You are arguing that Harris's views on eastern spirituality are consistent with science, because he says they are.

No, I'm arguing that Harris's views are consistent with science because I can't find anything he's said or written about mysticism or spirituality that's inconsistent with science.

If you've read The End of Faith, then you know that Harris uses both terms reluctantly, for lack of better alternatives:

The term "spirituality" seems unavoidable here…but it has many connotations that are, frankly, embarrassing. "Mysticism" has more gravitas, perhaps, but it has unfortunate associations of its own.

Heddle:

I should be able to ask Harris, at his thesis defense, why he wrote poppycock like:

Even the contemporary literature on consciousness, which spans philosophy, cognitive science, psychology and neural science, cannot match the kind of precise phenomenological studies that can be found throughout the Buddhist canon.

and

The roiling mystery of the world can be analyzed with concepts (this is science), or it can be experienced free of concepts (this is mysticism).

All you've done is to label these as "poppycock" while providing no justification. Why are they "poppycock"

Such a view should be as contrary to Harris's scientific training as YEC should be to Ross's. Or at least in the same ballpark.

What, specifically, is the contradiction between what Harris is saying and science?

As I have explained countless times, I do not consider ID to be science. My book outlines a perspective and a method. If you want to call it science, that's your business. I don't and won't.

You're right. You have been consistent in this position. I should have remembered. Sorry.

Myers' extremism is vented through the #1 Science Blog and is thus worthy of response.

Hmm, that is the question. Are these blogs part of the scientific debate or not? I believe at some level they are. That level being public opinion that elect people who control the purse strings of public funded research.

[BTW, it's nice to see you back. I've always enjoyed your contributions.]

Thank you for your kind words. Alas, this is just a quick visit. I literally have been swamped for months and will be again. I played hookey today. Back to the grindstone tomorrow. Thanks for the lively discussion.

Does that mean Dr. Behe's book is NOT a scientific counter-proposal since it targeted the mass market and was not published in the "arena of science" How about your book? How about the New York Times article that is the focus of this thread?

As I have explained countless times, I do not consider ID to be science. My book outlines a perspective and a method. If you want to call it science, that's your business. I don't and won't.

The fact that Ross played the game correctly in the peer-reviewed, scientific arena is important and laudable. But it would be a stretch to claim public pronouncements by PhD credentialed scientists have no affect on scientific debate.

Do you have a way of detecting and measuring this "affect on scientific debate?" And what do you compare it to? Where is your data?

First, Eugene Scott did not use the pages of the NYT for squat. Read the article again. The reporter obviously worked hard in constructing this article from bits and pieces. The paraphrased quotes were made up of sentence fragments and it wasn't clear where or when statements were made or in what context.

Fair enough. Yet in the pages of the widely-read NYT is the claim that someone like Ross requires massive amounts of remedial instruction. The claim has no basis in truth, now does it?

The only "interesting developments" I see is PZ Myers venting his opinion with Telic Thoughts mechanically responding in kind. What else is new?

Myers' extremism is vented through the #1 Science Blog and is thus worthy of response.

[BTW, it's nice to see you back. I've always enjoyed your contributions.]

You wrote…

It can only be a scientific counter-proposal if it is proposed in the arena of science.

Does that mean Dr. Behe's book is NOT a scientific counter-proposal since it targeted the mass market and was not published in the "arena of science" How about your book? How about the New York Times article that is the focus of this thread?

The fact that Ross played the game correctly in the peer-reviewed, scientific arena is important and laudable. But it would be a stretch to claim public pronouncements by PhD credentialed scientists have no affect on scientific debate.

Actually, there is no fight as Ross was awarded his PhD. We are reacting to an article that appeared in the New York Times because it highlights many interesting developments. For example, for years the critics have been preaching MN but then turn on Ross for actually practicing MN. That's hypocrisy. Eugenie Scott uses the pages of the NYT to argue that someone like Ross needs "remedial instruction" yet provides not the slightest bit of evidence to back up such claims. If we are to be concerned about truth claims about the world, why have the critics shied from that particular truth claim about the world?

First, Eugene Scott did not use the pages of the NYT for squat. Read the article again. The reporter obviously worked hard in constructing this article from bits and pieces. The paraphrased quotes were made up of sentence fragments and it wasn't clear where or when statements were made or in what context

When a reporter has to go back to 2003 to dig up old controversies (Dr. Dini), I take any tone of urgency with a grain of salt.

The only "interesting developments" I see is PZ Myers venting his opinion with Telic Thoughts mechanically responding in kind. What else is new?

Provoking Thought

You are defending YEC by perpetuating the attempted deception that it is only a "personal belief", when it clearly is a scientific counter-proposal.

It can only be a scientific counter-proposal if it is proposed in the arena of science. It is an issue of "personal belief" precisely because Ross has successfully completed a PhD thesis that was praised by his colleagues. Scientifically speaking, the evidence clearly indicates Ross deserved his PhD and that concerns about his personal opinions about the age of the earth are superfluous. As we see, his personal opinions about the age of the earth did not serve as an obstacle for him behaving as a good scientist.

As far as hypocrisy, why THIS particular religious freedom fight. This situation is not like the government trying to force school children to proclaim our nation is under God.

Actually, there is no fight as Ross was awarded his PhD. We are reacting to an article that appeared in the New York Times because it highlights many interesting developments. For example, for years the critics have been preaching MN but then turn on Ross for actually practicing MN. That's hypocrisy. Eugenie Scott uses the pages of the NYT to argue that someone like Ross needs "remedial instruction" yet provides not the slightest bit of evidence to back up such claims. If we are to be concerned about truth claims about the world, why have the critics shied from that particular truth claim about the world?

BTW, Dr. Dini was also in that NYT story. He is the guy who refused to provide letters of recommendation for creationist pre-med students, arguing that a creationist could not be a good doctor. I addressed this on the ARN forum a few years back. I asked the Dini supporters to support his truth claim with scientific evidence. They failed. All they had was prejudice, ridicule, ad hominem, philosophy, and anecdote.

It is hypocritical for the self-described "pro-science" people to abandon science to score points.

You are defending YEC by perpetuating the attempted deception that it is only a "personal belief", when it clearly is a scientific counter-proposal.

According to MN this is possible. You can personally believe in a counter-proposal, you can personally really believe that it is true because it is congruent with your religious beliefs, while working under a completely different (naturalistic) paradigm, and doing good work at that. You don't wear your science hat with regard to really believing those counter-proposals though, and YECs admit this.

You wrote…

As an evolutionist who speculates about front-loading and is skeptical of the RNA world, I should point out that I have in no way defended YEC. Thus, there is no hypocrisy on my part. What I have defended is the notion that a student should be judged on his accomplishments and not his personal beliefs and perspectives.

You like taunting with absolutes, don't you?

I did not have you in mind when I typed my original comment. But I will take up the challenge…

You are defending YEC by perpetuating the attempted deception that it is only a "personal belief", when it clearly is a scientific counter-proposal.

As far as hypocrisy, why THIS particular religious freedom fight. This situation is not like the government trying to force school children to proclaim our nation is under God.

We all know if those in charge were stupid enough to deny Ross his PhD, he would become an immediate celebrity and greatly rewarded (probably via lawsuits). Is this about religious freedom, or is it just another skirmish in the PR war were we attempt to maximize the embarrassment of the other side?

Provoking Thought

You wrote…

TP, all philosophical positions entail an element of faith. Religious beliefs are not unique in this respect. It is intellectually healthy to acknowledge that much of what we believe is not subject to sensory confirmation.

That is all well and good from a philosophical view point. I can believe that the universe is recreated every morning just for me regardless of sensory confirmation. It is my "truth", ergo it is true. The problem comes in when I try to make practical use of this truth.

What scientists and lawyers believe is true is of little use if they don't constrain those beliefs with practical limitations. Your claim of having "considerably greater flexibility" in thinking may be heartfelt, but to what end? What is your proposal?

My personal view is that the universe is a creation of a pre-existing and intelligent being. There is much in nature that supports this. A reason why OOL theories are so weak is the need to accomodate a materialist perspective in spite of the known properties of essential biochemicals. A creator who wished to establish initial conditions favoring life by chemical inevitability would choose something other than life's nucleic acids. They are however, ideally suited for the roles they have within already existing cells.

Fine, that is your "truth", therefore it is true. Now what?

Provoking Thought

Excuse the intejection of an outside observer"¦

THIS is why many people hear "GodDidIt" when you say "ID".

All the carefully worded arguments for front-loading and against an RNA World are brought into question when the same people vigorously defend YEC.

While there are legitimate arguments for a telic origin of the universe it strains all credibility to give equal support to YEC. You might as well defend Last Thursdayism.

If you really want to know the reason for the response caused by the Martin Ross situation, it can be summed up in one word"¦

hypocrisy.

As an evolutionist who speculates about front-loading and is skeptical of the RNA world, I should point out that I have in no way defended YEC. Thus, there is no hypocrisy on my part. What I have defended is the notion that a student should be judged on his accomplishments and not his personal beliefs and perspectives.

This gets to the basics I was talking about in my previous post and what I think Macht was touching on in his original post. Pure pursuit of truth is what I think of as "philosophy". To me, religion is type of philosophy usually based on faith.

TP, all philosophical positions entail an element of faith. Religious beliefs are not unique in this respect. It is intellectually healthy to acknowledge that much of what we believe is not subject to sensory confirmation.

I know you have been asked this before (from me). What is your alternative? What is your proposal?

My personal view is that the universe is a creation of a pre-existing and intelligent being. There is much in nature that supports this. A reason why OOL theories are so weak is the need to accomodate a materialist perspective in spite of the known properties of essential biochemicals. A creator who wished to establish initial conditions favoring life by chemical inevitability would choose something other than life's nucleic acids. They are however, ideally suited for the roles they have within already existing cells.