Real Science (was Re: A definition of atheism)
Larry Loen
|> lwl...@VNET.IBM.COM> writes:
|> > ...
|> > Don't confuse things; Communism was surely anti-Christian, but it
|> > was (especially under Stalin) at best diffident in its support of real
|> > science, because real science had the nasty habit of contradicting the
|> > party line. Officially, of course, they proclaimed their support for
|> > science, but the "science" of socialism was decidedly not what I call
|> > science. They said nice words, but in the end, they were an enemy, on
|> > balance, of scientific practice.
|>
|> Mmmm, isn't that "Real Science(tm)"? If someone says he supports
|> science shouldn't we take him at his word?
In a word, "no".
I can claim, to the contrary, that unlike Christianity, there
is something like a "Real Science (tm)". So would Carl Sagan and many
others who hold to science. Unlike religion, which is prone to constant
schism and personal definition, science has certain rules that, when
followed, produce "real science" and do not produce regular schism
(it may produce a religiously motivated defector, now and then, but
not general schism):
1. You learn and observe something called the scientific method.
2. (For the topics you study) you learn the current orthodox explanations,
not at a rote level, but at a level consistent with #1. You don't redo
every experiment there is, but you do a representative sample and so
acquire the tools so as to, in principle and sometimes in practice,
repeat the relevant experiments in your own work.
3. If your experiments give the expected results, you confirm someone
else's work.
4. If your experiments give unexpected results, or just new results,
you recheck your work, lay it before relevant referees who also understand
the scientific method for your discipline, and get it published somewhere
if, after all that, you still have something.
Roughly, that's how Real Science (tm) gets done. Except maybe in
music or the related area of mathematics, there are few disciplines which
are as repeatable as science is across time and culture. It is not
perfectly executed, but it has the added advantage of being self-correcting;
the mistakes of science eventually get corrected if enough people need
a given piece of work.
This has nothing whatever to do with pseudo science, from which Real
Science (tm) can be distinguished.
Since the rise of science, many pseudo-sciences have arisen. Using various
kinds of mumbo-jumbo, they sound scientific, but can be easily distingushed
in almost all real-world cases, from a comparison of the methods used by
its practitioners with the established science of the field. Almost always,
pseudo-science has a surface plausibility, but on examination, it is found
to be incomplete or inconsistent, often obvious even to someone who is
merely widely read in general science. And, the scientific method is
either skirted or even outright ignored. In some cases, pseudo-science
has even been known to employ fraud. Most all of them have some
preconceived notion they wish to prove. There is nothing inherently wrong
trying to get a particular result; the error comes in not honestly
evaluating a well-formed experiment and accepting contradiction of one's
initial ideas, even if they represent personal hopes.
(The history of science is full of examples of individuals who expected
A, wanted A, but found a B that was nothing like A and perservered,
courageously championing B even when it was politically or religiously
or otherwise inconvenient. The history of pseudo-science is a long,
futile search to prove A when B screams out from the evidence).
Common pseudo-sciences include:
1. "Creationism" in all of its forms.
2. Astrology.
3. (So far) claims of successful psychic phenomena.
4. UFOs which are alien spacecraft.
5. Crop circles (also called "cerology") as evidence of aliens.
6. A lot of the old Marxist claptrap that I was discussing. It
claimed to have an "objective" and "scientific" theory of history
and other social sciences. This theory was so successful that the
Soviet Union collapsed after only 70 years, whereas evil
capitalist democracy, operating on no coherent theory whatever,
has lasted at least 200 years in the US and at least as long in
that basic form in England, to say nothing of elsewhere.
There was also a pseudo-science variation of biology called
"Lysenkoism" which was responsible for agricultural failures on
a wide scale in the '30s, just when world food supply could stand
it least. Lysenko's theories were adopted by Stalin not because
they were good biology, but because they fit in with "the Marxist
dielectic" or whatever that buzzword was. There was much great
science that came out of the Soviet Union, but that was mostly
post-Stalin and certainly not because the party was this great
organ and friend of the scientific method. Just like on
everything else, the party kept a wary eye on science, even
when it was clear it _must_ have it to keep up with the West.
When the "party" talked about science, it was really talking
that old claptrap Marxist stuff that was the subject of
lampoons and satire since the '30s.
|> > ...
|> > For those who stuck it out, religion became a _political_ rallying point,
|> > because it represented the one institution the communists couldn't quite
|> > figure out how to control. If I'd lived in Poland, I probably would have
|> > been a Catholic, but not out of any special religious conviction, but
|> > simply because it offered me a little more freedom. I don't know much
|> > about those that stayed first hand (I did meet a few over the years), but
|> > religion never seemed to be a big topic; there were much more basic
|> > oppressions to talk about.
|>
|> However:
|>
|> Subject: Re: The problem of evil revisited - cruelty . . .
|> In article <pepke-050...@pepkemac.scri.fsu.edu>, pe...@scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke) writes:
|> > ...
|> > Now, there is a form of argument all the rage at many of our universities
|> > which relies not on reason but on a certain deftness in switching the
|> > definitions of words rapidly enough to confuse, and thus Win. This
|> > requires a certain stupidity in one's opponents which some are reluctant to
|> > provide.
Um, foul. I was reporting what I have obtained from talking to actual
individuals who lived under communist rule and my conclusions from those
conversations. Also from reading various literature about it. If you
don't believe my recollections, read anything Lech Walesa has said on
this. He is a deeply religious man, but there is no doubt that the
church had a great political role to play. No doubt, exercising one's
religion was of importance, but Lech's first job was trying to form
an independent labor union for purposes of more or less standard
collective bargaining. I must say, that doesn't strike me as a
particularly basic religous point, but rather a basic secular need.
The Gdansk shipyard strike was about wages and working conditions;
maybe there was a deep religious point in there, but I never read of it.
People didn't, so far as I ever read, join Solidarity mainly because
it promised the church more freedom to operate; they joined it for
social change and were all to happy to use the church as a
political rallying point hand in glove with the Solidarity movement.
No doubt, the religiously oriented were happy to
see their freedom of religion improve, too, but the original
goals were much, much more modest and clearly secular.
This is completely consistent with the discussions I've had with
Latvians on the topic. They _hated_ socialism (these were the emigres,
recall), but while you could nudge them to talk about the religious
repression, they talked a lot more about more basic things like how
100,000 of the most educated Latvians got shipped off to Siberia
overnight not because of their religion, but because of their
ethnicity and their education. This was the kind of topic that
animated the conversations; religion was 'way down the list and
I can't remember it ever coming up unless I brought it up (I
was a Christian in those days and was curious; I had no idea
it would be important on Internet at the time :-) ).
Moreover, while it was a little hard to follow what was going
on (I learned maybe 100 words of Latvian over the years and
services were in the mother tongue) I was never impressed with
the evangelical zeal of the Latvians I knew; church was more
like the midaeval one, where not belonging was so woven into
the social life that it was unthinkable not to belong no
matter what you thought privately. Many Latvians were clearly
_very_ nominal members religiously, though of course there were
also many very devout as always. But, I always left services
there feeling they were much more lukewarm than my own church.
My wife still finds my leaving the US Lutheran church
incomprehensible even though _she knows I don't believe_; she
doesn't see why that should require me to leave church; she
has accepted it, but she doesn't understand it. In her
society, faith is clearly only one (expendable) aspect of
church membership. And, in the communist societies, attending
services was a clear political act that was reasonably safe
(compared to, say, getting on a soapbox and denoucing
Brezhnev). It had costs, but not usually jail.
The US churches seemed to be doing more to promote Christianity
back in Latvia than they themselves were; they were spending
their energy figuring out how to get food, medicine, money, and
clothing past the rapacious postal system where high duties and
outright theft by the state were a commonplace. This puzzled
me only for a while; then I realized their main motivation
at church was organizing to help the families they left behind
and improving the religious situation there was so far down
the priorities, it didn't make the list. US churches, on the
other hand, seemed to have the leisure to worry about whether
enough bibles were getting through. The Latvians had more
basic worries when the letters from home talked about basic
needs going unmet. Maybe the fact they could read Latvian
influenced things :-). It certainly suggested that the
Latvians back home had more pressing matters than whether the
church was reopened, though I imagine they spend quite more
energy than those I knew in the US on the topic.
Likewise, the pictures from my mother in law's trip to Latvia
last year showed incredible difficuties. My mother in law
(like others I have talked to recently many of whom lived
through WWII) tell me (with anecdotal evidence) that life under
the Soviets pushed back their country's standard of living
about 50 years or more _behind where it was in the '40s when
they left_. For one thing, US Latvians travelling home are
well advised to bring their own toilet paper. Get the hint?
Things were (and still are) really a mess over there.
My mother in law will go again soon and will take basic
medicine with her as presents to her surviving relatives.
My wife told me that her minster, a very beloved figure,
usually rambled on quite incoherently and often about very
secular topics. In confirmation (where my church taught a
very good short course in religion), she mostly learned about
European Church Architecture. She can't quote any of Luther's
Catechism on a bet, in Latvian or in English. I still can.
(Some irony here, eh?).
It is usually unwise to contradict someone's direct life
experience. Communism was/is pseudo science with tragic
consequences. The church was a genuine rallying point and no
doubt gave some comfort to the religiously oriented who braved
out the state's pressure to stay away. But, in terms of taking
down the regime, it was far more important simply as an
alternate institution and a place to organize political
dissent. Even in the US, it served a clear political role.
Now, read this and my original posting, which said much the
same thing more briefly, and then tell me what, if anything,
I redefined. I never said that people in the church didn't
generally believe in God in a fairly conventional manner. What
I said was that politics mattered more than religion and that
Communism was and is a pseudo-science, something that should
be less controversial than it might have been a few years back.
Larry W. Loen | My Opinions are decidedly my own, so please
| do not attribute them to my employer
email to: lwl...@rchland.vnet.ibm.com
Christopher Mussack
In article <Ihnmd2U91...@rchland.ibm.com>, Larry Loen <lwl...@VNET.IBM.COM> writes:
> |> [ Stalin didn't support real science ]
I responded:
> |> Mmmm, isn't that "Real Science(tm)"? If someone says he supports
> |> science shouldn't we take him at his word?
> In a word, "no".
Didn't anyone giggle even a little bit?
Anyways, enough arguing. I am curious about this categorization
of ideas that I seem constantly to miss. Humans experience the
specific, extrapolate to the general, and then try to
understand the specific.
This is how I suppose atheists see things:
Given the entire realsm of human ideas and understanding we
can recognize certain classes of ideas, with sub-classes as shown:
Culture
Music
Art
Films
Literature
Raising children
Education
etc.
Science
Biology
Physics
Psychology
Mathematics
Engineering
etc.
Superstition
Astrology
UFOlogy
Creationism
Religion
Christianity
Buddhism
Islam
Hinduism
Judaism
etc.
So a nun whacks a kid on the knuckles for talking in class
goes under religion and that's bad. The war in Bosnia is
between religions and that's bad. With a microwave I can
cook my lasagna in five minutes and that's science and
that's good. If I get a headache I can take a Tylenol and it
goes away and that's science and that's good. I like
Van Halen and that's culture and it's not good or bad it's
just my opinion. But my CD player is much better than my old record
player, good science, but some people want to censor the lyrics,
bad religion.
So I donate diapers to the local homeless shelter. I call that
religion, what does an atheist call it? I pledge to my wife
to be faithful to her forever no matter what. I call that religion.
I vote for domestic partner health benefits for city employees
because it seems to be fair. I call that religion. I don't care
what the word is, how does it fit in with your worldview?
> [good stuff contrasting science with pseudo-science deleted. ]
>
> > [ Claim that Larry is switching definitions. ]
> Um, foul. ... If you
> don't believe my recollections, read anything Lech Walesa has said on
> this. He is a deeply religious man, but there is no doubt that the
> church had a great political role to play. No doubt, exercising one's
> religion was of importance, but Lech's first job was trying to form
> an independent labor union for purposes of more or less standard
> collective bargaining. I must say, that doesn't strike me as a
> particularly basic religous point, but rather a basic secular need.
> The Gdansk shipyard strike was about wages and working conditions;
> maybe there was a deep religious point in there, but I never read of it.
This is the distinction that seems so clear to you that I don't
follow. When we were discussing the "Problem of Evil" the problem
I had was looking at it from a meta-physical, esoteric point of view
and you were looking at concrete, real-life situations. Now here
is a concrete, real-life situation where a love of justice and
freedom doesn't get credit.
> ...
> My wife still finds my leaving the US Lutheran church
> incomprehensible even though _she knows I don't believe_; she
> doesn't see why that should require me to leave church; she
> has accepted it, but she doesn't understand it. In her
> society, faith is clearly only one (expendable) aspect of
> church membership.
There is faith and there is Faith. Here I guess is a distinction
I make (and I guess your wife makes) that you don't. (Doesn't
the capitalization help?)
> It is usually unwise to contradict someone's direct life
> experience. Communism was/is pseudo science with tragic
> consequences.
Just to make clear I do not contradict anyone's experiences,
if anything I only argue against the catagorization and therefore
the understanding of these experiences.
> Now, read this and my original posting, which said much the
> same thing more briefly, and then tell me what, if anything,
> I redefined.
It seems to me that you are redefining "religion". The political
structure of the church used to fight a crusade counts as
Christianity but used to fight communism it doesn't count.
Chris Mussack
ro...@ngc.com
In article <Cpoyz...@austin.ibm.com>, <mus...@austin.ibm.com> writes:
>This is how I suppose atheists see things:
>So a nun whacks a kid on the knuckles for talking in class
>goes under religion and that's bad. The war in Bosnia is
>between religions and that's bad.
Rapping a kid on the knunckles is not bad. Claiming the bible
justifies rapping kids on the knuckles is bad (who said "spare the
rod spoil the child"? it must of been either the Bible or the Bard).
The war in Bosnia is obviously between cultures. Religious
justifications by either side is bad.
Some of the reasons atheists dislike religions (and the Christian
religion in general) are:
1) the frequency in which religion is used to justify immoral actions.
2) the ease at which religion can be used to justify immoral actions.
3) the non-provability of support by religion.
Atheists are really offended by a combination of those points:
in history, religion has frequently been effective in motivating
people, and there isn't really a way you can argue against it.
Take the Iran/Iraq war: Iran used children as cannon fodder,
and justified it with the statement that they will be assured
their place in heaven (which comes from the Quran).
Atheists don't necessarily believe that religion alone
is used to justify actions, but it is effective at
strengthening an otherwise weak argument. The 30 years
war was superficially a religious war, though everybody
knows it was really political. However, I don't think it
would have been as devestating had it not had the power
of religion to draw upon.
Now, science too can be used to support immoral positions.
However, it is not (yet) done frequently. In addition,
you can attack any scientific hypothesis. In addition,
in science, there generally is a "majority" of consensus
opinion. In religion, Christianity is a minority (it isn't
even the largest group), and within Christianity, any
single group is in the minority (unless Catholics are
the majority world-wide, but we be talking America here).
I can claim absolute knowledge of truth: if you drop two objects,
I am absolutely certain they will hit the ground at the same
time (barring air resistence). Every scientific truth I believe
in is testable. On the other hand, there is no way to test
religious beliefs, which are always a tiny subset of the
majority.
Rob.
Matthew D. Hamey -- SF
[deletia]
for the sake of argument.
>So a nun whacks a kid on the knuckles for talking in class
>goes under religion and that's bad.
No, (probably) not religion. If she wacked him for saying "God is
dead", then that is religion. If she wacked him for saying "Sister Mary is
a wart head", then that is Culture, and whacking kids on the knuckled is
"not good or bad it's just my opinion."
>The war in Bosnia is
>between religions and that's bad.
Yes.
>With a microwave I can
>cook my lasagna in five minutes and that's science and
>that's good.
Convienent, anyway.
>If I get a headache I can take a Tylenol and it
>goes away and that's science and that's good.
OK
>I like
>Van Halen and that's culture and it's not good or bad it's
>just my opinion.
OK
>But my CD player is much better than my old record
>player, good science
could be opinion, but I haven't heard many people
argue the merits of Turntables over CD Players.
>, but some people want to censor the lyrics,
>bad religion.
Depends on why they want to censor them. Could be politics. But it is bad
(and that is MY opinion).
>
>So I donate diapers to the local homeless shelter. I call that
>religion, what does an atheist call it?
I call it good culture.
>I pledge to my wife
>to be faithful to her forever no matter what. I call that religion.
I call it love for my wife, and I suppose it falls somewhere between biology,
psychology, and child raising. I don't know about the "no matter what". I
hate to sound wishy-washy, and I can't conceive of my wife doing something
to make me leave her (which is one of the reasons I married her), but I would
still hesitate to say "no matter what." The name "Bobbit" rings a bell.
>I vote for domestic partner health benefits for city employees
>because it seems to be fair. I call that religion.
I call it culture.
>I don't care
>what the word is, how does it fit in with your worldview?
>
I think I would label most things that you label religion as culture.
If you do them for religious reasons, then jolly good for the religion, but
why can't you do it out of a sense of obligation to those who are less fortunate
and leave religion out of it? If you love your wife, pledge to stay with her
forever for that reason alone (no, I can't define "love"). If you can give
diapers to the homeless shelter, do it because you want to, not because you
think it will get you into heaven (and I'm not claiming this is the reason
you are doing it; but if it isn't, why is it listed under religion?) You
can do the "good" religion things without religion, and maybe some of the
"bad" religion things would go away without religion. But there is always
Vietnam or Korea... war without religion. I don't claim that without religion
there would be no more "bad", but maybe there would be less
Christopher Mussack
In article <1994May21.0...@cs.uno.edu>, md...@jazz.ucc.uno.edu (Matthew D. Hamey -- SF) writes:
> ... I think I would label most things that you label religion as culture.
> If you do them for religious reasons, then jolly good for the religion, but
> why can't you do it out of a sense of obligation to those who are less fortunate
> and leave religion out of it?
Huh? Why don't we elect a president and leave politics out of it?
Why don't we sing some songs and leave music out of it? I think
I'm starting to understand why you guys have a cow when someone
says atheism is a religion.
> If you love your wife, pledge to stay with her
> forever for that reason alone (no, I can't define "love"). If you can give
> diapers to the homeless shelter, do it because you want to, not because you
> think it will get you into heaven (and I'm not claiming this is the reason
> you are doing it; but if it isn't, why is it listed under religion?) You
> can do the "good" religion things without religion, and maybe some of the
> "bad" religion things would go away without religion. But there is always
> Vietnam or Korea... war without religion. I don't claim that without religion
> there would be no more "bad", but maybe there would be less
This is actually very insightful. Is atheism only a variation in
semantics?
Chris Mussack
Brandon Harvey
: > ... I think I would label most things that you label religion as culture.
: > If you do them for religious reasons, then jolly good for the religion, but
: > why can't you do it out of a sense of obligation to those who are less fortunate
: > and leave religion out of it?
: Huh? Why don't we elect a president and leave politics out of it?
: Why don't we sing some songs and leave music out of it?
The verbal irony falls flat. The reason is this: it is perfectly possible
to do charitable things without any religion at all guiding your behaviors
and choices. When I donate clothes to the Salvation Army, I do it because
I think that somebody may be a bit warmer this winter as a result. No
religion at all. That simple. The reason one _cannot_ elect a president
without politics is that the two are inextricably tied. I assume you were
attempting to infer that religion and charity/wife devotion/whatnot are
also inextricably tied also, but the proof is in the pudding, and in this
instance you lack pudding, it seems.
As for songs without music, I think that country is doing its best ... ;-)
: I think I'm starting to understand why you guys have a cow when someone
: says atheism is a religion.
Come come. The FAQ just can't be that hard to understand. Religion
involves belief, and atheism involves the lack thereof.
--
blh...@u.cc.utah.edu o | (o o) | BOB, n. - see: Tao, the Force, Slack
Utah...just // |-oOO-(_)-OOo-| B'harni, n. - see: Elvis, Satan, DOS
accept it. -> =|== ->'|| Jesus saves - Johnson scores on the rebound!
rob k.
Matthew D. Hamey -- SF <md...@jazz.ucc.uno.edu> wrote:
[snip]
> ... You
>can do the "good" religion things without religion, and maybe some of the
>"bad" religion things would go away without religion. But there is always
>Vietnam or Korea... war without religion.
I thought a major motivation for participating in the Vietnam and Korean
wars was to rid those countries of the scourge of "godless communism".
This doesn't sound like "war without religion" to me. I don't think
you'd have to look too hard to find other ways that the hand of religion
played a part in these wars.
rob
Austin Cline
[CUT A LOT OF EXAMPLES OF HOW/WHY PEOPLE DO THINGS]
> >I don't care
> >what the word is, how does it fit in with your worldview?
> >
> I think I would label most things that you label religion as culture.
> If you do them for religious reasons, then jolly good for the religion, but
> why can't you do it out of a sense of obligation to those who are less fortunate
> and leave religion out of it? If you love your wife, pledge to stay with her
> forever for that reason alone (no, I can't define "love"). If you can give
> diapers to the homeless shelter, do it because you want to, not because you
> think it will get you into heaven (and I'm not claiming this is the reason
> you are doing it; but if it isn't, why is it listed under religion?) You
> can do the "good" religion things without religion, and maybe some of the
> "bad" religion things would go away without religion. But there is always
> Vietnam or Korea... war without religion. I don't claim that without religion
> there would be no more "bad", but maybe there would be less
You ask why someone doesn't do good things for reasons other than religion.
But, in order to do it, it has to be valued. This valuation, whatever it
might be, cannot have an objective source. There are lots of reasons for
doing the good things mentioned, and religion is just one. It cannot,
however, be shown to be worse just because 'God' cannot be shown to have an
independent, objective existence. People do things because of 'religion'
because their religious faith tells them that these acts are 'good'. Why do
*you* do these good things? Because a complex set of ethical and moral
standards, developed through your socialization in this particular culture,
tells you that it is good? Is that supposed to be better? Not likely.
arc
Austin Cline
(Brandon Harvey) wrote:
> : In article <1994May21.0...@cs.uno.edu>, md...@jazz.ucc.uno.edu (Matthew D. Hamey -- SF) writes:
> : > ... I think I would label most things that you label religion as culture.
> : > If you do them for religious reasons, then jolly good for the religion, but
> : > why can't you do it out of a sense of obligation to those who are less fortunate
> : > and leave religion out of it?
> : Huh? Why don't we elect a president and leave politics out of it?
> : Why don't we sing some songs and leave music out of it?
>
> The verbal irony falls flat. The reason is this: it is perfectly possible
> to do charitable things without any religion at all guiding your behaviors
> and choices. When I donate clothes to the Salvation Army, I do it because
> I think that somebody may be a bit warmer this winter as a result. No
> religion at all. That simple. The reason one _cannot_ elect a president
> without politics is that the two are inextricably tied. I assume you were
> attempting to infer that religion and charity/wife devotion/whatnot are
> also inextricably tied also, but the proof is in the pudding, and in this
> instance you lack pudding, it seems.
Except that, for a religiously devout person, charitable work and
religion/faith *are* inextricably linked. Just as, for most scientists,
reason and logic are so linked. Your donation of clothes to the SA is
(probably) linked to the idea that it is good for you to help people be a
bit warmer this winter. I'm sure you have reasons for this that are
inextricable linked to your actions. I say 'inextricalby' to mean that,
without these reasons, which are themselves bound up with your
'world-view', you would not be acting in this way. For almost all people,
their world-views are inextricable linked with they way they act. For a
great many, this world-view is informed by their religious faith.
> As for songs without music, I think that country is doing its best ... ;-)
DITTO!
> : I think I'm starting to understand why you guys have a cow when someone
> : says atheism is a religion.
>
> Come come. The FAQ just can't be that hard to understand. Religion
> involves belief, and atheism involves the lack thereof.
Except that, first, an atheist must believe in the necessity of proof that
religious faith cannot furnish. That's O.K., unless this 'belief' is held
dogmatically. If they hold that these standards of proof are objective,
such that everyone should use them as well, then they are doing much the
same thing that the religiously devout are doing. As a dogmatic belief,
this atheism becomes 'religion-like'. That's probably why so many theists
think of atheism as a type of religion. Atheists should probably be more
careful to say that they *don't* hold their views dogmatically, thus
holding off that particular complaint.
arc