#2844: Les Lane — 05/29  at  10:06 AM
The substantive point is that intelligent design is not in the scientific literature. It makes no sense to incorporate it into science curricula until it's a fruitful part of science. Unless it makes useful and experimentally testable predictions it's unlikely to become science.

#2845: Tom Morris — 05/29  at  11:12 AM
Oh, the fun I've had with this little gem: http://www.bbcity.co.uk/entry/2221

#2846: PZ Myers — 05/29  at  11:25 AM
Ooooh, I like your diagram very much. Much nicer than Luskin's.

#2848: Donn Day — 05/29  at  03:26 PM
The problem with Tom's diagram is that his definition of science, philosophy, and religion are all wrong. While science is often "logically encountered conclusions from rationally acquired facts," it's more biased than many are willing to admit...for an example you can read a chapter by Dorothy Nelkin I posted on my blog from Alas, Poor Darin.

Since some of the greatest philosophers have been Christian, both in the past and today, faith can and is a part of many philosophers' beliefs. Like wise, a lack of faith will also play a role in an atheist philosopher's worldview.

Finally, when someone uses this type of description for religion; "unquestionable conclusions from irrationally held beliefs," they have already exposed themselves as a person who holds irrational beliefs, i.e. a person that allows their feelings to do their thinking for them, not their intellect.

#2850: Tom Morris — 05/29  at  04:00 PM
That's the response I get from trying to introduce a bit of fun in to the blogsphere...

#2851: Donn Day — 05/29  at  04:25 PM
Tom,

I apologize if you were trying to "have a bit of fun." However, you did write, "I think this sums up my position rather well." So, the question that naturally follows, is the definitions you gave your beliefs, or are they not?

#2852: Tom Morris — 05/29  at  05:51 PM
The science one is (although I haven't given it a great deal of thought), the philosophy one is from an encyclopedia and the religion one is just a bilious reaction to whatever fundies are in the news. And the various bits of nonsense are all stuff I get annoyed about. I try not to take creationists too seriously. I mean, seriously, can anyone read about Kent Hovind and not find him hilarious? The same sort of reaction is hit when I read Casey Luskin's spiel. I can only imagine what it must be like to be a scientist constantly refuting these dippy lunatics.

#2853: Rory Parle — 05/29  at  06:26 PM
<scription for religion; "unquestionable conclusions from irrationally held beliefs," they have already exposed themselves as a person who holds irrational beliefs</blockquote>
It's certainly possible to arive at that description of religion from a rational perspective. Religious beliefs are irrational and unquestionable and you will find a lot of people around here agreeing with that.

#2854: Rory Parle — 05/29  at  06:30 PM
I have no idea what happened to that post; it was complete when I sent it. I'm not going to try to type it all again so lets just agree that it was the final convincing argument that will turn everyone around to my views on science and religion.

#2855: Donn Day — 05/29  at  06:51 PM
Rory,

I can agree that certain beliefs may be irrational, whether they be religious OR non-religious. But, as a category of thought, religious beliefs are no more irrational than any other category of beliefs, and I will hold to my point of view that anyone who thinks (by its very nature) that religion = irrationality, has already shown themselves, presumably without the benefit of religion, to show themselves irrational.

#2856: Rory Parle — 05/29  at  07:07 PM
I fail to see any rationality in subscribing to a set of beliefs on the sole basis of having been passed by oral and written tradition through countless incarnations from a time when even the best minds had a very limited understanding of the complex workings of the world. The onus is on you to demonatrate its rationality. It may be possible that your catagory of beliefs that you label 'religious' differs from mine and that yours contains beliefs which are rational. I can't imagine what they might be so it would be enlightening if you could give us some examples of religious beliefs (not necessarily yours) which are rational.

#2857: — 05/29  at  09:08 PM
Donn Day said:

The problem with Tom's diagram is that his definition of science, philosophy, and religion are all wrong. While science is often "logically encountered conclusions from rationally acquired facts," it's more biased than many are willing to admit...for an example you can read a chapter by Dorothy Nelkin I posted on my blog from Alas, Poor Darwin.

And your argument that "evolutionary psychology" constitutes science is what?

Yes, there is a lot of conjecture offered by people who claim to be doing "evolutionary psychology." Of course, that discipline, whether it is science or not, is based on evolution theories, but offers precious little scientific data to support (or deny) evolution.

To base a claim against science on what a small handful of psychologists have written in popular books is not a valid line of criticism. Science is done by thousands, looking at real events, publishing results in peer-review journals. Condemning evolution on the basis of evolutionary psychology probably has less basis than condemning Christianity on the basis of the statements of Yassir Arafat.

I suspect creationists like to read evolutionary psychology because it's methodology is closer to their own -- that is, not based in observations, but in conjecture.

#2858: — 05/29  at  09:25 PM
Once again, that cartoon makes me laugh, and once again it makes me yearn to have a lab that messy one day. Although I could live without the hairdo.

#2863: — 05/30  at  03:05 AM
Fun things to consider:
Why science is.
Why religion is.
There is, I'm humbly submitting, a commonality there somewhere. Not in expression, in origin.
Organisms, or complex systems with evolving self-regulation, or any definition of living being-ness you want - things that perpetuate themselves, perpetuate themselves.
A silliness of critical riposte masks the underlying struggle to do just that.
People are fighting for their lives, and pretty darn successfully. Using religion, then science, then both, and now one or the other, choosing sides, as we head toward the crux. Success creates leisure time, which enables discoveries that contribute to that success, and then viola! here's another little self-perpetuating system.
Science is that, religion is that.
Science builds out from an imaginary zero, the Cartesian "I am, I think"; religion builds down from received wisdom, the Jehovan "I AM".
In practice both are tools, and in the world I've known both have been the tools of selfish grasping men primarily.
The Christian fundamentalist has his mirror twin in the electrode-wielding intern in the primate laboratory, but both subjects are so disconnected from their real natures they don't recognize themselves in each other.

I'm also humbly submitting that our earliest ancestors were not the primitive thugs they've been made out to be; but that every noble quality we admire now was there, then. And then, as now, not in everyone.
Science and religion started off together too. As one thing. Knowing the world, working toward learning to know the world, all of it, including eternal time and the infinite multitude of places, as well as controlling fire and the use of leverage.
It's no accident that madness and religious sentiment and profound scientific thought are often found combined in the most brilliant thinkers.
Utilitarian selection picks through and sorts and chooses, but what's there is already fragmented. Pieces of understanding.
We're trying to reassemble something I think, though I don't know what it is.
I see people taking foolishness seriously, and letting villainy slide by unremarked on.
Creationism's an absurdity whose harm wasn't that visible until it became a battle flag for the simple-minded.
Gene-splicing tools in the hands of emotionless greed-driven insects is no better standard.

#2864: — 05/30  at  06:44 AM

I suspect creationists like to read evolutionary psychology because it's methodology is closer to their own -- that is, not based in observations, but in conjecture.

Even if the conclusions of evolutionary psychologists are only plausible conjectures, I fail to see what these have in common with the implausible dogma of creationists.

#2865: Ben — 05/30  at  07:17 AM
"...and I will hold to my point of view that anyone who thinks (by its very nature) that religion = irrationality, has already shown themselves, presumably without the benefit of religion, to show themselves irrational."

What if that point of view is irrational?

#2866: PZ Myers — 05/30  at  08:16 AM
Yeah, I'm sorry, but believing in an invisible super-being who loves you and does magic tricks to make your life better is an irrational idea, and since it is the very foundation of Christian thought, I'm quite comfortable with dismissing religion as "unquestionable conclusions from irrationally held beliefs." That is the only reasonable conclusion, in fact.

The only salvation from this condemnation is that "irrational" doesn't necessarily mean "bad"; but trying to claim that religion is rational is lunacy, and arguing for that by saying 'many philosophers have been religious' and 'not all science is driven by reason' is compounding the silliness with logical errors.

#2870: — 05/30  at  01:40 PM
"...the very foundation of Christian thought..." is exactly as you say it is. But terracentric anthropomorphic assumptions were the foundation of scientific thought, as it began, weren't they? Starting from zero was never possible.
Some of us have less in common with fundamentalist Christianity than with positivist science. There are more choices than the two armed camps.
It's analogous to the current political arena. Men who are the embodiment of the Tory position, who would have fought for the English, or paid good money for others to fight, against the American rebels, are now draped in the Stars and Stripes.
The same with Christianity. Jerry Falwell is no more a champion of Christian endeavor than George Bush is a champion of American patriotism. Both ideals have been co-opted, traduced and bastardized, and pretty much by the same power. Feeling smug and coherent in opposition to such obvious illogic and villainy is too easy, it makes me suspicious.
The bleating of "creationists" is like the cheap jingoism of flags on cars. It masks a deeper pathology that has nothing to do with logical mistakes.
There's this shifting around on the part of the defenders of science, from an argument based on science as a theoretical posture, a set of tools for examining things, seen in opposition to religion as it's worked, as it's applied, religion on the ground as it were, which is mostly specious dreck. But again, a lot of science on the ground is an SF 'B' movie without the girl and the hero.
Christian theory has been persecuted as heresy since before the execution of its founder, its main adherents burnt at the stake or worse, and their labors expurgated, or metabolized and retooled as propaganda.
Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, the Pope, these men represent the majority of practicing Christians in the world today.
A majority of Americans believe George Bush is doing the best job possible. That doesn't mean democracy and liberty are meaningless ideals.
The logical next step isn't hard to see.

#2872: Rory Parle — 05/30  at  01:52 PM
Nicely verbose Lance but not big on content. You're arguing against the statement "believing in an invisible super-being who loves you and does magic tricks to make your life better is an irrational idea" on the basis that it doesn't represent religious beliefs accurately. You give the Pope as an example of someone who "represent[s] the majority of practicing Christians in the world today." Is it your contention that the Pope doesn't believe in God?

#2878: Ben — 05/30  at  05:38 PM
Blah blah blah. Christianity = you believe that Jesus is the son of God. Ergo, it follows that you both believe in God (an irrational presumption), and that It somehow managed to impregnate a woman who may or may not have been a virgin. So, unless you believe that God is a physical manifestation with fully fuctioning male genitalia, in which case you should be able to provide material evidence for such a stance without much fuss, we have nothing further to discuss. And I don't even need to go into the whole "Jesus' Miracles" stuff.

"the execution of its founder

Alleged execution of its alleged founder. No historical evidence exists to support either of these predicates.

"A majority of Americans believe George Bush is doing the best job possible. That doesn't mean democracy and liberty are meaningless ideals."

No, but it highlights the importance of the responsiblity of citizens to be intelligent and informed in a Democratic state in order to avoid being manipulated.

#2881: — 05/30  at  09:52 PM
But again, a lot of science on the ground is an SF 'B' movie without the girl and the hero.

Wow. I never knew that a characterless B movie could raise the average standard of living any human group to levels not seen since before the Agricultural Revolution.

Christian theory has been persecuted as heresy since before the execution of its founder, its main adherents burnt at the stake or worse, and their labors expurgated, or metabolized and retooled as propaganda.

"Christian theory"? Care to explain how any religious "theory"(/methodology) that predates the birth of Christ can be Christian? Or is this going to be "the Bible is the contunuous story of Christ" crap? I can point you to at least three other instances of one culture making the claim that it is the direct decendent of some other esteemed culture. At least the Aztecs and Inca had the decency to wait until the others were pretty much dead.

#2882: Ben — 05/30  at  11:31 PM
Yeah, the earliest Christian scripture actually postdates Christ's alleged death by about 50-100 years. So suggesting that the religion predates or is even contemporary to the crucifixion is historically inaccurate.

Oh, and incidentally...

Christian theory has been persecuted as heresy since before the execution of its founder, its main adherents burnt at the stake or worse

I'm sure you'll agree that most Christian denominations have MORE than gotten their own back in the past 1500 years...

#2886: — 05/31  at  09:57 AM
Lance said:

Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, the Pope, these men represent the majority of practicing Christians in the world today.

Can't have it both ways. Either Falwell and Robertson represent the majority of Christians, or the Pope does - but guys who tend to represent polar opposites on most issues can't be said to be working together as representatives of Christians. Unless, of course, your point was that when we take the majority Christian views, represtented by the Pope with evolution (he's for the study of evolution, saying it has nothing to say against the faith), and couple them with the minority Christian views (of Falwell and Robertson), most Christians' views are represented.

Yeah, John Kerry, Howard Dean and George Bush represent the majority of Americans' views on the war in Iraq. That is not to say that there is a monolithic view of the war, or even consensus.

Lance said:

A majority of Americans believe George Bush is doing the best job possible. That doesn't mean democracy and liberty are meaningless ideals.

As with your views on evolution, you may want to get a poll taken within this decade before claiming such a statement is authoritative and current.

Most of us in Christianity find the bilateral symmetry of a sea anemone to be fascinating, a wonderful manifestation of God's creative drive. It demonstrates evolution, too? That's just gravy.

#2896: — 06/01  at  01:44 AM
The really exciting part for me is where I get to do the "Life of Brian" bit, running from both camps, but for now:

Rory Parle-
"You're arguing ...on the basis that it doesn't represent religious beliefs accurately...Is it your contention that the Pope doesn't believe in God?"
No, I'm counter-arguing that the mindlessness of millions of believers, and their inaccurate and illogical posturing and attempts at persecution of non-believers, says nothing about Christianity as it consists of the teachings and practice of the teachings of Jesus Christ. If pushed I'll say that the Biblical Jesus is obviously not the whole story, is in fact likely to be a co-option of the real teachings which come to us in unauthorized fragments and examples. Expurgated, censored, and tailored to meet the needs of the institutions which have taken over the revolution.
But something happened back then, something dangerously subversive. My argument is what's there at the heart of it is anathema to both sides of these arguments of scorn and denial, just as it was then. Many "creationists" would execute Jesus without blinking.
———
Matt-
Is the standard of living better now than at any time in the past? Do you know for certain what life was like 15,000 years ago? No more than you know what life is like in the favelas of Rio de Janeiro, or the hunting camps of the circumpolar far north, today. Remember the shock at the sophistication of the Ice Man's equipment and diet?
It's also a blanket generalization - certainly some people's lives are better now, but some people's lives were better 15,000 years ago than some people's lives are today. Numbers mean nothing. Things are better now, overall, for some. Better for most economists, and for certain types of people generally. Myopic individuals certainly have a much better time of it now. Cowards too are well-protected by contemporary social structures, much more than they once were. But indigenous people everywhere are dying out or enduring increasing hardship to survive. You may not have the backbone to admit it, but I'm guessing they're inferior people in your world-view. In the world-view of your particular religion, technophilic and anthropocentric, they are unbelievers.
Who can argue that simply preserving the largest number of human lives possible at this juncture is by itself an unmixed blessing, or a blessing at all?
-
As far as "Christian theory has been persecuted as heresy since before the execution of its founder, its main adherents burnt at the stake or worse, and their labors expurgated, or metabolized and retooled as propaganda."
Your urge to retort got the better of your logical skills, such as they are. Christian theory of course originated with its namesake, who was persecuted for it as a heretic, as a blasphemer, and as a devil, while he lived. And executed for it as well.
-
My general point is that there is more in common between the two polarized sides of this Science vs. God smackdown than either is comfortable admitting. In the sense that this immediate thread environment is partisan, I'll say "you". You guys are wrong and those guys are wrong. Of course the creationists are illogical and bizarre. But they're not mistaken, in the sense of having been led to their incorrect positions by bad logic and sloppy thinking.
They recognize the threat to their survival in a world that has no need for what they are. They're fighting for their lives.
They'll reshape the world to fit their needs, if they have to, just as you do.
It has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with biology. Sneering at their feeble attempts to "prove" anything scientifically is child's play. It takes on urgency by virtue of the size of the population under the sway of this nonsense. As PZ Myers points out in a more recent post.
And the very real danger is that they will attempt to eliminate their enemies. But it has nothing to do with religion except in the most superficial way. Religion is the flag they wave. In that it has as much sgnificance as the American flag George Bush is photographed in front of so often. Virtually none. Shredding their simple arguments is satisfying when you're irritated and disgusted with the ignorance they manifest, but it does nothing to address the real problem.
It seems to me that too many scientists see the world scientifically. Doh. But really, so that they think arguing logically is all that's needed. Anyone who's ever faced an assualt by an irrational but physically superior opponent knows logic's not always enough. That it strengthens to know one's in the right, sure. But at throwdown time it's not about logic, except at the most elemental levels.
-
Ed Darrell -
"Can't have it both ways. Either Falwell and Robertson represent the majority of Christians, or the Pope does.."
Falwell, Robertson, the Pope, and a couple of other celebrity Christian leaders taken together represent views of the majority of self-professed Christians, how's that? Meaning people who call themselves Christians. Just like people who call themselves Americans, violently insisting on it some of them, can support the actions of a President who contravenes every principle and labor that went to make this country what it was, or might have been.
In the long run it's just a name.
Your last statement is close enough to the delusional good cheer of a psychopath it scares me. And it's that delusion I'm speaking to, thanks for providing an example. It's clear as day logic and science mean nothing to a mind capable of such nonsense. My point all along. Argument alone isn't gonna do it. Because that kind of cheerful madness will become vicious when it's threatened, and see the same justification, through the same twisted process, for violence, as it has for centuries.
The same delusional fantasy that sees the hand of God in the symmetry of a coelenterate, can easily see the hand of God in a massacre, or a boatload of chained slaves.
"God loves us, he's given us this great victory."
The hand of God's in Abu Ghraib and the car wreck on the highway and the junkie's pus-swollen arm as well, but I'm thinking you won't see it there.
-
Again, my message, verbose as it may be, was to the one side more than the other. Don't let the seeming weakness of the dim-witted blind you to your own ignorance.
Argue clearly and strongly, yes, but don't be surprised if it's laughed away with that smug grin and knowing chuckle. Madness has its own edge in survival competition just like sanity and logic do, we need to remember that. We need to believe in evolution.
In the end it's not about who was right, it's who made it to the light of day.

#2897: Ben — 06/01  at  03:12 AM
My cat's breath smells like cat food.