Science and God
by MikeGenePZ Myers has a quote from J.B.S. Haldane that he admires:
My practise as a scientist is atheistic. That is to say, when I set up an experiment I assume that no god, angel, or devil is going to interfere with its course; and this assumption has been justified by such success as I have achieved in my professional career. I should therefore be intellectually dishonest if I were not also atheistic in the affairs of the world. And I should be a coward if I did not state my theoretical views in public. - J.B.S. Haldane
Who can argue with a brilliant scientist who has lab evidence that God does not exist? Just imagine "“ J.B.S. Haldane was always justified when he assumed God would not interfere with his experiments. Now we see the "scientific" understanding of God - if God exists, he should have been goofing with J.B.S. Haldane and messing up his experiments to prevent Haldane from becoming a success!
Haldane as success = God does not exist.
July 15th, 2006 at 5:56 pm
Not quite… you can object to Myers' Dawkins-esque dismissal of theism, but it does make sense that science is atheistic, does it not? The problem is when this view is taken as proof against God's existence outside of science, and devaluing nonscientific viewpoints, a line of thinking that I'm fond of lately.
Still, Haldane's explanation gets to the heart of why views of God, or a Designer if you prefer, don't belong in science: there's no divine intervention that's ever been observed in science.
So I thought Haldane was spot on, even if only in a reactionary sense, against the attempts by some IDers to debase science.
Comment by Daniel — July 15, 2006 @ 5:56 pm
July 15th, 2006 at 6:48 pm
Albert Einstein famously noted, "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind."
PZ Myers: Albert Einstein could be such an asshole.
I guess not every scientist can live up to PZ's standard.
Just curious, how do you know that God/Designer has never been observed in science? I thought Darwinian science rules out God a priori and it is incapable of testing for God? Shouldn't the most that a Darwinist can claim is that you don't know if God has intervened in science?
Comment by teleologist — July 15, 2006 @ 6:48 pm
July 15th, 2006 at 6:56 pm
Isn't Haldane the same guy that came up with Haldane's dilemma? Doesn't Haldane's dilemma represent a significant challenge to NDE?
Scientists have always assumed that God would not interfere with their expermients. Scientists may conclude that God therefore doesn't exist. However, we could draw some other conclusions. Maybe God doesn't give a rip about our little experiments, so has no motivation to interfere. Or maybe, just maybe, he welcomes the experimentation, so he doesn't bother to interfere.
Comment by bFast — July 15, 2006 @ 6:56 pm
July 15th, 2006 at 7:45 pm
Hi Daniel,
Yep. But the issue is in fact Myers' Dawkins-esque dismissal of theism
Therefore, God does not exist? Scientifically speaking, just what would a "divine intervention" look like?
Comment by MikeGene — July 15, 2006 @ 7:45 pm
July 15th, 2006 at 7:58 pm
This is one of those "proves too much" arguments. I wonder how many other things Haldane assumed weren't going to interfere with his experiments, and didn't, and therefore don't exist?
Comment by Deuce — July 15, 2006 @ 7:58 pm
July 15th, 2006 at 8:12 pm
Very good point Deuce.
It seems like the premise of Haldane's argument is an equivocation - it is not atheistic to assume that God will not interfere with an experiment.
Moreover I wonder whether Myers et al. have thoroughly considered the implications of theism/naturalism. I suspect the assumption that the universe is intelligible implies theism; science would then be a fundamentally theistic enterprise.
Comment by BenK — July 15, 2006 @ 8:12 pm
July 15th, 2006 at 8:33 pm
You know, that's one of PZ's better threads, for the comments more than for his 'usual' (and sparse responses). There appear to be some intelligent people participating. PZ's a die-hard, but a few others appear to understand the sociopolitical situation somewhat. That's a good sign. Iit is, after all, a sociopolitical battle taking place in the sociopolitical arena. Grand Debates haven't often been this public in science. Which was always elitist enough that the Great Unwashed Masses didn't really count (so could be ignored beyond what you could sell 'em).
What happened? The hundred million housewives who buy the National Enquirer every week at the grocery check-out suddenly count? They're still buying magic crystals and checking their horoscopes, for goodness' sake! The ever-lonely barflies and computer daters? They're way too busy just lookin' for love. The dedicated-but-clueless who are just trying to do the right thing? They're working too hard to care. You're suddenly going to "educate" them out of their whole belief system and everything that "means something" in their lives via a semester in high school?
Sorry… ain't gonna happen. Any idiot can see that. And nobody but an idiot would think some 80-year old scientific theoretic purporting to explain why we're not mice or howler monkeys would matter in the least to a single one of 'em.
I am more and more convinced that it's truly an in-house debate, taken public because a certain subsegment of the public decided to take notice and use the uncertainty as an evangelical tool. That doesn't mean everything they've pointed out is wrong. There's an unequal but oppositional metaphysical thread within biological science itself, and that's why there's all this in-fighting in the first place. It has nothing to do with what the public believes.
And this particular argument over at Peez's blog illustrates that situation better than any of us can.
Comment by Joy — July 15, 2006 @ 8:33 pm
July 15th, 2006 at 8:44 pm
Mike doesn't even come close to getting Haldane's meaning.
A pretty clear case of confirmation (or is it disconfirmation) bias. Rooted in theology? Emotion?
No, wait, we've yet to see mention of the most obvious source of confirmation bias in American society. I speak, of course, of the Almighty Dollar. MikeGene has a financial stake in ignoring, twisting, defeating any and all statements that don't toe the Design Matrix line.
I'd say that, as an interpreter of science and scientists, MikeGene is probably as untrustworthy as one could get. His mangling of Haldane's statement here is pretty clear evidence of this.
Comment by Art — July 15, 2006 @ 8:44 pm
July 15th, 2006 at 8:57 pm
Hi Mike,
Haldane was no dummy. I believe he was saying something more sensible than "God doesn't interfere with my experiments, therefore he doesn't exist."
Here is the quote again, reworded to emphasize what I think he was trying to say:
My practise as a scientist is atheistic. That is to say, when I set up an experiment I assume that no god, angel, or devil is going to interfere with its course; and this assumption has been justified by such success as I have achieved in my professional career. I should therefore be intellectually dishonest if I did not approach life as a whole in that way. And my assumption has been justified by my success in understanding and operating in the world. The assumption of supernatural interference is no more essential in the latter arena than in the former.
Comment by keiths — July 15, 2006 @ 8:57 pm
July 15th, 2006 at 9:06 pm
Art:
Well, let's check it out.
Haldane:
Sure. Atheistic simply means "without God" and this should not be confused with the anti-theism of people such as Myers and Dawkins. Haldane next explains the meaning of his atheism:
So the assumption would not have been justified had Haldane's attempt to do science failed, because supernatural entities would have interfered with this work (why?). Of course, Haldane can be holding himself up as a personification of science, arguing that if God exists, there would/could be no science. Science is successful because nothing "supernatural" mucks up the experiments and they deliver an understanding of how the world works. So, from a scientific viewpoint, what is reality supposed to look like if God existed? If God exists, there should be no science?
Untrustworthy Mike
Comment by MikeGene — July 15, 2006 @ 9:06 pm
July 15th, 2006 at 9:09 pm
Keiths:
So what is the world supposed to look like if God exists? I didn't take into consideration divine intervention in worldly affairs when getting ready for work this morning and therefore………?
Comment by MikeGene — July 15, 2006 @ 9:09 pm
July 15th, 2006 at 10:31 pm
"My practise as a scientist is atheistic. That is to say, when I set up an experiment I assume that no god, angel, or devil is going to interfere with its course;"
Let all the above be assumed. It does not equate to there being no possibility of intelligent causality evidenced by means of a process required to generate life. If detection of intelligence is ruled out a priori by Haldane's confidence that none of the above would interfere with the course of an experiment, then he has let his theological convictions define what is empirically detectable.
Comment by Bradford — July 15, 2006 @ 10:31 pm
July 15th, 2006 at 10:43 pm
Totally confused, this thought is, Mike. Your disconfirmation bias has severely affected your ability to think clearly.
Utter rubbish.
Look thru PNAS, JBC, Cell, any journal you wish. Every study - every one - proceeds atheistically as Haldane relates. Not because the existence of God makes science impossible, but because the presumption of interference of capricious gods does indeed make science impossible. (Of course, Mike's biases here most assuredly would lead him to accuse all scientists of being atheists, of claiming to disprove God's existence, to be inherently, even zealously anti-religious. Such is the twisted POV that MG's bias brings to the table.)
Here's an exercise - let's ask if some histidine residues on YPD1 are required for osmoregulation. Haldane's approach, in which the science is atheistic, is the one that any reasonable scientist would take, and would involve the usual mutagenesis, test, repeat, follow-up. The results are viewed in the only reasonable way - change the important his, lose osmotolerance. If the alteration does not affect osmotolerance, then the his is not part of the phosphorelay. This is inherently, exactly atheistic in the way Haldane is saying.
I think most anyone would see that this is the only practical and logical approach to this question. But apparently, MG feels otherwise. So tell us, Mike, how would you go about doing this experiment if you did not make the atheistic assumption? How do you control for the supernatural? How do you measure it? How do you draw any conclusions from any results you get, if you permit supernatural effects to factor into things? Please explain, and be specific. Don't dodge - after all, yer about to accuse virtually 100% of scientists of promoting atheism, of claiming to prove the nonexistence of God. Your argument depends mightily on your ability to show how the alternative to Haldane's approach (which assumes capricious intervention by supernatural entities) can even come close to being as useful as Haldane's atheistic approach to science.
Comment by Art — July 15, 2006 @ 10:43 pm
July 15th, 2006 at 10:58 pm
Very simple and well known logic refutes this Haldane quote: "Lack of evidence does not indicate evidence of lack".
There are mysteries science has not yet and may never solve. To believe otherwise is belief. Until science does answer the mysteries, they must be answered using other disciplines and reasoning.
Or is that unreasonable?
Comment by todd — July 15, 2006 @ 10:58 pm
July 15th, 2006 at 11:02 pm
Art,
It seems as if you aren't grasping the point. Just because science can tell us nothing concrete if we assume an interfering god, it doesn't therefore follow there positively is no god. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. And this is where it seems to me Haldane's logic breaks down.
Of course his science would mean nothing if not performed 'athiestically'. However, to extrapolate from that that there can therefore be no god is not science, nor logic. It is philosophy.
Comment by todd — July 15, 2006 @ 11:02 pm
July 15th, 2006 at 11:04 pm
Hi Todd,
Haldane wasn't making this argument. That's MG's deliberate misrepresentation you're attacking.
I agree - MG is way off base here.
Comment by Art — July 15, 2006 @ 11:04 pm
July 15th, 2006 at 11:10 pm
What did Haldane mean then by
??
Comment by todd — July 15, 2006 @ 11:10 pm
July 15th, 2006 at 11:11 pm
I mean, I read it the same way. Could it be MG isn't deliberately misrepresenting Haldane, but is instead, like me, apparently not getting it?
Comment by todd — July 15, 2006 @ 11:11 pm
July 15th, 2006 at 11:14 pm
Art:
So what? Is there supposed to be some point that follows from this?
So Haldane's argument, at best, argues strong against the existence of trickster gods and demons. It's not really an argument that supports atheism in anyway. And, er, well, that's exactly my point.
Whoa. Where did that come from?
Sounds good.
Agreed. So what is purchased by labeling this practical and logical approach "atheistic?" I presume Haldane chose "atheistic" to distinguish it from, say, "theistic?" So are we to believe that a theistic approach would not involve the same things? Why?
You missed the whole point, Art. I'm not the one trying to label science "atheistic" or "theistic." Since Haldane added the adjective, he must have something in mind and the "˜atheistic assumption' must be different from the "˜theistic assumption" if his point is to be of some relevance. So what is the contrary theistic assumption that Haldane has in mind, the one that stands apart from the "atheistic assumption?" Since Haldane is not here to tell us, perhaps his supporters can spell it out clearly.
Y'see, a theistic scientist can just as easily assume that no God or demon would interfere with his experiment and that nature can be approached with the assumption that it will ultimately be intelligible (well, maybe this is not true for worshippers of Loki).
Me thinks I detect a faulty extrapolation going on here (see my blog on disconfirmation bias).
You miss the point. If Haldane is somehow trying to prop up atheism, he is the one who needs to spell out the theistic alternative and why methodological atheism somehow supports atheism.
Comment by MikeGene — July 15, 2006 @ 11:14 pm
July 15th, 2006 at 11:18 pm
No, there is no deliberate misrepresentation. Either a theistic reality equates with the non-existence of science or Haldane's point is vacuous.
Science employs methodological atheism. So what? Is that supposed to represent some brilliant insight into the fabric of our reality? If so, what is the nature of this brilliant insight?
Comment by MikeGene — July 15, 2006 @ 11:18 pm
July 15th, 2006 at 11:40 pm
Remember that the term "atheist" includes those who don't rule out God's existence conclusively, but nevertheless see no evidence that would lead them to assert God's existence. Bertrand Russell summed up this position very nicely with his analogy of the orbiting teapot:
I see no reason to believe in the orbiting teapot, and would therefore not hesitate to label myself an "a-teapot-ist". But according to your logic, I cannot do so unless I am absolutely certain the teapot doesn't exist.
Perhaps Haldane was also a "teapot atheist". His statement certainly makes sense from that perspective.
Comment by keiths — July 15, 2006 @ 11:40 pm
July 15th, 2006 at 11:46 pm
Does confirmation/disconfirmation bias affect short-term memory?
From the blog entry:
That's the atheistic assumption. The "theistic" alternative, in Haldane's opinion, is implicit and pretty obvious.
So tell us, Mike, how do you do "theistic science" as spelled out by Haldane? How does one go about investigation where a "god, angel, or devil" will interfere with the course of an experiment? You don't seem to be willing to answer the question.
Note that Haldane doesn't say that the success of "atheistic science" proves scientifically that God doesn't exist. This is what Mike is ranting on about, and in so doing he is deliberately misrepresenting Haldane.
I'm starting to see that the Post Wedge World will include theistic science, where a "god, angel, or devil is going to interfere with its course" (the experiment's course, that is). More relativism - one's creed or "mind" determines the outcomes of experiments.
Comment by Art — July 15, 2006 @ 11:46 pm
July 15th, 2006 at 11:56 pm
Just because you see 10 atheists sell their soul to publish a book for a dollar, then an IDer writes a book, he must be selling his ethics for a buck. When you have someone who profess this sort of logic and claim to be a scientist, he must be a liar or he is in the science of telling fairy tales.
Comment by teleologist — July 15, 2006 @ 11:56 pm
July 16th, 2006 at 12:23 am
Does anyone really expect anything less from Art by now? Come on.
Comment by Guts — July 16, 2006 @ 12:23 am
July 16th, 2006 at 12:47 am
Art:
Sure, as I have drawn it out "“ the "theistic alternative" is where "the god, angel, or devil is going to interfere" with Haldane's experiment. Thus, Haldane is implicitly arguing that the existence of God means that God would mess up everyone's experiments and science could not exist. But why think that?
As spelled out by Haldane? I already addressed that - there can be no science if God exists, because God would interfere with everyone's experiments and there would be no success.
I have no idea how one would investigate for this. But Haldane seems to think that if God existed, he would meddle in Haldane's experiment. After all, he seems to think it is very significant that his atheistic assumption "has been justified by such success as I have achieved in my professional career."
You are misinterpreting me again, Art. Just because you don't understand the argument doesn't mean you should be attacking me like this. Let's try to make it simpler. Haldane says: "when I set up an experiment I assume that no god, angel, or devil is going to interfere with its course; and this assumption has been justified by such success as I have achieved in my professional career." I say, "So what?" What's the point?
No, you are just relying on stereotype as usual. I am not making some argument for the inclusion of "theistic science" where a "god, angel, or devil is going to interfere" with the course of some experiment. That is something your mind made up. I'm simply focused on Haldane's argument, noting it entails that either a theistic reality equates with the non-existence of science or his point is vacuous.
(Disclaimer: As an interpreter of science and scientists, MikeGene is probably as untrustworthy as one could get.)
Comment by MikeGene — July 16, 2006 @ 12:47 am
July 16th, 2006 at 1:05 am
Keiths:
Sure. But that doesn't answer my question. If God exists, I'm supposed to be able to go into the lab and see"¦"¦.what?
You can label yourself however you want. I'm just trying to figure out what Haldane (or Russell) wants. That I should be able to go into the lab and see heaven in a telescope? Angels under the microscope? God's meddling supernatural hands causing my electrophoresis gel to vanish? What?
Comment by MikeGene — July 16, 2006 @ 1:05 am
July 16th, 2006 at 1:30 am
Not entirely sure how this fits in (or how I'll get flamed), but this discussion brings to mind the Biblical passage of Judges 6:36-40 in which Gideon performs a couple of experiments with a fleece and the moisture of the night.
It seems to me, a layperson with little skill at the philosophizing and deep-thinking you folks do here, that Gideon performed a "scientific experiment" with the opposite assumptions held by Haldane. Is such an experiment without value? Assuming the story is true, would Gideon's results be suitable for inclusion in the next issue of Nature, or are only atheistic-based experiments worthy of reporting to the scientific community?
Comment by chyntt — July 16, 2006 @ 1:30 am
July 16th, 2006 at 2:34 am
Haldane made a sales pitch, not a logically defeinsible statement. I think Mike makes a valid critique.
Contrast the quote Mike cieted with Haldane's other writings:
Why I am a materialist by JBS Haldane.
What are Haldane's motivations?
Sal
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — July 16, 2006 @ 2:34 am
July 16th, 2006 at 2:45 am
What the hell is Art talking about?
Comment by BenK — July 16, 2006 @ 2:45 am
July 16th, 2006 at 5:27 am
Mike's point is perfectly valid. Assuming that Haldane's quote isn't missing any vital context, it's pretty silly. The fact that no supernatural entities were observed to interfere with Haldane's experiments simply provides evidence against the class of supernatural entities that interfere with scientific experiments. Even then, the entities in question could simply have chosen not to interfere with Haldane's experiments, or could have interfered with his experiments in a fashion that he could not detect.
This, in and of itself, is a pretty poor basis for atheism.
Comment by Mesk — July 16, 2006 @ 5:27 am
July 16th, 2006 at 10:23 am
Mesk:
I disagree, Mesk. Although Mike is backing off his assertion, he wants to say that Haldane was making a scientific statement about the existence of God. Mike was wrong then, and he is still wrong.
I'll also assume that the quote isn't missing some important context, and follow the quote to something closer to the real point. MikeGene just said, in essence, that in the lab he is an atheist (by Haldane's standard - MG rules out supernatural interference, which is Haldane's definition). I suspect that Haldane would ask MG where is the consistency "“ intellectual, philosophical, even theological "“ if or when one who is an atheist in the lab does not approach one's non-scientific life similarly? The question is the point, just as much as Haldane's answer.
But there's more. If one is a theist outside of the lab but an atheist in the lab, how does one erect the barrier? How does one keep gods, angels, and devils out of the lab? Who makes the boundary, and of what does it consist?
And there's still more. ID, teleology, the anti-materialism that will rule the Post Wedge World, all of these movements are avowedly theistic in the lab. In this thread, MikeGene suggests that such a perspective is not scientifically tenable. I'd agree with MG, but then ask how the statements in this thread can be reconciled with other anti-materialistic affinities that abound in the ID and teleology movement?
Comment by Art — July 16, 2006 @ 10:23 am
July 16th, 2006 at 10:52 am
No, I have always been focused on Haldane's argument, noting it entails that either a theistic reality equates with the non-existence of science or his point is vacuous.
In which case, I would have to gently point out to Haldane that his understanding of theology/religion is rather shallow and ask him what works of theology he has studied. Yes, when I put on my pants in the morning, I do not prepare for the possibility that God will trip me. Yes, when I drive to work in the morning, I do not prepare for the possibility that God will make my steering wheel vanish. Yes, when I stop at the McDondalds on the way, I do not prepare for the possibility that God might miraculously transform my Egg McMuffin into a stone as I drive hungry to work. Is Haldane suggesting that a theistic view of non-scientific life entails chaos, unpredictability, unintelligibility?
You missed the whole point, Art. I'm not the one trying to label science "atheistic" or "theistic." Since Haldane added the adjective, he must have something in mind and the "˜atheistic assumption' must be different from the "˜theistic assumption" if his point is to be of some relevance. So what is the contrary theistic assumption that Haldane has in mind, the one that stands apart from the "atheistic assumption?" Since Haldane is not here to tell us, perhaps his supporters can spell it out clearly.
Y'see, a theistic scientist can just as easily assume that no God or demon would interfere with his experiment and that nature can be approached with the assumption that it will ultimately be intelligible (well, maybe this is not true for worshippers of Loki).
Comment by MikeGene — July 16, 2006 @ 10:52 am
July 16th, 2006 at 11:01 am
It depends on the god. Possible gods range from the oppressively interventionist, making their presence known at every turn, to the hands-off deities who, leaving no traces, cast their own existence into doubt.
Haldane's point is close to a restatement of Occam's Razor: In the lab, we start with the assumption that God, if he exists at all, will not intervene in our experiments. We introduce the complication of God only if necessary to explain our results, and this has not been necessary.
Haldane is arguing that we should approach the world at large in exactly the same way. Start with the assumption that God either does not exist or is uninvolved, and invoke him only if necessary to explain something that doesn't make sense within the atheist paradigm.
Comment by keiths — July 16, 2006 @ 11:01 am
July 16th, 2006 at 11:29 am
If I recall, I never interfered in any of Haldane's experiments either.
Comment by Pez — July 16, 2006 @ 11:29 am
July 16th, 2006 at 11:37 am
I bet Haldane was also assuming that no aliens were using their technology to influence the outcome of his experiments. And since Haldane was such a successful scientist, we can conclude that there doesn't exist any other intelligent lifeforms in the universe. Think about how many money government could have saved on SETI if they'd just listened to Haldane.
Comment by Krauze — July 16, 2006 @ 11:37 am
July 16th, 2006 at 11:55 am
Beats me, since that isn't what Haldane appeared to be concluding. All he seemed to be concluding was that it made perfect sense to approach his everyday world as he did his laboratory, since both give no indication of being interefered with by the supernatural. Just as there is no practical need to allow for supernatural interferences in one's experiments, there is also no need to allow for supernatural interference in ones everyday affairs, such as plumbing. And past experience has shown such an approach to be very fruitful. Until we start seeing a large body of evidence showing (using two deliberately whimsical examples) chromosomes being moved during meiosis by pixies, or imps mischieviously plugging drains with their fists, there is no good practical reason to approach them otherwise.
It's a practical approach to living one's life and doing one's science. And, it should be emphasized, this has little to do with the ultimate question of whether a supernatual world exists (which I think is where Mike went off the track with the above quote), and much more to do with how often and in what ways the supernatural, if it exists, interacts with the material world.
KC
Comment by KC — July 16, 2006 @ 11:55 am
July 16th, 2006 at 12:18 pm
Sorry, I missed a lot, having not checked back for ~18hours!
To my initial comment though, teleologist and MikeGene gave the most direct responses:
The teleologist:
Correct - science rules out God a priori because God has never been empirically demonstrated. Show me a burning bush or seas parting, and evidence that it was God (not some anomaly of nature) that did it, if you disagree.
But sure, most scientists should be agnostic about God, at the very very least - but it's still an unheard of postulate: "God must have done it." Laypersons might say that, but no scientist would about his or her field of study… they'd try and find some natural mechanistic explanation.
and MikeGene:
Something like this, maybe?
Comment by Daniel — July 16, 2006 @ 12:18 pm
July 16th, 2006 at 12:20 pm
MG:
That's not Haldane's argument, nor where his statement leads.
Your opinion of what Haldane is saying is that and no more, Mike. Your opinion. And it's colored by confirmation/disconfirmation biases that have many roots.
Why?
(That's a set-up line if I ever heard one
.)
Why?
Why?
Mike, you seem to have no problem separating your theism from pretty much all apsects of your life. This seems to be in contradiction with the criticisms bandied about here regarding demarcation issues when it comes to science and religion.
No, but you just did
.
But you have.
Been there, done that. Your refusal to acknowledge this speaks volumes, Mike.
Let's not forget the questions that the teleologists here won't answer:
If one is a theist outside of the lab but an atheist in the lab, how does one erect the barrier? How does one keep gods, angels, and devils out of the lab? Who makes the boundary, and of what does it consist?
ID, teleology, the anti-materialism that will rule the Post Wedge World, all of these movements are avowedly theistic in the lab. In this thread, MikeGene suggests that such a perspective is not scientifically tenable. I'd agree with MG, but then ask how the statements in this thread can be reconciled with other anti-materialistic affinities that abound in the ID and teleology movement?
Comment by Art — July 16, 2006 @ 12:20 pm
July 16th, 2006 at 12:25 pm
Even in the world of deterministic systems like engineered devices, we can assume the cybernetic laws governing their organization can break down and there will be exceptions, but it does not hinder us from disovering the deterministic laws governing the system (such is the case when reverse engineering is done).
Why then should scientific inquiry be hamstrung by thoughts of occasional exceptions to laws. In fact it was exactly this "immutable law" mentality that prevented acceptance of the big bang.
Famous quantum physcists John Wheeler rightly commented, "the laws of physics are not from everlasting to everlasting". Wheeler deduction was straight forward from the laws of physics themselves. Thus assuming immutability of law is only an approximation, it can not be an absolute according to physics!
Furthermore, the sense of "miracle" for some theists is actually strenghthened by the sense that exceptions to laws are rare.
But beyond even that, it is the approximate immutability and discernability of physical law that is the miracle, and one that is problematic for the pure materialist:
No disprespect to Haldane, but Wigner was a Nobel Laureate in physics.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — July 16, 2006 @ 12:25 pm
July 16th, 2006 at 1:01 pm
This is an equivocation. What does it mean to rule out God's activities in the lab?
1. God doesn't exist
2. God makes miracles rare
You're asserting #1 as a substitute for #2. #2 has been the traditional conception of theists. It turns out #1 will result in an epistemological contradiction which Haldane himself alluded to, wheareas #2 is epistemologically consistent, and does have a theoretical basis from physical law alone, see: Peer-Reviewed Stealth ID Classic : The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (1987).
So perhaps one should not be too quick to assume that since physical laws are apparently immutable in the lab, they will necessarily be immutable everywhere for all time. It is apparent this can not possibly be the case. Assuming immutability of natural laws results in a contradiction in physics, thus natural laws are not immutable, thus it became possible to accept things like the "big bang".
A charitable interpretation then of Haldane was that he was promoting his personal philosophy, not necessarily making a logical argument for the acceptance of atheism.
In fact, as I've shown, had he really meant it the way some are asserting it ("God doesn't exist since I don't see Him in my experiments"), it would be fatally flawed as a logical argument.
I note however, the reaction when it seems physical law hints of God. That is what happens when the laws discovered in the lab are taken to their logical conclusion:
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — July 16, 2006 @ 1:01 pm
July 16th, 2006 at 1:08 pm
Sal,
Whatever. Until you suggest how God might have interferred with any specific scientific findings anywhere (as opposed to generalized discussions), or how anthropic principles might apply to any such findings, your claims will continue to ring hollow.
Again, I invite you to argue the utility of your Design Inference for the various papers that I've reviewed under the category Molecular Evolution. I argue that ID's "inferences" do absolutely nothing to help the scientific advance of molecular biology or any related field, whatsoever. Please, prove me wrong.
Comment by Daniel — July 16, 2006 @ 1:08 pm
July 16th, 2006 at 1:20 pm
Also, Salvador, I've already given you my thoughts on your absolutely inane bit on Barrows and Schrodinger's equation.
If you'd care to come back to reality, I'll be here for an intelligent conversation.
Comment by Daniel — July 16, 2006 @ 1:20 pm
July 16th, 2006 at 1:38 pm
Yeah Sal, stop confusing Daniel with the facts. Daniel is only interested in empirical science when it comes to ID, atheistic Darwinists are above any trivial nonsense like proof. Atheistic Darwinists are not interested in proving the statement that science rules out God a priori. Empirical proofs are irrelevant when it comes to Darwinian science.
It also doesn't matter what "interference of experiments" would look like, because whatever it is Darwinian science has already ruled it out. For instance if we find that God is playing tricks on us every time we experiment at the quantum level, is it a particle or is it a wave? I mean, if God wasn't messing around with those pesky little photon experiments we would know what it really is. God only knowsAtheists know everything, Daniel has already determined by his shear will that science rules out God.
Comment by teleologist — July 16, 2006 @ 1:38 pm
July 16th, 2006 at 1:42 pm
Yeah Sal, when you are ready to come back to reality, like proofs do not apply to atheistic Darwinian science statements, we can have an intelligent conversation.
Comment by teleologist — July 16, 2006 @ 1:42 pm
July 16th, 2006 at 1:44 pm
teleologist,
Come now, turning me into a caricature of what I'm not does not help the interests of intelligent conversation. If you're interested in bashing and misconstruing science, just say so.
Comment by Daniel — July 16, 2006 @ 1:44 pm
July 16th, 2006 at 1:50 pm
Look how Daniel is insulting those intellectual abilities of those that don't agree with him. He'll even refer to them as 'inane'…. but he keeps on with the rhetoric of wanting an "intelligent conversation" That inconsistency is hilarious.
Comment by Dougy — July 16, 2006 @ 1:50 pm
July 16th, 2006 at 2:03 pm
I disagree. Unless a "theistic assumption" is supposed to lead to failure in the lab, Haldane has nothing to say that is of any importance (unless you are a believer in Loki, I suppose).
Then we have a difference of opinion. Unfortunately, due to the limitations of science, we cannot use it to resolve this impasse.
As for your questions, why am I supposed to prepare for the possibility that God will trip me when I put my pants on in the morning? How does that argument work? If God exists, he'll trip us in the morning? Why think that?
Why would I prepare for the possibility that God will make my steering wheel vanish when I drive to work in the morning? How does that argument work? If God exists, he'll make my steering wheel disappear? Why think that?
Why would I prepare for the possibility that God might miraculously transform my Egg McMuffin into a stone as I drive hungry to work? How does that argument work? If God exists, he'll turn my Egg McMuffin into a stone? Why think that?
Or, it's possible that Haldane has a child-like understanding of theism, given that he derives some sort of significance from his ability to conduct an experiment without having it bothered by supernatural forces. For his argument to hold any water, he is demanding that a theistic view of non-scientific life entails chaos, unpredictability, and unintelligibility. That he can get through life and the lab with "˜atheistic assumptions' means nothing.
Art is wrong in saying that I have tried to label science "atheistic" or "theistic." It is Haldane who chose to use the adjective "˜atheistic' twice as he chose to speak of gods in the context of science as a way to approach life in general. It's as if he is trying to use science to validate his atheism (confirmation bias?). I'm just pondering the assumptions entailed in his argument.
It's called theology.
Of course, we also need to acknowledge that the lab does not define all of reality. Even an extremist such as PZ Myers is compelled to give in to this point:
It would be immoral to raise your kids as experimental subjects under the microscope. So what is the boundary for keeping the lab out of the world?
Comment by MikeGene — July 16, 2006 @ 2:03 pm
July 16th, 2006 at 3:31 pm
Regarding Haldane, here is an opposite view by Pudue physicist Belinfante as to why every scientist should really be a theist (well that wasn't his point, but I hope you get my point :wink:):
However, Belinfante resolves the impasse between Haldane and his views through logical inference.
Consider the fact we can't run an empirical experiment to determine if the square root of 2 is rational or irrational. Only inferential methods can decide. Belinfante uses an inferrential method.
Belinfante shows materialism is weak and self-contradicted in its ability to disprove God, and affirms the miracle which Wigner described. Whether God in the theological conception is the same as the God in Belinfante's description is one of personal faith.
Thus, the Dawkinesque, PZ-esque interpretations of Haldane is a best pre-mature, if not completely wrong, as Belinfante demonstrated.
Salvador
PS
Ironically, it was Darwinist George Murphy (a Johns Hopkins Physicist turned Minister) who got me enthused about Belinfante. (I suspect Murphy is a closet IDer, but he'll never admit it).
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — July 16, 2006 @ 3:31 pm
July 16th, 2006 at 5:38 pm
I wonder what your personal definition for God looks like and what tools scientists own to directly detect existence of God? God by definition is supernatural and how can you demonstrate an empirical evidence for God where all your methods are based on physical observation and measurement? Sounds like a group of blind persons who rule out existence of colors because they could not empirically observe colors. Moreover, there is no reason for real science to rule out supernatural/God a priori. In past centuries many scientists like Newton believed that God and science could co-exist side by side. Ruling out God a priori is a new definition for science explicitly imposed by atheistic/materialistic view.
Comment by Farshad — July 16, 2006 @ 5:38 pm
July 16th, 2006 at 11:18 pm
You're halfway there, Farshad. Indeed, scientists cannot detect the existence of God. Can anything within science conceivably hope to do this? No. Such is not the aim of science, or even within the realm of scientific possibilities. Does this invalidate a belief in God? No.
The point is that inserting divine intervention into science is utterly unwarranted. Science and theology are two completely seperate disciplines, that should start showing some respect for each other - overall, despite my own agnosticism, I don't agree much with the hardcore atheists (Myers, Dawkins, etc.), but I tend to side with them anyway because of people like Salvador, teleologist, and others (here and other places) who so badly misunderstand and misconstrue science in their own theological interests.
Believe in whatever you want, but you're hipocrites if you complain about atheists overstepping their bounds into religion, yet overstep your bounds just as much into science.
Krauze and MikeGene seem to be the lone exception on TT, in that they can actually distinguish science from theology, I'm sad to say.
Comment by Daniel — July 16, 2006 @ 11:18 pm
July 17th, 2006 at 11:11 am
Daniel, don't be such a dunce. What have I said or Sal for that matter, which could be considered as "badly misunderstand and misconstrue science"? This is another inflated and unsubstantiated statement. How long have you had this habit of foundationless bloviation?
If anyone has misunderstood science, it would be you. You are just repeating the same tautological definition of science as your atheist friends. I am sorry if you don't possess the logical skill to recognize that your definition is self invalidating. Your definition to rule out God a priori is not an empirically defensible statement. Instead of hurling insults why don't you try to defend your definition of science?
Let me help you out with an analogy. If I am a homicide detective and I arrive at every crime scene ruling out an intelligent agency for the cause of death a priori, then the only conclusion I can have for every death is by natural cause. I can do this because I have never had an intelligent agency interfere with the experiments of my investigations. Therefore, I can safely conclude that all deaths must be by natural causes.
And for the record I have not protested about science overstepping anything. What I am saying is people like you and Myers et al. are distorting the meaning of science. This is a personal criticism of you and Myers et al.. Do you understand that? Do not try to deflect my criticism, which is directed at you and Myers et al. personally, to science. This is about your misguided and UNSCIENTIFIC definition of science. I would be saying the same thing if you define science as the study of the 4 basic elements, fire, water, air and earth that makes up all things in nature and everything else is ruled out a priori.
The only reason, whether you are aware of it or not, you and Myers et al. is pushing this fallacious definition of science, is purely for PR and political reasons. If your distorted view of science is allowed to stand then when ID puts forth the hypothesis that the origin of certain forms might have an intelligent cause. You get to defeat it by definition that it is not science. Why should science accept such a retarded definition that has no empirical proof?
Comment by teleologist — July 17, 2006 @ 11:11 am
July 17th, 2006 at 11:14 am
Art,
You can put me down as another person who interpreted Haldane's quote in the same way that Mike did.
Haldane's argument has two parts.
1) Haldane observed that his experiments give predictable results, and he assumes that they will continue to do so. This is Haldane's "scientific atheism" which seems equivalent to methodological naturalism. This observation is uncontroversial and fairly banal.
2) Haldane then concludes on the basis of 1) that he would be intellectually dishonest if he "were not also atheistic in the affairs of the world." In other words, Haldane is arguing that methodological naturalism implies philosophical naturalism. He's arguing exactly what the creationists argue, and he is implying that scientists who are also theists are intellectually dishonest.
Comment by Nick — July 17, 2006 @ 11:14 am
July 17th, 2006 at 11:54 am
Alright, I can see we're not on the same page here - so be it. I've taken this to a post on my own blog. Thanks guys.
Comment by Daniel — July 17, 2006 @ 11:54 am
July 17th, 2006 at 1:47 pm
2) Haldane then concludes on the basis of 1) that he would be intellectually dishonest if he "were not also atheistic in the affairs of the world." In other words, Haldane is arguing that methodological naturalism implies philosophical naturalism.
I took it differently. "Atheism in the affairs of the world" isn't so much "philosophical naturalism" as "practical naturalism". In other words, "The question of whether God exists is interesting philosophically, but it doesn't seem to have any relevence to my day-to-day life. I live my life as if God is uncaring or nonexistent."
So, for example, if he's faced with a non-scientific problem in his personal life, he'll presumably look for a solution instead of just praying for things to get better. If he's got an ethical dilemma, he'll apply common-sense humanistic priniciples instead of appealing to a religious tradition (hopefully he'd also reject a dogmatized secular system like Marxism).
I don't know if that's the best way to live your life, but certainly some people find that it works for them, and they like to evangelize it.
Comment by chaosengineer — July 17, 2006 @ 1:47 pm
July 17th, 2006 at 4:04 pm
Yes, I find it is quite true that if you live as if "God" is uncaring or nonexistent, you will find that "God" doesn't have any relevance to your day-to-day life. I put the word "God" in quotes so you can replace it with Consciousness, Spirit, Ultimate Reality or whatever pointer might work best for you.
Comment by MatthewCromer — July 17, 2006 @ 4:04 pm
July 17th, 2006 at 10:05 pm
I'm curious. What is a non dogmatic common-sense humanist principle?
Comment by BenK — July 17, 2006 @ 10:05 pm
July 17th, 2006 at 10:49 pm
KC:
Imagine that. If God existed, he created a reality where people were not forced to be theists for purely pragmatic reasons. Hmmm. In such a reality, it's as if choice steps center stage.
Comment by MikeGene — July 17, 2006 @ 10:49 pm
July 17th, 2006 at 11:06 pm
It's still a choice even if God does not exist, Mike.
Comment by KC — July 17, 2006 @ 11:06 pm
July 17th, 2006 at 11:13 pm
Of course it is.
Comment by MikeGene — July 17, 2006 @ 11:13 pm
July 17th, 2006 at 11:41 pm
LOL.
He can't see it, can he?
Comment by Ilion — July 17, 2006 @ 11:41 pm
July 18th, 2006 at 12:16 am
Yes, Mike, imagine that. Regardless of the reality being considered (God-created or one in which God doesn't exist), as a practical matter we deal with it as if no supernatural entity was going to interfere. At least, most of us do. We could, I suppose, be paralyzed into inaction, afraid to even put on our pants lest God or imp trip us up on a whim. But the vast majority of us do not, and as I said, taking such a practical position has little to do with whether or not we consider God or the supernatural to exist. The fact that the lab and world do not show day-to-day evidence of supernatural intervention only happens to be consistent with the 'atheistic' position–it certainly isn't positive evidence for it. We can (and do) still choose to believe in God or the supernatural for other reasons. Nothing in how we practically deal with reality (whatever its nature) forces us to be theists or atheists or anything.
Comment by KC — July 18, 2006 @ 12:16 am
July 18th, 2006 at 4:13 am
MG said:
That's a silly thought: Either reality means God doesn't exist, or reality doesn't exist.
Take a look at Mr. Peterman's posts on D'Amasio, and do some reading there. Reality and reconciling our perceptions of it with what it really is are key parts of emotional health, and that emotional health is essential to good decisions.
How else could Haldane have acted? When do we say that God has put her finger into our test tube to give us the wrong result, and when not? What are your criteria for doing science in any other way? (Art already asked that, I know.)
Haldane described the Christian methods of science in that statement. Attempts to tie it to support for atheism are misguided. Haldane seeks honest results. What Christian would seek anything else? Why would a Christian reject honesty simply because it did not come in revelation?
Comment by edarrell — July 18, 2006 @ 4:13 am
July 18th, 2006 at 4:19 am
Let's consider the second part of Haldane's statement: MG, anybody, who here is not atheistic in your purchase of a house? Do you trust the mortgage company to do their role without reading the fine print? Do you trust the seller to state the size of the property accurately without a survey? Will your mortgage company take your word that the seller has given accurate figures of the property's metes and bounds? Do you tell the seller, "Oh, drop by my bank and get the money owed you," or do you write a check? Does the bank cash the check without your signature?
One would be an idiot not to act "atheistically" in everyday life's deals. That's all Haldane meant. Taking issue with what Haldane said is tantamount to arguing that faith requires one to be an idiot.
That may be an argument some would make — but it's a greater insult to the faith and the faithful than Haldane's observation that it pays to assume God will not intervene in every transaction in the lab or the market to make it come out right.
Comment by edarrell — July 18, 2006 @ 4:19 am
July 18th, 2006 at 6:34 am
Yes, Mike, imagine that! Regardless of the metaphysical assertions about the nature of reality (there are only two possible metaphysics, after all, and they are mutually exclusive), we all, as a practical matter, live our lives as though only one of those two possible metaphysics is the correct one.
There isn't a single 'materialist' who actually lives his life as though 'materialism' is the correct metaphysics. Or, to be more precice, IF there is even a single 'materialist' on this earth who actually lives his life as though 'materialism' is the correct metaphysics, we can never, ever, know it. For, as soon as he tries to make us aware that 'materialism' is the correct metaphysics, he denies that it is the truth about the nature of reality.
Quite so!
So, why are you still a shill for 'materialism?'
Comment by Ilion — July 18, 2006 @ 6:34 am
July 18th, 2006 at 6:54 am
[quote]So, why are you still a shill for 'materialism?'[/quote]
What makes you 'think' that I am?
Comment by KC — July 18, 2006 @ 6:54 am
July 18th, 2006 at 7:56 am
It's a long argument, but whenever a person says that something is true or false, basically any time someone states a proposition, they are behaving practically like a non-materialist.
Comment by Deuce — July 18, 2006 @ 7:56 am
July 18th, 2006 at 10:25 am
BenK: I'm curious. What is a non dogmatic common-sense humanist principle?
Off the top of my head, there are three big ones:
1 - Don't harm people, and help them when you can.
2 - If people are inevitably going to be harmed, then try to choose the option that benefits humanity-as-a-whole.
3 - Be willing to change your course of action if it leads to unanticipated harmful consequences.
(The second principle by itself can lead to dogmatism, so the third principle warns against it.)
MikeGene: Imagine that. If God existed, he created a reality where people were not forced to be theists for purely pragmatic reasons. Hmmm. In such a reality, it's as if choice steps center stage.
That implies that we can choose what to believe. But you can't just switch back and forth between sincere theism and sincere atheism based on the needs of the moment.
The way I see it, a God that valued choice would realize that "choosing to believe" is meaningless, and look for something practical like "choosing to worship".
In that universe, the fact of God's existence would be immediately obvious, like the force of gravity. And it would be likewise obvious that there aren't any consequences for worshipping or failing to worship. (So people won't worship for purely pragmatic reasons.)
Actually, I wonder if Gravity might be the God of this universe. We can choose to do Gravity's will by taking objects from high places and bringing them to lower places, but Gravity neither bribes or threatens us.
I dunno. Physics suggests that Gravity is responsible for maintaining the structure of space-time, and I'm grateful for that. But on the other hand, Gravity seems to be doing just fine on its own. Humanity needs my help more.
Deuce: It's a long argument, but whenever a person says that something is true or false, basically any time someone states a proposition, they are behaving practically like a non-materialist.
Is it this the argument that materialists don't believe that consciousness exists?
The flaw is that materialists do believe that consciousness exists. They just think it's an emergent property of matter rather than an indivisible thing-in-itself.
Comment by chaosengineer — July 18, 2006 @ 10:25 am
July 19th, 2006 at 8:22 am
But this is really no different than the fatal problem which plagues Haldane's logic. Are you saying that if God exists, his existence would be "immediately obvious?" If so, could you spell out what a typical day would look like in such a reality? "I get up in the morning and….."
Comment by MikeGene — July 19, 2006 @ 8:22 am
July 19th, 2006 at 4:39 pm
Mike:
You hear:
Good morning, good morning…
Going to work don't want to go feeling low down
Heading for home you start to roam then you're in town
Everybody knows there's nothing doing
Everything is closed it's like a ruin
Everyone you see is half asleep.
And you're on your own you're in the street
Good morning, good morning…
Comment by Guts — July 19, 2006 @ 4:39 pm
July 19th, 2006 at 6:35 pm
But this is really no different than the fatal problem which plagues Haldane's logic. Are you saying that if God exists, his existence would be "immediately obvious?"
No…this isn't the philosophical question, "Does God exist?" It's the practical question, "Should I take the possible existence of God into account when planning my day-to-day life?"
It seems logical that if God wanted to be taken into account, he'd be able to make that known directly. (Instead of speaking through a bunch of middlemen who keep contradicting each other.)
If so, could you spell out what a typical day would look like in such a reality? "I get up in the morning and"¦.."
That would depend on what God wanted. There are different works of fiction that portray different possible worlds. Jack Chalker's sci-fi novel "And The Devil Will Drag You Under" has an interesting portrayal of one of them…sins are detected instantly and punished in a proportionate way, but apart from that people have free will. Most people are reasonably comfortable and happy. I don't know that I'd want to live there, but it's not a dystopia, either.
Comment by chaosengineer — July 19, 2006 @ 6:35 pm
July 19th, 2006 at 6:44 pm
Should the dream-character worry about the existence of the dreamer? Or just live his dream-life as if the dreamer didn't exist. . . Who is the dream character, really? Who is experiencing the dream? . . .
Comment by MatthewCromer — July 19, 2006 @ 6:44 pm
July 19th, 2006 at 10:05 pm
Chaos:
In that case, Haldane's point is rather meaningless. After all, no one needs to take the possible truth of abiogenesis or evolution into account when planning their day-to-day life either. Perhaps another word for "˜practical' might be "˜superficial'? But it leaves me wondering why Haldane needed his lab experience to conclude something about his everyday life.
Haven't read this book. Okay, so say Bob tells a lie. In what way is this sin detected instantly and appropriately punished?
Comment by MikeGene — July 19, 2006 @ 10:05 pm
July 19th, 2006 at 10:48 pm
I agree. As for my own experience, I have found God to be really quite directly communicative. I need, and frequently enough experience, God communicating directly. I still find a lot of value in what He has spoken through the middlemen.
Comment by bFast — July 19, 2006 @ 10:48 pm
July 20th, 2006 at 7:12 pm
Deuce, if you can find the time to write up that long argument, I'd like to read it.
In the meantime, I'll try to find time to write up what presumably will be the short argument
Comment by Ilion — July 20, 2006 @ 7:12 pm
July 20th, 2006 at 8:39 pm
"And the Devil Will Drag You Under": The book doesn't explore the culture in a lot of detail…it's a pulp novel; basically "protagonists travel to six created universes to collect six lost artifacts". Apparently the punishment for lying is being compelled to tell the absolute truth for a period of time. (In other words, you lose the normally-permitted freedom to tell half-truths.)
bFast: I have found God to be really quite directly communicative. I need, and frequently enough experience, God communicating directly.
Lucky! I never get that at all. It bothered me when I was younger; I felt left-out. Sometimes, when I was more feeling more confident in myself, I decided that it just meant I was doing OK on my own.
Sometimes I want to agree with Haldane that the whole thing is just a mass delusion…but I just can't quite bring myself to deny the validity of other people's experiences.
Mostly I just try not to worry about it too much.
Comment by chaosengineer — July 20, 2006 @ 8:39 pm
July 21st, 2006 at 12:55 am
The renowned atheist Jean Paul Sartre stated, "Man is absurd, but he must grimly act as if he were not" and "Man is a useless passion."
Sartre on Dostoevsky, If God didn't exist, everything would be possible! That is the very starting point of existentialism. Indeed, everything is permissible if God does not exist, and as a result man is forlorn, because neither within him nor without does he find anything to cling to. He cant start making excuses for himself. In other words, there is no determinism, man is free, man is freedom. On the other hand, if God does not exist, we find no values or commands to turn to which legitimize our conduct. So, in the bright realm of values, we have no excuse behind us, nor justification before us. We are alone, with no excuses.
Then at the end of his life, Sartre shares this with his ex-Maoist friend, Pierre Victor, "I do not feel that I am the product of chance, a speck of dust in the universe, but someone who was expected, prepared, prefigured. In short, a being whom only a Creator could put here: and this idea of a creating hand refers to God."
From George Bernard Shaw, "THE ELDER [rising impulsively] Determinism is gone, shattered, buried with a thousand dead religions, evaporated with the clouds of a million forgotten winters. The science I pinned my faith to is bankrupt: its tales were more foolish than all the miracles of the priests, its cruelties more horrible than all the atrocities of the Inquisition. Its spread of enlightenment has been a spread of cancer: its counsels that were to have established the millennium have led straight to European suicide. And I–I who believed in it as no religious fanatic has ever believed in his superstition! For its sake I helped to destroy the faith of millions of worshippers in the temples of a thousand creeds. And now look at me and behold the supreme tragedy of the atheist who has lost his faith"”his faith in atheism, for which more martyrs have perished than for all the creeds put together. Here I stand, dumb before my scoundrel of a son; for that is what you are, boy, a common scoundrel and nothing else."(Too Good to Be True)
Finally one last quote from Bertrand Russell "The root of the matter is a very simple and old-fashioned