I do a lot of writing, and it can be hard sometimes to capture the essence of how I feel about science. It’s such a grand adventure, full of learning, full of wonder, full of such amazing experiences. This is why it is so horribly upsetting to see people who clearly have no freaking clue about it, and would rather denigrate science from ignorance rather than once — just once, for a fleeting moment — take pause to understand what it is they so smugly reject.
In another critical thinking blog, called Pharyngula, scientist P Z Myers has written a beautiful bit of prose describing this very situation. He has captured the soul of scientific study, if you will, and then shocks the reader with a contrasting account of arrogant cluelessness. The writer Myers is slamming has a political message, and I don’t want you to necessarily make any political surmising about me for linking to it. Willful ignorance, it so happens, has no political preference. And Myers is justified, hugely justified, in calling this guy to the carpet for such foolish opinions made in a vacuum. Read it and judge for yourself.
April 21st, 2005 at 3:12 pm
Heh, brilliant entry. I wish I hadn’t bothered to read the comments, though- geeky insults and puns really make me want to drive my head through a wall.
April 21st, 2005 at 3:59 pm
Hmmm…as much as I agree with Dr. Myers’s comments (at least the meat of them) I cannot help but wonder a bit at his, er, aggressive phrasing- or the snide comments that run below the post. It seems to me that we should try to avoid browbeating people who don’t recognize the value of real science- seems a bit counter-productive.
Of course, I’m not referring to our inestimable Bad Astronomer; just a bit shocked at how vicious the commentary by Dr. Myers was. I rather suspect that something besides righteous scientific ire lies behind these remarks, though I hesitate to ascribe any motive when I am so little informed on the subject at hand.
Regards
April 21st, 2005 at 10:12 pm
Off-topic, but I just noticed that, either I’m an idiot (strong possibility), or there isn’t a link to the main Bad Astronomy page from the blog.
On-topic, I believe PZ Meyers comments (the harsh ones) are directed more at the creationists and ID proponents. In particular, the people who don’t just not understand the value of science, but who will willfully misrepresent scientific findings to support their worldview. I don’t believe that they are directed at the generic layperson who doesn’t know much about science.
April 21st, 2005 at 10:24 pm
I suspect PZ Myers, like me, resents very deeply that someone like the guy who wrote the comment at Powerhouse would state such an ignorant viewpoint. He blithely brushes aside an entire field of science — at least one — because he believes it is politically motivated. That guy may or may not be a creationist– he doesn’t say, and it doesn’t matter. What does matter is that he clearly does not understand the concepts of comparative sociology, nor its use in understanding human culture, yet he deems himself fit to declare it useless.
It concerns me deeply that people like that may influence others. My concern has motivated my website, my book, and the many hours I have spent fighting that sort of willful ignorance.
If people understood the beauty of science, its incredible power to give us understanding of things, then perhaps their superstition and fear might diminish.
April 22nd, 2005 at 6:45 am
I agree with the majority of his post. I, also, and bothered by some people (including most of my friends) who are so incredibly close-minded. We will sometimes get into discussions about school and inevitably get to science. One of them will ususally announce “I hate science, it’s so against God.” To which I reply “I love science, it shows me the true power of God.” Which always leads to a scientific discussion, then to theologicacl discussion…. In which I always learn thier unwillingness to accept ideas even though they go against their worldview. Sorry about rambling on.
–Mike
April 22nd, 2005 at 6:58 am
Once again, I agree completely with the comments about science- I am emphatically not a creationist, ID proponent, etc. I don’t even believe in God.
Also, I do agree that people ignorant of science can spread their ignorance, and that this can be a Bad Thing. My main point is that attacking them as “stupid” and being oh-so-smug does nothing to bolster our argument; the people who tend to agree with us will continue to agree, and those who do not will tend to write us off as arrogant. Is this rational? No. Is this regrettably common? Yes.
One of the main difficulties I see with the skeptic movement in general (which I see as primarily a scientific one) is this tendency to be smug and even arrogant. While understandable- especially when dealing with Planet X or other such nonsense- it can be counterproductive. The folks at Powerline aren’t stupid; they are just prisoners of a worldview that is not based upon rationality. It’s amazing, I know, that some folks can have prestigious degrees from schools like Harvard and yet be so blinded to reality, but it happens. And calling them morons doesn’t help things.
Anyhow, that’s my two cents…again.
Regards
April 23rd, 2005 at 6:54 am
I’ve had run-ins with the Powerline before…and yes, he is a creationist.
April 23rd, 2005 at 8:30 am
Actually the scientist quoted in the original article really is making a political statement. She says that her bonobo research makes it look like music, language and art are not innate in humans, and then “we have the power to change it and make it any other way. We could have an ideal world, if we but learn how to do it.”
This is not the sort of science PZ Myers is talking about in his piece, and I doubt that John at Power Line would have any problems with Sue Savage-Rumbaughs bonobo research in, say, a scientific article.
I don’t think these people are ’smugly rejecting’ science. What they dislike is the stuff around it. Savage-Rumbaughs vision for a better world that seems to be rooted in study of a species that seems to be more politically correct than others. Myers’s deity-free wonderful natural world. The cosmologists’ big bang theory that so conveniently makes peace with the judeo-christian worldview by making sure everything started at one point in time.
You can argue that when we’re doing science, we make none of these big claims, and it’s all based on rationality. Yet whenever we start communicating with the public, directly or via journalists, the anthropomorphising and the politics start creeping in.
April 23rd, 2005 at 9:59 am
What the guy at Powerline specifially said is: why study apes to learn about humans when there are so many humans? Then he disparages that type of science.
It isn’t about creationism, it isn’t about politics (necessarily). It’s about a guy’s fundamental misunderstanding of what science is, what anthropology is, and then deciding that it’s useless. That’s my beef.
April 23rd, 2005 at 10:35 am
I like powerline a lot. But I have to agree that his article was disparaging to science in general. Thats too bad. I will also state that the Scientist in the article sounds like a flake to me. I’m very distrustfull of the lazy shoddy work of the AP and even those quotes by her have me suspect. If they are accurate then it seems clear to me that she has some forgone wacky conclusions and here science will suffer. It seems to me that much of this specific kind of work with our fellow ape species is rife with bad science. I’m thrilled by the findings of Jane Goodall and others, especially the findings of rudimentary culture in chimpanzees, but I’m really embarased by things like the Koko fiasco. I know that some very startling and wonderfull things have come from Dr. Patterson’s work, but most of it is shameless self promotion and disneyesqe sensationalism.
April 24th, 2005 at 12:51 pm
I agree with a lot of what you guys say here (particularly the BA). I think that a lot of people misunderstand what science is, especially when they have no contact with people who actually conduct (carry out / “do”) science.
My guess as to why this should be is the way science is taught in schools: it is often taught as a collection of facts rather than as a method of investigation and inquiry, especially early on. The problem with trying to do anything about this is that a certain amount of factual background seems necessary to understand the ways in which principles, details and mechanisms are discovered. For example, it was not until I was a postgraduate student that I could actually read papers from the scientific literature with a reasonable hope of understanding them (although, admittedly, some authors do seem to delight in their use of highly technical phraseology).
The author Terry Pratchett came up with a great explanation of this phenomenon in his book “The Science of Discworld”. He calls it “lies to children”, meaning that the simplest way of explaining something is usually so oversimplified that it is actually wrong, but that these simplifications are necessary stepping stones to reach the point of being able to understand the truth. (An example from chemistry is in the structure of benzene: initially, we are taught it is a six-carbon ring with alternating single and double bonds between the atoms of C [Kekule’s structure]; then we are taught that this is wrong because the electrons are actually delocalised so there are no discreet single or double carbon-carbon bonds in the molecule; later, when we learn molecular bonding theory, we are taught that, because of the distribution of the individual bonding orbitals about the molecule, the Kekule structure is a very useful tool for predicting the behaviour of the molecule in terms of the chemical reactions in which it participates. There are simpler examples, but this was the first one I could think of, so I’m sorry if it seems a bit geeky…)
Oh, yeah, and my take on ID: untestable, therefore not scientific. Although, given how often things go wrong (e.g. cancer and autoimmune diseases), it maybe wasn’t so intelligent after all…
April 25th, 2005 at 2:23 am
Well… This guy’s assumptions of Cardinal Ratzinger motivations are extremely arrogant. If every single human is an ape and a slave to biological determinism, so is the author’s. If free will is an evolutionary illusion, so is reason, or the merit of subscribing to a particular worldview, making the debate a moot point.
Science is one thing; the creation of a utopia based on behavior modification is another. Lots of lunatic ideologies make claims of being scientific, from Darwinian eugenics to social engineering. Since everything that has “scientific� branded on it is really what it says, nor does its criticisms.
So the point I’d like to bring here is that often people make scientific claims about ideological or religious convictions in order to shield it from discussions. That might people to accept such fallacy and, in error, reject “science�.
A catholic myself, and I fully concur with the church’s position on science in general and evolution in special. The pro-evolution talk.origins site classifies that position under “Theistic Evolutionâ€?. No problem with methodological materialistic, either.
I strongly reject the concept that atheists, agnostics and skeptics have the monopoly of rational worldviews. One need not be an atheist to accept evolution or be rational. Also, I know atheists who say the Big Bang is a religious fundamentalist conspiracy against science, or whatever.
Not only that, but I actually know quite a few catholic scientists who are very good in their fields, to claim there are irrational or “prisoners� to an irrational worldview because of their faith is, per se, irrational.
On a last note, I’m not sure the ID movement is scientific, but it might be a philosophical position. It doesn’t matter, really, because it makes unnecessary claims to make a point about design. That being said, atheistic evolution is certainly a philosophical and not scientific position. Most reasonable people could agree with that, even atheist evolutionists.
This “science vs faith� debate is false one, for there’s no such conflict. If the scientific method is about the natural universe, claims about the supernatural can never be scientific, regardless from what side they come.
April 25th, 2005 at 2:33 am
As a personal note, please take the entire first paragraph of this post, and replace “science” with “Christianity” in order to get how I fell sometimes. Thank you.
April 25th, 2005 at 6:28 am
I suspect that what they really mean by “science vs faith� is “liberal vs conservative�. In my experience most of these things boil down to a debate about political ideals, not about the existance of God(s) or the validity of the big bang.
People say “I’m right and your wrong” and then try to use their religion or various other beliefs to back up their opinion. They don’t seem to realize that opinions are neither right nor wrong, but simply an expression of your feelings and beliefs at that particular instant in time.
April 25th, 2005 at 6:38 am
As a scientist and a Catholic Christian, I agree with Delance’s two posts, above.
CJSF
April 27th, 2005 at 6:48 am
Heck, what I don’t understand is why individuals actually believe in a “god” at all in the 21st Century, or ever?
I “converted” from Catholicism (due to upbringing) to an Atheist in 1970 when I realized that all gods/goddesses/spirit beings were all imaginary! I mean, research back through the ages to the ancient civilizations, native peoples, the hunter-gatherer groups pre-civilzation, etc., and you get hundreds of different gods/goddesses/spirits, i.e., Immortal Beings!
Which “god” to you subscribe to?
The actual “God” of this Solar System is a star “Sol”. Most ancients worshipped the Sun as a God and the Moon, Luna, as a Goddess–it’s even in the Old Testament–YHWH (also skygod) and Sophia, and Son of the Morning Star, Lucifer.
Ok, I’d agree that science can’t disprove a immaterial being’s existence just as the theist can’t prove “god” exists, either. But science and the scientific method is best for knowledge and applications.
Well, we’ll never “win” this debate–unless a god decides to “materialize” and have a conversation. It’s more likely that an Extraterrestrial will show up first and appear god-like or immortal before that happened, if ever.
April 27th, 2005 at 12:44 pm
Chester, you probably were never that much into Catholicism, was you? Or else you’d know that that God has already decided to “materialize” and have conversations, and we still have some of them written no Paper. That’s the Good News!
That being said, I must say I’m quite impressed with your certainty. Frankly, as most believers, I have my doubts now and then. Don’t you, ever? I ‘ve read Darwin’s letters, and even as an old agnostic he never was truly certain of anything, wondering about First Cause and Purpose. He was so unwilling to give up those issues that he claimed that if that made him a theist, so be it. (I’m familiar with his objections too)
One of the problems is with this kind of argument is the way the phrase it. People wonder if God exists. That’s the wrong question. In order to exist, something must be contained in the natural universe we inhabit, be bound by its laws and be scientifically observable. God doesn’t merely “exists� like you and I, God Is. I find the scientific pursuit of God to be quite a misguided effort.
I’m afraid your XVIII century illuminist explanation about religion is quite outdated, given there are researchers studying how evolution favored faith, what, of course, still don’t say anything about the validity of the belief. But at least that could satiate your initial question, since, at least theoretically.
All considerations made, we can enjoy our free wills and choose our own paths and beliefs. But there’s nothing irrational on unreasonable on being religious, if you don’t understand how.
April 27th, 2005 at 8:53 pm
“I ‘ve read Darwin’s letters, and even as an old agnostic he never was truly certain of anything, wondering about First Cause and Purpose.” - Delance
Umm… That’s what it means to be agnostic: uncertainty:). That’s the whole point.
An Atheist can’t prove that a god doesn’t exist. It is not possible to prove a negative point as far as I know. You can positively prove something is possible, but never prove that something is impossible. Therefore Chester can never say with absolute certainty that there is not a God. All he can say is that he doesn’t believe in a god.
A Theist on the other hand can’t prove that the disciple John wasn’t eating purple pokka-dotted mushrooms when he wrote Revelations (I think it was John).
Who is right? Who is wrong? For me, it doesn’t matter. Whether or not a god exists will not change how I live my life. I find it very strange that some people live in fear of eternal punishment, and only do something they see as “good” because they fear what will happen to them if they do something they see as “bad”. *shrug* that isn’t for me. To live in constant fear is to not live at all.
If you do good only to avoid punishment then you really aren’t doing good at all. You are merely acting out like a rat attached to electrodes. Hit the good button and you are rewarded. Hit the bad button and you are punished. Big deal. Even a rat can be trained to do that. The real trick is to do good even when there is no reward forthcoming, and no punishment if you choose to turn aside.
Thus how can a religious person ever be considered “good” if they are only acting on faith? They believe they will be rewarded for there actions after all. Because of this I have trouble trusting truely religious people. You can never tell what is going on in there minds. Are they going to strike out thinking they are acting “godly”? Will they kill you thinking they are being just (whatever that is supposed to mean)? Or will they just sit and smile? Will they try and convert you thinking (for some uncontemplatable reason) that they are doing you a favor?
Regardless of whatever it was I just rambled on about, I don’t care how other people live there lives so long as they make ABSOLUTELY NO attempt to tell me how to live MINE. The moment ANYONE steps over that line in any way they begin to annoy me.
I have no problem with people believing in God. Everyone wants to have someone looking out for them:-); it is comforting to think that if you flatter on your journey through life someone will be there to help you along. Religion on the other hand I DO have a problem with. It has cause so much evil, so many problems, so many wars (most, if not all of them can be traced back to religious beliefs and traditions), that it cannot be forgiven. I will never forgive it for what it has done to the world.
April 28th, 2005 at 6:40 am
Delance,
Sorry good chum, “God” is NOT, Never was and Never will be! But, if “God” existed, then there would also be an “Anti-God (Satan. Lucifer, Baal, whatever)”, too. Remember?
So, let’s not quibble over such a non-sense. If any deity existed, quite really, we’d all know! And we could just say “No”, too.
Religion is irrational, unreasonable, superstitious, intolerant, wishful and magical thinking, and on and on.
I ain’t mis-informed. I have researched lots of stuff. I know the early evolutionists were Deists and the faithful trying to discover the science of their “God’s creation” (Natural Theology). But they did not have the technologically advancing sciences that we have.
Both science and religion are our invention/creation. We are the only species to have theology and science on Earth–all the millions of other species on Earth are Atheistic, too.
We are all born natural atheists.
You have books you’d like me to read. Right? Well, I’ve read many but only I can decide for myself. I’d suggest these to you but would you necessarily read them? Even if you did, I don’t think you’d decide differently, either. But, I’ll list them anyways:
“Mind-A Brief Introduction” by John R. Searle. The only “mind” we each have is our own, unique mind.
And, “Life of the Cosmos” by Lee Smolin (Nothing exists outside of the Universe).
And, “Man the Hunted–Primates, Predators, and Human Evolution” by Donna Hart and Robert W. Sussman.
There’s another book about the Evolution/Creation Controversy: “Science and Earth History” by Arthur N. Strahler.
Why not read that? Chapter One will give you lots of great knowledge about Science and the Supernatural:
“Science gathers, processes, classifies, analyzes, and stores information on anything and everything observable in the Universe.”
“Supernatural forces, if they exist (note: IF THEY EXIST), cannot be observed, measured, or recorded by the procedures of science–that’s simply what the word “supernatural” means. There can be no limit to the kinds and shapes of supernatural forces and forms the human mind is capable of conjuring up from ‘nowhere’.”
I have read most of the Holy Bible. I am literate.
Religion is stagnation. It’s been stagnate for 1600 years! Occasionally I do watch evangelists on the religious cable channels–nothing new in 1600 years!
Compare the sciences of 1600 years ago to our current 2005. Dynamic!
April 28th, 2005 at 9:09 am
Wow Chester,
relax man. I too am an athiest, but I do NOT understand the vindictive, proselytizing, ‘I’m right and your wrong and you MUST accept it my way’ attitude of many athiests like you. Yes he believes there is a God, and I’ll wager an eternal soul. However he also has the werewithal to notice that all that is out of reach of science, that makes it, in my view, unreal. He is practially agreeing that there isn’t a God.
I think though that he is probably beyond convincing. Thats fine with me, sure, if it comes to his own proselytizing in other than reasonable ways, I’ll have a few more things to say and do. But to start off pedal to the metal in a metaphoric spitting rage, well, I’m even flinching.
I think that in the end, from his post anyways, he seems like a resonable man that poses neither I nor you any real threat. There is still alot that is unknown, but as BA shows there is alot that is known, and provable. Refute and correct were we can and the rest will take care of itself. Leave responsible people to their cherised faiths.
April 28th, 2005 at 11:29 pm
monolithfoo,
Thanks for the response. I don’t deny science, I like science. And the fact that we disagree doesn’t mean we can have an exchange of ideas.
Of course God is not a scientific researchable fact. That’s why believing in God or not is purely a matter of Faith (or lack of, if you wish).
Interesting choice of words here: “However he also has the werewithal to notice that all that is out of reach of science, that makes it, in my view, unreal.� I agree with the notion that all this is outside the natural universe, and can’t be researched scientifically. Therefore it’s not on the same level or reality of this universe. For you, it’s unreal, for a Catholic, it’s more real then the world we live in, and to call it a scientific fact would diminish it.
I make no claims that it’s a “scientific reality�. Explanation: for a Catholic, to think that the Mysteries of Faith are within the grasp of, say, scientific method (as “scientific reality� MUST BE) would be inappropriate and arrogant.
Thanks again for the response. Pax et Bonum.
April 29th, 2005 at 12:24 am
Chester,
Thanks for the time you took to answer my message.
About first question, that’s not necessarily truth. There’s a balance between Good and Evil on Taoism. For Gnostics, the material world is an evil creation of an evil deity, somewhat like the Matrix movie. And so is the case with other faiths. For Christianity, God is omnipotent, while the evil is not. There’s no duality.
“So, let’s not quibble over such a non-sense. If any deity existed, quite really, we’d all know! And we could just say “No�, too.�
Most of us do know, and do believe. And you can say no, as you do. Not sure I get this.
Claim about religion being stagnant. Religious truth is not based on data-gathering via scientific method. Scientific truth is always changing due to a process of self-correcting. Truth of Faith is based on Revelation about matters outside the material universe, therefore beyond the physicals effects of time, rendering “stagnant� an utterly meaningless expression.
Ironically, “change” is one of the most common accusations against the Catholic Church, making lack of change a complement.
Empirically, well, it’s undeniable that people of different cultures, ethnicities and time periods display a hunger for religion. It’s reasonable to ask if that’s something we’ve been hard-wired to do. Perhaps there is a evolutionary explanation to it, what, of course, would not be an answer to if the object of the faith would be real. There’s research underway on this subject.
Your quoted denition of Science is accurate. As for faith, well, if it could be “observed, measured, or recorded” by us, what need would there be for Revelation? If the Genesis was basically “A Brief Story of Time” in aramaic, it’d be pretty pointless.
Science and religion aren’t looking for the same thing. Scientific truth is dynamic and deals with the material universe. Religions deals with stuff that is eternal, and not of this universe. No overlapping here.
April 29th, 2005 at 12:30 am
As a last note, about your affirmation about what religion is, two things:
Superstitious: Not the same as religious. It’s a psychological trait. Individuals can be superstitions independent of their beliefs. It relies on an exaggerated relationship and not with the object itself.
Intolerant: Straw Man. Guilty by association. Just because some religious individuals were intolerant in the past doesn’t mean religion is intolerant. Similarly, if in the past atheists individuals persecuted religious people in the name of materialism doesn’t means atheism is intolerant.
I prepared an answer to each of the adjectives, but it would be too much. Anyway, thanks for the time. Pax et Bonum.
April 29th, 2005 at 5:55 am
O.K.
You got me corrected.
Ad Astra!
April 6th, 2009 at 6:00 am
This is a TEST to see if Comic Sans font works here.
April 20th, 2009 at 10:21 pm
This is a TEST of Tempus Sans font.
This is a TEST of Tempus Sans font at 200%.
April 20th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
This is a TEST of Tempus Sans font at 150%.
April 20th, 2009 at 10:35 pm
@IVAN3MAN:
Remember that the font you choose may not appear on other computers if it’s not installed on the reader’s system. For instance, ShowShifter Body will appear in that style/font (sorry, I’m going to an interview for copywriter/proofreader, so I use both terms) on my system, but I have no idea what it will be on yours.
J/P=?
April 20th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
This is a TEST of Comic Sans at 150%.
April 20th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
I was wondering what you were doing back here.
April 20th, 2009 at 10:58 pm
@ John Paradox,
Yes, I realize that, which is why I use the recommended CSS codes rather than the older HTML codes that you are using, which are now depreciated.
April 20th, 2009 at 11:00 pm
@ Davidlpf,
It appears that I have fans following me around!
April 21st, 2009 at 5:13 am
It is more like hearing your dog bark at something. You have to check if there is really something there or he is just going nuts.
April 22nd, 2009 at 5:35 am
Err… at my post above, the correct term should be deprecated, not “depreciated”.
@ Davidlpf,
Like, er… BARK, BARK, BARK…