Thoughts in a Haystack

I find it difficult to believe that intelligent people are still knocking themselves out trying to convert creationisrs into evolutionists and visa versa.
 

So if you were going to recommend a book or two to Coyne, what would you have him start with? I'd be interested, at least.
 

Shouldn't he be reading philosophy instead? After all, that's what he should read if he want's to maintain the position that philosophy is worthless, which is itself a philosophical statement!
 

You're too generous. "Trying" to understand theology by reading the books suggested by Eric MacDonald is like trying to learn about evolution based on books recommended by Answers in Genesis.

Citing difficult passages and complaining that they are "obscurantist" because you are too lazy to investigate the context is not "trying." (It wasn't all that long ago--was it?--that Coyne was citing the impenetrability of advanced math texts to the layperson, though in that case he stopped short of accusing mathematicians of "making it all up.")
 

You're too generous.

Maybe. But at least he's making something of an effort ... which is a step up from his previous attitude.
 

Im asking this question with sincerity
What value do you ,(as in you John Pieret - not the abstract what people could find) find in theology?
 

What value do you ,(as in you John Pieret - not the abstract what people could find) find in theology?

Fair enough. The answer is complex, though. I find little value in theology per se or I'd be a theist, which I'm not. I find value in it, on the other hand, because I would have little idea why I find it without value unless I had some idea what it said. Can I understand why Newton's ideas about the universe fail at high speeds and/or deep in gravity wells, unless I have some idea what Newton's and Einstein's contentions are?

Also, I don't think that "the abstract [of] what people could find" to be useless. It, like ancient (and modern, for that matter) philosophy, ethics, esthetics and many other examples of how people actually think is valuable in understanding what people do.
 

for lying intolerant sh*thead "wiseman" - we even use YOU!


unfacts.org/factsforum/viewtopic.php?t=4607
 

Also, I don't think that "the abstract [of] what people could find" to be useless.
I didn't say it was - merely that I can already see why a religious person would find theology useful

I find it hard to understand when non believers think there is value in knowing the intricacies of theology (other than general principles).
For e.g. whether unbaptised babies go to hell or not - is there any value for me to know the exact theology behind this?

You seem to be saying that you must know what you are opposing /disagreeing with - which is fair point, but usually in the case of theology we disagree with the basic assumptions - hence making knowledge of the details superflous to the discussion.
 

... in the case of theology we disagree with the basic assumptions - hence making knowledge of the details superflous to the discussion.

Sure, but then you lose the credibility to make fun of things like whether unbaptised babies supposedly go to hell and are left with stating your disagreement with the basic assumptions. If Gnus just did that they'd be justified in stating that they don't need to know the theology. But people like Coyne keep insisting on telling theists what they believe.
 

but then you lose the credibility to make fun
How so? If you haven't proved the existence of hell , then spending time figuring out whether the babies go to hell or to a newly invented place like limbo is funny.
And why isn't the standard applied uniformly, If I lose credibility by making fun what about the religious person who doesn't know the theology? Doesn't he lose credibility for believing whatever he does too?
 

If you haven't proved the existence of hell , then spending time figuring out whether the babies go to hell or to a newly invented place like limbo is funny.

So, just who is it that spend their time figuring that out? Who are you making fun of? If you know, you know theology. If you don't, you don't know who you are making fun of ... which itself is funny.

And why isn't the standard applied uniformly, If I lose credibility by making fun what about the religious person who doesn't know the theology? Doesn't he lose credibility for believing whatever he does too?

You haven't noticed us making fun of Ray Comfort for his bizarre "understanding" of evolution? Would you know his understanding is bizarre if you didn't know something of the science of evolution?
 

A few years back, biblioblogger Chris Heard made this point on how much theology critics need to know and under what circumstances:

"In the abstract, there’s no reason why Dawkins should be required or expected to be well-read in specific dogmas–and few specific dogmas are inherent in the generic God Hypothesis. If he’s going to attack specific dogmas, though, he should show that he actually understands what the proponents of those dogmas mean when they affirm and attempt to explain those dogmas."

To put it another way, the more one's attacks on religion depend on the details of religious doctrine, the more one needs to know about religious doctrine.
 

@John
Who are you making fun of?
Anyone who tells me unbaptised babies go/don't go to hell/limbo/purgatory.

Would you know his understanding is bizarre if you didn't know something of the science of evolution?
Again I sort of agree with your point - I think I differ on the degree that you need to be aware of theological details.
For e.g. we would have a rough idea of what the "trinity" is - and I would find the distinct but same and it's all a mystery (except it isn't when you know the theology) as weird and funny and silly. But I don't know all the intricate details nor am I aware of what the current state of theology is. I am however aware of some of Bart Ehrman's writing on how much of the "trinity" is actually in the bible and how much (in my opinion) was made up.

I think a good number of religious believers don't know as much as I do about the "trinity". yet you would criticise me for not bothering to study the theology (if I want to make fun of the concept) - while at the same time you would not say anything about those religious believers who believe in a trinity and have no idea what it exactly means or about the history of that term.

As well as I am fairly consistent. I dont know the exact details about palmistry but I laugh when people say the lines in my palm can predict my life. I do not know the details behind numerology but I can still laugh when people add a 'k' to their names to bring them luck and success. I would think as usual you make the exception when it comes to religion.
 

@J. J. Ramsey
So you are fully trained in astrology , palmistry and numerology and are aware of the intricate details? [note that in India we have people who teach this stuff]

Or you believe that all these forms of superstition are valid?
 

I would think as usual you make the exception when it comes to religion.

Not true. I make fun of/argue against religious beliefs when they impact peoples' behavior in ways I find relevant to issues I'm interested in. I'm not interested in proselytizing ... um ... advocating atheism, so I just don't do it as much as Gnus do.
 

Not true.
I disagree with lots of theology - According to you In order for me to be credible I must be aware of various nuances and intricacies. however for someone to be in a agreement with the theology seems to involve nothing more than "I believe/have faith in it". If you dont do the latter then show me proof.
Similarly do you think I need to be well versed with astrology/palmistry/numerology/ in order to laugh at it? If not , why is religion different?

I make fun of/argue against religious beliefs when they impact peoples' behavior in ways I find relevant to issues I'm interested in.
Im not disagreeing with that. by your own standards though you have to be well versed in theology for you to be credible. Perhaps you are - i dont know.

I'm not interested in proselytizing ... um ... advocating atheism,
I don't think I have ever advocated atheism or agnosticism - I have advocated less of religion especially in the public area.
 

Mr. Shetty,

If all I am attacking in astrology is the notion that one's horoscope -- however it is derived -- predicts one's future, then all I have to do is point out how the suppose horoscope prediction fails. Indeed, I can simply leverage the work that other skeptics have done, where horoscopes are shown to be sufficiently vague as to apply to anyone.

If I want to attack the process of how astrologers produce horoscopes from star charts, then I had better well know how that production is supposed to work. I don't need to know that in order to reject astrology, because I can simply note that horoscopes don't work and regard the process of how they are made as a "black box." To make fun of the process, though, I need to know the process.

It's the same deal with religion. I can take a general approach to attack in which the details of particular religions are irrelevant. If I want to make fun of the details, such as the Trinity or Sharia, then I need to understand the details.
 

however for someone to be in a agreement with the theology seems to involve nothing more than "I believe/have faith in it".

I don't care what they believe, unless that causes them to act badly to others ... just as, for the most part, I don't care what arguments atheists use to support their beliefs, a lot of which are pretty lame.

Similarly do you think I need to be well versed with astrology/palmistry/numerology/ in order to laugh at it?

You're just repeating yourself. If you are going to laugh at the particulars of astrology or palmistry or numerology, then you need to know them ... or others can laugh at you.

I don't think I have ever advocated atheism or agnosticism - I have advocated less of religion especially in the public area.

I didn't direct that at you. I directed it at Gnus who, IIRC, you have denied being. Anyway, I have advocated constantly on this blog for a secular government and society. We may have differnt approaches but that doesn't mean I'm approve theology, I'm simply indifferent to it until it causes real world effects.
 

@Ramsey
predicts one's future, then all I have to do is point out how the suppose horoscope prediction fails.
Rubbish. This is because you arent aware of sophisticated astrology. Today's astrologers merely say there is a strong possibility/probability that an event can occur. And even that by doing certain tasks that can be reproduced.
Also to take a real life example - I have a friend whose horoscope suggests that if he gets married to someone , there is a good chance her father will die in a year (unless he marries someone whose father is already dead or someone whose horoscope negates his).
Id love to see you try to suggest to his parents that we should try and see if the prediction works or fails.
Please point out the work of skeptics in this specific area.
if you cannot tell me whether you think you can object to what the astrologer says or not or whether you need to understand the intricacies of astrology in order to do so.
 

Uhh the above should read
Today's astrologers merely say there is a strong possibility/probability that an event can occur. And even that by can be reduced by performing other actions.
 

You're just repeating yourself.
Imagine you are Egnor and Im Pieret.

If you are going to laugh at the particulars of astrology or palmistry or numerology, then you need to know them ... or others can laugh at you.
I gave Ramsey an example. you can decide whether you would comment on such a thing or not - Im betting you don't know the exact astrological details.

And this isn't an isolated examples. India has a ton of superstitions - that causes people to behave badly - you can't comment unless you study each and every one of them, huh?

I directed it at Gnus who, IIRC, you have denied being.
I said I'm agnostic but I agree with most gnu views on religion - enough to identify myself as a "gnu" (without the atheist part).

but that doesn't mean I'm approve theology, I'm simply indifferent to it
which would be fine. However you insist on saying Coyne or I should learn intricate details about theology to criticise it - I believe broad strokes are sufficient. In an ideal world I would have read all the books and known everything about the topics I must criticise.
Practically I must choose between the many things that I need to know.
 

Imagine you are Egnor and Im Pieret.

Really? You think that's a fair analogy?

Im betting you don't know the exact astrological details.

I've read Paul Thagard's "Why Astrology Is A Pseudoscience". Have you?

Practically I must choose between the many things that I need to know.

Sure. You also have to choose between the many things you are and are not competent to make fun of.
 

Deepak,

It's not clear to me why you feel a need to make a leap from "I am uninterested/uninformed/skeptical about XYZ beliefs" to laughing at said beliefs. It seems like a stance that can get you into trouble, intellectually.

Theology is an immense enterprise. A certain portion is much as you describe: rationalizations, desperate contortions to delineate non-existent magisteria, etc.

But this is just the low hanging fruit. A great deal of theology is of the mystical category, philosophical attempts to understand just what divinity is. In several classic medieval works the idea that God is a "person" whose characteristics can be known and described is explicitly challenged. (The Cloud of Unknowing, John Scotus, Nicolas of Cusa, St. John of the Cross.) Thomas Merton came out of this tradition in the last century.

Coyne likes to marginalize apophatic theology, saying that it's just an egghead venture, unembraced by the man or woman in the pews. He's wrong about this, but even if he was right, the literature exists and has meaning.

By analogy, if most Americans--or Indians--believed in a type of Lamarckian evolution, it would be no argument against the legitimate existence of Darwinian theory that it was unembraced by the masses.
 

"Please point out the work of skeptics in this specific area."

Here's a quote from Phil Plait on a demonstration by James Randi:

"My friend and master skeptic James Randi performs a wonderful demo of how easily people are fooled by astrology. He went into a classroom, posing as an astrologer, and cast horoscopes for all the students. He had them read and rate the accuracy, and they almost overwhelmingly rated the horoscopes as accurate. The kicker? He had them pass around the horoscopes, and the students saw that every horoscope was exactly the same. It was worded vaguely enough that nearly everyone in the room thought they were being well-described. The horoscopes were so vague they matched nearly everyone, and so their predictive power was meaningless. It was all in the students' heads."

From the same link is also a discussion of a paper by Geoffrey Dean entitled "Is Astrology Relevant to Consciousness and Psi?", which as Plait pointed out, "demolishes, utterly, any notion that astrology has any effect at all."
 

@John
Really? You think that's a fair analogy?
No it isn't. It was too good an opportunity to pass up though.
I've read Paul Thagard's "Why Astrology Is A Pseudoscience". Have you?
No- but surely you have to be reading astrological works by those who believe in astrology in order to understand what is being said? (And have you also read books on numerology and palmistry)
You also have to choose between the many things you are and are not competent to make fun of.
Ah but some things choose me. I didnt choose to have a friend whose parents believe in a horoscope. And yet advise him against it I must - even without knowing the specifics.
 

@JJ Ramsey
That's like proving all theology wrong by showing there is no evidence for God. Something that both agnostics and atheists agree on.

If you want to disprove a specific claim (an event post marriage is influenced by the astrological stars) you have to show me skeptic work in that specific area - or you need to say you have no comment on the matter - or you have to agree that when the basic assumptions are faulty there is no problem with criticising the specifics.
 

@Chris
to laughing at said beliefs.
I'm not sure what else can I do when a bunch of people need to discuss the fate of unbaptised babies. Or when they say that Saturn causes bad luck.

Theology is an immense enterprise.
Didnt say it wasn't. Astrology is an immense enterprise too.

My biggest problem with theology is that it is never explained how does the theologian know. And how do you know which theologian is right. Theology doesn't question its most basic assumptions.Without this I can never take any theology seriously or spend serious amounts of time understanding it either.
Ditto for Astrology.

unembraced by the man or woman in the pews. He's wrong about this,
Sorry are you actually saying that a good number of religious people know what theology teaches? I think a bunch of surveys prove otherwise no?
 

but surely you have to be reading astrological works by those who believe in astrology in order to understand what is being said?

I don't think anyone has said you have to read original works of theology. Reliable secondary sources are good enough ... perhaps better, since you're likely to get criticisms and alternative views as well.

And have you also read books on numerology and palmistry

I've never had occasion to make fun of those. Even in Harold Camping's case, I simply made fun of the prediction (since so many people have made it before, all wrong) and, of course, its failure.

Ah but some things choose me. I didnt choose to have a friend whose parents believe in a horoscope. And yet advise him against it I must - even without knowing the specifics.

Wait a minute, you're "advising" your friend by making fun of astronomy? If he truly believs in astronomy, that hardly seems helpful.

I have a friend who is an alternative medicine fan. He was considering undergoing "chelation therapy" to remove "toxins" (which there was no reason to think he had any significant exposure to) and I smelled a quack. I didn't just make fun of alt medicine, I did research on the dangers of chelation and on the particular quack.
 

I'm not sure what else can I do when a bunch of people need to discuss the fate of unbaptised babies. Or when they say that Saturn causes bad luck.

You're leaving out a step. You can inform yourself. Failing that, why should you be considered any different from the creationist who laughs at people who think their grandparents were monkeys?

Didnt say it wasn't. Astrology is an immense enterprise too.

Yes, and there is a whole school of astrology that doesn't believe that stars and planets have causal effects on human affairs. They use the archetypes to address balancing different aspects of the human personality. This is becoming more and more popular. The column "Real Astrology" for example can be found in the alt news paper in most American cities.

My biggest problem with theology is that it is never explained how does the theologian know. And how do you know which theologian is right. Theology doesn't question its most basic assumptions.Without this I can never take any theology seriously or spend serious amounts of time understanding it either.

This just shows you haven't read much theology. Which is to say, you "don't seem to have questioned your basic assumptions" about the nature of theology. Oops.

If you think epistemology and skepticism have no role in theology (as in "secular" philosophy") you are wrong. If you think that all theology strives to the level of certainty found in a scientific journal, you are wrong.

Sorry are you actually saying that a good number of religious people know what theology teaches? I think a bunch of surveys prove otherwise no?

What is a "good number"? How many people on the street have inaccurate views about physics or evolution? Should we laugh at theme, too? And should we call everyone who claims to believe in science dumb, because so many among their number are wrong? Not for the first time, you stand accused of casting guilt by association.
 

@John
I don't think anyone has said you have to read original works of theology.
But you have to read someone who believes in it and explains it from the perspective of a believer right? Would it do me any good to read a work titled "Theology is pseudo science"?

I've never had occasion to make fun of those.
Are you comfortable making a statement that palmistry is nonsense?

Wait a minute, you're "advising" your friend by making fun of astronomy?
Astrology. Sure - we make fun, we use vulgar language , we sometimes discuss in all seriousness, we are sometimes polite.

I have a friend who is an alternative medicine fan.
This is probably far more serious than astrological beliefs - and what I would say or do would depend on what I would think is effective for that friend.
In India again people advising you on alternate medicines are likely to be well meaning relatives. Proving them to be quacks would probably not work.
 

@chris
You can inform yourself.
Ideally yes. But I dont see any benefit informing myself about how Saturn brings me bad luck.

why should you be considered any different from the creationist who laughs at people who think their grandparents were monkeys?

Because I'm not completely ignorant about what I'm laughing about. In order to take theology seriously someone would
a. have to make a good case for the existence of God
b. A good case for his particular brand of religion over the others
c. A way to determine how the theologian knows what he is proposing
d. A way to evaluate the truth of the theologians claims and/or explanations
Then Ill find out more about the specifics. When a theologian cant even do Step a. its hardly worth bordering about the rest.

This just shows you haven't read much theology.
Yah right. So C.S. lewis stating that Jesus is Madman, liar or King is questioning basic assumptions according to you I suppose?

What is a "good number"?
How about a simple majority?

How many people on the street have inaccurate views about physics or evolution? Should we laugh at theme, too
Dont you laugh at creationists?
But you see Im not randomly choosing someone and laughing that you don't know quantum physics. I'm saying that you want me to read up more on theology before I criticise it but you don't have a problem with a religious person who knows nothing about his religions theology. Why dont you go ask them to read up on theology?

Not for the first time, you stand accused of casting guilt by association.
Huh? Who is guilty and who have I associated it to?
 

Would it do me any good to read a work titled "Theology is pseudo science"?

Quite possibly it would if it was a scholarly work like Thagard's. Certainly, a history or survey of theology, even if by a non-believer, would be of value. In any case, do you only read works by people who think like you? That seems quite limiting.

Are you comfortable making a statement that palmistry is nonsense?

Not necessarily. Are you prepared to say that the physical attributes of people are unrelated to what characteristics they have and what their history is? Do the physical attributes associated with Down Syndrome signal anything about people who have those attributes? Coyne has been arguing for quite some time now that our physical attributes determine everything we do. I'd be sceptical that palms carry much information but scepticism is not certainty and it takes a reasonable degree of certainty to -- other than foolishly -- make fun of something. I'd have to know more.

Sure - we make fun, we use vulgar language , we sometimes discuss in all seriousness, we are sometimes polite.

In other words, your approach is tailored to your audience and what your aims are. Pretty much what the "accomodationists" recommend.

In India again people advising you on alternate medicines are likely to be well meaning relatives. Proving them to be quacks would probably not work.

In the US, people advising you on how to view evolution are likely to be well meaning relatives and friends ... in fact, most of the people you know. Proving them to be fools (or, at least calling them that) would probably not work either.
 

Ideally yes. But I dont see any benefit informing myself about how Saturn brings me bad luck.

Great--but again, you are skipping a step. You don't have to take interest in astrology or theology, but in not doing so you forfeit your right to be a credible critic. Which raises the question (again) why is it so important to make fun of things you haven't taken the time to understand?

Because I'm not completely ignorant about what I'm laughing about.

In the case of theology, no, you aren't completely ignorant. But by your own admission you have decided not to investigate it deeply. As such, you continue to make false claims about it as a genre.

In order to take theology seriously someone would ... have to make a good case for the existence of God

Perhaps, but how do you know whether such a case has been made when by your own admission you won't take it seriously enough to read it and find out?

Yah right. So C.S. lewis stating that Jesus is Madman, liar or King is questioning basic assumptions according to you I suppose?

The claim before you is not that *all* theology rises to a higher standard than you allow, it is that *some* does, and therefore the entire category can't be dismissed on superficial grounds.

How about a simple majority?

Are you now arguing that it is proper and just to judge an entire group based on a mathematical majority? If 51% of Americans support the Republican Party, can I then say that all American politics is bunk, without first finding out what the other 49% believe?

I'm saying that you want me to read up more on theology before I criticise it but you don't have a problem with a religious person who knows nothing about his religions theology. Why dont you go ask them to read up on theology?

How do you know who else I do or don't have a problem with?

This is a matter of simple logic. if I say that American politics is not worth bothering with because it is dominated by stupidity and corruption, I have slighted the people and the movements not accurately characterized by this. This doesn't mean I give a pass to the stupid and corrupt parts. We get to have complex opinions about matters like these.

Huh? Who is guilty and who have I associated it to?

But saying that all theology is stupid, without actually doing due diligence on the matter, you are implicitly calling stupid a certain subset which you actually have no direct knowledge of, based on the subset you do. That's guilt by association.
 

In any case, do you only read works by people who think like you?
Am I not claiming the opposite? that to understand how theologians think I would have to read works by theologians who believe. And to understand the claims of astrology I would have to read works by those who believe in Astrology?

Do the physical attributes associated with Down Syndrome signal anything about people who have those attributes
But hold on - Palmistry doesnt just claim these type of predictions - It can also tell you the age you will likely get married etc. Or predict the future in the sense that some misfortune will befall you (oh what a surprise)
Stating that you are just skeptical of such claims , is an understatement is it not?

In other words, your approach is tailored to your audience and what your aims are. Pretty much what the "accomodationists" recommend.
Now this is just wrong. I believe it is a gnu position to take - whether you are civil / insulting/ polite or vulgar is situational and depends on context and what is being said and to whom it is being said (unless you believe gnu's are uniformly rude). it is an accomodationist position that one must be civil and polite (except when talking about gnu's) - And that tone always overrules content.

Proving them to be fools (or, at least calling them that) would probably not work either.
Sure. As of today we know nothing that works effectively - otherwise the NCSE would have already implemented it , no?
 

. You don't have to take interest in astrology or theology, but in not doing so you forfeit your right to be a credible critic.
No the argument is the degree of theology one must be aware of. I'm not advocating complete ignorance. Just as you don't know the specifics behind why a particular horoscope is good or bad - you only know in general why Astrology is wrong.

but how do you know whether such a case has been made when by your own admission you won't take it seriously enough to read it and find out?
I have taken the trouble to find out about claims for the existence of God(s). tell me what is wrong with this argument to a non religious person- "You haven't found out the details of every religion so you aren't credible when you say you are non religious".

it is that *some* does,
Really? Are you agnostic? How is it that this higher theology didn't convince you?
Are there some theological works where the writer who is a believer takes up the question of God and arrives at the conclusion that there is no good evidence for God? Further he/she doesn't make the claim that god does not need evidence - that it is all a matter of faith? In other words if the theologian cant be bothered to be accurate enough , why should I spend time reading the specifics?

Are you now arguing that it is proper and just to judge an entire group based on a mathematical majority?
Strawman -No. I said a good number of religious people don't know theology. you asked whats a good number. I said how about a simple majority. There was no question of judgement or right or wrong.

if I say that American politics is not worth bothering with because it is dominated by stupidity and corruption,
A closer analogy is the Republican party currently supports a bunch of evil policies that doesn't make it worth my time to read up on the details of some of the good ones they might be supporting because I have no intent of supporting the republican party.
So while theology apriori assumes a God ad makes no attempt to tell me how the theologian is in any way qualified to comment on any matter supernatural , i wont waste my time on specifics. And I will laugh every time the theologian wants to make specific guesses on matters supernatural.

When theology deals with matters other than the supernatural then it counts as ethics/philosophy/history - and these I can read about without problems in books that dont try to market themselves as theology.


But saying that all theology is stupid,
Ah now I see. Give me an example of "good theology" (or the best one in your opinion). Also tell me why it didn't convince you (yes this is not related to yours or John's points - But Im curious).
 

You write as though the main function of theology were to prove or defend the existence of God. There have been attempted proofs through the years, but they're really not that big of a deal. You can discard them and barely notice. We'd still have a lot to talk about on this issue.

Most theology is concerned with the nature of God/The Divine, and what our relationship is to it/him. You're more than welcome to say, with Dawkins, that this puts the cart before the horse; that you don't talk about the nature of something that you haven't demonstrated the existence of. To me this is exactly backwards. You can't evaluate the existence of something until you've established what you are talking about, and this is one of theology's main functions.

Another way of saying this is that theology attempts to answer the question "What does scripture mean?" It can be very hard to understand discourses of this nature out of context--without having read more widely in philosophy, for example. (Just as it's difficult to understand what someone like Nietzsche or Wittgenstein meant by their writings--and there are very contentious arguments by scholars with competing views on this matter. The question of how we know whose interpretation to favor cannot be resolved by a simple appeal to "the facts.")

To someone without a background in this subject, it can easily seem "all made up" or like "bafflegab." I can assure you that the passage Coyne cites in the linked post reads very sensibly to me, even without the context of the surrounding paragraphs.

When theology deals with matters other than the supernatural then it counts as ethics/philosophy/history - and these I can read about without problems in books that dont try to market themselves as theology.

It is simply not true that all theology concerns the "supernatural." You've heard people cite Tillich at this stage, no doubt. He may come across as an atheist or agnostic to you, but he self-identified as a Lutheran, writing for other Lutherans (and Christians generally) on how to understand God. That's theology. (Also, please note, that Gnu Atheists trying to more narrowly proscribe theology only as apologies for a supernatural god are also (drum roll) … doing theology, by defining what God is not.)

Coyne also mentions A.N. Whitehead in his post. Whitehead, of course, was one of the greatest philosophers of the last century, who co-wrote the Principia Mathematica with Russell (whose thesis advisor he was) and who was instrumental in the development of symbolic logic. In later years Whitehead developed a metaphysical outlook known as Process Philosophy or Process Theology. He freely uses the word "God," but describes a reality much more in line with panpsychism than with traditional Christian dualism. Later theologians wove this metaphysical view with Christian theology, and it is one of these who Coyne cites.

You don't have to be "convinced" by this school of thought to find it thoughtful, interesting and elegant. Just as, for example, we don't have to believe in Plato's worldview to find Plato a vital, and brilliant philosopher, even today. Or Kant, or Hegel, or Schopenhauer. If someone comes up to you and says "My ideas are heavily influenced by Husserl," or Fichte, or Rousseau, or Hobbes, or Descartes, will you laugh at them for being such a simpleton? Or will you ask them to elaborate?

The same courtesy is owed to theological ideas. Perhaps nine times out of ten you will get an unsatisfying answer. But that's life. Getting to the good stuff takes effort, sometimes.
 

You write as though the main function of theology were to prove or defend the existence of God.
One of the things, certainly.

You can discard them and barely notice.
Oh really? If there was definite proof for the existence (or non existence) of God , you think theology would barely notice? The reason you can barely notice today is because the "proofs" of existence are so poor.

You can't evaluate the existence of something until you've established what you are talking about, and this is one of theology's main functions.
Right. So God's eyes are they blue in color? Does he have long wavy hair ? is he a he? You can rightly see that such questions are nonsensical - but change that to Why has God created the universe in this way or Why does God allow evil and suddenly these are deep questions? The only difference is that the first batch of questions have a definite yes/no/exact answer whereas the latter has no fixed answers and I could make up stuff as easily as any theologian could and no one could say who is right and who is wrong

And what qualifies one to be a theologian? What makes any theologian in any way qualified to make any statement about the nature of God?


so, please note, that Gnu Atheists trying to more narrowly proscribe theology only as apologies for a supernatural god are also (drum roll) … doing theology, by defining what God is not.)
Sure not collecting stamps is the same as collecting stamps and not having faith is the same as having faith.
In any case I didnt say theology can't deal with matters that arent supernatural , just that i would be certain that there are better places to read about those topics.
if I want to deal with ethics and morals why would I add scriptures baggage - and as a non believer scripture has no importance to me.

The same courtesy is owed to theological ideas.
Would you study ID in more detail? is it necessary to understand only what irreducible complexity is ? or do you need to know every single irreducibly complex items?


You still didnt recommend one work - and you still didnt explain why you werent convinced by it (Im not saying you have to be convinced, Im merely asking you to list your reasons) - ive already said this has no bearing on whats being discussed - my goal is not to say aha! see you believe the best theology is bunk as well.
 

Am I not claiming the opposite? that to understand how theologians think I would have to read works by theologians who believe.

Noting that it wouldn't hurt you to read theology is not the same thing as saying that you have to do so in order to become reasonably familiar with it.

Palmistry doesnt just claim these type of predictions - It can also tell you the age you will likely get married etc.

Really? Do all palmistry practitioners say that? How do you know that? Or are you making generalizations based on limited knowledge?

Now this is just wrong. I believe it is a gnu position to take - whether you are civil / insulting/ polite or vulgar is situational and depends on context and what is being said and to whom it is being said (unless you believe gnu's are uniformly rude). it is an accomodationist position that one must be civil and polite (except when talking about gnu's) - And that tone always overrules content.

Ah! Gnus are the victims of over generalizations but "accommodationists" are all the same. Riiight!

Sure. As of today we know nothing that works effectively - otherwise the NCSE would have already implemented it , no?

Then there is nothing to reccommend the Gnu approach over the "accommodationist"?
 

Oh really? If there was definite proof for the existence (or non existence) of God , you think theology would barely notice? The reason you can barely notice today is because the "proofs" of existence are so poor.

But there isn't definitive proof one way or the other, and despite your ill-informed insistence to the contrary, this really isn't a very important topic within theology.

but change [whether or not God's eyes are blue] to Why has God created the universe in this way or Why does God allow evil and suddenly these are deep questions?

Your words, not mine. (I *do* think theodicy can be "deep," even though I don't beleive in that kind of god, because I think they can yeild interesting insights into the nature of evil and suffering. But I won't claim these questions are inherently deep.)

You are asking, essentially, "where is the deep, sophisticated theology about hackneyed, stererotypical conceptions of God"? Well, there isn't any that I know of. What I'm trying to direct your attention to is that there are currents in theology (centuries old, even millenia old) that don't deal with a personal God at all--or who only deal with a personal God as a symbol for questions they feel are best addressed in that way.

I could make up stuff as easily as any theologian could and no one could say who is right and who is wrong.

Welcome to Philosophy. See my earlier comment about Nietzsche and Wittgenstein. You can substitute your favorite philosopher, or even novelist, if you like. Interpretation is not simple, and not easily settled. That doesn't mean there are no standards. We are justified in saying that someone does bad philosophy, bad lit crit, bad political analysis. But the justification is much more complicated than it is in science or math.

Sure not collecting stamps is the same as collecting stamps and not having faith is the same as having faith.

Do you deny that you have an opinion on what a meaningful definition of God is? That's theology. Anyone can play.

In any case I didnt say theology can't deal with matters that arent supernatural , just that i would be certain that there are better places to read about those topics.
if I want to deal with ethics and morals why would I add scriptures baggage - and as a non believer scripture has no importance to me.

But there are people for whom scripture is important who don't have supernatural beliefs. This includes many prominent historical theologians. You'll just have to take my word for it, since you can't be bothered to find out for yourself.

Would you study ID in more detail? is it necessary to understand only what irreducible complexity is ? or do you need to know every single irreducibly complex items?

If someone credible said that I didn't understand irreducible complexity, I would try to understand what they had to say.

You still didnt recommend one work

I don't see the point of this. I did allude to Process and Reality, above, but what is or isn't convincing to me is really not germane to this conversation. What is germane is that nearly all the generalizations you've tried to make about theology (and astrology, for that matter) have been demonstrably false. A funny tack to take for someone who wants to represent the evidence-based approach.
 

Do all palmistry practitioners say that?
Ah. But that's not the question. Assume they do (or a significant majority does) .
Do you think this is blatantly false (in the sense the person cant really know this based on a palm reading , he could however guess it based on other attributes)? Do you think you are merely skeptical of this claim? Or Do you think you now need to read up more on why practitioners believe they can predict someone's future based on the lines on his hand?

Ah! Gnus are the victims of over generalizations but "accommodationists" are all the same. Riiight!
Since you follow PZ Myers you must have heard him write words to the effect let a 1000 flowers bloom. However I am not aware of any accomodationist stating that gnu methods can be effective (perhaps you can point me towards some material).


Then there is nothing to reccommend the Gnu approach over the "accommodationist"?
Speaking for myself - For convincing a creationist/ID person evolution is true? Yes there is no data either way.
We do have anecdotal data that indicates that both approaches(including accomodationist) can work - so yes context is important.

As far as I know accomodationist's generally believe that the gnu method is either ineffective and can be harmful (hence the your not helping statements and the exhibit A's).

What we do know is that whatever approach has been tried so far has not been very successful in convincing people about evolution. The percentages haven't changed much -(though it has been successful legally)
I think creationism / ID is a symptom . People who think religious teachings have authority will have to work at getting rid of their unscientific beliefs - and there is always going to be opposition to this.
I'd rather undermine the authority itself since I don't see any benefit in having religious authority in the first place.
 

Assume they do (or a significant majority does) .

Why should I assume anything without investigating it? Is that how Gnus think we should proceed in any issue ... except religion perhaps?

Since you follow PZ Myers you must have heard him write words to the effect let a 1000 flowers bloom. However I am not aware of any accomodationist stating that gnu methods can be effective (perhaps you can point me towards some material).

Is PZ now the Pope of the Gnus? Aren't there others who don't think there should be "faitheists"?

As to "accommodationists," there is the little problem of the definition of that, that we've been through before. Just who could I direct you to? As originally defined, I am an "accommodationist" because I see nothing wrong with scientific organizations making mildly soothing noises in the direction of theists along the lines of the NAS' booklet on creationism and evolution. I also don't think it helpful to call Ken Miller a "polluter" of science. On the other hand, I oppose the NCSE having a "theological arm" and I regularly make fun of the arguments (and intelligence) of some theists. I obviously have no problem with Gnus who do the same. If I am an "accommodationist," then you've just contradicted yourself about what the "accommodationism" actually is.

The percentages haven't changed much ...

But we have to take into account that American religion has also become much more fundamentalist over the same time, with a great exodus from the "mainstream" sects. We may just be in a Red Queen situation where the efforts of groups like the NCSE are keeping us where we are.

I'd rather undermine the authority itself since I don't see any benefit in having religious authority in the first place.

I really don't have a problem with that. I certainly agree that putting a face to unbelievers ... showing that they are everyone's family and friends and neighbors ... is a good plan. Doing the same with gays has been widely credited with getting marriage equality passed in New York and in changing the public's attitude across the country. At the very least, it's not so clear that in-your-face gay activists were all that helpful. Suggesting the first strategy does not, however, entail telling those who prefer the latter to "shut up," as is so often claimed.
 

Why should I assume anything without investigating it?
So that you can stop dodging the question.
Let me rephrase if "some" practitioners of palmistry believe they can tell a person when he can get married, and to what age he will live - are you merely skeptical of those claims? do you find it silly enough to make fun of (given that extracting money out of gullible people is bad behavior which I believe is your criterion) ? Or do you first need to go look up some books on palmistry to figure out why some practitioners make this claim?

Is PZ now the Pope of the Gnus?
No that's Dawkins. Im merely pointing out that Im not saying anything new. Quite a few people who identify as gnu's have made the same observation.
Now you made the comment that this(tailoring behavior to context - including mockery etc) is an "accomodationist" view - so it's you who have to indicate why you think the above - who these "accomodationists" are.

. I also don't think it helpful to call Ken Miller a "polluter" of science.
And how many gnus have actually made this comment?

We may just be in a Red Queen situation where the efforts of groups like the NCSE are keeping us where we are
it is tempting to retort "where's the evidence (since If I said maybe Gnu's have a positive influence nullified by the red queen situation Im sure I would have got this back) - but I believe this is a possibility.
So religion is becoming more fundamentalist , science organizations have to make mildly soothing remarks to religion, Politicians are as craven as ever. So tell me then, what next? Should we all chant that science is indeed compatible with religion in the hope that religion becomes less fundamentalist?

Suggesting the first strategy does not, however, entail telling those who prefer the latter to "shut up," as is so often claimed.
Maybe it isn't. Maybe you are sincere.
But non believers who have been discriminated against and continue to be discriminated against will be sensitive to such statements.
 

But there isn't definitive proof one way or the other,
Which means people who claim there is and people who assume there is are wrong.

this really isn't a very important topic within theology.
Perhaps. But we draw different conclusions based on this observation.
If you want to interpret what Jesus meant - you must at the very least be certain that jesus did in fact say what he said. If you wish to spend your time deciphering what a second century scribe meant - then by all means state that first.

but change [whether or not God's eyes are blue] to Why has God created the universe in this way or Why does God allow evil and suddenly these are deep questions?


You are asking, essentially, "where is the deep, sophisticated theology about hackneyed, stererotypical conceptions of God"?
No Im saying how do you know anything about God. deep sophisticated personal or otherwise. And since you cannot (or atleast not shown that you do) any attempts to interpret the nature of God, or his attributes, or his plans or his eye color are exercises in futility.

That's theology. Anyone can play.
Oh so now everyone's credible?


But there are people for whom scripture is important who don't have supernatural beliefs. This includes many prominent historical theologians. You'll just have to take my word for it, since you can't be bothered to find out for yourself.
Oh of course Bart Ehrman. But history isn't the same as theology is it? I repeat i will laugh at any theology that deals with anything supernatural(without knowing the specifics). for those parts of theology that do not deal with the supernatural, I can find the same in other avenues. And I already said right at the start , I can see why a religious person might find value in theology - just that i dont understand what a non believer would.


If someone credible said that I didn't understand irreducible complexity, I would try to understand what they had to say.
That isnt the question. if you understood what is meant by irreducible complexity would it be necessary for you to go through every example (the eye, the flagellum etc)


I don't see the point of this.
You make the claim that there is some superior theology. I only need one example so that I can see for myself.

but what is or isn't convincing to me is really not germane to this conversation.
I already said as much. However it helps me understand stuff. I fail to see why you are so reluctant to summarise.

What is germane is that nearly all the generalizations you've tried to make about theology (and astrology, for that matter) have been demonstrably false.
What that most theology has to deal with "God"? If you say so. We need to do something about the dictionary though
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theology
 

If you want to interpret what Jesus meant - you must at the very least be certain that jesus did in fact say what he said.

So says the theology of Deepak Shetty.

No Im saying how do you know anything about God. deep sophisticated personal or otherwise. And since you cannot (or atleast not shown that you do) any attempts to interpret the nature of God, or his attributes, or his plans or his eye color are exercises in futility.

Bingo! There are numerous works in theology which make exactly this argument. In fact, one of the functions of (some) theology is to try to steer people away from superficial speculations on the nature of God, or heaven.

Other theological works do discuss attributes of the divine, of course, or at least what our relationship to the divine should be. Take Fear and Trembling, for example. It is based on what to an atheist is a "made up" story. (Abraham and Isaac). But it's an incredibly deep meditation on anxiety, faith, self-interest, and ethics that has had an enormous impact on secular philosophy in the last 150 years. Maybe it's not to your taste, fine. But don't pretend it can't be of any interest to an atheist because it deals with God. History will rebut you.

Oh so now everyone's credible?

I didn't say they were. My whole argument here is that the New Atheist dismissals of theology are not credible, because they don't engage the subject on its own terms. They describe a mythical, made up entity, which they appear to believe in without any serious appeal to the data.

I repeat i will laugh at any theology that deals with anything supernatural(without knowing the specifics).

Now we're getting somewhere. You have described a subset of theology. (The low hanging fruit). The tricky part, now, will be knowing which theological works to laugh at, since you can't be bothered to study any of them.

for those parts of theology that do not deal with the supernatural, I can find the same in other avenues.

Feel free. But why should others not choose the literature that most appeals to them? Just so you know who to laugh at?

I can see why a religious person might find value in theology - just that i dont understand what a non believer would.

That's none of my concern. What I take issue with is the New Atheist characterization of all theology as counting angels on pinheads, or trying to work out the fate of unbaptized babies. It's a great deal more than that. Engage it or don't, but don't pretend you have a credible opinion about something you can't be bothered to understand.

That isnt the question.

Actually, it *is* the question. You made an analogy between theology and irreducible complexity. In either case, if someone made the claim that there was more to it than was being presented, the intellectually honest response would be to investigate further.

Once we determine that our prior understanding was correct, then you're right that we don't have to repeat the process for each iteration. But we're not there yet. This whole discussion is about whether you and the Gnus are correct to write off all of theology as being a bunch of silliness, without bothering to look into it.

What that most theology has to deal with "God"?

No, that it deals only with the definitions or understandings of God that you are familiar with or interested in, and can on those grounds be dismissed as nonsense.
 

@Chris

So says the theology of Deepak Shetty.
Is it? If you want to interpret what PZ Myers said , you should read his post , rather than say Michael ruse's interpretation of what PZ said. is this theology for you?

Bingo! There are numerous works in theology which make exactly this argument
Really ?. they must be short books then. we cannot say anything about the nature of god or interpret it. . End of book?

But don't pretend it can't be of any interest to an atheist because it deals with God.
No in this case I would ask what benefit by considering Abraham and Isaac?

My whole argument here is that the New Atheist dismissals of theology are not credible, because they don't engage the subject on its own terms.
Coincidentally Jason Rosenhouse did post on something related. he even lists the theological works he has read.
Is he still not credible?

You have described a subset of theology. (The low hanging fruit)
Again we disagree. Theology usually has an element of God - God is supernatural. Are there exceptions , possibly.

or trying to work out the fate of unbaptized babies.
Are you denying that this happens?
Are you denying that a god number of people actually baptise their kids within a few months? even though biblically they also do talk about baptism after a particular age?

only with the definitions or understandings of God that you are familiar with or interested in,
Most definition of God (other than love or sum of nature) are supernatural. And the way most people understand God is in a supernatural sense (with a good number believing in a personal god). pretend that this is not mainstream if you like. I just wonder what your motivations are.
 

Again we disagree. Theology usually has an element of God - God is supernatural. Are there exceptions , possibly.

So you keep saying. I guess you must have some kind of superior epistemic method that allows you to know these things without checking into it. Maybe an invisible friend tells you?
 

So that you can stop dodging the question.
Let me rephrase if "some" practitioners of palmistry believe they can tell a person when he can get married, and to what age he will live - are you merely skeptical of those claims?

Of course and I'll make fun of them based on a knowledge of such claims, the way I do of Ken Ham and Ray Comfort. I'm not "dodging the question," I'm answering very specifically ... just in a way you don't like.

Or do you first need to go look up some books on palmistry to figure out why some practitioners make this claim?

But if I'm then going to then talk about "palmistryists," I'm going to be intellectually precise and honest enough to note that what I say applies only, as far as I know, to some of them.

Now you made the comment that this(tailoring behavior to context - including mockery etc) is an "accomodationist" view - so it's you who have to indicate why you think the above - who these "accomodationists" are.

No I don't. "Accommodationist" is not a term that I, or anyone else, apply to myself. It is a term of abuse applied by Gnus (a term they coined for themselves) to others. It's their job to define it. All I know is that self-identified Gnus have applied it to people like me who tailor their behavior to context - including mockery.

I also don't think it helpful to call Ken Miller a "polluter" of science.
And how many gnus have actually made this comment?

Coyne has made this specific claim, which I bet has been repeated by his commentariat and others. How many, though, have made similar claims about "theistic evolutionists"?

We may just be in a Red Queen situation where the efforts of groups like the NCSE are keeping us where we are
it is tempting to retort "where's the evidence

I didn't claim there was.

(since If I said maybe Gnu's have a positive influence nullified by the red queen situation Im sure I would have got this back)

No, you wouldn't ... unless, like Coyne, you claimed that the lack of movement in the numbers is evidence that the NCSE's approach has failed.

So tell me then, what next? Should we all chant that science is indeed compatible with religion in the hope that religion becomes less fundamentalist?

I was specific about what I think. I see no problem with telling theists that other theists are able to make some sort of peace with science. I have no problem mocking those who can't. I can't see any advantage, in achieving what I care about, in attacking those theists who have made that peace. You are free to express your disagreement with my view and I'm free to express my disagreement with you. This is called that "free speech" thingie, that Gnus and "accommodationists" generally agree with. It is usually the stupid theists that claim that criticising them is taking away their rights.

Suggesting the first strategy does not, however, entail telling those who prefer the latter to "shut up," as is so often claimed.

Maybe it isn't. Maybe you are sincere.
But non believers who have been discriminated against and continue to be discriminated against will be sensitive to such statements.

I'll be among the first on the barricades to defend atheists against discrimination. But that doesn't mean I'll defend them when they adopt the same phoney tactics as their opponents.
 

P.S.

And how many gnus have actually made this comment?

Even it it was only Coyne, shouldn't I mock him and argue against his claim ... the same way I do with Ray Comfort? If not, why not? Surely, self-proclaimed "rationalists" couldn't argue that I shouldn't because he is on "my side." Right?
 

@Chris
I already gave you a link for a dictionary definition - that supports what I say and is a reasonably objective source. So please , get the definition of theology changed, then perhaps I can take you more seriously.
 

@john
I'll make fun of them based on a knowledge of such claims.
And you'll do it on the basis of knowing some general things about life and science and palm reading, not necessarily the minutiae. And that's perfectly reasonable.

"Accommodationist" is not a term that I, or anyone else, apply to myself.
In the context of these comments - you started by saying X is an "accomodationist" view. Which means you had something in mind when you made that statement. don't try to wiggle out of it.

Coyne has made this specific claim,
I did a google search for "miller pollute science site:whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com" and I get an article for Francis Collins pollutes science - is this what you are referring to?
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/07/27/francis-collins-pollutes-science-with-religion/

If it is Collins then Im sympathetic to Coynes view , for reasons that Coyne discusses. If its Miller then the only reference in the article to Miller is

Let me give Collins credit for one thing: he isn’t a straight-up wackaloon creationist. He recognizes that intelligent design is not science, and gives some arguments against it. He doesn’t do nearly as good a job as Kenneth Miller, but at least he tries, and that’s good.
which I believe speaks for itself.

hich I bet has been repeated by his commentariat and others.
whatever happened to
I'm going to be intellectually precise and honest enough to note that what I say applies only, as far as I know, to some of them.

claimed that the lack of movement in the numbers is evidence that the NCSE's approach has failed.
No i said that whatever is being done hasnt been effective. legally they have been top notch, and even the disagreement is over one issue. Most gnu's usually have a disclaimer saying NCSE does great work except... You rarely hear anything negative about Eugenie Scott, but you do about Josh Rosenau. Ever wonder why?

I see no problem with telling theists that other theists are able to make some sort of peace with science.
To what end? Surely people can see that for themselves? Do you think the reason why people have a problem with evolution is that they are ignorant of the fact that some religious people believe evolution is true?

But that doesn't mean I'll defend them when they adopt the same phoney tactics as their opponents.
Consider the possibility that it is your blind spot. When Mooney says Coyne shouldn't have reviewed books as he did - it does sound as shut up. When other people support Mooney, it does sound as they agree.

Even it it was only Coyne, shouldn't I mock him and argue against his claim .
Sure go ahead - assuming the statement was accurate. However I took your original statement to mean that you felt this is a mainstream attitude among gnu's.

Do we believe some theistic evolutions pollute science? - Depends on the theistic evolutionist you are referring to.

What we gnus do agree on is theistic evolution != evolution and theistic evolution is not science - hence should not be part of scientific literature or scientific organizations.

We also believe that attributes associated to humans e.g. a soul are in the end scientific claims and people can't say that the soul exists but that is theology , not science.
 

I already gave you a link for a dictionary definition - that supports what I say and is a reasonably objective source.

On what planet, Deepak?

Here's the definition you cite:

1. the field of study and analysis that treats of god and of God's attributes and relations to the universe; study of divine things or religious truth; divinity.

2. a particular form, system, branch, or course of this study.

This is just a wee bit more broad than the characterization you insist upon, which is restricted to the attributes of a personal God, with a little theodicy thrown in.

I've also cited some major works that fall outside your (but not this dictionary) definition, to which your best response is that they are not "mainstream." Well alas for the poor mainstream, then. We don't say geography is bunk because most Americans can't find Mexico on a map. We don't say history is bunk because most Americans can't name the first five Presidents. That's simply not how we judge the relevance of any discipline.

If you are going to laugh at theology as a matter of principle, that means you are going to laugh at not just C.S. Lewis or Albert Mohler, but also Whitehead, Tillich, Scotus, Schopenhauer, Nicolas Cusae, and Kierkegaard (to name but a few), despite the fact that you have no idea what any of them have to say, nor any interest in finding out.

I can't imagine how such a position could be defended intellectually, though I imagine it does provide you with some comfort.
 

@Chris
This is just a wee bit more broad than the characterization you insist upon, which is restricted to the attributes of a personal God, with a little theodicy thrown in.
No. I said "supernatural" and God (and divinity) whether personal or otherwise is supernatural - and you should prove the theologians credibility to comment on matters supernatural before you comment on mine. You seem to insist that theology covers matters other than God - it does - but that's not theology. Look at the word itself "theos" - meaning God.
Now can theology legitimately cover religious practices and their meaning which might be non supernatural? - sure - but religion itself is mostly based on the supernatural.

to which your best response is that they are not "mainstream."
No this is just a separate observation. That when religious people talk about God they refer to a personal God. It is religious apologetics(including some theologians) who talk about the unknowable - deistic - non interfering Gods when arguing with atheists and of a personal god when being buddy buddy with the religious.

, but also Whitehead, Tillich, Scotus, Schopenhauer, Nicolas Cusae, and Kierkegaard
if they talk about supernatural things , then sure. If they don't then I (and the dictionary) seem to think that they aren't really doing theology - which is fine - as before my question would be why do this in the context of theology?

nor any interest in finding out.
If you say so. Where is the guarantee that if i do read this and keep my original conclusions , then you wont now change it to these other bunch of theologians I haven't read (or better yet assume me of being prejudiced, closed minded, biased etc etc). you seem to think I have read nothing about theology.
 

In the context of these commGnus use of itents - you started by saying X is an "accomodationist" view. Which means you had something in mind when you made that statement. don't try to wiggle out of it.

Notice the scare quotes? I don't have to adopt the term to make fun of the Gnus' use of it. I'm sorry you have a tin ear for sarcasm.

I did a google search for "miller pollute science site:whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com" and I get an article for Francis Collins pollutes science - is this what you are referring to?

Nope. Here.

whatever happened to
I'm going to be intellectually precise and honest enough to note that what I say applies only, as far as I know, to some of them.

About the same thing as when you say:

Most gnu's usually have a disclaimer saying NCSE does great work

We know from Elevatorgate that at least some Gnus can criticise their own. Where was the outcry against Coyne? I can show plenty of critism of theists by theists over their attitude over science. Heck, that's what Coyne was discussing in that article ... which was a major focus of Gnus for a while. If there was no criticism, can't I generalize about what "most Gnus" do as well as you can?

I see no problem with telling theists that other theists are able to make some sort of peace with science.
To what end? Surely people can see that for themselves?

Heh! If the absence of evidence for god(s) is so obvious as Gnus say, why do they have to tell anyone? Surely people can see that for themselves.

The simple fact is that this is a political, not a scientific, issue. Most people don't think about it except sporatically and have to be reminded. And it involves children, more of whom are becoming aware of it every day. It is perfectly reasonable to remind them at every opportunity.

You rarely hear anything negative about Eugenie Scott, but you do about Josh Rosenau. Ever wonder why?

Please tell me. I don't know anything that Josh has said that is in conflict with what Scott has said.

Consider the possibility that it is your blind spot. When Mooney says Coyne shouldn't have reviewed books as he did - it does sound as shut up. When other people support Mooney, it does sound as they agree.

Why should I think that claims by Gnus that criticizing them is somehow taking away their rights any more seriously than the same sort of claims made by theists? Why should I be any more concerned with your feelings about what it sounds like than Gnus are concerned about what they say sounds like to theists? Goose. Gander. Sauce.

I took your original statement to mean that you felt this is a mainstream attitude among gnu's.

Hmm ... tell me where I can find this "mainstream attitude" of Gnus ... if not in blogs and books and articles by people like Coyne?

What we gnus do agree on is theistic evolution != evolution and theistic evolution is not science - hence should not be part of scientific literature or scientific organizations.

We also believe that attributes associated to humans e.g. a soul are in the end scientific claims and people can't say that the soul exists but that is theology , not science.

Miller would agree that it is not science and has said so often. The claim that the existence of the soul is a scientific question is not, itself, a scientific claim. If you think otherwise, show me the peer-reviewed literature on the point. You're free to have your opinion on the matter but why should I treat it any differently than the nonscientific claims of Miller?
 

If they talk about supernatural things, then sure. If they don't then I (and the dictionary) seem to think that they aren't really doing theology - which is fine - as before my question would be why do this in the context of theology? (my emphasis in bold)

Where in the dictionary do you see a restriction for "supernatural" discussions of god and divinity? You keep asserting it is a necessary condition, but have provided no data, just rank generalizations, as here:

religion itself is mostly based on the supernatural.

or here:

God (and divinity) whether personal or otherwise is supernatural

or here:

When religious people talk about God they refer to a personal God.

Your data set is what, exactly? You controlled your variables how, exactly? You tested the null hypothesis in which ways? You have cited which sociological studies of religion?

If I accuse you of being close-minded and prejudiced, it is because of your complete refusal to arm yourself with anything resembling objective fact. Over and over again you generalize anecdotal experience into axiom, and then when the documentary evidence contradicts you, you claim to have secret knowledge about what the facts really are.

You "know" that religious people believe "thus and so" the same way that renaissance astronomers before Galileo "knew" that all heavenly bodies orbited the earth. Such was their certainty of this that they couldn't even be bothered to look through Galileo's telescope and see for themselves.

I have cited at least three well-known examples of theology that do not postulate a personal God, two of which also do not consider divinity to be "supernatural." All three come out of the Christian tradition. Your insistence that they are not actually works of theology because they don't match up with your unexamined (or at least insufficiently examined) presumptions puts you in very unsavory intellectual company.
 

@Chris
So once and for all is god supernatural?
If your answer is "depends" - then lets split it into those definitions of God that are supernatural and those that are not.
For those definitions of God that are not supernatural - in which case science applies
apply your own standards of
"Your data set is what, exactly? You controlled your variables how, exactly? You tested the null hypothesis in which ways?
 

Yes, it depends on who you ask.

I cannot credit your equation of "non-supernatural" and "that which science applies to." Science cannot be applied to philosophy (e.g. metaphysics, ethics, linguistic philosophy), mathematics, law, art and literary criticism, and can only be partially applied to history, economics, political theory, and psychology. But none of these are, to my mind, "supernatural."

More to the point, though, I have never argued that any theological work is *intrinsically* convincing, whether on a scientific or rhetorical level. What I have argued is that not all theology is laughable, that a great deal of it is complex and (dreaded word) sophisticated. I personally find much of it wise and engaging even though I do not identify myself as religious. This is perhaps, a matter of taste. But what is not debatable is that in its totality theology is not simply a catalogue of the attributes of a bronze age deity. Nor is most of it (in Coyne's words) "bafflegab," or obscurantism. Nor is it primarily or exclusively occupied with proof of God's existence.

(That's not to say that much recent theology isn't terrible, full of rationalizations, specious reasoning, and unimaginative imagery. In all endeavors, it takes some digging to find the real treasures.)

Moreover, as John pointed out, much of theology is historically important. You can't properly understand our history, politics, and secular philosophy without understanding the theological currents that fed them--another good reason not to dismiss theology out of hand as silly or irrelevant.

But my primary appeal to you is on the basis of intellectual honesty. If you are going to ridicule something, know what you are ridiculing. You've given me very little reason over the course of this thread to think you are in the least bit familiar with theology at its best. I've asked what is it, in particular, that makes (for example) Simone Weil, or A.N. Whitehead, or Schopenhauer, or Ekhart, or Tillich so ridiculous and undeserving of attention. You can only respond that they must be so, because you've read C.S. Lewis and Bart Ehrman. Which is like saying that you know Paul Krugman has nothing intelligent to say because you've read Bill O'Reilly.
 

@John
I don't have to adopt the term to make fun of the Gnus' use of it. I'm sorry you have a tin ear for sarcasm.
Oh I noticed and replicated your use of scare quotes. however it is a statement you made that X is an "accomodationist" view. Now either gnu's ascribe this viewpoint to people they call accomodationist (in which case show me) or you had something in mind when you said this is an "accomodationist" view (in which case show me). Wiggle away.

Nope. Here
A true harmony between science and religion requires either doing away with most people's religion and replacing it with a watered-down deism, or polluting science with unnecessary, untestable, and unreasonable spiritual claims.
Ah ok , the famous review. Perhaps it's my bias but doesn't the OR give Coyne an out? Again to me it's still not unambigously clear that Coyne is specifically accusing Miller of the latter (he might as well be saying that Miller has a watered down version of religion). You are also ignoring the fact that Coyne does praise Miller and his book. So it clearly isnt Coyne thinks Miller is a polluter of science - end of story, is it?
But lets suppose Coyne is saying what you think - fine it was wrong and is too harsh for Miller. Are you saying the lack of condemnation is sufficient for you to conclude about gnu views? If so then we can prepare a laundary list of religious crimes that "accomodationists" do not comment about , when they seem to be ready to pounce at every perceived gnu rudeness.
And I also wonder when a religious scientist says the universe is finely tuned for life - what will you call it? Fine tuning the universe's constants is a scientific claim isn't it?

About the same thing as when you say:
Sorry I dont get it. You said you would be intellectually honest when it comes to palmistry(by saying some of them). I have never made a claim that to generalize is being intellectually dishonest. So you now seem to be saying you can generalize because I do. Shouldn't you be measuring your actions by your standards?


can't I generalize about what "most Gnus" do as well as you can?
Not if you want to call yourself intellectually honest (by your standards). If you want to say that most gnu's believe Miller is a polluter of science , you will have to do better than lack of outcry about Coyne's article. Now if you change Miller to Collins , perhaps you could make that generalization.

If the absence of evidence for god(s) is so obvious as Gnus say, why do they have to tell anyone? Surely people can see that for themselves.
Do we tell it because we want to convert them into non believers?. This is usually in response to a claim being made about God.

The simple fact is that this is a political, not a scientific, issue.
I dont think that is completely true. Some religious people genuinely ask this question and they dont ask this in an abstract sense. They want to know if they or their children read up and understand evolution, what impact will it have on their faith . To answer it as none , some scientists are religious and some clergy believe in "comfortable coexistence" is misleading the person. Its obvious that if you are an evangelical who believes in the bible literally, there will be some damage to your religious views if you come to believe evolution is true. Where that will lead to, who knows? The only honest way out of this question is actually no comments - What a person does with his/her religion is in his/her hands.
 

@John - II
Please tell me. I don't know anything that Josh has said that is in conflict with what Scott has said.
Ah but you should still be able to conclude that it isn't mere disagreement over whether science is compatible with religion that causes someone to be on the receiving end of some insults.

Why should I think that claims by Gnus that criticizing them is somehow taking away their rights any more seriously than the same sort of claims made by theists
Where did I say anything about taking away rights? Mooney didnt just disagree with Coyne , he said stuff to the effect that Coyne should not have published the reviews. That is(or atleast sounds like) shut up. It wasn't just criticism.

if not in blogs and books and articles by people like Coyne?
Sure. But Coyne is one of quite a few popular gnu's with blogs and articles. Surely you can see there is some difference between Jason Rosenhouse and Coyne.

Miller would agree that it is not science and has said so often.
And this is what doesn't make sense. You cant assert that gravity exists because of the FSM's noodling and then say well thats not science so it alright.
Attributes/Properties of humans are scientific claims. How can they not be?
You are simply trying to have your cake and eat it too by saying not science.
When in our evolutionary path did humans get a soul? How? Assume Intelligent Designers give up and say ID is theology, not science. Would you be ok with God designed the eye, but thats a theological claim?
 

@Chris
But none of these are, to my mind, "supernatural."
Existence claims are scientific. If God has a natural definition - then the existence of God is a scientific question.

What I have argued is that not all theology is laughable,
And I have said the supernatural bits are. And the rest is not part of theology.
see the only reason a non-believer like me would ever seek out theology would be to understand some religious claims and some religious beliefs. Most religious belief that exists today is connected to a personal God. You asked for proof for that "most" then simply use the number of people who believe in a either evolution or Intelligent design. Then add the number of religious people who believe that prayers can be answered. Dont you think thats a signifcant majority of religious people?

Nor is it primarily or exclusively occupied with proof of God's existence.
Again - you draw a different conclusion based on this.

Moreover, as John pointed out, much of theology is historically important
Uh yes. So? The Bible is a historically important document and still has a lot of laughable stuff. What's your point?

If you are going to ridicule something, know what you are ridiculing.
Which I already said , i agree in principle, Im not claiming or advocating ignorance. Im merely stating that the level of familiarity need not be as high as you think it should be.

You've given me very little reason over the course of this thread to think you are in the least bit familiar with theology at its best.
And you haven't given me any way to measure best. Nor have you given me any reason to believe that the theologian "knows" any more than I do (when it comes to "God").

Simone Weil, or A.N. Whitehead, or Schopenhauer, or Ekhart, or Tillich so ridiculous and undeserving of attention.
No the question is, what makes them deserving of attention? Will I understand how the world works? Will I understand how religious people think? Will I understand some religious claim that seemed nonsensical to me? Will what they write have any bearing on how most religious people actually think?

But I will do this. I will read one of them[in some time :( ] and see for myself.
 

however it is a statement you made that X is an "accomodationist" view. Now either gnu's ascribe this viewpoint to people they call accomodationist (in which case show me) or you had something in mind when you said this is an "accomodationist" view (in which case show me). Wiggle away.

This has become tiresome. I usually expect creationists to seize on some supposed contradiction and start shouting "gotcha" at the top of their lungs, not alleged rationalists.

Here's what I said:

As to "accommodationists," there is the little problem of the definition of that, that we've been through before. Just who could I direct you to? As originally defined, I am an "accommodationist" because I see nothing wrong with scientific organizations making mildly soothing noises in the direction of theists along the lines of the NAS' booklet on creationism and evolution. I also don't think it helpful to call Ken Miller a "polluter" of science. On the other hand, I oppose the NCSE having a "theological arm" and I regularly make fun of the arguments (and intelligence) of some theists. I obviously have no problem with Gnus who do the same. If I am an "accommodationist," then you've just contradicted yourself about what the "accommodationism" actually is [when referring to PZ's "let a 1000 flowers bloom" line].

What could be more context-driven than the NAS booklet, aimed at parents and others who don't know much about the subject and schoolchildren? And it was the NAS booklet that occasioned the coining of "accommodationist" label in the first place.

doesn't the OR give Coyne an out? Again to me it's still not unambigously clear that Coyne is specifically accusing Miller of the latter (he might as well be saying that Miller has a watered down version of religion).

Oh, right! He can be a polluter of science or a liar or a fool when he says he is a Catholic. Uh huh.

But lets suppose Coyne is saying what you think - fine it was wrong and is too harsh for Miller. Are you saying the lack of condemnation is sufficient for you to conclude about gnu views?

Mere silence, maybe not. But high praise everywhere in the Gnu blogosphere for the article with no condemnation for that, even after Coyne went back and "defended" from charges he was attacking Miller personally by quoting that very passage ... I think its fair to conclude that Gnus in general saw nothing wrong about it.

can't I generalize about what "most Gnus" do as well as you can?
Not if you want to call yourself intellectually honest (by your standards)

Don't be silly. Your premise was you could generalize about palmistry based on no study of what palmistry holds except that some of them claim one thing or another. I, on the other hand have studied Gnus quite a lot, though their books and blogs and articles. Have you made as much study of palm readers as I have of Gnus?

If the absence of evidence for god(s) is so obvious as Gnus say, why do they have to tell anyone? Surely people can see that for themselves.
Do we tell it because we want to convert them into non believers?. This is usually in response to a claim being made about God.

WHOOOSH! As to converting them, PZ was just saying the other day how he knows people who were converted by The God Delusion. He seemed to think it was a good thing. And the statements about religion not necessarily being in conflict with evolution are made in response to a claim that they are.
 

Some religious people genuinely ask this question and they dont ask this in an abstract sense. They want to know if they or their children read up and understand evolution, what impact will it have on their faith . To answer it as none , some scientists are religious and some clergy believe in "comfortable coexistence" is misleading the person.

Okay, your turn. Give me an "accommodationist" statement that says "there will be no 'damage' (whatever you mean by that) to your faith"?

Where did I say anything about taking away rights? Mooney didnt just disagree with Coyne , he said stuff to the effect that Coyne should not have published the reviews. That is(or atleast sounds like) shut up. It wasn't just criticism.

I am genuinely mystified by your distinction. Saying "you did X badly" is "criticism" but "it would have been better not to have done X at all" is not "criticism." Where did you find such a fine hair splitter?

As to taking away rights:

But non believers who have been *discriminated against* and continue to be discriminated against will be sensitive to such statements.

Either telling you to "shut up" is entangled in your rights or you are being irrational about such statements. And that lead directly to my second point, which you ignored, that why should anyone be concerned about Gnus feelings when they loudly proclaim the right not to be concerned about other people's feelings?

Attributes/Properties of humans are scientific claims. How can they not be?

The only way they must be is by assuming metaphysical naturalism ... which, itself, is not a scientific claim. Again, why should I treat your nonscientific claims any differently than Miller's?
 

This has become tiresome.
Actually I find it amusing to watch your version of twister.
What could be more context-driven than the NAS booklet,
Sorry what is context driven about saying some scientists are religious or religion can be compatible with science?

He can be a polluter of science or a liar or a fool when he says he is a Catholic. Uh huh.
Huh? If you look at the Vatican's positions at some matters and you look at the positions of many Catholics - don't the Catholics actually have watered down versions of their own religion as defined by their own church? Are you saying that's the same as calling these Catholics fools or liars? What strange reasoning you display.

Have you made as much study of palm readers as I have of Gnus?
Probably not. I have read some and Im comfortable generalizing on that basis. but that's not the question. Unless you can prove that a good number of gnu's believe that Miller pollutes science, your intellectual honesty should demand you rephrase your sentence. You now think it is fair to conclude based on some readings when it comes to gnu related topics.

PZ was just saying the other day how he knows people who were converted by The God Delusion
oh right - because Dawkins just said there is no evidence for God and ended the chapter there.

Give me an "accommodationist" statement that says "there will be no 'damage' (whatever you mean by that) to your faith"?

Alright what is the standard NCSE response to "is science compatible with religion?"
a. Some scientists are religious
b. religion *can* be compatible with science.
Do you know any other? What impression does the above convey?

Where did you find such a fine hair splitter?
Perhaps I learn from you.
Its not saying you did X badly so don't do X. It was don't state X in public journals. it wasn't you are wrong that Miller is a polluter of science - it was don't criticise Miller.

Either telling you to "shut up" is entangled in your rights
No it isn't. Not unless you try to pass laws or lobby congress or something.

that why should anyone be concerned about Gnus feelings when they loudly proclaim the right not to be concerned about other people's feelings?
You seem to spend a lot of time reading up what gnu's say and "correcting" them. I would assume that means you are concerned. Should people in general be concerned? that's up to them.

The only way they must be is by assuming metaphysical naturalism .
Nope. That's what we know so far about humans. If you want to make any other claims about humans and their attributes then the onus is on you/Miller to atleast provide some reasoning behind your claims. so far no one has ever done that.

there's one thing I want answered from you though. if a scientist says the universe is finely tuned to support humans (hence God) - what do you call that?
 

Existence claims are scientific. If God has a natural definition - then the existence of God is a scientific question.

This may be true, but that needn't be the only question once might ask. I can see why you--as someone oriented toward a scientific approach--would be the most interested in those types of discussions of God, but they are not exhaustive. Once you set them to the side there is a lot left. You don't have to take interest in those, but you can't claim they don't exist, nor can you unilaterally declare they are not theology, when both their writers and readers consider them as such.

Dont you think thats a signifcant majority of religious people?

The question is whether the minority who feel otherwise are also significant. We already know a large number of people believe things that are simplistic or implausible. That doesn't give anyone a pass to characterize the entirety of religious conversation that way. I can't quantify the percentage I am speaking of, since so far as I know no precise studies have been done. But even a tiny number like 1% of all religious people would represent tens of millions.

Will I understand how the world works?

Possibly.

Will I understand how religious people think?

Unless the works in question have gone entirely unread, then yes, very probably.

Will I understand some religious claim that seemed nonsensical to me?

Perhaps. Although it's easier to assume, with Professor Coyne, that it's all just made up anyway, if you prefer.

Will what they write have any bearing on how most religious people actually think?

Probably not. But I wouldn't rate their chances of this any lower than books by Dawkins or Dennett.
 

If all you are going to do is play contentless "gotcha" games, then you're going to be banned.

I've explained at length what I meant and all you do is act like a five year old shouting "nanah, nanah!"

what is context driven about saying some scientists are religious or religion can be compatible with science?

It was aimed at an audience that is not invested in the religion/atheism war on a specific question of science education and said nothing on the existence of gods or whether such gods are compatible with science. The issue isn't whether you liked the message (remember "let a thousand flowers bloom"?) but whether Gnus really consider the context of the audience and adjust their message accordingly.

the Catholics actually have watered down versions of their own religion as defined by their own church?

So, now you're the arbitrator of Catholic theology ... that you refuse to study? As someone who was forced to study it, there is nothing in what Miller has written on the subject that contradicts Catholic theology. The charge was that Miller was polluting science or watering down his religion. And, yes, saying that someone who describes himself as a devout Catholic is, actually not following Catholic teachings, is saying he is a liar for calling himself one or a fool for not realizing that he is not following what he professes.

Unless you can prove that a good number of gnu's believe that Miller pollutes science, your intellectual honesty should demand you rephrase your sentence.

I've given evidence for the proposition that most Gnus had no problem with Coyne's statement and you make generalizations all the time about what Gnus hold, even though you claim you're only a semi-Gnu. You haven't offered any evidence that there was any significant disagreement with Coyne except a general statement by PZ, which somehow doesn't apply to the NAS. Why should I change my generalization? Based on your statement that Coyne might have been too harsh? I'll be happy to say Deepak is less harsh than most Gnus. That doesn't change the generalization.

oh right - because Dawkins just said there is no evidence for God and ended the chapter there.

There are a lot of ways to approach your target and to achieve your aims ("let a thousand flowers bloom"). Just nudging aside an objection some people may have (while giving them a lot of information as to why your proposition is correct) can be sufficient to achieve your end.

What impression does the above convey?

That there are some people not from your sect that can manage to accept evolution and/or that, unbeknownst to you, that your sect does accept evolution.

Its not saying you did X badly so don't do X. It was don't state X in public journals. it wasn't you are wrong that Miller is a polluter of science - it was don't criticise Miller.

Well! That sure clears things up! Again, criticizing strategy is not criticizing?

No it isn't. Not unless you try to pass laws or lobby congress or something.

Then why did you feel it necessary to mention atheists are discriminated against in connection with their feelings about being told to shut up?

[More later]
 

why should anyone be concerned about Gnus feelings when they loudly proclaim the right not to be concerned about other people's feelings?
You seem to spend a lot of time reading up what gnu's say and "correcting" them. I would assume that means you are concerned. Should people in general be concerned? that's up to them.

The question was why I should be concerned with their feelings about their supposedly being told to shut up. That different than being concerned with their arguments, especially when it touches on an area I'm concerned with

The only way they must be is by assuming metaphysical naturalism .
Nope. That's what we know so far about humans. If you want to make any other claims about humans and their attributes then the onus is on you/Miller to at least provide some reasoning behind your claims. so far no one has ever done that.

Follow the bouncing ball:

I say that Miller acknowledges that his theological arguments are not science.

You say they are science because everything about humans is science.

I say that's philosophical naturalism, which also isn't science.

Then you say "Nope. ... If you want to make any other claims about humans and their attributes then the onus is on you/Miller to at least provide some reasoning behind your claims." That's certainly true within science but how do you reach that conclusion within theology? In fact, you're just trying to apply science's standards to theology, in which case you're just asserting again that everything is science. Or else you are trying to apply some other philosophical proposition as a standard for theology, in which case you are denying your original proposition that everything has to be science.

there's one thing I want answered from you though. if a scientist says the universe is finely tuned to support humans (hence God) - what do you call that?

As long as s/he says "hence God" it is a theological proposition. If s/he didn't make it clear that it was a theological proposition, I'd criticize him/her for that.
 

@John

If all you are going to do is play contentless "gotcha" games,
Sigh. it wasnt even meant as a gotcha.

whether such gods are compatible with science.
sorry. when you say some scientists are religious, nudge , wink , you and I both know what it is meant to imply. In any case there are two distinct things you are mixing up here.
a) If an individual wants to convince people that evolution is true by making soothing noises towards it , by all means go ahead (but dont tell us your methods are more effective without proof and dont tell us our methods are harmful without proof).
b) A science organisation , represents science and should be neutral towards such matters. (it shouldnt have any position , accomodationist or gnu ).
I still dont see how any of what you are saying is "context" driven, but we have travelled that path too many times.


So, now you're the arbitrator of Catholic theology ... that you refuse to study? As someone who was forced to study it, there is nothing in what Miller has written on the subject that contradicts Catholic theology.
Again i dont know some of the reasoning behind Catholic theology but the Vatican (and hence the official Catholic position on)
a. gay marriage
b. use of contraceptives
c. Abortion (even if the mothers life is at stake)
is well known. Unless you believe otherwise, why do you make these meaningless observations?

Now either you believe Miller agrees with the Vatican position and the Official roman catholic theology on the above - in which case I wont call him polluter of science , but Ill call him much worse or he doesn't in which case he has watered down his own religion.
If the latter(as I believe is the case), do you think that I'm implying he is a fool or madman?

Why should I change my generalization?
Because it is your position that you dont generalize. Was there disagreement with coyne - perhaps not but I dont think that 1 sentence was something anyone focused on - especially after Mooneys response. Maybe because of my biases thats not the way I read the article , however clearly Miller did draw the same inference you did (with some justification)Coyne did respond saying he was attacking the ideas not the people.(Oh and before you point me to your post, if ideas can never be criticised independent of the people holding those ideas, then we are screwed). Coynes point that if you believe God interferes with human evolution by injecting a soul somewhere,somehow then you are in principle believing the same thing as an ID'er - that God does interfere with humans in some undetectable ways. Is it wrong to point this out? - however most people will react to this saying hey are you calling me an ID'er when I oppose ID (hence dangerous to science)?.


Then why did you feel it necessary to mention atheists are discriminated against in connection with their feelings about being told to shut up?
Because it is something I didnt realise for some time.

Anyway thats my last on these topics for this thread. however there are a couple of other things that interest me so Ill comment on that separately.
 

@John
That's certainly true within science but how do you reach that conclusion within theology
But I don't. Either humans have a soul or they don't. either the universe has been finely tuned or it hasn't.
It can be that theology gives you a different answer than science - but the correct answer must be a single answer. Since "science" works , if some other field claims it has a different or better answer then they must prove it. we havent even gotten of the ground in showing exactly how theology can provide a valid answer to the question "is the universe finely tuned" and how might that answer be evaluated

As long as s/he says "hence God" it is a theological proposition.
So the answer differs if you add hence God? How exactly does a fact change by adding hence God?

Woman are inferior(couched in different terms) to men - Bad!
Women are inferior(couched in different terms) to men because God says so - theology! That's alright then.

The eye is designed - Bad!
The eye is designed , hence God - Theology! That's alright then.

I suppose your only problem with ID is that they try to teach it in school, as long as they only taught ID in church, it would be alright with you.
 

you and I both know what it is meant to imply.

So, you've added mind reading to your store of "scientific" tools?

If an individual wants to convince people that evolution is true by making soothing noises towards it , by all means go ahead (but dont tell us your methods are more effective without proof and dont tell us our methods are harmful without proof).

Ditto. Don't go telling others they are polluting science or their religion. Pot. Kettle. Black.

A science organisation , represents science and should be neutral towards such matters.

Where exactly does this "rule" come from? Who is the dictator who has the right to make this rule?

I still dont see how any of what you are saying is "context" driven

Because it is "situational and depends on context," which you claimed was a gnu position to take.

a. gay marriage
b. use of contraceptives
c. Abortion (even if the mothers life is at stake)

Who was it that was supposedly mixing up distinct things?

in which case I wont call him polluter of science , but Ill call him much worse or he doesn't in which case he has watered down his own religion.
If the latter(as I believe is the case), do you think that I'm implying he is a fool or madman?

You're free to think what you will about Miller's views (though I don't know what he holds on such issues). There are plenty of scientists that I think were rotten human beings. The issue here was whether he was polluting science, which I gather you now concede was not a proper
charge against him. As to whether he might be "watering down" his religion, that's an interesting issue. We know that a majority of American Catholics do not follow the Vatican in believing that gay marriage should be banned, that use of contraceptives is wrong or even that abortion should be banned. In such cases, what is the religion we are talking about? The fulminations of the hierarchy or what is actually practiced by the "faithful" on the ground? In any case, it is unfair for Coyne to use the watering down charge as the only alternative to polluting, since he, like you, was not familiar enough with Catholic theology to know whether or not it was true.

[More later]
 

Because it is your position that you dont generalize.

No, it isn't. I said I don't generalize based on ignorance. I've read a lot of the Gnu literature. On the other hand, it's obvious to someone who has studied Catholic theology that Coyne is wrong that what Miller has offered as a reconciliation of Catholic theology and science is not watering down that theology but is totally mainstream.

I dont think that 1 sentence was something anyone focused on

Coyne did, as noted. Still no outcry.

Coynes point that if you believe God interferes with human evolution by injecting a soul somewhere,somehow then you are in principle believing the same thing as an ID'er - that God does interfere with humans in some undetectable ways.

Yep. I've said before that theistic evolutionists are, in a broad sense, "creationists." What they aren't is people who dishonestly pretend that their theology is science.

Is it wrong to point this out?

I obviously don't think so, since I've said the same thing. What is wrong is to call them polluters of science.

Then why did you feel it necessary to mention atheists are discriminated against in connection with their feelings about being told to shut up?
Because it is something I didnt realise for some time.

Because you mentioned it, I felt it necessary to mention that being told to "shut up" is no violation of anyone's rights ... at least here in the US.

Anyway thats my last on these topics

Fair enough. No inferences to be drawn by future silence.
 

But I don't. Either humans have a soul or they don't. either the universe has been finely tuned or it hasn't.

It's a bit more complex than that, especially when you start trying to define "soul" or what is meant by "fine tuned."

Since "science" works , if some other field claims it has a different or better answer then they must prove it. we havent even gotten of the ground in showing exactly how theology can provide a valid answer to the question "is the universe finely tuned" and how might that answer be evaluated

It's still a philosophical proposition that all claims must be subject to empiric evidence or even logic. You're assertion is self-defeating, in that your claim that we have to have to show there is a better answer can't, itself, be demonstrated scientifically ... not to mention that you can't demonstrate scientifically that science works. Look up Hume's problem of induction.

As long as s/he says "hence God" it is a theological proposition.
So the answer differs if you add hence God? How exactly does a fact change by adding hence God?

Because it becomes an admitted theological proposition.

Woman are inferior(couched in different terms) to men - Bad!
Women are inferior(couched in different terms) to men because God says so - theology! That's alright then.

Who said it was all right? I argue against theology all the time. But to pretend I'm arguing from science is just as dishonest as the IDers arguing that their theology is science.

The eye is designed - Bad!
The eye is designed , hence God - Theology! That's alright then.

The eye is designed - Bad scientific argument!

The eye is designed , hence God - Theology! Yep!

All right? Not to me but I'll admit that I can't decide that on the basis of science.

I suppose your only problem with ID is that they try to teach it in school, as long as they only taught ID in church, it would be alright with you.

What? Are we supposed to pass a law saying they can't teach it in church? I have too much respect for freedom than to go there. Otherwise, argue against their theology all you want ... that's part of freedom too ... just don't pretend that your arguments are anymore "scientific" than the IDer's.
 

@John
especially when you start trying to define "soul"
Im not the one making the claim so I dont have to define it -
If a religious person makes this claim where soul is something other than any known attribute of humans , then the exact definition is not the issue.

not to mention that you can't demonstrate scientifically that science works.,
I don't need to. Science works because it is observed to do so. In any case even Mathematics has Axioms that cant be proved using Mathematics or logic or otherwise. But it works nonetheless.

But to pretend I'm arguing from science
And when I asked you the original question I didn't ask you to argue from science. But the arguments are almost always informed by science(if you believe the eye is designed , hence god is a bad argument then isnt science involved in that reasoning?).

You chose to answer the fine tuning question as - if there is no hence God you will criticise it. You left hanging , what happens if there is a hence God.


The eye is designed , hence God - Theology! Yep!
However the question is whether that theology has a bad scientific argument or not? Can you say theology is bad on the basis that it has bad scientific arguments or not?


Are we supposed to pass a law saying they can't teach it in church?
Did I imply this? I merely asked you for your opinion - since in the answer to the original fine tuning question - you didn't say what you think when it is theology - which i took to mean "No Comments"

just don't pretend that your arguments are anymore "scientific" than the IDer's.
So if an ID'er has a position the eye is designed , hence God - and someone well versed in science(not me) says The eye is not designed (and here's why) - so the broader argument hence God also fails is as "scientific" as an ID'er in your opinion?
 

Im not the one making the claim so I dont have to define it -

You're the one saying it exists or it doesn't. How can you know that, if you don't know what you're talking about?

If a religious person makes this claim where soul is something other than any known attribute of humans , then the exact definition is not the issue.

Only if you make the assumption that nothing other than what is known by humans is important.

not to mention that you can't demonstrate scientifically that science works.,
I don't need to. Science works because it is observed to do so.

I'm sorry ... So you don't have to know Hume's Problem of Induction either? Ignorance is the basis of your "knowledge"?

In any case even Mathematics has Axioms that cant be proved using Mathematics or logic or otherwise. But it works nonetheless.

As far as we know. But you don't need to know what we know in order to make that statement? Don't you denigrate theists for doing the same thing?

But to pretend I'm arguing from science
And when I asked you the original question I didn't ask you to argue from science.

Fine. What other "ways of knowing" do you recognize?

You chose to answer the fine tuning question as - if there is no hence God you will criticise it. You left hanging , what happens if there is a hence God.

Then I'll treat it like other theological claims, as I've explained before. I don't have to repeat myself because you don't like my prior answers.

The eye is designed , hence God - Theology! Yep!
However the question is whether that theology has a bad scientific argument or not? Can you say theology is bad on the basis that it has bad scientific arguments or not?

If it is making a scientific argument, then the quality of the argument is relevant. If it is a theological argument and you want to claim that science is relevant to theology, isn't demonstrating that latter claim your burden? Or do burdens only count when you want them to?

Are we supposed to pass a law saying they can't teach it in church?
Did I imply this?

You asked "as long as they only taught ID in church, it would be alright with you."

Why would it matter if it is "alright" with me if they have the right to do it? If you asked whether I thought the argument was good or if I'd argue against it, I would have given a different answer.

I merely asked you for your opinion - since in the answer to the original fine tuning question - you didn't say what you think when it is theology - which i took to mean "No Comments"

No, you asked if it was "alright" with me, as if I had some choice about them teaching it churches. My opinion of Paley's original arguments is that they were unconvincing ... though a young Darwin thought otherwise. But, frankly, I'm not going to get very exercised about things that other people have a clear right to do.

just don't pretend that your arguments are anymore "scientific" than the IDer's.
So if an ID'er has a position the eye is designed , hence God - and someone well versed in science(not me) says The eye is not designed (and here's why) - so the broader argument hence God also fails is as "scientific" as an ID'er in your opinion?

As long as you are claiming anything more than that science does not support the argument and, instead, claiming that science refutes it, you are making a philosophical argument about what science can and cannot address ... just as the IDers do.
 

. How can you know that, if you don't know what you're talking about?
You were asking about definitions. If someone says a soul exists - the definition that matters is his.

So you don't have to know Hume's Problem of Induction either?
I do. What Im stating is that the starting assumptions are irrelevant so long as the system works. mathematics has its axioms, as does logic, as does science.

As far as we know.
And thats all we can tell about anything. so far as we know, evolution is true. Is it true in some abstract sense of "truth" - i dont know, neither do you. But all that matters is "as far as we know"

What other "ways of knowing" do you recognize?
As a lawyer do you really need me to answer this question? How does a court determine innocence or guilt? Do you only use empirical evidence?

Then I'll treat it like other theological claims,
Which is what? I dont ever get an accurate answer.

If it is a theological argument and you want to claim that science is relevant to theology, isn't demonstrating that latter claim your burden?
But I did. Is the universe fine tuned? is a scientific argument. Stating the universe is fine tuned is an opinion that is scientific in nature? Agreed?. Stating if (X) then (Y) is a logical proposition. If Y is hence God , the argument becomes theology according to you - fine. But X hasn't changed , and If (X) then (Y) also suffers if X is not true or unknown. There is no theology involved in what Im saying.
Since you also talk about who gets to define rules -
if i take a bunch of scientific claims and then add a couple of theological ones - this is theology according to you. If I take a bunch of theological claims and then add a couple of scientific ones - thats still theology to you. how do you decide?
When a scientist gives a lecture titled Science and Spirituality who determines whether it is "Science" or "theology" - whether it is a mixture or a pollution or whatever else you might choose to call it? Why is your opinion any more valid than Coynes? Why are you more credible than Coyne when it comes to discussing what constitutes science and what doesn't?

Why would it matter if it is "alright" with me if they have the right to do it?
Im assuming that there is a whole bunch of things in this world that it is legal to do that are not alright with you (not just religious). Im also assuming that you do not think we have to legislate every single thing thats wrong or we think it is wrong. And I can ask you your opinion without implying that. The reason behind asking you that question is either - you are ok with it , as you imply - meaning you dont have any problem with theology teaching bad science (since it is their right!) - or you are - in which case on what basis?

As long as you are claiming anything more than that science does not support the argument and, instead, claiming that science refutes it,
The universe is finely tuned - Science does not support this claim
The eye is designed - Science refutes this claim
 

So you don't have to know Hume's Problem of Induction either?
I do. What Im stating is that the starting assumptions are irrelevant so long as the system works. mathematics has its axioms, as does logic, as does science.

Well, counting the grains of sand on a beach "works." We come away with "knowledge." Are we justified in saying that the number of grains is all the knowledge to be gained? Are we justified in thinking that counting grains of sand is all there is, simply because it "works"?

As far as we know.
And thats all we can tell about anything. so far as we know, evolution is true. Is it true in some abstract sense of "truth" - i dont know, neither do you. But all that matters is "as far as we know"

But whether or not that's "all that matters" is a philosophical choice, not a scientific one. So you're back in the same predicament as the theists.

What other "ways of knowing" do you recognize?
As a lawyer do you really need me to answer this question? How does a court determine innocence or guilt? Do you only use empirical evidence?

I'm afraid not. Or else we could use statistics and computers to decide that. Instead we use human beings to decide fuzzy concepts such as "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Then I'll treat it like other theological claims,
Which is what? I dont ever get an accurate answer.

You are, at least, equally responsible for the logorrhea that is this thread. If you can't find it, it's your own damn fault and I'm not going to endlessly repeat myself for your benefit.

If it is a theological argument and you want to claim that science is relevant to theology, isn't demonstrating that latter claim your burden?
But I did. Is the universe fine tuned? is a scientific argument.

Why? Simply because you assert it is? Like the IDers assert that God's hand in nature is a scientific question? Sure, we can look at what the basic forces in nature are and what would happen if they changed. But how do you empirically measure if they are "fine tuned"? Where's the empiric evidence that that question can be answered with empiric evidence?

Stating the universe is fine tuned is an opinion that is scientific in nature? Agreed?

Give me the empiric metric by which we would decide that question.
 

Stating if (X) then (Y) is a logical proposition. If Y is hence God , the argument becomes theology according to you - fine. But X hasn't changed , and If (X) then (Y) also suffers if X is not true or unknown. There is no theology involved in what Im saying.

There's also no science. I can't even attempt to give you the whole of the philosophy of science in a comments thread ... try reading James Ladyman or Elliot Sober or any number of other good sources. If you're not interested, then I'll just put you down with the same sort as think they can spout off about evolution without knowing anything about it. As an exercise, however, please explain how "if X" = "X occurred 'naturally'," being precise in your definition of 'naturally'.

Since you also talk about who gets to define rules -
if i take a bunch of scientific claims and then add a couple of theological ones - this is theology according to you. If I take a bunch of theological claims and then add a couple of scientific ones - thats still theology to you. how do you decide?

By what the people say they are doing.

Why is your opinion any more valid than Coynes? Why are you more credible than Coyne when it comes to discussing what constitutes science and what doesn't?

Well, Coyne's been demonstrated to be basically ignorant of the philosophy of science ... But, in any case, what we call "science" is an empiric fact of the world ... at least as a sorites heap. If the person manages to get his scientific cum "theological" claims published in the peer-reviewed literature and recognized as scientific by the scientific community, then its science. If s/he doesn't, then it ain't.

And I can ask you your opinion without implying that.

Then why don't you ask my opinion instead of implicating some sort of moral/legal choice?

The reason behind asking you that question is either - you are ok with it , as you imply - meaning you dont have any problem with theology teaching bad science (since it is their right!) - or you are - in which case on what basis?

I am ok with people exercising their basic human rights ... even if I wouldn't do things the way they do. I think teaching kids ID as if it is science is shortcoming the kids. By various means, I'll also try to educate the kids, including by trying not to scare them off in the first instance ... the way the NAS did.

The universe is finely tuned - Science does not support this claim

Really? Peer reviewed literature please!

The eye is designed - Science refutes this claim

Refutes? Really? How?
 

Hi it's me, I am also visiting this web page on a regular basis, this web site is genuinely nice and the people are really sharing nice thoughts.

my blog ... roches
 

Hello! Do you know if they make any plugins to
assist with SEO? I'm trying to get my blog to rank for some targeted keywords but I'm
not seeing very good gains. If you know of any please share.
Kudos!

Review my web page :: how to buy real cheap twitter followers