Kenneth Miller Laetare Address

[TomS]

Kenneth Miller Laetare Address

<http://news.nd.edu/news/48401-kenneth-miller-laetare-address/>


--
La trahison des images, Ren� Magritte
"the map is not the territory", Alfred Korzbyski
A design is not enough to make something real.
---Tom S.

[John Harshman]

On 5/19/14, 11:20 AM, TomS wrote:
> Kenneth Miller Laetare Address
>
> <http://news.nd.edu/news/48401-kenneth-miller-laetare-address/>
>
>

I would really like it if people didn't post naked URLs. That is, some
indication of why a person would want to check it out would be nice.

But it happens I did look. I think Miller's central point relies on a
false equation: of religious faith on one hand to some central,
necessary assumptions of science on the other. And I just don't think
those can be equated.

And his main argument for the compatibility of science and religion is
just that some scientists are religious, as if that hadn't been dealt
with already by the observation that people are capable of believing
mutually contradictory things.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

TomS wrote:
> Kenneth Miller Laetare Address
>
> http://news.nd.edu/news/48401-kenneth-miller-laetare-address/

"A faith that would require one to reject scientific reason is not a faith
worth having."

That cuts to the heart of the fundie crap we keep hearing.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

John Harshman wrote:
> On 5/19/14, 11:20 AM, TomS wrote:
>> Kenneth Miller Laetare Address
>>
>> <http://news.nd.edu/news/48401-kenneth-miller-laetare-address/>
>>
>>
> I would really like it if people didn't post naked URLs. That is, some
> indication of why a person would want to check it out would be nice.
>
> But it happens I did look. I think Miller's central point relies on a
> false equation: of religious faith on one hand to some central,
> necessary assumptions of science on the other. And I just don't think
> those can be equated.
>
> And his main argument for the compatibility of science and religion is
> just that some scientists are religious,

That's not at all what he is saying, those religious people he mentions are
simply examples of his central point that "western science [has] its roots
in a faith that views the study of nature and its mysteries as a way to
praise and understand the glory of God."

> as if that hadn't been dealt
> with already by the observation that people are capable of believing
> mutually contradictory things.

"People", especially without the word "some" preceding it, is a somewhat
amorphous term. Can you give any actual examples of mutually contradictory
things that Miller has shown himself to believe.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
> John Harshman wrote:

[...]

>> as if that hadn't been dealt
>> with already by the observation that people are capable of believing
>> mutually contradictory things.
>
> "People", especially without the word "some" preceding it, is a
> somewhat amorphous term. Can you give any actual examples of mutually
> contradictory things that Miller has shown himself to believe.

Or more pertinently, mutually contradictory things believed by the people he
quotes as examples.

[Robert Camp]

On 5/19/14, 11:20 AM, TomS wrote:

> Kenneth Miller Laetare Address
>
> <http://news.nd.edu/news/48401-kenneth-miller-laetare-address/>

I share John Harshman's frustration with the false equivalency between
religious faith and foundational scientific assumptions. I understand
why Miller emphasized it, but to me it was too glib and glossed over
real, consequential differences between the two.

What bugged me more, though, was the resort to an argument of the type,
"...and that ignores the historical evidence that science developed out
of religion." I think it's time for defenders of science to put this
point out to pasture. Sure, Newton and many others did what they did for
the glory of God in many cases, but science, as practiced today, is
philosophically and methodologically divorced from religious influence,
and that's all to the good.

That natural theology gave rise to what became science is far less
important than the fact that science today is no longer any kind of
theology.

On the whole, though, I thought it was a good speech.

[John Harshman]

On 5/19/14, 2:46 PM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
> John Harshman wrote:
>> On 5/19/14, 11:20 AM, TomS wrote:
>>> Kenneth Miller Laetare Address
>>>
>>> <http://news.nd.edu/news/48401-kenneth-miller-laetare-address/>
>>>
>>>
>> I would really like it if people didn't post naked URLs. That is, some
>> indication of why a person would want to check it out would be nice.
>>
>> But it happens I did look. I think Miller's central point relies on a
>> false equation: of religious faith on one hand to some central,
>> necessary assumptions of science on the other. And I just don't think
>> those can be equated.
>>
>> And his main argument for the compatibility of science and religion is
>> just that some scientists are religious,
>
> That's not at all what he is saying, those religious people he mentions are
> simply examples of his central point that "western science [has] its roots
> in a faith that views the study of nature and its mysteries as a way to
> praise and understand the glory of God."

And here I thought the roots went back as far as Archimedes, at least.
Silly me. That, however, was a separate point.

>> as if that hadn't been dealt
>> with already by the observation that people are capable of believing
>> mutually contradictory things.
>
> "People", especially without the word "some" preceding it, is a somewhat
> amorphous term. Can you give any actual examples of mutually contradictory
> things that Miller has shown himself to believe.

No. Miller has managed the solution of NOMA: he excludes god entirely
from science, and says that any interventions are in ways
indistinguishable, even in principle, from natural processes. This isn't
about Miller. It's about his argument that religious scientists prove
the compatibility of science and religion.

[Kalkidas]

Miller is being deliberately vague and equivocal in his use of
"faith". Sometimes he means specifically religious faith, and
sometimes he means just common faith in the success of some human
enterprise.

An example of the first is, "faith, far from being the antithesis of
reason, is actually the source of reason." Here he means religious
faith, since he has just been talking about "a faith that views the

study of nature and its mysteries as a way to praise and understand
the glory of God"

An example of the second is "Science is built upon two great elements
of faith. The first is that the universe is rational, understandable
and accessible to human thought. The second is that truth is to be
preferred to ignorance."

Here he is referring to general "faith" that a human enterprise can be
successful. There is no reference to God or religious doctrine at all.
An atheist can have "faith" like this.

Unfortunately, those two statements are part of the same train of
thought. Miller equivocates in order to mix up the meanings of
"faith". He is trying to please everyone, and he knows that this
cannot be done unless the meaning of "faith" is made sufficiently
vague.

[Roger Shrubber]

I see where you're going but frankly, I've met atheists who have
greater faith in the two in your second example "universe is
rational ... preferred to ignorance" than many religious people
have in the existence of their deity. I measure _greater_ with
respect to determinedly held conviction and foundational nature
with respect to their epistemology.

In that respect, I don't get your attempt to distinguish
two types of faith. Just because one invokes a deity does
not seem to change the essential meaning of faith, it just
changes the object of faith.

> Unfortunately, those two statements are part of the same train of
> thought. Miller equivocates in order to mix up the meanings of
> "faith". He is trying to please everyone, and he knows that this
> cannot be done unless the meaning of "faith" is made sufficiently
> vague.

Really, it isn't equivocation when the objective of faith changes.
Faith in an idea, or faith in a person, or faith is a deity is
still faith without equivocation. The meaning of _to_have_faith_
does not change when one changes the object that one has faith in.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

John Harshman wrote:
> On 5/19/14, 2:46 PM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>> John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 5/19/14, 11:20 AM, TomS wrote:
>>>> Kenneth Miller Laetare Address
>>>>
>>>> <http://news.nd.edu/news/48401-kenneth-miller-laetare-address/>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I would really like it if people didn't post naked URLs. That is,
>>> some indication of why a person would want to check it out would be
>>> nice. But it happens I did look. I think Miller's central point relies
>>> on
>>> a false equation: of religious faith on one hand to some central,
>>> necessary assumptions of science on the other. And I just don't
>>> think those can be equated.
>>>
>>> And his main argument for the compatibility of science and religion
>>> is just that some scientists are religious,
>>
>> That's not at all what he is saying, those religious people he
>> mentions are simply examples of his central point that "western
>> science [has] its roots in a faith that views the study of nature
>> and its mysteries as a way to praise and understand the glory of
>> God."
>
> And here I thought the roots went back as far as Archimedes, at least.
> Silly me. That, however, was a separate point.

So the gap from ancient Greeks to the Age of Enlightenment was just some
sort of short intermission of no real significance? Whilst the barbarians
and others were busy sacking Europe, who do you think preserved, built upon
and promulgated that ancient knowledge, leading to the development of what
we now loosely define as modern science?

>
>>> as if that hadn't been dealt
>>> with already by the observation that people are capable of believing
>>> mutually contradictory things.
>>
>> "People", especially without the word "some" preceding it, is a
>> somewhat amorphous term. Can you give any actual examples of
>> mutually contradictory things that Miller has shown himself to
>> believe.
>
> No.

So your point about people believing mutually contradictory things was
essentially a straw-man. I'm glad we sorted that out so readily

>Miller has managed the solution of NOMA: he excludes god entirely
> from science, and says that any interventions are in ways
> indistinguishable, even in principle, from natural processes.

I don't agree with your synopsis but even if it were true, so what? The
point at issue here is whether or not religion and science are compatible,
not *how* that compatibility is achieved or managed.

>This
> isn't about Miller. It's about his argument that religious scientists
> prove the compatibility of science and religion.

Well a priest establishing the foundations of modern genetics and a priest
developing the "Big Bang" theory seem to me to be rather splendid examples
of scientific endeavour not being impeded in any way by religious belief.
That is the real point here, not some airy-fairy babble about managing NOMA;
much as you and some others seem to wish it otherwise, the simple fact is
that time and time again throughout the history of science, we have seen
that religious belief does not impede people from doing good, progressive
and important science.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

Robert Camp wrote:
> On 5/19/14, 11:20 AM, TomS wrote:
>> Kenneth Miller Laetare Address
>>
>> <http://news.nd.edu/news/48401-kenneth-miller-laetare-address/>
>
> I share John Harshman's frustration with the false equivalency between
> religious faith and foundational scientific assumptions. I understand
> why Miller emphasized it, but to me it was too glib and glossed over
> real, consequential differences between the two.
>
> What bugged me more, though, was the resort to an argument of the
> type, "...and that ignores the historical evidence that science
> developed out of religion." I think it's time for defenders of
> science to put this point out to pasture.

More like time to put this incompatibility nonsense out to pasture. The
original proponents of this, Draper and White, have long been discredited.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

Kalkidas wrote:
> On Mon, 19 May 2014 22:40:59 +0100, "AlwaysAskingQuestions"
> <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> TomS wrote:
>>> Kenneth Miller Laetare Address
>>>
>>> http://news.nd.edu/news/48401-kenneth-miller-laetare-address/
>>
>> "A faith that would require one to reject scientific reason is not a
>> faith worth having."
>>
>> That cuts to the heart of the fundie crap we keep hearing.
>
> Miller is being deliberately vague and equivocal in his use of
> "faith".

I don't see anything vague or equivocal about what "faith" means to a
Catholic making a speech at a Catholic university.

[eridanus]

El lunes, 19 de mayo de 2014 23:16:57 UTC+1, Robert Camp escribi�:

even if Newton was a theist believer, his approach to physics was lay.
He tried to reason withing some mathematic realm. This is more or less
the difference between reasoning with mere words, and reasoning with math
algorithms. It does not mean, that using maths for reasoning would not
be immune to errors. You can be in error, for disregard some variables
that had more importance than you guessed. This is the typical case of
Lord Kelvin and his "interior of the earth is cold".
Other errors are of other nature, like the docs rejecting the ideas about
clinical hygiene of like Ignaz Semmelweis. The reasoning arguments for
rejecting were more relating to proudness and the will of not to bow
before a guy of inferior social status. This case is rather common.
Science is made by humans, and thus it must show some of human failures.

Eri

[Walter Bushell]

In article <bu0a2b...@mid.individual.net>,

"AlwaysAskingQuestions" <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote:

> So the gap from ancient Greeks to the Age of Enlightenment was just some
> sort of short intermission of no real significance? Whilst the barbarians
> and others were busy sacking Europe, who do you think preserved, built upon
> and promulgated that ancient knowledge, leading to the development of what
> we now loosely define as modern science?

Islam mostly.

--
Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greed. Me.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

Walter Bushell wrote:
> In article <bu0a2b...@mid.individual.net>,
> "AlwaysAskingQuestions" <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So the gap from ancient Greeks to the Age of Enlightenment was just
>> some sort of short intermission of no real significance? Whilst the
>> barbarians and others were busy sacking Europe, who do you think
>> preserved, built upon and promulgated that ancient knowledge,
>> leading to the development of what we now loosely define as modern
>> science?
>
> Islam mostly.

Check again. Here's a little hint for you - ask yourself why has so much the
of scientific devlopment of the last 500 years or so taken place in the
Christian world and so little in the Islamic world.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

Correction, I meant Christian/Judaic world.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <bu0r4j...@mid.individual.net>,

Islam stagnated after a period of brilliance completely another kettle
of fish. After the Moors were driven out of Spain their was an influx
of learning when scholars retrieved manuscripts from the libraries and
their was another influx after the fall of Constantinople.

Even so many of the texts available such as any of the works of
Aristotle are only from Arabic manuscript translation. And BTW, we
only have some student's notes about Aristotle.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

Walter Bushell wrote:
> In article <bu0r4j...@mid.individual.net>,
> "AlwaysAskingQuestions" <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Walter Bushell wrote:
>>> In article <bu0a2b...@mid.individual.net>,
>>> "AlwaysAskingQuestions" <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> So the gap from ancient Greeks to the Age of Enlightenment was just
>>>> some sort of short intermission of no real significance? Whilst the
>>>> barbarians and others were busy sacking Europe, who do you think
>>>> preserved, built upon and promulgated that ancient knowledge,
>>>> leading to the development of what we now loosely define as modern
>>>> science?
>>>
>>> Islam mostly.
>>
>> Check again. Here's a little hint for you - ask yourself why has so
>> much the of scientific devlopment of the last 500 years or so taken
>> place in the Christian world and so little in the Islamic world.
>
> Islam stagnated after a period of brilliance completely another kettle
> of fish.

Whatever the fish, Islam essentially contributed little or nothing to the
development of modern science; contrary to your earlier claim.

> After the Moors were driven out of Spain their was an influx
> of learning when scholars retrieved manuscripts from the libraries and
> their was another influx after the fall of Constantinople.
>
> Even so many of the texts available such as any of the works of
> Aristotle are only from Arabic manuscript translation. And BTW, we
> only have some student's notes about Aristotle.

Most of those texts and writings were preserved in Europe by the medieval
monks whose schools developed into our modern university system which in
turn led to the Enlightenment and modern science.

[walksalone]

"AlwaysAskingQuestions" <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:bu0r4j...@mid.individual.net:

Because with the passing of the reins of power from descendents & relatives
of Mohammad to Imams who are/were fanatics? IIRC, that is the answer
provided by history.
Seem to recall, about the time the Berbers were converted.

Among the components was, who preserved. Xianity was already destroying, &
had destroyed books on religion & science. The needed the parchment for
the "book of blood" you see. Why book of blood, I've read it in context,
historical a well as societal. No apologetics allowed.

History is not always what the priesthood claims.

walksalone who found that information by accident, while pursing the
history of mythology, organized or not.

Psalms IIRC.
82:1
God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.

[jillery]

Here's a counter-point, to the assertion that religion doesn't get in
the way of science, and to the assertion that Newton was immune to its
effects:

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ti3mtDC2fQo

IMO the above is Tyson at his best, quite unlike his projected persona
on Cosmos. For those who don't like Youtube videos, here's my
takeaway:

Tyson gives Newton all due credit for genius, how he violated God's
assumed domain, and applied the laws of motion to all objects, both on
Earth and in Heaven. Then Newton came to the limits of his knowledge,
that he couldn't figure out how the planets kept stable orbits against
their mutual gravitational tugs. Instead of pursuing the question,
Newton invoked God to keep His celestial clockwork from descending
into chaos.

It would be over 100 years before another genius again violated God's
assumed domain, and applied Perturbation Theory to explain the
stability of the Solar System. It's said, perhaps apocryphally, that
after Napoleon read Laplace's M�canique C�leste, and commented on its
lack of reference to God, Laplace replied "I had no need of that
hypothesis".

Tyson points out that Laplace did nothing that Newton could not have
done, and should have done, but did not do, at least in part because
Newton invoked his belief in God to answer the question.

[John Harshman]

The muslims? I suppose you want me to say that the monasteries did it,
but likely as not they were scraping the text off a scroll of Archimedes
in order to use the vellum for another illuminated gospel.

>>>> as if that hadn't been dealt
>>>> with already by the observation that people are capable of believing
>>>> mutually contradictory things.
>>>
>>> "People", especially without the word "some" preceding it, is a
>>> somewhat amorphous term. Can you give any actual examples of
>>> mutually contradictory things that Miller has shown himself to
>>> believe.
>>
>> No.
>
> So your point about people believing mutually contradictory things was
> essentially a straw-man. I'm glad we sorted that out so readily

No. It doesn't require that everyone fit the condition. All I'm saying
is that Miller's claim requires that people not be able to believe
contradictory things. If they can, his argument falls apart.

But I would say that if Miller closely examined some of the things he
believes he might find some contradiction yet. He believes in an active,
personal god with a particular interest in H. sapiens, but the history
of the universe and of life would suggest otherwise.

>> Miller has managed the solution of NOMA: he excludes god entirely
>> from science, and says that any interventions are in ways
>> indistinguishable, even in principle, from natural processes.
>
> I don't agree with your synopsis but even if it were true, so what? The
> point at issue here is whether or not religion and science are compatible,
> not *how* that compatibility is achieved or managed.

I'd say that Miller's strict partitioning shows that they aren't
compatible. The same person can contain them, but mixing them results in
problems.

>> This
>> isn't about Miller. It's about his argument that religious scientists
>> prove the compatibility of science and religion.
>
> Well a priest establishing the foundations of modern genetics and a priest
> developing the "Big Bang" theory seem to me to be rather splendid examples
> of scientific endeavour not being impeded in any way by religious belief.

That too is a separate question. And of course you state your claim in
extreme form. We can certainly say that some scientific endeavors are
not impeded by some religious beliefs. We certainly have creationists as
a fine example of some endeavors being impeded. As a less extreme
example, I believe Simon Conway Morris fits well; his odd theories about
convergence are clearly driven by his religion.

> That is the real point here, not some airy-fairy babble about managing NOMA;
> much as you and some others seem to wish it otherwise, the simple fact is
> that time and time again throughout the history of science, we have seen
> that religious belief does not impede people from doing good, progressive
> and important science.

That's certainly true in some cases. Would you agree that it's false in
other cases? And would you agree that "religious belief does not impede"
is a far cry from "religious belief helps" or, in Miller's terms, "faith
is necessary"?

[Steven L.]

No, he said something else too:

"Science is built upon two great elements of faith. The first is that
the universe is rational, understandable and accessible to human
thought. The second is that truth is to be preferred to ignorance.

And I will tell you frankly: A faith that would require one to reject

scientific reason is not a faith worth having."

Ken Miller is arguing for a religious faith that embraces the light of
scientific reason.

And I think that's great.

But you don't need to take a comparative religion class to recognize
that other religions did a better job of that than Christianity.



--
Steven L.

[Steven L.]

Really?

Or did Newton just pull God in, after the fact, to rationalize his own
failure?

It sounds more like Newton was using "God" here the same way that
scientists in earlier centuries used "phlogiston" or physicists in the
19th century used the "luminiferous aether": An axiom to explain away
certain things they didn't have answers for, and an unwillingness to
consider alternatives.



--
Steven L.

[Burkhard]

On Tuesday, May 20, 2014 7:12:24 AM UTC+1, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
><snio>

> > And here I thought the roots went back as far as Archimedes, at least.
>
> > Silly me. That, however, was a separate point.
>
>
>
> So the gap from ancient Greeks to the Age of Enlightenment was just some
> sort of short intermission of no real significance? Whilst the barbarians
> and others were busy sacking Europe, who do you think preserved, built upon
> and promulgated that ancient knowledge, leading to the development of what
> we now loosely define as modern science?
>

In the "House of Wisdom", mostly, the library, established by Harun al-Rashid
in Baghdad, and also early universities such as the Academy of Gondishapur or the
University of al-Qarawiyyin

<snip>

[John Harshman]

On 5/20/14, 8:05 AM, Steven L. wrote:
> On 5/19/2014 4:25 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 5/19/14, 11:20 AM, TomS wrote:
>>> Kenneth Miller Laetare Address
>>>
>>> <http://news.nd.edu/news/48401-kenneth-miller-laetare-address/>
>>>
>>>
>> I would really like it if people didn't post naked URLs. That is, some
>> indication of why a person would want to check it out would be nice.
>>
>> But it happens I did look. I think Miller's central point relies on a
>> false equation: of religious faith on one hand to some central,
>> necessary assumptions of science on the other. And I just don't think
>> those can be equated.
>>
>> And his main argument for the compatibility of science and religion is
>> just that some scientists are religious, as if that hadn't been dealt
>> with already by the observation that people are capable of believing
>> mutually contradictory things.
>
> No, he said something else too:
>
> "Science is built upon two great elements of faith. The first is that
> the universe is rational, understandable and accessible to human
> thought. The second is that truth is to be preferred to ignorance.
> And I will tell you frankly: A faith that would require one to reject
> scientific reason is not a faith worth having."
>
> Ken Miller is arguing for a religious faith that embraces the light of
> scientific reason.

> And I think that's great.

Sure, that's great. But I don't think it's an argument for the
compatibility of science and religion. And it seriously confuses the
meaning of "faith". The first of these "elements of faith" is just a
working assumption without which science wouldn't work. We don't believe
it on faith; we take it as necessary, and it seems to have been
empirically verified. The second isn't a matter of fact at all but a
value judgment that can't be considered objectively either true or
false. Neither of them bears any resemblance to religious faith, which
is a confident belief in some matter of fact not based on empirical
evidence.

> But you don't need to take a comparative religion class to recognize
> that other religions did a better job of that than Christianity.

Depends on what time and place you're talking about, and which other
religions and which form of Christianity. Certainly during the middle
ages Islam did a better job of science than Christianity did.

[TomS]

"On Tue, 20 May 2014 11:08:43 -0400, in article
<RfydnT0BvrRn8ubO...@earthlink.com>, Steven L. stated..."
[...snip...]

>It sounds more like Newton was using "God" here the same way that
>scientists in earlier centuries used "phlogiston" or physicists in the
>19th century used the "luminiferous aether": An axiom to explain away
>certain things they didn't have answers for, and an unwillingness to
>consider alternatives.

I'd suggest that Newton's *gravity* is more like phlogiston or aether.
We can measure the properties of all three, unlike God. They are
limited in what they can do.

[Mark Buchanan]

On 5/19/2014 4:25 PM, John Harshman wrote:

The argument or implication that faith and science are incompatible
because there exists people who believe incompatible things is very
poor. It's at least as bad as Miller's argument (as stated above) and
likely worse. No belief is required to practice science properly, it
only requires the acceptance of the scientific method and that the
universe is rational. The assumption that the universe is rational (and
therefor repeatable) is necessary but does not imply any belief.

However, the existence of a competent scientist who believes anything
metaphysical (even contradictory things) does demonstrate that
methodological naturalism is independent of philosophical naturalism.

[John Harshman]

On 5/20/14, 11:06 AM, Mark Buchanan wrote:
> On 5/19/2014 4:25 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 5/19/14, 11:20 AM, TomS wrote:
>>> Kenneth Miller Laetare Address
>>>
>>> <http://news.nd.edu/news/48401-kenneth-miller-laetare-address/>
>>>
>>>
>> I would really like it if people didn't post naked URLs. That is, some
>> indication of why a person would want to check it out would be nice.
>>
>> But it happens I did look. I think Miller's central point relies on a
>> false equation: of religious faith on one hand to some central,
>> necessary assumptions of science on the other. And I just don't think
>> those can be equated.
>>
>> And his main argument for the compatibility of science and religion is
>> just that some scientists are religious, as if that hadn't been dealt
>> with already by the observation that people are capable of believing
>> mutually contradictory things.
>>
> The argument or implication that faith and science are incompatible
> because there exists people who believe incompatible things is very
> poor. It's at least as bad as Miller's argument (as stated above) and
> likely worse.

Fortunately, I do not make that argument.

[jillery]

I infer that you think you have described a distinction between what
you and I wrote, but I confess I'm hard-pressed to recognize what it
is. Please elaborate.

>It sounds more like Newton was using "God" here the same way that
>scientists in earlier centuries used "phlogiston" or physicists in the
>19th century used the "luminiferous aether": An axiom to explain away
>certain things they didn't have answers for, and an unwillingness to
>consider alternatives.

Neither phlogiston nor luminiferous aether were treated as axioms, but
as falsifiable hypotheses, and both were ultimately rejected in part
because scientific tests showed them to be inconsistent with
observations. This is the opposite of Newton's hand of God, which
could not be falsified, but only made unnecessary, which is what
Laplace finally did.

Tyson argument implies that, had Newton not had a convenient excuse
like the hand of God, he might have applied himself to finding a real
answer. Of course, Newton might have also done something similar to
what Einstein did, and inserted an arbitrary cosmological constant to
keep the Solar System stable.

Dark energy and dark matter share a similar position today as
phlogiston once did, as a placeholder label for something that's known
to be unknown. It's entirely possible that future scientists will
smile patronizingly at those who once subscribed to such fanciful
notions.

[Mark Buchanan]

So what was the point of your statement, '... as if that hadn't been

dealt with already by the observation that people are capable of

believing mutually contradictory things.'? What does the observation of
people 'believing mutually contradictory things' have to do with anything?

Do you assert (don't want to use the word believe) that faith and
science are incompatible? Would you say that all forms of faith is
irrational?

[John Harshman]

Miller says religion and science can't be incompatible because the same
person can be both religious and a scientist. I say this is not evidence
for his claim because if religion and science were incompatible the same
person could still hold both, because people are capable of believing
incompatible things. Do you see the distinction between what I'm saying
and what you thought I was saying?

> Do you assert (don't want to use the word believe) that faith and
> science are incompatible? Would you say that all forms of faith is
> irrational?

They're incompatible in epistemology; they may also be incompatible in
truth claims, but that depends on the particular religion. I would say
that all forms of religious faith are irrational; the rest depends on
how broadly you use the word "faith".

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

Gosh, I never realised that Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, etc. were alumni of
those universities!

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

John Harshman wrote:
> On 5/19/14, 11:12 PM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:

[...]

>
> But I would say that if Miller closely examined some of the things he
> believes he might find some contradiction yet.

What an incredibly arrogant attitude; because you don't agree with Miller,
you assume that he cannot have properly examined the things he believes in.
Kinda puts the rest of your argument into context.

[...]

[Burkhard]

And I never realised that they lived when, as in your question, "barbarians where
ransacking Europe" . I must have used the wrong history book. In mine they lived
several centuries after the medieval migration period that destroyed the Roman and
Greek schools of learning.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

They got their learning from the Western universities that grew out of the
monastic schools of the Middle Ages where ancient knowledge was carefully
preserved as well as religious writings.

[Burkhard]

And these too are not at a time when "barbarians looted Europe", which your question
was about. Your answer to your own question remains several centuries off.

But if you are so convinced of your answer anyway rather than learning something new,
maybe change your nym to"alwaysaskingrhetoricalquestions"

[John Harshman]

Are there rational reasons for believing in God, then?

[Glenn]

"John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:7_ednR9c_M09P-HO...@giganews.com...

Did you closely examine this question before deciding to ask it?

[Mark Buchanan]

Yes, and thanks for the clarification.

>
>> Do you assert (don't want to use the word believe) that faith and
>> science are incompatible? Would you say that all forms of faith is
>> irrational?
>
> They're incompatible in epistemology; they may also be incompatible in
> truth claims, but that depends on the particular religion. I would say
> that all forms of religious faith are irrational; the rest depends on
> how broadly you use the word "faith".
>

I would agree on the epistemology & truth claims part. Also, faith of
any sort is irrational to some extent by definition.

Could there be a distinction between practically compatible and
theoretically compatible when it comes to science and faith? If talking
about practical compatibility then Miller's point is valid.

Without going into all the theoretical issues, a couple of observations:

First, it takes a very different mind set to practice science properly
than it does to 'practice' faith of any kind. Science is dependent on
skepticism and skepticism has to be either eliminated or at least muted
for faith. (The word practice is put in scary quotes because I honestly
don't know what it means to practice faith any more - I used to think I
did and tried to do it.)

Second, no one is able to practice science perfectly all the time. We
are all irrational at least some of the time for example.

[John Harshman]

I'm not sure that's true. Which point?

> Without going into all the theoretical issues, a couple of observations:
>
> First, it takes a very different mind set to practice science properly
> than it does to 'practice' faith of any kind. Science is dependent on
> skepticism and skepticism has to be either eliminated or at least muted
> for faith. (The word practice is put in scary quotes because I honestly
> don't know what it means to practice faith any more - I used to think I
> did and tried to do it.)
>
> Second, no one is able to practice science perfectly all the time. We
> are all irrational at least some of the time for example.

Certainly.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

Wriggle, wriggle ....

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

Are there rational reasons for thinking that someone who disagrees with you
simply hasn't thought things through - even somebody like Miller who has
shown a heck of a lot more intellectual ability than you have?

[John Harshman]

So now your argument is simply to insult me. There certainly can be
rational reasons, even if Miller is smarter than I am. Smart people can
believe weird things. Linus Pauling, for example, was a nut about
vitamin C. Roger Sperry believed that life violated the second law of
thermodynamics. I'm sure you could come up with more examples. Ideas
have to be evaluated on their own terms.

So, are there rational reasons for believing in God?

[Burkhard]

What is there to wriggle? You asked a question where you thought
you knew the answer, but you got your dates badly wrong, that's all.
The times when "barbarians and others were busy sacking Europe"
pre-dates Christian universities by a couple of centuries, and
during this time, science in Persia flourished and kept the tradition
of Greek science and philosophy alive.

Any half decent book on European history, or history of science,
will give you the details, e.g. Toby Huff's "The rise of Early
Modern Science: Islam, China, and the West"

[Roger Shrubber]

Burkhard wrote:
> On Wednesday, 21 May 2014 16:13:00 UTC+1, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>> Burkhard wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, May 21, 2014 12:34:03 PM UTC+1, AlwaysAskingQuestions

>>>> Burkhard wrote:

>>>> They got their learning from the Western universities that grew out
>>>> of the monastic schools of the Middle Ages where ancient knowledge
>>>> was carefully preserved as well as religious writings.

>>> And these too are not at a time when "barbarians looted Europe",
>>> which your question was about. Your answer to your own question
>>> remains several centuries off.

>> Wriggle, wriggle ....

> What is there to wriggle? You asked a question where you thought
> you knew the answer, but you got your dates badly wrong, that's all.
> The times when "barbarians and others were busy sacking Europe"
> pre-dates Christian universities by a couple of centuries, and
> during this time, science in Persia flourished and kept the tradition
> of Greek science and philosophy alive.
>
> Any half decent book on European history, or history of science,
> will give you the details, e.g. Toby Huff's "The rise of Early
> Modern Science: Islam, China, and the West"

Let's no bicker and argue about who killed who, this is supposed to
be a happy occasion.

[jillery]

Not surprisingly, Neil Tyson also mentioned it in his monolog I cited.

[Glenn]

"John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:dMKdnfLIvf3TVeHO...@giganews.com...

Rational to whom? You? I suspect you think like some others do that all
religious believers have irrational beliefs. Granted some do, as is a possibility
with everyone with regard to some belief or "acceptance".

So what rational reasons do you have for thinking that Miller hasn't thought things through?

[Glenn]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:jglpn9dkuvoprcn0p...@4ax.com...

And what is the significance of the correlation, if there is any, to the times when "barbarians and others were busy sacking Europe" pre-dating "Christian Universities" while during that time
"science in Persia flourished and kept the tradition of Greek science and philosophy alive", assuming all of these are accurate depictions?

[Robert Camp]

On 5/19/14 11:20 PM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:

> Robert Camp wrote:
>> On 5/19/14, 11:20 AM, TomS wrote:
>>> Kenneth Miller Laetare Address
>>>
>>> <http://news.nd.edu/news/48401-kenneth-miller-laetare-address/>
>>

>> I share John Harshman's frustration with the false equivalency between
>> religious faith and foundational scientific assumptions. I understand
>> why Miller emphasized it, but to me it was too glib and glossed over
>> real, consequential differences between the two.
>>
>> What bugged me more, though, was the resort to an argument of the
>> type, "...and that ignores the historical evidence that science
>> developed out of religion." I think it's time for defenders of
>> science to put this point out to pasture.
>

> More like time to put this incompatibility nonsense out to pasture. The
> original proponents of this, Draper and White, have long been discredited.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis

Problem is, you don't get to define this issue in narrow terms that are
convenient to your perspective. "Religion" is more than Catholicism, and
especially more than some particularly attenuated vision of Catholicism
that emphasizes historically contingent scientific events and
achievements over other, less enlightened perspectives.

Likewise, "science" is more than the raw work product of scientists. It
is also a methodology (broad as it is), and there is no way to paper
over fundamental contradictions between science and religion in
approaches to the development and ultimate validity of knowledge.

Miller, who I respect quite a bit, casts his comments in a similarly
narrow fashion. I appreciate his desire for harmony on this issue, but I
think it's important for him, and you, and anyone arguing that religion
and science are not incompatible to understand that all they're really
saying is, "The way I practice my religion is not incompatible with
science."

[Mark Buchanan]

By practical compatibility I mean anyone who practices competent science
no matter what they believe (or do) when not doing science. One
competent scientist who practices faith proves the point as Miller
states. A very different example unrelated to faith (or not?) is
Heisenberg - brilliant scientist and committed Nazi. Millar's point is
almost meaningless except for those people of faith who are threatened
by science.

[jillery]

That suggests that the practice of religion doesn't have to be
incompatible with science.

And as far as their different approaches, I would argue that different
problems require different approaches. For example, when someone is
overwhelmed by the trials of life, their immediate need is support for
their emotional and immediate physical needs, not rational discussions
about their failure to apply appropriate methodologies, although that
might be appropriate later on.

[John Harshman]

I see that more as an example of incompatibility; if you have to
carefully arrange either your faith or your science so that they don't
collide, that shows they don't fit together.

There has never been any disagreement about whether it's possible to be
a competent scientist while believing any manner of silly things, as
long as those silly things don't affect the science.

[Robert Camp]

No, just that people can, and do, believe that their religion is not
incompatible with science. Whether I agree with that in any specific
case depends on, among other things, what their version of religion is.

> And as far as their different approaches, I would argue that different
> problems require different approaches. For example, when someone is
> overwhelmed by the trials of life, their immediate need is support for
> their emotional and immediate physical needs, not rational discussions
> about their failure to apply appropriate methodologies, although that
> might be appropriate later on.

Makes sense to me.

[jillery]

On Wed, 21 May 2014 13:42:15 -0700, Robert Camp
<rober...@hotmail.com> wrote:

[...]

>>> Miller, who I respect quite a bit, casts his comments in a similarly
>>> narrow fashion. I appreciate his desire for harmony on this issue, but I
>>> think it's important for him, and you, and anyone arguing that religion
>>> and science are not incompatible to understand that all they're really
>>> saying is, "The way I practice my religion is not incompatible with
>>> science."
>>
>>
>> That suggests that the practice of religion doesn't have to be
>> incompatible with science.
>
>No, just that people can, and do, believe that their religion is not
>incompatible with science. Whether I agree with that in any specific
>case depends on, among other things, what their version of religion is.

More precisely, it depends on how they practice their version of
religion. And the discussion is about a very specific and well-known
case, ie Ken Miller as he practices Roman Catholicism.

[Robert Camp]

On 5/21/14 4:18 PM, jillery wrote:
> On Wed, 21 May 2014 13:42:15 -0700, Robert Camp
> <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>>> Miller, who I respect quite a bit, casts his comments in a similarly
>>>> narrow fashion. I appreciate his desire for harmony on this issue, but I
>>>> think it's important for him, and you, and anyone arguing that religion
>>>> and science are not incompatible to understand that all they're really
>>>> saying is, "The way I practice my religion is not incompatible with
>>>> science."
>>>
>>>
>>> That suggests that the practice of religion doesn't have to be
>>> incompatible with science.
>>
>> No, just that people can, and do, believe that their religion is not
>> incompatible with science. Whether I agree with that in any specific
>> case depends on, among other things, what their version of religion is.
>
>
> More precisely, it depends on how they practice their version of
> religion.

I thought that was pretty much assumed, but okay.

> And the discussion is about a very specific and well-known
> case, ie Ken Miller as he practices Roman Catholicism.

Yes, that is what the meta-discussion is about.

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Wednesday, May 21, 2014 11:37:50 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 5/21/14, 8:15 AM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>
> > John Harshman wrote:
>
> >> On 5/21/14, 12:10 AM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>
> >>> John Harshman wrote:
>
> >>>> On 5/19/14, 11:12 PM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:

>
> >>>> But I would say that if Miller closely examined some of the things
> >>>> he believes he might find some contradiction yet.

This is far less rational than the claim that if Feduccia were to
look objectively at the scientific evidence, he would agree that
birds are [descended from] dinosaurs.

Even so, you've given precious little of that scientific evidence so far,
preferring to interrogate me relentlessly about what Feduccia has
said in the way of his own pet theory. I've got news for you:
Feduccia presented all the major theories in his book and, rather than
opt for any of them outright, he has laid out the evidence
and criticized the evidence various people have given for various
relevant hypotheses.

Anyway, you are indulging in wishful thinking, without
anything to back it up, on this Miller thesis of yours.

> >>> What an incredibly arrogant attitude; because you don't agree with
> >>> Miller, you assume that he cannot have properly examined the things
> >>> he believes in. Kinda puts the rest of your argument into context.

> >> Are there rational reasons for believing in God, then?

Of course there are rational reasons for making a modest "leap of faith"
which is no greater than you leap of faith to the conclusion that there
is no God, and smaller than the leap of faith which you indulged in
at the top of this post.

Your wording was disarmingly modest, but the fact that you
(1) presumably have some rational reason for believing there is no God, and
(2) have had many years to come up with a contradiction yourself, yet
(3) have not been able to come up with one
indicates that even such a modest wording requires a great leap of faith.

> > Are there rational reasons for thinking that someone who disagrees with you
> > simply hasn't thought things through - even somebody like Miller who has
> > shown a heck of a lot more intellectual ability than you have?

> So now your argument is simply to insult me.

And your counter-argument is to whine like a spoiled brat, by inserting
the word "simply" as though the part before the "-" in what AAQ wrote
did not exist.

> There certainly can be
> rational reasons, even if Miller is smarter than I am. Smart people can
> believe weird things. Linus Pauling, for example, was a nut about
> vitamin C. Roger Sperry believed that life violated the second law of
> thermodynamics. I'm sure you could come up with more examples.

Yeah, one John Harshman believes these examples are somehow relevant
to his bold thesis, yet fancies himself to be quite a rational scientist.

> Ideas have to be evaluated on their own terms.

So far, you have given a bunch of sophistry for your opening idea.
Let's see some real grounds.

> So, are there rational reasons for believing in God?

Yes, and I've given you some, but you can't even see why
a multiverse with an infinity of universes is a vastly better
hypothesis than the hypothesis that our incredibly orderly
universe, which is also incredibly young (only ca. 13 gyo)
and incredibly small, is the whole of reality.

With that kind of attitude, it's no wonder you believe so
firmly in atheism. You have rendered yourself impervious to
all rational reasons for believing in God.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
nyikos @ math.sc.edu

[Roger Shrubber]

nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 21, 2014 11:37:50 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 5/21/14, 8:15 AM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>>
>>> John Harshman wrote:


>>>> Are there rational reasons for believing in God, then?


> Of course there are rational reasons for making a modest "leap of faith"
> which is no greater than you leap of faith to the conclusion that there
> is no God, and smaller than the leap of faith which you indulged in
> at the top of this post.

Oddly enough, you did not supply them. I think I could
but you did not.

> Your wording was disarmingly modest, but the fact that you
> (1) presumably have some rational reason for believing there is no God, and

That is not evident. In fact it presumes a false dichotomy.
The question was if there was a rational reason to believe
in God. It is a false dichotomy to contort this into asserting
a belief that there is no God. And you should be ashamed at
promoting such a superficially obvious false dichotomy.

> (2) have had many years to come up with a contradiction yourself, yet

I repeat the accusation of you pressing a false dichotomy.

> (3) have not been able to come up with one
> indicates that even such a modest wording requires a great leap of faith.

Persistence does not rescue you.

[jillery]

On Wed, 21 May 2014 16:37:20 -0700, Robert Camp

<rober...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 5/21/14 4:18 PM, jillery wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 May 2014 13:42:15 -0700, Robert Camp
>> <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>>> Miller, who I respect quite a bit, casts his comments in a similarly
>>>>> narrow fashion. I appreciate his desire for harmony on this issue, but I
>>>>> think it's important for him, and you, and anyone arguing that religion
>>>>> and science are not incompatible to understand that all they're really
>>>>> saying is, "The way I practice my religion is not incompatible with
>>>>> science."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That suggests that the practice of religion doesn't have to be
>>>> incompatible with science.
>>>
>>> No, just that people can, and do, believe that their religion is not
>>> incompatible with science. Whether I agree with that in any specific
>>> case depends on, among other things, what their version of religion is.
>>
>>
>> More precisely, it depends on how they practice their version of
>> religion.
>
>I thought that was pretty much assumed, but okay.

One nitpick deserves another.

[John Harshman]

On 5/21/14, 5:00 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 21, 2014 11:37:50 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 5/21/14, 8:15 AM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>>
>>> John Harshman wrote:
>>
>>>> On 5/21/14, 12:10 AM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>>
>>>>> John Harshman wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On 5/19/14, 11:12 PM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>
>>
>>>>>> But I would say that if Miller closely examined some of the things
>>>>>> he believes he might find some contradiction yet.
>
> This is far less rational than the claim that if Feduccia were to
> look objectively at the scientific evidence, he would agree that
> birds are [descended from] dinosaurs.

Your naked opinion isn't quite as impressive as you seem to think. Some
kind of argument would be nice.

> Even so, you've given precious little of that scientific evidence so far,
> preferring to interrogate me relentlessly about what Feduccia has
> said in the way of his own pet theory. I've got news for you:
> Feduccia presented all the major theories in his book and, rather than
> opt for any of them outright, he has laid out the evidence
> and criticized the evidence various people have given for various
> relevant hypotheses.

Why are you hijacking this thread instead of responding in the relevant
thread?

> Anyway, you are indulging in wishful thinking, without
> anything to back it up, on this Miller thesis of yours.

It's true that I haven't attempted any real argument regarding Miller's
opinions. I have so far merely stated a conjecture.

>>>>> What an incredibly arrogant attitude; because you don't agree with
>>>>> Miller, you assume that he cannot have properly examined the things
>>>>> he believes in. Kinda puts the rest of your argument into context.
>
>>>> Are there rational reasons for believing in God, then?
>
> Of course there are rational reasons for making a modest "leap of faith"
> which is no greater than you leap of faith to the conclusion that there
> is no God, and smaller than the leap of faith which you indulged in
> at the top of this post.

What are those rational reasons?

> Your wording was disarmingly modest, but the fact that you
> (1) presumably have some rational reason for believing there is no God, and
> (2) have had many years to come up with a contradiction yourself, yet
> (3) have not been able to come up with one
> indicates that even such a modest wording requires a great leap of faith.

(1) Yes, I do.
(2) Not clear here what you mean; contradiction between what two things?
Science and religion?
(3) Who says I haven't? Depending on the religion, I could suggest a
great many contradictions between that religion and science.

>>> Are there rational reasons for thinking that someone who disagrees with you
>>> simply hasn't thought things through - even somebody like Miller who has
>>> shown a heck of a lot more intellectual ability than you have?
>
>> So now your argument is simply to insult me.
>
> And your counter-argument is to whine like a spoiled brat, by inserting
> the word "simply" as though the part before the "-" in what AAQ wrote
> did not exist.

The part before "-" is merely a description of my claim, not an argument
against it. The part after is, I imagine, intended as an argument of the
form "Shut up, he explained."

>> There certainly can be
>> rational reasons, even if Miller is smarter than I am. Smart people can
>> believe weird things. Linus Pauling, for example, was a nut about
>> vitamin C. Roger Sperry believed that life violated the second law of
>> thermodynamics. I'm sure you could come up with more examples.
>
> Yeah, one John Harshman believes these examples are somehow relevant
> to his bold thesis, yet fancies himself to be quite a rational scientist.

They are indeed relevant. Would you like me to explain how, or would you
prefer to reflect?

>> Ideas have to be evaluated on their own terms.
>
> So far, you have given a bunch of sophistry for your opening idea.
> Let's see some real grounds.

So far you have limited your remarks to snide characterizations. Are you
interested in discussing any questions or do you just want to snipe?

>> So, are there rational reasons for believing in God?
>
> Yes, and I've given you some,

What were they?

> but you can't even see why
> a multiverse with an infinity of universes is a vastly better
> hypothesis than the hypothesis that our incredibly orderly
> universe, which is also incredibly young (only ca. 13 gyo)
> and incredibly small, is the whole of reality.

How is that relevant to a rational reason for believing in god? Or is it
just evidence that I'm stupid and therefore must be wrong?

> With that kind of attitude, it's no wonder you believe so
> firmly in atheism. You have rendered yourself impervious to
> all rational reasons for believing in God.

Such as?

[John Harshman]

On 5/21/14, 5:33 PM, Roger Shrubber wrote:
> nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>> On Wednesday, May 21, 2014 11:37:50 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 5/21/14, 8:15 AM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>>>
>>>> John Harshman wrote:
>
>
>>>>> Are there rational reasons for believing in God, then?
>
>
>> Of course there are rational reasons for making a modest "leap of faith"
>> which is no greater than you leap of faith to the conclusion that there
>> is no God, and smaller than the leap of faith which you indulged in
>> at the top of this post.
>
> Oddly enough, you did not supply them. I think I could
> but you did not.

He probably never will. But what are yours?

>> Your wording was disarmingly modest, but the fact that you
>> (1) presumably have some rational reason for believing there is no
>> God, and
>
> That is not evident. In fact it presumes a false dichotomy.
> The question was if there was a rational reason to believe
> in God. It is a false dichotomy to contort this into asserting
> a belief that there is no God. And you should be ashamed at
> promoting such a superficially obvious false dichotomy.

While the two claims are not equivalent, I do believe I have rational
reasons for believing there is no god. Simply put: we have evidence of
such a being, and the being most people imagine when they use the term
would be expected to leave such evidence.

[Burkhard]

That depends I suppose what you mean with "rational", "reason",
"believing in", "God" an probably also "for" and "are " :o)

People make lots of experiences. Some of them come through
the "public senses", vision, smell etc. Our desire to make sense of
these and put them into a coherent whole gives us science and
its vocabulary. While it is theoretically possible that my senses deceive
me (all the time), I consider it rational to take as a working assumption
that they don't, and see where that takes me. Furthermore, even
though the "sense experience of reading an instrument" is initially a
personal, subjective experience, language allows us to communicate
about it an drake it objective (everybody who looks at the instrument and
has the right training describes what s/he sees similarly). When the
scientific vocabulary does its job, e.g. if the term "atom" helps me to systematise
quite a lot of sense data I have, it becomes rational to say "atoms exist".

Then there are other types of experience. Aesthetic experiences are a
paradigmatic example. They are less public and more personal, but
not less real. And even though they are not as directly linked to the
"public" senses, people very often find ways to describe them in ways
that allow them to communicate with people who have made a
similar experience. Just as with the experiences with external reality
described above, we have an inborn tendency to "make sense" of these
experiences, verbalise them, systematise them, and structure them.
That gives us aesthetic theory, literary criticism, but
also the strange vocabulary a sommelier might use to describe the
exact sense sensation he has when tasting a specific vintage. Furthermore,
people are able, despite the irreducibly personal nature of the experience
to improve the way in which they verbalise it (again, take the example
of a sommelier or a whisky aficionado, who will have a richer vocabulary
to describe his experience than a newcomer)

I'd argue that religious experiences are more similar
(not identical) to aesthetic experiences than
to the type of external sense experience that are at the basis of science. Terms like
"God", "transcendental" etc are just words that help us "to make sense of" these
experiences, structure and systematise them - and as with aesthetic experiences,
for some reason it seems that people who made this sort of experience can find
a vocabulary that allows them to a degree communicate about them with others
who made the same experience.

Now, there are lots of ways this can turn irrational.
The most frequent one is to mistake the sign for the thing, and treat the
attempt to verbalise an internal experience as if it was an external one
(a confusion of the senses, similar to calling a smell "green") I have a very
specific experience when listening to Aida for the first time - but that
does not tell me anything about "external" things like Egypt and the Pharaohs
Religious experiences, just like aesthetic experiences, are not primarily
referential, they are not "about" something.

Secondly, while it seems as if people who made a similar experience will
find ways to communicate about it, that does not mean that these verbalisations
are even intelligible for someone who did not make that experience. Proselyting
is therefore irrational, just as it is to convince someone that "atonal
music is really moving" when for them, it isn't. (and nothing wrong with this, the
only emotion atonal music triggers in me is a desire to kill the musician,
and a slow, painful peasant's death for that)

But it would be equally irrational for me to claim that I did not have that
experiences that I had. It would be equally irrational to ignore that the way
I verbalise them makes them intelligible for people with similar experience.
A term like "God" is legitimate if it helps to structure, systematics etc these
experiences in a intra-subjecitve way, if it "does its job". However, since the
input, the data that it tries to categorise etc is not the data we try to systematise
etc in science (that is, not data coming from the public senses), conflict is impossible.

Again as analogy, no amount of science will convince me that "Aida did not move
me after all" - I know it did - but equally, nothing I can say about this experience,
e.g. that it was like "being trampled underfoot by a herd of unicorns" commits me
to argue that unicorns exist the same way atoms do, or any other statement that
contradicts, even potentially, our best scientific theories

[Roger Shrubber]

John Harshman wrote:
> On 5/21/14, 5:33 PM, Roger Shrubber wrote:
>> nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:


>>> Of course there are rational reasons for making a modest "leap of faith"
>>> which is no greater than you leap of faith to the conclusion that there
>>> is no God, and smaller than the leap of faith which you indulged in
>>> at the top of this post.
>>
>> Oddly enough, you did not supply them. I think I could
>> but you did not.
>
> He probably never will. But what are yours?

A rational reason to believe in God:
Tom and Jerry were my mentors. Tom and Jerry knew many
things and these things were useful to me. Tom and Jerry
were always nice to me and looked after me. Tom and Jerry
told me that God exists and I trust them.

The above reflects a rational reason to believe in God.

It may, rightly, be consider a childish rational but
it is nevertheless rational even if it is constrained
by a limited scope of experience.

[Roger Shrubber]

I have great respect for you. I participate in talk.origins as
much because of you as for any other reason. That said, you
are babbling. Usually, you have an uncanny ability to dredge
up a reference to some scholar who has expressed a profound
insight that tears to the heart of a matter, cracking rib
cages, bypassing spleens and livers, a wondrous surgical
precision! Of course we all have our off moments. I wonder
if you could take another crack at this and be more convincing.
Or do I need to flatter you a second time?

[John Harshman]

We may disagree on what "rational" means.

[John Harshman]

Clearly you have a different definition of "believe" than I do, because
I think this boils down, in my terms, to "no".

[John Harshman]

What is he supposed to convince you of? I think he's just said there is
no rational reason to believe in god as most people conceive of him,
i.e. as a real, personal, supernatural entity.

[Robert Camp]

So, you're more of a Rocky and Bullwinkle guy, then?

[John Harshman]

Definitely. Or Warner Brothers. Or Goofy. But I don't consider any of
them rational reasons to believe in God. Do you?

[Burkhard]

On Thursday, May 22, 2014 2:48:05 AM UTC+1, Roger Shrubber wrote:
>
>
> I have great respect for you. I participate in talk.origins as
> much because of you as for any other reason. That said, you
> are babbling. Usually, you have an uncanny ability to dredge
> up a reference to some scholar who has expressed a profound
> insight that tears to the heart of a matter, cracking rib
> cages, bypassing spleens and livers, a wondrous surgical
> precision! Of course we all have our off moments. I wonder
> if you could take another crack at this and be more convincing.
> Or do I need to flatter you a second time?

I blame the drink :o)

What about this analogy. A man goes to a doctor and says:
"I have a headache, its as if a small goblin sits on my shoulder and hits
me with a hammer"

If the doctor walks around the patient and says: "I can reassure you, there
is no goblin sitting there, you must imagine the pain", the doctor is irrational.

If the patient continues: I'm not sure if goblins are spreading disease, do
you think I should vaccinate him", the patient is irrational.

Some atheists are like the doctor, and some (OK, lots of) religious folks are like the
patient in the second part. They both have an impoverished view of how
language works, and how we can talk about subjective experience in a way
that makes it (to a degree) inter-subjective, but not referential to external objects

as to references to the academic literature ;o):
The above is influenced by Hilary Putnam, Realism and Reason.
Scientific theoretical terms are justified by the job the do - and that is
to make sense (systematise etc) of a lot of data we get from our "public" senses.

Aesthetic or theological theoretical terms are also justified by the job
they do - and that is to make sense (systematise etc) a lot of data some
people get from their internal, subjective experience.

Since "accepting" or "believing in" in both cases means nothing else but
to recognise that they do their job, they are equally rational, and yet
cannot possibly contradict each other (as they deal with disjunct domains)

[Roger Shrubber]

Rational means based on facts and logic.
The facts I cited are that individuals have proven
reliable sources of information. The logic is to
trust sources of information that have proven to
be reliable.

With sufficient experience, one might come to
distrust certain sources that have been proven
to be reliable on some counts, if that experience
suggests limitations to the scope of their reliability.

Rationality is innately a prisoner of ones
experiential frame of reference.

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

On Wednesday, May 21, 2014 9:05:34 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 5/21/14, 5:00 PM, nyi...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, May 21, 2014 11:37:50 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>
> >> On 5/21/14, 8:15 AM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> John Harshman wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>> On 5/21/14, 12:10 AM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>>> John Harshman wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>>>>> On 5/19/14, 11:12 PM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:

> >>>>>> But I would say that if Miller closely examined some of the things
> >>>>>> he believes he might find some contradiction yet.
>
>
> > This is far less rational than the claim that if Feduccia were to
> > look objectively at the scientific evidence, he would agree that
> > birds are [descended from] dinosaurs.

> Your naked opinion isn't quite as impressive as you seem to think.

Snide personal non sequitur. But I've learned to expect those from you
ever since returning to talk.origins in December 2010.

You stalled below, admitting that you haven't given any reasons
"yet" for your conjecture about Miller, and have continued not
to give any. On the other hand, you have lots of reasons for
believing birds are descended from dinosaurs. So your non sequitur
above is made in bad faith.

Paul Gans, of course, ignores such behaviors of yours in dishonestly
painting you as a paragon of patience and putting all the blame
on poor communication between us on me.

> Some
> kind of argument would be nice.

I have given arguments galore below. In response, you have refused to
engage me in any meaningful way, but have resorted to your usual
stalling tactics, which include going completely passive, and demanding more
and more detailed explanations before being willing to even
acknowledge that I have given arguments.

I will humor you by answering a lot of your simulated concerns below
in detail before the week is out, but you don't deserve any quicker
response from me.

And I hope AlwaysAskingQuestions will not take this promise to mean that
he can quit holding your feet to the fire.

Good night.

Peter Nyikos

[Robert Camp]

I don't know, I've had some nearly epiphanic moments basking in the
radiance of Chuck Jones.

But if you really want a serious answer, it doesn't seem to me that
there can be rational reasons to believe in something for which there is
no evidence. However, I do think there can be rational reasons to *act*
- even to the point where it may be externally indistinguishable from
sincere belief - as if one believes in God.

[Roger Shrubber]

Burkhard wrote:
> On Thursday, May 22, 2014 2:48:05 AM UTC+1, Roger Shrubber wrote:

Somewhere regarding rational reasons to believe in God.

>> I wonder if you could take another crack at this and be more
convincing.

> I blame the drink :o)
>
> What about this analogy. A man goes to a doctor and says: "I have a
> headache, its as if a small goblin sits on my shoulder and hits me
> with a hammer"

> If the doctor walks around the patient and says: "I can reassure you,
> there is no goblin sitting there, you must imagine the pain", the
> doctor is irrational.

Okay, irrational with respect to saying you must have imagined
the pain in response to "as if". Complaining that X is like
Y is happening, and demonstrating that Y is not happening
does not logically mean that X is not happening. "Is like"
is distinct from identification of a necessary cause.

> If the patient continues: I'm not sure if goblins are spreading
> disease, do you think I should vaccinate him", the patient is
> irrational.

I wish I were drinking what you're drinking. I'm stuck with
cheap tequila. I miss my quest to achieve therapeutic doses
of risperdal.

I grant that the query about goblins is askew to any
authentic cause and effect. But is the patient irrational
for asking a question? Perhaps there's some implicit
consequences to vaccinating an imaginary goblin that
you have not shared. But without explicit connection
it seems to be irrelevant.

> Some atheists are like the doctor, and some (OK, lots of) religious
> folks are like the patient in the second part. They both have an
> impoverished view of how language works, and how we can talk about
> subjective experience in a way that makes it (to a degree)
> inter-subjective, but not referential to external objects

I'm still not getting it. And I'm trying to get it.
Atheists are like the doctor. The doctor said there is
no goblin. OK, well, there's no evidence to support the
existence of goblins, having looked, the Dr does not see
a goblin, the Dr. does not see marks consistent with an
agent, perhaps a goblin, hitting said head with a hammer.
Patients sometimes invent strange things. The atheist
doctor seems to be working from a rational foundation.

The patient presumably still has real pain, that is
still "like" goblins hitting his head with a hammer.
Said pain presumably remains factual. That a rather
fanciful hypothesis to the cause of the pain is
dubious does not change the fact of the pain.

Is it that you are saying that while the (atheist) Dr
is rational for discounting goblins (perhaps going as
far as to assert the non-existence of goblins) that
the suffering patient is equally rational for
entertaining a belief in goblins owing to the very
real pain that is otherwise not yet accounted for?

> as to references to the academic literature ;o): The above is
> influenced by Hilary Putnam, Realism and Reason. Scientific
> theoretical terms are justified by the job the do - and that is to
> make sense (systematise etc) of a lot of data we get from our
> "public" senses.
>
> Aesthetic or theological theoretical terms are also justified by the
> job they do - and that is to make sense (systematise etc) a lot of
> data some people get from their internal, subjective experience.
>
> Since "accepting" or "believing in" in both cases means nothing else
> but to recognise that they do their job, they are equally rational,
> and yet cannot possibly contradict each other (as they deal with
> disjunct domains)

I'm unclear about disjunct domains.

[jillery]

IIUC it's easier to act as if you believe, when you actually believe.
If so, then following your line of reasoning above, that would be a
rational reason to believe, in order to facilitate those desired
actions.

[John Harshman]

Certainly true, especially if you live in a theocracy. But I don't see
any relevance to the matter at hand.

[John Harshman]

I'm sorry, but I am unable to recognize your arguments. I can't in fact
tell where below you think the arguments are. Are you, by the way,
talking about rational arguments for believing in the existence of god?
If so, could you tell me exactly where they are?

[Robert Carnegie]

On Tuesday, 20 May 2014 07:20:15 UTC+1, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
> Robert Camp wrote:
> > On 5/19/14, 11:20 AM, TomS wrote:
> >> Kenneth Miller Laetare Address
> >>
> >> <http://news.nd.edu/news/48401-kenneth-miller-laetare-address/>
> >
> > I share John Harshman's frustration with the false equivalency between
> > religious faith and foundational scientific assumptions. I understand
> > why Miller emphasized it, but to me it was too glib and glossed over
> > real, consequential differences between the two.
> >
> > What bugged me more, though, was the resort to an argument of the
> > type, "...and that ignores the historical evidence that science
> > developed out of religion." I think it's time for defenders of
> > science to put this point out to pasture.
>
> More like time to put this incompatibility nonsense out to pasture. The
> original proponents of this, Draper and White, have long been discredited.
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis>

I dunno, the "inescapable conflict" argument seems to me
to be valid. The specific problems are in identifying
what "religion" specifically /is/ (there's a link to
another Wikipedia article that doggedly wrestles with
that question), and the latter part of the
"Conflict thesis" article seems to say that
science is winning the conflict so it's okay,
rather than that a conflict took place.

To the extent that science /is/ winning, I'm glad
because when religion rules, life is horrible.

A religion, I'd say, is a cultural system that
specifies what is proper behaviour and belief and
what is not, with enthusiastic punishment of what
is not. The belief typically includes premises
concerning unnatural invisible phenomena, and,
in particular, that human identity persists after
physical death, and is transmitted from parents
to children, and also from professional or sometimes
part-time priests to anyone that they can get to
listen to them.

Example:
<http://notalwaysrelated.com/theyre-singing-to-different-tunes/30585>

Science is unprejudiced empirical inquiry concerning
the world, and is inevitably in opposition to religion,
which consists of prejudices.

Organised religion has suppressed science sometimes
indeed by tying scientists up and setting fire to them,
more often by letting it be known that this will be
done to anyone else who gets caught researching,
and most commonly just by discouraging public and
private investment in science when money can be spent
on religion instead, such as building places of worship,
professional chanting, and palaces made of gold for
the most successful priests to live in.

In particular, religion has a long history of opposition
to research and teaching of medicine.

Religion takes precedence over science for many of the
general public. The survey that the "Conflict thesis"
article mentions apparently didn't include asking
"What if your child studies science that contradicts
your religion?" I propose that in that case, the
answer is different.

Or for that matter, "What if your child studies religion
that contradicts science?" Which is a question that
talk.origins and the U.S. Supreme Court seem to spend
a lot of their time talking about.

Or even, "What if your child dates outside your religion?"
Or dates their own sex...

In the modern developed world, religion has control of
a lot of people - although, appropriately, that is often
invisible.

And there's the rest of the world...

[Robert Carnegie]

[Robert Carnegie]

On Thursday, 22 May 2014 03:42:44 UTC+1, Burkhard wrote:
> What about this analogy. A man goes to a doctor and says:
> "I have a headache, its as if a small goblin sits on my shoulder and hits
> me with a hammer"
>
> If the doctor walks around the patient and says: "I can reassure you, there
> is no goblin sitting there, you must imagine the pain", the doctor is irrational.
>
> If the patient continues: I'm not sure if goblins are spreading disease, do
> you think I should vaccinate him", the patient is irrational.
>
> Some atheists are like the doctor, and some (OK, lots of) religious folks are like the
> patient in the second part. They both have an impoverished view of how
> language works, and how we can talk about subjective experience in a way

> that makes it (to a degree) inter-subjective, but not referential to external objects.

Well, suppose that we substitute the goblin with God,
who gets a lot of blame for, well, maybe not headaches...
although, come to think, She may get mentioned by sufferers.

Pain is of course a matter of perception, and may or may not
also be a matter of stimulation of nerves representing an
adverse condition in a human body. And it may be appropriate
to treat the adverse condition (e.g. a broken leg) or to
treat the pain. Of course "normally" if it hurts when I do
/this/, it's my body telling me "Don't do that - not right now
anyway."

The placebo effect is often reported in a context of perceived
wellbeing, including pain relief. Objective measures of
wellbeing aren't excluded but are harder to affect with a
placebo, although, on the other hand, a reasonable objective
standard of wellbeing incorporates a perception of wellbeing.

If something is only in your mind, that doesn't mean that it
isn't real - your mind is real - but it may be easier to treat
than the broken leg. Or it may not be. It depends on how
serious the patient is about the goblin thing.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

Burkhard wrote:
> On Wednesday, 21 May 2014 16:13:00 UTC+1, AlwaysAskingQuestions
> wrote:
>> Burkhard wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, May 21, 2014 12:34:03 PM UTC+1, AlwaysAskingQuestions
>>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Burkhard wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> On Wednesday, May 21, 2014 7:54:23 AM UTC+1, AlwaysAskingQuestions
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>> Burkhard wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 20, 2014 7:12:24 AM UTC+1, AlwaysAskingQuestions
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>> <snio>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>>> And here I thought the roots went back as far as Archimedes,
>>>>>>>>> at
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>>> least.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>>> Silly me. That, however, was a separate point.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>> So the gap from ancient Greeks to the Age of Enlightenment was
>>
>>>>>>>> just
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>> some sort of short intermission of no real significance? Whilst
>>
>>>>>>>> the
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>> barbarians and others were busy sacking Europe, who do you
>>>>>>>> think
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>> preserved, built upon and promulgated that ancient knowledge,
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>> leading to the development of what we now loosely define as
>>
>>>>>>>> modern
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>> science?
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>> In the "House of Wisdom", mostly, the library, established by
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>> Harun al-Rashid in Baghdad, and also early universities such as
>>
>>>>>>> the
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>> Academy of Gondishapur or the University of al-Qarawiyyin
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>> Gosh, I never realised that Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, etc.
>>>>>> were
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>> alumni of
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>> those universities!
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> And I never realised that they lived when, as in your question,
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> "barbarians where ransacking Europe" . I must have used the wrong
>>
>>>>> history book. In mine they lived several centuries after the
>>
>>>>> medieval migration period that destroyed the Roman and Greek
>>
>>>>> schools of learning.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> They got their learning from the Western universities that grew out
>>>> of the monastic schools of the Middle Ages where ancient knowledge
>>>> was carefully preserved as well as religious writings.
>
>>
>>> And these too are not at a time when "barbarians looted Europe",
>>> which your question was about. Your answer to your own question
>>> remains several centuries off.
>>
>>
>>
>> Wriggle, wriggle ....
>>
>>
>>
> What is there to wriggle? You asked a question where you thought
> you knew the answer, but you got your dates badly wrong, that's all.
> The times when "barbarians and others were busy sacking Europe"
> pre-dates Christian universities by a couple of centuries, and
> during this time, science in Persia flourished and kept the tradition
> of Greek science and philosophy alive.
>
> Any half decent book on European history, or history of science,
> will give you the details, e.g. Toby Huff's "The rise of Early
> Modern Science: Islam, China, and the West"

Let's make it very simple for you. Any list of "the greatest scientists
ever" is inherently subjective but here is one example of such a list:

Sir Issac Newton
Louis Pasteur
Albert Einstein
Galileo
Nikola Tesla
Marie Curie
Aristotle
Charles Darwin
Otto Hahn
James Clerk Maxwell

Now, I'm pretty sure you won't agree with that specific list but which
Islamic scientists would you put into it?

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

John Harshman wrote:
> On 5/21/14, 8:15 AM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>> John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 5/21/14, 12:10 AM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>>>> John Harshman wrote:
>>>>> On 5/19/14, 11:12 PM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>>>>

>>>> [...]

>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But I would say that if Miller closely examined some of the things
>>>>> he believes he might find some contradiction yet.
>>>>

>>>> What an incredibly arrogant attitude; because you don't agree with
>>>> Miller, you assume that he cannot have properly examined the things
>>>> he believes in. Kinda puts the rest of your argument into context.
>>>
>>> Are there rational reasons for believing in God, then?
>>

>> Are there rational reasons for thinking that someone who disagrees
>> with you simply hasn't thought things through - even somebody like
>> Miller who has shown a heck of a lot more intellectual ability than
>> you have?
>
> So now your argument is simply to insult me.

You were the one who opened that particular door.

> There certainly can be
> rational reasons, even if Miller is smarter than I am. Smart people
> can believe weird things. Linus Pauling, for example, was a nut about
> vitamin C. Roger Sperry believed that life violated the second law of
> thermodynamics.

So what? Some scientists believed in the Piltdown Man. Does that mean
fundies are right to argue that all scientists should be mistrusted?

> I'm sure you could come up with more examples. Ideas

> have to be evaluated on their own terms.

So why do you keep referring to other people and their ideas instead of
focusing on Miller whom this discussion is about?

>
> So, are there rational reasons for believing in God?

Yes there are and believing in God is much more rational than dismissing
something simply because we have no evidence of it which is not just the
epitome of irrationality but the very antithesis of what science is supposed
to be.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

Robert Camp wrote:

> On 5/19/14 11:20 PM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>> Robert Camp wrote:
>>> On 5/19/14, 11:20 AM, TomS wrote:
>>>> Kenneth Miller Laetare Address
>>>>
>>>> <http://news.nd.edu/news/48401-kenneth-miller-laetare-address/>
>>>
>>> I share John Harshman's frustration with the false equivalency
>>> between religious faith and foundational scientific assumptions. I
>>> understand why Miller emphasized it, but to me it was too glib and
>>> glossed over real, consequential differences between the two.
>>>
>>> What bugged me more, though, was the resort to an argument of the
>>> type, "...and that ignores the historical evidence that science
>>> developed out of religion." I think it's time for defenders of
>>> science to put this point out to pasture.
>>
>> More like time to put this incompatibility nonsense out to pasture.
>> The original proponents of this, Draper and White, have long been
>> discredited. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis
>

> Problem is, you don't get to define this issue in narrow terms that
> are convenient to your perspective. "Religion" is more than
> Catholicism,

A not insignificant part considering the massive influence it has had on
Western science, arts and culture and that it still represents about one
sixth of the world's population.

> and especially more than some particularly attenuated
> vision of Catholicism that emphasizes historically contingent
> scientific events and achievements over other, less enlightened
> perspectives.

In what way is my vision of Catholicism "particularly attenuated", what do
you mean by "less enlightened perspectives"?

>
> Likewise, "science" is more than the raw work product of scientists.
> It is also a methodology (broad as it is), and there is no way to
> paper over fundamental contradictions between science and religion in
> approaches to the development and ultimate validity of knowledge.

What are those fundamental contradictions?

>
> Miller, who I respect quite a bit, casts his comments in a similarly
> narrow fashion. I appreciate his desire for harmony on this issue,
> but I think it's important for him, and you, and anyone arguing that
> religion and science are not incompatible to understand that all
> they're really saying is, "The way I practice my religion is not
> incompatible with science."

That implies that Miller and I are making some sort of compromise between
our religious beliefs and the way that we practice those beliefs. What sort
of compromises are you talking about?

>
>>> Sure, Newton and many
>>> others did what they did for the glory of God in many cases, but
>>> science, as practiced today, is philosophically and methodologically
>>> divorced from religious influence, and that's all to the good.
>>>
>>> That natural theology gave rise to what became science is far less
>>> important than the fact that science today is no longer any kind of
>>> theology.
>>>
>>> On the whole, though, I thought it was a good speech.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

Yes life is so much better when religion is abolished. Mind you, those who
lived under regimes like those of Stalin and Pol Pot might not agree
entirely.

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

Mark Buchanan wrote:
> On 5/20/2014 5:33 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 5/20/14, 2:21 PM, Mark Buchanan wrote:
>>> On 5/20/2014 3:02 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 5/20/14, 11:06 AM, Mark Buchanan wrote:

>>>>> On 5/19/2014 4:25 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/19/14, 11:20 AM, TomS wrote:
>>>>>>> Kenneth Miller Laetare Address
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <http://news.nd.edu/news/48401-kenneth-miller-laetare-address/>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>

>>>>>> I would really like it if people didn't post naked URLs. That
>>>>>> is, some indication of why a person would want to check it out
>>>>>> would be nice. But it happens I did look. I think Miller's central
>>>>>> point relies
>>>>>> on a false equation: of religious faith on one hand to some
>>>>>> central, necessary assumptions of science on the other. And I
>>>>>> just don't think those can be equated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And his main argument for the compatibility of science and
>>>>>> religion is just that some scientists are religious, as if that
>>>>>> hadn't been dealt with already by the observation that people
>>>>>> are capable of believing mutually contradictory things.
>>>>>>
>>>>> The argument or implication that faith and science are
>>>>> incompatible because there exists people who believe incompatible
>>>>> things is very poor. It's at least as bad as Miller's argument
>>>>> (as stated above) and likely worse.
>>>>
>>>> Fortunately, I do not make that argument.
>>>>
>>> So what was the point of your statement, '... as if that hadn't been
>>> dealt with already by the observation that people are capable of
>>> believing mutually contradictory things.'? What does the
>>> observation of people 'believing mutually contradictory things'
>>> have to do with anything?
>>
>> Miller says religion and science can't be incompatible because the
>> same person can be both religious and a scientist. I say this is not
>> evidence for his claim because if religion and science were
>> incompatible the same person could still hold both, because people
>> are capable of believing incompatible things. Do you see the
>> distinction between what I'm saying and what you thought I was
>> saying?
>
> Yes, and thanks for the clarification.
>
>>
>>> Do you assert (don't want to use the word believe) that faith and
>>> science are incompatible? Would you say that all forms of faith is
>>> irrational?
>>
>> They're incompatible in epistemology; they may also be incompatible
>> in truth claims, but that depends on the particular religion. I
>> would say that all forms of religious faith are irrational; the rest
>> depends on how broadly you use the word "faith".
>>
> I would agree on the epistemology & truth claims part. Also, faith of
> any sort is irrational to some extent by definition.
>
> Could there be a distinction between practically compatible and
> theoretically compatible when it comes to science and faith? If
> talking about practical compatibility then Miller's point is valid.
>
> Without going into all the theoretical issues, a couple of
> observations:
> First, it takes a very different mind set to practice science properly
> than it does to 'practice' faith of any kind. Science is dependent on
> skepticism and skepticism has to be either eliminated or at least
> muted for faith.

Whilst scepticism is important to science, I think it is a narrow aspect of
a more important principle of science which is that there is always more to
learn than we already know. That also applies to religious belief, certainly
the Christian/Judaic religion that Miller and I both believe in, and that is
why the two are fundamentally compatible. There may be differences between
the two in matters of detail but I think that those differences are no
greater than the differences that exist within either religion or science.

> (The word practice is put in scary quotes because I
> honestly don't know what it means to practice faith any more - I used
> to think I did and tried to do it.)
>
> Second, no one is able to practice science perfectly all the time. We
> are all irrational at least some of the time for example.

[Josko Daimonie]

Come again? [dismissing something simply because we have no evidence of
it] is the antithesis of science?

Did you just seriously imply that "Science is believing in things we
have no evidence of"?

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

Yes, science is about discovering and analyzing evidence not dismissing
things because we don't have evidence at a point in time.

>
> Did you just seriously imply that "Science is believing in things we
> have no evidence of"?

No I didn't, you are making a non sequitur - "not dismissing" is not the
same as "believing".

[John S. Wilkins]

AlwaysAskingQuestions <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote:

...

> Let's make it very simple for you. Any list of "the greatest scientists
> ever" is inherently subjective but here is one example of such a list:
>
> Sir Issac Newton
> Louis Pasteur
> Albert Einstein
> Galileo
> Nikola Tesla
> Marie Curie
> Aristotle
> Charles Darwin
> Otto Hahn
> James Clerk Maxwell
>
> Now, I'm pretty sure you won't agree with that specific list but which
> Islamic scientists would you put into it?

Here are some Islamic scientists I would include:

al-Khwarizmi: great observer and drew up tables of celestial phenomena
in the 9th century

al-Tusi: came up with some mathematical techniques used right up until
the 18thC, and built one of the first special purpose astronomical
observatories.

Al-Biruni: geographer, historian and physicist.

Jab"i"r" "i"b"n" "H"a"y"y"an": chemist and mathematician

al-Kindi: pretty well everything in science and math

al-Jahiz: came up with a form of evolution in the 9thC, along with
competition and selection.

Now a little reading will give you these and many more. Recently, a lot
of Islamic scientists come from Pakistan, Egypt and so on, and many of
them return to their home countries to continue their research,
especially in the biomedical fields. I have met some, and they are the
kind of scientists who get awards for their work.
--
John S. Wilkins, Honorary Fellow, University of Melbourne
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

[Burkhard]

On Thursday, May 22, 2014 7:18:58 AM UTC+1, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:

>
> Let's make it very simple for you. Any list of "the greatest scientists
> ever" is inherently subjective but here is one example of such a list:
>
>
>
> Sir Issac Newton
>
> Louis Pasteur
>
> Albert Einstein
>
> Galileo
>
> Nikola Tesla
>
> Marie Curie
>
> Aristotle
>
> Charles Darwin
>
> Otto Hahn
>
> James Clerk Maxwell
>
>
>
> Now, I'm pretty sure you won't agree with that specific list but which
> Islamic scientists would you put into it?

Which of these scientists do you think worked when "barbarians where looting Europe"?
I answered a very specify question that you asked about the history of science.
- it may not have been the question you wanted to ask, (or you are really seriously
confused about European history), but what you wrote was about the "migration period",
that is roughly 400-800 AD.

[Robert Camp]

The relevance is to how you sort out whether purported examples of
rational belief really fit the bill. RS's scenario, which you treated as
a matter of conflicting definitions of rational, is, I think, actually a
case in point. Receiving knowledge (an atom of sodium ionically bonds
with an atom of chlorine, cartoon characters counsel belief in God) from
a trusted source and then acting as if it's true is different from
experiencing something first-hand (manipulating sodium and chlorine in
the lab, experiencing a transcendent revelation). I think he actually
gave rational reasons for acting as if one believes in God.

I know I'm walking a fine line here (but I'm going to stick with it and
see where it goes) but my feeling is that genuine experiential belief in
God is comparatively rare, and is an irrational state of mind. It seems
to me most religious people are so by cultural or familial default, and
simply follow the tenets and customs of their faith without ever
experiencing some sort of epiphany or revelation that they interpret as
a connection with something transcendent. I think they really only *act*
as if they believe, even if most of them would call it belief in God.

[Robert Camp]

On 5/21/14, 11:44 PM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
> Robert Camp wrote:
>> On 5/19/14 11:20 PM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>>> Robert Camp wrote:
>>>> On 5/19/14, 11:20 AM, TomS wrote:
>>>>> Kenneth Miller Laetare Address
>>>>>
>>>>> <http://news.nd.edu/news/48401-kenneth-miller-laetare-address/>
>>>>
>>>> I share John Harshman's frustration with the false equivalency
>>>> between religious faith and foundational scientific assumptions. I
>>>> understand why Miller emphasized it, but to me it was too glib and
>>>> glossed over real, consequential differences between the two.
>>>>
>>>> What bugged me more, though, was the resort to an argument of the
>>>> type, "...and that ignores the historical evidence that science
>>>> developed out of religion." I think it's time for defenders of
>>>> science to put this point out to pasture.
>>>
>>> More like time to put this incompatibility nonsense out to pasture.
>>> The original proponents of this, Draper and White, have long been
>>> discredited. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis
>>
>> Problem is, you don't get to define this issue in narrow terms that
>> are convenient to your perspective. "Religion" is more than
>> Catholicism,
>
> A not insignificant part considering the massive influence it has had on
> Western science, arts and culture and that it still represents about one
> sixth of the world's population.

None of which is in dispute. The point is that Miller, who is more aware
than most that the vast majority of religious science denial comes from
non-Catholics, still speaks of compatibility from a perspective that, to
me, seems narrowly defined to suit his beliefs.

>> and especially more than some particularly attenuated
>> vision of Catholicism that emphasizes historically contingent
>> scientific events and achievements over other, less enlightened
>> perspectives.
>
> In what way is my vision of Catholicism "particularly attenuated", what do
> you mean by "less enlightened perspectives"?

I don't want to get into a battle of lists, with what you see as
Catholic support for and advancement of science on one side, and what I
see as Catholic attempts to deny or derail science on the other. That's
a terribly complex mixed bag that admits of different interpretations.

But I do think you're interpreting the mix in a way that favors a
positive evaluation of compatibility. You likely disagree. The important
thing is to recognize that there is indeed a mix.

>> Likewise, "science" is more than the raw work product of scientists.
>> It is also a methodology (broad as it is), and there is no way to
>> paper over fundamental contradictions between science and religion in
>> approaches to the development and ultimate validity of knowledge.
>
> What are those fundamental contradictions?

Well, for one, whether knowledge is to be gained through a bottom-up
aggregation of observations and facts which eventually are knitted into
explanations of reality, or can be derived from a top-down
interpretation of absolute Truths.

These different methods often come into conflict.

>> Miller, who I respect quite a bit, casts his comments in a similarly
>> narrow fashion. I appreciate his desire for harmony on this issue,
>> but I think it's important for him, and you, and anyone arguing that
>> religion and science are not incompatible to understand that all
>> they're really saying is, "The way I practice my religion is not
>> incompatible with science."
>
> That implies that Miller and I are making some sort of compromise between
> our religious beliefs and the way that we practice those beliefs. What sort
> of compromises are you talking about?

I don't see how that follows. All it implies is that you don't get to
speak for other religions, or even other Catholics, when you say that
the way you adopt and act upon your faith is not in conflict with
science. Not all religious practice is the same, and not all Catholic
practice is the same.

[John Harshman]

But "acting as if" isn't the subject. Why bring it up?

> I know I'm walking a fine line here (but I'm going to stick with it and
> see where it goes) but my feeling is that genuine experiential belief in
> God is comparatively rare, and is an irrational state of mind. It seems
> to me most religious people are so by cultural or familial default, and
> simply follow the tenets and customs of their faith without ever
> experiencing some sort of epiphany or revelation that they interpret as
> a connection with something transcendent. I think they really only *act*
> as if they believe, even if most of them would call it belief in God.

If that's true, I wouldn't call it belief. But I think you have a false
dichotomy here. Why should an epiphany be necessary for actual belief?

[John Harshman]

On 5/21/14, 11:28 PM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
> John Harshman wrote:
>> On 5/21/14, 8:15 AM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>>> John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 5/21/14, 12:10 AM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>>>>> John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/19/14, 11:12 PM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But I would say that if Miller closely examined some of the things
>>>>>> he believes he might find some contradiction yet.
>>>>>
>>>>> What an incredibly arrogant attitude; because you don't agree with
>>>>> Miller, you assume that he cannot have properly examined the things
>>>>> he believes in. Kinda puts the rest of your argument into context.
>>>>
>>>> Are there rational reasons for believing in God, then?
>>>
>>> Are there rational reasons for thinking that someone who disagrees
>>> with you simply hasn't thought things through - even somebody like
>>> Miller who has shown a heck of a lot more intellectual ability than
>>> you have?
>>
>> So now your argument is simply to insult me.
>
> You were the one who opened that particular door.

Not that I know of. And even if I did, how does that justify your action?

>> There certainly can be
>> rational reasons, even if Miller is smarter than I am. Smart people
>> can believe weird things. Linus Pauling, for example, was a nut about
>> vitamin C. Roger Sperry believed that life violated the second law of
>> thermodynamics.
>
> So what? Some scientists believed in the Piltdown Man. Does that mean
> fundies are right to argue that all scientists should be mistrusted?

No, it doesn't. It merely means you can't make the argument that Miller
is right because Miller is smart.

>> I'm sure you could come up with more examples. Ideas
>> have to be evaluated on their own terms.
>
> So why do you keep referring to other people and their ideas instead of
> focusing on Miller whom this discussion is about?

Do you know what an analogy is?

>> So, are there rational reasons for believing in God?
>
> Yes there are and believing in God is much more rational than dismissing
> something simply because we have no evidence of it which is not just the
> epitome of irrationality but the very antithesis of what science is supposed
> to be.

What are some of those rational reasons?

[Robert Camp]

For the reason I gave above: you addressed a purported rational reason
to believe in God as if the problem was how "rational" was being
defined. It's my argument that the problem is actually how "belief" is
being defined.

I think that nearly all "belief in God" is really "acting as if one
believes in God," and as a result nearly all examples people give you
for "rational reasons to believe in God," will turn out to be "rational
reasons to act as if one believes in God."

>> I know I'm walking a fine line here (but I'm going to stick with it and
>> see where it goes) but my feeling is that genuine experiential belief in
>> God is comparatively rare, and is an irrational state of mind. It seems
>> to me most religious people are so by cultural or familial default, and
>> simply follow the tenets and customs of their faith without ever
>> experiencing some sort of epiphany or revelation that they interpret as
>> a connection with something transcendent. I think they really only *act*
>> as if they believe, even if most of them would call it belief in God.
>
> If that's true, I wouldn't call it belief.

I agree. But people use colloquial conventions all the time. We do it
here, and that's the distinction I'm suggesting needs to be examined.

> But I think you have a false
> dichotomy here. Why should an epiphany be necessary for actual belief?

Because there is a distinction between believing in the tenets of a
religion, and believing in God.

Accepting a truth by communication is different from personally
experiencing that truth. This is trivially the case when someone says,
"I'd heard that the bread always falls butter-side down, but it's a
fact, it just happened to me." The actual truth-value of that statement
is something we'd dispute (insufficient evidence) but the fact of the
difference personal experience makes is real. While this person may have
accepted the common wisdom of the aphorism, until is was experienced it
was not actually believed.

When discussing matters of belief in a transcendental deity, and the
possibility of rational reasons for it, this difference becomes more
pronounced.

Now I'll admit there are corners here that I'm trying to square. I think
most people are mostly rational (otherwise the definition of rational
has to be questioned), and I think belief in something for which there
is no evidence is irrational. Continuing this line, I think someone can
believe that bread always falls butter-side down, or even that Barack
Obama is a Muslim, and still be mostly rational. But believing everyone
is conspiring against you, or that there are alien overlords, or in
deities is starting to push the line in my opinion, and that's where I
think we have to start asking whether we're really talking about actual
belief in order to distinguish true irrationality from other factors
(cultural transmission, convenience, moral guidance, etc.).

[John Harshman]

But you don't have to experience something directly in order to believe
it. What you need is sufficient evidence. Evidence isn't limited to
"somebody told me" or "I had a direct experience of that thing". False
dichotomy again. I believe the earth is roughly spherical. That isn't
because somebody told me it is or that I went up into space and saw its
shape firsthand. I have other reasons.

> When discussing matters of belief in a transcendental deity, and the
> possibility of rational reasons for it, this difference becomes more
> pronounced.
>
> Now I'll admit there are corners here that I'm trying to square. I think
> most people are mostly rational (otherwise the definition of rational
> has to be questioned), and I think belief in something for which there
> is no evidence is irrational. Continuing this line, I think someone can
> believe that bread always falls butter-side down, or even that Barack
> Obama is a Muslim, and still be mostly rational.

Here you seem to be erasing the difference between mostly rational
people and their individual beliefs. Even if I'm mostly rational that
doesn't say that any particular belief of mine is rational. I don't
think either of those is a rational belief.

> But believing everyone
> is conspiring against you, or that there are alien overlords, or in
> deities is starting to push the line in my opinion, and that's where I
> think we have to start asking whether we're really talking about actual
> belief in order to distinguish true irrationality from other factors
> (cultural transmission, convenience, moral guidance, etc.).

I would say instead that all those are reasons why one might hold an
irrational belief.

So, are there rational reasons for believing in god? If so, what might
some of them be?

[Roger Shrubber]

The point was belief, not acting as if one believes.

The question is, is it rational to trust in authorities?
Cutting through all the definitional ambiguities, it depends.
Do you have reasons to trust these authorities? Are their
competing reasons to distrust them? Do you have a
reason to prefer their judgement or your own judgement
on a given topic?

Some people tend to believe scientific authorities,
hopefully because they understand that science
attempts to be use rigorous testing and objective
measures, and to subject itself to cross checking.

Some people distrust scientific authorities because
on Monday scientists say margarine is better for
you than butter and then on Tuesday they reverse
themselves. While I content that such people are
misinformed, that does not mean that they are irrational.
They could be, and perhaps that's why they are
misinformed, but it is not required for one to
be irrational to be misinformed.

Repeating my original claim, if you have reason
to trust the judgement of certain people, if they
have provided you with useful information in the
past and if they are smarter and wiser than you,
it is rational to believe what they tell you is true.

It may also be rational to suspend belief about
some things, or to invest time and energy to
challenge some beliefs. There's nothing about
rational thought that requires it produce one
unique solution.

[Mark Isaak]

On 5/21/14 6:07 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Are there rational reasons for believing in God, then?

Here, off the top of my head, are reasons for believing in God. Whether
you consider them rational or not depends on both one's background
information (e.g., if you are still too young know that your parents are
sometimes wrong, it is rational to believe them), and on what one's
goals are. If the goal to arrive at an accurate determination of the
existence of God, and nothing else, then I would say none of them are
rational. But then again, I would also say that, in most contexts, such
a goal is not rational.

1. Apparent revelation. The human brain is structured to that it can
produce, in many people, a sense of transcendence, of being a part of
something much larger than oneself. If such a state occurs, and if one
does not have the neurological background to explain it, it makes sense
to interpret it as firsthand evidence of God.

2. Trusted source. As Roger noted, if Tom has shown himself to be
reliable in other matters, and if Tom says there is a God, then it is
rational to accept Tom's word. Jerry's, too. This is especially the
case where there is no cost in accepting.

3. Social convention. Everybody else around you believes in God. To
get along with them, you have to *act* like you believe in God. The
acting is more convincing if you go full method-acting and actually do
believe.

4. Desperate hope. One has a serious problem for which there is no
solution except a miracle. Belief that such a miracle is possible might
let some people live more happily with their problem. Of course, that
implies belief in some agency to cause the miracle.

I should add the caveat that I know of no objective research to test
whether such hope really does increase happiness. My impression is that
it really does counteract despair and thus at least relieves
unhappiness, but that the belief can also come with baggage (e.g. guilt
that one is not faithful enough) that can make one's problems worse.
And it can hinder productive action when the case is not, in fact, hopeless.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those who have
found it." - Vaclav Havel

[Robert Camp]

I never intended to limit the available evidence to those two
categories. And I don't think that they are mutually exclusive, or
necessarily related. I'm trying to differentiate between things that are
generally assumed to be equivalent but I think are not.

> I believe the earth is roughly spherical. That isn't
> because somebody told me it is or that I went up into space and saw its
> shape firsthand. I have other reasons.

What other reasons do you have that can't be described either as what
you have learned about the shape of the earth, or what you have
personally experienced about the shape of the earth?

>> When discussing matters of belief in a transcendental deity, and the
>> possibility of rational reasons for it, this difference becomes more
>> pronounced.
>>
>> Now I'll admit there are corners here that I'm trying to square. I think
>> most people are mostly rational (otherwise the definition of rational
>> has to be questioned), and I think belief in something for which there
>> is no evidence is irrational. Continuing this line, I think someone can
>> believe that bread always falls butter-side down, or even that Barack
>> Obama is a Muslim, and still be mostly rational.
>
> Here you seem to be erasing the difference between mostly rational
> people and their individual beliefs. Even if I'm mostly rational that
> doesn't say that any particular belief of mine is rational. I don't
> think either of those is a rational belief.

I don't either, but I wasn't talking about the individual irrational
concepts (variations of which I think virtually all of us hold), I was
trying to describe a scheme for folding the ubiquitous minor
irrationalities of human experience into the broader evaluation of
whether someone is in possession of all of their aggies. It was probably
an unnecessary digression but I was trying to be accountable for my
accommodationist inclinations.

>> But believing everyone
>> is conspiring against you, or that there are alien overlords, or in
>> deities is starting to push the line in my opinion, and that's where I
>> think we have to start asking whether we're really talking about actual
>> belief in order to distinguish true irrationality from other factors
>> (cultural transmission, convenience, moral guidance, etc.).
>
> I would say instead that all those are reasons why one might hold an
> irrational belief.

I think a desire for convenience, moral guidance, acceptance etc. are
all eminently rational. If you agree with that, then you would seem to
be accepting that there are rational reasons to believe in God ("...why
one might hold an irrational belief").

For me, this contradiction is resolved by recognizing what I think is a
legitimate distinction between a true experiential belief, and a
collection of cultural imperatives to "act as if..."

> So, are there rational reasons for believing in god? If so, what might
> some of them be?

You know I'm the guy who keeps saying there are no rational reasons for
believing in God, right?

[Mark Buchanan]

On 5/21/2014 4:07 PM, John Harshman wrote:
> On 5/21/14, 11:49 AM, Mark Buchanan wrote:
>> On 5/21/2014 11:07 AM, John Harshman wrote:

>>> On 5/21/14, 7:54 AM, Mark Buchanan wrote:
>>>> On 5/20/2014 5:33 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>> On 5/20/14, 2:21 PM, Mark Buchanan wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/20/2014 3:02 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/20/14, 11:06 AM, Mark Buchanan wrote:

>>>>>>>> On 5/19/2014 4:25 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/19/14, 11:20 AM, TomS wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Kenneth Miller Laetare Address
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <http://news.nd.edu/news/48401-kenneth-miller-laetare-address/>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>

>>> I'm not sure that's true. Which point?
>>
>> By practical compatibility I mean anyone who practices competent science
>> no matter what they believe (or do) when not doing science. One
>> competent scientist who practices faith proves the point as Miller
>> states. A very different example unrelated to faith (or not?) is
>> Heisenberg - brilliant scientist and committed Nazi. Millar's point is
>> almost meaningless except for those people of faith who are threatened
>> by science.
>
> I see that more as an example of incompatibility; if you have to
> carefully arrange either your faith or your science so that they don't
> collide, that shows they don't fit together.
>

Your point is well taken. There are still questions however.

Is there a limit to science? Even if all miracles reported could be
explained by science does that mean miracles are an impossibility? Or,
'if all our thoughts, feelings, faith, free choice, etc. could be
explained by neuroscience, does that prove the non-existence of god?

You may ask, 'If everything can be explained by science doesn't that put
all faith in a very precarious or even impossible position?'. Or, 'what
worth is there left for faith if it has to morph beyond recognition to
survive?'. There still may be a practical use for faith - makes you
happy or healthy - but does it ultimately have no basis?

Is the answers to the above a matter of simply personal preference?

For me, I don't actually know the answers. I call myself a skeptical
theist but practically that means I'm agnostic. Everything about my
faith is on the table to be questioned. Many Christians would say that
means I have no faith - maybe they are right. I have an atheist friend
who appreciates it when a group of Christians (including me) pray for
him, I'll see what he thinks.

> There has never been any disagreement about whether it's possible to be
> a competent scientist while believing any manner of silly things, as
> long as those silly things don't affect the science.

>
>>>> Without going into all the theoretical issues, a couple of
>>>> observations:
>>>>
>>>> First, it takes a very different mind set to practice science properly
>>>> than it does to 'practice' faith of any kind. Science is dependent on
>>>> skepticism and skepticism has to be either eliminated or at least muted

>>>> for faith. (The word practice is put in scary quotes because I honestly

>>>> don't know what it means to practice faith any more - I used to think I
>>>> did and tried to do it.)
>>>>
>>>> Second, no one is able to practice science perfectly all the time. We
>>>> are all irrational at least some of the time for example.
>>>

>>> Certainly.
>>>
>>
>

[Robert Camp]

The point I was addressing is whether there can be rational reasons to
believe in God. To that end I am proposing that there are different
kinds of belief, and for the purposes of conducting that discussion what
you described is more accurately called acceptance (of
authority/trustworthiness/good intentions, etc.), or "acting as if one
believes."

I am arguing that "belief in God" is a categorically different animal,
and I am doing so because I don't think actually believing in something
for which there is no evidence is a rational act. Whether or not my
argument holds up is an open question (at least I like to think so).

> The question is, is it rational to trust in authorities?
> Cutting through all the definitional ambiguities, it depends.
> Do you have reasons to trust these authorities? Are their
> competing reasons to distrust them? Do you have a
> reason to prefer their judgement or your own judgement
> on a given topic?
>
> Some people tend to believe scientific authorities,
> hopefully because they understand that science
> attempts to be use rigorous testing and objective
> measures, and to subject itself to cross checking.
>
> Some people distrust scientific authorities because
> on Monday scientists say margarine is better for
> you than butter and then on Tuesday they reverse
> themselves. While I content that such people are
> misinformed, that does not mean that they are irrational.
> They could be, and perhaps that's why they are
> misinformed, but it is not required for one to
> be irrational to be misinformed.

All agreed.

> Repeating my original claim, if you have reason
> to trust the judgement of certain people, if they
> have provided you with useful information in the
> past and if they are smarter and wiser than you,
> it is rational to believe what they tell you is true.

Sure, it's an obviously true admonition. The question is is it useful as
an analogue for "belief in God." In the context of discussion of
"rational reasons" for believe in God," I don't think it is.

[Mark Isaak]

On 5/22/14 12:02 AM, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
> Mark Buchanan wrote:
>> [snip much earlier discussion]

>> Without going into all the theoretical issues, a couple of
>> observations:
>> First, it takes a very different mind set to practice science properly
>> than it does to 'practice' faith of any kind. Science is dependent on
>> skepticism and skepticism has to be either eliminated or at least
>> muted for faith.
>
> Whilst scepticism is important to science, I think it is a narrow aspect of
> a more important principle of science which is that there is always more to
> learn than we already know. That also applies to religious belief, certainly
> the Christian/Judaic religion that Miller and I both believe in, and that is
> why the two are fundamentally compatible. There may be differences between
> the two in matters of detail but I think that those differences are no
> greater than the differences that exist within either religion or science.

And for some religious belief, it is an important principle that what
you have been taught is *all* you need to know.

Is religion compatible with science? The answer, to me anyway, is
simple and obvious: Some religion is, and some religion is not. And
since at least some of the people on each side of that divide are no way
in hell going to change to the other, that answer is how it is always
going to be.

It seems to me that a lot of people want religion to be a single, easily
characterisable thing. It'll never happen.