tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post6730960586512139422..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: The Fallacy of the ContinuumLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-82005687391780412242009-05-26T05:41:51.145-04:002009-05-26T05:41:51.145-04:00You are positing the existence of a wiring for rel...<I>You are positing the existence of a wiring for religion, while I am not</I>.<br /><br />No, I am asking why you attribute some irrational behavior to biological wiring and not others. Even you have admitted that humans may be wired with "certain predispositions" to religious thinking (and there is a fairly extensive evolutionary psychology literature, such as from Pascal Boyer, Dan Dennett and others, on biological origins of religion). <br /><br />Simply asserting that there is no such biological origin because hard data in support or refuting either is scarce is not parsimonious ... or scientific. You have to at least demonstrate some difference between them.John Pierethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17336244849636477317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-25670321642064947402009-05-26T04:48:08.140-04:002009-05-26T04:48:08.140-04:00Dwight, the disconnect between science and religio...Dwight, the disconnect between science and religion occurs when you have a belief that invokes either miracles or the intervention of a 'supernatural' being into the natural world. Miracles would mean we cannot trust the results of scientific experiments (any result could be a miracle rather than a reproducible result of natural laws). A supernatural being intervening in the natural world, through revelation etc, would certainly break the known laws of the universe since it would involve some new energy impacting our neurons for us to detect and 'feel' this intervention.<br />A religion that doesnt believe in supernatural beings or miracles or revelation is much closer to being in harmony with the scientific method than the standard religion we see in modern societies.Sigmundhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00262375488263086844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-61087920326107731392009-05-25T21:33:22.580-04:002009-05-25T21:33:22.580-04:00A few quick thoughts
If I'm appealing to somethin...A few quick thoughts<br /><br />If I'm appealing to something in nature as holy then I'm not appealing to anything supernatural. Also if I'm appealing to some feature of nature then there is not a question of existence or non existence. And yes there are more liberal churches where my thought is fully in line with it. So again, I'm not sure where this necessary rupture between evolution and religion must happen. I know it can, ie creationism. But your claim is stronger than that.Dwighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01022414933969854363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-39693154581205790162009-05-25T21:12:17.185-04:002009-05-25T21:12:17.185-04:00You are positing the existence of a wiring for rel...You are positing the existence of a wiring for religion, while I am not. This automatically makes your hypothesis less parsimonious than mine, and because hard data in support or refuting any of the two is scarce, I will have to go with mineGeorgi Marinovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12226357993389417752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-60111341201642883842009-05-25T20:30:21.795-04:002009-05-25T20:30:21.795-04:00... we are by no means so wired with it that a goo...<I>... we are by no means so wired with it that a good education and, most importantly, sparing the child the indoctrination into it in the early years of his life, can't overcome</I>.<br /><br />And your <I>scientific</I> evidence for that is? A peer reviewed paper would be nice.<br /><br /><I>100% of people were religious back in the days, now it is around 90%. The most parsimonious explanation for that is that it simply became culturally possible to not believe, not that those 10% somehow became unwired</I>.<br /><br />Oh, please! The hypothesis that there has always been some percentage of unwired people who culturally could not safely <I>express</I> their unbelief and therefore hid it is just as parsimonious. In fact, I'd say that is by far the most reasonable explanation unless you can demonstrate any other complex trait that 100% of humans demonstrate.<br /><br />If you want to be scientific while maintaining that belief in god is susceptible to being overcome by reason while love is not (or, conversely, that love is not just a biologically wired predisposition that is as easily overcome by reason), you are going to have to do better than bare assertions.John Pierethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17336244849636477317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-2442203867967018342009-05-25T19:06:55.883-04:002009-05-25T19:06:55.883-04:00Not again, please.
We maybe wired with certain p...Not again, please. <br /><br />We maybe wired with certain predisposition to religious thinking, but we are by no means so wired with it that a good education and, most importantly, sparing the child the indoctrination into it in the early years of his life, can't overcome.<br /><br />100% of people were religious back in the days, now it is around 90%. The most parsimonious explanation for that is that it simply became culturally possible to not believe, not that those 10% somehow became unwired.Georgi Marinovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12226357993389417752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-43939688529577887952009-05-25T19:01:51.433-04:002009-05-25T19:01:51.433-04:00That's absolutely not what I said, read it again.
...<I>That's absolutely not what I said, read it again</I>.<br /><br />Heh. The non-answer. The only explanation I can see is that you think Larry and other scientists are biologically wired to behave as if they're in love and cannot act or think rationally about it. But you have been able to think rationally about it. Why couldn't they? <br /><br />In any event, now that you have revealed the "truth" to him, if he goes on thinking he loves his wife or even continues to speak to her as if it is something more than a molecular and biochemical phenomena, but chooses not to tell her the truth despite the fact that he <I>could</I> act rationally, does he forfit his status as a scientist? Isn't absolute honesty part of science?<br /><br />And, anyway, to take it from another direction, how did you determine that love is biologically wired but belief in a god isn't? The fact that some people aren't so wired doesn't demonstrate that all people aren't. Not all people have blue eyes but that doesn't mean blue eyes isn't biologically wired. If you cut Larry slack about love, why not Ken Miller about belief in a god?John Pierethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17336244849636477317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-65600065466473421852009-05-25T18:57:00.194-04:002009-05-25T18:57:00.194-04:00@ John Pieret,
Yes, one can be a scientist withou...@ John Pieret,<br /><br />Yes, one can be a scientist without using the scientific method in every possible situation.<br /><br />That said, your implication that believing oneself to be in love is an example of non-scientific and/or irrational behavior is wrong. We've been through that before.<br /><br />Of course, it depends on how one defines love. If love is thought to be some supernatural force that exists independent of humans, then belief in that would obviously be non-scientific (since there's no evidence for such force).<br /><br />However, if love is simply a term that describes a particular human state and set of behaviors, there's nothing unscientific about it. You seem to imply that because a scientist must observe his own feelings and actions to judge whether he is in love, that any conclusion he reaches is non-scientific. I don't agree at all. His conclusion may well be tentative, given the potential bias in his observations, but so what? Scientists have to deal with bias every day, and reach the best conclusion they can despite that bias. This case is no different.qetzalnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-60685056267887806032009-05-25T18:34:42.128-04:002009-05-25T18:34:42.128-04:00That's absolutely not what I said, read it againThat's absolutely not what I said, read it againGeorgi Marinovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12226357993389417752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-47830657841788594982009-05-25T18:16:09.506-04:002009-05-25T18:16:09.506-04:00If you want my honest opinion, I will tell you tha...<I>If you want my honest opinion, I will tell you that 'love' as it is portrayed in our culture is an artificial concept that does not really exist in reality, and that when you view the process on a molecular and biochemical level, your question becomes meaningless</I>.<br /><br />So, any scientist who thinks she or he is in love, can think and act rationally but chooses not to by continuing to think they are in love, is not a scientist in your opinion? Dang, you just reduced the ranks by quite a lot. Larry, are you willing to keep your status as a scientist and rationalist by denying that you are in love with your wife and daughter?<br /><br />For reasons that should now be obvious, I don't think I quote mined you at all.John Pierethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17336244849636477317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-64858792081471573882009-05-25T18:08:28.977-04:002009-05-25T18:08:28.977-04:00I clearly stated that there are situations in whic...I clearly stated that there are situations in which we are biologically wired to behave in certain ways. And we are in the process of understanding the mechanisms behind these in greater and greater detail. <br /><br />It is the situations in which you can think and act rationally but you choose not to that I am talking about. I explained this above.<br /><br />If you want my honest opinion, I will tell you that 'love' as it is portrayed in our culture is an artificial concept that does not really exist in reality, and that when you view the process on a molecular and biochemical level, your question becomes meaningless.Georgi Marinovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12226357993389417752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-67283590656329478782009-05-25T18:02:58.910-04:002009-05-25T18:02:58.910-04:00I don't know if it was deliberate or not but you j...<I>I don't know if it was deliberate or not but you just committed the dreaded crime of quote-mining...</I>.<br /><br />I'm more than willing to listen and correct it if I have. More interesting would be an explanation of how I've misrepresented your position ... if I have.John Pierethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17336244849636477317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-8662395531091235112009-05-25T17:53:56.220-04:002009-05-25T17:53:56.220-04:00I don't know if it was deliberate or not but you j...I don't know if it was deliberate or not but you just committed the dreaded crime of quote-mining....Georgi Marinovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12226357993389417752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-28354007002042672182009-05-25T17:51:31.643-04:002009-05-25T17:51:31.643-04:00However science is not a job, it is a method of di...<I>However science is not a job, it is a method of discovering the truth about the world around us, with jobs being associated with it being necessitated by the structure of the society we live in, and because of that it is intellectual dishonesty and nothing else to claim that two different incompatible ways of viewing and thinking about the world can peacefully coexist in your mind</I>.<br /><br />So, I repeat, is the personal emotion of love experienced by a scientist, unexamined by scientific means, an incompatible method of discovering the truth about the world, specifically himself and those around him/her from science? <br /><br />Enough playing at Socrates: Georgi has made an absolutist claim about scientists that no human being can accomplish. No human being is a "rationalist" (in Larry's formulation) all of the time ... perhaps not <I>most</I> of the time. You have to go further and show why theists' irrationalism is somehow different <I>in kind</I> from your own. <br /><br />Whatever arguments you can make against the compatibility of science and religion, this one is obviously false and merely make you look silly and ... well ... irrational.John Pierethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17336244849636477317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-90339368532862774532009-05-25T17:38:40.082-04:002009-05-25T17:38:40.082-04:00John Pieret said...I've answered that question a d...<I><B>John Pieret said...</B><BR>I've answered that question a dozen times already. Check my previous posts.<br /><br />Sure, but there is always the question of whether you are being consistent. The question was asked in the context of Georgi's assertion that "If you are a scientist, you are a scientist 24/7/365, not part-time." <br /><br />Do you think you can be a scientist and be one less than 24 hours a day? If not, does loving your wife count as being within your definition of what is "science"?</I>You are using "love" as a fallacy to imply that somehow one can not be free of irrational behavior. This is absolutely true, one can not be completely free of irrational behavior because we are wired to behave like that in certain situations. <br /><br />The more important question is whether one is allowed to behave irrationally when he can just as well behave rationally, especially if one's vocation is to think and act rationally. Again, if you view science as a job, you are perfectly free to think and do whatever you want when you are not doing science, as long as you are being rigorous enough when practicing it. However science is not a job, it is a method of discovering the truth about the world around us, with jobs being associated with it being necessitated by the structure of the society we live in, and because of that it is intellectual dishonesty and nothing else to claim that two different incompatible ways of viewing and thinking about the world can peacefully coexist in your mind.Georgi Marinovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12226357993389417752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-81303162773026591262009-05-25T17:23:50.936-04:002009-05-25T17:23:50.936-04:00I've answered that question a dozen times already....<I>I've answered that question a dozen times already. Check my previous posts</I>.<br /><br />Sure, but there is always the question of whether you are being consistent. The question was asked in the context of Georgi's assertion that "If you are a scientist, you are a scientist 24/7/365, not part-time." <br /><br />Do you think you can be a scientist and be one less than 24 hours a day? If not, does loving your wife count as being within your definition of what is "science"?John Pierethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17336244849636477317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-38342536843375438132009-05-25T17:19:29.290-04:002009-05-25T17:19:29.290-04:00This continuum may be helpful to some I suppose, b...This continuum may be helpful to some I suppose, but it's a pretty incomplete model of what's actually out there. Kinda like Dawkin's belief scale. There are probably as many different belief-system models as there are people. For example, I don't see instances of philosophical Idealism (which has many types) on the list - some types are impossible to prove wrong, and yet can be entirely compatible with science. If I was a Christian (which I am not), I would probably choose some form of Idealism, and then no one could argue with me. Of course, then I'd have to give up realism, but the latest QM experiments seem to point in that direction anyway.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-84466471285177823082009-05-25T17:12:12.041-04:002009-05-25T17:12:12.041-04:00John Pieret says,
Not particularly, since I am tr...John Pieret says,<br /><br /><I>Not particularly, since I am trying to find out what your definition of "science" is.</I><BR><BR>That's an attempt at humor or sarcasm, right?<br /><br />I've answered that question a dozen times already. Check my previous posts.Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-81024207640021421892009-05-25T16:59:01.408-04:002009-05-25T16:59:01.408-04:00Dwight said...I go to church and am a naturalist w...<I><B>Dwight said...</B><BR>I go to church and am a naturalist who believes in evolution. I'm not a deist as in a remote God, but some variation of pantheism (or at least that some features of our natural world can be understood as divine, as holy). Where's the superstition in that? Certainly God impacts as as much as the world does if they are one and the same at some level. And yet it is not a recourse to the supernatural.</I><BR><BR>A belief in a deity without evidence for its existence is a form of superstition. And the idea that "some features of the world can only be understood by invoking the supernatural" is exactly that. It is also anti-scientific. <br /><br />Also, I can not understand why you say that you believe in pantheism and in the same time go to church. Last time I checked the God worshiped in churches was of quite different natureGeorgi Marinovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12226357993389417752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-27640068816306462672009-05-25T16:58:41.307-04:002009-05-25T16:58:41.307-04:00That a really stupid question, even for a lawyer! ...<I>That a really stupid question, even for a lawyer! :-)<br /><br />The answer is "yes.</I>"<br /><br />Is that a "scientific" answer? Aren't you just reporting a personal "feeling"? Have you conducted tests to discover the cause? Have you done a scientific investigation? Is your answer publishable in a peer reviewed journal?<br /><br /><I>I can even make predictions. Right now, I predict that you are frustrated. :-</I>)<br /><br />Not particularly, since I am trying to find out what your definition of "science" is. So far, it apparently means anything you want to call it ... which isn't very scientific.<br /><br /><I>What I'm saying is that there has to be a word to describe the state of those people who eschew superstition all the time. <br /><br />If that word is "rationalism" then theists do not fall into that category</I>.<br /><br />So emotions are rational? <br /><br />And no, Martin, I'm not talking about any sort of Cartesian dualism. I'm exploring a claim that a scientist must be a scientist 24/7.John Pierethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17336244849636477317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-42867923066675404672009-05-25T16:58:05.383-04:002009-05-25T16:58:05.383-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Georgi Marinovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12226357993389417752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-9248594833352660402009-05-25T16:53:07.102-04:002009-05-25T16:53:07.102-04:00I go to church and am a naturalist who believes in...I go to church and am a naturalist who believes in evolution. I'm not a deist as in a remote God, but some variation of pantheism (or at least that some features of our natural world can be understood as divine, as holy). Where's the superstition in that? Certainly God impacts as as much as the world does if they are one and the same at some level. And yet it is not a recourse to the supernatural.Dwighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01022414933969854363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-76790334664596066152009-05-25T16:49:36.854-04:002009-05-25T16:49:36.854-04:00Marc says,
Interestingly, according to your taxon...Marc says,<br /><br /><I>Interestingly, according to your taxonomy, Ronald Fischer, Theodosius Dobzhansky and Charles Darwin would fall "outside" your "rationalism theshold".</I><BR><BR>Yes to Fischer and Dobzhansky, no to Darwin.<br /><br />I'm not saying that people who believe in superstitions are completely incapable of having rational thoughts from time to time. What I'm saying is that there has to be a word to describe the state of those people who eschew superstition all the time. <br /><br />If that word is "rationalism" then theists do not fall into that category. <br /><br />We could substitute the word "materialism" but that wouldn't be nearly as much fun. :-)Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-67396425329479835062009-05-25T16:34:01.236-04:002009-05-25T16:34:01.236-04:00John Pieret asks,
Can a scientist acting as one 2...John Pieret asks,<br /><br /><I>Can a scientist acting as one 24/7 say that she loves another person without being intellectually dishonest?</I><BR><BR>That a really stupid question, even for a lawyer! :-)<br /><br />The answer is "yes."<br /><br />Not only that, I can observe others and conclude that they are in love without being intellectually dishonest.<br /><br />And to make it even more obvious, I can observe other animals and conclude that they care for each other. It's not being intellectually dishonest to reach such a conclusion.<br /><br />I have even more extraordinary powers when I'm being scientific. I can also say when I'm angry, sad, happy, lonely, bored, stressed, frightened, hungry, and content. I can do all of those things and still be intellectually honest.<br /><br />Isn't that amazing?<br /><br />I can even make predictions. Right now, I predict that you are frustrated. :-)Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-3995134364741779532009-05-25T15:44:32.822-04:002009-05-25T15:44:32.822-04:00I think it is more useful to divide the continuum ...I think it is more useful to divide the continuum into belief and practice with respect to evolution, in other words:<br /><br />young earth creationism: supernaturalism<br />old earth creationism: supernaturalism<br />intelligent design: methodological supernaturalism<br />theistic evolution: methodological naturalism<br />philosophical naturalism: methodological naturalism<br /><br />I'm borrowing "methodological supernaturalism" from a <A HREF="http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/05/18/can-the-supernatural-be-studied-kiri-kin-thas-first-law-of-metaphysics/" REL="nofollow">post by Greg Mayer.</A> There are some aspects of methodological supernaturalism in YEC/OEC, like belief in "microevolution," but most of it hinges on outright denial of science.James Fnoreply@blogger.com