Science: Do we believe or do we accept?

[dreadgeek]

Would you use the phrase: "I believe in science"..?

I said 'no' but did not expound on that subject in the "Would you date someone who didn't believe in God" thread. I will expound on it here.

Belief is not the word I would use in regard to science. Saying "I believe in science" would be like say "I believe in chemistry" or "I believe in mathematics" or "I believe in history". What would it mean to say that? I accept that on any given subject X, where X is some feature of the natural world we might find interesting, science is going to provide us the best, most reliable suite of tools to understanding that phenomena. That does not mean the process will work perfectly nor does it mean that it will work in every single case, there may be features of the world we might *wish* to explain but which are beyond are ability to grok.

If I have a 'belief' that is connected to science it is in the, overall, regularity of the Universe. By that I mean that for the most part, certainly at the macro level, the Universe is going to behave in a more or less predictable fashion. For instance, on Earth the Sun is *always* going to come up in the East and *always* going to set in the West. It is going to behave that way because the Earth is turning on its axis. There will be no days where the Sun rises in the West the first three days of the week, sets in the North two of those days, rises in the South at some random interval and sets in the East once every random 100 days. That might seem a trivial example so let me give a deeper one. I believe that the universe is *so* regular that Hydrogen always has an atomic weight of 1. It will *always* have one proton and one electron and no neutrons. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it is definitional that any object with one proton and one electron is a Hydrogen atom.

Even before we had either the physics or the chemistry to even conceive things like electrons, protons or any other part of the atomic model it was true that there was an element called Hydrogen and that this element always has one proton and one electron. That's what I mean by regularity.

Now, is that a belief? From a strict philosophical standpoint it is. I have absolutely NO proof that the Sun will set in the West this evening and rise in the East in the morning. I do, however, have rather good reason based upon past experience and evidence that this is going to happen. Science is simply the suite of tools we use to explain those features of the Universe that we have some desire or need to explain. But I don't believe in science anymore than I believe in any given tool in my toolkit or in my Magic Trackpad or keyboard.

The other reason I think that belief isn't accurate when applied to science is that science routinely requires us to accept things we would just as soon not be true. The Sun is going to burn out sometime in the next 5 billion years. All stars die. The Sun is a star. We have observed other stars, very much like our Sun, in various stages of life so we have a pretty good idea of what is going to happen. I don't *want* that to happen but I have to accept that given the evidence currently in hand the smart money gets laid on it happening. Another example is that species go extinct. Again, I would just as soon that not happen because we are just another species and so the smart money is that, at some point, we will go the way of the dodo, the dinosaur and, interestingly, every OTHER hominid that has ever walked the Earth (we are the only surviving member of the hominid clade). I accept that but it is not what I would prefer.

The scientific method works for a specific but broad class of problems and it has *some* utility as a general problem solving strategy within a slightly larger domain of problems but it is not a set of beliefs. If you accept that the world is a pretty regular place--and the fact that you did not wake up on the Moon, or fall *through* (not out but through) your bed, or that you did not see a tree walking around is pretty strong evidence that the world operates in a more or less regular fashion--then it follows that one might have some questions about how that regularity manifests itself. Science is going to provide the suite of tools with the best chance of answering those questions. But I wouldn't say that is a belief.

Cheers
Aj

[Toughy]

Somewhere on UTube in the last couple of days I ran across all the contestants from the recent Miss USA pagent answering a question. The question was 'Do you think evolution should be taught in public schools?' Some of them said no, some said maybe, and some said yes. That's right, some of them said evolution should not be taught. Another one said evolution should be taught only in college and the students could decide which one to believe. Some said they believed God created them and evolution was just wrong. None of them thought evolution should be taught without also teaching the creation story in the Bible.

Aj.........don't go find it cuz you will break your computer.....I nearly broke mine.

The thing that struck me, was this idea of belief. Almost every single one of them used the idea that science is a belief. Evolution is a theory and not fact. None of them seemed to understand the difference between belief and fact. None of them understood what a scientific theory is and what it means.

I'm not sure where I am going with this, except it is what came to my mind when citybutch asked you if you believe in science.

[The_Lady_Snow]

I don't have a long answer just my thoughts about this today. I accept science because it's factual. No gray areas or fairy dust just the facts.

[Corkey]

Science is factual, logical, belief is emotional. The two live in me, but I do not believe in an omnipotent G-d.

[dreadgeek]

Somewhere on UTube in the last couple of days I ran across all the contestants from the recent Miss USA pagent answering a question. The question was 'Do you think evolution should be taught in public schools?' Some of them said no, some said maybe, and some said yes. That's right, some of them said evolution should not be taught. Another one said evolution should be taught only in college and the students could decide which one to believe. Some said they believed God created them and evolution was just wrong. None of them thought evolution should be taught without also teaching the creation story in the Bible.

Aj.........don't go find it cuz you will break your computer.....I nearly broke mine.

Too late! My honey, in her never-ending quest to find things that break my brain, played it last night while I was brushing the dog.


The thing that struck me, was this idea of belief. Almost every single one of them used the idea that science is a belief. Evolution is a theory and not fact. None of them seemed to understand the difference between belief and fact. None of them understood what a scientific theory is and what it means.

I'm not sure where I am going with this, except it is what came to my mind when citybutch asked you if you believe in science.

Like you, I was struck that not a single one of them seemed to grasp what a scientist means when we use the word theory (it is not 'guess') nor did any of them, as you said, seem to draw a distinction between a belief and a fact. These are non-trivial distinctions. One might, if they wish, hold the belief that Earth is flat, rests on the back of four elephants who, in turn, stand upon the back of a gigantic star turtle named A'tuin. One might hold that belief but that doesn't make it a fact.

I think a useful working definition of a fact is this: a statement about the world that is such that the world is obliged to actually be that way. To give a couple of examples: Barack Obama is the 44th President of the United States. Earth orbits a yellow, main sequence star named Sol. F=ma*. For these things to be facts, we should be able to query the world and ask if there is such a thing as the United States and if so, what is the name of the head of state and/or head of government. We should then be able to determine how many people have held that position before the current one, do the math, determine the name of the current person holding the office and by that method decide if the world is, in fact, in agreement with our statement. The same applies to the other two statements.

Now, I might have a *belief* that Hillary Clinton is the 43rd President of the United States but that does not make my belief factual, it just makes it a belief. Nothing will ever make my belief factual because we've already had a 43rd President and much to our regret as a nation, it was Bush the Younger. These women seem to confuse belief (i.e. how they might wish the world to be) with fact (how the world actually is).

In the physical sciences there's a phrase "your theory is not in agreement with observation (or experiment)". That means that no matter how beautiful it might be, no matter how much you love it, your theory is wrong. It simply doesn't matter what one believes about one's theory, if it is not in agreement with observation or experiment then it's wrong. If there is no way to articulate how the theory might be shown to be wrong, then it is not even wrong. It's definitely not science.

What struck me was how utterly unconcerned these young women were with the truth. I did not hear any of them say that, ultimately, if evolution is true it is true and it should be taught because it was true. Instead, their beliefs (what they wanted to be true) trumped how the Universe might actually work.

A long time ago, I read a phrase that really stuck with me over the years. It was, I believe, Sagan (or it might have been Dawkins) talking about the work of a scientist. The first task was to 'be humble before the data'. What that means is that even if the data leads you someplace where you discover something you would much prefer were not true, one must be humble before the data, admit that Nature always bats last and conform yourself to what the data dictates.


Cheers
Aj

[iamkeri1]

Aj,
I laughed joyously when I saw you use the word "grok." I loved the book "Stranger in a Strange Land", and have freaked out many a friend when (discussing preferences for a post-life commemoration/celebration) I say "Barbeque me and have a party" (most of my family do not like soup, LOL)

But I digress. I share similar "ideology" with you about science. I see the regularity (and the beauty) of the universe and know that though we do not know all the answers today, we certainly know more today than we did yesterday. I surmise that we will know more tomorrow. To this I add the belief that scientists are just as willing to manipulate us as are preachers.

My Thanksgiving when I was 10 years old was affected by the announcement just prior to the holiday that cranberries contained carginogens and should be removed from the holiday menu (we ate it anyway.) Today cranberries are touted as a healthy choice and a product that supports kidney/bladder function. Science flip flopped you might say. OR, as I believe, they jumped the gun before having all the evidence at hand. OR scientist A found one thing and scientist B found another. OR (as it is entirely possible), business wanted to increase cranberry sales, so they quashed the carcinogenic aspect of the fruit.

I treat science with the same level of suspended belief with which I treat religion. Prove it to me baby.
Smooches,
Keri

[Linus]

Like you, I was struck that not a single one of them seemed to grasp what a scientist means when we use the word theory (it is not 'guess') nor did any of them, as you said, seem to draw a distinction between a belief and a fact. These are non-trivial distinctions. One might, if they wish, hold the belief that Earth is flat, rests on the back of four elephants who, in turn, stand upon the back of a gigantic star turtle named A'tuin. One might hold that belief but that doesn't make it a fact.

Well, rats!

How about a star whale (http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Star_Whale)?

No, eh?
I guess no blue police boxes either, eh? :overreaction:
Seriously, however..

What struck me was how utterly unconcerned these young women were with the truth. I did not hear any of them say that, ultimately, if evolution is true it is true and it should be taught because it was true. Instead, their beliefs (what they wanted to be true) trumped how the Universe might actually work.

I think this comes from a limited exposure to more than a Biblical background. I'd be curious how many of those women were home schooled and only shown one possible method of understanding and comprehending. And not just education but also in home culture.

My uncles went to Catholic parochial boarding school as kids and public high school. All of them are atheists but have a deep understanding of the Catholic church and the various Catholic rights. They have, however, a keen desire of curiousity to learn beyond the boundaries they started with in grade school. My aunts also fall into that category.

As a result, I grew up in an environment where curiousity and questioning everything was encouraged. I cannot personally imagine not being such an environment but it makes me wonder if the opposite of my environment is what those women experienced? If curiousity is discouraged and downplayed, then accepting things at face value would be the result, I would think.

It leads me to believe that this is truly the "Microsoft/Mac OS/GUI Age". That isn't to say that that MS or Apple rules but rather because of making things easier for people to make those tools work without ever really needing to understand has made us -- for lack of a better phrase -- mentally lazy and "curious-less". (keep in mind that I recognize that not everyone has a desire to learn what happens behind the screen but that desire that things just work and we accept things as they are seems commonplace for everything, not just computers).

Anyways, maybe that's why..

[tapu]

Great. I was just getting over being appalled that women are still in pageants. Now you tell me their "beliefs" about evolution. And their exaltation of belief over science. Next you'll tell me that they still do the swimsuit thing.

[dreadgeek]

[B][FONT=Comic Sans MS][SIZE=3][COLOR=magenta]My Thanksgiving when I was 10 years old was affected by the announcement just prior to the holiday that cranberries contained carginogens and should be removed from the holiday menu (we ate it anyway.) Today cranberries are touted as a healthy choice and a product that supports kidney/bladder function. Science flip flopped you might say. OR, as I believe, they jumped the gun before having all the evidence at hand. OR scientist A found one thing and scientist B found another. OR (as it is entirely possible), business wanted to increase cranberry sales, so they quashed the carcinogenic aspect of the fruit.

Let me suggest that there's another interpretation. Scientist A was wrong but did not realize that she was wrong and neither did anyone else. On better evidence, which was gained by scientist B, the error was discovered.

The late Steven Jay Gould, in a brief he helped write to the Supreme Court once stated that all scientific discoveries should come with the following codicil: "this is provisionally true, to the best of our knowledge, subject to revision upon better data". I would add to that that nothing is ever proven in science. I cannot prove to you, once and for all, that an atom of hydrogen has a single electron and a single proton. It can't be done. Even though earlier today I stated that it was diagnostic (I think I used the word definitional) of a hydrogen atom that it has a single proton and single electron, I still cannot prove it to you once and for all. I would fall down dead if we found a hydrogen atom that did not conform to that configuration and I think we could search the Universe for any length of time you care to mention and never find an exception but I still cannot prove it to you.

It is the black swan problem. There is NO observation you can ever make that would prove the statement "all swans are white". However, there is a *single* observation you can make to disconfirm (falsify) the statement "all swans are white". If I present you with a black swan then the whole white swan hypothesis falls apart. This is a subtle but nontrivial difference and one of the hardest things to grasp about how science actually works.

What looks like flip-flopping isn't actually flip-flopping, it's having better data upon which to make a conclusion that is less likely to be wrong.

Not knowing the details I'll hazard only the most tentative guess--chances are that there was enough separation between the first finding and the second that either technology or methodology enabled a more accurate conclusion. So when someone went back and tried to confirm the first study with better tools, they got a better result.

Cheers
Aj

[dreadgeek]

Well, rats!

How about a star whale (http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Star_Whale)?

No, eh?
I guess no blue police boxes either, eh? :overreaction:
Seriously, however..



I think this comes from a limited exposure to more than a Biblical background. I'd be curious how many of those women were home schooled and only shown one possible method of understanding and comprehending. And not just education but also in home culture.

My uncles went to Catholic parochial boarding school as kids and public high school. All of them are atheists but have a deep understanding of the Catholic church and the various Catholic rights. They have, however, a keen desire of curiousity to learn beyond the boundaries they started with in grade school. My aunts also fall into that category.

As a result, I grew up in an environment where curiousity and questioning everything was encouraged. I cannot personally imagine not being such an environment but it makes me wonder if the opposite of my environment is what those women experienced? If curiousity is discouraged and downplayed, then accepting things at face value would be the result, I would think.

It leads me to believe that this is truly the "Microsoft/Mac OS/GUI Age". That isn't to say that that MS or Apple rules but rather because of making things easier for people to make those tools work without ever really needing to understand has made us -- for lack of a better phrase -- mentally lazy and "curious-less". (keep in mind that I recognize that not everyone has a desire to learn what happens behind the screen but that desire that things just work and we accept things as they are seems commonplace for everything, not just computers).

Anyways, maybe that's why..

Something my wife observed with the women talking about evolution was that *every single* woman who did thought that evolution should not be taught or that 'the (nonexistent) controversy' should be taught were from a red state. Every. Single. One. The women who, at least, conceded that evolution should be taught were all from blue states. I think that is very telling.

Like you, I think that we have become a culture that expects things to be easy. We have become mentally lazy and, for some reason, we treat the brain as being different than any other organ. No one would ever suggest that you needn't give your heart, or lungs or legs or arms a workout just to keep them working well. Yet we, as a culture, do not promote the idea that the brain is a muscle and that it needs regular exercise as much as any other part of our bodies lest it atrophy.

Evolution is an elegant theory. By elegant I mean it in the way that mathematicians, engineers, scientists and hackers mean it--a solution that is subtle, powerful and no more complicated than it need be to do the job. On paper, it is a very simple theory. In practice it is fiendishly subtle. It also has very wide-ranging implications.

A few months ago, I read an article (that I wish I'd clipped to my electronic scrapbook) about farmers in, I believe, Alabama who were battling some pest or another. They were expressing surprise that this pest, which they thought some pesticide or another had all but eradicated, had come back with a vengeance and was now all but immune to the pesticide in question. This was, perhaps, the most poignant example of what not understanding evolution looks like. Evolution *predicts* that we should see exactly that kind of thing happen.

I'm going to terminate this post because I think that it might be interesting--and worthwhile--to post a general statement about evolution but that will take some time. Stay tuned.

Cheers
Aj

[citybutch]

I think this is what I was getting at...

I also like your comment "Science is simply the suite of tools we use to explain those features of the Universe that we have some desire or need to explain."

I think philosophically that science is based on perception and a belief system. There is an assumption that:

1) There exists an external objective reality
2) There exists some sort of uniformity through time
a) the universe has structure
b) predictions and generalizations are possible.

In order to pursue a theory there has to be some level of belief involved, albeit a very very small one... Faith on the other hand is something where not a lot of proof is necessary for the person to maintain their belief. But it doesn't mean that an individual doesn't experience or have proof that the divine is non-existent.

I also think in a lot of ways, depending on who you are talking to, your second comment can replace science for spirituality. "Spirituality is simply the suite of tools we use to explain those features of the Universe that we have some desire or need to explain." Is there an evolution of science? Yes.. Is there an evolution of spirituality? Yes...

Interesting comments from scientists and other folks: http://www.templeton.org/belief/

.

Now, is that a belief? From a strict philosophical standpoint it is.

[ScandalAndy]

What I'm finding interesting is the fact that the individuals countering science with their beliefs are the ones saying evolution shouldn't be taught.

If they believed that strongly in the concept wouldn't they want every opportunity to disprove evolution?

My computer is now broken, since I'm a biologist and cannot fathom religious beliefs being used to counter carbon dating, along with the assertion that children should be allowed to choose what they want to learn about. These two things combined cause me to beat my head against the keyboard.

[citybutch]

OMGoodness... I loved that book as well... and knew exactly what AJ was saying without thinking the source! That was one of my most fav books of all time!

Aj,
I laughed joyously when I saw you use the word "grok." I loved the book "Stranger in a Strange Land", and have freaked out many a friend when (discussing preferences for a post-life commemoration/celebration) I say "Barbeque me and have a party" (most of my family do not like soup, LOL)

But I digress. I share similar "ideology" with you about science. I see the regularity (and the beauty) of the universe and know that though we do not know all the answers today, we certainly know more today than we did yesterday. I surmise that we will know more tomorrow. To this I add the belief that scientists are just as willing to manipulate us as are preachers.

My Thanksgiving when I was 10 years old was affected by the announcement just prior to the holiday that cranberries contained carginogens and should be removed from the holiday menu (we ate it anyway.) Today cranberries are touted as a healthy choice and a product that supports kidney/bladder function. Science flip flopped you might say. OR, as I believe, they jumped the gun before having all the evidence at hand. OR scientist A found one thing and scientist B found another. OR (as it is entirely possible), business wanted to increase cranberry sales, so they quashed the carcinogenic aspect of the fruit.

I treat science with the same level of suspended belief with which I treat religion. Prove it to me baby.
Smooches,
Keri

[Toughy]

by Aj

Too late! My honey, in her never-ending quest to find things that break my brain, played it last night while I was brushing the dog.

I hope the dog has no bald spots and is ok......laughin....

[chefhottie25]

I don't have a long answer just my thoughts about this today. I accept science because it's factual. No gray areas or fairy dust just the facts.

I agree with you on this one Snow. Science provides emperical data to support theories. It is factual and supported with results, formulas, and data.

[dreadgeek]

I think this is what I was getting at...

I also like your comment "Science is simply the suite of tools we use to explain those features of the Universe that we have some desire or need to explain."

I think philosophically that science is based on perception and a belief system. There is an assumption that:

1) There exists an external objective reality
2) There exists some sort of uniformity through time
a) the universe has structure
b) predictions and generalizations are possible.

In order to pursue a theory there has to be some level of belief involved, albeit a very very small one... Faith on the other hand is something where not a lot of proof is necessary for the person to maintain their belief. But it doesn't mean that an individual doesn't experience or have proof that the divine is non-existent.

I also think in a lot of ways, depending on who you are talking to, your second comment can replace science for spirituality. "Spirituality is simply the suite of tools we use to explain those features of the Universe that we have some desire or need to explain." Is there an evolution of science? Yes.. Is there an evolution of spirituality? Yes...

Interesting comments from scientists and other folks: http://www.templeton.org/belief/

I knew I should have chosen my words more carefully. I originally had written suite of tools for understanding Nature. I think that science and spirituality answer absolutely different sets of questions. I will agree, provisionally, that there is no reason to believe that science disproves a belief in one or more divine beings. At the same time, I'm going to insist that there is nothing that science can do to prove that there is any kind of divine being. If one is going to believe then believe and do so wholly but science can offer you not one shred of support for your beliefs. That is not it's job.

At the same time, that street goes both ways. If science cannot tell one whether or not there is a god or many gods, then spirituality/religion cannot tell science what it's conclusions should be. I understand that, for instance, the young women saying that they believe that some divine being created the Universe and all that is in it. I understand that they believe that the Bible offers an explanation about what happened that it renders all other explanations moot. I get that. I also have to say, "so what?" Evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life available at present. If we're going to educate people in the life sciences then we're going to have to teach them evolution. Otherwise the life sciences won't make sense. However, it doesn't matter if evolution violates this or that holy book. It really doesn't matter because Nature isn't obliged to agree with what our religions would prefer.

I have said before and I'll say again--I don't promote atheism nor do I try to evangelize for a naturalistic worldview. I have nothing with which to replace that which gives people meaning and unless I do (and that question just isn't in my competencies) it would be wrong, in a deep ethical sense, for me to try to do so. That said, I'm not going to apologize for a naturalistic worldview. Just as you wouldn't (and shouldn't) apologize for a non-naturalistic worldview.

Yet, I'm still going to insist on demarcation. I think that's fair. While I don't see any good reason to believe in a heaven and I'm going to apply a fair and consistent standard (i.e. no special pleading) I am not going to argue that science 'disproves heaven' or what have you. For that, however, I think religion/spirituality needs to recognize the demarcation lines as well. Whether someone believes that the Bible teaches that humans were created by God is and should be irrelevant to the scientific process. "God created humans" is a religious statement, it has no business in a scientific discussion unless there is some proof that we *need* to invoke a divine being (and we don't) to explain some feature of the natural world we shouldn't allow it into the discussion. If we *do* have to allow that idea into the discussion then that statement has to be subject to the same criteria otherwise we are no longer doing science.

Yes, this is a limitation science imposes on itself but it is a necessary limit. It is the reason why you can take a scientist in Mumbai, one in Berkeley, one in Beijing and one in Cairo and all present them with data and they will be able to have a conversation about that data. They may all hold different religious beliefs or none what-so-ever but that won't get in the way because there is a common language to talk about the matter. The problem with invoking religious language in a scientific discussion is that in order to have a common ground we now have to agree that one person's religious assumptions are the correct ones. It cannot *simultaneously* be true--in the sense that I used it earlier, where that means 'the world is actually obliged to be that way'--that the Universe was created by one divine being in 6 days and was birthed by another divine being while being the egg of yet another divine being. Those three statements are mutually exclusive if are meant to take them as factual.

So before we can get down to explaining how something might give birth to a universe we would have to establish that this something exists. If I really and truly believed that the Greek pantheon described an objective "out there" reality is there anything you could say to convince me otherwise? Most likely not.

In science, on the other hand, ultimately there *must* be things that would convince me otherwise. If there isn't, I'm simply not doing science. I may not have a word for what I am doing, but whatever that word is it isn't science.

As an aside: something I have always found curious about the idea that there is not an objective reality 'out there' is how astoundingly self-centered it is. I take your existence as read (otherwise I'm either hallucinating or you are an AI in which case you can pass a Turing test). I presume that you take my existence as read. That means that without proof, I presume that your existence has some objective fact whether or not I have ever encountered you. If I had never been on the Internet, or had I died in, say, 1977 you would still exist. Therefore, barring evidence that I'm hallucinating or that you are an AI, I can say you objectively exist. I think that an objective reality is a pretty safe bet--like using a scale between 0 and 1, with zero being "does not exist" and one being "does exist" that objective reality is a .9 easily. I would say that our confidence on that should be high enough that for any ordinary purpose we can treat it as if it were true.

That .1 percent of skepticism is, to me, the mark of a scientist. There is a chance, however unlikely, that there isn't an objective reality. Although I think that there are a lot of other entities--certainly on this planet--that would probably disagree and would go about behaving as if they actually exist whether or not we believed in it. Like the honey badger, it don't care, it exists whether we believe in it or not.

Cheers
Aj

[ScandalAndy]

Yet, I'm still going to insist on demarcation. I think that's fair. While I don't see any good reason to believe in a heaven and I'm going to apply a fair and consistent standard (i.e. no special pleading) I am not going to argue that science 'disproves heaven' or what have you. For that, however, I think religion/spirituality needs to recognize the demarcation lines as well. Whether someone believes that the Bible teaches that humans were created by God is and should be irrelevant to the scientific process. "God created humans" is a religious statement, it has no business in a scientific discussion unless there is some proof that we *need* to invoke a divine being (and we don't) to explain some feature of the natural world we shouldn't allow it into the discussion. If we *do* have to allow that idea into the discussion then that statement has to be subject to the same criteria otherwise we are no longer doing science.


This.



It is my understanding (don't get me wrong, I'm no expert, having decidedly NOT majored in theological studies or anthropology) that spirituality and religion, per se, were devised as a means to explain "the unexplainable" in early developing culture. Phenomena that weren't understood were attributed to higher beings, spirits, gods, etc. as a way for emerging societies to make sense of the world around them. As the sciences evolved and offered explanations for these occurences with data and repeatable results, spirituality was no longer required to insulate us from fear of what we do not understand.

That being said, I think the concept of demarcation is valid. Spirituality should absolutely be applied to philosophical questions, and that which cannot be explored by science (until we evolve the technology to do so, of course). However, I see the religious card being used less as a tool to promote community and more as an excuse to hide behind bigotry and ignorance. Unfortunately, science cannot be applied to human morality.

[Mister Bent]

This.



It is my understanding (don't get me wrong, I'm no expert, having decidedly NOT majored in theological studies or anthropology) that spirituality and religion, per se, were devised as a means to explain "the unexplainable" in early developing culture. Phenomena that weren't understood were attributed to higher beings, spirits, gods, etc. as a way for emerging societies to make sense of the world around them. As the sciences evolved and offered explanations for these occurences with data and repeatable results, spirituality was no longer required to insulate us from fear of what we do not understand.

That being said, I think the concept of demarcation is valid. Spirituality should absolutely be applied to philosophical questions, and that which cannot be explored by science (until we evolve the technology to do so, of course). However, I see the religious card being used less as a tool to promote community and more as an excuse to hide behind bigotry and ignorance. Unfortunately, science cannot be applied to human morality.

Yes. All of this is exactly what I teach in my home. I absolutely agree that many of the anecdotes found in the bible, the myths of various cultures have their basis in the need for early humans/human cultures to explain the phenomena around them that could not otherwise be explained. They were insecure and scared - thunder? Lightning? What the hell was going on?! Specific anecdotes from the bible, the burning bush and the parting of the the Red Sea, for example, can now be explained in factual terms.

And, of course, fear of the unknown is an early, and continuing, method of creating a power structure.

[ScandalAndy]

Yes. All of this is exactly what I teach in my home. I absolutely agree that many of the anecdotes found in the bible, the myths of various cultures have their basis in the need for early humans/human cultures to explain the phenomena around them that could not otherwise be explained. They were insecure and scared - thunder? Lightning? What the hell was going on?! Specific anecdotes from the bible, the burning bush and the parting of the the Red Sea, for example, can now be explained in factual terms.

And, of course, fear of the unknown is an early, and continuing, method of creating a power structure.


Forgive me, I neglected to mention the division of power and all associated repercussions of that! Thank you for being so much more eloquent about it! :)

[Glenn]

Theology does have a place in concert with science when one discusses morals. The reason why is because we are spiritual creatures... even AJ. *Grabs popcorn, sits back, and waits for three pages of arguments*

[ScandalAndy]

Theology does have a place in concert with science when one discusses morals. The reason why is because we are spiritual creatures... even AJ. *Grabs popcorn, sits back, and waits for three pages of arguments*



I'd be very interested to know how you would apply scientific methods to a personal experience based on societal constructs such as morality.

[imperfect_cupcake]

However, I see the religious card being used less as a tool to promote community and more as an excuse to hide behind bigotry and ignorance. Unfortunately, science cannot be applied to human morality.

unfortunately, as a history of science buff and my major being in physical anthropology (fuck me, if that wasn't a primarily racist backdrop for the beginning of a science, I don't know what one is!) many people do use science attempt to back of some really hideous sh*t. Don't get me wrong, please. I *love* science and I love the history of science and I love philosophy of science. I was also brought up in a household of two researcher parents. Science is not faultless or pure in this regard. As mush as I love it, it's been used pretty destructively. I know it's the individuals that corrupt it, but that's really no different imo than corruption in any other field. People, all people, even scientists, can be fucked up bastards with no concept of the implications of what they are doing or it's repercussions at the very least of the baddie scale, and at the top end of the baddie scale, they can be unfathomable bigots of every rainbow flavour and use what they are doing to try and make a reason why X people do X and M people do M.

Sociobiology and eugenics are extremely slipperly slopes, for example. And I really *really* am wary about people looking for "genes" of behaviour. The implications being we cannot help who we are and cannot change. I know the gay thing slides into that, however my argument is the gay gene should be fucking moot. If gay was *truly* ok, it wouldn't matter that you had a genetic "excuse." And I personally won't use it to back up my argument for the vary reason that you can then use the gene excuse for xenophobia and all other types of human behaviours that frankly should be examined and overcome.

So while I honour and have a sense of beauty and purpose in science, I'm very aware of people being people with it. It's not different than any other human endeavour.

[ScandalAndy]

unfortunately, as a history of science buff and my major being in physical anthropology (fuck me, if that wasn't a primarily racist backdrop for the beginning of a science, I don't know what one is!) many people do use science attempt to back of some really hideous sh*t. Don't get me wrong, please. I *love* science and I love the history of science and I love philosophy of science. I was also brought up in a household of two researcher parents. Science is not faultless or pure in this regard. As mush as I love it, it's been used pretty destructively. I know it's the individuals that corrupt it, but that's really no different imo than corruption in any other field. People, all people, even scientists, can be fucked up bastards with no concept of the implications of what they are doing or it's repercussions at the very least of the baddie scale, and at the top end of the baddie scale, they can be unfathomable bigots of every rainbow flavour and use what they are doing to try and make a reason why X people do X and M people do M.

Sociobiology and eugenics are extremely slipperly slopes, for example. And I really *really* am wary about people looking for "genes" of behaviour. The implications being we cannot help who we are and cannot change. I know the gay thing slides into that, however my argument is the gay gene should be fucking moot. If gay was *truly* ok, it wouldn't matter that you had a genetic "excuse." And I personally won't use it to back up my argument for the vary reason that you can then use the gene excuse for xenophobia and all other types of human behaviours that frankly should be examined and overcome.

So while I honour and have a sense of beauty and purpose in science, I'm very aware of people being people with it. It's not different than any other human endeavour.

I completely understand and, to a large extent, agree that humans use their own morality (or lack thereof) to justify their use of science. The thing I'm getting at is how would you use science influence your morality? I admit at this point I can only see this as a one way street, since I don't think you can use fact-based reasoning to shape something as nebulous as morality and personal opinion.

[citybutch]

I think you have deeply misinterpreted me and my beliefs. I believe in both evolution and a divine nature to... well, nature. I am not sure where you get anywhere in my post that I do not believe in evolution. I don't even believe in heaven for goodness sake. Well, at least a heaven that is beyond this life.

I was merely asking in a philosophical sense and hoping for a more intellectual conversation not a rebuttal of my post and an analysis of my "beliefs" which I did not state in this thread and have barely stated in others. ... The questions are common ones when one is having a conversation about the philosophy of science...

Your assumptions led you a little astray in your response to me...

I knew I should have chosen my words more carefully. I originally had written suite of tools for understanding Nature. I think that science and spirituality answer absolutely different sets of questions. I will agree, provisionally, that there is no reason to believe that science disproves a belief in one or more divine beings. At the same time, I'm going to insist that there is nothing that science can do to prove that there is any kind of divine being. If one is going to believe then believe and do so wholly but science can offer you not one shred of support for your beliefs. That is not it's job.

At the same time, that street goes both ways. If science cannot tell one whether or not there is a god or many gods, then spirituality/religion cannot tell science what it's conclusions should be. I understand that, for instance, the young women saying that they believe that some divine being created the Universe and all that is in it. I understand that they believe that the Bible offers an explanation about what happened that it renders all other explanations moot. I get that. I also have to say, "so what?" Evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life available at present. If we're going to educate people in the life sciences then we're going to have to teach them evolution. Otherwise the life sciences won't make sense. However, it doesn't matter if evolution violates this or that holy book. It really doesn't matter because Nature isn't obliged to agree with what our religions would prefer.

I have said before and I'll say again--I don't promote atheism nor do I try to evangelize for a naturalistic worldview. I have nothing with which to replace that which gives people meaning and unless I do (and that question just isn't in my competencies) it would be wrong, in a deep ethical sense, for me to try to do so. That said, I'm not going to apologize for a naturalistic worldview. Just as you wouldn't (and shouldn't) apologize for a non-naturalistic worldview.

Yet, I'm still going to insist on demarcation. I think that's fair. While I don't see any good reason to believe in a heaven and I'm going to apply a fair and consistent standard (i.e. no special pleading) I am not going to argue that science 'disproves heaven' or what have you. For that, however, I think religion/spirituality needs to recognize the demarcation lines as well. Whether someone believes that the Bible teaches that humans were created by God is and should be irrelevant to the scientific process. "God created humans" is a religious statement, it has no business in a scientific discussion unless there is some proof that we *need* to invoke a divine being (and we don't) to explain some feature of the natural world we shouldn't allow it into the discussion. If we *do* have to allow that idea into the discussion then that statement has to be subject to the same criteria otherwise we are no longer doing science.

Yes, this is a limitation science imposes on itself but it is a necessary limit. It is the reason why you can take a scientist in Mumbai, one in Berkeley, one in Beijing and one in Cairo and all present them with data and they will be able to have a conversation about that data. They may all hold different religious beliefs or none what-so-ever but that won't get in the way because there is a common language to talk about the matter. The problem with invoking religious language in a scientific discussion is that in order to have a common ground we now have to agree that one person's religious assumptions are the correct ones. It cannot *simultaneously* be true--in the sense that I used it earlier, where that means 'the world is actually obliged to be that way'--that the Universe was created by one divine being in 6 days and was birthed by another divine being while being the egg of yet another divine being. Those three statements are mutually exclusive if are meant to take them as factual.

So before we can get down to explaining how something might give birth to a universe we would have to establish that this something exists. If I really and truly believed that the Greek pantheon described an objective "out there" reality is there anything you could say to convince me otherwise? Most likely not.

In science, on the other hand, ultimately there *must* be things that would convince me otherwise. If there isn't, I'm simply not doing science. I may not have a word for what I am doing, but whatever that word is it isn't science.

As an aside: something I have always found curious about the idea that there is not an objective reality 'out there' is how astoundingly self-centered it is. I take your existence as read (otherwise I'm either hallucinating or you are an AI in which case you can pass a Turing test). I presume that you take my existence as read. That means that without proof, I presume that your existence has some objective fact whether or not I have ever encountered you. If I had never been on the Internet, or had I died in, say, 1977 you would still exist. Therefore, barring evidence that I'm hallucinating or that you are an AI, I can say you objectively exist. I think that an objective reality is a pretty safe bet--like using a scale between 0 and 1, with zero being "does not exist" and one being "does exist" that objective reality is a .9 easily. I would say that our confidence on that should be high enough that for any ordinary purpose we can treat it as if it were true.

That .1 percent of skepticism is, to me, the mark of a scientist. There is a chance, however unlikely, that there isn't an objective reality. Although I think that there are a lot of other entities--certainly on this planet--that would probably disagree and would go about behaving as if they actually exist whether or not we believed in it. Like the honey badger, it don't care, it exists whether we believe in it or not.

Cheers
Aj

[AtLast]

I accept scientific inquiry and conclusions based upon valid and reliable research methods. Continual replication of scientific study that yields consistent results is the backbone for my accepting results about a hypothesis. Yes, this has been drilled into me academically and professionally. Probably as much or even more than my early life religious indoctrination. I don’t believe in scientific outcomes in research, I accept that if a study is well constructed (based upon solid scientific methodology being utilized), it yields information that I will want to pay attention to.

Does this apply to my spiritual belief system? Sometimes it does and I don’t fear “scientific” dismantling of my believe systems. I will remain who I am no matter the results of empirical data. But, I might just live a better life due to the imagination and plain curiosity of minds that choose to ask questions about this universe.

[imperfect_cupcake]

The thing I'm getting at is how would you use science influence your morality? I admit at this point I can only see this as a one way street, since I don't think you can use fact-based reasoning to shape something as nebulous as morality and personal opinion.

hum. I dunno about that. My dad taught me certain morals based on ecology and biology. Not all of them mind you, but a chunk. Not using the scientific method, exactly, but the results of behaviour (cause/effect type stuff). Plus physchology, though a messy science with unisolatable variables (like ecology) does make some attempt in a sideways way that one could then apply to moral "law".

for example when I was little:
"barbara, don't throw that on the ground. it's littering. You know how we share this environment with other people and other animals? if everyone put their on the ground whereever in great quanities, then it will cause people and animals to get sick and die. We wouldn't be able to farm the land and use plants for medicines and the animals that help us (ecology web explained earlier) and have their own value would disapear." kind of thing.

also I don't shit close to a river when I'm hiking/camping and I make sure it's in the top soil. I also don't shit very much in the same place and am very aware of where other people in the camping group are shitting and what kind of clime we are in. Those are moral choices (are they? not to fuck with the water supply or the environment) based on scientific knowledge.

I dunno, does that fit in to that slot? I'm not sure but it sort of does??

or maybe not. I'm on pain meds today so my thinking is a bit fuzzy.

[ScandalAndy]

hum. I dunno about that. My dad taught me certain morals based on ecology and biology. Not all of them mind you, but a chunk. Not using the scientific method, exactly, but the results of behaviour (cause/effect type stuff). Plus physchology, though a messy science with unisolatable variables (like ecology) does make some attempt in a sideways way that one could then apply to moral "law".

for example when I was little:
"barbara, don't throw that on the ground. it's littering. You know how we share this environment with other people and other animals? if everyone put their on the ground whereever in great quanities, then it will cause people and animals to get sick and die. We wouldn't be able to farm the land and use plants for medicines and the animals that help us (ecology web explained earlier) and have their own value would disapear." kind of thing.

also I don't shit close to a river when I'm hiking/camping and I make sure it's in the top soil. I also don't shit very much in the same place and am very aware of where other people in the camping group are shitting and what kind of clime we are in. Those are moral choices (are they? not to fuck with the water supply or the environment) based on scientific knowledge.

I dunno, does that fit in to that slot? I'm not sure but it sort of does??

or maybe not. I'm on pain meds today so my thinking is a bit fuzzy.



Well, this is kind of what I was getting at in a way. If your Da didn't care about the environment (morality) and knowing the repercussions of poor ecological stewardship, your own beliefs wouldn't have been influenced the way they were. That's using morality to influence morality.

I'm saying there's no set of data you can use to measure whether something is more or less moral, more or less worthy of being enforced as a standard. I'd go so far as to say most people believe that killing is wrong, that is a moral judgment. There is no scientific data to back this up, though. That tenet of their personal beliefs is influenced only by opinion and not fact.

Conversely, depending on your beliefs you can end up on either side of the argument when it comes to something like the "gay gene" mentioned previously. Some people want to prove there is one, others don't. Some people want there to be a cure, others want to prove homosexuality is innate and therefore cannot and/or should not be "cured". You use your personal opinions to decide what you deem "important" research.

[dreadgeek]

I think you have deeply misinterpreted me and my beliefs. I believe in both evolution and a divine nature to... well, nature. I am not sure where you get anywhere in my post that I do not believe in evolution. I don't even believe in heaven for goodness sake. Well, at least a heaven that is beyond this life.

I was merely asking in a philosophical sense and hoping for a more intellectual conversation not a rebuttal of my post and an analysis of my "beliefs" which I did not state in this thread and have barely stated in others. ... The questions are common ones when one is having a conversation about the philosophy of science...

Your assumptions led you a little astray in your response to me...

I wasn't saying *you* didn't believe in evolution, I was offering evolution as an area of contention. You may not doubt evolution but you are in a distinct minority in the United States. Forty percent of Americans believe that human beings were created, in our current form, within the last 10,000 years. They ignore any evidence to the contrary and do not know nor do they want to know what evolutionary theory says. They insist that because their holy book *says* this that nature is obliged to agree with them and that the entire biological sciences are just wrong. Not on some empirical issue, but rather we are wrong because we do not agree with the biblical account. It was an example of the demarcation problem, not meant to say that you doubt evolution.

Put it this way, you seem to like Deepak Chopra. I am not fond of him for reasons I won't get into. It would be uncalled for me to show up at a Deepak Chopra speaking engagement and then, every time he mentioned 'quantum' ask him to explain how he squares his interpretation of QM with the scaling problem (which I won't get into here). What I see happening with creationists is that they are showing up in schools and saying that they reject this theory in biology because it offends their religious sensibilities and that therefore, biology is *required* to submit itself to those sensibilities. I see no reason why biology should do that.

I wasn't trying to analyze your beliefs or rebut your post.

As far as spirituality being a set of tools to understand the Universe, okay so far as it goes but it is a different set of questions. I think that spirituality is *useless* for understanding how stars work. In fact, I would say that it is worse than useless. My problem isn't when spiritual people say "these are the set of tools to help me get through my day while staying sane". I have no problem with that. I do have a problem when spiritual people say "my <insert holy text here> teaches that the reason that stars burn is that <insert pre-scientific account of stars here>". To be clear, I am NOT saying that you are doing this. I am trying to clarify the point I was making.

I was, more or less, agreeing with you. I was not trying to say you believe in heaven. I do not know what your beliefs are other than that you are some form of Christian. But large numbers of Christians *do* believe in heaven and that is fine, unless they are going to insist that heaven is a factual place in which case I think that it is reasonable to treat it like any other factual place and begin to ask questions about it.

Again, this is not to say that you believe in heaven or that you are like a large numbers of Christians. For all I know you are in a denomination of one. I am offering up examples of where I see the demarcation lines being drawn. This is completely separate of your beliefs about heaven, evolution or, for that matter, quantum mechanics or any other specific issue.

Cheers
Aj

[dreadgeek]

unfortunately, as a history of science buff and my major being in physical anthropology (fuck me, if that wasn't a primarily racist backdrop for the beginning of a science, I don't know what one is!) many people do use science attempt to back of some really hideous sh*t. Don't get me wrong, please. I *love* science and I love the history of science and I love philosophy of science. I was also brought up in a household of two researcher parents. Science is not faultless or pure in this regard. As mush as I love it, it's been used pretty destructively. I know it's the individuals that corrupt it, but that's really no different imo than corruption in any other field. People, all people, even scientists, can be fucked up bastards with no concept of the implications of what they are doing or it's repercussions at the very least of the baddie scale, and at the top end of the baddie scale, they can be unfathomable bigots of every rainbow flavour and use what they are doing to try and make a reason why X people do X and M people do M.

It seems strange to me that people would feel the need to say that scientists are people. People can be amazing bastards. My defense of science is not based upon it being pure or perfect, it is, like democracy, the least *bad* tool we have for understanding the natural world. It works, *well enough*, over time that it is useful in general. But that does not make it pure.


Sociobiology and eugenics are extremely slipperly slopes, for example. And I really *really* am wary about people looking for "genes" of behaviour. The implications being we cannot help who we are and cannot change. I know the gay thing slides into that, however my argument is the gay gene should be fucking moot.

Actually I have to strenuously disagree with your characterization of sociobiology and looking for genetic influences on behavior. Sociobiology does not imply there is nothing we can do to help who we are or what we can and cannot change. Actually, explanations based upon culture are just as deterministic--in fact in many ways more so--than any reasonable sociobiological explanation of that same fact. Look at some of the discussions around race that happen here and you will see determinism at work--we live in a majority white culture, whites have traditionally benefited from race-based constructions in that culture, whites have white privilege, therefore whites will defend white privilege even unconsciously. That is as deterministic as it gets and I have not mentioned genes at all. I actually take a sociobiological view of racism that it is a special case of xenophobia and that xenophobia was adaptive at some point but is maladaptive now. So my construction is not 'humans are xenophobic and therefore we can do nothing about racism'. Rather it is 'humans are xenophobic, racism is just a special case of xenophobia, therefore we are going to have to work hard as both individuals and as a civilization to give racism no haven or quarter in our lives, in our laws, or in our institutions. It will be hard work because we are fighting a somewhat uphill battle but it is doable.'

Also, I will give an example of a gene for behavior--most of us speak one or more languages. Your genes built a brain that is hungry to learn language and boots up the language learning systems in the first year. It then sponges language up for the next 15 - 20 years. After which it becomes a bit more difficult to learn a new language--but not impossible. That is *entirely* genetic. The fact that I speak English is an artifact of culture, the fact that I speak ANY language is an artifact of genes.


If gay was *truly* ok, it wouldn't matter that you had a genetic "excuse."

This is two different things. The statement that members of some group X is a moral statement and has absolutely nothing to do with whether it is genetic or not. I understand why people in the gay community want their to be a genetic basis for homosexuality but it does not buy us what many people think it does. Being black is as genetic as something can be--in fact it is entirely genetic, no cultural experience gave me a black phenotype. Yet, for all but the last half-century blacks were treated, in the West at least, as barely human. In fact, when we were treated as barely human that was an *improvement*! Being Catholic is as non-genetic as something exists and yet we protect Catholics from discrimination. The basis for not discriminating against blacks or against Catholics is predicated on something completely separate from the question of why there are blacks or Catholics.


And I personally won't use it to back up my argument for the vary reason that you can then use the gene excuse for xenophobia and all other types of human behaviours that frankly should be examined and overcome.

Again, I think that there's a mixup between explanation and excusing. I want to understand *why* xenophobia happens and it is not just a product of Western culture nor is it a product of white people. If there are multiple lives and you can swing it, go to Japan as either a Korean or a black person. You will be treated to a full measure of xenophobia. That deserves explanation for why it is so widespread. Religion is another behavior I think is biological--not what specific religion someone practices but that religion is practiced in all cultures so far. EVERYONE honors their dead. EVERYONE has a set of stories about how to live. I would call religion species typical behavior. It would be absolutely remarkable if there were a species typical behavior that did not have a genetic component to it. Again, that does not mean that people can't help but be religious, it does mean that it might take a little more work to maintain a naturalistic worldview since our brains seem to favor a supernatural worldview. Again, not deterministic but influential.

Cheers
Aj

[citybutch]

Sorry about that AJ. Because you responded to me and put my post in yours it was a natural conclusion to assume you meant me.

I think the demarcation lines are a lot easier to draw if your mind sits in either one extreme area or the other... and so yes, I do agree with you. I just think as we get down into the scientific subject of matter (for example) the demarcation gets a little fuzzy. And perhaps science will progress to a point where we have absolute answers... In fact, I have little doubt that it will. However, as it stands right now, there has to be a small bit of assumption when you get down to this area... a part of it that is accepted as truth without proof... and THAT was my point. There is, to be a scientist, just a little bit of faith involved (even if you don't want to call it that)... By the way this is a conversation I engage in with both my brother and his wife... He is a nuerobiologist and she a geneticist.. both with their own labs.. Very smart people (like you) who have little spiritual interpretation in the world around them. It's sometimes hard for me to engage but my "play the devils advocate" side comes out and we have fun!

I like Chopra a lot more than you do I guess :) but to be honest haven't read that much of him. I am too busy studying these days than digging deep into spiritual writers and thinkers. I did enjoy his fictional rendering of Jesus though.

I want to say more but I have to go sit for an exam this morning...

Thanks for your response! :)

I wasn't saying *you* didn't believe in evolution, I was offering evolution as an area of contention. You may not doubt evolution but you are in a distinct minority in the United States. Forty percent of Americans believe that human beings were created, in our current form, within the last 10,000 years. They ignore any evidence to the contrary and do not know nor do they want to know what evolutionary theory says. They insist that because their holy book *says* this that nature is obliged to agree with them and that the entire biological sciences are just wrong. Not on some empirical issue, but rather we are wrong because we do not agree with the biblical account. It was an example of the demarcation problem, not meant to say that you doubt evolution.

Put it this way, you seem to like Deepak Chopra. I am not fond of him for reasons I won't get into. It would be uncalled for me to show up at a Deepak Chopra speaking engagement and then, every time he mentioned 'quantum' ask him to explain how he squares his interpretation of QM with the scaling problem (which I won't get into here). What I see happening with creationists is that they are showing up in schools and saying that they reject this theory in biology because it offends their religious sensibilities and that therefore, biology is *required* to submit itself to those sensibilities. I see no reason why biology should do that.

I wasn't trying to analyze your beliefs or rebut your post.

As far as spirituality being a set of tools to understand the Universe, okay so far as it goes but it is a different set of questions. I think that spirituality is *useless* for understanding how stars work. In fact, I would say that it is worse than useless. My problem isn't when spiritual people say "these are the set of tools to help me get through my day while staying sane". I have no problem with that. I do have a problem when spiritual people say "my <insert holy text here> teaches that the reason that stars burn is that <insert pre-scientific account of stars here>". To be clear, I am NOT saying that you are doing this. I am trying to clarify the point I was making.

I was, more or less, agreeing with you. I was not trying to say you believe in heaven. I do not know what your beliefs are other than that you are some form of Christian. But large numbers of Christians *do* believe in heaven and that is fine, unless they are going to insist that heaven is a factual place in which case I think that it is reasonable to treat it like any other factual place and begin to ask questions about it.

Again, this is not to say that you believe in heaven or that you are like a large numbers of Christians. For all I know you are in a denomination of one. I am offering up examples of where I see the demarcation lines being drawn. This is completely separate of your beliefs about heaven, evolution or, for that matter, quantum mechanics or any other specific issue.

Cheers
Aj

[imperfect_cupcake]

can I just say, Aj and scandalandy I'm *loving* this convo deeeeeply. and I really wish I could continue, so I'm going to put a book mark here and come back on saturday. My brain really is too drugged to try and solve some of these dilemas that I have, I adore sociobiology but I loathe it's use and how it gets manipulated (just like some people love gnosticism but hate how it gets twisted and misused by insane bastards). So in that I have a lot of empathy for how people twist an original message. Aj, I haven't fully read your post cause I have to run and gets some chores done but I really do wish I lived close to you (and scandalandy!) just to be able to sit down and hash this out. There's a philosophical question that has been BUGGING me for about 15 years and Aj, I'd love to sit down with you if you felt you might want to waste the brain power to try and tease it appart. My philosophy of science instruct sat me down when I came to him about it and we talk for THREE HOURS till my brain hurt. still no resolution.

But it will have to wait. big love and massive appreciation xxx

[dreadgeek]

Sorry about that AJ. Because you responded to me and put my post in yours it was a natural conclusion to assume you meant me.

No worries, City I probably should have been more clear that I was offering examples.


I think the demarcation lines are a lot easier to draw if your mind sits in either one extreme area or the other... and so yes, I do agree with you. I just think as we get down into the scientific subject of matter (for example) the demarcation gets a little fuzzy. And perhaps science will progress to a point where we have absolute answers... In fact, I have little doubt that it will. However, as it stands right now, there has to be a small bit of assumption when you get down to this area... a part of it that is accepted as truth without proof... and THAT was my point. There is, to be a scientist, just a little bit of faith involved (even if you don't want to call it that)...

Oh, I think there is faith in as much as I trust the natural world to be consistent. Like I said yesterday, I did not wake up on the moon although there is a quantum mechanical description of my body, lying in bed in my house, wherein I wake up and find that I have suddenly found myself on the moon. Perhaps a better example is this. There is a means, using quantum mechanics, to describe the state of all of the atoms making up the Statue of Liberty that has her waving the arm holding the torch. It is *possible* for that to happen, no physical law forbids it. However, in order for it to reach that state, we would have to wait for several hundred times the lifetime of the Universe for just one movement. I have faith, if you will, that the universe is a regular enough place that the statue will not be waving her arms about next time I visit New York. I have somewhat less faith that we glorified chimps are smart enough to figure out most of the questions about the natural world we might have. That said, I think there are questions we will never be smart enough to answer such as "what came before the Big Bang".


I want to say more but I have to go sit for an exam this morning...

Thanks for your response! :)

I'm looking forward to your next response. :)

Cheers
Aj

[dreadgeek]

Theology does have a place in concert with science when one discusses morals. The reason why is because we are spiritual creatures... even AJ. *Grabs popcorn, sits back, and waits for three pages of arguments*

I'm going to echo ScandalAndy's question and start out asking 'so how would theology help in a scientific discussion'?

Now, I think that we can, in a VERY limited sense, bring a scientific understanding to issues of morality. I will use a couple of examples.

Sexual assault: From an evolutionary point of view, we should expect that women--on average--have a *very* strong preference for choosing who they will be sexual with and under what circumstances. Given the investment any given human woman will make in any given child, she should not want to have sex--with the risk of pregnancy--forced on her under any circumstances. So, we should not expect to find a society that has convinced women that they should *not* resist sexual assault. This does not give us the basis for "don't assault women" it DOES give us the basis for "society should, under no circumstances, tolerate the sexual assault of women".

Slavery: Again, from an evolutionary standpoint we should expect that, all other things being equal, people will see themselves as autonomous agents who have a very strong preference for being able to act as such. Slavery robs people of the ability to act as autonomous agents by making them the property of another person. We should, again, expect anyone in that condition to desire to be free and to take whatever steps are needed to become free. Therefore, we should not expect slavery to be a stable, long-term solution for a society.

Incest taboos: These are, like religion, ubiquitous. Where there are exceptions (almost always amongst nobility) they are notable *because* they are exceptions. Again, we should expect ALL sexually reproducing species to have some built-in mechanism for avoiding sexual contact between close relatives. This may be the closest, of all the examples, to an actual scientific basis for morality but even that doesn't get us quite there. It tells us why human beings have incest taboos it does not tell us that we *must*, just that it is a better deal all around if we do.

Once again, this does NOT get us to "slavery is wrong" it DOES get us to "if your society practices slavery, then it should expect to have a whole host of problems because slavery is not a condition human beings will just accept".

So, the closest science can get us to a moral answer is this: presume that all human beings have a basic human nature. Presume that, left to their own devices, human beings would strongly prefer to be free, to not be subject to violence or violation, and to desire the company of other human beings at least some of the time. We should expect that, on average, parents will prefer their children over some random child they have never met such that if it is a question of giving their child or the random child the last scrap of food the family possess, most parents, most of the time, will give it to their own child. They may feel horrible about doing so, but we should expect that under most circumstances of desperation that is how they will behave.

Now, I've managed to describe a couple of different areas where science can give us insight into the why of a moral rule but it does not tell us how to apply that rule or how to enforce it. Yet, I have not needed, at all, to invoke any kind of theological construct. What could theology add to the *scientific* question? Theology can carry a lot of water of the "if you do X, this or that divine being will be displeased and may punish you" variety but I don't see how it can add anything more than that. Am I missing something?

Cheers
Aj

[atomiczombie]

I did a lot of work in teasing apart the relation of religious and scientific discourse when I was a philosophy student back in the 90's. Briefly, I think you hit the nail dead center, AJ, when you said that it is not the job of scientific language to address issues of religious faith. That isn't its function, yes. There is a lot of confusing of one type of concept for another when talk of an intersection occurs.

I am going to come back at some point hopefully soon (it is pride weekend so there's a lot going on) when I can posit my thoughts more elaborately. I also have some book recommendations to make that really do a great job expounding on this topic.

There are lots of great posts in this thread and I am enjoying reading what you all have to say. :)

[dreadgeek]

Well, this is kind of what I was getting at in a way. If your Da didn't care about the environment (morality) and knowing the repercussions of poor ecological stewardship, your own beliefs wouldn't have been influenced the way they were. That's using morality to influence morality.

I'm saying there's no set of data you can use to measure whether something is more or less moral, more or less worthy of being enforced as a standard. I'd go so far as to say most people believe that killing is wrong, that is a moral judgment. There is no scientific data to back this up, though. That tenet of their personal beliefs is influenced only by opinion and not fact.

Yes, this precisely. The closest I think we can get, using your killing example, is that we should expect that in any given population P, there will be rules about killing and that those rules will be harsher for in-group killing than out-group killing. Can we observe that anywhere? Yes, as a matter of fact we do. From various HGF (hunter-gatherer-fishing) cultures to modern, complex urban societies we see a distinction made. If some bloke goes out, grabs a gun and shoots a random person we call him a murderer. If some other bloke, wearing a uniform, goes out and kills some number of other blokes who are wearing different uniforms, then we call him a soldier. We may even call him a hero. What is the difference? In the first case, the guy did not have sanction but in the second case he did have sanction because in the second case we call it war. Soldiers cannot be charged with killing the enemy in wartime, *provided* that the enemy was shooting back or could be expected to do so. There are very good reasons a given society would strongly prefer that any violent impulses were directed outward rather than inward.


Conversely, depending on your beliefs you can end up on either side of the argument when it comes to something like the "gay gene" mentioned previously. Some people want to prove there is one, others don't. Some people want there to be a cure, others want to prove homosexuality is innate and therefore cannot and/or should not be "cured". You use your personal opinions to decide what you deem "important" research.

I think that the question of what causes homosexuality is an interesting question but I do not think it will, ultimately, make much difference on the issue of rights. At any rate, the way rights are framed in the West is not predicated upon it being genetic or on human beings being identical (i.e. there are no differences between different ethnic groups). Although it is in vogue to say that racism is wrong because race doesn't exist, that doesn't work. To take one example, two or three years ago my doctor diagnosed me with hypertension. When she did my response was "well, that's no big surprise". The reason that was my reaction is that I knew that ~85% of all black Americans will have high blood pressure sometime in middle-age. We are 28% more likely to have high blood pressure than whites and just under 20% more likely than Hispanics and 32% more likely than Chinese Americans. Now, is that entirely genetic? Probably not, some of it is certainly diet and stress. However, since that number just leaps out at you it strongly suggests that there is a genetic component to the issue. Now, if races 'don't exist' how can we even say that blacks are more likely to have high blood pressure than whites, Hispanics or Chinese? We can't.

This can *all* be true without, even for an instant, giving aid or comfort to racist ideologies.

Cheers
Aj

[dreadgeek]

I did a lot of work in teasing apart the relation of religious and scientific discourse when I was a philosophy student back in the 90's. Briefly, I think you hit the nail dead center, AJ, when you said that it is not the job of scientific language to address issues of religious faith. That isn't its function, yes. There is a lot of confusing of one type of concept for another when talk of an intersection occurs.

I am going to come back at some point hopefully soon (it is pride weekend so there's a lot going on) when I can posit my thoughts more elaborately. I also have some book recommendations to make that really do a great job expounding on this topic.

There are lots of great posts in this thread and I am enjoying reading what you all have to say. :)

Okay, before I really have to get into my workday one more thing:

Ironically, when I am drawing these demarcation lines I am doing my best to both respect AND protect religion. I know the power of the scientific method and I know it's limitations (both imposed from within and from without). The problem I see, for religion, is when it tries to insert itself into scientific discussions. I'm not talking about religious *scientists*, I'm talking about, for example, creationism or New Age interpretations of quantum mechanics.

The minute someone says "my <insert divine being here> created the Universe and all things within it and this explanation supersedes any explanation from biology" then I think it is fair to then evaluate that statement on the scientific merits just like we would any *other* scientific statement. It is not enough to just say "this theory is wrong". That gets you nowhere in the physical sciences. You have to also be able to say "this is WHY it is wrong and here is why this alternative theory better explains the data". This is where sectarians of various stripes get themselves stuck in a morass. In order to justify why the religious explanation is a better explanation, that particular bit of dogma has to go through the meat-grinder of scientific questioning. To take just one example (against staying in biology since that is where I am most comfortable).

In sexually reproducing mammals, the gender ratio is slightly favoring males (e.g. slightly more males are born than females). This is true even for species that have a 'winner take all' or 'winner take most' breeding system. For instance elephant seals have a winner take most system. That means that a bull has near exclusive breeding rights in his colony. He will defend those breeding rights, sometimes risking life and limb. Other males will attempt to best the bull so that they can breed or try to get a little seal sumthin-sumthin on the side taking quite a bit of risk either way. What that means is that the VAST majority of male elephant seals will never breed. Isn't that kind of wasteful? Why would an intelligent entity keep the sex ratio close to 50/50 when most males aren't going to breed?

Now, from a gene's-eye point of view it makes perfect sense to maintain that sex ratio. Why? Because nature doesn't care about 'wasted' genes. Sure, if you are a male elephant seal you may not breed but if you *do* breed boy will your genes spread so from that point of view being a male elephant seal has the potential for a fantastic genetic payoff--if only you can become the bull.

Do religious sectarians really want us asking questions like "why does your deity waste so many male genes" or "why does your deity prefer digger wasps over caterpillars"? I think most likely they would prefer we *not* ask those questions but the moment it is stated that the particular story that religion tells to explain why there are things like digger wasps or caterpillars they open their beliefs to just that kind of questioning.

Cheers
Aj

[julieisafemme]

Yes. All of this is exactly what I teach in my home. I absolutely agree that many of the anecdotes found in the bible, the myths of various cultures have their basis in the need for early humans/human cultures to explain the phenomena around them that could not otherwise be explained. They were insecure and scared - thunder? Lightning? What the hell was going on?! Specific anecdotes from the bible, the burning bush and the parting of the the Red Sea, for example, can now be explained in factual terms. And, of course, fear of the unknown is an early, and continuing, method of creating a power structure.


See but this is the problem. The Torah can be interpreted many ways because it is a metaphor. There is no need to explain things in factual terms unless you want to read it literally. In fact that is kind of a bummer.

Here is a good article by my rabbi. It talks about exactly what you guys are discussing here in the tension between science and religion and evolution. Maybe it will be interesting. Sorry to butt in!

http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/2000/01/The-River-Of-Blood-Exodus-62-935.aspx?p=1

[dreadgeek]

See but this is the problem. The Torah can be interpreted many ways because it is a metaphor. There is no need to explain things in factual terms unless you want to read it literally. In fact that is kind of a bummer.

Here is a good article by my rabbi. It talks about exactly what you guys are discussing here in the tension between science and religion and evolution. Maybe it will be interesting. Sorry to butt in!

http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/2000/01/The-River-Of-Blood-Exodus-62-935.aspx?p=1

However, those who seek to read Torah as a history book, or worse, as a science primer, may well miss the spiritual significance of the text.
Fundamentalists and other Biblical literalists often pounce on naturalistic explanations of Torah events, such as the Red Tide, as "proof" that the Bible "really happened," and thus possesses authority even beyond that of profound religious and moral instruction.


Yes, this exactly. As long as sectarians of various stripes do not try to rope science into 'proving' that their holy book is the actual factual account of how things really work or went down, then I am perfectly happy for them to believe what they wish. As Jefferson put it, it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket. If, however, the demarcation lines get crossed then I think that it is absolutely in bounds to play by the rules of the house. If we are having a topic on some question that is clearly in the realm of the sciences (how do stars burn, why are there birds, etc.) then the house rules are those of science. If we are having a discussion about this or that point about the nature of the afterlife, then the house rules may be that of one or more religion.

What I'm not comfortable with is special pleading. Religious rules applied to scientific questions without having to worry about scientific questions being applied to religious statements. If a Christian and a Hindu are talking about this or that point of theology, there's no need for science to be invoked. It has no place there and if either partisan invokes science I think it should be called out of bounds OR they should concede that the rules have just changed and now they're playing by the house rules of science.

So yes, what your rabbi said, exactly. I would apply that up and down the line. It applies to New Age invocations of quantum mechanics or chaos theory or relativity theory and it applies to Christian fundamentalist creationism. Trust me when I say that most scientists I know and have ever met would just as soon NOT be dragged into conversations about whether this or that god is strict or not.

Cheers
Aj

[Mister Bent]

See but this is the problem. The Torah can be interpreted many ways because it is a metaphor. There is no need to explain things in factual terms unless you want to read it literally. In fact that is kind of a bummer.

Here is a good article by my rabbi. It talks about exactly what you guys are discussing here in the tension between science and religion and evolution. Maybe it will be interesting. Sorry to butt in!

http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/2000/01/The-River-Of-Blood-Exodus-62-935.aspx?p=1

Yes, that's precisely the point. It shouldn't be read literally. But try explaining that to the fundamentalists.

Thanks for the link - off to read.

[julieisafemme]

Here are some more science and religion articles from The Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences. They do a lot to further the conversation.

http://www.ctns.org/about.html

[dreadgeek]

Evolution is an elegant theory. By elegant I mean it in the way that mathematicians, engineers, scientists and hackers mean it--a solution that is subtle, powerful and no more complicated than it need be to do the job. On paper, it is a very simple theory. In practice it is fiendishly subtle. It also has very wide-ranging implications.

A few months ago, I read an article (that I wish I'd clipped to my electronic scrapbook) about farmers in, I believe, Alabama who were battling some pest or another. They were expressing surprise that this pest, which they thought some pesticide or another had all but eradicated, had come back with a vengeance and was now all but immune to the pesticide in question. This was, perhaps, the most poignant example of what not understanding evolution looks like. Evolution *predicts* that we should see exactly that kind of thing happen.

I'm going to terminate this post because I think that it might be interesting--and worthwhile--to post a general statement about evolution but that will take some time. Stay tuned.



I normally don't quote myself but I wanted to have that above to explain why this subject came up. This is no substitute for reading a good treatment on the subject, but to understand why so many people get so mystified or flummoxed about people denying evolutionary biology on religious grounds, it's kind of necessary to explain why evolution is such a core part of modern biology.

Everyone is, I'm sure, aware that Charles Darwin is the name most attached to evolution. It's even called Darwinism or Darwinian theory. I won't belabor talking about Darwin there's plenty of good material on him. But what did he actually say. What follows is a condensation of a very subtle and elegant theory. I've stripped out everything I think is extraneous. But follow the logic and you will see why I call the theory subtle, beautiful and elegant.

Evolution in a nutshell:

1) Left to their own devices, meaning that absent predation or disease and with unlimited resources any population will tend to increase in a geometric fashion (e.g. 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128...). As you can see numbers start to get really big really fast. If populations *actually* increased geometrically then we should not be surprised if the planet were populated by nothing but, say, elephants.

2) We don't live on a planet populated by nothing but elephants so there must be *some* check on the growth of populations. Those checks come in the form of predation, accident, disease and starvation.

3) Not every member of a population goes on to have offspring. This is because many die before they can manage to reproduce.

4) When sexual species reproduce the offspring is like but not identical to its parents.

5) If the parents have some trait that helps them survive a little better and they pass that trait on to their offspring, then they will survive a little better than those around them who may lack that trait.

6) Over time, these small, incremental changes in genes accumulate.

7) If a population becomes reproductively isolated and the environment is such that other adaptations may become advantageous they will tend to diverge from the founding population. If enough time passes then the two groups may not be able to interbreed if they come in contact later. They have become two different species.

8) Over very long periods of time, these accumulated changes are responsible for the diversity of species we see.

That is pretty much the theory in a nutshell.

I find it useful to invoke analogy so I'm going to ask you to come play in a toy world for a few minutes. In this world there are cats and there are mice. Let us call them average-cat and fast-cat. Let us say that, on average, for every five mice a cat goes after it gets two. That is average-cat's performance. Fast-cat, however, is a *tiny* bit faster than average-cat. She is able to catch three of five mice. Fast-cat and average-cat both get impregnated by the same Tom who also carries the gene that makes fast-cat a little bit faster than average-cat. But the gene is recessive. In order for average-cat to pass it on she needs a copy of the gene too but she doesn't have it. Her kittens will also be average. Let's say that the average litter size for these cats is four of which one kitten has a better than 50% chance of dying so the average number of kittens that live to reproduce is 3. Now, fast-cat, because she eats a little better than average-cat has five kittens. She also loses one of her kittens but that means she has four kittens instead of three. Let us say that of those four, they *all* inherit the gene for fastness. That means that, all other things being equal, the offspring of fast-cat will have more descendants than average-cat. Over time, genes for being a fast cat will become dominant in that population. This will now set the bar for the new 'average' cat.

Now, you might be wondering "okay, if this is true, Aj, then why don't cats move the speed of light". The reason is straightforward, after a certain point it just is no longer cost-effective to build a faster cat body. So cat speed is not being driven infinitely upwards. It's like the old joke about you and someone else running from a bear, the goal isn't to be faster than the bear, the goal is to be faster than the other person.

At the same time that the cats are spreading genes for being fast, the mice are in an evolutionary arms race with the cats. The mice don't want to be eaten, so any genes that help mice live a little bit longer so they can reproduce will, again, tend to become dominant in a species. If something changes for *either* mice or cats that effects how well the cats eat and how long the mice avoid being eaten, if it can be passed down it will be.

So, at some point, fast-cat winds up on an island where there are mice and birds. Average-cat stays on the mainland. Let's now introduce not just birds but coyotes. Coyotes go after cats. On the mainland it helps to be small so you can get up or in things quickly. Not *too* small but about the size of a house cat. On the island, however, there's nothing to predate on the cats. So they can start getting larger. At some point, a population goes across a river while it is dry and then it returns. Over time, the two cat populations diverge. One population becomes larger, the other population stays the same size. After a while, the larger cats begin to predate on the smaller cats because mice and birds just aren't cutting it for something the size of, say, a lynx.

That is evolutionary thinking in action. Does nature work this way? Yes. I built an overly simple toy world because the details are not important. It is just to give you an idea of what kind of explanatory power evolutionary theory has. Subtle, beautiful, elegant and powerful.

If we keep gaming out our toy world long enough to get a species that begins asking questions about the cats, at first glance it might seem incredible that something the size of a house cat gave rise to something the size of a mountain lion. It didn't all at once, but little tiny forcings due to conditions make it possible to grow a larger body.

Look around you. Look at your cats and your dog. Look at the plants in your garden. All around you are survival machines designed by genes.

Cheers
Aj

[citybutch]

Was sitting here thinking AJ... and it came to mind (I would love your response to this) that perhaps one of the great differences between a spiritual understanding of the world around us and a scientific one is that in science the question is how and yet in a spiritual sense we want to know why. Science sees the patterns that allow us to predict... but at the same time the randomness of creation and life... i.e. certain events had to have happened in order for life to exist.

Thoughts?

[imperfect_cupcake]

Aj you wrote:

So my construction is not 'humans are xenophobic and therefore we can do nothing about racism'. Rather it is 'humans are xenophobic, racism is just a special case of xenophobia, therefore we are going to have to work hard as both individuals and as a civilization to give racism no haven or quarter in our lives, in our laws, or in our institutions. It will be hard work because we are fighting a somewhat uphill battle but it is doable.'

and I'm just using this because it's the crux. And as a primatologist, I actually do agree with the above statement .... BUT then I'm agreeing to a principle statement that genes can be overcome and then we get back to the "gay gene" again. "you could help being gay if you really tried hard enough" thing. Honestly? yeah, I could. I could be semi-miserable in a marriage with someone and be monogamous and be damply unfulfilled but function ok. But again yes, as you said below, it's two different issues - the gene and the moral value of the behaviour.

I do recall a petition that was sent around the globe through the journal of primatology, back in... 95? 96? that yes, they all agreed humans had xenophobic biology for certain group reasons but that it was no fucking excuse for shitty behaviour (A mate of mine tried to leave vietnam and the horror she experienced was unfathomable, even in her experience with globe trotting quite a bit and being a black masculine looking lesbian). I forget who they sent the signed results to, several countries I believe. I doubt it made any impact.

but then, if I agree to it...it's no excuse for being gay.

and I do utterly agree with

I understand why people in the gay community want their to be a genetic basis for homosexuality but it does not buy us what many people think it does.

and your example is exactly why.

I suppose my beef is more in how the "message" gets twisted by people to suit their argument. I find almost all science reporting in newspapers rather upsetting for that reason.

and for that reason, I can empathise with people who follow spiritual teachings but get the lessons "bent" by the teachers and how fucked off they must feel about it. How the responsibility to the twisted message of assholes seem to lay at the feet of those that have nothing to do with what's being twisted - but still are under the same "label group". I'm wording poorly. excuse me if that's not clear.

probably why the non-hierarchical/philosophical teachings had more interest for me in study. not here or there though. just a random comment.

[imperfect_cupcake]

Was sitting here thinking AJ... and it came to mind (I would love your response to this) that perhaps one of the great differences between a spiritual understanding of the world around us and a scientific one is that in science the question is how and yet in a spiritual sense we want to know why. Science sees the patterns that allow us to predict... but at the same time the randomness of creation and life... i.e. certain events had to have happened in order for life to exist.

Thoughts?

well, for me - I know you asked aj but I'm going to answer too - the magic thing that makes me feel all the beauty/wonder is that for me... there *is* no why. it just... is. It has it's own inherent value just for the same meaninglessness as the next thing. A cockroach is as different from a human as a cougar. for me there is no why. *I* get to invent the why, for me. it's up to me to give my own life purpose and meaning. That's a big fat responsibility.

sometimes, I'm not up to the task, lemme tell you. But most of the time, I am.

and in that, I do get a sense of "spirituality" in the sense of the word meaning "a sense of wonder and beauty and feeling of unity and smallness/humility all in one." for me spirit doesn't have to mean supernatural or other worldy. it's a concept word for me that I "get" the translation of. I don't mind it being applied.

[imperfect_cupcake]

It applies to New Age invocations of quantum mechanics or chaos theory or relativity theory

* SHRIEK* sorry but that really gets on my tits. I once watched a 3.5 hour movie on just that called What the bleep do we know (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know!%3F) and it is the loss of those 3.5 hours out of my life is something I mourn heavily. I'm pretty non-judgemental when it comes to beliefs but some things I just can't take.

Granted I have The Tao of Physics, but I actually didn't find that book flakey or unreasonable.

[imperfect_cupcake]

* SHRIEK* sorry but that really gets on my tits. I once watched a 3.5 hour movie on just that called What the bleep do we know (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know!%3F) and it is the loss of those 3.5 hours out of my life is something I mourn heavily. I'm pretty non-judgemental when it comes to beliefs but some things I just can't take.

Granted I have The Tao of Physics, but I actually didn't find that book flakey or unreasonable.

I f*cked up that last sentance. I didn't find the book that flakey (meaning a touch) or too unreasonable (meaning for 1974. despite new advances each reprint has not been updated and I find that a bit suspect as some of the particle theory has moved on to better theory). But it does state in the epilogue "Physicists do not need mysticism, and mystics do not need physics, but humanity needs both" so I did find the read interesting and far less offensive than the WTFDWK movie

[Toughy]

* SHRIEK* sorry but that really gets on my tits. I once watched a 3.5 hour movie on just that called What the bleep do we know (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know!%3F) and it is the loss of those 3.5 hours out of my life is something I mourn heavily. I'm pretty non-judgemental when it comes to beliefs but some things I just can't take.

Granted I have The Tao of Physics, but I actually didn't find that book flakey or unreasonable.


The Secret gets my tits also. The book and the movie. Oprah made it a success and it just was a waste of time.

[Okiebug61]

I have always thought of science as one big experiment with we humans being the G Pigs. When compared to secular religion IMO there is not much difference between the two.

Go ask Alice!

[Andrew, Jr.]

Science comes to a end conclusion after repeated testing. Data can be repeated, and the theories can change. Also, with the new research being done and clinical trials science changes each and every day.

I believe that as human beings we all have common sense to some degree - some more than others (think of those who are mentally ill, have head injuries, or have other health issues). So for the most part, most folks can reason out any decision that needs to be made should the situation come about.

We all also must consider each person has their own perceptions, own belief system, and own priorities. Not everyone will ever answer the same when faced with say a terminal illness.

[Toughy]

secular religion

huh??? I'm confused. secular means not connected with/to any religion

[Okiebug61]

huh??? I'm confused. secular means not connected with/to any religion

Secular religion is a term used to describe ideas, theories or philosophies which involve no spiritual component yet possess qualities similar to those of a religion. Such qualities include such things as dogma, a system of indoctrination, the prescription of an absolute code of conduct, an ideologically tailored creation story and end-times narrative, designated enemies, and unquestioning devotion to a higher authority. The secular religion operates in a secular society by filling a role which would be satisfied by a church or another religious authority.

Does this help? I was trying to point out that science has a way of not being connected to any specific thing yet has many ideas that are adopted by followers. IE: Believing a pill will cure an ill without really any specific determination that you have the illness. Putting us in the G Pig realm.

[dreadgeek]

I have always thought of science as one big experiment with we humans being the G Pigs. When compared to secular religion IMO there is not much difference between the two.

Go ask Alice!

Hmmm...if you don't mind my asking a couple of questions because I'm a bit mystified by both of your statements.

How are human beings the guinea pigs in, say, high-energy particle physics? Or, for that matter, materials science or nanotechnology?

Also, what do you mean by "secular religion". By definition, unless you are using it in a ironic or cynical manner, religions are not secular they are sectarian. Also, where in religion do you see ANY process remotely like the following:

1) Find interesting thing about the world.
2) Start asking questions about how that thing works.
3) Form hypothesis to explain how that thing works.
4) Test hypothesis either by experiment or observation.
5) Fully document your findings so that others can repeat the process. Check to see if they came up with the same or, at least, similar answers.
6) If your hypothesis is not in agreement with experiment or observation, or if your results cannot be duplicated adjust hypothesis to see if you can bring it into line with reality. If no, abandon hypothesis and start over again at step 3. Continue repeating until a provisionally satisfactory answer is found.
7) Publish findings.
8) Have others look at your findings and see if they can repeat experiment or observation.
9) Continue iterating through the preceding steps.

I'm sorry but I can think of no religion that even gets in the ballpark of that so if you dont' mind, can you explain how it is that you do not see any significant difference between science and religion? Thank you.

Cheers
Aj

[dreadgeek]

Secular religion is a term used to describe ideas, theories or philosophies which involve no spiritual component yet possess qualities similar to those of a religion. Such qualities include such things as dogma, a system of indoctrination, the prescription of an absolute code of conduct, an ideologically tailored creation story and end-times narrative, designated enemies, and unquestioning devotion to a higher authority. The secular religion operates in a secular society by filling a role which would be satisfied by a church or another religious authority.


I can think of several examples of a secular religion (Ayn Randian Objectivism leaps to mind here as well as American Exceptionalism) but science is not a particularly good example of a secular religion.


Does this help?

No.


I was trying to point out that science has a way of not being connected to any specific thing yet has many ideas that are adopted by followers. IE: Believing a pill will cure an ill without really any specific determination that you have the illness. Putting us in the G Pig realm.

You are talking about medical marketing, not science. You may even be talking about the practice of medicine with health as a commodity, but you are still not talking about *science*. Science and technology are not the same things. What you are describing is pharmaceuticals developing a drug for illness A, determining that the drug will actually help people with symptom B even though it is not connected to illness A, and since people expressing symptom B greatly outnumber those with illness A, marketing to those with symptom B (see Viagra, for a canonical example of this).

However, you are still not talking about *science*, you are talking about *marketing*.

How are human beings a guinea pig in, for instance, searching for gravitons (the particle that is hypothesized to carry the force of gravity)?

Cheers
Aj

[dreadgeek]

Was sitting here thinking AJ... and it came to mind (I would love your response to this) that perhaps one of the great differences between a spiritual understanding of the world around us and a scientific one is that in science the question is how and yet in a spiritual sense we want to know why. Science sees the patterns that allow us to predict... but at the same time the randomness of creation and life... i.e. certain events had to have happened in order for life to exist.

Thoughts?

For the most part I agree with the first part. I think that science deals very well with how questions and a limited set of why questions. For example, science can deal with the question "why do we die" it cannot deal with the question "knowing that I will die, why should I live". Religion deals with a different set of why questions having to do with ultimate meaning. For better or worse, science is not tooled-up to handle ultimate meaning questions.

As far as your last part about certain events having had to happen in order for life to exist, I think that is an artifact of our perceiving our existence as somehow special. For example, in order for me to exist my parents had to have been born, had to live long enough to meet, have sex at least once, and then my mother had to live long enough to give birth to me. It would be tempting to look at that chain of events and conclude that since I am here (obviously) all those events came to pass and *therefore* there must be some great cosmic meaning or force that caused it to happen. Put another way, I could look at my parent's life as having happened so *that* I could come into existence.

I think we do something similar with the Universe. I know that a great deal is made about the perfect set of conditions that (allegedly) have to obtain in order for life to exist on this planet but some of that stuff is just an artifact of looking for specialness where it may not exist. For example, I've heard people say on numerous occasions that if the Earth were ten feet or ten miles in either direction then life wouldn't be possible. Except that is entirely wrong. Our orbit is not a circle, it is an elipsis so by definition we vary in our position relative to the Sun. It is certainly more variance than 10 miles (the distance between Earth at its closest point and at its farthest point varies by ~3 million miles!). The biozone (habitable zone) around Sol may be as close to the Sun as Venus orbit and possibly as far out as Mars' orbit. That gives a lot of variance.

Yes, some of the constants of the Universe appear very finely tuned and if they had slightly different values we wouldn't be here. But the fact that they have the values makes our existence possible, it does not mean that those values *had* to be where they are. Just that if we were going to be there, they had to be what they are.

Does that make sense?

Cheers
Aj

[Okiebug61]

Hmmm...if you don't mind my asking a couple of questions because I'm a bit mystified by both of your statements.

How are human beings the guinea pigs in, say, high-energy particle physics? Or, for that matter, materials science or nanotechnology?

Also, what do you mean by "secular religion". By definition, unless you are using it in a ironic or cynical manner, religions are not secular they are sectarian. Also, where in religion do you see ANY process remotely like the following:

1) Find interesting thing about the world.
2) Start asking questions about how that thing works.
3) Form hypothesis to explain how that thing works.
4) Test hypothesis either by experiment or observation.
5) Fully document your findings so that others can repeat the process. Check to see if they came up with the same or, at least, similar answers.
6) If your hypothesis is not in agreement with experiment or observation, or if your results cannot be duplicated adjust hypothesis to see if you can bring it into line with reality. If no, abandon hypothesis and start over again at step 3. Continue repeating until a provisionally satisfactory answer is found.
7) Publish findings.
8) Have others look at your findings and see if they can repeat experiment or observation.
9) Continue iterating through the preceding steps.

I'm sorry but I can think of no religion that even gets in the ballpark of that so if you dont' mind, can you explain how it is that you do not see any significant difference between science and religion? Thank you.

Cheers
Aj

Hi Dreadgeek,

Your thoughts are cool and I totally respect them. I just have to say that my beliefs are way different than yours. I think we have come to a crossroads that will only stray from the conversation of this post if I continue to answer your questions. I certainly do not want to get in a who's right and wrong about science and religion. Thanks for opening my mind to different thoughts regarding both.

Peace!

[ScandalAndy]

I just want to state that I am thoroughly enjoying the responses and how respectful everyone is being although this has the potential to be an incredibly touchy subject. Thank you all for presenting your points respectfully, and taking the time to process what we each have to say.

[dreadgeek]

Hi Dreadgeek,

Your thoughts are cool and I totally respect them. I just have to say that my beliefs are way different than yours. I think we have come to a crossroads that will only stray from the conversation of this post if I continue to answer your questions. I certainly do not want to get in a who's right and wrong about science and religion. Thanks for opening my mind to different thoughts regarding both.

Peace!

As you will. I regret that you choose not to expound on your interesting take on this matter. I think it would have been fascinating to get some insight into your take on humans as guinea pigs in physics or, for that matter, any of the historical sciences. Alas, I guess we'll never know.

Cheers
Aj

[Toughy]

Secular religion is a term used to describe ideas, theories or philosophies which involve no spiritual component yet possess qualities similar to those of a religion. Such qualities include such things as dogma, a system of indoctrination, the prescription of an absolute code of conduct, an ideologically tailored creation story and end-times narrative, designated enemies, and unquestioning devotion to a higher authority. The secular religion operates in a secular society by filling a role which would be satisfied by a church or another religious authority.

Does this help? I was trying to point out that science has a way of not being connected to any specific thing yet has many ideas that are adopted by followers. IE: Believing a pill will cure an ill without really any specific determination that you have the illness. Putting us in the G Pig realm.

Actually it does not help based what you said after the definition. I'm with Aj in that I would love for you to clarify this more. I'm not sure talking about western medicine is a useful comparision.

[dreadgeek]

* SHRIEK* sorry but that really gets on my tits. I once watched a 3.5 hour movie on just that called What the bleep do we know (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know!%3F) and it is the loss of those 3.5 hours out of my life is something I mourn heavily. I'm pretty non-judgemental when it comes to beliefs but some things I just can't take.

Granted I have The Tao of Physics, but I actually didn't find that book flakey or unreasonable.

I saw that movie, mistakenly believing that it was a feature-length treatment of Brian Greene's brilliant book "The Elegant Universe". Boy was I wrong!

To give you a taste of just how painful that movie was for me, I will borrow from Douglas Adams description of Vogon poetry.

"...During a recitation by their Poet Master Grunthos the Flatulent of his poem "Ode to a Small Lump of Green Putty I Found in My Armpit One Midsummer Morning" four of his audience died of internal hemmoraging, and the President of the Mid-Galactic Arts Nobbling Council survived by gnawing one of is own legs off."

It was horrible. It was painful. It was a complete bastardization of the physics.

It is ironic that my introduction into Quantum Mechanics was Fritjof Capra. I read that, then Taking the Quantum Leap, then the Dancing Wu-Li Masters. Then I happened to pick up a book on QM that was not written from a 'spiritual' point of view and fell in love. Here was a description of the science that made the more New Age rendition of that same material fade into ugliness by comparison. The fact that the universe just works this way and it plays out without any apparent interference from an supernatural entity is just awe inspiring to me.

I wrote a paper about the New Age misuse of QM a while back and made myself read and watch The Secret (if I'm going to criticize something, I should at least familiarize myself with the subject matter. I wish more people who are critical of science would do the same). One of the things I find most disturbing is the whole idea of "we create our own reality". I understand that this is supposed to be a 'kinder, gentler' world view but I find it callous. As callous as the kind of Ayn Rand Objectivism philosophy beloved of free market fundamentalists. Typically, when people are talking the 'we create our own reality' line, they are doing so from a relative position of privilege. I think that any of these philosophies should be viewed not from the point of view of someone in comfort but someone in great distress.

The example I always use (and anyone can find their own) is that of a young child whose mom and dad worked above the 100th floor of WTC 1 and WTC 2, who never came home the evening of 11 Sept. Now, according to the The Secret, anything that happens to us is something we attracted. So either this young child attracted the death of her parents or her parents attracted orphaning of their child. What could possibly be more callous than that? One can look anywhere on the planet where misery is a constant companion and one will be moved to ask "so what did that person, this three year old born into a war zone in Sudan" attract here? If we view things that way then there's really no need to feel compelled to do anything to alleviate their suffering. I mean, if you are suffering in a universe that will give you whatever you wish just for the asking and visualizing then your misery is your own. That sounds neither kinder nor gentler to me and yet it is an inescapable conclusion of the logic of The Secret.

Cheers
Aj

[imperfect_cupcake]

As callous as the kind of Ayn Rand Objectivism philosophy beloved of free market fundamentalists. Typically, when people are talking the 'we create our own reality' line, they are doing so from a relative position of privilege. I think that any of these philosophies should be viewed not from the point of view of someone in comfort but someone in great distress.

you might be really interested in a new BBC series put out called "watched over by machines of loving grace" that I loved. I agreed with a lot of the principle statements the writer of the series was making, but I didn't quite agree with the full conclusion at the end. But I really did empathise why he thought that way and it was and interesting take. here's the synopsis for the first episode:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b011k45f

if you go to the right in the box you'll see the link to the other episodes. Try googling the names of the episodes, you might be lucky to find a torrent for them.

As for Douglas Adams (one of my favorite authors) and his invention of vogon poetry... yes. I agree. what made it worse was the cartoon of the double slit experiment was a great explanation in lay terms. Like you, I thought it was going to be something about real QM. gosh, it was a horrific discovery as the realisation came through, wasn't it!

I feel very sorry for one of the scientists who later had to claim over and over that they twisted and took out of context everything he said to support their claims. Imagine the piss-take at work when people find out?

[/tangential aside for scientific pity]

I just went to Uncaged Monkeys in oxford with Prof Brian Cox, Ben Goldacher (whos blog on debunking shitty science journalism I strongly suggest for a read if you haven't read him already) and Simon Sing. It was really fun and I loved it but Prof Cox's collegues really took the piss out of him in front of the audience because he's a giganto sex symbol here. I was suprised no one threw their panties on stage. They kept picking the inappropriate questions from women in the audience sent in by text for the Q&A session like "what colour boxers is prof cox wearing" etc. The MC then said, after Cox very patiently declined the questions and exited stage left for the next section in the show, "Thank you audience. Later, Professor Cox will be pole dancing." Ok. I snorted at that one. But poor bastard.

[Okiebug61]

As you will. I regret that you choose not to expound on your interesting take on this matter. I think it would have been fascinating to get some insight into your take on humans as guinea pigs in physics or, for that matter, any of the historical sciences. Alas, I guess we'll never know.

Cheers
Aj

I am just too much of a free thinking hippy to even try to engage my brain in this type of discussion. You are a very intelligent and well spoken person and I think that's cool. Me I'm thinking about retirement and how I can make that happen 17 years early. :-)

[dreadgeek]

you might be really interested in a new BBC series put out called "watched over by machines of loving grace" that I loved. I agreed with a lot of the principle statements the writer of the series was making, but I didn't quite agree with the full conclusion at the end. But I really did empathise why he thought that way and it was and interesting take. here's the synopsis for the first episode:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b011k45f



Several things leap to mind and I am going to have to watch this series. Hopefully the BBC will stream it.

This particularly caught me, "A series of films about how humans have been colonised by the machines they have built. Although we don't realise it, the way we see everything in the world today is through the eyes of the computers."

This reminded me of the following:

“In the game of life and evolution there are three players at the
table: human beings, nature, and machines. I am firmly on the side of
nature. But nature, I suspect, is on the side of the machines.”

(George Dyson -- Darwin Among the Machines)

Which then reminded me of this article, written 11 years ago by a very clever man named Bill Joy (he created Java) called "Why the Future Doesn't Need Us" (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html?pg=1&topic=&topic_set=)

Cheers
Aj

[Toughy]

I am just too much of a free thinking hippy to even try to engage my brain in this type of discussion. You are a very intelligent and well spoken person and I think that's cool. Me I'm thinking about retirement and how I can make that happen 17 years early. :-)

Okie please........I have no idea what a 'free thinking hippy' looks like or thinks. No one is asking you to express yourself in Aj's or my terms. We are asking you for clarification of what you said.

As to retirement......it is ever on my mind.....I face the 62 or 65 question in 3 years, not 17 years. However there are many things ever on my mind. I multi-task every day.

Frankly I think you are very capable of multi-tasking. I wish you would. I want to understand what you are saying. I don't at this point.

I spent years in the western medicine clinical trial world as a community representative. I could only represent the community when I understood what they were thinking. I don't understand what you mean by guinea pig. If you really think all western medicine is treating human beings as G-pigs, then I want to understand why you think that. I want to know how much you know about how the FDA and how clinical trial mechanisms work. I want to know your knowledge base and how you arrived at the G-pig conclusion.

And then there are the questions about how you define science and what you mean by saying science makes people G pigs.

Help me understand.....or not and I will draw my conclusions based on less that useful information.

[atomiczombie]

Ok I am finally back. As I said previously, I did some work on this back in the 90s during my college years. In 1997 I wrote a paper for a course on Ludvig Wittgenstein that speaks to the ideas brought up in this thread. I am going to copy it here in 2 parts because it is too long to fit in one post! lol

Religious Beliefs and Their Justification:
A Wittgensteinian Approach

It was not too long ago that I was talking with someone about my belief in God, and she said to me, “I just can’t believe that God exists––it just doesn’t seem probable.” This remark is representative of a certain kind of attitude among those who are ‘educated’ and feel they are too smart to fall into superstitious beliefs such as belief in the Christian God. It is framed in such a way as to suggest that the belief in God is based on evidence, and inadequate evidence at that. Degrees of probability are based on the amount of and/or quality of evidence.

To understand how Christian faith might be related to evidence and degrees of probability, it will be helpful to look at a specific claim in the New Testament of the Bible. St. Paul writes:

Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2) For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. 3) For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and to deal with sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4) so that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

Are the claims that Paul makes in Romans 8 believed on the basis of inadequate evidence? Are these claims subject to degrees of probability? Is every believer someone who simply has not examined the evidence carefully enough and attributes more credibility to it than is warranted? If that is so, then Paul is really saying, “There is now, probably, no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. All things considered, it is highly likely, that the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and death. It is Jesus who, all the relevant data indicates, died, yes, was almost unquestionably raised and who we have the supporting evidence to assert with a high degree of probability indeed intercedes for us.”

It seems inappropriate to interpret Paul in this way. It is, of course, not the way Christians interpret Paul’s Epistles. It does not make any sense to attach degrees of probability to the claims that Paul is making, but must that mean that there is no such thing as “giving reasons” for these claims? Certainly not. What it does mean is that evidence and degrees of probability cannot be reasons why someone holds religious beliefs because those kinds of reasons have no relevance in the context in which religious beliefs arise.

This brings us to the question of what would qualify as reasons in a religious context. But before this question can be answered, we must deal with the larger question of how contexts influence the relevance of reasons. Some concepts from the philosophy of Ludwig Wittgenstein will be helpful in understanding how this kind of influence works.

In his Philosophical Investigations, Wittgenstein pointed out the fact that language seems to be connected with the way we live and there is a certain constancy in the use of language among speakers which is connected with the context in which it is used. Constancy in the use of language suggests that there are implicit rules governing how language can be used if it is to be meaningful, just as there are rules which govern how a game can be played. This observation is what led Wittgenstein to describe the language that is tied up with the various activities of our lives, “language games.”

A language game is an activity where words and actions are interwoven according to certain implicit rules. Each language game is imbedded in and tied up with what Wittgenstein called a “form of life.” A form of life is a set of conventional activities that seem to go together. For example, reporting the news, giving a lecture, greeting a friend, telling a joke, making a confession, performing scientific research, being interviewed for a job, etc., are all examples of forms of life. The language people use in connection with and as a part of these and other such activities is the language game. Language games are part of life insofar as they are inextricably linked with the way we live. Wittgenstein introduced the concepts of language games and forms of life to help make clear how language works in connection with our lives.

Wittgenstein also said that the meaning of our language is connected with the context in which it is used. For example, generally speaking, if it is said that performing a certain act is “good,” it could also be said that it is an act that “should” or “ought” to be done. These concepts are loosely connected in what might be called the domain of moral concepts or discourse. Simply because the meaning of these words, when used in certain circumstances, has a moral sense does not mean that all other uses are derivations or corruptions. One could say, “A good way to avoid a sunburn is to wear sunscreen.” This use of the word “good” is perfectly meaningful, but not from a moral perspective because the word is not being used in a moral way. It might be called an “instrumental” or “prudential” use of the word “good.” In contrast, in a sentence such as, “It is good to help a neighbor in distress,” the word “good” does function in a moral way. The context in which it is used determines whether “good” is meant in the moral sense or in some other way.

We ask “What does ‘I am frightened’ really mean, what am I referring to when I say it?” And of course we find no answer, or one that is inadequate.
The question is: “In what sort of context does it occur?”


Here Wittgenstein is directing us to look for the meaning of a word or phrase in the context in which it is used. This understanding of meaning leaves open the possibility that the same words and phrases can have very different meanings depending on the context. The meaning of all our words and phrases is inextricably linked with the context in which they are used. “It is good to help a neighbor in distress.” If someone says this while having a discussion about whether to stop and assist an elderly person who has fallen in the street, then non-prudential moral reasons will be required if further support is needed, such as, “It wouldn’t be right to just walk on by. What if that were one of our grandparents?” Furthermore, if the comment about helping a neighbor is made in the context of a discussion about how to deal with depression during the holidays, then non-moral prudential reasons are what is called for, such as, “Helping others with their problems is a useful way to forget your own.”

What counts as a good reason for believing an assertion depends upon the meaning of that assertion, and the meaning depends upon the context in which it is made. This is what Wittgenstein was talking about when he said:

All testing, all confirmation [i.e., reason-giving] and disconfirmation of a hypothesis takes place already within a system. And this system is not a more or less arbitrary and doubtful point of departure for all arguments: no, it belongs to the essence of what we call an argument. The system is not so much the point of departure, as the element in which arguments have their life.

What Wittgenstein means here is that if one is looking for a context-free justification for, say, moral or religious actions and beliefs, such a search will be in vain. The meaning of a claim does not stand alone. It is connected with a ruled activity which is based on a certain constancy in language and practice (or as Wittgenstein put it, a system)––which is to say that it is rooted in the context of a form of life and the language game that goes with it. It is the context, with its implicit rules, which determines what will count as support for a claim.

The reason St. Paul gave for his claim, in Romans 8:1, that, “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” is in the next verse: “The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus had set you free from the law of sin and death.” Paul went further in his explanation in verses three and four. Here it can be seen that these assertions are part of a whole string of assertions that are related to each other logically and which Paul assumes his readers understand, such as the justice of God and its relation to human sin, what constitutes sin and its role in human nature, etc. This string of assertions which are logically related are what can be described as a religious system of reasoning, or a religious language game.

It may sound as if Paul’s claims in Romans 8 are circular since it is religious reasons which he gives in support of them. But religious claims which are supported by religious reasons are no more circular than are scientific claims which are grounded in scientific reasons. For example, it does not make sense to say, “Yes, there is a lot of scientific evidence to support the ‘Big Bang’ theory, but aside from that, why should I believe that the universe began with a big bang?”

Even though each reason appears to need support from yet another in Paul’s Epistle, that does not mean that this type of reason-giving is dubious or irrational or circular. For it would only be so if there were no implicit rules in the process of religious reason-giving which distinguish the relevant reasons from the irrelevant ones or make it possible for one reason to be better than another. If there were no such rules, one could make anything a reason for their beliefs. One could legitimately say, for example, “I believe Christ died for our sins because the moon is made of green cheese.” One reason could be just as good as the next––it would not matter. This is not the case for Paul. He would not accept just any reason as a good one for believing that Christ died for our sins.

[atomiczombie]

It can also be seen that religious reason-giving is not circular in the sense that circular arguments stand on reasons which are analytically contained in the very claim that these reasons are meant to support. But this is also not the case with Paul. His claim that “. . God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and to deal with sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,” does not entail, i.e., is not part of the definition of “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.”

The tendency to assume that religious-reasoning is circular comes out of the mistaken notion that only non-religious reasons can legitimately support religious beliefs. This kind of mistake is often made with respect to moral reasoning as well. For example, someone who says, “I don’t get why people think they should do something just because it’s right” stands outside the moral language game and its corresponding forms of life and seeks a non-moral reason to justify moral actions and beliefs. What that person does not understand is that there is no grand, all encompassing, context-free system of reasoning that can be the ultimate ground of every context-dependent claim. Moral reasons are given for moral claims. Scientific reasons are offered as support for scientific claims. It is the same for religion. That is the way these kinds of discourse work. Religious reasons may not convince someone who stands outside the religious domain of discourse and the way of life that goes with it, but it does not stand to reason that there is, therefore, circularity or irrationality going on with respect to religious reasoning.

This is not to say that only religious reasons can support religious beliefs. Moral reasons can on occasion be used to support a religious assertion, e.g., “God does not take sides in human wars.” Moral considerations are relevant here and the implicit rules which make such considerations relevant are part of the religious context.

Systems of reasoning such as religion, morality and science do seem to over-lap in certain instances, and a great deal of confusion can arise around such an issue. One of the most obvious and concrete examples of this over-lap is the issue of Christianity and its relationship to historical knowledge.

Faith in a historical figure is at the heart of the Christian belief system. If a person does not have faith in this particular historical figure, then no matter what else that person believes, he or she is not a Christian. It is this characteristic of Christianity that points us to the question of what the role of historical knowledge is with respect to Christian faith. St. Paul wrote in Romans 8:34, “Who is to condemn? It is Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us.” Once again, we are faced with the very same question with which we began: are religious claims such as those in Romans 8:34 to be believed on the basis of historical evidence, and if so, to what extent, and are they subject to degrees of probability? Historical knowledge seems to play a peculiar role in the Christian language game.

Wittgenstein was concerned enough with this issue to write:

Christianity is not based on a historical truth; rather, it offers us a (historical) narrative and says: now believe! But not, believe this narrative with the belief appropriate to a historical narrative, rather: believe, through thick and thin, which you can do only as the result of a life. Here you have a narrative, don’t take the same attitude to it as you take to other historical narratives! Make a quite different place in your life for it.

Faith does not follow from historical evidence in the sense that one amasses a certain amount of evidence and then, when the right amount is collected, the person is finally convinced. I think this is what Wittgenstein is trying to communicate here. He also says that historical plausibility is not the most important thing with respect to the New Testament:

God has four people recount the life of his incarnate Son, in each case differently and with inconsistencies –– but might we not say: It is important that this narrative should not be more than quite averagely plausible just so that this should not be taken as the essential decisive thing? So that the letter should not be believed more strongly than is proper and the spirit may receive its due. I.e. what you are supposed to see cannot be communicated even by the best and most accurate historian; and therefore a mediocre account suffices, is even to be preferred. For that too can tell you what you are supposed to be told. (Roughly in the way a mediocre stage set can be better than a sophisticated one, painted trees better than real ones, –– because these might distract attention from what matters.)

He even goes so far as to say:

Queer as it sounds: The historical accounts in the Gospels might, historically speaking, be demonstrably false and yet belief would lose nothing by this: not, however, because it concerns ‘universal truths of reason’! Rather, because historical proof (the historical proof game) is irrelevant to belief. . . A believer’s relation to these narratives is neither the relation to historical truth (probability), nor yet that to a theory consisting of ‘truths of reason’.

I do not agree with Wittgenstein that, were the Gospels demonstrated to be false, belief would lose nothing. I think the narrative has to be historical to some extent––there must be some plausibility, at least in the sense that it is plausible to conclude that something happened. However, I do think it is interesting that he makes this point because it illustrates that there is a very different relationship to the historical in the believer’s language game than in other kinds of discourse.

I do agree with Wittgenstein that the believer’s relation to Biblical narratives is neither just a relation to a historical proof nor to purely theoretical considerations that can be logically deduced. Neither of those kinds of relations can lead someone to change their whole way of life, their world view. Historical knowledge, standing on its own, is a matter of indifference. It is the same with a theory. For, even if a person could be assured of having the most accurate historical account of the life of Jesus, to believe, as St. Paul said, that “There is . . now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” is a further step from seeing such an account as simply a story of a strange religious fanatic named Jesus who lived two-thousand years ago and was killed for his controversial beliefs. This further step is the meaning which the believer assigns to the historical account; it is a contribution on the part of the believer which is not a logical inference, for a person who relied exclusively on pure reason would not come to such a conclusion. That is why, as Wittgenstein said, a “mediocre [biblical] account suffices” and is even to be preferred.

The contribution on the part of the believer is Faith. Christian Faith is as much a way of life as it is a kind of belief. Its relation to historical figures and events is that of a sort of jumping off point from which one makes a qualitative leap. This jumping off point is not the most important part, but nevertheless it is an essential part insofar as a there must be a jumping off point if there is to be any kind of leap at all.

What then should one reply to the person who says, “I just can’t believe that God exists––it just doesn’t seem probable”? What I said was: “I agree with you completely. Of course it isn’t probable.” This reply was not a refutation of her argument; it was a rejection of the kind of reason she gave for not believing. It was a way of telling her that she was confused about the kind of basis the belief in God’s existence has; that she was using irrelevant criteria as a basis upon which to make a judgment about whether God exists. The criteria that are associated with the concept of “probability” are not relevant to a belief in God’s existence. “I believe that God exists” is not exactly a judgment made on the basis of criteria. It is more like a declaration that “I accept religious criteria as having a role in my life.” Clearing away this confusion about criteria and what kind of basis is an appropriate one for belief in God clears the way for the qualitative leap of Faith.

So there is my paper. I used Christianity and the Romans text to illustrate my points because it was easy. I don't strictly speaking consider myself a Christian. If it sounds like I am defending Christianity, that wasn't my goal. I was challenging religious fundamentalist's views of science and empirical proofs and their misuse of those concepts, as much as atheist's and agnostic's empirical arguments against religious beliefs. I would say some things differently (particularly in the first paragraph, oy) if I wrote this paper today, but it does lay out some of my basic views on these matters.

[atomiczombie]

Wow did I kill this thread? :eek:

[Okiebug61]

[QUOTE=Toughy;367171]Okie please........I have no idea what a 'free thinking hippy' looks like or thinks. No one is asking you to express yourself in Aj's or my terms. We are asking you for clarification of what you said.

As to retirement......it is ever on my mind.....I face the 62 or 65 question in 3 years, not 17 years. However there are many things ever on my mind. I multi-task every day.

Frankly I think you are very capable of multi-tasking. I wish you would. I want to understand what you are saying. I don't at this point.

I spent years in the western medicine clinical trial world as a community representative. I could only represent the community when I understood what they were thinking. I don't understand what you mean by guinea pig. If you really think all western medicine is treating human beings as G-pigs, then I want to understand why you think that. I want to know how much you know about how the FDA and how clinical trial mechanisms work. I want to know your knowledge base and how you arrived at the G-pig conclusion.

And then there are the questions about how you define science and what you mean by saying science makes people G pigs.

Help me understand.....or not and I will draw my conclusions based on less that useful information.[/QUOTE

Toughy! I can't get involved in this discussion without becoming very mad about the FDA and their antics. I will say that I do not think "ALL" western medicine is bad and leave it at that.

Peace!

[dreadgeek]

Wow did I kill this thread? :eek:

I don't think you did.

Cheers
Aj

[dreadgeek]

Toughy! I can't get involved in this discussion without becoming very mad about the FDA and their antics. I will say that I do not think "ALL" western medicine is bad and leave it at that.

Peace!

As you wish. But isn't it possible to have this discussion without really having to mention the FDA at all? Saying that science uses humans as guinea pigs doesn't just cover what goes on at the FDA. It covers cosmology, evolutionary biology, Newtonian Physics, astronomy--all of which are lumped in with whatever it is about the FDA that upsets you as 'science'. It's just an idea.

So, if you don't mind my asking. Should your statement that science uses humans as guinea pigs be understood to really be an attack on the FDA and not on, say, physics?

Cheers
Aj

[AtLast]

I might be stepping into some do-do here, but I have a bit of a sensitivity to blanket statements about the guinea-pig slant and slam. Not all scientific drug studies are made up of unsuspecting people at the hands of FDA regulation or lack of it.

There are many drug trials that fall into experimental lines (with legal sanctioning) that people, and I think rather heroic people done with full disclosure that can and do bring us significant data that does save lives as chemo therapies are developed.

My brother died in 1990 due to pancreatic cancer. At that time, the chances of having even 5 years of remission for this type of cancer due to the chemo therapies and radiation therapy then used was dismal. He did after exhausting the therapies available and FDA approved at the time, sign on to experimental trials of drugs and knew that he was really only giving researchers (his own oncologist) a way to actually see if their hypotheses about the drug’s effectiveness was at least heading the right direction. Yes, there was a “last-ditch” hope going on for my brother as there is for most people that enter into these studies- he figured a month or two more with his child was worth it. And yes, he felt that if this helped medical science to gain on this deadly and swiftly moving form of cancer, why not do this- he was dying anyway at the age of 47.

Today, this chemo regimen has become the leading therapy for pancreatic cancers and it is the very one that the Cancer Centers of America uses that we see all those media commercials of. What really is something to lose one’s temper over is that this drug regimen is extremely costly and it isn’t available to all pancreatic patients in the US. And we all know why this is.

Yes, I can get angry with the FDA and pharmaceutical companies, yet, I also see another side to things to this debate. I absolutely want the public to be protected against negligence in medicine and research, but I also want the minds that work on the sciences behind chemo therapies for all disease to be able to do this work. The fact is, every cut to the budgets of the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and the continued right-wing political barring of stem cell research in the US is what our real focus ought to be on. Not properly funding scientific research and allowing unconstitutional religious ideology to guide medical research is what really makes guinea-pig out of all of us.