From RICE UNIVERSITY and the “thank goodness we don’t have to ignore Newton’s laws of physics now” department:
Are all scientists atheists? Do they believe religion and science can co-exist? These questions and others were addressed in the first worldwide survey of how scientists view religion, released today by researchers at Rice University.
“No one today can deny that there is a popular ‘warfare’ framing between science and religion,” said the study’s principal investigator, Elaine Howard Ecklund, founding director of Rice University’s Religion and Public Life Program and the Herbert S. Autrey Chair in Social Sciences. “This is a war of words fueled by scientists, religious people and those in between.”
The study’s results challenge longstanding assumptions about the science-faith interface. While it is commonly assumed that most scientists are atheists, the global perspective resulting from the study shows that this is simply not the case.
“More than half of scientists in India, Italy, Taiwan and Turkey self-identify as religious,” Ecklund said. “And it’s striking that approximately twice as many ‘convinced atheists’ exist in the general population of Hong Kong, for example, (55 percent) compared with the scientific community in this region (26 percent).”
The researchers did find that scientists are generally less religious than a given general population. However, there were exceptions to this: 39 percent of scientists in Hong Kong identify as religious compared with 20 percent of the general population of Hong Kong, and 54 percent of scientists in Taiwan identify as religious compared with 44 percent of the general population of Taiwan. Ecklund noted that such patterns challenge longstanding assumptions about the irreligious character of scientists around the world.
When asked about terms of conflict between religion and science, Ecklund noted that only a minority of scientists in each regional context believe that science and religion are in conflict. In the U.K. – one of the most secular countries studied – only 32 percent of scientists characterized the science-faith interface as one of conflict. In the U.S., this number was only 29 percent. And 25 percent of Hong Kong scientists, 27 percent of Indian scientists and 23 percent of Taiwanese scientists believed science and religion can coexist and be used to help each other.
In addition to the survey’s quantitative findings, the researchers found nuanced views in scientists’ responses during interviews. For example, numerous scientists expressed how religion can provide a “check” in ethically gray areas.
“(Religion provides a) check on those occasions where you might be tempted to shortcut because you want to get something published and you think, ‘Oh, that experiment wasn’t really good enough, but if I portray it in this way, that will do,'” said a biology professor from the U.K.
Another scientist said that there are “multiple atheisms,” some of which include religious traditions.
“I have no problem going to church services because quite often, again that’s a cultural thing,” said a physics reader in the U.K. who said he sometimes attended services because his daughter sang in the church choir. “It’s like looking at another part of your culture, but I have no faith religiously. It doesn’t worry me that religion is still out there.”
Finally, many scientists mentioned ways that they would accommodate the religious views or practices of the public, whether those of students or colleagues.
“Religious issues (are) quite common here because everyone talks about which temple they go to, which church they go to. So it’s not really an issue we hide; we just talk about it. Because, in Taiwan, we have people [of] different religions,” said a Taiwanese professor of biology.
Ecklund and fellow Rice researchers Kirstin Matthews and Steven Lewis collected information from 9,422 respondents in eight regions around the world: France, Hong Kong, India, Italy, Taiwan, Turkey, the U.K. and the U.S. They also traveled to these regions to conduct in-depth interviews with 609 scientists, the largest worldwide survey and interview study ever conducted of the intersection between faith and science.
By surveying and interviewing scientists at various career stages, in elite and nonelite institutions and in biology and physics, the researchers hoped to gain a representative look at scientists’ views on religion, ethics and how both intersect with their scientific work.
Ecklund said that the study has many important implications that can be applied to university hiring processes, how classrooms and labs are structured and general public policy.
“Science is a global endeavor,” Ecklund said. “And as long as science is global, then we need to recognize that the borders between science and religion are more permeable than most people think.”
###
The Templeton World Charity Foundation funded the study. The study also received support from Rice University and the Faraday Institute, housed at St. Edmund’s College, Cambridge.
For more information, contact David Ruth, director of national media relations at Rice, atdavid@rice.edu or 713-348-6327.
This news release can be found online at http://news.rice.edu/. An extensive report about the study can be found at http://rplp.rice.edu/.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
How about a link to the release and study instead of just links to the college and department? It really burns my butt when bloggers don’t bother to link their sources.
Life must be pretty good, Roy. 🙂
To find some answers to all the questions relating to religion vs. science, I would start with the proposition that the basic belief of anyone practicing the scientific method is: “I believe practicing the scientific method is a good and useful thing to do”.
If this proposition is right, science starts from a basic belief, and there is your connection to religion.
Not necessarily, since before the written word was invented ‘human spirituality’ was a means for survival for our early nomadic tribes 10s of thousands of years go. It wasn’t until the written word was invented that religion was born as it attempts to control the masses via doctrine. In other words, human spirituality started out as a survival mechanism and a means for passing on knowledge but then later became a tool from which modern civilization was forged from.
Dog’s mileage varies.
A brief assessment by John Lennox for those of you with open minds. If you have already a closed minded opinion, skip this…
Appreciate that video, Paul, especially the last 2 minutes, science emerged from the cradle of Christianity, the conflict is non existent and constantly misunderstood.
Good thread, timely topic, thanks Anthony.
You are welcome. I love the way he makes the case that the universe is rationally intelligible and was thought to have come from a rational mind (God’s) in the view of Christians. So if the universe was rational and intelligible, a rational and intelligible means could be devised to write the book of nature, and science was thus created by the Christian mind, in an attempt to understand God’s rational world.
Science came from Christianity so to help us know God’s work. Science itself is a useful derived tool, of no use unto itself … unless you are a bore.
I have learned from this thread that there are very likely 7.3 billion different veiws on god(s). Give or take.
…thank God not all atheists are scientists. Cheers!
I’m an agnostic theist, so I actively reject religion but am unable to doubt nor confirm the existence of deities but I still believe that all life is connected. (on our planet) Not imaginatively, but physically and that we all play a roll in each others survival.
However, I reject the AGW hypothesis since it’s well documented that rising CO2 levels can in fact be linked with our rising population. Not definitively, but in part. And to forcibly reduce it would mean death at a mass scale.
Preface To My Comment – It is getting near to some major religious holidays, so I guess it is once again to be expected to have a dialog involving the juxtaposition of science and religion.
Scientists with religious faith should not be a surprise. Galileo was a religious man, and not so only out of obedience to the adherence to dogma that the Roman Catholic Church forcefully required of people within its domain. I think that, in our modern times, within all the professional fields there is only a very small minority of atheists. {NOTE: the word ‘atheist’ should be critically viewed because it is a term that is formed within theology’s context and has anti-secular biases built into it; other terms than atheist offer more clarity and unambiguity.}
The fundamental issue, I think, is that faith is a negation of reason. Truth or the nature of reality accepted on faith in supernatural phenomena by its inherent nature requires no justification or any objective evidence.
That some humans have mixed faith in ideology with some of science’s applied reasoning is something that should be fully discussed in a very critical manner.
John
On the matter of the juxtaposition of religion and science, Richard Feynman’s view of religion was refreshing. Here are three quotes,
&
&
John
John,
In other words, religions are created by man to assuage his innate fear of the unknown. Given the above is true all religions work for their believers. If they didn’t they would be modified until they did. I would also propose that if/when a religion no long satisfies its adherents radical fundamentalism ensues.
No John,
Religion is a perversion of human spirituality since initially it was a means of passing on knowledge before the written word was invented. It wasn’t until the written word was invented that religion came into being via doctrine.
Dog “Religion is a…”
Fill in the blank. Black holes and opinions; everyone has one.
Joe Crawford,
I think that the subject matter (i.e. God(s)) and the specific spiritual content of religions are created by man based intentionally on posited faith. Why do some humans do that? That is an interesting subject that is within the study of mythology, history and anthropology.
John
It does not matter. It is much more important, that without religion we would not have science, as we understand the concept today, at all. And not just any religion, only Christianity could do the trick. I explain why.
The dominant paradigm of science is
1. Set up a small set of axioms
2. Understand the resulting mathematical structure
3. Calculate the consequences under specific circumstances
4. Carry out an experimental procedure realizing those circumstances and compare the results to theoretical predictions
5. If mismatch is found, the theory is falsified, otherwise it is not (yet)
The Greeks had no issue with step 1-2, in fact they have invented &. developed the necessary methods, basically the very concept of mathematical proof along with a diverse set of tools.
However, the rest was absolutely alien to them. The idea, that deeds can have logical consequences, stood unsubstantiated, the two realms being disconnected in their minds with a huge gap in between. Diogenes the Cynic was simply ridiculous when he stood up and walked around silently upon hearing Zeno’s paradox about the impossibility of motion.
It was medieval Christianity, that did the groundwork to connect logic to reality, by referring to John 1:14 (And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth). Now, the word translated as “Word” is Logos (λόγος) in the original Greek text, closely related to logic.
From this specific tradition comes the idea that “Nature is a book wherein we should study the wondrous works of the Creator” and that results of experiments should be treated as revelations, given by the same Logos manifested in logic itself.
Galileo only develops the same religious tradition further when connects this idea to Greek foundations: “Philosophy [nature] is written in that great book which ever is before our eyes — I mean the universe — but we cannot understand it if we do not first learn the language and grasp the symbols in which it is written. The book is written in mathematical language”.
At this point the concept of a book written in a specific language was hardly more than the expression of faith, which meant they believed the universe was comprehensible, after all. They did believe it with very little proof, on a few meager examples.
But this faith was necessary to carry on to a point, when the slowly accumulating evidence started to become sufficient on its own to encourage further investigation into this unlikely direction.
Even now we do not understand why the universe is understandable, and why is it understandable in a very specific way. However, it is.
See The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences by Eugene Wigner.
Therefore religion, specifically Christian faith played an indispensable role at the birth of modern science.
And now we have quantum field theory, which predicts the magnetic moment of electrons to 12 decimal places or general relativity which does the same for orbital decay of nearby neutron stars to 16 decimal places, an unbelievable level of accuracy.
Anyone starting a scientific career still needs a healthy dose of faith, otherwise it would be pointless to follow this vocation. It need not be religious faith, much less Christian faith, but faith nevertheless, clear and strong.
The perceived antagonism of religion and science is just that, a mirage due to specific historical events, like the anti-Copernican stance of both Catholic and Protestant churches of 17th century or revolutionary urges of the 19th. But it has nothing to do with wider context and deep undercurrents.
When I truly doubt god I believe that an orderly universe is a figment of human imagination. Three cheers for the multiverse in which all things happen.
Berényi Péter writes “It was medieval Christianity, that did the groundwork to connect logic to reality, by referring to John 1:14”
I think you’re confusing evolution of thought with something that is necessarily religious based.
Yes and no.
The same way Max Weber did it while describing the origin of capitalism.
See The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism by Max Weber, 1905.
By the way, he also helped to formulate the ultra liberal German Constitution after WWI, mostly along the lines of his own ideas about a perfect system of government. Later on it enabled an Austrian guy with a funny mustache tho grab absolute power in a more or less constitutional way, bringing Europe to the brink of utter annihilation eventually. So he was not a person without significant influence on history. He died shortly thereafter in the post war Spanish flu epidemic.
Today capitalism is able to stand on its own. However, it’s emergence &. development was the result of several unlikely traits, the most important of which was an environment with an unreasonably strong work ethics. That kick could only come from an external source. The net result was to increase economic productivity tenfold, which was enough to stabilize the system and put less demand on ethics later on, so it was able to penetrate all societies worldwide, irrespective of their religious background. Not with uniform success though.
But it could have done little without science, another significant achievement with its roots deep in religion. That was the ingredient which gave a further ten thousandfold boost to economic production in the last couple of hundred years, with the capacity to increase it once more by that magnitude in the foreseeable future. That’s the true block buster around the corner, no wonder people are inclined to accept its rather crazy metaphysical foundations without questions. We do have nukes due to science after all and with it the power to meticulously obliterate everything, don’t we?
However, those inconvenient questions don’t go away easily, only get dormant for a while.
Faith is defined in Hebrews 11:1
That’s exactly the mindset one needs to venture into scientific discovery. Hope for the subject matter would turn out to be comprehensible with a solution not seen yet, but existent, albeit hidden.
That’s the kind of faith most climate scientists lost along the way, so they are forced to work outside the scientific paradigm, by investing hope into genuinely incomprehensible computational models, with provably no solution to scientific questions, but wielding immense political power.
See General Circulation Models of Climate
This, in spite of the fact there are tantalizing clues, such as the amazing inter-hemispheric symmetry of absorbed short wave radiation on annual scale, which may point to the right direction, but unpredicted by computational models and left unscrutinized by climate scientists. Just because they are preoccupied with political consequences instead of pursuing real scientific progress, regardless its echoes in a wider context.
Berényi Péter writes “But it could have done little without science, another significant achievement with its roots deep in religion.”
Clearly we are a product of what has come before us but again, whilst religious influence has played a significant role in shaping the past and hence our present, IMO its not the religion per se that has caused the evolution in thought that we’ve experienced.
For example although faith may be described in Hebrews 11.1, it is a fundamental property of the human condition that we seek answers to things. Its not a huge leap to go from faith based answers to answers that can be demonstrated to be true.
Science was IMO a natural progression of humanity brought about by our ability to write and measure and not because a scripture told us we should use logic to find truth.
I fully agree that climate science has lost its way through the use of models to find answers to questions about the future that cant be answered otherwise. Beyond a certain level of complexity, the assumptions and simplifications render them little better than casting bones or reading tea leaves except they spit out quantitative results that require little further interpretation so are believed to be useful.
It was anything but a natural progression, what is more, it still has a significant supernatural ingredient, even if it is fashionable to sweep it under the carpet.
Something like science was attempted multiple times and places throughout human history, but both pillars of actual science were developed only once, with vast ramifications later on.
It’s instructive to study the fate of first (partial) Chinese translation of Euclid’s Elements, for example. It was books I-VI of Elements, titled Jihe yuanben in Chinese, published in 1607. The work was done as a joint venture of Matteo Ricci, founder of the Jesuit mission to China and Xu Guangqi, an eminent Chinese scholar, recently converted to Christianity.
The reception of the book was mixed among Chinese mathematicians. They saw some value in it, but its core message, that of rigorous mathematical proof, was dismissed completely, as unpractical. No wonder the rest of Elements (books VII-XV) was only translated two and a half century later, this time by Alexander Wylie, a Scotsman sent to China by the London Missionary Society after the first Opium War and Li Shanlan, a Chinese scholar. It was published in 1857.
The funny thing is the original aim of father Matteo Ricci was to demonstrate how practical Western science was. This is why he has chosen to translate this particular work as the first book ever to be translated to Chinese from Western oeuvre, even before the Bible itself. In this respect he failed miserably, the message got lost in clash of cultures.
In the 17th century China was a fairly advanced society, way ahead of Europe in every measurable respects, with higher population and standard of living, advanced agricultural and industrial production, even Chinese mathematics, with its procedural emphasis was ahead in some respects.
However, in the long run it led to nowhere. The method of mathematical proof is indeed unpractical in a sense, no wonder few proofs are presented to students of Engineering, but they are assured the proofs are there, just in case. And at an advanced level the method becomes immensely practical. János Bolyai, while working on non-Euclidean geometry, came up with a proof, independent of the axiom of parallels, that Euclidean geometry was valid for paracycles on a parasphere. If the axiom of parallels is assumed to be true, it is not surprising at all, because in this case the parasphere is a plane, with paracycles as straight lines in it. However, if the negation of this axiom is assumed, the parasphere becomes a curved surface, very different from a plane. Using this key, with a single sweeping gesture he was able to get tens of thousands of valid propositions of Hyperbolic geometry by simply translating propositions previously proven in a Euclidean context. That’s how powerful the axiomatic method is.
And, of course, one can’t construct advanced warships without deep knowledge of geometry, so the discipline is practical after all.
The Chinese had issues with the very first steps of the scientific method, because the schism between the world of ideas and the world of practice, a necessary but unreasonable precondition to science, did not exist in their cultural context.
But it is also possible to err on the other side of the equation. It is known for almost a century, that mathematical frameworks behind general relativity and quantum field theory are inconsistent with each other. In the last several decades string theory was developed to bridge this gap. It was necessary to introduce a number of unobservable extra dimensions to do that, but to this day not only experimental verification is lacking, but not even a single experimentum crucis was proposed. Until such time it happens, string theory does not belong to physics. Even in best case it is only a rather interesting branch of math, and it is premature to build extensive metaphysical speculations on it, like the existence of a Multiverse and pseudo-darwinian operation of the Anthropic Principle on such a swarm, assumed to be genuinely unobservable.
This, in stark contrast with the case of General Relativity, which was indeed based on a few basic principles and derived in an abstract manner, but immediately came with experimental verification like the perihelion progression of Mercury and experimentally accessible predictions like deflection of starlight by the Sun.
And then there are those, like climate scientists, who lost faith altogether and assume some chapters of the great Book of Nature only contain gibberish anyway, so it is pointless to attempt to decipher it. They try to implement a brute force effort instead, which is, of course, doomed to failure from the start.
There are too many cases in the history of science, when mathematical tools, developed independently, proved to be indispensable for description of actual processes, revealing mathematical beauty and simplicity behind the intricate curtain of phenomena. We simply do not understand how is it possible, it seems to be a true mystery, an enigma, conundrum or teaser.
That, in a world where not only things appear to be messy, but math also has its own Paradoxes of Randomness.
Berényi Péter writes “The Chinese had issues with the very first steps of the scientific method, because the schism between the world of ideas and the world of practice, a necessary but unreasonable precondition to science, did not exist in their cultural context.”
But this is evolution of thought. Not every path leads to a successful outcome and it took a number of ideas to come together to get us to where we are today. For example, today’s science relies on the Hindu-Arabic number system and that wasn’t yet invented until about 500AD.
You write “There are too many cases in the history of science, when mathematical tools, developed independently, proved to be indispensable for description of actual processes, revealing mathematical beauty and simplicity behind the intricate curtain of phenomena.”
Not just the tools but the concepts. Rate of change is a concept but the tool is calculus. Successful use of the concept relies on the tool and the wrong tool can make the concepts difficult to use in a practical sense.
Perhaps its not the best example, but Newton’s understanding of gravity is insufficient to create a modern GPS even though it appears to do a reasonable job of describing a satellite’s motion. It took the concept of relativity to be able to make a GPS possible.
The beauty of mathematics really has nothing fundamentally to do with religion, though, and instead is a fundamental property of the world around us. To suggest anything else requires faith.
So IMO it was the culture in which science developed and the advances to that point that enabled its progression and not the religious influence. In fact I think its fair to say the culture produced the religious influence as well. They went hand in hand but there is nothing about religion that directly influenced the progression of science. Perhaps one could argue that people weren’t happy with the religious doctrine of say “earth at the centre of the universe” and so had a focus on looking for the real truth but its a stretch to say that somehow religion was responsible for the final understanding. If anything, religion stood in the way.
TimTheToolMan,
“Perhaps one could argue that people weren’t happy with the religious doctrine of say “earth at the centre of the universe” and so had a focus on looking for the real truth . . ”
Truth can be an illusive thing sometimes, and in this case here, there is peculiar twist to the scientific search for it. Three satellite missions (because the first and second just had ti be wrong, many felt) designed to map the large scale distribution of mass in the observable universe, have revealed what is literally referred to as “the axis of evil” by many cosmologists/astrophysicist, because there is a symmetrical distribution to the mass, and we are at the center of it . .
John writes “there is a symmetrical distribution to the mass, and we are at the center of it . .”
Because that’s what we can see. If, however if we were a few light years away, we’d see the same thing so we cant both be living on planets at the centre of the universe, surely? The real truth is that *I* am at the centre of the universe. YMMV. 😉
BP,
It is true that modern science began in Christian Europe in 1543, with the publication of works by Copernicus and Vesalius, based upon groundwork laid earlier in the Renaissance. But it owed to rediscovery in western Europe of original works of ancient Greek pagan natural philosophers, rather than in Latin or Arabic translation or summary, thanks to Greek scholars fleeing Constantinople after its capture by the Turks in 1453. The printing press with movable type, c. 1440, also helped nurture the development of science.
It started a bit earlier than that, in Medieval times. As for Copernicus, contemporary scientists did have a perfectly legitimate issue with his work. As he assumed circular orbits around the Sun, his calculations regarding the celestial positions of planets were way off the mark, lent much less accurate predictions than the Ptolemaic system unless he added epicycles &. eccentrics again. Therefore his ideas were as good as falsified by observation, and this situation was not remedied until much later, when Kepler discovered elliptical orbits along with the rest of his laws.
BP,
Nope. The Ptolemaic system was also based circular orbits. The Copernican still required epicycles but otherwise simplified calculations, which were at least as good as those of the geocentrists.
To what Medieval European contributions to science do you refer? Nicholas of Cusa? Those of his generation can IMO better be considered Renaissance figures than Medieval, although many historians consider the Middle Ages to have lasted almost clear through the 15th century.
Specifically Roman Catholic contributions to modern science before 1500, apart from pagan Greek revival, may well exist, but few if any spring to mind. Please state what you think they were. Thanks.
All of this is a result of the written word. A fraction of our lifespan…long ago, before the written word was invented, we focused our spirituality on the movements of our species…it wasn’t until indoctrination…that we lost control.
Dog wrote, perhaps untruthfully: “A fraction of our lifespan…long ago, before the written word was invented, we focused our spirituality”
You seem to have a rather long lifespan. It certainly wasn’t me. Written words came about in Sumeria around 3000 BC more or less, and that’s a fraction of your lifespan. Impressive lifespan, less impressive writing.
If I may interject my thoughts on the subject, I’ve never thought “religion” is difficult to define. Religion is simply a set of rules that one lives by consistently. This is mostly associated with gods because it is through the words of different gods that people choose the rules that they will live by. The god gives the rules authority, and the church gives the religious adherents unity and power. The atheist may have his/her own rules that they follow “religiously”, but atheism alone is not a religion because it comes with no common set of rules to live by. Belief all by itself does not constitute religion, nor is a god required (Buddhism) as long as there is a set of rules, rational or otherwise. This is why the cult of CAGW qualifies as a religion, because it has a set of rules that one must adhere to, while “scientists” substitute for god to give the religion authority, and the media substitutes for the church to provide unity and power.
This is also why the more liberal a person is, the less likely they are to be religious, because to be liberal, you need to be able to change the rules as you go, and living by a standard set of rules doesn’t work very well for them.
One of the best, simplest and most correct descriptions on this entire thread.
I agree with much of what you say there, Hoyt, but this distinction;
“The atheist may have his/her own rules that they follow “religiously”, but atheism alone is not a religion because it comes with no common set of rules to live by..”
… seems rather arbitrary to me, when compared to how you speak of another group;
“This is why the cult of CAGW qualifies as a religion, because it has a set of rules that one must adhere to, while “scientists” substitute for god to give the religion authority, and the media substitutes for the church to provide unity and power.”
I would say that if an atheist (if not already in the group you just declared a religion ; ) treats “scientists” in the same manner, as authorities on God, or the reasonableness of believing God exists and so on, then it’s religion too, indeed is the same basic religion in a sense . .
Science worship (A branch of human authority worship) seems to me to be rampant among non-theists now, and in society as a whole, and the media substitutes for the church to provide unity and power, as you put it. (And deniers of science have been alleged to lurk around here ; )
Religion is a mental disorder, it doesn’t matter who you are, be it Einstein or Newton.
that’s RATIONALIST!
🙂
mountainape5: I have a psychology book, not written by a religious group, on the human mind that looks at how we need religion; especially in difficult situations. When you look at the total of the human race and realize that all cultures seems to have invented a religion or a god, you begin to realize that most people want to believe in something bigger than themselves.
Retired Engineer John:
That would be true for the people living 2000 years ago, they didn’t know any better. Believing in a religion with the knowledge we have now is a bit crazy. Hence I called it mental disorder.
mountainape5 writes “Believing in a religion with the knowledge we have now is a bit crazy.”
Buddhism exists. I believe it exists. I am not crazy but you are dabbling at the edges of sanity.
I believe religion exists. So do you. Hence this conversation.
“Hence I called it mental disorder.”
You did that because it empowers you to be rude to other people. It is likely your only excellence. It also reveals you lack a degree in psychology.
There is no “we” in the “knowledge we have”. I have some knowledge, you seem to have a bit less; but that’s okay, plenty of room to add more!
========
“The insensible and inactive disposition, which should be supposed alike destitute of both, would be rejected, by the common consent of mankind, as utterly incapable of procuring any happiness to the individual, or any public benefit to the world. But it was not in this world that the primitive Christians were desirous of making themselves either agreeable or useful.”
-Gibbon, Decline & Fall, (re: doctrine of the immortality of the soul among the philosophers)
========
Early Christianity dealt a serious blow to civilization. It was not compatible with the search for truth.
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/winter.html
That’s why we had a “dark age.”
Christianity got started in Europe with Charlemagne beheading of 4500 Saxons at the Massacre of Verden.
==========
“If any one of the race of the Saxons hereafter concealed among them shall have wished to hide himself unbaptized, and shall have scorned to come to baptism and shall have wished to remain a pagan, let him be punished by death.”
–Charlemagne, Capitulatio de partibus Saxoniae
==========
Actually, Christianity was already far advanced in Europe when Charlemagne forcibly converted the Saxons. Others in northern and eastern Europe converted peacefully, when their rulers did, with the possible exceptions of the indigenous Prussians and Lithuanians, the last converts.
Wait, you mean there are bright, attentive people who don’t believe everything came from nothing for no reason whatsoever?
Did dinosaurs died for a reason?
mountainape5 “Did dinosaurs died for a reason?”
Of course. Some died of old age, some were squashed by an asteroid, quite a few were eaten.
and we can end up with the tooth fairy:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e83_1449287026
Atheists are intellectually dishonest. It is a faith-based religion. Something cannot come from nothing…period.
Even nothing being split into positive and negative needs an energy input of some sort.
This leaves something beyond time and space and our comprehension giving birth to time and space. God is a valid label for such an entity, particularly if existence itself is a form of consciousness and our conscious experience a manifestation or reflection of that.
In fact applying Occam’s razor leaves God the preferable explanation as the universe being sentient or existence itself being sentient has explanations for our conscious experience and the finely balanced nature of particles and forces necessary for life built into it already without the need for infinite dimensions and possibilities which would inherently include a God anyway.
The Flying Spaghetti monster is debunked due to the fact that God creating time and space means he exists beyond time and space and thus one cannot ascribe time/space characteristics to him such as ‘Flying’ or ‘spaghetti’
The ‘Who created God then? Argument is debunked for the same reason, everything in time and space needs a beginning, as God created time and space he exists beyond it and needs no beginning.
Krauss’s ‘something from nothing’ theory is erroneously-based as he’s referencing quantum space fluctuations involving virtual photons that pop in and out of our dimension. This occurs in time/space and is not from ‘nothing’. Other time space dimensions are still time/space dimensions and merely because we’re not currently able to detect or measure them does not mean they’re ‘nothing’. The hidden dimension postulated that Gravity seeps to and from and thus presents itself as weak compared to the other forces is still a dimension and not ‘nothing’.
Let’s get to the REAL reason for all the attack on religion shall we?….
Religion is a barrier to the new world order as it promotes individual rights, morality and family, all antithetical to the globalist Darwinian divide and conquer collectivist ethos. The likely globalist plan for humanity is a Hunger games type Orwellian communist world government and they want complete devotion to the state hence they must remove any institution that promotes devotion to a God or something other than the state. The banker-owned governments of the world can control an environmental religion as they are already it’s stewards through legislation, emissions trading, ‘bioreserves’ etc. This is why the Christians were thrown to the lions, the Romans didn’t want a religion challenging their sway.
This is why there has been a massive ‘New Atheist’ movement in the media. It has been promoted as hip and intellectual, part of the Liberal suite of memes comprising the complete guide to being a Statist sycophant.
The word ‘atheist’ is what the Christians use when they can not handle the ridicule they are in for when they shriek ‘HERETIC!’.
The labeling of heretics is of great tribal significance to whom?
And the purpose of identifying somebody not of your tribe as OTHER is?
That’s right. Your hidden meaning is hanging out. It’s very small.
gnomish “The word ‘atheist’ is what the Christians use when they can not handle the ridicule they are in for when they shriek ‘HERETIC!’.”
I am a libertarian. I am immune to ridicule; on the rare instance I realize it is taking place that is. It is the liberal left that is moved to action by fear of ridicule. Saul Alinsky Rule 5 I think.
I use atheist to signify either of two broad categories: non-theists (don’t know, don’t care); and anti-theists such as “mountainape”.
Ridicule me if you can.
Michael 2-
“Ridicule me if you can.” ??
While your desire to indulge yourself in a bit of masochism is very Christian, as a proper sadist, my response must be to just say ‘no’ (with a smirk and arched brow, naturally).
You’re a smart guy, Hercules. Keep trying. There’s a cross out there with your name on it, somewhere.
gnomish “You’re a smart guy, Hercules.”
Yes.
“There’s a cross out there with your name on it, somewhere.”
With a name like mine I suspect a great many exist as you describe.
Your comment on “definitions” was interesting and very well written.
gnomish,
“The word ‘atheist’ is what the Christians use when they can not handle the ridicule they are in for when they shriek ‘HERETIC!’.”
This is not something I wish to discuss here, but having been in that camp for a while now, I can honestly say that atheists are seen as closer to variable, and there are far more menacing critters which stalk this body of Christ. There’s another side to this extra-materialistic realm, ya know . .
Yes! Elvis will save us – if we believe!
Only evil worshipers of the Anti-Elvis deny the divinity of Elvis!
Elvis can’t be effed – he’s ineffable!
Elvis can’t be scruted!
We’re all striving for perfect Elvisness!
Elvis can’t be muted – he’s immutable!
Elvis Eats Boats!
It’s so sad if anyone has not been Chosen to ExPeRiEnCe the ReVeLaTiOn because they can’t know Elvis!
Have you got any proof that your “god” exists and my god “Hercules” doesn’t?
mountainape5 “Have you got any proof that your god exists and my god Hercules doesn’t?”
No. It is entirely possible that Hercules exists.
sabretruthtiger writes “Something cannot come from nothing…period.”
Applies to god’s existence too. It’s a failed argument to assert someone must have started it all.
sabretruthtiger,
I suggest you place a word like ‘many’ in front of such a declaration as you’re being persecuted ; ) for making, if you don’t actually mean all atheists.
Good comment overall though, I say.
There is little conflict indeed.
Religion is belief.
Science is knowledge.
Reply to Alex ==> Religion is based on knowledge of spiritual things. Science is based on knowledge of physical things. Mature understanding of the universe requires both kinds of knowledge.
That’s what the survey of scientists was about….that’s why so few are avowed atheists.
Dear Kip,
Scientific knowledge is something verifiable.
Religion is faith that cannot be verified.
alax,
“Religion is faith that cannot be verified.”
Only if one assumes God does not exist . . If such a Being exists It can, by definition, confirm anything It wishes to.
Kip Hansen,
Religion is based on faith in (god(s)). Science is based on reason verified by corroborated observation of what exists (reality /nature). A human may have some mixture of both and if one is not excluded from the other on any given specific topic/ subject then it presents an inherently irrational situation.
Your use of the terms ‘spirits / spiritual’ implies that you have a dual metaphysics à la Plato & Kant.
John
Reply to John ==>
Whoever defined religion as “Religion is based on faith in (god(s)).”? Using a strawman caricature of religion is not a good basis for a serious discussion on a site based on logic and critical thinking.
I minored (then majored) in religion at university, UCSB, along with studying the long hard road aimed at medical school (alas, never got there) — so took all those hard math and science courses. I assure you, in the Department of Religious Studies, such a definition would be laughed out of the room as woefully incomplete and sophomoric.
I acknowledge that people who have never experienced anything of a spiritual nature, who have never had personal experiences that inform them of its reality, are simply ignorant — in the sense that they have no knowledge of. These people often claim that such things do not exist — and for them, it is true, as they have never seen nor experienced any such thing. So be it for them.
But for such persons to say: “Because I have never experienced anything spiritual, spiritual things do not and can not exist.” is not a rational statement.
For a scientist to say “I have never experienced anything spiritual, and you can not make me experience it by experiment, and since I am not willing to accept your personal experiences, or the personal experiences of any of my many religious colleagues, as any kind of proof, then I am justified in saying that no such thing exists nor can it exist.” is equally not a rational statement.
This study shows that there are an awful lot of religious scientists. How can that be? How is it that they can be scientists and spiritual at the same time? Aren’t you curious?
The bishop of my church congregation is a PhD’d physicist — working on classified laser technologies. Many of the men and women in our congregation work at the Kennedy Space Center in the space program — all hard-core scientists.
Don’t you wonder what it is that they know that you don’t?
Kip Hansen writes: “How is it that they can be scientists and spiritual at the same time? Aren’t you curious?”
They are curious. That is why we are having this conversation. Some fear the possibility. Pascal’s Wager seems relevant.
Some flavors of religion are considerably more amenable to science while purifying religion itself. Render unto Caesar, in other words:
“The scriptures tell why man was created, but they do not tell how, though the Lord has promised that he will tell that when he comes again”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_views_on_evolution
“Leave Geology, Biology, Archaeology, and Anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research” (same source)
Kip Hansen:
Well put! Thankyou for saying it.
Richard
Kip Hansen,
Your premise above is that something you call ‘spirit’ or ‘spiritual’ is essentially belonging only to the religious. I do not think you have a correct premise when one considers a broader perspective than just the theist (religion) centric view.
There is something, not predicated on being religious, called the human spirit whose presence makes us, in a sense, spiritual beings. It is not predicated on being religious, its occurrence is irrelevant to being religious. Humans quo humans all have a potential for experiences of certain kind that are associated with the human spirit. It is an transient experience where there are the following characteristics happening simultaneously: (1) occurrence of an abnormally high crystal-clear lucidity of perception of surroundings; (2) an abnormally intense emotional feeling that can be a sort glowing within with an uplifting sense; (3) an occurrence of subconsciously integrated experiences condensed into some previously un-thought of manifestly evident ideas or connections or thought organizations; (4) so strong are the simultaneous occurrence all of those three that they are burnt into our memory or consciousness for life.
Humans have the experience described above, so humans have human spirit with human spirit caused human spirituality. It belongs to a much larger group of humans (humans as humans) than religious people.
As to your discussion about there being a significant number (perhaps the vast majority) of very professional people pursuing science in a scientifically professional way who also have some part of their world view and actions based on profound religious faith, well . . . . of course. A vital focus is not on the existence of an epistemological mixed situation in a person. A vital focus is the essential fundamental concepts and premises at the base of the two epistemological positions that yields them being epistemological irrelevant to each other. {Note: when I used the terms ‘epistemology/ epistemological’ above I imply also the necessary associated fundamental metaphysic concepts}
John
“But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
The full quote basically just means scientists believe that there are fundamental truths, laws, to be found. If they didn’t there would no need for the scientific method; science would be lame. But even if you hold that belief, without a scientific method you are blind to those truths.
Xenophanes [ around 500BC] put it rather well…..
“The Ethiops say that their gods are flat-nosed and black,
While the Thracians say that theirs have blue eyes and red hair.
Yet if cattle or horses or lions had hands and could draw,
And could sculpt like men, then the horses would draw their gods
Like horses, and cattle like cattle; and each they would shape
Bodies of gods in the likeness, each kind, of their own.”
I’m religious, though feel less need than others for ceremony, etc. I’m pursuaded in part by philosophical arguments along the lines of the “first mover” arguments, i.e. Aristotelian and Thomistic arguments. I believe, once you arrive at a “first mover” in this manner, then logically see what general traits such a concept entails, it most closely resembles the Judeo-Christian god.
I take the Bible, especially the Old Testament, not as a stick with which to beat people over the head, nor a tool used by snake oil salesmen to exploit or control people (though both have certainly occurred). Instead, it tells a story of a people who came to realize that cultural ethical norms certainly do have societal consequences, good and bad. This pattern certainly was objective to them, and one could argue continues today (single parenthood, some argue, is the largest contributor to poverty levels, dishonesty and corruption in government lead to ruin, etc.). In this sense, that there is a set of objective moral values seems to indicate to me also a “first mover” that is in some analogically way, a moral agent of sorts. The Old Testament and New Testsment, combined, show an evolution of moral and ethical standards through that community until roughly the end of its cannonical texts. Man discovers moral behavior, in my humble opinion, as opposed to inventing it out of whole cloth.
Perhaps religion grew out of a desire to explain the world around man. Natural phenomenon, the cosmology, etc. However, it would be a form of the genetic fallacy to criticize the truth of religion based upon how it came to be.
The lead post, and the quotes from research it referenced, used the terms ‘atheist’, ‘scientists’, ‘religious people’ and ‘those in between’.
Let’s distinguish between the four terms.
‘Atheist’ is an intentionally biased term developed by theists. Refreshing the concept in non-theistic context, let’s use the term ‘profound skeptic of myhology’.
‘Scientist’ is a person whose focus is, for any given aspect of reality, on applying reason based on corroborated observations of the pertinent parts of reality.
‘Religious person’ is a theist. A theist holds the world view of profound faith in religious stories (aka mythology).
‘Those in between’, I guess, refers to eclectically pragmatic folk who pick and choose what parts of their live and world view they are religious about and which parts they are scientific about and which parts they are ‘‘profound skeptic of myhology’’ about.
I am interested in refining those terms based on comments. I would appreciate it.
John
John- what you really need to do is write a proper dictionary where the rule of logic and set theory are not violated. That will get the set of cognitive tools that will cleanly parse any proposition.
Words are our tools of cognition. The definition of a ‘word’ is ‘a symbol with a definition’; the definition of ‘definition’ is ‘the set of distinguishing characteristics that classify the labeled entity’.
Carry on that way thru ‘truth’, ‘morality’, ‘ethics’, ‘beauty’ – grab the ones alleged to be difficult first cuz once you’ve whipped those the rest is freakin simple.
Then sit back and look at what a grammar nazi you become. Listen to the grunts, groans, hoots and screeches of the semiotic mob who are not even using words. Your cup of optimism will get to half.empty fast.
e.g. YOU are able to understand that A-theism is a concept whose parents were theist. But not one monkey in a thousand is able to do that for lack of words. What they utter and what they type are incantations, coos of approval, growls of disapproval, mumbles in fluent gibberish.
The fact is that flawless thinking absolutely requires flawless cognitive tools.
I know you enjoy the interaction, but definitions will not be produced by a congregation. You might get some form of ululation. It will be a whole lot more work to get others who can’t to do what you don’t.
So, if you really want it done- there’s just one way.
gnomish on December 5, 2015 at 11:21 pm
– – – – – – – – – –
gnomish,
Oops, I responded to your comment outside of this thread. Please find my reply in a new thread below.
John
Theist – one who believes in god or god(s).
Atheist – not, or against, the belief in god or god(s)
Agnostic – one who doesn’t know, in this context, one who doesn’t know if god or god(s) exist (“ignoramous” in the Latin)
Scientist – one who applies the scientific method to acquire knowledge about the observable world
Note that scientists can fall into one of the three former groups, and that science and (a)theism are not mutually exclusive. Science is a subset of the knowledge that can be known by humans, and presenting it as being in opposition to theism is fallacious.
Justin writes “Science is a subset of the knowledge that can be known by humans, and presenting it as being in opposition to theism is fallacious.”
Except in the case that science is treated by some people as a religion, in which case it is rival with all others.
(Great, now e get to be pestered by the atheist wing of the social justice special word warriors ; )
John Whitman writes: “Let’s distinguish between the four terms.”
That would be a good start but probably impossible to achieve.
“Atheist is an intentionally biased term developed by theists. Refreshing the concept in non-theistic context, let’s use the term profound skeptic of myhology.”
Bias is in the mind of the beholder. It has no more intrinsic bias than “theist”. It simply means “not theist” while implying absolutely nothing else. Theist, in turn, is not about myhology in the first place, therefore atheist is also not about myhology, an attempt which appears to be your own intentional bias.
Atheist ought also to be split into ordinary atheism (not-theism) and anti-theism which goes out of its way to battle theism; and thus becomes just another religion; the dark side of one specific for each atheist. That is to say, I notice that strong atheists (anti-theists) tend to oppose a specific instance of theism and tend to ignore all other religions, lumping them all together as if only Catholics existed thus only anti-Catholics oppose them. It takes a few rounds of questions to discern what exactly you oppose; it is usually a moral code of conduct since otherwise, who cares if your grandmother worships a weeping statue?
“Scientist is a person whose focus is, for any given aspect of reality, on applying reason based on corroborated observations of the pertinent parts of reality.”
It’s simpler than that. A scientist is one that does science. To me, science is the art and results of measuring and calculating that which can be measured and calculated.
“Religious person is a theist. A theist holds the world view of profound faith in religious stories (aka mythology).”
Not necessarily. A theist probably believes in a god or gods; but may well not worship that god, might even oppose that god. A religious person is anyone whose opinions are very strong, who behaves in accordance with his strong beliefs, and believes others ought also to believe and act in the same way.
Thus, you can have a religious theist and a religious atheist (both are here on display). You can also have non-religious theists (college social science departments), and religious theists (at church; if they’ve bothered to study much that is). Merely going to church doesn’t make one a theist but might be counted as religious (provided you chose to go because of belief and not because of the social consequences of NOT going).
Thus, a person can be (and frequently is) religious about Apple computers or global warming.
“I am interested in refining those terms based on comments. I would appreciate it.”
To have a conversation with anyone about any topic, due respect must be given to the other person’s valuation of whatever is being discussed. While I have a doubt that statues of Mary actually shed tears, it would be disrespectful and accomplish absolutely nothing positive to make it my life’s work debunking such things (Michael Shermer comes to mind).
Furthermore, when you are actually in the minority it helps to not provoke the majority, even though it may be entertaining to do so. I am simultaneously in a majority (those that at least loosely believe in God or a god of some sort, or at least angels); but a minority (my particular flavor of those beliefs which is in some places nearly as despised as an atheist). The only thing an anti-theist has going for him is equal opportunity shunning from everyone other than perhaps Buddhists.
Michael 2,
Your comment was extensive and sincere, thanks.
The reasoning for my assessment that the theist’s term ‘atheist’ is biased in favor of theist centric views follows. I think humans are born without concepts (ideas); they must develop them. If a human is not educated on theism and not burdened with cultural legacies involving theistic memes, then the human using applied reasoning and simple logic can easily (but not always) hold that theism is irrelevant to him. To call such a person something that has at root the word ‘theist’(such as atheist or non-theist or angnostic or etc) irrationally places theism at the center of the discussion when it is actually not at the center or even a significant topic outside of itself. Using the term ‘atheist’ is giving a false primacy to theism in discussion on world views, philosophy or basic principles or etc. To abandon the bias in theist centrism of aspects focused outside of itself (atheist for example) seem reasonable precaution to mitigate against theist bias.
So, what term to use for such a human (as I outlined in preceeding paragraph) that can de-centralize theism where it isn’t rationally any reason to be the centric issue? I offered in my original post a term suggested to un-biased the discussion by instead of using ‘atheist’ to use ‘profound skeptic of mythology’ but even that term is lacking independence from a ‘theistic’ centric meme since mythology encapsulates theism.
I think another term that might de-bias theist centeredness would be the following. I suggest to use ‘human’ for all humans and to differentiate epistemologically between between ‘supernatural focused humans’ and ‘natural focused humans’. I guess a third differentiation is ‘mixed supernatural and natural focused human’ of those who, ad hoc, eclectically choose when, how and what to epistemically to focus on.
There is a need for the above discussion, I think, to show the limitations of theistic centric discussions on the broader issue in metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and politics. There is a need to demonstrate theism isn’t centric but is irrelevant to a larger context but theism is relevant to itself only.
As to your idea that there can be religions that have no gods but worship things, movements, people, or animals . . . you are correct. However, the focus is on the historically dominate mainstream major religions continuously active over the past ~~1,000 years or more. So, the focus is about theism, where God is explicitly the essence of the religion being discussed.
I understand your concerns and cautions about emotionally upsetting religious folks by being very starkly critical in discussion of the metaphysical, epistemological and historic bases of theism, religions and their necessary mythologies. Virtually all of my friends, professional associates and family are religious. Civil discussion is possible between ‘supernatural focused humans’, ‘natural focused humans’ and ‘mixed supernatural and natural focused humans’ but of course such discussion is fraught with extremely high chance of offending those with profound faith in theism and its necessary mythologies. Faith they depend on for some needed shelter, stability and serenity. Sigh, it is difficult to have discussions in the matter. But, when there is a posting that has a juxtaposition of religion (theism/mythology), science and epistemology/metaphysics (philosophy), then I see no merit in silence just because someone might be emotionally distraught about the dialogue; however I strongly urge the dialogue be strictly civil.
John
John Whitman wrote “To abandon the bias in theist centrism…”
A simpler, hopefully still accurate representation of your argument is achieved by game metaphor. In chess or Futbol/soccer, a tactical advantage is held by holding the center of the field able to defend and to attack in all directions.
Religious people have staked out the center. I doubt religious people call themselves “theists”. I certainly never have called myself such a thing. But it is likely that from this privileged position came the word “atheist” whose common meaning is usually anti-theist, in opposition to theism, not merely ignoring it.
No need exists to abandon bias nor is it possible. I am pretty sure that nearly all westerners are culturally indoctrinated in rather a lot of religion, maybe even “thou shalt not kill” although not quite universally embraced.
I imagine it unlikely that the privileged center will just walk back to their goal posts you SO can have the center; but stranger things happen in western nations frequently.
JW writes (in part): “So, what term to use for such a human that can de-centralize theism where it isn’t rationally any reason to be the centric issue?”
I doubt a word exists; and if it did, it would immediately be coopted and poisoned and changed into something else. Context is extremely important; where theism IS the central issue, as for instance this article and its comments, theist and atheist are effective terms; each having nuances of course.
Neither word captures a willingness to explore ideas but neither word denies the possibility. A person wishing to explore and challenge beliefs, his own and that of others, I’d probably bestow the title “scholar”.
“I offered in my original post a term suggested to un-biased the discussion by instead of using ‘atheist’ to use ‘profound skeptic of mythology’ but even that term is lacking independence from a ‘theistic’ centric meme since mythology encapsulates theism.”
It also encapsulates your own dismissive judgment from the very beginning IF, as is usually the case, mythology is synonymous with fiction. Where mythology is not assumed to be fiction your labeling is reasonable; but even there, “skeptic” has by now also become poisoned by global warming advocacy and has also changed meaning as often used.
Consequently, since no single word captures accurately your intention, it becomes necessary to use redundancy and diversity; to encompass an idea with a variety of approaches, none of which are precisely accurate but the substance of all of them point to an attractor, an idea, that may not itself be visible or even properly labeled.
Black holes cannot be seen, but their existence inferred from behavior of nearby objects. So it is with discussing “metaphysics” — objects that cannot be seen, nor even discussed directly for lack of words, but inferred by the aggregate of stories told and language used trying to convey an idea.
I believe some of the apparent contradiction in the bible, for instance, is redundancy. Hidden knowledge is encompassed by the aggregate forces of all those stories; but the thing itself is invisible and lacks a word. Because of that it is also less vulnerable to deliberate alteration and corruption.
Some of that hidden knowledge are the bounds of commandments; thou shalt not kill except for some situations that help paint the boundaries of the law and reveal that no law is cast in iron; they form a hierarchy in two dimensions — ones that supercede another in all circumstances, but also commandments that are lateral and depend on the situation which to apply.
True religion will be a natural religion; it will be the one that corresponds perfectly with observation while at the same time still being a religion. Depending on your experience that might not seem possible, but what if such a thing could exist? What if such a religion does not call for elaborate ritual and liturgy, but encapsulates a preferred, effective, forward-looking vision for humanity and all living things? To a large extent I consider my own religion to be exactly that. If God is omnipotent, then he is choosing to not reveal himself to most people. If he is not omnipotent, but still the supremest instance of the species, he might not actually be able to force himself on everyone even if he wishes to, or he might still wish NOT to.
It is thus SO much easier to just be an atheist. I consider that the lazy way out.
Last reply to John Whitmans post: “I understand your concerns and cautions about emotionally upsetting religious folks by being very starkly critical in discussion of the metaphysical, epistemological and historic bases of theism, religions and their necessary mythologies.”
I am not easily offended by most things; such as offends me seems to be confined to someone else’s arrogance. I do not know why I should be offended by hubris or arrogance in another person.
I think in order to be offended you would have to know me very well so that I valued your opinion, and then cast a stone. I think also that offense exists where you are attacking a foundation that is vulnerable; people fear the consequence. In my case, since I know there’s some sort of God, and rather a lot more in that realm, your attack would be like tossing water balloons at a bridge pylon. It barely notices the splashes. But in a different setting, such as at church, your challenge would require a response because of the social consequences of failing to respond.
As to the historic basis of theism and religions; I might as well be non-theist to all that. Such things are interesting and important to the evolution of law, politics and culture but says very little about God. Science and religion were once pretty much the same thing; religion and politics also pretty much the same thing to this very day in many places — in a democracy, politics cannot be separated from religion: What you believe will influence or even dictate your vote and the only reason for the non-establishment clause in the United States is fear by one religion of dominance by another; an agreement that nobody’s religion will be dominant at least in government. But even then, Christian morality finds its way into law so long as it isn’t a “church” per se.
I am stimulated to a thought — religion is more committed than atheism, especially non-theism. People will sacrifice their lives for their religion; how many non-theists will do likewise? None; because they have no religion. If they are willing to give their lives for a cause, any cause whatsoever, that cause *is* their religion. A religious person is a person whose “cause” and god-belief are aligned.
JohnKnight,
I am not sure if your comment was addressed to my comment above.
If you are addressing me, it seems reasonable to me that you are saying you don’t need the words in your statement to have any meaning or context. N’est ce pas?
John
Yes, John, it was a response to your comment.
Again; “social justice” tomfoolery here, I warn.
JohnKnight,
I understand. Thanks for the warning about all participants on the thread potentially devolving into some kind of ‘social’ nether region. It often does.
John
gnomish,
I think the dialogue on the juxtaposition of science (reasoning applied to reality) and theism (faith in mythological stories) is not a solipsist’s** wet dream. Humans can and do openly discuss all parts of reality, discuss reality as a whole, and discuss the nature of humans quo humans as part of reality. Some humans in the dialogue can actually have the motive of achieving objective understanding while others do not have that motive.
I do “enjoy the interaction” in the sense that I enjoy ideas (aka concepts). I enjoy: how they occur; their basis (premises); their logical worth; their relationship (aka hierarchy of concepts); their effect on humans; their implications for opening up the knowledge of the world or their implications for descent into irrational absurdity. Actual, not enjoy . . . I love it.
** solipsism: philosophical theory that the self is the only thing that can be known and verified. The view that the self is the only reality.
John
I know someone that was an atheist raised by atheist.
It was in studying the human eye that it dawned on her that such a thing couldn’t be an undirected act of the natural laws and random chance.
There had to be “a god”.
She took that next step that so often people don’t take. She wanted to know Him. Not what people said about God but God Himself. He proved Himself to her. She is, as I am, learning and believing more about what He’s done and growing closer to Him in the process.
Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
PS She now a Doctor of Optometry.
Michael Darby “…human eyes … are functionally equivalent to chimpanzees in color perception, binocular vision, field of view, etc.”
I am amazed by the wealth of collective knowledge on display here today.
Don’t forget the eyes the of squid and octopus. While they aren’t closely related in Man’s theoretical family tree, I’m sure a few of the ladies out there would swear they’ve dated one.
I see no indication in the account above that anyone involved was of the opinion or impression that only human eyes are remarkable . . Had the story related been about a person who experienced such a “realization” as related here, was studying the eyes of octopi or chimpanzees, would anyone have made comments about them not being “special”, one wonders . . (very little, for one doubts it very much ; )
(I ought to have typed “… the opinions of Evolutionists” near the end.)
John,
Of course I have evidence for the fact of evolution, all the evidence in the world and none against it. While in the 19th century, it was an insight and an inference, comparable to Copernicus’ hypothesis regarding the earth and the sun, later it was shown an objective reality. Today, the fact of evolution or extinction are known to be the unavoidable results of reproduction via increasingly well understood genetic mechanisms.
Just because you claim never to have observed evolution doesn’t mean it’s not a fact. You should have looked harder or read more. Uneducated people imagine that evolution always takes many generations, via natural selection and stochastic processes, such as genetic drift and reproductive isolation. It often does, especially for the evolution of higher taxa, such as families, orders, classes and phyla. But for the origin of new species and even genera, it doesn’t. New species can and do evolve in a single generation, overnight, as it were.
Among these quick and dirty evolutionary processes are polyploidy, hybridization, gross chromosomal translocations and simple, even point, mutations. Instances abound, so I can’t believe you have looked very deeply into the subject. It’s generally better to have studied a subject before presuming to declare pronouncements upon it out of ignorance.
Human evolution included all of the rapid means mentioned above, as well as slower selective and stochastic processes.
Some simple and well-known (to those who actually have studied evolution) instances of less than overnight speciation are the evolution of nylon-eating bacteria from their sugar-eating mother species, due to point mutations. These are also examples of a formerly lethal mutation becoming beneficial in a changed environment. The countless times that these mutations occurred previously led to dead daughter microbes, but after nylon entered their environment, the mutations became advantageous.
The polyploid origin of new species is more common in plants than animals. Indeed, estimates of the number of polyploid species of plants range from 30 to 80%. Animals, including humans, do however show frequent gene duplications, to include whole genomes, making redundant genetic material available for innovation.
Gloteous,
This is what I gather you’re argument comes down to (I have to state it, because youpre not, so correct me if I’m weong, please)
Many living things exist
There is no God
Therefore;
The living things must have developed bit by bit over time.
I suppose this could be developed into an argument; but as it stands here, it’s just as assertion.
“Some simple and well-known (to those who actually have studied evolution) instances of less than overnight speciation are the evolution of nylon-eating bacteria from their sugar-eating mother species, due to point mutations.”
No one is arguing change (evolution) does not occur. Children are not identical to their parents, so “evolution” is proven. Got that, don[t bother to argue for it any more, please. The question is about whether or not ALL living things developed gradually over time from non-living things; the theory of Evolution.
Now in the case of bacteria mutating to be able to metabolize some byproducts of nylon manufacture (as I understand it), you have not made an actual case/argument, but merely made an assertion. Essentially an argument from authority (some scientist say). I can’t argue against that . . o lot of different people say a lot of different things. So what?
From a professional standpoint, she would have been better off studying the evolution of vertebrate vision, which has been well understood for some time now, whatever she may have gained in her personal life from her anti-scientific reaction to the anatomy of the human, ie great ape, eye.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/12/21/evolution-of-vertebrate-eyes/
“she would have been better off studying the evolution of vertebrate vision”
Says Doctor Maximus.
I’m not an optometrist so I don’t know what they study. It seems unlikely that the course work would not involve studying the eyes of other critters. But to look at the eye and realize there is something greater is somehow “anti-scientific”?
Does such a person suddenly lose the ability to accurately observe and measure what they see in the natural realm? Are they “anti-scientific” because they might be more skeptical of some of the “settled science” or because they believe along the lines of “Science is thinking God’s thoughts after him”?
Michael and Gunga,
Yes, I am a doctor, a PhD in molecular biology. Not that it matters, since ad hominem attacks mean you have already lost. What does matter is whether what I say be true or not.
The observed fact is that there is nothing at all supernatural about the vertebrate eye, which is inferior to the separately evolved mollusk eye, for instance. Understanding the evolution of the human eye would certainly be preferable for an optometrist than not doing so, but not essential.
Some of my students at the Baptist-affiliated college where I used to teach went on to become optometrists. However, despite most being evangelical Christians, they at least got to study the fact of evolution rather than pretend it doesn’t exist.
There are lots of good reasons for embracing religion, but the structure of the eye isn’t among them. There is not only no need for an eye-designer, but if one existed, he, she or it would be an incredibly stupid, not intelligent designer.
Gloateus Maximus “Yes, I am a doctor, a PhD in molecular biology.”
and that apparently makes you an expert on eyes. I had no idea.
“Not that it matters”
Why then did you bring it up?
“since ad hominem attacks mean you have already lost.”
Uh, what exactly did I lose? Whatever it was, you lost it first 🙂
“What does matter is whether what I say be true or not.”
You recommended an evolutionary study of eyes. This is not a true/false claim, it is your recommendation for a course of study.
“The observed fact is that there is nothing at all supernatural about the vertebrate eye”
Quite right. It is impossible for there to be something not natural in anything natural. It’s a tautology so not very impressive argumentation, but I’ll grant you half a point.
“which is inferior to the separately evolved mollusk eye, for instance.”
If you say so. I prefer owl and eagle eyes but I wonder what they give up to achieve incredible resolving power.
“Understanding the evolution of the human eye would certainly be preferable for an optometrist than not doing so, but not essential.”
That seems obvious. What an eye looked like 2 million years ago does not seem particularly necessary to my eye doctor. There may indeed be some use to it; perhaps our resident molecular biologist can make this non-obvious connection.
“Some of my students at the Baptist-affiliated college where I used to teach went on to become optometrists.”
Seemingly a non-sequitur but glad to hear it.
“However, despite most being evangelical Christians, they at least got to study the fact of evolution rather than pretend it doesn’t exist.”
In the United States (presumably) it would seem unlawful to forbid studying evolution in college. However, I wonder what difference it makes whether we were created yesterday or evolved over billions of years. For an eye doctor, what matters is what eyes are *right now*.
“There are lots of good reasons for embracing religion, but the structure of the eye isn’t among them.”
You seem to be rather exercised by it.
“There is not only no need for an eye-designer, but if one existed, he, she or it would be an incredibly stupid, not intelligent designer.”
As judged by you. I wonder what your perfect eye would be?
Gloteis Maxinus,
“From a professional standpoint, she would have been better off studying the evolution of vertebrate vision, which has been well understood for some time now, whatever she may have gained in her personal life from her anti-scientific reaction to the anatomy of the human, ie great ape, eye.”
Say what? Ant-scientific? Not seeing things as you do renders people anti-scientific? Amazing pomposity . . (you named yourself well ; )
Here’s a clue; People making up little stories about how biological organisms of organs etc might have come to be what they are, is people making up stories, not people doing real science. That someone says they can imagine something coming into existence bit bit by bit, only demonstrates they can imagine it, not that it actually happened, or even could happened that way.
I realize that his castes virtually all of Evolution theory into a non-scientific realm, and I mean it too. There is very little actual evidence I am aware of (and I’ve looked, because I believed in this theories validity for many years), and invite you to produce any scientific evidence of significance to substantiate it. (But no, I will not treat mer3e opinions of Evolutions as scientific fact, anymore than I will opinions of Astrologers in that way.
Give me your best evidence, sir, if you have any worth mention.
(Oops, I posted this int the wrong sub-thread above (growing dark in this room, and I didn’t turn on a light before posting the last few times ; )
I ought to have typed; “… the opinions of Evolutionists..” near the end.
Michael,
Perfection is not the issue. Earth has an example of a superior eye “design” which evolved separately from the vertebrate eye. As I mentioned, the mollusk eye is objectively a better design. It’s not a matter of opinion, but of fact. I don’t have to be an expert on eyes to know that fact, just a biologist.
Evolution is a scientific fact, ie direct observations and unavoidable inferences from other observations. It is also an ever-developing body of theory explaining that fact, just as the ever-developing theory of universal gravitation attempts to explain physical observations. Same goes for other well-established but still improving theories such as the atomic theory of matter, the germ theory of disease, quantum mechanics, the Big Bang and plate tectonics.
Gloateus Maximus “the mollusk eye is objectively a better design. It’s not a matter of opinion”
I suspect it strongly IS a matter of opinion. What exactly makes it a better design, and who decides that it is better, and better for what purpose? Since you aren’t saying I suppose I’ll have to turn to the ultimate source of biased information, Wikipedia.
“Cephalopod eyes are superior in design to all vertebrate eyes because they don’t have a blind spot.”
Well there’s where opinion creeps in; you value not having a blind spot vastly more than I value it.
I’d still rather have eagle eyes, blind spot included, and I’m pretty happy with what I’ve got.
So, declarations that it’s a fact, are evidence that it’s a fact.
Fabulous ; )
Gloteous,
“Earth has an example of a superior eye “design” which evolved separately from the vertebrate eye. As I mentioned, the mollusk eye is objectively a better design. It’s not a matter of opinion, but of fact.”
So, it’s your contention that if you suspended an octopus at five thousand feet in the air, it could see mice better than a hawk? Or are you claiming a hawk would bot see very well if you stuck it on the bottom of the sea?
John,
I declared nothing for which I didn’t provide you evidence. Sorry, but all the evidence in “creation”, as it were, shows evolution to be a fact and no evidence shows it false. Predictions made on its basis are shown valid and those based upon creationism invariably are show false.
Instead of just asserting falsely what I didn’t do, why not try to respond to the factual instances of evolution I gave you. Apparently no evidence will ever persuade you out of your cultish belief in creationism.
Cephalopod eyes are superior in design to all vertebrate eyes because they don’t have a blind spot. In cephalopods, the optic nerve approaches the receptors from behind, so there is no break in the retina. You confuse functional environmental adaptations with fundamental design. Eagles’ eyes have evolved to permit resolution from altitude, but they still have the blind spot. Put an eagle underwater and it would be at a disadvantage compared to the least resolving cephalopod.
Richard already mentioned why cephalopod eyes are better designed than vertebrates’, so I didn’t go into detail, assuming you had read his comment.
There’s no question that Man has a blind spot.
What will fill it?
Gloateus,
“I declared nothing for which I didn’t provide you evidence.”
Sorry, I meant evidence other than “other believers in Evolution have declared”, not just you personally.
“Cephalopod eyes are superior in design to all vertebrate eyes because they don’t have a blind spot.”
First; They can’t be “superior in design”, unless they were designed, sir. You are limited to just functionality, as an Evolutionist. And functionality is dependent on the circumstances the creature must deal with. Cephalopods have arms, for instance, and while you might declare their “design is superior” because they are more flexible than ours, obviously (one hopes), there are other considerations than just flexibility involved in such a judgment.
If the blind spot is not a problem to the hawk functionally, then it’s not relevant to any argument that it is inferior in any functional sense. When the hawks eyes move a tiny bit (in any sense) for instance, the brain quite easily fills in the blind spot with previously received information, and it does not exist in the hawks perceived world. Nothing is “missing” because it’s perception is not dependent on a single momentary “picture” taken from a single precise perspective, such that the tiny blind spot can amount to anything more a fart in a windstorm of optical information.
So, even the slightest advantage the vertebrate eye design might convey, in any other way, can render the blind spot “problem” superfluous. Which is to say a non-issue in this discussion. The question then naturally follows, it seems to me;
How do you know there is not some small advantage the vertebrate eye design conveys, that “out weighs” than the (easily compensated for) disadvantage the blind spot hypothetically conveys?
For instance, in dealing with ultraviolet light, which the hawk is exposed to at much greater levels than cephalopods are, being under-water creatures. How do you know that the dangers ultraviolet light pose to delicate biological systems, haven’t been overcome by a “superior design”?
(Regardless of whether there is a Designer. This question applies to evolution theory just as well, I feel.)
John,
I put “design” in quotes and thereafter assumed you’d know I meant the term figuratively. In this context it simple means the way the eye has evolved.
The fact is that the cephalopod eye is superior because it lacks the blind spot which is a feature of the vertebrate “design”. The difference is explained by their differing evolutionary histories, not because a Stupid Designer used a better system in invertebrates and inferior one in vertebrates.
The blind spot is indeed a functional problem for all vertebrates, hawks included.
http://symptomchecker.webmd.com/single-symptom?symptom=blind-spot-in-vision&symid=22
Even more problematic “design” flaws exist in all creatures great and small because of stupid design, which shows that there is no Intelligent Designer. Consider the broken Vitamin C gene in the “higher” primates, ie tarsiers, monkeys and apes (as opposed to “lower” lemurs and lorises). The only other mammals with non-functional Vitamin C genes are guinea pigs and the Indian fruit-eating bat, but their genes are broken in different places from the primate mutation. Thus, all these creatures are at risk of scurvy, so need Vitamin C in their diets, being unable to make their own, unlike all other animals. Only a stupid designer would create animals with these breaks, and why would this moron inflict the same break on all simian primates? Doesn’t it make more sense that we share this flaw with our closest relatives because we all inherited it from a common ancestor?
Other such instances of idiotic “design” abound.
(Tarsiers used to be lumped in with the prosimian primates, until their DNA was sequenced and they were found to be simians, like monkeys and apes.)
Was it you or gnomish complaining about ad-hominem language? Let’s look at yours.
“Stupid Designer.”
“The blind spot is indeed a functional problem for all vertebrates, hawks included.”
It does not seem to be a functional problem.
“there is no Intelligent Designer.”
Not as you suppose he exists for the purpose of saying he doesn’t exist.
“Only a stupid designer would create animals with these breaks”
Or very cleverly did so for non-obvious reasons.
“why would this moron inflict the same break on all simian primates?”
I have no idea but this moron may be judging you right now.
“Doesn’t it make more sense that we share this flaw with our closest relatives because we all inherited it from a common ancestor?”
No, it makes more sense that we inherited it from a common ancestor. (Remove “doesn’t” for a more straightforward answer)
“Other such instances of idiotic design abound.”
Obviously. Or not. You have yet to describe your perfect creation. Give it a shot while this thread is still active. Describe the perfect animal and its environment.
Michael,
Had you ever studied evolution, you’d know that perfection doesn’t exist. Why would I offer my idea of a perfect creation when I know no such thing is possible? Evolution works on the material available. No environment lasts long enough for its denizens to become “perfectly” adapted to it. Even the longest-lived species, some of which appear to be tens of millions of years old, at least superficially, aren’t perfectly adapted to their little-changed environments.
Evolution is not teleological. That is, it has no goal for which it’s aiming. It just happens, depending upon changes in the environment and reproductive isolation. Once you remove religious thought from attempts to apprehend how nature works, your understanding will instantly improve.
Gloateus Maximus “Michael, Had you ever studied evolution, you’d know that perfection doesn’t exist.”
What a delightful non-sequitur! Of course perfection exists as otherwise the word would serve no purpose. A few years ago my Sunday School teacher asked for a show of hands of everyone in the room that was perfect. I raised my hand and looked around to see one other gentleman doing likewise. Needless to say it disrupted the lesson which was designed to excuse the bad behavior of the person giving the lesson because, after all, nobody is perfect. By claiming to be perfect it changed the trajectory of the discussion; making a worthy consideration how far removed from perfection is any person.
All living things at any point of Earth’s history are of necessity perfect because those life forms that are not perfect at that moment in time are extinct. There will be some variation of course; life forms slightly less perfect and not yet extinct, or that are just coming into perfect match with a changing environment.
“Why would I offer my idea of a perfect creation when I know no such thing is possible?”
In order to justify your claims of imperfection or bad design. If you know what is bad, surely you know what is good. If you do not know what is good and perfect, how can you judge something to be bad or imperfect? Scientific American has explored these very ideas; and while I don’t give much credence to SciAm in the past 10 years or so, it used to be pretty solid. Their idea is that the human brain is probably as advanced as it is ever going to be because of physical constraints. Nerves cannot be any thinner because they fire spontaneously and irregularly. That imposes an absolute maximum number of connections (and hence, intelligence on some level). The brain could be made bigger, but then signals take longer to traverse; and the brain would then require a much larger animal to feed it. Larger animals once existed. It would be easy enough to imagine an Earth where the dinosaurs weren’t extinct. There’s even an interesting science fiction ethical dilemma movie about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_Like_a_Dinosaur_%28The_Outer_Limits%29
In the end it boils down to an emotional thing; what I like is “good” and what I don’t like is “bad” and since I suspect nearly everyone (probably including me) does it that way; admit it.
“No environment lasts long enough for its denizens to become perfectly adapted to it.”
Well then we actually do see it pretty much the same way; but I suggest that it is a curve, maybe a bell curve of fitness to environment. A species evolves early in the curve because it is advantageous to do so, reaches a peak of perfect harmony with its environment, then as the environment changes, slides off the other side of the curve. But it is also possible for variation within the species to change it; creating a spread of subspecies some more attuned than others, with the peak remaining at the peak for maybe millions of years.
“Even the longest-lived species, some of which appear to be tens of millions of years old, at least superficially, aren’t perfectly adapted to their little-changed environments.”
I disagree but I see the point you are making.
“Evolution is not teleological. That is, it has no goal for which it’s aiming. It just happens”
Agreed. No cause and effect relationship. Each generation spreads variation. The number of possible human variations from a single pairing is enormous, one out of 2^46th power, and that’s just the combinations of chromosomes.
Evolution requires and depends upon variance. Single cell asexual division doesn’t have enough variance. RNA varies too much. DNA is more stable. Thus, the only thing that could evolve is DNA based sexual reproduction to recombined and create variance but within the bounds of the stability of DNA.
But that’s also an “anthropic” point of view; I think that because I exist to think it.
“Once you remove religious thought from attempts to apprehend how nature works, your understanding will instantly improve.”
On the contrary. Religion improves my understanding of nature and increases my interest in studying nature; not that there’s a lot of overlap, but more than none. But my religion is not like many others, and even within my religion I am somewhat of a maverick, for I do not accept that the “natural man is an enemy to God” (*).
The way I see it is terribly simple. God said let the Earth bring forth life; and the Earth brought forth life, and here I am, ready or not! What exactly God did is not known, is not declared, is probably not knowable, doesn’t really matter anyway.
What I do right now with my neighbors and my community is what matters. That is my ethic, that is my morality, that is my religion.
* Natural man: I interpret this restated in modern language as “the natural man is a stranger to God”, neither friend nor enemy. But in the binary thinking of many people, if you are not for me you must be against me. Well there’s 7 billion people that don’t know I exist and I do not assume all 7 billion are against me. They are also not for me. Binary thinking is imperfect.
Michael,
Perfection is not attainable, nor is there even any perfect goal toward which it strives.
Hardly a non sequitur. Simply a fact.
Gloateus Maximus “Perfection is not attainable”
It is by me.
“nor is there even any perfect goal toward which it strives.”
That concept makes no sense. Achievement can be perfect; the goal itself is neither perfect nor imperfect.
“Hardly a non sequitur. Simply a fact.”
Perhaps your definition of “fact” is unique.
I will post a simple example: 2 + 2 = 4
The problem statement is simple, the answer is perfect and knowable to be perfect. Anything other than 4 is not perfect. Assumptions exist of course (decimal number system, base 10, for instance).
A similar example of impossible to be perfect: Expressing “pi” in the decimal number system cannot be done with perfection. No matter how many digits one uses, it is still an approximation; or so it seems for all the decades and centuries of trying to prove it irrational.
Thus I show that perfection is indeed attainable. I define perfection as “achieving the goal”. If the goal of adding two and two is to discover how many then exist, the perfect answer is four, because it has achieved the goal.
If you are a high jumper and your goal is 5 feet bar, and you succeed, you are at that moment perfect, for you have achieved your goal.
Only in the case of setting a goal impossible to achieve is perfection impossible to achieve.
Perhaps your definition of “perfect” is unique. What a surprise that would be.
Deciding when a thing is perfect requires a judge of perfection. Sometimes it is you; if you are a musician you might claim a work “perfect”, an artist, a photographer, a runner, a swimmer, a carpenter or craftsman of any kind.
The bible writes, “Be ye therefore perfect”, and what purpose is served giving a commandment when it is unattainable? That would be meaningless. But it is not meaningless, it is meaningful, therefore perfection must be attainable, and if that requires to alter your definition of perfection, well then alter it.
Perfection is attainable. In whatever you appoint to yourself to do, do it perfectly.
John,
You confuse evolution with abiogenesis, the origin of living things from non-living complex organic chemical compounds. Evolution is the origin of new species from existing species, and over time of higher taxa. Hence, evolution operates once living things already exist. However chemical evolutionary processes also worked in the development of the first organisms.
As new species and genera have been observed evolving in nature and created in the lab, there is no reason to suppose that existing genera can’t evolve into new families, families and orders, and so on. (Linnaean classification is no longer valid for taxa higher than species, having been replaced by cladistic phylogenetic taxonomy, but families, orders, classes, phyla, kingdoms and domains are still used for convenience.)
How multicellular organisms arose from single-celled organisms can be directly observed in simple multicellular organisms today. How macroscopic organisms evolved from simple multicellular organisms can be reconstructed by various means, to include embryology, genetics and microbiology. The history of macroscopic life with hard body parts since the so-called Cambrian Explosion or shortly before it, also benefits from fossils and other lines of evidence. How every phylum evolved is not known in detail, but the genomes of extant organisms show their common descent from extinct ancestors.
There is no governor on evolution that would keep a lobe-finned fish from becoming a tetrapod over time, as all lines of evidence show indeed happened in the Late Devonian, a therapsid from becoming a mammal in the Triassic or Jurassic (depending upon what traits you consider uniquely mammalian) or a terrestrial artiodactyl from becoming a whale in the early Cenozoic.
Gloateus,
“The blind spot is indeed a functional problem for all vertebrates, hawks included.
http://symptomchecker.webmd.com/single-symptom?symptom=blind-spot-in-vision&symid=22”
I don’t think you grasp how silly it is to my mind for you to make such a flat declaration of fact, with no explanation at all, and expect me to see that as anything but utter arrogance. The link is just some symbols to me, I don’t care what someone else said, I will not pretend they are speaking for you, or that they are any sort of authority over me (or you) whatsoever. If you don’t explain you declaration (or present some actual words of another you indicate represent your thoughts), to me you just made a flat declaration of fact, based on nothing at all.
So, I conclude you have no response worth mentioning. I conclude you just rely on human authorities (when it suits you ; ) and that you think I ought to act like some guy at the end of a link is a god of some sort . .
Seriously, it’s kid stuff to me, like saying; *I’m with the smart guys, and they don’t say what you do*.
Be a smart guy, right here, out load so to speak, or I don’t believe you are one . . So why would I care in the slightest who you consider a smart guy? I realize there are a great many supposed “experts” who speak as though Evolution is a fact, and I think they are all wrong for doing so. Honest, so you could list every single one, with a link to something each wrote, and it would still see you as having no response worth mention.
To me, you are identical in your approach, to someone who declares catastrophic global warming is an inevitability if we don’t do what the smart folks meeting in Paris tell us to, and if you don’t believe me, here’s a link to something Micheal Mann wrote . . He’s an expert, try learning some science for a change, instead of believing in myths.
Gunga Din:
There are many paths to faith and I don’t dispute your saying
OK. The outcome was good for her. But please don’t assume her finding faith was the result of a logical deduction: it was not. The human eye is a ‘botched design’. For example, the retina is back-to-front for efficient operation.
There are clear explanations of how such an inefficient design could occur from evolutionary development, but an omniscient designer would used an efficient design unless evolutionary development was His development tool.
God or no-God? The structure of the human eye indicates neither as more likely. Only faith suggests one or the other.
There are an infinite number of possible ways to obtain faith and believers tend to rationalise how they obtained it. My faith was ‘imposed’ on me by God so it easy for me to admit that I played no part in obtaining my faith, but some others have more difficulty in admitting that.
Richard
We’re getting into Romans 1 stuff here.
Some will look at God has done and decide there is no God or choose to worship something He has done. For some it’s their own ability to think.
Some will conclude that “God” isn’t worth considering at all.
In the context of this post, “study-not-all-scientists-are-atheists”, I related what I know of her personal experience. Many have seemed to imply or believe that the a “real” scientist must be an atheist. That is not true.
Her husband is also a Doctor. He works in medical research. Both of them are born again, have regained “the image of God”, spirit. They and their kids all manifest holy spirit. (I Corinthians 12:7-12, Mark 16:17, etc.) As do I.
True, you can’t put that which makes a body alive or spirit in a test tube and analyze them. So, maybe neither are strictly in the realm of “science”. That doesn’t been neither aren’t real.
Typo.
“That doesn’t been neither aren’t real.”
Should be
“That doesn’t mean either aren’t real.”
(I do get tired of proving I’m not perfect.8-)
“I thought you said no religion on this site?”
I bet you know damn well that;s not what you were told, O forked tongue one ; )
To be or not to be is the fundamental alternative of existence. It is binary.
There is no supernatural world outside of existence. If it does not exist, to assert something does is a lie.
Anything true can be proven. This is the underlying premise of science, which is ‘the systematic discovery of truth by means of experiment’.
If something can not be proven – i.e. if it is unfalsifiable then it is false.
Because all supernatural claims are unfalsifiable, they are all lies.
Mysticism is the attempt to present nonexistent things as an alternative ‘truth’, which, of course, contradicts the meaning of the word ‘truth’. A simple self contradiction is the philosophical nucleus of any cult.
The question a mind seeks to answer is ‘is this true or not’.
Mysticism is an exploit that depends on passing off a simple self contradiction as a revelation.
Mystics are not innocent; they are evil. Mysticism is their means of survival as a predator on human beings.
“Anything true can be proven.”
That itself is a statement of fact. Can you provide the proof for this?
It’s difficult, if not impossible, to prove many of the truths science is based upon as they are not “scientific” foundations.
Some statements can be shown to be incoherent without following the scientific method.
In other words, your post seems to contain the assumption “all truth is known by science”. Provide the proof for that assumption!
If you truly believed the self-refuting beliefs you’ve posted, you owe it to yourself to re-examine your basic philosophical beliefs.
Justin, assumptions are your scarecrows, not mine.
Vocabulary word for you: axiom.
If you are able to unhinge your mind to swallow contradictions bigger than your head, you will be used as a landfill for lies. Worse, you’ll suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous ridicule. Perhaps you may consider that nonexistence is a viable alternative metaphysical choice – a shortcut to an eternity of supernatural bliss.
Such ethereal minds don’t really belong in this harsh, humorless, material world where a rock is a rock no matter how hard one wishes it were anything else. As Michael2 says- that’s too limited for such as thee.
Hasten, then. I hear you get a T shirt with a big S (for supernatural) on it.
Gnomish, you’ve made certain factual claims that do not stand the basic test of logic. Your entire reply still does not address the proofs you need to make your case,
What is an axiom? In math, it is a statement taken as true, but cannot be proven, as it is the basis of proofs. At some point, you’ll have to deal with this. Science, unfortunately for fans of scientism, rests upon non-scientific assumptions. If you believe science, you therefore must assume certain things that you take to be true. This is the realm of logic. Logic itself, ironically, cannot be disproven without assuming it’s truth.
“Anything true can be proven.” This is your statement, although that statement itself cannot be proven scientifically. Science, is, I’m painted to inform you, limited, and dependent upon truths that are not scientific in nature.
an axiom is something which is self evident
for YOU to discuss SOMETHING with ME
logically requires the existence of YOU, SOMETHING, and ME.
when you babble in fluent gibberish:
” Science, is, I’m painted (sic) to inform you, limited, and dependent upon truths that are not scientific in nature.”
I know your proof of that is that you can not prove it. It’s like your proof of the invisible elephant.
Indeed, since it was divinely revealed – to YOU and not me- you are sacred and I profane.
You’ve found treasure in your diapers and rejoice.
Grownups take a different view.
gnomish writes “since it was divinely revealed – to YOU and not me- you are sacred and I profane.”
So it seems. Other interpretations are possible.
Gnomish,
I’m not even arguing that something was divinely inspired. At this point, I’m talking about your philosophy, not religion. And while I’ll take the hit for not reviewing the auto-incorrect, lol, you’ve dodged the specific challenge raised to your assertions here.
Again, my objection to your still unargued assertion has nothing to do with any particular religion, nor does it have anything to do with any sort of divine revelation.
It has to do with a logically incoherent view that you’ve asserted, and still have yet to defend with anything other than red herrings, straw men, and appeals to ridicule. This tells me 1) you’ve probably haven’t really understood what’s wrong with your basic assertions, and 2) aren’t interested in any substantive discussion.
So I’ll leave you to wallow in your diaper.
gnomish “To be or not to be is the fundamental alternative of existence. It is binary.”
Your vision is limited. Not much anyone can do about that unfortunately. “Not be” is a singularity, “be” is everything else — vast, limitless. I think “binary” doesn’t quite capture this relationship.
“There is no supernatural world outside of existence.”
Naturally not. What does not exist, does not exist; and what exists, exists! That’s brilliant.
“If it does not exist, to assert something does is a lie.”
Or an error. Do I exist? Maybe. What am I? You have no way of knowing. But I exist. Or maybe not; you might be dreaming this conversation. Wake up!
“Anything true can be proven.”
Prove to me that you exist. It cannot be done, I assure you. Your vision is limited.
Prove anything true but ephemeral. Last night I walked in snow. Can I prove it? No. Is it true? Yes.
“This is the underlying premise of science, which is ‘the systematic discovery of truth by means of experiment’. If something can not be proven – i.e. if it is unfalsifiable then it is false.”
No, it merely means a claim is not within the realm of science. Your vision is limited.
“Because all supernatural claims are unfalsifiable, they are all lies.”
No, they are simply not in the realm of science. Science is by its nature confined to the same electromagnetic realm of atoms and energy. That is all it can detect. It’s a subset of existence.
“Mysticism is the attempt…”
I have no interest in definitions of mysticism.
“Mystics are not innocent; they are evil.”
So you ARE religious! I knew it!
Good and evil have no meaning without an ultimate authority on good and evil. Absent a god, you are just chemicals behaving a certain way; good and evil do not and cannot exist to an atheist. There’s only survival and reproduction. Your vision seems limited.
Michael2, I see how badly you wish that the imaginary might be real.
As close as you can come to that is by art or by inventing – bring an idea into existence my making it so. Mind over matter beats prayer any time. It’s how the best people make life better. It’s the only positive sum game in town. It’s also fun – primal, even.
FFS – stop reading Woody Allen while in your cups. Woody’s rabbi proved to him he existed by punching him in the nose and then asked ‘what hurt’?. But Woody was being funny, see? He was mocking the delirious mystics of his time. This comedy routine is hackneyed. Your rerun is a snorer.
So now I guess I will define the words ‘good’ and ‘evil’ for you – but, mind, when I do this, it will necessarily imply that you were unable to do so which means your typing had no meaning, you knew it had no meaning and you failed to restrain yourself from meaningless utterances but instead submitted them as if they had some value while aware they had none. This is termed ‘fraud’. It’s rude when you’re caught at it. It’s criminal when you aren’t. And don’t expect me always to be around to help your invisible friend with English. I’m not your dictionary.
Existence exists. As stated, this is the fundamental axiom. From that can be deduced an objective morality and ethics – easily. (but this is the last of the free lectures today)
The alternative of existence/nonexistence applies to one class of entities: living things.
It is the life of a living thing (according to its nature) that is, for it, the fundamental value, i.e., the good.
That which negates this fundamental value for the living thing is evil.
Therefore, ‘the good’ is that which is consistent with furthering the life and wellbeing of an organism as that organism.
(the condition is necessary to prevent idiots from arguing that a human living as a barnyard animal, for example, can be good)
Each living thing has its nature. Each living thing has, by its nature, values which further its existence as the thing it is, and the means to obtain them.
H. sapiens’ tool of survival is his reason. For a man’s survival, reason is good. That which cripples a man’s ability to reason cripples his ability to survive and is evil.
The standard of value for a man is his life as a man. That is ‘good’ qua H. sapiens.
Mystics, through the ages, have attacked man’s cognitive faculties in order to enslave them.
Michael2 – if you were a good man, you would cease to do harm.
gnomish “Michael2, I see how badly you wish that the imaginary might be real.”
Not even close. Anyway, it ought to be “goodly” not “badly”.
“As close as you can come to that is by art or by inventing – bring an idea into existence my making it so.”
Agreed. I have tried many arts and am not very skilled, but skilled enough to commit my ideas to paper or computer.
“Mind over matter beats prayer any time.”
Your mileage obviously varies.
“It’s how the best people make life better.”
Ah, the No Best People fallacy. Well so I’m not best. BFD.
“FFS – stop reading Woody Allen while in your cups.”
Was that for me? What’s an FFS? Anyway, I do not watch or read Woody Allen (whatever one does with him, I don’t).
“So now I guess I will define the words ‘good’ and ‘evil’ for you”
No. Define them for you.
“I’m not your dictionary.”
Statement of the obvious.
“Existence exists.”
I knew I came here for enlightenment and there it is! Sounds cool, means nothing.
“From that can be deduced an objective morality and ethics – easily.”
Yep. Easy for you, easy for anyone. Just not the same morality and ethics.
“The alternative of existence/nonexistence applies to one class of entities: living things. It is the life of a living thing (according to its nature) that is, for it, the fundamental value, i.e., the good. That which negates this fundamental value for the living thing is evil. Therefore, ‘the good’ is that which is consistent with furthering the life and wellbeing of an organism as that organism.”
While that sounds distinctly religious, I almost get it and almost agree. Survival and reproduction is a biological imperative, neither good nor bad; it just — as you say — exists. This survival often requires the non-survival of another animal or thing that also has the same biological imperative.
“Each living thing has its nature. Each living thing has, by its nature, values which further its existence as the thing it is, and the means to obtain them.”
I’ve seen this line of argumentation somewhere. Nice sophistry, changes nothing. Good and evil are moral judgements made by a moral authority. Morality ceases without that moral authority.
“H. sapiens’ tool of survival is his reason. For a man’s survival, reason is good.”
No, reason is effective. It is neither good nor bad.
“That which cripples a man’s ability to reason cripples his ability to survive and is evil.”
No, it is ineffective and natural selection will eliminate that weakness. Good and evil are not involved; only competition for resources.
“The standard of value for a man is his life as a man.”
I appreciate that you have provided your unit of measure.
“Mystics, through the ages, have attacked man’s cognitive faculties in order to enslave them.”
Well there’s a definition of mystic, or a function of mystic, that I think I have never before encountered. Seems to me they usually just sit there smoking hash and saying “Ommm”.
“Michael2 – if you were a good man, you would cease to do harm.”
Indeed; with due regard to nuances of “harm”. The small pain of a vaccination protects from potentially devastating illness. AGW proponents are willing to impose very large harm on global societies out of their own expectation of avoiding disaster. Is it “good” to do “bad”? Maybe; depends on the situation.
For a good many years my profession was to cause harm to enemies of the United States. Maybe that influences my thinking a bit. It certainly helps clarify my own sense of good and evil. I have encountered evil and I know it. I have encountered good and I know that, too; surprisingly your definition of good is pretty close to my own vision; although yours is somewhat limited in scope they are similar in purpose.
I see “good” as that which encourages life; but not just animal life of eating and reproduction; but Maslow’s heirarchy of self-actualization in this life and the next.
“I think. I think I am. Therefore I am…..I think?” – The Moody Blues
(Sorry for the interruption. Please continue if you so desire.8-)
Michael2:
My statement was: “For a man’s survival, reason is good.”
The logical proposition is ‘reason is good for a man’s survival’ .
Please observe the context is clear: ‘for man’s survival’ and that makes it possible to state a logical proposition. Truth exists in a context. If you drop the context, you don’t even have a logical propostion that can be evaluated. You have only a ‘bald assertion’.
Your reply, on the other hand: “No, reason is effective. It is neither good nor bad.”
You have deliberately voided context in order to render your statement unreasonable. It is not a logical proposition but an opinion. Further, it is an unsubstantiated opinion.
I’m skeptical that a reasonable person can draw a valid distinction between ‘reason is good for man’s survival’ and ‘reason is effective for man’s survival’. In fact, it’s a rhetorical device called ‘semantic quibble’ that is only useful for trolling.
I know you’re no dummy. Put your brain to good use. I can’t play any more. Nap time.
Let me try this simple approach;
Male lions have been observed killing the offspring of other male lions. Is this immoral, wrong. bad, whatever one might call it?
Male humans exist . . if some kill the offspring of other male humans, have they done something immoral, wrong, bad, whatever?
gnomish “I’m skeptical that a reasonable person can draw a valid distinction between ‘reason is good for man’s survival’ and ‘reason is effective for man’s survival’.”
The difference is profound. Good and bad are moral judgments and serve as social clues as to who is to be admired and followed (good people), bad people are to be shunned and avoided (bad people).
Effective simply describes the efficiency of cause to consequence.
In my Navy career I was judged, and I judged others, on annual evaluations for correct use of English and separately, effective use of English. Effective is what gets the job done and in the Navy sometimes benefits from slang and vulgarity, things I was unaccustomed to and remain to this day unaccustomed.
I believe that the left wing conflates these two things completely and inseparably in their minds; good is effective is good. Not effective is bad. But other wings recognize that sometimes a thing is simply effective or not, without also being good or bad.
Good can have a range of meaning. I prefer the Thomistic approach, which defines “good” as something like “succeeding at being”. Good does not have to refer to morality exclusivly. And effective would simply be a subset of good.
A car which has a working motor and four wheels is good. It is effective at transporting a person. A car with a broken engine or a missing wheel is still a car, but isn’t as “good”.
A human, given that what distinguishes man is the heightened ability to reason and use reason to govern action, is “good” to the extent it uses reason to arrive at proper behavior, or is this acting morally. Thus reason certainly is “good” for survival, because it is part of the essence of that which makes us human.
Some reasoning is objectively better than other reasoning. You certainly must agree with that if you think your retorts here have any validity.
My statement was: “For a man’s survival, reason is good.”
Change “good” to “useful”.
Reason(ing) is useful for a man’s survival as it is an effective method at solving problems which if not solved leads to demise.
“good” is sometimes a synonym for effective or useful or tasty or a great many other things but is somewhat imprecise unless the context is more clearly established.
Michael2 said:
“Good and bad are moral judgments and serve as social clues as to who is to be admired and followed ”
Michael- if you were alone on a desert island, that is when you would learn that your life depends on moral judgements. The idea that values are social cues is so far off the mark I’m pretty well convinced you are not prepared to discuss morality because you don’t really know what it is.
You might try to define your terms, if your wish is to discuss this topic. Although idiosyncratic, they may still make sense if you provide the definition. I really must insist on this because meaninglessness has no value for me.
Good and Bad are value judgements. A value judgement presupposes answers to the questions ‘of value to whom’ and ‘of value for what purpose’
This is what a standard of value is used for – to create a heirarchy of values. Please define what is the standard of values for a human being. Again, I must insist.
Morality is the science of choice. Choices are based on evaluation. A standard of value is required for a morality to exist. Choice is required for something to fall within the domain of morality.
Once again, I insist that you define what is morality. You persist in making no sense and that will not be tolerated. It’s the price you must pay for having a rational discussion. If you can not afford this, then you’ll have to go to sally ann.
JohnKnight –
see definition of ‘morality’ above.
N.B. it does not apply to lions.
Also, your sloppy and ill defined vocabulary has got morality conflated with ethics.
Ethics is not morality. That’s why there are 2 different words – so you can tell them apart.
Define ‘ethics’ and I’ll entertain further discussion. Refuse or fail and that’s it. Nobody owes you a first chance much less a second chance. That’s real life. Get some if you’re worth it.
gnomish “Michael- if you were alone on a desert island, that is when you would learn that your life depends on moral judgements.”
That is probably more correct than you intended. That desert island is Diego Garcia and my aloneness largely a product of not knowing anyone else there. It was also the most amazing place to operate an amateur radio transmitter. I sent Morse code all the way around the planet and hit the antenna on the backside a moment later and I could hear my own transmission.
But lets see if you wrote something profound in all that.
“You might try to define your terms”
I have defined my terms ad tedium. Morality is what is right, immorality is what is wrong, defined by the Authority of right and wrong.
Where the authority is God, right and wrong becomes fixed for all people everywhere (more or less), and you can build a society on that foundation (Rosseau has somewhat to say on this topic).
If the Authority is removed and it becomes democratic, “morality” becomes “ethics”.
Ethics can change daily. Ethics is created by sociology departments where “wrong” doesn’t exist. Criminal behavior doesn’t exist in sociology; it isn’t even deviant. Just differently motivated. I very much enjoyed sociology in college; where else can one get a degree in absurdity? While there is some science in sociology (it’s an “ology” after all), that’s not its purpose. More on this in a moment.
“The idea that values are social cues is so far off the mark I’m pretty well convinced you are not prepared to discuss morality because you don’t really know what it is.”
I know perfectly well what it is. What I don’t know is what you think it is.
“Morality is the science of choice.”
You repeatedly surprise me with your commentary. That is what makes you interesting. Naturally it also makes it nearly impossible to know whether we are having a conversation or this is a failing Turing test. I wonder if anyone else on Earth defines it as you do? Let’s google it and see if you are having a true original thought or if, more likely, you have been indoctrinated in the New Religion of humanism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_of_morality
“Critics include physicist Sean M. Carroll, who argues that morality cannot be part of science.”
“Stephen Jay Gould argued that science and religion occupy ‘non-overlapping magisteria’. To Gould, science is concerned with questions of fact and theory, but not with meaning and morality – the magisteria of religion.”
So you are what you criticize! You are critical of intelligent designers dragging science into their domain; yet here you are dragging religion into your domain.
Perhaps you take the view: “moral scientists defend the position that such a division between values and scientific facts is not only arbitrary and illusory, but impeding progress towards taking action against documented cases of human rights violations in different cultures.”
So, you have this new religion, humanism, and you have created new rights and new wrongs and have no problem imposing your sense of rights and wrongs on other people.
What exactly is a “human right”? It is whatever you want it to be.
“You persist in making no sense and that will not be tolerated.”
Nobody asked you to tolerate it in the first place. You are a guest here and so am I.