Science and religion: a history of conflict?

[Why Syzygy]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/jun/14/science-religion-coyne

As the battle between creationism and evolution heats up, some atheists, like Jerry Coyne, have been insisting that it is really a battle between religion and science. Coyne resists any accommodation between religious and non-religious scientists to defend Darwinism. He doesn't want to see them joining forces against the creationist common enemy in case that legitimises religion. In order for his position to make sense, he needs to show that there is some sort of existential conflict between religion and science. So it is unfortunate for him that the historical record clearly shows that accommodation and even cooperation have been the default positions in the relationship. (...)

The old chestnut that the church encouraged the view that the earth is flat has been debunked so many times that it seems pointless to do so again. But despite a hundred years of effort from historians of science, the legend refuses to die. Only this year it has been repeated in The House of Wisdom, a history of Islamic science by Jonathan Lyons.

The myth that the Catholic church tried to ban zero has grown more popular in recent years. The journalist Charles Seife managed to write an entire book (Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea) about how zero was banned without ever realising his central argument has no foundation in fact. The same myth was passed on in Peter Atkin's Newton's Finger and Charles Mann's 1492.

The church also never tried to ban human dissection. I was amused to hear this story promulgated on the BBC show QI which usually prides itself in puncturing the conventional wisdom. The related myth that Vesalius, author of a famous book on anatomy published in 1543, had a run-in with the Spanish Inquisition, is also discounted by historians. (...)

The conflict between science and creationism is real enough, but it is the exception, not the rule. For most of history, science and religion have rubbed along just fine. So, if Jerry Coyne really wants to promote evolution, he should be joining hands with the religious scientists who want to help.

[trotsky]

1. Well, the creationist and the moderate believer do draw the same line.

They just draw it in different places. The line that says, "Beyond here is my god, and science is not allowed." (Or not applicable.) Without knowing exactly what Jerry Coyne said (because this author doesn't quote him, just paraphrases and restates), I don't know whether I agree with him. James Hannam, it should be noted, has his own book and agenda to push.

[damntexdem]

2. Actually, it's science that draws the line:

Science studies the natural world, not claimed supernatural things. Science studies only what it can observe, measure, test, and/or manipulate. Or, as Eugenie Scott says: "Science cannot study God unless it develops a theometer." A prudent believer may choose to believe beyond the line that science must draw; but it is science that will determine where that line is.

[trotsky]

3. If a "supernatural" (whatever that means) thing can be observed, it is in the realm of science.

Science "draws" no lines, it only stops where it does not have the tools to investigate. New tools, new models, new discoveries constantly push those boundaries outward. There is no line drawn. The believer is the one who states with supreme confidence that science can never go somewhere.

[ironbark]

10. I am endlessly fascinated

by the proposition (implied or explicit) that science and or the scientific method is the tool to determine the god proposition as fact or fallacy.


“If a "supernatural" (whatever that means) thing can be observed, it is in the realm of science”.

And if it is not a “thing that can be observed”?
If the proposed "supernatural"/god thing cannot be observed directly then we are in a realm more akin to that of a detective or jury investigating things/events unseen, reported or claimed. In any such investigation forensic/scientific proof, the finger prints or smoking gun, can close the case.
If the ‘supernatural/god thing’ your looking for is the one described in any of the worlds major living religious traditions then by all accounts it refuses to leave fingerprints, smoking gun or Babelfish that could be used as proof of existence.
If the supernatural god thing is, as usually defined, omnipotent and all knowing…then it’s dam sure to have the basic street smarts not to get caught in some scientific stakeout.

In the absence of hard evidence we are left with an historical record-a range of witnesses claiming to have seen/experienced god thing related events. To this history we can apply only as much rigorous science as can be found in the fields of archaeology and history. In the end we are restricted (like police and juries often are) to make a determination based on our individual or collective calculations of >probability<…not forensic/scientific proof.

The calculation of probability occurs objectively/mathematically (odds of winning lottery) and subjectively/through individual filters (odds that this is Mr right, odds that partner is faithful).
The potential existence of the supernatural god thing can be approached with logical reasoned calculations of probability (objective and subjective) but in the end the interpretation of the data is entirely subjective- some will conclude god thing to exist beyond reasonable doubt and others will still demand the Babelfish.

Attempting to prove/disprove the supernatural god thing with science is no different than trying to scientificaly prove/disprove the existence of love. In both cases the belief is based on story, history, experience and calculation of probability…all subject to subjective interpretation.

[trotsky]

11. Wow, you sure did miss the point. n/t

[ironbark]

12. Oh don’t be coy

enlighten me.


2#
“Science studies the natural world, not claimed supernatural things. Science studies only what it can observe, measure, test, and/or manipulate. Or, as Eugenie Scott says: "Science cannot study God unless it develops a theometer."

You responding to 2#
“If a "supernatural" (whatever that means) thing can be observed, it is in the realm of science”.

Me inquiring as to how science applies itself to the unobservable god thing-
“And if it is not a “thing that can be observed”?
If the proposed "supernatural"/god thing cannot be observed directly…”

Lest the reason I “did miss the point” remains unobservable and we are required, yet again, to take it on faith.

[trotsky]

13. It's really quite simple.

In order for something to be observed, it must have some kind of effect in the universe. If something cannot cause any change to happen, then what is the difference between that thing existing and it NOT existing?

Can your supernatural item make something happen here in the real world? If yes, we can observe and test it. If not, there is no difference between your item being "real" or just imaginary.

[ironbark]

14. Yup

That’s the point I got and addressed in my post.

“In order for something to be observed, it must have some kind of effect in the universe”

But that ‘things’ ability to have “effect in the universe” (even create a universe) does not necessitate that the thing itself is observable.

And if, as my post stated to that (“wow you missed it”) point, that supernatural thing is the god of any of the worlds major living religions it can act and have effect in the universe without leaving a giveaway Bablefish.(If this theoretical supernatural thing under discussion is not that god then let me know)

“Can your supernatural item make something happen here in the real world?

The “supernatural item” being an omnipotent god? Yea…such a thing could “make something happen”.
(It comes with the territory of omnipotence ;-)

“If yes, we can observe and test it.”

Observe and test what? The thing that was made to happen or the unobservable thing that may have made it happen?

[trotsky]

15. The "thing" itself may not be directly observable,

but its effects (if there are any) will be. There are all sorts of particles and energy that we can't directly detect but which affect the universe and thus can be studied.

So yeah, you've still missed the point. Something that cannot cause any kind of observable change in the universe looks awfully similar to something that doesn't exist.

[ironbark]

17. Do you have a prohibition

on answering direct pertinent questions that seek clarification of unclear expression?


“If yes, we can observe and test it.” Trotsky


Observe and test what? The thing that was made to happen or the unobservable thing that may have made it happen?


“The "thing" itself may not be directly observable, but its effects (if there are any) will be”

Yes, we have established that, I have conceded from the outset and thrice since that “effects” and things being “made to happen” are observable.

“There are all sorts of particles and energy that we can't directly detect but which affect the universe and thus can be studied.”

Thank you for the 101 in particle physics. Now can you explain the leap from talking about effects potentially caused by a “supernatural/thing” to effects caused by >matter/energy< as one in the same?

I have asked (twice?) if this “supernatural thing” you are referring to is the same supernatural/god being depicted in the worlds major scriptures…you decline to answer…leaving myself and any other reader uncertain as to wether you are talking about an unobserved supernatural energy or an omnipotent god.

You delight in claiming I have missed the point but will not answer questions that seek clarification.

“Something that cannot cause any kind of observable change in the universe looks awfully similar to something that doesn't exist”.

Something that is omnipotent/supernatural/god could, by its very description and definition, “cause any kind of observable change” and not be observed doing so...if it so chose.

It appears that you are treating this "supernatural thing" as a non concious energy(?) that has no deternmination to remain unobserved/unproven....if so that aint any 'god' I am familiar with through religion, history or science.

Its simple...If it cant create a universe and make events happen in the universe and remain unobserved/unproven in the process if it so chooses then >it aint god<.

[trotsky]

18. I'm trying to be as general as possible.

"Supernatural thing" could be anything you choose to postulate that you claim is exempt from physical study or detection. The argument is the same.

Something that is omnipotent/supernatural/god could, by its very description and definition, “cause any kind of observable change” and not be observed doing so...if it so chose.

Again, you're totally missing the point. It doesn't appear I can help you. You have a lovely little circular, non-falsifiable, and totally useless definition for "god." Your god looks exactly like one that doesn't exist at all.

[ironbark]

20. My “totally useless definition for "god."..” is ‘omnipotence’?

Give me another definition for ‘God’.

You begin a post by declaring- “"Supernatural thing" could be anything you choose to postulate that you claim is exempt from physical study or detection.”…but by the end you reject any proposed supernatural thing being omnipotent.

“trying to be as general as possible” isn’t helping at all…either we are talking about a “supernatural thing” called God- commonly defined as an all powerful unrestrained, omnipotent, alpha to omega, creator of the universe……or we are talking about Santa on a stick….. or unidentified undefined unconscious supernatural energies.

If I have a “have a lovely little circular, non-falsifiable, and totally useless definition for "god." then show me a more commonplace,authoritative and acceptable definition than ‘omnipotent’.

If it’s my “choice to postulate”…and I designate “supernatural thing” to be ‘God’ (cos that’s what you responded to way back in 2#- “"Science cannot study God unless it develops a theometer.") ...how come you get to chose/reject the definition of said “supernatural thing”?

Go for it Trotsky, help me see the point, expose the uselessness of my definition for "god" by presenting a definition that holds ‘god’ (even as a theoretical proposition) to be constrained, encumbered, unable to do up shoelaces or incapable of winning at hide and seek.

[trotsky]

21. Yeah, it's useless.

The way you have chosen to use/define it, "omnipotence" means "being able to appear as if it didn't exist." What kind of meaning does that bring to ANYTHING? Your definition makes it possible that NOTHING in this universe happens on its own, every subatomic particle is guided by your god, choreographed in some cosmic ballet, no sentient beings have free will because your god makes it LOOK like it's not really doing anything, but ultimately it's doing EVERYTHING. What is the frigging point? What explanatory power does "god" have that nothing else does?

[ironbark]

23. It isn’t ‘my’ definition

It’s the commonplace, longstanding, usual definition of the “supernatural thing”- ‘God’-
“A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.”

“The way you have chosen to use/define it, "omnipotence" means "being able to appear as if it didn't exist”

You wanna try constructing a logical sentence in which "omnipotence" means " >NOT< being able to appear as if it didn't exist” !!!?????

An omnipotent entity that is NOT capable of concealing itself?


“What kind of meaning does that bring to ANYTHING?”

The same meaning it has always held- om•nip•o•tent
adj.
“Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful.”


“Your definition makes it possible that NOTHING in this universe happens on its own”

Omnipotence certainly makes such conditions "possible".......but not inevitable.
Omnipotence, the >capacity< to control all things, does not necessitate doing so.

“every subatomic particle is guided by your god,”

If the theoretical proposition in question is the supernatural thing- omnipotent god…then yea…it’s >possible< for such a being to be guiding every subatomic particle…it’s also possible such a being set such particles in motion under laws of physics/quantum mechanics and let them fly as an interesting puzzle for humans to work out-
“"I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Albert E

“choreographed in some cosmic ballet, no sentient beings have free will because your god makes it LOOK like it's not really doing anything”

Illogical and irrational extrapolation. If the theoretical god conceals itself from observation it remains a ‘maybe/maybe not’ proposition in which free will flourishes.
Who would dare defy or deny omnipotence revealed, confirmed, proven?
Free will is made possible by the absence of certainty.

“ but ultimately it's doing EVERYTHING.”

What leads you to conclude that omnipotence- the capacity to do everything- entails doing so?
An omnipotent being capable of concealing itself is not obliged to do everything…on the contrary…it could choose…..and allow us to choose.
An omnipotent being is also capable of creating a universe and setting it in motion governed by physical laws and permitting chance, random event, evolution, free will…

“What is the frigging point?”

To an existence in which god is “doing EVERYTHING” ?....I don’t know, you’re the only one who has
suggested it…nothing to do with anything I’ve said.


“What explanatory power does "god" have that nothing else does”?

What do you mean by “explanatory power” ?

[trotsky]

24. Sorry, this is going nowhere.

I've stated my case, and you've done nothing but engage in some other conversation with a strawman, like you generally do.

Peace to you.

[ironbark]

26. I will forever treasure the memory

of “totally useless definition for "god"..” is ‘omnipotence’.

;-)

Not being able to get the argument up is 'impotence'. ;-)

Perhaps next time you can borrow your dads dictionary?

But thanks for trying.



After this cigarette I’ll have a shower and be on my way.



;-)

[trotsky]

30. Answer this one then.

Can your god make a rock so heavy it can't lift it?

When you understand the "answer" to that question, you'll understand why your definition is equally nonsense.

Good luck.

[ironbark]

31. What!?...Your back expecting more!?

Having, from post 12 onwards, left a dozen pertinent question seeking clarification/explanation of >your< vague and contradictory pov unanswered your back with the impertinent expectation that I answer your new question?

What astounding hutzpa.

I have met each and every point and answered every question you put forward while you evade all and equivocate about standard dictionary definitions as if they are my invention.

What rank intellectual weakness and paucity of basic manners leads you to conclude you are entitled to more when you are already so deeply in debt?

Invoke your ““explanatory power” and deal with the questions and issues outstanding and then I will gladly respond to your latest juvenile gambit-

The questions you could not answer-
Observe and test what? The thing that was made to happen or the unobservable thing that may have made it happen?

I have asked (twice?) if this “supernatural thing” you are referring to is the same supernatural/god being depicted in the worlds major scriptures

It appears that you are treating this "supernatural thing" as a non conscious energy?

If I have a “have a lovely little circular, non-falsifiable, and totally useless definition for "god." then show me a more commonplace, authoritative and acceptable definition than ‘omnipotent’

If it’s my “choice to postulate”…and I designate “supernatural thing” to be ‘God’ (cos that’s what you responded to way back in 2#- “"Science cannot study God unless it develops a theometer.") ...how come you get to chose/reject the definition of said “supernatural thing”?

Go for it Trotsky, help me see the point, expose the uselessness of my definition for "god" by presenting a definition that holds ‘god’ (even as a theoretical proposition) to be constrained, encumbered, unable to do up shoelaces or incapable of winning at hide and seek.

My “totally useless definition for "god."..” is ‘omnipotence’? Give me another definition for ‘God’.

You wanna try constructing a logical sentence in which "omnipotence" means " >NOT< being able to appear as if it didn't exist” !!!?????

An omnipotent entity that is NOT capable of concealing itself?

Who would dare defy or deny omnipotence revealed, confirmed, proven?

What leads you to conclude that omnipotence- the capacity to do everything- entails doing so?

What do you mean by “explanatory power” ?

[trotsky]

32. Answering my question will answer yours.

No wonder you don't want to answer it.

You wanna try constructing a logical sentence in which "omnipotence" means " >NOT< being able to appear as if it didn't exist” !!!?????

How about you construct a logical sentence in which "omnipotence" means "being able to create a rock so big you can't lift it."

Go ahead. Put up or shut up.

[ironbark]

33. No it won’t.

My questions to you are not contradictions in terms nor breaches of the restraints of language and logic.

Your prep school question is all of the above.

As are these-

Can an omnipotent god fit the corners of a sphere into a square hole?
Can an omnipotent god commit suicide?
Can an omnipotent god create the circumstances in which it never existed?
Can an omnipotent god put his right hand in his left hip pocket and hold himself out at arms length?
(You can pick yourself up now)

It’s pointless adolescent gibberish.

When you have mustered the intellectual capacity and basic common courtesy to answer the outstanding questions I’ll get back to your next gambit.

[trotsky]

34. *sigh*

My questions to you are not contradictions in terms nor breaches of the restraints of language and logic.

Yes, they are. They are exactly the same kind of questions as the one I posed, and the copycat ones you just listed. Your questions are logically nonsensical.

It’s pointless adolescent gibberish.

I agree there's been a whole lot of that on this subtread.

When you have mustered the intellectual capacity and basic common courtesy to answer the outstanding questions I’ll get back to your next gambit.

I'll think about it, once you've refrained from juvenile insults.

[Silent3]

40. Ah, so you don't get the idea of "explanatory power".

As Steve Wright once said, "I woke up one morning and all of my stuff had been stolen... and replaced by exact duplicates."

What's funny about this joke is, for one thing, wondering how the hell you'd notice that anything had happened. If the duplicates are truly exact duplicates (presumably all put back in exactly correct position, duplicated down to having exactly the same patterns of dust and fingerprints or lack thereof), what exactly is it you're noticing when you wake up in the morning to make you think this strange event has occurred?

Is noticing that nothing "seems" to have changed at all a good reason to invoke this bizarre explanation for an "apparent" lack of change? Why isn't "nothing unusual happened at all last night" a better explanation?

The explanatory power of an idea isn't just how well the idea explains one particular set of circumstances, it's in the economy of the idea, how well the idea explains things without invoking even more mysterious things which in and of themselves need further explanation.

No matter how much you repeat "omnipotence!" as if that helps explain things, your deity comes out seeming a lot like Wright's mysterious thief who has the power to silently come and go unnoticed, and the power to manufacture exact duplicates of people's belongings, and an inexplicable desire to use these awesome powers with no clear purpose being served by such actions.

You mentioned history, and the difficulty of bringing the scientific method to bear on historical events. Yes, there's often some degree of subjectivity in evaluating the historical record. The principle (and this is a scientific principle) of looking for the most economical explanations, however, still holds. If you wish to propose that George Washington wasn't really the first President of the United States, it's going to take a very uneconomical explanation to account for all of the history books and government records and monuments which indicate otherwise. Part of the economy, or lack thereof, of such an idea is motivation: without an understandable motivation for altering the historical record of the Presidency, all of the rest of the complexity required to explain an alternate version of history becomes even more questionable from a standpoint of explanatory power.

Further, even if George Washington is a remarkable human being by ordinary human standards, nothing attributed to his credit requires belief in special mysterious powers or abilities which haven't been seen before or since. Accepting that George Washington was the first President of the United States requires no special act of faith to find the idea believable.

The "history" of deities is nothing like this. The names changes, the numbers (one or many) change, the manifestations change, the commands change, the rewards and punishments change. Promoting particular religious doctrines quite often has clear political and economic motivations which would give people reason to promote lies or delusions as fact, unlike the very questionable gain from manipulating the history of the US Presidency.

Further, deities are quite often proposed in the first place as means to explain very obvious impacts: storms, seasons, birth and death, where the world came from. These are gods with big fingerprints.

You, however, would propose a deity which is not only omnipotent but inexplicably secretive, one which attempts to obscure its "fingerprints" as it acts upon the world. Even further, a deity which perhaps likes to keep its showier interventions comfortably restricted to the distant past, so that all that remains are stories and their interpretations.

That's a very suspiciously convenient definition. It's a back-peddling definition too, a way to rescue a supposedly interventionist deity when investigation into the alleged interventions turns up a paucity of evidence.

How is your God different from Wright's hypothetical thief? When I wake up in the morning and look at the world around me, what do I see that makes the world different than it would be without your God in it?

[ironbark]

47. Well, I thought I “got the idea” of god being defined

as a supernatural omnipotent creator. But I found that concept/definition being dismissed as ‘mine’ and “useless” .(God it seems could be superman but without the powers and less capacity of concealment than Bin Laden).
In circumstances in which common usage and dictionary definitions are rejected I thought it prudent when ‘explanatory power’ was evoked to ask the other party what the term meant to them… before entering yet another cul de sac. As with all prior attempts at clarification of the others conception/ definition the question received no answer.

Perhaps “Wright's mysterious thief” has factors in common with “the thief in the night” for it is a theme/prophecy/metaphor that runs through a number of scriptures.

Two snippets on the same theme-
“…an inexplicable desire to use these awesome powers with no clear purpose being served by such actions”

“You, however, would propose a deity which is not only omnipotent but inexplicably secretive, one which attempts to obscure its "fingerprints" as it acts upon the world.”

The god proposition is one of All Seeing, All Knowing, All Powerful creator/parent figure. I “repeat "omnipotence!" as if that helps explain things” because ‘omnipotent’ >is< one of the defining aspects of the proposed god. If we are not talking about an omnipotent being then we are talking about something other than god.

What would your childhood/adolescent behaviour be like if you knew (of a certainty) that your parents saw/monitored >everything< you ever did?
We get moral behaviour scripture from our parents from the time we are born and then we get an increasingly long childhood leash then adolescent release to play, experiment, take unmonitored/ unobserved risk, break rules parental/social, hope like hell the folks don’t find out and ultimately accept or reject the parent/social scripture or parts thereof.

"fingerprints" as it acts upon the world.” Would be forensic evidence of gods existence, scientific proof
that there is an all powerful, all seeing, all knowing parent/cop watching everything I and everyone ever did. Who is going to ride their bike too fast without a helmet, pinch milk bottles from the neighbour if there is scientific certainty that they are being watched?

In the absence of "fingerprint" scientific certainty we have story, scripture and history that, just like parental tales and moral conditioning, we can accept, reject or cherry pick from with free will in adulthood. The “clear purpose being served by such actions” is the opportunity for and preservation of free will, choice.

Applying “economical explanations” to “The "history" of deities” may very well be as economical as-
‘Progressive Revelation’.
(And I am putting forward both ‘Progressive Revelation’ and the ‘god thing’ as working hypothesis, not as beliefs or certainties)

“The names changes,”

Across a ten thousand+ year historical/linguistic record……how else could it be?

“the numbers (one or many) change,”

With a marked/discernable historical trend or evolution towards ‘one’, monotheism.
Even within revelations earlier than the ‘people of the book’ there is often scriptural/theological
recognition that what appears to be ‘many’ is a reflection of the many ‘attributes’ of one.

“the manifestations change,”

Yes, indeed they do. Never the same human manifestation in different time frames. >That< would be a bit of a dead giveaway ‘fingerprint’ wouldn’t it? ;-)
Instead we appear to get the ‘prophet’ or the ‘Christos’ (anointed one/manifestation) at historical intervals.
And this brings us back to my original proposition re ‘probability’ rather than scientific ‘proof’.

Ever looked at a timeline of the worlds major living religious traditions? Why, in all these thousands of years, do we not get a Jesus bumping up against a Mohammed? A Krishna contending in the same time and place with a Buddha?

“the commands change, the rewards and punishments change.”

Yup, funny that. The “commands”, “rewards”, “punishments” and sometimes even teachings/moral instruction from my parents and teachers changed and evolved as I did. I got very Old Testament “THOU SHALT NOT STICK FORKS IN THE TOASTER”! as a kid and fewer as a scorched fingered adolescent.

I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that I, like humanity, am not a static being…but something evolving and in need of evolving/changing guidance?

“Promoting particular religious doctrines quite often has clear political and economic motivations …”

Yes indeed, power and greed, not to mention entropy, error, devolution and misinterpretation….all these quite human characteristics could quite possibly require religious doctrines to be renewed/ reinvigorated/ updated and changed at intervals through history.

Possibly this is why all the worlds major living religious traditions come with prophecies regarding their ‘Use by date’ and other regarding the next manifestation/delivery.

“Further, deities are quite often proposed in the first place as means to explain very obvious impacts: storms, seasons, birth and death, where the world came from. These are gods with big fingerprints.”

This usually occurs in the great global religious bedrock of Animist religions though yes, there are many who still see ‘gods hand’ revealed in major natural events. Bat there is no ‘fingerprint/evidence’ of god therein.

“You, however, would propose a deity which is not only omnipotent but inexplicably secretive, one which attempts to obscure its "fingerprints" as it acts upon the world”.

As covered above. The proposition is not one of ‘secretive’ to the point of ‘absentee parent’…the proposition still allows for active engagement in human history and development through manifestation/revelation…but never to the point of undeniable ‘fingerprint’ evidence/scientific proof.

“Even further, a deity which perhaps likes to keep its showier interventions comfortably restricted to the distant past, …”

I am an adult, I have been through the developmental stages of- ‘Chaotic Antisocial toddler, Formal Institutional child and Sceptic Individual adolescent…all my parents/teachers “showier interventions” are “comfortably restricted to the distant past” because that is when they appropriately occurred and belong.
Humanity is not a static organism, just as it has evolved physically and intellectually it has also evolved in its social and spiritual understanding.

“…so that all that remains are stories and their interpretations.”

Isn’t that how we all move into the independent adult world? Just with our parents/teachers “stories” and our “interpretations” and nobody clearly/obviously watching us?
The ‘story’ is that humanity got a spanking for bad behaviour in pre OT times and that the god thing said “I don’t intend to do that showier intervention again”.

How could we as individuals or as a species progress from immaturity to free will adulthood under the constant >scientific certainty< of observation?

“That's a very suspiciously convenient definition. It's a back-peddling definition too, a way to rescue a supposedly interventionist deity when investigation into the alleged interventions turns up a paucity of evidence.”

Possibly. It is also a potentially new way of perceiving the interplay of religion in human history and the role of the god thing therein. Rather than seeing humanity as socially/spiritually static and non evolving- needing identical social/spiritual law in every epoch- beset by numerous conflicting, contending and contradictory religions…….It is possible that the god thing has guided humanity in much the same way that a parent guides a child to adulthood- with progressively altering instructions and rules in accord with our capacity to understand.
And just enough uncertainty as to wether the omnipotent cop is hiding behind the highway billboard
to put our foot down towards adulthood…The free will to experiment and risk that would be denied if god was clearly on your tail as scientific certainty.

If there is a god as described in any of the worlds major religions…there will be no scientific certainty/proof……only possibility, determinations of probability, individual experience belief and faith.

“How is your God different from Wright's hypothetical thief?”

I/humanity have no reason to speculate about “Wright's hypothetical thief”, while there is nothing taken and no fingerprints left there is also no note, no story, no historical account of anyone ever having heard from or about Wright's thief. There is however a thread running right through human history of stories about or messages from god…some even saying the messenger will come as a “Thief in the night”…which would imply that, if he is good/omnipotent at his craft he might have been and gone undetected ;-)

“When I wake up in the morning and look at the world around me, what do I see that makes the world different than it would be without your God in it?”

Possibly no more than ten thousand years of stories/scriptures relating to the god thing and all the fruits thereof- good and ill, from art, architecture and individual/social reform through to the Inquisition and Crusades’. Calculating the balance, for good or ill, of such “world difference” is subjective.

Sorry it’s a long post…enjoyed yours and thought it deserved a thorough response.

[Silent3]

52. The problem isn't just the definition, which is suspect enough...

...but how you apply the definition.

I can define a creature called a "loran" which is an invisible pink unicorn. That I have defined a loran doesn't make lorans real. That I have included into the definition itself a good reason why lorans can't be detected doesn't make lorans more likely -- it makes the purpose of defining things which are by definition difficult or impossible to detect suspect.

I can make up an infinite number of things that would be utterly or at least practically impossible to detect, with an infinite number of reasons why you can't detect them. What recommends one above another? What recommends any? Does the popularity of a particular impossible-to-detect thing make it more likely than other impossible to detect things?

Further, you assume that omnipotence would be used in order for your God to hide from detection. Why assume that? That inexplicable shyness does not naturally follow from omnipotence at all, it's merely a convenient add-on to your definition to explain hand-wave away omnipotent action not being clearly evident. Your analogy of a parent-child relationship, which you attempt to use to justify this evasiveness and secrecy, is terribly flawed and doesn't help your case a bit.

If my parents were anything like your God, they'd have hidden themselves from me completely. They'd have observed me growing up from hidden rooms, via spy holes or hidden cameras. If they wanted to make sure I didn't starve, they have sneaked food into a place where I'd find it while I wasn't looking, or while I was asleep. They'd have either have given no moral guidance at all, or they'd have played subtle reward-and-punishment games that where it would very hard for me to interpret which actions led to which downfalls, with no way for me to know the difference between bad things that happened to me by chance and bad things which happened as punishment. They'd not tell me rules directly, but instead they'd have other children, none of whom I'd have any reason to think any more authoritative than myself, tell me conflicting sets of rules that these children would equally insistence were correct, and these kids would have terrible fights between themselves over who was right.

If all of this subterfuge led to a situation where I didn't believe in a thing called "parents", I'd be utterly and completely justified in my skepticism. If other children believed in such things, it would be pure luck, not enlightenment or wisdom, that led them to stumble upon the truth. If some of children claimed that parents were invisible beings capable of throwing lightning bolts, and others said that parents directed the wind and controlled the squirrels, their erroneous musings about unseen influences would lead them into worse error than mere doubt about any such unseen thing. The only shred of "correctness" these other children possessed about parents would be a mere abstraction of hidden power or authority, lost under a pile of fabricated myth.

“When I wake up in the morning and look at the world around me, what do I see that makes the world different than it would be without your God in it?”

Possibly no more than ten thousand years of stories/scriptures relating to the god thing and all the fruits thereof- good and ill, from art, architecture and individual/social reform through to the Inquisition and Crusades’. Calculating the balance, for good or ill, of such “world difference” is subjective.

I have no problem at all with the idea that God does not exist, yet all of that art and architecture and social change and fighting has still happened anyway. Not one bit of that is contingent on the existence of a God or gods, it only depends on the existence of belief in those things.

There would be a big difference between a world without gravity and a world where people merely didn't believe in gravity. Gravity holds things together, keeps the sun from exploding and keeps the atmosphere from drifting away into space without anyone have to believe in it. To clarify my challenge, what's the difference between a world with no gods and one with a God or gods, if people belief in gods regardless of their actual existence?

[skepticscott]

53. One might just as foolishly as ironbark

try to argue that Santa must exist, since starting every September, the world is inundated with stories, songs, images, art, TV shows and every other imaginable thing and form of behavior attesting to the fact. On Xmas Eve, Norad radar tracks an unidentified flying object criss-crossing the skies in an unexplainable fashion. And on Christmas morning, gifts mysteriously appear in and milk and cookies have mysteriously disappeared from, millions of residences all over America. What else could explain such a thing other than a fat guy in a red suit traveling around in a sleigh full of toys pulled by magical flying reindeer and ducking up and down lots of chimneys?

[ironbark]

55. Lame ad hom, projected straw man and no substance

Well done...all in the one post.


“…try to argue that Santa must exist”

Ahhhh huh…….Go right ahead Kleetus….make it real funny….link it to the post in which the fool ironbark argued that “god must exist”.

Go on….I dares ya I double dares ya…….ya come out swinging like a maroon with his pants down
exposin the shameful fact that you got nothin to take a poke at and nothin to take a poke with.

[skepticscott]

57. I tried to make it as simple and obvious as possible

but I guess it wasn't enough.

You were challenged to show ways in which the world is different than it would be if your God didn't exist. Your response was:

Possibly no more than ten thousand years of stories/scriptures relating to the god thing and all the fruits thereof- good and ill, from art, architecture and individual/social reform through to the Inquisition and Crusades’. Calculating the balance, for good or ill, of such “world difference” is subjective.

My reply was to show that the fact that a lot of people behave as if something exists, and do so over a long period of time, constitutes no evidence of anything, other than that people behave like sheep and that delusional thinking spreads easily and can be hard to eliminate.

BTW, nowhere did I claim that you argued "god must exist", only that you were offering evidence of his existence that had no particular value. And I called your argument foolish, not you. If you consider than an ad hominem attack, you either don't understand the term, or you must be feeling a little persecuted. The only ad homs in this thread are coming from you.

[ironbark]

61. Oh it was simple and obvious-

“One might just as foolishly as ironbark try to argue that Santa must exist”

Read-

As he has foolishly tried to argue that god exists.

No need to smoke screen and equivocate…the insult intent was obvious.

“…you were offering evidence of his existence…”

Was I?

This it?
“ I am putting forward both ‘Progressive Revelation’ and the ‘god thing’ as working hypothesis, not as beliefs or certainties”

Or was it at some other point that I was offering “evidence of his existence” or responding to how things would be if “my god” didn’t exist?

Don’t flatter yourself with notions of “persecution”…I’m just pissed off and bored that every single dialogue is the same around here…It can’t be ‘god’ it has to be “my god”, it can’t be a dictionary definition of ‘god’ it’s “my definition”…and any one discussing historical anomalies/ possibilities/ probabilities relating to god is “offering evidence of his existence…” and running a god argument as foolish as that for Santa or Pink Unicorns.

The saddest part of it is that the capacity to hear, understand and respond to what the other person actualy said has been completely lost...most of the time youre all shooting blanks at phantoms.

[ironbark]

54. The invented terms and suspect definition game

“I can define a creature….”
“I have included into the definition….”
“I can make up…..”

Can I play too?

A ‘Heist’ is a creature that-
1/ Falsely accuses others of making up definitions of things or concepts for which the meaning- COMMON USAGE and DICTIONARY DEFINITION has been long established. (see 18#)

2/ Even when an accurate dictionary definition is established the ‘Heist/s’ continues to reject the definition, pretend the definition belongs to or is the invention of the individual using it and deems the definition suspect.

3/ Having confused the ‘concept’ and its ‘definition’ the ‘Heist”, loathing/rejecting the concept, rejects also the definition and in doing so rejects one of the basic principles that reason, logic, science and common communication/understanding are all based on- Words/concepts have meanings and definitions, nothing can be investigated or understood if those meanings are randomly rejected and a game of “I can make up..” ensues.

I’m cool with you rejecting the ‘concept’ of god or the ‘existence’ of god… but it’s now two days and several posts of pretending that the definition presented is “mine”, “useless” , “suspect” and similar associated bullshit....and that's booring.

‘God’ -
“A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.”

You don’t have to accept the ‘concept’ to accept the ‘definition’…if you don’t like the definition then get another/alternative into common usage or the dictionary through the persuasion of rational argument. But don't keep slagging me for using the term in the context of its definition and pretending I made it all up.

“I can make up an infinite number of things that would be utterly or at least practically impossible to detect, with an infinite number of reasons why you can't detect them. What recommends one above another? What recommends any? “

If the question is- “What recommends” any of these “things”/concepts/constructs to science/scientific investigation then the answer is >nothing<. That’s covered ground, track back up the thread.

That leaves “What recommends any” to humanity throughout history. “What recommends one (Jehovah god, Allah) above another (Thor, Zeus, Ra)?”
(And from there begins an inquiry into ‘probability’ that you have declined by ignoring the questions asked in 47#....None the less, I will continue to attempt to answer your questions directly and explicitly. ;-)

“Does the popularity of a particular impossible-to-detect thing make it more likely than other impossible to detect things?”

Not by any scientific measure or standard. But the question opens the door to the other available line of inquiry-
What would make a community thoroughly absorbed in the popular and state approved “impossible-to-detect thing- Thor- god of war” abandon it for the culturally alien antithesis- the
“impossible -to-detect thing- Jehovah- god of love thine enemy”?

There is >nothing< to make either “more likely” in science…so why do some concept of “impossible-to-detect things” live and others die?
Back to 47# and the unanswered question-
Ever looked at a timeline of the worlds major living religious traditions? Why, in all these thousands of years, do we not get a Jesus bumping up against a Mohammed? A Krishna contending in the same time and place with a Buddha?

What’s the ‘probability’? Ten thousand years of recorded human history, tens of thousands of sects, cults, religions and “impossible-to-detect things”, only a handful of survivors- major living religions-
and never once was a ‘founder’ within two hundred years of another ‘founder’. WHY?
We can find the greats and geniuses in all other fields of human endeavour meeting and contending in the same time and place, artists, scientists, generals, politicians all can be found in history in clusters and pairs. But the greatest, the most successful, at promulgating the teachings/revelations of an “impossible-to-detect thing” are spread out through history like a string of pearls.
----------@---------@-----@-----------------@------------@------@----------@-------------@----

Not evenly, not with any pattern, not with a steady Blip Blip that SETTI would recognise or science could investigate…it’s not a ‘proof’…it’s not even an ‘evidence’…..it is no more than an historical anomaly.
Question is……is it connected to any others and how many anomalies stack up to an improbability ?

“Further, you assume that omnipotence would be used in order for your God to hide from detection. Why assume that?”

Why ask a question, ignore subsequent answer and all questions related to it and repeat the question?
Why ignore all questions asked by another that relate to your inquiry and assume further answers are required?

From 47#-
What would your childhood/adolescent behaviour be like if you knew (of a certainty) that your parents saw/monitored >everything< you ever did?

Who is going to ride their bike too fast without a helmet, pinch milk bottles from the neighbour if there is scientific certainty that they are being watched?

Isn’t that how we all move into the independent adult world? Just with our parents/teachers “stories” and our “interpretations” and nobody clearly/obviously watching us?

How could we as individuals or as a species progress from immaturity to free will adulthood under the constant >scientific certainty< of observation?
……………..

I have answered why it could be assumed god might hide from detection and I have repeatedly asked what the outcome would be if god was a scientific certainty constantly watching our every move.

You like to invent “invisible pink unicorns” that’s fine….but please don’t pretend my prior answers and related questions don’t exist. You do me and your case a discourtesy by pretending my questions and answers are “invisible”.

“Your analogy of a parent-child relationship, which you attempt to use to justify this evasiveness and secrecy, is terribly flawed and doesn't help your case a bit.”

Then >SHOW/ARGUE, how it is “terribly flawed” , answer the questions and explain how individual and collective human behaviour would not be totally transformed and free will lost by the scientific certainty of an ever present observing god.

Instead you take an analogy literally and invert it-
“If my parents were anything like your God, they'd have hidden themselves from me completely. “

When even that gambit has been headed of at the pass twice over you ignore it-
47# “As covered above. The proposition is not one of ‘secretive’ to the point of ‘absentee parent’…..”

And continue to ignore the pertinent point/question- “How could we as individuals or as a species progress from immaturity to free will adulthood under the constant >scientific certainty< of observation?”

It does me/you/anybody no harm to know of a certainty that our parents exist, watch over us when children and >CANNOT< see everything we get up to. A god that was proven to exist and sees everything that occurs ELIMINATES FREE WILL.

“They'd have either have given no moral guidance at all,”…” difference between bad things that happened to me by chance and bad things which happened as punishment”…” They'd not tell me rules..”

It’s called scripture, revelation and commandments….god, pink unicorns and my prior questions may be invisible to you but surely you are aware of them?

“…directly, but instead they'd have other children, none of whom I'd have any reason to think any more authoritative than myself”


Back to-“What recommends one above another? What recommends any? “…..or in this case “What recommends the ‘Krishna, Moses, Jesus, Budda or Mohammed’ kid over ‘ Silent3’ kid?
Nothing whatsoever within the realms of science…and, seeing as there no certainty, no obvious undeniable “authority” watching over you…you have free will…you can choose…you can choose to examine history and what they said and see if you “have any reason to think any more authoritative than myself” or ignore all, or cherry pick, or examine an accept/reject one/some/all.

Point remains, >THAT< is not an unencumbered free will choice if god is an observing certainty.

“…tell me conflicting sets of rules….”

That’s a proposition as yet not discussed or determined.

Did these proposed “rules” arrive simultaneously or sequentially? What difference does it make?
If there is “conflict” or contradiction in the rules what form does it take? Do the rules conflict in relation to core principles and values?....Or does the conflict arise from the particular exigencies
of time and place?
Ie The prohibition on eating pork for a desert dwelling people without refrigeration would be a reasonable social law that might subsequently be abandoned/contradicted.
The ‘Golden Rule’ is a core value constant that repeats with variation in every living pearl on the chain.


“…that these children would equally insistence were correct , and these kids would have terrible fights between themselves over who was right.”

Yup, the chaotic antisocial toddler kids fight and so do the adolescents, they fight over “who was right”, “insistence of correctness”, the sandbox territory, who owns the toys in it, who’s slice of bread or cake is that and who gets the girl.
Fighting is the norm throughout history.

1/ Would the children have the free will opportunity to choose fighting if there was an omnipotent parent/cop/god >proven< to be watching over them?
(How many repetitions and variations of that question are required?)

2/ Are there any periods in history in which the constant childish tribal conflicts ceased or diminished?
Where and when?

“There would be a big difference between a world without gravity and a world where people merely didn't believe in gravity.”

Yup, and a directly proportional/ exactly the same “big difference” between a world without gravity
and a world in which god was a scientific certainty. In the former everything goes flying off into space, in the latter the free will of humanity is crushed under the weight of the sure knowledge of constant observation.

“To clarify my challenge, what's the difference between a world with no gods and one with a God or gods, if people belief in gods regardless of their actual existence?”

The “challenge” fails at the point of “if people belief (believe?) in gods regardless of their actual existence?”.

Gravity and zero gravity can be observed/tested scientifically…the god proposition cannot. People have no way of determining the “actual existence” of a god or its non existence. ‘Zero gravity’ can be created, experienced, tested. ‘Zero god’ is a proposition which has no scientific toe hold…it only makes sense as an historical speculation-
What would history look like without god/s?
It’s pure speculation.

The only entry point to your question/challenge is through a subjective reading of history…not through science or any science/gravity related parallel.


“…all of that art and architecture and social change and fighting has still happened anyway”

Wether or not that “art and architecture and social change ” would have occurred or not is one of the central aspects of considering/calculating ‘probability’.
Such considerations and wether or not advances would have “still happened anyway” are within the realms of history and comparative religion….but not science.

You clearly don’t want to go there or make any consideration thereof…god for you is something that if existing must be seen to exist, must be proven to exist. If god does not fit that criteria it’s a unicorn. That’s cool, I have no god to sell nor attempt to convince anyone of. My objective (in response to the OP) was to point out science is an extremely unlikely tool to pursue an invisible omnipotence.

;-)

[Silent3]

64. You think you've been accused of personally making up a definitions!?

Wow. Just wow.

That's a misunderstanding I never even anticipated.

I'll get back to the rest of your post later. For now I'll just let my surprise speak for itself.

[Why Syzygy]

39. What about ...

people report that after using DMT and similar substances, they "see God/(the Gods)" in "another dimension". It HAS been observed. Since by definition "another dimension" rules out 3D reality measurements, it cannot be proved false.

Of course the Greeks skeptics claim that something has to be proved in the positive, not negative. But I know of no way to *positively* prove that these are mere hallucinations. Do you?

(I am only seeing your half of the conversation, therefore my reply directly to you.)

[ironbark]

48. I would not attempt to deny or refute

any ones vision or experience of god or anything else.
(See Huxleys- ‘The Doors of Perception/ Heaven and Hell’ ;-)

The only exception would be if their vision/hallucination (or even scriptural interpretation) inclined them to do harm to themselves or others.

But I wouldn’t/couldn’t take their experience as ‘evidence’ of anything other than that they have had an experience out of the ordinary…and there is nothing scientifically verifiable therein.

“But I know of no way to *positively* prove that these are mere hallucinations. Do you?”

Proof positive? No. Only subjective calculations of ‘probability’ in regards the nature of the experience.

The only way to prove such a thing (supernatural/psychic/experience) would be if (in controlled conditions) previously unknown information was conveyed to an individual that could only have come from the hallucinatory experience and could be subsequently confirmed. (If they ‘hallucinate’ the winning lottery numbers even once you might be onto something ;-)

The only thing that I have heard of that comes close is the experiments that have been conducted with Lucid Dreamers.
Google ‘Lucid Dreamers’ experiments/research….it’s fascinating…but to my knowledge no ‘proof’ of anything supernatural.

[Why Syzygy]

4. Hi.

I don't know to whom you are replying. However, all one need do is read through this thread for evidence of where the blockage is.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x208150

[trotsky]

6. I found the blockage.

The person who wrote this was addressing it:

Your response here actually perfectly illustrates the effect of employing that kind of thinking... here you are deluding yourself into thinking an explanation has been presented when nothing of the kind has occurred. And if you make people think something has already been explained they stop trying to really explain it. It is encouraging extending a state of ignorance.

[ironbark]

19. self delete

[Silent3]

5. E pur si muove

The old chestnut that the church encouraged the view that the earth is flat has been debunked so many times that it seems pointless to do so again.

I didn't even know that was an "old chestnut", it's certainly not an accusation that I'm familiar with. The Roman Catholic Church most certainly did "encourage", however, the view that the earth was immovable and at the center of the universe. Galileo and others certainly experienced a bit of "encouragement" in this area.

The RCC practically treated the pre-science/pseudo-science of Aristotle as an extension to the Bible, something to be believed not because it was well supported by evidence but because the church told you it was true.

Of course, issues like this can be resolved and the conflict removed. What you end up with, however, is religion that is in constant retreat from ground gained by science, religion with a domain limited to the vague, the ill-defined, and the unprovable.

Religion and spiritualism as practiced by many followers isn't so careful to limit itself, and is therefore routinely in conflict with science.

[skepticscott]

9. The "old chestnut"

is nothing but a red herring. If it weren't, it would be easy for the author to cite documents actually issued by the RCC stating their support for that position, but he doesn't, because there simply aren't any. No one but a tiny and devoted group of whackos (and not even religiously motivated whackos) has believed for millenia that the earth is flat.

[struggle4progress]

29. After all the times as we have gone around heliocentrism in this forum, I would expect

people to know the history better by now

Copernicus himself was a churchman, and the Church freely allowed publication of the Copernicus book for about seventy years before hardliners at the time of the Reformation put the book on the prohibited index: the actual complaint against the book was rather limited, involving only a few sentences in the book; if the text was very slightly modified, it again freely circulated. The Church objections may seem ridiculous to us today: the Church did not object to astronomers using the heliocentric hypothesis as a calculationally useful approach to data but rather objected to the claim that heliocentrism was absolutely true. The changes demanded for the Copernicus book did not involve mathematics or observations but simply sought to maintain Church power to define what is true. Thus, the Church's ultimate stance could not actually affect the practice of science but instead would only restrict the range of allowed abstract philosophical claims. The approach was stupid and heavy-handed -- but (except for a very brief period) it would not have a chilling effect on science

[rrneck]

36. Reminds me of

Delacroix and Ingres and the conflict between Classicism and Romanticism in art history. Line or color...

[struggle4progress]

37. Or Lilliputians, quarreling about the proper opening of eggs

Thanks for the Delacroix-Ingres reference; I didn't know about that particular rumble

[Silent3]

38. Changing degrees of heavy-handedness...

...isn't a good sign of a lack of fundamental conflict, just the changing politics of how a conflict is handled.

I have a big problem with an organization like a church forcing a scientist to even edit a few sentences to fit in with their dogma. At best it's just an absurdity to say, "We're nice, open-minded people. We'll let you calculate the position of the planets as if the earth is going around the sun if that's easier for you scientist guys to do and the numbers come out better, but please, remember not to say that the earth really goes around the sun! Let the priests be the Holders of the Divine Truth that the earth doesn't move and we'll let you publish your silly equations, okay?"

[struggle4progress]

41. That particular plot has been exhaustively plowed over the last four hundred years,

and it is unlikely to produce any great new harvest. That fight ended long ago, and the passions that fueled it are cold. There is wide-spread essential agreement about which side won. So perhaps nowadays one can try to understand what the various principals thought they were defending -- without feeling any need to explain in minute detail where one personally might have tried to stand when the topic was hot

[Silent3]

42. There are modern examples too, however.

What about the RCC and the FUD they try to spread these days about the efficacy of condoms in preventing HIV?

Then there are other Christians, and some Islamic groups too, (and it wouldn't surprise me to find plenty of other religious groups) touting creationism over evolution.

Then then there are Christian (so-called) Scientists touting prayer over modern medicine, and they're just one example of "faith based" healing promoted without statistical evaluation of efficacy over methods of modern medicine which typically have much more evidence in their favor. If this absurdity were limited to "complimentary care" it could be as good as a placebo at best, and at least not cause any harm, but too often religious and spiritual sentiment promote prayer and other mystical nostrums over proven treatments, to the exclusion of proven treatments, sometimes with deadly results.

I ask now what I've asked before: What does it matter if some hypothetical, erudite, abstract concept of religion can be kept out of conflict with science if that concept has little to do with religion as generally practiced by many followers?

[Why Syzygy]

43. Simple.

Help to end the ignorance. As long as they remain 'enemies' fewer people who rely on religion when they should rely on science learn any better. If they see people of their own faith embrace science without harm, they will soon enough grasp the benefits.

I think this is as much about *Science* being fearful that some of their sacredly held beliefs might be challenged by religious experiences. 'They' want to keep it so PURE and quarantined so as to ensure their pet theories don't spring a few leaks. In fact, that is exactly what is happening this very moment in at least one instance I am aware of. "Science" is scared to death we might all find out that science and religion used to be one and the same.

[Silent3]

51. What should I care that "science and religion used to be one and the same"?

I can happily concur that much of modern science was first promoted by religious people. I will gladly recognize that there's a common thread in both science and religion of wanting to achieve deeper understanding of the world we live in.

Having admitted those likely points of agreement, my next question is, "So what?".

I am not laboring under any romanticism about the past. I am not bereft over some imagined fall from grace or lost state of supposed harmony. As far as I'm concerned, science needed to leave religion behind in order to advance. I do not wistfully long for a reunion.

I also have no "(fear) that some of their sacredly held beliefs (of science) might be challenged by religious experiences". It is probably pointless, however, for me to elaborate on my lack of fear about this, because I'm sure you will interpret my skepticism about "religious experience" as quaking-in-my-boots fear of the Awesome Power of Religion, as some form of "denial".

[struggle4progress]

44. While claiming to defend science, you have a remarkably Platonist attitude towards abstraction

The scientific point of view towards abstraction ought to be that one examines the phenomena first, then introduces whatever classifications seem useful for coherent and predictive discourse

You, on the other hand, seem to be a "philosophical realist": that is, you treat an abstract term, such as "religion," as if it had some definite and absolute meaning. That approach does not actually produce useful predictions -- it merely leads you to smear different facts together indiscriminately

The traditional Catholic opposition to condoms, the rightwing American fundamentalist hostility to evolution, and the Christian Scientist refusal to use modern medical methods are all distinct -- and it is not clear that they share a common intellectual root. The Vatican, for example, is not hostile to evolutionary theory nor is it hostile to modern medicine; similarly, people hostile to evolution may still be willing to use birth control or seek help from doctors

[Silent3]

45. Joyous for while powder epsilon triumphant likely northern facing crumpet.

I treat words like "religion" as if they have some definite meaning because you can't have a meaningful conversation if you can't even agree on what the words you're talking about mean, not out of any Platonist devotion to abstract ideals. If you'd like a different definition to be in play, name it and I'll see if it's useful and I can work with it.

In fact, I'd say it's distinctly non-Platonic of me to look at how religion is commonly practiced, rather than to appeal to some lofty idealized version of the concept, to point out how science and religion often conflict.

As for "a common intellectual root" to varying versions of religion and their conflicts with science, I don't posit that such exists, nor is it important to my argument. The only common themes necessary to bring out this conflict between science and religion is rejection of objective standards of evidence and belief in things like "revealed truth". The only way to avoid those conflicts is some elaborately firewalled system of different "kinds" of truth, a type of system which is not at all routine in religion as commonly practiced, and which, if followed, tends to reduce the proper domain of religion to such a narrow scope where one has to question if that which is left over for religion has much value at all.

[struggle4progress]

46. You provided what you claimed as evidence for a general thesis "religion is hostile to science"

I pointed out that the examples were in some sense independent of each other: one finds people holding some of the views and not others. This means that there is no clear and definite connection between what you consider the "cause" and what you consider as the "effects." You find your argument convincing merely because you use the same word "religion" to identify distinct phenomena: the question is whether the abstraction you use is adequate and accurate enough to resolve the relevant features of the phenomena you try to address. A genuine scientific theory would have better predictive power than your after-the-fact rationalizations

[Silent3]

50. This is about definitions of words, not theories.

There's a thing I call a "duck". If something looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's pretty damn likely to be a duck. My definition of "duck" covers other qualities of "duckness", like a duck being a living creature, so a robot duck or a holographic projection of a duck wouldn't quality.

I'm not promoting a "theory" of religion, I'm merely using a definition which you apparently don't like. This isn't about predictive power, it's about classification. If you don't like my definition, propose a better one. I'll judge if I find the utility and communicativeness of that definition superior.

You accuse me of Platonism, but it sounds more like you're the one treating religion as if it's some amorphous entity independent from familiar human manifestations of religion. It sounds as if you're expressing concern that if I'm not careful about how I define religion that I might miss recognizing new manifestations of religion or make a mistake about what religion and its characteristics "truly" are.

Suppose an isolated group of humans have a word, "warrup", and they use this word to refer to the only species of duck they are familiar with in their territory, a particular kind of duck with brown plumage. One day a white duck wanders into their territory, the first they've ever seen. Should these people call that bird a "warrup" too, perhaps qualifying it as "white warrup"? Should they come up with a totally new word? Is either choice right or wrong? Would either choice indicate that they had been laboring under an erroneous concept of "warrupness" that had insufficient predictive power?

As far as I'm concerned, the choice is arbitrary. Neither "duckness" nor "warrupness" are things to be discovered, they are things to be defined, things which mean whatever we collectively choose to make them mean. The only "mistakes" we can make are to use definitions which are internally inconsistent or which fail as effective means of communication. If I were to decide to include dogs and cats in my definition of "duck", but no one else wants to go along with that change in definition, I would be making an error to call a rottweiler a duck -- such independent usage and redefinition would only lead to confusion.

I feel exactly the same way about the word "religion". The main problem with that word is that there's already plenty of dispute over the exact meaning. The best anyone can do in such a situation is to use the word in a way which a least achieves a fair degree of overlap with the way other people use the word, in a way which hopefully invokes a similar conceptual space even where there is disagreement on precise meaning. For instance, I've heard people claim that "science is just another kind of religion". I disagree with that assessment, but I can make a good guess at what a person who says that might be trying to convey. Some degree of communication can occur despite a lack of full agreement on the meaning of the word "religion".

I have no doubt that, if you work at it, you can cook up definitions for "religion" and for "science" which neatly dispense with any conflict between the two. If you wish to flatter yourself by believing that these carefully concocted definitions are better reflections of TRUE religion and TRUE science, knock yourself out. I'll happily leave you with the task of getting the rest of the world to go along with your new definitions. In the meantime, I find the utility, communicativeness, and public concurrence of the way I use these words quite satisfactory.

[struggle4progress]

56. An abstraction such as "duckness" has scientific utility only insofar as it is abstracted

from discovered things and leads to some coherent body of knowledge: your notion, that "duckness" inherits scientific meaning simply from the act of definition, reflects an anti-scientific Platonistic perspective

[Silent3]

58. What on earth do you mean by "inherits scientific meaning"?

I really don't get what you're trying to get at. I do think I understand, however, the tactic you're attempting. You use better words, but this is a tactic I've run into before from creationists: the "Ha, ha! You're not so scientific as you think you are, Mr. Scientist!" gambit.

What creationists often do is demand absurd, often impossible levels of proof (only for evolution, of course, not for their own nonsense) and pretend that since you can't meet their demands, and because they are making the demands, that they're really the better scientists. Instead of going for impossible levels of proof, however, you're just going for baffling obscurity. (Ah, but if I were really scientific, and not just being mean to poor ol' religion, I wouldn't be baffled, I guess.)

What "scientific meaning" am I supposedly attributing to "duckness" which I apparently think arises "simply from the act of definition"? There are common usages for words, and sometimes specialized scientific uses for the same words. When it comes to something like a duck, the "scientific meaning" of the word might involve genetics, internal physiology, details of bone structure, etc. -- things which only deeper investigation into instances of that which is commonly referred to as a "duck" would reveal.

Even without that deeper definition, however, one could scientifically investigate migrations patterns of ducks and not have to subject every bird that was tracked to a DNA test or cut them open and count vertebrae to make sure that one was tracking instances of the "scientific meaning" of ducks.

Galileo discovered that objects fall at the same speed regardless of their weight, and he didn't have to use highly-developed scientific definitions of "speed", "weight", "object" and "fall" in order to do so.

[struggle4progress]

59. It's dishonest of you to portray me as a creationist. I'm not, and you know that.

[Silent3]

62. I didn't portray you as a creationist...

...I said you used a tactic similar to one used by creationists. The "well you think you're so scientific, but you're not!" tactic. I stand by that assessment.

If you can't even follow that unsubtle a distinction, what should I make of all the fussy fine distinctions you seem to be trying to play on?

[struggle4progress]

60. Let us review. You want to argue generally religion conflicts with science. The problem with

this sweeping hypothesis, on my view, is that the vague abstraction "religion" covers a wide range of distinct sociological phenomena, which are not uniformly opposed to scientific methods or scientific inquiry. A similar objection applies to the abstraction "science." Thus, "religion conflicts with science" is a sentence, which involves terms, that are so abstract, that the meaning of the sentence cannot be determined in any definite way. I can imagine, for example, agreeing with the sentence "My religion forces me to oppose vivisection experiments on human subjects" -- which, I suppose, would lead anyone, who admires Nazi concentration camp doctors, to view me as antiscientific -- while I disagree with the statements "My religion forces me to oppose teaching the theory of evolution" or "My religion forces me to avoid modern medical treatment." There are people who agree with one but not both of the last two sentences, and there are people who agree with both of them. The fact that one might consider oneself religious, while agreeing with zero, one, or two of the last sentences shows that by using the term "religion" in all such cases, one is applying an abstraction to rather different phenomena

What you seem not to understand about the difference between semantic and scientific definitions is this: the semantic definitions are to be judged according to the linguistic coherence of the resulting discourse, whereas the scientific definitions are to be judged according to whether they produce a discourse that accurately describes phenomena. The semantic definition is produced by ordering words or by laying out appropriate rules for the use of the word. The scientific definition, on the other hand, must begin from the phenomena

You write: You accuse me of Platonism, but it sounds more like you're the one treating religion as if it's some amorphous entity independent from familiar human manifestations of religion. It sounds as if you're expressing concern that if I'm not careful about how I define religion that I might miss recognizing new manifestations of religion or make a mistake about what religion and its characteristics "truly" are. But this misses the mark rather widely. Not being a Platonist, I in some sense do not really believe there is such a thing as "religion" at all. It is true that I find the concept amorphous, but that does not mean I believe it represents some "amorphous entity." The word "religion" is merely vague and evocative to me: in practice, I find that even people, who claim to share the same religion, may have widely divergent views

You argue: The best anyone can do in such a situation is to use the word in a way which a least achieves a fair degree of overlap with the way other people use the word, in a way which hopefully invokes a similar conceptual space even where there is disagreement on precise meaning. But from a scientific point of view, this is exactly backwards! You want to start with the word "religion" and then fine-tune its use to suit your argument. For scientific purposes, too much reliance on everyday language is counter-productive. The scientific point of view would be to examine phenomena first -- and make useful definitions later

This problem shows up clearly in your Catholic-condom example. It is true that the official Catholic position opposes condoms. This position seems to be based on a "natural-law" view that the biological-reproductive purpose of sexuality is primary, a view which someone could actually hold without even being Catholic. The position, however, has been contested in the Church -- and if you've followed the news in recent years, you will be aware that there is evidence of an internal power struggle over the doctrine, which the hardliners seem to be winning under the current Pope. A number of points of view have been expressed in this discussion, including, of course, some which seem very ignorant. But the habit of misreading every statement, as if it simply reflected ignorance and superstition, is dishonest: when the Vatican argues that if you engage in promiscuous sex but use condoms, you still have an elevated chance of contracting AIDS, compared to someone who abstains and does not use condoms, the Vatican's claim may actually be defensible -- even though it does not usefully promote condom-use by the non-abstinent. There may be a perfectly coherent logic in the Vatican position, even if one feels obligated to disagree with it for various reasons: in particular, one might think that the Vatican stance is counter-productive, and leads to the wrong sound-bite propaganda, without thinking that the view is superstitious. It seems to me that your approach -- which begins with the idea that "religion conflicts with science" and then cherry-picks examples to support your thesis -- produces no real insight

[Silent3]

63. Tell that to Galileo

What you seem not to understand about the difference between semantic and scientific definitions is this: the semantic definitions are to be judged according to the linguistic coherence of the resulting discourse, whereas the scientific definitions are to be judged according to whether they produce a discourse that accurately describes phenomena. But from a scientific point of view, this is exactly backwards!

So when Galileo started dropping objects from a height and comparing the rate a which they fell, he needed to approach the entire problem completely wordlessly, not daring to consider words like "drop", "fall", "object", "weight", "speed", etc. (or their Italian or Latin equivalents), until after his experiments were done? If he even thought momentarily to himself "I will drop these objects now" he was contaminating his experiment with unwarranted, unscientific preconceptions of the entities under investigation?

I'd say quite a bit of science can be done in the realm of commonplace semantic definitions. That would be the only place you could start when a field of study is brand new, with new scientific words or specialized scientific usages of old words following later to help navigate the ideas and concepts revealed through investigation and experimentation. Now, to try to get this back on track concerning religion...

The idea that religion typically involves "taking things on faith" without evidence (I think I can make a good case that calling "revelation" a type of evidence leads to a flawed, useless concept of evidence), sometimes even contrary to evidence, is not a post-facto definition I personally came up with to match a pre-ordained premise that there's an inherent conflict with science. It's something I've been told by many religious people directly. Even without every religious person saying such things, given the lack of hard proof for things like gods and spirits and souls, all one needs is a semantic argument and the not very-debatable premise that nearly all religions invoke deities or spirits or souls to conclude that religion very typically involves belief in things for which there is no evidence.

Belief in things for which there is no evidence, in and of itself, is a conflict with science, at a procedural and philosophical level. The only exception to that I can think of is the minimal amount of belief-without-proof that it takes to bootstrap oneself into the start of a scientific framework: eschewing solipsism, taking it as a given that you aren't locked into an inescapable illusion or dream or all-encompassing conspiratorially-contrived deception, etc. -- in other words, the minimal parsimonious steps it takes to escape Philosophy 101 existential doubt.

I suppose you could categorize religious conflicts with science into "hard" and "soft" conflicts. What I'd call "hard" conflicts, like believing in Noah's Ark as a literal historical fact rather than accepting evolution, can be avoided, at least in the more liberal and educated versions of religious practice. What I'd call a "soft conflict" is any assertion that lives in the realm, "Well, science can't evaluate/hasn't evaluated this claim yet, so for now you can't prove me wrong, and I'll assert what I like/the validity of my "revelation"/the Truth I See in My Heart so long a evidence doesn't or can't disprove these things."

I've heard people try to say things like, "Science tells us how we got here. Religion tell us why.", as if that somehow lays down a dividing line that sets up clear, non-conflicting domains. I don't think that solves anything, but I won't pursue that tangent unless asked to later. Some people would try to put ethics and morality into the field of religion, but if you take away the supernatural component of religion then you've just got ethics and morality which obviously can exist outside of religion. Further elaboration on that is also a tangent I'll skip for now.

If you'd like to point out specific flaws in what I've written above (rather than vague, generalized claims of failures to follow obscure rules I've never heard of about when I'm allowed to introduce or form definitions of words), or if you'd like to run a definition of "religion" (and perhaps of "science") up the flagpole -- you know, show me by example what good definitions are instead of simply objecting to mine -- and show how all conflict can either disappear or become mere aberration, be my guest.

[struggle4progress]

65. How ironic that you reference Galileo to support your view of definitions! Let us cite him

directly on a definition he makes:

... And first of all it seems desirable to find and explain a definition best fitting natural phenomena. For anyone may invent an arbitrary type of motion and discuss its properties; thus, for instance, some have imagined helices and conchoids as described by certain motions which are not met with in nature, and have very commendably established the properties which these curves possess in virtue of their definitions — but we have decided to consider the phenomena of bodies falling with an acceleration such as actually occurs in nature and to make this definition of accelerated motion exhibit the essential features of observed accelerated motions. And this, at last, after repeated efforts we trust we have succeeded in doing. In this belief we are confirmed mainly by the consideration that experimental results are seen to agree with and exactly correspond with those properties which have been, one after another, demonstrated by us. Finally, in the investigation of naturally accelerated motion we were led, by hand as it were, in following the habit and custom of nature herself, in all her various other processes, to employ only those means which are most common, simple and easy.

For I think no one believes that swimming or flying can be accomplished in a manner simpler or easier than that instinctively employed by fishes and birds.

When, therefore, I observe a stone initially at rest falling from an elevated position and continually acquiring new increments of speed, why should I not believe that such increases take place in a manner which is exceedingly simple and rather obvious to everybody? If now we examine the matter carefully we find no addition or increment more simple than that which repeats itself always in the same manner. This we readily understand when we consider the intimate relationship between time and motion; for just as uniformity of motion is defined by and conceived through equal times and equal spaces (thus we call a motion uniform when equal distances are traversed during equal time-intervals), so also we may, in a similar manner, through equal time-intervals, conceive additions of speed as taking place without complication; thus we may picture to our mind a motion as uniformly and continuously accelerated when, during any equal intervals of time whatever, equal increments of speed are given to it. Thus if any equal intervals of time whatever have elapsed, counting from the time at which the moving body left its position of rest and began to descend, the amount of speed acquired during the first two time-intervals will be double that acquired during the first time-interval alone; so the amount added during three of these time-intervals will be treble; and that in four, quadruple that of the first time interval. To put the matter more clearly, if a body were to continue its motion with the same speed which it had acquired during the first time-interval and were to retain this same uniform speed, then its motion would be twice as slow as that which it would have if its velocity had been acquired during two time intervals.

And thus, it seems, we shall not be far wrong if we put the increment of speed as proportional to the increment of time; hence the definition of motion which we are about to discuss may be stated as follows: A motion is said to be uniformly accelerated, when starting from rest, it acquires, during equal time-intervals, equal increments of speed.

SAGR. Although I can offer no rational objection to this or indeed to any other definition, devised by any author whomsoever, since all definitions are arbitrary, I may nevertheless without offense be allowed to doubt whether such a definition as the above, established in an abstract manner, corresponds to and describes that kind of accelerated motion which we meet in nature in the case of freely falling bodies. And since the Author apparently maintains that the motion described in his definition is that of freely falling bodies, I would like to clear my mind of certain difficulties in order that I may later apply myself more earnestly to the propositions and their demonstrations ...

http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/tns153.htm

So you see, even for Galileo the test of a scientific definition is not its mere rationality but whether it accords to the facts. In fact, we know from Galileo himself that the above definition of "uniform acceleration" was not the only definition he considered but that after considering the phenomena he chose that particular definition as being more suitable for describing the world than his other option. Similarly, I say that even if you wish to regard "religion" as sociological phenomena, a desire for clear thinking should lead you first to the phenomena, from which you should draw your definitions, rather than attempting to view the phenomena through the lens of definitions you have made before observing carefully

[Silent3]

67. Galileo still had to start with a definition of "motion".

Circles, spirals, acceleration uniform or not... there's still a body being in one place at one moment and a different place at another moment, apparently sweeping through the intervening space between those moments. Could or should Galileo have gotten that degree of horrible presumptuousness about motion out of the way first too? Did he end up with a new meaning of motion in the end of his studies, or simply different categorizations of and rules about motion which applied in different circumstances?

Similarly, I say that even if you wish to regard "religion" as sociological phenomena, a desire for clear thinking should lead you first to the phenomena, from which you should draw your definitions...

It's not like religion just "happens" to people like a disease (although considering religion a memetic infection does have its charms). A lot of people apparently willingly participate in religion on their own accord, as if it's, you know, almost like a voluntary action of some sort. That gives the people thus participating some say in describing what it is that they think they're doing, and makes using a definition of religion that owes a lot to how the participants describe what it is that they're up to some authority.

Shall I view the activities of religious people and the pronouncements of religious people and the stated beliefs of religious people as something which is not itself religion, but merely "symptomatic" of religion, with religion being the hypothetical underlying cause of these symptoms, and treat that proposed underlying cause as the thing awaiting definition after careful observation and analysis of the symptoms?

[struggle4progress]

68. You think one begins by defining "motion" -- but in fact one begins by pointing to it

[Silent3]

69. You forgot to add "Grasshopper"...

...to the end of that. :eyes:

You've run out of options but posing now, it seems. I could explain what I object to in what you just wrote, not to mention complain quite justly about your utter failure to respond to multiple issues that have been raised or your failure to offer your alternate definitions, but what's the point? You're not an honest participant in the discussion.

[struggle4progress]

70. My point of view is completely coherent: instead of starting from a vague term like "religion" and

cherry-picking examples to illustrate a pre-chosen ideological position, I prefer to examine specific phenomena in their actual forms and in their historic contexts. I have posted repeatedly in this forum on the problem of providing a satisfactory definition; here is a useful link:

The Complexity of Religion and the Definition of “Religion” in International Law
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss16/gunn.shtml

The problem, of course, is that what is called religion is identified sometimes by reference to texts, sometimes by reference to ritual, sometimes by reference to mythology, sometimes by reference to magical practices, sometimes by reference to ethical traditions, sometimes by reference to ethnic groups, and so on. A term, which defies definition, is not a suitable term for any rational theory. A theory based on definitions, rather than on phenomena, may be suitable metaphysics or mathematics -- but it is not a scientific theory, since the bedrock terms of a scientific theory are determined by pointing at things, not by defining them

[Silent3]

71. Consistency, hobgoblins, etc.

Sure it's difficult to define religion, especially in a legalistic context of deciding who gets a tax break for declaring themselves a church, who gets protected rights and who doesn't, etc. We've been over this before. I'd prefer to drop all the legalistic complexity and treat all non-profit organizations the same way, treat all philosophical freedom the same way whether you call it religion or not. To the extent that laws about religion don't merely protect religious people from abuse but actually elevate religiosity to a privileged status I have no use for such complexity.

At any rate, I hardly think you'd be putting up such a fuss if I said "Republicans don't want Bush's tax cuts to be allowed to expire" or "Greenpeace wants to save the whales". Republicanism and Greenpeace-ism aren't easy to define either, and I'm sure you can find examples of people who adopt those labels but don't support those same positions. Are these terms easier to define than religion? Yes, I'll grant you that. But there's still no perfect agreement, no perfect definitions which cover every single last Republican or Greenpeace member or Greenpeace sympathizer.

Will your "consistency" extend to you dismissing the above very functional generalizations too? To complaining about how they aren't good scientific theories?

Would you accuse me of "cherry picking" even if I acknowledge that you might indeed find a few registered Republicans who are okay with the tax cuts expiring, while I still maintain that the generalization is a good one? Would a single member of Greenpeace who happened to hate whales and wants them all to die because one killed his grandmother invalidate my generalization about Greenpeace?

Is it "cherry picking" among accident reports if I say that failure to wear a seat belt is a safety hazard because most people who don't wear a seat belt won't be killed or injured because of it?

The problem, of course, is that what is called religion is identified sometimes by reference to texts, sometimes by reference to ritual, sometimes by reference to mythology, sometimes by reference to magical practices, sometimes by reference to ethical traditions, sometimes by reference to ethnic groups, and so on. A term, which defies definition, is not a suitable term for any rational theory.

Even when a definition is difficult to pin down or reach universal consensus, one can state "here's the definition I'm using, and what I say which follows applies to that definition" and move on.

A theory based on definitions, rather than on phenomena, may be suitable metaphysics or mathematics -- but it is not a scientific theory...

Who is proposing a "theory"? I am not proposing any theories. My contention that religion (as I have defined it, in a way that's pretty damned good at encompassing a whole lot of what most people recognize as religion) conflicts with science (please refer to what I said about "soft conflicts" vs. "hard conflicts" if you start to get hung up on "cherry picking" about creationism or anti-heliocentrism) is no more a "theory" than Republicans wanting to keep Bush's tax cuts is a "theory".

Since you keep talking about "theories" I have to wonder if you're laboring under some bizarre notion that a statement is either is a good scientific theory, or it's not science at all, as if the entire scientific endeavor is or should be composed of nothing but theories.

...since the bedrock terms of a scientific theory are determined by pointing at things, not by defining them

Besides the fact that I'm not even trying to create a scientific theory, I don't even agree with this statement about scientific theories. It's true you have to work to keep preconceptions from spoiling results, that you might have to treat some definitions as provisional and subject to revision, that you might end up defining new terms that you never had before, but I can't think of a single scientific investigation that's even possible without a few well-defined terms as a starting point.

Do you imagine that children raised by wolves would make the best possible scientists?

[skepticscott]

66. I wouldn't even say that subscribing to an objective reality

that is independent of any observer, as opposed to the "brain-in-a-box" scenario, involves belief or a leap of faith in the way that many religious beliefs do (and in the way that religionists try to paint: "Ha, even you scientists have to take things on faith..admit it!"). In fact, I would argue that it can't. Of the two possibilities, I don't and can't claim to know which is true. The very nature of the second scenario precludes any rational basis for such knowledge, or even for deciding that one scenario is the more likely, since the result of any test, observation or experiment to make that determination can always be put down as part of the simulation.

I don't choose to live my life as if the first ("Objective reality") scenario is true because I have any evidence that excludes the second ("simulation") scenario, and I'm not simply taking the first one "on faith", because I acknowledge all along that I could wake up in that laboratory at any moment and find that my entire life's experiences have been fed into my brain from a computer. I reject the second scenario not because I am convinced by evidence or believe on faith that it isn't true, but simply because it is of no use to me in living my life.

We would probably regard someone who did live their life as if the simulation scenario was true, and spent all their time trying to break through to the higher (the "real") reality as deeply nuts. But why? Certainly not because we have any evidence that they're wrong (other than an instinctive, but totally unsupportable feeling that they just can't be right), or even that our version of things is a lot more likely than theirs. We'd regard them so because, no matter which is true, it makes no sense to live as if you're in a simulation. Even if you are, there's really nothing better to do with your time than live as if you're not, until and unless you do wake up in that laboratory.

Of course, the laboratory you wake up in may just be part of a larger simulation...

[charlie]

7. Who is this guy?

Coyne resists any accommodation between religious and non-religious scientists to defend Darwinism.

Then why does Coyne write appreciatively of Miller's refutations of ID and his testimony in the Kansas trial, probably the most effective in the whole affair? A momentary lapse of purity?

He doesn't want to see them joining forces against the creationist common enemy in case that legitimises religion.

Oh, balls. He thinks religion/science "accomodation" leads to conundrums and eventual fracture. They both lose.

Giberson and Miller are thoughtful men of good will. Reading them, you get a sense of conviction and sincerity absent from the writings of many creationists, who blatantly deny the most obvious facts about nature in the cause of their faith. Both of their books are worth reading: Giberson for the history of the creation/ evolution debate, and Miller for his lucid arguments against intelligent design. Yet in the end they fail to achieve their longed-for union between faith and evolution. And they fail for the same reason that people always fail: a true harmony between science and religion requires either doing away with most people's religion and replacing it with a watered-down deism, or polluting science with unnecessary, untestable, and unreasonable spiritual claims.

http://www.tnr.com/booksarts/story.html?id=1e3851a3-bdf7-438a-ac2a-a5e381a70472&p=6

In order for his position to make sense, he needs to show that there is some sort of existential conflict between religion and science. So it is unfortunate for him...

To do what he's not doing, he needs to show the institutional harassment that isn't part of his objections.... what??

[Odin2005]

8. The "people thought the earth was flat" thing is a bad example.

That myth is perpetuated by ignorant schoolteachers, not atheists.

[TZ]

16. LOL-these types of articles are so stupid..

As a member of the field I've met many religious scientists and with one fundie exception they all understood that science and religion/faith are two entirely different things...They keep them entirely separated. They know that religion has nothing to do with actual evidence based science and that religion is about faith/belief and not evidence and never the two shall meet.

[rrneck]

22. It's not about

any conflict between science and religion. There is no conflict between science and religion. The conflict is between those who seek power over others and everybody else. Those who would try to create an alternate understanding of reality for their own profit are not practicing any legitimate religion as far as I am concerned.

Nice job of political thuggery, theft, and marketing though.

[Silent3]

27. I don't think you need to invoke power politics...

...in order to find conflict. Some people are simply prone to magical thinking, with or without organized religion, and they naturally gravitate toward ideas that conflict with science. Sometimes all religion is doing is organizing and refining already-extant magical thinking into doctrine.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

25. This is an interesting post

...in the context of the anti-science cribbed Creationist talking points you've posted elsewhere.

[TZ]

35. considering this poster believes all scientists are liars.

that puts an even more INTERESTING spin on posting this.

[struggle4progress]

28. The idiotic claims pop up continually: here's R/T discussion about whether church banned forks:

Forks are evil! Eat with your hands!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=178610

[ironbark]

49. Thanks Struggle

I was completely oblivious to the potential evil of forks until I read your post.

I had heard of the ‘evil of nails’ and how the Romans had symbols on doorways to ward of the evil inherent in the new fangled magical device that was replacing the reliable, pure and non supernatural dovetail timber joint.

I read the link to thread down to the point at which you responded (to some poor soul)
“Fork you too”….and promptly abandoned any further exposure to fork induced evil.

;-)

Much appreciated.