tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post8326945436590896175..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Who's the Grownup in the Science vs Religion Debate?Larry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger133125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-20261846600509467782010-09-03T13:08:20.620-04:002010-09-03T13:08:20.620-04:00"inchirieri apartamente cluj" posted a c..."inchirieri apartamente cluj" posted a comment on this site where he said. <br /><br /><i>We all have to agree that some things are just plain irrational, and cannot be explained... at least to some extent.</i><br /><br />No me. There are lots of thing I can't explain but I anticipate that they will eventually have rational explanations. I base this expectation on historical precedence. It's worked well in the past.<br /><br />Until there's an explanation, I put it in the category of "unknown."<br /><br /><i>I believe that here is when we speak about faith.</i><br /><br />You have "faith" that some mysterious things will have an irrational explanation. You don't seem to like the "unknown" category. That's doesn't seem very rational.<br /><br />P.S. I have deleted the comment by "inchirieri apartamente cluj" because it contains a link to a website that has nothing to do with an individual profile.<br /><br />It's spam.<br /><br>Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-28916964296180530022010-03-28T02:59:56.638-04:002010-03-28T02:59:56.638-04:00Larry Moran said: ". Apparently, there are ve...Larry Moran said: ". Apparently, there are very few honest people on my side of the argument."<br /><br />Agreed, there are very few honest people in your camp. There are plenty of dishonest persons on your side of the argument.Salvador Cordovanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-89758781863573424082010-03-16T13:38:55.822-04:002010-03-16T13:38:55.822-04:00(continuing response to Mike)
Scientifically, we...(continuing response to Mike)<br /><br /><br />Scientifically, we should be at best agnostic toward religion, and extremely skeptical. That's <i>not optional</i>, or a particularly "philosophical" or "metaphysical" claim; it follows from the science.<br /><br />It is <i>not</i> okay to say that if science can't strictly disprove something, it's okay to believe it's true, as accommodationists often do.<br /><br />Science is simply not about strict disproof, never has been, and never could be. By that standard, we <i>still</i> haven't proved that the Earth isn't stationary.<br /><br /><b><i>And yet it moves</i></b>, as Galileo said.<br /><br /><b>It could <i>still</i> be true that the Sun goes around the Earth in just such a way as to be completely observationally indistinguishable from the best scientific theory of planetary motion. That doesn't mean that it isn't scientifically wrong to take such an idea very seriously, much less actually <i>believe</i> it.</b><br /><br />Likewise other religious claims.<br /><br />Accommodationists want to make unfalsifiability and supernaturalism into virtues that protect religious beliefs from scientific scrutiny.<br /><br />That's utter bullshit.<br /><br />Science can study religion's claims, and religion's <i>methods</i>, and find them sorely wanting as means of getting at anything resembling truth.<br /><br />NOMA is wrong, and unfalsifiability of hypotheses doesn't mean science can't say <i>it's probably wrong</i>---it generally means <b>science should say exactly that: distinctively religious beliefs are probably wrong.</b><br /><br />Calling something "supernatural" isn't a science-stopper, either.<br /><br /><b>The scope of science isn't limited to the "natural" world</b> in any sense that's relevant to the "natural"/"supernatural" distinction.<br /><br />Science can study anything with observable effects, and purported supernatural entities systematically do have (supposed) observable effects---that's how we're supposed to know about them. (E.g., transcendent spiritual experiences, revelation, etc.)<br /><br />That makes them fair game for science whether they reduce to materialism as we know it or not.<br /><br />Consider Lamarckism and vitalism. Both of those theories had a supernatural character, assuming teleological properties of living things that nobody knew how to cash out in "reductionistic" materialistic terms. (And in fact, many thought it was impossible---that's why Darwin is so important.)<br /><br />That did <i>not</i> keep scientists from taking them seriously, scientifically, and it shouldn't have. Darwin was right to be <i>skeptical</i> of irreducibly teleological weirdness, and to make an <i>educated guess</i> that a purely materialistic, nonteleological account could be successful, but to <i>keep an open mind</i> about the possibility of very special principles at work, which could not be reduced to monistic, materialistic Science As We Know It.<br /><br /><b>The success of materialistic monism in science is not and never was a matter of an <i>a priori</i> constraint on what science can study, or what hypotheses it can entertain. <i>A priori</i> methodological naturalism is simply false---that is not how science worked then, or works now, or ever should work, or ever <i>could</i> work.</b> Science blinkered in that way would not be science---it would be science bowdlerized to accommodate religion, and that's not just unscientific but <i>anti</i>scientific.<br /><br />Accommodationists still don't understand the significance of the most important examples in the history and philosophy of science, and constantly misrepresent the nature of science. It's very tiresome.Paul W.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-64040643974848276112010-03-16T13:37:03.297-04:002010-03-16T13:37:03.297-04:00I posted this over at The Questionable Authority, ...I posted this over at The Questionable Authority, in response to Mike Dunford's response to Larry:<br /><br />http://scienceblogs.com/authority/2010/03/more_on_the_material_and_metap.php#comment-2355009<br /><br />Mike:<br /><br /><i>Actually, there are cases - quite a few of them, in fact - where theological statements can be investigated scientifically, and where they can, and have, been shown to be false. The circumstances that surround these cases are very similar to cases where ESP, ghosts, ghoulies, and things that go bump in the night have been investigated by science.</i><br /><br /><i>The common thread that connects these cases, and, more importantly, excludes quite a few others, is fairly simple: there is some sort of set of measurable criteria that all parties - skeptic or otherwise - recognize as a required consequence of whatever is being investigated.</i><br /><br />Sorry, this doesn't wash.<br /><br />Consider the Galileo example I brought up in the earlier thread, here:<br /><br />http://scienceblogs.com/authority/2010/03/cities_solipsism_scientism_and.php#comment-2341162<br /><br />The Catholic authorities (well, some, anyway) wanted Galileo to say that his model didn't actually describe reality, which would contradiction scripture, but was predictive. <br /><br />They proposed that the Sun went around the Earth in just such a way as to be observationally indistinguishable from Galileo's heliocentric model.<br /><br /><b>They were scientifically wrong, weren't they?</b><br /><br />Science is simply not neutral toward unfalsifiable hypotheses, especially those that<br /><br />1) appear contrived precisely to avoid falsification, and/or<br /><br />2) are arrived at by dubious methods, using intuitions that have systematically failed in the past<br /><br />To the extent that it has any interesting, distinctively religious content at all unfalsifiable religion meets <i>both</i> these criteria.<br /><br />It's a scientific fact that unfalsifiable hypotheses are usually wrong---they have to be, because there's an infinity of unfalsifiable hypotheses that mostly contradict each other.<br /><br />It's a scientific fact that hypotheses contrived to evade falsifiability are especially likely to be wrong, or worse than wrong.<br /><br />It's a scientific fact that <i>religious hypotheses in particular are usually wrong</i>. They have to be, because of the contradictions between religions. (E.g., on the number and traits of god(s), the basic nature of morality, the origin of the universe, the specific moral claims, etc.)<br /><br />Religion in general is <i>demonstrably wrong</i> in most cases, even if we can't say for sure which ones it might luck out and be right in.<br /><br />Without some extraordinary evidence for particular religious claims, we should scientifically discount religious hypotheses in the very same way we discount other unfalsifiable hypotheses contrived to evade falsification, e.g., Bigfoot, UFO reports, homeopathic nonsense, and various paranoid conspiracy theories. There's no special rule about religion.<br /><br />(to be continued...)Paul W., OMnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-86266023784350892202010-03-13T01:56:49.515-05:002010-03-13T01:56:49.515-05:00Josh-
articulett is just upset the NCSE doesn'...Josh-<br /><br />articulett is just upset the NCSE doesn't see religion s being incompatible with science.Michael (mjpam)noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-38527275285933243462010-03-13T01:53:24.532-05:002010-03-13T01:53:24.532-05:00articulett: "If the question isn't raised...articulett: "If the question isn't raised, why bring it up?"<br /><br />But it is raised. All the time. People don't ask NCSE about demons, but they do ask whether teaching evolution is equivalent to teaching atheism, and whether opposing creationism means opposing religion. So NCSE, by your own logic, has to address the matter.Josh Rosenauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07304209937998935215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-33884316640804565922010-03-13T01:24:43.384-05:002010-03-13T01:24:43.384-05:00Josh, do you think the NCSE treats belief in demon...Josh, do you think the NCSE treats belief in demons with the same respect that it treats belief in God (gods)? I don't. But I think they should. They just shouldn't "go there". It's not relevant to science. Many scientists may have supernatural beliefs, but that doesn't really mean that supernatural beliefs and science are compatible in any genuine sense. The former is about faith and the latter is about facts (evidence, data, testable claims). Does the NCSE want to get in debates about reincarnation versus heaven and hell or demon possession or karma? Religion is not the NCSE's business. That being said, I support and am a member of the NCSE, and I am a science teacher in a public high school. <br /><br />I see science as Sagan's "candle in the darkness" of a "demon haunted world", and I don't want any part of enabling belief or ennobling faith as a means of knowledge. My beliefs (or lack of belief) is not discussed in class. I think biology teachers should be able to teach the facts the same as the chemistry teachers, and I encourage all people to keep religious beliefs private. I would hope that you would see why it feels dishonest or disingenuous to those who feel as I do. I think it's weird when the NCSE discusses which beliefs are and aren't compatible with the evidence. Gods are no more compatible with the evidence then demons, but do we want school children growing up to believe in demons? Are you willing to foster demon belief to make evolution more palatable? How do you address people who have come to believe their salvation depends on them not understanding or accepting evolution? I'm not sure the smoke and mirrors technique is working. <br /><br />If the question isn't raised, why bring it up? It was weird in the Dover trial when Ken Miller had to admit that he's kind of a creationist in that he thinks god had a hand in it all. I just don't think god should be a part of public discourse regarding government, education, schooling, or science. You can point people towards theists who accept evolution IF THE ISSUE COMES UP, but why give god more attention than demons or other proposed invisible beings? <br /><br />I just think religions ought to be as private as they want all the conflicting and crazy religions to be. They shouldn't ask for any more deference, favors, or coddling than they want to give the Wiccans, Moonies and Scientologists. <br /><br />As for Pete, Sinbad, and a couple of others here-- they seem to be having their own private conversations as far as I can tell. I can't tell what their point is. Dunning-Kruger effect, perhaps.articuletthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09902568587446268437noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-92105118422427254272010-03-13T00:07:31.916-05:002010-03-13T00:07:31.916-05:00We begin by defining terms. I claim that science i...<i>We begin by defining terms. I claim that science is a way of knowing based on rational thought, skepticism, and evidence. I claim that when that way of knowing is applied to religious claims, those claims can be shown to be false or, at the very least, unsupported. Thus, if you are committed to science as a valid way of knowing, it follows that, when you stick to that commitment, the vast majority of religious beliefs are not compatible with science.</i><br /><br />Coming back to Sandwalk I find one the same old hobby horses. In the small quote above, first you suggest defining terms, then you don't bother. You must have been through this dozens of times. Then you say "it follows". But of course it does not follow and has no chance of following. Nor do you make any attempt to show rather than just assert that "it follows". To even try you would have to define terms. <br /><br />As I hope you recall, the key term is "compatible". Those who argue for incompatibility from either side implicitly define "compatible" to make themselves right. Worse, to be compatible the other side would just about have to capitulate. Those who argue the question with great assurance never (that I recall) define the key term and so it (their conclusion never follows. But defining the term would just make it clear that you essentially assume your conclusion. <br /><br />Anti-compatibilists I should note can be either creationist types or your type. <br /><br />Both simply brush aside the obvious reality of compatibility in the ordinary sense of the word. <br /><br />The tragedy of logic: you don't have it until you really lay out your assumptions and definitions, and then anyone who does not agree with your conclusion can simply disagree with the assumptions and or definitions.<br /><br />Pete DunkelbergAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-80628017306998714992010-03-12T18:24:00.070-05:002010-03-12T18:24:00.070-05:00articulett: I contend that that's what NCSE do...articulett: I contend that that's what NCSE does.<br /><br />Tulse: "'Claims about the age of the earth are testable' But not if you permit miracles, since any testing you do could itself be subject to miraculous intervention in some fashion."<br /><br />I suppose, and that's why I made noted that Last Thursdayism (Omphalism, more formally) is in a different category. YECs generall hold that empirical tests show the earth to be 6000 years old, though, and that's falsifiable and false.<br /><br />"No, I'm saying that science is about what works, not about dogma or philosophical purity. NCSE's work is fundamentally political: defending evolution in public schools. But to suggest that politics and principle are in opposition is false, and to suggest that NCSE's position is unprincipled is unjustifiable. "<br /><br />"You're conflating "what works" in science with "what works" in promoting science."<br /><br />I happen to think that "what works in promoting science" can be evaluated scientifically, and that it's odd to attempt to set politics and political persuasion outside the realm of scientific testing.<br /><br />"what I don't want is for the NCSE to take a parochial theological position on the relationship between religion and science."<br /><br />I don't happen to think NCSE does. I think NCSE cannot avoid answering the inevitable and reasonable questions that theists pose to people who criticize creationism: "if you oppose creationism, do you oppose any belief that god is involved in creation?," "if you think god didn't created, does that mean god doesn't exist?," etc. And that requires some nuance and subtlety. Simply saying "I'm not gonna talk about that" winds up creating an impression of anti-religiosity which is a) inaccurate and b) impolitic.<br /><br />And thank you, too, Tulse, for the good discussion.Josh Rosenauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07304209937998935215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-35623235073657608842010-03-12T14:28:44.657-05:002010-03-12T14:28:44.657-05:00“Spiritual, not religious.” That is a common entry...“Spiritual, not religious.” That is a common entry on most social networking sites. While many young people may have attended the house of worship of their parents, they seldom feel obligated to believe in the tenets of that religion. An interest in mysticism is increasing among them too, which bridges other faiths. We cannot say that applies to all people under 30. Too many are still secular and skeptical.<br /><br />The term empiricist applies to many people, young or old. If it can't be seen, heard, smelled, or touched, or tasted it doesn't exist. Contemporary astrophysics says that dark matter and dark energy make up 95% of the critical density of the Universe. That would imply the science can now study only 5% of this Universe.Ron Krumposhttp://www.suprarational.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-1168950791795854472010-03-12T12:00:35.641-05:002010-03-12T12:00:35.641-05:00"Claims about the age of the earth are testab...<i>"Claims about the age of the earth are testable"</i><br /><br />But <i>not if you permit miracles</i>, since any testing you do could itself be subject to miraculous intervention in some fashion. That's the point I've been making -- once you allow miracles, there is no principled way to distinguish them. Literally anything is allowed. <br /><br /><i>"No, I'm saying that science is about what works, not about dogma or philosophical purity. NCSE's work is fundamentally political: defending evolution in public schools. But to suggest that politics and principle are in opposition is false, and to suggest that NCSE's position is unprincipled is unjustifiable. "</i><br /><br />You're conflating "what works" in science with "what works" in <i>promoting</i> science. Promoting science indeed involves politics, but to change the way one publicly characterizes science to make it more politically palatable can indeed be a violation of scientific principle. That's the issue with accommodationism.<br /><br /><i>"Bull. Creationism is religion and there's no way that you want NCSE to be neutral toward it."</i><br /><br />Agreed -- I misspoke in the original. I want the NCSE to oppose direct anti-science threats from religions, but what I <i>don't</i> want is for the NCSE to take a parochial theological position on the relationship between religion and science. I think it is completely reasonable for the NCSE to say "biblical literalism does not accord with scientific facts" without having to say anything further about the implications for religion of science. <br /><br />(Josh, I'll also note that, while we may disagree strongly on these issues, I do greatly appreciate the honest dialogue.)Tulsenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-57466146166866371222010-03-11T22:21:34.803-05:002010-03-11T22:21:34.803-05:00It would be NICE if the NCSE said "we have no...It would be NICE if the NCSE said "we have not need for that hypothesis"... instead they imply that the "god hypothesis" (and thus "faith") is perfectly compatible with a fact finding endeavor. I suppose it is, if you really want to limit your gods powers.<br /><br />And we are hardly asking for them to declare god dead-- "god" is none of their business.<br /><br />They ought to treat god questions the way they would treat other supernatural questions.articuletthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09902568587446268437noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-57179209479431667372010-03-11T21:33:51.338-05:002010-03-11T21:33:51.338-05:00Tulse: As Sinbad notes, this isn't an arbitrar...Tulse: As Sinbad notes, this isn't an arbitrary distinction. Claims about the age of the earth are testable (and while Last Thursdayism can't be ruled out, it can be determined to be non-science and therefore excluded from science classes), while claims about active suspensions of natural law are not. NCSE would oppose presenting any of those religious claims in a science class, so the distinction is, for our purposes, without a difference.<br /><br />Tulse quotes me: "One can critique the philosophical underpinnings of the CLP statement, but the fact is that it's useful"<br /><br />and replies: "And that in a nutshell is accommodationism -- it is better to be politic than to be principled."<br /><br />No, I'm saying that science is about what works, not about dogma or philosophical purity. NCSE's work is fundamentally political: defending evolution in public schools. But to suggest that politics and principle are in opposition is false, and to suggest that NCSE's position is unprincipled is unjustifiable. NCSE institutionally is not dedicated to resolving age-old philosophical conundra, but the principle of defending separation of church and state is nontrivial. Neither is the principle that good science be taught in schools. And as I just posted at TfK in response to Larry's post above, NCSE's approach beyond its mandate of defending evolution in public schools is fundamentally pragmatic, empiricist, and indeed scientific. <br /><br />Tulse: "Again, to be very clear, no one is saying that the NCSE should be taking a position against religion -- we're just saying that it shouldn't be taking any position."<br /><br />Bull. Creationism is religion and there's no way that you want NCSE to be neutral toward it. And if NCSE (or anyone) wants to attack some religious beliefs without creating a sense that they are attacking religion writ large, it's necessary to explain why certain religious beliefs are problematic and others are not in the scope of that attack. It's the difference between Laplace saying "I have no need for that hypothesis" and declaring "God is dead." The latter may be interesting philosophy, but only the former has scientific warrant.Josh Rosenauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07304209937998935215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-79169428347219005282010-03-11T18:03:55.067-05:002010-03-11T18:03:55.067-05:00Tulse: "Science doesn't reckon any event...Tulse: "Science doesn't reckon any events as "miracles", but takes precisely the stand you describe -- that the un-understood involves merely unknown but fully natural processes. I don't understand your point here."<br /><br />I don't see a real-world difference between a miracle and an unknown physical process. I'm not even sure that there <i>can</i> be a difference.<br /><br />"By saying 'goddidit', you prevent any explanation, since miracles are by definition inexplicable in how they work (we can say that god "caused" the miracle, but not how he achieved it -- it is outside the natural causal chain). Miracles are the ceding of understanding to the unknowable. They are the end of curiosity. They are the final declaration of failure of human reason."<br /><br />But I'm not saying "God did it" (at least not necessarily). I am merely recognizing that God <i>might</i> have done it.<br /><br />"Are you suggesting that there are some things that scientists should just throw up their hands at and grant are miracles?"<br /><br />Nope. <br /><br />"Even if miracles are possible, can science be done if they are assumed?"<br /><br />I have never said that they should be assumed. I merely say that they should not be deemed precluded as a philosophical presupposition.Sinbadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01116688014786297876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-21886972944516095042010-03-11T17:10:10.877-05:002010-03-11T17:10:10.877-05:00"That's why hypotheses are tested and re-...<i>"That's why hypotheses are tested and re-tested and always remain tentative and subject to revision. We already handle the potential problem with maxims like extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. "</i><br /><br />Sinbad, I think you're missing the true nature of miracles. If miracles are possible, then it is possible that the testing and re-testing are <i>also</i> subject to miraculous intervention. If miracles are possible, induction isn't. <br /><br /><i>"It may be that what we reckon as "miracles" aren't really supernatural but, rather, are part of some yet unknown natural process."</i><br /><br />Science doesn't reckon any events as "miracles", but takes precisely the stand you describe -- that the un-understood involves merely unknown but fully natural processes. I don't understand your point here.<br /><br /><i>"In virtually every instance, the universe has turned out to be far more bizarre than we imagined -- probably more bizarre than we could have imagined. We deem what is possible limited and foreclosed before looking at what actually happens at our extreme peril. "</i><br /><br />You've got it backwards -- it is declaring miracles possible that forecloses possibility. By saying "goddidit", you prevent any explanation, since miracles are by definition inexplicable in how they work (we can say that god "caused" the miracle, but not <i>how</i> he achieved it -- it is outside the natural causal chain). Miracles are the ceding of understanding to the unknowable. They are the end of curiosity. They are the final declaration of failure of human reason.<br /><br />And, at a purely pragmatic level, if miracles are possible, how do we ever know when to <i>stop</i> seeking a natural explanation? Various natural phenomena were once thought to be supernatural (lightning, magnetism, earthquakes, etc.), and it was a long time in human history before we found natural explanations for them. If no one had thought that they might yield to a natural explanation, we would still think they are inexplicable actions of supernatural beings. Are you suggesting that there are some things that scientists should just throw up their hands at and grant are miracles? Put another way, even if miracles are <i>possible</i>, how are scientists to know what is miraculous? Even if miracles are possible, can science be done if they are assumed?Tulsenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-78651539771734466172010-03-11T16:03:29.268-05:002010-03-11T16:03:29.268-05:00Tulse: "If your ontology allows miracles, an...Tulse: "If your ontology allows miracles, any notion of evidence is suspect." <br /><br />It already is. That's why hypotheses are tested and re-tested and always remain tentative and subject to revision. We already handle the potential problem with maxims like <i>extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence</i>. It costs me nothing to concede "it's theoretically possible that...[insert scenario of choice here]."<br /><br />"If literally anything can occur, how can you say that anything is evidence? 'Evidence' involves a presumed causal relation between the observed data and whatever event or outcome one is assessing, but miracles cut that causal relation." <br /><br />It may be that what we reckon as "miracles" aren't really supernatural but, rather, are part of some yet unknown natural process. In that case, as in a truly supernatural event (if there really is a difference), the causal relation is simply different than we might have supposed. And, unlike you, I don't see that as cause for despair. In virtually every instance, the universe has turned out to be far more bizarre than we imagined -- probably more bizarre than we <i>could</i> have imagined. We deem what is possible limited and foreclosed before looking at what actually happens at our extreme peril. <br /><br />"If you allow miracles, you might as well be in the Matrix."<br /><br />If I <i>were</i> in the Matrix, I'd want to know. Wouldn't you?Sinbadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01116688014786297876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-63052761465023539952010-03-11T15:01:34.005-05:002010-03-11T15:01:34.005-05:00"If your ontology philosophically precludes t...<i>"If your ontology philosophically precludes the possibility of miracles, any commitment to follow the evidence wherever it leads is falsified."</i><br /><br />If your ontology allows miracles, any notion of evidence is suspect. If literally <i>anything</i> can occur, how can you say that anything is evidence? "Evidence" involves a presumed causal relation between the observed data and whatever event or outcome one is assessing, but miracles cut that causal relation. If you allow miracles, you might as well be in the Matrix.Tulsenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-67240257577251655832010-03-11T12:35:49.874-05:002010-03-11T12:35:49.874-05:00Tulse: "Once miracles get into your ontology...Tulse: "Once miracles get into your ontology, you lose your ontology."<br /><br />If your ontology philosophically precludes the possibility of miracles, any commitment to follow the evidence <i>wherever</i> it leads is falsified. This seems to be Dawkins's view, as at the end of <i>The God Delusion</i>, where he seems to say that if he saw a statue of the Madonna wave to him, he would still reject the miraculous. It seems to me that an ontology that refuses, on the basis of a preconceived philosophical commitment, to follow the evidence and insists upon its commitment to ignore a certain type of evidence is far more lost than one which engages no such preconceived notions.<br /><br />"You're suggesting that science should now be governed by theology."<br /><br />No, I'm suggesting that such a claim can be opposed on both scientific <i>and</i> theological grounds.<br /><br />"Until there is a way to actually test a theory, it is no more than just a theory. If there is in principle no way to test the theory, it is woo."<br /><br />Prospectively, I don't see how we could tell the difference.Sinbadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01116688014786297876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-50563593617595653562010-03-11T12:33:05.691-05:002010-03-11T12:33:05.691-05:00Larry Moran,
First, thank you for the reply.
Sec...Larry Moran,<br /><br />First, thank you for the reply.<br /><br />Second, let me address your points:<br /><br /><i>Life's a bummer, isn't it? It would be wonderful if we could reduce all our problems to simple definitions that divided the world into black and white. Unfortunately, the world isn't like that and we have to struggle with imperfection.<br /><br />In this case the problem is trying to define what science is in a way that doesn't obviously violate common sense. My attempt is provisional, which shouldn't come as a surprise since scientists are used to dealing with provisional claims, unlike most religious people.<br /><br />(Incidentally, you use the term "scientific method" but that's not a term I use. I do NOT think of science as a method.)</i><br /><br />Well, it's okay to say that it's provisional, but that doesn't mean that you can simply side-step arguments that it isn't sufficient. In this case, the problem I'm raising is that as a definition of science it doesn't identify it; there are things that can have this and not be science. While I don't mean to imply that science is a method, I do think we'd all consider it really, really odd that something could reject the scientific method but by keeping those three criteria could be called science. That means this definition isn't good enough; what we think of as "science" isn't JUST that, and so the accomodationists you are challenging to find an alternative are quite justified in saying that that isn't what they mean by science, and that there's more to science which is what causes the issues. They could even charge that you are trying to define them out of existence, and accept that if that's what you mean by science then they agree that science is the only valid way of knowing ... but that then religion IS science. A cleaner definition avoids all of this.<br /><br /><i>Actually, I think of science—when it's defined as a way of knowing—as a branch of philosophy. In fact, I think of everything as a branch of philosophy. Is this a problem?</i><br /><br />Now, but my complaint is actually that you go the other way around: you define all branches of philosophy and all philosophical ways of knowing as BEING SCIENCE. And that's utterly absurd. Yeah, I'd accept science as a branch of philosophy but I'd say that at least currently it isn't the case that all branches of philosophy are ACTUALLY scientific. Maybe they should be, but currently they ain't.<br /><br /><i>Remember, I do NOT restrict scientific ways of thinking to physics, chemistry, geology, and biology. I think everyone should think like a scientist. This includes historians, sociologists, researchers in English literature, physicians, and, especially, philosophers (gasp!).</i><br /><br />And this I -- and Wilkins, in your quotes from him -- say is what you need to argue for. I disagree. I'm willing to get into a long discussion of why it shouldn't be the case -- and in fact did a bit in part of my long reply -- but that is not something that you can achieve by definition, but by arguing why science works in those cases. Which means that you can argue with the accomdationists and even me over it.<br /><br />Finally, I know that it is long, but did you note my attempt to take your definition head on and argue that every day thinking, philosophy all -- rightly, in at least some cases -- reject skepticism, thus providing you with your alternative?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16220868599536490632noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-30389369244623053752010-03-11T10:58:50.805-05:002010-03-11T10:58:50.805-05:00"the idea that there is some bright-line dist...<i>"the idea that there is some bright-line distinction between fact and opinion or hypotheses verified and unverified in a scientific sense simply doesn't hold."</i><br /><br />You're conflating "opinion" and "hypothesis". A hypothesis is in principle falsifiable by evidence, opinion is not. <br /><br /><i>"a distinction between religious views which have been falsified (a 6,000 year-old earth) and those which have not (unique miracle events) seems perfectly appropriate to me"</i><br /><br />Once you allow miracles, you lose the possibility of falsification, as nothing gets ruled out of bounds and literally anything can happen. Perhaps the Earth was created simply to <i>look</i> as if it were older than 6000 years (Omphalos position, or "Last Thursdayism"). Surely an omnipotent god can do that as easily as revivify a corpse. Once miracles get into your ontology, you lose your ontology.<br /><br /><i>"from a theological perspective, God as a charlatan isn't a very atteractive concept"</i><br /><br />God as tester of human rationality isn't attractive, but god as distributer pain and suffering to infants is? In any case, this approach may not be attractive from <i>one</i> theological perspective, which you would have to argue, and which is completely <i>extra-scientific</i>. You're suggesting that science should now be governed by theology.<br /><br /><i>"How do you distinguish this "woo" from an undetectable multiverse or the just-so stories of ev-psych?"</i><br /><br />I for one <i>don't</i>. I think much of evolutionary psychology is nothing more than extreme speculation unsupported by any reasonable data, and I know that many in the physics community feel the same way about things like string theory. Until there is a way to actually test a theory, it is no more than just a theory. If there is in principle no way to test the theory, it is woo.Tulsenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-77959578315290975112010-03-11T09:58:40.564-05:002010-03-11T09:58:40.564-05:00Allan C Cybulskie doesn't like my definition o...Allan C Cybulskie doesn't like my definition of science as a way of knowing that requires evidence, rationality, and skepticism. He says there are two main objections.<br /><br /><i>1) It's horribly vague; it seems that I could come up with other ways of knowing that would violate at least portions of the scientific method and yet would be based on the same three things.</i><br /><br />Life's a bummer, isn't it? It would be wonderful if we could reduce all our problems to simple definitions that divided the world into black and white. Unfortunately, the world isn't like that and we have to struggle with imperfection.<br /><br />In this case the problem is trying to define what science is in a way that doesn't obviously violate common sense. My attempt is provisional, which shouldn't come as a surprise since scientists are used to dealing with provisional claims, unlike most religious people.<br /><br />(Incidentally, you use the term "scientific method" but that's not a term I use. I do NOT think of science as a method.)<br /> <br />In the context of this debate over the conflict between science and religion, we need to reach some common ground in defining science and religion. Ideally, this common ground should clearly exclude Young Earth Creationism from the magisterium of science and it should define religion is a way that permits atheism to be an acceptable worldview. <br /><br />I'm open to discuss any reasonable definitions of science and religion that reflect the real world. In other words, I'm not terribly interested in deep philosophical nitpicking about epistemology. Sometimes that's fun but it doesn't help us decide whether the religious views of Michael Behe, Michael Denton, Douglas Axe, Ken Miller, Francis Collins, and Simon Conway Morris are in conflict with science. (Many people think the views first three are easily distinguishable from the views of the last three. I don't.)<br /><br /><i>2) On closer inspection, it seems that what he's described could, in fact, describe PHILOSOPHY, which would mean that he's now calling philosophy and even theology "science". That really doesn't seem to work, especially since science came from philosophy.</i><br /><br />Actually, I think of science—when it's defined as a way of knowing—as a branch of philosophy. In fact, I think of everything as a branch of philosophy. Is this a problem?<br /><br />Remember, I do NOT restrict scientific ways of thinking to physics, chemistry, geology, and biology. I think everyone should think like a scientist. This includes historians, sociologists, researchers in English literature, physicians, and, especially, philosophers (gasp!).<br /><br>Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-40002214574721964332010-03-11T09:48:50.679-05:002010-03-11T09:48:50.679-05:00articulett: "A 6000 year old cannot be falsi...articulett: "A 6000 year old cannot be falsified if you consider a magic man that can make the earth look any age that you want to be part of the equation-- or a demon that is trying to trick humans."<br /><br />If someting is unfalsifiable it simply isn't subject to scientific investigation. And, from a theological perspective, God as a charlatan isn't a very atteractive concept.<br /><br />"This is why religious beliefs are 'unfalsifiable'. But that doesn't give them any more scientific merit than Sagan's invisible dragon."<br /><br />Unfalsified doesn't mean true (as economists discovered to their extreme displeasure -- and billions of dollars in losses -- recently).<br /><br />"This, in essence, is why religion cannot be science. All 'woo' relies on 'unfalsifiability' to some extent to claim that their magic is perfectly compatible with reality."<br /><br />How do you distinguish this "woo" from an undetectable multiverse or the just-so stories of ev-psych?<br /><br />"In essence, they are saying, 'so long as science can't prove me wrong, my belief is perfectly compatible with science.' But there are an infinity of inane beliefs that science can't prove wrong. The world could have been made yesterday with all memories etc. implanted to look like an old earth."<br /><br />Without falsification we're left with argument.Sinbadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01116688014786297876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-35974857693145207782010-03-11T09:36:51.635-05:002010-03-11T09:36:51.635-05:00A 6000 year old cannot be falsified if you conside...A 6000 year old cannot be falsified if you consider a magic man that can make the earth look any age that you want to be part of the equation-- or a demon that is trying to trick humans.<br /><br />This is why religious beliefs are "unfalsifiable". But that doesn't give them any more scientific merit than Sagan's invisible dragon.<br /><br />This, in essence, is why religion cannot be science. All "woo" relies on "unfalsifiability" to some extent to claim that their magic is perfectly compatible with reality.<br /><br />In essence, they are saying, "so long as science can't prove me wrong, my belief is perfectly compatible with science." But there are an infinity of inane beliefs that science can't prove wrong. The world could have been made yesterday with all memories etc. implanted to look like an old earth.<br /><br />As Larry said-- it's a quantitative difference, not a qualitative difference. There really is no line that distinguishes one supernatural claim from another.articuletthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09902568587446268437noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-22339600268303220242010-03-11T09:30:21.096-05:002010-03-11T09:30:21.096-05:00Tulse: "The world of opinion. There are no e...Tulse: "The world of opinion. There are no ethical, moral, or political 'facts' in the natural world -- those are human constructs."<br /><br />The scientific method is an inductive process and, as such, its purpose is falsification, not verification. Indeed, verification is not strictly possible; such a conclusion is only arrived at tentatively and by inference. Thus the idea that there is some bright-line distinction between fact and opinion or hypotheses verified and unverified in a scientific sense simply doesn't hold. Accordingly, where religious claims have been falsified (e.g., 6,000 year-old earth), there is incompatibility. Claims that have not been falsified (e.g., unique miracle events) are not incompatible (subject to further investigation). <br /><br />Scientists are as prone of overreaching and excessive certainty as the rest of us. Premature and unwarranted verification claims are far too common. I think Coyne, Moran, <i>et als.</i> are overreaching here. Yet, as Kuhn has established, entire scientific paradigms can be and have been overturned. As an interesting aside, I am old enough to remember scientists proclaiming definitively in the 70s that an ice age was just around the corner and in the 80s that a "population bomb" was about to explode, dooming us all. I suspect the difficulties we are seeing with respect to AGW today are due in part to past missteps like those. <br /><br />Daniel: "Are you saying that ANY musing by scientists qualifies as science?"<br /><br />Science works by falsification. We can never say for sure what science <i>is</i>, expect in retrospect (and only tentatively, even then).<br /><br />Daniel: "At some point, you have to admit that either God is undetectable BY DEFINITION, in which case God's existence CAN'T be a scientific question, or God is at least in principle detectable -- which would make religious claims in principle vulnerable to scientific investigations. You just can't have it both ways."<br /><br />I don't think it's a matter of wanting it both ways. For me it's a matter of not knowing. I try to hold my faith tentatively and subject to change based upon new information. Indeed, my views on the subject have changed a lot over time and I expect them to continue to. I readily concede that I may well be wrong. <br /><br />Tulse: "But not all religions, certainly, such as biblical literalists. The NCSE seems to draw an arbitrary line -- no to 6000-year-old-earth and worldwide flood, but maybe to virgin birth and revivification of corpses."<br /><br />I don't speak for the NCSE in any way, but a distinction between religious views which have been falsified (a 6,000 year-old earth) and those which have not (unique miracle events) seems perfectly appropriate to me.Sinbadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01116688014786297876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-42216723546155496642010-03-11T09:00:50.956-05:002010-03-11T09:00:50.956-05:00So, now, where do religion and things like love an...So, now, where do religion and things like love and personal experiences fit in? The debate over personal experiences has been that they're not scientific -- and I think most people intuitively don't think of them that way -- but that some are saying that they really are. I'll accept that they are based on evidence and reason. What I'll deny is that they accept skepticism. When Moran determines that he loves his wife because of how he "feels" towards her, he isn't being skeptical of that. He feels that way, so it is. This is despite the fact that it is, in fact, the case that he MIGHT BE WRONG. He cannot be wrong that he FEELS that he loves her, because if you feel that you love someone you are having that feeling, just as if you are seeing something red you really are seeing that thing as red. But what he can be wrong about is whether or not that object REALLY IS red, or that he REALLY loves his wife. We know that we can have optical illusions, and we know that sometimes we can feel love for other, underlying reasons when we don't (see "rebound" for a prime example; also see "crushes"). But we aren't skeptical about our personal experiences: we believe them unless given SPECIFIC reasons not to (not just the general ones outlined above). So, that ain't science, since it ain't skeptical.<br /><br />Religion, I think, can be seen similarly, particularly in those who do think that their beliefs are compatible. Science has refuted YEC, certainly, but I think the compatibilists are arguing that it hasn't ruled out a Creator yet. And so they're saying that science applying skepticism says "Don't believe this; not enough evidence" doesn't really impact a non-skeptical position. Note that these people really ARE taking the science seriously and trying to reconcile their beliefs with it; they aren't denying evolution or the age of the Earth or geology or anything else. At most, they are simply pointing out that there is -- in their minds -- still room for God, and that science's skepticism is interesting and useful but too strong in this case.<br /><br />So, in some sense, they are indeed refusing to apply science to their religious beliefs, but that is only because they refuse to apply that formal a skepticism to their beliefs. Which is generally how we live our lives anyway, and is not unreasonable given what I've said above, and the fact that science may never be able to satisfy its skepticism on the matter (how do you scientifically prove a miracle?).<br /><br />At any rate, these are people who are, at least, taking science seriously, and are saying that their religion has to be compatible with science in that if their religion contradicts scientific FACT, their religion must change to accomdate that. You can claim that there are contradictions that they are not considering or that they are incompatible in principle, but as Wilkins says that's what you need to argue for; you don't get it for free simply by saying "Science good". They think "Science good", too; they disagree about all the consequences of that.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16220868599536490632noreply@blogger.com