“The confrontation between science and formal religion will come to an end when the role played by science in the lives of all people is the same played by religion today…What if we appropriated the craft, the artistry, the methods of formal religion to get the message across? Imagine 'Einstein's Witnesses' going door to door or TV evangelists passionately espousing the beauty of evolution.” -- planetary scientist Carolyn Porco
“The idea that naturalism might be a kind of modernist religion has been advanced in recent years,” wrote evolutionary biologist in his preface for the Cornell Evolution Project. “Evolutionary biology enjoys a privileged position at the core of this belief system because it offers explanations about why and how humankind originated. Any teacher of evolution is by default a teacher of a deeply philosophical world-view, one that differs dramatically from that of traditional theistic religion.”
Graffin’s project is a continuation of a study he conducted to determine the degree to which the world's leading evolutionary biologists believe in traditional religion, naturalism, and the philosophical implications of their science. In his monograph, "Monism, Atheism, and the Naturalist World-View: Perspectives from Evolutionary Biology," he concludes that there is "no conflict between evolutionary theory and religion on the one important condition that religion is essentially atheistic."
Not only is there no conflict, evolutionary biology has even birthed a new religion, a blend of naturalism and deism that I refer to as "neism.” In May 2004, I claimed that the problem with neism was that it was a “theology without a theologian” but that the time was ripe for ripe for a brilliant expositor who possesses the courage to reinterpret every religious impulse through a neistic framework.:
Hardcore materialists will eventually grow frustrated with the conservative dogma of Darwinism and its complete inability to account for ethical, epistemological, and metaphysical “truths.” Many of the materialistic fundamentalists will no doubt hold on to the old form of naturalistic atheism and reject any form of neistic belief. They are reconciled to the existentialist (if not the nihilistic) conclusions of their beliefs and feel no need for a deeper “spiritual” understanding (i.e., explaining consciousness). But I believe a religious genius will eventually emerge and transform naturalism just as Fredrick Schleiermacher transformed modern Protestantism.
My prediction was a bit off. Instead of looking for a lone genius to push the religion forward, I should have been expecting an ecumenical gathering of leaders; something akin to the Nicene Council. Such a loose collaboration occurred recently when 119 contributors—“third culture scientists and science-minded thinkers”—responded to the 2006 Edge question.
This year, the contributors were asked, “What is your dangerous idea?”
The history of science is replete with discoveries that were considered socially, morally, or emotionally dangerous in their time; the Copernican and Darwinian revolutions are the most obvious. What is your dangerous idea? An idea you think about (not necessarily one you originated) that is dangerous not because it is assumed to be false, but because it might be true?
After reading the responses John Brockman, a literary agent and publisher of Edge, realized that this was no ordinary online symposium:
Something radically new is in the air: new ways of understanding physical systems, new ways of thinking about thinking that call into question many of our basic assumptions. A realistic biology of the mind, advances in evolutionary biology, physics, information technology, genetics, neurobiology, psychology, engineering, the chemistry of materials: all are questions of critical importance with respect to what it means to be human. For the first time, we have the tools and the will to undertake the scientific study of human nature.
What you will find emerging out of the 119 original essays in the 75,000 word document written in response to the 2006 Edge Question — "What is your dangerous idea?" — are indications of a new natural philosophy, founded on the realization of the import of complexity, of evolution. Very complex systems — whether organisms, brains, the biosphere, or the universe itself — were not constructed by design; all have evolved. There is a new set of metaphors to describe ourselves, our minds, the universe, and all of the things we know in it.
In his insightful summary, Brockman mentions the most foundational belief of neism: Everything in the universe is the product of blind evolutionary processes. As Richard Dawkins explained in answering last year’s question, “I believe, but I cannot prove, that all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all 'design' anywhere in the universe, is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection.” This is the core of their mystical faith system; everything rests on this claim being indubitable.
Just as the resurrection is the cornerstone of Christianity, natural selection is the pillar on which neism stands. That is why neists have an apoplectic fit over Intelligent Design. The heretical notion does not just question a theory, it denys the foundation of their religious beliefs. Some even claim that their belief system must destroy other religions (see entry by Sam Harris. Neists may not have a god but their religion has retained the first commandment: Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
To fully understand the pervasiveness of this new religion you’d need to read nearly all 119 essays. Not all of them, of course, are written by people who subscribe to neism. A few have stumbled in by mistake. But I think it’s safe to estimate that about 100 of them are “true believers” of this burgeoning faith movement. There are million possible ways to answer the question, yet almost all of them to hinge on natural selection. This is more than just coincidence – it’s evidence of a new religious consciousness.
I’ve tried to include a few dozen representative samples in the following categories: Existential questions, the meaning of life; Mind and epistemology; Free will, behavior, and ethics; Implications for theology and religion; and Miscellaneous.
Reading excerpts, though, is no substitute for reading the essays. I highly encourage anyone with an interest in religion to give them the scrutiny they deserve.
Existential questions, the meaning of life
SUSAN BLACKMORE [Psychologist and Skeptic; Author, Consciousness: An Introduction]
Everything is pointless
We humans can, and do, make up our own purposes, but ultimately the universe has none. All the wonderfully complex, and beautifully designed things we see around us were built by the same purposeless process — evolution by natural selection. This includes everything from microbes and elephants to skyscrapers and computers, and even our own inner selves.People have (mostly) got used to the idea that living things were designed by natural selection, but they have more trouble accepting that human creativity is just the same process operating on memes instead of genes. It seems, they think, to take away uniqueness, individuality and "true creativity".
ROBERT R. PROVINE [Psychologist and Neuroscientist, University of Maryland; Author, Laughter]
This is all there is
The empirically testable idea that the here and now is all there is and that life begins at birth and ends at death is so dangerous that it has cost the lives of millions and threatens the future of civilization. The danger comes not from the idea itself, but from its opponents, those religious leaders and followers who ruthlessly advocate and defend their empirically improbable afterlife and man-in-the-sky cosmological perspectives.
SCOTT SAMPSON [Chief Curator, Utah Museum of Natural History; Associate Professor Department of Geology and Geophysics, University of Utah; Host, Dinosaur Planet TV series]
The purpose of life is to disperse energy
The truly dangerous ideas in science tend to be those that threaten the collective ego of humanity and knock us further off our pedestal of centrality. The Copernican Revolution abruptly dislodged humans from the center of the universe. The Darwinian Revolution yanked Homo sapiens from the pinnacle of life. Today another menacing revolution sits at the horizon of knowledge, patiently awaiting broad realization by the same egotistical species.
The dangerous idea is this: the purpose of life is to disperse energy.
We are entirely alone
Living creatures capable of reflecting on their own existence are a one-off, freak accident, existing for one brief moment in the history of the universe. There may be life elsewhere in the universe, but it does not have self-reflective consciousness. There is no God; no Intelligent Designer; no higher purpose to our lives.
JOHN HORGAN [Science Writer; Author, Rational Mysticism]
We Have No Souls
The dangerous, probably true idea I'd like to dwell on in this Holiday season is that we humans have no souls. The soul is that core of us that supposedly transcends and even persists beyond our physicality, lending us a fundamental autonomy, privacy and dignity....Until recently, it was easy to dismiss this assumption as moot, because brain researchers had made so little progress in tracing cognition to specific neural processes. Even self-proclaimed materialists — who accept, intellectually, that we are just meat machines — could harbor a secret, sentimental belief in a soul of the gaps.
RODNEY BROOKS [Director, MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL); Chief Technical Officer of iRobot Corporation; author Flesh and Machines]
Being alone in the universe
The thing that I worry about most that may or may not be true is that perhaps the spontaneous transformation from non-living matter to living matter is extraordinarily unlikely. We know that it has happened once. But what if we gain lots of evidence over the next few decades that it happens very rarely.
... What if none of these indicate any life whatsoever? What does that do to our scientific belief that life did arise spontaneously. It should not change it, but it will make it harder to defend against non-scientific attacks. And wouldn't it sadden us immensely if we were to discover that there is a vanishing small probability that life will arise even once in any given galaxy.
Being alone in this solar system will not be such a such a shock, but alone in the galaxy, or worse alone in the universe would, I think, drive us to despair, and back towards religion as our salve.
Mind and Epistemology
DONALD HOFFMAN [Cognitive Scientist, UC, Irvine; Author, Visual Intelligence]
A spoon is like a headache
Once one abandons public physical objects, one must reformulate many current open problems in science. One example is the mind-brain relation. There are no public brains, only my brain experiences and your brain experiences. These brain experiences are just the simplified visual experiences of homo sapiens, shaped for survival in certain niches. The chances that our brain experiences resemble some mind-independent truth are remote at best, and those who would claim otherwise must surely explain the miracle. Failing a clever explanation of this miracle, there is no reason to believe brains cause anything, including minds.
RUDY RUCKER [Mathematician, Computer Scientist; CyberPunk Pioneer; Novelist; Author, Lifebox, the Seashell, and the Soul]
Mind is a universally distributed quality
Panpsychism. Each object has a mind. Stars, hills, chairs, rocks, scraps of paper, flakes of skin, molecules — each of them possesses the same inner glow as a human, each of them has singular inner experiences and sensations.I'm quite comfortable with the notion that everything is a computation. But what to do about my sense that there's something numinous about my inner experience? Panpsychism represents a non-anthropocentric way out: mind is a universally distributed quality.
Yes, the workings of a human brain are a deterministic computation that could be emulated by any universal computer. And, yes, I sense more to my mental phenomena than the rule-bound exfoliation of reactions to inputs: this residue is the inner light, the raw sensation of existence. But, no, that inner glow is not the exclusive birthright of humans, nor is it solely limited to biological organisms.
KARL SABBAGH [Writer and Television Producer; Author, The Riemann Hypothesis]
The human brain and its products are incapable of understanding the truths about the universe
Our brains may never be well-enough equipped to understand the universe and we are fooling ourselves if we think they will.
Why should we expect to be able eventually to understand how the universe originated, evolved, and operates? While human brains are complex and capable of many amazing things, there is not necessarily any match between the complexity of the universe and the complexity of our brains, any more than a dog's brain is capable of understanding every detail of the world of cats and bones, or the dynamics of stick trajectories when thrown.
TODD E. FEINBERG, M.D. [Psychiatrist and Neurologist, Albert Einstein College of Medicine; Author, Altered Egos]
Myths and fairy tales are not true
"Myths and fairy tales are not true." There is no Easter Bunny, there is no Santa Claus, and Moses may never have existed. Worse yet, I have increasing difficulty believing that there is a higher power ruling the universe. This is my dangerous idea. It is not a dangerous idea to those who do not share my particular world view or personal fears; to others it may seem trivially true. But for me, this idea is downright horrifying.
GARY MARCUS [Psychologist, New York University; Author, The Birth of the Mind]
Minds, genes, and machines
Copernicus put us in our place, so to to speak, by showing that our planet is not at the center of universe; advances in biology are putting us further in our place by showing that our brains are as much a product of biology as any other part of our body, and by showing that our (human) brains are built by the very same processes as other creatures. Just as the earth is just one planet among many, from the perspective of the toolkit of developmental biology, our brain is just one more arrangement of molecules.
BARRY C. SMITH [Philosopher, Birbeck, University of London; Coeditor, Knowing Our Own Minds]
Human beings, like everything else, are part of the natural world. The natural world is all there is....The final triumph of the natural sciences over supernaturalism will be an account of nature of conscious experience. The cognitive and brain sciences have done much to make that project clearer but we are still a long way from a fully satisfying theory.
TIMOTHY TAYLOR [Archaeologist, University of Bradford; Author, The Buried Soul]
The human brain is a cultural artefact.
Phylogenetically, humans represent an evolutionary puzzle. Walking on two legs free the hands to do new things, like chip stones to make modified tools — the first artefacts, dating to 2.7 million years ago — but it also narrows the pelvis and dramatically limits the size of possible fetal cranium. Thus the brain expansion that began after 2 million years ago should not have happened.
PAUL BLOOM [Psychologist, Yale University; Author, Descartes' Baby]
There are no souls
I am not concerned here with the radical claim that personal identity, free will, and consciousness do not exist. Regardless of its merit, this position is so intuitively outlandish that nobody but a philosopher could take it seriously, and so it is unlikely to have any real-world implications, dangerous or otherwise.
Instead I am interested in the milder position that mental life has a purely material basis. The dangerous idea, then, is that Cartesian dualism is false. If what you mean by "soul" is something immaterial and immortal, something that exists independently of the brain, then souls do not exist. This is old hat for most psychologists and philosophers, the stuff of introductory lectures. But the rejection of the immaterial soul is unintuitive, unpopular, and, for some people, downright repulsive.
Free Will, Behavior, and Ethics
DAVID LYKKEN [Behavioral geneticist and Emeritus Professor of Psychology, University of Minnesota; Author, Happiness]
Laws requiring parental licensure
I believe that, during my grandchildren's lifetimes, the U.S. Supreme Court will find a way to approve laws requiring parental licensure.
Traditional societies in which children are socialized collectively, the method to which our species is evolutionarily adapted, have very little crime.
CLAY SHIRKY [Social & Technology Network Topology Researcher; Adjunct Professor, NYU Graduate School of Interactive Telecommunications Program (ITP)]
Free will is going away. Time to redesign society to take that into account.
As long as we were unable to locate any biological source of free will, treating the mass of people as if each of them had the same degree of control over their lives made perfect sense; no more refined judgments were possible. However, that binary notion of free will is being eroded as our understanding of the biological antecedents of behavior improves.
GREGORY COCHRAN [Consultant in adaptive optics and an adjunct professor of anthropology at the University of Utah]
There is something new under the sun — us
Thucydides said that human nature was unchanging and thus predictable — but he was probably wrong. If you consider natural selection operating in fast-changing human environments, such stasis is most unlikely. We know of a number of cases in which there has been rapid adaptive change in humans; for example, most of the malaria-defense mutations such as sickle cell are recent, just a few thousand years old. The lactase mutation that lets most adult Europeans digest ice cream is not much older.
There is no magic principle that restricts human evolutionary change to disease defenses and dietary adaptations: everything is up for grabs.
ERIC R. KANDEL [Biochemist and University Professor, Columbia University; Recipient, The Nobel Prize, 2000; Author, Cellular Basis of Behavior]
Free will is exercised unconsciously, without awareness
It is clear that consciousness is central to understanding human mental processes, and therefore is the holy grail of modern neuroscience. What is less clear is that much of our mental processes are unconscious and that these unconscious processes are as important as conscious mental processes for understanding the mind. Indeed most cognitive processes never reach consciousness.
THOMAS METZINGER [Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies; Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz; President German Cognitive Science Society; Author: Being No One]
The Forbidden Fruit Intuition
My dangerous question is if one can be intellectually honest about the issue of free will and preserve one's mental health at the same time....Can one really believe in determinism without going insane?
As a scientifically well-informed person you believe in this theory, you endorse it. As an open-minded person you find that you are also interested in modern philosophy of mind,...You like this basic idea: physical determinism is compatible with being a free agent. You endorse a materialist philosophy of freedom as well. An intellectually honest person open to empirical data, you simply believe that something along these lines must be true.
Now you try to feel that it is true. You try to consciously experience the fact that at any given moment of your life, you could not have acted otherwise. You try to experience the fact that even your thoughts, however rational and moral, are predetermined — by something unconscious, by something you can not see. And in doing so, you start fooling around with the conscious self-model Mother Nature evolved for you with so much care and precision over millions of years: You are scratching at the user-surface of your own brain, tweaking the mouse-pointer, introspectively trying to penetrate into the operating system, attempting to make the invisible visible. You are challenging the integrity of your phenomenal self by trying to integrate your new beliefs, the neuroscientific image of man, with your most intimate, inner way of experiencing yourself. How does it feel?
I think that the irritation and deep sense of resentment surrounding public debates on the freedom of the will actually has nothing much to do with the actual options on the table. It has to do with the — perfectly sensible — intuition that our presently obvious answer will not only be emotionally disturbing, but ultimately impossible to integrate into our conscious self-models.
RICHARD DAWKINS [Evolutionary Biologist, Charles Simonyi Professor For The Understanding Of Science, Oxford University; Author, The Ancestor's Tale]
Let's all stop beating Basil's car
Retribution as a moral principle is incompatible with a scientific view of human behaviour. As scientists, we believe that human brains, though they may not work in the same way as man-made computers, are as surely governed by the laws of physics. When a computer malfunctions, we do not punish it. We track down the problem and fix it, usually by replacing a damaged component, either in hardware or software.
But doesn't a truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make nonsense of the very idea of responsibility, whether diminished or not? Any crime, however heinous, is in principle to be blamed on antecedent conditions acting through the accused's physiology, heredity and environment. Don't judicial hearings to decide questions of blame or diminished responsibility make as little sense for a faulty man as for a Fawlty car?
JERRY COYNE [Evolutionary Biologist; Professor, Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Chicago; Author (with H. Allen Orr), Speciation]
Many behaviors of modern humans were genetically hard-wired (or soft-wired) in our distant ancestors by natural selection
For me, one idea that is dangerous and possibly true is an extreme form of evolutionary psychology — the view that many behaviors of modern humans were genetically hard-wired (or soft-wired) in our distant ancestors by natural selection.
HELEN FISHER [Research Professor, Department of Anthropology, Rutgers University; Author, Why We Love]
If patterns of human love subtlely change, all sorts of social and political atrocities can escalate
I believe that Homo sapiens has evolved (at least) three primary, distinct yet overlapping neural systems for reproduction. The sex drive evolved to motivate ancestral men and women to seek sexual union with a range of partners; romantic love evolved to enable them to focus their courtship energy on a preferred mate, thereby conserving mating time and energy; attachment evolved to enable them to rear a child through infancy together.
DAVID PIZARRO [Psychologist, Cornell University]
Hodgepodge Morality
What some individuals consider a sacrosanct ability to perceive moral truths may instead be a hodgepodge of simpler psychological mechanisms, some of which have evolved for other purposes....The emotional reactions of empathy and disgust likewise figure into our judgments of who deserves moral protection and who doesn't. But the ability to perceive intentions probably didn't evolve as a way to determine who deserves moral blame. And the emotion of disgust most likely evolved to keep us safe from rotten meat and feces, not to provide information about who deserves moral protection.
DAVID BUSS [Psychologist, University of Texas, Austin; Author, The Murderer Next Door: Why the Mind is Designed to Kill]
The Evolution of Evil
When most people think of torturers, stalkers, robbers, rapists, and murderers, they imagine crazed drooling monsters with maniacal Charles Manson-like eyes. The calm normal-looking image starring back at you from the bathroom mirror reflects a truer representation. The dangerous idea is that all of us contain within our large brains adaptations whose functions are to commit despicable atrocities against our fellow humans — atrocities most would label evil.
The unfortunate fact is that killing has proved to be an effective solution to an array of adaptive problems in the ruthless evolutionary games of survival and reproductive competition: Preventing injury, rape, or death; protecting one's children; eliminating a crucial antagonist; acquiring a rival's resources; securing sexual access to a competitor's mate; preventing an interloper from appropriating one's own mate; and protecting vital resources needed for reproduction.
J. CRAIG VENTER [Genomics Researcher; Founder & President, J. Craig Venter Science Foundation]
Revealing the genetic basis of personality and behavior will create societal conflicts
We attribute behaviors in other mammalian species to genes and genetics but when it comes to humans we seem to like the notion that we are all created equal, or that each child is a "blank slate". As we obtain the sequences of more and more mammalian genomes including more human sequences, together with basic observations and some common sense, we will be forced to turn away from the politically correct interpretations, as our new genomic tool sets provide the means to allow us to begin to sort out the reality about nature or nurture. In other words, we are at the threshold of a realistic biology of humankind.
GEOFFREY MILLER [Evolutionary Psychologist, University of New Mexico; Author, The Mating Mind]
Runaway consumerism explains the Fermi Paradox
I suggest a different, even darker solution to Fermi's Paradox. Basically, I think the aliens don't blow themselves up; they just get addicted to computer games. They forget to send radio signals or colonize space because they're too busy with runaway consumerism and virtual-reality narcissism. They don't need Sentinels to enslave them in a Matrix; they do it to themselves, just as we are doing today.
The fundamental problem is that any evolved mind must pay attention to indirect cues of biological fitness, rather than tracking fitness itself.
Implications for Theology and Religion
CAROLYN PORCO [Planetary Scientist; Cassini Imaging Science Team Leader; Director CICLOPS, Boulder CO; Adjunct Professor, University of Colorado, University of Arizona]
The Greatest Story Ever Told
The confrontation between science and formal religion will come to an end when the role played by science in the lives of all people is the same played by religion today....What if we appropriated the craft, the artistry, the methods of formal religion to get the message across? Imagine 'Einstein's Witnesses' going door to door or TV evangelists passionately espousing the beauty of evolution.
SCOTT ATRAN [Anthropologist, University of Michigan; Author, In God's We Trust]
Science encourages religion in the long run (and vice versa)
From a scientific perspective of the overall structure and design of the physical universe:
1. Human beings are accidental and incidental products of the material development of the universe, almost wholly irrelevant and readily ignored in any general description of its functioning.
Beyond Earth, there is no intelligence — however alien or like our own — that is watching out for us or cares. We are alone.
2. Human intelligence and reason, which searches for the hidden traps and causes in our surroundings, evolved and will always remain leashed to our animal passions — in the struggle for survival, the quest for love, the yearning for social standing and belonging.
This intelligence does not easily suffer loneliness, anymore than it abides the looming prospect of death, whether individual or collective.
SAM HARRIS [Neuroscience Graduate Student, UCLA; Author, The End of Faith]
Science Must Destroy Religion
The conflict between religion and science is inherent and (very nearly) zero-sum. The success of science often comes at the expense of religious dogma; the maintenance of religious dogma always comes at the expense of science. It is time we conceded a basic fact of human discourse: either a person has good reasons for what he believes, or he does not.
Science, in the broadest sense, includes all reasonable claims to knowledge about ourselves and the world. If there were good reasons to believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, or that Muhammad flew to heaven on a winged horse, these beliefs would necessarily form part of our rational description of the universe. Faith is nothing more than the license that religious people give one another to believe such propositions when reasons fail. The difference between science and religion is the difference between a willingness to dispassionately consider new evidence and new arguments, and a passionate unwillingness to do so. The distinction could not be more obvious, or more consequential, and yet it is everywhere elided, even in the ivory tower.
STEPHEN M. KOSSLYN [Psychologist, Harvard University; Author, Wet Mind]
A Science of the Divine?
Next, consider our species. One could try to push this perspective into a historical context, and note that evolution by natural selection reflects the effects of interactions among living things. If so, then the emergent properties of such interactions could feed back to affect the course of evolution itself.
Miscellaneous
IRENE PEPPERBERG [Research Associate, Psychology, Harvard University; Author, The Alex Studies]
The differences between humans and nonhumans are quantitative, not qualitative
I believe that humans are the ultimate generalists, creatures that may lack specific talents or physical adaptations that have been finely honed in other species, but whose additional brain power enables them — in an exquisite manner — to, for example, integrate information, improvise with what is present, and alter or adapt to a wide range of environments…but that this additional brain power is (and provides) a quantitative, not qualitative difference.
GEORGE B. DYSON [Science Historian; Author, Project Orion]
Understanding molecular biology without discovering the origins of life
I predict we will reach a complete understanding of molecular biology and molecular evolution, without ever discovering the origins of life.
This idea is dangerous, because it suggests a mystery that science cannot explain. Or, it may be interpreted as confirmation that life is merely the collective result of a long series of incremental steps, and that it is impossible to draw a precise distinction between life and non-life.
DENIS DUTTON [Professor of the philosophy of art, University of Canterbury, New Zealand, editor of Philosophy and Literature and Arts & Letters Daily]
A "grand narrative"
Aesthetic experience, as well as the context of artistic creation, is a phenomenon both social and psychological. From the standpoint of inner experience, it can be addressed by evolutionary psychology: the idea that our thinking and values are conditioned by the 2.6 million years of natural and sexual selection in the Pleistocene.
This Darwinian theory has much to say about the abiding, cross-culturally ascertainable values human beings find in art.
LEE SMOLIN [Physicist, Perimeter Institute; Author, Three Roads to Quantum Gravity]
Seeing Darwin in the light of Einstein; seeing Einstein in the light of Darwin
Seeing Darwin in the light of Einstein, we understand that all the properties a species has in modern biology are relational. There is no absolute background in biology.
Seeing Einstein in the light of Darwin opens up the possibility that the mechanism of natural selection could act not only on living things but on the properties that define the different species of elementary particles.
RUPERT SHELDRAKE [Biologist, London; Author of The Presence of the Past]
A sense of direction involving new scientific principles
We don't understand animal navigation.No one knows how pigeons home, or how swallow migrate, or how green turtles find Ascension Island from thousands of miles away to lay their eggs. These kinds of navigation involve more than following familiar landmarks, or orientating in a particular compass direction; they involve an ability to move towards a goal.
Why is this idea dangerous? Don't we just need a bit more time to explain navigation in terms of standard physics, genes, nerve impulses and brain chemistry? Perhaps.
But there is a dangerous possibility that animal navigation may not be explicable in terms of present-day physics.
JUDITH RICH HARRIS [Independent Investigator and Theoretician; Author, The Nurture Assumption]
The idea of zero parental influence
Parents are exhausting themselves in their efforts to meet their children's every demand, not realizing that evolution designed offspring — nonhuman animals as well as humans — to demand more than they really need.
JARON LANIER [Computer Scientist and Musician]
Homuncular Flexibility
The biologist Jim Bower, when considering this phenomenon, commented that the human nervous system evolved through all the creatures that preceded us in our long evolutionary line, which included some pretty strange creatures, if you go back far enough. Why wouldn't we retain some homuncular flexibility with a pedigree like that?
When will the Internet become aware of itself?
The growth of the Internet over the last several decades more closely resembles biological evolution than engineering.
How would we know if the Internet were to become aware of itself? The problem is that we don't even know if some of our fellow creatures on this planet are self aware. For all we know the Internet is already aware of itself.
ROBERT SHAPIRO [Professor Emeritus, Senior Research Scientist, Department of Chemistry, New York University. Author, Planetary Dreams]
We shall understand the origin of life within the next 5 years
A successful scientific theory in this area would leave one less task less for God to accomplish: the origin of life would be a natural (and perhaps frequent) result of the physical laws that govern this universe. This latter thought falls directly in line with the idea of Cosmic Evolution, which asserts that events since the Big Bang have moved almost inevitably in the direction of life. No miracle or immense stroke of luck was needed to get it started. If this should be the case, then we should expect to be successful when we search for life beyond this planet. We are not the only life that inhabits this universe.
LYNN MARGULIS [Biologist, University of Massachusetts, Amherst; Coauthor (with Dorion Sagan), Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of Species]
Bacteria are us
Our sensibilities, our perceptions that register through our sense organ cells evolved directly from our bacterial ancestors....Why is the concept that our sensitivities evolved directly from swimming bacterial ancestors of the sensory cilia so dangerous?
Several reasons: we would be forced to admit that bacteria are conscious, that they are sensitive to stimuli in their environment and behave accordingly....Social interactions of sensitive bacteria, then, not God, made us who were are today.
1
Imagine the taxpayer dollars that could be returned to the rightful owners if these people and their ilk were doing something productive, like making cars or refrigerators.
posted on 01.05.2006 7:41 AM2
What is the origin for your term "Neism?"
I had some fun with it, because my first thought was of the old Monty Python site "The Knights Who Say Nee" (Whimsical, I know, but...)
I marvel at those who hold that science is in direct conflict with religion (by which they usually mean Christianity). Doesn't modern scientific method have it's origin in the belief (ala Newton) that the observable universe is rational & constant BECAUSE of its source in the Creator? Also the belief that Creation can be known & understood because it is a reflection of its' absolute and unchanging Source (the uncaused Cause)?
Maybe we've "evolve" in our thinking, but if evolution is completely random, how can you be confident that any observation will be valid one millisecond later?
3
Yawn. Evolution is not completely random.
And no, religion is not necessarily in conflict with science. Only when religious ideas run contrary to reality (ie. the notion of a young earth) is there a serious problem. Plenty of scientists doing excellent work in their fields are religious.
posted on 01.05.2006 9:12 AM4
Hardcore materialists will eventually grow frustrated with the conservative dogma of Darwinism and its complete inability to account for ethical, epistemological, and metaphysical “truths.”
Why the frustration with Darwinism though? What ethical, epistemological, and metaphysical truths can the kinetic theory of gasses account for? How about general relativity? These theories are no more materialistic than Darwin's yet no one demands that they account for anything more than what they seek to explain. Evolution never sought to uncover ethical, epistemological and metaphysical truths. It seeks to explain how natural selection causes species to change over time.
Just as the resurrection is the cornerstone of Christianity, natural selection is the pillar on which neism stands. That is why neists have an apoplectic fit over Intelligent Design.
Joe, I feel bad for you. Being the blogger you have to pump out new material just about every day. This leaves you with only a little time to really study the comments that people leave for you. Sadly it results in you just being plain stupid sometimes.
The fit over ID is that it is simply bad science. It does not prove what it claims to prove. It's mathematics don't make sense. It's assertions are not supported by evidence. It's proponents will not answer questions clearly or even honestly.
Why do serious Christians have apopletic fits over something like the Da Vinnci Code? Because the charge that Jesus really married and had kids and Christianity has been supressing Jesus's secret blood line for 2k years is true? NO! Because the idea is based on facts that are not only false but are easily disproved with a medium amount of research. Yet the idea has great appeal for many people who have not bothered to research the issue, who have not read anything serious about Christianity & to top it off the theory actually discourages its followers from doing so (why read St. Augustian, for example, if he was just part of the grand cover up?).
Knowing a person who is fond of crank religions and religious theories, I can sympathize with the frustration a serious Christian might feel when confronted with someone who believes the whold religion can be dismissed with a book like that or some other crank theory like the Old Testament was really a case of UFO's visiting the earth and so on.
I’ve tried to include a few dozen representative samples in the following categories: Existential questions, the meaning of life; Mind and epistemology; Free will, behavior, and ethics; Implications for theology and religion; and Miscellaneous.
Needless to say this has nothing to do with evolution. Yes those familiar with evolution will have opinions on these things but the theory itself cannot prove a statement such as:
"Myths and fairy tales are not true." There is no Easter Bunny, there is no Santa Claus, and Moses may never have existed. Worse yet, I have increasing difficulty believing that there is a higher power ruling the universe. This is my dangerous idea. It is not a dangerous idea to those who do not share my particular world view or personal fears; to others it may seem trivially true. But for me, this idea is downright horrifying.
Joe, let me ask you a question and try to actually stick with the argument for once. After posting what must be a hundred articles on evolution wouldn't you actually like to get somewhere! Suppose a videotape is produced showing what happened to life on earth from say a billion years ago to today. Suppose every generation could be seen and a continuous line drawn from any particular modern species all the way back to the previous ones it evolved from. Assume the tape is 100% accurate. Would this be nearly invincible evidence for the theory of evolution? Yes. Would this prove the above statement regarding no 'higher power ruling the universe'? NO.
Therefore how exactly do you justify the false choice fallacy you are presenting? Namely if you buy evolution you must believe in total materialism?
If you are going to keep this up can you at least try to edit yourself a bit? For example, among your list of 'materialist ideas' supposedly part of Darwin's religion is this from Rupert Sheldrake:
We don't understand animal navigation.
No one knows how pigeons home, or how swallow migrate, or how green turtles find Ascension Island from thousands of miles away to lay their eggs. These kinds of navigation involve more than following familiar landmarks, or orientating in a particular compass direction; they involve an ability to move towards a goal.
Why is this idea dangerous? Don't we just need a bit more time to explain navigation in terms of standard physics, genes, nerve impulses and brain chemistry? Perhaps.
But there is a dangerous possibility that animal navigation may not be explicable in terms of present-day physics.
What the hell does this have to do with materialism, evolution or religion? Let's leave out the fact that Sheldrake's theory of 'morphic reasonance' is considered borderline by just about everyone who is serious, what does believing or not bellieving in evolution have to do with whether animal navigation can be explained with current physics?
Maybe we've "evolve" in our thinking, but if evolution is completely random, how can you be confident that any observation will be valid one millisecond later?
Here's a nice illustration for what causes fits. Evolution is NOT completely random. In fact, I doubt you could even provide a definition for what you mean by 'completely random' that makes any sense, let alone be compatabible with mainstream science.
5
I am very reminded in many of these excerpts of C. S. Lewis' "The Abolition of Man."
posted on 01.05.2006 10:08 AM6
You don't have to dig very far to find modernist philosopher types who make a big deal about Einstein's theory of relativity (and the Uncertainity Principle). They assert it has moral implications ususally in support of some type of moral relativism.
Less common but not quite rare are scientific types who do a good job of getting people's heads out of the clouds by reminding them that Einstein says nothing about morality or ethics but only about how certain things like time and mass will be measured under certain conditions.
Needless to say, Joe & everyone else would dismiss these types as simply espousing crappy philosophy. Now here's the kicker, if an important theory like relativity can spawn crappy philosophy why wouldn't evolution also spawn it too?
Joe, though, seems to assume any philosopher type who is talking about evolution has the theory down 100% correct. Therefore any valid conclusion that they draw from the theory that is wrong must prove the underlying theory wrong. Joe fails to consider that a true theory can still spawn crappy philosophical statements by even very smart people.
posted on 01.05.2006 10:45 AM7
Boonton,
Why the frustration with Darwinism though? …Evolution never sought to uncover ethical, epistemological and metaphysical truths. It seeks to explain how natural selection causes species to change over time.
You seem to think that my frustration with neo-Darwinism rests solely on what the theory itself claims. While I think the theory is inadequate and incomplete, I don’t think it is complete bunk. My problem is with the implications and conclusions that some people draw from this idea.
The fit over ID is that it is simply bad science. It does not prove what it claims to prove. It's mathematics don't make sense. It's assertions are not supported by evidence. It's proponents will not answer questions clearly or even honestly.
All of your complaints apply equally to neo-Darwinism. The problem is that you think that if enough scientists overlook those problems then it is “good science.” Yes, ID is incomplete and has a long way to go. But do you dismiss the idea that design in biological entities might be detectable? If not then ID still has some possibility to be a valid research program.
Needless to say this has nothing to do with evolution. Yes those familiar with evolution will have opinions on these things but the theory itself cannot prove a statement such as:
Saying that evolution has nothing to do with it is like saying that Islam has nothing to do with Whabism. Just because the one doesn’t necessarily entail the belief in the other does not mean that they are unrelated.
Therefore how exactly do you justify the false choice fallacy you are presenting? Namely if you buy evolution you must believe in total materialism?
Where did I ever say anything like that? I don’t recall ever claiming that believing in evolution (as I myself do) requires believing in total materialism. Why on earth would you even think I make such a claim.
If you are going to keep this up can you at least try to edit yourself a bit? For example, among your list of 'materialist ideas' supposedly part of Darwin's religion is this from Rupert Sheldrake:
First, let me clarify that in titling the post “Darwin’s Dangerous Religion” I was playing on Daniel Dennet’s famous book, “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea.” I’m not the one that thinks that believing in evolution requires believing in materialism. If you disagree with that point then you should take it up with Dennet, Dawkins, and most of the people listed in this post.
What the hell does this have to do with materialism, evolution or religion?
You’re right, I should have cut that one out. When I first starting reading the entries I decided to collect all of the ones that referred to natural selection or evolution in their answer. Because it is unclear exactly what he means, I probably should have cut it from the list.
Evolution is NOT completely random.
Your right, but your point is a bit misleading. If evolution is purely materialistic then it is ultimately completely random (as that word is generally understood). Non-random implies a purpose, and if there is no purpose then all that is left is random events.
posted on 01.05.2006 10:54 AM8
So, like it's one big ol' argumentum ad numerum fallacy, wrapped up in Eurocentrism.
Bravo.
posted on 01.05.2006 11:21 AM9
My problem is with the implications and conclusions that some people draw from this idea.
Indeed but the first step is to ask are those implications and conclusions really valid from the idea? A person espousing moral relativism from relativity is reading something into the theory that just isn't there. The first step is not to try to take down relativity but to attack the crappy reasoning.
All of your complaints apply equally to neo-Darwinism. The problem is that you think that if enough scientists overlook those problems then it is “good science.” Yes, ID is incomplete and has a long way to go. But do you dismiss the idea that design in biological entities might be detectable? If not then ID still has some possibility to be a valid research program.
No they do not apply equally. An honest review of just the comment threads on your own blog will reveal that to be the case Joe. Maybe you don't have the time to do that because you feel pressure to come up with new material every day but don't make a statement like this unless you can honestly support it. As someone who has spent hours going through literally thousands of evolution related posts here the complaints do not apply equally.
No I do not dismiss the possibility that some sort of design may be detectable. If some new virus appears that kills thousands of people can we detect whether it arose naturally or escaped some secret bioweapons lab? Possibly & I would guess that if we put enough energy into it we could develop tools that might allow us to determine a designed organism from a non-designed one. Do I think the few tools IDers have proposed (irreducible complexity, 'specified complex information') work or even make any sense? No.
Saying that evolution has nothing to do with it is like saying that Islam has nothing to do with Whabism. Just because the one doesn’t necessarily entail the belief in the other does not mean that they are unrelated.
Fair enough, I guess a philospher espousing moral relativism using Einstein's theory as his grounds creates a relationship. That's about it. As I covered already, the better area to examine is whether the philospher really understands the theory he is trying to use to justify his conclusions.
Where did I ever say anything like that? I don’t recall ever claiming that believing in evolution (as I myself do) requires believing in total materialism. Why on earth would you even think I make such a claim.
Strange, very strange Joe. Why is materialism coupled with evolution every time it comes up here? You seem to have comingled them in your mind so as they are almost inseperable. Here's a question. Do you think materialists believe in quantum theory? If someone demonstrated that quantum theory has lots of holes and serious flaws would that demonstrate that materialism is wrong? Logic 101 stuff here.
You’re right, I should have cut that one out. When I first starting reading the entries I decided to collect all of the ones that referred to natural selection or evolution in their answer. Because it is unclear exactly what he means, I probably should have cut it from the list.
FYI, Sheldrake has this theory called morphogenetic fields. Basically it says by taking on certain shapes or behaviors matter creates a type of field that makes it easier for similar matter to take on the same shape. He initially proposed it to explain biological development. All the cells of an embryo, for example, have the same DNA. So can the cells 'know' they have to take on different roles...one forming part of a finger, another forming a kidney cell and so on. According to Sheldrake, the fact that so many humans have already passed thru the process creates a 'field' that pushes the cells to fall into a human shape. If this theory is true then matter has to be influenced by forces other than the ones we know about (like gravity, electro-magnetism etc.)
So birds flying south and north every year create a type of field that guides birds of that type to do the same. Even if they never had an opportunity to learn to migrate. One of Sheldrake's observations is that some birds seem to have an almost magical ability to correctly navigate their long journeys...even if you disable them from using navigational aids such as sight, magenetic fields etc.
Sheldrake's theory generated some initial interest but has been greeted with a lot of skepticism among scientists. It has appealed to New Age movement types so it has something of a life outside of the scientific world. I found it to be a very interesting theory when I first heard about it on a PBS program that had long interviews with scientific types like Stephen Gould, Dyson and others. As always, wikipedia is the best place to get a nice little summary http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphic_resonance
10
Your right, but your point is a bit misleading. If evolution is purely materialistic then it is ultimately completely random (as that word is generally understood). Non-random implies a purpose, and if there is no purpose then all that is left is random events.
There you go again. Take out evolution from the above and just deal with materialism. Yes if materialism in its hard form is correct then you can say everything is 'without purpose' meaning no supernatural diety. But when you think more clearly like this it becomes obvious you are talking about philosophy, not science. Evolution is indeed a materialistic theory as all other scientific theories are but as true as they might be they do not prove or disprove materialism as a philsophy. Every good materialists like Larry are quite consistent and honest when they assert their materialism is a philosophy (or worldview if you must) & are not proven by science.
Now non-random does not imply a purpose. A rock falls from a mountain and hits you on the head. Was this a 'purposeful' event? No. Was it random? No. The rock fell due to the laws of motion & gravity which are quite non-random. If you had bothered to measure all the rocks on the mountain, mapped out their positions, weights, friction against the mountain surface etc. you would have been able to calculate that the rock was due to fall and would have been able to avoid it. Likewise a random event can have a purpose. Take a variation on Schrodinger s cat. Imagine I have a device that detects whether a particular atom goes thru radioactive decay. Imagine there's a 99% chance it will happen in the next 24 hours. I put this device in your room attached to a bomb that will explode should the device detect the decay. After the explosion I am arrested for murder. I cannot argue your death was 'without purpose', 'completely random' etc. simply because the trigger was activitated by an event that is as 'ultimately random' as anything you can find in physics.
This is all well and good but as soon as you bring God into the picture all hell breaks loose. By definition God has infinite knowledge therefore from his perspective nothing can be random. Even a process as fundamentally random as whether the atom would decay or not was/is known by God billions of years before it happened. God is perfectly free to create a universe with the purpose of having you die on Sept 27, 2005 in that bomb blast. However to humans the most perfect scientific study of the event would appear to have been caused by an 'ultimately random' event.
11
Mumon So, like it's one big ol' argumentum ad numerum fallacy, wrapped up in Eurocentrism.
First of all, I don’t know what your referring to since I never claimed that the fact that a lot of people believe it make it either correct or incorrect. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought you were one of the ones who argued that because the majority of scientists supposedly accept neo-Darwinism that it provides a basis for its validity.
Second, don’t you think it’s a bit ironic that a guy whose Western influenced cafeteria-style Buddhism complains about “Eurocentrism?” Just about every argument you’ve ever made is based not on the classic understanding of your adopted religion but on a “Eurocentric” view of how the world works.
Boonton Strange, very strange Joe. Why is materialism coupled with evolution every time it comes up here? You seem to have comingled them in your mind so as they are almost inseperable.
I think you are confusing what I think with the position that I’m arguing against. As I said before, it is not me but the materialists who think that they are inseparably commingled. Just take a look at Graffin’s quote or a number of the others listed and you’ll see that I’m simply taking their ideas seriously. I don’t agree with them but I have to address the beliefs they have, not the ones I think they should have.
Here's a question. Do you think materialists believe in quantum theory? If someone demonstrated that quantum theory has lots of holes and serious flaws would that demonstrate that materialism is wrong? Logic 101 stuff here.
It appears that you are missing the entire point of this post. You seem to be under the impression that I’m attacking Darwinism in this post. But as you’ll notice from a careful reading, I’m merely commenting on a belief system that is based on the idea of a functionally atheistic, materialist view of evolution. If the two are, as you and I claim, not necessarily related, then what’s the problem? You should be agreeing with me on this one rather than trying to find fault with my point.
Sheldrake's theory generated some initial interest but has been greeted with a lot of skepticism among scientists.
While I agree that is theory seems overly speculative, I think he is on the right track. Natural selection alone is simply inadequate as an explanation for all biological diversity. The reason ID will advance is because it opens the door to looking for other explanations. Where I think ID errs (at least so far) is in not trying to find a natural law (all creational laws are “natural”) that can explain and predict this phenomenon. I suspect that there will be a shift in evolutionary thinking that is similar to the Newtonian/Quantum mechanics move in physics. I think that natural selection will “appear” to work on the surface and have some explanatory value but that a more complex law that will be found – on that requires an intelligent “programmer” just as complex computer algorithms do.
12
You seem to be under the impression that I’m attacking Darwinism in this post. But as you’ll notice from a careful reading, I’m merely commenting on a belief system that is based on the idea of a functionally atheistic, materialist view of evolution. If the two are, as you and I claim, not necessarily related, then what’s the problem? You should be agreeing with me on this one rather than trying to find fault with my point.
Again I ask you to refer to my example of moral relativists who cite Einstein. The first question should be is this idea really derived from a good understanding of the theory or not? I think it is pretty clear you almost never ask this question when the topic is evolution but I know you wouldn't be stupid as to fall for the moral relativist citing relativity.
While I agree that is theory seems overly speculative, I think he is on the right track.
Sadly the evidence doesn't seem to back him up and he has proposed and performed 'experiments' that appear designed to produce biased results in favor of his pet theory. Like many crank theories it has an instinctive appeal to it, which is why New Agers have flocked to it in droves but this is just taking the easy way out. You can't accept a theory because it feels fun but rather you must confirm it against emperical observation. This means many boring hours pooring over mind-numbing data and papers.
Natural selection alone is simply inadequate as an explanation for all biological diversity. The reason ID will advance is because it opens the door to looking for other explanations.
1. Technically there's more to the theory than just natural selection. Failed virual infections, for example, leave behind their DNA as a new addition to a species.
2. This is a statement you often make and as often offer no support for at all. Is this a gut feeling of yours? How trustworthy is your gut feeling regarding biology? Would you think much of someone answering theology questions with their 'gut feelings' if they never spent a day in their life reading either the Bible or anything on the subject? How about the gut feeling of someone known for a lifetime of study in the subject & a reputation for making excellent insights?
3. Again the 'door' ID opens has been examined on this list over and over again. When push comes to shove those of us on your blog who get our hands dirty actually digging thru the facts and questioning IDers have found nothing in ID except spurious arguments, circles and quite frankly pure dishonesty.
13
Doesn't modern scientific method have it's origin in the belief (ala Newton) that the observable universe is rational & constant BECAUSE of its source in the Creator? Also the belief that Creation can be known & understood because it is a reflection of its' absolute and unchanging Source (the uncaused Cause)?
I believe this is "Natural Theology", the original meaning of "Intelligent Design" before it became another code word for Young Earth Creationism.
And no, religion is not necessarily in conflict with science. Only when religious ideas run contrary to reality (ie. the notion of a young earth) is there a serious problem.
Unfortunately, faith in "the notion of a young earth" has become the litmus test of your Christianity, even more so than faith in Christ.
14
Hi Ken,
You need to open your eyes to current threads in creation theology. Many of the more ardent supporters of Intelligent Design accept an ancient cosmos, including Michael Behe, Hugh Ross, and others. ID != YEC.
Of course, whether ID != nonsense is still open to question.
posted on 01.05.2006 12:55 PM15
True, there are many non-YEC IDers. Also YEC is NOT a litmus test for mainstream Christianity. YEC & even ID are a litmas test for crank Christianity more than the religion as a whole (which is very large and quite diverse).
One quick follow up to Joe. Joe's only real beef is with philsophical materialism that he has entangled with evolution. That is why the profusion of non-scientific phrases such as 'materialistic evolution'. Ever hear of 'materialistic calculcus'? Why not? Don't materialists believe in mathematics?
But in its effort to be scientific ID has already given the game away to materialists. IDers almost never fail to note that their theory does not say the designer need be a diety or supernatural beign. EVEN IF ID could prove its tools were valid and show that evolution was hopeless as a theory, the true materialistic needn't lose any sleep.
So what is the point? Joe has put a huge amount of effort into writing on this topic but almost all of it has been directed towards philsophy. Actual science is almost an afterthought for him. ID isn't an anti-materialist theory but admission of its own designers so why all the energy to try to turn it into a tool for your philsophy campaign?
As religion ID isn't much better. It requires the fundamentalist minded person to reject a literal reading of Genesis. It basically puts God inside a box or test tube, dictating what he can and can't make happen by 'pure randomness'. Finally its penchant for presuming numerous periods of design (here is where most IDers refuse to be clear about what they are asserting, did the designer make one cell and let evolution take off from there or did he 'tweak' the designs every few centuries to spawn new species) implies a bumbling God who is constantly 'debugging' his code. Not the first thought that comes to mind when you describe him as a majestic creator with infinite power and knowledge. He is made to sound more like Microsoft on a bad day.
posted on 01.05.2006 1:08 PM16
Joe Carter wrote:
First of all, I don’t know what your referring to since I never claimed that the fact that a lot of people believe it make it either correct or incorrect. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought you were one of the ones who argued that because the majority of scientists supposedly accept neo-Darwinism that it provides a basis for its validity.
Well, I was referring to the Cornell "study," which in taking the form of a self-selecting poll from "evolutionists," generates not much of anything enlightening in any sense of the word.
And I argue that evolutionary biology best fits the observations, and "alternatives" aren't falsifiable. The fact that most practitioners of science understand what is science and what is not science is indicative of the fact that there is a consensus of opinion as to what science is and what it isn't; but the important thing is what is observable.
When anyone starts asking scientists about their metaphysics, it is incumbent on them- if they are to make a contribution to the science- to show how it affects observations, experiments, and outcomes.
So I basically don't give a hoot about Richard Dawkins' or William Dembski's metaphysics unless you can show that somehow it affects the experiment or the observations. Heck, in Dembski's case a simple demonstration of something would do...
posted on 01.05.2006 1:14 PM17
I took a look at the Cornell Evolution Project website that you linked to, Joe. It is very interesting that the overwhelming majority of evolutionary biologists are also metaphysical atheists. As I'm sure you know, other studies (I'm thinking of the 1998 one by Larson and Latham) have shown that something like 90% of the members of the National Academy of Science doubt the existence of God.
As others have pointed out, the metaphysical views of scientists don't necesarily carry any more significance than the views of non-scientists.
I'm more interested in the question of why so many scientists are atheist or agnostic when 94% of the American public believes in God. Are scientists required to lose their faith when they get a Ph.D.? Do the universities only accept atheists? Do they become atheists because that is somehow fashionable? Maybe they really do believe in God but can't admit it because they had a bad relationship with their fathers? Or do they learn things about the world that lead them to believe that the involvement of a god or other intelligent designer is highly unlikely? Has anyone asked them why they don't believe in God?
It at least seems safe to say that becoming a careful student of nature does not increase one's belief in the divine. Maybe this explains why someone like Francis Collins (evangelical, director of Human Genome project and evolutionist) says that his belief in God comes from things like the moral argument, not science.
I would suspect that many of the scientists have come to doubt God for reasons other than their scientific discoveries. As I understand it, Darwin became agnostic more because of the death of his daughter and his disgust with the doctrine of hell than because of evolution. After all, belief in God is less among the highly intelligent and highly educated, regardless of whether they are scientists or not. Didn't some Greek philosopher say that "the simple find religion true, the wise find it false, and politicians find it useful."
For whatever reason, the overwhelming majority of scientists who study biology find no convincing evidence that any supernatural being exists.
posted on 01.05.2006 2:08 PM18
Joe, I assume that you are being facetious when you suggest Neism as a religion. Yes, most scientists share the philosophy or worldview of metaphysical naturalism. Not all scientists do, of course. You are using a very broad definition of religion when you make your assertion. As some wag said, "Atheism is only a religion if you consider baldness a hair color."
Metaphysical naturalists disagree among themselves on many, many matters including philosophy and ethics. As divided as most religious groups are, they tend to have a much more unified philosophy within each group than non-believers do.
To most people, religion implies a belief in the supernatural, something which disqualifies naturalism from the get-go.
At the very least, I would argue that religion entails an "institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices" (from Merriam-Webster).
posted on 01.05.2006 2:28 PM19
ID and Natural Selection/Darwinnian evolution are equally unfalsifiable are equally based on intuition and conjecture.
The primary dispute between ID and NS is about the time required to evolve a given structure of feature. ID claims "design" is required because they believe genetic sexual exchange coupled with (random) Natural Selection would take (far) longer than what was observed to evolve the structure and complexity seen. NS supporter say nay it is enough time. But no scientific method has been developed, alas, to support either claim. That's what the fuss is about. If NS had scientific methods to support its claim then there would be no arguments.
For an (somewhat silly) example, ask a NS (or ID) believer/scientist to tell you how long it would take and under what required natural selective pressures and conditions for pigs to evolve into a species which can fly. There is no technique, no theory and no method for figuring that out. Without such a theory both points of view are on equal footing from a scientific standpoint.
We can observe in the fossil record features evolving, but we have no testable theory for estimating if the mechanisms people think drove those processes explain the time it took to occur. Hence we have no way of knowing if the mechanisms we theorize are sufficient or not.
posted on 01.05.2006 3:27 PM20
Hi Ex-preacher,
"It at least seems safe to say that becoming a careful student of nature does not increase one's belief in the divine."
I know many people--even scientists--for whom the opposite is true. As their knowledge of the intricacies of Nature increase, so too does their awe of its Creator. However it is true that a study of nature does much to demolish false gods or false conceptions about God.
"To most people, religion implies a belief in the supernatural, something which disqualifies naturalism from the get-go."
A religious belief doesn't imply belief IN the supernatural but ABOUT the supernatural. An unsubstantiated belief in the nonexistence of a spiritual realm therefore qualifies just fine as a religious belief.
Case in point. Scientists who study nature may be qualified to discuss nature, but when they venture into pronouncements of the existence of an immaterial soul or life after death, or the they leave their field of expertise and set themselves up as spiritual teachers. Why do they do this? Because they have strong religious beliefs about the supernatural and wish to evangelize others into those same beliefs.
posted on 01.05.2006 3:37 PM21
Joe Carter writes: Some even claim that their belief system must destroy other religions (see entry by Sam Harris). Neists may not have a god but their religion has retained the first commandment: Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
You are grossly distorting the essential message that Sam Harris is writing about. The title of his essay was Science Must Destroy Religion. Somehow, you managed to transform that into "science must destroy other religions" instead.
You are asserting that science is "just another religion" without refuting the contrary argument that there is no place for worship in the means and methods of science.
Obviously, you are using the word "religion" in a highly disingenuous way. Sometimes, it means one thing. Sometimes, it means something else. You never seem to want to be pinned down on which meaning you intend. Why is that?
Could it be that your own system of beliefs is conflicted about how to integrate science into it without destroying what you cherish about the mysticism of your church?
posted on 01.05.2006 3:43 PM22
For an (somewhat silly) example, ask a NS (or ID) believer/scientist to tell you how long it would take and under what required natural selective pressures and conditions for pigs to evolve into a species which can fly. There is no technique, no theory and no method for figuring that out. Without such a theory both points of view are on equal footing from a scientific standpoint.
I suggest you take a peek at http://www.slate.com/id/2132747/?nav=mpp. Especially slide 5. The quagga was a relative of the zebra. 200,000 years ago some zebras became isolated and evolved into the quagga, which went extinct a bit over 100 years ago. Today a scientist is on the verge of bringing them back by selectively breeding zebras to get isolate quagga genes into a single animal reproducing what evolution did.
AS for flying pigs. An estimate can indeed be made and some evolutionary strategies can be mapped out that would eventually produce a winged species from the pig. Can this be falsifiable? Certainly, experimenters can create a selective breeding program to mimic natural selection opting for traits that would result in flying pigs. Granted it might take tens of thousands of generations but in principle it can be done.
On a more practical scale microbes have been induced to evolve novel traits such as the ability to eat toxic chemicals or resistence against antibiotics. If this couldn't be done it would be a serious blow to evolutionary theory which says it should. In other words, it would falsify a theory you are claiming is unfalsifiable
posted on 01.05.2006 3:47 PM23
Boonton Now non-random does not imply a purpose. A rock falls from a mountain and hits you on the head. Was this a 'purposeful' event? No. Was it random? No. The rock fell due to the laws of motion & gravity which are quite non-random.
You’re missing the point I was making. Laws of nature imply a purpose. In a purely materialist world it is nonsensical to refer to “natural laws.” The best you can do is describe what has happened. You can invoke laws without some form of lawgiver.
Sadly the evidence doesn't seem to back him up and he has proposed and performed 'experiments' that appear designed to produce biased results in favor of his pet theory.
I should have clarified my statement by saying that I think he is on the right intuitional track. Whether he has the evidence to back it up is something that I will defer to you on.
This is a statement you often make and as often offer no support for at all.
No support at all? I would say that the fact that natural selection has never been tested at the macro level should be enough to show that it has no support. I’m simply using the same method used by neo-Darwinists: inference to the best explanation.
How about the gut feeling of someone known for a lifetime of study in the subject & a reputation for making excellent insights?
You means someone like Michael Behe?
Mumon And I argue that evolutionary biology best fits the observations, and "alternatives" aren't falsifiable.
Evolutionary biology isn’t falsifiable either. But few scientists consider Popper’s falsifiability criterion adequate nowadays anyway, so its really a moot point.
. The fact that most practitioners of science understand what is science and what is not science is indicative of the fact that there is a consensus of opinion as to what science is and what it isn't;
You are absolutely wrong about that. I suggest you do a bit of homework on the demarcation problem and you’ll find that this is a popular view of science that is not shared by scholars.
When anyone starts asking scientists about their metaphysics, it is incumbent on them- if they are to make a contribution to the science- to show how it affects observations, experiments, and outcomes.
You mean like I am doing now?
Heck, in Dembski's case a simple demonstration of something would do...
Oddly, you never ask to see a simple demonstration of macroevolution. Why is that? Why the double standard?
Joe, I assume that you are being facetious when you suggest Neism as a religion.
No, actually, I’m absolutely serious. I think we should start treating such religious beliefs as religion and give them the respect due to other minority religions.
Yes, most scientists share the philosophy or worldview of metaphysical naturalism. Not all scientists do, of course.
Right. Which is why—I hope it is already clear—that I’m not implying that all scientists are “neists.”
You are using a very broad definition of religion when you make your assertion. As some wag said, "Atheism is only a religion if you consider baldness a hair color."
Yeah, I’ve heard that line before and thought that it fails to understand atheism. Atheism is simply the absence of a belief in a theistic concept of God. Taoism is also atheistic but it is still a religion. Atheism is a religious belief and therefore qualifies as a religion (even the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized this fact).
S9 You are grossly distorting the essential message that Sam Harris is writing about. The title of his essay was Science Must Destroy Religion. Somehow, you managed to transform that into "science must destroy other religions" instead.
Mr. Harris’ title is what is misleading. While he may use the term “science” what he is referring to is not science at all. It’s a belief in scientism. What he is saying is that his belief system (one that is religiously based) must destroy all other religiously based belief systems.
You are asserting that science is "just another religion" without refuting the contrary argument that there is no place for worship in the means and methods of science.
I’m not saying that science is another religion. That is what Harris is implying in his statement that: “Science, in the broadest sense, includes all reasonable claims to knowledge about ourselves and the world.” For anyone to think this is a reasonable definition is laughable; for a philosophy graduate to say something so stupid is enough to warrant asking him to turn in his diploma. Harris needs to go back and take a few classes in epistemology for he doesn’t have the first clue what he’s talking about.
Obviously, you are using the word "religion" in a highly disingenuous way. Sometimes, it means one thing. Sometimes, it means something else. You never seem to want to be pinned down on which meaning you intend. Why is that?
I use “religion” is a highly specific way: as a coherent system of religious beliefs. I also use religious beliefs in a highly specific way: A belief is a religious belief provided that (1) It is a belief in something(s) or other as divine, or (2) It is a belief concerning how humans come to stand in relation to the divine.
Could it be that your own system of beliefs is conflicted about how to integrate science into it without destroying what you cherish about the mysticism of your church?
Dude, my belief system created science. Without a Christian worldview, there wouldn’t even be a field of study called science. ; )
posted on 01.05.2006 4:17 PM24
You’re missing the point I was making. Laws of nature imply a purpose. In a purely materialist world it is nonsensical to refer to “natural laws.” The best you can do is describe what has happened. You can invoke laws without some form of lawgiver.
This is a philosophical position. Evolutionary theory invokes natural laws in a manner no different than any other scientific theory. In other words, evolution is no more materialistic as a theory than any other scientific theory.
No support at all? I would say that the fact that natural selection has never been tested at the macro level should be enough to show that it has no support. I’m simply using the same method used by neo-Darwinists: inference to the best explanation.
False. It has been tested at the macro level as would any other *historical* theory. Perhaps it hasn't been tested to your satisfaction (but then what is your position to be demanding stuff here, you've made it clear your concerns are 95% philosophy and maybe 5% actual science).
How about the gut feeling of someone known for a lifetime of study in the subject & a reputation for making excellent insights?
You means someone like Michael Behe?
Are you going to answer the question. What are you using to back up your assertion about natural selection being insufficient? Anything besides your gut feelings? Do you have any actual scientific arguments at all after what feels like ten thousand comments on your bandwidth bill?
Evolutionary biology isn’t falsifiable either. But few scientists consider Popper’s falsifiability criterion adequate nowadays anyway, so its really a moot point.
Except it is. Falsifiable means able to be demonstrated false. Of course if a theory is demonstrated to be false then it must be thrown away. Numerous times evolution has been put to the test and while it could have failed it didn't.
posted on 01.05.2006 4:26 PM25
"No, actually, I’m absolutely serious. I think we should start treating such religious beliefs as religion and give them the respect due to other minority religions."
Come on, Joe! I know you're pulling my leg here. Isn't it a bit presumptuious for an outsider to this philosophy to claim that he has discovered said philosophy to be a "religion" and is going to name it. Suppose I decide that all those who do not believe in fairies are a religion. You are part of that religion, which I shall name "nifistism."
What sort of "respect" do you propose giving to this religion you have "discovered"? Tax-exemption for their homes as "houses of non-worship"? Perhaps Daniel Denitt can receive the double-dipping tax privileges that ministers enjoy (where they don't have to count the housing allowance as income but can claim their mortgage payments as deductions.)
posted on 01.05.2006 4:47 PM26
Joe Carter wrote:
Evolutionary biology isn’t falsifiable either...
Given that I can posit an experiment by which DNA/RNA mutates, and allow it sufficient time (or speed it up as the case may be) to do so, I can in effect create an experiment that does indeed falsify key assumptions of evolution.
If you go to the American Museum of Natural History, you'll see a depth of evolutionary theory that just doesn't exist, well, outside of science. One thing in particular comes to mind: the rarity of T. Rex fossils. Every fossil dig is a test, in effect, of hypotheses concerning T. Rex, but in particular its rarity suggests that - and is confirmed by things like its teeth- that T. Rex was a meat eater.
So we do indeed know that evolutionary biology is falsfiable, both in key points and in details.
And no, you haven't shown how a "worldview" might affect observations or outcomes or the design of an experiment; just speculations by that dangerous idea site. But please show us anything you think might help...
But actually, I have to think you; you gave me one more reason to think that Bart Kosko is a lightweight. I kind of fisked Kosko in the intro to my doctoral thesis (before there was a verb "to fisk"), for reasons that are far beyond what we can say here...
posted on 01.05.2006 5:07 PM28
I wrote: Obviously, you are using the word "religion" in a highly disingenuous way. Sometimes, it means one thing. Sometimes, it means something else. You never seem to want to be pinned down on which meaning you intend. Why is that?
Joe Carter replied: I use “religion” is a highly specific way: as a coherent system of religious beliefs. I also use religious beliefs in a highly specific way: A belief is a religious belief provided that (1) It is a belief in something(s) or other as divine, or (2) It is a belief concerning how humans come to stand in relation to the divine.
Thank you for affirming my argument.
Joe Carter continued: Dude, my belief system created science. Without a Christian worldview, there wouldn’t even be a field of study called science. ; )
That would be irrelevant if it weren't completely untrue.
Would you care to try again?
posted on 01.05.2006 5:50 PM29
s9:
Let me save him: Of course, there would be no science without Aristotle who of course was a pagan, and the Muslims who had preserved much of classical learning after it was destroyed by barbarians and Christians in the Roman empire, before it was elucidated by Francis Bacon and Descartes.
30
S9 Thank you for affirming my argument.
You didn’t make an argument. You made an assertion.
That would be irrelevant if it weren't completely untrue.
Perhaps you should do some remedial reading on the history of science. You can start with this article from the Chronicles of Higher Education titled "How Christianity (and Capitalism) Led to Science."
Would you care to try again?
Actually, I plan to devout an entire post to explaining what constitutes religious belief for Monday. You might want to check back then.
31
Wow, that article reeks of historical revisionism to the point of ridiculousness:
1. Golly gee! "Christianity" "renounced" slavery...but only in Europe, and serfdom was OK!
2. Ever read the accounts of Moorish Spain at the times that those "Christians" were "inventing" capitalism?
3. Which came first: the Bank of England or the Bank of Japan.
4. And China...up until about the 1500s or 1600s, China was the greatest power in the world...
5. And technology? Japanese guns in the late Middle Ages were so good they had to ban them...
Rodney Stark is university professor of the social sciences at Baylor University...
And they wanna be a Texas Baptist Harvard? Is that right? And they got a guy like this writing stuff like that?
32
Joe inexplicably wrote:"Dude, my belief system created science. Without a Christian worldview, there wouldn’t even be a field of study called science. ; )"
Rob responds with disbelieving dismay: I thought you were kidding until I saw your response to s9. So utterly, demonstrably false! From the Archimedes Homepage...http://www.mcs.drexel.edu/~crorres/Archimedes/contents.html:
Fields of Science Initiated [by Archimedes]
Hydrostatics, static mechanics, pycnometry (the measurement of the volume or density of an object). He is called the "father of integral calculus" and also the "father of mathematical physics".
Archimedes died a couple of hundred years before Christ, by the way.
Where did we get the smallpox innoculation technology from? The Muslim world!
Christianity has both hindered and helped the development of science. It didn't initiate it by any stretch of the imagination.
posted on 01.05.2006 6:34 PM33
"Actually, I plan to devout an entire post to explaining what constitutes religious belief..."
Is this a Freudian slip or what? ;-)
posted on 01.05.2006 6:36 PM34
Rob Ryan So utterly, demonstrably false!
Look again and you'll see that my claim was that there wouldn't be a "field of study called science" without a theistic worldview (okay, adding the Christian part may not have been exactly necessary since it could have probably developed under Judaism or Islam too).
If I'm wrong then it should be possible to show examples of where science as a field of study arose in non-Western influenced societies.
Is this a Freudian slip or what? ;-)
Er, well, I plan to devote a very devout post to the subject.
posted on 01.05.2006 7:00 PM35
I wish that the "principle of charity" were practiced more in these pages. By that I don't mean that we should all make nice. I'm referring to the principle that we can't understand a theory if we don't assume that the theorist trying to tell the truth.
Rob Ryan, for example: I see your name here a lot. Now you would say, I'm sure, that Joe is a brighter than average guy. So if he claims that Christianity is somehow related to the origins of science, then he probably is thinking of something other than technological advances. He probably knows that there are plenty of "natural philosophers" that provided insight into the material order before Christ.
So you might instead think that maybe Joe is thinking of the modern scientic method that set aside purely philosophical argumentation concerning final causes in favor of empirical observation. Or something like that.
(I mention this example because I've been looking at the relationship of theological voluntarism to modern science. Turns out that Descartes, Galileo, Newton, Boyle, et al had theological reason based in Scotus and Ockham for their turn from final causes to empirical observation.)
The principle doesn't protect theories from criticism, because a bad theory cannot be made to cohere, in spite of the best efforts to read it charitably.
posted on 01.05.2006 7:09 PM36
Joe Carter writes: You didn’t make an argument. You made an assertion.
Thanks for picking that nit. Nevertheless, it was an assertion you chose to affirm rather than deny. You do use the word "religion" with deliberate ambiguity, for purposes I contend are disingenuous.
Joe Carter continues: Actually, I plan to [devote] an entire post to explaining what constitutes religious belief for Monday. You might want to check back then.
Oh goody. I'll be warming up my Reductio ad Absurdum Engine in preparation for your source code drop.
One hopes your exposition on this subject will bear some relationship to the commonly understood definitions of the terms catalogued in standard reference texts, and that this will somehow further enlighten us to what the fsck you are talking about with this "Neism" rap you are laying down. One hopes.
After all, without hope, we are all doomed.
posted on 01.05.2006 7:34 PM37
As I was saying...
"Religion—sometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief system—is commonly defined as belief concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine, and the moral codes, practices and institutions associated with such belief. In its broadest sense some have defined it as the sum total of answers given to explain humankind's relationship with the universe. In the course of the development of religion, it has taken a huge number of forms in various cultures and individuals. ..."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
38
Joe Carter writes: If I'm wrong then it should be possible to show examples of where science as a field of study arose in non-Western influenced societies.
Where to start with this one? Wait. I know. How about by asking how this would be relevant to the argument you are making, even granting the inscrutable fornication of reality required to accept the utterly bogus— and frankly, racist— proposition that science is a purely Occidental practice?
posted on 01.05.2006 7:44 PM39
s9:
My comments about the principle of charity are equally well directed to you.
posted on 01.05.2006 7:52 PM40
Also YEC is NOT a litmus test for mainstream Christianity. YEC & even ID are a litmas test for crank Christianity more than the religion as a whole (which is very large and quite diverse).
Yes It Is. I speak from experience on this. There is a reason I do not speak of evolution (or paleontology, or astronomy, or cosmology) around anyone identified as Christian. (With one refreshing exception, whom I'm collaborating on writing an SF novel.) I've been flamed off at least one list for saying the E-word, with Bible verses bouncing off me as they flamed me out.
There is nothing that brings out the bulging glazed eyes, red face, cords bulging taut in the neck, waving Bible, and "SCRIPTURE! SCRIPTURE! SCRIPTURE!" in a madness-strained voice than the E-word.
The only thing I can compare it to is the "Apple Akbar!" reaction I got when I switched my home system from Mac to Windows.
posted on 01.05.2006 7:57 PM41
Hey Joe,
Thanks for putting up with these absolutely hopeless commenters. Your patience in the face of their attacks is really inspirational. And by the way, you're really appreciated by the silent readers. Thanks!
42
"I wish that the "principle of charity" were practiced more in these pages...Rob Ryan, for example: I see your name here a lot."
It would be helpful if you would tell me how that last sentence relates to the first. Do you want to tell me something, KAM? Something about your perception of the tenor of my comments?
"Now you would say, I'm sure, that Joe is a brighter than average guy."
Certainly. All the more reason he should be accountable for his misstatements. I don't think that is uncharitable, and I don't think I'm being mean to Joe. Actually, I rather like Joe.
"So if he claims that Christianity is somehow related to the origins of science, then he probably is thinking of something other than technological advances."
Whoa, Nelly! Here's what Joe said:"Dude, my belief system created science. Without a Christian worldview, there wouldn’t even be a field of study called science. ; )"
That's quite a claim, KAM; it requires some modification or at least more context than Joe provides if it is to go unchallenged. Science undoubtedly predates history and assumed a formal, recognizable-to-moderns status prior to the common era. That's all I'm sayin', Dawg; I didn't mean to ruffle any feathers.
43
Boonton,
You misunderstood what I wrote. Both ID and NS support the idea that evolution is occuring. Your instance of "falsifiable" evolution alas are features common to both interpretations.
The time it takes to occur is what is in dispute. My point is that neither ID nor NS a theory to back up their claim that feature X seen in the fossil record which took Y years to evolve was a reasonable timeframe. NS says the time is ok because it's observed (which is alas circular). ID says the time is too short, but can't support that claim. The important point is that nobody is making predictions regarding this question.
Nobody can independently come up with a prediction so there is no science and then look for verification in the fossil record. Since neither makes a prediction neither is falsifiable (and in that sense at this point neither are scientific with regards to this question).
I suppose an 2nd question this might bring up is why NS scientists are so blind to those features of this question to not be able to recognize what is currently assumption and what is falsifiable so as not to recognize that the ID/NS dispute is over issues which are not (currently) falsifiable by anyone.
posted on 01.05.2006 8:42 PM44
I wrote: "It at least seems safe to say that becoming a careful student of nature does not increase one's belief in the divine."
Kaffinator wrote: "I know many people--even scientists--for whom the opposite is true. As their knowledge of the intricacies of Nature increase, so too does their awe of its Creator. However it is true that a study of nature does much to demolish false gods or false conceptions about God."
Interesting point. I will grant you that for many people, the observation of nature leads to greater religious belief. The beauty of a sunset, the magnificence of the stars, the intricacies of the eye, the "March of the Penguins." I recently read Don Miller's "Blue Like Jazz" and am currently reading Philip Yancey's "Rumors of Another World." [Incidentally, I highly recommend that everyone read works that are diametrically opposed to their own views.] Both Miller and Yancey find affirmation for theism in nature. I would go so far as to say that, for the layman, the argument from design is the most powerful weapon in the theistic arsenal.
That makes my question all the more problematic. Why do 9 out of 10 scientists become atheists in a society where 9 out of 10 people are theists? As far as I can tell, no one here has yet even attempted to address this. The only response I have ever gotten to this question is that scientists are somehow pressured by their professors and peers to become atheists. Besides the fact that this is purely speculative, it doesn't make sense. The scientists I know tend to be very independent-minded and rational. They don't seem to be the type that would cave in to peer pressure. Indeed, they often seem to want to overturn the views of their own mentors (sort of the academic world's Oedipus complex - kill your father).
Larson and Witham "sent their questionnaire to 517 members of the [U.S.] National Academy of Sciences from the biological and physical sciences (the latter including mathematicians, physicists and astronomers). The return rate was slightly over 50%."
"We found the highest percentage of belief among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality)."
(above from http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm)
I honestly am at a loss to explain this. My best guess is that in studying nature much closer than the layman, scientists discover things that convince them that no supernatural agency was involved in designing nature. The things that so amaze us all and seem supernatural must become less mysterious and baffling to scientists. Perhaps scientists also discover all the nasty things about nature: the beauty of AIDS, the intricacies of malaria-bearing mosquitoes, the magnificence of tsunamis, the fact that some penguin fathers eat their babies when mom is dealyed in returning (they left that out of the movie - a bit too gruesome).
Even among the scientists who retain their faith, Francis Collins comes to mind, most of them seem to reject creationism and/or ID.
I would be very interested if anyone here, theist or not, can explain why so many scientists become atheists. I would be especially interested in empirical evidence, rather than speculation or anecdotal evidence.
posted on 01.05.2006 8:58 PM45
With regard to Rodney Stark's argument, I would recommend the review article at nytimes.com. I don't have the link handy but it should be easy to find and free for a few more days.
I have not read Stark's latest book, but I have read Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel" and other works that attempt to understand why Western Civilization advanced, at least technologically, so much faster than other civilizations in the last 500 years. I'm also a historian, though my field is 20th century US history, so I claim no expertise in this area. All history teachers get to teach Western Civ once in a while.
The big problem in determining causation in history is that we can't replay history like a science experiment. Certainly the way things did develop, Christianity played a role in the development of modern science (though this of course does nothing to prove that its basic claims are true). What we don't know and can never know is how things might have turned out without Christianity in the West. Certainly the early years of Christianity did not bode especially well for science. A plain reading of the New Testament will show that neither Jesus nor Paul encouraged believers to pursue scientific inquiry (or the arts or democracy or abolishing slavery or philosophy, but that's another subject). To my knowledge the church did not produce any great scientists in its early centuries.
Here are some unanswerables:
Would Christianity have ever turned toward science and rationality without the influence of Aristotle and Plato?
Would there have been a Renaissance without the foundation laid by Greece and Rome? (After all, the very term "Renaissance" was a reference to the re-birth of classical pursuits.)
Would the West have advanced scientifically if the Islamic world had not preserved ancient knowledge (and developed science of their own)?
Would science in the West have succeeded without the Reformation?
Would the West have succeeded without Diamond's guns (thank you China for gunpowder), germs, and steel? Diamond argues that the West benefitted from accidents of geography, flora and fauna. Monotheism did not produce the wheel, agriculture, domesticated animals, the alphabet and many other advances upon which our scienti