Imagine that a well-funded astrology organization were to establish a prize awarding a good chunk of money to a scientist who best affirmed the validity of astrology, all as part of a campaign to bestow a whiff of credibility to the belief that the position of the stars at the time you were born influenced your fate. Astrologers certainly want to pretend that they are scientific, so it's exactly the kind of thing many of them would love to do; their only problem is that real scientists would laugh them away, and they certainly wouldn't get the support of any of the major scientific institutions.
So why is the National Academy of Sciences supporting an organization claiming to reconcile science and superstition, and why is the president of the NAS nominating scientists for such an award? It's exactly analogous; religion has no more validity than astrology, is openly unscientific, and I would argue is anti-scientific, so no legitimate scientific institution ought to be endorsing it. I know that some of their members may be church-goers, but some of them will also be following their horoscope in the newspapers, so that's still no reason to pander to folly.
Here's something else that's odd: we've got the Templeton Foundation desperately looking for respect by marrying ancient superstitions to modern science, but we've got nothing on the other side. You don't see American Atheists or the American Humanist Association funding research that would promote the idea that godlessness and science are compatible; they don't have as much money, for one thing, but also we take it for granted that not invoking supernatural forces is a pretty reasonable thing to do in science. The godless don't have to strain to wedge their ideas into a domain that excludes them.
We also don't have an organization awarding a prize to the scientist who "has made an exceptional contribution to affirming life's [natural, material] dimension, whether through insight, discovery, or practical works" (that's the description of the Templeton Prize, with one little change). It would be redundant, since that's what science does. We also don't have a major atheist organization giving out awards specifically to the scientist of the year who has made the greatest contribution to actively promoting secularism, even though they could: Dawkins, Harris, Kroto, Atkins and many others would be on the shortlist, easily. Maybe they should, but most atheists aren't so insecure that they need to make a special effort to show that their ideas are compatible with science.
One reason they should, though, is just to see what would happen when they asked a major scientific institution to host the award ceremony. I predict a very rapid back-pedal from an organization that wouldn't want to get into a political tangle…a consideration they apparently don't worry about when what is being promoted is religion, despite the fact that religion is a fraud.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Presumably because a large amount of money changed hands. That's the Templeton Foundation's usual way of feigning respectability. (Indeed, that's the whole point of the Templeton Prize itself.)
Religion is "default", I suppose. Much like many other oppressive systems.
TRiG.
You know, your statement about AA and AHA giving awards gave me an idea. Maybe they do need to give awards. Not for promoting godlessness, but for promoting religion in science; basically, the equivalent of the Razzies. Make it as embarrassing as possible to the recipients.
The comment I left on Jerry Coyne's blog:
the proper description for this is "prostitution".
"So why is the National Academy of Sciences supporting an organization claiming to reconcile science and superstition, and why is the president of the NAS nominating scientists for such an award?"
I should think it's fairly obvious. One can readily demonstrate that science and astrology are incompatible. At best, one can only argue that science and religion are incompatible (our erstwhile host concedes the point in his post -- "I would argue is anti-scientific"). Accordingly, since the purposes of the Templeton Foundation and the criteria for the Templeton Prize aren't demonstrably incompatible with the purposes of the NAS and since the NAS benefits from public support generally and is thus probably well served by establishing some distance from those who would claim that science necessitates atheism, despite the lack of empirical verification of the claim, I'm surprised that anyone is surprised.
Isn't the NAS contradicting itself here? I thought they had some sort of official statement to the effect that science and religion don't intersect, and therefore they can take no stand, but must remain neutral. The Templeton Foundation is not about promoting NOMA: it's not even about showing that "scientists can believe in God and still be good scientists." The NAS statement was trying to compartmentalize science, from religion.
No, Templeton's about reconciling the two by looking for scientific "clues" that point to God. Or spiritual realities. Or some other sign that consciousness is fundamental to the universe. It's basically the same goal as the Discovery Institute; they simply know enough to look in more nebulous places.
We don't? This comes pretty close. The only problem was the recipient, which many argued was a problem because he wasn't a scientist.
So Robocop, how exactly do you demonstrate that science and astrology are incompatible, other than there is no evidence to support the claims of the latter? Do any of the advances in astrophysics prove that stars have no bearing on human affairs? Absolutely not. And how about some rather universal claims of religion-like souls or afterlife-that are essentially negated by modern neuroscience?
No. The Dawkins award is not science-specific at all.
So it doesn't come close at all. And the problem with Maher was that he was promoting irrational crankery, not that he wasn't a scientist. Note that past awards went to Randi, Penn & Teller, Julia Sweeney, Daniel Dennett, Ayan Hirsi Ali, and Ann Druyan, not one of whom is a scientist. Actually, it's a little strange -- no scientists at all have been given the Richard Dawkins Award!
A bit off topic, but you might be amused by this song by Paul Hipp on Michele Bachman.
http://www.youtube.com/user/paulhipp#p/u/3/EJBpL5ORWUo
His song "We're Number 37" is excellent.
Robocop @ # 5: ... our erstwhile host ...
Say wha? He still is, unless he's suddenly been replaced by a vegemite android duplicate surreptitiously manufactured in the hidden laboratories of Moonbaum Corp specifically to prevent this kind of post.
EXACTLY PZ!
What's wrong with astrology? Here's my horoscope for this morning:
And the horoscope was right! I did do something indescribable. I'd explain what it was but I just can't describe it.
Sorry for shouting :-) but it gets me so excited when someone cuts straight to the chase and nails the argument so succinctly.
http://nationalacademies.org/evolution/Compatibility.html
#11: You're correct -- my usage was unfortunate and wrong. Apologies.
Religion is kinda-sorta like science insofar as it changes its claims to match the current evidence. The differences in just this area are many, of course, including that:
• The claims will hold out as long as they possibly can, waiting only until the new contradictory information becomes common knowledge.
• The "updating" process is not an intentional part of the underlying epistemology.
• The theists will argue that the new claims were what the religion "really" held all along; that, for example, holy texts were always thoroughly metaphorical. (Conversely, when was the last time you heard a biologist argue that Darwin's hereditary hypothesis was a completely correct anticipation of DNA, or that his notion that whales had a bearlike ancestor was just poetic?)
There is at least one tool which can overcome religious logic in the public mind, and that's common sense. (For example, the common sense that people who claim to hear messages from God are probably in some way deluded.) The only problem is when the religion has managed to "take over" a fair amount of common sense, or otherwise shields itself.
Not true! Why, I happen to know several scientists who check their horoscopes! Therefore, science and astrology are compatible!
WTF, NAS shilling for religion?shocking.
And, I thought that NAS members were mostly godless or agnostic.
I disagree.
Well if by 'religion' you mean deism where the god does not interact with the material world then maybe. But that is not what religion means in this context - it means theism with miracles. Miracles are as strongly disproved as a flat earth. Physics is as demonstrably incompatible with theist religion as it is with astrology.
The existence of God has to be one of the great philosophical questions, because if He did exist it would be pretty amazing. It would change how we deal with everything (global warming, naaah, God will look after it!). So, given we can raise billions of dollars to hunt for neutrinos and build enormous colliders to recreate the big bang, surely the Templeton Foundation and a few others could raise a few million to study the existence of God by scientific methods. Maybe we should put our heads together and write a proposal to the Templeton Foundation to prove the existence of God, not just as an atheist stunt but as a serious scientific exercise. I can think of a few experiments myself. Then we publish the results, positive or negative, in a truly scientific fashion. If the Templeton Foundation and notable Christian scientists such as Francis Collins are truly committed to marrying science and religion how can they resist. As I stated at the beginning, it would be the greatest scientific discovery in history if we could solve the question once and for all?
Steel Rat #21 wrote:
Yes indeed! Because they're compatible, after all.
Why mess around with looking for hints and veiled suggestions in feelings and possibilities at the edge of our knowledge? Why insist that religion explains things, but it's not the sort of thing we can really, truly explore? Wade right into it.
They want progress in religion? The kind of progress which science, specifically, can help with? Science is ready and able. Hell, they've got the whole damn NAS to work with.
I can't imagine but that your suggestion will be greeted with joy and relief. And dare I venture to suggest that I detect a future Prize in the offing?
I don't see how this promotes science either; if the NAS becomes associated with any particular cult (such as the cult of those hellbound Templetons) it will be all the more difficult to deal with other cultists. While some people laugh and say that nothing unites the godless, the reality is that the only thing the religious have in common is ignorance - a blind belief in their own brand of superstition, whatever that happens to be. I'm disappointed that Eugenie is sending out the message that she wants to get cuddly with cults.
demonstrate that science and astrology are incompatible. At best, one can only argue
leave to roboidiot to argue a semantic point.
oh, excuse me...
demonstrate a semantic point.
In looking at the evolution-creationism "debates" over the past couple years, I've noticed something funny: people from each "side" have, at different times, accused the other position of being falsified and of being unfalsifiable. Here's why I don't think those accusations necessarily contradict one another; astrology serves the best example.
In principle, there are numerous possible ways to test astrological claims. Suppose, for example, that Gemini are said to be skilled at music. One could sample the birthdates of musicians, or test people on musical knowledge, or whatever.* The actual literal original claim is thus falsifiable. So what do astrologers do when it is falsified? Make a frenzy at the endzone, of course.
The original claim must have been interpreted too superficially. The testing was done wrong. You were looking at those silly Western tabloid astrologists, the quacks who don't even have the professionalism to create proper sky charts. Anyway, empiricism doesn't even apply here in the first place, don't you know. And what about all the other claims? That was just one ingredient. More tests are needed.
The one thing they, and other psuedoscientists, never do is learn and refine. When was the last time an IDist said something like "As of 2004, we now know and agree that the designer worked in more of a thus-and-such pattern than otherwise"? Or a homeopath discarded a remedy that was found not to work? Or a theologian correctly deciphered an ancient revelation which solved, to the satisfaction of all, some long-standing puzzle about the nature of God?
That's why woo of all kinds ultimately tends to be unfalsifiable. It can't live in the middle ground of being falsifiable but unfalsified; it wouldn't be woo anymore. Instead, woo is almost always both un- and -ied at the same time.
* Of course, astrology "as a whole" is testable too — just see how accurately astrologers can identify peoples' signs or whatever on the basis of other information. Nothing compelling so far, as far as I know.
Your National Academy of Psiences seems to be leaning ever more heavily toward the bogus.
At this rate, it will combine with both the British Chiroquactic Assn and the Homeopathetics by next Tuesday.
Stained SteelRat (my bold):
Ahem.
You don't distinguish between philosophy and science, I take it.
(I grant that ur-science used to be known as "natural philosophy".)
Anyway, you seem to suggest that, if a payoff is infinite, then any less-than infinite investment is worthwhile, hence religion is worthwhile.
Seems rather like a variant of the famous Wager, to me.
This just in, from Ayala's Templeton-funded hit piece on Dawkins (I'm ignoring the attacks, they're baseless and silly):
He's a philosophical idiot.
Sorry, meant to post that in the Templeton thread. also, I should note that Ayala didn't write the piece, he was just the main focus and it quotes him extensively.