Ales

I am confused about the message of the skeptical movement. Are skeptics religious apologists? At least the Vice-Chairman of the European Council of Skeptical Organizations (http://www.ecso.org/board.htm) Dr. Jiri Grygar, Czech Republic, is a staunch one. He wrote at least three books defending the Catholic doctrine: "O vede a vire" (About Science and Faith), Karmelitanske nakladatelstvi (White Friar‘s publisher), 2001; "Veda, vira a vesmir" (Science, Faith and Universe), Valasske mezirici, 1996; Velky tresk a Bible (Big Bang and Bible), Valasske mezirici, 1997 Dr. Jiri Grygar is an astronomer.

At the largest Czech catholic website (www.vira.cz) we can, among the usual Catholic urge of avoiding sex outside of wedlock, find some of his articles. Here is an illustration:

At

<a href="http://www.vira.cz/knihovna/index3.php?sel_kap=183&sel_kniha=4" target="_blank">http://www.vira.cz/knihovna/index3.php?sel_kap=183&sel_kniha=4</a>

he speaks about ALLEGEDLY negative attitudes of the heads of the Catholic Church to the findings of astronomy. Incompatibility between faith and modern science is a "prejudice". The case of Giordano Bruno doesn’t constitute a clash between faith and science.

At

<a href="http://www.vira.cz/knihovna/index3.php?sel_kap=9&sel_kniha=4&sel_kniha_nazev=V ěda%20a%20víra%20dle%20Jiřího%20Grygara&sel_kniha_ autor=Grygar%20Jiří" target="_blank">http://www.vira.cz/knihovna/index3.php?sel_kap=9&sel_kniha=4&sel_kniha_nazev=V ěda%20a%20víra%20dle%20Jiřího%20Grygara&sel_kniha_ autor=Grygar%20Jiří</a>

he uses astronomical arguments to set the date of birth of Jesus and concludes: "With a certain amount of surprise we can finally state that both the historical and astronomical data regarding the Christ’s birth fit together unexpectedly well."

At

<a href="http://www.vira.cz/knihovna/index3.php?sel_kap=10&sel_kniha=4&sel_kniha_nazev= Věda%20a%20víra%20dle%20Jiřího%20Grygara&sel_kniha _autor=Grygar%20Jiří" target="_blank">http://www.vira.cz/knihovna/index3.php?sel_kap=10&sel_kniha=4&sel_kniha_nazev= Věda%20a%20víra%20dle%20Jiřího%20Grygara&sel_kniha _autor=Grygar%20Jiří</a>

he criticizes the enlightenment of the Age of Reason and claims that from these beliefs the typical atheistic belief of Marxists that the science would eventually explain all natural phenomena resulted.

At

<a href="http://www.vira.cz/knihovna/index3.php?sel_kap=179&sel_kniha=4&sel_kniha_nazev =Věda%20a%20víra%20dle%20Jiřího%20Grygara&sel_knih a_autor=Grygar%20Jiří" target="_blank">http://www.vira.cz/knihovna/index3.php?sel_kap=179&sel_kniha=4&sel_kniha_nazev =Věda%20a%20víra%20dle%20Jiřího%20Grygara&sel_knih a_autor=Grygar%20Jiří</a>

he speaks critically about materialism and the scientific world view [sic]. "Big Bang cosmology, which is accepted almost without any objection, is considered by many philosophers almost as the final proof of God’s creation of the universe...it is interesting to note, that among the most eminent scientists of 20. century, there is a striking predominance of religiously thinking persons (or even faithful Christians). It seems that by this a statement of Pasteur is supported: 'Since I studied much, I believe as a Breton farmer. If I studied still more I would believe as a Breton farmwife.'" To support his claim he uses the names of W. Heisenberg, E. Schrödinger, A. Einstein, L. de Broglie, J. Jeans, M. Planck, W. Pauli, A. Eddington. "In fact, there cannot arise conflicts between faith and science...If it seems to us that the scientific outlook contradicts the basic thesis about the God’s creation, it is either because we don’t understand properly that scientific picture, eventually because we don’t understand properly the theological theses, or because the aforementioned scientific picture is false even from the scholarly point of view alone, which, of course, will eventually turn out to be the case...The Council document 'Gaudium et spes' speaks clearly and aptly:..."

<a href="http://www.vira.cz/knihovna/index3.php?sel_kap=178&sel_kniha=4&sel_kniha_nazev =Věda%20a%20víra%20dle%20Jiřího%20Grygara&sel_knih a_autor=Grygar%20Jiří" target="_blank">http://www.vira.cz/knihovna/index3.php?sel_kap=178&sel_kniha=4&sel_kniha_nazev =Věda%20a%20víra%20dle%20Jiřího%20Grygara&sel_knih a_autor=Grygar%20Jiří</a> :

The view of St. Augustine anticipates the results of modern physics.

At
<a href="http://www.vira.cz/knihovna/index3.php?sel_kap=176&sel_kniha=4&sel_kniha_nazev =Věda%20a%20víra%20dle%20Jiřího%20Grygara&sel_knih a_autor=Grygar%20Jiří" target="_blank">http://www.vira.cz/knihovna/index3.php?sel_kap=176&sel_kniha=4&sel_kniha_nazev =Věda%20a%20víra%20dle%20Jiřího%20Grygara&sel_knih a_autor=Grygar%20Jiří</a>

he tries to reconcile some of Biblical catastrophes with scientific findings.

At

<a href="http://www.vira.cz/knihovna/index3.php?sel_kap=181&sel_kniha=4&sel_kniha_nazev =Věda%20a%20víra%20dle%20Jiřího%20Grygara&sel_knih a_autor=Grygar%20Jiří" target="_blank">http://www.vira.cz/knihovna/index3.php?sel_kap=181&sel_kniha=4&sel_kniha_nazev =Věda%20a%20víra%20dle%20Jiřího%20Grygara&sel_knih a_autor=Grygar%20Jiří</a>

he claims: "Many biologists think that even if the physical and chemical conditions of young Earth were repeated absolutely precisely it would not lead to the creation of life for the second time anyway."

<a href="http://www.vira.cz/knihovna/index3.php?sel_kap=184&sel_kniha=4&sel_kniha_nazev =Věda%20a%20víra%20dle%20Jiřího%20Grygara&sel_knih a_autor=Grygar%20Jiří" target="_blank">http://www.vira.cz/knihovna/index3.php?sel_kap=184&sel_kniha=4&sel_kniha_nazev =Věda%20a%20víra%20dle%20Jiřího%20Grygara&sel_knih a_autor=Grygar%20Jiří</a>

contains a catholic revisionist account of the Galileo’s case.

<a href="http://www.vira.cz/knihovna/index3.php?sel_kap=259&sel_kniha=4&sel_kniha_nazev =Věda%20a%20víra%20dle%20Jiřího%20Grygara&sel_knih a_autor=Grygar%20Jiří" target="_blank">http://www.vira.cz/knihovna/index3.php?sel_kap=259&sel_kniha=4&sel_kniha_nazev =Věda%20a%20víra%20dle%20Jiřího%20Grygara&sel_knih a_autor=Grygar%20Jiří</a> :

The wrong dating of creation in Genesis "of course doesn‘t threaten the legitimate religious faith being supported by the religious truths contained in the Bible, besides other things". Then he tries to date Christ’s crucifixion astronomically and concludes: "So modern astronomy conducts step by step to a relatively consistent chronological picture of events that herald the era of Christian civilization"

<a href="http://www.vira.cz/knihovna/index3.php?sel_kap=424&sel_kniha=4&sel_kniha_nazev =Věda%20a%20víra%20dle%20Jiřího%20Grygara&sel_knih a_autor=Grygar%20Jiří" target="_blank">http://www.vira.cz/knihovna/index3.php?sel_kap=424&sel_kniha=4&sel_kniha_nazev =Věda%20a%20víra%20dle%20Jiřího%20Grygara&sel_knih a_autor=Grygar%20Jiří</a> :

Natural sciences don’t present us with a compact picture of reality. It is extraordinary naive to think that Middle Ages was a dark age. The successes of natural sciences and the theology of 20. century arranged for a new current synthesis of the faith and natural sciences. The decreased religiosity of eminent American scientists could be explained by they pride.


For my part I don’t see any reason why skeptics should not criticize the concepts of soul if they criticize the concepts of aura or not to criticize the concepts of the Resurrection if they criticize the concepts of zombies. I know it is not so simple and that there are some skeptics who refuse to criticize religion, but my impression is that a catholic apologist being the Vice-Chairman of the European Council of Skeptical Organization is a potential serious threat to the European skeptical movement.
Just remember the catholic occultism of exorcism of allegedly possessed ones, pious frauds of the so called "stigmatics", countless alleged miracles, faith healing, supernatural forecasting of the future (in Czechia we have one very popular Catholic priest-pope’s close friend-, who claims that it is possible to determine supernaturally whether a certain person is an ordained priest or not and many other suspect claims, that can be subjected to scientific testing) etc.

What do you think about this? Should a European skeptical representative be a Catholic apologist?

Vorkosigan

What is your point here? Are you looking for help in a letter writing campaign or something?

Vorkosigan

Ales

In fact I don’t know what I should think about this so I am drawing your attention to this strange situation. If you should have a feeling that ECSO is reluctant to deal with religious claims of paranormal this could be an explanation. Do you know of any other skeptic of significance who is at the same time church apologist?

liquid

Skeptics are not necessarily anti-religious.

Skepticism is simply using critical thinking to assess claims on the basis of evidence. We are all skeptics every day of our lives, with varying degrees of analytical ability. Skeptics with a big S is simply a movement that promotes rational and critical thinking and debunks fraud and superstition.

Theists can be skeptics, although there is a non-religious prevalence. There are also plenty of people who are vey good skeptics in regard to some areas, but suspend their disbelief in others.

The possible imperfection of critical thinking in one man who claims he is a skeptic is hardly going to bring the whole world crashing down. And I've never even heard of the ECSO...

TooBad

But theistic skeptics are still faced with the problem of defending their belief in religious miracles, such as resurrection or transsubstantiation, in a way that is consistent with their rejection of non-religious paranormal phenomena such as precognition or psychokinesis.
Speaking as an atheistic skeptic, I'm inclined to be skeptical that this can be done...

And I know theism and Christianity are not the same. I just didn't know how to unpack that first sentence without making it even more long-winded than it already is

lpetrich

I think that this guy ought to be confronted with the sort of Muslim apologists who brag about the wonderful science contained in the Koran (Denis Giron has a nice page at this site's Library section about such claims).

And I wonder if that guy is going to claim that aphid reproduction supports the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ.

Citing Albert Einstein as an authority suggests that Dr. Grygar has not read Einstein's writings on religion very carefully, because Einstein had considered a "personal God" to be pure fiction. Einstein had spoken of his "cosmic religious" sentiments, and used "God" pantheistically and almost metaphorically, as meaning something like the laws of nature, which Dr. Grygar would undoubtedly consider heresy.

Max Planck? He was much like Einstein.

Sir James Jeans was the author of such views as "God is a mathematician" and that the Universe "begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine". I think that the Universe is still a sort of "machine", even if an oddly-behaving one -- mathematics is only a description of it.

Werner Heisenberg had had some NOMA-like view of science and religion. (Stephen Jay Gould fans will understand)

Erwin Schroedinger was a believer in Eastern philosophies like Vedanta.

Arthur Eddington was a Quaker (the Christian sect), and probably the closest to a conventional Christian -- but a Protestant one.

Ales

Thank you for the suggestions and the information about E. Schroedinger. McCabe in his dictionary of freethinkers states that to claim that Pasteur was Catholic is scandalous-he was in fact freethinker. Planck didn't believe in the future life. A. Eddington was a quaker, but read what Thomas Paine writes about quakerism in the "Age of Reason", they didn't believe in the Bible too much and perhaps even didn't consider Jesus to be a son of God.

I think this is his case: "There are also plenty of people who are vey good skeptics in regard to some areas, but suspend their disbelief in others" (liquid)

I copy here the conclusion of a Kurtz article (Skeptical Inquirer, 1999):

The upshot of this controversy, in my judgment, is that scientific and skeptical
inquirers should deal with religious claims. Not to do so is to flee from an important
area of human behavior and interest and is irresponsible. Indeed, one reason why
paranormal beliefs are so prominent today is because religious beliefs are not being
critically examined in the marketplace of ideas.

As I have said, I do not believe, however, that CSICOP or the Skeptical Inquirer should in
any way, except tangentially, deal with religious issues. But my reasons are pragmatic, not
theoretical. It is simply a question of the division of labor. We lack the resources and
expertise to focus on the entire range of scientific questions about religion: biblical
archaeological, biblical and koranic criticism, linguistics, psychology, anthropology,
sociology, the genetic or environmental roots of religion, etc. It would take us too far afield.
We have focused on fringe science and specialized in the paranormal, and we have made
important contributions here. Skeptical inquiry in principle should apply equally to
economics, politics, ethics, and indeed to all fields of human interest. Surely we cannot
possibly evaluate each and every claim to truth that arises. My reasons are thus practical.

But at the same time I disagree with those who counsel caution in applying scientific
skepticism to the religious domain. In my view science should not be so narrowly construed
that it only applies to experimental laboratory work; it should bring in the tools of logical
analysis, historical research, and rational investigation. In this sense, I submit, religious
claims are amenable to scientific examination and skeptical inquiry.

It is possible for a scientist to apply skeptical, scientific inquiry to his or her own specialty
with considerable expertise; yet he or she may not be qualified to apply the same methods
of rational inquiry to other fields, and indeed may harbor religious beliefs that lack evidential
support. Although disbelief about religious claims is higher among scientists (an estimated
60 percent) than the general population (perhaps 10 percent), some scientists fail to
rigorously examine their own religious beliefs. They may use rigorous standards of inquiry
in their particular fields of expertise, yet throw caution to the wind when they leap into
questions of religious faith.

One last issue: to claim that skepticism is committed only to "methodological naturalism"
and not scientific naturalism (which sums up the evidence for the naturalistic world view
and critiques the theistic/spiritualistic leap beyond) is, I think, profoundly mistaken. To adopt
this neutral stance in the current cultural milieu is a cop-out; for questionable religious
claims are proliferating daily and they are not adequately evaluated by skeptical scientists.
In my view, we need more skeptical inquirers who possess the requisite expertise and are
able to apply their investigative skills to religious claims. Such skeptical inquiry is sorely
needed today. It could play a vital role in the debate between religion and science.

Ales

McCabe states in 1940 among the honorary associates of Rational Press Association Dr. Einstein. It seems to be entirely nonsensical to use Einstein in support of the Catholic Church or Christianity. For me it is a dilema: Dr. Grygar is a succesful and well known popularizer of the science here and he can help to inform the public about many myths concerning homeopathy, astrology etc. He even received some international award(s) for the popularization of science. On the other hand he is a Catholic apologist. I don't know what is more dangerous. Paranormal beliefs, or religious doctrines? Should I criticize Dr. Grygar because he is not a skeptic-he certainly doesn't apply the Carl Sagan's "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"-and to weaken his position in arguing against the paranormal? It is paradoxical situation that an important skeptic in a country, where there are 32% of believers only, is a staunch religionst.

liquid

OK, you are becoming a bit clearer now... you want to decide whether to applaud his skepticism or decry his apologetics.

I think you have to do both. Of course it is an unusual situation, but the critical thinker will realise that the existence of the duality is due to extreme religiosity, and seemingly confined to that sphere in open argument.

A critical distinction can be made between his apologetics and his skepticism, and whilst the latter is somewhat tainted by the former causing the inability to apply rationality to all areas, it doesn't invalidate it.

A key part of skepticism is realising that man is not a fully rational creature, and that he should not be expected never to slip. That is why the promotion of rational thought is so important.

lpetrich

I doubt if Louis Pasteur was really a freethinker -- he may have been a Galileo-type believer in NOMA, Stephen Jay Gould's Non-Overlapping Magisteria.

Galileo himself had considered himself a good Catholic, but he believed that the Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go, clearly a form of NOMA.