Other ways of evaluating truth claims
Josh Rosenau did a second post about ways of knowing and vampires and knowledge and a whole slew of other things – a very long, tangled, complicated post that still didn’t manage to clarify what he is trying to say, which is why I asked a couple of questions as soon as I’d read the post, but answer came there none. As Josh Slocum pointed out yesterday, trying to get clarification from Rosenau is very like trying to get clarification from Chris Mooney – hopelessly futile. This is especially ironice because he says ‘I think there’s some sort of progress underway in the comments to my original post.’ Well if he thinks that why doesn’t he help out a little more?
It’s hard to find a claim that’s clear enough to dispute – but here is one:
My view is that science has no monopoly on truth claims nor on knowledge, and that other ways of evaluating truth claims are not problematic so long as they are not imposed on others, and don’t interfere with anyone’s ability to pursue their own course.
Since he didn’t bother to limit that very sweeping claim, we might as well assume he really did mean that his view is that all other ways of evaluating truth claims are non-problematic under the stipulated conditions. If that is what he meant, he committed himself to saying that other ways of evaluating truth claims, no matter how ludicrous and incompetent, are okay in schools and universities, in factories and on construction sites, in journalism and scholarship, in hospitals and courtrooms, in government and business, in social life and conversation, in everyday practical problem-solving and grocery shopping. So the idea is that people just getting everything wildly wrong all over the place because they’re using other ways of evaluating truth claims is perfectly all right provided there’s no imposition or interference.
Well, I don’t actually think he does think that – I don’t for a second think he’s that batty. But that is what he said! And that’s the problem with this whole project of his – he seems to be incapable of pinning down his own meaning carefully enough that he can manage to avoid making batty claims. But that is exactly the problem you run into when you start trying to defend “other ways of knowing” – either you’re so vague that no one can figure out what you’re saying or you make claims that are simply ridiculous.
This is the risk the NCSE takes if it commits itself to claiming that religion and science are epistemically compatible. Either it has to talk meaningless fluff, which seems amateurish and humiliating, or it has to talk plain nonsense, which seems inimical to science education.
It seems as though Rosenau is confessing that he doesn’t have a clear conception of truth. So probably he’s got a deflationary or semantic theory of truth in mind. In fairness, it’s no good trying to probe the man for a clearer idea on it if he admits up front that he has seemingly no commitments here.
I miss the correspondence theory of truth. At least these problems wouldn’t arise back in the day.
His views seem to be more interested in explaining truth-claims than they are at explaining the kind of truth that belongs to reality. And sure enough, we find the relevant parts of Rosenau’s remarks dwelling on truth-claims, associating them with ways of knowing: “The point I was making is that the sort of knowledge or truth claim involved in religious “ways of knowing” is different than those made by science (just as knowledge and truth claims derived from literature are different than those from science or religion), and the sort of evidence involved in supporting those claims is correspondingly different.”
So while he associates ways of knowing with truth-claims, he’s not associating ways of knowing with the scientific truey true true form of truth that most of us care about when it comes to this sort of thing.
Even still, I don’t get how we can get away with calling this different “ways of knowing”, as if the many tributaries all lead to the ocean. The moral, literary, political, etc. stuff we know is not just another way of getting at the real world. Instead, the moral, literary, political domains are like separate, parallel worlds. (Or at least they’re distinct for those of us who are at a high enough stage in moral development. For children, Southern Baptists, and Francis Collins, it’s all merely different ways of knowing a single world.) So “ways of knowing” is an unhelpful, though I suppose legitimate, way of saying, “ways of knowing different worlds”.
Sure, then he might bring up the Vampires argument again. Surely morality connects with the real world in some way! Well, I don’t think it helps much. While our parallel worlds overlap in interesting ways, the bridges between them are not based on connections with the real world. Rather, they’re based on us playing around with their boundaries for fun (i.e., when we construct metaphors, or apply the concepts of a novel into real situations, etc.) It is important to recognize that when we’re goofing around with these conceptual spaces we’re not using new ways of knowing the real world, but we’re building, defining and enhancing our idea of what is relevant. The whole phrase “ways of knowing” is misleading; better would be “criteria for what matters”.
Fuck the correspondence theory of truth. I’ll settle for a minimally conceptually coherent understanding of ‘truth’ such that if one claim directly contradicts another claim, both claims cannot be simultaneously true. If you cannot manage that, you cannot say anything: The words you utter are quite literally and entirely meaningless if you can’t meet that minimal standard. This is not a new and radical new idea. Aristotle articulated it very clearly, to name but one thinker with a cranium located outside the colon who sussed out this rather basic notion: If a word or symbol cannot mean one thing instead of another, if it is used to indicate both A and not-A at the same time, that symbol cannot possibly mean anything at all. I don’t think Roseneau’s incoherent hand-waving gibberish lives up to even this minimal criterion of meaningfulness. He’s literally spouting gibberish, even though all the words he strings together are English words, he might as well be writing “blue seven cockerel will ample hello defenestration mambo.”
Josh, you can either write sense or write nonsense. It’s your choice. But don’t expect grown-ups to take you seriously if you keep writing nonsense.
Alas, work was such today that I didn’t have time for blogging or commenting. I thought my time better used defending science education in a couple different states than debating abstract philosophy. Shall I check with you before making such choices in the future? Or might you be able to wait a day to get questions answered?
That said, you write about “the risk the NCSE takes if it commits itself to claiming that religion and science are epistemically compatible.” NCSE takes no position on that matter, and certainly has not taken the position you describe. My blog is my blog, and attributing anything I say to NCSE is as reasonable as attributing Coyne’s posts to the University of Chicago. Then again, I never claimed that either. Some religions are certainly not compatible with science, others claim to be. Not being religious myself, I don’t think I’m in a position to judge which is right and which is wrong. So long as no one forces their beliefs on others, why do I care?
I suspect that we mean different things by imposition and interference. But it’s bedtime, so that will have to wait for tomorrow.
“Some religions are certainly not compatible with science, others claim to be. Not being religious myself, I don’t think I’m in a position to judge which is right and which is wrong.”
As you don’t seem to find supernatural miracles incompatible with science I suspect your list of ‘compatible’ religions is going to be far longer than those of us who don’t accept miracles as compatible.
The very fact that there is substantial disagreement about which religions are and which aren’t compatible suggests that the most sensible thing for the NCSE to do is to refrain from sectarianistic promotion of one faith over another and simply stick to the science.
“Not being religious myself, I don’t think I’m in a position to judge which is right and which is wrong.”
What is that supposed to mean? Do you even realize how ridiculous this sounds?? According to this logic, an atheist is not allowed to examine religious claims, and a religious person is not allowed to examine the claims of non-believers. Or of people who have different religious beliefs. In fact, according to you, no single person who believes something is in a position to examine the veracity of that belief – because he doesn’t also believe the opposite at the same time.
“So long as no one forces their beliefs on others, why do I care?”
It seems that I was under the false impression that you were a scientist.
They try to force their beliefs on the rest of us all the time. I have no idea what planet Josh Rosenau has been living on of late.
And it’s true that no one would take Jerry Coyne’s posts as representing the corporate views of the University of Chicago. Unless, of course, he took to writing long, incoherent blog posts defending positions publicly enunciated very recently by the university’s President.
Here’s a word to the wise. Once you start going to great trouble to defend your boss’s views in public, you start to look like a spokesperson for your organisation. There’s nothing wrong with that; it’s honorable work, and I’ve done it myself. But there are circumstances where it looks exactly like that’s what you’re doing, regardless of your subjective intention and irrespective of whether or not it’s what the organisation actually pays you to do.
He or she who hath an ear, let him or her hear.
A surgeon who had never been to medical school but claimed that he/she ‘just knew’ everything needed would have a hard time getting me under his/her knife, even just for a simple fingernailectomy.
Likewise a pilot whose sole qualification was intuition would never persuade me to become his/her passenger, even for a free flight. And doubly never if he/she flew the plane under continuous real time instruction and guidance from God.
G, while coherence is necessary for interpretation of meaning, it doesn’t have to be coherence of all our beliefs. Some beliefs, like moral beliefs expressed as claims to moral truths, cohere with each other even if they don’t cohere with our truth-claims about the real world. We need more than a coherence theory in order to make sense of this.
If somebody equivocates, as Josh seems to, then that’s not necessarily an indication of nonsense (though it might be). Though it does indicate that we’re confused as to what his meaning must be. Which of course we are.
I think you need to be a bit clearer on this. On your blog you deny you are an atheist. Which means then that you do believe god or gods exist. How is believing in the existence of god not being religious ?
Or is just you do not like be termed an atheist, even though it seems you are one ?
Josh has stated elsewhere that he is an Apathetic Agnostic “Don’t know and don’t care” (http://www.uctaa.net/).
“Josh has stated elsewhere that he is an Apathetic Agnostic”
Yeah, I am aware of that. I am also aware he has stated he is not an atheist. If he is not an atheist he must therefore believe in a god, since atheism is simply the lack of belief in gods. However other things he says makes one think he does not believe in a god.
He may not like being called an atheist, but if he does not believe in god he is an atheist, and to claim he is not is dishonest.
I don’t really think it’s appropriate to insinuate that Rosenau is a yes-man until after his views are made reasonably clear, and there’s still a sense they might be cleared up given a bit more time. Rosenau appears to be reasons-responsive. Let’s give him a bit of time and see what he has to say.
Oh, Lord, Joshua. How can you possibly say with a straight face that “the NCSE takes no position on that matter [whether science and religion are epistemically compatible]”? It certainly does. Just look at the Faith Project of YOUR organization. All of the resources cited, and articles presented, show how science and religion are compatible. Importantly, the article “God and Evolution” by Peter M. J. Hess, YOUR Faith Project director, says this:
“The science of evolution does not make claims about God’s existence or non-existence, any more than do other scientific theories such as gravitation, atomic structure, or plate tectonics. Just like gravity, the theory of evolution is compatible with theism, atheism, and agnosticism. Can someone accept evolution as the most compelling explanation for biological diversity, and also accept the idea that God works through evolution? Many religious people do.”
(http://ncseweb.org/religion/god-evolution)
Note that he doesn’t just say that theism etc. CAN BE compatible, but that they ARE compatible! Please give up the fiction that the NCSE does not have this as its official position.
Josh, sure, I can wait, and I realize there are other things to do! In other words point taken. But to be fair, your posts are obviously part of an ongoing conversation, so it’s not completely batty to hope for some answers to some questions eventually.
Matt Penfold: You argue that if I do not actively deny the existence of god(s) that I must believe in their existence. But why must I take a position at all? Why can’t I deny the relevance of the question to my life? I don’t know if god(s) exist(s), and I don’t see how knowing one way or another would change my life. I honestly fail to see the relevance of the question, so I take no position. Note that I link my self-description to a whole post on this topic by John Wilkins, which I think lays out these issues nicely.
Brian Kirkman: There are two points I’d make. First, that Peter sometimes speaks for himself and sometimes for NCSE (just as I do, just as Jerry Coyne sometimes speaks for UChicago and sometimes for himself, etc.). Distinguishing those cases requires a certain level of care, with any such situation, not just this one. NCSE’s position is clearly stated in the FAQ: http://ncseweb.org/about/faq
Second, note that the quote you offer is actually rather carefully couched. It is specifically in terms of whether particular scientific theories require adopting a particular approach to religion. This strikes me not as a claim that science IS compatible with religion, but that specific theories in science say nothing about whether gods exist. This seems pretty reasonable. Saying that evolution explains life’s diversity doesn’t mean gods don’t exist any more than saying Michelangelo painted the Sistine Chapel means that God doesn’t exist.
The claim of incompatibility usually is posed as an incompatibility between science as an approach to testing knowledge (a way of knowing, if you will) and religious approaches or mindsets. Nothing in your quote tackles that broader issue.
Tea and others: You ask why I wouldn’t judge the truth of religious claims just because I’m not religious. Fair enough. Certainly I don’t mean that no non-religious person can judge religious claims, but I think such judgment requires an acknowledgment that religious belief is inherently personal, and that different people experience it differently, and in some cases not at all. To me, religion is like dance, in that I see people getting enjoyment out of it, but I can’t fathom why. Since I don’t understand the appeal of any religious claims, I don’t consider myself qualified to judge internal disagreements among the religious. This largely gets back to my agnosticism, a position derived in part from a belief that untestable propositions about the universe are not worth taking fixed positions on, as any position taken is built on air. Others are free to do as they choose, naturally, and nothing I said was meant to restrict anyone else. It’s a personal preference, that’s all.
Oh, and Russell: My thoughts on this subject can be traced back to my time fighting creationists in Kansas, before I even knew the name Eugenie Scott. My blog archives at http://jgrr.blogspot.com and http://scienceblogs.com/tfk would make it pretty easy to trace the evolution of my views, if someone actually cared to review the record. It’s not necessary to engage in evidence-free speculation or ad hominem attacks.
Indeed, one need not go past my original post in this to see that my goal wasn’t to defend Genie specifically. I stated that I hadn’t seen the talk in question and couldn’t comment on what Genie intended by various terms, and I believe I made clear that I was exploring my own views, not defending hers.
Josh,
I think Tea’s and others’ point is that many atheists mean exactly what you mean when you describe your brand of agnosticism. I’d add that “atheism” is a good word for what you describe because it makes explicit that you disbelieve in any type of god that would be worth worrying about. A lot of people do believe in those types of gods, so that type of disbelief is something worth communicating.
“To me, religion is like dance, in that I see people getting enjoyment out of it, but I can’t fathom why.”
Ah, well that at least partially clarifies one of your claims that had puzzled me.
But only to raise another. You’re not saying that’s a complete account of how you see religion, are you? Or are you. Because surely you think of religion as being a lot more than something that people get enjoyment out of for reasons you don’t get – don’t you? If you don’t, I would say you should (for purposes of discussions like this, for instance). Religion is an institution, it does have power, it does make truth claims, it does intervene in political matters, etc – as of course you know from your time fighting creationists in Kansas. So…I think your simile has limited utility. (It’s amusing though!)
Josh, I find the last paragraph of your comment bizarre. At least you have acknowledged you were wrong on one point, so thanks for that. But it’s clear that you really do know nothing about religion. I happen to know a lot about it even though I lost my religious faith many years ago. I don’t think, judging by this paragraph, that you are qualified to discuss this at all. But I’ll let that go.
The following is more important. When something like the NOMA doctrine is explained on the NCSE site at some length, in the way quoted by Brian above, and is presented quite uncritically, with no suggestion that it might be false, it looks as if the NCSE is endorsing the NOMA principle. We all realise that the wording has been chosen carefully so that it says, not “NCSE does” but “many religious people do”. But this statement is presented in a way that suggests we ought to accept the views of these “many religious people” as correct, or at least as weighty. The not-so-subtle suggestion is that NCSE is endorsing the highly-controversial NOMA principle.
If you don’t accept this point, then I suggest that you are either disingenuous or insensitive to tone.
In fact, it seems pretty obvious why the NCSE has put up this material, worded as it is. It wants to be able to say that it has not endorsed the NOMA principle or anything like it, but has, rather, attributed it to “many religious people”, while at the same time encouraging readers to adopt this pragmatically convenient view of religion and its relationship to science.
In other contexts, this would be called using weasel words.
No one at NCSE has ever acknowledged this problem, though it has been pointed out, in a constructive spirit, for months now – by Jerry Coyne, by me, by Brian in the comment above, and by others.
The proof that this problem is being looked at in good faith would be whether the NCSE would be prepared to change the wording so that the endorsement of NOMA is not only attributed to “many religious people” but it is made quite clear that they may be wrong, and that theirs is a minority view.
Of course, NCSE has chosen to employ a person who evidently does accept the principle, and to let him write the relevant document. That in itself is a concern to those of us who oppose the NOMA principle. But I doubt that he has the final say on something like this.
If NCSE is not going to change the wording now, I at least suggest that next time it is reviewing its communications strategy it consults with people like Jerry Coyne and myself – who are prepared to offer advice in a civil and thoughtful way. All my posts on this topic (though not all the statements made in reply) have been civil. NCSE should not just consult with religious folk and Nisbet/Mooney-style accommodationists.
It’s the tendency not to consult with forthright atheists and rationalists that seems to be causing the problem. The impression is being created that the NCSE leadership is prepared to make nice with supposedly “moderate” religious leaders even to the extent of offending or undermining us. We need some reassurance that that is not the case, and your own contributions are currently making matters worse.
It’s not the biggest issue in the scheme of things, but when civil criticism is made of an organisation it’s a good idea to offer to talk about it … rather than to respond, as you’ve been doing, by trying to kick Jerry Coyne’s head.
And I realise that you claim you are not speaking on behalf of NCSE. Perhaps so. But you’ve taken it on yourself to respond publicly and aggressively to (mild and civil) criticisms of your boss. Doubtless you did that on your own initiative, not as a result of a direction from above. Nonetheless, that’s what you’ve done, and the impression is given that, at the very least, (1) you have a conflict of interest between speaking the truth as you see it and pleasing your boss and (2) you didn’t think that your superiors would be displeased with your head-kicking manner.
Whether or not you intended it, you have added fuel to the fire.
@ Benjamin: I wasn’t speaking generally about correspondence and coherence theories of truth, but speaking directly to Josh Roseneau’s particular nonsense. While I agree with you that all equivocations do not automatically qualify as nonsense, I think that equivocating as broadly and wildly as Roseneau does about the central concept of his discussion – what constitutes ‘knowing’ in that ever-vexing phrase “ways of knowing” – does make utter nonsense of his claims. But I won’t belabor the point, as Jason Rosenhouse has already done quite a good job of it, in my opinion.
More broadly, I wholeheartedly agree with those of you who are unimpressed with the disavowal that NCSE does not take an official position on the compatibility of science and religion. Frankly, the evidence in plain sight on the NCSE website – and also frequently evident in both official and unofficial communications from Eugenie Scott and Josh Roseneau, among others – does not support that claim. I support the NCSE in its efforts to fight creationism, but I will continue to strongly object to their policy choice to explicitly and repeatedly endorse quite broad (and, I think, quite false) claims about the compatibility of faith and religion, a subject on which the NCSE would be better served by keeping silent.
Josh,
Are you serious in saying that when Peter Hess is writing as director of the NCSE’s Faith Project, and when his post on the position of faith and science is given prominence on the NCSE website, that he is wrinting for himself and NOT as a spokesman for the NCSE?
And are you serious in asserting that the NCSE has no official position on the issue when nearly every single reference and link on the topic of faith vs science is about how they are compatible? Do you really fail to see the problem here?
The people at the NCSE can say what they want about their “official position”, but the website speaks for itself: the NCSE’s de facto position is that science and faith are compatible. NO space or discussion is given to those people who see them as incompatible.
Many of us have been pointing this out for months, but, in the face of the facts, you continue to maintain that the NCSE has “no official position” on the compatibility of science and faith. Weigh that statement against the dozens of statements and links on the NCSE website that say otherwise.
It’s clearly time for the NCSE to stop equivocating and just admit that it has made a decision to promote the compatibility of science and religion, and to gloss over the fact that many scientists find the two areas incompatible. It’s the constant weaselling about “no official position” that irks us so.
This issue is not complicated. Our complaints are not hard to understand. The fact that they are met with a torrent of obfuscation means that the NCSE is being either intellectually dishonest or willfullly ignorant.
G, Jason has a hole in his argument, I think. Analogies (like the vampire analogy) can improve intelligibility, which can be an important part of the justification of propositions about reality.
And it doesn’t seem convincing to say that this is confusing discovery with justification. Discovery is the necessary condition for knowledge, and optimal justification is something close to a sufficient condition. In between these two poles, we have gradients of justification that typically may include the improvement of intelligibility by way of analogy, for example with the vampire case.
It’s true, the NCSE has “no official position.” But they do spend a hell of lot of time and effort supporting a single unofficial position. Shhh. It’s supposed to be an open secret.
It strikes me as very odd for someone who works at an organization promoting evolution to claim religion has no relevance to his life. Without religion, virtually no opposition to evolution would exist and his job would be unneeded.
I share many common interests with John Wilkins and appreciate his writings, but I think he is flat-out wrong about agnosticism. We could just as easily claim to be agnostics about evolution and in fact, Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins have stated they cannot be absolutely sure no gods exist.
And finally, we hashed through the whole religion is personal nonsense months ago.
Josh,
You on record as saying you are not an atheist.
That means you believe in the existence of god(s).
You make a nuanced position regarding the nature of god(s), but you are on record as saying you think they exist. Please stop being dishonest in claiming you have done otherwise.
In fairness to Josh, now that I’ve had my own shot at him, different people define the word “atheist” in different ways … and the word has a complicated history. E.g. Michael Shermer says that he is an atheist in a behavioural sense (he acts on the basis that there are no gods) but otherwise prefers to call himself an agnostic or a skeptic.
In which case Josh should not deny he is atheist but explain that he does not think the term best describes his position.
As it is, I think he is simply denying he is an atheist for political reasons associated with his job. And that ain’t honest.
Matt, I don’t agree. I call myself a quietist because I think that if god(s) do exist then they’re personal and serious public conversations about the existence and features of god(s) cannot be had. For all you know, I might be an atheist or might not be. If you want to be responsible in describing my position, you should call me agnostic, not atheist or theist. Is this cowardice?
“Without religion, virtually no opposition to evolution would exist”
Say hello to the elephant in the room.
I just noticed the following interesting passages on the NCSE web site, under the heading of “Statements from Educational Organizations”:
“Science is one way of knowing the world ; it is not the only way of knowing, and it is certainly not the only way of knowing everything. Indeed, in the grand scheme of human thought and action, the domain of science is modest — the realm of natural phenomena. Science, as it has developed historically, will not and can never tell us anything about the nature of beauty, or the attributes of justice, or the qualities of goodness. There are many ideas and many truths (like the belief that all people are created equal, or that they have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) upon which science must remain mute. Supernatural creation stories may, in fact, be true; but science, as only one way of knowing, will never tell us this. Science is simply not equipped to speak on supernatural issues, and it would be a mistake to try to force it to do so.”
http://ncseweb.org/media/voices/university-new-mexico-history-department
“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.”
http://ncseweb.org/media/voices/utah-state-board-education
Well, at least they grouped faith with emotion as a way of knowing. Why not add astrology, wishful-thinking and reading The Sun while they’re at it?
“Supernatural creation stories may, in fact, be true; but science, as only one way of knowing, will never tell us this. Science is simply not equipped to speak on supernatural issues, and it would be a mistake to try to force it to do so.”
Good Lord, I haven’t seen this on the NCSE website, but it’s atrocious! OF COURSE science can tell us that some supernatural creation stories are wrong: for example, one that says that God created the Earth and its inhabitants 6,000 years ago from nothing.
This is really embarrassing for the NCSE. And if they don’t see the problem with that statement, then I pity them.
Oh for fuck’s sake – supernatural creation stories may be true and science is only one way of knowing so it will never tell us this.
This is science education?! What would science diseducation be then?
Well found, Richard Wein.
@ Benjamin: That would be a hole in Jason’s argument if Josh had said anything intelligible and nuanced about the role of analogy and metaphor in formulating and clarifying hypotheses as one part of an epistemological process, instead of flatly declaring every possible way of engaging the world (or engaging with our own imaginations) to be a “way of knowing” – but Josh did the latter and not the former. You seem to be reading Roseneau’s “arguments” with extraordinary generosity and giving him every benefit of every possible doubt and then some, while at the same time being very highly critical of those who disagree with his hand-waving gibberish – and in my opinion, you’re also engaging in a fair amount of pointless hair-splitting in Roseneau’s defense.
I don’t mind the call for more nuance and care in articulating positions and arguments. I rather do mind it when it’s always those on one side of the debate who are chided to be more nuanced and careful and courteous and so on, while those on the other side are given a free pass for the most outrageously bad pseudo-arguments rife with apparently deliberate equivocations and red herrings. And, I must note, it always seems to be the accommodationists and the “Don’t you dare say I’m an atheist just because I don’t believe in the existence of any God or gods; I’m an agnostic” folks and the “I’m not a believer myself but…” crowd – and yes, I’ll throw self-described quietists in there, too – who play at this particular game of double-standards.
Testing Josh’s argument:
Not being a believer in witches myself, I don’t think I’m in a position to judge whether burning witches is right or wrong.
Not being a believer in demons myself, I don’t think I’m in a position to judge whether Josh needs an exorcism.
Josh’s argument fails because it can be used equally well by someone who supports conflicting beliefs or dangerous beliefs.
In fact, Josh’s rhetoric and tsk-tsking of others comes of as the “courtier’s reply” to me– an attempt to give “lip service” to supposed “other ways of knowing” without having to demonstrate that such other ways of knowing” have revealed something demonstrably true. Moreover, the argument distances Josh from his implication that religion is somehow a valid means of such knowledge!
Really, Josh? So who goes about deciding which religion reveals the useful truths?
Scientology could be true… and Josh just might need to have his body thetans cleared to see the light. I’m sure a Scientologist would have some damn fine “inner knowingness” on the subject. And who knows what diagnosis the Mormons– with their “burning in the bosom”– might have!
There is no way to know anything about invisible immeasurable entities without demonstrating that such entities can exist and developing a method for distinguishing such entities from fairies, imaginary friends, schizophrenic delusions, gremlins, myths, and so forth. To claim knowledge of such is a LIE– whether it’s a lie one tells oneself or a lie one inflicts upon others. All those who claim to KNOW that souls, gods, demons, or (insert invisible being) exist are mistaking their feelings for knowledge of fact.
Religion promises eternal salvation for such beliefs!
How can that ever be compatible with science which aims to follow the evidence and develop methods to correct errors and account for the known way humans fool themselves? Science is the only proven method for actual objective knowledge. Religious belief may feel like “knowledge” to the believer, but unless it’s demonstrable, it isn’t knowledge and it needs to be kept in the same “magisteria” as superstition and other woo.
G, I don’t know if I’m being extraordinarily generous. I’m being charitable, and maybe even a bit creative with my charity. I just think there’s something non-trivial and epistemically interesting about the “vampires” example, and wanted to share what jumped out at me. That might seem curious hair-splitting, but I won’t apologize for the fact that I find applied philosophy interesting and important.
Also, Josh mentioned the “clique” thing, and I don’t want him to feel like there’s a disproportionate response to anyone and everyone who entertains philosophical thoughts that happen to skirt faitheism. Mooney (for example) got panned (among other reasons) because chapter one is miraculously stupid, not because PZ Myers sent his hordes of flying monkeys after him. But the latter is what Mooney is telling himself these days. Victim narratives spread very easily because they are so tempting. If a bit of charity cuts it off at the pass, all the better.
Anyway, I think my arguments end up being false friends with Josh’s views as they’ve been expressed so far, because you can easily reply to me by saying, “Look, while you’re technically right for all this stuff about ‘ways of knowing different kinds of truth’, it’s much more useful to just avoid confusion by saying ‘ways of knowing the relevant parts of the real’. Not much fodder there for a defense of religion. Though there is some fodder there for defending one’s favorite literature.
But my interpretation might be wrong. If Josh means something like the NCSE quotes that Richard posted, then we’d be oceans apart, because the claims in those quotes are pretty shifty no matter how much charity you put into reading them.
I’m going to go ahead and ignore your second paragraph because it asserts quite a few things that are stated at a level of generality that cannot help but be false.
I suspect that Mooney would be telling himself that no matter what the putative clique had said…but that’s just my hunch, or special way of knowing.
There is a group – a clique, even – of people who exactly match the description in G’s second para. But I haven’t noticed Ben loitering in their vicinity.
:- )
Hmmm. . would that be a Woman’s Way of Knowing, O?
/ducking and running
You’re right, OB – both on my description being apt of a certain crowd and Ben not properly belonging to that crowd. Apologies, Ben. I honestly couldn’t see anything one could call applied philosophy – or interesting, or defensible, or even non-ridiculous – in Josh’s half-arsed musings. I see now that you were musing on a particular point that *you* found interesting for your own particularly geeky reasons – which is something I’ve done more than a few times so you’d think I oughta recognize it.
It’s all good homeslice.
“you were musing on a particular point that *you* found interesting for your own particularly geeky reasons”
If I were going to have a headstone that is what I would have on it.