John Wise is a Professor of Biology at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas (USA). He writes on the campus website [Intelligent Design is not science: why this matters].Because science gives us methods to accurately understand and manipulate the world we live in. Few people would dispute that our present scientific understanding of the physical world has led to a tremendously long list of advances in medicine, technology, engineering, the structure of the universe and the atom, and on and on. The list is nearly endless, but it does not include everything. Science can tell us only what is governed by natural forces. Miracles are extra-ordinary events; gods are super-natural beings.Okay, let's examine that argument. Science deals with the natural world, that's fair enough. Religion deals with the supernatural world so it's outside of science. That's also a fair statement. The question is, is there such a thing as a "supernatural world" and how can we learn anything about it?
Are there reasonable philosophical arguments that can be made for the existence of God? Certainly. Are there reasonable philosophical arguments that can be made that God does not exist? Yes. Is there scientific evidence that answers either of these great questions one way or another? None that holds up to close scrutiny. Collins has no more scientific evidence that God exists than Dawkins has that God does not. Their evidence is philosophical, not scientific. Philosophy can encompass these issues, science cannot.
We can deal with the natural world and we can at least imagine that there's a supernatural world beyond the reach of science. But there's a whole lot of middle ground that's being excluded here. Any religious claim that impinges on the natural world is subject to scientific analysis. That includes claims of miracles.
The only kind of religion that can be completely outside of science is one that believes in a God who never meddles in human affairs. Because as soon as that meddling occurs—answering prayers, for example—we scientists can legitimately ask whether the meddling is detectable or not.
Miracles either exist or they don't. If they do then we should have evidence for miracles. If there's no evidence then you should not believe in them. If you believe in miracles in the absence of evidence for their existence, then your belief is in conflict with science.
Professor Wise says that science can't prove the non-existence of God. That's true. In fact, we can't prove the non-existence of many things. We can't prove, for example, that astrology is completely false in every single case. What we can do is to limit its probability to such a small number that it makes no sense to believe in astrology. That's the power of science.
Professor Wise goes on to describe Professor Behe's testimony at the Dover trial in 2005.
Listen further to the transcripts of these hearings - they are astounding. Professor Behe, star witness for the ID proponents and Discovery Institute senior fellow, gave a Discovery Institute-approved definition of scientific theory in his testimony. Unfortunately for both Dr. Behe and the Discovery Institute, Eric Rothschild, the brilliant lawyer for the parents, asked Dr. Behe, "But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in Intelligent Design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?" And Dr. Behe answered, "Yes, that's correct."Of course we don't want such a science. We want a science that rejects astrology because there's no evidence for it. We don't want astrologers to try and escape scientific scrutiny by claiming that astrology is outside of science, do we? We don't want astrologers to claim that their horoscopes are "miracles" and therefore just as legitimate as science.
Is this what America wants and needs? A definition of science that is so weak and neutered that astrology qualifies?
Why is it that we feel very comfortable rejecting the ridiculous claims of astrology but we have to make special excuses to protect religion from close scientific scrutiny?
[Hat Tip: The Panda's Thumb]
40 comments :
Professor Wise says that science can't prove the non-existence of God. That's true. In fact, we can't prove the non-existence of many things. We can't prove, for example, that astrology is completely false in every single case. What we can do is to limit its probability to such a small number that it makes no sense to believe in astrology.
You've calculated the probability of those? Really? Can you show your numbers?
If not, you are using "probability" with all the rigor and honesty the Discovery Institute musters when they throw it around. What next? You going to dust off Borel's Law?
"If not, you are using "probability" with all the rigor and honesty the Discovery Institute musters when they throw it around."
I think this is a legitimate criticism, which is why I'm not a huge fan of Beyesianism as a model of scientific reasoning.
I do think the underlying reasoning of Larry's argument is sound, however, despite the unfortunate phrasing. When it comes to astrology, we can't seem an instance where the alignment of planets significantly affects events in the daily lives of people. We can't prove a negative, but any pragmatic definition of science allows to reject the hypothesis that such phenomena affect real events.
The thing is, if astrology fails in such scenario, than any idea of interventionist god(s) would have to fail in a similar way (i.e., we've found precisely dick in favor of the hypothesis). That reinforces what Larry said about "special excuses", which is all theistic apologists seem to be able to offer as a response to such a criticism.
"Any religious claim that impinges on the natural world is subject to scientific analysis. That includes claims of miracles"
Not according to the notion that a miracle by definition CANNOT be scientifically explained. If it has a scientific explanation, it cannot be a miracle.
Extraordinary and poorly understood phenomena are not miracles. The world is full of amazing, partially understood things, but they are commonplace in our experience. Development or the fact we have dreams are not miracles, no matter how wondrous; anything that is recurrent can be handled scientifically and thus cannot qualify as a miracle.
This is exacty what the vatican does, for instance, for determining the occurrence of a miracle. They get several doctors to say they cannot scientifically explain how the patient got better. Of course they are not justified to say there "could" not be any scientific explanation, but at some point the situation is like "the water turned into wine and according to all we know,and the conditions observed, that is impossible". That is, an AUTHENTIC (not merely "apparent"!) volation of natural law: the supernatural itself!
... we can't seem an instance where the alignment of planets significantly affects events in the daily lives of people.
Notice that version of astrology in that version proposes a naturalistic mechanism (planet located here, effect there -- like gravity), which is inherently investigatable by science. When you can show such a claim for invarient god-action (such as: pray just so, get the same answer every time), then you can bring science to bear. Until then ...
The problem with saying there is or could be a supernatural world that's outside of the scope of science: if it or its influences are at all observable, it's within the scope of science. If not, it might as well not exist at all (and obviously, there's no way *whatsoever* to tell if it does).
Any question of an interventionist God, certainly, is within the realm of science.
"When you can show such a claim for invarient god-action (such as: pray just so, get the same answer every time), then you can bring science to bear. Until then ..."
And this is where I strongly dissent with you and others who argue this case. You don't need to know the operational invariant a priori to test a claim, you deduce what predictions a hypothesis would make and create a model to empirically test them.
And indeed, theism advocates are not above creating the sort of the flawed models ESP advocates are wont to scrounge-up, prayer studies that allegedly demonstrate the efficacy of prayer in healing are an example of this.
And once again returning to the pragmatic definition of science, when a certain hypothesis comes to the point where it's only saving-grace is a bunch of ad hoc auxiliary rationalization, we are as close to justified in rejecting it as we'll ever be.
And we could also invoke skepticism based on prior (verified) results. If we can reject superluminal motion via the well established predictions of general relativity, why can't we reject, say, virgin births based on the well established impossibility of parthenogenesis in humans?
You don't need to know the operational invariant a priori to test a claim, you deduce what predictions a hypothesis would make and create a model to empirically test them.
I predict that any infinite, omniscient, omnipotent god is going to think and act very differently than humans think and act. Go ahead ... model such a being's thinking and justify the model.
I think those people who set up prayer studies to demonstrate the efficacy of prayer are just as wrong to model god on humans and human thinking as Larry and you are.
I have no problem with disbelief. I only have a problem when people try to dress it up as if it is knowledge.
"I predict that any infinite, omniscient, omnipotent god is going to think and act very differently than humans think and act. Go ahead ... model such a being's thinking and justify the model."
Meaningful definitions of those concepts would be appreciated. I'd especially like to know some justification for a god being simultaneously omniscient (knowing everything) and omnipotent (being able to do anything) resolved. Can god forget something? However the question is decided, one of the attributes is negated. The incongruity of the proposition itself can be taken as a disconfirmation.
Can god forget something?
Yes. Doesn't mean he has to.
But if you want to play those games, if you could fully and meaningfully comprehend those terms then you'd be god and there'd be no further need to discuss the matter.
So, basically you're saying if you can't comprehend it, it can't exist? Care to model that and provide some evidence?
"Yes. Doesn't mean he has to."
The lack of necessity doesn't engender potential. From a state of perfect knowledge god cannot forget something without compromising one of the traits. A god that is incapable of something is a god that isn't omnipotent. The concept is fundamentally incongruous.
"But if you want to play those games, if you could fully and meaningfully comprehend those terms then you'd be god and there'd be no further need to discuss the matter."
That's just rhetorical handwaving. You opened up with the challenge that you predicted a god that was "infinite, omnipotent and omniscient" would do X (in your case, "think and act very differently than humans"). I assume that if you "predict" that then you have a definition in mind and reasoning behind the prediction.
"So, basically you're saying if you can't comprehend it, it can't exist?"
Well, like I said before, you were the one who made an inference based on your idea of what exactly god was. If you're asking whether something based on completely non-definable traits exists it is about as meaningful as "is splig splurge?" How exactly are you operationalizing the concepts here if you claim in the first place that they can't be comprehended? It's like asking for the last digit of pi.
Let us look at data and thus the probability arguments first, before discussing mechanisms.
Presumably observable events can be tested, and hypothesis testing sets standardized requirements (which can differ between sciences) for significance.
"You've calculated the probability of those?"
IIRC, what studies of astrology has done is to take predictions of astrologers and showed that the confirmation probability doesn't deviate significantly from uniform probability. So yes, astrology is debunked by observations.
"Borel's law"
The misuse of Borel is to try to make a universal probability law.
And further to use it as a standard for non-significance, which as explained above is not what we are doing.
As Tyler, I am a bit vary about probability inferences and their problems with defining observable probabilities, I prefer rigorous statistical testing on measurable frequencies.
"Not according to the notion that a miracle by definition CANNOT be scientifically explained."
But at this stage we are discussing the data of observations and frequencies, not the theories of mechanisms. These are two separate things. Astrology and prayer studies are examples of where studies of data has debunked miracles of former or current religions.
I am not saying that we can't study the problems with mechanisms, though. Perhaps I will discuss that in later comments.
On to mechanisms. I am afraid I will have to break it down in smaller bits.
"We can't prove a negative, but any pragmatic definition of science allows to reject the hypothesis that such phenomena affect real events."
I am not a fan of statements about naive inductionism (proving or disproving single statements from inference). The above is technically correct though, we reject claims in science by testing. Either by testing data, or by rejecting whole theories. We can also infer impossibility from current theory.
This is how we have complemented the debunking by data with debunking from theory. For example:
"Notice that version of astrology in that version proposes a naturalistic mechanism (planet located here, effect there -- like gravity), which is inherently investigatable by science."
Astrology proposes instantaneous forces. By special relativity we know that wouldn't work. There is also the problem of interaction strength, a sufficiently strong interaction here would manifest elsewhere and also affect gravity by its energy density.
So we have no go from theory on these types of miracles. As in the former comment I acknowledge that since astrology was once a religious cult by itself and parts of other religions including abrahamic, we are discussing religious miracles here.
"I am not a fan of statements about naive inductionism (proving or disproving single statements from inference)."
Well, no model of scientific reasoning is perfect, but inductivism is the most accurate description of how science is actually done rather than how it should be done in the abstract. We can argue up and down about epistemic justifiability of inductive inference, but it only pertains to whether such inferences are applicable to god(s)-concept in a peripheral way.
Those astrology and prayer studies seem just like those telepathy studies that eventually show no bias towards guessing the card, just the normal probability. Well, what the fuck did you expect?!! hahaha
Are these studies great scientific stuff? Does any of those studies allow us to say, "therefore, we conclude that god does not exist" with a totally serious face? Don't tell it's time to bring out the champagne? hahaha
I mean, C'mon. All we can say is that no "weird shit" happened in that trial. And if anything amazing did happen, we would still not be able to conclude that god exists. It could be an artifact.
I have great respect for probabilistic logic well applied in science and that is precisely why I think any probabilistic argument over the existence of god is just a stinker. Some "sciencemen" can entertain themselves discussing godly probabilites with their creationist chaps. It just cracks me up. Philosophically it is not greater than the simple demand that god be observable, that he may somehow "register positive" in statistical observations.
Wouldn't it be great that for once and for all evolution wre left out of this? All "scientific" discussion of the existence of god must lead to this basic, much more fundamental point about ...probabilites!!! (heeeheee)
Put the scientific debate over god back from where it never should have left: A sterlle mathematico-theological discussion
I was going to go on and expand the debate on mechanisms, specifically the problems of ad hoc proposing that miracles are possible in light of current science. But perhaps we need to slow down and discuss more on the current status of debunked claims first. (Besides, there are so many interesting posts here today.)
Alipio:
"Put the scientific debate over god back from where it never should have left: A sterlle mathematico-theological discussion"
As I remember it it was you that claimed that we couldn't look at phenomenological claims that one time or another has been proposed by religions. [Looking - why yes, "Not according to".]
You can paint your own argument as "sterile mathematico-theological discussion" as much as you like. However, once raised, don't you think they deserve an answer?
Tyler:
"inductivism is the most accurate description of how science is actually done"
I'm not trying to say that naive induction is not an important method to propose hypotheses. I was specifically tying it to the problems of using Bayesian inference and/or claiming that we don't reject stuff in science.
But as you say, a discussion of epistemy or an analysis of methods of science is not central to the current discussion. I'm afraid you activated one or two of my current pet peeves. ;-) Sorry about that.
sure, many important religious miracles are events lost in time and observed by a limited amount of "witnessed" (yeah right hahahah). But as I have said above, even in these days oh so modern the church acknowledges the occurrence of miracles; to them, things like unexpected health recovery provide the opportunity to suggest something truly supernatural has occurred (but of course it remains ultimately a matter of faith)
Say I cut you some slack, and I accept that you have scientifically proven that god is very improbable. Will this deter much religious sentiment? Not really, I think everybody intuitively knows that believing in something you can't ever see is not that "easy". That's why people have faith (and actually may take some pride in that). Faith could be described as betting on the improbable
Contray to the evidently false "rationalism" of alienated catholic theologians, irrational faith IS acknowledged as a vital part by common folks in the "flock" (who know better).
Not according to the notion that a miracle by definition CANNOT be scientifically explained. If it has a scientific explanation, it cannot be a miracle.
So then if scientists observe something that can't be scientifically explained, then they can call it a miracle. So let them study some of those. If somebody calls something a miracle then they must have some way of knowing that it's a miracle, right? I mean it's not like scientists aren't allowed to study things that don't have a scientific explanation. A lot of scientists would love to find something that doesn't have a scientific explanation, wouldn't they?
How about this for the definition of a miracle: "That which CANNOT be scientifically explained, and the scientists are not allowed to not explain it." Lol.
It seems to me that you forget that miracles are supposedly uncommon, unpredictable and irreproducible.There is no "prohibition"; miracles would simply not be amenable to scientific study. Once again: something wondrous cannot be miraculous if it becomes commonplace and thus, amenable to scientific inquiry.
But this is not the main reason why this is no mere prohibition: Quite plainly, the idea of miracles most frequently is to openly challenge rock-solid established scientific knowledge
This is why the great miracles of religious traditions make their impossibility clear, that you are very unlikely to "miss" that it would be against known natural law. Resurrecting battered, days-old corpses, turning water into wine, etc. If you try to come up with a scientific explanation for such alleged miracles, you will turn out ridiculous and improbable explanations (like jesus walking on floating ice instead of water, for instance). You've been had.
I assume that if you "predict" that then you have a definition in mind and reasoning behind the prediction.
I assume you have heard of the term tongue-in-cheek.
But certainly a mathematician is aware that we need not fully comprehend something in order to consider it and even find it useful ... as in, say, an infinite number -- which is an oxymoron right out of the box.
I'm not going to recount several centuries of thinking about the nature of a monotheistic god here. It is inherent in the very concept that such a being will not, indeed, cannot, fully yield to human logic and cannot significantly yeild to science at all. The question is why you would think that such an inability to be able to reduce a concept like god to a scientific proposition is an argument against such a god?
Essentially you and Larry and most atheists are taking the position that a concept is meaningless unless there is scientific/empiric support for it. The problem is that such a position is, itself, scientifically unsupportable. It is a self-defeating proposition.
Now there are many good philosophical arguments for taking science as the best form of human knowledge and even for accepting atheism, but the notion that you can logically or scientifically demonstrate anything significant against such a god ain't one of them.
For example, Torbjörn's claim that studies of the "efficacy" of prayer debunks miracles fails for the same reason that the Discovery Institute's claim for disembodied "design" fails. You first have to know something of the motives, intent and limitations of such a being before you can determine what "effective" prayer might be. Assuming it involves simple "cures" or even overall "health" is an unsupported assumption.
Human science samples only the tiniest number of the total "events" in this universe. The notion that science can capture and recognize such a god is what the Discovery Institute maintains but they have to make he/she/it the crudest sort of god to do so. It is just one of the many things they are wrong about.
john pieret wrote:
Essentially you and Larry and most atheists are taking the position that a concept is meaningless unless there is scientific/empiric support for it.
Aren't (some) atheists saying that the concept is meaningful, when they claim that there happens to be nothing that fits the description?
Aren't (some) agnostics saying that the concept is meaningless, and therefore it is also meaningless to say either that there is, or that there is not, something that fits?
Aren't (some) atheists saying that the concept is meaningful, when they claim that there happens to be nothing that fits the description?
Yes, you're right, of course. What I am was thinking of is the claim by atheists that the lack of scientific/empiric evidence (assuming that's true) is, itself, meaningful. I find that claim meaningless.
The problem with saying there is or could be a supernatural world that's outside of the scope of science: if it or its influences are at all observable, it's within the scope of science.
The real question then becomes: does anything outside the scope of science "exist"? If it does, then science is a fundamentally incomplete description of reality.
In a way though, we already knew that. Science is an approximation or description of reality that "appears" to become more accurate over time (theories are occaisionally wrong), and it also assumes that reality is consistent. But science is not reality itself.
John Pieret says,
What I am was thinking of is the claim by atheists that the lack of scientific/empiric evidence (assuming that's true) is, itself, meaningful. I find that claim meaningless.
I understand the deep philisophical point behind your statement. What you're saying is that the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. We all get it.
However, in the real world that kind of position makes no sense and I doubt very much that you operate as if it does. Taken to it's logical conclusion you would not be able to decide anything at all. For example, in choosing between seeing a doctor and praying you might as well flip a coin since you can't disprove that prayer is efficacious. Similarly, you should be sympathetic to adults who believe in astrology and homeopathy.
But we aren't sympathetic to adults who believe foolish things—or at least some of us aren't. That's because we know that in the real world you don't have to disprove everything in order to recognize that it's foolish. There really are no UFOs kidnapping people to perform sex experiments.
There's one exception to this rule. When it comes to religion we bend over backwards to excuse foolish behavior. We can snicker about people who think they've been abducted by UFOs but we must never laugh at people who believe God can improve your golf game.
John, I think you're guilty of this kind of double standard. You argue vehemently in favor of special privileges for religious thoughts but I'm pretty sure you oppose astrology, homeopathy, and UFOs. But if your aguments apply to religion then surely they apply equally well to those other foolish beliefs, no?
anonymous: precisely!
Larry, when someone goes from talking about "science" and "probabilities" to talking about the "real world," they have no right to get on a high horse about anyone else's standards for making decisions. We all make decisions in the "real world" through a combination of assumptions, predilections (perhaps partly genetic), socialized behavior, sheer guesswork and, if we're lucky, some facts. Limited to its proper subject matter, science is as close as we have to real knowledge but there are vast areas that are not the proper subject matter of science. If I want to know about biochemistry, you'd be one of the first people I'd seek out. But your set of beliefs and guesses about non-scientific matters are not privileged and, frankly, don't impress me much at all.
Sure, I think those people who treat medicine and praying as mutually exclusive and opt only for the praying are foolish. What I'm not so sure of is that it doesn't work both ways and those who trust only to medicine (myself included) aren't also being foolish.
Astrology, homeopathy, and UFOs are not the same cases as religious beliefs because, as I said before, they actually invoke naturalistic causes science is appropriate to investigate. I oppose them, if at all, only to the extent that they can be shown actually harm the people who hold them, not based on whether Larry Moran feels they make the holders look "foolish." The fact that I don't believe in them myself is not "opposition."
On the other hand … if belief in god can improve my golf game …
Its very simple, Larry. Even if religion can foster superstiton, religion is not superstition (or pseudosciences like those you are referring to).
Religion is a social organizer, provides moral guidlines and as such religion and god get much more (deserved) respect.
Of course, thinking that god can improve your golf game is superstitious, but being religious and believing in god does not hinge on the help he may or may not choose to give you at golf play. That is, these superstitious beliefs, even though frequently indulged, are not acknowledged as fundamental.
Wow, you guys are really good at special pleading.
But your set of beliefs and guesses about non-scientific matters are not privileged and, frankly, don't impress me much at all.
How do you know that religion is non-scientific? How do you know that it's supernatural. Just because some dude says so? Go ahead and impress away...
There are some of us concerned with reducing the role of ACTUAL religion in society; not a strawman framed as if it were astrology or ufology. To think of religion as superstition may be very gratifying for your own scientism, but it is simply delusional.
How do you know that religion is non-scientific? How do you know that it's supernatural. Just because some dude says so?
That is the premise of theism. You are invited to scientifically (or otherwise) disprove the premise.
You are, of course, also free to dismiss the premise out of hand. But if you do, just don't tell me you are doing that on the basis of science or logic.
That's what I thought. Just because some dude says so. And I'm invited to disprove that. Thanks. Okay, tell me who was the dude that proved that religion is supernatural, and I will see what I can do.
By the way, astrology is really supernatural, it's just that the planets (the invisible ones hiding behind the real ones) don't like being tested. There, I'm glad I could earn astrology some respectability. You are welcome.
Just because some dude says so. And I'm invited to disprove that.
No, you were also invited to dismiss it out of hand, which is the option you apparently chose. So? What more is there to discuss then?
"How do you know that religion is non-scientific? How do you know that it's supernatural"
I explained this above, but ideas bounce off some hard-headed people like balls from a wall
Again:
Religion is certainly unscientific, and certainly not just because some dude said so.
This is because religions make claims that are MEANT to go against established scientific knowledge, AND to escape comfirmation (rare, unpredictable phenomena).
Anything like that cannot be of the concern of science. A miracle is, by defintion, a scientifically unmanageable concept.
This is because religions make claims that are MEANT to go against established scientific knowledge, AND to escape confirmation (rare, unpredictable phenomena).
I'm still not getting it. Everything that makes claims that are meant to go against established scientific knowledge is unscientific. Everything that tries to escape confirmation is unscientific. Everything that is rare, unpredictable phenomena is unscientific. Is that about right? Lol.
Veeery good. Not just because some dude said so. OK?
Rare and unpredictable is a bit too plain; I'd add that most of the relevant miracles upheld by religions simply leave no reliable record that anything weird ever happened.
The most important miracles of every religious doctrine are PERFECTLY SAFE from even the most remote possibility of scientific scrutiny.
Science can certainly tackle all those topics, it it is creative aware of its philosophical foundations and the improtance of phiolosophy. NEVER through the scientisim of poeple who scorn philosophy, of "science as skepticism"
"For example, Torbjörn's claim that studies of the "efficacy" of prayer debunks miracles fails for the same reason that the Discovery Institute's claim for disembodied "design" fails. You first have to know something of the motives, intent and limitations of such a being before you can determine what "effective" prayer might be. Assuming it involves simple "cures" or even overall "health" is an unsupported assumption."
I am not sure if this is a simple misunderstanding or a deliberate attempt of moving the goalposts. Certainly prayer have different motivations, such as confirming faith, seeking comfort, et cetera.
But the claim of many religious variants is that prayer is acted upon by supernatural agents, giving as a result miracles, i.e. phenomena appearing without natural cause. As prayer in this case didn't make an observational difference, this specific claim is debunked.
"Human science samples only the tiniest number of the total "events" in this universe."
And that is enough to enable us to state and confirm universal observations or laws. For example, the observation that miracles doesn't happen.
Now would be a good time to go into why there are problems of ad hoc proposing that miracles are possible in light of current science. Alas, this thread is currently cold...
I predict that any infinite, omniscient, omnipotent god is going to think and act very differently than humans think and act. Go ahead ... model such a being's thinking and justify the model.
I don't know how an omniscient god is supposed to think at all. Thinking is processing information and forming new conclusions. How could an omniscient god do that? It's like saying that an omnipresent god "moves about".
The discrepancy is clearer in many theist writings, for instance this quote from Plantinga:
God has created us in his image, and an important part of our image bearing is our resembling him in being able to form true beliefs and achieve knowledge.
Post a Comment