lpetrich

In his article Personal gods, deism, and the limits of skepticism, biologist and philosopher Massimo Pigliucci presents a taxonomy of various possible views.

However, Shawn Dawson has noted that these views are largely those related to Xtianity, and that it would be interesting to see where other religions would fall, like Eastern ones and pagan ones.

Pigliucci took up from Michael Shermer's taxonomy of views about science and religion:

Science and religion describe the same world

Science and religion describe two separate but coexisting worlds

Science and religion describe two conflicting worlds

In the conflicting-worlds view, only one "wins" -- the Thunderdome rule of "two in, one out" -- though the winner varies.

And he added a taxonomy of god beliefs:

Personal Deities (continually intervening)

Naturalistic Deities (preferring to work through natural laws)

Deistic Deities (very distant and uninvolved) / Impersonal Forces / Nontheism

He discussed in detail the various schools of science-religion-relationship thought; they are diagrammed in Mr. Dawson's page. Here goes, from bottom left to top right:

Same World / Personal -- Scientific theism; the usual sort of Xtian apologists (Templeton Foundation, William Lane Craig, etc.)

Same World / Naturalistic -- Strong Anthropic Principle (Universe has natural laws designed for our benefit -- Tipler)

Same World / Deistic -- Weak Anthropic Principle (Universe is convenient for us in some ways -- Davies) -- The "God of the Big Bang"

Coexisting Worlds / Personal -- The Pope's statement "Faith and Reason"

Coexisting Worlds / Naturalistic -- Huston Smith (author of The Religions of Man).

Coexisting Worlds / Deistic -- Non-Overlapping Magisteria (Gould, Shermer, Ruse, and likely also Galileo)

Conflicting Worlds / Personal - Creationists, including "Classical Creationists" (Gish, ICR, AIG, etc.) and "Neo-Creationists" or "Intelligent Design" theorists (Dembski, Behe, Wells, Johnson, etc.)

Coexisting/Conflicting Worlds / Personal/Naturalistic - "Scientific Skepticism" (Martin Gardner, etc.)

Conflicting Worlds / Naturalistic - "Scientific Rationalism", including soft (Sagan) and strict (Pigliucci himself, Dawkins, Provine, Stenger)

Some of these categories tend to drift toward some others.

Same World / Naturalistic (Strong Anthropic Princple) -> Same World / Personal

Same World / Personal (Scientific Theism) <-> Coexisting Worlds / Naturalistic (Theistic Science)

Coexisting Worlds / Personal ("Faith and Reason") -> Same World / Personal

"Scientific Skepticism" -> both Coexisting Worlds / Deistic (NOMA) and Personal / Conflicting (opposition to creationism and the like)

Conflicting Worlds / Naturalistic (Scientific Rationalism) -> both Personal and Deistic directions in Conflicting Worlds

ManM

I find it interesting that creationists are in the "conflicting worlds" category. If the creationists believe science and religion oppose one another, why do they bother trying to use science to defend their claims?

As for Eastern religions, I'm not sure it is appropriate to categorize them in this manner. I think it would be quite the injustice to dissect the Eastern religions from a Western mindset. The Tao is to be experienced, not understood. Or something like that.

lpetrich

ManM:
I find it interesting that creationists are in the "conflicting worlds" category. If the creationists believe science and religion oppose one another, why do they bother trying to use science to defend their claims?

I think that you are right that this descripion of conflicting worlds is rather inadequate. It may be more like "if they conflict, then one or the other takes absolute priority".

Thus, an Xtian Fundie Creationist may like science in general, but with the condition that a literal interpretation of the Bible have absolute priority over any alternative conclusion.

As for Eastern religions, I'm not sure it is appropriate to categorize them in this manner. ...

I agree that many religions may not fit very well, because they may better be described as "orthopraxis" rather than "orthodoxy" -- correct practice rather than correct belief.

ManM

I don't think creationists oppose science at all. What they oppose is a specific scientific theory. They are not opposed to facts, but rather to a particular interpretation of those facts. I suppose my primary objection to Pigliucci is that he doesn't separate the theories from the method. A person can very well buy into the scientific method without accepting a widely held theory. There are several different theories of evolution running around, but you never hear anyone speak of a conflict between classical Darwinism and science. Also, when a person who believes in classical Darwinism finds evidence that he is wrong, he does not throw out evolution, but rather revises his theory in order to reconcile it with the evidence (eg punctuated equilibrium). Likewise, the creationist does not throw out revelation, but revises his theories in order to reconcile it with the evidence. Why then would anyone set creationism opposed to science? Why isn't it "just another theory"?

I'm not trying to start a debate about the scientific merits of classical Darwinism, punctuated equilibrium, or creationism. I'm more interested in the criteria used to contrast a theory with science as whole (eg Religion vs. Science).

emotional

That's what they say. But if you oppose evolution because it contradicts holy scripture, then you oppose science. Science is the investigation of nature without taking holy scripture into account.



Evolution isn't an interpretation, it's what the facts say.

I hold that creationism is not a scientific theory, not because it is supernatural, but because it reverses the scientific method. I don't think a theory should be discounted because it's supernatural; but I do think a theory should be discounted if it starts with a conclusion and finds facts to support it. Science is properly done by starting with the facts and drawing a conclusion from them. Creationism is another theory, but it's not a scientific theory, it's an anti-scientific theory.

ManM

emotional,
I disagree with your definition of science. It would be analogous to claim that science is the investigation of nature without taking Darwin's writings into account. Should I ignore the theories of Moses simple because he is Moses? Should I ignore your theories simply because they are yours? Science should have no prejudice. Theories should be judged based on their consistency, not their source.

I have yet to see an observation dictate a specific hypothesis to me. If the facts interpreted themselves, I would expect to see less diversity of opinion in the scientific community.

So, anyone looking for evidence that supports a theory is being unscientific? What about those who design an experiment in order to test a theory? Are they not looking for facts to support their theory?

emotional

No, it would not. Darwin's writings are a summary of what he found in nature, whereas the Bible is a collection of preconceived ideas deduced without observation.



Moses' theories aren't the result of observation, they're a complete philosophy. This quote from Frank Zindler is relevant:



There are debates on the mechanisms and tempo of evolution, but ever since Darwin published his book in 1859, there has never been debate on the fact that evolution occurred. The evidence is just too overwhelming to be ignored or interpreted differently.



Exactly. A scientist is supposed to begin from a clean slate of observation and then draw the conclusions.

No.

ManM

I'm not sure you want to make this claim. If the ideas of the writers of the Bible were not deduced from observing nature, where did they come from? God? Or are you proposing a theory of pre-existing ideas here? Furthermore, Evolutionary theory is obviously more than just a set of observations. I am not yet aware of anyone observing macroevolution on a grand scale.

Also, Frank Zinder makes a great argument for natural selection. The other interesting thing to note is that there really is an equivalent for creationists. Both creation and the flood are mentioned in the stories of many different cultures. Do you suppose this gives Mr. Zinder nightmares? Also, one does not have to be a YEC to be a creationist any more than one has to believe in punctuated equilibrium to believe in evolution. But this is really not the direction I want this discussion to take.

Sure, within the circle of people who believe in evolution, there is no debate on the fact that evolution occurred. But quite frankly, if the evidence was too overwhelming to be ignored or interpreted differently, we would not have entire websites and discussion groups dedicated to evolutionary apologetics.

You seem to be ignoring the bottom half of the scientific method. Once a theory is established, the scientist makes a prediction based on that idea and then performs an experiment. Certain types of scientists do their 'experiments' by observing and/or discovering aspects of nature. Paleontologists come to mind here. And so in order to test out a theory, they have to go 'look' for evidence that their theory is correct. Are you certain that this practice does not fall under the realm of science?

In a futile attempt to keep branching to a minimum, let me reiterate my point. The conflict between 'science and religion' as it relates to evolution and creation is a myth. They are simply two competing theories that play by the same rules.

emotional

Here is where I most emphatically disagree. Evolution is science, creationism is religion. I used to be sceptical of evolution in the past, but I was willing to accept it when offered proof. Creationists are not sceptical of evolution, they reject it a priori, and no evidence, no matter how overwhelming, would convince them otherwise.

Creationism does not play by the rules of science. It's a pseudoscience. Robert Schadewald probably explained it in the best ever way there could be. Here:

Six Flood Arguments Creationists Can't Answer

Creationism isn't science any more than Stork Theory is. The analogy is strong, because the Bible offers explanations of natural phenomena on a par with the Stork Theory. Rainbows as a promise not to flood the world is just one example (as opposed to the true explanation of optical refraction. It beats me why the cretinists don't go out of the way to refute optical refraction as they do for evolution).

ManM

emotional,
What sort of experiment or observation would disprove macroevolution?

Robert Schadewald brings out some interesting information, although it appears outdated and aimed at a strawman. I especially like this assertion: "Well-trained eyes (and minds) are characteristic of pseudoscientists." With one fell swoop he takes out both creationist and evolutionary apologetics. A while back I read about an evolutionary theory that proposed genes store up mutation information so that complex changes happen within one or two generations. This supposedly explained the lack of transitionary forms and the evolution of irreducibly complex systems. In other words, theses scientists did not abandon evolution when a question was raised about it. They just devised a more complicated explanation for things, one that requires better trained eyes and minds. Just like the creationists do.

The Bible was written to be a history book, not a science book. What does it matter if Noah interpreted the rainbow as God's sign? That he interpreted it as such is a historical matter, and I do not see how it is relevant. Anyway, please be sure to answer my first question. What would falsify macroevolution?