Science and religion aren't friends

[Zhade]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-10-11-column11_ST_N.htm

Science and religion aren't friends

Religion in America is on the defensive.

Atheist books such as The God Delusion and The End of Faith have, by exposing the dangers of faith and the lack of evidence for the God of Abraham, become best-sellers. Science nibbles at religion from the other end, relentlessly consuming divine explanations and replacing them with material ones. Evolution took a huge bite a while back, and recent work on the brain has shown no evidence for souls, spirits, or any part of our personality or behavior distinct from the lump of jelly in our head. We now know that the universe did not require a creator. Science is even studying the origin of morality. So religious claims retreat into the ever-shrinking gaps not yet filled by science. And, although to be an atheist in America is still to be an outcast, America's fastest-growing brand of belief is non-belief.

But faith will not go gentle. For each book by a "New Atheist," there are many others attacking the "movement" and demonizing atheists as arrogant, theologically ignorant, and strident. The biggest area of religious push-back involves science. Rather than being enemies, or even competitors, the argument goes, science and religion are completely compatible friends, each devoted to finding its own species of truth while yearning for a mutually improving dialogue.

As a scientist and a former believer, I see this as bunk. Science and faith are fundamentally incompatible, and for precisely the same reason that irrationality and rationality are incompatible. They are different forms of inquiry, with only one, science, equipped to find real truth. And while they may have a dialogue, it's not a constructive one. Science helps religion only by disproving its claims, while religion has nothing to add to science.



More at the link. Great piece that defines the disconnect. I find myself in full agreement, and like the way it lays out the facts without insulting believers. I hope the resulting discussion here can stay on that tack -- on both sides.

(Also, I'm amazed this appeared in USA Today of all places! It's a good sign for us nonreligious folks.)

[Gman]

1. And it was John Paul II that said in so many words...

if science reveals something that is contrary to our faith, then we need to reexamine our faith to understand what we did not get right and why. Case in point, Galileo.

[TheDebbieDee]

2. I think science is what God uses to make his miracles happen......

It is humankind that insists that these miracles happened instantly!

[DavidDvorkin]

4. Nonsense. It's clearly the ancient Mesopotamian gods.

[BlueJazz]

3. Wonderful article. Thank you for posting!

[stopbush]

5. Jerry Coyne is always worth reading. Glad to see him making it into a widely read newspaper.

[phasma ex machina]

6. "Many scientists do believe in both science and God, the God of revelation, in a perfectly

consistent way" - Richard Feynman; Albert Einstein Award (1954), E. O. Lawrence Award (1962), Nobel Prize in Physics (1965), Oersted Medal (1972), National Medal of Science (1979)

[xfundy]

7. I'd bet those scientists have declined greatly since then

Unless, of course, they depend on grants from corporate/conservative sources.

[skepticscott]

8. 90 percent of the members

of the National Academy of Sciences do not believe in a personal god.

[rug]

10. Lack of belief in a personal god does not equal lack of belief in god.

Assuming your statistic is real and disregarding an appeal to authority as proof of anything.

[skepticscott]

31. Please cite where I used an appeal to authority

as proof of anything. If you can't, then retract your statement and think and read before you try to characterize someone else's argument falsely.

As far as the accuracy of the statistic, if you had bothered to Google "National Academy of Sciences personal god", you would have found all the documentation you needed. But I suppose you preferred to imply that I was making something up out of thin air rather than do 15 seconds of Internet research.

[rug]

33. "90 percent of the members of the National Academy of Sciences do not believe in a personal god."

And the figure is 72.2%.

[skepticscott]

35. That answers neither of my questions

which I'm sure is not an accident, and is false as well (what a shock). 7% of the National Academy of Sciences said that they believe in a personal god, therefore 93% do not. That 7% is down from 27.7% in 1914, btw.

Are you going to be intellectually honest and answer my question: Where did I use an appeal to authority to prove ANYTHING?? (yeah, we both know you're pinned and screwed on that, but keep squirming and spinning...you're fun to watch).

[rug]

41. Doubt is not disbelief. You shouldn't play with statistics.

As to the obvious, is there any reason to invoke the National Academy of Sciences other than to bolster your assertion? If not, it's a random, pointless statement. (The tedium of pointing out the obvious is neither entertaining nor fun.)

[skepticscott]

58. It's you who is playing with statistics

Only 7% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences said that they believe in a personal god. The doubters don't believe in one, now do they? Otherwise, they would have answered that they do. Easy concept. For most. But please feel free to try to spin it even further...it's a slow night.

And the reason to invoke the National Academy of Sciences was not (as you idiotically asserted) to try to argue that god doesn't exist because a lot of smart people don't believe in him. It was to respond to post #6 above (which should have been REALLY obvious).

Did it really take you all day to come up with a response that lame? Sheesh...you shouldn't have bothered.

[rug]

67. The doubters could as well have said they don't believe. They didn't.

Lunging for a point is not uncovering a fact.

[skepticscott]

69. So if someone says

"I have doubts about whether Barack Obama was born in the United States", you'd classify them right along with someone who said "I believe that Barack Obama was born in the United States"?

Yeah. come to think of it, you probably would.

Only 7% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences believe in a personal god. The rest don't. How and to what degree they don't is irrelevant to the "don't" part. But keep trying.

And amuse me again with your claim of an argument from authority on my part, won't you? Still waiting for you to back up that claim, or admit that it was bullshit, but I'm guessing that you'll display the usual intellectual cowardice of apologists here and do neither.

[rug]

70. No. Nor would I say he was not born there.

And why do you persist in the idiocy of citing a prestigious academy as authority for the proposition that therefore most of all scientists do not believe?

[charlie]

9. Can you source that to anyone who isn't an apologist?

The most frequently cited source is Henry F. Schaefer, III, a Discovery Institute liar.

That's it's sometimes attributed to http://www.google.com/search?num=20&q=%22Many%20scientists%20do%20believe%20in%20both%20science%20and%20God,%20the%20God%20of%20revelation,%20in%20a%20perfectly%22#q=%22Many+scientists+do+believe+in+both+science+and+God,+the+God+of+revelation,+in+a+perfectly%22+ferriman&hl=en&safe=off&prmd=iv&filter=0&fp=9f2370386c77b788">Richard Ferriman suggests it's unverified apologist copy/paste.

[starroute]

25. Feynman was not describing his own position

According to http://www.scribd.com/doc/27119629/Intelligible-Universe-an-Overview-of-the-Last-Thirteen-Billion-Years-2nd-Ed, "Feynman, not a believer by his own admission, acknowledged that 'many scientists do believe in both science and God...'"

The quote is sourced to Feynman's "The Relation of Science and Religion" in Engineering and Science, June 1956. Which makes sense, because 1956 is about the last point at which you would have had an older generation of scientists who could still sincerely believe that science and traditional religion were compatible.


On edit: There is a transcript of a talk by Feynman with the same title, delivered in May 1956, at http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/49/2/Religion.htm

In it, he says, "I believe that many scientists – in fact, I actually believe that more than half of the scientists – really disbelieve in their father's God; that is, they don't believe in a God in a conventional sense. ... Despite the fact that I said that more than half of the scientists don't believe in God, many scientists do believe in both science and God, in a perfectly consistent way. But this consistency, although possible, is not easy to attain, and I would like to try to discuss two things: Why it is not easy to attain, and whether it is worth attempting to attain it."

He then discusses how scientists are trained to begin with doubt and to maintain a habitual "attitude of uncertainty" -- and how this gets in the way of unquestioning faith, even for those who maintain some degree of religious belief.

[charlie]

30. Ah, thank you

I couldn't find that. Much appreciated :)

[intaglio]

28. Not Feynman

Perhaps Ferriman but NOT Feynman

[rug]

11. "We now know that the universe did not require a creator."

That sounds like an affirmative, direct disproof of a creator god, as opposed to the usual fallback that the lack of an explanation for the origins of a universe does not require the insertion of a god concept.

I would like to see the basis for this statement, other than USA Today.

[trotsky]

12. If you have some evidence showing the universe requires a creator, please present it.

Thanks!

[rug]

13. You have it backwards.

How do "We now know that the universe did not require a creator"?

You're welcome.

[trotsky]

14. The god-believer makes the additional claim.

You're adding on a layer. You have to justify it. I realize that makes you uncomfortable, as it should.

Let me help you a bit, too. Can you grasp the subtle difference between "The universe did not require a creator" and "There is absolutely not a creator"?

[rug]

15. Actually, he is the one making the claim.

Implicit in the statement, "we now know" is the statement "we did not then know". OK. So what do we now know and how did we learn it?

BTW, you're absolutely correct in the not so subtle distinction that a universe that does not require a creator, if such is proven, is not evidence there is no creator. It kind of undercuts the OP. Thanks for your support!

[trotsky]

16. Actually what it undercuts is your woeful misinterpretation of the OP.

You're welcome!

[rug]

17. Thank you for yet another unsubstantial and unresponsive post.

Consistency is a sign of an ordered universe.

[trotsky]

18. Are you talking to yourself again? n/t

[rug]

19. Might as well be.

[trotsky]

20. Indeed!

If only you could quit me.

[rug]

21. Seems to me you jumped in here, Ennis.

[trotsky]

22. But. You. Can't. Stop. Lovin'. Me.

I love your attention.

[rug]

23. Only one of those statements is correct.

[trotsky]

24. OK, you got me.

I don't care for it that much. But I do enjoy the amount of control I have over you. You are powerless to stop responding.

[cleanhippie]

26. Then read Hawkings book.

He made the claim. There you will find what you are asking for. Or is that just too difficult?

[rug]

27. Are you referring to his theory of the spontaneous quantum creation of the universe or some other?

http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2007/03/16_hawking_text.shtml

[intaglio]

29. Also M theory

or any number of other theories.

"We know now ..." i.e. we have at least one explanation of the of the origin of the universe that does not require a creator. Other theories might exclude a deity but require infinite time (e.g. the Steady State theory) which allows all sorts of possibilities.

So the dichotomy is between "We know now that there is a coherent, finite explanation for the origin of the universe," and "We did not know then that there was a coherent, finite explanation for the origin of the universe," of course I exclude a deity from theories that are coherent and finite.

Science asks for evidence, religion asks for blind faith, and, of course, the former is entirely antipathetic to the latter. Science looks for evidence of great migrations of humans from one place to another and finds evidence of some; the migration from Asia into America and the migration of peoples from Africa into the rest of the world. Science finds no evidence for the Biblically attested migration from Egypt into Sinai and hence to Israel or Judea. There is no evidence for a worldwide flood or an interruption of the rotation of the earth. Science finds no evidence for the Christian saviour, Jesus, although it does find evidence for forgery and deception at the highest levels of the Church.

I don't doubt that you will come back with something like a golden chariot wheel found beneath the surface of the Red Sea (the Exodus) or some explanation regarding metaphor or apparent elapsed time (Sun standing still) but these still require evidence and proof not just faith in the manufacturers of these fantasies.

[rug]

32. A few points.

A coherent, finite explanation, while coherent, remains a theory, not knowledge, as posited in the OP. Doubtless that theory will be refined and perhaps ultimately discarded, which is the way of science.

Second, these theories ultimately neither prove nor disprove a universe ex nihilo. They simply explain various means by which a universe continues through astounding changes, bubbles or otherwise. The question is ultimately a philosophical one, and remains one unless and until it can be demonstrated that the nature of the universe itself dictates it can have no external cause. A study of cosmology neither requires nor prohibits a belief in a god; the belief is irrelevant to the inquiry.

Third, theology (distinct from religion) is not based on blind faith but is based on faith informed by reason. All religions are based on the concept of revelation, knowledge which is impossible to attain by human experience alone. If anyone chooses to accept that revelation on faith, then what follows must stand the test of reason. If one doesn't, then the time is better spent discussing the political impact of religious belief rather than the belief itself.

Fourth, science and theology are different disciplines altogether. The nub is whether one gives credence to the notion of revelation or not. Since it cannot, by its own terms, be demonstrated by the scientific method, it's pointless and rather ludicrous to assert that if it cannot be demonstrated, it does not exist.

Finally, if you don't doubt that I will talk about golden chariots, we will likely have an entirely different and unpleasant discussion.

[intaglio]

34. Theory and knowledge can both be described as "knowing"

Of course changing the goalposts is a favoured tactic of the religious apologist. Doubtless, one day, you will move them again discarding your original precepts and finding some tinier gap into which your preferred deity can slink.

Of course theories based upon observation cannot prove or disprove a Universe from nothing but the observations following theory can find such proof; and as an aside why use Latin when there are perfectly good English words, perhaps to give your arguments a dubious air of authority? You point out theories can explain, that is provide a way of "knowing," and theories are based on evidence and not on belief. You then raise the dead hand of philosophy and wave it frantically to distract from the poverty of your arguments because practical cosmology and physics is already looking into distant and the minuscule depths and no deity is revealed and this also reveals the falsehood of this part of your argument - cosmology thus far requires absence of belief in deity because no deity has been seen and so cannot have an effect on cosmology.

Your third point is that theology is distinct from religion. This is impossible, theology entirely is dependent on religion, thus upon faith and faith is alway blind. Faith depends not on observation; i.e. it depends on revelation, I will deal with your concept of revelation later. You then add that theology is informed by reason, when it is more usually informed by disputes over semantics; rhetorical flourishes and a cathedral of logic built upon the sands of fake history, dogmatic ignorance and that most plastic of human experience, belief. Where reason enters theology it is only to prop up a house of cards

Despite this you then declare that, in your view, science and theology are different disciplines but you have already claimed reason as being an important element of theology. Perhaps you wish us to think (perhaps, believe) that reason is not an element of science? In spite of your faulty reasoning science and theology are different. Reason is central to scientific enquiry; whereas revelation, a fancy name for compulsive belief or insight, is the central element of theology. You then ask me to accept that credence should be given to revelation because it is "...knowledge which is impossible to attain by human experience alone." Perhaps out of ignorance or oversight you ignore the fact that revelation is a profoundly human experience. The knowledge you ascribe as being impossible to attain is never actually knowledge but rather metaphor, prescription or love/fear regarding a deity already acknowledged. You seem to be unaware that revelation does play a part in science. Kekule had a revelation about Benzene, Penrose describes in "The Emperor's New Brain" describes his experiences with the phenomenon, neither man however would declare this as "central" to their sciences.

This last gives the lie to the implicit argument that I, a supporter of science, cannot give credence to the concept of revelation. You then make the laughable suggestion that revelation cannot be investigated by science. Well, you are wrong, it is already happening with the use of TMS Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation.

[rug]

36. The Latin was used because it's from an ancient, hoary argument, not advanced here in the least.

Yes, there are perfectly good English words, few of which I found in your meandering post, littered as it is with faux (that's French, spin a paragraph on that) condescension. It's a shame. There was a glimmer of thought in your original reply.

[intaglio]

39. Oh! What education

I fall to my knees at the depth of your knowledge, but I wander from the argument (that's meander, don't you know) so let me make straight the way:

1) I find your posts lacking knowledge and lacking a love of knowledge, containing claims to priority and an indifference to reason that is all I expect from a religious apologist;

2) You change the meanings of words where it suits you;

3) You distract by claiming philosophy supports your weak arguments;

4) You claim a distinction between theology and religion where none exists;

5) You claim cosmology makes no assumptions about deity when cosmology has to assume there is no deity;

6) You claim reason as part of your theology, by implication denying it to science, when the reverse is true;

7) By your own words you claim that revelation contains "...knowledge which is impossible to attain by human experience alone," yet when faulted on that because;
...a) revelation is a profoundly human experience,
...b) in your limited sense, revelation does not provide knowledge only metaphors for deity, prescriptions for living or love or fear of deity;

8) You ignore the evidence I give for non-religious revelation;

9) You ignore my references to ongoing research into mechanical causes for the experience for revelation.

There you go, gutted like a fish, but still smelling sweeter than any theology.

[rug]

40. Why do your posts always end with you patting yourself on the back?

Make sure you wash when you're finished.

[intaglio]

56. A second refusal to answer and only an ineffective attempt ...

... at being patronising. How am I patting anything by suggesting that a gutted fish smells better than your falsifications and lack of ability to reply? Perhaps I should complement you for your persistent irrationality or for your faith which moves nothing, but that I will not do for it will deceive you into thinking your arguments have validity.

Farewell, may you live on until you realise how you have submitted yourself to deceit, then come to love the world for what it is and what it contains and not because a deity tells you to do so.

[rug]

62. Before you go, it's compliment.

http://www.elearnenglishlanguage.com/difficulties/complementcompliment.html

Adieu.

[Sal316]

59. Oh, there are none so blind......

....than those who refuse to see.

Your third point is that theology is distinct from religion. This is impossible, theology entirely is dependent on religion, thus upon faith and faith is alway blind.

Impossible? Always?

Why? Because you said so?

Damn, that Aristotle must be an absolute moron for believing that theology was the first philosophy and the pinnacle of human wisdom.

You then add that theology is informed by reason, when it is more usually informed by disputes over semantics; rhetorical flourishes and a cathedral of logic built upon the sands of fake history, dogmatic ignorance and that most plastic of human experience, belief. Where reason enters theology it is only to prop up a house of cards

I'm sure glad we have someone like you, who knows everything about everything and has perfect knowledge, so you can educate us.

:sarcasm:

[laconicsax]

60. Hallowed are the Ori.

Truth is elusive to those who refuse to see with both eyes wide.

[darkstar3]

77. Win.

Definitely a win.

[Jim__]

42. Here is an excerpt where Hawking states cosmology *suggests* the universe did not require a creator.

This claim is based on untested ideas - namely the multiverse and/or M-theory:

...

The emergence of the complex structures capable of supporting intelligent observers seems to be very fragile. The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned. What can we make of these coincidences? Luck in the precise form and nature of fundamental physical law is a different kind of luck from the luck we find in environmental factors. It raises the natural question of why it is that way.

Many people would like us to use these coincidences as evidence of the work of God. The idea that the universe was designed to accommodate mankind appears in theologies and mythologies dating from thousands of years ago. In Western culture the Old Testament contains the idea of providential design, but the traditional Christian viewpoint was also greatly influenced by Aristotle, who believed "in an intelligent natural world that functions according to some deliberate design."

That is not the answer of modern science. As recent advances in cosmology suggest, the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.

Our universe seems to be one of many, each with different laws. That multiverse idea is not a notion invented to account for the miracle of fine tuning. It is a consequence predicted by many theories in modern cosmology. If it is true it reduces the strong anthropic principle to the weak one, putting the fine tunings of physical law on the same footing as the environmental factors, for it means that our cosmic habitat—now the entire observable universe—is just one of many.

more ...

[rug]

44. That's an interesting article.

His views have evolved in the last three years. Still, a physical explanation, even a theory, that does not require a creative god, does not injure the notion that there is a god.

[Jim__]

45. I agree.

Hawking's actual statements are somewhat more nuanced than some of the accompanying headlines indicated.

[darkstar3]

46. No, it just takes away one more supporting leg of that notion. n/t

[rug]

47. That's a partisan, not objective, reading.

[darkstar3]

49. How do you figure that?

One reason the notion of an existent god-like being has hung on for so long is due to the concept of universal origin. For eons, a vast number of people have believed that a god-like creature was required in order to create the awesomeness of this universe. We can see now that such a requirement no longer exists, and thus another supporting leg of the notion of god disappears.

If you believe that this simple concept is in error or somehow biased, I challenge you to show me how.

[rug]

50. The only real impact this theory may have, if proven, will be on the notion of an unmoved mover

or First Cause.

[darkstar3]

51. And those are what?

Supporting arguments used by apologists in order to try and legitimize their view of a deity.

[rug]

52. Those are alternate explanations.

And, to answer your original comment, you're slipping into partisan language.

[darkstar3]

53. My language has no bearing whatsoever on the facts of the case.

If you intend to hide behind a shield of accusing others of being partisan, perhaps you shouldn't be on a partisan board to begin with.

[rug]

54. I thought you would consider it a compliment not an accusation.

In any event, this theory, not a known fact contrary to the OP, may effect an explanation only. It hardly knocks out a leg, much as you'd like it to.

[darkstar3]

55. One day you will redefine god into a box so small

that even your junk will not fit into it.

[rug]

61. Even then, it would be a pretty big box.

[laconicsax]

63. That box is already quantum and rapidly approaching Planck length.

One might wonder whether a god crammed into a box that small might consider if it's worth even existing.

[laconicsax]

65. Replacing one unknown with another isn't an explanation. n/t

[rug]

71. That's true. Completely off point but true nevertheless.

[laconicsax]

73. "[The unmoved mover or first cause] are alternate explanations."

Good to see you recognize your own argument as irrelevant. By simply saying "God did it," you aren't explaining anything, just labeling an unknown "God" and declaring victory.

[trotsky]

57. Such a theory doesn't "injure" the notion....

that an invisible pink unicorn shat the universe into existence 5 minutes ago either.

However my unicorn theory DOES have just as much evidence in its favor as your god.

[rug]

64. Hi, Ennis.

[trotsky]

75. Ah, the sophisticated reasoning we've come to expect from you.

I see you still can't quit me!

[struggle4progress]

48. Hawking is an excellent cosmologist, but he makes here an intellectually

sloppy philosophical mistake

By definition, scientific cosmology does not appeal to supernaturalities. If Hawking, as a scientific cosmologist, does not understand a cosmological matter, he cannot appeal to supernaturalities to resolve the scientific question. He cannot say as a scientist I don't have a scientific explanation for this so the phenomenon must be supernatural: he can only say, I don't yet have a scientific explanation for this but I will continue to try to obtain scientific understanding. That is, when functioning as a scientist, he must assume that the universe is governed by "laws" that we can discover and understand and apply. This assumption about the universe has been very productive in the last several hundred years -- and so it seems to be a useful assumption, though of course we really cannot have any way of "knowing" whether or not the assumption is universally "true"

So Hawkings' claim "It is not necessary to invoke God" is not a deduction from any discovered facts, but rather an underlying assumption of the scientific project

[skepticscott]

68. It's you who is being intellectually sloppy

by assuming that the concept of the "supernatural" even has any meaning to begin with. It doesn't, so any argument based on the assumption that it does is pretty much dead before it starts.

[struggle4progress]

72. Actually, the comments in my post require no assumptions whatsoever about the "supernatural,"

and my post makes no deductions from the concept: I merely point out that it is a concept entirely outside the sphere of science, which is concerned only with the natural material world -- and so science, having dismissed such concepts from the beginning, is not in a sound logical position to claim to have disproved such concepts, but only in a position to say that such concepts are not germaine to whatever scientific investigation is at hand

Your post suggests you want to eliminate, from the start of any discourse, any concept that does not represent actual facts. While I do think science attempts to avoid concepts that cannot represent actual facts, it seems to me that much useful discourse involves hypotheticals contrary to fact and approximate descriptions that cannot be taken too literally: if one is unwilling to cognize any discussion which contains terms not representing actual situations, then there is very little that can be said: we will then even have difficulty using negation, since to say "Such-and-such is not the case" would suddenly be suspect, as involving a discussion of something contrary to fact

[onager]

74. Science hasn't "dismissed such concepts from the beginning."

A huge number of experiments have been carried out on the supernatural. The American Society for Psychical Research has been doing it since 1885 and I think the British branch is even older. The J.B. Rhine Institute at Duke University is about 80 years old. Even that embarassing fraud, Stanford Research Institute, has been around since the 1960's, IIRC.

The problem for supernatural believers is that mainstream science, after due experimentation, long ago accepted that ESP, psychic powers, dowsing, remote viewing, etc. etc. aren't worth any more experimenting. They just don't work as claimed.

No person claiming such powers, and tested in controlled conditions, has ever been able to do better than random chance. The Rhine Institute and SRI are notorious for giving claimants every possible advantage and then some. Yet the claimants STILL mostly suck when their "powers" are tested.

For anyone who believes they, their psychic Granny, or their horse can do better - go directly to James Randi's website and collect your million dollars.

[struggle4progress]

78. It is important here to be very precise in discussion. The old name

"natural philosophy" conveys rather well some of the flavor of "science" as a body of rational discourse about natural phenomena. "Natural" here refers to the material world, and the discipline involves reliable observation of events, with primary emphasis on features that can be reproduced at will for measurement and theory building. What seems "natural," of course, depends on current understanding: at one time, many people disliked the "action at a distance" involved in Newton's gravitation, and later the idea of electromagnetic waves without an underlying vibratory medium ("luminiferous ether") was considered disconcerting

I'll defer to your assertions regarding what actual scientific research finds here (regarding ESP, dowsing, &c &c), in part because I lost all interest in such matters as a child, in part because what you assert coincides completely with my personal prejudices about such matters, and in part because I cannot make for myself a coherent picture of the world that involves such woo-woo. Nevertheless, if anyone was able to demonstrate, in a reliable and reproducible way, that (say) people could beam mental ideas back and forth to one another, though being well-separated by distance and walls, without the aid of evident mechanical intermediaries to carry audio or visual signals, then I expect the scientific view should regard this "psychic" activity as a "natural phenomenon" and should begin to attempt to discover the laws and mechanisms underlying it. I personally don't consider that likely to happen, and I don't spend time thinking about it

Having said that, I will add a philosophical point. I see no good reason to believe the universe is always obliged to behave in accordance with "laws" -- and if it did always behave in accordance with "laws," I still see no good reason to believe that we can discover all such "laws." That is, the universe has no obvious obligation to behave in ways any of us could consider "natural." I think this philosophical point is obvious. Of course, this philosophical point is entirely useless in any scientific inquiry: in a particular scientific inquiry, the investigator must banish from his/her mind any possibility that the universe behaves in lawless and perverse ways, because the whole intent of the scientific inquiry is to "understand" a particular phenomenon by bringing it into a rational discourse involving natural laws; it would merely be a lazy cop-out, conceding defeat rather than moving forward, if one said "This phenomenon really can't be described by any natural law" -- although one might perfectly well say "this phenomenon seems not to be described by any known natural laws, and we must therefore reexamine some of our preconceptions carefully to revise our list of known laws." So when one puts on a "scientist's thinking cap," one always dismisses "supernatural" things that could not possibility fit into a natural world ruled by natural laws; but nothing whatsoever prevents some who sometimes wears a "scientist's thinking cap" from (at some other time and place -- at dinner time, say, or when fishing on vacation) doffing that "scientist's thinking cap" and donning instead a "philosopher's thinking cap"

[skepticscott]

79. Your post assumed that there can really be things that are

"supernatural", but there is, in fact, no such thing as the supernatural, except in our imaginations.

There are two, and only two, possibilities for existence: things can be conceptual or imaginary, existing only in our minds, or they can exist in the real, physical world. If such things as gods, angels, ghosts, or demons (Or anything else that people commonly apply the label of "supernatural" to) are anything but imaginary, then they must be considered as natural, existing in the natural world, amenable (at least in principle) to scientific inquiry, and subject to the same natural laws as all other things. Any appearance by such entities (assuming that they did, in fact, have a physical existence) of transcending these laws would be simply that-appearance. A ghost which passed through a solid wall or a god which could transform matter with the wave of a hand would not be exhibiting "super-natural" powers in violation of natural laws, but would rather be indicating to us that there are aspects of natural law which we simply have not yet discovered.

[Jim__]

76. I think Hawking's philosophical thinking is generally sloppy.

For instance, see this column on the philosophical problems in his latest book.

I think what Hawking has done in this book is to move from: I don't yet have a scientific explanation for this, to: I do have a potential scientific explanation for this.

[cleanhippie]

43. No, I am referring to the book he wrote where he made that assertion.

You asked for supporting evidence to back up his claim, and I pointed you to where you can find it. Easy.

[struggle4progress]

37. "Religion" is a vague abstract term, covering a vast range of sociological phenomena, and

there seems to be no adequate operational definition covering all the phenomena. For useful scientific exposition, one must be able to point precisely at the phenomena under discussion, so that the conversation revolves around specific material realities and so that assertions and theories can be examined carefully for descriptive and predictive value

Mr Coyne is, no doubt, entirely competent to expound on ecology and evolution: those topics are important, and the matters under inquiry are reasonably well-defined. But Mr Coyne would not regard vague and sweeping generalizations about "ecology" and "evolution" as useful contributions to those subjects -- and it is unclear to me why he thinks sweeping generalizations about "science" and "religion" contribute anything useful

We have some moral obligation to view the world with a certain realism, in order to be able to choose how we live, and the work-products of diligent scientific investigation can help us to reach towards that necessary realism

It is, nevertheless, also necessary to choose what "scientific" investigations we will allow and what uses of the work-products we will allow: some "investigations" seem entirely inappropriate, for example, and some seem so inappropriate that many of us are not really inclined to consider seriously any arguments in favor of such investigations. Science itself cannot resolve questions like that for us; one simply needs another ground on which to take such a stance -- or else chooses one's stance as an existential matter, without seeking any foundation. Here is a recent example from the news:

The recent discovery that U.S. researchers intentionally infected Guatemalans with STDs in the 1940s spurred angry responses and an apology from President Obama to Guatemala's President Alvaro Colom ... "The 1946-1948 inoculation study should never have happened, and nothing like it should ever happen again," CDC Director Thomas Frieden and NIH Director Francis Collins wrote in an op-ed in the Journal of the American Medical Association ... According to their commentary, the clear ethical violations of the case include choosing subjects from vulnerable populations, including inmates and mentally disabled individuals, intentionally infecting subjects with pathogens that could cause serious illness and being deceptive while conducting the experiments. The researchers themselves questioned the study in correspondence ...
HEALTH -- October 11, 2010 at 4:45 PM EDT
CDC, NIH Condemn 'Deeply Saddening' Guatemala Study
By: Talea Miller
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2010/10/cdc-nih-condemn-deeply-saddening-guatemala-study.html

[DeSwiss]

38. K&R

Of course religion fears the atheist the most.

With those "other religions" -- they may have it all wrong -- but they don't deny the idea of a god altogether the way atheists do. And having no evidence with which to refute the atheist's logic, they find they must fall back upon "dogma and faith" -- and the demonizing of atheists as agents of the very anti-deity which they deny exists. Cursing them with their imaginary fiend.

All of which is just a bit more irrationality to be sure, but whatever else can they do but scream and rail as always? Ultimately their vitriolic and haranguing bluster will all predictably results with some "holy-man" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvqfNiBsHt8&feature=related">calling for atheist's to be killed. Going back to their "tried and true" methodology for dealing with heretics and god's other enemies.

All the while proving once again that religions are mostly afraid of change. They in fact wallow in antiquity and the ignorance of the past -- wearing it as a badge of honor to mediocrity and sheepledom. Religion shows itself for the cancerous vestige that it is.

- A vestige of a bygone Neolithic/Bronze Age attempt at understanding reality. And whose usefulness in that role has long since expired......

on edit: spelling

[laconicsax]

66. Of course they aren't. n/t