I am committed to more brevity, so I must resist the temptation to draw out my greatsword, chop this into bloody chunks, and stomp the gobbets into gooey red smears while howling, “There are nooooo gods!!!”, but I will take exception to one small piece of Francis Collins’ interview in Christianity Today.
I encounter many young people who have been raised in homes where faith was practiced and who have encountered the evidence from science about the age of the earth and about evolution and who are in crisis. They are led to believe by what they are hearing from atheistic scientists on the one hand and fundamentalist believers on the other that they have to make a choice. This is a terrible thing to ask of a young person.
I have to ask…
-
What’s wrong with confronting young people with a crisis? It’s pretty much their nature to be in a constant state of crisis anyway.
-
As young people’s crises go, the conflict between science and religion is a small one. Why not encourage more intellectual anguish than the usual “So-and-so doesn’t want to go to the dance with me!”?
-
Why is making a choice a terrible thing to ask? Get used to it. There are lots of choices you have to make in this life.
-
The only terrible response they might make is to turn away from science, and by pandering to blind faith, Collins is promoting that. Why does Collins continue to encourage people to believe in baseless superstition? He’s supposed to be a scientist!
-
Does Collins think it would be a terrible thing for more young people to choose atheism? Why? I think it would be wonderful if more people realized they do have a choice about whether to believe the dogma of their forefathers, or to think anew and learn more about the real universe.
There is more pablum in the interview, but not much, if anyone else wants to hack at it. This was the part that was least likely to put me in berserkergang.
Collins also has an interview in the new issue of National Geographic, in which he side-steps a lot of tough questions like “Why did God do nothing about the Holocaust?”. Collins also uses the old canard of Mother Teresa exhibiting selflessness so great that evolution can’t explain such altruism, and overall the interview made me want to read his book even less (I figured I should for the sake of hearing him out, but now I don’t know if I care to).
What he is doing is preaching from the core of all religions.
Rhetorically stating that there is an terrible problem (there isn’t but religion needs one so lets pretend there is) and then offering a solution in the form of the Ultimate Authority Figure. Phew! What a relief! No more problem because the UAF is there to make it all okay. Of course it won’t help with the real teenage issues like why so-and-so won’t dance with you.
Mother Theresa was a terrible human being. She built warehouses of suffering rather than preventing and healing disease and alleviating poverty. She used the plight of the poor to promote herself.
And Collins does think atheism is a terrible choice, because he’s a theist.
I am not closely familiar with the life and accomplishments of Mother Teresa (she’s basically a rhetorical device and a punchline to me), so I’ll not say anything about that specific tangent. However, I think it bears repeating that we have not one, but a plenitude of explanations for how altruism can arise via natural mechanisms: kin selection, group selection, reciprocality. . . . Our problem is not to devise more explanations or stretch our credulity in fishing for improbable ones, but rather to decide which of the many worthwhile candidates we already have on hand does the best job. It’s a big world, with plenty of room for all these effects to play. Philosophically, there is no way to choose among them; empirically, the question is to find out which had an effect in which places. Our vanity pushes us to seek the explanation which applies best to our own twig of the evolutionary bush, and we will undeniably give that explanation a favored place among ideas once we find it.
Science presents us with a meal so rich we can hardly choose among the courses, and Collins wishes us to starve.
But wait, there’s more!
Collins provides an “argument” for God which is little more than Paley’s Watchmaker in disguise. He asserts, contrary to evidence, that natural mechanisms cannot explain the rise of beings who exhibit morality. Let’s ignore the question of evidence for a moment, pretending for the nonce that nobody has proposed kin selection, group selection or any of that. We can even step back before Darwin and ask how Epicurus, Lucretius or David Hume would have replied to this reasoning.
Suppose, while walking along a beach, we discover a pocket watch in the sand. (Lucretius would have to phrase the question in terms of the Antikythera machine, but that’s a small matter.) Not knowing of any way that the washing of the waves or the scuttling of tide-pool crabs could create a working timepiece, we presume that the watch must have been designed. But by whom?
With the paltry information we have on hand, we cannot say whether the watch we found was made by a master craftsman, by an apprentice (perhaps on his twentieth attempt!), by a committee of guild members, by Hephaestus or by aliens from Tau Ceti IV. The teleological argument crumbles in our hands, leaving only an old timepiece with sand in the gears.
The same holds true for the pablum Collins has offered. We may be moral beings because Jehovah willed it so, or because the Invisible Pink Unicorn touched us with His magical horn, or because the royal house of Tau Ceti IV likes to eat Earthlingburgers and wants us lily-livered in the face of their invasion!
Poor reasoning of the type Collins has given us propagates through the noise, I believe, because it is self-congratulatory. We are special, it says, and moreover, special because we are good. The lure is irresistable, and dangerous.
Mother Theresa was a terrible human being. She built warehouses of suffering rather than preventing and healing disease and alleviating poverty. She used the plight of the poor to promote herself.
Holy crap, I did not know that. I’ll have to change my lecture on Inclusive Fitness and Reciprocal Altruism.
I wonder if he would think it an equally terrible thing if children who grew up in atheistic households were present evidence for God, and led to believe they had to make a choice…
Or is it only terrible when his side has something to lose?
I cant begin to tell you how many hours I spent pining by the telephone, waiting for God to call, but the son of a bitch never got back to me after that first date.
And we as a society would be well served to recover that happy middle ground where people have been for most of human history.
The happy middle ground, where it’s okay to teach the controversy. Where everyone buys and reads Collins’ schizophrenic book. This is just self-serving book promotion.
“They are led to believe by what they are hearing from atheistic scientists on the one hand and fundamentalist believers on the other that they have to make a choice. This is a terrible thing to ask of a young person.”
Hey, we’re just trying to teach the controversy!
> I cant begin to tell you how many hours I spent pining by
> the telephone, waiting for God to call, but the son of a
> bitch never got back to me after that first date.
>
> Posted by: Warren | January 17, 2007 01:16 PM
That woulda been a lot funnier if you’d signed your name “Mary”… ;-)
They’re only in crisis because they are not stupid. They recognize the factual basis of the scientific information, and are in crisis because of the guilt they know they will be faced with from their parents and the persecution from their friends, should they choose to reject what they now see as misinformation or downright lies (I’m talking about their religion). In order to resolve this crisis, many of them will make a conscious decision to reject the science in favour of maintaining harmonious relationships in their lives.
I firmly believe that the vast majority of believers are easily intelligent enough to understand the validity of the science, but willingly choose to reject it in order to have a neater, cleaner life. That’s why I never refer to creationsists as stupid; just intellectually dishonest.
-Paul
Not sure why he’s getting so much press. There’s an interview in the Feb 2007 Discover, too. Sample quote: “… religion down through history has been misused by lots of people in terrible ways. But it’s also done some profoundly good things. What has atheism done to help people?” What a question! — disingenuous, Orwellian, and perfectly vile. I don’t think Collins is misguided or deluded. I think he is despicable.
Is it any more terrible than asking a young person to believe that a loving father allowed his only son to be scourged and crucified so that sins as yet uncommitted might be forgiven? Now that’s twisted.
But berserker Pharyngula is what we came to see!
Now, now, Saint Gasoline, don’t tempt our esteemed host to neglect other responsibilities in order to indulge further in shooting fish in a barrel. I think Collins has already had a lot more electrons wasted on him than his “ideas” are worth.
While I am a great admirer of yours, PZ (and I say that with all sincerity as a fellow liberal atheist), your inability or refusal to draw distinctions among degrees of religiousity and hostility to science bothers me.
Is the dogmatism of Francis Collins any less false than that of Ken Ham? No. Is it less dangerous? Absolutely.
The article you linked to defended evolutionary theory from the perspective of a believer. This is useful in getting believers to begin to let go of some of their more extreme and irrational beliefs. I agree that it would be far preferable for them all to quickly drop the hocus pocus and deal with the universe as it is, but that’s also a childish and futile fantasy.
What I’m saying is, it would be better for all of us if you would continue to make the case for reality vs. superstition, but acknowledge the critical distinctions between people like Francis Collins and people like Ken Ham. While this stuff transcends public policy, it also impacts policy a great deal, and to be effectively politically it’s wise to draw distinctions among your opponents.
“I cant begin to tell you how many hours I spent pining by the telephone, waiting for God to call, but the son of a bitch never got back to me after that first date.”
You’re lucky- just think of that nice Jewish girl he had his way with, knocked up, and ran out on. But at least he’s not as bad as his frat brother Zeus- now there was a real cad!
The main difference I see between a “scientific” based approach to life and a “faith base” approach is questions. Science does not turn away from questions in fact science is about asking questions and then asking question about the results of those questions.
In Faith there are things that are not asked seriously but only to respond with “The Answer”
Why are we here? God made us!
Where do we go after we die? Heaven or hell
While science asks What are we? Where is here?
What is it to be alive? How does it work?
before asking why!
It seems to me that the “apologists for faith” are “whistling past the grave yard”
and fear is their main motivation. Faith is a story we want to be true, when in fact we know so little.
It has very hard to be rational with someone who is driven by fear, For someone who is afraid of questions which lead to more questions.
The comments over there are good fun too. There’s even a sighting of Ignoramus Cursimii. Or is it a spoof?
What Collins is saying is “I’ve figured out a way to compartmentalize my thinking. I put my logical, rational mind in this box and my ‘spiritual’ mind in this box. And they don’t talk to each other — EVER! It works for me and it could work for you too. There, problem solved.”
Sorry Collins, but this is like saying, “I found the secret to the perfect marriage. Separate bedrooms!”
In that the former sort does a lot of work in terms of contributing to the mental atmosphere in which the latter sort can flourish, I’m afraid the distinction is not nearly so hard and fast as you would like it to be. This is what people like Harris and Dawkins have been trying to point out, and I’m convinced they’re correct.
Does Collins think it would be a terrible thing for more young people to choose atheism? Why?
Rejecting Jesus is the fast-track to eternal torment in the hot fiery place.
Plus, it may lead the teen to experiment with teh gay which is, like, the worst thing ever next to marrying a Jew.
I firmly believe that the vast majority of believers are easily intelligent enough to understand the validity of the science, but willingly choose to reject it in order to have a neater, cleaner life. That’s why I never refer to creationsists as stupid; just intellectually dishonest.
Stupid. adj., -er, -est.
1. Slow to learn or understand; obtuse.
2. Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes.
3. Marked by a lack of intelligence or care; foolish or careless: a stupid mistake.
4. Dazed, stunned, or stupefied.
5. Pointless; worthless: a stupid job.
Creationists are stupid. Believing in God is the ultimate poor decision (#2). A lot of them certainly come across as dazed or stunned or stupified (#4) with their God-intoxication (think Collins kneeling down at his waterfall and giving it up for Jesus). Collins’ effort to promote a fantasy middle ground where all controversy miraculously dissolves (because he doesn’t want to think about it) is just plain foolish (#3).
Creationists are stupid, intelligent people can be stupid, and Collins is especially stupid (obtuse, #1) because he should know better, with his scientific training, than to fall for all the God crap.
So, the blog. Hmmm. It takes up time I can scarely spare right now.
Give me the keys, PZ. You work on your book and your teaching, and I’ll drive Pharyngula for a while.
You can trust me.
Collins is especially stupid (obtuse, #1) because he should know better, with his scientific training, than to fall for all the God crap.
It’s a tad more complicated than that (just a tad).
Collins knows it’s crap, but he also knows that the magical feel-good properties of his beliefs don’t work if he ADMITS that they are crap.
That is why Christians — even pro-science anti-creationist types — will never admit that they are merely practicing a very mundane variety of mental self-therapy.
In the worst instances, you’ll get apologists like PvM at Panda’s Thumb who argue that such mind games are the results of natural selection on the human brain. Those arguments are themselves just another layer of warm fuzzy blanket crap to shield religionists from ever having to admit that they are deluding themselves for pleasure.
Any credibility of Collins being a “rational” thinker
flew out of the window when he stated.
“When I was alone and hiking I came upon a waterfall
that was frozen in three streams.It reminded me of the holy
trinity and I fell to my knees knowing god had reveled
himself to me.
Who could blame him with such overwhelming evidence!!!
Being reticent to let my criticism of Mother Theresa Who Died at the same time as Princess Di stand without elaboration, let me point you to an article in slate by Christopher Hitchens: http://www.slate.com/id/2090083/
The real choice is not between faith and science, but between insight and indoctrination (kerygma and dogma to be technical). Much of what passes for religious practice amounts to idolatrous devotion to texts, practices, locations, and personalities with the goal of self-justification. Very few truly examine their inner selves; fearlessly and throughly catergorizing their own limitations and defects. While such a search has led many to what is often called ‘God’, such an end is neither universal, nor even really the point. Acceptance, compassion, understanding both of oneself and for others — of these things is grace made.
Totally OT: I can’t find the “Mats vs. God” cartoon in the archives. Any tips?
Now, I would never disagree with PZ :-), but I do have to mention this:
“As young people’s crises go, the conflict between science and religion is a small one. Why not encourage more intellectual anguish than the usual “So-and-so doesn’t want to go to the dance with me!”?”
PZ, watch this young woman’s video about the Blasphemy Challenge. Her frustration and emotional grief are palpable.
Oh dog, did someone mention that “morality could never evolve” crap? I suppose there was no “morality” before the Jews managed to write down their bible? How did humans ever survive before that? Mothers didn’t love their babies, no one ever helped anyone else and they probably spent all day Sunday mowing the lawn and then watching football on TV.
In the February 2007 issue of Discover, there’s Collins again. He is seemingly omnipresent. He laments the lack of good science education in this country, but fails to place the blame on religious opposition to science. He excuses the religious for their opposition to evolution because of the words of those naughty atheist scientists who challenge their faith. He does not make the connection that this terror about losing their faith is the fault of religions which promote a doctrine of “salvation by faith”.
Also, he says that people like their science and their religion kept separate, completely ignoring that he has just written a book claiming to present scientific evidence for God’s existence.
It’s well known in elephant country that the capture of one live baby elephant means the death of the rest of the family, which died trying to protect the baby.
Where do these beasts get their morality?
I’ve seen moral choices made by dogs and cats.
I think people like Collins are just playacting with their imaginary world while living in the real world and making trouble for the rest of us just because it’s fun for him and his kind to betray our basic humanity towards each other. He’s lying, and knows it. He’s cheating. There is no reason for us to play fair.
And we as a society would be well served to recover that happy middle ground where people have been for most of human history.
Yeah, things were great until those secular Enlightenment types screwed it all up.
So much for objectivism.
What’s wrong with confronting young people with a crisis?
Nothing. But it is quite hypocritical to hear you whine when religionist confront young people. Sounds like a one way street.
Why not encourage more intellectual anguish than the usual “So-and-so doesn’t want to go to the dance with me!”?
Because as far as it is hard for you to believe, not all scientists have a fanatical hatred towards religion like you. In this instance, you are in the minority in the science community. You do a good job in marginalizing yourself.
Why does Collins continue to encourage people to believe in baseless superstition? He’s supposed to be a scientist!
In the real world Scientists are not necessarily atheists. In fact most of the most notable ones in history believed in a Creator. The unresolvable problem between science and religion exists only those who have a fanatical hatred towards either.
Does Collins think it would be a terrible thing for more young people to choose atheism?
No. He is simply warning people of fanatics like you.
The only people who are forcing kids to make a choice are the religionists, who present the false dichotomy of religion-or-science. PZ, are you promoting that dichotomy?
What’s fishy, Fred, is your completely wrong-headed insistence that it’s not a dichotomy. Both can be accepted simultaneously only on pain of severe cognitive dissonance. The fact that many people, including even a few scientists of Collins’s stature, are prepared to tolerate that cognitive dissonance doesn’t establish that it’s a good or desirable thing. It would be far better if they were consistently rational.
Meanwhile “reasonable” people like you carry on helping to create the poisonous mental atmosphere in which idiot trolls like “Answers” flourish.
The dichotomy is between science, and religions/belief systems that make claims about the world which are directly contradictory to the evidence. That’s not a false dichotomy but a genuine and immediately relevant one, and its resolution depends entirely on whether you choose to follow current evidence or old stories. Tiptoeing round the edges of that debate and looking for some happy fluffy middle ground is not likely to be productive. Santa Claus is demonstrably not real, and part of becoming an adult is recognising that.
Collins doesn’t list his Language of God book on his page on the Genome Research Institute site. What, is he embarrassed?
http://www.genome.gov/10000779
Just these two are listed under selected pubs:
Books
Guttmacher,Alan E, Collins, Francis S., Drazen, Jeffrey M. eds. Forward by Elias Zerhouni, M.D. Genomic Medicine: Articles from the New England Journal of Medicine. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004.
Gelehrter, Thomas D., Collins, Francis S., Ginsberg, David. Principles of Medical Genetics, 2nd ed. Baltimore: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, 1998.
[last reviewed Jan. 2007]
His Curriculum Vitae lists one book:
Book
Gelehrter TD, Collins FS, Ginsburg D: Principles of Medical Genetics. Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore, 2nd edition, 1998.
[last reviewed August 2006]
Hmmmm. His God book came out in July 2006. Plenty of time to update the old resume.
In the real world Scientists are not necessarily atheists. In fact most of the most notable ones in history believed in a Creator.
Yes! They were stupid, too!
The dichotomy is between science, and religions/belief systems that make claims about the world which are directly contradictory to the evidence.
I’d say any religion that claims the world was created by a benevolent and omnipotent God falls into that category. Adherents of such religions are fully aware of this conflict, which is why they go to such lengths to contrive “answers” to the Problem of Evil and to the lack of evidence of “intelligent design” or purpose in the world.
I’m assuming, PZ, that you grew up either without religion or without being very religious. For those of us who did grow up very religious, though, religious conflicts can be very, very big ones. It’s important to remember that for the religious, religion is not just a piece of their socialization, but one of the most central pieces. When religion is challenged, their entire cultural world view is challenged. By the time they’re adolescents, this cultural world view is pretty deeply ingrained. And I probably don’t need to point out that changing one’s cultural world view is very difficult.
Of course, I was raised Catholic, but by people who respected science. So I never saw a conflict between religion and science, and even as an atheist today, I still don’t see such a conflict. I can already see the comments about religion being faith-based, and science being evidence-based, which for some unknown reason means they’re fundamentally incompatible. But if one accepts that science should be done through evidential reasoning, not faith, but that where religion is concerned reasoning often has to be done with more equivocal data (which is not to say that scientific data is ever unequivocal), I see no problem. And I can’t think of any reason not to accept that that doesn’t involve a personal choice that is hardly evidence-based. Maybe you folks can give me such a reason.
Such parents are afraid that their children will go to hell should they accept evolution.
Believing in God is one thing. Professing a belief in God or a certain religion is entirely another. It may bring certain advantages and obligates you to nothing.
Except for the danger of being stuck with some of the most boring people imaginable if you keep a firm hold on your wallet and your self respect it’s bearable. And can bring advantages, if you work it right.
George, after such a useful list of subcategories of stupidity, why not assign the particular version to the offense? Say, stupid1.
I enjoyed william ginder’s set of scientific questions: for expressing the difference between scientific and nonscientific enquiry, they are pretty clear. However, (aha) assigning the reason to fear is begging a lot. Fear may be one reason to stop thinking, but the excuse for not thinking may be any of a whole shitload. I prefer to indicate the point at which someone’s mind switched itself off. Then you can screw them on the reasons.
I see Chris from Muddling Memory is over here trying to mix it up.
Sorry, Chris, your upbringing by mental contortionists may have inadvertently plopped you in the rational crowd, but it still left you with a fair bit of magical thinking.
When religion and science make differing claims about the same puzzle, religion must lose out, as its obedience-driven buffoonery glorifies what ancient fools wrote down when they were high and not what the evidence actually shows.
Religion is like mental kudzu. Worthless, invasive, and agressive. To fight its spread you must be equally aggressive in destroying the roots. Chopping foliage is not enough, Chris.
Chris,
To the extent that religious belief rests on reasoning from data (“equivocal” or otherwise), it’s not a matter of faith. To the extent that it’s a matter of faith, it doesn’t rest on reasoning from data. If faith does not justify scientific beliefs, why does it justify religious beliefs? If faith doesn’t justify belief in, say, orbiting teapots, why does it justify belief in God or Jesus?
Put the blame where it belongs. If large numbers of religious people would stop spreading the vicious lies that 1) atheists cannot be moral and 2) atheists have no meaning in their life then the possibility of losing their faith would be less traumatic for these people.
CHRIS:… For those of us who did grow up very religious, …, religious conflicts can be … big … By the time they’re adolescents, this cultural world view is pretty deeply ingrained…
I was raised in an open minded Catholic household and did not question religion seriously until just the beginning of adolescence. My story is almost the same as most of my friends and colleagues who are also atheists today. I’m not trying to disagree with you, I’m just poiting out that I actually ever known very few individuals who are at present atheists who were brought up in an atheist household. (Off hand I can only think of one person whom i know well enough to know this … my first wife, and she was raised by socialistic atheistic Jewish dancers in New York City.)
So I never saw a conflict between religion and science, and even as an atheist today, I still don’t see such a conflict.
I think there is a conflict in how one gets where one is going intellectually with both science and religion. I do not believe that there is a difference in the processes that the mind goes through to come to conclusions, but there are many ways one can come to rest “knowing” certain things. There are very large differences between how one gets to such a place in religion vs. in science (right, you knew I would say that).
But what I really want to comment on regarding your post is that the truth is there area LOT of religious people who are not engaged in this discussion in an adversarial way. But as a practitioner and teacher of science, I can’t miss the ones who are constantly on the offensive. I would not be a foot soldier in the war against religion, christmas, or anything else if there was not a war. But like many a reluctant soldier, I will give the scrappiest fight when called upon.
In the real world Scientists are not necessarily atheists.
Huh? (Nature, 1998.) But I’m sure they’ve all wised up by now.
[*sigh*]
“Religion is like mental kudzu. Worthless, invasive, and agressive.”
Thank you for that, stogoe. My next bumper sticker?
Hmmm…Greg. Good points. I’m going to tweak your last paragraph just a smidge here…
“But what I really want to comment on…is that the truth is there are a LOT of atheists who are not engaged in this discussion in an adversarial way. But as a Christian, I can’t miss the ones who are constantly on the offensive.”
(I’m eliminating the bit about about being a foot soldier. I prefer deplomacy to war, and like all peace-mongers, I will be flamed for it. Watch, you’ll see).
By tweaking your paragraph a bit, I’m not saying I disagree with your point. I know there are Christians who are slingin’ stones your way. However, the point is equally valid from the other side of the spectrum. And I do recognize there are a LOT of atheists who prefer not to throw stones. But those who don’t fall in that category are the ones everyone hears, and so most Christians think that anyone who can spew the kind of venom as evidenced above can’t possibly be happy. Hence the stereotype that there is something missing in your lives and that you have a God-sized hole in your heart and all those platitudes you hate to have recited at you (I’d think you’d be easier to spot with all that blood pouring from your chest).
I know, I know. “Religionists started it.” Fine. Fire away. Ah, and I will deny dissenters this simple pleasure:
Why yes, I AM a concern troll, if by concern troll you mean someone who tries to introduce other perspectives and urge open-minded discussion, then that’s me!
Squeaky, Concern Troll Extraordinaire
Frnacis Collins reminds me of a friend I had in college. Smart dude, high SATs, hard driver, well read, fine vocabulary, solid math skills, yada yada yada. Kind of an asshole, although that’s beside the point.
Thing is, he had this one inexplicable deficit: He couldn’t understand music theory. I took and enjoyed that class as a liberal arts elective and encouraged him to do the same because it was taight by this cool old jazz cat and was an easy ‘A’ for anyone with a pulse.
But not for Tony. He couldn’t fucking understand anything! I sat down with him numerous times over vodka shots and basically screamed in his face, “THIS IS ELEMENTARY, YOU SCRAPE! DONCHA GET IT?” For whatever reason he just couldn’t grasp the basics about major and minor chords, scales…I tried so many tiumes to relate the material to various everyday constructs, to no avail. He got a D and graduated with a 3.76 or something.
That’s how I view people like Collins. He and other religious scentists possess a completely mystifying cognitive block that might as well represent a missing chucnk of cerebrum. It’s especially dismaying in Collins’ case because he apparently wasn’t brainwashed into this shit as a tot, as most strongly religious scientists out there were. Every one of his “terrible” inner conflicts would disppear if he’s find a way to abandon the fucking nonsense he committed himself to because of one more poor dying bastard’s reaching out toward the next (nonexistent) world.
The more Collins tlaks, the less he’ll resemble Ken Miller and the more he’ll just be a babbling idiot. He jumped the shark with his book and probably recognizes that it’s safe to go whole hog and be as crazy as he feels like.
Francis Collins, what a guy.
What book recommendations do you have for young readers?
Genome, by Matt Ridley (HarperCollins, 1999), The Double Helix by James Watson (Atheneum, 1968) and (somewhat immodestly) The Language of God, by yours truly.
I’m just poiting out that I actually ever known very few individuals who are at present atheists who were brought up in an atheist household.
That’s because there aren’t many atheists so the odds of meeting the atheist child of an atheist are relatively slim.
Most Jews I know where raised Jewish, not Catholic. Most Catholics I know were raised Catholic, not Jewish or Protestant.
The adult children of most atheists I know are atheist.
And the atheists I know who are raising their children are teaching their children the facts about religious beliefs.
Of course, I live amongs many atheists. It also happens to be one of the most tolerant and peace-loving cities in the world.
Figure that out, fundie fucktards.
If large numbers of religious people would stop spreading the vicious lies that 1) atheists cannot be moral and 2) atheists have no meaning in their life then the possibility of losing their faith would be less traumatic for these people.
I think you give people too much credit. It’s not the moral basis or “meaninglessness” canards that soften the stools of folks who contemplate discarding their “faith.”
It’s the thought of possibly rotting in hell and never seeing Mommy, Daddy, and Fido up in Heaven. Ever. Again.
Pascal’s Wager. Below a certain IQ, it’s virtually guaranteed to be persuasive. Salesmen manipulate people on smaller scales using the same “logic”: “you wouldn’t want to miss out on the greatest opportunity of a lifetime, would you, Mrs. Jones? Do you think you’re smarter than your neighbors??”
I have tried and tried to understand the argument which Chris has put forth, and I must at last admit failure.
Religions are explanations of the world. They tell you what is and why it is that way. They ask that these explanations be accepted without evidence. (Don’t even look through that telescope, Galileo. There can’t be satellites orbiting Jupiter, because God made the same number of heavenly bodies as He did openings in the human head.) When one looks at the evidence, the claims which religion has made often turn out wrong, and can only be made to agree with fact by stretching the limits of allegorical interpretation.
It is possible to accept on faith a claim which has not yet been investigated by observation, reason and cross-criticism. A religion whose theogony speaks of gods who lived for less than Planck time after the Big Bang and then all died is probably immune from scientific inquiry for years if not decades to come. Likewise, a religion based on Neil Gaiman’s Stardust, in which Faerie is the land where all things go once they are disproved, could well be logically insulated from empirical scrutiny. A Sikh, a Jain or a Taoist may well enjoy the same status as a follower of my hypothetical Faerie-worship.
Western religions do not enjoy the same privilege. They make claims of fact, assertions which are tangled up with their statements of morality into Gordian knots of arcana. They do not stay nicely on their side of the NOMA quarantine, and the entire creationism debate is empirical testimony to this fact.
In Russell Blackford’s words,
Furthermore, there is no point
In The Meaning of It All, Feynman makes the point that to arrive at ethical judgments, we have to answer two questions: first, if I do this, what will happen? and second, is that good or bad? Science is devoted to answering the first question. Religion as well as nonreligious moral philosophies provide tools for answering the second, but every significant religion in the Western tradition has also tried to answer the first. (I think it also plausible that the scientific process, broadly construed, typically contains elements which can be applied to answering the second question. If you’re a scientist, we suppose you value truth, freedom of inquiry and other such things. Perhaps you attach a negative taint to ad hominem attacks and other fallacies, an attitude which serves you well in your scientific efforts but also carries an ethical flavor which matters elsewhere.)
It is worth noting that we can’t draw Feynman’s dividing line without doing some empirical investigation first. We live in a Cosmos which, as far as we can tell, is indifferent to concerns of human morality. Nowhere are expressions of goodness or virtue found in physical law. This did not have to be the case: we can propose many gedanken Universes where basic laws contain, say, something like a consequence morality. What if Platonic astrology had turned out to be on the mark, and the macrocosm of the heavenly spheres formed a parallel with the microcosm of human life? Then, interestingly, questions which now fall within the “ask your rabbi” realm could be subject to scientific inquiry. Should I cheat on my girlfriend? The stars will tell me what will happen!
Of course, I still have to decide whether the consequences the stars foretell are desirable or not. . . but Feynman’s dividing line is shifted.
Or, we could live in LucasWorld, where the Cosmos is permeated by a mystic Force, which like duct tape has a light side and a dark side and binds the Galaxy together.
Alternatively, what if the physical laws of the Cosmos are pretty much the way we expect them to be today, but we discover a psychohistory like Asimov had in his Foundation novels? If we could predict the large-scale consequences of our political and economic actions, wouldn’t that reduce questions which previously had only an intuitive, ethical character to ones amenable to science? In the end, we still have to judge whether the psychohistorical prediction is a good future or a bad one, but we’re not making the same judgment we were before. We can’t erase Feynman’s line, but we can blur, twist and shift it.
Shorter Francis Collins ; Science can’t answer all my questions so I’ll believe in my favorite fairy tail so I don’t have to think
This did not have to be the case: we can propose many gedanken Universes where basic laws contain, say, something like a consequence morality.
Like a Universe where if people didn’t wear big gold crosses around their necks, they’d die at age 30 and be plainly visible, writhing in torment, in a big class cube orbiting the earth.
You lot would like today’s “I Drew This”, if you haven’t seen it yet.
Whatever we atheists think about the beliefs of Collins, Roughgarden, Conway Morris, Miller et al., the fact remains that such views have inherent appeal to the sensibilities of theistic non-scientists. It’s probably far easier to convert creationist theists to theistic evolution than convert theistic evolutionists to atheism.
Sure, it’s gratifying to be totally hardline about anti-theism, anti-mysticism, and anti-teleology, but frankly that kind of thing is just not going to go over very well with the public at large.
(That’s one reason why the distinction between methodological and metaphysical naturalism is a useful one.)
Longer shorter Francis Collins:
Science can’t answer all my questions so I’ll believe in my favorite fairy tail so I don’t have to think AND I’ll publish a book that all nutjobs will embrace and loudly praise, saying: “Lo! Science and religion do not contradicteth one another. For verily, that bigwig scientist Francis Collins hath the same persistent fantasies about God that I doth. I guess all those obnoxious atheists are wrong! Hallelujah, I can stoppeth worrying forever!”
@Colugo:
You may be entirely correct (and I think your point well merits saying!) but I’m afraid complications are ready and eager to ensue. First, lots of people involved on the Good Side — even out-and-out atheists — aren’t trying to strip everybody’s religion away. We just want religion out of policy-making and the science classroom. As for what this might do to the religious beliefs of the next generation. . . well, sufficient unto the day.
There’s a big difference between an atheistic society and a secular one. The latter is what the Founding Fathers tried to build, and what we’re trying to preserve. Personally, I think a secular society naturally breeds atheists. Look at what happened to Ancient Ionia, where science was born: people and ideas colliding, lots of different pockets where thought could ferment, overall material prosperity creating the ability and the need for the practical benefits only science could provide. . . .
Finally, there comes the old problem of “peace in our time”. What happens if we get the school boards, parent-teacher associations and preachers of this country to accept theistic evolution? They all sign on with the Catholic position of “ensoulment”: all life before ourselves arose according to natural selection, but when H. sapiens came to be, God was there. (It’s arrogant, but it’s what they believe.) What happens, then, when the next great dethronement comes along?
For thousands of years, we’ve been accumulating evidence that emotion, thought and all other activities of the mind are material in nature. Beer is as old as civilization, and so too without doubt are children conceived in drunkenness. Psychedelic mushrooms also have a pedigree stretching back into dim antiquity. We are now giving pills to children in order to modify their behavior and stamp out phenomena which we aren’t even quite sure are diseases. Yes, all our pills have side effects, and yes, we don’t know the details of how they work, but our culture is now replete with the components of a very big idea: that which we call the soul is an arrangement of matter.
That awestruck memory of the night sky, that warmth from a lover’s smile, that fear for the species’ future — they’re all yesterday’s chocolate bar. Nothing exists, save atoms and the void. We take in atoms and make them part of us, each bit of the molecular dance remembering what the steps were when the dance was performed by the previous set of partners.
I have the strong suspicion that we will learn more about cognition and consciousness before we’re done. Our drugs will change our souls in ever more involved ways, and our computers will execute many more of the functions once believed to be humankind’s sole property. You don’t have to go all the way to the Singulatarian, upload-your-mind-into-software view; even a “weak AI” scenario is theologically troubling. Just as we’ve imperiled traditional religions by shrinking the margins of physics back to the first instants of time, though not all the way, so too are we imperiling mysticism by advancing towards our own consciousness. We have already encountered the God of the Gaps. I have little doubt that in coming years, we will move into a worrisome presence, a growing awareness of the Ghost of the Gaps.
True, consciousness is – for some – the last great refuge of “supernatural” Mystery. (Even though it has been over 250 years since La Mettrie’s Man a Machine was first published.) However, I suspect that there will always be more gaps in our knowledge for God or spirits to reside in, at least for those who are determined to believe. For the rest of us, such “gaps” mean only that more interesting scientific discoveries lie ahead.
In any case, we don’t have to teach either theistic or “atheistic” evolution in the classroom. Just evolution, leaving God (or the absence of such a being) out of it.
However, popular culture and public education are different matters, and that is where the theistic evolutionists can make a real contribution.
I suppose it comes down to a simple problem: I just don’t know!
I don’t know, for example, whether in psychological terms, the gap between theistic creationism and theistic evolution is actually any smaller than that between creationism and straight-up nontheistic, skeptical humanism. We tend to draw a straight line and make a continuum out of it, with PZ over here, Miller one step over, Collins one step beyond that. . . and Bill Dembski out there in the hinterland, steeped in sin. But, convenience aside, is that continuum a valid model? We can sort views any which way we want, but which spectrum reflects the way that not-so-reliable machine known as the human brain can handle the ideas involved?
Remember, in giving up creationism in favor of “ensoulment”, one might also have to abandon intercessory prayer. That’s a big step, but it’s probably part of the package. You’d have to be a theologian to disentangle the two. If you scale back the amount of intervention you’re willing to say God has made in the world, doesn’t that mean prayer no longer brings about change? We then enter the regime where we pray for guidance, which is quite a different matter.
I don’t know! We need empirical data on this kind of problem. Have psychologists looked at the issue? What systematic case studies have been done, and with what methods? We see a few people who are able to build walls, who can quarantine their scientific principles from their Sunday theism — at least in print, and with what unknown doubts they hide from their audiences? — but we are not mathematicians seeking an “existence proof”. We’re looking not just for possible states of human experience, but rather for states which can spread throughout entire populations. We need, perhaps, to learn the infectiousness of these memes.
I have the suspicion, perhaps the fear, that the states of belief we place in the middle of our arbitrary continuum will not host stable populations. With at least one more dethronement waiting in the wings, I worry that our troubles have hardly begun.
This is fun! Thanks, Colugo. I wonder: if we say something really profound, will PZ promote it up to a post to satisfy his ravenous readership?
Right,the softpedaling that has always been the norm has done a terrific job, and we know this because of the great shape we’re in today. Sigh.
“With at least one more dethronement waiting in the wings, I worry that our troubles have hardly begun.”
Perhaps some of these states of belief are metastable and under certain conditions – such as a major societal crisis – can result in a phase transition to hardcore antirationalism: fundamentalism, occultism, fanaticism. Such a phenomenon may be related to the totalitarian movements of post-WWI Europe, the paranormalism of post-Soviet Russia, and the recent spread of political Islamism.
We just want religion out of policy-making and the science classroom.
I want religion out of people’s heads. I want it to go poof! I want people en masse to wake up and say, “what the heck was I thinking when I knelt down and crossed my hands [or bent over] and blathered on endlessly to a fantasy being in my head?” I want a famous scientist named Francis Collins to stop exploiting his reputation to con others into sharing his childish fantasies.
We should not have to argue about this crap anymore. This blog should not have to exist as an atheist gathering place. It’s ridiculous that these battle have to be fought in 2007. 2007! Will people be giving it up for Jesus in 2107? Yes. Why? Because of people like Collins. Someone was born today who will make it to 2107, and that person will go through life believing in the God fantasy because our culture just isn’t willing to criticize belief in God, or condemn people who foist their idiotic fantasies off on others.
What we really need is more scientists who will be as public and vocal in defense of their atheism as Collins is in defense of his theism. Dawkins is great, but he’s just one individual. We know from polling data that a huge proportion of professional scientists are atheists and agnostics, especially biologists and especially the most accomplished scientists. But so few of them seem to take a public stand against this ridiculous coddling of religious nonsense that pervades American culture. PZ is doing his part, but for every reader of this blog and others like it, there are probably a thousand people who hear scientists like Collins and Miller and Gould assure them that religion and science are perfectly compatible.
Blake Stacy:
Hear hear! I think Ray Kurzweil is wildly optimistic about how fast this is going to happen, but I also think his argument is basically sound. Once we understand enough to be able to create sentient machines, it’s a straight line to making them stronger and smarter and better than us, and if we are not careful we will be like Dr. Frankenstein as slaves to our creations. And what will this say about our place in the universe?
Just as evolution supplanted cosmology as the biggest challenge to religious doctrine, evolution will be kid stuff compared to the next scientific revolution.
I wouldn’t get so excited just yet. Humanity has a way of rubbing the edges off ideas and reducing them to polished pebbles. Any idea capable of propagating itself through the mass consciousness is unlikely to bear much resemblance to its progenitor.
George – Yes, condemn him. Seeing a waterfall, imagining it is divine revelation, and accepting belief in the Trinity (or whatever) – this is silliness. It’s an emotional reaction totally unconnected to external reality.
My point was that it is foolish childishness to expect people to give up these fantasies any time soon. Politically, we advance OUR cause much better by drawing distinctions between believers like Collins who are effective in getting believers to at least accept evoluion, and total lunatics like Ken Ham.
It’s all about which is more effective for OUR side. There’s a kind of deliberate, spiteful ignorance in pretending that Collins and Ham are equally contemptible. They are not.
Steve LaBonne –
I’m falling into the trap of carrying on pedantically over split hairs. But my suggestion is that the project of getting people to give up their superstitions is best served by openly criticising silly beliefs, while retaining our wits enough to understand the difference between people who are smart enough to concede territory to rationalism (like Francis Collins) and those who are not.
I think all of us here probably agree that far too much respect is accorded religious sentiment. In fact, it was on this website that that reality really hit home for me, when I believe I read PZ make the comment that he was sick of all this “well, I don’t agree with the Catholics but I respect their beliefs” nonsense. We should, respectfully but unapologetically, say that we find such beliefs impossible to understand and totally irrational.
It is emotionally satisfying to whack every non-atheist over the head with a shovel (rhetorically), but it really hurts the cause. We have to coexist with these people, and if we make asses of ourselves at every opportunity we will turn away those people who might otherwise be open to pursuasion.
“”When I was alone and hiking I came upon a waterfall
that was frozen in three streams.It reminded me of the holy
trinity and I fell to my knees knowing god had reveled
himself to me.”
Why is when atheists criticize theology they are called amateurs, but when theists apply such infantile theology as described above, not a peep is heard?
Sam Harris and Andrew Sullivan are in the middle of debating the virtues of religious moderates over at Beliefnet. I am not sure how close Sullivan is to Collins, but they seem to share the view that it is only religious extremism or fundamentalism that is the problem, and that their own brands of religious moderation are reasonable and legitimate. Harris is getting some good licks in.
It is emotionally satisfying to whack every non-atheist over the head with a shovel (rhetorically), but it really hurts the cause. We have to coexist with these people, and if we make asses of ourselves at every opportunity we will turn away those people who might otherwise be open to pursuasion.
I don’t have to coexist with Francis Collins, so I will continue to whack away. People are way too sensitive about their religion. That’s part fo the problem. A little ridicule to maybe open people’s eyes cannot be a bad thing. It is silly, ridiculous, childish stuff, after all. It doesn’t deserve to be treated with respect.
All this vitriol. If I were an honest atheist I wouldn’t care what others think. If there is no God, why care if someone else believes in one? Only because it makes you feel better to have everyone nodding in approval of your beliefs, or lack of them.
The gist of all these comments is that theists are stupid because they want to believe the universe has a point. That really makes me want to convert to atheism, to rest quietly in the peace of knowing that nothing I say or do makes any difference. Keep it, thanks.
“Religion is like mental kudzu. Worthless, invasive, and agressive.” — Stogoe
Hey, kudzu is not worthless. Part of the reason there’s sooo much of it in the South is that it’s good for erosion control and a lot of it was planted for that purpose. Then it started to take over.The root can also be used as a source of cooking starch, and the leaves are edible. That makes it loads more valuable than religion.
@Michael:
“All this vitriol. If I were an honest atheist I wouldn’t care what others think. If there is no God, why care if someone else believes in one? Only because it makes you feel better to have everyone nodding in approval of your beliefs, or lack of them.
The gist of all these comments is that theists are stupid because they want to believe the universe has a point. That really makes me want to convert to atheism, to rest quietly in the peace of knowing that nothing I say or do makes any difference. Keep it, thanks.”
Your comment is rather baseless. This “vitriol” that you see is because these people do actually care. They care that religion is quite commonly used to justify stupid ideas, or even worse, stupid and improper behavior (either as an individual, or as a society). (Think of the silly “Marriage Protection Acts” that have been passed, or Inteligent Design as an example of a stupid idea)
Why does the Universe need to have a point? Isn’t it fun enough to just explore what makes it up? Does the Universe need to have a point in order for us to justify not harming our fellow man, or impinging upon their freedoms?
And, the last part about “rest(ing) quietly in the peace of knowing that nothing I say or do makes any difference” is just so far off the mark that it really doesn’t need to be addressed.
Because the widespread existence of a mental habit of holding unfounded irrational beliefs makes the world a worse place in many ways. And because, despite their pious protestations to the contrary, few indeed are the believers who can always resiet the temptation to interfere in the lives of those who don’t share their delusions.
If you’re afraid you’re not making a difference in the world your complaint should be addressed to the nearest mirror, not to the sky. Making a difference and making yur life meaningful areyour jobs, not to be outsourced to imaginary entities.
Michael, “The job is here, and the time is now.”
Take a look at this: Your Petitioners Are Atheists. Murray’s statement begins on the third paragraph.
You know nothing about being an atheist, as you proceed to demonstrate.
Or perhaps because widespread mental illness is detrimental to society, which affects us all.
Considering that it doesn’t have “a point”, they are incorrect to believe it does. But there are many reasons why they believe this; stupidity is only one. In fact, I would say stupidity is a minor reason worthy of little comment.
If you had the first clue about atheism, you’d know that it entails realizing that what we say and do is the only thing that can or ever does “make any difference”. Contrast this with the various religious devaluations of same.
@stogoe, re: Mother Teresa
Thank you for pointing to the Hitchen’s article in Slate. It touched a raw nerve. I am not Christian, I am not even religious, but I was born in the city in which Mother Teresa lived and worked for most of her life. I would like to say a few words.
Your disparaging opinion of MT, amply reflected in the Slate article, certainly has elements of truth. But there is another angle to the story, one that I would request you to understand for yourself.
I would not bother to comment upon the whole beatification-canonization business, and miracle-shmiracle… Not only it smacks of pixie dust, but IMHO it actively undermines the actual good work done by the human being. I would focus on this work.
It is absolutely true that all she did – the Missionaries of Charity work – stemmed from her christian spirit. It is also a fact – in a way, sad – that the Christian Missions do undertake a lot of great charity work amongst the poor in the relatively poor countries (read ‘Third World’ countries) – even when their real motive behind is proselytization. People living in abject poverty care only about food, clothing and shelter; they don’t really care if they have to chant along, of necessity, some bible verses or promise allegiance to jesus. This is frankly exploitation of the poor, but the help rendered to them during actual necessity almost always wins out.
Another sad fact is that in these countries, struggling under over-population, diseases and poverty, the governments often welcome a helping hand. Who else, but these Missionaries, have extended a hand in that regard? Who else has dared to actually mingle with the affected people and help alleviate their condition? None.
How then, would I unilaterally condemn their work? People often need reason to work for others. For some it may be altruism validated by genetics and evolution, but for a lot more people, whether we like it or not, ‘god’ is a great incentive. Show me how many individuals of a godless liberal persuasion have actually taken on such a massive task of working amongst the poor.
I was born in a Hindu family. Even amongst the Hindus, apart from Swami Vivekananda – a Hindu monk and philosopher, and Gandhi, no one really thought about physical and social condition of human beings, and worked among them. Spiritual enlightenment is what they aspired to, but both realized that that was a different ballgame altogether. In the height of fervor, either religious zeal or atheistic declamation, we often tend to ignore the good work done by many of them.
And MT’s views – on contraception and abortion – are no different from those of any catholic nun in any part of the world; the only difference is she was famous and well heard… In the larger perspective, when you are working for a noble cause, often it is the thought that counts, not the inspiration. People work for various reasons, altruism, guilt, coercion, and MT worked for her religious beliefs (however misguided). Does that diminish the magnitude or value of her work?
suirauqa,
Another sad fact is that in these countries, struggling under over-population, diseases and poverty, the governments often welcome a helping hand. Who else, but these Missionaries, have extended a hand in that regard? Who else has dared to actually mingle with the affected people and help alleviate their condition?
The World Health Organization, Doctors Without Borders and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, to name but three organizations that immediately come to mind.
And you can be confident that, unlike Mother Teresa and her cronies, they’re not telling the recipients of their help that they’ll burn in hell if they wear a condom.
Suirauqa, you raise many good points about charity and the relationship between the 1st and 3rd words, but I can’t help but feel you’ve missed the central idea of Hitchens’ piece, which doesn’t criticize MT’s motivations (which you understandably do not question) but rather her methods and the results of the work itself (which you defend).
And if that’s not damning enough:
I guess I’m asking how your defense of her motivations (misguided or otherwise) addresses what Hitchens it talking about here?
I started reading blogs such as this one and Panda’s Thumb a few years ago, particularly when Kitzmiller was going on. I cheered as hard as anyone when the ruling came down. However, I have been rather put off by the way in which the self-professed atheists in these forums have been turning their anti-religiosity into a more general campaign. The rhetoric and disdain directed at those who disagree with them strikes me as anything but rational and is definitely counter-productive, as others have pointed out.
I was originally under the impression that the goal of these blogs was to work toward protecting and improving the quality of science education. By teaching children to think critically and rationally and to look for objective evidence to support ideas and conclusions we can hope that future generations will be better prepared to find real solutions to problems and not ones that satisfy some short-term emotional need or desire. Instead, I’m seeing more and more posts and writings attacking religion with the same kind of emotion and close-mindedness I would expect from a purely political blog.
The worst aspect of what I see in these kinds of posts is actually something that is missing, and it is something I was always taught every scientist should have – humility. If the history of science teaches us anything, it is that no scientist has ever had a perfect understanding of nature. Therefore, we should all have the humility to realize that we might be wrong, even when our interpretation of the evidence seems flawless in our minds.
But that humility seems to be almost entirely missing in the writings of many of the atheists here and elsewhere. Some have gone so far as to straight out call people who believe in a god ‘stupid.’ Now, I would describe anyone who insisted on a young earth to be willfully ignorant if not actually stupid, but I have yet to see anyone make an argument supported by objective evidence that contradicts the existence of any kind of god. How exactly do we go about proving, using natural law, that nothing can exist outside of natural laws? Isn’t that what it would take to deny the existence of any god?
If anything, the arguments by the atheists on religion seem an awful lot like “critical analysis of evolution” arguments that creationists have been using for decades. It is useful to examine what doesn’t work about religion, such as the extremes fundamentalists will take some small part of the whole to justify their hate or desire for power. It may even be a legitimate opinion that such failings of religion are a fatal flaw that makes the bad that comes with religious belief outweigh any good that might come of it. But such arguments and opinions do not constitute evidence that God or gods do not exist any more than criticisms of evolution would prove the case for creationism, even if the criticisms were valid.
While I disagree with Collins on the existence of God (I would describe myself as agnostic if I had to attach a label to my thinking on religion), I do agree that it is a bad thing to present a student with only two choices: an atheistic version of science or religious belief. We want them to choose to investigate the world using rational thought and objective evidence, but with the humility to recognize that humans are not perfectly rational beings with infinite intellectual capacity and thus not up to the task of reaching absolute certainty in any form of knowledge.
Ooh, yet another person concerned that people here are badmouthing religion.
Here’s a tip: there’s a guy, name of Ed Brayton, you’ll probably like his blog (Dispatches from the Culture Wars) which can be reached via a pulldown on the right side of this page.
Here’s another: all science is atheistic, at least concerning the traditional definition of a god, and it’s necessarily so. We confront no one with choosing between rational thought and religious belief – those things are inherently incompatible – although most of us are in favor of presenting rational thought in the unedited, uncensored, and unabridged form.
Religious faith is not any kind of knowledge, and is in fact incompatible with investigating the world through rational thought. Don’t like that? Buddy, have you ever come to the wrong universe.
Exactly. We want more people to learn to think critically and rationally…yet at the same time we have religion urging people to suspend their critical faculties and accept irrational dogma on faith. Why should we criticize only creationism, and give equally foolish ideas a pass?
No one on the side of science here has claimed perfect knowledge. Save that criticism for the believers in religion. There is no atheist as arrogant as the common Christian who is convinced his belief in Jesus will give him immortality in paradise.
Except the atheist convinced that science shows there are no gods, despite the fact that the origin of the universe remains a mystery, one we will likely never have an answer to because there exists a time point after the founding event before which no information has been preserved?
(I may be wrong about the latter half of this assertion, but if I am not, the loud arguing that there is no creator/trix (however so defined) when the arguer cannot know the answer is just as arrogant as the Christian’s certainty of an afterlife, is it not?)
1. There is no atheist as arrogant as the common Christian who is convinced his belief in Jesus will give him immortality in paradise.
2. Except the atheist convinced that science shows there are no gods…
Perhaps, but who would argue that those who fit into category (1) outnumber those who fit into category (2) by a factor of countless thousands to one?
…despite the fact that the origin of the universe remains a mystery
Indeed it does.
IMO, all that science can convincingly argue is that god is undetectable, and that the existence of the universe and the workings of all the things of which it is made do not require or even imply the necessity of god(s). On the other hand, all that theology can convincingly argue is that the knowledge gap (which is, inconveniently, not static) might possibly be explained by an undetectable and unnecessary supreme being.
Caledonian writes: “…all science is atheistic, at least concerning the traditional definition of a god, and it’s necessarily so.”
I agree.
And: “We confront no one with choosing between rational thought and religious belief…”
I concur.
And: “- those things are inherently incompatible…”
Yes, in the sense that scuba diving and ventriloquism are incompatible as activities.
“…although most of us are in favor of presenting rational thought in the unedited, uncensored, and unabridged form.”
No objections here.
And: “Religious faith is not any kind of knowledge…”
Caledonian, if by ‘knowledge’ you mean something that can be objectively demonstrated, I suppose I have no quibble with that. How would you evaluate subjective claims or impressions? Would you acknowledge that faith has an experiential quality in and of itself, or would you say that faith itself is simply a flawed hypothesis mapped on to a real (but poorly-understood)aspect of experience?
And: “. . .and (religious faith) is in fact incompatible with investigating the world through rational thought.”
I don’t use faith to do science. I doubt that Frances Collins does, either—but of course his extracurricular activities, like the ‘The Language of God’, are not science.
And: “Don’t like that? Buddy, have you ever come to the wrong universe.”
Well, I agree with this jab as well. And, of course, the reverse is true: the universe is in no way obliged to conform to our beliefs.
I hope to be favored with a reply….Scott
IMO, all that science can convincingly argue is that god is undetectable
Yup.
and that the existence of the universe and the workings of all the things of which it is made do not require or even imply the necessity of god(s)
Nope.
If I am correct that a time point exists after the founding event before which no information has been preserved then you cannot know whether a creator (however so defined) was required or not. No data is not proof of anything one way or the other, is it? You want there to be no necessity for a creator, but how is that different than the theist’s want of exactly the opposite?
You are seeing that how things operate now does not require a supreme being (however so defined), but you will never know how this all started, so who are you to say, “There must have been nothing.” any more than the theist is to say, “There must have been a creator.”?
WE DO NOT KNOW AND CANNOT KNOW.
IMO, all that science can convincingly argue is that god is undetectable
Yup.
and that the existence of the universe and the workings of all the things of which it is made do not require or even imply the necessity of god(s)
Nope.
If I am correct that a time point exists after the founding event before which no information has been preserved then you cannot know whether a creator (however so defined) was required or not. No data is not proof of anything one way or the other, is it? You want there to be no necessity for a creator, but how is that different than the theist’s want of exactly the opposite?
You are seeing that how things operate now does not require a supreme being (however so defined), but you will never know how this all started, so who are you to say, “There must have been nothing.” any more than the theist is to say, “There must have been a creator.”?
We do not know and cannot know.
In such a knowledge environment it is not a responsible assertion to say, “We know there is no god.” It is an arrogant assertion and heinous, just as heinous as a theist’s assertion that, “God must have created it all.”
The responsible assertion is, “We do not know and apparently never will.”
Oops! Use the second one! Apologies – I didn’t realize it accepted the first draft!
Perhaps, but who would argue that those who fit into category (1) outnumber those who fit into category (2) by a factor of countless thousands to one?
Only a fool would, but that wasn’t what I was responding to.
I was responding to this:
There is no atheist as arrogant as the common Christian….
Except the atheist convinced that science shows there are no gods, despite the fact that the origin of the universe remains a mystery, one we will likely never have an answer to because there exists a time point after the founding event before which no information has been preserved?
Straw atheist is convinced that science shows there are no gods. Other atheists have yet to encounter the first theist to provide scientific support for the existence of the object of his religious faith.
I have to laugh at the pathetic spectacle of anybody rattling off insurmountable gaps in our knowledge of events in elsewhen, in which some god might be crammed. It always reminds me of the Chuck Jones cartoon in which Tom Turkey begs Daffy Duck to hide him from Pilgrim Porky’s blunderbuss, so Daffy frantically jams him into thimble-sized knotholes and other unlikely hiding places.
The god of the gaps, for all we know, might be a magic turkey who may not enjoy getting stuffed that way by theists.
Reasonable people ask to have the word ‘god’ defined, since it includes many different meanings. Some of those meanings are shown to be nonsensical by reason; others are potentially viable, but are contradicted by the available evidence; still others are meaningless.
The god of the gaps, for all we know, might be a magic turkey who may not enjoy getting stuffed that way by theists.
Indeed he may.
Which doesn’t do anything in favor of your conviction without evidence that there must be nothing.
Straw atheist = Ken Cope?
That “whoosh” noise oddjob heard was not that of a rapidly rotating razor-edged bowler flying overhead.
More importantly, Kudzu is one of the few crops that responds positively to the combination of higher CO2 and higher temps that comes from global warming. When the wheat belt moves north to the thin soils of the Canadian Shield, the Market will respond and transform Kudzu into the Greatest Food Crop the world has ever known. A century from now, global warming will been seen as Necessary Condition which keeps Kudzu growing fast enough to Feed the Planet.
Thanks for making my case for me Ken….. ;p
Unfortunately kudzu is also an alternate host for the (relatively) newly arrived (& destructive) soybean rust disease.
“Which doesn’t do anything in favor of your conviction without evidence that there must be nothing.”
And what evidence can you show for said conviction? Don’t put words in my mouth, unless it’s to show you’re capable of wrestling only with strawmen.
I’m still waiting for scientific evidence for an object of any theist’s worship, or some defintion of the word god upon which any two theists may agree.
If you wish to speculate about a gap in our knowledge and make the positive assertion that it contains the location of a magic turkey, invisible pink unicorn, flying spaghetti monster, hairy thunderer, cosmic muffin, or nothing, then by all means, pribble away.
A gap in our knowledge contains ambiguity, until it is no longer a gap. Speculation is entertaining and occassionally productive, but in general is only astonishingly otiose. If you wish to mischaracterize atheism and raise god of the gaps issues (why? to make Francis Collins look like less of an ass? not working) then I will continue to be amused by the spectacle.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone around here assert that, and apparently you’re just too stupid to distinguish this from the logically quite different assertion many us us do make, which is “there is no good reason to believe in gods and there are many good reasons to find their existence highly implausible”.
Steve LaBonne responds to:
“In such a knowledge environment it is not a responsible assertion to say, “We know there is no god.”
With this statement:
“I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone around here assert that…”
Would that that distinction were always so clearly articulated as you claim. The onus is on you, then, to explain this:
“…I must resist the temptation to draw out my greatsword, chop this into bloody chunks, and stomp the gobbets into gooey red smears while howling, “There are nooooo gods!!!” -P.Z. Myers
There is no Santa Claus, either.
You may notice that the temptation was resisted. To shout such a thing is, at least, not yet contradicted by science. Contrast it with the claims made about gods by Mr. Trinitarian Waterfalls, which are widely received by his fans as scientific, because they were uttered by a real honest to gosh scientist, one appointed to his post by a Clinton, no less.
The temptation was resisted only because of a commitment to brevity. The temptation wouldn’t exist if the belief (for so it is) was not held.
And Ken, if you re-read my comments, you’ll see I don’t offer a belief in God.
I offer no belief, the scientifically reponsible position, which is quite different from shouting, “There are nooooooooooooooooo gods!” and ridiculing all who don’t march in lockstep with me.
To bellow such is certainly to hold militantly to a belief.
A non-scientific belief in the ability of science to prove what we want it to, despite its clear inability to do so at present, and as far as we can tell, for ever.
Ken, think of it this way:
You & PZ (etc.) are arguing that what we know at present means the answer is zero.
I am asserting that what we know at present shows that you can’t arrive at any answer at all. To arrive at one is to divide by zero.
Therefore your (& PZ’s) style of atheism is a religious belief in non-belief.
If I am correct that a time point exists after the founding event before which no information has been preserved then you cannot know whether a creator (however so defined) was required or not.
Let’s say that your premise is correct. Even if there was a creator, that creator has effectively ceased to exist. This follows directly from your premise that no information was carried over from “before” our universe.
It also excludes the possibility of the creator, or anything else “outside” our universe, interacting with our universe in any way, since that would also constitute information transfer to our universe.
Therefore, “there are no gods” would be absolutely correct given your premise, unless you want to redefine “god”.
But the existence of a creator is NOT my premise. The absence of an ability to answer the question one way or the other is my point.
Windy is using the usual Western way of thinking, which is characterized by either/or distinctions that ultimately appear to derive from an ethical system stemming from the Abrahamic religions with their insistance upon the struggle between good and evil.
I’m holding to a different way of looking at the matter altogether, one that refuses to offer an answer of any kind, given the lack of data.
There’s plenty of data. The data is very clear.
It just leads to a conclusion you don’t like very much. So you ignore it.
What data? What first principles data do you point to from the time before any information was saved?
I agree about the rest, but the rest aren’t relevant to this matter, as you seem to ignore yourself.
Its a mysterious thing called “joking”. Look it up sometime.
The state you’ve described is logically equivalent to nonexistence.
Unless I’m mistaken, there is known to be a time after the founding event in which no information was preserved. Thus, there is no way to know how the founding event actually took place.
If so, my contention stands and you are mistaken in your logic.
Deduction is a sucky substitute for science, although it works fine in mathematics.
You don’t grasp the implications of “no information was preserved”.
The temptation was resisted only because of a commitment to brevity. The temptation wouldn’t exist if the belief (for so it is) was not held.
My equally groundless supposition is that the temptation was resisted because Collins would concur with a maddeningly gormless grin: “Yes, all those godzzzzzzzzzzzzzz certainly don’t exist. Only my singular three-gods-in-one god exists!”
If you must characterize the absence of belief as a belief, Pharyngula’s concern troll conga line 3C has room for one more redundant DF.
And Ken, if you re-read my comments(Why bother, when they only reveal more stale inanity every time!) You & PZ (etc.) are arguing that what we know at present means the answer is zero.
What we know at present is provisional and subject to revision pending better tools, new evidence/observations that were predicted by previously unsubstantiatable hypotheses and etc. Talk of gaps in which theists like to stuff magic turkeys can be safely equated with tales of Narnia, or Screwtape Letters, or whatever other C. S. Lewis tripe promoted by Cal Thomas that Collins fell for in lieu of a basic imagination. It’s all ambiguous noise which is regarded no differently by an atheist than by anybody who thinks their [A]gnosticism justifies some sort of smug superiority. Your agnosticism that godlessly posits no gods is different from my godless atheism how? Oh, right, because you point to gaps in which god might exist, pribbling about inaccessible information, to which even M. C. Hawking wouldn’t be bothered to vocode “LOL”. What happened before the beginning? and north of North?
What happened to assaults on atheism that are even vaguely novel?
Caledonian… You say Santa Claus doesn’t exist? Tell it to the Ishtar Bunnies.
I thank you again for making my case about the arrogance of atheists who are convinced of what they cannot know.
Unless I’m mistaken, there is known to be a time after the founding event in which no information was preserved. Thus, there is no way to know how the founding event actually took place.
Yes, and if you have noticed, science has not claimed to know. Our universe could have begun as a result of a grad student’s experiment in another universe. However, the existence of such a creator is completely irrelevant to most religions. It is not what they mean by “god”.
Your no-information-preserved premise means that
-The creator does not interact with our universe IN ANY WAY
-The creator does not even have a divine plan for our universe. He did not, for example, “program” our universe so that life or humans might develop (more information preservation!)
Such a creator is impotent or dead to all religions – it is not what they mean by “god”. (Of course, they reject the “no information was preserved” thing.) Given your premise, there may have been a creator, but there are no gods.
Imagine our universe encased in a bubble and guarded by Oddjob’s Demon. He would like us to believe that the demon stops all “scientific-information” from getting through, but will allow fuzzy “god-information” to enter our universe. :)
Windy is using the usual Western way of thinking, which is characterized by either/or distinctions…
Remember “NO INFORMATION WAS PRESERVED”? What kind of distinction is that?
…that ultimately appear to derive from an ethical system stemming from the Abrahamic religions with their insistance upon the struggle between good and evil.
Oh, screw you. Do you think there weren’t either-or distinctions in the stone age? Either Grok’s spear hit mammoth, or it not hit mammoth.
I thank you again for making my case about the arrogance of atheists who are convinced of what they cannot know.
Again, more accusations based on some sort of caricature of atheism, failing to address my argument while declaring victory. I said, “A gap in our knowledge contains ambiguity, until it is no longer a gap.”
It could be that oddjob has a reading comprehension problem, but that interpretation is apparently too charitable.
Caledonian: I’ve got no dog in this fight, but I am curious. What, in your view, would be the implications of ‘no information is preserved.’ Also, for the purpose of discussion, what definition of information are we using, or does it matter?
I’m not baiting you. I’m genuinely curious. Hope you will reply…SH
Windy, you wrote: “. . .Given your premise, there may have been a creator, but there are no gods.”
Well said. Grok admires argument, even if Grok inclined to ‘either-or’ thinking…:)
Oddjob: It seems to me that you are missing the point when you assert that your sparring partners are arrogant. I mean, they may well be arrogant (I don’t know them personally), but I don’t see how you purport to have demonstrated this claim.
See, here’s the deal: I don’t believe these folk are claiming knowledge that they couldn’t possibly possess, as you suggest. Rather, it seems to me (as Ken’s brief ‘north of North’ implies) that they find the claim of a time of which ‘no information was preserved’ to be logically incoherent.
Hence, they exclude the claim not on the basis of evidence, but on logical grounds. That’s a valid response in this forum, I think, and hardly arrogant….SH