Comments on: It's Getting Easier to Spot the Extremists http://telicthoughts.com/its-getting-easier-to-spot-the-extremists/ An independent blog about intelligent design Fri, 10 Oct 2008 22:01:55 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: MikeGene http://telicthoughts.com/its-getting-easier-to-spot-the-extremists/#comment-66494 MikeGene Sat, 17 Feb 2007 00:12:53 +0000 http://telicthoughts.com/its-getting-easier-to-spot-the-extremists/#comment-66494 Hello Massimo, Welcome to Telic Thoughts! It's nice to have someone of your stature looking in on our humble blog. And I must confess that I was impressed to read the essay where you decided to distance yourself from Dawkins' extremism. You write: <blockquote>It seems to me that Dawkins is wrong in claiming that the existence of a generic God (what he calls "the God hypothesis") is a scientific matter, it isn't. </blockquote> Well, I hope it is more than a "it seems to me" situation, as our shared views on this are now being taught to Kansas students. Since science, by definition, is limited to searching for natural explanations of what is observed in the universe, then Dawkins whole argument collapses. He tried to extract some significant meaning out of the fact that science has failed to uncover evidence of supernatural causes. But science cannot fail at something it does not do. It cannot fail at something it will not do. Thus, Dawkins is doing a great disservice to the scientific community by a) misrepresenting what science can do and b) in doing so, feeding right into the approach of the ID movement. As I have been warning here, Dawkins et al. are chipping away at the Dover decision and thus deserve their share of the blame if a Dover II arises (and this time, goes the other way). <blockquote>However, he is correct that plenty of specific claims about specific gods can be scientifically tested and refused: if your religion says that there was a worldwide flood 4000 years ago, it is simply wrong, and if that claim is tightly bound with your belief in that god, well, then you are out of luck.</blockquote> Sure. In this case, what is being tested is not a supernatural cause, but a factual claim about our physical reality. Was there a worldwide flood or not? Even if we uncovered scientific evidence for such a worldwide flood, science could not credit this flood to the God of the Bible. If such a flood was caused by God, science would simply hit a dead-end. Yet none of this really addresses the existence of God. It addresses a particular narrative which, in turn, is a particular interpretation. People like Ken Miller, David Heddle, and Francis Collins show us this. <blockquote>As for Dennett and Harris, I find their claims perfectly reasonable, but they are not saying that those claims are scientific (only consistent with science, which is a wholly different thing).</blockquote> My problem with Harris is that he is engaged more in propaganda than in science. He does not approach the existence of religion as a social scientist and conducts no experiments to evaluate religion. He simply comes across as an apologist who relies massively on confirmation bias and anecdotes to spearhead his socio-political movement. As for being "consistent with science," yes, but that does not say much. After all, my ID views are also "consistent with science." Hello Massimo,

Welcome to Telic Thoughts! It's nice to have someone of your stature looking in on our humble blog. And I must confess that I was impressed to read the essay where you decided to distance yourself from Dawkins' extremism.

You write:

It seems to me that Dawkins is wrong in claiming that the existence of a generic God (what he calls "the God hypothesis") is a scientific matter, it isn't.

Well, I hope it is more than a "it seems to me" situation, as our shared views on this are now being taught to Kansas students. Since science, by definition, is limited to searching for natural explanations of what is observed in the universe, then Dawkins whole argument collapses. He tried to extract some significant meaning out of the fact that science has failed to uncover evidence of supernatural causes. But science cannot fail at something it does not do. It cannot fail at something it will not do. Thus, Dawkins is doing a great disservice to the scientific community by a) misrepresenting what science can do and b) in doing so, feeding right into the approach of the ID movement. As I have been warning here, Dawkins et al. are chipping away at the Dover decision and thus deserve their share of the blame if a Dover II arises (and this time, goes the other way).

However, he is correct that plenty of specific claims about specific gods can be scientifically tested and refused: if your religion says that there was a worldwide flood 4000 years ago, it is simply wrong, and if that claim is tightly bound with your belief in that god, well, then you are out of luck.

Sure. In this case, what is being tested is not a supernatural cause, but a factual claim about our physical reality. Was there a worldwide flood or not? Even if we uncovered scientific evidence for such a worldwide flood, science could not credit this flood to the God of the Bible. If such a flood was caused by God, science would simply hit a dead-end.

Yet none of this really addresses the existence of God. It addresses a particular narrative which, in turn, is a particular interpretation. People like Ken Miller, David Heddle, and Francis Collins show us this.

As for Dennett and Harris, I find their claims perfectly reasonable, but they are not saying that those claims are scientific (only consistent with science, which is a wholly different thing).

My problem with Harris is that he is engaged more in propaganda than in science. He does not approach the existence of religion as a social scientist and conducts no experiments to evaluate religion. He simply comes across as an apologist who relies massively on confirmation bias and anecdotes to spearhead his socio-political movement.

As for being "consistent with science," yes, but that does not say much. After all, my ID views are also "consistent with science."

]]> By: Deuce http://telicthoughts.com/its-getting-easier-to-spot-the-extremists/#comment-66313 Deuce Fri, 16 Feb 2007 14:39:27 +0000 http://telicthoughts.com/its-getting-easier-to-spot-the-extremists/#comment-66313 There is one problem I noticed with the standards. They define science thusly: "scientific knowledge describes and explains the physical world in terms of matter, energy, and forces." Unless they are begging the question in favor of philosophical materialism in the school system (which would be un-Constitutional), this means they are using an instrumentalist view of science. But in that case, it is illegitimate to speak of scientific "knowledge". Knowledge implies truth, which would make the sentence seem to imply that the true explanations for everything in the universe are in terms of matter, energy, and forces - which would be essentially a statement of atheistic materialism. In fact, a savvy and motivated parent could probably sue over that. There is one problem I noticed with the standards. They define science thusly: "scientific knowledge describes and explains the physical world in terms of matter, energy, and forces." Unless they are begging the question in favor of philosophical materialism in the school system (which would be un-Constitutional), this means they are using an instrumentalist view of science. But in that case, it is illegitimate to speak of scientific "knowledge". Knowledge implies truth, which would make the sentence seem to imply that the true explanations for everything in the universe are in terms of matter, energy, and forces - which would be essentially a statement of atheistic materialism. In fact, a savvy and motivated parent could probably sue over that.

]]> By: pigliucci http://telicthoughts.com/its-getting-easier-to-spot-the-extremists/#comment-66284 pigliucci Fri, 16 Feb 2007 12:53:12 +0000 http://telicthoughts.com/its-getting-easier-to-spot-the-extremists/#comment-66284 It seems to me that Dawkins is wrong in claiming that the existence of a generic God (what he calls "the God hypothesis") is a scientific matter, it isn't. However, he is correct that plenty of specific claims about specific gods can be scientifically tested and refused: if your religion says that there was a worldwide flood 4000 years ago, it is simply wrong, and if that claim is tightly bound with your belief in that god, well, then you are out of luck. As for Dennett and Harris, I find their claims perfectly reasonable, but they are not saying that those claims are scientific (only consistent with science, which is a wholly different thing). Cheers, Massimo Pigliucci It seems to me that Dawkins is wrong in claiming that the existence of a generic God (what he calls "the God hypothesis") is a scientific matter, it isn't. However, he is correct that plenty of specific claims about specific gods can be scientifically tested and refused: if your religion says that there was a worldwide flood 4000 years ago, it is simply wrong, and if that claim is tightly bound with your belief in that god, well, then you are out of luck.

As for Dennett and Harris, I find their claims perfectly reasonable, but they are not saying that those claims are scientific (only consistent with science, which is a wholly different thing).

Cheers,
Massimo Pigliucci

]]> By: thesciphishow http://telicthoughts.com/its-getting-easier-to-spot-the-extremists/#comment-66255 thesciphishow Fri, 16 Feb 2007 10:50:37 +0000 http://telicthoughts.com/its-getting-easier-to-spot-the-extremists/#comment-66255 I made mention of the problems with the standard over at PT, but the problems seem to be lost on the guys over there. I made mention of the problems with the standard over at PT, but the problems seem to be lost on the guys over there.

]]>