Over at the Intersection, Chris Mooney is concerned that we haven’t had a science/religion tiff in what, days? So he wants to offer a defense of organizations like the National Center for Science Education, who choose to promote science by downplaying any conflicts between science and religion. For example, the NCSE sponsors a Faith Project, where you can be reassured that scientists aren’t nearly as godless as the newspapers would have you believe.
In the real world, scientists have different stances toward religion. Some of us think that science and religion are (for conventional definitions of science and religion) incompatible. Others find them perfectly consistent with each other. (It’s worth pointing out that “X is true” and “People exist who believe X is true” are not actually the same statement, despite what Chad and Chris and others would have you believe. I’ve tried to emphasize that distinction over and over, to little avail.)
In response to this situation, we uncompromising atheists have a typically strident and trouble-making idea: organizations that bill themselves as “centers for science education” and “associations for science” and “academies of science” should not take stances on matters of religion. Outlandish, I know. But we think that organizations dedicated to science should not wander off into theology, even with the best of intentions. Stick with talking about science, and everyone should be happy.
But they’re not happy; Chris and others (Josh Rosenau at Thoughts from Kansas is a thoughtful example) think that the NCSE can be more effective if it proactively tries to convince people that science and religion need not be incompatible. As an argument toward this conclusion, Chris attempts to horrify us by offering the following hypothetical conversation between a religious believer and an NCSE representative:
Religious believer: I know you say that evolution is good science, but I’m afraid of what my pastor says–that accepting it is the road to damnation.
NCSE: As a policy, we only talk about science and to not take any stance on religion. So we couldn’t comment on that.
Religious believer: I do have one friend who accepts evolution, but he stopped going to church too and that worries me.
NCSE: All we can really tell you is that evolution is the bedrock of modern biology, and universally accepted within the scientific community.
Religious believer: And I’m worried about my children. If I let them learn about evolution in school, will they come home one day and tell me that we’re all nothing but matter in motion?
NCSE: ….
To which I can only reply … um, yeah? That doesn’t seem very bad at all to me. Do we seriously want representatives of the NCSE saying “No, the claim that accepting evolution is the road to damnation is based on a misreading of Scripture and is pretty bad theology. If we go back to Saint Augustine, we see that the Church has a long tradition of…” Gag me with a spoon, as I understand the kids say these days.
Of course, we could also imagine something like this:
Religious believer: I know you say that evolution is good science, but I’m afraid of what my pastor says–that accepting it is the road to damnation.
NCSE: Oh, don’t worry. There’s no such thing as “damnation,” your pastor has just been misleading you.
Religious believer: I do have one friend who accepts evolution, but he stopped going to church too and that worries me.
NCSE: Well, that will happen. Prolonged exposure to scientific ways of thinking can lead people to abandon their religious beliefs. But don’t worry, you’ll be happier and have a more accurate view of how the universe works if that’s what happens.
Religious believer: And I’m worried about my children. If I let them learn about evolution in school, will they come home one day and tell me that we’re all nothing but matter in motion?
NCSE: That would be great! Because that’s what we are. But it’s not as depressing as you make it out to be; correctly understanding how the world works is the first step toward making the most out of life.
How awesome would that be? I don’t actually advocate this kind of dialogue in this particular context — as I just said, I think science organizations should simply steer clear. But these answers have a considerable benefit, in that I think they’re “true.”
That’s the major point. Advocacy and educational organizations have the goal of supporting science and education the best way they can, but there are limits. For example, they should stick to the truth. I tried to make this point in my post about politicians and critics — some people have as their primary goal advocating for some sort of cause, whereas others are simply devoted to the truth. But an organization advocating for science needs to take both into consideration.
And there are some scientists — quite a few of us, actually — who straightforwardly believe that science and religion are incompatible. There are absolutely those who disagree, no doubt about that. But establishing the truth is a prior question to performing honest and effective advocacy, not one we can simply brush under the rug when it’s inconvenient or doesn’t make for the best sales pitch. Which is why it’s worth going over these tiresome science/religion debates over and over, even in the face of repeated blatant misrepresentation of one’s views. If science and religion are truly incompatible, then it would be dishonest and irresponsible to pretend otherwise, even if doing so would soothe a few worried souls. And if you want to argue that science and religion are actually compatible (not just that there exist people who think so), by all means make that argument — it’s a worthy discussion to have. But it’s simply wrong to take the stance that it doesn’t matter whether science and religion are compatible, we still need to pretend they are so as not to hurt people’s feelings. That’s not being honest.
I have no problem with the NCSE or any other organization pointing out that there exist scientists who are religious. That’s an uncontroversial statement of fact. But I have a big problem with them making statements about whether religious belief puts you into conflict with science (or vice-versa), or setting up “Faith Projects,” or generally taking politically advantageous sides on issues that aren’t strictly scientific. And explaining to people where their pastors went wrong when talking about damnation? No way.
Right now there is not a strong consensus within the scientific community about what the truth actually is vis-a-vis science and religion; I have my views, but sadly they’re not universally shared. So the strategy for the NCSE and other organizations should be obvious: just stay away. Stick to talking about science. Yes, that’s a strategy that may lose some potential converts (as it were). So be it! The reason why this battle is worth fighting in the first place is that we’re dedicated to promulgating the truth, not just to winning a few political skirmishes for their own sakes. For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? (Mt. 16:26.)
Paul W.
The next thing to understand is that it is possible to have a non-verbal understanding of something. e.g., if you’ve seen videos of those experiments with crows where the bird bends a piece of wire to use to extract food from a tube, you’ll note that there is some form of understanding exhibited and that it is almost certainly non-verbal. I don’t think that there is any theorem that says that all that a human can know must be verbalizable. Of course, any such knowledge remains private, very difficult if impossible to communicate. Even sticking just to physics, a Feynman can spend his entire life putting out words and I may absorb them and yet be unable to recreate the same mental state(s) that lead a Feynman to solve a problem at which I boggle. Some of religion is this ineffable experience. Science does not yet have the ability to enter that realm.
-Arun
Science is essentially the same thought process as religion, only based on physical observations for solutions to life’s problems. Scientists use science to guide themselves through life just as religious people use the teachings of their chosen deity. The only difference between scientists and radical religious folks is the ability to separate known reality from the unknown with observed facts. Drawing conclusions from the environment is the same as being taught about religion, a learned behavior. Take some of the most primitive societies that currently exist in the world’s tropical rain forests. They know how to live off the land using general observations and problem solving skills (science), yet still believe in supernatural beings because they cannot explain some aspects otherwise. For example, they may interpret dreams as messages from some deity, while those trained in science would define them as unconscious mental processes. The difference being the emotional response in each situation, as well as prior knowledge of the brain and it’s processes.
Furthermore, scientists argue against religion because they seek data that can be observed, but some of life’s issues cannot be explained by science and people seek those answers through religion. Seeking answers to the unknown helps calm the mind, even if it’s not scientifically correct (all that matters is the belief that it’s correct). This can help calm anxiety and provide motivation by helping the mind move forward. Simply put, religion fosters mental and emotional processes for those not trained in the thought processes of science, professional skepticism, and logic. Difference being how we interpret things in own our life experiences. This explains why religion dominated, and continues to dominate, the world before science could explain many things around/about us.
Hey – where would we be without Psalm 109 ?????
@Andrew:
This definition of science neatly excludes all of astronomy, geology, evolutionary biology, cosmology, and paleontology. I have no doubt that there’s many other fields that rely on natural experiments and on inferences from incomplete or ambiguous historical data to produce scientific knowledge.
Think about the issue this way: if you can accept that evolutionary biology is a science (even though it doesn’t meet your definition) then you should be able to accept that physical anthropology is a science (it’s the evolutionary biology of homo sapiens and closely related ancestors). Physical anthropology is actually a synthesis of results from other fields: archaeology, anatomy and physiology, and paleontology. The line between paleontology and archaeology is a little fuzzy; if we find the remains of homo neanderthalensis near a patch of charcoal and a trash pit, we could make a case that we’re performing either.
Likewise, the line between archaeology and anthropology is fuzzy. By studying cultural artifacts of early humans and human ancestors, we’re studying both subjects simultaneously. But then, the line between archaeology and history is fuzzy. When we try to reconcile the Pentateuch accounts of the Kingdom of David against the archaeological evidence, we are studying both history and archaeology.
When you try to make your definition of science too rigorous, especially with an eye to excluding particular fields of study, the fuzziness regarding the domain of any particular academic subject makes it very likely that you’ll end up excluding legitimately scientific fields of study as well. This is why the heavy-weights like Kant and Hume were unable to come up with a universally acceptable definition of science, and why there’s a whole branch of philosophy that is still working on it.
For a couple of great examples of how historical studies can be scientific, see Guns, Germs, and Steel or Collapse, both by Jared Diamond. In these, Diamond uses so-called natural experiments to compare the trajectories of various civilizations; for example, he compares the collapse of Greenland and Vinland Viking settlements to the success of Viking settlements in Iceland and Faero Island. Using very carefully supported inductive arguments that are exactly analogous to the arguments for evolution using Galapagos finches, he makes a case for various geographical and cultural factors that affect the success of civilizations. Whether or not you agree with his conclusions, I think it would be hard to argue that these are not scientific works (specifically syntheses) about human history.
That is to say, the subject that one is studying does not make the study itself unscientific, nor can the subject make the study scientific automatically. An astrologer studies the stars, but does not do so scientifically. Conversely, I read a study in which mathematicians analyzed the fractal dimensions of Jackson Pollock paintings and revealed that the fractal complexity of his paintings gradually rose through his career. The subject was art, but the study focused on a quantitative measurement of the paintings and plotted them to find a trend; despite the fact that the subject of the study was art, the study was nonetheless scientific. It is the methods employed and not the subject being studied that makes any particular argument scientific or not.
Feynman liked to tell the story of an artist friend of his who said that when he or another artist sees a flower, it is a thing of beauty. But when a scientist looks at a flower, he dissects it, analyzes it, and takes it to pieces until there is nothing beautiful left. Feynman responded to say that was a ridiculous notion; that scientists have access to aesthetic beauty as much as the next guy, though arguably less so than the refined senses of an artist. More important, when a scientist looks at the flower, he realizes that the vibrant color arises from a particular energy level transition in a particular pigment molecule in the petals, that this flower is part of the great lineage of flowering plants and perhaps a few particulars about this flower’s cousins; the scientist has a sense of how nearly indistinguishable plant cells can glom together to form such a complex organism.
In short, scientific narratives do no preempt beauty; scientific narratives more often EXEMPLIFY beauty. In fact, when special relativity was first proposed, the best evidence for it was simply the elegance of the theory rather than any particular empirical finding (!). And it is not my experience that science is detrimental to emotion. The “ah-ha” moment that occurs when two chunks of knowledge suddenly orient themselves correctly and click together is one of the most exhilarating experiences I can think of from my own perspective, and that to me exemplifies science: creating a causal narrative that ties together previously unrelated stores of knowledge. (This is also why I think religion and science are incompatible; being generous to religion and calling revelation “religious knowledge,” it seems unlikely that such knowledge can be reconciled with any of what we might call scientific knowledge in the same way that, say, evolutionary biology and genetics have been reconciled, or in the way that physicists hope to reconcile gravity and quantum mechanics. Since these reconciliations are a fundamental part of the scientific project, an inability to reconcile revelation with empirical knowledge is exactly equivalent to an incompatibility between religion and science.)
Now, your analogy doesn’t deal with the case where my optometrist IS my lover. In that case, does my optometrist see my soul and deepest desires in addition to all the veins and nerves and gunk? Or is it like quantum mechanics where she can only see one or the other depending on what she is looking for? It also doesn’t deal with cases where I am deceiving my lover. When she looks into my eyes, she believes she sees my soul and my deepest desires. But what if my deepest desires are for another woman? In my experience, a deep look into someone eyes does not disclose that sort of detail. When my lover looks into my eyes, she sees what she BELIEVES is my soul, that is, the general impression she has of what sort of person I am. In my experience, it is the rule rather than the exception that this impression is relatively inaccurate.
@JJ:
See my last post for a counterargument. Science does not describe a subject but a methodology, and that methodology is NOT essentially the same as religion’s methodology (or if you think it is, you need to make a better case for it).
Your argument seems to hinge on some identity of science and religion with Platonic forms such that they’re similar enough in kind to compare the same way you’d compare an apple to an orange, and I also disagree with that.
For an example, let’s take the assertion “Wind is caused by trees waving their branches.” This could count as religious doctrine (a sort of myth explaining where wind comes from ) or a scientific hypothesis — there’s nothing to exclude the assertion from either class of propositions. However, for it to be a scientific hypothesis, some methodology must be employed to figure out whether or not its true (e.g. build a high wall around a tree; if there is no wind inside the walls, the tree cannot be causing any wind). If you don’t do this experiment but decide to believe the above assertion regardless, then it is religious doctrine or dogma. This is not the same thought process. It is the very difference between justified and unjustified belief.
WOW, Kudos to anyone who has waded through all the above sloppy reasoning and misuse of language to reach this point. Nearly every one of the above comments on both sides of this debate has somehow managed to mis-state or misunderstand the deep issues involved. The arrogance on both sides of the debate is frankly breathtaking.
Religion/Science only seem to be parallel activities when they are both mistakenly described as ” The interpretation of Scripture/Data so as to discern and then disseminate the revealed Objective Truth. ”
What a pastor has to say about religion is about as authoritative as what a newspaper story has to say about science. In both cases the language of the discourse has been dumbed down and over simplified for public consumption.
The platitudes of the ‘salvation’ religions are themselves a simplistic dumbing down of deeper principles which were crafted to ‘trick’ the great unwashed masses into cooperative behaviors which, despite themselves, would ostensibly result in their salvation if they will have unquestioning faith in these obvious(even to them) platitudes. However, research theologians ( as opposed to pastors) will tell you that the path to salvation is not to be free of sin but rather, to be free of ignorance.
Careful interpretation of scriptures in their original languages reveals that the ‘way of science’ is actually the deep message so widely misunderstood by the adherents of these salvation religions. This is why we also have ‘path of enlightenment’ religions which are more on the right track. ” Verily Lord, how may we know the kingdom of god ? Look around you dipshit, everything is an example of the kingdom of god. ” Ok, so i may have paraphrased a bit. Chillax. Buried in all the religious platitudes is the instruction to go forth and investigate, test and arrive at your own understanding variously called Christ or Buddha Consciousness or Satori, Nirvanna, etc, etc.
Science is Positivistic. It does not uncover Reality as it ‘really is’ and it does not concern itself with explaining things which DON’T happen, only those things which DO measurably happen and can be tested for consistency.
So for instance, we will never need science to ascribe a probablity to the likelyhood that blades of grass might begin oozing lava or of unicorns spoiling your picnic. NO statement in science is Absolutely Objectively True. Science is a formal system of statements which are self-consistent and verifiable which is, AT BEST, only ‘true’ with a lower case t. These statements are not ‘proven’ beyond the scope of applicability of science but they are derived truth within that scope. They are not proven ‘True’ but are simply proved to be ‘truly’ consistent with the rest of science thus science overall remains self-consistent while it becomes ever more comprehensive. These are all re-presentations of Reality.
Everything we seek to explain in science is conditioned by our interaction and inseparability from the Universe we seek to explain. This is the same as noting that everything we want to explain and all those explanations we come up with MUST be encoded into language so that we can share it all with each other. The reality we want to explain is a consensus reality and we can no more prove that our consensus description or explanation is Absolutely True than we could prove that english is the one, Absolutely True language. Even before encoding anything into language, our direct individual, participatory sensory re-presentation of the Universe is only a consensus of one and so we must agree to an arbitrary but self consistent convention, called language, to describe those things we want to explain.
Language, math, science etc. are all formal systems with varying degrees of simplicity, comprehensiveness and self consistency and what Goedel’s Incompleteness Theorem is telling us is that all formal systems are inherently incomplete in the sense that they cannot ever be Absolutely comprehensive(complete) and so cannot bootstrap themselves into statements of Absolute Truth. This is because we can never escape our use of language and our direct participation in that which we seek to explain. Do you see how the problem violates the basic principle of the scientific method namely – do not influence your experiment. We can never be at a meta level with ourselves and our participation in the physical universe.
Here’s a maybe publishable tidbit: Goedel’s Theorem is really the only true and intrinsic Anthropic Principle (AP) in science thus deserving of the appelation ‘Principle’ while the AP ( and Multi-Universe) you are more familiar with is a mere conjecture which constitutes an abject surrender to the difficulty of the Fine Tuning Problem. Science positivistically explains a consensus reality which is and must be inherently relativistic or relational to US.
The theorem says that our comprehensive Theory of Everything will be a statement like say: 1+1=2 Well, that seems pretty unassailable until you consider drops of water or clouds. Or, say a statement like: N is the largest number. Well, N+1 obviously illustrates this TOE is incomplete. Goedel’s Theorem is saying that, with respect to Absolute considerations, there is always such an infinite regress of meta level examples of the in-comprehensiveness of our TOE which can be found.
But, because science is positivistic and only seeks to describe/explain those things which are observable, reliably inferred and confirmable, our long sought TOE can be found but must always be a provisionally comprehensive and open ended and always subject to being undone by a potential counter example, like any other theorem.
So Science, as an evolving way of speaking about nature, can no more describe/explain Reality as it ‘really is’ than your words can capture the full scope of the dream you had last night.
So, both sides in this neverending debate would do well to phrase themselves in such a way as to reflect the understanding that neither of them is on any path to Absolute Objective Truth. Of the two however, only science can hope to arrive at a confirmable description and understanding of our joint consensus reality which will be subject to potential refutation at any time and which can, until it’s shown to be inconsitent, be taken to be objectively (for all observers) true (self-consistent and provisionally comprehensive with respect to all known phenomena).
This is not a case of the moon not being there when we don’t look as Einstein asked Bohr regarding this Positivism vs Realism debate. Remove all life on earth today and it is easily possible and reasonable to imagine the cosmos doing the same stately dance tomorrow as it did yesterday. The issue is not about physical systems which have a meta level relationship with us but rather, the issue is about our ability to make any Absolute statements about the most meta level feature of our existence, the Universe itself.
As a tiny subsystem of the Universe, we can no more make Absolute statements about the Universe than a clever red blood cell could hope to make about say, your tv watching habits.
So chillax.
In ref to #81
Since somebody is bound to point out that science already ascribes a probability of 0% to the likelyhood of lava ooziing from blades of grass or unicorns spoiling your picnic, let me replace those examples of what science need NOT explain with this one:
Science need not answer the question ” Why is there something rather than nothing ? ” or ” How could the universe be created from nothing ? ” These famous questions have been used to explain/defend the existence of god so what i am saying is that, science need not concern itself with that kind of question because there is no evidence whatsoever that the universe was ever in a state of non-existence.
Such attention to positivistic rigor is greatly simplifying. We can safely conclude that the Big Bang was NOT the ‘birth’ of the Universe, it was merely the birth (at best) of ‘SpaceTime’ in a pre-existing Universe.
Now we might ask, how could the Big Bang have been the birth of ‘time’ as it is difficult to imagine SpaceTime going from a timeless state to a timeful one ? Since timelessness is a perfect stasis, the Big Bang also cannot have been the ‘birth’ of time either.
So, we can safely conclude, from a positivistic standpoint, that the Big Bang was merely a noteworthy phase change of the pre-existing SpaceTime in the pre-existing (single) Universe.
@19 shaun
Re: soul. Irony falls on deaf ears, all too often. Instead of soul, which isn’t a term that has any objective meaning but seems to be understood by believers and non-believers both, usually, how about I use a word like integrity?
You also fail to grasp the fundamentals of science and atheism both, based on your other comments, and comments to a blog post are unlikely to be the place to educate you.
@Dan, what I meant was using religion to answer the unexplained things in life on an emotional level. For example, what is my purpose in life? Science cannot answer such questions since they’re catered to the individual. I argue that this is the whole point of religion. The thought process is essentially the same in rationalizing through your own emotions or difficult problems as it requires problem solving skills and logic. These are the same means by which scientists conduct experiments and observations. I believe religion is meant to be interpreted not literally, but metaphorically, as a psychological tool of sorts.
The separation of emotions and personal biases can co-exist with logical problem solving skills, therefore I believe it’s possible for scientists to be both religious and logical, assuming, of course, that they realize religious teachings are not meant to be taken literally. For example, one can believe in creation and evolution in the respect that God created the universe and evolution was a subsequent result from that point, but not that God simply clapped his hands and people appeared on Earth. The correct answer would be we simply don’t know, but that doesn’t necessarily discredit religious theory. In this sense, religious theory is just as credible as the big bang theory.
@39. Theo
“Believe it or not, the advertisement that DiscoverMagazine.com attached to the bottom of the RSS feed version of this post is “Is there a God? a short article gives six reasons why God exists.” …
“I have very much enjoyed reading Cosmic Variance, since long before you moved to Discover Magazine. Mostly I ignore the ads, but your blog is the only one that gets them into my RSS feed. I will probably unsubscribe soon.”
Theo use Firefox and install the AdBlock Plus plugin and such unsavoury advertising will be a thing of the past. You will also enjoy your general web browsing experience more.
What ads? The only ad I see is for some book called “From Eternity To Here”, I don’t know how it got passed AdBlock Plus.
Dunning/Kruger alert at @81 & 82.
JJ @84
One problem here is that your interpretation of religion is not one held by many, perhaps the majority, of religious people. There is usually belief in a supernatural element, and rules to follow, without necessarily even telling you what your purpose is (as God is “mysterious” since he’s good and lets evil happen, for instance). So even if your personal view of religion is more compatible with science than most, in the real world that is not sufficient.
Furthermore, does religion actually do what you say it does? Have your figured out your purpose in life using religion? If you have, why do you believe it’s the right answer?
I mean, science is limited, but it is the only reliable way of getting right answers. Religion seems like stabbing in the dark, at best. And different religions give different and contradictory answers to the same questions. I’m fine with folks wanting to be spiritual, to be emotional, or who want to adopt healthy philosophies and ethics, but when it comes to specifics and organized religion, they all seem very, very suspect and unjustifiable in any particulars.
I’m what is commonly called an “Evangelical” Christian, and since I’m not sure any of my stripe have been represented above I thought I’d weigh in. BTW, I’m not too fond of labels, but if they give at least a helpful hint of probable perspective and association I’ll just go w/it.
Personally (and many will feel my point to be ‘pointless’ here), I think Christians have unwittingly bought into a wrong epistemology when applied to certain spiritual matters. The Scriptures say (I’m trying to quote from memory here) “the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit, for they are spiritually discerned (or appraised).” IOW, many of the type posting to this blog are demanding spiritual understanding on their own terms — as though God were obligated to acquiesce, regardless of the true state of their heart toward Him and whatever he has revealed to that heart. I don’t put much stock in people’s words necessarily, as we all are very easily self-deceived. Most people claim a blameless moral stance toward any true would-be (holy) God, but is that truly the case?
To try to encapsulate what could fill a book, I am saying that I believe Christians have become intimidated oftentimes by challenges in the name of science and made ashamed to frankly admit that there is more to ‘the whole equation’ than furnishing the answers deemed suitable to every question posed by unbelievers (though at times such means can be / have been used effectively to bring one to Christ, sure enough). In fact I would say that God has intentionally chosen NOT to make the path to Truth one so subservient to the rational faculties of sinful men w/high IQ’s. “The Jews seek for a sign, and the Greeks for wisdom, but we preach Christ and Him crucified.” Again, I know many would charge that such is God’s duty, and that there is nothing inappropriate in their demanding it (regardless), but I disagree. As readers of this blog familiar with the gospels know, Jesus felt no obligation to produce ‘evidence’ to inquirers, when he knew full well what was in their innermost being.
I don’t want to be misunderstood. I fully believe and expect that when all truth is truly known (including scientific truth), faith in Christ will be seen as the only thoroughly rational response. I believe that right now (already). But the main point here that I think is being missed is the offensively simple one that “the Lord looks on the heart.”
@ Hop
I totally agree with the thrust of your comment. Except you have a few details a little bit scrambled according to my understanding. I can’t really demonstrate what I’m about to tell anymore than you can demonstrate what you just witnessed to us. If I could even try, I would be trying to encapsulate what could fill a soda can full of microSD cards. Regardless of “rational faculties” or “evidence”, I believe the following in my heart, and that’s enough for me.
First, God is clearly transcendent pasta. And His Noodly Goodness doesn’t give a whit for truth, unlike your god who just makes truth really hard to find. However, similar to your god, I would say that His Most Exalted Starchiness has intentionally chosen NOT to make the path to the Beer Volcano and Stripper Factory one so subservient to the whims of sinful men without eye-patches and peg legs.
I fully believe that if you will don full pirate regalia, you will not only halt global warming, but you will also be touched by His Noodly Appendage. And you get to enjoy strippers and beer for eternity.
Ramen
Hop, your word salad is so scrambled that I’m not sure you have a grasp on reality.
So you think, that your own consciousness is “matter in motion”?
That must be the implication of saying, that humans are “nothing but matter in motion”.
I certainly don’t believe that, and since I personally find that my own consciousness is an important part of my identity, this is not just a philosophical detail.
I would like to stress, that I don’t think human consciusness can exist independent of physical reality (the brain). Consciousness is clearly interacting with physical reality, but that doesn’t make consciousness itself physical.
Of course you might say that this is only a question of the definition of the word “physical”. But then I would say, that our current understanding of physics must be severely flawed.
Instead of complaining about religion – why don’t you complain about the
junk on MTV and VH1 – which easily affects a lot more people. why not complain
about Politics – as in Max Baucus lying like a rug – which will definitely affect you.
How can I afford to buy Sean’s book if I have to spend 8 grand on health insurance ?
Right now there is not a strong consensus within the scientific community about what the truth actually is vis-a-vis science and religion; I have my views, but sadly they’re not universally shared.
Methinks collaborationism (see Mooney’s blog comments) might be the tie that binds, to use a poorly-chosen relgiious allusion.
@Mike, I’m no longer a practicing Catholic, but I do believe religion has taught me values and morals as a child. Being on both sides of this debate, I believe I have a good perspective on the issue. I feel that many of the New Atheists never experienced religion and are basing their views on the assumption that all religious folk are nut jobs. I grew up in a Catholic family, have many Catholic friends, and was once a practicing Catholic, yet I’ve never met anyone that would fit the stereotype of religious nut job. In this debate, I feel that many of these Atheists base their opinions simply on this stereotype without real world experience of the religion, which is hardly scientific. The people of my former church are very much normal people like anyone else. I’ve had math professors that were more “out there” than the religious people I know.
When I think of religious nut job, I picture the family recently featured in the news for refusing to treat their diabetic daughter, who subsequently died, believing that God would heal her. This is utterly ridiculous and these people are obviously out of touch with reality. I believe most Christians would believe it’s pure stupidity as well. There’s really not much that separates the majority of Christians from science minded folks, besides education. Scientists are taught how to think critically using the scientific method and skepticism, which most people lack. Being taught “how” to think is more important than being taught “what” to think. “What” you think is based upon your experiences, emotions, and thought processes.
Most Christians have common sense and understand the nature of reality. The majority of scriptures feature events with real people, not magic, although the occasional miracle is present from time to time. However, “miracles”, or events that defy odds, do happen all the time, we simply choose to label them differently based on school of thought. A scientific minded person may simply refuse to interpret such an event, while religious folks label it a miracle. It’s not magical, we simply can’t explain why it happened, therefore neither interpretation is right or wrong. I think most Christians understand the true purpose of scripture as metaphors applicable to real world events. I’m basing all of this on my experiences with religion and religious people. Most of my religious friends would not argue against the scientific facts I present for everyday events or evolution, etc.
The actions of New Atheists are simply polarizing to this debate. I find it utterly ridiculous that Atheists protest displays of Christmas trees in public. To an Atheist, it’s simply a tree with lights, but to a Christian, it’s a symbol of Jesus’ birth. This is simply a difference in interpretation, not forcing one to believe in Christianity. There’s nobody going around forcing you to go to church or read the Bible. I bet most people actually don’t even realize the true religious meaning of Christmas, which is sad, even for non-religious folks. It makes no sense to bash something for which you have no knowledge, this goes against science as well. This issue has become political in nature, rather than material. I say this because nothing will come from it except suppressing the expression of religious beliefs and behaviors. There’s nothing wrong with public displays of religion, it’s your belief in them that matters. To an Atheist, these symbols should hold no meaning, but they seem to provoke a sense of disgust. A Christian would never tell a Jew to take down a Menorah display because they believe Jesus was the son of God. Atheist behaviors go against the peaceful teachings of most religions when they try to suppress religious thought. There’s no proof that God did or didn’t exist, therefore it doesn’t make sense to claim it as a truth. We can only offer proof to real world events, which Christians often readily accept.
Our founding fathers established the country based on the teachings of Christianity, however they also included a clause in the Bill of Rights protecting the rights of others who are not Christian. They were not trying to force Christianity on anyone as these New Atheists try to force their views on Christians. Atheism, like religion, is a school of thought. Just because you don’t agree with others’ world view doesn’t mean you have to force your views on everyone else (the nature of political debate). To me, this seems to be fueled by hatred, not tolerance. Although some would bring up the gay marriage debate, which is equally as ridiculous on religious folks.
Furthermore, our country is not centered around Christianity and it doesn’t affect our culture (or lack thereof some would argue). Some cultures are entirely based on religion, mostly in the Middle East, such as Islam and Hinduism. We are very much a society of free thinkers. My personal bias on the issue is obvious, but I don’t feel that science should be attacking religion and vice versa. I say let people believe what they want to about the world’s unanswered questions because in the end it’s only personal interpretation. Science and logic will always trump “magic” and most people in our society will accept this, with the exception of radical religious folks that are out of touch with reality.
“Most Christians have common sense and understand the nature of reality”.
Well, that is debatable–the ones that do have cognitive dissonance–ie compartmentalising
different and incompatible sets of beliefs. The bible is full of magic and miracles, or else of people talking about them, and the notion that these people were actually real is in any case debatable.
And about atheists not having a religious upbringing—wasn’t Sean raised as a Catholic?
If your point is valid, it simply confirms brainwashing.
Oh and in my view, “New” atheists are not and, in fact, cannot force their views on anyone.
And the founding fathers attempted to protect the rights of non-Christians because most of them were either atheists or deists ( Adams and Jefferson and Franklin) and not theists who believed in a personal God. Read their letters to each other rather than their public views.
I would argue that just about everybody on the planet holds views that are incompatible. It’s dependent on how you look at things. Not every issue is black and white, where some people believe it is so. For example, a glass that is 50% full is both half full and half empty. Now, if you see the glass half empty, I would expect you to see the glass 3/4 empty if I was to empty half the liquid. If you were to say the glass is now 1/4 full, that’s inconsistent with your previous view and therefore incompatible, but not necessarily incorrect.
In the real world we refer to these people hypocrites. It’s like claiming you’re Catholic, but only attend church on Christmas and Easter. In the case of religion, I believe those that take teachings literally are out of touch with reality, but those that understand the purpose of religion can be both religious and scientific. I’m aware of the many contradictions of religion as well, the purpose being to shape behaviors. It may be taught in an inconsistent manner, but the overall goal is create good, peaceful people. Again, open to interpretation, as some may use religion to justify negative or violent behaviors. I may have misused the term “New” to describe Atheists, I’m not sure how to discriminate between Atheistic views. This is why I consider myself Agnostic. I believe overall religious intentions are good and the teachings are metaphors for life and open to interpretation, without the whole magical aspect. I cannot confirm, nor deny the existence of a higher power.
I was aware of the anti-religious views of some of the founding fathers, but of those, some of them did believe in a higher power as they were members of the Free Masons, which hold a belief in a Supreme Being. Ben Franklin was in fact a Free Mason, a Grand Master. Although, the Declaration of Independence does reference God.
http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2007/02/the-us-founding-fathers-their-religious-beliefs/
And 1/3 of those that signed the Constitution were Free Masons.
http://bessel.org/constmas.htm
“Freemasonry is the oldest and largest world wide fraternity dedicated to the Brotherhood of Man under the Fatherhood of a Supreme Being. Although of a religious nature, Freemasonry is not a religion. It urges its members, however, to be faithful and devoted to their own religious beliefs.”
http://freemasonry.org/
JJ, most of the founding fathers were Deists of some kind and not especially Christian, and held a lot of scorn for organized religion. It really isn’t accurate to say, as you do, that the country was established based on the teachings of Christianity. Not at all. Sounds like from the later posts you understand this, at least in part, so I hope you stop spreading this dangerous myth. It’s dangerous because it makes some Christians feel more entitled to get their religious beliefs into law in the U.S., and plenty of Americans have a problem with that and it causes a lot more strife than anything any New Atheist has ever done.
And I disagree strongly with your assertion about miracles. I don’t believe in them, as there has never been documentation for any that aren’t explained by science. Faces on bread don’t count. Water into wine, resurrection, things like that, are simply unbelievable. If such things happened more regularly and in clearly demonstrable ways, without David Blaine trickery, and in response to activities like prayer, or only for followers of a particular religion, I think you’d see a lot fewer atheists. Although being a science fiction writer, I’d be suspicious of advanced alien visitors playing at being god as an alternative hypothesis.
I don’t believe in those examples of miracles either, I find those quite humorous and far fetched. I was referring to medical events or car accidents where the damage was so bad that the probability of life was slim. Those who simply defied the odds or recovered from a once considered fatal condition. I would refer to these as simply lucky to defy the odds, while others may see it as a sign from God, some kind of miracle.
I also don’t believe Christians will ever pass their view as legislation as it violates the first amendment, freedom of religion. The only area up for debate with a highly Christian following is abortion, but even non-religious people are against it, just as some religious people support it. We know for a fact that a fetus is a living being, just as a tree, although most don’t normally think of a tree as a living being. The abortion debate is purely political in nature, about the rights of the unborn and the definition of when life officially begins, rather than questioning if the fetus is a living being.