Monday, October 11, 2010
Incompatible Philosophy
Ah, Jerry Coyne is at it again.He has a screed in USA Today once again displaying his poor grasp of philosophy and rehashing all the worst arguments in favor of atheism as if they were knockdown truisms.
There is much that could be said about Coyne's failings as a philosopher or even as a rationalist but I think the following is emblematic. First Coyne says:
"But surely," you might argue, "science and religion must be compatible. After all, some scientists are religious."But only eight paragraphs later he is asserting:
But don't just take my word for the incompatibility of science and faith — it's amply demonstrated by the high rate of atheism among scientists.If the fact that some scientists are religious is no evidence for compatibility, how can the fact that some scientists are atheists be evidence of incompatibility? More importantly, if Coyne can't keep a consistent thought across a few hundred words, why should anyone pay any attention to opinion about science and religion?
Everything that Coyne says about the incompatibility of religion and science applies equally to the "incompatibility" of science with art and literature. Yet some of us think that those deliver a kind of "truth" about the human condition that make them at least potentially valuable and something that any scientist can engage in with no fear of betraying science simply because they are "incompatible" in the sense Coyne asserts.
The specific examples Coyne recites as coming from the "truth" claims of religion -- "the oppression of women and gays, opposition to stem cell research and euthanasia, attacks on science, denial of contraception for birth control and AIDS prevention, sexual repression, and of course all those wars, suicide bombings and religious persecutions" -- are not shared universally by all religions and, therefore, are less likely the result of "religion" instead of being the outcome of particular cultural forces. More importantly, the opposition to those positions are not themselves scientific results but, rather, the outcome of different cultural forces.
Coyne could have argued that his atheism is more moral than theism but that's not what he's claiming. He's claiming that his atheism (which he confuses with science) is empirically true and religion is not.
To say he's failed to make that case is a massive understatement.
________________________________________________
Update: See Chris Schoen's excellent comments at u n d e r v e r s e.
.
Labels: Accommodationism Incompatiblism
Comments:
<< Home
Although most religions are incompatible with something (Islam with pork, Puritanism with fun, etc), a casual inspection of history suggests that religion as a whole is compatible with just about anything.
The cynic in me suggests that religion's ability to seem really really important while taking on any convenient shape is the main basis for its social importance, but I'm sure that's just my no-good liberal elitist mindset whispering in my ear.
The cynic in me suggests that religion's ability to seem really really important while taking on any convenient shape is the main basis for its social importance, but I'm sure that's just my no-good liberal elitist mindset whispering in my ear.
# posted by 
: 1:11 AM
: 1:11 AM
That is a weaselly little article, isn't it?
Yes, it's illogical to look at religious scientists and say that means nothing except compartmentalizing, or something (yeah, so? We have to deal with the psyches that exist, not some ideal for which we might wish), while high levels of atheism in science is meaningful. Well, OK, he is working the percentages, which might mean something, but it would be hard to pin down exactly what it means. Culture is always a looming possibility.
Then there's the poor analogy (you'd think he wouldn't follow creationists in doing it) with marriage and adultery, when adultery is clearly a violation of marriage and religion is not obviously a violation of science. At least it would need to be argued. Anyway, it's not like marriage is exactly incompatible with adultery, so he has to shift to "monogamy" and say it's not "perfectly compatible" with adultery--who said religion is "perfectly compatible" with science?
Coyne writes:
Does religion work? It brings some of us solace
OK, Jerry, what are you going to do about people who need religious solace? Take away their solace?
Then he uses the same selective survey of "34 countries" to bolster his idea that religion and science are not compatible--and he ignores the many Catholic countries not included in the survey that are really quite accepting of evolution while remaining highly religious. Mexico comes to mind, but nearly all of Latin America would count.
It's not as if he doesn't--or shouldn't anyway--know better than to continue to use such selective results, as I pointed out how selective they were at MooneyBaum's blog, and he responded to me there--albeit without actually dealing with the facts I mentioned.
When atheists use virtually the same tactics that creationists do, they're apparently not very much more interested in the truth than are the creationists. Of course I'm not saying that all the Gnus do this, but it's time for Jerry to do better.
Glen Davidson
Yes, it's illogical to look at religious scientists and say that means nothing except compartmentalizing, or something (yeah, so? We have to deal with the psyches that exist, not some ideal for which we might wish), while high levels of atheism in science is meaningful. Well, OK, he is working the percentages, which might mean something, but it would be hard to pin down exactly what it means. Culture is always a looming possibility.
Then there's the poor analogy (you'd think he wouldn't follow creationists in doing it) with marriage and adultery, when adultery is clearly a violation of marriage and religion is not obviously a violation of science. At least it would need to be argued. Anyway, it's not like marriage is exactly incompatible with adultery, so he has to shift to "monogamy" and say it's not "perfectly compatible" with adultery--who said religion is "perfectly compatible" with science?
Coyne writes:
Does religion work? It brings some of us solace
OK, Jerry, what are you going to do about people who need religious solace? Take away their solace?
Then he uses the same selective survey of "34 countries" to bolster his idea that religion and science are not compatible--and he ignores the many Catholic countries not included in the survey that are really quite accepting of evolution while remaining highly religious. Mexico comes to mind, but nearly all of Latin America would count.
It's not as if he doesn't--or shouldn't anyway--know better than to continue to use such selective results, as I pointed out how selective they were at MooneyBaum's blog, and he responded to me there--albeit without actually dealing with the facts I mentioned.
When atheists use virtually the same tactics that creationists do, they're apparently not very much more interested in the truth than are the creationists. Of course I'm not saying that all the Gnus do this, but it's time for Jerry to do better.
Glen Davidson
In your rush to sneer at jerry's philosophical failings (yes, I agree there are some) you seem to have ignored the context. Jerry was writing a 'screed' for a newspaper, not writing a Paper for philosophical debate.
A politician's oratory can be impressive and effective in changing the direction of debate - yet a transcript of what was said can be ungrammatical and poorly organised. Perhaps Jerry's article falls into the same category of communication? Not perfectly formed, but very welcome.
A politician's oratory can be impressive and effective in changing the direction of debate - yet a transcript of what was said can be ungrammatical and poorly organised. Perhaps Jerry's article falls into the same category of communication? Not perfectly formed, but very welcome.
Jerry was writing a 'screed' for a newspaper, not writing a Paper for philosophical debate.
Oh, I think he could manage to avoid self-contradiction in a newspaper article just as easily as he could in a philosophical debate. Indeed, since I, as a secular humanist, will be lumped together with Coyne in the minds of most of the people readiing that rag, I really would appreciate his not making us look like dufuses.
Like Glen, I find "allies" who act just like our opponents not very welcome.
Oh, I think he could manage to avoid self-contradiction in a newspaper article just as easily as he could in a philosophical debate. Indeed, since I, as a secular humanist, will be lumped together with Coyne in the minds of most of the people readiing that rag, I really would appreciate his not making us look like dufuses.
Like Glen, I find "allies" who act just like our opponents not very welcome.
PS: Since the Gnu Atheists claim the right to sneer at theists, why should they be immune from the same treatment when they screw up?
Sayeth DM ...
as if your babble means anything, pieret... you pathetic little man
Wow! Projection much?
as if your babble means anything, pieret... you pathetic little man
Wow! Projection much?
His comment about knowing that God is not requires to start the universe got me searching and, yes, apparently he's very interested in Hawking and m-theory.
Except New Scientist says "Until there is empirical evidence for M-theory, Hawking's suggestion that it has all the answers is just a matter of faith."
I guess it's OK to rely on authority and believe things without evidence now.
Except New Scientist says "Until there is empirical evidence for M-theory, Hawking's suggestion that it has all the answers is just a matter of faith."
I guess it's OK to rely on authority and believe things without evidence now.
# posted by : 8:23 AM
: 8:23 AM
I guess it's OK to rely on authority and believe things without evidence now.
Similarly, Victor Stenger, in that panel discussion on "Confrontation vs. Accommodation" the other day was going on about how the "Unmoved Mover/infinite regress/why is there something rather than nothing" argument can be ignored if the cosmos is eternal (i.e. uncaused). Besides the lack of evidence that the cosmos is uncaused, there is the philosophical question of what it means to science if everything is, at a very fundamental level, not subject to cause and effect, given that a major aim of science is to discover cause and effect in the natural world. If we can't rely on the cosmos itself being caused, why should we expect any phenomena to have a cause?
In any case, if the cosmos just is, why not a god? (There goes Dawkins' "Ultimate 747" argument ... not that it's much of a loss.)
Similarly, Victor Stenger, in that panel discussion on "Confrontation vs. Accommodation" the other day was going on about how the "Unmoved Mover/infinite regress/why is there something rather than nothing" argument can be ignored if the cosmos is eternal (i.e. uncaused). Besides the lack of evidence that the cosmos is uncaused, there is the philosophical question of what it means to science if everything is, at a very fundamental level, not subject to cause and effect, given that a major aim of science is to discover cause and effect in the natural world. If we can't rely on the cosmos itself being caused, why should we expect any phenomena to have a cause?
In any case, if the cosmos just is, why not a god? (There goes Dawkins' "Ultimate 747" argument ... not that it's much of a loss.)
a) Some scientists are theists; therefore science and religion are compatible.
b) There is a hugely disproportionate representation of atheism among scientists; therefore science and religion are incompatible.
They may both be poor arguments but they are not the same argument.
"Everything that Coyne says about the incompatibility of religion and science applies equally to the "incompatibility" of science with art and literature."
Without a more explicit argument, I simply disagree with this assertion. ISTM that the "truth" claims of art and literature do not cover the same breadth as the religious claims.
"if the cosmos just is, why not a god?"
Sure! Of course getting the theists to accept "the cosmos just is" statement is the point of the arguments. It refutes all of the 'necessity' class of arguments for the existence of god.
For TB
Hawking is an appropriate authority for matters cosmological.
Is New Scientist?
b) There is a hugely disproportionate representation of atheism among scientists; therefore science and religion are incompatible.
They may both be poor arguments but they are not the same argument.
"Everything that Coyne says about the incompatibility of religion and science applies equally to the "incompatibility" of science with art and literature."
Without a more explicit argument, I simply disagree with this assertion. ISTM that the "truth" claims of art and literature do not cover the same breadth as the religious claims.
"if the cosmos just is, why not a god?"
Sure! Of course getting the theists to accept "the cosmos just is" statement is the point of the arguments. It refutes all of the 'necessity' class of arguments for the existence of god.
For TB
Hawking is an appropriate authority for matters cosmological.
Is New Scientist?
# posted by : 11:42 AM
: 11:42 AM
Is science atheistic because there are more atheist scientists, or are there more atheists scientists because science accomodates atheism so well? (whereas the priesthood, not so much)
And, by your logic, shouldn't the Pope rather than Hawking, be the authority we should listen to about god?
And, by your logic, shouldn't the Pope rather than Hawking, be the authority we should listen to about god?
# posted by : 11:56 AM
: 11:56 AM
Is science atheistic because there are more atheist scientists, or are there more atheists scientists because science accomodates atheism so well? (whereas the priesthood, not so much)
A distinct possibility and thus why it was not a good argument (but it was still not the same argument)
The Pope is the authority for Catholicism.
A distinct possibility and thus why it was not a good argument (but it was still not the same argument)
The Pope is the authority for Catholicism.
# posted by : 12:09 PM
: 12:09 PM
And, as far as I can tell, New Scientist is correct about the lack of empirical evidence for m-theory. Their assessment simply reflects some of the valid scientific questions regarding it.
What leads you to discard it?
What leads you to discard it?
# posted by : 12:12 PM
: 12:12 PM
I guess it's OK to rely on authority and believe things without evidence now.
I was assuming this was meant to be sarcastic and was trying to be subtle about pointing out that it was also hypocritical in that you were accepting the New Scientist as an authority concerning the state of m theory and the nature of Hawking's appeal to it.
I was assuming this was meant to be sarcastic and was trying to be subtle about pointing out that it was also hypocritical in that you were accepting the New Scientist as an authority concerning the state of m theory and the nature of Hawking's appeal to it.
# posted by : 12:27 PM
: 12:27 PM
Oh I see! Except that I don't rely on the authority of New Scientist to prove any statement by New Scientist.
Is there yet empirical evidence for M-theory? That's a testable claim, and all the answers I can find say the theory is compelling but not yet.
I simply agree with the point New Scientist made based on a fact claim doesn't seem to be disputed. I liked their turn of phrase. But if you think I believe it because it was printed in New Scientist, that's your error, not mine.
And regarding this: "The Pope is the authority for Catholicism."
That demonstrates my point. If a cosmologist can make appropriate statements about god without empiric evidence and be considered authoritative, why is that different from what the pope says about god?
Or put it this way, if neither have empiric evidence doesn't that put them on the same level?
Is there yet empirical evidence for M-theory? That's a testable claim, and all the answers I can find say the theory is compelling but not yet.
I simply agree with the point New Scientist made based on a fact claim doesn't seem to be disputed. I liked their turn of phrase. But if you think I believe it because it was printed in New Scientist, that's your error, not mine.
And regarding this: "The Pope is the authority for Catholicism."
That demonstrates my point. If a cosmologist can make appropriate statements about god without empiric evidence and be considered authoritative, why is that different from what the pope says about god?
Or put it this way, if neither have empiric evidence doesn't that put them on the same level?
# posted by : 2:45 PM
: 2:45 PM
They may both be poor arguments but they are not the same argument.
But he didn't actually make your latter argument. He stated that 64% of scientists are atheists or agnostics, without demonstrating that all or even as significant percentage of atheists (much less agnostics) feel that science and religion are incompatible. Even if you can call that "hugely disproportionate" without statistics about other professions, how does he get to that conclusion unless he makes the assumption that the fact that some scientists are atheists is, in and of itself, evidence of incompatibility?
ISTM that the "truth" claims of art and literature do not cover the same breadth as the religious claims.
But many religions and even many more individual believers don't make broader truth claims than what art and literature do, so were back in the issue of whether Coyne is talking about "religion" or certain cultural forces that may go, in part, under the rubric of religion.
But he didn't actually make your latter argument. He stated that 64% of scientists are atheists or agnostics, without demonstrating that all or even as significant percentage of atheists (much less agnostics) feel that science and religion are incompatible. Even if you can call that "hugely disproportionate" without statistics about other professions, how does he get to that conclusion unless he makes the assumption that the fact that some scientists are atheists is, in and of itself, evidence of incompatibility?
ISTM that the "truth" claims of art and literature do not cover the same breadth as the religious claims.
But many religions and even many more individual believers don't make broader truth claims than what art and literature do, so were back in the issue of whether Coyne is talking about "religion" or certain cultural forces that may go, in part, under the rubric of religion.
"Screed" is right.
It's interesting that almost all of the support for Jerry's editorial, whether in blog posts or comments on same, seem to be applauding him for the ferocity, not the content, of his argument. (Not least of this support comes from Jerry himself, who congratulates himself for his "body blow" that "pulls no punches.") And it seems obvious that the point of it is not to illuminate, but to belittle ("In the end, science is no more compatible with religion than with other superstitions, such as leprechauns.") No doubt that serves a satisfying function (a point easier than usual to see on this combination National Coming Out Day/American Ethnic Cleansing Commemoration Day). Ophelia Benson even argues that it's not just cathartic, but also "helpful." But at what cost? Intellectually this piece is a mess--that's supposed to help the cause of reason and enlightenment how, exactly?
It's interesting that almost all of the support for Jerry's editorial, whether in blog posts or comments on same, seem to be applauding him for the ferocity, not the content, of his argument. (Not least of this support comes from Jerry himself, who congratulates himself for his "body blow" that "pulls no punches.") And it seems obvious that the point of it is not to illuminate, but to belittle ("In the end, science is no more compatible with religion than with other superstitions, such as leprechauns.") No doubt that serves a satisfying function (a point easier than usual to see on this combination National Coming Out Day/American Ethnic Cleansing Commemoration Day). Ophelia Benson even argues that it's not just cathartic, but also "helpful." But at what cost? Intellectually this piece is a mess--that's supposed to help the cause of reason and enlightenment how, exactly?
I have to agree. There is no reason that a "body blow" could not be delivered with a cogent article aimed at intellectual dispute rather than merely belittling the other side ... unless, of course, the Gnu Atheist position is, itself, intellectually vacuous emotionalism. I would have thought otherwise but they're making it hard to maintain that idea.
"... unless, of course, the Gnu Atheist position is, itself, intellectually vacuous emotionalism."
I wouldn't say the GnuA position is intellectually vacuous emotionalism but its distinctive feature wrt non-GnuA is indeed its emotionalism, internally energizing 'the base', externally manifesting as outright hostility.
I wouldn't say the GnuA position is intellectually vacuous emotionalism but its distinctive feature wrt non-GnuA is indeed its emotionalism, internally energizing 'the base', externally manifesting as outright hostility.
# posted by : 11:46 AM
: 11:46 AM
Personal attacks show only your own bad grasp of logic.
Heh! Irony isn't your strong suit, is it?
Religious claims are untrue or false because they're unjustified, while scientific claims are justified truths.
So, what scientific evidence do you have that the fact that some scientists are atheists demonstrates that science and religion are "incompatible"? If none, then Coyne's claim is as unjustified as any religious claim.
Most scientists are atheists, and so most scientists are consistent.
Circular reasoning is scientific?
As for equating art and literature as methods of truth, this fails. You may as well include football, chewing gum or tiddlywinks as methods of truth. All of which are absurd.
If you both deny the "truth" content of art and literature and equate them with chewing gum and tiddlywinks, I feel very sorry for you and your horribly poor education. Even Coyne wouldn't admit to being such a troglodyte.
Heh! Irony isn't your strong suit, is it?
Religious claims are untrue or false because they're unjustified, while scientific claims are justified truths.
So, what scientific evidence do you have that the fact that some scientists are atheists demonstrates that science and religion are "incompatible"? If none, then Coyne's claim is as unjustified as any religious claim.
Most scientists are atheists, and so most scientists are consistent.
Circular reasoning is scientific?
As for equating art and literature as methods of truth, this fails. You may as well include football, chewing gum or tiddlywinks as methods of truth. All of which are absurd.
If you both deny the "truth" content of art and literature and equate them with chewing gum and tiddlywinks, I feel very sorry for you and your horribly poor education. Even Coyne wouldn't admit to being such a troglodyte.
Religion is incompatible because it is an unjustified belief. Therefore it is incompatible and contradictory to science. Or are you going to argue that religion are justified beliefs?
I'm not going to get into the very difficult philosophy concerning what counts as "justified" beliefs but will just note that the history of science is littered with false beliefs and it is certain that some significant amount of what we consider as "scientific" knowledge today is doubtless false. More importantly, you haven't demonstrated that "unjustified" (i.e. nonscientific) beliefs (oh, say, that Shakespeare was the greatest English author) are "incompatible" with science, instead of just being different from science.
Because a scientist has religious beliefs, it does not mean those beliefs are then justified nor does it mean that they're compatible.
Because a scientist has atheistic beliefs, it does not mean those beliefs are then justified nor does it mean that theistic beliefs are incompatible with science, as Coyne asserted.
Jerry wrote: "Science and faith are fundamentally incompatible, and for precisely the same reason that irrationality and rationality are incompatible."
Yes, that's very true. No scientific evidence required. Or do you claim that is untrue?
Name me one scientist who does not hold beliefs without scientific evidence ... beliefs such as whether or not they love their children, or who the greatest English author is (Coyne has called Joyce's "The Dead" the greatest short story in English) etc., etc. By your lights, there is no one who manages to live up to the standard of "compatibility" and, therefore, why should anyone care which particular unscientific beliefs any scientist holds?
He writes: "They are different forms of inquiry, with only one, science, equipped to find real truth."
Again, you and Coyne are using a very limited definition of "truth" to which science is particularly suited. But argument by defining away any other contenders is a particularly poor sort.
Most scientists are consistent isn't circular reasoning. Please show how that is circular?
You are defining "consistent" as being "atheistic" and then claiming the fact that they are atheistic shows they are consistent. As I've pointed out (many times before, if you are unfamiliar with this blog) almost no scientists are consistent in believing only those things justified by scientific evidence, just as Coyne demonstrated by asserting, without scientific evidence, that the fact that some scientists are atheists demonstrates that science and religion are incompatible.
Back to name-calling I see.
I stand by my assessment that anyone who who denies the truth content of art and literature and equates them with chewing gum and tiddlywinks is a troglodyte. I haven't a clue whether you really believe that or are just carried away with your argument, so I'm not calling you names ... if you want to go on maintaining that art is tiddlywinks, you've labeled yourself.
If you seriously believe Harry Potter is real then I'm not the only troglodyte around here.
Quite apart from your giving Harry Potter as an example of literature, if you really believe that art and literature have to be "real" in order to be true, there is no more need to discuss labels for you.
I'm not going to get into the very difficult philosophy concerning what counts as "justified" beliefs but will just note that the history of science is littered with false beliefs and it is certain that some significant amount of what we consider as "scientific" knowledge today is doubtless false. More importantly, you haven't demonstrated that "unjustified" (i.e. nonscientific) beliefs (oh, say, that Shakespeare was the greatest English author) are "incompatible" with science, instead of just being different from science.
Because a scientist has religious beliefs, it does not mean those beliefs are then justified nor does it mean that they're compatible.
Because a scientist has atheistic beliefs, it does not mean those beliefs are then justified nor does it mean that theistic beliefs are incompatible with science, as Coyne asserted.
Jerry wrote: "Science and faith are fundamentally incompatible, and for precisely the same reason that irrationality and rationality are incompatible."
Yes, that's very true. No scientific evidence required. Or do you claim that is untrue?
Name me one scientist who does not hold beliefs without scientific evidence ... beliefs such as whether or not they love their children, or who the greatest English author is (Coyne has called Joyce's "The Dead" the greatest short story in English) etc., etc. By your lights, there is no one who manages to live up to the standard of "compatibility" and, therefore, why should anyone care which particular unscientific beliefs any scientist holds?
He writes: "They are different forms of inquiry, with only one, science, equipped to find real truth."
Again, you and Coyne are using a very limited definition of "truth" to which science is particularly suited. But argument by defining away any other contenders is a particularly poor sort.
Most scientists are consistent isn't circular reasoning. Please show how that is circular?
You are defining "consistent" as being "atheistic" and then claiming the fact that they are atheistic shows they are consistent. As I've pointed out (many times before, if you are unfamiliar with this blog) almost no scientists are consistent in believing only those things justified by scientific evidence, just as Coyne demonstrated by asserting, without scientific evidence, that the fact that some scientists are atheists demonstrates that science and religion are incompatible.
Back to name-calling I see.
I stand by my assessment that anyone who who denies the truth content of art and literature and equates them with chewing gum and tiddlywinks is a troglodyte. I haven't a clue whether you really believe that or are just carried away with your argument, so I'm not calling you names ... if you want to go on maintaining that art is tiddlywinks, you've labeled yourself.
If you seriously believe Harry Potter is real then I'm not the only troglodyte around here.
Quite apart from your giving Harry Potter as an example of literature, if you really believe that art and literature have to be "real" in order to be true, there is no more need to discuss labels for you.
TB, I am sorry for my error but I am not a mind reader and can only go by what you actually post. Never the less, that statement by Hawking (referenced by Coyne) was to the nature of the cosmos, not the nature of god and Hawking is the appropriate authority in that case. The god reference was more like LaPlace's; "Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothese-la".
Now M-theory, and its brothers, is highly speculative and Coyne wildly overstated the solidness of the conclusion, but it is at least consistent with what we already know and gives us good reason to believe that some sort of theory that can explain the origin of the universe is within our grasp. so I thought that your sarcastic statement "I guess it's OK to rely on authority and believe things without evidence now." was overly strong.
John,
Okay, if I add 'disproportionate with respect to the general population' and substitute 'non-believer' for 'atheist' would that match the data and Coyne's argument?
Certainly your "how can the fact that some scientists are atheists be evidence of incompatibility?" is not his argument. I think we are pretty safe in saying that if the proportion of non-believing scientists was similar to that in the general population he would not have made the argument.
So the one argument has to do with existence and the other to do with quantity and correlation. I agree with you that his argument is flawed, he treats as a 'slam dunk' what is at best a suggestive correlation. But I think you were wrong to that it was indicative of his not being able to "keep a consistent thought across a few hundred words".
I think Coyne's argument was deeply flawed and I think your critique was also flawed. You did much better in the discussion than in your original article.
One thing I am having trouble with. Could you give me an example of a "truth" that religion and art and literature share that is exclusive of any scientific analysis?
Now M-theory, and its brothers, is highly speculative and Coyne wildly overstated the solidness of the conclusion, but it is at least consistent with what we already know and gives us good reason to believe that some sort of theory that can explain the origin of the universe is within our grasp. so I thought that your sarcastic statement "I guess it's OK to rely on authority and believe things without evidence now." was overly strong.
John,
Okay, if I add 'disproportionate with respect to the general population' and substitute 'non-believer' for 'atheist' would that match the data and Coyne's argument?
Certainly your "how can the fact that some scientists are atheists be evidence of incompatibility?" is not his argument. I think we are pretty safe in saying that if the proportion of non-believing scientists was similar to that in the general population he would not have made the argument.
So the one argument has to do with existence and the other to do with quantity and correlation. I agree with you that his argument is flawed, he treats as a 'slam dunk' what is at best a suggestive correlation. But I think you were wrong to that it was indicative of his not being able to "keep a consistent thought across a few hundred words".
I think Coyne's argument was deeply flawed and I think your critique was also flawed. You did much better in the discussion than in your original article.
One thing I am having trouble with. Could you give me an example of a "truth" that religion and art and literature share that is exclusive of any scientific analysis?
# posted by : 11:17 PM
: 11:17 PM
Okay, if I add 'disproportionate with respect to the general population' and substitute 'non-believer' for 'atheist' would that match the data and Coyne's argument?
I still think it falls short of being evidence of "incompatibility" of science and religion. As Russell Blackford pointed out, it possible that "non-religious people are disproportionately attracted into science, as opposed to a knowledge of science tending erode people's faith." I think that possibility is strengthened by the fact that different scientific diciplines have significantly different percentages of non-believers. Also, I'm not sure that the fact that something tending to erode people's faith is the same thing as "incompatible."
Certainly your "how can the fact that some scientists are atheists be evidence of incompatibility?" is not his argument. I think we are pretty safe in saying that if the proportion of non-believing scientists was similar to that in the general population he would not have made the argument.
So, what is the [cough] magic percentage of atheists in science that scientifically establishes incompatibility?
But I think you were wrong to that it was indicative of his not being able to "keep a consistent thought across a few hundred words".
I'm sorry, it is certainly an obvious enough issue just from the terms of his argument that anyone who claims to value only scientific evidence should have known that he needed scientific evidence to justify his assertion. Not realizing that is a failure to keep a consistent thought.
Could you give me an example of a "truth" that religion and art and literature share that is exclusive of any scientific analysis?
Religion, art and literature are all subject to scientific inquiry ... how successfully is another matter ... but that's not the issue. The question here is whether it is necessary for any scientist to subject his/her religious or aesthetic values to the same standards of inquiry as they apply in their scientific work on pain of being labeled as incompatible with "true" science as defined by Coyne, et al? Nobody, Coyne included, subjects all their beliefs to such scrutiny. Coyne doesn't like religion so he wants to make it a special case. I don't think that's either fair or rational.
I still think it falls short of being evidence of "incompatibility" of science and religion. As Russell Blackford pointed out, it possible that "non-religious people are disproportionately attracted into science, as opposed to a knowledge of science tending erode people's faith." I think that possibility is strengthened by the fact that different scientific diciplines have significantly different percentages of non-believers. Also, I'm not sure that the fact that something tending to erode people's faith is the same thing as "incompatible."
Certainly your "how can the fact that some scientists are atheists be evidence of incompatibility?" is not his argument. I think we are pretty safe in saying that if the proportion of non-believing scientists was similar to that in the general population he would not have made the argument.
So, what is the [cough] magic percentage of atheists in science that scientifically establishes incompatibility?
But I think you were wrong to that it was indicative of his not being able to "keep a consistent thought across a few hundred words".
I'm sorry, it is certainly an obvious enough issue just from the terms of his argument that anyone who claims to value only scientific evidence should have known that he needed scientific evidence to justify his assertion. Not realizing that is a failure to keep a consistent thought.
Could you give me an example of a "truth" that religion and art and literature share that is exclusive of any scientific analysis?
Religion, art and literature are all subject to scientific inquiry ... how successfully is another matter ... but that's not the issue. The question here is whether it is necessary for any scientist to subject his/her religious or aesthetic values to the same standards of inquiry as they apply in their scientific work on pain of being labeled as incompatible with "true" science as defined by Coyne, et al? Nobody, Coyne included, subjects all their beliefs to such scrutiny. Coyne doesn't like religion so he wants to make it a special case. I don't think that's either fair or rational.
John, reload.
You are responding as if I am defending Coyne. I am not. I am attacking your original critique.
Even if you are correct about lack of scientific rigor indicating a failure to keep a consistent thought that argument is not evident in your original post.
re: art and literature.
Okay. Could you please take one thing that Coyne says about the incompatibility of religion and science and show how it would also apply to art and literature.
You are responding as if I am defending Coyne. I am not. I am attacking your original critique.
Even if you are correct about lack of scientific rigor indicating a failure to keep a consistent thought that argument is not evident in your original post.
re: art and literature.
Okay. Could you please take one thing that Coyne says about the incompatibility of religion and science and show how it would also apply to art and literature.
# posted by : 1:09 AM
: 1:09 AM
"I stand by my assessment that anyone who who denies the truth content of art and literature and equates them with chewing gum and tiddlywinks is a troglodyte."
I for one would like to stand up for the troglodytes for whom there is some evidence of a finer sensibility than football, tiddlywinks and gum chewing. Those who executed the Lascaus paintings, for instance, were likely trogolodytes and they certainly possessed a higher sense of humanity than the Melancholic Jester displays in equating art and literature with tiddlywinks and chewing gum. It is no wonder the first part of his screen name is apt and the last not.
I for one would like to stand up for the troglodytes for whom there is some evidence of a finer sensibility than football, tiddlywinks and gum chewing. Those who executed the Lascaus paintings, for instance, were likely trogolodytes and they certainly possessed a higher sense of humanity than the Melancholic Jester displays in equating art and literature with tiddlywinks and chewing gum. It is no wonder the first part of his screen name is apt and the last not.
# posted by : 2:45 AM
: 2:45 AM
Even if you are correct about lack of scientific rigor indicating a failure to keep a consistent thought that argument is not evident in your original post.
I didn't pretend that the original post was a comprehensice critique of Coyne's article. I still think the inconsistency in Coyne's position vis-a-vis the "meaning" of the theistic/atheistic beliefs of scientists was obvious.
Could you please take one thing that Coyne says about the incompatibility of religion and science and show how it would also apply to art and literature.
"Science and faith are fundamentally incompatible, and for precisely the same reason that irrationality and rationality are incompatible."
While art and literature are not totally irrational, neither is religion. They share a search for "truth" that is not "rational" in the sense that Coyne uses the term and, therefore, are all equally "incompatible" with science. Babies and bathwater.
I didn't pretend that the original post was a comprehensice critique of Coyne's article. I still think the inconsistency in Coyne's position vis-a-vis the "meaning" of the theistic/atheistic beliefs of scientists was obvious.
Could you please take one thing that Coyne says about the incompatibility of religion and science and show how it would also apply to art and literature.
"Science and faith are fundamentally incompatible, and for precisely the same reason that irrationality and rationality are incompatible."
While art and literature are not totally irrational, neither is religion. They share a search for "truth" that is not "rational" in the sense that Coyne uses the term and, therefore, are all equally "incompatible" with science. Babies and bathwater.
I for one would like to stand up for the troglodytes ...
It was late at night and I was under the influence of painkillers (the bad weather here was making my foot exceptionally painful) and couldn't come up with a better term within the limits of the effort I was willing to expend. "Phillistine" might have been closer to what I was gropping for ...
It was late at night and I was under the influence of painkillers (the bad weather here was making my foot exceptionally painful) and couldn't come up with a better term within the limits of the effort I was willing to expend. "Phillistine" might have been closer to what I was gropping for ...
"Then there's the poor analogy (you'd think he wouldn't follow creationists in doing it) with marriage and adultery, when adultery is clearly a violation of marriage and religion is not obviously a violation of science."
Making absolute truth claims, without them being provisional, and without allowing them to be tested or subject to peer review, is a direct violation of the scientific method. Religions do this all the time, and in that sense specifically, they are incompatible with science -- not as a whole, but in the manner in which they make and support specific claims of facts about the world.
Making absolute truth claims, without them being provisional, and without allowing them to be tested or subject to peer review, is a direct violation of the scientific method. Religions do this all the time, and in that sense specifically, they are incompatible with science -- not as a whole, but in the manner in which they make and support specific claims of facts about the world.
Jerry has a new post up today which aligns nicely with your "magic percentage" comment. He says that it's not inconsistent to rule out Collins as evidence of S-R compatibility because he is just an "outlier," the way that people who smoke and don't get sick are outliers. But this raises the question of what the unit of measurement for compatibility is. If the percentage of atheistic scientists were in the low 50s instead of the 60s, would that be statistically significant? Are there degrees of compatibility, or is it a binary yes/no thing? Can we get something measurable to apply all of our excellent doubt and skepticism to?
Not only that, but he admits that some percentage represents self-selection, in that "people with a naturalistic and skeptical frame of mind would be drawn to science." So, if it appeared that people with a genetic disposition to developing lung cancer irrespective of whether or not they smoke also had a predisposition to take up smoking, would we be justified in taking their higher rate of cancer and higher rate of smoking as evidence that smoking causes cancer?
In any event, even if there is something about practicing science that tends to cause people to report nonbelief, how does that establish "philosophical incompatibility" between science and religion as opposed to other possible explanations (peer pressure, change in social groups individuals identify with, etc.)?
Of course, Coyne is, yet once again, assuming that science is a "worldview" instead of a highly formalized methodology for empiric investigation. Maybe people who are predisposed to practice science are also predisposed to scientism and the numbers are merely correlations and don't represent causation. Aren't scientists supposed to consider that and attempt to test whether it is correlation or causation? Maybe not, since Coyne seems uninterested in this case.
In any event, even if there is something about practicing science that tends to cause people to report nonbelief, how does that establish "philosophical incompatibility" between science and religion as opposed to other possible explanations (peer pressure, change in social groups individuals identify with, etc.)?
Of course, Coyne is, yet once again, assuming that science is a "worldview" instead of a highly formalized methodology for empiric investigation. Maybe people who are predisposed to practice science are also predisposed to scientism and the numbers are merely correlations and don't represent causation. Aren't scientists supposed to consider that and attempt to test whether it is correlation or causation? Maybe not, since Coyne seems uninterested in this case.
nike zoom
longchamp
air jordans
fitflops clearance
adidas nmd
kobe 9
adidas online shop
hogan outlet
nike huarache
jordan shoes
longchamp
air jordans
fitflops clearance
adidas nmd
kobe 9
adidas online shop
hogan outlet
nike huarache
jordan shoes
cheap ray bans
ugg boots
ferragamo shoes
baltimore ravens jerseys
cheap nike shoes
michael kors handbags
skechers outlet
jordan shoes
coach outlet
polo ralph lauren
Post a Comment
ugg boots
ferragamo shoes
baltimore ravens jerseys
cheap nike shoes
michael kors handbags
skechers outlet
jordan shoes
coach outlet
polo ralph lauren
<< Home
