Sigh.
A recent poll has revealed that 81% of Americans believe in angels. It’s an AOL poll, so it’s likely to have +/- 100% error margins, but still.
One man surveyed thinks angels can take many forms. He said he felt his late wife’s spirit one winter day when a bluebird flew into his backyard. She loved them.
While I honestly feel for the guy, it’s all too easy even under good circumstances to try to find patterns and meaning in life when none is there. The hard part is understanding that: this sort of illogic is so obvious to someone on the outside, and so very very difficult to show to those who use it. Why assume it’s a bird or a moth when you can make the literally fantastic leap of faith that it’s an angel?
Well, it’s the time of year for faith, I suppose. I generally wind up gritting my teeth a lot through the last weeks of December: the TV, radio, and web are full of stories like that. Ironically, this story came out literally the day after a similar poll in the UK shows that most Brits think religion does more harm than good:
More people in Britain think religion causes harm than believe it does good, according to a Guardian/ICM poll published today. It shows that an overwhelming majority see religion as a cause of division and tension – greatly outnumbering the smaller majority who also believe that it can be a force for good.
I would like to see the actual poll. I think it’s obvious enough that religion can do both harm and good. But I think that given our current state in the world, I agree with the poll: right now at least, the balance is tipped to harm. And I mean all religion, not just the narrow view held by a loud minority in the U.S. Just look to Iran, Iraq, Palestine, Israel, Afghanistan… how much good is religion doing there? Just as it has done here to some degree, religious intolerance — and by that I mean religious people being intolerant of others — has caused woe and destruction on a vast scale, and it’s unlikely to stop now. Iran is run by a religious theocracy, and they are seeking nuclear technology. How safe does that make you feel?
Some people might think I am bah-humbugging the season… but honestly, what better time to take stock of our tightly-held values (I dare say beliefs) and review them for sense and nonsense? For me, Christmas is not a religious time at all. It’s a time when I get to see family otherwise separated by distance, share fun and stories, and generally be together. I have an old friend from grad school here with her husband and kids, and it’s been so much fun to have everyone together!
Of course, there’s no denying the roots of this holiday are religious (and the roots under them are pagan). But that doesn’t mean they always will be, or that I have to be religious to enjoy the season. Think of it this way: astrology is the root of astronomy, but astrology doesn’t have to be right (and it isn’t) for astronomy to be, and I don’t have to acknowledge astrology when I go out under the night sky.
Christmastime might be grounded by religion, but you don’t have to be religious to celebrate it. While I may grit my teeth at some aspects of all this time of year, there is still much to enjoy.
So, to all my wonderful BABloggees: whatever holiday you celebrate, and even — no, especially if you don’t celebrate any — have a good end of the year.
December 25th, 2006 at 5:36 pm
Midwinter celebrations are likely to have practical roots predating even the pagan stuff, atleast as far as the far northern europe is concerned. In the ancient agricultural situation, midwinter was simply the time when a lot of the fresh food from the autum began to expire. So, it was a matter of eating it or losing it, that got ritualized and institutionalized, and later on co-opted by the missionaries.
But simmilar festivals have existed all over the place for various reasons so christmas can sort nof be seen as a unifying label for many diverse traditions. The early missionries were clever that way.
(You know the image of satan is actually a celtic fertillity god. But the christians managed to sell the concept of sex being evil to the nature-loving celts, so baal morphed into satan. That must have involved some fast talking. =)
December 25th, 2006 at 5:45 pm
What am I thinking. Baal was not a celtic god. He was egyptian or summerian or something. I’m mixing stuff up. Don’t listen to anything I say. Either satan came from celtic god by another name, or it came from baal which originated in some other culture.
December 25th, 2006 at 6:32 pm
Zoot > Baal is a name that has been applied to various deities all over the place. The name Beelzebub comes from the same root, and was a philistine deity that christianity did a smear job on.
Pagan gods with horns symbolizing fertillity are all over the place too and the modern image of satan is as you say mostly drawn from those. But it’s hard to say exactly what came from what.
The celtic deities were “co-opted” more than most (which may be why you associate satan to them) but most of their gods became reinterpreted as saints and it’s likely that the celts did this themselves to camoflage their religion. The christians at the time didn’t really play it smooth like that. Instead they employed various forms of brute force.
December 25th, 2006 at 7:14 pm
All I really want from a religion are a few simple things: oppression of women, divine justification of my prejudices, and a vehicle for the proper brainwashing of my children.
Wait, I guess just about any religion will do then. ,-)
Merry Mithmas!
OEJ
December 25th, 2006 at 7:22 pm
One Eyed Jack Says:
“All I really want from a religion are a few simple things: oppression of women, divine justification of my prejudices, and a vehicle for the proper brainwashing of my children.”
Here you go: http://www.jesuscampthemovie.com/
December 25th, 2006 at 7:26 pm
Mark,
Been there. Seen that. Whimpered in the corner for hours.
OEJ
December 25th, 2006 at 7:30 pm
I agree with that quote from the poll about religion causing tension.
I see it with my parents, and felt it at the opening of the Xmas dinner.
I recall the feelings of a friend of mine that said that much tension in the world would not exist if not for religion. I didn’t believe him then, but nowadays, I see the point he has.
December 25th, 2006 at 8:12 pm
One Eyed Jack Says:
“All I really want from a religion are a few simple things: oppression of women, divine justification of my prejudices, and a vehicle for the proper brainwashing of my children. Wait, I guess just about any religion will do then. â€
Athistic Communism can do that for you as well. Though I guess nothing ever bad happened in Countries that practiced that…
December 25th, 2006 at 8:37 pm
“Athistic Communism can do that for you as well.”
Yes, but in practice Atheistic Communism has been as much a religion as any theologically based belief system.
December 25th, 2006 at 8:45 pm
Well… it wasn’t worded very well, if the poll with that story is indicative of the poll they used. *I* believe in “angels”, but not in the traditional Christian sense – when my old car’s engine blew up on the highway (rods went through it) on my way home one weekend, a very wonderful man stopped and helped me. He first drove ahead and got six quarts of oil for me (this was when I was just out of oil, before the engine blew), then followed me at 25mph until the engine went, at which point he called the Courtesy/Highway Patrol for me. Then he waited with me until they arrived. That was my angel.
So yeah, I think it’s different if the poll is talking about religious angels only, or angels in the form of everyday people who do good things for others. Like this quote: “Or, he said, it could just be the person who stops to help you fix a flat tire.”
December 25th, 2006 at 8:53 pm
Look to the current research on the cognitive science of religious belief. You’ll find that human brains come “pre-loaded” to interpret nearly any anomalous event as that of a being with agency. In evolutionary terms, this makes for a successful organism, as there is a huge payoff for mistaking nothing for a predator, but a huge detriment for mistaking a predator for nothing. Combine this with our brain modules for interpreting folk biology, folk psychology, and folk physics, and certain “memes” can take hold very quickly and seem perfectly reasonable; e.g., that strange breeze that blew past my face on the night my mother died was none other than her spirit passing through me on its way to the afterworld.
For more, look up the works of Pascal Boyer, Scott Atran, Justin Barrett, and Jesse Bering. You’ll see that religious thought is here to stay due to how our brains are wired, and that it’s scientific thought that is wholly artificial to human mental experience. In other words, religion will never be endangered in human society; science, barring some genetic tinkering, will always be on the cusp of disappearing from history.
December 25th, 2006 at 9:02 pm
That should have read:
“In evolutionary terms, this makes for a successful organism, as there is no harm in mistaking nothing for a predator, but a huge penalty for mistaking a predator for nothing.
December 25th, 2006 at 9:15 pm
Wow. Talk about “having an open mind”. All I hear is a lot of religious bigotry. You don’t like any form of religion, because all religion is “dangerous”.
You will be entitled to that opinion when a group of Christians fly an airplane or two into some rather large buildings.
I myself am best described as an agnostic. But I will NOT allow myself to be hypercritical of people’s religious view points. How the hell do I know if these things are false? I can’t prove it one way or the other.
But you folks take the cake. You are—not a ONE of you–as intelligent as you seem to think. Neither am I, but I’m smart enough to admit it.
So, open your minds to the posibility that there might indeed be angels out there. I’ve met my own share of them in my life. I have also been one from time to time.
Merry CHRISTMAS to all of you, and may God bless (just in case).
December 25th, 2006 at 9:15 pm
Three things I’d like to say:
1) Despite not being religious, I love Christmas. I think in many ways it is ‘the most wonderful time of the year’. Family, friends, giving – in some ways it is a magical time.
2) Many of my friends ARE religious (not of the evangelical type) and they are still good, intelligent, thoughtful people. Their faith is personal; they do not try to convert anyone, and they emphasize the good and generous parts of their beliefs. They are all well aware of the pagan origins of Christmas traditions, but that’s not the point to them. I think they see the season much as I do, with an added meaning that derives from their faith. Skeptical rationalist that I am, I cannot bring myself to condemn them. Throughout history there have been many brilliant people of faith, and I see not much difference between the leap of faith an athetist takes and one a believer takes.
3) I hope everyone had a Merry Christmas, I wish you all a happy new year!
December 25th, 2006 at 9:38 pm
Hey, I believe in angles too….
37 degrees,
18 degrees,
even right angles.
You really shouldn’t insult people’s trigonometric beliefs.
December 25th, 2006 at 9:40 pm
Sorry, was I being obtuse?
December 25th, 2006 at 10:03 pm
Actually, Christian, I thought it was more of an acute observation. But please, tell us more of your trigonometric belief system…for instance, do you accept the concept of original SIN?
December 25th, 2006 at 10:54 pm
Mark, you said, “You will be entitled to that opinion when a group of Christians fly an airplane or two into some rather large buildings.”
Are we supposed to ignore the Holy Crusades? The Protestant rebellion? The Inquisition? The English Civil War? The troubles of North Ireland? The genocide against Native Americans? If it’s examples of horrible injustice in the guise of Christian values you’re looking for then when exactly are you finally going to say “enough is enough”?!? Are you willing to let it happen again in your lifetime?
Face it. Religious fervor and violent imperialism go hand and hand.
December 25th, 2006 at 10:57 pm
Mark, ever hear of Timothy McVeigh? No? How about Eric Rudolph?
Religious extremists come in all flavors, all colors, and all religions. That was my point about Iran, and Afghanistan, and even here.
And as far as any given religion being wrong… a person can live their life wondering which one might be correct, and giving credence to every single religion out there, but I would classify that as close to being insanity. For something to be “right” it has to be testable, and match reality. Which religion passes that test, I wonder? Are there any you dismiss out of hand as being too ridiculous to be true? If no, then I doubt we can agree on even the basics for this discussions. And if yes, then where do you stop? What level of disagreement with reality will you tolerate from a given religion and still give it at least partial credence?
December 25th, 2006 at 11:12 pm
It’s easy to find examples of Christians, Muslims and atheists who have killed and have engaged in violence.
That doesn’t mean that religion or atheism or any belief system makes people more or less prone to violent acts.
I strongly suspect that religion is a cause of conflict- but I would like to see serious research done on the issue. Daniel Dennett has recently written a book length treatise proposing that it’s time to begin serious scientific study of the costs and benefits of religion.
December 26th, 2006 at 1:32 am
You keep portaying that Christians are idiots. Once again, they’re not! I’m athiest but I have a great respect for those that believe in a greater entity. Quit generalizing!
Some religions can be extreme, and it’s creepy. Like the war, no longer the War on Terror more like the War on Religion.
Don’t think about where Christmas came from, if Hitler had a child would it make the child automaticly evil? I think not! Christmas is a time of giving and recieving. Just think of it that way.
Happy New Years everyone.
December 26th, 2006 at 1:43 am
Mad Cow,
Nowhere does the BA say or even imply that Christians are idiots.
Maybe you’d like to retract your comments?
December 26th, 2006 at 1:48 am
Yeah the poll really leaves a lot to be desired. The word ‘angel’ itself is open to so many interpretations.
December 26th, 2006 at 2:01 am
BA, I’m curious, could you sort out for us how when you say this:
I think it’s obvious enough that religion can do both harm and good. But I think that given our current state in the world, I agree with the poll: right now at least, the balance is tipped to harm. And I mean all religion, not just the narrow view held by a loud minority in the U.S.
you aren’t contradicting it with this:
Just look to Iran, Iraq, Palestine, Israel, Afghanistan… how much good is religion doing there? Just as it has done here to some degree, religious intolerance — and by that I mean religious people being intolerant of others — has caused woe and destruction on a vast scale, and it’s unlikely to stop now.
I don’t see how the “all” that you emphasize over a loud minority doesn’t exactly get supported when your only example deals with intolerance, something by far not universal in religions but intolerance is widespread in the loud minorities.
Were you simply trying to say that it’s not just Fundamentalist Christianity that you have a problem with, it’s religious intolerance? Or something else?
December 26th, 2006 at 2:02 am
er, make that: I don’t see how the “all†that you emphasize over a loud minority is supported when your only example deals with intolerance, something by far not universal in religions but intolerance is widespread in the loud minorities.
December 26th, 2006 at 2:08 am
CB: While it is true that it easy to find examples of xtians, muslims and even atheists who have killed and engaged in violence, the atheist does have one advantage. He is the only one who does not kill or engage in violence in the name of his non belief. As another once said, to paraphrase, without religion the good will continue to do good and the bad will continue to do bad, but it takes religion to make the good do bad and yet believe they are doing good. BTW, personally, I would also count the various irrational political ideologies espoused by such as Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot etc. as quasi religious in nature. Though, of course, in such ideologies god is usually replaced by a personality cult based on the leader rather than the usual mythical supernatural figurehead.
December 26th, 2006 at 2:16 am
JP
Yes, I’m familiar with that argument. I’m not religious, but I suppose that most Christians (e.g.) would claim that anyone who commits mass murder in the name of Christianity is misinterpreting the Bible and a Christian in name only.
Likewise, atheists will always claim that atheism itself cannot be held responsible for murderous acts performed by an atheist.
I know where my prejudices lie in this debate- but I’d like to see some hard research. It’s possible that there would be conceivably many more mass murderers without religion. I doubt it- but I don’t think we can tell for sure without some serious study.
December 26th, 2006 at 2:20 am
DavidHW Says: “In evolutionary terms, this makes for a successful organism, as there is no harm in mistaking nothing for a predator, but a huge penalty for mistaking a predator for nothing.”
Hence peridolia. We are hard wired to recognize faces and other organic shapes in random visual stimuli, since it’s of great value to catch sight of that lion in the bush before it pounces!
- Jack
December 26th, 2006 at 2:24 am
The BA says: “Christmastime might be grounded by religion, but you don’t have to be religious to celebrate it. While I may grit my teeth at some aspects of all this time of year, there is still much to enjoy.”
For years I’ve wanted to put a big lighted sign on our roof saying “Axial Tilt is the Reason for the Season” but my wife is convinced we’d get a brick through our window, or at least cause our Lutheran neighbors across the street to stop bringing over the home made cookie plate every year…
- Jack
December 26th, 2006 at 3:43 am
Jack:
Exactly. The irony for any committed secularist (and I am one, btw) is that the very evolutionary origins which many faithful deny is precisely what makes religion so pervasive, so insistent, and nearly universal in the human species. Rational argument will not suppress it, nor will political repression; as study after study has shown in experimental psychology, cognitive dissonance actually strengthens religious belief. The more we attack, the stronger it grows.
Atheistic secularists like myself who believe in the role of science in society (and the BA himself, if I may be so bold) need to find a way to counter the extreme effects of religion without unknowingly taking an unscientific and empirically unsound course of action that will be counterproductive to our goals.
December 26th, 2006 at 3:50 am
Is it me or do other people see problems, not merely in the field of religion, but in all areas of life?
This year I have read about dishonest and venial politicians, scientists faking data, lawyers being disbarred for crimes, policemen being sent to jail for crimes, and the list goes on.
I believe the point is that wherever you have two or more gathered in WHATEVER pursuit, you will observe typical human activity. One of the most ancient is criminal behavior.
For example, Religion has nothing to do with the unilateral decision of the USA to end information sharing on nuclear weaponry with Russia in October, 2006.
Believe it or not, Religion will only exhibit Goodness when the people who are practicing religion at the time are themselves good.
December 26th, 2006 at 5:07 am
Sure, Montag.
Good people do good stuff, and bad people do bad stuff, no matter what. But for good people to do bad stuff, you need religion.
Well, anyway… Merry Christmas, everybody.
December 26th, 2006 at 5:27 am
May your loins be fruitfull, BA.
December 26th, 2006 at 5:36 am
[...] “Americans in the outfield“, no Bad Astronomy; [...]
December 26th, 2006 at 6:19 am
[posted by Jack Hagarty]:”For years I’ve wanted to put a big lighted sign on our roof saying “Axial Tilt is the Reason for the Season….”
I just might do that one day, just to be funny.
December 26th, 2006 at 6:25 am
Hi All! Well Christmas time is a time I struggle with annually, big time. Too many bad memories, sadness at what we’ve made it, the non-thinking “tarditions” we all carry one way or another, the pressure I feel as it notches its way along. I find it hard to get out of the old ways of thinking about it and I must admit – hey call me a grinch – I don’t take much joy from it or feel like putting much back in. My daughter and some close friends are the saving grace for me. I have finally gotten a grip on the spned thing but I see it going on all around me on the lead-up at work for instance. Folks leafing through catalogues in the break room endlessly, looking for that something to fill the hole “here” that can’t be filled. And then the whole “it’s over so quickly” thing. Well, giving is something that shouldn’t just happen now, love is not something we save for one special time of year like we hear in the songs, it’s all year. So, have a great All Year, folks! not just now, with it’s ups and downs yeah but it can be great if we do it right and think of others with no expectation of reward. I figure Dr. Phil does this blog because he doesn’t expect anything from it – well maybe he didn’t at first – but i suspect he does it to help others.
Have wonderful time yeah with family but don’t let it stop there. And don’t be too hard on the angle guy, he’s struggling.
mek
December 26th, 2006 at 6:27 am
Phil,
Love your blog. Love the science. Pix of Saturn, etc. But I sure wish you’d stop attacking those with any religious beliefs.
P.J.
December 26th, 2006 at 6:50 am
I have to admit that it takes a certain, um, talent to turn a holiday that is about celebration of many things… peace, goodwill, the future of both children and humanity, and (you know) generally optimism… and completely trash it like a total Scrooge.
Bah Humbug BA. You may have a right to believe and feel what you do. You may have a right to write about it to. But you have no right to ruin the holiday for those around you.
I have no clue if you did ruin theholiday for your family and friends, but the way you sound in this post make me think you weren’t somebody I would have cared to be around yesterday.
December 26th, 2006 at 7:09 am
P.J.
Why? What makes religion so special that it should be immune from scrutiny? Is God so delicate that She can’t handle some criticism? The Truth can endure any ammount of dissention and dissection because in the end, it is still the Truth … unless of course, it’s not.
OEJ
December 26th, 2006 at 7:11 am
It is not attacking anybody. It is simply critical, logical and skeptical thinking based on reality. If you are religious than you can expect to find that type of thinking on a science blog. if you just want pretty pictures you want to go somewhere else. And how does finding angels ridiculous make anybody a scrooge? How does it ruin any holiday?
December 26th, 2006 at 7:37 am
We non-believers can always celebrate Dec 25 as Newton’s birthday.
December 26th, 2006 at 7:40 am
I question the validity of any poll that states an overwhelming majority outnumbers a “smaller majority”.
Is that the new way of saying none are a minority?
Christmas is the time when love takes foot and becomes more the verb. Friends and family are seen or called and well wished. Life is about people and knowing we care for each other. Christ is the example and hope. His scrutiny of the religionists of his day is well worth noting and harder than any of the BA’s I’ve seen.
December 26th, 2006 at 7:43 am
don’t worry about using christmas as a means to enjoy your family, even our year counting system is rooted to religious events.
It’s too bad, but it’s true.
December 26th, 2006 at 7:43 am
Actually, in an ironic twist, Phil indeed IS attacking somebody. Lots of people, including many who otherwise admire his work in the field of science and astronomy. The context of a science blog being used in an attempt to disclaim religion – impossible to do scientifically because you can’t prove angels don’t exist, is a misuse of science, an attack on religion and does dishonor to many terrific scientists who held strong Christian faith and values. Note the vitriol in the first set of responses of professing atheists. Phil’s post opens the field for further religious attack (sometimes done in the name of religious intolerance). So much for the good cheer of the year you want to express and encourage, Phil.
I too feel sorry for Phil on tis one. If you can find a recording of it, go back and watch this past Sunday’s Meet The Press episode. One of the people Tim Russert interviewed was Rick Warren (author of The Purpose Driven Life). Dr. Warren is very much a role model for what mainstream Christianity is about today – for very positive reasons.
Merry Christmas to all us Christians out there and “Happy Festivus to the Rest Of Us” to everyone else.
“Two things are infinite: The universe and human stupidity. –And I’m not sure about the former.”
–Albert Einstein (Who was a Christian, by the way)
December 26th, 2006 at 7:56 am
Another example of bloghype. The statistic actually is that 81% of Americans believe in ANGLES, not ANGELS. Geez!
December 26th, 2006 at 7:57 am
I realize you’re a sceptic as well as a writer and astronomer. I subscribed to your blog through feedblitz thinking you might expose “bad” astronomy and so far you do a lot of it as far as I can tell. Fact is, you seem to practice “bad” astronomy… Maybe a better definition would be a bad lack of astronomy. Can’t ya lighten up on the scepticism and enlighten us about more “bad” astronomy?
~ Alex
December 26th, 2006 at 7:58 am
I did watch Meet the press through itunes… Anyway, it is perfectly acceptable for a scientist and/or skeptical thinker to question religious beliefs and superstition. The point of not being able to proof that there is no god and therefor you can’t claim that angels don’t exist? Please go and spend some time on google and try and find a website that explains logical thinking and fallacies. You will find them interesting. It is certainly not a misuse of science. It is just very inconvenient for christians who have an interest in science that the logical conclusions of implementing the scientific thought process is that there is no such thing as god. Most scientists I know that are religious in some way
December 26th, 2006 at 8:08 am
“…He said he felt his late wife’s spirit one winter day when a bluebird flew into his backyard. She loved them.”
What a beautiful sentiment! A warm, loving feeling suffused this guy’s ’soul’ when he saw the bird and remembered his wife and how much she liked them. Why is it necessary to clutter it up with angels?
December 26th, 2006 at 8:45 am
I can’t be arsed to photoshop the artwork, but I think a can of Angel killing spray would be a useful thing to have on the window sill. Bit big for swatting, you see.
December 26th, 2006 at 8:45 am
To Chris USA,
“Albert Einstein (Who was a Christian, by the way)”
No, he wasn’t. Einstein was raised Jewish, but was not a practicing Jew. He would best be described as a deist. He was definitely not a theist, and therefore neither Christian nor Jewish in a religious sense.
“I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.” – Albert Einstein, 1954
Don’t peddle that trash on my watch.
To BigJohn,
Well said.
“Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?” – Douglas Adams
OEJ
December 26th, 2006 at 9:11 am
I didn’t see any attack in Phil’s writing. I do see lots of people reacting to what they THINK he wrote, rather than what he actually wrote. Pretty disingenuous: misinterpret what’s written, then berate the writer for something he didn’t say. It’s a LOT like people of any religion who set up “others” (others=atheists, for example being described above as communists when, in fact, most of us are not) as ugly, straw men and then attack them when those “others” may not, in fact, be anything LIKE what’s imagined.
As some have pointed out here, we have ample historical evidence of what zealots of any faith have done and can do in the name of their mystical beings. Whenever I see these people acting out, I think of how badly they’re tarnishing the names of their co-religionists who don’t subscribe to violence, hate, suppression, wilful misinterpretation of other humans, forced belief systems through government control, etc. ad nauseum.
As a scientist I KNOW that in any given population there are going to be non-bell-curve members. I’d like to think that most Christians, for example, are not like the whack jobs who are acting out so hatefully after being brainwashed by Fox TV’s phony “war on christmas” get-ratings meme. Evidence tells me that it’s just a few loudmouths who are pushing this thing.
But, where are the reasonable Christians to refute this idiocy? Where are the reasonable Muslims to condemn the fanaticists in their religion? As an atheist, I recognize that even some freethinkers can be asses at times, and I’d like to think that there are those of us in the atheist community who speak up when we see our own making fools of themselves.
Now, mind you, NOTHING I’ve said attacks FAITH. That’s something extremely personal and each person has the right to have or NOT have faith. Still, we do have a duty to make ourselves good, ethical, reliable, and moral. But faith or religion don’t have any special preferred place in that universe.
However, I have NO compunction about calling out the religious fools who use their religion to force their view of the world on others, who preach to the rest of us about how to live our lives while not living their own lives according to their own dictates, and who seek to interfere in all kinds of human relationships and needs in the name of a deity that not everyone believes in. Those people who smite others based on what they think their “god” wants, make their “god” look less intelligent and loving than a hungry, cranky two-year-old with a wet diaper. Moreover, anybody who tells me what “god” believes I should be doing with my life is simply trying to put their will over on me — not “god’s.” That dawg don’t hunt and it shouldn’t. Yet, here we are with a loud group of ill-mannered religionists trying to tell us who we can and can’t marry, how their religion trumps all, and what we can say during the holidays. Kind of smacks of political correctness, doesn’t it, to have somebody tell us what we can and can’t say so as not to “offend Christians”? And why is it snorted at as “forcing political correctness” when we try to have inclusive language a la “mail carrier” instead of “mail man”, but if a christianist wants to force everybody to say “Merry Christmas,” whether we’re Christian or not, then we’re all supposed to fall all over ourselves to avoid hurting them? What’s wrong with this picture? Can we spell hypocrisy, kiddies?
So, there’s your attack, if you want the truth. I choose to attack fuzzy thinking and irrationality. That cuts across religious and non-religious, political and non-political lines. It’s an attack on venality and stupidity in the name of ANY belief system.
I, as Phil, did NOT attack one’s deity of choice. Nor, do I think, was any one person attacked for believing in something. Read the article again. If one’s faith can’t sustain a commentary on the stupidity of some co-believers, then perhaps one needs to re-examine it. And that’s true no matter if one is Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, atheist, FSM, whatever. Stupidity and venality are universal and there ARE remedies for them. And they aren’t as easy as blind, unquestioning faith.
It’s not a bad exercise, to re-examine one’s life and morals and ethics. It makes one stronger. That’s one of the few good things I learned in Catholic school — the difference between the examined and the unexamined (and unquestioned) is what makes adults out of children and thinkers out of blind believers.
December 26th, 2006 at 9:31 am
My appologies for anything I may have repeated, but why is this a surprise to anyone? The VAST majority of people in this world, like 85%, believe in some form of religion, many of which have their own type of angels.
There is a huge difference though between believing in them and seeing them everywhere. I have never see an angel, but I believe they exist. How can I believe in them when I never seen them? Thats why its called religion (believing without proof) and science (believing only when there is proof).
My example, which BA referenced, was that picture he showed a few weeks ago that some people said was an angel. What did I think to myself when I saw it? “Wow, that bird looks a lot like an angel.” In other words, I thought it was a bird that happen to resemble what an angel coold look like.
I am willing to bet that most of the people who believe in angels don’t make decisions based on them. Most people don’t say to themselves, “Sky diving is dangerous, but I’ll be safe because an angel will keep me from getting killed.”
Please don’t give me one, or two, or a dozen, or three hundred examples of people saying angels control their lives. 85% of 300,000,000 people is 255,000,000 people, so unless you are ready to present to me about 100,000,000 examples of people saying angels control their lives, I will continue to have faith that most people, foolish as we are to believe in some form of religion, still make rational decisions with religion not being a factor in the process.
December 26th, 2006 at 9:50 am
I don’t really care about Christmas. I suppose it’s a good excuse for family and friends to get together, though.
December 26th, 2006 at 10:19 am
I strongly recommend Sam Harris’ book “Letter To A Christian Nation” to all BABlogees. Mr. Harris gives a no-holds-barred appraisal of the crimes committed in the name of god, and defines the damage done even today to our world by those who claim to be acting for him/her/it.
As for my favorite example of Christianity’s foolishness…missionaries in Africa, preaching to the people most threatened by HIV/AIDS about the “sin” of condom use. Does the term “genocide” mean anything to you?
Tom Epps
Persian gulf
December 26th, 2006 at 10:32 am
“As for my favorite example of Christianity’s foolishness…missionaries in Africa, preaching to the people most threatened by HIV/AIDS about the “sin†of condom use. Does the term “genocide†mean anything to you?”
Well, which is it; foolishness or genocide?
December 26th, 2006 at 10:59 am
Tom,
Unless I’m missing something, you’re committing the same logical fallacy that BA did in his original post — namely, “Hasty Generalization.”
To wit, some missionaries preach against condom use, therefore ALL Christians get tarred with their foolishness.
Or, religion is used as a rationale by greedy / power-mad wackos in some part of the world, therefore all people of faith must take the lumps for their misdoings.
If anybody missed the inherent irony in this discussion thread, this fallacy is also one of the creationists’ favorite tactics for attacking evolution. Namely, some “scientists” (e.g., Wang Woo Suk and his phoney “cloning” work) have proven to be frauds, therefore all science is fake.
This blog and its comment threads are supposed to be dedicated to rationality & reason-based argument. How sad that so many of the comments (and yes, Phil, even your “rant”-based posts) tend to be deeply irrational.
Lorne
December 26th, 2006 at 10:59 am
First of all: merry christmas and a happy new year!
It is right that religion is a cause of aggression and hate. But why? Because of intolerance! And even you, Phil, sorry to say this, but even you are intolerant! Religion is against the rules of nature. That’s your opinion as it seems to be – and I guess it is! But that is the point of all the hate and aggression throughout the entire world. Accept the others opinions, see the differences and be proud of them. No discussion would make sense and there would be no step further in science without another opinion!
Tolerance is the key-word and understanding of the other side. With that the world can become better and it starts in every little friendship and ends up in the relationship of religions and countries.
By the way: That is the christmas-massege as it should be!
Greetings to all!
DrFlimmer
P.S.: Sorry, I’m non-english… so my knowlage is very bad. Hope that it’s clear what I meant…
December 26th, 2006 at 11:15 am
Lorne,
Funny that whenever religion is shown for what it is people always go for the “that’s not my religion you are talking about” line. In the end all religion is the same in one major way. It is not logical, not scientific, not rational and dogmatic. Those characteristics make religion inherently dangerous.
DrFlimmer,
Sometimes tolerance is no the answer. You want to tolerate ID? Creationism? Not a chance.
December 26th, 2006 at 11:21 am
Why is one of my comments marked “Your comment is awaiting moderation.”? Where do I find the rules for the blog so that I can avoid this in future?
December 26th, 2006 at 11:46 am
I remember when this was a science site and not a bash everything other than science site.
December 26th, 2006 at 12:05 pm
Adam,
Please point out where there is bashing. I see a lot of discussion, informed and otherwise, here, but no bashing.
December 26th, 2006 at 12:10 pm
Mark UK “It is not logical, not scientific, not rational and dogmatic. Those characteristics make religion inherently dangerous.”
I agree about the danger part, but the reason is not the stupidity as such. Dogma of course is generally detrimental since it encourages group thinking, and free thinking is basically a prerequisite for rational thinking.
However the real problem, as I see it, is the institutional intolerance, the “us v. them” mind set that certain religions promote. This leads to the desire to change what people think so that everyone thinks the same, or to hurt those who doesn’t.
If religious organisations were satified with the members who were naturally drawn to them, I think there wouldn’t be much of a problem.
(For some reason, polytheistic or atheistic religions are much more laid back in this regard.)
It also wise for the skeptics to keep this in mind, and not become dogmatic and claim absolute knowlege of truth. You know better.
*****
Free thinking is a prerequisite for rational thinking. Thus you can not teach people rational thinking by convincing them of what is “true”. What you can do is to teach the to question things, by showing them how it’s done.
*****
December 26th, 2006 at 12:30 pm
Ugh. A lot of people are missing the point.
Religion conditions people to accept the pronouncements of an unseen, unquestioned, unchangeable authority on faith. Once that step has been taken then a religious leader can pretty much say anything he wants and will always have a crowd of followers.
So, the point is not that religion is inherently violent or intolerant, but that religion makes it extremely easy for violent and intolerant leaders to condition the people to accept his violent and intolerant beliefs. Sure there are other ways of doing this besides religion. There’s jingoistic nationalism – which I reject. There’s authoritarian fascism – which I reject. There’s fraudulent conspiracy – which I reject. I reject all manner of authoritarian coercion against the people. Why should religion get a free pass?
December 26th, 2006 at 1:08 pm
HvP > (I don’t know if you were adressing me at all, but if you were..)
Who’s point is being missed specifically? Not yours I assume since you said “Face it. Religious fervor and violent imperialism go hand and hand.”
And we can not lay all the blame on leaders, as they get their power from the followers and can not be assumed to be any more clear thinking. Also, many a religious nutball have operated on scripture alone, I am sure.
To put faith over reason is, developmentally speaking not about a step one takes, but a step one doesn’t take. Everyone goes through a period of authoritarian thinking. Children will during that stage invoke their parents, or a teacher as though that would confirm that a certain statment was true. If you grow up in a religious environment, you are likely to get stuck, or partially stuck on that level, and never be able to really employ your mind in a truly creative way.
But we have the capacity to develop further, and this is what needs to be promoted.
December 26th, 2006 at 1:28 pm
DrFlimmer,
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you also!
I think it is important to be vigilant and vocal agaisnt certain aspects of religion, all over but for most of us especially the USA. Why? Because if we were tolerant of Christianity, for example, it is entirely possible for the US Constitution to start to look more like a radical religious document. Certain Christian proponents want to force their perverted beliefs onto everyone, and we just cannot tolerate that.
Most Christians are good people, but they tend to sometimes turn a blind eye to what others of their faith do in their name. If more churches and people stood up and fought against religious tyranny trying to be put into legislation by a select few then you would see more attacks on XXX Christians and not just Christians in general.
But by the by I don’t think anyone was really attacking anything on this thread until some people mis-read it and started firing away.
December 26th, 2006 at 1:30 pm
Carl Sagan said “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.” There is no god and no one can prove there is. Religion is a crutch for the weak and simple minded and a tool to control them. It is time to see the light. Read Dawkin’s book ‘The God Delusion.’I don’t know who said but it goes like this “Good people do good things, bad people do bad things but it takes a religion to make good people do bad things.”
December 26th, 2006 at 1:30 pm
If I may quote the Simpsons for a moment…
“Let’s just say that on this day a million years ago, a dude was born who most of us think was magic. But others don’t, and that’s cool. But we’re probably right. Amen.” – Homer Simpson
December 26th, 2006 at 2:48 pm
Bryan justs reminded me there is a Simpson episode where they find what looks like the skeleton of an angel and Lisa is the only skeptic in town. Is your partron Saint Lisa Simpson, Phil
Okay, back to seriousness. There was an interesting piece on what they called the “New Ahtiests” on the NPR show On the Media the week of December 15th (they aired the piece on All Things Considered also that week). You can listen to it at
http://www.onthemedia.org/episodes/2006/12/15
This piece talks about Dawkins and Harris.
I heard a talk by Harris where he mentions a recent pole that shows some insanely large percentage of Americans belive the Jesus either probably or definitely will come again in the next 50 years. (You can listen to this piece at http://www.itconversations.com/index.html, type Sam Harris in the search box and the talk will come up). It’s frightening that some of these people are in power in our government. Why try to solve long term problems when the world isn’t going to be around that long anyay? Well, I plan on being around that long! It’s in my self interest to fight such nonsense. This goes beyond anything relating to religious intolerance and right to species preservation!
I have even read letters to the editor of the local paper against conservation making claims that “oil wells around the world are magically filling up” and the “carbon dioxide levels are mysteriously dropping” and people make public policy arguments based on fantasies that their God is taking care of it when the data clearly show this is not that case.
December 26th, 2006 at 4:58 pm
Why do the United States print “In God We Trust” on their currency ? That always seemed odd to me.
December 26th, 2006 at 8:17 pm
Why do we even have a propensity to believe the most outlandish things? Some leader, priest, etc says,”In my name, kill everybody” Or”In the name of our god, torture everybody who refuses to bow to us”, etc. I think what we really need is a better understanding of the dynamics of human belief systems. What is really required to hold a species together in a social/cooperative structure? I suspect there are some people doing such research but I rarely hear the results.
J.C. is reputed to have said,”If you but had the faith of a grain of mustard seed, you could move mountains.” Implying most people have NO SUCH FAITH. Where then does all this violent language and action come from? If people really have little or no faith, is the violence a result of their inherent hypocrisy?
As in,”Everybody tells me there is a god, demanding sacrifice. I don’t REALLY believe that, but to admit such unbelief could get me ostracized, and I couldn’t tolerate that,,,” So people defend their social belief system in order to have somewhere to call home???
As a child, I noticed such fearfulness and could not understand it. Why should people be afraid of facing reality alone? In the end, we all stand alone.
Best to get used to it,,,I have,,,
Gary 7
December 26th, 2006 at 8:21 pm
Giles: Probably because the Founders were diests however, you will note, it DOESN’T say, “In Jesus Christ we trust.”
,,,and that’s because, while they seemed to be believers(perhaps hypocritically so) they were not exactly christians,,,
GAry 7
December 26th, 2006 at 9:05 pm
Gary said : « Probably because the Founders were deists […] »
I searched on the Net, and found this on Wikipedia :
In 1956, the nation was suffering through the height of the cold war, and the McCarthy communist witch hunt. Partly in reaction to these factors, the 84th Congress passed a joint resolution to replace the existing motto (”E Pluribus Unum”) with “In God we Trust.” According to United States Code, Title 36, Section 302, the new motto officially displaced the original 180 year-old national motto when President Eisenhower signed the resolution into law on 30 July 1956.
The majority of the Founders were probably deists — and a few of them atheists. According to this source, “In God We Trust” was only recently printed on the American currency.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust
December 26th, 2006 at 11:25 pm
I think the poll itself is highly suspect. There’s a strong confirmation bias in effect. The people who are likely to participate are people who are inclined to answer yes. Fewer who think “no” will decide to bother with the poll, and even fewer still who think “not sure”. (Somehow there are always some not sure. There can be a phone in poll on a toll line and people will pay to call the number to vote “not sure”. Not sure what that says about people.)
Bryan D. said:
>>“All I really want from a religion are a few simple things: oppression of women, divine justification of my prejudices, and a vehicle for the proper brainwashing of my children. Wait, I guess just about any religion will do then. â€
>Athistic Communism can do that for you as well. Though I guess nothing ever bad happened in Countries that practiced that…
Actually, Atheistic Communism does not provide divine justification of anything. But two out of three ain’t bad. (Of course you’re equating Atheism with Communism when the two are not synonymous.)
Seamyst Said:
>So yeah, I think it’s different if the poll is talking about religious angels only, or angels in the form of everyday people who do good things for others. Like this quote: “Or, he said, it could just be the person who stops to help you fix a flat tire.â€
I don’t understand the point of playing symantic games. I don’t understand the point of slapping religiously symbolic labels over different concepts in order to make the symbols mean something. I don’t understand the point of calling a nice person who helps you far beyond the average as an “angel”, equating them with the mythological concept of a non-corporeal spirit being. I believe in nice people, too. I’ve occassionally even been one. I assure you I am corporeal. I also don’t understand the Pantheist use of “God” to apply to the universe as a whole and talk about it as if they mean the same thing as a devout fundamentalist Baptist. To me, the purpose for doing so always seems to be to obfuscate that what you’re talking about is not what the other person is talking about, to convince them that your beliefs are similar, perhaps so they’ll accept you. I just don’t see the point (unless they’re waving pitchforks – ha ha!)
What I want to know is why is it that every time there is a criticism of stupidity in the name of religion, it is taken as an assault on religion rather than an assautl on stupidity? Perhaps the ones making the critical remarks could use a little more care in their aim sometimes (i.e. the wording of their remarks), but often as not the insult is taken from words not said.
Jack Hagerty said:
>For years I’ve wanted to put a big lighted sign on our roof saying “Axial Tilt is the Reason for the Season†…
I love it!
NTB Heliochromologist George said:
>I question the validity of any poll that states an overwhelming majority outnumbers a “smaller majorityâ€. Is that the new way of saying none are a minority?
It’s an unfortunately unclear wording. The fact is they were not presenting two opposing views, but rather separate questions. One question was if religion causes tension – with 82% registering yes. Another question asks if religion can be a force for good, with some number between 50% and 82% registering yes. Ergo, two majorities of different scale.
Michael said:
>Well, which is it; foolishness or genocide?
I think you’re engaging in false dichotomy. Unless you think that foolishness implies lightheartedness and insignificance?
And the quote everyone keeps referring to is Steven Weinberg:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Weinberg
BigJohn, I suspect that the moderation message either applies because the spambot has for some reason identified you, or Phil has for some reason activated moderation for this thread because of the sensitive nature. Still, that beats the recurring error message we were all getting for a while.
Relax, I don’t think it was a comment that Phil has singled you out for some behavior. He would tell you if that were so.
Gilles said:
>Why do the United States print “In God We Trust†on their currency ? That always seemed odd to me.
The Wikipedia article is correct. It was applied to coinage in the mid 1800’s by the secretary of treasury, and then was officially directed by Congress and applied to all money in the 1950’s because of a reaction to “Godless Communism”. A subsequent lawsuit over the practice was rejected by the courts by the argument that the “God” was a meaningless symbol of cultural heritage. In other words, it was acceptable because it was not really a statement of religious belief, just a slogan. I fail to see how a statement about trusting (and hence, believing) in God can be non-religious and just “ceremonial or patriotic”, but somehow judges thought differently.
December 26th, 2006 at 11:49 pm
Irishman, that was an excellent comment. Thanks.
December 26th, 2006 at 11:52 pm
Irishman said : « I fail to see how a statement about trusting (and hence, believing) in God can be non-religious and just “ceremonial or patriotic†[…] »
Somehow it is hard for me to imagine patriotism (American or any other) not linked to the idea of God or a god-like figure, like an Emperor or a King (or an all-powerfull president) ; the two seem to fulfill a need to « obey », hence not to think.
Happy New Year to all !
December 27th, 2006 at 12:21 am
Replace “Angel” for “Extradimentional entity” and “believe” for “consider the philosophical possibility” and you’d have the very same question with different results.
December 27th, 2006 at 12:48 am
It’s pretty hard to rile up the mob mentality using science and logical thought as the cause to get behind.
It isn’t religion or atheism, it’s us-ism and them-ism. Leaders use religion or nationalism or racism to promote their personal power which they maintain by having followers. But the followers have to see themselves as a brotherhood or whatever you want to call it. The followers have to unite around a cause, but the cause has to be ‘their’ cause. And the enemy has to be ‘not us’. You can use religion, it’s a perfect tool. Nationalism and racism work as well, especially if there is some conflict over territory or resources.
You’ve probably heard the military works to de-humanize the enemy in order to get soldiers to be able to kill. It’s one of the reasons we do so poorly in conflicts like Iraq and Vietnam. When you demonize the enemy, what happens when the soldiers have a hard time defining the line between us and them? In other words which of ‘them’ are supposed to be on our side and therefore ‘us’? You end up with soldiers who demonize the people they should be supporting and causing those people to change sides.
It’s very easy and very dangerous to use religion to rile up the mob. That is what is happening right now in many countries with the Islamic religion. It isn’t the religion, it’s the leaders using religion to create their armies. It is just as easily done with Christianity.
Maybe you can do it with atheism. It probably played a part in some nationalist movements like Mao’s China. Maybe in the future some leader will rile up the atheists to throw off their oppressive theist government, or battle their ‘dangerous threatening’ theist neighbors.
The key element is identity with the group and non-identity with the enemy. We’re human, they are not. We are righteous, they are not. We own this land, they do not.
December 27th, 2006 at 12:50 am
The big issue here is scientism. As the good old Webster can explain; it’s a superstitious and dogmatic ideology. It’s simple to define it:
“Scientism is a belief that scientific knowledge is the foundation of all knowledge and that, consequently, scientific argument should always be weighted more heavily than other forms of knowledge, particularly those which are not yet well described or justified from within the rational framework, or whose description fails to present itself in the course of a debate against a scientific argument. It can be contrasted by doctrines like historicism, which hold that there are certain “unknowable” truths. [7] This viewpoint is typified by comments such as “Scientific research has demonstrated that substance x causes cancer in humans.â€
“As a form of dogma: “In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth.â€
“Scientism can also mean the couching of religious, untestable beliefs in the cloak of science. For example, if one believes that life extension will produce 1,000-year life spans within the next 20 years, such a belief may be couched in scientific ideology but actually lack the scientific basis of testing. Hence, “scientism” can also be taken to mean “science as religion.â€
But let’s say what scientism isn’t. It isn’t science. So, all those “true believers†in this superstitious and dogmatic ideology are simply masquerading as defenders of science, when in fact they are simply couching their untested, unscientific beliefs as science. It’s pretty much what “Creation Scientists†do, but far more corrosive to actual science. It’s the single most dangerous threat against science today. Anyone who wants to protect Science should pay attention to this. Those who simply want to bash what they perceived as religion and sacrifice scientific integrity with their superstitious dogmas may continue as they please. They are doing a fine job.
I mean, on this very thread it’s mentioned that man is hard-wired to search for religious answers. That’s an interesting scientific fact. However, the concept that it must necessarily mean that religion is false is just nonsense. It’s simply one interpretation of a fact, and a pretty weak one at that. It’s obvious that a Creator, even a distant deist clockmaker, could simply set the universe in motion in a way that a particular part of this creation would be hard-wired to look for Him. We can discuss the philosophical possibilities, but to pass materialist dogma as scientific fact is utter nonsense.
Einstein once said: “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” As some comments here demonstrate, Science as a religion is lame, blind, half-deaf and talks too much.
December 27th, 2006 at 12:53 am
Jack Hagerty said:
For years I’ve wanted to put a big lighted sign on our roof saying “Axial Tilt is the Reason for the Season†…
I love this too. And think how many people you might educate that don’t know that.
December 27th, 2006 at 12:58 am
Irishman said:
Relax, I don’t think it was a comment that Phil has singled you out for some behavior. He would tell you if that were so.
BigJohn, I suspect that the moderation message either applies because the spambot has for some reason identified you, or Phil has for some reason activated moderation for this thread because of the sensitive nature. Still, that beats the recurring error message we were all getting for a while.
I can attest to this. It’s happened to me several times. I can post parts of the message until I narrow it down to a paragraph or sentence which is blocking the post. I’ve tried everything to eliminate any hidden code by re-typing but that hasn’t helped.
And the last time it happened, after I got it down to one sentence, I posted the sentence alone and it wasn’t blocked. Go figure!
December 27th, 2006 at 1:08 am
Delance you might want to read what I posted just above yours. Your fears of scientists oppressing the religious is one of those fantasies some religious leaders have used to arm their followers against the ‘infidel scientists’ who are out to lead you astray.
Science doesn’t attack religion, science is a process. What you fear is the evidence, not the scientist. I don’t fear the Bible, it isn’t very convincing. But if I were a literal believer in that Bible, I would have reason to fear all the evidence that contradicts the Bible as a literal work.
December 27th, 2006 at 3:52 am
Skeptigirl,
Your message seems to indicate that I pointed out the fallacies of scientism out of a hidden, irrational fear of science. It’s odd that you think that, given that my message was in defense of science. I would think that we could agree that “couching of religious, untestable beliefs in the cloak of science” is a bad thing regardless of who is doing it. It’s easy to go after against someone with a different worldview, but not so much against someone with a similar worldview.
About fantasies, yes, some religious people incorrectly think that science is out to get them. That’s not true at all. On the other hand, some atheists buy into a similar paranoid notion religious people are a menace to them and religion is an evil to be dealt with. There are many psychological reasons for such irrational fears, but they seem to feed on each other. In a way, the fringe groups on both sides believe in essentially the same fantasy of a war between religion and science.
The problem here is equating a philosophical position with the scientific method. “Science is the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth.†is a philosophical position that people are entitled to believe in and promote. It’s not, however, a scientific fact, and anyone willing to pass this position as science is either a fool or a charlatan.
Anyone willing equate their own particular worldview (atheism, pantheism, creationism, scientism, logical positivism, etc.) with science is wrong. There can be no exceptions for those with really trendy anti-religious rhetoric.
December 27th, 2006 at 4:02 am
“It isn’t religion or atheism, it’s us-ism and them-ism.”
I agree with this. And yes, some religious people do use that. And, if you make an effort, you’ll notice that some anti-religious people do the same all the time. The very same mob thinking and let’s demonizing those who disagree with us. It’s very bad for rational dialogue.
“Science doesn’t attack religion, science is a process.”
Of course. It’s a method and a body of knowledge. Not a belief system. We DO agree, you see.
December 27th, 2006 at 5:53 am
Michael said:
>Well, which is it; foolishness or genocide?
I think you’re engaging in false dichotomy. Unless you think that foolishness implies lightheartedness and insignificance?
No, I don’t think so. It’s foolishness to teach people that using condoms is a sin, but it’s not the same as genocide. If the missionaries are teaching this because they truly believe it’s sin, that’s foolish. If they dreamed up this ’sin’ as a justification to help spread AIDS and wipe out a people, that’s genocide. Somehow I think it’s the former. Foolishness can certainly lead to awful consequences, but I think to accuse someone (or some group) of genocide, you need to establish intent. Tossing around loaded words like ‘genocide’ is just an appeal to emotion, not an argument.
December 27th, 2006 at 6:38 am
Delance Said:
“About fantasies, yes, some religious people incorrectly think that science is out to get them. That’s not true at all. On the other hand, some atheists buy into a similar paranoid notion religious people are a menace to them and religion is an evil to be dealt with. There are many psychological reasons for such irrational fears, but they seem to feed on each other.”
I don’t see fear of religious persecution as all that irrational, given the history of the Church, what it has done throughout it’s existence, and even what is happening today.
Do you really think the US was attacked because we are “free”? Nope, because we are “Infidels”, supporting other “Infidels” in the “Holy Land”, that is why we were attacked.
I believe that is the primary reason behind the troubles in British Isles, though I am not as up to date on that.
I don’t trust the righteous to have MY best interests at heart. Primarily because it has been shown time and again that the righteous have no heart.
December 27th, 2006 at 8:51 am
religious persecution does not have to mean burning people at the stake. it can also mean the banning of abortion, euthanasia and the invading of other countries under the guidance of god. It can also be the statement by the president that atheists are not part of the usa as far as he is concerned.
December 27th, 2006 at 9:24 am
Blah Blah Blah. Opinions and opinionated interpretation is so boring.
December 27th, 2006 at 9:29 am
Giles: AS Chris Rock pointed out, the real rason we print that on our currency is to remind people our god IS money!
Besides, coinage had that motto for nearly a hundred years before it was on the currency.
But I think Chris had the real skinny,,,just ask any tele-evangilist,,,
GAry 7
December 27th, 2006 at 9:44 am
Delance, you make an excellent argument! Very well put! And of course all of this is conflated with the problem that words like “Christian” and “Atheist” get tossed around during these debates as if they actually meant something concrete and specific. They don’t! Oh, you can find a dictionary definition for each of those words, but most people who use them, either to describe themselves or someone else, use the words as if they mean exactly what the user means, and nothing else. They become a form of shorthand that supposedly encompasses a set of people or ideas. The same problem arises when we use words like “Democrat” or “Republican.” Each of those words encompasses a HUGE (and frequently overlapping) range of beliefs and behaviors. Use of these words often leads to unintended consequences. When people (including Phil) decry some particular bit of idiocy as being “Christian,” it ends up provoking anger in all the people who consider themselves to be “Christian” but who don’t practice that particular form of idiocy. It’s the whole “That’s not the God I believe in” argument. And unless I am sadly mistaken, it’s never been Phil’s intention to paint with such a broad brush of derision. But that’s what happens when we use such broad, ill-defined words in this sort of setting.
Is there a solution? I can think of several. But the easiest one would probably be for people to just chill out and think about what they are really trying to say, and listen to what people are really trying to tell them in return. Given the likelihood that Phil is NOT passing judgment on all Christians now and throughout history as being idiots who believe in fairies and angels, he should try to make it clear, now and again, that this is not the point he is trying to make. He does a reasonable job of this, to my eye, much of the time (although his frustration does make this unclear sometimes). On the other side, rational people who call themselves Christians/theists/deists/etc need to remember that these attacks against idiocy are not generally directed at them, and should not be taken as cause for offense but as potential sources of commonality.
There is plenty of common ground left to stand on, and we’ll make much more progress in this discussion/debate if we stop trying to push each other off the edge!
December 27th, 2006 at 10:17 am
Skipping the above debating, I have to ask why exactly are you surprised/depressed by this? Angels are associated with a couple of different religions, so in a nation where a fair amount of the population belongs to those religions of course the numbers that say they believe in angels is going to be high.
December 27th, 2006 at 10:18 am
Delance, you’re making the mistake that Scientism is a legitimate concept. But in order to accept Scientism as legitimate, you have to have strictly defined concepts of “truth” and “knowledge”, both of which are wildly variable. Scientism then becomes a philosophical concept. And here’s the best part – it then rejects itself
In my experience, Scientism is a tool wielded to attack the scientific method, by those who have no other useful arguments – it’s a label, like “godless” and “bleeding-heart.” Science is not philosophy, nor history. So no, neither truly belong in the realm of science, which is about finding the answers through cause-and-effect and observation. Speculation is valueless unless there’s supporting evidence for it.
To claim that anyone practicing or discussing any concept from a standpoint of science (i.e., “What evidence do you have that these are angels and not something else?”) is engaging in “Scientism” is specious. Philosophy is not evidence, so it does not belong in the conversation. And philosophical “truths” are simply thoughts that make you feel satisfied.
Say my auto mechanic works on my car strictly from a standpoint of what’s physically wrong with it, and does not consult the zodiac. You can create a new concept called “Mechanism” (though I think that’s taken) and call him close-minded if you like, but this doesn’t mean it makes any sense. He may well follow astrology quite fervently, but he doesn’t apply it to cleaning the carburetor.
You also fall into a philosophical trap yourself, several times. You said that the evolutionary trait of creating religious answers is a fact – it’s not. It’s speculation. It cannot be tested or proven. All it does is present a possible explanation for religious ideas in a species that evolved spontaneously, without supernatural origins. It fits with other observations on behavior, so it is accepted by many. But we have no means of ascertaining any “truth” to it.
You then say that by anyone accepting this, they are maintaining that religion is false. But there is no such black/white statement, no dichotomy, inherent or implied. And you have reversed the progression. The idea of evolutionary traits providing an idea of religion (the concept was actually, “seeing something that is not there”) is given in response to the religious argument of, “How come so many people believe in supernatural origins if they don’t exist, then?”
While most people who offer the idea of an evolutionary trait that gives rise to religious concepts are not religious themselves, this does not mean they are directly linked. What you will likely find is that most of these people look at things from a standpoint of believing because they can see the cause. They (and I count myself among them) do not understand why someone develops such a fervent defense of religion when it has no evidence behind it. Do I “reject” christianity or judaism? No more so than I reject the Great A’tuin – show me the turtle and hey, I’m good.
Assigning the quasi-religious concept of Scientism to anyone that asks for simple evidence is a new tool of creationists. Moreover, it doesn’t really net any useful result.
December 27th, 2006 at 10:23 am
I’m a lot more worried by the USA having nukes than I am by Iran having them. Iran needs a deterrent against Israeli and US aggression and know that if anything happens they’d be a mushroom cloud in an eyeblink.
The US has a track record of nuking civilian cities and attacking nations for the wrong reasons as well as supporting dictatorships + and catastrophically interfering in other nations politics ++ The US has been threatening Iran along with other supposed “rogue states” and supports Iran’s worst enemies and encircles it with troops next door on both sides. (Iraq and Afghanistan for the geogrpahically challenged.) I can see why they’d be insecure and want to get themselves some sort of nuclear deterrent to make the mad regime in Washington back off a bit.
Religion more harm than good? Depends on how you define religion, how you separate it out from other factors (politics, human decency, personal upbringings and ethics) & how youdefine good and harm too. I suspect tho’ its about equal .. mauybe slightly towrad the more harm than good line though because killing people inthename of religion does seem tohappen abit more and be abitmoreserious than the helping people inthename of religion bit.
Classic examples of Christians doing the equivalent to flying planes into the WTC towers for Mark – just because he asked
1) Falwell blaming that event on gays, feminists & liberals .. (Essentially saying “good on AQ, God told or blessed them for their crime, he agrees with what they did & would have done the same if he’d had the cajones!”)
2) Anti-choice misogynist murders murdering doctors at abortion clinics.
3) George ‘Dubyya’ Bush the Mad saying God told him to invade Iraq. That needless war sold by lies and religion ahs now killed more Americans than died intheWTC and Pentagonattacks of 2001 plus tens of thousands [perhaps even hundreds of thousands of Iraqi’s mostly civilans.
4) Salem witch trials.
5) Crusades -from Medieval to modern incl. the Vietnam war fought byChristians with that same old destiory thevilalge tosaveit, kill the body to save the soul, God over decent behaviour type mindset.
6) The Conquistadors and other imperialists using teBible asan excuse to slaughter the Incas and other Indigenous civilisations.
7) Tim McVeigh blowing up the Oaklahoma gov’t building – funny how the supposed War-of-Terror has by-passed the Christian extremist militia terrorist groups isn’t it? Not.
As for Christmas – easy its really a pagan celebration of the Solstice!
+ Egs : Pinocent in Chile, Turkenmenbashi in Turkmenistan, Saddam Hussein back in the days he was your son-of-a-b’ .. , Israel in the Palestinean territories, ad nauseam ..
++ Egs. The Shah in Iran, Latin America, NIcaragua, The Iran-Contras scandal, the Mujahideen in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union back in the Cold War, ad nauseam ..
(Aside : an interesting historic irony the only thing Osama bin Laden and Saddam had in common was both were CIA trained former allies of America.)
Not very Xmassy post but then Xmas is long over now anyhow.
December 27th, 2006 at 10:46 am
“I’m a lot more worried by the USA having nukes than I am by Iran having them. Iran needs a deterrent against Israeli and US aggression”
And you thought people who believed in angels were deluded?
December 27th, 2006 at 1:03 pm
bah, feed ‘em to the lions, I’m tired of hearing them whine.
Oh, wait. We’re not allowed to do that any more?
JANIE! CALL THE SMUGGLERS AND TELL THEM TO TAKE THEM BACK!!!! WE’RE NOT ALLOWED TO DO THAT ANYMORE!
(what? it was a joke!)
December 27th, 2006 at 1:04 pm
mostly.
December 27th, 2006 at 1:30 pm
Delance says:
…On the other hand, some atheists buy into a similar paranoid notion religious people are a menace to them and religion is an evil to be dealt with.
Both of us have stated we don’t mean every person of faith nor every person of science. I’ll clarify further it is the actions which concern me, not the people included in any label. Surely you aren’t denying the occurrence of menacing actions currently being taken under the guise of following a particular religious doctrine?
The problem here is equating a philosophical position with the scientific method. “Science is the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth.†is a philosophical position that people are entitled to believe in and promote. It’s not, however, a scientific fact, and anyone willing to pass this position as science is either a fool or a charlatan.
Anyone willing equate their own particular worldview (atheism, pantheism, creationism, scientism, logical positivism, etc.) with science is wrong. There can be no exceptions for those with really trendy anti-religious rhetoric.
There is a fundamental difference between the scientific process and belief in religious doctrines. You want to equate the two claiming it is only a philosophical choice which of those two means provides “the truth”. Perhaps that can apply to questions of morality. (I happen to think if a mind can weigh a moral decision, it uses criteria and once you identify criteria science can make a morality judgment the same way an individual does, but that aside.) Science doesn’t address every “truth”.
JustAl Says:
In my experience, Scientism is a tool wielded to attack the scientific method, by those who have no other useful arguments – it’s a label, like “godless†and “bleeding-heart.†Science is not philosophy, nor history. So no, neither truly belong in the realm of science, which is about finding the answers through cause-and-effect and observation. Speculation is valueless unless there’s supporting evidence for it.
To claim that anyone practicing or discussing any concept from a standpoint of science (i.e., “What evidence do you have that these are angels and not something else?â€) is engaging in “Scientism†is specious. Philosophy is not evidence, so it does not belong in the conversation. And philosophical “truths†are simply thoughts that make you feel satisfied.
I agree with this and it says better than I can what my reply to your post would be. The scientific process does provide certain truths religion cannot. The proof those truths are “absolute” as you put it, is the success science has which religion never has had. (Mind you it is the process which is absolute, and your terminology is not what I nor most scientists would use.)
Science has determined ‘absolutely’ that the processes which humans in the past attributed to gods are the result of natural processes, not gods. Are you claiming that is merely a philosophical position and the belief gods are responsible is equally valid? Sorry, one might as well imagine we live in The Matrix” and our senses are unreliable.
You can hold the philosophy some god initiated the system then let it run its course. The scientific process doesn’t apply, except to note there is no evidence for such a belief. Beyond that, you have evidence vs belief based on faith in a doctrine that the evidence often contradicts and never supports in its entirety. Is this what you claim is just a difference in philosophy?
seaducer Says:
Do you really think the US was attacked because we are “freeâ€? Nope, because we are “Infidelsâ€, supporting other “Infidels†in the “Holy Landâ€, that is why we were attacked.
I believe that is the primary reason behind the troubles in British Isles, though I am not as up to date on that.
Do you really think the US was attacked for either of these oversimplified reasons?
Neither of those claims are correct. They are both based in rhetoric designed to identify ‘us’ and ‘them’. The rhetoric may or may not be believed by those repeating it, but the reasons for war and terrorism are based in power and the lack of power, poverty, racism, theft of land, inequality, resentment, revenge, religion, indoctrination, fear and ignorance, not necessarily in that order and I probably left something out.
December 27th, 2006 at 1:34 pm
Irishman said:
> I assure you I am corporeal.
Just wanted to point out the irony of assuring you of my corporeality via the internet.
Gilles said:
> Somehow it is hard for me to imagine patriotism (American or any other) not linked to the idea of God or a god-like figure, like an Emperor or a King (or an all-powerfull president) ; the two seem to fulfill a need to « obey », hence not to think.
Hmm, I suspect we have different meanings for the word “patriotism”. I can be proud of what my country stands for and the principles on which it is founded while examining critically the actions of its leaders and people who make bad decisions or act against those principles.
Delance said:
> Replace “Angel†for “Extradimentional entity†and “believe†for “consider the philosophical possibility†and you’d have the very same question with different results.
No. For two reasons.
If I just replace “Angel” with “Extradimentional entity”, then I have no reason to believe in an Extradimentional entity any more than I do to believe in an Angel. Or Fairies, or the Loch Ness Monster, or Bigfoot, or Leprechauns (can’t leave them out or I’ll never hear the end of it).
If I replace “believe” with “consider the philosophic possibility”, then I have explicitly changed the semantic content of the statement. “Consider” does not mean the same thing as “believe”. Believe means accept as true, whereas consider means think it possible without drawing a conclusion.
I might be persuaded to “consider the philosophical possibility that Angels exist” based upon existing (weak) evidence, but I certainly am not prepared to believe in them based upon that same evidence.
skeptigirl, great comments about the “us-ism vs them-ism”. It reiterates thoughts I’ve previously tried to express about the oversimplification of blaming religion for human actions.
Irishman said:
>> I think you’re engaging in false dichotomy. Unless you think that foolishness implies lightheartedness and insignificance?
Michael said:
> No, I don’t think so. It’s foolishness to teach people that using condoms is a sin, but it’s not the same as genocide. If the missionaries are teaching this because they truly believe it’s sin, that’s foolish. If they dreamed up this ’sin’ as a justification to help spread AIDS and wipe out a people, that’s genocide. Somehow I think it’s the former. Foolishness can certainly lead to awful consequences, but I think to accuse someone (or some group) of genocide, you need to establish intent. Tossing around loaded words like ‘genocide’ is just an appeal to emotion, not an argument.
Thank you for clarifying. I think the significant question is whether “genocide” is an intent word or a consequences word.
SteveT said:
> And of course all of this is conflated with the problem that words like “Christian†and “Atheist†get tossed around during these debates as if they actually meant something concrete and specific. They don’t! … They become a form of shorthand that supposedly encompasses a set of people or ideas. The same problem arises when we use words like “Democrat†or “Republican.†Each of those words encompasses a HUGE (and frequently overlapping) range of beliefs and behaviors. Use of these words often leads to unintended consequences.
Very well put!
Michael said:
>> “I’m a lot more worried by the USA having nukes than I am by Iran having them. Iran needs a deterrent against Israeli and US aggressionâ€
> And you thought people who believed in angels were deluded?
Actually, I can see this as a very valid viewpoint. While it may seem easy to sit back and say “As an American I would never condone nuking Iran just because it’s there,” I can’t help but look at political leaders and historic actions taken by our government that suggest such an action is not so ludicrous. Even the U.S.’s history of involvement in Iran (i.e. the Shah) is enough to make them skeptical of our intentions. I also can’t help but cry at the hypocrisy of decrying other nations for having “Weapons of Mass Destruction” while we harbor our own nuclear stockpile.
December 27th, 2006 at 2:08 pm
seaducer,
Tell me, do you Seriously think militant, self-righteous atheists have your best interest at heart?
Of course persecution is real. It’s part of mankind. Everyone is capable of doing it. Atheists are not magically exempt from persecuting those who disagree with them. I’m not talking about communism here. Secular humanism, as an ideology, can be used to justify horrendous acts of religious persecution. Go look for the Cristero War in Mexico.
It’s rational to fear certain individuals, and certain belief systems, but to fear “religion” in general is silly. Religious individuals are not dangerous simpletons and atheists don’t represent the pure, superior übermensch.
JustAI,
I agree that Scientism and Logical Positivism are self-refuting and contradictory. We have common ground, as we agree on some things, but it appears that you have misunderstood part of my message. I don’t use the term to attack the Scientific Methot, but rather people who masquerade their random unscientific stuff as scientific fact, and I think we can both agree that’s a bad thing.
Scientism is not “practicing or discussing any concept from a standpoint of science”, but the claim that Science is the only way any concept can be validated or discussed. As you can see, there’s a significant difference.
I never said that the concept of Scientism should not be used to describe anyone that asks for evidence. It should be applied to those who display a quasi-religious zeal of those who wish to assign the Scientific Method as the only valid and justifiable means of ascertaining truth.
I’m not saying that actual scientists are like that. By definition, they are not. In fact, if there’s on belief system incompatible with Science, this is it.
skeptigirl,
“There is a fundamental difference between the scientific process and belief in religious doctrines.
[snip]
Science doesn’t address every “truthâ€.”
There are plently of differences. However, again, what I call scientism, here, is NOT science, but a quasi-religious doctrine that claims that only Science can indeed address every truth. Scientism is not a form of Epistemology, it’s an ideology.
December 27th, 2006 at 2:49 pm
Irishman,
It was not lost on me for one, and I chuckled out loud when I read it. But then again, I’m not corporeal, so take that for what it’s worth…
December 27th, 2006 at 2:50 pm
SteveT,
They become a form of shorthand that supposedly encompasses a set of people or ideas.
You make an excellent point. In fact, any dialogue will shut down if we resort to this kind of reasoning. Those preconceived notions leads to very bad reasoning.
If I told an anti-religious militant of an institution that formed a 12 saints, nine blesseds, 18 cardinals and 86 archbishops, he could, perhaps, have the initial impression that it’s some kind of backwards obscurantist medieval grotto. If I told a fundamentalist Christian of a place that has houses Richard Dawkins and several evolutionists, he might think it’s some sort of godless sodomite temple of evil.
But it so happens that the place is the same: Oxford University.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_University_of_Oxford_people
Irishman,
I might be persuaded to “consider the philosophical possibility that Angels exist†based upon existing (weak) evidence, but I certainly am not prepared to believe in them based upon that same evidence.
That’s a very fair answer. But are you prepared to consider the possibility that someone rational might have a belief in angels based on existing evidence, however weak? The question here is not what we personally believe in, but how much are we willing to accept that others might have rational beliefs different from our own.
What I mean, I guess, is that the reason for a belief can vary greatly. Someone might end up either an atheist or a Christian for a multitude of similar reasons. Maybe this hypothetical individual examined the history and the evidence and reached the conclusion that either Christianity or Atheism was the best answer. Another one may simply have been educated that way – either way. Someone else might have had some personal, strong emotional event on his life and adopting a specific view on this subject is a way to cope with this event. It’s very personal.
December 27th, 2006 at 2:56 pm
The middle way is not always the right way. I know people that are very rational in many areas of their life (business, science, etc) but they are religious. Belief in a supernatural entity is never rational. Period. But we should be careful to judge people on one single element of their character…
December 27th, 2006 at 3:21 pm
Belief in a supernatural entity is never rational. Period.
Thanks for the nice example of dogmatic thinking. It throws away any necessity of discussing Epistemology and the question of Acquiring knowledge. It misses the point in that there’s plenty of philosophical work done during centuries exactly about rational demonstrations of the Existence of God (take the scholastic works of St. Thomas Aquinas, for example). You might disagree of them, and think they are wrong, but one thing they are not is irrational.
Besides, that’s an essentially irrational thing to say, never. Even Sagan and Dawkins said that they would change their minds in face of overwhelming evidence (I think Sagan said something like a giant space Cross on fire orbiting Earth, and Dawkins couldn’t quite think of anything). To never change your mind regardless of evidence is an act of Faith, not Reason.
December 27th, 2006 at 3:46 pm
If there would ever be evidence of god or gods that is scientifically acceptable it would no longer be supernatural. It would become instantly part of the natural world as science concerns itself with the natural world. I think belief in psychic powers is also not rational. If ever evidence is found than I would change my mind. It is not dogmatic thinking, it’s called sticking to reality.
I know many intelligent people have thought about god but that does not take away the fact that the belief in a supernatural being is not rational. If you think that is dogmatic thinking than you need a better understanding of science and skeptical thinking.
It is brought up all the time by those who believe, the long list of philosophers who have contemplated god. None of that provides evidence though. The other point of the question of acquiring knowledge is also good fun. The “science is not the only way to acquire knowledge”. Sure, you can sit and talk and come up with great stuff, no question about it. it ain’t gonna proof there is a god though.
December 27th, 2006 at 4:27 pm
Mark UK, I am interested in your definition of the word “rational.” What, precisely, do you mean when you say that a belief is, or is not, or even cannot be “rational.” Again, I go back to the importance of being clear on the meanings of the words we use.
I had a particularly unpleasant experience related to my use of the word “irrational” when I used it to describe someone. I didn’t find out until much after the fact that their understanding of that word was not the same as my own. The fact that I did not think about how this person would interpret my words ended up causing her unintended grief and anger. It made me particularly aware of how messy arguments can become when we don’t start out with a common understanding of what words mean.
Can you enlighten me, please?
December 27th, 2006 at 5:04 pm
Delance says:
I never said that the concept of Scientism should not be used to describe anyone that asks for evidence. It should be applied to those who display a quasi-religious zeal of those who wish to assign the Scientific Method as the only valid and justifiable means of ascertaining truth.
The problem that I see with that is the label of “truth,” and I didn’t address this enough in my reply. “Truth” has many different meanings, and science doesn’t truck with it. Science instead deals with “facts” (which are duplicable) and “evidence” (which is documentable). So in that respect, you have a wavering definition of whether or not Scientism is even being applied. For instance, I have no problems with philosophy itself, but I consider it a game – it won’t provide any proper answers. For an answer to be “proper” (and I will admit this is my own definition, but that I believe the majority of the scientific community follows similar guidelines), it must be supported by something concrete. That’s evidence, and now you have a “theory.” And that’s science.
The problem with philosophy without evidence is that anything goes – baal, the flying spaghetti monster, and so on. You have no ability to establish support for anything, and you get into the trap I mentioned of settling on an answer because you’re happy with it. Or worse, finding no answer because you question your own senses. You mentioned Aquinas, who if I remember correctly was one of the prime people in setting the 6,000 year “age” of the earth through biblical examination. Good research, but backed by absolutely nothing on earth. He also argued angels on pins. And this accomplished what, for anybody? Did he call it “truth?”
You argue that Scientism is a danger, but really, who’s practicing it? No one I’ve seen specifies that philosophy doesn’t count, but at the same time, they don’t pay any more attention to it than astrology or tea leaves – they consider the answers as having the same value, because their standard is “evidence.” Speculation on evolutionary development, such as the aforementioned personification of unseen factors, are based on hard evidence – lots of people believing in religion with no agreements between unconnected cultures. That doesn’t point to a supernatural entity talking to us, that points to a unspecific trait within our species. The speculation is philosophical – we have no way of knowing how we developed. But we can see if there is evidence of the development in the artifacts and fossil record that protohumans left behind.
So now you have a dilemma. Philosophy with evidence (traits across disparate cultures) and philosophy without evidence (flying spaghetti monster). Most scientists that I’ve seen accept the former, and not the latter. Does this fit the definition of Scientism? Does this make the label more useful to somebody?
Because to me, it simply sounds like someone trying to create a new demarcation (see that “us v. them” stuff). Would you like me to go out on a limb here and begin looking pointedly in the direction of radical creationists with agendas?
Or you can say that good and smart people are allowed to use their imagination to create whatever concept they like, call it philosophy, and put it in the pursuit of knowledge. The universe is made of peanut butter? Great! Anyone that asks, “How can that possibly be without any evidence whatsoever to support it?” is practicing Scientism and is bad.
It’s another version of a very old creationist argument: “Prove I’m wrong.” And that’s both bad science and a logical fallacy. Science says instead, “Prove you’re right.” If you have reason to believe in it, make your case.
There’s an additional trap. Establishing a method of “knowledge” that requires no supporting evidence, in effect, discourages critical thought. You have no way of determining a correct answer, and no need to prove one. Now instead of applying this to thor and bacchus, apply it to illnesses like the plague and malaria. Or you don’t have to – it’s part of our history. Does the philosophical answer tell us they’re caused by evil spirits? Sure, whatever you like. But performing exorcisms over the victims didn’t work. Lots of lives were lost, lots of research time wasted, because people in authority, without a decent method of knowing, spouted some utter nonsense as to the cause. Their “knowledge” was nothing of the sort. And was actually worse than simply admitting they had no idea.
Yeah, seeking knowledge without guidelines, creating answers from your mind. Pass the trepanning drill.
December 27th, 2006 at 7:47 pm
Delance said:
“seaducer,
Tell me, do you Seriously think militant, self-righteous atheists have your best interest at heart? ”
No, of course not. Personally I trust only a very few people to have my best interests at heart. And none of those are in elected positions.
BUT it is people pushing their religious beliefs, OR perhaps capitalizing on the beliefs of the “majority” in order to gain power. Any way they are utilizing religion in such a way as to attempt to limit rights and lifestyles and force a world view on everyone. A worldview that has no real world evidence of being factual. That is happening now, so I focus on the threat at hand and will deal with the Stalin’s of the World when they appear.
December 27th, 2006 at 8:25 pm
A note on the word super-natural. It’s highly relative. 500 years ago quantum mechanics would not have been considred natural, being probabalistic and so forth.
These days, for something to be truly super-natural, it pretty much needs to outside space-time and not consist of matter or energy in any form. Which means it could not interact with the natural realm since the interaction would require the manipulation of matter or energy.
Thus if God exists he can’t move or express energy in any way, and there for is not of any interest to a scientist..provided that he is indeed supernatural.
And if there is a natural God (.. an intelligence manifest in some sub-quantum energyform perhaps, who could influence the outcome of collapsing wavefunctions, little by little stearing the chaos towards, well, higher forms of chaos.. ) physics will eventually spy him out and put him to work for us.
Now, there’s some philosophy for y’all.
December 27th, 2006 at 9:09 pm
Thank you, Zoot!
You have rendered moot the argument about god v. science on the entirely appropriate grounds of what is natural or supernatural. I have been trying to explain this to friends on this basis for a long time, mostly in the interests of keeping the peace.
And if quantum mechanics does spy the little bastard out, I agree we should put him to work.
And after that… a spanking! A spanking!
Peace
December 27th, 2006 at 9:51 pm
Mark UK,
It seems you are confusing rational belief with scientific fact. The lack of scientific evidence on the Summa Theologica does not make it irrational.
seaducer,
No, of course not. Personally I trust only a very few people to have my best interests at heart. And none of those are in elected positions.
That make you a wise man in this regard, I guess.
BUT it is people pushing their religious beliefs, OR perhaps capitalizing on the beliefs of the “majority†in order to gain power. Any way they are utilizing religion in such a way as to attempt to limit rights and lifestyles and force a world view on everyone. A worldview that has no real world evidence of being factual. That is happening now, so I focus on the threat at hand and will deal with the Stalin’s of the World when they appear.
If someone is capitalizing on the beliefs of a Christian majority to gain power, then the first victims are the Christians themselves. Remember what Chsitopher Hitchens said: “George Bush may subjectively be a Christian, but he—and the U.S. armed forces—have objectively done more for secularism than the whole of the American agnostic community combined and doubled.”
Any group imposing their views onto the others is bad. Be it a Christian majority, or a Secularist minority.
JustAl,
So in that respect, you have a wavering definition of whether or not Scientism is even being applied. For instance, I have no problems with philosophy itself, but I consider it a game – it won’t provide any proper answers. For an answer to be “proper†(and I will admit this is my own definition, but that I believe the majority of the scientific community follows similar guidelines), it must be supported by something concrete. That’s evidence, and now you have a “theory.†And that’s science.
In rough terms, as you said, Science deals with duplicable facts and documentable evidence. Philosophy deals with concepts like truth. Well, you have just illustrated the problem. Philosophical problems can’t have a scientific answer, and that might be why you think it’s some kind of game. But it is not. Asking for a scientific answer for a philosophical question is not science.
It has absolutely nothing to do with asking for evidence. Scientism is not Science. It ignores any data or question outside the realm of science. Is there a purpose in life? Well, that’s a question that simply can’t be addressed by the scientific method. Not because of a gap in knowledge, but simply because it’s outside the scope of empirical investigation.
You mentioned Aquinas, who if I remember correctly was one of the prime people in setting the 6,000 year “age†of the earth through biblical examination. Good research, but backed by absolutely nothing on earth. He also argued angels on pins. And this accomplished what, for anybody? Did he call it “truth?â€
Talk about quote-mining.
Actually it was the point of a needle, and it was about the hypothetical speculation if non-corporeal beings could be at the same place at the same time, something corporeal beings obviously can’t, due to the laws of nature.
I’m not sure St. Thomas Aquinas did any work on the age of Earth, but I think another monk did in fact an academic work to calculate the nominal Age the Earth taking the biblical data on this regard literally. But, as I said, it was simply an academic work. The exegesis of the Genesis is not supposed to be literal, as demonstrated by St. Augustine.
Because to me, it simply sounds like someone trying to create a new demarcation (see that “us v. them†stuff).
Then I assure you that’s not the case. It’s part of a creationist conspiracy, it’s a real Philosophy of Science issue addressed by luminaries such as Karl Popper, Isaac Asimov, Albert Einstein and even the Skeptics Dictionary.
http://skepdic.com/scientism.html
Scientism, in the strong sense, is the self-annihilating view that only scientific claims are meaningful, which is not a scientific claim and hence, if true, not meaningful. Thus, scientism is either false or meaningless.
Another good definition can be found here:
Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. Scientism’s single-minded adherence to only the empirical, or testable, makes it a strictly scientifc worldview, in much the same way that a Protestant fundamentalism that rejects science can be seen as a strictly religious worldview. Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be apprehended by the scientific method. In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth.
December 28th, 2006 at 12:53 am
Delance, your definitions of scientism clarify your meaning but you haven’t addressed the question of who are these people? Do you have any examples say of authors or philosophers or even organizations which fit this description?
December 28th, 2006 at 1:14 am
BruceAlmighty Says:
Thank you, Zoot!
You have rendered moot the argument about god v. science on the entirely appropriate grounds of what is natural or supernatural. I have been trying to explain this to friends on this basis for a long time, mostly in the interests of keeping the peace.
Not sure if I am in the same track as you here but I don’t agree with the ’science party line’ that there is a supernatural which science doesn’t investigate. Everything is in the natural world. The idea science cannot test for gods only applies to a god defined as one that either covers its tracks for whatever bizarro reason, or one that doesn’t interact with the Universe. Beyond that, gods should be detectable.
I understand why the science statement about not testing the supernatural is used, what it refers to. But it seems like a cop out to say, if those things you believe are true, they aren’t in the natural world and science doesn’t go there.
Ghosts would be detectable if they existed. Of course running around measuring EM activity and temperature variation is nonsensical. How has that been shown to be evidence of extra-corporeal life? Clairvoyance should be measurable and so on. These things are not outside the natural world unless you have to use that definition to fantasize about their existence. We should be stating the scientific process has investigated those claims and found them to be unsubstantiated. No need to add the line about, “go ahead an believe in imaginary things, I won’t stress you out telling you they are imaginary. I’ll couch it in gentler terms that still allow you your beliefs.”
I think we do a disservice to science to allow such exclusions as if we just don’t want to bother confronting the believers in many cases. Perhaps Delance will accuse me of scientism if I say science can test for gods that interact with the Universe and determine there is no evidence for them. While you can’t prove the negative with negative results, anthropology and sociology can certainly provide theories that are supported by the evidence as to how religions and beliefs in gods developed. I’m certain those sciences will not uncover evidence any belief in gods arose from actual experiences involving gods.
December 28th, 2006 at 2:07 am
For me rational means based on logic. It does not matter how much time you spend on any philosophy regarding god or gods. It does not proof any god is around and using simple thought processes as proof is not logical. Belief in in any supernatural entity is magical thinking. If those who are religious want their god to be taken seriously by science than their god needs to stand up to scientific scrutiny. More or less the point Dawkins is making.
December 28th, 2006 at 8:46 am
Delance said:
“If someone is capitalizing on the beliefs of a Christian majority to gain power, then the first victims are the Christians themselves. ”
I am not sure I agree. Most if not all my friends and family are Christian to one degree or another. They all know forcing one’s religious beliefs on another is wrong. They would be mortified if someone tried to use laws to force a Jewish, Islamic, or XXX religious based conviction on them. But because they are “right” they do not feel that politicians who use the Bible to push “Family Values” on others is wrong. The ends justify the means. We will all be saved I guess, and be thankfull for their vision where we all failed to see the light. I guess that is a long winded version of saying that since they know what they are being used for is wrong, but they don’t care as long as their religious views are championed to some degree by the politicos they vote for, that makes them less the victim and more the accessory IMO.
Delance said:
“Chsitopher Hitchens said: “George Bush may subjectively be a Christian, but he—and the U.S. armed forces—have objectively done more for secularism than the whole of the American agnostic community combined and doubled.—
I hope so, but I fear not. It seems that the Religious Right is actually GAINING momentum. Considering the attitude towards the Iraq war, the left really didn’t do that well in the last election. The Democrats may not even hold the majority in the Senate, it was a rather flimsy victory with many close races. Clearly the American people have not had enough just yet.
December 28th, 2006 at 1:16 pm
Skeptigirl,
Delance, your definitions of scientism clarify your meaning but you haven’t addressed the question of who are these people? Do you have any examples say of authors or philosophers or even organizations which fit this description?
I don’t think that would serve any purpose, but I guess I have to provide an answer. I could say Richard Dawkins and P Z Myers have expressed ideas compatible with the definitions of scientism, but would that really do any good?
I don’t agree with the ’science party line’ that there is a supernatural which science doesn’t investigate.
Well, astrologers don’t believe in the ’science party line’ either.
It’s not a political decision, a cop out or a concession; it’s simply a description of what science is and what science does, and, by extension, of what it isn’t and what it does not do. It’s the most basic frame of reference about what the scientific method can and can’t investigate.
Perhaps Delance will accuse me of scientism if I say science can test for gods that interact with the Universe and determine there is no evidence for them.
It’s not an accusation; it’s the description of a particular line of thought. And such tests could never be considered scientific. No one can build a God-O-Meter ™.
anthropology and sociology can certainly provide theories that are supported by the evidence as to how religions and beliefs in gods developed. I’m certain those sciences will not uncover evidence any belief in gods arose from actual experiences involving gods.
Of course no scientific evidence can ever be uncovered about an experience with God, not because it never happened, but because it’s impossible to have a scientific proof about it, one way or the other. Neither Cultural Anthropology nor Sociology has the existence of God as an object of their study. They study beliefs and culture, not the validity of beliefs and culture.
For me rational means based on logic.
How odd. Are you suggestion that entire scholastic school, which was actually based on reason and logic, is both irrational and illogical, for the sole virtue of not being atheist, or not using the scientific methodology which not only didn’t exist on their time, but also had nothing to do with what they were doing. Yeah, I’m that’s a very logical and rational thing to say. Only it isn’t.
If those who are religious want their god to be taken seriously by science than their god needs to stand up to scientific scrutiny. More or less the point Dawkins is making.
Sure thing. Atheism is the ultimate truth and Dawkins is its prophet, peace and blessings be upon his name.
December 28th, 2006 at 1:46 pm
I am not saying that everything is irrational and illogical. I am saying that a belief in a supernatural being i.e god is not logical and not rational.
Now stop collecting all that straw or learn how to read…
December 28th, 2006 at 2:08 pm
Mark UK,
I am not saying that everything is irrational and illogical. I am saying that a belief in a supernatural being i.e god is not logical and not rational.
Now stop collecting all that straw or learn how to read…
Reason is the ability of the human mind to form and operate on concepts in abstraction, and that’s not incompatible with a belief in God. In fact, it’s impossible to even think about God without the ability of human reason, which makes your affirmation illogical. So, there you go.
skeptigirl,
I think I didn’t answer your question well enought, so I’d like to point out some links:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html
“The mainstream theology I have just outlined may well not be true; but anyone who holds it is in my view to be respected, whereas Dawkins considers that no religious belief, anytime or anywhere, is worthy of any respect whatsoever. This, one might note, is the opinion of a man deeply averse to dogmatism. Even moderate religious views, he insists, are to be ferociously contested, since they can always lead to fanaticism.”
http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7803
“He repeats the theory that suicide bombs are caused by religious schools: “If children were taught to question and think through their beliefs, instead of being taught the superior value of faith without question, it is a good bet that there would be no suicide bombers. Suicide bombers do what they do because they really believe what they were taught in their religious schools.” Evidence? As it happens, the definitive scientific study of suicide bombers, Dying to Win, has just been published by Robert Pape, a Chicago professor who has a database containing every known suicide attack since 1980. This shows, as clearly as evidence can, that religious zealotry is not on its own sufficient to produce suicide bombers; in fact, it’s not even necessary: the practice was widely used by Marxist guerrillas in Sri Lanka.”
http://solutions.synearth.net/2006/10/20
“There is indeed historical precedent in the Spanish Inquisition for the notion of hereditary Judaism. But the fact that the worst religious thought of the sixteenth century can be likened to the worst scientific thought of the twentieth century hardly redounds to the credit of science.”
December 28th, 2006 at 2:16 pm
Mark UK, thanks for answering my query about your definition of the word “rational”. I agree with your basic definition of
rational = based on logic,
although I would rephrase it to be more along the lines of
rational = using reason and logic to arrive at a conclusion.
Assuming I have not altered your meaning by rephrasing it, I would argue that you are not applying the definition properly. You argued earlier that belief in God cannot be rational, whereas I would argue that it most certainly can. It may be a wrong belief, but it CAN still be a rational one. It all depends on the assumptions/evidence/data that one uses to reason from. It is perfectly possible to start from a series of incorrect assumptions and then proceed in a perfectly logical, reasoning way to a solid conclusion based on those assumptions. Thus, while you may argue that the assumptions/evidence that religious scholars begin from are incorrect, and that their conclusions are therefore incorrect, you would be wrong to assert that they were/are irrational conclusions.
This may seem like a nit-picky issue of semantics, but I think it goes to a more fundamental level; that of respect for people of opposing views. It is one thing to tell me that I am wrong in my belief in God because I have used faulty assumptions or false evidence. To be honest, I don’t mind that a bit. It is another thing entirely to tell me that I am irrational for coming to this belief. That is insulting.
It is certainly possible to come to such belief in God in an irrational way, but it is not by any means INHERENTLY irrational. So please don’t imply that the legion of religious scholars who have considered this question are irrational, unreasoning fools. They may well have been WRONG, but that is another matter entirely.
December 28th, 2006 at 3:23 pm
Steve,
Will agree to disagree…
December 28th, 2006 at 4:34 pm
“For something to be “right†it has to be testable, and match reality.”
Hmm. For something to be scientifically acceptable, it has to be testable. Which version of ‘reality’ are you caring to use? Due to the subjective nature of the way your brain interprets the signals it receives, I imagine you are happy to accept that at best the reality must be a concensual one, and at ‘worst’ entirely subjective. If you think you are testing against some objective reality, I would love to hear how you justify that…
As for Mark UK’s assertion that belief in a supernatural being is illogical – can I ask why? If you have no better evidence to explain why some things happen, and do not have the time and resources to dedicate to finding mundane explanations, it would be illogical to leave those events unascribed to anything – as previously pointed out, it does no (direct) harm to misidentify nothing (or an unobservable something) as a predator (or god) but can be a serious disadvantage to fail to model any somethings you think you may have observed the actions of, in case they turn out to be predators actions (or gods’).
December 28th, 2006 at 4:40 pm
“If you have no better evidence to explain why some things happen, and do not have the time and resources to dedicate to finding mundane explanations, it would be illogical to leave those events unascribed to anything”
I am not often speechless, but I am a bit now. It is just so wrong…
December 28th, 2006 at 5:01 pm
Mark UK: you presumably do not consider that logic is just one part of an armament of evolutionary tactics we have developed to help us with survival then?
You would presumably argue that it would be logical to not model (ie ignore) anything which you cannot see the direct cause of, given a lack of resources for determining said cause? Could you run the reasoning for that by me, or correct my assumption about how you would argue this? Cheers!
December 28th, 2006 at 6:11 pm
It’s perfectly reasonable to let things be unknown and just study the accessible boundaries. If science didn’t allow for an X in the equation so to speak, it would probably grind to a halt.
The brighter the fire of knowlege the greater the surface area of the dark unknown exposed.
But invoking God as the explaintion to all unknowns is akin to drawing a happy face on a box. You still don’t know whats in the box, but you now feel good about it.
Which is of course rational if your higest value is to feel good, deluded or not. That’s typically not what science is about though.
December 28th, 2006 at 6:23 pm
p@ said:
“You would presumably argue that it would be logical to not model (ie ignore) anything which you cannot see the direct cause of, given a lack of resources for determining said cause?”
It would be illogical to ascribe any unknowns to an unknowable “being”. Far more logical to seek the cause than to chock it up to goddidit statements. It was not too long ago that disease was thought to be a lack of faith (some still believe this). Praying doesn’t ussually work, but medicine more often than not does. If it weren’t for people who thought that there might be a different explanation, we may still be without germ theory.
December 28th, 2006 at 7:46 pm
Seaducer – if you do not have the wherewithall to seek the cause, expenditure of energy in an attempt is less than logical, therefore my point stands. Your assertion that it would, de facto, be illogical to ascribe any unknowns to an unknowable being is evidence of the dogma associated with the pursuit of science. However, I would certainly agree with one issue that raises – it would be more logical to ascribe such things to a knowable-but-as-yet-unknown being/force etc. Which, in fact, is what the majority of faiths do. Religion, it seems to me is the rote practice associated with faith – the majority of ’scientific practice’ I see undertaken in the literature and in university would appear to be exactly the same sort of thing – the rote practice of an underlying faith that all things have some cause which can be uncovered by following a set of religious practices and writing liturgies.
Zoot – I didn’t mean to imply that all unknowns could/should be dealt with by invoking a God-figure. I was merely pointing out that in some cases, particularly where resources are in short supply (such as may be imagined to be the case when people are living on subsistence and have to focus on survival), it is logical (certainly pragmatic) to ascribe some events to a ‘higher being’. We are not that much removed, in terms of our intellect and psychology from our ancestors when they were in such straits, and in addition, we now have a tradition of believing in deities, so it is unreasonable to slate people who hold such beliefs now.
Of course, we are also fairly well hard wired to copy others actions, which is probably a clever evolutionary mechanism which helps us survive in societies. It would seem likely that we also use this same copy-cat mental feature to help us model what other people are doing. If this is the case, it explains our tendency to anthropomorphise, as we are brought up amongst humans (in all but the rarest cases) and so will naturally tend to model any agents that way. Consequently, we are likely to model any events with unknown causes as though they were caused by something more or less human. This is the lowest energy method of dealing with the situation, which means it has a positive evolutionary advantage until such time as we are able to fully explore all the possible reasons for the things we witness.
It may be that we are nearing that time – but we still have the baggage of a couple of years worth of evolution, and unless something happens which makes the anthropomorphising a positive disadvantage, it is unlikely to go away, as it seldom costs us anything to keep it.
December 28th, 2006 at 8:48 pm
P@ said:
“Seaducer – if you do not have the wherewithall to seek the cause, expenditure of energy in an attempt is less than logical, therefore my point stands.”
I am sorry but no, your point does not stand. Review my example of germ theory, 1 of literaly 1000’s of examples of things that at one time we did not have the wherewithall to understand. Thankfully people decided to explore those mysteries anyway, and today we are very much out of the dark ages, albeit with many mysteries still ahead of us.
P@ also said:
“Your assertion that it would, de facto, be illogical to ascribe any unknowns to an unknowable being is evidence of the dogma associated with the pursuit of science.”
Nej, but your statement does illustrate your predilection toward dogmatic beliefs. My point was simply that it is ALWAYS better to search for an answer rather than chalk it up to a mystical figure that we can never know anything about. Other than comforting a mourner I can think of no instance where we are better off NOT searching for fact, as opposed to ascribing “truth”.
YMMV
December 28th, 2006 at 8:59 pm
Just in medical science there are many things we do not understand. Cancer for example, we have not figured out yet how to eradicate cancer cells while sparing normal healthy tissue. We have not yet been able to wrap our minds around a great many issues in the medical field. Should we simply stop looking because we have not the means to understand the answer right now? Should we turn cancer treatments back over to the chaplains, and focus our resources on other illness that we CAN understand given our knowledge?
Why should we remain ignorant of the heavens? (since this is an astronomy blog, lol) You know, thinking that stars are just holes in the floor of Heaven is a cool idea, but what they really are is much cooler (IMHO), and probably much more important to understand all that is up there, and not just ascribe it to God’s mysterious ways. We may very well likely set up mines on other planets to feed our needs. And of course a heads up when Tom Cruise’s daddy comes knocking because we are picking on him. We may need that too…
December 28th, 2006 at 9:49 pm
Corporal Kate said:
> But then again, I’m not corporeal…
No, you’re just corporal. [wince]
Delance said:
>> [Irishman] I might be persuaded to “consider the philosophical possibility that Angels exist†based upon existing (weak) evidence, but I certainly am not prepared to believe in them based upon that same evidence.
> That’s a very fair answer. But are you prepared to consider the possibility that someone rational might have a belief in angels based on existing evidence, however weak? The question here is not what we personally believe in, but how much are we willing to accept that others might have rational beliefs different from our own.
I’m getting lost. I think it possible someone generally rational (i.e. thinking clearly, not insane) may have a belief in angels. I am not convinced that someone with said belief is basing that belief upon the evidence (or solely on the evidence), but is relying upon some other reasons – emotional need, clinging to authoritative teachings, cognative dissonance, “because it would be wonderful if it were true”, etc. I do not believe the evidence supports the conclusion, so those who draw the conclusion do so for some other reason. I do not think those other reasons are logical, reasoning processes.
But my comment was in response to your restatement of the question (whichever question) that equated “believe” to “consider the philosophical possibility”. I do not believe that those two concepts are equivalent, which is my point.
[skeptigirl]> Perhaps Delance will accuse me of scientism if I say science can test for gods that interact with the Universe and determine there is no evidence for them.
[Delance]> It’s not an accusation; it’s the description of a particular line of thought. And such tests could never be considered scientific. No one can build a God-O-Meter ™.
I think you misunderstand. The effects of a God upon the universe can be (potentially) detected and measured by virtue of the change of state that is caused (depending upon the subtlety of the change). If said God operates through “natural law”, i.e. within the constraints that we’ve identified, then those operations can be detected and measured. If he does not operate within constraints, then we can (potentially) detect and measure a violation of said laws (such as the Conservation laws that provide the foundation of modern physics). If we were to detect a violation of one of those laws, that would either mean we have a serious problem with our entire concept of how the universe works, or that we’ve detected the actions of some agent that is external (or possibly intrinsic to) the universe itself. Either way, then, we can detect and measure effects on the universe. Finding the ultimate source may prove difficult (or even impossible), but the effects should be obvious. (Hey, there’s a guy walking on water! And we scrutinized the whole process, and it really was a guy really walking on real water, no smoke and mirrors or illusionist tricks or digital camera work!)
December 29th, 2006 at 12:19 am
Irshman,
I do not believe the evidence supports the conclusion, so those who draw the conclusion do so for some other reason. I do not think those other reasons are logical, reasoning processes.
Well, yeah. But someone might, on the other hand, believe that the evidence supports the conclusion as to make it reasonable, and uses a rational process to state that some Angels exist. For example
Aquinas beleived that the Angels in scripture existed, be he wouldn’t go check out http://www.angelsastrology.com
Well, for the sake of an humorous example, allow me to present this:
http://www.squidi.net/comic/zomb/view.php?ep=1&id=10
Assuming that Spot is not insane of victm of a Hoax, he has a completely rational belief that Angels exist, beacuse he actually met them.
December 29th, 2006 at 12:33 am
Wow, P@, you present so many examples of collapsed logic it’s hard to know where to begin!
Okay, let’s start with this one: Unknown does not equate to unknowable. And in fact, like proving a negative, it isn’t possible to pronounce something empirically unknowable. Scratch one excuse for copping out.
Number two: You cannot determine what resources are needed to determine the qualities of a phenomenon until you have successfully done so. So claiming that the answer is beyond available resources is another cop-out. Case in point: dark matter. Popular theory has it that it is mass without the visible properties we expect, all we’re getting is gravity. However, a much less popular theory, yet as far as I know still valid, has it that our math for gravity is a tad off. Establishing the former took some pretty heavy-duty astronomical equipment – establishing the latter took a calculator.
Number three: Philosophy has an inherent flaw, in that answers that do not have evidential backing are indistinguishable from fantasy. Any answer, from “allah” to “harry potter” to “that thing under the stairs” all have equal validity. Who cares? Why do you feel you accomplish anything with that?
Number four: You claim that allowing the idea of supernatural beings as an answer to unknown phenomena does no harm. History laughs long and loud at this one – belief in supernatural beings has been a major factor in millions, if not billions, of deaths from warfare and persecution, a prime factor against human rights and equality, a huge delay in medical and industrial advancement, and most especially, a really simple tool for leaders to bend the devout to their will.
Number four-a: Allowing the idea of an answer that cannot in any way be substantiated discourages the search for a valid answer. We can stop right now and pronounce all further quests for knowledge as “beyond us” and credit it all to ra. If we’d done this a few hundred years ago, where would we be now? How many advances made in the past two centuries came from people who copped out and said, “It’s god’s will!”?
Number five: What makes you presuppose any kind of supernatural being in the first place? Why do you call this logical? Are you aware that logic dictates conclusions come after observations (and/or tests)? Have you considered that presupposing supernatural entities stems from cultural conditioning rather than a logical process?
Number six: Your own argument that allows for an unknown phenomenon to be pronounced as whatever anthropomorphic entity you care to put forward, also allows for the simple answer of “None.” What’s worse, this is the only answer that is supported by the lack of evidence. You now have myriad unsupported answers, against one that does have support. How does your logic deal with that one?
Actually, I’m pretty sure I know the answer to that one, and it is: [long, drawn out obfuscating attempt to turn wild speculation into something resembling scientific principle]. You’re not onto something new here.
December 29th, 2006 at 2:09 am
Irshman,
The effects of a God upon the universe can be (potentially) detected and measured by virtue of the change of state that is caused (depending upon the subtlety of the change). If said God operates through “natural lawâ€, i.e. within the constraints that we’ve identified, then those operations can be detected and measured.
But how could we detect the change is state, if it occurred within the constrains of “natural law”? The changing of water into wine comes to mind. There’s nothing special in the making of wine, but the sudden change of substance from water to wine could not been accomplished by any forces at work that we know of. But even if we could actually detect the water mysteriously rearranging into wine on a subatomic level using all the right high-tech equipment, I don’t think that would serve a definitive proof of the existence of God, it could simply mean that we don’t know why that event took place, but we couldn’t necessarily rule out that some unknown natural force was at work, from a scientific point of view. In fact, the methodological naturalistic assumptions of the scientific method would kick in and force the presumptions that there at least could be a natural explanation for whatever event, however improbable.
Another example, then. If someone had a 0.1% chance of healing and gets better, maybe that was an act of God, maybe it was “luck”, maybe it was the fact that someone in 1000 cases had to get better anyway, but we couldn’t really detect something there, let alone measure it.
If he does not operate within constraints, then we can (potentially) detect and measure a violation of said laws (such as the Conservation laws that provide the foundation of modern physics).
So, what could a scientifically-minded individual do if he was to witness a real miracle? Even if an extraordinary event that defied our understanding of the universe was to happen under a controlled environment, what then? I don’t think a paper named “Holy Cow, a Miracle actually happened on my Lab†would pass peer review.
The guy could write a book named “Dude, where is my logical positivism?†and go on Letterman, but other than that, it wouldn’t change our understanding of things.
Either way, then, we can detect and measure effects on the universe. Finding the ultimate source may prove difficult (or even impossible), but the effects should be obvious. (Hey, there’s a guy walking on water! And we scrutinized the whole process, and it really was a guy really walking on real water, no smoke and mirrors or illusionist tricks or digital camera work!)
That reminds be of some guy who theorized that the Sea of Galilee could’ve been frozen that day.
But let’s you was there. Someone has just walked on the water. It was not frozen, there were no smokes, mirrors or illusion. What would you do with that fact?
The Congregation for the Causes of Saints in the Vatican has been studying (and dismissing) claims of miracles since 1588, but no record, no matter how well documented, could serve as evidence on a scientific level, I suppose. But, even if it could, I’m not sure what would happen. I remember Ed Harris as the “miracle killer†priest on “The Third Miracleâ€. Someone can witness a miracle and simply say “so what?â€
December 29th, 2006 at 4:42 am
If gods are so minimalist that the healing of a person prayed for can barely be detected above the healing of someone not prayed for, I’d say that was as good as not interacting with the Universe, Delance.
You really aren’t thinking this through. Either these gods do things, in which case there should be some evidence or they don’t do anything, in which case they don’t interact with the Universe.
Regarding the stories in the Bible such as walking on water or rising from the dead, people are fooled all the time. Those stories don’t provide evidence of anything other than people were fooled then as they are now. Should we seriously consider “coyote stole fire from heaven” because we can’t go back in time and verify it didn’t happen?
December 29th, 2006 at 5:33 am
Seaducer: Sadly, you appear to have entirely missed the point about not having the resources to investigate… so I will take up JustAl’s argument, as he (she?) at least is arguing in context.
JustAl:
One, I never claimed nor inferred unknown equates with unknowable. As you say you cannot empirically prove something is unknowable – that doesn’t scratch the reason for not investigating something – it strengthens it if you are short on resources!
Two, It is lucky some of your forebears did not have the same opinion on this as you, or all their energy would have been spent looking into why, say, lightning strikes rather than breeding, and then I would have missed the opportunity for this conversation.
Three, Interesting – where did that philosophy bit come from? Science is merely applied philosophy, however, so mind where you point your slating gun
Four, I stand by my claim. The corruption of the people running the religions is what causes the problems, just as the corruption of national leaders causes the self same problems. Nothing, per se, to do with the religions, they are just another level of “tribe” which gives people an “excuse”.
Five – have you not read the post to which you were replying?
Six – That is incorrect. What caused that cup to fall off the table? “None” – not a whole heap of evidence behind that, and you woud be laughed off the stage at your lab’s pantomime for trying it.
December 29th, 2006 at 8:17 am
Two, It is lucky some of your forebears did not have the same opinion on this as you, or all their energy would have been spent looking into why, say, lightning strikes rather than breeding, and then I would have missed the opportunity for this conversation.
This is a red herring. No one suggests that all power available can only be focused on one objective. Using this fallacy harms your argument and does nothing to answer his point. It’s distractionary at best.
Six – That is incorrect. What caused that cup to fall off the table? “None†– not a whole heap of evidence behind that, and you woud be laughed off the stage at your lab’s pantomime for trying it.
You completely missed the point. If you can prescribe the handwaving of a god to some unknown force then you could easily announce that virtually any thing or human created deity did it. “None” is more simply saying no supernatural being did it. Saying “We don’t know but lets find out” is a far more logical approach than just dismissing it as god A, B, C, D, or just a god in general. Doing that you’ve stopped the search. Continuing to question the cause of an event without any evidence is the more logical and scientific approach. God Did it is intellectual laziness.
December 29th, 2006 at 8:19 am
To correct something:
“Continuing to question the cause of an event and search for more evidence is the more logical and scientific approach.”
December 29th, 2006 at 11:23 am
If gods are so minimalist that the healing of a person prayed for can barely be detected above the healing of someone not prayed for, I’d say that was as good as not interacting with the Universe, Delance.
You really aren’t thinking this through. Either these gods do things, in which case there should be some evidence or they don’t do anything, in which case they don’t interact with the Universe.
Did you no that, in biblical times, the Romans would call Christians atheists, because they denied the existence of their gods? Well, no one is debating about gods, or at least I’m not, and it’s quite different from the concept of the Christian God,. A debate about a pantheon of lesser deities would be an entirely different because they are not all-powerful. But that’s a side note. Keep on saying gods if it makes you feel better.
Anyhow, I think you missed the point entirely. Of course a person can reasonably known that God has had an effect on their lives, but to actually be able to present this as documented scientific evidence is an entirely different deal. You can try to demonstrate there was another possible cause, or even assume there had to be one, but can’t repeat or observe it. You shouldn’t presume that any knowledge, in other to be valid, has to be presented as a scientific treatise. Next thing, when someone says they love us we’ll ask for a functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging brain scanning to monitor activity in the visual cortex and try to find the right brain patterns to corroborate the claim. And don’t tell me that’s a good idea.
Regarding the stories in the Bible such as walking on water or rising from the dead, people are fooled all the time. Those stories don’t provide evidence of anything other than people were fooled then as they are now. Should we seriously consider “coyote stole fire from heaven†because we can’t go back in time and verify it didn’t happen?
Yeah, what about all those people on the death roll that rise from the dead after the lethal injection? Death penalty is a free card out of Jail, I tell you.
But, again, you missed the point. My question was what would you do if you could actually observe one such miracle in a lab. You failed to address it.
December 29th, 2006 at 12:05 pm
Number five: What makes you presuppose any kind of supernatural being in the first place? Why do you call this logical?
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608b.htm
If an idea was presupposed, there would be no need to demonstrate it. Disagree with it all you want, but it’s not illogical. I think you may be very confused as to what a logical argument should be. St. Tomas Aquinas actually put forth a good set of objections, and dealt with them using classical logic. In fact, his work is a frame of reference in logic applied to religion. I don’t think I read a single argument here not cointained in Summa Theologiae, Part 1, Question 2 (linked). Again, you can disagree with it, but to claim that it’s not logical is an unsubsansieted fallacy.
December 30th, 2006 at 2:19 am
Delance said:
Anyhow, I think you missed the point entirely. Of course a person can reasonably known that God has had an effect on their lives, but to actually be able to present this as documented scientific evidence is an entirely different deal. You can try to demonstrate there was another possible cause, or even assume there had to be one, but can’t repeat or observe it. You shouldn’t presume that any knowledge, in other to be valid, has to be presented as a scientific treatise. Next thing, when someone says they love us we’ll ask for a functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging brain scanning to monitor activity in the visual cortex and try to find the right brain patterns to corroborate the claim. And don’t tell me that’s a good idea.
Right, the old, “I know it in my heart” argument. Is that the only thing the god of your beliefs does? Give people inner feelings? I’ll leave that one with you and put it in the minimalist category of not interacting enough to be detectable.
If praying does anything it should be detectable. If gods manipulate peoples’ lives, there should be differences detectable between believers’ and non-believers’ lives. You can look at a number of other things such as how inconsistent the Bible is, how it contains no god knowledge such as hints of the germ theory, awareness there was a whole planet populated at the time the Bible was written, and so on.
I prefer to believe in things for which there is supporting evidence.
Love can be studied via the scientific process in a number of ways. That doesn’t negate its meaning and benefit (or hazards) in any way.
[Regarding the stories in the Bible such as walking on water or rising from the dead, people are fooled all the time.] …
Yeah, what about all those people on the death roll that rise from the dead after the lethal injection? Death penalty is a free card out of Jail, I tell you.Sorry. There are enough untruths in the Bible. I see nothing special about one more claim in it.
But, again, you missed the point. My question was what would you do if you could actually observe one such miracle in a lab. You failed to address it. Why would anything observed be a ‘miracle’? If you want to go that direction, why not just say what would I do when I die then find out there was a god? Shermer’s answer was pretty good. “What will you do when you die if you find out you’ve been worshiping the wrong one?”
December 30th, 2006 at 1:09 pm
Right, the old, “I know it in my heart†argument.
No, it’s not. It’s the old Karl Popper’s “The Scientific Model was not made to study the existence of God” argument. So far lacking is any significant work in Philosophy of Science arguing otherwise.
Is that the only thing the god of your beliefs does? Give people inner feelings? I’ll leave that one with you and put it in the minimalist category of not interacting enough to be detectable.
When in the world did I ever say anything about “inner feelings?”? I never said anything about feelings in my post. In fact, I said a completely different thing: “a person can reasonably know that God has had an effect on their lives”. I can reasonably know that reading lots of things that I can’t provide documented evidence for. For example, I can reasonable know that you probably made that up the “inner feelings” because you was unconsciously projecting some deeply held anti-religious preconceptions, but I can’t readily present scientific evidence to prove this claim.
If praying does anything it should be detectable.
The only this demonstrates is a lack of understanding of what prayer is on the most basic level. Even on an abstract level, God doesn’t respond automatically, we can’t calculate how many prayer/hours are required for a specific request. People are supposed to ask God Fiat voluntas tua, i.e., “Thy will be done”. You can even argue that prayer doesn’t “do†anything, God does, and therefore “payer†is not the agent, making any such study meaningless.
If gods manipulate peoples’ lives, there should be differences detectable between believers’ and non-believers’ lives.
First, there’s Free Will. Second, being a believer or a non-believer really doesn’t affect the existence or non-existence of God, therefore your concept doesn’t make any sense. The reality is the same regardless of the opinion of the subject, disbelieving gravity doesn’t make people fly.
You can look at a number of other things such as how inconsistent the Bible is, how it contains no god knowledge such as hints of the germ theory, awareness there was a whole planet populated at the time the Bible was written, and so on.
Silly I, thinking that “god knowledge” would be something about theology. Didn’t it ever occur to you that Bible couldn’t possibly have scientific knowledge unavailable to the people who wrote it, because, well, it was unavailable to the people who wrote it? Just asking.
Why would anything observed be a ‘miracle’?
Well, it was you who came up with brilliant idea about “measuring gods”. I simply stated this was impossible because anything observed by the scientific method is presumed to have natural causes. This a priori assumption is one many things that limit the scope of investigation of the scientific method. Besides, it’s self-evident that an absolute assumption of natural causes is not the same as an absolute proof of natural causes.
If you want to go that direction, why not just say what would I do when I die then find out there was a god? Shermer’s answer was pretty good. “What will you do when you die if you find out you’ve been worshiping the wrong one?â€
Homer Simpson said it better on “Homer the Heretic”: “And what if we picked the wrong religion? Every week, we’re just making God madder and madder!”
December 30th, 2006 at 1:40 pm
Ah, I just found an old cartoon about Sagan and Asimov debating the existence of afterlife that you might find amusing:
http://www.pvponline.com/archive.php3?archive=20020411
December 30th, 2006 at 8:14 pm
You call it “reasonably know” and I labeled it a feeling, Delance. I fail to see the dif. But either way, there’s nothing measurable. In my evidence based world that means nothing is there. If there were something there it would be measurable. I call that a god that doesn’t interact with the Universe. You can call it what you want. It may be real to you, but then I’m sure Zeus was real to some people at some time in the past, just as Buddha is real to some people now.
It doesn’t matter if gods respond on their own timetable to prayer, any response should result in something different between say 1,000 people prayed for and 1,000 not prayed for. If you believe the response to prayer is extremely rare, fine. Set up an experiment to detect something rare. If we can detect neutrinos and the fact a certain toxin will result in 1 excess cancer case per million people exposed to > 10/parts per billion per year, I think we can handle finding evidence of gods responding to prayers however rare, irregular, or whatever the response happens to be.
There’s evidence for gravity.
Delance said:
Silly I, thinking that “god knowledge†would be something about theology. Didn’t it ever occur to you that Bible couldn’t possibly have scientific knowledge unavailable to the people who wrote it, because, well, it was unavailable to the people who wrote it? Just asking.
I love that statement, Del., but I bet you can’t see the irony in it.
So pray tell where did the stories of Adam, Eve, Noah, Genesis (no one was there to see it), the Ten Commandments, Lot, and so on all come from? Either people made the stories up, or they came from communicating with a god. Why would a god be able to describe how the world was created but not be able to advise his people to wash their hands to prevent disease? Why wouldn’t a god be able to describe evolution in simple terms? Lots of other early cultures had no issue with animal origins for people.
Your rationale only sounds plausible if it isn’t questioned. But upon questioning you are left with the standard, “we don’t know what god thinks but he has his reasons”.
If your gods quit interacting with the Universe before now, that would be a god that doesn’t interact with the Universe. I’m not aware of any current religion which holds the tenet that god has abandoned any further interaction with people until they die. You brought up a scenario that can no longer be investigated sufficiently. Fine. But I’m bringing up scenarios which can be investigated.
If you don’t think gods are around anymore, I cannot test for them. Otherwise, they should be detectable.
South Park decided god would choose Mormons. Everyone else went to hell. But I took that concept from hearing Michael Shermer use it. I also like the atheist quote, “When you figure out why you dismiss all other gods, you’ll know why I dismiss yours.”
December 31st, 2006 at 12:20 am
Skeptigirl,
I’m enjoying this dialogue, I hope it’s reciprocal. It’s always nice to have a civilized exchange of ideas with people, and it’s usually more fun when they disagree with me.
You call it “reasonably know†and I labeled it a feeling, Delance. I fail to see the dif.
I believe you are telling the truth, you fail to see the difference. But there is one. What I said is quite simple, it’s possible to acquire knowledge without scientific evidence. If this was false, the Scientific Method would be the only possible way to acquire knowledge. However, this affirmation is impossible to determine by the scientific method, what makes it self-refuting. Therefore, the initial statement is correct by elimination.
The paradox is that a belief that any belief that can’t be scientifically proven is false is, on itself, a belief that can’t be scientifically proven. I don’t find a contradictory argument against a non-contradictory one to be very persuasive.
But either way, there’s nothing measurable. In my evidence based world that means nothing is there. If there were something there it would be measurable. I call that a god that doesn’t interact with the Universe. You can call it what you want. It may be real to you, but then I’m sure Zeus was real to some people at some time in the past, just as Buddha is real to some people now.
If you want to perceive naturalistic methodological assumptions as evidence, by all means, go for it. I don’t see any evidence that the scientific model can prove or disprove the “interaction†of God with the world, and I see a lot of evidence against it. Polytheism was real to the Romans as Atheism is real to you, that someone is able to perceive their belief as real is a given, but doesn’t prove much.
It doesn’t matter if gods respond on their own timetable to prayer, any response should result in something different between say 1,000 people prayed for and 1,000 not prayed for.
No, it shouldn’t. It doesn’t have anything to do with a timetable or the number of people praying.
If you believe the response to prayer is extremely rare, fine. Set up an experiment to detect something rare. If we can detect neutrinos and the fact a certain toxin will result in 1 excess cancer case per million people exposed to > 10/parts per billion per year, I think we can handle finding evidence of gods responding to prayers however rare, irregular, or whatever the response happens to be.
No, we can’t. Neutrinos and Toxins are natural agents, or are caused by natural agents. Prayers are not agents and don’t directly cause anything on the natural world. If any study was to detect some measurable effect, it would prove that, contrary to what theology and science commonly holds, prayer actually has some sort of direct effect, not that any supernatural even took place.
Your rationale only sounds plausible if it isn’t questioned. But upon questioning you are left with the standard, “we don’t know what god thinks but he has his reasonsâ€.
Exactly, your entire rationale depends on a perfect knowledge of the mind of God.
It might seem to you that we not knowing the mind of God or the reasons of God is some religious cop-out to avoid scrutiny, but that’s not the case. The problem is that you can’t test your own concept of God as a fictional creation and use it disproves a completely different concept of God. That would be a straw man. If you assume that the mind of God can be known, you are not using the Christian concept of God. If you use the Christian concept of God, you can’t know the reasons and can’t test the effects. Your testing model doesn’t reflect the concept it’s trying to refute.
So pray tell where did the stories of Adam, Eve, Noah, Genesis (no one was there to see it), the Ten Commandments, Lot, and so on all come from? Either people made the stories up, or they came from communicating with a god.
Regardless of what you might think, it’s possible to reach the conclusion that the existence of God is true using our natural faculties of human reason and the available evidence present in the natural world. Many philosophers and scientists reached this conclusion throughout the centuries, in many contexts that have nothing to do with Christianity.
The Genesis has nothing to do with the possibility of a rational belief in God, since it’s not a necessary part of it. But I’ll answer your questions.
I don’t know where the text of the Genesis came from. There are multiple theories. I’ve read an author who thinks it might be a compilation of earlier tradition in mythopoeic language.
Why would a god be able to describe how the world was created but not be able to advise his people to wash their hands to prevent disease?
For the same reason that when you say you don’t believe in fairies, an elephant don’t fly. Because it makes no sense. What does personal grooming tips have to do the creation of the universe?
I know what you are trying to say, but you should keep in mind that the ancients, like we, are limited by knowledge and culture. That’s why you can find geographical errors and anthropomorphisms. Consider that even if they knew some of those things, they might not be able to understand or express it correctly.
And I do think that the focus of those writings were the theological framework of the Creation. You see, we can actually figure out the theory of evolution or how to wash our hands on our own. We can use science to figure out all those things, so it’s not required that they are granted to use by supernatural Revelation. Religion and science are not competing for the same thing.
Why wouldn’t a god be able to describe evolution in simple terms? Lots of other early cultures had no issue with animal origins for people.
Well, my current culture has no problem with the animal origins of people. The idea of biological evolution pre-dates Christianity, and so does almost any relevant philosophical discussion about it. Nothing discussed on the current times add anything new or interesting. I don’t know why everyone acts like it’s something incredibly groundbreaking about this subject. St. Augustine strongly argued against the literalist interpretation of Genesis that cause trouble today. That’s a valid point even on theological grounds.
South Park decided god would choose Mormons. Everyone else went to hell. But I took that concept from hearing Michael Shermer use it. I also like the atheist quote, “When you figure out why you dismiss all other gods, you’ll know why I dismiss yours.â€
I like that quote too, because the actual reason is that God told people to in the First Commandment, therefore the proverbial atheist became that way because God told him to. Interesting concept. It reminds of quote from Chesterton, “If there were no God, there would be no Atheists.”
December 31st, 2006 at 4:16 am
It’s enjoyable so far. When you or I begin to repeat ourselves, I will note that and stop.
Delance said:
I believe you are telling the truth, you fail to see the difference. But there is one. What I said is quite simple, it’s possible to acquire knowledge without scientific evidence. If this was false, the Scientific Method would be the only possible way to acquire knowledge. However, this affirmation is impossible to determine by the scientific method, what makes it self-refuting. Therefore, the initial statement is correct by elimination.
You are confusing something important here. Scientific methodology is what one uses to systematically observe, verify and test reality. You can acquire lots of beliefs unscientifically. Our brains are hardwired to see patterns among other things. It’s natural to draw conclusions of cause and effect from evidence which is really only of coincidences because of the way the brain is hardwired.
A person of science recognizes how the brain works and the need to use the scientific process to verify many conclusions we might draw naturally.
On the other hand, some of how the brain is hardwired has an inherent scientific process contained within it. For example, one learns early on many nouns such as dog and tree. You can then see a new dog, one you’ve never encountered, and you know it is a dog. Same with a tree or a cat. You can even recognize certain attributes about animals such as which members of the cat family are domestic or wild. The reason is your brain has systematically collected and analyzed data, drawn conclusions (this time correct conclusions) and the result is inherent knowledge. New knowledge but inherent in that you didn’t read a research paper to figure out what a cat or a tree was.
So some things I do know and it wasn’t by externally using the scientific process. Other things I might observe, I would draw the wrong conclusions about and by using the scientific process, I can overcome my inborn errors and draw the valid conclusion. Thus I know when I hit a baseball with a bat, the bat caused the ball to go in the direction I hit it. But if I wore my hat backward at 5 ballgames where my team won and when I didn’t wear the hat backward one time my team lost, the scientific process can prove the hat position was merely a coincidence.
Applying that concept to your ‘believed’ inherently acquired knowledge, I return to my stated position. If any gods exert any influence over anything physical on the planet (for all intents and purposes the Universe) whatever was influenced should be detectable. How can these actions not be detectable? Only with a god that covers its tracks (not something noted in any religion I’m aware of), or, only with a god that doesn’t interact with the Universe.
If you want to perceive naturalistic methodological assumptions as evidence, by all means, go for it. I don’t see any evidence that the scientific model can prove or disprove the “interaction†of God with the world, and I see a lot of evidence against it. ….
So does god answer no prayers? Does your belief say god will only give you spiritual guidance but never heal someone or “deliver them from evil”, or help them “resist temptation” and so on?
If that’s the case, you have a god that doesn’t interact with the Universe. If on the other hand, prayers are to have some effect, then people who pray or are prayed for will differ in some way from people who do not pray or are not prayed for. No matter what the difference, it would be detectable. Otherwise, why pray?
Exactly, your entire rationale depends on a perfect knowledge of the mind of God.
My rationale is at least rational. It’s concluded from observation and logic. You are stating an irrational belief. Why would a real god tell people to wash each other’s feet and supposedly tell the priests to send people with certain lesions away yet not mention the single most important action that prevents disease, hand washing?
There is no reason. Because gods only exist in myths. We figured that out with Zeus, we’re too rational to consider Pele’, but here is another myth and people remain unaware. I recognize a tree and a dog. I recognize a myth. You recognize the tree and the dog.
…If any study was to detect some measurable effect, it would prove that, contrary to what theology and science commonly holds, prayer actually has some sort of direct effect, not that any supernatural even took place.
The effect of prayer has failed to be detected in every attempt to do so. Prayer is a ritual. But since gods are only mythical, there is no effect. Show me an effect and we can explore alternative explanations. Show me no effect and you have a god that doesn’t interact with the Universe.
The problem is that you can’t test your own concept of God as a fictional creation and use it disproves a completely different concept of God. That would be a straw man. If you assume that the mind of God can be known, you are not using the Christian concept of God. If you use the Christian concept of God, you can’t know the reasons and can’t test the effects. Your testing model doesn’t reflect the concept it’s trying to refute.
I’m not trying to test my concept of god, I’m looking for evidence of your concept of god.
It’s a simple premise. If gods do anything, anything at all, that thing exists whether it be healing or moral guidance or protection from temptation. Prayer is claimed to have an effect. The effects of prayer should be detectable if any effect exists.
I don’t know where the text of the Genesis came from. There are multiple theories. I’ve read an author who thinks it might be a compilation of earlier tradition in mythopoeic language.
Myths and poems? Sounds most plausible. What does that leave you then? Gods are myths. The Bible is no less mythical than the thousands of other myths humans have created over time.
What does personal grooming tips have to do the creation of the universe?
It isn’t personal grooming tips. It’s the complete lack of evidence that anything in the Bible is inspired by gods. Nothing in the Bible indicates even remotely that it is more than a book of mythological beliefs. Not one thing.
but you should keep in mind that the ancients, like we, are limited by knowledge and culture. That’s why you can find geographical errors and anthropomorphisms. Consider that even if they knew some of those things, they might not be able to understand or express it correctly.
This argument doesn’t support your claim. Other ancient people had creation myths that people came from animals. So why wouldn’t a real god pass down a similar story that correctly reflected evolution? The story of the creation of the Earth, Sun and Moon didn’t even include the fact the Moon’s light reflected the Sun’s light.
You are making the false claim people at the time the Bible was either written or begun as an oral tradition couldn’t comprehend a more accurate explanation of creation than that given in Genesis. Yet we have evidence other humans on the planet had no problem with parallel concepts. Surely these people could comprehend reflected light? They could see the Sun set. Why would they not comprehend a creation story that included the fact the Moon’s light was reflected from the Sun that had set below the horizon?
Biblical stories turn out to be myths. Other mythical stories of gods are dismissed. I recognize a myth when I read it. You recognize every myth but the one you believe. It is still a myth.
And I do think that the focus of those writings were the theological framework of the Creation. You see, we can actually figure out the theory of evolution or how to wash our hands on our own. We can use science to figure out all those things, so it’s not required that they are granted to use by supernatural Revelation. Religion and science are not competing for the same thing.
So close and yet so far.
For the record, humans didn’t connect disease to dirty hands until the last century when midwives started washing their hands and less moms and babies died from post natal infections. Doctors dismissed the importance of hand washing at first but when they delivered babies and moms and babies died in greater numbers, they finally took notice.
And as long as I’m on medical trivia your Bible didn’t tell you about, God supposedly punished Eve for the original sin by condemning all women to suffer the pain of childbirth. If Jesus’ death was supposed to resolve that, why did we not get anesthesia for childbirth 2,000 years ago? And if one need ask for forgiveness and all the rest of that ritual in order to be forgiven, why did I have access to anesthesia when my son was born and poor Christians in third world countries not have access to it?
The original sin is the most critical concept in the whole Christian Bible. Jesus supposedly endured torture and was crucified all because of original sin. (*another story that makes no sense BTW). And here we have the claim men are to toil for survival and women are to endure the pain of childbirth for this sin. You have Jesus making the sin forgiven. And anesthesia for childbirth arbitrarily comes 2,000 years later? And being Christian or even accepting Jesus is irrelevant to one’s access to anesthesia in childbirth?
You think this can be brushed off as just not knowing the mind of god?
I don’t know why everyone acts like it’s something incredibly groundbreaking about this subject. St. Augustine strongly argued against the literalist interpretation of Genesis that cause trouble today. That’s a valid point even on theological grounds.
You want to argue the argument your church (or the Christian community) prepared you to debate here. That is the argument of, “why are the facts wrong in Genesis?” The answer you are to give is, “the story is symbolic”.
I am not asking for a rationale as to why Genesis has the stories so wrong. I am asking for a rationale as to why, if the Bible was “inspired” by a god, there is nothing in the Bible which indicates even remotely that the Bible was inspired by a god? It is clear the Bible was written by men. (Apparently if Mary ever did write a book, the Cannon excluded it.)
I like that quote too [about dismissing other gods] because the actual reason is that God told people to in the First Commandment, therefore the proverbial atheist became that way because God told him to. Interesting concept. It reminds of quote from Chesterton, “If there were no God, there would be no Atheists.â€
Well that last statement is as made up bunk as the claim, “there are no atheists in foxholes”. There is no god and there are lots of atheists. But were we to make the claim it would simply read, if there was no belief in god, everyone would be atheist.
And here we are again. You claim the Bible describes a god physically telling people some commandment. But when asked why the Bible contains nothing indicating a god influenced its content, you revert to a scenario where gods do not either talk to people or do not inspire them.
December 31st, 2006 at 12:45 pm
skeptigirl,
Thanks. Repeating might be near. Happy new year!
A person of science recognizes how the brain works and the need to use the scientific process to verify many conclusions we might draw naturally.
Certainly, but a person familiar with the philosophy of science does that on areas of knowledge that are subject to the scrutiny of the scientific method.
So does god answer no prayers?
What I said there’s plenty of evidence against the idea Science can invalidate religion. I cited Karl Popper, but doesn’t even your friend Michael Shermer argue just that on his book?
Does your belief say god will only give you spiritual guidance but never heal someone or “deliver them from evilâ€, or help them “resist temptation†and so on?
My argument is from a Philosophy of Science point of view, not a religious one.
I’m not trying to test my concept of god, I’m looking for evidence of your concept of god.
Well, your rationale doesn’t work with my concept of God, as demonstrated.
It’s a simple premise. If gods do anything, anything at all, that thing exists whether it be healing or moral guidance or protection from temptation. Prayer is claimed to have an effect. The effects of prayer should be detectable if any effect exists.
Testing prayers is too much parapsychology for my taste. Even if any effect were to be detected, it would not mean any supernatural event took place.
My rationale is at least rational.
A rationale that requires perfect knowledge of a supernatural agent before testing to see if this agent exists using a method that can’t detect supernatural agents isn’t rational.
You are stating an irrational belief.
Belief in God is not irrational, as it can be based in logic and observation. It doesn’t depend on faith. Even if it did, faith and reason are not mutually exclusive.
Why would a real god tell people to wash each other’s feet and supposedly tell the priests to send people with certain lesions away yet not mention the single most important action that prevents disease, hand washing?
Would you believe in God if a lost canon was found telling people about the sanitary benefits of hand washing?
There is no reason. Because gods only exist in myths. We figured that out with Zeus, we’re too rational to consider Pele’, but here is another myth and people remain unaware. I recognize a tree and a dog. I recognize a myth. You recognize the tree and the dog..
Christians figuring out that worshipping false gods was a bad idea had nothing to do with mythology. The existence of a false something doesn’t prove that a real one can’t exist. The irony is that, from an academic point of view, the word “myth†doesn’t imply that something is false. The scientific study of the myths of a culture doesn’t have the objective of speaking of their veracity and objective truth. I understand you are using the popular, pejorative connotation here, but it’s part of your belief system, and one that I found no evidence of persuasive argument for.
In fact, if man is really hardwired to look for the Divine, than materialists are simply exchanging the concept of the God with a quasi-religious view of the universe and the laws of nature (Sagan said it was the closest thing he had to religion), as opposed to irreligious, who truly ignore the question.
Other ancient people had creation myths that people came from animals.
So, their gods are real?
So why wouldn’t a real god pass down a similar story that correctly reflected evolution? The story of the creation of the Earth, Sun and Moon didn’t even include the fact the Moon’s light reflected the Sun’s light.
You know, the Genesis is not a scientific book. It explains, using literary devices, the idea that the universe always existed in its present form, and that it had a starting point, and that man was made from pre-existing matter. Why do you care so much about the Genesis?
Why would they not comprehend a creation story that included the fact the Moon’s light was reflected from the Sun that had set below the horizon?
What’s with you and the reflected light on the moon?
It was not important then. I don’t find complains that God didn’t tell Moses random scientific information a very persuasive argument. A poem about the moon becomes doesn’t false when it doesn’t arbitrarily include astronomy trivia.
And as long as I’m on medical trivia your Bible didn’t tell you about, God supposedly punished Eve for the original sin by condemning all women to suffer the pain of childbirth.
Depending on the translation, the pain got multiplied.
If Jesus’ death was supposed to resolve that, why did we not get anesthesia for childbirth 2,000 years ago? And if one need ask for forgiveness and all the rest of that ritual in order to be forgiven, why did I have access to anesthesia when my son was born and poor Christians in third world countries not have access to it?
Well, you nailed it. We silly Christians never thought of that. Let’s close down the… no, wait, we did think of that. All those punishments are still in place, even if the original sin is removed by baptism. But now there’s the possibility of salvation. Didn’t Jesus tell us that his Kingdom was not here?
As a note, I live in a Third World country and poor women here, regardless of creed, have access to free universal healthcare.
:The original sin is the most critical concept in the whole Christian Bible. Jesus supposedly endured torture and was crucified all because of original sin. (*another story that makes no sense BTW)
Well, I think the original sin can be simply removed by baptism. The sacrifice of the tortured innocent as the reality of history has to do with the sins of mankind, which are many.
December 31st, 2006 at 7:10 pm
A friend mailed me a link to some beautiful astronomical pictures. One link led to another, and I found myself here. Having read the thread from top to bottom, and been enthused by such a thoughtful debate, I thought it would not be too rude to add my own tuppence worth.
It seems clear that the “scientific method” depends on certain axioms which are themselves not scientific. Among these would be a “principle of identity” – that a thing is one thing and not another. Another would be a principal of non-contradiction – that something cannot be simultaneously true and untrue. Now, one could be dismissive of any objection to the allowability of such “obvious” axioms. But show me evidence for the truth of these philosophical propositions. (You’re not, of course, allowed to use the “scientific method” which is the object of the study).
Are these propositions “inherent” knowledge, as someone mentioned earlier in reference to learning the names of things and recognising them as distinct objects or classes of objects? (This, by the way, is the “essentialist” theory of learning expounded by Saint Augustine in the fifth century). If so, then we “know” these propositions by some method other than science, which in itself is a disproof of epistemic scientism (which claims that only science can yield “true” knowledge).
Furthermore, if we accept a materialist view of life as the product of Darwinian evolution, then it seems unlikely that Nature equipped us with faculties fit for the attainment of “truth”, as opposed to ones fitted for survival. To the objection that knowing the truth about the natural world is commensurate with being able to survive in it, one could point out that this is true only of the very limited sphere of our direct physical experience. We haven’t historically been preyed upon by black holes, for instance, nor had to battle with quantum particles.
In the materialist view, religion must also play a part in survival, or at least be related to a faculty that does, for instance willingness to learn from elders or obedience to authority or somesuch. On this view, religion would seem to be rather important to survival of the species. At the very least, we can’t tell if the suppression of religion would have hugely negative consequences. On the other hand, various esoteric investigations of science are of no proven value to human survival.
Dawkins and his ilk seem to believe that we are here in spite of religion rather than because of it. And yet nature appears to differ, since the propensity for religion seems much more “built-in” than the propensity to discover (say) bottom quarks. Who cares, even if it were true that religion regularly slaughters millions? The Nature that Dawkins believes certainly doesn’t “care”, but we may find that an “us and them” definition based on unthinking religion is actually good for the cohesiveness of a select group, and therefore for survival of the species. In an evolutionist world view, why shouldn’t this be the ultimate “good”. That would make Dawkins arguments against religion dangerous, destructive, and “bad”.
December 31st, 2006 at 9:12 pm
Phil’s thoughts on religion and this time of year is exactly how I feel about Christmas. I don’t think that religion has a monopoly on love (in fact I believe quite the opposite, that love is something that exists despite religion), and for me Christmas is about love of my friends and family. And as a newly affirmed atheist (before I would have called myself agnostic) I have no interest in celebrating a fictional tale imposed upon an even older holiday by the Roman Catholic church. But I definitely have an interest in showing my family and friends how much I love them. Sure I could, and do do it as much as I can all year, but having a special time is something to look forward to and make something more of.
Anyway as for the discussion of religion as a natural state I think that is total rubbish. The natural state of the human mind is to understand and explain the world around us. In the past we were all ignorant enough of the realities that we needed things like Gods in order to make sense of the world, and then the universe. Well now our crutch of those primitive explanations hanging on in the guise of tradition, and religion, have been surpassed by our scientific knowledge. Science has been with us as long as religion. The first human to harness fire was a scientist. But they didn’t have enough knowledge to understand what fire was and that void was filled by the supernatural. The first person to look at the sky and observe the stars was a scientist. And the lack of knowledge led them to fill itin with the supernatural and create astrology to explain what they saw. But we don’t treat astrology as legitimate science, because our understanding of the sky and universe has progressed and displaced the supernatural with real knowledge. Well we are at a point now where our process of understanding the universe has progressed beyond the archaic traditions of the worlds religions. I see no reason why I should feel any different about the religious beliefs of Christianity Judaism, or Islam than I do about the space alien nonsense of Scientology? For me all of those beliefs are equally unfathomable, and insane sounding. There is no rational reason to take any of it seriously, and I’d be lying to the world if i acted like they were all valid points of view. But I wouldn’t care about other people choosing to live their lives under a religion if it weren’t for all the harm it does the world, and the fact that I myself am constantly attacked and questioned in a way that no religious person would ever accept simply because I do not believe in any religion, and look towards science to explain the universe in a rational way.
I said I was a newly affirmed atheist because I just recently watched the BBC series “Atheism: A Rough History of Disbelief” by Jonathan Miller, and the Channel Four series “The Root of All Evil?” by Richard Dawkins. Miller’s series was less on the offensive against religion, and so it has much more credibility in general, but Dawkin’s series is very valid, and has much to offer about the reasoning behind the atheist, and the more agressive antitheists. Both series made me think more about my actual thoughts on religion, and reevaluate what I truly felt about everything. I would have called myself agnostic before because I have always thought that no one if there is or isn’t a God, and the entire concept of God was unprovable, and unimportant. And I thought of atheists as being absolutely certain there was no god. But that isn’t correct. Atheism is not about believing there isn’t a God. Atheism is about having no belief, and not even considering God at all. And that is exactly where I stand. In fact the term atheism is an unfortunately necessary, but ultimately to the atheist meaningless. It implies that having baseless religious belief in the supernatural is just as reasonable a state of mind as atheism, when in fact religious belief requires the exclusion of reason. No matter what one says you can not think reasonably about the supernatural or it falls apart, and that is why religion is so dependent on “faith”. So in reality there shouldn’t even be a term like “atheist”. As Miller said, we don’t have a special word for people who don’t believe in the ghosts, or the tooth fairy, so why a special word for those who don’t believe in the religious supernatural? And as much as that may sound like an insult to religion it really is not intended as such, just as a reasonable look at the difference between the believer and the unbeliever. To someone who has no religious beliefs God is no more real than the Tooth Fairy, so they are absolutely comparable.
And I find the idea of morality being impossible outside of religion to be not only insulting, but backwards. If you truly believe that there is no afterlife you can appreciate the impact that evil deeds can have. You have to consider what you are doing when you take a life. You have no crutch to fall back on to feel good about slaughtering thousands in the name of God. Those people are not alive somewhere else. They are gone forever. And no one has the right to take a life, ESPECIALLY in the name of any god. Morality becomes magnified and completely necessary when religion is taken out of the picture, and it is a true morality, not one caused by the fear of a gods retribution in the afterlife. It’s caused by the reasonable thought of the true implications of what you do. Morality is just as valuable to the nonreligious, as the religious, but it is much more genuine and based in reality amongst the nonreligious.
“Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” -Steven Weinberg
January 2nd, 2007 at 6:57 am
Interesting discussion. Unfortunately, I don’t know enough about Science to be able to make the necessary distinctions.
Can anybody recommend me a good textbook on Science?
http://www.inquisition.ca/en/philo/essai/croire_science.htm
Thank you!
Stefan Jetchick
January 3rd, 2007 at 9:57 am
Delance said:
> Well, for the sake of an humorous example, allow me to present this:
http://www.squidi.net/comic/zomb/view.php?ep=1&id=10
Assuming that Spot is not insane of victm of a Hoax, he has a completely rational belief that Angels exist, beacuse he actually met them.
One can be deluded without being insane. A dream can be mistaken for reality. His conclusion may be drawn from evidence, but not from critically evaluating the evidence and examining other possible explanations. I suppose that makes it a rational process, but not a very thorough one.