NYT: A Free-for-All on Science and Religion

[Trajan]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/21/science/21belief.html?em&ex=1164344400&en=72c4421f06b21e1b&ei=5087%0A

November 21, 2006

A Free-for-All on Science and Religion

By GEORGE JOHNSON

Maybe the pivotal moment came when Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in physics, warned that “the world needs to wake up from its long nightmare of religious belief,” or when a Nobelist in chemistry, Sir Harold Kroto, called for the John Templeton Foundation to give its next $1.5 million prize for “progress in spiritual discoveries” to an atheist — Richard Dawkins, the Oxford evolutionary biologist whose book “The God Delusion” is a national best-seller.

Or perhaps the turning point occurred at a more solemn moment, when Neil deGrasse Tyson, director of the Hayden Planetarium in New York City and an adviser to the Bush administration on space exploration, hushed the audience with heartbreaking photographs of newborns misshapen by birth defects — testimony, he suggested, that blind nature, not an intelligent overseer, is in control.

Somewhere along the way, a forum this month at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, Calif., which might have been one more polite dialogue between science and religion, began to resemble the founding convention for a political party built on a single plank: in a world dangerously charged with ideology, science needs to take on an evangelical role, vying with religion as teller of the greatest story ever told.

Carolyn Porco, a senior research scientist at the Space Science Institute in Boulder, Colo., called, half in jest, for the establishment of an alternative church, with Dr. Tyson, whose powerful celebration of scientific discovery had the force and cadence of a good sermon, as its first minister.


-snip-


I would have sworn this would have been posted here yesterday, since it's #2 in the NYT's Most Popular Emailed stories list ... I didn't see it ....

One of my primary arguments against creation by a perfect deity regards birth defects, and how the 'cause' of the 'creation' of such a fetus is obviously flawed through a natural agency, and is NOT a perfect rendition of a perfect, omnipotent deistic impulse .... How can nature, which would be subordinate to the supernatural, undo that which a perfect deity has willed ? ....

Check out their websites : http://tsntv.org/ and http://beyondbelief2006.org/ ...

[Orrex]

1. Your argument

One of my primary arguments against creation by a perfect deity has regarded birth defects, and how the 'cause' of the 'creation' of such a fetus is obviously flawed through a natural agency, and NOT a perfect rendition of a perfect, deistic impulse .... How can nature undo that which a perfect deity has willed ?

Believers often claim that we can't know God's plan, and in any case we have no way to verify what "perfection" really is. Perhaps that microcephalic baby is "perfect" the way God intended--who are we to say?

Well, anyone with a functioning brainstem can see that that's a juvenile argument, and yet it holds sway with millions of people who continue to cherish it.

A simpler argument is this: Why, in the absence of evidence of some particular creator, should we believe that that particular creator created the universe? The existence of the universe is proof only of the existence of the universe; it does nothing to prove the existence of any creator, much less any one particular creator.


I wonder how long until this thread is moved...

[Trajan]

4. Ah .... 'God works in mysterious ways' ...

The notion of 'perfect imperfection' seems a logical contradiction to me ....

However one defines a 'perfect human being', babies born without functional organs without which life CANNOT be sustained should be a large clue that something has went wrong in the process of 'creation' of human life ....

Defining the deity is part of the problem : When gods are said to be 'omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent', which are very strongly identified characteristics of the abrahamic theologies, then such a deity can be subjected to verification of those traits .... each would imply that 'imperfection' cannot possibly exist; ever ....

I appreciate your reasoned answer ... a great response .. and FAST ... I edited some, but its still the same basic thrust ....

[Bigmack]

8. Trajan and Orrex..

I've always said in arguments with believers... "Three words make me doubt your god .... 'Pediatric Oncology Ward'. If that is a plan, it's a cruel plan and a cruel god."

[Orrex]

21. Bertrand Russell made a similar point about pediatric burn wards

It's in Why I Am Not a Christian, and it really pretty much says it all. "Suffer the little children to come unto me" and all that stuff...

Believe me, I perceive no shortage of cruelty in the universe, so appeals to any single horrible aspect of it merely underscores the point.

[Imperialism Inc.]

9. Redefining "good" to the point of meaningless.

The new born with cancer becomes "good" in some scheme that we cannot understand. The tsunami that kills thousands does too. All well and, umm, good but, now we have a meaningless statement. God is good but yet there is nothing we can rule out from happening because he is so good. Does God being good mean there is no way someone worse than Hitler will come along one day? Nope. How about a catastrophic asteroid-Earth collision? Nope. God is only good in a meaningless undefinable (tautological) way.

P.S. by the way, this was posted yesterday.

[Joe Chi Minh]

2. Where were those journeymen's predecessors of theirs, when Einstein turned

their wee world on its head? And he'd been turned down for a post as a junior lecturer at a university.

He used to do what George Carlin called that moronic thing, "thinking", and could see perfectly well how overweening journeymen scientists would be mankind's greatest liability.

[Mythsaje]

3. Does not the universe itself

offer enough for us to wonder at that we need not imagine something beyond it? It is my contention that NOTHING is "supernatural" though there are things (and may always be things) that lay beyond our understanding.

[Trajan]

5. I am in complete agreement ... There is NO 'super'nature ...

Only nature, as it is, which is marvellous indeed ....

[Joe Chi Minh]

6. We are all free to contend WHATEVER we want, aren't we?

It's the basis of our contentions that will always be controversial, because our assumptions are not measurable under laboratory conditions, but, rather, are our life's work. We change them incrementally. Radically changing our most fundamental assumptions makes turning an aircraft carrier around seem really slick; turning on a sixpence. Even death-bed conversions are deceptive. Those incremental changes will always have been ticking away under the surface.

Not that I don't like your post. Even the first part of your last sentence is true - cep the other way of seeing it is that EVERYTHING is supernatural.

[ThreeCatNight]

7. If everything is supernatural....

Then nothing is supernatural, it would be natural.

[0rganism]

11. nature is super!

not just "supernatural", "superdupernatural"! :silly:

[Joe Chi Minh]

24. You have a natural perspective, so that would seem to be the

case in your eyes. However, there are billions of people, of a wise intelligence, all over the globe who think otherwise. What you address is a matter of usage. In the West, a verbal distinction has long been made between the natural world and the supernatural world. In fact, to the secular fundamentalist, the supernatural simply does not exist.

[Mythsaje]

12. I reject the term "supernatural."

I think all that exists, whether we're aware of it or not, or understand it or not, is, in fact, part of the natural order of things...thus, "natural."

[Joe Chi Minh]

23. Good for you.

[hfojvt]

13. "the world is a sacred place

and we are part of it."

How Daniel Quinn summarized the religion of "the givers".

Seems to me that these scientists are going beyond their field to proselytize for the religion of "scientism"

"Science, however, is not the same as scientism--the belief that the only things that are real or can be known are those that can be empirically observed and measured. As a religious person, I don't rely on science to tell me what is right and wrong or what love means or why my life is important. I understand that such questions cannot be answered through empirical observations. Claims about God, ethics, beauty and any other face of human experience that is not subject to empirical verification--all these spiritual dimensions of life--are dismissed by the scientistic worldview as inherently unknowable and hence meaningless.

Scientism thus extends far beyond an understanding and appreciation of the role of science in society. It has become the religion of the secular consciousness. Why do I say it's a religion? Because it is a belief system that has no more scientific foundation than any other belief system. The view that that which is real and knowable is that which can be empirically verified or measured is a view that itself cannot be empirically measured or verified and thus by its own criterion is unreal or unknowable. It is a religious belief system with powerful adherents. Spiritual progressives therefore insist on the importance of distinguishing between our strong support for science and our opposition to scientism.

(snip)

The public sphere is currently dominated by a scientism that validates money and power (which can be measured) and steadfastly rejects the introduction of spiritual values. But since that public sphere generates a deep spiritual emptiness and validates an ethos of materialism and selfishness, the religious right gains huge credibility by challenging the alleged neutrality of the public sphere and insists on introducing values.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060424/lerner

[Trajan]

14. Sorry ....

But the writer of this piece is completely wrong ....

1) 'Scientism' is a word conjured by theists to identify science as a theology ... There is no 'Scientistic movement' as of yet, and that is the point of many in the 'Beyond Belief' group; that perhaps science SHOULD present itself in the guise of 'religion' and utilize the tendencies of human beings to naturally follow such movements .... As of yet: There is no movement of any significance known as 'Scientism' ..... If there is: where do I sign up ? ...

2) The source of moral behaviours CAN be defined and explained OUTSIDE of a theological context, and fully explored within SOCIAL contexts alone ... AGAIN: a main point of this meeting ...

3) The statement "scientism--the belief that the only things that are real or can be known are those that can be empirically observed and measured" - first: it is assumed that MANY things are 'real' which arent yet known: science doesnt discount the possibility of something being 'real', it simply doesnt CONCLUDE something is or isnt 'real' until it is shown, empirically and measurably, to exist in concrete reality ... One may posit 'a priori' that something is 'real' because rationality may presume that something SHOULD exist, but until such a thing is ACTUALLY observed, and experienced in a empirically quantifiable method, a posieriori, then such 'a priori' assertions cannot be the foundation of reality ...

4) Notions of aesthetic philosophy are founded on 'human experience' - One cannot appreciate the aesthetic of a 'David' without first comprehending marble, curve, human, white, hair, arm, finger, leg, etc ..... SOME form of empirical interaction is REQUIRED before a human being can understand 'art' .... Art is founded on concrete human experience

5) Secular consciousness : Even the very religious must break eggs to make an omelet .... in other words: the MOST pious among us must also accept and experience their own humanity .. their own animal passions and needs .... they live a 'secular' existence OUTSIDE of prayer and holiness : they must, or they could not survive the concrete world .... so arguments against 'secular consciousness' are not exclusive to atheists or agnostics, because ALL humans have a secular, non-theological part of themselves .... As an atheist, I possess all the secular attributes, but none of the theological attributes ..... you divide them, but you cannjot deny your own secular, non-religious needs and demands as a human being ... Secularity is seen by many, including the founding fathers of the enlightenment, as a means of denying religious division and strife that is so prevalent in history .... I believe in a secular state as being the ONLY viable democratic state : freedom of thought and religion could NOT be obtained in a NONsecular nation ...

6) "Why do I say it's a religion? Because it is a belief system that has no more scientific foundation than any other belief system" - Because their is no actual 'Scientistic' movement, there is no organised push to incorporate science as a 'belief system' ... You are free to reject science COMPLETELY .... but that isnt your problem : you wish those who accept science and scientific principles to STOP promoting Science at the exclusion of religion, and to just shup about there being insubstantial evidence for belief in an existent god ... I say > I will not shut up ...

7) "The view that that which is real and knowable is that which can be empirically verified or measured is a view that itself cannot be empirically measured or verified and thus by its own criterion is unreal or unknowable." <---- Isnt this a tad circular ? ... To break the circle for the convenience of this argument: Science is only built of those ideas that are born of the Scientfic Method ... The presumption is that you CAN see, hear, smell, taste and touch: can you not ? ... Sense information DEFINES empiricism .... We pull out a yardstick and measure the rock: "yes, it is 36.2 inches long" ... YOu are free to reject that measurement, you are free to remeasure with YOUR yardstick, you are free to measure with a meter stick, you are free to measure using cowpie/widths, shoe sizes, spittoon diameters, half-a-leap spans, or just eyeball it to come up with YOUR definition:

What you CANT do is insist that your definition is correct, to the exclusion of all others, UNLESS you can show, empirically, that YOUR definition is empirically valid ....

The conclusions of science are reached by investigation and consensus .... YOU are free to reject those conclusions and ignore that consensus: what you cannot do is deny another the right to accept them .... THAT is what religion tries to do ....

The author of this passage is using common, fallacious misdirections and word equivocations, strawman and non sequiturs, to try and deny science its place as a means of gaining concrete knowledge, and placing it into the dark chambers of a Abbey, Chapel, or Manse .... Science is NOT a religion, unless you want it to be reduced to such ...

This piece is hogwash ....

[hfojvt]

17. spoken like a true defender of scientism n/t

[Trajan]

19. Chuckles ....

Tell me: Where do I enlist ? ...

I want to join that Church : Where is it ?

If you have the address or phone number : please let me know

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

18. Scientism?

Is that like Historology or Home-ecistry?

[muriel_volestrangler]

20. He equates the denial of the supernatural with selfishness

which basically means he's talking crap. Just because you don't believe in spirits, it doesn't make you a selfish person. I also suspect he is deliberately confusing the two quite separate meanings of 'materialism'. He's also calling a world-view, which he can call scientism if he wants, a 'religion' - which is an annoying misuse of the English language, but not actually insulting. His unfounded accusations of selfishness are, however.

[Joe Chi Minh]

22. They're a species of secular fundamentalists.

Deists, certainly mainstream Christians, believe and contend that knowledge can be infused by the Holy Spirit, the "divine breath", psychic means of some kind. It can't be proved, but it can't be disproved.

These secular fundamentalists, however, cannot grasp that their laughable reductionist view of authoritative knowledge is, of its very nature, incapable of establishing the scope or origins of the universe, or the existence or other universes or of any kind of mega-reality containing all others. Indeed, all they know of light is confined to its interactions with our universe, which, however, unlike light, is not a stand-alone reality with a proper framework of reference beyond our ken.

[Orrex]

25. Wait--we're taking our cues from an ape, now?

Or am I thinking of the wrong Daniel Quinn?

[theoldman]

10. To me science is so fascinating that at times it is more

unbelievable than religion. I wish I could have attended this meeting of some of the greatest minds alive today. Dr. Tyson did a great job of reconciling the difference between religion and science. I admire Dawkins but think that he needs to bend a little and understand why people have a religious belief. I will use Einstein and Darwin as examples.

[thingfisher]

15. You are overlooking a crucial concept

in the Biblical explanation. The earth and its inhabitants are under a curse caused by the entrance of sin into the world. Just a rebuttal to a inaccurate characterization. The problem of suffering in the world by the most innocent is debated even in the Bible itself."God" must take the wrap in our day since no one believes in the concept of sin , personal evil, or the curse.

[Hamlette]

16. Thanks for posting this! I missed it, this is exactly why I love DU!!! n/t