Trust, Science, and Religion
by MikeGenePsychologists Paul Bloom and Deena Skolnick Weisberg recently wrote about why people resist the counter-intuitive findings of science and concluded their essay with a plea for trust:
The community of scientists has a legitimate claim to trustworthiness that other social institutions, such as religions and political movements, lack. The structure of scientific inquiry involves procedures, such as experiments and open debate, that are strikingly successful at revealing truths about the world. All other things being equal, a rational person is wise to defer to a geologist about the age of the earth rather than to a priest or to a politician.
Given the role of trust in social learning, it is particularly worrying that national surveys reflect a general decline in the extent to which people trust scientists. To end on a practical note, then, one way to combat resistance to science is to persuade children and adults that the institute of science is, for the most part, worthy of trust.
The whole trust issue is something I have been writing and warning about for years. It doesn't matter how smart and knowledgeable someone is if they don't have the trust of their target audience. Because without this trust, the average person will simply conclude the speaker is using his/her high intelligence and great knowledge to carefully and selectively "frame" the issue. But sometimes, the problem can be even more basic than this. To show this, let us use Paul Bloom himself as a case study.
Since the blogosphere has given Bloom's argument some decent attention, I googled Bloom and found another essay, "Is God an Accident?" In this article, Bloom sets out to explain "why we are religious." Yet from the start, the trust issue raises its head. According to this article, Bloom is "a rationalist and a self-declared atheist" and "he rejects all notions of spirits, deities, and the afterlife." No problem. Except that why would a religious person be obligated to trust a self-declared atheist to come up with the true explanation for "why we are religious?" What's more, Bloom's colleagues appear to approach the question from the same metaphysical vantage. He says, "Right now, I live in this tiny academic enclave with people who think just like me. But when you look at polls, you'll see that the world is composed of a strong majority of believers."
Since he is an atheist, we already know the general outline of Bloom's explanation before a single experiment is done. There will be some naturalistic/materialistic explanation for "why we are religious." This is, after all, what all atheists believe, even those who have never done any science. Furthermore, does it really help at this point to appeal to science? No. As countless critics of ID have argued over the years, the rules of science allow only naturalistic/materialistic causes and supernatural causes have no place in science. Thus, when we combine the beliefs of Bloom with the rules of science, we can be even more sure about the outline he will provide.
It turns out Bloom takes it yet a step further. Not only do psychological (naturalistic) causes generate God-belief (surprise), the belief itself is an "accident." Bloom makes this clear in many places in his essay:
Is God an Accident?….. Enthusiasm is building among scientists for a quite different view"”that religion emerged not to serve a purpose but by accident"¦.. But the universal themes of religion are not learned. They emerge as accidental by-products of our mental systems.
Can it be a mere coincidence that an atheist psychologist just happens to be enthusiastic about the notion that religion is a Darwinian accident? I mean, why choose and use the word "accident?" If mountains are the by-products of continental drift, do geologists typically describe mountains as accidents? If rain is the by-product of air temperature and pressure, do meteorologists typically describe rain as an accident? When Bloom writes that "they emerge as accidental by-products of our mental systems," why not simply write, "they emerge as by-products of our mental systems?"
If you ask me, the whole "accidental" angle is just raw metaphysics that has found a happy and unchallenged home in Bloom's science. So once again, why would a religious person be obligated to trust an atheist's "religion as accident" explanation for "why we are religious?" In fact, at this very point, something else from Bloom and Weisberg becomes quite relevant:
We should stress that this failure to defer to scientists in these domains does not necessarily reflect stupidity, ignorance, or malice. In fact, some skepticism toward scientific authority is clearly rational. Scientists have personal biases due to ego or ambition"”no reasonable person should ever believe all the claims made in a grant proposal. There are also political and moral biases, particularly in social science research dealing with contentious issues such as the long-term effects of being raised by gay parents or the explanation for gender differences in SAT scores. It would be naïve to ignore all this, and someone who accepted all "scientific" information would be a patsy. The problem is exaggerated when scientists or scientific organizations try to use their authority to make proclamations about controversial social issues. People who disagree with what scientists have to say about these issues might reasonably infer that it is not safe to defer to them more generally.
Since an atheist is going to be biased when it comes to explaining why people are religious, and this is exaggerated by a new movement of atheistic scientists making proclamations about social issues, skepticism toward such scientific authority is clearly rational. We might even say that it would be irrational to trust such explanations.
May 31st, 2007 at 11:37 pm
Yeah, I tore into Blooms execrable essay tonight too. . .
Comment by mcromer — May 31, 2007 @ 11:37 pm
June 1st, 2007 at 12:38 am
Hi Mike,
I am tired and I probably shouldn't be posting in my mental state.
However, unless Joy or someone else comes swooping in to explain how Penrose and Hameroff are totally wrong, science is going to be turned on its head. Religion too.
Imagine "atheists" dispassionately talking about universal consciousness as a scientific given.
In the best case scenario dualism will become history. The concept of heaven and hell will become history too. People like Sobottka will become the new Jerry Falwells.
Another likely scenario is that people like Dr. Wells and Dr. Dembski will play on the mass public's desires and fear saying "See, they lied to you! They are lying to you now. Listen to us." And we will have another purge of the materialistic "pagans" who "worship" nature and not the true God. The last time that happened, it took nearly 1000 years to recover.
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 1, 2007 @ 12:38 am
June 1st, 2007 at 12:54 am
Hi TP,
To have a purge, you need power. Now, who has the power? What does the Establishment look like?
"See, they lied to you! They are lying to you now. Listen to us." The creationists have been saying this for over 50 years. Can you name one person during this time who was denied tenure for embracing what the creationists consider as a lie (evolution)?
Comment by MikeGene — June 1, 2007 @ 12:54 am
June 1st, 2007 at 4:19 am
Mike
I'm really glad you raised this one because I happen to be doing a module on science and trust in my MSc.
It is always going to be a problem when scientists write about a subject in their personal background is relevant. It might be an atheist writing about why so many societies develop some kind of religious belief or it might be an employee of an oil company writing a sceptical paper on global warming. But what is the alternative? Are we going to preclude scientists from doing work in areas where they have any kind of personal interest? That would seem to rule out any kind of scientific work relating to religion as everyone has some view on the subject. Surely the way to maintain trust is
a) be open about your relevant background
b) expose your work to review by people of all backgrounds
As far as I can see Bloom has done both of these.
Having said that - I am wondering what it is that you don't trust about Bloom? Do you think he is lying?
If you look at the essay on "Is God an Accident". You can differentiate between his reports of psychological experiments and his arguments arising from those experiments. When it comes to psychological experiments he is acting as a subject matter expert and relying on our trust. As far as I can see he has done nothing to endanger that trust. When it comes to the arguments, he makes the arguments explicit in the essay and no longer relies on us to trust him as an expert. If he had written something like "psychologists have discovered that religious belief is the result of an evolutionary accident" then that would have raised big questions of trust. But he hasn't. He has just raised the possibility it might be true and presented his case, clearly differentiating his subject matter expertise and his conjecture. He is not "using his authority to make proclamations about controversial social issues"
Comment by Mark Frank — June 1, 2007 @ 4:19 am
June 1st, 2007 at 5:13 am
most from my experiences (including having read all the overlyvocal atheists out right now), atheists treat their atheism as a neutral philosophy they have picked up through a rational analysis of the evidence, and not before hand. However, i have yet to meet or read an atheist that is anything but religious about their atheism, coming to the table with their atheism first, and their "science" second (i say science for two reasons: dawkins science is not science, and i have two close atheist friends, who were atheists first, then grabbed onto science afterward to "explain away religion", which they do no matter what counterfactual evidence you may have to their rather simplisitic arguements). They, most of the atheists i have read and met, try to present the idea that they became athiests after science and reason showed them the "truth". However, given their own biographies, i have only seen these people as being atheists first, and then finding science, academia, and critical thinking as something of religious institutions. great example: ive said a million times on here, and which it seems only wilson has tried to address here in a debate with harris http://www.christianitytoday.c...
why is dogma wrong? if humans are so naturally inclined to religion, why should we give it up?
from the good amount of scientific data from the social sciences ive read concerning the danger of religion, ive grown very distrustful of "science" the instutite that dawkins represents. and from my own knowledge of the philosophy of language, one wonders if any of the current vocal atheists have ever taken a philosophy class above the undergraduate level (harris and dawkins are great examples….dennets book tend to obviously be a BIT better), or read of any of the important philosophical or hermeneutic trends of the past 100 years.
dogma:
conclusion———->argument
most of the critics who hard spin the issue:
atheism—————>science
(though they try to present it as if they hadnt made up their minds about athiesm until their science came along.)
is it any surprise that people who have been atheists either most or the all of their lives, suddenly say that religion is dangerous, irrational, accidental, dogmatic, etc and a catalyst for these "vices", and that they cast their own religious inclinations as advantageous, rational, "conscious raising", nondogmatic, etc?
let me know what you all think.
Comment by dantedanti — June 1, 2007 @ 5:13 am
June 1st, 2007 at 8:04 am
I have studied under two professors who have publicly challenged ID (James Trefil and Robert Ehrlich have even debated ID proponents Bill Dembski and Michael Behe). I trust and revere them in their area of expertise, and I can say that even though I am a creationist. I can trust the ideas they gave me in the classroom because of the sound logic and empiricism they applied.
I do not reject the science of non-ID professors to the extent they do science, and I would delight to learn science from them. However, in my course of study of computer science, math, physics, and engineering, how much Darwinism did I need? ZERO!
I've been deeply soured by the conduct of academia. I have become suspicious of the fairness in hiring and granting of diplomas. After all, I emerged out of the same university which canned Caroline Crocker.
The plea for trust is ironic especially when skepticism is a cardinal virtue of a good scientist and engineer. People in such professions ought to recognize and respect their own fallibility. Scientists ought to welcome skepticism, they ought to welcome challenges to their ideas. They should not go around grovelling for trust and acceptance. Scientists who encourage people to be cautious with their conclusions will actually have a better chance on inspiring trust.
I have lost trust in the matter of hiring, promotion and granting of diplomas. My perception of the personal attitudes of many scientists in academia is symbolized by John Patterson of ISU:
The Nazis developed very potent science in numerous scientific fields (even the science that sent man to the moon), but why should they be trusted in matters of social significance? I see some disturbing qualities in the pro-animal anti-human pro-eugenic Eric Pianka-type Darwinists. These are hard people to trust on matters of personal and social significance.
But even granting evil men can pioneer real empirical advancement (like the Nazis), the rejection of Darwinism by many is owing fundamentally to the failure of the science in Darwinism. It has less to do with the fact it is promoted by men with villainous intentions like John Patterson and Eric Pianka (although their ambassodorship for Darwin doesn't help their cause).
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 1, 2007 @ 8:04 am
June 1st, 2007 at 9:12 am
Hi Mark,
You write:
I'm quite disappointed that you would ask these questions, as they indicate you have paid little attention to my arguments. First, nowhere do I argue or imply that Bloom is lying. Second, I provide the reasons to distrust Bloom:
You then add:
That's a nuanced view of things. But let's consider the larger context. Where did Bloom make this argument? In a mainstream, respected publication "“ The Atlantic Monthly. How did Bloom obtain such a platform for his conjectures? Scroll down to the bottom of the first page and we find, "Paul Bloom, a professor of psychology and linguistics at Yale." Could it be that his position as an expert gave him the leverage to disseminate his conjectures in this respected publication? He clearly comes to the reader as an Expert. And what does the Expert say? He appeals to his science and other like-minded Experts:
and
So not only is Bloom posturing as the Expert, he claims to be speaking for the Community of Experts.
Your nuance fails, Mark. If Bloom merely wanted to float conjectures, he could always adopt a pseudonym and start up a blog. Instead, he came to the public in a respected publication as the Yale Professor informing readers about the enthusiasm of his fellow Experts. He is "using his authority to make proclamations about controversial social issues." In light of this, can you explain his fascination with the word "accident?" Can you answer this question for me:
Finally, you write:
Again, you ignored what I wrote. As far as b) goes, consider the words of Bloom:
It looks like b) has collapsed and without b), a) is irrelevant. If you want the general public to trust the experts on such matters, then the community of experts needs to be a representative sample of the general public. But Bloom admits that the "academic enclave" is quite different from the general public. Wherever academia shuns intellectual diversity is the niche where seeds of distrust are planted and nurtured.
*Notice we have another "theory." Why are no ID critics complaining about the use of the word "theory" here?
Comment by MikeGene — June 1, 2007 @ 9:12 am
June 1st, 2007 at 10:51 am
Hi Mike,
You wrote…
To me. The current establishment looks like the kind that feels it can create its own Truth by appealing to "common sense" instead of scientific reason.
I realize you and Joy see a different "establishment" than I do.
It is my understanding that Bob Jones University doesn't have a tenure program. I don't know about Liberty University. There are far more churches than universities. Can you name one person during this time who was denied pastorship for embracing what the creationists consider as the truth?
The "establishment" is more interested in catering to the whims of church goers than they are about scientific research. Do you really think it is going to be easy to get people to actually listen to scientific reasoning they don't want to believe?
On that topic. I have finished my five part series in the ID and Consciousness would you care to comment on this scientific reasoning?
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 1, 2007 @ 10:51 am
June 1st, 2007 at 11:46 am
Hi TP,
Who decides if a reason is "scientific?" What is a "scientific" reason?
It's a simple question of who has the power.
You are evading my question.
And there are far more poor people than rich people. Who has more power?
Shall we compare?
Churches are usually built around advertised creeds that outline their core beliefs. You can attend them for free, as they ask only for donations. Church membership and activity only rarely help someone in their career objective.
Universities typically advertise themselves as champions of free thought, academic freedom, and diversity. You have to pay lots of money to attend them. In fact, most students have to go into debt to attend them, while also relying on subsidies from the government. A degree from a university is almost always considered a necessity for career advancement.
That's a start.
Really? How much money does the establishment give to churches? How much money does the establishment give to scientific research?
Who determines if the reasoning is "scientific" and why is it so important that people actually listen to reasons that are "scientific?"
They are interesting and thought provoking; I gave you the thread, didn't I? Why not see if PZ will provide you the same opportunity?
If you'd like, I can cut-and-paste all your parts together and post it as a guest blog.
Comment by MikeGene — June 1, 2007 @ 11:46 am
June 1st, 2007 at 11:49 am
Let me quote myself:
Now let me go on record and make a prediction. Sometime in the future, we shall begin to see scientific studies that argue religion is bad for you and, in fact, is harmful to children.
Comment by MikeGene — June 1, 2007 @ 11:49 am
June 1st, 2007 at 11:49 am
Hi TP,
What do you mean? What topic are you thinking of when you say that this general group creates their own truth by considering only common sense and neglecting scientific reason?
So that would be a 'no'.
Why shift the focus to pastorship?
Okay, now you shift the focus on what establishment is being referenced.
Comment by Doug — June 1, 2007 @ 11:49 am
June 1st, 2007 at 11:50 am
Hi DanteDanti,
You wrote…
Am I an Atheist?
My presence may present you (and others) with a "no true Scotsman" dilemma.
I can tell you the exact moment I was destined to became an Atheist even thought I didn't realize it at the time. It was in math class.
The math class had just returned from a field trip where the history of math was presented to us. I had been intrigued by the simplicity of Euclidean Geometry (it was my first exposure to it). So when the math professor gave us the in-class assignment to understand the Pythagorean Theorem by studying the "proof" in the textbook, I didn't. Instead I proved the Pythagorean Theorem to myself using Euclidean Geometry. It took me less than 30 minutes.
When I looked at what the rest of the class was accepting as "proof", it was simple trigonometry. The book was using trigonometry to prove the basis of trigonometry! No one, not even the teacher, cared (the teacher dismissed me with a "that's nice" when I showed him what I had done).
From that point on, I realized the only thing I can truly know is what I truly understand. Millions of people can "know" things like the Pythagorean Theorem were true without ever understanding why. From that point on, I forced myself to understand why something was true instead of just accepting it as presented.
This carried over into my religious thinking. My regular church was rather small and didn't deal with controversy well (I was taught the seventh commandment was about "adulterating" good milk with bad milk). Therefore, I went to a bigger church in the same religion (Christian Science) to talk with people more interested in dealing with inquisitive teenagers. There were several members willing to engage me on my terms, but they were powerless to intervene when the guardians of the faith explained what I HAD to accept if I wished to call myself a Christian Scientist so I went elsewhere.
No established religion was willing to accommodate my demand that I must understand in order to believe (although, Judaism came close).
I think my five part series comes close to showing you the type of understanding it will take for me to believe something.
So I ask you again, am I an Atheist?
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 1, 2007 @ 11:50 am
June 1st, 2007 at 11:57 am
Should have considered Catholicism.
Comment by Doug — June 1, 2007 @ 11:57 am
June 1st, 2007 at 12:05 pm
I'm currently reading Pope Benedict XVI book 'Jesus of Nazareth' and he states:
Comment by Doug — June 1, 2007 @ 12:05 pm
June 1st, 2007 at 12:09 pm
Hi Mike,
At my mention of the five part series you wrote…
You have been very accommodating especially in light of the fact I am often an unruly guest.
Please do not feel you need to go to any extra effort in making my comments more visible. Frankly, I am more interested in what you think about them. Where do you see weakness/holes in the logic?
It so happens the PZ Myers has an Open Thread right now. I hope you don't mind me pointing out your challenge. It might increase my chances of being heard.
Thanks,
TP
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 1, 2007 @ 12:09 pm
June 1st, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Mike
Thanks for your post. It has caused me to think a bit more deeply about the nature of trust. I hope you will see that below.
(You wont be surprised to know I believe I did pay attention to your arguments.)
I didn't say you accused him of lying. I simply asked if you think he is. Presumably your answer is "no".
So the question remains - you don't trust him - but what exactly is it that you don't trust him to do?. This is absolutely key. Trust or lack of trust implies some behaviour that you trust or do not trust that person to do - repay their debts, tell the truth, keep their promises - what is the behaviour in question in this case? You responded with your reasons for not trusting him - but that's an answer to a different question.
Your reasons for distrusting him appear to be that he is an atheist and a scientist i.e. his personal background. Is it reasonable to distrust Bloom because of his personal background, if he makes it clear? It is impossible to answer this question without answering the first one. His personal background might well be a reason for not trusting him to conduct a prayer service!
The only thing I am trusting him to do in either article is give me an accurate account of recent relevant psychological research. That is his expertise and I have to decide whether to trust it. I am not trusting him to tell me whether God is an accident. He doesn't pretend to know that. All he does is present some arguments and I will make my own assessment based on those arguments. Suppose a senior clergyman had written on the same subject: why are we so religious?. In this case there would be different parts of their argument that I would expect to have to take on trust e.g. what's in the Bible, and other parts that I would not expect to take on trust, e.g. the details of his argument.
Later you wrote:
Having thought about it, I would like to qualify my statement slightly:
Surely the way to maintain trust that you are speaking accurately about you area of expertise is:
a) be open about your relevant background
b) expose your work to review
To me Bloom is accomplishing (b) in several ways. I modified (b) because I realised scientists do not typically maintain trust in their area of expertise by seeking widespread review - rather they look for peer review by other experts. They certainly do not look for review by a community representative of the general public! There is also a less formal review process. By publishing this article in a popular magazine Bloom is exposing himself to ridicule should some of his statements within his area of expertise prove to be false. Again the review that matters most is his peers who will know whether he is accurately representing his expertise.
Finally I am struggling to understand what you are asking for. What are scientists to do when they have relevant expertise on a social matter in which they have an opinion? Stay out of it altogether? Hide their expertise and use an anonymous name? Or publish their opinion and make it clear where their expertise lies? Of course, the one thing they should not do is pretend to be experts on areas outside their expertise. But Bloom doesn't do that.
Comment by Mark Frank — June 1, 2007 @ 12:16 pm
June 1st, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Actually, after doing my own investigations for approximately a year, I've recently come to the conclusion that scientists are living in a dream world of their own creation, a concocted world of patterns that they think can be understood. They are the perpetuators of an illusion. I'm very very suprised that I've come to think this, because I never would have expected it. I'm a former electronic technician, currently a programmer, and have always had my thoughts tempered by a belief in the infallibility of the law of cause and effect.
However, when I began to dig into the chemistry and biology books, in hopes of gaining some insight into the origin of the universe, though there was an initial period during which I felt as if I were beginning to understand nature and matter, there eventually came a point where I realized that the origin of the universe, or better, the fact that there even IS a universe, is magic.
I wrestled with that for a while, trying to overcome it with logic, but it was logic itself that told me the universe is magic. Either the universe came into being from nothing, or the universe was always in a state of being and ungenerated. Either stance is magical. And there is no logic, no rationality, no methodology in magic.
There went the chemistry and biology books, gone, useless. All my life I've been a math hobbyist, but now I could care less if I ever work out another equation in my life. One of the reasons I had always enjoyed math was because I believed that it allowed me to see into the mysteries of nature and the unviverse. I realize that is wrong…mathematics is one of the tools that scientists use to perpetuate the illusion that this universe can be understood.
I now wonder what good science is. I'm not even sure what to think anymore. I believe that if I were to step into the street that I'll get creamed if a car comes along, but maybe only because that's what I think will happen. Fortunately, or not, I am fully resistant to trying that little experiment out.
I'm not even sure anymore if the universe and everything in it isn't only a thought in my head. I mean really. There is no way to prove that my thoughts are not a self-referential illusion. I live one way, the way I've been conditioned to live, but now think in a way that is incommensurable with how I function.
The IDist scientists, in my opinion, are the least delusional of the scientists. The stock athiests and materialists are the most delusional.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — June 1, 2007 @ 12:16 pm
June 1st, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Hi Doug,
I did. And had the Catholic church embraced St. Augustine's earlier teachings and rejected the dogma of St. Cyril and others like him, we would be having a whole different conversation right now.
Regards,
TP
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 1, 2007 @ 12:43 pm
June 1st, 2007 at 12:45 pm
MikeGene, please explain how your complaint about Bloom's exclusion of supernatural explanations of a natural phenomenon differs from saying, "Except that why would a religious person be obligated to trust a self-declared atheist to come up with the true explanation for "why things fall down?"". Given, of course, a religion that holds that what appears to be gravity is caused supernaturally.
Do you think that science should exclude the possibility that the invisible fingers of an unspecified Puller are nudging every bit of matter toward every other bit of matter? If not, explain, given this, why science should not exclude "goddidit" as an explanation for the prevalance of belief?
Also, please explain how the fact that religious people don't like Bloom's explanations has the slightest bearing on whether or not they're correct.
Comment by grendelkhan — June 1, 2007 @ 12:45 pm
June 1st, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Hi AnaxagorasRules,
Do you think Penrose and Hameroff are "living in a dream world of their own creation"
Here is the start of the five part series where I walk through their logic. PLEASE tell me which parts are dreams and which are reality!
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 1, 2007 @ 12:49 pm
June 1st, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Hi TP,
I'm a recent revert to the Catholic Church (2004). So I'm kind of new with alot of this. Would you mind explaining this a bit further? Or providing a link so I could read up?
Thanks.
Comment by Doug — June 1, 2007 @ 12:50 pm
June 1st, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Hi Doug,
You wrote…
Excuse me for being blunt.
But shouldn't you know the foundations for your own belief system better than a self-described Atheist does?
With the advent of the internet, you don't have any excuses not to know just about anything you want to know.
And, as a final note, you don't want to encourage me to try to "revert" you into not believing. Just trust me on that one.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 1, 2007 @ 1:03 pm
June 1st, 2007 at 1:07 pm
Cure disease. Harness energy. Explore the universe. The usual.
Sure, it could be. Or maybe it was made Last Thursday. But while you ponder that question, others harness scientific knowledge to help sick children. Perhaps science and children are just thoughts. Maybe, just maybe, these thoughts may spur you to act.
Comment by Zachriel — June 1, 2007 @ 1:07 pm
June 1st, 2007 at 2:32 pm
My conversion (reversion) happened in early 2004. At that point I started reading alot into these topics (theology, biology, cosmology…etc)…. there's alot of material out there to cover.
Don't be so quick to get frustrated with me, it's alot to take in.
After you had mentioned that about Augustine and Cyril I performed some quick google searches, but wasn't finding anything directly addressing it. That's why I asked you. So yes, I do have excuses.
What a dickheaded thing of you to say. You don't have a clue on what served as my reason for becoming theistic and then to become Catholic. TP, if you were truly open-minded enough I'd explain it to you. I went through more suffering in a short period of time then your elitist ass has probably endured in a life-time (considering the brash assumptions you make, I'm making this one…. and I believe that I have more evidential support for it - based off of how I see you act.).
As sure as you come across I bet you'd be left quivering if you'd seen 1/10 of the things I had to see.
Oh, Thought Provoker…. excuse me for being blunt - you arrogant, conclusion jumping fool.
Comment by Doug — June 1, 2007 @ 2:32 pm
June 1st, 2007 at 2:35 pm
TP, earlier you wrote:
What period of history are you talking about? What happened and who (or maybe what) was responsible? Are you talking about the so called dark ages and the recovery and rediscovery of "˜lost' ancient knowledge during the period known as the renaissance? I was just curious to what your thinking is here.
You also seem to be suggesting that our world would be a better place if it was run by enlightened people. Are atheists the only enlightened people or can religious people be enlightened as well? And finally a couple questions that I have asked atheists before but for some reason they have a problem answering them:
What is it about your belief system that would make my life and the world better? Or, if you are going to destroy the present world social order, what are you going to replace it with?
Once again I am very interested in your answer.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — June 1, 2007 @ 2:35 pm
June 1st, 2007 at 2:52 pm
JOHN_A_DESIGNER
I just noticed your question… I can, of course, only speak for own atheism.
I am not an atheist because I think it will make your life or the world better. I am an atheist because I believe there is no God. It might well be better if everyone was under the illusion there was a deity.
I have no desire to destroy the world social order. Why do you identify that with atheism? Maybe you mean the USA social order? Where I live, Western Europe, the social order gets along just fine with minimal assistance from religion. Other places (the Middle East, Darfur) the social order seems to be collapsing because of religion.
Comment by Mark Frank — June 1, 2007 @ 2:52 pm
June 1st, 2007 at 3:04 pm
I think the fact that Europeans are not reproducing themselves and are facing demographic collapse in many countries as the population ages belies the notion that self-centered atheism can sustain a social order.
Comment by mcromer — June 1, 2007 @ 3:04 pm
June 1st, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Mark said:
You don't have religious tolerance in Europe? That is what I mean by the present social order. The U.S. is a democratic country, in large measure, because we are a religiously tolerant country which upholds the principle that there freedom of religion (or non-religion). My problem is not with atheists like you, but with people Dawkins, Harris et al. who have decided that now is the time to start attacking religion; not just some religions but all religions. In my opinion that is nothing more tha good old fashioned intolerance and bigotry. The world has had enough of that already. If you think you can persuade me with reason, fine, then try to persuade me. But if you attack a belittle or bully me, I'm sorry you have lost me. Try a little peace and goodwill towards men. It really works, at least sometimes.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — June 1, 2007 @ 3:55 pm
June 1st, 2007 at 3:59 pm
I consider myself a person of faith, but am I exceptional in thinking that with respect to matters of independently verifiable facts, that a person's atheism or theism is a minor consideration when compared to the considerations of facts and theoretical deductions?
I would very much trust and atheist to teach me calculus or chemistry.
Even though I tend to trust a pastor's good intentions, it does not hinder me from scrutinizing or disagreeing with his ideas. If a pastor says something that's factually incorrect, I don't accept it. Am I the exception? I don't think so….
I have spent two weeks defending the OOL work of an atheist here at Telic Thoughts, namely, Jack Trevors. I think extremely well of the work of two agnostics, Michael Denton and Robert Jastrow. And while he was an atheist (turned Christian), I thought well of Frank Tipler. You'll often even here me favorably quote Bertrand Russell. I point that out to say that I think too much is being made of the "trust" issue by the critics.
What is astonishing is that the critics are so unwilling to concede that maybe, just maybe the reason they are being rejected is because their theories have failed empirically and theoretically, and not because they are found untrustworthy.
The question of trust has some bearing on society, but in matters of empirical science, I think the facts have far more weight. It certainly doesn't help the Darwinists when they claim that there ideas are proven, when in fact by the standards of any other serious scientific discipline, abiogenesis and Darwinian evolution would be considered barely above the level of fanciful speculation, much less empirical science.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 1, 2007 @ 3:59 pm
June 1st, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Hi, ThoughtProvoker,
No. I think you might have missed my ultimate point, stated toward the end of my post. What I was actually implying (though I didn't mention them by name, I'll use them as an example) is that Penrose and Hameroff are living in a dream world of my creation.
I no longer grant any of my thoughts the reality of an external existence apart from my thoughts (such as thoughts of busses, televisions, anything commonly associated with a concrete material reality). Said in another way, using Descartes's famous beginning, "I think, therefore I am." That is all I am willing to concede.
Essentially, I have taken myself out of the realm of rational discourse, which always presupposes a world of external objects that exists apart from the consciousness of any individual consciousness.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — June 1, 2007 @ 4:02 pm
June 1st, 2007 at 4:07 pm
Hi, Zachriel,
Only if I think it was
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — June 1, 2007 @ 4:07 pm
June 1st, 2007 at 4:42 pm
Hi Mark,
Bloom sets out to inform us "why we are religious." I don't trust his answer because it is likely to be the output of his biases; I don't trust him to be unbiased. If it helps, when it comes to making sense of this odd world we live in, I don't trust Bloom as a "truth guide." I trust him instead to provide answers and notice data that conform to his biases.
As I explained, since he is an atheist, we already know the general outline of Bloom's explanation before a single experiment is done. There will be some naturalistic/materialistic explanation for "why we are religious." This is, after all, what all atheists believe, even those who have never done any science.
Furthermore, does it really help at this point to appeal to science? No. As countless critics of ID have argued over the years, the rules of science allow only naturalistic/materialistic causes and supernatural causes have no place in science. Thus, when we combine the beliefs of Bloom with the rules of science, we can be even more sure about the outline he will provide.
Then I focus on the fact that Bloom is enthused about the notion that religion is an accident. I asked:
Bloom's biases and metaphysics are all throughout his answer to the question. Why should I trust him as a "truth guide?"
Yet, as I note in the beginning of my original post, Bloom is seeking trust from the general public. The peers who review his work are described by Bloom as follows: "people who think just like me."
I don't see how this is relevant to gaining the trust of the citizens. As for the experts, can you cite any who criticize Bloom's decision to use the word "accident?" Or is that just good science at work? Come to think of it, do any of these peers study the psychology of atheism and/or the psychology of science?
That's because I'm not asking for anything. I'm just observing the problem that Bloom has in light of his desire for more trust from the general public.
Comment by MikeGene — June 1, 2007 @ 4:42 pm
June 1st, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Hello grendelkhan,
You write:
First, I make no "complaint." I'm simply observing Bloom's dilemma. Second, to answer your question, I need only quote Bloom:
Clearly, these words are more likely to apply to attempts to explain "why we are religious" than to "why things fall down."
I have no problem with science excluding "goddidit" as an explanation. We just need to remember the explanation is excluded from the beginning. In fact, if goddiddoit, science would tell us otherwise.
It doesn't. I'm just pointing out that religious people have no reason to trust Bloom's explanation and reason to distrust it.
Comment by MikeGene — June 1, 2007 @ 4:50 pm
June 1st, 2007 at 5:32 pm
Hi Mike,
Isn't this the same reasoning that PZ and the gang use to discount the assertions of anybody that happens to be a theist?
Strange as it may sound, maybe the only way to be considered truly trustworthy in this particular arena is to remain anonymous, and check your religion - and your scientific credentials - at the door.
Comment by chunkdz — June 1, 2007 @ 5:32 pm
June 1st, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Hello Mark Frank. You wrote:
I am a Western European. My passport is a European Community one.
I am also a social democrat in my politics.
However, I have been greatly dismayed by trends in Europe over the last 25 years or so. There have been growing problems of racism, poverty, unemployment, youth alienation, etc in Europe (just look at events in France in the last ten years); a slow but unmistakeable disintegration of the social democratic project; and a crisis of values. And I say that as someone who believes strongly in the ideals of social democracy (not least because I see Catholic Social Teaching as being more consonant with those ideals; and I'm a Catholic).
Your sanguine claim that the social order in Western Europe is getting along 'just fine' strikes me as flat-out false.
The reasons are complex, of course, but the fundamental one is that materialism, both in its philosophical and consumerist senses, is a recipe for social disintegration and, ultimately, global disaster.
But once one poses the questions of meaning and value that one must pose if one is going to escape that consequence, the only viable and true answers are necessarily non-materialist, and spiritual. This conclusion has nothing to do with church attendance rates. Whether one finds church attendance helpful for finding spiritual truths or not is not important in itself.
But the notion that the Western European social order is doing or can do 'just fine' while dispensing with spiritual truths is, not to put too fine a point on it, a delusion.
Comment by stunney — June 1, 2007 @ 6:53 pm
June 1st, 2007 at 7:29 pm
hello everyone…..
TP seems to have some sort of reputation on here that i was unaware, which i suppose is actually pretty cool and funny to me at the same time. anyway….i suppose tp, from your comments, i was not refering specifically to all atheists….or at least i didnt mean to. a bit of sloppyness on my part, i suppose i was refering to more hostile forms of atheism, those that i know personally and through the books. i found dennett's book more useful than the others because it was nondogmatic to a certain degree, though i do think he spun the issue a bit toward his favor. i have come across many examples of atheists that claim their atheism is rational, when it appears anything but, at least to me. the idea of "bias" that some people are throwing around here is not one i give to shits about…we are all biased, none of us are neutral (which is why i like the fact that dennett says, hey im not neutral, but heres my case anyway). not all atheists are irrational, however the majority of the ones i have read and come into contact with, as ive stated before, are just as irrational and unknowing about their religion as mainstream christians. (which reminds me when i was in college of gay marriage and all i kept hearing from both sides (atheists and christians) was: "this is a free country, so they should be able to marry" and "god made adam and eve not adam and steve". i cant tell you how many people about to graduate with their degrees in philosophy, literature, science, or whatever, said these exact statements. it was idiotic. the university is the last place id trust anyone, people are pretty irrational and without critical thinking skills and but anyway….). TP im unsure from what i remember of your comments if you are or are not an atheist. i think i have tried on here as much as possible to refrain from figuring anyone either way, unless they identify themselves with one of the religious communities, athiest, christian, or otherwise. maybe you are an atheist, and if thats the case, one that i dont mind much at all, i usually look for your comments because i do find some of them thought provoking. maybe you are religious (spiritual) in some sense. maybe youve found some fringe part of christianity that you feel does the trick…i have yet to read your five "evidences" (i think thats what you said) for believing, but i will be getting to it when my wife is over my back saying come on come on lets go get indian food. to give my quick take: i find in christianity, that the invisible church is far far smaller than the visible church, not because of differences of theology, but in differences of giving a shit. also, to me the only statement, as paul says, that matters to me for being a christian is "christ and christ crucifed". i usually steer clear of mainstream christians because they are so annoying, and i prefer the company of more eccentric christians with eccentric doctrines who are also questions everything they can get their hands on. i think i intended to address specifically some of your statements, but ive gotten off track and all, and again, i need to be off for india food and hannibal rising (which will probably be a shitty movie, but lets hope not). i thought salvadors comment was rather decent. other than that, ive been rambeling.
dantedanti
Comment by dantedanti — June 1, 2007 @ 7:29 pm
June 1st, 2007 at 7:45 pm
To play devil's advocate here (and I assure everyone that the turn of phrase is not to be taken literally :razz:), it seems that EAs of this sort would likely prefer to persuade with reason but have this notion that this approach won't get through to the very people it needs to reach (the unreasonable "faith-heads"). That's the point at which any kind of productive conversation on the topic seems to break down, in my opinion.
Comment by thechristiancynic — June 1, 2007 @ 7:45 pm
June 1st, 2007 at 8:16 pm
grendelkhan:
Um… hate to butt in, but scientific 'establishment' consensus is currently of the opinion that the cause of gravity is supernatural. Maybe it would be safer if you stuck with biology/evolution, since they don't pay much attention to physics.
Comment by Joy — June 1, 2007 @ 8:16 pm
June 1st, 2007 at 8:26 pm
Mike:
Can it be a mere coincidence that a religious person just happens to be enthusiastic about the notion that life was designed?
Obviously not. The vast majority of ID proponents are in fact religious. By your reasoning we should not trust them, and my experience tells me that you are right.
You should trust the data. Who cares if you trust Bloom's explanations or not? The data will tell whether his pet theory is right or not. Not that it's going to convince the ignorant majority of course.
Comment by Raevmo — June 1, 2007 @ 8:26 pm
June 1st, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Joy:
Hate to butt in, but what makes you say that scientific consensus is that the cause of gravity is supernatural?
Maybe it would be safer if you stuck with new age "physics", since they don't pay much attention to biology/evolution.
Comment by Raevmo — June 1, 2007 @ 8:34 pm
June 1st, 2007 at 10:03 pm
Hi Stunney,
If you haven't seen it, you might be interested in this article.
Comment by MikeGene — June 1, 2007 @ 10:03 pm
June 1st, 2007 at 10:58 pm
Raevmo:
The several hypotheses which rely upon extra dimensions, fields and forces in order to account for the action of gravitation here in 3+1. Anything causal that does not operate exclusively in 3+1 is "supernatural" by definition. Beyond what we know or can hope to know.
Oh, I'm fully familiar with the fact that biology makes absolutist assertions that have no basis in the actual study of nature and its physical phenomena. That's why I so often suspect biologists are so full of sh*t. But it wasn't me who invented non-euclidian space-times or extra dimensions (degrees of freedom) or quantum non-locality or anything else at the forefront of that "Chief of Sciences." I'm just a reporter reporting. You don't have to like it.
But you do have to at least try to accept that it's not me. I didn't invent any of it. So blaming me won't help your case any.
Comment by Joy — June 1, 2007 @ 10:58 pm
June 1st, 2007 at 11:42 pm
Hi All,
Several people have asked me about my interest in St. Augustine, St. Cyril and general happenings around 410 AD.
I am not a historian, just an engineer who likes to build models in attempts to understand how things fit together. My approach to understanding history is to build a model that makes sense.
Here is the extremely politically incorrect model of early history according to Thought Provoker…
Around 470 BC God placed on this earth a man named Socrates. Socrates was a bad husband and worse father. He wrote nothing but asked a lot of dumb questions. Death was too good for him. But rather than slip away in the middle of the night (no guards, no locks, engraved invitation) like any NORMAL person would do he had to make a statement forever cementing his title as the first Western Philosopher is all the history books. What made him so special? Some idiot asked the stupid Oracle if anyone was wiser than Socrates and instead of the usual babbling nonsense the Oracle simply said "no". Big whooping deal. So the entire human race is made up of idiots. This is news?
Meanwhile the mystical Pythagoreans were sewing the seeds of idealism by worshipping the super-duper, double top secret dodecahedron. Plato made the mistake of merging the thoughts of Socrates and the teachings of Pythagoreans. For his efforts he becpmes known for being totally disconnected with reality. Yet he somehow, managed not to mess up the natural born talent of the philosopher of philosophers and teacher of the great Alexander the Great, Aristotle.
So what did Aristotle philosophize about? Oh nothing much just ""¦physics, metaphysics, poetry (including theater), biology and zoology, logic, rhetoric, politics, government, and ethics." But you have to understand. Aristotle, who dealt with real world stuff, had a lot of new ground to work with. For example, in the philosophy of politics he came up with the very profound idea that the best system of government is one that works and the people tolerate. Go figure. However, he did formalize a lot of thinking about thinking and it caught on. The fact that his main student, Alexander the Great, was conquering the known world at the time probably had something to do with the "caught on" part. The pointy end of the sword can be very persuasive in philosophical discussions. "Oh I see the wisdom of your teaching now that you have "explained" it to me".
Skipping ahead a few centuries, God placed on this earth a rabbi named Yeshua Ben Yosef. After the debacle with Socrates, God went with the standard stuff. Just the usual prophesies, a virgin birth and couple other unverifiable "miracles". Nothing too fancy. And what did this prophet have to say? That we are all God's children and we should be nice to one another. Golden rule stuff any good parent should teach his children.
During one of many Roman crackdowns Yeshua Ben Yosef was tried and executed. His brother Yaakov (aka Jacob, aka James) kept the followers together by a belief that his brother was the Meshiach (aka "God's Anointed", aka "the messiah") and would return to lead the nation of Israel into a Golden Age. Of course the followers expected that to happen sooner rather than later.
Unfortunately for Yaakov, he was ordered stoned to death by a Jewish High Priest but not before an elite Hellenized Jew named Shaul of Tarsus (aka Paul) joined the ranks. "Hellenized"; as in familiar with Greek philosophy and Hellenistic culture in addition to having studied under the finest Torah scholars in Jerusalem. In other words, he was an elite know-it-all filled with Aristotle's teachings and a desire to spread the word.
Do you know what Shaul did? He, gasp, started teaching the gentiles. Shaul was naturally a dualist who separated the ideal, platonic man from the material one. Besides, no one really knows the Truth, not even Socrates. Shaul saw no reason to limit his teaching to just Jews and enough insight into Aristotle's politics to understand the advantages of the alternative. When the Romans destroyed THE Temple in Jerusalem, it was a real downer for the Jews forcing them to realized the Meshiach wasn't going to show up anytime soon. Most of the Jews, including those among the followers of Yeshua Ben Yosef, regrouped to form Pharisaic Judaism.
Shaul didn't get to see this happen because he was dead. Basically, the only followers of Yeshua Ben Yosef left were gentiles with nobody even trying to maintain strict Jewish traditions. I understand these early "Christians" believed strongly in the dualist nature of man with Yeshua Ben Yosef being a mortal man and "Christ" being an ideal, platonic being.
Zoom ahead a few centuries, 325 AD. Christianity has had its ups and downs but it has survived and flourished. However, Christianity is becoming fractured. Some Christians start deifying Yeshua Ben Yosef as God incarnate. Those who want to deifying Jesus push for some particular wording at the First Council of Nicaea. The first Nicene Creed was published and mostly ignored.
Meanwhile, in Alexandria there is an impressive library containing most of the Classical knowledge of the time, including scientific measurements of the size of the earth, sun and most of the planets. It is a place where elite know-it-alls debate things like whether or not epicycles make sense since it would be simpler to consider a heliocentric solar system. Some of these elite know-it-alls are Christians.
Move forward to 370 an elite brat named Augustine goes to Carthage to learn philosophy and rhetoric. His mother is a devote Catholic, his father, a Pagan. The director of the Library of Alexandria has a daughter named Hypatia.
Augustine does what a lot of elite brats do when they go away to college. He drinks alcohol and gets laid. But Alexander has connections and gets a position under the watchful eye of the Bishop of Milan while Augustine starts writing and thinking. Augustine's logic flows smoothly and sounded great. Augustine is an impressive philosopher and very persuasive. Hypatia is showing herself to be a quick study rivaling her father. The Nicene Creed is updated further to deify Jesus Christ even more. The year is 381
Moving forward to 412. Augustine is writing essays that provide logical justification to denounce the "heretical" Christian beliefs of the Arians, Donatists, Manichaeans and Pelagians. Hypatia's father dies. Cyril is declared Pope of Alexandria which is populated with people from all different beliefs including "heretical" Christians. Cyril immediately begins the process of cleansing Alexandria by forcing "heretical" Christian churches to close down.
Three years later, a mob of Christians loyal to Cyril are rioting in Alexandria and destroying synagogues and "pagan temples" (libraries with pagan symbols). They grab Hypatia, drag her to a church (a cannon one of course) and strip her naked then scrap her flesh from her body. Hypatia is dead and the library is destroyed.
Augustine dies in 430. In the span of 50 years, Christianity went from being tolerant of dualist beliefs that allowed the study of the material world separate from platonic spiritual beliefs to one that was intolerant of Paganism and insists that God, Son and the Holy Ghost is the only acceptable truth. One of the minor costs of all this is a schism with the Eastern Orthodox Church. They directly blame Augustine for the split.
Augustine and Cyril were made saints by the non-eastern Catholic Church.
Moving forward 1000 years. Copernicus announces that the earth goes around the sun. Surely a group of know-it-all Pagan Sun worshipers would have figured that out (and did in 200 BC). Copernicus' announcement came while he was on his death bed and all Pagan documents were destroyed so we probably will never know for sure.
I have no conclusion other than to ask. Did I answer your questions?
Regards,
TP
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 1, 2007 @ 11:42 pm
June 2nd, 2007 at 12:03 am
Hi DanteDanti,
You wrote…
Don't worry about it. I didn't mean to put you on the defensive.
Like I said originally. I thought you might have to use the "No True Scotsman" defense. In your case only "hostile forms of atheism" count as "true" atheism.
Regards,
TP
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 2, 2007 @ 12:03 am
June 2nd, 2007 at 12:08 am
Hi Doug,
Consider my long post my explaination to your inquiry.
I'm just going to ignore the indignation part. I realize it is a sensitive subject.
We have long ago established I am arrogant.
Regards,
TP
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 2, 2007 @ 12:08 am
June 2nd, 2007 at 1:54 am
Stunney
Are you currently living in Western Europe? If so, which country?
Comment by Mark Frank — June 2, 2007 @ 1:54 am
June 2nd, 2007 at 2:28 am
Perhaps the problem lies in this: mainstream science has, for a long time, divorced itself from critical analysis of first principles. That is, physical science has become estranged from metaphysics. This fissure has been widening for some time. Today, it is easy to find scientific types (especially the more dense raving atheist sort) who swear they have no first principles at all, nothing to analyze metaphysically. There is a compulsion to appear absolutely objective at all cost, and this leads to the denial or lack of recognition of metaphysical presuppositions and first principles.
But we can try a simple exercise. What is matter made of? Most will say "elementary particles". Then we can ask what Einstein asked ("just what is an electron"), what are elementary particles made of? A good answer would be "I don't know" or something along that line. But 9 out of 10 scientifically-minded types would say they are made of matter. And they probably won't realize the metaphysical problem involved in saying so. But what else can a materialist say?
And then, being blissfully unaware of this metaphysical anomaly, they proceed to write tiresome articles about quantum weirdness and such, in googlie-eyed astonishment at the fact that elementary particles do not behave like matter.
Comment by Vladimir Krondan — June 2, 2007 @ 2:28 am
June 2nd, 2007 at 2:40 am
It is an interesting definition of supernatural. It means there are some supernatural explanations that even the most hardened atheist would accept. I have always believed the difference between natural/supernatural and materialist/non-materialist is not at all clear. Science regularly deals with the unobservable and for most people unimaginable. The real sticking point is the use of explanations based on one or more non-human minds with extraordinary, possibly unlimited, powers and unknown intentions.
Comment by Mark Frank — June 2, 2007 @ 2:40 am
June 2nd, 2007 at 4:32 am
Mark Frank wrote:
No, the real sticking point is the use of explanations based on one or more non-minds with extraordinary, possibly unlimited, powers and no intentions.
Comment by stunney — June 2, 2007 @ 4:32 am
June 2nd, 2007 at 5:16 am
Thought Provoker wrote:
Where did you dig up such claptrap?
You ought to read N. T. Wright's magisterial recent scholarship, in particular: Paul in Fresh Perspective and The Resurrection of the Son Of God.
Comment by stunney — June 2, 2007 @ 5:16 am
June 2nd, 2007 at 9:27 am
Mark Frank:
Even hardened atheists accept on faith things they cannot demonstrate empirically. They just like to deny that they do this because it isn't justified by their metaphysical philosophy.
"Super" natural is just that which originates and/or operates from a causal realm greater-than the 3+1 realm in which our physical faculties are caged. For classification purposes, we might consider artifactual constructs (like automobiles or skyscrapers) to be "Sub" natural, meaning that 3+1 nature doesn't produce them directly, only life forms in 3+1 nature produce them.
Now, I like to think (because I can) that everything causal and effected in the totality of reality is by some stretch of definitional prowess "natural." Including both mysterious forces like mass and gravity as well as artifacts like automobiles and skyscrapers. But thinking of things in this way automatically presupposes that there are greater and lesser "reality sets" that are exclusive of the totality.
It has never seemed to me to be all that difficult to imagine that eliminative materialists and spaced-out magicians could all agree on some definitions of reality sets, and that some are self-contained exclusive and some are overlapping. It just doesn't seem that hard. Yet there's a lot of emotionally invested resistance to such agreements. Maybe human heads are much, much harder than reality is.
Comment by Joy — June 2, 2007 @ 9:27 am
June 2nd, 2007 at 10:03 am
[inverted order of quotes]
Before Einstein, time was not considered spatially equivalent to the other three dimensions. A four-dimensional universe was positively shocking"”but required to explain empirical observations of strong gravitational fields.
Hypotheses of other spatial dimensions are only considered scientifically validated when theoreticians can make specific and distinguishing empirical predictions.
I would point out that"”unless you are very careful"”your personal definition of "supernatural" will probably lead to conflation with other notions of the supernatural. Or perhaps you are confusing the notions yourself.
Comment by Zachriel — June 2, 2007 @ 10:03 am
June 2nd, 2007 at 10:10 am
It is possible to build a valid scientific methodology from the single assumption that a valid record of an observation can be made.
Comment by Zachriel — June 2, 2007 @ 10:10 am
June 2nd, 2007 at 10:36 am
Hi Raevmo,
LOL. "My reasoning" has been the critic's reasoning since the beginning. That's why they are obsessed with the motivations of ID proponents. What goes around, comes around.
In this case, the data can, at most, serve as circumstantial evidence. And since evidence is interpreted data, the power of that data/evidence is dependent on one's background beliefs.
Furthermore, data is dependent on observation and experiment. Because of Bloom's biases (and all those who think like him), the data that is available to us all may not be the best possible data-set to resolve these issues.
BTW, if we are to use evo-psychology to explain the origin of religion, can it also be used to explain the origin of atheism? Is anyone looking into this?
Comment by MikeGene — June 2, 2007 @ 10:36 am
June 2nd, 2007 at 11:05 am
Good one Mike. I wonder if funding would be available.
Comment by Bradford — June 2, 2007 @ 11:05 am
June 2nd, 2007 at 11:11 am
In science, the "power of the data" is dependent on the ability to form generalizations that lead to specific and distinguishing empirical predictions. In the case of evolutionary psychology, we might look for precursor behaviors or similar traits in related organisms.
Comment by Zachriel — June 2, 2007 @ 11:11 am
June 2nd, 2007 at 11:24 am
Which came first - theism or atheism?
Comment by Raevmo — June 2, 2007 @ 11:24 am
June 2nd, 2007 at 11:45 am
Hey Mike,
Though not evo-psych, psychologist Paul C. Vitz did investigate this in Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism . From the Booknews review:
and from the publisher: