The Pope’s ban on homosexuals in the priesthood misses the entire point. Forced celibacy drives sexuality into deviant forms. Homosexuality in prison is common, homosexuals are not. Priests abuse boys, not because they are gay, but because they have access to boys and not girls (girls are handled by the nuns.) If the Catholic Church wants to put and end to child abuse by their clergy, they should allow for normal sexual outlets. Of course, then they would have to support the families of priests–this is why they imposed celibacy in the first place, to avoid the cost of child support and inheritance. The Catholic Church is the world’s greatest deadbeat dad. And this is the same church that prohibits birth control and abortion and insists that the poor have as many children as possible. The hypocrisy of this is mind boggling.
thanks for a great and true article. I am an atheist brought up as a catholic. i always poke fun at chrisitanity, but with good heart, there is little (these days) truly malicious in it. An occasional pedo, a lie or two. But islam is different. You must make it clear that the qu’ran itself, in at least 145 verses, incites violence against ME/YOU/EVERYONE. A pox on it.
This was a really beautiful article. You wrote quite eloquently about something I’ve thought about so much myself, being agnostic and a science major. (One doesn’t imply the other, but they do seem to go hand-in-hand quite often). Good job.
Bravo Prof. Bradley, well and beautifully said. Even “ID”‘s most prized and vaunted arguments have been answered in the past and are being more thoroughly demolished week by week. Many heretofore “irreducibly complex” structures: the eye (see Dawkins); the foot from fin (see current Scientific American); humans from hominids from primates and on to our common ancestor; are revealed to be quite reducible to ever simpler protostructures, well documented in the fossil record. Add to that the 98+ % extinction rate along the way and what you have is massively “UNintelligent Design” with reducible complexity. The molecular evolution of multistep processes could not be addressed prior to the decoding of a sufficient no. of genomes. But now the revelations occur daily: e.g. the “Toll” receptor responsible for proper “head-to-toe” alignment of Drosophila appendages during larval development, found in humans as part of the multistep innate immune system; the relationship of the bacterial flagellum to the mammalian spermatozoan tail; the potential relationship of reduplicated segments of DNA (a reducible, non-complex process) to the evolution of complex multichain proteins and multistep processes. For the religious fundamentalists to stake the reputation of their god on the purported “gaps” in evolutionary theory is to reveal that god as an incompetent tinkerer indeed. I confess, I’m still a fan of Big Bang Deism, the Naturalistic God, Einstein’s God, Spinoza’s God. I’m not sure that Prof. Bradley’s argument re: the Deist’s God, i.e. what made God, what happened before “Creation”, before the “Big Bang”, is necessarily extendable outside of our fishbowl-terrarium universe, in which we and our logic and science are confined, or extendable to “before” the Big Bang when our space-time began. More importantly, we sons and daughters of the enlightenment ought not be in-fighting and fragmenting amongst Deists, Naturalists, Agnostics and Atheists, but rather uniting against the common enemy of religious fundamentalism in all of its zealot guises. In this, our most important Kulturkampf, there’s a potential advantage to being a “born again”, evolution-touting Deist. That is to be able to tell our antagonists that it is WE WHO SPEAK FOR GOD. We and all of the Enlightenment pantheon, giants on whose shoulders we stand.
Why can’t everyone be as rational as Meera Nanda? I just loved her article on Sam Harris. “Spirituality” is just another name for irrational religious belief. I have never been able to understand why otherwise intelligent people believe without evidence in the existence of a transcendental reality. If it’s there, where is it? How come scientists can’t find it? And if the self is an illusion, who or what is tricking us into thinking there is one, and why? Good work, Meera!
Islam is a religion just like christianity and judiasm. we have our own ways of dealing with convicts and people who do not follow the rules. the comments on this page is ridiculous. Sharia Courts is wonderful. every one in the islamic countries respect our laws and our punishment. Here in Canada if someone steals, they give u a warning. how will the person learn from his mistakes if you cover up his mishevious behaviour. we as islamic people should learn the right thing to do and what is forbidden in our religion just how canadians teach their teens in the schools and also in their homes. if one does not follow rules, serious consequences must be given so they will learn like adultery. we forbid adultery whatsoever. we teach our young not to commit adultery or actually have intercourse before you are married. Canadains mothers are not strict about those kinds of issues. that is why you see 15, 16, and 17 yrs. old pregnant. actually i know that both christianity and judiasm do not allow people to eat pork, have intercourse before their married, and commit adultery but yet, it frequently happens. the difference is that we have consequences to those actions and they dont. everything we do is followed by the quran everything that is allowed or forbidden has a meaning to it. you might no know it at first but actualli everything that is forbidden benefits in the long run ie. alcohol. alcohol and cigarettes are forbidden because they damage and impair our health. you see if you only read this article you are only getting one perspective. you do not know the heart of islam and where it stands. on ly because you dont agree with us doesnt mean you can disrespect our culture and religion. if you actualy study and learn islam, you’d be fascinated at all the things that you learn
Now that was a brimful of Asha! Ms. Hassan, do you know where you are?
The article about Sam Harris’s book was enlightening and important. Who knew that the author of “An Atheist Manifesto” was so self-contradictory and ungrounded in reality? It just goes to show; the focus of the struggle should be materialism vs. idealism in general, rather than secularism vs. religion in particular.
What a nice surprise to find a kindrid spirit on this chily afternoon. This piece is so simply and clearly written that for me, in a few paragraphs, it renders unnecessary all the volumes of hocus pocus written in the name of religion over the centuries. Quite an accomplishment.
I am awe struck by Meera Nanda’s cogent review of the new age pablum, End of Blind Faith. The title should really be, End of Christian and Islamic Faith.To my mind, the book showcases how terrible these two religions have been to Jews throughtout history but does not highlight any shortcomings of Judaism. If nothing is perfect, and all religinos are bad, then all things are not perfect and all relgions are bad.
For Islam, you can substitute Catholicism, Judaism, Tooth Fairy cult – I make no distinction between any of them. They are all irrational. I suppose I am fortunate to have seen through them all.
Firstly, my apologies for the typos in my prevvious response.
Yes, you have seen through them, as have many of us, but the author, Sam Harris, seems to give certain religions a blind eye and heaps scorn on Islam and Christianity.While I agree with him, and you, about the former, I don’t think the latter is in any lower place than Judaism.
Re the heading “Ignatieff in Dubious Company Over Torture”.
However dubious the company, the question deserves to be decided on its own merits.
It should be pointed out that Enoch Powell, one of the most famous politicians of the second half of the 20th century, was opposed to the UK having its own nuclear deterrent. Powell’s main claim to fame is that he was banished from mainstream British politics for a racist speech he gave in 1968. It’s usually described as the “rivers of blood” speech, because he warned of future inter-ethnic strife in the UK if immigration continued: “Like the Roman, I seem to see “the River Tiber foaming with much blood”.” He also referred to “children, charming, wide-grinning piccaninnies.”
So to be a member of British CND was to be in very dubious company indeed. As indeed is anyone opposed to communal rights: in the same speech, he approvingly quoted from a speech by another British politician of the time :”The Sikh communities’ campaign to maintain customs inappropriate in Britain is much to be regretted. Working in Britain, particularly in the public services, they should be prepared to accept the terms and conditions of their employment. To claim special communal rights (or should one say rites?) leads to a dangerous fragmentation within society. This communalism is a canker: whether practised by one colour or another it is to be strongly condemned.”
It cannot be emphasised too strongly for those not familiar with British politics: the speech put Powell way beyond the Pale. Two years later his party won a general election and he would have become a senior minister. Because of his intellectual influence in other areas on Margaret Thatcher, he would also have been a senior member of her government. This one speech destroyed all this and he spent the remaining years of his career in the political wilderness.
The court decision on ID illustrates an interesting point: a competent judge, no matter what his political and religious views, will always come out on the side of science because the scientific method bears so much in common with good judicial procedure. Both rely on sound reasoning and the weight of evidence, and both require that you clearly state the reasons for your conclusion so that other may determine whether it holds true.
What ID proponents want is an incompetent judge, prejudiced towards religion, who will rule according to his prejudices. This is a frightening thought–it means that political religion encourages the corruption of the legal system. The contempt for ‘activist judges’ shown by the religious right directly parallels their hatred of science. If they ever get their way, justice and truth will be the first casualties.
But I would add that ‘belief’ really has very little to do with ‘evidence’ and everything to do with ‘need.’ Which in a strange roundabout way makes it perfectly ‘rational.’
Rupert Sheldrake’s ‘The habits of the past’ is a wonderful and clear illumnation of the ongoing struggle of the ‘war’ between the material and non-material. It illustrates as few others do that scientific method must be carried to its logical conclusion before the any non-material ‘conclusions’ about human/material ‘existence’ can be reached.
Science has shown us that the earth is not flat, and has enabled us to transcend the very laws of nature itself. For that alone, it deserves all our respect.
My own belief?
Based on Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle and Godl’s Incompleteness Theorem (albeit acknowledging that said theorem is not applicable across all mathematical systems.) That ‘reductio ad nauseum, ad infinitum’ is indeed ‘ad absurdum’. That ‘everything’ cannot be ‘known’ to human consciousness. Therefore, there must be something more than can be known to it, which cannot be ‘no-thing’ since that would be less than it. The only ‘logical’ response is agnosticism (i.e. ‘not knowing.’) Our acknowledged failure to know the Unknowable is an implicit acknowledgment of its ‘existence.’ That what is ‘god-like’ in us is a very recognition of the ‘mystery’ at the heart of us all: Freud, Jung and the rest of the psyche-excavators included. All of them ‘know-nothings.’
My own view? That human consciousness is a function of the dynamic between ‘brain'(and body) and environment. But that this dynamic does not ‘explain’ what is called ‘mind.’
‘Mystery,? I guess. But the nature thereof? Only a fool would even attempt to ‘Divine’…..
I enjoyed the article it read like poetry,” When philosphers argue about truth,they are arguing about how not to inflate the truth into the Truth about Truth.”
Those criticizing Harris are forgetting what supernatural means. It means beyond naturalistic- and I think Harris would be the first to admit that the “mystical” states he describes and perhaps seeks can be attributed to naturalistic causes ( ie. brain chemicals).
People like Abraham Maslow have long pointed out that the ecstatic states achieved by the religious can also be achieved by those with a naturalistic perspectives.
Yes, the word “spiritual” implies supernatural, but that’s a problem with the English language, not the person who wants to achieve special states of being.
I’m not so sure about Prof Dennet’s claim that “The theory of evolution demolishes the best reason anyone has ever suggested for believing in a divine creator.”
Demolishes? Somebody should tell the Vatican. I’m an atheist but I don’t see how evolutionary theory precludes a creator-god. Contrary to Dennet’s assertion, natural selection explains beautifully the course of events after creation, not the creation itself. (Dammit, now he’s got me talling like a theist!)
The human civilisation somehow rests on criticism. If we just keep praising people we never get to know the dark side whose knowledge would bring us something unseen and would prevent something worse to happen in future. Also, it is a sign of a secular, modern, and civilised society to appreciate free thinkers and critics even if they knowingly or unknowingly hold as well as express opinions against a general taste and psych. The barbaric attack on BORI and the state that directly or indirectly supports it tell us how that society lays back from that ideal. However, it is a challenge to free thinkers and revolutionaries. I, personally, am with James Laine. The mindless prejudiced people who attacked BORI and those who support them need to be defeated.
Ruse says that religion is about our place in the world, and for guidance (my paraphrase) …
Except it isn’t.
Religion is about power, and control, and NOT answering questions.
All religions are blackmail, either moral or physical, or both.
If you want to “believe” in your persona invisible Big Sky Fairy, that’s up to you, but it does not affect the way the real world operates – that is the province of science, and applied sciences – sometimes called technology.
No supernaturalism (see other posts) needed, nor need apply, anywhere, any time.
Daniel Dennett, in an otherwise excellent article on the Dover decision, goes a bit astray when he wonders whether the Judge distorted the scientific experts’ testimony when they spoke of no conflict between science and a divine creator. People will disagree on this point, but the scientific experts did indeed testify as the judge reports, and in conflict with Dennett’s own perspective.
The major expert witness on evolutionary biology was Kenneth Miller, who is a passionate Christian. This may have been a deliberate choice, but even without regard for his faith Miller made the ideal witness. He has long followed the shenanigans of the IDists, and Behe in particular; he is a well published research scientist in his own right, and he is author of one of the major Biology textbooks used in the USA – indeed the very book that was a text in Dover, and to which the board objected for its supposed omission of the alleged alternatives to Darwinism.
The other primarily scientific expert was Kevin Padian, for paleontology, and he said little about religion. You can read their reports at the ACLU website, at http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/21775res20051123.html, along with other experts in Philosophy, Theology, Philosophy of Science and Education.
There is bound to be disagreement on whether or not evolution conflicts with the notion of a divine creator; but that is not a scientific question. Whether you see a conflict will depend mostly on how you conceive of the creator. To the extent that there are plenty of Christians –Kenneth Miller being just one example – who do not see a conflict, there isn’t a conflict. There is of course a conflict with the creationist notion of how the creator worked; but they are not definitive for the theology of divine creation. Thus I think the judge reported correctly; and certainly consistent with the evidence submitted during the case.
The Catholic Church’s position on evolution is that it undeniably occurs, but the process is not actually random. It may look random to us but if you ever get a chance to ask God you’ll find out that it isn’t.
Which is quite a neat dodge, IMHO, but certainly both scientifically and theologically unassailable. ;)
Cerebus makes a very common mistake about the meaning of the term “random”. It is best to keep the idea separate from the concept of determinism, which is relevant to physical laws:
Strictly “random” is a mathematical term and makes no claim about whether the universe is subject to non-deterministic laws. For example, the result of tossing a fair die is random even though the process itself is deterministic.
Evolution is subject to randomness, both in the process of generating individual mutations and in the process of an individual’s getting to pass on its genes. The chemical process that led to the the first life was also subject to randomness. As far as I can tell none of these processes is non-deterministic.
The only scientifically-claimed non-deterministic processes in the universe are quantum processes, and even that is controversial.
There’s certainly no conflict with the idea of a divine “creator of the laws of nature” or “creator of the universe” — the Deist non-interventionist god.
As the judge quotes (in a different context) “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” So not being able to point to biology as evidence of a creator hardly constitutes an argument that none exists. Besides, Darwin didn’t explain everything; there are plenty of things remaining that might conceivably be the work of a creator. Space-time, for example, or perhaps the mathematics that permits space-time (whatever it actually may be) to exist. It is hard to imagine that any conceivable theory will deal with the question of first causes so decisively and completely that there will be no room left for a creator, for those who choose to believe in one.
interesting article on absolutism vs. relativism. The only problem, however, is that it’s the same old dichotomy between absolutism and relativism. What the author describes as relativism is really mere multiplicity (i.e., tolerance of multiple views should be allowed without evaluation of the view). Sir Karl Popper would probably say that relativism allows one to judge between better and worse truth. Even though our knowledge is filtered through our perceptual lenses, arguments can be judged as better or worse by appeal to general rules for evidence. Thus, one may not know for sure, but one may certainly know which is better at the present stage of our evidence to date.
Prof. Dennett’s objection, and his comparison of religious apologetics to a murder trial, doesn’t quite ring true. While it is certainly true that natural selection works without divine intervention in keeping an ecosystem in balance (most of the time; as Arthur C. Clarke has pointed out, it has yet to be proven that intelligence has any survival value), there is no guarantee that natural selection, by itself, will always produce any specific result, or even sentience in any form. Therefore, there is in fact nothing in science to contradict those “theistic evolutionists” who wish to reason backwards and hold that one particular product of natural selection (us) is in fact the image of God and thus divinely created. Who’s to say that God didn’t direct the proper “random” mutations all the way back to primordial life in order to paint a self-portait?
The Pope’s ban on homosexuals in the priesthood misses the entire point. Forced celibacy drives sexuality into deviant forms. Homosexuality in prison is common, homosexuals are not. Priests abuse boys, not because they are gay, but because they have access to boys and not girls (girls are handled by the nuns.) If the Catholic Church wants to put and end to child abuse by their clergy, they should allow for normal sexual outlets. Of course, then they would have to support the families of priests–this is why they imposed celibacy in the first place, to avoid the cost of child support and inheritance. The Catholic Church is the world’s greatest deadbeat dad. And this is the same church that prohibits birth control and abortion and insists that the poor have as many children as possible. The hypocrisy of this is mind boggling.
hi,
thanks for a great and true article. I am an atheist brought up as a catholic. i always poke fun at chrisitanity, but with good heart, there is little (these days) truly malicious in it. An occasional pedo, a lie or two. But islam is different. You must make it clear that the qu’ran itself, in at least 145 verses, incites violence against ME/YOU/EVERYONE. A pox on it.
All the best
Dave
This was a really beautiful article. You wrote quite eloquently about something I’ve thought about so much myself, being agnostic and a science major. (One doesn’t imply the other, but they do seem to go hand-in-hand quite often). Good job.
Bravo Prof. Bradley, well and beautifully said. Even “ID”‘s most prized and vaunted arguments have been answered in the past and are being more thoroughly demolished week by week. Many heretofore “irreducibly complex” structures: the eye (see Dawkins); the foot from fin (see current Scientific American); humans from hominids from primates and on to our common ancestor; are revealed to be quite reducible to ever simpler protostructures, well documented in the fossil record. Add to that the 98+ % extinction rate along the way and what you have is massively “UNintelligent Design” with reducible complexity. The molecular evolution of multistep processes could not be addressed prior to the decoding of a sufficient no. of genomes. But now the revelations occur daily: e.g. the “Toll” receptor responsible for proper “head-to-toe” alignment of Drosophila appendages during larval development, found in humans as part of the multistep innate immune system; the relationship of the bacterial flagellum to the mammalian spermatozoan tail; the potential relationship of reduplicated segments of DNA (a reducible, non-complex process) to the evolution of complex multichain proteins and multistep processes. For the religious fundamentalists to stake the reputation of their god on the purported “gaps” in evolutionary theory is to reveal that god as an incompetent tinkerer indeed. I confess, I’m still a fan of Big Bang Deism, the Naturalistic God, Einstein’s God, Spinoza’s God. I’m not sure that Prof. Bradley’s argument re: the Deist’s God, i.e. what made God, what happened before “Creation”, before the “Big Bang”, is necessarily extendable outside of our fishbowl-terrarium universe, in which we and our logic and science are confined, or extendable to “before” the Big Bang when our space-time began. More importantly, we sons and daughters of the enlightenment ought not be in-fighting and fragmenting amongst Deists, Naturalists, Agnostics and Atheists, but rather uniting against the common enemy of religious fundamentalism in all of its zealot guises. In this, our most important Kulturkampf, there’s a potential advantage to being a “born again”, evolution-touting Deist. That is to be able to tell our antagonists that it is WE WHO SPEAK FOR GOD. We and all of the Enlightenment pantheon, giants on whose shoulders we stand.
Why can’t everyone be as rational as Meera Nanda? I just loved her article on Sam Harris. “Spirituality” is just another name for irrational religious belief. I have never been able to understand why otherwise intelligent people believe without evidence in the existence of a transcendental reality. If it’s there, where is it? How come scientists can’t find it? And if the self is an illusion, who or what is tricking us into thinking there is one, and why? Good work, Meera!
Islam is a religion just like christianity and judiasm. we have our own ways of dealing with convicts and people who do not follow the rules. the comments on this page is ridiculous. Sharia Courts is wonderful. every one in the islamic countries respect our laws and our punishment. Here in Canada if someone steals, they give u a warning. how will the person learn from his mistakes if you cover up his mishevious behaviour. we as islamic people should learn the right thing to do and what is forbidden in our religion just how canadians teach their teens in the schools and also in their homes. if one does not follow rules, serious consequences must be given so they will learn like adultery. we forbid adultery whatsoever. we teach our young not to commit adultery or actually have intercourse before you are married. Canadains mothers are not strict about those kinds of issues. that is why you see 15, 16, and 17 yrs. old pregnant. actually i know that both christianity and judiasm do not allow people to eat pork, have intercourse before their married, and commit adultery but yet, it frequently happens. the difference is that we have consequences to those actions and they dont. everything we do is followed by the quran everything that is allowed or forbidden has a meaning to it. you might no know it at first but actualli everything that is forbidden benefits in the long run ie. alcohol. alcohol and cigarettes are forbidden because they damage and impair our health. you see if you only read this article you are only getting one perspective. you do not know the heart of islam and where it stands. on ly because you dont agree with us doesnt mean you can disrespect our culture and religion. if you actualy study and learn islam, you’d be fascinated at all the things that you learn
Now that was a brimful of Asha! Ms. Hassan, do you know where you are?
The article about Sam Harris’s book was enlightening and important. Who knew that the author of “An Atheist Manifesto” was so self-contradictory and ungrounded in reality? It just goes to show; the focus of the struggle should be materialism vs. idealism in general, rather than secularism vs. religion in particular.
Mr. Harris: Paramahansa yogananda parlez-vous?
“Religion, Uncertainty and My Mother”
By Paula Bourges-Waldegg:
What a nice surprise to find a kindrid spirit on this chily afternoon. This piece is so simply and clearly written that for me, in a few paragraphs, it renders unnecessary all the volumes of hocus pocus written in the name of religion over the centuries. Quite an accomplishment.
I personally think that Ruse is a nitwit who needs a good dose of Biblical Education.
I am awe struck by Meera Nanda’s cogent review of the new age pablum, End of Blind Faith. The title should really be, End of Christian and Islamic Faith.To my mind, the book showcases how terrible these two religions have been to Jews throughtout history but does not highlight any shortcomings of Judaism. If nothing is perfect, and all religinos are bad, then all things are not perfect and all relgions are bad.
For Islam, you can substitute Catholicism, Judaism, Tooth Fairy cult – I make no distinction between any of them. They are all irrational. I suppose I am fortunate to have seen through them all.
Firstly, my apologies for the typos in my prevvious response.
Yes, you have seen through them, as have many of us, but the author, Sam Harris, seems to give certain religions a blind eye and heaps scorn on Islam and Christianity.While I agree with him, and you, about the former, I don’t think the latter is in any lower place than Judaism.
Steve, as to where trancendental reality is? as Gertrude Stien said,
“there is not there, there.
Re the heading “Ignatieff in Dubious Company Over Torture”.
However dubious the company, the question deserves to be decided on its own merits.
It should be pointed out that Enoch Powell, one of the most famous politicians of the second half of the 20th century, was opposed to the UK having its own nuclear deterrent. Powell’s main claim to fame is that he was banished from mainstream British politics for a racist speech he gave in 1968. It’s usually described as the “rivers of blood” speech, because he warned of future inter-ethnic strife in the UK if immigration continued: “Like the Roman, I seem to see “the River Tiber foaming with much blood”.” He also referred to “children, charming, wide-grinning piccaninnies.”
So to be a member of British CND was to be in very dubious company indeed. As indeed is anyone opposed to communal rights: in the same speech, he approvingly quoted from a speech by another British politician of the time :”The Sikh communities’ campaign to maintain customs inappropriate in Britain is much to be regretted. Working in Britain, particularly in the public services, they should be prepared to accept the terms and conditions of their employment. To claim special communal rights (or should one say rites?) leads to a dangerous fragmentation within society. This communalism is a canker: whether practised by one colour or another it is to be strongly condemned.”
It cannot be emphasised too strongly for those not familiar with British politics: the speech put Powell way beyond the Pale. Two years later his party won a general election and he would have become a senior minister. Because of his intellectual influence in other areas on Margaret Thatcher, he would also have been a senior member of her government. This one speech destroyed all this and he spent the remaining years of his career in the political wilderness.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enoch_Powell for a fuller bio, and http://www.vdare.com/misc/powell_speech.htm for the speech.
The court decision on ID illustrates an interesting point: a competent judge, no matter what his political and religious views, will always come out on the side of science because the scientific method bears so much in common with good judicial procedure. Both rely on sound reasoning and the weight of evidence, and both require that you clearly state the reasons for your conclusion so that other may determine whether it holds true.
What ID proponents want is an incompetent judge, prejudiced towards religion, who will rule according to his prejudices. This is a frightening thought–it means that political religion encourages the corruption of the legal system. The contempt for ‘activist judges’ shown by the religious right directly parallels their hatred of science. If they ever get their way, justice and truth will be the first casualties.
Re: Alan Schulman’s comment
I heartily, if not entirely concur.
Beautifully put.
But I would add that ‘belief’ really has very little to do with ‘evidence’ and everything to do with ‘need.’ Which in a strange roundabout way makes it perfectly ‘rational.’
Rupert Sheldrake’s ‘The habits of the past’ is a wonderful and clear illumnation of the ongoing struggle of the ‘war’ between the material and non-material. It illustrates as few others do that scientific method must be carried to its logical conclusion before the any non-material ‘conclusions’ about human/material ‘existence’ can be reached.
Science has shown us that the earth is not flat, and has enabled us to transcend the very laws of nature itself. For that alone, it deserves all our respect.
My own belief?
Based on Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle and Godl’s Incompleteness Theorem (albeit acknowledging that said theorem is not applicable across all mathematical systems.) That ‘reductio ad nauseum, ad infinitum’ is indeed ‘ad absurdum’. That ‘everything’ cannot be ‘known’ to human consciousness. Therefore, there must be something more than can be known to it, which cannot be ‘no-thing’ since that would be less than it. The only ‘logical’ response is agnosticism (i.e. ‘not knowing.’) Our acknowledged failure to know the Unknowable is an implicit acknowledgment of its ‘existence.’ That what is ‘god-like’ in us is a very recognition of the ‘mystery’ at the heart of us all: Freud, Jung and the rest of the psyche-excavators included. All of them ‘know-nothings.’
My own view? That human consciousness is a function of the dynamic between ‘brain'(and body) and environment. But that this dynamic does not ‘explain’ what is called ‘mind.’
‘Mystery,? I guess. But the nature thereof? Only a fool would even attempt to ‘Divine’…..
I enjoyed the article it read like poetry,” When philosphers argue about truth,they are arguing about how not to inflate the truth into the Truth about Truth.”
Those criticizing Harris are forgetting what supernatural means. It means beyond naturalistic- and I think Harris would be the first to admit that the “mystical” states he describes and perhaps seeks can be attributed to naturalistic causes ( ie. brain chemicals).
People like Abraham Maslow have long pointed out that the ecstatic states achieved by the religious can also be achieved by those with a naturalistic perspectives.
Yes, the word “spiritual” implies supernatural, but that’s a problem with the English language, not the person who wants to achieve special states of being.
I, too, am heartened by the fact that the recent ID decision came from a Republican-appointed judge. Maybe there is a god.
I’m not so sure about Prof Dennet’s claim that “The theory of evolution demolishes the best reason anyone has ever suggested for believing in a divine creator.”
Demolishes? Somebody should tell the Vatican. I’m an atheist but I don’t see how evolutionary theory precludes a creator-god. Contrary to Dennet’s assertion, natural selection explains beautifully the course of events after creation, not the creation itself. (Dammit, now he’s got me talling like a theist!)
Daniel,
How does evolution deny a creator?
For the life of me I can see no reason to believe that.
IMO the best evidence for God is the entire universe, life and free will.
I consider evolution to be scientifically sound according to the evidence we have at the moment.
If science is threatwening to your faith then maybe you should reconsider what you have faith in. Rather than trying to change science.
The human civilisation somehow rests on criticism. If we just keep praising people we never get to know the dark side whose knowledge would bring us something unseen and would prevent something worse to happen in future. Also, it is a sign of a secular, modern, and civilised society to appreciate free thinkers and critics even if they knowingly or unknowingly hold as well as express opinions against a general taste and psych. The barbaric attack on BORI and the state that directly or indirectly supports it tell us how that society lays back from that ideal. However, it is a challenge to free thinkers and revolutionaries. I, personally, am with James Laine. The mindless prejudiced people who attacked BORI and those who support them need to be defeated.
Ruse says that religion is about our place in the world, and for guidance (my paraphrase) …
Except it isn’t.
Religion is about power, and control, and NOT answering questions.
All religions are blackmail, either moral or physical, or both.
If you want to “believe” in your persona invisible Big Sky Fairy, that’s up to you, but it does not affect the way the real world operates – that is the province of science, and applied sciences – sometimes called technology.
No supernaturalism (see other posts) needed, nor need apply, anywhere, any time.
Daniel Dennett, in an otherwise excellent article on the Dover decision, goes a bit astray when he wonders whether the Judge distorted the scientific experts’ testimony when they spoke of no conflict between science and a divine creator. People will disagree on this point, but the scientific experts did indeed testify as the judge reports, and in conflict with Dennett’s own perspective.
The major expert witness on evolutionary biology was Kenneth Miller, who is a passionate Christian. This may have been a deliberate choice, but even without regard for his faith Miller made the ideal witness. He has long followed the shenanigans of the IDists, and Behe in particular; he is a well published research scientist in his own right, and he is author of one of the major Biology textbooks used in the USA – indeed the very book that was a text in Dover, and to which the board objected for its supposed omission of the alleged alternatives to Darwinism.
The other primarily scientific expert was Kevin Padian, for paleontology, and he said little about religion. You can read their reports at the ACLU website, at http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/21775res20051123.html, along with other experts in Philosophy, Theology, Philosophy of Science and Education.
There is bound to be disagreement on whether or not evolution conflicts with the notion of a divine creator; but that is not a scientific question. Whether you see a conflict will depend mostly on how you conceive of the creator. To the extent that there are plenty of Christians –Kenneth Miller being just one example – who do not see a conflict, there isn’t a conflict. There is of course a conflict with the creationist notion of how the creator worked; but they are not definitive for the theology of divine creation. Thus I think the judge reported correctly; and certainly consistent with the evidence submitted during the case.
The Catholic Church’s position on evolution is that it undeniably occurs, but the process is not actually random. It may look random to us but if you ever get a chance to ask God you’ll find out that it isn’t.
Which is quite a neat dodge, IMHO, but certainly both scientifically and theologically unassailable. ;)
Cerebus makes a very common mistake about the meaning of the term “random”. It is best to keep the idea separate from the concept of determinism, which is relevant to physical laws:
Strictly “random” is a mathematical term and makes no claim about whether the universe is subject to non-deterministic laws. For example, the result of tossing a fair die is random even though the process itself is deterministic.
Evolution is subject to randomness, both in the process of generating individual mutations and in the process of an individual’s getting to pass on its genes. The chemical process that led to the the first life was also subject to randomness. As far as I can tell none of these processes is non-deterministic.
The only scientifically-claimed non-deterministic processes in the universe are quantum processes, and even that is controversial.
Divine “creator”. Creator is a slippery word.
There’s certainly no conflict with the idea of a divine “creator of the laws of nature” or “creator of the universe” — the Deist non-interventionist god.
As the judge quotes (in a different context) “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” So not being able to point to biology as evidence of a creator hardly constitutes an argument that none exists. Besides, Darwin didn’t explain everything; there are plenty of things remaining that might conceivably be the work of a creator. Space-time, for example, or perhaps the mathematics that permits space-time (whatever it actually may be) to exist. It is hard to imagine that any conceivable theory will deal with the question of first causes so decisively and completely that there will be no room left for a creator, for those who choose to believe in one.
interesting article on absolutism vs. relativism. The only problem, however, is that it’s the same old dichotomy between absolutism and relativism. What the author describes as relativism is really mere multiplicity (i.e., tolerance of multiple views should be allowed without evaluation of the view). Sir Karl Popper would probably say that relativism allows one to judge between better and worse truth. Even though our knowledge is filtered through our perceptual lenses, arguments can be judged as better or worse by appeal to general rules for evidence. Thus, one may not know for sure, but one may certainly know which is better at the present stage of our evidence to date.
Just a thought-
Phil
Prof. Dennett’s objection, and his comparison of religious apologetics to a murder trial, doesn’t quite ring true. While it is certainly true that natural selection works without divine intervention in keeping an ecosystem in balance (most of the time; as Arthur C. Clarke has pointed out, it has yet to be proven that intelligence has any survival value), there is no guarantee that natural selection, by itself, will always produce any specific result, or even sentience in any form. Therefore, there is in fact nothing in science to contradict those “theistic evolutionists” who wish to reason backwards and hold that one particular product of natural selection (us) is in fact the image of God and thus divinely created. Who’s to say that God didn’t direct the proper “random” mutations all the way back to primordial life in order to paint a self-portait?