I’m sure you can tell I’m back by the title above. I’ll be here sporadically until next Tuesday, as I have to do the day job as well as visiting friends. In the meantime, here’s a contest. The winner gets the same prize as in the last contest: a copy of WEIT, autographed as you choose. Warning: there may be no winner in this contest.
Here goes. In reading the accommodationist literature of the National Academy of Sciences, the NCSE, the NAS, and theologians like John Haught, John Polkinghorne, etc., I constantly hear that “faith and science are two different ways of understanding the world; each gives us access to different truths.”
Using the Oxford English Dictionary definition of truth given below, please name one truth about the world and/or universe that has been arrived at by faith alone, could not be arrived at by secular reason or science, and that is true in that it is in principle verifiable by all people.
OED: Truth: Conformity with fact; agreement with reality
NB: I don’t mean “truth” as “Joe believes in Yahweh”. That is of course a truth about a person’s belief, but not about the world or universe; and it isn’t arrived at by faith alone, but by observation. The same holds for statements like “God is good.”
ADDENDUM May 21: Moral prescriptions are not truths, although they can become truths if they are obeyed. Thus Lord Kitchener came close when he gave the Koranic statement below, which HAS SINCE BECOME a PARTIAL truth (it’s not true that you always get killed if you blaspheme Islam; depends on how and where) because the Qur’anic injunction was obeyed. Thus, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, “is not something that was, when it was uttered, in agreement with reality (nor is it now!) When a mom tells her son “Eat your vegetables,” that is not a truth as defined above. It is a COMMAND.
Here are some examples of such truths:
“There are those of you standing here who will not taste death before the Son of Man comes into his kingdom.” (Something that Jesus said: he would return before some people who heard him died.) Sadly, that one was false.
Any reliable prediction about the future gained through faith: predictions of second comings that gives dates (as above), world affairs, stock market gyrations, world wars with times and details, etc.
Recounting of past lives in an ACCURATE way giving verifiable details that could not have been known to the person who uttered them.
The stuff below about washing your hands before eating lest ye be afflicted with small deadly animals.
I would like to know how you will verify something as being true if it “has been arrived at by faith alone, [and] could not be arrived at by secular reason or science”. Or is this just a clumsy way of expressing the idea that according to the OED’s definition of true, there is nothing that could be considered true that could not be arrived at by reason or science. If your definition of true is “that which can be arrived at by reason or science”, which is a decent enough approximation of the OED definition, then your contest seems a little ridiculous. I don’t think religion offers any truth that couldn’t be arrived at by reason or science alone. The golden rule is about as close as I think any religion can get. Of course, this isn’t accepted as a truth until proven mathematically/theoretically, etc. Thus the circular reasoning of your contest…
“faith and science are two different ways of understanding the world; each gives us access to different truths.”
So unfair, Jerry. One can not prove a dogmatic maxim that is based on fabricated nonsense. It is equivalent to proving the following statement:
“Black and white are the same color.”
Look, guys, I’m just trying to find out what these truths ARE that the accommodationists are always touting. And I’m using the standard definition of “truth.” Don’t accuse ME of being unfair or tautological!
I guess I forgot to put this in my post 😉
I just thought it was a little silly that you asked us to give an example of something that is in “conformity with fact” that isn’t in conformity with facts. Your disclaimer should have replaced “may be no winner” with “will be no winner.” I am actually in complete agreement with you on the accommodationist thing. I believe religion is mythology, and is full of interesting metaphors, but no real truth. I wouldn’t mind a signed copy of WEIT, though.
Atheists, Muslims and the wrong kinds of Christians (etc.) are going to hell when they die.
This truth is verifiable by everyone, although unfortunately not until after we all die.
QED. Gimme mah book.
Jerry Coyne:
Are NAS and National Academy of Sciences the same?
Interesting contest. I’m curious, where did that quote you used come from (anyone know?) that begins “faith and science”…?
I don’t care about the theologians at this point. I’m just curious about the contest.
Have the NAS and NCSE claimed that – “truth about the world and/or universe that has been arrived at by faith alone” ?
More clearly asked — Have either NAS or NCSE claimed that a TRUTH about the world and/or the universe has been arrived at by faith alone?
Perhaps I could stand on my head for an hour or write a poem for a signed copy of WEIT.
No chance of meeting this challenge.
I agree that the contest can’t be won: that’s the whole point. I like the challenge because it neatly summarizes the problem with considering faith as a means of acquiring knowledge.
To quote George H. Smith: “Insofar as faith is possible, it is irrational; insofar as it is rational, it is impossible.”
If you have two books, give one to CiC & one to me: Jesus loves you. This can, in principle, be verified by anyone. All they have to do is believe in Jesus as their savior and ask him into their heart. Then they will be able to directly experience the love of Christ.
If you only have one, I guess CiC can pass his to me when he’s done.
@smijer
Directly experiencing the ‘love of Christ’ tells me much more about people than about Christ. Since people of virtually every faith that ever has existed attested to similar personal experiences, you are left with two options. You must grant that all of them must be as true and genuine as Christianity or that people can have internally moving experiences that in now way correlate to the outside world.
Muslims directly experience the love of Allah but not of Christ, so that can’t be true. And it’s clear that lots of people have internally moving experiences that in no way correlate with the world. Think of hallucinogenic drugs, or the guy who thought that the Olympic gymnast was in love with him. These are called delusions.
Sure, the Muslim kind is a delusion. If they would accept the Lord, they would have true, direct knowledge of the love of Christ, which cannot be mistaken for a delusion. Pay up.
You’re very funny.
He is funny, deluded and completely devoid of logic or reason.
they would have true, direct knowledge of the love of Christ, which cannot be mistaken for a delusion
How about that woman in Texas? God told her to kill her children. So she did. She could not mistake this divine revelation with a delusion.
@Reginald Selkirk – Case in point.. if it could have been mistaken for a delusion she never could have taken such drastic action on the basis of it.
Mr. Selkirk–could you send me a link or reference to the woman who killed her kids? I didn’t know about that and would like to see it.
Thanks,
jac
link Deanne Laney killed her children at the behest of God. She was found not guilty for reasons of insanity.
Do not confuse this case with that of Andrea Yates, another Texas woman who killer her children. Yeates received her orders from Satan, not God. Maybe that’s why she was convicted.
link Dena Schlosser is another Texas woman who killed her children on God’s orders.
“(the psychiatrist) who assessed Schlosser in the months after her arrest, said Schlosser had heard God commanding her to remove her baby’s arm and then her own”
Schlosser was also found not guilty by reason of insanity.
From the NCSE web site:
Utah State Board of Education Position Statement on Teaching Evolution
… Understanding may be derived from sources and perspectives other than science such as historical and logical analyses, art, religion and philosophy. These sources rely upon other ways of knowing, such as emotion and faith. …
Have I mentioned that I hate the term “ways of knowing”? It seems rather presumptuous.
Eugenie C. Scott must have the answer:
Science and Religion as Ways of Knowing
Featuring: Eugenie C. Scott
Oh yea, Eugenie is a big time accomdationist. Same with Michael Ruse, on the other thread, “Can the Supernatural be Studied, Nick put up something that is actually within a book co-written by Ruse (Greg thanked him for the reference – d’oh)
Richard Dawkins said it best:
–“Maybe I’m wrong. I’m only thinking aloud, among friends. Is it gloves off time? Or should we continue to go along with the appeasers and be all nice and cuddly, like Eugenie and the National Academy?”–
That was part of a response Richard made about a blog by Jerry Coyne, where he also said:
–“I suspect that most of our regular readers here would agree that ridicule, of a humorous nature, is likely to be more effective than the sort of snuggling-up and head-patting that Jerry is attacking. I lately started to think that we need to go further: go beyond humorous ridicule, sharpen our barbs to a point where they really hurt.”–
–“I am more interested in the fence-sitters who haven’t really considered the question very long or very carefully. And I think that they are likely to be swayed by a display of naked contempt. Nobody likes to be laughed at. Nobody wants to be the butt of contempt.”–
“I lately started to think that we need to go further: go beyond humorous ridicule, sharpen our barbs to a point where they really hurt.”
This way lies assholery… Why not just learn to accept that not everyone will think the same way we do?
It’s far better than burning at the stake or driving jets into buildings.
That bar is set pretty low, I’d say.
Oh dear, I didn’t see this talk. I am distressed by this statement in Genie’s summary: “Similarly, science is criticized when it attempts to supplant religion as a source of moral guidance. ” Science doesn’t really TRY to do this, and surely Genie doesn’t think that religion serves as a sole (or even a good) source of moral guidance).
Hmm, seeing as truth is “conformity with fact; agreement with reality”, we have a problem. How do we know if something conforms to the facts, or agrees with reality… but by doing secular reason and science?
If this assumption is true, then of course there can’t be a winner to this contest.
Naturally, it’s easy to find a truth arrived at by faith alone – even this vacuous process must stumble on something of value, statistically speaking. It’s just that we can’t know it to be true unless we use reason and science to confirm it. And that’s why faith is such a woeful (and unnecessary) path to walk if you’re seeking truth.
Well said.
I think that this is a very important point that Jerry is making. Many people truly don’t know that there is a difference between science and religion. However, when confronted in this way I’ve seen many people become more receptive. Concrete examples are need to drive the point home.
I often use the example of the germ theory of disease, a theory which very few people have actually verified, but which almost everyone adheres to. The “revelation” that disease is caused by sin is patently ridiculous to any sane person and is a good starting point to show how religious ideas are not only anti-science, but dangerous as well. It doesn’t work on everyone, but it’s a good start.
@ smijer
You write that “Then they will be able to directly experience the love of Christ.”
If this is true, you actually undermine your own argument and still fail to meet the criteria of the contest.
If I have “direct experience” of the love of Christ, why do I need *faith* specifically in order to arrive at the “truth” of Christ’s love for me? Wouldn’t I be directly experiencing it, and therefore, the sense experience could be interpreted and integrated through the use of reason?
You must admit either one of two things: one, that faith is unnecessary and you are able to experience the “love of Christ” through reason alone (in which case you fail the contest), or two, the “love of Christ” is *NOT* something that can be sensed directly, and therefore relies on faith (in which case it is not something that can be verified by anyone, and you fail the contest).
So, what? I have to buy the damned book?
Right ho; since I’d really love a copy of WEIT here is my contribution. It comes from the Holy Koran (5.33):
The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter
1) Is this really a truth?
Yes. If you go to Mecca or any other Muslim city with a big placard inscribed with the words ‘Allah takes it from Mohammed – Screw Islam!’, then you are likely to be either executed, crucified or have you hands and feet cut off from opposite sides. Anyone can do this and it thus publically verifiable. This wasn’t the case before the religious movement created by Mohammed came into existence by faith and the conclusion was arrived at.
2) Has this been arrived at by faith alone and could it be obtained by secular reason or science?
Yes, it was arrived at purely by virtue of the ‘faith’ of Mohammed, that is that there is a God called Allah, Mohammed is his messenger and if you create mischief against us you will be thoroughly dealt with. Since it is now believed by tens of millions of people, that is millions of organisms are capable of acting on it, it is an empirical fact about reality. It’s hard to see how you could have got there by secular reason or science.
@ Lord Kitchener
What’s the truth being revealed through faith, rather than reason? I’m not criticizing (yet), just asking for clarification.
I’m arguing that the truth arrived at by faith is the statement:
“The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides”
It is a true statement because millions of people now believe that Allah exists and Mohammed is his messenger and if you antagonised them long enough they would perform the punishments on you. It agrees with fact and reality because it is enacted into law by several countries. It is verifiable because anyone can go create ‘mischief’ in an Islamic country and test the doctrine.
This statement was arrived at by faith. Before the birth of Islam you would not have been punished for ‘waging war’ against ‘Allah and his messenger’. If you had people would have just thought you were a bit crazy since no-one knew who Allah and his messenger were.
The truth cannot be arrived at by science or secular reason because it is totally unreasonable and unscientific; not least because it is not clear that Allah exists and his messenger is wormfood. Despite that the premise of the statement still holds because millions of people still believe it anyway and therefore the punishments apply.
“Moral prescriptions are not truths, although they can become truths if they are obeyed. Thus Lord Kitchener came close when he gave the Koranic statement below, which HAS SINCE BECOME a PARTIAL truth (it’s not true that you always get killed if you blaspheme Islam; depends on how and where) because the Qur’anic injunction was obeyed.”
Damn!. Close but no cigar. Took me a good hour to think of that one.
A truth about the world and/or universe that has been arrived at by faith alone, could not be arrived at by secular reason or science:
That faith and religion can be used to morally justify anything you could imagine.
Surely it is a truth such as the Golden Rule …
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you …
which is being refered to when people talk about different ways to truth.
Variations of this rule are found throughout religious and philosophical thought, from the Ancient Greeks, to Buddah, to Confucius, to Christianity and Islam, to Grayling, and Dawkins.
Most people can see the truth in the rule – it aspires to a reciprocal society of justice. I believe it shouldn’t be seen as being owned by any particular sect, but a common ideal for all humanity.
That is not a truth in the OED sense, it is a moral stricture, like your mom telling you, “Be nice to Uncle Tom.”
I suppose that faith reveals such “truths” as that eating shellfish is an abomination, that women should not show their beauty to the world, that Yahweh draws out Leviathan with a hook (i.e., goes fishing for sea monsters), that the spirits will die if we don’t sacrifice animals to them, and so on. In other words, it reveals “truths” that are unlikely to be true. It also reveals various “truths” that are known not to be true, such as “truths” about the age of the world, but surely those don’t count – it has to be something that’s properly insulated from scientific investigation.
I,too, hate the expression “other ways of knowing”. It’s true, of course, that we can gain understanding of various things in ways that are not distinctively scientific. So there are techniques for obtaining understanding that are not distinctive to science, as well as some that are, such using mathematics, conducting experiments, etc. If I want to discover what my friend did on her birthday last year, I simply ask her – there’s nothing distinctively scientific about that. If she can’t remember, she can check her diary. Again, there’s nothing distinctively scientific about it. But nor is the process one that somehow stands outside the use of reason.
There’s no sharp boundary between science and other kinds of rational inquiry. Science can draw on what historians may have learned in ways that are not distinctively scientific (e.g. going and checking historical records). Historians can draw on what scientists have learned (e.g. methods for dating artifacts). But the total picture should ultimately be consistent, and I don’t see how anything that is actually known is known in a different way from anything else. All that can be said is different things are found out by different methods, not all of which are distinctively scientific (though they are all rational).
Historians certainly do discover things by methods that are not distinctively scientific, but it’s not clear that religion itself (as opposed to history, textual scholarship, etc., all of which go on in theology faculties), discovers anything.
Thanks, Russell, for saying it so clearly.
Your last sentence about religion not discovering anything – it can actually do the opposite; it can destroy knowledge for some people.
I think that what Jerry is getting at is if the bible said something like “Behold, there are small thingies that make ye ill. Wash thine hands with their scourge, and be protected in the name of the LORD.”
That would be something that faith helped you arrive at, that can be confirmed NOW by science, but in the past, it would have been a truth that you have to take on faith.
There’s also the argument that religion is the ONLY path to moral truth. I, as a matter of fact, don’t believe in moral truth—but religion is definitely a no-go on that matter…
YES, this is a truth that could be revealed by faith. Remember, these things can come not only from the Bible, but from revelations to individuals. Think of all the modern-day “prophets” who predicted the end of the earth at certain times. They always failed.
Faith reveals that humans (or some subset of them) are organisms willing and able to accept as true beliefs that cannot be verified by experience, for motives that are neither reasoned nor scientific. Humans are a part of the world and that is a truth about the species. This could not be arrived at by secular reason or science alone because, without faith, the condition could not exist and, as the premise of your question assumes, it cannot be explained by them. It can be, in principle, verified as real by all people through the act of having faith.
Serious point: faith, like art and music, tells us things about ourselves that cannot be reduced to reason or science.
O.K., here’s my shot. I give it sincerely, but you may judge that I haven’t fulfilled the scope of the contest. Let’s see how it goes.
Consider all N mutually incompatible “watered down deistic religions”.
By “watered down deistic religion” I mean a religion that makes supernatural claims, but nevertheless circumscribes them carefully enough so as to not run afoul of scientific scrutiny. Some of these are the favorites of “sophisticated” liberal theologians and accommodationist and/or apologist scientists. These religions are certainly beyond the purview of science. This is not to give them validity, however.
For the purpose of discussion, I exclude non-deistic religions as they are subject to the normal scrutiny of science and secular reason (and generally recede before the advance of scientific understanding).
By mutually incompatible, I mean that claims made by one religion (unverifiable though they may be) are rejected by the other religions (even though their objections are also unverifiable). This incompatibility must exist amongst all N religions considered.
While science and secular reason have no tools to discuss the validity or falsehood of these unobservable supernatural/mystical belief systems, as a collection, I think all observers (religious certainly, but secular as well) would have to admit that, of the N different religions considered, it must be true that either N-1 or N of these religions is false. Since this sort of reasoning requires a community of believers of incompatible religious tenets, I think that exempts “secular reason” from contributing in this area. And because the religions are “watered down deistic” ones, I think that exempts science from participation.
So, as my contribution to the contest, I submit that a community of contradictory deistic religions has done a better job of disproving themselves (or at least N-1 of themselves) than science or secular reason can do.
You might want to distinguish between truth as used to designate the assumptions and experience that a person uses to govern their lives with truth as used in a legal sense, which depends on an effective majority of people to agree with the “truth” so called.
A lot of the trouble with this is that what “truth” is doesn’t have an absolute definition, even in its most formal sense.
I’d think that it’s wrong do to other people what you wouldn’t want done to you is as true as anything.
If you are going to insist on the standards of arriving at an agreed upon truth of science being applied in areas not conducive to their necessary kinds of observation and analysis in areas of life where that is impossible, that’s just unreasonable. You do that you’re going to find yourself with mighty little in the way of truth anywhere.
How about the psychological facts that religion demonstrates. World-wide belief in the supernatural and the fitness that either such beliefs themselves or an earlier mental adaptation gave our ancestors. They must tell us that our brains are wired this way because of something and therefore shine a faint light at something in our history.
No, the fact that there is world wide belief in the supernatural was not something derived from revelation or religion, it is simply an observable condition that can be derived from ordinary surveys or empirical observations. Remember, the FACTS must come from revelation alone!
What are your criteria for determining “the FACTS must come from revelation alone”? To do that you would have to have a fixed definition of what “revelation” was, something that I think is impossible. And you also require something else that is clearly impossible, separating out the knowledge gained through one source from every other possible source. Among other things this would isolate any such truth from comparisons with other previously known facts and so make the evaluation of its truth impossible.
The example I gave is certainly not self-evident or universally observed, so it certainly doesn’t fall into the same category as other truths. But I really don’t think you want to do without it, do you?
How about making a list of moral truths obtainable by science or the logical analysis of physical evidence? The quest makes about as much sense.
Mr. McCarthy,
Science doesn’t PRETEND to arrive at moral truths. Faith (and accommodationists) claim that faith IS A WAY OF FINDING OUT TRUTHS ABOUT THE WORLD THAT ARE INACCESSIBLE TO SCIENCE. By the way, religion doesn’t produce moral truths, either; we’ve known that since Plato.
Jerry Coyne,
Any evidence yet that the NAS and NCSE claimed that – “truth about the world and/or universe that has been arrived at by faith alone”?
Have either NAS or NCSE claimed that a TRUTH about the world and/or the universe has been arrived at by faith alone?
BTW, did you watch or see or hear Eugenie’s lecture you commented on before? I notice you pulled something from the note, have you confirmed that’s “Genie’s” summary?
I’m getting the picture that Jerry is a non-cognitivist about moral claims. I’m an error theorist myself.
But even if moral cognitivism and moral realism were both correct – so there are moral facts such as “It is wrong to commit murder”, and these are facts about some kind of “non-natural”, seemingly metaphysical, property such as “wrongness”, rather than facts about social norms and so on – I don’t see why we’d say that faith is uniquely able to discover them. If we thought this picture was correct, it might be because we are convinced by Kant that such facts are discoverable by an exercise of pure practical reason. Or we might think that we have an inbuilt faculty to intuit these “facts”. Those claims sound no less plausible than the claim that we know such facts (solely) through religious faith.
But in any event, I don’t think that moral facts exist in anything like this sense, even though it’s tempting to imagine they do, and even though most people probably do make the error of imagining they do. What exist are reasons for acting, reasons for obeying or not obeying social norms of various kinds, the social norms themselves, etc. I don’t think religion is well placed to investigate these. It’s a job for secular moral philosophy, assisted by moral psychology, and maybe some other fields such as sociology and anthropology.
And if you don’t like Hillel’s most famous saying, how about the fifth verse of the Dharmapada: Hate is never overcome by hate but by love, this is an ancient law.
You saying that’s not true? Or that it wouldn’t fall into what you’re lumping into “revelation”?
Reading around here, I’m struck with how the politically inept revelations of Richard Dawkins are accepted despite the evidence of their being counterproductive in the larger population. I guess Ruse will never be forgiven for worrying about that in public. Are his tone deaf prescriptions the functional equivalent of “truth” among his admirers?
As to religion sometimes having hindered science, well, politics and sometimes even other scientists have done that too. Sometimes scientists have crowed about rival labs being shut down to cheers of the participants. If they have the same effects at times, doesn’t that lead you to conclude those particular events might have something in common. I’d guess that it’s much more a question of dishonest motives than religious faith that came into play.
Almost certainly not arrived at by revelation but by thinking. After all, the old saying, “You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar” was certainly arrived at by revelation. THis is certainly common sense. G
Have you ever actually investigated the truth of this claim? The Condimentary Preferences of Drosophila
Try that link one more time:
The Condimentary Preferences of Drosophila
Trying to deflect the problem by saying ‘others do it too’ is intellectually dishonest.
The only thing reliably determined by revelation is the altered mental state of the person revealing.
I meant HOUSEFLIES, not Drosophila, which are often called “vinegar flies”!
🙂
Science doesn’t PRETEND to arrive at moral truths.
Well, that isn’t what the question asked, is it? What was asked was to identify one truth about the world or universe which science can’t deal with but which was the product of revelation. Like many of these questions, it’s very badly posed, but that’s not my fault. It’s a question asked out of dishonest motives, not out of any interest in finding out the truth.
As to the difference between “revelation” and thought, how do you arrive at the position that thinking isn’t involved in revelation, or that we’d have access to “revelation” except as the product of thinking. I don’t see any way to separate the two, though I’m open to your revelation of that.
As to Richard Dawkins’ political program being the product of thought, well, a lot of the products of thought are badly thought out too. I’m kind of surprised to hear that evolutionary psychology doesn’t pretend to come up with moral truths as the product of selective advantage. I don’t think I’m imagining that, seems I’ve read quite a bit about that during the period of his popularity.
By the way, religion doesn’t produce moral truths, either; we’ve known that since Plato.
Oh? So Hillel and the Buddha aren’t religious figures? I’m sure the millions who have been influenced by them would be surprised to find out, as would the detractors of religion.
As for Plato, you really want to live under the political regime he saw as the expression of truth and the good? Because he didn’t seem to choose to live under what he saw as its most perfect form in his time. I don’t think I’d like it much.
Yeah, I’m something of a Platonist but I have to say I wouldn’t necessarily do to him for moral insight. As for the regime he envisaged, well Plato’s Republic is a great place to be if you are a philosopher.
Who said I was turning to Plato for general moral insight? But he was the one who showed that if we think God is good, we MUST have independent standards of good that are secularly derived and logically prior to God.
QED!
Ah Euthyphro!. Sorry, I should have read your earlier comment.
Jerry, I have to say I am really enjoying thinking about what you have written. And I would dearly love a copy of WEIT!!
I’ve often argued that people make guesses about reality – they may be correct, but only via a scientific analysis will you know that they are right.
Religions etc make statements about how to live life, you’ve specifically rejected these moral prescriptions from your quiz, I slightly question why.
I think I have very similar beliefs to you concerning this subject, but feel it is very difficult to quantify exactly what is wrong about truth’s based on faith, especially moral prescriptions which justify excluding them from your quiz.
Surely it is these types of prescriptions which the religious do think are important and which become contentious when discounted by atheists.
Also Poincare’s conjecture, or whatever, was a leap of faith – I presume you’ll say it was a rational leap, but I am not certain. These things are gut reactions, held for reasons beyond simple logic, and can be continue to be held even when others have disproved them – you’ll concentrate on the ones that are later shown to be true, but are they really any different than the ones which were held with equal passion, but were later disproved?
Roger Penrose gets almost relgious in his analysis of such break throughs – he’s often described as a Platonist
You’ve disallowed my effort on the Golden rule – I agree it falls someway short, and I assume you would also exclude the “self evident truth” that all men are created equal.
Of course we can have a great long postmodern debate about the meaning of words in this famous phrase, but all new born babies are equally naked and helpless – their inequality is more often than not be endowed by parents and culture.
Context is everything in these sorts of debates – I feel that it is possible to squeeze the meaning of these phrases to make them true, but that truth depends upon the assumptions you put on the meanings you use.
But isn’t mathematics also like that? Even supposedly simple axiom have been debated for centuries – and different interpretations of those words can produce vastly different mathematics.
Last go – Memento homo, quia pulvis es, et in pulverem revertis.
Remember man, that dust thou art, and to dust thus shalt return.
This phrase was written when belief in afterworlds etc was far more mainstream than it is now.
At the time it was written it was quite definitely held on faith, and even now you cannot say 100% that it is true.
But Jerry, I think you believe it is true – on faith!? – and wish there was some way to show its “conformity with fact.”
But can that really be done?
Doesn’t that problem make this quiz void?
Who said I was turning to Plato for general moral insight?
Well you are the one who presented him as an authority in matters of the origins of morals. I don’t suspect that an anti-democratic aristocrat with ties to two reigns of terror and who thought a horrible totalitarian military dictatorship would have any direct experience of morality.
But standards differ, I guess.
Sorry, make that
and who thought a horrible totalitarian military dictatorship was a model of the perfect state, would have any direct experience of morality.
Type in anger, repent in revision.
But he was the one who showed that if we think God is good, we MUST have independent standards of good that are secularly derived and logically prior to God.
Why “MUST” we? Being reluctant to talk about something as undefined as revelation but having entered into this, I guess I’ve got to ask. How could someone who believed that a God who not only originates the universe but controls its continued existence, segregate God out the neighborhood of the “secular”? How could someone holding that view of God or someone arguing against the existence of that omnipresent God make that distinction? I don’t see how it can be done, how the God that is held to have set the planets in motion and maintain them could be held to be too stupid or inept to work on the molecular level in our bodies.
You don’t have to believe in such a God. But if you’re going to argue from the possibility of such a God in order to falsify statements made about it, I don’t see how you can answer this point. If you can do it I’ll accept it, but I don’t see it, though the hurdle posed by the idea of omnipotence would then have to be surmounted in order for this segregation to be reasonable.
And, as regards revelation, as I’ve shown, I don’t take Plato to have even demonstrated that he experienced morality, never mind allowing him the authority to decide that issue.
I think the division of the “secular” and the “religious” is done for political reasons and, to some extent, might have originated in the desire of rulers to have independence of priestly rivals. I think that’s how it’s functioned in history. Later, after the 16th-17th century political wars that found their excuses, partly, in religious strife, it became obvious that you couldn’t have domestic tranquility without the separation of church and state. A doctrine that I don’t want to do without just because it can’t be “found” with science but through the revelation of experience and history. That truth isn’t revealed by the methods of science, but by those of history and morality, with a different kind of result.
If we don’t have a prior concept of good/bad, there would be no way to make a judgement. This is a logical requirement.
If we don’t have a prior concept of good/bad, there would be no way to make a judgement. This is a logical requirement.
How do you determine if it’s “secular” or “religious”. I didn’t argue about the existence of an “a priori concept of good/bad”, I asked how if that existed you could rule out the possibility that it was put there by a god. Just as if there is a “god gene” it couldn’t have been put there by a “god”.
If you can tell me how you can figure out that’s not possible I’ll accept it but I don’t even see that the “a priori” nature of the idea of moral classifications can be “found”.
I think it’s a really bad idea to try to inject this fight into the struggle to protect the public school curriculum against creationism and the ID industry, a really bad idea that has a good track record of futility.
I do think the thread about the 13-year-old who was denied treatment is, actually, a much more important issue and would prefer to argue that question.
How about “The universe exists” or “Empirical evidence is valid”?
There are plenty of statements that even we naturalists have to take on “faith” because there is no way to have philosophical certainty about them.
At long last, an Eternal, Incontrovertible Truth Revealed (to me, this morning, in the bathroom, while performing holy ablutions, by The Flying Spaghetti Monster):
When You’re Not Looking At It, This Page Is In Spanish.
Jerry, if this incontrovertible, unfalsifiable Truth doesn’t qualify for the prize, I don’t know what does.
P.S. Sad news of a heresy, named ‘The Montserrat Code’ have just reached me. The heresy states: When You’re Not Looking At It, This Page Is In Catalan.
The faithful shall discern Truth from Falsity.
The faithful shall discern Truth from Falsity.
Well, as Occam was a serious member of the Franciscan order, who got into trouble for his allegiance to its rules, I’d think he might have had something to say on this.
Fact is, William of Occam was a flagrant faith head.
Yes I often point this out when people say Occam’s razor disproves God. I suppose there’s nothing to stop you saying something like that, but for Pete’s sake don’t call it Occam’s razor; Dawkins’s Razor perhaps?.
Dr. Coyne,
I know you don’t believe this, but it is true for all those who have given it an honest try. If you let go of your reason, ask Jesus into your heart, and dance spiritually naked at some pentecostal revival, the invisible Holy Spirit will flow through your body.
He will cause you to fall to the ground and bring you into a period of spiritual ecstasy. While you are shaking in holy ecstasy on the ground with him, he will modify your mind so that you can understand certain truths about the universe that humans cannot grasp. When you are done, you will feel great, but won’t remember too much about what happened because your mind will be normal again.
The sight of Jerry Coyne dancing naked (spiritually) at some pentecostal revival, shaking in holy ecstasy on the ground (with the Holy Spirit), would be a marvel for all ages to behold.
Surely the Templeton foundation would forward the cash to organize and publicize such a momentuous event?
Seriously: “If you let go of your reason”. That, in a nutshell, is the problem. How easy it is to let go of one’s reason. How many have done so, how many do every day. And how much suffering has this letting go of one’s reason already caused.
I would argue that “letting go of one’s reason” means giving up one’s humanity — what little humanity we have managed to achieve.
When we do so collectively — well, seeing what senseless humans are capable of, I’d rather take Komodo dragons any time.
the Templeton foundation
Having written critically of some of the research they’ve sponsored, I’m still amazed that its money is considered dirtier than the massive amounts of DOD money and the money from the worst industries, the stench of which I’ve yet to hear any complaint about.
It’s not as if science is staffed by vestal virgins when it comes to drinking from the tainted chalice.
re Templeton:
For one thing, the kind of patronage it disburses is particularly relevant to the general theme of this blog, the others aren’t.
AFAIK, the DoD is not, except for a few brain-challenged generals, trying to prove Creation true. (They seem indeed rather adept at Destruction.)
For another thing, bribes — oops, I misspoke: grants/sponsorships/contributions — from the industry are something we are equipped to deal with. A small dose of time-honored, forthright corruption, a little judicious lubrication of the squeaking wheel are inherent to the glorious system of free enterprise. They buy complacency and, occasionally, silence.
The other kind of money is intent upon buying minds, wholesale. Far more insidious in my view. To use your image: that kind of ideologically loaded chalice is not just tainted, it’s poison.
Anthony,
haven’t you read anything about the recent Elsevier/Merck case of ‘peer reviewed’ journals? And the complaints all around the Net?
Come on, use Google, or Yahoo! or any search engine you like best: “elsevier merck journal”.
Yep, and medical bloggers are going crazy over it just as they should be. This is not a medical blog. This is an evolution blog.
Oldcola, I should have been more precise, I haven’t read any complaint about that here or the other blogs sharing the same ideology.
the kind of patronage it disburses is particularly relevant to the general theme of this blog, the others aren’t.
AFAIK, the DoD is not, except for a few brain-challenged generals, trying to prove Creation true.
I wasn’t aware of any Templeton involvement with creationism being palmed off as science. There’s a difference between a cultural engagement by people as individuals and an attempt to inject religious belief into science. I think that the injection of pseudo-science in the form of the social sciences into real, evolutionary science is a bigger danger than the attempt to put ID into public science class rooms. I don’t see that the resistance to the crummy garbage they accept in psychology into evolutionary science has held at all. They seem to have won. A friend of mine who is a marine biologist and I were just talking about it yesterday.
Anthony, this is not about ideology, this is about concealing aims essentially.
JTF is promoting theistic creationism (or call it whatever else you want finishing with creationism; neo-, soft-, crypto-, etc.)
If you aren’t aware of that check d’Espagnat and the attempts to ‘hide’ God under/behind a bunch of quantic crap.
The only interest of JTF for science is to be aware of what we don’t know yet to use it as a placeholder for God. And eventually shift the line (they can alway try) to make it possible for supernaturalistic approaches in science 😀 They do try.
Anthony, this is not about ideology, this is about concealing aims essentially.
How do you conceal something like that in refereed, peer reviewed science? Or in a public school classroom. Those are the only things that need to be protected from having non-scientific content inserted. And it isn’t as if there isn’t other, totally non-religious crap that gets put into both now with no complaints from the Guardians of Scientific Integrity, so called. Or is this really not about the integrity of actual science?
I think things have gone to crap due to the social sciences infesting the culture to a bigger extent than fundamentalist religion.
Who said in refereed, peer reviewed science?
All they do is take people who made nice, good, terrific science and hold supernaturalistic beliefs and use them as a public display to serve religion.
Jerry spotted in one of his talk how they manipulate appearances in their website distorting proportions of theist/atheist scientists, I made the experience how they try to manipulate then censor whatever they don’t like (see my exchange abut Gary Rosen with santitafarella).
Bogus behavior.
All they do is take people who made nice, good, terrific science and hold supernaturalistic beliefs and use them as a public display to serve religion.
Well, isn’t religion informed by science better than religion that isn’t? That isn’t an intrusion on science by religion, if anything it’s the other way around.
Science is what people do when they study the material world with the rigor and standards necessary to find out something with the reliability that is the entire reason for science to exist. What scientists do on their off time isn’t science.
You get worked up over science mixed with nationalism or economic ideology because there’s a fair amount of that going round. Not to mention science done purely for profit, which probably accounts for most of it.
Don’t pretend this is about the protection of science when it’s clear it’s about pushing just another rival ideology that’s in competition with religion. It’s got nothing to do with the integrity of science, which has made a million compromises with everything other than religion to little protest.
Now come on, religion informed by science? What’s that?
Maybe you are talking about the struggle to save revealed truths from reality check by transforming them from Truths to Parables.
To answer directly your question :
No, religions can not be informed by science.
The single most important subject of religions, gods, supernatural invisible (maybe pink) entities supposed to have create the universe, can’t be informed by science.
Religions place them where science can’t touch them. Religions don’t want to be informed by science.
Except to evaluate the probability of their non-existence. And religions don’t like that, do they?
Everything to do with the integrity of science, including avoiding accomodationism, and not just versus religions.
Compromises are made by scientists, not science. And one should applaud each time a scientist avoid a compromise and that’s one of the reasons I very much like Jerry Coyne’s attitude, and applaud.
Saying that John Doe “compromised” and so can I is the worst one can do. Hope you don’t suggest that because a few scientists may be corrupted every scientist should be corrupted.
“Well, isn’t religion informed by science better than religion that isn’t? That isn’t an intrusion on science by religion, if anything it’s the other way around.”
Anthony,
Surely you are familiar with Richard Feynman’s nice anecdote about rabbinical students quizzing him about science, only to find out whether electricity could in any way be construed as “fire”, and therefore the use of electrical appliances such as an elevator forbidden on the Sabbath?
Feynman’s envoi:
“It really was a disappointment. Here they are, slowly coming to life, only to better interpret the Talmud. Imagine! In modern times like this, guys are studying to go into society and do something – to be a rabbi – and the only way they think that science might be interesting is because their ancient, provincial, medieval problems are being confounded slightly by some new phenomena…”
It’s always like this, because the scientific mindset leads to questioning everything again and again, whereas the religious mindset seekes eternal answers and sacred beliefs. The search for truth as an assymptotic process, versus revealed immutable scripture.
Ultimately, the two mindsets are incompatible. Whoever tries to reconcile both at the personal level (like so many do!) does so at the price of considerable and unsolvable cognitive dissonance.
Imagine! In modern times like this, guys are studying to go into society and do something – to be a rabbi – and the only way they think that science might be interesting is because their ancient, provincial, medieval problems are being confounded slightly by some new phenomena…”
Did Feynman know that was the extent of their interest? I’m not familiar with the incident described but did it take place in a Study House where they go to discuss the Torah and it’s implications in practical moral problems? If that’s the context it’s hardly surprising that they would have approached what the physicist had to tell them. Or maybe those particular people, I assume studying to take up the position of a Rabbi would have a narrow focus on their specialty. Sort of like people who are science professionals who have no clue about the standards or subject matter of anything but their own field. Maybe if he got to know them better, he’d find that they had lives outside of their professional study. Just as so many in science do.
And even if your point is valid for that particular occasion and that particular group of religious students, that hardly is representative of the enormous bulk of the population who are religious.
You might want to go find what Feynman had to say about his reading of the encyclical Pacem in Terris. I read it a long, long time ago but as I recall he wasn’t quite as dismissive of all religious thinking as that passage might have you believe.
It’s always like this, because the scientific mindset leads to questioning everything again and again, whereas the religious mindset seekes eternal answers and sacred beliefs. The search for truth as an assymptotic process, versus revealed immutable scripture.
Ultimately, the two mindsets are incompatible.
It’s always like this? Odd, you’d think that the entire range of eminent scientists from Steno to today who are both fine scientists and religious were just figments of a deranged collective imagination. But calling the bulk of humanity delusional seems to be in style these days.
Do you hold as so many at the ScienceBlogs do that those scientists who are religious believers should be kicked out of science? Some of them with far more distinguished careers in research than the blog bloviators who don’t even practice science themselves anymore?
As for your statement about, “The search for truth as an assymptotic process.”
I know that it’s considered rude to bring up the numbers but even at the 3-4% of the population who poll as being atheists in the most favorable interpretation you can wring out of it, the majority of people who are interested in science would have to be religious believers.
One of the bright lights of the “new atheism” recently said something like 86% of the population of Sweden were atheists. Which would be odd because 40% of Swedish teens choose to be confirmed into the Church of Sweden, and that’s not to mention those who follow other religions. The numbers just don’t add up, which you’d think science guys would notice. I don’t think your search is quite as assymptotic as you’re claiming.
A few well worn bromides taken from the generally shoddy scholarship of the “new atheism” doesn’t prove your point. Similarly to Feynman, I’m finding it hard to imagine you guys don’t get the, apparently, lost standard of evidence you need to assert what you do. I’d have flunked my junior year History of Music Seminar with the kind of material and citation you guys practice.
No, religions can not be informed by science.
And you base this on what evidence, because, I don’t see any to back that up. And, if as I take it, you’re an atheist, you are not qualified to answer that question out of experience because you aren’t religious.
What do you think “religion” is? You seem to think it exists outside of people in some Platonic disembodiment. Well, it doesn’t. “Religion” has never been observed with anything approaching reliability outside of the human mind. As such, when you are talking about “religion” you are actually talking about the lives of people who hold and practice religion. And most religious people are informed by science, even biblical fundmentalists, even creationists, some of whom are, actaully, professional scientists. Granted, they would make lousy evolutionary biologists but they have been known to happen, the ones I’ve actually met in geology and chemistry.
You saying that they aren’t informed by science?
Science, which is confined to the study of material evidence, can’t be informed by religion. Religion, which exists within the material universe, could hardly avoid being informed by what it learns from the material world. And, if it’s smart enough to, the most reliable information we can get about a small part of that material world, through science.
Religion is about gods Anthony and the only reliable source of information about gods is revealed truths and science can’t compete with that 😉
When I talk about religion I don’t restrict it as you do to people who hold and practice religion, but consider it as a memeplex spanning millennia.
Religion is informed about science, certainly not informed by science.
You are quite right, I’m an atheist, and I feel qualified to answer that question. My atheism is of the “old” kind, directly derived by the insanity of the scriptures while I was considering priesthood as a carrier. A lot of theological discussions in a neighborhood with orthodox and catholic priests and monks, helpful building personal opinions.
On the other hand, I do have a few opinions about multiple sclerosis, despite the fact that I don’t have any experience as a patient afflicted by that disease, neither. Just expertise.
Religion is about gods Anthony and the only reliable source of information about gods is revealed truths and science can’t compete with that.
When I talk about religion
Theravada Buddhism is a religion and it isn’t about gods.
You do realize that you don’t get to decide what all religion consists of, no one does. That’s one of the reasons it’s folly to make universal statements about it.
You can feel as qualified as you want to. An atheist is qualified to tell someone else what their religion consists or and what it doesn’t, neither does another religious believer. And I’m sure just about any of them would tell you they didn’t care how you felt about it, you are wrong.
You know any one statement made by a religious believer that said their religious belief was informed BY science would falsify your denial that is possible. So, let me be the first. My belief in evolution is part of my religion and it is informed by evolutionary science, including Darwin. So there.
No.
There is a difference between a person being informed by science and religion being informed by it.
Religion does not change it’s doctrine because of science (other than to occasionally back off a point and say that was ‘just metaphorical’).
😉
I don’t decide what all religion consists of. For example, T-buddhist described their stuff as philosophy to me, after I asked them if T-buddhism was a religion 🙂
And I know a few of them worshipping gods anyway, just in case, Pascal-like attitude.
OK, that’s fine, your belief in evolution, who care about beliefs in science?
I don’t.
And statements aren’t certainly enough, are they? I mean, lies, including lies to self, are quite common stuff, aren’t they?
Now, try to prove your statement, first to yourself, then maybe to people following our exchange here.
I’m really curious to know what informed BY science belief in evolution could be.
Now, try to prove your statement, first to yourself, then maybe to people following our exchange here.
You forget, I’m not the one who thinks you can prove anything about the supernatural, logic was developed to address the experience of the material universe. And, I think you also forget, I don’t mind people not believing the same things I do, that’s something I leave to fundamentalists, religious and atheistic.
I’m really curious to know what informed BY science belief in evolution could be.
Well, risking someone blowing a gasket, believing that evolution is how God created and modified life on Earth is a religious belief that couldn’t be held without being informed BY science. And, at risk of causing a total circuit failure, some form of that is the belief of the majority of people who accept evolution who, sorry to have to point this out, also believe in a creator god. You can’t get to the third of the population who do accept the truth of evolution if that isn’t true.
There aren’t enough atheists and agnostics to make up a third of the population. Course, it used to be just over a half back before this atheist fundamentalism fad started up.
I didn’t asked you to prove anything about the supernatural, asked to prove the truth of your statement:
It is supposed to falsify my statement that religion can not be informed by science, only about science.
You don’t address my demand. Try again. Take your sweet time to think about it and eventually answer my question and not your, I’ll be offline for a coupe of days.
As for Theravada Buddhism being a religion, all of the translations of the scriptures I’ve read in English, French and German use the word “religious life” to describe the vocation of a Buddhist monk. I’m not a Pali scholar so I’m going to have to go with the choice of those who are.
I didn’t asked you to prove anything about the supernatural, asked to prove the truth of your statement:
So, let me be the first. My belief in evolution is part of my religion and it is informed by evolutionary science, including Darwin. So there.
It is supposed to falsify my statement that religion can not be informed by science, only about science.
Well, it does. I’m the only available authority on what I believe, you have to accept that I believe it since there is no better source of evidence possible. If you don’t believe that how can you know anyone believes anything they say they do? And as that’s true, it makes your assertion about the impossibility of religion being informed by science untrue.
It’s not in any way a stretch to say that if religion wasn’t able to be informed by science, the number of people who accept evolution would be a heck of a lot lower.
Though, I haven’t noticed that the numbers you guys assert need to cohere for you to believe them like gospel.
By all appearances, and as Matt indicated quite early on, your criteria for “winning” are problematic. It appears to be meant only to tease those who disagree with you on the question of “access to different truths”, not to actually provide any rational argument in favor of the NOMA critic.
I take it that you formulate the idea of “knowledge” with an accent placed on the feature that ultimately makes us justified in holding that our claims are true. I shall assume this because the alternative (knowledge with respect to the origins of evidence) would moot your canonical examples of divine revelation and so forth, since they’re presumably a mish-mash of life experiences that go through the meat grinder of the imagination.
The notion of “secular reason” is hopelessly unclear. A secular argument can be easily transformed into a religious one by retooling premises. If a formerly secular argument is still valid after being altered (though arguably unsound or lacking cogency), is it still “secular reason”? When you get right down to it: is the mere drawing of an inference supposed to be “secular reason”? If so, many interesting arguments for faith are ruled out on trivial grounds. We have to assume that you don’t mean much by “secular reason”, or at least it needs to be spelled out with more care.
Most importantly, defenders of NOMA would likely say that your language of “this or that alone” misunderstands their arguments. Most arguments for faith gain potency by an admixture between reason, faith, and evidence. The Watchmaker argument is an argument (hence reason); and derives some justification from evidence, in a sense of noticing patterns in the world; and obviously faith plays a large role in justification as well. It is, of course, not a good argument — it does not yield a true claim to knowledge, or even a justified one — but it is an argument that can motivate NOMA. Yet, curiously, you only include arguments that make the case on “faith alone” and so forth, therefore forcing us to indulge in beating the weakest argument when we can easily do better.
Ultimately, it seems to me that if you were truly confident in your position, I don’t see why you would phrase your contest in the way you have.
Why is anyone trying to answer this question?
Faith by definition precludes proof.
Hi Professor Coyne,
If it’s not too late I’d like to be considered for the prize.
http://telicthoughts.com/the-stuff-of-dreams-predictionsfrom-the-other-side/