…and this is a 
Forgive me, readers, but Madeline Bunting has raised up her tiny, fragile pin-head again, and I must address her non-arguments once more. Well, not her non-arguments, actually, but the same tedious non-arguments the fans of superstition constantly trundle out. She was at some strange conference where only people who love religion spoke and came away with affirmations of the usual tripe. It's as if the "New Atheists" have provoked a counter-attack by critics armored in pudding and armed with damp sponges.
…the Archbishop of Canterbury was brisk, and he warned, "beware of the power of nonsense". Science's triumphalist claim as a competitor to failed religion was dangerous. In contrast, he offered an accommodation in which science and religion were "different ways of knowing" and "what you come to know depends on the questions you start with". Different questions lead to "different practices of learning" - for example different academic disciplines. Rather than competitors, science and religion were both needed to pursue different questions.
We're quite aware of the power of nonsense — and I agree that it certainly has a powerful draw on some people, from those who frolic with fairies to the Archbishop of Canterbury. That's the frightening element of this whole argument, that people get sucked into spiritual fol-de-rol and think they're suddenly deep and perceptive thinkers, and that waving a little fluff at the atheists will make them run away.
We often get this vague claim that religion is a different methodology and a different way of knowing things, and that judging religion as a science is a category error. Very well: different way of knowing what? What are these different questions that they are asking, how do they propose answering them, and why should we think these questions are even worth asking, and that their answers are valid? They never seem to get around to the specifics.
I mean, religion might well be the only avenue for addressing the question of how many bicycles are being peddled by angels right now, but that's because it's an irrelevant question that doesn't affect our lives or the universe in any way, doesn't have any way of being answered, and is built around imaginary referents, "angels", for which we don't even have evidence of their existence. But if religion is a way of knowing, how do they know what the answer is? What is their methodology? How do they verify their answers? Why is it that every religion, and even every individual within a religion, comes up with different answers?
That's an example of a trivial question, but the same problems apply to the big questions central to their beliefs. How do we even know that we need redemption from sin? Is sin even a valid concept? They can't answer these questions in an independently verifiable way.
Even when they try to get specific, they are hopelessly vague.
The second question from the audience - from the philosopher Mary Midgley - was what comes next? What both science and religion needed, argued Conway Morris was a more fruitful conversation. He raised the possibility that religion might be needed to help develop understanding into questions which have baffled scientists such as the nature of consciousness. The future of science is a series of imponderables, he concluded, and it may require a set of scientific skills "of which we have no inkling at the moment."
I think the fruitful conversation we need between science and religion is more of a loud roar from the science side to silence the lies of the faithful. This argument that we need more input from religion comes almost entirely from those already committed to the superstition — personally, I think we could use entirely less babbling gobbledygook from the apologists.
But Conway Morris's suggestion is pointless. How will religion help us understand the nature of consciousness? Having someone assert that it is the product of ghosts, spirits, or other such invisible manifestations from some non-place outside our universe is, it has turned out, a useless, unproductive, and old, dead hypothesis. Just to suggest that we may need new ways of thinking to approach a complex problem does not imply in any way that a very old way of thinking has some utility.
People like Conway Morris keep claiming that science and religion are not only compatible, but that both are necessary. I don't buy it. I have two simple questions for those who claim that the two are complementary.
What specific fundamental principles of your religion do you actually use in your science? I don't mean just general ethical principles, because atheists also have those, but tell me something specific about how you apply your religion to science?
Do you apply scientific principles to your religion, and do you do so consistently? Do you, for instance, test religious claims with experiment?
When you put it that specifically, most of the religious scientists I know would unashamedly and rightly say that no, they practice science in the lab or field without expectation of an intervention by Jesus to change the results, and that no, turning the skeptical tools of science against their faith would be inappropriate, or that god is not subject to our scrutiny. This is not compatibility. This is tergiversation. The only way they can claim compatibility is by pointing out that some individuals practice both religion and science, like Simon Conway Morris, but that says nothing, since people are damned good at encompassing contradictions.
For a terrifying look at what we get with religion, turn to this a review of Karen Armstrong's What Religion Really Means. What a promising title! We godless atheists are always being told that we don't really understand the depth of religion, so a book that promises to clearly state what it is sounds like a welcome addition to the debate. Until, that is, you read what she says it means.
She draws on 2,000 years of Christian theology and mysticism to demonstrate rich alternative ideas of the divine. Back in the 4th century AD, long before Wittgenstein and Derrida, Bishop Basil of Caesarea understood all about the limits of language, and stated them rather more clearly, too. "Thought cannot travel outside was, nor imagination beyond beginning." God is, by definition, infinitely beyond human language. Earlier still, the Christian scholar Origen (185-254) discussed the "incongruities and impossibilities" in scripture. The fact that Dawkins et al think that pointing out the Bible's imperfections undermine Jewish or Christian belief only demonstrates their ignorance of the traditions they presume to undermine. Of course it's not meant to be understood literally, the early Christians seem to sigh across the centuries.
Armstrong further shows how even the words "I believe" have changed, and become scientised, to mean "I assert these propositions to be empirically correct." Yet the original Greek pisteuo means something much more like "I give my heart and my loyalty." In the gospels, she says, quoting the great German theologian Rudolf Bultmann, Jesus himself sees God not as "an object of thought or speculation, but as an existential demand".
What a sodden pile of words rendered meaningless by the attempt to bloat their meaning.
Yes, we know that many rarefied theologians believe in a lot of airy nonsense, but let's not pretend that the vast majority of Christians would not reject those claims out of hand — they are far more literal. Or, rather, they claim to be more literal, but actually hold a body of faith that is just as subjective, just as highly evolved and refined, as the set of beliefs held by the most opaque and obfuscatory theologian. There really isn't much difference in the methodology of Rudolf Bultmann or Ken Ham — both are piling up the subjective bullshit as fast as they can shovel it, they are just using different conventions and different language tailored to their different audiences. It's simply different…framing.
As an example of Bunting's different way of knowing and different kinds of questions and different practices of learning, though, what do I learn from that slippery gemisch of pious protestations? One thing and one thing only: the power of nonsense.
I think we've all mastered that lesson by now. It's time for the theologians to grow up and move on to questions with some heft and meaning, that are actually applicable to our lives and our culture.
Humanities & Social Science
Comments
Posted by: Abdul Alhazred
|
July 8, 2009 8:28 AM
Science doesn't explain everything.
That means bloodthirsty horror fantasy is better than science.
The Archbishop of Canterbury? Didn't he just concede defeat to the Muslims or something like that?
Posted by: SEF | July 8, 2009 8:29 AM
It is though. To use accurate terminology: the people who do it are fantasists; what they do is fantasise - hence the methodology is fantasising; and the "knowledge" they gain is fantasy / fantasies.
On the other side of the vast divide we have: scientists and realists who use science (ie evidence-based reasoning) to find out about reality.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 8, 2009 8:40 AM
It's really just a case of pick-a-gap and go with that to try and defend whichever flavour of woo-soaked drivel you happen to support - god-of-the-science-gap, god-of-the-philosophical-gap, god-of-the-mistranslation-gap, god-of-the-genre-gap; the list just goes on and on.
What a fucking crock of shit. Little irritates me more than this tired piece of sophist tapdancing. It was taken literally for almost all of history; it's only now that science has turned over so many rocks to find no evidence of god, and that society has advanced so far that even more of the bible has become socially and morally and philosophically redundant, that they make idiotic claims like this.
Posted by: DaveL | July 8, 2009 8:43 AM
Science and religion are two different ways of knowing.
One of which works.
Posted by: Tim | July 8, 2009 8:43 AM
Does belief = mental illness? Can they not behave without the threat of damnation? Can they not imagine someone who does not need belief? Watch how they treat non-believers, do they see them as merely someone with a different opinion, or a heretic?
Posted by: DaveL | July 8, 2009 8:47 AM
So you give your heart and loyalty to a proposition but don't assert that it's objectively true?
How is that materially different from "not caring what's true"?
Posted by: MadScientist | July 8, 2009 8:47 AM
I just have to laugh at religion and its increasingly funny stories. Make no mistake, religion has been making strange claims to dodge the nasty persistence of facts for over 2000 years; attempts by religion to squirm out of simple and sensible questions is not something new to our century.
The "god of the gaps" is one of the most popular ruses over the centuries, but these days there aren't many gaps to hide in. The gods have become something of homeopathic gods and the gap argument gets funnier by the day: there is no evidence whatsoever for god and therefore he must exist and must be the most powerful being in the universe.
The archbishop of Canterbury sure disappoints; can't he even invent any nonsense of his own? Why must he simply recycle centuries-old nonsense?
Posted by: Kobra | July 8, 2009 8:50 AM
Religion and Science ARE two ways of knowing. Religion is a way of knowing without thinking. See how it works?
Posted by: Becky | July 8, 2009 8:50 AM
We really need to send these people off to Uranus to meet Jebus
Posted by: Aenthropi | July 8, 2009 8:52 AM
Damp sponges, oh no! We might get Legionellosis.
Posted by: Kel, OM | July 8, 2009 8:52 AM
As soon as religion shows that it is a valid way of knowing, this whole issue would go away. But no, we keep getting told it is a different way of knowing and that somehow makes it valid. Fuck that shit, especially as they intrude on scientific turf with their "different" way of knowing. Stay away from descriptive morality and strophysics damn it!
Posted by: Kobra | July 8, 2009 8:54 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UB_htqDCP-s
Somewhat related. It's a beat poem by Tim Minchin.
Posted by: James Sweet | July 8, 2009 8:57 AM
I think Dawkins et al have been quite clear that if religion turned into what the "sophisticated theologians" keep telling us it is -- i.e. just a deism-esque allegory, relying on human judgment to actually tease out right from wrong rather than trying to extract it from a 2000-year-old sectarian text -- that they would be fine with that. Hitchens is quite explicit in the first chapter of _god_is_Not_Great_: He does not wish for religion to go away, he simply wants to be "left alone" by religious types, not to have his politics polluted by religion or to have people try to foist their beliefs on him.
If every religious person decided tomorrow that their respective holy book was mostly metaphorical, and that we had to use our own fallible reasoning to determine what was right and what parts we should ignore; and if each and every one decided to strictly adhere to NOMA, keeping their faith 100% separate from both science and politics; and if they would stop saying how great they are for having faith and how much we suck for not having faith... if that happened, I'm pretty sure the so-called "New Atheism" movement would rapidly evaporate. What would be left to be pissed off about? Nothing.
It's absurd. It's not even a straw man.
Posted by: MadScientist | July 8, 2009 8:58 AM
"The fact that Dawkins et al think that pointing out the Bible's imperfections undermine Jewish or Christian belief only demonstrates their ignorance of the traditions they presume to undermine. Of course it's not meant to be understood literally, the early Christians seem to sigh across the centuries."
That reminds me of something written by some genuinely wise men as opposed to men pretending to be wise:
"What did he say?"
"I think he said 'blessed be the cheesemakers'."
"What's so special about the bloody cheesemakers?"
"Well obviously it's not meant to be taken literally ... perhaps he's referring to any purveyor of dairy products."
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 8, 2009 8:58 AM
They can have a god of the gaps, heck, have a god for each and every gap they can find; I don't give a shit about that - but it's just that the god-of-the-gaps is demonstrably not the god of any of the major religions.
You can't spend x-thousand years (depending on your woo) claiming that a certain god (interventionist, with physical capabilities) exists, only to then about-face and demand that it's been a philosophical, outside-of-science god the whole time.
They accepted the goalposts that their scientifically illiterate goatherd forebears erected for them; they don't just get to move them because they're losing the game.
Posted by: Lauren Ipsum | July 8, 2009 9:03 AM
"tergiversation"
Can I just express my appreciation, PZ, that you keep expanding my vocabulary? :)
Posted by: airbagmoments | July 8, 2009 9:08 AM
As an English Lit major I can tell you a lot of this comes from the basis of liberal arts. If you agree that poetry can communicate things that dry prose cannot (and I'm not saying you have to believe that) then you believe that there are things that can be understood outside the normal medium of thought, which is language. I, myself, agree with this romantic but in some ways obvious sentiment. I do not, however, project that dualism on to reality the way these sad sacks do with their unknowable theologies that they think exist and should be worshiped precisely because they are unknowable. It's perverse.
Posted by: SomeGuyWanderingBy | July 8, 2009 9:10 AM
A thorough and accurate summary of Armstrong's book here
. Enjoy.
Posted by: Dwimr | July 8, 2009 9:13 AM
Science CANNOT tell us everything.
For instance: What the Hell was Michael Jackson?
Posted by: Mike | July 8, 2009 9:13 AM
Sorry, I got stuck trying to imagine an angelic bicycle salesman.
BI-cycles! Hot fresh BIcycles! You sir! You look like you could use a bicycle. This here's a Schwinn, barely used, never dropped, and if you can find another on at a better price I'll pluck my wings.
Posted by: Haruhiist | July 8, 2009 9:13 AM
No, it's not that they're necessarily ignorant of the traditions, it's that those traditions have known about 'incongruities and impossibilities' for centuries and still don't have a good answer for it.
Posted by: Cyphern | July 8, 2009 9:14 AM
I learned a new word today! "tergiversation"!
Posted by: Ashley Moore | July 8, 2009 9:14 AM
Science ARE Religion are two ways of knowing.
Just like on a rocket and on a horse are two ways of travelling to the moon.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 8, 2009 9:14 AM
Eh, one of the few things I might consider worth treating like a religion - cricket - is on tv right now. But I'm certainly not going to claim it has the answer to any question other than 'what would you like to spend your summer weekends watching?'
Posted by: Alverant | July 8, 2009 9:16 AM
So Armstrong only considers xity to be a religion? What about all the other religions over human history? Does she make any attempt to understand them?
Posted by: ABM | July 8, 2009 9:21 AM
As an atheist/don't-give-a-crap-ist (and a working scientist) I think you all are being a tad harsh on the spiritual folks. I honestly don't see anything wrong with people trying to use religion to answer questions that are not scientific in nature. One day the brain and the mind will probably be understood to the point that we can use science to solve all moral and ethical dilemmas, but for the time being we cannot. So people use religion or non-religious philosophy/ethics to address these issues.
The *problem* is of course, the religious people who won't take "no, thanks" for an answer, and are not interested in making concessions to physical reality or respecting the beliefs (or lives!) of others. They cause as much suffering for other religious people as they do for non-believers. I don't think it's fair to conflate the Southern Baptist Convention with your local Unitarian church just because they both are "religious".
Posted by: Kel, OM | July 8, 2009 9:24 AM
I hope religious people start taking this "different ways of knowing" to heart and stop claiming things about reality. Stop claiming that God walked on earth and rose from the grave that contradicts the science of the life cycle. Same goes for all those miracles attributed to the J-man, those miracles are just too damn unscientific. God isn't opposed to science, just transcendent. Isn't that the catch-cry of the modern day theist?
And this whole notion of sin? Ridiculous, we are who we are because of a combinations of genetics and experience. And morality is a social construct born out of the survival advantages that cooperation that allows for groups to work together, and beyond that certain behavioural traits are genetic. This whole idea about sin against god is only further serving to punish the mentally vulnerable.
I really hope they take science on board, and everything it entails. Otherwise it seems they are just trying to diffuse criticism for what is a propagation of a bronze-age myth that hasn't been anything more than a placeholder in the absence of any useful answer. "Different ways of knowing" lets hope they take it on board so we don't have to fight every fucking step of the way for any scientific knowledge that relates to ourself for the fear that it could shatter the delusion of billions...
Posted by: Logicel | July 8, 2009 9:26 AM
Religion is a way to not know anything.
Religious apologists conflate knowledge with experience, that is, their subjective experience, which of course they have a right to experience. They, however, are not entitled to their own facts.
They can whine, twist their opponent's words, obfuscate all they want, they will never be able to present religious belief as a way of knowing facts. And what other knowledge is there that is worth knowing, but factual? There is wonderful factual knowledge that is being added all the time, that affect many fields of knowledge, from science, music, art, literature, technology, etc.
Gorgeous, opulent, mind-boggling knowledge and these mental prunes push their bogus religious beliefs as another way of knowing? Seriously, what is wrong with these people and their brains? Why are they satisfied with such a puny grasp of reality and nature?
Posted by: Christophe Thill | July 8, 2009 9:31 AM
"We often get this vague claim that religion is a different methodology and a different way of knowing things"
But it is !
Other methodologies and ways of knowing include dowsing, interpreting dreams, reading tea leaves, observing the flight of birds...
Posted by: Jason Dick | July 8, 2009 9:32 AM
Wowbagger #3,
That's not strictly true. These people are correct when they state that these prominent figures in early Christianity were arguing for a non-literal interpretation. There's a very nice quote by St. Augustine that I'm sure you could find with a little bit of Google fu (sorry, not too busy to post, but a bit busy to look for it).
What they neglect to mention is that all of these people were theologians. There is little question that the common people of the day had not understanding whatsoever of the arguments of professional theologians, just as they do not today. There also is little question that the common people of the day were every bit as literal in their understanding of the Bible as they are today. Most likely moreso.
What is being said there is a crock of shit not because it is completely untrue, but rather because it is cherry-picked facts that are then extrapolate to mean pretty much the exact opposite of reality. What it shows is that the apologists for Christianity haven't changed: they've always paid lip service to rationality while providing cover for the more insane beliefs of the masses.
Posted by: Interrobang | July 8, 2009 9:36 AM
I'd be perfectly fine with religion if they said that religion was a different way of doing, rather than knowing. If you take nine or ten basic false assumptions and pile a house of cards' worth of logic on top of it, you've still got something with zero relation to reality, which is basically what religion is. On the other hand, I have no problems with people having hobbies that encourage social interaction and community, and revolve around fantastical thinking. Fantastical thinking from time to time is good for the brain. I just wish that people wouldn't insist that their fantastical hobbies (while fun) are too really for real; it smacks all too much of adolescent role-playing gamers talking about last night's exploits while "in character" -- "And then I killed a dragon with my +10 Sword of Smiting!"
That said, I'm all in favour of the existence of these sorts of fantastical ideations because they're a fertile source of literary tropes.
Posted by: Kel, OM | July 8, 2009 9:37 AM
My contention with this is religion brings forth a descriptive morality, which impacts on the way morals / ethics is used.I for one am sick of religious people calling me immoral / amoral. And why? Because if I don't have a magic sky daddy telling me that I shouldn't kill a person, then I have no reason not to do it apparently.
Science may not be able to explain everything, but there are other secular equivalents, and those happen to be flexible enough to accommodate any new advancement in scientific knowledge on the field.
Posted by: jose | July 8, 2009 9:40 AM
An invisible, winged horse.Posted by: FatherNature
|
July 8, 2009 9:42 AM
MJ and his "children" are clearly evidence supporting lamarkism.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 8, 2009 9:46 AM
Jason Dick wrote:
Yeah, you're right - I should have said 'It was taken literally by the vast majority of its followers for almost all of history...'
But, like you said, that wasn't the standard set of beliefs disseminated to all. And there are still Christians today who don't accept the non-literal interpretations - as much as the cafeteria Christians gobbling the picked-cherry pie of their version of the religion might like to pretend otherwise.
And so it's down to competing interpretations with identical sources - which means the non-literalists can't support their claims any better than their fundamentalists cousins can. They just have different musical numbers to tapdance to.
Posted by: JD | July 8, 2009 9:46 AM
God is, by definition, infinitely beyond human language.
I declare Spiderman, by definition, infinitely beyond human language.
Posted by: chris | July 8, 2009 9:47 AM
A god or gods, duh.Who or what is(are) god(s)? What do he/she/it/they want? Did he/she/it/they create us, imbue us with some special nature? Do we owe he/she/it/they anything and if so, what? Is(are) he/she/it/they appropriate source(s) for moral guidance? If so, what is the nature of that guidance?
Navel gazing, mental masturbation, interpreting ancient rules and guidelines and so on.
Indeed, why should we. This is the heart of the problem. My first reaction was to say that we should not take them seriously if we don't find them interesting. In other words, ignore them. After all, you are asking for a personal value judgment here. But...
Sure they do. It's just that specifics to them are not the same as specifics to us. Specific falsifiable predictions are not part of their "way of knowing". Personally, I find that makes their way empty and unproductive, but that is my personal perspective. Unfortunately, too many seek to impose their specific answers and interpretations on the rest of us and too many also view teaching science as imposing our "way of knowing" on them.
If creationists would just admit that they want to be exempt from receiving an education in science instead of lying about what science is and trying to substitute religion for science in every possible venue, and if many of the other religionists would accept that they can live their lives satisfactorily without imposing their worldview on everyone else, we would be much happier. Unfortunately, I think the real motivations for many religious leaders are greed and avarice, and the chief motivation for their followers is fear, which the leaders skillfully manipulate.
Posted by: NewEnglandBob
|
July 8, 2009 9:48 AM
Wait!
An article about someone named Armstrong and a reference to bicycles.
Hmmmm.
Is this about the Tour de France?
Posted by: SC, OM | July 8, 2009 9:51 AM
1) Don't lump religion and non-religious ethics/philosophy together.
2) How do people use religion to address moral dilemmas? What is the method? On what basis do they form ethical principles? Please describe a particular moral dilemma and the way in which it is usefully "addressed" through religion specifically.
Posted by: BAllanJ | July 8, 2009 10:00 AM
There are probably some enterprises where a knowledge of science and religion can go hand in hand to help out.
The one that comes to mind is world domination. A sufficiently advanced technology developed through scientific means can bring you to world domination, but if you want your subjects to like it, there are many lessons to be learned and applied from the history of religion.
Posted by: Gruesome Rob | July 8, 2009 10:06 AM
You had me right up until this PZ
And what would those be?
Posted by: Gruesome Rob | July 8, 2009 10:08 AM
POMOWD? I'd expect COMHATD.
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | July 8, 2009 10:11 AM
They told me their religion gave “a different way of knowing”,
In addition to experiments, I also learn through prayer;
The precious love of Jesus is what keeps my garden growing—
It’s the fertilizer used, along with water, sun, and air.
While science speaks of Nitrogen, Potassium and Phosphorus,
Religion speaks of Angels that can help my plants to grow;
Like Europe meeting Asia at the strait they call the Bosporus,
Both Science and Religion meet where I have weeds to hoe.
Generations of selection give varieties that thrive—
Horticulture, as a science, helps me constantly, I note;
But Religion also helps me! Why, to keep my plants alive,
I make sure, in planting season, that I sacrifice a goat!
There are artificial pesticides, or totally organic,
And the scientific knowledge can support me either way,
And Religion also tells me I have no real need to panic—
There are prayers and incantations that can keep the bugs away!
When the time has come to harvest, then technology and Science
Have combined to help me multiply the bounty of the fields.
And, of course, the Gods and Angels where I’m placing my reliance
Are (I’m certain) doing something to the quantity of yields.
The power of Religion, as I pray for intervention
While the atheistic farmers on their tractors point and smirk,
Is tremendous and insightful, though I think I ought to mention
I’m beginning to discover… that it really doesn’t work.
http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2009/07/applied-religion-101a-agriculture.html
Posted by: AJ Milne | July 8, 2009 10:11 AM
Tiny, fragile... pinhead... Yep. That's confirmed. Looks like you can add that one to your life list...
Know your Buntings:
Yellowhammer: a robust 15.5-17 cm long bird, with a thick seed-eater's bill. The male has a bright yellow head, yellow underparts, and a heavily streaked brown back. The female is much duller, and more streaked below. The familiar, if somewhat monotonous, song of the cock is often described as A little bit of bread and no cheese. (Wikipedia)
Reed Bunting: a medium sized bird, 13.5-15.5 cm long, with a small but sturdy seed-eater's bill. The male has a black head and throat, white neck collar and underparts, and a heavily streaked brown back. The female is much duller, with a streaked brown head, and is more streaked below... The familiar, if somewhat monotonous, song of the cock is a repetitive zrip. (Ibid)
Madeleine Bunting: oddly ponderous and clumsy for a passerine, given to bloated, insubstantial prose, 500-1,500 words long, frequently extremely dull, and generally lacking in such trivial niceties as coherence and logical flow... The familar, extremely monotonous song has been likened to a tribal drumbeat: a repetitive, whinging Like, rilly, me 'n my fellow complex theologians, we're like, so deep, rilly... 'n you people making fun of us are like, soooo missing the point...'
(/Generally, the Madeleine Bunting is seen as a pest species.)
Posted by: Lynna | July 8, 2009 10:13 AM
The big question they're trying to answer is, "How do I arrange to live forever?"
Lots of bafflegab surrounds this question, but that's basically it. "Somebody show me the way and tell me all the rules and I'll get on it right away. If other people have to toe the invisible line in order for me to live forever, by god I'll make 'em do it." Hence the allure of the Head Witch Doctors who exude confidence about the Way.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 8, 2009 10:21 AM
Maybe questions such as how do we best ensure people have access to good quality education and health services regardless of their ability to pay.
Or how about how can we ensure people in developing countries can enjoy a standard of living on a par with ours, without causing massive environmental damage.
You could also try how we can best allow the terminally ill to die with dignity at a time of their choosing.
If those do not appeal then try how we can best prevent the spread of HIV in Africa.
You see there are loads of serious issues that we need to address. And quite frankly religion just gets in the way of doing so.
Posted by: Fatpie42 | July 8, 2009 10:23 AM
I think they are missing a very important point, but in your concluding paragraphs it looks to me like you are missing it too PZ.
To me, it seems like the central issue here is the old NOMA argument. The problem, naturally, is that those who accept NOMA cannot then propose that they are going to complement one another. As totally non-overlapping magesteria, they are completely irrelevant to one another.
The problem is exacerbated for the religious when we realise that the NOMA theory treats religion as if it is poetry. When William Wordsworth is writing about stumbling across a hidden clearing in a wood previously untouched by human hands and characterises it as a virgin being raped, how is he going to be helped by science in writing his poem? At best, science will simply help to clarify the behind-the-scenes workings of the natural world he is describing (though he's not likely to use much of that in his poem which anthropomophises the scene). At worst, the science will undermine concepts he is taking for granted (like his concept of 'purity' in relation to virginity perhaps). Similarly science has little to contribute to the religious view that humans begin blissful and then are corrupted as they gain experience and knowledge (Adam and Eve story), since once we delve into psychology the intriguing myth becomes less and less relevant to the pursuit of understanding.
What is interesting about Karen Armstrong's book is that it is showing how scientific understanding has permeated into our thought in general. As such, religious ideas have not simply come under the light of scientific thought, but have developed alongside scientific ideas and been changed by them. The original writers of religious stories like the book of Job or Adam and Eve were most likely not taking them literally. These stories helped them to understand their own lives, but they weren't scientific hypotheses. Since then however, as we know, some people have come to consider these stories to be infallible and have said "we know how the world began". Seeing how that change took place will be very interesting and I would be interested in reading Armstrong's book to find out more.
Let's not forget that Bultmann, far from making excuses for religion, actually throws a lot of religious literalism out of the window on the basis of science. He still clings onto a few things, but the Christian message he is left with is more 'existentialist' since he believes the more mythical understanding is no longer acceptable to the modern mindset:
"It is impossible to use electric light and the wireless and to avail ourselves of modern medical and surgical discoveries, and at the same time to believe in the New Testament world of spirits and miracles."
http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=431&C=292
http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=431&C=293
Posted by: Lynna | July 8, 2009 10:27 AM
Some gaps get filled with facts faster than others. Just for fun, here's a Mormon gap that was closed with facts:
Posted by: waldteufel | July 8, 2009 10:33 AM
I've got an idea for a testable aspect of religion:
Get a priest, a communion cracker, an EKG machine, a syringe for drawing blood, and have a technician standing by to rush a blood sample to the lab.
Hook the cracker up to the EKG machine, prepare to draw blood at the moment the priest finishes mumbling whatever he is supposed to mumble in some important sounding dead language . . . . . . .
Move over, Doctor Horrible.
Posted by: owlafaye | July 8, 2009 10:37 AM
Christian belief and claimed experience (eg "talking" to God/Jesus) fits the definitions of the insane. Since there are so doggone many of them you have to classify it as "normative insanity" and try to keep a rein on them. Reasonable men should encourage Christians to attend church often and pray for the atheists, scientist and reasonable men...this keeps these Christians off the streets and out of our children's pants.
Posted by: Bruce | July 8, 2009 10:38 AM
Glad you finished this post, PZ. I was writing a longish post Saturday night and then I got to the part where I was going to cite Bunting misquoting Sam Harris, amongst citing other pieces of sillyness she's written.
I fell asleep.
I'm falling asleep now. Maybe reading Bunting's work is another way of knowing how to cast Harry Potter's sleep spell.
I wonder how well her stuff'd go against a placebo/homeopathic insomnia treatment in a double-blind trial. Maybe she's on to something.
I'm having difficulty writing... Apologies for... Snooooooze...
Posted by: Andy Groves | July 8, 2009 10:41 AM
Religion used to provide answers to everything - what is thunder? Why do our crops fail? What happens when we die? As science emerged as a distinct discipline, religion has had most of its territory usurped. I think if you tried to pin down Rowan Williams on the questions that religion addresses, he would wave his hands and suggest "why" questions like "why are we here?", "why is there suffering in the world?", "is there purpose in life" and so on. Those are questions that neither science nor religion can answer - it's just that religion's inadequate answers are more comforting to some people than nothing at all. Personally, I can't imagine how "it's God's will" would be a satisfactory question to "why did my loved one die?", but then I wasn't really raised in a religious family.
Posted by: Ryan F Stello | July 8, 2009 10:41 AM
I enjoyed her way earlier book, The Battle for God, but this?
Seems she hasn't gotten past the concerned finger-wagging of her nunnery days.
Posted by: SEF | July 8, 2009 10:43 AM
@ Ashley Moore #23:
A closer analogy would be: "like on a rocket and in a bedtime story are two ways of travelling to the moon".
Religion is a way of pretending to know in order to avoid the bother (difficulty and effort) and inconvenience (including distaste) of actually knowing. Pretending is so much easier and pleasing to do for those sorts of people. It's much more satisfying to the meritless than the real thing. The converse is true for those of intrinsic worth who consistently feel obliged to find out the truth of matters instead.
It should probably be an advert: "only the truth will do - because you're worth it".
Posted by: Fatpie42 | July 8, 2009 10:43 AM
"I declare Spiderman, by definition, infinitely beyond human language."
If you do that, you cannot then declare him to be a human with spider-related senses who dresses in a special costume to fight crime.
Aquinas claimed that the only way God is ever understood is through analogy. This view was quite widely accepted. It doesn't make God real of course, but it is a definition consistent with the religious understanding of God.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | July 8, 2009 10:44 AM
Let's get logical here.
We start with the axiom that knowledge = power.
As the brisk Archbishop asserts, together with our host, nonsense has power.
And, as repeatedly shown in the most powerful nation, religion has power.
Ergo, religion = knowledge.
Science, etymologically, means knowledge.
Ergo again, science = religion, & religion = science.
What I want to know (scientifically and powerfully) is, how much are those angels peddling their bicycles for, and do they (the bikes) have a good gearing system so they can be pedaled up steep clouds?
Posted by: Lynna | July 8, 2009 10:47 AM
Dawkins needs to be more aware of the Tradition of Prevarication and the Tradition of Contradicting Claims. Once he remedies his ignorance of these traditions, he will cease to undermine them and he will be born again as a Bunting. He will also be cured of the terrible sin of presumption.
Posted by: Tabby Lavalamp | July 8, 2009 10:48 AM
Now that we've established that the bible isn't meant to be taken literally, does this mean "god" isn't supposed to be a literal deity, that there was no literal "Jesus Christ", that "sin" isn't a literal concept, and we don't need any literal redemption from a literal magical tyrant who will literally torture people for a literal eternity for thinking the wrong thoughts?Now if only they will stop trying to force this crap into literal laws.
Posted by: Geoff | July 8, 2009 10:51 AM
Hi everybody. I'm going to stick up for Karen Armstrong here:
1) That review sounds pompous and vacuous as hell, but keep in mind it's not her words.
2) Her book A HISTORY OF GOD is amazing. It's about how the Abrahamites have constantly reimagined God as their societies have evolved over the years. I've always been an atheist, but I don't see how anyone could read that book and maintain their faith. (My favorite story in the book was about the followers of Sabbatai Zevi, a self-proclaimed Jewish messiah who was forcibly converted to Islam. They couldn't admit he was a false messiah, so they followed him by "pretending" to convert to Islam. To this day, they act like Muslims outdoors and are devoutly Jewish indoors.)
3) Her book about the Crusades is pretty damn good too.
4) She's a former nun who abandoned Catholic dogmatism. I don't know if she ever became an outright atheist, but that's a good start at least.
Posted by: James Sweet | July 8, 2009 10:52 AM
airbagmoments said:
Well said! I absolutely agree. IMO there can sometimes be "value" in irrational epistemologies, but they can't in any way tell us anything about reality. That's the big objection I have: the confusion of the poetic with the real.
Posted by: AJ Milne | July 8, 2009 10:55 AM
Correction: with a religious understanding of god.
And it's no insignificant omission. Contemporary movements emphasisizing alleged direct experiences as central to their practise are common (yer rough Wikipedia numbers: 27 percent of Christianity), and note: extremely significant in political life--especially but not exclusively in the United States. Calling the charismatic movements' view of god as being one best described as 'comprehensible only by analogy' of course, isn't exactly wrong... insofar as if you're actually sane, that's probably the closest you're going to come. But for those in the movement, that description widely misses the notion that this 'Spiderman' we're discussing is allegedly very active in the world, in a distinct manner believers claim they perceive directly.
Posted by: cicely
|
July 8, 2009 10:56 AM
Religion is a teddy bear we clutch because The Dark is so scary.
Science is a way of finding out what the dark is, and what there is, or isn't, to fear in it.
Posted by: Jim Lippard | July 8, 2009 10:57 AM
I've got to add my plaudits for the use of "tergiversation," a word I heard for the first time two years ago from a 90-year-old professor of anthropology at Cambridge University and didn't expect to see used in a sentence.
But do the angels peddling bicycles ride them as well as sell them?
Posted by: mackennzie | July 8, 2009 10:57 AM
Long-time lurker butting in and bearing an on-topic gift!
Clicky!
Posted by: Geoff | July 8, 2009 11:02 AM
Posted by: Bernard Bumner
|
July 8, 2009 11:09 AM
Angels don't peddle bicycles, but they do rent out scooters: not to the devout, of course...
Posted by: Lynna | July 8, 2009 11:13 AM
Barnes & Noble's computers keep track of inventory. They know if they have a book in the store, even if it is not shelved correctly. Of course, clerks may have trouble finding the book if one moves it from Science to Religion, but the computer system will record when/if the book has been sold or is in stock.
Publishers like AIG and the Discovery Institute might be able to request multiple categories -- I'm not sure. But it would help if "Religion" was an option that store clerks could opt to use.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
July 8, 2009 11:14 AM
What's particularly worrisome about that is that it sounds like what the IDiots say. Only they are sure (claim to be, at least) that religion is better at answering "life questions," or some such rot, than science is.
It would seem to follow, after all. Surely "different ways of knowing" would suggest that they both provide meaningful answers, only in different areas.
Religion, however, doesn't.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: Tulse | July 8, 2009 11:14 AM
I just wanted to note Cuttlefish's amazing achievement in rhyming "phosphorus" and "Bosporus". I am continually in awe of the talent Cuttlefish has.
Posted by: ??? | July 8, 2009 11:18 AM
Religion is a different way of knowing about crackers.
Posted by: Silver Fox | July 8, 2009 11:19 AM
"…the Archbishop of Canterbury was brisk, --- in which science and religion were "different ways of knowing"
"We often get this vague claim that religion is a different methodology and a different way of knowing things, and that judging religion as a science is a category error. Very well: different way of knowing what?" -PZ
Well isn't that something. The good Archbishop has finally gotten it. He's now spot on.
"different way of knowing what? - PZ"
No PZ, there is no WHAT. EPISTEMOLOGY is the study of HOW one comes to know, not WHAT one comes to know. You see, WHAT is a question of ONTOLOGY not EPISTEMOLOGY, So, when speaking of categorical differences, the issue is HOW not WHAT.
Posted by: Lynna | July 8, 2009 11:20 AM
Re my post @#67: Whoops. Wrong thread. That comment was meant for the Mr. Deity thread. Apologies.
Posted by: bshock | July 8, 2009 11:21 AM
Respectfully, sir, religion is at least two forms of "knowing." (Or perhaps it should be rephrased as "a way of accepting information.")
The first way, and by far the most common, is "knowing" by means of authority. Most people gain their religious beliefs from what authority figures like parents or clergymen tell them. Everyone accepts a certain amount of information based on authority, which can be a useful shortcut, but is demonstrably less than optimal.
The second way is "knowledge by revelation," which is equivalent to hallucination or fabrication.
Therefore, I contend that religion is indeed a way of "knowing" -- it just so happens to be an extremely unreliable method.
Posted by: zaardvark | July 8, 2009 11:32 AM
It's true: science and religion are two different ways of understanding our universe -- the right way, and the wrong way, respectively.
Posted by: MrFire | July 8, 2009 11:33 AM
Who was it who said something along the lines of, "where science and religion are in conflict, religion always loses"?
Then there is the always-pertinent quote by (I believe) E. O. Wilson:
Posted by: Richard Eis | July 8, 2009 11:34 AM
It's alternative knowledge. Soon to become complementary knowledge. Then the obvious acronym CAK. Complementary and Alternative Knowledge.
Need we say more
Posted by: Notagod | July 8, 2009 11:35 AM
Spraken by airbagmoments and seconded by James Sweet:
there are things that can be understood outside the normal medium of thought
Bullshit! No specifics regarding "things" are given, it is so vague that it is meaningless. It is simply a call to an emotional response that has no justification. Emotion doesn't exist "outside" of thought is is a response to thought, it originates in the brain.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 8, 2009 11:35 AM
It still doesn't matter until you show physical evidence for your imagainary deity, and physically what is learned that isn't known by science. We are waiting for your evidence. Until you are ready to present that physical evidence, you need to STFU.Posted by: asiang | July 8, 2009 11:39 AM
A science-only approach just can't handle things we all know really exist in our lives such as love, compassion, grief, virtue, art, music..
And that is exactly why the science-only approach can't succeed - it has to block out so many things that we experience or see. Science simply isn't the right tool for everything thus other ways of knowing are needed to fully comprehend reality.
Posted by: tsg | July 8, 2009 11:39 AM
Religion is indistinguishable from delusion and, therefore, useless as a "way of knowing".
That doesn't stop them from saying what it is and being so bloody sure about it.
God is a goalpost with wheels on. Every time reality and religion collide, religion loses and the goalposts go further down the field.
Posted by: Rasamune | July 8, 2009 11:40 AM
I tried as hard as I could to parse this sentence, and my right ear started bleeding.
Posted by: Watchman | July 8, 2009 11:41 AM
Good cringe-worthy lulz there.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner
|
July 8, 2009 11:41 AM
Then it is a useless statement, since the "different way of knowing" is clearly meant to alude to a different category of knowledge than scientific enquiry can provide; the Archbishop of Canterbury was clearly trying to define to separate domains of knowledge in order to accomodate religion.
If, however, you're trying to pretend that religion and science are epistimologically equivalent methods to access the same knowledge, then you're wrong. This much can be assertained by comparing the validity of the answers obtained through religious versus scientific enquiry.
If the different kinds of enquiry can access different spheres of knowledge, then "what" is a perfectly valid question.
Posted by: Tulse | July 8, 2009 11:44 AM
Which is why the approach developed by a small tribe of illiterate bronze-age goatherders is useful? Even granting that your claim is correct, how does postulating a sky fairy address those issues in a meaningful way?
Posted by: tsg | July 8, 2009 11:44 AM
In fact, I think you will find the opposite is true: religion conforms to the mores of the society and not the other way around. In other words, my god hates what I hate. It's always been that way.
Posted by: DaveH | July 8, 2009 11:53 AM
Just to reiterate someguywandering's link at #18, you will not regret reading the rather wonderful Mr Crace
Also, jesus'n'mo are discussing her theology with Moses at the moment.
The big question that religion obviously explains is: why am I so important? I mean, the supreme ruler and creator of the universe watches to see what I do in bed, if I wish really, really hard for something (but humbly, of course) he'll listen to me!!!one!
God so loved the world (well, OK, he had to say that, but really it's all about MY soul and eternal life) that he sacrificed his only son. Gettit? It was for MEEEEEE!!!!!
Posted by: Lyr
|
July 8, 2009 12:01 PM
Regarding 'different ways of knowing'...
Religious knowing is believing what your religion's authority figures and holy books say is true, regardless of your own experience or any new information that comes in. It requires blind faith in the rightness of what your religion says, even in the presence of evidence to the contrary.
Scientific knowing is the opposite of this. It's based on observation, experimentation, and repeatability -- it's based on verifiable evidence. It does not require unswerving belief in any single theory or person; in fact it *requires* that anything that doesn't fit into a current theory be investigated, as the theory may be incorrect. We don't ignore what doesn't fit into our current worldview. Theories can never be proven, only disproven; and when they are, we don't cling to them.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | July 8, 2009 12:04 PM
""I declare Spiderman, by definition, infinitely beyond human language."
If you do that, you cannot then declare him to be a human with spider-related senses who dresses in a special costume to fight crime."
Why not? You might as well say that once you've defined God to be infinitely beyond human language, you then can't declare God to be loving, creative, good etc.
:)
Posted by: ??? | July 8, 2009 12:04 PM
Religion is a different way of knowing about crackers.
Speaking of which, the Prime Minister of Canada seemingly has desecrated the host. Let the death threats, self-righteous indignation and apoplexy of Bill Donohue begin!
Posted by: AJ Milne | July 8, 2009 12:10 PM
This, of course, is an excellent question. And hey, answering it anyway (was it rhetorical? was this one?), the comment you're answering is the standard false dichotomy trotted out all the time in this area... the Buntings 'n other blitherers are fond of it: science doesn't help here... so we need religion.
And no, the latter does not follow from the former. Nor is the former entirely true, either, for that matter. Insofar as a rational understanding of the world can help you in a moment of grief, and subscribing to some standard superstition or another wouldn't necessarily become your prescription for consolation as a default merely because reason failed to do so. I myself at the death of a loved one do not attempt to convince myself s/he's now off on a cloud playing a harp, but do remind myself: they left us with much, our memories, what they taught us... in this limited sense, bits of what they were survive, even if their consciousness is now extinguished. I do not claim this is 'spiritual', that dreadful weasel world that can mean anything... just that it is true, so far as it goes, and it's a nice thing, anyway.
Now I can hear any number of idiot apologists out there clamouring: but that's all we're saying, too, in our way... And if that were actually true, I might give them a break, but no, too frequently, that's not all they're doing... They're deliberately confusing the emotional issues that naturally arise around such circumstances, trying deliberately to use that opportunity ultimately to smuggle all kinds of other moralizing baggage into that observation, which frankly, I find kinda unseemly. It tends to slide, if you let them get away with it, through such dodgy and silly chains of thought as 'their memories at least live' to 'souls live as long as memories' thus 'thus there are souls' thus 'thus my god is there' to 'thus you may not call my superstition what it is', or even to 'thus my moral prescriptions based on my gut feelings and those of a motley crew of axe grinders over several millenia are valid'...
Which is an ugly business. A bit like plundering the bones of the dead for your own foul purposes, y'ask me.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | July 8, 2009 12:11 PM
That may be fine for some religions, but for "religious types" who believe in a god that is all-powerful, and that demands obedience, it's simply not possible to leave others alone: Even if the god didn't demand that its followers proselytize, the followers would never be able to tolerate living lives of strict obediance while others "got away" with living lives of self-governed liberty.
Imagine working under a cruel and demanding boss, yet alongside others who ignore the boss' rules and assignments with happy impunity. Intolerable! Insufferable! So followers of authoritarian gods must work to subject their entire society to their gods' authority; if they don't, theire society will surely leave them behind in unhappy bondage. Bondage, like other forms of misery, not only loves, but requires, company.
And so it's pointless to hope that Christians and Muslims in particular, and monotheists in general, will "leave the rest of us alone"; their belief system drives them in deep, fundamental ways to do the opposite. Sure, there are liberals and moderates who promote a tolerant, humanistic version of those religion, but they are quite correctly understood by True Believers™ to be apostates, false to their faiths. They're trying to separate the positive social aspects of religious practice — ceremony, community, charity — from the intolerance that's inescapably part of true belief in an omnipresent, omnipotent, interventionist god... but it won't work: As long as the belief in a god whose will transcends the human sphere, the impulse to subject one's fellows to that will will always rear its head; to do otherwise would be to deny the supremacy of one's god... and god won't tolerate that.
Posted by: asiang | July 8, 2009 12:12 PM
Most people understand that “absence of proof” is not equivalent to “proof of absence” – they realise that some things (love, virtue, compassion, music, god....) are not provable or disprovable in the scientific realm but they see and experience them every second of their life.
Most (possibly all) human beings realise that a merely scientific approach -“If I can’t test it and see it with science it can’t be real”- will ultimately fail because such approach is woefully inadequate to tackle our full knowledge and experience of all that it is to be human.
Posted by: Stu
|
July 8, 2009 12:18 PM
they realise that some things (love, virtue, compassion, music, god....) are not provable or disprovable in the scientific realm but they see and experience them every second of their life.
Wait, music is not provable in the scientific realm?
And that's for starters. Compassion, for one, is fairly well understood to be beneficial in an evolutionary sense. Love is an abstract concept, and people do not experience it. And what the fuck is "virtue"?
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 8, 2009 12:20 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WhuikFY1Pg
Posted by: Tulse | July 8, 2009 12:20 PM
...and therefore, a sky fairy exists that cares deeply about your sex life but lets children starve. Yeah, I see the logic in that.
Posted by: AJ Milne | July 8, 2009 12:21 PM
^^^We would like to submit this as exhibit B for the prosecution, your honour.
Posted by: Shaggy Maniac | July 8, 2009 12:24 PM
Most (possibly all) human beings realise that a merely scientific approach -“If I can’t test it and see it with science it can’t be real”- will ultimately fail because such approach is woefully inadequate to tackle our full knowledge and experience of all that it is to be human.
OK, so we can appreciate the value of art, music, poetry, and community to enhance our human experience. Other than its use of the same, how does religion exactly help?
Posted by: RJ | July 8, 2009 12:26 PM
@92
You seem to be saying that some people claim '-“If I can’t test it and see it with science it can’t be real”'. Not so.
More accurate: If I can't test it according to methods that can be understood and shared by people who don't share my assumptions, I have no reason to believe it is real. Up to now, as far as any non-trivial knowledge is concerned, only science and logic have furnished any such methods.
Posted by: Damian | July 8, 2009 12:29 PM
I'm fed up of saying this, but an absence of evidence is in fact really good evidence of absence. How could it not be?
That obviously doesn't mean that the evidence will always be absent, however, just that you are going to have to come up with a better reason for believing something than, "Well, it might exist, so I'm gonna go right ahead and believe it, until...".
Until what? Until we actually find evidence? That's awfully convenient.
Posted by: robinsrule | July 8, 2009 12:31 PM
So if one understands the physics of rainbows, they are no longer beautiful?
Posted by: Jim Harrison | July 8, 2009 12:34 PM
Reducing everything to the discovery of true propositions is simply the ideology of the nerd, the credo of the hapless guys on the Big Bang Theory. Its pretty damned narrow since it not only leaves out most of what people care about but devalues such cognitive activities as literature, history, the pursuit of the law, and politics in order to badmouth theology. Indeed, figuring out how one should live, heck, actually living, involves thinking and most of that thinking is simply not scientific, i.e. not anti-scientific, just something else to do.
Polemic makes everybody come across as stupider than they actually are. Even so, it's odd that folks who claim to be scientists find it so difficult to look at issues and people objectively that they manage to confuse Ken Ham and Rudolf Bultmann.
Posted by: tsg | July 8, 2009 12:34 PM
Absence of evidence (because that is what we are talking about) is evidence of absence if evidence is expected to be there if the thing is. The more you look and don't find any, the more evidence it isn't there. I can conclude my car keys aren't on the coffee table because there is no evidence they are.
Four of the five things you list are emotional and/or subjective. Here's another: pain. And science "proves" pain all the time. The same can be done for any of those other four things.
The fifth, god, is not subjective by any real definition of the word. If it is observable, science can understand god. If it isn't, then nobody, including those who claim to, can know anything about it.
Even if this is true (and I don't believe it is), that doesn't make religion a valid approach to "knowing".
Posted by: Silver Fox | July 8, 2009 12:34 PM
"if the different kinds of enquiry can access different spheres of knowledge, then "what" is a perfectly valid question."
It is a valid question ontologically but not epistemologically. In science how one comes to know is through posing hypotheses, experimenting, observing and drawing conclusions - through investigation. That is the epistemological methodology of knowledge of the natural world - what is out there. That is what the scientist knows is out there (ontology).
Religious knowledge is knowledge borne of faith, a free gift of the creator. If you refuse, reject, or distort that gift, you're stuck in an atheistic mentality which will allow you to know only the ontology of the natural world derived at through the scientific method.
Knowledge borne of faith is to be sure subjective epistemic knowledge with no second party confirmation, but that knowledge to the knower is an ontological reality. There is an epistemic transformation of the mind which is a property of the brain which is a product of evolutionary biology.
Now, to the atheistic mentality this is delusional and a lot of "made up bullshit". Everyone of any religious persuasion understands that lacking knowledge outside the natural world is fairy tales to you. Everyone understands that in order to justify a denial of any sort of deity, you must denigrate any knowledge that is not naturalistic, materialistic or comport with anything other than pure physicalism.
I have been through this many times and have arrived at the point that I am fairly well convinced that there is no philosophical basis upon which a religious person can communicate with an atheistic mentality. The above paradigm would pretty well bare that out. The only explanation I can give myself for continuing to post here is that: Hope springs eternal.
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 8, 2009 12:35 PM
Love, virtue, compassion, and music are not provable? Only if you are a fucking retard.
There, fixed.
Posted by: Jim Harrison | July 8, 2009 12:36 PM
Reducing everything to the discovery of true propositions is simply the ideology of the nerd, the credo of the hapless guys on the Big Bang Theory. Its pretty damned narrow since it not only leaves out most of what people care about but devalues such cognitive activities as literature, history, the pursuit of the law, and politics in order to badmouth theology. Indeed, figuring out how one should live, heck, actually living, involves thinking and most of that thinking is simply not scientific, i.e. not anti-scientific, just something else to do.
Polemic makes everybody come across as stupider than they actually are. Even so, it's odd that folks who claim to be scientists find it so difficult to look at issues and people objectively that they manage to confuse Ken Ham and Rudolf Bultmann.
Posted by: Darren Garrison | July 8, 2009 12:38 PM
If I were more of a scholar of Chaucer, here is where I'd list the positions on the science/religion issue from other major characters in The Canterbury Tales. But I'm not a scholar of Chaucer, so one will have to imagine that something witty and droll was said here that would have been highly appreciated by a small number of people with advanced degrees in English.
Posted by: CJO | July 8, 2009 12:38 PM
Most (possibly all) human beings realise that a merely scientific approach -“If I can’t test it and see it with science it can’t be real”- will ultimately fail because such approach is woefully inadequate to tackle our full knowledge and experience of all that it is to be human.
Even if we grant all that for the sake of argument, Tulse's question stands. I submit that ancient mythology is merely interesting (if one finds history and anthropology interesting); that it, too --moreso!-- "is woefully inadequate to tackle our full knowledge and experience of all that it is to be human." Not least precisely because that "full knowledge and experience" has been profoundly informed by empirical discoveries.
Posted by: asiang | July 8, 2009 12:43 PM
Science has its limitations – it struggles to engage with art, poetry, music, literature,god,awe... with what it means to “live” (beyond a biological description). It struggles even to engage with philosophy and can add very little that is meaningful to moral debates. Science stumbles with concepts such as virtue, beauty, justice, courage, prudence, hope, faith or love.
We need something else to address the above issues and that is exactly what religion and theology have done for thousands of years.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 8, 2009 12:45 PM
No, the delusional like you are stupid and stubborn. You will convince nobody here of anything without physical evidence. And you have acknowledged you have none. So, until you have some, you may as well go bother some other blog where someone might actually pay the attention you want to your ravings.Posted by: Robocop | July 8, 2009 12:49 PM
I'm fed up of saying this, but an absence of evidence is in fact really good evidence of absence.
Lot's of people lost lots of money in the past year believing this nonsense. You might want to read Taleb's The Black Swan.
I think we've all mastered that lesson by now. It's time for the theologians to grow up and move on to questions with some heft and meaning, that are actually applicable to our lives and our culture.
I'll try one in reverse. The Declaration of Independence postulates inalienable rights endowed by a Creator. Without one with the authority to endow such rights, these rights can't be inalienable -- they can only come into being and be retained by some combination of persuasion, consent and force. They aren't really rights at all. At best, they are benefits offered by those in power, which benefits are subject to being taken away at will. How do you propose to work for the good of humankind (assuming you do) in a world where the concept of human rights is necessarily incoherent?
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 8, 2009 12:50 PM
We get it Jim, you are a big strapping jock among us nerds. That just makes you so much better than us.
In case you've missed the last century of western higher education. Academic study of literature, history, law, political science, and even theology are based on empirical deconstructions of their respective subjects using secular assumptions.
Posted by: Shaggy Maniac | July 8, 2009 12:51 PM
We need something else to address the above issues and that is exactly what religion and theology have done for thousands of years.
Possibly to some extent, but not because of anything to do with belief in the supernatural/gods. As I indicated above, religious practice often entails art, music, poetry, literature, and community; these, I am suggesting, are sufficient to address the issues you raise in complement to science. The supernatural belief really adds nothing in particular.
Posted by: tsg | July 8, 2009 12:52 PM
Re: #89
From the article:
I'm calling this out right now because it's the entire fucking point behind Crackergate: a Roman Catholic is telling a Protestant how he should behave because of what the Roman Catholics believe. The PM was offered a cracker and should have declined it because Roman Catholics think it is wrong for him to accept it. This, in no uncertain terms, is saying that it is disrespectful to the religion to disobey its rules even if you aren't a follower of that religion.
Fuck you Neil MacCarthy.
Posted by: asiang | July 8, 2009 12:53 PM
@CJO and Tulse
Neither mythology nor "illiterate bronze-age goatherders" have addressed the issues I have cited but instead thousands of highly intelligent theologians throughout history.
Posted by: Stu
|
July 8, 2009 12:53 PM
Its pretty damned narrow since it not only leaves out most of what people care about
No it does not.
but devalues such cognitive activities as literature, history, the pursuit of the law, and politics in order to badmouth theology.
How?
Posted by: ??? | July 8, 2009 12:55 PM
I'll try one in reverse. The Declaration of Independence postulates inalienable rights endowed by a Creator. Without one with the authority to endow such rights, these rights can't be inalienable -- they can only come into being and be retained by some combination of persuasion, consent and force. They aren't really rights at all. At best, they are benefits offered by those in power, which benefits are subject to being taken away at will.
I'll take "Missing the Point Completely" for $1000, Alex!
Posted by: Damian | July 8, 2009 12:56 PM
And I think that you need to read what I said again. ;)
Posted by: Bernard Bumner
|
July 8, 2009 12:58 PM
Which is exactly what PZ then went on to discuss.
Anyway, it still ultimately addresses the epistemological validity of religious knowledge. Unless one subscribes to the school of philosophical thought that all beliefs are knowledge, which clearly isn't a universal consensus, then the what seeks to validate the how. However, if you believe that knowledge is simply any thought held to be true, then religion is indeed a method of knowing.
But, the Archbishop was clearly trying to distinguish between two different spheres of knowledge, and of equal validity. In that respect, what is entirely to the point and relevant. It doesn't matter whether it was an epistemological or ontological question; PZ asked a question which you quite wrongly dismissed.
Posted by: tsg | July 8, 2009 1:00 PM
Re: #108
Same thing said three different times in three different ways ignoring the criticisms that follow. Vapid platitudes presented as self-evident truths. Nothing more.
Posted by: gdlchmst | July 8, 2009 1:00 PM
Agreed.
Why is the concept of human rights incoherent? When we say human rights, we mean that rights, privileges, or benefits that are extended to the entire population by those in power. In a democracy, that is the citizens of a state. If everyone in a state wants something (human rights, in this instance), we cooperate to achieve it. For example, most of Americans like free speech, so we cooperate and legally tolerate speech with contents that we do not like.
Posted by: Robocop | July 8, 2009 1:01 PM
And I think that you need to read what I said again.
Don't make stupid stupider. Are all swans white?
Posted by: Notagod | July 8, 2009 1:05 PM
Sliver Fox wrote:
That is how george bush was enabled to invade Iraq. His god idea "knowledge" confirmed there were weapons of mass destruction, even when the evidence showed otherwise. Plus, his god idea "knowledge" told him to invade Iraq. That "knowledge" borne of faith is some "knowledge" that humans can certainly do without.
Posted by: ??? | July 8, 2009 1:05 PM
Don't make stupid stupider. Are all swans white?
Well, Lynn Swann isn't. Nor are those blue mountain pottery ones. Your point?
Posted by: BrianM | July 8, 2009 1:06 PM
I'm sorry, asiang, but like the author in question you are resorting to vague terms and emotional words that ultimately don't explain much, and certainly don't require religion. These "things" are for the most part emotional states, and science certainly does explain where they come from, their purpose (from a biological standpoint), etc. Love of good music can be explained as the inherent preference of our brains and nervous systems for pattern. Compassion is a behavior (backed by emotional states created by chemical activity in the brain) supported by generations of evolution and social conditioning. These emotions are not mystical realities which can only be explained by imaginary stories. That doesn't negate their value, but to state that the existance of music appreciation means any particular religion is true or offers any explanation for why we enjoy a particular musical piece or form is nonsense.
Posted by: Robocop | July 8, 2009 1:07 PM
Why is the concept of human rights incoherent?
For the simple reason that they are not rights in any meaningful sense if they aren't inalienable, and can't be inalienable without an something like a God.
Posted by: Robocop | July 8, 2009 1:11 PM
Your point?
Duh. Inductive conclusions are in no way evidence. A significant correlary (upon which Taleb focuses) is that such conclusions are wrong far more often than we tend to think.
Posted by: Stu
|
July 8, 2009 1:15 PM
For the simple reason that they are not rights in any meaningful sense if they aren't inalienable
But they aren't inalienable. That's kind of the point, no matter how lofty it all sounds.
and can't be inalienable without an something like a God.
Yes, God has always been really good with human rights.
*facepalm*
Posted by: asing | July 8, 2009 1:15 PM
@119
There are things that science cannot address(this is self-evident)thus we need something else to approach them.
What of this simple statement is so hard to understand, tsg?
Posted by: Bernard Bumner
|
July 8, 2009 1:19 PM
Is it? (Please give examples.)
Posted by: tsg | July 8, 2009 1:19 PM
Re: #108
I and others have made our criticisms clear and you avoid and ignore them. I've given you your three chances and then some. Now I don't care anymore.
Posted by: Damian | July 8, 2009 1:21 PM
I've read the book, thank you very much. Now explain to us all how it is not reasonable to conclude that an absence of evidence is in fact excellent evidence of absence?
Or are you going to continue with absurd book recommendations, rather than actually making your own arguments? In other words, is there actually any point in responding to you?
By the way, read "Baboon Metaphysics" — it contains all answers to everything that you are likely to ever want to know.
This argument ad book recommendation is terrific!
Posted by: Stu
|
July 8, 2009 1:26 PM
No guys, he's right. Science cannot address untestable and unfalsifiable crap that people make up.
Oh, wait! Now I get it.
Posted by: Ray S. | July 8, 2009 1:26 PM
Science is a way of knowing; religion is a way of pretending that you know. Science does not deny an individual's subjective and personal feelings (grief, passion, beauty, love, etc. are not knowledge as I want to use the term). But to say that science cannot address them at all is false. I also cannot take comfort in feel good falsehoods like "he's no longer suffering now", or "Dahmer is roasting in Hell". I prefer the truth as far as I can discern it, and honestly admitting I don't know when that is the case.
Show me some evidence of something, anything, actually outside the natural world. Then show me how it interacts with the natural world the rest of us live in (in which case we should be able to detect it). If it doesn't interact with the natural world, then tell me why I should care, 'cause that's where I'll spend the only life I have.
Posted by: asiang | July 8, 2009 1:28 PM
@129
For example the realm of aesthetics,emotions and morals.
Science has little to contribute to a discussion of these attributes compared to philosophy and theology.
Posted by: tsg | July 8, 2009 1:29 PM
It's a metaphor. When Jefferson and others wrote those words, they were not saying they could not be alienated, but that they should not be alienated.
The only real inalienable right any living being has is the right to try to survive, and you don't need a god to give it to you.
Posted by: Jim Harrison | July 8, 2009 1:33 PM
gdlchmst admonished me, pointing out:
In case you've missed the last century of western higher education. Academic study of literature, history, law, political science, and even theology are based on empirical deconstructions of their respective subjects using secular assumptions.
There are indeed empirical studies of literature, history, law, and so forth, but putting aside the real issue of whether the methods of these studies are comparable to those of the natural sciences, knowledge about literature or the practice of history is not the same as literature or history. Basic category mistake. The knowledge of sugar is not sweet. Meanwhile, I don't understand what "secular assumptions" has to do with anything since I'm not promoting unsecular assumptions. Not everything that is not scientific is theological. The opposite of red is not green: it's not-red, which you would probably realize if you weren't obsessed with a culture war against religion. I'm not, so my mind still more or less works. In any case, I'm a fan of theology: I'm a fan of civilization.
By the way, even as a big strapping jock, I'm aware of how peculiar it is to talk about such as a thing as "empirical deconstruction." Deconstruction, after all, is a concept introduced by the Poststructuralist philosopher Derrida and doesn't have anything to do with debunking traditional ideas by confronting them with facts. Of course words do lose their original sense as they become merely fashionable--in this respect deconstruction has merely suffered the fate of paradigm and many other misused philosophical terms--but we really don't need another hazy synonym for analysis or refutation. Do you actually know what deconstruction meant when it still meant something?
Posted by: Matt Heath | July 8, 2009 1:34 PM
Well science can tell us something useful about each of those things, but I'll accept it's not how we usually come to understand to them.But what tools are there for making sense of them? Our own experience, of course and guesses at how things fit together. Other people's statements about their personal experience and their guesses. Philosophers can pick apart the concepts: show where are questions about them may simply come down to linguistic confusion or whatever. Humanities scholars can track the history of the concepts (and will have to use evidence in a way that probably doesn't qualify as "science"). Finally, the arts can express things about these topics; maybe things that could be translated into normal language, maybe not.
And so where does religion come in? I can't see it's ever doing anything beyond what's described above and usually it's done it badly. It freezes people's guesses as to what's behind their subjective experience into dogma. It shields them from the potential of the scientist, the philosopher and the humanist to show mistakes, except perhaps for very limited and controlled examination (such as the licence given to Jesuits to poke catholic theology about). Often it preserves the most useless answers such as "Good thing X is a reflection of God" and "Bad thing is the lack of God".
The "murky" theologians (such as the ABC, a fairly decent chap in most ways, I think) assert that religious statements and practices speak on the level of the arts. Well, OK but they don't follow this to it's sensible conclusion: that religions are just fandoms for a particular artistic movement. If religion is art then why do we treat Janes (as a group) differently to Janites? Why is saying Christianity is bollocks treated so differently to saying that Wagner's operas or Brazilian telenovelas are bollocks. I'm prepared to accept the worth of religion as art when (and only when) at least one sophisticated theologian admits that believers getting angry about blasphemy are behaving in exactly the same way as Marvel Comics fans flaming a DC-loving troll on a YouTube comment thread, and that they deserve no more respect.
Posted by: Stu
|
July 8, 2009 1:34 PM
aesthetics
Yes, of course. There has been no scientific research on aesthetics at all.
emotions
I can give you a pill to make you laugh. I can give you a pill to make you cry. Pretty darned physical, natural and testable.
morals
Morals are an abstract concept that people made up, and as such can mean whatever the hell we want to. (And it's pretty damned useless as a concept besides, unless you are a philosophy major trying to avoid the poorhouse).
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 8, 2009 1:36 PM
Fixed it for you. Only if your unproven imaginary deity exists, can theology be added. Until you show physical evidence for your deity, no.Posted by: MrFire | July 8, 2009 1:37 PM
This is known, I think, as special pleading.
According to your statement, you have no right to argue with: (i) people devoutly committed to faiths other than your own, (ii) the mentally ill, (iii) my own personal conviction that god and jesus are having hot, sweaty incest right now.
Religious belief never provided me with anything unique, useful, or even tangible, and was in any case indistinguishable from the other phantoms flying through my head.
Posted by: Robocop | July 8, 2009 1:37 PM
I've read the book, thank you very much.
Good.
Now explain to us all how it is not reasonable to conclude that an absence of evidence is in fact excellent evidence of absence?
But you clearly didn't understand it.
An inductive conclusion based upon a lack of evidence doesn't magically and wooishly transform into affirmative evidence. The fact that you've seen a billion swans and that they were all white isn't evidence that all swans are indeed white. The fact that the markets have never performed in a given way in the past isn't evidence that it won't perform that way in the future.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner
|
July 8, 2009 1:39 PM
I think you've misunderstood the meaning of the quote absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
The quote was, I believe, originated by Carl Sagan. It is not meant to imply that absence of evidence is evidence of presence - quite the opposite. It simply means that, in the absence of evidence, one cannot assume that such evidence does not exist. (Of course, counter-evidence will necessarily imply that such evidence does not exist.)
Evidence may be absent for a number of reasons - not looking for it would be chief amongst them. If I have no evidence, because I have not looked, then I cannot conclude that the thing is absent. For example, the absence of evidence for a non-supernatural origin of the universe should not lead me to conclude (as it did early humans) that such a non-supernatural origin did not occur.
Posted by: MikeyM | July 8, 2009 1:41 PM
@69:
I just wanted to note Cuttlefish's amazing achievement in rhyming "phosphorus" and "Bosporus".
When it comes to verse, Cuttlefish is definitely the boss for us.
Posted by: Patricia, Queen of Sluts OM
|
July 8, 2009 1:41 PM
The game is Show & Tell, Silver Fox. Not tell, and tell, and tell.... Now toddle along home, and don't come back until you have a gawd to show us. That's a good boy.
Posted by: Robocop | July 8, 2009 1:46 PM
It's a metaphor. When Jefferson and others wrote those words, they were not saying they could not be alienated, but that they should not be alienated.
Do you have any evidence that Jefferson only meant it in such an airy, high-falutin', vague, don't-really-mean-it sorta way?
Posted by: noodles | July 8, 2009 1:49 PM
I see your vague yet meaningless quote and raise with vagueness masqueradeing as profundity: "There is a reality. We are that reality. When you understand this, you see that you are nothing, and being nothing, you are everything. That is all." I win! The only way you can defeat me now is with completely unintelligible gibberish.
Posted by: Desert Son, OM
|
July 8, 2009 1:51 PM
asiang at #108:
I'm not sure what you mean by "struggles to engage" with the things you mentioned. Can you please clarify?
I'm glad you mentioned awe. One of the things I'm interested in is cognition and motivation just prior to, during, and immediately following an awesome (in the original sense of that word) experience. Psychology, for example, may be one area of scientific exploration that can tell us important things about that experience, how it propagates, common qualities that can help a broader range of people grapple with the awesome, how to translate the awesome experience into focused direction (as another example), and so forth.
Chemistry and biology and physics can explore things such as neural activity during an experience of something awesome. We can learn more about physiological information that, in turn, informs psychological processes, bringing two areas of science (physical or "hard" science like biology and chemistry and social science like psychology) to bear to better understand an experience like awe.
An aspect about this I find particularly compelling is that none of that scientific exploration diminishes in any way (for me at least) the beauty of an artistic experience, for example.
As a personal anecdote: I continue to marvel at the image of the "Earthrise" photograph from the Apollo 8 lunar mission in late 1968. It's simply amazing to me, and also, I feel, stunningly beautiful. I visit NASA's Astronomy Picture of the Day website (http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/) every day, too, and those pictures are amazing, beautiful, awe-inspiring. Not a single one of those has any reduction in the aesthetic quality I find in them despite all the science that is available not only to make the images possible in the first place, but also to analyze and study them.
I admire the painting of Rembrandt very much. I think his work is so incredibly beautiful, striking, powerful, compelling, challenging, and more. It may be that advanced eye-tracking software, physical and mathematical analysis, photo-receptor information, psychology, and other scientific processes can explain exactly why I, individually, find Rembrandt's work so wonderful (I'm not the only one, just as there are also many people who don't care for Rembrandt's work).
And if so . . . none of that, not a single bit of it, makes my experience of Rembrandt any less wonderful! In some cases, a deeper knowledge of some things may make the experience even better (I don't know that that will necessarily apply to all aesthetic experiences, but regardless, it may for some).
I can still enjoy Bach's music (even though he was profoundly religious and I am profoundly not), I can still marvel at the beauty I see in nature, or crafted art by humans, or any number of things, and science shedding greater light on them does not detract from my experience!
But none of those experiences necessitate divine explanation.
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: Bobber
|
July 8, 2009 1:52 PM
Only if you're dealing in 100%, non-changeable certainties. The question should be regarding likelihood. If the population of swans is 1,000,000,001, and you've seen one billion white swans, odds are pretty good that the last swan is going to be white - but of course you can't be certain about that until you've seen it. Again, I'm not a scientist, but isn't science provisional in that way - statement A is factual until contradictory evidence is found, in which case new statement B is regarded as factual, and so on?
Posted by: Matt Heath | July 8, 2009 1:52 PM
The second part might be true for (large enough values of "inalienable"). The first part is false. The concept of (purely conventional) public rights of way existed in English law long before inalienable human rights were conceived of and the language has never changed in such a way that it was wrong to talk about rights created purely by convention. Take copyright for example or the right to buy a council house.Posted by: Matthew Moody | July 8, 2009 1:58 PM
"the early Christians seem to sigh across the centuries."
Sure seem like a sad lot.
Posted by: koan0215 | July 8, 2009 2:02 PM
There are lots of ways of conceiving human rights that leave God aside. For one, a society can simply agree on a definition and move from there. Obviously it would be tidier to know that there is a natural root for human rights, but there doesn't need to be. In any case whether I want there to be a deity guaranteeing my rights is beside the point when wondering if that deity exists or not.
Posted by: chris | July 8, 2009 2:02 PM
Ray S. wrote:
Ah, you've stumbled upon another value to superstitious thinking: it allows the delusional to reap a sense of personal vengeance instead of suffering from impotent rage or learning to move on by rational means.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner
|
July 8, 2009 2:02 PM
No, but everything which lacks the potential to be explained by science is either subjective experience or philosophy. I'm still not sure that the latter two aren't merely products of human limitations when expressing certain categories of concept.
No, but science can explain everything up to the point of that subjective experience; how and why sugar tastes like the consensus exprience "sweet". That it does is simply a trivial description of a shared experience, and if those are the only things left to explain, then they require little explanation.
Posted by: H.H. | July 8, 2009 2:03 PM
Silver Fox blathered:
By what means can an individual know that their gift of faith has been distorted? How do you know that your religious knowledge has not been twisted or corrupted? What corrective measures are in place to guard against errors and false positives?
How does one religious person communicate to another religious person then? You act as if the choice is between divine revelation or atheism. It isn't. It's often between competing faith claims, Silver Fox. One doesn't need to be an atheist to see that everyone who claims to possess "subjective epistemic knowledge" can't all be correct, since the claims are often mutually exclusive. People don't have to deny all deities to think a particular religion's revelations are bullshit, SF, they just have to think you're god is bullshit. Their god is the correct god who provides true knowledge. You worship a false deceiver. And under the rules of faith, you have no method for telling who is correct. It's all empty assertion where claims are settled by who can shout the loudest or kill the most enemies. So faith is not a "way of knowing." The problem faith cannot overcome is precisely that it has zero way of knowing. By definition, all faith claims must be given equal weight. That's not an entomology because there is no method there.Posted by: Robocop | July 8, 2009 2:04 PM
The concept of (purely conventional) public rights of way existed in English law long before inalienable human rights were conceived of and the language has never changed in such a way that it was wrong to talk about rights created purely by convention. Take copyright for example or the right to buy a council house.
I understand the usage (it's, I suspect, why Jefferson wrote "inalienable rights"), but if the alleged "right" is conditional or can be taken away, it isn't really a right. It's simply a contingent benefit.
Posted by: AJ Milne | July 8, 2009 2:05 PM
The 'religion provides morals' thing is just the same BS, yet again. Human beings work out their own moral codes, or hadn't you noticed: they do change over time. Sure, religions then try to claim the credit for them--insist they came from whichever deity is their current mascot. But it's the same game as they always play: something you probably do need (those codes) glued onto something you definitely don't (that god)...
Yes, the very process by which we now arrive at laws in the west is more or less the same as it always was, if a bit more formalized, now: haggle and argue, in committees and courts, day after day. Nakedly secular, and always was, however must the godbots try to tangle their muddled notions up in with it, and grab a little credit for doing so. Why else would you suppose the god was once for slavery, and is now against? Nice of it to catch on that such shit's just wrong, but it was humans who made that happen, not the god.
I mean: religion as the source of morality? As if. Women and men, good, bad, and desperate, stand on their principles, however they come by them, stand up and protest and fight and sometimes die in the streets at the hands of the riot cops, good legislators make their orations: that's how you get laws. And we all sit down and we ask ourselves: how can we live, what can we put up with, what can we get away with, what is acceptable, and it bubbles up, bit by bit, out of us all. All participants at all times, if they were raised in the religious culture, will frame their interest as what the god wants, but there's no more evidence this is true than there was when Mohammed claimed an angle had conveniently just told him he could have as many wives as he damned well pleased.
Remember: the democratic franchise started slowly and small--the power that had to be traded by the sovereign to his lords and his lords only for the barest reasons of stability practical requirements foisted upon him, and he signed the magna carta at the point of a sword, broke every provision just as soon as he thought he could get away with it. Are we to suppose, again, that that was god's hand in this? Or was he busy directing the weather that day? No, men not yet landowners have the right to vote and women have the right to vote and blacks have the right to vote because they demanded it, not because any god did, however much they and their various opponents at the time believed that god was on their side. And yet still the pontiff pontificates on sex and stem cells as if anyone should be listening to his blather, because he's the divine emissary of the voices in his own head, and, oddly enough, there are still those who do listen.
They should know better. We all should. So you can take that 'we need religion for morals' BS of yours and shove it back up the hole you pulled it out of, thanks kindly.
Posted by: Tulse | July 8, 2009 2:06 PM
How do you propose to argue for divinely-provided inalienable human rights when the concept of god is necessarily incoherent?
Whoa, there, bucko -- religion does make claims about discovering true propositions; that's pretty much its whole justification. The only distinction is the manner in which such alleged truth is discovered.
And to be clear, no one is saying that everything is reducible to the discovery of true propositions. The things in your list are social activities and constructs, and as a result don't really involve truth claims in the standard sense (with the exception of history in some senses). I think we all appreciate music and art, and debate the best form of government, and talk about what is moral or immoral, but when we are doing that we are generally not making truth claims -- the question of the Beatles versus the Rolling Stones is not actually decidable (at least not without objective criteria).
Posted by: tsg | July 8, 2009 2:08 PM
Ignoring the deliberate misrepresentation of what I wrote, the very next sentence says, "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...." If these rights can't possibly be taken away, it isn't necessary to institute a government to secure them.
And the majority of the document is a list of ways in which the King of England has been alienating these rights.
In other words, it's clear from the context.
Posted by: AJ Milne | July 8, 2009 2:09 PM
Addendum to the above: I have it on good authority that the angle who told Mohammed he could have whatever harem he required has not yet been precisely measured...
Carry on.
Posted by: koan0215 | July 8, 2009 2:18 PM
Silverfox can you elaborate on this? Are you claiming that knowledge through faith becomes true for the faith holder or are you only claiming that they think that the faith knowledge is true?
Posted by: Pareidolius | July 8, 2009 2:21 PM
No, "everyone" doesn't understand that. Science informs me that my awe at the majesty of the (otherwise meaning-free) universe, and my love of music and my family is the product of electrochemical reactions in my brain. This knowledge didn't make those feelings any less precious to me. Quite the contrary, it made them more precious. That I am a self-aware collection of elements in an unimaginably ancient and vast universe is by turns awe-inspiring and humbling to me.
I was once a magical thinker and held your knee-jerk, emotional response to critical thinkers and atheists. I assume that your meanings (love, awe, wonder, humor, etc.) are precious to you and feel threatened by critical thinking. I once feared that if my meanings weren't validated by others, then they simply wouldn't be valid. For me, it was only upon understanding that the universe was free of intrinsic meaning that my own personal meanings began to feel secure. No person or god or supernatural force could invalidate them or take them from me.
As for my having to justify my denial of a deity by denigrating the emotional experience of believers? Well that kind of says it all doesn't it? There being no factual basis for belief in any kind of god means that denial of said god can only offend the believer's feelings, since the god only exists in fantasy.
Well, I think that's just childish and disingenuous. I'd be embarrassed if I wrote that, even back when I was a magical-thinker.
Posted by: Jim Harrison | July 8, 2009 2:35 PM
Bernard Bumner writes:
"Everything which lacks the potential to be explained by science is either subjective experience or philosophy."
There are several problems with this statement:
1. It isn't argued for. On what basis can Bumner or anybody else make such a claim?
2. It certainly appears that there are counterexamples to the statement. When a court issues a ruling, for example, its conclusions are not obviously based on subjective experience or philosophy but on jurisprudence.
3. Bumner assumes that explaining things is the only game in town. On the face of it, judging, interpreting, and appreciating are also cognitive operations.
I once interviewed a mathematician on the occasion of his retirement. I asked him if he wished he'd worked on something besides real analysis during his long career. He nodded gravely, "Yes, you know I've come to realize that mathematics isn't everything. There's also mathematical physics."
You guys are like men trapped in a deep well who have concluded that the sky is six feet across.
Posted by: Stu
|
July 8, 2009 2:38 PM
if the alleged "right" is conditional or can be taken away, it isn't really a right. It's simply a contingent benefit.
If you mean contingent upon the continued existence of the system of government granting them (and, of course, does not pervert them), yes.
So? Does that make you uncomfortable?
Posted by: Tulse | July 8, 2009 2:41 PM
Jurisprudence is, broadly speaking, a form of philosophy (or, more accurately, rationality). It uses a (somewhat) formal system of rules to make determinations about propositions (such as "this contract is valid").
Cognitive operations that are primarily based on subjective experience.
Can you be clearer as to what your actual argument is? Sure, not everything is about objectively determining the truth of propositions, but no one has said that. What does this have to do with religious claims?
Posted by: Damian | July 8, 2009 2:54 PM
There is a massive difference between saying that all of the swans that I have personally seen are white, and therefore I conclude that all swans are white, and saying that after extensive research all over the planet, including all known sites where swans reside, all of the swans that I have personally recorded, and as far as I am aware, all swans that have been recorded in history, were white, so it is therefore reasonable to conclude that all swans probably/likely are white, until evidence to the contrary is found.
Elliott Sober assesses its ("Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence") truth by using a probabilistic tool, the Law of Likelihood, in his paper: Absence of Evidence and Evidence of Absence: Evidential Transitivity in connection with Fossils, Fishing, Fine-Tuning, and Firing Squads:
So, Elliott Sober concludes that the saying, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is not actually true, and that, yes, an absence of evidence is in fact evidence — whether strong or weak, depending on the circumstances — of absence, as I have been saying. However, clearly it "does not follow that absence of evidence is strong evidence of absence". The strength of the conclusion depends on various factors.
Posted by: Ray S. | July 8, 2009 2:59 PM
Jim Harrison@163:
Yet even with such a view we can still see your emperor is naked.
About the only thing different from some random made up BS and your theology is number of believers.
Posted by: noodles | July 8, 2009 3:02 PM
That the Invisible Pink Unicorn [IPU] defined all rights, morals, and values [rmv] makes them universal truths rather than simply whimsical notions that vary from society to society and change from era to era. If the IPU did not define rmv's then the morals of Peruvian Indians in the 1500s are as equally valid as the rmv's of any other society regardless on when or where that society existed. Without the IPU, there is no external grounding or permanent reference.
Eliminating the IPU means you need to either accept nihilism - that rmv's are little more than whims of society varying from place to place and varying across time - or propose an alternative grounding such as "natural rights" or "social contract" or group dynamics of the human animal (e.g., chimpanzees in groups have social norms and rules of behavior).
Of course, since the IPU doesn't actually exist there really wasn't any external grounding to begin with. Furthermore, religion doesn't actually provide us with a list of universal rights, morals, and values that transcend societies and eras. Religious rules and "morals" are little more than conservative social norms particular to that specific society at that specific time. Using religion as the source for rmv's is, for all practical purposes, the same as nihilism.
Posted by: Jim Harrison | July 8, 2009 3:05 PM
I'm not particularly interested in defending religious claims; and, indeed, haven't made any, which isn't surprising since I'm an atheist. I do object to the crude scientism that rules these parts because it's lousy history, lousy sociology, and lousy philosophy. Note that I'm not bitching about science but about an ideology adopted by (some) scientists that amounts to a sort of disciplinary imperialism. A lot of you folks want to imagine that the sciences are the unproblematic application of timeless rules of inquiry to every conceivable subject matter, but that image has very little to do with science on the hoof and leads to a one-dimensional view of human affairs.
Posted by: Desert Son, OM
|
July 8, 2009 3:12 PM
Pareidolius,
This.
That was very much my experience, as well. I think it gives insight into one aspect of the psychology of religion. Once we realize that we are agents who make meaning, it also makes us realize that we can be held liable for both our successes and failures. Success can be terrifying sometimes, and failure can be, too; but having a divinity in the universe that is all mystery and ineffability means that, at some level, whatever happens still owes something to some other agent out there that's watching over everything, that permeates the stuff of all existence. It also allows illusory comfort in the case of things beyond control. Earthquake kills thousands? Well, it's tragic, but god has some kind of plan. That doesn't strike me as much different, psychologically, than "Came in first in the track meet? Praise god!"
It's a powerful psychological experience, to recognize our own agency, and not set our failures or our successes at the foot of something for which there is no evidence. Thanks for your post, that was really excellent.
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: Matt Heath | July 8, 2009 3:12 PM
Sorry but Wittgenstein had this right: usage decides meaning, not you.While we are the subject of concepts from (late) Wittgenstein, I think it's clear that asserting the existence of rights is a different sort of language game to saying something exists independently of human thought. It seems to me to be a statement about morality. "There is an inalienable human right to liberty" stands in relation to "I support liberty for all, under all circumstance and disapprove of any attempt to curb it" as "Stealing is wrong" stands to "I disapprove of stealing". Both are statements about what the person saying them values, and just as the statement about stealing can be utter meaningfully without reference to a perfect, Platonic source of wrong and right the former makes sense without reference to a perfect, Platonic source of rights.
As for the idea that we can't hope to defend the human rights without believing they were given to us by something like a god, this is seen empirically to be false. There are plenty of high profile supporters of human rights with fully naturalistic views of the world, who take those rights to be man-made abstractions, but abstractions they commit themselves to defending: Russell, Chomsky, Dennett, I think also Orwell. Moving away from big names, there arepolls showing that atheists are more likely to be against torture than theists. God doesn't seem to be the friend of human rights at all.
Posted by: SteveG | July 8, 2009 3:13 PM
Religious belief is based on a series of massive bluffs ("God", "angels", "sin", "sacrifice to God", etc.) which are merely holdovers from primitive cultural ideas and traditions. Your essay here is another one of your excellent examples of you calling the religious on their bluff. Thank you.
Posted by: Matt Heath | July 8, 2009 3:14 PM
Sorry but Wittgenstein had this right: usage decides meaning, not you.While we are the subject of concepts from (late) Wittgenstein, I think it's clear that asserting the existence of rights is a different sort of language game to saying something exists independently of human thought. It seems to me to be a statement about morality. "There is an inalienable human right to liberty" stands in relation to "I support liberty for all, under all circumstance and disapprove of any attempt to curb it" as "Stealing is wrong" stands to "I disapprove of stealing". Both are statements about what the person saying them values, and just as the statement about stealing can be utter meaningfully without reference to a perfect, Platonic source of wrong and right the former makes sense without reference to a perfect, Platonic source of rights.
As for the idea that we can't hope to defend the human rights without believing they were given to us by something like a god, this is seen empirically to be false. There are plenty of high profile supporters of human rights with fully naturalistic views of the world, who take those rights to be man-made abstractions, but abstractions they commit themselves to defending: Russell, Chomsky, Dennett, I think also Orwell. Moving away from big names, there arepolls showing that atheists are more likely to be against torture than theists. God doesn't seem to be the friend of human rights at all.
Posted by: piuvodku | July 8, 2009 3:25 PM
You have to be kidding. Sloppy scholarship makes for poor criticism. Armstrong is a historian who specializes in religion, not an apologist and not a theologian. Please in the future be sure to differentiate between the author of the book, the author of the review, the title of the book and the title or the review. Armstrong's book is called _The Case for God_. Puts a bit of a different spin on it. For those of you who want to snark in and score some quick points, do your research first. Armstrong has written many books on comparative religion and discusses historical aspects as well as impact on contemporary society. Lazy critics blame the author for not writing what they themselves want the book to be about.
Posted by: stogoe | July 8, 2009 3:25 PM
I actually read through Karen Armstrong's A Brief History of Myth, and while I disagreed with most of the frou-frou, newagey specifics, I did think there was some value in it. What I teased out of her obtusity and "ways of knowing" garbage is this:
Humans are addicted to narrative. For whatever reason, we gobble down every last bit of it we can scavenge, and where there isn't any narrative we cobble together one anyways. The power of narrative is vast, and we would be foolish beyond words to dismiss its influence.
Posted by: Stu
|
July 8, 2009 3:25 PM
Jim Harrison, ycin.
*yawn*
Posted by: Matt Heath | July 8, 2009 3:32 PM
Sorry for the double post. I didn't ignore a message not to resubmit; really I didn't.
Posted by: koan0215 | July 8, 2009 3:33 PM
I think that a book with the title "The Case for God" is probably apology. That said, I really can't wait to read it. Armstrong is great.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | July 8, 2009 3:46 PM
asing @ #128:
Even if this were true (and you haven't bothered to substantiate it), where is your evidence that religion is that "something else"?
It's not enough to say that "something else" is needed if the "something else" you offer doesn't work. If you want to argue that we need religion to answer questions that science can't, you need to do three things:
1. Demonstrate that such questions exist.
2. Demonstrate that said questions are actually meaningful enough to bother looking for an answer.
3. Demonstrate that religion is actually capable of providing a useful answer to said questions.
You've waved away the first and haven't even tried to address the others. Do your homework!
Posted by: LL | July 8, 2009 3:46 PM
Great post, as always, PZ.
With no sarcasm, I can sum up the meaning of religion in one sentence: it's an evolutionary survival adaptation to our evolving stew of brain chemicals. Religion is really just one subjective way of experiencing the action of one's brain-chemicals.
I've regarded religion this way for, oh, at least the last decade or so. Still works for me.
Of course, the issues of dominance and control inherent in nearly all religions are a separate discussion. If belief in the supernatural is a survival adaptation found in homo sapiens around 100K years ago, then brain-chemical adaptation is the heart of all religious experience.
Posted by: Robocop | July 8, 2009 4:15 PM
Again, I'm not a scientist, but isn't science provisional in that way - statement A is factual until contradictory evidence is found, in which case new statement B is regarded as factual, and so on?
I agree. Depending on the level of investigation, a lack of evidence can offer a good reason of the inductive conclusion, but it still isn't evidence. Moreover, we make such conclusions far too readily.
How do you propose to argue for divinely-provided inalienable human rights when the concept of god is necessarily incoherent?
Interesting dilemma. Similarly, PZ et als. argue that even the admitted possibility of a miracle undermines the entire scientific enterprise. Yet, since it's a closed system, if physicalism is true our perceptions (for example, of choice) are wrong essentially all the time (spare the Dennett nonsense that compatibalism is somehow different from determinism). Accordingly, science, which is utterly dependent upon our (inherently erroneous) perceptions to make the observations which undergird the entire endeavor, is necessarily incoherent. But PZ et als. have no problem with that incoherence.
If these rights can't possibly be taken away, it isn't necessary to institute a government to secure them.
And the majority of the document is a list of ways in which the King of England has been alienating these rights.
In other words, it's clear from the context.
This is an incredibly stupid claim. Rights that are being denied are still rights. Jefferson was arguing that the King was wrong and, accordingly, the states could justly declare their independence. Otherwise, the Founders' claims boil down to nothing more than "we don't like what you're doing so we're going to do our best to break free; see if you have the power to stop us."
So? Does that make you uncomfortable?
Indeed it does. It's particularly troublesome when one is trying to work trans-nationally and cross-culturally. By what authority can anyone criticize another nation or culture for alleged "human rights violations" if their "system" doesn't allow for them?
There is a massive difference between saying that all of the swans that I have personally seen are white, and therefore I conclude that all swans are white, and saying that after extensive research all over the planet, including all known sites where swans reside, all of the swans that I have personally recorded, and as far as I am aware, all swans that have been recorded in history, were white, so it is therefore reasonable to conclude that all swans probably/likely are white, until evidence to the contrary is found.
Indeed, but even then, we are wrong much more often than we'd like to admit. Because they had never been reported seen, the world over, 17th century Europeans assumed that all swans were white. In that context, a black swan then was a symbol for something that was impossible or could not exist. In the late 18th Century, the discovery of black swans in Australia metamorphosed the term to connote that a perceived impossibility may actually come to pass. Lovely irony that.
There are plenty of high profile supporters of human rights with fully naturalistic views of the world, who take those rights to be man-made abstractions, but abstractions they commit themselves to defending: Russell, Chomsky, Dennett, I think also Orwell. Moving away from big names, there arepolls showing that atheists are more likely to be against torture than theists.
But they aren't compatible and shouldn't be accomodated.
Posted by: Ancient Greek Lady | July 8, 2009 4:18 PM
Quote: Armstrong further shows how even the words "I believe" have changed, and become scientised, to mean "I assert these propositions to be empirically correct." Yet the original Greek pisteuo means something much more like "I give my heart and my loyalty."
I know I come late to the festivities, but I'd like to add a concern regarding the way Armstrong seems to be asserting that the lack of clarity in the modern English use of the 'believing' can be settled by (or restored???) by reference to Greek terms. As she is referring to Koine Greek and the "original meaning" of 'pisteuo' it would seem that a shift *away* from precision and a different usage had *already* occurred. The 'de-scientization' (or change in use) would be located in the Koine and use of the term in the New Testament.
The Attic Greek meaning of 'pisteuo', was to trust, put faith in, have confidence in, be assured of. The noun 'pistis' was a 'pledge of good faith,' 'assurance,' 'trustworthiness,' 'honesty,' 'credit' in the commercial sense. The uses of 'pisteuo' were not very religious or existentially demanding. The sense of the meaning as "to give my heart and loyalty" is a narrowing of the classical Greek (notions of putting one's heart into something were expressed by terms using thumos--heart, spirited part of the self). 'Vomizo' was a verb used to express 'to believe' (as in believe in the gods), to acknowledge, to own (as is customary), to esteem/honor. In Plato's Apology, Socrates' cross-examination of Meletus turns on the verb 'vomizo' not 'pisteuo'. The accusation is that he fails to *acknowledge* the customary gods of the city--not that he fails to believe--as in trust in them. Plato uses 'pisteuo' to indicate unreflective states of belief (ordinary beliefs based on sense perceptions that we unreflectively accept) in contrast to other kinds of states of belief, knowing and reasoning. The ancient Greeks were incredibly careful in their terms about belief and knowledge and had different verbs to express this. For instance, 'dokeo' was also used for believing (to suppose, to imagine X to be the case, to opine X), and 'oiomai' was used for believing/thinking (to think, to suppose--used in order to be polite when making assertions) in contrast to more reflective states of different kinds: 'noeo' (to think, consider, conceive, reflect), 'dianoeomai' (to think over, be minded towards, intend), 'epistamai' (to know as fact, to understand, to know how (skill), to be versed in) with 'episteme' being the noun used for 'scientific knowledge.'
What I fail to see is how any of these matters about ancient language actually support a "different kinds of knowledge" argument. It isn't as though given all these different terms, all of the ways of believing and knowing were on a par. The leveling involved in that move is not justified. Opinions, for the ancient Greeks, were defeasible beliefs--ones which may or may not be true. Believing in--acknowledging---the gods was what was expected as maintaining custom, although very few philosophers/natural scientists (besides Anaxagoras) and even sophists got in any trouble for kainotheism or atheism. (That Socrates did get in trouble, is a tricky case in which he was at the center of a perfect political and social storm on the heels of the Peloponnesian War.) The skilled and practiced acquired knowledge/understanding. Mathematical knowledge, a reflective type of knowledge, not opinion, was held in highest regard. If this differentiation was lost, an account of that kind of leveling will include the theological views influencing such changes in usage. In other words, such an account will *not justify* the theological positions about the usage, but show how the changes in usage reflect them.
Posted by: AJ Milne | July 8, 2009 4:20 PM
Indeedily-fucking-do.
I was particularly fond of 'A lot of you folks want to imagine that the sciences are the unproblematic application of timeless rules of inquiry to every conceivable subject matter...' That was a classic.
Here's a timeless rule for y'all: however complex your understanding of the interplay of individual and group interests in society, however rich your appreciation of the complexity of the human psyche, its tendency to seek confirmation for what it wishes to believe, however broad your awareness that no observation is entirely unaffected by the cultural context in which it is made and the experiences and biases and backgrounds of those making it, however rigourously honest you attempt to be about the limits of your own facilities, if you fail to kowtow sufficiently to some prevailing superstition or other, if you call anyone else on the broad bullshit such quarters regularly spew, some asswipe, sooner or later, will drool incoherently into his keyboard that you are guilty of 'crude scientism'.
(/Mind you, 'scientism', as defined by such asswipes, is generally the radical notion that merely because our senses and sensibilities may have their limits, this is no prescription for throwing them out in favour of using ouija boards... So I guess we shouldn't be too insulted.)
Posted by: Stu
|
July 8, 2009 4:29 PM
By what authority can anyone criticize another nation or culture for alleged "human rights violations" if their "system" doesn't allow for them?
I see what you're saying now, and it is a valid point. But how do you allow for the changing perception of what rights are, or should be -- apart from life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which sound pretty damned humanist to me?
Posted by: AC | July 8, 2009 4:31 PM
May I recommend abandoning your "philosophical" approach and trying to communicate based on common humanity and shared experience?
Of course, since you seem to think that science/atheism/whatever-else-you-like-to-conflate-and-demonize is about denying god(s), I don't think you're interested in my suggestion. But hey, hope springs eternal, right?
Posted by: Tulse | July 8, 2009 4:35 PM
Show me where anyone has said that. Your arguing against a straw man.
Posted by: Stu
|
July 8, 2009 4:41 PM
Your arguing against a straw man.
Actually, a straw man army. Or a Straw Man Gallop.
Posted by: CatBallou
|
July 8, 2009 4:54 PM
Religion is a way of knowing the made-up answers to made-up questions.
Posted by: Jim Harrison | July 8, 2009 5:42 PM
According to Picasso, when a guy joined the Spanish army back in the late 19th Century, the government sent a photo of him to his family. Thing was, though, they only had two photos, one with and one without a mustache. Close enough. Many of you guys seem to operate with a similar system. Anybody who dares to suggest that the natural sciences aren't the only respectable game in town is automatically some sort of religious obscurantist. Religious zealot or righteous empiricists, mustache or no mustache.
You are effectively doing the same thing that creationists do when they claim that it's inconceivable that feathers just couldn't have evolved from scales, that is, you are arguing from the failure of your own imaginations to recognize that there are more things in heaven in earth than you've heard about yet. If you don't know about it, it must be some sort of ouija board.
Sorry to interrupt your self-righteous circle jerk. Yank away.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 8, 2009 5:50 PM
Jim Harrison, I still don't understand your point. It appears to be just woo. What things we haven't heard about? Elaborate.
Posted by: koan0215 | July 8, 2009 5:54 PM
I can't speak for PZ, but if our perceptions are inherently erroneous (and I would agree that this is very probably the case) it doesn't matter very much. It's not like we can do anything about it, and well, science still works. It's a great method of knowing and produces useful outcomes, regardless of the illusory nature of choice or perceptions.
But the troublesome-ness of how we establish rights in a universe without an author has no bearing whatsoever as to whether that author exists or not. One can hardly argue that "I think humans have rights, rights need an anchor, therefore there is an anchor and that anchor is God."
Posted by: AJ Milne | July 8, 2009 5:56 PM
Awww. Is diddums having a tantrum?
Sorry to call you on your self-righteous bullshit. Pull the other one.
Posted by: Robocop | July 8, 2009 6:02 PM
It's not like we can do anything about it, and well, science still works.
If our perceptions are as screwed up as you seem to think, how could we know if it worked or merely appeared to work?
Posted by: Robocop | July 8, 2009 6:07 PM
But how do you allow for the changing perception of what rights are, or should be -- apart from life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which sound pretty damned humanist to me?
I assume they're going to change based upon new information and new circumstances.
Posted by: Mike Olson | July 8, 2009 6:09 PM
Einstein, Galileo, Lamateire, Newton...
Posted by: Stu
|
July 8, 2009 6:13 PM
If our perceptions are as screwed up as you seem to think, how could we know if it worked or merely appeared to work?
Repeatability.
Wait, didn't we have exactly this discussion a week or two ago?
Posted by: koan0215 | July 8, 2009 6:13 PM
We can't know. But it doesn't matter because it's unknowable. I don't mean to be flippant, your point is completely valid, I just take the attitude that if that is the case then I'll never be able to tell the difference. It doesn't matter if I actually live in the matrix so long as the matrix is an internally consistent system, and so far the universe seems to be one. Of course, if I am in the matrix, then it would be nice to know that, but since I can never know if I am or if I'm not then my only choice is to pretend that everything around me is the "real" world.
Posted by: Kel, OM | July 8, 2009 6:17 PM
I asked this upthread and got no response: can religion demonstrate that it is valid way of knowing? Honestly I don't think it can. Care to demonstrate otherwise?Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 8, 2009 6:20 PM
We had this covered over at the Plantinga thread a little while ago. If our perceptions differ from reality, then evolution would see that those individuals with the best perception of reality would live to reproduce. The whole perceptions screwed up argument is a failed attempt to find a gap to put an imaginary deity in. Just sophistry.Posted by: koan0215 | July 8, 2009 6:23 PM
I have never thought of this before. That's bad-ass. Thanks!
Posted by: Robocop | July 8, 2009 6:32 PM
If our perceptions differ from reality, then evolution would see that those individuals with the best perception of reality would live to reproduce.
I'm not a biologist, but this seems to require a purpose to evolution that I'm unaware of. Those who live to reproduce do so, irrespective of whether they have "the best perception of reality" unless more accurate perceptions correlate to longer life. That seems intuitive, but isn't necessarily so. For example, an ancient hunter who "hears too much" and runs at every perceived noise may survive better than one who waits to hear something. Moreover, your claim proves way too much since religion is so prevalent in every society. Unless you're conceding the accuracy of religious perceptions...?
Posted by: CatBallou
|
July 8, 2009 6:38 PM
Jim, why in the world do you think we haven't heard about the same things you've heard about? Do you think we were all raised in some atheist culture and are just now becoming acquainted with the rest of the world?
You've heard or imagined something and believe in it, while the rest of us have heard (or imagined!) the same thing and rejected it.
Why is what you believe different from belief in a ouija board?
Creationists' claims aren't based on their inability to conceive of feathers evolving from scales: their claims are based on ignorance, dishonesty, or both.
On the other hand, most of us are quite familiar with the teachings and theology of the religions around us. We've rejected them because they have the same value as a ouija board.
Posted by: Stu
|
July 8, 2009 6:41 PM
For example, an ancient hunter who "hears too much" and runs at every perceived noise may survive better than one who waits to hear something.
Seriously? Grasp at straws much?
Posted by: Kel, OM | July 8, 2009 6:43 PM
Go check the Plantinga thread, particularly post #988.Basically it comes down to this. Humans work on heuristics, pattern recognition if you will. Taking in the raw data we get would be impossible to process, so our mind takes short cuts. Now these short cuts have been shaped by millions of years of natural selection, they are very good for the environment we are in - namely this macroscopic world in communities. Our interaction with people is vital, so it makes evolutionary sense that our mind has evolved anthropic pattern recognition skills.
But because these heuristics are built for certain tasks, they are lousy at others. Hence we get errors. Now there are two types of error - a false positive and rejecting a truth. Just think of what rejecting a truth would mean in a cut-throat situation such as our ancestors faced. Reject the truth that there is a lion sneaking up on you? You're dead. Think there's a lion when there's not, then you won't get eaten. So rejecting truths would be far more likely to be selected against than false positives.
This is not to say that false positives are great either. Running away takes energy, and it removes you from the task at hand. While false positives might not kill you, they can put you at a disadvantage. So in essence our brains have been finely-tuned over millions of years in order to work in the environment with beliefs - with a bias towards false positives. A good way to remember this: we may mistake a shadow for a burglar but never a burglar for a shadow.
Posted by: Notagod | July 8, 2009 8:05 PM
noodles, I'm not bothered by the almost certain fact that we have no meaning with regard to the universe overall, as long as I have a better understanding of life than a christian I'm happy. However, the insignificance of any individual's life doesn't mean the magnificent beauty of observation and interaction with nature that non-christians can experience, isn't wonderful and beautiful. Doing something that will make life more enjoyable for future generations of all life forms is the most valuable thing any of us can do on a universal scale.
Posted by: Jim Harrison | July 8, 2009 8:59 PM
I guess resistance is futile if only because, as Cicero said, against stupidity the gods themselves struggle in vain and I'm no god.
One last try to communicate with the deaf. My complaint about what I've been calling scientism is not that it leaves no room for theology. As a thoroughly godless type, I could care less about theology. Thing is, your polemical strategy against theology implies that not only theology but many other human cognitive enterprises are, to use a popular expression in these parts, woo. I'm simply pointing out that law, literary criticism, history, thinking about right and wrong, the social sciences, and many other activities are not obviously reducible to the methods of the natural sciences, which, or so I claim, only properly apply in a fairly narrow sphere. I realize that it's your sphere, which, no doubt, is why you think your studio apartment is the whole building.
Posted by: Bill | July 8, 2009 9:03 PM
Jesus H. Christ, what a polemic PZ!
And spot on as usual. Carry on.
Posted by: Bill | July 8, 2009 9:06 PM
Jesus H. Christ, what a polemic PZ!
And spot on as usual. Carry on.
Posted by: Jason Failes | July 8, 2009 9:24 PM
Shorter Madeline:
Christians don't have to be literalist and wrong,
they also have the choice of being metaphoric and not-even wrong.
Posted by: Terence | July 8, 2009 9:30 PM
To ask whether religion is more valid than science is in fact the wrong question.
What we SHOULD be asking is this: Can science ever offer us a complete way of knowing things? What is the philosophy of science?
My proposed answer is this: While science may point us towards the general direction of truth, it can never point us to absolute Truth, because we are limited by human cognition and human senses. We are bounded by the laws of nature, and cannot hope to go beyond it.
The likes of philosophers like Plato and Descartes have argued that there exists a realm beyond our own, beyond human senses. A knowledge of basic science points towards this possibility, and I wrote about this once. Even Spinoza, the great rationalist, argues that nature an God are one, and that we humans are slaves to the our external environment.
Instead of comparing between religion and science, we should ask ourselves: What does philosophy have to say about science? And that is when we begin to understand the limits of science. In fact the study of science should give us greater humility, because it reveals what we do not know.
As Socrates once wisely said: "All I know is that I know nothing." We will be smart to follow his advice, and stop making such presumptuous claims like: God doesn't exist. We will only make ourselves seem like fools.
Posted by: Fortuna | July 8, 2009 9:38 PM
Terence;
Stop making presumptuous claims like "God exists" and you got a deal, bucko.
Oh wait, nevermind. Certain kinds of gods obviously don't exist, and the others are unevidenced to any reasonable standard. I guess atheism survives another day.
Posted by: Kel, OM | July 8, 2009 9:46 PM
Terence,
Of course science isn't perfect. But that's not the contention at all. Can religion give us a valid way of knowing? It doesn't matter if science can be complete or not, what can religion offer? Science can demonstrate its success. Planes flying around the world, computers sitting on every desk, eradication of small-pox, global telecommunications network - these are but a few of the things that demonstrate science's validity. It's not perfect, but it does give us a valid way of knowing.
What does religion do? Can we say the same for anything in regard to religion? What does religious thinking offer that isn't surpassed, or at the very least matched, by a secular equivalent?
Posted by: AJ Milne | July 8, 2009 9:58 PM
Ah, Jim. Weren't you leaving?
You're doing it wrong. Let me explain:
Door. Ass. You know the drill, right?
Somewhat more seriously, but no more than your vapid pap deserves: repeating another version of the same wooly metaphor doth not an argument make. And you flatter yourself, as usual, with your assumption that you fail because you are battling against 'stupidity'. I begin to wonder if you figure, somehow, that quoting Cicero and... who was it? Picasso? will give some veneer of respectability to your mindless pablum, perhaps as certain magical thinkers imagine the right words will somehow summon rain...
No, Jim, you do not fail because you are battling stupidity. You fail because you're not making any sense. And because you're just repeating one of the same cliched, mindless claims that's always trotted out when religion finds itself under this particular duress: oh, my, they're coming to take all of the humanities, whatever will we do... Send the symphony into hiding! Look up the Rembrandts! They're next! If we let them talk about religion this way, whatever will happen to them!?
Putz, seriously, drop it. No one here is going to buy your stupid bullshit about this 'polemical strategy' taking such collateral damage in those other fields, however much you decorate it with your pretty little metaphors. I value literature. I value art. I get that human society is complicated, and understanding it at an academic level and making your way in it and making it work don't always go together. And I can still see as clearly as the light of day that calling theology's bluff need impinge upon none of that. I think you probably could, too, if you were a bit less wedded to that whiny old saw you're wielding.
Posted by: Desert Son, OM
|
July 8, 2009 10:19 PM
Jim Harrison,
I'm not getting that sense at all. For one thing, I don't know that anyone who frequents these boards thinks law, to name just one, is woo. I know I certainly don't. I'm a big fan of the rule of law, personally, seeing as it's generally better than the rule of kings, if I'm reading history correctly (and I like to think I am).
I'm in the midst of a Ph.D. program in a social science. There may be many who think that social sciences are garbage. I think social sciences have some things to offer when it comes to understanding humans. Are the social sciences ever going to outline human behavior with the precision that, say, physics describes the speed of light in a vacuum? Probably not. Can the social sciences learn a great deal from the other scientific disciplines? I think so. Can social sciences then strive for rigor in their methodology so that, for example, we might find ways to implement better learning strategies in classroom settings? I think so.
Further, there may be posters here who disdain disciplines like literature, or find them less significant to human existence than pure science. That's fine; let's face it, when it comes to art, someone's always going to hate something you love. From music, to visual art, to literature, to "thinking about right and wrong," as you put it, there's going to be someone out there that doesn't care at all what your mastery of a particular area is, they think the thing you're passionate about sucks. I should know; my degree is a B.A. in English Literature.
Yet here I am, at a science blog. I'm fascinated by the science, I'm stimulated by the philosophical talk about issues surrounding atheism, I'm engaged by the smart brains that post here, I'm constantly encountering something new to learn, I'm entertained by the witty remarks of many visitors, I'm inspired to act toward positive social ends and activism at times, plus the posts are rife with Cthulhu references!
I still love to read Poe, Borges, McCarthy, Shakespeare, Welty, and the list goes on and on. Not one of those things is hurt by acknowledging that scientific study of our universe has proven itself to be the most reliable means of understanding the, uh, well, the universe. My enjoyment of the poems of Sterling A. Brown isn't lessened one bit by the recognition that my own being is, essentially, a series of ongoing bio-chemical processes, and that, in fact, my enjoyment of Sterling A. Brown's poetry can, using scientific tools and processes, be traced in bio-chemical terms.
When I go to an art museum and enjoy a painting, I'm not thinking about the neural pathways engaged in my appreciation for a particular aesthetic, but that doesn't mean those pathways aren't a relevant and important consideration in the experience.
When did this all become a zero-sum game? We're humans. We love things like art, music, and fantasy of all kinds. The question is, can we recognize vital ways of understanding processes in the universe (science), and still enjoy those things that are bio-chemical reactions by making meaning out of them? I say yes. I love my family; the fact that the feeling is rooted in bio-chemical processes doesn't, in my experience of meaning-making, render that love any less meaningful. The added bonus is, I can learn to make important decisions based on critical thinking and evidence.
Totally ran long there, getting tired, off to bed soon.
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: articulett | July 8, 2009 10:31 PM
Does Chris Mooney have any evidence that he and his accomodationist buddies are better at ameliorating scientific ignorance than PZ and the others "new atheists" he denigrates?? I mean, really?!
I prefer my science undiluted with faith coddling semantics.
Posted by: Heidi | July 8, 2009 10:40 PM
Well, I know one question only religion can answer. "How much money can I get these idiots to donate?"
Posted by: Deb Burhans | July 8, 2009 11:26 PM
You tell me you think I tergiversate
I retort that you're known to equivocate
Which leads us to fight
Through the day and the night
For one thing we do well is reciprocate
Gee, never thought this limerick would be apropos (written when tergiversate was the word of the day some years back :-)
Posted by: Jim Harrison | July 8, 2009 11:46 PM
Milne, I'll leave when I damned well want to, even at the cost of putting up with being called a putz for trying to make a philosophical point that has precisely nothing to do with defending the grandeur and validity of theology. You and your cohorts are obsessed with religion, I'm not. I don't think there is a particle of propositional truth in the great faiths, but for me that recognition has long since lost its novelty value. I'm also not writing in praise of the touchy-feelies. I value law, history, philosophy, politics, ethics, and the social sciences precisely because they are exercises of thought as well as feeling while at least a good number of the people who disagree with me in these parts seem to think of such activities as residual, emotional affairs that aren't serious like, say, organic chemistry. I work in the sciences myself. I just don't think the planets revolve around 'em.
Posted by: Anri | July 9, 2009 12:01 AM
Robocop sez:
"I'll try one in reverse. The Declaration of Independence postulates inalienable rights endowed by a Creator."
Well, my parents created me. And in so doing, they bestowed upon me those rights listed.
Where was gawd again...?
And also:
"I understand the usage (it's, I suspect, why Jefferson wrote "inalienable rights"), but if the alleged "right" is conditional or can be taken away, it isn't really a right. It's simply a contingent benefit."
So, if it's possible to kill someone, they didn't have a right to life in the first place?
Wha?
The rights are inalienable. Unfortunately, our ability to defend them is not.
And lastly:
"An inductive conclusion based upon a lack of evidence doesn't magically and wooishly transform into affirmative evidence. The fact that you've seen a billion swans and that they were all white isn't evidence that all swans are indeed white. The fact that the markets have never performed in a given way in the past isn't evidence that it won't perform that way in the future."
Yes, it is evidence. It's just not definitive evidence. Since you have not seen every single falling apple, would you conclude that there is no evidence that apples fall?
Of course not.
It would be possible to say that some apples, somewhere, might not be effected by gravity, but the evidence is overwhelming (though not complete, perfect, of definitive!) that apples are.
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Just not definitive evidence.
Posted by: AndymanEC | July 9, 2009 12:04 AM
Of course the Bible isn't meant to be taken literally when you're checking it for internal consistency. You only take component parts of it literally when you're using it to answer a question.
How else could you use it to justify any conceivable opinion, policy, atrocity, or flavor of bigotry?
Posted by: jql | July 9, 2009 12:05 AM
Angels selling bicycles (like dope, presumably?)? Or were they pedalling them? I bet the former, and I bet they are on it.
Posted by: AndymanEC | July 9, 2009 12:13 AM
Of course the Bible isn't meant to be taken literally when you're checking it for internal consistency. You only take component parts of it literally when you're using it to answer a question.
How else could you use it to justify any conceivable opinion, policy, atrocity, or flavor of bigotry?
Posted by: AJ Milne | July 9, 2009 12:49 AM
Riiiight.
Here's a fair request then: Name 'em. And show me where they told you that. Then we'll be having a discussion.
'Cos seriously, until you do, I'm gonna have to assume it's just BS. And just for the record: I don't think that. And I find it pretty fucking unlikely anyone here but the strawman you're conveniently erecting for your little pity parade for the humanities thinks that, either.
Because again, putz: that's one worn cliche. An ugly one, a convenient one, and one hell of a smear, really, against a lot of people who think hard about this shit, care about this shit, and actually worry about that alleged collateral damage you just shot your precious little mouth off about. It's easy to say, and it's a mouthful of a claim, and I say: you've overreached doing so.
Posted by: Jim Harrison | July 9, 2009 2:48 AM
As Milne would recognize had he finished high school, several of the disciplines I mentioned (law, the social sciences, politics) aren't humanities at all so if I've organized a pity parade, it wasn't for the humanities particularly. Anyhow, since the gross overestimation of the status of natural science is hardly flattering to the sciences themselves, maybe it is the sciences that deserve a little pity if they are going to be identified with the cardboard version of rationalism retailed here abouts.
My motive in writing messages guaranteed to irritate this audience was this: maybe a verbal kick in the balls will shock at least some reader into recognizing how absurd the village atheism ideology of science really is, how cartoonish its idea of history, how philosophically naive its epistemology, how quaintly 18th Century its rhetoric, how merely philistine its typical supporters.
Good evening all.
Posted by: AJ Milne | July 9, 2009 3:08 AM
I see. And you figured you'd achieve this grand victory by attempting to parade nitpicking over nomenclature as a mighty rhetorical success, spouting the usual boatload of wild and utterly groundless claims about them thar'
nasty boorish atheists, and generally writing a lot of cheques your intellect clearly can't cash?
Brilliant strategy there, bub. Shore outsmarted us hicks, y' did.
Posted by: Pareidolius | July 9, 2009 3:59 AM
Well, here in Atheism Village in beautiful Atheist Valley, folks wear athletic cups under our breeches for just such ball-endangering contingencies. Sure, we like our olde fashioned, letterpress cartoons of Wittgenstein and Nietszche, Kepler and Napoleon. We also like our Atheist Valley Philistine Salad Dressing™. Not everyone can live in Atheist Valley, but your salads can sure as heck taste like you do. Now to paraphrase John Stewart's stuffy old man character "I said good DAY sir!"Oh, and thanks for the kind words Robert, no kings indeed.
Posted by: TheVirginian | July 9, 2009 4:08 AM
Interesting that she quotes the 4th-century Bishop (St.) Basil (the Great) of Cappadocia. He used quite a few words to describe what God really was/had said. This is from a book I've been working on:
Basil described the “firmament,” using the Gen. 1 description of the physical universe to criticize philosophers. For example, he claimed several “heavens” existed, in part because Gen. 1 said his god created heaven and the firmament, also called heaven; and in part because Paul said he went to “the third heaven” (2 Cor. 12:2).
Basil caustically proclaimed: “The philosophers who have been discussing the heavens would prefer to give up their tongues rather than to admit this as truth. They assume that there is one heaven and that it does not possess such a nature that a second or a third or a greater number can be added to it … But, we ask the wise men of the Greeks not to scoff at us before they come to an agreement with each other. For, there are among them men who say that there are infinite heavens and worlds; and, when those who employ more weighty proofs will have exposed their absurdity and will prove by the laws of geometry that nature does not support the fact that another heaven besides the one has been made, then we shall only laugh the more at their geometrical and artificial nonsense.”
Although the philosophers’ and Basil’s concepts of “heaven” cannot be translated into modern scientific terms, astronomers have proven in recent years that other worlds exist outside of our solar system; and it’s a scientific possibility, according to cosmology, that other universes exist. “Star Trek” is less fictional than Basil’s beliefs.
Basil’s ignorance undermined his credibility in attacks on philosophers:
“And God made the firmament, dividing the waters that were below the firmament from those that were above it. Before we touch upon the meaning of the writings, however, let us attempt to solve the arguments brought against it from other sources. They ask us how, if the body of the firmament is spherical, as sight shows it to be, and if water flows and slips off high spots, if it would be possible for the water to lie on the convex circumference of the firmament.”
Basil pointed out that the sky could appear circular to us on the inside of the structure yet be flat on the outer surface, like looking at the underside of an arch supporting a flat roof. He suggested possible physical explanations for the firmament, but concluded Christians do not “dare to say that firmament is made either from one of the simple elements or from a mixture of them, since we have been taught by the Scripture to permit our mind to invent no fantasy beyond the knowledge that has been granted it. But, let not this be forgotten, that, after God gave the command, ‘Let there be a firmament,’ Scripture did not say simply, ‘and the firmament was made,’ but, ‘And God made the firmament’; and again, ‘God divided.’ Hear, ye deaf, and look up, ye blind. And who is deaf, except he who does not hear the Spirit when He calls so loudly? And who is blind? He who does not discern such clear arguments concerning the Only-begotten. ‘Let there be a firmament.’ This is the utterance of the first and principal Cause. ‘God made the firmament.’ This is the testimony of the efficient and creative Power.”
Basil was efficiently creative at dodging the issue.
Basil assumed the world was surrounded by water, like a bubble in a pool. “Therefore, the deep, it was said previously, surrounded the earth on all sides. We shall give the reason for the great amount [of water] subsequently. … By the same reasoning by which [some philosophers] draw the earth, which is heavier than water, away from the extremities and suspend it in the center, they will, I presume, agree that that boundless water, both because of its natural motion downward and because of its equilibrium on all sides, remains motionless around the earth.”
Unfortunately for Basil, the scriptures never mention the Theory of Gravity nor provide the mathematical equation that describes it.
His god had a good reason to create a vast amount of water around the world, Basil argued with ominous eschatology: “Now, these, fire and water, are antagonistic to each other, and the one is destructive of the other, fire of water when it prevails over it by its strength, and water of fire when it surpasses it in quantity. It was necessary, then, that there should not be strife between them, nor that an opportunity should be afforded to the universe for dissolution by the complete cessation of one or the other. The Ruler of the universe ordained from the beginning such a nature for moisture that, although gradually consumed by the power of fire, it would hold out even to the limits prescribed for the existence of the world. … Therefore, the creation of heat was necessary for the formation and continuance of things made; and the abundance of moisture is necessary because the consumption by fire is ceaseless and inevitable.”
“Yet there will be a time when all things will be burnt up by fire … Casting aside, therefore, the wisdom that has been turned to foolishness, receive with us the teaching of truth, homely in speech, but infallible in doctrine.”#
Basil described how fire destroys water, so his god created a mechanism to allow a kind of continual drip of water upon the earth, cooling the fire that would otherwise destroy the world. He knocked the philosophers again as he claimed the clouds given off by water bodies “prevent the ether from seizing upon and burning up the universe. Indeed, we see this sun in the season of summer frequently leaving a wet and pool-covered land entirely dry and without moisture in a very brief moment of time. Where, then, is that water? Let the all-clever ones show us. Is it not evident to all that it was evaporated and consumed by the heat of the sun?”
“When therefore, Scripture says that the dew and the rain are brought from the heavens, we understand that they are from the waters which are appointed to occupy the region above.”
“The waters” referred to such passages as Gen. 1:6-8, 7:11 and 8:2, which talked about the “fountains of the deep” and the “windows of the heavens.” These came from older Middle Eastern beliefs that rain fell from windows in the sky opened by the storm god, such as the Canaanite (H)Adad, often called Ba’al (Lord).
“Pillars” holding up the Earth: 1 Sam. 2:8, Job 9:6, Job 26:11 and Ps. 75:3. Fire and sunshine do not destroy water, so it does not need constant replenishing from cosmic fountains.
Basil made a final slap at philosophers: “And let no one compare the simplicity and lack of artifice of spiritual discourse with the futile questioning of philosophers about the heavens. For, as the beauty in chaste women is far preferable to that of the prostitute, so is the excellence of our discourses above that of the heathens. They introduce in their explanations a forced persuasiveness; here the truth is set forth bare of artifices. But why trouble ourselves to refute their falsehood, since it suffices for us to set out their books in opposition to each other and sit in all silence as spectators of their war? … these men, severed from the truth on both sides, find for themselves, on this side and on that, bypaths toward error."
So the disputes of pagans prove they know nothing of God. The disputes of Christians (Roman Catholic vs. Protestant vs. Protestant vs. Protestant vs .... vs Orthodox ... vs snake-handler vs. Mormons ...) are signs that Christians alone have the truth, and if it's not the right one, you're a villainous heretic and we'll burn you at the stake, spawn of Satan! Basil's anti-intellectual, the Bible is the sole truth, Flat-Earth gibberish was common among early Christians. Sounds like Armstrong buys into it. Sad.
Posted by: CFB | July 9, 2009 4:46 AM
love the idea of 'a loud roar'. Science and religion are like a long lost evolutionary rivalry. They evolved as one out of our desire to not be ignorant of the universe. Then speciated and now it's time for religion to admit to the success of science.
Posted by: TheVirginian | July 9, 2009 4:56 AM
I have not had time to follow all of the Jim Harrison/critics debate, but Harrison comes across as a classic Straw Man fetishist. Most nontheists accept science ("scientism," as you say) as the best method to study the natural, physical, material world. It gives us useful technology: computers, cell phones, antibiotics, cars, planes, trains, spaceships, microwaves, etc.
Like most nontheists I know, I put the arts and humanities and other, more-subjective studies (law, political science, economics) into categories where good people can enjoy or disagree, we can't get fixed results (no electromagnetic or Einsteinien equations), and some conclusions are subjective, if one works within a reality-based continuum that does not falsely claim Iraq had WMD, that Iran is part of an "Axis of Evil," that "states' rights" were violated when the murderers of 3 civil-rights workers in Mississippi were prosecuted (Ronald Reagan, paraphrase, 1980) and other non-evidence-based, non-reality-based ("abstinence-only education" anyone) were treated as serious parts of serious discussions of social, economic and political issues.
So pardon this materialist, atheist, naturalist while he savors a bit of Scotch as he walks through his house enjoying the utterly subjective, non-scientific, but evolution-based experience of enjoying the non-material, visual emotions evoked by various works of art, New Orleans Jazz Fest posters and pictures from my trips to historic sites overseas.
If atheists are as soul-less and robotic as theists claim, why did this materialist spend thousands of dollars to visit Egypt and climb through the Pyramids, wander the Sahara, visit dusty Temples to ancient superstitions, and enter Tutankhamen's tomb, which is really nothing a couple of small chambers cut into dusty rock, where a collection of artifacts were deposited. Surely a materialist can see nothing of value in such rubbish. Maybe the pictures I took, and the time I spent viewing the artifacts in a Cairo museum, as I once viewed them in a New Orleans museum, is some sort of perverted, kinky corruption of materialism.
Or maybe materialism, evolution, naturalism actually gives you a real appreciation of the beauty and craftsmanship of ancient peoples, plus an appreciatio of what people were capable of creating despite a lack of all the science-based materialistic comforts and aids we have now.
Sorry to be so sarcastic, but when someone builds an army of Strawmen to machine gun, I feel a need to take to the hills with a sniper's rifle and some Claymore mines. They will blow apart the contrarian, buffoonish, water balloons he's lobbying at people trying to counter primitive, barbaric superstition.
Posted by: TheVirginian | July 9, 2009 5:06 AM
Sorry also for the typos. It's late for me, and I was too tired to preview. So it's "appreciation" and "are some" and "fantasies were treated" ...
For Cthulhu's sake, I shall hire a Shoggoth as an editor. I hear that they are cheap to hire, cheap to feed, easy to train, and are very docile and obedient. Nothing could possibly go wrong with his arrangement. Right? ...
Ayyyyyyyyeeeeeeeeeeeeeehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ... Gurgle, Gurgle ............... Co-maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Posted by: Simon | July 9, 2009 5:09 AM
It's scary that we are swimming in the same gene pool as these idiots. At least when they piss in the deep end they leave a dense cloud of nonsense for all to see.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner
|
July 9, 2009 6:46 AM
I wasn't really trying to offer an argument for it, at that time, I was just offering an opinion. I should have made that clear.
The basis for my claim is that anything which can be objectively measured can be scientifically studied (even if only potentially, because the technology is unfeasable or impossible). Any physical thing can potentially be studied scientifically.
The only things which cannot potentially be scientifically studied are incorporeal. There is good reason to argue that any substantial agent cannot be anything other physical, and therefore scientifically measurable - anything which interacts with the physical world, must itself be physical. Incorporeal things must therefore be thoughts or concepts; products of singular or collective minds. These may be a product of subjective experience; a personal and therefore indefinable concept of which no consensus can exist other than a shared description (colour, flavour, emotion). The other alternative is that it is philosophical; a concept which can be fully described, but which has no physical basis.
I offer this only as an argument to which I can find no counter-examples. I'm not a philosopher, so I lack the training and ability to codify this as a proof. If you can provide any real example of an incorporeal thing which isn't experiential or philosophical, then I will concede.
As was pointed out, jurisprudence is a very specific branch of philosophy. However, the very primative and fundamental basis for law can also be explored (currently to a limited extent) via behavioural psychology and biology. Things like the biological basis for empathy, alturism, co-operation, and fairness can be scientifically explored.
No, no. I only assume that everything can be explained to some extent. We are naturally limted by and enriched by our cognitive abilities. We are naturally incapable of fully explaining some things, simply because we lack the ability to articulate and comprehend the concept; we can only work by analogy (such as is the case with higher dimensional spaces, for instance).
Many things are too complex to fully explain. However, we can still often understand the organising principles, even though we cannot fully describe the thing itself. (Emergent properties of systems might be such a thing.)
I value my subjective experience, my philosophical biases, and also scientific knowledge. However, I recognise the fallibility of all of these methods of experiencing the world. I also note that only the scientific method really provides any objective measurment of things or phenomena, and therefore provides the best rational basis for explanation.
What is the basis for judgement, if it isn't scientific, philosophical, or subjective? (And how do I best decide between those different methods? But that is another question.) What is the basis for interpretation, if it isn't scientific, philosophical, or subjective? (And what priority do I give to those different processes?)
Clearly, our cognitive functions form the basis for our entire exprience of the world. However, the ability and desire to explain is one of the universal motivating forces which distinguishes humans from possibly all other animals. Certainly, it is one of the strongest feature of sentience. Seeking explanations and assuming that everything can be explained doesn't change our perception, but it will enhance our experience.
Posted by: Stuart Hartill | July 9, 2009 7:31 AM
Ah, Maudlin Bunty, what would the world do without her? It boggles the mind to know that this woman actually serves on 'think tanks' which advise the UK government!
As for Karen Armstrong - the key thing to realise is that she is a failed nun whose writing career stems from a blockbuster posing as 'serious social commentary' about leaving the convent which wasn't called 'I Was A Teenage bride of Christ' but might as well have been.
Given that women have to fail at almost anything else before even considering becoming a nun this may explain a lot.
Posted by: John Phillips, FCD
|
July 9, 2009 8:42 AM
Religion as a way of knowing anything is less useful than not knowing something. For at least if you are aware or made aware of not knowing something you can hopefully learn about that something, or at the very least, operate knowing you don't know. Religion on the other hand is operating on the basis of not knowing while thinking, often with certainty, that you do know.
Posted by: Robocop | July 9, 2009 10:36 AM
Seriously? Grasp at straws much?
But that's what evo-psych is (besides the quaint just-so stories, suitable for bedtime).
203: Your just-so explanation could be correct (unevidenced though it is). We have no way of knowing (at least now). But why do you assume that your imagined lion is more of a threat than other humans? Cynical disbelievers should have distinct survival and leadership advantages among humans (especially as compared to stupid and gullible woo-ists) and I would expect that other humans would be by far the greatest survival threat overall. So you'll forgive me for thinking that your attempt at an explanation is just another ham-handed and unevidenced defense of a failing ideology.
But that's just me.
Posted by: Robocop | July 9, 2009 12:51 PM
218: Well, my parents created me. And in so doing, they bestowed upon me those rights listed.
Are you joking? By what authority can any parent convey human rights?
Since you have not seen every single falling apple, would you conclude that there is no evidence that apples fall?
Really, is this a parody post? Lots of falling apples is in fact affirmative evidence. That wasn't the question. The question is whether the absence of evidence is affirmative evidence. Get it?
Posted by: John Phillips, FCD
|
July 9, 2009 1:14 PM
Robocop, well the total absence of evidence combined with science's claiming of everything once attributed to dog leads to a high probability that this is evidence of absence. But hey, as with all science, bring actual evidence of dog to the table and we will reconsider.
Posted by: Robocop | July 9, 2009 1:25 PM
Robocop, well the total absence of evidence combined with science's claiming of everything once attributed to dog leads to a high probability that this is evidence of absence.
Only if you're ignorant about what evidence is. Putting lots on non-evidence together doesn't (magically?) turn it into evidence. An inductive conclusion based upon a lack of evidence may well be correct (or incorrect -- our proclivity for finding patterns and the narrative fallacy make us particularly prone to making such conclusions far too readily), but it's still unevidenced.
Posted by: John Phillips, FCD
|
July 9, 2009 2:09 PM
Robocop, unfortunately, for you that is, it is you dog botherers with a total lack of evidence as well as science's constant description of aspects of the natural world formerly attributed to dog. So that is your problem not ours, unless of course you actually have some you would care to share with us. I await agog with anticipation. Until then we will keep filling the gaps that your dog keeps hiding in, leaving even less places for it to hide and increasing the probability ever closer to P=1 that dog is mythical.
Posted by: Robocop | July 9, 2009 2:32 PM
Robocop, unfortunately, for you that is, it is you dog botherers...[blah, blah, blah]....
The atheist concession speech.
When they're so clearly and obviously wrong that they can't even find anything else to say, you can always count on the subject change with some tu quoque thrown in. Just no actual concession. It's so common it's practically a cliché. My hearty congratulations....
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 9, 2009 2:51 PM
OK Robocop, show us the physical evidence for your imaginary deity that will pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers, as being of divine, and not natural, origin. Failure to provide said evidence means you have nothing but your delusions that dog exists.Posted by: John Phillips, FCD
|
July 9, 2009 3:06 PM
And this evidence of yours so that I have to concede dog's existence to you is where exactly? No tu quoque on my part as I have plenty of evidence, i.e. science. For all I have done is use probability based on science overtaking dog as explanation of the natural world combined with no, I repeat, no evidence whatsoever for dog, so we can state that in this case absence of evidence probably means evidence of absence. You do understand probability I presume?
BTW, I think the congratulations are due you not me for another evasive post with no actual reply or evidence. But hey, why should I be surprised at yet another dissembler for jeebus on PZ. I shall leave you now as I realise that like many others responding to you I am just wasting my time.
Posted by: Robocop | July 9, 2009 3:13 PM
OK Robocop, show us the physical evidence for your imaginary deity...[blah, blah, blah]....
Out of the sycophantic choir comes concession speech number 2. Utterly predictable too -- kinda like Old Faithful.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 9, 2009 3:20 PM
Just like your avoidance of actually presenting any real evidence, or being honest (not bearing false witness) and acknowledging you have none. A totally predictable action by an idiotic godbot.Posted by: Robocop | July 9, 2009 3:39 PM
And this evidence of yours so that I have to concede dog's existence to you is where exactly?
I neither ask nor expect that you will concede anything. Nor have I made any affirmative claims herein. I have simply demonstrated your faulty reasoning and invalid explanations concerning inference and evidence.
No tu quoque on my part as I have plenty of evidence, i.e. science.
Do you have a clue what tu quoque is and the nature of the charge? It certainly appears not.
For all I have done is use probability based on science overtaking dog as explanation of the natural world combined with no, I repeat, no evidence whatsoever for dog, so we can state that in this case absence of evidence probably means evidence of absence. You do understand probability I presume?
The arrogance of the question is staggering in light of your continued and clumsy confusion of the nature of the issue at hand. That a proposition may be true (or probably true) has nothing whatsoever to say about whether the lack of evidence "compiled" in its support mystically turns into evidence because the "pile" of non-evidence is so high. [Snort].
But hey, why should I be surprised at yet another dissembler for jeebus on PZ.
If you wish to accuse me of dishonesty (a typical last resort), be my guest. But it would help your cause if you offered a little, you know, evidence in its support.
Just like your avoidance of actually presenting any real evidence, or being honest (not bearing false witness) and acknowledging you have none. A totally predictable action by an idiotic godbot.
What precisely does my position on the God question have to do with whether my stated views on inference and evidence are correct or not? Take your time.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 9, 2009 3:50 PM
No you haven't. You have demonstrated nothing. We concede nothing to you, the one who must prove their claims. Get the picture? The burden of proof is upon you, and you failed big time.Posted by: Robocop | July 9, 2009 4:12 PM
If you wish to keep embarassing yourself, Nerd, far be it from me to try to stop you.
No you haven't. You have demonstrated nothing.
So you keep bleating. Sadly, you have done nothing to support the contention.
We concede nothing to you....
Of course not. I expect nothing less than cultural conformity and ideological purity from you.
Get the picture?
I've gotten the picture for a long time. It's one of the reasons I find this site so deliciously entertaining. It's a guilty pleasure.
The burden of proof is upon you, and you failed big time.
Please provide the affirmative claim I have offered in this thread and failed to support.
Oh, and I'm still waiting for someone to explain how a lack of evidence piled really high -- poof -- turns into affirmative evidence. That you haven't suggests that this non-evidence isn't all you've been piling. Are you ever going to get around to this question?
Posted by: sas001 | July 9, 2009 4:12 PM
If organised religion was not built on the wealth of exploitation & extortion, we would not have to listen to the drivel of the 'learned' religious hierarchy. The so called 'learned' scholars would have qualifications which are absolutely meaningless and pointless. They would have no skills or expertise to specialise in other walks of life.
If religion was proved to be the hoax it is, what would the Archbishop of Canterbury do for a living? Methinks he definitely knows he talks a load of bollocks!
Posted by: Stu
|
July 9, 2009 4:16 PM
Robocop, please point out where people have insisted that absence of evidence is absolute evidence of absence. This is getting old.
Oh, and also:
a failing ideology.
[ CITATION NEEDED ]
Why did you try to slip that one in there?
Posted by: John Phillips, FCD
|
July 9, 2009 4:18 PM
Then please explain to me how you think I used a tu quoque fallacy. For, unlike you, I have both actual evidence in support of my stance, i.e. science refuting dog's claimed role in the natural world, as well as a total lack of evidence for dog to base my probability on. Thus at times, like this one, absence of evidence for dog allied with evidence refuting dog's claimed role in the natural world does lead to a probability of evidence of absence. The only thing that can change the value of that probability is actual evidence for dog, to reuse Nerd of Redhead, OM's phrase, burden of proof and all that. Once again, got any?
Posted by: Robocop | July 9, 2009 4:24 PM
Robocop, please point out where people have insisted that absence of evidence is absolute evidence of absence.
That wasn't the claim. The claim, made multiple times, was that "an absence of evidence is in fact really good evidence of absence." I quoted it when I made my appearance in this thread -- #110.
Why did you try to slip that one in there?
It was an interesting aside. Do you think that piling non-evidence really high results in its being transformed into affirmative evidence?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 9, 2009 4:28 PM
Neither have you.You are the one who must supply positive evidence your dog exists. Until then, parsimony requires dog doesn't exist.
We don't have to provide negative evidence disproving your imaginary deity, you have to supply proof positive showing your deity actually exists. We refuse to recognize your fallacious presupposition that dog exist. Your failure to supply that proof or shut up tells me two things. One, it doesn't exist. Two, you are a delusional liar. Now you prove me wrong.
Posted by: Robocop | July 9, 2009 4:42 PM
Welcome back, John. I'll go over the same ground again -- S-L-O-W-L-Y.
Then please explain to me how you think I used a tu quoque fallacy.
When you couldn't explain how non-evidence undergoes a form of transubstantiation and becomes evidence, you changed the subject and claimed that because of my God-belief I shouldn't be believed and then falsely tried to claim that the God-question had been the issue at hand all along.
...absence of evidence for dog allied with evidence refuting dog's claimed role in the natural world does lead to a probability of evidence of absence.
You keep confusing evidence with an inferential conclusion. Do you not understand the difference?
You are the one who must supply positive evidence your dog exists.
When and if the issue at hand is my claim that God exists, I will agree. But it's not.
I repeat, Nerd:
"Oh, and I'm still waiting for someone to explain how a lack of evidence piled really high -- poof -- turns into affirmative evidence. That you haven't suggests that this non-evidence isn't all you've been piling. Are you ever going to get around to this question?"
Are you?
Posted by: Stu
|
July 9, 2009 4:59 PM
You keep confusing evidence with an inferential conclusion
No, you're playing semantic games. Do you have anything else?
Oh, and what is the "failing ideology"?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 9, 2009 5:11 PM
And you are still avoiding the need to supply positive evidence for your dog. What a liar and bullshitter.Without evidence, parsinomy (Occam's razor) says something doesn't exist. Anyone without a dog besoaked brain sees that. We are waiting for the evidence you are right.Posted by: Bernard Bumner
|
July 9, 2009 5:13 PM
Why is the standard of god-trolling so utterly dismal here, at the moment?
All we get is these fucking pantomime dames; Oh no it isn't!... Oh no it isn't!... Oh no it isn't!
Posted by: Robocop | July 9, 2009 5:32 PM
No, you're playing semantic games.
Far from it. Making too much of inferential conclusions is a consistent problem. The Wall Street meltdown and accompanying financial crisis is, in large measure, attributable to it.
And you are still avoiding the need to supply positive evidence for your dog.
You have established no such need since my take on God is not the issue at hand.
What a liar and bullshitter.
Again, establish my dishonesty and I will apologize.
Without evidence, parsinomy (Occam's razor) says something doesn't exist.
The concept of lex parsimoniae does no such thing. In science it's a simple (and good) rule of thumb -- don't multiply entities unnecessarily. But it doesn't establish truth or falsity. Otherwise, black swans didn't exist until they were discovered in about 1790.
We are waiting for the evidence you are right.
Any beliefs I might hold are not at issue. I repeat:
"Oh, and I'm still waiting for someone to explain how a lack of evidence piled really high -- poof -- turns into affirmative evidence. That you haven't suggests that this non-evidence isn't all you've been piling. Are you ever going to get around to this question?"
Are you?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 9, 2009 5:40 PM
Ditto. Your allegations and attitude mean nothing. And you know it. I will disbelieve anything you posit as long as you disbelieve anything I say. Golden rule and all.Until evidence is shown, nothing exists, be it your imaginary deity or the Higg's particle. I have much more confidence that the Higg's particle will be found than any physical evidence for your imaginary deity is presented. Show your evidence. Without evidence, there is nothing.
Posted by: Robocop | July 9, 2009 5:54 PM
Until evidence is shown, nothing exists....
Wow. This just keeps getting curiouser and curiouser (not to mention more and more entertaining).
That said, Nerd, your claim is astonishingly, mind-numbingly, patently and unbelievably ridiculous and irrational, even by your usual standards. If I remember my physics correctly, Plank hypothesized the physical reality of photons in 1900, in order to solve the problem of black body radiation. Einstein provided the evidence to demonstrate their physical reality in 1905. So, photons didn't exist 'til 1905?
Posted by: CJO | July 9, 2009 5:56 PM
Well, let's examine the contrary, in the Rumsfeldian context: WMD in Iraq.
Robocop, are you saying that if we were able to scan the entire country, with every available detection technology, to the scale of gravel, and no evidence of WMD were found, that this would only allow an inference that WMD were not present; that this negative finding could in no way be construed as evidence for the absence of WMD? Just to keep it clean, let's limit "WMD" to known forms of such weaponry (no invisible ray-guns or gravel-sized nukes).
If that is what you're saying, then aren't you just taking the position that for negative statements, no evidence can ever settle the question of their truth or falsity? (and given that any assertion can be expressed as negating its opposite, how does this differ from radical skepticism?)
Posted by: Kel, OM | July 9, 2009 6:25 PM
The lion was but an example of how beliefs apply to behaviours and are thus selected. I could give plenty more examples if you want, but I doubt you'll think it is unevidenced.And as for evidence - do you think a murder is unsolvable if there are no witnesses? Police come across a dead body and a whole bunch of clues, if that leads to a conviction would it be fair for the defendant to come up and say there was no evidence? Even if her DNA was found at the crime scene, her fingerprints on the murder weapon and evidence discovered of a motive?
There's plenty of evidence for this, while much of our ancestral story is speculative, there are some general traits we all know. We also know the mechanism by which organs in our body evolve and much about human behaviour now. To move to a brain such as ours, it would have had to be either advantageous or a bi-product of something else that is advantageous. So it would have been built on a strong foundation, you don't start from weak and go to strong - you adapt from something else that was built by the forces of natural selection. Given the massive increase in brain size over the last 6 million years, surely it is safe to conclude that brain function is being selected against.
Posted by: Kel, OM | July 9, 2009 6:35 PM
Humans are social creatures, we need to be able to trust others in order to survive as a social unit.Combine that with our ...
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 9, 2009 6:42 PM
Ditto asshole. You aren't more intelligent than we are. Your posts prove that. You have nothing, and we know that. You are not cogent enough to recognize that.Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 9, 2009 6:49 PM
Robocop, I will continue to mimic your level of skepticism. Golden rule and all.
Posted by: Robocop | July 9, 2009 7:23 PM
CJO, the so-called "problem of induction" is a very interesting and difficult question. It was this issue that I thought deserved discussion before the ideologues jumped in thinking I was postulating something like Russell's Teapot.
We make decisions based on inference all the time and decisions based upon evidence all the time (and for other reasons too, both good and bad, but those are irrelevant here). In every case, there is an obvious question -- Was the basis for the decision justified? I don't think there's an unambiguous answer to this question. But I want to be clear that I'm not suggesting that inferential conclusions are never justified, even when unevidenced.
When there is affirmative evidence, the task is simple, even if often difficult: examine the evidence, evaluate it, and make a decision. In many cases (and in all close cases), reasonable people can come to different conclusions about the same evidence and will certainly disagree about the nature and quality of the evidence. But how to go about the process is pretty straightforward.
On the other hand, when there isn't any affirmative evidence and we're considering a decision based upon the lack of evidence, the task is both more complicated and more difficult. We have to examine how broad and comprehensive the search for evidence has been and whether we think it's a sufficient basis to come to a conclusion. We know about statistical "fat tails" generally and how they can negatively impact us. We also know that a very significant percentage of major technological breakthroughs were also statistical outliers -- the discoverers were trying to do something else entirely. Furthermore, at every stage and at every level, the universe has turned out not just stranger than we thought, but stranger than we could have imagined. More practically, all kinds of stuff deemed impossible turned out to be not just possible, but downright commonplace. Moreover, we know that all of us are susceptible to the narrative fallacy -- putting together a story after an unlikely event that makes it seem somehow likely or even inevitable. Think about the recent market meltdown. Lots of smart people acted upon the assumption that something couldn't happen (because it hasn't happened a lot of times), with disasterous consequences.
At a minimum, I think this all means that we handle inductive conclusions extremely carefully, especially when they can lead to catastrophic results if we're wrong. (I'm not nearly so worried about positive "black swans" -- they're just gravy). To cut to the chase, an inferential conclusion without evidence can still be justified (as with your theoretical search to the nth degree), we just have to handle them with extreme care and recognize our being *very* prone to jump to conclusions much too soon. The bottom line is that I'd like to see a lot more epistemic modesty than is typical.
Posted by: Robocop | July 9, 2009 7:55 PM
Kel -- Thank you for your interesting post and the Shermer link. That most here who would buy the premise of the cited article would also likely reject Shermer's similarly based conclusions about the market (an interesting book, by the way) highlights the difficulty of the study. One person's just-so story is another's compelling argument, with no clear basis to decide the question that I'm aware of.
The case you and Shermer outline is surely plausible (and consistent with the narrative fallacy I outlined above), but I think you too readily reject the alternate scenario I offered. In-group trust and out-of-group skepticism don't strike me as so inconsistent, especially since ancient societal groupings were pretty small (as far as I'm aware). I have no reason to doubt the pattern recognition story you have outlined, but I also suspect that the full story is much more complex and interrelated than that (the number of traits subject to selection must be enormous). I also don't know how the conclusions we might like to draw can be anything other than speculative. All that said, I'm no expert (obviously). Anything else you suggest I read?
Posted by: Robocop | July 9, 2009 8:00 PM
Nerd (re 262) -- So you do think that photons didn't exist before 1905....
Posted by: Kel, OM | July 9, 2009 8:26 PM
Different fields of study. That article is just a snippet of what he explores in Why People Believe Weird Things, that's what you get when you summarise an entire field of study into a one-page 750 word article. So if you haven't read the aforementioned book, I would suggest reading that. And his book The Science Of Good & Evil is also worthwhile reading as it talks about the evolution of moral systems and that does tie back to the patternicity that we see.You dismissing it as a "just so" narrative does a disservice to the science at hand. Yes, we are putting together a past from an end-product. Which takes the degree of certainty down, but it's far from speculative. There's plenty of work done into human psychology, working out how the mind works. So combine that with a mechanism that biology has well established and some known facts about our ancestors, and there's cause to put in an explanation that fits all this. Then combine this with what we see in other animals and especially in our closest living relatives, it means that there's sufficient evidence from which to draw the narrative. This does not mean that all work should stop, nor that we should be satisfied with the current explanation. But it's the best fit explanation (as far as I can tell) given what we have to work with.
i.e. We evolved, the brain is an evolved organ, the size of the brain increased rapidly over the last 6 million years, the brain is so large that before modern medicine childbirth was fatal 20% of the time, we are pattern seeking creatures, we engage in complex social behaviours, we are not the only animal to do this... Logically it fits that it's better for a smoke alarm to go off a little more than it should than for it not to go off when it is needed.
As for your alternative, I'm having trouble finding it on here. I've read all your posts, so would you be so kind as to please point me in the right direction?
Posted by: Anri | July 9, 2009 8:41 PM
Robocop asked:
"Are you joking? By what authority can any parent convey human rights?"
Um... by creating a human?
That was a rough question, let's move on to the next one.
"Really, is this a parody post? Lots of falling apples is in fact affirmative evidence. That wasn't the question. The question is whether the absence of evidence is affirmative evidence. Get it?"
Yes. Is the absence of evidence for gravityless apples evidence in favor of their absence?
Or would you say there is no such evidence?
Is the absence of evidence of the tooth fairy pretty good evidence for it's absence?
Or would you say that there's really no telling either way?
Is the absence of evidence of Shiva's divinity pretty good evidence that no such divinity exists?
Or would you say that someone who had an opinion on the divinity of Shiva was jumping the gun?
The more we look around for (X), and the more we don't find any (X), the more likely it is that (X) doesn't exist. This is evidence.
Posted by: Kel, OM | July 9, 2009 9:02 PM
The absence of evidence does not entail the evidence of absence, but it doesn't go beyond the null hypothesis. There's an invisible, immaterial dragon in my garage now. No matter what tests you do for it, it can't be detected. So there is an absence of evidence for the dragon, it can't not be.
Now what is the difference between there being an absence of evidence for a dragon and no dragon at all? This is why the absence of evidence argument doesn't cut it in science. Positive claims require positive evidence, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Otherwise in the absence of evidence there's nothing to suggest that it is real. So the null hypothesis must apply until evidence is provided.
Posted by: theshortearedowl | July 9, 2009 10:04 PM
I mean, religion might well be the only avenue for addressing the question of how many bicycles are being peddled by angels right now, but that's because it's an irrelevant question that doesn't affect our lives or the universe in any way, doesn't have any way of being answered, and is built around imaginary referents, "angels", for which we don't even have evidence of their existence.
You're getting dangerously close to superstring theory there.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 9, 2009 10:27 PM
No, it is very simple. No evidence, no existence. Parsinomy. Subject to change when evidence is found. Only an ignorant godbot looks for such a gap to put his imaginary deity into, since that is all they have. Science and scientists have no need for such gaps. They are merely places for us to investigate.Only an idiot would such a statement. Why do you show your ignorance by alleging it? Such inane arguments are too off the wall to be taken seriously.Show us your intelligence by either showing the evidence for your deity, or just allowing science to do its thing without your unwanted and unneeded opinions.
Posted by: AbigailRae | July 9, 2009 11:38 PM
Well, I admit I can no longer really classify myself as a scientist because I have just decided after a conflicted freshman year of straight A's not to pursue my undergrad degree in chemistry. But let me just offer this outsider's perspective. I was reading Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time--the passage when he discusses the early, hot stages of the universe when giant clouds of hydrogen and helium were breaking up and then collapsing under their own gravity. What imagery! I was really moved by that narration of the early universe. Forgive me, but it was maybe even a spiritual experience. Naturally, A Brief History of Time is basic enough to be understood by novices like me and probably pretty obsolete, so it ought to been relegated to the ranks of general "literature," not science literature.
Hawking's formation story was riveting enough to leave me in the kind of stupor only possible from deep, meditative contemplation of the origins of our lives and the universe. I'll let all ya'll Bill Maher's think what you will of this reading, but I also just wanted to add that one of my role models in my life told me that the most difficult thing they're always trying to get college undergrads to do is be open to alternative perspectives when they encounter unexpected or jarring opinions. Ever since that conversation, I have tried to catch myself before impulsively reacting to other people with whom I immediately disagree. Without digressing into a bunch of anecdotes, I'll just say that this outlook has been pretty useful, for instance, in getting along more with my parents. A diplomatic worldview continues to hold sway beyond the family sphere, if you get my drift.
Posted by: Notagod | July 10, 2009 10:17 AM
AbigailRae, have you considered, christians are the ones insisting they KNOW that their dog exists? That seems to me to be a big part of the problem. Very few atheists would insist that there is absolutely no possibility that some super creature exists, however, if something like that exists or existed it certainly isn't the christian dog idea, the evidence is overwhelmingly against the existence of a creature as described in the christian guidebook. Regarding some other super creature though, the possibility is still exceedingly remote.
Atheists have gone about as far as they can honestly go, it is the christians who must stop insisting that they KNOW something that they simply cannot know. Therefore, my second question is why aren't your diplomatic worldview efforts directed at getting christians to at a minimum admit that they surely don't KNOW?
Posted by: Robocop | July 10, 2009 10:59 AM
267: The Why People book has been on my list for a while. I'll move it higher up. Thanks.
You dismissing it as a "just so" narrative does a disservice to the science at hand.
You may be right. I should give it a fair shot (though I found Coyne pretty convincing).
As for your alternative, I'm having trouble finding it on here. I've read all your posts, so would you be so kind as to please point me in the right direction?
My alternative (though it's presumptuous to call it that since it's uninformed) is in contrast to your suggestion that "false positive seers" are selected for. I suggested that it's also possible that cynical disbelievers should have had distinct survival and leadership advantages among humans (especially as compared to stupid and gullible woo-ists) since I would expect humans to be by far the greatest survival threat overall (as opposed to your posited lion). And while your point about social conformity is a valid one, in-group trust and out-of-group skepticism don't strike me as so inconsistent, especially since ancient societal groupings were pretty small (as far as I'm aware). This also raises a larger concern -- that it's pretty easy to construct a plausible explanitory framework that seems to "fit." It must be very difficult to evaluate the competing frameworks, especially because many of them could be true simultaneously.
268: "Are you joking? By what authority can any parent convey human rights?"
Um... by creating a human?
That was a rough question, let's move on to the next one.
Are you high? Since it's so easy, why don't all parents simply convey their children with the right to be rich, smart and talented? Joel Osteen might like your argument, but I'm can't imagine that anyone else should.
The more we look around for (X), and the more we don't find any (X), the more likely it is that (X) doesn't exist. This is evidence.
The first sentence is correct. The second sentence is not.
269: [T]he null hypothesis must apply until evidence is provided.
Although I have been explaining how the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, I disagree with your "must." We should be very careful about the conclusions we draw based upon a lack of evidence, but I disagree with the idea that such conclusions are never appropriate. Perhaps you're arguing for a stricter standard for scientific endeavors than for other kinds of pursuits? Did our (the USA's) inability to find WMDs in Iraq justify a conclusion that they weren't there?
271: No, it is very simple. No evidence, no existence. Parsinomy.
I'll give you that it's very simple, Nerd. But you haven't accurately described the law of parsimony.
Only an idiot would such a statement.
I can count on you to call me names when your argument is crap and you can't defend it. Your claim is that "[u]ntil evidence is shown, nothing exists..." (257). If you are right, photons weren't discovered; they were created in 1905 when Einstein produced evidence for them and didn't exist before then. There's simply no polite way to say that your view is just bat-sh*t bonkers. Something's objective existence isn't determined by someone's subjective ability to produce evidence for it. WMDs *may* have been in Iraq even though the inspectors didn't find them. Really, this isn't hard and it's hardly controversial.
Posted by: AbigailRae | July 10, 2009 11:43 AM
Notagod: I totally hear what you are saying. Is it mainly Christians who you see yourself in opposition to? In addition to Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Sikhism, Juche, Spiritism, Neo-Paganism, as well as indigenous and diasporic faiths insist on knowing things upon which they have no factual bearing. I guess that part of the reason I'm skeptical of the very ambitious task of diluting these faiths is that such widespread enlightenment seems to me to be about as feasible as time travel. Rather than exhaust my efforts trying to persuade the world's clergymen of the futility of their lives' devotion, I would rather spend it trying to get along with them. I guess what I'm saying is that I hold my spiritual convictions responsibly and can continue to esteem others' highly despite our disparities. I think it's fascinating that despite your attempt to divorce atheism and its tenets from other world religions, you at least share one thing in common with your christian forebears: the insatiable urge to create new converts.
Posted by: AbigailRae | July 10, 2009 11:45 AM
Notagod: I totally hear what you are saying. Is it mainly Christians who you see yourself in opposition to? In addition to Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Sikhism, Juche, Spiritism, Neo-Paganism, as well as indigenous and diasporic faiths insist on knowing things upon which they have no factual bearing. I guess that part of the reason I'm skeptical of the very ambitious task of diluting these faiths is that such widespread enlightenment seems to me to be about as feasible as time travel. Rather than exhaust my efforts trying to persuade the world's clergymen of the futility of their lives' devotion, I would rather spend it trying to get along with them. I guess what I'm saying is that I hold my spiritual convictions responsibly and can continue to esteem others' highly despite our disparities. I think it's fascinating that despite your attempt to divorce atheism and its tenets from other world religions, you at least share one thing in common with your christian forebears: the insatiable urge to create new converts.
Posted by: Notagod | July 10, 2009 12:55 PM
AbigailRae, I live in the United States, the acts of christians are the problem here. The United States is also a good focal point because it is supposedly some magnificent powerhouse of some sort, that "leads" the world. So yeah, there are other religions but, in the United States, the problem is what the christians are attempting to do to society, public schools, and the government.
Certainly not in the comment from me that you responded to and I doubt anywhere else either. I would have no problems with christians being christians if that is what they want but, the problem is, they want to force everyone into their delusion. The christians are the aggressors not the atheists. For a long time the atheists were doing what you suggest and the christians kept pushing harder and further. You see christians view silence as acceptance and weakness. I think you will find that atheists are the ones that have been forced to fight for equality.
Why do you feel a need to "get along" with theists but not atheists? It appears that you think we are a soft target. Where have you posted your message on a christian blog asking the christians to be silent?
Posted by: Anri | July 10, 2009 2:36 PM
Robocop sez:
"Are you high? Since it's so easy, why don't all parents simply convey their children with the right to be rich, smart and talented? Joel Osteen might like your argument, but I'm can't imagine that anyone else should."
Well, I imagine it has something to do with the fact that we don't consider being rich, smart, or talented to be basic human rights.
Do you consider 'life, liberty, pursuit of happiness' to be equalivant to 'rich, smart, talented' in terms of rights we should be (attempting) to defend?
To put it another way - if you believe that there are basic human rights, that all humans have, then creating an entity with those rights is just as 'easy' as creating a human being.
Of course, it's possible you don't believe all humans have the same basic rights. If that's the case, than clearly creating a human life does not imbue it with any rights at all.
My only point in this was that rights being given by a creator (as noted in the DoI) does not require a diety.
And:
"The first sentence is correct. The second sentence is not."
Well, we might be having a semantic problem here. I believe evidence to be information that can be used to aid in drawing conclusions about the world. An example would be saying: "The more we look around for (X), and the more we don't find any (X), the more likely it is that (X) doesn't exist."
To clarify: evidence can be incorrect (the moon is made of green cheese - my mom told me so), incomplete (the moon is covered with a thick layer of loose dust), and potentially overturned at any time by new evidence.
Please let me know what you consider 'evidence' to be, and that might take care of this problem.
Posted by: Robocop | July 10, 2009 4:20 PM
My only point in this was that rights being given by a creator (as noted in the DoI) does not require a diety.
The DoI had a Deity in mind. More to the point, only an entity with sufficient authority can bestow rights. A government can bestow rights which last until removed by the government or until the government is overthrown. Jefferson described inalienable rights which exist irrespective of government recognition and are bestowed by "the Creator," the only possible source of such rights (assuming the Creator exists). Parents may provide life to their children, but they don't have sufficient authority to bestow a right to life. Simply put, without an entity with sufficient authority,like a God, there can be no inalienable rights.
Well, we might be having a semantic problem here.
I think you're conflating evidence with any good reason. In my view, a lack of evidence in certain (very limited) circumstances can give rise to an appropriate inference to justify a conclusion. In such a case, there would be good reason for thinking the conclusion to be true even though there isn't any affirmative evidence in its support. A lack of evidence in sufficient "quantities" doesn't somehow turn into evidence.
Posted by: jeanstaune | July 10, 2009 6:54 PM
TO PZ MYERS
1) it is a SHAME that the blog of so close minded person like you is so famous!
A man who wrote "I think the fruitful conversation we need between science and religion is more of a loud roar from the science side to silence the lies of the faithful."
is as stupid as the standard creationnists- fundamentalists!
2)"People like Conway Morris keep claiming that science and religion are not only compatible, but that both are necessary"
in fact science and religion are closer on a METHODOLOGICAL point of view than what you can imagine in your wildest nightmare read this from the nobel prize Charles townes ( a man who knows deeply what is science and what is religion
"To me science and religion are both universal, and basically very similar. In fact, to make the argument clear, I should like to adopt the rather extreme point of view that their differences are largely superficial, and that the two become almost indistinguishable if we look at the real nature of each. It is perhaps science whose real nature is the less obvious, because of its blinding superficial successes."
please see The convergence between science and religion
Charles Townes,Nobel Prize for physics
at
http://www.uip.edu/uip/spip.php?article436&lang=en
look also at
Version à imprimer
Faith in Mystery in Science, Reason and Scepticism in Religion
http://www.uip.edu/uip/spip.php?article446&lang=en
Posted by: jeanstaune | July 10, 2009 6:57 PM
TO PZ MYERS
1) it is a SHAME that the blog of so close minded person like you is so famous!
A man who wrote "I think the fruitful conversation we need between science and religion is more of a loud roar from the science side to silence the lies of the faithful."
is as stupid as the standard creationnists- fundamentalists!
2)"People like Conway Morris keep claiming that science and religion are not only compatible, but that both are necessary"
in fact science and religion are closer on a METHODOLOGICAL point of view than what you can imagine in your wildest nightmare read this from the nobel prize Charles townes ( a man who knows deeply what is science and what is religion
"To me science and religion are both universal, and basically very similar. In fact, to make the argument clear, I should like to adopt the rather extreme point of view that their differences are largely superficial, and that the two become almost indistinguishable if we look at the real nature of each. It is perhaps science whose real nature is the less obvious, because of its blinding superficial successes."
please see The convergence between science and religion
Charles Townes,Nobel Prize for physics
at
http://www.uip.edu/uip/spip.php?article436&lang=en
look also at
Version à imprimer
Faith in Mystery in Science, Reason and Scepticism in Religion
http://www.uip.edu/uip/spip.php?article446&lang=en
Posted by: jeanstaune | July 10, 2009 7:00 PM
TO PZ MYERS
1) it is a SHAME that the blog of so close minded person like you is so famous!
A man who wrote "I think the fruitful conversation we need between science and religion is more of a loud roar from the science side to silence the lies of the faithful."
is as stupid as the standard creationnists- fundamentalists!
2)"People like Conway Morris keep claiming that science and religion are not only compatible, but that both are necessary"
in fact science and religion are closer on a METHODOLOGICAL point of view than what you can imagine in your wildest nightmare read this from the nobel prize Charles townes ( a man who knows deeply what is science and what is religion
"To me science and religion are both universal, and basically very similar. In fact, to make the argument clear, I should like to adopt the rather extreme point of view that their differences are largely superficial, and that the two become almost indistinguishable if we look at the real nature of each. It is perhaps science whose real nature is the less obvious, because of its blinding superficial successes."
please see The convergence between science and religion
Charles Townes,Nobel Prize for physics
at
http://www.uip.edu/uip/spip.php?article436〈=en
look also at
Version à imprimer
Faith in Mystery in Science, Reason and Scepticism in Religion
http://www.uip.edu/uip/spip.php?article446〈=en
Posted by: Kel, OM | July 10, 2009 8:34 PM
The lion was but example, but again I don't think that cynicism will win out over trust. Game theory shows that reciprocal altruism beginning with cooperation is the best survival strategy - what we pretty much call the golden rule. It works, so you'd expect to see cooperative people in general.As for cynics over wooists - remember that in tribal societies there's magic explanations without religion. They don't see themselves as part of a religion or their ideas as woo, it's simply the knowledge of the tribe. Why would a cynic do well? This is the year 2009 and those who are sceptical of "woo" don't do well. That scepticism and focus on the natural world has brought all the technology we use in our daily lives and further advanced our knowledge, and even then there are still very few takers.
So I'm not sure how you can posit that as a plausible explanation, let alone subject it to parsimony. Such an explanation doesn't fit what we see in society. And while astrophysicists are looking to the origins of our universe and the quantum physicists are finding the smallest building blocks of nature, while neuroscientists are unlocking the secrets of our brain and biologists are uncovering our past, we are talking about a population that doesn't look to science for answers but prefers to come up with their own explanation. This anthropic pattern-recognition we've got going, the separation of mind and body (self-awareness), among other things - people are going to tend to magic explanations because they don't know better. Indeed they can't know better, our brains have not been selected for that.
Conclusions are tentative, subject to revision as new evidence comes to light. This is the success of the scientific process. Scientific knowledge is always tentative, it is uncertain and subject to new evidence. At any time there could be a paradigm shift in knowledge and blow what we know away, and that's fine.I'm not saying "since there is no evidence now, therefore there will never be evidence" - no, I'm not saying to come to any absolute conclusions. Knowledge must be flexible, dynamic and always susceptible to change. Absence of evidence does not imply evidence of absence, but that's not how scientific knowledge works. In the absence of evidence, the goal is to find evidence to support your position, otherwise you have nothing.
Posted by: Carolyn A. Dennis-Sykes | July 10, 2009 9:39 PM
Since when is Christianity the only religion? Let's see, we can worship (or skewer) salvation (huh?), war, reincarnation, war, fertility, the Sun, feminine, masculine, wolves, dogs, crows,snakes, cats, pyramids... I think you are all too lazy. Of all universal things, religion isn't one.
Posted by: AbigailRae | July 10, 2009 10:37 PM
You’re right that what I said about the urge to convert was very strong. I didn’t mean to create antagonism (although it’s so easy with anonymity) so if I may, let me just explain what I meant a little more sensitively. I interpret atheism as an organization based on a process of negation rather than sublimation--in that the main principle is to eliminate unfounded beliefs rather than recommend alternatives. You say that Christianity should be your main preoccupation as an American atheist, as it is our nation’s dominant religion, but it seems to me that if proving the falsehood of theism were your main ambition, then not only Christianity, but all faiths that purport to have little regard for the scientific method would be equally threatening, no matter how obscure. When you talk critically about American Christianity, it seems more like you are criticizing the institution of the church (i.e. “society, public schools, and the environment”) rather than its holy tenets. This, I agree, is important work—but it is the work of fighting human corruption—a project that is in my understanding OUTSIDE the debate between theism and atheism.
It’s easy to see that I represent a minority in this blog, but mind you, I would be just as much an outsider in a Christian blog. I am part of the UU church, but I might more specifically classify myself as a humanist.
Posted by: John Morales | July 10, 2009 10:58 PM
AbigailRae:
An interpretation contrary to the evident and stated claims of atheists.
Atheism is the lack of belief in deities, no more.
The principle of eliminating unfounded beliefs is called rationalism.
Neither is an organisation, though organisations can adopt rationalism and/or be composed of atheists.
As an aspiring would-be rationalist, I suggest to you that category errors impede clear thinking.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 10, 2009 11:43 PM
And you Robocop, have presented nothing to show anything either. A typical and ineffectual godbot approach is to do a presupposition, and then do skeptical refutation like you are doing. We know your inane and illogical script. Read Occam's Razor and parsimony since you are so ignorant. I don't need to define them, as they are already defined. Another massive failure for a pseudointellectual godbot, as per usual.Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 10, 2009 11:49 PM
Godbot for Waaaaah, you don't believe in imaginary things like I do, and require real evidence, which I don't.I am a delusional fool who cannot tell the difference between evidence based inquiry, and accepting a fictional text without question.Then an inane quote to attempt an argument form an authority which we don't recognize. Script 8 of the ignorant godbot. Boring.
Posted by: Patricia, Queen of Sluts OM
|
July 11, 2009 12:11 AM
What's up Nerd? Are you being gruesome again? I've lost track of our Third. She must be having some wild love affair (I hope!)
I'll run upthread and see if this one is as stoopid as SF.
Posted by: Robocop | July 11, 2009 12:22 AM
Abigail -- Mr. Morales is using a popular tactic used by atheists (at least on internet discussion boards) by trying to define atheism so as to avoid any burden of persuasion and bullying you into looking at things his way (since, after all, "clear thinking" demands it). Unfortunately, evangelization by deception is far too common among everyone trying to persuade, theist and atheist alike.
Traditionally, theism and atheism were seen as poles on a continuum where agnosticism occupied a middle ground. Thus theism encompasses those who believe in a god, atheism encompasses those who think no god exists and agnosticism encompasses those who take no position on the question of gods. Many atheists today, like Mr. Morales, want to alter this traditional view. They want atheism defined as a mere lack of belief in any gods. Pursuant to such a rubric, anyone without a current god-belief – like a Christian sleeping or thinking about something else – is an atheist. It's possible that Mr. Morales thinks rocks and beer cans are atheists. Moreover, many atheists say that agnosticism isn’t about belief at all, but relates to knowledge. Accordingly, a Christian who doesn’t claim certainty (who doesn’t claim to know) is also an agnostic.
Why this attack on the traditional view? Confusing the definitions of atheism and agnosticism is a popular tactic with some atheists because it allows them to define the terms and and to frame the debate to their liking. The goal is essentially two-fold, I suspect. Firstly, a change would dramatically increase the number of atheists and make atheism seem more popular. Secondly, defining atheism as a default position – a mere lack of belief – allows atheists to avoid any proof burden in formal debate. However, I suggest you not let them misdefine and misrepresent basic categories in this manner.
Let’s be clear from the outset that an argument as to the better definition of atheism is perfectly reasonable. But many atheists (like our Mr. Morales) want to avoid that discussion altogether and presume that the argument is already decided and to accuse theists (usually Christians) of dishonesty or addled thinking for not having yielded to the presumption.
As best as I can tell, dictionaries are split over whether atheism is a mere lack of belief or whether atheism includes a specific denial. However, the more specific professional works, such as philosophical dictionaries and encyclopedia, all define atheism as something like “‘[a]theism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.” (J.J.C. Smart in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Atheists will concede, as they must, that professional works reject the definition they propose, but claim that these reflect mere professional jargon. However, comprehensive, "lay" dictionaries support the traditional view too.
The OED (the gold standard of dictionaries) defines atheism as “[d]isbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God” and, to be clear, defines disbelief as “[t]he action or an act of disbelieving; mental rejection of a statement or assertion; positive unbelief.” Accord, Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary (2nd Ed. 2001)(atheism is “the doctrine or belief that there is no God” {#1} and “disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings” {#2}, while disbelief is “the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true”). The Compact Oxford agrees (atheism is “the belief that God does not exist”). So does Merriam-Webster (atheism is “a disbelief in the existence of deity”; disbelief is “the act of disbelieving: mental rejection of something as untrue"). Moreover, no less an authority than Michael Martin (in Atheism: A Philosophical Justification) makes the same admission: “If you look up ‘atheism’ in the dictionary, you will probably find it defined as the belief that there is no God. Certainly many people understand atheism in this way. Yet many atheists do not, and …[Martin goes on to argue for his preferred definition].” Even the Skeptic’s Dictionary concedes the point: “Atheism is traditionally defined as disbelief in the existence of God. As such, atheism involves active rejection of belief in the existence of God.”
Some atheists wish to stress the point that a few dictionaries include the passive definition of atheism. True enough. Activist atheist efforts have borne some fruit. Moreover, some dictionaries are more descriptive than prescriptive and tend to include all possible options. But concise dictionaries, designed to provide the most common and best definitions without all the baggage, go the other way. See, e.g., Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (atheism is “a disbelief in the existence of a deity” while disbelief is “the act of disbelieving”); The New Oxford American Dictionary (2nd Ed. 2005)(atheism is “the theory or belief that God doesn’t exist”); allwords.com; Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary; and the American Heritage Dictionary.
Note that in his famous “The Presumption of Atheism,” Antony Flew concedes that the new atheist view requires that atheism “be construed unusually. Whereas nowadays the usual meaning of ‘atheist’ in English is ’someone who asserts that there is no such being as God’, I want the word to be understood not positively but negatively.” The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (2nd Edition 1999) addresses this very point. It provides that “atheism [is] the view that there are no gods. A widely used sense denotes merely not believing in God and is consistent with agnosticism. A stricter sense denotes a belief that there is no God; this use has become the standard one.”
Mr. Morales is also wrong for another, quite simple reason. Atheism is something people discuss and debate. In other words, it is a proposition and, as such, it is either true or false, can be the object of such propositional attitudes as belief and disbelief, and can stand in such logical relation to other propositions as entailment, consistency, and inconsistency. But one cannot discuss and debate a mere lack of something. Atheism redefined as a lack of belief is a property of certain persons. A proposition is not a property. Since atheism is a proposition, it cannot be redefined as a property.
So whenever someone like Mr. Morales claims that atheism is a default position -- a mere lack of belief -- don't be afraid to call the bluff.
Posted by: Robocop | July 11, 2009 12:30 AM
Kel -- Re the Shermer, I'll have to read it (and perhaps more) to see if my guess can be supported. I appreciate the information.
Conclusions are tentative, subject to revision as new evidence comes to light. This is the success of the scientific process. Scientific knowledge is always tentative, it is uncertain and subject to new evidence. At any time there could be a paradigm shift in knowledge and blow what we know away, and that's fine. I'm not saying "since there is no evidence now, therefore there will never be evidence" - no, I'm not saying to come to any absolute conclusions. Knowledge must be flexible, dynamic and always susceptible to change.
I completely agree.
In the absence of evidence, the goal is to find evidence to support your position, otherwise you have nothing.
I agree with the first clause and agree with the second if the "nothing" refers only to evidence. But, occasionally, I think an appropriate inference from a lack of evidence may be drawn.
Posted by: Robocop | July 11, 2009 12:33 AM
287: And you Robocop, have presented nothing to show anything either.
I can always count on Nerd to charge in offering heat but no light.
Posted by: Anri | July 11, 2009 1:37 AM
Robocop sez:
"The DoI had a Deity in mind."
Yes, and the people that wrote it meant 'men' to mean white males only. We understand they were wrong about that bit, right?
Just making the point that not everything the framers had in mind is necessarily correct.
"More to the point, only an entity with sufficient authority can bestow rights."
I disagree. The point about inherent rights is that they are not bestowed by anyone - they merely exist by virtue of being a certain thing. The government did not bestow upon me the right to speak my mind, they merely recognized that such a right exists.
"A government can bestow rights which last until removed by the government or until the government is overthrown. Jefferson described inalienable rights which exist irrespective of government recognition and are bestowed by "the Creator," the only possible source of such rights (assuming the Creator exists)."
I just want to be clear - you believe that an atheist has no reason to recognize anyone's rights if those rights are not supported by a government? If a government rules that slavery is legal, someone who does not believe in a deity (or, rather, a deity that disapproves of slavery) cannot think that slaves have the right to be free?
"Parents may provide life to their children, but they don't have sufficient authority to bestow a right to life. Simply put, without an entity with sufficient authority,like a God, there can be no inalienable rights."
Again, I do not believe that rights are separately bestowed upon someone - they are part and parcel of being alive and human.
Governments and other individuals may recognize those rights or not, and defend those rights or not, but the rights themselves are not removed due to a lack of recognition or enforcement.
The only other alternative is to believe that rights come from god - and that, presumably, he can rescind them anytime he chooses (and the vast majority of religions have numerous stories of god doing just that...)
If you believe that rights come from god, how can you prosecute a murderer who has gotten his instructions from god?
Especially if you are unwilling to presume that the absence of evidence that he did get those instructions from god is evidence of their absence...?
Posted by: John Morales | July 11, 2009 1:50 AM
Robocop, you might not appreciate that Nerd has undertaken the selfless task directly getting to the nub*: can you support your contentions with actual evidence, or are they only sophistry?
That you evade him is answer enough.
PS: Atheism is what it is, not what you want it to be. It is no different from aunicornism, only there're less unicornists around against whom to distinguish oneself.
--
* He bypasses the formal dancing and gets down to brass tacks; it's what earnt him an OM.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
July 11, 2009 2:03 AM
Another theist trying to tell atheists what they do or don't believe. This one takes a special dodge, pretending that it's atheists that are changing the definition.
I get really annoyed when some
assholetheist tells me that my definition of my belief (or lack thereof) is wrong. How does someassholetheist know what I believe better than me? He doesn't. So he would do both of us a great favor if he didn't try to put words in my mouth.Robocop, if someone who belongs to a particular group describes that group to you, they probably have a better idea of the group's philosophy, ideology, and general beliefs than an outsider like you.
Posted by: Ken Wilber | July 11, 2009 3:20 AM
Fox @ 103: "...there is no philosophical basis upon which a religious person can communicate with an atheistic mentality..."
And that, unfortunately, is why the current tactics of both sides will continue to fail.
Philosophically speaking, neither scientific materialism nor Judeo-Christian supernaturalism are fully self-contained, complete ontologies (at least not without being self-contradictory). The former assails anthropomorphism only to end up undermining itself by settling for merely descriptive knowledge of nature; while the latter shuts its eyes to the realities of nature for the promise of an afterlife less morally demanding than earth.
I think the reason atheists and religious people only throw words past one another in attempted conversations is that each makes a different a priori assumption. The skeptical, scientifically-minded atheist has already decided that purpose (as in final causality) is a mere human contrivance having nothing to do with the inner workings of the universe. The religious person, on the other hand, finds the question "why?" among the most important and vital a human being can ask. Of course, the atheist wouldn't necessarily disagree, many claiming to be in awe of nature and of the scientific method's ability to shed light on its mechanisms. However, this is to misunderstand what the religious mean when they ask why. The atheist assumes it is equivalent to a "how" question, to the sort of thing one can theorize about and run experiments to test. Asking "why" in the religious sense is a more practical, existential concern: not "why do clouds form?" but "Why am I here?" or "Why is there a universe at all?" or "Why ought I to be good?" You don't have to be religious to wonder about these questions, but for the more skeptical mentality of the atheist, for fear of anthropocentrism, such contemplation is reduced to a merely subjective fantasy having nothing at all to do with how the external world of neutral, physical law operates. This skepticism, of course, is what forced science either to accept the dualistic Kantian handicap (neutering it from any positive claims against the plausibility of religious ideals--think NOMA) or the Humean absurdity (that so-called physical causality is but a useful fiction). Scientific materialism, with its denial of all telos in nature, ends in self-contradiction, as it can not then justify its own use of reason (the brain being part of a contingently evolved animal) or the doctrine of necessary connection (b/c there is no purely empirical evidence for causality). Judeo-Christian religious belief rightly acknowledges the necessity of real purpose for coherent life, but instead of finding purpose where it should (immanent in natural processes), it imagines it to be imposed by a favored transcendent deity.
What we all need (atheists, agnostics, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, etc.) is a new mode of discourse, a new way of talking about the issues at stake (namely our shared fate as earthlings on this warming planet in the midst of mass extinction) that doesn't involve any of the aforementioned narrow presuppositions.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 11, 2009 9:23 AM
Robocop doing typical theistic shitty thinking. Trying to define atheism instead of finding the real working definition (I don't believe in gods). And thus ends the definition and all consequences of atheism. We don't believe in Robocop's dog, and this upsets him. At this point, he must do some wild philosophical gyrations (all sophistry) to put atheists into a bad light. Boring predictable troll, with nothing cogent to offer.
I'm still waiting for some physical evidence for your dog Robocop, and until you present some that will pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers as being of divine, and not natural, origin, you will continue to have nothing. After all, parsimony requires you to prove existence. A philosophical dog is a worthless (and non-Xian, read your holy babble) entity.
Posted by: AbigailRae | July 11, 2009 11:12 AM
Sorry to spur debate over who has the authority to define atheism. I'd like to think that I would be encouraged to grasp an understanding of a group of people among which, as I have already said, I am an outsider. It looks like my outsider status will have to prevail at least a bit longer because as 'Tis Himself warmly pointed out
"if someone who belongs to a particular group describes that group to you, they probably have a better idea of the group's philosophy, ideology, and general beliefs than an outsider like you [me]."
Looks like I better not carry on much longer because I've already been fossilized as an untouchable. Since I'm only 16 years old and am eager to learn about other people, it's really a shame that I've been so emphatically barred from this corner of the world.
Throughout, the most elemental source of my skepticism has persisted: that the atheists I have encountered in my short (I'll remind you, 16 years old) life have been unwilling to regard theism with the same basic respect which all faiths deserve. It's really unfortunate that this unpleasant impression will have to stay intact, but if my comments had been responded to differently, the plasticity of my young brain may have yielded to being less closed-minded.
Posted by: Rorschach | July 11, 2009 11:28 AM
Hello AbigailRae,
the wind can blow quite stiffly around here in the comments, but you will find that people are generally very willing to point out mistakes and point you to ways to learn and improve :-)
As to theism deserving respect, lots of commenters here are from the USA,and that's a place where theism/religion will always demand respect,but never give any respect in return, where religion is a conditio sine qua non for public office, while atheists are pretty much banned from the same, where religion will play the persecution card, but the persecuted ones are in fact the non-religious people.
There is an asymmetry here, that is one of the reasons for atheists becoming louder, more vocal and more confrontational in their approach to asking for a "fair go",as we say over here.
So stick around,learn,get used to the pace,and Im sure you'll have fun on Pharyngula !
Posted by: Kel, OM | July 11, 2009 11:33 AM
Atheism is about as descriptive as the term non-astrologer. People really get hung up over what the definition is and what it entails, but really atheism is not-theism. It's a negative position, it's not a positive worldview. And given it is a negation of theism then it makes no sense to argue against it on definition alone.
I'm quite happy to use the term, though I get frustrated that people take that use of the term to mistake it for a worldview. I don't believe in gods, therefore I'm an atheist. The only arguments against atheism are arguments for the existence of gods. It's not my worldview, it's merely explaining one thing my worldview doesn't entail.
Posted by: Kel, OM | July 11, 2009 11:41 AM
And this is the biggest mistake I see theists make when they try to tackle atheism. They treat atheism as if it was something more than what it really is - then some have the veracity to point out that atheism is sorely lacking as a worldview. Take morality, atheism is simply the lack of belief in God so there's no guidelines in atheism for what is right or wrong. Which is true because atheism is not a worldview, yet it is treated like such and the absence of it is pointed out.
And this gets nowhere because no theist is actually interested in finding out what my worldview actually is. I'm just told that my worldview is inadequate because it doesn't have X, Y, Z and Q in it - all based on the notion that atheism doesn't have it. Maybe I do have X, Y, Z and Q in my worldview, but they never ask that. They want to know how it fits into atheism because atheism despite it being simply the not-belief of theism somehow is the grand worldview that all must be accounted to.
And so time after time, I'm left with a bitter taste in my mouth because the theist wants to score points to validate that their position is defensible (making the only game in town fallacy at least in argumentation) while everyone else is not - remember John Knight... They don't bother to find out what I actually believe and why, they have no desire for introspection or understanding where others are actually coming from. Nope, they have their minds fixated on their own beliefs so any person who differs from their path must be wrong in the manner that fits their cognition.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 11, 2009 11:51 AM
Unfortunately. Another "problem with induction" twit. Anytime I see anyone post that, I know the dogdoodoo is not far behind.Posted by: Rorschach | July 11, 2009 11:53 AM
Who the hell is this guy?
Throwing red herrings around like there is no tomorrow.
Ehm,robocop,could you explain the difference between "a mere lack of belief in any gods" and "those who think no god exists" ?
Since that seems to be the evil trick you accuse "Mr Morales" of performing @ your 290.
Something people debate != a proposition.People debate evolution ,or gravity, or Michael Jackson's drug habits,that doesnt make them propositions.
My,but you are a sloppy thinker mate.
Posted by: Kel, OM | July 11, 2009 12:05 PM
yeah, that guy was really bad. Facilis is another example too, his "my evidence is the impossibility of the contrary" was just priceless; something that Matthew Segall uses to justify his new-age woo. Apparently the universe is mystical because we have consciousness. We'd all be philosophical zombies if it weren't for some universal special inherit property... but so is the gravitational power of love ;)Just got to accept that those brazen enough to come on here to argue theism are going to come on here with a formulation of what they think we believe and then proceed to dismantle what is a straw-man. Even when pointing out it is a straw-man they'll try to tell you otherwise. Then eventually they claim victory or futility and leave without even slightly improving their understanding of what atheism is and isn't or what atheists actually hold true. It's really quite sad, I can only home that those on the fence who lurk this place may do better in at least trying to understand.
Posted by: Anri | July 11, 2009 1:09 PM
Ken Wilber sez:
"The skeptical, scientifically-minded atheist has already decided that purpose (as in final causality) is a mere human contrivance having nothing to do with the inner workings of the universe."
I'm going to have to disagree here, at least speaking for myself. I have not decided that - I have merely seen no good evidence for any sort of purpose to everything yet. This is not to say that tomorrow, we won't (somehow) demonstrate that such a purpose exists.
For example, let's assume that the specifics of the fundamental laws governing the formation of the universe did, in fact, have to be very 'finely tuned' to give us the sort of universe we are in now.
Let's assume further that it were demonstrable that essentially any other type of universe would be utterly incapable of producing conscious beings.
Let's further assume that we were able to determine that the fundamental laws were free to vary almost infinitely at the very start of the universe.
If these three things were all shown to be true (let me quickly say that, to the best of my knowledge, *none* of them have been) then it would be very difficult to argue that our appearance is happenstance.
In short, it's not that science couldn't prove the existence of a deity - I believe it could at least show the existence of something that, for all intents and purposes, might as well be a deity - it's that it hasn't.
It simply hasn't.
Posted by: Robocop | July 11, 2009 1:23 PM
293: "More to the point, only an entity with sufficient authority can bestow rights."
I disagree.
Try that next time you get a speeding ticket. Tell the judge you bestowed yourself a pardon.
If a government rules that slavery is legal, someone who does not believe in a deity (or, rather, a deity that disapproves of slavery) cannot think that slaves have the right to be free?
An atheist can want them to be free, work for them to be free, or claim a legal basis for their freedom under applicable law, but can't with intellectual consistency claim that slaves have an inalienable right to be free.
294: Atheism is what it is, not what you want it to be. It is no different from aunicornism, only there're less unicornists around against whom to distinguish oneself.
Why should I take your word for it over Smart, Martin, the OED and the Skeptic's Dictionary (among many others)?
295: Another theist trying to tell atheists what they do or don't believe.
As I carefully pointed out, you can believe what you want and prefer any definition you want. What you can't do (at least with any honesty) is claim that the matter is settled and that your view won.
This one takes a special dodge, pretending that it's atheists that are changing the definition.
Actually, I demonstrated it, with the argument coming most prominently from atheists.
I get really annoyed when some asshole theist tells me that my definition of my belief (or lack thereof) is wrong.
Especially because it is.
Robocop, if someone who belongs to a particular group describes that group to you, they probably have a better idea of the group's philosophy, ideology, and general beliefs than an outsider like you.
I suggest you remember that the next time you want to tell a believer that faith is something like belief without evidence.
297: We don't believe in Robocop's dog, and this upsets him.
Laughably wrong, again, Nerd. I do this because I think it's both fun and educational.
300: It's a negative position, it's not a positive worldview.
Indeed, and it's much easier to destroy than to create.
It's not my worldview, it's merely explaining one thing my worldview doesn't entail.
I'm truly surprised that so many atheists are so eager to be defined by what they don't believe rather than by what they do. I find it rather pathetic. I'm glad you think otherwise.
And this gets nowhere because no theist is actually interested in finding out what my worldview actually is.
That's a fair point (even if the "no theist" is obviously false -- I'm very interested), but the theist don't deserve all the blame. As noted above, many atheists choose to be defined by what they don't believe and even reject inquiries into their worldview by insisting that atheism implies no worldview. Similarly, when I am interested in discussing other aspects of my worldview (at least here), folks like Nerd and our Mr. Morales insist that we should be talking about the evidence for God (or the lack thereof) instead.
303: Ehm,robocop,could you explain the difference between "a mere lack of belief in any gods" and "those who think no god exists" ?
It's the difference between one who has no current belief in any god (maybe isn't sure, or hasn't considered it, or thinks the arguments for God aren't very good, or even a believer thinking about something else) and one who denies the existence of any gods.
Posted by: Anri | July 11, 2009 4:45 PM
Robocop sez:
"Try that next time you get a speeding ticket. Tell the judge you bestowed yourself a pardon."
Do you consider the right to speed a basic human right?
I don't.
The reason for this is because sometimes, people's rights come into conflict (usually the last two - liberty & pursuit of happiness). This is why we have laws (to help delineate what happens when our rights overlap or conflict), and a justice system (to interpret and enforce the aforesaid laws.)
Note please that this is an ideal towards which legal systems should strive - I'm not saying we've got that now.
It can, of course, (in my opinion) be a moral act to protest or even knowingly break laws if they conflict with basic human rights.
And:
"An atheist can want them to be free, work for them to be free, or claim a legal basis for their freedom under applicable law, but can't with intellectual consistency claim that slaves have an inalienable right to be free."
I believe I am getting close to understanding your point, so let me try for a finer clarification.
You are saying that a person who does not believe in a god, or who does not believe that their god disapproves of slavery, has no basis for protesting slavery save personal taste.
Correct?
If a person who believes this doesn't care about slaves, and therefore doesn't want to work for them, and lives in a place where slavery is legal, you believe that they are fully moral in allowing, condoning, and participating in slavery?
To put it another way, if you were a slave in a country where slavery was legal, you would have to demonstrate that god existed, and also that he/she/it disapproved of slavery before you could argue that slavery is wrong.
Am I still on track?
Likewise, when living in a place where honor killings are perfectly legal, *and* supported by the local religion, you would have no basis for protesting an honor killing beyond "Hey, but I liked her!"
Posted by: Robocop | July 11, 2009 7:52 PM
Do you consider the right to speed a basic human right?
I don't.
But what if I do? Who gets to decide?
You are saying that a person who does not believe in a god, or who does not believe that their god disapproves of slavery, has no basis for protesting slavery save personal taste.
Yes, although I'd call it reciprocal altruism rather than personal taste. Reciprocal altruism can be a good motivator, but it's dependent upon the stronger party seeing it as in his or her best interest to treat the weaker party fairly. As we all know from experience, it doesn't always happen that way.
If a person who believes this doesn't care about slaves, and therefore doesn't want to work for them, and lives in a place where slavery is legal, you believe that they are fully moral in allowing, condoning, and participating in slavery?
No, but only because I think there's a higher law of universal application.
To put it another way, if you were a slave in a country where slavery was legal, you would have to demonstrate that god existed, and also that he/she/it disapproved of slavery before you could argue that slavery is wrong.
You're forgetting the context from which this issue arose. The question related to making human rights arguments trans-nationally and cross-culturally without any notion of a higher law. Without it, one is limited to using force or making claims about the other's best interest to try to convince the other to effect change. Those are very limited options.
Modern democracy is an invention of the West -- the Christian West. I suspect that Christianity's conviction that all are made in the image of God had a lot to do with that -- the "proposition that all men are created equal."
Posted by: Kel, OM | July 11, 2009 9:21 PM
*facepalm* are you seriously going to go down this path? Do you want to talk about what happened in Europe and America with the spread of Christianity and how the enlightenment era worked around the church? Democracy sprang up despite Christianity, a lot of the people in the movement were not Christians rather they were deists. Are you really going to argue that a document that gives freedom of religion is compatible with the commandment "Thou shalt have no other gods before me"?Democracy happened despite Christianity, it was the Enlightenment, the scientific revolution, the industrialisation, the desire for freedom - these were the forces that shaped modern democracy. But we can always point back and say "look, they were Christians. Therefore it's a Christian enterprise." Though if we can credit democracy to Christianity, can we do the same for 20th fascism? After all, there's a strong parallel between Christianity and Nazism. But I'm sure people would want to avoid that parallel, even though there's more reason to suggest that Nazism is a Christian endeavour and democracy isn't...
Posted by: John Morales | July 11, 2009 9:53 PM
Robocop:
Mainly, because I'm an atheist; also, from the etymology of the term. I feel the term 'atheist' fairly represents my position, but to infer I therefore make a truth-claim is a misrepresentation.
You're quibbling over terminology.
You want to misrepresent my position based on others' definition of the term, fine. It doesn't change it.
If you want to be pedantic, I'm an agnostic (I don't know whether at least one deity exists), practically, I'm an atheist (I don't believe one exist). I.e. functionally, I'm an atheist, epistemologically, I'm an agnostic.
If you can't distinguish between a justified belief and a truth-claim, then either you're a sloppy thinker, ignorant, or obtuse.
Posted by: Robocop | July 12, 2009 1:27 AM
309: But I'm sure people would want to avoid that parallel, even though there's more reason to suggest that Nazism is a Christian endeavour and democracy isn't....
You might want to add Nietzsche to your reading list before you make that ridiculous claim.
310: Mainly, because I'm an atheist....
So are Smart, Martin and the authors of the Skeptic's Dictionary.
I feel the term 'atheist' fairly represents my position, but to infer I therefore make a truth-claim is a misrepresentation.
As the Red Queen said, "A word means what I want it to mean, nothing more, nothing less."
You're quibbling over terminology.
No, you were calling another out as not engaging in "clear thinking" because she didn't use your (minority) favored definition. I corrected your error.
You want to misrepresent my position based on others' definition of the term, fine.
Nonsense. Call yourself what you like. Just don't criticize another for using a perfectly acceptable alternative (and majority) usage.
[F]unctionally, I'm an atheist, epistemologically, I'm an agnostic.
Okay.
If you can't distinguish between a justified belief and a truth-claim, then either you're a sloppy thinker, ignorant, or obtuse.
It was your usage that was sloppy (as you have just conceded -- "functionally, I'm an atheist, epistemologically, I'm an agnostic"), not mine.
Posted by: Kel, OM | July 12, 2009 1:44 AM
Do you need me to spell this out for you?Just for a taste...
"And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only for their wages wretchedness and misery. When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exploited." - Adolf Hitler (1922 speech)
"And the founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of his estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary, He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God." - Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)
"I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord's work." - Adolf Hitler (speech, 1936)
"I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator." - Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)
"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in his might and seized the scourge to drive out of the temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profpoundly than ever before that it was for this that he had to shed his blood on the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice…" - Adolf Hitler (1922 speech)
"What we have to fight for…is the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may be enabled to fulfill the mission assigned to it by the Creator." - Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)
Now are you going to kept denying that there's a link between Nazism and Christianity or do I have to pull out the big guns?
Not that it matters in the scheme of things, whether there is a God or not is external to what people do with the belief in God. If Christianity founded democracy or 20th century fascism, it doesn't reflect on whether there is truth in the cause. All it does is demonstrate belief in belief. That beliefs shape society, and whether the truth of the belief does not matter.
I'd strongly urge you to refrain from arguing for the good that Christianity has done, because there's a lot of bad that has been justified and stemmed from the same dogma as what you give it credit for. Your point is a mute one.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 12, 2009 2:15 AM
I don't 'choose to be defined by what I don't believe'; I'm forced into that definition by the sad fact that I am in a minority. Other worldviews I don't subscribe to include rape, racism and homophobia - amongst others. Do I need to 'define' myself as an arapist, an aracist, and an ahomophobe as well?
And atheism does not imply no worldview - it's simply a worldview that precludes gods. Funnily enough, in most respects it's almost exactly the same as the majority of modern Christians - since the latter have dispensed with the bible as society has changed position on things like the worth of women, sexual morality and slavery.
Really? Please cite the chapter and verse pertaining to elections, equal representation, women's suffrage and all the other significant developments in modern democracies. I'd like to know where Jesus implied those things should come to pass.
While you're there, you might want to explain how, if Christianity is responsible for those things, it took so long after Christ's alleged life for it to become the norm in Christian countries.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 12, 2009 8:04 AM
Robocop, still doing the sophist Xian dance. You are doing everything to avoid having to show evidence you know you don't have. If your disbelief in your imaginary dog doesn't bother you, why are you posting your inane ideas here? I would simply shut the fuck up and go elsewhere, since I would have nothing cogent to say.
Physical evidence for your imaginary dog. Put up or shut up are the honorable and honest positions. Continued sophistry is dishonorable and dishonest. I know your script is the latter. Prove me wrong.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 12, 2009 8:09 AM
Gack! Need more coffee. Third sentence in #314 should start out: If
your disbief...Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 12, 2009 8:14 AM
*the typo coooties appear to have control of my keyboard*
Posted by: John Morales | July 12, 2009 8:49 AM
Robocop, you are being wilfully obtuse.
There are many varieties of atheist, but they share only one commonality: none are theists. That's it.
Atheist = non-theist.
The intersection of the set of atheists and the set of theists is the null set.
No atheists are theists.
Those who lack belief in deities = atheists.
Those who believe no deities exist = atheists.
Am I getting through to you yet? :)
Posted by: Notagod | July 12, 2009 11:00 AM
AbigailRae,
Wasn't thinking you were being antagonistic or strong, just wrong. My comment @277, wasn't intended as an emotional response to your comment @275 (and @276), it was intended to add some clarity to my position and to hopefully get you to think about why some atheists see a need to stand up to the christian aggressors.
Alternatives to what? What was the alternative to the god idea of fire? I think it was to control fire without invoking a god idea. If there is something else that you think requires a god idea I would be happy to discuss it with you.
See John Morales' comment at 286 (although I prefer not to frame the definition of atheism with the word "lack" because it tends to suggest that belief in a nonexistent deity is desirable, it isn't desirable to me but more likely very dangerous.) I do however believe AbigailRae, that you lack an understanding of atheism and why atheists are speaking out against theism, particularly now and particularly directed at christians in the United States. You can obtain an understanding of the issues simply be reviewing the topics that PZ Myers has posted here at his Pharyngula blog. That review will also probably enlighten you regarding why atheists have determined that silence is not a workable solution, nor is allowing little bits of christianity to creep into science or government (it doesn't belong in either). I will add though that when the President of the United States stated that I don't exist, it tended to get my attention with a need to demonstrate that indeed I do exist.
Incidentally, you quoted me incorrectly. I didn't write "society, public schools, and the environment" I wrote "society, public schools, and government", however, as christians like to think that the environment and everything in it is gifted from their god idea to use and abuse as they like, christianity does necessarily have an undesirable effect on the environment.
Further, your last sentence there, I don't know how you are getting that reading. Perhaps you could point out specifically what I wrote that lead you to that conclusion. It looks like three different subjects to me.
I assume you are referring to the three (now four) issues of:
Society - (difficult for me to describe this problem accurately and concisely) When a largish portion of society uses christian faith as a basis for their decisions, it tends to weight social norms in favor of illogical functioning (more or less setting patterns of behavior that aren't well thought out). I think it would be far better if decisions were more logical and less faith based. Very incomplete description of the problems but, it isn't logical to go on and on about it at this point.
Public Schools - Big Problem, faith is NOT science (period). Secondly, it isn't good to promote religion within a public school, it creates an atmosphere of segregation that doesn't and shouldn't be there. Too many religions to treat each fairly and favoring one or another is wrong in a public school, each child should be respected and given a chance to lean in as hospitable an atmosphere is possible.
I didn't intend to imply otherwise, my question was intended to find out why you have choosen to criticize atheists instead of christians. If the christians would stop being aggressive and support changing some unfair laws I would gladly leave them in peace as long as they would do the same.
Posted by: Bobber
|
July 12, 2009 11:33 AM
Ignoring the fact that the creators of "modern" (read: American) democracy looked to the first attempts at representative government - Greek and Roman - that existed hundreds of years before Jesus was supposedly born...
Posted by: Notagod | July 12, 2009 11:38 AM
Oops, I didn't finish my thoughts about the four issues in my comment at 318, the other two that I missed are government and the environment. It should be obvious that a government that favors religion is in danger of becoming a theocracy and/or making policy decisions based on faith instead of reality, as occurred when G Bush used his and the christians faith to invade Iraq. Also, favoring one group in a democracy is simply wrong.
The environment above anything else is the reason that life exists on the planet. If we are careful the environment could sustain life for a very long time, almost as long as the earth will exist. A substantial number of christians believe that their god idea wants them to use up all the earth's resources and that attitude causes needless harm to the planet's environment. Additionally, as the christians have done for two thousand years and continue to do, they have faith that their god idea is commming verrrry soooonn NOW. That "faith" necessarily carries with it a short term view of the expected usefulness of the planet, which is detrimental to future generations of life.
Posted by: KI | July 12, 2009 11:58 AM
@319
Not to mention the Iroquois Confederation.
Posted by: Robocop | July 12, 2009 12:36 PM
312: The Hitler argument is a silly one. I expected better.
You've pulled out the usual atheist website quotes without looking at the bigger picture. Hitler was a politician. I don't suppose you've ever seen a politician use religion to curry favor? It was particularly important because of the fear of the godless Soviets and he wanted German Catholic support.
Besides, I can pull out quotes too. Hitler's secretary, Martin Bormann, declared that "National Socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable." Similarly, Hermann Rauschning, a Hitler associate, said, "One is either a Christian or a German. You can't be both."
Have you actually read the source materials or are you simply going by the propaganda sites ("Hitler was an atheist!" or "Hitler was a committed Christian!")? It's as irresponsible to claim that Hitler was a committed Christian or that Nazism was caused by Christianity as it is to claim that Hitler was an atheist and that atheism caused Nazism. A reasonably fair treatment of the issue is available here (since academics don't seem to be very interested in the subject).
I'd strongly urge you to refrain from arguing for the good that Christianity has done, because there's a lot of bad that has been justified and stemmed from the same dogma as what you give it credit for. Your point is a mute one.
Of course there's bad and a lot of it. Christians are people. But that doesn't negate the good. To suggest otherwise would be moot.
313: I'm forced into that definition by the sad fact that I am in a minority.
So a libertarian's minority status requires that s/he be an a-socialist? Sure.
And atheism does not imply no worldview - it's simply a worldview that precludes gods.
If you mean that atheists have worldviews, well, of course. But if you mean that being an atheist implies a specific worldview, what one would that be and how does atheism suggest it?
I'd like to know where Jesus implied those things should come to pass.
Equality was a Christian concept. In fact, sociologists tell us that Christianity gained a foothold in its foundational years largely due to its treatment of women and the infirm (much better than the society at large).
[Y]ou might want to explain how, if Christianity is responsible for those things, it took so long after Christ's alleged life for it to become the norm in Christian countries.
People make lousy choices. A lot. Christianity calls it sin.
317: There are many varieties of atheist, but they share only one commonality: none are theists. That's it.
I get that you'd prefer it that way. And a few dictionaries support you. My criticism was due to your insisting that no "clear thinking" person could take the majority view. Simple.
318: [A]s christians like to think that the environment and everything in it is gifted from their god idea to use and abuse as they like, christianity does necessarily have an undesirable effect on the environment.
Christians have often been guilty as charged, but your "necessarily" fails. Many Christians are environmentalists because they believe themselves to be stewards of the earth, responsible for how they handle that stewardship.
Posted by: Bobber
|
July 12, 2009 12:38 PM
Good catch, KI. You know... those notoriously "Christian" Native Americans.
"Modern democracy", like just about "modern" anything, evolved (oooooh, that nasty term) from a number of different traditions - most of which, in this case, were decidedly NOT Christian.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 12, 2009 1:08 PM
Still no physical evidence for either his deity, or that the babble is anything other than a collection of fiction. Xians are soooooo predictable.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
July 12, 2009 2:09 PM
The
assholetheist is not only insisting that he knows better what atheism is than real atheists do, he's trying to revise history.Your buddy Hitler was just like you, a theist. Sorry if that disturbs your worldview. But it really doesn't matter. Just like atheism is based solely on disbelief in gods, theism is based solely on belief of gods. Hitler and Thomas J. Haggerty had almost completely different socio-political views but both were theists. Pol Pot and Matt Wallace are on opposite poles politically yet both are (or were) atheists.
That's the whole point. Despite what you want to pretend, atheism is involved with only one question: Do deities exist? If you think the answer is yes, then you're a theist. If you think the answer is no, then you're an atheist. All your tapdancing and quoting other mistaken people doesn't change that in the least. So you're completely and utterly wrong when you manufacture an "atheist worldview." Because such a thing does not and cannot exist.
Jebus fucking Chrisp, why is it so hard to get theists to understand reality? Probably because they're so into the delusion about gob that they're delusional about everything.
Posted by: Robocop | July 12, 2009 2:29 PM
325: So you're completely and utterly wrong when you manufacture an "atheist worldview." Because such a thing does not and cannot exist.
Had you been paying attention, you'd have noticed that I agree with this point. It was Wowbagger (OM) who claimed otherwise and, last I checked, he claimed to be an atheist.
Posted by: Anri | July 12, 2009 4:52 PM
Robocop sez:
"But what if I do? Who gets to decide?"
Tough question, since we have no way of determining law in a democracy.
Oh, wait...
In the next section, I asked you essentially the same question, worded in two different ways, and you seemed to answer both in the negative and the affirmative, so I'll try to clarify.
If a country's law does not prohibit slavery, and their religion does not prohibit slavery, and their well being is supported by slavery, you believe they are moral for supporting slavery?
And if not, why not?
This question can be applied to other things as well, for instance honor killings.
And:
"You're forgetting the context from which this issue arose. The question related to making human rights arguments trans-nationally and cross-culturally without any notion of a higher law. Without it, one is limited to using force or making claims about the other's best interest to try to convince the other to effect change. Those are very limited options."
This would be a much better point if religions didn't also make self-interest claims by promising heaven or threatening hell.
And:
"Modern democracy is an invention of the West -- the Christian West."
Which would be utterly undermined if, for instance, the United States were to set into law that it's not a christian nation.
(It has.)
Or if, for example, a non-christian country were to become a democracy.
(Say, I dunno, India.)
"I suspect that Christianity's conviction that all are made in the image of God had a lot to do with that -- the "proposition that all men are created equal.""
Which would be utterly undermined if the bible (and I know this sounds crazy) talked about a specific group of people being favored above all others.
A 'chosen people', if you would.
But since the bible says nothing like that at all...
Posted by: Kel, OM | July 12, 2009 6:29 PM
Do you want me to talk about the relationship between the Vatican and the Nazi party?But that wasn't my contention. My contention was that the holocaust was a very Christian enterprise, much more so than democracy is. There was scriptural justification, Vatican support of what the Nazis did.
But you're shooting yourself in the foot there. By conceding that a politician used Christianity as a political tool, you're merely validating my point. They used Christianity as a justification.
But again, this is a mute argument. The truth of Christianity is not based on what is done in its name, but by the evidence for Christianity. My contention was that if you are going to talk up democracy as a Christian enterprise (despite many of the founding fathers of the united states being deists) then you have to accept that Nazism is one as well. It means nothing for the truth of the religion, it's just trying to associate the religion with something others see as good. I mean, can we talk about the 1600 years of women's oppression? What about the Curse of Ham and the racism that Christian societies engaged in? Are you game to talk about modern slavery and the Christian nations that supported it? Holy wars? Burning of witches? Torturing of heretics during the inquisition? The slaughter of natives in the americas by the conquistadors? I could go on...
You want to claim democracy, then realise that you're claiming everything Christianity has ever been associated with - and when the dust settles it's not going to come out looking good for the false religion.
Posted by: John Morales | July 12, 2009 6:30 PM
Robocop:
Your criticism is stupid.
Name one atheist that is a theist.
You want to use the term 'atheist' to denote a subset of those who disbelieve in gods, rather than the set, fine.
Consider an analogous issue: who is a Christian? What do all Christians, regardless of specific creed, have in common?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
July 12, 2009 6:35 PM
It's an argument that cannot speak? Or is it a moot argument?
Posted by: Kel, OM | July 12, 2009 6:40 PM
lol, you serious? Which group is it denying equality to homosexuals? Who is voicing the strongest opposition to gay marriage? Was it the same group that was against giving blacks and women equal rights until the latter parts of the 20th century?I wish Christianity was this beacon of enlightenment that you speak of. That there were no torturing of non-believers or those of different religions, that there were no holy wars, that a woman was afforded all the rights that men had, that homosexuals had as much right be in a relationship as non-homosexuals. Yay for equality, Christianity has saved the world!!!
Tell you what robocop, when Christians stop being the most vocal opponents of equal rights, I'll believe you. or even show me a Christian theocracy where there's equal rights, and not in a secular democracy. Because it seems to me that we are still in an unequal society and the biggest opposition to moving towards a more equal society are the ones with the biblical justification.
Posted by: Kel, OM | July 12, 2009 6:46 PM
That's the one.The simple fact is robocop, you can claim Christianity entails a certain thing like equality. But when it comes down to it, history is not on your side.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 12, 2009 7:00 PM
Not only history, but anything logical. Xianity is not not logical, and there is very little in the way of physical evidence to support it, as far as dog and the babble is concerned, other than an ad populum argument. Which means zip.Posted by: Kel, OM | July 12, 2009 8:12 PM
Why would anyone use a secondary argument such as that? All that advocates is belief in belief, rather than the truth of the beliefs themselves. Whether or not god exists and is how the Christians describe does not mean a bit of difference to whether one should turn the other cheek or drive out the money lenders with a whip. The validity of Christianity is not in the message or the actions of the followers, but in the evidence.
Otherwise all you have is belief in belief.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 12, 2009 8:39 PM
I guess with the lack of agreement on what the terms mean it's always going to be difficult to be concise when using those terms.
When I say 'atheist worldview', I don't mean 'the worldview of an atheist'; I mean a worldview that is not in any way infuenced by the existence of gods. There may be any number of worldviews that are atheist - but you can't define them as 'atheist worldviews' any more than you can define them as 'aleprechaunist worldviews'.
Whether or not you accept the definition of the word means nothing, Robocop. I don't claim that no god can possibly exist; I simply lack belief in any and will continue to lack belief until evidence to the contrary is presented to me.
And the most fitting term for that is 'atheist'. I admit I don't actually feel that I need to be defined by what I don't do accept in terms of archaic superstition any more than I need to be defined by what I don't accept in other human behaviour; like I wrote in post #313, I don't call myself an arapist, aracist or ahomophobe - and yet those terms are equally applicable to me as 'atheist'.
And as for equality, well, Christianity has been the enemy of equality for almost its entire history. That it has been dragged, kicking and screaming, to accept society's egalitarian developments is plain for all - the intellectually honest at least - to see.
For example, there were several major groups involved in Prop 8 in California. What, exactly, did all the anti-gay groups have in common?