The One Forbidden Thing
Thought for the Day.
Robert Pennock testifying in Kitzmiller v Dover.
What one expects in science is that one is going to be testing hypotheses against the natural world, and what methodological naturalism does is say we can’t cheat. We can’t just call for quick assistance to some supernatural power. It would certainly make science very easy if we could do that. We’re forced to restrain ourselves to looking for natural regularities. That’s part of what it means to be able to give evidence for something. You’ve undermined that notion of empirical evidence if you start to introduce the supernatural.
You can’t cheat. That’s all there is to it, really. You can’t cheat.
Because of what we were saying in earlier posts about the similarities to the scientific method of the method Judge Jones used in reaching his conclusions, I was thinking what it might be like if it were turned around, something like a judicial method played on the kind of playing field the ID people wanted for their scheme. You could have a trial of someone accused of a serious crime, you could have every kind of evidence he’d done the deed, witnesses, motive, opportunity, no alibi, an open and shut case saying he was guilty. And it would all be in vain if the accused made a sincere (-sounding) statement to the effect that he believed in his innocence. If he did that, they’d have to let him go (or risk offending his beliefs, I suppose – once again, all the nonsense converges – they could get into serious trouble for offending his beliefs).
Sure, you couldn’t convict anyone. (Of course, anarchists would approve of that.)
Pennock isn’t quite correct; it’s not that religion makes it “too easy,” it’s that religion wipes out any idea of objective truth. It doesn’t make finding the truth easy, it makes it impossible. It’s the Tinkerbell approach: just believe and you can fly!
Beautiful! – will it go on a T-shirt?
Atheism – naturalism – the world perspective that doesn’t introduce cheating.
Any others, more succinct?
_
How about the unofficial motto of the student body at Reed College, Portland, OR.: “Communism, Atheism, Free Love”
Pithy, provocative, and oh so true…
BTW, WTF with the gratuitous pop at anarchists in post 2? Anarchists are of course all in favour of unrestricted crime, oh yeah, right? The kind of “anarchist” who would agree with that is like the “atheist” who is so angry with God he’s forgotten He doesn’t exist….
1] Sorry – I meant, expressing this same thought; any improvements on this first draft, more succinct?
2] “Communism, Atheism, Free Love” – true? – are the commas propositionally equative?
3] Love the angry atheist – the atheist so angry with God he’s forgotten He doesn’t exist.
_
Dave – nah, most of the (UK) anarchists I’ve known don’t believe crimes are committed – ‘crime’ is a misnomer for the outcomes of unfettered global capital centalised power and too many laws. That’s why they sit around smoking chillums of strong herb all day doing little else than applauding the ‘direct action’ taken by others (breaking into animal research labs or dealing class B pharmecutecals).
When Stewart speculated about what might happen ‘if it were turned around..’ it probably sounded whimsical, but don’t be too sure.
A few months ago an old friend contacted me because he was worried about someone who was being sucked into a cult. I put in a few days research (well, google) and was able to provide him with a report that showed he had damn good reason to worry.
The cult in question is called Thulea and it’s noxious leader is a Philippe Sauvage/Philip Savage. He had fled his native France after being convicted of multiple fraud over phony healing in Brittany. He entered the US illegally and was duly picked up by the authorities. He avoided extradition by claiming he was persecuted in France for his religion (druid). The Honorable Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz concluded that it was not necessary that Doc Savage’s cures just work, only that Savage could convince the court that he believed in his own powers. Moskowitz ruled that;
The issue is not whether Sauvage can invoke the powers of a higher being to effectuate a cure. Rather, the question is whether Sauvage in good faith believes he has that power. If the government were to obtain fraud convictions of persons who solicit funds in return for religious blessings, the guarantees of free exercise of religion under the First Amendment to our Constitution would be in serious jeopardy. The Supreme Court of the United States recognized the peril to religious freedom that could result from a similar prosecution in the absence of proof to negate the existence of a good faith belief in the “religious solicitation.”
…and that;
Sorry, hit submit in error.
…and that;
…In order to find Sauvage extraditable there must be probable cause to believe that he did not sincerely believe that he had these powers.
Fortunately, the decision was later overturned. I won’t sully B&W with a link to this toad, but for details;
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2001/12/25/MN107639.DTL
Moscowitz was afraid that if one mystical conman was called on his snake oil, well, where would it end?
I’m sorry to have been so right (already) in my fears. What an unpleasant story.
“Pennock isn’t quite correct; it’s not that religion makes it “too easy,” it’s that religion wipes out any idea of objective truth. It doesn’t make finding the truth easy, it makes it impossible.”
Well, but it depends on what ‘it’ refers to. Pennock says that would make science very easy. Well he’s right – if the rules of science were changed in precisely the way the Wedge wants them to be changed, then that would make science very easy. Empty, and easy.
That is very interesting, Don. That’s a recurring problem in US law and jurisprudence – the tension between the guarantee of ‘free exercise of religion’ and the law (i.e. various specific laws). Hence the Smith decision, and controversy over the Smith decision, and Congress’s passage of the ‘Freedom of Religion Restoration Act’ – which the Court declared unconstitutional.