Thoughts in a Haystack

I think the new atheists' main contention is that religions' claims to be a way of knowledge, able to access truths which are inaccessible to science, are not solidly grounded. If some followers of religion make no such claims, that is welcome news. The atheists' argument is with those (a very vocal group) who do make such claims.
 

If so, it is still a valid criticism to point out when they don't make their case by means that are "solidly grounded" by their own terms. Even assuming religious claims are not well founded, that does not render the atheists arguments any better if they are not well founded on their own.

Of course, any claim that there are no "truths" which are inaccessible to science is simply a backhanded way of claiming that philosophical naturalism / materialism is true. This is even clearer when Coyne attacks Miller, who accepts all the results of science, but simply denies that science can be assummed to deliver all the truth there is or may be.

However, there is no noncircular way for science to demonstrate that the material world is all there is and/or that there are no truths inaccessible to science.

Anyway you slice it, the incombatibilists are making claims not based on valid evidence, in contravention to Coyne's stated criteria for proper belief.
 

I don't think anyone is claiming that science has all the answers or is the only way to truth. But incompatabilists have raised the valid question of how religion arrives at truth. What truths have been brought to light by religion?

I think it is a bit of a canard to imply that all new atheists are saying that all religion leads to social ills and terrible behavior. They all state quite clearly that is the fundamentalist extremists who exhibit this kind of behavior, and their objection to the moderate position is that it lends credibility to the fundamentalist position (a viewpoint I share).

You state: "(h)owever, there is no noncircular way for science to demonstrate that the material world is all there is and/or that there are no truths inaccessible to science." In reply I would say there is no way for religion to demonstrate anything, as it is by definition a matter of faith, and not demonstrable evidence.

Schoen states: "I suspect it is because there is no science that confirms the kind of folk wisdom that says it's "perfectly evident" that religion is intrinsically antagonistic to reason and human rights." I wonder if he knows any gay people. Last I checked they were the victims of a nationwide campaign of bigotry and disenfranchisement that was due pretty much entirely to religion. Or maybe he should consider the situation of women in fundamentalist Islamic countries. Or the study showing a correlation between church attendance and thinking that torture was a reasonable option.

This is not to say that religion doesn't do any good to the world. But it doesn't provide any truths except in matters that appear to be entirely made up by religion. They are "spiritual" truths, but the idea of "spirituality" is essentially a religious one. To say that the scientific method is incompatible with religion is a fair charge. You skirt the issue saying the new atheists are just making things up about religion, which is not scientific of them. But if just making stuff up is not compatible with a scientific viewpoint, and religion is essentially just stuff that people made up, well, I'm sure you see where I'm going with this.
 

I don't think anyone is claiming that science has all the answers or is the only way to truth.

Peter Atkins explicitly says this. Dawkins has said it. Carroll said something very much like it at one of the Beyond Belief conferences. Dennett comes very close to implying it, at times.

More to the point, your assertion that homophobia and misogyny are "due pretty much entirely to religion" is not something anyone has scientifically substantiated. We might legitimately say that these and other evils and injustices are "due pretty much entirely to human nature," but such a statement wouldn't tell us anything we don't already know about human nature, or the nature of evil.

What's true for human nature is true for religion. We can tie it to good behaviors and bad. Without a more precise defintion of what religion is, we can't do much more than that. What we absolutely cannot do, scientifically, is agree with Steven Weinberg that "for good people to do bad things, that takes religion." (I'd be very curious to see how the experiments to test that hypothesis are constructed!)
 

What truths have been brought to light by religion?

As far back as history goes (and in most, if not all, pre-literate societies that survived into modern times) what we now call "secular" law (against murder, stealing, etc.) was tied to religion. That may well be a just a correlation and not causation but there is no scientific evidence on that point, as far as I know, and there is clear evidence they are closely connected. That may not be the sort of "truth" you were talking about but it is a necessary part of a functioning society.

They all state quite clearly that is the fundamentalist extremists who exhibit this kind of behavior, and their objection to the moderate position is that it lends credibility to the fundamentalist position (a viewpoint I share).

Then we can blame "moderate scientists" for the abuse of science by, say, Josheph Mengele; the dropping of the atom bomb in the past or what North Korea and others may do in the future; the use of science by every despotic government, such as Iran; the destruction of the environment etc., etc.? After all, those moderate scientists are not only lending credibility to the use of science in those ways but are actually supplying the means those people use. What about Darwin's supposed ties to the Holocaust? Certainly Hitler and the German militarists in general sought to justify their aggressive nationalism and destruction of "inferior" people by appeal to (admittedly perverted) selectionist ideas. If all it takes is to somehow vaguely "lend credibility" to some disfavored group to be condemned there's damn few who can escape.

I'm sorry, but blame by association is a dangerous game. Do I need to point out that you've failed to present any scientific evidence for this association in any case?

Or the study showing a correlation between church attendance and thinking that torture was a reasonable option.

Again, a correlation, not causation, and not nearly as strong a correlation as religion with law. But even if it is cause and effect, what does that have to do with the many religious figures who have condemned torture? Condemn people for what they say or do, not for what someone who happens to share a distantly related idea says or does.

I agree that the scientific method is incompatible with what might be called the religious method. But a "method" is not a "worldview," no matter how much you and Coyne might like to muddle the two. The methods are clearly not incompatible because people can keep the two methods separate and do good science and "good religion" (whatever that might mean). The fact that you cannot understand or approve of how they do it does not change that empiric fact.
 

P.S. Sorry, Matt, I misread "viewpoint" as "worldview" but I still think the point is the same. The scientific viewpoint is nothing more than: when doing science, you should use a certain method. Why or how is that affected by religious people (or artists, musicians, etc.) making things up, as long as there is no pretence that what they are doing is science?

The fact that Coyne or PZ or Dawkins may be scientists who also have a worldview that is incompatible with religion doesn't make incombatibility a scientific viewpoint, rather than their personal philosophical viewpoint. And Miller, by not claiming scientific support for his religious worldview, isn't attempting to hijack the scientific method.
 

Underverse, you misquote me. I said "Last I checked [homosexuals] were the victims of a nationwide campaign of bigotry and disenfranchisement that was due pretty much entirely to religion." Do you disagree? I have only my powers of observation, which I think lead any reasonable person to believe that homophobia in the US is almost always associated with a religious worldview, and justifications for it are almost invariably religious. No scientific studies though. I wonder why...

I also think that no scientist claims that science has all the answers, although I suppose many, myself included, think that it is the only way to truth. So fair point.

I never say all misogyny is due to religion. But have you seen the way women are treated in fundamentalist theocracies?

John, you suggest law was tied to religion, and continues to be in some countries. I guess this is the old morality=religion standpoint? I wasn't actually too clear on that. I know that lots of people make religious laws, but I don't know what truths come out of them. I don't think shellfish is an abomination, for example. I think it's quite tasty.

Maybe I should state that when I say truth I mean "fact about the world that to the best of our knowledge is correct." So "stealing is bad", for example, doesn't really fit into this category. Sometimes stealing is just fine. Or at least justifiable or legal. We stole almost the entire United States. Morals are squirrely things, and are much more like opinions than fact. So is law, for that matter. But one true statement about the world that was brought to us by religion? I'm not sure I can think of one.

Fair point about the guilt by association, but I think you overstate your analogy. Science does not explicitly say kill the Jews, but christianity does explicitly say homosexuals are an evil abomination to god. It also says lots of other terrible things. So do most religious texts. Just because moderate christians don't do all the nasty stuff in the bible doesn't mean they don't think the bible is holy, or the word of God. I always wondered how they figured out which parts to believe and which to leave alone.

Perhaps I should say that science is a tool and a body of knowledge, and religion is a worldview. And using these tools and body of knowledge leads to the inescapable conclusion that any reasonable, workaday definition of religion is demonstrably false. Hence the incompatibility.

I have seen marvelous examples of the twisting of what religion is by accomodationists. It is my experience that, to the average person, religion is not something esoteric and undefinable, but is God, capital G. And God does miracles, and provides a framework, and created the universe, and is actively involved in running it. This does not hold up to scientific evidence or reasoning.

I don't, like some, think that religion is responsible for all evils. I think it can in fact do a lot of good. But is it science? No, of course not. Is a religious viewpoint compatible with a scientific one? I don't think so. Can humans hold contradictory viewpoints in their brain? Sure. But that doesn't mean science and religion are compatible. It just means some people can ignore that discrepancy.
 

John, you say "The scientific viewpoint is nothing more than: when doing science, you should use a certain method. Why or how is that affected by religious people (or artists, musicians, etc.) making things up, as long as there is no pretence that what they are doing is science?"

I disagree that the scientific viewpoint only applies to science. And I would have much less of a problem with people making things up if they didn't state them as true. You don't seem to like alternative medicine, but to play the devil's advocate, why do you have a problem with it? They aren't saying it's scientific and making claims about it that are false, all they? I think the same point applies to religion.
 

I guess this is the old morality=religion standpoint?

It's interesting that you'd say that. I suppose you have not read much of my blog. The point is that you asked what religion had discovered. With the caveats I've already noted, religion may have discovered/been intimately associated with the organization of society that lead to civilization. Civilization may not be a "fact about the world" in your narrow definition, but it is to me, pretty important. Based on the rest of your complaints, I'd have thought it was important to you.

when I say truth I mean "fact about the world that to the best of our knowledge is correct."

So that's the only sort of "truth" there is? Art, literature, music, law, social progress (including in all those areas you complain about) -- all of which are not "facts about the world" that are empirically observable -- are unimportant?

but christianity does explicitly say homosexuals are an evil abomination to god.

Do all Christians say that? Is that a "fact about the world"?

I always wondered how they figured out which parts to believe and which to leave alone.

Is theology a "fact about the world" that has an objective right and wrong answer? If not, why do you care how they do it?

Morals are squirrely things, and are much more like opinions than fact. So is law, for that matter.

Then why do you care about what happens generally to homosexuals and women? If morality and ethics is unimportant, compared to "facts about the world," why care about anyone but yourself?

Perhaps I should say that science is a tool and a body of knowledge, and religion is a worldview. And using these tools and body of knowledge leads to the inescapable conclusion that any reasonable, workaday definition of religion is demonstrably false. Hence the incompatibility.

Really? So you think science can disprove the existence of God?

I'd like to see that "workaday definition of religion." Definitions are important in science, of course, and if you've come up with a cogent definition of religion -- something that people up to now have failed to be able to achieve -- I'd be very interested. Does it include Buddhism? Confucianism? Deism?

If only some religions/beliefs fall under your "workaday definition of religion," then aren't you over-generalizing your "results"? ... a bad thing in science.

If only some religions are in some ways "demonstrably false," how does that differ from science? After all, we know for all but a certainty that our present science is false in some ways (it always has been and the very point of science is to approximate truth and build on that to a better approximation of truth). If knowing that some part of religion is false makes it incompatible with science, what then can we say about science itself, given that we know some part of it is false?

And are all false things "incompatible" with science? We know that government does some things based on false ideas about "facts about the world"? Do all ethical scientists have to reject money from government, the way Coyne rejects money from the Templeton Foundation?

Is a religious viewpoint compatible with a scientific one? I don't think so.

But is that a "fact about the world"? If so, then we're back to the point that it has not been demonstrated scientifically. If it is just an unevidenced or poorly-evidenced opinion, why can you hold such opinions and not religious scientists?
 

[Broken into two because of Blogger space restrictions]

Can humans hold contradictory viewpoints in their brain? Sure. But that doesn't mean science and religion are compatible. It just means some people can ignore that discrepancy.

What Chris and I have been saying is that everyone holds contradictory viewpoints in their heads -- and I think the above shows you do too. It is part of the human condition. The question is why you think your contradictions are privileged and other people's aren't.

I disagree that the scientific viewpoint only applies to science.

When that "viewpoint" isn't part of science, it is necessarily a philosophy -- a way of looking at the world in general rather than science itself. Which I don't think is a bad thing -- philosophy is as important as science in a way. Nor do I think "scientism" is a disreputable philosophy, though I think it is flawed. But as a philosophy it is no more privileged than any other philosophy in terms of its truth content, unlike science itself, and I know of no way to demonstrate that it is superior to Ken Miller's philosophy.

You don't seem to like alternative medicine, but to play the devil's advocate, why do you have a problem with it? They aren't saying it's scientific and making claims about it that are false, all they?

If, in fact, there are no claims of science (medicine is, more or less, a science) or other fraudulent claims, and if adults chose to pay for alternative medicine, it's their lookout as free beings (political and personal freedom, although not a "fact about the world" are also important). I can say they're stupid, just as you can say religious believers are stupid. But would a scientist taking alternative medicine (and I'm sure that there are some) automatically become a bad scientist? Is alternative medicine incompatible with science? Not, if, as you say, it doesn't claim to be science. It would then be on the level of going to an art museum to look at Turner paintings because they make you feel good.
 

It's often very difficult to get believers to say exactly what it is they believe in.

John, I'm sure you noticed this before. They are fond of saying what they *don't* believe in and criticizing atheists for making unwarranted assumptions but just try and pin them down.

That's why I usually ask pointed questions like, "Do you believe in miracles?" or "Do you believe that God answers prayers?"

Why is it that most believers refuse to answer these questions? For example, do you know whether Ken Miller believes in miracles or not? Do you know whether he believes n the efficacy of prayer?

I suspect you know the reason why believers won't answer these questions and why this doesn't stop them from complaining that atheists are misrepresenting them.

I'd love to see you try and pin down some of the religious defenders of compatibility. But since you are also an accommodationist, perhaps you can answer some questions?

Is belief in miracles compatible with science? Is belief in a life after death compatible with science? Is belief that God answers prayers compatible with science?
 

I said "Last I checked [homosexuals] were the victims of a nationwide campaign of bigotry and disenfranchisement that was due pretty much entirely to religion." Do you disagree?

I do, mostly on the grounds that what you assert is vague and muddled. The history of religion and of homosexuality in our culture is very complex. To separate them as cleanly as your hypothesis suggests we would need to be able to observe, or at least postulate, a time in our past when there was no religion, and homosexuality was normative. Looking back at history we see that certain types of proscribed homosexual behavior have been normative in numerous *religious* societies such as those of ancient Greece, India, Rome, aboriginal America, and Oceania, all of which had metaphysical structures that were deeply out of accord with what contemporary naturalism proposes.

I certainly grant that traditional (but not all) Christianity has a virulent moral opposition to homosexuality, and that most homophobia in the West has a specifically religious tenor to it. I have too many close gay friends to downplay the severity of this, and the suffering it causes every day.

But how do we generalize from this fact? As an analogy, what if we were to observe that most road accidents killing or injuring bicyclists were "due pretty much entirely" to automobile driving? Before we use this finding to suggest a general argument for "avehiclism" we would want to look at the way people drove who contributed to the accidents; the way we create, maintain and regulate roads and bike lanes; and the way we promote safe habits among both drivers and cyclists. We would also want to recognize that some vehicles have an important social value we would lose if we went to an all bicycle society. Ambulances, for example, or shuttles for seniors. Certainly a great deal of social science would be involved in studying and quantifying the possible outcomes.

I think my analogy grants too much instrinsic danger-value to religion through the metaphor of motor vehicles. (We know, for example, from various liberal churches and sects that religion can be an ardent defender of gay rights, in a way an automobile can never be of bicycle safety.) But I think it begins to show the kind of rhetorical caution we should exercise when we discover that something has a hazardous role. Improvement and refinement can be every bit as effective as eradication (if not more so, since they are nowhere near as exhausting).

Your discussion of morals really, I'm sorry to say, goes off the rails from the start. I recommend reading some solid moral philosophy to keep you from the temptation to argue that, for example, America stealing land from the Indians is retroactively justified because we are a good country. I suspect when you say "sometimes stealing is just fine" you mean that theft can yield to a more primary moral principle, like Jean Valjean stealing a loaf of bread to keep his family from starving. But I doubt you would argue moral principles are so "slippery" that letting them starve was also a valid option.

At any rate, after all of this we are no closer to a definition of what it is in "religion" that supposedly makes it intrinsically hostile to human rights. There are simply too many loose logical threads for me to take such a hypothesis seriously without some attempt to refine its terms. My suspicion, for which I offer no proof, is that this refinement comes at too high a price for neo-atheism, which has staked its raison d'etre on an incompatibalism that starts at it's own doormat.
 

Is belief in miracles compatible with science? Is belief in a life after death compatible with science? Is belief that God answers prayers compatible with science?

We've been over this before, Larry. Miracles are compatible with science because they are invisibile to the scientific method. Since science is the study of natural, regular causes of recurrent events, any individual miracle is simply a anomaly that would be tossed out of the results and "regular" miracles would either be ascribed (incorrectly) to some natural cause or put down to unknown causes. The rest of the answers are similar:

Belief in a life after death, with the caveat that "life" means something other than biological processes and involves something that by definition is not detectible by science, is something that science cannot refute it so why isn't compatible?

And efficacy of prayer is too, as long as it isn't described as one prayer, one cure ... which hardly any religion subscribes to.

Now let's get to your real question: is religion coextensive with science? No. Is it requred to be in order to be compatible with science? Only if science is coextensive with philosophical naturalism/materialism.

I think more of science than to reduce it to a mere unevidenced philosophy.
 

P.S.

For example, do you know whether Ken Miller believes in miracles or not?

Why, yes, I do.
 

P.P.S.

Now I assume you think atheism is compatible with science, right Larry? But people over at your blog are now telling me, based on your definition of "atheism" as anyone who doesn't believe in God (including those of us who self-identify as agnostics), that the branch of Buddhism that does not believe in gods are atheists. But those same Buddhists believe in life after death in the form of reincarnation. So, can we now say that atheism is incompatible with science?
 

So just broaden the definition of atheist. What's the big deal. Atheist: doesn't believe in gods or stupid religion. Big whoopie-doo.
 

That's not broadening it; it's narrowing it (excluding another group from the definition). The idea of a definition is to exclude things from what is covered so as to reach some meaningful group.

Larry's claim is that "those who don't believe in God" is a "natural group" and meaningful. The fact that you'd exclude "religionists" as well shows that he's wrong about that.

And, as long as we're excluding "religionists" from atheism, why not exclude "agnostics" too?
 

But agnostics don't have a religion and they don't worship gods, do they? That's what I always thought. Is there something they aren't telling everybody or something?

There's a meme going around in Christianity that says that Christianity isn't a religion, it's a way if life. Well it might be true that it's a way of life, but that doesn't mean it's not a religion. So if they don't want to be called a religion, then we should just respect that?
 

So if they don't want to be called a religion, then we should just respect that?

I guess so, because there are a ton of atheists who (purportedly) don't make positive claims about gods and religions, but yet we still call them atheists. Whatever they want to be called, then that's what they are I guess.

(Sorry to hear that Mr. Moran is wrong about something, btw.)
 

Mr. Wilkins says: So, to summarise, when an atheist says to me I am an atheist because I lack a view, I am minded to reply, “I am also an asportist” for failing to have a team in any sport that I support. It makes about as much sense.

Now wait a minute here. What is the reason Mr. Wilkins "lacks a view" though? It's because he thinks the evidence for the view is silly. It isn't because he lacks a view of the evidence.

Does Mr. Wilkins think that the evidence for sports is unsubstantiated or something?! Something seems very "straw-man-ish" somewhere somehow!
 

John Pieret says,

Miracles are compatible with science because they are invisibile to the scientific method.

One of the miracles reported in the Bible is that a big bright star appeared over Bethlehem when Jesus was born.

Do you honestly believe that science is completely incapable of examining that claim to see if it's true?

What about all those scholars who have combed through ancient records and discovered that nobody actually reported anything unusual in the night sky? Yes, it's negative evidence but do you really believe that it's irrelevant?

So, John, do *you* believe there was an astronomical event at the time of Jesus' birth? Why, or why not?

Are you an agnostic when it comes to miracles?

How do you feel about UFO abductions or claims that the FBI assassinated JFK? What about the idea that a visit to Lourdes will cure you of disease or that God stopped the sun when Joshua fit the battle of Gibeon? Are these also invisible to the scientific method?
 

One of the miracles reported in the Bible is that a big bright star appeared over Bethlehem when Jesus was born.

Given the knowledge of the people of the time, all that was reported is that a light appeared in the sky.

Do you honestly believe that science is completely incapable of examining that claim to see if it's true?

What about all those scholars who have combed through ancient records and discovered that nobody actually reported anything unusual in the night sky? Yes, it's negative evidence but do you really believe that it's irrelevant?

Irrelevant? No. Conclusive? No.

So, John, do *you* believe there was an astronomical event at the time of Jesus' birth? Why, or why not?

A natural event? No. Because science can investigate natural events.

Are you an agnostic when it comes to miracles?

Yes. But "astronomical events," by definition aren't miracles.

How do you feel about UFO abductions ...

Assuming they involve natural beings, we can investigate them as natural events.

or claims that the FBI assassinated JFK?

Unless the FBI is employing angels ...

What about the idea that a visit to Lourdes will cure you of disease ...

Here we have a natural event (the present condition of disease) that can be investigated. We can also investigate (historically) whether the person had a disease before visiting Lourdes. If the disease was present in the past and is now gone, we can investigate whether there might be a natural cause of remission (if so, science will assume that the natural cause is the cause of the remission but cannot rule out some other cause). If there is no known known cause of the remission, science will assign it a placename of "spontaneous remission" which means "anomoly" and shrug its shoulders.

or that God stopped the sun when Joshua fit the battle of Gibeon?

Or somehow made it seem that way to the people involved.

Are these also invisible to the scientific method?

The miracles are.
 

386sx:

But agnostics don't have a religion and they don't worship gods, do they?

Not necessarily. After all, there might be other reasons to identify with a religious group and even to worship something, for which "god" might be a handy placename.

My real objection, though, as I said at Larry's place is that definitions are not logical constructs, they are usages, perhaps especially in English. A definition in any dictionary is a description of how a word is used "on the ground," not a prescription of how it should be used. No matter what Larry wants the word to mean, it carries connotations that I do not think apply to me. "Agnostic" may too (of the sort Flew claimed) but I'm much more comfortable with those than I am with the ones that come with "atheist."
 

Have you ever thought about including a little bit more than just your articles?
I mean, what you say is important and everything. However think about if
you added some great graphics or videos to give your posts more, "pop"!
Your content is excellent but with pics and clips, this blog could definitely be one of the very best in its niche.
Terrific blog!

Also visit my web-site :: weight loss diet plan for women