New at Reason

Tim Cavanaugh | July 21, 2005

Ron Bailey gets a last helping of the Lord at the Creation Mega-Conference.

[By the way, aren't there any creationist ringers out there willing to pop in on the comments? Let's get some (australopithecus) fur flying!]

Comments

|7.21.05 @ 4:59PM|#

Tim-
Sorry, I'm about agnostic about my Creation theology.

|7.21.05 @ 5:01PM|#

the conferees were a bunch of decent people trying to make sense of the world and live good lives. The deeply saddening thing is that these decent people have come to believe they have to reject modern science in order to do so.

Don't you realize that they're just reacting to the decay of modern science? gaius marius will explain this and more!

And then Shannon Love will explain that they're simply rugged anti-authoritarians...who believe in strict and unquestioning adherence to this country's majority religion!

Regarding ID:

I think Gary Gunnels will concur with the assessment that ID is simply Paley's notions regurgitated. I find it interesting that this conference spent so much time bashing ID. Either:

1) They are fratricidal and don't know enough to realize that ID is being used as a wedge to sow doubt about evolution or

2) They know exactly what they're doing, and want to disavow ID to make it look more respectable.

Given that the ID crowd supposedly gets some of its money from the young-earth crowd, I suspect that it's the later. I'm always reluctant to credit people with more deviousness than they really possess, and maybe it will turn out that none of the young earth people bashing ID are connected to the ones funding ID. But I wouldn't rule it out either.

|7.21.05 @ 5:05PM|#

Personally, I don't believe the Bible was meant to be a science textbook. And I think anyone who tries to make it one is an idiot. ;)

|7.21.05 @ 5:07PM|#

Wish I could help Tim, but whereas I do accept the Bible as being the infallible word of God, I do not accept Falwell's interpretation of a six (24 hour period) day creation, nor the idea that the Earth is just six thousand years old.

|7.21.05 @ 5:08PM|#

I am a (fairly) serious Christian who happens to think this whole business on the part of Creationists is silly.

Intelligent Design, Creationism and the other whatsits demonstrate no real understanding of science as I was taught it.

As science is based on observation (one must see it to believe it) and Christianity is based on faith (one must believe it to see it) the two are impossible to combine in the same framework.

I, for one, think that there is something to this evolution thing.

I also think that I.D. might have some merit worth discussing were it not for the fact that it is based entirely on politics.

And I also think that there is a slim and unlikely but nonetheless very real chance that the world/universe/realm were created exactly as laid out in Genesis.

But I also think that none of it has any bearing on my relationship to God.

Jesus makes no demand on my belief in the 6 24-hour days assertion (not hypothesis or theory which are based on demonstrable models and re-creatable observations) as a requirement for salvation.

Jesus does demand a number of other things such as mercy, charity, tolerance, understanding and forgiveness as well as faith. Those ditties seem to be at the bottom of the list for those attending the CMC.

|7.21.05 @ 5:11PM|#

The watchmaker made the watch, but can someone tell me who made the watchmaker?

Why does the complexity of the watch require a watchmaker, but the complexity of the watchmaker doesn't imply a watchmaker maker? Of course, after that, you would need a watchmaker maker maker. Then it's turtles all the way down.

-Mo (proud Deist)

|7.21.05 @ 5:13PM|#

Similar to thoreau's comment, I find it interesting that the ID crowd's claim is something along the lines of "I know science, and THIS ain't no science!" whereas this group engaged in a rather pointed dismissal of the whole scientific method. A Behe disciple will work to convince you that there is something unique to evolution that makes it unscientific, that 'evolutionists' pretend that the scientific method has been followed when really it hasn't. There is respect for the scientific method.

These guys blatantly tossed out hypothesis and test in favor of an assumed conclusion at every turn. The whole process of questioning in a systematic manner was discarded by everyone who said "To begin with, we know it happened in 5 days ..."

Too, I can't believe the capacity for some people to compartmentalize like that. I knew a devout creationist in the undergraduate physics program when I was in college. She liked physics because it was something like a crossword puzzle. She'd say things like 'Oh, this is just games for me. I know that the world really works according to a Plan.' I have never been able to figure that out. How can the success of the method not influence the way you ask all of your questions?

|7.21.05 @ 5:15PM|#

Mo-
Frogwash. It's a flat disc on the backs of four elephants on the back of a really big turtle floating in the void.

|7.21.05 @ 5:23PM|#

"The problem with ID theory, as Purdom sees it, is that it implies that God is the author of evil unless you have Biblical understanding of how evil came into the universe through Adam's fall."

It's like I'm sittin' in that Zoroastrianism: History and Practice class, studyin' the Zurvan heresy all over again!

|7.21.05 @ 5:26PM|#

Mo-

I find that I am leaning toward Deism. Strangely enough, I don't have any problem remaining a Catholic. Catholicism is one of those things where nobody gets up in your face and demands to know what you believe. We're born Catholic and dammit we'll die Catholic, no matter what sort of heresy we pick up along the way!


Jason-

I've met a handful of Bible literalists in physics. One of them is no longer much of a literalist. Studying astrophysics sort of had that effect on him. Another is a professor at a small religious college. And another is wondering why nobody in his lab likes him. (Probably because he broke all the equipment, but that has nothing to do with his religion.)

All I can say is that people are really good at compartmentalizing. It probably helps that many physical scientists look down on biologists anyway. So it's easy to dismiss evolution if you think that the people who came up with it were a bunch of idiots.

I don't fall in that camp.

|7.21.05 @ 5:27PM|#

thoreau,

since it's safe to say that ID is more about faith than science, i think we can just call this another case of contention between similar faiths (ID theorists and strict creationists).

|7.21.05 @ 5:27PM|#

...out of curiosity, did anyone finger the good Mr. Bailey as "the skeptic plant" specifically, and if so, did he catch any static?

|7.21.05 @ 5:27PM|#

"the God with whom I have a personal relationship," insisted Purdom

I smell a scandal.

|7.21.05 @ 5:27PM|#

Gaius, you are clearly not a scientist.

|7.21.05 @ 5:31PM|#

probably helps that many physical scientists look down on biologists

Yeah, I noticed that. When I was in school, the mathematicians, physicists and chemists all looked down on the biology as a "pseudo-science". I never quite got that one, since most of them weren't creationists and modern medicine owes a lot to biology.

|7.21.05 @ 5:32PM|#

Most species do their own evolving, making it up as they go along, which is the way Nature intended. And this is all very natural and organic and in tune with mysterious cycles of the cosmos, which believes that there�s nothing like millions of years of really frustrating trial and error to give a species moral fiber and, in some cases, backbone.
�Terry Pratchett

|7.21.05 @ 5:36PM|#

Why does the complexity of the watch require a watchmaker, but the complexity of the watchmaker doesn't imply a watchmaker maker? Of course, after that, you would need a watchmaker maker maker. Then it's turtles all the way down.

the underlying problem with the whole question is that "complexity" is a relative concept. it's easy to say the watch is complex as compared to the stone you also came across in your path; but it's impossible to say that the universe is, in fact, complex, because we don't have anything but itself to compare it to.

Tim Cavanaugh|7.21.05 @ 5:37PM|#

...out of curiosity, did anyone finger the good Mr. Bailey as "the skeptic plant" specifically, and if so, did he catch any static?

I just asked Ron about that, and he didn't catch any static. People at the conference have been reading Reason's coverage, however, so he's been catching a lot of blessings (of the may-God-bless-you-and-show-you-the-light variety) via email. And you can never have enough blessings...

|7.21.05 @ 5:38PM|#

Ok...so we want to figure out if the biblical creation story or evolution is literally true. After careful examination of the evidence, we find that evolution can not be right because it contradicts the bible, which is literally true.

Question begged. Game, set, and match.

|7.21.05 @ 5:40PM|#

And, since Ron was too nice to say it, I will: these people are idiots who have forfeited their minds to a system of mythology.

|7.21.05 @ 5:41PM|#

Does anyone else get the distinct impression that theists who argue they have a "personal relationship" with God are no better than celebrity stalkers who say nearly identical statements and act very similarly?

It seems to me that one of the hallmarks of having a "personal relationship" is actually having more than one person involved.

|7.21.05 @ 5:44PM|#

i know plenty of creationists who aren't idiots (namely, my family). smart people can believe stupid things, for any number of reasons.

|7.21.05 @ 5:45PM|#

Bleh, that's funny. In a scary kind of way.

So, at what point do the creationist join the Amish, in their own little time capsule?

|7.21.05 @ 5:46PM|#

People at the conference have been reading Reason's coverage

Why won't they comment then? I would honestly like to hear these people defend their views and engage in some genuine debate. Instead, these boards have largely been intellectual circle jerks, with the occasional "These people are wrong, but I admire their gumption."

|7.21.05 @ 5:47PM|#

Zach- Point taken. I hereby revise my statement to be that the beliefs of creationists are idiotic.

|7.21.05 @ 5:49PM|#

KMW,

"So, at what point do the creationist join the Amish, in their own little time capsule?"

You know, that's a really good question. Why don't they?

|7.21.05 @ 5:50PM|#

I'd like to cross reference the comments in threads about how libertarians need to be more pragmatic with the comments in creationist threads denigrating the religious convictions of the American public.

|7.21.05 @ 5:51PM|#

Mo,

While gadflies are always a good thing, I've debated this subject so much in the 1990s I'm kind of tired of the same old posits.

I can pretend to be a creationist if you like. I have all their arguments memorized backwards and forwards. Even have bible quotes.

|7.21.05 @ 5:53PM|#

I understand that Genesis says that the world was created in 6 days, but I thought the definition of a day being 24 hours was the product of later science. Why do these young earth people insist that the "day" of the bible is 24 hours, especially since Genesis specifically reads "God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night." 24 hours generally includes both a day and a night.

|7.21.05 @ 5:55PM|#

I find that I am leaning toward Deism. Strangely enough, I don't have any problem remaining a Catholic. Catholicism is one of those things where nobody gets up in your face and demands to know what you believe.

Except for the in-your-face part, I disagree. Assuming you go to Mass regularly, you are expected to stand and profess the Nicene Creed, which is totally incompatible with deism. If you receive Communion, your Amen signifies that you do believe the wafer in front of you has been made into the Body of Christ.

Of course, don't get me wrong, I know people who've fallen far beyond deism, yet still do these things out of habit rather than faith. But I'd hope that you have more integrity.

|7.21.05 @ 6:02PM|#

Sorry, no defense of creationist here either. But I will say this: I am Catholic, always believed in God, the Big Bang, evolution, etc. For me (raised by heretical Jesuits) there WAS no controversy between faith and science; I even had some Augustinian brothers as science teachers. What I do have is a fondness and feeling of protection for religious people and those who try so hard to hold their faith in today's world. Every single time I read of any of the "religion vs. science" goings-on, I completely root for the science side to win the issue but feel embarrased by and defensive for the religious people. It's like a family member that you know is wrong but you don't want to see make a fool of themselves in public.

|7.21.05 @ 6:05PM|#

creationist --> creationism
(sigh. It looks so illiterate when you typo your fifth word...)

|7.21.05 @ 6:15PM|#

crimethink,

While the mass is tacitly "in your face", I think thoreau is more concerned with actual people being in his face.

Daniel Montiel,

I'm with you on that.

|7.21.05 @ 6:22PM|#

crimethink-

I'm not a full-blown deist, but I have sympathies for the notion. If one could blend the two, that would be me.

As to when I say "Amen" to "the body of Christ": In what sense? To me it's more than symbolism but less than physical. Is that enough?

Shannon Love|7.21.05 @ 6:25PM|#

The funny thing is, if the universe was created as a literal reading of Genesis describes then it would inevitably create a world that looked older than it was. Science would be incapable of ever determining the true age and history of the universe.

As a thought experiment, suppose that a scientist traveled back in time and arrived unknowingly on the eighth day following the divine creation of the universe. What observations could the scientist possibly make that would tell her that eight days previous the universe did not exist? Would she see any organisms more than a few days old? Would she see large trees, adult mammals, evidence of erosion, sedimentary rocks, starlight or any of the thousands of natural states that take more than a few days to arrive at? If she bumped into Adam (with or without a navel) would he be a newborn infant or would he be a full grown adult?

Genesis describes a universe that hit the ground running. It just winked into existence looking as if it had always been there. This presents problems for both creationist and those would try to use science to disprove the existence of god. Creationist are out of luck because all honest measurements of the natural world would present an image of a very old universe. Atheist are out of luck because they have to concede that the picture of a very old universe changing according to natural law could just be an illusion created by divine intervention.

The fundamental problem with the entire creationist/evolution debate is that once you postulate a being whose will alone determines the total rules of reality then any attempt to use those rules to confirm or deny that beings existence is automatically futile. Science operates on the assumption that natural laws are constant in both space and time. If that assumption breaks then so does science.

|7.21.05 @ 6:28PM|#

thoreau,

"Given that the ID crowd supposedly gets some of its money from the young-earth crowd..."

I've always gotten the impression that most serious IDers don't want anything to do with the young-earth folks, and vice-versa. The first group thinks the second will contaminate their "scientific" arguments with too much religion, and the second group thinks the first is only slightly less hell-bound that evolutionists. That's my take, anyway.

|7.21.05 @ 6:30PM|#

Behold the pimple. Is this the work of a sober
deity? I'm an inebriaste, a believer in drunken
design (DD).

|7.21.05 @ 6:31PM|#

Science operates on the assumption that natural laws are constant in both space and time. If that assumption breaks then so does science.

The neat thing about science is that you're sort of wrong there. We only need to assume that "some" of the laws are the same. Hence people can look at distant galaxies and ask whether, say, the speed of light has changed. Of course, they're making some pretty big assumptions there (namely, that enough things remained constant to determine the distance and hence age of the galaxy, despite other changes) but it's still amazing that they can do this.

Also, when radioactive dating first got going, they found that not all of the ages determined for different things by different methods came out the same. That meant that either (1) Radioactive half-lives were NOT the same over time or (2) Other processes were operating, so that some isotopes became more abundant, some samples got an extra infusion of an isotope, etc.

Through a great deal of detective work they eventually deduced that certain samples were exposed to different levels of different isotopes (the short version).

Anyway, the neat thing about science is that if the laws were different in the past, but they didn't change over time in a systematic way that might fool us, then we could detect an inconsistency and realize that the laws changed. Granted, this doesn't apply to EVERY scenario with time-dependent laws, but it applies to some.

Which is pretty impressive, IMHO.

|7.21.05 @ 6:34PM|#

God, I wish Gary G. was here.

Shannon, it's a fairly big non sequitur to make an imaginary scenario, then judge people in the real world based on that.

But hey, the Vatican does it all the time, so blather away.

|7.21.05 @ 6:36PM|#

"probably helps that many physical scientists look down on biologists"

The stupid joke I used to hear was the the physicist says to the chemist, "you're qualitative." The chemist says to the biologist, "you're qualitative." The biologist says to the social scientist, "you're qualitative. The social scientist then beats the fuck out of the physicist, cuz he's pasty-faced pansy.

|7.21.05 @ 6:41PM|#

As to when I say "Amen" to "the body of Christ": In what sense? To me it's more than symbolism but less than physical. Is that enough?

Heretic!

|7.21.05 @ 6:42PM|#

Maybe God's creation days were like in The Jerk. The first day seemed like a week, and the second day seemed like five days, and the third day seemed like a week again, and the fourth day seemed like eight days, and the fifth day you went to see your mother and that seemed just like a day, and then you came back and later on the sixth day, in the evening, when we saw each other, that started seeming like two days, so in the evening it seemed like two days spilling over into the next day and that started seeming like four days, so at the end of the sixth day on into the seventh day, it seemed like a total of five days. And the sixth day seemed like a week and a half. I have it written down, but I can show it to you tomorrow if you want to see it.

|7.21.05 @ 6:43PM|#

"Behe offers examples of several irreducibly complex biological systems such as the biochemistry of sight and the operation of the bacterial flagellum..."

Not sure about the flagellum, but the vertebrate eye, which used to be (and apparently still is...) a popular example of supposed irreducible complexity, has been reduced. Many intermediates have been found in various animals, creating a pretty respectable roadmap outlining the evolution of sight.

And these examples also ignore the possibility that things didn't evolve for their current purpose (the distinction between "adaptation" and "exaptation" that Stephen Jay Gould and Elizabeth Vrba first made). So saying that some intermediate eye wouldn't function in sight, some intermediate flagellum wouldn't function in locomotion, etc. may not be relevant.

|7.21.05 @ 6:46PM|#

"If an ape is in your past, that leads to moral relativism in which morality evolved as way to help us pass along our genes."

What the fuck? Why are these goobers so intent on reading morality into evolution by natural selection? If everyone would just get over that delusion, 90% of the evolution/creation problem would go away (maybe not for the folks at this conference, but for most).

|7.21.05 @ 6:53PM|#

Didn't you get the memo? Morality can only be dictated by a higher power.

|7.21.05 @ 6:53PM|#

J,
Not to mention that the mousetrap example has also been debunked. Plants can "see" light without actually seeing it. Everyone learns this in elementary school science class with the classic "watch the plant gorw towards the light" experiment.

|7.21.05 @ 6:56PM|#

Discussions of evolution (and especially mentions of irreducible complexity) always make me curious as to what scientific knowledge we have as to the origins of life itself. Can anyone give me a link to something with some thoughts on how the first single-celled organism came into existence? Without a prior template (that is, a parent cell), it seems mind-boggling to me that all the various building blocks of a cell might arrange themselves through chance to form something capable of both sustaining itself and reproducing. But then, my mind boggles easily. As I said, I would be glad if anyone could enlighten me on this subject.

|7.21.05 @ 7:01PM|#

Herman:

It's a flat disc on the backs of four elephants on the back of a really big turtle floating in the void.

This is a common cosmological error. In fact it is necessarily THREE elephants; four elephants would introduce instability, which may be acceptable in your typical chair but is plainly untenable on the planetary scale.

Really, the primary interesting question that remains unanswered is: African or Asian?

|7.21.05 @ 7:06PM|#

Essentially, these creationists are largely upset about the rise of metaphysical naturalism (there is nothing suoernatural) when science really only needs methodological naturalism (don't use supernatural explanations because they yield no predictive power). As a scientist who is actually a Christian, I think this is a fair complaint. As a whole, however, they tend not to be sophisticated enough to realize that this is their true objection.

The ID crowd largely realize this, but they reject methodological naturalism by going from Behe's arguments that evolution cannot be random (a reasonable scientific claim that must be evaluated, though Behe's formalism has problems) to the claim that it requires an external creator (which is not a logically valid inference). This is largely why people say that ID is not science. But then again, are unseen scientific concepts like force really natural? What makes them different from a supernatural entity.

I think the primary problem with ID is that it requires an external entity that has a will. A supernatural entity with a will by definition violates the uniformity property of science, which is a logical necessity for it to have any predictive power.

Sam Grove|7.21.05 @ 7:38PM|#

"Behe's arguments that evolution cannot be random"

Variation may be random, but success at survival (over the long run) is not.

|7.21.05 @ 7:40PM|#

AnonCoward - Just search on the web for abiogenesis. I can't say that what you find will unboggle your mind, but many people have put alot of thought into finding the method that life could arise from nonlife spontaneously.

The short version is that there are many steps prior to full blow cells that can self replicate under the right conditions. Also you shouldn't forget that the earth is a really big place, so that any particular protien gets alot of chances at spontaneous creation.

|7.21.05 @ 7:43PM|#

Phil,

I believe there's another more apt term - which Christ himself used to describe these types of folks.

You know...hypocrites.

|7.21.05 @ 7:43PM|#

coward - try this link for a quick example.

|7.21.05 @ 8:08PM|#

An earlier post on this or another thread (couldn't find it in a quick search) reminded me of something I've been stewing about lately. I subscribe to an e-mail list for evolutionary biologists, and there have been many posts over the last few days concerning a recent NYT op-ed by a Catholic cardinal that was critical of evolution. Several list subscribers posted that our knowledge of evolution disproved all these "primitive" religions we see around us, and one posted compared Catholicism to belief in "the existence of invisible, massless, tea-drinking giant pink elephants with i/2 toes on each of their pi/3 feet." Similar comments have been made on various threads here about belief in "desert gods," "sky men," etc.

From a philosophical angle, I can't for the life of me figure out how evolution disproves the existence of a god (although obviously it disproves some beliefs, like the ones espoused at this meeting Ron's been at), or for that matter how it has anything at all to say about the existence of a god.

From a practical angle, the majority of people in this country and around the world subscribe to some form of organized religion. Tell them our science of evolution proves their religion is a fraud (especially if you do it using incredibly condescending Sunday school caricatures about "sky men"), and take a wild guess which one they're going to reject. If one's goal is to promote the acceptance of evolution, or more generally to promote critical thinking and acceptance of scientific principles of knowledge, it's hard to think of a stupider strategy than saying to religious people, "we've proven your god is dead, but that's OK because he was stupid anyway and you're an idiot to believe in him." If one's goal is simply to taunt non-atheists, then, well... one is an asshole.

Sorry for the long, rambling post. It's all out of my system now....

|7.21.05 @ 8:10PM|#

drew,

If that is the case, how come life hasn't arisen spontaneously in the last three billion years? Shouldn't there be competing biomes, some based on carbon, some based on silicon, etc?

|7.21.05 @ 8:22PM|#

I still struggle to reconcile my practicing Christianity with my rational belief in science. As to the creation story in Genesis, it was settled for me 30 years ago, when our student pastor was asked to reconcile creation with evolution. His response was to the effect of, "Is it less of a miracle if the Earth and everything in it was created in six billion years rather than six days?" That has always worked for me.

The moral relativism charges and the "God said it and that settles it" slogans are crutches to be leaned on by folks who don't want to do their own thinking.

|7.21.05 @ 8:24PM|#

anonymous coward,

There's been a lot of work done on "prebiotic evolution." There was a classic experiment by Stanley (I think) showing how biomolecules (nucleic and amino acids) form spontaneously under conditions thought to have existed on earth billions of years ago. Also work on small self-replicating RNA molecules (a lot of models of the origin of life start with RNA, not DNA, and the initial information-carrying replicator), among other things. I don't have any time for more detail or links tonight, but if this thread's still going and I've got time tomorrow (and someone hasn't already done a better job than I could do), I'll try to give more info.

As an interesting side-note, these models of pre-biotic evolution generally wouldn't work under atmospheric conditions we've had for a long time - way too much oxygen in the air these days....

|7.21.05 @ 8:28PM|#

I don't think evolution proves there is no god, but the amalgamation of scientific evidence strongly points me towards there not being a god. I'm not saying that there aren't some 'supernatural' things - a few LSD experiences give you some profound spiritual experiences. But 2 things: 1) what in the hell is 'supernatural' anyway? If it occurs, it's natural. 2) just because my brain thinks it had a spiritual experience after being altered with a certain chemical doesn't make it spiritual. It could simply be my brain reacting with the chemical. Doesn't make it any less profound or spiritual.

See, in the end, I think everything that people have experienced can someday be explained logically. So, in the end, I don't think we'll ever find 'God'. Christ, I've seen something vanish into thin air before my very eyes (and I was sober!) and I've seen UFO's (again, sober!), but I'm sure that those things have rational explanations, they don't cause me to believe in god or even aliens visiting Earth.

crimethink - I think the problem is that carbon more easily can form long, stable chains, whereas that's not so true with silicon.

|7.21.05 @ 8:33PM|#

coward - here's another link that has some interesting info on it.

J - you're talking about Stanley Miller...the link above mentions his experiment.

|7.21.05 @ 8:33PM|#

Creationists are the bastard children of the Enlightment. We either let go of our ancient myths, or find a way to make the ancient myths true.

I let go. My family embraces weird science because they find no comfort from a metaphorical reading of the Bible. The "Word" has been made into an idol which is worshiped. That's the reason Creationists can't accept ID. ID denies the Idol just as much as Evolution does.

Sam Grove|7.21.05 @ 8:39PM|#

Literalist interpretaion of the book is arrogant tribalism, icon worshipping, and denial of the true work of creation.

|7.21.05 @ 8:39PM|#

Once again, Wikipedia has a pretty good treatment of these questions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

|7.21.05 @ 9:04PM|#

It's been over 50 years since Miller's famed experiment, yet no one has taken it farther. The biggest draw back is that both left handed and right handed molecules are created. So far no one has found a natural way for keeping them separated or only generating the left handed amino acids that are used to create life.

And when created in that brown soupy tar inside that big glass bubble the mingled molecules destroy each other like a mad cow protein destroys a brain cell.

Science pretends to know how life can appear spontaneously, but it has shown little and proven nothing in this regard.

|7.21.05 @ 9:08PM|#

It's a flat disc on the backs of four elephants on the back of a really big turtle floating in the void.

Wrong: it's turtles all the way down...

|7.21.05 @ 9:12PM|#

I'm surprised no one has brought up this ancient New Orleans proto-rap classic...

Three monkey sat on a coconut tree
Discussing things has they are said to be
Said one to the other, now listen you two
There is a certain rumour that cant be true
That man descended from our noble race
The very idea is a big disgrace
No monkey ever deserted his wife
Nor her baby and ruin her life
Yeah..the monkey speaks his mind

And you never known a mother monk
To leave her baby causing it to plunk
Nor pass them on one to another
Till they scarcely knew who was their mother
Yeah...the monkey speaks his mind

And another thing you will never see
A monkey build a fence around a coconut tree
And let all the coconuts go to waist
Forbidding all other monkeys to come and taste
Now if I build a fence around this tree
Starvation will cause you to steal from me
Yeah..the monkey speaks his mind

Here is another thing a monkey wont do
Go out at night and get on a stew
Or use a gun a club or a knife
To take another monkey's life

Yes man descended the worthless bum
But my god brothers from us he did not come

Yeah..the monkey speaks his mind

|7.21.05 @ 9:13PM|#

J: ""we've proven your god is dead, but that's OK because he was stupid anyway and you're an idiot to believe in him." If one's goal is simply to taunt non-atheists, then, well... one is an asshole."

1) Evolution doesn't disprove a "god", it just disproves any god that requires a denial of evolution, which apparently is the god these folks believe in.

2) If someone is an idiot, and you tell them they're an idiot, you're not necessarily taunting them - you're just telling them the truth. I suppose you can argue whether that is effective or not, but in any discourse, it seems to me that there comes a time to call the kettle black, even if you're a pot.

|7.21.05 @ 9:38PM|#

Maybe God's creation days were like in The Jerk.

God: [Sobbing] "OK, I've got firmament, and my darkness and light, and my peanut butter, and my remote control... AND THAT'S ALL I NEED! OK, maybe I need the sun..."

|7.21.05 @ 9:55PM|#

Well since we're not going to get any creationists to take the plunge, what I'm just as (actually more) interested in is why so many of you on this thread, who make very sound arguments against creationism/ID, still profess a belief in a supreme being, God, a god, Jesus, a deity, or whatever you want to call it. Please note that I am not saying that any scientific theory has anything to say about the existence of some form of god. But I am seriously interested in what leads so many of you to claim to believe, many of you through participation in organized religions, in a god, when as far as I can tell there is not a shred of evidence for this conclusion. Don't get me wrong as I don't mean this in a snide way at all; I am genuinely curious what leads intelligent, well educated individuals who have clearly given it some thought, to come down on the side of a belief in god. And I don't mean those of you that feel there could be a god - what I am interested in is those of you professing a positive conclusion as to god's exisitence. Simply put: Why?

|7.21.05 @ 10:56PM|#

why so many of you on this thread, who make very sound arguments against creationism/ID, still profess a belief in a supreme being, God, a god, Jesus, a deity, or whatever you want to call it.

I could give all sorts of eloquent justifications. But, in the end, it's because I have a nagging suspicion that there are more things in heaven and earth than are contained in natural philosophy.

And yes, I'm copying that statement from joe.

|7.21.05 @ 11:10PM|#

thoreau,

But surely you have many nagging suspicions in life, and you probably leave it at that - e.g. maybe such and such is going on here... Yet in the realm of religion you are willing to let a nagging suspicion lead to an affirmative belief in a particular deity? It seems that for a far more extraordinary claim you are willing to accept what appears to me to be a far lower burden of proof. I don't mean to put words in your mouth, by the way, so if I misstate your view, I apologize. Just trying to understand.

|7.21.05 @ 11:25PM|#

Tim, there are far too many widely varying comments here for any creationist to address without simply referring to the myriad of articles about such matters already on Answers In Genesis' website. People should really read some of the articles for first-time visitors to their site.

If anyone has a specific question and they don't know AiG's website well, please ask me at my e-mail above, and I'll try to point you to a relevant article on their site.

Sam Grove|7.21.05 @ 11:31PM|#

I believe in THIS god, I don't believe in THAT god.
God is the order of reality.

|7.21.05 @ 11:34PM|#

Brian, it's not something I know how to explain. I just do. I wish I could give a better answer. I really do.

|7.21.05 @ 11:43PM|#

Keep in mind that I recognize some of the problems with my stance, so I use faith to inform my stances and decisions, but not as the sole basis.

|7.21.05 @ 11:44PM|#

Brian Courts,

What a wonderful question.

My brother is an agnostic. When talking with me about faith he once said, "I believe there's something there because no matter how you look at it good is better than bad, death is better than life and light is better than dark. Someone has to be setting that direction for things."

I could tell you all of the good things I get from my faith and the community in which I share it, but that would only explain why I choose to practice my faith, not why I believe it.

Descarte's rationale was as good as any, I suppose, but I will say that a college physics course strengthened my belief in a creator/higher power.

At some point I saw enough indicators that I came to believe in a higher power. Christianity felt right and since becoming more active, I see a thread of purpose in my life.

As Christians go I'm a fairly libertine practitioner so I don't get all twitchy about these kinds of issues.

I try to keep it simple and down to earth and I don't let my faith become an excuse to act like an ill-mannered twit. Getting militant about creationism vs evolution is way down on my list of priorities for living a truly Christian life.

I hope that gives some insight.

|7.21.05 @ 11:47PM|#

Brian, the above offer goes for you also.

Sam Grove|7.21.05 @ 11:52PM|#

All of which informs me that people believe in "the diety" for their own reasons and not because any evidence which leads them there.

People believe because it solves some problem in their mind, it gives them ease, it gives them comfort, it gives them purpose, or a reason for being. Basically, people believe because it satisfies some selfish purpose.

Whatever is, is. Whatever is, is what it is.

Once they reach the conclusion and the certainty, the search is over and the truth of the matter will not be found.

|7.22.05 @ 12:03AM|#

It seems that for a far more extraordinary claim you are willing to accept what appears to me to be a far lower burden of proof.

Again, a very good statement.

A simple answer would be, "what proof do you require?"

This is, after all, faith we're talking about. Faith, almost by definition, is practiced in the absence of proof.

Many of the issues discussed on this thread are distinctly scientific but the core drivers of any belief system involve attempts to explain and understand what we don't know or can't explain.

Some sci fi auther once said, 'any sufficiently developed technology will inevitably appear to an underdeveloped society, to be magic.'

We are developed and we know a lot these days except for a few major ones...Why are we here and what happens to us when we die? Who makes the watch and who makes the watch maker?

The current purely scientific explanations don't offer a great deal of insight...or comfort and probably isn't likely to anytime soon. In looking for those answers, I found faith.

|7.22.05 @ 12:22AM|#

"I believe there's something there because no matter how you look at it good is better than bad, death is better than life and light is better than dark. Someone has to be setting that direction for things."

It seems to me that these are all perceptions. It seems like there are perfectly reasonable natural, material reasons why we would perceive these things as a result of our genes and our environment.

|7.22.05 @ 12:37AM|#

thoreau and madpad,

Thanks for your responses. I know it's late (certainly for you thoreau since I know you're back in the DC area now which I have some familiarity with having lived there for a few years myself - have you been to Capitol City Brewing? Irish Times? Dubliner? Hawk n Dove? Had more than a few good beers there... but I am straying here...) and there will likely be some more tomorrow. But for now, I appreciate your taking the time to explain what informs and motivates your beliefs. I really asked out of curiosity about the thinking of those that come to a different conclusion than I do and I think your two examples provide some insight into that. In the end I think perhaps there is no explanation that I am going to truly understand, but madpad's point that Faith, almost by definition, is practiced in the absence of proof. is probably a fair enough assessment of the situation.

And Greg, I appreciate the sincerity of your offer but I'm more interested in the personal feelings and thoughts of individuals in a more give-and-take environment, like this forum, if you will. That is not to say I'm not interested in your thoughts on the issue. Quite the contrary; please feel free to add to the discussion.

|7.22.05 @ 12:58AM|#

I should point out that on the face of it, I'm a lousy example of a Christian. I'm foul-mouthed, needlessly verbose, occassionally hot-headed and on a previous thread expressed glee when Mike H. raised the prospect of Jerry Falwell getting kicked in the nuts.

But I am working on that. All the best, Brian.

|7.22.05 @ 1:32AM|#

I should point out that on the face of it, I'm a lousy example of a Christian. I'm foul-mouthed, needlessly verbose, occassionally hot-headed...

Heh. Well madpad, if being a good Christian means giving up all that, all I can say is, thank God I'm an atheist ;)~

...and on a previous thread expressed glee when Mike H. raised the prospect of Jerry Falwell getting kicked in the nuts.

Oh yeah, wasn't that the thread where you were trying to suck-up to Jennifer to make up for calling her a liberal? Heh heh :)

Regards, madpad.

|7.22.05 @ 1:41AM|#

There is a great article hear

http://www.techcentralstation.com/072205B.html

It gives a fairly simple argument that can counter any accusation of a short coming in evolutionary theory made by a creationist or an IDer.

|7.22.05 @ 1:56AM|#

Brian,

Well...there's sucking up and then there'e SUCKING UP (whatever the heck THAT means).

To be specific, jennifer was nowhere to be found on that one, I think. So technically I was 'sucking up' to everyone ELSE for calling jennifer a liberal.

As for my 'I'm a lousy example' confession...to put it in the proper perspective, I'll take MY poor example over the example proferred by Falwell, Purdom and their ilke(sp?) any and every day of the week.

Fortunately (IMHO) being a good Christian doesn't mean giving up all of those character traits I listed. But being a good example of a Christian (in many people's book anyway) just might.

So it's not that I'm a bad Christian, I just wouldn't make a good poster child.

|7.22.05 @ 1:57AM|#

Kebko,

There are certainly religions that deny the fact of natural evolution, and I don't have much respect for that position. But atheist evolutionists often claim that evolution disproves the existence of any god(s). In this case, I think an atheist evolutionist calling religious people idiots is not effective or accurate because 1) the vast majority of people ambivalent about or opposed to evolution are religious, and 2) evolution says absolutely _nothing_ about the existence of any god(s), except for god(s) that aren't consistent with evolution.

|7.22.05 @ 2:10AM|#

Brian,
thoreau (or rather joe) summed it up pretty well. But a way to explain it in a physical sense is that sometime and somewhere out there there's some sort of anti-thermodynamic force (by this I mean something that can disobey the Laws of Thermodynamics and create matter, energy and reverse entropy), I just happen to call it God. I don't understand it's nature or why it's there, but it has to exist. I don't know if it intervenes, thinks, rewards or cares (I'd like to think it does), but it's out there.

|7.22.05 @ 8:02AM|#

Until you can detect a God(s) eithering having worked in the universe or working there, there is no reason to believe in God(s).

madpad, etc.,

You're Christians because you grew up in a Christian society, etc. If you'd been born in Saudi Arabia you'd be a Muslim, and if you'd been born in India you'd be a Hindu, or a Sihk, or a Muslim, etc. depending on the area you were born in.

|7.22.05 @ 8:05AM|#

Its pretty convenient that religionists claim that their God(s) exist, but at the same time they claim that they can't be detected. Sounds like a self-reinforcing delusion to me.

|7.22.05 @ 8:18AM|#

Mo-

Steven Hawking, no theist himself (as far as I know) once said that you could pose the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" and then define God to be whatever the answer is.

And yes, I know, others could point out that (1) not every question has an answer and (2) defining an answer doesn't get you very far.


Hakluyt-

Your point about being born in the US is a fair one. That is why I started off as a Christian. Why I remain one after becoming scientifically literate is a personal matter.

|7.22.05 @ 8:21AM|#

How do you then explain people raised jewish or muslim that become Christians, People raised Christian who become muslims or Buddhist. Atheists who become some such and some other...you see where I'm going with this, right?

I'll make some corrections to your assertions, which are very well-reasoned.

First, the Universe - in it's beauty, complexity and (yes) order suggest to me the presence of God.

Second, there may be no rational reason to believe in God, but faith is not a rational expression.

I acknowledge that I may be wrong, but as long as I'm not hurting you, what's the big deal?

Many people believe thay can lose weigh by buying a pill on t.v. There's no reason to believe (rationale or otherwise) that it will work. But they buy them anyway.

Many people believe what politicians promise every few years. There's is ample historical evidence that they are almost always lying, but people belive it anyway.

Most people believe their kids are wonderful and worthy of their love when they are in fact often obnoxious, selfish brats (except mine of course) but something keeps us from drowning them at the first sign of trouble.

One of the most powerful forces in the world - if not the universe - is the power of what people believe - usually in spite of any rational evidence to support it.

|7.22.05 @ 8:23AM|#

thoreau,

Better watch out or they will get inquisitorial on your ass and "auto de fe" you. Or maybe they will drown you and then mutilate your body (a common practice used by the Catholic laity against Protestants, spirituali, Erasmians, etc. in the 16th century).

|7.22.05 @ 8:26AM|#

Here's a delightful passage from Wikipedia about Robert A Heinlein...

"In his book To Sail Beyond the Sunset, Heinlein has the main character, Maureen, state that the purpose of metaphysics is to ask questions: Why are we here? Where are we going after we die? (and so on), and that you are not allowed to answer the questions. Asking the questions is the point for metaphysics, but answering them is not, because once you answer them, you cross the line into religion."

I don't know it's relevance but I thought it would add something to the conversation.

|7.22.05 @ 8:29AM|#

thoreau,

I've always thought all my comments were fair. :)

madpad,

Religious belief is pretty rigid cross-generationally. Indeed, it tends to take great tumults like the Reformation, etc. for most people to be stirred from their religious belief.

First, the Universe - in it's beauty, complexity and (yes) order suggest to me the presence of God.

This is considered "general revelation" by Christians. I've never bought. Beauty, complexity or order don't require a God.

You should go mountain climbing with me sometime; what you'll find is rock and ice and your friends - despite what Moses might say, there are no Gods up on those high peaks. :)

|7.22.05 @ 8:31AM|#

Mo-

I made this point in the previous creationism thread, but I'll say it again here since you're here:

gaius marius claimed that the heyday of science was in the 16th and 17th centuries, since science as we know it today (supposedly) started back then. (Not to mention that it was practiced mostly by an aristocratic elite.)

By that measure, you should claim that the heyday of computing was in ancient Egypt when the abacus was invented. Your ancestors got the ball rolling, and everything since then has just been part of computing's decadent populist decline!

|7.22.05 @ 8:36AM|#

thoreau,

Its not really a personal matter if you discuss it here on this blog.

madpad,

Why do I care? Its a fair question. I care because as an atheist I have to care; that is for my future physical safety. It would be nice if religionists did practice what many claim that they now preach, tolerance, etc., but I am well aware that many religionists wouldn't mind seeing me (not me individually, just because I am an atheist) dead. Have a conversation with some Calvinist-theonomists sometime and you'll see what I mean.

|7.22.05 @ 8:42AM|#

Why do I care? Its a fair question. I care because as an atheist I have to care; that is for my future physical safety.

I know that religion frequently spawns violence. But if you regard the situation with atheism and religion as a zero-sum one (you're safety is contingent on there being fewer theists), well, I don't see how that attitude will further the cause of peaceful co-existence.

|7.22.05 @ 8:44AM|#

thoreau,

No, you've got me all wrong. My safety is contingent on fewer theists, its contingent on eternal vigilence concerning the actions of theists.

|7.22.05 @ 8:45AM|#

This is considered "general revelation" by Christians. I've never bought. Beauty, complexity or order don't require a God.

As a strictly logical argument, you're correct. But my own personal attempt to explain and understand that beauty, complexity and order leads me to believe that God exists and at least has a hand in the creation of it all.

Were you and I to go climbing, I'm sure we would both have a great time. Rock, ice and friendship would certainly be discovered. No doubt the view would be extraordinary. And I would probably see God's handiwork in it all.

|7.22.05 @ 8:45AM|#

...isn't contingent on fewer theists...

|7.22.05 @ 8:46AM|#

Hakluyt-

I misunderstood. I thought your comment about physical safety was in response to madpad's question:

I acknowledge that I may be wrong, but as long as I'm not hurting you, what's the big deal?

|7.22.05 @ 8:48AM|#

madpad,

Anyway, while I respect your right to be a theist and I am sure that you are similarly tolerant, I remain wary of theists in general.

|7.22.05 @ 8:50AM|#

thoreau,

Yeah, I can see how you came to that conclusion.

|7.22.05 @ 8:51AM|#

I have to care; that is for my future physical safety.

Hakluyt,

You'd be surprised how much I agree with you on this one.

See, as Christian's go, I'm more of the humble variety. I'd probably make a good Jesuit or Augustinian were a Catholic.

One reason why I am uncomfortable with most of the actions of the religious right is that under their version of a "Christian Nation" I would certainly hear, "We know you're a Christian...but you're not OUR kind of Christian."

It amazes me how many of my fellow Christians just don't get that.

|7.22.05 @ 8:57AM|#

For the record...most of the realy vocal "religionists" (I love that word, Hakluyt) aren't even making a pretense at tolerance.

The most vocal about tolerance these days are the non-militant muslims and it's probably because they're terrified.

|7.22.05 @ 9:01AM|#

The most vocal about tolerance these days are the non-militant muslims and it's probably because they're terrified.

They do have the most to lose in all this: On the one side they are the ones most likely to be victims of any backlash, profiling, civil liberties violations, etc.

On the other side, the terrorists could always decide that non-militant Muslims are apostates and launch their next big attack against a Muslim neighborhood in the US.

|7.22.05 @ 9:09AM|#

thoreau,

The Daily Show was pretty cool with Fareed Zakaria last night.

They were talking about how moderate Muslims seem to be beginning to take a stand against militant Islam.

I think they're starting to realize that they're little safer than the average gringo as the militants are concerned.

'bout damn time...

|7.22.05 @ 9:41AM|#

why so many of you on this thread, who make very sound arguments against creationism/ID, still profess a belief in a supreme being, God, a god, Jesus, a deity, or whatever you want to call it.

I still haven't quite rectified what gives my collection of organic tissue conciousness. Why does my complex biological architect also come with a soul or spirit but not my computer or automobile? I have an inclination that upon the very second of my death, it will be rectified. Subsequently, I probably won't even care at that point as I have found true enlightenment.

|7.22.05 @ 9:51AM|#

Just as a side note, on thoreau's personal struggles with religion, I can sympathize. I am a fairly Russellian agnostic in that I don't feel that I can answer certain questions with any more confidence than I could give directions to a deli in Shanghai. I just need more information.

My wife, on the other hand, has a significant personal belief in a single god. One of those things we had to work through back in the day was, 'Well, honey, I guess before we get really going here, you are going to have to figure out some way that I'm not going to hell.' We talk openly about it, and she is aware of my position and how I arrived at it. She acknowledges that she is applying a different epistemology than she otherwise would apply to only those certain questions, but that doesn't seem to change the result much. What I've noticed in discussing it with her over the years is that she is wary of organized religion and has come to believe that certain wants that major religions attribute to the creator are highly unlikely. It seems unlikely to her, for example, that a loving god would give us the capacity to ask questions then punish us for eternity for doing so. Religion has evolved to clunkily convey a vision of the Good Person that god intended us to be, and formal religion kind of went awry when it began to focus too much on the historical specifics of your belief system. To her, if you live as a good person, you've done what you were supposed to do. How you get there is your own concern, and each person's interaction with god is different. In that sense, her version of theism is little different from non theistic philosophizing about ethics, with that one additional quirk.

|7.22.05 @ 9:55AM|#

Asking the questions is the point for metaphysics, but answering them is not, because once you answer them, you cross the line into religion.

Interesting quote, Madpad. My take is that I have no problem with those who ask the questions, no problem even with those who think they have answers, but I am scared of those who are sure they have answers.

|7.22.05 @ 10:18AM|#

Creationism...evolution...

What's the point of having a belief if its greatest effect on your life is making you pissed off that other people don't believe the same thing?

|7.22.05 @ 10:20AM|#

I, too, think Mr. Baily should get combat pay for this assignment.

It reminds me of the DA conference in "Fear and Loathing". I wonder if Mr. Baily had any assistance from little helpers.. I sure hope so. :)

|7.22.05 @ 10:21AM|#

"Bailey".. sorry

|7.22.05 @ 10:24AM|#

This discussion reminds me of the time that my sister began telling me that the bible was the literal truth. My response was that "truth" was just a compliment that one pays to a set of sentences that happen to be working for you. The look on her face was just too priceless.

I was raised in a religious void. Both my brother and sister ended up going through extrememly religious phases. Obviously, my sister remains stuck in that rut. My brother, on the other hand, has completely denounced christianity to the point where I seem fairly tolerant in comparison. For me, spirituality lay in the willingness to relinquish control, practice some humility and take some direction in my life. This has enriched my life substantially and a rigid deity-based belief system has never been a prerequisite for the experience.

|7.22.05 @ 10:54AM|#

Interestingly enough, in their own way David and Russ D just summed it all up for me.

I am keenly aware that a great deal of horror has been visited on people in the name of religion. From the 4th to the 18th centuries is of particular note as concerns Christianity.

Even today, a lot of very bad things are done in the name of Christ.

I won't try to defend any of it. But I will say that it's proably more due to the institutionalization (is that a word?) of Christianity rather than the honest and sincre practice of it.

Those horrifying actions shouldn't get in the way of the fact that a lot of extraordinary things have also been done and written in the name of Christ (or simply God, if you will).

This is why, even as a Christian, I'm suspicious of otherwise mean-spririted, antagonistic people justifying their actions as "Christian".

Mike H.|7.22.05 @ 11:01AM|#

In lieu of posting an original comment, I'm just going to say that I was born a Catholic and that I agree completely with everything thoreau has posted thus far. Good show, Deist/Catholic guy! :)

Sam Grove|7.22.05 @ 11:27AM|#

I forgot those who believe because they fear the end of their existance. The church has frequently endeavored to get people to exhibit "altruistic" behavior by promising to perpetuate their existance.

Priesthoods; burn in hell.

Sam Grove|7.22.05 @ 11:43AM|#

I have faith in my rational faculty.

|7.22.05 @ 11:57AM|#

by this I mean something that can disobey the Laws of Thermodynamics and create matter, energy and reverse entropy... but it has to exist.

Mo, an interesting approach, and a somewhat different take on a god. But why do you think this has to be the case? I'm not saying it couldn't be, but I don't see why you claim it has to be.

|7.22.05 @ 12:20PM|#

How would a creationist approach the subject of parallel universes? Just curious.

|7.22.05 @ 12:47PM|#

SPD,

Not mentioned in the bible so they don't exist. I don't think that they'd like the implications of the Monitor and Anti-Monitor anyway:)

|7.22.05 @ 1:59PM|#

Can I just point out one thing in response to the content of R.Bs report:
Neandethals are not ancestors of modern humans.

And one thing is response to Shannon:
R.B. Covered the old versus young Earth debate in his first report. The example used was of a supernova that appears to be 17,000 years old. Effectively meaning that God would have to be projecting a movie of something that never happened down to earth. Do you believe in a God that would set such a trap for those that try to observe nature?

|7.22.05 @ 2:35PM|#

There's a very simple reason why I made movies in the skies depicting events that never actually happened. As I dictated to Moses:

And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed (Genesis 1:12).

Some things just make more sense when you're high.

|7.22.05 @ 2:55PM|#

Count me among the Christians who believe in science and have a healthy distaste for the blind certainty of both rabid creationists and rabid atheists.

why so many of you on this thread, who make very sound arguments against creationism/ID, still profess a belief in a supreme being, God, a god, Jesus, a deity, or whatever you want to call it.

I like what others have said upthread. But let me try another approach.

Occam's Razor is often brought out by atheists to ask why one needs God to explain an otherwise rational appearing reality. Yet when you apply Occam ruthlessly, you would come to the conclusion that the most likely reality is one where you are alone in the universe and some unseen process is stuffing perceptions into your mind: there is nothing but your mind, your perceptions, and whatever is behind those perceptions. Surely, compared to that, the notion that there is a 13 billion year old universe full of matter, energy, delicately balanced natural laws, and other living beings like you is a fantastical concept, ridiculously more complex and thus being cut out by Occam's Razor.

While an unbiased observer would find the former notion of reality orders of magnitude more likely, I am biased by wanting to live in an interesting universe -- one in which I can use my faculties to behave in a rational or meaningful way.

The next question is, Is there a God behind this universe? Again, it is much more interesting, rational, and meaningful for there to be. The incredible complexity and balance that science keeps finding in the universe only supports that notion, the anthropic principle notwithstanding. But in the end, as has been mentioned, it falls back to faith. I believe the universe is rational because it is supposed to be rational, and I believe in a God who does not arbitrarily deliver irrationality into it. This does not conflict with empiricism, the scientific method, and the science we know. But it does require believing in the unprovable.

Those who believe that science proves there is no God are making arguments that are more ludicrous than those on the other extreme who believe that the book of Genesis trumps science. At least the latter group states a belief in arbitrary violation of the natural based on interpretation of the supernatural. The former group must violate their very own assumptions in believing something is certain without positive evidence.

|7.22.05 @ 3:36PM|#

Brian Courts:

"I am genuinely curious what leads intelligent, well educated individuals who have clearly given it some thought, to come down on the side of a belief in god"

You answered your own question: curiosity itself is what leads intelligent, well educated individuals to come down on the side of belief in god.

Curiosity in the truth of things that lie beyond our apprehension, which can only be reached with a different form of consciousness. Mythos and Logos both have their respective uses to the mature mind.

If you are truly curious, i'd probably recommend digesting some of the work of joseph cambell, watch the movie baraka, etc... to give yourself a sense of the breadth and depth and value of religion in human life... then maybe actually go witness some rituals, and try to allow yourself to submit to the idea of them. Sometimes the effect can rub off... you might 'get' it.

All religion, i think, is really just a conscious expression of humility in the face of the eternal.

D

|7.22.05 @ 3:46PM|#

Sam Grove:

"Basically, people believe because it satisfies some selfish purpose."

Tell me what you know about egalitarian purposes.

OG

|7.22.05 @ 4:12PM|#

Curiosity in the truth of things that lie beyond our apprehension, which can only be reached with a different form of consciousness.

I would disagree. I think perhaps it makes you feel like you have some comprehension of the ultimate questions, but I don't see how it leads to any real understanding of anything. I mean, what understanding of that which we do know about the universe (small as that knowledge is, I certainly admit) was ever achieved by religion or a belief in god in the past? We know things now that would shock and amaze the most curious religious mind of only a century or two ago. Their curiosity, while admirable, was directed in ways that were never going to lead to any deeper understanding of the "truths" of our universe.

There is a tendency to despair at the realization that science cannot provide the ultimate answers and that despair leads many to seek solace in religion I suppose. I have just accepted that science cannot answer everything, but it's our only real hope of at least pushing back the boundaries of the unknown. To say that religion can lead to "truths beyond our apprehension" doesn't really answer anything. If it is indeed beyond our apprehension, then your assertion that it is a truth at all is really just a guess, at best. Some of that which is beyond our apprehension today will be brought within by science and some will forever remain without. But I would be very surprised if religion played any role in that expansion of our understanding beyond offering comfort.

At any rate thanks for sharing your take on it, except for the implication that if only I were a little more curious I would "get it" too. I was simply interested in why people see the world the way they do, certainly not trying to imply that if only they were sufficiently thoughtful they'd think like me, or "get it" as you say.

Sam Grove|7.22.05 @ 4:20PM|#

OG
What/whose egalitarian purposes?

gaius marius|7.22.05 @ 5:01PM|#

Their curiosity, while admirable, was directed in ways that were never going to lead to any deeper understanding of the "truths" of our universe.

i'd like to know what you believe those truths would look like, mr courts.

i think that the knowledge that religion is intended to reveal is not subject to the severe limitations placed on science of rigor and experiment -- but that does not make it less valid or valuable.

we can build a semiconductor. great. what of happiness? or is happiness merely an economic condition, quantifiable and measurable? ;)

science has done wonderful things for man -- or rather, man has done wonderful things with science. but what point is there in refusing to acknowledge the method's obvious and severe limitations? and the finitude of what can be learned from it in a complex universe that defies observation and experiment so completely and ingeniously?

it is sad, i think, that the method has now rather exceeded in our societal eye what it should reasonably be seen as and become invested with something more than it should -- resulting in a sort of cult, analogous to the cult of nationalism, a belief in science as the highest form of human activity. how pathetic a limitation that is on human capacity! -- to believe that wisdom is limited to what one can induce by enumeration is one of the least valuable definitions of wisdom which i can imagine. and yet it has become the predominant one.

anyway, this has little if anything to do with creationism, but i can't help but read between the lines of many comments here.

|7.22.05 @ 5:20PM|#

Well Mr marius,

I was referring to "truths" (a term I used only to because of the post I was responding to) about how the universe behaves and what we can know about that by observing. Anything else is really just guessing. If you believe there are objective truths in the universe (and who knows, maybe there are none) then religion offers nothing to expand our understanding of what those truths may be. I'd love to hear an example if you disagree. If your concern is happiness (which is a worthy concern of course) then perhaps religion helps, which I what I meant by "offering comfort."

but what point is there in refusing to acknowledge the method's obvious and severe limitations?

Um didn't I say that I accept that there are things science can never answer? But neither can religion except, again, to offer guesses. That is hardly refusing to acknowledge limitations, and at any rate you offer nothing to get around those limitations.

resulting in a sort of cult, analogous to the cult of nationalism, a belief in science as the highest form of human activity. how pathetic a limitation that is on human capacity!

I wouldn't say that. I think science is the only way of expanding the boundary of what we know about our world. However, there are many other forms of human activity that are worthwhile.

gaius marius|7.22.05 @ 5:24PM|#

do you really think there is no understanding to be gained in philosophy or religion, mr courts? that science is the only way of expanding the boundary of what we know about our world?

and do you think that what we can learn about the universe in science is unlimited? or is it constrained to only a small part of all that there is?

gaius marius|7.22.05 @ 5:25PM|#

and do you think that what we can learn about the universe in science is unlimited? or is it constrained to only a small part of all that there is?

ah, scratch that bit -- i see you answered in the negative.

|7.22.05 @ 5:27PM|#

ah, scratch that bit -- i see you answered in the negative.

Twice. :)

gaius marius|7.22.05 @ 5:28PM|#

I accept that there are things science can never answer

then we can agree, mr courts, that what can be learned by the use of scientific method is severely bounded to that which can be both observed and experimented upon?

gaius marius|7.22.05 @ 5:31PM|#

and not only experimented upon, but that which can be made to produce repeatable results?

|7.22.05 @ 5:31PM|#

then we can agree, mr courts, that what can be learned by the use of scientific method is severely bounded to that which can be both observed and experimented upon?

Well, yes, though I would be more inclined to go with "observed" without the qualification of experiment. A lot has been learned from cosmology without being able to experiment on galaxies, for example.

gaius marius|7.22.05 @ 5:35PM|#

but observation and hypothesis, we can agree, is not science but philosophy. indeed, experiment plays a critical role in delineating science from, say, religion.

this is critical, imo. repeated observations and a hypothesis made to fit them is NOT science.

gaius marius|7.22.05 @ 5:42PM|#

i can, for example, whip up a hypothesis backtested to fit the whole of the minute-to-minute stock market sample back to 1900 with very high profitability -- and show it to be absolutely worthless in predicting the future movements of the market experimentally.

|7.22.05 @ 5:48PM|#

but observation and hypothesis, we can agree, is not science but philosophy.

Well, I've mentioned on here before that any theory you weave to explain observations isn't worth much without making some non-trivial predictions that can, in principal at least, be tested. But that prediction may be about a future observation. Take orbital mechanics and the reappearance of a comet, for example.

experiment plays a critical role in delineating science from, say, religion.

I think you're overstating the case here. I don't think you need experiment to have a very clear delineation from religion. Now, as I say above, explaining observations without a theory that makes some testable predictions I'll grant is not much removed from religion.

jadagul|7.22.05 @ 5:52PM|#

On the other hand, if you create a hypothesis with a very strong predictive ability, and it predicts future observations, but it's a hypothesis on which you're unable to experiment, would that not be science? That, I think, is the point of the cosmology (and astronomy) example: we can make hypotheses with strong predicitve value, but we can't do experiments.

|7.22.05 @ 6:25PM|#

Brian Courts:

"I think perhaps it makes you feel like you have some comprehension of the ultimate questions, but I don't see how it leads to any real understanding of anything."

Fair enough - and sorry for the tone, if that provoked a testy feeling. i wasnt suggesting there was anything to 'get', in terms of one's rational ability or whatever. I dont think those possessed with a religious inclination have anything that others dont.

There is basically a confusion about Mythos and Logos here.

[I'm totally stealing this line from Karen Armstrong, who is an excellent writer on religion in general]:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0345384563/reasonmagazineA/

http://www.springharborpress.com/battle_for_god.htm

"Real understanding" is a weird question. I'm not sure how much my 'understanding' of a lot of temporal things, social inventions, our decriptions of the forces of nature (e.g. gravity) are any more 'real'...i mean, obviously, science has it's way of answering things. But it doesnt answer all human questions. All of art is, i think, an expression of people's need for some kind of non-rational 'meaning'. And i dont think the only outcome is 'comfort'. Far from it.

Basically, i dont think human beings can be truly Nihilistic, because there is always an engagement with some 'faith' in something that is, by definition, incomplete. Religion is no more complete, but it uses mythos to provide some 'analogues' of truths.

Ritual, meditation have their value. Do they 'answer questions'? maybe. But it's really the act that provides the value. And it isnt always simply some 'logic-evading comfort' that is the end result. I recommend reading Hero With a Thousand Faces (Campbell) and History of God (armstrong) for more clarifying thoughts on the matter.

Is faith in "self-evident truths", like liberty, simply a comforting myth? :)

D

gaius marius|7.22.05 @ 6:25PM|#

I don't think you need experiment to have a very clear delineation from religion.

well, to be truthful, mr courts, while you're right about religion, i think you do have to have experiment to delineate science from philosophy.

and it begs the question then: what science is there in the astrophysics of m-theory? or global climatology? in encountering complex (indeed barely observable) systems which cannot be reproduced experimentally, of what use is science in making predicitons?

gaius marius|7.22.05 @ 6:34PM|#

That, I think, is the point of the cosmology (and astronomy) example: we can make hypotheses with strong predicitve value, but we can't do experiments.

does cosmology have strong predictive value? or do we simply revise the theory to fit observations as they arise, without really having any non-illusory predictive power?

|7.22.05 @ 6:53PM|#

gaius wrote:

"does cosmology have strong predictive value? or do we simply revise the theory to fit observations as they arise, without really having any non-illusory predictive power?"

you are confusing the term theory with the term hypothesis, and misunderstanding the fundamental nature of science. hypotheses are proposed based on observations. they are tested by further observation. the best tests involve experimentation, but that is often not possible. if the hypothesis being tested does not fit the further observations it is discarded in favor of a hypothesis that better fits the observations, or revised & refined to fit the observations available. cosmology is perfectly capable of making predictions (hypotheses, in other words) that can be tested by further observations, although experimentation is often not possible.

|7.22.05 @ 8:55PM|#

MikeP: "The next question is, Is there a God behind this universe? Again, it is much more interesting, rational, and meaningful for there to be."

The problem I see cropping up a lot is that there is an argument over the large picture, largely semantic, question of whether there is a god, and just about everybody can more or less agree at some point that we can call the creator or the unknowable "god". Then we just jump straight to the assumption that this god was the author of the Bible & is accurately portrayed by the Christian tradition. This is a huge assumption. While you don't make it explicitly here, the use of "God", capitalized, suggests it. Maybe the mystery is made up of many gods.
I'm not sure how adding a "God" into the conversation makes anything more interesting. The mystery is still there.

Gaius: "to believe that wisdom is limited to what one can induce by enumeration is one of the least valuable definitions of wisdom which i can imagine."

I don't see how eschewing superstitions limits our wisdom to what one can induce by enumeration. Can't we appreciate life's mysteries without believing nonsense? It seems to me that religion is, by definition, the act of engaging life's mysteries. The problem is that the concept of religion keeps getting hijacked by "believers".

Or, to put it another way, science is about truth, and religion is about comfort.
If something is truthful but not comforting, it will be considered science. If something is comforting but not verifiably truthful, it will be considered religious.
The problem is that for religion to be comforting, the believer has to believe that it is also true, so that whenever a concept is comforting and can also be averred as truth, it can be claimed by religion, and in this way, religion keeps muscling in on truth (and science), when, at its essence, it isn't about truth at all, but only uses truth to further its true purpose of comfort.

gaius marius|7.25.05 @ 12:12PM|#

you are confusing the term theory with the term hypothesis, and misunderstanding the fundamental nature of science. hypotheses are proposed based on observations. they are tested by further observation. the best tests involve experimentation, but that is often not possible. if the hypothesis being tested does not fit the further observations it is discarded in favor of a hypothesis that better fits the observations, or revised & refined to fit the observations available. cosmology is perfectly capable of making predictions (hypotheses, in other words) that can be tested by further observations, although experimentation is often not possible.

i'm not misunderstanding that, mr biologist. i'm asking -- regardless of what we want to think science is -- is that science? just an endless iterative cycle of observation and hypothesis?

to wit: i observe a stock going up. i then hypothesize it will go up. i then observe it going down. i then hypothesize it will go down. it then goes up. i hypothesize it will go up *and* down.

through countless iterations of this process, i come to hypothesize an elaborate system of prediction of when the stock will go up or down.

have i gotten any closer to the nature of the beast? no. and this is because i do not understand the nature of complex systems and their inherent randomness -- their defiance of predictability.

gaius marius|7.25.05 @ 12:13PM|#

i might note that a endless cycle of observation and hypothesis is the origin of philosophy and religion both.

gaius marius|7.25.05 @ 12:21PM|#

Can't we appreciate life's mysteries without believing nonsense?

i think, mr kebko, that the question i would post is whether or not what exists outside of what we would call reason is in fact "nonsense" -- or simply a higher order of reason without explicit enumeration.

Or, to put it another way, science is about truth, and religion is about comfort.

what if this statement is wrong? i can easily postulate the opposite -- that science is what gives you comfort, religion what is closest to truth.

in the end, i think a primary understanding that underlies wisdom must be that science -- what can be phenomenally tested -- is by definition extremely narrow in scope, cannot answer the vast majority of questions which can be asked and is not a valid method of attempting to understand the vast majority of the circumstances of our condition. if one could limit oneself to believing only what one can physically demonstrate, one would lead an irrelevant, trite, meaningless life. and i see that in no way as a pursuit of truth, which must include science as an instrument -- but only an instrument, not a philosophy or a faith.

Mark Bahner|7.25.05 @ 12:27PM|#

"By the way, aren't there any creationist ringers out there willing to pop in on the comments? Let's get some (australopithecus) fur flying!"

There are some creationists over at "Free Republic."

I tried to engage in debate with them about Noah's Ark.

1) I wondered how in the world a 400-year-old man was able to collect all those animals? ANSWER: Maybe the animals came to the Ark, as bid by God.

2) OK. Fair Enough. ;-) So presumably some penguins swam all the way from the South Pole, and walked over land to the Ark. Along with tigers and giraffes and elephants, etc. etc. etc. Why, I wondered, wasn't this noticed by all the within hundreds of miles of the Ark? After all, it would be pretty weird for a person in the Middle East to pair of giraffes strolling one's backyard. So this should be reported in virtually all "the literature" of the time. ANSWER: Maybe God turned all the animals invisible for their journey.

Aha. Invisible penguins swimming thousands of miles, then walking hundreds of miles over land in the Middle East! I probably can't find any similar episode in any science book, but what the heck.

3) But how about the distribution of animals and humans after they got off the Ark? For example, were all the people on the Ark Caucasians, or were some Oriental or Negroid, or what? Or did they "turn" Oriental and Negroid or whatever after they migrated to their respective parts of the globe?

ANSWER: Are you some sort of racist, or what?

Me: Not that I know of, I'm just curious. What about this distribution of races?

ANSWER: We don't talk to racists.

P.S. This is how I remember the exchange. Interested people who have a lot of time on their hands may be able to find the particulars. I'm too lazy, myself.