Creation, Evolution, and faith

quote:

---

If a proposed explanation cannot be investigated in any way, is it even meaningful?

---

Perhaps not. This gets close to the "blind faith" that Dawkins and company allege.

quote:

---

Surely it is dishonest to take any position on a question which cannot even be investigated.

---

Perhaps, but what about the question of whether or not we are "in the matrix?" This can't really be investigated, yet most of us take a position on it.And don't conflate "investigated" with "scientifically investigated." Science is limited to the physical universe, and to a specific methodology of investigating it.

quote:

---

"Faith" is just an inability to admit ignorance.

---

Near the beginning of this thread I provided numerous definitions of "faith," and this was not among them.

quote:

---

kbertsche writes:

​

I also see it in Dawkins' "God Delusion." He insists on a simplistic, literalistic interpretation of Genesis so that it will conflict with science and he can ridicule it.

​

and the reality;

​

Richard Dawkins writes:

​

...no serious theologian takes the Old Testament literally any more ... An awful lot of people think they take the Bible literally but that can only be because they’ve never read it. If they ever read it they couldn’t possibly take it literally...

---

If you've read The God Delusion you will know that Dawkins' opinion of theologians is extremely low. His comment on how the Bible actually is interpreted by theologians doesn't tell us how he thinks it should be interpreted, which was my claim.But perhaps I should table this claim for the time being, until/unless I find a better quote from Dawkins to support it. My main point was that Dawkins sees science and faith as intrinsically incompatible and in conflict with one another. He certainly believes this, and it permeates his book.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

quote:

---

quote:

---

The universe has replaced God as the thing which is uncaused, self-existent, self-operating. Most atheists, like you, would strongly object to calling the universe a "god," but in rejecting traditional gods you must ascribe divine attributes to nature.

---

So you are saying that meteorology incorporates divine attributes because it describes thunder using natural mechanisms that were once ascribed to Thor? That doesn't make any sense.

---

Interesting question. Perhaps someone from your perspective could say that meteorology incorporates Thor-like attributes? From my perspective, of course, God has the attributes that were ascribed to Thor.

quote:

---

If the facts show that the universe is self existing then it is self existing. The problem here seems to be that theists incorrectly inserted their god into gaps in our knowledge. It is not the fault of science that those gaps are filled with knowledge instead of blind faith.

---

Scientific facts can never show this one way or the other. The question is metaphysical.Have I suggested a "god of the gaps" anywhere in this thread? I certainly hope not, because I reject that sort of a god as much as Dawkins does. My position is very different:
1) Science has fundamental philosophical limits to what it can investigate and how it can do so (see the Schroedinger quote in my sig). This is fundamentally very different from a "gap" in our scientific knowledge which may someday be filled as we collect more scientific data.
2) The theistic metaphysical position that I outlined earlier doesn't try to place God in the "gaps" of our scientific knowledge, but it does the opposite; it puts Him in the science that we do understand! The more we understand about the laws of nature, the better appreciation we have for how God actually operates His universe on a minute-by-minute basis. Scientific advances don't push God into the corner; they bring Him more into the open.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

---

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert EinsteinI am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

quote:

---

Is there any scientific test that you would accept as a valid test of whether or not God is real?

---

I can't think of any scientific test that could be done. Any suggestions?

quote:

---

Just on the face of it, I see no reason why science could not test for God other than not wanting to falsify the existence of God.

---

You sound like Dawkins; he wants to believe the same thing. But he ends up assuming specific, naive conceptions of god and showing that these gods do not exist. I agree--I don't believe in those gods, either. I don't think there is any way of scientifically testing for God, in general.

quote:

---

The supernatural is nothing more than an invented realm that, conveniently, is said to be impenetrable to science. By making the existence of God unfalsifiable you have done nothing more than demonstrate your dogmatism and lack of reason or logic.

---

Here you seem to be taking a couple of metaphysical positions:
1) the physical world is all that exists
2) there is no knowledge outside of science
This position is "scientism" or "metaphysical/philosophical/ontological naturalism." It goes far beyond the "methodological naturalism" that we use in science. (And as you should know, it is "methodological naturalism," not I, which explicitly makes God scientifically unfalsifiable.)

---

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert EinsteinI am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

quote:

---

quote:

---

How can any intelligent person actually believe this?

---

Intelligent people are capable of believing all sorts of surprising things. Whenever a scientist attempts to bring their supernatural beliefs into their professional life, they necessarily violate methodological naturalism.

---

I agree that a scientist should not refer to the supernatural in doing science; it should be done according to methodological naturalism (MN). But this doesn't mean that a scientist should not hold any religions beliefs.

quote:

---

The two approaches, natural and supernatural are incompatible. Science, by your own admission, can only address the natural, so what possible place cols there be within scientific practise for a belief system that includes the supernatural?

---

Yes, science can only address the natural world, not the supernatural. But this doesn't mean the two approaches are incompatible, it just means that they are different. They use different methods and ask different questions. Perhaps they are orthogonal to one another, but not incompatible. A scientist can be religious without any fundamental conflict between these two approaches to truth.

quote:

---

Gould's religious colleagues were not stupid. It is possible, indeed common, for intelligent people to hold foolish beliefs. Nonetheless, this quote does not quite address what I am trying to say. Just because a person can be a scientist and a theist, does not mean that the two beliefs are compatible. They are completely incompatible, as is made clear by the fact that they cannot be pursued simultaneously, as a single combined effort as it were.

---

But I don't see how this implies incompatibility. For example, a chemist can analyze the paper and ink of a book and describe it in as much detail as desired. A literary scholar can describe the content and meaning of the same book in as much detail as desired. Both are describing the same book, but in different ways with very different approaches. They are asking different questions about the same book. Their approaches are different and orthogonal, but what is "incompatible" about this?

quote:

---

A scientist must set aside her attachment to supernatural beliefs when she dons her scientist hat.

---

If by "set aside" you mean "not appeal to in scientific explanations", I agree. But if you mean "not believe" I disagree.

quote:

---

Nor can a religious claim about a supernatural entity claim scientific backing. The two methods are mutually exclusive.

---

But if they can make no claims about the other, how can they exclude one another? They are orthogonal, but not mutually exclusive.

quote:

---

All that is proved by a person being both religious and also a scientist is that even highly intelligent people are capable of cognitive dissonance. Just because a person engages in two activities does not mean that those activities are compatible. The BTK serial killer was an active member of his church. George Tiller was murdered by a professed Christian. Does this mean that theism and murder are compatible?

​

People are capable of holding mutually exclusive ideas in their heads and believing just as fervently in both. In my view, this is what theist scientists are doing. It's nothing to be ashamed of, we all do it. I just think that religious scientists are doing it a little more than non-religious ones. Please let me be clear that I have no problem with theist scientists, so long as they keep their supernatural beliefs out of their work. Trying to practise both at once is guaranteed to lead to disaster. In fact there is a name for this particular disaster; creation science.

---

How are religious scientists practicing "cognitive dissonance" or believing "mutually exclusive" ideas any more than a person who does both a chemical and a literary analysis of the same book?I agree with your view of creation science, of course.

quote:

---

I don't particularly disagree with Bacon. My point is that the two methods must, in practise, be compartmentalised. To do otherwise is to open science up to the supernatural and thus weaken it fatally. The naturalistic assumptions of science need only be methodological remember, so there is no reason why a scientist cannot also be a theist. It does mean though, that the theist must leave their beliefs at the laboratory door.

---

I am a firm believer in MN. The MN approach was followed by Newton, Kepler, Boyle, etc, who were devout believers. The term MN was coined (in its modern usage) by a Christian philosophy professor. It lays out groundrules and limits for science; science can only appeal to naturalistic mechanisms, and science can only speak to the natural, not the supernatural.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I can't think of any scientific test that could be done.

---

Why not?

---

I suppose it's because God is inherently supernatural, but science is restricted to natural explanations for the natural world. The idea of a "scientific test for God" violates the concept of "methodological naturalism."If you disagree, can YOU propose any scientific test for God?

quote:

---

So the only god that can exist is one that is indistinguishable from a god that doesn't exist?

---

Not quite; He is indistinguishable by science from a god that doesn't exist.

quote:

---

What I want to know is how one goes from saying "there could be something else" to "there is something else"?

---

By applying reason and logic to non-scientific evidence, e.g. philosophy, history, personal experience, perhaps some of the so-called "social sciences." (Apologies to the social scientists, but I consider these fields to be only quasi-scientific.)Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.Edited by kbertsche, : grammar edit

---

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert EinsteinI am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

quote:

---

How do any of these yield reliable evidence about gods?

​

I disagree about the social sciences; those folk are trying hard to deal with difficult subjects. I do not see how they give evidence about gods anyway.

​

History is pretty much like science: conclusions must be based on demonstrable evidence.

​

Personal experience is notoriously unreliable.

​

Remember, if propositions cannot be checked against reality, their truth cannot be ascertained, so much of philosophy is ruled out.

---

You seem to be evaluating all of these endeavors according to how similar they are to science. It seems that to you, "evidence" must essentially be "scientific evidence."

quote:

---

I don't think there is any such thing as this "non-scientific evidence" that is in any way reliable.

---

Your position seems to be that of the ontological naturalist. Either the natural, physical world is the only thing that exists at all (Carl Sagan's position) or it is the only thing that matters to you (Dawkins' position).

quote:

---

Would you care to give examples?

---

Why? What's the point? If you have already rejected non-scientific evidence, why do you want detailed examples of such non-scientific evidence?Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

---

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert EinsteinI am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

quote:

---

quote:

---

Not quite; He is indistinguishable by science from a god that doesn't exist.

---

What's the difference?

---

You had previously said that a scientifically untestable God "is indistinguishable from a god that doesn't exist." I replied with the above.Surely you can see the difference: the words "by science." Do you think this difference is insignificant? If so, does this imply that scientific evidence is the only type of evidence that you will accept? Do you operate from a position of ontological naturalism, assuming that the supernatural either doesn't exist or is irrelevant to you? This would be assuming your conclusion, an a priori ruling out of the possibility of God and the supernatural.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

---

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert EinsteinI am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

quote:

---

I do think though that it is deeply inconsistent for a scientist to hold religious beliefs. To hold one set of scientific beliefs which are logical, reasoned and evidenced, whilst simultaneously holding beliefs that are devoid of logic, reason and evidence will always be inconsistent and contradictory.

---

How is this inconsistent? I don't see inconsistency, but difference. Is it inconsistent for someone to believe that a chemical analysis and a literary analysis of the same book are both true? This is the same sort of thing. There is no fundamental conflict in what the two are saying, they are just different approaches dealing with different data in different ways.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Yes, science can only address the natural world, not the supernatural. But this doesn't mean the two approaches are incompatible, it just means that they are different. They use different methods and ask different questions.

---

This would be true if religion limited itself to the metaphysical or philosophical. It doesn't though. Religion blithely makes claims about the natural world, mostly without evidence. That is incompatible with a scientific approach.

---

Religions DO make some silly, indefensible claims from time to time, as do scientists (e.g. Dawkins). But can you give a specific example of "claims about the natural world" which are central to Christianity but are "incompatible with a scientific approach?" I can't think of any. I believe any perceived incompatibility is due to one of two things:
1) misinterpretations of either nature or Scripture, making them say more than they should, or
2) an a priori metaphysical position which is really the source of the conflict (i.e. the incompatibility is not with "a scientific approach" but with the metaphysical position #2 that I outlined earlier, i.e. that the universe is self-generated, self-sustaining and self-operating according to built-in inviolate laws)

quote:

---

quote:

---

Perhaps they are orthogonal to one another, but not incompatible.

---

They are not orthogonal. Religious claims about the physical world overlap with science's area of utility. If religion were to drop these claims, perhaps you would have a point, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

---

Yes, there are areas of overlap. Just as the chemist and literary scholar overlap one another when they analyze the same book. But I don't see how this is incompatible. Can you explain it?

quote:

---

quote:

---

A scientist can be religious without any fundamental conflict between these two approaches to truth.

---

Yes. By ignoring the contradiction and just not worrying too much about it. Like I said, cognitive dissonance.

---

I deny that there is any cognitive dissonance in my views of science and religion. Absolutely none. Can you explain where you think I have cognitive dissonance? Or Newton, Kepler, Boyle, et al? As above, I believe there is no inherent "cognitive dissonance." Any that appears is due to misinterpretations or to an a priori metaphysical position.

quote:

---

quote:

---

But I don't see how this implies incompatibility. For example, a chemist can analyze the paper and ink of a book and describe it in as much detail as desired. A literary scholar can describe the content and meaning of the same book in as much detail as desired. Both are describing the same book, but in different ways with very different approaches. They are asking different questions about the same book. Their approaches are different and orthogonal, but what is "incompatible" about this?

---

Well for a start, it's not a valid metaphor. As I have said, religion makes physical claims. Your example would be valid only if the literary critic attempted to tell the chemist how literary criticism had led him to understand features of the chemistry of ink that the chemist had missed.

---

Actually, I think it's a very good metaphor. I first saw it used by Donald Mackay, and John Lennox has also used it. It may be due to C.S. Lewis, but I'm not sure about this.

quote:

---

Further, the two approaches you present, literary criticism and chemistry are absolutely incompatible. No amount of literary criticism is ever going to help us better understand the chemistry of ink. No amount of chemistry is ever going to illuminate a narrative. The methods employed by literary criticism (a branch of the arts or humanities) could never be accepted in science. Nor would scientific methods benefit the literary world. Art is not science. The two are completely incompatible.

---

It appears that you and I are using the words "compatible" and "incompatible" differently. I agree with the gist of what you say here, but I would call this a difference rather than an incompatibility. So let's avoid the word "incompatible" and use the word "contradictory." What I mean is that the two approaches do not contradict one another. They can both be held without contradiction or conflict.

quote:

---

Another major problem is the claim to accuracy and reality that religion makes, a claim that is not made on anywhere near the same scale in the arts. Religion makes great claims to truth. Literary criticism can only ever offer opinion.

---

Yes, I agree.

quote:

---

The best you can claim here is that the two strands of thought, religion and science, are mutually complimentary. But what exactly does religion bring to the table? Any value that religion might have as a guide to philosophy is fatally undermined by its ridiculous truth-claims, its constant attempts to overstep its bounds and its complete lack of any visible logical grounding. It is, at best, an irrelevance, in practise, a hindrance.

---

What does does religion bring to the table? How about the motivation to do science at all?! Christian faith was a primary motivation for the development of modern science. Nature was deemed worthy of study because God created and maintained it, and because a consistent God would run His universe in a consistent way, describable by "laws."

quote:

---

Again, I must ask; do you consider serial murder to be compatible with Christianity? There have been Christian serial killers. Is serial killing "orthogonal" with Christianity? Just because a person is capable of practising both does not mean that they should be considered complimentary. Some things are just not a very good fit for each other.

---

I don't see how this relates; it's not the same. I was referring to two different approaches or bodies of knowledge. You are asking about a specific action and a religion; these are different categories. Is the belief that serial murder is a good thing compatible with Christianity? No. Can one practice both? Yes, but not without serious internal conflicts.

quote:

---

quote:

---

If by "set aside" you mean "not appeal to in scientific explanations", I agree. But if you mean "not believe" I disagree.

---

I mean the former. Although I can't help but see a gaping logical hole in the practise of basing one set of beliefs about the physical world upon reason and observation, only to cast that reason aside when it comes to religious beliefs. It is that gulf between the two different ways of thinking about things that I feel lies at the heart of the incompatibility.

---

Religious belief does NOT cast reason aside, as I thought you had agreed; look back at the earlier pages of this thread if you have forgotten this.

quote:

---

quote:

---

How are religious scientists practicing "cognitive dissonance" or believing "mutually exclusive" ideas any more than a person who does both a chemical and a literary analysis of the same book?

---

Because they are holding two sets of beliefs about the universe, one based on evidence, the other based on... whatever it is that you religious chaps base your ideas on... that you refuse to tell me about...

---

How is this any more "cognitive dissonance" that believing the chemical and literary analyses of a book? Can you explain more clearly where you see the "dissonance?"

quote:

---

Placing two sets of ideas on roughly level pegging (as religious scientists such as Francis Collins do) despite the fact that one is evidenced and the other is not is cognitive dissonance.

---

Have you read Collins' book The Language of God, where he discusses the evidence that led him to believe? If not, I recommend it. If so, perhaps YOU are the one evidencing "cognitive dissonance" in denying that he had any evidence?Can you explain exactly where you see "cognitive dissonance" in Francis Collins' position?

quote:

---

Of course, you will say that the religious beliefs are supported. But you won't say what by, so I can only conclude that religion is not supported by logic or reason.

---

You just mentioned Francis Collins; if you really wanted to understand the logic, reason, and evidence for faith, I suppose you could start by looking at what Collins says about it.

quote:

---

Things that are collectively agreed to exist within objective reality.
-there is always a scientific test that can be done, and has been done, to show that the idea in question actually exists within objective reality
-mountains, trees, animals, planets, stars, cars, computers, scientific theories... all manner of things that are the same for everyone, regardless of personal belief

---

I reject this position. You are making science the sole determiner of "objective reality." This is much too broad. Science is limited first to the natural world, and second to scientific investigation of the natural world."Objective reality" is a broader concept and can include more than the natural world, e.g. the spiritual world. If the spiritual world is objectively real, your definition would try to make it part of science, which violates methodological naturalism. Fields such as history deal with the natural world using methods other than scientific investigation. Your definition would try to include history as part of science.

You don't quite understand my perspective. Please look back at Message 328 to see my description of it.

quote:

---

If God is in the science and operating the universe then God is interacting with the physical world. You're actually making a particularly strong statement here about the nature of the physical world, namely that it is directed minute to minute by God.

---

Yes, exactly.

quote:

---

This must be a God of the gaps!

---

No, it is very different. Almost the opposite, in fact. The "God of the gaps" perspective invokes God for physical phenomena which have no present-day scientific explanation. As our scientific understanding grows, God gets "smaller." My perspective is that scientific law is a manifestation of God's consistent character. As our scientific understanding grows, our appreciation of God's activity also grows.

quote:

---

The only way God can play this role is in some aspect of the physical world. He can't be playing this role in a purely spiritual domain.

---

Correct.

quote:

---

For example, if he is directing the universe minute by minute, he must be intervening in the events that take place in the universe.

---

Yes, but the word "intervening" has the wrong connotation. "Directing" is better.

quote:

---

He can't be doing this in areas where we understand the physical laws that apply and where we are making observations at the time, or we'd notice.

---

No, this is exactly where God is directing the universe--through the physical laws that we understand. We DO notice, and we call His direction "physical law."

quote:

---

Are you really saying that God is only doing this when we can't see him do it?

---

No, absolutely not. He's doing it very plainly, out in the open.

quote:

---

I'm not sure whether you believe that God is the source of and upholder of physical laws (sorry If you mentioned this upthread - I haven't read the whole discussion).

---

Yes, that's the idea.

quote:

---

If so, then this also is a God of the gaps argument. It's only possible to hold this view because we don't know the origin of physical laws. I think it's an open question as to whether we will ever discover understand this scientifically but we cannot rule out the possibility.

---

I would maintain that this is impossible in principle, because it is a metaphysical question rather than a scientific question.Does my position put God in a different sort of gap, perhaps a metaphysical gap rather than a scientific gap? I don't believe so; no more than the ontological naturalist position puts nature in a gap. I outlined two metaphysical positions in Message 328; God is in the center of the first, nature is in the center of the second. I would say that neither God nor nature are in "gaps," they are both central to their respective metaphysical positions.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

---

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert EinsteinI am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

quote:

---

I don't think you understand, my category has nothing to do with what actually is "objective reality". That may be something that we can never fully understand.

---

But "objective reality" is a metaphysical/philosophical notion, not a scientific notion.

quote:

---

My category is about what we collectively agree to exist within objective reality. I tried to make it bigger in case you accidentally missed it.

---

"Collective agreement" is a sociological notion, neither a physical science nor a metaphysical notion. I don't think it is a good way to do science or to find truth.

quote:

---

You cannot refute my category by simply saying you don't like it. I don't really care about what you like and don't like. There is a very simple, easy way to refute it, however. All you have to do is think of one, single idea that is "collectively agreed to exist within objective reality" that cannot be tested by science.

---

It's not that I don't like it. I reject it because it is an improper mixing of science and metaphysics.

quote:

---

(Hint... "objective reality" is what science was invented to identify...)

---

No. Science addresses nature, not necessarily all of "objective reality." And it addresses nature in a specific, limited way. As in Message 313 I again recommend Helen Quinn's description of science, which is very good, and should be acceptable irrespective of one's metaphysical position. Here again is what she wrote about science and religion:

---

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert EinsteinI am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger