|
Thursday, July 02nd, 2009
Yet Another Religious RantPosted: 2009-06-24 I ran across an article today that pissed me off. I found it on Discover Magazine's site. The article was titled "Science and Religion are Not Compatible" (by Sean in Religion -- posted June 23, 2009).
Now most of you who have followed the erratic and loud posts on this site are probably well aware that I fall into the "non religious" camp. I would totally understand, therefore, if you are somewhat confused that an article that delineates how science triumphs over religion would make me angry. In order to dispel the confusion, let me explain my anger.
This article reminded me of Richard Dawkins book--a book which I hated. I hated Dawkins book because he spent so much of it lost in condescension, and when he wasn't patronizing religious folks, he was using arguments equally as specious as those of any religious nutcase to try and justify his side of the debate--when plain science would have worked just fine.
This article is even worse. How is it worse? At least Dawkins knew what he was talking about when it came down to scientific specifics--even if he did get lost in the larger metaphysical/philosophical picture. "Sean in Religion" however, doesn't appear to have much of a basis in any critical thinking or scientific skill. He sounds more like a journalist who has been convinced of a point of view by someone smarter than him and is trying to remember the arguments they used to convince him... and failing miserably.
And to top it off, this was published on Discover Magazine's site. That really made me angry! I LIKE that magazine. Who was the editor that let this crap slide?
What crap, you ask? Let's have a look.
As with most bad writing, Sean's article sets a premise (Science and Religion are Not Compatible) and then spends no less than SIX full paragraphs NOT addressing the premise. When you actually get to paragraph seven and he states why he DOES believe science and religion are not compatible, this is the paltry entirety of his argument (and I quote):
"The reason why science and religion are actually incompatible is that, in the real world, they reach incompatible conclusions. It’s worth noting that this incompatibility is perfectly evident to any fair-minded person who cares to look. Different religions make very different claims, but they typically end up saying things like “God made the universe in six days” or “Jesus died and was resurrected” or “Moses parted the red sea” or “dead souls are reincarnated in accordance with their karmic burden.” And science says: none of that is true. So there you go, incompatibility."
Now there are many, MANY things wrong with this paragraph. Some are wrong at face value, some are wrong under extended scrutiny and some contradict things that Sean himself says later in this very article.
First let's look at his religious examples. In this paragraph he provides four examples of religious beliefs. All but one are Christian. The last is probably Hindu. We all know that religion is by no means restricted to these two faiths. Nor is it restricted to others which may include these particular examples in their scriptures (ie--Jesus and Moses are recognized as religious figures in the religion of Islam and Judaism as well, but not in the same way as they are in Christian faiths). There are many, many religions on this planet whose members would claim (just as emphatically as any scientist) that those four statements were false. Sean needs to understand the meaning of religion before he starts an argument about how to dismantle it.
Now, I think Sean realizes he is a little out of his depth when it comes to religious thought because he tries (much like Dawkins tried) to so restrict his definition of religion as to make it into something that really doesn't represent the myriad beliefs of the millions of religious people worldwide. In fact, I am not convinced that he even knows what he means when he uses the word "religion". Look at how he attempts to define it (again, his words):
He doesn't really get to a definition here...
"Of course, it’s very difficult to agree on a single definition of “religion” (and not that much easier for “science”), so deciding when a particular definition has been twisted beyond usefulness is a tricky business. But these are human endeavors, and it makes sense to look at the actual practices and beliefs of people who define themselves as religious. And when we do, we find religion making all sorts of claims about the natural world, including those mentioned above — Jesus died and was resurrected, etc. Seriously, there are billions of people who actually believe things like this; I’m not making it up. Religions have always made claims about the natural world, from how it was created to the importance of supernatural interventions in it. And these claims are often very important to the religions who make them; ask Galileo or Giordano Bruno if you don’t believe me..."
Or here...
"...In other words, when Gould says “religion,” what he means is — ethics, or perhaps moral philosophy. And that is, indeed, non-overlapping with the understanding of the natural world bequeathed to us by science. But it’s utterly at variance with the meaning of the word “religion” as used throughout history, or as understood by the vast majority of religious believers today. Those people believe in a supernatural being called “God” who created the universe, is intensely interested in the behavior of human beings, and occasionally intervenes miraculously in the natural world. Again: I am not making this up...."
And he doesn't want you thinking this is religion...
"If you hold some unambiguously non-supernatural position that you are tempted to refer to as “religion” — awe at the majesty of the universe, a conviction that people should be excellent to each other, whatever — resist the temptation! Be honest and clear about what you actually believe, rather than conveying unwanted supernatural overtones. Communication among human beings will be vastly improved, and the world will be a better place."
So after several obtuse paragraphs trying to create a compartmentalized view of religion (which seems to be that it has to have unexplainable, supernatural phenomena as a core belief)--you know, a pre-configured straw man he can then use science to knock down--we find that this same author also claims that religious adherents who attempt to reconcile religion and science are only able to do so by drastically redefining either religion or science or both... Wait what? You heard that right. Again, let me show you his own words:
"...The favored method of those who would claim that science and religion are compatible — really, the only method available — is to twist the definition of either “science” or “religion” well out of the form in which most people would recognize it. Often both..."
Seems Sean is at a loss against his own argument. But wait, it gets worse. Let's go back to that original quote of his. Here it is again for continuity's sake:
"The reason why science and religion are actually incompatible is that, in the real world, they reach incompatible conclusions. It’s worth noting that this incompatibility is perfectly evident to any fair-minded person who cares to look. Different religions make very different claims, but they typically end up saying things like “God made the universe in six days” or “Jesus died and was resurrected” or “Moses parted the red sea” or “dead souls are reincarnated in accordance with their karmic burden.” And science says: none of that is true. So there you go, incompatibility."
Please concentrate on the second to the last sentence: "Science says: none of that is true." In this paragraph this statement refers to the preceding religious statements. Problem is, science doesn't prove that those religious beliefs are false. Science simply states that we are unable to reproduce the same results. Now, that may sound like I am being a little too technical... except that Sean uses the same argument. When he starts talking about science, to "protect" it from being wrongfully "redefined" (you know, like he did to "religion"), he states:
"The other favorite move to make, perhaps not as common, is to mess with the meaning of “science.” Usually it consists of taking some particular religious claim that goes beyond harmless non-supernatural wordmongering — “God exists,” for example, or “Jesus rose from the dead” — and pointing out that science can’t prove it isn’t true. Strictly construed, that’s perfectly correct, but it’s a dramatic misrepresentation of how science works. Science never proves anything (emphasis in original). Science doesn’t prove that spacetime is curved, or that species evolved according to natural selection, or that the observable universe is billions of years old. That’s simply not how science works. For some reason, people are willing to pretend that the question “Does God exist?” should be subject to completely different standards of scientific reasoning than any other question.
What science does is put forward hypotheses, and use them to make predictions, and test those predictions against empirical evidence. Then the scientists make judgments about which hypotheses are more likely, given the data. These judgments are notoriously hard to formalize, as Thomas Kuhn argued in great detail, and philosophers of science don’t have anything like a rigorous understanding of how such judgments are made. But that’s only a worry at the most severe levels of rigor; in rough outline, the procedure is pretty clear. Scientists like hypotheses that fit the data, of course, but they also like them to be consistent with other established ideas, to be unambiguous and well-defined, to be wide in scope, and most of all to be simple. The more things an hypothesis can explain on the basis of the fewer pieces of input, the happier scientists are. This kind of procedure never proves anything, but a sufficiently successful hypothesis can be judged so very much better than the alternatives that continued adherence to such an alternative (the Steady State cosmology, Lamarckian evolution, the phlogiston theory of combustion) is scientifically untenable."
So, out of Sean's own mouth, science has not proven anything about the veracity or fallacy of religion. It is simply a method of testing hypotheses. Jesus is not here. We cannot test whether he can rise from the dead. Moses is not here. We cannot test whether he can part the Red Sea. Likewise, we cannot DISPROVE these beliefs. We can, based on scientific study of other humans (and their interaction with water and death), assume that such occurrences would be highly unlikely. But science (as Sean admitted) makes no claim about absolute knowledge. And that is what pisses me off about Sean. He pretends that this knowledge is absolute. That is no different than pretending God exists. He is the same type of charlatan he seeks to discredit.
Such was Dawkins as well, even though he did have much more scientific knowledge backing his words. There is so much we can do to mark the distinction between science and religion that does not require any of this vapid, condescending bullshit.
Now some of you may say at this point that I am being a little harsh. No. Sean states twice in his article (in a condescending, patronizing voice), "I am not kidding, I am not making this up" when referring to the beliefs of religious adherents.
Who does he think his audience is? Is he preaching to the proverbial choir? Is he arguing against religion to those who have already abandoned it? Or does he have some ridiculously naive belief that religious folks will not only swallow this unsubstantiated drivel but will do so while being simultaneously insulted about their beliefs? So who is the idiot with a ridiculous belief in supernatural occurrences?
But I digress.
The base argument here is one that doesn't serve either side. Sean is arguing that in order to disprove religion, it must be confined to a definition that, in reality, is not representative of religion. There are many religions that do not profess miracles or a belief in God as a performer of miracles. Sean throws about the term "supernatural" like it is synonymous with "imaginary". Getting back to his idea that we have to understand each others' definitions if we hope to have any meaningful dialogue, Sean would do well to understand the meaning of "supernatural".
Webster defines it thus:
1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe ; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil.
2 a: departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b: attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit).
There are other interpretations as well. But even this single example shows alternate definitions. The second definition I think is the most encompassing of the two but both lean towards a meaning something akin to the following (my definition):
Supernatural is a term used to describe something that cannot be explained by our understanding of natural law.
This would apply to a creator as God. But it would also apply to any occurrence we are unable to explain with the knowledge we have. A man in a white robe living in the clouds is supernatural. So is a sperm whale's ability to dive to great depths and return to the surface without experiencing "the bends". Scientists can explain neither of these occurrences. The difference between the two is that we have sperm whales around. We can continue to test hypotheses regarding how we think the whale is able to accomplish this feat. Eventually we will figure it out and it will cease to "defy the laws of nature". The same cannot be said for God.
Conversely, however, if a nasty virus wiped out the entire sperm whale population before we were able to uncover the secret of their diving abilities, we wouldn't suddenly claim that these whales were never able to accomplish such dives simply because we cannot recreate the situation to test hypotheses. Such is the nature of "disproving" God.
The argument between science and religion will never be settled by trying to disprove bible stories. Truth is conditional. There are very few (if any) absolutes. Saying that religion absolutely can't be true is no different than saying it absolutely has to be true. Both are useless (untestable) premises from a logical standpoint.
The real question we need to address is not whether God exists, but whether or not his existence is of any consequence. Logically speaking, it doesn't really matter much if God exists in some form or another. The only thing that matters is how his existence (or a belief in his existence) will affect us individually and as a society. Do we need him? That is what we need science to prove or disprove.
I believe we have done that.
Very few of the millions of people who are religious depend on God to provide them with food or shelter. Very few depend on God to save them when they are running from a murderer or suffering from a sore throat. Why then do we say he is so important for the arguably insignificant things--like comforting poor or starving people (people, mind you, whom he could just as easily have prevented from ever arriving in that condition).
So, do we really need God?
No. Not really. Read More Here >>>Article [permalink]·[Send Me a Comment] Can We PLEASE Quit Being Idiots!Posted: 2009-05-13 Anyone who has read my writings probably can guess that I supported Obama's candidacy. I hoped against hope that he would be different than other candidates (of BOTH parties) who had promised ONE THING to get elected only to DO SOMETHING ENTIRELY DIFFERENT once in office.
Obama has been "hit and miss" in that department. He has made some positive changes, but is still dragging his heels in areas that are (what most people consider to be) the most important.
The handling of the WOT(tm) is one of them. Guantanamo is still open. Renditions are still "legal". And now, after having promised to release all pertinent Abu Ghraib photos, Obama is back-peddling.
Here's a quote from the Washington Post article on the matter (link to full article at end of post):
"A U.S. attorney was unequivocal in a letter to the judge on April 23: "The parties have reached an agreement that the Defense Department will produce all the responsive images by May 28, 2009."
But White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters yesterday that President Obama has "great concern" about the impact that releasing the photos would have on soldiers fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. Asked whether the Justice Department's decision might be reversed, Gibbs declined to reaffirm the government's intentions. "
Great concern about the impact of releasing the photos? Excuse me? Does Obama not understand human nature at all? The only thing worse than those images, is what we IMAGINE is in those images UNTIL we see them.
We all remember the first go around. Everyone trying to prevent the "horrible" images from being released, everyone else wondering what could possibly be in them that could be so bad, and then they were released and a large part of our population's response was, "Meh. I thought it would be worse..."
The existence of the as-yet-unreleased images has been ascertained. Everyone around the globe KNOWS they exist. Refusing to release them only exaggerates the imagined ideas people have of what is contained in those images.
People will automatically assume that it HAS to be worse than the first ones, or Obama wouldn't be stalling. Doesn't take much to figure out what could be worse.
Does Obama somehow think that if we don't RELEASE the images no one will think about them? Is he really that stupid?
Probably not.
I believe Obama's reason for not wanting to release them proabably hearkens back to one of his earlier disappointing statements, when he said he had no desire to hold those in past administrations responsible for possibly illegal actions. Remember, he spouted some blather about how we can't dwell on the past and we have to look to the future. Funny how hard it is to look to a political future if we don't hold our politicians accountable for their actions, isn't it?
Anyways, that is what I think is the issue here. I think that these images aren't any worse than the ones already released. I think they probably just implicate a different group of individuals as complicit.
But then, that might just be my imagination running away with me. Only one way to resolve the issue. Release the photos, Mr. President. Read More Here >>>Article [permalink]·[Send Me a Comment] Ignorance Knows No BoundsPosted: 2009-05-05 Joe the Pseudo-Plumber is at it again. In an interview with Christianity Today, he claims that somehow the English dictionary is his justification for his anti-gay sentiments. Because one of the definitions of "queer" is homosexual (please note people it is listed as a colloquialism or slang), that homosexuals are not normal and are therefore not allowed around his children.
He'd do better to look at pedophilia crime statistics which prove that most child abusers are your typical religious, homophobic males. In other words, Joe is statistically a greater danger to his kids than any gay person he may encounter.
I'm sorry, but this man is dumber than a post. The idea that he can consider such tripe as "Christian" moral values illustrates just how stupid he is. Read More Here >>>Article [permalink]·[Send Me a Comment] Because This CANNOT get Enough CoveragePosted: 2009-05-05 The link below is to a great article on Alternet which details how boycotts of specific companies are beginning to have an effect in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I fully support these boycotts. I hope you will to. :) Read More Here >>>Article [permalink]·[Send Me a Comment]
|
