|
|
|
walt fristoe
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
 Posted - 03/15/2003 : 11:25:09
|
Here is a column by The Happy Heretic that I very much agree with!
And while I'm at it, I'll include this one, as well, called Religion Kills Two for the price of one!
|
"If God chose George Bus of all the people in the world, how good could God be?"
Bill Maher |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
 Posted - 03/15/2003 : 12:55:20 [Permalink]
|
Walt, the problem I have with the Happy Heretic column is, in part, caused by this paragraph:quote:
Stephen Jay Gould referred to science and religion as "non-overlapping magisteria." Non-overlapping? Hardly! The Judeo-Christian tradition embraces, as truths, such things as talking animals, a talking burning bush, the parting of the Red Sea, the sun "standing still" for Joshua, food falling out of the sky, a human walking on water, people rising from their graves, and several individuals "ascending" bodily into heaven. Such "truths" require the suspension of the laws of nature; if that is not overlapping the field of science I cannot imagine what would.
The author is, I think, forgetting a couple of key issues. First, if the Judeo-Christian God exists (a very big 'if'), then none of the miracles would be a suspension of the laws of nature - God can do as He pleases.
Secondly, Gould, I think, was talking about what questions can be answered. I think this is the more important part of the problem I have with the column. Science cannot truthfully answer religious questions ("what is the meaning of life?"), and religion cannot answer scientific questions without guessing. Stories of miracles are just that: stories. They're not historical facts or "theories" or anything else. Most religious people don't claim the miracles listed are "truths" in the way the author apparently means.
Problems arise when fundamentalists try to explain miracles scientifically (most other religious people don't bother trying), or when some "scientist" attempts to disprove the existence of God. Both cases are abuses of both science and religion. When neither occurs, science and religion get along quite peacefully.
And the Pope's acknowledgement of evolution was a very good thing. It was the RCC defining the limits of religion, and that's why it was important to Gould. It follows right along with the "non-overlapping magisteria" principle, in that the RCC basically said, "hey, the evolution of creatures on Earth is science's baby, not ours. Scientists know the real scoop."
Of course, the fundamentalists I know say, "well, the Pope is an idiot" (and that's verbatim).
To conclude, I think the Happy Heretic is confusing science and skepticism. Science is a method of gaining knowledge, and skepticism is an attitude about knowledge in general. She appears to demand that all scientists "take on" all paranormal claims as if they were all "professional skeptics," which they are not. She also appears to assume that all religious people are fundamentalist Christians. While she's correct that religion is trying to creep into science classrooms, the battle isn't really between science and religion, but between religion and the First Amendment, and between people who believe that the Bible is science and those who don't (which includes a lot of religious people).
The Happy Heretic needs to become skeptical about her own knowledge of the world.
Oh, and there's no reason to think that it's "against the laws of nature" for future bushes to evolve speech, and if one of those catches fire, it'll probably say, "Ow, ow, ow! Put me out!" 
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
walt fristoe
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2003 : 16:38:36 [Permalink]
|
Well, I'm not a fundy, but I also say "the Pope is an idiot"!
But seriously, wouldn't miracles be defined as a temporary suspension of physical law? I think she was basically just saying "religion is religion and science is science, and never the twain shall meet"; and that the redefining of religious terminology is just one more insidious attempt by theists, New Agers, etc., to disolve the boundary between the two, in order to further confuse the "sitters on the fence". |
"If God chose George Bus of all the people in the world, how good could God be?"
Bill Maher |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2003 : 19:03:33 [Permalink]
|
Walt wrote:quote:
But seriously, wouldn't miracles be defined as a temporary suspension of physical law?
Not if God exists, then a miracle is defined as "something only God can do," and not a big deal. If God doesn't exist, a miracle is defined as "something which appears to be inexplicable now, but we'll figure it out someday," and not a big deal.quote:
I think she was basically just saying "religion is religion and science is science, and never the twain shall meet";
That's what Gould was saying, and she pretty much dismissed it as nonsense, with examples. I think her examples illustrate the desire of a certain religious camp to usurp science for its own ends, rather than a problem with Gould's principle, but she wouldn't appear to agree.quote:
and that the redefining of religious terminology is just one more insidious attempt by theists, New Agers, etc., to disolve the boundary between the two, in order to further confuse the "sitters on the fence".
Science isn't really immune to that criticism, either, although scientists are more likely to redefine words in general usage, rather than strictly religious terms. Confusion abounds about terms like "mutation" or "possibility" or even "theory," all of which are used by scientists in a different way than they are by John Doe on the street.
But that doesn't really matter. If that was one of the Happy Heretic's points, I missed it amongst all the skeptic- and scientist-bashing going on.
Oh, as for the Pope, I don't know him all that well, or the things he's publicly said. But I'm pretty sure that people who make it to the top of an organization whose income largely depends on selling fairy tales to the masses aren't idiots. There is, of course, a difference between being stupid and believing in foolish things. The people who made the "Pope is an idiot" comment to me really do believe that the man has a very low I.Q. for even considering evolution to be true. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
walt fristoe
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2003 : 15:35:58 [Permalink]
|
Yeah, you're probably right about the Pope. But I'm not entirely sure it takes smarts to ascend to the heights of such a hierarchical organization as the RCC. I expect it's more a matter of willingness to do whatever the upper echelon decides will enable them to keep as much power as possible. I suspect the Pope admitted that evolution was right because, and only because, he thought to enable the RCC to retain as many of the flock as possible.
|
"If God chose George Bus of all the people in the world, how good could God be?"
Bill Maher |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2003 : 15:52:25 [Permalink]
|
You have to remember the trouncing the RCC took over Galileo and friends. Forgiving him at the same time the Galileo spacecraft was on it's way to Jupiter was bad press too. You also have to remember that the Jesuits are heavily into science. Evolution is so obviously a fact that the RCC has no problems with it. You also have to keep in mind that the Catholics see the bible as an instruction book . They consider the Protestant claims of the bible being a magic book to be idolatrous.
And as for "talking animals" ....weeeeeell...what's so strange about that? |
|
|
|
Orpheus
Skeptic Friend
92 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2003 : 03:35:45 [Permalink]
|
I'm not sure one can necessarily consider religion and science to be parallel disciplines which will not infringe on each other's spheres of influence. The basic difference between religion and science seems quite antithetical.
Science thrives on open inquiry which reshapes basic theory based on evidence. Religion works completely opposite to these assumptions. It has a dogma, which does not change, and subsumes any evidence with this dogma. This means that there really are two different "world-views" out there which are mutually exclusive. Just because (few) religious people no longer make claims about the natural world does not mean that the two systems of thought (religion and science) are not conflicting.
The scientist views the world as a sort of lab or teaching instrument, which constantly amazes and surprises. The religious person sees the world as largely pre-determined and confirmatory of the dogma. It seems that the primary distinction here is the importance placed on evidence as a means of gaining knowledge. |
Find your own damned answers! |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2003 : 07:46:23 [Permalink]
|
Orpheus wrote:quote:
The scientist views the world as a sort of lab or teaching instrument, which constantly amazes and surprises. The religious person sees the world as largely pre-determined and confirmatory of the dogma. It seems that the primary distinction here is the importance placed on evidence as a means of gaining knowledge.
But, to be fair, you've just set up a strawman here. Religious people in general don't see a conflict between being a scientist and believing in a God. It's mostly fundamentalists (of any religion) who cannot be good scientists because of their religious beliefs. There are, indeed, quite a few Christians who are scientists, and who are doing good science, even in disciplines closely relating to evolution (for example). There are fewer religious people among scientists, but that doesn't mean zero.
I can only assume that the vast majority of scientists who are Christians are of the "God set up the initial conditions for the universe, and then poof!" sort, and are now doing science to (partly) figure out what God supposedly did, without resorting to "Goddidit" where science can probe. They certainly aren't the "six days/six thousand years" sort of folk.
But heck, there's no reason to think that there cannot possibly be an "afterlife" of some sort, or a "Second Coming," or a "Judgement Day," so scientists are free to believe that these things might be true or might come to pass, as well. These things are not incompatible with a scientific world view, because they aren't scientific at all, much like a person's tastes in art or music. Scientists are forced to believe things every day which they have no evidence for, just like everyone else.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Orpheus
Skeptic Friend
92 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2003 : 03:15:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
But, to be fair, you've just set up a strawman here. Religious people in general don't see a conflict between being a scientist and believing in a God.
I don't think it is a strawman. Just because scientists (and other folk) who are religious do not see a conflict in their beliefs does not mean it is not there! Witness for instance daily racistic displays by people who claim to be fighting racism! That was the gist of my argument: that upon deeper reflection, there seems to be a conflict between the scientific and religious world views. And I don't know if religious scientists necessarily restrict themselves to a "first-mover" sort of theism, either. Humans just seem to be really good at holding various contradictory beliefs without much distress or awareness.
But heck, there's no reason to think that there cannot possibly be an "afterlife" of some sort, or a "Second Coming," or a "Judgement Day," so scientists are free to believe that these things might be true or might come to pass, as well. These things are not incompatible with a scientific world view, because they aren't scientific at all, much like a person's tastes in art or music.
Yeah, I agree. But I think you'll agree with me that it depends greatly on the kind of religious beliefs held by scientists. Also, to what extent they think it reflects reality. It's one thing to say that a "first-mover" is possible, or that "judgment day" could be one of a myriad of possible outcomes; and saying that you think it is going to be that way, or even that it is likely to happen. The first claim admits ignorance (and is therefore "scientific"), the second does not, because it makes a claim about the structure or fate of reality, which can be seen as a scientific realm.
It seems critical to our argument to define what is meant by the adjective "religious". It appears to mean something like "believing the existence of some sort of diety to be actual or probable". Thus a truth claim is made, which requires evidence. If religious means "believing the existence of a deity to be possible", then practically all rational human beings are "religious"!
I am also tempted to suggest that, if one is to be consistent in one's scientific attitude, that a general skepticism should be adopted about claims which seem non-falsifiable. This could even include one's taste in art or music, to the extent that one would allow for a greater range of potential tastes and definitions of these constructs than many would posit (i.e. statements such as "that is complete crap!" would be meaningless when applied to art or music unless followed by the proviso of "within my specific interpretation of art and music"). |
Find your own damned answers! |
| Edited by - Orpheus on 03/18/2003 04:14:18 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2003 : 09:00:30 [Permalink]
|
Orpheus, I mostly agree with you. Where I'm not is where you seem to imply that 'faith' isn't special and different from either 'possibility' or 'truth'. The claim "I have faith in a first-mover," is, to me at least, very different from either "I'll admit to the possibility of a first-mover" and "A first-mover exists."
I've got no evidence, but I myself have faith that if you were to corner a religious scientist, who made such a faith claim, they would tell you that of course they have no evidence for a factual claim, but that's not what they're claiming. And yet, it's more than just a possibility, to them. But perhaps my faith in scientists being both rational and human at the same time is where I'll get into trouble here.
A "faith claim" isn't just an admission of possibility, and it's a lot less fervent than a fundamentalist's statement of fact. It's somewhere in between, a statement of personal belief (which is itself non-falsifiable), much like "I believe that my wife isn't cheating on me." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Orpheus
Skeptic Friend
92 Posts |
Posted - 03/19/2003 : 05:12:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
A "faith claim" isn't just an admission of possibility, and it's a lot less fervent than a fundamentalist's statement of fact. It's somewhere in between, a statement of personal belief (which is itself non-falsifiable), much like "I believe that my wife isn't cheating on me."
Yeah, I see what you mean. I think that is perhaps an "out" of the dillema I have described. Faith then becomes a sort of metaphysical assertion based on either one's wish that something will one day be shown to be true, or simply a "feeling". Is it however justified then to act in such a way as if one's faith has already been confirmed? This to me seems to be a dilemma presented by many religious people.
Granted, they can consistently say that "faith" is altogether different from making truth claims. BUT, what does it then really mean to "have faith". If it means what I've outlined above, it surely does not include all the positive statements which form part of all organized religions? What I mean here is: how do you get from "I sure hope there's some sort of existence after death" to "thou shalt not coveit one's neighbour's wife"?? 
|
Find your own damned answers! |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 03/19/2003 : 07:28:52 [Permalink]
|
Depends. If faith means "I really, really think that there's some sort of existence after death," and one has been told that by coveting one's neighbor's wife, that existence will be eternal torment, then one tries to avoid coveting.
As I was telling someone in another forum just yesterday, it all depends on how much power you're willing to hand to God. If your faith demands that you believe that God does, indeed, have the power to "enforce" the 10 Commandments posthumously, then you'll live your life as if they were, indeed, written in stone.
This is, oddly enough, just about the polar opposite of the often-heard argument from people with lots of faith that atheists have no morals, because without the threat of hell, they can do whatever they want, isn't it? To put it another way, if a person has faith that their morality is handed down from God (without evidence that God exists), then they are, basically, putting their own straightjacket on what is "right" and "wrong," based on the words in some book, and not upon anything that could be, say, deduced from more-basic principles ("I don't like it when people do X to me, so I won't do X to other people - unless they ask real nice").
I know there are plenty of people who pick-and-choose what to believe in the Bible (easy example), and which "rules" to pay attention to, but the above follows for them even more. They're just being choosy about which parts of the straightjacket to put on, instead of donning the entire garment without question, and still calling themselves, for the most part, "Christian." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 03/19/2003 : 11:27:58 [Permalink]
|
Orpheus wrote:quote:
Is it however justified then to act in such a way as if one's faith has already been confirmed? This to me seems to be a dilemma presented by many religious people.
Oh, let me address this in another way, as well, even though "it depends" is also the answer.
Faith is certainly not a suitable justification for lots of acts. Even most tremendously-devout people (in the U.S.) would have no problems shipping to the loony bin those people who say things like "God told me to kill that guy."
On the other hand, if people want to justify their own acts of charity through their faith, then there's really no harm, even though people may be deluding themselves by thinking that they'll wind up in Heaven for helping the homeless.
I'd much prefer that people use things other than fairy-tales to justify kind acts, but I have a feeling that some folks are so generally cruddy that a fear of hell is the only way they would. |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 03/19/2003 : 14:46:55 [Permalink]
|
Dear Walt,
I glanced at this first article you referred to. The author was an avowed atheist who belittled the stories of the Bible as ridiculous. His opinion and yours, I suppose, by your remarks. There is, strangely enough, a reference by Paul the Apostle to science, "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 21Which some professing have erred concerning the faith." ITimothy 6:20 It would seem that Paul saw a conflict at times between science and faith too. He notes that these oppositions of science were falsely called science. An interesting thought, by Paul. Some, perhaps, would quote a "scientific" idea that opposed the teachings of faith. Paul would call it "false science". It doesn't mean Paul refuted all science, but recognized that there was "false science". By saying this, he certainly believed there was "true science" also. It would seem, then, that the author of most of the new testament books was not at odds with science, but that which was presented as science falsely. Also, it seems that he exorted Timothy, a pastor, to avoid useless discussions about such false science. Good advice. |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
walt fristoe
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 03/19/2003 : 15:04:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
Dear Walt,
I glanced at this first article you referred to. The author was an avowed atheist who belittled the stories of the Bible as ridiculous. His opinion and yours, I suppose, by your remarks. There is, strangely enough, a reference by Paul the Apostle to science, "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 21Which some professing have erred concerning the faith." ITimothy 6:20 It would seem that Paul saw a conflict at times between science and faith too. He notes that these oppositions of science were falsely called science. An interesting thought, by Paul. Some, perhaps, would quote a "scientific" idea that opposed the teachings of faith. Paul would call it "false science". It doesn't mean Paul refuted all science, but recognized that there was "false science". By saying this, he certainly believed there was "true science" also. It would seem, then, that the author of most of the new testament books was not at odds with science, but that which was presented as science falsely. Also, it seems that he exorted Timothy, a pastor, to avoid useless discussions about such false science. Good advice.
You mean the only 'true' science is that which agrees with Christianity? Which version of Christianity? Or that which agrees with the Bible? Whose interpretation of the Bible? Would you say that 'Creation Science' is true or false science? Would you say that 'Christian Science' is truly scientific? |
"If God chose George Bus of all the people in the world, how good could God be?"
Bill Maher |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 03/19/2003 : 16:17:30 [Permalink]
|
You mean the only 'true' science is that which agrees with Christianity? Which version of Christianity? Or that which agrees with the Bible? Whose interpretation of the Bible? Would you say that 'Creation Science' is true or false science? Would you say that 'Christian Science' is truly scientific?
[/quote]
Walt, I was noting one of the few places in the Bible mentioning science. I think it gives a brief look at the attitude of the writer. Paul didn't have trouble with science, but some scientists seems to have a lot of trouble with Christianity. In the book of Genesis, Moses wrote down the beginnings of creation as God had showed him. He didn't talk in scientific terms, but clearly gave a credible sequence of events. You either believe it or you don't. Many scientific observations have strong belief assumptions attached to them. When those beliefs (presumptions) are contrary to Biblical truth, that would probably be labeled by Paul as "false science" Consider the so-called scientific evidence that men or women are born homosexual. The Bible clearly refutes this idea and labels such activity as sinful (further investigation of these "scientists" revealed an agenda), same as it does adultery and fornication (having sex outside of marriage). There are some who claim these other sexual sins are genetic, or are a disease. The Bible would disagree with that. Some believe that alcoholism is a disease because of "science". The Bible does not agree. These are some clear examples where some "so called" science directly refutes the teachings of the Bible. Data can be misread and misused and misunderstood. To believe such misinterpreted science can indeed thwart the faith of the weak. However, believing the scriptures and walking by the code of love does not cause harm to people. Willfully striving to drive faith out of people, however, is another matter.
I am one struggling to regain faith I once had. Many years ago, a cruel person abused me in the name of God to help drive out the little faith I had received. It would be easy to throw out faith that had no perceptive, positive influence in one's life, however, I had experienced love and acceptance and the reality of this God/man named Jesus that was profound. He was healing me emotionally and physically and I knew Him to be alive. I thought I'd committed some unpardonable sin by turning away from His love as I did as a result of this person's spiritual abuse. I'm finding out now, some thirty years later, that this just isn't true. Regaining that faith and more of it is my desire. The hopelessness and vanity and anger that is exhibited in skeptic's writings does not draw one to their life style. The love, faithfulness, kindness, hope, and faith of a couple of Christian friends I know is quite another thing. We cannot rightly lump all religious people even professing Christians into one group. There are the devout and true and the hypocritical and blasphemous, and many in between. One must recognize this to sort out contradictions. This may seem irrelevant to this conversation, but sometimes, personal experience can bring a vital perspective to the abstract.
|
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
