baggage.
Posted by: Max Verret | August 27, 2008 8:22 PM
Sasta @ 66
"It isn't satisfying enough for you".
You're right it isn't and fortunately it doesn't have to be.
"A natural egocentric tendency to see itself as the point, purpose, focus and basis of the entire cosmos"? That is the definition of narcissism. It is probably the only option open for an atheist. The theist sees God as the point, purpose, focus and basis for the entire cosmos
Posted by: Holbach | August 27, 2008 8:32 PM
Max Verret @ 55 Your comment is pathetic and one to expect of a rabid religionist. Sure, we can hold fossil bones in our hands for they represent the evidence of a once living animal. You cannot hold your imaginary god in your hand because it never existed but only in your unsound mind. I would rather have a bone in the hand than an imaginary ghost in my head. Let's see your imaginary god. Get it to come down and wipe this site with us. You have as much chance in producing your imaginary god as I have in walking to the Andromeda Galaxy.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 27, 2008 8:36 PM
I would rather have a bone in the hand than an imaginary ghost in my head.
~or~
I'd rather have this bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.
If you go to the Field Museum to investigate, you can ground almost anything you want.
sure sign Max chose poorly.
pst: Max, lobotomies are irreversible you know.
Posted by: Joshua Bowers | August 27, 2008 8:37 PM
Max Verret @ 74
Then your god is a narcissist. Looking at the Christian god, with all of the myriad dogmas commonly associated therewith, I think Sastra's point is valid: the Bible claims that Yahweh made man in its image; most Christians I know of firmly believe this. Most Christians I know also firmly believe that Jebus sacrificed himself specifically for them. Yet you claim that the theist is the not the narcissistic one?
Posted by: Joshua Arnold | August 27, 2008 8:40 PM
/Signed.
Posted by: Holbach | August 27, 2008 8:45 PM
Ichthyic @ 76 If Max had a parietal lobotomy he would end up lopsided.
Posted by: Sastra | August 27, 2008 8:49 PM
Max Verret wrote:
You misunderstand what I mean by "egocentric." Not egotism, but the confusion of self with what is outside the self, so that we merge the importance we give our human-like mind into material reality, and attribute personal meaning and intention to everything. As you put it yourself, in religion man is seen as the "image and likeness (of) the will and intellect of its Maker." And, vice versa. God being the point, purpose, focus, and basis for the entire cosmos is simply making PERSONHOOD the point, purpose, focus, and basis of the entire cosmos -- instead of it being a contingent and unnecessary happenstance.
Atheists do not think of human beings as the "focus" of the universe: it has no focus or inherent meaning, no hierarchy of "higher" and "lower." We create and find our meanings. We are special only to ourselves -- not special as a matter of objective fact.
Posted by: anthropicOne | August 27, 2008 8:49 PM
Max Verret @55
"The difference between the theist and the evolutionist