Science versus Faith.

[Jim__]

I thought people might be interested in this. The Big Think is featuring a series this week - Science versus Faith. They are interviewing various people: David Gelertner, Richard Dawkins, James Randi, Robert Wright, Karen Armstrong, Rebecca Goldstein, and Lionel Tiger on the question of religion versus faith. On the page that I'm linking to, if you click on the person's name, you can go to their whole interview (usually about 40 minutes) or, click on the hyperlink text and you can go to an answer to a particular question (usually about 3 minutes). If you scroll down from the whole interview with a person, you can choose specific questions and listen to their answer.

Here's a brief answer (about 8 minutes) from Rebecca Goldstein on morality This may be the only piece of her interview available.

From the title page:

How can scientists be religious? How has religion evolved, according to science? In a special series this week, Big Think rounds up a learned cast of thought leaders—from a computer scientist who was injured by the Unabomber to an anthropologist who insists that universities teach "male studies"—to highlight some particularly vexing issues at the intersection of religion and science. While some of the experts in the series admit to having no faith beyond their belief in the scientific peer review process, others whom you might expect to fall in the devoutly atheistic camp provide a fairly convincing argument for the survival and importance of religion in our increasingly technological world.

According to evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, scientists never need faith, at least "not in the sense of faith as meaning belief in something for which there is no evidence." The self-described atheist says his "faith" is based upon his confidence in the scientific method. He may not be a physicist, he admits, but he has faith that there are physicists who can test, verify, and criticize the views of other physicists. James Randi, the "magician and curmudgeon by trade" who's made a career out of debunking the paranormal, pseudo-scientific, and the supernatural, agrees with Dawkins' skepticism of religion. "I am an atheist, tried and true," Randi says in his Big Think interview. After being tossed out of Sunday school as young boy, Randi dedicated his life to proving that science rules when it comes to the great unknown.

However, scientist-atheists may be on a crusade of their own, says David Gelernter, professor of computer science at Yale University. Gelernter doesn't name names, but presumably he fears that biologists like Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers "play on people's weaknesses and ignorance" while extolling hard facts over religious conviction. Even though Gelernter is a computer scientist, he reminds us that technology will eventually threaten human dignity and integrity, making the "wisdom" and "moral seriousness" found in religion even more important to future generations. Without the moral absolutes so readily supplied by religion, Gelernter says technology's increasing intrusion into human life via cloning and genetic engineering may present a "tremendously dangerous moral conflict of interest" to mankind.

[old mark]

1. My opinion-science is reality, faith is not. nt

[darkstar3]

2. Especially given that

the very definition of faith includes "things not seen."

[sailor65]

3. Still the same flawed argument

Trying to decide which group is "Dumber" than the other, when the stupid ones are those who continue to insist that the two are mutually exclusive. Science, in many ways, IS faith (Try looking up Dark Matter).

Strangely, my faith didn't get in the way of my two engineering degrees, one advanced, or the myriad scientific and engineering socities I apparently must have "Forrest-Gumped" my way into.

Both disciplines are searching, and neither one is entirely sure what it is searching for. Just as bad as Far-Left vs Far-Right, all we hear is that "We couldn't possibly be like those other guys!" In the end, chances are we're all looking for the same damn thing.

[darkstar3]

5. How very self-righteous of you.

"I'm above all of that petty bickering, and I've learned to live with BOTH A and B."

Spare me.

Science and faith both search for answers to the unknown, this is true, but they come at the search from opposite ends of the spectrum. Science works methodically toward a definitive answer for specific phenomena, throwing out worthless hypothesis after worthless hypothesis along the way, while faith posits an answer to all of the unknown and does everything it can to shoehorn that answer into fitting every phenomenon.

I have no doubt that an engineering degree was easy to reconcile with your faith. As a person who obtained an engineering degree myself, I can understand how that happened. But when you start to study the earth and life sciences and see the glaring contradictions between all the claims of faith and the current scientific evidence, it becomes much more difficult to perform that reconciliation.

[sailor65]

11. Kudos for the mischaracterization of the day.....

"Self-righteous" would be those who choose one camp or the other with no consideration for the space between; i.e. you.

Your opening sentence: "I'm above all of that petty bickering, and I've learned to live with BOTH A and B," completely misses the point of my post. I have not "Learned to live with" A and B, I have learned enough about both A and B to know they do not exclulde each other. That is completely different.

Next, we have; "Science and faith both search for answers to the unknown, this is true, but they come at the search from opposite ends of the spectrum. Science works methodically toward a definitive answer for specific phenomena, throwing out worthless hypothesis after worthless hypothesis along the way, while faith posits an answer to all of the unknown and does everything it can to shoehorn that answer into fitting every phenomenon."
That statements says you don't understand either science or faith very well. Faith (Not the variety you probably think matches the DU perception, but real faith" does not discount science at all. Science, contrary to your assessment, is full of leaps of faith, which is the great paradox of the DU opinion of faith. Very often when science rightly throws out a disproven hypothesis, it replaces said hypothesis with a new one that is largely faith.

Read the example of dark matter. Or, read the evolution of science's opinions on the behavior of matter, or elementary particles, of light, or gravity. Take your pick, but in each case, science has historically taken great leaps of faith with very little initial evidence. If you do indeed have an engineering degree, you should know this.

As to your last statement about "The glaring contradictions between all the claims of faith and the current scientific evidence...." only helps to support the idea that you don't understand faith at all, and perhaps science only a little better. When science says something like "We can't explain this, so it must be.......," then the line becomes blurry.

I'll give you a hint to get you started though; Faith doesn't mean using the Bible as a literal record or scientific tool. The sooner you drop the DU definition of faith and broaden your horizons, the sooner you might understand.

[AlecBGreen]

12. well said

"Faith doesn't mean using the Bible as a literal record or scientific tool."

I have been fascinated by science and the natural world my whole life. My favorite class was always science, especially Biology. I majored in Biology at college, I worked in an Ecology lab for 4 years. I currently teach Earth Science and Biology. I am also a Christian. Being a "scientist" and a person of faith are not mutually exclusive.

[darkstar3]

20. Then let me ask you this:

As a Christian and a Biology teacher, what are your views on Creation vs. Evolution. Do you, as I suspect, believe that God started evolution?

[AlecBGreen]

28. .

I believe life on Earth arose from the spontaneous aggregation of organic molecules. Natural selection turned those simplest of lifeforms (can we even call them life?) into all the multidude of life that we see today. I do not take the Book of Genesis to be a literal account of how the Earth was made and how life came to be.

I read a neat article on the evolution of RNA. I cant find a link right now but long story short, RNA has both coded information and the ability to catalyze chemical reactions. The scientists showed that RNA would 'adapt' to a changing environment. Ill see if I can dig that up. It was really interesting! Is that something you would be interested in reading?

[darkstar3]

31. Sure!

As for Genesis, I knew from your previous posts here that you didn't take it literally, nor would I expect a Bio teacher to do so. My question pertains to where you see God fitting into the creation picture, as a Christian, and a scientist.

More broadly, I'm also curious about the following:
How does your reconciled view differ from that of your congregation/denomination?
If your reconciled view DOES differ from your congregation/denomination, how did you arrive at it?

[AlecBGreen]

36. good questions

the answer to the first is very difficult for me to articulate:

"where you see God fitting into the creation picture, as a Christian, and a scientist?"

this one will take some time so let me get back to it. My brain is fried right now (just finished work)

"How does your reconciled view differ from that of your congregation/denomination?"

I was raised a Lutheran (ELCA, which tends to be more liberal, not the Missouri Synod which is pretty right-wing). My pastor is a great man and although he has never talked about it, I know him well enough to say he most likely believes as I do. (This is a man who once told me as a young kid: "God made sex for two reasons: PROcreation and RECreation!"). Some in our church take the Bible the be 100% literal but most dont. Although we have pretty divergent opinions on many issues, we all get along pretty well. The only major argument we have had in the last 20+ years that I can personally remember has been the ELCA's stance on homosexuality. This caused a pretty deep division in our local congregation and the ELCA as a whole. My pastor (a fairly liberal theologian) was pretty anti-homosexual in the past but has come around in the last ten years and now (AFAIK) supports full acceptance and even ordination. Some of the more conservative members disagreed vehemently and left the church.

Gotta run, my rides leaving. Ill finish up when I get home.

[beam me up scottie]

16. Oh, boy.

This is gonna be good. :popcorn:

[darkstar3]

19. One of my faves.

Thank you. :)

[AlecBGreen]

29. lol

thanks for sharing! thats a keeper :)

[beam me up scottie]

32. You're welcome, but DS3 deserves the credit, he introduced me to the Tree Lobsters.

I think you would love most of the toons even though you're not an atheist.

http://www.treelobsters.com/

[darkstar3]

18. I see.

So in your reconciliation of faith and science you have forgotten the simple truth of both and accuse me of understanding neither of them when it is pointed out to you that you've missed something. How original.

The leaps of faith that you claim scientists make are known as hypotheses. Hypotheses are required for testing. We get an idea, we test it. It doesn't matter how outlandish that idea is, as long as we are willing to throw out the idea when the testing results don't support it. It is not fair to characterize this process as "leaps of faith," due to what faith actually IS.

Faith, "The substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen," takes a different tack, and is much less willing to throw out ideas when testing results fail to support them. That's why we call it faith, and not simply belief. If you stop believing in something simply because you can't prove it, then you didn't have faith in that thing to begin with.

So it's not about scientific "leaps of faith" or nebulous definitions of faith that have no set precepts. It's about the fact that what you're really talking about is belief, and you believe that the scientific method requires faith, which is a hilarious assertion.

[Silent3]

42. What "leap of faith" has anyone ever taken with dark matter?

Is anyone betting the future of a desperately needed technology on the existence of dark matter? Is anyone saying that all of our lives are meaningless and devoid of purpose without dark matter?

Dark matter is not a matter of faith, it's a description for a problem of visible mass being less than amount of mass needed to account for apparent gravitational attraction among the various visible bodies in the observed universe. Might the problem be due to something else that isn't actually matter? We don't know yet, that's just the best bet based on available data. It's a provisional analysis. The nature of speculation about the composition of the supposed dark matter is hardly conducted with the same smug self-assurance as a preacher who tells you what his unseen deity wants you to do with your life, so where is the faith parallel?

That you pose the issue as "atheists think believers are stupid", apparently contradicted by "hey, I'm a believer and look how smart I am" just goes to show that however smart you are, you don't apply your native intelligence regularly and consistently to all problems. You've got to know that stupidity isn't a binary condition, so why pretend you've got a "gotcha!" by arguing as if it is?

[daylan b]

6. Galileo summed it up nicely

I don't remember the exact quote right now but it was long the lines of "if science and relgion disagree, our understanding of one or the other must be wrong".

[beam me up scottie]

24. Galileo had to suck up to the church if he didn't want to meet the same fate as Giordano Bruno.

Bruno was declared a heretic, and told he would be handed over to secular authorities. According to the correspondence of one Gaspar Schopp of Breslau, he is said to have made a threatening gesture towards his judges and to have replied:

"Maiori forsan cum timore sententiam in me fertis quam ego accipiam" (Perhaps you pronounce this sentence against me with greater fear than I receive it)."

He was quickly turned over to the secular authorities and, on February 17, 1600 in the Campo de' Fiori, a central Roman market square, "his tongue imprisoned because of his wicked words" he was burned at the stake.

His ashes were dumped into the Tiber river. All Bruno's works were placed on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum in 1603.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno

[daylan b]

34. ????

Are you saying he was actually an atheist?

[beam me up scottie]

35. Um, no.

I have no way of knowing what he believed.

[daylan b]

48. So just posting random facts?

Oh, fun, my turn.

He was a male.

[beam me up scottie]

50. Actually I was hoping you would bother to do some of your own research.

I should have known better since you didn't care enough about the subject to post the exact quote.

Typical.

[daylan b]

51. What exactly is your point? Well, if you actually have one.

You think I'm familiar with the view of the conflicts between religion and science of Galileo Galilei but you think I'm not familiar with the situation he was dealing with or the context in which he said it? Seriously?

You are judging me for paraphrasing a quote? Seriously? Granted, ad hominem attacks are SUCH a great sign of arroganc...errr....intelligence but if you don't have a point to make yourself, what are you wasting your time with?

Are you trying to claim Galileo didn't believe in God but lied to cover his ass, that's about the only thing that could be derived from your original reply.

[beam me up scottie]

52. I was expecting curiousity and/or substance.

Many different things could have been derived from my original comment, but you were flippant and jumped to the wrong conclusion.

I'll spell it out for you, even the most devout catholic would be burned at the stake if he didn't have friends in high places.

Bruno had none, Galileo did, and after going through the Inquisition, I think he was wise to use them.

Belief in deities had nothing to do with Bruno's death or Galileo's survival. Personally, I think they both died as believers, which just makes their stories all the more tragic.


Sorry if I seemed a bit harsh, my original comment was just a simple reminder of what happened to Galileo and Bruno (both men whom I admire greatly), it was not at all critical of your post. My tone changed when yours did.

This is a tough arena and you are new to it, we are expected to back up everything we post, half-assed research and glib comments are not suffered well. Any post we make, no matter how innocent, can lead to a 300+ post free for all.

For some reason some of us like it down here...

Welcome. :hi:

[daylan b]

55. I guess you would have gotten curiosity if it weren't for the fact that...

...I'm well aware of everything you've posted. I've always been fascinated the challenges to organized religion in the 1500s whether that be the reformation or the subject we're speaking of.

Your original reply was posted with no context, hence the original question.

Regarding quotes, I've got a pretty stereotypical engineer brain, while I admire those that can reference quotes or scripture in rapid fire, it's simply not something I'm good at.

[beam me up scottie]

59. I'm not great at quotes either, I save the ones I like best and google the rest.

I was actually glad to see a new face and was hoping to engage you in a discussion about Galileo, (I always like to throw Bruno in there because many people never heard about him). I know the discussions we have are beneficial for everyone who reads them, not just the participants since I have learned much from other DUers, in this forum and others.

I apologize again for being short with you.

[Jim__]

8. I'm not sure that Rebecca Goldstein is raising the usual argument.

She asks: What if Hitler had won? What if we were living under the rules established by Hitler? Would we be living in a moral world? She doesn't really give us an answer, she just claims that god doesn't make a difference here.

I believe the truth is that "Hitler" types have won in human history, and we have adapted to their morality. We bomb cities and kill civilians and label it "collateral damage." We store enough nuclear weapons to blow up the whole world and probably kill all human life on it. By any standard of morality that I would hope to see, this type of activity would be considered atrocious. To me, the answer to her question, the answer she didn't actually give, is, "yes". If hitler had won, we would be living in a world where Hitler had established the rules, and we would consider it a moral world.

[BurtWorm]

39. You've misled people into thinking that the text you quote in the OP is from Goldstein.

You owe it to Goldstein and members of this forum to clarify whose words are whose.

PS: I disagree with your conclusion that people rely on their leaders to set the morality. Somehow you know that to minimize civilian deaths in warfare as "collateral damage" is wrong. How do *you* know that? Probably the same way I know that, which is the common human intuition that harming others is "bad" and helping others is "good." You really don't need god for that basic understanding of morality.

[Jim__]

43. Only people who are easily misled.

I linked to the sites for each quote. Anyone at all familiar with Goldstein knows the tenor of her analysis.

I didn't say we rely on our leaders to set morality. It also doesn't mean much to object to certain relatively common behaviors (e.g. collateral damage in war) when we are not stressed. Stress changes our morality; but our war preparations belie our objections in non-stressful times.

[beam me up scottie]

44. Thanks, I caught that after I replied to your post down thread.

Goldstein may be a flake but this staggeringly ignorant statement was made by Gelernter:

"Without the moral absolutes so readily supplied by religion, Gelernter says technology's increasing intrusion into human life via cloning and genetic engineering may present a "tremendously dangerous moral conflict of interest" to mankind.".


The op omitted the following paragraph:

Gelernter isn't our only expert to suggest that morality needs to be grounded by God's will. Author and philosopher Rebecca Goldstein admits that moral truths remain quite mysterious when you consider the way our moral compass seems somewhat fixed, despite the way history challenges our perceptions of what is right and wrong.

[BurtWorm]

45. Goldstein is definitely an atheist, though. I think that graph mischaracterizes her position.

She doesn't believe in "God's will" as far as I know. She probably believes in an evolutionary basis for morality, I'm guessing, because her partner is Stephen Pinker.

PS: I think I saw other people assuming Goldstein was responsible for those words in the OP. It wasn't clear whose words those were.

[beam me up scottie]

46. I was under the impression she was a theist.

Maybe she believes in Spinoza's god?

[BurtWorm]

47. Could be.

;-)

[Jim__]

60. No. Rebecca Goldstein is an atheist.

From her interview in the current version of The Humanist:

When I was still living within the bounds of Orthodoxy—which I did well into my adulthood and long after I had become a nonbeliever, for reasons having to do with my family—I sometimes experienced the withering assessments of scientific sorts. There was one doctor, in particular, after I gave birth to one of my children, who made a few cutting remarks, probably assuming that I was too stupid even to understand them, imputing a primitiveness to me that clearly provoked his distaste. I was remembering such experiences when I was writing that scene with Pascale.

[gcomeau]

9. Still the same equivocating on the definition of "faith".

Science, in many ways, IS faith (Try looking up Dark Matter).

Why? So we can see yet another example of how people who think science uses "faith" the way religion uses "faith" don't know what they're talking about?

First... an excerpt from something I wrote on this subject a while back for another forum...

1. "Faith" as a description of confidence in extremely reliable data. For example, I have faith the sun will rise tomorrow morning. The reason I have faith in this is because I have massive amounts of data available to me that inform me that this will occur barring an incredibly unlikely occurrence... like the sun exploding overnight or the space fairies halting the Earth's rotation. The sun has risen all 11,000+ days of my life to date, right on schedule, and I have no reason to suspect that pattern will be disrupted in the next 14 hours or so.

2. "Faith" as a description of well earned trust. For example, you can have faith that a good friend or close acquaintance will deal honestly and fairly with you. This is based on your experience of and familiarity with this person and their personality and behavior. Your judgment of their character. Really, you are expressing confidence in your own ability to evaluate the trustworthiness of another person when you encounter and interact with them.

3. "Faith" as an expresssion of loyalty and commitment. Usually to an individual or ideal which you have good reason to hold as worthy of support, as in 'keeping the faith'. You have evaluated and judged this person or principle and have come to the conclusion that it is worthy of your loyalty and efforts to advance it, and faithfully stand by it.

4. "Faith" as a description of an insistence on believing in something without regard for or even in direct opposition to any related information or evidence. For example, to cite some extreme cases, you can have faith that there is a spaceship carrying Jesus riding along and hiding behind the Hale-Bopp comet and if you commit suicide while it passes your soul will float up to zoom around with Jesus in outer space. Or, you can have faith that food and water are unnecessary for your survival, and humans can survive by being photosynthetic or something. People clinging to this type of faith can usually be identified by statements such as "It doesn't matter what you say you can't change my mind, I hold my position through faith and my faith is unshakable!"

Now, on to the heart of the matter. Those four somewhat famous words... "faith is a virtue". That rather begs the question, what kind of faith are we talking about? The first two types of faith are not exactly virtuous, they're simply descriptions of a state of mind. I would not feel terribly compelled to praise someone for their virtue because they trusted people close to them or were confident in solid data, there's nothing uncommon or particularly commendable in either of those things. There's nothing unsavory about them either, but I wouldn't call them virtues.

I would consider that four word phrase to apply most to the third type of faith. To display the courage of your convictions, to steadfastly struggle to advance the principles you believe are worthy of upholding, and to loyally support and defend those people you judge to merit such devotion is not as common a trait as it should be, and does display nobility of character.

The fourth type of faith is nothing like the third, and yet it is often substituted for it. There is nothing virtuous about it, and yet those four words "faith is a virtue" are most often employed when defending this application of it. It is one thing to display loyalty and conviction to a cause or a person which you have good reason to conclude is worthy of that devotion. It is entirely another to squeeze shut your eyes, clamp hands firmly over ears, and refuse to even consider whether that which you are committing yourself to actually warrants it while yelling "I have faith, I'm not listening, I have faith, you can't change my mind". A person possessing the third type of faith would not continue to lend their support to a cause gone wrong, or a person turned malicious or dishonorable, or a course of action demonstrated to be incorrect or flawed. A person possessing the fourth type of faith shuts themselves off from even considering if that could be the case. Deliberately blinding themselves to any possibility of recognizing a possible error, the equivalent of declaring that they consider their own judgment to be infallible, that there is no way they could even consider that they could be wrong about what they have chosen to believe because that would somehow compromise their faithfulness.

And people are praised for it. It's tragic.

Dark matter is a perfectly legitimate inference made on verifiable observational evidence. We see that *something* appears to be exerting a gravitational atttraction. We know that that is done by things with mass... things we usually call "matter".

And we know that whatever it is it's not emitting or reflecting sufficiently strongly in any electromagnetic spectra that we're able to see it on our instruments here from Earth... or in other words, it's "Dark".

So, "Dark Matter".

Now... which definition of "Faith" do you suppose thinking Dark Matter exists requires?

Strangely, my faith didn't get in the way of my two engineering degrees, one advanced, or the myriad scientific and engineering socities I apparently must have "Forrest-Gumped" my way into.

All it required was for you to compartmentalize the part of your brain that deals with religion from the part of your brain that thinks critically about things actually. I see it a lot. You'll be going about your business in science class fully understanding that a hypothesis being unfalsifiable deprives of it of absolutely any value whatsoever for example... then the subject of religion comes up and all of a sudden it's like the part of your brain that knows that gets turned off like someone threw a switch labelled "Religious Rationality Excemption Activator" and you'll start declaring that religions is special so the rules don't apply. And never once will this cause the phrase "Special Pleading" to leap into your thoughts.

[beam me up scottie]

17. +1 squidzillion

That was a thing of beauty.

[darkstar3]

21. Extremely well said.

It blows me away when people who have studied the Scientific Method claim that it uses faith. I'm bookmarking your post for the future.
:applause:

[trotsky]

26. That is a brilliant post and deserves a thread of its own.

:applause:

[gcomeau]

30. Hey, thanks guys.

Once upon a time, on a discussion forum far far away, this started life as a thread of it's own... and after this discussion reminded me of it the extended version became a post of it's own http://duelingdogma.blogspot.com/">on my shiny new blog. Does that count?

[beam me up scottie]

33. It sure does.

Bookmarked your blog, some great stuff there, love your thoughts re: "Agnostic"... The Most Abused Word In The English Language. :D

[trotsky]

61. Nice blog.

You have a great way of putting things.

[gcomeau]

110. Thanks!

I kind of slacked off on it for a while... but I'm up and running with it again now.

[skepticscott]

57. Very fine post...thank you

And getting crickets from the blatherers further upthread, I notice, with no surprise whatsoever.

[humblebum]

27. Sailor, I think you hit on a very important point. There is a certain level of

faith (not necessarily religious faith) in most disciplines including science. The hard sciences and math are considered the only 100% objectively defined disciplines, but the SM begins with observation, ends with observation and a mechanism allowing for changes to be made to a theory should new evidence arise necessitating change. So, in that light, a certain amount of faith is required that an hypothesis is valid.
As far as religious faith goes, that and science are not mutually exclusive by any means. Scientific thought uses a rational/empirical(positive and 100% objectivity) method of attaining knowledge. Religion, as well as many other disciplines, use a modified form of the SM (varying degrees of subjective enquiry) to arrive at their respective conclusions. So to say that religion is or is not compatible with science is nothing but subjective opinion.

[darkstar3]

37. Yeah, see #9,

where that point on scientific "faith" and your elaboration are both torn to shreds.

[gcomeau]

38. If by "SM" you mean Scientific Method... no.

Religion, as well as many other disciplines, use a modified form of the SM (varying degrees of subjective enquiry) to arrive at their respective conclusions.

This is like saying a total vacuum is a "modified version" of a highly pressurized environment.

Or that black is a "modified version" of white.

The entire point of the scientific method is to eliminate subjectivity so we can have confidence in our conclusions. You can't call a subjectivre method of inquiry a "modified form" of the scientific method... it's the antithesis of it!

[humblebum]

40. Actually, you don't know what you are talking about.

In fact, most disciplines - business, psychology, theology, history, law, etc. use a very logical method to obtain and verify knowledge that is similar to and based on the modern step by step Scientific Method. Law schools call it Legal Positivism. There are many versions of it.

[darkstar3]

41. Oh, one of you CLEARLY

doesn't know what they're talking about. I know where I'm putting my money...

[gcomeau]

49. Oh yes, clearly...

But just for my own education, how about we determine the full extent of my ignorance by nailing down some specifics. How does that sound?

Now, you made this statement:

Religion, as well as many other disciplines, use a modified form of the SM (varying degrees of subjective enquiry) to arrive at their respective conclusions

Would you mind terribly quantifying, to some extent, WHAT "degree of subjective inquiry" we're talking about when we talk about religious claims?

[humblebum]

53. The SM is nothing more than an orderly method of creative problem solving.

Now, are you telling that hypotheses are only put forward in the hard sciences? Are not hypotheses used in psychology, history, economics, etc. What process or method do you suppose is used to develop these hypotheses? Clue. Could it be a form of the Scientific Method?
Just for the moment, let's consider religion just another discipline, like economics. Economic theories are based on observations and from these observations, hypotheses are developed and tested. From the results, one can decide whether or not to revise the economic theory. There is a certain amount of subjectivity required in economic theory. Religious thought involves a greater degree of subjective thought but the process is the same. And I don't care what your religious inclinations are. I'm just saying that a step by step process similar to that used in the hard sciences is used to arrive at an acceptable conclusion. There is a science of philosophy, of history, of economics, etc. they are not all hard sciences, but they are sciences nonetheless in that they all can utilize a form of scientific method.
When you are dealing with the physical sciences, it is all about empiricism (the five senses)- absolute objectivity. In any other discipline the process of obtaining knowledge involves some degree of subjectivity. Religion (whether you believe or not, that's not at issue here) utilizes emotion, intuition, histories, personal experiences, etc. But they are by and large subjective. These are not used in physical sciences, of course, but are used to a greater degree in economics (just as an example).Therefore the degree of subjectivity varies according to the discipline.

[gcomeau]

54. It's a bit more than that...

...but we can get there.

I asked a relatively simple and straightforward question. You appear to have spent three decent sized paragraphs avoiding providing a direct answer. About the closest you got was "the degree of subjectivity varies according to discipline" and that in religion it's "greater" than in the hard sciences.

Well that's lovely.

Now... when we get to the discipline of religion that variation carries us to what degree of subjectivity? In rough terms? 1% greater? 50%? 99%?

[humblebum]

67. You seem to be drifting away from your original objection against

my claim that the SM has a mass application for all types of disciplines. You say "it's a bit more than that". No it really isn't. The Scientific Method has has evolved over the centuries and last time I checked it had 14 defined steps, but it is still the same basic method of induction and deduction.

[gcomeau]

69. I'm really not.

I'm still on exactly the same objection I started on, and we'd progress towards demonstrating why that objection is correct if you'd stop dodging my question... which you just avoided answering. Again.

Third time's a charm? Or is there a reason you really don't want to go there?

Please quantify what degree of subjectivity we're talking about when we're dealing with religious claims.

[humblebum]

72. Excuse me? You said

"You can't call a subjectivre method of inquiry a "modified form" of the scientific method... it's the antithesis of it!" And yet the SM is the most used method of problem solving on earth. Now I have already listed for you several subjective aspects of religious thought. What degree of religious thought is subjective? That very question is subjective in itself. Personal experiences, historical documents, authoritative opinions, emotions, philosophic conclusions, etc. - you figure it out. There does seem to be some amount of confusion as to what objectivity means. Only those things that are 100% empirical (experienced and verifiable by one or all of the 5 senses) are considered objective. That only happens in the hard sciences and mathematics. Anything else is subjective, even the idea of dark matter. And yes I do think dark matter exists. Am I 100% certain. No. However, I am probably 95% sure. But until such time as I can see it (with or without instruments)or detect it with any of my 5 senses, it remains subjective. When that happens, it will be objective. So to with religion. It is difficult for me to accept the idea that "if something cannot be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or touched - then it cannot exist or probably doesn't exist." Now if I combine that with philosophies that point me to the existence of a living creator, plus historical accounts, plus all of the other elements that I mentioned - that's how religion is reasoned. People can accept it or not. That's not what is at issue here. I merely put forth my viewpoint and described the general process. Degree or percentage of subjectivity? It's subjective.

[gcomeau]

76. I'm perfectly well aware of what I said.

Apparently we have to just write this stage off as "incapable of answering question" and try to push on.

In that case, I'LL answer it. The answer would be "religious claims are almost completely subjective".

Care to dispute that before we move on?

There does seem to be some amount of confusion as to what objectivity means. Only those things that are 100% empirical (experienced and verifiable by one or all of the 5 senses) are considered objective.

Well, I at least have to agree with that first sentence, considering what followed it.

An objective observation is one whose truth value has independece from the identity of the observer. Or, if you prefer... it's the opposite of "in the eye of the beholder". The existence of a gorgeous woman is very, very able to be experienced and verified using the senses... but the truth value of the statament "she is beautiful" depends entirely on the interpretation and evaluation of that physical observation by the person making the assessment. Hence... subjective.

On the other hand the statement "she has perfectly symmetrical eyes" is objective, because it can be measured and quantified in a manner that has absolutely no dependence whatsoever on the identity of the person making the measurement.

Clear?

[darkstar3]

77. Well done.

:thumbsup:

[humblebum]

78. You merely restated what I already said and yes I will stand

by my statements. Remember you are the one who claimed the the SM is only used in Science and could not be used for anything subjective, which is totally bogus. BTW, quit running for the dictioary and start thinking for yourself.

[gcomeau]

79. If you think I restated what you said...

...you either didn't understand what I said, or you didn't say what you meant. But fine, I'll take that claim at face value and assume we're now in agreement on what constitutes subjectivity and objectivity and given the lack of a dispute of the first point that we're in agreement that religious claims are almost entirely subjective.

Now we can begin demonstrating why saying religion uses anything resembling a modified version of the SM is absurd.

There are varying ways of expressing and grouping the steps inherent in the method... since you earlier indicated you had a formulatiuon in mind that employed 14 steps we can use that.

Care to list them? Or if you prefer, I'll provide my own list.

[humblebum]

80. It's pretty obvious that you're reading something and don't have a clue

what you are reading. I suggest you do a little backround study on the SM before you make such bewildering statements.

[gcomeau]

82. Uh-huh...

I'll just take that as "provide your own list" since I'm tired of spending several posts trying to get you to answer simple questions.

First very general outline:

1. Define the question. What, exactly, are you trying to determine the answer to?
2. Conduct observations. Gather basic information.
3. Construct hypothesis. Based on initial observations, form a possible explanation for the question you are trying to answer.
4. TEST. Construct a test which, when it is conducted, will tell you if your hypothesis is provisionally valid, or incorrect. Perform.
5. Analyze Test Data. Having conducted the test, fully analyze the data it produced and determine if it matched expectations if your hypothesis were true... or if it has falsified your hypothesis.
6. Extrapolate. If your hypothesis was shown to be false, the data acquired should tell you how it was false, and suggest the direction to take in constructing a correct hypothesis (back to step 3 you go). If your hypothesis is consistent with test results it has survived. So far. Based on data acquired during this test determine how to construct additional tests which can be used to further refine, corroborate, or eventually falsify the hypothesis (back to step 4 you go).
7. Publish. Subject your results to the scrutiny of your peers for critical analysis and verification.

If you want to add, alter, or elaborate on any of those points... go for it. Otherwise indicate your assent and we're moving on.

[humblebum]

84. I am well aware of what a SM list looks like. But it's also obvious that

you do not realize that all disciplines do not use the same number of steps and also it depends whether or not your research is qualitative or quantitative. So if you post about 10 different lists, I will assume you have an idea of what you are dealing with.

Good place to start - scientificmethod.com <http://www.scientificmethod.com/bpg03_bestofmethods.html> Have a ball.

[gcomeau]

87. Ahem...

But it's also obvious that you do not realize that all disciplines do not use the same number of steps

Oh gosh? REALLY?

That must be why I indicated I knew you were thinking of a version that used 14, invited you to post whatever preferred version you wanted to use, then when you avoided doing so I posted a version with 7, invited you to add to or elaborate on those 7 steps, and I said THIS:

"There are varying ways of expressing and grouping the steps inherent in the method..."

...TWO POSTS AGO. Because I OBVIOUSLY don't know you can formulate the method different ways with a different number of steps. Oh, golly gee, THANK YOU for enlightening me!

Now that we've cured my inexcusable ignorance on this point, if I might presume to repeat my last request:

If you want to add, alter, or elaborate on any of those points... go for it. Otherwise indicate your assent and we're moving on.

This time, avoidance of the question will be taken as implied assent to the basic structure I laid out for the purposes of our discussion here.

[humblebum]

88. There's hardly any avoidance on my part here. You are the one that

said the SM couldn't be used for anything other than objective enquiry. I have have shown you where to go for some information. Now if it is your intention to get into a deep discussion on theology or anything related to religion, you know as well as I do that you would have to open your mind to ontological and teleological premises as well the positivist view. These things are generally discarded by most atheists and these are the things I would fill in your blanks with.And that would just be the starting point. So you are talking pretty much about writing a book here and I'll just tell you to do a little research on your own. Have a ball.

[gcomeau]

89. He says as he avoids answering the question AGAIN...

So, as stated, I am taking that as implied assent to the general outline of the SM I presented.

You are the one that said the SM couldn't be used for anything other than objective enquiry.

Yup. And still intending on demonstrating it too. Now, this is our framework example of SM steps you have now twice ignored invitations to modify:

1. Define the question. What, exactly, are you trying to determine the answer to?
2. Conduct observations. Gather basic information.
3. Construct hypothesis. Based on initial observations, form a possible explanation for the question you are trying to answer.
4. TEST. Construct a test which, when it is conducted, will tell you if your hypothesis is provisionally valid, or incorrect. Perform.
5. Analyze Test Data. Having conducted the test, fully analyze the data it produced and determine if it matched expectations if your hypothesis were true... or if it has falsified your hypothesis.
6. Extrapolate. If your hypothesis was shown to be false, the data acquired should tell you how it was false, and suggest the direction to take in constructing a correct hypothesis (back to step 3 you go). If your hypothesis is consistent with test results it has survived. So far. Based on data acquired during this test determine how to construct additional tests which can be used to further refine, corroborate, or eventually falsify the hypothesis (back to step 4 you go).
7. Publish. Subject your results to the scrutiny of your peers for critical analysis and verification.

Now... Please select an example religious subjective claim/hypothesis to use as the subject of our investigation so we can play "follow the steps" and you can show me HOW this "modified Scientific Method" you speak of actually works on such a case.

I dare you.

I anticipate you avoiding doing so and forcing me to do it for you in 3... 2...

[humblebum]

90. If you go to the article that I referred you to you will see that

it tells you that the SM can be used for ALL disciplines. So I am not too worried about what you think. If you want to believe that the Scientific Method was developed only for physical science then I hope you are happy in your little world. (Here I'll give it to you again)

http://www.scientificmethod.com/sm3_whatissm.html

"The scientific method is the basic method, guide, and system by which we originate, refine, extend, and apply knowledge in all fields"

Now, go argue with the guy who wrote the article.

[gcomeau]

91. ...1. Oh look, prediction fulfilled. My hypothesis is supported by data!

You have, yet again, dodged a simple and straightforward request.

If you actually think you can apply the Scientific method to a subjective religious claim... why do you seem to be doing everything in your power to avoid demonstrating how that works?
And I would be happy to discuss the matter with the author of that webpage. Does he post here?

If not... then for the purposes of our discussion it's you and me kiddo. So how about you make your own arguments and then back them up yourself? That sound like an idea?

Now... about that example subjective religious claim? Feel up to picking one and showing ignorant old me how the scientific method as applied to it works? Come on, take pity on a poor uneducated dolt and spread your vast wisdom around a bit.

If you need help getting started, here:

Christians have a "personal relationship" with God.

There, a subjective religious claim. Easy! Now you try. Or, we can just use that one. However you want to do this. You are, after all, the great teacher... and I but the humble student desperately trying to learn about something I understand not.

[humblebum]

93. Buddy, I have put the proof right before your eyes. It's not the

SM you have problems with, It's people who don't think like you do. When the man says it fits "all fields", he means ALL fields.

[gcomeau]

94. You do understand...

...that just because some guy named Norman Edmund who owned an optics supply company set up a website called "scientificmethod.com" that doesn't actually make him the definitive authority on how it works... right? And that if he was quoting ONE SENTENCE from him hardly constitutes an argument anyway? "Look! He says ALL! That means we can use it to do ANYTHING!"

So how about you stop making your entire argument "this guy's website says I'm right!!!! Look! Proof!" and argue your position. Either that, or I'm going to go create a website called "TheDefinitiveScientificMethod.com", it'll say I'm right, and then I'll have even stronger proof and I'll win!

Now... one more chance then I'm doing it for you. Pick an example of a subjective religious claim that can be used to demonstrate that what you are claiming matches reality. unless of course you know that doing so is going to instantly demonstrate how full of crap you are.

[humblebum]

95. I think you had better go argue with Norman then. there are many others

like him. I picked him at random. Just because you don't understand something does not mean it's not possible or doesn't exist. The SM can be used by watchmakers, basketball players, magicians, actors, comedians, carpet layers, librarians, politicians, and yes, even atheists. By truck drivers, jewelers, fishermen, dog catchers, presidents, bankrobbers, etc.- basically if you are conscious, and have the ability to reason, you can apply an orderly method of problem solving aka the SM. Go find out where Norman gained his knowledge. There are many, many, sources. Mine came from the classroom and I use the same in the classroom. As a matter of fact, it has been, and is, being used right before your very eyes to illicit a certain response. Go argue with Norman or with Whitehead, or Peirce, or Dewey, or Popper, or William James. Good Night.

[gcomeau]

97. Why? *You're* right here.

Are you incapable of supporting your own position? Because you know, that should suggest something to you.

The SM can be used by ...

Yeah, I heard you the first dozen times.

Now put your money where your mouth is and demonstrate it. Pick your example religious subjective claim and let's DO IT instead of you just constantly claiming it can be done.

[Silent3]

98. I suspect he doesn't "have the time" to do that...

...and he's tired of this and you can look it up for yourself. ;)

[gcomeau]

99. These things do tend to work out that way, don't they?

I've been constructing an analogous situation to this conversation in my head... it ends up going like this...

Person A: "Anyone can move matter telekinetically if they just try doing it the right way!"

Person B: "I'm going to have to say... no."

Person A: "Yes they can! You don't know what you're talking about! Read this website!"

Person B: "Ok, show me."

Person A: "Didn't you read the website??? It clearly says anyone can do it."

Person B: "Uh-huh... so show me."

Person A: "You clearly aren't understanding what I'm telling you. Anyone can do it I say."

Person B: "Alright. You're anyone right? Stop stalling and do it already."

Person A: "I am most certainly not stalling! If you had read the website I told you to read you'd see how you don't know what you're talking about and that anyone can do it!"

Person B: "So... Do... It..."

Person A: "Go tell the person who wrote the website that he's wrong!"

Person B: "I have an idea... just do what you say you can do and we'll settle this right now."

ad infinitum...

[humblebum]

100. Now that's one atheist who is really a deep thinker. And I ask myself

why I even tagged along with him as long as I did. Pretty hard to reason with someone who swears that the Scientific Method can only be used for totally objective reasoning. "If you can't see, hear, smell, taste, or touch it - then it doesn't exist! And that's that!"

[darkstar3]

101. Which is, of course,

a COMPLETE mischaracterization of what was said. Your quoted text is nothing but a worthless strawman trotted out in obvious desperation. Furthermore, it is deceitful to a fault to claim that any analytical method attempting to tweeze truth out of situations can be referred to as a Scientific Method (capital S capital M). You've had nothing but obfuscation, false analogy, and fallacy since you started posting in this subthread, and your last attempt to save face leaves you looking battered, dejected, and bitter, like the man who walked into a gay bar and shouted "FAGS!" only to be surprised and embarrassed by the incredible beatdown he received.

[gcomeau]

102. Yak, yak, yak...

...lots of words that are NOT you picking an example to demonstrate what you're claiming. Again. Just like every time I ask you a simple question you avoid it or give you one simple challenge that would demonstrate your claim you ignore it...

So tell me the mischaracterization part.

Oh, and while you're at it? Pick an example of a subjective religious claim and use it to show you can do what you keep declaring you can do. (Hey... deja vu...)

[darkstar3]

103. I think you were talking to humblebum

Damn the reply structure of these boards...

[gcomeau]

104. Oops. Yes, that was supposed to be directed elsewhere. -nt

[humblebum]

105. Did you happen to notice that old Norman had an endorsement

by Carl Sagan? Norman's books are on Amazon.

[gcomeau]

106. Did you happen to notice...

...SO DO IT ALREADY.

Pick. An. Example. Or acknowledge you're incapable of making any argument beyond "you can totally do it! Read this guy's website it says so I think... because the word "all" is in this sentence he posted there!"

[humblebum]

107. Why? And end the comic relief? At no point did I ever say I would

do anything. I merely said that it can be. What you do with that information is up to you. I have accomplished what I came to do.

[darkstar3]

108. .

:spray::rofl:

"I have accomplished what I came to do."
"Mission Accomplished."

:rofl:
Oh, the stupidity...

[gcomeau]

109. Uh-huh..

Translation...

"You can totally do it! I mean.. I can't demonstrate it, and I can't present an argument for it, but I can SAY it! And that's all I need!"

Yeah, I was totally misrepresenting our exchange earlier... :eyes:

[humblebum]

111. Actually, when I said comic relief, I meant that

I had been demonstrating how the process works even as you chastising me for refusing to do so and even after I told you that I was doing it. Summarized for the sake of brevity.

Premise: Radical atheists are narrow-minded.

Hypothesis: Radical atheists will maintain a single-minded opinion concerning a pertinent issue when confronted with contrary supporting evidence.

Issue: All disciplines can use a modified form of the SM (varying degrees of subjective enquiry) to arrive at their respective conclusions

Process: Radical atheist absolutely denies the validity of the statement even when confronted with repetitive subjective evidence to the contrary.

Method: repetition (summarized)

1 - Qualified statement made

- Response: No way. Prove it.

2 - Random supporting website introduced.

- Response: It's bogus!

3 - Supporting works of other scholars referenced(Whitehead, Peirce, Dewey, Popper, William James)

- Response: I don't buy it. Put up or shut up. It's all bogus."Just like every time I ask you a simple question you avoid it"

Result: Hypothesis verified by a process of repetitive challenges followed by repetitive negative responses.

[darkstar3]

112. How many false premises can you stuff into one post?

You cannot possibly be serious at this point.

[gcomeau]

113. Yeah, sure. This is your complex sociological experiment.

I'll play along. Whatever you say. Your experiment has been conducted.

Now that you're finished, would you mind terribly demonstrating your ridiculous claim NOW? Or are you still going to flee?

[humblebum]

114. You have accused me of trying to obfuscate the main issue.

Need I remind you of your original objection? Concerning the Scientific Method, you said,"This is like saying a total vacuum is a "modified version" of a highly pressurized environment.
Or that black is a "modified version" of white.
The entire point of the scientific method is to eliminate subjectivity so we can have confidence in our conclusions. You can't call a subjectivre method of inquiry a "modified form" of the scientific method... it's the antithesis of it!"

You have used a strawman argument, which you are now doing, to draw attention away from your original objection, which I have shown is incorrect.

[gcomeau]

115. I don't require reminding.

I have been spending the last 20 posts trying to get you to demonstrate the operation of your "modified scientific method" on a religious subjective claim.

I have asked you over, and over, and over to provide one single example of what you keep proclaiming can be done, and you have dodged the question every single time.

I am asking you again. Pick an example of such a claim, and we will see if you can apply this so-called "modified scientific method" to it. Or admit you're full of crap and incapable of doing so.

[humblebum]

116. As far as I am concerned, I have more than shown you what it looks like

and you're wasting my time.

[darkstar3]

117. Such a worthless post,

full of fail just like the rest of your contributions to this subthread. You've been wasting everyone's time since you first posted here, and you should be ashamed of yourself for your intellectual dishonesty and projection.

[gcomeau]

118. Yeah, flee. See ya. -nt

[darkstar3]

96. And then the mouse curls into a ball

resigned to its fate of being eaten by the cat.

This subthread was a thing of beauty, gcomeau.

[stray cat]

4. Science versus ignorance - religion or not - ignorance is widespread

Atheists, religious, progressives or conservatives. There is a dearth of real knowledge and understanding and a plethora of ignorant ill-informed and simply wrong opinions that masquerade as reality based.

[darkstar3]

7. Is your last sentence still talking about scientific knowledge,

or did you move on to other things? :shrug:

[BurtWorm]

10. What wisdom found in religion?

What moral seriousness?

Do we need to believe in a moral absolute to be able to decide as a species or a nation or as individuals to be moral? If Gelertner doesn't need it for himself, why does he think presumably stupider people will do any better believing in it? And whose version of the moral absolute should we believe in?

[beam me up scottie]

13. "whose version of the moral absolute should we believe in?"

This was just too easy for you. Let them play with it for a little next time. :spank:

[BurtWorm]

15. I put it at the end of my list of questions, though.

:bounce:

[beam me up scottie]

22. Hopefully they won't notice it down here at the bottom.

The op's inclusion of Goldstein's twaddle turned this into whack-a-mole.

[humblebum]

14. Science and religion use 2 entirely different "ways of knowing" or

epistemologies to arrive at their respective conclusions and thinking and logic in both areas have evolved over the centuries. All that is accomplished by condemnation and severe criticism by adherents of one view by the other points to the ignorance of the critical party. Even a man, whom I greatly admire - Stephen Hawking says that he is a logical positivist (logical empiricist) in his orientation. He is an atheist, but he admits that his methodology and epistemology have their limitations. And that is true. That epistemology automatically eliminates any ontological or teleological enquiry, which enables religious thought to arrive at the conclusions it does.

[darkstar3]

23. That would be because

the teleological enquiry relies on baseless assertions of causality, and then ends up ignoring its own rules, while the ontological enquiry is no more effective than guessing.

Oh, and BTW, one of your fellow supporters of religion here doesn't agree with you that science and religion are so different. You might look upthread.

[skepticscott]

56. And what exactly does "religion" know

and how does it "know" it? In what way are the conclusions of religion anything but subjective and personal? What consensuses have been reached as a result of religious inquiry? What do we understand generally as a result of religious inquiry that we did not understand 50 or 100 years ago?

[trotsky]

25. LOLOLOL

Dawkins and Myers "play on people's weaknesses and ignorance"?

No wonder the religionists hate those two - they're taking pages from the religion playbooks apparently! :rofl:

[skepticscott]

58. Yes, curse them

for "extolling hard facts" at the expense of supernatural woo-woo. How dare they??

[struggle4progress]

62. "Debates" on the topic "Science versus Faith" seem stale and hackneyed to me:

everyone is typically convinced that everyone else is simply wrong and therefore argues in the same well-worn trivial ruts; and the result is that absolutely nothing interesting is said

One issue is simply that it is easy for people to notice assumptions different from their own but difficult for people to notice their own assumptions. Nietzsche's madman in the 19th century shocked a number of people by proclaiming "Whither is God? ... I will tell you. We have killed him---you and I. All of us are his murderers." And yet, in some sense, he shocked many of them only by telling them something they themselves professed to believe from the already-old gospels, which told a strange story of men seizing the King of Heaven and torturing Him to death. The story has been overlaid with two millennia of interpretation, but even if one reads it as myth or metaphor, perhaps we ought to find it rather striking that for so long so many people have been ready to accept such a murder as possible. Of course, there are traditions seeing the gods as having human likenesses that are earlier, as one learns from remaining Greek antiquities; and similarly, there are earlier traditions of destroying gods, as shown by the trial of Socrates or by the old Judaic custom of despising idols. And literary criticism of the Old Testament texts will reveal a curious feature of the Judaic tradition: instead of regarding their deity as immutable and changeless, some thing that simply must be killed and discarded when it became obsolete, the ancient Hebrew stories tell of humans fighting with their deity, as in the story of Jacob wrestling with Someone who does not wish to be seen in broad daylight: Your name is longer Jacob but Israel, for you have struggled with God and men and have overcome. One can simply sneer at these old stories, if one wants to cultivate a habit of sneering, but perhaps it is more rewarding to try to puzzle through them

[darkstar3]

63. What would be rewarding would be to drop the myopia.

You see, the story told in the Bible of Jesus is nothing more than florid prose of the current time used to rehash the same story of a classic hero. Jesus' character in the Bible goes through the same processes, the same torments, the same betrayals and redemptions, basically the same guilded path as hundreds or even thousands of folk heroes before him. The book "Hero with a Thousand Faces" details this beautifully.

Once viewed in the context of classic literature and prose, it is easy to see why the story of Jesus, not to mention the stories of Sampson, Jonah, Elijah, Gideon, and a slew of other characters from the Bible stick with us. It's for the exact same reason that Odysseus, Jason, and the rest have all spoken to countless generations. It has nothing to do with truth, and everything to do with good entertainment. Focusing like a laser beam on the bible and forgetting its similarities to all of these other stories allows people to forget or ignore the entertainment aspect, but that view is myopic.

[Silent3]

65. Not everything said in public discussion is designed...

...for the entertainment of jaded self-styled intellectuals who think they've heard it all before. Perhaps you should find a more erudite forum where you are more likely to be sufficiently amused with an assortment of rhetorical novelties. Few of us here, or elsewhere in this terribly unimaginative world, are worthy of your valuable time and attention.

[struggle4progress]

71. huh?

[Jim__]

66. I think it depends on the tone of the debate.

This is a current debate, and so it almost can't be avoided and should be carried out as honestly and respectfully as possible. Rebecca Goldstein is an atheist, but certainly not as strident as the New Atheists. Her interview is here. You can listen to the answers to selected questions and her answers on "Science versus Faith ... versus Fiction" and "What Faith and Science Share" are worth listening to. She does have strong opinions; but also respectful ones and acknowledges that we must try to see it from the other person's point of view.

[darkstar3]

68. "Tone"..."respectful"..

I hear these words and many more quite a bit when people bitch about the current discussion surrounding religion. It happens to be one of the chief reasons that the "new atheists" are referred to as "new", because all of them lack the proper respect that so many believe religion should get.

And yet, post something about Scientology in this forum, and respect from those same people who claim it is necessary goes right out the fucking window. The rank hypocrisy is astounding.

Those who engage in debate or discussion regarding their religion have no more right to protection against offense than those who engage in debate or discussion regarding politics, child-rearing, or even the weather.

[Jim__]

70. Yes, in any intelligent discussion, people should be respectful.

Disrespect and ridicule bring about more heat than light. If a person is confident in her position, then she should want the discussion to shed light. If one is not confident, then she may prefer heat.

[darkstar3]

75. And therein lies your problem.

You confuse ridicule and disrespect, as so many before you have done.

It is not ridicule to draw a picture of the Prophet Muhammad, especially if the character portrayed by the picture is a very benevolent being, as in the first episode where South Park introduced the Super Best Friends. However, ANY drawing regardless of its purpose is considered disrespectful to the Muslim faith.

Saying or spelling the name of god is disrespectful to orthodox or Hacidic Jews.

Failing to capitalize the word god when referring to the "God of the Bible" (Bible, too for that matter) is considered disrespectful by many Christians.

For that matter, drop a bible on the floor (by accident, of course) the next time you meet a Church of Christ follower and see what happens.

I can keep going forever with examples of "disrespect" that in no way involve ridicule. The claim of disrespect in any of these cases is a false shield, a way of turning the debate away from sensitive subjects and trying to character assassinate the dissenter. Not to mention the fact that when disrespect is claimed, it is an emotional and not a logical or argumentative response.

"In any intelligent discussion", people should understand that respect of ideas is not automatic, and that disrespect of those ideas does not automatically equal ridicule. Finally, it should be understood before entering a discussion that ridiculous ideas will draw ridicule. See any R/T post regarding Scientology, and a few regarding Mormonism, for further illustration and a view of incredible hypocrisy.

[Jim__]

81. No. I don't.

Listen to Rebecca Goldstein's interview. She has and expresses strong opinions. I'm sure some people would be offended by what she says. However, she is both respectful and understanding of other the other side's opinions.

[darkstar3]

83. Yes, you do.

You lump disrespect and ridicule together in #70 as "heat".

And you didn't answer anything from my last paragraph in #75, which was really the point I was leading up to anyway.

[Jim__]

85. "No, I don't." "Yes, you do." That's pretty much as far as it goes.

[darkstar3]

86. Of course it is, if you only read subject lines and want an easy out to the convo. n/t

[struggle4progress]

73. One can only properly call this a "debate," if one has decided that there are

two "sides" offering disjunct and exclusive views of the world

It is rather like debating Should we teach children how to bake bread or should we expose them to some good music instead? One might find various cranks who will stand up and shout their support for only one side or the other; but many people would find it a false dichotomy and would consider a "debate" on the topic stupid, even if they had a stronger personal preference for one of the activities. A statement such as "I personally feel baking bread is more important" is of very little interest, except perhaps as chit-chat

[darkstar3]

74. Except that you've provided a false analogy.

Your two examples (bread and music) have precisely nothing to do with each other. Teaching children to bake bread will in no way effect whether or not they can learn about good music.

Teaching children about creationism, on the other hand...

[Jim__]

92. There is no denying that there is an ongoing debate on this topic.

That's unfortunate; but there it is. It may better be described as a dialogue between multiple points of view. But, if the only people speaking up are the people who do see science and religion as opposing views, then, the dialogue may degenerate into what passes for political dialogue in the US. It is important that people other than the strident opponents make their point of view known.

[edhopper]

64. I haven't read every post here

so this might repeat what some one else has said.
But this comment:

However, scientist-atheists may be on a crusade of their own, says David Gelernter, professor of computer science at Yale University. Gelernter doesn't name names, but presumably he fears that biologists like Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers "play on people's weaknesses and ignorance" while extolling hard facts over religious conviction. Even though Gelernter is a computer scientist, he reminds us that technology will eventually threaten human dignity and integrity, making the "wisdom" and "moral seriousness" found in religion even more important to future generations. Without the moral absolutes so readily supplied by religion, Gelernter says technology's increasing intrusion into human life via cloning and genetic engineering may present a "tremendously dangerous moral conflict of interest" to mankind.

Is absurd. "Moral absolutes"? Which religion do you want to take the moral absolutes from. Pedophile Priests or Jihadist Muslims?
And the notion that atheist do not have strong real morals is beyond insulting.
Another attack on atheism that is pitiful and inane.