A while back, I posted about the fact that the Archbishop of Canterbury had unambiguously condemned creationism. While I appreciated the sentiment, I had my doubts about his sincerity, and mentioned that I preferred my religious authorities to say “crazy stupid things”. Perhaps the Archbishop reads my blog, because he has obliged.
The Archbishop hit out against the "two extremes" in the range of theories of how the world began in his Holy Week lecture on Faith and Science last night. He said "Science has more to do than is simply covered by these theories."
Creationists believe in the literal version of creation as told in Genesis, and argue that man walked the earth at the same time as the dinosaurs. Neo Darwinists argue that culture is subject to evolutionary forces which will eventually weed out religion.
Dr Williams admitted that Neo Darwinism, a theory supported by Atheist Professor Richard Dawkins, is "most problematic" to theology, but he called it "a pseudo science" and "deeply vulnerable to intellectual challenge because it is trying to be a theology."
In a sideswipe at evolutionary scientists such as Professor Dawkins, Williams warned "Science can be seduced into making exaggerated claims." He added "Neo Darwinism of Dawkins’ kind carries with it a rather subjective agenda…It is as vulnerable as Christianity". Both Neo Darwinism and Christianity are telling stories, the Archbishop continued, Christianity acknowledges that fact, Neo Darwinism doesn’t.
Thattaboy, Archbishop. I appreciate the help in exposing the inanity of religion.
For those following along, Rowan Williams clearly has no idea what the neo-Darwinian synthesis says, because nowhere does it claim that evolution will weed out religion; even I, brutal opponent of all things godly, can see reasonable arguments for the adaptiveness of religion, or the absence of selection against religion, or that there are acceptable rationales for religion as an exaptation. But otherwise, the admission that science is a problem for theology, and the ignorant claim that evolution is a pseudo-science, are useful tools for the atheist conspiracy.
So, if things that are trying to be theology are pseudosciences, then what does that make theology?
“deeply vulnerable to intellectual challenge because it is trying to be a theology.”
I thought pretty much everything was deeply vulnerable to intellectual challenge. How come nobody ever knows what the heck those pope guys are ever talking about? He doesn’t even know what a theology is for crying out loud.
He’s like the man who mistook his wife for a hat, except he’s the Archbishop who mistook his hat for a theology. Or something!
386sx, I agree with you. But the archbishop’s mistake is understandable, as his hat and his theology both look ridiculous.
That aside, I think that even most of the Catholics reading this know that the Archbishop is putting together a weak defense for Creationism. It’s a pretty weak defense, but that, too, is aside the point.
The point is that the Archbishop of Canterbury pointed out something that even Darwinists have been admitting for years: we have no idea where life began.
At least our conclusion, though, makes some sense.
I suppose you got that from Nature, Science, and Evolution. No? You mean it’s just some hearsay that you repeated because it fit your prejudices? You’re beneath contempt, archbishop.
Crack a book, jackass. Being a theologian is no excuse for being ignorant, even though many try to make it out to be one.
Dawkins, however, isn’t claiming that what he takes to be the implications of “neo-Darwinism” in society actually constitutes science. I’m not sure that I quite agree with how Dawkins does mix science and social implications, but that’s no excuse for archbishops to forget the differences between science and Dawkins’ advocacy.
Actually, I’m more than willing to say that MET is telling stories in the more philosophical step-back from science. However, I rarely say this on forums, because stupid people like archbishops forget that there is a huge difference between story time where you read the kids stuff that’s just made up (or highly distorted from real events), and story-lines in evolution where you’re remaining as faithful to the facts as you possibly can. IOW, MET is telling a scientific story, the Bible is just telling us musty old fables that we dare not accept as being faithful to the facts.
You seem, archbishop, to be deliberately (or stupidly) confusing metaphor and narrative in science with narratives that have virtually the status of those written out by the Brothers Grimm. For, in the vernacular sense, science is not simply “telling stories,” while religion for the most part is.
That is to say, we don’t claim that science is just “telling stories” for the same reason that other evidence-based disciplines like history and forensics don’t claim to be just “telling stories.” That we come up with narrative (which may include fiction to fill in the gaps–which is either explicit or implicit) is not disputed, that we’re “telling stories” in the usual sense of that term, and as the Bible obviouslsy does, is not what MET is doing at all.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Reading the Archbishop’s words carefully, it seems that he his using a meaning of `NeoDarwinist’ that is different from the meaning given it by biologists (who, apparently, no longer use NeoDarwinism but `modern evolutionary synthesis’?). If one defines NeoDarwinism to mean that culture is best explained by a natural selection model
(note that the article defines tha archbishop’s use of NeoDarwinist in the sentence `Neo Darwinists argue that culture is subject to evolutionary forces which will eventually weed out religion.’), then I think I have to agree with the archbishop. Using theoretical frameworks that work well in science to explain culture usually doesn’t work; consider the 19th century attempts to find `laws of politics’ (leading to, of course, `political science’). If you assert that culture follows a natural selection model, then (as a scientist) you have to rigorously show the truth of this statement. And, I’d bet, that can’t be done.
When atheists use science theories as arguments against the existence of God, theologians are quick to jump in and say that such scientists are now doing philosophy, and not science. I agree that his use of the word “pseudoscience” is strange here: it seems to feed right into the anti-creationist strategy of attacking the truth of evolutionary theory.
If you follow science all the way down, “God” is an unnecessary hypothesis, and the intuitions which lead to belief in God in the first place (things that look designed must have intelligence behind them; intelligent minds are magical spiritual things outside the physical causal stream) are shown to have better explanations. That’s applied philosophy, sure, but the same clear and rational philosophy followed within science. You can only keep God in if you draw a line somewhere in nature and inject magic.
That’s Dawkins point — not that we’re going to “evolve” to the level where we don’t believe in God, or any of that progressive evolution nonsense. Even when they reject creationism, religionists don’t seem to be able to keep teleology out of the theory, and assume that everyone else puts it in, too.
The Archbishop is of course simply appealing again to the Fallacy of the Golden Mean — that the correct position is always going to be the one between the “extremes.” Creationists go too far one way — but atheists too far the other way. Best to have a sappy, middling sort of faith in a God that somehow smiles on nature as it works and provides you with a therapeutic “story” which helps you get on with life. Nobody really cares if God exists, as long as the concept is useful.
First off, just what the heck is “neo-Darwinism” anyway? For that matter, what is “Darwinism”? They seem to just be labels that evolution-deniers attach to naturalists in a pejorative manner for the purpose of framing the argument in divisive terms. I’m certainly a believer in Darwin’s theory of natural selection and biological evolution, but by no means do I consider myself a “Darwinist”. Although if being a believer in philosophical naturalism, and being a believer in the scientific method as the only reliable means to gaining real knowledge about the world, makes me a “Darwinist”, then I guess I am one.
Natural selection and biological evolution, hand-in-hand, is such a robust and time-proven scientific theory that only the most obtuse can deny it. However, I can see nothing about it that makes it a “theology”.
I’ve just started re-reading Daniel Dennett’s fascinating book Breaking The Spell. In it he argues very persuasively for a deep, broad, and far-ranging scientific study of religion as a natural phenomenon, and speculates on the outcome of such a study. He suggests that it may well be the case that many, if not most, humans need religious belief in order to function in a civilized manner. If so, then naturalists such as myself would accept those findings. If not, then we would continue to press for the dissolvement of belief in supernaturalism, as we maintain that such belief is harmful to humanity in both the short and the long term.
I still don’t see that as being a theology, though.
PZ: I’m not smart enough to presume to speak for the Archbishop. I can only speak for myself.
It is not merely evolution, but all sorts of things from the natural world which are theologically troublesome. There is no reason to single out evolution itself for scrutiny in this regard. The present laws of physics in and of themselves are a theodicy.
In other words, I think about this stuff a lot. Doubt is my specialty.
If I were smart enough to get in Rowan Williams’s mind, I would point out that his skepticism is probably not with evolution, but with the wholesale application of same to human nature. In that respect, he’s another one of S.J. Gould’s children, and not that far apart from views that have been expressed more than once here by people who are not religious, but who are also deeply skeptical of the sort of ‘Just So Stories’ we get when a naive panadaptationist ‘explanation’ is floated in the popular culture.
Of course, what probably sticks in your craw (you see that I am reading many minds today) is not that he is skeptical in that respect, but that this skepticism is brought in service of an agenda that conflates a version of evolutionary thought (‘Neo-Darwinism’) with a belief system. The nerve!
But suppose all of this wasn’t intended to defend religion, but simply to make a point about the mode in which some contemporary critics of religion routinely operate? If so, it doesn’t seem to me that much different from the tactical debates between atheists of different flavors as to how best (ahem) ‘frame’ their positions.
BTW, I’m more of an E.O. Wilson man myself, probably because I remember the absolute horror I felt when reading the opening paragraphs of ‘On Human Nature’ some 28 years ago. I think Gould’s critique of sociobiology isn’t all that sound, and was driven less by science than by his political commitments. But I sure do know a lot of liberal elites in the humanities who think his views are the received wisdom!
First off, just what the heck is “neo-Darwinism” anyway? For that matter, what is “Darwinism”? They seem to just be labels that evolution-deniers attach to naturalists in a pejorative manner for the purpose of framing the argument in divisive terms. I’m certainly a believer in Darwin’s theory of natural selection and biological evolution, but by no means do I consider myself a “Darwinist”. Although if being a believer in philosophical naturalism, and being a believer in the scientific method as the only reliable means to gaining real knowledge about the world, makes me a “Darwinist”, then I guess I am one.
Natural selection and biological evolution, hand-in-hand, is such a robust and time-proven scientific theory that only the most obtuse can deny it. However, I can see nothing about it that makes it a “theology”.
I’ve just started re-reading Daniel Dennett’s fascinating book Breaking The Spell. In it he argues very persuasively for a deep, broad, and far-ranging scientific study of religion as a natural phenomenon, and speculates on the outcome of such a study. He suggests that it may well be the case that many, if not most, humans need religious belief in order to function in a civilized manner. If so, then naturalists such as myself would accept those findings. If not, then we would continue to press for the dissolvement of belief in supernaturalism, as we maintain that such belief is harmful to humanity in both the short and the long term.
I still don’t see that as being a theology, though.
Sounds to me like His Hattiness is confusing “Neo-Darwinism” in biology with some sort of EvPsych/sociobiology mashup (or something: I really can’t make sense the claim. Has Dawkins actually said anything that could be interpreted like this?).
When did “Atheist” (note capitalization) get added to Professor Dawkins’ official title?
“Dr”? Of what? Calling these purveyors of insanity is an
insult to the doctoral degrees. Doctor of theology! Doctor
of crap! If they would just talk about angels and ghosts
and demons and stay out of the realm of reason,they would not bring to themselves so much warranted criticsm and derision. They will never offer sane facts to the discussion so they should be somehow restricted to the insane world by our logical methods. Doctor! You freaking
moronic retard, doctor of swill.
PZ: I’m not smart enough to presume to speak for the Archbishop. I can only speak for myself.
It is not merely evolution, but all sorts of things from the natural world which are theologically troublesome. There is no reason to single out evolution itself for scrutiny in this regard. The present laws of physics in and of themselves are a theodicy.
In other words, I think about this stuff a lot. Doubt is my specialty.
If I were smart enough to get in Rowan Williams’s mind, I would point out that his skepticism is probably not with evolution, but with the wholesale application of same to human nature. In that respect, he’s another one of S.J. Gould’s children, and not that far apart from views that have been expressed more than once here by people who are not religious, but who are also deeply skeptical of the sort of ‘Just So Stories’ we get when a naive panadaptationist ‘explanation’ is floated in the popular culture.
Of course, what probably sticks in your craw (you see that I am reading many minds today) is not that he is skeptical in that respect, but that this skepticism is brought in service of an agenda that conflates a version of evolutionary thought (‘Neo-Darwinism’) with a belief system. The nerve!
But suppose all of this wasn’t intended to defend religion, but simply to make a point about the mode in which some contemporary critics of religion routinely operate? If so, it doesn’t seem to me that much different from the tactical debates between atheists of different flavors as to how best (ahem) ‘frame’ their positions.
BTW, I’m more of an E.O. Wilson man myself, probably because I remember the absolute horror I felt when reading the opening paragraphs of ‘On Human Nature’ some 28 years ago. I think Gould’s critique of sociobiology isn’t all that sound, and was driven less by science than by his political commitments. But I sure do know a lot of liberal elites in the humanities who think his views are the received wisdom!
“Dr”? Of what? Calling these purveyors of insanity is an
insult to the doctoral degrees. Doctor of theology! Doctor
of crap! If they would just talk about angels and ghosts
and demons and stay out of the realm of reason,they would not bring to themselves so much warranted criticsm and derision. They will never offer sane facts to the discussion so they should be somehow restricted to the insane world by our logical methods. Doctor! You freaking
moronic retard, doctor of swill.
Apologies for the duplicate post. My conkputer seems to be acting wierd today.
Nobody really cares if God exists, as long as the concept is useful.
Cool. Then my god’s going to be a two-wheeled god, like a Segway, so I won’t have to take the bus to work anymore. He’ll be called Wheelie Loman (because what god is ever truly original?) and the world will end when his hydrogen cells run out of juice.
Boy, this theology stuff is easier than I thought it would be! Anybody else need some gods? I’m going to make a few more just for fun!
Look, scientists are not allowed to take an active interest in any other subjects, and they are certainly not allowed to explain to people what the findings of science might point to concerning the nature of the universe (unless you are a religious scientist, of course).
That just confuses people like the poor Archbishop, as he thought that it was his job to tell us all about the nature of the universe, and especially given all of his training in such matters.
It’s pretty simple, really.
Because he’s saturated with his own theology, he sees the world with a Christian past, present, and future: Adam sinned, so we’re sinners, so Jesus had to come, so now we have to evangelize to save as many people before Revelations starts up.
For such a mindset, there really is no such thing as the naturalistic fallacy: what happened in the past is intimately tied to what should happen in the future.
Then, with just a little projection, and a splash of philosophical reverse engineering, he thinks something like: Dawkins thinks religion should be abolished. Dawkins is a biologist. Therefore, it must be NeoDarwinism that’s telling Dawkins that religion will be eliminated/should be eliminated.
Of course, for those of us who know that an is does not equal an ought, there is no contradiction between believing that religion is a completely natural expression of human society, and also thinking that it should be eliminated as soon as possible for the good of everybody.
Rowan Williams is a total Archdipshit. Here he is defending Sharia “Law”.
He likes different laws for different folks.
Surely I’m not the only one who reads this odd capitalization as sounding like the title of a crazy Japanese show? Can Super Dimension Cephalopod PZ be far behind?
Neo-Darwinism, as normally used, is the term used to describe how Darwin’s theory of evolution was modified in the first half of the C20th. The modifications mainly involved an understanding of the role genetics played, but also introduced evolutionary mechanisms other than natural and sexual selection. It is also known as the modern synthesis.
That said I do not think that is how the Archbishop is using the term. But then he always has had a reputation for being rather vague and difficult to understand. Some consider this a sign of how erudite he is, others think is just shows how muddled his thinking is.
“and the ignorant claim that evolution is a pseudo-science, are useful tools for the atheist conspiracy”
If the AOC doesn’t understand the meaning of the word “neo-darwinism”, as implied by that article. I would say that it is at least a little bit of a stretch to say that he is claiming evolution itself is a pseudo-science.
I think you have to take it in that context really, though of course the article itself is rather terrible for not making it clear who has the misunderstanding, the times, or the AOC.
Certainly, to the lay-person, it would look like the AOC was talking about evolution, and so I think worth rebutting on that basis.
A couple of people (#2, #3) mention Catholics and ‘pope guys’. Rowan Williams is Church of England, not Catholic. It’s not clear if you were mistaken on that or just branching out, but I thought I’d mention it anyway.
This is how I like my religious officials.
Here is another Brit atheist, besides Pat Condell.
Sastra said cheekily:
Well, excepting the “new” atheists like myself of course. For some strange reason, we always find the truth of an assertion to impact its validity.
“The point is that the Archbishop of Canterbury pointed out something that even Darwinists have been admitting for years: we have no idea where life began.”
I would agree that it is not known how life began. However I would disagree that we have no ideas on how it did. There are a fair number of ideas, just not enough evidence to know which, if any, is correct.
Olaf Davis @ 22 Calling a dog an orange does not change
it’s nature. I don’t give a crap if he represents any
church or is called priest, rabbi, minister or mullah;
religion is the all-invasive pox and the blight of all
reason no matter what it identifies with. All crap.
Atheist Professor Richard Dawkins
Surely I’m not the only one who reads this odd capitalization as sounding like the title of a crazy Japanese show?
Posted by: Morgan | March 18, 2008 12:58 PM
It reads like a job title to me. How do I get to be an Atheist Professor? My nameplate will read: Kadath, Chair of Atheology.
I had a friend who lived deep in Mormon-territory Utah who was referred to by her neighbors as “The Atheist.” “Who’s bringing the chips to the potluck?” “The Atheist is.” “Hi, welcome to the neighborhood: I’m Carol, that’s Bob, and over there by the swimming pool is The Atheist.”
She said it was hard to feel offended because they clearly thought they were being amazingly friendly, tolerant, and accepting. Which, given the area, they were. But it’s those tiny little things that clue us in that we’re still not quite … you know … normal…
The Archbishop is not stupid, he is a politician.
What he is doing, as he did with the Sharia Law thing, is trying to present religion like his as being a middle way, a gentle compromise in a polarised world.
The thing he doesn’t get is that it’s not going to be possible to synthesise creationism and Darwinism. There isn’t a compromise solution. If one is even a little bit right, the other can’t be even a little bit right.
But if facts mattered to him he would be in the wrong job. What he’s trying to do here is exactly what a lot of people have been trying to do recently – present Richard Dawkins as an ‘extremist’, equal and opposite to Ted Haggard.
It’s a political power grab, an attempt to appear reasonable and balanced. As with other statements, he’s trying to present ‘moderate religion’ as a middle way. The irony is that he shares 99% of his beliefs with Dawkins and roughly 1% with the creationists. He doesn’t believe in Adam and Eve anymore than he believes in the Easter Bunny.
“The point is that the Archbishop of Canterbury pointed out something that even Darwinists have been admitting for years: we have no idea where life began.”
I would agree that it is not known how life began. However I would disagree that we have no ideas on how it did. There are a fair number of ideas, just not enough evidence to know which, if any, is correct.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | March 18, 2008 1:11 PM
Yes, evidence is lacking for any definitive answer as to how life began. There are many ideas, God being but one of them.
Hmm. I suspect mis-reporting here, because I don’t think that Rowan Williams (the ABC as his website calls him!) is as stupid as the comments attributed to him imply.
I also suspect American readers might not fully appreciate the European context here. The Church of England (of which the ABC is spiritual leader) is relaxed; it likes its worshippers to believe in God, and to think that Jesus was a really good guy, and that the Bible is an excellent book, but it’s not really that bothered; it tries to be inclusive. It’s more important that people turn up to services (and garden parties!), sing the songs, contribute to the appeal fund to restore the bell-tower, and generally are decently good people. And it’s post-Enlightenment in its outlook: it generally accepts that science gives a good description of the world and that the Bible, is, er, probably allegorical but, mmmm, let’s not talk about that too much, because it’s bad manners to start picking holes in the Bible! More tea, vicar?
So the Church of England is not at all keen on red-raw Creationists, because literal Creationism is clearly nonsense and it’s embarrassing. You can’t bring the CofE down by banging on about theological matters, because theology is optional!
I’m not a church-goer, nor a Christian, but I rather like the CofE’s role as a social organisation promoting thoughtful behaviour.
Salt #31 wrote:
No, God is not “one of them” if the topic is science. Not because “science can’t consider God” as some sort of precept, but because all the ideas they’re working on and considering are mechanisms. How did it happen. What were the steps? Form a hypothesis and make predictions from it.
How did God do it? Nobody is working on that “idea” — unless they’re simply using the question as a metaphor for “how did it happen?” Saying “Life began by a life-creating force which created it through exercising its force for the creation of life” is simply moving the question around to form an answer.
Some ideas have more merit than others, scientifically.
“We have several plausible scenarios based on known natural chemical processes and the evidence available to us in the geologic record”
is rather more useful than
“A wizard did it.”
Placing them on the same level is absurd.
Come on Salt, you know that your god(note lower case) is the only idea in your mind.
I may be naïve, but I can’t help but think that there’s some sort of misquoting going on here.
That really sounds like it should be aimed at cdesign proponentsistism. Though, I guess that is rightly theology posing as science, so perhaps he is completely off his rocker.
First of all, let me apologize for posting twice. I received an error message after the first post, so I thought it hadn’t gone through.
Forrest asks an interesting question:
First off, just what the heck is “neo-Darwinism” anyway? For that matter, what is “Darwinism”?
In the United States, ‘Darwinism’ is typically taken as a gloss for ‘believing in evolution’, as if evolutionary theory were a belief system. I avoid the term when talking to my fellow Americans, because it is routinely interpreted that way. As a science teacher, I would be making my life a lot more difficult if I were to reinforce the (false) impression.
In the United Kingdom, however, ‘Darwinism’ has been used as a quick gloss for ‘evolution by natural selection’, as opposed to evolution by other means. Many leading lights in the UK have used the expression in print, but what they mean is not so much a belief system, as it is a habit of mind to interpret the results of evolution as being chiefly the product of selection. Dr. Dawkins, for example, has used the term in this sense…..which leads to no end of grief, when such comments are trotted out by creationists for consumption by an audience here in the States. So, from my point of view, this is a term that should be put to bed. My thought were evolution is concerned is throughly Darwinian, but I don’t want my students to think that I’m a priest in the ‘Church of Darwin’, or that I worship a reified Evolution with a capital ‘E’, where evolution is a succedaneum for the deity. This not only creates barriers to considering the theory on its own merits, but diminishes its importance as a scientific theory.
Sastra … here in the UK we have a head of state ordained by God Himself and Archbishops and Bishops on the legislature. We have blasphemy laws, compulsory religious instruction and prayer in schools …
… and it’s absolutely normal to be atheist. The Church of England is, essentially, a non-religious organisation. That’s the joke. In Britain having a religion is a minority pursuit, and declaring it to friends and workmates is seen as deeply suspicious.
The Archbishop realises this and wants to gather together all religions and present them as an important power bloc and part of society. Extend his ridiculous position to anyone who has ‘faith’. By calling atheism a ‘religion’ he’s trying to be nice to it.
Boy, this theology stuff is easier than I thought it would be! Anybody else need some gods? I’m going to make a few more just for fun!
OK. I for one would like to see a god of bacon. Even Kevin Bacon, should he prove edible. Plus we’ve already got that ‘six degrees of’ thing to elaborate the cosmology!
The bottom line is that I’m on a diet and wish to once again commune with His Dripping Lipidness.
Basically he’s mixed up memetics and neo-Darwinian synthesis, and also got wrong what memetics says about religion. Well done, sir.
For a fascinating and highly informative book on the scientific search for the origin(s) of life on earth, read gen_e_sis, by Robert M. Hazen (2005, Joseph Henry Press). From the book jacket: “Robert M. Hazen is a scientist at the Carnegie Institution of Washington, where he conducts astrobiological research as the Geophysical Laboratory. [snip] He received his M.S. in geology from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and his Ph.D. in earth sciences from Harvard University. Dr. Hazen is the author of more than 240 articles and 16 books…”
It’s a somewhat technical read, but I still found it quite accessible and understandable, and I have little more than a layperson’s foundation in the natural sciences.
One thing the book clearly gets across is the idea that there are many good scientific hypotheses about how life began on earth; unfortunately few of them are definitively testable, and so we may just never know. However, they are certainly plausible explanations that completely remove the need to posit any sort of “creation”.
Oh, I say! You’ve got to be very careful with the Archbishop of Canterbury. He waffles a lot, and when he’s not sure he just hedges all his bets. Anyone listened to this man lately? I mean, really, the guy is a slice or two short of a loaf. He doesn’t dare challenge his religious following. He’s got all sorts of support in Africa and Asia and South America, and he doesn’t dare say anything that might offend. So, he changed his mind about gay and lesbian people. Not, after all, as natural as he once thought. And then he decided that sharia law would be good for Britain. Perhaps he thought it would keep his wife in line. You never know? And now, he’s not quite sure about Darwin. It really might challenge religion, you know, and that wouldn’t be cricket, would it? At least, not as it’s played in Wales.
I just watched a report on the Internet news of a female inPittsburgh who had an MRI and claims she sees an image of
jesus at the crucifiction (note how I spelled that last word). She is positive that is jeebus in the x-ray.
That freaking jeebus is showing up everywhere, from shit
to MRIs to who knows next. Be careful PZ; some nut might
claim to see jeebus in your beard as he is ranting at you!
Article in the Telegraph
As opposed to the other gospels, which report such things as virgin birth, resurrection, walking on water, earthquakes and OT prophets climbing out of their graves, which are so well-supported.
In the words of that little sweetie evaluating the movie
Star Wars; “Don’t talk back to Darth Vader, he’ll getcha!”
Darth Vader in this case being the “Dr” in Canterbury who
will getcha brain and mesmerize you with doctoral crap!
I for one would like to see a god of bacon.
Already done, Scott. Kevin Bacon is indeed a god, not only demonstrably the centre of the universe by being no more than six degrees separated from all other matter, but by having come back from the dead, both careerwise and in Flatliners. Plus, I myself, have a Bacon number of 3 (well, I’ve got at least two friends with Bacon numbers of 2.)
However, if you are looking for rituals in which you can commune with Baconak (his true name), I suggest you familiarise yourself with baconweaving and start making yourself some vestments.
#46
Actually, Kevin Bacon is not the true center of the imdb universe. That honor resides with Rod Steiger, with a connectedness index of 2.678, easily beating Kevin Bacon’s 2.946.
So sayeth The Oracle of Bacon. Granted, this data is nearly 4 years old now, so…
Link appears to be fubar. Here you go.
http://oracleofbacon.org/center.html
Boy, this theology stuff is easier than I thought it would be! Anybody else need some gods? I’m going to make a few more just for fun!
does that mean soon we’ll need a “Foster’s Home for Imaginary Gods?”
meh, I doubt anyone who isn’t around kids would get the reference.
PZ: I’m not smart enough to presume to speak for the Archbishop. I can only speak for myself.
You do yourself a disservice. You displayed far more intelligence in coming up with a way to resolve the Archbishop’s words with reality than I have ever seen displayed from a religious authority. Unfortunately, I think it’s likely that you’re over-thinking matters and that he intended to say exactly what he said.
Even Kevin Bacon, should he prove edible.
In fact, that suggests an obvious joke:
Q: What kind of bacon do you get from a long pig?
A: Kevin Bacon
mmmm, cannibalism jokes.
:p
I really like this blog, but this post is the first I have commented on. I’m about as religious as my cat is Mexican … oh, wait — damn!
I’m not one to defend Archbishops, but Dr Williams is one of the most open-to-science clergy members the UK has had for a while. I don’t agree with what he said about so-called Darwinism — a stupid phrase — but just wanted to reply to the commenter who mentioned his speech on the application of Sharia Law to the UK:
It’s not a bad suggestion. He only wanted a tiny few things added to the legal system — such as divorce in Sharia court in the UK having full legal status BY English Law. I don’t think that is that stupid. What I do disagree with is his idea that ANY religion should have control over law, be it even, as some papers put it, “England’s great Christian nation”. Jedi, me, through and through.
The newspapers picked it up, though, and went wild with all sorts of crap, as per usual. The thing is though, that lots of skeptics and scientists were very quick to jump on it as “hey look at the crazy religious guy” without examining the facts and his statements in the first place. The mass media frenzy engulfed everyone, and nobody played, ironically enough, Devil’s Advocate.
Anyway, I’m from the UK, 16 years old, and really should get a life ;)
Best wishes,
~Chris
Keep up the good stuff.
That’s actually one of the better shows on Cartoon Network. (Only Robot Chicken is better, IMO)
Yes, I’m including Aqua Teen and Metalocalypse and Venture Brothers and all the gob-awful Adult Swim poorly-conceived ATHF rip-offs that can’t even do ‘incoherent’ correctly. I’m looking at you, Squid-billies. Man, I am so sick of Adult Swim shows whose whole schtick is “we’re quasi-hysterically craptastic”.
Where was I? Oh, right. “Fairy Spokesman in Funny Hat is Unbelievably Stupid.” How does this even make the news? It’s terribly dog-bites-man.
PS: From my comment: “Dr Williams is one of the most-open-to-science clergy members we’ve had for a long time…”.
Not that that says a lot!
the c of e are in a tad bit of trouble.
on the one hand their congregations are getting older and literally dying out apart from the more excitable and hardcore ones.
Likewise the other churches aligned with them are getting more hardcore (with the exception strangely of the USA who are getting into all the bother about coming up with nutty ideas like having openly gay bishops and the like).
On the other hand as they get louder they start to irritate the general english approach to having the established church which is pretty much they can have authority and laws in their favour as long as they dont try and use it.
oh and for his thoughts on Sharia law his position, despite all the chaff thrown around, seemed to be pretty much arguing for special privileges for religious beliefs in general.
not something to win friends and influence people (particularly if you alienate the daily hate readers by using islam as the example).
“That’s actually one of the better shows on Cartoon Network. (Only Robot Chicken is better, IMO)
Yes, I’m including Aqua Teen and Metalocalypse and Venture Brothers and all the gob-awful Adult Swim poorly-conceived ATHF rip-offs that can’t even do ‘incoherent’ correctly. I’m looking at you, Squid-billies. Man, I am so sick of Adult Swim shows whose whole schtick is “we’re quasi-hysterically craptastic”.”
Yes, Squid-billies is terrible, but apparently you haven’t seen Frisky Dingo yet that show is hilarious. But Home Movies was the best show on adult swim. I wonder what happen to it? Now all the voice talent is on another show, the one about Jesus and the Devil with the nuns and priests and shit. I haven’t seen much of it but it seems pretty funny.
“Both Neo Darwinism and Christianity are telling stories, the Archbishop continued, Christianity acknowledges that fact, Neo Darwinism doesn’t.”
Hey, the next time I need a moral drawn from a vague, useless generality, I know who to call.
“But Home Movies was the best show on adult swim. I wonder what happen to it?”
It was cancelled in 2004 after four seasons.
” Now all the voice talent is on another show, the one about Jesus and the Devil with the nuns and priests and shit.”
Lucy, Daughter of the Devil, which I suppose I really ought to catch since Loren Bouchard of Home Movies (co?) created it. Meanwhile, Brendon Small of Home Movies is over on Metalocalypse. Haven’t watched much Adult Swim since I don’t have a TV and yes, AS was largely given over to Willis and Maiellaro’s parade of pointlessness (is 12 Oz. Mouse still on?).
The Venture Brothers is the BOMB though.
Thanks Jared, but kindly keep your ‘facts’ out of my theology. ;)
Welcome to the world of theology. Normally it would be ironic that the very act of disavowing a movement would suffice to place that person withing the movement. Such as when Williams disclaim Creationism but in the process conflates evolution with cosmology and so shows that his small-c creationism itself is much more conflatable with large-C.
But this is theology, where events such as performing sins is inheritable and the melding of two gods into one results in three separate individuals. The only rule of theology is that there is no other rule.
Oh please! The very core of science is that it isn’t expressing a narrative, but that it consists of repeatable observations and testable predictions.
There are areas that on the surface looks like stories, like descriptions or hypotheses, especially descriptions of contingent historical processes as in biology or astronomy.
But the parts which is observable and the parts which is still (possibly forever) unobservable is always identifiable. Moreover the individual descriptions are parts of statistical populations, so their eventual uniqueness is always questionable. Calling this “stories” is no more descriptive than calling evolution a theory “of how the world began”.
Welcome to the world of theology. Normally it would be ironic that the very act of disavowing a movement would suffice to place that person withing the movement. Such as when Williams disclaim Creationism but in the process conflates evolution with cosmology and so shows that his small-c creationism itself is much more conflatable with large-C.
But this is theology, where events such as performing sins is inheritable and the melding of two gods into one results in three separate individuals. The only rule of theology is that there is no other rule.
Oh please! The very core of science is that it isn’t expressing a narrative, but that it consists of repeatable observations and testable predictions.
There are areas that on the surface looks like stories, like descriptions or hypotheses, especially descriptions of contingent historical processes as in biology or astronomy.
But the parts which is observable and the parts which is still (possibly forever) unobservable is always identifiable. Moreover the individual descriptions are parts of statistical populations, so their eventual uniqueness is always questionable. Calling this “stories” is no more descriptive than calling evolution a theory “of how the world began”.
The Notorious Believer, the Archbishop of Canterbury, is said to be a very clever and deeply thoughtful guy – generally so thoughtful and deep that no-one else understands him. Admitedly his thoughts are all about the various shades of Christian woo.
What is less appreciated it that he is trying to crowbar his religion back into the power (both secular and spiritual) that it once had in the UK, and by extension the rest of the Anglican communion.
He seems to be using “triangulation” – a trick he picked up from our politicians, who picked it up from US politicians. By slagging off both atheist scientists AND creationists over their views of the Origin Of Life he is attempting to promote his moderate religious views.
I guess he is not the sort of moderate Christian we can rely on to rein in the Fundamentalists!
“Science can be seduced into making exaggerated claims.”
As opposed to religion which never doe….
Ahem. Never mind.
A couple of people (#2, #3) mention Catholics and ‘pope guys’. Rowan Williams is Church of England, not Catholic. It’s not clear if you were mistaken on that or just branching out, but I thought I’d mention it anyway.
Thanks Olaf Davis, you’re right I thought he was one of those bishop guys who follow the pope around waving their sticks and warding off the evil spirits or whatever. Nobody ever understands what the hell those guys are ever talking about! I guess the same goes for the Church of England guy too, apparently.
Glad he can admit to theologies being “deeply vulnerable to intellectual challenge”
Where does that episcopal allergy against hyphens come from? ~:-|
Sounds cool. ;-) Could you tell us what they say?
I bet something completely different is going on here: as we all know, Atheism is just another religion, so it gets capitalized like all other religions, making Dawkins an Atheist. Eminently logical, never mind the validity of the first premise.
Where does that episcopal allergy against hyphens come from? ~:-|
Sounds cool. ;-) Could you tell us what they say?
I bet something completely different is going on here: as we all know, Atheism is just another religion, so it gets capitalized like all other religions, making Dawkins an Atheist. Eminently logical, never mind the validity of the first premise.
The comments by the Archbishop of Canterbury show that Richard Dawkins is becoming an embarrassment to evolutionary biology.
#66
No,the comments show that the Bishop doesn’t understand alot of things. Dawkins certainly isn’t damaged bysuch tripe.
While we’re calling things pseudo-sciences, why don’t we just call religion a pseudo-science and get it over with?
@ Kamikaze189,
We don’t call religion a pseudo-science because it doesn’t even measure up to that level.
To paraphrase Pauli, “This isn’t pseudo-science, this isn’t even fraud!”
The Venture Brothers is the BOMB though.
seconded. I have every single episode saved as avi’s, and all the bonus stuff too (monarch telephone calls with Dr. Girlfried, etc.). Big Brock Sampson fan (which also works because I like Patrick Warburton).
I still get a kick every time I watch “Assasinanny”. I simply can’t ever say anything bad about a show that utilizes a fictional representation of Hunter S. Thompson as a “trainer of secret agents”.
I tried watching 12 oz mouse several times, before deciding that the only way it would ever even be amusing is if one is both stoned AND drunk.
…and yes, it was canceled after its second series of episodes.
Metalocalypse has grown on me, as has “Lucy”.
…but I think VB may be my favorite AS series since I started watching the old Space Ghost Coast to Coast many years ago.
The comments by the Archbishop of Canterbury show that Richard Dawkins is becoming an embarrassment to evolutionary biology.
how is that a more fitting analysis than:
The comments by the Archbishop show that HE has become an embarrassment, period.
well?
Frankly, none of the evolutionary biologists I have ever worked with would consider arguments as to the value of religious dogma to society in general to be relevant at all to the study of evolutionary biology.
If Dawkins has ever come close to “embarrassing” himself with evolutionary biologists (never has happened, that I recall, even though some of us have taken issue with some of the ways he has chosen to explain certain aspects of evolutionary biology), it would have to be based on a misstatement of evolutionary biology itself; not on any commentary wrt to the inanity of religion.
While we’re calling things pseudo-sciences, why don’t we just call religion a pseudo-science and get it over with?
because that term is entirely reserved for those times when religious apologists feel it necessary to invent “sciencey sounding stuff” in order to claim religious dogma as scientific.
Intelligent Design creationism is exactly such a monster, and is accurately labeled as “pseudo-science”.
Religion is not psuedo-science, but many sects seem inordinately fond of generating it in a desperate attempt to maintain their dogma when reality itself is basically a ton weight, ready to crush it into oblivion.
now, if you want to include both religion and generated pseudo-science under the large tent labelled:
Bullshit
I personally would have no problem with that.
;)
Nope. Even then it’s just weird. Good time to tuck into that donair and Gatorade.
Palin Drome at #30, you mean the ABC doesn’t believe in Me? Good job I didn’t hide his easter egg in the cassock room isn’t it?
Palin Drome, we no longer have Blasphemy laws here in the UK, the England an Wales one got struck down last week. Do pay attention.
Sam C, I agree that the C of E can be as you describe, but it can be much worse. The wing of the church that gets its bloomers in a knot over homosexuality is not just in Nigeria and parts of the US. The Evangelicals here in Blighty are quite a force. In fact they occupy the richest parishes and have the Synod by the financial short and curlies. If the CofE splits, those nice vague vicars are in real trouble re where their livelihoods are going to come from.
“Science can be seduced into making exaggerated claims.”
I’m still chuckling about this two days later. The whole of Christianity is based on boobs like Rowan making exaggerated claims for a guy names Jesus.
What a self-deluded dimwit this guy is.
Archbishop only knows to Bray. Ass’ Head.Gambler prospector burro church doctor Ass trader prostitute & supplyman, bones turned to dust.
For a Bray cardinals meet themselves made a Pope¡
I agree that ABC is extremely confused and appears to be using the term ‘neo-darwinism’ to refer to something other than what anyone else would use ‘neo-darwinism’ to describe. Whilst he should get his terms right I think I sympathise with what he thinks is his message which doesn’t come across very well.
Science should stick to doing science. History, Philosophy and Sociology which is presented by scientists really shits me because as does science presented by non-scientists. If you don’t fully understand the field and the domain you’re working from then you are bound to fuck things up. Scientists can (and should!) disprove empirical claims (assuming, and it’s a pretty good assumption, that they are false) made by religion. Just as Historians can (and should!) disprove historical claims made by religion (assuming, and it’s a pretty good assumption, that they are false). However, non-empirical claims made by religion our out of the domain of science – science studies the empirical world and acts as if the empirical world is all-there-is. As it should. But Science cannot “prove” that the empirical world is all-there-is. Go ahead and be an empiracist! But it is an assumption and no matter how good an assumption to pretend that it is not an assumption well that’s when you’re ‘telling stories’. But just because something is a ‘story’ doesn’t mean that it is worthless. It also doesn’t mean it’s meaninful, of course!
The Bible is a collection of stories. To many people they are completely meaningless stories. To some people they are stories which are important to them. There are plenty of people who are confused and think that for something to be important it has to be ‘true’ but sensible people will know that this isn’t the case.
I can’t speak for the Anglican church in general, but at my church the Priest doesn’t refer to the stories in the bible as things that happened exactly as they are written (because, duh, which version would you choose? the gospels don’t exactly correspond to one another). Instead he talks about what the authors of the bible (who lived and wrote what they did a long time after the events supposedly occured) were trying to say about life.
When Jesus restores sight to the blind man we didn’t talk about it being a miracle that he could heal the blind. That’s not the important part – the important part is the discussion that occurs where Jesus accuses the Jewish Leaders of being ‘blind’ because they are stuffy and narrow minded. The point of the story is not the magic tricks because magic isn’t real – the point of the story is that just because some important guy said something is true doesn’t mean that it is and that sometimes it is the most downtrodden people who see the truth for what it is. This is a dangerous story though because batshit crazy people think that they are the downtrodden and that the scientists are the ones ‘blinded’ by their own importance. Also the story was written a long time ago before the awesomeness of science – in our current day and age it is clear that people who are uneducated in a field are unlikely to suddenly “gain sight”. Maybe we could have some useful insights. Maybe. But lets leave the science to scientists.
And *that* is why I go to church. This little story in the Bible gave me an interesting train of thought. I don’t think that I’m alone there.
My vicar talks about the stories in the bible and other stories about saints and so forth and he prefaces the story with, basically, ‘this didn’t actually happen but this is why we’re talking about it’.
Sensible people don’t think that God is a big liar who made a world which doesn’t make sense and a book which contradicts itself and then burns people who try to think for themselves. Lots of sensible people think that there’s no God and there’s just a world which is cool and whatever. I don’t go to church because I think it will give me answers about where life came from or how things work – I did a science degree for that. I believe in God in the same way that I believe in Money – it’s invented but that doesn’t mean it’s valueless. Science is completely awesome… but science didn’t make me into an atheist and I don’t think it should have (But it’s totally cool with me if you educate the crazy christians and turn them into atheists (or just drown them all, whatever). I have no problem with atheists but try as I might I just can’t seem to get the hang of it, sorry)
I thought I had a point before I started to type this out and as it turns out I was completely mistaken and have just produced a whole lot of babbling. Oh well.
So, you know, since I’m not an atheist just ridicule everything I say and blame me for what the frothing loonies do, go on.