Sojourner553

(Hope you don't mind me jumping in late)

To Kenneth Boyce:

First I would like to applaud you for pointing out that the religious outlook has not been/is not necessarily hostile to science; Indeed some great scientists have been religious.

This is where I agree with you. I would now like to point out where I disagree with you.
__________________________________________________ ______________________
Per Kenneth Boyce:
“The first misconception is that the scientific method is the only reliable means of obtaining knowledge about the world. “
__________________________________________________ _______________________
The scientific method never claims absolute certainty! Instead it represents itself as building models of increasing complexity to better approximate reality. That is why scientists are tolerant of (especially early) attempts to obtain a basis of information and to acquire new knowledge. Honesty is the key – both in searching for the truth, and making changes as errors are discovered!

I do not see you elaborating on the “other” method of obtaining knowledge: I speak of course, of the metaphysical/ mystical view (championed by Plato) which holds that the scientific method is not a reliable method for obtaining truth. Instead mystical means (example: revelation, meditation, and raw intellect) are upheld as better methods of discovering ultimate realities/truths.

You do not explore for us the success/failure record of the metaphysical approach.

(1) Religious philosophies have an abysmal record of predicting the nature of reality, if measured against the findings of modern science. Just a few examples:

* according to Genesis, the earth was created on the First Day of Creation; with the sun and moon created on the Fourth day of Creation; the earth is flat and located at the center of the universe.

* demonic possession was responsible for all mental illnesses.

(2) Philosophies that relied on rational intellect, with no observation also have abysmal records. Probably the most famous example is the philosopher Hegel who used pure reason to "deduce” that there could ONLY be seven planets in our solar system -- no more -- no less. (During this time, only seven planets happened to be known, so that Hegel's natural-philosophical approach happened to be in sync with then scientific thought – ie before Neptune and Pluto were discovered.)

Therefore in terms of discovering the laws of the NATURAL world, science, although not perfect, really has no successful competitors.

Arguably the metaphysical view can still be viewed as a means (possibly the ONLY means) of detecting a SUPERNATURAL realm. (By supernatural, I mean those areas beyond nature that cannot be detected by science.)

But there is a problem: Since the metaphysical view has a lousy record of predicting the NATURAL world, this does not inspire a lot of confidence (by skeptics) of why its predictions are any better in the SUPERNATURAL realm.

The believer can always “hope” for the existence of the supernatural, but my point is currently science has not found any evidence of its existence, and even those who employ metaphysical methods cannot attain ANY consensus on what is the nature/meaning of the supernatural. That is why there are some 10,000 sects just within Christianity.

__________________________________________________ ___________________________ Per Kenneth Boyce:
“Second, this position is false because it contradicts many things in our own experience. How do you know that you are in love with someone or that someone genuinely loves you? How do you know that things like racism and the killing of innocent people are wrong? How can you verify scientifically that life is meaningful and worth getting up in the morning for? None of these things are things that can be verified scientifically, but that does not seem to make any of them any less meaningful or less knowable.”
__________________________________________________ ___________________________
But, science is neither a philosophy nor a religion. Only philosophical systems (of which religion is a subset) defines morality (ie good vs. bad). True, science may be used to determine the cause and effect of a given subject. Practitioners of science may establish guidelines for conducting all scientific experiments in an honest and truthful manner.

But science cannot, by itself, be used to answer moral questions regarding whether its subject under scrutiny is either "good" or "bad". Instead, its analyses and conclusions must be "interpreted" within a broad philosophical framework, in order to answer moral questions such as whether something is “good”. Whenever science attaches good or bad to its discoveries, it is no longer a science, but an ideology. __________________________________________________ _________________________
Per Kenneth Boyce:
“Another misconception that many people have about science and religion is that science deals solely with the objective whereas religion deals solely with the subjective…
This is false because science, too, must rely on faith to make knowledge claims about the world. In order to claim that the practice of science leads to truth, one must have faith that certain fundamental claims about the world are true. “
__________________________________________________ _____________________

Science may rely on faith to make its initial hypotheses. But after this, the similarity ends! Science insists on subjecting these hypotheses to testing and verification – not only for evidence to prove the hypothesis, but more important for evidence that would DISPROVE the hypothesis. It is not science without this second step of verification. One does not see this second step within religion.
__________________________________________________ _______________________
Per Kenneth Boyce:
So, the short answer to the question as to whether or not, on the whole, Christianity and science are incompatible, is no. There is nothing at all inconsistent about maintaining both a scientific and a Christian outlook. In closing, I want to suggest that things do not stop there. I think that, in the midst of all the arguments over whether or not the two conflict, there is a deeper agreement between what science and Christianity have to say about the world, an agreement that is often overlooked.
__________________________________________________ _________________
I think this part is excellent!

I would only qualify/ add that most religious fundamentalists do not hold this view. (By fundamentalists I mean those who believe in an ideology or creed that attributes absolute, perfect knowledge to an AUTHORITARIAN body, which must be obeyed in order to bring society into a utopian/heaven-like existence.)

Atheists/skeptics sometimes try to broadly paint ALL religious individuals as being of the same mindset—this is not fair. Your article helps to correct this!


Sojourner

[ April 19, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Bill

You know, Bede, I keep having to remind myself that you are over there in the UK, where even the moderate religionists are in the minority. Your statement, above, sounds amazingly silly over here in the USA, where a good 40-50% of the population rejects the findings of science out-of-hand on the ground that it is inconsistant with their personal reading of the Bible. And of course, even greater differentiation exists within largely Muslim communities in various places around the world.

My point here is that you have used the word "normative" in a local sense, making your statement valid only within your own social environment. Considering humanity as a whole, and not localizing the matter, there is no such thing as a "mormative religion." That, of course, makes your statement, above, into the meaningless drivel which it truly seems to be.... Here, you go too far in your attempt to conflate science and religion.

Let me reiterate my point from earlier in this thread: the ultimate authority for scientific inquiry into truth is the external reality within which we live. No human or group of humans has the power to repeal the Law of Gravity. If there is some important disagreement between two scientists over some particular scientific phenomena, the appropriatly qualified scientists (who have funding to do this) construct appropriate experiments in order to investigate what the true nature of external reality is. This is the essence of an EMPIRICAL approach to truth.

Religion, on the other hand, is entirely a product of human thought (even if you do care to claim "divine revelation," that is still a "product of human thought" in the strictest sense of that is how those who claim to have experienced "divine revelation" obtain the fruits of such "revelations"). If two clerics disagree on some particular point of theology, such as what happens to the souls of human infants who die before they can be properly baptised, there isn't any EMPIRICAL approach possible to help resolve that dispute. There is only the consultation of so-called "ancient writings," which are, in turn, merely the thoughts of other humans who lived once, long ago. Thus, in the strictest sense, there is no way to consult any authority external to humans for a decision on a disputed point of theology (such as the matter I mention, above). And what happened with respect to the Roman Catholic idea of unbaptised infants going to Limbo is that somebody over in Rome decided a few years ago that "Jesus loved the little children," and so those unbaptised infants must necessarily end up in Heaven. So, Limbo was written out of the Roman Catholic Catechism in the most recent revision (1990s). This is the ultimate of an authoritarian act, and it can only be gotten away with inside of a religious context (as opposed to a scientific context).

In brief, when religion declares an erroneous dogma, you have to wait for the person making the declaration to die, and perhaps the entire power structure to die and be replaced, before that erroneous dogma can be reviewed and overturned by the successors of the declarers of said dogma. But when science declares an erroneous dogma, all you need is an experiment which clearly demonstrates the error and science will necessarily reject the erroneous dogma forthwith. Again, this demonstrates my point that the ultimate authority for science is external to human experience while the ultimate authority for religion is internal (because only humans have any input to the determination of religious dogma). This is, of course, an interesting observation on your part, Bede, because it essentially admits the entire point here: no God lends any authority to pronouncements of religious dogmas!

Of course, once you allow the godhead to become the ultimate authority, you are right back into the authoritarian trap. Unfortunately, the greatest debates in matters of religion all seem to amount to questions over which human has received "the real truth" as a revelation from God (or multiple gods, when appropriate).

Frankly, Bede, religion is an expression of human impatience. We want answers, and we want them NOW! In order to satisfy the human desire for answers to unanswerable questions, religious dogmas were invented, modified, fine-tuned over generations, and ultimately, carved into stone when it was thought that no further improvements were possible. It is certainly far harder for humans to live with the knowledge that there is so much we do not know, and probably never will know. From the number of now-openly-atheistic former preachers that I've met, I gather that the good works of religion can quite easily be performed by people who don't believe the religion for a moment. So, I'm not really sure exactly what your point here is.

Certainly, I will accept that any particular religion probably has a complete worldview while all of science would seemingly fall short of setting forth a complete worldview. However, that is merely to put science into a box into which it should not be put.

The real debate is between proponants of religious philosophy and between proponants of natural philosophy. In this case, we do clearly have two competing (and complete) worldviews. Yes, the believers of either can cross over and perform within the realms of each other's worlds, but it would seem that they could not do so "with all their heart" (so to speak), and thus could not really "give their all" to the benefit of that in which they do not believe. This is why statistics show that within the top ranks of scientists, under ten percent believe in a "personal God" like Jesus or Allah. You, Bede, are to be classified along with the liberals for your particular theological perspective. The contradictions posed by IntenCity are of no matter to liberals who view the Bible as symbolic or contextual (and here, you are arguing for the contextual interpretation). The contradictions abound, however, when the Bible is claimed to be the ultimate LITERAL authority for all TRUTH. Again, Bede, about 30 to 40% of all people here in the USA believe that the Bible is the literal truth and that if science claims anything different, then science is wrong. It is literally scary to live over here with such kooks!

== Bill

Ted Hoffman

Sojourner
Hostility and conflict are two very different concepts.
Even then, placing a man(Galileo) under house arrest is not a very friendly thing to do.
The fact that many facsists were religious does not mean that fascism and religion do not conflict. Human beings are capable of rationalizations and even denial when "forced" to hold two different worldviews simultaneously. So telling us great scientists have been religious illustrates nothing that is relevant.
Please tell us what the "deeper agreement between what science and christianity have to say about the world" is.

Alternatively, Sojourner can explain why he finds that part excellent. What is it about that baseless statement that makes it excellent?

In any case the "speech" was designed to pacify college undergrads who might be experiencing cognitive dissonance. It was an attempt to seduce scientifically inclined students into allowing religious concepts to creep into their minds.
Its hardly objective because it is intended to "sell" an idea. Not to present facts. For example the fallacy of missing arguments I have stated above.

Sojourner553

I think you make an error by lumping "all" Christians into the same category as the fundamentalists!

It is fundamentalists who follow a LITERAL interpretation of biblical verses and follow the Platonic view that scientific observation is not a valid measure of the natural world.

I think a Christian can follow the scientific outlook for observing the NATURAL world, while maintaining a "hope" for a SUPERNATURAL world (ie a world "beyond" that gives them hope for life after death.)

Even if I accept your statistics of 10% of important scientists being religious -- this is enough for me. Here is one of many examples I could give you.


Martin Gardner is one of the founders of the skeptical movement. He helped spearhead the skeptics movement with his book, Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science (originally published in 1952 under a different name). Since that time he has produced a steady output of books and articles denouncing psychic phenomena. In 1976 he helped found CSICOP.

Gardner believes in "a personal god, prayer, and life after death". Gardner's antagonism to psychic research is in part due to his
religious beliefs. His essay "Prayer: Why I Do Not Think It Foolish" is
revealing; for in it he says: "It is possible that paranormal forces not yet
established may allow prayers to influence the material world, and I certainly
am not saying this possibility should be ruled out a priori . . . As for
empirical tests of the power of God to answer prayer, I am among those theists
who, in the spirit of Jesus' remark that only the faithless look for signs,
consider such tests both futile and blasphemous . . . Let us not tempt God"
(Whys, p. 239). Nor is the above quote an isolated example. He also objects to
interpreting miracles in terms of parapsychological concepts, saying at one
point, "If I were an orthodox Jew or Christian, I would find such attempts to
explain biblical miracles to be both preposterous and an insult to God".
( see <a href="http://www.tricksterbook.com/BookDescriptions/GardnerFans.htm)" target="_blank">http://www.tricksterbook.com/BookDescriptions/GardnerFans.htm)</a>


I agree with Kenneth that there is nothing inherently wrong with trying to maintain both a scientific and religious view. It is a view that is 100% opposed to the fundamentalist spectrum of religion.

Here is what he said that I REALLY liked:
“There is nothing at all inconsistent about maintaining both a scientific and a Christian outlook. In closing, I want to suggest that things do not stop there. I think that, in the midst of all the arguments over whether or not the two conflict, there is a deeper agreement between what science and Christianity have to say about the world, an agreement that is often overlooked.”

In this, Kenneth is following the tradition laid down by other scientific-minded AND religious individuals:

For example, the Anglican theologian Charles Kingsley (who was a contemporary of Charles Darwin) wrote how he believed evolution proved that God was even MORE powerful than originally thought because this meant God must have ALSO CREATED the mechanism by which life generates new life:

"We know of old that God was so wise that he could make all things;
but behold, he is so much wiser even than that, that he can make
all things make themselves."

And according to Reverend Arthur Peacock (a winner of the Templeton Prize for
progress in religion and former director of the Ian Ramsey Centre for the Study of Science and Religion in Oxford):

"... the theory of evolution, far from undermining faith, deepens it."
"The fact that the universe probably began about 12 billion years ago
with life beginning to evolve about 3 billion years ago simply underlines
the extraordinary detailed, persistent, patience of the divine creator
spirit." "This attempt to see the Book of Genesis as a rival to
scientific truth [also] stops people taking the Bible seriously. Biblical
literalism brings not only the Bible but Christianity itself into
disrepute."

I think atheists who demean the religious-scientific tradition, can be just as guilty of fundamentalism as their religious (Christian) counterparts.


Sojourner

[ April 20, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

Sojourner When did I do this lumping?
And you are right and they are wrong?
So you are a liberal christian. Well, there are liberals and there are fundamentalists. Do we believe they are wrong just because you say you are right?
Examples mean nothing much except that humans can hold two conflicting viewpoints at the same time.
Numbers are irrelevant. 3 billion people could be wrong. Professors and philosophers can be wrong. martin Gardner can be wrong.
If you want to defend his views, compose them and present them here for refutation.
"inherently" wrong? this is a fallacy of true natures. What do you mean inherently wrong? Is it inherently wrong for a christian to have sex with someones wife? Is inherently wrong to steal food when one is starving? Nobody said it is wrong. It is simply inconsistent. You can't believe that the body is made up of cells and then believe that soil can be used to make man. Because cells are not made of soil (weathered rocks). It is irrational and inconsistent.
So because someone is following some "tradition laid down" by people who could be wrong, what he says becomes excellent?
How refreshing!

The rest of your posts is an appeal to authority.
then you summarise it:
This petulant statement is a futile labeling excersise. We are not discussing religious fundamentalists here. I make my position irrespective of what position religious fundamentalists do - if you find the positions similar, thats plainly coincidental. If its easy on your ego to lump people who disagree with your viewpoint with other people you dislike, be my guest. But I would be more interested in seeing you refute the arguments I present to prove that religion and science conflict.
You seem more intent on labeling people as "fundamentalists" or "liberals" - NOT evaluating the arguments they present.

Sojourner553

How about lines like:
“Examples [of some Christians being great scientists/skeptics] mean nothing much except that humans can hold two conflicting viewpoints at the same time.”

My point was that non-fundamentalist Christians can have a scientific outlook towards the NATURAL world while maintaining a HOPE for a supernatural existence beyond this. Try reading about Stephen Jay Gould's magisterium concept.


Fundamentalism is a view antithetical to science, and in my readings the true cause of Dark Ages. I do try and keep an open-mind towards humanist religions/non-religion as I realize I can be wrong to various degrees. How about yourself?


No! I am a nontheist. And this statement shows you Obviously completely misread my FIRST post! (You must have also read NONE of my other posts out here -- for I have stopped a number of religious posters in their tracks... By this, I mean they stopped writing back when I thought I made some awfully strong points.)


Of course, one of my favorite sayings is

"One of the proofs of the immortality of the soul is that myriads have believed it--they also believed the world was flat." -- Mark Twain


More the reason to try and maintain an open mind.

BTW: If you do not know who Martin Gardner is, obviously you do not read FREE INQUIRY or SKEPTICAL INQUIROR.

What I mean by “inherently wrong”, is that Christianity --when interpreted along a fundamentalist (ie “literal”) view IS anti-science. However, when interpreted along a liberal, figurative viewpoint, Christians will often accept the scientific findings/ interpretations on the nature of the world, even when they conflict with biblical verses.



I think most NON-Christians AND Christians would agree your first example was wrong, and not your second one. Even your second post, Christians would argue "Thou shalt not kill" has a higher precendence than "Thou shalt not steal". It's all in the interpretation of course. But even fundamentalists "interpret" verses as they see fit.


The relevent point here is: It is not INCONSISTENT, for a Christian who views the biblical stories as figurative, moral teachings (as opposed to historical absolute fact) to also be pro-science.


I would argue the majority of non-fundamentlists Christians do not hold this view.

My point is that atheists can be fundamentalist too if they insist on rigid, narrow definitions of classifying people.

And I challenge you to go back and read my first post where I gave examples of where religion has an “abysmal” record in predicting the nature of reality?

It is only fundamentalists Christians who try to insist this "abysmal" record does not exist -- that is always my point.

I for one would like to see MORE than 10% of Christians being among the greatest scientists.

If Kenneth can increase the number of scientists from the Christian ranks -- I say more power to him! I also applaud him for having the courage to submit his writings on a forum that he knew would subject his views to the most critical/ harshest analyses he could find, as opposed to looking for a "rubber stamp" on what he wrote.

To me,IntenSity, you view everything as black or white: ie by insisting ONLY atheists can be real scientists because ONLY atheists maintain no inconsistencies. (At least, this is the common theme I hear from you).

Balony!


Throwing people into hard categories is a sign of fundamentalism. You could not even peg me as a nontheist poster because I did not fit easily into your rigid classifications. My “disagreeing” with you seems to be how YOU maintain your categories.

Sojourner

[ April 22, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

Sojourner
Religion is antithetical to science. Because it espouses a non-scientific approach to human knowledge. Categorization to liberalism and fundamentalism in religion does not change that.
This is changing the subject. I will not dignify it with a response.
This is purely coincidental. You reason like a liberal christian. Maybe you are a liberal christian "at heart". Labeling yourself as a non-theist doesnt really make a difference.
This reduces the bible stories to Mythology. Is that what you believe they are?
Then you are posing as a christian while you are not!
If you are not a christian, then it is not yours to say that liberal christians view the stories as figurative, moral teachings.
Why do you choose to speak for christians?
So people who pick and choose the verses they like and ignore those they dont like are liberal christians?
Interesting. Its a matter of choosing what one is comfortable with right? The bible does not say "Hey Bethlehem here is not real, its just a mythical city". So how do you decide what is myth and what is history in the bible?
I have been against labeling of people all along.
Now we are discussing who can and cannot be a real scientist. Is that it?
Why change the subject and create strawmen? Just focus on what I say, now what you think I am saying. Please.

Bede

Bill,

A part from you labelling my post as drivel we almost had an intelligent exchange going. Oh well, perhaps next time.

And while I hate to intrude, I can't help getting the feeling that IntenCity is a fundamentalist through and through who cannot abide other points of view. Certainly he seems to be saying that the sojourner, as a non-theist, is habouring heretical opinions by not agreeing with his pure atheistic views.

Although, InterCity, I do appreciate how annoying we liberal Christians are for not fitting into the box you have so carefully created for us.

Yours

Bede

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

Sojourner553

Look again: YOU are the one who is saying who can and cannot be a real scientist. You find my scope on this too broad and "liberal".


This is precisely what I mean by you having a black vs. white attitude with no shades of gray.

Ha ha. You can’t even see the inconsistencies within your own posts. Have you tried to tie this in with my first post yet that points out the abysmal record of religion on describing the physical world. No you haven’t!

Are you aware that liberal religious individuals have acknowledged (going at least as far back as Origen) that at least some myths HAVE entered into the Bible? This means they realize that scientific observation as opposed to only faith does have value. No you haven’t. Because it doesn’t fit into your simplistic black vs. white world view.

I answered this was why I was open-minded. You haven’t responded why YOU are so close-minded.

A question for you: Let’s take the flip side of the equation. If being religious automatically predisposes one to oppose science – according to your views-- then being atheistic “should” make one’s views more conducive towards the scientific view. Right?

Within this framework then explain to me why Trofim Lysenko's "genetics" became so entrenched within Marxist Russia and what were the results on Soviet agriculture. (if you can!)

Sojourner

[ April 22, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

Sojourner and Bede,
You now seem focused on asserting that I am a fundamentalist.
I don't think I am the issue and I will not attempt to disprove your allegations.

This discussion has degenerated to a personal attack.

I will start again later with a fresh approach.

I am sorry that I contributed to its degeneration and I apologise to Bede and Sojourner.