Richard Dawkins: Smackdown Of Geniuses Who Think That Religion....

[BlooInBloo]

... And Science Can Seriously Play Nicely Together.

The only "problem" with it is that it's written at an adult level. The very idiots who's ill-considered opinions are SO wrong are too stupid to be able to read the article effectively. By their standards, it's long, too, I suppose. For literate folks though, it's a wonderful article.


"What we have here is nothing less than a global assault on rationality, and the Enlightenment values that inspired the founding of this first and greatest of secular republics. Science education - and hence the whole future of science in this country - is under threat. Temporarily beaten back in a Pennsylvania court, the 'breathtaking inanity' (Judge John Jones's immortal phrase) of 'intelligent design' continually flares up in local bush-fires. Dowsing them is a time-consuming but important responsibility, and scientists are finally being jolted out of their complacency. For years they quietly got on with their science, lamentably underestimating the creationists who, being neither competent nor interested in science, attended to the serious political business of subverting local school boards. Scientists, and intellectuals generally, are now waking up to the threat from the American Taliban.

Scientists divide into two schools of thought over the best tactics with which to face the threat. The Neville Chamberlain 'appeasement' school focuses on the battle for evolution. Consequently, its members identify fundamentalism as the enemy, and they bend over backwards to appease 'moderate' or 'sensible' religion (not a difficult task, for bishops and theologians despise fundamentalists as much as scientists do). Scientists of the Winston Churchill school, by contrast, see the fight for evolution as only one battle in a larger war: a looming war between supernaturalism on the one side and rationality on the other. For them, bishops and theologians belong with creationists in the supernatural camp, and are not to be appeased."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-dawkins/why-there-almost-certainl_b_32164.html

[orpupilofnature57]

1. It's all subjective at a point.It's fanaticism that is the plague ,and You

sound Hellbent ,Happy Halloween and Votes save us the 7th.

[DireStrike]

2. I don't think supernaturalism can be wiped out.

It's hardwired into the way humans think, and a very powerful emotional force. It's probably more productive in the long run to fight issue by issue instead of hoping for some grand cathartic confrontation.

[BlooInBloo]

3. Oh really? What journal articles discuss the discovery...

... of the "hardwired" nature of supernaturalism? I'd LOVE to learn more about the scientists who discovered that!

Thanks a bunch in advance for the links!

[nebenaube]

21. it's called the "God" nodule....

It's called the "God" nodule, it's in the brain and it's so accepted among neurologists that it even made it into a episode of Nova on PBS...

[BlooInBloo]

43. ROFLMAO!!!! Thank you for introducing me to that silliness!

Here's a MOST excellent page:

http://www.andrewnewberg.com/qna.asp

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[KittyWampus]

55. You just pointed to a page that refutes YOUR OWN ARGUMENT

its a webpage by a scientist who is doing research and finding physical evidence of the religious experience and how it is part of human evolution and experience.

[BlooInBloo]

64. ROFLMAO!!! please stop - you're killing me!

[Pragmatic Pilgrim]

212. It's just the Dark Side of our ability to perceive intangibles,

plus our ability to understand--unlike any other animals--that we will die. What that scientist tested was our capacity to dream up supernatural defenses against our deaths. It's only natural, and--if our Fundies will permit my saying so--it's an evolution to be expected in an animal that can see intangibles, create philosophies, and knows it's gonna die. But it doesn't mean any of it is true, just that we have the capacity to invent those tales and the incentive to believe in them.

[Marie26]

102. From the cite:

Why won't God go away?

The main reason God won't go away is because our brains won't allow God to leave. Our brains are set up in such a way that God and religion become among the most powerful tools for helping the brain do its thing—self-maintenance and self-transcendence. Unless there is a fundamental change in how our brain works, God will be around for a very long time. Explain your neuroimaging studies of meditation.

In our investigations, we measure changes in the brain's blood flow, which correlates with brain activity. Our brain images show which parts of the brain are active and which parts are inactive during different states. For example, we compared the brain activity of people performing Tibetan Buddhist meditation to what their brains do at rest. Our studies, as well as those of other investigators, have shown that meditation increases activity in the front part of the brain and decreases activity in the area of the brain that orients our bodies in space. This increased frontal activity is found not only during meditation, but also during any attention-focusing task. Since meditation involves focusing attention, it makes sense that this attention area of the brain is activated. The decreased activity in the orientation area is believed to be related to the changes in spatial perception and the loss of a sense of self that are associated with meditative states. Future studies may help to better define the changes in the brain that occur during meditation.

[DireStrike]

73. What I was referring to

The general way the brain uses shortcuts, and the fact that humans are so prone to superstition. It springs up in every system. You put anyone in the right situation and they'll start thinking superstitiously - for most people, that situation is everyday life. No, it isn't scientific. It's just what I've noticed.

You can always google brain + religion. Seems to get plenty of hits.

[Buzz Clik]

4. Your insult is highly offensive, poorly considered, and dead wrong.

Many, many scientists are the embodiment of the indisputable FACT that science and religion can "play nice together." For you to even suggest that literate people who are able to read at an adult level will buy into the concept that God doesn't exist or that science and religion cannot coexist simply demonstrates your narrow outlook and verifies that you don't know many (any?) scientists.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Joe Chi Minh]

14. You have to accord Dumbo a modicum of sense to be insulted

by him. Even responding demeans me!

But there's something hilarious about a truculent dumbo posturing as an enlightened version of Einstein, and mockery is just irresistible.

[Random_Australian]

65. Looks like the article is not the only thing that is dead wrong.

"For you to even suggest that literate people who are able to read at an adult level will buy into the concept that God doesn't exist (...) verifies that you don't know many (any?) scientists."

Odd you should say that, because I happen to know fucking lots - let's count 'em:

1) Me
2) The most of my friends
3) My (personal information) class of about 60 - and given the comments we recieve I for one doubt this group is not scientific. :)
4) My lecturers, tutors, and more people I meet in my lectures and tutorials, and laboratory sessions.
5) The people who are in the same science and physics societies I am.

That's a good start.

So, why don't you respond with some kind of support for your previous statements? I would find that most interesting.

[Buzz Clik]

67. So, in the context of this discussion...

... everyone you mentioned completely contradict my assertion that science and religion are compatible? That's a damned amazing assertion.

You know for a fact that everyone in your scientific society agrees that those who have embraced a religion are not literate or cannot read at an adult level?

Is that your point?

[muriel_volestrangler]

87. He's giving examples of literate adults who "buy into the concept that God doesn't exist"

Your statement in reply #4 implied that you wouldn't be able to find such people. That's why that was the phrase R_A quoted in his reply, not your other claim about science and religion being compatible.

[Random_Australian]

163. Nice attempt at a dodge, but no cigar. Or eyebrows. Or nose.

"everyone you mentioned completely contradict my assertion that science and religion are compatible?"

Uh, riiiiiiight.

I said that your assertion that no scientist is an atheist is wrong, and you tell me that I think science and religion are incompatible. Nice one.

For the record, I don't even think science and religion are incompatible, so stop trying to make me look like someone I'm not.

"You know for a fact that everyone in your scientific society agrees that those who have embraced a religion are not literate or cannot read at an adult level?"

What the hell are you on about?

You said that no scientists are atheists. Then I refuted that. The end.

"Is that your point?"

Nope.

[spoony]

191. Hear hear!

I mean shit, it's one thing to state an opinion, but the OP's juvenile stream of insults and haughty arrogant tripe is really all too telling, as much as it is wrong and divisive.

[Buzz Clik]

201. His approach got this thread off to a bad start.

Unfortunately, that attitude continues.

[rucky]

5. Science fundies.

many unanswered questions. FAITH that science will answer them.

[BlooInBloo]

7. ROFLMAO!!!! Not even ABLE to see in anything other than religious terms.

[rucky]

13. Irony, anyone?

literal minds think alike.

[Joe Chi Minh]

15. You got it! Juveniles.

[StellaBlue]

128. I think science will, if we don't kill ourselves off first, answer *most* questions

because science is rational and based on proving things through verifiable and falsifiable tests, empirically.

There is no such thing as a "science fundy". I don't "believe" in evolution. I think that, from the available evidence and considering the scientific stuides that have been done thus far, and based on the fact that world's preeminent scientists work with the above "scientific method" (look it up!), and publish their studies and results so that they are available to everyone and can be repeated... that evolution is the best explanation we currently have for how life came to be as it is. How is this fundamentalism? It's called using your fucking brain and not appealing to the "god did it" cop-out.

Religious types need to grow up and ditch the imaginary friends.

So, so tiresome.

[spoony]

193. I don't "believe" I "think that in the future"....oh, alright then.

You can play semantics all you like, and look down your warty nose at all of the peons in the world, but you cannot escape the fact that anything you accept is in fact belief, and anything believed about the future is in fact faith. To ignore the metaphysical implications of "thinking" things as true is just another tool of mediocre egoists.

[William Seger]

178. Compare and contrast

While science itself doesn't deal with metaphysics, the pursuit of science definitely does, since it's based on the metaphysical belief that the universe can be known through observation and understood through logic. But that certainly doesn't imply that science and religion are equivalent, even metaphysically.

What doesn't require "faith" is that scientific knowledge is extremely useful stuff, here and now, not in some perhaps mythical afterlife. Also, there are fairly clear distinctions between what is known and what is not known ("many unanswered questions"), but science provides a framework for seeking the answers and it doesn't require "faith" to know when your answer is at least approximately correct: You can put it the test and examine the results. Also, unlike religion, there is a formal process for resolving differences of opinion and discarding obsolete notions when better (i.e. more useful) ones come along. In these respects, all religions (and all possible future religions) are equally inadequate at really explaining anything at all, stagnant, and irresolvably contentious with each, and you just have to have faith that the one you choose is of any value whatsoever.

[Buzz Clik]

10. Does anyone really think that Dawkins is presenting logical arguments?

Here's an interesting bit of his discourse:

Gould claimed that science and true religion never come into conflict because they exist in completely separate dimensions of discourse:

To say it for all my colleagues and for the umpteenth millionth time (from college bull sessions to learned treatises): science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God's possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can't comment on it as scientists.

This sounds terrific, right up until you give it a moment's thought. You then realize that the presence of a creative deity in the universe is clearly a scientific hypothesis. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a more momentous hypothesis in all of science. A universe with a god would be a completely different kind of universe from one without, and it would be a scientific difference. God could clinch the matter in his favour at any moment by staging a spectacular demonstration of his powers, one that would satisfy the exacting standards of science.

So Dawkins waves off Gould's argument by projecting human characteristics onto God that haven't been manifested? Fascinating -- not that Dawkins actually put this nonsense in print, but that someone actually read it without laughing.

[hfojvt]

23. Perhaps because most of the religions he is crusading against

postulate a personal, if ineffable, deity.

But Dawkins is wrong, because in order to satisfy "the exacting standards of science" it would have to be repeatable and something that they could control. If, for example, Jesus appeared to Dawkins et. al. and walked on water, they could think it probably a magician's trick, group hallucination, or that he was an extra-terrestrial with some anti-gravity technology. For examples, see Sagan's "Contact" when they travel in the device they were instructed to build, or in Star Trek IV when 23 century medicine seems magical to 20th century practicioners.

[Goblinmonger]

97. Yeah, I mean, what an asshole.

He wants people to actually have PROOF of things that they hypothesize. What a complete prick.

[mr blur]

25. Of course he is. Does anyone else think it ironic

that you are so desperate to trash his thinking to show how "enlightened" you are?

[hvn_nbr_2]

51. God could clinch the matter

God could clinch the matter in his favour at any moment by staging a spectacular demonstration of his powers, one that would satisfy the exacting standards of science.

Of course, to satisfy the exacting standards of science, it would have to be repeatable under controlled circumstances, so God would have to perform on demand as a puppet of the scientists.

Of course, this "scientific" assumption assumes their kind of god who is interested enough in satisfying their scientific quest that he would upset whatever else is happening in the universe to satisfy them.

Of course, it would have to be a double-blind study in which neither the scientists nor God knew if God really did anything. ;-)

A universe with a god would be a completely different kind of universe from one without, and it would be a scientific difference.

A scientific difference? Well, that would mean a falsifiable hypothesis then, wouldn't it? So surely by now someone has stated the falsifiable hypothesis and stated how to falsify it and proved the falseness. Haven't they?

[mcg]

70. Dawkins implies his assumptions are true,

which is not a valid argument, just empty claims.

"A universe with a god would be a completely different kind of universe from one without, and it would be a scientific difference."

He seems to be implying/claiming
1. There can be a universe without a god.
2. We exist in such a universe.
3. There can be a universe with a god (only hypothetically speaking
for him, and I suppose he has some ideas of what this kind of universe
would be like, he's an expert of course, but no details are given)
4. These two kinds of universes would be completely different.
5. Since we live in a universe without a god,
for us to be in a universe with a god,
it would have to be different than what it is.

What a load of circular reasoning.

"God could clinch the matter in his favour at any moment by staging a spectacular demonstration of his powers, one that would satisfy the exacting standards of science."

Oh yes, God is supposed to perform some parlor tricks since
by assumption what is already present isn't due to any kind of god.
A parlor trick wouldn't satisfy Dawkins anyway. He wrote that even
if a statue of Mary waved to him, he would not conclude that a
miracle had taken place. I believe he wrote that he would ascribe it
to chance.

[Goblinmonger]

99. He's not saying that at all.

He's simply saying that a universe that has a god in it is different than one that doesn't. That makes sense on its face. Clearly he thinks this is a universe without a god given that there is no proof of one, but that sentence you take out of context makes none of the assumptions you claim it does. It is not circular at all until you add in your nonsensical assumptions.

[Buzz Clik]

110. No, he's got it right.

The blathering in the article linked in the OP borders on silly.

Just for the record -- you're big on demanding proofs for hyptheses. Where is the proof going to come from for the speculation that a universe with a god would be different that one with a god? And can you demonstrate in any large way that there is no god?

[Goblinmonger]

114. "blathering"

That is like somebody that says The Ramones are crappy music. It just shows how ignorant they really are. You don't have to own all The Ramones stuff, but if you don't know how they changed music and really made the music of today possible, then you are ignorant and have no basis discussing music seriously.

Similarily, saying that Dawkins "blathers" doesn't help you much. You may not agree with him. That is fine, but to resort to ad homs about his lack of mental abilities just shows how ignorant you are. He is one of the sharpest scientific minds out there. I'm quite sure his IQ is quite high.

You seriously think that a universe that has a god in it isn't different than one without a god? Is a universe with a planet that has human population different than a universe without human population? Of course it is. One has humans the other doesn't. Same is true for the first statement: one has a god and the other doesn't. Did that really fly over your head?

Finally, I don't need to prove that there is no god. Are you that obtuse about proof and the scientific method? I am the null hypothesis. If you want to say that there is a god, then the proof is on you. You do realize it is a logical fallacy to require someone to prove the negative. You can google it if you like, I'm sure Wikipedia has an entry about it.

[Buzz Clik]

125. Dawkins has been well dissected on this thread.

You may not like it, but it's been done.

[Goblinmonger]

141. I disagree

Most of the "dissection" consists of what seems to be "He doesn't like my religion. He doesn't get it. He won't accept anything" and then there is some version of "He's stoopid" and then there is "My individual religous beliefs are nothing like he talks about so he is wrong about he role of religion in society." None of those are overly compelling.

[hfojvt]

130. "blathering" is not an attack on him

but a description of what he has written.

However, if a person was to prove to you there is a god, what would you accept as proof?

To be so certain that there is no god simply because you have not seen proof seems a little bit like believing there is no Arizona because you have not seen proof of that either. Have you refuted every argument for the existence of God? Have you, or Dawkins for that matter, read Hans Kung's "Does God Exist?"

[Goblinmonger]

134. It is an example

of what ad hom is. It is substituting something about the person for the argument.

I would apply the scientific methos to any proof. Is it able to be repeated. Is is verifiable? All that stuff.

But if I were to say there were no Arizona, you could take me there and show it to me. You could prove it given the scientific method. Can you do that with god?

I have not read Kung. Can't speak for Dawkins. I have read excerpts and have a problem with Kung arguing that nihilism is the natural consequence of atheism. From what I've read (and I could be wrong) much of his argument against atheism is based on that assumption. I am an atheist but not a nihilist.

[mcg]

112. There's no proof for lots of things.

I think there is plenty of evidence, he doesn't. We disagree.
He's entitled to his opinion.

He does seem to start off with the assumption that there is no god,
and then filters out any evidence to the contrary. As he said,
he wouldn't even consider a waving statue as evidence, i.e.
he will admit no evidence.

None of what he's saying is scientific.

[Goblinmonger]

118. So what is the evidence for god?

If I saw a statue of Mary waving at me, my first thought would not be "There is a god" but rather "I'm seeing things." I hope that would be most people's reactions, but I'm sure I would be sadly disappointed. I mean seriously, if somebody came to you and said they saw the statue of liberty wave to them across the harbor, what would you think? Do you seriously mean to tell me your first thought would be "What an awesome display of god's presence in the universe" or would you be closer to "this person needs some counseling, some meds, or both"?

What "evidence to the contrary" does he filter out?

And, again, calling him not scientific is crazy. First you blame him for not taking ONE instance (the statue) because of the scientific method and then you call him not scientific. Pick a side. Stick with it.

[Buzz Clik]

127. Look up the definition of "faith".

[Goblinmonger]

135. Oh come on.

THAT'S your proof of god. There is a god because you have faith that there is one? Shit, I must be married to Kristy McNichol because I had faith I would be when I was 10. You can't seriously think that is going to be enough for me. I'm 40, not 4. Faith is irrational, hence the opposite of rationaly, hence NOT proof.

[Goblinmonger]

96. The thing that gets me about people who don't like Dawkins

is that they inevitably resort to calling him stupid or illogical or something similar. Do you not realize how that makes your arguments against his points look baseless. I mean, fine, disagree with him. Present logical refutations of his points. But to call one of the, if not THE, best scientific minds in the world today illogical, or stupid, or something similar is either an ad hom on your part of you being stunningly obtuse.

[Buzz Clik]

111. "they inevitably resort to calling him stupid or illogical"

Calling his arguments illogical and demonstrating why is not name calling. However, suggesting that those who disagree with Dawkins are illiterate most certainly is. Check out the rash of insults from the author of the OP -- care to share some of your indignation with BlooInBloo?

[Goblinmonger]

116. BlooInBloo was chastised for his statements

and rightly so. I'm not defending him.

So what is your logical demonstration of his arguments being wrong?

[Buzz Clik]

120. BlooInBloo offered no arguments, just insults.

Dawkins, however, offered plenty. This thread is filled with rebuttals.

[Goblinmonger]

122. Again, I am not defending BlooInBloo.

I am only talking about Dawkins' points. My problem is that many of the "rebuttals" include some form of an ad hom that he is "blathering" or "illogical" or "not scitific" and it is those that I am specifially amazed at. I have addressed other rebuttals along the way.

[spoony]

195. Indeed, anti-theists heal thyselves

They lay down the most ferocious assaults on their "enemies'" lives, psyches, mental faculties, etc. then complain they're persecuted by the cruel mobs when they do so.

[Nikki Stone 1]

11. It's not just religion that is attacking Enlightenment Values

"What we have here is nothing less than a global assault on rationality, and the Enlightenment values that inspired the founding of this first and greatest of secular republics."


If you look at a lot of "Critical Theory" (or Cultural Studies) which has been taking over in the humanities over the past 20-30 years, you will see the same anti-science bias, or at least the idea that science is "a discourse", is culturally based (Western, hegemonic), and needs to be dissected by critical and cultural theorists.

On one hand, science is only as good as the questions you ask, and I think that it is fair to interrogate that process occurring before the actual scientific method is applied. But it is the interrogation of the method itself that worries me, including the abolishment of the idea of objectivity in favor of multiple subjectivities. Some of the less rigorous behavioral sciences do fall prey in a big way to subjectivity, but if you have a couple of chemicals in a beaker that let off chlorine gas when combined, you can be as subjective as you want--the chlorine gas is still there.

The notion that objective reality does not exist is catching on at the university, and, oddly, goes hand in glove with the "we make our own reality" neocons and their nutbag fundamentalist bretheren.

If I wanted to put my :tinfoilhat: on, I would say that science, and the assumption that objective reality exists and can be tested, are being squeezed from both ends of society: the educated elite and the Christian fundamentalists. Both groups receive major funding from at universities. Religious fundamentalism is supported by William F. Buckley's "Young American Foundation", the largest off-campus funder of student activities. And the US government provides much of the research money for faculty studies.

I wonder sometimes if the goal is destroy science except for a select few and let the "little people" drown in superstition, the ultimate subjectivity.

[Odin2005]

22. The Fundies and the Postmodernist morons are murderers of Science

As a Biology major I am absolutely enraged how anti-science many educated many left-wingers have gotten. An Anarchist called me a "racist, sexist, capitalist tool" when I said I was into Sociobiology (that is, the study of the evolutionary causes of behavior). I got viciously attacked by a DUer for being the victim of the "evils of scientism and positivism", then that poster unleashed a endless spewage of Deepak Copra's anti-science talking points.

[Nikki Stone 1]

32. Deepak Chopra? You've gotta be fucking kidding me

:grr:

[Odin2005]

150. Nope.

I swear Chopra doesn't beleive any of the crap he says, he's just out to sell books to gullible fools.

[donco6]

60. I've gotten it, too.

Just don't venture into the HIV/AIDS forums or be prepared for diatribes on why viruses don't exist and cures give the disease.

[Nikki Stone 1]

85. Pardon me, but WTF?

No disease?

:wtf:

[donco6]

88. I swear!

There's no point in posting there, because people lie in wait and will attack with a hundred links about how HIV doesn't cause AIDS, flu shots cause flu, blah blah. It's just nuts.

[Nikki Stone 1]

115. Ok, then

:tinfoilhat:

[donco6]

24. I agree.

"If I wanted to put my (tinfoilhat) on, I would say that science, and the assumption that objective reality exists and can be tested, are being squeezed from both ends of society: the educated elite and the Christian fundamentalists. Both groups receive major funding from at universities. Religious fundamentalism is supported by William F. Buckley's "Young American Foundation", the largest off-campus funder of student activities. And the US government provides much of the research money for faculty studies."

Squeezed from both ends - yes. As science delves ever deeper into the unknown, it pulls up things that seem to contradict materialism. On the other side, religionists depend on the noncorporeal and the supernatural to support their very foundation.

Personally, I think it's cheap and easy to attribute to religion anything that science cannot currently explain. It doesn't do anyone any favors.

[Nikki Stone 1]

34. There are always things that science can't explain right away

Theories take time and are scrapped, modified or updated as testing gets better.

Instead of allowing time for progress, the people regress into some kind of magical world?

[BlooInBloo]

26. Oh I agree - litcridiots (my own name for them)....

... are 2nd only to god/magic folks in terms of their deleterious effect on people's intelligence.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

39. I don't think religious and postmodern opposition to science are similar.

In some ways, fundamentalist religion and science have more in common with one another than either has with postmodernism.

IDers are putting forward objective, meaningful claims about How The Universe Is. The claim they are putting forward - that evolution is inconsistent with the observed evidence (or more generally, that there is evidence for the existence of a god) is one that I think is false, but if the universe were otherwise it could perfectly well be true.

The postmodernists, on the otherhand, aren't making meaningful claims about anything, they're just waffling. Their views aren't exactly false, but neither are they true, and nor could they be.

In some ways, I feel more well disposed to the views of the fundamentalist who believes that it is True that all homosexuals are going to hell, than the postmodernist who doesn't believe in truth at all, but it's unquestionable that the former are, on average, much more unpleasant people and do far more harm to others.

But the two have, if anything, less in common with one another than either has with me, I think.

[immoderate]

46. What do fundamentalist religion and science have in common?

:shrug:

--IMM

[Donald Ian Rankin]

207. A belief in objective truth.

A fundamentalist doesn't just say "God exists in some sense", he says "God definately does exist, and the claim that God does not exist is false".

Black and white have far more in common than either has with orang-utan.

[Nikki Stone 1]

52. I disagree

If you are adopting the trappings of traditional Western philosophy (or science) to advance claims whose ultimate goal is to replace a rigorous scientific theory--whether it will ultimately be proved right or not--with a baseless superstition, you have entered the world of untestable subjectivity. This is what the fundamentalists are doing. They are using the language and trappings of science not to intellectually grapple with the theory of evolution, but to have it expunged from the public consciousness, as if by fiat, and replace it with their own subjective, untestable view of the universe.

A thinking Christian would actually be intellectually honest enough to not only attack the underpinnings of evolution from a scientific perspective, but to acknowledge that the large body of evidence supporting the theory of evolution needs to be explained scientifically in another way and not just put up his highly subjective god as a replacement for any future scientific work.

This is where I see the similarity between fundamentalism and critical theory. Critical theory draws on the Western philosophic tradition to undo it and everything based on it. Its ultimate goal is the replacement of a common or objective reality with multiple subjectivities, which would certainly include the fundamentalist one.

It is the ultimate destruction of a testable way to construe and objective reality that both fundamentalism and critical theory have in common. Neither one needs nor wants verification. One wants to rule, the other wants intellectual anarchy, but both reject methods to test something to see if it is actually real.

Where you are correct is that religion sees its subjectivity as objective reality. Because they equate their myths with scientific views of objective reality (won by centuries of thinking and experiment), they feel that science is wrong because they are right--that is, they have the truth and science doesn't. Critical theory doesn't claim that any truth exists and in fact rejects objective truth as a possibility. (Of course, when they need antibiotics, they don't want to be told that maybe there is another perspective that says they are not really sick and don't need them.):)

[izzybeans]

182. I think you confuse critical theory for post-modernism

Critical theorists categorically do not deny that there is a world out there or say there is no "real". Habermas is an ubber-rationalist. Earlier criticisms of enlightenment philosophy attacked its propensity to pretend that scientists are not human and do not belong to communities. This isn't an attack on science it is a critique of a philosophy of science that idealizes (or idolizes) science beyond recognition. The PoMo's that you reference are either so naive that they have idolized portions of a valid critique or too lazy to study science as it exists in practice. That is not critical theory as it is practiced in social science, they may share a similar name to some litcrit folks but that is about it (save for their shared focus on language).

Pierre Bourdieu is perhaps the latest example of contemporary critical theory. His sociology of sociology is conceptualized as a self-critical analysis where the tools of social science are turned against itself in order to free itself from its own perceptual blindness; a problematic entering into each stage of science of all types even during mundane moments where the simple application of method is called for. There are others completely distinct from the type of critical theory you seem to be thinking of (litcrit). Bruno Latour and Andrew Pickering are two that come to mind. Neither of them deny that reality exists, nor that scientific methods are invalid. But that does not change the need for criticism; in fact scientists do the same sorts of analysis when it comes to their own work (just not as rigorously designed). Latour's "Pandora's Hope" is probably the best outline of a theory of science as it relates to truth that I've read. These folks love science, as they are practicing scientists, many of them are trained "hard" scientists who practice both their professed disciplines and the history/anthropology/sociology of science. They all tend to be hyper-sensitive to the biggest R reality there is; that humans are a natural part of this planet and thus impact it and are impacted by it. A proper study needs to describe both the natural world and the social world; each have their own patterns; each intersect in important ways and we are experiencing the negative consequences of that intersection most acutely at the poles of the earth. Sometimes reminding the people who fashion themselves as "real" scientists that they too interact as members of groups and that those interactions have a real impact on their professional and personal lives causes a reaction (one famous reaction was the childish and counterproductive Sokal Hoax. Objectively we can watch that happen, predict that it will occur, and explain them with the same tools of social science that help us understand social conflicts. We can also predict that there will be a large proportion of scientists who recognize this fact (science is a social institution par excellence) implicitly and give a knowing smile of appreciation. And if asking scientists to think more critically about the external validity of their laboratory or that they think seriously about the impact of who they align themselves with because of the foreseeable consequences (e.g. the manhattan project and nuclear proliferation, chemical compounds and their impact on the environment, which are prevalent at all levels of production; pharmaceutical, industrial, agricultural) is problematic than we will continue to trudge forward on the train of "progress" making chemical spills along the way. The really-real is that the nature out there and the world in here have a deeply intertwined relationship. This means that human interventions into nature are bound up with actual modes of social organization and critical theory argues that the best way to overcome the limitations of the present is to engage in as comprehensive a mode of analysis as possible-litcrit held constant.

Its criticisms are completely different from religious critiques because it comes from within the community of scientists itself. Litcrit folks may take Peter Berger and Thomas Luckman to their logical extreme by creating a self-defeating constructionism, but that does not invalidate the work of human construction nor the science that describes it. Look at critical theory outside of litcrit as the science of science that seeks to replace the older philosophy of science that, even though it helped subsidize a sense of importance for some naive practitioners of science, failed to describe science as it operates in practice.

[izzybeans]

86. and the majority of social studies of science operate at a level of hyper-realism

that is at complete odds with post modern theory. Lit-crit folks barely scratch the surface.

The SSK folks should be seen as allies not foes, no matter what fundamentalists like Alan Sokal or Paul Gross might think, in all their attempts to purify their sacred realm.

The critique from religion is entirely different; it can not adress how science operates. The study of scientific practice and knoweldge production can do just that, internally as a functioning aspect of "normal science". When the tools of science are turned against itself, as the social studies of science would have it, it should be a sign of respect-not of opposition.

Some folks just do not like their dirty laundry aired in public; scientists too-and the most reactionary of them make arbitrary connections between social studies of science and post-modern critiques. the fact that scientists form a culture with elements not unlike other cultures, ordering themselves into hierarchies, back biting each other in a struggle over different forms of capital (monetary and professional accolades) can't be completely seperated from the laboratory, the line of publications, and the publicity seeking activities of scientists. To do so would miss the objective conditions of scientific work. Scientists may stand on the shoulders of giants but they ride the backs of their lab assistants who turn the nobs and flip the switches, snap the pictures and shave down the materials, etc. None of that reduces science to the oblivion of "untruth" or the dreaded subjecivity. But it is equally reductionist to reduce science to method as if it alone was responsible for discovery. Brain-in-a-vat metaphysics are no different than supernatural metaphysics in one respect; they alienate the scientist from the reality of their own work.
That is why many of the broad shoulder "giants" were proto-anthropologists/sociologists/historians. Understanding how history, social structure, and laboratory practice intertwine gave them the ability to innovate in ways that simple replication procedures and other mundane matters of method ever could (though method never leaves the picture, because it is one distinguishing characteristic of scientific work). And the technoscientists already know this inuitively everytime they weigh the impact factor of the journal they are considering submitting to for publication.

[Random_Australian]

179. The ID'ers putting forward meaningful objective claims?

I boils down to "sometime some thing somehow did something"

That is not meaningful at all!

Actually, I'll seperate this:

1) Criticisms of evolution. That's how we learn. That comes from everyone and is fine.

2) The any god hypothesis of the ID'ers. Means nothing.

:)

I agree with the rest of that stuff.

[Hamlette]

12. kick, Dawkins is always provocative good read

[sweetheart]

16. truth

What religion is called truth? Possibly, it is the truth that the universe is all connected
in ways too mysterious for the mind of man. And scientific truth, a small rational island in
a greater sea, is part of an aspiration, and a culture around truth, that enlightenment.

And as much as you can seek to revision the enlightenment as having no religious roots,
the religious roots to scientific study, are significant, as much as one might discover
its the truth to forgive people and appreciate them.

What truth is there when science declares utopia over a homeless man's body.

[Odin2005]

29. What a meaningless post.

[sweetheart]

30. Hardly

It poses the constant implicit ethical question about truth.

You are standing on a street corner late at night, when a young
woman runs by you as fast as she can, and tucks in to an alley.
A mugger comes up to you and demands where did she go, and you
are there with the problem of truth.

If you tell the literalist facile truth, you will have lied.
If you tell the deeper truth, you will lie.
I'm saying, in that meaningless post, that the truth of science,
like with the nuclear bomb, is itself a religion to ignore the
real truth that it is possibly not the truth.

[Odin2005]

31. Science is not a religion.

[sweetheart]

41. for most, it is

re‧li‧gion  /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

The zeal with which people claim moral advancement by narrowing the dimensions of truth
down to what is published in 'nature' and not what we know ourselves already, is already
framing the world.

And if we step back for a second, this whole issue of the progression of modernism, science and these
narratives, as well religion, have been in conflict for centuries, themselves molded out of
conventions of belief, tradition and practices about what is best and important in life and knowledge.

I agree with the scientific method of course, a method of inquiry, "a". But the spirit of inquiry,
IMO, is the religion, how far one is willing to go in surrendering one's own prejudices to know truth,
and the constant appearance that there is an objective truth at all, is an illusion that some persons
carry as part of their religious world view. And by that, science is absolutely a religion.

By its existance, it must be the most important knowledge. By its usefulness to militarism,
it must make one the smartest to make new scientific theory, important to our collective destruction
from newer, bigger and more accurate weapons and strategies of barbarity in war. The bunker under
the whole thing, the DOD grants, the DOE grants, the nuclear arsenal, that whole thing is terrorism.
THAT is the religion, and people are so morally stretched to question their own moral righteiousness.

Science is a religion that presumes an objective observer, when life has no such entity.
Technology is a layer of abstraction over an essential truth, and science can never
teach that essential truth, though it is manifest of the inquiry to truth.

This is why i say that science is really itself an abstraction of religion, the inquiry in to truth,
when that sincere inquiry shows us that the only real truth in life, the only absolute truth is death,
and then science has been used all too often as an excuse to busy ourselves and ignore death...
hardly inquiry. Death says life is subjective, and science lives forever locked in a narrative
that denies immediate death, long enough to publish the truth, that death is transcended by articles
in journals. And there from the zenith, the scientists sit in towers, reading those articles to
discover a kind of truth that, if they are real doctors of philosophy, they take always with a grain
of salt... even the framing thereof.

But then all human knowledge is pre-framed by minds who are creating truth like hamsters on a
wheel, printing new technological advancement in "seminconductor today", that its operational,
and no longer essential.

Science and religion are bound to fight by narrative. They both believe that there is a right,
a person who knows things who is essentially important, and that humankind is the center of all
relevant knoweldge. Though the theory of science be pure, the clause 'relevant knowledge' begs
descrimination, and this derives from religion.

:-)

[Odin2005]

45. One major difference, science produces results, religion is just...

...mental masturbation.

[immoderate]

54. That's so very contrived.

Science attempts to formulate principles that explain and predict phenomena. If those principles don't correspond to reality, they are discarded.

Religion is made up stuff, that doesn't have to reflect or predict anything. When it's wrong, nothing happens. People pretend it's still the same.

If you get abstract enough, you can say a dog is the same as a walrus. That doesn't make it so.

--IMM

[Jose Diablo]

89. Nor does having faith in something being true make it so

The same can be say about science, for if you go to the very basics of science, in it's mathematics you will find statements that cannot be proved, yet must be taken as truth because they seem so....right. As such, mathematics is also a faith based system of belief.

Nor do I believe in some myth as truth either.

But I am not willing to say everything science says is truth, for truth cannot be know with absolute knowledge, not by any of us.

Still the scientific method is the best we have among any other method we have figured out.

[immoderate]

143. Mathematics is not based on faith.

Faith requires no evidence. Indeed, people continue to pray even though their prayers may never be answered.

Statements in mathematics require proof. If you got a different answer every time you added two and two, you should discard the notion that the sum is four. There are philosophical notions that the facts of math may be influenced by the people that perform them, but that stuff is so esoteric, it never enters the realm of regular mathematicians and scientists. Contrast that with the religious faith that drives the activities of regular people every day. There is absolutely no proof for that. There is even much that goes against it.

The scientific methhod provides for a uniformity of knowledge. It spans time, religions, cultures, and languages. If a scentific theory cannot be replicated and verified, it will be discarded. Not so for religion. It is knowledge that is held, in spite of evidence against it.

the notion that science is a religion may comfort some people, but it just isn't so.

--IMM

[Jose Diablo]

194. If you say so, however

As you said, "Mathematics is not based on faith", what do you call this very basic, almost childish statement in math; the shortest distance between 2 points is a straight line and there can be only one straight line if not a statement of faith. Go ahead, try to prove it using a system of logic.

Now if you cannot prove the above listed statement using logic, then every statement after the basic unproven statement and depending on this statement in it's "proof" must also be based on faith (believing something without being seen, or proved).

To be sure, it seems true in all cases, but if you look deeper, you will see it's not as Reimann showed with his curved space geometry. In this example, he used the statement between 2 lines there are an infinite number of straight and parallel lines. Look at the surface of a globe with the longitudenal lines overlaying the parallel lines between the poles of the globe.

So in all systems of belief, we as humans make basic presumptions about the underlaying reality of the system we are working with. In the above examples, the presumptions are space is a flat plane or space is a positively curved surface.

In the end, we are all in the back of the cave, looking at the shadows and reflections of the greater reality outside the mouth of the cave.

For anyone to state they have the truth, here it is, is not understanding the basic limitations we as humans have in our ability to really know truth.

Repeatability or predictability have nothing to do with a set of "connected" mathematical logical statements. But like I said, although we cannot "prove" logically many things, the scientific method is still way better than any other system of belief we poor superstitious humans have been able to devise.

You are seeking an absolute truth in something, and there is a "truth", but none of us can prove it. Living is an act of faith, everything gets down at it's most basic level to believing in something unprovable or unseen, although many will claim to possess the "truth" none can prove it.

It's the nature of the reality we find ourselves in. It's better if we could all just go about our own business, allowing each other their own form of blindness, without the judgements on others being blind and ignorant because they do not "see" as we do.

[immoderate]

48. Excuse me sir, I'm a mugger, did you see a victim run by?

And by the way, have you a wallet and jewelry I could hold? That part of you post is ridiculous. The rest is incoherent. The truth is not the truth? That's a stretch. :eyes:

--IMM

[sweetheart]

57. The truth has always and ethical and moral element

The truth, without a moral element, is just flat claptrap.

What's ridiculous are a load of fundamentalists who masquerade as scientists, calling
their effort science when it is really just nationalism, bought and paid for by
big corporatosis.

You can't discuss because you are incompetent in epistemology.

[immoderate]

59. Oh I see exactly what you are getting at....

Words mean whatever you like. Here's a reference from the classics...

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. 'They've a temper, some of them - particularly verbs: they're the proudest - adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs - however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!'

'Would you tell me, please,' said Alice, 'what that means?'

'Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. 'I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life.'

'That's a great deal to make one word mean,' Alice said in a thoughtful tone.

'When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'I always pay it extra.'

'Oh!' said Alice. She was too much puzzled to make any other remark.

'Ah, you should see 'em come round me of a Saturday night,' Humpty Dumpty went on, wagging his head gravely from side to side, 'for to get their wages, you know.'

We can just throw away the dictionary when we talk to you. As far as epistemology goes, recognizing bullshit is at least a start.

--IMM

[immoderate]

74. The square root of sixty-four is eight. Is that truth?

Where is the ethical or moral element?. Since I am incompetent in epistemology, I guess I just don't see it. And according to you, if it lacks that moral element, it can't be truth. So then it's false? Maybe it's a symptom of corporatosis? Is there a cure?

Can you give an example of "fundamentalists who masquerade as scientists, calling their effort science when it is really just nationalism?" My philosophy courses did not prepare me for that.

Seriously, who do you talk to that lets you get away with that shit? They must love you very much.

--IMM

[0rganism]

75. The question you must also ask is, "is that science?"

I know some scientists who would instantly complain of such statement, "64 of what?"

Perhaps the ethics of a question of square-rooting come into play when one chooses a positive or negative eight as the answer. Cube roots, on the other hand, at least avoid that particular dilemma. ;)

[immoderate]

80. Careless. You got me.

Funny, I was thinking about cube roots as well. I didn't want to make it too complex, yet something above the usual two plus two. Anyway, I wasn't going so much for a science example, as a stark example of truth that didn't have the "moral component."

--IMM

[sweetheart]

84. Is that knowledge?

It sounds like data to me. You can do aritmetic, where is your scientific method,
your hypothesis and test results? It is a-priori that knowledge, before scientific
study, logically obvious.

For your fundamentalist scientists, have a look at all the global warming hocus pocus,
nuclear weapons design 'scientists' and whole labs like sandia and livermore that
don't do a lick of science, and are rather become terrorist weapons academies.

You can avoid the point all you want. Lots of people believed oppenheimer was
wrong to get uptight about making nukes, as somebody wouldda done it if not him,
or so poeple say. Science does not make knowledge, or intelligence, and for
all the application of the method, 3/4ths of americans believe satan exists as
a living being... public knowledge is a lost cause.

My buddhist friends indeed we love each other very much, and we all realize that
all intellectual knoweldge is folly entirely, so we meditate without
talking, as profound knowledge exists before the intellectual discourse
that some persons say is prescient to its discovery.

[Guaranteed]

92. The square root of 64 is knowledge, and a priori.

The problem is that it isn't what science has become today.

[immoderate]

95. In any system, you have to start with undefined terms.

Knowledge is basic. Information, and data are special cases. The square root of 64 is a fact. It's derived from other number facts. It's not data.

That matter is made of atoms, and that certain atoms are unstable, and that their breakdown will yield energy, are more examples of facts and they are morally neutral. Acts, that affect people, other beings or the environment, are subject to moral judgments. Facts are also truth, which corresponds to reality, and is the same for everybody. Teller and Oppenheimer agreed on the facts, but had different moral orientations on how those facts would be utilized.

If you really think that intellectual knowledge is all folly, then why don't you divest yourself of the burden of technology? Things like wheels, fire, levers, electricity, and all that derives from them and their ilk shouldn't be burdening your mind, and you should get rid of all of them. Then you will be happy with your profound knowledge of...what? Do your buddhist friends live in a stone age paradise?

Don't confuse science with technology and those two with morality. And don't confuse yogis with bogeys.

--IMM

[sweetheart]

131. Don't confuse bogeys

I don't divest myself of technology at all, I've spent geez, the better part of 2 decades programming
computers, and i see knowledge differently than you do, thazall.

What is 'knowing' knowledge? If we are to imagine the end state of sayin "ahem!, "got it!!" and "i understand",
to accumulate these little epiphanies of knowledge and inquire as to why they are enlightenments,
when the dulldrums without inquiry, are the bits inbetween. And all along, there are facts on
the ground, each of us in our contextual suterfuge. But the quality of the epiphany is oneness,
a feeling of joy, a sort of dopamine; its fun to learn, yes. But if we meditate on the epiphany,
and look in to its mechanics, then that knowldge is but surface, and 64 is a number, that if neither
of us talk about, ceases to be knoweldge in our contexts, ceases to be real, but all along, you and
I are all that is real in our contextual outlooks, in our sharing of goodwill or its lack, in our
good humour or its absence, no matter how much we can attempt to disguise that with pronouns and
apparent objectivity.

So, knowledge then is living and conscious, not in the past, or the future, as that is not a real existing
moment of life. And if repeating square roots opens the doorway to the supraconscious, more power to that,
but most likely, the intellect and ego can siphon off so much energy from the consciousness, that it is not
balanced in no-thought, but rather in some cacaphonic dialogue between a ghost who lives in one's head,
called 'me', and the world of 10,000 things none of which will ever bring true knowledge.
Until that yogic point, people's minds are filthy and unkempt, discheveled and full of ego,
and that yogic point, is the realization that it all just is, a chaos of complex unrepeatable
coincidences whirling across galaxies for a short galactic second before fizzing to stardust.

And in that 'is'ness, a lot of people have a lot of explanations. Other people just smile and know.
Some people are just lucky and pretend to be smart. Knowledge is more than a piece of data, however
complex. Though the data clearly exists without you. The world does not exist without you.

[beam me up scottie]

168. You're trying to explain math to a believer in Ramtha.

You really should give up now.

[Odin2005]

157. Quit the "scientists are all evil" bullcrap.

Yes, eople abused science for immoral purposes that doesn't make the science itself bad. Science, like all other tool, is morally neutral. It is the person you USES the tool that acts morally or immorally.

[sweetheart]

183. behaviour can be is evil

Some science is evil behaviour, as much as 'eugenics' is science.
It depends on the intent, in revealing something divisive, the
arrogant presumption that there is a peer reviewed set of intelligent
people in charge on this planet, as if science is in its own temple,
but no, it is built entirely on the foundations of big money, big
corporate research grants, military space shots, faster space flight,
and all constructed on the policy of the weaponization of space.

Its just science improving ballistics on missiles, a science that
the sponsors realize is corrupting, one they seek to limit knowledge
of, and with most science, bush and the corproates are seeking to claw
back the common of knoweldge to their private control. And 'scientists'
can put on lab coats, get tenure life pay to apply for grants and print
their results, as long as they don't bite the hand that feeds, as long
as the science cuts off its moral legs and feet, that it not rest on
egaletarian enlightenment and knowedge, but rather war and slave prison
states, a new cancer drug only the rich can afford, what a utopia.

[Odin2005]

155. morality is a construct of human minds, the physical universe is not.

Concepts like truth, justice, liberty, equality, etc, only exist in our own minds, they have no actually reality to them besides the electrochemical processes in our brains. The things science studies, on the other hand, are things that actually exist or existed. If you think Empiricism is bad Epistemology that's your problem. Oh, and calling me a stooge of nationalists and corporatists is just plain insulting.

[0rganism]

58. an ethics question which dodges all ethical imperitives to make its point?

Let's stick with the obvious. You have NO ethical obligation to answer the mugger at all, let alone with the truth.

Indeed, your overriding ethical obligation is to disarm and disable the mugger if you can, or find someone else who can if you cannot. Secondary to that only in the sense that it follows directly from it is the need to protect the fleeing woman, and if that means you lie like a rug to do so, so be it. If that means you holler like a banshee for the cops, so be it. Telling truth to the mugger doesn't even register on any ethical scale worth considering.

If you look closely at the "implicit ethical question", any uncertainty therein vanishes faster than a budget surplus under republican government. If you have problems finding the necessary perspective, I recommend Kant's "Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals" as a relatively quick, rational read which ought to clear things up nicely.

Similarly, the only absolute truth in science is that there is no absolute truth in science. There are explanations, peer review, well-founded theories, uncontradicted observations, and some very solid experimental methodology; but not even a pretense to the absolute. The reason that it works well for us is that it follows the common denominators of compiled human experience, and matches our empirical abilities in forming new explantions as well as rejecting unsatisfactory ones. The notion that science itself is somehow comparable to a religion in its aspirations to describe a Permanent Everlasting Truth is as unfounded as claiming that the mugger example represents an actual ethical dilemma.

[immoderate]

76. This is a gem. Wish I'd said that.

Clarity, concision, accuracy. :patriot:

--IMM

[Odin2005]

158. Bingo.

Knowing absolute truth is impossuble, we are limited to our imperfect senses and our limited brain power. we can only get better and better aproximations of absolute truth.

[William Seger]

17. Stephen Jay Gould

... believed that science and religion should be able to coexist because they pertain to different realms. But I gotta agree with Dawkins; that's not how it works in the real world when zealots insist on giving their own religion special social and political status.

[BlooInBloo]

28. That attempted manuever is as old as Kant....

It would have a *chance* of working, if religion would keep to it's "realm" - whatever that is. But it doesn't.

As Dawkins points out, and cannot be denied by anyone with a shred of honesty, religion has always attempted to make claims about the natural world (how old is the earth? anyone? anyone?).

So religion is in breach of contract. Anyone who says that science and religion can coexist because each is confined to their own realm is either a fool or a liar.

[William Seger]

77. Gould was neither a fool nor a liar

... and I think he was realistic enough to recognize that hoping the two ever would coexist peacefully was rather idealistic. His point was only that if religion would stick to the realms of metaphysics and moral philosophy, there shouldn't be any conflict, since science does not deal with those realms. A lot of scientists seem to be able to reconcile spirituality with science, but I don't think that's possible if you perceive of "supernatural" forces actively fiddling around in the universe.

[Telly Savalas]

79. In what ways do my religious beliefs step out of its "realm"?

I'd like to know.

[Marie26]

100. Albert Einstein might disagree

Both a practicing Jew & a Physics genius. I think as long as people can keep the two seperate in their own minds, both can co-exist. Science should explain natural phenomona, religion should explain spiritual matters. I don't see why the two should necessarily be in conflict. Once people start using religion to explain the natural world, it's overstepping its bounds. But within those two seperate spheres, I don't see why the two can't co-exist.

[Goblinmonger]

123. Please stop it.

Einstein was an atheist. Don't post the quotations where he talks about god please. He talked about how he hated that. His references to god were metaphoric discussions about the universe. I'm sure this is going to turn into a huge quotation posting pissing match, but, seriously, he was an atheist.

[Marie26]

136. That wasn't really the point.

Hey, if I'm wrong, I stand corrected on that fact. Is there a link for that? The links I've found seem to be totally contradictory - some saying he was Jewish, some agnostic, but most seem to settle on him believing in some concept of "God". I haven't seen any descriptions of him as an "athiest", though. My wider point was to state that I believe religion & science can co-exist under certain scenarios - do you have a perspective to offer on that point?

Here's an Einstein quote: "I do not think that it is necessarily the case that science and religion are natural opposites. In fact, I think that there is a very close connection between the two. Further, I think that science without religion is lame and, conversely, that religion without science is blind. Both are important and should work hand-in-hand."

Regarding his religious beliefs: In response to the telegrammed question of New York's Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein in 1929: "Do you believe in God? Stop. Answer paid 50 words." Einstein replied "I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein

[Goblinmonger]

139. A good, though heated, discussion of Einstein

takes place starting here
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=93734#93770

[Marie26]

142. OK

Looks interesting - But I was looking for a link that said definitively that Einstein was an athiest.

[Goblinmonger]

144. If you scroll down a bit

you will find this post
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=93734#93781
It has several good quotations from Einstein. She gives the link for it upthread from this particular post.

[Cetacea]

151. You conviently directed her to quotes

which were posted to counter my quotes that (to me) suggested that Einstein
believed in a god. Whether or not it was "Spinoza's God " matters not.

And the reason the debate was "heated" should become apparent very early on.

[Goblinmonger]

154. If you noticed

I FIRST directed here to the BEGINNING of the discussion between you and BMUS. Then she asked for specific quotations about Enstein being an atheist and I directed her to the specific post in that thread that had those posts.

If you want my take on the argument, I think your quotations are Einstein speaking metaphorically about god in a time which was even more intolerant of atheists than it is now--as impossible as that might seem to some. And certainly the quotations that come later in life than those you present show, at a minimum, that he changed over time to consider himself an atheist later in life even if you argue that he wasn't speaking metaphorically.

As for the reason for the "heat," I think both of you were contributors to that temperature. BMUS can come pretty fast and furious, but such is life in the Arena.

on edit: When you have had the same argument over and over and over and over again in R/T, sometimes you forget that the umpteenth time it pops up, it isn't the same person that made the argument the first zillion times. I have gone off on people for the same reason at times. Try saying Hitler was a Christian, atheists have beliefs about god, Bush isn't a true Christian, or religions are only sources of good in society and you will get a similar response because that crap comes up all the time.

[Cetacea]

164. Thanks.

I stand corrected. And I do appreciate your explanation of the hows and whys
of "heated" debates.
I can also appreciate why you believe that Einsteins belief system changed over time. Personally, I believe that Einstein experienced what Richard Bucke, in 1901, referred to as "Cosmic Consciousness." One would have to read the book and then read Einstein's essay on Cosmic Religion to see why I feel this way. But as these studies deal with subjective, life transforming
experiences that are as real as concrete to the recipients,(many of them some of the greatest thinkers in history) it is probably beyond the scope of this discussion to go into it in any great length. I confessed I breezed through the Dawkin's essay and it appears that he is talking Fundy Absolutes. Again, experiences such as Cosmic Consciousness, Satori, Nirvana, Oneness with the Universe/god, God as Consciousness without an object, and so on are for a different topic and have not been studied enough by Western Sciences.

[beam me up scottie]

165. "When you have had the same argument over and over and over and over again in R/T,

sometimes you forget that the umpteenth time it pops up, it isn't the same person that made the argument the first zillion times."

Exactly.

We have the same debates over and over again with the same people, and newbies from both sides get blasted before they even have a chance to get their feet wet.

[Cetacea]

169. Thank you

I've always felt that one of the disadvantages of the Internets forums is real-time lag between posts, and the lack of seeing a twinkle in the eye or a smile upon the face of the person(s) one is debating with.

[beam me up scottie]

172. Some of us are so well armored for a good reason.

Fundies have long tried to corrupt the memory of Einstein and other scientists to suit their agenda.

How many times have we heard that Darwin renounced his atheism on his deathbed?

[Marie26]

189. OK

But none of those quotes state definitively that Einstein was an atheist (not believing in god); and you also haven't provided a link to any source that definitively states this. Therefore, your belief that Einstein was an atheist appears to be an opinion, not a fact. To flatly state that he was an atheist was just as wrong as me flatly stating that he was Jewish. Einstein's religion appears to be a subject of much debate & interpretation, & I think we do him a disservice by trying to force him into one camp or another.

[spoony]

196. Sure he was, and Hitler was a Christian, and pop rocks killed Mikey.

[Marie26]

197. Pop rocks killed Mikey?

I knew those things were dangerous. It looks like I've brought over every poster from the R/T forum, sorry.

[spoony]

202. Maybe you should have kept them there.

GD is trying to win an election and you're all trying to show visitors that Democrats want religion erased from all public discourse. Way to be a team player.

[Marie26]

203. I don't post there.

For this reason. Somehow, I don't think we're going to settle the age-old debate over God's existence on DU. Just a hunch.

[Buzz Clik]

35. Clearly, your argument is not with Gould...

... nor is your argument with scientists who believe in God.

If, however, you are suggesting that some religious non-scientists (and a few religious scientists) try to attribute all science to God and discount all science that is at odds with their faith, then I fully agree. The amazing goings on in Kansas concerning evolution and intelligent design is a perfect example. Is this proof of a lack of existence of God? Of course not. Does this show that science is incompatible with religion? No. It does, however, show that those with philosophical predispositions against some aspect of science are likely to make fundamental errors when attempting to apply religious dogma in the scientific arena.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

18. Yes, and watch Terry Eagleton (no fundy--a Marixst, actually) destroy him.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html

I've just read Dawkins' book, and it is really bad. Eagleton is probably too kind.

From the review:

"Dawkins on God is rather like those right-wing Cambridge dons who filed eagerly into the Senate House some years ago to non-placet Jacques Derrida for an honorary degree. Very few of them, one suspects, had read more than a few pages of his work, and even that judgment might be excessively charitable. Yet they would doubtless have been horrified to receive an essay on Hume from a student who had not read his Treatise of Human Nature. There are always topics on which otherwise scrupulous minds will cave in with scarcely a struggle to the grossest prejudice. For a lot of academic psychologists, it is Jacques Lacan; for Oxbridge philosophers it is Heidegger; for former citizens of the Soviet bloc it is the writings of Marx; for militant rationalists it is religion.

What, one wonders, are Dawkins’s views on the epistemological differences between Aquinas and Duns Scotus? Has he read Eriugena on subjectivity, Rahner on grace or Moltmann on hope? Has he even heard of them? Or does he imagine like a bumptious young barrister that you can defeat the opposition while being complacently ignorant of its toughest case? Dawkins, it appears, has sometimes been told by theologians that he sets up straw men only to bowl them over, a charge he rebuts in this book; but if The God Delusion is anything to go by, they are absolutely right. As far as theology goes, Dawkins has an enormous amount in common with Ian Paisley and American TV evangelists. Both parties agree pretty much on what religion is; it’s just that Dawkins rejects it while Oral Roberts and his unctuous tribe grow fat on it."

[muriel_volestrangler]

38. Not much of a destruction, it seems to me

Since Eagleton is defending a form of religion far different from that practised by most believers. See an earlier discussion of the Eagleton review in the Religion & Theology forum, in particular this literary review blog: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x93064#93118

For example:

God is, rather, the condition of possibility of any entity whatsoever

Can you tell me what on earth that means? And how it has anything to do with any mainstream religious belief?

[immoderate]

49. Eagelton sounds like a name dropper.

Haven't got to that criticism yet.

What did you see wrong with Dawkins' logic?

--IMM

[donco6]

61. So to comment on God, you have to have exhausted . . .

every treatise ever written about Him/Her? That's ridiculous.

[immoderate]

68. That Eagelton thing is so ridiculous.

He arrives at a notion of god that is so ephemeral, so transcendental, so volatile, that he makes Fred Astaire seem like a dump truck. Fairies dancing on the head of a pin would seem concrete.

--IMM

[donco6]

69. Well, it certainly makes it hard to hold a discourse, no?

I mean, if you can't even figure out what you're talking about, Eagelton can swoop down on you with, "No, no, no, you don't understand the BASICS! Haven't you read . . ." blah blah.

That takes intellectual elitism to a new level.

[immoderate]

81. That's the way I see it.

At least Eagelton has the PhD and the chair at Cambridge. What's rife in this thread is not so lofty.

--IMM

[Goblinmonger]

103. So Eagleton

who is a literary critic is somehow better positioned to talk about religion than Dawkins because Dawkins is just a biologist?

And you don't think that is ironic? And hypocritical?

[William Seger]

147. Looks more like side-stepping him rather than destroying him

Are Ian Paisley and Oral Roberts, etc., just straw men, or are they real people who actively attack rationality just as Dawkins says? And who better represents religion in America today: those people or Eagleton? How many fundies could discuss the "epistemological differences between Aquinas and Duns Scotus?"

Sorry, but strip out the pedantic sophistry, and that criticism looks pretty lame.

[NuttyFluffers]

160. excellent argumentation

and apparently quite well read, as well. reading the whole article is definitely worth it, though i have a feeling your other commentators might not have done that... as always, a well read individual, exposed to the diverse array of arguments, and trained in proper argumentation will show the way, especially to illuminate the biases we dearly obfuscate from ourselves.

thanks for the site. i always loved book talk.

[immoderate]

170. Eagelton is well read, but his logic is flawed.

I read his article. It's a very high quality of bullshit, but it's still bullshit. His arguments are rehashings of the teliological argument. He contrives abstract concepts that may or may not have validity, and then ascribes the name of god to them. Literary is not logical.

--IMM

[Arugula Latte]

19. As Mark Twain said: "Faith is believing what you know ain't so." nt

[johnaries]

20. I had a college physics professor who was a Methodist Preacher.

He was constantly asked if he felt his two jobs conflicted. His answer was the best I've ever heard.

NO! Because Science and Religion seek to answer two fundamentally different questions. Science seeks to answer "How?". Religion seeks to answer "Why?".

BTW, I never heard him preach, but he was one of the best science teachers I ever had.

[BlooInBloo]

27. Which is a flat lie. Creationism is a perfect example of that.

[johnaries]

40. Not when you realize that almost all creation stories are

metaphorical. Almost all creation stories don't emphasize the "how" it was done but why the universe as created to be the way it is.

Only complete idiots take metphors literally.

[BlooInBloo]

42. lol! I appreciate your opening the door for me.... But I'll pass, this time.

[Goblinmonger]

105. So if the bible is a collection of metaphors

then god is just a metaphor for the scientific creation of the world. Great. There is no conflict between science and religion because there is not god. It's just stories. I've thought that for years. Somehow, I don't think that was the point you were trying to make.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

44. And if you think that all religious people believe in Creationism, then

you are terribly misinformed.

[Buzz Clik]

47. Which, of course, is the fundamental problem with this thread.

The assumption appears to be that all religious people -- particularly scientists with religion -- believe in the same things and pursue their religion in exactly the same way. I struggle with understanding the basis of this very wrong assumption.

[BlooInBloo]

53. Anything else that I didn't say that you'd like to criticize me for?

:rofl:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

113. Let's retrace this, BlooinBloo

johnaries wrote in reference to his physics professor who was also a Methodist minister: He was constantly asked if he felt his two jobs conflicted. His answer was the best I've ever heard.

NO! Because Science and Religion seek to answer two fundamentally different questions. Science seeks to answer "How?". Religion seeks to answer "Why?".

You wrote in response:Which is a flat lie. Creationism is a perfect example of that.

I wrote in response to that: And if you think that all religious people believe in Creationism, then

you are terribly misinformed.

So, where I was I criticizing something that you didn't say? If you think that Methodists believe in Creationism, you ARE misinformed.

[Goblinmonger]

106. Have you read Harris?

The End of Faith has a good treatment of "moderates" in religion and how that is just a cop out. There is nothing in the bible that indicates you can take any of it other than literal. Doing so is just giving in to the secular realities of science. This will happen until all of the bible is meaningless. The sooner the better in my mind.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

109. Thank you for belittling all of us for whom religion has been the

source of some of the most profound, enriching, and mind-opening experiences of our lives.

If religion doesn't float your boat, fine. I'm no missionary. But enough with the air of superiority.

[Goblinmonger]

121. First of all,

I just asked you if you had read a specific Harris book and then paraphrased an argument he presents in there to provide some common ground in the event that you hadn't. I don't believe everything that comes from the pen of Harris but he always makes me think. If you see that as belittling, then my apologies.

Secondly, what I like about Dawkins is that he takes on the religious that do damage to our society. I have no problem with an individual and their religion. What I, and I think what Dawkins, have a problem with is when that religion seeps into society and halts advancement. Like the Inquisition. Like right now with gay marriage bans, stem-cell bans, the creeping theocracy in America. Those things suck and are being fueled by religion. If calling bullshit on that is belittling, I won't apologize for that.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

132. No, I have not read Harris, but you summarized his argument

and seem to agree with him.

[Goblinmonger]

138. I just finished the book recently

and I am still running his views on moderates over in my mind. They are good arguments/thoughts. I haven't landed on that one yet. It seems compelling that the religious moderates of the world are just dismissing those things in the bible that science has proven to be nonsense where the bible does not give that "permission" internally. Actually, it denies that permission in several instances.

This is truely what I like about Harris--he makes me think. Sure I agree with him a lot but we have similar views about the existence of god. I also disagree with him about many things. His defense of Israel over Muslims seems like he took it easy on one side of the religious wars. I wasn't overly happywith his take on torture--though he did make me think with that essay, too.

[GreenArrow]

187. ... nothing in the bible that indicates ... take any of it other ... literal

What about the use of parables? Those are clearly intended to be taken "other than literal".

[spoony]

198. Why are you so terrified of people in science

having religious beliefs too? You rail SO hard against it; that religion has to be COMPLETELY pushed out, but it's clear so far that only the most militant anti-theists agree with you. Hell Gould doesn't even agree with you. So what's with the crusade?

[Buzz Clik]

205. I get this odd feeling that the anti-theists are making a religion of demonizing the religious.

I would think that one would need to be very secure in their beliefs to become an atheist. Why the need for validation?

[Buzz Clik]

33. Great post.

A huge fraction of all scientists believe in God, and these scientists have no difficulty balancing their science with their faith. To infer, as was done in the OP, only the illiterate feel that science and religion can coexist is an expression of unbridled ignorance.

[GreenArrow]

37. "unbridled ignorance"

Or did you mean unbridled arrogance?

[NuttyFluffers]

161. i'm assuming he's being charitable

for being that arrogant, and thus also willfully ignorant, would be the far greater failing.

[immoderate]

50. What do they mean when they say the believe in god?

Liberal theists describing god is like "fahrfenugen." They are describing their emotions and calling it god. It's a conceit.

--IMM

[Buzz Clik]

119. What an odd statement. Religion is highly personal.

Granted, billions of people belong to highly organized religions, but houses of worship, clerics, books, and organizations are not needed for a religious faith. Even within a given religion, individual interpretations are the norm.

And all religions involve channeling emotions into or toward a deity. You may call it conceit, but it is, by definition, what comprises a religion and a belief in God.

[immoderate]

156. So god is in your head.

And if something is in your head, it doesn't make it a reality. People have all sorts of notions, beliefs, and superstitions. Their existence is limited to their imagination. God, or gods are such mental constructs. Would you say dragons, unicorns, fairies, and leprechauns also exist? They are just as real as god. (Taking a chance here, because I have run into people who believe that all these things are real.)

--IMM

[Buzz Clik]

180. I never said God exists at all. The non-existence of a deity is your argument.

Some gods are strictly spiritual, some are phyical. This depends upon the religion. Did you not know that?

Your arguments are constructed around some incorrect notions.

[immoderate]

200. Silly me. I try not to improvise meanings of words.

It aids in communication. Like if someone says says WMDs "exist" somewhere, I expect they'd exist for everybody.

--IMM

[Buzz Clik]

206. You're attempting the impossible: rationalizing faith

I don't know why you even bother.

I'm a person of very weak faith -- I'm not sure I even qualify as being an agnostic. But your arguments strike me as bizarre. For some reason, you feel the necessity to argue against faith in a god simply because you have none. Why do you do this? This is similar to arguing one's taste in music: I find Wynton Marsallis to be immensely talented but uninventive and arrogant. It's a personal belief, and I'm not interested in whether or not you agree. I'll defend my position to a point, but I recognize that a definitive proof of my claim does not exist. It's strictly personal.

Unfortunately for you, no proof of your position exists, either. The difference between you and me is that I will not demand a proof of your belief.

[immoderate]

211. There are consequences to uncritical thinking.

We're fighting a war now based on faith. Sometimes people come around.

There's a difference between reality and taste. I agree about Wynton. Branford's pretty good though. I saw him a few times when he played with Blakey.

--IMM

[Buzz Clik]

215. We're fighting a war based on faith in known lies -- that could be proven lies.

You have no proof for the non-existence of God beyond your personal experience. I have no proof for the existence of beyond my personal experience. Neither of us could ever put forward scientific evidence one way or another.

This is an endless argument with no resolve.

[Jose Diablo]

36. Huh?

"What we have here is nothing less than a global assault on rationality, and the Enlightenment values that inspired the founding of this first and greatest of secular republics."

What we have here is failure to communicate.

Does this "secular republic" appear rational to you? Does anything in the western civilization appear to be anything more than "I got mine and screw you". This republic is far from the first republic of our type. Try Rome, that's what this republic is patterned on.

You need a refresher course in whats happening in South America, Africa, Central America, Central Asia, the Middle East and Eastern Europe.

If this is the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason, I wouldn't want to see the age of insanity.

[rpgamerd00d]

56. Science="What? Where? When? How?" Religion="Why?"

I see no conflict between the two.

Except when one side steps over the boundary and tries to answer the other sides question(s)...

;)

[immoderate]

63. Which it always seems to do.

Religion never answers the question of why, unless you think the answer is "Because I said so!"

It rather always attempts to answer the other questions. In fact, that is how it came into being. As reality and knowledge intruded on the classic concepts of religion, we are left with an entity that is so transcendental that its existence can have no effect on the universe, except as a delusion. At least delusions are real.

--IMM

[Goblinmonger]

107. Science answers the why.

Why is there evolution? Because of adaptation to the environment. Science can explain why hydrogen and oxygen hook up to form water.

[0rganism]

62. the core problem is how the two are presented to the population

Science is, has been, and will continue to be at a disadvantage, because it is all-too-often presented in a dry, dead, manner by teachers who do not grasp the principles themselves, to students who don't care one way or the other, as required by laws of the government or financial necessity or both. Meanwhile, every week, most of these same students will go out of their way to visit a house of worship in which the God Explanation is presented along with plenty of stimulation for glandular ecstasy in a social atmosphere of likeminded people, often including one's own family and circle of friends.

Guess which one is going to stick with people as having more meaningful impact on their lives? Sure, they may owe their very lives, let alone livelihoods, to the fruits of secular and scientific endeavor, but all these technical advances might as well be mana from heaven, since they only serve as proof of God's Almighty Providence.

[Buzz Clik]

66. If that were true, then Kansas would have been merely the crack in the dike.

Instead, the Kansas School Board was voted out and their policies about the teaching of evolution and intelligent design in the classrooms of public schools were reversed.

I think that the public in general understands the roles of science and religion in their lives.

[0rganism]

71. Dawkins is talking about something else entirely, and so am I

Just because people don't want their public school classrooms flooded with religion, doesn't mean they've heard a fair presentation of the differences. Most in this country are in a compatible position with Gould's explanation -- that religion and science operate in different realms -- and they're content with that set-up, because it provides a comfortable middle ground in which they can give "love gifts" to their favorite televangelists through the latest in satellite technology, or drive the family to church in a mini-van. Watch who gets top billing when a lost child is found by search & rescue teams in the wilderness: is it the combined endeavors of hundreds who invented and produced the equipment used by the teams themselves, or the divine hand of God working yet another tiny Miracle(tm)? I've never heard a re-united mother sobbing, "Praise GPS-assisted navigation!" but maybe your experience differs.

However, what I am very sure you won't see anytime soon is an open atheist winning the presidency. If what I said were false, you wouldn't see responses to surveys on the subject that ranked a hypothetical candidate's atheism right next to satanism as political negatives.

[Odin2005]

162. That is defenitely a major problem.

I think that part of the cause is that the personality types good for doing science are mostly different from the personailty types good for teaching. Another reason is that more people are primed by thier personality for believing the simple stories and the absolute morality of religion then there are people primed for science.

[Raskolnik]

72. I'll thank you not to project your limitations on the rest us

Simply because you are unable to reconcile science and religion, it does not mean the rest of us are so limited.

[donco6]

83. Just curious.

In your reconciliation, how have you proven the existence of God? Scientifically, I mean.

Not meaning to be snarky, but if you have a reconciliation, I think it would have to start there, no?

[Raskolnik]

90. I don't think so.

The reconciliation (for me, anyway) is accepting that you can't use science to validate religion, and you certainly can't use religion to validate science.

I don't expect there to ever be a day when a scientist holds up a test-tube and realizes he's found evidence of god, but I do honestly think that the more we know about how the universe works, the closer we get to understanding how god thinks.

[donco6]

91. I am truly glad that's enough for you.

It's just not enough for me at all.

[Raskolnik]

93. Its not really a matter of it being "enough"

Its just the way I think things work. I'm not sure there's anything contradictory there at all.

[kiahzero]

98. Who said it had to be?

Unless one is evangelical, there's no requirement that one's faith be sufficient to convince others to hold the same beliefs.

[Chomp]

78. Dawkins is a hero. n/t

[StellaBlue]

129. INDEED. nt

[The Straight Story]

82. The amish may well say science is what is destroying our world

via pollution, atom bombs, and so on.

As far as religion and science together, I don't see an issue from my readings. Some scientists want to understand how god was able to do the things which have been done, and some just see laws of nature which we are not always able to grasp as the truth changes as we gain more knowledge - they aren't really laws of nature if they change, but they do indicate a proper direction in which for us to continually look, and I think a spiritual endeavor is similar in that way. We don't know, but use our experience to examine more deeply and base actions off those observations. Religions sprang into being because of a loose for of science, people observed certain things happen when X was down and assigned it to a god/spirit/etc and found results based on that ideal.

Religion to me was born from science, and I think the two can work together but it will not always be easy.

[immoderate]

104. The Amish make use of wheels and levers and smelting...

It's a matter of degree, discipline, and self-awareness. Morality always lags behind technology. If the gap is not too great we'll survive. If not... Well then, what will god do for fun?

--IMM

[Marie26]

94. It's called "Why There Is Almost Certainly No God"?

That's already a loser for me. Just because religions are messed up doesn't mean God is. It seems like a fundamentally irrational position, conflating religion & spirituality in ways that are inappropriate. Yes, fundamentalists are bad, but how does that mean there's no God? It's a huge, undefended leap that seems to employ the same irrationality that he so angrily bemoans in fundamentalists.

[immoderate]

101. Religions are made up by people.

God is also made up by people. Why can you accept one so readily, and not the other? What does god do anyway?

--IMM

[Marie26]

108. Easy

It's easy to see that religions are made up by people. And, like people, they are flawed and mistaken and imperfect. I don't think that changes the value of the ideal to which they aspire. To me, it's kind of like other ideals, like democracy or justice, for example. Most democracies are flawed & problematic expressions of a greater ideal. Most courts don't really find justice, & are blinded by wealth & prejudice. Yet we still seek and value the ideal of justice, however imperfectly employed. These human institutions, like religion, reach towards a perfect ideal that can't ever be found in this reality. That's God, to me.

Anyway, your post hasn't addressed my point that the author conflates religion & spirituality, as if the fact that fundamentalists are annoying proves there's no God. And that's a totally illogical assertion; I'd expect better from a scientist who is so devoted to rationality. Your post actually posits a better proof (god doesn't do anything, therefore he doesn't exist). That makes some sense. The statement, "religions are anti-science, therefore god doesn't exist", doesn't make any sense at all from a logical standpoint.

[donco6]

124. But why can't you just have the ideals without the God?

Can you not have one without the other? Would democracy be any less democratic without god? Can we deliver justice without god? Why does a "perfect idyll" always have to become god?

[Marie26]

133. Cause that's not how

I think of things. As you have ideas & beliefs that are different from someone else. As someone else who believes in God has a totally different conception than me. There's no way anyone is going to force someone else to think the same way they do. Facts are indisputable; but ideas are totally subjective & unique to each person. So I wish people would just agree to live & let live. It seems to me that one feature common to both religious fundamentalists & some athiests is a total inability to let someone else believe differently than they do. Not everyone agrees, & not everyone has to agree. Each person has a different perspective to bring.

[donco6]

137. I'm not an atheist.

I believe in "intent", as opposed to "we're all here by chance and human existence has no basis in meaning." So I think you're right in saying all our personal ideas and thoughts about god are unique. Sadly, the fundies are all about obliterating this uniqueness, and - you're right again - some atheists are all about enforcing a sort of "god-vacuum."

I'm an inquisitive sort, so don't think of my questions as insincere. I'm just curious about how people think and how they came to think that way.

[immoderate]

146. You are replaying the teliological argument of St. Anselm.

Anselm started with the notion that god is the greatest thing that can be conceived. Now a god that actually exists, is greater than a god that is merely an idea. Therefore, according to Anslem, god exists!

Can you spot the flaw in reasoning here? Just because something is a good idea, doesn't mean it exists as anything but an idea. It's called wishing. And they don't all come true.

--IMM

[Marie26]

192. Who says it's true?

It's just true for me. When it comes to spirituality, there is no one "truth" that we can force everyone to agree with. We all have different life experiences, histories, personalities, and cultures that shape our perspective on the world. People don't see life the same way, so why should we see God the same way? I'm just puzzled about why people find it so important to impose their own religious beliefs (or lack thereof) on others. I'm sure we don't all like the same novels, and no one's going to war over that. But people do go to war, literally and metaphorically, to get others to like the same God (or non-god). My philosophy is nowhere near as complex or theologically detailled as St. Anselm's. It's basically, "live and let live." As far as religion goes, I think that's the best way to achieve a measure of harmony & peace.

[immoderate]

204. I'm not trying to impose anything on you.

I'm trying to get clarity. As it turns out, we have different meanings for "exists" and "truth." I just don't consider them to be matters of taste.

--IMM

[Marie26]

208. Some clarity

OK, I'll try to explain more. It's a mistake to say that I agree w/St.Anselm's view of God. You set up a classic straw man, stating someone else's views (that are not my own), and then knocking them down. St. Anselm's reasoning seems completely illogical to me, and it is now how or why I believe God exists. So why post that? It's imposing a belief that I do not share in order to knock down my own. This seems to happen often, someone says they believe in a god, & are instantly attacked w/"you want to teach Creationism!" Or an atheist is attacked w/"You want to close down all the churches!!" It's attaching beliefs that that person does not necessarily share, based only on their belief in God - it's labeling & stereotyping. I wish we were better able to see people as individuals, who have highly individualized opinions, whatever their religious beliefs. I'd venture to say nobody has the same viewpoint on god, and maybe that's the way it should be. Religious "truth" is a highly individual experience, and there's no way that people will share the same view.

As far as why I have my own beliefs, it's almost impossible to articulate an religious belief that is fundamentally beyond words. While I was looking for an Einstein quote, I stumbled on this one:

"Although I am a typical loner in daily life, my consciousness of belonging to the invisible community of those who strive for truth, beauty, and justice has preserved me from feeling isolated. The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion as well as all serious endeavor in art and science. He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious. To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets and to attempt humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of all that is there."

I like that description.

[immoderate]

216. Interesting.

Most arguments are about what words mean. If you reference a fork or a pencil, I'd like to think I know what you're talking about. It does not aid communication if each person has a different meaning for the words she uses. I'd point to the parable of the Tower of Babel for an example in scripture. The word god generally evokes an entity that exists as something more than an imaginary figure. If you allow truth to be a highly individual experience, how can you argue with George Bush and his followers? I recognize that god is a personal and subjective concept. That does not in any way make it real, or truthful.

You are indeed doing what Anselm did. He pointed to a concept and said, "I call this god." Einstein did the same thing. For political reasons, he had to define himself as a religious person. He chose his words carefully. Actually, he was an atheist. He used god as a euphemism. He never claimed that god as a being existed. In private communications, he was more up front about his beliefs. No doubt that he had the feelings of wonder and awe at the beauty and love in the universe. I have them too, without his genius. I recognize that spiritual side. I just am more inclined to call it what it is. Here is another Einstein quote:

From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one...

http://skeptically.org/thinkersonreligion/id8.html

I am not trying to impose my beliefs on anyone. What I am doing is encouraging people to speak English. If you maintain that "truth" is personal and subjective, then how do you argue against such other "truths" as:

Saddam had WMDs, and
Nancy Pelosi wants to impose the Gay Agenda, and
The economy is doing great, and
We're fighting them over there, so we don't have to fight them here, etc.

These are truths in much the same way yours are, because someone, somewhere, chooses to believe them.

--IMM

[muriel_volestrangler]

181. Dawkins never mentions 'spirituality' in the piece

so I don't see how you can accuse him of conflating it with religion. The nearest you might get is this:

Of course, this all presupposes that the God we are talking about is a personal intelligence such as Yahweh, Allah, Baal, Wotan, Zeus or Lord Krishna. If, by 'God', you mean love, nature, goodness, the universe, the laws of physics, the spirit of humanity, or Planck's constant, none of the above applies. An American student asked her professor whether he had a view about me. 'Sure,' he replied. 'He's positive science is incompatible with religion, but he waxes ecstatic about nature and the universe. To me, that is ¬religion!' Well, if that's what you choose to mean by religion, fine, that makes me a religious man. But if your God is a being who designs universes, listens to prayers, forgives sins, wreaks miracles, reads your thoughts, cares about your welfare and raises you from the dead, you are unlikely to be satisfied. As the distinguished American physicist Steven Weinberg said, "If you want to say that 'God is energy,' then you can find God in a lump of coal." But don't expect congregations to flock to your church.

where he does mention the 'spirit of humanity'. But notice he doesn't think much of equating wonder and awe about the universe with 'religion'. He says he is arguing against the mainstream thought, representative of Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Judaism, that gods are personal intelligences.

Perhaps you need to give us your definition of 'spirituality', so you can explain why you think Dawkins conflates it with religion? I find that many people give if different, and often fuzzy, meanings that limit its usefulness in discussion, unless we know exactly what is meant be each person.

Also, "god doesn't do anything, therefore he doesn't exist" is part of Dawkins' argument (although he is limiting it to 'almost certainly doesn't exist' because we haven't studied everything in the universe) - he says "A universe with a god would be a completely different kind of universe from one without, and it would be a scientific difference. ... Despite such well-financed efforts, no evidence for God's existence has yet appeared." He doesn't claim that any attacks on science from religion mean that god doesn't exist; he says they show the danger of religion, with moderate religious beliefs still enabling the fundamentalists, even if the moderates don't attack science themselves.

[Buzz Clik]

184. Dawkins says God doesn't exist, but you say he makes no comment on religion?

How can you possibly separate the two?

Doesn't every discussion of religion implicitly include notions of spirituality?

[muriel_volestrangler]

190. No, I say he makes no comment on spirituality

and since the poster I was replying to thinks Dawkins was wrong to conflate religion and spirituality, it would seem there are people who see them as separate. Me, I see 'spirituality' as a badly defined word. Absolutely nowhere did I say "he makes no comment on religion", and I can't think how you possibly arrived at that conclusion. I mention Dawkins's thoughts on religion so many times in my post that I have to wonder if you read beyond the first sentence.

[Buzz Clik]

199. Interesting.

Absolutely nowhere did I say "he makes no comment on religion", and I can't think how you possibly arrived at that conclusion. I mention Dawkins's thoughts on religion so many times in my post that I have to wonder if you read beyond the first sentence.

I read your entire post twice before responding -- it's a wise move, and you should adopt it. You see, I explained quite clearly in my response to you that the separation of spirituality and the concepts of deity and religion are inseparable. However, it is clear that you struggle with the notion of spirituality, so that answers my question.

I'm curious, though: why are those supporting Dawkins on this thread so angry and insulting?

[muriel_volestrangler]

214. Perhaps you need to stop assuming everyone accepts your point of view

You don't explain that "the separation of spirituality and the concepts of deity and religion are inseparable" in your post; you just ask if spirituality and religion can be separated. Clearly, the poster I was replying to thinks they can, because they criticise Dawkins for conflating them. You need to do more than ask a question, in which you merely imply your opinion, to be able to say you've "explained" it. You could try giving you reasoning for this claim. Furthermore, it is possible to separate ideas of deity and religion - for instance, most Buddhist thought does not include a deity, but it is generally accepted as a religion; while deists have a concept of a deity, but no religion. Many people regard themselves as "spiritual, but not religious" - see, for instance, http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_6_119/ai_84434061 . With so much evidence against you, you must do a lot more than just assert your position without any explanation.

I don't know why anyone gets insulting in these threads; but people get angry when you misquote their words. Perhaps you should stop it.

[Buzz Clik]

185. You make some excellent points.

"as if the fact that fundamentalists are annoying proves there's no God."

Exactly, and this is one of he most remarkable and frustrating aspects of this thread. These wild extrapolations (from fundies to all people of all religions) carry no weight. Yes, there are religious people with flawed views of science, but there are scientists with flawed views of science, too. Does a scientific fraud devoid all science? Does a failed scientific hypothesis unravel centuries of scientific discovery? Of course not.

Religion is played out on a individual basis. It would be wise to view religious people and their views on science one at a time.

[Raskolnik]

117. May I give this a shot?

What does god do anyway?

I don't really know what god does these days, but I think that the laws governing the operation of the universe came from someplace. Gravity, fusion, light, quantum mechanics, natural selection, et al. follow rules, and those rules came from someplace. If you don't want to conceptualize that source as "god", its no skin off my nose. Why does it bother you that some people do consider that source to be god?

[donco6]

126. And I'll give a shot at this.

"Why does it bother you that some people do consider that source to be god?"

Because *sometimes* that very act ends up stifling science. When you get to the end of a sentence and you replace the period with "God did it", you allow no further exploration in that direction. Evolution/Creation is that way. Creationists resent the postulations of non-creationists; it offends them to hear people replace God with a "theory" (and that's another discussion entirely).

[Raskolnik]

140. This isn't about replacing anything

I have absolutely no need to replace god with science, or replace science with god. I don't resent scientific explanations for natural phenomenon--I embrace them as the best means humans use to explore the universe. It requires no compromise.

Sometimes people use religion/pseudo-religion to do horrible things to each other. That has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the laws of the universe originated with some kind of creator.

Sometimes people use science/pseudo-science to do horrible things to each other. That has absolutely nothing to do with whether learning about the rules of the universe reveals the thoughts of god.

[immoderate]

145. That's the flaw in reasoning that Dawkins points out.

After the initial event, sometimes known as the big bang, there existed only uniform energy. The generation of the universe, based on the basic rules that you allude to, takes place with, or without any such entity as god. What happened before that, we cannot know. But to posit that it had to emanate from some ultimate complexity, leads to the question of where did god come from? Did he create hinself? If so, from what?

If you want to call it god, I guess you're entitled. I had a chemistry professor who would have called it "teacup." the problem is that these words already have meanings that would connote properties that are not there. The way that most conceptualize god leads to contradictions with what we observe. It bothers me no more than any other false notion.

--IMM

[Raskolnik]

148. Basic rules

The generation of the universe, based on the basic rules that you allude to, takes place with, or without any such entity as god.

I believe in god (or teacup, or whatever) being the *source* of those basic rules. So, no, I don't believe you *can* have the big bang without a source for the basic rules of physics and quantum mechanics. That source is what I consider to be god. I don't know what existed "before" (particularly since time has no meaning prior to BB), and I have no idea what happens after.

The way that most conceptualize god leads to contradictions with what we observe.

And the way most conceptualize nuclear physics contradicts with what we observe. Simply because many people have what you and I may consider silly notions of god is quite irrelevant to whether or not god is the source of the laws of the universe.

It bothers me no more than any other false notion.

Obviously it bothers you enough to spur you on to argue against it.

[immoderate]

152. So then tell me more about god.

OK, so what caused the big bang is what we'll call god. Does he like being worshipped? Does he answer prayers? Does he see you when you're sleeping? Does he know when you're awake? Does he care if you're bad or good?

What did he do before he started this universe? Does he have a long white beard? Or does he shave it? Electric or straight razor?

What has he been doing for the last 14 billion years?

This false notion has caused much misery in the world and has stunted the development of humanity. So yeah, it bothers me enough to argue against it.

--IMM

[Raskolnik]

159. I'll answer to the best of my ability.

Does he like being worshipped?

I can't imagine that it makes any difference.

Does he answer prayers?

I don't think so.

Does he see you when you're sleeping?

I believe the same thing that created the laws of the universe is aware of the things happening in the universe, but I'm willing to concede that might just be to comfort myself.

Does he know when you're awake?

See the previous answer.

Does he care if you're bad or good?

I'm not sure.

What did he do before he started this universe?

I don't think that concept of "before" has any meaning whatsoever in this context.

Does he have a long white beard?

That would be a rather cartoonish belief that would certainly make it easier for you to dismiss any concept of god as childish. I don't believe that god is a man, much less a man with a beard.

Or does he shave it?

See the previous answer.

Electric or straight razor?

See the previous answer.

What has he been doing for the last 14 billion years?

I have absolutely no idea. I'm more interested in the rules of the universe, how they work, and where they came from.

This false notion has caused much misery in the world and has stunted the development of humanity. So yeah, it bothers me enough to argue against it.

Could you please explain to me how my concept of god as the source of the natural laws of the universe has caused misery and stunted the development of humanity? Not to drop names, but I don't think that Albert Einstein believing in a similar notion of god exactly stunted his development, much less the development of humanity. (And no, I'm not comparing myself to Einstein. I'm merely pointing out that this type of belief is not exactly toxic to the human condition, and may actually inspire scientists.)

[immoderate]

167. Those questions were mostly rhetorical, but I appreciate your efforts.

For the record, Einstein was an atheist. He never practiced any religion. His life's work was to find an equation that explained everything. He affected the notion of god as a euphemism for order and harmony in the universe. This is well documented. You can check it here:
http://skeptically.org/thinkersonreligion/id8.html

We agree that the universe was set into motion at the moment of the big bang. We don't know what happened "before" that you are calling it's cause "god" I am saying it's unknown. We also agree, I think, that the existence of god is superfluous to all subsequent events. At least that's what I get from your answers to my questions. That is, it seems that god does not intervene in the events of the universe. Your view sounds to me like classic Deism.

My point is that the belief in god has caused the misery and stunting. The wars, the crusades, the inquisitions, the jailing (and near execution) of Galileo, for positing a heliocentric solar system, the faith healing scams and hoaxes, the religious scams that persist on TV, right up to the suppression of stem cell research, and the 9-11 attacks, are just a few of the negative effects of religion. Half the people in this country do not believe in evolution. Belief in god is at the root of all these.

I am not saying that there would be no misery or ignorance without religion, but it exacerbates these conditions. Magical thinking deters progress.

You want to call the cause of the big bang god? Fine. Except as I said, words have accepted meanings, and that would give rise to peoples' expectations and prejudices, which I find negative. Teacup is more in line with what I take to be your neutral entity.

--IMM

[mikelewis]

149. There is no contention between Science and God...

Science is the study of "How" God created the Universe. Religion should be the study of "Why". The ridiculous argument of "Creationism vs Evolution" has no scriptural basis, what so ever. There is no Biblical indication that human beings did not evolve just as science has quite nearly proved beyond any reasonable doubt. If you don't believe me... ask Cain's wife. This is merely the "Earth is Flat" argument all over again.

Some facts...

God created the Heavens and the Earth...

...about 14.5 billion years ago.

God created Man in his image...

...and humans beings evolved from primates.

Ever since, Man has taken upon himself to try and create a God out of things made from Earth; whether it be Golden Statues or Books written by wise men.

The laws of physics are observations based on real and tangible evidence...

...and so are the laws of God.

It is not a heresy to believe in both. In fact, it's probably a heresy to mock the miracle of our body's creation through evolution; after all, it is the temple He built for our soul. If Hawking's explanation of the nature of our Universe and Darwin's observations on the evolution of human beings don't measure up to someone's concept of a miraculous creation then they should be dragged out into the town square and stoned (preferably with some really nice red-hair sensi... also one of God's miracles).

[immoderate]

153. Is Hawking made in god's image too?

And so, what is the answer to "why?"

--IMM

[mikelewis]

186. Yes, Steven was made in the image of God...

...and if you can't see that, I suggest ignoring what his body looks like and try getting to know the person inside that tortured body. A "Man" is not a body, a "Man" is the spirit in the human body.

And the answer to "Why?" is something you have to answer for yourself. If you don't believe in God, then how can I offer any plausible explanation that you would find suitable? You should first find out if there is, in fact, a God before you even attempt to answer the question of "Why" we were created.

[beam me up scottie]

166. Facts? Please tell me you forgot the sarcasm tag.

Since when is science the study of how God does anything?

And religion doesn't study why, it pretends to know.

[immoderate]

171. Deja vu?

--IMM

[beam me up scottie]

173. This is like trying to explain evolution to the lunchroom crowd at work.

These people believe in Noah's ark for Pete's sake...

[immoderate]

174. Are you breaking cover at work?

One thing here is that many of these folks haven't discussed religion. Not like in the arena. So it's like starting all over.

--IMM

[beam me up scottie]

175. Not really, some believers are evolutionists so it's not a giveaway.

I'm stunned by how many people don't though.

Stunned.

The guy who thinks the bible tells us we're not supposed to leave the earth? His daughter wants to go to med school.

How the hell can creationists graduate high school, let alone study medicine?

[immoderate]

176. Falwell's got a daughter who's a doctor.

Well, there are quacks and incompetents. Also in biology -- IDers and creationists. Some people are just studiously dense.

My friend's daughter thinks that animals evolved but people were created. WTF? Can't talk to her about it either. And she's not a kid.

You get to see many more of these than I do. I have little contact with fundy types.

I'm gonna get some sleep. See you round campus. :hi:

--IMM

[beam me up scottie]

177. Just say "Fossil!"

I love Lewis Black.

G'night!

[mikelewis]

188. No sarcasm intended...

A fact is: "Knowledge or information based on real occurrences." If you don't accept God as a fact that's sort of your problem. It does not change the fact of God to me or anyone who knows Him. I know my next door neighbors Bill and Joe, their existence is a fact but to you, because you do not know them and have never met them, do not "know" for sure that I do in fact have neighbors named Bill and Joe. You can, of course, investigate that fact to find out if it's true but that would require some work that you probably won't care to do.

If God did, in fact, create the Heavens and the Earth then he created the ways in which our physical world works. Physics, Biology, Mathematics... would then be the study of "How" things work inside God's creation. And you are right, Religions do pretend to know and offer a very narrow view of "Why" that often times does not jive with reality. This is why I wrote that religion "should" be the study of Why.

[bryant69]

209. Obviously any literate person would already be an atheist

It sure is comforting to consider that all the people who don't share ones opinion are illiterate morons

Bryant
Check ito ut --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[RandomKoolzip]

210. I'm an atheist, and I love Dawkins, but....

I find many of the replies in this thread by atheists to be insulting and childish in tone, and therefore not exactly presenting the best that atheism has to offer. "ROFLMAO!!! You're an idiot!" is NOT a an argument of substance, nor does it help to make others see atheism in a positive light.

Note to atheists: if you want to make a case for yourself, work on your tone - nobody likes to be insulted.

[genie_weenie]

213. This post is HUGH1!!!1!!!1!

Groups of people talking past one another.

Prior to the Age of Reason & the Enlightenment, great thinkers scientists and philosophers had no problem using logic and mathematics to prove the existence of God.

Unfortunately, the rise of science and rediscovery of thought caused those proofs to some under scrutiny.

In response, a more emotive/insticianl understanding of God came to the forefront during the Romantic era and the desire for strong feelings and the primacy of the Will over Intellect.

So while some demand more solid proofs of God's Existence (in place of the Ontological Proof of St. Anslem or St. Aquinas' Proofs) others claim attempts at proofs are missing the point.

And so it goes in circles...

[Moderator]

217. locking....

This has become inflammatory.