Chris:
Fair points. I think part of the issue here is that when one publicizes their religious beliefs (or non-beliefs, as the case may be), they open those beliefs up to evaluation and thus to evaluation of their own capacity for thinking. Beyond that, your points deserve a lengthier more detailed response. Unfortunately, the real world beckons so I don't have time right now to put that response together, which means that response is going to have to join the queue of other items that the real world is currently delaying me from discussing.
2009-02-09 15:31:08
Jerry: If you think I am directing the "please, be reasonable" directive solely at angry atheists, then I think you misread the post. While they may be the primary focus of this post, that is because atheism is the focus of this particular dialogue.
As for the issue of rational argument vs. angry argument, I simply disagree. In my view, angry arguments are far less likely to persuade those who disagree with you than rational arguments, although they may be more likely to mobilize those who are predisposed to support you. But that is a subject for another day.
2009-02-09 15:24:46
I'm somewhat hesitant to get back into this debate (even though I wrote the post), because it seems to be getting back into the typical cycle of arguments that I was trying to avoid.
But I think there's an important problem to identify here, which seems to be typical of these cyclical arguments. That is that on the one hand, ED is talking about religion when it is held as a purely personal belief, while on the other hand, Chris seems to be talking about religion when it is applied by the religious person towards others (whether or not the 'others' are also members of that person's religion). The fact is, I don't think anyone would disagree that the maintenance of religious views as a purely personal affair is at the very least harmless (and I would probably argue that it is actively healthy). I also don't think anyone here would disagree that the attempt to force one's own religion on another (to sometimes include persons who are nominally of the same faith) is actively harmful. The trouble is, ultimately, where to draw the line where church, science, and state must be separated. My post was an attempt to draw such a line, although it's certainly possible it didn't do a good job of doing so.
2009-02-03 21:06:59
Andrew: I don't know if you saw my last response to you above. But I think I understand where you're coming from, and fundamentally I tend to agree with it.
There is something in your points that is particularly important, though, and which maybe can help you understand my point in this post a bit better.
You talk, correctly, about the problems of "fake science," and argue, also probably correctly, that religion has been the most frequent (though by no means exclusive) purveyor of such.
To me, though, the issue of "fake science" is the exact same issue of "falsifying the unfalsifiable," just stated in a different manner. The manner in which you use the term "fake science" seems to be that "fake science" occurs when science or, more often, pseudo-science, is used as a moral justification for a particular activity or system of belief.
This, in my mind, exactly identifies the same problem I'm trying to identify in this post; the difference in this case, at least in my view, seems to be that many (though by no means all) of those who are using science as a moral justification for their belief system are themselves scientists. In its own way, as Chris points out, atheism is itself a form of faith, and scientific attempts to justify atheism run into the exact same problems as scientific (or pseudo-scientific) attempts to justify any other form of faith.
So, yes, the abuse or denial of science has long been primarily the domain of theism (of course, the world has long been primarily the domain of theism, but that's a different issue altogether). But that fact, as you clearly acknowledge, does not mean that science cannot be used equally improperly to justify atheism.
All that said, as between atheist misuse of science and theist misuse of science, I have little doubt that the latter is by far the greatest threat, at least in the United States....and it's not even close. But in many ways, that is why I wrote this post - it angers me that atheist misuse of science only adds fuel to the fire that seeks to justify theist misuse of science. It is thus counterproductive to what you and I both seem to agree is the real, important cause for concern.
2009-02-03 19:34:04
Matoko:
Who do you mean "you"? Stop trying to attribute beliefs that we've never claimed to hold. Again, you have no idea what my personal religious beliefs are, and it is getting really frustrating to have you continue to assume that you do.
2009-02-03 18:44:24
Andrew:
I understand you concern. Hell, I share it. But I think that when science gets involved in the types of issues I identify here, it helps to contribute (inadvertently) to the strengthening of those who seek to undermine legitimate science.
You note that many theists of less literalist varieties do not get sufficiently involved in these issues; is it possible that part of the explanation for this is a feeling that the forces with which they mostly agree seem bent on promoting the denial of the very basis for their faith in addition to promoting science?
And then there is the other issue, which is true of political questions more generally: political debates are dominated by those who have the greatest perceived interest in those debates, in this case scientists and Biblical literalists.
2009-02-03 18:32:56
Matoko:
I remind you that we do have a commenting policy. As for "reinforcing your stereotypes," I find that quite amusing as you have absolutely no idea as to any of my personal religious beliefs, so I'm not really sure what "stereotype" I could be reinforcing.
If you don't accept my argument that attempts to scientifically prove the non-existence of God are a detriment to science, that is your prerogative; but the fact is that I wrote this essay out of a profound respect for science and a desire to prevent it from hurting itself by getting involved in debates that it is not intended to get involved with.
2009-02-03 18:21:49
Matoko: The Discovery Institute has a budget of a whopping $4 million per year. It is also, as you implicitly acknowledge, the primary vehicle for the push to teach ID in schools. While you may think $4 million is a lot of money, the fact is that this is a relatively small budget for such a prominent organization, and it thus requires only a handful of large donors for its funding. So to say that the Discovery Institute is representative of a huge swath of Christendom outside of a handful of areas is utterly devoid of evidence.
2009-02-03 18:09:52
Matoko: Who started it seems to me to be an irrelevant question (as it is in most debates) since both sides will just point the finger at each other as a means of justifying their behavior. Again, both sides, by seeking to attack on the other side's turf, just wind up demeaning themselves.
2009-02-03 17:38:26
Matoko: On the grounds where you advocate mocking, I largely agree with you. But the problem with things like the God Delusion, or Myers' desecration of the Communion wafer, is that they go above and beyond defending religious encroachments on scientific turf, and go instead to attacking religion on its own turf.
2009-02-03 16:54:08
Andrew: the problem you are talking about here is not a problem that is a necessary result of a belief in God. Instead, it is a necessary result of the entanglement of church and state, an issue over which I think it's safe to say all seven us would agree with you. Indeed, that is the specific problem to which I am alluding in this post. At most, the problems you identify are problems with specific organized religions, but they are not problems with a generalized belief in god. Wicca, for example, would not seem to fall into the traps you identify (yes, I'm aware I'm using as an example a religion that is far from widespread, but that's not really the point). Moreover, there's a chicken or the egg problem here: did religions create the prejudices against women and gays or did they merely enshrine pre-existing prejudices?
In terms of the issue of the "young earth" question, I do not think it remotely disprove the existence of a particular god; instead, it refutes a literal interpretation of a particular story in a particular religious text, a story that several of its largest adherents (eg, most forms of Judaism and Catholicism, to name two) have accepted as being simply metaphorical.
But most important in all of this, to my mind, is that atheist attempts to disprove the existence of God, much like theist attempts to prove the existence of God, are doomed to failure because they attempt to turn something that is inherently unfalsifiable into something that is falsifiable. And, as I said above, this has the effect of science demeaning itself in much the same way as religion demeans itself when it seeks to prove the existence of god in scientific terms.
2009-02-03 16:08:05
E.D. : Thanks. And exactly.
2009-02-03 15:13:52
James:
Understood, and in that sense I do think that things like the FSM are pretty useful. But there are times - such as PZ Myer's little Communion wafer stunt, for example - where it seems like the New Atheists go beyond merely defending science/reason when faith tries to go stomping on their turf and instead counterattack by getting involved in purely philosophical questions.
2009-02-03 14:51:26
Dave and Ryan:
No. Neither I nor, to my knowledge, anyone else has argued that it follows that God exists because it is impossible to prove. Instead, I am merely explaining, as was Chris, I think, that the question of whether or not God exists is the wrong question to ask, and by seeking to answer it through pure reason, science reduces itself. But as importantly, religion reduces itself when it insists on getting involved in inherently scientific debates.
As for whether my reading of that Simpsons episode is self-serving, I think that's a pretty silly assertion since my point is that the episode's entire argument was that 1. religion should stay away from science, and 2. it is utterly worthless to seek to disprove through science that which others take as an article of faith. In other words, it's a pretty even-handed episode.
As for whether this series is condescending....well, that's your prerogative to think so, but methinks you misunderstand the entire purpose of this site.
The commenter archive features may be temporarily disabled at times.
Chris:
Fair points. I think part of the issue here is that when one publicizes their religious beliefs (or non-beliefs, as the case may be), they open those beliefs up to evaluation and thus to evaluation of their own capacity for thinking. Beyond that, your points deserve a lengthier more detailed response. Unfortunately, the real world beckons so I don't have time right now to put that response together, which means that response is going to have to join the queue of other items that the real world is currently delaying me from discussing.
Jerry: If you think I am directing the "please, be reasonable" directive solely at angry atheists, then I think you misread the post. While they may be the primary focus of this post, that is because atheism is the focus of this particular dialogue.
As for the issue of rational argument vs. angry argument, I simply disagree. In my view, angry arguments are far less likely to persuade those who disagree with you than rational arguments, although they may be more likely to mobilize those who are predisposed to support you. But that is a subject for another day.
I'm somewhat hesitant to get back into this debate (even though I wrote the post), because it seems to be getting back into the typical cycle of arguments that I was trying to avoid.
But I think there's an important problem to identify here, which seems to be typical of these cyclical arguments. That is that on the one hand, ED is talking about religion when it is held as a purely personal belief, while on the other hand, Chris seems to be talking about religion when it is applied by the religious person towards others (whether or not the 'others' are also members of that person's religion). The fact is, I don't think anyone would disagree that the maintenance of religious views as a purely personal affair is at the very least harmless (and I would probably argue that it is actively healthy). I also don't think anyone here would disagree that the attempt to force one's own religion on another (to sometimes include persons who are nominally of the same faith) is actively harmful. The trouble is, ultimately, where to draw the line where church, science, and state must be separated. My post was an attempt to draw such a line, although it's certainly possible it didn't do a good job of doing so.
Andrew: I don't know if you saw my last response to you above. But I think I understand where you're coming from, and fundamentally I tend to agree with it.
There is something in your points that is particularly important, though, and which maybe can help you understand my point in this post a bit better.
You talk, correctly, about the problems of "fake science," and argue, also probably correctly, that religion has been the most frequent (though by no means exclusive) purveyor of such.
To me, though, the issue of "fake science" is the exact same issue of "falsifying the unfalsifiable," just stated in a different manner. The manner in which you use the term "fake science" seems to be that "fake science" occurs when science or, more often, pseudo-science, is used as a moral justification for a particular activity or system of belief.
This, in my mind, exactly identifies the same problem I'm trying to identify in this post; the difference in this case, at least in my view, seems to be that many (though by no means all) of those who are using science as a moral justification for their belief system are themselves scientists. In its own way, as Chris points out, atheism is itself a form of faith, and scientific attempts to justify atheism run into the exact same problems as scientific (or pseudo-scientific) attempts to justify any other form of faith.
So, yes, the abuse or denial of science has long been primarily the domain of theism (of course, the world has long been primarily the domain of theism, but that's a different issue altogether). But that fact, as you clearly acknowledge, does not mean that science cannot be used equally improperly to justify atheism.
All that said, as between atheist misuse of science and theist misuse of science, I have little doubt that the latter is by far the greatest threat, at least in the United States....and it's not even close. But in many ways, that is why I wrote this post - it angers me that atheist misuse of science only adds fuel to the fire that seeks to justify theist misuse of science. It is thus counterproductive to what you and I both seem to agree is the real, important cause for concern.
Matoko:
Who do you mean "you"? Stop trying to attribute beliefs that we've never claimed to hold. Again, you have no idea what my personal religious beliefs are, and it is getting really frustrating to have you continue to assume that you do.
Andrew:
I understand you concern. Hell, I share it. But I think that when science gets involved in the types of issues I identify here, it helps to contribute (inadvertently) to the strengthening of those who seek to undermine legitimate science.
You note that many theists of less literalist varieties do not get sufficiently involved in these issues; is it possible that part of the explanation for this is a feeling that the forces with which they mostly agree seem bent on promoting the denial of the very basis for their faith in addition to promoting science?
And then there is the other issue, which is true of political questions more generally: political debates are dominated by those who have the greatest perceived interest in those debates, in this case scientists and Biblical literalists.
Matoko:
I remind you that we do have a commenting policy. As for "reinforcing your stereotypes," I find that quite amusing as you have absolutely no idea as to any of my personal religious beliefs, so I'm not really sure what "stereotype" I could be reinforcing.
If you don't accept my argument that attempts to scientifically prove the non-existence of God are a detriment to science, that is your prerogative; but the fact is that I wrote this essay out of a profound respect for science and a desire to prevent it from hurting itself by getting involved in debates that it is not intended to get involved with.
Matoko: The Discovery Institute has a budget of a whopping $4 million per year. It is also, as you implicitly acknowledge, the primary vehicle for the push to teach ID in schools. While you may think $4 million is a lot of money, the fact is that this is a relatively small budget for such a prominent organization, and it thus requires only a handful of large donors for its funding. So to say that the Discovery Institute is representative of a huge swath of Christendom outside of a handful of areas is utterly devoid of evidence.
Matoko: Who started it seems to me to be an irrelevant question (as it is in most debates) since both sides will just point the finger at each other as a means of justifying their behavior. Again, both sides, by seeking to attack on the other side's turf, just wind up demeaning themselves.
Matoko: On the grounds where you advocate mocking, I largely agree with you. But the problem with things like the God Delusion, or Myers' desecration of the Communion wafer, is that they go above and beyond defending religious encroachments on scientific turf, and go instead to attacking religion on its own turf.
Andrew: the problem you are talking about here is not a problem that is a necessary result of a belief in God. Instead, it is a necessary result of the entanglement of church and state, an issue over which I think it's safe to say all seven us would agree with you. Indeed, that is the specific problem to which I am alluding in this post. At most, the problems you identify are problems with specific organized religions, but they are not problems with a generalized belief in god. Wicca, for example, would not seem to fall into the traps you identify (yes, I'm aware I'm using as an example a religion that is far from widespread, but that's not really the point). Moreover, there's a chicken or the egg problem here: did religions create the prejudices against women and gays or did they merely enshrine pre-existing prejudices?
In terms of the issue of the "young earth" question, I do not think it remotely disprove the existence of a particular god; instead, it refutes a literal interpretation of a particular story in a particular religious text, a story that several of its largest adherents (eg, most forms of Judaism and Catholicism, to name two) have accepted as being simply metaphorical.
But most important in all of this, to my mind, is that atheist attempts to disprove the existence of God, much like theist attempts to prove the existence of God, are doomed to failure because they attempt to turn something that is inherently unfalsifiable into something that is falsifiable. And, as I said above, this has the effect of science demeaning itself in much the same way as religion demeans itself when it seeks to prove the existence of god in scientific terms.
E.D. : Thanks. And exactly.
James:
Understood, and in that sense I do think that things like the FSM are pretty useful. But there are times - such as PZ Myer's little Communion wafer stunt, for example - where it seems like the New Atheists go beyond merely defending science/reason when faith tries to go stomping on their turf and instead counterattack by getting involved in purely philosophical questions.
Dave and Ryan:
No. Neither I nor, to my knowledge, anyone else has argued that it follows that God exists because it is impossible to prove. Instead, I am merely explaining, as was Chris, I think, that the question of whether or not God exists is the wrong question to ask, and by seeking to answer it through pure reason, science reduces itself. But as importantly, religion reduces itself when it insists on getting involved in inherently scientific debates.
As for whether my reading of that Simpsons episode is self-serving, I think that's a pretty silly assertion since my point is that the episode's entire argument was that 1. religion should stay away from science, and 2. it is utterly worthless to seek to disprove through science that which others take as an article of faith. In other words, it's a pretty even-handed episode.
As for whether this series is condescending....well, that's your prerogative to think so, but methinks you misunderstand the entire purpose of this site.