As part of an exercise in shredding Steve Fuller, AC Grayling makes several felicitous comments. Fuller makes the "tired argument that modern science is the kindly gift of 16th-century religion," and claims that "atheism has done precious little for science". He's got a few good answers to that one.
And what has atheism done for science? Well, let's see: it removed the risk of scientists being burned at the stake for controverting the divinely revealed truth that "the lord hath laid the foundations of the earth so that it shall not be moved for ever" (Psalm 102, beloved of Bellarmine in his efforts to shut up the astronomers and philosophers of the era of Descartes). It removed the necessity of having to distort observations, facts, experimental results and observations to fit an antecedent doctrine as far from what observation and experiment revealed as one could possibly get. (Think about seeing the moons of Jupiter through a telescope in an age when the earth was - by order! - at the centre of the universe and man and his man-made religion was the most important thing in it, with the Pope and the Office of the Inquisition daring you to think otherwise.) In short, it liberated the mind and enquiries of mankind. Decreasing religious hegemony and rapidly increasing scientific and technological knowledge have gone pari passu during the last four centuries, in mutually reinforcing tandem: the less religion, the more science; the more science, the less religion. And this is a universal phenomenon (see the Pew polls on the decline of religion, even in the USA).
- Log in to post comments
This is good stuff, PZ. Very interesting, as always.
I'm working a techno track called "I want to punch Steve Fuller in his Smarmy Face"
I've long said that religions generally have improved over the centuries to the degree that they have become secularized. My family's religion - Southern Baptists (and now McCain's?) - was contrived to maintain US slavery in the face of Northern Christian and secular abolitionist pressure. They agree now that slavery is (and always was) evil. Apparently eternal truths change over time. Or maybe, our ancestors were more prone to ethical mistakes, even though we can't hold a candle to the patriarchs' moral character. Or something like that. I couldn't figure them out when I was 12, and they don't make any more sense now.
I consider atheism as an inexorable part of a rational worldview. It serves as a constant reminder to examine things critically and objectively, to call dubious claims into question.
More like, what secularism has done for science. After all, many theists are rather secular when it comes to science and, despite their beliefs in the insensible, do very well at separating science from nonsense.
I mean, you really can't say that Galileo or Newton were atheists, but you can point out their secularism with respect to scientific discovery (Newton has some reserves of nonsense that interfere with empirical modeling, nonetheless).
What the fuck has religion (as such, and not as a channel for wonder and curiosity) ever done for science?
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Being a cynic, I believe that, in all likelihood, people such as Fuller are just complete charlatans. It would be so easy to write a book like this. You don't have look up facts or back up your claims. You just sit in your chair and make things up that a certain segment of the population wants to hear. Send it to the publisher and watch the royalty checks roll in. Beats working for a living.
Secularism has moved science away from anthropocentrism, most famously with the matter of heliocentrism, and also in biology. Fuller still whines about the non-anthropocentric tendencies of evolutionary theory, as do other idiots.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Help a non-native English speaker. What does "felicitous comments" mean?
Comments on cats?
"felicitous comments" = well-chosen, cf. felicitas.
Atheists also have a sense of humor about religion and religious figures. For example, I would name the science department of Bellarmine University after Galileo if I ran the place.
Isn't it as simple as this: early scientists were religious because... what else were they going to be? The basic concepts of atheism may date back to antiquity, but they didn't really enter the public limelight until the time of the French Revolution.
If you look at the history of atheism and science, the two seem to develop in parallel, especially through the 16th through 18th centuries. As science learned more, so did atheism grow. Funny thing that.
The most annoying aspect of Fuller is his idiocy cast doubt and disdain down on useful, interesting pomo works.
Atheism specifically, as opposed to the broader idea of secularism, is fundamental to science because if we allow God as an explanation all useful inquiry ends. What causes cancer? God. What makes our bodies work? God. What keeps the Earth turning? God. etc. etc.
Grayling's comments seem desperate, I think. Are events 400 years ago where atheism played no discernible role the best that our distinguished professor of philosophy can do? This supports an idea I've been mulling over for some time: that atheism is to reason and scientific advancement what fundamentalism is to religon. It is something that happens when zeal overwhelms thought.
Steve F.
Atheism conjures up all that religion is not. It is thinking and living without recourse to insane imaginary gods and nonsense rituals that only detract from clear rational thought and a life devoid of non-existent intrusions of ghostly apparitions. Once these irrational thoughts and actions were sloughed off I had more time for great reading of the sciences which explained the nonsense with more thoroughness and common sense, and the absence of that crap in my head led to more and farther ranging of interests that religious indoctrination stifled. My only regret is that atheism has not dawned in my life at a much earlier time; foresight is such a tragic consequence of sad hindsight. Atheism is my life, and will be when death renders it fulfilled and moot.
I'm reading Rodney Stark's "The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success."
"The so-called Scientific Revolution of the sixteenth century has been misinterpreted by those wishing to assert an inherent conflict between religion and science. Some wonderful things were achieved in this era, but they were not produced by an eruption of secular thinking. Rather, these achievements were the culmination of many centuries of systematic progress by medieval Scholastics, sustained by that uniquely Christian twelfth-century invention, the university. Not only were science and religion compatible, they were inseparable--the rise of science was achieved by deeply religious Christian scholars." (Random House Trade Paperbacks ed., 2005, p. 12.)
He later says the reason Christian scholars led science is because Christian theology compels the "how" questions.
He says all the ancient greeks achieved in the end "was nonempirical, even antiempirical, speculative philosophies; atheoretical collections of facts; and isolated crafts and technologies--never breaking through to real science." (P. 18.)
Where "rational thought" is defined as the willingness to believe tripe such as that a god who is one being made of three beings creates a son who existed for all time to die (but not really) in order to redeem all people for an act of disobedience by their many-times-great grandparents.
Yeah, if only science could justify that line of BS!
Interesting. I'm reading a book right now on the discovery of the dinosaurs, and it discusses the way that the early geologists' beliefs in Genesis clouded their research. For example, the discovery of prehistoric creatures was reconciled, more or less, with Genesis by assuming multiple creations and catastrophes. Which meant that no extinct creatures could ever have coexisted with humans (an interesting contrast with modern creationists!) - which meant that several geologists worked hard to explain away, for example, humans and mammoths being found together, or stone tools covered by stalagmites, that had to have taken far more than 6,000 years to form. One interesting quote from the time, by someone who was skeptical of those claims:
He was, however, in the minority, and his critiques were not published until after Buckland's death.
Man, I hate the "tired argument that modern science is the kindly gift of 16th-century religion", not just because it isn't true, but because the people making it never follow through on the reasoning to see how it works completely against their position.
Ok, first let's assume (falsely) that science began in 16th century Christendom.
Let's also assume that Biblical assumptions served as the starting point for scientific thinking.
So, Christian culture, Christian science, Christian scientists.
What moved science away from Christian assumptions to where we are now, oft lamented as "atheistic science""?
Four hundred years of evidence.
If science had started anywhere else, Christians would complain that it was biased against them from the start.
Instead, they claim we "owe them one" for crawling out from under their theology rather than from under someone else's.
But what we have really is a natural experiment.
No other religion has been as thoroughly tested, and as consistently refuted, as Christianity.
Who's the "He", Paper Hand? Unsourced quotes are irritating.
Myers-san! You are a scientist, no? Why not do an analysis - a deconstruction if you will - of ideas like "a god who is one being made of three beings creates a son who existed for all time to die ...". Reason out some of the meanings to it, and by all means, try to understand it in its historical context (Hellenistic mystery cults). You may not agree with it, but at least you can try to understand it.
Steve F.
So, Christian culture, Christian science, Christian scientists.
And Christian rock! Woot!
Abstinence, crackers and rock 'n roll!
Sorry. :-)
I'll confess to not having time to read the Grayling piece just now (so maybe he answers my question), but I have to echo Glen Davidson's comments: in what way did atheism per se promote these and other scientific advances? Were the crucial ideas, and observations to back them up, being advanced by explicitly atheist scientists? Was there a church/science fight at every turn, with the science side being led by unbelievers? (Hint: the answer is "No, not as a generalization". Even my small knowledge of history comes up with a number of devout scientists -- even clergy -- who did important work. Eg: the reverend English gentlemen who pioneered modern geology in the early 19th century).
The key word here is not "atheism", but "secularism", ie, that whatever you or I may believe about Things Unseen, we agree that the things we do see are to be explained in terms of other things we see (though the "seeing" may be mediated by fancy equipment), and those explanations are not to be determined by reference to religious dogma or texts.
Grayling is, however, correct that this process requires the diminution of the worldly power of religious institutions. I think atheism accompanies secularism, but is not identical with it.
I'm not being a troll--I'm with you on most things, PZ (not the Garrison Keillor thing, if you'll recall). But Stark sounds convincing, though I don't know enough about the history of science to read him critically. Yet.
"The Christian image of God is that of a rational being who believes in human progress, more fully revealing himself as humans gain the capacity to better understand. Moreover, because God is a rational being and the universe is his personal creation, it necessarily has a rational, lawful, stable structure, awaiting increased human comprehension. This was the key to many intellectual undertakings, among them the rise of science." (Stark, p. 12.)
Oops, sorry. The quote was by a man named Rev. John MacEnery.
The book is The Dragon Seekers by Chrisopher McGowan.
Stark's "Victory of Reason" (see #15 above) probably wouldn't be worthwhile as even an exercise in critiquing if the above quote is typical. Yes, the Greeks didn't have much use for empirical science, but the Christian church based their dogma on a mangled version of the Greek system, namely neoplatonism. The church never asked the "How" questions because they already had their answer-god. They flirted with Aristotle for a bit under Aquinas, but quickly went back to their Plotinus.
The more accurate description of the relation of church to science was set forth by Nicholas of Cusa around 1440CE in his essay whose title says it all- On Learned Ignorance.
Steve F #13 wrote:
I don't think this analogy works, because it seems to imply that 'the existence of God' is a scientific theory which has made successful predictions and is part of the scientific consensus. Therefore, atheists cannot advance in science, because they fail to accept one of the major tenets of -- what? Biology? Cosmology? Science per se?
The actual existence of God is irrelevant to every science theory I can think of -- until we get to pseudoscience. Do you have a specific example of a legitimate theory where 'God' is included?
Otherwise, you're just comparing passions -- or what you think of as passions.
@Adam (#15): He later says the reason Christian scholars led science is because Christian theology compels the "how" questions.
It wouldn't, of course, have anything to do with Christians' tendency towards xenophobia, and squelching of any dissenting points of view. I'm sure the book gives a good description of how supportive the Christian church was towards Galileo.
Without atheism, there's always the possibility that goddidit, or set things up that way, so science might not be the only way to the truth. By rigorously excluding god-meddling, fully scientific explanations can be pursued, and perhaps achieved, at least up to a certain level. I mean, an explanation of the origin of the fundamental constants hasn't yet been achieved, but physicists can work on it. Newton just said god made gravity, if I remember correctly.
Belief in gods removes some of the incentive to find real explanations. That just has to be bad.
Other than purely anecdotal evidence, no deity has ever revealed him/herself in any scientifically measurable way other than hearsay.
Increased human comprehension leads to the reality that religion and the concept of deities is a human construct. God is revealed to be superstition and wishful thinking.
modern science is the kindly gift of 16th-century religion
Isn't that like saying that monotheism is the kindly gift of axial age polytheism?
Adam, let me give you a hand with seeing through Stark. The christian god does not believe in human progress. According to christianity humans are bad and have no ability to progress- they can only wait until the second coming. And the second coming is going to happen so soon (within this generation according to Jesus)(christians have been expecting the second coming in the next 50 years for the last 2000 years-you'd think they would get a clue) there is no time for progress.
Please keep posting the quotes, though.
Adam, look up reification.
"Je n'ai pas besoin de cette hypothèse."
Pierre-Simon de Laplace
Says it all for me!
Tim H doesn't get it right, I think. What happened was that educated elites understood, as did Augustine, that God revealed himself through nature as well as through revelation.
In the 12th and 13th centuries, the church imbibed Islamic thought, much of it Aristotlian, and Islamic science as well (algebra, arabic mathematical notation, optics, medicine, etc) and then developed it extensively in its universities (Paris, etc.) into what is now known as scholasticism. From people trained in scholasticism such as Kepler, Copernicus, and Galileo came the revolutionary stirrings that led to modern science. So the environment that led to modern science was Christian with a very healthy dose of Islamic thought.
Steve F.
Is that Christian image of a God who believes in human progress a companion to the Christian image of God who believes that humans need to return to obedience, renounce the world, and understand only God?
Once again, the Bible/Christianity is the ultimate Rorschach ink blot, which looks like whatever you read into it.
Atheism is just honesty, to myself and to other people who ask if I believe in magic. Religious people can make any argument they want but at the end of the day there is no proof that there is anything supernatural.
An oldy but a goody from Professor Grayling in response to Eagleton's review of the God Delusion. You'll need to scroll down to Apparently It's Emetic.
Fixed it for you,
You want to try that again without the reveal/revelation redundancy?
Dear Adam @24
I'll break down his argument into formal logic
1) God is rational
2) God believes in human progress, revealing himself as humans gain capacities to understand
3) God created the universe
A) Since God is rational and created the universe, it too must be rational
4) There was an idea that the universe is rational
B) Because the universe was thought to be rational, science was possible
In response to the premise 1, perhaps you should brush up on your literary references in the Christian Cannon of your choice. The deities spoken of in these books are NOT rational. They are vengeful, merciless, petty, cruel, murderous, bigoted, and very much like an ill-tempered and very powerful child.
In response to premise 2, one would think that this deity, being immensely powerful, would have the gift of understanding genetics so as to speed up the process of human evolution as it is portrayed to be (linear and teleological). Evolution is not teleological.
In response to premise 3, I do not need to refute this one as it is non-proven, and very frequently demonstrated to be unlikely.
No premises of conclusion A are thus true, the universe may be rational, but it does not require this deity to have created it nor for this deity to be rational.
For premise 4; the idea of a rational universe is not required to begin scientific inquiry, in fact, if the universe were truly rational without extreme quantities of investigation and elucidation, scientific inquiry would not be necessary.
Conclusion B is thereby based upon entirely false premises and cleverly disguised apologetics. A rational universe requires neither religion nor science because it is easily understandable and rational. Religion explains via fictional stories whereas science explains via repeatable observation and experiment. The only way to get this to work is by excluding the hidden logic and not following the reasoning to its conclusion.
Many of the above comments, including the original post, risk plucking events and people out of their historical context and placing them in modern debates around atheism and religion. The reason a lot of historians of science are frustrated by the 'science versus religion' dichotomy is that it is both grossly simplistic and inaccurate when applied to the actual historical context and events. Citing Galileo is a shallow example, as most of the detailed historical scholarship that exposes the political and cultural background to his trial shows.
I like what Stephen Shapin's textbook, 'The Scientific Revolution', has to say (and what it shows) on this topic. In particular, he shows how many of the key ideas in early modern scientific thought - about the role of observation, authority and mechanistic schemas - emerged in an environment that was not hostile to religion and where there was very little religious interference (especially in protestant England).
The other idea that is being ignored here is that there is something about Christian theology, in particular in the way in which its god is separated from nature, and his relationship to earthly authority, that, while not 'supportive' of scientific advancement, in some way leads to secularization and secular ways of investigating nature. This is particularly powerful when one looks at protestantism, which led to further breaks between the state and the way in which earthly authority is organized and the church and spiritual authority. This is not to say that Christianity supported secularization, but there is a strong argument that its structures and theology in some ways 'unconsciously' pointed the way to a more secularized state, to enlightenment (the British, Scottish and German enlightenments were intertwined with religion and by no means hostile to it) and, eventually, to the movements from which modern atheism evolved.
So don't be too quick apply modern arguments and debates about religion to history. It is ugly and highly dubious historically. I know that it is nice to constantly think of religion and religious people as the pantomime villains of history, but that simply isn't a good way of thinking about history, or remotely accurate.
Has anybody experienced the following? I just received a spam message over Skype from a sender by the name of Christian Resistance containing some anti-islamic propaganda and a link to some site, www.truth something - can't remember, I was a bit unsettled and was considering if I should reply with some tirade, I blocked him instead and killed the message, I should've CTRL+C CTRL+V probably.
The user seems to be UK based.
Adam @ 24
You can quote insane scripture, insane authors, and insane hearsay, but this will not give credence to your imaginary god which was spawned in the human brain to attempt to answer where it all came from long before you were born so that you could perpetuate the never-ending pathetic and sorry state of irrational beliefs. Why does this produce such an irreducible mental blockage to think otherwise? This is so simple as to be almost ludricous to repeat, but without our brains the idea of imaginary gods would never have formed. There was no god who appeared before humans and said,"Do not think of me, for here I am in the flesh to save you the effort of forming all this insane bullshit to prove that I exist." There was nothing, no idea of gods until the human brain developed over time by that marvelous action of evolution, which you and your brain could not dictate to. Only when your brain was sufficiently formed did it have the power to dictate the irrational crap that all religions are molded from. You only have to prove to me that your imaginary god exists by bringing it down to appear before us, and saying to all of us, "Here, have a cracker." I need say no more.
Hi Sastra. Thanks for the comment. When I said that "atheism is to reason and scientific advancement what fundamentalism is to religon," what I meant is that both are extremes where reason plays second fiddle, as it were, to passion and zeal.
Science, of course, is the systematic exercise of reason, implementation, and review. Secularism (and atheism) can contribute to it as well as distract from it (as was the case with Lysenko, Stalin's favorite scientist). Similarly, religion can both contribute or distract from it depending on how open or closed it is at the moment.
In both Christian and Islamic cultures, belief in God became the vehicle for the spread of Hellenistic rationalism and philosophy, leading to the widespread perception of God as a lawgiver AND to the idea that God could be known through reason. This lead to (a) a belief that there were universal laws and (b) that they could be found. Clearly, there is more to it than this, but these two things were essential groundwork for the emergence of science.
Steve F.
I just want to write and thank you for taking the time and effort to create your blog. I'm learning a great deal in reading your work as well as looking up the references to other info.
tjh wrote:
That "something about Christian theology" might be because it is so absurd and contrary to reason that people with a rational bent tend to push it away and find other ways to deal with the world.
Posted by: Bogans | September 4, 2008 2:58 PM
"Atheism specifically, as opposed to the broader idea of secularism, is fundamental to science because if we allow God as an explanation all useful inquiry ends. "
I agree. This is why Intelligent Design is soooooo unscientific. Why inquire into the nature of ANYTHING if you think it is so complicated that someone or something designed it. And we all know who the creotards think as to whom the designer is.
I am NOT a scientist, but even I can figure this out.
BTW, (from Rasmussen reports, 3 Sept 08)
Women prefer H.Clinton to S.Palin by 57% to 35% : +22% !
Men prefer S.Palin to H.Clinton by 49% to 45%
(guess who they find more attractive)
and all this despite the fact that Palin is new, fresh, charismatic...
And there is no evidence for now that Obama's lead over McCain has decreased since the begining of the RNC.
So the only "evidence" for now that she's such an asset for McCain is in the right-wing noise machine's talking points.
The Christian Church had a major advantage when it came to the growth of science and democracy: the political and intellectual philosophy of the New Testament is unworkable. You cannot run a government based on the words and teaching of Jesus, because he was speaking to an oppressed people who were patiently awaiting the Kingdom of God, where they would be rewarded for their meekness and poverty. You can't run anything on that sort of impractical advice -- nor can you progress.
So, scholarship and theory could be -- had to be -- imported from other sources, including the Greeks. They, too, were "part of God's revelation."
Sorry to polute this thread with my post #48, it was meant for another thread...
I love living in Boston, it's right next to Cambridge, and right there, on the banks of the River Charles (Love that dirty water!) is MIT.
The City of Cambridge, in it's liberal wisdom, has named one of its streets near MIT thus:
http://www.grabup.com/uploads/730627f1495670da98c964e4c28f3125.jpg
Safe for work. Unless you work for Bill Donohue or Governor Palin or some other of that ilk.
Please cite specific examples.
What straw man thread were you reading?
Please provide evidence to your claims. You seem to have glossed over some relevant facts.
Richard Harris wrote:
Neil deGrasse Tyson talked about something like that at the Beyond Belief conference. There's a YouTube video link on my blog here:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/08/consequences-of-belief.html
Or, you can just look up "Neil deGrasse Tyson, Beyond Belief, Newton" on YouTube.
Tim H, EV, Sastra, Jared, and Holbach, thanks for the comments, but I don't think I made Stark's point clearly. His point is not that the bible or the christian god promoted science, but that the perception of the christian god did.
I agree that science helped us crawl out from under the religious rock, but Stark says that ironically, it was Christian religion itself (not Greek or Eastern philosophy or Islam) that started us crawling. See Steve's comments.
The Christian image of God is that of a rational being who believes in human progress,
Yeah, well, when will he get around to believing in flying cars and fusion power?
"The Christian image of God is that of a rational being who believes in human progress..."
There is nothing rational about blind obeisance and wishful thinking, and such things are an impediment to human progress, as is the facilitation of violent proclivity from behind a veneer of pompous piety.
Adam @ 54
Never mind what Stark says. Speak for yourself. What do YOU say and think?
tjh:
I could just as easily say that protestantism's focus on individual relationship with God and the denigrating of experts on religion worked against the notion of understanding as a collaborative enterprise that involves trained individuals, and thus worked against science. Certainly the modern fruits of protestantism are hardly friendly to science.
One can spin theories as one likes, but as presented your claim sounds grand and hollow.
Steve at #44 said:
Well, then you are just wrong. Atheism is far from a passionate "extreme" devoid of reason. Either you don't know very much about atheism or you are purposely misrepresenting it. Atheism is the extremely reasonable view that faith-based appeals to supernatural deities have consistently failed to muster the necessary evidence and support, thus making theism invalid and irrational. Now, many moderate theists who like to consider themselves rational people engage in a bit of projection and accuse atheists of being "zealous" or "irrational," but it's hollow rhetoric. Just shallow minds taking shelter in the fallacy of the false middle.
Steve F. wrote:
atheism is to reason and scientific advancement what fundamentalism is to religon
I agree. Fundamentalists take religion to its logical conclusion by believing in the whole deal unequivocally and acting upon this belief, and atheists take reason and rationalism to its logical conclusion by rejecting stupid, baseless ideas like religion.
Steve #44 wrote:
I think you are confusing atheism as a metaphysical position with atheist ideologies. Any ideology -- religious or non-religious -- when held too passionately, can get in the way of reason and sense.
But atheism as a metaphysical position -- rejecting the existence of the supernatural -- has not, and will not, get in the way of scientific process or progress as long as naturalism is held as a tentative conclusion, based on the evidence.
On the other hand, theism -- the belief that the universe is, in some way, fundamentally supernatural or magic -- will get in the way of both scientific process and progress unless strict care is taken to keep the Things of God separate from the Things of the World, when it comes to anything science can say something about.
Belief in God was the "vehicle" for the spread of Hellenistic rationalism and philosophy only because God had successfully been remade into the image of Hellenistic rationalism and philosophy. And as Jared at #40 pointed out, the Aristotlean scholasticism -- with its belief in Reasons's ability to think out truth -- had to be discarded in order for science to develop. Aristotle and his Catholic disciples 'knew' that the planets orbited in perfect circles, because that was consistent with how God would work. They didn't have to measure or test.
I just ask why when I come across idiots.
Why did your god create us?
Why did he make us doubt him?
Why is there hell?
Why are people sent there?
Why aren't everyone a christian
Why are you so stupid? I actually know somethin aboute that last one.. parents, your not really good for your children....
To Quote the Great FORTRAN,
Secularism/=Atheism.
Much of the ideological groundwork for secular humanism was not laid down by atheists, since much of it was laid down before atheism was formalized as a distinct ideological entity.
Atheism is simply the idea that there is no God or supreme being. None of the laws regarding freedom of religion, nor any of the foundations of science, have their basis in that idea.
What has atheism done for us? Well, considering the limited nature of many ideologies that can be described in one sentence, not much by itself. Whether that makes it right or wrong as a truth statement is another issue.
Science is not philosophically defensible without atheism, as empiricism and the induction of natural laws have no basis if the observable universe and its laws are changeable at the whim of a supernatural being.
"The crawling out from under the rock" was done not only in defiance of the church, but using contrary methods. The church did not base its teachings or methods on the reasoning of Plato or Aristotle, but the mysticism of Plotinus. (Both Plato and Plotinus would be truely freaked out over what the church made of it.)
Science requires reason. Church doctrine explicity (Paul, Tertullian, Augustine) rejects reason and embraces faith. The church, and its perceptions, stood in the way of science and still does. (Again, minor exception for Aquinas.) Stark is wrong.
Suggsted reading- "The Closing of the Western Mind" by Charles Freeman, and of course "History of Western Philosophy" by Bertrand Russell.
Thanks for the reply.
Because religion aims to leave you satisfied with a non-answer. When faced with holes in their ideas, they resort to making things up to fit their worldviews and then demanding they be accepted as valid explanations despite having no basis outside of that person's imagination (think Kent Hovind's ice canopy).
Secular science seeks to understand. Religion merely seeks to reinforce.
Let's all pay dues where the dues are due! Atheism and religion have travelled hand-in-hand when it comes to scientific progress. To grossly overgeneralize, atheism liberated the mind while religion pulled the carriage: let's not forget that, allbeit restrictively and under close scrunity, religious establishments funded and supported scientific research for centuries. Remember Mendel? I can think of no other establishment than the holy church that could have so effectively controlled the masses in the ages before we knew that germs cause disease.
Next subject, Dr. Myers: what has religion done for science?
Quiet_Desperation wrote:
As soon as he figures out why he bothered to destroy the tower of Babel, but yet let us go to the Moon.
Several references to the Greek origins of thought in science and religion require a footnote.
The Greeks spent hundreds of years exploring the intellectual landscape before Plato and the idealists arrived on the scene. In particular the anatomists and hedonists, Anaxamander and Zeno came up with a great start in the direction of observational philosophy. The Islamic cultures also gravitated toward empiricism and served as a reservoir of science during the Christian era. As the Christian era dawned, the Platonic forces overwhelmed the empirical tendencies of the Greeks. Under Christian domination for centuries, the empiricists who struggled under the table, kept hope alive until the enlightenment.
So give the Greeks more credit. They really tried.
@ Tulse,
Your statement (#64), is neither wrong nor right.
Science is not philosophically defensible with any current secular understanding of human fallibility, and our lack of understanding of consciousness and knowledge adds to that.
Science is not airtight, not even as a clean process where everyone follows the rules the way they're supposed to. It is a distinctly anthropic pursuit, with distinctly anthropic goals and means. Doing what humans do is not a "rational" affair. It is dependent on highly subjective priorities.
Empiricism is evaluated in terms of observation. We still have no clue what it actually means to observe something. To illustrate my point, I refer you to a TED talk by Daniel Dennett. (Even if you disagree with me, do watch it, I found it rather fascinating- like most TED talks)
Science is the best system we have for seeking knowledge of the natural world, whether it's "defensible" is rather irrelevant.
Oh forgot, the TED talk I was referring to is here.
Pepa #67 wrote:
Certain variations of religion successfully managed to re-formulate its specific claims into vague, secularized, irrelevant, or untestable assumptions, thereby allowing the religious to put religion to the side when doing science, using it only for a generalized "inspiration and motivation."
Yay!
I've said it before and I'll say it again:
It is entirely misguided to ask what atheism has done for humanity. The reason for withholding belief in falsehoods is the avoidance of error. No further justification is needed.
Hi Sastra. Many thanks for another thoughtful post!
You say that you think I am "confusing atheism as a metaphysical position with atheist ideologies". You argue that "atheism as a metaphysical position" won't get in the way of science.
I'm tempted to agree with you, but metaphysics rather easily becomes ideology, as history repeatedly shows. This means that a metaphysics should be chosen wisely, ideally with insight into scientific process thrown into the mix. Science, of course, is stubbornly agnostic when it comes to questions of metaphysics.
Consider the idea of "atheism as a metaphysical position -- rejecting the existence of the supernatural". This, an enlightment perspective extracted from the methodologies of the physical sciences of the 18th century, has not only repeatedly lead to ideological excess - communism, eugenics, social Darwinism, and modern "scientific" racism come to mind - but also seems to distill into a modern framework the whole of the medieval passion for the idea that there is only one truth and that everyone has to be made to fit into it, the scientist as priest, if you will.
And, furthermore it betrays an 18th century clockwork universe perspective at odds with modern ideas of emergence, evolution, and quantum mechanics. Its limitations, scientifically and philosophically, readily become apparent when you think about what is meant by "being above nature", the meaning of the term supernatural. Is our consciousness "supernatural"? It is if we take the perspective that only material things exist.
If we accept that there are things that emerge from nature - for example, Richard Dawkins's memes, or your and my consciousness, then it is clear that "supernatural" things exist.
The alternative is that "natural" be redefined to include such things as consciousness, but then God, whom you've tried to kick out the front door, comes back in the window. God, of course, is a set of concepts derived from our experience with consciousness.
Steve F.
Steve,
What does it mean for consciousness to be above nature? You compare it to an abstract principle (Dawkins's memes), and then go on to say that consciousness is a non-material phenomenon as if everybody knows this is true.
Steve. F
Skatje pointed out that all first year philosophy students have to bring up quantum mechanics as a justification for metaphysics.
As a cartoon in the New Yorker onced captioned, "I say it's spinach, and I say to hell with it!"
brought peace?
Eugenics is a consequence of rejecting the supernatural? Wow, someone's been drinking deep of the Expelled kool-aid.
Could Greyling be bobbing for a Templeton Foundation grant?
Compared to whom? You might want to start by looking up the history of geometry, and then move on to its applications by Archimedes and Eratosthenes, measuring circumference of the Earth, distance to the Moon & such.
To call Lysenko, Lepeshinskaya et al., scientists in this context is rich. They were ideologues who believed in the prevailing Stalinist dogma of inheritance of acquired traits. Based on their unsupported beliefs, they "reformed" Soviet agricultural practices, with disastrous results. They are poster children for what happens when you favor doctrine over experiment.
No irony, just blather. Stark needs to get out more. He needs to go back a few thousand years to Egypt, India, and Mesopotamia (hint, number systems, astronomical names and concepts). And then he needs to look at what the xtians did to libraries, books, early scientists.
Meanwhile, I am looking forward to the first results from the Department of Experimental Theology.
Shorter Steve F: "Science leads to killing people."
Jon W asked:
That's one of the core assumptions that theists have to make because God, in order to fit the standard definition of God, has to be both conscious and above nature.
What does Steve think of AI? I wonder. Or neuroscience?
Can consciousness exist without memory?
Is memory supernatural?
How can material drugs alter consciousness?
In summary:
thou shalt not critique the one true doctrine - Atheism. It has too done good.
PS
Would Steve F. kindly claim ownership of the Fuller identity or make it clear that you are not Steve Fuller.
Anti-Steve F: "Religion leads to killing people." As a student of the Thirty Years War, I'm prepared to give examples.
Sack of Magdeburg
H.H. wrote:
Medium Truth: "Science leads to more efficient ways to kill people, but people have been killing people since before they were people."
OK, Luke @ #60 wins the thread.
I've always maintained that if religion is correct then the fundamentalists have to be the most correct. (shudders)
Two points...
- Echoing E.V.; Quantum mechanics rely on the existance of a mechanistic universe. Without it, the equations crumble.
- Consciousness isn't a thing but a linguistic symbol that points toward an apparent pattern. Light is to a brain as its vector is to consciousness.
Hello Peter. Fancy seeing you here.
This guy isn't sharp unctuous enough to be Steve Fuller.
Good thing that one wasn't on the SAT!
I'm not even sure my brain has a vector.
Steve F #74 wrote:
Again, I think you are confusing specific ideologies with theories. Naturalism (atheism) is a theory, a testable and explanatory framework which has made successful predictions and has (so far) failed to be falsified. The ideological excesses you cite have all been fueled by demonstrably toxic science -- or pseudoscience.
Science is the attempt to eliminate bias and error in order to discover objective and provisional truths which are universal and persuasive to all: it undercuts the desire to know things by special, subjective means. Those who assert what can't be demonstrated will often resort to force.
This gets into the critical question of what it means for something to be "supernatural." I think defining it as what is "above" or "outside" of nature gets into pointless circularity, since "nature" is whatever is not "supernatural."
The most reasonable and workable definition I've seen is that the "supernatural" involves any reality which has mind or mind-like "forces" or properties as irreducible causes which act on the material. This would include souls, magic, ESP, ghosts, karma, vitalism, and God.
It would not include consciousness as a property or experience of material brains.
I agree.
In 1678 Ralph Cudworth put forth that view in The True Intellectual System of the Universe: A systematic refutation of rigid mechanism and endorsement of the spiritual as part of the Great Chain of Being or Scale of Nature, Presided over by the Universal Mind.
He wrote:
An incorporeal Deity "Moves Matter not mechanically, but Vitally, and by Cogitation only. And that a Cogitative Being as such hath a Natura lIimperium over Matter and Power of Moving it without any Engines or Machines, is unquestionably certain, even from our own Souls, which move our Bodies and Command them every way, merely by Word and Thought."
God's relation to the universe was mirrored in the way humans saw their soul's (or mind's) relation to their own bodies. And, with modern neurology, the "ghost in the machine" turned out to be a phantom of our intuition. We were surprised.
And along with it, goes the Ghost in the Universe.
"And just what has atheism done for us?"
The aqueduct?
Jon, you asked "What does it mean for consciousness to be above nature?"
Things like consciousness - which has no readily identifiable material characteristics - are either part of nature or they are not part of nature.
If they are part of nature, then the idea of the supernatural - a word that has the meaning "above nature" - has been defined away. Everything, including such things as memes or ideas, all of which cannot be directly measured, are included, even God. But, now "nature" is taken to mean all that exists and atheistic metaphysics has no meaning because it draws no distinctions.
If things like consciousness are not part of nature, then they are neccesarily "supernatural" and atheistic metaphysics has been shown to be wrong because its basic premises have been contradicted.
Does this make any sense? Its a bit too philosophical maybe, but it is extremely relevant to today's considerations about reductionism, the nature of consciousness, etc.
Steve F.
"God is a rational being and the universe is his personal creation, it necessarily has a rational, lawful, stable structure, awaiting increased human comprehension."
And he knows this how?
"If things like consciousness are not part of nature, then they are neccesarily "supernatural"..." - Steve, #91
Just because we can't (yet) put a handle on the bundle of electrical impulses that we call consciousness doesn't mean consciousness is supernatural. That's just an argument from ignorance.
So if a person's "consciousness" survived their body's death, what would you call it? And how would you prove it (ever / still) existed?
Sorry, that's not science.
"But, now "nature" is taken to mean all that exists and atheistic metaphysics has no meaning because it draws no distinctions." - Steve
The distinctions are drawn within nature. For the record though, there are atheists who believe in the supernatural. I'm not one of them, but they exist.
I find myself utterly flabbergasted.
Not one of you has seen fit to say:
Well, Apart from that, what has atheism ever done for us##/
Jams wrote:
Wow! Talk about confusing the map for the territory!
Huh???
I still like Marvin Minski's metaphoric definition: CONSCIOUSNESS IS A BIG SUITCASE
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/minsky/minsky_p2.html
Dear Sastra:
You write: "Naturalism (atheism) is a theory, a testable and explanatory framework which has made successful predictions and has (so far) failed to be falsified".
Definitely not so. It is important to distinguish between (1a) methodological naturalism or (1b) scientific naturalism and (2a) metaphysical naturalism or (2b) ontological naturalism. Not drawing the distinction can lead to considerabl confusion. Atheism is associated with (2a) and (2b), but not (1a) or (1b), although many people want to make a leap of faith between the two. BTW, Wikipedia is good on these.
Steve F. (nope, not Steve Fuller, whom I don't know)
"Light is to a brain as its vector is to consciousness." - me
Conscious is what we call the apparent behaviour (part of the apparent behaviour anyway) of the brain. It's just a word that describes a pattern, or behaviour, or what have you. Saying that it's supernatural (steve's hypothetical preposition) is like saying that the direction a photon is traveling is supernatural because the item's "direction" isn't physical, can't be held in your hand, and so on. So, consciousness is the vector of the brain the way direction is the vector of light.
...it sounded clearer in my mind.
Steve wrote:
Neurons, neural nets, behavior of a material organism, speech centers, brain damage...
Steve,
What does it mean to say that atheistic metaphysics precludes emergent properties and so forth? You're saying that "greedy reductionism" is the only logical output of atheistic metaphysics. I don't even understand how one leads to the other. Reductionism and emergence aren't incompatible.
I don't know even where to begin to unravel this idiotic sophistry. Although I don't buy all Pinker has to say but his analysis is far more rational than the tripe above. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1580394,00.html
Steve #97 wrote:
On the contrary, I think that making a distinction between "methodological naturalism" and "metaphysical naturalism" is what leads to confusion.
There's nothing in the methods of science that say anything up front about naturalism/supernaturalism, or what can or can't be studied. As I defined "supernatural," it would include what's been called the "paranormal" -- and most people agree that that could be studied. If the results were positive, then both materialism AND naturalism are refuted. Naturalism, then, is falsifiable. As is atheism -- if God 'chooses' to reveal itself unambiguously.
I don't expect either, but I could be wrong. And I could realize I was wrong, which is the important thing.
I suspect that the whole "methodological naturalism" idea is simply an artificial dodge created by people who not only want to keep religion out of science -- but science out of religion. It's akin to the dowser who fails to find water in a controlled experiment saying "dowsing can't be tested in a lab -- it only works when I walk around and try it on my own. Unless it works in the lab one of these days. Then it CAN be tested after all."
The philosopher David Papineau has a history of the co-development of materialism in philosophy (which included a committment to atheism or deism) and conservation principles in physics and eventually biology. Conservation of energy was the chief motivation for materialist philosophy and materialist philosophy was, in turn, a motivation for extending conservation to other areas. After all, why believe energy is conserved if god can jiggle things around?
Steve F.
Um, no. You don't get to put "ideas" and "God" in the same category just because you like to create this metaphysical false dilemma. Ideas may not have any "readily identifiable material characteristics," but then neither do things which do not exist. So obviously that isn't a very useful way to classify things unless one is intentionally attempting to blur the distinction between material minds and their internal states and the proposed existence of supernatural minds for which no evidence exists.
Because ideas are abstract things. They exist only in human brains. The only way to include god in the same category is to admit that deities are nothing more than human concepts as well. That they have no actual reality outside of people. Obviously these sorts of god are by definition fictional, and because they exist only in the minds of humans could not be responsible for the creation of either the minds they inhabits or the Universe itself.
If you want to assert the existence of a magic mind that exists outside or above material reality, then that is entirely different can of worms than the known existence of material minds, and you don't get to falsely equate the two. And you certainly haven't proven atheism or materialism to be self-contradictory or false by making such stupid assertions. It just looks like you are playing word games in order to defend bad ideas.
Emergence is metaphysics?
Can I have some of what you're smoking?
AC Grayling uses the same terminology creationists use: intelligent design theorists. Why not call them what they really are: Magic theorists.
And what has atheism done for science?
My answer would be the idea there's no sky fairy has forced scientists to solve problems without invoking magic like Newton did whenever he thought some problem was not solvable.
The word atheism, which means 'not theism', should be obsolete by now. There should be no idea called theism in the 21st century. The human race needs to grow up and stop pretending there's a supernatural magician hiding in the clouds.
I love you, Sastra and I'm gettin' pretty fond of you H.H. Nicely done. One thing's for sure - this Abrahamic god is getting awfully skinny to wedge into those teeny little gaps.
It gave us almost every scientific invention in the last 50 years... which i might add has seen more action than in the the last 6000 years.
Not necessarily directly...but tv is not a concept of god...so neither is the internet, or comfortable shoes, or looking after children that aren't your own.
Atheists never made me think that a wafer could be the body of Christ or some wine could be his blood. No, that took the Catholics at St. Clement's Church.
Steve F.
Consciousness does have identifiable material characteristics. We may not yet have a complete explanation of how it works, but we can measure brain activity.
No.
Why are people going on about consciousness as if it can't be measured? Speech, thoughts, recognising symbols and patterns; it's all related to brain activity. If your brain is fully formed and it gets damaged beyond repair, you lose certain abilities. It's all physical, and it's all natural.
Frankly, whether atheism has "done anything" for science matters not one whit. And whether religion has "done anything" for science doesn't matter either. Neither question has any bearing on whether belief or non-belief in a deity is correct.
The phrase "appeal to consequence" comes to mind here. The issue seems a bit like asking "Well, if there were no religion, how would people be moral?" The answer doesn't go anywhere in proving or disproving the factual legitimacy of religion.
Christians demanding credit for "Christianity's contributions to the development of modern science" are akin to a Rapist demanding a share of the book profits of his victim's narrative. Yes, both protagonists did indeed contribute to the shaping of the product in question; but in what way?
Very good stuff from AC. And it needs repeating frequently. There is a very common and widespread belief in Australia that Xtianity gave birth to science. What an inversion of the truth. Religion has retarded the development of science much more than it has occasionally fostered it.
In all fairness it is pretty hard to pin down what a non-organized state of living would do for science. The problem is they are still trying to think of atheism in terms of an organized community.
We ain't had nothin' but maggotty bread for four stinkin' weeks! When's PZ gonna hook us a good fresh troll? One with plenty of fight in it! Those one pile wonders don't even try. :(
There is? I don't think I've ever come across an Aussie who has said this. The only person I've ever heard say it ws Dr John Lennox (An irishman), but he was a nutter: he claims that genesis is scientific because Adam names all the animals.
Poor Patricia. All loaded up for game and not a troll in sight. The critters just aren't biting. Perhaps they're all preoccupied with the RNC. All those stigmata-ites, Dittoheads, Sean's Inannities and O'Reillyans are slobbering over Palin and how she'll outlive McCrank to become the first raptured President once all them abortionists, atheists and queers have been dealt with. Makes 'em all moist stiff
Yikes, I've been reading the Rude Pundit too much.
Sastra wrote:
Doesn't confuse me. "Metaphysical naturalism" is the theory and "methodological naturalism" is the experimental confirmation of that theory.
Thanks E.V. *sniff*
You're probably right. Ol' Limbaugh was on such a rant about 'those people want to take gawd away from us' he sounded like Bill Donahue.
Suppose I can go watch TV and yell at the screen....WAAAH!
*wink*
H. H. You write: "Because ideas are abstract things. They exist only in human brains. The only way to include god in the same category is to admit that deities are nothing more than human concepts as well."
Thanks for the commment! Let me do a quickie, and then I have to run. Don't know if you'll want to continue with this tomorrow - isn't there more of a demand for a more snarky approach?.
Anyway, the idea is that we know that non-material things exist - memes, ideas, consciousness, theories of nature, the sciences, etc. So the basic idea of atheism - that only natural things exist - has to be modified to take into account the existence of these things. Atheism cannot be just simply ontological materialism - it has to include non-material things as well.
Now, if we admit the existence of non-material things, then we have to admit that there is a possibility that non-material things like God at least have the possibility of existing. That's not a proof, but its a possibility. In other words, the whole thing opens up into a question of reasoned investigation, not simple argument by ideology.
Just a little a bit of snarkiness: this is why atheism tends toward illogic and extremism, I think. There has to be a will not to investigate through reason.
Steve
With the exception of god, all the non-material things you've listed exist only in human brains. They don't exist *out there* in the world. They don't exist the way my car exists or the way the sun exists. People's thoughts are inseparable from the people who think them. They don't and can't exist as separate entities. So you are committing grave violence against the word "exists" in order to equate non-similar things. If you want to argue that a non-material god "exists" in the same way my non-material love for chocolate ice cream exists, then we are forced to conclude that god is dependent upon the existence of material human minds, i.e. he's not "real" in the sense that most people want him to be, but only a figment of their imagination, which incidentally, is pretty much what atheists have been telling them all along.
But that possibility has always existed. Yes, god could exist. However, we still have no reason to believe he does, and no evidence to suggest he does. Thus, theism is currently unjustified. So you see, atheism is 100% evidenced based, as in, there isn't any for god. Atheism is most assuredly not argued on the basis of any pre-held "ideology." That's either your own misunderstanding or a willful misrepresentation.
WTF are you talking about? Are you seriously suggesting it's atheists who assume their conclusions and refuse to examine the actual evidence? Because if you are, then you're cracked.
Steve said
Why is this mistaken attempt at incorrectly re-defining "atheism" to fit the argument made against it so prevalant? Haven't we already, succinctly and repeatedly, corrected this?
How is this not circular? Consciousness has no material characteristics, ergo it's not materialistic, therefore supernatural/god?
How do you know consciousness is not simply a manifestation of the instantaneous state of the nervous system, perhaps too nonlinear/complex/messy to be treated as a simple deterministic system, even thought that's what it really is? What makes you think there has to be magic in there somewhere?
The fact that researchers have been able to localize certain functions within the brain suggests that a mechanistic view is going to be what leads to a deep understanding of brain function. I suppose there's still room for god, but he'd better put in an appearance soon. Time is running short, and the gap is getting smaller.
Epikt asked:
It's not circular because it's a non-sequitur:
Speed has no material characteristics, ergo it's not materialistic, therefore the tooth fairy exists.
Steve #121 wrote:
No, atheism doesn't have to be 'modified' to take in what sounds like substance dualism. We can -- and do -- admit to the reality of mind, and still hold to naturalism, and even materialism. If it wasn't possible, then mind/brain physicalism would not be the main consensus in neuroscience today. You can't think that the scientists failed to notice that they think.
I suspect part of the problem here is that you're defining "materialism" (and naturalism) in a clunky, straw-man, greedy-reductionist sort of way. In naturalism, higher-level phenomena like abstractions, minds, persons, and beliefs are the result of complex organization and interactions of lower-level constituents. Such "non-material" things as thoughts or memes are ultimately entailed by physical existents in an integrated hierarchy, all of which is, still, natural. "Supernatural" would be thoughts without a brain.
The other problem is that you seem to be reifying abstractions, considering them as actual non-material things in themselves. Thus, the strange leap H.H. sees you making between something like "love for chocolate ice cream" and "God." Drawing analogies like that is not going to make us think that human preferences are some sort of magical supernatural force: it's going to make us think that you should be starting to recognize that magical supernatural 'forces' are simply abstractions pictured as concrete substances.
Sastra nails it again.
Steve:
There is a difference between abstractions in the forms of ideas and the presence of supernatural entities. As humans, we can concieve of fictional entities and situations but materialistic evidence for the actual entity is only in the communication of it through story telling, theater, art, etc and now we can construct them virtually - but they are still human constructs. The idea of god does not represent an actual deity. No other species on this planet needs to invent gods, fairies, ghosts or elves.
Just because we've heard stories of leprechauns, seen them in illustrations, enjoyed the sports mascots, watched them in cinema and CGI doesn't mean there is the possibility of their actual existance as we define leprechauns. If any supernatural being affects the physical world, there will be evidence at the nexus of that interaction -measurable, quantifiable evidence. That's just physics. If a god interacts with us, then he/she/it will leave evidence, and so far (beyond hearsay) there has been none.
I mean, you really can't say that Galileo or Newton were atheists, but you can point out their secularism with respect to scientific discovery
I think that Galileo, Newton, and many other religious people who made major contributions to science would hold the view that the universe is what it is, that god made it that way, and that if reality and the scriptures appear to be in conflict then their understanding of the scriptures is flawed. The usual escape hatch is to just decide that the scriptures are allegory, meant to inspire rather than to be taken literally.
This anti-intellectual crusade that we see today isn't as widespread in christianity as the fundies, or their opponents would like us to believe.
-jcr
I've long said that religions generally have improved over the centuries to the degree that they have become secularized.
Keith Henson describes religious memes as similar to viruses. If they're virulent, they have an advantage in propagation, but if they're benign, they have an advantage in longevity. Like viruses, the tendency for religions is to adapt over time to the benefit of their hosts.
-jcr
Atheism elevates critical thinking over magical thinking.
It does the same thing for humanity that letting go of rain dances and witch hunts and virgin sacrifices does.
It leads to grown-up, civilized thought and away from primitive, barbaric behavior done at the behest of invisible magical entities.
Every time humanity loses a superstition, it gains in real and useful knowledge.
I initially said: There is a very common and widespread belief in Australia that Xtianity gave birth to science.
Kel responded: There is? I don't think I've ever come across an Aussie who has said this. The only person I've ever heard say it ws Dr John Lennox (An irishman), but he was a nutter: he claims that genesis is scientific because Adam names all the animals.
I'm adding this: Greg Sheridan, foreign editor of The Australian, is very fond of this line. I used to be a member of a group of science teachers who moderated high school assessment. A clear majority held this view. Two were actually creationists and I admit I don't know how representative the group was. Certainly in my mining company days, few people gave religion any time.
"Sastra nails it again."
She's the HAMMER!
The Christian image of God is that of a rational being who believes in human progress...
The Christian god encourages progress? The Christian god that forbade humans from partaking of the fruit of knowledge believes in human progress? The Christian god that kicked humans out of paradise, who multiplied women's pain in childbirth to punish humans for gaining awareness and intelligence encourages progress? The Christian god who split human language asunder, preventing humanity from cooperating and achieving magnificent feats believes in human progress?
A rational god? A god that kills almost all of humanity (including babies) for being wicked, and then kills most of the animals because, hey, they were there, is rational? A god who turns Lot's wife into a pillar of salt for her oh-so-human transgression of looking over her shoulder upon the destruction of Sodom is rational? A god that tortures Job, kills his wives and children, heaps misery after misery upon him because of a double-dog-dare from the Devil is rational?
Also,
Steve:
social Darwinism
Stalin
[atheism as equivalent to religious zealotry]
[misunderstanding of atheism]
[suggestion of open mindedness]
[okay, so you can't prove god doesn't exist]
BINGO!!! Do I win anything?
It is weird that theists keep wanting to treat atheism like a faith. Atheism is just a lack of belief in gods...
It can't really "give" anything more than a lack of belief in Scientology can "give" or a lack of belief in demons.
Scientific naturalism, however, has given us all of our medicine, technology, and our ever evolving understanding of our universe--as well as insight into how our brain produces consciousness!
Scientific naturalism has unraveled the DNA code-- giving us an amazing understanding regarding the evolution of life on earth-- written in every cell of our bodies. What has religion given us that can begin to compare?
Religions tell us that there are invisible "entities" that "want" us to "believe" in them. Scientific naturalism shows us that there can be no invisible entities that "want" anything. Wanting is a brain process-- it requires a living material brain. If you believe that god or souls can exist absent material brains, then you've opened the door to believe in any and all such invisible immeasurable entities--demons, thetans, incubus, ghosts, Baal, Allah, the IPU.
They are all cut from the same cloth-- the same cloth that the proverbial Emperor's "new clothes" are made from.
Scientific naturalism puts them all in the realm of human invention/myth/delusion --WHERE THEY BELONG.
What has atheism done for us? The same thing not believing in other crap has done for us--liberated our minds for thinking.
The Christian god that forbade humans from partaking of the fruit of knowledge believes in human progress?
Let's not forget the tower of Babel story, either. Those "don't question authority" stories figure very heavily in the "obey the man in the funny hat" propaganda line.
-jcr
"the lord hath laid the foundations of the earth so that it shall not be moved for ever"
Is Psalm 104, not 102, FYI... if anyone cares. Its still ridiculous nonsense, but if we are going to criticize it, we should at least know what we are criticizing.
Zar--"image" of God.
All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
"And just what has atheism done for us?"
Well, the aqueduct. Sanitation (remember what the city used to be like?). And the roads.
Seriously, none of them were created by any gods and none of them believe in any gods....
I'm far from convinced that Christianity as such either advanced or impeded the development of science. The idea that it advanced it seems to be based on the false notion that science sprang mainly or exclusively from developments within abstract thought, and within Christendom. This is far from the case. The technological prerequisites for science developed over millennia, and involved an extensive network of diffusion and interaction among the major population centres of Eurasia and north Africa. Until around the 13th century, both China and Islam were technically and proto-scientifically well ahead of Europe, and it was invasions of their urban centres by nomadic Seljuks, Mongols and Berbers, and in the case of Islam, west European barbarians, that changed this situation. The west European barbarians' invasions also gave those barbarians a huge technical boost.
I have to go with tjh on this, at least in the sense that asking what atheism or Christianity per se has done for or against science seems a bit of shoe-horning modern debate into contexts that it doesn't belong in.
I mean, fundamentalist Christians do this all the time, too. They seem to think that Christianity existed in the same form 500 years ago as it does today, or that only theirs is the "real" Christianity. In fact, fundamentalism as we know it is a pretty recent invention, connected with the rise of urban populations -- people forget that in the US, the first recognizably fundamentalist sects appeared in cities, because fundamentalism is sort of an antibody to things that threaten traditional social structures and cities don't allow for them as easily as rural areas do.
Heck, one could even go back as far as Jan Hus, who was something of a fundamentalist of his day, though that's a stretch. But he was dealing with the same issues-- rapid social change.
These kinds of movements aren't in response to science in and of itself. And I am sure if someone offered Galileo's contemporaries a superweapon based on gunpowder or whatever theory they didn't agree with they'd have taken it, religious dogma be damned.
Isaac Newton was a famous mystic, and I don't think atheism as we understand it today was even an option for the guy. Rejecting the god hypothesis doesn't automatically lead to science, anymore than believing in God renders you unable to grasp calculus -- a tool, by the way, that was more important to Newton's theory as any of his philosophical positions.
the whole point I am making is that it seems a bit of a false dichotomy. This isn't to say religion is a good explanation for the world's workings, just that in and of itself the effect on local science can be good, bad, indifferent, highly dependent on what the religious institutions are doing at the time. For instance, in most of Asia religious authorities have varying amounts of influence, but I don't think you can draw a straight line between religiosity and scientific achievement. China produces a load of scientists every year and that's a pretty religious (or superstitious) populace as these things go. So is Japan. Malaysia is theoretically an Islamic country, but it also has made huge strides in the sciences, at least if how many they graduate is anything to go by. Heck, Iran has a nuclear program, and religious authorities have a lot more power there than here, and there is research getting done, limited by lack of resources.
Also, in a historical sense, the Islamic world was much more friendly to science for a while, as was China. In both cases authoritarian trends in politics and religion ended that. But there's a case to be made that the way a culture develops science depends on a whole host of things, from available resources to whether it's exposed to other cultures.
I just don't think the question is as simple as "what has atheism/religion done for/against science."
I put my Rodney Stark question to John Wilkins. His reply:
"From what you quote, it is about 100% wrong."
Hmm, Steve F. promised to continue this discussion today, but so far nothing. I really think he thought he outsmarted us atheists. He came in swinging, ready to tackle the irrational ideology that led to Communism and eugenics. It must have been a shock to him to learn that not only is atheism not the same as materialism, but that his strained arguments concerning abstract thought do not, in fact, establish the existence of a supernatural realm.
He seemed nice enough, just grossly misinformed. I'd like to think that he's rethinking his position and finding the proper words to admit defeat. However, if history is any guide, most people rarely learn from these types of discussions. He came here to conquer materialism, which he confused with atheism, and instead found both stronger than he imagined. So is Steve preparing to apologize and concede that he was wrong? Unlikely, unfortunately.
BTW, if Steve does come back, it might be useful for him to read this past Pharyngula post.: http://tinyurl.com/5juqex
I see Steve F. making some of the same errors that beset the notorious neurosurgeon Michael Egnor when discussing abstract thought and materialism. As PZ explains:
So as Steve can see, his arguments aren't exactly novel. It should be of interest to him to see how PZ has dealt with this argument in the past.
"Now, if we admit the existence of non-material things, then we have to admit that there is a possibility that non-material things like God at least have the possibility of existing" - Steve
No one has said that there is no possibility of something like a God. Only that there isn't something like God.
You now have three examples of non-material phenomenon accounted for by naturalism (and certainly not objected to by atheism).
- Speed (by way of Norman Doering)
- Emergence (by way of Sastra)
- The vector of light (by way of me)
All these things, and consciousness too, make themselves apparent in the material world. That's what we mean when we say they exist. I can prove to you that the same object can move through time and space at different speeds. I can demonstrate to you that complex behaviors emerge from simple rules. I can demonstrate that light has vector (or any moving thing). I can even demonstrate that humans have this little understood thing we call consciousness.
No one has demonstrated anything from God. When they do, God will join the list of non-material characteristics that make up the natural world.
I rather like AC Grayling. I have a couple of his short books.
I read recently that a poll found that atheists are the least trusted minority in America. I didn't get it at first, but now I think I figured out why. There are two causes.
First, the spat of drive by proselytizings in the early 90's.
Second, with other dangerous minorities you can tell by looking at them. Atheists look just like everyone else. They wouldn't do that unless that had something to hide.
Jams wrote:
Only three? We can do better than that:
Information
An orgasm
Castling in chess
Love
Hate
The Average Citizen
Running
Verbs
Dogmatic idealism
...
Every step of progress means a duty repudiated and a Scripture torn up.
-- Bernard Shaw
Hi, H.H., Sastra, Jon, and others.
It was fun yesterday, but cut into my work. I don't know how much time I have today. BTW, I'm a physicist.
I'm also a Baha'i, which means I view both science and religion as of absolute importance. For religion, the scientific outlook - reason, evidence, review - is an absolutely essential ingredient to keep out superstition, etc. Otherwise, that stuff easily gets plugged in as if it were true. One very unfortunate aspect of the war between science and religion is that it has tended to push many scientists away from involvement in religion where their sane and questioning stance is very much needed.
Religion, I think, is about many things, including the structure of our existence. Much as experiments in the lab lead through generalization to understandings about the entire universe (many-world theories aside), so our generalized understandings of consciousness and its creative abilities lead to ideas of God.
Whether or not those ideas are valid is both an important question and a valid question. The answer, like all things that have to do with non-material phenomena (e.g., scientific theories), is that the proof, never final, comes from investigating the signs or evidences. So, for example, I test scientific theories by doing measurements in the lab to see if the theory is supported or contradicted. Similarly, for religion, but the sphere where it is tested is different.
Religion is for everybody, not just a core of folks educated 10 years in a university. It is both for individual growth and for social functionings. When it gets out of kilter, as it has done lately, then progress is needed. Science, for example, found the physics of Aristotle to be inadequate, so moved beyond it. This progressive aspect of science speaks strongly to the needs of religion, even while illuminating the failings of understandings anchored in the past.
What I'm picking up from our conversations here, and from the post on Michael Egnor, is a marked tendency towards ad hominem argumentation. Is this engrained in atheism? My readings of Dawkins, Harris, Grayling, Hitchens, Pinker, et al suggest it is. To me, this is the opposite of reasoned engagement with ideas (Sastra and some others on this list, BTW, do engage in reason, which is kind of nice). I don't want to sound shrill, but if you are going to argue that science and reason are foundational aspects of an atheistic approach, then reasoning should be very much in the mix.
Steve F.
Ah, Steve F. I see you've returned but dropped your original argument as if you've never made it. Can we assume at least that you now understand your error?
There were no ad hominem attacks made on Michael Egnor. Perhaps you don't know what that phrase means? You might benefit from reading through the "ad hominem fallacy fallacy" website:
http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html
Oh, it is. It is. What you won't find very much of, though, are appeals to pleasantries over substance. Incivility is present in all camps, and should be avoided when unnecessary. But in the end all that really matters is the validity of the arguments presented. You shouldn't ever lose sight of that.
Steve #150 wrote:
When "religion" is defined in a broad, all-inclusive way which includes supernatural fact claims, ethics, life philosophy, community, individual growth, social functioning, "the structure of our existence," preferences, values, and the kitchen sink, it's hard to talk about "testing" religion. Testing what about religion? And testing it for what?
One could say the same with the term "God." Without a clear definition -- or understanding of how a world without a god would look different from one with a god (and how we know that) -- there's no point in getting into whether God exists or not. You can always just start out by assuming it does, and then ask what it's like. And then find that it's just like whatever it is you knew you needed. God can't NOT be, if that's what it's anchored on.
Instead, there's simply people exploring personal insights on living happily, or exchanging useful narrative structures. Asking whether God exists or not is as pointless as asking whether the Little Engine That Could could really think and talk. Metaphor slips into belief, fact slips into symbol, and theism itself slips into category error and vagueness. Really, it's just all about how we live -- "religion" is whatever you want it to be. Ditto on God.
The process of science has undercut the common egocentric belief that, just by thinking and pondering, we can discover our deep and intimate connection with the entire cosmos. People don't like this: they keep wanting to put intuition and instinct back into how we come to know things. I think the "sphere where religion is tested" as to its actual truth (or likelihood) is the scientific arena.
Test it for "usefulness," though, and it's all over the board. It doesn't have to be anchored in the "reality of the world" -- because where then is the special insight and connection to the meaning of the entire universe? Every religion gets to be true -- including the religions that claim exclusiveness.
What atheism does for religion is throw a little necessary cold water on the flights of fancy. That may be why you see (or think you see) the hostility. Or, it could just be that this is the internet, and sacred cows don't fare very well in most debate forums.
Hi, Sastra: Good to hear from you again.
You wrote that "When 'religion' is defined in a broad, all-inclusive way which includes supernatural fact claims, ethics, life philosophy, community, individual growth, social functioning, 'the structure of our existence,' preferences, values, and the kitchen sink, it's hard to talk about 'testing' religion."
The question, excepting the part about the kitchen sink, is not only a good one, but a necessary one. Asking it as a real question, not just a placeholder in an argument, has all kinds of benefits, including a recognition of the scope of issues entailed in religion and in our life in this world, but also in suggesting the kinds of questions that should be addressed to atheism in so far as it wishes to supplant and replace religion.
First of all, let me dash off the easy answer. You test religion individually by whether it works - and makes sense - for you. Other answers, it seems clear, commend themselves neither to reason or to individual responsibility. But, there is a proviso, and that is that you must investigate religion reasonably deeply to adequately evaluate it.
Consider, for example, Chris Hitchens' take on religion: basically he thinks it is what his kindly old teacher taught him (personally, I have a hard time believing that he is so unsophisticated as that take implies, but that is how he approaches it in his book). The point is that most people take religion to be what they learned when young in this or that religious community with its particular, often circumscribed, belief set. Or, many people think it is Christianity, or Judaism, etc. No. It is much larger than that, with different religions in all parts of the world and extending in the past to, as far as we know, the dim realms of pre-history.
The second part of the answer is less easy, but still necessary to those inclined towards a comprehensive understanding. It is important to understand the role of religion as a social and organizational force, both for the better or for the worse. Without understanding its role, and the way that its role in many cases has become degraded, the hugely important question of the nature of our world's human organization and its individual and social functionings will most likely be evaded or answered naively. In other words, the bigness of the question about religion's role in society - and you recognize it to be big - is part of the sphere of where religion is to be tested. To not grapple and test in this sphere, I think, is to fail to grapple with the real social issues at play in the world today.
It turns out that belief in God is easy for some, hard for others. However, a first principle's assumption that it is automatically a wrong belief does not exactly assist in a non-biased search. A hint - hopefully not too maddening - is that God is unknowable in essence and most fully revealed by the great teachers of religion - the Buddha, Christ, Muhammad, etc., and if you allow me to go so far as to commend the Baha'i Faith as the newest of the world's religion, Baha'u'llah. Their teachings are the soundest evidence for belief.
Steve F.
Steve #153 wrote:
No, there aren't any questions you or anyone else can 'address to atheism' any more. Since you are apparently simultaneously defining religion as equivalent to "life philosophy," and understanding it simply in terms of its sociological and historical functions, then there is no question of atheism wanting to "supplant and replace religion." The existence of God and/or the supernatural is no longer relevant to religion -- as you're using the word. Atheists do not want to supplant and replace the entire IDEA of having a philosophical world view -- or ethics, or personal narrative, or whatever -- with a great void of nothing. They couldn't.
So you've eliminated the conflict by semantics. There is absolutely no problem with an atheist studying and clearly understanding religions and theology -- and still accepting that there is no God. In fact, it sounds like that wouldn't be much of a hurtle for you, either.
Until we get to that last paragraph of yours, where -- all of a sudden -- God makes a surprise appearance, and the issue gets back to believing in God again! God? What God?
God the "unknowable essence" -- which is still somehow "most fully revealed" by various religious leaders (of whom you approve) and presumably misread by those religious leaders of whom you don't approve (the ones less ecumenical than the Baha'i.)
So how do you test that GOD EXISTS? Religions "work" just fine for people even without assuming God exists.
I think that you need to address this question, before you address any questions to atheism. It's kind of the whole point of atheism. It used to be the whole point of theism, too -- though I suspect that definitions of God like "unknowable essence" isn't going to lend itself to finding any answers, or finding any meaning, in God, even for the theists.
Words, words, words. I see they are still taking a beating. Lets start small.
Before one can speak of the "existence" of something, we must know what predictions that word makes. "Cat" for example predicts sensory input that includes the shape, size, texture, audial patterns, etc, that make up what we have commonly defined as "Cat". When we then go on to make a statement of fact such as "I have a cat", we make the prediction that those sensory inputs, among others associated with the word "Cat", will show up in our house, or on our person. If those inputs don't show up, we can say that the statement "I have a cat" is likely false.
The factual statement "God exists" on the other hand has no meaning, until we define what predictions this notorious amorphous word "god" makes. What qualities are defined by the word "god", so that if someone said "God is under my bed" we could check the truth or falsity implied in the very act of making a statement of fact?
If there are no sensory inputs, no ways of testing the truth or falsity of that claim, then the word "god" has as much meaning as "gid", "ged", or "gud". Simply put: none.
So lets back all this up and realize that "God is unknowable in essence and most fully revealed by the great teachers of religion" not only comes across as a contradiction, of being both knowable (by the teachers) and unknowable (in essence), it also does nothing to explain what we are talking about.
All your work is still ahead of you.
Sastra-san.
You are not making a lot of sense here. You act as if it is surprising that one can study religion without believing in God, or am I misreading you? Conversely, you act as if one cannot understand atheism if one accepts belief.
What gives?
Steve F.
At a very basic level, the question of what atheism has done for us is sort of silly.
What has not stamp collecting done for those of us who are not-stamp-collectors? What has not being obsessive-compulsive handwashers done for us?!
"...how a theory trying to bend the facts to prove its antecedent conviction that Fred (or any arbitrary and itself unexplained conscious agency) designed and created the world and all in it, can attain its full potential in the public debate."
This review was MAGNIFICENT.
From now on I'm calling it Fred.
"In Fred We Trust". Etc...
melior, #157:
"What has not stamp collecting done for those of us who are not-stamp-collectors? What has not being obsessive-compulsive handwashers done for us?!"
Yes, it sounds rather silly, doesn't it?
On the other hand, there are lots of "non-activities" that have helped people inestimably. Every bit as much as active behaviors do.
Why? Because we all live in a social context where everyone is compelled to share and compare their models of the world. One may agree or disagree or remain indifferent. But every time a reluctance, refusal, scepticism, or a doubt is exercised by virtue of some habit of behavior you can pin a name on, you can be sure they have at least as much impact as the most INACTIVE adherence to lousy models of reality as well as the most active expressions of those lousy models.
You may thus see the considerable advantage of the right to say "no".
That is NOT necessarily a "negative" behavior. If anything, it can be a liberating and positive force for the refinement of conceptual models of reality.
Steve #156:
Yes, you're misreading me, and no, I don't think it's surprising that someone can study and understand religion or theology without believing in God. I wouldn't expect that to surprise you, either.
What does surprise me is that you seem to have shifted the argument. Your original post posited:
In response to critique, you made arguments against the truth of atheism/ naturalism/ materialism by using consciousness and 'non-material existants' as examples of supernatural phenomena; and arguments against the value of a scientific, rational approach by citing pseudoscientific theories. It seemed to me that you were making a case that science needs to be restrained by religion -- by including and recognizing the supernatural.
But now it looks like 'religion' need have nothing to do with whether or not the supernatural exists. Instead, it's all about "the structure of our existence, individual growth, and social functioning." I think this shifted the debate.
I thought we were arguing over whether atheism was extreme and zealous in ruling the supernatural out of serious consideration. But, in the last few posts, you seem to have taken the supernatural out of religion.
What gives?
What gives?
It's obvious, actually. A quite intelligent person is busy trying to make the evidence fit the previously assumed conclusion.
Wishful thinking provides comfort. Once accepted as true, a wished-for conclusion will be unpleasant or even painful to give up.
Most any atheist or skeptic would like to discover that there are faeries at the bottom of the garden, or that we are not seperated from loved ones by death. There's just that little problem of evidence.
When you really, really want something to be true, and there's no evidence for it - it probably isn't.
I guess Steve F. the proselytizer, realizing how full of shit he was, has moved on. Actually, it's doubtful he's realized any such thing. At minimum, perhaps he's learned that he isn't nearly as prepared to take on a group of informed, intelligent atheists as he presumed.
And to answer his question as to why all atheists appear insensitive to him: it's because of shit like this. Phony poseurs like yourself who talk a big game, then shit the bed and leave. Dicks who refuse to admit error and who move the goalposts in every argument. In short, the raw intellectual dishonesty of theists like yourself really just turns the stomachs of a lot of people. You aren't wise, you're foolish. We point that out with examples. Your ego hates us for it. You either leave and call us mean names or come to your senses and join us.
I work in finance right now, but one day I'd like to go and teach high school science. I had a very inspiring physics teacher, and if I can inspire any type of science passion in kids, then maybe I will have contributed my two cents.
I'm a bit late, but I did want to read through the interesting discussion. As usual, Sastra nails it all down.
Still, I was reminded of an argument I had in 2007 with a rather persistent creationist, and here is my own response to the general question, for whatever it is worth.
#---------------------
These are wrong questions. It has been my contention throughout that it is not "Christianity" that is responsible for advancement and progress; it would not be my contention that "atheism" is responsible.
However, I would assert that we can assign a term to the positive creative concept of compassion towards other humans, and to the prescriptive belief that humanity can improve itself. That concept can be covered by the word "humanism".
I would also assert that we can assign a term to the positive creative concept of the love of learning; the positive belief that humanity can continue to learn by studying reality and sharing the knowledge with others. That concept can be covered by the term "freethinking".
Both humanism and freethinking try to identify the common concepts that have lead to the greatest progress and general welfare of all. Thus, it has been humanistic and freethinking ideals that have lead to all progress throughout time — regardless of whether belief in God was involved or not.
#---------------------
A bit pedantic, but I was trying to be careful.