New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | November 15, 2005

Cathy Young debunks five common canards in the debates over evolution education.

Comments

|11.15.05 @ 9:56AM|#

Very good article, Cathy.

I look forward to 500 posts on the issue of "But, but, there are things that you don't know!"

|11.15.05 @ 10:05AM|#

If I hear "it's just a theory" one more time....

I'm not a scientist, but even I understand that, in scientific parlance, theory does not mean guess or hypothesis.

I do have one question for the real science people, though: when will the theory of evolution qualify for a name change to Law of Evolution? I can't wait for that to happen so that I can listen out for the cries of "it's just a law."

|11.15.05 @ 10:07AM|#

It is amazing, or at least interesting, that this issue is by far the greatest producer of comments by the locals. Torture gets you 50 or so. Abortion might get you 100. You can really push 300 with Darwin vs. God almost every time, though.

|11.15.05 @ 10:08AM|#

Newsflash! Charles Darwin was not a Christian. At least not after he published the Origin of Species. He was at best an agnostic. See: Darwin, His Daughter, and Human Evolution
by Randal Keynes. Great book by the way.

Rob|11.15.05 @ 10:14AM|#

It's a lot less debunking myths and a lot more opining about them. There isn't really anything presented that debunked any of the 'myths'.

I think it's more libertarian to give students all versions of an idea, with all accompanying positives and negatives. At the least it's better than embracing the orthoxy of science, which is wrong as often as it is right.

|11.15.05 @ 10:15AM|#

JMoore-

Our parlance is really quite loose, for the most part. There are things that get called "laws" even though they break down in some very significant cases (e.g. "Beer's Law" for transmission of light, and it has nothing to do with Beer although you probably could use it to study beer). In physics, "theory" can mean a widely accepted and thoroughly tested explanation (as opposed to hypothesis) or it can mean anything that's mathematical rather than experimental.

"Law" sounds more ironclad, but it's usually used to describe a rather narrow concept. Evolution as we know it today is a combination of several notions: Common descent, changes over time, random mutations providing fodder for changes, natural selection dictating which changes will be propagated, etc.

It is unfortunate that the word used to describe one of our most controversial notions is frequently used in common parlance (or even in theoretical physics) to mean "guess". I wish I had a remedy for that. High school science books (and even some introductory college science books) usually go to great pains to give a codified taxonomy of theories, laws, etc., as well as "Memorize the 4/5/6/7/whatever steps of the scientific method." These rigid demarcations really fail to capture the actual language and processes employed in science.

Madog|11.15.05 @ 10:15AM|#

Nice arguments. The trick is to get IDers to actually listen to them without calling you an atheist.

Whatever happened to good old fashioned Deism?

|11.15.05 @ 10:16AM|#

Emme-Perhaps not. So what? Darwin's christianity or lack thereof has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of evolution. Unless, that is, your sole method of determining the truth of an assertion is to compare it to the dogma of whatever brand of christianity one might subscribe to.

|11.15.05 @ 10:16AM|#

I totally screwed up the capitalization in my aside on "Beer's Law." It was formulated by a guy named Beer, but you can apply it to substances other than beer.

|11.15.05 @ 10:20AM|#

"Emme-Perhaps not. So what? Darwin's christianity or lack thereof has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of evolution. Unless, that is, your sole method of determining the truth of an assertion is to compare it to the dogma of whatever brand of christianity one might subscribe to."

You're right. It has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of evolution. I never said it did. Evolution is valid for other more important reasons. But the fact is, Darwin was not a Christian in his later years. And that was because of his discovery.

MP|11.15.05 @ 10:24AM|#

Number 6,

RTFA. emme was enhancing Cathy's statement.

|11.15.05 @ 10:24AM|#

Thanks, thoreau.

May I humbly suggest a re-branding effort? (You science types really need to hire some consultants who specialize in that arena--your marketing can be dreadful at times.)

Try changing the brand "Theory" to "Well-established Logical Explanation." It's not very catchy, but it would be a step in the right direction.

BTW, if you think this is purely a fanciful notion, consider the genius of the creationists who have re-branded their ideas "Intelligent Design." They have managed to incorporate a very positive concept into their brand: why would anyone be opposed to something which is intelligent?

|11.15.05 @ 10:25AM|#

BTW, thoreau. I recently attended a debate between an IDer and one of our local Biology professors. In the QA session afterwards, I asked the IDer if anyone had done your proposed experiment (can ID tell the difference between an organism modified by humans and a designed organism).

His answer was something like "Blah blah blah irreducible complexity blah blah blah flagella blah blah blah little outboard motor blah blah blah no one has done it."

Hakluyt|11.15.05 @ 10:26AM|#

emme,

You beat me to it.

thoreau,

There are things that get called "laws" even though they break down in some very significant cases...

Laws are an old-fashioned part of scientific jargon which science eschews for the most part now to describe new phenomena.

gaius marius|11.15.05 @ 10:29AM|#

"inspired guesswork"

ID is bunk from a scientific perspective, and this statement is a bit overdone as a perspective on scientific method -- but it does capture an element of what science is. the ulterior motives of the tony snow crowd w/r/t ID are certainly not beyond reproach, but it would do us well to acknowledge that we do live in a world where, for many, particularly at the level of education in question, science is something of a secular religion -- complete with universities/cathedrals and scientists/clergy -- and teaching faith in science to produce all answers to all questions is counterproductive to teaching science itself.

this is a greater problem than most well-intentioned advocates of science -- conditioned by centuries of ideological warfare against religion -- are prepared to admit to anyone who might possibly represent a more philosophical or (heaven forfend) theological worldview. the almot total lack of a philosophical education is one of the foremost shortcomings of education in our society -- and that is a product, to some extent, of the militancy with which science has successfully marched on society in the last century.

and AGAIN, before anyone calls me an evangelist, i say all this without in the slightest way condoning the fraud that is ID.

Viking Moose|11.15.05 @ 10:29AM|#

Thanks, Cathy!
(sorry if this is a double post. i've been trying for about 12 minutes to get this through)

This citation from Mr. Tony "don't call me flying spaghetti monster with sagging, small, whithered testicles" Snow says it all:
"Let science teachers tell kids that science is a matter of inspired guesswork, not of invincible decree."

This is what zealots would have laypeople believe. It is the same as someone yesterday bringing up pre enlightenment "science" as demonstration how "science" is guesswork.

Science, Philosophy, and Ethics are all important - let's compare it with our Aquitae's "Ethos, Pathos, Logos", if we want. But the point is, that this thing, "science" is a method for investigation, not some little black box that gives the ANSWER.

But: how many theories and discoveries from the last 100 years have been made by laypeople or non-trained types? That's a serious question. I'd guess most would be from trained people.

Following along with Ms Young's excellent, postrellian point on "trial and error", we have seen the need for trial and error in scientific (and bio-) ethics, oversight, testing, and the like.

The now parable of the Soviet rocket that blew a vent - there was a manual crank to close the vent, but how it was geared would take a longer time to close than the bleed-out time for all the air.

Was this the fault of "science"? Does it show that the methodology used was inherently wrong or flawed? No. It was a mistake and a terrible tragedy. Scientific method has an ethic. Look at the research done in the 30s in Germany. Probably got some "interesting" data, but the collection methods were sick beyond belief.

Hubris also plays a role in giving anti scientific method people ammo. Look at the titanic. The technology of the day was trumped by the Capt's hubris. (this is why i'm avoiding the Chunnel, btw). Unsinnkable? "The only fire proof hotel in the world" (Palmer's original hotel downtown chicago. completed 1870. rebuilt 1890, or something like that). hubris.

This goes in many different directions. The hubris of relying too heavily on technology and forgetting about the other elements involved, for example.

There is also a collision between research and desired outcomes. We've gotten people accusing those skeptical of *some* of the GW theories of being like ID proponents (while one proponent sounds an awful lot like the knee jerk pro iraq war, all justified type - WE CANNOT WAIT FOR MORE STUDY! Yet this person is rabidly against that form of argumentation surrounding the war. go figure). Cherry picking "science" to call for tailor-made action in the direction of one's preferred outcome is a common game we see.

These thoughts are also put forth in the name of a scientific methodology.

When the positive analysis of the scientific method meets the normative analysis of public policy, these conflicts are bound to happen.

"Science" often has an omnipotent feeling, much as "statistics" do. It is, rather, a tool of investigation. It can be misused, abused, and misapplied.

How many times at work have we seen someone swayed by a graph with maybe an equation and R-squared? How many times has a well-argued memo not done the same job?

"Science" and "math" and "stats" can be used by smug types to belittle and berate. There is insecurity surrounding these subjects. They are "boring" in school - when, in fact, especially school level math, is "easiest" - you practice a method and get the same answer over and over. It's like learning your scales on the piano.

Is it a wonder, then, that people flock to ID and other pseudo- and junk-science as math and science instruction are falling in quality here? Just fall back on this faith and keep on piling that "science is wrong". Voila. Insecurity absolved. After all, it's just those damned, smug east coast NPR listening, SUV driving liberals.

Thanks for scrolling over and scrolling on by :)

cheers.
VM

|11.15.05 @ 10:30AM|#

And gaius explains the enigma that Jason Ligon brought up: We get 300 comments on evolution because in every evolution thread one or more people show up to remind us that "Well, you don't know everything, and here's a hair to split." And then others take them to task for it, and we argue for 300 posts about the thickness of the bisected hair.

|11.15.05 @ 10:31AM|#

For every scientist invested in the prevailing ''orthodoxy," there are probably at least 10 who would love nothing more than to revolutionize their field.

Now, now, we all know that scientists are a cowardly, superstitious lot, so I must wear a disguise that will strike terror into their hearts! I shall become a bat!

Ahem.

Actually, I'd be interested in an actually survey investigating how many scientists have the sack to come forward with a discovery that would "revolutionize their field". Just a guess from a layperson, but I doubt too many scientists are very eager to follow in the footsteps of Pons and Fleischmann.

|11.15.05 @ 10:33AM|#

Daniel Dennet, in "Darwin's Dangerous Idea," argues against the whole "it's a theory not a fact thing" by saying in effect that the FACT of evolution-- via the fossil record and other sources-- is as established as any other scientific hypothesis. The workings of it are still being figured out, however, and therein lies the theory.

I have great respect for religion, and I truly understand the fear that fundamentalists experience in the face of the almost callous advance of science. But the problem is that knee-jerk support of doctrines is, in my opinion, both contrary to genuine spiritual experience and doomed to fail because of science's provisionality.

Hakluyt|11.15.05 @ 10:35AM|#

gaius marius,

...science is something of a secular religion...

The term "secular religion" is an oxymoron.

...and teaching faith in science to produce all answers to all questions is counterproductive to teaching science itself.

That be a good critique if it were true. But it isn't true of course.

...the almot total lack of a philosophical education is one of the foremost shortcomings of education in our society...

As opposed to what? The 12th century? :)

Viking Moose|11.15.05 @ 10:39AM|#

Eric -

we've seen the sneakiness of this already. This nonsense claim that both should be presented on equal footing and some sort of faux open minded bullshit about let the students decide.

as if there are equal methodologies at play.

what utter bullshit. maybe if those types had payed more attention to "corresponding parts of conrguent triangles are congruent" or that angles diagonal from each other are equal or some such, they'd understand that there's a difference between that and the interpretation of "the Wild Swans of Poole".

("oh yeah! well, your science was 'wrong' about this" tee hee hee)

|11.15.05 @ 10:39AM|#

This might sound like a dumb question but what percentage of the population in america believes in I.D. or creationism and how does that compare with Europeans? Has there ever been any research into this?

|11.15.05 @ 10:40AM|#

MP-I did RTFA, thanks, and that doesn't change the validity of what I said. My mistake was in assuming that Emma was coming from a creationist perspective. I was wrong there. So, apologies to Emma.

gaius marius|11.15.05 @ 10:40AM|#

"Well, you don't know everything, and here's a hair to split."

thank you, mr thoreau. if anything, it will give gg his confrontation fix for the day. :)

MP|11.15.05 @ 10:42AM|#

That be a good critique if it were true. But it isn't true of course.

You don't think that the ID opponents potentially react to the constant ID tripe by subtlely (and likely unintentionally) teaching a form of Scientism?

gaius made his point better today than in the last extended thread. A key component in modern science classes should be to have teachers resist speculating on the unknown. Thus, after giving a lecture on the fundamentals of evolution, when a student asks "well, how did life start?", the best answer is "No one truly knows" and leave it at that. Speculation upon those harder questions is not science, and if one speculates with a scientific answer, one is implicitly preaching Scientism.

|11.15.05 @ 10:45AM|#

"So, apologies to Emma."

emme. Not emma. Not a big deal. It's my first initial in french.

Ed|11.15.05 @ 10:48AM|#

Been here. Done this.

|11.15.05 @ 10:49AM|#

MP-

To be fair, a teacher could always follow that "Nobody truly knows..." with a "...but, the hypotheses with the most support so far seem to be..." And end the discussion with "...of course, for any of these hypotheses to be accepted, more evidence would be needed."

Hakluyt|11.15.05 @ 10:50AM|#

MP,

No, I think that most scientists are very good at differentiating what science deals with what it doesn't deal with.

A key component in modern science classes should be to have teachers resist speculating on the unknown.

I suppose that depends on what you mean by speculation. Having taken a graduate level course on the origin of life I can say that we know a heck of a lot about what the Earth looked like back at the time life first appeared in the geological record, etc. Its not quite as fuzzy an area as people make it out to be.

Hakluyt|11.15.05 @ 10:52AM|#

MP,

For example, by itself you could have a heck of a long discussion on the early Earth's atmosphere (a critical issue re: the formation of life) that would be very informed.

gaius marius|11.15.05 @ 10:54AM|#

The term "secular religion" is an oxymoron.

lol -- so you don't understand the term, gg, or you don't believe that it's possible to have faith in something that isn't spiritual?

or is it simply that you can't be seen allowing even the slightest criticism of the edifice of science to stand unridiculed? :)

As opposed to what? The 12th century? :)

as opposed to the 19th, actually.

|11.15.05 @ 10:55AM|#

gaius:

I respectfully submit that an increase in philosophy education would not serve to weaken faith in science, and it certainly wouldn't serve to increase answers sought through religious channels. Among the key insights of western philosophy is the futility of seeking answers through so internal a process as religious introspection.

Materialism tends to come out on top in broad historical surveys of philosophical thinking, as does determinism. I've found it ironic that libertarians and devout Christians have at least in common a blase attitude about the philosophical difficulties that surround the notion of 'free will'.

Viking Moose|11.15.05 @ 10:55AM|#

EmmE:

"This might sound like a dumb question but what percentage of the population in america believes in I.D. or creationism and how does that compare with Europeans? Has there ever been any research into this?"

Not a dumb question at all. Remember: there are no dumb questions. Just dumb people who ask questions. ha ha. :)

I think it's an excellent question, but a difficult one to answer. Considering that most euroschools are taught from a gov't approved curriculum, ID wouldn't be there, at least juxtaposed to science. That is a guess. I do know that this is the case in scandinavia. Again, I'm guessing about the extent.

My guess is that you'd find vocal proponents in the UK.

However, you'd find other pseudo science in schools. In Denmark, they use "cancer clusters" to talk about how nuklear energy is "bad". They're nuclearophobic there, and the "Science" in school surrounding nuclear power is taught with many caveats. I'd say very much like ID is here.

I recall how the actual science of nuclear reaction was put forth, and the students asked for a "critical view" of this. So some non scientist who took Christa Wolf's "Incident" ("Accident") too seriously spoke. She had no idea about fission or fusion or anything. But boy was she sher critical. Full of the "if science is right, why was there Tschernobyl", etc. Her version of the god of the gaps.

She's no different from the ID types we'll see here.

So, yes, there's pseudoscience over there, but not in the same form, perhaps.

cheers!

gaius marius|11.15.05 @ 10:58AM|#

I think that most scientists are very good at differentiating what science deals with what it doesn't deal with.

you have more faith in them than i do, gg. after several years in the institutions of science and engineering, i felt it quite clear that scientism runs very deeply through the worldview of most scientists. very few of those whom i knew would admit to themselves that science was not the final word on all matters.

MP|11.15.05 @ 10:58AM|#

For example, by itself you could have a heck of a long discussion on the early Earth's atmosphere (a critical issue re: the formation of life) that would be very informed.

Sure, but that hasn't been able to explain what caused the "spark of life". Although graduate level courses are clearly an area where debate over the "spark" can occur, allowing this debate into the grammer/high school level, particularly in the era of the goverment education monopoly, will likely get a science teacher unnecessarily put in some fundie's crosshairs.

Hakluyt|11.15.05 @ 10:59AM|#

gaius marius,

Religion specifically refers to a belief or faith in supernatural forces, critters, etc. So its not a matter of "faith" per se, its a type of faith. Calling it a "secular religion" just confuses the issue. Call it a "secular faith" if you must, but "secular religion" makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. BTW, before ascribing particular opinions to me, its best to ask me first what I actually think, asshole.

as opposed to the 19th, actually.

19th century scientists were no more aware of philosophy than today's current crop is, and neither was society in general for that matter.

Hakluyt|11.15.05 @ 11:01AM|#

MP,

...will likely get a science teacher unnecessarily put in some fundie's crosshairs.

Heh. And we can't go offending the fundies widdle feelings, can we?

|11.15.05 @ 11:01AM|#

So what are you guys getting so upset about? That some people are morons? Used to be worse, you know. Ask gaius.

Yep, we used to have some real morons in the bad old days. ID'ers are just dead-enders, trying to terrorize us into submission. The way I plan to treat these folk is to stiffle them economically. That is I will not hire them, promote them or do business with them.

Hakluyt|11.15.05 @ 11:03AM|#

Jason Ligon,

Scientists are exposed more to philosophy than they ever have been in times past. Indeed, requiring a philosophy of science course, where Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and such is dutifully trotted out, is common in many programs these days.

|11.15.05 @ 11:03AM|#

Thus, after giving a lecture on the fundamentals of evolution, when a student asks "well, how did life start?", the best answer is "No one truly knows" and leave it at that.

Of course, that "I don't know" is not going to be enough for the IDiots. As Cathy, and others, have pointed out, ID isn't not about a competing scientific theory tyring to get on the stage of scientific debate. It's thinly veiled religious dogma trying to weasel its way into science. Unless either God is identified as the designer, or is hinted ("Well, we don't know who the designer is...wink...wink...") you will not satisfy the bible-beaters who still cling to creationism.

|11.15.05 @ 11:03AM|#

use or used. Youse decide.

|11.15.05 @ 11:04AM|#

Emme-apologies again. Maybe another cup of coffee will help matters.

|11.15.05 @ 11:06AM|#

Hakluyt-

Which science programs require a philosophy of science class? I have not heard any of my colleagues mention taking such a class.

And, to be honest, my own readings on the subject (limited, I know) have not shown me much that I've found beneficial in my work. The beneficial parts seem like they could be easily distilled: Honesty, reproducibility, falsifiability, be open to ideas being proven wrong, be open to alternatives, constantly test your ideas in as many ways as possible, etc. The lessons are easy to distill. The implementation of those ideas, however, is best learned in the lab, as you take your own original idea and see how many angles you can test it from.

gaius marius|11.15.05 @ 11:07AM|#

Its not quite as fuzzy an area as people make it out to be.

that's quite a statement, gg. i'll speculate that i'm likely at least as formally educated as you are on these points, and i think it's fairly clear that the confidence interval re: our understanding of the origins of life and the earth's geologic history is rather constrained and more susceptible to revolution than is commonly believed. the recent emergence of radical new theories affecting quite basic understanding on the development of humanity (the toba population bottleneck, for instance) and the geology of the earth (supervolcanoes themselves, or the snowball earth) are testament to how little we can presume to have great confidence in w/r/t even relatively recent events in geologic time. to pretend that we have near-certainty re: conditions on the early earth... well, gg, i'd say you had quite a salesman as a teacher if you came away with that impression.

MP|11.15.05 @ 11:10AM|#

Heh. And we can't go offending the fundies widdle feelings, can we?

Teachers have many tools in place to keep irritating parents from calling and whining about little Johnny. I'm just suggesting one more.

Unless either God is identified as the designer

When countering an attack, one should also be sure their counterpoint is resting on solid fundamentals. If a school says simply "we don't even address the issues raised by ID", then what justification would an IDer have by trying interject their idiocy? Not that they are particularly rational anyhow.

gaius marius|11.15.05 @ 11:10AM|#

neither was society in general for that matter.

i think if you familiarize yourself with the coursework of american public secondary schools c. 1890, you'll find that philosophy was treated in a depth unimaginable today. this statement is quite wrong in its presumption (a common one for you, gg, i think) that things have never been very different than they are today.

|11.15.05 @ 11:13AM|#

This has been pointed out, but it's a significant error in the article to refer to Charles Darwin as a Christian. He was one early in life, but at the time of his death, was an agnostic, a belief reached through both his experiences with biology and the death of his beloved daughter, Anne. The story of Charles Darwin's deathbed conversion back to Christianity (and his rejection of evolutionary theory) is a popular creationist myth. Fact checking from time to time wouldn't hurt.

Hakluyt|11.15.05 @ 11:13AM|#

thoreau,

They seemed to be common at both OSU (Oregon State) and Auburn and discussions by the professors in both classes about how this was a growing movement were common.

gaius marius,

....to pretend that we have near-certainty re: conditions on the early earth...

I never pretended that we did. How you morphed "very informed" into "near-certainty" is beyond me.

Hakluyt|11.15.05 @ 11:17AM|#

gaius marius,

Most Americans didn't go to secondary schools in the 19th century. As I recall, in 1900 only 5%-10% of Americans were actually enrolled in a high school of any type.

Hakluyt|11.15.05 @ 11:20AM|#

gaius marius,

And turning this phrase (see below) into a claim of "near certainty" borders on a falsity on your part:

Its not quite as fuzzy an area as people make it out to be.

|11.15.05 @ 11:21AM|#

Hakluyt-

Did you know science majors who took it as a requirement rather than an elective?

I ask because every now and then in professional publications the idea comes up that "there oughta be a class" to address this that or the other perceived problem in the profession. A class on ethics, a class on business skills for scientists, a class on presentation skills, a class on the philosophy of science so people understand why this works, a class on the history of science to give us more perspective, etc.

I'm not sure that a bunch of extra classes can really solve our problems, since many of these lessons have to be learned in practice rather than a classroom. Not to mention that natural science majors already tend to have much less room for electives than students in other disciplines. And the alternative, of teaching this in shorter seminars rather than a full class, runs the risk of heading in the same direction as safety training (short, perfunctory, devoid of anything genuinely useful and challenging, but full of legally mandated insults to the intelligence).

But the "there oughta be a class" mantra is recited nonetheless. This is the first I've heard about an institution putting such a requirement into practice.

Did any science majors ever share their thoughts on the matter, and whether they viewed the classes as beneficial?

Hakluyt|11.15.05 @ 11:22AM|#

thoreau,

Of course, these are biology departments where this was going on. Maybe physicists just don't give a shit about the philosophy of science?

|11.15.05 @ 11:24AM|#

Viking Moose,

Do you mean "The Wild Swans of Coole?" I'm an English grad (and thus, according to some on here, not worth my salt as an intellectual), so I'd get in trouble if I didn't point out such things like a pedant. One thing I've never understood is the resistance among most Christians (liberal or otherwise) to reading the bible as literature. It is precisely the same attitude that philistine scientists have when they pronounce things that are overtly complex and polysemous useless-- that is, if it aint science then it aint nothing. Which is bullshit of the highest order (and dangerous to science truth be known).

Hakluyt|11.15.05 @ 11:26AM|#

thoreau,

I believe for a biology degree at OSU you had to take the course in philosophy of science (I could be wildly off the mark on this - I just took random biology courses as an undergraduate and got the impression they had to take that class). I also believe that my friends who went to Harvey Mudd had to take a course in philosophy of science no matter what degree they were in.

My friends at Harvey Mudd liked their course a lot (they used Science Defied, Science Deified as a text). The folks I knew at OSU hated the class and hated reading Kuhn.

Hakluyt|11.15.05 @ 11:28AM|#

BTW, Science Defied, Science Deified is a nice little primer on the nature of science throughout human history, philosophy of science, etc.

Hakluyt|11.15.05 @ 11:33AM|#

Thoreau,

I have a friend who is a sociologist who simply goes to labs and watches how people interact, reads back and forth articles between labs, etc.

|11.15.05 @ 11:34AM|#

Hakluyt-

"Just don't give a shit" is probably a better description of how we view the formal approach to the subject rather than how we view the issues. We think hard about how to falsify our work, how to test it from as many angles as possible, how not to over-interpret our findings, etc. We know that the history of science is full of changing paradigms. It's just that whenever we look at formal treatments of the issues we tend to look at it and be like "OK, what's the bottom line? What do we have to do in the lab?"

Biologists may be more interested in it because they face a set of ethical issues that are rarely found in physics. So they're more used to philosophical questions. Physicists face ethical issues as well, of course, ranging from the no-brainers (that guy at Bell Labs recently, who forged everything) to subtle ones (shared authorship, only showing your best results, conflicts of interest with funding, etc.). But biologists face all of those PLUS the treatment of human and animal subjects.

Ethics matters for everybody, of course, but the more frequently the issue comes up in your work, the more likely you are to appreciate people who tackle it as a subject in its own right rather than "OK, so what should I do in the lab?"

Viking Moose|11.15.05 @ 11:35AM|#

Eric - yes. the yeats. sorry about that. (my undergrad in english, including two seminars on that period, is hereby nulled and voided.)

i like the "bullshit of the highest order". aka, "bullshit on stilts"
:)

thanks for the heads up on that!

MP|11.15.05 @ 11:38AM|#

Biologists may be more interested in it because they face a set of ethical issues that are rarely found in physics.

WMDs introduce far more relevant ethical conflicts than Darwinism.

|11.15.05 @ 11:40AM|#

Philosophy of Science is still caught in something of an impasse vis a vis the so-called debate between Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper. Imre Lakatos has interesting position "between" the two. All of that is to say: philosophy of science is still concerned primarily with the historical progress of science. That is not likely to be much use to scientists because, in a way Hayek and Kenneth Burke beautifully recognized, they are the "unconscious" (at least when they act AS scientists and not historians) recipients of history. When a chemist or phycisist creates a test he is building on the end result of the entirety of scientific history. As far as the specific test is concerned, that history is irrelevant. But, as far as philosophy is concerned, it is vital. The philosopher of science is not trying to better scientific practice-- it betters itself via the method-- but is rather trying to explore the complexities of how science connects to knowledge or reality as such. One thing I personally (though I'm not of course a philosopher of science) am interested in is the question of whether or not there is a kind of "knowledge" (or "understanding" to use Heidegger and Gadamer) that is logically prior to formal scientific thinking and which is common to both such thinking and the kinds of thinking we do when we study literature or art or theology. I swear I'm done now.

|11.15.05 @ 11:40AM|#

MP-

Most physicists don't work on WMDs. OTOH, animal experiments are far more common in biology. And while many biologists will never work with human subjects, they all hope that their work will lead to a clinical trial. OTOH, most physicists do things that will never show up in a nuclear bomb.

Hakluyt|11.15.05 @ 11:41AM|#

thoreau,

Well, most of the physicist graduate students I've ever known were objectivists and they hated me for not being an objectivist, so I never got to ask them their opinion on the subject.

Hakluyt|11.15.05 @ 11:44AM|#

eric mattingly,

Oh lord. You just opened a whole 'nother can of worms. :)

|11.15.05 @ 11:50AM|#

Nope no no, evolution is wrong. It conflicts with what is in the bible so it cannot be correct, period, end of discussion.

|11.15.05 @ 11:55AM|#

Jimmy!!!

|11.15.05 @ 11:59AM|#

Hakluyt,

Opening up said cans are what I'm trained to do (we let the scientists categorize them, analyze the chemical makeup of the cans, compute the angles of which way the worms are going to fly in accordance to gravity, etc.). I agree with Thoreau that Phil of Science is not going to do much for actual scientific practice-- but I think it is still valuable for the connections it makes to everything else. Science has changed more things than just lab practice and I think it is justifiable in itself to study those things.

|11.15.05 @ 12:05PM|#

I became interested in philosophy of science while I was in Japan, so decided to take a whack at a random book on the subject having only dealt previously with Popper.

I wound up selecting Philosphy of Space and Time by Hans Reichenbach. OMG was that dense material. The central theme seemed to be that a rigorous philosophical analysis was needed not so much of purely mathematical models, but to improve the picture in our heads when we talk about relativity, quantum mechanics, and the like. This guy was very interested in improving science by way of trying to get to philosophically coherent physical pictures in our heads of what the equations mean.

Mostly, the book made me feel stupid and I gave up on it.

Dave W.|11.15.05 @ 12:09PM|#

I look forward to 500 posts on the issue of "But, but, there are things that you don't know!"

The article doesn't deal with that problem because it is not a myth. Ya, see, T., if you go after the deep sea fish with a line, they tend to swim away. Reason is for gun and barrel style fishers of men.

|11.15.05 @ 12:14PM|#

The State University of New York system did not have a requirement for a philospohy/ethics course for a BS in Biology or a BA in Psychology in 1987 (although we did have to take 6 credits of language, history, literature and other liberal arts).

There was a class in Teacher's College in the psych department program on business (a few weeks on marketing, adminstration, and accounting) but also none on ethics.

Maybe things are different from the evil 80s and the nefarious 90s?

Hakluyt|11.15.05 @ 12:16PM|#

eric mattingly,

Well, implicit knowledge that inheres in the mind of humans has always been a problematic concept for me to swallow.

|11.15.05 @ 12:19PM|#

Nope no no, evolution is wrong. It conflicts with what is in the bible so it cannot be correct, period, end of discussion.

At the risk of feeding an obvious troll:

How do you know the Bible is true?

Hakluyt|11.15.05 @ 12:21PM|#

Akira MacKenzie,

The Holy Ghost told him so. :)

|11.15.05 @ 12:26PM|#

When I got my PhD in evolution we had a required class in the history of evolutionary thought. It was entirely based on primary literature, and it necessarily included a fair bit of philosophy of biology, and philosophy of science in general. I found it to be one of the more useful and interesting parts of my coursework.

I think evolution is probably a more inherently philosophical science than most others (biological or otherwise), although that's just my half-informed impression. But I think someone in almost any scientific field would benefit from a well-taught course in that field's history (with forays into its philosophy as appropriate/necessary).

|11.15.05 @ 12:26PM|#

Hak:

I've got a feeling that if Jimmy replies (highly unlikely) he won't directly deal with my response, rattle off a bunch of Christian platitudes that he thinks will refute me, and finish it off make another fallacious statement with the implication that I'm a Satanist and/or a Communist.

|11.15.05 @ 12:33PM|#

Hak:

Prior to empirical input, we are still constrained by logic and mathematics. I guess you could argue that prior knowledge could come in the form of the purely rational.

Hakluyt|11.15.05 @ 12:36PM|#

Jason Ligon,

The question is, when are we ever free of empirical input? It seems to require something along the lines of genetic or collective memory, which I find to be highly problematic assertions.

Hakluyt|11.15.05 @ 12:38PM|#

Well, despite early predictions, this thread will be lucky to go voer 150 posts.

|11.15.05 @ 12:47PM|#

J-

I probably would have enjoyed that class. I always find primary sources interesting. It's neat to realize that people with less sophisticated equipment, and less information to go on, could figure out so much. I admire reading the old physicists and seeing what they figured out. I've often thought that it would be neat to teach a physics class based entirely on the original sources. It wouldn't work as a core class, but it could make an interesting elective.

Hakluyt|11.15.05 @ 12:51PM|#

Akira MacKenzie,

It could just someone having a bit of fun.

Dave W.|11.15.05 @ 12:52PM|#

J,
If you left the science area, would that class you described become the most relevant, applicable class from your science days?

|11.15.05 @ 12:55PM|#

19th century scientists were no more aware of philosophy than today's current crop is, and neither was society in general for that matter.

Scientists are exposed more to philosophy than they ever have been in times past.

I am not sure whether or not these are true statements, or even how to go about deciding the question in some rational way, but I would point out that philosophy and science were in past centuries not as clearly separated as they are today (not that the separation is completely clear today). Metaphysical questions and physical questions were grouped together, and there was a long (and ongoing) process of questions being removed from the realm of the philosophical as those questions received well-confirmed answers. In the past, to do science was to approach questions from within a metaphysical/philosophical framework--a framework that is far less important and has faded into the background for a working scientist nowadays. So, in that sense at least, past scientists were more closely connected with the philosophical than today's scientists, it would seem.

That being said, philosophy still has a lot of work to do with respect to science. (The scientific method was developed by philosophy and is defended by philosophy, not by science.) Scientists are not always in the best position to provide a general explanation or analysis of science as they are often not trained in conceptual analysis--but philosophers are.

Hakluyt|11.15.05 @ 12:58PM|#

Ethan,

...but I would point out that philosophy and science were in past centuries not as clearly separated as they are today (not that the separation is completely clear today).

I would suggest that by the 19th century the demarcation was pretty clear.

|11.15.05 @ 12:59PM|#

Hak:

That's possible, but it doesn't hurt to be sure.

|11.15.05 @ 1:02PM|#

Of course, the only way to REALLY be sure is to nuke the entire Bible Belt from orbit.

|11.15.05 @ 1:06PM|#

thoreau,

After I made that post it occurred to me that some areas of physics must have at least as rich a history and philosophy as evolution. Leaving aside methodological and technological advances that make parts of the old primary literature obselete, it's always interesting to see how paradigms in your field rise and fall (and sometimes rise again), and why. I think that can be very valuable for a student - worth making it a core class, or at least a strongly recommended option.

Hakluyt|11.15.05 @ 1:13PM|#

Akira MacKenzie,

You're just a grunt. No offense.

|11.15.05 @ 1:14PM|#

This best argument against ID (from Dennet or Pinker, IIRC) that I've heard was short and sweet: that living organisms are too poorly "designed" to be the result of ID (unless the designer was Rube Goldberg).

This is on various websites, including
http://www.firstpr.com.au/eclectic/nature-2.html

TO: ALL HUMAN BEINGS
FROM: GOD & MOTHER NATURE
SUBJECT: BUGS IN NATURE 1.0, AND THE FORTHCOMING UPGRADE - 2.0

GENERALITIES
Firstly we would like to say how impressed we are at the enthusiasm many of you have shown in coming to grips with version 1.0. Thanks also to those who have filed bug reports - all your problems have been given a sympathetic ear, but I have been unable to respond individually in the great majority of cases.

Mother Nature and I have been hard at work most of the time on version 2.0, and although we have not finalised all the details, I will tell you of some of the new features a little later on. Of course the biggest dilemma we have faced since we ran 1.0 was whether to produce version 1.1, 1.2 etc. as a series of bug fixes, or whether to let the existing system run, with all its faults while we worked on a more expansive system. Mother Nature in particular has been very concerned at some of the crueler anomalies in 1.0, and while I share her concerns, I have persuaded her to let the system run while we worked on something really special.
...snipped...

|11.15.05 @ 1:18PM|#

Dave W,

Yeah, if I were to get out of science I would definitely consider that to be the most every-day relevant part of my coursework. Looking at primary literature with 50-150 years' hindsight is an invaluable way to understand how science "works," in your particular field and more generally. In my case it was also very illuminating with regard to interactions between science and gov't/society, because the course was co-taught by a historian of biology whose main area of expertise was the early-mid 20th century eugenics movement in America and Europe.

Even as a practicing evolutionist it still ranks up there as one of the more relevant classes. At a certain point classes are just no longer the best way to learn, so classes in grad school have some use but are often less valuable than just keeping up with the literature and the actual thesis work itself. But we weren't going to be exposed to the material in that history class as part of our regular thesis work unless we explicitly sought it out, which most grad students don't have time to do.

gaius marius|11.15.05 @ 1:32PM|#

Philosophy of Science is still caught in something of an impasse vis a vis the so-called debate between Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper.

it's probably obvious that i think kuhn has a valid point or two. :) great comments, mr mattingly.

In the past, to do science was to approach questions from within a metaphysical/philosophical framework--a framework that is far less important and has faded into the background for a working scientist nowadays. So, in that sense at least, past scientists were more closely connected with the philosophical than today's scientists, it would seem.

i would suggest, mr ethan, that the fading of the philosophical component of science is a inverse measure of the advance of unscientific scientism. the idea of an objective world that can be fully known is, it has always seemed to me, to be a view that can only be held by those not fully aware of the body of philosophical thought en toto.

Hakluyt|11.15.05 @ 1:42PM|#

gaius marius,

...it has always seemed to me, to be a view that can only be held by those not fully aware of the body of philosophical thought en toto...

Or those who reject it consciously. That you assume ignorance is a bias of your own.

Hakluyt|11.15.05 @ 1:46PM|#

gaius marius,

BTW, scientists still do their work within a philosophical framework. That you claim that they don't is beyond weird. Then again, you're also the person who described the wanton slaughter and subjugation of non-Catholic Germans during Charlemagne's reign as what, "incorporation?"

|11.15.05 @ 1:52PM|#

You're just a grunt. No offense.

None taken... [Cocks M-41 Pulse Rifle]

|11.15.05 @ 2:07PM|#

"the idea of an objective world that can be fully known is, it has always seemed to me, to be a view that can only be held by those not fully aware of the body of philosophical thought en toto."

There is nothing in materialism that says we can know all material. Again, the choice is knowledge from reason, knowledge from empirical study, or wild guesses.

|11.15.05 @ 2:08PM|#

Akira:

If they were handing out those, I'd grunt right along with you.

|11.15.05 @ 2:14PM|#

Jason: I wish! The most awesome firearm in sci-fi history! I've wanted a replica since I was a kid, only most of the kits I've seen are WAAAAAY too expensive for my blood.

Dave W.|11.15.05 @ 2:15PM|#

Thanks for the long thoughtful response, J. Maybe T could audit it if they still offer.

Windypundit|11.15.05 @ 3:09PM|#

SUBJECT: BUGS IN NATURE 1.0, AND THE FORTHCOMING UPGRADE - 2.0

Blah, blah, blah. Lots of marketing hype about new features, but the upgrade is clearly being done more for internal reasons than out of any concern for the user experience.

The misfortune-limiting feature does sound exciting and potentially revolutionary, but psychokinesis sounds like just another buzzword feature, implemented without any thought for the security risks. And I don't recall too many people crying out for 5-channel color. All our televisions and computer monitors will become obsolete and the new ones will be much more expensive.

And what about all the things that are missing? Where's the meteor defense? One bit of bad luck, and the whole system grinds to halt. On a smaller scale, cancer is pretty much exactly the same problem. The lack of redundancy and layered defenses throughout the system is legendary.

And what's with all these sexually-transmitted diseases? You knew people were going to have sex, you made it fun, and yet there's all kinds of vulnerability. There's no excuse for such sloppy design.

I could go on and on, backache, arthritis, skin cancer (from standing in friggin' sunlight too long! how was that unforeseen?), undrinkable oceans, involuntary ovulation... I know, I know, these are "details." But dammit, the details are important to producing a good product.

|11.15.05 @ 3:11PM|#

I would suggest that by the 19th century the demarcation was pretty clear.

Hakluyt,

Fair enough. Let's split the difference: 1859 (the year the Origin of Species was published). Prior to Darwin, extranatural explanations of speciation were still in the running.

|11.15.05 @ 3:19PM|#

How do you know the Bible is true?

It is the true word of god, period, end of discussion. I don't think we came from monkeys, they are animals, we are not. The world was created in 6 days about 5,000 years ago. Any evidence to the contrary is the work of satan. You must be a communist if you don't believe the true word of god.

Viking Moose|11.15.05 @ 3:21PM|#

awesome "Aliens" reference.

to cross-reference here a bit, what is your experience with the Plasma Rifle in the 40 watt range?

|11.15.05 @ 3:22PM|#

Check out this AEI forum (video archive) on this topic. One of the speakers (Lawrence Krauss) has a great presentation that pretty much tears ID to pieces.

Science Wars: Should Schools Teach Intelligent Design?

http://www.aei.org/events/eventID.1169/event_deta
il.asp

Click on "Video" at the top right of this page. Lawrence's speech is 3hrs.52.min into it.

|11.15.05 @ 3:32PM|#

This best argument against ID (from Dennet or Pinker, IIRC) that I've heard was short and sweet: that living organisms are too poorly "designed" to be the result of ID (unless the designer was Rube Goldberg).

Yes, ID is really up against it with that point. The "design changes" in organisms do not seem to be made with the future in mind but merely are reactive--"engineering" to solve (slowly) problems that arise when the environment changes (and when new conditions come along past solutions might not be adequate, e.g. when American football was invented the human knee was screwed). But the changes occur as the result of random mutations. So the intelligent designer is reacting to change, with no eye to the future, and using as his/her tool a random process?

The engineering concept (as Dennett points out) is a fine analogy for understanding what's going on in natural selection, but it is important to remember that it is just an analogy--and the ID folks seem conveniently to forget the point, if they ever understood it in the first place.

|11.15.05 @ 3:33PM|#

Dave W,

I'm glad you found it useful. I think it's a very interesting topic in evolution, and I imagine in most other scientific fields as well. Since we had a fairly well known historian of biology on our faculty, we got a decent number if visiting seminar speakers on the topic - often eugenics, but other subjects as well (research into the effects of radiation during the cold war, Barbara McClintock's discovery of transposable elements, a gov't-run research program in South Africa aimed at finding exploitable biological differences between blacks and whites, etc.). I think I was lucky to be in a program where that work was being done.

|11.15.05 @ 3:42PM|#

"A vehicle" is vague, but if Cathy's final canard were stated "The theory of evolution contributes to the rise in atheism", then I'd disagree that it's a canard. I think that the theory of evolution, as well as plate tectonics, evolutionary psychology, archeology, a broad history of religion, meteorology, and a many other areas of science and logic are contributing to the rise of atheism.

Darwin appears to have lost his Christianity as he discovered more about the world. The major religions have no choice but to admit that evolutionary science is compatible with their religions, because the evidence for evolution is so strong. The religions that reject the obvious become marginalized. However, this doesn't mean that the major religions are being disingenuous. The religions that have thrived are those that have been flexible. By the time the various sects get large enough to merit being used as examples by Cathy, their membership and leadership has already evolved to be accommodating (in more than just acceptance of science; e.g. the origins of the holidays Christmas and Easter).

What do the Shakers think about evolution? They weren't used as examples, because there's not enough of them to matter.

Although I'm an atheist, I don't fear or despise religion-do many? It's quite possible that under our current circumstances, having people believe in Gods is a net benefit, regardless of whether Gods exist. It's highly likely there was some evolutionary benefit to such a belief, or it would have been weeded out. Since I think Intelligent Design is a fatally flawed argument and I turn to the strongest arguments for testing my beliefs, ID becomes a non-issue with respect to my world view. I don't become more or less of an atheist due to IDers.

In conclusion, I don't think Cathy's closing canard fits in with the other four. The theory of evolution probably does contribute to the rise of atheism, and perhaps its time for more people to admit that-even people who aren't themselves atheists. OTOH, perhaps I'm reading too much into "a vehicle for", in which case ... nevermind.

|11.15.05 @ 3:50PM|#

"The theory of evolution probably does contribute to the rise of atheism...."

It may contribute to the rise of atheism; but I think Cathy's point, which is true, is that there's no logical or empirical connection between the two. Natural evolution itself has nothing to say about the existence or non-existence of gods, even if many people interpret it that way.

|11.15.05 @ 4:18PM|#

J,

Nor does plate tectonics, meteorology, etc. and yet, there are people who believe that those, rather than Gods explain why occasionally hundreds of thousands of people are killed by the elements. Were there no knowledge of these mechanisms, some would be more inclined to believe in Gods. Historically, it sure looks to me like people used to attribute the results of extreme weather to anthropomorphic Gods.

It's logical that as we have rational explanations for more events, the role of Gods diminishes for some. Different people have different thresholds, but for some the threshold is crossed and they have no reason at all to believe in Gods.

I highly doubt that I'm the only atheist for whom the theory of evolution is one supporting element in my world view. To be sure, there are enough other contributing factors to my atheism that even without a workable theory of evolution perhaps I'd be an atheist, but that's not an experiment I can perform.

So, was the theory of evolution the vehicle in which I arrived at my atheism? Probably not. OTOH, there was no single-theory vehicle. Was the theory of evolution one of many wheels in that rhetorical vehicle? Probably. Does atheism appear to be advancing as science progresses? Yes. Is the former due to the latter? I strongly suspect so. Is the theory of evolution important to the advance of science? Absolutely for some branches.

|11.15.05 @ 4:22PM|#

... I don't fear or despise religion�do many?

I would go as far as to say I "fear or despise" religion. I certainly don't trust it and I don't take any "truth" from it. Religion is merely an idea, and ideas in and of themselves are harmless.

The religious, namely the ones who can't keep their faith to themselves, on the other hand...

|11.15.05 @ 4:28PM|#

anon2,

I agree with you. I wasn't trying to disagree in my 3:50 post, just make an important clarification. Evolution is not _inherently_ connected with atheism, and it's completely consistent for someone to be both an evolutionist and a Christian, etc. Too many people, both atheist and religious, see a necessary connection betweeen evolution and atheism, and this is a major reason why what should be a noncontroversial scientific theory is the source of so much argument in this country.

Dave W.|11.15.05 @ 5:03PM|#

Natural evolution itself has nothing to say about the existence or non-existence of gods, even if many people interpret it that way.

Thoreau, once you asked me what highschoolers need to learn in their science class. I gave you a long answer. This is a shorter and better answer. The teacher can be brief, so long as he makes it clear that this *will* be on the next test and it *will* show up again on the final.

|11.15.05 @ 5:12PM|#

Dave W.-

That's it? That's all you want? A statement that "evolution says nothing about the validity of religion"?

Hell, I think even most of the other people on this forum would be OK with that.

Are you sure that's all you want? A statement that evolution need not interfere with the practice of religion? I'll bet that a lot of high school teachers already say something like that at some point.

Hundreds of posts over several threads to get to that?

|11.15.05 @ 5:14PM|#

Just one question: Given how innocuous that statement is, why do you even care enough to want it in there?

Dave W.|11.15.05 @ 5:20PM|#

"Given how innocuous that statement is"

After all the grief you (politely) and others (less politely) given me on this exact sentiment on HnR? C'mon, T. I am glad you relate to J and his edu-cred, but he ain't sayin' nothing different than what I been saying on this to ya 4 quite awhiles now.

|11.15.05 @ 5:23PM|#

Dave W.-

If that's all you were saying all along then I apologize. But I could have sworn that you were saying more.

I have no objection to reading that single sentence at the beginning of class. And neither should any honest scientist, since God is non-falsifiable and hence no scientific theory can falsify the existence of God.

|11.15.05 @ 5:23PM|#

"Natural evolution itself has nothing to say about the existence or non-existence of gods, even if many people interpret it that way."

... but it might say something about certain specific religious claims. Part of learning how to think critically, children, is to determine what the implications of new evidence might be for a larger theory.

Dave W.|11.15.05 @ 5:29PM|#

since God is non-falsifiable and hence no scientific theory can falsify the existence of God.

J and I are also telling you that the prospect of a Godless universe is equally unfalsifiable and that between these two "conjectures" (is that the approved term here?) science has nothing to say. To put it back into the words I get so much guff for, if science and reason are your only tools, then you should be an agnostic (tha's right, not athiest, but agnostic). And I don't just want that above-quoted sentence to be put at the beginning of the course. Rather, I want you personally to start believing it also.

|11.15.05 @ 5:35PM|#

I think "Jimmy" is related to "Jane" and "Juanita." Somebody just wanted to J things up a bit. (Later on we can get posts from Jorge, Jezebel, Jamal, Jacinta, Jasmine and Julius.)

Now, now, we all know that scientists are a cowardly, superstitious lot, so I must wear a disguise that will strike terror into their hearts! I shall become a bat!

jf, that was Batmantastic.

|11.15.05 @ 5:37PM|#

Dave W:

I've always self identified as agnostic for the reasons you cite. I have found myself leaning toward atheism more and more as time goes on though.

Under your reasoning, we must remain agnostic on the matter of any arbitrary unfalsifiable claim. Also under your reasoning, the Razor does not apply to any unfalsifiable claim. I can make something up as wacked out as can be, and you have to sit there with a straight face and say you are agnostic about it's truth value. That is not only hard to do, I don't know that it is especially productive.

|11.15.05 @ 5:42PM|#

"...he ain't sayin' nothing different than what I been saying on this to ya 4 quite awhiles now."

On the threads I've followed, it seems like quite a few people have been saying something like this. In fact, it's maybe been the predominant position, followed by the obligatory condescending rants against all religion, the occasional Jimmy-esque trolls, and a few misguided souls who actually seem to be advocating ID as a reasonable scientific position.

"...but it might say something about certain specific religious claims."

Yeah, it's still going to piss of the young earth creationists, but thankfully they're a dying breed (smell ya later, Jimmy!). But I think the large majority of religious folks are probably fairly comfortable incorporating established scientific theories into their theologies, as long as they aren't constantly hearing from some religious "leaders" that evolution is atheistic, communistic, relativistic, blahblahblah....

Dave W.|11.15.05 @ 5:43PM|#

Jason,
For me, science and reason are not the only tools. I can put on the science-and-reason-only hat and play that role in my internal and external discourse, but I do try to let people know that I have an ultimate set of beliefs that are based on things beyond science and reason. I don't see any problem with people being atheists, even though I am not one myself. However, I commonly see the problem of atheists who falsely insist that science and reason are their only guides. I use the term problem advisedly here, btw.

|11.15.05 @ 5:49PM|#

Dave W:

What I'm saying is that skepticism is at the heart of scientific investigation, and the Razor has to be obeyed in credible theory. You can't assume more variables than you need to. It seems to me that you may very well be able to go athiest based only on skeptical analysis of a given unfalsifiable claim. If it assumes too much, you discount it until you have reason to incorporate the proposed assumptions. That IS science.

clarityiniowa|11.15.05 @ 6:14PM|#

Not only is science based on skepticism, religion is based upon both the need for certainty, and the assumption of certainty completely unearned; That is to say, certainty based purely on scholarship or authority. Religion and science, therefore, are opposites not only in method, but by the very criteria by which they ascribe truth or falsehood to a proposition.

The fact that religion has gradually adopted the language and trappings of science to promote itself indicates to me the depths to which religious leaders seeking temporal power will go to claim authority, and the sole possession of "ultimate truth". This is what makes ID and similar movements so insidious.

clarityiniowa|11.15.05 @ 6:23PM|#

As to fearing or despising religion, I have always feared it, even when I was a practiciing evangelical. The power that it can muster to overwhelm reason - or worse, to alter the working definition of reason in certain people's minds - makes it a very dangerous political force. The power of faith to allow one to believe not only things he cannot see, but things that are not objectively true, is a power easily turned to evil and dangerous ends.

Despise it? Only when it hurts rather than helps, or when the power it can wield is used for corrupt ends.

|11.15.05 @ 6:25PM|#

Well, Dave W., I'm neither atheist nor agnostic. I'm a Catholic. So I won't be able to acquiesce to your demand that I embrace agnosticism.

Reason, logic, and evidence are my only tools for answering questions about the natural world. Faith is what I use to address other questions.

Science class is about the natural world, so faith has no place there, and science has nothing to say about faith. I'll be happy to put that sentence (or something similar) at the beginning of science class.

|11.15.05 @ 6:33PM|#

if science and reason are your only tools, then you should be an agnostic (tha's right, not athiest, but agnostic).

Yes, Dave W., if you want to state that we can't really say anything with certainty so we must be agnostic, then I suppose technically speaking that is true, but so what? Let's agree that we don't know anything with 100% certainty so we are "agnostic" as to every conceivable claim, such as mine that I have (from Carl Sagan's example) an invisible, incorporeal, fire-breathing dragon in my garage. Yes you all must be agnostic since none of you can falsify my claim. Now that we have that out of the way, we can talk about relative probabilities and it seems reasonable to decide that below some threshold of likelihood we can assert that something does not, in fact, exist - i.e. my dragon. Now, the issue of whether the existence of a god falls below that threshold, or even what that threshold should be is, I suppose, a personal decision (though I would say since there is essentially zero evidence it is below any non-negative threshold you would care to pick). But certainly, also from Carl Sagan, the more extraordinary the claim (and what is more extraordinary than an all knowing, all powerful, creator or the universe God), the more extraordinary the evidence we should demand. So, while I will agree with your technicality about agnosticism, it is as true as it is meaningless. The real issue is that of the evidence threshold one would need to reach in order to accept the existence of some proposed entity, be it God or my dragon. In the absence of meeting that threshold, accepting the (albeit technically tentative) alternative (i.e. non-existence) is quite reasonable. So if it is reasonable to not believe in my dragon, and be a adragonist, as it were, then it is just as reasonable (since there is just as much evidence) to be an atheist (notwithstanding the agonistic technicality above).

|11.15.05 @ 6:42PM|#

Do you think a teacher would get in trouble by elaboration to the original statement?

"Evolution says nothing about the validity of any religion?"

clarityiniowa|11.15.05 @ 6:51PM|#

A great discussion on ID was aired on NPR's "Justice Talking" in April. Featured a crunchy-granola type of guy from the Discovery Institute, an ID thinktank and promotion outfit, and Niall Shanks from East Tennesee State. He wrote one of my favorite books on the subject: God, The Devil and Darwin. A must-read, IMHO.

|11.15.05 @ 6:58PM|#

J,

Although the theory of evolution and mainstream Christianity are compatible, the theory of evolution and young earth Christianity is not compatible, so your "etc." is a little tricky since one might view it as an extension to all religions. Darwin may not tread on some people's beliefs, but apparently he trod on his own and many others. It's just that it all happened a long time ago and mainstream religions have evolved.

What's ailing Christian Science? Science.

Some religious beliefs are challenged by the theory of evolution, but many more are challenged by science and reason in general. So although the theory of evolution doesn't directly lead to atheism, teaching Intelligent Design might indeed slow the uptake of atheism.

Thoreau,

Omnipotent Gods are non-falsifiable, but there are an infinite number of falsifiable Gods. For example take your God, remove his omnipotence and also require him to be visible to you right now. Can't see him? That particular God is now falsified. I don't think it's a coincidence that the mainstream Gods are omnipotent and unfalsifiable. Perhaps all the falsifiable Gods have been abandoned and forgotten.

Dave W.,

Being required to be agnostic about non-falsifiable things makes the word agnostic mean very little. Every prediction about the future is non-falsifiable until the predicted time. Someone predicts I will die exactly ten minutes from now. For ten minutes that prediction is unfalsifiable. Am I to remain agnostic about my imminent death? Was the prediction merely a rhetorical device? If so-even though it's not falsifiable-I'll give no credence to it happening. OTOH, if I'm wrong, it's been fun posting.

clairtyiniowa,

Hmmm... By some definitions then, I fear fire, and fire is something that I don't doubt is a net benefit for mankind right now.

Brian,

You beat me to it.

The Wed RINO,

I'd certainly hope a teacher would get in trouble for saying that, since evolution does indeed negate young earth Christianity. I assume that's your point, but if not, please elaborate.

Hakluyt|11.15.05 @ 7:08PM|#

Akira MacKenzie,

So, like, when we meet at one ofthese shindigs, are we going to start quoting Aliens back and forth? I pity our poor company. :)

_____________

I don't fear religion, because I know if religionists strike me down, I shall become more powerful than they can possibly imagine.

thoreau,

Hell, I think even most of the other people on this forum would be OK with that.

I've repeatedly made that distinction on this forum - that is between the issues of origins and evolution. No, Dave W. was hinting at something far more than this way back when.

Dave W.,

According to you I have to remain agnostic on giant pink invisible elephants orbiting a star many, many light-years away. Again, we've gotten back to the point of your brains falling out.

Dave W.|11.15.05 @ 7:08PM|#

Being required to be agnostic about non-falsifiable things makes the word agnostic mean very little.

Well, in this thread we are talking about being agnostic about whether there are god(s). That is a pretty common usage, esp for the noun form of the word.

Dave W.|11.15.05 @ 7:12PM|#

but so what?

Because when atheists admit that they go beyond science and reason, as I sometimes try to make them do, they suddenly understand religous people in a new and somewhat more sympathetic light. Its for your own good, really. It is a thought that reminding yourself often will cause you to be less arrogant in your atheism.

Hakluyt|11.15.05 @ 7:14PM|#

Dave W.,

Agnosticism as described by Huxley is a radical sort of empiricism and you play right into that.

|11.15.05 @ 7:15PM|#

anon2,

Yeah, I wasn't very precise in that post. I said a little more about it at 5:42 - young earth creationists are never going to accept evolution, but I think most religious people would be fine with it if/when they get past the false notion that their faith and natural evolution are inherently in conflict.

Hakluyt|11.15.05 @ 7:16PM|#

Dave W.,

Because when atheists admit that they go beyond science and reason...

But they don't. Unless you have some very, very bizarre definition of what reason is.

Dave W.|11.15.05 @ 7:17PM|#

I should say reminding oneself . . . one's atheism. That was not directed personally at whoever said the so what thing.

Hakluyt|11.15.05 @ 7:20PM|#

J,

...but I think most religious people would be fine with it if/when they get past the false notion that their faith and natural evolution are inherently in conflict.

People keep saying that and it never happens. The more serious religiously minded are always going to have a problem with evolution.

|11.15.05 @ 7:21PM|#

"I've repeatedly made that distinction on this forum - that is between the issues of origins and evolution."

This isn't exactly the distinction being made by me, thoreau, and Dave W (not to put words in their mouths...). People often see a false conflict between (most) religion and the process of natural evolution in general, not just with natural theories of the origin of life (or the origin of the universe, although in this context I assume you're talking about life origins).

Hakluyt|11.15.05 @ 7:26PM|#

J,

Evolution says nothing about a God because there is nothing to be said about a God in evolution. There isn't some "God particle" or "God process" that can be shown or delineated as far as evolution is concerned. You can make a strong inference, based on reason, that this means that God doesn't exist. If theists want to ignore or deny this inference that's fine, but their concerns are pretty moot on the matter of the descriptive, etc. nature of evolutionary science.

Hakluyt|11.15.05 @ 7:28PM|#

anon2,

Its a bizarre notion that reason must lead one to agnosticism where one doesn't have absolute sensory knowledge of a subject.

|11.15.05 @ 7:28PM|#

"People keep saying that and it never happens. The more serious religiously minded are always going to have a problem with evolution."

I think it's way too early to claim there will always be a problem, because there are still too many religious "leaders" creating a conflict where none need exist. Many religious people who inform themselves about the basics of natural evolution are more than willing to accept it, but when supposed authorities in their faiths are telling them it's untrue, evil, etc., some perceived conflict is inevitable. Since the 1850's religious authorities have gradually become more open to natural evolution (I'm painting with a pretty broad brush here, I know...), and as that process continues I think the perceived conflict will gradually lessen and eventually come close to disappearing among the masses. At least that's my optimistic (comically idealistic?) take.

|11.15.05 @ 7:37PM|#

As for the point about arrogance and atheists, I would point out the following: I've never once had and atheist come up to me at while I was quietly eating lunch and ask if I have accepted atheism as the one true belief and then proceed to enlighten me as to why this must be true. I've never had one atheist after another come to my door while I'm having a nice relaxing weekend and ask if I know the only way to avoid eternal torture is to accept atheism. I've never had an atheist put literature on my car, my door, or try to hand it to me on the street telling me the consequences of not accepting their views on the world. I've never had to avoid someone on the corner loudly proclaiming the virtues of atheism and insulting any other viewpoint as I'm trying to walk to work.

I have had religionists do all of the above.

|11.15.05 @ 7:45PM|#

That's a pretty wussy-ass religion that's threatened by Darwin and public school science teaching. What happened to y'all's much vaunted faith in the divinity of Jesus?

I'll never understand Gentiles.

|11.15.05 @ 7:49PM|#

Brian,

I've never _personally_ had a religious person tell me in casual conversation that I was stupid, evil, a dupe, etc. because I'm an atheist, and that all atheists are stupid and evil. But when the topic comes up I've heard many atheists personally tell religious people that they individually, and religious people in general, are stupid, primitive, irrational, etc.

I realize there are plenty of religious nuts barking on street corners and spewing fire-and-brimstone on the radio (I actually have seen a few atheists doing the equivalent, although in much smaller numbers), but in personal day-to-day interactions the obnoxious, arrogant atheist is unfortunately all too alive and well.

Hakluyt|11.15.05 @ 7:57PM|#

Apostate Jew,

Heh.

J,

Most atheists keep quite about their ideas because they know the crap it will bring them in real life. Atheists don't as a rule evangelize and generally speaking they get on the top of religion with religionists because religionists bring it up.

Hakluyt|11.15.05 @ 8:01PM|#

J,

Oh, and I have had numerous religionists tell me I am headed straight to hell for being an atheist and that they would enjoy watching me burn from their seat in heaven. It was at that time that I realized that many religionists would have no problem executing me on the spot for being an atheist and using my organs for "believers" who needed them.

|11.15.05 @ 8:10PM|#

J,

But when the topic comes up

That's the difference. In none of my examples did the conversation come up - the religionists don't wait for that; they routinely come to my house, my lunch table at the university (a few times a year, to be accurate) even though I'm a total stranger. If I were having a conversation with them and they wanted to argue their point of view, even arrogantly, as it might be, fine, I would have no problem with that. But don't tell me there is any comparison between the number of atheists that seek out uninvited conversation with religionists at their door, their workplace or on the street, simply to push their views. Like I said, never once has that happened, yet many many times the opposite has.

|11.15.05 @ 8:10PM|#

Hakluyt,

That's nothing at all like my experience, although I'm in academia, which is a strongly biased subset of the population at large (to put it mildly).

Hakluyt|11.15.05 @ 8:28PM|#

J,

Heh. Whatever atheists might say is mild criticism basically.

Brain Courts,

We don't evagelize and we do get up on our soap box its usually in forums we've created of our own. Most atheists realize the social danger associated with outing themselves as atheists.

|11.15.05 @ 8:31PM|#

Brian,

That's a difference, but I don't think I attach as much significance to it as you do; it seems like arrogance just taking a different form (in some ways better, in some ways worse). And I probably wasn't clear about something - I'm not talking about conversations specifically about religion where one could reasonably be expected to give their opinion on religion or atheism in general, even if it's strongly negative. I'm talking about conversations about the news, a movie, work, or anything else where religion comes up tangentially, and an atheist launches into an unprovoked tirade. I think that qualifies as arrogant and obnoxious.

"Like I said, never once has that happened, yet many many times the opposite has."

It may not have happened to you, but it most definitely happens. I've had atheist fliers left on my car, I've heard atheists barking on street corners, and on one occasion I heard a panel of atheists on a radio show expounding at length about how simplistic and primitive religious people are. As I mentioned above their numbers are much smaller, but they exist and they're just as obnoxious as religious people doing the same thing.

|11.15.05 @ 8:41PM|#

"Most atheists realize the social danger associated with outing themselves as atheists."

Again, this is extremely context dependent. There are certainly situations where what you're saying is true. But in my experience in academia, which can be very insular in both professional and social circles, any social stigma is more often associated with being religious, not being an atheist.

I think most situations are probably somewhere in between - both militant atheists and militant religionists are stigmatized because most atheists and religionists are fairly tolerant (at least outwardly), and most people really don't want to listen to some jackass spewing hatred.

Hakluyt|11.15.05 @ 8:43PM|#

J,

Heh. But religions are simplistic and primitive.

It seems to me that your basic complaint is that some atheists aren't totally closeted and that sometimes they say negative things about religion.

|11.15.05 @ 8:45PM|#

I've had atheist fliers left on my car

Huh? Not to be too skeptical, but I would love to see it - I've never heard of such a thing and I doubt many others have either. And communist or Wiccan or some other non-God believing group doesn't count as an atheist flier unless it was for the sole purpose of convincing you that there is no God. Even if it did happen, I think we all know that it's 1000 to 1 at least, in favor of religious material.

And as for the other examples, don't tell me any atheist stranger has ever knocked on your door to tell you about their belief, or has just walked up to you at lunch and began asking you questions about your beliefs. Please. As Hak points out, most of us are careful about "outing" ourselves in public.

And, yes I attach significance to someone simply walking up uninvited and expounding on the evilness of my views. And even here in the university where religion is not held in as high regard, to be sure, atheists are still a distinct minority. So it's just laughable to claim there's any comparison. That's not to say atheists can't be arrogant - everyone can and many people often are (I'm certainly guilty of it) when discussing almost any topic they care about, but we're talking about relative weight here and it's just not close.

Hakluyt|11.15.05 @ 8:45PM|#

J,

I've been in academia and I've been in the "real world." Theists have nothing to fear from atheists, but atheists do have things to fear from theists.

When I say social danger I mean danger for one's physical, financial, etc. well-being amongst other things.

|11.15.05 @ 8:53PM|#

Hak,

It seems to me that your basic complaint is that some atheists aren't totally closeted and that sometimes they say negative things about religion.

Exactly. I am always amazed how accepting people proselytizing some religion is just considered part of our necessary tolerance, but daring to speak up as an atheist gets you labeled as arrogant because you are (necessarily) criticizing someone's beliefs.

Hakluyt|11.15.05 @ 8:58PM|#

Brian Courts,

Because they are bringing the "Good News" to our poor, darkened souls! :)

|11.15.05 @ 10:03PM|#

"...unless it was for the sole purpose of convincing you that there is no God."

That's exactly what they were for. That's happened to me only a handful of times, with fliers from two separate atheist groups. Certainly a lot fewer times than I've seen religious fliers, but it's definitely happened.

"Even if it did happen, I think we all know that it's 1000 to 1 at least, in favor of religious material."

By your tone it seems like you're under the impression that I've said anything other than this. Let me explicitly state for the third time that these sorts of interactions with strangers are much rarer with atheists than with religious people. The difference becomes somewhat less when you factor in how many fewer atheists there are, but it's still a very large difference.

"And as for the other examples, don't tell me any atheist stranger has ever knocked on your door to tell you about their belief, or has just walked up to you at lunch and began asking you questions about your beliefs. Please."

I never said either of those things. The examples I gave were fliers, street corner "preachers," and a radio program. You'd probably do well to read the posts a little closer, especially if you're going to take such a pissy tone about them.

It's also worth pointing out that whenever a religious person has come to my house, approached me at lunch, etc. to prosletize, I've never personally had one be anything but courteous and polite, and I've never had to say I'm not interested more than once or (rarely) twice before they go away. And I've never had one call me evil or any equivalent. Maybe your experience is different, but that's mine.

"And, yes I attach significance to someone simply walking up uninvited and expounding on the evilness of my views."

I do too. I also attach significance to an acquaintance or colleague who in conversation launches into an unprovoked tirade about how religionists (or atheists, for that matter) are stupid, evil, etc. In my experience the former is much more likely to happen with religionists, and the latter is much more likely to happen with atheists. I don't see the difference between them being as big as you apparently do, and in _some_ ways I think the latter can be worse. When some stranger approaches you, you can ignore them, tell them to fuck off, or whatever, and never see them again. If someone you're in a personal conversation with, especially someone you interact with somewhat regularly, tells you you're evil, stupid, etc., that creates a bit more of a problem.

"atheists are still a distinct minority"

That's not at all true in my field, which may explain a lot of the differences in our experiences.

"That's not to say atheists can't be arrogant..."

Which was the entire point of my initial post, responding to your post about the arrogance of religionists - there are plenty of arrogant atheists as well. Again, the fact that I'm in a field where atheists/agnostics are (I'm guessing, based on my experience; I haven't seen any numbers in a long time) at least slightly more common than religionists probably explains our different experiences. But I've had many interactions with atheist colleagues/acquaintances who are extremely arrogant and condescending toward religionists, but not the reverse.

MP|11.15.05 @ 10:05PM|#

if science and reason are your only tools, then you should be an agnostic

Screw that. I'm fully cognizent of the fact that my atheism is a faith in Science. That understanding allows me to accept another's belief in a higher power, but the refusal to denigrate another's faith does not elevate it to be my own.

Most atheists keep quite about their ideas because they know the crap it will bring them in real life.

It took me a long time to be comfortable about openly admitting my atheism. I still don't bring it up with the born agains in my family. But dammit, if someone asks me, I'll look them right in the eye and say "I'm an atheist" and they can shove it sideways if that rocks their worldview.

|11.15.05 @ 10:09PM|#

"It seems to me that your basic complaint is that some atheists aren't totally closeted and that sometimes they say negative things about religion."

Which of course is complete horseshit, as even a cursory reading of my posts should show. I don't have any problem with atheists _or_ religionists being "out." I also don't have any problem with atheists _or_ religionists having something negative to say about religion or atheism, respectively. In my initial post, I was talking about unprovoked, gratuitous insults about atheists or religionists as a group being inherently "stupid," "evil," etc.

"I am always amazed how accepting people proselytizing some religion is just considered part of our necessary tolerance, but daring to speak up as an atheist gets you labeled as arrogant because you are (necessarily) criticizing someone's beliefs."

I'm not sure who you're arguing with, but if you think it's me your reading comprehension skills could use some polishing. I never said simply "speaking up" as an atheist was arrogant. I also don't see how disagreeing with someone is "necessarily" criticizing them, unless you're under the impression that anyone who disagrees with you is inherently at fault in some way.

One final thing - I'm not sure if you missed it in my first post, but given the tone of your last couple posts I think perhaps you did: I myself am also an atheist. I just don't think that gives me the right to be an asshole to religionists, any more than a religionist has the right to be an asshole to me.

Wow, that last post turned out to be a lot longer than I had expected. I think I probably could have tightened that up a bit....

Hakluyt|11.15.05 @ 10:34PM|#

J,

In my initial post, I was talking about unprovoked, gratuitous insults about atheists or religionists as a group being inherently "stupid," "evil," etc.

Well, religionists are stupid - at least in that particular area of life.

Obviously you didn't grow up around Christians.

|11.15.05 @ 10:48PM|#

"Obviously you didn't grow up around Christians."

That's amazing, Hak! Now can you guess my age and weight?

Actually, you shouldn't quit your day job. I was raised in a respectably sized (four kids) Catholic family. I went through baptism, communion, reconciliation, confirmation - the whole bit. When I was 16-17 I went through the stereotypical Big Fight with my parents over being involved with the church, and I've never returned to the fold. I used to share your attitude that "religionists are stupid," but I couldn't stay 18 forever, and I eventually had to grow up and adopt a more nuanced and realistic attitude toward religion and religionists. Don't worry, some day you will too.

Hakluyt|11.15.05 @ 10:55PM|#

J,

If you are an atheist then you necessarily accept that theism is stupid and those who articulate such a viewpoint are stupid as well (at least with regard to that area of their lives). The same is true of one's view of communists as a capitalist.

What exactly is this more nuanced view of yours? Please explicate it.

Hakluyt|11.15.05 @ 10:58PM|#

J,

What, that you understand the sociological underpinnings of religious belief? Its historicity? I know more about the history of religion, the philosophy of religion, have read far more works by religious thinkers, etc. than you ever will. That doesn't dissuade me from the simple fact that belief in a deity is stupid. You also think its stupid, wrong, incorrect, etc. Otherwise you wouldn't be an atheist.

|11.15.05 @ 11:01PM|#

I'm not sure who you're arguing with, but if you think it's me your reading comprehension skills could use some polishing. I never said simply "speaking up" as an atheist was arrogant.

Um, no J., I wasn't arguing with anyone when I made the post about "...people proselytizing some religion." I was just making an observation that came to mind when I read Hak's post (yes, the one you took issue with, but that didn't make my thoughts on the issue an argument with you or anyone). But thanks for your concern, however I could do without the gratuitous and, shall I say... rather arrogant "reading comprehension" (attempted) insult. Maybe not every post on here has to do with you...

I'm not sure if you missed it in my first post, but given the tone of your last couple posts I think perhaps you did

No, I didn't. Again, it wasn't about you. My tone has only to do with how I feel about the issue, and nothing to do with what you do or do not believe beyond the issue we were discussing (i.e. the relative arrogance of atheists vs. religionists). Your personal status in one or the other or neither of the groups was quite irrelevant to what I said.

Hakluyt|11.15.05 @ 11:02PM|#

J,

Oh, and only a person with an 18 year old mind such as yourself would deny the necessary implications of their thoughts. Thus, there is a big difference between understanding why people believe in various deities, etc. (the nuance) and accepting that being an atheist means that one takes a positive stance against theistic belief which necessarily includes a judgment about theism generally and specifically.

Hakluyt|11.15.05 @ 11:03PM|#

J,

Basically you are an atheist who doesn't want to accept the notion that theists are wrongheaded when it comes to this particular area of thought. That's basically a form of intellectual coward.

Hakluyt|11.15.05 @ 11:05PM|#

Brian Courts,

Apparently accepting the necessary implications of an atheistic stance is arrogant, but patronizing someone isn't. :)

|11.15.05 @ 11:11PM|#

There are evangelical athiests as well as evangelical theists. Arrogance is assumed, rightly, by the guy on the wrong side of an evangelical tirade.

What is really at issue is not stupidity, but a preference for faith as opposed to a preference for skepticism. The arrogance of the atheist is that he does not acknowledge faith as a meaningful source of knowledge - certainly not something that should ever compete with skepticism. That which is most important to the theist is viewed as having near 0 value to the athiest.

To the athiest, the arrogance of the faithful is the supreme confidence that they can talk about something about which in any epistemological sense they know absolutely nothing.

Hakluyt|11.15.05 @ 11:15PM|#

J,

How often have you read the entire Summa Theologica? Or Boethius' Consolations...? Or Augustine's Civitas Dei? Have you read monographs on religious practice amongst the Albigensians, or the syncretism of Jamaican religion, the history of the "Burned Over District," etc.?

No, I'm going to suggest that my view of religion is far more nuanced from a sociological, historical, etc. perspective than yours ever will be. Yet as an atheist, the conclusion one comes to is rather simple: theists in this one area of life at least are stupid, wrongheaded, unintelligent, etc.

Hakluyt|11.15.05 @ 11:18PM|#

Jason Ligon,

That depends on what you mean by "faith" I suppose. In the religious sense it generally refers to the belief in supernatural powers or entities as a guide in one's life.

Hakluyt|11.15.05 @ 11:20PM|#

Jason Ligon,

The arrogance of the atheist is that he does not acknowledge faith as a meaningful source of knowledge...

That's not arrogance (if we use the definition of faith I use directly above), its proper thinking.

Hakluyt|11.15.05 @ 11:21PM|#

It never ceases to amaze me the efforts of folks like J. to hollow out atheism and making it into a category of P.C. platitudes and general nothingness.

|11.15.05 @ 11:28PM|#

Hak:

Clearly, I don't buy faith as a source of knowledge. I'm just saying, that is why I can sound arrogant to a theist.

Hakluyt|11.15.05 @ 11:30PM|#

Jason Ligon,

That gets into a discussion of their "widdle feelings" though.

|11.15.05 @ 11:35PM|#

Hak:

Note that the starting point of my arrogance comments was the evangelical nature of certain athiests and theists. Discussions can be had without all the arrogance if the evangelical component is left aside.

Hakluyt|11.15.05 @ 11:38PM|#

Jason Ligon,

What makes one person an evangelical and another not?

MP|11.15.05 @ 11:43PM|#

Hakluyt,

A person who believes a higher power created the Universe is not stupid. A person who believes that it was God's will that the Colts be 9-0 is a blithering idiot. Somewhere betwixt the two is your crossover between faith and stupidity. It is unfair to treat every person that has even the slightest faith in a higher power as a fool, and it would not be contradictory to atheistic beliefs to treat certain types of faith as legitimate.

Hakluyt|11.15.05 @ 11:47PM|#

MP,

A person who believes a higher power created the Universe is not stupid.

From the perspective of an atheist they are. Just as a person who believes in other hairbrained things like feng shui, five year plans, etc. should be considered stupid.

It is unfair to treat every person that has even the slightest faith in a higher power as a fool...

Its not an issue of fairness. The philosophical perspective which is atheism treats claims of a theistic as beyond the pale of the rationally acceptable.

MP|11.15.05 @ 11:47PM|#

That depends on what you mean by "faith" I suppose. In the religious sense it generally refers to the belief in supernatural powers or entities as a guide in one's life.

Although the word faith is typically used in reference to religion, it should not be assumed as such...particularly when philosphizing.

MP|11.15.05 @ 11:53PM|#

From the perspective of an atheist they are.

Stupidity requires ignorance. Since an atheist can't legitimately say that it is indisputable that the Universe is the way it is naturally, there is no basis for calling a non-atheist (of a particular stripe) stupid.

jadagul|11.15.05 @ 11:58PM|#

Hakluyt, there's a difference between "wrong" and "stupid." My religious friends are wrong. Pat Robertson is stupid. But it's possible to have a belief that's objectively false without being stuipid-would you call Plato and Aristotle stupid for not believing in atoms, or Newton for not thinking light acted as a wave, or Einstein for rejecting quantum mechanics?

And that's without getting into the question of whether this sort of belief can be objectively right or wrong. I tend to buy Rorty's line that you have to start with a worldview before you can interpret other claims as right or wrong. I figure that if assuming the existence of an omnipotent loving god helps you make sense of the world, and makes your life better, then go for it, as long as you're not hurting anyone else. It just doesn't make sense for me.

Hakluyt|11.15.05 @ 11:59PM|#

MP,

Well, the individual in question was using it in a religious sense.

No, stupidity connotes a lack of intellectual ability. If i had wanted to call them ignorant I would have used that term.

jadagul|11.16.05 @ 12:01AM|#

Incidentally, Hakluyt, you had a bunch of friends at Harvey Mudd? I think I'm obligated to make a disparaging comment about the lack of social grace adhering to all Mudd students.

And I know I'm obligated to make a crack about CMC students' lack of intellectual fortitude, as well as the males' inclination toward sexual dysfunction. But I'm more mature than that, so I won't ;)

Hakluyt|11.16.05 @ 12:04AM|#

MP,

...would you call Plato and Aristotle stupid for not believing in atoms...

They were afflicted more by ignorance and poor methods for determining the building-blocks of the universe. Then again, there were individuals in the classical world who did believe in something similar to an atom.


...or Newton for not thinking light acted as a wave...

Ignorance, etc.

I figure that if assuming the existence of an omnipotent loving god helps you make sense of the world, and makes your life better, then go for it, as long as you're not hurting anyone else.

Well, that's an entirely different issue entirely. As I wrote, I understand quite well the historocity, sociology, etc. of religion.

Hakluyt|11.16.05 @ 12:06AM|#

jadagul,

Well, I didn't go there, so I never experienced any of that. The Muddites I've known were generally rational, stable people.

jadagul|11.16.05 @ 12:09AM|#

Eh, it's a school rivalry thing. I don't think I'm allowed to let a mention of any of the other four Cs pass without an insult. And I can't let CMC pass without an insult even if it's not mentioned.

Although I am amused that Mudd had to make a rule specifically banning manufacture of napalm on campus.

Hakluyt|11.16.05 @ 12:13AM|#

jadagul,

They used to have a kegger fee taken right out of their tuition as I recall, until the feds stopped them doing that.

What's funny is that I would call my Mudd friends and they would talk to me about their classes for hours and I even bought a few of the books they were reading in their classes. I feel like I almost got a distance education from the place.

jadagul|11.16.05 @ 12:15AM|#

Nice. We're even better than a kegger fee, though...we apparently have a keg endowment. Someone donated money to the school that can only be used to buy kegs for the students, so we get three kegs a week. Doesn't help me, since I don't drink, but...

|11.16.05 @ 2:32AM|#

Newsflash: Charles Darwin was a Christian. The Roman Catholic Church, the United Methodist Church, the Episcopal Church, the Lutheran World Federation, and the Central Conference of American Rabbis have all issued statements that evolutionary science is not incompatible with the basic tenets of religious faith. In Catholic schools, evolution has been taught for years, with no fuss, as part of the science curriculum.

People have a right to their religious convictions, no matter how dumb.

There's something unseemly about libertarians supporting the state as it teaches children something that directly conflicts with their religious convictions and the convictions of their Evangelical parents.

...And I think there's a price to be paid for that. I suspect it's in favor of freedom of expression but at the expense of freedom from establishment.

Dave W.|11.16.05 @ 5:33AM|#

I was quietly eating lunch and ask if I have accepted atheism as the one true belief and then proceed to enlighten me as to why this must be true.

Sometimes an evolution thread here at HnR gets hot 'round lunchtime. Come see the symmetry!

|11.16.05 @ 7:42AM|#

Heh, Hakluyt starts defending atheist's from charges of arrogance and winds up being exhibit "A" in the case for.

|11.16.05 @ 9:20AM|#

Hak:

I'll go with defnition 6 from Dictionary.com:

e�van�gel�i�cal ( P ) Pronunciation Key (vn-jl-kl, vn-) also e�van�gel�ic (-jlk)
adj.

"Characterized by ardent or crusading enthusiasm; zealous: an evangelical liberal."

It is the crusading that tends to spoil discourse. I'm agnostic with atheistic leanings, and I will comment on my reasons for my current state of mind on the subject by explaining how I arrived where I am. I don't usually accuse or paint those that disagree with me with a broad brush. I might say that it seems inconsistent to me that someone who believes x can also believe y, but I don't say that people who believe y are categorically stupid. I'm coming from an angle of skepticism, so I think it is always healthy to acknowledge that the same rules of skepticism apply to non empirical positions I hold as well as those other people hold. In this sense, I don't consider myself evangelical.

|11.16.05 @ 9:21AM|#

"Um, no J., I wasn't arguing with anyone when I made the post about '...people proselytizing some religion.'"

And, um, no Brian, I obviously wasn't talking about that part of your quote, but the part about "speaking up" as an atheist.

And you quoted me and responded to me directly in each of your previous posts on the topic, then wrote to the only other person posting at the time with a condescending comment about "some people" who hold a view you mis-attributed to me in those previous posts, and then you pretend I'm somehow arrogant for assuming you're referring to me? Uh...right. That's certainly an...um...interesting interpretation, to be very generous.

"however I could do without the gratuitous and, shall I say... rather arrogant "reading comprehension" (attempted) insult."

Right. After you misrepresent what I've said multiple times and make condescending comments and imply I'm hypocritical based on your misrepresentations, you call my comments gratuitous? Wow, you were certainly full of creativity last night, weren't you? But please don't little things like reality get in your way. You're gonna be a star!

|11.16.05 @ 9:32AM|#

No, Hak, it's completely reasonable and consistent to be an atheist but not think religious people are necessarily stupid. That's not intellectual cowardice; it's just not being an asshole.

Dave W.|11.16.05 @ 9:42AM|#

Science class is about the natural world, so faith has no place there

That is correct, T. That is why when Catholics like you or me put on our science-and-reason-only hats, we shift from being Catholics to agnostics. However, the science-and-reason-only hat does not admit atheism. You say I am giving you a demand, but I am really giving you a choice for when you wear the hat. Your hatted choice is this:

stick with science and reason only and admit you are an agnostic;

OR

be an atheist who admits to himself and others that he is going beyond science and reason when you express any preference for the godless natural world. (Brian and Jason have suggested some reasons as to why one might take this latter option, upon which I comment not).

Dave W.|11.16.05 @ 9:45AM|#

actually I guess the latter option involves removing the hat, but it does not force you to accept the Lord Jesus Christ as your personal savior, which is why I say you have a meaningful choice, T.

|11.16.05 @ 10:01AM|#

You mean I can't be a Catholic?

I should probably contact my parish and ask them to take me off the mailing list.

|11.16.05 @ 10:06AM|#

Dear Father,

A guy on the internet named Dave W. has just told me that being Catholic is not an option for me. I was enjoying life in the parish, and finding spiritual fulfillment in the teachings of the Church, but Dave W. told me that's not an option for me. And another guy told me I'm an idiot.

So, please cross my name off the list. I hate leaving, but apparently it's not an option for me. I was looking forward to a post as a minor functionary when the Papal Hegemony was re-established (I think a guy named Lonewacko might be on to the part where we bring in lots of Catholic immigrants...), but that's all gone. I guess you'll have to burn me at the stake when the Conspiracy is fulfilled.

In the mean time, I'll enjoy my new-found freedom to use abortion as a form of birth control. And steak every Friday--even during Lent!

Sincerely,

[name redacted]

|11.16.05 @ 10:07AM|#

P.S. It sucks having to leave just when we finally have a Catholic majority on the Supreme Court. Well, the Plan is obviously near its fruition, so I'd better enjoy hedonism in what little time remains.

Dave W.|11.16.05 @ 10:16AM|#

T, I am saying that you can't wear the science-and-reason-only hat and be Catholic at the same time. The choice is yours, the hat or your religion. A THIRD WAY: do what I do and alternate between the two perspectives, keeping it clear what role you are playing at any given time.

In other words, be a Catholic in your free time, but when you are setting the curriculum for publically funded schools, don't be a Catholic for the period of the policymaking. When the curriculum is set, then you can go to Church and conditionally repent. Same applies to atheists, except the part about Churchgoing & repentence.

|11.16.05 @ 10:19AM|#

"be an atheist who admits to himself and others that he is going beyond science and reason when you express any preference for the godless natural world."

Not go beyond science and reason. Skepticism is central to scientific investigation, not an exception to it.

|11.16.05 @ 10:22AM|#

Dave W.-

First I thought you just wanted one sentence read before the evolution lesson. Now you seem to want me to think a certain way.

BTW, for those who object to reading one sentence before the evolution lesson, I have a hunch that a lot of teachers are already giving unofficial disclaimers. Something about how the teacher knows that some people get upset about evolution, but we're going to talk about it anyway, and the teacher is not trying to change anybody's minds about religion, just teach them about the findings of science. That's all.

|11.16.05 @ 10:23AM|#

I will not go so far as to say that people of faith are stupid, but I will admit to confusion about how one can reconcile putting on the various hats Dave suggests. It is compartmentalization at a pretty extreme level. The two hats clash on fundamental principles in certain areas (i.e. the role of skepticism in attaining knowledge), and it seems like a recipe for a pretty severe confusion.

|11.16.05 @ 10:25AM|#

Jason, now that I'm no longer a member I can let you in on a little secret....

Hang on a minute, there's some guy in the conference room looking for me. He's wearing a uniform with Swiss and Vatican emblems on it...

[sound of gunshots. body slumps to floor]

MP|11.16.05 @ 10:28AM|#

I have a hunch that a lot of teachers are already giving unofficial disclaimers

Then they are unnecessarily setting themselves up to be abused.

|11.16.05 @ 10:29AM|#

I knew a chick in college who was quite a good physics student and extremely devout in some denomination of Christianity or another. She used to say things like, "Oh, physics is just a game. It doesn't tell you anything about the real world. The real world is God's unknowable will."

There you have it, a practicing physicist who doesn't buy empiricism. It still hurts my head.

Dave W.|11.16.05 @ 10:33AM|#

Thoreau: I don't find it so unusual that I would ask you to embrace the disclaimer in both at the procedural and substantive senses. You seem to be willing to procedurally Mirandize highschool classes with the warning, but your own thinking on the matter seems kind of back and forth. Do you think science and reason alone lead to any sort of preference for a godless "natural world" or don't you?

Dave W.|11.16.05 @ 10:37AM|#

"Oh, physics is just a game. It doesn't tell you anything about the real world. The real world is God's unknowable will."

There you have it, a practicing physicist who doesn't buy empiricism. It still hurts my head.

And your argument, if I understand it, is that the world must be knowable, it is pragmatic for the world to be knowable, my mind thirsts for a knowable world, my Razor only shaves knowable scalps, and skepticism bolsters the conclusion that the world must be knowable. Because the world is knowable and God is not, there is probably no God.

She sounds sill, but no more so than . . .

Dave W.|11.16.05 @ 10:38AM|#

silly, I meant

|11.16.05 @ 10:46AM|#

You seem to be willing to procedurally Mirandize highschool classes with the warning, but your own thinking on the matter seems kind of back and forth. Do you think science and reason alone lead to any sort of preference for a godless "natural world" or don't you?

This world is what it is. The results of experiments and observations suggest that reason and empirical data alone are sufficient to understand natural phenomena, or at least the phenomena revealed by systematic experimental studies.

On questions of meaning, the things that stir the human soul but not the needle on an experimental meter, there one must look to other realms. But science class isn't concerned with those other realms.


MP-

You may be right. Whether or not a short disclaimer will do more good than harm depends on the pre-existing situation and whether the teacher can use it to establish a rapport with the students. If the teacher is able to persuade the most stubborn that he's not trying to change anybody's mind on religion, he may open some minds at least enough to get through the lesson without acrimony. OTOH, if there is no need to give the disclaimer then don't do it.

Dave W.|11.16.05 @ 10:54AM|#

I still don't know if tht is a yes or a no, T. Highschool science class is or should be concerned having the students not misunderstand the scope and limits of scientific authority. That is important for pragmatic, real life reasons, similar to the way number theory is important to a retarded adult who doesn't want to get taken every time change is made. Not everybody needs math or science at the same level, but everybody needs enuf to think their way thru real life situations. thinking about the realtionship between science and origins questions, I submit, is a much more common and pragmatic question than anything, and I mean anything, having to do with earthworm digestive tracks or how to slice them neatly. Otherwise they get all mush mouthed and can't answer a simple yes or no question with a simple yes or no.

|11.16.05 @ 10:57AM|#

Dave W:

Er, no. I'm saying that you only have knowledge through reason or empirical study. You don't have knowledge about anything else. I'm also saying that the very practices of physics and the act of making predictions is rationally inseparable from an empirical epistemology.

To say that you know that the universe is the unknowable will of an omnipotent being is to say that empiricism is not a source of knowledge for you. Something else is. That something else, be it appeal to authority or gut instinct, is at odds with the entire process of scientific investigation. In your parlance, the faith hat can't be worn while persuing scientific study.

|11.16.05 @ 11:00AM|#

I'd love to answer the question with a simple yes or no. But there's an ambiguity in the question:

Do you think science and reason alone lead to any sort of preference for a godless "natural world" or don't you?

If by "godless 'natural world'" you mean that there are areas of inquiry that can be understood without any reference to religion or God, then yes, I do believe that science leads to a preference for a godless natural world.

If by "godless 'natural world'" you mean no God at all (i.e. atheism), then no, I do not believe that science leads to a preference for a godless natural world. I am a scientist and a Catholic....well, I was until you told me I have to quite :)

|11.16.05 @ 11:15AM|#

Jason-

What ever became of that girl who thought that physics is nothing but a game? What's she up to now?

Dave W.|11.16.05 @ 11:17AM|#

T, the question of origins inheres in everything we non-scientist laypeople think about. When the question of origins is raised, there is no such thing as the (scientifically known-to-be) godless portion of the natural world.

|11.16.05 @ 1:27PM|#

J, you're just being an asshole. I never misattributed anything to you. You obviously have a rather expansive view of your importance to the discussion. My responses to you were always about one point - the relative arrogance of atheists v. religionists - never about your place in either camp. I defy you to show me one place where I misattributed anything or misstated your position. If you were, in fact, referring to my previous responses to you in that post then you're just wrong - read them again. I never said you were not an atheist and frankly I don't care. As to the response to Hak, it was about people "proselytizing religion", which (again, re-read it) I never said nor implied you were one of those people. So don't be such a condescending prick and get a thicker skin on here - I didn't even say anything about you personally and you respond with the condescending shit did. I'd hate to see how you take it when things DO get personal and heated on here. Grow up and learn to actually read the posts before making knee-jerk responses.

|11.16.05 @ 1:58PM|#

"J, you're just being an asshole."

Hey, never lose that class. With that and your talent for reasoned argument, maybe one day you and Hak can co-host a vapid cable news talk show. Of course I'm sure the hypocrisy of that statement is completely lost on you, but that's about par for the course apparently.

"My responses to you were always about one point - the relative arrogance of atheists v. religionists - never about your place in either camp."

Yes, and my comment to you regarding your post to Hak, the bit right after I _directly quoted_ that post, were obviously about the arrogance of atheists, which made them directly relevant to our posts. This really isn't complicated, despite what you're pretending.

"I defy you to show me one place where I misattributed anything or misstated your position. "

I already did that in my overly long 10:03 post. Feel free to continue to ignore those parts if it makes you feel better.

"So don't be such a condescending prick and get a thicker skin on here"

My god, the irony here (and actually for most of your accusations in this particular frothing rant) is overwhelming. Your head must be about to explode from your efforts to ignore it. But if you want to use this thread as your own personal creative writing exercise, I'm certainly not going to lose any sleep over it. Froth away!

|11.16.05 @ 2:11PM|#

thoreau:

I have no idea. She graduated BS in Math and Physics. Maybe she went to seminary after that, maybe grad school because the game was fun.

jadagul|11.16.05 @ 2:26PM|#

Jason Ligon: somehow, I feel like she ought to think that a "BS in physics" is appropriate.

And I think Dave W.'s claim (pardon me if I'm mistaken) is that there's no way to demonstrate that reason and empirical study are the only sources of knowledge (nor is there any way to demonstrate that they are sources of knowledge, nor is there any way to demonstrate that they aren't sources of knowledge, nor is there any way to demonstrate that anything else is a source of knowledge). You can't prove or disprove your premises; they are what they are.

At the risk of emulating a certain poster who is almost as arrogant as I am, if you want to read more about that idea I'd suggest Richard Rorty's Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature.

|11.16.05 @ 2:27PM|#

Dr. Thoreau --

I was saddened to hear of your leaving the Roman Catholic Church, although I understand that you had absolutely no other options.

I was sadder still to hear of your recent assassination by a unit of the Vatican's Swiss Special Forces. (Mottoes: "Who prays -- wins!" and "Semper fi. Really semper fi." And, "Our chief weapon is surprise. Surprise and fear. Our two main weapons are surprise, and fear, and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope. Amongst our weaponry are such diverse elements as ... we'll come in again.")

I'll pray for you. I'll even ask for intercession from St. Albertus Magnus, patron saint of scientists.

|11.16.05 @ 2:29PM|#

stick with science and reason only and admit you are an agnostic;

OR

be an atheist who admits to himself and others that he is going beyond science and reason when you express any preference for the godless natural world. (Brian and Jason have suggested some reasons as to why one might take this latter option, upon which I comment not).


No, I didn't suggest you take the latter option and admit that atheism goes beyond reason at all. I said it is well within the scope of reason. Saying that reason can only lead to agnosticism is a mere technicality that is essentially meaningless. What if I claim to be God? Are you agnostic? Or can you assert based on reason and logic that, absent my producing some convincing evidence, that I am, in fact, not God? If the former, then this whole argument is meaningless. Maybe I'm God, maybe I have a dragon in my garage, maybe God exists, what's the difference? If the later, then your judgment, based on probability, reason, logic, and a demand for proof of extraordinary claims, that I am in fact not God can be used to assert just as reliably that, absent any evidence, there is no God. Why is the possible existence of a God due any more respect than that of the invisible, incorporeal dragon in the garage?

|11.16.05 @ 2:50PM|#

Stevo-

Hell ain't nearly as bad as they make it out to be. That Swiss Guard guy did me a favor, really. A whole bunch of scientists and libertarians are down here. The place is full of Chinese people, since they never converted to Christianity, and they make the best food. The 9/11 terrorists are down here, but even the damned don't like them, so Satan lets us amuse ourselves by torturing them.

OK, it isn't actually torture under the terms of the Geneva Convention, but we all call it that anyway.

Anyway, it's a lot of fun down here.

|11.16.05 @ 3:01PM|#

jadagul:

Yah. I know the Wittgenstein argument. It suffers the same problem I see with Dave W's argument - the inability to distinguish between knowledge that has demonstrated predictive power and hand wavy nonsense you just made up.

|11.16.05 @ 3:52PM|#

Thoreau --

But don't you get sick of them playing Billy Joel's "Only the Good Die Young" over and over and over?

PS: Mmmm.... hot Asian chicks.

jadagul|11.17.05 @ 12:47AM|#

Jason, I sort of agree with you. Rorty's point, as best I can synopsize, is that we should acknowledge that we don't know that the scientific method works, but that that's not relevant for 98% of our lives. He really only thinks it matters for two reasons. First, it means you can stop trying to argue people into giving up faith or being totally intolerant of anyone who has beliefs different from yours. I think a belief in God or mysticism is kind of silly, and don't see the point, but it's not my problem and I can't prove their premises wrong any more than they can prove mine wrong (I can't come up with any set of circumstances that would show God doesn't exist, which is sort of what non-falsifiable means).

Second, it was an attempt to get the philosophical community to shut up about trying to find the fundamental principles of how we acquire knowledge, and prove once and for all that science is the One True Method for Learning Truth. Go on and ask something more practical. This is why I find ethics and political philosphy cool, but epistemology kinda boring.

And Stevo: What does "get sick of Billy Joel's 'Only the Good Die Young'" mean? It can't possibly mean what it sounds like.