About Rationally Speaking


Rationally Speaking is a blog maintained by Prof. Massimo Pigliucci, a philosopher at the City University of New York. The blog reflects the Enlightenment figure Marquis de Condorcet's idea of what a public intellectual (yes, we know, that's such a bad word) ought to be: someone who devotes himself to "the tracking down of prejudices in the hiding places where priests, the schools, the government, and all long-established institutions had gathered and protected them." You're welcome. Please notice that the contents of this blog can be reprinted under the standard Creative Commons license.

Tuesday, April 28, 2009

Is Richard Dawkins really that naive?

Richard Dawkins doesn’t usually strike me as being naive, but one has to wonder when Dawkins abandons himself to the following sort of writing about his favorite topic these days, the incompatibility between science and religion, on his web site:

“If they’ve [the creationists] been told that there’s an incompatibility between religion and evolution, well, let’s convince them of evolution, and we’re there! Because after all, we’ve got the evidence. ... I suspect that most of our regular readers here would agree that ridicule, of a humorous nature, is likely to be more effective than the sort of snuggling-up and head-patting that Jerry [Coyne] is attacking. I lately started to think that we need to go further: go beyond humorous ridicule, sharpen our barbs to a point where they really hurt. ...You might say that two can play at that game. Suppose the religious start treating us with naked contempt, how would we like it? I think the answer is that there is a real asymmetry here. We have so much more to be contemptuous about! And we are so much better at it. We have scathingly witty spokesmen of the calibre of Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris. Who have the faith-heads got, by comparison? Ann Coulter is about as good as it gets. We can’t lose!”

Oh, really? There is so much wrong with these few sentences that a whole book could be written about them, but since I am no Stephen Gould (who was famous for being able to magically turn a short essay into a book length manuscript, provided the right economic incentives), a blog post will have to do. First, though, some background. Dawkins is commenting on a recent essay by evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne, who in turn was criticizing Eugenie Scott and her National Center for Science Education. While both Dawkins and Coyne profess admiration and respect for Scott and her organization (and so do I, for the record), they are upset by what they see as an “accommodationist” stance on the question of science and religion.

Scott — who is an atheist — has repeatedly said that one cannot claim that science requires atheism because atheism is a philosophical position, not a scientific one. She leverages the standard distinction between philosophical and methodological naturalism: if you are a scientist you have to be a methodological naturalist (i.e., assume for operative purposes that nature and natural laws are all that there is); but this doesn’t commit you to the stronger position of philosophical naturalism (i.e., to the claim that there really isn’t anything outside of nature and its laws). Years ago, when I first met Genie Scott, I had a Dawkins-like problem with this. I saw the distinction as sophistic hair splitting, and told her so (she was my guest for one of the annual Darwin Day events at the University of Tennessee). Then I started taking philosophy courses, understood what she was saying, and found it irrefutable. I sent her an email apologizing for my earlier obtusity.

That said, both Genie and I do recognize that science is one of the strongest arguments for philosophical naturalism, and I suspect that in her case, as in mine, a pretty big reason for why we are atheists is because of our understanding of science. Still, the philosophical/methodological distinction is both philosophically valid and pragmatically useful, since it doesn’t serve the purposes of either science or education to fuel an antagonism between a small minority of atheistic scientists and 90% of the world's population (those taxpayers, on whose good will the existence of science and the stipends of most of said scientists depend).

Jerry Coyne, however (with whom I often disagree, especially on scientific matters), does have a point that Scott and the NCSE should address: if the National Center for Science Education claims neutrality with respect to the relationship between science and religion, then why — as Coyne observes — do they list on their web site (under “recommended books”) a plethora of obviously biased books on the subject? Why does the NCSE feel ok to endorse the vacuous writings (as it pertains to the alleged compatibility between science and religion) by pro-religion scientists like Francis Collins, Ken Miller, and Simon Conway Morris, to name a few? Either these books should be ignored, or the NCSE should also recommend the (equally questionable) works of Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and so on. Either science can neither prove or disprove gods, or it can, the philosophical/methodological distinction cuts both ways. Genie, what’s up?

Now back to Dawkins. As we have seen, he claims that we would be better off being on the offensive against religionists, because we’ve got the evidence. Oh yes, and because Christopher Hitchens is a better rhetorician than Ann Coulter (though he doesn’t look half as good, unfortunately). The latter is certainly true, but to pick on Coulter is to stack the deck much too obviously on one’s side. The real problem is that, pace Dawkins, evidence has nothing to do with it, because this isn’t a scientific debate. Look, even the most outrageous version of young earth creationism cannot be scientifically falsified. Wanna try? Consider the following: if there is any obvious evidence of the fact that evolution has occurred, it ought to be the impressive and worldwide consistent fossil record. Moreover, using the geological column as a way to date events during the history of the earth predates Darwin (i.e., it was invented by creationists), and we keep discovering new intermediate fossils further documenting evolution every year.

But a staunch creationist will argue (I know this from personal experience) that god simply orchestrated the whole appearance of fossils and intermediate forms to test our faith. As stunning and nonsensical as this “theory” may be, it makes the creationist completely and utterly impervious to evidence: the more evidence you bring up, the more he feels validated in his faith, because faith is belief regardless or despite the evidence. Now Dawkins will say that these people are irrational ignoramuses, and they certainly are. But that misses the point entirely: the lowly creationist has just given the mighty evolutionist a humbling (if unconscious) lesson in philosophy by showing that evidence simply does not enter the debate. If evidence is out, then we are left with sheer rhetorical force. But there too, atheists are easily outmatched: Coulter notwithstanding, there are armies of professionally trained preachers out there who will trump Hitchens — in the eyes of their constituencies at least — even when the latter is perfectly sober. And the important keyword here is “constituency,” since these are the very same people that turn around and elect a creationist board of education, causing endless headaches to Scott and collaborators, headaches that are not in the least helped by Dawkins-style posturing.

And really, look at Dawkins’ prescription here. According to him we should be even more “contemptuous” than the religious fanatics are; we should “really hurt” with our “sharp barbs”; we “can’t lose” because truth is clearly on our side. One almost gets the feeling that if Dawkins had the resources of the Inquisition at his disposal he might just use them in the name of scientific Truth (a philosophical oxymoron, by the way). Thanks for the public relations disaster, Dick!

What are we to do, then? First, learning some good philosophy wouldn’t hurt the likes of Dawkins a bit. That way they would finally appreciate that Genie’s position is not just a matter of pragmatism, and it has nothing to do with intellectual cowardice. Second, and more importantly, we really need to turn to psychology and sociology, the sciences that tell us how and when people change their minds. If we want a cultural change, we need to understand how cultures change. And by the way, let us remember that scientists are most certainly not immune to the same problem of walking around with a mind a bit less open than one would hope. Dawkins may like to think that science is about free inquiry that inevitably leads to people accepting new discoveries and renouncing old ideas based on the weight of evidence and rationality. If so, he hasn’t practiced science in a while (indeed, he hasn’t). As physicist Max Plank aptly said: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” Analogously with creationism: changing minds is a painstaking, largely unrewarding, capillary job, which the National Center for Science Education does superbly. Dawkins & co. should simply get out of the way and let them do their work.

[Note: I became aware of this latest much ado about nothing debate through a fairly well balanced post by Paul Fidalgo at the DC Secularism Examiner, where you will find additional quotations from the various parties involved.]

101 comments:

  1. Massimo,

    Can you please provide the link to the article on Dawkin's site you are taking the quote from.

    Secondly, judging from that quote alone I think you make a good point. While I strongly feel that there is a very important role to play for Dawkins and Hitchens, I also believe there are limitations to what can be achieved with that method. It is but one tool in the arsenal of tools we need in order to be successful in the marketplace of ideas. Good entry, I enjoyed reading it!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Unrelated to your entry, but nevertheless, would you consider writing a review entry of the Kindle. I am pondering if I ought to buy it or not, the price tag being the main concern, and I don't know about other readers, but I would be interested in knowing what your experience has been so far.

    ReplyDelete
  3. skepfeeds,

    I have just added to my post the direct links to both Coyne's article and Dawkins' comment.

    As for the Kindle, I might write a full post on it, but I simply love it. It has dramatically increased the time I spend reading, because of its portability. Sure, there are drawbacks and limitations, just like with every technology, but I think it's well worth the price, and it will get better and better...

    ReplyDelete
  4. You honor me with your hat-tipping, sir. Many thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "But a staunch creationist will argue (I know this from personal experience) that god simply orchestrated the whole appearance of fossils and intermediate forms to test our faith."

    Not necessarily true. Some things might test our faith, but if God truly is "GOD" what need does He have for tricks? I mean, really.


    "Moreover, using the geological column as a way to date events during the history of the earth predates Darwin (i.e., it was invented by creationists), and we keep discovering new intermediate fossils further documenting evolution every year."

    Genetically you and other evolutionists often are not positive where a given fossil fits, but its dead, gone and extinct so we think it looks like a 'this and that' so it becomes and intermediate between and 'this and a that'.

    That is flaky and mucky evidence for the geologic column if you ask me. Genetically and evolutionary speaking, can you think of one good reason that any one one of those forms should not rise up again and evolve back into existence? Clearly the varied gene pools are getting exhausted instead of getting better or "improved" and extinction is a one way ticket to being extinct forever. In other words, true diversity is in the past, not AT ALL in the future.

    Devolution defined.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I would guess that the reasoning behind the NCSE choice of literature is strategic, i.e. there are vanishingly few atheists who need to be convinced of the theory of evolution, while there are many religious people who do.

    For full disclosure, I should note that I'm a Christian who accepts the theory of evolution and greatly appreciate Ken Miller's writing (Collins, not as much).

    ReplyDelete
  7. Masimo, you are, as always, at your best when commenting on the interesection of science, philosophy and religion. Great post and I admire your clear thinking.

    And Cal, I'm sorry but my universal translator was turned off. I have no idea what you were trying to say...

    Dan

    ReplyDelete
  8. Superb post, as always. (And now I need to go buy a Kindle, too, methinks...)

    ReplyDelete
  9. Massimo

    I agree with the point you make in this post, but have two criticisms.

    First, Dawkins specifically said his approach abandons the irremediably religious, precisely because their minds cannot be changed by evidence, so the hypothetical staunch creationist example you are using is the sort of person he admits this will not work on. So don't you actually agree there?

    Second, your whole paragraph about Dawkins and the Inquisition needlessly goes too far. Dawkins wants to attack with rhetoric and the evidence, with no regard to offending the religiously sensitive. There is no mention of violence other than the obviously metaphorical "sharp barbs" and "hit them where it really hurts." He even goes out of his way to discourage "foul-mouthed rants" to keep things civil. Now I know you only said "one almost gets the feeling...he might use" Inquisition-like resources, but still. There is much to criticize in what he did say, and how he said it, but don't go making things up about him.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Good post. However, can it really be true that the devoutly faithful can totally disregard real evidence (one way or the other)? Admittedly, they may poopoo it; it is just as likely they will come up with some counter-"evidence". Appeals to evidence are a huge part of religious apologism - anthropic principle, argument from design, new earth geology. The devoutly faithful, as much as most, don't want to look stupid or obtuse, even if they are. Indeed, as you admit, your understanding of science is an important reason for your atheism. Strong evidence changes minds, although not immediately.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Massimo,

    I must agree, Richard is pushing against a big elephant if he thinks we can bulldoze the believers with the force of reason and the "irrefutable" evidence of evolutions fact.

    The philosophical mountain is the last to topple. As a former "believer" with a deep education in science (electrical engineering and physics) I find it amazing that it took me until my 28th year of life to finally reject the nagging whispers of faith that my rational mind knew to be *absurd* at least 16 years before.

    If it took me, a person trained in science from the early teen years that long to be enlightened. I shudder to think how long it could be for those less trained and more willing to carry the standard of their faith to their own demise (suicide bombers anyone?)

    The answer is most definitely not turning up the screws as it were, to the *whole* of the religious community. Instead it is to be patient and diligent, to correct errors in beliefs of those that actually listen and wait...for the true vociferous "believers" to die off, or in the case of those that find it incompatible to live side by side with "heathens" such as ourselves and are willing to kill and convert to get their way, we must expedite their demise or suffer our own at their hands. It is a sad fact of the veracity of your analysis.

    Regards,

    David

    ReplyDelete
  12. Alright Ill be the one who disagrees with you. In the perfect world, you are probably correct in your views. But in the world I currently live in, parents are pulling their children out of schools to prevent them from being exposed to new ideas, "christian colleges" and "schools" are pushing to get legislation that requires "real" universities to acknowledge their "science." Christian fundamentalists have been pushing strongly to rewrite history in their favor and gain a privileged spot in our society. Oh and by and large their is a movement by these say groups against intelligence, elitism, etc.

    So I understand the philosophical argument you are making and can see how it flies well in the faculty club. However, once you leave those protected confines, these issues are not a dealt with from a philosophical context. We need Dawkins, Hitchens, et al to fight the good fight. Will they win over the fundamentalists? No, nothing will. Will they alienate some moderates? Almost certainly, but they will also provide some standing to those of us who may not have the resources or energy to provide our own. Remember being an atheist is a vile thing in the US.

    Actually iirc, it was the other side who started framing science=atheism as a bad thing. I dont believe there are many atheistic scientists sending death threats and being joyous when a church burns down. The other side is knee deep in it. A little vitriol from our side isnt a bad thing.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Massimo,
    Good post, I very much agree. Despite the hardcore religious zombies, there are more liberal religious believers who are willing to accept science and reason in most things. Why alienate by putting to much emphasis and ridicule on the God question?


    Dan,
    Don't go to too much effort, Cal doesn't have the foggiest idea either.

    "Genetically you and other evolutionists often are not positive where a given fossil fits, but its dead, gone and extinct so we think it looks like a 'this and that' so it becomes and intermediate between and 'this and a that'."

    Cal,
    No, that is not how it works. Take for example the field of paleo-anthropology, and the study of the primate and hominid fossil record. The investigation of the evolutionary relationships of fossil specimens is often based on sophisticated biometric statistics. It is not just a subjective exercise in claiming that "this looks like that, so it is an intermediate between this and that".

    I understand you have had little opportunity to attend scientific conferences or thumb through peer reviewed journals to see what I mean. But please be humble enough to acknowledge you really don't know what you are talking about.

    ReplyDelete
  14. @Caliana:

    1. Evolution is not about species getting "better" with time. They just become more complex, and that majority of us take as getting better (mostly to see ourselves and the human race in glowing light in comparison with the "lower animals". Why? It feels good, right?). Evolution as about adapting to the given environment. For instance, in Africa, those suffering from sickle cell anemia have had an evolutionary advantage over "normal" people as that protected them against malaria. Would you like to say that sickle cell anemia patients are "better" than normal people? A "lowly" bacterium can survive in got springs, a camel cannot. Is that bacterium "better" than camel?

    2. It is totally false that characteristics of extinct species are lost forever. It's been found that as bacteria become multidrug resistant, some strains become susceptible to the simplest of antibiotics to which they'd become resistant in the past. So after multiple generations, a phenotypic feature may indeed resurface provided it affords a survival and/or reproductive advantage over members of the same species.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Bryan,

    well, I was hoping that my comment on Dawkins becoming Torquemada was understood for how it was meant, in jest :)

    My point about the close minded fundamentalists was to show that Dawkins' idea that science can refute the supernatural is philosophically naive: the fundies here are making a perfectly solid logical point (despite themselves), just like radical skeptics in philosophy do about the existence of reality. The fact that they (the fundies, not the philosophers) are cuckoo doesn't deny the conclusion that no amount of empirical evidence can, in fact, defeat their position.

    Lorax,

    far from being an argument that "flies well in the faculty club," my point (and Gene Scott's) comes across nicely with religious moderates, whom we need to stay on our side. Believe me, after having lived for nine years below the Mason-Dixon I know about that mindset and how bad it is for this country and humanity at large. But Dawkins and co. are making things worse, not better, by continuing to strike with sharp barbs at everything that moves outside of their narrow ideological field.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "If they’ve [the creationists] been told that there’s an incompatibility between religion and evolution, well, let’s convince them of evolution, and we’re there! Because after all, we’ve got the evidence."

    Where'd this bit come from? I can't see it on the linked page at all.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Quoted in the article by Fidalgo, you may need to check his links.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "As we have seen, he claims that we *would* be better off being on the offensive against religionists, because we’ve got the evidence." [my emphasis]

    I don't think you've fairly represented Dawkins' position here. You make it sound like he's published a manifesto or something. I read his comment after your post, and I didn't see it as nearly as inflammatory as your quoting led me to expect. Notably, he says "might" in places where you've said "would". That changes the sense quite a bit.

    Most importantly, he's suggesting that trying to persuade the deeply religious might be a waste of time. And therefore, tactics which are designed to not annoy this people are also a waste of time, as they aren't the target market. He's targeting (or suggesting we target) the fence-sitters, not the firmly religious. You make the point that the preacher could out-rhetoric many an atheist, at least in the eyes of the preacher's congregation. That may be true, but that's why Dawkins explicitly removes most of them as potential targets. You're arguing against a position he doesn't hold.

    Further, he finishes like this:

    "Maybe I’m wrong. I'm only thinking aloud, among friends. Is it gloves off time? Or should we continue to go along with the appeasers and be all nice and cuddly, like Eugenie and the National Academy?"

    First, that's again much more reserved than your reporting made it sound.

    But secondly, I for one think he probably *is* wrong.

    I think the NCSE does go too far in arguing there's no conflict between religion and evolution. But for atheists to take a more direct, public, sarcastic approach will only alienate the aforementioned fence-sitters, not bring them into the fold. (In general; there's always going to be exceptions.)

    ReplyDelete
  19. Owen,

    "He's targeting (or suggesting we target) the fence-sitters, not the firmly religious."

    But the fence sitters are precisely the people who will be turned off by Dawkins' rhetoric, as you yourself agree by the end of your comment.

    "Maybe I’m wrong. I'm only thinking aloud, among friends. Is it gloves off time?"

    That is pretty disingenuous on Dawkins' part, don't you think? Thinking about loud among friends, when he posts his comments on a high-traffic internet site? Come on.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "Thinking aloud among friends, when he posts his comments on a high-traffic internet site? Come on."

    No, I don't have a problem with that. He's talking about a possible change of strategy, not publishing one, and doing it in the comments section. Works for me.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "But the fence sitters are precisely the people who will be turned off by Dawkins' rhetoric, as you yourself agree by the end of your comment."

    Yes, but this wasn't your argument, as far as I could tell -- you were claiming the deeply religious won't be persuaded, not that he won't get through to the fence-sitters. You may have meant that, but I don't think that's what you actually said. Which is why I claim you misrepresented Dawkins (not intentionally, I hasten to add). I agree that he's wrong, but not for the reasons you outline in your original post.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "Quoted in the article by Fidalgo, you may need to check his links."

    Found it, thanks.

    But this turns out to be an example of your quoting being misleading (to me, at least). In this case it might be more-or-less neutral, but your quote gives the impression Dawkins made the "we've got the evidence" and the "I suspect most of our regular readers" statements in the same comment, and they should be read together. But they come from totally different sources!

    I like reading your (excellent) blog. I also like reading Dawkins. Taken in isolation, I generally agree with much that both of you say. But when it comes to you commenting on Dawkins, I get a weird disconnect. It's like you're reading something I'm not, and I'm at a loss to explain it. You and he don't sound so different to me, certainly not enough to justify your apparent disdain.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I agree with Massimo on this, completely.

    I would like to add a couple points however.

    When Massimo says; "Dawkins' idea that science can refute the supernatural is philosophically naive." I think he may be missing out on what's been said by others that is also part of this game (which is really ways to refute noma - which in this case it doesn't matter if you support noma or you don't - that is not the argument here).

    Here is what Jerry Coyne said in his recent, Seeing and Believing, review posted on The New Republic: "Despite Gould's claims to the contrary, supernatural phenomena are not completely beyond the realm of science." Here, in an argument against Gould, he has changed the nature of science in a very blatant way. To support this idea, Jerry offers that scientist can be convinced of the existence of God or supernaturalism by some strange phenomena (this mirrors Dawkins' argument). So, we have seen recently that science can now refute supernaturalism because supernatural phenomena are not beyond the realm of science - instead of course science being strictly the study of natural phenomena.

    This leads to my second point. This type of argumentation is roundly accepted lately (just read comments on Richard's site on a regular basis). The entry by Richard on his site which is the focus of this blog post is actually only an extension of tactics already in place (his was only a call for wider acceptance - and the reason is because it is seen as working - hence Richards remarks of making more progress in two years than decades of niceness going as far back as the AAI 07 conference).

    Which finally leads to my personal feelings on much of this. I like the scientific controversies, they're healthy (though I think Dawkins has exaggerated his arguments against 'group selection' to the point of being ridiculous - see his 'group delusion' post), however with the acceptance of such things as science refuting supernaturalism and supernatural phenomena being within the scientific realm, we are threatened with a form of a real secular dogma (which I do fully understand the negative reaction that may elicit - though I it find no less true).

    I think the formation of this dogma (or possibly quasi-religious attitude) is what leads to the advancement of more ways to devise generalized attacks on the 'out-group' (increased ridicule, naked contempt, sharper sarcasm etc.) I don't think it can be helped to recognize the attitude is coming from those that profess to being anti-religious, which is not to say this provides evidence their argument is wrong, only that the advocated approaches have a clear goal in mind (again someone does not need to be pro or anti religious to understand this argument - it also does not ignore the increased chance of 'losing ones religion' coinciding with increased knowledge of evolutionary biology - which that actually puts in greater context the long term problems with certain approaches).

    I want to stress that my thoughts on the matter are not dumping all of Coyne's or Richard's ideas in the dust bin (in fact I agree we the need to expose the possible mechanism for which religious belief is given justification through the authority of science - which I think is the real problem with what was brought out at NCSE). I do however maintain through observation of writings by Harris, Richard and certain ideas by Coyne (as quoted above and elsewhere)as well as others, and the adherence to what amount to false arguments about the nature of science (which the religious have done for a long time)that what I am witnessing is a real threat of a movement that proudly displays a form of indefensible dogma.

    I have a feeling Massimo wouldn't go as far as I have :)

    ReplyDelete
  24. Owen,

    "you were claiming the deeply religious won't be persuaded, not that he won't get through to the fence-sitters."

    No, I was making two arguments in the post:

    1) It is a philosophical mistake to believe that science can refute supernaturalism (see also the recent comment by luke just above). This is because supernaturalism enjoys the same kind of impregnability to argument that radical skepticism about reality has. The fundy saying that the fossil record is god's way of testing our faith was meant as an example of this.

    2) I think Dawkins' tactics and tone alienate those that are in fact reachable, that is the moderate religionists and the fence sitters. The fundy example above does *not* apply here.

    I hope this clarifies my thinking a bit, sorry if I have been that obscure.

    ReplyDelete
  25. luke,

    thanks for the comment. The real danger of the Coyne/Dawkins position about "expanding" the realm of science (besides the fact that it is philosophically wrongheaded) is that this is exactly what Bill Dembski and other proponents of ID have been saying all along. Except, of course, that for them an "expanded" science is compatible with, or even provides evidence for, an intelligent designer... Do we really want to play that game?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Ketan "It's been found that as bacteria become multidrug resistant, some strains become susceptible to the simplest of antibiotics to which they'd become resistant in the past"

    But the bacteria are still bacteria they merely are adjusted to live in the only environment that they can. That is not saying much really.

    I use a non-strain specific natural medication (Sambucol) that kills both the Avian flu and other flus. I'd be surprised if it didn't kill the swine flu as well. The way drugs are formed for these illnesses actually helps and causes them to propagate. It is best to understand these things before we try to conquer them. Antibiotics then are not necessarily the best predator against viruses and bacteria.

    The Medication we use was supposedly recalled a few years ago with the claim that there might have been an ingredient that was not listed in it. Interestingly, that charge came up about the same time that it was discovered to be effective against the Avian flu. Therefore another company had to take it over and re market it for some reason. Now I think the reformulation is called Sambucus. Yuck. Liked the old name better and I hope that it is the same formula.

    It works like Tamiflu but better.

    HBI's Sambucol a new way to fight the flu
    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3007/is_11_29/ai_n29356142/

    ReplyDelete
  27. Professor Pigliuuci,

    Well, I think the ID proponents have used their underlying dogma as a justification to advance their idea that science can overlap with the supernaturalism (religion), thus science provides evidence for God (of course as we know they are only searching out different ways to appear scientific and to remove words such as 'creation' and 'god' from their text).

    This is actually not being argued against by Dawkins and Coyne in some of their statements (such as the one I offered by Coyne). In fact, in Coyne's argument that "supernatural phenomena are not completely beyond the realm of science", his defense is that the strange phenomena I mentioned that convinces a scientist of God is evidence for God/supernaturalism.

    The arguments from Coyne and Richard, as you point out, actually mirror those of the the ID proponents (and other religious believers who are using science as justifications for their personal belief systems - such as the popular idea of quantum mechanics as evidence of a "higher reality": read: god - see the recent recipient of the Templeton prize).

    I am simply going the next step to point to what I find the obvious conclusion, that what lies underneath is a form of encroaching secular dogma. Both sides then seem to support one another only in that they view science as capable of dealing in the supernatural and that noma (which proposes that supernaturalism can not be part of science and that science does not provide the oughts of values and meaning - though can provide evidence,insight and direction - thus scientific discovery help provide valid argument against religious views of morality and meaning when used)is false and wrong.

    Which if remember correctly from your Skeptic article following Gould's first draft of noma in Natural History, you saw his proposal as naive and wrong. Which is fine with me, although I think the basic foundation of noma is absolutely philosophically justifiable and a good dose of it is needed in the writings of Richard and Coyne (as well as Harris and Dennett). Unfortunately, someone like Richard has taken a hard stand against Gould's idea (I almost think there's something personal about it going back to the 'science wars' and Gould's incredibly sharp attacks). I remember Richard's first reaction in Free Inquiry magazine, he starts out calling it cowardice then meanders off into a discussion about morality (thereby missing Gould's 'cold bath' and the liberation it provides by being reality based).

    I apologize for getting side tracked. However, I do think these things are related, after all Richard's and Coyne's ideas about science being able to refute supernaturalism and that supernaturalism is not beyond the realm of science actually stem from arguments they have against noma!

    However, I do think you are correct and I feel there is no need to play that game. As Richard and most others would agree, we do have scientific truth's on our side (even as tentative as they may be).

    ReplyDelete
  28. Very briefly, I would like to add to my previous comment.

    It pertains to the idea that Gould's noma idea gives religion preeminence in areas of values and meaning (and morality).

    This is false in context, what noma is saying is that religion is relegated to these areas because science does not deal in dogmatic dictates of oughts of values, meaning and morality (we mainly provide our own - or as a group - which can be informed by science). Noma does not provide religion with the right answers to morality (or unquestionable authority), even Gould made that clear in his first draft by outlining disagreements on moral grounds.

    As a secular agnostic with an amazing intellect which extended to historical interest and religion, he Gould recognize ideas of morality and meaning which found there way through religion. However, he fully recognized that science can and does (as well as our changing understanding of ourselves) refute religious claims to absolute truths. Science is progressive in this way (and in other ways), and our secular views of morality and meaning are also applicable to revision and are progressive in this way also (i.e. they are not moral absolutes).

    There can be 'oughts' in the sense we have common understanding of what is sought and mainly needed for contentment, but here again, that is not an argument against noma (nor are these oughts absolutes), only a recognition of some common understandings of moral behavior (thus as Harris has tried to do with Islamic dictates of such things as honor killings - they are not arguments against the application of noma or say that it provides comfort to what can be viewed as immoral behavior - the debate is one of a secular/humanistic conscience (but not at the exclusion of the religious who also find such behavior abhorrent), in opposition to dangerous religious absolutism/dogma.)

    ReplyDelete
  29. luke,

    I tend to agree with your analysis, but I don't like NOMA either, for reasons I explained elsewhere.

    The problem with all this is that we need a nuanced position, not a simple black and white stand (like both Gould's and Dawkins', though for different reasons).

    The true incompatibility between science and religion is one of attitude, as it was pointed out by Richard Feynman:

    “I do believe that there is a conflict between science and religion ... the spirit or attitude toward the facts is different in religion from what it is in science. The uncertainty that is necessary in order to appreciate nature is not easily correlated with the feeling of certainty in faith.”
 (The Meaning of It All)

    ReplyDelete
  30. “I do believe that there is a conflict between science and religion ... the spirit or attitude toward the facts is different in religion from what it is in science. The uncertainty that is necessary in order to appreciate nature is not easily correlated with the feeling of certainty in faith.”
 (The Meaning of It All)

    Ravi Zacharias says on the other hand that "faith is life with out scheming". The REAL problem of faithlessness then is that some intend to get 'their way', everyone else be dammed. If that's what a lack of certainty really does for some people, keeps their options open, that's not too admirable really.

    I think one individual CAN embrace certainty when it makes sense and uncertainty when at a different time and instance that also makes sense. Silly to throw one of the options out because you just can't see it fitting into your world view. THAT IS irrational.

    ReplyDelete
  31. "I hope this clarifies my thinking a bit, sorry if I have been that obscure."

    Yes, it does thanks. I should say, I've seen so many people utterly misrepresent and misquote Dakwins that I now probably see things through a "they're wrong about Dawkins" filter. Any criticism is assumed to be wrong, unless proven otherwise. In my defence, I am at least aware of it :-), and in most (but not all) cases, I've found those criticisms really are wrong (in my ever-so-humble opinion).

    So, it's quite possible you've not been obscure, just subject to my pro-Dawkins filter.

    That said...

    I have two issues with your point number 1.

    The first is that there is a difference between refuting supernaturalism, and testing it. Claims made by Dawkins, and others, are that supernatural claims can be studied to the extent that they are claims about the natural world. You think you're clairvoyant/telepathic/healing-through-prayer/made-of-tin? How do you know? Well, let's test it. And so on. The more often the claim fails to be backed up in fair testing, the more you can safely assume there's nothing to the claim. If it stands up to scrutiny, but in some way violates other known science (Darwin's "man [...] made of brass or iron and no way connected with any other organism which had ever lived", for example) then you'd be some way to "proving" a supernatural occurrence.

    So when Coyne says: "Despite Gould's claims to the contrary, supernatural phenomena are not completely beyond the realm of science", he's being entirely reasonable: if you make an empirical claim, it can be tested. If your claim isn't empirical, it's not testable, and yes, is outside the realm of science (also, some claims might be outside science today, but come inside once new techniques for testing become available).

    If you just read the headlines, you could be forgiven for thinking these scientists are making stronger claims about science than I've written above. But if you ever get to read the main text, you'll find they invariably give some version of the qualified explanation here. I don't think this is particularly contentious, and it's not "changing the nature of science". (I've read that New Republic article, and I think it backs me up.)

    The second issue is that I believe your point 1 to be very much the basis for Dawkins' potential new stance! Those fundies can't be persuaded by reason, but perhaps we can make others see how ridiculous those positions are by sarcasm more effectively than by reason. By engaging with their arguments directly we given them credibility they don't deserve.

    As agreed elsewhere, I don't think Dawkins is right about this. But I don't believe it's as open and shut as you imply (as anecodotally-evidenced by the numbers claiming TGD was a significant factor in their loss of faith).

    To sum up: Soundbites, headlines and off-the-cuff remarks could lead one to think that Dawkins is philosophically naturalistic. But I don't think that's supported by his detailed explanations in writing or interviews.

    PS Thanks for responding so well. It's refreshing to have reasoned, fairly amicable disagreement on the internet!

    ReplyDelete
  32. Professor Pigliuuci,

    I suppose I do appear to be defending noma at the possible expense of other ideas. I assure you this is not the case. I do think the debate however provides a very useful tool to understanding recent claims being made by scientist with regards to God/supernaturalism and further to the advancement of certain approaches - as I attempted to outline in my posts (as you highlighted in your blog post).

    In the spirit of scientific rationalism, I am all for the advancement of approaching this issue with a skeptically tuned open mind.

    There is certainly much to be said about attitude. I think our continued understanding regarding facts about how the human mind can embrace contradiction and the power of belief systems in general may help to refine our methods and provide guidance to better remedies (this also includes theories about religion and the nature of our inherent ability to be irrational). As I see it (keeping in mind your arguments as well as I can), the "black and white" approaches may offer short term comfort, satisfaction and a certain level of adherence, but may fail us in the long run (and in the case of the discussion regarding supernaturalism, may in fact hold errors).

    I remember not long ago (before much of the recent brouhaha), people such as Ben Radford at Skeptical Inquirer were talking about working with one time pseudo-science hucksters come skeptic's about ways to advance critical thinking and taking into account their criticisms of the movement. Many of these ideas vanished right around the time of The God Delusion. The recent Skeptic activism guide, What Do I Do Next?, seems decent enough. However, I think what is being missed by the skeptic's these days is they are being vastly overshadowed by the advocacy of such things as Richard's ideas (as in those in your blog post). I personally think many secularist, skeptics and certain scientist sat by while some remarkable claims were being made in the renewed fight against religion (ignored in the interest of seeing the movement gain adherence and recognition).

    Anyway, thanks for your blog! I also appreciate the feedback you've given me, I'm very honored (even when you disagree).

    ReplyDelete
  33. @Caliana:

    With regard to, "But the bacteria are still bacteria..." (since I'm posting from cell phone, so can't quote your exact statement, but hope you get the one I'm referring to):

    And that precisely is evolution, i.e., organisms acquiring new traits. When sufficiently new traits are acquired (I'm not sure, but arbitrarily, 90% of genome; this is something I'd like Massimo to clarify about), then that group of organisms is termed a new species. You've to understand that evolution is not only about dinosaurs, it's also about bacteria and viruses. Talking of organisms reverting back to some other species (retrograde evolution), it has happened in parts--the existence of vestigeal organs, for instance. But more important, how does the lack of documentation of "return" of an extinct species in any way discredit the concept of "survival of the fittest"? It has not happened simply because the global environment has not reverted back to its original state (lack of atmospheric oxygen, and abundance of ammonia). If for instance, suddenly most of the oxygen were to be replaced by ammonia, almost all the multicellular anaerobic organisms (amoeba to whales) would die out in a week. Humans might also not survive such a calamity.

    But some organisms (which would be anyway utilizing ammonia for energy production--bacteria, again) will thrive, others will barely survive (tolerate ammonia) and multiply, and in the process undergo genetic mutations, which would be FORTUITOUS, and the progeny of those that experience mutations enabling them to utilize ammonia will survive and multiply at faster rates than those of bacteria that don't undergo such mutations. Thus several new species would form (by way of acquiring favorable traits through random mutations). Others (especially, viruses and maybe a few bacteria) might enter dormant states (without showing any signs of life; as organisms become simpler down the evolutionary hierarchy, difference between them and nonliving objects is really blurred), and start multiplying if and when the original favorable conditions return. The precise reason why only bacteria will survive is that rate propagation of mutations is directly proportional to the rate at which an organism reproduces, and bacteria are fastest at that (upto once in 20 min), whereas humans take 9 months! So, it's only fast reproducing organisms like bacteria that are most likely to survive such a catastrophy.

    Take care.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I would like to respond to Owen, briefly.

    I am not in anyway saying that claims can not be tested, such as ESP etc., including religious claims regarding nature, such as the earth is 6,000 years old (this is not the first time I've had to make this case and it surprises me each time - it is a fairly deep misunderstanding of my position and of noma - we can even take noma out of it of course). Like I have said, science does in fact refute religious beliefs and its pretty obvious Gould knew this (should really go without saying). Noma does not say that science and religion can't be in conflict, only that there's really no need if one is willing to enforce the basics that you can't make reality into unreality, or the natural into the supernatural (but, I don't see that happening anytime soon, even amongst some scientist).

    Let me put it this way. If I claim that my ESP is supernatural and we test it and discover I do have some level of ESP, this is not evidence of the supernatural (it works the same if we find no evidence for my ESP, this is not scientific evidence against supernaturalism), it is evidence of a natural phenomena (or the failure to find naturalistic evidence). Science does not test for supernatural phenomena. It does not make sense to state that supernatural phenomena are within the realm of science (and by extension to say there is a war between supernaturalism and naturalism - it simply fails the test).

    The other part of your statement about a claim needing to be testable is correct. I'll give another example from Coyne which works to confuse the issue. "There was a time when God was a part of science. Newton thought that his research on physics helped clarify God’s celestial plan." He is correct that is what Newton thought, and of course Coyne is using a rhetorical device (as he in other cases), but the fact is the claim is false at face value, God was NEVER a part of science. Of course, Coyne again is using such an argument to refute noma, but it also fails, because the discoveries of Newton, no matter what Newton's beliefs, were always naturalistic (there was never overlap between supernaturalism/god and naturalism). This of course is not arguing that there isn't bias in science or any such thing, just clarifying the point.

    ReplyDelete
  35. What buys people into a particular philosophy, Massimo, and keeps them is the fidelity factor. Or at least what we each perceive fidelity to be.

    You are right then that Dawkins use of anger and ridicule on people (disagreeing or not) is not going to make them feel more inclined to being "owned" by Philosophical Naturalism. By most thinking people, any kind of manipulation is simply seen for what it is.

    I have never cared for Dawkins writing at all. So much so that I don't care to even critique or analyze what he has to say.

    Even if I had the slightest inclination towards naturalism, he just is too cold and unfeeling. Pretty much ( I hate to say) like a person who is dead already. There's simply nothing there to relate to.

    ReplyDelete
  36. @Caliana (re: faithlessness=excuse for having one's way through BRUTE FORCE)

    First, correct me how my interpretation in the parentheses of what you stated in your previous post is incorrect.

    And if my interpretation is correct, kindly explain how you drew such a sweeping conclusion?

    Where I live, I (the faithless) could seriously be beaten up in the streets if I speak up against one of the sacred scriptures (by the ones having faith, of course).
    Elsewhere, people (of one faith) are blowing up fellow humans (those of other faith/faithless) to pieces with the only sanction--their faith.

    Whereas here, the faithless are trying to clarify evolution in more precise terms only so that you (the one bound by your faith) could make an informed choice (between evolution and intelligent design, for instance). If you'd be honest with yourself, what sounds more like trying to "have one's way by brute force"?

    I'd be happy to have your comments on my blog-post, "A few responses to criticism of atheism". There I've dealt with distinction between morality and religion.

    TC.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Ketan: "The precise reason why only bacteria will survive is that rate propagation of mutations is directly proportional to the rate at which an organism reproduces, and bacteria are fastest at that (upto once in 20 min), whereas humans take 9 months! So, it's only fast reproducing organisms like bacteria that are most likely to survive such a catastrophe."

    Ketan, you are a nice guy, but our collective views about bacteria (and the geologic column) are wrong and it is going to cost us very dearly and already does.

    Revisions to traits and characteristics are one thing, but nobody that I know of is saying that they have evidence that bacteria can evolve into anything but what they are.

    lastly..
    Nice for you to defer to Massimo for suggestions, it is his blog after all. But he is absolutely committed and married to evolutionary studies and I am not. He cannot agree, assist or disagree with me because any conversation with me only helps me and somehow eventually hurts or discredits his causes(s).

    That's all the result of his concept of fidelity, (as I mentioned above) I guess. :)

    ReplyDelete
  38. Ketan,

    Well the BRUTE FORCE part of your interpretation might be a stretch. Scheming can READILY be done by intellectuals as well, not just "religious zealots".

    And yes, Christians can scheme too. Ideally they ought to trust their lives to God tho.

    What I was responding to was a Richard Feynman quote commented on by Massimo.


    I do not know who or what religion you are referring to when you you say "Where I live, I (the faithless) could seriously be beaten up in the streets if I speak up against one of the sacred scriptures (by the ones having faith, of course).
    Elsewhere, people (of one faith) are blowing up fellow humans (those of other faith/faithless) to pieces with the only sanction--their faith."

    What ever your reasons behind the use of these analogies is, clearly the ones doing these awful things have no faith.



    K "the faithless are trying to clarify evolution in more precise terms only so that you (the one bound by your faith) could make an informed choice (between evolution and intelligent design, for instance). If you'd be honest with yourself, what sounds more like trying to "have one's way by brute force"?

    Well, Ketan, if you're tying your first set of comments about some people being beaten for not having faith to those mentioned here who are also "faithless" it sounds like a pretty clear case for BRUTE FORCE being used instead of true Faith in the first but not second instance.

    I don't buy tho that believing people can say absolutely nothing about intellectual issues because it might be considered being too forceful and they ought to just keep their own opinions to themselves.

    Sort of depends on how one says things.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Caliana, if you could consider me a nice guy through whatever limited interaction we've had (despite being an atheist), it should not be very difficult to understand that being atheist and being a good human being are not mutually exclusive. Conversely, being a theist by default, does not entail being nice. Each word we utter and each action we execute is an exercise in morality. Usually, we have choice between moral and immoral acts. How honest (with ourselves) and introspective we're eventually decide how moral our words and acts, and eventualy, we would be.

    I referred the taxonomic criterion of speciation to Massimo, not because this is his blog, but because, I'm not a biologist, and he is!

    I've been a theist in the past, and such a firm one that I used to "converse" with God. So, I fully understand how difficult (almost painful) it is to entirely abandon such a comforting idea as an omnipotent and protective God. But then as I understood the world better (science=reasoning had a huge role in that), I was faced with the choice of being truthful with myself (abandoning the idea of existence of God) or actively and persistently deluding myself into continue to believe and clinging to my God in the process. I realized, that going by what I was convinced of to be truth was more moral than cheating myself. I'm not saying that everyone who doesn't abandon the idea of God is cheating themselves. It's alright if scientific reasoning doesn't convince you after an HONEST analysis of assertions presented to you. But, if your obligation towards your faith (fidelity) comes in way of your being honest in your analysis, then, it's you who'd be at loss by losing opportunities to know the truth.

    I've covered the issue of problems with affiliations based on circumstances of one's birth (religion, for instance) in another of my blog-posts--"Communalism". See if it provides you with a new perspective in any way.

    By the way, I've not noticed anything in Massimo's conduct to conclude that he's "not nice".

    I know I've digressed a lot from the original issue of the post, but since there was no other platform to clarify evolution, I'd to respond here. So, it's definitely nice of him to have not objected to our digression (not entertainment!).

    TC.

    ReplyDelete
  40. What I said about being beaten up for saying something against the scriptures was NOT an analogy. It's a practical possibility. I'm from India, if it helps to clarify.

    The second thing about people blowing up other people in name of their faith is a tragic fact that keeps on repeating itself day in day out in parts of Kashmir, Pakistan and Afghanistan. It's no point simply saying that they're faithless. It's afterall, the ABSOLUTE CONFIDENCE in the righteousness of their scriptures (as against showing some skepticism towards them; skepticism = uncertainty of their righteousness) that's driving them to commit those violent acts. There's nothing wrong in following some scripture or the other, but it should be only after being CONVINCED of their worthiness of following upon rational and moral scrutiny. But here it's important to draw distinction between morality and faith. Faith might help a few remain moral, but is not a prerequisite to morality.

    If I've to give you a simple example, I'd be ashamed of stealing something even if noone would notice me doing that. The simple reason for this? I dislike anyone who steals something (undeserved, obviously!) from others. So, would I like to hate myself? If I steal, the only obvious consequence is hating myself, provided I keep my honesty and objectivity intact. Same holds true for all other virtues--being truthful, helpful to those deserving, courteous, courageous, ingenious, efficient. Every instance I depart from any of above virtues would leave me with contempt for myself. There's no need for an external agent to scrutinize my behavior all the time.

    TC.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Caliana,

    It's not a case that scientists don't know of instances that bacteria have turned into something else. See endosymbiotic theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endosymbiotic_theory), for instance. Simply put, bacteria did evolve into mitochondrion (which produces energy in each of YOUR cells) and chloroplast (which synthesize glucose) in plants.

    Plus, fossils and geologic columns are not the only evidence we have of evolution. For instance, humans share 98% of DNA with gorilla, but less with a cat, even lesser with a frog, further lesser with an amoeba, and say, VERY less with an onion plant. And it won't take much effort to realize that more the similarities between two species, more DNA do they share. This also points very strongly to a gradual process like evolution (because of selection of sudden and random mutations).

    A bit of trivia might help here. Random mutations occur with greater frequency in presence of ionizing radiation. Also mutations get selected only if they afford a survival and/or reproductive advantage. So, if a species would be immune to ionizing radiation, and also quite successful in its environment (by surviving and reproducing), it (the species) won't evolve, right? And that would justify evolution, right? So, we indeed have such species--the cockroach. It's not evolved for quite some time (I thinks 300 million years! The first humans are said to have walked the Earth only 30 thousand years back.) because it has a covering of "chitin" which protects from ionizing radiation, and going by how much of an issue pest control is, it doesn't seem to have any problems reproducing! So they simply haven't evolved. In fact, it is said that they're the only multicellular organisms that could survive a nuclear explosion!

    So, if you've been made to believe that fossils and geologic columns are the only evidence we have to go with the hypothesis of Darwinian evolution, then you've been misled. Yes, I'd concede that you get to see only fossils and paleontologists on the Discovery channel and National Geographic, but that's not to mean that's all there's to evolution. Maybe those things are more appealing to the viewers than the dry facts I mentioned here.

    TC.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Dawkins without kid gloves, is probably too harsh.

    Dawkins isn't for creationists anyway.
    He and Hitchens are for atheists to come out of the closets, that it's okay to be openly rational, naturalist, atheist even. Creationists don't read these guys, and certainly don't listen to them.

    If Dawkins believes that his actions effect radical Christions and Jews by logic, he is naive.

    If he thinks his actions and words effect scientists, natuaralists, atheists, etc. He's right.

    The only inroad amongst the religious would be with hidden agnostics and atheists who can't quite acknowledge or speak out about their true beliefs.

    I don't know that a harsh stance helps bring those people out. Maybe firm, but hostile, unlikely.

    berniemkmd

    ReplyDelete
  43. I find the current discussion interesting. It's not a bad thing that these different viewpoints are expressed as long as it doesn't lead to irreconcilable divisions.

    However, I would like to raise the issue of how things are being defined philosophically – which I think is relevant to the NCSE political work. Specifically to the way words like “naturalism”, materialism” and “supernatural” are used. I think these words are never defined, they obviously mean different things to different people, and their use often end up framing to discussion – to the disadvantage of science. In fact, I think it is a reason why theists will try to raise issues of “philosophy” as a counter to scientific evidence.

    I worked for 40 years in scientific research and never did these terms come up in our work. We never examined our hypothesis to see if they were “naturalist” or “supernatural” (as is implied why the Wedge propaganda). We never consulted a scientific “rule book” to see whether our approach was permitted by natural/supernatural criteria. Yet, the terms get used in political situations when scientists are defending science (eg the Dover trial) and they are used almost to define the scientific method. As in “science cannot consider supernatural explanations, science is limited to the natural world, science says nothing about the supernatural world.”

    To me that buys in to the ID, wedge strategy, frame. Because they then go on to say that science must open itself up to the supernatural. On the other hand I often feel the use of the argument by scientists is disingenuous, opportunist and patronising. It’s like saying “OK you can have the supernatural world and explanations, we will have the natural one. You can believe and say what you like about your world. Now go away and play quietly with your supernatural myths and leave us to get on with adult work.” And, of course, implicit in this as the underlying understanding that if you children do come up with something interesting we will take it back and work on it using adult methods.

    As for understanding of words – “supernatural” might just mean beyond the natural in the sense of beyond knowledge (which of course must be current knowledge). In this sense scientific research is all about studying the supernatural. But it is supernatural maybe in appearing mystical and extraordinary (like relativity, quantum chromodynamics or continental drift). The important thing is that it is still based on evidence and tested or validated against reality. It would be dogmatic to deny considerations of supernatural to science.

    I know, theists will define supernatural differently – but inevitably their definitions will contain assumptions about, and restrictions on, reality which they are not justified in making. Whereas a scientific approach should never limit itself with such terms. It should not make assumptions about reality beforehand.

    Sorry for the length of my comment but I would be interested in a more detailed discussion of how philosophy should interact with science – and whether you agree on the danger of using these sort of words in an undefined manner. I feel that the loose concession to philosophy which is commonly made is just allowing the Wedge people to frame the discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  44. openparachute,

    I would like to comment on your post, especially considering I have tossed these words around a bit myself today, mainly in response to others, such as Coyne and Dawkins and then finally with regards to something Owen had written.

    I would like to start by saying there are points you've made which I certainly agree with, but in the interest of brevity, I will get to the point.

    openparachute Wrote:

    - "As for understanding of words – “supernatural” might just mean beyond the natural in the sense of beyond knowledge (which of course must be current knowledge). In this sense scientific research is all about studying the supernatural. But it is supernatural maybe in appearing mystical and extraordinary (like relativity, quantum chromodynamics or continental drift). The important thing is that it is still based on evidence and tested or validated against reality. It would be dogmatic to deny considerations of supernatural to science." -

    You are right about one thing, theists will find disagreement with your outline of supernatural - and so will virtually everyone else. You have basically decided on a new definition of "supernatural" by saying "just might mean." You are saying what is not known now can be considered supernatural and then confining the mysteries of nature to being supernatural. I think you were better off with how you started your post, that to science there is no such thing as the "supernatural", and in fact getting into the debates and saying things such as "supernatural phenomena are not completely beyond the realm of science" actually does play the same game as the ID proponents.

    I agree that the definition of supernatural used by theist (and which is generally understood) are not justified with regards to reality. In fact, that's the point, supernaturalism is not reality, there is only the natural and the mysteries of nature. There is no loose concessions in my view because the claims that the ID proponents make need to be tested against reality, the failure of ideas such as irreducible complexity are derived from the fact the conclusion is not scientific, they ceased doing science by claiming there could be no further natural explanations (they're just not science).

    There are further problems also. Of course there are many beliefs by the religious (and others) that are refuted by what we understand from science (though not directly testable), the fact that people can believe them and still understand the scientific principles is indeed fascinating and something I certainly want to understand better (I think we are as I mentioned in a previous post). It is also true that there are claims which push things (read: God/supernatural) outside of nature, where they are said to be "unknowable" in some sense, yet given attributes and placed outside of space and time (nature). These claims are usually part of a structure which allows the thing (God) to interact within nature. However, it is in no way dogmatic to say that science is restricted to the natural claims, to say that science is the study of natural phenomena, and in fact does not take into consideration the supernatural (unless by your specified definition). There is no reason to assume that the natural claims that are able to be tested in anyway reveal a "reality" outside of nature.

    The danger of following the line of thinking where "supernatural phenomena are not beyond the realm of science" (beyond playing a fairly senseless game), is that who decides where the line is drawn where science has discovered the supernatural (defined the standard way). From an example I used previously - if we tested my ESP enough and found it possibly real (verified), shall we chuck aside the possibility of a naturalistic explanation and say it's supernatural (or god is involved if that was my claim). Of course we can go further and say if a God is discovered it is then natural or defines nature (but here again, it is either going to be defined in naturalistic terms or be within nature - there is no sense trying to get science to find a God outside of nature - you would not be doing science).

    I understand the positions of those that want to say supernaturalism is not off limits to science (or that science can disprove supernaturalism). However, we do come down to belief systems in a very real way. In fact, we don't seem to have anything outside of belief for things that are thought to be supernatural (such as God). And so we are left with knowing there is a power to belief and the freedom to believe, yet we need to work toward greater acceptance of scientific rationality on a much higher level which has shown itself to be a powerful vaccine against some of the worse that irrationality brings, but unfortunately it hasn't been the cure many have hoped for. So, IMO, we keep trying to understand the human condition and proceed with scientific discovery while keeping our eyes wide for better remedies to dangerous dogmas.

    ReplyDelete
  45. I want to throw a line in here that is paraphrasing something said to me by a Christian friend (quite the apologetic):

    'Saying something is supernatural is a neat way of defining it out of existence.' :)

    ReplyDelete
  46. Owen,

    "there is a difference between refuting supernaturalism, and testing it. Claims made by Dawkins, and others, are that supernatural claims can be studied to the extent that they are claims about the natural world"

    But nobody on this side of the debate disagrees that claims about the natural world can be tested. I always tell creationists that if they think the earth if 6000 years old science shows them to be wrong. But Dawkins and co. go beyond that, claiming that they are rejecting "the god hypothesis." Nope.

    "The second issue is that I believe your point 1 to be very much the basis for Dawkins' potential new stance! Those fundies can't be persuaded by reason, but perhaps we can make others see how ridiculous those positions are by sarcasm more effectively than by reason."

    As you admit, this is highly unlikely to work, as the fence sitters typically don't like people who foam at their mouths...

    ReplyDelete
  47. Ketan,

    a discussion on the boundaries of species is complex and deserves a separate post. Actually, Cal would do well to read Jerry Coyne and Allen Orr's book on speciation, which came out a few years ago.

    ReplyDelete
  48. bmkmd,

    "Dawkins isn't for creationists anyway.
    He and Hitchens are for atheists to come out of the closets"

    Well, not really. They claim that their goal is to rationally defeat religion and convince reasonable people to cross the divide. Good intentions, bad methods.

    ReplyDelete
  49. openparachute,

    "I worked for 40 years in scientific research and never did these terms come up in our work. We never examined our hypothesis to see if they were “naturalist” or “supernatural” (as is implied why the Wedge propaganda). We never consulted a scientific “rule book” to see whether our approach was permitted by natural/supernatural criteria."

    Nor should you have. But that's the difference between science and philosophy. It is the job of philosophers to investigate what science is and how it works, it is the job of scientists to just do it. Now, philosophers pretty much unanimously agree with the distinction between methodological and philosophical naturalism, shouldn't scientists like Dawkins pay attention?

    ReplyDelete
  50. I was responding to this:

    "It is a philosophical mistake to believe that science can refute supernaturalism"

    I contend that is only true if you are trying to refute it *philosophically*. And Dawkins isn't. He's explicit that, philosophically, he hasn't proved there is no god, and *can't* prove there is no god. I don't know where you get the idea he isn't aware of the difference, as it came through fairly clearly to me on reading TGD. He's trying to undermine the supporting evidence for those people who are reliant on it, and who would be affected if it were removed. (Or was, now he might be trying to persuade them by making fun of their friends. Doesn't alter TGD though.)

    Fair enough, you can't *in principle* persuade an *arbitrary* believer of the wrongness of their belief. But you can *in practice* persuade some number of believers by undermining their empirical claims. The fact that some people are beyond persuasion, or call upon the "god made it look that way" tactic, doesn't alter that.

    I have at one time been a supporter of astrology, tarot-card reading, esp, clairvoyance and ghosts. I'm not anymore, and that's because evidence has persuaded me otherwise, to the extent that I'm now embarrassed I ever held those views in the first place. As far as I'm concerned, science has refuted all examples of the supernatural I've examined in detail. Similarly, there are people around the world who claim their deconversion was triggered by a better understanding of the evidence, and many of them credit Dawkins and others with a central role in that. And some of those were, in fact, fundies.

    To sum up: a core disagreement you seem to have with Dawkins is that he is making strong philosophical claims about the existence of god. I don't think you can support that, as his writing explicitly says the opposite. And there is reason to believe his tactics have been successful in a number of cases.

    ReplyDelete
  51. "the fence sitters typically don't like people who foam at their mouths..."

    Urgh.

    I assume this is just rhetoric, in the same way your comment about the inquisition was. But this is exactly the kind of mischaracterisation of Dawkins that switches on my pro-Dawkins filter. He's the furthest from foaming at the mouth I can imagine. *You* seem to get more worked up about all this than he does!

    To you, it might be just words, but to many it's yet more evidence of Dawkins' unreasonable, angry, strident etc attitude. See, even an evolution-supporting atheist agrees!

    (Unless you really think that's a fair characterisation. In which case, er, I give up.)

    ReplyDelete
  52. By the way, Luke, I'd just like to say thanks for engaging with me. I'm not ignoring you as such, but it takes me a ridiculous amount of time to write these comments, and I don't have the mental strength to do that in more than one direction at a time.

    If it's any consolation, I do at least read what you say :-).

    ReplyDelete
  53. Owen,

    well, as usual on these things, we might need to just agree to disagree. Still:

    " assume this is just rhetoric, in the same way your comment about the inquisition was. But this is exactly the kind of mischaracterisation of Dawkins that switches on my pro-Dawkins filter."

    C'mon man, you really want to limit the use of metaphor a bit too much! :) For the record, very few people, including rabid fundies, literally "foam at their mouth."

    In any case, I think it is very clear that Dawkins has changed significantly over the years and has become visibly angry and contemptuous which, I insist, simply doesn't help.

    "It is a philosophical mistake to believe that science can refute supernaturalism" I contend that is only true if you are trying to refute it *philosophically*. And Dawkins isn't."

    No, I'm sorry but here you (and Dawkins) are missing the point. The *philosophical* point is that *science* cannot, in principle, refute the supernatural. Dawkins simply doesn't seem to appreciate (or care about) the fact that there are epistemic limits to science, which are well understood by philosophers, but apparently not by him.

    "there is reason to believe his tactics have been successful in a number of cases."

    This is what Dawkins says, but when he claims that "we" have made more progress in a couple of years than in previous decades he is patting himself on the back for no good reason and without empirical evidence. It's simply his own psychology at work. Cultural change takes decades, and it is not marked by the number of copies of one's book being sold.

    I hope he doesn't want to seriously make the argument that the statistically significant increase in the number of non-believers in the US apparent from recent polls is his doing: it is a process that has been going on for decades, and which is related to complex internal dynamics, including the overreach of the religious right.

    ReplyDelete
  54. The idea that science deals in the supernatural is nearly pervasive these days amongst certain atheist (and almost universally accepted by creationist and certain others), due largely I believe by comments made by a couple people in the past few years. Outside of refuting claims and analyzing and challenging beliefs, I don't recall much attention paid to the idea that supernatural phenomena were actually within the realm of science (for good reason obviously). I have already expressed what I believe part of the danger of this is and what it may actually stem from.

    To show that this idea is leaking into general acceptance and getting into the pop culture, there is a great example from something posted on Dawkins' site on Tuesday. The tag where I found the comment is: "Charlotte Pop Fest 2009 • Power Pop Music Festival in Charlotte, NC • 28 Apr"

    Sounds great, the way it's described in the press release link - http://www.charlottepopfest.com/ - it seems something I'd enjoy and wish it to be successful. Though there are few ideas which to me threaten it with being something a kin to those christian outreach concerts, which is fine, they work, may take a little more effort on their part if they want to stay positive in some respect and not just an "anti" gathering.

    However in the press release there is a statement which reads:

    - - - "The existence of a supernatural god is not a scientific theory. Since there is no scientific evidence for the existence of a supernatural god it is only a hypothesis and nothing more in scientific terms.

    So you may ask yourself, "Can science study the supernatural?"

    The answer is: yes it can!

    Both creationism and intelligent design are in fact testable, tentative, and falsifiable in scientific terms. Because they both assume a hypothetical god/designer they are both what is known as pseudoscience." - - -

    Well, they got a couple things right. One, supernaturaism can not be a scientific theory (can't be tested) and that creationism is pseudoscience (though more accurately, not science).

    I'm sure you see the problem though and it is exactly what Massimo brought up, it actually plays the same game as the creationist, it is playing by their rules.

    Science can NOT study the supernatural and creationism and ID are not scientific, they are not science. This was even pointed out by Judge Jones in his Dove trial ruling (because it was what was argued) when he said: ID “is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory,”. All that is done in that statement is confuse and elevate creationism to the level of being scientific, which is exactly what the creationist have been fighting for. The statement also basically contradicts itself and the only defense really is to say it's some sort of rhetorical device, the problem with that (as I've pointed out with other such statements) is that part of it is false at face value, science can NOT study the supernatural and creationism is not a falsifiable scientific theory (the only other defense I see tossed around is the disingenuous idea of well maybe we're talking "hypothesis" - no the statement is quite specific in its claim).

    It would be better to have the statement corrected in the couple places that its wrong and misleading (i.e. simply not the truth). But, I doubt it will and by the defenses I see in these comments on Massimo's blog of such statements, these ideas will continue to pollute our discourse and send the incorrect message of the nature of science, while at the same time playing into the oppositions hands and elevating creationism to the level of being scientific.

    ReplyDelete
  55. "well, as usual on these things, we might need to just agree to disagree"

    Indeed. I promised myself one proper attempt at changing your mind about Dawkins (I know, I know, never really very likely!), and this series of comments is the result. I won't bring it up again.

    "For the record, very few people, including rabid fundies, literally 'foam at their mouth.'"

    No, I understood that you were using a metaphor :).

    However, you used it for a reason: to bring to mind a particular image. You didn't want us to think about a respectable old professor having a quiet chat in his study, did you? You wanted something like "angry man, being a bit shouty", perhaps. I assumed you were just doing that for effect, and you don't really see Dawkins that way. My problem was that it reinforces a negative stereotype of Dawkins that some people really hold.

    Further, look at what he actually said:

    "I emphatically don’t mean we should use foul-mouthed rants. Nor should we raise our voices and shout at them: let’s have no D’Souzereignty here. Instead, what we need is sarcastic, cutting wit. A good model might be Peter Medawar, who would never dream of shouting, but instead quietly wielded the rapier."

    That doesn't fit the metaphor at all. Fence-sitters might not like people who (metaphorically) foam at their mouths, but they *might* be receptive to someone who wields a rapier-like, sarcastic, cutting wit.

    "I think it is very clear that Dawkins has changed significantly over the years and has become visibly angry and contemptuous"

    Hmm. I've seen quite a few of his appearances, live and via youtube, and I can't say he's become *more* visibly angry and contemptuous over time. A bit more exasperated, perhaps, but generally he behaves with remarkable reserve in the face of repeated, ignorant questioning. The anger and contempt is invariably from the "other side", who are often quite dripping with it.

    ReplyDelete
  56. "No, I'm sorry but here you (and Dawkins) are missing the point. The *philosophical* point is that *science* cannot, in principle, refute the supernatural."

    Since I don't disagree with that, I must not be being clear. I'll have another go (last one, promise).

    I (and Dawkins, I presume) would agree that science can't refute the supernatural[*]. But it can undermine empirical claims by people who believe in the supernatural. And for a number or people, maybe many, maybe not, that will be enough for them to abandon their belief.

    It worked for me with various supernatural phenomena, it's worked for some people with their beliefs in god(s).

    Dawkins spends an entire chapter of TGD talking about this. He clarifies that he doesn't claim to prove the non-existence of god. That is worth repeating: he is clear about not proving god doesn't exist. He knows he can't, and doesn't try.

    What he does do, is take the evidence presented for god and subject it to scrutiny. In his opinion it doesn't pass muster, and he explains why. Again, for some people that will be enough, even some fundies. For others, it won't, because (as you pointed out) there's always a way god could have made things look that way.

    In all this, I think his writings are consistent: he doesn't try to prove the non-existence of god. You may claim that Dawkins is going further, and says science proves there is no god, but in that case I believe the onus is on you to provide evidence. I've not seen anything he says to support that, other than perhaps some informal language here and there.

    ([*] Aside. Science can't *prove* anything. It's not maths, or logic. Speaking formally, a scientist will use language like "this evidence supports the hypothesis" and suchlike. Speaking informally, they might say something is proved (or refuted). In much the same way a mathematician might talk of the "limit of f(x) at infinity", knowing full well that there is no such thing as infinity, but happy that they could convert it into formal epsilons-and-deltas if pushed. I can't prove I exist to you. I can't prove to myself that I'm not a brain-in-a-vat. I can't prove my desk won't turn into liquid next time I lean on it. I can't prove my senses are providing consistent information. But at some, practical level, we all make assumptions about these things, generally based on empirical history. Based on those assumptions we make inferences, perform tests, and draw conclusions.)

    ReplyDelete
  57. "creationism is not a falsifiable scientific theory"

    Well, "god created the universe to look exactly like it happened naturalistically" might not be falsifiable.

    But "god created the world 6000 years ago and destroyed most life on it in a world-wide flood soon after" -- *is*. In fact, it's been tested, and falsified. It's not that it wasn't ever scientific, it's that it's been discarded as it doesn't fit the empirical evidence. Like phlogiston, n-rays, or the ether. Falsifiable, and falsified.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Owen,

    Exactly, that is a claim about nature and it is refuted by science. As I have said, repeatedly now, religious and otherwise, claims can be refuted scientifically. Creationism, by its understood definition is not scientific, the claims by creationist regarding nature can be tested scientifically. Creationism is not a falsifiable scientific theory. A claim to the age of the earth can be tested scientifically, but this says nothing about the underlying "supernatural" claim. You are merely taking the claims of the creationist (and IDer's I would presume) and elevating their underlying ideals to the point of being scientific.

    There are those that still claim the earth is 6,000 years old and they are wrong, in fact, wronger than wrong. But, why they believe the earth is 6,000 years old, the actual "theory" if you will, is based on an interpretation of a text said to be the sacred word of a God (and yes, theirs is an interpretation, it is not actually literal). What is refuted is the claim to nature, not supernaturalism. The beliefs of the creationist and IDer's are in fact, religiously based, their underlying beliefs, which they are attempting to make scientific (with your help I presume), are not scientific - with creationism there is no there there.

    This is the same for ID (which is in fact new creationism), what they use to support the claims are not scientific, they are not science, they are simply not falsifiable scientific theories (they get to point where we are not allowed to go further either because of some interpretation of absolute revealed truths or they claim something is irreducible and not explainable by natural forces). What happened in the Dover trial and other trials has shown this for the entire public to see and you seem to hold the same defense (though arguing for the victors) that the IDer's are claiming, which is they are forwarding a falsifiable scientific theory.

    Besides this, the claim in that press release is also saying that point blank that science can study the supernatural. This is a false claim. It seems obvious they are trying to elevate the status of creationism to make the claim. By playing this game we might as well change the definition of science, which is in fact what the IDer's were exposed as attempting to do at the Dover trial.

    What mechanism are you saying the creationist are offering to explain the earth is 6,000 years old or that we can look at something like the bacterial flagellum and say its "irreducibly complex"? How are they offering a falsifiable scientific theory? We can refute the claims, such as the earth is 6,000 years old or that the bacterial flagellum could not have evolved by natural selection, but then what? What is the there there you seem to be convinced makes science able to study the supernatural?

    ReplyDelete
  59. Massimo Pigliucci: "I hope he doesn't want to seriously make the argument that the statistically significant increase in the number of non-believers in the US apparent from recent polls is his doing: it is a process that has been going on for decades, and which is related to complex internal dynamics, including the overreach of the religious right."

    Interesting. Would you suggest that if there is a correlation between Dawkins' latest activities and the uptick in non-believers, it is that both are the result of that decades-long process that you mentioned?

    ReplyDelete
  60. JJ,

    "Would you suggest that if there is a correlation between Dawkins' latest activities and the uptick in non-believers, it is that both are the result of that decades-long process that you mentioned?"

    Well, it is hard to tell about causality in the social sciences, but yes it is very possible that the success of the "new atheists" is a byproduct, not a cause, of the general cultural climate.

    After all, good books on atheism have been written many times before (and, arguably, some of them were significantly better than the Dawkins-Hitchens kind), but did not make it to the New York Times bestsellers list...

    ReplyDelete
  61. J.J.,

    Is it really true there is an uptick of non-believers for their to be taken credit for? I believe closer inspection of recent polls shows an increase in the unaffiliated but not a significant increase in the number of self identified atheists. Perhaps I am looking at the wrong polls. Could you point to one?

    ReplyDelete
  62. My pet peeve about Dawkins is when he says that evolution makes it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. I could see how it might inform someone's atheism, or disincline the person to believe in teleological arguments, but evolution is not necessary for atheism to be a philosophically justifiable position.

    Hasn't Dawkins read Hume's Dialogues? He fairly well smashed the design argument and did so without knowledge of evolutionary theory.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Professor Pigliucci,

    I would like to apologize for incorrectly spelling your name. I just noticed and have applied the appropriate force to the dope slap I have given myself (on your behalf).

    I have long been a great admirer of your work.

    ReplyDelete
  64. luke, thanks, no apologies needed!

    ReplyDelete
  65. Forgive me, I've not had time to read all the comments.

    Do you have an opinion on the contradiction of chiding Dawkins for being ignorant of philosophy and then promoting the use of sociology to convince people of the truth? This may involve using methods that are not philosophically ideal.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Massimo,

    your criticism of Dawkins' tactics is flawed for a very simple reason: You assume that he and you (and Eugenie Scott, and the NCSE, and the 'framing' people like Nisbet and Mooney) share the same goal. Well, you don't share the same goal. You want to get people to more or less accept a bunch of scientific facts (mostly evolution). Dawkins wants people to adopt rational and scientific thinking (which does lead to atheism, among other things). You may or may not be right that Dawkins' tactics are counter-productive for your and the NSCE's goal, but it doesn't matter, because Dawkins' goal is much, much larger in scope.

    The first step toward fostering the growth of a rational society is to create a social climate in which faith and other kinds of irrationality are seen in a bad light. The obvious way to achieve this is to start treating religious irrationality in exactly the same way that we treat all other kinds of irrationality. How would you react to someone who tells you he's convinced that Elvis Presley is still alive? In all likelihood you would laugh incredulously, or even *gasp* show a little contempt. There's nothing Inquisition-like about this.

    As for this nonsense about the unfalsifiability of the supernatural, well, frankly, I don't know where to start. First, define what you mean by 'naturalism' (and while you're at it, check to see if your definition corresponds to Scott's). Second, learn some probability theory and about Bayesian reasoning; Occam's razor (formally defined) isn't an arbitrary convention, it actually helps us tell what is true and what isn't, so that it's completely irrelevant that some forms of creationism can't 'scientifically falsified'.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Furcas,

    I would like to respond to your last point, especially since it's something I've discussed in the comments so far.

    Furcas Wrote:

    -- "Occam's razor (formally defined) isn't an arbitrary convention, it actually helps us tell what is true and what isn't, so that it's completely irrelevant that some forms of creationism can't 'scientifically falsified'." --

    I'll outline your argument in more detail as I move along.

    Since you say "some forms", perhaps you can show what forms of creationism have falsifiable scientific theories? Creationism, in all of the guises I know of, are not scientific at all. Not only do they not have scientific theories, but most often they have fatal flaws in interpreting facts of nature. I have yet to see any creationist provide a falsifiable scientific theory. What I do see is an almost never ending parade of claims about nature which they want to point to as not explainable by natural causes alone. Although you down play it, it is important to understand that creationism is not scientific.

    So, I’ll ask you, what falsifiable scientific theory has any creationist proposed?

    I think you will find that you would need to redefine science in order to offer one, which is exactly what the “intelligent design” proponents are trying to do by making people like you believe they have a falsifiable scientific theory.

    Are you adding in Occam’s razor because the “intelligent designer” would actually have to be more complex than anything we find in nature, because that could be correct. Also, I would guess the probability statement stems from Dawkins’ argument about the improbability of a God and you are simply forwarding his ideas (and perhaps Hitchens' with Occam) to say it all makes creationism irrelevant because of the arguments against the existence of God? Although Richard is not the first to make the argument, your comments lead me to believe his is the one you most prefer.

    I wouldn’t downplay understanding the facts of nature and I would add that evolution is both fact and theory (natural selection). You may want to become familiar with Massimo’s work since he has been advocating scientific rationalism, skepticism and humanistic ideals for a very long time (while offering some great arguments on the (non)existence of God and the irrationality of religious beliefs). I say that since it appears those are areas you would like to see more of in the world.

    The oddness to some the discussion can’t be missed. Take someone like Coyne, his defense of evolution by natural selection is impressive, yet he will still fall into the trap and say something like “supernatural phenomena are not completely beyond the realm of science” or statements by others that science can test supernaturalism or falsify supernaturalism. It’s at points like this when I think advocacy for a position takes over the rational faculty and one slips out of being scientific.

    I would like to see how you would define “naturalism”? It may be satisfying for someone like you to follow along closely to ideas such as “the evolution and creationism debate is only a skirmish in a larger war, a war between supernaturalism and naturalism”, however, I don’t want the advocates (on either side) purposefully or ignorantly confusing or trying to redefine science (even if they believe the ‘cause’ is the right one).

    Another reason I wanted to comment to your post was that by your statements leading up to your comment that I quote, I argue actually correlate directly to each other in that we are possibly facing what I term a secular dogma (or the rise of a quasi-religious movement - i.e. starting to resemble a religious movement). To be honest, I think it has already started - but at times it's difficult to tell since there are many that have backed away from challenging ideas because of a level of adherence certain advocacy approaches can maintain.

    I want to add that these opinions are mine alone, I’m not arguing for anyone else. My comments above also follow from my previous post, mainly the last two, so I left out a few details I’ve already been over.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Two questions for Massimo:

    What's the meaning of the link to "Dawkins vs Gould: Survival of the Fittest?"

    Also, why do you insist on telling people to learn philosophy/sociology or whatever? I agree with the gist of what you're saying, but this just comes off as snobby. One doesn't have to read Kant or Hume, or anyone else, to understand that (a) piles of facts don't matter to people who reject evidence, and (b) encouraging people to name-call isn't exactly a very admirable thing to do.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Furgas,

    "The first step toward fostering the growth of a rational society is to create a social climate in which faith and other kinds of irrationality are seen in a bad light."

    No my friend, the first step is to make it acceptable in society to be an atheist. Then you push things further and put religion on the defensive (gently). Dawkins wants to skip the first step, and this would be a big mistake.

    "First, define what you mean by 'naturalism' (and while you're at it, check to see if your definition corresponds to Scott's). Second, learn some probability theory and about Bayesian reasoning; Occam's razor (formally defined) isn't an arbitrary convention"

    I am constantly amazed by people who casually accuse me of ignorance, apparently not having read my work. Naturalism is pretty clearly defined in philosophical circles (oh, right, Dawkins doesn't bother to read philosophy!), and I am perfectly familiar with Bayesian analysis. By the way, it is most certainly not the same thing as Occam's razor.

    At any rate, my point is precisely that Occam's razor is a philosophical, not scientific argument, and that Dawkins' claim that science can reject supernaturalism is wrongheaded. I am having a really hard time understanding why this simple point is so difficult to get across.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Hyperon,

    "What's the meaning of the link to "Dawkins vs Gould: Survival of the Fittest?"

    It's a good treatment of the philosophical and personal differences between Gould and Dawkins. You will also learn that Dawkins has not been a practicing scientist since the '70s.

    "why do you insist on telling people to learn philosophy/sociology or whatever? I agree with the gist of what you're saying, but this just comes off as snobby."

    Well, sorry to come off as snobby, it is certainly not my intention. My insistence on psychology and sociology is because those are the disciplines that study human belief and under what conditions it changes. Since this is a public relation campaign, not a scientific debate, it would be helpful if we spent more time learning about useful tools rather than grandstanding about people's alleged idiocy.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Massimo,

    Thanks for your response. I agree with everything you said, apart from one slight quibble. It's not easy for a beginner to philosophy, psychology and sociology to find some good work amid the endless swamps of literature, which is (a) approachable at his level of knowledge, and (b) relevant to the task at hand.

    Hapless beginners like me and Dawkins will easily be lost without some guidance. So in future when you suggest to the uninitiated daring expeditions into the heart of the Human Science Marshes, it would be very kind if you could provide the bearings of a safe and secure starting point!

    ReplyDelete
  72. "Dawkins' claim that science can reject supernaturalism is wrongheaded"I'd really like to see you back up the claim that Dawkins thinks science can reject supernaturalism (beyond the "remove empirical support" style mentioned earlier).

    (I'm not saying you can't, but you haven't done it here, and I've not seen anything in his writing that would fit.)

    ReplyDelete
  73. (Luke) "So, I’ll ask you, what falsifiable scientific theory has any creationist proposed?"God created the world six thousand years ago over the course of 6 days, then destroyed it in a worldwide flood shortly after.

    Falsified some time ago. Any claiming it's a reasonable position today is a loon, but two hundred years ago it wasn't so mad.

    ReplyDelete
  74. (Luke) "A claim to the age of the earth can be tested scientifically, but this says nothing about the underlying 'supernatural' claim."I must not have been clear if you think I care.

    I said earlier: "supernatural claims can be studied to the extent that they are claims about the natural world". As far as I can tell you don't disagree with that statement, and I don't believe I've said anything stronger.

    For this example, the 6000-year-old earth was a testable claim. It was tested. It failed.

    The bit I suspect you find contentious is this: I contend that the process of applying the scientific method to the empirical claims of supernatural and/or paranormal phenomena *is* "studying the supernatural/paranormal".

    If that's the primary point of disagreement, then I'm prepared to "agree to disagree". It's semantics, and I've given up trying to have reasonable discussions of that sort on the internet, as unintentional confusion is too hard to avoid, even with the goodwill of both parties.

    (Luke) "The beliefs of the creationist and IDer's are in fact, religiously based, their underlying beliefs, which they are attempting to make scientific (with your help I presume)Case in point. I am so far from trying to help the religious justify their underlying beliefs, it's not even funny. In reality, I want to remove any empirical support they think they've got. And in the process, hopefully, help some believers to "see the light".

    ReplyDelete
  75. Owen,

    (Luke) "So, I’ll ask you, what falsifiable scientific theory has any creationist proposed?"(Owen)"God created the world six thousand years ago over the course of 6 days, then destroyed it in a worldwide flood shortly after."(Owen)"I contend that the process of applying the scientific method to the empirical claims of supernatural and/or paranormal phenomena *is* "studying the supernatural/paranormal."I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

    Thanks for answering the question. I have another for you.

    Do you think "Intelligent Design" theories, such as "Irreducible Complexity" and "Specified Complexity" are scientific theories?

    ReplyDelete
  76. Owen,

    (Luke) "So, I’ll ask you, what falsifiable scientific theory has any creationist proposed?"(Owen)"God created the world six thousand years ago over the course of 6 days, then destroyed it in a worldwide flood shortly after."(Owen)"I contend that the process of applying the scientific method to the empirical claims of supernatural and/or paranormal phenomena *is* "studying the supernatural/paranormal."I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

    Thanks for answering the question. I have another for you.

    Do you think "Intelligent Design" theories, such as "Irreducible Complexity" and "Specified Complexity" are scientific theories?

    ReplyDelete
  77. Ah crap! I don't know why my post ended up that way. It's a bit screwed up, Twice!

    ReplyDelete
  78. Luke,

    (yeah, I've had issues with the formatting too)

    Before I answer your question, I've got one for you. Do you accept that my example of falsifiable claim is correct? That, once upon a time, people made predictions about the nature of the world based in their understanding of the way the world was created? Predictions that could be tested, like the existence of a world-wide flood?

    Actually, I've got a second one: are you trying to make a case for me being an ID supporter or something?

    Anyway, to your question: irreducible complexity. Yeah, I think, at a push, someone could make a case for the base claim of IC in a testable fashion. In fact, they have, haven't they? The human blood-clotting cascade, amongst others. The problem is, none of the examples they've so far provided have actually been irreducibly complex, so it's at best an unsupported theory, and probably fits failed theory too.

    (Like phlogiston, or n-rays. Anyone promoting those would be a crank today, too.)

    Granted those behind the "ID movement" are in practice deceptively packaging up their religious beliefs, rather than doing science in good faith. But that doesn't mean they can't make testable claims. It's just that when they do, it makes them look all the more silly, as each claim gets blown away.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Luke,

    Just thought of something else. You agree that the empirical claims of supernatural proponents can be tested, right? That's not in contention here? But you disagree that this is "studying the supernatural". Fine, we disagree about how to label the process, not a big issue for me. But my central claim is that, whatever you think "studying the supernatural" is, Jerry Coyne uses the same labelling as me. So when he talks about studying the supernatural, he's really saying "testing empirical claims yadda yadda". But you're interpreting the statement as being whatever you defined it to mean (sorry, missed that one). So of course you disagree with him. But fundamentally, your disagreement is semantic.

    How's that sound?

    ReplyDelete
  80. Ketan: "I've been a theist in the past, and such a firm one that I used to "converse" with God. ..."

    (I lost track of this comment for awhile...thread is a bit long)

    What kind of "theist", Christian or some other religion? Jews and others are theists as well.

    I don't doubt that it would be hard to be a Christian in many parts of India, if that is what you were. My assessment of India from the last 25 years or so is that India has gone from worshiping a whole variety of "gods" to worshiping other things now - success, education, etc. The pursuit of these things may cause SOME superstitious practices to decline, but does it in fact change the heart of the nation?

    Boy babies are still strongly preferred. The cast system is still quite embedded in the culture. The Dalits have suffered incredibly for their apparent interest in things of God and the Bible. It doesn't sound particularly enlightened to me yet.

    And Atheism? Every belief including Atheism has its non-negotiables (atheism has a lot of those) and therefore it is anything but open-minded. In reality, it is far more close-minded than many beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Most essential Athist non-negotiable:

    No God No way No how.

    Leaves lots of room open for dialogue, doesn't it Richard Dawkins.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Owen,

    Creationism, including "Intelligent Design" theories, are not scientific theories. The way science is understood today makes this perfectly clear. They, the creationist, are trying to make it seem they have a scientific theory (though a couple are honest enough to admit they don't have one), but they don't!

    Science has nothing to do with the supernatural. Science can inform us on the belief in the supernatural.

    As I have said, science can test the claims to nature, such as the earth is 6,000 years old, but beyond that it says nothing about the underlying "theory" (in this case God). We are simply left with belief - which science may tell us something. The fact that the mind can embrace contradiction is fascinating, but the "theories" tell us nothing about reality (they don't even come close to telling us how the natural phenomena occurred - and again, most often they get the facts of nature wrong - both by purposeful and honest ignorance). Science deals in reality, supernaturalism is not physical reality.

    "Supernatural phenomena" are beyond the realm of science because to say otherwise makes no sense, it is self-contradictory. If you want you can say the "supernatural" is real, but good luck trying to provide evidence it is real. To believers it is a reality, but it is a reality only in their minds, it is why they rely on "faith". It is also why they keep attempting to downplay scientific evidences of reality that may contradict their beliefs (and they are not the only ones, in fact, its almost to easy just to point to the religionist - the problem is wide spread and takes on many forms).

    I'm really starting to resent this idea we are only discussing semantics. That somehow putting you in italics like that somehow allows for science to test the supernatural.

    Jerry Coyne, in making that statement was in reaction to noma. He followed it by stating; "All scientists can think of certain observations that would convince them of the existence of God or supernatural forces" (he then quotes Darwin). The first major problem with this of course is that just because the scientist is convinced does not make it a true reflection of reality (in fact, be very cautious of a scientist claiming to have found God in nature). However, whether it's a scientist or group of them, we are still left with the problem of offering a theory and why would we suddenly stop trying to make it naturalistic (there is only the natural and the mysteries of nature). Why now because Coyne says it (as a rhetorical device I hoped, though it is hard to tell, if he does believe it then he simply let his advocacy and disdain for noma to take over his science senses), that what is commonly understood as scientific today should change?

    What is being said to some extent is that "supernaturalism" is amendable to science, which is confused with a claim of something being "supernatural". Take my ESP example again. If I claim my ESP is supernatural and we test it, and it is verified scientifically that I have ESP, this is not scientific evidence for my claim of it being supernatural. It is possibly evidence of a naturalistic phenomena, because that is what science test for. The same works in reverse, if we found no evidence for my ESP to the extent where we offer our provisional conclusion that my claim to ESP is not valid, this has scientifically said nothing about supernaturalism.

    Still not see the importance of the philosophy end of things?

    It's like the quote I got from Dawkins' site. They obviously elevated creationism to the level of being scientific to make the claim that science can study the supernatural. What is falsifiable is the claims to nature. I mean, beyond some of this stuff we end up with the characteristics of a God, such as the problem of evil and Hume's summation, or in the worse case (which what appears to be happening) that science is being redefined in certain cases for the benefit of an ideological war.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Caliana,

    I'm afraid you've generalized a lot in your previous post.

    India's a population of over 1 billion. Do you really think everyone must be exactly alike?
    I assume, you're from Italy or of Italian origin, and one of the most well known modern Italians I can think of right now would be Benito Mussolini. Would I be correct in assuming you and he share the same political and religous views?

    Also, your sources of information seem to be not really tuned into the ground realities, or at least not bereft of some ulterior motives.

    The things that you've said about caste system, dalits, and preference for male child are indeed true. But what's not true is that they're the all-encompassing norms. My parents have 2 children, and my only sibling is a sister. She's had the same opportunities as me at academics. She'll go on to be a Bachelor of Pharmacy. What does that say about gender equality?

    The situation of India you've been presented with is seen in some pockets of the country, and NOT all the time. And these ill practices are coming down with spread of education. My only points: don't generalize, and sociopolitical situation in any community (much less, of a billion-strong one) can't be as simplistic as you've portrayed.

    I don't justify any kind of violence against any community, but feel you should've an accurate idea of what "motivates" the majority of dalits or whoever embraces Christianity in India.

    The Christian missionaries go to the economically backward regions, sponsor housing, children's education, gift farms, medical care to (dalit) people. Sounds very noble, right? But the missionaries have one condition--that the dalits must convert to Christianity!

    I'm not saying this would justify violence against dalits. But think of it, if someone offers you a billion dollars (or sufficiently large amount), would you convert to Hinduism? And if you convert, what what would you eventually say of your own "faith"?

    Most of the converts have no love for Christ, or for that matter, even the Hindu God as their lives have been riddled with so many uncertainties (they won't know where their next meal would come from--sic). I don't see these Christian missionaries as noble, either. If I find a road-accident victim, I'm not going to ask first about his religion to decide if I should take him to the hospital. That would be EXTREMELY immoral. Christian missionaries are not doing anything different...

    ReplyDelete
  84. I gave you this account of conversions in India only to correct your mistaken belief that the converts in India have any great love for Christ or Christianity.

    Talking of my erstwhile theism, I want to point out that with spreading education and acceptance of more humanitarian terms of morality, all the educated and reasonable religious people have been forced to view their respective Gods as supremely powerful (omnipotent), all-knowing (omniscient) and all-loving (benevolent). I'd also started believing in this kind of God by the age of 10, and was referring to when speaking of my having been a believes. And this is the kind of God that most of the Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Jews and Buddhists all over the world believe in. If I ask you how your "Holy Ghost" differs from the above description (I don't know the details of Christian beliefs, but have some idea), you're unlikely to point out any major differences. If you ask an educated Muslim the same question about the nature their "Allah", they will agree with the description. Same holds true for "Vishnu" or "Shiva"--the only two major Gods in contemporary Hindu religion, one of who people usually worship in exclusion of the other. So you see, most of the people believe in the same God, and only give different names, and associate different stories with him/her.

    As I grew up and saw all the problems afflicting humanity, I seriously started doubting, the benevolent nature of God, but still couldn't totally give up on that belief only because of instilled fear of "burning in hell" for "doubting" too much.

    I'd stopped believing in any kind of anthropomorphic God when I was 10. You could call my belief of that time some kind of panentheism. One of the days, I realized that the only reason I'd continued to believe in God was to account for the complexities of workings and existence of the Universe (Deism, of sorts). And also to think of a "purpose" behind its existence...

    ReplyDelete
  85. With greater clarity of thought, I realized that the hypothesis of God really didn't answer any of the issues (reason of existence or workings of the Universe). And that realization was the point I turned agnostic (still had thought of God's existence as a viable possibility)--at 17 years age. But when I came across ideas like Russel's teapot, I turned a negative atheist (age of 22). And, that's what I've been. I see the stages in evolution of my beliefs about God as typical for any person who thinks on these issues with an open mind. Some people enter the various stages at various points in life, some regress back, some remain suspended at some stage. The only next possible stage is positive atheism, but I see the difference between negative and positive atheism as more of semantic and how much importance one gives to the issue of existence v/s nonexistence in their day-to-day life. So, my being born to Hindu parents had no bearing on how my religious beliefs turned out.

    If Massimo permits, I'd like comments from other readers, too on the issue of "typical stages of beliefs about God", and of course his own beliefs, too.

    Take care.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Luke

    Am I really being this unclear? Where have I said that science should stop begin naturalistic?

    (Luke) I'm really starting to resent this idea we are only discussing semantics. That somehow putting you in italics like that somehow allows for science to test the supernatural.

    I'm saying "testing the supernatural" is *defined by* "testing the empirical claims". That's still methodologically naturalistic. (I think you disagree about my definition, which is what makes it a semantic argument.)

    If someone claims god is healing people in response to prayers, I can test that. In fact, it's been tested. It's been (imho) falsified. A positive result wouldn't on its own prove the existence of god, but a negative one would remove one piece of claimed empirical support (and has).

    (Luke) If you want you can say the "supernatural" is real,

    Seriously Luke, you seem to be arguing with someone else here. I haven't claimed, nor do I want to, that the supernatural is real.

    (Luke) What is being said to some extent is that "supernaturalism" is amendable to science, which is confused with a claim of something being "supernatural".

    I am saying a very specific thing: we can test empirical claims. You are not disagreeing with that. Help me out: quote a specific thing I say that you find objectionable. Don't paraphrase, or interpret. Use my exact words so I can understand which part is the problem. I'm genuinely confused.

    (Luke) Still not see the importance of the philosophy end of things?Er, I don't know where this comes from. I'm quite aware of the philosophical issues.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Owen,

    We are obviously agreeing on some basic fundamental points. Thanks for providing me with an opportunity to further explore the issue.

    However...

    (Owen)"Am I really being this unclear?"Yes, in fact you keep hedging. I will respond further to this later.

    (Owen)"Help me out: quote a specific thing I say that you find objectionable."Lets just go back to the beginning.

    In a response to Massimo's statement of: "1) It is a philosophical mistake to believe that science can refute supernaturalism"

    (Owen)"The first is that there is a difference between refuting supernaturalism, and testing it."In the same paragraph you ended by saying:

    (Owen)"If it stands up to scrutiny, but in some way violates other known science (Darwin's "man [...] made of brass or iron and no way connected with any other organism which had ever lived", for example) then you'd be some way to "proving" a supernatural occurrence." [April 29, 2009 12:30 PM]

    You then went on about claims correctly. But, you've only fallen into the trap above. Why do you jump to the conclusion it has to be a "supernatural occurrence"? Part of Coyne's argument (and by using the quote by Darwin, which I think you both should pay heed to the last line; "But, this is childish writing") is that this would convince a scientist of God or the supernatural. That's part of the problem, as I have outlined a few times now, it doesn't matter that it would convince a scientist (I'm being deliberately short here since I've been over this a few times). Science, as you seem to understand, does not deal in the supernatural (only perhaps in the beliefs in supernaturalism).

    Aren't you just doing what humans have always done, which is look at things that are not explainable at the time and claiming they are the acts of God (or supernaturalism in some way - even giving special powers to the unexplained, such as the sun)?

    In another response to Massimo's statement of (same); "It is a philosophical mistake to believe that science can refute supernaturalism"

    (Owen)"I contend that is only true if you are trying to refute it *philosophically*." [April 30, 2009 5:23 AM]

    In the middle of the next paragraph you wrote:

    (Owen)"As far as I'm concerned, science has refuted all examples of the supernatural I've examined in detail."Again, I think you are confusing claims to nature of something having supernatural cause and the fact that science test for natural phenomena only. I agree the claims have failed to be convincing, it is to some extent why I am an "atheist" (in quotes because I'm beginning to deplore labels because of conversations like this).

    I think Massimo did a great job of answering to your response that I quote above (second to last) when he said; "No, I'm sorry but here you (and Dawkins) are missing the point. The *philosophical* point is that *science* cannot, in principle, refute the supernatural."However, your response to this was yet another hedge (actually you were doing this with regards to specific points Massimo had made).

    You follow by Massimo's comment by saying:

    (Owen)"Since I don't disagree with that, I must not be being clear.And:

    (Owen)"I (and Dawkins, I presume) would agree that science can't refute the supernatural[*]."
    You go on to discuss claims fairly correctly and begin your last paragraph by saying:

    (Owen)"Aside. Science can't *prove* anything." [April 30, 2009 9:45 AM]

    If you are putting this all together and still don't see that you have been unclear, then I can't help you.

    However, in a response to a straight forward statement I made and questions pertaining directly to the statement, you once again hedged.

    I stated: "I creationism is not a falsifiable scientific theory"

    I later asked if you thought creationism was a scientific theory.

    But, your first reply here [April 30, 2009 9:53 AM] was not really a response about it being a scientific theory. In fact, you mention the claim of the age of earth being 6,000 years old and the flood, then state:

    (Owen)"It's not that it wasn't ever scientific, it's that it's been discarded as it doesn't fit the empirical evidence."Yes, the claims to nature have been 'proven' false, but the theory was never scientific. The claims to nature were never really scientific (unless you are picking and choosing how to define science).

    I also responded in pretty good detail right following your above comment [here: April 30, 2009 10:34 AM]. Where I asked by what mechanism is this a scientific theory. I was also allowing you a chance to respond without me appearing pretentious and lecturing on what a scientific theory means in science. In your next response to me you once again hint that you think creationist stories are scientific theories [here: May 03, 2009 4:28 PM]. However, you seem to understand the basics on empirical claims, as you keep referring to in comments.

    You then stated:

    (Owen)"I contend that the process of applying the scientific method to the empirical claims of supernatural and/or paranormal phenomena *is* "studying the supernatural/paranormal".You have no scientific justification to make that claim. You hedge this statement and others like it by mentioning semantics. It's not just semantics, it is about the nature of science and you don't get to decide on a whim what that will be.

    It makes sense that you want to remove the empirical support that creationist (and believers in general) use in their claims to nature - again many other do this in different ways, notably with quantum mechanics revealing a "higher reality" (read: God) as the recent Templeton prize winner, the physicist d’Espagnat has done. Science does a good job, we understand reality with greater clarity all the time (we hope), but there is a limit to science and we must accept faced primarily with belief systems (and untestable hypothesis'). It simply doesn't help to confuse what science can do with regards to supernaturalism, you are simply crossing the line to claim that science is testing the supernatural.

    Which leads in part to my bringing up that part from Dawkins' site again, which states directly that science can study the supernatural. They elevate creationism to being a falsifiable scientific theory to make the claim. The problem of course is that both ideas are wrong. It appears you are stumbling into this trap also, but then clawing at the walls on the way down. Much of this mirrors what religious people have tried countless times to do by in making their claims that supernaturalism (God)is amendable to science. Yet, they offer no scientific theory, only their religious beliefs and the hope for legitimacy through coupling their beliefs with science.

    You went on to ask me:

    (Owen)"Do you accept that my example of falsifiable claim is correct? That, once upon a time, people made predictions about the nature of the world based in their understanding of the way the world was created? Predictions that could be tested, like the existence of a world-wide flood?"Which I had been over many times! I made very clear what science is testing and that creationism is not a scientific theory. But, you don't come out and say you understand it's not a scientific theory, ever! You keep going back to the claims on nature as if the creationist have a scientific theory, that it is actually science.

    You go on to say:

    (Owen)"But you disagree that this is "studying the supernatural". Fine, we disagree about how to label the process, not a big issue for me. But my central claim is that, whatever you think "studying the supernatural" is, Jerry Coyne uses the same labelling as me. So when he talks about studying the supernatural, he's really saying "testing empirical claims yadda yadda". [May 03, 2009 8:03 PM]

    You have not shown how science studies the supernatural outside of just claiming it (as many creationist and certain believers attempt to do). You are simply saying that the claims to nature that are testable is studying the supernatural. But, that's the point, it's not studying the supernatual, there is no there there. Supernaturalims (God) is not reality. You can't make unreality into reality, the natural into the supernatural.

    I want to go back to your question:

    (Owen)"Am I really being this unclear?"I think the reason you are unclear is for the same reason you were in response to other points Massimo had made. In a fundamental way it goes back to your idea that when you read a criticism of Dawkins by Massimo you feel a disconnect. What's happening is an emotional response. Two points about this I want to get out of the way (1) I am not saying emotion in these types of discussions is a priori a bad thing and (2) it is not being dismissive in the way of disregarding an argument. I do think those that most often make these type arguments believe they are not being emotional and will often try to make that point.

    This leads to my final point, which I've made to varying degrees a few times. I think in the face of what is primarily an ideological war we are seeing higher levels of irrational defensiveness on the side of the what are supposed to be rationalist (a rather small group of atheist - not rationalist or atheist in general - I am obviously not saying they are wrong across the board, I tend to agree with most of them on many issues). The paradox is recognizable that a group of atheist would become dogmatic in their defensiveness and certain beliefs - especially when it pertains to certain individuals and positions they hold (including scientific - which is not saying this makes the scientific arguments wrong - and again this a little different than an appeal to authority - though it certainly does involve that). Of course how this is answered is to say things are the opposite. It wouldn't be the first time we've encountered this type of thing and certainly won't be the last. The problem as I see it is that it's coming with some serious baggage.

    Two areas raised by Massimo's blog post and in the comments speak directly to this - one is claims about the nature of science (and how it pertains to the supernatural) and the attitudes which are being forwarded in the guise of advocated approaches. It can in other words be "group think" that has the hallmarks of "saving the world" ideals mixed with direct attempts to stigmatize and increase levels of ridicule (the last point being done out of what appears to be three main areas (1) if ridicule works it works better in greater degree - which is attempting to find more legitimacy by saying different approaches are needed and this is only one - the "good cop" / "bad cop" scenario and (2) a direct claim of who it works best on and (3) frustration and resentment).

    Welcome to the age of the encroaching secular dogmatic "anti" approach in the fancy dress of a quasi-religious movement.

    A few points I've considered at length in making my charge. I'll just list them without giving detail - but I have eliminated them from counter arguments fairly clearly (1) secular humanism has been charged with being religious in nature (I don't believe this) (2) criticism can be interpreted as a negative and we need to criticize (this goes along with the "you want us to shut-up" claim - I'll just state that I support the humanist/atheist and skeptical movements and have for over 15 years) and (3) Religion is dangerous and I am an enabler by simply making the charge or criticizing (this is also tied with the idea we are threatened with a circular firing squad if we criticize "within the group" - problem is this is counter to a large degree what the group stands for - nothing I have said diminishes my view that religion can be very irrational and dangerous).

    ReplyDelete
  88. Ah crap! There's a few instances of the formatting getting screwed up (trust me I triple checked it). It's mainly in areas where my comments follow a quote, fortunately Owen's quotes are in italics and with quotation marks.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Luke

    I'm not hedging. I'm just not making the claims you think I'm making.

    You've done a good job going back through my previous comments, but in several cases you've missed out the connecting sentences that establish the context. This comment got too long by covering everything, so I've focused in detail on the main points (and it's still too long).

    (Luke) Why do you jump to the conclusion it has to be a "supernatural occurrence"?

    I haven't jumped to any conclusions. It doesn't have to be a supernatural occurrence. Since first realising my beliefs in the paranormal were unfounded (twenty years ago), I've seen no reason to re-assess that position. I'm just saying that, like Darwin, I can't rule out the possibility of something that would cause me to re-assess. I think the likelihood is vanishingly small, and I would treat any such claim with extreme scepticism, requiring significant[*] evidence, but I'm not so arrogant as to insist I currently have all the answers.

    [*] In practice, "significant" might mean "more than can actually ever be provided". I can't see what could possibly constitute such evidence in practice, and I'm not generally worried about having to significantly re-think my model of reality.

    (Luke) I later asked if you thought creationism was a scientific theory. But, your first reply here [April 30, 2009 9:53 AM] was not really a response about it being a scientific theory.

    You missed out the part where I differentiated between two versions of creationism. Saying "creationism", is too vague, and means nothing. I offered two different formulations, and claimed that one makes falsifiable predictions, and the other doesn't. I repeat this as it is quite central: asking "is creationism scientific" means nothing on its own, as different people mean different things by it. Some people think they can provide evidence for a 6000-year-old earth, and a worldwide flood. They would call this creationism. Some of those, even some fundies, can realise they are wrong when confronted with the physical evidence. In that respect, their version of creationism has been "refuted" in the sense that they no longer believe it. It doesn't destroy the metaphysical possibility, but I've never claimed it could. (Is that the sticking point here, you think I'm making a metaphysical claim about science, rather than a practical one about altering people's beliefs?)

    (Owen) It's not that it wasn't ever scientific, it's that it's been discarded as it doesn't fit the empirical evidence.In other words, the formulation of "creationism" which makes falsifiable claims has been tested (via naturalistic means), and has indeed been falsified. According to Popper, being falsifiable is the distinguishing hallmark of a scientific theory, so on that basis, yes, that formulation could have been considered scientific.

    I also stated that the other formulation I offered was *not* falsifiable (and by implication, certainly not scientific).

    Since you didn't specify what you meant by "creationism" I gave you an answer that covered two significant interpretations. There was no hedging.

    (Luke) Yes, the claims to nature have been 'proven' false, but the theory was never scientific. The claims to nature were never really scientific (unless you are picking and choosing how to define science).

    According to Popper, the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability. The claims to nature were therefore scientific in the sense that they were testable. While there are those who disagree with Popper, I don't think using his terminology could be considered "picking and choosing how to define science".

    Similarly for the question about irreducible complexity. It's testable. Doesn't mean the supporters of ID are doing what they do in good faith, or even that they could be considered to be "doing science". But it does mean an actual scientist could test their claims and possibly prove them false (as they have, in fact, done).

    (Luke) In your next response to me you once again hint that you think creationist stories are scientific theories.

    To be explicit: I think some formulations (at least one) are falsifiable, to whit: "6000-year-old earth, worldwide flood (etc)". If you follow Popper, you can make a case for this formulation being "scientific", yes. But either way, that one is certainly falsifiable. (I should add, it stops being scientific immediately once one ignores the evidence falsifying it. In much the same way someone promoting n-rays, or phlogiston, would be unscientific today, despite the fact the claims were originally scientific.)

    (Owen) "I contend that the process of applying the scientific method to the empirical claims of supernatural and/or paranormal phenomena *is* "studying the supernatural/paranormal".

    (Luke) You have no scientific justification to make that claim. You hedge this statement and others like it by mentioning semantics. It's not just semantics, it is about the nature of science and you don't get to decide on a whim what that will be.Ah, now here we get to the real point of contention, as I see it.

    To be clear: I'm not claiming to have proof that "testing empirical claims about the supernatural" is "studying the supernatural".

    No, I'm defining it that way. You appreciate there's a difference there, right? Put another way, I'm saying "testing the supernatural" is a shorthand for "testing empirical claims about the supernatural". The scientists who investigate the paranormal and/or supernatural phenomena might say they are "testing the supernatural" for short, but they mean "testing empirical claims about the supernatural" (in the same way a mathematician might refer to "the limit at infinity" instead of talking about epsilons-and-deltas). Sure it's informal, but it can be made formal just by using more words.

    e.g. There have been a number of studies testing the healing effects of prayer. Were the scientists involved not doing science because those making the claims thought something outside of nature was responsible? Would the scientists be allowed to talk about "investigating prayer", or would they have to say "investigating the empirical effects of prayer to a supernatural figure"?

    And the fact that I'm defining a term in a way you don't like is precisely what makes this part about semantics.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Owen,

    Thanks for taking the time in responding. Its been interesting.

    In many instances I simply don't know what you're talking about any more.

    Creationism, (in all of its guises)is NOT a scientific theory. That includes ideas in Intelligent Design, you have NOT shown me how I am wrong. I give up on this point.

    I had a feeling you might bring up prayer studies at some point. I had gone through this in fairly specific detail using the example of my claim of ESP and in some other cases. I don't care what they call the study, Owen, that simply doesn't matter. I can hardly believe how you've worded that second to last paragraph. The rest I get in a vague way because I've become used to reading it, but are you kidding me!?

    If there is a way to test the claim, then why not? Most claims to nature by believers are thought to be "supernatural" in causation at some level. I have gone over this repeatedly with creationism.


    (Owen>I'm not claiming to have proof that "testing empirical claims about the supernatural" is "studying the supernatural".

    No, I'm defining it that way."
    Now it's shorthand? It's not actually hedging then? The claims are about nature in the belief they are explained by something not purely explainable by naturalistic causation. That includes prayer studies, they are claim to nature, that is what is tested.

    Lets take another look at this - and I'll spare going back through the other statements you seem to have no problem with, like the one from Dawkins' site which makes a specific claim. Part of the problem there of course is that you still can't come to grips with the fact that creationism is not a scientific theory - all of them - and yes I've been extremely specific, even naming individuals ones and the best you can do is keep mentions the earth being 6,000 years old. But, lets go back to this exchange:


    "It is a philosophical mistake to believe that science can refute supernaturalism"(Owen)"I contend that is only true if you are trying to refute it *philosophically*."Even though you hedged on this by saying something like you do above, you have yet to show you understand the problem. But, for some reason I'm to believe that you're just using and supporting a short had in saying "

    I went out of my way quoting you, and you seem to realize that. I offered the time stamp for every quote, including for comments that I did not quote from but referred to. I read through your comments again today and was very careful in my comments, and even though you are basically repeating some of the same things, you claim I have taken you out of context.

    ReplyDelete
  91. (Luke) Creationism, (in all of its guises)is NOT a scientific theory. That includes ideas in Intelligent Design, you have NOT shown me how I am wrong. I give up on this point.

    I have not been claiming "Creationism is a scientific theory".
    I have not been claiming "Intelligent Design is a scientific theory".
    I am not a supporter, proponent, advocate for, or otherwise in favour of Creationism or Intelligent Design (or the Templeton Foundation, or any other attempt at integrating faith-based beliefs into mainstream science).

    I have been addressing a narrow, specific, technical, point: it is possible for proponents of Creationism and/or Intelligent Design to make physical claims that can be tested physically, scientifically. I know you don't disagree with that.

    I further contend that, following the well-known Popperian definition, something being testable is the defining feature of a scientific theory, and so it is possible to argue that certain, specific, narrow, claims of certain (not all) creationists (and ID proponents) could have been considered scientific (and that some of those claims would be called "creationism" by some supporters). I have NOT extended that to their larger claims. I have NOT claimed that Creationism in general is scientific. Nor have I for ID. I have NOT claimed that proponents of either are actually scientists (but scientists can test their empirical claims).

    Each time I make the narrow, technical, point above, you reply with some variation of "But Creationism is not a scientific theory". I don't care. I'm not making a claim that strong.

    You can disagree with my use of falsifiability as being the defining property of a scientific theory. But please don't respond as if I'm making any of the larger claims referred to above. I'm just not.


    I also have not been making any metaphysical claims that science can refute "the supernatural".

    I made (at least) one significant mistake of terminology. I carried on using the term "philosophical" when I meant "metaphysical". Without thinking too deeply I assumed the meaning was obvious, but I see that wasn't the case. I also (arguably) didn't differentiate strongly enough between the two senses of "refute" that I used. So, to clarify:

    Formally, science can't "refute" (to mean: "prove the non-existence of") the supernatural. This would be a metaphysical claim.

    But people's beliefs in the supernatural can be changed by removing the basis for any empirical claims associated with those beliefs. (Again, I know you don't disagree with that.)

    The possibly contentious part is where I say that -- in loose, informal language -- the supernatural claims that give rise to the beliefs have been "refuted" (to mean: "had their evidence-base removed" or somesuch).

    Do you see the difference? It's the same word, yes, but in the different contexts it has a different meaning. Formal, philosophical language vs common, everyday informal language. You might argue that I can't or shouldn't re-use the word for different meanings in the same discussion. But don't argue that I'm making strong metaphysical claims about the nature of science. I'm just not.


    (Luke) I had a feeling you might bring up prayer studies at some point.

    I'm curious: why? (Actually, out of everything in this comment, that's the thing I'd like addressed most.)


    (Luke) Now it's shorthand? It's not actually hedging then?

    It's *always* been shorthand. I've not made any stronger claims that that.


    (Luke) I'll spare going back through the other statements you seem to have no problem with, like the one from Dawkins' site which makes a specific claim.

    No, no, no. Don't assume you know anything about my opinion on that point (or any other I haven't written about explicitly). I've haven't addressed it because there's only so many things I can respond to at any one time.


    (Luke) Part of the problem there of course is that you still can't come to grips with the fact that creationism is not a scientific theory.

    Part of the problem is that you think I'm claiming "creationism is a scientific theory". As above, I'm not making any such large claim.

    (Owen) I contend that is only true if you are trying to refute it *philosophically*.
    (Luke) Even though you hedged on this by saying something like you do above, you have yet to show you understand the problem.

    I would now re-phrase that as: "I contend that is only true if you are trying to refute it *metaphysically*. If you are just trying to remove the empirical evidence-base, there is no issue, and that is what Dawkins is doing". I'll withdraw the contentious use of the word "refute" if it helps get the underlying point accepted.


    (Luke) I went out of my way quoting you, and you seem to realize that. [...] you claim I have taken you out of context.

    You did quote me well, but you still missed out some connecting parts that changed the context. I filled in one of those, in detail, as an example.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Owen,

    Thanks again for the response. This has been equal parts enjoyable and frustrating and it appears you would agree with the frustrating part at least. :)

    ---(Owen)"I have been addressing a narrow, specific, technical, point: it is possible for proponents of Creationism and/or Intelligent Design to make physical claims that can be tested physically, scientifically. I know you don't disagree with that."----I've read the above quote at least four times (now five) and I can hardly believe my eyes!

    Are you actually claiming now (or somehow believe) after all my explaining that I don't think physical claims about nature can be tested scientifically just because they are made by a creationist (ID too)?

    You still obviously haven't come to grips with the fact creationism is NOT a scientific theory, even though you are hedging even more now and saying I'm claiming you are saying it is a scientific theory. I have asked you several times if you thought creationism was a scientific theory, this only really came up because you quoted me saying it is not a scientific theory and you had an issue with that in you wanted to show that claims about nature could be tested scientifically (which I have been over half a dozen times).

    I am going to go through this one, only one more time.

    ---"It is a philosophical mistake to believe that science can refute supernaturalism"-------(Owen)"I would now re-phrase that as: "I contend that is only true if you are trying to refute it *metaphysically*. If you are just trying to remove the empirical evidence-base, there is no issue and that is what Dawkins is doing". I'll withdraw the contentious use of the word "refute" if it helps get the underlying point accepted."----I'll just repeat myself - you have NOT shown you understand the problem.

    See I think you are making a cognitive error that has been reinforced by others that should know better, but have non-the-less confused the discourse in order to have clever (though inaccurate) things to say in an ideological battle.

    This is what I mean by the "serious baggage" to some of this, because there's people that just don't know better and they are going around spreading false information like a virus. See, you have already said you understand that science can not refute the supernatural, but yet you keep hedging when faced with a very simple statement to that fact. You are (and this is what has been reinforced) confusing the claims that something in nature is explainable to some extent by supernaturalism (God was involved somehow) and the testing of the claim, the scientific testing only concerns itself with the natural phenomena (the theory doesn't even come close to being scientific - at least not yet :)).

    Yes, refuting the claim concerning nature can (we hope) have a positive impact on the person who believes the natural phenomena is explained by some "supernatural force". However, we are not refuting the "supernatural force" because you don't do that with science. "Believers" are obviously making a mistake in latching on to scientific theories like quantum physics as evidence of a 'God' ('higher reality': call it God) because scientific theories can change or be falsified to the extent we no long accept them. They are obviously doing the same thing with nature (always have), but their "theory" about a natural phenomena being explained by a "supernatural force" (like a God) is not scientific because it is unfalsifiable, non-testable, holds no predictive power and on and on (it simply is NOT science). This is why ALL forms of creationism are NOT scientific theories. It also helps to understand why the creationist (and others) keep trying to create an illusion the science in evolution by natural selection is pseudo-science or why they down play the understanding of the word "theory" as used in science. We shuck our duties if we allow them to take away our clarifying what "scientific theory" means.

    A lot of this stuff goes back to the point that we need to start taking more advantage of the sciences of psychology and sociology to understand and 'deal' with the "true believers". Playing the same game as the creationist just isn't going to get it, all it has done so far in the past few years is pollute the discourse. It's great so many people want to talk about God and the evidence or lack of, but dragging science through the mud and pounding your chest is bullshit.

    I have seen it shown over and over again in conversations similar to this one in the past couple years. There's a level of responsibility by those that hold authority in the sciences which they have simply dismissed for the benefit of a "larger war".

    Any skeptic who's been reading this crap and doesn't think this isn't a bigger problem than just a comment page hasn't been paying attention (or is to busy trying to keep subscribers to actually defend and promote what you've offered your talents to do - not you Massimo :)). If you think I'm overstating the problem, then please share how that is so.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Let me clarify a point in my last post before it's used against me somehow. :)

    In sentence I wrote: "..theories like quantum physics..."

    It should read more like quantum theory, or maybe quantum mechanics or, well you know what I mean.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Wait -- are you sure you read this bit right:

    (Owen) I know you don't disagree with that.

    (Luke) Are you actually claiming now [...] that I don't think physical claims about nature can be tested scientifically just because they are made by a creationist (ID too)?

    Er, did the double-negative confuse you?

    (PS: put punctuation after the close-italics, it corrects the formatting)

    ReplyDelete
  95. Owen,

    I apologize, I misread you. But, as strange as it is, outside of the sentence immediately following the quote - nothing else changes.

    ---(Owen)"I have been addressing a narrow, specific, technical, point: it is possible for proponents of Creationism and/or Intelligent Design to make physical claims that can be tested physically, scientifically. I know you don't disagree with that."----

    I read that the word "disagree" as "agree", obviously. I think reading it so many times and still thinking it read "agree" is a good lesson.

    It's also apparent that the main reason this sunk in the way it did when I went back to quote was because of the your following paragraph.

    There is no form of creationism that comports to being a scientific theory.

    Let me give you an example of the problem.

    This is a quote from Theodore M. Drange I found on the net. Theodore is a philosopher and also an atheist. It comes from his essay: "Can Creationism Be Scientific" (1998). It works pretty good to make a point.

    ----"Theories are sets of propositions put forward to explain facts or observations. They could come to be widely known to be true and thereby become facts (or sets of facts)."-----

    You see, the above statement is actually false. Theories in the scientific sense do not become facts -- "And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts."-- The theory that creationist use are NOT falsifiable. The ones that would agree with Theordore's old philosophical argument are the creationist themselves. Except it has been revived, and that is what I'm dealing with here to some degree with you.

    ReplyDelete
  96. I should add, before throwing Theodore to the dogs, he does offer a unique, though fairly strange perspective. He also gets other areas of scientific theory correct.

    Of course, for Theordore to say creationism can be scientific he clarifies he is talking about "Naturalistic Creationism" and only gives one example and that is Aliens. He makes clear that theistic creationism is not scientific.

    He then goes on to discuss this Alien type creationism with natural selection. However, this type of "creationism" is actually a mislabeling. However, it's been pretty clear in this conversation we have been discussing the down to earth religious variety of creationism. Calling the Alien hypothesis "creationism" is a rhetorical device that is no more useful than calling panpermia creationism. As far as I can tell Theodore is the coiner of the term "Naturalistic Creationism". Not surprisingly, someone who use mentions "naturalistic creationism" is Michael Corey, the apologist, who claims in an argument for deistic creationism that science already accepts a "naturalistic creationism".

    ReplyDelete
  97. Ok, I give up.

    For the record, one last statement.

    I don't think "creationism is a scientific theory".

    My position that a small subset of claims could be considered scientific rests on the idea that they are falsifiable (following Popper). Right-or-wrong, that doesn't mean I claim "creationism is a scientific theory". (Granted, not requiring the explanation to be naturalistic could be considered contentious. Either way, I certainly couldn't and wouldn't extend the claim to creationism generally.)

    I'm also not making the metaphysical claim that "science refutes the supernatural". I'm saying removing peoples evidence-base can mean they no longer believe the supernatural. I don't think this is contentious.

    And that's it.

    Laters,

    Owen

    ReplyDelete
  98. Owen,

    Thanks for the tip on formatting (hope it works).

    ---(Owen)"I don't think "creationism is a scientific theory."---

    Well, you got that right! Even though when I said it you quoted me and made these comments:

    ---(Luke)""creationism is not a falsifiable scientific theory."

    ---(Owen)"Well, "god created the universe to look exactly like it happened naturalistically" might not be falsifiable.

    But "god created the world 6000 years ago and destroyed most life on it in a world-wide flood soon after" -- *is*. In fact, it's been tested, and falsified.
    "---

    From there we were off to the funny farm. I asked you straight out and you detoured.

    (Luke) "So, I’ll ask you, what falsifiable scientific theory has any creationist proposed?---(Owen)God created the world six thousand years ago over the course of 6 days, then destroyed it in a worldwide flood shortly after.

    Falsified some time ago. Any claiming it's a reasonable position today is a loon, but two hundred years ago it wasn't so mad
    ."---

    Then later you react like the question is unreasonable when you say something like you do above to my statement and question. It just got worse, the same with this discussion about science and the supernatural.

    I said directly "scientific theory", in my follow up also. You of course now go back to the falsifiable claims about nature. How can I think that you understand the issue outside of you finally just stating the fact? They have not offered any falsifiable scientific theory, that's the point. You even attempt another hedge in your last comment.

    You end by showing once again you have not understood the problem with how you're responding to Massimo's very simple statement, in fact, you hedge.

    Yes, you've been unclear if you're still wondering. I don't know exactly why, but I think it is about the irrational defensiveness I discussed before.

    ReplyDelete
  99. “Wanna try? “

    I’d love to.

    “But a staunch creationist will argue (I know this from personal experience) that god simply orchestrated the whole appearance of fossils and intermediate forms to test our faith.”

    So, if god doctors the evidence such that we cannot trust rationality, do you make your argument from a position of being irrational?

    If you do, do you honestly believe that people should be irrational as a rule? Or do you support being a rational human being?

    If you say you should be rational, your premise fails.

    If you say you should be irrational, by what standard do you make your argument?

    I’ll firmly state (open refutation if you care to) that we should guide our behavior by rationality.

    How’s that?

    ReplyDelete
  100. It seems a fool's errand to aim for changing people's minds, which essentially, is the neurotic ambition of getting them to believe in the same thing as we believe. Therefore, I respectfully disagree that anyone should be ridiculed for their beliefs.

    Rather we should rationally disagree, state firmly the reasoning behind the arguments, and also discuss the real consequences of the different viewpoints.

    I think one of the best written examples of this is Judge Jones verdict in the Dover, Pa. creationism trial. It not only shows how poorly the community was served by irrational leadership, but also how the false choice of science vs. religion leads to really destructive and dangerous religious beliefs.

    Finally, another much more productive approach would be to dissect religiously contorted arguments on their own merits. Why does God need to test our faith? Why are not all humans born with faith in God as an instinct? Would Jesus want us to kill all athiests?

    ReplyDelete
  101. Great post.

    I don't know what is going on with Dawkins, Coyne, Meyers, et al. They are doing nothing but making this whole thing much harder for the rest of us, as if it wasn't hard enough already.

    To me the beauty of evolution is it's power to explain biological diversity, what it was intended to do. Sometimes I think to Dawkins and Meyers the beauty of evolution is in it's density as a cudgel against religion, which is maybe the use they have for evolution?

    ReplyDelete