PZ Myers: 'Here's the logic behind the scientific rejection of religion...'

[BurtWorm]

This comes from a critique of an essay on faith and science by philosopher of religion Mary Midgely that appeared in the Guardian. Midgely accused 'New Atheists' of unreasonably expecting religion to be scientific. PZ Myers' response to that charge is one of the clearest explanations of a science-based rejection of religion I've ever read:


http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/06/bumblin_midgley_babbles_again.php

...

Here's the logic behind the scientific rejection of religion, which is nothing like the weird version Midgley has cobbled up. The success of science has shown us what an effective knowledge generator accomplishes: it produces consensus and an increasing body of support for its conclusions, and it has observable effects, specifically improvements in our understanding and ability to manipulate the world. We can share evidence that other people can evaluate and replicate, and an idea can spread because it works and is independently verifiable.

Look at religion. It is a failure. There is no convergence of ideas, no means to test ideas, and no reliable outcomes from those ideas. It's noise and chaos and arbitrary eruptions of ridiculous rationalizations. Mormonism, Buddhism, Islam, and Catholicism can't all be true — and no, please don't play that game of reducing each religion to a mush that merely recognizes divinity. Religions have very specific dogmas, and practitioners do not blithely shuffle between them. Those differences are indefensible if they actually have a universal source of reliable knowledge about metaphysics.

Again, this is not a demand that religions must conform to science's methods, only that we should be able to assess whether it works. I can imagine a world where revelation, for instance, actually generates useful knowledge, where people independently acquired specific information piped right into their heads, straight from god. I'd expect, though, that there would be some agreement between all the recipients. It could even be strictly theological information, with no expectation of material support. If a host of people all around the world suddenly heard a gong in their heads, followed by the words (in their own language, of course) "The name of God is Potrzebie", well, then…there's something interesting going on. If these kinds of revelations continued and were consistent across cultures and traditions, I'd be willing to consider that there was something outside the human mind that was communicating with us. I'd admittedly be baffled by it all, but the fact that there'd be growing cross-cultural consensus on very specific claims would be hard to ignore.

As for outcomes, it also doesn't have to be something material — religion wouldn't have to be a tool for making better microwave ovens before I'd believe it, for instance. It could provide a universal moral code, or be an effective tool for improving mental health. If the enlightened people of Potrzebie were demonstrably calmer, more peaceful, and better at coping with stress because of the intermittent revelations, then I'd also have to admit that something was up. It's actually too bad that there isn't any such phenomenon taking place.

Basically, we've learned from the example of science that a way of knowing ought to do what it promises to do. They don't have to promise to do exactly the same thing — architecture and botany, for instance, don't have the same goals or methods, so we wouldn't expect physics and theology to echo each other's answers — but they ought to produce something reliable and true.

The fact that no religion can is damaging to them. Biblical literalism is crazy nonsense, but no more so than transubstantiation or doctrines of salvation or any accounts of what happens in heaven or hell. What drives our rejection of religion isn't that a few bits and pieces of specific religious beliefs, like the literal interpretation of Genesis, have been falsified, but that no consistent knowledge comes out of religion at all…yet every religion claims to provide knowledge about the nature of the universe.

...

[frebrd]

1. " Midgely accused 'New Atheists' of unreasonably expecting religion to be scientific"

I don't expect religion to be scientific; I just don't want religionists to to expect me to take their beliefs seriously.

But then, I'm not a "new" Atheist; I'm an Atheist of seventy-plus years standing.

:banghead:

[struggle4progress]

2. It's another adolescent tantrum from the communion-wafer smasher: PZ self-righteously

proclaims he is delivering "the logic behind the scientific rejection of religion," but his language is not scientific: Bumblin' Midgley babbles again, he titles his rant, and the rest follows suit: ... bungling incomprehension ... Emily Litella ... harebrained tangents ... awfully confusing ... ridiculous nonsense ... corrupting effect of faith ... noise and chaos and arbitrary eruptions of ridiculous rationalizations ... foolish faith ... plodding hodge-podge of fantasy ... infuriating nonsense ...

Wiki, citing a Guardian article, asserts Midgley is not a Christian, and a number of websites actually identify her as an atheist, but (as expected) this does not prevent PZ from shrieking what Midgley is promoting is perilously close to insisting on privileging her Biblical BS as something we must respect

Of course, sneering and shrieking do not enhance rational discussion -- even if one piously insists that it is merely scientific speech. It's not scientific speech: it's still just sneering and shrieking

... "Christianity never really took. I tried to operate it, but there never seemed to be anybody there" ...
Mary, Mary, quite contrary
A fiercely combative philosopher, she wrote her first book in her 50s after she raised her family. Now 81, she is our foremost scourge of 'scientific pretension' and a staunch defender of religion - although she doesn't believe in God
Andrew Brown
The Guardian
Saturday 13 January 2001
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2001/jan/13/philosophy

[skepticscott]

3. Nice job of cherry-picking

but no better than I would expect from you. Perhaps you'd care to be intellectually honest and also mention everything he said that DID use the language of reason and rationality. Or should I do it for you? Perhaps you'd actually care to engage him on the facts instead of engaging in the kind of sneering that you decry in him.

[trotsky]

4. "sneering and shrieking do not enhance rational discussion"

And yet you do so much of it, with plenty of ad hom, in this case directed at someone who obviously speaks a little more truth than you'd like, PZ Myers.

Because most telling of all, you said nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, to show why Prof. Myers' arguments are wrong. You just attacked him and focused on a basically irrelevant side point. Hey, wait a minute, that's exactly what you do in this forum all the time. Guess I shouldn't have expected anything more.

[BurtWorm]

5. As trotsky pointed out (maybe you missed it), you've addressed the tone

but said nothing about the substance. At least admit that PZ Myers addresses the substance of Midgely's complaint, pointing out that she's barking up the wrong tree. Then he shows precisely what the scientific objection to religious "truth" is. If religion did not claim a sort of moral equivalence (not to mention superiority) to science as an authority on universal experience, there would be no problem. Its truths would be just as central to all types of human progress (including spiritual progress) as the "truths" of the average tv series. But religion and its defenders want to claim more for it than that. They want it to be given some sort of due as a universal truth generator. I think Myers goes right to the heart of why this is asking too much on behalf of religion.

[struggle4progress]

6. Gave a link, plus direct quote from PZ, exhibiting his ideological-purity approach:

namely, the simple fact that the atheist Midgley defends certain aspects of religion is enough for PZ to complain she believes some "Biblical BS" that she expects should be privileged

It's his standard polarizing approach

[BurtWorm]

7. Again you're ingoring the point.

[struggle4progress]

8. If one likes polarizing vituperation and misrepresentation, one may like PZ

Midgely trained in philosophy, and her exposition is clear and rational. One is certainly free to disagree with her views and explain why, but some of us prefer a certain civility in such conversations, because that allows one to focus on the issues

PZ's constant unpleasantness and wedge-driving obscures anything he might be saying -- deliberately, I think

[Jim__]

9. I absolutely agree.

Myers categorizes his column "kooks." Midgley is not a kook. I did not find her argument confusing at all.

[skepticscott]

11. Which means what, exactly?

That as long as an argument is simple enough for you to understand, it must be valid? Please..

Stop harping on attitude, and engage on the facts, if you can. What did Myers say that was demonstrably wrong?

[Jim__]

17. It means I agree with post #8.

[trotsky]

10. You're still ignoring the point.

I would have thought someone as brilliant and sophisticated and well-versed in theology would have simply torn Prof. Myers' argument to shreds rather than continue to engage in ad homs, while decrying his... well... "unpleasantness."

[Lucian]

12. So, because Dr. PZ uses that language, it makes it less scientific?

:wtf:

[struggle4progress]

13. Lemme know when one of his tantrums appears in a peer-reviewed scientific journal

:rofl:

[GoneOffShore]

14. Rants are rants

He calls his rants rants - There is no expectation that they will appear in a peer-reviewed journal.

He decries Midgely as a muddle headed faitheist.

And to echo another poster - I'm not a new atheist. I've been one for 55 years.

[struggle4progress]

15. Lucian above claims PZ is somehow speaking in a scientific manner. Do let me know if ANY

of PZ's alleged "scientific investigation" of religion -- whether it's smashing communion wafers or whatnot -- ever appears as a peer-reviewed scientific paper in a standard scientific journal

I don't really care whether you're an atheist or, or whether PZ is an atheist or not: I simply don't find terms like "theist" or "atheist" very informative. I do care whether PZ (say) can actually make comments that help me clarify my thinking. The name-calling you advocate ("faitheist") is a lazy sloppy surrogate for actual thought, and it produces very little insight

[GoneOffShore]

16. Ah, the tone of atheists.

But the tone of Prof. Myers in that rant doesn't seem to be all that harsh. And the arguments he puts forth certainly seem to "clarify" his position on religion and Midgely quite well.

And why would cracker crushing appear in a scientific journal? You're just being silly.


And she's still a faitheist.

Oh yes, and by the way, sometimes ad hominem attacks are the only satisfying way to end an argument (notice I didn't say "win"). One may not win, but it's fun isn't it?

Poopyhead

[struggle4progress]

18. That is, your primary interest is to ridicule people.