Of penicillin and the Incarnation

October 1, 2010 • 3:07 pm

So sue me—I couldn’t help pointing this out because it’s funny!

The first straw man I want to examine is the argument that scientific ideas are empirical and testable and religious ideas are not. Coyne compares the well-understood function of penicillin to belief in the incarnation of Jesus and notes that the former is well established as true but the latter is just a matter of faith with nothing more than a “book” to suggest that it might be true. (And, of course, he notes that the “book” of the Christians is just one holy book among several—all of which make different claims with no clear way to adjudicate among them.) . . .

This is the situation with the multi-verse today. We have equations with solutions that may or may not describe a reality for which at present there is not a shred of evidence. This uncertainty may resolve itself or it may not. Leading scientists may continue to dispute whether our universe is unique, or one of many, or one of an infinity.

The straw man argument comes into play when we take the simplest settled truths of science and contrast them with the ambiguous and unsettled “truths” of other fields. Science also has many ambiguous and unsettled “truths.” This is not to say that religious truths are thus now on the same playing field with scientific truths. Science purchases its great success by choosing easy problems and thus will always provide a clearer model for thinking than, say theology, or literary criticism, or sociology, or aesthetics. But it does suggest that we should not be exclaiming about how much clearer our understanding of penicillin is than our understanding of the Incarnation.

Science has an unfair advantage over faith because science chooses the easy problems??? Right—establishing the truth of general relativity is just so much simpler than establishing the truth of the Incarnation.

It’s not a matter of different degrees of difficulty; it’s a matter of religious problems being insoluble because they’re not about reality.

52 thoughts on “Of penicillin and the Incarnation”

  1. Of course – I’ve been out of uni for a while, I’ve forgotten how easy and simple science was. To be honest, I’m surprised it’s taken us this long to get the internet to enable these discussions.

  2. Funny indeed! He just admitted that “belief in the incarnation of Jesus” is one of the “the ambiguous and unsettled “truths” of” religion. I especially like his scare quotes around “truths” when it applies to religion.

  3. The funniest line was “Science purchases its great success by choosing easy problems.”

    The truth is that religion purchases its great success by choosing easy answers!

  4. I think we should first settle on an unambiguous definition of what reality really is. 🙂

      1. Thanks yokohamamama. It was a really good read.

        /* science purchases its great success by choosing easy problems */

        Real Science does not purchase/trade anything. It does not have to, because it is only seeking to reason and refine, thereby making valid, verifiable and repeatable attempts towards solving a problem. Religion, on the other hand has its basis itself on trade because without selling the faith in a manner that is appealing, it cannot stand on its own.

  5. Addressing reality is much easier than the plentiful fantasies. Reality has some constants, where as people and their bullshit are often ever changing, often on purpose. Dragon in the garage anyone?

  7. Yes, I suppose it is funny, when you come to think of it:

    Science purchases its great success by choosing easy problems and thus will always provide a clearer model for thinking than, say theology, or literary criticism, or sociology, or aesthetics.

    Easy problems — like how we came to be like we are? Really quite simple, that one, isn’t it? Yeah, of course, why not? Religious people tried to answer that one, and, in the end, it turned out that their answer was wrong! Got that Karl? Wrong! Just an easy problem and religion got it all wrong! All those years, years and years, and religion got that easy problem wrong! Darwin came along, and …, what do you know? Got it right! And do you know something else, Karl? Darwin concluded from that that religion had got a whole lot of other things wrong as well. Got that right!

    But you know something else? Literary criticism, sociology and aesthetics have something to talk about, so they’ve got it easier too. Theology’s the odd one out. It’s hard to be clear when you don’t know what you’re talking about, especially if it turns out you’ve been talking about nothing all along!

  8. Of course, the all-perfect all-knowing creator of the universe could have actually documented the most pivotal moment in the entire history of the universe in such a way that it didn’t have all the hallmarks of a pious fiction.

    Why, if the incarnation was so important, would it be so ambiguous and unbelievable? In every other aspect of life, giving in to the temptation to believe what you want to believe, only gets you into trouble. Why would this god make that a virtue?

    -evan

  9. This was downright bizarre.
    But if science limits itself to the easier questions it turns out religion cannot answer even those. Does the bible mention penicillin?
    It can only make things up where there is no way to confirm them.

  10. Karl says, “Leading scientists may continue to dispute whether our universe is unique, or one of many, or one of an infinity.” Probably, but no one is going to go to war or burn anyone at the stake over it along the way.

    1. Actually, the way things are going, I wouldn’t be surprised if someone comes up with a definitive solution to that problem within the next few years or decades (which means I certainly won’t be surprised, being dead).

      But they can never solve the problem of the Creator of the Universe inhabiting the body of one of His/Her/Its/Their own creation for 33 years and then being dead for three days and the Universe continuing to run as usual (except for the earthquake, veil of the Temple, raising of the dead, part), because it’s nonsense from beginning to end.

  12. Infantile gibberish. Elementary school level argumentation. “Yeah, but yours was easy! Mine was hard!” Biologos continues its descent into obliviousness.

    It is kinda funny. A little disgusting too. You know, cause of the fact that many people read this shit and think it is just great.

    1. Biologos continues its descent into obliviousness.

      And this is the organization founded by the current head of the NIH. That never ceases to amaze me.

  14. “Science purchases its great success by choosing easy problems and thus will always provide a clearer model for thinking.”

    That’s absolutely right. I mean, it’s not like rocket science or anything. Oh, wait.

  15. I’m sure Christians these days are in heated debate over the “ambiguous and unsettled” question of Jesus’s resurrection.

    1. For some reason I read that as “Jesus’s erection“. Don’t know where that came from.

  16. “easy problems..” my first thought was of heavier than air flight – that was far from easy and took many lives along the way. But we could pull many examples where the problems where far from easy to solve, but we’ve got a good understanding nowadays.

    More testable, explainable and repeatable than just stating that it must be true because it appears in this old book.

  17. Funniest is that original article didn’t capitalize “incarnation” — but Jerry did! LOL.

  18. It’s a bit like the “Who wants to be a millionaire” tag line:

    It’s only easy if you know the answer.

    Therefore, if science has solved something, it knows the answer, and it’s easy.

    Science hasn’t solved something (yet). Ergo God.

  19. Gee, since science only addresses the easy questions, I wonder if Dr. Giberson will be so kind as to explain quantum mechanics to us. According to physicist Lawrence Krauss, nobody understands quantum mechanics, yet it seems to provide answers that agree with experimental observations. For instance, quantum electrodynamics provides a value for the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron that agrees with experimental observations to 10 significant digits. I defy Dr. Giberson to come up with a comparable agreement in theology.

  20. “It’s not a matter of different degrees of difficulty; it’s a matter of religious problems being insoluble because they’re not about reality.”

    Thus why we love you so.

    Thank you so much for always havingf the courage and wisdom to say it like it is.
    ~Rev. El Mundo

  21. Science purchases its great success by choosing easy problems and thus will always provide a clearer model for thinking than, say theology, or literary criticism, or sociology, or aesthetics.

    But that is only because cognitive dissonance is hard? Which would explain why those that study theology must not engage in clear thinking?

    Ok then.

  22. I admit, I’m lost. What exactly are the “hard questions” that theology is aiming to answer?

  23. I think this might be helpful

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOsYN—eGk&fs=1&hl=en_GB]

    1. I have to thank you for including that, as it provided a cross link to this: The English view of Heaven. I hope I don’t violate some standard of embedding youtube clips in response to other youtube clips 🙂

      [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ2zKPZ3cPI&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3]

  24. The man behind the curtain was exposed… & the straw man get a brain in the end.

    Religion is SO difficult to understand is it not?

    Possibly the omnipotent omniscient god is a bit knackered so after 6 days of creating he needs to have a nap on day 7. And that story is so much more convincing than a cow licking away at ice for example (Norse myth)? See what happens when an ancient origin myth has to fit in with modern understanding? It does not work!

  25. “This is the situation with the multi-verse today… Leading scientists may continue to dispute whether our universe is unique, or one of many, or one of an infinity.” Exactly, they dispute it. They don’t dogmatically hold onto it. I’ve yet to read any science source that clings to the necessity of the multi-verse theory being true. But people get testy if you contest their belief in the Incarnation because they think this undemonstratable “fact” is the key to their identity.

    Perhaps Giberson is suggesting that far more scientific effort needs to be put into matters that are neither provable nor relevant. I’ll have popcorn and drinks for round 3.

    1. Not only that but people were killed for holding the “wrong” view of the Incarnation, that Jesus is of one substance with God, but not of the same substance, or vice versa – or some similar but equally meaningless formulation.

      The number of executions for holding the wrong view about the Multiverse (or penicillin) is rather lower.

  26. Anyone else think Karl’s use of the term “straw man” is incorrect and misleading? Oddly, he seems to be using the term in the sense of “problem.”

  27. False dichotomy, meet bat-shit insane theist.

    Here’s the thing. Science is not in competition with religion. At its purest, science does not give one whit about what religion does, what it tries to do, what questions it tries to answer, and what answers it provides to those questions. It is not just blind to religion, it is indifferent.

    Science asks and answers science questions.

    The problem, of course, is that religion keeps intruding into science space, like a 400-pound person in the middle seat of an airplane. Examples:

    * Origins of the universe and “pre” universe (however that might be defined). It’s a science question
    * Origins of life on this planet. Science.
    * Origins and basis of altruism, morality, and ethics.Science.

    Religion is like a naughty three-year-old. Stop playing with daddy’s toys and we won’t have to spank you.

    1. No, Kevin, science most definitely IS in competition with religion. Together they constitute mankind’s two competing methods for finding truth — the relatively recent scientific method, and the more ancient and primitive “make sh*t up” method.

  29. We’re always being told to read charitably – to try to figure out what people meant by some apparently absurd claim. Usually that just exasperates me, because if the absurd claim is there, we get to say it’s absurd.

    But this time…I’m having a hard time believing he can have meant what he said.

    Science purchases its great success by choosing easy problems and thus will always provide a clearer model for thinking than, say theology, or literary criticism, or sociology, or aesthetics.

    I think he must have meant something like “clear” rather than “easy.”

    But then his four “likes” are a terrible mishmash too – sociology isn’t the same kind of thing as lit crit or aesthetics, for fuck’s sake, let alone theology.

    I give up.

    1. I think that’s his goal — to make you throw up your hands in disgust.

      Exasperation is exactly what he’s going for.

      He’s so wrong on a merely superficial basis, it’s hard to see any depth in his arguments.

      Scratch the surface of Giberson, and you get more surface.

  30. We have equations with solutions that may or may not describe a reality for which at present there is not a shred of evidence.

    And of course there is not a shred of evidence for such a state of affairs.

    There are several multiverse mechanisms such as inflation and/or string theory but no one is formulated at the level of “equations”.

    Take inflation, for which there is much indirect evidence and insufficient direct evidence, which the Planck probe will get.

    Inflation has several model classes, some of which are known to result in multiverses, some of which will not, depending on the choice of parameters. Currently cosmologists have started to get observations that constrain classes and parameters both.

    There are plenty of shreds of evidence concerning multiverses, even as the jury is still out.

    Science also has many ambiguous and unsettled “truths.”

    This is one problem of conflating facts with “truths”, if not the largest.

    People will not accept “don’t know” as a valid state of facts, nor will they appreciate that facts aren’t constraining theories uniquely at all times, nor that observations underlying facts have uncertainties and can be in error.

    In other words, the above claim is a straw man.

Comments are closed.