Sheril seems like a well-intentioned person, but when she decides to step into the science/religion wars, it’s a horrendous mistake to label atheists as “fundamentalists” (a term I despise) and compare me to Rush Limbaugh. Without even saying a word about her position on the issue, it’s quite clear where she stands.
While giving us that great big clue, though, she also fails to explain anything about how religion and science are supposed to interact — she just calls for a “discussion”. You cannot get a productive discussion if one side hides their point of view.
Shorter me: Sheril violated Blake’s Law.
I can’t tell that she equated atheism and fundamentalism. She said:
A minimalist interpretation is that she merely said that a form of atheistic fundamentalism exists.
The mere fact that theism is founded on mere faith and without objective grounds will always make discussion with atheists fruitless. This is a life-or-death issue, not a collaboration.
I’m a fundamentalist atheist. I only accept the atheism of the 18th century Baron d’Holbach and eschew any more recent developments in the field.
(thanks Wikipedia)
Sigh.
Sheril loses.
Nothing to see here; move along now.
Sheril writes:
Since when does science need to win converts? Science enjoys the preeminence it does in society because it works. People who fail to heed valid science do so to their detriment, not science’s.
If the fact that god-botherers distrust science because of what it has to say about the probability of their god existing, so much the worse for them. I feel to see how ignorant people’s decision to remain ignorant is scientists’ problem.
Oh PZ – I daresay I don’t know where I stand with regard to religion. I’ve never actually written about that in detail ;) But it sure is fun following the fallout..
I mainly advocate tolerance and respect for others beliefs universally.
And please don’t be offended with regard to the radio reference – after all – I spent years in radio and mean no ill will. Only that your successful in that you keep people interested and engaged – whether they agree or not!
Given that religion seems to be hardwired and a tough nut to crack, I don’t object to it prima facie, but it is essential to realize as stated over and over here that there cannot be such a thing as a fundamentalist non-belief. I emphatically don’t believe in LGMs. I’m a fundie anti-LGMer?
Burnham’s law:
In any long enough discussion, the probability that someone will say any random string converges to unity from below.
Burnham’s corollary:
Anyone who disagrees with this is a fascist fundamentalist heathen.
If comparing someone who has dedicated his life to educating the next generation, and who consistently stands up for equality and justice, to the inventor of the term “feminazi” doesn’t count as odious and offensive, I suspect I’d be truly appalled to see what you *do* consider “ill will”. Very nice, your frame-up job there.
FWIW, PZ, Mr. Raven has also spent years in radio, and unlike some people, would never dream of comparing you to Limbaugh. Rachel Maddow, maybe… :)
She talks about converting people. Atheists aren’t in the conversion business. We’re in the anti-stupidity business.
We mock and sneer and get angry because religion, unlike science, is pure kookiness.
If someone doesn’t like being mocked or called an idiot, they can do something about it: stop believing in a bunch of nonsense.
Well, now my traffic is spiking. What’s next, my own Wikipedia article?
;-)
Sheril,
I generally lean towards your viewpoint (don’t attack religion unnecessarily so as to avoid alienating religious people) as compared to that of PZ/Dawkins, et al, but this comment of yours really jumped out at me: “I mainly advocate tolerance and respect for others beliefs universally.”
Tolerate other beliefs? Well, yes, I can go along with that to some extent. But there are beliefs out there which most emphatically do NOT deserve respect. Others on here have pointed out a few already: alien abductions, creationism, belief in fairies.
Bottom line: I don’t think there’s any reason to universally *respect* other people’s beliefs, or to grant other beliefs respect a priori. Respect must be *earned*.
It’s a revealing symptom of the way the framing enthusiasts think- they truly don’t quite “get” science, everything is at bottom politics and persuasion to them.
Also, what Adrienne said.
Where to draw that line of tolerance? Should we merely discuss merits of positions* with NAMBLA?
*really, pun not intended. I feel dirty just typing the acronym.
You have a problem with the National Association of Marlon Brando Look Alikes?
I should also say that I absolutely believe are limits on tolerance as well. But IMO, the “tolerance” bin is much larger than the “respect” bin.
“I mainly advocate tolerance and respect for others beliefs universally.”
Well i think the vast majority of atheists are tolerant of other people’s beliefs. We aren’t persecuting people, burning churches or anything like that. I’ve never heard of anything like that happening.
But respect? Just any time a person has a belief we’re supposed to think it’s worthy of esteem? Regardless of harm it may be doing or just the sheer insanity of it? This very concept of respecting someone’s belief just because it’s a belief is…totally beyond my comprehension.
Only if he labels the belief as being (part of) his religion. That label has special supernatural powers, you see.
“But respect? Just any time a person has a belief we’re supposed to think it’s worthy of esteem? Regardless of harm it may be doing or just the sheer insanity of it? This very concept of respecting someone’s belief just because it’s a belief is…totally beyond my comprehension.”
Agreed.
phat
I want to add to Adrienne’s comment:
What about the innate superiority of men and whites? Children as sexual partners?
These are beliefs that I suspect the majority here would agree do not deserve respect. Should we call someone a fundamentalist if they stand up against sexism?
Or have we all tacitly agreed that sexists and racists are ‘wrong’, but the jury’s still out on the existence of [your
mythologydeity(ies) here].I tend to become apoplectic when someone insists that we “respect all beliefs,” so I’m glad calmer posters beat me to the punch at responding to that.
Beliefs are like opinions and blogs: they’re ubiquitous, and 90% are poorly though-out garbage.
I thought I was gonna have to whip out the ol’ Mencken “respect the other fellow’s religion” quote, for a second, there.
Damn, my point was made a few times while I was trying to figure out the strikeout tag.
Also, please do not criticise my replacement of a question mark with a period at the end of my previous comment.
It’s a religious belief, not a typo.
his inflammatory remarks keep us all reading
Granted I’ve only been reading a few months, but I seem to be completly missing the inflammatory remarks part of the posts. Do I need to exfoliate?
Sheril (#6): I mainly advocate tolerance and respect for others beliefs universally.
Sheril, I’m with ‘ya on tolerance, because we don’t have a choice, do we? PZ has said the same thing, basically. But I doubt you’re being honest with the bit about universal respect of other beliefs. I suspect that like most people, you have a sliding scale of respect that puts believers in fairies, Thor, and the Emperor Xenu at one end, and believers in (insert religion of choice, probably the one you were raised in) at the other.
As a skeptic/athiest I have no sliding scale of respect that says one wacky belief is better than another. To me, the buttoned-down preacher in the local Presbyterian church is spouting essentially the same pointless drivel as someone who thinks the Emperor Xenu imprisoned captured souls in volcanoes. I may have to tolerate the god-botherers and woo-believers as fellow residents on the planet, but none have earned my respect, or ever will, as long as they’re trapped in those irrational belief systems.
It’s like the problem of fundamentalist anti-pentists, who insist intransigently that 2+2=4 and not 5. Clearly they are just as much of a problem as the fundamentalist pentists, who insist that 2+2 =5 (because the Book of Samwise says Jeroboam had two daughters, the Book of Hamfast says he had two sons, and the Book of Gamgee says he had five children).
Hey, relax, she’s hot! I say we give her a free pass.
j/k — was just trying to tie in yet another scienceblogs controversy.
really pointless stuff, all-in-all
The only reason there seems to be a ‘science/religion’ conflict at all is because of the false legitimacy for biblical literalism that fundamentalist Christianity attempts to earn through scientific mimicry. Otherwise, religion is of very little concern to science, except maybe as the subject of studies into patterns of human behavior.
What seems most outrageous to me is not that creationists mimic us, we should be flattered after all, that they wanted to be like us rather than like some sort of Borneoan shaman decorated with nose piercings derived from marsupial ribs and wearing a head dress derived from long extinct fowl.
What bothers is they just that they do such a poor, awful job of pretending to be like us, that they end up completely distorting our own life work.
But every once in a while, there is some real comic relief. Like the guy who hypothesizes that humans and animals once copulated and centaurs were products of such unions. In terms of getting archeological proof for this compelling theory, they believe they are making excellent progress to the point where they may stand on the precipice of a major discovery:
Alexander Guryev says that researchers have no whole centaur skeletons but lots of upper and lower parts of centaurs skeletons.
Clearly, with luck like that in finding skeletons, its only a matter of time.
This is a bit off topic,PZ but I thought you would like to see this video.
It is congressman Keith Ellison, speaking to “Atheists for Human Rights”
And I agree with him, he has got Bush – Chaney nailed down, this guy is smart.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=031_1184599788&p=1
This Sheril person writes for a science blog?
No shit?
Uh…ok.
H.Humbert — could I just point out that many people live in a large country full of people who are, in many respects, hostile to science and due to that hostility, unwilling to learn anything about science. These people vote. Their votes put in office the people who control the funding and the laws which control your life. They also affect much of the rest of the world, through things like foreign policy and responses to climate change.
There is a very real real-world need for science to “win converts”, as unpleasant a taste as that might leave in your mouth.
Given that Sheril compared PZ to Limbaugh, presumably we should call them “feminazis”.
Luna, all past conquests in the war for science’s independence from religious interference were won by people who FOUGHT, not people who rolled over and begged the religious bigots not to hurt them.
Rush Limbaugh…..I was in Wichita, Kansas on business years ago, and he was speaking right down the street. I didn’t bother to go, though. I’d forgotten to pack my harpoon.
i have nothing useful to say, i just want to N+1 on the “tolerance may be universal, but respect has to be earned” theme. and on the “all ridiculous beliefs are essentially equally ridiculous, regardless of popularity” notion, while i’m at it.
Science and religion DO go together!
Science’s “interaction” with religion is similar to penecillin’s “interaction” with bacteria. It kills the weak – and – given enough – kills off the strong, too. Of course religion adopts and (dare I say?!) evolves by coming up with new strategies to survive in the face of knowledge. But fundamentally, the end-game is that religion will have nothing to offer that survives empirical observation (or more likely lack of empirical evidence) except for some vague woo-woo feeling of “connectedness”
Religion and science? Yeah… Bambi VS Godzilla. Once you take away the faithful’s ability to violently suppress doubt you’re left with whining retards going “NO! *whine* WE’RE REALLY NOT STUPID!!! REALLY. We’re just ACTING ignorant and superstitious because it’s a tradition and it makes us feel comfortable.”
All this crap about science and religion being compatible is ridiculous – science will eventually destroy religion. It’s inevitable.
mjr.
Teh stupid!!11!!! It BURNS us, precious!!
I’m basically an outsider here and have never posted before. I’m a teacher and parent interested in promoting good science education and occasionally check in. I have the impression that many of the posters on this blog believe that one cannot truly believe or understand science concepts and processes if he or she were to harbor any spiritual or religous beliefs. However there are respected scientists who do have spiritual beliefs. So perhaps strictly adhering to the basic idea that a scientist cannot also be spirutual or religious is fundamentalism (i.e. fundamentalism as defined by a strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles in spite of evidence to the contrary)?
KD wrote:
“(i.e. fundamentalism as defined by a strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles in spite of evidence to the contrary)”
So maybe here is the problem with labeling some atheists as fundamentalists. The 1st part of the definition I think could be used to describe many if not all atheists: “a strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles”. The problem comes with the second part: “in spite of evidence to the contrary”.
What is the evidence for theism?
Steve LaBonne — you missed my point entirely. Seriously, how do you draw that from what I wrote?
H.Humbert in #5 wrote, “I feel[sic] to see how ignorant people’s decision to remain ignorant is scientists’ problem.” I responded directly to that. Do you see anything in what I wrote about “rolling over and begging them not to hurt us”? You made one hell of an assumptive leap, I think.
KD: I’ve rarely, if at all heard anyone here express the opinion that religious people can’t be good scientists- but perhaps it does make it more unlikely!
Here’s an analogy: Smoking doesn’t absolutely preclude someone from being a competitive sportsperson, but it does make it more unlikely. Also- however good that person is at cycling/running/jumping etc., that person would be even better without the cigs.
KD, if fundamentalism is “strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles in spite of evidence to the contrary”, then it is not atheists who are “fundamentalists”, it is the “respected scientists” who have “spiritual beliefs”.
That is, unless they have actual evidence for those “spiritual beliefs” which they have not shared with us.
A scientist is only respected as a scientist by his/her scientific ideas, vision and abilities. “Spiritual beliefs” on the part of a scientist does not win that scientist the sligtest bit of scientific respect.
The problem is, this isn’t evidence for anything other than the fact that even “respected scientists” are inconsistent in how they treat ideas. Or does one of these scientists have some really good evidence for their particular deity hidden somewhere?
It’s not you can’t both use the scientific method and have faith, you just can’t do both with any given idea. And I think the record of history speaks pretty clearly as to which way of dealing with ideas has been most effective.
“You cannot get a productive discussion if one side hides their point of view.”
I think that the word dicusiion is ill placed here; it seems that you only like to argue;-) So does Rush. Megalomaniacal,nonsensical, patriarchal blather from two different sides of the spectrum( well, you make sense sometimes).
“I have the impression that many of the posters on this blog believe that one cannot truly believe or understand science concepts and processes if he or she were to harbor any spiritual or religous beliefs.”
I can’t presume to answer for everyone, but I suspect the feeling held by most posters here is that spiritual/religious beliefs are non-scientific and lack a basis in evidence.
It’s up to the individual to reconcile whether or not he or she can hold religious beliefs as a scientist. What we will not allow is for people to play at science to justify their religious beliefs, nor will we allow religious beliefs a special exemption from the criticism that all other ideas are subject to.
What’s to discuss? Their arguments are often logically invalid and suffer from being extensively contradicted by what evidence is available, they have the same problems as all positions based on wishful thinking, and virtually none of their opponents even bother to notice any of this since they’re too preoccupied with their “EWWW YOU FUCKING PERVERTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111111!!!!!!!” knee-jerk responses (which, while understandable, does not constitute a rational counter-argument, and there is no reason to deploy an emotional, subjective–and thus weak–response when a strong objective rebuttal is available).
“Megalomaniacal,nonsensical, patriarchal blather”
Please give examples of the above, JJ, lest you sound like Rush himself (or even worse, O’Reilly.)
So perhaps strictly adhering to the basic idea that a scientist cannot also be spirutual or religious is fundamentalism (i.e. fundamentalism as defined by a strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles in spite of evidence to the contrary)?
There is no “fundamentalism” in the abstract – there is only “fundamentalism” of some brand: Christian fundamentalism, Muslim fundamentalism, etc. The strictest use of the word should limit it to Protestant Christianity; more loosely it can be applied to any religion. Applying it to any non-religious belief system requires a great deal of loosening of the concept as it is normally used.
Now, given all that, what exactly is the “fundamentalism” you are trying to describe here? What is the belief system about which a person could be “fundamentalist” in the way you describe? It’s not atheism, because atheism isn’t a belief system and doesn’t include what you describe as a “basic idea or principle.” If what you say is to make any sense, there must be some specific belief system, ideology, or religion which includes what you describe.
Luna said:
Eh, I’m of the opinion that any devil’s bargain made with those kinds of people won’t be worth it. History has shown, when push comes to shove, people by and large will always abandon superstition for proven science. Those who pray for health will still take the vaccination and medical treatment, those who pray for good crops will still use latest farming technology, and those who decry the unbiblical state of public education will still whine when their children fail to get into prestigious colleges. For all their bitching, the religious still want what modern science has to offer.
So there really is no need to win “converts.” Results speak for themselves. Science works and religion doesn’t. The god botherers just want scientists to bend over backwards and hand the goodies to them on their terms. Ignore them. They don’t get to set the terms. If more people had the spine to stand up to them, you would see them cave.
Not really. I think it would be fairer to say that religious and spiritual beliefs are not addressed by science and are irrelevant to the practice of science. Until said beliefs start to corrupt the scientific process and lead one astray from solid scientific principles in order to bolster ones faith.
Right. Which, I believe, we all recognize.
Can you name, names? And, BTW, fundamentalism is, frankly, much more specific than people like to acknowledge as they tend to misuse the term. Fundamentalism is a paring back of religious belief and practice to “fundamentals.” That fundamentalists are, frequently rigid and intolerant, doesn’t make rigid and intolerant atheists into fundamentalists. Until there is a built up dogma of interpretations, practices, exceptions and what not in the “Church of Atheism,” there’s nothing to reject and get back to “fundamentals.”
That fundamentalists are, frequently rigid and intolerant, doesn’t make rigid and intolerant atheists into fundamentalists.
It should be added here that while fundamentalism may be a matter of being “rigid and intolerant” in matters of religious doctrine, it doesn’t automatically translate into being “rigid and intolerant” in all other matters. A fundamentalism may thus be rigid and intolerant in that they rigidly adhere to traditional liturgy and are intolerant of any new additions or interpretations. This does not mean, however, that they are rigid in how they behave in non-religious contexts or are intolerant of adherents of other religions.
This is part of why the “fundamentalist atheist” label can be such a slander against real fundamentalists: it assumes that being a fundamentalist means being a class-A jerk who is generally intolerant and inflexible. Many fundamentalists are. Then again, many non-fundamentalists are as well. These aren’t “traits of fundamentalism,” but generally human traits and it’s unethical to pretend that they are somehow inherent “in that group over there.”
The problem with religion, or any claim of supernatural forces are these: God(s) must break Newton’s Laws and Joule’s Laws of Thermodynamics to act within our universe (unless people are constantly being used as deus ex machina which blows the whole free will thing, and he(she, they) does so without leaving any evidence; none other than ANECDOTAL evidence and we all know how reliable that is.
Sheril’s original blog post was so fluffy it actually lifted my monitor off the desk, hovered around for about 30 seconds and drifted casually down the hall. I’m off to retrieve my monitor now. Thanks Sheril.
It is PZ’s opinion that religion is kooky.
Respect it.
KD, yes that is true. Science uses methodological naturalism which only addresses what can be seen or measured. The supernatural is explicitly beyond its subject of investigation. So science and religion are separate areas. Up until recently, most scientists were also religious, Newton, Maxwell, and the whole gang. Many still are.
However, expecting rabid atheists to agree with the common viewpoint is as hopeless as getting fundamentalists to agree that the ancient Jews did not keep dinosaurs as pets.
The point was settled in the recent Kitzmiller versus Dover case in Pennsylvania. Your time would be better spent on more neutral ground.
I am a fundamentalist when it comes to elves. I absolutely will not believe in them no matter what arguments you have or what you say. I daresay evidence in the form of an elf would be undeniable, but since everybody knows elves don’t exist providing one is impossible. So not only will I *NEVER* believe what you say, I have impossible evidentiary requirements.
I have to add that believing that science is incompatible with religion and being religious is, if anything, even more stupid. If everyone believed that we would still be sitting around fires, making stone tools, watching half our kids die before 1, and dying ourselves at 40.
There is no record of cars, computers, space vehicles, microwave ovens, and modern medicine being created in the first 6 days of genesis for a good reason. These are the results of science, not prayer.
By its refusal to provide evidence to the contrary whatsoever, we can conclude it is in fact the universe‘s opinion that religion is kooky.
Science concerns itself with reality. If “religious and spiritual beliefs” aren’t addressed by science, then they’re not part of reality.
Science is a systematic form of honesty. You can’t practice honesty and dishonesty together, and practicing dishonesty at all corrupts the capacity for honest thought. Faith in a form of dishonesty, in that you try to convince yourself of the truth of statements that you know have no justification. Science and faith just aren’t compatible; you cannot possess a rational and logical worldview and accept a theistic doctrine.
caledonian ,
delusion != dishonesty
PZ, just out of curiosity what is your definition of fundamentalism? I know the dictionary definition does your vary from that?
Recognizing that it’s a delusion, and accepting it anyway, is dishonesty.
It should also be pointed out that Raven’s nonsense about science and religion being “separate areas” is a rather recent invention. Originally, most theists presumed that god’s fingerprints would be all over his creation, and science was a legitimate way of uncovering the mind of the Grand Architect.
It was only after centuries of disappointment and failed prognostications that the religious cried: “Stop. We’ve had enough” and moved the goalposts to their current location. Now their religion is indistinguishable from a fiction. Safe from science’s grasp, yes, but also now quite impotent and useless.
Ah, the lengths the religious will go to avoid surrendering their delusions.
the deluded don’t know that they are deluded…
To further agree with Caledonian’s statement above:
From a blog post I wrote earlier today, that is quite relevant here but entirely by accident: Science is about the real world.
i said this over on the intersection and on my blog as well.
i wish i could remember who first said this, but saying that atheism is a religion is like saying “off” is a tv channel.
“I mainly advocate tolerance and respect for others beliefs universally.”
Others have already been here, but how about we go a bit further.
Are you advocating that we ought to tolerate the belief that those who disagree with a set of religious opinions (feel free to pick any at random, it doesn’t matter which) should be killed? Wiped off the face of the Earth? Or yet better: tortured for all eternity?
Because the latter opinion is a nonnegotiable item of doctrine for most of the Christian denominations that have ever existed, including those which exist today AND those which have the largest numbers of adherents in our own country. The whole point of their religion is to avoid being tortured for all eternity.
Do you respect this belief? Do you advocate that others do so?
Interesting- after spending an afternoon wading through blog after blog filled with strident demands that theists should just “deal” with being called “ignorant, deluded, wicked, foolish, or oppressed,” I come back to this blog that to find all sorts of atheists getting all thin-skinned over the word “fundamentalist” and a passing reference to Stern/Limbaugh.
Funny that.
skippy (#65), my favorite line is ‘not collecting stamps is a hobby’.
It’s that truth thing again. “Fundamentalist” is a word with a specific meaning that cannot apply to atheists (at least, not until we have a dogma encoded somewhere). You’ll also notice that many people are suggesting alternative labels that aren’t entirely pleasant, like “militant” and “angry” and “uppity” and “outspoken”, so this is not a matter of taking simple offense at a pejorative term.
But of course, to a relativist, none of that matters. You can freely compare anything to anything else, and it’s all just as relevant, and all just as meaningless.
There are no fundamental doctrines for atheists to become fundamentalist about.
“I lack a belief in gods.”
“Oh, yeah? Well, I lack a belief in gods even more than you do!”
“Well, my lack of belief in gods is purer and more refined than your lack of belief in gods! So there!”
Brownian #57, the universe doesn’t have opinions. (And it hates it when you anthropomorphosise.)
Stephen Jay Gould was a pioneer in injecting the term “fundamentalist” into intra-science debates, coining “Darwinian fundamentalism” to describe Dawkins and Dennett.
Sheril, how about reading this, which brings up some of the same issues, and also gives lie to your classification of fundamentalism in atheists:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=25A5DA8D-E7F2-99DF-32F53BCD97024B43
Just ran across is today when I bought the magazine and thankfully you can read it online too. And just to be absolutely clear, I don’t like people using the term *respect* when talking about beliefs. You can respect people, you can respect actions, you can’t **respect** the intangible, you can only tolerate, ignore or appose it. I respect a lot of religious people, I tolerate their less absurd and dangerous emissions, but I can neither respect their views, which assumes acceptance of some of their value judgments about their positions, nor can I simply tolerate those beliefs, when they are perceptibly dangerous.
In that much I actually disagree with the sentiments of Dawkins and Krauss in the article above, as started at the end of the article. But otherwise, our positions are identical. Including with regard to the silly concept that PalMD brings up in this thread early on about believing silly shit being “hardwired” into us.
Needless to say, this is why **they** write books and the like on the subject, while I don’t, since I doubt I could have said the same things that they did without putting my foot in my mouth up to the knee at some point out of shear frustration.
Had the funny thought today of rewriting the lords prayer (I think its called) with secular concepts, starting with, “Give me the serenity of Dawkins that I may…”. lol
What about the Code of the Brethren, set down by the Atheists Morgan and Bartholomew?
That’s pirates, not atheists.
I’m an atheist and a reductionist and I could consider my views “fundamentalist” in that I believe that the “fundamental laws of the universe” are the ones that form the basis of our existence. The holy text I follow is the one being written (and edited) daily by scientists.
“I have the impression that many of the posters on this blog believe that one cannot truly believe or understand science concepts and processes if he or she were to harbor any spiritual or religous beliefs.”
Yeah.. That pretty much hits the nail on the head. How can you call yourself a “scientist” and be willing to accept such a huge and important notion as a diety based on a complete absence of evidence? (Indeed, much evidence contra-indicates the existence of a diety) You can’t be a scientist if you attempt an experiment and conclude that “gravity works because little tooth fairies move atoms around in accordance with god’s plan” – accepting phlogistic explanations for measurable phenomena is exactly the opposite of what a scientist does.
In short, people of faith who claim to be scientific are trying to have their cake and eat it too. They want to convince themselves they are rational and well-educated in spite of the fact that they are possessed of beliefs that exactly contradict both education and rationality.
Rational, or faithful: pick ONE.
Careful Mark, that is so quote mineable that I am surprised it didn’t just jump across the net to some right wing site as you wrote it and even before hitting “post”. Its exactly the sort of BS crap they accuse of us *literally* doing, not just figuratively for poetic reasons.
Excellent response PZ very well stated on fundamentalism.
But this leads us to one problem and the last thing I will ask about it, just trying to learn.
You said: It’s that truth thing again.
My question now is, what is truth? who defines it. Is it you me or the relativists? If there is a truth by what measure is it measured? And who decides the measuring thereof.
And I would like ta ask the rest of the commenters here, is there really a truth? and if so whose in charge of it?
Loaded question! Presumes there is an personifiable entity in charge of truth.
Kagehi: The Serenity Prayer
God, grant me the Serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
The Courage to change the things I can,
And the Wisdom to know the difference.
A secular version would be convenient, but not strictly necessary. Just drop the leading “God” and it becomes a handy-dandy reminder to ones self.
The cutting-edge version has something to do with Summer Glau.
“Rational, or faithful: pick ONE.”
Many people have lived productive lives and made valuable contributions to various scientific fields while developing their spiritual lives. I don’t think anyone can really know “the truth,” but I find it interesting and inspiring to try. If you don’t find it helpful to think about spirtituality, then don’t. But it is false to claim that people can either be rational or faithful. There are too many examples of individuals who have done both.
Cal, I read Physicist’s question to mean “Who is in charge of determining what the truth is?” I could be mistaken, but it’s not quite so loaded that way.
Then it’s a loaded question because it presumes there are people in charge of determining what the truth is.
No matter how you try to interpret it, it’s not-good. That must have taken some real work on the part of ‘The Physicist’.
Cal, I read Physicist’s question to mean “Who is in charge of determining what the truth is?” I could be mistaken, but it’s not quite so loaded that way.
Posted by: Kseniya | July 16, 2007 10:50 PM
Some commenter here that actually understands the question. I am at a sit where atheist gather, I don’t expect, even though I am a theist to trap the, but to only answer that which is proposed in their world view vs mine. Good catch. I have no intention of disagreeing with anyones opinion on the subject. I may disagree in my mind, but I ain’t here to make fun of people, but to learn from them. And I damn sure ain’t here to covert you.
Ooo, Ooo! A Firefly reference! You rock, Kseniya!
(If I had a religion, it would likely be Firefly.)
@KD:
>But it is false to claim that people can either
>be rational or faithful. There are too many examples
>of individuals who have done both.
I love when people attempt proof by example.
I didn’t say you couldn’t be productive while still being insane. If I believe that changing the oil in my lawn-mower placates the lawn-mower god, it doesn’t prevent my lawn-mower from running better, does it?
You can hold completely whacked beliefs and still get lucky. And, of course, there are plenty of brilliant people who were able to compartmentalize whacky woo-woo beliefs from places where they approached the problem scientifically. A good example would be Isaac Newton: fortunately for all of us he didn’t attempt to frame the physics of motion in terms of alchemy (which he also appears to have believed in/studied) The difference between scientific thinking and cargo cult thinking is that the scientist measures observable reality and discards theories that don’t match. Failure to discard ideas that don’t match reality is one of the side-effects of woo-woo belief systems and that’s one reason that, if you’re trying to play scientist, you’ve lobotomized yourself if you take on a dose of faith.
So, sure, you can get *LUCKY* even if you have a mental handicap. But don’t expect me to pat you on the head and tell you your belief in the lawn-mower god makes you a better small engine mechanic, OK?
No matter how you try to interpret it, it’s not-good. That must have taken some real work on the part of ‘The Physicist’.
What are you talking about, it is a philosophical question, not a theological question. I don’t care if you atheist or not there are certain philosophical questions that apply to both.
“Truth” is reality, right? Reality ranges from the very very small to the very very big (probably left a few “veries” out but I didn’t want this to go on for pages)
Now, supposing there was an almighty woo-being that existed – then (by definition) it would also be part of that Truth of existence. Otherwise you have a contradiction in terms.
So, to your question about who/what can know the Truth – nothing, and noone. Because to know the very very small to the very very large you’d have to be bigger than everything and that becomes a contradiction if you’re part of the everything you’re trying to encompass. That’s just simple logic.
What scientists do is try to find out little bits of the truth that interest them. That’s what’s so cool about the search for truth – there’s just a very very very very large amount of it out there.
Actually, I think truth defines itself, or maybe the universe does, since there are two *kinds* of truth. There is the truth of the now, which can be any old damn thing that some group claiming authority to define it says it is. The second kind of truth is more solid and can only be distorted by such people not overturned or erased, in that it doesn’t *become* something else, just because you want it to be. 2+2=4 is both, since it presumes that the current authorities say that 2 represents 2, 4 represents 4, and that if you add two 2s, you get a 4, but its also the later, since if doesn’t matter is someone insists on *teaching* that 2+2=5 or throws the entire concept out and starts over with, “gibble zub gibble bleb zorg”. Changing the labels definition doesn’t change the fact that 2+2 can’t *ever* = 5 in this universe, nor does changing the labels change the essential “truth” underlying that fact.
The problem is, when philosophers and those who, to promote their own agendas, promote themselves as such, talk about “truth”, they **never** mean the later, but rather always talk about the changeable one, the one defined by authority And they invariably always insist that *they* are a better authority on what that truth is than reality itself. I would argue that this is what makes science *not* an authority on that class of truth. Its truths are provisional on facts and evidence, not opinion of who is better at arguing opinions, with facts and evidence being too often, in the sphere of traditional “truth”, being entirely interdependent of truths, and only relevant when needed to bolster flagging support for how truthy their truth looks.
Basically, I think, when applied rationally, the term in indistinguishable from the results of science, but when applied otherwise, the term is a meaningless label used by those that want to pontificate about the infallibility of their opinions.
So, to your question about who/what can know the Truth – nothing, and noone.
So your answer is truth does not exist, and if it does, no one knows what it is. You may be right, but then PZ spoke out of truth when claiming one. Or did you mean something else?
Posted by: Kagehi | July 16, 2007 11:24 PM
You may be correct that there is no truth but the mathematics of the universe, which is a good position to take, not one that I would, but reasonable on its face. But there are other truths than mathematics, these are ethics and morals, does the universe decide this as well and if so how does it do it.
We are sentient beings who feel, pain, emotion happiness, sadness. From where do the ethics come from deciding how to treat others? Douse the observations of a mathematical universe answer this question, or is there something else that causes compassion? I don’t know on your level.
But there are other truths than mathematics, these are ethics and morals,
so the only truths other than mathematics are relative?
’cause, damn, ethics and morals sure are relative to the society you live in.
essentially, probably without realizing it, you just conceded the point.
you’ve made the first step towards realizing you are little more than an insane relativist.
Some animals extend ethics to other species, some don’t, some barely to the same species. We know this through observation. I never said “math” is the only level, just that the universe tends to define what the quantifiable or describable truths actually are. Last I checked, we are part of the universe. And, if you want to get real picky, some of it is our attempt to define those truths, often through the very class of non-evidence based philosophy they I mentioned, which can stumble across good ideas, or perpetuate absolutely stupid ones, in varying proportions. Some of it is almost certainly hardwired and even some of it is a side effect of that hardwiring, incorrectly projected on things it wasn’t necessarily biologically supposed to. We call ‘that’ type Anthropomorphism. I am not clear why you think such definitions of how such things arise is inadequate or why you think some alternative, for which no evidence exists, is necessary or useful for describing such behaviors.
Oooh.. And on a side note, the same issue of Scientific American that included the article with Krauss and Dawkins has one on memory. They can’t “map” specific cells to each fragment of a memory yet, but they have discovered that memories are encoded in hierarchies. That is, two memories that involve startlement are mapped by the “meta” state of all things startling, then on additional levels of specificity, down to the specific detail of “what” the cause was. Not specifically relevant to the issue here, but interesting.
Whoa. I take a break to load the dishwasher, and fall way behind.
Caledonian:
Ok. Right. Either a thing is true, or it is not. Nobody is in charge of that. However, there is some process by which we come to recognize, or accept, or – dare I say it? – determine that a thing is true. Sometimes I am “in charge” of that process. (I drop a cinder-block on my foot. Truth-statements follow.) Sometimes I am not. (I cannot personally verify, yet have no reason to doubt, the truth of many things that are outside of my experience.)
Physicist: I’m glad my interpretation of your question was accurate, but what I presume to be Caledonian’s objection – that a thing is either true, or it is not – holds up. There are many questions whose answers we lack, and so cannot judge the truth or untruth of the possible answers. Nobody decides which answer is correct – it either is, or is not. It is for us to discover.
The truth of whether or not an “atheist fundamentalist” can exist is elusive. Definitions matter, and definitions vary. If we use the only definition of fundamentalism that could be applied to atheism – “strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles” – then it seems that an atheist who stricty adheres to the denial or disbelief of supreme being(s) would indeed be a fundamentalist. But this answer robs the term of much of its intended rhetorical meaning, which is to put a dogmatic, religious spin on atheism. One may as well talk about fundamentalist accountants.
The term is meaningless to me, for a person is either an atheist, or is not. Atheism is an exceedingly simple position. If “atheist fundamentalism” exists, then all atheists are fundamentalists, and the distiction is meaningless – for there is no other kind. There are no schizms, no sects. There are no degrees of atheism. The same cannot be true of Protestantism. “Christian Fundamentalism” has a very real and significant meaning, for it distinguishes Fundamentalists from the other (I’ve lost count) denominations of Christianity.
Tulse: Yup Firefly is a lot of fun, and I believe Joss chose the name Serenity well. Mal’s journey and struggles map onto the prayer pretty well. (Ironic, eh?)
I am a bit confused. What is the hypothesis behind this tedious and time-consuming experiment?
Option 1: insulting people is great to reach the Top 5 emailed list. a) If you are a militant atheist, call stupid to whoever doesn’t agree. b) If ID fan, denounce personified evil. c) If somewhere in between, shout “fundamentalist!!!” in both directions.
= Status: validated
Option 2: insulting people not in one’s group will make them convert to one’s position.
= Status: falsified
Option 3: calling “the frontal enemy” names (doing so with people in group c, if you are a, and vicaeversa) will make the group in between (b) a solid ally.
= Status: apparently falsified
Option 4: insulting people not in one’s group will make all in-group members rally around.
= Status: validated
Option 5: getting all the in-group members rally around will be enough to create fundamental change in the pitiful science policy situation we live today in the US.
=Status: ???? (but isn’t this what we are doing here?)
I know I know. I can vote with my feet and try to learn about interesting topics elsewhere. I’d simply rather not to, given the great collection of bloggers here at SB.
Marcus, LOL.
Substitute “damn” every time you’re inclined to write “very”; your editor will delete it and the writing will be just as it should be. –Mark Twain
I dont think science and religion should connect, they are so entirely different. In what they say, the actual content of science and religion. Not their similiarites in how much one believes in them. That does not connect anything together. This lady is dumb, she doesnt know what she is talking about, just being a generic and “putting it out there” like she is oh so aware of everything.
I must admit this question is baffling to me. Where do the ethics come from? Why your parents and the society in which you are raised. Where did they get it-more of the same all the way back to our ancestors in forests who found they survived better by hunting and protecting each other than going it alone.
You see it in other primates now. Funny how people think this is some major unfathomable question.
I think there’s some confusion in the discussion between what’s [i]true[/i] and what’s [i]real[/i]. Reality is what, famously, doesn’t go away when you stop believing in it. Truth is a property of statements; a statement is true if it corresponds to reality. That means that sometimes we can’t tell if a statement is true, sometimes we can gather evidence and decide if it’s true, and sometimes we get that decision wrong. Reality, meanwhile, is quite unaffected by our uncertainties.
I see no problem with a scientist believing in a Deist perspective. This perspective has no doctrine. This would allow them to “research” their perceived spiritual side. The biggest problem with an established religion is that all of the testable data has come back negative. However, the overall possibility of there existing a higher yet-uninvolved power is regrettably still open.
As to the matter of truth. There are as many truths as grains of sand on a beach. No big ass capital “T” truth exists. The mathematics of today will be no more than a footnote in humankind’s truth. Time and perspective create truth and no truth is forever.
Enjoyable thread, much more so than Rob’s odious post or Sheril’s faulty one.
Wilkins actually managed a great post (see Sherils’ post for links), but petered out into the same lame conclusion as the above mentioned: “We want to see guaranteed respect, not tolerance.” Doubly addled because not only can they not find support for such a policy in social matters, but they will certainly never get it on (or from all of) the subject(s) of religion.
I’m not sure why you are surprised by the problems here since we can’t agree on the nature of reality, and truth is a much less valuable concept.
But for what it’s worth, I think it is definable. Truth values are commonly attributed to (models of) facts and theories. And this knowledge is consistent with (a slightly modified) philosophical definition of knowledge as “validated belief”, where observations respectively tests within some scientific method gives the validation. Presumably it is this truth we are discussing.
The problem with “truth” is that it is contingent. (Which, if it wasn’t obvious before, hints that this isn’t the idealized Truth of dogma or philosophy.) First, both when we measure and theorize we will start from a usually dismissed knowledge value of “don’t know”. Second, there is no guarantee that theories never will be replaced with better ones – in fact, it would be surprising if they weren’t.
Truth values are by construction better associated with an idealized static or even full knowledge than the one we deal with. So I rather discuss facts and reality than truths.
Enjoyable thread, much more so than Rob’s odious post or Sheril’s faulty one.
Wilkins actually managed a great post (see Sherils’ post for links), but petered out into the same lame conclusion as the above mentioned: “We want to see guaranteed respect, not tolerance.” Doubly addled because not only can they not find support for such a policy in social matters, but they will certainly never get it on (or from all of) the subject(s) of religion.
I’m not sure why you are surprised by the problems here since we can’t agree on the nature of reality, and truth is a much less valuable concept.
But for what it’s worth, I think it is definable. Truth values are commonly attributed to (models of) facts and theories. And this knowledge is consistent with (a slightly modified) philosophical definition of knowledge as “validated belief”, where observations respectively tests within some scientific method gives the validation. Presumably it is this truth we are discussing.
The problem with “truth” is that it is contingent. (Which, if it wasn’t obvious before, hints that this isn’t the idealized Truth of dogma or philosophy.) First, both when we measure and theorize we will start from a usually dismissed knowledge value of “don’t know”. Second, there is no guarantee that theories never will be replaced with better ones – in fact, it would be surprising if they weren’t.
Truth values are by construction better associated with an idealized static or even full knowledge than the one we deal with. So I rather discuss facts and reality than truths.
Alvaro: Thank you, very well stated.
H.Humbert, Steve LaBonne: Let me just ask you something — how many stem cell lines do you think would be available to publicly funded labs today if it were not for religiously-driven debate? Now, how many are there really?
Like it or not, science operates in the context of wider society. Scientists do not get to determine all their own regulation and restriction. And sadly, the magic funding pixies do not come down and sprinkle funding dust on good scientist boys’ and girls’ desks while they sleep.
If scientists want to be able to be able to get things done, then they need to be able to wield real influence over opinion, and you can’t just do that by threatening to break off research into, say, medical treatments if people really believe that praying to God will work better for them anyway, or carbon sequestration methods if no-one sees a need for them. And if you want to be able to change how wider society works, then you better understand how it works to begin with.
You can’t just claim “they’re ignoramuses and we can ignore them” when these are the people who elect the politicians who approve the funding and set the lab restrictions. If you are capable of understanding the complexities of physical science, you should not be unable to understand this chain of causality.
Sure:
If one only allows for a strict dictionary definition of the word and ignores the concepts of neologisms and
colloquialisms. (Let’s face it, “fundamentalist atheist” is part of the popular discourse regardless of how anyone here feels about it.) And, if one ignores the fact that certain portions of the atheist movement do seem to legitimize such a characterization by moving well beyond a simple expression of disbelief into rather vociferously agitating for a rather strict, very authoritarian code about what atheists and/or scientists should believe to be real “atheists” and/or “scientists.” One that brooks very little dispute or tolerance- replete as it is with accusations of “appeaser” and “Neville Chamberlain” atheists, claims that any scientist that entertains even a wildly diluted version of theism is a deluded, intellectually deluded puzzle-wit, and bizarre blogosphere jihads against any who question a handful of authoritarian voices. One that leads to clever little mottos like: “Rational, or faithful: pick ONE.” All of which seems awfully close to the dictionary definition of “dogma.”And finally, if one is willing to completely throw out what was clearly intended in both cases- inflaming passions in one case by calling out a group with nothing but pejoratives, compared to attempting to (perhaps clumsily) identify gradations in various philosophical frameworks (which is what she was clearly doing)- with in order to nit-pick at word choice.
Then yes. In that case alone, it becomes merely an issue of a “truth thing again.” Clearly, one can argue that Sheryl is clearly guilty of the very serious crime of- What? Expressing herself badly? Using a poor turn of speech?
For shame! I call shenanigans!
On the other hand- who cares?
At the very least, I can see where the theists are justified in getting a bit pissy when people call them “delusional” and “wicked”- they’re attempting to defend a positive belief that, in their estimation, contains some value, and the words are clearly pejorative.
Getting one’s shorts all in a bunch because someone uses an arguably religious word to characterize one’s disbelief, on the other hand- especially in such frankly tepid terms- is a bit odd. Especially when one considers that the term “fundamentalist” is only a pejorative in a very specific circumstance- primarily when non-believers are attacking extremist believers. Outside of that, it really carries very little weight at all.
If someone accused me of being a “fundamentalist disbeliever in Zeus,” my first reaction would be: “Well, I fundamentally disbelieve in Zeus, so… sure, if that’s what you want to call it, yeah, I guess I am.” If someone accosted me on the street and accused me of being a “fundamentalist round-earther” I would probably opine that, yes, I hold that the idea that the world is round is authoritative and not to be disputed or doubted, and move on with the rest of my day. Because its fairly clear in both those cases that the person in question was merely using an admittedly religiously charged word- “fundamentalist” – as a (possibly poor) substitute for extremist. And frankly, I have no problem with being called a fundamentalist disbeliever in nonsense, in either context. In fact, it has a rather nice ring.
On the other hand, if some one were to accuse me of being a relativist I would….
Wait a minute.
I call shenanigans!
(Admittedly, I don’t know if any of that was aimed at me, I just wanted to call shenanigans on someone.
As long as it is simply a matter of personal disbelief? No there isn’t.
Once some atheists start telling other atheists that they aren’t behaving like proper atheists, or telling theists what they are and aren’t capable of doing and thinking as though their opinions were immutable fact rather than opinion? Then, yes, there is.
Once again, no there is not because what you describe isn’t “fundamentalism.” It might be boorish or obnoxious behavior, but “fundamentalism” isn’t defined as being boorish and obnoxious. This is the basic issue which so many anti-atheists don’t seem to get: fundamentalism isn’t a derogatory label they can apply to whatever behavior and attitudes they happen to personally not like. Instead, why not use the specific descriptions of that behavior? Or would that be too difficult because in being specific, they would require specific evidence and arguments?
What happens when the truth “no truth is forever” ceases to be, as it itself proclaims must occur?
Why do we always get so many idiots who think they understand the nature of things but just blather nonsense endlessly? That’s the question *I’d* like answered.
And here I thought “fundamentalist” meant someone with their head up their fundament.
Luna, it’s you that are deluded. Once upon a time, the many other developed countries who now look with horror on the benighted religiosity of the US had similarly religion-throttled public spheres. I don’t know of any country in which the stranglehold of religious dogma over public policy was broken by the kind of nicey-nice appeasement that you advocate. It was broken by hard political struggle.
P.S. And don’t try to come back again with some lame remark about that not being what you’re advocating. If any meaning at all can be drawn from your words, that’s it. Otherwise you would appear to have no point at all.
Lying to people by telling them they can have their cake and eat it too merely perpetuates the status quo. It is in any case a degrading exercise that is unworthy of those who claim to care about truth. I don’t go around knocking on people’s doors to proclaim the absurdity of their beliefs, but neither am I going to conceal my thoroughly-considered opinion of the claims that religious woo and science are somehow “compatible”. And I doubt that PZ will be doing so any time soon either, so if it bothers you you should just stop reading.
I am leaving my comments here via a computer, which was not created by a god, but invented by scientists or as the result of scientific endeavors. What does “converts to science” have to do with this? What does science have to do with atheism or religion?
Can one tolerate and respect a belief at the same time? Is that coherent?
To tolerate something, you have to dislike it first. If you like it, there is no need to tolerate it.
If you dislike a belief, it can be because of relatively inconsequential reasons (esthetically displeasing, inane, merely annoying…) or for more important reasons (harmful, luring but dangerous…). There is usually no reason to respect the former, and there is plenty of reason to respect, but not tolerate the latter.
There are probably some beliefs that can rationally be both respected and tolerated, but, if so, they are rare.
We can tolerate some beliefs and respect most persons. That is the only constructive recipe for tolerance that is neither self-defeating nor self-deceiving.
Caledonian,
I certainly hope you don’t classify myself or a great many of the other posters here as idiots. As to idiots blathering on endlessly about the nature of things, all you need to do is ask yourself why you comment. However, be careful. You may need to sift through all that blather in your head to find the “truth.”
Are you seriously telling us that you’re unable to grasp the self-refuting nature of the proposition that “Time and perspective create truth and no truth is forever”? Or are you merely typing characters without any intent to assert the propositions expressed by the English sentences those characters happen to form?
OK, who did it?
Luna, the public tide on GW and stems cells is already turning, and it’s only happening because a) scientists and a good many concerned citizens are relentlessly promoting the scientific concerns and benefits underlying these issues, and b) because it’s becoming more and more apparent that the religious proponents and their arguments are full of shit.
This is how change occurs. By countering superstition, not by kowtowing to it.
Wow…Blake, you rock!
Ooh, Blake. Nice.
What a tragic waste of apparently healthy and intelligent young people. We need their brains and energy more than ever. But the three of them; Mooney, Nisbet, and Kirschenbaum are so infected with language games and the “linguistic turn” that they do much more harm than good.
When the so-called Society of Conservation Biology spews out tons of CO2 flying around the globe to wax scientific about ecosystem management, the future looks grim.
>I feel strongly that Science need not become universally synonymous with Godlessness because that certainly doesn’t win any converts.
And yet, each year millions use cell phones, pain relief medications, telescopes, and catalytic converters.
Funny that.
I think a recent Jesus and Mo made a valid point: “Epistemological relativism may be true for you, but it isn’t true for everybody.”
I consider anyone who doesn’t understand epistemological recursion to be a moron.
That’s you, Mr. “all truths end”.
“I have the impression that many of the posters on this blog believe that one cannot truly believe or understand science concepts and processes if he or she were to harbor any spiritual or religious beliefs.”
No, you can do it if you compartmentalize. I think it’s easier for the superstitious to recognize reality than a scientist to see phantoms, however. Didn’t Jesus say “It’s easier for damn fool to see through the eye of reason than one rich in brain matter to entertain a heaven.”? Or some such shit.
Luna,
I thing you need to recognize that this forum is intended for the free exchange of ideas. They need not be polite, but should be able to be defended. When theists are labeled as deluded or wicked, those claims can and have been backed up. When PZ is called an asshole that brings nothing to the debate. It is a comment meant to be hurtful and does not add to the debate. The intent is to express ideas in a truthful and forthright manner.
I wouldn’t discuss these topics with my fundamentalist family members because I have to see them from time to time and I wouldn’t want them to put me on their prayer chain which would be a waste of their time and a drain on their emotions.
This, however, is a great forum for writing what one really thinks. If you don’t like the tone then it’s a you problem. It’s your feelings not mine. I’m here to enjoy the discussion and speak freely. I only get irritated when a troll/shithead resorts to inane “your mother’s so ugly she…”, or “I know you are but what am I?” sort of arguments when its clear they have no clue and yet they really think their arguments are clever.
I find that posters here really go out of their way to encourage a good, clear, and intelligent discussion without resorting to name calling, (unless its really funny, or too easy to pass up or some other necessary reason).