|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 05/09/2009 : 23:52:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Religion and good science are capable of existing together in harmony within certain individual's worldviews. |
Because people are capable of contradictions, not because science and religion are compatible. We've made this point several times now, Marf. You can point to all the instances of people being both theists and scientists you can find--who's existence none of us have ever denied, by the way--and it's never going to succeed in demonstrating that science itself is compatible with faith itself.
That seems to be all the NCSE is pointing out with its Faith Campaign - that some religious people, particularly Christians, have a theological belief system which is not in conflict with their acceptance of science. How is the fact that some people find science and their religion compatible in conflict with your worldview?
|
I hope the point is finally clear you that this isn't about the existence of individuals, but in case it's not, nothing about the fact that people reconcile science with their faith is problematic. The problem only occurred when the NCSE seemed to exclusively advocate the philosophical position that theism and science are compatible without so much as a hint that this might be a controversial position lacking universal consensus.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 05/09/2009 23:58:17 |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2009 : 00:42:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Dave: | But they are. They are promoting an irrational worldview which says that science and religion are compatible. It's in direct conflict with my worldview (and my dictionary), so they're necessarily promoting one worldview over another. |
At this point I'm just confused about how you are using the word "compatible." I thought maybe my automatic interpretation of the word was off so I looked it up in the dictionary: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/compatible and the first definition fit what I was thinking all along: | capable of existing or living together in harmony: the most compatible married couple I know. |
Religion and good science are capable of existing together in harmony within certain individual's worldviews. |
Well, now I'm going to question your definition of "harmony," since the popular definition is "Agreement in feeling or opinion; accord," and not "a lack of conflict between."
To put it more simply, "compatible" is not a synonym for "lack of conflict," and "harmony" is not a synonym for "lack of conflict." Both words include a sense of "teamwork" in their meanings that is missing from "lack of conflict."
And then, of course, there's the fact that the epistemologies are in conflict, since no theistic method of answering questions even begins to pass the scientific sniff test.| That seems to be all the NCSE is pointing out with its Faith Campaign - that some religious people, particularly Christians, have a theological belief system which is not in conflict with their acceptance of science. |
Again: the only reason they don't conflict is because these people keep the contradictory epistemologies in separate cages, so that they cannot conflict. It's not because those epistemologies are inherently compatible or harmonious.| How is the fact that some people find science and their religion compatible in conflict with your worldview? |
Because it's irrational to think that those epistemologies are compatible. Semantic apologetics don't fix that problem.
More importantly, it is unscientific to think that these two epistemologies are compatible (or harmonious), yet that is the position being forwarded by the National Center for Science Education. That act itself is in direct contradiction to the NCSE's mission.
To reiterate what's already been said, it is a fact that some people accept science while being theists, and I'd have no problem if that were all the NCSE were saying. But they're not. They are claiming that two incompatible epistemoligies are instead compatible, a philosophical position which requires leaving the realm of empiricism, which is nothing less than a rejection of the NCSE's mission. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2009 : 06:59:57 [Permalink]
|
Humbert: | Because people are capable of contradictions, not because science and religion are compatible. We've made this point several times now, Marf. You can point to all the instances of people being both theists and scientists you can find--who's existence none of us have ever denied, by the way--and it's never going to succeed in demonstrating that science itself is compatible with faith itself. |
Ah, yes, this does get more to the heart of it. This I think makes it clearer where we disagree. For people who are compartmentalizing, I agree with you that they are holding a contradictory worldview that they only think is compatibility between their religion and science.
But that is not what the articles on the NCSE advocate. They advocate a fundamentally different kind of faith which doesn't make any claims about the physical world. I read these two articles by Pete Hess:
http://ncseweb.org/religion/god-evolution
http://ncseweb.org/religion/how-do-i-read-bible-let-me-count-ways
In the first he does not define a God which could be tested by science. In the second he describes the Bible as something which it would be foolish to take literally because of what science tells us about reality.
I've made a case on this forum many times in the past where I've cited writings by theologians and other religious thinkers who clearly do not have the kind of faith which is in conflict with skepticism. They really are using science and Christianity (as a metaphysical philosophy) to answer different questions. The questions are appropriately divided with the premise that science answers questions about the physical world and philosophy/religion deals with metaphysical questions. That they speak of science as revealing objective facts, it becomes additionally clear that the "answers" that philosophy/religion gives to metaphysical questions are not regarded as objective or factual, but rather, are held as personal, tentative conclusions based on our lack of a system for answering those questions which is reliable in the way that science is reliable. When it comes to this sort of religious people, I just don't see the conflict you guys are talking about.
| I hope the point is finally clear you that this isn't about the existence of individuals, but in case it's not, nothing about the fact that people reconcile science with their faith is problematic. |
Humbert, our miscommunication hasn't been that I'm just saying that individuals exist who hold both scientific and religious thinking. Our disagreement is that I think there are people who provide 100% convincing arguments as to why their type of faith is not on conflict with their full support of science. You, on the other hand, are not convinced by their arguments.
Maybe you and I are interpreting aspects of their arguments differently, in which case one or both of us could be misinterpreting what these believers actually mean - and that could be their fault or ours or both. Or maybe there really is some fundamental different between your worldview and mine. That I'm not sure of. The fact that we probably aren't both talking about the same thing at the same time is probably why we keep coming back to this topic over and over on this forum and say the same things and never come to any final conclusion. Because we can't even be sure whether we really disagree with each other or not. Maybe at some point we will, which I hope.
| The problem only occurred when the NCSE seemed to exclusively advocate the philosophical position that theism and science are compatible without so much as a hint that this might be a controversial position lacking universal consensus. |
See, again I don't see this as a problem because the type of theism which is described as being compatible with science I think is described in a manner which really is clearly compatible with science. The idea that that is controversial is silly to me. Nobody would say it is controversial to say some forms of Buddhism are compatible with science because anyone who knows enough about Buddhism knows that some forms are compatible with science. I don't think this kind of theism is a majority point of view among Christians (I think the majority point of view of Christians isn't well thought through at all since I don't think most people ever bother thinking this deeply about any of these philosophical questions) but it is the point of view expressed by Christians on the NCSE website. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 05/10/2009 07:02:59 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2009 : 07:32:50 [Permalink]
|
Dave: : | Well, now I'm going to question your definition of "harmony," since the popular definition is "Agreement in feeling or opinion; accord," and not "a lack of conflict between." |
Oh for Pete's sake - both work just fine in this context! Agreement in feeling or opinion is totally non-objective and up to the individual, which is obviously the case for people who accept both science and religion. And lack of conflict between science and religion which relegates itself to only answering metaphysical questions has been established.
| To put it more simply, "compatible" is not a synonym for "lack of conflict," and "harmony" is not a synonym for "lack of conflict." Both words include a sense of "teamwork" in their meanings that is missing from "lack of conflict." |
Teamwork? I think you are forcing it to mean that when it clearly isn't being used that way by people like Pete Hess. Agreement in opinion and feeling and "lack of conflict" fit far better with Peter Hess's article, and since those both fit with a dictionary definition of "compatible" I don't see how Hess is in any way out of line using that term.
| And then, of course, there's the fact that the epistemologies are in conflict, since no theistic method of answering questions even begins to pass the scientific sniff test. |
How does that make them in conflict? The writings on the NSCE advocate one set of scientific answers as valid but advocate multiple theological answers as valid. By its very nature, science can't answer the metaphysical questions so that isn't a problem. And they reject answers that theology gives to questions which can be answered by science, and they reject them based on the scientific answers.
| Again: the only reason they don't conflict is because these people keep the contradictory epistemologies in separate cages, so that they cannot conflict. |
No, see that's where I've been disagreeing with you. I don't think they are keeping them in separate cages. Go back to the cat and dog metaphor. People with cognitive dissodance have beliefs which are in conflict with science. If they were to put them together - test them against each other, one would kill the other. I'm saying this cat and dog really can be out of their cages and won't do anything harmful to each other. In other words, these people have a sort of theism which, by its built-in and defined nature, does not even try to answer questions about the physical world. It is the dog which either likes or is indifferent to cats.
| It's not because those epistemologies are inherently compatible or harmonious. |
I'm not sure how much this kind of theism is really an epistemology. I think that's questionable since they are clearly not treating religious "beliefs" as claims of knowledge about reality. They are essentially saying "I believe in God, but I don't know God exists." In wikipedia's article on "Epistemology" the category of "Belief" begins with: | Often, statements of "belief" mean that the speaker predicts something that will prove to be useful or successful in some sense—perhaps the speaker might "believe in" his or her favorite football team. This is not the kind of belief usually addressed within epistemology. |
If people like Peter Hess are relegating religion to only being able to answer metaphysical questions such as "What is life's meaning?" "What is my purpose?" "Is the world of value?" then I don't think they are really using their religion as an epistemology. At least not by what I understand epistemology to be.
Maybe that is the source of our disagreement - you are reading the NSCE as supporting conflicting epistemologies and I'm reading the NSCE as supporting science as part of an epitemology (empiricism) and religion as metaphysical philosophy. Epistemology (as I understand it) is a theory of how we can know things. But faith, as it is being promoted by people like Hess, is not about knowing, it is about believing. Something cannot be known unless it is actually true (can be proven to be true.) But beliefs can and often must be held - for practical reasons if nothing else - when knowledge cannot be obtained.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 05/10/2009 07:36:08 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2009 : 08:40:13 [Permalink]
|
Mooner:
So, let's get this clear: Are you of the opinion that the NCSE should get rid of its Faith Project and religious reading lists? If so, we are in perfect agreement. |
Other than a careful examination of the wording so it's clear the NCSE isn't promoting theism (I don't think they are) and a careful examination of what reading they are recommending, with an eye on whether those books actually promote theism, I have no problem with their reaching out to theists if they can demonstrate to them that without losing their faith (which they are not going to give up) they can accept and support good science. Those theists are, after all, the group that needs convincing.
I would start by changing the name of the “faith project” itself because I find it problematic. Whatever their intentions, it sounds like they are promoting faith if you don't look deeper. I might also add a clarification on the difference between a compatible belief and beliefs that are not mutually exclusive. (I too have used “compatible” because I saw it as adequate for describing a persons ability to hold both positions. I used it casually, and perhaps wrongly. But either way, it becomes problematic if you look closely at the implication that can be taken from it. And that alone is a reason enough to jettison the word.
I don't see any reason to not reach out to theists and make the case that science itself is neutral on subjects that are outside of what science can do, and that the scientists themselves have a range of beliefs and positions, all the way from atheist to theist, none of which are supported by the science that they do, because that is not the business of science. I would stress that the job of science is to sort out the natural world and that's all it can sort out, personal beliefs not withstanding. I would also stress that it is when people of faith attack science, it only serves to demonstrate the how weakly they must hold their religious beliefs if they are so threatened by the acquisition of knowledge that they feel the need to lash out at knowledge itself. And again. I would stress that science and religion are not mutually exclusive positions, which is what they are being told and is also demonstrably false.
All of those points can be made without an endorsement of faith itself. And really, even taking the mistakes they have made into consideration, I think that is the goal of the "faith project".
And Mooner, I doubt that we will be in perfect agreement on this unless you see the value in convincing people of faith that their world need not come crashing down on them by allowing science to do its thing. That is a bill of goods that has been promoted by various groups who are anti science, anti knowledge and disingenuously represent the goal of science as a means to destroy faith, and not as a means to expand our knowledge of nature which has been of enormous benefit in many areas of research, not the least of which has been in the field of medicine.
Other areas of the site deal with creationist lies about science and why they go to the lengths they do to attack science. Those lies are exposed in great detail.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2009 : 09:15:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Maybe that is the source of our disagreement - you are reading the NSCE as supporting conflicting epistemologies and I'm reading the NSCE as supporting science as part of an epitemology (empiricism) and religion as metaphysical philosophy. Epistemology (as I understand it) is a theory of how we can know things. But faith, as it is being promoted by people like Hess, is not about knowing, it is about believing. |
Even if I were to grant the arguments you've made about the words being used, marf, your statement quoted above clearly indicates that the NCSE is promoting particular sorts of theological philosophies above all others - an act inconsistent with their mission. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2009 : 10:01:19 [Permalink]
|
Dave wrote: | Even if I were to grant the arguments you've made about the words being used, marf, your statement quoted above clearly indicates that the NCSE is promoting particular sorts of theological philosophies above all others - an act inconsistent with their mission. |
I disagree (that it is inconsistent with their mission).
http://ncseweb.org/about/faq
The NCSE's mission is to promote the teaching of evolution in public schools because it is good science. Thus, they cannot avoid being critical-by-default of any religious beliefs which are in direct conflict with evolutionary biology. So in a sense, they could be said to be promoting certain philosophical positions (religious philosophies which are not in conflict with science as well as most atheistic and agnostic philosophies) that is only a side effect of their primary goal, which is to promote science first. After promoting science, they advocate no philosophy over any other. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 05/10/2009 10:01:54 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2009 : 10:17:11 [Permalink]
|
No, marf. The Faith Project is a direct assault on particular theologies, and not just being critical-by-default where certain theists take offense because the science disagrees with their god-concept.
If they eliminated the Faith Project, then the NCSE would be left the accidental criticism you describe. |
- 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
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2009 : 18:25:12 [Permalink]
|
Jason Rosenhouse enters the fray a bit late. Here's his conclusion:Accommodation and outreach is fine as a short-term political strategy, but it's a loser in the long-term. If the idea is that we'll keep putting Ken Miller and Francis Collins out there, people will be persuaded to accept more liberal sorts of religion, and then this problem will simply go away, then I think we are following a very bad idea indeed. The only long term solution is to create a society where traditional forms of religion are far more marginilized than they currently are.
I do not believe it is impossible to bring about such change, but it will not happen from polite discussion and philsophical discourse. It will happen when atheism becomes so mainstream that the younger generation no longer regards it as something exotic or strange. Eloquent polemics are a good start, as are billboards and other sorts of advertising.
There is a need for both the NCSE and P.Z. Myers. They both have an important role to play in defending science education and fighting creationism. But people who whine about polemical atheists hurting the cause are wrong. They are helping the cause. They are, in fact, the only hope for a long-term solution. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2009 : 18:41:08 [Permalink]
|
Dave wrote: No, marf. The Faith Project is a direct assault on particular theologies, and not just being critical-by-default where certain theists take offense because the science disagrees with their god-concept.
If they eliminated the Faith Project, then the NCSE would be left the accidental criticism you describe. |
Okay, I'll give you that. But the assaults are on theologies which conflict with hard science, so I still don't get how the Faith Project goes outside of the NSCE's mission. Are they only allowed to play defense and not offense when it comes to standing up for science? |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2009 : 19:08:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Okay, I'll give you that. But the assaults are on theologies which conflict with hard science, so I still don't get how the Faith Project goes outside of the NSCE's mission. Are they only allowed to play defense and not offense when it comes to standing up for science? |
That's sort of a whole different point, but I think with their meager resources, they should stick to what they do best, and that's their solid, class-A defense. If they had a budget of a few million dollars per year instead of a few hundred thousand, I'm sure they could put together a fantastic offense, as well, which wouldn't be nearly as tentative and... accommodating... as this one is.
Actually, now that I think about it, Project Steve is a very effective offense, and was probably run on a shoestring. So nope, I'm going to have to drop the budgetary aspect and go back to the accommodationist problems. The NCSE has shown it can do offense without offending the rationalists. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2009 : 20:44:47 [Permalink]
|
| Hmmmm... Dave, I think our disagreement is rather minor and basically boils down to you regarding me as another accommodationist and me thinking you are a little too rigid in your rationalism. But again, I think our disagreement is rather minor. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2009 : 21:34:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Hmmmm... Dave, I think our disagreement is rather minor and basically boils down to you regarding me as another accommodationist and me thinking you are a little too rigid in your rationalism. But again, I think our disagreement is rather minor. |
marf, I will absolutely agree that I am a hard-line rationalist. I think irrationality causes direct harm to our society through resources and opportunities lost to make real progress. We can't possibly answer life's Great Questions on guesswork, we need solid foundations of thought, and everyone is a potential source for good thinking.
So when someone points to even the most liberal of deists and says that those particular beliefs aren't hurting anyone, I cringe inside because even a second wasted on such blatantly worthless ideas is a second that can no longer be applied to something of more practical use, and all of society suffers for it. And I would much rather people be walking around broken and desperate and looking for a rational solution to their problems and grief that might be widely applicable than to turn to the wobbly and untrustworthy crutch that is the "hope" that one might get from faith and woo.
At the same time, I recognize the need to unwind and relax. I'm not an ultra-rationalist (like one prominent skeptic who once claimed to avoid fiction of any sort because it's a waste of time). While not every moment of every person's life can be constructive for all of society (we're not machines), by minimizing those that are spent in pursuits that (generally) encourage systemic and life-long irrationality, we'd actually have more time for things which are "silly" for silly's sake, and thus probably wind up with fewer broken people anyway.
And yes, I see you as a big ol' softie for the progressive theists. I think they are many fewer in number than you seem to, but I agree that they are much less harmful than their fundamentalist cousins. Were I named Dictator of the World, the most-progressive religionists would be the last up against the wall, even after the schmucks who drive the speed limit in the left lane, I promise. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2009 : 23:19:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
And Mooner, I doubt that we will be in perfect agreement on this unless you see the value in convincing people of faith that their world need not come crashing down on them by allowing science to do its thing. That is a bill of goods that has been promoted by various groups who are anti science, anti knowledge and disingenuously represent the goal of science as a means to destroy faith, and not as a means to expand our knowledge of nature which has been of enormous benefit in many areas of research, not the least of which has been in the field of medicine. |
[Emphasis added.]
I don't think it's the job of atheists to help people with cognitive dissonance to reconcile contradictory ways of thinking. Such people have a fine track record for coming up with rationalizations on their own.
It may well be that their world will come crashing down. That's their problem, since they chose their own contradictions. Atheists helping the religious with their apologetics seems silly, cynical, and ineffective at best. Simply accepting their cooperation without being snarky within NCSE should suffice.
But I think we all agree that it's best that some religious people do support the teaching of good science, even if their internal contradictions threaten to create a rift in the space-time continuum. And I firmly believe in working with such religious people in a united front against woos and fundies, keeping civil (and neutral!) within groups like the NCSE.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 05/12/2009 23:39:08 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2009 : 23:28:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Ah, yes, this does get more to the heart of it. This I think makes it clearer where we disagree. For people who are compartmentalizing, I agree with you that they are holding a contradictory worldview that they only think is compatibility between their religion and science. |
Well, I still don't think you quite get what I'm saying. I'm saying that for people who wish to hold both scientific and faith-based worldviews, compartmentalization is the only "solution." The theistic scientists you point to as success stories are the ones who are most guilty of compartmentalization. That's why they're able to function "successfully."
But that is not what the articles on the NCSE advocate. They advocate a fundamentally different kind of faith which doesn't make any claims about the physical world. I read these two articles by Pete Hess:
http://ncseweb.org/religion/god-evolution
http://ncseweb.org/religion/how-do-i-read-bible-let-me-count-ways
In the first he does not define a God which could be tested by science. In the second he describes the Bible as something which it would be foolish to take literally because of what science tells us about reality.
I've made a case on this forum many times in the past where I've cited writings by theologians and other religious thinkers who clearly do not have the kind of faith which is in conflict with skepticism. |
There is no such thing as a "kind" of faith that doesn't conflict with skepticism. All faith conflicts with skepticism. They are competing philosophies. The people who think they have reconciled them are fooling themselves. They are self-deluded, and as such, cannot be taken at their word.
You seem to think that there are areas in which faith is "appropriate." I've already addressed at length why this isn't so, but you didn't seem interested in responding to any of that. So while I might be wasting my breath, let's take it from the top.
Lenny Flank gives one of the best overviews of the scientific method that I've seen, so let's start there.The scientific method is very simple, and consists of five basic steps. They are:
1. Observe some aspect of the universe
2. Form a hypothesis that potentially explains what you have observed
3. Make testable predictions from that hypothesis
4. Make observations or experiments that can test those predictions
5. Modify your hypothesis until it is in accord with all observations and predictions
Nothing in any of those five steps excludes on principle, a priori, any "supernatural cause". Using this method, one is entirely free to invoke as many non-material pixies, ghosts, goddesses, demons, devils, djinis, and/or the Great Pumpkin, as many times as you like, in any or all of your hypotheses. And science won't (and doesn't) object to that in the slightest. Indeed, scientific experiments have been proposed (and carried out and published) on such "supernatural causes" as the effects of prayer on healing, as well as such "non-materialistic" or "non-natural" causes as ESP, telekinesis, precognition and "remote viewing". |
So as you see, science doesn't rule anything out a priori. To say that science can only answer "materialistic" questions is simply false. It can and has addressed supernatural claims. The nature of the claim has nothing to do with whether science can address it or not.
Well, if science doesn't rule anything out, then how does it get anywhere? How is anything learned? It accomplishes that by ruling things in. Premises must pass a series of hurdles. Hypotheses are subjected to a battery of tests. A discernible pattern must emerge during observations. And, because we all inhabit the same reality, one's findings and conclusions must be verifiable by separate minds. This is how truth is sussed out of infinite possibilities. And as I've mentioned before, this system has proven itself beyond any reasonable doubt. The success of science is undeniable.
But if a premise--any premise--fails these steps, then it must be rejected until such time as it can pass them (if ever). Imagine science like a great sifting screen. You can put whatever you want in the top and only facts will fall out of the bottom. But if you try to force something past the screen, say a cherished marble from childhood, then you've just ruined the screen and undermined it's purpose. The hole left in the mesh will now allow other unwanted debris to slip in and pollute the sifted material, until it gets to the point where you might as well have never used a sift to begin with.
That's what theists are doing, Marf. They want their untested faith can go in the bucket with the rest of science--because they realize science works and they want its benefits--but they have to cheat to do it. Their faith simply won't fit through the screen. For any intellectually honest person, that means the faith should be rejected as unsound. It didn't pass the test. It doesn't belong in a worldview informed by science, which we know works. And there is no way to "dilute" faith enough to make it pass, since the only way to get it through the screen is by positive evidence. It's not enough to not directly conflict with something that's already made it through the screen, some other finding of science. It has to make it through the screen on it's own merits. If Pete Hess does not define his God in a manner could be tested by science, then science says Pete Hess' god must be rejected until it can be tested. To forgo science and say "I'm going to keep this premise even though it can't pass the method" is to undermine the entire enterprise. Why subject anything to the scientific method, then? Why not just believe whatever one wishes? Why use a sifting screen at all? Just drop whatever you like into a bucket and carry that around.
| They really are using science and Christianity (as a metaphysical philosophy) to answer different questions. The questions are appropriately divided with the premise that science answers questions about the physical world and philosophy/religion deals with metaphysical questions. |
And that's what I've been trying to tell you. It's not appropriate to limit science to the the physical world. That's an artificial constraint. The reason theists don't want to apply science to their metaphysical propositions isn't because it doesn't work, but because it doesn't return results they like. It's not that science fails to work on metaphysical questions, it's that it accurately returns negative answers. It works fine. Science says "these premises fail and should be rejected." So anyone applying science consistently and appropriately would be forced to reject metaphysical assumptions. It's as simple as that. Atheism is the only metaphysical conclusion "compatible" with science. Everything else must be dishonestly shoehorned in using some arbitrary exception to the rules. "Faith" is simply the rejection of a negative one doesn't want to accept.
That's why I say faith and science are fundamentally incompatible. If you can't use science to arrive at a conclusion, that that conclusion is not compatible with science. And it's inconsistent and intellectually dishonest to ever turn science "off" to allow in metaphysical propositions that couldn't get in otherwise.
That back and forth, that switching between worldviews, is compartmentalization. Like a light switch. On or off, depending on one's mood. But only ever one or the other, because it can never be both simultaneously. Science is no more "compatible" with faith than darkness is with light. They are opposites. The switch is only up or down. The screen is either in place or it isn't. It's not possible to conceive of a worldview that incorporates them both harmoniously because they are mutually exclusive. One is the negation of the other. But you can keep flipping that switch between worldviews if you're determined to maintain premises which should rightly be rejected. That's what theistic scientists advocate, as well as anyone else who tries to tell you it's possible to reconcile science with faith. Because it's not really about reconciliation, it's about keeping the two properly separated and knowing when to throw the switch. Compartmentalization. That's the successful "solution" they're advocating.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 05/13/2009 00:10:38 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Is the NCSE too accommodating to religion?
