|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 05/08/2009 : 12:30:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
If the discussion is atheism or skepticism as we see magical thinking vs faith, perhaps there is no intermediate position. But when talking about science vs faith, there does seem to be one. |
But what is science if not a form of applied skepticism?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
 |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 05/08/2009 : 13:13:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Consider that even among atheists, at least some of our time might be spent engaged in irrational behavior or beliefs (political, social, pseudo-scientific) that might not be religious, but are just as irrational as literal religious faith, and moderate religious people are no less irrational than the average atheist. |
This is an important distinction and so I think we need to draw the battle lines a bit clearer here. Atheists hold no belief in any gods, but beyond that there is nothing inherent in the category that precludes them from believing in other irrational claims, or even supernatural claims, for that matter. But the "new atheist" movement is a quite distinct subset. New atheists (we probably need a better word--rationalists?) don't just fail to hold a god belief, they actively maintain that skepticism, critical thinking, reason and rational thought (all of which are encapsulated by the scientific method) are the only valid means of apprehending external reality. So it's false to say that moderate religious people are no less irrational than the average new atheist, since the entire point of the new atheist movement is this push for rationality in all things. Granted, people aren't perfect and there will always be instances where they fall short of their ideals. But the point is that it is an ideal. It's something we actively strive toward. Irrational faith is precisely what this movement seeks to eliminate.
This difference in perspective is also what lies at the heart of the dispute between "accomodationalist" atheists and those, like myself, who see any passive tolerance of irrationality or faith as ultimately irreconcilable with these ideals.
| So to go back to how different people have different ways of thinking and different types of intelligence, I personally refuse to criticize someone for their way of thinking if it clearly isn't directly leading to harmful action. I think it is arrogant to want everyone to think like I do. I know I probably have my own blinders and intellectual weaknesses, and people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. |
There's a difference between simply having intellectual weaknesses (but striving to overcome them) and encouraging them. It's not "arrogant" to want to encourage rational thinking any more that it's "arrogant" to want to encourage justice or morality. Just because human beings are incapable of perfect morality doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye to instances of immorality when we spy them.
We can criticize faith and irrational thinking because there is enough of a link to irrational and dangerous behavior to warrant concern, and that includes everything from refusing to vaccinate your children to blowing up people for Allah. People cannot make rational choices if they do not first adopt a rational worldview. Expecting the former while refusing to encourage the latter is guaranteed to fail, as we have seen time and again.
I grant you that irrational thinking doesn't always lead to undesirable behavior. But again, I fail to see how this translates into an argument for encouraging irrational thinking. Just because not every sexual encounter results in the transmission of an STD doesn't mean we shouldn't encourage condom use. The danger is there and so we need to stress prevention. Similarly, if we always wait until faith manifests itself into harmful actions then we've waited too long.
| If Kenneth Miller does good science and is an effective proponent of science, and also happens to have moderate Catholic beliefs, I fail to see how that is any kind of problem, much less how it props up fundamentalism in any tangible way, shape, or form. |
Both Miller and fundamentalists recognize faith as valid ways of knowing. Since faith itself is the problem, Miller is doing nothing to discourage the root causes which lead to a distorted view of reality. What he's saying is "just incorporate the findings of science into your magical thinking." That's not going to lead to long-term change. The message should instead be "stop your magical thinking entirely and replace it with critical thinking." That would lead to long-term change.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 05/08/2009 16:11:08 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 05/08/2009 : 13:22:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by Kil
If the discussion is atheism or skepticism as we see magical thinking vs faith, perhaps there is no intermediate position. But when talking about science vs faith, there does seem to be one. |
But what is science if not a form of applied skepticism?
|
All I am saying is there are people of faith who correctly see science as a naturalistic endeavor. As skeptics, we can question their faith, but if their take on science is that it's the best tool to correctly (even if tentatively) describe the natural world, then we really have no argument in that department.
It can't be assumed, for example, that a theist can't do good science. We know that they can because some do. We also can't assume that because someone is a theist, they can't accept good science. Those things don't follow.
That they may regard all scientific knowledge as a window into the mind of God says something about their faith and nothing about their science.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 05/08/2009 : 13:26:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Dave wrote: | Theistic methods of answering questions are not just "in conflict" with scientific ones, they stand diametrically opposed. |
Only if they are trying to answer the same questions. |
No, this is wrong. The conflict is simply illustrated when they focus on the same questions. But the way they set about trying to answer questions is in perpetual conflict.
This is what your argument fails to address. If these two methods--skeptical inquiry (science) vs. personal revelation (faith)--were in fact compatible, then they should provide complimentary answers when they address the same question. But this is not what we find! We find that they come into conflict when they address the same question. Your solution of just asserting that they therefore should never address the same question is avoiding the problem of why these competing epistemologies don't arrive at complimentary answers when they do. The answer, of course, is because faith is an invalid epistemology. It fails at answering any questions successfully.
If the religious questions are ones of meaning and morality, then they are questions that science isn't going to answer.
|
But science can inform those questions in a very real way. Faith and religion cannot. They can only misdirect, making their elimination necessary and desirable.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 05/08/2009 : 14:43:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by Kil
If the discussion is atheism or skepticism as we see magical thinking vs faith, perhaps there is no intermediate position. But when talking about science vs faith, there does seem to be one. |
But what is science if not a form of applied skepticism?
|
Actually, it is the other way around, isn't it?
Skepticism is the application of the scientific method.
|
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 05/08/2009 : 14:54:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Simon
Actually, it is the other way around, isn't it?
Skepticism is the application of the scientific method. |
Well, the way I see it, the scientific method is essentially a systematized form of skepticism. Therefore, "doing" science would be applying that method, or putting skepticism to practical utility. Therefore, I see skepticism as fundamentally underlying the practice of science. It's what makes science possible in the first place.
After all, as Richard Feynman said, "The first principle [in science] is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool."
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 05/08/2009 15:01:53 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/08/2009 : 15:31:30 [Permalink]
|
I <3 H.
I'll have more to add, later. But H.'s recent posts summarize most of my position quite well, and are probably better articulated. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/08/2009 : 19:03:17 [Permalink]
|
Kil said: (and Marf said something similar)
| No intermediate position if the bible is taken literal accounting of creation. But we know that many people of faith believe that the bible should be taken as allegory. They believe there are lessons to be learned in Genesis, for example, but it is not a factual accounting of the creation. They deffer to science for that. |
The literal and metaphorical points of view share one common thing, they both believe "god did it". The difference in their belief is just one of degree.
So no, there is no intermediate position.
I will agree with you that it is entirely possible for a person to hold religious beliefs and also be capable of competent scientific work. The human mind can compartmentalize and within specific contexts eliminate the effect of cognitive dissonance. Ken Miller is a fine example of this, his scientific publications are accepted and respected, his work in defense of science education is exemplary, and I have no doubt he will continue to excel in his chosen field of inquiry.
But this is not an intermediate position.
Lets get down to it and just recognize the simple fact that the study of evolution is an attempt to explain how we (and other life) came to be. A comprehensive theory of abiogenesis is going to take some time (probably a lot), but when(if) we get to that point the study of evolution will be only one part of a larger theory.
As things stand now we can't answer the abiogenesis question, so it has to be excluded from any technical discussion about evolution. But the goal is to be able to explain how life came to be, and how the amazing diversity of life arose from that first primordial organism.
Religion, literalist and moderate alike, answer that question with "god did it".
So no, there is no tenable intermediate position.
H.H.
I know we have had arguments in the past, but you'll get none from me in thiis thread. I think you have it exactly right. Well said.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 05/08/2009 : 19:11:27 [Permalink]
|
I agree with the harshest anti-theist and anti-deist sentiments expressed here. However, I feel it's very important that within groups like NCSE, it's vital to set aside those debates in order to concentrate on the education battle from a neutral, secular, pro-science viewpoint.
I believe that religious neutrality (which is still the stated position of NCSE) is mainly being threatened by a what I think is a somewhat cynical, unnecessarily timid, wrong-headed and simply impractical "accommodationist" approach that attempts to present to the public the impression that theist and/or deist thinking is dominant within science. NCSE needn't be so afraid of the god people that they kiss up unequally to the theists and deists.
I think that citing the support of prominent (and lesser-known) atheists along with religious supporters would be an actual advantage to NCSE. After all, if we've learned anything in recent years, it is that the "New Atheists" have built a large and rapidly growing crowd of avowed, proud, loud, and unbowed freethinkers.
A group photo of freethinkers, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and so-called "mainstream" and evangelist Protestants, all standing together for better science education would be a powerful message. A much stronger message, in my opinion, than showing a transparent weakness by presenting science as though it were some kind religious fellowship.
If theistic or deistic evolutionary thinking is highlighted by NCSE, so should atheist and agnostic thinking. Personally, I would much prefer there be no such highlighting at all.
NCSE particularly should not try to make it appear that freethinkers are an invisible minority within science (especially when the reverse seems to be true). On the other hand, I certainly do not expect, nor desire, that NCSE say anything like "By the way, our membership is 90% atheist."
I would not suggest that anyone stop assailing religion for being, with few if any exceptions, the world's primary wellspring of magical thinking. I think that is a deserved criticism, and should be pressed in a principled manner everywhere, without personal attacks, but outside of such "big tent" groups as NCSE and the science organizations.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 05/08/2009 19:13:52 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/08/2009 : 19:56:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Dave wrote: | One can be opposed to something yet still treat the who hold that opposite position with respect and decency above and beyond what they deserve. |
Are you suggesting that the NCSE is merely patronizing moderate religionists who accept evolution as fact and using them for political gain, rather than viewing them as intellectually equal allies in the fight against anti-intellectual fundamentalism? |
No, you lost the referent. Playing nice with the anti-intellectuals hasn't worked.| Just like gravity, the theory of evolution is compatible with theism, atheism, and agnosticism. - Peter Hess |
How is that a false statement? |
It's false because "is compatible with" is not a synonym for "is unaffected by."| And the common idea that science answers the "how" questions while religion answers the "why" questions is an assertion of complementariness (in fact, it's an assertion that to get all the answers about the world, both science and religion are necessary). |
Not unless only a single religious viewpoint is being pushed. When multiple religious viewpoints are given as legitimate, one is essentially arguing that the answers to “why” are subjective because the capital “T” True answers cannot be known. |
That might fly with the progressives you know, marf, but most people are going to read it as "my religion answers the 'why' questions."| Science does only give us the “how.” |
Aside from questions of teleology, that's simply not true, either.| But the answers that science gives us are constantly being re-evaluated and improved on. Progressive religious thinkers treat theological ideas in a similar fashion. That's why they are perfectly happy to embrace modern values such as equality of women, gay rights, and religious pluralism. |
You do realize, don't you, that this has little to do with "progressive religious thinkers," and everything to do with popularizing science among the masses?| Of course the two systems are evaluated using very different criteria. Science is measured using empirical evidence. Meaning and morality is measured (at least by moderate and progressive religious people) by what promotes tangible, worldly benefits to society. Obviously the latter is much more difficult to measure since it isn't entirely objective. |
I disagree with that distinction, for the simple fact that "isn't entirely objective" means that it's somewhat empirical. Sociologists study (by measuring) meaning and morality. Because the measurements are fuzzy doesn't mean they're completely useless.| In this sense, science and worldviews(I'll use that word instead of religion because “religion” excludes atheists and agnostics – and I am not happy about that bias) can compliment each other because science can be used in our dialogues about ever-changing meaning and morality.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/08/2009 : 20:12:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by marfknox
Consider that even among atheists, at least some of our time might be spent engaged in irrational behavior or beliefs (political, social, pseudo-scientific) that might not be religious, but are just as irrational as literal religious faith, and moderate religious people are no less irrational than the average atheist. |
This is an important distinction and so I think we need to draw the battle lines a bit clearer here. |
Yes, but forget the "New Atheists." Religion is still the only pasttime that people engage in on a regular basis which encourages irrationality. Atheists do irrational things, but there's nothing about atheism which urges them to engage in such behaviors or maintain such beliefs. Irrationality is incidental to atheism, while it is an institutional requirement for theism (and even deism).
Besides, "atheists can be irrational, too" is an argument based upon the tu quoque fallacy. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/08/2009 : 20:19:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Simon
Actually, it is the other way around, isn't it?
Skepticism is the application of the scientific method. |
Definitely not. As H. said, skepticism is the basis for the scientific method. That's one thing that's annoyed me about some skeptics' meeting I've read about, where skepticism and science seemed to be conflated as one-and-the-same. But the methodological skepticism we try to practice here casts a wider net than science can, by (for example) allowing us to accept Biblical premises for the purpose of following the logic one can build from them and then finding that it leads to necessary self-contradiction. That's an application of pure logical argument, something with which the methodological empiricism of the scientific method (as if there were just one) does not cope. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/08/2009 : 20:41:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
I think that citing the support of prominent (and lesser-known) atheists along with religious supporters would be an actual advantage to NCSE. After all, if we've learned anything in recent years, it is that the "New Atheists" have built a large and rapidly growing crowd of avowed, proud, loud, and unbowed freethinkers. |
I agree with most of what you wrote, Mooner, but...
...in Expelled, Dawkins says (and it's impossible to blame this on editing or Dawkins being lied to) that no pro-science group is ever going to call him as a witness at an evolution/creationism trial, because he'll testify (during cross-examination, most likely) that an understanding of evolutionary theory led him to atheism.
The NCSE should be promoting that view no more than it should be promoting the view that science and religion are compatible. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 05/08/2009 : 21:03:52 [Permalink]
|
The methodological skepticism of science is constantly inspiring skeptics in general. Just as science historically has drawn upon philosophical skepticism (in the process dumping some ideas and developing others), non-scientific skepticism tries to draw from the scientific method. But the further a field gets from hard science, the less useful is the scientific method as such.
In politics or economics, for instance. A purely scientific approach to these fields is well-nigh useless.
Take the factor of opinion. Where opinion in itself has little or nothing to do with actual scientific truth, in politics opinion is a vital factor of the field itself (though often opinion is mushy and difficult to qualify or quantify).
If one wants to know what will happen in the political or economic arenas, there are no solid methods to find out. About the best one can do is find an "authority" who has a good track record, and listen to their guestimates. Appeal to authority is rightly regarded as a logical error. This is more so the closer one gets to hard science. Bad as it is, in politics and economics, authority may be among the best bad tools one has.
We delude ourselves sometimes, not in attempting to apply scientific thinking to "soft" fields, but in thinking it will actually work. There is simply too much chaos in many fields. Also, what people believe in fields like politics and economics becomes a large part of the field's reality.
On the other hand, there are always skeptical techniques that are helpful in any arena. If a politician or a stock analyst says something that seems a bit incredible, the burden should be placed upon that person to back up their statement with evidence.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/08/2009 : 21:08:44 [Permalink]
|
Humbert wrote: | This is an important distinction and so I think we need to draw the battle lines a bit clearer here. |
Draw “battle lines”? Seriously, that's the sort of vocabulary I normally expect to hear from fundamentalists, not secularists. Especially in reference to people who are and have always been our allies in the secularist and humanist movements. I find this to be a very ugly turn (atheists turning against religious humanists) in the culture war.
| Atheists hold no belief in any gods, but beyond that there is nothing inherent in the category that precludes them from believing in other irrational claims, or even supernatural claims, for that matter. |
Yes, and it was atheism that I was referring to in that paragraph.
| But the "new atheist" movement is a quite distinct subset. New atheists (we probably need a better word--rationalists?) don't just fail to hold a god belief, they actively maintain that skepticism, critical thinking, reason and rational thought (all of which are encapsulated by the scientific method) are the only valid means of apprehending external reality. |
This is just blatently false. “The New Atheists” as they were dubbed by the media in article in Wired and The Nation were being set apart from previous nontheistic movements and communities for their outspoken attitude, NOT for any change in worldview. I find little of this sort of approach - http://newatheism.org/ - helpful to the causes of skepticism and promotion of modern, humanist values, and I find much of it antithetical to religious freedom and pluralism, two things that I hold dear. The difference between “New Atheists” and the traditional secular movement as far as I can see is one of philosophical arrogance verses reasonable humility and tolerance. There is nothing new about rationalism. There is something new about organized rationalists openly attacking non-rationalists and promoting intolerance of any worldview which is not rationalist.
| This difference in perspective is also what lies at the heart of the dispute between "accomodationalist" atheists and those, like myself, who see any passive tolerance of irrationality or faith as ultimately irreconcilable with these ideals. |
How is this not an argument against religious freedom and pluralism? The freedom of religion outlined in the Constitution is active tolerance of faith. So unless you want to change the Constitution, I can only assume that you have another ideal (religious freedom and pluralism) which you hold more dearly than the ideal of promoting a pure, rationalist worldview socially.
| There's a difference between simply having intellectual weaknesses (but striving to overcome them) and encouraging them. It's not "arrogant" to want to encourage rational thinking any more that it's "arrogant" to want to encourage justice or morality. |
No, you aren't getting what I mean by “blinders.” I mean that when it comes to questions that can't be answered, I refuse to be so arrogant as to assume that my way of thinking is objectively superior. Sure, I personally believe that my worldview is correct. Personally I'm an atheist materialist rationalist. But those assertions are guesses based on lack of sufficient data, unlike the theory of evolution, which is backed up by tons of evidence. So I'll fight for evolution to be taught in public schools. But I will not fight for a rationalis |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 05/08/2009 21:16:25 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Is the NCSE too accommodating to religion?
