tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post2217653466073705570..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: Apologies to Jerry Coyne (et al.)Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger29125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-19936249258610603782010-11-09T08:03:59.491-05:002010-11-09T08:03:59.491-05:00optical,
if there is no apologetics then there is...optical,<br /><br />if there is no apologetics then there is no attempt at rational discourse, in which case there is nothing to do for either science or religion.<br /><br />Science never refutes gods, it refutes specific empirical claims attributed to gods (like the earth being 6,000 years old). Not the same thing, as I've argued before.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-55766486068819274582010-11-09T01:25:06.233-05:002010-11-09T01:25:06.233-05:00Massimo: The problem is that religious people can ...Massimo: The problem is that religious people can claim that god is not perfectly good. Many eastern religions do not claim that god is all good (or all powerful for the matter). So the problem of slippery remains. Also, note that the idea of apologetics can be also slippery. Many eastern religions do not have a tradition of apologetics (ie. there is no equivalence of Thomas Aquinas in Buddhism). So it is perfectly ok that apologetics is abandoned. That does no harm to religion either. <br /><br />The best you can say is that philosophy can refute a certain kind of god. That is no different from what science can do.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-684801532526049342010-11-08T18:46:38.394-05:002010-11-08T18:46:38.394-05:00Massimo: Thanx. I appreciate it.Massimo: Thanx. I appreciate it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-54748455470313742982010-11-08T07:44:11.051-05:002010-11-08T07:44:11.051-05:00optical,
a splendid example is the classic essay ...optical,<br /><br />a splendid example is the classic essay by Mackey on the problem of evil. It is absolutely, positively devastating, and it doesn't require any science at all. Yes, the religious can say that god is not constrained by logic, but in so doing he abandons apologetics (which, after all, is the attempt to defend his faith by reason, a la Thomas Aquinas) and entirely left the building.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-40425024625612432852010-11-08T02:15:49.514-05:002010-11-08T02:15:49.514-05:00Massimo: You stated many times that religious clai...Massimo: You stated many times that religious claims are more convincingly dealt with using philosophical methods. When you get a chance I'd appreciate a demonstration. It seems to me that philosophy can do no better than science in this regard. All that philosophy can say is "this claim is illogical or too vague", but a religious person can say that is no a problem for god. God does not have to be logical or be precise. So you end up the same place as scientific refutations - nowhere.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-406955327561717202010-11-07T18:38:42.797-05:002010-11-07T18:38:42.797-05:00Moss, you've just received a shipment of respe...Moss, you've just received a shipment of respect from me. I respected you before, but it takes a lot of humility and effort to admit this about yourself and you have therefore gained more. If only more people would follow your guidelines when debating others instead of defaulting to personal attacks - which stalls the discussion for both sides.<br /> Real men, but few men take this kind of responsibility. <br />Thank you.Tezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04496261933808334809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-61308148495286799462010-11-07T18:08:43.607-05:002010-11-07T18:08:43.607-05:00I might expand on some of our differences about bi...I might expand on some of our differences about biological issues, though I written quite a bit about in this book:<br /><br />http://amzn.to/afwONo<br /><br />Have not read anything by Stoltzfus, so I cannot comment on it at the moment.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-56879355297460701792010-11-07T17:57:44.350-05:002010-11-07T17:57:44.350-05:00massimo,
very nice to hear that you and jerry hav...massimo,<br /> very nice to hear that you and jerry have reconciled -:)<br />i would like to hear more details on the differences between you and jerry have about biology. future blog posts perhaps.<br />also what is your opion on Arlin Stoltzfus 8 part series on mutationalism @ http://www.molevol.org/cdblogUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16775455066960384173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-45420422717706009822010-11-07T15:27:58.665-05:002010-11-07T15:27:58.665-05:00Most people that regularly engage in public debate...Most people that regularly engage in public debate occasionally need to publicly apologise. Most people that occasionally need to publicly apologise never do.<br /><br />Good work.GoogleGhosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03452973752684689243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-36665264365824159842010-11-07T04:48:58.529-05:002010-11-07T04:48:58.529-05:00Massimo, I'm not denying that a distinction ca...Massimo, I'm not denying that a distinction can be made between science and philosophy, though I probably see the distinction as much more fuzzy than you do. My objection is to the way you attempt to make that distinction, and the significance you assign to it. But I don't want to get into a full discussion of this subject now, so I'll say no more.Richard Weinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18095903892283146064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-39141768734732897382010-11-07T01:15:50.040-04:002010-11-07T01:15:50.040-04:00Massimo, I tend to agree about the no sharp demar...Massimo, I tend to agree about the no sharp demarcation line along with Paul Draper, who e-mailed me that Eugenie C. Scott was wrong to note that scientists should never note that no teleonomy lies behind natural causes as that's a philosophical point, whereas we three find otherwise. Therefore, the Lamberth atelic or teleonomic argument that the weight of evidence [ Ernst Mayr ( ( his term teleonomy) - " What Evolution Is ; G.G. Simpson- " The Life of the Past"] finds no intent-teleology of any kind- no divine intent- behind natural causes and besides violating the Ockham, also contradicts science rather than complementing it! Not only no intent for design but any argument proffering intent- no intent for the Big Bang, no intent for miracles, no intent to save Jewry [ underscored by the Shoa] and so forth. Without intent, then God can have no referents as that Primary Cause,Grand Miracle Monger and so forth, and thus cannot exist! And He has contradictory, incoherent attributes as you imply, that again, He cannot exist! A triple whammy! This is my form of ignosticism.<br /> Should the supernaturalists find evidence for His referents and evidence coherent, no contradictory attributes, then as a proponent of provisional methodological naturalism, yes, then He might exist1 Unlike, IMC, the minority view of the accommodationists and even PZ, it does not a priori deny the supernatural and the paranormal. Yes, of course, with the ignostic proviso - no referents and no attributes, that would indeed be a tall order, but not an a priori matter!<br /> Maarten Boudry's comments on these two methodological naturalisms find themselves @ Jerry's blog.Ignostic Morganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00840974074283188834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-3107047407741978452010-11-06T09:05:01.882-04:002010-11-06T09:05:01.882-04:00optical,
well, to begin with, theological stateme...optical,<br /><br />well, to begin with, theological statements are inherently philosophical in nature (theology used to be a branch of philosophy). Second, what philosophers do well is to dissect and analyze the nature and intrinsic logic of claims, which makes them good at spotting where exactly someone's argument falls off the rational train.<br /><br />Richard,<br /><br />thanks for your comment. I don't think I am trying to draw a simplistic distinction, since I don't think there is a sharp demarcation between science and philosophy. But I also don't think it's so easy to shift the burden of argument: philosophy and science have been historically distinct (even when science was part of philosophy, it was a special branch of it), and they are currently pursued by different academics, working in different departments, going to different meetings, and writing papers very differently. All of this requires an explanation that goes beyond "oh, well, those are just arbitrary distinctions." They are no more arbitrary than those that separate, say medicine from law.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-39370153602531368962010-11-06T06:56:12.352-04:002010-11-06T06:56:12.352-04:00I'd like to join in the spirit of reconciliati...I'd like to join in the spirit of reconciliation, and apologise for some of the intemperate language that I've used in discussions here and elsewhere. I'll try to keep my cool better in the future.<br /><br />I think a lot of the disagreement on this subject arises from talking at crossed purposes. All concerned could do with paying more attention to semantic issues, i.e. the meanings of words. But I think the greater onus here is on those who are trying to establish a demarcation criterion between "science" and "philosophy", or who are trying to claim that science in principle cannot evaluate any "supernatural" hypothesis. As they're the ones making specific claims, they need to be much clearer about what they're claiming, and especially what they mean by "science" and "supernatural". Those of us on the other side are mostly (though not always) taking a negative position, rejecting such claims or arguing that they're too simplistic, so we don't have the same onus.Richard Weinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18095903892283146064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-66064875309044088442010-11-06T03:49:45.521-04:002010-11-06T03:49:45.521-04:00Massimo, you previously said that scientific theor...Massimo, you previously said that scientific theories are structured in a particular way. Because theistic claims are too slippery to be formulated in this structure, it does not constitute a scientific theory and therefore falls outside the domain of science. If we accept that, why do you find "philosophical objections to religious claims more convincing?" Are philosophical arguments not structured in a particular way? Are you saying that religiously claims are always expressed in formal logic so that philosophers can apply their expertise in logic to dissect them? Why do you think religious claims can be expressed as philosophical propositions? Many religious folks outright reject logic. If they are too slippery for science, surely they are too slippery for philosophy too? <br /><br />You might say this is because philosophy can investigate propositions that are not philosophical. But why can't science investigate claims that are not scientific?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-16872536540243838182010-11-06T01:36:01.864-04:002010-11-06T01:36:01.864-04:00good work Massimogood work MassimoHuincahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16982673401388824986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-89778851137117611902010-11-05T17:41:32.927-04:002010-11-05T17:41:32.927-04:00Kudos to you for your self-reflection. I must adm...Kudos to you for your self-reflection. I must admit I was a little disappointed when you criticized Coyne's philosophy as "primitive" instead of arguing with the substance. <br /><br />But you have won me back as reader, good sir, with your honesty sincerity. That and you have behaved like a grown-up, behavior which can be sorely lacking from all of us from time to time.MJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00033310680352043403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-8148534025972459682010-11-05T16:41:35.323-04:002010-11-05T16:41:35.323-04:00Baron,
ah, yes, that's a good point. I don...Baron,<br /><br />ah, yes, that's a good point. I don't want to turn the blog into an overly serious matter. Irony and satire are good things in life, if used judiciously. It is sarcasm that crosses the line, eventually leading straight down to insult. Unfortunately, that line isn't always crystal clear when one writes, so it will up to you guys to keep me on this side of it...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-62640076574144803002010-11-05T16:36:46.971-04:002010-11-05T16:36:46.971-04:00Massimo:
Have you nevertheless reserved the right ...Massimo:<br />Have you nevertheless reserved the right to gently ridicule? In other words, to satirize?Baron Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04138430918331887648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-18615581544151694902010-11-05T16:36:40.799-04:002010-11-05T16:36:40.799-04:00Wow. Kudos to a spontaneous and sincere apology. T...Wow. Kudos to a spontaneous and sincere apology. This is very unusual in any context and is refreshing.J.J. Emersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06005635061756895272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-48312009158287286382010-11-05T16:07:03.971-04:002010-11-05T16:07:03.971-04:00Kudos Massimo.Kudos Massimo.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12256953909644408214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1160382037510242852010-11-05T14:05:46.946-04:002010-11-05T14:05:46.946-04:00Thanks Massimo. I would add (from the point of vie...Thanks Massimo. I would add (from the point of view of the general reader) that the two are connected...that because science, and reason more broadly, are based on open inquiry and questioning, they tend not to stop with claims or concepts that are so vague they can't explain anything, while faith is untroubled by vagueness.Ophelia Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08000353980872079468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-24952007007383636042010-11-05T13:56:33.409-04:002010-11-05T13:56:33.409-04:00Respect!
As for disagreements, I largely agree wi...Respect!<br /><br />As for disagreements, I largely agree with you about biology, but tentatively with Coyne about philosophy. Isn't that ironic...Bjørn Østmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08859177313382114917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-84778907416330670862010-11-05T13:47:04.282-04:002010-11-05T13:47:04.282-04:00Ian, you raise good points about the consequences ...Ian, you raise good points about the consequences of ideology...but:<br /><br />a) I was partly objecting to Massimo's strong moral language. For example, nothing in those definitions implies to me that <b>all</b> ideologies are necessarily "evil", even though some examples (e.g. Nazism) certainly strike me that way.<br /><br />b) I doubt that any one is truly ideology-free, given the broad connotations of those definitions. In fact, I might characterize your view as an ideology whose content (or "set of claims") is dynamic (or, in more loaded terms, self-correcting), based on some logical/rational/empirical criteria. You may prefer to label that view a "meta-ideology", but I think it fits the definitions given above just fine.<br /><br />c) Less formally, I tend to think of an ideology as a body of ideals, and I can hardly imagine (let alone envy) a human life that lacks these. Sure, one should reject an ideal that can't withstand evidence or other kinds of negative feedback. But that in itself is an ideal, based on our real-world experience with dogmatic groups and individuals.<br /><br />In summary, I know it's just semantics, but I hate to see the reputation of a good English word ruined.mufihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01818949854678769391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-85095009867054103682010-11-05T13:21:40.554-04:002010-11-05T13:21:40.554-04:00Here is Jerry's response to my post:
http://b...Here is Jerry's response to my post:<br /><br />http://bit.ly/aPMIbY<br /><br />Hector, yes, my post is addressed also to my readers, in the spirit of the Rationally Speaking motto about truth springing from argument amongst friends.<br /><br />jcm, I take a similar view of ideology to that of ian. Yes, dogmatism is even worse, but I see ideologies as quickly leading to dogmatic stands.<br /><br />Ophelia, much appreciated, thanks. I would argue a major business of philosophy is precisely to examine the epistemic and logical content - if any - of statements, which is why I find (science-informed) philosophical objections to religion more convincing.<br /><br />And yes, there is a deep conflict between science and religion - which is why I do not consider myself an accommodationist. However, the major source of that conflict, I think, was aptly summarized by Richard Feynman (in "The Meaning of It All: Thoughts of a Citizen-Scientist") when he said that science is based on open inquiry and questioning, while faith takes precisely the opposite stand.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-48246728279684410972010-11-05T12:11:42.210-04:002010-11-05T12:11:42.210-04:00Very nice, Massimo. I in turn apologize for from-t...Very nice, Massimo. I in turn apologize for from-the-sidelines heckling I have done.<br /><br />On the substance - what you say about supernaturalism at least partly answers a question I've had about your view throughout this erm discussion.<br /><br />"science has nothing to say about the supernatural because the latter is too vague to constitute anything like an explanation of any sort, let alone a scientific one."<br /><br />My question has been along the lines of: "You say science has nothing to say about the supernatural, but does anything else have anything to say about it?" The quoted passage seems to imply that you would answer "no." Is that right?<br /><br />In any case - what you say <i>is</i> saying the relevant thing about the supernatural, isn't it? Isn't the fact that it's too vague to constitute anything like an explanation of any sort precisely why Jerry and others think there is an epistemic conflict between religion (of the supernatural variety - not religion-as-social and the like) and science?<br /><br />That's my view of it anyway, for what that's worth.Ophelia Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08000353980872079468noreply@blogger.com