August Berkshire also went to Ken Miller’s talk at St Catherine’s, and has now posted his review. It’s familiar: Miller gives a great science talk, and then when he starts talking about religion, everyone starts wondering where his skepticism went.
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
You’ve got a single quote in the tag instead of a double quote.
From the answers Miller gave Berkshire, his position looks quite deistic. He’s probably attached to all the mysterious ritualism, pomp, lingo more than actually believing it. Like kids who love to form their own secret club with passwords, a headquarter and rules – they’d surely add a lot of gold and burning stuff if they had the means – and not daring to let go of that childhood wishfulness.
The existing reality defense of Miller’s approach is that, yes of course it’s a mixture of good thinking and bad apologetics, but that is exactly the halfway compromise that many people need. Miller’s saying, you can keep your worldview without denyning science. Which is true, although not if you want an actually coherent worldview.
It’s the same defense that one makes of the “bad cop” New Atheists, that we need both types (more than two, in fact). Good cop says some idiotic things that soothe (and often deceive) the morons, but yes, if you want to make progress, you also have to be willing to soothe the deniers.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Off Topic: Recently visited Google Images for PZ Myers and found some fun stuff on multiple pages. Mostly affectionate, but some good snark also.
http://images.google.com/images?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=PZ%20MYERS&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi
Ken Miller’s “You can believe in god and still accept modern scientific discoveries” doesn’t work. Creationism is almost always incurable. Sucking up to childish religious beliefs accomplishes nothing. I lost count of the number of times I’ve heard creationists say “Ken Miller isn’t a real Christian.”
It would be more effective to forget about any creationist age 21 or over. Their lives are ruined and they will never recover from their disease. Instead concentrate on younger people, but don’t tell them believing in god is OK. Instead tell the truth: god is bullshit and you’ve been brainwashed by idiots. Tell them they will never have normal lives, and never be able to fully understand scientific concepts, unless they recover from the child abuse called religious indoctrination.
I like the last paragraph:
“Miller was raised by Roman Catholic parents and is “coincidently” a Roman Catholic himself. Of all the varieties of god belief he could have chosen, he “just happened” to pick the one he was raise with. Indoctrination has trumped evidence. To me, this seems like a very unintelligent design.”
“Miller’s saying, you can keep your worldview without denyning science. Which is true, although not if you want an actually coherent worldview.”
‘Incoherence’ is a strong charge. Exactly what contradictions are you referring to?
His iron tight grasp on his Catholicism and the science he also holds dear when he is explaining that ID is garbage yet finds no problem with the Idea of god.
Any religion apart from Deism is inconsistent with naturalism, and thus with science.
God guided the laryngeal nerve to wrap around the aorta. Way to fucking go!
He did say in the talk that his father was a seminarian who was studying for the priesthood until he discovered he loved girls more than celibacy. Maybe it’s a sense of filial duty that keeps him from making that final step?
The contradiction, or rather, the contrariness, is in accepting the requirement of sufficient evidence in one case (science), and not in another one (religion)–yet both exist in the same mind.
And I did not charge “incoherence,” I referred to a wordview that is not “coherent.” Generally the former is taken as wildly inconsistent, while the latter suggests a lack of consistency, while implicitly allowing that there may be considerable consistency within it.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Faith and reason aren’t necessarily incompatible
for the sufficiently compartmentalized mind.
I think of the Pope’s astronomers…
I don’t object to the idea of “god,” any more than I object to the idea of Zombies, or Captain Hook. They’re perfectly fine as ‘ideas.’
It’s where folks try to concretize ’em that problems seem to ensue…
Or more exactly, “while the latter suggests a lack of complete consistency, while implicitly allowing that there may nevertheless be considerable ‘degree of’ consistency within it.”
Miller has it rationalized well enough to be a good scientist, in other words, even though I would not recommend that he teach philosophy (well, maybe some kinds, but not the kind I prefer).
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
“Any religion apart from Deism is inconsistent with naturalism, and thus with science.”
Only naturalism is consistent with science?
Nonsense.
For example, one could, like Hawking, subscribe to positivism and reject all metaphysical views about the nature of the world — including naturalism.
You seem to be confusing methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism.
Second, deism is inconsistent with naturalism.
I think Miller is a post-modern fantasist when it comes to his recreational activities. Maybe this is how he enjoys his weekends?
“The contradiction, or rather, the contrariness, is in accepting the requirement of sufficient evidence in one case (science), and not in another one (religion)–yet both exist in the same mind.”
This doesn’t jibe with what you wrote, which was that his worldview and his science are ‘not coherent.’ Above, however, you’re referring to having different epistemic standards for different beliefs. These are obviously different claims.
But note that your second claim appeals to an easily refuted standard. We all hold sundry beliefs that not only do not, but cannot meet the ‘requirement of sufficient evidence.’ Properly basic beliefs, for example, are by definition not supported with appeals to ‘sufficient evidence.’
Eric, I did not specific metaphysical naturalism. Religion (apart from Deism) is incompatible with both methodological and metaphysical naturalism, since religion presumes the intervention of the supernatural in the natural world.
Deism is not inconsistent with methodological naturalism, since it presumes that, once things got started, the supernatural was and is no longer in play, and thus no longer has any explanatory power.
When trying to understand someone like Miller, Berkshire makes the same error that the creationists make. They are looking for a job for God. If God isn’t *doing* something, then he must not exist. And by *doing*, I mean whatever it is that the person asking the question presupposes God should be doing to announce his existence.
But God doesn’t need Bill Dembski or August Berkshire or anyone else giving him a job. He’s got a job and that is to be God. And I know that I’m not arrogant enough to imagine exactly what that might entail. I’m sure that God could have made every creature vegetarian if he felt like it, but how am I supposed to know why God does what he does? It’s like a parent who slaps a child’s hand to keep her from touching a hot stove. The child thinks it’s capricious not because her mother is cruel and unloving but because she doesn’t understand. Watching people ask stupid questions like why did God make birth defects is like watching four year olds try to figure out all the rules of baseball after watching the first pitch of a single game.
“Religion (apart from Deism) is incompatible with both methodological and metaphysical naturalism, since religion presumes the intervention of the supernatural in the natural world.”
Tulse, this isn’t true. While ‘religion’ (including deism on most conceptions of naturalism) is inconsistent with metaphysical naturalism, it’s decidedly not inconsistent with methodological naturalism. One could consistently believe, for example, both that god acts in the world, and that science only studies natural phenomena. There’s no contradiction whatsoever there. All that follows from that is that if X is in fact a result of divine intervention, it can never be explained scientifically (given methodological naturalism), and that scientists, qua scientists, will have to remain at worst agnostic about X’s cause (though they may, of course, support some extremely improbable natural cause).
You’re obviously a dickhead. If you’re too stupid to understand that having different epistemic standards for different beliefs regarding claimed “existential matters” is “not coherent,” you’re obviously too stupid to be dealing in these matters.
Yes, Kant and all that. Christ, you’re a tedious bore and pedant.
Since no one was discussing the basic “categories” with which we meet the world–rather we were discussing claims about what “exists outside of us”–you’re running a bait and switch scam here (equivocation). What is more, when understood properly, they are indeed sufficiently evidenced.
Showing what a loser you are at philosophy. Of course they’re based upon “sufficient evidence,” namely that they are already “given,” empirical elements of the world shared by sane folk (to be sure, the insane show the tenuousness of these “givens,” nevertheless we can and do check our thought processes against apparent “others”). They are bits of the “software” used to process data coming from “the world,” sufficiently based in our “intersubjective comparisons.”
You’re deliberately confusing the internal processing of our minds, which is understood as having “sufficient evidence” on a quite different manner than what we (usually) consider in a court, with the sort of claims that are made regarding the existence of spirits, quantum phenomena, or of “darwinian evolution.” You are egregiously dishonest, IOW, even if you’re simply a poseur who is too damn ignorant to know the difference. Poseurs are liars via their poses.
Idiot.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
I have not read any of Miller’s material (yet), but I have heard him speak on a few occasions now. It occurred to me that there was this undercurrent of self-importance in all of his discussion. Continuing references to his critical importance to the trial and the import of his written work (justifiably or not). I would posit that it is not so much his RC background as it is his ego that helps continue the incoherence. I have observed this is in many of the religious folk I interact with. Whereas some of us can thrive and take meaning from our insignificance, those among us with stronger egos need to have a(their?) place in the cosmos relative to their(a?) god.
Tax Religion. In praise of Freudian insignificance ….
Tark
As always, the problem with theology is that people are all too willing to make claims about what God is like, what he can do, and what he is willing to do. Miller makes claims about God’s motives and intentions when he really has no evidence for these whatsoever — they’re based on Miller’s own biases about what Miller wants God to be able and willing to do.
I can only assume that if Miller encountered a scientist working this way, on their hopes and wishes instead of the evidence, that he would call them out on it. Pity he can’t apply the same approach to his own beliefs.
When I interviewed Ken Miller, he seemed to be very edgy toward me at first. I was presenting him some dumb creationist arguments from some guy at the Creationist Museum, but I was doing so without stating any of my views. Methinks he assumed I was a creationist. You’d think a guy who basically buys the majority of the creationist argument wouldn’t be so hostile.
Kenny boy sees a middle ground, a group that he can appeal to. If he brings people to the middle ground, it’s a plus, IMO.
But then, Kwok is huge fan, so what the fuck do I know?
IOW, Eric, you either know just enough philosophy to run a manure spreader into these discussions, or you’re simply dishonest.
So fuck off. I’m not going to play your idiot games in a subject I value–philosophy.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Michael @20
“But God doesn’t need Bill Dembski or August Berkshire or anyone else giving him a job. He’s got a job and that is to be God. And I know that I’m not arrogant enough to imagine exactly what that might entail.”
Or alternatively, one can just say that there is no ‘God’. Therefore no questions of what is or isnt his job. Therefore no need to be arrogant or meek. And definitely no need to imagine or not imagine what exactly does that entail.
See!! Much much simpler.
I just can’t take Ken Miller seriously. I want to, as he could kick my ass in the biological sciences any day, and I really respect that. But I can’t respect the opinion of a man who demands such extreme proof of a science, but throws the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to a belief in a god.
Oh Ken – how I want to have my man crush on you, and can’t!
Michael @20: “He’s got a job and that is to be God. And I know that I’m not arrogant enough to imagine exactly what that might entail. I’m sure that God could have made every creature vegetarian if he felt like it, but how am I supposed to know why God does what he does?”
This is all well and good if you’re arguing for deism, but Miller isn’t a deist. Catholicism, like many religions, is “arrogant enough” to make certain claims about God. Not just the specific things like whether God wants you to use a condom or not, but basic characteristics like “God loves you” and “God wants us to praise Him.” All that humility and inability to “know why God does what he does” seems to just hide in the shadows until it’s time to protect you against counter-arguments.
“If you’re too stupid to understand that having different epistemic standards for different beliefs regarding claimed “existential matters” is “not coherent,” you’re obviously too stupid to be dealing in these matters.”
Really? I’m going to suppose that you believe that other minds exist. Surely, this qualifies as an ‘exisztential matter.’ Now, do you demand the same evidence for this conclusion (i.e. that other minds exist) as you do for scientific ‘existential matters’? If you demand the same sort of evidence, and if your views are ‘coherent’ (in your sense of the term), then you must have the same sort of scientific evidence, in which case I implore you to publish it immediately. If you don’t — and we know you don’t — well, don’t worry: you don’t have to get back to me on that one. You can slink away quietly…
“Since no one was discussing the basic “categories” with which we meet the world–rather we were discussing claims about what “exists outside of us”–you’re running a bait and switch scam here (equivocation).”
What? First, you were discussing whether a religious worldview and science are coherent, then you went on to discuss the different standards of evidence for different claims. Now, if you’re talking worldviews, science, and epistemology, then I fail to see how what I said was somehow a ‘bait and switch’; indeed, as I pointed out, it was you who attempted to change the subject.
“Showing what a loser you are at philosophy. Of course they’re based upon “sufficient evidence,” namely that they are already “given,” empirical elements of the world shared by sane folk”
That made me chuckle. Thanks for that.
You’ve confused justification with evidence. Um, these are distinct concepts. Properly basic beliefs are justified even though they are not supported with an appeal to evidence.
Just to twist the knife into your fragile intellectual ego
a bit deeper, let’s look at an example of what is commonly thought to be a properly basic belief, viz. the belief that the external world exists. We’re justified in believing this, but what evidence can you provide to support it? Any evidence would be question begging insofar as it would presuppose the existence of the external world.
“Poseurs are liars via their poses.”
Indeed.
Wholly crapzilla this is going to be a short and not so sweet war if our strategy is to use but one tactic, that of the bullhorn and club.
Miller is a brilliant subversive and the defacto leader of the fifth column. Unless we are doing this to keep his position among the religious hordes a secret, we should be giving him some vocal support.
GaryB, so what should people who have a principled disagreement with Miller do? Is he exempt from criticism?
Evolution is true; my god told me.
Ken Miller
What we don’t yet know about evolution, my god will reveal in good time.
Ken Miller
My god told me that the older I get the more I will finally dispense with evolution and science disciplines and embrace religion wholeheartedly, thereby fulfilling the inate unequivocal need for it in the first place. I will no longer have to pretend that my science is diluted by my true belief in a god. Call me senile or a phony, but I will now leave no doubt where I stand. My god directs me from now on.
Ken Miller
Enough.
Eric:
Um, that was ‘epistemic standards’, not ‘evidence’, that he was referring to.
I first asked why God couldn’t have made all creatures vegetarians, so that some animals wouldn’t have to painfully and cruelly kill and eat others. Miller said that that would mean that God would be stepping in and interfering with the natural evolutionary processes that he had set in motion.
So God chose to have a creation with suffering and damnation and cruelty… for what reason? That’s right folks. Just to have more things that would worship God. The angels, apparently, weren’t good enough for that.
Dr.Woody wrote:
Yes they are.
And there’s your proof. If they were “compatible” then they wouldn’t need to be compartmentalized. Calling faith and reason compatible is like saying a man and woman are “compatible” as a couple so long as they never spend any time in the same room together.
I like mysterious ritual, pomp, and in-group lingo, too. But two things separate me from the religious. For one, I don’t think ritual, pomp, and in-group lingo are all that important to humanity in general. They’re fun for me, but not necessary to living a fulfilling life for everyone. Secondly, and more importantly, I don’t actually believe Han Solo was a real person.
heretic
You take that back! I’m telling Mom!
No kings,
Robert
Eric,
Your arguments re: existence and perception have been noted. When these arguments become relevant to proving the existence of an interventionist god (or failing that, the statistical probability of aforementioned) you will be paged. Until then please take a seat and STFU.
Seriously, high school solipsism? In this day and age? What is the world coming to?
My dad has faith in both religion and science. He told me last night that evolution is true. All those brown/black/yellow/red peoples evolved from apes, but us white people are descendants of Noah and his kids, who are descendants of Adam and Eve, a special creation of God. He also thinks the bunyip is a cat-like marsupial, about the size of a small horse, that is still alive today and really good at hiding. He’s got one living in the hills behind his property and apparently it comes down to visit occasionally. He says the aborigines were so scared of it they never painted it’s likeness for fear of calling it to them. I think the local aborigines have been playing him for a sucka.
If anyone is interested, Ken Miller put out a DVD on Evolution in 2006 that covers the Dover trial, ID, God, and even Eugenics and best of all it’s FREE! It was done with the Howard Hughes Medical Intstitute (HHMI) and every year they put out free books, DVD lectures, and online resources about biology…and did I mention its FREE! It’s an excellent resource if you are a teacher, student or just interested in biology. HHMI should be its own post. You do have to sign up, but that’s free too. Also, they do ask for feedback on the DVDs.
Here’s the link http://www.hhmi.org/
Here is the catalog http://www.hhmi.org/
Enjoy and happy shopping.
Chris
Miller said that that would mean that God would be stepping in and interfering with the natural evolutionary processes that he had set in motion. (Evidently God avoids miracles these days.)
The Roman Catholics set Miller in motion (metaphorically speaking) and he refuses to step in to interfere with their brainwashing.
I oughtn’t feed such a stupid troll, but I need a break from what I’m doing.
Other minds are indeed an “existential matter”–when we’re dealing with science, court cases, or other “objective matters.” They are not an “existential matter” when one is understanding them phenomenologically or “intersubjectively.” Which you’d know if you had the intelligence and learning to get into these things.
More dishonest (probably because you’re an uneducated poseur) equivocation from the dolt.
In a court, or during psychological experimentation, yes, I do. In the phenomenological sense, I do not, as I simply accept the appearances (to my mind at least–or more correctly, mental constructs) of other minds which I am incapable of showing “truly exist.” It’s very easy using various unprovable assumptions to “demonstrate that a particular mind exists outside of myself,” when without those unprovable assumptions (that is, when I’m doing philosophy, not science) I know very well that I cannot demonstrate that they exist at all.
The fact that you can’t comprehend the different ways of “understanding minds to exist” demonstrates what an ignorant troll you are. Did you even have first year philosophy, or are you just winging it from shit you read on the interwebs?
Dumbass.
Do you even have a clue to the difference between “intersubjective” (for which I also have to use scare quotes) and “objective”? Or why I’d even use the term “intersubjective,” scare quotes or not?
Obviously you don’t, or you wouldn’t be demonstrating what a stupid fuck you are, yet again.
Since you’re too stupid to understand the words I used, you again dishonestly conflate “basic knowledge” with the “outside knowledge” which I was pointedly distinguishing.
God you’re dumb!
And quit projecting your mindlessness onto those whose writing you fail to comprehend.
No I wasn’t, stupid asshole. I was discussing “having different epistemic standards for different beliefs regarding claimed ‘existential matters'”. The point is that saying that “god exists” is basically the same as saying that “archaeopteryx existed” in any honest (not yours) worldview.
Or, saying that “I can show that his mind exists” is essentially the same sort of claim that “god exists” or that “archaeopteryx existed” when I am doing science or “proving something” in court. The mere fact that I cannot show that other minds exist in a philosophical sense matters not, because those are simply phenomena (actually, constructions of more basic phenomena) which I accept as impingeing upon my consciousness in a usefully (hardly totally) constant and reliable manner (as opposed to dream phenomena).
You’re too stupid even to understand this, I know.
No, I treated “existential claims” in the same manner. You’re the fuckwit who conflates basic phenomenological understandings which are only considered (in philosophy, at least) to be reliable phenomena with actual epistemic claims.
And you’re too dumb even to recognize the fact when it’s pointed out to you.
I’m sure your stupidity gives you plenty of cause to chuckle.
No, ass, I used quote marks for a reason. And because they’re just words (which you’re too stupid to understand), I can either call it “sufficient evidence” or I may utilize other terminology.
A stupid pedant insists that “justification” is fundamentally different from “sufficient evidence.” I have to use quote marks around either one, in fact, because they’re all contingent and subject to questioning in the most “fundamental sense.”
Says the dumbfuck who fails to recognize the meaning of quote marks.
Only in some interpretations, though you’re too ignorant and stupid to know that.
Really? I failed to notice any sharpness, or even intelligence, in anything you’ve written on this thread.
No we aren’t, you mindless buffoon. We’re justified in taking it on a phenomenological basis. “Exists” itself is a meaningless word in philosophy, that is to say, in any philosophy to which I might subscribe (yes, there are philosophies that consider “exists” to be fundamental, as morons like you do).
Your stupidity is enormous.
This is your worst problem here, the fact that you don’t even recognize that an external world cannot be “justified” or considered to have “sufficient evidence” (since the two are in fact the same thing). Apparently you have no clue regarding phenomenological philosophy, which would never accept the “outside world” to be “justified” in the least, mainly because there is “no evidence” for it.
That’s what decent continental philosophy is all about, recognizing that we can’t “justify” constructs like “the belief that the external world exists,” because we in fact do not have “sufficient evidence” for them. That is to say, we do not treat different epistemic claims differently, as you do, we stick to the fact that what we know are phenomena.
What we can justify (as the phenomenological evidence is undeniable)are the phenomena which we experience, and we can check our phenomenal experiences against those of “others,” so long as we recognize that the “existence of other minds” is not in fact “justified” by being given “sufficient evidence” of the sort that we do accept for phenomenological experiences.
Beyond that, we can cross-correlate our “intersubjective experiences” (doing so does not depend upon other minds existing, of course, but rather as phenomena that press upon our judgment), and come up with “objective standards” for “existential claims”. Once that happens, indeed we treat “god claims” the same as “archaeopteryx claims.”
I could have mentioned how profoundly ignorant and stupid poseurs like you are, as well.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Oops, the catalog link is http://www.hhmi.org/catalog/main?action=home
And understand that I use “epistemic” there and elsewhere in more the vernacular or scientific sense.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Glen, I’m going to print that priceless response! Do I have your permission to copy it and distribute it to the philosophy of mind section I’m TAing? (I should tell you up front that it’s not at Wacka Wacka Community College, though.)
Actually, the most amusing thing about it is that it was written by someone who earlier was concerned with coherence!
Wait! My roommate, who is TAing a first year course in epistemology, just read your post and wants a copy of it too (at least I think that’s what he said — I’m having a difficult time understanding him between guffaws).
I’m going to send it out to a few more people, so this may be big!
Anyone who can take me and my friends from a chuckle to a
guffaw in no time flat is OK in my book. We’re starting to like you, Glen ol’ boy.
Glen:
I would say mis- rather than uneducated, if this is the same eric that previously graced us with some brand of Thomism?
No, fucktard. Why would I do anything for a mindless idiot like yourself?
As far as CC goes, it’s convenient for computer classes I didn’t get while taking philosophy in undergrad and grad schools. I don’t doubt that you’ll lie about such a fact, but lying becomes you.
I do understand that you have to laugh at what you are too dumb to comprehend. Ignorance is your lot, and you revel in it, forcing your laughs to cover your lack of understanding of philosophy.
Do whatever you want, of course, though I’d recommend staying within the law–more so to cover myself than because I care about your violations and ignorance. On the whole, I really don’t care what you do, since you’re too dumb even to converse with someone having the education that I have.
Your vacuousness is your only capability, apparently.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Eric, it’s a public forum and you’re posing not posting, if sardonic bluster can be called that. Distribute away.
More importantly, you could’ve just written “I disagree” and conveyed exactly as much substance. Gah.
Sure. But I don’t know, the fact is that I studied the philosophy he “knows” (if not to the same level as continetal), as well as continental philosophy. I don’t think one should learn philosophy without studying metaphysics (if mostly to shoot it down), analytic philosophy, and at least some of the continental thought (Kant for sure, and Nietzsche is certainly a good read). So it’s difficult not to see it as uneducated, even if he’s taken a decade of post-grad work in obscuring the real issues in philosophy.
Of course, “mis-educated” and “uneducated” intersect in meaning, so I’m more explaining what I wrote than disagreeing with what you wrote. “Mis-educated” will do just fine, I agree.
There’s something about running into these people on the web, though. In my sensibility, they seem to be resolutely uneducated in the manner that creationists/IDists who have “studied creationism/ID in depth” (as some of them claim) appear to me to be. “Miseducated” is the more charitable way of stating it, and is not inaccurate, but it seems so much like “uneducated” to me.
Glen D
http://electricconsciousness.tripod.com
But, like, how do you know you know you know, you know? It’s like, is there there there, or are we just brains in a jar, man? I mean, like, think about it.
Have you ever really looked at a dollar? I mean really looked at it?
[/Eric the solipsist]
It’s amazing the number of mental contortions one must go through just to make theism appear not completely absurd. Of course, at that point the theist usually stops, knowing full well that there isn’t way to make it seem intellectually compelling. All that effort just to protect a belief with no actual evidence behind it. If it were expended over any other subject, the person would be laughed out of the room. But because the subject is god, suddenly we have to seriously entertain esoteric discussions on epistemological constraints and brains in vats. If it’s come to such extremes (and it always does), isn’t that a clue that theism isn’t a belief with any merit? Why try so hard to save such a feeble notion?
Are we enduring a badly re-hashed version of Hume for a reason?
Stogoe> You’re “dazed” pothead reference is pretty apt here…
I see straight from the banning here, facilis has found another blog to infest with his inane understanding of the situation.
Lots of folks need someone to re-assure them that it’s okay to trust science and ‘God’. The churches send a strong message that it’s not okay. Many strong atheists send a strong message that it’s not okay.
The simple truth is that there are many reasonable people want to trust science, and need to have religion in their lives.
Without making any claims about the value – or lack thereof – of religious belief, I would much rather have those people be comfortable trusting science and supporting science in the public sphere. If folks like Ken Miller help them do that, then he’s doing right by me.
PennyBright, shouldn’t that be “The simple truth is that there are many reasonable people want to trust science, and think they need to have religion in their lives.”?
I think religion is an indulgence, not a need (other than the way an addict has a “need”).
Kel wrote:
Which one?
Check the review, he’s there in the comments.
Yawn, Eric still thinks he is a philosopher. We know better. Yawn.
Damn Facilis gets banned and now he’s off bothering the civilians. And I think he’s claiming to be a theologian.
Kel,
Sorry, I thought you meant you’d come across facilis somewhere else. I hadn’t read the article.
Interesting he (facilis) mentions ‘other sciences’ as evidence for the existence of his god, i.e. archaelogical evidence for Jesus’ historicity.
Recently I realised that, even if there was indisputable proof of, not only Jesus’ existence, but of him actually performing the acts he’s supposed to have performed, that still wouldn’t confirm Yahweh’s existence – only Jesus’ possession of supernatural powers.
And why does the existence of supernaturalism automatically equate to the existence of a specific deity? There are any number of alternatives, as implausible and ridiculous as they might sound – and yet they are no less ridiculous than Christianity.
Short answer: demonstrated existence of magic ≠ demonstrated existence of gods
John,
I don’t think so. Religion is like any other intangible pleasure — one persons disposable nonsense, another persons absolute necessity. Me, I can live without religion — I don’t need it. Take away my books, on the other hand, and in short order you have a very unhappy nonfunctional miserable not so bright Penny.
No doubt there are other ways that humans can satisfy what ever “religious need” they feel, and obviously there are plenty of people who either outgrew, or simply never experienced a need for religion. Religion can be nasty stuff, and it would be nicer if fewer people needed it, and if they could get what they needed from less nasty versions of it.
Some people need books – some people need lovers – some people need music – some people need religion. As long as they aren’t robbing bookstores, raping others, blaring their stereos at eardrum shattering levels, or messing around with peoples personal lives or public policy, let them have what they need.
I think that Ken Miller is helping mitigate some of the worse effects that religion can have on people, by giving them permission to have science too. Hopefully, religion in our country will eventually develop into the kind of benign cultural relic it is countries like Sweden.
Hope does spring eternal.
religion?
we have developed awareness and language, tools and culture. We all love stories and we have countless stories of every kind conceivable. We need them and love them many people love them so much that they want them to be fact or true in some way. The best are true in some way. Don Quixote by Cervantes has truth in it but it is not a history no one I hope thinks that it ever happened but it is a great story and still moves us even in translation.
religion is a story also that too many think of as a history and is real. Even though it does contain some truth about us the story tellers it is a story nothing more, the story is enough. It is the Dream Time full of images and phantasms.
I love Middle Earth but it was never a concrete place.
You can’t drag people in to the light (reality) if they do not want to go. some times reading this blog I despair for humanity dream time has a strong pull and may lead us off the cliff to the dimmest dark ages yet but maybe not.
sorry I am some times a little scattered. I do not want to write an essay just some thoughts stimulated by the blog thread post.
Need? I don’t think they need it. They may think they need it, but they don’t.
Maybe I should say that many people have needs which they meet with religion. As nice as it would be to get them to meet those needs other ways, or get rid of the needs completely, I don’t think that’s a realistic goal.
I’m not trying to argue that needing religion is good, or people should need it, or nothing else can meet those same needs — just that there are people who do need it. And I’d rather have them be able to compartmentalize their beliefs and accept science then to believe that it is an either or proposition.
I could say the same thing about methamphetamines. That doesn’t mean I don’t think effort should be made to wean people off of them.
Hyperbole, sure. But there’s a reason churches run detox programs. They help turn one addiction into another. I’ve seen family go through it, and it’s pretty sick.
Paul, I pretty much agree with you. And I think that what Ken Miller does is an important step in that weaning — before you start taking a baby’s bottle away, you teach them how to drink from a sippy cup.
As I said, if he can get people who would otherwise be rejecting science to open their minds to it, by re-assuring them they can have science and their religion, he’s doing right by me.
Fair enough. It’s not that I don’t think Ken Millers can be helpful to the cause of rationality. It’s just hard for me to view otherwise rational people acting dishonestly to prop up religion (cf. PZ’s link where Miller discusses “Darwin’s God”) as anything but Fifth Columnists pandering to religion over rationality because there is more money that way*. So while they may help some people, I can’t help but feel some very deep-seated dislike for their position and manner.
* My view may be skewed by past working as part of the film crew for a very widely aired Christian Television program featuring weekly guests with overly saccharine stories (e.g. Francis Collins of the Frozen Waterfall). The science types are brought in so that the congregation can go home believing that REAL SCIENCE PROVES that CHRIST IS KING. It’s deceptive, manipulative, and an embarrassment to rationality. The only places where discussions of science being “compatible” with religion takes place are in theology classes and among Pascal-fearing agnostics. Everywhere else, people just want to be told that SCIENCE PROVES [their] RELIGION.
Heh, I forgot to add that “The science types are brought in so that the congregation can go home believing that REAL SCIENCE PROVES that CHRIST IS KING” is generally complemented with “buy my book, and I’ll be signing it next to the campus bookstore”.