Science, Religion, and the Surrounding Confusion.
So I'm backsatge with the church band in between sets, and we're talking about how military technology has changed throughout history. And somebody says "I wonder who were the first people who were farming their fields, and then one day decided that they also wanted their neighbor's land, so they went and took it? Because that is essentially what war is."
So I replied that a really early example of that was when we pushed the neaderthals out of central Europe and into colder climates where they weren't able to adapt and survive. I didn't think anything of this other than it being as example of the "I will take my neighbor's land" scenario.
An interesting conversation ensued, that I honestly wasn't expecting. A few people were quite confused, and one person told me that "they don't believe that." Someone asked me how long ago I was talking about. Someone asked me what "we" were and I said, you know, Homo Sapiens. Pretty soon the whole room was talking about dinosaurs, Adam and Eve, and carbon dating. I stopped talking at this point and was just listening, fascinated. I really didn't think that mentioning the colonization of Europe by fully modern Homo Sapiens would have anything to do with evolution, which is, I think the hot button that was triggered.
Someone mentioned that dinosaurs weren't mentioned in the Bible. I wondered, then do dinosaurs not exist? Someone mentioned the iceman that was found, who was 5,000 years old, and some discussion about his origins followed. I made a mental note that the Earth is only supposed to be 6,000 years old. The merits of carbon dating, and the fact that it is a decades-old technology were discussed. One sensible person was clearly trying to tell the others that the "debunking" of the precision of carbon dating has already been done by the scientific community itself, who have subsequently devised more accurate methods (I don't think they followed this line of reasoning).
I found myself in the middle of a shocking display: otherwise intelligent people acting out of utter confusion regarding the difference between their spirituality, their religion, and the culture of man-made attachments which masquerade as religious elements. Specifically, the fact that religious people still feel the need to attack science as an enemy (and with such misguided and easily dismissed talking points no less). What the hell does the existence of dinosaurs or neanderthals have to do with your religious faith? People, why are these stupid ideas still in circulation?
Religion and science are different, but complementary methods to interpret our perceptions of the world. There isn't any compelling reason for them to be opposed, unless one simply misunderstands the scope of their application. In my way of thinking, they, and in fact all disciplines, should be completely intertwined.
Do you think that religion trumps science; science trumps religion; one should pick and choose qualities from each depensing on the situation; or that religion and science are not in conflict at all?
That's one cause of war (wanting your neighbor's resources). Another is wanting to impose your beliefs on someone else.
And don't knock the Neanderthals. They run some of the biggest companies on earth.
Like General Motors.
Yeah, thanks for focusing on that part.
You need to become a self-actuated motivationalized self-toucher.
Out of curiosity, what was the age range for those in the discussion? My guess is that those actively involved were between 27 and 36. In the late '80's there was a bit of a craze in the churches. Youth pastors had already been sucked into the "metal is from the devil" BS and it had kind of run it's course. There was only a short lull before youth pastors started hearing about the horrors of evolution. They were taught a handfull of talking points to combat the evil ideas. They accepted the talking points as gospel because very learned men, ahem, had told them about them. Next thing you know youth pastors were telling kids that carbon dating didn't work. (the story was of the carbon date reading that came back @2000 years ago, but it was really a HAT MADE IN 1958!!!) They were told that dinosaurs didn't exist and as proof they were given the story about a particular dinosaur that had been debunked when it was discovered that bones from a number of animals had been combined to form the creature.
Christians who grew up in youth groups during that time heard these stories and some are too intellectually lazy to have ever given them a second thought. So they walk into a conversation with someone who has thought about the issue with their "facts" all lined up unchallenged and ready to go.
Oh, and to answer your question, I don't think one necessarily trumps the other. People with a religious faith line their thoughts and beliefs up with known science all the time. I think for that to happen though, scientists and believers have to be willing to know that they don't know everything.
One time on "This American Life" I think it was, they featured a guy who was mixed race: his father was black, but it was a time when the nice white high-school gal getting knocked up by a black guy was totally unacceptable. So his mom said she got pregnant by this other white guy, which was plausible, and everybody bought it.
The kid comes out dark-skinned, and she comes up with a convenient story about, I dunno, some darker Italian heritage or American Indian in her background; everybody buys this and that becomes the story.
The guy looks in the mirror and sees black features. He IS half African-American. All his friends ask him about it, sometimes people say right to him: "hey dude, you're half black!" And sometimes he wonders WTF? But the importance of maintaining the story, in his head, is so powerful that he shuts out those thoughts. I think it took him 30 years for him to finally ask his mother, at which time she revealed all.
It doesn't even have to be right in front of your face. It can be your face! Maintaining your story is so important that you will find a way to shut out every contradictory fact.
So, what fake things do YOU believe?
I had a guy make a snide comment once, that outed him as a creationist.
This was a bit awkward at the time, because he was commenting on a script we were recording for a science curriculum.
That he wrote.
He works for a textbook company, and is personally responsible for large parts of the science curricula that regularly get adopted by states across the nation. But he's a closet creationist, doesn't believe a word of what he does, every day. It was so weird.
That is strange, Clod. I wonder how he comes to terms with the fact that he is, by way of his belief and profession, a lifetime liar. Is it OK to deny your beliefs if denying them is your way of making a living? I don't think Jesus would have thought so.
It made me think of my friend, a wonderful person who, like me, doesn't mind a good party. She's Catholic (and I am teh artist formerly known as Catholic) and we were talking religion one night and she mentioned she figured it was better to believe because if you don't believe and find out you're wrong you're in big trouble. I wondered if that makes any sense for the religious: default believing just in case you're right? That, to me, is not really faith, and therefore no more valid than my agnostic wonderings. I did not say as much to her.
Where's the confusion?
Science is about what is empirical, religion is about what isn't.
I'll never get why people can't resolve that. If there's evidence for something it is no longer a faith issue.
And somebody says "I wonder who were the first people who were farming their fields, and then one day decided that they also wanted their neighbor's land, so they went and took it? Because that is essentially what war is."
Isn't this in the bible?
these people don't believe in Neanderthals?
I'm surprised sometimes by how believers and non-believers have a penchant for disproving the other. They really seem to go for the throat too.
I do see a conflict between religion and science. Science and religion give conflicting views for the nature of some very basic things about our world.
On the other hand I don't see how a guy or gal who can understand the Copenhagen interpretation of the gold foil experiment could possibly discount out of hand spirituality in the universe. (Shit, anyone who understands any interpretation of the facts of Quantum Mechanics for that matter.)
On the other hand I don't see how a guy or gal who can understand the Copenhagen interpretation of the gold foil experiment could possibly discount out of hand spirituality in the universe. (Shit, anyone who understands any interpretation of the facts of Quantum Mechanics for that matter.)
I don't understand it. In fact I have never heard of it.
I'd be interested in hearing about it.
On the other hand I don't see how a guy or gal who can understand the Copenhagen interpretation of the gold foil experiment could possibly discount out of hand spirituality in the universe. (Shit, anyone who understands any interpretation of the facts of Quantum Mechanics for that matter.)
Well played. What the non-spiritual amongst us would say is that spirituality has been the explanation for every single phenomenon of nature that we didn't understand, why the sun comes up every morning, why a woman gets pregnant... right up until we did understand it. So the existence of things we don't have an explanation for is no evidence of anything, other than we're still in the process and there are things we don't know.
If we've moved the bar all the way up to particle physics being the bit we don't understand, it would be a cop out to just fill in the blanks with a God.
Edit, but I think I can still see room for spirituality in this very scientific viewpoint - if the last piece is "now who set all this into motion, and why?"
Edit, but I think I can still see room for spirituality in this very scientific viewpoint - if the last piece is "now who set all this into motion, and why?"
Ooh, better watch out, that's like two small steps away from clapping your hands to the hymnals and telling LJ that God wants you to have a new PT Cruiser. :)
Exactly, everything is the way God made it, often through his helper, Mother Nature. :D
Humans are slowly unraveling the mysteries of how it all works. But the fact remains, it worked the same before, and after, we figured it out.
Darwin's theory of evolution, always a bone of contention, simply means Darwin is generally credited with being the first, (he wasn't) to figure out how it works. He didn't cause it folks, just figured out how it works, that's all.
I don't see any conflict, except with the Jewish mythology of the old testament.
When I was in college taking geology, people didn't quite believe in plate tectonics, either. Oh, they espoused it as a theory, but wouldn't go far enough to actually commit.
and i'll be damned if i buy into that crackpot theory, cloud.
'xactly. It's Poseidon Earth Shaker!
It was weird, because you could tell the professors believed in it, but they weren't allowed to teach it as accepted scientific fact; they had to teach it along with --- whatever the hell the theory was before then--magma displacement?
. . . No, that's Hunt for Red October, darn.
and i'll be damned if i buy into that crackpot theory, cloud.
Agreed.
Where the hell did you go to school, Cloud?
Pangea?Science and faith are mutually exclusive. Some people are just so frightened that they put blinders on themselves and cannot or will not see anything outside of their own narrowly based view of things. When I was in junior high, my parents made the mistake of placing me in a school run by a branch of the Luthern church. The pastor blithely told us that God created the fossils. End of discussion.
More recently, I happened to encounter a woman who is a member of the Pentecostal faith. She described with much enthusiasm how God sends unbaptized infants to burn in hell. That brand of "spirituality" makes me sick. I was challenged to explain my own point of view, but I wasn't going to touch that one with a ten foot burning bush. I merely said to her, "I respect your belief, but I do not share it." Even that statement was incendiary. Shereplied angrily, "Its not my belief, its God's own truth."
Whatever.
If you want to stop her in her tracks just ask her to show you the scripture that crap came from. This doesn't invite an argument about the truthfulness of THE faith, it only asks her to support her faith with evidence from the basis of her faith.
there is a lot of "christian" theology that has no basis whatsoever in the Bible. so where does it come from?
Continental drift! that was it!
hey, i vaguely remember that.
...
there is a lot of "christian" theology that has no basis whatsoever in the Bible. so where does it come from?
From the same place that the stuff that IS in the Bible came from. Somebody thought it, somebody said it, somebody wrote it down.
But I understand your point. I don't think that the Bible says an overwhelming majority of what I hear people describing as the basis for their faith.
OK, point taken Flint. You don't believe in the Bible as the God authored, man written word... yadayadayada. but the people you are having the discussion with DO. If they believe that the Bible is the word of God and they further believe that man's ideas are of no significance next to God's, ask them to show you where their theological points come from - chapter and verse.
Yeah, I understand. I diverged from your point, but it's a good point. And that is how you should do it. If someone is speaking with something as their specific basis, then they should be able to answer in those terms. If they can't do that then the problem isn't the book or the religion, it's that the person is a sloppy thinker.
But it isn't just an innocent mistake--where did these ideas come from? Which was your question.
It's funny, I'm pretty open about being an atheist, even fact to face.
People will ask me (usually rather loudly and shrilly), "Why do you hate God?"
I tell them, "I don't have a problem with God, it's you I don't like."
It's an easy mistake for them to make.
They've so wrapped themselves up in dogma that they forget that faith is an internal revelatory event. Faith isn't up for debate, everything else is though.
Science and faith are mutually exclusive.
Not true, it depends on what your faith is in. I might go along with, Science and the church leadership are mutually exclusive, though.
I would think that the religious community's negative knee-jerk reaction to scientific ideas stems from way back when those type of ideas seriously threatened the 'Church's' power...for instance, when Galileo proposed that the earth revolved around the sun. The Church didnt play around...threats like these were handled.
It is mind-blowing to me, that, people who are now so thoroughly exposed to science, can still discount it in favor religious dogma.
I've finally come to the realization that the human race isnt really all that evolved yet. And may never be.
Pico, the reaction to Galileo by "The Church", although I think you're right, refers to one religious community.
..for instance, when Galileo proposed that the earth revolved around the sun. The Church didnt play around...threats like these were handled.
Just a point of order, but the church's reason for the Injunction against Galileo was that he was teaching and gathering evidence (with his shiny new telescope) for Copernicus' heliocentric theory, not that he proposed it himself.
:)
Bruce : I know, but isn't that the church that 'fathered' a lot of our current religious communities? (Here in the States, I mean). This was just a thought that occurred to me as I was reading the posts in this thread. I'm still always baffled...just like Flint is, by how difficult is to get people off religious dogma even when it cant be substantiated or goes against what is considered common knowledge now (like that the Grand Canyon is only 4,500 years old).
Jinx: I stand corrected..:o . I was close...though. :p
Hey ya'll I must recant. I've made a grave error, the experiment that I had in mind in my post is the "Double Slit Experiment."
My apologies. I'm getting old, and have been blown up one too many times.
Hi guys! It's been a long time.
I really must disagree with the sentiment that religion and science can peacefully coexist. They are mutually exclusive. The reason is, they both speak to the same thing: to answer questions about the nature of the universe. This is the reason they are so frequently at odds.
The only reason for religion is to fill in the gaps in our knowledge. The so called "God of the Gaps". Anytime there is a gap in knowledge, just plug in God.
Even the existence of God himself is a scientific hypothesis that could be proven if he actually existed.
To those who would suggest that God created everything, I would ask, who created God? Any being powerful enough to create a universe must necessarily be more complex than that universe himself. So, where did he come from? If the universe must have been created because it's complex, well God would have to be complex to, so who created him? All this does is attempt to answer a mystery with a mystery. Why not just say you don't know, or fill the gaps in your knowledge in with provable facts?
Oh! And just to hit on Flint's point on the Neatherthals, I don't think there is concensus among Physical Anthropologists that Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens ever came into contact. Although their fossils are found in the same regional area within the same timeline, the dating method they use only has a certain time resolution. So, when the weather changed, the Neatherthals could have moved north on their own, and then the Homo Sapiens could have moved in a few years later. As far as I know, it wasn't proven that they ever saw each other. It's only circumstantial evidence. Interesting nonetheless.
Even the existence of God himself is a scientific hypothesis that could be proven if he actually existed.
Not "could be proven if he actually existed"
But "would be proven if he actually exists"
That, I think, would be a proper statement of the scientific method. Otherwise, you're putting the conclusion into the hypothesis.
Well, I didn't mean to say I was stating a hypothesis, just that one could be formed.
OK here's the hypothesis: "God exists".
Go to it!
Ya, too bad he doesn't exist. If he did, there'd be evidence of it and it could be proven.
In any system there are statements that are true that can not be proven.
r.j I've read that paper, and I think they made a fundamental error in using the "0" symbol. See
here for further discussion.
Well you can't prove a negative, so you can't prove God doesn't exist.
We appear to be no further along this problem.
:corn:
[SIZE=1] [COLOR=pink]page marker [/COLOR][/SIZE]
[SIZE=1][/SIZE]
[SIZE=1][/SIZE]
Bruce : I know, but isn't that the church that 'fathered' a lot of our current religious communities? (Here in the States, I mean).
Yes, but through the reformation and subsequent splits, the church isn't
The church anymore.
This was just a thought that occurred to me as I was reading the posts in this thread. I'm still always baffled...just like Flint is, by how difficult is to get people off religious dogma even when it cant be substantiated or goes against what is considered common knowledge now (like that the Grand Canyon is only 4,500 years old).
Probably lack of education and laziness.
Coberst expounded on the value of a "quest for disinterested knowledge". There is a whole lot of people that aren't interest in learning anything besides the sports scores, or what time Wheel of Fortune is on, if it doesn't relate to their job.
There is the problem that scientific knowledge is a moving target, constantly being updated, often changing what they previously thought was true. If you just catch the headlines, it can lead to confusion and mistrust of the scientific community.
For example, I'm hearing a lot of that about Global Warming. People saying, hey they said global cooling was a problem, then warming is a problem... those scientists don't know shit.
Oh, and juju works for the devil itself. :lol2:
Probably lack of education and laziness.
Coberst expounded on the value of a "quest for disinterested knowledge". There is a whole lot of people that aren't interest in learning anything besides the sports scores, or what time Wheel of Fortune is on, if it doesn't relate to their job.
Quite so, and as HLJ points out
here, that problem will be with us forever. Its just really discouraging when even our government encourages it as has happened with the Bush administration.
There is the problem that scientific knowledge is a moving target, constantly being updated, often changing what they previously thought was true. If you just catch the headlines, it can lead to confusion and mistrust of the scientific community.
For example, I'm hearing a lot of that about Global Warming. People saying, hey they said global cooling was a problem, then warming is a problem... those scientists don't know shit.
Hmmm. Good point. Another aspect of
that problem is that its hard to trust the motivations behind the people or organizations that are coming up with all these
'new knowledge' bits and pieces....for instance how one day a group of food is considered bad for you, and then the next day its great for you - you just wonder how much that particular food lobby paid for that bit of reporting. Just like the fundies would assign motive to the people who espouse evolutionary theory.
r.j I've read that paper, and I think they made a fundamental error in using the "0" symbol. See here for further discussion.
Impeccable, irrefutable, logical, self-actualized reasoning. Who can argue with that?
Not true, it depends on what your faith is in. I might go along with, Science and the church leadership are mutually exclusive, though.
Well, at the risk of arguing semantics, I disagree. Faith is jumping right in and believing something without any proof that the belief is valid. Science, on the other hand, demands proof. I can say that I place my faith in science, but what I'm really saying is that logical reasoning leads me to accept the conclusions of science.
you just wonder how much that particular food lobby paid for that bit of reporting.
Absolutely. Scientists are only human and the quest for funding can be desperate. Its always interesting to see who funded the latest and greatested scientific study and what that study "proves". When I went to grad school, one of my favorite courses was one I came to call "Lying with Statistics." The University called it "Biometry." I was very impressed how a change of sampling technique or statistical model could completely skew the results of a study 180 degrees from what a different method would show. Its no wonder that the public is skeptical.
Well, at the risk of arguing semantics, I disagree. Faith is jumping right in and believing something without any proof that the belief is valid. Science, on the other hand, demands proof. I can say that I place my faith in science, but what I'm really saying is that logical reasoning leads me to accept the conclusions of science.
So what's the problem? Are you incapable of determining where faith vs proof should be applied?
I will grant you, some people seem to have that handicap, but it's not by any means mandatory. Therefore I disagree with juju's assertion that science and religion are mutually exclusive.
So what's the problem? Are you incapable of determining where faith vs proof should be applied?
The problem is that there is no way to determine a situation where faith *should* be applied, ostensibly because there isn't one.
Faith-based people and proof-based people start out thinking in similar methods. They observe the present (lets say we are looking at a bird), and both attempt to determine the reason for its existance.
A faith-based person concludes that God made it, while a proof-based person attempts to deduce a chain of events which would bring about such an end result. The proof-based person requires that this chain of events have clear causation between them, while the faith-based person requires no evidence.
At this point the problem with the faith-based approach becomes painfully clear. If proof is not required to conclude God is responsible for the bird, it is equally valid to conclude that the bird was brought into being by a cinder block. A faith-based approach is in essence the decision that answers do not matter, and fantasy is as equally valid as reality.
What astonishes me the most is that society functions as well as it does with large swaths of the population choosing to be selectively bat-shit crazy.
Well, at the risk of arguing semantics, I disagree. Faith is jumping right in and believing something without any proof that the belief is valid.
There is no faith (as in religion) without serious indocrination....or as I like to say, brain-washing.
There is no faith (as in religion) without serious indocrination....or as I like to say, brain-washing.
I must disagree. I can only speak for myself. I am not a Christian, nor do I attend any religious services or formal training and indoctrination. I do have an active spiritual life, and have much in the way of spiritual experience. I am not driven to convince anyone that if they do not have what I have they will rot in any kind of a hell. My experience is what drives any faith I may have in the spiritual. Much like my parents once telling me that if I put my hand on the hot stove it would be burned, I had to have the experience to build the faith that I have today that my hand will indeed be burned on the hot stove. I need not put my hand on the stove anymore, once was enough.
It is my observation that people without faith are people with out experience to build any faith. That's ok, in my way of thinking I could not expect someone without the experience to have any faith, and I don't. How could I?
It would be a mistake though, to believe that my spiritual life detracts and is incompatible with anything I find in the scientific world. I, myself, find no conflict between the two.
It is my observation that people without faith are people with out experience to build any faith.
I don't think I understand what you're saying here... and I would like to.
RJ, let me soften what I said a bit. Take out the words serious and brain-washing first of all (although, that is how I feel about most religion). Faith is based on experience, it does not come from nothing. Nobody ever really 'jumps right in and believes something without any proof that the belief is valid'. First there is an experience that provides a basis for the belief which reinforces the faith in it. For instance, your experience has helped to build your spirituality. However, I think that most people are basing their faith on their upbringing and, perhaps in part, societal peer pressure.
However, I think that most people are basing their faith on their upbringing and, perhaps in part, societal peer pressure.
This is a classic logical fallacy, that someone who disagrees with you must only do so because they have not examined the evidence. You have just met someone who you can see has examined the evidence and arrived at a different conclusion than yours... and yet your response is that he is the exception, all the
rest of the people who disagree with you still must have not actually thought about the issue for themselves. "Soften" the words all you want, you just readily admitted that you're not willing to be wrong.
But you can have a bonus point for not using the word "sheep" yet. Congratulations. :rolleyes:
The problem is that there is no way to determine a situation where faith *should* be applied, ostensibly because there isn't one.
I disagree.
Faith-based people and proof-based people start out thinking in similar methods. They observe the present (lets say we are looking at a bird), and both attempt to determine the reason for its existance.
A faith-based person concludes that God made it,
No, I say that bird evolved from a dinosaur, because that's the way God set the system up.
while a proof-based person attempts to deduce a chain of events which would bring about such an end result. The proof-based person requires that this chain of events have clear causation between them, while the faith-based person requires no evidence.
No, I require evidence that the bird evolved from the dinosaur, and not a platypus, but that doesn't affect my faith.
At this point the problem with the faith-based approach becomes painfully clear. If proof is not required to conclude God is responsible for the bird, it is equally valid to conclude that the bird was brought into being by a cinder block. A faith-based approach is in essence the decision that answers do not matter, and fantasy is as equally valid as reality.
The only thing that is "painfully clear", is you are trying to pigeon hole billions of people into the constricts that you've formed in your head, on how anyone with faith should think.
What astonishes me the most is that society functions as well as it does with large swaths of the population choosing to be selectively bat-shit crazy.
Then by your own reasoning, maybe it's you that's "bat-shit crazy, for assuming you know what that large swath of the population thinks.
There is no faith (as in religion) without serious indocrination....or as I like to say, brain-washing.
So if your agree it's education, and if you don't it's brain washing.:rolleyes:
RJ, let me soften what I said a bit. Take out the words serious and brain-washing first of all (although, that is how I feel about most religion). Faith is based on experience, it does not come from nothing. Nobody ever really 'jumps right in and believes something without any proof that the belief is valid'. First there is an experience that provides a basis for the belief which reinforces the faith in it. For instance, your experience has helped to build your spirituality. However, I think that most people are basing their faith on their upbringing and, perhaps in part, societal peer pressure.
People most certainly do jump right in and believe. That's why its called faith. I'll agree that people do have spiritual experiences, but not every "true believer" necessarily has seen a burning bush. Nor do people who are raised in a certain faith always stay with it as adults. In fact, many people's early experiences with religion turn them off completely to any kind of spirituality. This was true in my case for a long time, and I have met many others who felt the same as I did. As far as peer pressure, it seems to me that modern society influences people more toward atheism or agnosticism than belief.
I also don't think that people who attempt to follow a spiritual path are "bat shit crazy." There are many intelligent, thoughtful and moral people who seek a path that transcends the self-seeking, amoral society that we live in. What's so bat-shit about that?
No, I say that bird evolved from a dinosaur, because that's the way God set the system up.
…
No, I require evidence that the bird evolved from the dinosaur, and not a platypus, but that doesn't affect my faith.
A crazy person believes that the cinder block created the bird. A really crazy person believes that because they know the bird came from an egg, their belief that the egg was created by a cinder block is the better for it.
The point isn’t *where* you choose to fill in reality from your imagination, the point is that you are doing it at all. There are many things in this world we do not yet know, and many more things that we will learn. Filling in the gaps in our knowledge with make-believe for no good reason is counterproductive to say the least.
Then by your own reasoning, maybe it's you that's "bat-shit crazy, for assuming you know what that large swath of the population thinks.
Are you suggesting that large swaths of the population hold unfathomable beliefs? Or perhaps that faith itself is unfathomable and so immune to question? I don’t know what the term is, but I am pretty sure calling a logical “no man’s land” like that isn’t sound debate.
Since you're the only person I've ever heard say a bird comes from a cinder block, I have to wonder about your thought process. :eyebrow:
If I remember correctly, you are the one saying, "that large swaths of the population hold unfathomable beliefs". If they are unfathomable to you, but you choose to deride and belittle them anyway, that's not debate, that's ignorance.
Since you're the only person I've ever heard say a bird comes from a cinder block, I have to wonder about your thought process. :eyebrow:
On what grounds to you disparage my cinder block, yet tout your magic sky wizard? After all, both have as much hard evidence to support their creative abilities, but many more would acknowledge the existence of my block than your wizard.
By the way, you are using a straw man argument here. The block analogy was intended to show how unreasoning belief leads to absurd consequences; attempting to attribute it as the core of my argument is a fallacy.
If I remember correctly, you are the one saying, "that large swaths of the population hold unfathomable beliefs". If they are unfathomable to you, but you choose to deride and belittle them anyway, that's not debate, that's ignorance.
Again, this is a straw man. I never said that their beliefs were unfathomable; rather, you implied that they were and I objected. My original proposal stated that their beliefs were completely fathomable, and critically flawed.
Allow me to quote you:
…for assuming you know what that large swath of the population thinks.
Here you basically state that I cannot possibly understand common beliefs, and now less than an hour later you are trying to attribute *your* statement to me; and then ridicule me for it! Either you need to work on reading comprehension or you are purposefully attempting to use logical errors to support your position.
This is a classic logical fallacy, that someone who disagrees with you must only do so because they have not examined the evidence. You have just met someone who you can see has examined the evidence and arrived at a different conclusion than yours... and yet your response is that he is the exception, all the rest of the people who disagree with you still must have not actually thought about the issue for themselves. "Soften" the words all you want, you just readily admitted that you're not willing to be wrong.
But you can have a bonus point for not using the word "sheep" yet. Congratulations. :roll eyes:
Holy Pot-Calling-The-Kettle-Black Batman!
I have strong feelings about religion, and I'm sure that many of them are not very logical or even well-thought out. Life
is a learning curve, after all. As for not being willing to admit that I am wrong...NOT TRUE. In an earlier post I did just that.
In this post, however, I would say that my error is in using a bit of hyperbole...but I still feel that in general, religion needs indoctrination in order to succeed (and thus, faith follows that indoctrination). It is not made up of a bunch of individuals getting together because they have the same 'spiritual experiences', but rather members who were indoctrinated in the philosophy starting at a young age....either through their family or society. For a small example; when I was a toddler, my mother sent me to to Sunday School, even though she wasn't religious in any way. She didn't want me to feel alienated from society because I didn't 'have a religion'. Of course, this was in the Sixties and things have changed dramatically since. An affiliation with a church is not necessary anymore to be accepted in 'society'....although, in some circles it still does help...and if you are running for president.
So if your agree it's education, and if you don't it's brain washing.:rolleyes:
You got me there...:blush:
Holy Pot-Calling-The-Kettle-Black Batman!
This might be an accurate or relevant comment if you had any idea what I believe, but you don't. Go back and read my post again--I in no way suggested anything about non-believers, all or some. But I'm not surprised that you're used to getting knee-jerk responses to your knee-jerk remarks, and start to see them where none exist.
In this post, however, I would say that my error is in using a bit of hyperbole...but I still feel that in general, religion needs indoctrination in order to succeed (and thus, faith follows that indoctrination). It is not made up of a bunch of individuals getting together because they have the same 'spiritual experiences', but rather members who were indoctrinated in the philosophy starting at a young age....either through their family or society.
Natural selection says that if that were true, it would die out. Every society known to man has had some sort of religious culture, and new ones are getting started all the time. It's not indoctrination keeping them all alive, but rather something inherent in human nature, the need to search for answers and come up with hypotheses for the questions we can't answer. Your own example demonstrates how indoctrination had the
opposite effect on you, as a matter of fact.
Clodfobble...You didn't address my post, you attacked the way I posted. You even gave it a dose of sarcasm for good measure. Thats Ok with me if you want to do that, but isn't it also another form of logical fallacy?
I will grant you that there is something inherent in man that keeps him looking for answers, but I don't think whatever that is proves religion's or spirituality's 'inherentabilty' (sp?). Some may go the route of religion for those answers and while others may go the route of science.
In my case, I think indoctrination probably did play a big part in my atheism. I used my toddler example to point out how strongly societal pressure can affect ones choices. In actually, my Mom never hid her atheist beliefs and I probably share those beliefs as a result.
On what grounds to you disparage my cinder block, yet tout your magic sky wizard? After all, both have as much hard evidence to support their creative abilities, but many more would acknowledge the existence of my block than your wizard.
You say the bird came from a cinder block, with no evidence. I said the bird evolved from dinosaurs, for which there is evidence.
The fact that I also believe in God, doesn't alter the evidence.
You also make the assertion that God is a man and God is in the sky, which I did not... another assumption on your part about what other people think.
By the way, you are using a straw man argument here. The block analogy was intended to show how unreasoning belief leads to absurd consequences; attempting to attribute it as the core of my argument is a fallacy.
No, the cinder block is
your strawman.
Again, this is a straw man. I never said that their beliefs were unfathomable; rather, you implied that they were and I objected. My original proposal stated that their beliefs were completely fathomable, and critically flawed.
Are you suggesting that large swaths of the population hold unfathomable beliefs?
You're the one that described them as unfathomable, not I.
Here you basically state that I cannot possibly understand common beliefs, and now less than an hour later you are trying to attribute *your* statement to me; and then ridicule me for it! Either you need to work on reading comprehension or you are purposefully attempting to use logical errors to support your position.
First you say I "basically" made a statement I didn't. Secondly, above I've shown it was your statement that introduced "unfathomable".
Your basic problem is believing that all people of faith, subscribe to a set of "common beliefs" you have cataloged in your head.
This pigeon, among others, don't fit that hole.
Clodfobble...You didn't address my post, you attacked the way I posted. You even gave it a dose of sarcasm for good measure. Thats Ok with me if you want to do that, but isn't it also another form of logical fallacy?
Dude... you smoke crack. I addressed the "pot calling the kettle black" part of your post, and then I addressed the "indoctrination" part of your post, and I referenced the "toddler anecdote" part of your post. I'll readily cop to the sarcasm, I can't usually get rid of that. :) Here, I'll address the parts I skipped:
I have strong feelings about religion, and I'm sure that many of them are not very logical or even well-thought out. Life is a learning curve, after all.
Okay.
As for not being willing to admit that I am wrong...NOT TRUE. In an earlier post I did just that.
Okay. 'I was wrong, but I'm still
generally right' is kind of like 'Some of my best friends are black,' but I'll give you credit for it if you want. It's not about admitting you were wrong in a specific instance but rather acknowledging the possibility that you don't know everything, but you did that in the quote just prior to this statement, so... okay.
An affiliation with a church is not necessary anymore to be accepted in 'society'....although, in some circles it still does help...and if you are running for president.
Okay.
...See, that wasn't particularly interesting, seeing how I was okay with all the other parts. I figured I'd just address the parts I had something to say about.
I will grant you that there is something inherent in man that keeps him looking for answers, but I don't think whatever that is proves religion's or spirituality's 'inherentabilty' (sp?). Some may go the route of religion for those answers and while others may go the route of science.
Absolutely. I don't know that it's inherently true, I just know it's an inherent behavior in people. That's very different from "I think that most people are basing their faith on their upbringing and, perhaps in part, societal peer pressure" which was the statement that I originally had a beef with.
In my case, I think indoctrination probably did play a big part in my atheism. I used my toddler example to point out how strongly societal pressure can affect ones choices. In actually, my Mom never hid her atheist beliefs and I probably share those beliefs as a result.
Okay. ;)
Ok ok ok ok
:D
You say the bird came from a cinder block, with no evidence. I said the bird evolved from dinosaurs, for which there is evidence.
The fact that I also believe in God, doesn't alter the evidence.
Either you are comparing apples to oranges here, or you are saying that you never attribute things to God without evidence. Therefore, if you cannot prove the existence of God (something that would be required to draw a causal relationship) then you must never attribute anything to God. If you do indeed believe in an undetectable entity which does absolutely nothing I must confess confusion as to your fondness toward such a belief.
You're the one that described them as unfathomable, not I.
First you say I "basically" made a statement I didn't. Secondly, above I've shown it was your statement that introduced "unfathomable".
Allow me to summarize the gist of our exchange (as I see it).
Me: Faith-based people operate in this way, which is flawed in this manner.
You: You are foolish to think you can understand what those people believe.
Me: Are you saying I cannot understand what they believe, or that what they believe is inherently impossible to understand? Either way I disagree.
You: You are the one that described them as impossible to understand, not I.
Me: …the hell?
This pigeon, among others, don't fit that hole.
The crux of my statement is that holding a belief that is not based on proof, or “faith” as it is commonly called, is inherently flawed. I support such a claim through ‘reductio ad absurdum’ or “reduction to the absurd,” a well-known style of logical argument.
At this point you have claimed my argument does not apply to you because your beliefs are different. Unfortunately, at this point your beliefs are also *secret* which inhibits my response. I request that you explain exactly what you believe, thus fleshing out your position into more than “just cuz.”
OK, let me cut through the tangents.
You don't believe in God. That is your right and I couldn't care less.
but, when you say;
"A faith-based person concludes that God made it,.."
"What astonishes me the most is that society functions as well as it does with large swaths of the population choosing to be selectively bat-shit crazy."
"...you choose to fill in reality from your imagination..."
it shows that you have decided, that billions of people must think and act in a manner you have predetermined. That is bat-shit crazy.
You can't understand why faith and science don't have to be mutually exclusive.
It appears, because you've heard some people rail against one or the other, probably in the evolution debate, you to have decided that everyone has to choose a side.
That "fer me or agin me" attitude is offensive to me, and all rational people.
…it shows that you have decided, that billions of people must think and act in a manner you have predetermined. That is bat-shit crazy.
Nonsense! I specifically stated that my criticism was directed toward faith-based people; if they are not basing their beliefs on faith then it is your error in concluding I was speaking about them. If I was criticizing people who drive cars then it would not be valid for you to object that many people ride bikes; I’m not talking about them!
That "fer me or agin me" attitude is offensive to me, and all rational people.
Now hold on, you *just* said that it is crazy to decide that billions of people must think and act in a manner you have predetermined. I should hope that “all rational people” number in the billions, so your hypocrisy here is astounding.
I think it is clear at this point you are unwilling or unable to address the argument in a logical manner. If you have issues with my reasoning by all means continue. Otherwise I ask that you keep insults or accusations against me personally out of the forum, especially those intended to confuse the issue or other readers.
Nonsense! I specifically stated that my criticism was directed toward faith-based people; if they are not basing their beliefs on faith then it is your error in concluding I was speaking about them. If I was criticizing people who drive cars then it would not be valid for you to object that many people ride bikes; I’m not talking about them!.
Then you will have to define what you mean by "faith based people". I took it as all people of faith, ie, non atheists/agnostics. If I was mistaken, I apologize.
Now hold on, you *just* said that it is crazy to decide that billions of people must think and act in a manner you have predetermined. I should hope that “all rational people” number in the billions, so your hypocrisy here is astounding.
There is no hypocrisy. Any rational person would be offended by you attacking/insulting them for their faith. The same for deriding what you predict they would think/do, when you have no way of knowing what they would think, or how they would act, in a given situation.
I think it is clear at this point you are unwilling or unable to address the argument in a logical manner. If you have issues with my reasoning by all means continue.
I've already told you why I have no conflict between my faith and science.
You apparently don't believe it on the grounds that, for a person of faith that isn't possible. Hmm, I must be lying.
Otherwise I ask that you keep insults or accusations against me personally out of the forum, especially those intended to confuse the issue or other readers.
Insults? Accusations? I've only seen the ones you've hurled at me and billions of "bat-shit crazy" people who believe in a God.
Then you will have to define what you mean by "faith based people". I took it as all people of faith, ie, non atheists/agnostics. If I was mistaken, I apologize.
By “faith-based people” I meant people whose beliefs are based principally on the concept of faith, by which I mean holding certain beliefs as true despite no supporting evidence. Undoubtedly there is some overlap in “people of faith” but the distinction is an important one.
For instance, a person who believes they have spoken directly to God and so convinced of his existence is not faith-based. While they may not be able to reproduce such evidence they are basing their belief on evidence that is convincing to them. The question at that point is about evaluative rigor rather than faith.
There is no hypocrisy. Any rational person would be offended by you attacking/insulting them for their faith. The same for deriding what you predict they would think/do, when you have no way of knowing what they would think, or how they would act, in a given situation.
As a rational person I disagree that questioning someone’s beliefs must automatically lead to offense; indeed, without this questioning progress would be much more difficult.
By your own reasoning since “any rational person would be offended” you have attempted to predict what every rational person would think or do. This is exactly what you claimed is impossible and offensive. Maybe you claim to be an exception.
I've already told you why I have no conflict between my faith and science.
You apparently don't believe it on the grounds that, for a person of faith that isn't possible. Hmm, I must be lying.
No, you have *stated* that you find no conflict between faith and science. You have shown examples where you accept conclusions based on evidence, but offered no clear examples of conclusions based on faith. The closest example I can come up with is your original claim that “…everything is the way God made it, often through his helper, Mother Nature.”
I take this to mean that you believe God is the origin of the universe. You have already stated that you have no problem with a bird having come about because of dinosaurs, so I will assume that you are willing to continue that chain back to the origin of the universe. At what point does God become the cause of an effect?
Obviously this cannot be at a point where science has an explanation based on hard evidence, otherwise there would by definition be a conflict between faith and science. Instead the point of faith must reside beyond the progress of science and retreat before it. Because of this science and faith *cannot* coexist without conflict.
By “faith-based people” I meant people whose beliefs are based principally on the concept of faith, by which I mean holding certain beliefs as true despite no supporting evidence. Undoubtedly there is some overlap in “people of faith” but the distinction is an important one.
For instance, a person who believes they have spoken directly to God and so convinced of his existence is not faith-based. While they may not be able to reproduce such evidence they are basing their belief on evidence that is convincing to them. The question at that point is about evaluative rigor rather than faith.
I would think that most people of faith, have spoken to God. Speaking to God is easy, and once you've gotten an acceptable answer, it's easy to maintain your faith. Everyone must decide what constitutes an acceptable answer for themselves.
As a rational person I disagree that questioning someone’s beliefs must automatically lead to offense; indeed, without this questioning progress would be much more difficult.
Who are you to question anyone's faith, Torquemada? Unless they are trying to convert you to their beliefs, it's not your concern.
By your own reasoning since “any rational person would be offended” you have attempted to predict what every rational person would think or do. This is exactly what you claimed is impossible and offensive. Maybe you claim to be an exception.
Show me someone that would not be offended, when you call them "bat-shit crazy" for their beliefs. You might even loose your head.
No, you have *stated* that you find no conflict between faith and science. You have shown examples where you accept conclusions based on evidence, but offered no clear examples of conclusions based on faith. The closest example I can come up with is your original claim that “…everything is the way God made it, often through his helper, Mother Nature.”
That's right.
I take this to mean that you believe God is the origin of the universe. You have already stated that you have no problem with a bird having come about because of dinosaurs, so I will assume that you are willing to continue that chain back to the origin of the universe. At what point does God become the cause of an effect?
I didn't say that. God might have caused the universe to form, or just watched it happen. I don't know, you don't know, I don't really care.
Obviously this cannot be at a point where science has an explanation based on hard evidence, otherwise there would by definition be a conflict between faith and science. Instead the point of faith must reside beyond the progress of science and retreat before it. Because of this science and faith *cannot* coexist without conflict.
Nonsense, theories of science give us a glimpse at what has happened, not hard evidence as you call it, but enough that to make a reasonable case that is plausible most people. For example, the dinosaurs to birds theory. What science doesn't give us is the why.
Who are you to question anyone's faith, Torquemada? Unless they are trying to convert you to their beliefs, it's not your concern.
Who are you to question my views on other’s beliefs, Herod? Unless my posts are far too intrusive for you to ignore, you have *made* it your concern. Besides, it is the TOPIC so it makes a lot of sense for such a discussion to be found here.
Show me someone that would not be offended, when you call them "bat-shit crazy" for their beliefs. You might even loose your head.
Ahh yes, this is classic. “You cannot possibly know what everyone thinks. On the other hand, I can because I am right. How could I be wrong, it makes sense to me!”
Nonsense, theories of science give us a glimpse at what has happened, not hard evidence as you call it, but enough that to make a reasonable case that is plausible most people. For example, the dinosaurs to birds theory. What science doesn't give us is the why.
As I already said, you can ascribe intent and intelligence to things without evidence as long as this does not in any way affect the results. I just don’t understand the attraction of such a belief system since it never really ends up meaning anything. As long as two people agree on what causes rain to fall it does not make that much difference if one person believes that the rain drops were “angry” as they fell.
Who are you to question my views on other’s beliefs, Herod? Unless my posts are far too intrusive for you to ignore, you have *made* it your concern. Besides, it is the TOPIC so it makes a lot of sense for such a discussion to be found here.
I don't give a crap about your views of others beliefs, they're your views and you're entitled to them. My only concern is how you treat other people because of their beliefs.
Ahh yes, this is classic. “You cannot possibly know what everyone thinks. On the other hand, I can because I am right. How could I be wrong, it makes sense to me!”
No, unlike you, I never claimed to know what all those people think. But I do know enough about human nature to know they don't liked being attacked verbally or physically... except for a few people that get off on being abused. That shouldn't be a surprise to even you.
As I already said, you can ascribe intent and intelligence to things without evidence as long as this does not in any way affect the results. I just don’t understand the attraction of such a belief system since it never really ends up meaning anything. As long as two people agree on what causes rain to fall it does not make that much difference if one person believes that the rain drops were “angry” as they fell.
I believe you when you say you don't understand, otherwise you wouldn't be babbling about angry raindrops. Personally I don't try to attach human emotions to objects, but whatever blows your skirt up.:rolleyes:
Late into the convo, but I'm gonna try.
To me science doesn't trump religion nor religion trump science. I believe science over religion but don't completely trust it. There have been many scientific "facts" or theories that have been debunked. Science is a constant search for the truth and is always modifying and updating itself to incorporate new discovers. Religion claims to be the only truth (at least most of them do), the core of religion doesn't change. The religious text will dictate the (general) belief of its followers even though the text has not changed (beyond translation) in thousands of years. In the end, they were written by man and are subject suspicion because of this. We don't teach out of science books from even a hundred years ago, but many people center their life around an ancient text. On that note I don't believe such texts are obsolete, just like the Pythagorean theorem is not obsolete. They have their uses, laying out generally a good moral system for one thing, even if I do think parts of that are outdated. In the end I'm agnostic, I can't prove to myself God is there, that he isn't there, or that one religion is right about Him over another. Science I can believe in, even if I can't always trust it.
Late as well.
I see little conflict between the two and the potential to have conflict if you so desire.
I have always viewed organized religion from a historical perspective, something that was developed by less educated people, when science was infintile, and the world left most without a logical explaination for what we observed going on around us in our daily life. Religion was also a form of power and a method to rule the common people. Even the King/Queen feared the power of the Bishop. As science evolved more about the observed world was explained logically and the reason to have things explained by religion lessoned. Even today there is much we can't explain and people like to fill that void in with religon. Religious texts which continue to be in use to day were written by people at the direction of people. Some person(s) were told what to include and what not to include in those texts. History(Science) has shown us that much may have been excluded. Yet we have, in this day and age, people who will quote you from various texts as if they are(were) the voice and word of some God.
Spirituality is a similar topic, but hardly the same. Spirituality and religion are often confused as being the same.
I heard an interview with Michael Heller the other night.
He had just won some prize for being a smarty.
Anyway he sounded quite brilliant, he claims science and religion can fit in perfectly together.
Its strange to hear such logic from a Cath-Aholic priest
Catholicism seems to produce some pragmatic thinkers. Unlike, say, Southern Baptists.
In respect to any religion:
It seems to me that many people fail to see the beauty of the forest, distracted by the ugliness of a few of the trees.
Often the forest is ugly.
Times of London: "A third of Muslim students back killings"
ALMOST a third of British Muslim students believe killing in the name of Islam can be justified, according to a poll.
The study also found that two in five Muslims at university support the incorporation of Islamic sharia codes into British law.
The YouGov poll for the Centre for Social Cohesion (CSC) will raise concerns about the extent of campus radicalism. "Significant numbers appear to hold beliefs which contravene democratic values," said Han-nah Stuart, one of the report’s authors. "These results are deeply embarrassing for those who have said there is no extremism in British universities."
...
In the report, 40% of Muslim students said it was unacceptable for Muslim men and women to associate freely. Homophobia was rife, with 25% saying they had little or no respect for gays. The figure was higher (32%) for male Muslim students. Among nonMuslims, the figure was only 4%.
oh, UT. You know you're lying again.
So who's house is the Ramadan party at this year? It seems my schedule conflicts a little because Rash Hashanah will also be happening during this period....hmmm...
So who's house is the Rashamadan party at this year?!?
:)
(at least one thing is clear, no one will be bringing the ham)
Oh hai, just making jokes..I'm out!
:bolt:
As I see it, the 'conflict' between science and religion need not be confined to the external world. That conflict can fully rage within an individual. It's less about people who are scientists versus people of faith, as it is decisions or theories based on science versus theories and decisions based on faith.
At the point that somebody chooses to seek an answer from faith, they are no longer acting scientifically. When someone seeks their answers from scientific study, they are no longer acting on faith. The two cannot coexist in answering a question, but they can coexist within the same individual. As modes of thinking they are entirely atithetical. People, however, are very multi-levelled in their thinking. It's quite possible to embrace scientific reason and faith ....but it's highly unlikely one will exercise them at the same time.
Often the forest is ugly.
Times of London: "A third of Muslim students back killings"
For the record (and for those who don't click the link and read the whole article):
Wes Streeting, president of the National Union of Students, condemned the study. “This disgusting report is a reflection of the biases and prejudices of a right-wing think tank – not the views of Muslim students across Britain,” he said. “Only 632 Muslim students were asked vague and misleading questions, and their answers were wilfully misinterpreted.”
I was very surprised to see the figure so high. But I also accept that many 18-21 year olds hold views I find abhorrent. From the same article, 4% of non-Muslim students had little or no respect for gays. Which would be wonderful... except it certainly doesn't reflect what I hear. And (in this country at least) non-Muslims don't have religion to hide behind.
I may be wrong, the survey may be right. It's pretty grim if it is. But just wait. These Muslim students will face the reality of the jobs market pretty soon. A lot of attitude ends up washed away in the 07.30 shower when you have to get up 5 days a week to go to work. And I mean that across the religious and racial spectrum.
Dana - any comment on the Muslim students at your Uni?
632 is not a very large survey group. In fact, I'd be surprised if this so called study was even acknowledged by scientific journals with figures like that.
eta: I don't find it alarming that any number of students might think it's ok to kill in the name of religion. Muslims certainly do not have the sole rights to that view.
It's funny, I'm pretty open about being an atheist, even fact to face.
People will ask me (usually rather loudly and shrilly), "Why do you hate God?"
I tell them, "I don't have a problem with God, it's you I don't like."
It's an easy mistake for them to make.
They've so wrapped themselves up in dogma that they forget that faith is an internal revelatory event. Faith isn't up for debate, everything else is though.
I'm not an athiest, but I do completely agree with what you've said here.
I have a much different viewpoint than many of my Christian peers, which has lead on multiple occasions to them trying to swing up a faith based argument that I refuse to take part in. All I say is look at history and you will see that us folks here on earth don't have it all together by any stretch of the imagination. So for you to come and say that my faith is wrong, and you know the one true way is being ignorant of all those before you who had the same thought pattern and ended up trying to extinguish other faiths by a variety of different means.
So even though I have my Christian based faith, I feel closer and much more sympathetic to athiests than my "fellow" Christians.
632 is not a very large survey group. In fact, I'd be surprised if this so called study was even acknowledged by scientific journals with figures like that.
eta: I don't find it alarming that any number of students might think it's ok to kill in the name of religion. Muslims certainly do not have the sole rights to that view.
"Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!"
A favorite quote of a very conservative, fundamentalist Christian I went to school with.. and he had friends.
:greenface
""At the point that somebody chooses to seek an answer from faith, they are no longer acting scientifically. When someone seeks their answers from scientific study, they are no longer acting on faith. The two cannot coexist in answering a question, ""
Faith will take you nowhere, stick with science.
If you like you can claim God gave you intelligence to find the answers with science
Faith will take you nowhere, stick with science.
If you like you can claim God gave you intelligence to find the answers with science
Just for clarity: I am an atheist. I do not seek any answers from faith, though I take much that I have been told by experts on faith, inasmuch as I have not personally conducted the research. I do not believe in the existence of a supreme being, I do not believe in 'supernatural' phenomenon. Just because we don't have the answer, doesn't mean the answer isn't there to be found. If the answer is not contained within our current understanding of 'nature' then that doesn't place the answer outside of nature, it merely means we drew the boundary lines incorrectly.
It is in our nature, as human beings to take certain things as facts based on an act of faith. We do not need, as a species to hardwire all the instincts and behaviour patterns that we will need in life, because we can learn and remember. We do not need to relearn the world anew with each generation, because we are able to share and pass along knowledge: we do not need to experience something personally, to know of its existence. This drives us forward as a species, but it has also allowed anachronisms to thrive.*
[*] I am fairly sure that the more spiritual dwellars might take exception to my characterising religious faith as anachronistic. No offence intended.
Just throwing this in ...
I get paid to talk about this stuff.
So I'm certainly not going to talk about it here. Union regs, you know.
Carry on, and have fun.
Bah, just noticed, I wrote 'phenomenon' instead of 'phenomena'.
That's because you are Godless.
True believers are laughing at your poor writting skills right now.
Bah, just noticed, I wrote 'phenomenon' instead of 'phenomena'.
I'll remeber that.;)
Well DanaC if you are an atheist you have too much faith that you know everything
Stick with us agnostics, have a bet each way and admit there just might be things out there you have not seen or understood
Well DanaC if you are an atheist you have too much faith that you know everything
Stick with us agnostics, have a bet each way and admit there just might be things out there you have not seen or understood
At what point have I suggested that there are not things out there which I have not seen or understood? I do not believe in the supernatural, because if something exists then it is natural. I do not pretend to know what does or does not exist, with the sole exception of a human-conceived fantasy creature. Are there more things on heaven or earth than are dreamed of in my philosophy? Most assuredly, yes.
But I no more feel the need to remain open to the possibility of God and the supernatural, than to the possibility that the River Styx flows somewhere beneath. I have no way to know for sure that gravity will not one day desert us; yet I have enough experiential evidence and access to scientific reassurances that this will not be so. This does not make me closed minded, it makes me a pattern recognising, expectant human being.
Have a bet each way? Oh please. That particular fence must be groaning under the weight of such intellectual indecision. The God of the Gaps has already been mentioned in this thread. It is, to me, one of the most compelling single arguments against the existence of 'God'. Humanity keeps encroaching onto the divine and finding nothing but nature. Whilst you are keeping your bets so thoroughly hedged (and if the God most people are praying to does exist, I doubt he'll be much impressed by that little act of inconstancy) on the existence of God and his ineffable plan, do you also keep in mind the possibility that the sun won't rise or that the moon might inexplicably fall from the sky?
Agnosticism. I have little time for it. Have a bet each way? Dear God, give me a fire breathing priest over that watered-down philosphy any day.
[eta] *reads that back and winces, realising she's insulted every agnostic on the Cellar*
I'm with you there chick.
I'm not against agnosticism as such, but I can't bear the wishy-washy pseudo-spiritualism I hear on a daily basis.
"Well I'm not religious, but yes I do believe there is a God. I do pray, but I don't go to Church, I do things in my own way." Which really means, "I ask for things when I need them. I don't worship, or thank, or praise. I don't follow any set rules and don't feel obliged to behave in any way, but I expect an afterlife of bliss, just for being vaguely nice."
Bleurgh.
At least people who follow the major religions suffer for what they perceive as their eventual reward. At least they put some effort in to thank their Creator and show Him some respect. Not just assume a "right" to everlasting paradise.
There, I've probably insulted everyone else now. Full house for the Godless Brits!
"Humanity keeps encroaching onto the divine and finding nothing but nature. "
I can be quite flexible on this one.
I am prepared to consider nature to be Divine.
I don't think agnostics suffer from intellectual indecision, more a pragmatists rat cunning
I think the religions give the search for the divine a bad name, I mean all the dogma and virgin birth garbage, that's obscene.
Its when I am reading about space and physics that I tend to want to hedge my bets.
miketrees, you're a good guy. Stick around.
But first... do you think this is
an American board? Your thoughts...
I like the people who believe in god "just in case." Is that really believing? Helllllll no!
I'm with you there chick.
I'm not against agnosticism as such, but I can't bear the wishy-washy pseudo-spiritualism I hear on a daily basis.
"Well I'm not religious, but yes I do believe there is a God. I do pray, but I don't go to Church, I do things in my own way." Which really means, "I ask for things when I need them. I don't worship, or thank, or praise. I don't follow any set rules and don't feel obliged to behave in any way, but I expect an afterlife of bliss, just for being vaguely nice."
Bleurgh.
At least people who follow the major religions suffer for what they perceive as their eventual reward. At least they put some effort in to thank their Creator and show Him some respect. Not just assume a "right" to everlasting paradise.
There, I've probably insulted everyone else now. Full house for the Godless Brits!
Sundae,
I'm not sure about the afterlife. I don't think it's something we have to worry about. I don't believe God barters. I don't believe then, that there is an eventual reward. The only reward for good character, is good character. The effort and payment for that, is quite enough. We do indeed reap exactly what we sow, if not more.
I don't think it's wishy washy to be able to believe in the concept of a higher power or god or whatever you want to call it, but to not believe in organized religion.
I am not anti religion, but going to church doesn't make me feel more spiritual and it doesn't make me believe in god. I do pray though. All day long. Every time I'm hoping for something or wishing for something, it's a prayer for any god who happens to be listening. I believe we all have a soul and when we die it leaves our worn out body. What happens after that I don't know, but I don't believe in hell or heaven for that matter. Not as the church would have us believe anyway.
Anyway, I just think that suggesting someone is a bit pathetic because they don't have a label for their particular belief system is a bit unfair.
At least people who follow the major religions suffer for what they perceive as their eventual reward.
At least they suffer? People don't naturally suffer enough?
People aren't holy if they don't flog theirselves?
Life is full of suffering. Everyone will have enough of it I am sure. There's no reason to invite more suffering in this world for the sake of a perception of god.
Life is full of suffering. Everyone will have enough of it I am sure. There's no reason to invite more suffering in this world for the sake of a perception of god.
"Life is pain, Highness. Anyone who says anything else is selling something."-The Man in Black in The Princess Bride.
@ Flinto
You are only saying that since I offered to do that cyber thingy with you.
Until I found out what cyber thing is of course
Anyway, I just think that suggesting someone is a bit pathetic because they don't have a label for their particular belief system is a bit unfair.
Particularly when people are actively working on their belief system. How can you effectively label what isn't static?
But that's kind of the point really. Labels I mean. It's not agnosticism that is irritating. It is the suggestion that agnosticism is a superior intellectual position to either faith, or atheism. Intellectual agnosticism presupposes that atheism is closed to the unknown. It is not. That would be as absurd as holding that faith is not open to doubt.
It's not about what we believe, it is about how we arrive at our belief systems. Agnosticism is a perfectly acceptable way to lead one's life, but when you intellectualise it, it is an uncomfortable pairing of two modes of thinking (scientific and non-scientific). It attempts to view the world on the basis of evidence, but allows for the possibility that faith can answer our questions more effectively. It is a chimera.
But that's kind of the point really. Labels I mean. It's not agnosticism that is irritating. It is the suggestion that agnosticism is a superior intellectual position to either faith, or atheism. Intellectual agnosticism presupposes that atheism is closed to the unknown. It is not. That would be as absurd as holding that faith is not open to doubt.
It's not about what we believe, it is about how we arrive at our belief systems. Agnosticism is a perfectly acceptable way to lead one's life, but when you intellectualise it, it is an uncomfortable pairing of two modes of thinking (scientific and non-scientific). It attempts to view the world on the basis of evidence, but allows for the possibility that faith can answer our questions more effectively. It is a chimera.
Atheism has multiple positions, so careful with that one as well.
There are atheists that assert that there is no God and there are atheists that simply refuse to take a position based on the evidence at hand.
To me it's the agnostics that have the weakest position morally and the the strong atheists who have the weakest position philosophically.
I repeat:
Intellectual agnosticism presupposes that atheism is closed to the unknown. It is not.
Atheism has a very specific definition. How people choose to argue their atheism, how they choose to interpret their atheism and their reasons for that stance, are an individual affair. But to presuppose atheism as a closed-minded state is incorrect. Intellectual atheism bases its conclusions on a lack of evidence for God and a lack of reason to suppose his existence. By that definition, intellectual agnosticism is unnecessary. If the evidence existed for God, then the conclusions drawn by intellectual atheism would be different than they are.
Intellectual agnosticism does not differ from atheism in that it allows for the possibility of God, it differs from atheism in that it allows for the possible value of faith.
But that's kind of the point really. Labels I mean. It's not agnosticism that is irritating. It is the suggestion that agnosticism is a superior intellectual position to either faith, or atheism.
I've never considered people who are agnostic to be more or less intellectual than anyone else. They are what they are regardless of how they do or don't perceive god and religion.
Intellectual agnosticism presupposes that atheism is closed to the unknown. It is not.
Is this just what you believe or is it a fact?
I've known a number of people who call themselves atheists but who are still quite spiritual and allow for the notion of a god somewhere.
It's not about what we believe, it is about how we arrive at our belief systems. Agnosticism is a perfectly acceptable way to lead one's life, but when you intellectualise it, it is an uncomfortable pairing of two modes of thinking (scientific and non-scientific). It attempts to view the world on the basis of evidence, but allows for the possibility that faith can answer our questions more effectively. It is a chimera.
The biggest problem with the rest of the world versus agnostics is that both believers and non-believers can't understand how you can see no scientific evidence of god, but still believe he or something that constitutes what we perceive as god to exist, whilst still believing in the spirit of living things. From my perspective, most believers or non-believers simply can't handle not knowing what's going to happen when they die, so in order to validate the way they live their lives, they decide to either believe there's a benefit to being good so they can go to heaven, and the non-believers (in god) believe their judgement is right here and now, so the ultimate judgement of their lives is in the here and now. So they'd better be good or everyone will think they're arseholes. ;)
Anyway, you see now how agnostics are forced to intellectualize their belief system because people wont let them just believe what they want to believe?
Anyway, you see now how agnostics are forced to intellectualize their belief system because people wont let them just believe what they want to believe?
Mmm. I disagree. The reason I started railing against agnosticism in this thread was this post from miketrees:
Well DanaC if you are an atheist you have too much faith that you know everything
Stick with us agnostics, have a bet each way and admit there just might be things out there you have not seen or understood
It was this attitude I was taking exception to, an attitude (and argument) I have encountered many times from people who consider themselves to be agnostic. The fact that I have stated I am an atheist, does mean that I consider I know, or understand everything 'out there'. And I still consider the bet-hedging approach a cop-out.
Well I don't know what miktrees' point was, but I thought he was having a bit of a joke actually.
I don't personally see my beliefs as hedging my bets though. In all things in life I try to avoid the all or nothing approach. This has served me fairly well. I find it hard to justify simply following what any church tells me about how I should live my life because I find too much ambiguity in most religious doctrine. I do however believe there's a higher power, and I don't need a middle man like a priest or reverend to put me in touch with him/her/it.
How bout this as a metaphor. The church is to the faithful, what the unions are to workers. If you have enough faith in yourself, and an ability to stand for your own actions and to have faith in your convictions, you don't need a middle man or someone else to speak for you or tell you what you should do. You just do it, knowing that you are doing the job of life the best way you possibly can.
Not sure how well that analogy works though Ali. Unions aren't just about bolstering your convictions and speaking 'for' you. Unions are about strength in numbers which in some circumstances provides a useful counterbalance to the economic strength of the employers. You can stand for your own actions and be brimful of faith in your convictions, but it won't stop you getting shat on if unemployment is high and union power low.
I understand how unions work. I realize they have a very useful purpose for many employees, just as the church has a very useful purpose for the faithful. It wont stop lots of the faithful from being shat on if and when their so called judgement day comes around though, and certainly wont save them all if 'the rapture' happens to occur either.
As far as unions go, they are good for workers of lower status who don't have an opportunity to speak up for themselves in times of crisis. I'm not against unions, just as I am not against the church. I simply have had no use for either in my life.
Just a note to add.
I wouldn't discourage anyone from joining a church or a union if they felt it was what was right for them. There are far worse things one can do with life than to believe in the safety and strength of numbers.
As far as unions go, they are good for workers of lower status who don't have an opportunity to speak up for themselves in times of crisis.
They're not just useful for lower paid workers y'know:P
I know, but it's the proletariat they were designed for. ;)
Well, depends on your definition of proletariats really. Initially they were developed by and for the artisan class, the so-called working-class aristocracy.
They seem to create more problems than they solve. They drive up the costs of everything and make products virtually non-competitive in a world economy.
Is that because the cost of manufacturing products rises when workers ask to be paid enough money on which to live?
Here it is all to common that the "Union system" is being abused. I am not against a fair wage and don't intend to say that I have a better plan, but I've heard too many stories to the contrary.
While we watch GM plants shut down all the time. The industry can't keep up with 40 dollar an hour wages. And, I know many people who have worked in these union high-paying shops and many have said they really don't work very hard. Sometimes they play cards.
The Honda plants around here have a much better model, imho. They pay really good wages (25/hour is typical), have no union, the employees work their butts off, and everyone is happy. They tend to not need lay-offs and shutdowns.
snip~ but I've heard too many stories to the contrary.
The stories are never a complete picture, only the highlights, that are cherry picked, to make the storytellers point.
While we watch GM plants shut down all the time. The industry can't keep up with 40 dollar an hour wages. And, I know many people who have worked in these union high-paying shops and many have said they really don't work very hard. Sometimes they play cards.
The Honda plants around here have a much better model, imho. They pay really good wages (25/hour is typical), have no union, the employees work their butts off, and everyone is happy. They tend to not need lay-offs and shutdowns.
Which proves that American workers are willing to return a days work for a fair wage. If they are not working, ie playing cards, then it's definitely a management problem.
...and as we all know 85% of all problems...
The stories are never a complete picture, only the highlights, that are cherry picked, to make the storytellers point.
True, but I've heard them from both sides and the topic of conversation was not about this subject. Workers being paid $30 an hour versus $30 a month put are at a severe disadvantage in a world economy.
Trained, equipped and motivated, $30/hr workers, can certainly compete with $3/hr unskilled workers, by being more productive and producing better quality.
There is no union shop where a bum can't be terminated for not doing their job... none.
There's always contract language that requires management to follow a set procedure, to prevent termination at the whim of a supervisor, to make room for the wife's nephew, or without just cause.
You may not like him, but you can't fire him if he's doing his job properly.
I have, however, seen too many cases of terminated minorities/handicapped, going to the Labor Board (government) claiming prejudice, then being reinstated when in fact they were a bum. This is not an option for the rest of us.
Well I don't know what miktrees' point was, but I thought he was having a bit of a joke actually.
I agree, I think you might've overreacted a bit, but if your experience with agnosticism has been negative that is understandable. Agnostic is a pretty general term though, most agnostics seem to have different reasons for and different resulting beliefs. Generally we just believe in "the possibility of something else." I'm not hedging my bets, I just have hope. Maybe its selfish or silly, but I don't want this lifetime to be my only one, there is so much I won't get to experience. So hopefully there is reincarnation, or at least a super awesome heaven. Like you've said though, we haven't found the evidence for it, doesn't mean it isn't there though. Perhaps we just haven't looked in the right place (try that rock over there!) or our minds still just can't comprehend it. I don't know of any agnostics who try and convert or push their ideals onto others, so why let it bother you? I don't care what you do as long as you don't insult me (which you did unintentionally so no harm really), or try and make me like you. Its just all about the hope for me.
(which you did unintentionally so no harm really)
If someone gives you a gift and you don't accept it, whose gift is it?
I thought that they shut down the GM plants for trucks to make fuel efficient cars. I didn't know it was a Union thing.
Crikey DanaC you have done me cold.
How did you know I thought Atheists were less intelligent than Agnostics.
I guess you probably also know I think believers are dull non thinking cop outs.
You see its thing like this (your mind reading ability ) that keep me Agnostic
How did you know I thought Atheists were less intelligent than Agnostics.
Tell me where I said that.
Back on 109
But that's kind of the point really. Labels I mean. It's not agnosticism that is irritating. It is the suggestion that agnosticism is a superior intellectual position to either faith, or atheism. Intellectual agnosticism presupposes that atheism is closed to the unknown. It is not. That would be as absurd as holding that faith is not open to doubt.
I thought that they shut down the GM plants for trucks to make fuel efficient cars. I didn't know it was a Union thing.
It's not, you were right the first time.
That doesn't mention intelligence. At no point have I said, or thought, that you believe agnostics are more intelligent than atheists.
Well DanaC if you are an atheist you have too much faith that you know everything
Stick with us agnostics, have a bet each way and admit there just might be things out there you have not seen or understood
It is the suggestion that agnosticism is a superior intellectual position to either faith, or atheism. Intellectual agnosticism presupposes that atheism is closed to the unknown.
In your post, there is an inherent assumption that atheists assume they know everything, and that they are reluctant to 'admit' that there are things which they have not seen or understood.
I think Dana might just be a closet Agnostic.
Its OK dear you can come out, you are with friends
*Chuckles* ach damn, you got me. Bang to rights.
That was fun, can we snog now?
I believe that's usual protocol.
Ha ha
I think finally we might be making a tentative connection
I think finally we might be making a tentative connection
Is
that what they call it these days?
To go back to the original jist of the thread, does discovering that a scientist is also religious, make you question his capacity for scientific rigour?
Why would it? Niehls Bohr and Einstein two of the greatest physicists ever, believed in God. There are many who did/do not believe in God. But, you are not asking about the ones who don't.
You ask specifically about rigour, or rigor as we say here in the states. Why would being religious in any way interfere with with the capacity of a person to show rigor in their scientific research?
If that were true: does discovering that a scientist is a confirmed atheist make you question his capacity for scientific rigor?
I'm curious, a question for the atheists on the board. Do you believe that science disproves the existence of God?
If so, there is a statement. Science disproves the existence of God.
I would like to see the rigor proving that statement.
If that were true: does discovering that a scientist is a confirmed atheist make you question his capacity for scientific rigor?
No, but it might make me doubt his suitability for the priesthood.
I'm not, by the way saying that one
should doubt the scientist's capacity for scientific rigour.
As an atheist (note the lower case "a") I take the position that there is a fundamental lack in sufficiency of information upon which to make an assertion as to the nature and quantity of deity.
There's nothing out there that points to an existence of deity and you can't prove a negative.
In the face of insufficient data and an inability to prove a negative I take no position on deity.
The Atheists (note the capital "A") take the position that there is no deity. That's as indefensible a position as asserting that there is.
And as to questioning the rigor of a scientist with faith, I have no problem with a scientist believing in God. So long as "God did it!" isn't one of their premises when they're trying to harness the atom...
A good scientist can separate the two components of faith and science. Each has its place.
Second time in this thread, you can't prove a negative. What on earth does that mean????
Second time in this thread, you can't prove a negative. What on earth does that mean????
You can't prove God doesn't exist.
The only negative proofs are in logic.
There isn't a test or a sensor designed to test for the Big O's. You can't test for infinity, in either direction.
So, you can prove a negative. What does that have to do with a discussion of God?
No, you can't prove a negative. Which means that the existence of GOD can't be disproved, any more than it can be proved.
I am not a dog. 2 is not equal to 4. I can prove the negative statement, with rigor. Yes, you can prove a negative.
what I'm saying is that the idea of not being able to prove a negative is not found in logic. A negative may be proven or disproved with logic. Hence "not proving a negative" has nothing to do with proving or disproving the existence of God. Which by the way is a really bad thing to debate. Discussion is nice. I kind of look at it like coke and pepsi, no commercial ever changed my mind about how coke kicks the pants off of pepsi.
I will say again, that in any system there are statements that are true that cannot be proved. I know, I'm being a stickler for accuracy in language here. I think it is important to use the proper language for the ideas being expressed.
I am not a dog. 2 is not equal to 4. I can prove the negative statement, with rigor. Yes, you can prove a negative.
what I'm saying is that the idea of not being able to prove a negative is not found in logic. A negative may be proven or disproved with logic. Hence "not proving a negative" has nothing to do with proving or disproving the existence of God. Which by the way is a really bad thing to debate. Discussion is nice. I kind of look at it like coke and pepsi, no commercial ever changed my mind about how coke kicks the pants off of pepsi.
I will say again, that in any system there are statements that are true that cannot be proved. I know, I'm being a stickler for accuracy in language here. I think it is important to use the proper language for the ideas being expressed.
Well that's chock-o-block full of fail...
I stated clearly before, proving a negative is only possible in logic.
In an empiricist model you can only show a lack, a zero value or a positive value. There is no negative vacuum, there is no negative Stasis. You can't measure a negative value of an absolute.
And why is discussing the evidence for the existence of deity a bad thing? I quite enjoy it. God doesn't seem to have a problem with it either as I've gotten no memo otherwise.
Who says it's a bad thing to discuss?
Who says it's a bad thing to discuss?
This:
Hence "not proving a negative" has nothing to do with proving or disproving the existence of God. Which by the way is a really bad thing to debate.
I am not a dog. 2 is not equal to 4. I can prove the negative statement, with rigor. Yes, you can prove a negative.
what I'm saying is that the idea of not being able to prove a negative is not found in logic. A negative may be proven or disproved with logic. Hence "not proving a negative" has nothing to do with proving or disproving the existence of God. Which by the way is a really bad thing to debate. [SIZE="4"][COLOR="Red"]Discussion is nice.[/COLOR][/SIZE] I kind of look at it like coke and pepsi, no commercial ever changed my mind about how coke kicks the pants off of pepsi.
I will say again, that in any system there are statements that are true that cannot be proved. I know, I'm being a stickler for accuracy in language here. I think it is important to use the proper language for the ideas being expressed.
Hey look, I can quote too. :rolleyes:
I maintain, a negative can be proved. The statement does not belong in a discussion about the existence of God.
Hey look, I can quote too. :rolleyes:
I maintain, a negative can be proved. The statement does not belong in a discussion about the existence of God.
Prove it.
Both assertions.
I am not a dog.
That's not a negative.
2 is not equal to 4.
That's not a negative.
I can prove the negative statement, with rigor. Yes, you can prove a negative.
Nope.:headshake
The first statement that you can prove a negative is true. The second statement that this does not belong in a discussion of the existance of God is my opinion.
As to the first statement:
http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdfregular.joe, I would like you to prove you have never punched a woman in the face.
You can't prove it beyond a doubt, because there is no evidence to back you up--there is only a lack of evidence that you've ever done it, and a lack of evidence doesn't prove that it never happened. This sort of scenario is what is meant by "you can't prove a negative."
Clod,
The smart guy at the University explains it much better then I can, fuck I'm just a Drill Sergeant. I recommend reading the link in my last post.
Yeah, you posted that at the same time I was writing so I hadn't seen it. His basic argument boils down to practicality, which is fine for the real world and everyday life--yes, we use induction all the time otherwise we'd never get anything done. But unlike the overwhelming lack of evidence of unicorns in the fossil record, which makes it reasonable to infer there were none even if we can't prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, people can't agree on whether there is evidence (or what the evidence specifically is) that God exists. Like Bruce said,
the existence of GOD can't be disproved, any more than it can be proved.
You can't infer in either direction at all, which makes it different from anything else you might discuss that has at least some evidence to go off of.
My point has been, in discussion, logic, induction, the idea that you can't prove a negative is wrong. Simply not true. To use this in a discussion of anything is not a good argument.
I agree, I can't prove to you the existence/nonexistence of God. I wouldn't try to.
I will point out when I see a logical fallacy in your argument either way.
I expect the same in return.
I've enjoyed the discussion today, I'm off to bed. Night all.
Clod,
The smart guy at the University explains it much better then I can, fuck I'm just a Drill Sergeant. I recommend reading the link in my last post.
You're confusing logical proof with empirical analysis.
You can construct logical proofs both for and against the existence of God all day long.
Collecting evidence for the existence of deity is problematic at best.
Clod,
The smart guy at the University explains it much better then I can, fuck I'm just a Drill Sergeant. I recommend reading the link in my last post.
From the link;
A principle of folk logic is that one can’t prove a negative. Dr. Nelson L. Price, a Georgia minister, writes on his website that ‘one of the laws of logic is that you can’t prove a negative.’
Julian Noble, a physicist at the University of Virginia, agrees, writing in his ‘Electric Blanket of Doom’ talk that ‘we can’t prove a negative proposition.’ University of California at Berkeley Professor of Epidemiology Patricia Buffler asserts that ‘The reality is that we can never prove the negative, we can never prove the lack of effect, we can never prove that something is safe.’ A quick search on Google or Lexis-Nexis will give a mountain of similar examples.
Seems there is a whole lot of smart guys, that heartily disagree with your smart guy.
After reading that link, I, like Clod, agree that the inductive argument is a practical tool, day to day. I'm no smarter than a drill sergeant, but I don't buy his reasoning that a negative can be proven. :tinfoil:
I'm not confusing anything. I know what a logical proof is. I know what empirical analysis is. The statement "you can't prove a negative", is simply not a true statement. Of course inductive reasoning is useful, we all use it everyday. To use the statement "you can't prove a negative" in place of the use of inductive logic is really not working for me.
I'm not confusing anything. I know what a logical proof is. I know what empirical analysis is. The statement "you can't prove a negative", is simply not a true statement. Of course inductive reasoning is useful, we all use it everyday. To use the statement "you can't prove a negative" in place of the use of inductive logic is really not working for me.
To be more specific then, you can not have empirical evidence for a quantitative value less than zero. There can only be zero, a lack, or not zero, a value greater than zero.
Proof of a negative proposition requires the following:
1) the proposition must exist within a bracketed system, and
2) I must be capable of investigating the system to the extent required by the proposition.
I can prove the statement "There are no unicorns in this room" because it meets the requirements. I've given a limit to the system (this room) and I am capable of investigating all of the physical space large enough to accommodate a unicorn.
The statement "There are no unicorns on earth" is less provable, even though the system is still bracketed. I cannot reasonably investigate the system with sufficient scope to prove the point.
Abstract (mathematical or logical) negative propositions are the easiest to prove, since the systems they use are by definition both bounded and fully investigable (great word, right?) without the need for empirical data.
The statement "There is no god" fails to be provable on both counts. First, the system is no longer bracketed, it is infinite. Second, we lack the ability to investigate the system to the extent required by the proposition. Imagine a deistic, watchmaker kind of god, who has no present activity in the universe. That kind of being would be impossible for us to investigate, observe, gather any sort of empirical evidence about, but it would still make our proposition false.
In the argument by Hales, he assumes these two conditions for a negative statement without ever stating them, shows a few proofs for negative statements that meet the conditions for provability, and then does some rhetorical slight of hand to switch to an argument from "inference" to cover the rest of his bases.
Hales is a radical relativist, so his definition of "true" is probably different than the one you're using. In some of his other articles, he argues that the word "true" isn't grounded in the idea of "real", it's only grounded in what he calls a "belief-acquiring method". For him, there is no reason for preferring one belief-acquiring method over another, and therefore there is no basis for preferring one person's use of "true" over another.
What is deeply ironic is that Hales is also an apostle of Dawkins, and has written very biting commentary about the "evils" (not sure what a relativist can possibly mean by that word, but oh well) of religion. So, in spite of his lofty talk of relativism, he himself is unable to live up to it's claims.
smoothmoniker has hit the nail on the head. On the other hand, in a practical sense everyone accepts negatives as being proven at some point. I suspect very few of us are sitting on the fence about the existence of magic unicorns; they don't exist. There is just always the ever-present caveat that if you can prove magic unicorns do exist then we will chance our minds. Have we the ability to examine the entire solar system for unicorns? No, but we are still comfortable saying there are none.
But Magic Unicorns can only be seen when they want to. ;)
What most people fail to realize is that science IS a religion, as are things like math. They are a set of beliefs which only possess the illusion of being real because that is what society accepts. There is nothing concrete in science, everything is built on faith, just like religion.
Phage, that's very true.
Our normal mode of function in the world is to follow a trajectory of evidence until it crosses a reasonable threshold of rational support, and then to act as if it is true. When contradicting data emerges, we modify our trajectory and our conclusions. In either case, we act as if the conclusion is true even though we haven't reached the level of mathematical certainty.
I would argue that the best definition of "faith" isn't much different. It is following a trajectory of evidence until it crosses a threshold of rational support, at which point we act upon it as if it were true, in the absence of contradicting evidence. When contradicting evidence emerges, then we are obligated to reexamine the original conclusion.
Faith is not "believe something is true, even when all evidence points against it." Faith is believing something is true, because the chain of evidence follows a trajectory that can be reasonably extended to conclude that the thing is true, even when the chain of evidence isn't complete.
... and so say we all. Thus spoke Zarathustra. Amen.
What most people fail to realize is that science IS a religion, as are things like math. They are a set of beliefs which only possess the illusion of being real because that is what society accepts. There is nothing concrete in science, everything is built on faith, just like religion.
Horshit.
If you choose to "believe" that numbers have no meaning, and that physics is just an "aquired belief" that has no correspondence to reality, then your rocket to the moon is going to fly up your own ass instead.
re: "science is based on faith"
Funny how your cellphone magically allows you to converse over vast distances, the life-saving medicine that didn't exist 10 years ago cures a formerly deadly disease in your son or daughter or father or mother, and the processors in your vehicles computerized brake system prevent you from plunging off an overpass to your certain doom.
But, of course, the scientists who invented these things were probably "flying by the seat of their pants" right? I mean, after all, there's nothing concrete in science, just a bunch of hooey that the eggheads have us bamboozled into believing. The reason your satellite TV, self-cleaning oven, and ultrasonic toothbrush work is just dumb luck.
In fact, the only way that messages are being transmitted on this website is because invisible Jesus is zooming around re-typing everything on each of our computers.
Faith is not "believe something is true, even when all evidence points against it." Faith is believing something is true, because the chain of evidence follows a trajectory that can be reasonably extended to conclude that the thing is true, even when the chain of evidence isn't complete.
I disagree.
Faith is Necessarily belief in something in the face of no evidence.
Doesn't the Bible define faith as belief despite a total lack of evidence?
This new "rational faith" is so watered down it renders the conversation meaningless.
This new "rational faith" is so watered down it renders the conversation meaningless.
Well put.
Faith is believing something is true, because the chain of evidence follows a trajectory that can be reasonably extended to conclude that the thing is true, even when the chain of evidence isn't complete.
I thought that was induction?
Doesn't the Bible define faith as belief despite a total lack of evidence?
Ummmm ... no. Unless I'm missing something, the biblical use of the word "faith" relies heavily on induction as the basis for belief. It repeatedly talks about the created world as an evidential basis for believing in both God and in a moral order. That appeal to reference the natural world would make no sense if the highest biblical value was to believe something was true in the total absence of evidence.
This new "rational faith" is so watered down it renders the conversation meaningless.
This "new" rational faith is at least as old as Descartes (Aquinas, even?). I realize it's more fun to go bashing fundamentalists (I'll join in, if you'd like) for upholding faith as something opposed to reason, but you'll find very few people to have a "meaningful" conversation with in that camp.
Do you really think it's meaningless to explore the relationship between critical thinking, radical skepticism, and faith?
You can't have faith and apply skepticism to it.
Dogma, sure, but not faith.
Faith is operating without need for verification or validation.
You hear the voice you do the deed.
In contemporary society we have dogmatic filters to apply to what people call faith nowadays, but it all had to start with some guy taking the voices in his head at face value.
Patient X as it were.
...
Unless I'm missing something, the biblical use of the word "faith" relies heavily on induction as the basis for belief. It repeatedly talks about the created world as an evidential basis for believing in both God and in a moral order. That appeal to reference the natural world would make no sense if the highest biblical value was to believe something was true in the total absence of evidence.
...
So the fact that "the world exists" is the logical basis for having faith in...what?
Patient X as it were.
I like that.
I thought that was induction?
Yep. I think that's the crux of my point. Faith adds action to conclusions arrived at by induction. It is acting as something is true, on the basis of incomplete (but reasonable) evidence for it being true.
On that definition, I think two things emerge:
1) We all engage in mundane acts of faith with regularity (sitting in a chair without checking the strength of the legs), and
2) Religious faith is not a different kind of faith than that which is engaged in by people at large, every day.
I think there are two aspects to religious faith that differentiate it from mundane acts of faith. First, religious people accept as evidence a wider range of data than religious skeptics. A religious person may accept their own internal state of spiritual awareness as confirming evidence, which is not a kind of evidence that a religious skeptic has access to, or has any good reason to allow into the conversation.
Second, the actions undertaken by religious people (acting as if their conclusions are true) are generally more sweeping, more radical, and more controversial than the mundane actions of faith undertaken by everyone. If I believe my chair can support my weight, and I sit down in my chair, my action is a very mundane act of faith, and nobody takes much notice of it. If I believe that God is real and that he/she hates materialism, and I sell everything I own to live a life of simplicity and service, that's a conspicuous act of faith.
It's completely irrational if I believe that my present life, and the pleasures I enjoy in it, are the sum total of my existence. It only becomes rational if I am acting in faith (based on a chain of inductively supported conclusions) that there is a greater purpose to life, and that my present state of pleasure is less meaningful than that greater purpose.
Long answer to a short statement, but yes, UT, I would say that faith and induction are very similar in how they process evidence and conclusions, with the difference being that faith is acting upon those conclusions as if they were true, rather than simply holding them in escrow until better evidence comes along.
Yep. I think that's the crux of my point. Faith adds action to conclusions arrived at by induction. It is acting as something is true, on the basis of incomplete (but reasonable) evidence for it being true.
On that definition, I think two things emerge:
1) We all engage in mundane acts of faith with regularity (sitting in a chair without checking the strength of the legs), and
2) Religious faith is not a different kind of faith than that which is engaged in by people at large, every day.
Your present example of faith is so semantically skewed that faith and probability and induction could all be the same word.
Your example of the chair isn't faith. A chair is designed to catch your ass and suspend it above the floor. It's not faith to sit in a chair without looking.
You see a chair, and if there are no obvious flaws in it, and you sit down expecting it to do its job based on your experience with past chairs and your understanding of the concept of a chair.
That's a probability assessment on your part.
While I don't disagree with you on your second part, that doesn't make those people's behavior rational or reasonable.
I think there are two aspects to religious faith that differentiate it from mundane acts of faith. First, religious people accept as evidence a wider range of data than religious skeptics. A religious person may accept their own internal state of spiritual awareness as confirming evidence, which is not a kind of evidence that a religious skeptic has access to, or has any good reason to allow into the conversation.
Internal revelatory events aren't testable. They can't even be compared against those of another person. While that may be acceptable as evidence for personal use it has no merit outside of that person's skin.
Second, the actions undertaken by religious people (acting as if their conclusions are true) are generally more sweeping, more radical, and more controversial than the mundane actions of faith undertaken by everyone. If I believe my chair can support my weight, and I sit down in my chair, my action is a very mundane act of faith, and nobody takes much notice of it. If I believe that God is real and that he/she hates materialism, and I sell everything I own to live a life of simplicity and service, that's a conspicuous act of faith.
As a personal issue, I don't give a tinker's damn what people do in regards to the voices that drive their lives so long as they only blow themselves up. That's why I have such a problem with the weight given to religion when people use it to judge other or act against others. You, generally speaking, don't get to use the rules of your invisible sky daddy to act against me, judge all you want, but act against me and it will be bad.
And you keep going back to the chair/faith issue. Again, that's not faith, that's probability, it's the same model as expecting the sun to rise tomorrow. It's a probabilistic model. The sun has risen reliably since recorded time, a proper chair has caught people's asses since chairs were properly made.
It's completely irrational if I believe that my present life, and the pleasures I enjoy in it, are the sum total of my existence.
No, it's not.
It only becomes rational if I am acting in faith (based on a chain of inductively supported conclusions) that there is a greater purpose to life, and that my present state of pleasure is less meaningful than that greater purpose.
That's just silly. The only reason you believe anything religious is because you were taught so or really want to.
Long answer to a short statement, but yes, UT, I would say that faith and induction are very similar in how they process evidence and conclusions, with the difference being that faith is acting upon those conclusions as if they were true, rather than simply holding them in escrow until better evidence comes along.
Don't confuse the mechanism of induction as it is used internally in respect with a religion as opposed with induction in relation to the evidence for the existence of deity.
Exactly, everything is the way God made it, often through his helper, Mother Nature. :D
Humans are slowly unraveling the mysteries of how it all works. But the fact remains, it worked the same before, and after, we figured it out.
Darwin's theory of evolution, always a bone of contention, simply means Darwin is generally credited with being the first, (he wasn't) to figure out how it works. He didn't cause it folks, just figured out how it works, that's all.
I don't see any conflict, except with the Jewish mythology of the old testament.
Can I be annoying and just say, "ME TOO"
Why should there be any separaton of science and faith. I always thought it should be so anyway.
Do you really think it's meaningless to explore the relationship between critical thinking, radical skepticism, and faith?
No, I think it's meaningless to conflate faith and critical thinking to the point that they are interchangable. Doesn't it cheapen both concepts to water them down to the point that they lose their defining characteristics?
When people refer to religious faith, I am certain that the intended meaing is NOT "using the scientific method of investigation in order to determine the most verifiable statistical probability."
Your present example of faith is so semantically skewed that faith and probability and induction could all be the same word.
They are aspects of the same mental transaction.
Your example of the chair isn't faith. A chair is designed to catch your ass and suspend it above the floor. It's not faith to sit in a chair without looking.
You see a chair, and if there are no obvious flaws in it, and you sit down expecting it to do its job based on your experience with past chairs and your understanding of the concept of a chair.
That's a probability assessment on your part.
And acting on that probability without having access (or choosing to investigate) to the data needed to make it certain. That's the definition of faith that I'm trying to give here. My whole point is that it's a very standard mental transaction, and that the variables are the kind of data accepted into the transaction, and the extent action taken when the conclusion is assumed.
Internal revelatory events aren't testable. They can't even be compared against those of another person. While that may be acceptable as evidence for personal use it has no merit outside of that person's skin.
If you read back, I said the same thing. Nobody has any external access to that data in a meaningful way, so it doesn't carry any weight in dialog. My point was that a religious person still has access, and may accept as data, something which is only available for internal investigation.
I think there was some confusion in how you read the last part of my post. The fifth paragraph ("It's completely irrational if I believe that my present life ... blah blah blah") is all referring to the action of selling everything. I'm not saying that it's irrational to be a religious skeptic, to believe that there is only the material life. I'm saying that the act of selling everything and living an ascetic life devoid of pleasure is irrational. It was speaking to my point of the radical nature of actions undertaken by people who are religious.
They are aspects of the same mental transaction.
It seems more to me like an effort to redefine faith as induction so that faith pics up the intellectual credibility of reason when it should rightfully be viewed as just doing what the voices tell you.
I get the feeling that when you say "what the voices tell you" you believe that someone with a spiritual experience is crazy.
... it should rightfully be viewed as just doing what the voices tell you.
I realize that's an easier definition of faith to belittle, but I, and may other people who adhere to religious faiths, find that an inadequate definition. I'm trying to offer one that is more in line with how many people understand their spiritual lives. You seem more interested in limiting the conversation to fundamentalists, in which case, you'll have to go round some up.
When what you are doing stops being faith, please stop calling it faith. Using the wrong words for things is an ill-fated way to initiate a discussion.
If you have intellectually outgrown the concept of operating on faith in invisible supernatural powers, then instead of spinning your wheels writing a definition of faith that includes the level of scientific rigor that you deem appropriate, maybe it's time to say "Hey, this faith stuff isn't for me anymore. I've outgrown it. Time to move on."
Now, to be clear, I don't care what you do or what you believe. But if you're going to tell me faith means something damn near the opposite of what the dictionary says, then yes, I'm going to call you on that.
I get the feeling that when you say "what the voices tell you" you believe that someone with a spiritual experience is crazy.
Well, we only medicate or incarcerate the people who do
bad things when the voices tell them to do so.
I'm not saying everyone hears an overt voice, although plenty do.
In general terms we're hardwired for any sort of gregarious behavior, which can only stand to reinforce the communal religious experience. We get a dopamine dump every time we stand around telling each other how wonderful the invisible guy in the sky is. As well as group athletic events and so on.
Oh, to be sure, I still believe in invisible supernatural powers. I take issue with your characterization of why.
I haven't speculated as to why.
Doesn't the Bible define faith as belief despite a total lack of evidence?
This new "rational faith" is so watered down it renders the conversation meaningless.
I took that as implying that the "why" of faith was incompatible with reason.
Oh, to be sure, I still believe in invisible supernatural powers.
And this statement brings us back to the heart of the faith and science.
For faith, it's "God did it." or the Virgin Mary in a dog's butt, or Jesus in a grilled cheese sandwich.
For science, it's as yet to be explained phenomena.
In light of the diminishing realm of the supernatural it makes less and less sense to say "God did it."
Faith and science don't have to be contradictory because faith is by definition the suspension of the need for explanation.
Amigo,
Virgin Mary in a dog's butt, Jesus in a grilled cheese sandwich. Are you trying to be insulting on purpose? Do you use the most extreme idea of what faith is for a tiny segment of the worlds population for a reason? If you continue to use only the most extreme, yes crazy examples of what faith can produce, you will loose credibility with me.
Descriptions of faith, by people who don't have it, will always sound like the blind man describing the elephant. I guess it's the frustration that breeds the vitriol.
I've seen the vitriol on both sides. I think it's more the kind of person you are than the point you are arguing.
Let's address the substance of the post. Crazy idea, I know.
Citing documented, real world examples is vitriolic?
faith is by definition the suspension of the need for explanation.
No, faith is an acknowledgement of the current lack of an explanation. What's more, it's a lack of an explanation for things which science
cannot find an answer to. (Do you honestly believe we can determine the origins of the universe in their entirety through scientific study? That to me seems a lot more foolish than humbly accepting that we can't. We should never stop trying, but we should recognize our limits.)
You refuse to accept that there are different types of faith, and that most of them don't involve hearing voices or seeing idols in everyday objects. Until you can expand your definition, or propose a new word that you would prefer everyone use, you will get nowhere.
Bottom line: scientific knowledge is limited, but acknowledges it's own limitations.
Religious faith, as self-described by it's adherants, is an invitation to short-circuit the discovery process; constantly addressing every as-of-yet explained phenomenon as a "supernatural" occurance.
Of course, the more sophisticated faithful will recognize varying levels of what has been adequately explained, at this point in history; but ultimately science is the refusal to "give up" and say it must be God waving his magic wand.
Religious faith, as self-described by it's adherants, is an invitation to short-circuit the discovery process; constantly addressing every as-of-yet explained phenomenon as a "supernatural" occurance.
Cite. Not a single adherent in this discussion has described it as such, quite the opposite in fact. You and Troubleshooter both insist on asking people here to defend the beliefs of people who are not here.
I don't ascribe only unexplained phenomena to God. I ascribe the
explained phenomena to God as well. Explaining something will only ever tell you
how, it will never ever give you an answer to the question
why. I am just as continuously and deeply interested in the how as you are.
Cite. Not a single adherent in this discussion has described it as such, quite the opposite in fact. You and Troubleshooter both insist on asking people here to defend the beliefs of people who are not here.
Cite? I've been playing drums in church praise & worship bands for years (see: this thread). Different churches, different pastors, I attend the services, I attend the Bible studies, I know about this stuff--I'm not just making this up. If there's something that has bothered me, for years, it isn't just something I'm making up. It's something I've observed and really struggled with.
What I "insist" is that people use words as what they actually mean, instead of back-peddling their belief system into a semantic pretzel which they have reverse engineered in order to wrap duct tape around conflicting sets of information.
I can't believe I've gotten so tail-posted in my own thread. To be honest, I'm not even sure what's being discussed in here. Somehow what I just posted, combined with my initial post, appears to amount to:
"It's okay for me to do it, but I don't like it when you do it. And mainly I just don't like what you're calling it."
You and I may be doing the same thing, but when you use the word "faith" a giant red flag goes off in my head. I, myself, would be embarassed to associate myself with the accumulated idiocy that has been proudly attributed to "faith" over the centuries. I'd rather scrap that word than try to write a custom definition.
I can totally see that. But I would also be embarrassed to accidentally get associated with Troubleshooter's hardline-opposing position on the whole thing. Do you have suggestions for words which would better reflect a non-fundamentalist position? Isn't it fair to want to "take back" the word from the idiots who misuse it?
I think the idiots are using it correctly.
The give me another word to use. I'm guessing you won't like "inductive reasoning."
I have no problem with the phrase inductive reasoning, in and of itself. I like how it means inductive reasoning, so you can call it that... and it means that. I like it when we call things what they are, so we can know what they mean.
...but what if you don't agree that what he induces is reasonable?
Troubleshooter,
Faith is not a suspension of the need for an explanation. It really makes no sense to suspend that need. From my point of view, I really don't understand why anyone would need to suspend the need for an explanation. In fact the more I think about what you may be trying to tell us with such statements, the more I think they are just a bit silly.
From my point of view, you have no experience with faith or the spiritual. You are talking about and putting down something you have no experience with, in fact in such conversation you are on the outside looking in. You appear to be as close minded and intolerant as some of the religious people you don't mind insulting. If you came to my job and started putting down and insulting my professional methods, only to find you you lack the experience to make such statements, I'd dismiss you out of hand. Oh, you read an article about some crazy guy in the papers, that's what you know about my job??? Yea, I'd dismiss what you have to say out of hand.
I'll not call you crazy because you don't hear and see what I hear and see, please allow me the same courtesy and tolerance.
I'll not call you crazy because you don't hear and see what I hear and see, please allow me the same courtesy and tolerance.
Who then *would* you call crazy? How about the person who sees phantom clowns which he claims instruct him to perform various nonsensical tasks? Should you extend him courtesy and tolerance to his clown-centric faith or try to help an obviously diseased mind? Does your societal duty to help cease if the damage is not physical?
It is my understanding that our perceptions do not widely differ; you distinguish the world in the same basic manner and precision as I do. The difference is that in your view there are "extra" elements. You claim events happen for a reason or are caused by an entity despite no perceptive indication. You base the validity of concepts or actions solely on events or feelings that occur completely within your own mind.
How then would we distinguish your behavior from that of a crazy person?
How then would we distinguish your behavior from that of a crazy person?
Purely a matter of numbers and time. If enough people suffer the same delusion for long enough, it becomes a valid way of viewing the world.
@ Troubleshooter. I disagree slightly with your definition of faith. It is not belief without the need for explanation. It is belief without the need for proof. Religion is nothing if not an explanation of life.
How do we distinguish your behavior from that of a crazy person? Same either way.
So, here we go again, nonsensical clowns, can we not go to the far extreme of an example when talking about having faith?
Dana, belief without the need for proof. I was a serious agnostic a long time ago. My experience has given me proof. I suppose there is this craziness you could ascribe to me. It is proof none the less for me.
Purely a matter of numbers and time. If enough people suffer the same delusion for long enough, it becomes a valid way of viewing the world.
@ Troubleshooter. I disagree slightly with your definition of faith. It is not belief without the need for explanation. It is belief without the need for proof. Religion is nothing if not an explanation of life.
Ahh, but they *don’t* suffer the same delusion, just the same type of delusion. If we could run double-blind trials and verify that the faith experiences you experience and we cannot detect are shared and consistent among others then you would have a point. Unfortunately that isn’t what we see; for some people it is clowns, others unicorns, and they only start to become somewhat consistent when you put those people in communication.
Besides, if we could provide solid statistical support to the idea of faith then it would cease to be faith by your definition. Those statistical studies would become proof.
So, here we go again, nonsensical clowns, can we not go to the far extreme of an example when talking about having faith?
Come on now, that isn’t extreme at all. Faith is what is extreme; the clowns just sometimes insist that you eat a few paper clips, and they really only hang out in closets. The rest of the time it is no big deal. Faith on the other hand is justification for an entire moral code, and ascribes meaning and purpose to every event in the world. Just because you have faith and don’t see clowns does not make the clowns more extreme, I don’t see either.
...but what if you don't agree that what he induces is reasonable?
I'm willing to take an honest look at it, but I'm not walking into the analysis with a prefered outcome, which happens to coincide with a massively widespread belief system that has been propogated by hook and/or crook.
I prefer to let the evidence do the talking instead of working backwards from a fixed position. And that's the real difference--science doesn't have "faith" in a preferred outcome.
@ Troubleshooter. I disagree slightly with your definition of faith. It is not belief without the need for explanation. It is belief without the need for proof. Religion is nothing if not an explanation of life.
True
Just a outdated one in my opinion.
From the cookies:
Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable.
- H. L. Mencken
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein
"It's not much fun being around dumb people." -James Watson, co-unraveler of DNA
"It's not much fun being around dumb people." -James Watson, co-unraveler of DNA
I don't see how this quote applies to the current thread.
"It's not much fun being around dumb people." -James Watson, co-unraveler of DNA
I don't see how this quote applies to the current thread.
Now that right there is funny.
Beer is proof that god loves us and wants us to be happy. -Ben Franklin
Science is a differential equation. Religion is a boundary condition. -- Alan Turing
I found
this article today; in it is one of my favorite observations about this contentious issue: Science and Religion ask different questions. Science largely attempts to answer How? and Religion largely attempts to answer Why? When those two questions are transposed, there is less certainty.
A couple of interesting excerpts from the article...
“If you see something you don’t understand, you have to ask ‘why?’ or ‘how?’ ” Mr. Campbell often admonished his students at Ridgeview High School.
Whether the state’s board of education would adopt them, however, was unclear. There were heated objections from some religious organizations and local school boards. In a stormy public comment session, Mr. Campbell defended his fellow writers against complaints that they had not included alternative explanations for life’s diversity, like intelligent design.
His attempt at humor came with an edge:
“We also failed to include astrology, alchemy and the concept of the moon being made of green cheese,” he said. “Because those aren’t science, either.”
The evening of the vote, Mr. Campbell learned by e-mail message from an education official that the words “scientific theory of” had been inserted in front of “evolution” to appease opponents on the board. Even so, the standards passed by only a 4-to-3 vote.
Mr. Campbell cringed at the wording, which seemed to suggest evolution was a kind of hunch instead of the only accepted scientific explanation for the great variety of life on Earth. But he turned off his computer without scrolling through all of the frustrated replies from other writers. The standards, he thought, were finally in place.
Now he just had to teach.
“Science explores nature by testing and gathering data,” he said. “It can’t tell you what’s right and wrong. It doesn’t address ethics. But it is not anti-religion. Science and religion just ask different questions.”
He grabbed the ball and held it still.
“Can anybody think of a question science can’t answer?”
“Is there a God?” shot back a boy near the window.
“Good,” said Mr. Campbell, an Anglican who attends church most Sundays. “Can’t test it. Can’t prove it, can’t disprove it. It’s not a question for science.”