Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation, Evolution, and faith
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 304 of 456 (556101)
04-17-2010 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 300 by kbertsche
04-17-2010 12:26 AM


Re: Reality vs Books
Hi kbertsche,
Not so. Christianity claims to be based on the Bible. So its central ideas need to be logically derivable from the Bible. Of course, this does not guarantee that the claims are true. But this is not what I am claiming in this thread.
Well you need to address that. Christians actually believe these things they read about. Where does that come from? If you cannot demonstrate that those beliefs are wholly based upon logic and reason, you initial comparison between science and religion completely fails.
No, now we are back to metaphysical questions of truth and reality.
No we're not kbertsche, and shame on you for dragging solipsism into this, like a stoned fifteen year-old.
As I have already said, religion makes the exact same assumptions as science makes about the nature of reality. The only difference is that theists take these as philosophical assumptions, scientists need only take them as methodological assumptions. You have ignored this point before, so please don't drag us back into this mire again.
Granny writes:
A scientist studies reality in order to find out what exists in reality.
kbertsche writes:
No, this is a very poor, sloppy description. A scientist studies nature in order to derive a scientific explanation of the natural world.
Whatever. The scientist studies reality (in this usage a synonym for nature) in order to make judgements about it. She need not use any "sacred" text as proxy.
Yes; a believer is not quite analogous to a scientist.
Right. That's all I've been saying throughout this thread.
And I've been careful not to claim that he is. The analogy is between biblical scholarship and science.
What! That's what you've been arguing? But that's completely fucking pointless! No-one has ever denied that theists can use logic and reason. We have been arguing that religion itself fails to be logical. Jesus Christ kbertsche, have you been wasting everyone's time over a non-issue?
Oh, but you've not been;
kbertsche writes:
Biblical faith is based on reason.
kbertsche writes:
But many aspects of religious faith ARE based on reason.
kbertsche writes:
In Christianity, faith, belief, and trust are essentially synonymous; they are all forms of the Greek "pisteuo" or "pistis", which is related to being convinced or persuaded. This doesn't go beyond evidence; it is based on evidence and reason.
kbertsche writes:
My main point is the definition of "religious faith."
So you have not been merely talking about science vs biblical scholarship. You have been trying to equate religion and science, trying to claim that both are based on reason. Now you are trying to move the goalposts. Feel free to lie to yourself if you must, but don't lie to me please.
If you were only ever talking about biblical scholarship, why did you bring up Acts 17? You did it to show that religious belief is based on reason. There was no textual analysis. You are fooling no-one with this silly lie.
A biblical scholar studies the Bible to find out what the Bible says. A Christian takes the metaphysical/theological/philosophical position that this is actually true.
And that is the key difference. Can you show me what reason and logic the Christian uses to reach that conclusion? If not, all your nonsense about religion and science being "analogous" is bunk. If you can't do that all your claims that science is comparably faith-based are void.
Yes, so far we are doing biblical scholarship. This is a basis for religious faith, but it is not in itself the same as religious faith.
You know, if you'd restricted yourself to saying that at the beginning of this thread, we might have saved some time...
No-one argues that biblical scholarship doesn't use logic. But then, anyone can be a biblical scholar, even an atheist. Scholarship of this kind is not intrinsically religious. People are arguing that religion doesn't use logic. For you to change your tune this late into a debate and then pretend that was what you've said all along is dishonest and pathetic.
Yes, exactly. We have gone beyond biblical scholarship to metaphysical/theological truth-claims.
Can you show me how those beliefs are based on logic? No. Your comparisons between religion and science have proved false.
Correction: Scientists study only nature, using a specific methodology with a specific type of evidence. They make only scientific claims, and only about nature.
A meaningless distinction. Nature is synonymous with reality. Even if we accept your absurd and unevidenced "spiritual reality", nature is still a subset of a wider reality, about which science makes claims. But religion also makes claims about nature and it does so on the basis of appeal to scriptural authority, not reason. Even if religion did restrict itself to the "spiritual", it would still be making claims about reality, unevidenced and unjustifiable claims.
Biblical scholarship makes claims about what the text says, based on observation and study of the text.
How many times do I have to point out that this is irrelevant? Biblical scholarship is not religion. How theists analyse their texts is not relevant. Why they believe them is. Please either address that or quit.
So religion is based on observations of the text. But this is not the whole story, of course; it does not address the question of why the text should be believed as true. This is a huge, multifaceted topic with many threads, websites, and books written on it. I do not intend to address it in this thread.
What? But it's the topic we've been discussing for pages and pages. If you can't or won't address why believers believe, then you cannot make any claim that their beliefs are based on logic and reason. Grow a spine kbertsche and either admit you were wrong or defend your position like an adult.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by kbertsche, posted 04-17-2010 12:26 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 306 by kbertsche, posted 04-17-2010 1:38 PM Granny Magda has replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 310 of 456 (556252)
04-18-2010 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 306 by kbertsche
04-17-2010 1:38 PM


Re: Reality vs Books
Hi kbertsche,
Granny writes:
kbertsche writes:
Not so. Christianity claims to be based on the Bible. So its central ideas need to be logically derivable from the Bible. Of course, this does not guarantee that the claims are true. But this is not what I am claiming in this thread.
Well you need to address that.
kbertsche writes:
Not in this thread.
Why ever not? You have claimed, in this thread, that religion is based upon logic. Now, when I ask for a concrete example of how it's based on logic, you go all coy. Why it's almost like you don't actually have an argument...
YOU are the one who insists on dragging the metaphysical concepts of "truth" and "reality" into the discussion.
No, you were the first to bring that one up, in Message 25, your first on this thread.
kbertsche writes:
Further, most scientists believe that their theories have some actual correspondence with the physical universe, that the theories are in some sense "real" instead of merely being imaginary non-physical models. None of these positions can be proven; we accept them on faith.
Questioning the reality of reality is always a waste of time and an intellectual dead end. The fact that you repeatedly seek to take refuge in these arguments - despite the fact that religion and theology make exactly the same assumptions, only less tentatively - only serves to demonstrate how desperate you are to cling onto a shred of an argument.
True; I've made lots of posts and have mentioned lots of things in this thread.
Here's one of them.
kbertsche writes:
You have my argument backwards. You should know as well as I that religious faith uses reason and evidence.
Note that you are claiming that faith is based on reason and logic,. not merely theology.
False. I have never equated religion and science. If you've read my posts carefully, in an attempt to understand instead of simply to argue, you would see this.
Your repeated false assertions that science is based on faith, combined with your repeated attempts to distance religion from faith give the lie to this. Regardless of whether you are trying to "equate" them exactly, you are trying to blur the line between them.
Rather, I have argued for some similarities and analogies between the two. Specifically, that both involve faith or belief in various ways, and that the scholarship in both fields is performed in an analogous way.
And you are wrong. Religion is only able to refer to it's book. Books have authors kbertsche. Authors lie. Authors are mistaken. Authors can be edited and redacted. And yet despite all this, religious believers will treat these books as though they had some special significance. They treat them as guides to the wider world.
You have repeatedly ignored the fact that theists repeatedly make claims about the wider world. They do not restrict themselves to analysing texts. They study a book and use it as a guide to what happens or has happened. Science does no such thing.
Science only seeks to understand the natural world and only studies the natural world.
Religion seeks to understand both the natural world and the alleged "supernatural" world, and a whole raft of moral and philosophical claims, all from studying a single set of books.
Trying to separate the scholarship and the beliefs, as you have been doing, is misleading. You keep pointing out that religious apologists are capable of utilising reason, as if this observation was meaningful. What you seem to have missed is that no-one has really disagreed with this.
The only example of reason and logic in Christian scholarship that you have been able to present is the trivial matter of analysing a text. When presented next to the endeavour of science (understanding an entire universe) this is small beer.
Granny writes:
Can you show me what reason and logic the Christian uses to reach that conclusion?
kbertsche writes:
I could present lots of evidence for this, but you've probably heard and rejected all of it already. I won't attempt this in the present thread.
And I have an answer to all your objections hidden in a biscuit tin under my desk. You can't see it though. It's a secret.
Grow up man. You claimed that "religious faith uses reason and evidence", but when asked to provide a concrete example, once again, you cannot. Textual analysis is not faith. Textual analysis can be as logical as you like, but if you then go ahead and believe it. without any apparent reason, it is ridiculous to pretend that your faith is logical, just because you had to work out what your scripture said before you took it as an inerrant authority.
Analysing the text may be perfectly logic, but going the extra mile and actually believing it, that is such a massive step over the edge, that it totally overshadows any logic used in the analysis.
Example: if I found a Spider-man comic written in a foreign language, I might use reason and logic to translate it. But to then go and say "I believe this comic to be true, Spider-man is real." is such an absurd and unsupported leap of faith, that my claim to have used logic in the translation becomes insignificant in comparison.
This is exactly what you're doing. You reach a few limited conclusions about a text, and claim, reasonably, that this is based on logic. But then, you go off the deep end and actually decide to believe it. This is grossly illogical, but you still hang onto the trivial scrap of logic from from before you decided to throw reason out the window. It just doesn't make sense. It certainly does not compare with science, which is never makes illogical leaps of this kind.
Not true. I said that "reason is not the ONLY basis for religious faith" way back in Message 74.
Yes, you did. The problem is that you have not demonstrated that reason is even a factor in faith. You have only shown that it a factor in deciding what to have faith in, a quite different matter.
Not true. Taq took issue in Message 132 with my claim that theology (not religion) relies on evidence and reason.
in message 132, Taq answered this;
kbertsche writes:
You have my argument backwards. You should know as well as I that religious faith uses reason and evidence.
This is not a claim about theology, it is a claim about faith. One which you now seem unwilling to back up.
Rather, you are mischaracterizing the discussion.
No, you are seeking to cast off some of the less defensible arguments you have been making. You are trying to rewrite history. Not a wise move when your words still there are on the screen.
Granny writes:
A meaningless distinction. Nature is synonymous with reality.
kbertsche writes:
Absolutely not! Either you are not thinking clearly, or you are trying to force a materialistic metaphysical position onto the conversation. "Reality" is the province of metaphysics. "Nature" is the province of science. They are different categories.
Look, it doesn't matter. I've already addressed this. Science studies nature. You are correct there. Religion presumes to study the "spiritual" or "supernatural". Allof these, nature and super-nature are (to be as generous as possible to your position) sub-sets of what is real. Now leaving aside the fact that neither of these can be demonstrated to exist in any reasonable or logical way, you are still left with the problem of the claims made by each group and how they support those claims.
Science studies nature to reach tentative conclusions about nature. It does not discount any evidence from nature.
Religion studies a book in order to reach conclusions about both nature and super-nature. It's conclusions are rarely tentative. It utterly discounts everyone else's holy books, apparently on a whim.
These are the clear-cut differences and no matter how much you try and ignore them, they are not going to go away. They also dwarf the trivial matter of textual analysis. Concentrating on such a minor aspect of religion whilst ignoring the elephant in room - faith - is a waste of time.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by kbertsche, posted 04-17-2010 1:38 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 327 of 456 (557158)
04-23-2010 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 323 by kbertsche
04-23-2010 12:18 AM


Re: Tracing back to early comments...
HI kbertsche,
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.
This of course is quite false.
Dawkins does not "insist" upon any interpretation. He may address a literal interpretation, but he also devotes an entire chapter of TGD to criticising the OT as a supposed moral guide;
quote:
Of course, irritated theologians will protest that we don't take the book of Genesis literally any more. But that is my whole point! We pick and choose which bits of scripture to believe, which bits to write off as symbols or allegories. Such picking and choosing is a matter of personal decision, just as much, or as little, as the atheist's decision to follow this moral precept or that was a personal decision, without an absolute foundation. If one of these is 'morality flying by the seat of its pants', so is the other. In any case, despite the good intentions of the sophisticated theologian, a frighteningly large number of people still do take their scriptures, including the story of Noah, literally
You seem to be projecting again. It is the Christian who regularly asserts that he has all the answers. Christians very often assert that they know the correct interpretation of scripture. Atheists tend not to claim such certainty.
Disagree? Why don't you show me where Dawkins "insists" on any particular interpretation of Genesis? Or is that another secret that you are unwilling to divulge?
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by kbertsche, posted 04-23-2010 12:18 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 333 by kbertsche, posted 04-24-2010 12:20 AM Granny Magda has replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 337 of 456 (557290)
04-24-2010 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 333 by kbertsche
04-24-2010 12:20 AM


Re: Tracing back to early comments...
Hi kbertsche,
I did not mention the issue of whether or not the OT is a moral guide. I mentioned the issue of a simplistic, literalistic interpretation of Genesis.
I mention it to highlight the fact that Dawkins does address allegory, as shown by the quote I presented.
And I also said:
kbertsche writes:
This anti-religious literalistic interpretation among can be traced back at least to the classic "hatchet-job" books which insisted that science and religion are always in conflict: John Draper's "History of the Conflict between Religion and Science" in 1874 and Andrew Dickson White's "History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom" back in 1896.
Bet you a dollar Dawkins has never read those books. It hardly matters where you think you can trace it to, when you can't even find it in TGD.
I can't find an explicit mention in The God Delusion that Dawkins thinks Genesis speaks of a literal, 6-day creation.
To be fair, that was not what you originally claimed. You claimed that he insisted upon a literal interpretation. But you can't even find him saying he believes in it.
Perhaps I heard this in one of his debates (with Lennox? McGrath?)
Or perhaps you were merely wrong. Happens to the best of us you know.
But he implies that he thinks such a literalistic interpretation is correct in a couple of places in the book. E.g., when speaking of Kurt Wise on p. 285, he mentions that Wise could have interpreted the Bible symbolically or allegorically, but instead he adopted a "fundamentalist" interpretation. Dawkins praises him for this as "honest -- devastatingly, painfully, shockingly honest."
Sure, although the whole context makes clear that Dawkins is not specifically talking about Wise's refusal to accept allegory when he calls him honest.
There is another point to be made here. If one believes, sincerely, just as Wise did, that Gen 1 & 2 are literal; if one believes the allegorical interpretations of Gen 1 & 2 to be flawed; and one also realises that geoscience is incompatible with a literal Gen 1 & 2, just as Wise did, then what is the correct course of action? To accept allegory? NO! That has the logic backwards.
If one accepts that science rules out a literal interpretation, it does not follow that the scripture in question must be allegorical. That, quite wrongly, assumes that the Bible is inerrant. It excludes the perfectly reasonable possibility that Gen 1 & 2 are simply wrong (as we've discussed before). Assuming that an allegorical interpretation was intended for Gen 1 & 2 simply because science rejects the literal version is spectacularly illogical, yet, I suspect, quite prevalent amongst moderate theists. I think that it is this that Dawkins was getting at when he praised Wise's honesty.
But Dawkins certainly DOES insist on a conflict perspective between science and religion. This unwavering commitment permeates The God Delusion. He is strongly critical of any attempts to harmonize science and religion.
Yes. Good chap that Dawkins. Always liked him.
Seriously; Dawkins is right here. Science and religion are fundamentally opposed ways of trying to understand. They are not compatible.
He is strongly critical of any attempts to harmonize science and religion. He ridicules Stephen Jay Gould's "NOMA" perspective (p. 55-61).
Yes. That's because it is ridiculous. I admire Gould, but he was quite wrong about NOMA, as any casual inspection of world religion ought to be enough to demonstrate. Religion, as you have pointed out, makes claims about the physical world all the time.
He even accuses atheist philosopher Michael Ruse of being in "the Neville Chamberlain school of evolutionists" because Ruse had some good things to say about non-YEC Christians
No, you are mis-characterising what was said.
Ruse was suggesting a truce of sorts between moderate religion and anti-creationist scientists. Dawkins rejects this for the most part. He was not criticising Ruse for saying nice things about religion, as you wrongly allege. He was criticising the suggestion that we lay off moderate religion and aim for the creationist extremists. I happen to agree with Dawkins here and most especially, I agree with Jerry Coyne, who, further down the page, writes that Ruse;
quote:
fails to grasp the real nature of the conflict. It's not just about evolution versus creationism. To scientists like Dawkins and Wilson [E. O. Wilson, the celebrated Harvard biologist], the real war is between rationalism and superstition. Science is but one form of rationalism, while religion is the most common form of superstition. Creationism is just a symptom of what they see as the greater enemy: religion. While religion can exist without creationism, creationism cannot exist without religion.
I applaud that sentiment. I can understand why it doesn't appeal to you, but even you must admit that it is consistent and honest.
As Alister McGrath explains, Dawkins has simply replicated a YEC "fundamentalist scenario, while inverting its frame of reference. ... Dawkins is clearly entrenched in his own peculiar version of a fundamentalist dualism. ... We are offered an atheist fundamentalism that is as deeply flawed and skewed as its religious counterparts."
This is complete nonsense. McGrath is simply making the same claim as you did, that Dawkins is insistent on a YEC literalist interpretation. This is false. You cannot back it up and nor does McGrath attempt to.
Dawkins often brings up YEC beliefs. Can you blame him? They are very, very silly and they make sensible people laugh. Encouraging people to laugh at the silliness of religion is part of Dawkins' goals and YEC's fit the bill nicely. Why not bring them up? Millions of people sincerely hold these beliefs and you can no more guarantee that their interpretation is wrong than you can guarantee that yours is right.
Mutate and Survive
PS;
First, I never believed in Santa Claus.
And I never believed in God. How can I "replace" a belief I never held?
Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 333 by kbertsche, posted 04-24-2010 12:20 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 347 by kbertsche, posted 04-26-2010 11:33 AM Granny Magda has replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 346 of 456 (557506)
04-26-2010 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 323 by kbertsche
04-23-2010 12:18 AM


Re: Tracing back to early comments...
Hi kbertsche,
So I was following a link that Modulous provided on another thread and look what I found...
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...
From http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0086.htm
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by kbertsche, posted 04-23-2010 12:18 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 356 by kbertsche, posted 04-27-2010 8:01 PM Granny Magda has not replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 352 of 456 (557552)
04-26-2010 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 347 by kbertsche
04-26-2010 11:33 AM


Re: Tracing back to early comments...
Hi kbertsche,
Yes, it is irrelevant whether or not Dawkins ever read these books. My point was that Draper and White popularized the claim that science and religion are always in conflict, and that this false claim has infected much of western society. Most don't know where the claim originated.
It doesn't really matter to me where the claim originated. I just happen to agree with it.
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. 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?
Invariably, those who make such claims are not non-religious, but anti-religious.
Probably only fair to note that this category does include myself. My animus for religion doesn't mean I'm wrong though...
They are like a geocentrist who critiques astronomy.
Thanks. Has it occurred to you that I might understand religion better than you allege? Of course, if I have failed to understand religion, perhaps you could help me out by explaining how it is based upon logic and reason?
Gould made an honest observation when he said, Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs and equally compatible with atheism.
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. A scientist must set aside her attachment to supernatural beliefs when she dons her scientist hat. Nor can a religious claim about a supernatural entity claim scientific backing. The two methods are mutually exclusive.
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.
The claim that science and religion are incompatible is falsified by surveys of religious belief among scientists.
As I hope I have made clear, this is not really relevant to what I'm trying to say. I do not dispute the existence of theist scientists.
Newton wrote more about the Bible than about science.
He also wrote about alchemy. Is alchemy compatible with science? With Christianity?
Bacon wrote the following... {quote omitted}
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.
These men pursued science because they held the first metaphysical perspective that I described earlier. They believed that God is consistent and trustworthy; He is the operator of His universe; therefore His universe can be studied and "natural laws" can be discerned, analogous to God's "moral laws" revealed in Scripture.
This is precisely the point I have been trying to get across to you about the essential difference between science and religion and the extra assumptions that religion makes. The scientists you note had to make all the same assumptions about reality as any other scientist (as very clearly expressed by Subbie in Message 341), but the theist adds on a whole raft of extra assumptions; that God is consistent and trustworthy, etc. There is no logical justification for this extra raft of beliefs, they hang in mid-air, quite unsupported by reason. When practising science, such beliefs, however pleasing, must be placed to one side.
The ridiculous claim that science and religion inherently conflict or are incompatible with one another is not born out in history nor in the lives of modern scientists who are religious. It only exists as a figment of the imagination of those who hate religion.
So can you cite any examples of scientists bringing their religious beliefs into the lab, so to speak, and having a net positive effect? Because all the religious scientists I know of tend to believe in the supernatural, but practise methodological naturalism in their work. When religious scientists try to combine the two (Newton's alchemical work serving as a good example), they tend to... not produce their best efforts.
From Message 348;
I was not claiming that you, GM or anyone else has "replaced" God with the universe in your own personal history. Rather, I note that the metaphysical conception of the universe is very different under the two views I have suggested. Attributes which are classically attributed to God under view 1 are placed on nature in view 2.
Okay, I think I see where you're coming from. Still, this is hardly the fault of atheists. Rather, it is caused by theists making shit up over the years. If religion did not make erroneous claims of divine causality for what later turn out to be natural phenomena, it would not find it's gods restricted to lurking in such tiny gaps.
The universe has replaced God as the thing which is uncaused, self-existent, self-operating.
Personally, I'm not very interested in first causes. I am more interested in what we can say with at least some degree of certainty. That lets us look back to a split second after the Big Bang. Further back than that, I am content to admit complete ignorance. Sure we can speculate beyond that, but to be honest, it just doesn't matter that much to me.
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.
You have it exactly backwards. The problem here is that religion has always been content to attribute responsibility for purely natural phenomena to deities, as seen with countless sun gods and earthquake gods. It is not a case of atheists attributing divine qualities to nature, but one of generations of theists attributing natural phenomena to gods. They were in error and they have been called on it. That is not the fault of atheists.
Mutate and Survive
Edited by Granny Magda, : Removed unloved apostrophe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 347 by kbertsche, posted 04-26-2010 11:33 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 360 by kbertsche, posted 04-28-2010 11:03 AM Granny Magda has replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 366 of 456 (558011)
04-29-2010 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 360 by kbertsche
04-28-2010 11:03 AM


Re: Tracing back to early comments...
Hi kbertsche,
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.
Well that's not quite what I'm saying. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
But if they can make no claims about the other, how can they exclude one another? They are orthogonal, but not mutually exclusive.
Again, they are not orthogonal, they are not separate. Religion is constantly treading on science's toes.
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...
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.
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.
I agree with your view of creation science, of course.
I am a firm believer in MN.
Well I'm glad we agree on something at least. Perhaps you could start a movement to campaign for Methodological Super-Naturalism; under MS-N religion would only be able to make supernatural claims, with no more pesky interfering in our understanding of the physical world. You never know, it might catch on.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 360 by kbertsche, posted 04-28-2010 11:03 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 377 by kbertsche, posted 04-30-2010 11:27 AM Granny Magda has replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 396 of 456 (558482)
05-01-2010 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 377 by kbertsche
04-30-2010 11:27 AM


Re: Tracing back to early comments...
HI kbertsche,
Granny writes:
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.
kbertsche writes:
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.
It isn't. A book is merely a book. Objective reality is a different matter. Both science and religion lead people to hold beliefs about what is real. No-one takes the contents of any secular book as being a definition of reality, but religion does claim to describe reality. These are two very different kinds of belief.
The problem, the inconsistency, is that both science and religion lead people to certain beliefs about reality. The scientist theist ends up with two sets beliefs, some supported by evidence, logic and reason, one unsupported. On the one hand, they must justify scientific ideas in a detailed and logical way, but the religious beliefs seem unsupported. I have never seen the kind of logical proof of something like the existence of God that such an idea would require were it a physical, natural claim. The mere definition of something as "supernatural" seems to be used to excuse ideas such as God from rational examination and logical justification.
This kind of behaviour requires that two separate strands of beliefs are held at once, but with both making claims about what is real.
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.
Things like the existence of a soul, a claim which clearly implies that the existence of brains is somehow inadequate to explain the existence of minds. Claims like yours earlier in the thread, where you insisted that natural phenomena like the origin of the universe should be thought of as being within the realm of theology.
In claiming that natural explanations are insufficient, religion is overstepping it's bounds. A good example of this kind of thing is the Catholic idea that the soul was inserted into humanity at a certain point in our evolution (an idea that Francis Collins is keen on I believe). This is completely unsupported and the evidence from our primate cousins is against it. But it fits the religious biases of its supporters, so it gets a free pass. It is an attempt to push the supernatural into an area where natural explanations are far better supported. In my opinion, most of the claims of religion that are contrary to science are of this nature; forcing supernatural explanations into explainable natural phenomena.
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?
In demanding logical evidence for scientific ideas, but waiving all such requirements for supernatural ones. All ideas about what is real and what is not, however tentatively held, need some kind of evidence. I don't think that you can support your religious beliefs with logic and evidence. In fact, you have pointedly refused to do so. With respect, I suspect that you believe that your ideas are more logically based than they actually are, something that you would share with most theists of my experience. Of course I may be wrong, but that is what I suspect. Certainly, you support your scientific arguments (against the creation science folks) rather better than you do your explicitely Christian arguments.
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.
Look at it this way; could we ever base a scientific conclusion upon an artistic analysis? Of course not. Similarly, one could never (or at least should never) base a scientific principle upon a religious analysis. The "soul-insertion" idea takes exactly this form, with its implicit claim that the mind is insufficient to support human conciousness. It bases an essential scientific claim upon a religious grounding.
Can you explain exactly where you see "cognitive dissonance" in Francis Collins' position?
I've not read Collins' book - I acquire books randomly from charity shops mostly - but I have read some articles by him. I have some familiarity with the kinds of argument that he makes.
An example of the kind of claim that he makes would be that God has used evolution to groom us into his chosen species and that having just about got it right, that's it for human evolution.
quote:
"Among Collins’s most controversial beliefs is that of theistic evolution, which claims natural selection is the tool that God chose to create man. In his version of the theory, he argues that man will not evolve further.
I see God’s hand at work through the mechanism of evolution. If God chose to create human beings in his image and decided that the mechanism of evolution was an elegant way to accomplish that goal, who are we to say that is not the way, he says.
Now that is crazy talk. Collins seems to believe that the ToE is sufficient to explain all creatures other than humanity, but it somehow falls short when it comes to us. This is bizarre and unsupported by any evidence. He believes some things to be fact because they are supported by logical evidence. He believes other things for no apparent reason other than his religiously founded desire to believe it. Tome, the dissonance is clear.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 377 by kbertsche, posted 04-30-2010 11:27 AM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024