Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Jerry Coyne - Do What I Say, Not What I Do.
109 views
Skip to first unread message
Martin Harran
Mar 8, 2018, 6:45:03 AM3/8/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
In some recent discussions here, other people seemed to think that I
was being overly critical of people misusing scientific terms. To some
extent, my criticism was generated by my utter distaste for those who
attack religious people for their behaviour and then turn around and
engage in the exact same behaviour themselves.
As mentioned elsewhere, I have recently finished "Faith vs Fact" by
Jerry Coyne and in that book, he really does display the worst of this
type of conduct.
The basic premise of his book is that the scientific method is the
only way we can gain reliable knowledge and that the approach taken by
religious believers is totally unreliable if not downright stupid. In
trying to make his case, however, he abandons that scientific method
that he so soundly proclaims, breaking many of the basic rules
involved in it. Here are just four examples of his most egregious
errors.
Outdated and discredited sources.
======================
In the first chapter of the book, which was so bad that I almost
abandoned it at that stage, Coyne draws heavily on the Conflict Thesis
with extensive quotes from its main proponents, John William Draper
and Andrew Dickson White,
Those writings go back to the end of the 19th century and he remarks,
as little more than an aside, that "Some historians of science claimed
that White's and Draper's scholarship was poor (yes, they did make
some errors and omit some countervailing observations, but not nearly
enough to invalidate the book's theses) ..."
That has to be the worst understatement that I have read in a while.
The work by Draper and White has been *thoroughly discredited* by 20th
century historians, to the best of my knowledge there isn't a single
modern historian who supports their conclusions. Shades of Ray
Martinez here and his fixation with pre-Victorian scientists - Coyne
too seems to want to stop the clock at a point in time and ignore
everything that has happened since then.
He also fails to mention the fact that some historians now think
Draper's writings in particular were probably influenced by his
personal antipathy towards the Catholic Church over the behaviour of
his sister Elizabeth who had converted to Catholicism (Recounted by
Ronald L. Numbers in *Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about
Science and Religion*).
Basic Statistical Errors
==============
In trying to demonstrate scientific support for his arguments, Coyne
draws heavily on surveys by Pew Research which suggest that whilst
atheism among the general public is only 4%, among scientists in
general, atheism rises to 41% whilst atheism and agnosticism combined
rises to 62% among scientists at "elite universities" and 93% among
members of the National Academy of Sciences. Coyne doesn't explain why
he only uses the atheism figure for the first two groups but the
combined atheism and agnosticism figure for the other two groups; he
also fails to note that opinion polls are not conducted to a standard
that would qualify them in any way as *scientific research*.
The far more important issue, however, is that the surveys only tell
us what the levels are among the various groups, they tell us nothing
whatsoever about the reason why those levels are found. Coyne makes
the fundamental error that undergraduates would get hammered for - not
recognising the difference between correlation and causation.
He does try make a case for the figures supporting his claim, what he
feels to recognise that in doing so, he is making a polemic argument,
not a scientific one - the exact same type of argument that he
criticises religious believers for making.
Unsupported ad hominem attacks on those who disagree with him.
=========================================
Coyne notes that there are many scientists who claim there is no
fundamental clash between religion and science but he claims that
scientists who do that are simply playing to the gallery to keep their
research funders happy.
He gives no evidence whatsoever to support this claim and the lie is
given to it by looking at some of the most prominent scientists who
make such claims; Francis Collins, who successfully led the Human
Genome Project, only embraced religious belief after he had retired
from active science (he did come back from retirement at the direct
request of president Obama to head up the National Institutes of
Health); John Polkinghorne retired as Professor of Mathematical
Physics Cambridge University to become an Anglican priest and went on
to write extensively on the compatibility of religion and science; Ken
Miller, the scientist who has done the most to destroy ID, makes no
secret of his Catholicism.
It's rather hard to see how any of those three would be worried about
getting funding for research.
Getting the basic facts wrong
=========================
Coyne is dismissive of what he regards as "liberal theologians" -
those who choose to read the Bible in a non-literal way so that it
does not contradict science. He effectively claims that such "liberal
theology" is the new Kid on The Block, something that is only
developed in recent times as some sort of necessity in response to
science relentlessly disproving long-standing religious beliefs.
As Burkhard pointed out in a lengthy post here recently, non-literal
interpretation of the Bible actually goes right back to the origins of
Christianity, particularly with Origen back in the very first century
laying the foundation for Christian reading of the Bible where stories
in the Old Testament became allegories for the New Testament; specific
examples that Burkhard gave included the Flood as an allegory for
baptism and Jonah in the whale as an allegory of the Descent into Hell
and Resurrection.
Liberal reading of the Bible as expounded by Creationists on the other
hand is the real new Kid on The Block, only coming into play in the
late 18th and early 19th century with the development of
Fundamentalism, mainly in the United States.
================================
Coyne, in trying to argue Fact versus Religion, actually gets his
"facts" upside down.
All in all, rather poor example for anyone trying to criticise
religious believers for lacking logic in their claims.
was being overly critical of people misusing scientific terms. To some
extent, my criticism was generated by my utter distaste for those who
attack religious people for their behaviour and then turn around and
engage in the exact same behaviour themselves.
As mentioned elsewhere, I have recently finished "Faith vs Fact" by
Jerry Coyne and in that book, he really does display the worst of this
type of conduct.
The basic premise of his book is that the scientific method is the
only way we can gain reliable knowledge and that the approach taken by
religious believers is totally unreliable if not downright stupid. In
trying to make his case, however, he abandons that scientific method
that he so soundly proclaims, breaking many of the basic rules
involved in it. Here are just four examples of his most egregious
errors.
Outdated and discredited sources.
======================
In the first chapter of the book, which was so bad that I almost
abandoned it at that stage, Coyne draws heavily on the Conflict Thesis
with extensive quotes from its main proponents, John William Draper
and Andrew Dickson White,
Those writings go back to the end of the 19th century and he remarks,
as little more than an aside, that "Some historians of science claimed
that White's and Draper's scholarship was poor (yes, they did make
some errors and omit some countervailing observations, but not nearly
enough to invalidate the book's theses) ..."
That has to be the worst understatement that I have read in a while.
The work by Draper and White has been *thoroughly discredited* by 20th
century historians, to the best of my knowledge there isn't a single
modern historian who supports their conclusions. Shades of Ray
Martinez here and his fixation with pre-Victorian scientists - Coyne
too seems to want to stop the clock at a point in time and ignore
everything that has happened since then.
He also fails to mention the fact that some historians now think
Draper's writings in particular were probably influenced by his
personal antipathy towards the Catholic Church over the behaviour of
his sister Elizabeth who had converted to Catholicism (Recounted by
Ronald L. Numbers in *Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about
Science and Religion*).
Basic Statistical Errors
==============
In trying to demonstrate scientific support for his arguments, Coyne
draws heavily on surveys by Pew Research which suggest that whilst
atheism among the general public is only 4%, among scientists in
general, atheism rises to 41% whilst atheism and agnosticism combined
rises to 62% among scientists at "elite universities" and 93% among
members of the National Academy of Sciences. Coyne doesn't explain why
he only uses the atheism figure for the first two groups but the
combined atheism and agnosticism figure for the other two groups; he
also fails to note that opinion polls are not conducted to a standard
that would qualify them in any way as *scientific research*.
The far more important issue, however, is that the surveys only tell
us what the levels are among the various groups, they tell us nothing
whatsoever about the reason why those levels are found. Coyne makes
the fundamental error that undergraduates would get hammered for - not
recognising the difference between correlation and causation.
He does try make a case for the figures supporting his claim, what he
feels to recognise that in doing so, he is making a polemic argument,
not a scientific one - the exact same type of argument that he
criticises religious believers for making.
Unsupported ad hominem attacks on those who disagree with him.
=========================================
Coyne notes that there are many scientists who claim there is no
fundamental clash between religion and science but he claims that
scientists who do that are simply playing to the gallery to keep their
research funders happy.
He gives no evidence whatsoever to support this claim and the lie is
given to it by looking at some of the most prominent scientists who
make such claims; Francis Collins, who successfully led the Human
Genome Project, only embraced religious belief after he had retired
from active science (he did come back from retirement at the direct
request of president Obama to head up the National Institutes of
Health); John Polkinghorne retired as Professor of Mathematical
Physics Cambridge University to become an Anglican priest and went on
to write extensively on the compatibility of religion and science; Ken
Miller, the scientist who has done the most to destroy ID, makes no
secret of his Catholicism.
It's rather hard to see how any of those three would be worried about
getting funding for research.
Getting the basic facts wrong
=========================
Coyne is dismissive of what he regards as "liberal theologians" -
those who choose to read the Bible in a non-literal way so that it
does not contradict science. He effectively claims that such "liberal
theology" is the new Kid on The Block, something that is only
developed in recent times as some sort of necessity in response to
science relentlessly disproving long-standing religious beliefs.
As Burkhard pointed out in a lengthy post here recently, non-literal
interpretation of the Bible actually goes right back to the origins of
Christianity, particularly with Origen back in the very first century
laying the foundation for Christian reading of the Bible where stories
in the Old Testament became allegories for the New Testament; specific
examples that Burkhard gave included the Flood as an allegory for
baptism and Jonah in the whale as an allegory of the Descent into Hell
and Resurrection.
Liberal reading of the Bible as expounded by Creationists on the other
hand is the real new Kid on The Block, only coming into play in the
late 18th and early 19th century with the development of
Fundamentalism, mainly in the United States.
================================
Coyne, in trying to argue Fact versus Religion, actually gets his
"facts" upside down.
All in all, rather poor example for anyone trying to criticise
religious believers for lacking logic in their claims.
jillery
Mar 8, 2018, 10:15:03 AM3/8/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Thu, 08 Mar 2018 11:43:16 +0000, Martin Harran
<martin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>In some recent discussions here, other people seemed to think that I
>was being overly critical of people misusing scientific terms. To some
>extent, my criticism was generated by my utter distaste for those who
>attack religious people for their behaviour and then turn around and
>engage in the exact same behaviour themselves.
The above is an odd introduction to your comments below, about Jerry
<martin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>In some recent discussions here, other people seemed to think that I
>was being overly critical of people misusing scientific terms. To some
>extent, my criticism was generated by my utter distaste for those who
>attack religious people for their behaviour and then turn around and
>engage in the exact same behaviour themselves.
Coyne's book "Faith vs Fact". To whatever scientific terms some
people in T.O. might have misused, to whomever might have misused
them, you make no coherent connection between these allusions, and to
your allusions of whatever attacks on religious people by whomever
might have attacked them. Whatever you think is "this type of
conduct", it remains meaninglessly vague, and so too is any connection
to these things with anything Jerry Coyne might have written.
Given your odd introduction above, my general impression is you
continue to inflate criticisms about the expressed opinions of
specific religious persons and groups, those with an anti-science POV,
as attacks on all people of faith generally, and on the Roman Catholic
Church specifically. Since you claim those anti-science people are
not representative of people of faith generally, it's ironic that you
continue to make such connections despite specific context to the
contrary.
WRT to your comments below, they are based in part on specific items
mentioned in the book. It's been awhile since I read it, and I would
have to refresh my recollection of it before I were to post specific
responses to those specific items. A general impression is, whether
or not Jerry Coyne makes sweeping generalizations about people of
faith, that doesn't justify you tarring T.O. posters with the same
brush.
As a final note, if you intend to reply with your habitual non
sequitur about how you have no interest in replying to me, do yourself
a favor, and just don't reply at all; better to remain silent and have
everybody think you a fool, than to speak up and prove it.
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire
Martin Harran
Mar 8, 2018, 12:45:04 PM3/8/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Thu, 08 Mar 2018 10:14:49 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Usual Jillery tactic; by your own admission, you cannot criticise what
I actually said so you try to create a distraction by making up
bullshit about me tarring T.O. posters with some imaginary brush.
>
>As a final note, if you intend to reply with your habitual non
>sequitur about how you have no interest in replying to me, do yourself
>a favor, and just don't reply at all;
Nope, I have told you numerous times that I have no interest in
engaging with you but that I always reserve the right to highlight
lies and made up bullshit that you post about me - just as I have done
above.
> better to remain silent and have
>everybody think you a fool, than to speak up and prove it.
You really should think seriously about taking your own advice that
you so freely hand out to others.
wrote:
I actually said so you try to create a distraction by making up
bullshit about me tarring T.O. posters with some imaginary brush.
>
>As a final note, if you intend to reply with your habitual non
>sequitur about how you have no interest in replying to me, do yourself
>a favor, and just don't reply at all;
engaging with you but that I always reserve the right to highlight
lies and made up bullshit that you post about me - just as I have done
above.
> better to remain silent and have
>everybody think you a fool, than to speak up and prove it.
you so freely hand out to others.
jillery
Mar 8, 2018, 3:45:03 PM3/8/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Thu, 08 Mar 2018 17:42:23 +0000, Martin Harran
Usual Harran tactics, to make up shit about me without backing it up,
and to accuse me of doing what he does. Apparently you now deny you
wrote what you wrote, still preserved in the quoted text above.
>>As a final note, if you intend to reply with your habitual non
>>sequitur about how you have no interest in replying to me, do yourself
>>a favor, and just don't reply at all;
>
>Nope, I have told you numerous times that I have no interest in
>engaging with you but that I always reserve the right to highlight
>lies and made up bullshit that you post about me - just as I have done
>above.
And yet here you are, pretending to not engage with me, and pretending
to highlight lies you don't even bother to specify. Your dishonesty
and cowardice knows no bounds.
>> better to remain silent and have
>>everybody think you a fool, than to speak up and prove it.
>
>You really should think seriously about taking your own advice that
>you so freely hand out to others.
You should learn to think. Full stop.
<snip comments about Coyne's book about which you apparently no longer
have any interest>
and to accuse me of doing what he does. Apparently you now deny you
wrote what you wrote, still preserved in the quoted text above.
>>As a final note, if you intend to reply with your habitual non
>>sequitur about how you have no interest in replying to me, do yourself
>>a favor, and just don't reply at all;
>
>Nope, I have told you numerous times that I have no interest in
>engaging with you but that I always reserve the right to highlight
>lies and made up bullshit that you post about me - just as I have done
>above.
to highlight lies you don't even bother to specify. Your dishonesty
and cowardice knows no bounds.
>> better to remain silent and have
>>everybody think you a fool, than to speak up and prove it.
>
>You really should think seriously about taking your own advice that
>you so freely hand out to others.
<snip comments about Coyne's book about which you apparently no longer
have any interest>
*Hemidactylus*
Mar 9, 2018, 6:50:03 AM3/9/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
the magisteria of science and religion can be at odds? Fundamentalist
oriented religious values put a damper on stem cell research in the US. The
Dominionist worldview devalues the importance of anthropenic environmental
threats. Yet the current pope has a caretaker perspective that is
religiously inspired. But what are his highly influential views on stem
cells?
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/no-research-justifies-the-use-of-human-embryos-pope-francis-says-22203
When a pope or president impose their religious values to dictate what
science can pursue, that’s conflict.
And from a larger perspective religion can still be at odds with the
fundamental value of human rights. That’s why Jefferson’s wall is an
important legal stricture, imperfect as it is. It should protect
nonreligious minorities from public squared imposition of majoritarian
religious views. It often doesn’t. But that’s minor league compared to what
happens in theocratic Islamic states.
Conflict!
>
> Basic Statistical Errors
> ==============
> In trying to demonstrate scientific support for his arguments, Coyne
> draws heavily on surveys by Pew Research which suggest that whilst
> atheism among the general public is only 4%, among scientists in
> general, atheism rises to 41% whilst atheism and agnosticism combined
> rises to 62% among scientists at "elite universities" and 93% among
> members of the National Academy of Sciences. Coyne doesn't explain why
> he only uses the atheism figure for the first two groups but the
> combined atheism and agnosticism figure for the other two groups; he
> also fails to note that opinion polls are not conducted to a standard
> that would qualify them in any way as *scientific research*.
>
> The far more important issue, however, is that the surveys only tell
> us what the levels are among the various groups, they tell us nothing
> whatsoever about the reason why those levels are found. Coyne makes
> the fundamental error that undergraduates would get hammered for - not
> recognising the difference between correlation and causation.
>
> He does try make a case for the figures supporting his claim, what he
> feels to recognise that in doing so, he is making a polemic argument,
> not a scientific one - the exact same type of argument that he
> criticises religious believers for making.
>
So would there be no causal relation between becoming scientifically
> Basic Statistical Errors
> ==============
> In trying to demonstrate scientific support for his arguments, Coyne
> draws heavily on surveys by Pew Research which suggest that whilst
> atheism among the general public is only 4%, among scientists in
> general, atheism rises to 41% whilst atheism and agnosticism combined
> rises to 62% among scientists at "elite universities" and 93% among
> members of the National Academy of Sciences. Coyne doesn't explain why
> he only uses the atheism figure for the first two groups but the
> combined atheism and agnosticism figure for the other two groups; he
> also fails to note that opinion polls are not conducted to a standard
> that would qualify them in any way as *scientific research*.
>
> The far more important issue, however, is that the surveys only tell
> us what the levels are among the various groups, they tell us nothing
> whatsoever about the reason why those levels are found. Coyne makes
> the fundamental error that undergraduates would get hammered for - not
> recognising the difference between correlation and causation.
>
> He does try make a case for the figures supporting his claim, what he
> feels to recognise that in doing so, he is making a polemic argument,
> not a scientific one - the exact same type of argument that he
> criticises religious believers for making.
>
informed in biology and losing faith based religious belief?
>
> Unsupported ad hominem attacks on those who disagree with him.
> =========================================
> Coyne notes that there are many scientists who claim there is no
> fundamental clash between religion and science but he claims that
> scientists who do that are simply playing to the gallery to keep their
> research funders happy.
>
I recall him making a big deal about influence of the Templeton Foundation.
> Unsupported ad hominem attacks on those who disagree with him.
> =========================================
> Coyne notes that there are many scientists who claim there is no
> fundamental clash between religion and science but he claims that
> scientists who do that are simply playing to the gallery to keep their
> research funders happy.
>
Aside from that being too vocally atheist could sour legislators or
granting agencies.
>
> He gives no evidence whatsoever to support this claim and the lie is
> given to it by looking at some of the most prominent scientists who
> make such claims; Francis Collins, who successfully led the Human
> Genome Project, only embraced religious belief after he had retired
> from active science (he did come back from retirement at the direct
> request of president Obama to head up the National Institutes of
> Health); John Polkinghorne retired as Professor of Mathematical
> Physics Cambridge University to become an Anglican priest and went on
> to write extensively on the compatibility of religion and science; Ken
> Miller, the scientist who has done the most to destroy ID, makes no
> secret of his Catholicism.
>
And Francis Collins appears on the Templeton associated series Closer to
> He gives no evidence whatsoever to support this claim and the lie is
> given to it by looking at some of the most prominent scientists who
> make such claims; Francis Collins, who successfully led the Human
> Genome Project, only embraced religious belief after he had retired
> from active science (he did come back from retirement at the direct
> request of president Obama to head up the National Institutes of
> Health); John Polkinghorne retired as Professor of Mathematical
> Physics Cambridge University to become an Anglican priest and went on
> to write extensively on the compatibility of religion and science; Ken
> Miller, the scientist who has done the most to destroy ID, makes no
> secret of his Catholicism.
>
Truth:
https://www.closertotruth.com/contributor/francis-collins/profile
So does Polkinghorne
https://www.closertotruth.com/contributor/john-polkinghorne/profile
Closer to Truth is a good show. It draws on FQXi quite heavily and featured
a free will conference which both are tied to Templeton, a foundation that
wants science and religion to make nice. Coyne says in his Faith vs Fact:
“The Templeton Foundation distributes $70 million yearly in grants and
fellowships.
To put that in perspective, that’s five times the amount dispensed
annually by the U.S. National Science Foundation for research
in evolutionary biology, one of Templeton’s areas of focus. Given
Templeton’s deep
pockets and not overly stringent criteria for dispensing money, it’s no
wonder that,
in a time of reduced financial support, scientists line up for Templeton
grants.”
And: https://fqxi.org/about/faq/financed
>
> It's rather hard to see how any of those three would be worried about
> getting funding for research.
>
Isn’t that counter to the point you are trying to make? These guys are
> It's rather hard to see how any of those three would be worried about
> getting funding for research.
>
accommodationists. It’s the firebrands who would rock the boat. Would
Templeton give them money? Or would they accept given the source?
toward atheism and firebrandy sure. But you need to address his points on
Templeton influence.
Martin Harran
Mar 9, 2018, 4:30:03 PM3/9/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
*Hemidactylus*
Mar 9, 2018, 7:50:03 PM3/9/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
benefit to me in that Closer to Truth show as far as they are connected.
The FQXi seems a solid endeavor too though they confuse me with:
https://fqxi.org/about/faq/financed
“In practice, JTF distributes millions of dollars annually to fund projects
exploring the interface between religion and the physical and social
sciences, including its most famous award, the Templeton Prize, as well as
grants in "science and religion" and "character development," among
others.”
Vs.
“Although it is a common refrain in the press, our understanding is that
reconciling science and religion is not a goal of JTF. Please see their
website for more information.”
A bit of a fine public relations worded point. But not a deal breaker with
me. Do you sense an implicit contradiction?
And the “Big Questions in Free Will Project” seems solid to me. That Thalia
Wheatley was involved grants it unquestionable legitimacy as she was a
student of the late Daniel Wegner and not a libertarian.
https://youtu.be/85CNta8NhEg
https://www.closertotruth.com/series/big-questions-free-will-project
https://www.templeton.org/grant/free-will-and-alternative-god-concepts-new-tv-programs-for-closer-to-truth
http://www.slate.com/bigideas/are-we-free/essays-and-opinions/alfred-mele-opinion
Coyne follows Sam Harris in thinking there cannot be free will. I lean
heavily in that direction but think Dan Dennett makes interesting and
serious points. That Kuhn has interviewed Dennett on his show demonstrates
how open minded he is. Coyne seems quite negatively biased against
Templeton and maybe there are negative aspects to the Foundation’s
religious bent.
Coyne wrote in Faith vs Fact: “Besides funding science and
accommodationism, Templeton also gives money to purely
religious projects, such as the television show The American Bible
Challenge and the $100,000 Epiphany Prize awarded for “the best wholesome,
uplifting and inspiring movies and television programs.”
(That prize was once awarded to the gruesome and anti-Semitic movie The
Passion of the Christ.)”
That’s not good. Yuck that.
And in his book Enlightenment Now Steven Pinker cites this libertarian spun
article:
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/labor/329332-the-feminist-side-of-sweatshops
“Chelsea Follett (@Chellivia) is the managing editor of HumanProgress.org,
a project of the Cato Institute.”
http://humanprogress.org/about
“Note: HumanProgress.org is a project of the Cato Institute with major
support from the John Templeton Foundation, the Searle Freedom Trust, the
Brinson Foundation and the Dian Graves Owen Foundation.”
So even the mighty Pinker is at least indirectly affected by Templeton
largesse. And Kuhn interviewed Rebecca Newberger Goldstein on Closer to
Truth where she admirably defends philosophy as having value contra
malcontents such as Steven Weinberg.
https://youtu.be/6gXhPCHGCRo
https://youtu.be/BCEwkTzfdd8
She totally owns it. And just happens to be married to bad Pinker above.
And just to add value to philosophy here is a horserider of New Atheism on
a platform provided in part by the Templeton Foundation:
https://youtu.be/whHqJUbJJSo
So Templeton is a mixed bag.
Martin Harran
Mar 14, 2018, 8:30:03 AM3/14/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Fri, 09 Mar 2018 05:48:59 -0600, *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
directly sets itself up in competition to the other - usually, but not
always, religion setting itself against science. In that context, I
think it is worth looking at the Catholic Church versus the Protestant
Fundamental churches so prevalent in the USA.
The word *magisterial* meaning "teaching authority" itself comes from
the Catholic Church which has arguably the most highly centralised and
extensively documented body of teaching. That body of teaching has
never set itself up in competition with science; indeed, right back to
St Augustine in the fifth century, it has warned about the foolishness
of trying to simply ignore or deny advances in human knowledge. In the
late 19th century, scientific progress and new methods of studying
ancient writings started to show conclusively that the Old Testament
was not written exclusively by Moses or by any one writer and that
many of the stories in it could not be read literally. This was not a
problem for the Catholic Church; in 1893, Pope Leo XII issued his
*Providentissimus Deus* encyclical which specifically stated that
"truth cannot contradict truth" and that where science contradicts a
traditional understanding of the Bible, "we may be sure that some
mistake has been made either in the interpretation of the sacred
words, or in the polemical discussion itself".
Although the Protestant Fundamental churches do not have a direct
equivalent of the Catholic magisteria, the *Fundamentals* can be
considered a rough equivalent as they form a core set of beliefs that
followers of Fundamentalism must adhere to. Those Fundamentals were
actually set up as a response to the scientific and other progress
that Pope Leo was responding to and a key one of them is that the
Bible must be taken literally and that if science contradicts it,
science is simply wrong. That religious "magisteria" is therefore
deliberately designed to reject science and must by its very nature
always be in conflict with it.
I think the key difference is that the Catholic Church (and, by
extension, the mainstream Christian churches as they were all one
church up until the Reformation) start out by seeking truth wherever
that truth may fall whereas the Protestant fundamental churches set
out with an established proof that nothing can be allowed to
contradict. The interesting outcome of that, of course is that the
Catholic Church has never ever had to change any of its teachings in
response to scientific advance whereas many of the Protestant
Fundamentals have time and time again been shown to be simply wrong.
>Fundamentalist
>oriented religious values put a damper on stem cell research in the US. The
>Dominionist worldview devalues the importance of anthropenic environmental
>threats. Yet the current pope has a caretaker perspective that is
>religiously inspired. But what are his highly influential views on stem
>cells?
>
>https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/no-research-justifies-the-use-of-human-embryos-pope-francis-says-22203
>
>When a pope or president impose their religious values to dictate what
>science can pursue, that’s conflict.
>
>And from a larger perspective religion can still be at odds with the
>fundamental value of human rights. That’s why Jefferson’s wall is an
>important legal stricture, imperfect as it is. It should protect
>nonreligious minorities from public squared imposition of majoritarian
>religious views. It often doesn’t. But that’s minor league compared to what
>happens in theocratic Islamic states.
>
>Conflict!
the application of science. Opposition to things like stem cell
research on embryos is a moral viewpoint and is not a rejection of the
actual science involved any more than opposition to eugenics is a
rejection of the ToE.
I think that this whole area actually represents a major failure in
Coyne's basic argument that reliable knowledge can only be gained
through science; if that is so, where do we take our ethical values
from? With many of the advances are ready made in biology and genetics
and ones are undoubtedly coming down the road to us, society is going
to face massive challenges in what we decide is acceptable and
unacceptable in regard to the application of science; with respect to
scientists who are doing the work, I think they are the last people
that should be left on their own to make those decisions.
>>
>> Basic Statistical Errors
>> ==============
>> In trying to demonstrate scientific support for his arguments, Coyne
>> draws heavily on surveys by Pew Research which suggest that whilst
>> atheism among the general public is only 4%, among scientists in
>> general, atheism rises to 41% whilst atheism and agnosticism combined
>> rises to 62% among scientists at "elite universities" and 93% among
>> members of the National Academy of Sciences. Coyne doesn't explain why
>> he only uses the atheism figure for the first two groups but the
>> combined atheism and agnosticism figure for the other two groups; he
>> also fails to note that opinion polls are not conducted to a standard
>> that would qualify them in any way as *scientific research*.
>>
>> The far more important issue, however, is that the surveys only tell
>> us what the levels are among the various groups, they tell us nothing
>> whatsoever about the reason why those levels are found. Coyne makes
>> the fundamental error that undergraduates would get hammered for - not
>> recognising the difference between correlation and causation.
>>
>> He does try make a case for the figures supporting his claim, what he
>> feels to recognise that in doing so, he is making a polemic argument,
>> not a scientific one - the exact same type of argument that he
>> criticises religious believers for making.
>>
>So would there be no causal relation between becoming scientifically
>informed in biology and losing faith based religious belief?
for the correlation but they are only ideas, I have no evidence to
support any of them. That lack of evidence, however, is the basis of
my criticism of Coyne it isn't that he was necessarily wrong in his
conclusion, it was that he was abandoning his scientific principles by
accepting correlation at face value to confirm his existing beliefs
rather than digging for evidence on causation and that is an
abandonment of the scientific method that he is trying to promote.
I'll come back to this one in a minute when talking about the
Templeton Foundation further down.
know, I find Coyne's detestation of it somewhat excessive with no real
apparent reason; TBH it comes across as a combination of his hatred
for anything that might favour religious belief in any way whatsoever
and perhaps some sour grapes about the funding is available to people
from the Foundation. It is private money and I don't see why they
shouldn't be allowed to spend it in whatever way they want provided
they are not directly doing something that undermines the public good.
You made the point that the Templeton foundation disperses five times
the amount disbursed by the US National Science Foundation for
research and revolutionary biology but that is surely the fault of the
US National Science Foundation rather than the Templeton Foundation.
If the money is spent on genuine research, then I would have thought
that scientists should welcome the additional funding rather than
attacking the foundation for making the money available. As far as I
can see, the foundation does seek to support genuine research - they
are not like for example the Institute for Creation Research where, as
I understand it, researchers must make a pledge in advance that they
will not produce conclusions that contradict a literal reading of the
Bible. I actually see the Templeton approach as broadly similar to
that of the Catholic Church - the truth must be sought out and dealt
with wherever and however it falls.
Going back to the correlation between and advancement in personal
scientific achievement and decline in religious belief, here could be
an interesting test for Templeton. I have seen various references over
the years to the Pew figures and similar surveys that Coyne has drawn
his conclusions from but I have never seen any structured research
into trying to establish what causes the correlation. If Coyne or
someone else were to put together a structured research programme to
do that and put it to Templeton as a proposal, would Templeton support
it? I suspect they would but I would actually doubt if Coyne himself
would be open-minded enough about the matter to be the person that
could conduct such research!
>>
>> It's rather hard to see how any of those three would be worried about
>> getting funding for research.
>>
>Isn’t that counter to the point you are trying to make? These guys are
>accommodationists. It’s the firebrands who would rock the boat. Would
>Templeton give them money? Or would they accept given the source?
the all-embracing accusation that scientists who deny a conflict
between science and religion, don't actually believe there is no
conflict, they are only pretending there is none in order not to upset
their funders. I gave three examples of scientists who clearly
contradict that argument; at least two of them (Collins and
Polkinghorne) only became public proponents of the compatibility
between science and religion after they had retired from highly
successful scientific careers and were no longer beholden to any
funders
scientific methodais the only way of acquiring reliable knowledge and
then completely discards the principles of the scientific method in
order to make its case.
Coyne, like Dawkins, frustrates me. When they wtite about science they
are both superb writers; I have already commented elsewhere that Coyne
was truly outstanding in laying out the unshakeable case for evolution
in "Why Evolution is True " but like Dawkins, when it comes to dealing
with religion, he seems to enter into some sort of red mist and
carelessly cast aside his scientific principles, resorting to the very
behaviour that he condemns religious people for :(
Martin Harran
Mar 14, 2018, 8:45:04 AM3/14/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Fri, 09 Mar 2018 18:46:39 -0600, *Hemidactylus*
>>> science can pursue, that?s conflict.
>>> ?The Templeton Foundation distributes $70 million yearly in grants and
>>> fellowships.
>>> To put that in perspective, that?s five times the amount dispensed
>>> Templeton?s deep
>>> pockets and not overly stringent criteria for dispensing money, it?s no
>>> accommodationists. It?s the firebrands who would rock the boat. Would
>>> I think Coyne?s book has more merit than you allow here. He?s a bit biased
Again, I have very little knowledge of the Foundation and nothing
whatsoever about FQXi - I'd never even heard of them until you
mentioned on here - so I'm not the best person to judge that.
>
>And the “Big Questions in Free Will Project” seems solid to me. That Thalia
>Wheatley was involved grants it unquestionable legitimacy as she was a
>student of the late Daniel Wegner and not a libertarian.
>
>https://youtu.be/85CNta8NhEg
>
>https://www.closertotruth.com/series/big-questions-free-will-project
>
>https://www.templeton.org/grant/free-will-and-alternative-god-concepts-new-tv-programs-for-closer-to-truth
>
>http://www.slate.com/bigideas/are-we-free/essays-and-opinions/alfred-mele-opinion
>
>Coyne follows Sam Harris in thinking there cannot be free will. I lean
>heavily in that direction but think Dan Dennett makes interesting and
>serious points. That Kuhn has interviewed Dennett on his show demonstrates
>how open minded he is. Coyne seems quite negatively biased against
>Templeton and maybe there are negative aspects to the Foundation’s
>religious bent.
>
>Coyne wrote in Faith vs Fact: “Besides funding science and
>accommodationism, Templeton also gives money to purely
> religious projects, such as the television show The American Bible
>Challenge and the $100,000 Epiphany Prize awarded for “the best wholesome,
>uplifting and inspiring movies and television programs.”
> (That prize was once awarded to the gruesome and anti-Semitic movie The
>Passion of the Christ.)”
>
>That’s not good. Yuck that.
Again, we're down to personal views. I found The Passion of the Christ
to be an incredibly moving and inspirational film, definitely gruesome
but the crucifixion was a gruesome kind of event. I didn't find it in
the least anti-Semitic but then again, I don't regard dealing with an
event that happened in Jerusalem 2000 years ago as any more of an
attack on the Jewish people today than I would regard a graphic movie
about the horrors of slavery to be an attack on the American people
today.
>
>And in his book Enlightenment Now Steven Pinker cites this libertarian spun
>article:
>
>http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/labor/329332-the-feminist-side-of-sweatshops
>
>“Chelsea Follett (@Chellivia) is the managing editor of HumanProgress.org,
>a project of the Cato Institute.”
>
>http://humanprogress.org/about
>
>“Note: HumanProgress.org is a project of the Cato Institute with major
>support from the John Templeton Foundation, the Searle Freedom Trust, the
>Brinson Foundation and the Dian Graves Owen Foundation.”
>
>So even the mighty Pinker is at least indirectly affected by Templeton
>largesse. And Kuhn interviewed Rebecca Newberger Goldstein on Closer to
>Truth where she admirably defends philosophy as having value contra
>malcontents such as Steven Weinberg.
>
>https://youtu.be/6gXhPCHGCRo
>
>https://youtu.be/BCEwkTzfdd8
>
>She totally owns it. And just happens to be married to bad Pinker above.
>
>And just to add value to philosophy here is a horserider of New Atheism on
>a platform provided in part by the Templeton Foundation:
>
>https://youtu.be/whHqJUbJJSo
Sorry but all that means absolutely nothing to me, I don't know
anything about the people or organisations you are discussing and not
enough interest to spend time finding out more about them.
>
>So Templeton is a mixed bag.
Perhaps, but I haven't seen anything there to justify Coyne's vicious
attacks on it.
>
>
>>>
>>> And from a larger perspective religion can still be at odds with the
>>> fundamental value of human rights. That?s why Jefferson?s wall is an
>>> And from a larger perspective religion can still be at odds with the
>>> important legal stricture, imperfect as it is. It should protect
>>> nonreligious minorities from public squared imposition of majoritarian
>>> religious views. It often doesn?t. But that?s minor league compared to what
>>> nonreligious minorities from public squared imposition of majoritarian
>>> fellowships.
>>> To put that in perspective, that?s five times the amount dispensed
>>> annually by the U.S. National Science Foundation for research
>>> in evolutionary biology, one of Templeton?s areas of focus. Given
>>> Templeton?s deep
>>> pockets and not overly stringent criteria for dispensing money, it?s no
>>> wonder that,
>>> in a time of reduced financial support, scientists line up for Templeton
>>> grants.?
>>> in a time of reduced financial support, scientists line up for Templeton
>>>
>>> And: https://fqxi.org/about/faq/financed
>>>>
>>>> It's rather hard to see how any of those three would be worried about
>>>> getting funding for research.
>>>>
>>> Isn?t that counter to the point you are trying to make? These guys are
>>> And: https://fqxi.org/about/faq/financed
>>>>
>>>> It's rather hard to see how any of those three would be worried about
>>>> getting funding for research.
>>>>
>>> accommodationists. It?s the firebrands who would rock the boat. Would
>>> toward atheism and firebrandy sure. But you need to address his points on
>>> Templeton influence.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I will come back on this over the weekend, hopefully.
>>
>Ok. I should have stressed more that Templeton has IMO provided some
>benefit to me in that Closer to Truth show as far as they are connected.
>The FQXi seems a solid endeavor too though they confuse me with:
>
>https://fqxi.org/about/faq/financed
>
>“In practice, JTF distributes millions of dollars annually to fund projects
>exploring the interface between religion and the physical and social
>sciences, including its most famous award, the Templeton Prize, as well as
>grants in "science and religion" and "character development," among
>others.”
>
>Vs.
>
>“Although it is a common refrain in the press, our understanding is that
>reconciling science and religion is not a goal of JTF. Please see their
>website for more information.”
>
>A bit of a fine public relations worded point. But not a deal breaker with
>me. Do you sense an implicit contradiction?
Not really, and I'm not even sure where you see the contradiction.
>>> Templeton influence.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I will come back on this over the weekend, hopefully.
>>
>Ok. I should have stressed more that Templeton has IMO provided some
>benefit to me in that Closer to Truth show as far as they are connected.
>The FQXi seems a solid endeavor too though they confuse me with:
>
>https://fqxi.org/about/faq/financed
>
>“In practice, JTF distributes millions of dollars annually to fund projects
>exploring the interface between religion and the physical and social
>sciences, including its most famous award, the Templeton Prize, as well as
>grants in "science and religion" and "character development," among
>others.”
>
>Vs.
>
>“Although it is a common refrain in the press, our understanding is that
>reconciling science and religion is not a goal of JTF. Please see their
>website for more information.”
>
>A bit of a fine public relations worded point. But not a deal breaker with
>me. Do you sense an implicit contradiction?
Again, I have very little knowledge of the Foundation and nothing
whatsoever about FQXi - I'd never even heard of them until you
mentioned on here - so I'm not the best person to judge that.
>
>And the “Big Questions in Free Will Project” seems solid to me. That Thalia
>Wheatley was involved grants it unquestionable legitimacy as she was a
>student of the late Daniel Wegner and not a libertarian.
>
>https://youtu.be/85CNta8NhEg
>
>https://www.closertotruth.com/series/big-questions-free-will-project
>
>https://www.templeton.org/grant/free-will-and-alternative-god-concepts-new-tv-programs-for-closer-to-truth
>
>http://www.slate.com/bigideas/are-we-free/essays-and-opinions/alfred-mele-opinion
>
>Coyne follows Sam Harris in thinking there cannot be free will. I lean
>heavily in that direction but think Dan Dennett makes interesting and
>serious points. That Kuhn has interviewed Dennett on his show demonstrates
>how open minded he is. Coyne seems quite negatively biased against
>Templeton and maybe there are negative aspects to the Foundation’s
>religious bent.
>
>Coyne wrote in Faith vs Fact: “Besides funding science and
>accommodationism, Templeton also gives money to purely
> religious projects, such as the television show The American Bible
>Challenge and the $100,000 Epiphany Prize awarded for “the best wholesome,
>uplifting and inspiring movies and television programs.”
> (That prize was once awarded to the gruesome and anti-Semitic movie The
>Passion of the Christ.)”
>
>That’s not good. Yuck that.
to be an incredibly moving and inspirational film, definitely gruesome
but the crucifixion was a gruesome kind of event. I didn't find it in
the least anti-Semitic but then again, I don't regard dealing with an
event that happened in Jerusalem 2000 years ago as any more of an
attack on the Jewish people today than I would regard a graphic movie
about the horrors of slavery to be an attack on the American people
today.
>
>And in his book Enlightenment Now Steven Pinker cites this libertarian spun
>article:
>
>http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/labor/329332-the-feminist-side-of-sweatshops
>
>“Chelsea Follett (@Chellivia) is the managing editor of HumanProgress.org,
>a project of the Cato Institute.”
>
>http://humanprogress.org/about
>
>“Note: HumanProgress.org is a project of the Cato Institute with major
>support from the John Templeton Foundation, the Searle Freedom Trust, the
>Brinson Foundation and the Dian Graves Owen Foundation.”
>
>So even the mighty Pinker is at least indirectly affected by Templeton
>largesse. And Kuhn interviewed Rebecca Newberger Goldstein on Closer to
>Truth where she admirably defends philosophy as having value contra
>malcontents such as Steven Weinberg.
>
>https://youtu.be/6gXhPCHGCRo
>
>https://youtu.be/BCEwkTzfdd8
>
>She totally owns it. And just happens to be married to bad Pinker above.
>
>And just to add value to philosophy here is a horserider of New Atheism on
>a platform provided in part by the Templeton Foundation:
>
>https://youtu.be/whHqJUbJJSo
anything about the people or organisations you are discussing and not
enough interest to spend time finding out more about them.
>
>So Templeton is a mixed bag.
attacks on it.
>
>
0 new messages