I just watched the Francis Collins/Charlie Rose interview (it starts at about 35 minutes on that clip), and although I struggled manfully to appreciate the fellow's accomplishments and status in science, I failed. All I could see is that he was illogical, irrational, and downright goofy—all the symptoms of a severe affliction with a bad case of religion. That video ought to be a warning to scientists: even a prestigious scientist can suffer Christian mind-rot.
He started by telling us about his godless youth, when atheism meant he "wasn't responsible to anyone but me." Barely a few minutes into the interview, and he'd already said something stupid: no, that's not what atheism means. Atheists are responsible members of their community, and care just as much for others as the most devout believers. He might have been shallow and selfish, but that does not mean that all atheists are.
Then we got his conversion story. He was doing medical work in the South, and he experienced first-hand that "good North Carolina people were afflicted with terrible diseases that they'd done nothing to bring down upon themselves," and they were dying, and they were all religious, and these good people faced death with serenity and courage. Meanwhile, all the dying atheists were running around in circles, screaming for their mommies, crapping their pants and making embarrassments of themselves.
Oh, wait…that last bit? He didn't say it. He must have been thinking it, though, because otherwise why would the calm acceptance of dying Christians impress him at all? I suspect that dying atheists are just as dignified as dying Christians, myself—finding strength in the face of despair is something people do, not just members of specific cults, so Collins drew an invalid conclusion by associating that strength with their religion. Since they were all North Carolinians, he might just as legitimately have concluded that South Carolinians, Canadians, and Australians must all also lack that special spark that coming from that particular state confers.
From that flawed emotional argument, he then claims to have considered faith rationally, from the perspective of a scientist, and evaluated the evidence, and come to the conclusion that there is a god. What evidence, you might ask? He doesn't give any. He says he read Mere Christianity, that glib and extraordinarily shallow bit of hokum from C.S. Lewis. He does this several times in the interview, telling us that science and evidence led him to his faith, but when push comes to shove, he just dangles some pathetic bit of irrelevant nonsense in front of us and runs away from any evidence.
For instance, another of his rationales is that evolution doesn't explain where "moral law" comes from, which he claims is universal. He seems to think it requires some supernatural agent to infuse us with altruism, because otherwise there is no explanation for why we would be kind to strangers. I think, though, that that kindness to strangers is not universal at all, but more a function of a general prosperity that allows us to be generous, and a generalized empathy and social sense of reciprocity. For all of his defense of evolution, when he claims that complex behaviors with indirect or accidental properties cannot arise from it, he is perpetuating a simple-minded creationist caricature of how evolution works.
His arguments do not get any better as the interview goes on. They get worse.
He claims that "faith is the most rational of all choices," and gives a peculiar demonstration that I'll paraphrase. Imagine a table top represents the sum of all human knowledge. Now mark off the part that represents what you know—it would be a tiny circle. Now ask, where is the knowledge of the existence of god. Isn't it irrational to assume that it falls within your tiny circle, when there is so much you don't know?
This isn't just an argument from ignorance, it's an argument for ignorance. You can argue for anything with that excuse: Bigfoot, UFOs, the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, Jesus, green bug-eyed Martians, that PZ Myers has a completely different genome from what Francis Collins sequenced. What he is doing is playing a disingenuous game, pushing his god question off into the gaps in what we know, and at the same time implying that this all-powerful cosmic being that created and maintains the universe does not in any way impinge on our teeny-tiny circle of knowledge. If it's not dishonest, it's stupid.
Then, in his next breath, he completely undercuts his own argument. He claims that within our circle of knowledge is evidence of the existence of some supernatural being. So, he wants to argue away the atheists by saying they can't know, and the evidence is out there somewhere…just not in our circle. At the same time, though, he says that that knowledge is here in our circle, and that's why he believes. Again, though, he doesn't say what this evidence is. He's a scientist, trust him.
Rose gently hammered on him a little bit, showing a clip of a prior interview with Richard Dawkins in which he protests that faith is a false shortcut that teaches people, and especially children, to suspend their facilities for critical thinking and believe without evidence. Once again, Collins does his patented two-faced double back-flip. He agrees with Dawkins that we should teach people to seek the evidence, explains vaguely that his faith is supported by the evidence, and then turns around and argues that science is incomplete and only finds evidence of natural phenomena, but cannot detect the supernatural. In other words, evidence is great, and he has evidence, only he can't show it to us, and it's not scientific evidence—it's not the same kind of thing Dawkins was talking about at all.
I always wonder, what kind of evidence is not scientific? There's nothing magical about the word "scientific"—it just means testable, weighable, observable evidence that has some empirical and logical weight, you know. By saying his evidence isn't scientific, he's really admitting that he's got no evidence at all.
The subtitle for his new book is "A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief." Truth in advertising ought to compel him to admit that his definition of "evidence" is something peculiar and non-standard, and that since he is saying it is removed from scientific evaluation, his credentials as a scientist are utterly meaningless in this context.
I'm going to have to read that awful book sometime, and I'm not looking forward to it. It sounds like it's going to be equivalent to Ann Coulter's crap, with the hate stripped out but the same vacuous airheaded twaddle inside.
- Log in to post comments
"atheism meant he 'wasn't responsible to anyone but me.'"
Sounds to me like the motto of the current administration.
Don't worry about the poor, the homeless, the hungry, the ill, just make sure that Haliburton gets another multi-billion dollar contract.
At first I thought your reaction would turn out to be excessive, but the stuff you quote does seem rather aggravating.
"Faith is the most rational choice." Yeah, faith in *what*? I've always loved the leap involved in ontological arguments, from "this is why there must be an intelligent Creator" to "and thus I am a Catholic/Baptist/Jew/etc." Hindu faith, with an eternal recurrent universe/multiverse, with timescales actually on the order of scientific numbers (4 or maybe 8 billion years for one cycle) somehow never gets considered along with Christianity.
And, therefore, the conclusion we draw is:
As a steadfast (weak) atheist, there is one question to which I cannot postulate a satisfactory answer: why do some very smart people believe in god?
It is usually no more difficult to dispel their arguments for belief....
Jordan, I'm currently subscribing to the theory that religion has such a strong hold on the majority of the population because people are terrified of their own mortality. Thus they cling to a worldview that allows them to be immortal, i.e. religion.
There is also the possibility that smart religious people adhere to their religion for the social benefits, like some people I know.
You might as well ask why very smart people with extensive knowledge of the law and accountancy sometimes have "problems" with filing accurate tax returns. They have the capability to file correct information, so why don't they do so?
Yeah, I mean, just look at people like Sir Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, Blaise Pascal, and Louis Pasteur! Oh, if they just had been perfect atheists, the world would be a better place now!
Imagine a table top represents the sum of all human knowledge. Now mark off the part that represents what you know--it would be a tiny circle. Now ask, where is the knowledge of the existence of god. Isn't it irrational to assume that it falls within your tiny circle, when there is so much you don't know?
Peeling back the layers:
"My proof is rock-solid: you just have to presume that God exists and that he's knowable, and then BAM! It becomes so clear."
Good god, are people really this stupid?
Jason,
Actually, it probably would be.
Prayer (aka self brain washing) according to Collins is a way of getting closer to "God". In other words, if you sit in a corner and concentrate all your efforts on hearing voices (Gods, Demons, angels, aliens, whatever) eventually your gonna' hear them. Big surprise, I love that kind of "logic".
I believe because I want to believe I believe.
Does he realize how he is used by the kookballs? Oh yeah, that's right, he's one of them.
If we could only get him reconverted to atheism, he could be the scourge of the religious community.
Are there any known cases of a double flip-flop? No God:God:No God?
Francis! Save yourself from being ridiculed by posterity! Do one more flip-flop. People will admire you for it.
The evidence I think he has is is emotional and personal rather than logical. It feel right and good to him to believe in a god and it works for him. So why not believe in the flying spaghetti monster? Well it just does not have that long history and cultural acceptance behind it. He went Catholic so was certainly aiming for gravitas. I think it would be foolish to deny that belief in religion can be helpful to many people in how they deal with others. This does not of course make it in any testable way true - there is absolutely no evidence for it. But people make many judgements on feeling rather than evidence. For example President Bush got elected last time because he was going to make people safe. If you examined his history and record of accompishment there was not one whit of evidence to support this ridiculous idea. We can see the result.
Ni Hao! Kannichi Wa!Dang, I thought I would try to get in a few comments early here before the "choir" for Brother PeeZee chimes in with about 30 one-liner "Amen, Brothers" as our modern Carrie Nation (Annie C.) has accused him and his kind of. But I see a bunch have already chimed in.The issue here is a big one, total disconnect between what one does everyday with their hands and their mind.The issue relates to the discussions on coping with the schizophrenia between what one does 40-60 hr per week with having a "real life" (Dr. FreeRide and related stuff).Unification of mind and body (what one does with the hands) is the basis of the intensive discussion within what we falsely dissect as "religion," "philosophy," and "science."Karl M. put his intellect on the line to try to deal with this issue as well, but look how real world application perverted his ideas.Seems even in what we call science, we are still as schizophrenic as ever in trying to unify mind and what one does with the hands every day, and particularly application of the results to daily life.In relation to science, concept and application is further divorced than ever in its history.MOTYRP.S. I assume your Pgula library has all the London Times creativity on the subject, forgive me if redundant.
Peeling back the layers:
"My proof is rock-solid: you just have to presume that God exists and that he's knowable, and then BAM! It becomes so clear."
Good god, are people really this stupid?
Sounder---One of the weird things in the deist-vs-atheist debate is that whichever side you believe in is obviously true. Religion is a lot of crap--unless you've got one, in which case signs are absolutely everywhere. It's like reality is bifurcated.
I especially liked the part where Rose shows Collins an interview he did with E.O. Wilson and Nobel laureate J. Watson. They both indicated they did not know of a single *serious* scientist who believed in a personal god. When Rose brought up Collins as an example, Watson implied he was a *Wacko*.
I am surprised Collins' lame arguments for a rational belief in Gawd didn't include Lewis ridiculous false trichotomy of Lord, Lunatic, or Liar. It's obviously clear that Collins role in the Human Genome project must have been a political appointment based on his religious beliefs and not his critical thinking skills.
I was going to answer that but 'j' beat me to it with exactly what I also think is behind the phenomenon. Terror at the contemplation of the cessation of one's own existence. You'll note that religionists don't seem to mind the thought of losing their body. What really seems to terrify them (and it's certainly not a pleasant thought) is the idea of their consciousness ceasing to exist.
>Dang, I thought I would try to get in a few comments early here before the "choir" for Brother PeeZee chimes in with about 30 one-liner "Amen, Brothers" as our modern Carrie Nation (Annie C.) has accused him and his kind of. But I see a bunch have already chimed in.
Gee, so glad you finally made it with your far east, zen, new age BS! Let's have a look.
>The issue here is a big one, total disconnect between what one does everyday with their hands and their mind.
Without my brain my hands wouldn't know what to do.
>The issue relates to the discussions on coping with the schizophrenia between what one does 40-60 hr per week with having a "real life" (Dr. FreeRide and related stuff).
Schizophrenia?
>Unification of mind and body (what one does with the hands)...
Question: Do you even know what you're talking about?
>...is the basis of the intensive discussion within what we falsely dissect as "religion," "philosophy," and "science."
Answer: No, clearly you don't. "...we falsely dissect as "religion", Philosophy", and "science"?" Utter nonsense.
>Karl M. put his intellect on the line to try to deal with this issue as well, but look how real world application perverted his ideas.
Put his intellect on the line? Really? You sure that's what you wanted to say?
>Seems even in what we call science, we are still as schizophrenic as ever in trying to unify mind and what one does with the hands every day, and particularly application of the results to daily life.
Blech, more Deepak Chopra crap!
>In relation to science, concept and application is further divorced than ever in its history.
Really? When in the history of science were "concept" and "application" not so far divorced?
MOTYR:
That made no sense whatsoever.
I have to ask...
It's Collin's story of how he came to faith and why he believes. It's his PERSONAL story. Why are you getting all up in arms over his personal experience?
Why do you jump all over this comment, for example:
"He started by telling us about his godless youth, when atheism meant he "wasn't responsible to anyone but me."
Maybe that's not what atheism is to YOU, but it clearly was what it was to HIM. Again, it's HIS story, HIS experience, and he has the right to it!
Furthermore, here's a guy who could act as a bridge between science and Christianity, (really, he makes very similar arguments to those put forth by Kenneth Miller), but you choose to shut him down because he can't possibly be a rational person if he believes in God. Why not encourage him to be the bridge? So what if you don't agree with his belief in God? He's not the guy trying to stop evolution from being taught in schools, and no doubt is on your side in that regard. But, you prefer to paint him with the same brush as those "crazy fundamentalists" and "demented f***wits."
He is careful to make the point that scientific evidence and the evidence for HIS belief in God are not the same thing. He says God can't be proven scientifically, and you lambast him for not producing proof of God's existence. He seems to have a pretty solid grasp on the scientific method and what it can and cannot falsify, which is something many Fundamentalists don't have, and again, is someone who could educate people on that very important point. But...if he's not an atheist, he's not allowed to play.
You've got that shotgun trained directly on your own foot, and you don't even see it. There will never be any progress until you do. Working with scientists who could present Evolution to Christians as something beautiful to be accepted and cherished is a proactive step that you refuse to even consider. You simply won't concede it because you don't want evolution to be presented as something "the creator" created, even if it was also presented with the caveat that that is strictly a statement of faith and the scientific method cannot prove that it.
"I especially liked the part where Rose shows Collins an interview he did with E.O. Wilson and Nobel laureate J. Watson. They both indicated they did not know of a single *serious* scientist who believed in a personal god."
That's so weird, because I know SEVERAL serious scientists who believe in God. None are creationists, and most have made significant contributions to their fields.
They said a personal God.
As a representative for evolution Dr.Miller is great but if someone is making similiar arguments to his in theology they have some pretty big problems.
As long as they keep it completely separate from their science, and don't attempt to start melding the two, I couldn't care less what the genius who coughs up quantum gravity or the cure for cancer or AIDS believes. But science should never even come up in a discussion about their religious beliefs, except maybe as an illuminating question about how they keep two entirely separate standards for how to examine reality. Otherwise you might as well be content with a pharmacist who gives you completely supported information about the effectiveness of an antibiotic, and then goes on to explain that he's got some ferret urine that will cure any flus you might get.
I thought of an interesting retort to religious bilge like this:
It seems like every Christian's conversion story has the obligatory element of how they used to be evil and wicked until they found Jesus. Maybe we can turn that against them: what it really implies is that the selfish, immoral atheists are the only ones who convert. The good ones, on the other hand, stay atheists.
Yeah, I mean, just look at people like Sir Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, Blaise Pascal, and Louis Pasteur! Oh, if they just had been perfect atheists, the world would be a better place now!
Well, Newton wouldn't have spent most of his life writing spiritualist gibberish, so there's a bit of a gain. I doubt, at any rate, that calculus and Newtonian physics were accidental - imagine if he'd spent most of his time working in those areas instead of writing on the early church fathers.
The same is also true of Pascal - he started out brilliantly in mathematics and physics, only to drift towards religion after an unfortunate mystical experience. While he's more famous for Pensees, that doesn't mean that it's a good book (and the wager portion is downright comical). Imagine how much better off we'd be if he'd kept working in mathematics.
So, at the least, if two of the four you named been atheists then the world probably would have been better off. They both abandoned the work that was helping people, and was increasing human knowledge, for frivolity.
Do you know what a syncretist is, Squeaky?
Thanks, Caledonian. I learned a new word today.
Working with scientists who could present Evolution to Christians as something beautiful to be accepted and cherished is a proactive step that you refuse to even consider.
Then they should write books about how "A believer presents evidence for science", not the other way around.
PZ:
I'm going to check out the interview. Your description of it suggests I'm going to be disappointed. I suspect I will be, but I think I'm going to have to read the book, as well. My gut feeling is that Collins is not going to lay all his cards on the table in a TV interview, and maybe not even in a book.
It seems to me that what makes this so risibly pathetic is that he seems to be claiming that he is offering evidence as a scientist, and thus scientific evidence for faith, but then disclaims the same. Even if he actually has a nuanced position that somehow persuasively distinguish between the two, he's really guilty of false advertising in terms of how he's promoting his views. I suppose I'm going to have to read his book, too, since that's the only way I'm going to be able to be sure of just how much of a disconnect there is between what he actually is claiming and what he appears to be 'claiming to claim' in the media.
The impression received is that his book has no special weight. One might as well have books like "The Invisible Tailor: How Sewing Points to the Existence of God" or "Burning For The Lord: How Fighting Fires Demonstrates The Supernatural".
Those are phony books, of course, but I think you get the idea. Color this believer unimpressed.
Sincerely....Scott
If we are lucky, this is just a long con. He decided long ago that atheists needed a deathbed conversion too...
Squeaky:
You ask why do non-believers leap to criticize the 'personal experience' of Dr. Collins? In part, because many non-believers have had very unpleasant 'personal experiences' at the hands of those who claimed they could speak for the Almighty. And, in part, because it is not the 'personal experience' of Dr. Collins which is an issue, but his decision to write a work that appears to assert that there is some sort of scientific justification for believing in God.
Dr. Collins' actual views may be more subtle than that, but my sense from reading the reviews is that this is how the book is being sold. I'm a believer myself, but I have problems with that. Non-believers do as well, especially those who've had unpleasant 'personal experiences' with religion, because Collins comes across as just the latest in a series of snake oil salesmen.
I hope you found this perspective helpful.
Peace....Scott
He started by telling us about his godless youth, when atheism meant he "wasn't responsible to anyone but me."
And what happened, by the way, during those years when Collins thought he was not responsible to a higher power? Did he rape, murder and pillage his way across the country?
...oh, what's that? He ended up doing medical work and helping dying people? How dreadful. Good thing there are so few of these atheist people.
Scott,
I enjoy your posts and appreciate you as a person but I have to ask, Do you think PZ and others are going to hell for being an atheist?
Do you think such a place even exists and if so where is it? And if even one soul is there suffering how do you reconcile that with the many good aspects you show daily?
I mean I see you as a good fella, reasonable, educated, well spoken but I wonder if all of that matters as much as your irrational supernatural leanings. I'm just curious.
Nice jabs, PZ, though you could have gone on and on...
E.g.: Here's his take on agnosticism:
So then it's not that agnosticism itself is "a little thin", it's that some people have a "thin" form of agnosticism. But of course, he could apply this to any Christian who come to Christianity without sufficient searching or consideration, and thus have "thin Christianity" (vs. his "thick Christianity" I guess?). Moreover, his definition is off: agnosticism may mean "I do not know" and not necessarily "I can not know".
But there is also something odd here, in that, for those who adopt agnosticism and do consider all the evidence and conclude it is not possible to know (since Collins said "oftentimes" and not "always", this means there are some of these cases), Collins would have to conclude that their agnosticism was both a) an entirely intellectually justifiable position and b) not thin. So then why should one not choose agnosticism? I would guess Collins's answer would be that, though the position is justifiable based on the consideration of "all" the evidence (?) along with the conclusions that project generated, the "data analysis" was faulty. This is to say if they only would look at the world as C.S. Lewis or Collins does, they would examine evidence properly (though, admittedly, unscientifically) and see that it points toward a God, and in fact the Christian God.
> While he's more famous for Pensees
Guess I'm a geek. For me, Pascal's most famous for his Triangle, and work in probability and combinatorics. Then the unfortunate Wager.
"religion has such a strong hold on the majority of the population because people are terrified of their own mortality"
Religion is socially complex, so there are many reasons for a hold or a strong hold: habit, positive social pressure, negative social pressure, spiritual experiences, world view (creationism, for example), et cetera. But pascal's wager may hold out when the other reasons fades, I grant that.
Squeaky:
"here's a guy who could act as a bridge between science and Christianity"
There could be no bridge between. With thorough drainage one may build a wall, or even better use all the land.
What you don't seem to get is that Collins and Miller argues for at least a cosmological creationism by cosmological arguments (first cause argument), teleological arguments or theological arguments. But there are models that show that they can be wrong, reasons to think they are wrong, and in fact expectations that they eventually will be so shown, for example in physics (parameter setting) or cosmology (first cause).
So it seems odd that they don't make use of available science, and in fact contradict it outside their choosen profession. They should do some drainage. ;-)
"For instance, another of his rationales is that evolution doesn't explain where "moral law" comes from, which he claims is universal. He seems to think it requires some supernatural agent to infuse us with altruism, because otherwise there is no explanation for why we would be kind to strangers. I think, though, that that kindness to strangers is not universal at all, but more a function of a general prosperity that allows us to be generous, and a generalized empathy and social sense of reciprocity."
There is no "moral law", universal or other. Stephen J. Gould explained it this way,
"This charge against Darwin is unfair for two reasons. First, nature (no matter how cruel in human terms) provides no basis for our moral values. (Evolution might, at most, help to explain why we have moral feelings, but nature can never decide for us whether any particular action is right or wrong.) Second, Darwin's "struggle for existence" is an abstract metaphor, not an explicit statement about bloody battle. Reproductive success, the criterion of natural selection, works in many modes: Victory in battle may be one pathway, but cooperation, symbiosis, and mutual aid may also secure success in other times and contexts. In a famous passage, Darwin explained his concept of evolutionary struggle (Origin of Species, 1859, pp. 62-63)"
http://www.marxists.org/subject/science/essays/kropotkin.htm
He concludes, "There are no shortcuts to moral insight. Nature is not intrinsically anything that can offer comfort or solace in human terms - if only because our species is such an insignificant latecomer in a world not constructed for us. So much the better. The answers to moral dilemmas are not lying out there, waiting to be discovered. They reside, like the kingdom of God, within us - the most difficult and inaccessible spot for any discovery or consensus."
But you can count on some jesus freak basketcase to misunderstand metaphore and say, "Ah, Gould spoke of the kingdom of God so he is really a believer."
Regarding "...telling us that science and evidence led him to his faith,..."
If you have evidence, then you don't need faith. If you have faith, then you don't need evidence. In fact, any concern for evidence suggests you are losing faith!
My "conversion" moment came mid-life, when I was shocked to discover that I was an asshole, just like everyone else. Based on the notion that "you can only be as kind as you are cruel." But instead of going for the supernatural, I began listening carefully to criticism, and it turns out sometimes it was me that screwed up.
The funny part is, now I think I am a better person for it.
Reflective Cautionary Note: 80% think they're above average!
But you can count on some jesus freak basketcase to misunderstand metaphore and say, "Ah, Gould spoke of the kingdom of God so he is really a believer."
jesus freak basketcase, but also Dan Dennett :)
GH asks some questions about my personal religious views. I wish to stress I'm just responding to some specific questions as best I am able, not proselytizing in behalf of my views, which in any case constitutes no creed, anyway; they're personal. GH writes:
". . .Do you think PZ and others are going to hell for being an atheist?"
I would respond, I think, as did Darwin when asked to evaluate the presumption that those who died in life outside of the Church of England (such as his brother Erasmus, and father Robert) were condemned. He said that was a 'damnable doctrine.' I concur. We condemn not just others, but ourselves when we adopt such views.
GH writes:
"Do you think such a place even exists and if so where is it?"
I think the question presumes things that I don't necessarily accept. The notion that Hell is some sort of location that fits neatly into an internally-consistent cosmology is something of a Medieval gloss, especially when you compare it with the cryptic references to the afterlife one actually finds in scripture. Many, if not most of the ideas that people have about Heaven and Hell are based on tradition, and not necessarily traditions grounded in the actual teachings of any of the prophetic religions. I agree that there are passages whose literal interpretation supports a real 'physical' hell, but (as with Genesis) scholarship suggests that the literal interpretation is not the best one.
So, from my point of view, I don't find the question all that meaningful. To me, hell is not a 'place', but rather a condition of existence, which is to say one of alienation and self-reproach.
I might add that there are many alive today whose inner life is so wretched that they might well be described as living in hell. Quite a few of them are in the churches! I'm sure that you don't have to be a believer to appreciate the truth of the following remark: many of the so-called 'faithful' who eagerly look to Armageddon, who spew hatred toward their imagined enemies, they are actually filled with self-loathing and hatred of the world they are in. Sounds like hell to me.
GH writes: "And if even one soul is there suffering how do you reconcile that with the many good aspects you show daily?"
I can't even begin to answer that in a short post. There are too many things to say. If we broaden the scope of the problem of evil to include suffering in the next world, that is truly a theodicy to contend with. In a sense, suffering and striving are a consequence of freedom, the same freedom to act and to choose that I would affirm in opposition to notions of predestination and eternal damnation.
E.O. Wilson has a charming notion that I can't quite dismiss that seems worth repeating here: "Maybe God is sorting the saved from the damned--the opposite of what most traditionalists believe--and the saved will be those who have the intellectual courage to press on with skepticism and materialism. They would be His most independent and courageous creations, would they not? Particularly the ones who faced the charges of heresy."
GH concludes: "I mean I see you as a good fella, reasonable, educated, well spoken but I wonder if all of that matters as much as your irrational supernatural leanings. I'm just curious."
If there is anything good about me at all, it would be a willingness to reconsider my views or the views of others in light of new evidence. I certainly don't believe that believers have a monopoly on morality. But, in any case, I can't answer your last question. It's a question you have to answer yourself: can you regard a believer as equal in value to a non-believer, all other things being equal? If you can't, then you will tend to regard all believers, reasonable or otherwise, as 'other'. I can only speak for myself when I say that the God I believe in does not require me to make that choice. As Jacques Barzun has said, "nothing human is alien.'
Peace. . .Scott
> Imagine a table top represents the sum of all human knowledge. Now mark off the
> part that represents what you know--it would be a tiny circle. Now ask, where is the
> knowledge of the existence of god. Isn't it irrational to assume that it falls within
> your tiny circle, when there is so much you don't know?
Perhaps, but it's also irrational to claim that you can empirically say anything at all about what's outside the circle. God could be there, but there could also be a cosmic pink elephant (or, more topically, a plate of spaghetti).
You should also be careful when making claims about what's outside the circle, because it's expanding daily...
Stripping the hate out is a major improvement, though.
And as to someone's saying Anne Coulter is the modern day Carrie Nation? Oh, my!
Carrie Nation campaigned for the rights of women along with her rants against booze. There is quite a bit of evidence that Ms. Nation loved other people, though embittered against drunkenness in her first marriage. Nation's intent was to improve the world for women, children and families.
Is there anything in that paragraph that is not 180 degrees at odds with Coulter?
For instance, Newton might have kept working on math and physics, instead of on the Apocalypse...
I can barely stand to watch Charlie Rose talk to people about religion because you see them thinking and you wait for him to ask the obvious questions, and he doesn't, he throws out a load of half-hearted softballs instead.
Same goes for Bill Moyers.
I got this line of **** recently from a coworker, who had both read CS Lewis and heard it channeled through Collins. One easy and obvious rebuttal (of several possible) is that this "moral law" doesn't seem to be quite universal, since our society spends so much time arguing over moral questions, not to mention the differences in moral law between societies.
Jordan: Terrified of their own mortality, as some said. But also the social nature of humans - we like to get along, at least within our cliques, which form for the strangest reasons. Finally, some believe because of a sincere adoption of something like a cosmic justice argument. (That these are bad arguments is besides the point.)
Dr Pretorius: Moreover, Newton (and probably Faraday, as a Sandamanian) would traditionally have been regarded as heretics. (I don't know about Pascal; IMO the Wager is heretical, since it implies that the existence of god is subject to chance, but that's not clear to me.)
And it's my PERSONAL story that the moon is made of green cheese. It's MY story, and I have a right to it, so I don't want to hear any criticism.
Maroon.
Maybe it's because we know that there is no rational reason to link atheism and immorality: the Euthyphro dilemma kills any argument that morality emanates from a god, and there is no empirical evidence that atheists are any less moral than Christians (or any other religious group). In continuing this false association between atheism and immoral behaviour, Collins is bearing false witness against us and perpetuating a misunderstanding that contributes to distrust and bigotry.
"For instance, another of his rationales is that evolution doesn't explain where "moral law" comes from, which he claims is universal. He seems to think it requires some supernatural agent to infuse us with altruism"
This Collins character is spouting absolute, bravo sierra here. Then again, what else do purveyors of the popular death cult spout? And how exactly does he explain the existence of reciprocal altruism in chimps and bonobos? Could it be that our relatives and we evolved altruistic behavior simply as a strategy for insuring that our genes are carried into the next generation? Hmmmm. Then could it possibly be that due to the development of our large brains, we Homo sapiens were able fully exploit the real benefits of altruism, thus developing the complex social fabric in which we currently reside? No need for magic, a sky daddy or Jason's lil security blanket here. But oh no, we've just got to complicate things with magical thinking, now don't we.
squeaky wrote:
windy replied:
Windy hits it straight on. Francis Collins' book is not "How Christians Can Figure Out How to Accept Evolution Just Fine." If that were all it were, PZ wouldn't be so ticked (though even then it's perfectly legitimate to critique bad arguments.)
Collins' book appears to be apologetics masquerading as science, but pulling out and getting coy as soon as any REAL scientific argument would normally be called for. If he is approaching God as if it were a science theory, then he has to do better than handing out trite religious bromides about how having faith makes you nicer or morals come from God or the infamous "anything is possible."
No, since he's trading on being a scientist, he ought to do some science on the subject. If he's not doing science on the subject, stop the big song and dance about being a *scientist.* A book with the subtitle "A Chemist Presents Evidence for Homeopathy" ought to damn well have some chemistry in it. It shouldn't say "well, I'm a chemist and can't pretend to try to explain it, but all I know is that it works for me." Blech.
From Scott Hatfield: I agree that there are passages whose literal interpretation supports a real 'physical' hell, but (as with Genesis) scholarship suggests that the literal interpretation is not the best one.
Well...yes. Precisely. Now how about the literal interpretation of a god? Jehovah? Allah? What do you suppose scholarship suggests there?
I think Terence (2nd century BC) said it somewhat earlier than Jacques Barzun :-).
The universal moral law is so real and universal and self-evident, I can't understand how everyone gets it wrong but me!
Anyway, if he thinks that evolution can't explain altruistic-seeming behavior, he isn't trying very hard to keep up with the literature on the subject.
Fixing the tabletop analogy: Imagine that the tabletop represents *all* propositions. Some are true, some are false. Now draw a small circle representing the *proven* true propositions.
Sure, there are lots of things outside that circle. There are lots of true statements outside that circle. But there are also lots of false statements outside the circle.
Taking one statement from outside the circle and saying "Well, sure, there's no evidence, but you don't know everything, do you? There's no reason not to believe this!" is incredibly stupid. Unless you somehow don't realize that's what you're doing.
Yes, there are unproven truths, but there are at least as many unproven falsehoods. Believing in unproven statements is, at best, very unreliable.
Eep. My comment about Terence was in response to Scott Hatfield, several comments back at 4.34am. Sorry 'bout that.
g: I'd love to know the quote you're referring to.
evolvealready: I don't think that a single unitary literal interpretation of the concept of 'God' exists in the Bible. Even a single book, Genesis, appears to have more than one conception when you compare the creation stories in Genesis 1 and 2.
I don't lose sleep over it. String theorists are apparently persuaded that a nearly infinite number of possible solutions of string theory are not only all equally plausible, but likely to occur. If you can wrap your head around that, competing interpretations of ancient texts should sound like a breeze.
Scott
Really now. Did you just compare string theory to belief in god?
Typical strategy: find something that's difficult to understand in science, then equate it to something that's impossible to understand in theology.
Gentlemen:
You know, there are quite a few string theory contrarians who are not sure that the 'theory' in question isn't something like a belief, and they are concerned that, in the words of one physicist, that "its uncritical promotion is damaging to science."
These folk (people like Lawrence Krauss, Sheldon Glashow, Philip Anderson) make the observation that string theory, like God, doesn't appear to be falsifiable at the moment. And even its enthusiasts have some curious things to say. Consider David Gross's remarks from "The Elegant Universe" website website, itself based on the work of the same title by Brian Greene:
"Why do we still have faith in this theory, which we can't yet truly test and which hasn't yet succeeded in calculating anything? Well, partly, it is its incredible intellectual structure, which continues to develop in a consistent and increasingly powerful way. The fact that it generates interesting mathematics is very exciting to some. That doesn't have that much of an impact on me, but the fact that it has this conceptual structure does.
The fact that it has begun to address some questions that have been around for 70 or 80 years and reconciles relativity and quantum mechanics convinces me that it is on the right track. Unless you have some faith, you're not going to stay in this kind of speculative field."
Now, I don't think I'm 'quote mining' here. This is the mature, considered view of a Nobel Prize winner and one of the leading string theorists in the world, and he describes his field as 'speculative', not me.
And you know what? Theological labors in the pursuit of unifying inconsistencies in ancient texts are also highly speculative, and one can in good conscience hold multiple interpretations in play without committing to one or the other, just as string theorists are apparently willing to entertain an extremely large number of non-identical vacua. That's all I was saying; nothing more was implied.
By the way, Caledonian, it could be argued that you (evidently an ardent critic of religion) should be even more critical of string theory than some of the gentlemen that I mentioned. The large number of vacua I alluded to implies an anthropic landscape for string theory, which (of course) quite a few folk want to invoke as an ad hoc argument to God's existence. And, just to be clear, I'm not doing that here, nor for the record was I trying to substitute some 'God of the gaps' obscurantism into the discussion. I don't care for either of those arguments, thank you very much.
Firmly...Scott
Scott:
I agree with much of what you said on string theory, except that one could also use "suspense of disbelief" where Greene uses faith. Not that it would be sociologically probable, merely possible. It is also quite possible that string theory will not be trusted without a definite experiment, though some others are apparently ready to trust it already today.
But what I most wanted to say was that the analogy between non-identical string vacua and text interpretations seems to me to be flawed. Our universe has a welldefined vacua. The problem is that no one knows how to find the corresponding string vacua. I think your critics imply that were is no expectations on, or methods to select, the corresponding "text vacua". (It is more analogous to QM measurement. "Text observation" may choose the text that fits the question best. But I wouldn't want to go there. There could be "text randomness" and "text uncertainty principles". :-)
Using well known words to create metaphors to try to explain difficult concepts is a common practice. It is an attempt to make them comprehensible to a nonspecialist audience.
But then the godophiles commonly reach back to the original meaning of the words to invent a scenario which has nothing to do with the explanation that was being given. It is a form of quoting out of context.
I wonder if the godophiles are really that dense, or if they do it on purpose.
Torjborn:
I'm sorry, but I think I'm still being misunderstood. Doubtless, my fault: my style of prose, or lack of style, probably.
At no time was I equating string theory and theology, which seems to be how others here inferred it. The former is science, the latter is not.
Nor was I proposing that the two were analogous to one another in terms of structure, which is a much more sophisticated argument, frankly, than would've occurred to me to make! I'm not that smart. You very charitably thanked me earlier for prompting you to consider something from a different perspective; I must say I feel that you have repaid me double here with your reply, even if it was not to the sense that I intended.
At any rate, I was just suggesting that, as string theorists feel free to hold multiple theories in mind, so theologians are not compelled to choose one interpretation of a text over another. 'Hypocritical' is probably too strong, but it does seem to me that in parsing these science vs. religion threads, there is a bit of a double standard.
After all, we don't conclude from the fact that quantum mechanics and cosmology don't play together very well that either should be rejected in favor of the other, or that science is a sham. Scientists are allowed to appeal to the contingent and provisional nature of the scientific enterprise, and proceed with investigation while holding multiple models in mind. That, in part, is what string 'theory' is about.
Yet, if a theologian acknowledges ambiguity, uncertainty or multiple possible interpretations of some sacred text, there appears to be no shortage of folk who would argue that the lack of coherence or universal consensus argues against the legitimacy of any religious claims whatsoever. I don't think much of that particular argument.
Now, about vacua: you are correct in one sense, OUR universe is somewhat well defined. We have a pretty good idea what the constants are in our neighbourhood. But,string theory also predicts other universes with entirely different vacua, so many others in fact that it has been described as having an ANTHROPIC landscape, and I think we all know where THAT leads, either to some version of ID based on an ad hoc argument or else to a multiverse view that, while not contradicted by any observation, seems to lead to absurdities. I would be interested to learn your views as to the ontological status of string theory as a research program. If it is science, what sort of science is it?
Thanks again for your thoughtful remarks....Scott
Scott:
I can see that it looks like a double standard. But I don't agree that it is since theories are justified by observations sooner or later. That makes a qualitative difference. A temporary search for explanations is permissible, quantum gravity should reconcile QM and GR all the way, and so on.
There are caveats to this, but they can perhaps be justified :-) too. QM interpretations work equally well since currently no experiments can distinguish them. And similar cases.
Your quote from Greene covers string theory well. String theory is a useful tool and has generated results that agree both with old theory and on expectations on what new theory should give. Agreement with old theory and to some weak extent expectations are tests of sorts. But I would prefer some independent experimental verification.
Scott there is no double standard.
I asked a simple question about god and you obscurred it by bringing in string theory. String theory, apparently, is a deeply complex scientific idea that is difficult to get the human mind around. Fine. It more than likely came into existence through much rigorous theoretical model building and in the end it will most likely be proven to be correct or incorrect using the scientific method.
Religion and belief in god are not encumbered by this kind of rigor. Thus, the question about what scholarship "suggests" about the literal interpertation of god.
And regarding your comments about what some String Theorists have said about the theory, I'd redirect you to the comments above by "bernarda".
I think the time has come to acknowledge what Scott really is: a stealth creationist.
Sure, he denies it vigorously ever time the topic comes up (and sometimes even when it hasn't come up) but that really doesn't prove anything, does it? Some creationists are willing to do anything in order to retain social acceptance and respect so that they can prosetylize more effectively.
His mindset is indistinguishable from a creationist's, and he seems to have some problems with rational, logical thought.
Actually, some physicists have bitterly criticized string theory as an unscientific dead end because 1) there are so many versions, and you can "predict" almost any universe you want by pickig the "right" version; and 2) there seems to be no hope of any experimental test in the forseeable future. And as far as I can tell, the level of open discontent is rising. So things like this actually don't just get a free pass in science. The fashionability of string theory probably will eventually dissipate if these problems can't be addressed somehow,
I don't know is scott is a creationist or not, but he does talk nonsense.
"Yet, if a theologian acknowledges ambiguity, uncertainty or multiple possible interpretations of some sacred text, there appears to be no shortage of folk who would argue that the lack of coherence or universal consensus argues against the legitimacy of any religious claims whatsoever. I don't think much of that particular argument."
I don't think much of scott's "reasoning". The problem with religious claims is that there is no evidence for any of them. The bible, or any other religious test, is incoherent, as well as contradictory and mythological.
There can be no consensus on something that cannot be tested. The bible--as an example--can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean. All interpretations are equally valid, or rather invalid. Anyone can take any text and say, "this is what it means". Anyone else can say no, "this is actually what it means".
There is no way to separate the interpretations. No one can say that one is right and the other is wrong. But in fact they are both necessarily wrong because the bible doesn't mean anything and the bible has absolutely nothing to say about the real world.
A few comments for bernarda.
First: I thought your earlier comment about metaphor was very much on point, but I can't tell from your post what expression, if any, you infer was metaphorical and then subsequently reinterpreted, perhaps incorrectly, by me or others. What, specifically, prompted your claim?
Second: you appear to be conflating two arguments, (1) that there is no evidence for religious claims, and (2) individual religious claims can be rejected since, as a whole, they are incoherent. I don't think much of (2), but that says nothing about the correctness of (1).
As far as making anything mean anything you want where something like the Bible is concerned, please. There are, no doubt, any number of possible interpretations but the set of that which are consistent with what is known about the historical setting in which the text was generated is much smaller. That Jesus was a Zealot, or influenced by the Essenes, or a Gnostic might fit into the latter; that Jesus was a Scientologist or a space alien does not.
Even if we concede that the "bible has absolutely nothing to say about the real world" it does provide us with information about beliefs and tradition, and (believe it or not) there is real scholarship associated with that, and (as in science) academic debates. A plurality of views within that context says nothing one way or another about the possibile correctness of any particular view.
I might add that the sort of interpretive claim I had in mind when I initially responded to this thread ("Judas Iscariot was a Zealot") was not even a supernatural claim. It's a claim about history. I can see folk working themselves into a lather about supernatural claims, even if I don't agree, but the idea that the Bible "doesn't mean anything" would suggest that it has no value in evaluating historical claims, as well. I don't think that follows at all, and I think it says a lot more about your personal views than it does mine.
Sincerely...Scott
> stealth creationist
I think a lot of you are being too harsh and paranoid. Just because there are a bunch of trolls around doesn't mean Scott is some more subtle version. Look at his E. O. Wilson quote. And he called the idea of good unbelievers burning in Hell a damnable notion.
A few comments for evolvealready:
First, as to the nature of your question, which may have struck you as simple, in that you just apparently wanted me to affirm some particular conception of God. I'm afraid I know just enough to know that the question wasn't simple, and I offered my reasons why. In passing, I remarked that I didn't lose sleep over it.
String theorists don't lose sleep over the very large number of solutions in M-theory, either. Whether you characterize that as 'faith' or as a 'suspense of disbelief' doesn't really matter. The bottom line is that they are committed to the enterprise as a whole without being committed to any particular interpretation of string theory being held dogmatically.
Similarly, I know that there are all sorts of interpretations of 'God' in the Bible, but I see nothing a priori that rules out affirming the general notion that something called 'God' exists, without being committed to any particular understanding of God's nature, plan, purpose, etc. as it appears in the Bible.
Perhaps you thought that I would respond with a dogmatic affirmation of this or that conception of God as found in the Bible, and since I've failed to do so, you seem to think I'm dodging the question. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I just can't claim knowledge that I don't have.
Sincerely...Scott
I like Scott. He writes well and I am learning from him.
Torjborn:
I agree that there's a qualitative difference as to how scientific theories and religious claims are evaluated and I'm sure you understand that I don't believe the latter should be treated like the former. There are all sorts of claims, among them religious claims, which should be excluded from science a priori. But I don't think we should exclude an entire class of claims because the set of claims as a whole is incoherent; we should exclude only those claims that can not be put to the test.
So, I think we're basically in agreement. I don't think 'string theory' is coherent or even a scientific 'theory' in the Popperian sense I prefer, but I do think (again using his terminology) that it is science in the sense of a 'research programme', but one that sooner or later requires justification by appeal to observations and/or experiment. Perhaps when the Large Hadron Collider goes on line.
Now let me ask you this: Suppose that, say, 30 years from now there's still no observational support, that the LHC and the CERN collider, all subsequent astronomy yields no data that can only be explained by appealing to a specific version of string theory. At what point do we ratchet up our skepticism for this enterprise?
Peace...Scott
As noted, people are already skeptical of string theory, and have been. What's the point of the question?
OK, this is for Steve and, I think, a good way to summarize my views as to this thread, which began with PZ's denunciation of the Collins interview on PBS.
First, Steve, I totally agree with your post about the status of string theory, and the self-corrective nature of science. Scientists, unlike the dogmatic, can change their minds. The ability to modify or even scrap existing theories is a strength of science, not a weakness.
I also think that considering claims outside the domain of science provisionally, rather than dogmatically, is a sign of strength, rather than weakness. Collins claims to have done something like that in the past, and if so, the impulse is admirable.
That in no way renders his particular conclusion inevitable, nor makes such claims scientific, which I think is the unfortunate impression given by the Collins interview!
Further, if Collins held certain claims provisionally in the past, it is not at all clear he is holding them so now, or for that matter what he is holding. We should distinguish between an honest evaluation of competing claims within one domain, and the entirely proper exclusion of certain claims from another domain, namely science.
Peace...Scott
There is no point to the question. Its only function is to set up a comparison between fringe science and religious belief.
I see nothing a priori that rules out affirming the general notion that something called 'God' exists, without being committed to any particular understanding of God's nature, plan, purpose, etc.
See, this is where liberal religion seems really foofy. 'God' is an English word, not the proper name of someone; the hypothetical entity in question is called God, Jehovah, Allah, Brahman, kami-sama, Great Spirit... your sentence seems to turn into "something called something exists". To not be completely vacuous, you have to assert *something* about the nature of "God" and what properties it has. Maybe as vague as "something which created the universe" or "a non-human intelligence which listens when I say 'God'" but *something*.
I think Dennett had some good stuff to say here in Breaking the Spell, about how people who assert literal belief in the Bible and people who say "I believe in God as the laws of physics" are somehow grouped together because of their ritual behavior of "I believe in God" despite their near-total lack of overlap in meaningful concepts. Somehow, saying "I believe in God" seems to make some people feel better, even if they completely disagree on what "God" is or wants.
This might be harmless, except for the fact that they're all counted together in polls, and taken by the more aggressive members of the group as evidence of mass support.
OK, this is for Steve and, I think, a good way to summarize my views as to this thread, which began with PZ's denunciation of the Collins interview on PBS.
First, Steve, I totally agree with your post about the status of string theory, and the self-corrective nature of science. Scientists, unlike the dogmatic, can change their minds. The ability to modify or even scrap existing theories is a strength of science, not a weakness.
I also think that considering claims outside the domain of science provisionally, rather than dogmatically, is a sign of strength, rather than weakness. Collins claims to have done something like that in the past, and if so, the impulse is admirable.
That in no way renders his particular conclusion inevitable, nor makes such claims scientific, which I think is the unfortunate impression given by the Collins interview!
Further, if Collins held certain claims provisionally in the past, it is not at all clear he is holding them so now, or for that matter what he is holding. We should distinguish between an honest evaluation of competing claims within one domain, and the entirely proper exclusion of certain claims from another domain, namely science.
Peace...Scott
Of course, focus on the creation of the universe begs an unsettled question as to whether the universe *was* created, vs. being one of an eternal number of cycles (see Vedic cosmology) or infinite number of universes. And then there's the question of souls, or afterlives.
"I see nothing a priori that rules out affirming the general notion that something called 'God' exists."
What about ruling his existence out a posteriori, based on lack of any evidence for his existence?
He started by telling us about his godless youth, when atheism meant he "wasn't responsible to anyone but me." Barely a few minutes into the interview, and he'd already said something stupid: no, that's not what atheism means. Atheists are responsible members of their community, and care just as much for others as the most devout believers.
When they wish to. Again, they are beholden to no one and no thing, therefore nothing may compel them to not act in an entirely selfish fashion whenever the urge hits them.
In the end, atheism DOES mean that in the end you are beholden only to yourself, the ne plus ultra of self-centeredness.
See, and I think that if you need something (imaginary and invisible) to compel you to act in an unselfish fashion, your moral development is stunted.
But what is 'good'? Is a murderer 'bad' because he committed that singular act? When he may have been nothing but 'good' the majority of time on this planet?
I think it's better to just say buring in hell is a damnable notion.
compass, it's the same thing for anyone. Whatever version of God or not you think is reality.
OK, I apologize, it is REALLY bad form to post the same thing twice. I plead incompetence, but not, I think, because of anything I believe. Strictly speaking, what I believe in and of itself should carry no weight nor be of any interest in any scientific forum. Science does not care anything about our beliefs.
Nevertheless, some folk here apparently crave doctrinal statements. I'm referring to the attempts of those who, like Caledonian, seem eager to place me in some sort of creationist 'box'. I would like to say a few things about that, and I hope I can avoid giving any further offense. Here goes.
First, creationists in my experience seem pathetically eager to assign all claims into categories as well: it's either 'Bible-based' or 'Bible-denying'. I receive (unsolicited) mail at my school site on a regular basis from these folk, some of it pleasant and well-meaning, some of it vile, all of it composed in the spirit of 'my way or the highway.'
Why do I get these letters? Because I have publicly stood up in various ways for teaching evolution, and when I do, I am often attacked as an 'evolutionist' who is pushing my 'personal beliefs'. Want proof? Here's an example for you to consider, Caledonian:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2383
I might add that I learned of this odious fellow's work second-hand when he emailed copies of it to MY SCHOOL SITE. In fact, it ended up in every teacher and administrator's mailbox, unsolicited, OTHER THAN MINE. Truly unethical, but this self-described 'apologist' was unapologetic when I tracked him down, justifying his conduct by appealing to the sort of 'typological thinking' that Mayr has justly remarked is behind the Biblical notion of 'kinds.' It's OK, he told me, to treat me the way he did because I'm an evildoer denying the Bible, while he's a Bible-affirmer doing the Lord's work.
Now, I ask you, Caledonian, how does it happen that someone that you have categorized as a 'stealth creationist' is being read the Riot Act by a real, bona-fide creationist, and a particularly vile one, at that? How do you explain that, unless it is that you, too, are practicing 'typological thinking'?
For the record, here are my actual views on evolution:
1) Evolution is a FACT, not a belief or an opinion or 'just a theory'. Populations really do change genetically over time.
2) Natural Selection is a FACT. Environmental conditions really do affect which individuals pass on their genes.
3) Evolution by Natural Selection is a FACT. Which individuals reproduce their genes really does affect the distribution of alleles within a population.
4) The Earth is frickin' old, as is life itself. There's been plenty of time for evolution to occur, and much evidence that it has occurred. Evolution is the best scientific explanation for the DIVERSITY of life.
5) Overwhelming evidence from many fields of study, not just biology, point to the COMMON DESCENT of living things.
Evolution is the best scientific explanation for the underlying UNITY of life.
6) One possible result of evolution is speciation. That speciation events occur is a FACT, not an interpretation, an opinion or a theory. The only sense in which "Darwin's dangerous idea" is still a theory is the claim (impossible to verify completely, but almost certainly true) that new species are and have been produced mainly by the process he described.
7) Abiogenesis itself is not a theory, but a hypothesis. While largely speculative, it is entirely consistent with the scientific worldview in a way that special creation is not. There have been significant breakthroughs in this field of late and there is good reason to believe that an entirely naturalistic account may be possible.
8) Human beings appear to be the product of evolution and share common descent with the rest of life. The differences between H. sapiens and other species are largely differences of degree, rather than kind. There do not appear to be any testable claims regarding humans that do not appeal to natural causes.
I could go on like this for hours, but I think I've made my point chapter-and-verse. My views are Darwinian. I am no creationist, stealth or otherwise. I may be, as some have unkindly suggested, irrational in holding certain religious views privately, but I don't think that I am any more irrational than those whose knee-jerk response is to conflate 'belief' with 'creationism'.
Firmly....Scott Hatfield
George writes: "What about ruling his existence out a posteriori, based on lack of any evidence for his existence?"
That strategy is viable.
Scott
For Scott:
OK, this may be beating a dead horse, but what the heck!
I guess for me in the end I see absolutely no difference in believing in a literal hell and believing that "something called god" exists. Neither has a drop of evidence for support. (Actually, an argument for a literal hell would be stronger...you can at least see, touch and smell the middle east!) ;^}
Anyway, it's been interesting. Thanks.
With respect,
evolvealready
GH: Scott didn't exactly say he believed in hell, either, if you read his reply.
Scott: thanks for your evolution comment, and keep up the good teaching work!
I know I was talking semantics. I like Scott and agree with him most of the time.
Scott:
I will answer your first part by using another comment of yours that enable me a more fully answer.
"you appear to be conflating two arguments, (1) that there is no evidence for religious claims, and (2) individual religious claims can be rejected since, as a whole, they are incoherent. I don't think much of (2), but that says nothing about the correctness of (1)."
You seem to misunderstand a point here. Since science has a justification procedure, incoherent theories will eventually be rejected. Meanwhile they can be discussed and worked on. But no such procedure exist for religion. Keeping incoherent ideas for ever *is* different.
Avoiding double standards would actually be that science is allowed incoherency until test as soon as feasible, while religion is allowed incoherency until evaluating a new idea ('test') as soon as feasible. The latter should be a fairly short time period since there are no development of new experiments or further theory to wait for.
"Now let me ask you this: Suppose that, say, 30 years from now there's still no observational support, that the LHC and the CERN collider, all subsequent astronomy yields no data that can only be explained by appealing to a specific version of string theory. At what point do we ratchet up our skepticism for this enterprise?"
A fair question.
I have mentioned once or twice on other threads that I think that people wanting to kill string theory *now, dammit!* are premature. I answered that a theory should practically generate answers within 2-3 generations, or it isn't socially and economically sustainable, never mind the scientific life time. (Ie people and governments start to opt out.) One generation is 30 years, string theory is 20-30 years old already... so again we are in much agreement!
You can argue for anything with that excuse: Bigfoot, UFOs, the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, Jesus, green bug-eyed Martians, that PZ Myers has a completely different genome from what Francis Collins sequenced.
Don't include UFOs in there as if they were some fantasy. UFOs have been seen on many occasions. If you see an object in the air and are not sure what it is, it's a UFO.
If you see lights in the night sky and can't tell whether they belong to an airplane or a helicopter, it's a UFO. UFO simply means "unidentified flying object," yet most people use the term to mean aliens and/or alien spaceships.
If you're sure that thing in the sky is an alien spaceship, it can't be a UFO then, can it?
Non-belief in God means one is beholden to nothing and no one?
Wow, I never realized that before! It's either the Abrahamic God, or nothing at all rescuing you from total narcissism! Amazing!
I mean, what good are friends, really, to encourage you to act like a decent human being, if you don't have God there to threaten you with eternal damnation? What good are your parents to inculcate you with a sense of right and wrong, if they don't use the Skydaddy to scare you straight? What can a partner do to keep you honest, if God isn't watching? How dare your children try to bring out the generous, caring, responsible part of you?! Only God can do that! What in the name of Jebus gives anyone's employer the right to fire you for being dishonest and unreliable?! And what on Earth gave us as a society the right to create social norms and train law enforcement to deter people from behaving like dangerous douchebags?! Dagnabbit, if I want to drive drunk and dump my household refuse in the middle of a playground, only God can stand in my way! My family's love, my community's acceptance, and my own feelings of empathy and guilt have nothing to do with it. Right?
Eff that noise. I'd much rather put my trust in people who are beholden to that which is visible and tangible here on Earth. Keep your reasoning where I can see it.