I expected my previous blog entry would generate some responses; political ones always do. I also expected it to resonate with a lot of people, given how viciously science has been attacked recently together with the mounting evidence that a lot of it is being spearheaded politically (ironically, Time magazine’s cover story this week is Are We Losing Our Edge?, about America and science).
I was reticent at first to blog about it. I mean, I knew I had to, but this is a sensitive topic, especially given that I myself receive grants from NASA for my day job. But I also know that as an American citizen I must speak out against suppression, and as a scientist I am doubly beholden to do so when it’s the truth that is being suppressed.
So I will reiterate: my grievance is not with NASA, but with some of the political appointees foist onto it. I’ll point out that the NASA chief administrator, Mike Griffin, is himself a political appointee, and I find him so far to be able and fit to run NASA. I disagree with him on some issues, of course, but I find his openness and honesty to be refreshing.
His email to NASA employees about the open nature of NASA science was likewise refreshing. So I hope he finds out how many people were shocked to learn of what’s happening in the Public Affairs Office.
To help out, here is a list — ever growing; I gave up hours ago trying to keep up with it — of other bloggers and sources of comments about this burgeoning issue. Note: I do not necessarily endorse what is being said on these blogs; and many are more or less "me too" posts. I list them just to show how much of an interest this story has generated.
- Crooks and Liars
- Digg.com
- The Intersection (Chris Mooney’s blog)
- Pharyngula
- Balloon Juice
- Cosmic Variance
- Stranger Fruit
- Amygdala
- The Reality-Based Community
- Hullabaloo
- Atrios
- Vague Nihilism
- Wolverine’s Den
- Reality Conditions
- Fark.com
- Antagony and Ecstasy
- Ikarian Wings
- Capacious Handbag
- Tingilinde
- Divine Afflatus
- The Blog That Eats Itsel
- Rastos de Luz
- This Blog Title For Sale
- My friend Paul Harris
- Stodge
- Secular Front
- Mighty Reason
- Eine Kleine Nichtmusik
- Walker O’Rushley
- Anthonares
- Kalil
- Wild-Heart
- Wongablog
- Very True Thing
- Skemono
- Bourgeois Nerd
- The Questionable Authority
- Richman Wisco
- Kozone
- ytyset
- donsense
- seasleepy
- Abnormal Interests
- Ideas and Oddities
- Notional Slurry
- Goldbricker
February 6th, 2006 at 2:50 am
Phil,
In your previous entry, most of the comments (wow, 200 as I type this) similarly express dismay, anger, etc. over Deutsch’s actions.
What’s the next step, though, from the agency’s (or Griffin’s) perspective? As he’s a presidential appointee, who does he answer to, and can he be held responsible (and if so, will he be)? I didn’t see any reference to available recourse in the linked NYT articles, and can’t seem to find other pertinent materials offering a structural outline. Is there any oversight of these “public affairs” personnel?
February 6th, 2006 at 4:39 am
Whilst we’re waiting for this story to grow… what’s up with that dark-matter story today? That’s craaazyyy stuff. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1703203,00.html
February 6th, 2006 at 5:27 am
Phil,
Here is another blog that lists this story although it doesn’t do justice to it
Arianna Huffington’s The Huffington Post
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
Find this entry on the left hand side and down
Featured Posts
Bio How Do You Solve A Problem Like Urea?
02.05.2006 Marty Kaplan
Yes, it’s really puzzling, how such a grounded, sensible lad like George Deutsch could go from college, to the Bush campaign, to become the scourge of the NASA scientific community.
Note that I did indeed reference The Bad Astronomy Blog for more information!:)
February 6th, 2006 at 10:39 am
Scene: a faculty break room on the top floor of the Astrophysics Building. Professor #1 is sitting at a table, looking distraught and (thanks to a combination of stress and general relativity) growing old fast. Professor #2 is busily brushing chalk dust over their tweed jacket, preparing for lecture.
PROF 1: Argh! I can’t stand it anymore! I feel like I’m going to get defunded just for teaching the scientific method.
PROF 2: But there is a bright side. In a way, science is finally making good on a promise it made over two thousand years ago.
PROF 1: What are you talking about?
PROF 2: Well, I’m not sure quite how to say it, but luckily, I know someone who can sing it.
Prof. 2 goes to the refrigerator and opens the door. ERIC IDLE, miraculously rejuvenated and wearing a pink suit, steps out and begins to sing. The tune is “Aquarius”, from the musical Hair.
IDLE: When Sedna is in the Second House,
And Earthling children walk on Mars,
Then thought will span our planet,
While eyes turn to the stars!
Enter the CHORUS of HIPPIES, all wearing Einstein 2005 Year of Physics T-shirts.
CHORUS: This is the dawning of the Age of Copernicus!
The age of Copernicus — Copernicus — Copernicus. . .
IDLE: Doppler shifts and Einstein lensing,
Extrasolar worlds abounding,
Carbon compounds now deep in space,
And raining ‘cross cold Titan’s face.
Now we’ll solve the Drake Equation
Join an interstellar nation –
ALL: Copernicus! Copernicus!
IDLE: When Sedna is is in the Second House,
And Earthling children walk on Mars,
Then thought will span our planet,
While eyes turn to the stars!
CHORUS: This is the dawning of the Age of Democritus!
The Age of Democritus — Democritus — Democritus. . . .
IDLE: As our probes approach the heliopause
We see with their electric eyes
A pale blue dot floating in the light
That once let life arise!
CHORUS: We are the spirit of the Age of the Humanist!
The Age of the Humanist — the Humanist — the Humanist. . . .
February 6th, 2006 at 10:46 am
I see you got this up on Slashdot, hopefully this will help spread the word.
February 6th, 2006 at 10:49 am
I should never have donated those organs, now he’s gonna eat my liver with some fava beans and a nice Chianti…….
February 6th, 2006 at 10:52 am
Thomas:
Aha! A master of multipronged allusions you are, fluent in high magic and low puns.
February 6th, 2006 at 10:55 am
I went for a fast response rather than a well thought out one
February 6th, 2006 at 11:09 am
Hey, you forgot me:
http://www.rodneyanonymous.com/2006/02/she_blinded_me_with_acid.html
February 6th, 2006 at 11:25 am
Bush to Deutsch: Georgie, you’re doing a heck of a job!
What waste of 8 years!
February 6th, 2006 at 11:48 am
Wolverine: Isn’t it possible to talk to the guy, hear what he has to say and express ones feelings about where he’s gone wrong?
February 6th, 2006 at 11:49 am
I wonder how long it will be before this guy loses his job?
Does that mean I can’t possibly get it because I’m a Dem?
February 6th, 2006 at 12:00 pm
[i]Seixon writes: So what am I missing here guys?
Deutsch told the NASA web designer to make sure that Big Bang is referred to as a theory, because, well it is a theory, and… eh… Huh?[/i]
and
[i]Seeing as how I’m an atheist, I don’t really think you have assessed me correctly. I’m pointing out how weak this whole issue is, since Deutsch actually did no harm here. [/i]
But Seixon has ignored a number of replies pointing out he missed the rest of the comments about not making any statement as a NASA official that “discounts intelligent design by a creator”.
He also ignored my post detailing the pervasive calculated organized and well financed attack on the institution of science itself by a small extremist religious faction that has been working since the 1980s to push their religious views into government, schools, and now science organizations themselves.
Seixon has repeated his claim this is no big deal without addressing the broader implications of the appointment of a member of that small religious extremists group to bring NASA’s scientists into line with both the political agenda and the Christian religious agenda of the Bush administration.
That is the big deal, not the requirement to add theory after the term Big Bang. It’s the rest of the statements Deutsch made that exposes his real intentions, and the fact that someone with those intentions should be given a position of power over a scientific agency is indeed disturbing.
Will you continue to address the non-issue of the use of the term “theory”, Seixon, or comment instead on the real issues Phil has written about?
February 6th, 2006 at 1:39 pm
Phil,
I’m not a scientist. Hell, I’m not even college educated. But I am a skeptic by nature and consider myself an autonomous being. At a very young age, I was asked by the local Baptist church to not return to Sunday school because I “asked too many questions.” When you get right down to it, that’s exactly what the Bush Administration fears: Too Many Questions.
Keep up the good work. It was good to see you on Penn and Teller’s show.
February 6th, 2006 at 1:41 pm
Berkeley wrote: “Wolverine: Isn’t it possible to talk to the guy, hear what he has to say and express ones feelings about where he’s gone wrong?”
And that would accomplish… what, exactly?
February 6th, 2006 at 1:47 pm
Is the slashdotting over? Can we come out now?
February 6th, 2006 at 2:13 pm
If you go to Huffington Post , you can see where to email him.
Actually, when you think about it , he speaks for us…all of us..and he stands on the shoulders of giants and speaks for them as well as
ALL of the NASA astronauts…
John Glenn, Alan Shepard, Borman,Lovell, Anders , Apollo 11…Challenger 7 etc.
Yes, it is a big thing.
February 6th, 2006 at 2:50 pm
Speaking of which….
Phillip Johnson (who, be honest, looks like a particularly bloated version of John Houseman’s character in “The Paper Chase”) is coming to UNC Chapel Hill on February 8th to further befoul the waters of an already compromised campus (we’ve had David Horowitz and…ultragag me… Anne Coulter here already, both of whom got paid BIG BUCKS by Campus Repuglicans to spew and foam).
I call upon all Tar Heels of of good conscience who truly care about the future of American science to grab your noisemakers, foghorns and whatever else and descend upon the campus on Wednesday and stop the Discovery Institute from doing their usual “bait and switch” “fair play” BS routine.
Or at least, can we please give that fool a high colonic so that next time he spews crap he does so from the correct orifice???
February 6th, 2006 at 3:00 pm
“I wonder how long it will be before this guy loses his job?”
Lose his job? I’m sure Bush is looking at giving him the “Medal of Freedom.”
February 6th, 2006 at 3:13 pm
A Mind Occasionally Voyaging said:
“It has already been extensively documented what I think of Intelligent Design, but I’ll say it again: As a person of faith, I am deeply offended by the assertation that faith and science are incompatible, and I am deeply troubled…”
There is it again: the suggestion that because a statement offends someone, it’s wrong – or at least should be assumed to be wrong and treated appropriately.
I hate to burst your bubble, MOV, but science and religion are *necessarily incompatible*. Science is founded upon systematic doubt and the experimental method. Religion is founded upon faith and received wisdom. The first rejects dogma and recognizes no authority but the systems to be studied; the second embraces dogma and recognizes the authority of spiritual leaders, scriptural accounts, and/or traditions.
Doubt and faith are diametrically opposed processes, and they are mutually incompatible values. No one can serve two masters with incompatible demands – you end up either remaining true to one and compromising your devotion to the other, or vice versa. You have to make a choice.
February 6th, 2006 at 3:16 pm
Wow Anthony, way to go! Cause Democrats wouldn’t wan’t to allow anything like free speech…
After all their opinion differs from yours, it must be suppressed.
How does it feel in that brown shirt?
The President really screwed the pooch on this one. But I’m sure that Demmocrats like Anthony will crawl out of the woodwork and keep objections to this presidential appointee on a rational level… uh huh…
The point is to WIN ELECTIONS. Not to vent your spleen cause you hate Bush.
February 6th, 2006 at 4:34 pm
Caledonian,
Ever hear of the “Pope Scope”…The Vatican Observatory…better check it out….Ever hear of The Jesuits? Better check them out! Ever hear of Brother Guy J. Consolmagno, S.J. PhD?…check him out..
http://clavius.as.arizona.edu/vo/R1024/GConsolmagno.html
February 6th, 2006 at 5:14 pm
P. Edward Murray,
Actually, I think he is right. I do think that religious questions/answers can and will be answered by science. Granted, religious people often find a way to have a faith that is compatible with the reality they are aware of.
I think any question that can be asked, can be investigated by science (maybe not all of them now) and either be answered in detail by science or found to not be a rational question.
In the movie Cosmos, the preacher asked the scientist if she loved her dad, she said yes, he than said prove it. She halted, obviously to give us a pause, to think that some things are unprovable. I think that love CAN BE proved, even probably, now. Ultimately, love is a product of the brain and body, a physical reaction to a physical state of things and a physically recored past history. I think there are things that no human could fake that would suffice as proof of love, physical, findable, tangible, testable things.
Eventually religion will have no where rational to hide. No gaps to reside in. Regardless, people will do what they must in order to keep what faith they cherish, damn the facts.
February 6th, 2006 at 5:26 pm
I just sent an email to Ben Goldacre from badscience.net and the Guardian. Hopefully, he will spread the word.
Also, check out his blog. There’s lots of good stuff there for all you sceptics…
February 6th, 2006 at 5:44 pm
Yet another outraged blogger (me):
http://cyclotram.blogspot.com/2006/02/big-bang-memo.html
As I’ve noted over there, Feb. 12th is Charles Darwin’s 197th birthday, and the 17th is the 406th anniversary of the astronomer Giordano Bruno being burned at the stake. Both of which are events worth commemorating, given today’s hostile political-theological climate. I’m not sure what sort of observation would be appropriate for the latter event; a fundraiser barbecue would probably be in very poor taste.
February 6th, 2006 at 5:55 pm
monolithfoo,
This is just a nit to be picked: The name of the movie wasn’t “Cosmos”. It was “Contact”. It is, however, understandable that one might confuse the two. I’ve always had a personal alternate title for Contact: “All of Carl Sagan’s Other Books, the Novel”.
February 6th, 2006 at 7:11 pm
I’ve also been blogging about George Deutsch, and I discovered something pretty interesting about him today:
http://scientificactivist.blogspot.com/2006/02/breaking-news-george-deutsch-did-not.html
February 6th, 2006 at 7:30 pm
Might as well add myself to the list. I posted very early on Saturday, very shortly after the news first came out. As a former astronomer and current science enthusiast, I am glad to see that posting about this has become a widespread phenomenon.
Anyway, here is my link.
February 6th, 2006 at 7:45 pm
To those who believe in ID….
Remember that the Bible is not a science book. The Earth does not revolve around the sun.
Every time Christains want to try and make the Bible the science standard they will be disappionted. That is not the Bibles purpose. It is not an infalable science book. Its not even infalable. ID has NO peer reviewed studies which support it. ID does not even rise to the high level of a theory. Keep your religious ideas out of science class.
February 6th, 2006 at 7:48 pm
So it turns out that the kid may not have even graduated from any University….well, this kid is now fair game for everyone.
February 6th, 2006 at 8:41 pm
@Mark Martin,
duh… just watched the updated Cosmos from the Discovery Channel.
Thanks.
February 6th, 2006 at 8:59 pm
Here is my e-mail to this guy:
—– Original Message —–
From: P. Edward Murray
To: george.deutsch-1@nasa.gov
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 10:51 PM
Subject: Recent e-mails about Global Warming & The Big Bang
Dear Mr. Deutsch,
Let me write to you like the Dutch Uncle you never had because quite frankly, you are young enough to be my son.
Usually young folks learn very quickly when it is that they should talk and when they should not.
And usually that happens sometime in young adulthood but fortunately early enough to not create any major difficulties
except for hurt pride.
Well, son, you’ve really taken the cake better then anyone ever has.
I understand that you majored in Journalism at Texas A & M but may not have ever graduated. Luckily, you were at the right place and time for you to get a good job.
As a NASA Public Relations Officer you write & speak for a lot of people.
In a very real sense you talk for President Eisenhower, who began NASA & President John F. Kennedy who sent us to the Moon.
You also speak for John Glenn, Alan Shepard and all the Mercury & Gemini Astronauts. You speak for Apollo 1′s White, Grissom & Chaffee, Apollo 8′s Borman, Lovell & Anders, Apollo 11′ s Armstrong, Aldrin & Collins, Apollo 13′s Lovell, Haise & Swigert & all the rest of the Apollo team. You speak for the Skylab crews and Shuttle Crews including the Challenger 7 & Columbia & and all the Shuttle Crews. And you speak for the American Astronauts aboard the International Space Station.
You speak for NASA and all the good folks there that tirelessly work to keep us moving forward in Space and Aeronautics.
And in a very real sense, you speak for all those who work to build and fly the Shuttle and the New Crew Exploration Vehicle.
You also speak for everyone in our country who is either a taxpayer or cares about our national space program.
For a 24 year old Journalism Undergrad, you certainly have your hands full.
That’s a lot for anyone to handle…but you took the job and let me tell you I would like your job and so wouldn’t quite a few thousand if not million American Amateur Astronomers like myself.
And right now, they as well as I, are wondering just why you think you know more than anyone else because that’s what it seems
you are saying.
For an Undergrad to tell NASA Meteorologists & Climatologists that “Global Warming” is wrong when you yourself don’t even have a degree much less a PhD is unfathomable to me.
Not only that but to tell NASA Astronomers that The Big Bang is wrong is simply too much to believe.
Let me tell you a few things, old son.
When Jesus walked the Earth 2,000. odd years ago he said that we should “Give to Caesars what is Caesars and Give to God’s what is God’s” And while no one in the Federal Government is asking you to deny Christ, it seems that you want to deny him by not doing your job correctly.
For speaking out of turn is what you are doing without the prerequisite higher education.
Who are you to say Global Warming isn’t true…you don’t even have that advanced degree in Climatology.
As a fellow Christian, not fundamentalist, but Catholic, I have to scold you for talking about the Creation of The Universe.
I kindly ask what credentials you have for determining the age of the Universe? Oh, no…again there is that little matter of not having a degree much less a degree in science much less one in Physics or Astronomy.
Ever heard of the 3 degree Kelvin radiation?
How about the late,great NASA COBE satellite?
Better do some research.
Remember, your job here is to Caesar not Christ.
And who are you to even think that God himself could not create
the Universe in such a way, using a Big Bang with an evolving Universe holding
all the scientific laws that we know today?
Who are you to put God himself in a box?
In any event, who said that one has to take the Bible as the Literal Word of God? Many of us mainstream Christians
think of the New Testament as the Teachings of Christ and The Apostles and The Old Testament is “Inspired”.
And if you are further interested, better check the words of Pope John Paul II or look into what Vatican Observatory Scientists such as Brother Guy Consolmagno S.J. PhD has to say about Creation.
Better do some more research.
In any event Mr. Deutsch, you are headed for a hard time.
If I were a member of your family, I would advise you to come clean and repent.
Tell NASA & the American People that you are sorry for saying what you did.
Ask Jesus for the grace to do the right things and for forgiveness.
Perhaps, if you do these things, you might be forgiven.
If you have some courage, you will resign your post and then go back and get your degree.
Sincerely & most sadly yours,
P. Edward Murray
Past President,
Bucks-Mont. Astronomical Assoc., Inc.
A 501 (c) 3 Membership-based, Non-Profit Educational Assoc.
Maybe a bit harsh but it’s a reality all of us learn..usually we are lucky not to put our feet into our mouths at the same time!
February 6th, 2006 at 10:22 pm
Caledonian, I think you’ve fallen prey to the unfortunate shortness of the excerpt from my entire article. In fact, looking at it now, I’m pretty deeply bothered by how it comes off.
Or maybe I’m not. Because maybe someone who’s pro-ID will read it, assume I’m on their side, and accidentally read the *rest* of the article with their brain in gear.
Because the rest of the sentenct you quoted is “I am deeply troubled by a faith where God is defined by a set of cheap parlor tricks. And I am even more deeply offended by the assertation that my faith is somehow lacking because I don’t buy into this perversion of both science and religion.”
I’m not a proponent of intelligent design. In fact, what I’ve been saying all along is that intelligent design, in addition to being bad science (or rather, not science at all), is also *not good religion*. It’s an attempt to reduce religion — which *should be* something bigger and greater than the confines of science — to a kind of science. Intelligent Design tries to *define God’s basic skill-set*, and that’s what pisses *me* off.
I don’t have to take apart the “science” behind ID — everyone else has done that. It’s easy. Trivial. But what I think is sorely lacking in the debate is condemnation of ID from the *religious* perspective.
I keep seeing people in the discussion here and elsewhere who being their thoughs with “I’m an atheist, so…” Well, yeah. But that’s not going to help, because the people pushing ID don’t care about your opinion. I’m *not* an atheist. I believe in God. And this doesn’t make me want to reject the Big Bang or Evolution. In fact, I find dismissing evolution and the big bang *offensive* to my religious sensiblities. I’m I’m extra-special-pissed that so many IDers would claim that I “must be an atheist” because I choose not to ignore reality.
This debate isn’t going to go anywhere as long as it appears that the folks on one side dismiss the other side as “superstitious fools”, and the folks on the other side dismiss our side as “godless heathens”. What motivates the IDers is their utterly misguided belief that we’re “trying to take away God and replace Him with science” — We’re not. Science and Religion aren’t in conflict — they’re *orthagonal constructs*.
I don’t believe that if the real world contradicts my faith, the real world must be ignored — in fact, my religion tells me that this world was created with a considerable amount of care and that I am one of the intended benificiaries of it. It’s flat out sacreligious to me to dismiss the real world.
The IDers won’t be convinced by us telling them how stupid they are. But maybe, *just maybe*, they’ll be convinced by us telling them how *heretical* they are.
So, for the love of God, please stop thinking I actually hold any of the beliefs you attributed to me. It’s not what I meant. It’s not even what I *said*.
February 7th, 2006 at 12:43 am
Mind Forever Voyaging: You claim to be deeply offended by the assertion that religion and science are incompatible.
Well, I have news for you: they are. Taking offense at that is like being insulted because the square root of two being an irrational number.
We know what you said. You suggest that we don’t, but I quoted you directly. We can go back and look at your post, and there it is in black and white. This smokescreen garbage just doesn’t cut it. The rest of the sentence (which you didn’t see fit to post, I might add) does not alter the meaning of the primary clause.
You cannot follow science and religion simultaneously. You cannot follow science and religion consistently. You must choose.
February 7th, 2006 at 1:15 am
Nick Anthis Says:
“I’ve also been blogging about George Deutsch, and I discovered something pretty interesting about him today: [link provided with evidence Deutsch did not complete his degree.]”
Hey, someone see if the guy padded his resume. Wouldn’t that be cause for dismissal even if you had been appointed?
Caledonian, is it possible for one who has had one’s post misunderstood to correct the misunderstanding? Communication is a difficult thing and language doesn’t always work on our side.
February 7th, 2006 at 1:45 am
Caldonian, what I was trying to explain is that my initial post on the matter was an automatically generated excerpt from a longer article. I did *not* initially leave a comment, I left a *trackback*, and the message you saw was the beginning of a much longer article whose entirety is available at http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com/deep_thoughts/religion/intelligent_design/
That’s the article I wrote. What appeared here was just the opening line, and by the time I realized what had happened, it was too late for me to change it.
The fact that you only saw the first forty words or so is not me being a coward or trying to redact my earlier statement. It’s a failing of the technology, one that I regret.
Because you only read the first half of the sentence, you jumped to the conclusion that I was talking about scientists claiming things which contradict religion. I wasn’t. I never have been. I’ve written on the subject of intelligent design five times now, and never have I supported ID, never have I said that science should bend to what religion wants. What offends me isn’t when science *appears* to contradict scripture, but when people come from a *religious* background and insist that science is their enemy.
Now, that said, I still disagree with you. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive, and your saying so just fuels these reactionary creationist idiots who think we’re trying to Take Away Their Jesus.
You do not have to discard science to be religious, you do not have to be an atheist to be a good scientist. You do not have to compromise *either* of them.
IDers set up a false dichotomy between the two, and the mistake we keep making when we combat them is that we never seem to *call them* on the falseness of this dichotomy. You’re saying it right there: “You cannot follow science and religion simultaneously. You cannot follow science and religion consistently. You must choose.” You’ve just confirmed their worst fear: science is trying to replace religion.
The mechanics of how the universe formed, and the mechanisms that gave rise to human beings are outside the scope of religion, and trying to force religion to answer them is *bad religion*. Just like trying to ask science *why* the universe was created and what it’s “for” is *bad science*. You don’t have to choose one or the other. Science is not about big-T-Truth. It’s about finding models for how things work that allow us to make useful predictions.
But the ID argument really *is not* a scientific argument. If it was, we could just present our proofs that it is total, total bunk and that would be the end of it. ID is a *religious* argument, and the way we should be arguing it is *as* a religious argument. It’s disingenuous to argue against it with science. A scientific argument is the *wrong kind of argument* for this debate. Would you present a mathematical proof to someone who wanted advice in a romantic matter? No, that’d be silly. Would you dismiss a scientific theory on the grounds of poor use of theme and symbolism? Also silly. It’s just as silly to approach an ID argument with science, because ID is *not science*. All we accomplish by attacking it as science is to make ourselves feel smart.
We can not engage this argument from a scientific basis. We can not engage these *people* from a scientific basis.
We can’t make this a “YOU MUST CHOOSE ONE OR THE OTHER” argument. Besides, that’s just stupid. Why can’t you? Because religion is not scientific?
So why not add that scientists can’t fall in love? Or write novels? Or have an irrational preference for chicken over beef?
February 7th, 2006 at 3:23 am
Ross, from A Mind Occasionally Voyaging I don’t know where you get the idea that the creation of the Universe and how the world works is somehow not the domain of religion. It has been seen to be the domain of religion for thousands of years and only with the advent of science showing the religious explanations to be false have people started trying to say that their religion never actually claimed it in the first place.
It’s redefining history to get around the fact that the religion is wrong and trying to keep it alive despite religion being outdated and obsolete. You are what Richard Dawkings called a no-contest (at http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1994-12religion.shtml ). The know-nothings (the IDers in this case) are more honest in that they realise that one of the main goals of religion has been to explain the world.
February 7th, 2006 at 3:36 am
I personally know religious scientists that are leaders in my field (quantum information theory), so the assertion that “you cannot follow science and religion simultaneously” is blatant nonsense. If anything, you can view God as the Prime Cause and be done with it.
Having said that, I find the introduction of a divine PC intellectually and estetically abhorrent.
February 7th, 2006 at 3:54 am
Whoa! I thought I’d look a little deeper. The concept of separation of church and state in the US seems to have been utterly devastated. I would have thought a post such as this was an obvious exaggeration were I not the one posting it. I had no idea it was this bad.
Bush has pushed religion on to every single department of the Federal Government from the DOD to the CDC. No wonder NASA got their own personal mentor.
[url]http://www.faithbasedcommunityinitiatives.org/[/url] “By Executive Order, effective immediately, each of the following Cabinet agencies will create its own Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives to work in tandem with the White House OFBCI, to make federal grants available to Faith-Based and Community Initiatives nationwide.
* Cabinet Centers for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives:
* Department of Health and Human Services;
* Department of Housing and Urban Development;
* Department of Labor;
* Department of Justice; and
* Department of Education.
FaithBasedCommunityInitiatives.org is a convenient web gateway providing direct links to each of these 5 federal agencies and their respective grant programs. We also provide direct links to Charitable Choice Organization for Faith Groups as well as a List of State Liaisons for Faith-Based Initiatives. Grant descriptions, applications, instructions, qualifications, and deadlines are now just a click away. Check back often as we will be posting additional links and information as it becomes available.”
Here are a few web pages of Federal Departments you really wouldn’t expect to find religion:
[url]http://www.dol.gov/cfbci/[/url]U.S. Department of Labor
Center for Faith-Based & Community Initiatives
Remember this?
[url]http://www.time.com/time/columnist/jaroff/article/0,9565,783829,00.html[/url]
Faith-Based Parks? Creationists meet the Grand Canyon
[url]http://www.bos.frb.org/commdev/faith/index.htm[/url]
Faith-Based Community Economic Development: Principles & Practices, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston
[url]http://www.phppo.cdc.gov/dphsdr/FaithBase/[/url]
“Welcome to the Interfaith Health Program[/url] supporting the Faith-Based and Community Initiatives at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR).”
Picture the last scene from the movie The Body Snatchers…. “You’re next!”
February 7th, 2006 at 3:55 am
Sorry the links aren’t formatted right. I’ll get the blog code down eventually.
February 7th, 2006 at 4:00 am
Here are the links as I try again, in the order they appear above.
http://www.faithbasedcommunityinitiatives.org/
http://www.dol.gov/cfbci/
http://www.time.com/time/columnist/jaroff/article/0,9565,783829,00.html
http://www.bos.frb.org/commdev/faith/index.htm
http://www.phppo.cdc.gov/dphsdr/FaithBase/
February 7th, 2006 at 7:18 am
MOV: You REALLY aren’t getting it. I’m not attacking some idea which I’ve mistakenly concluded you hold based only on the excerpt. The first half of that first sentence IS what I’m attacking. You’ve repeated its sentiment in: “Now, that said, I still disagree with you. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive”. I haven’t misunderstood, or misinterpreted, or become confused. You are saying that the two are compatible, that there isn’t an inherent contradiction between them.
This is factually incorrect. Your wishing it wasn’t doesn’t make it so. Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant.
February 7th, 2006 at 7:25 am
PK says: “I personally know religious scientists that are leaders in my field (quantum information theory), so the assertion that “you cannot follow science and religion simultaneously†is blatant nonsense.”
Um, no. Either they are compromising their religious integrity by restricting their faith to assertions that aren’t violently incompatible with reason, or they are compromising their scientific integrity by setting arbitrary bounds beyond which they they do not permit scientific thought to apply.
You cannot serve two masters, PK. This is both a well-established religious principle and a self-evident logical conclusion.
February 7th, 2006 at 8:24 am
The interest in the subject is encouraging.
However the Big Bang is a wrong theory based upon the assumption that the Red Shift proves an expanding universe, and an acellerating expansion (dark energy).
Actually it was assumed that the red shift was just due to the Doppler Effect and there were no other significant contributuions. There are three other contributions to the red shift and they are only due to the effect of gravity. One that is important is the gravitational drag on photons traveling large distances through interstellar spage – due to gravitation drag by gas and dust – similar to the effect of the moon on tides and transfering energy by gravitational interaction.
See my web site for details:
http://inventing-solutions.com/simplified-universe.htm
February 7th, 2006 at 9:15 am
This is hardly the first time the Bush Misadministration has tried to suppress REAL science. Check out the Union of Concerned Scientists (www.ucsusa.org)– they have several pages devoted to scientific integrity. They haven’t yet updated to include this latest jaw-dropper (their focus tends to be more on the environmental causes), but I would be surprised if there isn’t some discussion of Mr. Deutsch’s nonsense fairly soon.
There IS an answer and a real solution to this situation, though unfortunately it can’t come soon enough to suit me: make sure that EVERYONE you know is registered to vote in the primaries that will occur in your state later this year, and vote both in the primaries and in the general election in November. It’s my favorite fantasy, that we have a Congress that will vote for what is right, not for the greed and corruption and backward nonsense promoted by the right wing. And then, of course, 2 years from now we have an opportunity to vote to replace this idiot with someone who will spend the next 4 (and possibly
years trying to undo all the damage that’s been done by the power-mad ones who currently are driving this country to ruin.
February 7th, 2006 at 9:57 am
Hey, Phil!
Good to see you following up on this. It’s depressing to see so much power go to people who are unqualified, much less pressing a particular agenda. It really does point to a magical thinking mindset, that somehow science is making reality by expressing ideas.
It’s as if the world can be made over in this administration’s image with enough propaganda. Tell a lie often enough that it becomes truth. The absolute disregard for evidence based assessment and dismissal of qualification for appointment really speak volumes more than lip service given to a commitment to science and math.
And, speaking of which, I really want a T-shirt with Nerd Patrol printed in large, bold letters. Frankly, the idea that he would characterize an interest in math and science as originally qualifying for a “Nerd Patrol” speaks volumes.
February 7th, 2006 at 10:12 am
Caledonian:
I retract my claim that you have misinterpreted me. I was misled when you said, “There is it again: the suggestion that because a statement offends someone, it’s wrong – or at least should be assumed to be wrong and treated appropriately.” — I took it to mean that you thought I felt science should be compromised because it offends the religious sensibilities of some people. I hope that you can see why I was confused, but I fully grant that the confusion was mine.
What I can’t figure out is all the faith-based assumptions you keep making. That science and religion are incompatable isn’t proven or provable. Serious religious scholar don’t believe it. Most scientists don’t believe it. To quote you yourself, “Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant.”
Because that’s exactly what your position is. I have repeatedly demonstrated that they don’t have to be in conflict, while all you’ve done is proclaim your position to be true by fiat. You even say “You cannot serve two masters.”
This sounds to me like you have an unorthodox understanding of science. In fact, it seems almost like you have some kind of religious veneration toward it. Science *isn’t* a “master” to be “served”. Science is a tool. You seem to be calling for a veneration of science in a way that totally undermines the whole *point* of science.
Science isn’t *for* the same thing as religion. Claiming that the two are incompatable is like claiming that a hammer and a watermellon are incompatable.
February 7th, 2006 at 10:36 am
Caledonian, you are being very unreasonable here.
Science accepts limits. Natural limits occur everywhere – for example, there is question: Why is mathematics so good at describing the universe? Or, the question – what does the concept of morality mean? Or the classic question of ‘what is the source of subjective experience’? The nature of these questions, which are nevertheless philosophically important, means that science logically cannot be applied to them. Further, these are not arbitarily closed off from scientific investigation. They are unscientific because they deal with intuitive concepts that have no definite meaning in the real world, and are ultimately questions in which each individual is free to set up a personal model of values and principles. Indeed, to a degree, everyone makes assumptions that are to a degree religious.
The reality of the matter is that Religion and Science are orthogonal concepts. The idea that you can even talk about factual ‘compatibility’ as though it mattered is conceding a victory to the fundies. It is absurd to claim that those scientists who disbelieve in an interfering and petty God and are compromising their integrity. Somewhere along the line, you need to recognise that scientists are actually human.
February 7th, 2006 at 10:43 am
bestonnet:
Please allow the people who actually hold faiths to define what faiths those are. If you want to say that those who believe in the whys and reserve judgement over the hows are not really religious by your definition, then go ahead and say it.
Strawmen attacks are unseemly. I entirely doubt that all modern theists are trying to cover up the history of religion. Looking back on Galileo, slavery and all that, I’d note that it is possible for people to become wiser over time, and that is something to be applauded, than greeted with childish I told you sos.
February 7th, 2006 at 11:11 am
Caledonian,
You are the one who DOESN’T get it! If YOUR science and YOUR religion are incompatible, either YOUR science or YOUR religion (or both) are TOO narrow! Just because YOUR science and YOUR religion are in compatible, it does NOT give you the right to tell everybody else that theirs must also be that way! You have the right to believe anything you want. You do not have the right to insist that everybody else must believe that way too!
February 7th, 2006 at 11:30 am
So, how long before US Geological Survey publications are forced to talk about the “theory” of plate tectonics?
February 7th, 2006 at 11:33 am
the Universe: the what
Science: the how (physical)
Religion: the why (metaphysical)
Science and Religion do _not_ cover the same ground, despite some people’s assertions, so they are _not_ inherently incompatible. If rational people (I know, hard to come by nowadays) would think about this, we wouldn’t have this problem- or at least it wouldn’t be so pronounced.
February 7th, 2006 at 12:20 pm
Caledonian,
You have a very narrow definition of religion. The question “What is God” is never conclusively answered by almost any religion (crap like “love” or “the universe” are very popular, probably because of their vacuousness). This leaves a lot of room to manoeuver for religion. For example, we can define the following:
God: That which is not described by Science.
You and me will say that now God is an empty concept, but others would disagree. Note also that this is not just the God of the gaps, because it does not mention our current scientific understanding, it makes a blanket statement.
Of course, you are right that a lot of people do hold religious beliefs that are incompatible with science. However, this is not true in principle.
February 7th, 2006 at 12:50 pm
Kaptain K, I would be a little careful throwing around the phrase “your science”. It makes it sound as though science itself is dependent on opions, which is part of the problem we’re currently having.
PK, I think it more likely that God would be defined as “That which is responsible for science.” But your conclusion is the same.
February 7th, 2006 at 12:59 pm
Your Name’s Not Bruce? Says:
“So, how long before US Geological Survey publications are forced to talk about the “theory†of plate tectonics?”
See my post above:
Remember this? Faith-Based Parks? Creationists meet the Grand Canyon
http://www.time.com/time/columnist/jaroff/article/0,9565,783829,00.html
The National Park Service had to include a book in the gift shop about how Noah’s flood could have conceivably carved out the Grand Canyon.
I’m sure if the science of plate tectonics contradicted the accounts of earthquakes in the Bible, the USGS would soon be getting its own Mr. Deutsch.
February 7th, 2006 at 1:39 pm
Turned out Deutsch did not even graduate college!
http://scientificactivist.blogspot.com/
February 7th, 2006 at 3:13 pm
Caledonian, when you say:
“I hate to burst your bubble, MOV, but science and religion are *necessarily incompatible*. Science is founded upon systematic doubt and the experimental method. Religion is founded upon faith and received wisdom. The first rejects dogma and recognizes no authority but the systems to be studied; the second embraces dogma and recognizes the authority of spiritual leaders, scriptural accounts, and/or traditions.”
All you are doing is fuelling the conflict. You may personally find the discoveries of science rule out the existence of any higher power, and that’s fine, but don’t try to interfere with anyone else who can reconcile an understanding of science with faith in a higher power.
It is my view that there is no need for this incompatability. More or less by definition, science cannot hope to rule out the existence of a supernatural entity. Science and religion deal with different areas. Science deals in what can be recorded and measured and calculated, and modern science has done more to forward our understanding of the world in the last 400 years than any previous attempt in the last 4000 years. Religion, on the other hand, deals with things that cannot be measured or recorded or calculated (it deals in emotion, in feelings, in personal morals).
Having said that, I object very strongly to ignorant fundamentalist Christians interfering with science education, or pretending that they know more about the world than scientists.
February 7th, 2006 at 3:37 pm
MOV said: “That science and religion are incompatable isn’t proven or provable.”
That is simply wrong, and it’s so obviously wrong that you are either lying or stupid. (Or, of course, both.) The incompatibility of the two systems isn’t an assertion or an assumption – it follows directly from their methods and emphases. Science rejects the validity of ‘received wisdom’. That alone negates the vast majority of religion’s content.
Fangz said: “The reality of the matter is that Religion and Science are orthogonal concepts.”
No kidding. What’s important to note is that science deals with that which is real. If religion is (metaphorically speaking) orthogonal to science, then religion cannot deal with that which is real – which is equivalent to saying that it contains no true statements about the world. In other words, it’s all objectively wrong.
Nigel says: “More or less by definition, science cannot hope to rule out the existence of a supernatural entity.”
No, science rules out the existence of a supernatural entity, because anything that interacts with us or the things that interact with them are included within the scientific concept of ‘nature’. The supernatural, by definition, does not exist.
Science and religion are incompatible precisely BECAUSE they share no common ground! The methods used in religion are precisely those that science recognizes as invalid – even if the content of a religion happens to be true, science rejects the methods by which it is passed down and the standards used by the faithful to accept it as truth.
February 7th, 2006 at 3:48 pm
“the Universe: the what
Science: the how (physical)
Religion: the why (metaphysical)”
If people would stop reciting by rote the endless stream of religious apologetics and actually think about what they say, we wouldn’t have this problem.
Science deals with “how”, “why”, and “what” questions all of the time. Why is the sky blue? What keeps the Moon from falling down on our heads? How does light’s path change when moving from one medium to another of different density?
Religion is just a collection of assertions accepted on authority and justified on faith. Science rejects the argument from authority and regards faith as invalid – science works by observing the systems we wish to learn about, producing hypotheses based on the observations, and then testing them. Science actively seeks to falsify its content – when observations are incompatible with hypotheses, we reject the hypotheses. When observation contradicts religious dogma, the response is to believe even more strongly. Ceasing to believe in an invalidated hypothesis is a failure in religion – it is a requirement for success in science.
February 7th, 2006 at 4:34 pm
Caledonian says: It’s so obviously wrong that you are either lying or stupid.
And obviously, the best way to argue your case is to hurl insult and abuse. Face it, mate, if you take this tone, nobody will listen and take what you have to say on board.
February 7th, 2006 at 4:51 pm
Phil,
What do you think the next step ought to be?
I know we need to mobilize support but how?
February 7th, 2006 at 6:36 pm
I’m not American myself but am disturbed by attempts to intimidate and censor NASA’s climate scientists by theatening them with “dire consequences” if they talk publicly about their work.
You can correct me if I’m wrong but as far as I know the First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference.
The most basic component of freedom of expression is the right of “freedom of speech.” Now the right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government. By stopping scientists of any field from publishing their work (in their own words), seems to be in contradiction to that right.
There are also two clauses in the First Amendment that guarantee freedom of religion. The “establishment clause” prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another, however the current administration seems obsessed (as far as I can tell) with christianity.
Now it appears to me that the Government is being hypocritical on both counts and doesn’t seem to be following its own rules. This abuse of power has to stop.
A Concerned Englishman
February 7th, 2006 at 7:48 pm
WAIT WAIT!
IT GETS WORSE!
http://scientificactivist.blogspot.com/2006/02/breaking-news-george-deutsch-did-not.html
yikes! gee think we coulda guessed that?
February 7th, 2006 at 8:22 pm
Caledonian,
Assuming for a moment that I were willing to grant your point, I’m curious what you think of philosophy, of metaphysics, of, for that matter, the humanities in general.
Philosophy isn’t religion, and doesn’t carry the same historical baggage, but it does serve a simlar purpose. I think even you must agree that there are questions which science can not, by definition answer; it can explain the laws that we observe at work, but it can’t, generally, say why these laws should be the way they are — it can tell me that E=mc^2, but it can’t tell me why the speed of light is (about) 300,000,000 m/s and not, say, 400,000,000 m/s. It can tell me how the universe came about, but not why.
It seems like your answer would be “These questions can not be answered by science, and therefore you may not ask them.” But that can’t be right — I don’t think you would want to class yourself among those who wants to go around telling other people what questions they can and can’t answer.
So what do you think of metaphysics? What do you think of the fields of inquiry that aren’t science? Philosophy can’t be disproven. Must a scientist reject them too? For that matter, does your view of science account for — or seek to disprove *the scientific method itself*? Or do you just accept that one thing, except it from your high standard.
If, as you seem to insist, science is all there is, what do we do with all the questions science can’t — not “hasn’t yet”, but “really can’t” — answer?
Maybe you’re just going a little too far with the language. I think there’s a general consensus here that religion has no place *in science* — certainly, you and I agree at least that far. What concerns me is that nothing you’ve said (because you think, or claim to think, that it’s so obvious that, despite my clearly not seeing it, you refuse to explain) gives me any reason why *religion* should be priveliged in your worldview as deserving specific scorn. That is, I can’t see any logical reason, under the rules as you have laid them out, that religion *alone* must be excluded. Actually, you’re reminding me quite a bit of Plato’s Republic, and I half-expect that next, you’ll be insisting that art, being unscientific, must go as well. And music. And love. But, of course, you’ll do Plato one better, since I can’t see any reason that you’d keep philosophy around either, since it’s just one more system whose methods are incompatible with your god, Science.
That’s what really troubles me with your mindset, that, whatever you say, you want to deify science, to say that its methods are the only way to Truth. Which seems to me to not just miss the point of science, but to be just a hair hypocritical.
But maybe I’m reading too much into this. “Science and religion are incompatible” is, after all, true in a sense, the same way that hammers and watermellons are incompatable, or the way you can’t stick a USB plug into an electrical outlet. That’s just not a very meaningful statement to make. And it sounds to me like you’re trying to use “incompatible” in a more meaningful way. You seem to be saying that religion and science can’t operate in their separate domains side by side without one undermining the other. You are just flat out wrong on this point. And this is so obvious that if you deny it, you are either wrong, stupid, or lying. Or all three.
February 7th, 2006 at 8:48 pm
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/politics/08nasa.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=login
February 7th, 2006 at 9:59 pm
I gloated a little too, but folks, realize this: if George Deutsch actually lied on his resume, that’s bad news…
They could fire him for that, declare the case closed, and never address
the real issues.
February 7th, 2006 at 10:53 pm
sol aisenberg, your conjucture looks like tired light which does not work because it does not allow for time dilation of supernova at great distances (and which Big Bang theory does allow), As far as I can tell you’re just a run of the mill crackpot who thinks he has a ‘theory’ of everything when he doesn’t.
Fangz, I do not see where I made a strawman argument. The fact that religion was used to explain the world by prescientific people is not in dispute. Now either the no-contests don’t know the history of their religion or they do but just don’t care about the fact that they’re running counter to their own history.
As Caledonian said:
“No one can serve two masters with incompatible demands – you end up either remaining true to one and compromising your devotion to the other, or vice versa. You have to make a choice.”
February 7th, 2006 at 10:53 pm
Ross, from a Mind Occasionally Voyaging, said: “Assuming for a moment that I were willing to grant your point”
Quite frankly, you are in a position to grant nothing. The demonstration has been made. You must either show a failing in its logic or accept its conclusion.
“I’m curious what you think of philosophy, of metaphysics, of, for that matter, the humanities in general.”
“I think even you must agree that there are questions which science can not, by definition answer; it can explain the laws that we observe at work, but it can’t, generally, say why these laws should be the way they are — it can tell me that E=mc^2, but it can’t tell me why the speed of light is (about) 300,000,000 m/s and not, say, 400,000,000 m/s. It can tell me how the universe came about, but not why.”
You are confusing questions that are asked with the word ‘why’ and teleology. There’s no reason to presume that a) there is no underlying reason why (for example) light travels 3E9 m/s and that b) science cannot show why that speed is the result of deeper principles.
“So what do you think of metaphysics? What do you think of the fields of inquiry that aren’t science? Philosophy can’t be disproven.”
Of course it can – at least, competent philosophy can, when it’s wrong. Either a flaw in the logic of the philosophical argument can be found, or investigation reveals one or more of the premises on which the argument is founded to be incorrect.
“If, as you seem to insist, science is all there is”
How about you deal with the arguments that have already been made, not create strawmen to joust at?
“That is, I can’t see any logical reason, under the rules as you have laid them out, that religion *alone* must be excluded.”
It’s a good thing no such argument has been made, then.
“But maybe I’m reading too much into this. “Science and religion are incompatible†is, after all, true in a sense, the same way that hammers and watermellons are incompatable, or the way you can’t stick a USB plug into an electrical outlet.”
Those metaphors are almost, but not quite, completely wrong in every respect. Science and religion are incompatible in the same way that A and ~A are incompatible.
“You seem to be saying that religion and science can’t operate in their separate domains side by side without one undermining the other.”
I have no interest in what you imagine me to be saying. Religion and science do not operate in separate domains. They operate in the same domain with rules that mutually exclude each other – that is, as long as religion attempts to make meaningful statements about reality. If it stops, then they’re no longer in the same domain – but then they’re even more completely incompatible than before, because all science does is produce meaningful statements about reality.
I think you’re incapable of refuting my argument. Further, I think you know that. And that is why you’ve reduced yourself to arguing against positions that you’ve put in your opponents’ mouths.
February 8th, 2006 at 12:43 am
You’re right. I can’t argue your argument. Because I don’t understand it. I’ve asked you to explain, but you just keep saying “It’s obvious, and therefore if you don’t see it you’re lying or an idiot.” Your argument is *gibberish* and I can’t argue against gibberish.
The closest things you’ve made to an actual argument have been here:
“What’s important to note is that science deals with that which is real. If religion is (metaphorically speaking) orthogonal to science, then religion cannot deal with that which is real – which is equivalent to saying that it contains no true statements about the world. In other words, it’s all objectively wrong.”
and here:
“Science actively seeks to falsify its content – when observations are incompatible with hypotheses, we reject the hypotheses. When observation contradicts religious dogma, the response is to believe even more strongly. Ceasing to believe in an invalidated hypothesis is a failure in religion – it is a requirement for success in science.”
The first statement is flawed in three ways.
First, you claim that “science deals with what is real” therefore religion “religion cannot deal with that which is real”. This is logically invalid. A statement does not imply its inverse. “science deals with real” does not imply “not-science deals with not-real” a=>b does not imply ~a=>~b. What you really want to say is “Science is the only thing which deals with what is real, and science deals with everything that is real”. This is either a nonstandard definition of “science”, or of “real”. And it’s wrong.
Secondly, you claim that “If religion is (metaphorically speaking) orthogonal to science, then religion cannot deal with that which is real.” Orthagonality is not the same thing as negation. Even if ~a=>~b, religion is not the antithesis of science. You are trying to argue that it is, which is fine, but at this point, you are assuming the thing you are trying to prove. This is circular logic. “Religion is the antithesis of science. Therefore religion can not deal with reality. Therefore religion is the antithesis of science.”
Thirdly, you claim that “dealing with what is real” (that is, the goal of science) is the same thing as “truth”. This is not a standard definition of truth. You yourself have claimed (and I agree) that science “actively seeks to falsify its content.” Any scientific theory is open to being disproven by future observation. This is the way science is meant to work. This is what makes science such a good way to deal with the world. But it means that what is known by science is *never* “truth”. Truth can not be disproven. That’s just what truth means. This is the *key* difference between science and religion. Religion deals with Truth. Science deals with hypotheses and observations. However good a reason you have to accept a hypothesis, it is not truth — and the second you forget that, you’ve turned science into a religion and robbed it of its power. Now, lest you think I’m playing some strange semantic game, this is also the key difference between science and *mathematics*. Mathematical theorems are *also* not prone to being disproved by new observations. Every scientific theory could be disproven the instant we discover something in the universe we didn’t know about before. The pythagorean theorem can’t be disproven (it can, on the other hand, be shown not to apply to some context). It is True. It is true in a way that no scientific theory is *or can be* true.
This understanding is key to the mistake in the second passage I cited above. “When observation contradicts religious dogma, the response is to believe even more strongly” is false. It is not the case that “this observation contradicts my religious hypothesis, therefore I do not discard the hypothesis and instead believe it more strongly.” A religious belief is not a hypothesis. It is not *open* to being disproven. It is something more akin to a mathematical postulate. If you measured a right triangle and found that its sides did not obey the pythagorean theorem, would you discard the pythagorean theorem? I think it’s more likely that you’d assume that something *else* was going on — that something was confounding your measurement or your application of the law.
If the religious belief is not a hypothesis, is not subject to being disproven, then the fact that it is not rejected does not say anything about the religious method being anathema to science. All you have proven is that religion does not follow the scientific method. Neither does mathematics. But there’s a whole mess of science you can’t do if you dismiss mathematics as unscientific.
I don’t deny that. historically, religion has been conflated, especially in the public mind, with proto- and pre-science. I think, though ,that if you actually look at serious theological writings, and not what goes on in the small churches, you’ll find this to be much less the case. If I were to judge science by what the layperson thinks of it rather than what the actual community of scholars thinks, I’d probably have a lot less confidence in its value. But even so, the fact that religion is often practiced badly and was practiced badly in the past does not make those bad practices “what religion is about”. Have you looked at the early history of science? Aristotle built his physics on non-experimental methods. He deduced that things fall because they like being on the ground, that the earth is at the center of the universe, and that heavy things fall faster than light things. So why is it that I’m accused of being disingenuous when I refuse to use the mistaken notions of our forbears as the definition of “what science is all about”, but you aren’t being disingenuous when you refuse to use bad science as a basis for your definition of science?
February 8th, 2006 at 3:32 am
I just came across this blog tonight after my husband informed me about the NASA appointee. I have felt attacked by the religious and moral police since the Bush administration took office. They tout that their beliefs are the only ones that are correct. They attack anyone that believes in science or women’s rights (or any minority rights for that matter). They just don’t get it. It is science that has paved the way for every service or product that humans enjoy on a daily basis including the air conditioning for their places of worship. If they really want to go by the “good book” then they should stop going to those crazy people called doctors for medicine, call the electric company to cut off their electricity(no lattes for them), and drag out the loom for clothes(oh, wait that was invented!).
I have observed for years the dumbing down of America with every aspect of life from the evening new (Jackson visits a friend in Germany) to pictures on cash registers instead of words. We the citizens have to educate our children about fact verses fiction and stand up to political hacks telling us what we will believe or not believe. We can’t allow creationism or ID to infiltrate our public schools. It is a religious belief and should stay that way. They want to participate in the dumbing down of American then they can do it in their places of worship or home. It was the dumbing down of America that got Bush elected, so it seems we need to do more on our part by helping to educate with facts.
We have let this administration steamroll over citizens for years from privacy rights to scientific beliefs. It is time that we show this administration what we think of their performance by voting them out of office. Maybe just maybe we will have enough votes in the House and Senate to do a little thing called Impeachment. The one thing that the fundamentalists do well is organize. We should do the same.
This blog may have already talked about this, but there is a creationism museum (I use the term lightly) in Northern Kentucky. If you live in that part of the country, be on the look out for their believers trying to quietly infiltrate your schools.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/museum/
February 8th, 2006 at 8:36 am
Oh fer gad’s sake.
bestonnet:
Exactly. The good religious people who aren’t trying to take us back to the dark ages note don’t give a damn about their own history. They think they’ve moved on from all that. Apparently, you haven’t.
The idea that science and religion are incompatible demands is what is in question, here. Put it simply – what ‘demands’ must religion necessarily place on a religious scientist which will lead to conflict with science. Give a specific example here that applies for *all* possible religions, or show a general rule to generate one.
Caledonian:
You seriously need to define some terms. To most humans, being in completely separate domains does not imply incompatibility – much the reverse. It means talk of compatibility does not make any sense.
Unless you want to make a stronger statement that anything outside of empirically measurable reality is without meaning, *both* subjectively and objectively… Which is a statement that is inherently unscientific, perhaps to the degree of religousness.
And there are hundreds of philosophical statements that inherently cannot be disproved. An example – the assertion that other beings than myself are similarly conscious is a position that cannot be proved or disproved. Logically, it is equally valid to suggest that I’m currently talking to myself, (instead of to a brick wall, it seems) but this is a position that it commonly rejected because it is somewhat inconvenient socially.
Science rejects religion’s received wisdom, true. But science doesn’t say that received wisdom is always false. Rather, the scientific method infers and indeed proves that in matters of empirical declarations, recieved wisdom does not have an effect on the truth value of the particular declaration. But good religion is not making empirical declarations, and believers will argue that they believe whatever they do because after they have ‘received wisdom’, they’ve tested it against their own value systems and individually verified them as true.
February 8th, 2006 at 11:11 am
As a Christian, I would like to do a few things… (though I will probably not accomplish any of them completely) I want to point out that the majority or Christians, and people of other religions as well, are not “anti-science.” I also want to point out that Biblical Christians are NOT against any groups’ civil rights, and have in fact played the most significant roll in advancing civil rights of any group in America. That’s the one that I’ll probably fail on, not because I’m wrong, but because there is just too much information to type and still keep this interesting.
My first point: in general, Christians are not anti-science. (we are, however, against any worldview that portrays a different god, or lack of a god, but that is not the point because in theory science doesn’t deal with the metaphysical nature of reality) Yes, there are Christians who believe in Fiat Creationism, Theistic Evolution, and so on. This is not walking away from science so much as it is entering the game with a DIFFERENT set of preconceptions. When I examine the world, I see it through the metaphysical lense of “God made this” so my question is, “how did HE do this?” rather then “where did this come from?” An Atheist or Agnostic, when they look at the world, starts with a metaphysical preconception too. That preconception is that there is no God, or that it is impossible to know the nature or existance of God. Because they have a different starting point, of course they come to a different conclusion when they examine the universe as a whole. It doesn’t make the Christian unscientific that he comes to a theistic conclusion, it only makes it clear that he started with different metaphysical preconceptions.
I for one, observe what Darwin observed, and come to much the same conclusion that he came to: God created diversity of the species through the process of natural selection. I look at the fossil record, and the rock record as a whole, and what I find supports this theory. I find a general trend that is less complex to more complex fossils. However, my conclusion is still different from the theory of Evolution as it currently stands because I see this as God’s handywork, because I preassume the existance of God rather then the nonexistance or unknowable nature of God, where the theory of Evolution does not recognize the hand of a creator, and in fact is used by many as an excuse to not believe in HIM.
Now onto my second point: If you were to read the gospel stories found in the Bible, and look at them in their cultural and historical contexts, you would find that Jesus was a radical thinker for HIS day. Not only did HE espouse women’s rights, but Sameritan rights (most Jews of Jesus’ day treated Sameritans about as well as White people treated African Americans in the South in the 40′s and 50′s) and foreigners’ rights as well. The apostle Paul was also something of a radical thinker. He came to the conclusion that it was his responsibility to bridge the gap of cultures, not the other way around. To the Jews, he became like a Jew, to the gentiles (any non-Jewish people) he became like a gentile.
Somewhere along the way, the Church as a whole lost that, and forgot that our purpose is to share God’s love with all HIS children. But that fire began to burn bright once more during the Reformation. (And from time to time before that, though in isolated cases) Most abolitionists, both in Europe and in the United States were Christians. Not only that, but the civil rights movement of the 1960′s was founded on the Church. Dr. Martin Luther King Junior was a preacher in a Baptist Church. So were most of the other masterminds of the civil rights movement. This isn’t to discount the part that Malcom X (Sorry for spelling, I think I slaughtered that one) played, but Christians did play the largest roll in advancing the movement.
I don’t want people to think that I’m regarding every other worldview as complete rubbish, or that I think people can not do good things apart from Christianity. (or religion in general) I’m just sick of being labeled a bigot and a racist because I’m Christian. All that I really ask though is that you get the facts–all of them–then make up your own mind. I spent too long arguing from a possition of ignorance and I hate to see others doing so on both sides of this debate.
Now onto something else that is rather pressing… Caledonian, your deffinition of science is rather ludicrous. I like what C. S. Lewis wrote about your particular brand of Humanism in his book, “Miracles.”
The cardinal difficulty that he finds with Naturalism (which he held to be true before he became a Christian) is that “If Naturalism is true, every finite thing or event must be (in principle) explicable in terms of the Total System…” (Lewis, 17) That is to say that your brand of science should be able to eventually explain every observed phenomenon in this Nature that we live in. It is reasonable for me to demand that, because if your brand of Naturalism is true, then nothing beyond Nature exists, so Nature and the examination therof should yield explanations for all possible phenomina found therin. “If any one thing exists which is of such a kind that we see in advance the impossibility of ever giving it that kind of explanation, then Naturalism would be in ruins. If necessities of thought force us to allow to any one thing any degree of independance from the Total System–if any one thing makes good a claim to be on its own, to be something more than an expression of the character of Nature as a whole–then we have abandoned Naturalism. For by Naturalism we mean the doctrine that onlyh Nature– the whoole interlocked system–exists.” (Lewis, 17-18)
Lewis goes on to examine the difference between old atomic theory and Quantum theory brefely, noting that since an individual atom’s actions can not be predicted, that it is reasonable to say that it acts outside of nature, not supernaturally, but sub-naturally. but that isn’t what he sees as Naturalism’s biggest flaw–the human mind is. “It is clear that everything we know, beyond our own immediate sensations, is inferred from those sensations…” (Lewis, 20)
We infer evolution because of fossils, the existance of our own brains because of what we find in the skulls of other humans in disection chambers, and so on, Lewis goes on to explain. So, “All possible knowledge, then, depends on the validity of reasoning.” (Lewis, 21) If it could be shown that either reasoning is based then on irrational principles (such as quantum theory) or is completely dependent on the Total System, then it is not really reasoning, and no knowledge can be truely gained. In short, Lewis makes the claim that without the existance of the supernatural, science is invalid. As Einstein put it, “Without science, faith is blind. Without faith, science is lame.” The two need each other to establish a truely coherent worldview.
February 8th, 2006 at 1:50 pm
Let me attempt a little bridge-building.
What Caldonian is trying to point out is that there is a fundamental conflict in the approach of science vs. the approach of religion. Science is about fact, experiment, verifiction through testing. Religion is about faith, accepting things without evidence. Those two methodologies are fundamentally at odds. That is the conflict that Caldonian appears to be emphasizing.
What others are trying to explain is that while those approaches are fundamentally opposing, the proper use for each is not in each other’s domain. Applying faith to solve answers about how the universe operates is fundamentally flawed. Unfortunately, religions developed by trying to answer questions about the universe and how it works as much as by trying to explain why the universe works the way it does. That is the realm of philosophy rather than experimental validation.
The crux of the matter is how to separate ultimate meaning and philosophical questions from their associated reality claims. For example, if I were to claim that God is the ultimate cause of the existence of the universe, I am making an existential claim. I am making a claim about the existence of an entity called God, and his role in forming the universe. Existential claims are typically subject to science via requiring evidence to support the claim. However, the God claim has a particular loophole in that there is no way evidentially to fully eliminate the possibility of his existence. We are left with a scientifically unfalsifiable claim, which is why we say the God claim is non-scientific. But we are not without tools to address the claim – the tools of logic and reasoning that apply in philosophy. Still, those are beyond science itself.
So one can suppose on philosophical grounds the existence of a God and his/her role as the ultimate cause. One can accept that claim on faith and not be in conflict with science. One is not using a scientific mindset for that answer, but it is an extra-scientific question being addressed, so that is okay.
However, belief that God is ultimately responsible is not a descriptive claim about the mechanism that the God used for the action. The conflict arises when one asserts, based upon faith and descriptions in some dubious book with a long but twisted history, that the method of God’s role is “Instanteous Appearance” vs. the claim of “Iterative Development Over Time”. We call those two claims by different, more familiar names. The first is Creationism, the second is Evolution. As soon as the claim is made about the methodology, it becomes and evidenciary claim, and falls into the realm of science. That is where Instantaneous Appearance and Evolution are compared against the evidence – the fossil record, geography, DNA, comparative anatomy and physiology, etc. That is where Evolution has proven to be far more compatible with the evidence, and thus the Instantaneous Appearance claim is rejected as incompatible with the evidence.
Note my use of the term “Instantaneous Appearance”. I am specifically trying to separate the reality claim of the how from the religious claim of whether God is involved or not. The Evolution vs. Creationism conflict is scientifically not about Evolution vs. God, it’s about Iterative Development Over Time vs. Instantaneous Appearance. That subtlety is glossed over by both sides, to the detriment of all by fueling the conflict.
The Philosophical ramifications argument is a separate argument from the science argument.
What Caldonian is focusing on is the inherent conflict in mindset and approaches between religion and science. Science is the approach of testing, validation through scrutiny, falsification. Religion is about accepting through faith and not scrutinizing or testing. The two are fundamentally opposed ways of thinking. In that respect they are irreconcilable opposites. Caldonian is not completely wrong when he says that one can’t be true to science and religion, because he is talking about the application of that mindset and that approach to claims.
What others are stating is that faith is an acceptable mindset to approach the questions in the philosophical realm, even though is it not appropriate in the physical realm. I believe this is a fundamental difference of opinion. Caldonian feels that faith is an invalid methodology, so it remains invalid in other realms, where others accept faith where evidence does not function.
February 8th, 2006 at 2:05 pm
Ross, from A Mind Occasionally Voyaging Said:
>Thirdly, you claim that “dealing with what is real†(that is, the goal of science) is the same thing as “truthâ€. This is not a standard definition of truth. You yourself have claimed (and I agree) that science “actively seeks to falsify its content.†Any scientific theory is open to being disproven by future observation. This is the way science is meant to work. This is what makes science such a good way to deal with the world. But it means that what is known by science is *never* “truthâ€. Truth can not be disproven. That’s just what truth means. This is the *key* difference between science and religion. Religion deals with Truth. Science deals with hypotheses and observations.
This gets to a sensitive matter. Religions claim to have the Truth. I don’t believe that they do. Furthermore, this argument misses the point, because it still casts Religion as dealing with evidenciary claims. This is a faulty use of faith. I see Truth as “what is really out there”, and to me that is a realilty claim. I don’t accept that religions have found valid answers, or even a valid approach, to those claims. I appreciate the emphasis that science is dealing with finding models and descriptions through falsification, so are never truly proven. But I think that is not the same as thinking they have nothing to do with “how things really are”.
>Now, lest you think I’m playing some strange semantic game, this is also the key difference between science and *mathematics*. Mathematical theorems are *also* not prone to being disproved by new observations. Every scientific theory could be disproven the instant we discover something in the universe we didn’t know about before. The pythagorean theorem can’t be disproven (it can, on the other hand, be shown not to apply to some context). It is True. It is true in a way that no scientific theory is *or can be* true.
Except this is because the words “theory” and “theorem” are not the same thing. You are equivocating. A Mathematical Theorem is a description of behavior more akin to a Scientific Law. A Scienfic Law is a description of how things behave, given certain assumptions. A Mathematical Theorem works the same way. Given certain assumptions, this description is accurate. It simply isn’t valid to compare a Mathematical Theorem with a Scientific Theory.
>This understanding is key to the mistake in the second passage I cited above. “When observation contradicts religious dogma, the response is to believe even more strongly†is false. It is not the case that “this observation contradicts my religious hypothesis, therefore I do not discard the hypothesis and instead believe it more strongly.†A religious belief is not a hypothesis. It is not *open* to being disproven. It is something more akin to a mathematical postulate. If you measured a right triangle and found that its sides did not obey the pythagorean theorem, would you discard the pythagorean theorem? I think it’s more likely that you’d assume that something *else* was going on — that something was confounding your measurement or your application of the law.
There is a certain class of religious believer who think evidence against their belief is only meant to test their belief, so they must strengthen their faith (belief without evidence) rather than evaluate the evidence and adjust their belief. Whether or not this applies to you is not the issue.
February 8th, 2006 at 2:47 pm
Pat Kelley Said:
>And, speaking of which, I really want a T-shirt with Nerd Patrol printed in large, bold letters. Frankly, the idea that he would characterize an interest in math and science as originally qualifying for a “Nerd Patrol†speaks volumes.
Not really. I don’t think it reflects the President’s attitude for him to recognize that for many people an interest in math and science gets one labeled “Nerd” and associated with the “Nerd Patrol”. This is a cultural attitude often prevalent in schools, and his recognition of that does not imply his approval of it. In fact, he is explicitly stating he doesn’t approve of it.
Give the guy a break. There’s enough actual crap coming out of his mouth, there’s no need to be misconstruing his position to find things to hate about him.
February 8th, 2006 at 3:15 pm
“What others are stating is that faith is an acceptable mindset to approach the questions in the philosophical realm, even though is it not appropriate in the physical realm. I believe this is a fundamental difference of opinion. Caldonian feels that faith is an invalid methodology, so it remains invalid in other realms, where others accept faith where evidence does not function.”
What I feel is irrelevant. According to the most basic principles of rational thought, religion is an invalid methodology.
Furthermore, there isn’t anything but the physical world as far as we’re concerned. It’s convenient to treat ideas and the like as ‘abstractions’, but even abstractions exist only through the interaction of physical systems. If religion attempts to make statements about reality, it necessarily crosses over into the domain of science. If it doesn’t, it becomes utterly and completely meaningless.
If you believe that a religious statement has any meaningful implications at all, even if it’s only on your own behavior, then you’re permitting the domains of science and religion to intersect. Since their methods are mutually exclusive, you must therefore choose between them. If you don’t believe that religion has any meaningful implications, you’ve already discarded it as invalid – and it still isn’t compatible with science.
February 8th, 2006 at 6:21 pm
Just as important though is the thought that this guy could have done a good job, after all he was a journalism major.
And, not knowing…other than one of the duties of the PAO is to publically
“Count down” for all the launches, I would expect that much of the rest of the duties include writing so it’s not too terribly far fetched to assume a good writer could do this.
Let’s not forget that, in the history of science, most science was done by amateurs, especially in Astronomy.
And today we still have amateurs who use the SOHO to discover sun-grazing comets.
And we still have fellow amateurs such as David Levy who has discovered many comets the old way just sweeping his telescope back & forth in the pre dawn sky.
Or how about Clyde Tombaugh, a farmboy who could draw planets in great detail, picked to help out in an observatory and discovered Pluto?
Yes, while I do look up to PhD’d astronomers like Phil, there is still a place for us amateurs.
Sometimes I think we get a bit too carried away with academia though….
February 8th, 2006 at 8:20 pm
Caledonian, I do not argue against your claim that religion and “faith” in general does neccicarilly cross into the physical realm from time to time. As you observed, it would be meaninglessness if it didn’t. What I do contend though is that “science” as you define it crosses into the metaphysical realm by deffinition. Aristotle wrote that “Those who wish to succeed must ask the right preliminary questions.” In his book, Metaphysics. I contend that the same is neccicary of science. Your presuppositions very strongly influince your conclusions… That is why when I look at the world, I see evidence of a designer all around me, where you see only the effects of the Total System.
I’m not contending that my view is better or that your view is better, only that the two of us are able to see the same data and interpret it in radically different ways because our presuppositions. This is where science invades the realm of the metaphysical–the realm of faith and religion. Like it or not, your Humanism is a religious idea at its core. It addresses ultimate issues such as “where did we come from?” “Why are we here?” “Is history going anywhere?” “Can anything ever really be known?” and so on. These aren’t questions of science (well, “Where did I come from?” is sorta, but not entirely) they are questions of philosophy. Consiquentially, your assertion that religion is an invalid methodology for gaining knowledge about anything is internally incoherent and self-refuiting.
Irish Man, I understand what Caledonian is trying to say. I contend that he is not entirely correct in saying so though. There are realms of Science that absolutely no religious/philosophical system short of post modernism (which may I add is somewhere beyond rediculous and unlivable) have any issue with. Chemistry, Physical Biology, and Physical Geology come to mind. They deal entirely in the realm of observable data, and have virtually no presuppositions neccicary in examining them. Consiquentially they do not radically dissagree with religion’s interpretation of reality, but instead fit very nicely in the framework therof. It isn’t until science starts dealing with issues of a more philosophical nature such as origins that religion begins to radically dissagree with it. I would argue that science is out of it’s element, and is becoming somewhat ad-hoc when dealing with these issues, (They are no longer simply an issue of examining the Total System as it currently is, but are extrapolating back in time that things always have acted in much the same manner that they act today… A potentially dangerious extrapolation that has been demonstrated to be false in several instances that I am aware of… by science I should add.) so the weight of its assertions and claims becomes weaker. Couple that with Atheistic scientists’ claim that God can not play any roll in explaining the origins of whatever (be it a rock formation, life on earth, or the existance of the entire universe) and of course people who hold that God exists and is active in the world are going to say “Hold on, that can’t be right.” They have every right to. Their ideas about origins are not invalid, as the atheistic scientist claims, just because they start with the presupposition that there is a God. (Note that I do agree that Fiat Creationism is unscientific, though that isn’t because of their presupposition that there is a God, but rather because they interpret the data to mean exactly what they want it to, rather then interpreting it to mean what it means in light of their presupposition… And they also sellectively interpret the Bible to mean what they want it to mean, rather then what it “litterally” means, as they claim.) Before a person has the right to make the claim that my view is invalid because it is theistic, it is that person’s responsibility to establish that there is no God. Establishing that HE is not neccicary to explain a phenominon is not enough to establish that HE did not act through that phenominon. Conversely, before I can say that person’s view is invalid because it is atheistic, I must first establish that there is a God, and that HE is active in the world. Neither of these can be accomplished, so it is stupid and foolish to make the assertion that no theory that doesn’t coorelate with an atheistic worldview can be true, or conversely that no theory that doesn’t fit into the framework of a theistic worldview can be true.
On the other hand, Pascal’s wager establishes that it does make far more sence to believe in any god then none at all… though that’s a different discussion all together.
I will say one more thing, then be done. The claim that there is no God is just as much an existential claim as that there is a God. It makes the assertion that this entity, God, does not exist, and consiquentially has no interaction with the realm of Nature. The claim that God’s existance is irrelivant is even weaker, because it conveniently ignores the fact that if there is a God, and HE is active in the universe, then it will act in a manner totally different from if there is no God, or HE is not active in the universe. Thus I would contend that claiming that my assumption that there is a God makes my theory unscientific makes little sence, since it is impossible to make a theory apart from making an existential claim of one form or another about God.
February 8th, 2006 at 8:39 pm
I lied, I have one more thing that I have to say… Irish Man, religion may as a whole be based on blind faith, but I know of one major world religion that discourages blind faith, and instead encourages understanding what and why you believe. Augustine, C. S. Lewis, and a host of others have done an excellent job of expressing this… But Christianity, in the sence that the Bible uses the word, is very much about acting on the evidence. Why did the Samaritan woman believe that Jesus was Messiah? HE told her “everything that she had ever done.” Why did 3,000 people believe on the day of Pentacost? What the disciples said made sence. Why did Paul believe on the Road to Damascus? He saw something that convinced him. Why did the disciples believe that Jesus was indeed Messiah? They saw HIS miracles. They saw the empty tomb. They saw HIM walking around post-mortum. The same is true of the Old Testiment (Though Judeism is not a major world religion) Moses went back to Egypt because of something he saw. Isaiah spoke out because of an experience that he had. Jeremiah likewise. Same thing happened with Giddeon. Why did David fight Goliath? God had already helped him to kill a bear and a lion. I could go on and on, but it makes no difference. My point is made. there are many cases where faith is, and must be based on reason, just as there are many cases where reason is and must be based on faith. The two are not mutually exclusive, but rather co-dependant on one another.
February 8th, 2006 at 10:30 pm
‘Humanism’? Who brought humanism into this debate?
My moral beliefs have not been mentioned, nor can they be inferred from the discussion thus far.
Science does not venture into metaphysics (as that term is commonly understood). It rejects the concept of metaphysics itself.
There’s nothing more to say on the matter.
February 9th, 2006 at 3:43 am
The understanding of the word “truth” has changed over the past few hundred years. In the days of Newton, truth was morality. Sorry, the other way around: A moral truth was truth. Science was theory (of course in a scientific understanding of the word theory, as in theory of gravity).
To say that there is no metaphysics, is metaphysics too.
When it comes to medical truths, (based upon evidence), they change incessantly.
February 9th, 2006 at 6:59 am
To say that there is no metaphysics, is metaphysics too.
And a vegetarian is a special kind of meat eater.
February 9th, 2006 at 9:08 am
Caledonian:
“My moral beliefs have not been mentioned, nor can they be inferred from the discussion thus far.”
I am confused as to how this could be the case.
It appears that you have claimed, repeatedly, that all that is real is the exclusive domain of science. Morality is not science; “good” and “evil” are inherently unscientific concepts. Therefore, morality is not science, and therefore, by your argument, not real.
You also say:
“If you believe that a religious statement has any meaningful implications at all, even if it’s only on your own behavior, then you’re permitting the domains of science and religion to intersect. Since their methods are mutually exclusive, you must therefore choose between them. ”
I do not see how this argument could fail to apply to morality. Since concepts of good and evil are not scientific, they can not be “real” according to the schema you have described.
I can see no logically consistant way for you to accept the existence of morality, and therefore, by your own description, it can’t have “meaningful implications at all, even if it’s only on your own behavior.”
It appears that simple deductive reasoning gives me a way to infer your moral beliefs:
That which is not scientific does not have any meaningful implications (~a => ~b)
Morality is not scientific (c => ~a)
Therefore morality has no meaningful implications (c => ~b; modus ponens)
Not that I actually think you’re amoral, but it seems to be the only logical consequence of your argument.
February 9th, 2006 at 9:30 am
Gee, in Intelligent Design, shouldn’t the object designed actually show some excellence? Isn’t excellence part of the definition of Intelligent? Then with that in mind, let’s look at the design of the human(presumably best) body,,,
!) non-functional appendix(a bit of a waste of biological rsources)
2) Tonsils that tend to accumulate more infection that they prevent.
3) Feet that go “flat”.
4) cancer( wild, uncontrolled cells. Gee, how did THAT get past the design team?)
I know there are 40 different examples of species that have or are in the process of developing, eyes. So, how come the designer had to do it over and over and over and,,,
If I had a student design engineer who was so bloody incompetant, I’d
have to say he was anything but Intelligent,,,
Gary 7
February 9th, 2006 at 10:12 am
Caledonian, your ethical beliefs are at the very heart of the matter. If I can not trust you to be honest, (A question of ethics, not of science) then I can not trust anything that you say… Consiquentially no real knowledge or flow of understanding can take place, and science can not happen. (By the way, I infered that you are a Secular Humanist because no other worldview that I am aware of [except Communism] would dare to go so far as to say that the metaphysical can not exist, or affect the natural world.)
Also, by denying the existance of the metaphysical, you are making a metaphysical claim. It goes something like this: “There is nothing beyond the physical world.” is your base supposition and claim. However, you make this claim specifically about what is beyond they physical world–metaphysics.
PK, this isn’t something that can really be analogised to vegetarians vs. other people, so much as it is something that can be analogised to the various foods out there, and why some people abstain from certian types of foods. Let’s say that vegetables are analogous to the physical world, and meat to the metaphysical. A vegetarian’s refusal to eat meat does not make meat nonexistant or nonrelivant… All it means is that for some reason the vegetarian doesn’t think that eating meat is appropriate, so misses out on the potential benefites of meat in their diet. Likewise, a Secular Humanist’s refusal to acknowledge the metaphysical does not negate its existance, and potential interaction with the physical universe. All it means is that the Secular Humanist is of the oppinion that the metaphysical doesn’t matter in studying the physical world, and consiquentially misses out on the insights that come from examining the metaphysical nature of existance.
I think that I need to clarify and define a term though. That may be part of why I am doing such a miserable job of explaining this. When I say metaphysical, what I mean is the study of being and knowing, and the true nature of existance, and implications therof. Epistomology (the theory of knowledge, what constitutes knowledge, where it comes from, what purpose it has and so on) is a subcategory of metaphysics that nobody can escape from by denouncing the whole subject as irrelivant. If you can not explain 1: what constitutes knowledge, and 2: how to obtain knowledge, then you can not honestly hold that any view you hold is accurate or valid. Another subcategory (though I don’t remember the fancy name for it) that can not be escaped is the true nature of existance. “Will nature continue to act in a predictable manner tommorrow?” fits into this category. If you can not give me an answer based on nature alone that does not lead to circular reasoning, then you have no basis for believing that things will remain ordered, if you denounce the possibility of the existance of the supernatural. You have to take it on blind faith… Consiquentially science as you have defined it again becomes invalid. The final subcategory is Onthology, the nature of being. “Am I real?” “Are you real?” “Is the world real?” Try as you may, all the more answer that can be given relying solely on Nature as our guide is blindly saying yes and taking it on faith–wait… isn’t that your biggest qualm with religion is blind faith…? Isn’t it great fun to find yourself in the same (percieved to be sinking) boat?
February 9th, 2006 at 10:25 am
Gary, did it ever occure to you that Intelligent Design, just like the more atheistic theory of Evolution does not and can not perfectly explain what is seen? Both are conceptions of finite, and fallible humans, so demanding perfection is an unreasonable and unrealistic goal.
My contention is that based on my presuppositions, Intelligent Design makes best light of the evidence. According to your presuppositions, it doesn’t. It really is that simple.
I would also add that the more anatomists and physiologists study the human body, the more oddities they find that actually make sence in ways that they hadn’t expected. I have no reason to expect that this trend will end any time soon. Our understanding in that aria of science is still very limited as I understand it.
February 9th, 2006 at 10:56 am
Gary 7,
It’s a lot of fun to make “stupid design” arguments, but they don’t really do much to debunk ID.
In the first place, “excellence” is subjective; you see cancer, flat feet, and tonsilitis as design flaws, but this is only an assessment you can make if you know the whole intent of the design. You wouldn’t look at the Mona Lisa and assume there was no intelligence behind its design because the paint is cracked. For all we know, cancer is just Divine DRM.
In fact, the “stupid design” argument seems to me to be a little counterproductive: it seems like the natural processes of evolution would get rid of any major “design flaws”, since they would be disadvantageous and therefore get “bred out”. The fact that they’re not could be taken as “evidence” that they’re in there because *someone wants them there*. That is, you could argue that the human body is designed *too* poorly for it to just be an accident.
(This is, like all ID arguments, not a very good one, but still. Back before ID was a thing, I used to have little debates with a staunch creationist. One of the things he kept pulling out as an argument was “If evolution is real, why haven’t we evolved all the bugs out?”)
It’s easy enough to demonstrate that ID is bunk using valid scientific arguments. “Stupid design” is nothing more than a clever joke.
February 10th, 2006 at 12:29 pm
All I can say is that Hansen must have been desperate indeed to go to the NY Times with his grievances. The man is certainly no fool. He HAD to know the kind of backlash this would engender from the Bush administration.
It is realy hard to escape the conclusion that going to the Times was a LAST resort (certaintly not the first) and that he had probably tried — and failed — to get NASA administrators (perhaps even NASA Chief Michael Griffin himself) to do something (ANYTHING) about the problem.
Are we really to believe that people like Griffin had ZERO inkling before the NY Times piece of what Hansen and several others have said was going on at NASA?
This is simply too much to swallow.
From what I have read on other science blogs, I think people are giving Griffin WAY too much benefit of the doubt in this case. It is NOT sufficient simply to send off a flurry of emails re-iterating NASA’s “commitment to openness”.
What Griffin SHOULD have done by now is set in motion an UNBIASED investigation of Hansen’s allegations — by a team of university scientists who are completely independent of NASA and the US government.
ALL of those who are found to have engaged in the political interference (not just Deutsch) should be unceremoniously shown the door. If Griffin himself knew what was going on and did nothing, he should resign.
February 10th, 2006 at 2:31 pm
I said:
>What others are stating is that faith is an acceptable mindset to approach the questions in the philosophical realm, even though is it not appropriate in the physical realm. I believe this is a fundamental difference of opinion. Caldonian feels that faith is an invalid methodology, so it remains invalid in other realms, where others accept faith where evidence does not function.
Caledonian Said:
>What I feel is irrelevant. According to the most basic principles of rational thought, religion is an invalid methodology.
>Furthermore, there isn’t anything but the physical world as far as we’re concerned. It’s convenient to treat ideas and the like as ‘abstractions’, but even abstractions exist only through the interaction of physical systems. If religion attempts to make statements about reality, it necessarily crosses over into the domain of science. If it doesn’t, it becomes utterly and completely meaningless.
Chris Albano said:
>Irish Man, I understand what Caledonian is trying to say. I contend that he is not entirely correct in saying so though. There are realms of Science that absolutely no religious/philosophical system short of post modernism (which may I add is somewhere beyond rediculous and unlivable) have any issue with. Chemistry, Physical Biology, and Physical Geology come to mind. They deal entirely in the realm of observable data, and have virtually no presuppositions neccicary in examining them. Consiquentially they do not radically dissagree with religion’s interpretation of reality, but instead fit very nicely in the framework therof. It isn’t until science starts dealing with issues of a more philosophical nature such as origins that religion begins to radically dissagree with it. I would argue that science is out of it’s element, and is becoming somewhat ad-hoc when dealing with these issues,…
I rest my case.
>There are realms of Science that absolutely no religious/philosophical system short of post modernism … have any issue with. Chemistry, Physical Biology, and Physical Geology come to mind. They deal entirely in the realm of observable data, and have virtually no presuppositions neccicary in examining them.
I would contest that. Believers in Homeopathy have a real conflict with Chemistry, even if they don’t realize it. Something can’t simultaneously become less potent and more potent with dilution. Chemistry says dilution weakens the effect. Homeopaths are forced to suppose some extra dimension to the homeopathic preparations – some “memory” inherent in the mix of the properties of the “important” component, triggered by the special method of preparation, the “succession” – shake the mix a special way and it “remembers” the properties even though the active ingredients are no longer present. They have to suppose some kind of magic – a special kind of “energy” that is unspecified, unidentified, unlocalizable and unmeasurable, but somehow conveys the property of memory.
You might quibble that homeopaths aren’t a religion or philosophical system, but I disagree. There is a type of mindset of some people that accept things like Homeopathy, Astrology, Clairvoyance, etc. They have a worldview that there is an extra dimension to reality that science hasn’t tapped into. These believers may not be conventional religion, but their beliefs are “faith-based” and operate in exactly the same mode and form as a religion.
>Before a person has the right to make the claim that my view is invalid because it is theistic, it is that person’s responsibility to establish that there is no God. Establishing that HE is not neccicary to explain a phenominon is not enough to establish that HE did not act through that phenominon. Conversely, before I can say that person’s view is invalid because it is atheistic, I must first establish that there is a God, and that HE is active in the world. Neither of these can be accomplished, so it is stupid and foolish to make the assertion that no theory that doesn’t coorelate with an atheistic worldview can be true, or conversely that no theory that doesn’t fit into the framework of a theistic worldview can be true.
Actually, there are good philosophical grounds to assert that the concept of God is either self-contradictory or a meaningless abstraction. But that does step beyond the evidenciary grounds.
>On the other hand, Pascal’s wager establishes that it does make far more sence to believe in any god then none at all… though that’s a different discussion all together.
Pascal’s wager is a load of hooey that is only convincing to the unsophisticated.
>The claim that there is no God is just as much an existential claim as that there is a God. It makes the assertion that this entity, God, does not exist, and consiquentially has no interaction with the realm of Nature.
I see no positive evidence for the existence of Santa Claus. I see a lot of folk tales and games played with children to make them believe in Santa Claus, but the notion is outlandish and at odds with reality, and there is no positive evidence for it. Therefore, I presume that Santa Claus is not real. If someone were to dig up positive evidence, I would reassess my claim, but for now I’m satisfied. God is in exactly the same position as Santa Claus, except with God adults don’t break down and eventually admit to their children they were lying. The adults continue to believe it themselves.
I can’t hunt down and prove God doesn’t exist by eliminating all possible locations for his existence. For starters, one must define what it is they mean by “God”. (If you actually polled people, you’d come up with an incredibly diverse list of definitions that only bear marginal relation to each other. But most of them claim to be Christians, because of some unexamined social heritage.) And even if I go with a fairly generic and conventional definition of some anthropic supernatural agent, I suddenly find that I am unable to search locations where he could hide. Even if I could search the full expanse and breadth of the universe, from the farthest stars and galaxies to the tiniest quantum fluctuations to the interior of black holes, I still can’t eliminate hiding places for a supernatural agent – outside of the universe, for instance.
However, that’s not the burden on me. I am not required to believe in something that I don’t see convincing evidence for. I’m not required to believe in Santa Claus. I’m not required to believe in fairies and elves and Invisible Pink Unicorns hiding in my garage. I don’t have the burden of proof to disprove them before not believing in them. It is up to people who believe in them to convince me with evidence – not smoke and mirrors and fancy talk, but evidence. Cottingly Fairy pictures won’t do. Got is the same thing. I don’t have to believe in him until I’m shown evidence. I’m not irrational for that position. And most religious people don’t disagree with that notion – they can’t argue with it. So the argument is over what evidence exists and what constitutes evidence, because nobody can argue the premise. The only other response is to rely on Faith – to state that the lack of evidence is intentional so that we have to actively choose to believe. That is an unconvincing argument because it stands normal belief on it’s head. The less evidence I have or the more the evidence is contradictory, the more I believe, because it shows I have faith? That’s ridiculous. And yet it’s argued with a straight face by many believers.
>The claim that God’s existance is irrelivant is even weaker, because it conveniently ignores the fact that if there is a God, and HE is active in the universe, then it will act in a manner totally different from if there is no God, or HE is not active in the universe. Thus I would contend that claiming that my assumption that there is a God makes my theory unscientific makes little sence, since it is impossible to make a theory apart from making an existential claim of one form or another about God.
Do you really want to go down the road of saying that if God exists and is present there will be evidence of his presence? Because the whole point of the debate is that there isn’t evidence, or at least good evidence. If there were evidence, the argument wouldn’t be over whether he exists or what his nature is, the argument (if any) would be over how and why to worship him.
Your previous statement was that a God exists and operates through the mechanisms identified by science. Fine, let’s study those mechanisms and leave the part about God for personal belief.
February 10th, 2006 at 3:01 pm
Chris Albano Said:
>Gary, did it ever occure to you that Intelligent Design, just like the more atheistic theory of Evolution does not and can not perfectly explain what is seen? Both are conceptions of finite, and fallible humans, so demanding perfection is an unreasonable and unrealistic goal.
Hogwash. Intelligent Design is predicated on the assumption of an agent who exists before the universe so he can create and craft the universe. The only candidate for that role is a supernatural agent, a god, something the ID proponents admit to their core constituencies while refuting in public statements and offering that perhaps the Designer is aliens. Right. This god is essentially the God of the Bible – described as all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good. Therefore, perfection is a part of his identity. The lack of perfection in the world is, in fact, one of those huge philosophical problems for religion and christianity in particular. It’s called “the Problem of Evil”. The typical answer proposes something to do with the Fall of Man, and either the eating of the Fruit of Knowledge or else the later Noachian flood.
But the premise of ID is that God is directly responsible, that his creations were built with a particular intent (designed), and that the design was well thought out and well planned (intelligent). A well-planned design by an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good (aka perfect) Designer should be perfect. Flaws point to a lack of intelligence in the design. They show a lack of foresight (Damn, I should have realized those feet would go flat), or a lack of creativity (I’ll start with a monkey and go from there), or a lack of efficiency (let’s add some random, useless tissue that can go bad and kill the organism). If the Design is not perfect, it didn’t come from a perfect God, and so the IDers are chasing a faulty premise that is counterproductive to their main goal anyway, which is to put God back into science. (See the Wedge document.)
“Ah, but God chooses to act through slow, inefficient, flaw-allowing processes,” you say. “His ways are mysterious.” Fine, but then don’t attribute those same flaw-allowing processes as Intelligence and Design.
>My contention is that based on my presuppositions, Intelligent Design makes best light of the evidence.
I get the impression you are working with a flawed concept of what ID means. ID is not just a statement of theistic belief, that “God did it” through whatever means he chose. ID is the specific premise that naturalistic mechanisms are not enough to explain the diversity of life, and that evidence of God’s role is identifiable.
Ross, from A Mind Occasionally Voyaging Said:
>In the first place, “excellence†is subjective; you see cancer, flat feet, and tonsilitis as design flaws, but this is only an assessment you can make if you know the whole intent of the design. You wouldn’t look at the Mona Lisa and assume there was no intelligence behind its design because the paint is cracked. For all we know, cancer is just Divine DRM.
Except that the Intelligent Designer is perfect, so he should be smarter than us. That we can spot flaws he didn’t suggests he isn’t any brighter than we are, or that he has some other reason for including them. But he’s “all-good”. Allowing flaws seems evil, especially flaws that are painful and debilitating and killing. Da Vinci was limited by the tools and methods available to him, the technology of his time. Are you saying God was limited by the tools available to him? I thought he was all-powerful?
>In fact, the “stupid design†argument seems to me to be a little counterproductive: it seems like the natural processes of evolution would get rid of any major “design flawsâ€, since they would be disadvantageous and therefore get “bred outâ€. The fact that they’re not could be taken as “evidence†that they’re in there because *someone wants them there*. That is, you could argue that the human body is designed *too* poorly for it to just be an accident.
Phooey. Evolution doesn’t achieve perfection, merely “good enough”. Also, Natural Selection has to work with what’s available. Improvements are slow and incremental. Design flaws only have to be survivable long enough to be passed on, and competitive with the rest of the population. If the design flaw is inherent because of the prior state from which the organism evolved, then everyone has it, so it can’t just be “bred out”. And they’re not a disadvantage compared to the competition, only an objective disadvantage that all face equally.
February 10th, 2006 at 9:11 pm
1) I’m not a secular humanist, and secular humanism has nothing to do with the subject.
2) Science is always open to revision. For that reason, its definition of ‘natural’ is inherently expansive to include all potential phenomena. In science, there is no ‘supernatural’ by definition. There is no ‘metaphysics’ by definition. There is only nature. There is only physics. This is not an arbitrary restriction.
Quality philosophy is quickly absorbed by other disciplines. It’s arguments like your preceding posts that make the “humanities” the focus of contempt of actual thinkers.
February 11th, 2006 at 3:39 am
I have to agree that evolution doesn’t claim to acheive perfection. Also as far as our bodies and existance, we are not at all in a perfect form here but will be ressurected to a perfect form after death. This is stated in scripture many times. We are here to suffer and learn to overcome physical as well as spritual imperfections. We are expected to learn everything we can while here and be helpful to mankind, animals, vegetation, environment, ect… Your back to the presuppostion argument as stated before and there are those who will look at the same evidence and come to many different conclusions. There are how many different religions that believe in the same words in the bible? God or our Heavenly Father, as Christ called Him, is a real tangeble person of Flesh and Bone. He has a reason for us to be here and part of it is to not remember that we all onece lived in his presence and we’re sent here to prove ourselves loyale to Him and will be able to return to live in his presence once again. He does have a real physical place where he lives and the reason young earth creationsists believe the time frame they do is based on a relationship of time between God realm and ours. 1000 years of our time is as one day to God. Hence the world was created in 6 “God” days or 6000 of our years. I have to mention again that I am not a creationist and I am not trying to put God into science. I am not a scientist either but very interest in science, especially astronomy. I also read an article in scientific american that we are “hard wired” to believe in God. As far as the design flaws we will upon resurrection be returned to our perfect state, you get your hair back, your eyesight, hearing, arched feet, good knees, or whatever ailment you may have. I myself will be glad to have hair again! whoever said bald is beautiful must have been bald. These flaws are becasue of the fall as someone mentioned earlier but are necessary to prove us Faithful to God. People put up a front when not around people in authority over them. It makes it hard to see what they are really like when there not being watched over. I am not saying everone does this but the majority of people will act one way when the boss is around and another when he is not. Just like me reading this at work now, if my boss were here I would be working:). It was necessary to test our faithfulness without being in the presence of God to see if we will follow him or not. There will be more nots there followers. We would act very differently if we could see God an know he is watching us every minute then if we are left to believe he is watching us every minute.
On another note, I am from utah(if that doen’t stir some presuppositions nothing will) and another thread dealt with Sentor Butters, he has been mysteriously missing from the political arena here while his bills are trying to pass through the house and no one seems to want to take up arguments for him in his absence, I mean be in his shoes to try and pass his bills. Just thought that might interest some of you. i understand he has some illness, I mean besides the obvious one(mental).
February 11th, 2006 at 3:41 am
I should have started with religion doesn’t believe us to be perfect either but working towards perfection.
February 13th, 2006 at 9:47 am
Irishman, thanks! That was some GOOD clarification,,,
Rad, engineers work with available tools, to develop something this is good enough to do the desired job.
Evolution works because that which fails to get the job done, ie. reproduction of DNA, is eliminated from the gene pool by death. If the organism lasts long enough to reproduce, that’s good enough and so we see inefficiencies retained because they don’t produce a ( before reproduction ) failure.
Is God then, just an engineer?
For me to worship someone they’re going to have to be a WHOLE lot smarter than me and I don’t mean just Steven Hawking or Jerry Garcia smarter. I mean wow, gee whiz , outta sight smarter,,,and more compassionate, loving, patient, immortal,,,etc, as well as being beyond this reality,,,oh, wait, if they’re BEYOND this reality, that should also mean they can’t interfere here, so, tell me again, why should I worship something that can’t even be here???
As I recall, the bible says something about ” ,,,as above, so below.: Doesn’t that imply we’re supposed to create in this reality, the “excellance” we suppose exists in heaven,ie, cure all disease, poverty and mortality? Which is exactly what we as scientists are trying to do,,,improve the human condition.
Peace and Love to all who disagree. By such means we make progress.
Gary 7
February 13th, 2006 at 2:05 pm
RAD Said:
>Also as far as our bodies and existance, we are not at all in a perfect form here but will be ressurected to a perfect form after death. This is stated in scripture many times. We are here to suffer and learn to overcome physical as well as spritual imperfections… He has a reason for us to be here and part of it is to not remember that we all onece lived in his presence and we’re sent here to prove ourselves loyale to Him and will be able to return to live in his presence once again. He does have a real physical place where he lives and the reason young earth creationsists believe the time frame they do is based on a relationship of time between God realm and ours. 1000 years of our time is as one day to God. Hence the world was created in 6 “God†days or 6000 of our years.
Your religious views may be convincing and satisfying to you, but they are not shared by everyone. Your belief that we come from Heaven and will return there is not entirely consistent within Christianty. Many denominations preach our soul originates during our birth, rather than coming from Heaven to begin with, where we had a prior existence in God’s presence.
Your explanation for our suffering here is unsatisfactory. The God of the Bible is alternatingly present and active, and then missing and silent. His responses to prayers (and lack thereof) and treatment of his followers and non-followers is problematic for someone described as “all Good”. The “God works in mysterious ways” explanation is the epitome of a lack of an explanation – it’s the defense of “we’re not fit to judge”. Hogwash. We’re given a moral sense by our creator so that we can judge. If our moral sense is inadequate to understand the issues, then it is unfair to judge us and punish us for the failing of our moral sense.
The Day-Age explanation for creationism is also unsatisfying. Why should descriptions written by humans for humans use a timescale of the divine creator? And why should God have the concept of “Day” himself, anyway? What does it signify for him? Days on Earth are tied to the light/dark cycle and are mostly meaningful for us because of biological necessity for periodic rest. Also, if one day for God is 1000 years for us, that explains god’s failure to answer prayers in a timely manner. By the time he hears them, processes them, and decides an answer, the deadline for response as typically passed. The real answer is that Genesis is metaphoric poetry, meant to convey a message about humanity’s place in the world and our significance to our creator. There’s no sense in trying to expect a truthful scientific account out of metaphoric poetry.
>I also read an article in scientific american that we are “hard wired†to believe in God.
I haven’t read that particular article, but there is much debate on the topic of what that even means, much less the implications for it. Religious believers wish to take the fact that our brain creates religious experiences to mean that we were created to have those experiences. Non-believers explain that by having structures that create those experiences, it proves that the experiences aren’t “real” but constructs of brain performance. The goal is then to explain how that activity would arise if it weren’t driven by reality. The evolutionary perspective is that the trait offered some survival advantage to our ancestors and was thus selected for through genetics. That survival advantage need not have been through being true, but by offering some intangible value to the individual and community. Needless to say this is a topic for heated contention.
>There are how many different religions that believe in the same words in the bible?
Irrelevant. The commonality of the Hebrew Bible as a religious source book does not prove it’s truth. Rather, it is an artificial construct arrived at through the curious and twisted path of cultural heritage and social interaction across communities. Political entities and social power structures have much to do with the spread of monotheism. The commonality speaks to the historical path of development of the religious structures, not the underlying truth of any particular text. Christianity is derived from Judaism by the simple expediency that Jesus was a Jew. The religion grew out of Jewish monotheism, adapted to reach a wider (Gentile) audience and provide a new relevancy to different lifestyles and traditions, but to draw upon themes and elements of the Jewish tradition to justify and add legitimacy to the claims. Islam is a separate offshoot from Judaism that took a more orthodox approach and then tailored it to reach a different community – Arabs. Islam was then influenced by the other Eastern traditions that it supplanted. Western religious diversity is largely rooted to the Bible throuh the same influences of historical baggage of branching from a common source. Even Mormonism is an offshoot primarily by drawing upon the themes and legitimacy of the existing socially predominant religion to “justify” the new tradition. Interpretations of the meaning and value of the content is debated and contested across the various groups that draw upon the same scripture – witness the existence and diversity of all the various denominations.
Heck, some rather unorthodox and incompatible religious views are linked by their proponents to Christianity (and thus the Bible) through a convoluted line of reasoning that ultimately is based upon common heritage and social continuity rather than any logic or relationship between the belief structures. Anything vaguely monotheism is lumped in as “Christianity” by adherants – including some Deistic and Agnostic believers, as well as generic New Age “spirituality”. Witness Thomas Jefferson’s acceptance and following of the “teachings of Jesus” while advocating the non-divinity of Jesus and the impossibility of the miracle stories. Yet he was a self-described Christian – though on his own terms.
February 16th, 2006 at 4:49 am
I don’t see how someone could call themself a Christian and not believe in at least an afterlife with Christ and God since that is taught by Chirst himself in the bible. I also don’t expect people to share my views or beliefs.
Wether or not beliefs are shared withing chritianity or not or even shared beliefs with other religions doesn’t make them wrong or right. There has to be one truth not many. Some religion somewhere has the answers and each believes his or hers has it. Following Christ on our own terms is certainly not in his teachings but rather follow him on His terms. There are ways to find the truth but not every one accepts them. For most it seems hard to believe that prayers are answered but they are. By saying that many religions believe in the bible I’m not saying that to prove the bible true but to show that we all look at the same evidence or words and come to different conclusions so by that its not irrelevant. You even agreed with the point by explaining how many different religions came about. Your beliefs are also not shared by everyone even though they make you feel good.
Gary I don’t disagree with you in that we are here to make everything better and science is making leaps and bounds toward that end. No one can say how God creates and no one ever said we couldn’t learn to do what he does. Why can something beyond this reality as you say not be able to interfere? That takes away the all power God should have.
February 16th, 2006 at 9:44 am
RAD Said:
>Following Christ on our own terms is certainly not in his teachings but rather follow him on His terms.
Except defining His terms seems to be part of the debate.
>By saying that many religions believe in the bible I’m not saying that to prove the bible true but to show that we all look at the same evidence or words and come to different conclusions so by that its not irrelevant.
I see that I misunderstood your point.
October 4th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
bestonnet made a comment that i hoped could be explained in greater detail…what is ‘time dilation of supernova at great distances’?
March 15th, 2009 at 12:11 am
A lot of people on this site use terms that they do not understand and question the validity of questions and explanations proposed by others.
It may not be their fault because of a lack of scientific education, scientific experience, or ability. They should try to understand some of the new material shared by demonstrated scientists, although many of the experts in the field of cosmology are repeating what others have said – without critical re-examination.
The scientific knowledge of today is the result of correcting many of the widely held beliefs of past generations.
Many of our current beliefs will be replaced by better understanding in future generations. In the meantime some people will have fun rejecting evolving knowledge. Remember, in the scientific method, valid observations take priority over theories – that can be generated without limit.
December 15th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
Readers might like to learn about solutions to 12 mysteries in the standard model of the universe. The work is largely based upon an addition to Newton’s gravity that explains mysteries at cosmic distances, and also works in our solar system. (Pioneer 10/11 paradox) It is different from the MOND theory of Milgrom.
Go to the library and ask to borrow “The Misunderstood Universe” by Sol Aisenbeg, PhD, which I have just completed.
You will find it informative and might clarify your understanding of the universe.
It is the result of over ten years of part time considering the mysteries.
I believe that calling some thing a mystery is the same as saying “I do not understand it and may be wrong!”
Many recognized “experts” need to read the book.
Sol Aisenberg, PhD
December 20th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
Reply to:
bestonnet Says:
February 7th, 2006 at 10:53 pm
sol aisenberg, your conjucture looks like tired light which does not work because it does not allow for time dilation of supernova at great distances (and which Big Bang theory does allow), As far as I can tell you’re just a run of the mill crackpot who thinks he has a ‘theory’ of everything when he doesn’t.
=====
I will match my education and experience against yours anytime, as well as in professional discourse.
Tired light is explained by me as due to loss of photon energy by interacting through photon gravitational drag on gas and dust in the interstellar space encountered by the photon in its travel to the observer. This contribution to the red shift is proportional to distance traveled. This loss of photon energy does not require collisions or absorption/re-emission as used by others trying to explain tired light, and d0es not result in blurred images.
If you want to learn more about this and other (12) mysteries in the standard model of the universe, go to the library and borrow a recent book “The Misunderstood Universe” by Aisenberg.
Sorry, it does not have any pictures.
Sol Aisenberg, PhD
March 7th, 2010 at 12:04 pm
Additional comment concerning the red shift:
The use of the Hubble constant in determining distances to standard light sources, (SN Type Ia), fails when it is extrapolated to the distances of extremely remote stars.The difference between the distances determined by star magnitude (light intensity observed) and the distance from corresponding redshifts has suggested that the very remote stars had accelerated, requiring a source of energy for the acceleration. This has resulted in the mystery of dark energy, which is suggested to provide the missing dark matter (through E=M*C*C). Another example of mistakes in the standard model of the universe that needs reexamination.
A simple proof that the use of the redshift cannot be extrapolated to very far distances is the realization that for increasing distances, the photon wavelength increases (the red shift), and the photon energy decreases. Thus, for increasing distances the photon energy would need to approach zero end then become negative.
Not very likely.
For more details, Do a Google search on my name.