Don’t even try to tell me that science and religion are compatible — Phil has just encountered a perfect example of why they aren’t. He’s irritated that the jury at a trial used prayer to help them come to a decision, and he comes right out and says it: prayer doesn’t work. That’s an empirical and logical conclusion, and the efficacy of prayer is something that has constantly failed any test, and further, has been the subject of some egregiously bad testing. Prayer is an excellent example of religion trying to claim their metaphysic has real world consequences, and it has been consistently slapped down as nonsense.
Now the sad part: a number of his readers are very upset that he dared to criticize a religious concept (this is probably not the subset of readers we share; I drove those blitherers away screaming, long ago) and some are even saying they won’t read the Bad Astronomy blog any more. You know me, always kind and generous and helpful, and willing to encourage infidelity wherever I see it, so I’ll just step in and urge any of the readers here who aren’t regulars at Phil Plait’s Bad Astronomy blog to head on over there and fill in the gaps left by the few fleeing Christians. It’s worth it for the science, and no, Phil doesn’t impose any doctrinal demands on you, so you can read it if you’re a rational Christian too.
(Why do I feel a little bit like the Wicked Witch urging my minions to “fly, my pretties, fly!” as I do this?)
Thanks PZ! I actually became a reader of yours through BA. Im went to school for astronomy, and am now using your page as some sort of remedial education of the gooey side of science. And i love how you feed my anti-thiestic appetite. Phil is great at hammering bad science, but tends to just ignore the hard core theists. We need to get him some thumbscrews and iron maidens to wreak havoc on those loonies.
Not to get all libertarian on you or anything, but your “minions” are adults, are here because we generally respect you and your scholarship and opinions (so we’re inclined to at least lazily glance at something you think is worth a look), and are fully capable of saying “no” if the mood takes us, never fear.
I too came here through Bad Astronomy – around the time of that silly “best science blog” competition. Astronomy will always be my first love and I confess to skipping over a lot of the really in-depth biology posts here, while I never miss Phil’s sciencey stuff. I just enjoy keeping a (somewhat incredulous) eye on the latest madness from the religious zealots in America. Phil’s a scholar and a gentleman, but he doesn’t quite fulfil my daily requirement of blistering rants against stupidity.
What? No minions? But they promised me minions!
Time to step up the flying squid breeding program, obviously.
A very common tactic of the religious is to refuse to associate themselves with anyone who publically demonstrates how foolish their beliefs are. Many people will silence themselves rather than lose the friends/loved ones/site readers, etc.
I don’t disagree with the method itself, but it can (and is, in this case) be used childishly and inappropriately. Boycotting perfectly reasonable statements that you don’t want to hear only leads to self-delusion and yes-manning.
I volunteer to be turned into a flying squid minion. My human DNA sucks anyway. So let the mutating begin.
What? You don’t have any grad students??
(Just the other day I ran into a paper by Layton & Minion. No really.)
P.S. We eagerly await the anti-gravity cyber-squid.
Can you turn my “junk DNA” into Flying Squid DNA? Really? Cool! Where do I sign up?
Your obedient, independent-thinking flying monkey is on its way.
Thanks for pointing this out, I agree its worth encouraging.
Now about the Penrose/Hameroff model… ;-)
What do you mean “Flying Squid”?
I like my furry, prehensile tail.
How about a compromise? A furry squid with multiple prehensile tails. You can even color the fur pink.
I demand my independence before I agree to become an obedient servant.
And I’m not going to shut up about Penrose/Hameroff either.
:-)
Yes, quite the kerfuffle. Not the first time, either. I don’t expect everyone to agree with me, of course, and if people don’t like it they can argue their point (the preferred method) or they can leave. But I am always amused at people who have to Make A Grand Statement and *then* leave. What’s the point?
I appreciate Phil’s sentiment, but in the interest of exactness, (and maybe just to be contrary), I’m not sure you can dismiss prayer as useless–to true believers I mean. At least not in decision making circumstances.
The Faithful have been taught all their lives that they are not capable of thinking for themselves without screwing everything up. It’s been pounded into their heads that man’s every instinct is evil and contradictory to the will of God, and that the only way to make a right move is to pray about it first and let ‘God guide them’. Prayer is a psychological device that enables them to direct their thoughts without panicking. It focuses their attention (hopefully) on being fair minded and guided by wisdom.
In this context, given their brainwashing into their inherent ‘EVILNESS’ and incompetence, it may be better to just back off and let them pray.
With regards religion being incompatible with science, it seems to me that those who want to claim it is, either do not understand the nature of science or the nature of religion, or both.
Most religions allow for some form of divine intervention. That is, the deity involved is allowed to respond to prayer or to perform actions that would be regard as miracles by believers. These actions would not have a naturalistic cause and thus would not explainable using science. Now the problem comes if some who wants to claim that science is the methodology to use to understand how the world works also believes that their god can intervene in matters. The scientists who claim religious belief would no doubt be very unwilling to allow for the possibilty of divine intervention their field of study. Biologists quite rightly reject the idea that god(s) may have given evolution a little helping hand along the way. Cosmologists will likely to the same view about the formation of the universe. So here will have religious scientists from all fields of study claiming that god can intervene but not in what they study. So what is left for god to intervene in ? The theistic scientists and their atheist supporters do not seem willing to address this point, at least not when I have asked them.
The is one possible answer, and that is they do not allow for divine intervention. That would certainly change things but it would also mean that the god who does not intervene is not the usual god as worshipped by Christians, Jews and Muslims. The nature of such a relgion would change and I suspect that objections PZ, Moran, Dawkins et al have with religion would also change. Indeed Dawkins and Moran have said that they do not have anything like as much of a problem with those relgions that do not involve divine intervention.
Why think and try and come up with an answer for yourself when you can just ask the Great Pie In The Sky?
A deity that existed would be part of nature, and any consequences of its actions would be naturalistic. Science does not place a priori restrictions on what can exist, but logic indicates that self-contradictory concepts are not part of any reality.
Supernatural beings that are a part of nature are such a self-contradicting concept. Thus, they do not exist. A religion that asserts that such beings exist are incompatible with science and the logic that science is founded upon, and is necessarily incorrect.
More to the point, however, religions are necessarily incompatible with the rules of scientific inquiry, and thus no religions are compatible with science.
Just lending my support here for both PZ and Phil. Phil turned me on to PZ during the BABlog competition last year, and through his blog and podcast interviews I can say with pride he is one of the most earnest scientists out there. And he’s just one of thousands who continue to move mankind forward, and not backward.
Caledonian,
I can see your argument that any deity who existed would be part of nature but that is not what religious people claim. Their whole concept of miracles and other forms of divine intervention is that they are actions that do not have naturalistic explanation. From a naturalistic point of view I see no difference between the god you first mention and the natural laws that govern the universe: The god of Spinoza and Einstein. Most religious people reject that kind of deity and believers in such a deity would not be an example of how science and religion can be compatible to show to the creationists.
That is precisely the point!
Yes!
They’re idiots! It’s not exactly a rare condition, after all.
Maybe it’s just that I’ve been up for about 30 hours now, but I thought briefly that this was referring to Dr. Phil of Oprah fame.
I may be losing my grip but I can still make a fist.
Caledonian and Penfold —
Ding! Ding! Ding!
You got it. Most defenses of religion and science co-existing are the bait of divine-intervention and a switch of deism. The God of any self-respecting scientist is a totally different God from that of a snake-handling maroon, yet the defense of the former is seen as proof of the latter.
I found Pharyngula through Bad Astronomy, I believe, back in 2005 or thereabouts. Loved ’em both ever since.
It seems to me that the “hardest” science posts at Pharyngula are harder than the most in-depth ones at BA. In fact, Pharyngula appears almost bimodal, with a whole lot of entertaining posts; a smaller number of essays on gastrulation and such which, while clear and direct, require deeper thought and more re-readings; and not so much in between. The “tough science-y-ness” of Bad Astronomy seems, in contrast, to be more continuous.
Does anybody else have impressions in this regard?
I am not bipolar.
Besides, someone with training in biology might think the science posts at BA are harder, while the science here is a doddle.
Just to complete the set, the guy on trial, Jerry Cook, wasn’t particualrly upset by the jury …
And neither was the little girl’s family …
It kinda makes you wonder why all those Christian people wound up in a nasty courtroom together …
And, for Birdnow’s sake, I’ll always be one of your middle finger minions.
The defendant stated after his acquittal “I thank the Lord for the victory”.
This raises an obvious problem for Jesus junkies: if god was responsible for the acquittal, where was he when tragedy struck?
PZ Myers:
True, but I have a roughly equal (lack of) training in astronomy and biology.
Sorry, but to say “rational Christian” is an oxymoron. It is like saying “rational libertarian”.
Do try not to expose your ideological obsessions in mixed company. It’s ever so unbecoming.
There is a grain of truth in your expressed sentiment, though: ideological positions are rarely taken rationally, and people who identify with any position, regardless of their original reasons, often defend that aspect of their personality irrationally.
I love reading your blog, Sean Carroll’s and others at Science Blogs, but I am no blind and dumb follower. I believe that prayer can be a form of meditation into one’s inner power. This usually brings about mindfulness which is no small benefit to any of us. Oh, I won’t pray to God, any God for that matter. But prayer to the Divine Power behind all seems a useful human crutch when I feel lame. I don’t believe that this is science based. It just seems to work for many people, scientist’s and others, even fools!
Queen Victoria impersonations are ever so fucking unbecoming too, you weird little mutant.
I read Phil’s Moon Hoax debunking years and years ago, but I found his blog after Pharyngula, finding my way here (well, the old place, but..) during the Dover trial.
Speaking of defending aspects of one’s personality irrationally: What’s up, Dustin? Still convinced that I’m some kind of anti-gay bigot because I disagreed with you once?
Robert Gagnon,
What you call prayer is not what most religious people call prayer. Prayer in the traditional meaning is asking a divine being to intercede on some matter. What you describe might be better called a form of meditation or self-reflection.
Perhaps because the last time you did something like this you wound up inadvertantly DOSing the Friends of Charles Darwin?
prayer doesn’t work. That’s an empirical and logical conclusion
indeed, even the Templeton Foundation would have to agree with that, since they have funded at least 6 separate studies I am aware of in order to try and “prove” that prayer has a postive effect on healing, and not only did they fail, but the last study even had a significant result in the opposite direction:
people who knew they were being prayed for had a small, but significant, increase in healing time.
in fact, many of the critics of the study found less fault with the methods, and more with the risks apparent in exposing surgery patients to this kind of study to begin with!
I’m surprised the issue hasn’t been raised yet in this thread.
I can probably dig up the original work funded by Templeton, if anyone is interested.
Prayer in the traditional meaning is asking a divine being to intercede on some matter.
yes, the technical term for it is exactly that:
intercessionary prayer.
I think you will run into press articles speaking of the Templeton Foundation study I mentioned above if you use that as a search term in google.
Hey, I’m no expert on the modalities of prayer, but I also think that intercessionary prayer is just one type of religious prayer. however, it IS considered to be the one that is important in determining whether prayer is “effective”, materially speaking.
Flying cuttle-beasts anyone?
No worries, PZ, us godless yoorpeans are on the case, the programme is underway.
The octolord’s “keeper” (acolyte? attendant??) was on the radio yesterday, in what I thought was a rather mirthless mood, as she patiently explained to the nation’s peasantry that so far he was only “playing”, making up various assemblies of coloured bricks and so forth. He’s less than five years old, what do you expect?
He will begin issuing edicts in his own good time, thankyou very much.
You know PZ, I used to enjoy this blog until you started to post about cepahalopods and religion.
I long for the good old days when you used to blog about cute kitten pictures and knitting patterns.
I can see people in a jury room praying for guidance- as long as they don’t expect a bolt from the blue to provide them with an answer contrary to evidence. If they need to pray to reach a calm, reasoned decision, let them. I wouldn’t, but I don’t claim to know the best way for other people. Payer is the same as any other relaxing, self-hypnotic technique.
Chris
If they need to pray to reach a calm, reasoned decision,
the problem is the pray=>reasoned decision part.
which, given this specific case, does indeed suggest pray as a less than stellar mechanism for getting to a reasoned decision.
of course you could argue the result was relatively reasonable for all parties involved, amongst themselves, anyway.
sure doesn’t seem like they came to a reasoned conclusion from my perspective.
…looks more like they applied the “WWJD” rationale to come to a “reasoned” decision, to me.
Regarding the trial itself, I find it telling that, among all the blather about “good Christians” and “God’s love,” there is not the slightest wonder about why God didn’t prevent the little girl’s death in the first place.
Christians are the cwaziest animals.
— CV
the obvious answer to the question of human suffering given by the standard xian is of course the “mysterious ways” one.
often followed if questioned by inappropriate references to Job or similar.
which I prefer to put into a different answer format:
“God is nuts! Just ask Job over there!”
I always liked arguing the testing god theory with people. It’s just so easy to mess with them:
Exodus 17: Massah (Moses hit the rock and water comes out)
Deuteronomy 6:16 Do not test the LORD your God as you did at Massah.
1 Kings 18: Elijah tests God in a competition with the prophets of Baal. “Whose God can light the alter first.” He shows off by water-logging the alter before he asks Yahweh to light the alter on fire. He also mocks the Baals prophets for not being able to reach their god. It’s a great tale of fiction. And a clear example of someone testing God and God allowing it even after he forbid it in Deuteronomy.
There you go!
Oh and in “Wicked” your the good “gal,” so we would be your freed minions from the grasp of the Evil Wizard. Which I think it more accurate considering most of us here have been freed from an evil sky wizard at some point.
A deity that existed would be part of nature, and any consequences of its actions would be naturalistic.
You cannot simply state this and have it be true. In fact it is completely wrong. God, as defined by Christianity, exists outside of and previous to nature. God created nature and therefore cannot be a part of it.
Your “nature” disproof of God is almost as pathetic as the ontological argument for God.
But that definition is incoherent. It requires an a priori specification of what nature is that doesn’t permit updates or alternations due to new observations. The ‘natural order’ would then be arbitrarily defined – sure, I could say that the only human hair colors in ‘nature’ are black and brown, and that blondes and redheads are therefore ‘unnatural’, but the only thing that shows is that those colors don’t fit into the arbitrary category I constructed.
I can define the IPU as both invisible and pink, but that doesn’t mean it makes sense; I can define it as possessing existence, but that doesn’t mean that anything which fits that description exists.
The disproof of that definition of ‘god’ stands.
The ‘natural order’ would then be arbitrarily defined
Nature is already arbitrarily defined, as are most, if not all, things.
It requires an a priori specification of what nature is that doesn’t permit updates or alternations due to new observations.
Um, sorry, no. It does not do that. What it does is posit the existence of a thing that is both prior to and outside of nature. You may choose to define nature as being something which cannot have something outside it, but you are not the arbiter of definitions.
i just bookmarked him.
No. The choice of the sound-combination ‘Naay-tur’ to refer to that concept is more-or-less arbitrary, but the concept itself isn’t.
Nature is the observable universe. If we see something new, something not compatible with our understanding of nature, we change our understanding.
If something’s outside of nature, it cannot affect anything we can observe. This is logically equivalent to nonexistence. It’s necessarily unreal.
caledonian:
A thought just occurred…
Your definition of nature (with which I agree) indicates that christian arguments (which are demonstrably unreal) lead to the obvious conclusion that christians are un-natural.
No. Christians are natural. But the god they believe in is not.
No. The choice of the sound-combination ‘Naay-tur’ to refer to that concept is more-or-less arbitrary, but the concept itself isn’t.
Ah, here’s the problem. I’m a nominalist, you’re a realist.
And never the twain shall meet.
Of course even from a realist perspective your definition has problems. How do you account for the existence of things which are unobservable, even in theory, such as the center of a black hole? Do they simply not exist? Or are they outside nature?
Coaty-
is mathematics outside of nature for a realist?
nope.
It seems you are wrong both times.
It seems you are wrong both times.
If you believe that nature has a non-arbitrary definition then you are a realist. If you, like I do, think definitions are arbitrary and do not conform to some sort of natural kind then you are a nominalist. It is as simple as that.
Moreover, your argument only holds for a realist view of the world.
P.S. Simply telling someone they are wrong is not now nor has it ever been an effective argument.
A thing which is unobservable in principle cannot interact with existing things; it cannot have consequences which can attributed to it, because the processes of causation would constitute observations.
If it cannot have consequences in the existent world, then there are no implications that can be derived from its existence that cannot also be derived from its nonexistence, and vice versa. It makes no difference.
When two described concepts have the same implications, they are logically equivalent. It follows that the existence of an unobservable thing is logically equivalent to the nonexistence of that thing. This is invalid if ‘existence’ is used in such a way that it can make a distinction between possibilities.
Therefore, we conclude that an unobservable thing cannot be said to exist, because the concept of “unobservable” and the distinction of “existence vs. nonexistence” are incompatible.
It follows that the existence of an unobservable thing is logically equivalent to the nonexistence of that thing. This is invalid if ‘existence’ is used in such a way that it can make a distinction between possibilities.
I assume that would be the case when we are talking about something which we know to exist by its actions but cannot observe the thing itself. I.E. the mass at the center of a black hole.
No, because we ARE observing the thing itself. The mass.
Does a dog have Buddha nature, or does a dog not have Buddha nature? Mu – because the question itself is in error.
What happens when an irresistable force meets an immovable object? Mu – because the question itself is in error.
How do we account for the existence of unobservable things? Mu – because the question itself is in error.
Drat. That should be ‘irresistible’, folks. Darn my stubby fingers.
fair enough, although you still haven’t defended your definition of natural, only existence.
If we had predetermined and set standards for what would constitute ‘natural’ and what would constitute ‘unnatural’, how could we determine if these standards were correct?
You’re begging the question by assuming that there is some existing thing, nature, which is not arbitrarily defined. You can’t simply say:
Anything that we can observe exists in nature and if there is anything we cannot observe it doesn’t exist; therefore if God exists he must be a part of nature. But the Christians say that God is above nature.
It is your phrasing of it that is incoherent, not the claims of Christians.
Well, many, most really, of their claims are incoherent, but not this one.
Blake:
PZ:
bimodal != bipolar.
Bipolar is a mental disorder. Bimodal is a statistical property.
If the concept ‘nature’ is truly arbitrarily defined, then what difference does it make whether a thing is within or without nature? The distinction is without implications.
But that’s not the point, because ‘nature’ was and is used to refer to certain kinds of things. And those things are not arbitrarily defined.
But that’s not the point, because ‘nature’ was and is used to refer to certain kinds of things. And those things are not arbitrarily defined.
Back to the nominalist-realist problem.
Best to just stop here.
You’d have been better off stopping about ten posts backs, buddy.
Actually, I think that the prosecutor should go for an appeal. In the instruction for all the juries that I have been on, we were instructed not to consider any evidence not provided in trial and not to seek outside expertise (eg, read up on back ground info). Seems to me that by praying for guidance they are violating the judges admonitions.
Coathangrrr said, “…when we are talking about something which we know to exist by its actions but cannot observe the thing itself. I.E. the mass at the center of a black hole.”
What makes you think that the mass in a black hole isn’t in it? Black holes have mass. Its their most important attribute, and its all necessarily concentrated within their event horizon. Its what makes it a black hole, and its an OBSERVABLE trait. (The other main parameters, spin and charge, characterize the behavior of a given black hole, but its the mass that makes it).
Never mind the black hole’s “center”. That isn’t a “location” in ordinary space-time. Its a “singularity”. But don’t make the mistake of thinking nature doesn’t accommodate nothingness just because you can’t see it. (Nature is consistent, you see).
llewelly says, “PZ:’I am not bipolar.’
bimodal != bipolar…Bipolar is a mental disorder. Bimodal is a statistical property.”
Ah b’leeve that’s a joke, son.
Good’n too.
to: Arnosium Upinarum
Yeah, that was a pretty horrible example.
I think the insomnia is getting to me.
Wait a minute, the juror claimed that after prayer, God “led” them to a decision, and the defendant, after his aquittal thanked “the Lord” for the jury’s decision…Jesus tampered with the jury!!!
If God exists, mistrial, and Jesus needs to be arrested. Again. When will that recidivist ever learn…
I’m kind of late to the party on this one because my mother-in-law is in CVS right now, following a severe stroke 5 days after her 73rd birthday. And why do I mention this?
Many of our friends are expressing two things: We are either “in our thoughts” or “in our thoughts and prayers.” I’m trying to figure out what good being in their prayers is. Mother-in-law’s brain swelled, which killed the brain, and she has survived for 11 days now with no food and water, and no cognitive processes, and I don’t think any amount of prayer will change that.
When she dies, we’ll hear from the same friends that it was “God’s Will” that she died then, and really, I just think it was a stroke.
In this case, the juror said 98% of the evidence pointed toward innocence, so really, this is just another case of prayer doing zero good. It sounds like they decided this case on its merits, which is a relief. And many are asking, “Um, why would anyone appeal this verdict?” Excellent point. This verdict CANNOT be appealed.
I’m also trying to put myself in the defendant’s shoes, though. If I’d heard that I’d been found not guilty, but the jury had to pray before deliberating, I’d thank them for the verdict, but think to myself, “I wish they hadn’t invoked a spirit world to reach this decision.”
Same with praying for my mother-in-law. You have no idea how much I feel like asking these people if they really think prayer will re-animate my CVS mother-in-law’s brain. I will ask at least someone about that. “Do you really think prayer will return someone who’s in CVS to recover?”.
I think you can add my personal experience to the list of items where prayer did not work. Did a gaggle of devout Christians praying for my mother-in-law to regain her health reach their goal? Did they praying work?
Simple: Nope.
I have a lot to say about end-of-life decisions, too, but this is neither the time nor the place. I just wish there was an alternative to pulling the feeding tube. Dr. Jack is not entirely wrong.