Are you ready for another debate?

My, but this is almost intellectual in nature! I don't suppose anyone will be taping this...?

"mixed feelings" isn't linking properly

If it's any good, philosophy is more like science than religion. While all of philosophy has to recognize a priori human capacities, these can and should be understood as empirically as possible, kind of like Nietzsche reinterpreting Kant and his categories.

Other than that, evidently religion responds in part to very human states, but it really doesn't inform us about the world (not even in explaining religion and why people remain hooked on it). I don't think I'd want to debate anything that obvious.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

It should be fun as long as you don't come expecting beat-downs and knife fights

Never bring a knife to a gunfight.

this probably wont be as interesting to me as talks/debates on evolution whether generally or for/against. these topics are to my mind more like deciding if one piece of music is better than another or is beef stew better than a nouvelle gastrobite. the evo discussions are to the point, theres no question fossil a is more whale like than older fossil b but are science/religion anthithetical to each other for eg, well it depends upon which religion, which bit, how it sits in ones own mind, leading to all manner of philosophical questions that i never try to ponder. and what does half of it mean anyway, science confirm religios truths? what like finding jesus bones and finding hes got half a set of DNA, or analysing wine and finding its got haemoglobin in there.

"Do you think that science can inform/confirm/suggest religious "truths" or vice versa?"

PZ, you say that the answer to this is no. However, what about the following:

1. Science has shown the Genesis account to utter rubbish. (Or a "metaphor", as the wishy-washy sects like to plead.)
2. Science has completely ruled out any notion of a great flood.
3. Science has demonstrated that the human body is littered with design flaws, and hardly be said to be "made in god's image".

In other words science definitely does "inform" religious "truths". However, I doubt this is the kind of "informing" that the Templeton Foundation had in mind.

For PZ's "mixed feelings" on Kauffman, see here.

Quoting PZ from the link I provided in #7,

[Kauffman] wants to "reinvent the sacred as the creativity in the natural universe", and in the interest of finding common ground with diverse communities, he proposes that we call this Spinozoid concept "God".

I really don't think anyone will be fooled. As Dennett mentioned earlier in the day, the religious have a mistrust of the hypocrisy of scientists who claim to be respectful of religious belief yet do not share it themselves, and I think this would be a prime example.

Greg Egan had a good line about this.

I wish we had a good word in English that meant only "the shattering majesty of reality", so atheists could make it abundantly clear that they're aware of this majesty, but don't imagine that it's due to anything that resembles a person in any way. But what atheists absolutely should not do is say "Well, I'm going to use the word 'God' to mean 'the awesomeness of the universe'". This is helpful for selling lots of tenth-rate pop-science books with "God" in their titles, and for winning the Templeton prize, but even when it's not plain venal and dishonest it's linguistically sloppy.

I answered those questions in the same way you did PZ.
And I would not be too concerned with debating anyone who
won a prize from the templeton foundation, a religious
phony pretending at being scientific. These are some of the
questions I would like to see debated: "Is religion a form
of insanity?" Why can't religion give us a definite and
materialistic proof of your non-existent god?" If religion
did not exist, would we still be able to do the everyday
things we do now, namely brush our teeth, start our car,
catch the train, and blog our rationalism on Pharyngula?"
How about it, morons ? These are the milder questions I
would pose to not upset them too much. BS, I want to upset
the retards, and of course they would never agree to this
agenda, the deranged morons.

I agree, hyperdeath -- to the extent that a religion makes any claim about the physical world, science can "inform" that claim. (And, to be fair, that "informing" need not be negative, as science theoretically could find evidence supporting religious historical claims, much like Troy was moved from myth to historical fact through archeological work.)

Hmmm, sounds like a absolutely wonderful excuse to meet at the U of M Campus Club for some pre-meeting ah...encouragement!

What time of day is this event to occur and what venue? I would cherish doing my part to help "fortify" the troops especially our fearless leader, PZ!

Objective 2:

Are the processes of scientific thought antithetical to the processes of religious thought?

See Crowley, Alistair. Ignore the turn of the century posturing and late life drug addiction.

Do you think that science can inform/confirm/suggest religious "truths" or vice versa?

I was going to say something, and then I see hyperdeath @6 beat me to it. PZ, your answer to that question shouldn't be no. Religion does indeed make some claims that are testable scientifically, and invariably, when it does, science proves that religion is wrong.

People should realize that all religious claims of an objective nature (creation, the flood, etc.) are losing propositions. Science has won that war. But Science cannot address subjective experience without going out on a limb: though there is no evidence of God's existence (for example), there is also no evidence that a person who claims to experience a connection to God (in a spiritual moment or on a contiuous basis) is not experiencing something real. (Did someone just say, "Pshaw!"? Well, claims without evidence are not scientific, so "Pshaw!" yourself!) All we can say is that such claims have no effect on the objective world except for how people feel and behave, which are actually pretty important things!

It should be fun as long as you don't come expecting beat-downs and knife fights

What if I expect dancing and fighting in song?

(Sorry, the comment put me in the hell of West Side Story for some reason.)

Re: #9 holbach -- right on -- and if I might suggest my favorites (but maybe not a resounding to others) .. which are:

In what situation of dire consequence would you abandon science (actually natural world processes and knowledge) and rely solely on god (magic) if an either/or choice was available?

What does god do and how does he/she/it do it? and its followup, how do you know?

---
Oh well I like them.

Are religion and science both useful in the search for truth and meaning?

This is my favorite of the questions! This is the kind of question where everyone involved can maintain their dignity and integrity and importance. As someone in both the God and Science camp I am constantly amazed at the high caliber of people I meet in both camps!
People with childish curiosity and wonder. Extreme intelligence and education and a profound dedication to trying to make the world a better place for everyone!
The science and God camps may never agree on everything but that doesn't mean that improvements can't be made in allowing them to work together synergistically!
Dave Briggs :~)

To follow up on Glen D's comment, there was also a movement in the early 20th century among some philosophers to move the study of philsophy away from the metaphysical posturing of Descartes and others, and more toward a logical-epistemic base (think Ayer, Quine, Carnap, et. al.).

Also, Aristotle did a whole lot of work that would be considered scientific, as did several presocratic philosophers. I've heard it argued that science and philosophy used to be a unified subject, and only relatively recently branched out as a result of the enlightenment and other historical progressions.

One question that I've always wanted to asked one of those "high-brow" believers who think that science and religion are "non-overlapping magesteria" is what they imagine to be in a soul and how they imagine it to "work".

Do they believe that their memories are preserved in their souls? Do their brains make decisions or is it the soul that does that (it IS supposed to be the location of "free will", isn't it)? And if it is the soul that makes decisions, then how are those communicated to this world? Don't you have to believe that a "miracle" happens every time you make a decision? Isn't that a scientifically testable claim?

But if the soul doesn't actively interfere with the brain, how can you be sure anybody else has a soul? You presumably know "in your soul" that you have one, but since a soulless person would act exactly like a person with a soul, how do you know you're not the only one who has one?

And how come these questions are never addressed by believers?

# 17 We wish you would not pair the word god with the word
Science (note the lower case for insanity, upper case for
reality) as it just marks you in the obvious camp and
excludes you to the real camp. I will never accede to both camps as stated, but will definitely excoriate the former
and exult in the latter. You will no doubt find many who
agree with your opinion, but will also find many who do not
and consider you a pariah to rational thought.

I don"t understand why you answered"no"for the fourth question,as to wheather science can inform religious ideas.It seems to me that science is quite capable of studying the adaptive cultural phenomenom of religion and subtituting accurate values for religious variables.If "God" is the source of all things,worthy of our worship and adoration,then science can acurately identify the true source as the Earths Biosphere and channel inate human religious tendencies towards creating a brake on its unbridaled explotation and destruction,thereby possibly extending the life of our species on this planet.Isnt that the definition of an true adaptation?
{boy, do I sound like and idiot,}

This looks interesting. Is this open to everyone? If so, could you post the time/location?

It hasn't appeared on the UMN events page yet, but I will keep an eye out (the good one) for it.

http://events.umn.edu/index.xml?year=2008;month=2;day=7

Okay, I'm befuzzled (and I'm not an academic, so please forgive me as I try to keep up here), but isn't that a whole lot of questions to try addressing in a single discussion? If done fully, it seems any one of those five questions would fill an hour or more individually.

Hurm. I'd answer these questions: no, no, yes, yes, that's a stupid question. Francis Bacon, I think, is another person who would answer `no' to the first question, and he would phrase his answer in terms of causes. There are first causes (divine) and second causes (material). If I ascend to heaven, that's an effect of a first cause; if I throw a ball across a room, the ball's motion is an effect of a second cause. Bacon was interested in second causes, and their effects. He defined this as science; material effects are (usually) due to material causes. I would consider Bacon's point of view to be one version of an epistemological basis for science; it's not the only one. There are other stances: 'material effects can only come from material causes' and 'there are no effects/causes other than material ones' are stances that many scientists take. I don't think these are necessary stances, though. For question 3, it depends on what you mean by `meaning' and 'useful'; certainly many people do find meaning in religion, and so in that sense religion is useful in the search for meaning. On the other hand, perhaps finding meaning religion is dumb; in that case, religion is not useful for finding meaning. And as for the last question, its form suggests only two foundations for epistemology: religious or scientific, and every other way of thinking must be reducible to participation in these two. That's just stupidly reductionist.

Ooh, ooh! I got one:

Q: Given the following:
1) no description of god(s) fits all gods proposed by some human, and therefore the existence of some gods are mutually exclusive; and
2) no god(s) have given us definitive proof of their existence;

By what criteria do you use to choose which one to worship, and how would you know that you've chosen the right god(s) to worship (ie the "real" one(s))?

This looks like an interesting event at UMN:

"Why the Bible is So Confusing and How Scholars Make Sense of it": A lecture by Jeffrey Stackert

05/06/2008 07:30 PM

http://events.umn.edu/event?event=117499

bill, the one "assumption" that's necessary for science is methodological naturalism (there are natural laws; miracles don't happen so often as to make that concept useless), and methodological naturalism is itself a scientific hypothesis that can be, and is constantly being, tested. That's the epistemological basis (singular, definite article) for science. You don't need to talk about Bacon.

RE #19: If you take the "non-overlapping magisteria" view, religious beliefs are necessarily about things that cannot be proven to exist. Obviously souls must have some kind of partnership with brains. Apparently, God has made sure that the spiritual and material worlds are perfectly aligned so that free will is experienced by the soul even though the brain is really acting independently according to natural law (no miracles necessary!). That God - He is so clever.

I predict Loyal Rue will claim to agree with everything you say but somehow still hold an entirely different position.

#29: That would of course be a possibility, but then my other point applies: How do you know that anybody other than you has a soul, given that there is no detectable difference between people who have souls and zombies?

#29: Note furthermore that in that scenario you cannot give "revelation" as a source of information, because revelation would have to act either on the soul, but information cannot flow from the soul to the brain, so anybody claiming in this world to have had a revelation must be misguided, or it can act on the brain, which would be a miracle and is not permissible.

#28, David: you say that the only assumption necessary for an epistemology of science is that there are `natural laws'; this statement presupposes a definition of `natural laws'. It seems to me that this definition of what constitutes a natural law is at the heart of what science is. I'm not a scholar in the philosophy of science, but I believe there is considerable debate about what a natural law is, and how do we tell if something is/is not a natural law. `Tested' itself is a contentious word; the creationists I get to argue with at my job insist that macro evolution has never been tested, by which they mean that there's never been a controlled, laboratory experiment in which one species evolves into another--i don't know if such an experiment has been done, I merely use this as an example of a particularly narrow view of `testing.'

Finally, I brought up Bacon because, I think, he was a scientist whose epistemology included both religion and science, and found no contradiction therein. He's an example of someone who would answer `no' to the first question.

If it's any good, philosophy is more like science than religion.

Agreed.

"Is philosophy more like a science or more like religion?"

That's a weird one. Since I don't understand it I'm not sure if this will help, but the online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a new article on Naturalism, and the article links to other relevant entries.

In 2006 Peter Lang published "Science - A Challenge to Philosophy?", based on a 2004 symposium. Nothing spectacular in it, to my mind, but it might be a good place to hunt for further references, if nothing else.

Good luck.

Far too many of you are equating "religion" with "Christian dogma". Examples from the Bible and the arguments regarding souls are utterly irrelevant as they are dogma and not, necessarily, components of religion in a generic sense. There are theistic beliefs that are not only perfectly compatible with science but that are also informed by such. The materialistic pantheism of the later Stoics like Marcus Aurelius or the Deism of many of our own founding fathers for instance. Even more organized and dogmatic sects like Buddhism, Taoism and even Hinduism can be perfectly in line with scientific inquiry as methodological naturalism is simply the exploration of the divine (or ineffable) which is one and the same with the material.

If we allow that some theism is compatible with science we deny the irrationalists the ability to defend theism as a whole and force them to defend their specific dogma instead.

To the extent that philosophy is a field with no rigor, it's pretty much exactly like theology and economics.

Sarcastro, if you allow that there is no general conflict and try to focus on specific dogmas you often end up with nothing. The religious person can always claim that you didn't address their particular beliefs. Attacking specifics can be useful against any given person or sect, but why leave them a retreat?

To the extent that any belief should be termed religious I find it is antithetical to rationalism and hence to science. For example, in principle Intelligent Design could be irreligious. It would remain bad science, but you could believe in material alien creators or whatnot. This could be compatible with a very strict form of Deism, but the very word Deist implies a concept of the sacred, transcendant, ineffable, mystical BS. Once you open the door to mysticism you threaten to blow out the light of rationalism. This is true of Buddhism just as it is of "metaphorical" wishy-washy liberal Christianity. These types of belief may be less immediately pernicious compared to fundamentalism, and they avoid coherent statements that can be addressed with straightforward science, but I find them equally irrational.

I guess I should have tried to convince the philosophy department that philosophy has no rigor, so that I could skip the logic test we were required to pass in order to stay in the program.

Not a problem, I think I was able to answer them all correctly (did drop out later, though, because too much of what was being taught was unwarranted speculation--which changes nothing about the rigor of the rest).

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Sarcastro,

Point well taken - Eugenie Scott and others note that mainstream Catholics and Protestants aren't the ones pushing creationism into U.S. public schools. The Religious Right (mostly, but not exclusively, evangelical Christians) and their PR fronts like the Discovery Institute seem unwilling to abandon attacks on evolution (I think they've at least realized that intelligent design is a lost cause, although it's amazing how long a "field" has lasted with zero original research to back it up) and unwilling to admit that their stance is just anti-science. It's a real problem - how can a child attend a science class if his or her family has a flat-earth, geocentric universe, or creationist stance? Will they withdraw to homes chooling, or just sit out the appropriate classes in protest? Will fundamentalist Christian leaders reconcile with science in light of court decisions, or take heart from the widespread public ignorance of science? I just know the time has come to be a good public advocate of science - bravo, PZ for being a standard-bearer.

Loyal? Is that his first name???

It seems to me that this definition of what constitutes a natural law is at the heart of what science is.

Sorry for my sloppy wording. Methodological naturalism is the hypothesis that the universe behaves in a sufficiently consistent way, so that if I let go of stuff, it will fall down in, at least, the vast majority of cases, rather than impredictably going up, down, right, left, in spirals, or nowhere, and going right 23 % of the time today but 11 % of the time tomorrow and 55 % of the time the next day.

by which they mean that there's never been a controlled, laboratory experiment in which one species evolves into another

Astrophysics is a very rigorous science. Experiments aren't necessary, only (repeated and repeatable) observations; experiments are a convenient way of arranging opportunities for observations, but nothing more. "Macroevolution" -- that is, the theory of evolution -- makes lots of testable predictions (Stupid Design, for example); lots and lots of these have been tested, and not one found wrong so far.

I guess I should have tried to convince the philosophy department that philosophy has no rigor, so that I could skip the logic test we were required to pass in order to stay in the program.

I think the point was that the difference between the philosopher and the physicist is that the philosopher hasn't got a lab -- philosophy cannot test its hypotheses, it can only check them for logical consistency.

#41: David, your definition of methodological naturalism takes us right back to Bacon--he certainly would agree with that, and he would argue that the universe behaves in a sufficiently consistent way because it was created that way. So, in regard to question 1:

'Are the religious and scientific worldviews (or epistemologies) antithetical to one another?

the answer is no, if we accept that methodological naturalism is the sole necessary assumption of scientific epistemology. Yet PZ says the answer to question 1 is yes, and so do many of the posters in this thread. If they are antithetical, does that imply that a religious worldview is inconsistent with the idea that dropped things fall straight down? That seems a little silly; most religious people accept methodological naturalism.

So, if the answer to question 1 is `no', it seems that something stronger than the one assumption of methodological naturalism is needed to make scientific and religious epistemologies antithetical.

I would agree with Sarcastro's (@36) general assertion that, here, religion is narrowly construed as Christian dogma. I would also add that 'science' may also be narrowly construed in the sense that it typically means the natural sciences (i.e., biology, chemistry, physics). If both constructs are more broadly construed, it is possible to show that 'science' and 'religion' need not be antithetical. Consider Buddhism ('religion') and psychology ('science') as examples.

Some Buddhist principles (at least in the Indo-Tibetan/Dalai Lama sense) are more consistent with life and moral philosophy than religious dogma. (Unlike 'science', a significant feature of religion is to provide moral tenets. Religions become dogma when such tenets are handed down and enforced by a Deity). As an example of life philosophy, Indo-Tibetan Buddhists believe there are three mental processes that are toxins to the mind: craving, hatred, and self-delusion (i.e., the belief that one's own and others' reified personalities are real and concrete. These are considered toxins because they are believed to lead to dukkha (suffering) and prevent sukha (happiness).

Psychology as a scientific enterprise finds these ideas novel, especially the idea that the notion of self is harmful, given that the self is important to (western) psychological thought. The idea of craving as being harmful also has important implications for research, especially concerning substance abuse and other forms of addiction. Psychological researchers want to know whether Buddhist contemplative practices (e.g., meditation; which are meant to train the mind to achieve sukha) can serve as a useful form of psychotherapy that can reduce substance abuse and other forms of addiction.

In general, psychological science can study (and has studied) various beliefs to determine what impact they have on human functioning.

I'll be there. Not sure exactly where or when but when it's there I'll be. PZ- great job on the last radio debate... er... drubbing.

#31 Exactly; since religion is entirely subjective, I cannot know that others have souls.
# 32 Exactly; revelations are miracles; I can only know they are true if they happen to me! The point is, religion can not prove anything; it is attractive to people because of how they feel and what they think they know. Let the baby have his bottle.

One issue I'd like to see addressed is so-called "spirituality." I confess that I really don't know what the hell people are talking about when they talk of "spirituality." But when you press someone on the topic of spirituality, eventually what they talk about are things like joy, awe, wonder, a sense of connectedness -- things I would generalize as "loss of ego."

And all these things -- awe, beauty, wonder -- are perfectly ordinary human experiences. It's part of how we're wired. It's not mysterious or difficult to understand. It's certainly not supernatural. (Why in the hell shouldn't human beings feel a sense of connectedness to the universe? We are connected to the fucking universe!) And these things can easily become replicable, learned skills.

I may have mentioned this here before, but I am an atheist not because of science, but because of the arts -- specifically, music. In order to play music really well, you can't be a dualist. Because you have to be listening and doing at the same time, and you have to give up any pretense of some separate ego apart from what's going on, or the music will suffer. It's an instant ticket to oneness with the universe, and it's a skill anyone can practice, and there's no fucking mystery to it whatsoever. What I've learned is that I can easily recreate all the trappings of genuine religious experience just playing jazz in some dank saloon, with a few drinks in me and hot chicks in the audience. Who needs God?

(I should admit that I actually learned this observing the musicians at a pentecostal church. The musicians themselves had little in the way of talent or training, but they put on a helluva show. It never once occurred to me that there was anything mystical going on, but I sure learned a lot about performance that night.)

Sometimes I think that the difference between atheists and religionists is that we feel like this all the time. They're lucky if they can feel like this once in a month of Sundays.

I think I see where PZ is going wrt question 4. For example, let's take the flood: there's evidence against it, but how can science determine whether or not God/Satan didn't just magic away the evidence? Also, the lack of evidence of the flood doesn't disprove the existence of God and/or original sin (two religious "truths" surrounding the flood).

P.S. insomnia suxors :(

Test

I find both the religious and science groups quite interesting. Reminds me of the joke. "There was a time when religion thought it could explain all the world, then came science, they both come up short."

To answer some questions:

The debate will, indeed, be recorded and should be posted to the group's website shortly after.

It's at 7pm on Thursday in the West Bank auditorium, on the U of Minnesota-Twin Cities campus. Feel free to check out cashumn.org for directions and/or maps.

If anyone has any more questions about the debate, just write to pr@cashumn.org.

bill, the one "assumption" that's necessary for science is methodological naturalism (there are natural laws; miracles don't happen so often as to make that concept useless), and methodological naturalism is itself a scientific hypothesis that can be, and is constantly being, tested. That's the epistemological basis (singular, definite article) for science. You don't need to talk about Bacon.

Loyal? Is that his first name???

It seems to me that this definition of what constitutes a natural law is at the heart of what science is.

Sorry for my sloppy wording. Methodological naturalism is the hypothesis that the universe behaves in a sufficiently consistent way, so that if I let go of stuff, it will fall down in, at least, the vast majority of cases, rather than impredictably going up, down, right, left, in spirals, or nowhere, and going right 23 % of the time today but 11 % of the time tomorrow and 55 % of the time the next day.

by which they mean that there's never been a controlled, laboratory experiment in which one species evolves into another

Astrophysics is a very rigorous science. Experiments aren't necessary, only (repeated and repeatable) observations; experiments are a convenient way of arranging opportunities for observations, but nothing more. "Macroevolution" -- that is, the theory of evolution -- makes lots of testable predictions (Stupid Design, for example); lots and lots of these have been tested, and not one found wrong so far.

I guess I should have tried to convince the philosophy department that philosophy has no rigor, so that I could skip the logic test we were required to pass in order to stay in the program.

I think the point was that the difference between the philosopher and the physicist is that the philosopher hasn't got a lab -- philosophy cannot test its hypotheses, it can only check them for logical consistency.