Teaching evolution -- or not?

[Pilgrim]

Well said Sam. It's really about what is "science" and what is faith. It has little to do with "facts."

 

I'd go father than that. "Intelligent Design", besides lacking any intelligence, is a desperate attempt by the flaky religious right to force their pseudo-"science" on the rest of the nation.

 

If Americans don't vigorously oppose the idiocy, the result will eventually be frighteningly similar to the situation in many Islamic states, where religious extremism sets government policy and controls its citizens.

 

Think it won't happen? Think again! 30 years ago, I'd NEVER have believed the amount of control the "religious" right is exerting now, would have been possible.

 

Bob.

 

Were it not for the fact that such discourteous statements of position have become so common in public discourse as to induce mental callouses, that would be one of the most offensive calumnies it has been my misfortune to suffer. But one comes to understand that bigots exist on both sides of every argument, and they are usually responsible for far more heat than light. As in that post.

 

Overall, I'm a fan of the scientific method. It does add rigor to mankind's inevitable natural tendency to chaotic thought.

 

However . . . As the saying goes, when your only tool is a hammer, every problem tends to look like a nail. And if it is obviously not a nail, then it is simply ignored. We see that with science. Useful as science is for some purposes, it nevertheless tends to dismiss as silly or irrelevant or superstitious anything for which it cannot come up with a testable hypothesis to explain.

 

It is in part to deal with "not-a-nail" problems that we have some branches of philosophy. And religion. Neither of which is commonly taught in schools except when they are the focus of a specific course of study, and then just in college. Most students (be it college or high school) who are not destined to one of those disciplines graduate utterly unexposed to the very idea that there may be things that science does not , cannot, explain.

 

If one is of a religious nature (and I am) then one wishes for some way to expose children to thought processes not rooted in the scientific approach, not as a replacement for it, but as an adjunct to it. (And I note here that although most of the push for ID nowadays is by Christians, the approach they suggest would not be anathema to most of the world's religions - it is not Christ-centric. That is, a Supreme Being, call him God or Yaweh or Allah or the Great Spirit, created the earth and its inhabitants. It does not call for recognition of redemption of sins, etc.)

 

Since there is no chance that any schools (at least in this country) are going to add a worthwhile course covering the ground, the push is to put it in a science course. One instinctively says that it is not science, at least as we define science, so it doesn't belong there. Well, maybe not. On the other hand, though, I've always thought that science ought to be self-doubting. Is it in fact so uncertain of itself that it cannot stand up to the competition? Even competition that it calls ridiculous?

 

What does science dismiss because working hypotheses appear to be beyond its reach? Well, extra-sensory perception. Ghosts. UFOs. Those are just for a start. (I don't include religion in the list because of the great number of scientists who are in fact, religious - they don't dismiss it. Mostly they just ignore it for purposes of their job, an interesting feat of mental gymnastics.)

For each of those things there is a vast body of anecdotal evidence, existing across cultures and time. Many of the indications of their existence are provided by intelligent, literate, educated individuals. Yet rather than say "We'd better have a look at this", science simply throws a bullshit flag and walks on to look for things it can explain. This from a discipline that posits the existence of "dark matter" and "dark energy" as an explanation for why the thermodynamics of the universe appear not to balance. Back in the 19th century they called it The Ether, but that was discarded as soon as they came up with an explanation for nearly everything. Then they discovered their theories did not cover nearly everything after all, or anything like it, so The Ether makes another appearance with a different name. I'm not dismissing the existence of dark matter, something's out there that skews the equations, but let's not just name something and say that's an explanation. After all, that's what we do when we say "God".

 

We not only don't know all the answers, we don't even know what questions to ask. Religion helps me accept that. You may deal with it some other way.

 

Pilgrim

 

p.s. Great post, Mitch. Whoda thunk a guy with a trade-school background could come up with such good stuff based in a liberal education.

[russell_bynum]

The founding father's did put God into many of our orginal documents.....Reading the Federalist Papers and many of Thomas Jefferson personal letters you can see that God played a big part in the founding of this great country....

 

But there's a difference there. The PEOPLE who made up the Government were, for the most part, Christians. As such, they PERSONALLY looked to God and the Bible for guidance.

 

That's not the same thing as writing God into the Government itself.

[Dinkee]

BTW I often wonder why an omnipotent, all-powerful deity needs the assistance of a public school teacher to get a message across. Couldn't he just write it in the sky or something?

 

You just provided me with my first "wiping the coffee off of my monitor" moment in this forum.

Thanks!

Heidi

[Pilgrim]

The founding father's did put God into many of our orginal documents.....Reading the Federalist Papers and many of Thomas Jefferson personal letters you can see that God played a big part in the founding of this great country....

 

But there's a difference there. The PEOPLE who made up the Government were, for the most part, Christians. As such, they PERSONALLY looked to God and the Bible for guidance.

 

That's not the same thing as writing God into the Government itself.

 

True enough, Russell, but there is ample evidence that the sense of the Founders was the people of the nation must have some sort of religious foundation in their lives or the republic could not function.

 

The benefit of religion is that it defines virtue - establishes a code of conduct external to the individual. Left to his own individual devices, man will eventually come to define virtuous conduct as that which benefits him most.

 

Pilgrim

[Pilgrim]

. . .

BTW I often wonder why an omnipotent, all-powerful deity needs the assistance of a public school teacher to get a message across. Couldn't he just write it in the sky or something?

 

Maybe he has. What do you think of when you look at the night sky?

Pilgrim

[russell_bynum]

The benefit of religion is that it defines virtue - establishes a code of conduct external to the individual. Left to his own individual devices, man will eventually come to define virtuous conduct as that which benefits him most.

 

I hear that a bunch, but I'm just not totally convinced that it is true. I was not raised with any religion but I was taught right from wrong, etc. I suppose you could argue that those morals and values came from the religion of my ancestors, but it seems to me that if your reason for "doing the right thing" is based on your religion (basically, you do it this way or you go to hell) then that reason goes right out the window as soon as you stop believing.

[Pilgrim]

The benefit of religion is that it defines virtue - establishes a code of conduct external to the individual. Left to his own individual devices, man will eventually come to define virtuous conduct as that which benefits him most.

 

I hear that a bunch, but I'm just not totally convinced that it is true. I was not raised with any religion but I was taught right from wrong, etc. I suppose you could argue that those morals and values came from the religion of my ancestors, but it seems to me that if your reason for "doing the right thing" is based on your religion (basically, you do it this way or you go to hell) then that reason goes right out the window as soon as you stop believing.

 

Yes, exactly. Then you are free to do as you will without fear of consequences.

 

Some sort of general religious foundation is more important for an orderly society than it is to an individual. You cannot create a civil society with laws alone, there must be a common sense of, oh, call it "decency" because no better term leaps immediately to my mind.

 

When society is free to do as it will, you get - America today.

 

That being said, no imposed religion can act to society's benefit.

 

Pilgrim

[russell_bynum]

if your reason for "doing the right thing" is based on your religion (basically, you do it this way or you go to hell) then that reason goes right out the window as soon as you stop believing.

 

Yes, exactly. Then you are free to do as you will without fear of consequences.

 

Some sort of general religious foundation is more important for an orderly society than it is to an individual. You cannot create a civil society with laws alone, there must be a common sense of, oh, call it "decency" because no better term leaps immediately to my mind.

 

When society is free to do as it will, you get - America today.

 

But that was my point...I know plenty of non-religious people who do the right thing because it's just the right thing to do. Why are they good, moral people if they don't believe there will be any consequences for acting otherwise?

 

 

That being said, no imposed religion can act to society's benefit.

 

Yeah, I understand and agree. You're saying we all need some deeply-rooted value system to keep us on the straight and narrow, but nobody can (or should) force that upon us. I would agree with that. I don't necessarily think that religion is the only thing that can fill that role, but we're at least in the same chapter, if not the same page.

[R-1150-RS]

Were it not for the fact that such discourteous statements of position have become so common in public discourse as to induce mental callouses, that would be one of the most offensive calumnies it has been my misfortune to suffer. But one comes to understand that bigots exist on both sides of every argument, and they are usually responsible for far more heat than light. As in that post.

 

Overall, I'm a fan of the scientific method. It does add rigor to mankind's inevitable natural tendency to chaotic thought.

 

However . . . As the saying goes, when your only tool is a hammer, every problem tends to look like a nail. And if it is obviously not a nail, then it is simply ignored. We see that with science. Useful as science is for some purposes, it nevertheless tends to dismiss as silly or irrelevant or superstitious anything for which it cannot come up with a testable hypothesis to explain.

 

It is in part to deal with "not-a-nail" problems that we have some branches of philosophy. And religion. Neither of which is commonly taught in schools except when they are the focus of a specific course of study, and then just in college. Most students (be it college or high school) who are not destined to one of those disciplines graduate utterly unexposed to the very idea that there may be things that science does not , cannot, explain.

 

If one is of a religious nature (and I am) then one wishes for some way to expose children to thought processes not rooted in the scientific approach, not as a replacement for it, but as an adjunct to it. (And I note here that although most of the push for ID nowadays is by Christians, the approach they suggest would not be anathema to most of the world's religions - it is not Christ-centric. That is, a Supreme Being, call him God or Yaweh or Allah or the Great Spirit, created the earth and its inhabitants. It does not call for recognition of redemption of sins, etc.)

 

Since there is no chance that any schools (at least in this country) are going to add a worthwhile course covering the ground, the push is to put it in a science course. One instinctively says that it is not science, at least as we define science, so it doesn't belong there. Well, maybe not. On the other hand, though, I've always thought that science ought to be self-doubting. Is it in fact so uncertain of itself that it cannot stand up to the competition? Even competition that it calls ridiculous?

 

While I don't totally disagree with your sentiments, that there should be a forum for non-scientific thought and discussion, the problem with ID is that it wants to play by its own rules (scientific method need not be followed) in an arena where 'the opposition' (science) is bound by those rules.

 

For many that means that ID belongs in a different arena (philosophy, comparative religions, etc.), but not science.

 

In spite of the claims of many proponents of ID, they are NOT equivalent, since they come to their 'beliefs' through significantly different paths.

 

Also, the push currently is from the religious right. There is little traction given to ID theories that do not parallel their religious views. If ID were given a toehold into science classes, at what point does the very grey line get drawn to discern what is religious dogma, and not to mention whose religious dogma on this subject is acceptable?

 

What does science dismiss because working hypotheses appear to be beyond its reach? Well, extra-sensory perception. Ghosts. UFOs. Those are just for a start. (I don't include religion in the list because of the great number of scientists who are in fact, religious - they don't dismiss it. Mostly they just ignore it for purposes of their job, an interesting feat of mental gymnastics.)

Actually, I think they understand the difference between what they choose to believe on faith, and what they know has been proven through scientific method.

 

They are not inconsistent.

 

A person’s faith, and what they have proven through experience, is not the same, and to simply claim faith has somehow the equivalence of scientific method, as do many ID proponents, is simply wrong.

 

Even those with strong faiths can make this distinction, and typically have no problem with it.........

 

Gary

[DavidEBSmith]

What does science dismiss because working hypotheses appear to be beyond its reach? Well, extra-sensory perception. Ghosts. UFOs. . . .

For each of those things there is a vast body of anecdotal evidence, existing across cultures and time. Many of the indications of their existence are provided by intelligent, literate, educated individuals. Yet rather than say "We'd better have a look at this", science simply throws a bullshit flag and walks on to look for things it can explain.

 

Sorry, but you're just wrong.

 

Science "dismisses" ESP, ghosts and UFOs (as little green men from other worlds) because there is no scientific support for these phenomena. What is "scientific support"? Here's how it works:

 

1. I posit that there is soem phenomenon.

 

2. I must show data to demonstrate that the phenomenon exists.

 

3. I must show a method for obtaining that data so that others can examine my method for flaws and so that others can reproduce that data themselves.

 

4. I must provide an underlying theory that explains the data and predicts new data.

 

What is science's problem with ESP, ghosts and UFOs? Nobody has ever come up with an experiment to show the existence of ESP, ghosts and UFOs that isn't subject to producing false results (e.g. blind tests that aren't really blind, tests that require the experimenter to subjectively interpret whether one drawn shape is the same as another, etc.). Nobody has ever done an experiment to show the existence of ESP, ghosts and UFOs that can be reproduced by any other researcher. And nobody has come up with a theoretical mechanism for the existence of ESP, ghosts and UFOs that would lead to verifiable experimental results. (Saying "it's a force unknown by science" doesn't count unless you can find a way to make it knowable).

 

Let me give you two better examples. Homeopathy has been around for many many years. There's much anecdotal evidence that it's a viable alternative to traditional medicine. But there's not one reproducable study to show that it works. Why not? Homeopathy supporters say "well, it's very delicate", "well, it's an inexact science". And how does homeopathy work? You take a substance and dilute it over and over again until there is not one molecule of the original substance left. What is the mechanism for homeopathy? Some sort of energy field that is undetectible and unknown to conventional science. So does it meet the tests for scientific acceptance? No.

 

Take, on the other hand, the notion that rocks fall from the sky. There was ample anecdotal evidence that it happened from time to time, but it was ridiculed by the scientific establishment. Then scientists studied some incidents of rocks falling from the sky. They collected eyewitness statements, measured the distribtion of the rocks on the ground, calculated (based on the known laws of physics) the flight path of the rocks, examined the chemical composition of the rocks and found that they were not native to the area in which they were found. Based on the collected data, they showed that the rocks that were found were part of a bigger rock that had exploded in the sky and had come from high in the atmosphere. Therefore, it was proven that rocks fall from the sky. The scientific academies accepted that rocks fall from the sky and scientists started calling them "meteors".

 

If somebody can do the same for ESP, ghosts, UFOs, Santa Claus, homeopathy, or the Easter bunny, science will accept it. Science has a built-in mechanism for proving itself wrong and changing its beliefs. Beside the material benefits of the modern world (things like airplanes and vaccines and Internets), without the questioning mindset of the scientific method we would be stuck with the divine right of kings and emperors instead of the concepts of democracy and individual freedom. Science produces measurable results, philosphy doesn't, and that's why we teach science universally at the elementary level and leave philosphy and art and creative writing for college freshman who have lots of time to waste.

 

Saying that "science is just another way of looking at things and my way is equally valid" is just another expression of the moral relativism that so many pundits decry for destroying our country.

[smiller]

I'm afraid that I see several misstatements here.

 

Useful as science is for some purposes, it nevertheless tends to dismiss as silly or irrelevant or superstitious anything for which it cannot come up with a testable hypothesis to explain.

 

No, the scientific method does not dismiss as silly or irrelevant or superstitious anything for which it cannot come up with a testable hypothesis to explain. It simply relegates anything that cannot be tested to an unknown or unproven status.

 

The benefit of religion is that it defines virtue - establishes a code of conduct external to the individual.

 

It most certainly does not. Man interprets religious doctrine to justify his code of conduct, whatever it may be. Religious doctrine has been used to justify way, slavery, and the subjugation of entire cultures. This continues today in the form of discrimination against homosexuals, atheists, or anyone condemned as a non-believer. These practices are (sometimes proudly and publicly) justified on religious grounds, which are of course whatever an individual chooses to make of them.

 

When society is free to do as it will, you get - America today.

 

America today... far from perfect, but a nation where individual liberty to believe whatever one chooses is codified into law. If we had a theocracy America might indeed not be 'what it is today', but do you think it would be better?

 

 

Saying that "science is just another way of looking at things and my way is equally valid" is just another expression of the moral relativism that so many pundits decry for destroying our country.

 

A beautifully succinct way of putting it.

[Pilgrim]

But that was my point...I know plenty of non-religious people who do the right thing because it's just the right thing to do. Why are they good, moral people if they don't believe there will be any consequences for acting otherwise?

 

So, who says it's the right thing to do, Russ? You? Me? Them?

 

As long as virtue is self-defined it is subject to infinite variety across the population.

 

And self-defined virtue is also extremely supple - I believe it takes a rare someone of iron self-discipline to do what you (and probably I) call "the right thing" when circumstances press another direction and no one is looking or if there will be no consequences.

 

I have an irreligious friend whom I would trust with my wife's virtue or my daughter's life - his self-image would not permit him to betray me or any of his friends. But your wife . . . well, . . .

 

Pilgrim

[russell_bynum]

Sorry, but you're just wrong.

 

Science "dismisses" ESP, ghosts and UFOs (as little green men from other worlds) because there is no scientific support for these phenomena. What is "scientific support"? Here's how it works:

 

1. I posit that there is soem phenomenon.

 

2. I must show data to demonstrate that the phenomenon exists.

 

3. I must show a method for obtaining that data so that others can examine my method for flaws and so that others can reproduce that data themselves.

 

4. I must provide an underlying theory that explains the data and predicts new data.

 

IMO, there's a difference between "throwing a BS flag" and saying that we don't have any way to measure/prove that right now.

 

As far as I know, we don't have any way to measure/prove the ideas behind accupuncture. But tons of people claimed to have been helped/healed by it. Should we just say "Ah, that's a load of crap." just because we don't (yet) have to tools to prove/disprove it?

 

I would hope that we would keep more of an open mind than that. That doesn't mean we have to accept everything that everyone says as fact, but we should accept and understand that we probably don't presently (and probably never will) have the ability to understand everything.

[DavidEBSmith]

Some sort of general religious foundation is more important for an orderly society than it is to an individual. You cannot create a civil society with laws alone, there must be a common sense of, oh, call it "decency" because no better term leaps immediately to my mind.

 

Why? Isn't your religious foundation just a bunch of "laws"? The difference being that the punishment for violating man-made laws is in this world, and the punishment for violating religious laws is in the next world?

 

If the sense of "decency" comes from something other than fear of punishment, if it comes from creating the idea in people that there is a morally "right" and a morally "wrong" course of action, why must that idea come from a religious foundation? If I'm not acting out of fear that G-d will get me someday, what difference does it make if my sense of right and wrong is driven by "G-d says so" rather than "Mommy says so" or "society says so"? In either case, my actions are governed by my willingness to accept as desirable a certain code of conduct and to conform my behavior to that code. If I accept the code because I think the code is good (whatever that means), it makes no difference where the code comes from.

 

When society is free to do as it will, you get - America today.

 

Russell, why do you hate America? I don't.

[russell_bynum]

Some sort of general religious foundation is more important for an orderly society than it is to an individual. You cannot create a civil society with laws alone, there must be a common sense of, oh, call it "decency" because no better term leaps immediately to my mind.

 

Why? Isn't your religious foundation just a bunch of "laws"? The difference being that the punishment for violating man-made laws is in this world, and the punishment for violating religious laws is in the next world?

 

If the sense of "decency" comes from something other than fear of punishment, if it comes from creating the idea in people that there is a morally "right" and a morally "wrong" course of action, why must that idea come from a religious foundation? If I'm not acting out of fear that G-d will get me someday, what difference does it make if my sense of right and wrong is driven by "G-d says so" rather than "Mommy says so" or "society says so"? In either case, my actions are governed by my willingness to accept as desirable a certain code of conduct and to conform my behavior to that code. If I accept the code because I think the code is good (whatever that means), it makes no difference where the code comes from.

 

When society is free to do as it will, you get - America today.

 

Russell, why do you hate America? I don't.

 

Eebie, you're quoting Pilgrim, not me.

[russell_bynum]

So, who says it's the right thing to do, Russ? You? Me? Them?

 

All I know is that I was not raised to do things "because that's what God wants" yet I have very similar morals and values as what is being taught by religions across the world. I don't cheat or steal. I try to help others who are in need, etc. Why was I like that when I had no "higher power" to answer to?

[Dave McReynolds]

You're saying we all need some deeply-rooted value system to keep us on the straight and narrow, but nobody can (or should) force that upon us. I would agree with that. I don't necessarily think that religion is the only thing that can fill that role, but we're at least in the same chapter, if not the same page.

 

I'm not a particularly religious person, but I'm not an atheist either, so in trying to evaluate the benefits or lack thereof in having a religious society, I tend to look at the results of past efforts.

 

Both seem to have spectacular failures: Afganistan under the Taliban and Europe during the time of the inquisition seem to be examples of what happens to society if religion gets too deeply entrenched in the power structure. China under Mao, Russia under Stalin, and Cambodia under Pol Pot seem to be examples of societies without a religious structure that have run amok.

 

Religion has been such an integral part of such a great part of human society throughout recorded history, that it is possible to find examples of societies that have functioned fairly well where religion has played a strong role. I know of no examples of societies that have functioned well without a strong religious influence, although that could just be because such societies are a fairly recent innovation, and there haven't been that many to choose from yet. The ancient Greeks had religion, of course, but their religion didn't seem to be directed toward public morality as much as modern religions, so that possibly might be an example of a society functioning well without a strong religious influence.

 

I can't really tell if the influence of religion has been a primary cause of certain societies working well, or if it is just incidental to other forces, such as strong leadership by fair-minded and moral people.

[DavidEBSmith]

As far as I know, we don't have any way to measure/prove the ideas behind accupuncture. But tons of people claimed to have been helped/healed by it. Should we just say "Ah, that's a load of crap." just because we don't (yet) have to tools to prove/disprove it?

 

Actually, there's a lot of acceptance that acupuncture works. And there's a lot of people working hard to try to figure out a better way of knowing where to stick the needles than by using an ancient chart, and trying to figure out an explanation other than "invisible lines of qi". Here's a reference to a review by the National Institute of Health where people are trying to measure/prove the ideas behind acupuncture. We need to answer questions like "why does acupuncture work for some people/diseases and not others", and "why does doing fake acupuncture work for some people", and "how can we make this work better/more reliably"? Those aren't questions that will get answered by just saying "Oh, some things are mysterious and unknowable".

[russell_bynum]

BTW, I'd just like to say that I'm enjoying this conversation immensly and I'm very grateful that we're able to discuss such a potentially inflamatory and emotional topic in a civil and intelligent manner.

 

Every time we have one of these discussions, it makes me look more deeply at my own beliefs and feelings. Even if the end result is that I come out even more firmly rooted in those feelings and beliefs, I think the exercise is tremendously valuable.

 

I hope you all benefit from these discussions as much as I do.

[Pilgrim]

When society is free to do as it will, you get - America today.

 

Russell, why do you hate America? I don't.

 

Eebie, you're quoting Pilgrim, not me.

 

Right. That's my statement.

 

And let me explain.

 

I do not hate America. I won't respond further to someone who insists that I do - I don't.

 

However, what I will confess is that be it politics, or the law, or entertainment, or even social norms, I am increasingly disgusted by what I see around me.

 

I don't want to turn this into a political hijack, but I do want to say this before I move on to responding to the rest of the good material in the posts.

 

I adore the American ideal and the processes put in place to execute it. Limited, constitutional government. Individual freedom. A government of laws judiciously executed.

 

But to me those have become ideals without a home. We have either abandoned them, or are in the process of doing so.

 

Joseph Sobran wrote approximately this in a column: The U.S. Constitution has assumed in American society the place held by the royal family in Britain: everyone professes to revere and respect it, but only to hide where the real power has gone.

 

Yes, I still feel a tremendous affection for my native land and its people. But the teary-eyed love I once felt I now reserve for the abandoned ideals.

 

Pilgrim

[russell_bynum]

As far as I know, we don't have any way to measure/prove the ideas behind accupuncture. But tons of people claimed to have been helped/healed by it. Should we just say "Ah, that's a load of crap." just because we don't (yet) have to tools to prove/disprove it?

 

Actually, there's a lot of acceptance that acupuncture works. And there's a lot of people working hard to try to figure out a better way of knowing where to stick the needles than by using an ancient chart, and trying to figure out an explanation other than "invisible lines of qi". Here's a reference to a review by the National Institute of Health where people are trying to measure/prove the ideas behind acupuncture. We need to answer questions like "why does acupuncture work for some people/diseases and not others", and "why does doing fake acupuncture work for some people", and "how can we make this work better/more reliably"?

 

I agree, but from what I've seen these "alternative medicines" have not been given much respect in Western Cultures until fairly recently. Before that, "Modern Medicine" poo-pooed those ideas as "snake oil".

 

Those aren't questions that will get answered by just saying "Oh, some things are mysterious and unknowable".

 

You're correct. But we shouldn't dismiss an idea by just saying "it didn't happen that way" because we don't currently have the tools to prove/disprove the theory.

 

Look at the various "ID" ideas with the scientific method if you must. But until you can prove that God DIDN'T create the world in seven "days", you can't totally dismiss that theory. Right?

[Dave McReynolds]

But until you can prove that God DIDN'T create the world in seven "days", you can't totally dismiss that theory. Right?

 

Right! But from a scientific standpoint, who cares?

 

From a scientific standpoint, it is very interesting that accupuncture seems to work, but we don't know why. That will stimulate a lot of scientists to spend a lot of time trying to find out why.

 

What does it matter to a scientist, as a scientist , whether the earth was created in seven days, or is carried around on the back of a giant turtle. He might care as a religious person, but since that belief has no impact on anything happening in the physical world as we know it, it isn't anything scientists are going to spend much time pondering.

[DavidEBSmith]

Pilgrim, obviously I don't really believe that you hate America simply because you criticize it, just as I'm sure you wouldn't argue that someone "hates America" just because they criticize those aspects of American society that you might happen to believe in. Unfortunately, there are those who respond to rational criticism of their beliefs with inflammatory rhetoric such as "why do you hate America" or "why do you hate G-d". My point was to illustrate the intellectual vapidity of such ad hominem attacks and to highlight the refreshing lack of them in this discussion so far.

 

And because it's usually the people on my end of the political spectrum who get hit with the "why do you hate America" line, there's a certain satisfaction to being able to pre-emptively discredit it.

[DavidEBSmith]

Look at the various "ID" ideas with the scientific method if you must. But until you can prove that God DIDN'T create the world in seven "days", you can't totally dismiss that theory. Right?

 

No. I don't have to disprove your theory. You have to prove your theory.

 

I can therorize that we'll all inhabited by alien souls sent to Earth by Xenu. Go ahead, disprove it. You can't. Therefore you can't totally dismiss it, right? And I should therefore have the right to teach it in public schools?

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

Useful as science is for some purposes, it nevertheless tends to dismiss as silly or irrelevant or superstitious anything for which it cannot come up with a testable hypothesis to explain.

 

I think that is a bit of a misstatement. Science may dismiss certain hypotheses as silly or superstitious, but if it can’t come up with a valid explanation explanation for some phenomenon the best it can properly say is “we don’t know yet” or “we can’t know.”

 

It is in part to deal with "not-a-nail" problems that we have some branches of philosophy. And religion.

 

If science can’t provide a real, objective truth/knowledge about some aspect of the universe, then I don’t think that philosophy or religion can, either – without resorting to some sort of variation on the scientific method. Scientists peer into their telescopes, watch the universe for the oldest, most remote traces of light, and deduce from their observations that the universe appears to have come from a Big Bang. They can’t honestly say at all what was before that Big Bang (if they do, it’s pure speculation, not any sort of knowledge), but then neither can any philosopher or clergyman.

 

If one is of a religious nature (and I am) then one wishes for some way to expose children to thought processes not rooted in the scientific approach, not as a replacement for it, but as an adjunct to it.

 

To what end? You would teach children that there’s a God and we were created in His image, but why? Because you believe it’s the truth, or because you believe such belief is a good thing (though I do not suggest these are mutually exclusive)?

 

On the other hand, though, I've always thought that science ought to be self-doubting. Is it in fact so uncertain of itself that it cannot stand up to the competition? Even competition that it calls ridiculous?

 

You once explained on this forum that certain positions on major public issues were so far out (or words to that effect) that they need not be recognized in public debate, if only as a time-saving measure. Likewise, scientists must discard some hypotheses right at the outset if there are obvious flaws, or if other hypotheses prove far more promising. I submit for example, that we probably ought to stick with Copernicus’ heliocentric model of the solar system, rather than reopen investigation into Ptolemy’s geocentric model.

 

FWIW though, there is no governing body that says “thou shalt not investigate X,” where X is whatever aspect of the universe you choose. If you want to investigate it, by all means, go for it; fund it yourself if you have to. But if you want your research published in a scientific journal, then it’s going to have to pass peer review, and it better have some scientific merit to it.

 

What does science dismiss because working hypotheses appear to be beyond its reach? Well, extra-sensory perception. Ghosts. UFOs. Those are just for a start…For each of those things there is a vast body of anecdotal evidence, existing across cultures and time. Many of the indications of their existence are provided by intelligent, literate, educated individuals. Yet rather than say "We'd better have a look at this", science simply throws a bullshit flag and walks on to look for things it can explain.

 

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Anecdotal evidence, because it is subject to the cognitive biases I mentioned earlier, is hard to regard as reliable “extraordinary evidence.”

 

I think we’ve discussed ESP here before. Ghosts? I don’t particularly believe that the spirits of long-dead people are wandering along dimly lit hallways (while we’re at it, how do ghosts mesh with Christianity’s concepts of Heaven/Hell?), but neither am I inclined to tell someone they were hallucinating; again, the best science can do is say “I don’t know what that was.” Likewise with Unidentified Flying Objects: I truly believe they are Unidentified.

 

I will here again recommend for further reading, Carl Sagan’s book The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle In the Dark.”

 

This from a discipline that posits the existence of "dark matter" and "dark energy" as an explanation for why the thermodynamics of the universe appear not to balance. Back in the 19th century they called it The Ether, but that was discarded as soon as they came up with an explanation for nearly everything. Then they discovered their theories did not cover nearly everything after all, or anything like it, so The Ether makes another appearance with a different name. I'm not dismissing the existence of dark matter, something's out there that skews the equations, but let's not just name something and say that's an explanation. After all, that's what we do when we say "God".

 

Whereas a clergyman says “God” and leaves it at that, I don’t think astronomers intend to name the unseen hypothetical entity “dark matter/energy” and stop there. No, the telescope work is ongoing; deep space probes packed with telemetry are launched periodically; and massive facilities like New Mexico’s Very Large Array are peering out into the maw for more information to try to better understand what dark matter is (if it even exists); how much of it there may be, and whether it’s enough to explain our observations. If they are left unsatisfied with the answer, they will continue to look for more information, and they will discard or modify the hypothesis of dark matter.

 

p.s. Great post, Mitch. Whoda thunk a guy with a trade-school background could come up with such good stuff based in a liberal education.

 

You should see the hammer they gave me when I graduated.

[sideways]

Quote

I just deleted a post that was littered with strong political comment, and contained anti-Semitic generalizations.

 

 

FWIW, the offending post was mine. I am embarrassed to say that Fernando did exactly the proper thing in deleting it. I have apologized to Fernando in a private message. He provided a thoughtful reply in return.

While I stand by the essence of everything I wrote in the post, it’s content was much too steeped in religious and political controversy to be placed in our sport riding forum.

It was also a something of a hijack, expanding into the macro issues rather than staying close to the topic of whether ID should be taught in science class.

Also, I some of my language was lacking in background and clarity, which led Fernando, and perhaps others who saw the post, to conclude that I have anti-Semitic views or attitudes. I sincerely hope that I do not. My views are very much “anti-belief in deities,” regardless of ethnic or religious origin. However, I’ve worked hard to eliminate the racism that I was raised to harbor against virtually anyone not like my southern WASP family. If vestiges of any sort remain, I’ll make additional efforts to think more clearly. I hope anyone who saw the post and perceived racism in it will forgive me.

 

Quote

BTW, I'd just like to say that I'm enjoying this conversation immensly and I'm very grateful that we're able to discuss such a potentially inflamatory and emotional topic in a civil and intelligent manner.

 

Me, too! Unfortunately, for reasons I’ll not assail you with, I’ve already shown that I can’t presently engage in the discussion with the same diplomacy characteristic of the thread. I’ll enjoy reading and learning, but won’t attempt to contribute further. I hope everyone else will carry on!

 

Quote

Every time we have one of these discussions, it makes me look more deeply at my own beliefs and feelings. Even if the end result is that I come out even more firmly rooted in those feelings and beliefs, I think the exercise is tremendously valuable.

 

Right on again, Senor Bynum!

[RFW]

THEY do not want to legislate anything....They want to be able to say God in public without being ridiculed or jailed. That is what this country was founded on. The founding fathers prayed in chambers and put GOD into every part of our Goverment. They want to say the pledge with GOD in it.

None of that was ever an issue. YOU are perfectly free to "say God" as much as you want. Similarly, others are perfectly free to agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments, or roll their eyes and groan, or whatever. Freedom goes both ways.

 

But the statement that "they don't want to legislate anything", if referring to the zealous religious right, is obviously not true, otherwise this discussion would not be occurring.

 

By the way, many of the everyday official references to God had little to do with the founding fathers, but were added later. The phrase "In God we trust" first appeared on US coins in the 1930s for example. Besides, the religious references by the US founding fathers were at least partly just a sign of the times then. People at that time were much more pious than now; much of the reference to God at the time, and so on, was little more than just social norms at the time.

 

If the US founding fathers had written the US constitution (say) 50 years ago, instead of over 200 years ago, you can be abolutely sure that the tone and exact wording (not the message itself) would be much different than it is now.... Just as, if the Koran were written recently, most of the Moslem "religious right" wouldn't be forcing women to cover up and launching Jihads left right and center. The same sort of thing can be said of the Bible, or most anything else that old. People, situations, knowledge, and countries evolve. It's conterproductive to take something (anything) written at one point in time, and get fixated on the exact words and way of speaking then, instead of the spirit it was intended to reflect.

 

Bob.

[Pilgrim]

Eebie, your first response is long, substantial, well-stated, and fails completely to address the point I like that in an argument.

 

My position is that science, when confronted with something it cannot wrap its mind around, tends to say it's nonsense, or at best, to ignore it.

 

You respond by listing your four steps of inquiry into a phenomenon, a version of the scientific method.

 

But, what the scientific method fails to do in the case of, say, ESP as an example, is acknowledge that the phenomenon exists or even that there's a good case to be made that it might. When the investigator can't produce results on demand he says the phenomenon is not there. In short, if it can't be measured it can't be true.

 

But what about the multitude of instances where people appear to know things they couldn't know within the framework explained by science?

 

I recognize the potential weaknesses in the following story, but I'm going to relate it anyway.

 

My grandmother felt that something bad had happened to my father on April 4, 1945. She circled the date on the calendar (she kept it, and I saw it in the early '60s) and she called my mother and talked to her about it. It was the day that the destroyer he was on was sunk at Okinawa. He survived, but it was a day of extreme mental trauma for him.

 

Now maybe grandma woke up constipated and just didn't feel good. Maybe she ODed on cough syrup the night before. But the fact is that she believed that morning that something had happened to her son and she was right.

 

Multiply that story by a million and you have a syndrome common to the species. It can't be reproduced on demand, but something's going on. Maybe it is purely internal to the indivdual's brain, but let's find out. What is it?

 

In no way am I advocating abandonment of the scientific method, or substitution of faith for it. By definition, faith does not require proof, so it is irrelevant to science. And Gary - you explained how some scientists can be scientific and still be men of faith. Yup. Mental gymnastics, and there's nothing wrong with that; we all do it one way or another.

 

Science works rigidly within its own parameters, with its vision limited by those parameters. When confronted with something it can't measure with the tools at hand it's naturally pretty much at a loss, and its response is often dismissive. I'd far rather hear a scientist say "We just don't know" than "Nonsense." You'd think they'd know by now that much of what they designate nonsense is simply the unknown.

 

That is not to say that the issue (any of them) can be resolved by faith; it can't.

 

I think it was Albert Einstein his own self who said that the universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine. We are wise to recognize that limitation.

 

Pilgrim

[David]

Kind of an interesting thread. I grew up in a very conservative, right wing religious environment and it now is a great source of embarassment to me. I'm fine with teaching evolution as a theory in school, and ID or creationism as a religious belief. I'm also inclined to believe that there's a fair amount of "faith" and anti-God bias in what evolution postulates, but I don't care--the truth will rise to the surface in time.

 

Personally I believe in God, but that has precious little to do with the Bible. After six years of full-time graduate work studying and then teaching ancient history and language, mainly the "Scriptures" (Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Syriac, Arabic, Latin), I think the Bible is not in any sense a textbook for faith, and certainly not for science. It's a very useful tool that captures many important thoughts that speak to issues that are important to me. But goodness gracious, I certainly don't want it or prayer mandatory in any sense.

 

Anybody who wants to legislate important areas of faith is very misguided. I'm not going to entrust government with anything important to me, and I'd fight hard to keep the separation of church and state as clean as possible. I'm very uncomfortable with where things are now.

 

I could fit what I believe on a Post-It note:

 

I think there is a God because it's the easiest explanation (to me) for the human soul and the physical complexity around us.

 

He's a good, kind, and merciful God because otherwise I would have been dead long ago.

 

It matters how I live because I know it matters to me how other people live.

 

That's pretty much it. Now you know why family members pray for my salvation regularly.

[Couchrocket]

I'd go father than that. "Intelligent Design", besides lacking any intelligence, is a desperate attempt by the flaky religious right to force their pseudo-"science" on the rest of the nation.

Wow, what a thread!

 

As Mitch wrote so eloquently, epistemology is the "study of what we can know and how we go about knowing it," to put it in perhaps too simple terms. I've been interested in this my whole life. I can remember, as a kid, wondering "why there is anything" as opposed to nothing.

 

I also study / follow both evolutionary theory, and Intelligent Design. I've followed Intelligent Design theory development LONG BEFORE the term was hi-jacked by religious conservatives and converted into a buzz-word for "a way do 'dis' evolution." This hi-jack is unfortunate in that those firmly in the evolution camp feel very comfortable dismissing Intelligent Design out of hand as some invention of non-scientific boobs.

 

I'm not sure where I come down on all this, yet. There is still way too much we don't know about how we got here "today" to come to any hard and fast conclusions.

 

I can recommend this, though. For any of you who care to actually know what the real ID folk have proffered, I'd recommend the following:

 

"Intelligent Design" by William Dembski

"Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe

"The Science of God" by Gerald Schroeder

"The Hidden Face of God" by Gerald Schroeder

 

Don't be scared off by Schroeder's references to "God" in his titles, you'll find the God he talks about to be very interesting. Schroeder is a physicist from MIT. Schroeder isn't an ID person in the strict sense of that word, but his writing is along the same general vein. By the way, these authors are mathematicians, physicists, and microbiologists. The books above are a smattering of what is available, but a good place to start for serious minded folk, IMO.

 

One interesting observation made in one of these books, or perhaps another (I've read probably 50 books on evolution and on "any other" alternatives that are out there in print -- in the name of trying to "know what I can know") is that it is the field of microbiology, rather than cosmology or archeology, that is beginning to surface serious issues that seem in contradiction to our standard understanding of evolution. I found this fascinating. The concepts of irreducible complexity, and specified complexity are especially interesting in light of the ongoing unraveling of our internal structures in microbiology.

 

"Smugness" has been one of the the downfalls of mankind for a very long time. At one time it was the smugness of religionists who mocked Galileo and ostracized him for his "wild heretical speculation"..... these days, I see a growing trend toward an equally dangerous sort of smugness in the supposedly scientific community, expressed through a dogmatic adherence to "theory" as fact. I fully appreciate some of the above posts that explain that theory doesn't mean "wild idea" and that a theory can be well developed and supported -- much as evolution is today. But there is an important distinction to be made between even very well supported theories, and brute facts. And that distinction is being eroded.

 

The trick to keeping an open mind is to keep it open to input from sources all about you, without having your brain fall out.

 

As far as "what to teach" is concerned, I fail to see why an open discussion of all the possible "answers" isn't a simple thing to do, giving all the various positions their due weight in light of science, philosophy, epistemology.

 

I think back to my own education, where I was taught, "beyond a doubt" that we live in a steady state universe. It had no beginning, it would have no end. That was FACT. In fact, I can remember "religionists" being bashed for their idea of creation, since it was a FACT that the universe has always been here, ergo any talk of the universe "leaping into existence" by God or any other cause was just plain stupid, ignorant, and superstitious, made up by a "flaky religious right." Humm.....

[Couchrocket]

create the world in seven "days",

This cracks me up. An argument that is "old as the hills" and one which we fail to recognize is absolutely irrelevant to "anything" since the day Einstein happened to notice that the passage of "time" depends on where you are in the universe, and how fast you're going! LOL.....

[russell_bynum]

Look at the various "ID" ideas with the scientific method if you must. But until you can prove that God DIDN'T create the world in seven "days", you can't totally dismiss that theory. Right?

 

No. I don't have to disprove your theory. You have to prove your theory.

 

I can therorize that we'll all inhabited by alien souls sent to Earth by Xenu. Go ahead, disprove it. You can't. Therefore you can't totally dismiss it, right? And I should therefore have the right to teach it in public schools?

 

If it's an important part of our culture and history, yes. (Not in a science class, though.)

[Ken/OC]

He's a good, kind, and merciful God because otherwise I would have been dead long ago.

 

A nice thought, but how about all those people that *did* become dead in the interim? And in various messy, painful, and undeserved ways? That's like the guy who misses a plane that subsequently crashes and says, "Wow, I guess there IS a God," conveniently forgetting God's role in the fate of the other 129 people who made the flight.

 

Here’s what I think. Warning: The following is inflammatory, has nothing to do with motorcycles, and should never be taught in schools – for reasons that will be apparent.

 

1. A religion is a set of shared myths and values that promotes group cohesion by defining behavior acceptable and in some cases unique to the group.

 

2. Religions were developed purely for evolutionary reasons; that is, they increased the chances of group survival, especially in struggles with other groups (as seen among many primates, including us of course).

 

3. Religions are the same in many ways because variance in acceptable behavior in successful social groups is limited. Treating random murder as acceptable behavior, for example, would decrease the chances of survival of any social group (although non-random murder is obviously acceptable to most).

 

4. Religions are different because variances in some basic human behaviors (monogamy versus polygamy, acceptance of slavery and torture, etc.) have not historically had an impact on group survivability.

 

5. As some posters have noted, a decline in religious belief will decrease social cohesion and impair group survivability. This does not in any way prove that the belief is true, only that it is effective.

 

6. So, if we’re smart, we’ll all line up behind Pat Robertson. If we’re honest, we won’t.

[Couchrocket]

BTW, I'd just like to say that I'm enjoying this conversation immensly and I'm very grateful that we're able to discuss such a potentially inflamatory and emotional topic in a civil and intelligent manner.

Echo. This is a cooler than average place! For sure.

[Pilgrim]

Mitch, I can't see a single thing in your post that I feel compelled to try to rebut or even quibble with. But I do have a couple of comments in response to a point or two.

 

. . . Science may dismiss certain hypotheses as silly or superstitious, but if it can’t come up with a valid explanation explanation for some phenomenon the best it can properly say is “we don’t know yet” or “we can’t know.”

 

To me, that is science as it should be. Where it falls short of the ideal is in recognition of a phenomenon. This touches on your mention of extraordinary claims. At what point does evidence become extraordinary just by simple volume of observance? Does it not count if it's not recorded by a scientist? I'm not talking about using the evidence to prove why the phenomenon exists, only to justify the thought that there might be something worth looking at.

 

If science can’t provide a real, objective truth/knowledge about some aspect of the universe, then I don’t think that philosophy or religion can, either – without resorting to some sort of variation on the scientific method.

 

That's right. The scientific method represents the current pinnacle of our understanding of how to pursue the real, objective truth about some aspect of the universe. Who knows what the future holds in that respect, but we must work now with the tools we have.

If one is of a religious nature (and I am) then one wishes for some way to expose children to thought processes not rooted in the scientific approach, not as a replacement for it, but as an adjunct to it.

 

To what end? You would teach children that there’s a God and we were created in His image, but why? Because you believe it’s the truth, or because you believe such belief is a good thing (though I do not suggest these are mutually exclusive)?

 

That's a fair question, Mitch, and I don't have a good answer for you. I am just uncomfortable with the focus that science demands of the development of knowledge as opposed to the development of wisdom . . . no, wait. That's not exactly right. Science must focus on development of knowledge; that's what it does. I am uncomfortable with society's single-minded focus on development of knowledge without regard to the development of wisdom.

 

You once explained on this forum that certain positions on major public issues were so far out (or words to that effect) that they need not be recognized in public debate, . . .

 

OK, dammit. Am I going to have to start taking notes about my own posts? Is there going to be a test? Does consistency count?

 

And to Russell, et al: I, too, am enjoying this thread, although it has wandered rather far afield from its origins. Just FWIW, I oppose the teaching of Intelligent Design in science class. But I would like to see something taught in high school to explain that the universe is not all straight lines and square corners, and the sum of what we know is an unmeasurably small fraction of what there is to know - including the thought that there just might be someone out there moving the pieces around when we're not looking.

 

Pilgrim

[Pilgrim]

OK, David, I'll sign on to what you said.

 

Wanta start a church out here? C'mon out. Bring money.

 

On second thought, send money and I'll get started right away.

Pilgrim

[Pilgrim]

6. So, if we’re smart, we’ll all line up behind Pat Robertson. If we’re honest, we won’t.

 

OK, but just because man invented religion doesn't mean God's not out there watching.

Pilgrim

[sgendler]

What does science dismiss because working hypotheses appear to be beyond its reach? Well, extra-sensory perception. Ghosts. UFOs. Those are just for a start. (I don't include religion in the list because of the great number of scientists who are in fact, religious - they don't dismiss it. Mostly they just ignore it for purposes of their job, an interesting feat of mental gymnastics.)

For each of those things there is a vast body of anecdotal evidence, existing across cultures and time. Many of the indications of their existence are provided by intelligent, literate, educated individuals. Yet rather than say "We'd better have a look at this", science simply throws a bullshit flag and walks on to look for things it can explain. This from a discipline that posits the existence of "dark matter" and "dark energy" as an explanation for why the thermodynamics of the universe appear not to balance. Back in the 19th century they called it The Ether, but that was discarded as soon as they came up with an explanation for nearly everything. Then they discovered their theories did not cover nearly everything after all, or anything like it, so The Ether makes another appearance with a different name. I'm not dismissing the existence of dark matter, something's out there that skews the equations, but let's not just name something and say that's an explanation. After all, that's what we do when we say "God".

 

You are equating ghosts and UFOs with dark matter? There's a pretty fundamental difference between them. Dark matter is the scientific name for something which has been posited to explain a specific hole in the mathematics that describe the universe. There are numerous repeatable experiments which will reveal that hole in otherwise verifiably sound math. Ghosts, on the other hand are an explanation for a problem that doesn't exist. There isn't some repeatably unexplainable phenomenon that can be explained via ghosts, UFOs, or ESP. You can describe an experiment that will reveal the evidence used to justify the existence of the concept of dark matter EVERY TIME. The same is not at all true of ghosts or UFOs. I know of no experiment that will repeatably produce evidence of UFOs, ghosts, or ESP, or even reveal gaps in our knowledge of how the universe works which can be filled by hypothetical ghosts, UFOs, or ESP. The only 'evidence' I've seen for those concepts is individuals claiming they experienced that evidence. They can't produce verifiable evidence and they can't even repeat the experiment.

 

Physicists may not be able to explain all the details of dark matter (yet), but dark matter is merely a name for something for which there is direct evidence of existence, at least in so far as it creates holes in the mathematics that appear to describe everything else accurately. Might physics eventually rewrite the mathematics rather than find additional physical evidence of dark matter? Sure. But that addresses your second point, which is that science doesn't just ignore the existence of dark matter as unexplainable. There is constant research into the holes in our knowledge, particularly with regard to the mathematical anomalies represented by dark matter. Heck, I was reading about some new discovery in that very arena just last week. It is religion which places a label on an unexplaind phenomenon and then just ignores any further investigation. Religion tends to call everything unexplained by the label 'God,' and once something is explained by 'god' there is no reason to investigate further because, by definition, god is unexplainable. Science may label something as unexplained or not fully explained, but that generally becomes the focus of scientific investigation.

 

So Dark Matter may legitimately be accused of being equivalent to god, in that it is a describable hypothesis that merely fills a hole in our knowledge, much as god is a hypothesis that fills another hole in our knowledge (for some, anyway). But dark matter is nothing at all like ghosts, UFOs, or ESP, which aren't explanations for holes in our knowledge, but merely wishful thinking without any supporting evidence. And for many (most?) scientists, the prinicple of Occam's razor applies to gaps in our knowledge, and a God entity just doesn't ever qualify as the simplest explanation for any given problem. The concept of god is enormously complex (omnipotent, invisble, undetectable, infinite, etc), and as such, just isn't a good candidate, for most scientists, to fill the holes in our scientific understanding of the universe. It is much more likely that something simple, like a form of matter we haven't figured out how to detect yet is responsible. One which has the missing properties, and only the missing properties. After all, dark matter may be undetectable, just like God, but it isn't also omnipotent, all powerful, infinite, or the source of all matter in the universe - all things that God is purported to be.

 

-sam

[David]

He's a good, kind, and merciful God because otherwise I would have been dead long ago.

 

A nice thought, but how about all those people that *did* become dead in the interim? And in various messy, painful, and undeserved ways? That's like the guy who misses a plane that subsequently crashes and says, "Wow, I guess there IS a God," conveniently forgetting God's role in the fate of the other 129 people who made the flight.

 

You're hilarious, Ken, and God bless your soul, since you missed the point entirely. Here it is: I don't care if you believe like I do, and I have no interest in defending it to you. I don't need another rational human to rubber stamp my beliefs. I'm comfortable with the fact that I might be completely deluded, and believe me, it takes years and years and thinking to live comfortably with that.

 

1. A religion is a set of shared myths and values that promotes group cohesion by defining behavior acceptable and in some cases unique to the group.

 

Yes, I agree. Especially if you have chosen "religion" specifically instead of "faith." Fundamentalist Christians regularly laugh at Pseudepigraphical texts that have Jesus creating clay pigeons and then--poof--having them become living creatures and then take flight. Never mind that the canonical text is chock full of such wild-eyed exhibitions.

 

2. Religions were developed purely for evolutionary reasons; that is, they increased the chances of group survival, especially in struggles with other groups (as seen among many primates, including us of course).

 

I don't agree with that at all. My study of humans tells me it's more about making sense of their world when it looks like there must not be a God.

 

3. Religions are the same in many ways because variance in acceptable behavior in successful social groups is limited. Treating random murder as acceptable behavior, for example, would decrease the chances of survival of any social group (although non-random murder is obviously acceptable to most).

 

Agreed.

 

4. Religions are different because variances in some basic human behaviors (monogamy versus polygamy, acceptance of slavery and torture, etc.) have not historically had an impact on group survivability.

 

I think that's wrong. You're ascribing far too much premeditated thought to religions.

 

5. As some posters have noted, a decline in religious belief will decrease social cohesion and impair group survivability. This does not in any way prove that the belief is true, only that it is effective.

 

I don't think that's true at all. Some of the most survival-friendly groups have no religion at all.

 

6. So, if we’re smart, we’ll all line up behind Pat Robertson. If we’re honest, we won’t.

 

I don't thnk I'm stupid or dishonest, and I don't want anything to do with him. I suspect God (if you believe in one) is utterly appalled at much of what he does and believes.

[David]

OK, David, I'll sign on to what you said.

 

Wanta start a church out here? C'mon out. Bring money.

 

You bring the money. I'll bring the new tennis shoes and Kool-Aid.

[Pilgrim]

Sam, I can see why you thought I was trying to equate dark matter and ghosts, etc.

 

But I wasn't. My point was that just about the time we think we've got it nailed something else comes along and turns our understanding on its head.

 

That very factor should help us recognize the intellectual conceit that leads us to dismiss that which we can't measure today.

 

Try to explain to me why the idea of quanta jumping around, being first here, then there, without actually making the trip is any less outrageous (which is not to say wrong) than the idea of a ghost.

 

Or why or how quanta can be "linked" across space with no observable connection, such that observing one changes the nature of the other. Is that less outrageous somehow than an unformed sense that there is something like ESP at work in the universe?

 

Not to me. It just means, to say it once more, that the universe is stranger than we are capable of imagining. We encounter things from time to time that we just can't wrap our minds around. Science provides us, all too often, with a structure that allows us to ignore those things.

 

Pilgrim

 

p.s. Incidentally, math is a religion itself. You either believe in it or you don't. Personally, I don't, except insofar as it deals with very large values of X.

[Pilgrim]

OK, you guys, this has been fun but I gotta go start my Christmas shopping. God and the Chamber of Commerce want me to.

Pilgrim

[sgendler]

Mitch said it much more eloquently than I did - When scientists can't explain an observable phenomenon, they work to find an explanation. When scientists hear an explanation for which there is no observable phenomenon (or at least a reliable and repeatable one), then they can be fairly dismissive, correctly so, I think.

 

Sorry pilgrim, I'm just not buying your 'evidence' of ESP. All the evidence comes from interested parties with hearsay claims. When push comes to shove, no one is ever able to produce something statistically relevant repeatably in a controlled experiment, so I'm still seeing no evidence of a phenomenon that needs explaining.

 

--sam

[sgendler]

I'd just like to point out that this thread is a perfect example of why we SHOULD be allowed political conversations around here. They just need to be heavily moderated.

 

--sam

[smiller]

It just means, to say it once more, that the universe is stranger than we are capable of imagining. We encounter things from time to time that we just can't wrap our minds around. Science provides us, all too often, with a structure that allows us to ignore those things.

 

I guess I'm still failing to see what is being ignored. As Sam notes, unprovable phenomena tends to remain untested because, well... it's untestable. Using the example of quantum mechanics or subatomic physics I don't know of any reputable scientist who believes that we have this field of study nailed or that we are even close to a complete understanding. What items of study do you feel are being improperly dismissed by the scientific community?

[sgendler]

I'd just like to point out that this thread is a perfect example of why we SHOULD be allowed political conversations around here.

 

Cause pilgrim's always wrong

 

--sam

[Dave McReynolds]

If science can’t provide a real, objective truth/knowledge about some aspect of the universe, then I don’t think that philosophy or religion can, either – without resorting to some sort of variation on the scientific method.

 

That's right. The scientific method represents the current pinnacle of our understanding of how to pursue the real, objective truth about some aspect of the universe. Who knows what the future holds in that respect, but we must work now with the tools we have.

 

I believe this is the typical myopia that can arise in this type of discussion. Learning to ride a motorcycle, dancing, art, music, human relations, love, life and death, are all "aspects of the universe." Trying to understand any of them using the scientific method would be as useful as trying to understand banking by analyzing the composition of the bricks making up the building.

 

While I respect the scientific method, and don't think it should be bastardized by stretching it to include ID, it's just a tent that encompasses a part of human understanding, and a small part, at that.

[beemerman2k]

I'd just like to point out that this thread is a perfect example of why we SHOULD be allowed political conversations around here. They just need to be heavily moderated.

 

--sam

 

I used to enjoy the political discussions, but too many of them did resort to insults and painting views with the broad brush of "conservative" or "liberal". This thread, however, has impressed me. I wouldn't have thought this topic could have been discussed so indepth with so little bloodshed so to speak.

 

I say stick to science. Real science, not the prevailing science of what ever group happens to be in power. What happens when the schools start teaching viewpoints of non-JudeoChristian creation accounts? Would you be happy with that? The Hindu account? The Moslem account? Some Satan worshipping group's account?

 

As an aside, read J.R.R. Tolien's "The Silmarillion" for an interesting creation account for Middle Earth. Of course in his case, it's meant to be mythological.

[Ken/OC]

OK, but just because man invented religion doesn't mean God's not out there watching.

 

Here here! This is for David also, who seems to think that looking objectively at the hive of "religions" or "faiths" we have on this little globe somehow smacks of "irreligion." No, I don't think that God is watching my every step in life -- if he is, he certainly isn't paying too much attention to a lot of other people! The truth is something else again, and we (I) can only intuit the edges of it, and only occasionally.

 

There was a good book on this many years ago titled, "Your God is too Small."

 

Meanwhile, I stand by my thesis (unproved but agreeable to the principle of Dr. Occam) that organized religions, especially those with civil authority, increase group survivability, and that we are predisposed to belief due to evolution. Major "new societies" in the 20th century that tried to eliminate religious practice were forced to invent equivalents, be they the worship of Great Leader Kim, Chairman Mao, or the holy writings of the Marx/Lenin combine. These had their effect but mortals always exhibit their feet of clay while the gods do not, so they were ultimately poor substitutes for the more traditional faiths.

[David]

No, I don't think that God is watching my every step in life -- if he is, he certainly isn't paying too much attention to a lot of other people!

 

That may be naive, Ken. There are excellent examples of just that very thing happening, even in parenting. How many times do little kids think that Mom or Dad isn't watching because of what they get away with? The world and how it works may be bigger than we can see. I recognize that I may be talking myself into some of these things from my own pursuit of purpose, but I'm planning on keeping an open mind about the things I don't understand.