I get emails from theists

December 22, 2018 • 10:00 am

Since my piece on the incompatibility of science and religion was published yesterday at The Conversation, I’ve been bombarded with emails and “requests for interaction” (The Conversation allows readers to contact you this way), with the latter being largely “requests for you to listen to my point of view.”

Here’s an email from someone who found my address and sent me a confusing message masquerading as a request to “engage me in meaningful conversation.” But it doesn’t look like the person (name redacted) wants a meaningful conversation. Rather, the person wants me to absorb his/her/zir views.

I’ve learned two things through bitter experience. The first is that if you try to have a discussion with someone like this, no minds get changed, nor does it wind up as anything besides mutual acrimony.  The second is that I need to learn the lesson given by Christopher Hitchens, who said something like: “Unsolicited emails deserve to go unanswered.” (I’d appreciate it if anyone could give me his actual quote.)

Engagement on social media is pretty much useless with an issue like accommodationism, and my tactic has been to just publish what I think, read some of the comments, and examine my views to see if they need modification. I try not to engage in online catfights or exchanges. The comments posted at The Conversation and, especially, on Pinker’s retweet of my article (see below) are largely ignorant (also ignorant of what I actually wrote), angry, or irrelevant.

Anyway, here’s the email that greeted me this morning.

I appreciate your point of view in the recent article; “Yes, There is a War between Science and Religion” published December 21, 2018. I would like to engage you in meaningful conversation in regards to your view that science and religion are incompatible. I would argue that you are morphing science into a religion in regards to what answers you expect science to be able to produce. I would agree with you that science is the set of tools we as humans use to discover “truth” (a more appropriate term to use in the definition you provide would be facts) about the universe, with the understanding that the truths/facts are provisional rather than absolute. In other words, inductive reasoning allows for the generalization of a set of data or observations to describe the probable way in which the world or some phenomena functions. Repetitive experiments increase the probability of the generalization being true, but there is no possible way in which the generalization could ever be 100% certain, yet alone able to be extended to other areas to make 100% certain predictions in that area. In fact you argue that faith without evidence is a vice. Do you not take many things on faith in performing your experiments? Have you replicated every possible experiment personally and validated its veracity? Of course not, and it is not necessary. However there is some degree of certainty in the uniformity of the universe that allows you to function and to make predications in vastly differing fields. While science has made great and amazing gains in understanding the universe, it still relies on the underlying assumption of uniformity. It would seem to me then that you are suggesting that science would thus be able to function in such a manner distinct from faith? If so, then science has moved beyond science and has become philosophy. What is religion but other than a philosophy? In arguing that science can serve as more than what its capacity as science permits (and subsequently using it to derive meaning) you have made science a religion. You have simply created yet another god to which you adhere to unknowingly.

The reader, as happens so often, mistakes “faith” (the belief in “verities” that lack evidence) with “confidence” (the prior probability you develop from experience). So yes, I don’t assume, when doing an experiment, that a tornado nearby will change the barometric pressure and affect fly behavior. That’s not faith but confidence born of experience.

Likewise, “uniformity” is not a “faith” but an observation that hasn’t been contradicted: the laws of physics operate the same everywhere we know. That’s why we’re able to get probes sent to distant planets, and to confidently make predictions and conclusions based on observing distant bodies. That’s a long way from religious faith, two notions that—at the risk of repeating myself too often—I distinguished in my Slate article “No faith in science.” Thus, the reader’s conclusion that confidence based on experience turns science into a “religion” or “another god” is arrant nonsense.

But the reader went on, immersing him/her/zirself into the quicksand of Sophisticated Theology™. Clearly my definition of religion wasn’t nuanced enough! I’ve put the mindmush in bold:

Moreover your definition of religion is much too simplistic and arguably a straw man. While religion is a social system, it is also much more than what your definition would permit, especially in regards to how it applies to Christianity. You argue for the incompatibility of religion as a belief system in relation to science, I would presume because you view that science is a better belief system. Why else would you be making such an argument as outlined in your article? Religion is at its essence a system of beliefs by which the adherent seeks to come to transcendental truth and meaning. As religion is a philosophy it rests on deductive reasoning. I’m not here to outline the numerous arguments for God. If you are interested, maybe we could have that argument in a future correspondence. I do however want to clarify the view of God that you hold.  From the Aristotelian perspective, God is that which its essence is existence. In other words, God is that which is. Stated another way, God is subsistent being itself. Everything else in the world is contingent upon what we refer to as God (to you it very well may be your assumption of universal uniformity or some other principle). Given that everything in the universe is contingent (nothing sustains itself in being/existence, but can easily perish or go out of existence), we would argue that we are all dependent upon God for existence. Subsequently any action of matter would then be, ultimately, an action of God (through secondary causes). Therefore in relation to your field, evolutionary biology does not explain away God. Once matter is in existence, it has its own set of actions and causes. Therefore life arising from nonliving matter and subsequently changing does not preclude the existence of God. It simply cannot answer, nor can any science fully explain, why there is existence in the first place (even if it is just matter/gravity/universal laws/etc). Science however can detail how the universe works, deepening our understanding and bringing to light the true beauty of God in the universe. Science and religion are absolutely compatible.

This, of course, is the cosmological argument for God, also called the “argument from contingency” or the “first cause” argument. The rebuttals to this claim are numerous and you should already know some of them; I’ll refer you to this section of Wikipedia for the most common ones. Suffice it to say that contingency and first-cause arguments are unconvincing.  The reader’s last sentence, “science and religion are absolutely compatible”, is simply an assertion, apparently resting on his/her/zir bogus argument that science is a religion based on faith.

Here’s a private message I got from The Conversation (name redacted), asking for discourse. How on earth would that be possible here? But I love the last sentence.

Finally, check out some of the 193 comments appended to Pinker’s tweet. I’m pretty sure Steve doesn’t read comments, as he’s busy and most of the comments are pretty nasty.

Here are a few:

https://twitter.com/jacobatkinson99/status/1076252748562206720

67 thoughts on “I get emails from theists”

  2. I especially like that the humble writer saw fit to tell you exactly what you believe. Just in the case that you were wondering. “I do however want to clarify the view of God that you hold.” I’m sure that you feel much better now.

  3. When I see that Caravaggio painting I think “Jesus didn’t die on the cross. He died later of sepsis because some damn fool poked a dirty finger in his wound.”

  4. Thank you for this specimen.

    One thing about PCC(E)’s piece that stands out is, as many pointed out, concise. I would add it had a point, it was clear and clearly written, and held close to the tasks at hand – not straying into other topics. It was about the relationship between scientists and accommodationism. My favorite fact to learn about was compartmentalization.

    I wonder what’s so import about faith that makes is so strongly defended, and how.

    1. I’d like to correct my last sentence:

      I wonder what is so important about faith that makes it defended with so much effort.

      1. My theory is that faith is so rabidly defended because the people who practice it are afraid of thinking, uncertainty, ambiguity, and differing opinions.

        That’s why there are so many denominations out there. See, not only do they argue with us, they argue just as vehemently with each other.

        L

      2. Furthermore, Christians (and other religious) are brainwashed as children to think that the stronger the faith, the better and more pious the person, and that it’s bad to be a doubting Thomas.

    2. There is a study out there (somewhere..) showing that brain activity when ones’ core values are threatened is very similar to brain activity when under a physical threat.

  6. There is nothing a good brainwashing cannot screw up. Most of these religious thinkers refuse to take a good look at their basic claims and apply even a speck of evidence to it. Going after science or pretending science is in concert with religion holds no water. If you cannot provide some reason why I should believe any of your religion is more than fantasy or that your religion is the correct one, stay off my lawn. On line arguments are no better than the debates.

  7. In general, remember that paragraphing calls for a good eye as well as a logical mind. Enormous blocks of print look formidable to readers, who are often reluctant to tackle them. Therefore, breaking long paragraphs in two, even if it is not necessary to do so for sense, meaning, or logical development, is often a visual help. Stunk and White, The Elements of Style

    We all have our authorities. Aristotle is not one of mine. The extent to which authorities enhance an argument is the extent to which they are generally accepted and comport with modern knowledge. In this case there is no reason to accept what Aristotle has to say than to accept what anyone has to say.

  8. He/she starts with a weird phrase:
    “I would argue that you are morphing science into a religion in regards to what answers you expect science to be able to produce.”
    No, you are not morphing science into a religion, he/she is laying the foundation for begging the question there.
    [Agreed there are obviously questions science cannot answer, but we can be fairly sure that all the answers religion gives to those questions -including a personal God- are bogus.]

    1. i admire your staying power; i got to the line about ‘making science a religion’ and knew i couldn’t go on…:-)
      i’ve had a hectic day and feel incredibly tired, but i’ll check in later to read this all properly and give it my full attention, The Prof deserves proper respect!

    2. “God is that which is.”

      Therefore, the crack of my a– is god.”

      Good enough reason to stop reading.

      1. Yes you am, as me am too, and

        “I am he as you are he as you are me
        And we are all together”

        and as are the cat’s litterbox also*

        —————————————
        *Ok, I had to plagiariser a little, but I think I’ve captured the sense of the original.

    5. Can anyone translate this into other languages? It’d be interesting to know how that turns out.

      1. Not with Google – I mean a careful translation that captures the intended meaning – or, non-meaning, if you like.

  10. Such people are nuts and I don’t interact with them.

    As I get older, I come around further to the view that religion is the worse impediment of the human condition.

    You have much more fortitude than I do.

  11. A glance at any of umpteen TVevangelists reveals frequent, passionate calls for the contribution of money, and lots of it, to representatives of “that which its essence is existence”. Come to think of it, this is not unrelated to the intensity with which “Faith” is defended.

  12. Confidence based on prior experience, good way to put it. I myself like to think in terms of a “working hypothesis”. I don’t have faith. I have a working hypothesis that something is the case. And if my hypothesis is shown to be mistaken, I let it go. If I were to have faith, well, I’d hang on to the faith no matter what reality dumped in my lap.

  14. “Did these people even read my piece?”

    I think it would be fair to say that the article was in front of their eyes and that they recognized some of their Worship Words*. This then triggered a Pavlovian response in their rhetorical glands. The flow of the word saliva is causally related to the presence of the your stimulus, but the content is determined by the nature of the gland itself.

    * The Gospel of James**, 2:23

    ** T. Kirk

    1. Perhaps they need to have their rhetorical glands expressed by a veterinarian, you know, the way they sometimes do with dogs.

  16. “Did these people even read my piece?”

    I think it’s fair to say that the text was registered by their eyes. They then recognized some of their Worship Words*, which triggered a Pavlovian response in their rhetorical glands. While the flow of word saliva was a response to the stimulus you provided, the content itself was determined by the nature of the gland.

    * Gospel of James**, 2:23

    ** T. Kirk

    1. Excuse double post. Power here was out for a couple of days after wind storm, and internet still not reconnected. Data connection through phone is being cantankerous, to say the least.

  17. It’s that most idiotic time of the year. The WSJ has an interview with astronomers about what was the star of Bethlehem and the NYT has an interview by Kristof with “Professor” William Lane Craig on whether Jesus was really born to a virgin. Why not an Amazon-like expose on inhumane working conditions at Santa’s workshop?

    2. I just read the Craig interview that you referenced. Shame on Nicholas Kristof. He allows Craig, without rebuttal, to spout his usual nonsense how the New Testament in regard to Jesus’ alleged birth is independently verified. As for contradictions in the Bible, they are nothing to be concerned out. Craig goes on: “Some of the arguments for God’s existence that I’ve defended, such as the arguments from the origin of the universe and the fine-tuning of the universe, appeal to the best evidence of contemporary science.” My respect for Kristof has gone way down.

      https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/21/opinion/sunday/christmas-christian-craig.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

    3. Arthur C Clarke wrote a good story called “The Star” about the Star of Bethlehem.

      If the Star was a supernova it may well have killed a civilisation.

      cr

    4. J. Scalzi had something on his site which dealt glancingly with working conditions for elves. It was an interview with the corporate lawyer who represents Santa’s LLC, NicolasNorth.

  18. Claims that science is like religion because scientists have “faith” in its principles, and make assumptions that go untested by them personally, is one of the most irksome positions we hear from these people. It’s a simple matter of expediency and practicality, They seem to (purposely?) fail to recognize that every assumption may be questioned and tested by anyone having doubts. There is also the building of knowledge built on top of the work of others, any part of which can be questioned and tested.

    1. “. . .every assumption may be questioned and tested by anyone having doubts.”

      So if one were to doubt/question the assumption that only empirical science can arrive at truths about the universe, how would one go about testing the truth of that assumption?

      1. I was really only talking about the assumptions involved in facts we know about the world via science. Your question is really a meta one.

        Can empirical science reach all truths? There are several ways to approach this question. Since science viewz all its truths to be provisional, then it is incomplete at all points in time. Of course, some people may view all scientific truths as having been discovered, like John Horgan did a few decades ago. Most thought he was wrong and I’m sure that he at least thought there was some remaining truths yet to be discovered.

        There’s another sense in which this question can be taken and perhaps this is the one you meant. Are there kinds of truth that science doesn’t address? There are truths that are really just opinions that science doesn’t address. It is true that I like the Rolling Stones’ music but it is not a scientific truth. I also believe that it is wrong to commit murder but science can only provide truths that I can use to support that opinion.

        Finally, is there some force in the universe that is out of science’s ability to explain? I don’t believe there is but that’s not really important. What is important is that anyone who does believe in such a force needs to show their evidence in ways that me and others can appreciate. Until that happens, I and others will not be convinced.

  19. When a post includes wording along the lines of ‘science can never be 100% certain’, I know that the remainder of the comment/article will not be worth reading.

  20. What you call “mindmush” is, in fact, a fairly lucid gloss on the Aristotelian notion of God as “subsistent being”—i.e., that whose essence is existence. Mindmush or no, this is quite different from the so-called “cosmological” (aka “first cause”) argument you refer to. The latter is about the origin of the universe and belongs more properly in the field of cosmogony, whereas the former is a proposed description of the nature or structure of the universe and is therefore more strictly cosmological.

    My guess is that your reader is Jesuit-educated, since the “esse” and “essentia” discourse reeks of Jesuit philosophy courses. By contrast, the “first-cause” argument is primarily Thomistic, and hence more likely to come from someone trained by the Dominicans. Lucky me, I was trained by both.

  21. I’ve repeatedly had people tell me that my expectation that the sun will rise tomorrow is a matter of “faith” on my part. I’ve learned to respond by pointing out that during my adult life (since I turned 18), I’ve seen the sun rise over 17,000 times (I’m 65). Then I ask them how many times they’ve seen Jesus rise from the dead? THAT’S the difference between confidence born of experience, and faith.

  22. I have tried to engage with religious people online about these issues, and have never made a smidge of headway. Engaging with this one would be extremely frustrating, as they would likely surround themselves with all manner of Sophisticated Philosophies ™ . Sure, you could knock them over, one by one, but there are plenty more Aristotle/Descarte/Kuhn/who-ever throw back at ‘ya.
    Don’t bother.

  23. I find it amusing that these numpties all seem to assume not only that their childish assertions (I refuse to call them ‘arguments’) are unanswerable, but that you have never encountered them before, and are bound to be flummoxed by them. It shows what a tiny, limited, self-reinforcing world they live in.

    1. “…but that you have never encountered them before…”

      That’s the part that always gets me! Their arguments are so hackneyed and tedious.

  24. Did these people even read my piece?

    Wasn’t there a film (or book) a while ago titled “The Eternal Blankness of the Spotless Mind”, or something like that? You can rely on correspondents like this to keep their minds eternally blank of the spots and blemishes of information from outside their church/ mosque/ stupa.

  25. The article was nice and crisp, and made its point well. The comments at the site felt like a trip back to 2005 and the Dover case, and the religious arguments that were bandied about in those days. Tired and shop worn arguments, with nothing new to say. Ho hum.

  26. While science has made great and amazing gains in understanding the universe, it still relies on the underlying assumption of uniformity. It would seem to me then that you are suggesting that science would thus be able to function in such a manner distinct from faith?

    There is no assumption, and therefore no faith. Consistency is a conclusion based on empirical observation. Science would be perfectly able to function if it were partially wrong; if experiments in some field were inconsistent and irreproducible, we would consider that a tough issue. Hypothetically, if experiments in every field started to be inconsistent, then science would not function. But that would ironically undermine Cristianity too, since loads of Christian laypeople and theologians claim that the consistency of nature is evidence of their god…no doubt, if consistency stopped being the case, then these same peolpe would declare that the inconsistency of nature was evidence of that same god…

    1. The inconsistency of nature – I believe they call that “miracles”. So you don’t have to wait for a hypothetical case: they’re already trying to have it both ways.

  27. Ok, so, I am a broken record on this point, but it just drives me crazy. What does the question of “is there a fundamental force / element / dynamic / whatever” in the universe have to do with religion? This point gets made over and over and I just see no logical connection. There probably *is some dynamic underlying all of matter, but how does this relate to religious scripture?

    1. That’s the rhetorical purpose of all of WLC’s talk about ‘warranted belief’, I think: a way to make the leap of logic from Cosmic Muffin to the personal Lord & Savior who used to want you to eat fish on Fridays.

    3. Yeah, and you know, the sad thing is that I think this should actually be a point of *connection between religion and science. If there is something like a ‘fabric of the universe’ (or particles, wavelengths, etc., etc.) and there really is a better or worse way to relate to said fabric, then I think that is an absolutely fascinating question, but I think that in 2018 it has to be framed empirically (I do feel an exception should be made for countries where secular infrastructure is not really available and religion as cultural institution serves as something like societal glue, for totally pragmatic reasons.)

      For example, I asked a religious friend why they feel God wants people to go to Church, instead of going out and feeding the hungry or volunteering (or, it occurs to me now, doing what Jerry does – it seems to me that if the fabric of reality had the ability to ‘want’ things, surely it would want people to spend some time appreciating all of its multiple aspects, that one of the highest forms of showing one’s appreciation would be going out and, well, appreciating such things, everything that had sprung from said fabric.) I was expecting an answer like “Because you’ll get smoted, that’s why”, but they actually said that the structure of the church itself is very specific, comes from God, and is designed to aid in spiritual development (my paraphrase). I liked that answer very much, because, whether or not it’s true, it’s at least possible to *find out* if it’s true. Some religious practices – meditation, fasting, prayer/mantras and so on – do actually hold up to scrutiny in that they do turn out to be positive practices that people figured out eons ago. And, many things in life feel a bit arbitrary. If you walk into a gym and go through the ritual of moving your arms and legs and torso a certain way, and picking up various heavy objects in sequence, you will be in better shape, for example. If we didn’t know much about the human body that would seem like a bizarre “Huh, who’d have thought? That ritual really does something.” So I’m open to the idea that religion can affect people similarly – perhaps churches *are built with ‘sacred geometry’ or some such thing, that is good for people to look at, for example. I’ll even go all Star Wars and say that maybe it’s possible for people to be one with the Force or however you want to frame it – again, that is more or less an empirical question with an answer. But it’s frustrating because the leap never seems to be from A (fabric of reality) to B (can humans minds actually interact with said fabric in some way?); it’s generally A to Q (so now we know the book of Genesis is literally true.)

  28. Ugh…warmed over Christian Presuppositionalism…

    “While science has made great and amazing gains in understanding the universe, it still relies on the underlying assumption of uniformity.”

    Which is the classic move of the theist raising the “problem of induction.”

    The purported problem of induction is that there is no non-question-begging way to justify induction. Theists love to raise this “problem” to atheists because the theist will claim to have a leg up on the atheist.

    Theist: “We have a basis for believing in the uniformity of nature – God TOLD us He would uphold the uniformity of nature in his revelation!”

    But this doesn’t get them anywhere. It doesn’t validate, or make any more sure, the almost infinite number of inductive inferences that are made. Unless God Himself told you the answer to every question, you will still be faced with the Black Swan problem everywhere you go. How can you infer from all the white swans you’ve seen that “all swans are white?” Does “God made nature uniform” answer this? Of course not. You haven’t been told whether there are black swans or not, so it is still just as much of a “leap” to go from past experience to future experience with swans.

    The non-question-begging way around this is to hypothesize, not assume. “If swans are white, then I will only encounter white swans.” Every time you encounter a white swan, not another color, you have support for your hypothesis. Get enough evidential support, and you get “confidence” in your conclusion. Perfect Confidence? Of course not; that is denied everyone, including the theist, so that doesn’t come in to play.

    The same hypothesis can be applied in general to reality. IF our reality is in some general sense uniform and comprehensible, THEN I’ll find it to be that way tomorrow as it was today. And every day that goes by adds evidence for that hypothesis, until we have justified confidence.

    If there is ANY truly underlying assumption that gets all this off the ground, it is something like the assumption that “anything that exists has a nature.” (Which can be seen as tautological in that one could say “to exist is to have a nature.”).

    Why doesn’t a candle flame burn our fingers one day and freeze them the next? Why do many things seem to appear in an ordered, consistent fashion? Well, because it is the nature of flame to be hot, and not in the nature to change this aspect of itself (to be cold). The assumption that things have natures in of itself justifies our using science to uncover and understand the nature of phenomena in our experience.

    An alternative explanation is that a flame is kept hot by the will or design of some Deity.

    But of course, to make this claim comprehensible the Theist will have to assume the Deity has a nature: e.g. the Deity has X, Y Z qualities, is not whimsical, is consistent, has desires to keep nature consistent for us, etc.

    So the Theist is no further along; he has to go making the very assumption – Things That Exist Have A Nature – that we all start with, and which already justifies the attempt to understand nature through observation and induction.

Comments are closed.