|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 05/13/2009 : 01:46:38 [Permalink]
|
Can I noninate H.H.'s above post for post of the month award? Maybe get the staff to get him to turn that one into a fullblown essay on the topic?
Honestly, that is the most well articulated explanation of why religion and science are not compatable I have ever read.
|
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 - 05/13/2009 : 01:50:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Can I noninate H.H.'s above post for post of the month award? Maybe get the staff to get him to turn that one into a fullblown essay on the topic?
Honestly, that is the most well articulated explanation of why religion and science are not compatable I have ever read.
|
I fully agree. As I am with many of you, I am unworthy of writing in the same thread. Not that it's going to stop me.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2009 : 08:32:30 [Permalink]
|
While H.H. statement on the working of science is essentially true, I disagree with him on this point:
| Well, if science doesn't rule anything out, then how does it get anywhere? How is anything learned? It accomplishes that by ruling things in. Premises must pass a series of hurdles. Hypotheses are subjected to a battery of tests. A discernible pattern must emerge during observations. And, because we all inhabit the same reality, one's findings and conclusions must be verifiable by separate minds. This is how truth is sussed out of infinite possibilities. And as I've mentioned before, this system has proven itself beyond any reasonable doubt. The success of science is undeniable. |
For me, Sciences does work by ruling things out.
It takes the most likely hypothesis and theories and test them and see how they hold up to testing.
There is two problems with that which are:
a) It's never definitive, maybe, one day, a cherished theory will end up failing a test and will have to be rejected. Or maybe a better one will come along.
b) Some hypothesis and theories are, by their very nature, untestable. It does not mean that they are wrong, just that the scientific method can not be applied. The existence of God, obviously, is an easy one of these hypothesis. But so is the reality of anything beyond my own conscience (cogito ergo sum).
If you go back to the five steps:
1. Observe some aspect of the universe
2. Form a hypothesis that potentially explains what you have observed
3. Make testable predictions from that hypothesis
4. Make observations or experiments that can test those predictions
5. Modify your hypothesis until it is in accord with all observations and predictions |
How exactly would you apply 3 and, even more, 4 to the existence of God?
Sure, you could point out at some specific passages, for example Genesis and disprove them. But, even then, a little Applied Godbotinum can take care of it, theists have an eternal all-powerful plot device to justify anything, for example the appearance of age.
But the general idea of a weak theism, the existence of a non-interventionist God?
Untestable/unfalsifiable.
It is not to say that it is the most parsimonious hypothesis, not by a long stretch, and there is little reason to make it our favoured hypothesis, but that is not the same thing as to consider it a failed or rejected hypothesis.
|
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 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2009 : 08:59:17 [Permalink]
|
So when the ICR or the DI tells people that they can't have it both ways, they are also correct. Because in order to accommodate their faith, they must reject science.
I understand that faith and science are not compatible, but we know that on a personal level, they are not mutually exclusive because there are those people who are comfortable with both propositions. And frankly, I don't really care how they make that work. I see nothing wrong with countering the lies of the ICR and the DI by taking the case for science directly to the people of faith, who will still have faith (many of them anyhow) after the lies are exposed.
The idea is to keep science as science in the classroom. To my thinking, fuck the creationists, and to at least some extent, fuck pure rationality if it becomes counter productive to the goal of getting our kids an education that will give them the tools to be scientifically literate. It is they who will either turn away from faith, or work it out in their own way, like the scientists and many in the clergy who have done just that. I see the teaching of good science (and, of course, learning it) as a steppingstone to rationality. So whatever it takes to keep it in is almost paramount to all other considerations.
I understand the implications of what I and others are suggesting, but again, as I see it, the end justifies the means.
While Humbert is correct in his analysis, there is still the danger of going down in defeat if tactical considerations are thrown overboard in favor of alienating those who we are trying to reach by telling them that they simply must toss out faith in order to accept science. Tactics are also a rational approach, if the goal is to win a war. If both sides dig in (using much the same argument, that is, accepted science and faith are incompatible) to a point where dialog is not possible, we lose and they lose.
Real life is not nearly as neat as we would like it to be. In this war, the goal is to keep science and prevent pseudo-science in the classroom. And to that end, I am willing to use whatever tools are available, short of actually promoting faith and theism, to win.
The grander goal of a worlds people who default to critical thinking will not be reached if we don't win on this (the classroom) battlefield.
And let me remind you of something. Kansas had to change the definition of science to accommodate the science that they wanted. They were comfortable with that. So we are locked in a battle to have our kids learn the sci-method as well.
Being pragmatic is not irrational if it gets us to where we want to be. We can pat ourselves on the back and talk about how rational we are and still lose this war. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2009 : 14:33:05 [Permalink]
|
Simon said:
| It does not mean that they are wrong, just that the scientific method can not be applied. The existence of God, obviously, is an easy one of these hypothesis. But so is the reality of anything beyond my own conscience (cogito ergo sum). |
The scientific method deals easily and handily with these types of claims. It simply dismisses them. They fail the initial test, which is a far cry from saying that science can't deal with them.
All assertions that you can make up (gravity fairies, the IPU, the flying spaghetti monster, alien abduction, angels, demons, djinn in a bottle, ghosts, dieties, the list is looooong) are treated the same way by the very first step of the scientific method.
You can also apply some basic logic to the various descriptions of dieties. The christian god is supposed to be a god of love, omnipotent, and benevolent. You can say, with reasonable confidence, that no such entity exists in a universe where 150,000 people can be killed in a single natural disaster. If the christian god is omnipotent and loves humanity... why did it create malaria? It loves humanity, just not the three million people a year who die from malaria, including children? There is no question that this alleged diety does not exist as described.
You can examine the thousands of different dieties the various religions of the world have described and you can eliminate the existance of the vast majority with a simple application of logic to their described attributes.
The reality of anything beyond your own consciousness is a slippery slope into solipsism. Everyone recognizes that there are some basic premises that you must accept without evidence(external reality exists, my senses are capable of detecting it), and the philosophical problems here are not small. But within this frame of reference you can remain logically consistent. For pragmatic reasons we have to accept that those two premises are probably true, and we have to act as if they are definitely true. You can also make some argument in favor of them actually being true. For example, if this is all in my head and no external reality exists, why the hell isn't the Swedish women's volleyball team running around my house pampering my every whim? Why would I put myself through the intense emotional pain of a failed relationship? Why would I allow people close to me to die? If this IS all internal... I have to say, I'm pretty fucked up by my own standards.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2009 : 14:58:53 [Permalink]
|
Ok...
So, how do you prove that there is a world beyond your eyeball and that everything is not just a long prolonged hallucination? |
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 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2009 : 15:23:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Simon
Ok...
So, how do you prove that there is a world beyond your eyeball and that everything is not just a long prolonged hallucination?
|
You can not deductively prove it.
But you can pile on a convincing circumstantial case via induction. Didn't I make that clear enough?
If what I percieve as reality is nothing but my imagination, then why:
1. Aren't the Swedish women's nude volleyball team providing me with constant domestic care?
2. Why would I imagine heartbreak?
3. Why would I imagine the death of family and friends?
4. Why would I imagine psychotic religious fundamentalists control my government?
5. Why would I imagine natural disasters that can kill 150k people in a single day?
6. Why would I imagine myself stuck on a single planet when warp-drive, hot and horny green skinned alien women, and high space adventure are so easily imagined?
7. Why do I lack the ability to read other people's minds?
8. why do I lack anything that resembles superhuman capability?
9. Why would I imagine a small parasitic fish that can swim up your urethra and latch on with fangs?
10. Why would I imagine a toyota truck as my primary mode of transportation instead of a Bugati Veyron?
11. Why would I imagine that my boss is an unappreciative, mindless, corporate hack as opposed to imagining myself wealthy enough to not need to be employed?
See where I'm going with this?
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2009 : 16:06:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Simon
Ok...
So, how do you prove that there is a world beyond your eyeball and that everything is not just a long prolonged hallucination?
|
Prove beyond reasonable doubt or prove with absolute certainty? Science deals with evidence, not certainties, so no hypothesis ever needs to attain certainty. A demand for certainty in these instances and not all others is inconsistent and disingenuous. There is quite a bit of evidence that a world exists beyond our senses. It's a hypothesis that's tested and confirmed every day by billions of minds. As far as science is concerned, that's about as certain as we're ever going to get.
| Some hypothesis and theories are, by their very nature, untestable. It does not mean that they are wrong, just that the scientific method can not be applied. |
It doesn't mean they are wrong, but if they cannot be confirmed through evidence, then they must be rejected, i.e. never held as true.
| The existence of God, obviously, is an easy one of these hypothesis. But so is the reality of anything beyond my own conscience (cogito ergo sum). |
The existence of god can be tested by science, but so far no evidence has ever been uncovered for its existence. The second proposition you offer here I've already addressed. A preponderance of evidence exists that a reality exists beyond our minds. If the god hypothesis ever attains an equal likelihood, then you'll have an argument. Until then, it remains in the scrap heap with every other unsupported possibility.
|
"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 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2009 : 16:25:05 [Permalink]
|
Humbert wrote: | I'm saying that for people who wish to hold both scientific and faith-based worldviews, compartmentalization is the only "solution." |
Yes, and I disagree. But I've already exhausted my attempts at explaining why I disagree so for the time being I give up trying to explain. I'm sure it'll come again at some point in the future on this forum, and maybe I'll find a more convincing way of explaining why I disagree with you on this point.
| The theistic scientists you point to as success stories are the ones who are most guilty of compartmentalization. That's why they're able to function "successfully." |
And I strongly disagree with this. I might accept that they are guilty of stretching common use of certain vocabulary, but I do not agree that they are compartmentalizing more than the average slack-ass, moderate Christian.
| There is no such thing as a "kind" of faith that doesn't conflict with skepticism. All faith conflicts with skepticism. They are competing philosophies. |
You seem to be using “skepticism” and “science” interchangeably. Skepticism as a philosophy is not a synonym with science. I agree that skepticism taken as a complete personal philosophy conflicts with the integration of any kind of faith into one's personal philosophy. But I didn't make the claim that those two were compatible. I said that there are some people whose personal worldview includes scientific inquiry and faith which are not in conflict.
| The people who think they have reconciled them are fooling themselves. They are self-deluded, and as such, cannot be taken at their word. |
Cannot be taken at their word on what topics? Science? Religion? Both? Public policy?
| To say that science can only answer "materialistic" questions is simply false. It can and has addressed supernatural claims. The nature of the claim has nothing to do with whether science can address it or not. |
The only issue I take with this and the Lenny Flank quote is that by definition, something which is claimed to be “supernatural” can't be studied by science. As soon as something can be studied reliably by science, it is clearly shown to be part of the “natural” world. I can only assume that Flank means that we can take ideas which are thought to be supernatural and by testing them scientifically show whether they indeed exist as part of the reality of the natural world or not. This whole time I've been defending people who apply a type of faith regarding questions that science can't answer – questions of values and meaning. In fact, concepts of the “supernatural” were never even brought up by me. I gave examples of such questions which are outside of the realm of science's ability to answer, but nobody responded to that.
| They want their untested faith can go in the bucket with the rest of science--because they realize science works and they want its benefits--but they have to cheat to do it. |
Not at all. They accept science because it works and thus they reject any kind of faith which conflicts clearly with science. When a question can be answered by science, they use science. But if it is a question of values and meaning, they still appeal to religion. If anything, they make sure to keep their faith out of the science bucket. It is the ID crowd who tries to |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2009 : 18:52:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
This whole time I've been defending people who apply a type of faith regarding questions that science can't answer – questions of values and meaning. In fact, concepts of the “supernatural” were never even brought up by me. I gave examples of such questions which are outside of the realm of science's ability to answer, but nobody responded to that. |
Didn't I? We can build the Golden Rule (the ethic of reciprocity) from observation and logic, and test it empirically. Its apparent truth gives it value over random guessing at an ethic, and from that we can derive "meaning" and "purpose" for our own lives ("I want to leave the world a better place than when I came into it," etc.).
The questions which science cannot answer are those for which, in principle, evidence cannot be gathered. But questions of values and meaning don't fall within that category, as we can, in principle, measure the effects of various values on people's lives, even if sociologists don't necessarily have all the practical details worked out.| Show me the science that gives my life personal meaning beyond bare facts. |
Why do you require more than facts?| Science is not a philosophy. |
It is a conceptual framework through which we view the world. Of course it is a philosophy.| It works so well that it separated itself from philosophy a long time ago. |
Then why have the greatest philosophical battles over what science is only occured in the last 100 years (some of which continue to this day)?| It is a method for reliably obtaining facts about the natural reality that all us humans are part of. But that isn't a philosophy that one can derive meaning from or live one's life by. |
You're confusing what science is and what science does. No, what science is can't help you with meaning or morals, but what science does sure can.
If scienctific knowledge can inform religion, why can't it inform secular philosophies? If we can gather scientific evidence that shows that children learn more via a system of rewards than for a system of punishments, then I'd better change my ways if my outlook on child-rearing is "spare the rod, spoil the child."
You seem to be placing artificial limitations on science with the intent of saving something of the human experience from its harsh reality. |
- 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 - 05/13/2009 : 19:08:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Simon
So, how do you prove that there is a world beyond your eyeball and that everything is not just a long prolonged hallucination? |
You need neither prove it nor assume it. You only need to realize that if the converse were true (that there is nothing outside your own brain), then morality, science, meaning, art, philosophies (etc.) are all pointless, because they're largely social constructs but you're all alone. Heck, even entertaining the possibility that there is no objective reality undermines the value of all science and strips the meaning from the word "prove."
Indeed, if there is no objective reality, then you cannot prove it, and your question has no conceivable answer. It is only with an objective reality that even attempting to answer the question is possible. |
- 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 - 05/14/2009 : 01:31:20 [Permalink]
|
marf said:
| The only issue I take with this and the Lenny Flank quote is that by definition, something which is claimed to be “supernatural” can't be studied by science. As soon as something can be studied reliably by science, it is clearly shown to be part of the “natural” world. |
Name one thing that can actually be called "supernatural". You can't. It is a nonsense word, one devoid of actual meaning.
|
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 - 05/14/2009 : 02:23:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Name one thing that can actually be called "supernatural". You can't. It is a nonsense word, one devoid of actual meaning. |
Nicely stated. I'd never thought of it that way.
I now intend to get a pocket Theremin, to whip out and play anytime I hear the word, "supernatural."
I do think, however, that Marf is essentially saying the same thing here. Lots of things, both the quite mundane and natural, as well as the peculiar and little-understood, are called "supernatural" by various people. What they really mean is "I don't understand this thing, so it spooks me and I will defensively use a common nonsense word to categorize it." A scientific-minded person takes what others call supernatural and either immediately shows that there are simple naturalistic explanations, or subjects it to further study.
|
“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 05/14/2009 02:35:35 |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2009 : 07:36:19 [Permalink]
|
Deistic/theistic evolution doesn't always involve religious scientists who fully accept science as science, and leave their religious prejudices at home (or in church) when they go to the lab.
No, like YECs, sometimes they come up with religion-motivated hypotheses about scientific fact that are in direct opposition to scientific knowledge. Thus the contribution of some such religious evolutionists to the science education debate may not always bring the kind of "pure" science that we might like to suppose.
Here's an example, from Jerry Coyne.
In this case, religious biologists at the Templeton Foundation-supported BioLogos site try to make the somewhat "interventionist" argument that evolution was deliberately set up to be a process that inevitably led to the evolution of humanity.
I suspect that this style of "pre-progammed evolution" is the next line of trenches to which outfits like the Discovery Institute will eventually retreat.
|
“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 - 05/14/2009 : 08:06:08 [Permalink]
|
Dave wrote: | Didn't I? We can build the Golden Rule (the ethic of reciprocity) from observation and logic, and test it empirically. Its apparent truth gives it value over random guessing at an ethic, and from that we can derive "meaning" and "purpose" for our own lives ("I want to leave the world a better place than when I came into it," etc.). |
I apologize for missing where you responded to that.
The Golden Rule is not an objective standard for moral values. It is merely the most popular. It is clear not only that there are other standards for moral values, but that depending on individual circumstances, different values “work.”
For example, take someone of great means. Because of their wealth and power, they have more options when it comes to choosing values. How they choose to spend or not spend their wealth reflects their values. If their goal is to help alleviate poverty, then the most rational response is to investigate ways to help that cause with donations. If their goal is to increase their wealth and maximize what they leave to their kids, then the most rational response is to investigate the most sound investments and then make them. But science tells them absolutely nothing about what they should value. Depending on what in life they find most meaningful and what they most value, their actions will be quite different, so how is their any objective standard for meaning and morality?
Other examples from history include people who have done truly harmful things to others in order to achieve their own gain. And often they succeed greatly, and no consequences befall them except the judgment of history long after their death. Such examples in history are used today by people to justify further harm to the defenseless. Social Darwinism is not compatible with Humanism, and yet both claim to be rational approaches to establishing values and ethics.
| Why do you require more than facts? |
I need more than facts to find meaning in poetry or art. I need more than facts to maximize the strength and enjoyment of my marriage. For those I also need to feel things out and use a certain amount of intuition. Facts are necessary but not sufficient for the establishment of personal meaning and values.
| Then why have the greatest philosophical battles over what science is only occured in the last 100 years (some of which continue to this day)? |
It is my understanding that science has its roots as “natural philosophy.” But unlike other philosophies, it proved to be universally consistent in obtaining objective facts, thus it was set apart from mere philosophy.
| You're confusing what science is and what science does. No, what science is can't help you with meaning or morals, but what science does sure can. |
As someone who based my own worldview largely on science, I agree, but my finding meaning and inspiration in a scientific understanding in the world itself isn't science, it is my personal, philosophical perspective. In other words, it is not science itself which has inspired my worldview. It is the facts that science obtained, and the reliability of that method for being consistent which has inspired my worldview.
| If scienctific knowledge can inform religion, why can't it inform secular philosophies? If we can gather scientific evidence that shows that children learn more via a system of rewards than for a system of punishments, then I'd better change my ways if my outlo |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Is the NCSE too accommodating to religion?
