One of the more idiotic comments made by Ben Stein in the Expelled kurfuffle (and wouldn't that be a contest), reflects a common opinion among the lower academic sphere of society. It is a very unscientific comment that contains an interesting bit of circular reasoning worth fleshing out:
"There are very few places where more nonsense is spoken than in universities. They are supposed to be the residual fortress of knowledge and sense, but they are fortresses of nonsense."
We've all variations of this: "Just cuz you went to college doesn't mean you're smart", "he's book smart but doesn't have any common sense", and so on. But notice the reasoning process that occurs here. Universities promote nonsense? OK, well when such a person is asked for an example of this nonsense, what do we get in reply? From Stein, apparently we'd get the notion that evolution is sound science and creationism/ID is pseudoscience. From others, it would be multiculturalism, or gay rights, or any number of issues.
The one thing they all lack however, is any factual basis for the proclamation of nonsense. It is not as if those "nonsense" positions violate some scientific law/theory, contain logical contradictions, or run contrary to some fact. Stein has no basis for proclaiming universities promoters of nonsense beyond the fact that they reach conclusions he doesn't care for.
It's a nice little circle of ignorance, dontcha think? The implicit assumption is that Stein can't be wrong. I believe the word for that is "faith". It always comes back to that, doesn't it?
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Friday, May 2, 2008
Predictions of Short-Term Cooling, and the Complexity of Global Warming
In an article surely to be a favorite for crank quote-mining, scientists using retroactively tested models, predict a slight cooling of Europe and North America over the next decade caused by shifting ocean currents. This will temporarily mute the effect of global warming, but unfortunately, it will be a temporary respite.
To understand how this is possible, consider the climate of England and Newfoundland. They are at about the same latitude, and yet Newfoundland has much a colder climate. The reason is the gulf stream, which flows from the Gulf of Mexico across the Atlantic to England, bringing warm water into the otherwise cold North Sea. Change the flow of the gulf stream, and you get a colder England.
Of course the Global Warming denialists will jump all over this study as proof that AGW has been falsified. As one of the scientists put it:
"Too many think global warming means monotonic relentless warming everywhere year after year," Dr. Trenberth said. "It does not happen that way."
Indeed, it is interesting to note how often one sees a comment like "How can you predict weather 100 years from now if you can't even predict the weather tomorrow?" Such comments reveal a lack of understanding of the law of large numbers. To illustrate the point, consider the difficulty in predicting the next roll of the dice in contrast to predicting the total of 1,000 such rolls. While the roll of one die will vary from 1 - 6 with equal probability, the total of 1,000 rolls will come very close to the expected mean of 3,500.
Likewise with temperature. Of course there will always be variance in temperature, both temporally and geographically. Climate change refers to the total figures, not the short-term fluctuations. This is why one year's data means nothing, and why recent charges that global warming has stopped based on an unusually high 1998 and unusually low 2007 are fraudulent. Expect more such fraudulent claims if the predictions of these scientists come to pass.
To understand how this is possible, consider the climate of England and Newfoundland. They are at about the same latitude, and yet Newfoundland has much a colder climate. The reason is the gulf stream, which flows from the Gulf of Mexico across the Atlantic to England, bringing warm water into the otherwise cold North Sea. Change the flow of the gulf stream, and you get a colder England.
Of course the Global Warming denialists will jump all over this study as proof that AGW has been falsified. As one of the scientists put it:
"Too many think global warming means monotonic relentless warming everywhere year after year," Dr. Trenberth said. "It does not happen that way."
Indeed, it is interesting to note how often one sees a comment like "How can you predict weather 100 years from now if you can't even predict the weather tomorrow?" Such comments reveal a lack of understanding of the law of large numbers. To illustrate the point, consider the difficulty in predicting the next roll of the dice in contrast to predicting the total of 1,000 such rolls. While the roll of one die will vary from 1 - 6 with equal probability, the total of 1,000 rolls will come very close to the expected mean of 3,500.
Likewise with temperature. Of course there will always be variance in temperature, both temporally and geographically. Climate change refers to the total figures, not the short-term fluctuations. This is why one year's data means nothing, and why recent charges that global warming has stopped based on an unusually high 1998 and unusually low 2007 are fraudulent. Expect more such fraudulent claims if the predictions of these scientists come to pass.
Dembski's Predictions on the Impact of Expelled (starring God!)
On the day Expelled premiered, William Dembski wrote an article for The Baptist Press, which aside from the amusing predictions (inaccurate as always), also revealed once again how Intelligent Design is all about the religion, not the science. He isn't even subtle:
"Who likes it? People who think God may have had something to do with our being here and therefore find it reasonable that God may have left tangible evidence of His involvement in creation. Who hates it? A science, education and media elite who prefer that God had nothing to do with it and think that nature must do all its own creating."
Wow. For someone promoting a theory wherein we are not supposed to inquire into the nature of the designer, Dembski sure doesn't have any problem doing so. It's not some mysterious intelligence, or aliens. It's the Christian God, as we all knew all along.
I guess it should not surprise us too much that people who are so anti-science would have such a hard time understanding how the internet works. They seem to think they can say "science, science, science" to scientists and the press, but "God, God, God" to the faithful and no one will notice. Dembski's pat response to this criticism is to claim he is wearing his "theology hat" when he says things like "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory". And were Dembski talking politics or theology, he could get away with this. But in science, that just isn't the way things work. You don't get to change your position depending on your audience in science. Your theory either says the designer is the Christian God, or it doesn't.
Worse yet, his statement is inaccurate on its own terms. People like Father Coyne, Francis Collins, and Ken Miller have no problem with God The Creator, and they have a lot of company. But like all cranks, the Expelled crew had to cherry pick the featured interviewees in the film to make it appear that the battle is between atheists and Christians, when it is really just a minority of Christians vs everyone else. Thus Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers were in, and the group above was out. As one of the Expelled crew noted, having the Millers, Coyne's and Collins' of the world in there would have "confused" the message of the film.
There is the anti-science attitude of the IDers laid bare. Where a scientist sees contrary evidence requiring revision of his hypothesis, the IDer sees something that needs to be censored so as to not confuse the hypothesis. As if that wasn't bad enough, Dembski puts the nail in the ID-is-science coffin with this humdinger:
"Who's right? That's the wrong question."
The Hell it is Billy boy. That's a religious statement, not a scientific one. In science, who (or more accurately, "what") is right is ALWAYS the question. The fact that scientific theories undergo periodic revision only slightly alters the question to "who is rightest?" One does not get to go all postmodern simply because science does not yield perfect information as if from on high.
Dembski then dives headlong into the favorite red herring from IDers, conflating evolution and abiogenesis. But even then Dembski's lack of understanding of how science works betrays him:
"Take some organic chemicals, slow cook them, give enough time, and out pops life? This isn't a scientific theory. This is an article of speculative faith."
Nooooo, it is a speculative hypothesis based on the best available evidence, and one that will be discarded the minute a hypothesis with solid evidence comes along. Faith doesn't enter into it. But to Dembski's unscientific mind, one either has absolute truth, or anything goes. And here, of course, "anything" is ID, which by Dembski's bizarro reasoning somehow isn't practicing speculative faith when it asserts that the designer is Yahweh.
So really, in the end, as always, ID boils down to "I can't see how abiogenesis occurred, therefore God", which is what dooms Expelled. Creationism's cheap tux is wearing thin. But don't try to tell Dembski that. Like the doomsayers of old, no matter how many times his predictions of the collapse of the scientific world fail to transpire, he is undeterred in his zealotry:
"Expelled's impact will be felt immediately. But its long-term impact will be even greater...The day Darwinism and Intelligent Design can be fairly discussed without fear of reprisal represents the removal of a barrier even greater than the Berlin Wall. When future intellectual historians describe the key events that led to the fall of "Darwin's Wall," Ben Stein's Expelled will top the list.
Oh yeah? I've got a bottle of single malt scotch that says when intellectual historians look back on the significant events of 2008, and you mention "Expelled" to them, their response will be: "What?".
"Who likes it? People who think God may have had something to do with our being here and therefore find it reasonable that God may have left tangible evidence of His involvement in creation. Who hates it? A science, education and media elite who prefer that God had nothing to do with it and think that nature must do all its own creating."
Wow. For someone promoting a theory wherein we are not supposed to inquire into the nature of the designer, Dembski sure doesn't have any problem doing so. It's not some mysterious intelligence, or aliens. It's the Christian God, as we all knew all along.
I guess it should not surprise us too much that people who are so anti-science would have such a hard time understanding how the internet works. They seem to think they can say "science, science, science" to scientists and the press, but "God, God, God" to the faithful and no one will notice. Dembski's pat response to this criticism is to claim he is wearing his "theology hat" when he says things like "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory". And were Dembski talking politics or theology, he could get away with this. But in science, that just isn't the way things work. You don't get to change your position depending on your audience in science. Your theory either says the designer is the Christian God, or it doesn't.
Worse yet, his statement is inaccurate on its own terms. People like Father Coyne, Francis Collins, and Ken Miller have no problem with God The Creator, and they have a lot of company. But like all cranks, the Expelled crew had to cherry pick the featured interviewees in the film to make it appear that the battle is between atheists and Christians, when it is really just a minority of Christians vs everyone else. Thus Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers were in, and the group above was out. As one of the Expelled crew noted, having the Millers, Coyne's and Collins' of the world in there would have "confused" the message of the film.
There is the anti-science attitude of the IDers laid bare. Where a scientist sees contrary evidence requiring revision of his hypothesis, the IDer sees something that needs to be censored so as to not confuse the hypothesis. As if that wasn't bad enough, Dembski puts the nail in the ID-is-science coffin with this humdinger:
"Who's right? That's the wrong question."
The Hell it is Billy boy. That's a religious statement, not a scientific one. In science, who (or more accurately, "what") is right is ALWAYS the question. The fact that scientific theories undergo periodic revision only slightly alters the question to "who is rightest?" One does not get to go all postmodern simply because science does not yield perfect information as if from on high.
Dembski then dives headlong into the favorite red herring from IDers, conflating evolution and abiogenesis. But even then Dembski's lack of understanding of how science works betrays him:
"Take some organic chemicals, slow cook them, give enough time, and out pops life? This isn't a scientific theory. This is an article of speculative faith."
Nooooo, it is a speculative hypothesis based on the best available evidence, and one that will be discarded the minute a hypothesis with solid evidence comes along. Faith doesn't enter into it. But to Dembski's unscientific mind, one either has absolute truth, or anything goes. And here, of course, "anything" is ID, which by Dembski's bizarro reasoning somehow isn't practicing speculative faith when it asserts that the designer is Yahweh.
So really, in the end, as always, ID boils down to "I can't see how abiogenesis occurred, therefore God", which is what dooms Expelled. Creationism's cheap tux is wearing thin. But don't try to tell Dembski that. Like the doomsayers of old, no matter how many times his predictions of the collapse of the scientific world fail to transpire, he is undeterred in his zealotry:
"Expelled's impact will be felt immediately. But its long-term impact will be even greater...The day Darwinism and Intelligent Design can be fairly discussed without fear of reprisal represents the removal of a barrier even greater than the Berlin Wall. When future intellectual historians describe the key events that led to the fall of "Darwin's Wall," Ben Stein's Expelled will top the list.
Oh yeah? I've got a bottle of single malt scotch that says when intellectual historians look back on the significant events of 2008, and you mention "Expelled" to them, their response will be: "What?".
Gore, Ghandi, Dembski, and the Do as You Say Argument
“You must become the change you wish to see in the world”. So said Ghandi, and as activist admonitions go, it is sage advice. There is nothing like leading by example. The image of the crusader walking the walk is worth a thousand posturing speeches. However, it is important to note that this is, at its core, a pragmatic argument*. It is not one of moral imperative, or logical necessity. Thus, this argument by Bill Dembski:
"Is it possible to copyright a song that disavows possessions (copyright being a form of possession)? Once Ono realizes the self-referential incoherence of her suit, I trust she’ll drop it."
…has no more validity than the arguments made by those who would dismiss global warming because of perceived failings in Al Gore’s personal life. There is no moral or logical argument that says one must behave now as if the rules were the way one wants them to be. If I am a basketball coach, and I believe the 3-point shot ought to be abolished, that puts no onus on me to not accept 3-points for those shots. Likewise, if Yoko Ono thinks society would be a lot better off if no one concerned themselves with possessions, that places no onus on her to have no concern for her possessions now. Such an argument ignores the prisoners' dilemma, and makes the reverse mistake of that at the root of the tragedy of the commons.
That is, an action that is advantageous for a group to do, might be highly disadvantageous for individuals to do, especially if others do not take that action. Disarmament is an extreme example. Humanity might be better off if we all disarm, but America is not going to be better off if only we disarm. Likewise, one might argue mankind would be better off living in communes rather than capitalist societies, while still recognizing the impracticality of attempting to live as if one lived on a commune while living in a capitalist society. This is essentially what Dembski is arguing Yoko must do to be consistent with her husband's song.
And lest the world forget, the ultimate in self-referential incoherence was the Expelled crew, who claim they are censored and expelled unfairly, did everything they could to censor criticism, and expelled a thanked star of their film from attending a free screening of it. I owe you all some irony-meters.
======
* I am concerning myself with this argument in and of itself. I am therefore assuming that one does not add on any other obligations, which then would, obviously, negate my assumption. For example, if you make your normative argument based on morals, then obviously that same argument would apply to you.
"Is it possible to copyright a song that disavows possessions (copyright being a form of possession)? Once Ono realizes the self-referential incoherence of her suit, I trust she’ll drop it."
…has no more validity than the arguments made by those who would dismiss global warming because of perceived failings in Al Gore’s personal life. There is no moral or logical argument that says one must behave now as if the rules were the way one wants them to be. If I am a basketball coach, and I believe the 3-point shot ought to be abolished, that puts no onus on me to not accept 3-points for those shots. Likewise, if Yoko Ono thinks society would be a lot better off if no one concerned themselves with possessions, that places no onus on her to have no concern for her possessions now. Such an argument ignores the prisoners' dilemma, and makes the reverse mistake of that at the root of the tragedy of the commons.
That is, an action that is advantageous for a group to do, might be highly disadvantageous for individuals to do, especially if others do not take that action. Disarmament is an extreme example. Humanity might be better off if we all disarm, but America is not going to be better off if only we disarm. Likewise, one might argue mankind would be better off living in communes rather than capitalist societies, while still recognizing the impracticality of attempting to live as if one lived on a commune while living in a capitalist society. This is essentially what Dembski is arguing Yoko must do to be consistent with her husband's song.
And lest the world forget, the ultimate in self-referential incoherence was the Expelled crew, who claim they are censored and expelled unfairly, did everything they could to censor criticism, and expelled a thanked star of their film from attending a free screening of it. I owe you all some irony-meters.
======
* I am concerning myself with this argument in and of itself. I am therefore assuming that one does not add on any other obligations, which then would, obviously, negate my assumption. For example, if you make your normative argument based on morals, then obviously that same argument would apply to you.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
ID Gets It's Stage: The Oxford Conference
In an interesting twist to the ID saga, The Ian Ramsey Center at the University of Oxford is having a conference on Intelligent Design called God, Nature and Design:
Historical and Contemporary Perspectives. It looks like an interesting mix of papers, both critical and supportive of ID. It will be interesting to see how the There are a few items of note. Of the 21 papers submitted so far, six titles contain either "God", "divine", or "moral". I guess the pretense that ID is not about religion has gone down the memory hole to sit next to "cdesign proponentsists", and "creation science".
It will also be very interesting to see how the defenders of ID withstand a critical audience. ID proponents tend to avoid doing battle on any playing field they can't control, thus the censorious policies of so many of their blogs and conferences. However, it would be disappointing if William Dembski's claim that the "vanguard" of the ID movement, ie it's brightest lights, were not invited. That would be both an intellectual, and public relations, nightmare. However, given Dembski's tenuous relationship with reality, I will refrain from judgement at this time until I hear back from the conference organizers.
I find it also notable that the conference appears, based on the submission summaries, to be one of philosophy, not science. So regardless of the outcome, ID still appears to be a nonscientific movement.
Historical and Contemporary Perspectives. It looks like an interesting mix of papers, both critical and supportive of ID. It will be interesting to see how the There are a few items of note. Of the 21 papers submitted so far, six titles contain either "God", "divine", or "moral". I guess the pretense that ID is not about religion has gone down the memory hole to sit next to "cdesign proponentsists", and "creation science".
It will also be very interesting to see how the defenders of ID withstand a critical audience. ID proponents tend to avoid doing battle on any playing field they can't control, thus the censorious policies of so many of their blogs and conferences. However, it would be disappointing if William Dembski's claim that the "vanguard" of the ID movement, ie it's brightest lights, were not invited. That would be both an intellectual, and public relations, nightmare. However, given Dembski's tenuous relationship with reality, I will refrain from judgement at this time until I hear back from the conference organizers.
I find it also notable that the conference appears, based on the submission summaries, to be one of philosophy, not science. So regardless of the outcome, ID still appears to be a nonscientific movement.
Heartland AGW Doubter List Draws Objections
Just like the list of scientific doubters of Darwin, put out by their intellectual cousins in the Intelligent Design movement, the list of scientific doubters of Anthropocentric Global Warming compiled by the Heartland Institute has drawn the ire of those listed. So far almost 10% of the signers are demanding their names be removed from the list, and that number is sure to grow.
"I am horrified to find my name on such a list. I have spent the last 20 years arguing the opposite." - Dr. David Sugden. Professor of Geography, University of Edinburgh
"I have NO doubts ..the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there." - Dr. Gregory Cutter, Professor, Department of Ocean, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Old Dominion University
"I don't believe any of my work can be used to support any of the statements listed in the article." - Dr. Robert Whittaker, Professor of Biogeography, University of Oxford
"Please remove my name. What you have done is totally unethical!!" - Dr. Svante Bjorck, Geo Biosphere Science Centre, Lund University
"I'm outraged that they've included me as an author of this report. I do not share the views expressed in the summary." - Dr. John Clague, Shrum Research Professor, Department of Earth Sciences, Simon Fraser University
Apparently the anti-AGW cranks think they understand the implications of scientists' statements better than the scientists themselves, again, just like the ID proponents. This is being kind, since more than likely the list-makers simply quote-mined the scientists and hoped no one would notice.
All the gods bless the internet!
"I am horrified to find my name on such a list. I have spent the last 20 years arguing the opposite." - Dr. David Sugden. Professor of Geography, University of Edinburgh
"I have NO doubts ..the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there." - Dr. Gregory Cutter, Professor, Department of Ocean, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Old Dominion University
"I don't believe any of my work can be used to support any of the statements listed in the article." - Dr. Robert Whittaker, Professor of Biogeography, University of Oxford
"Please remove my name. What you have done is totally unethical!!" - Dr. Svante Bjorck, Geo Biosphere Science Centre, Lund University
"I'm outraged that they've included me as an author of this report. I do not share the views expressed in the summary." - Dr. John Clague, Shrum Research Professor, Department of Earth Sciences, Simon Fraser University
Apparently the anti-AGW cranks think they understand the implications of scientists' statements better than the scientists themselves, again, just like the ID proponents. This is being kind, since more than likely the list-makers simply quote-mined the scientists and hoped no one would notice.
All the gods bless the internet!
More (Cough Cough) Brilliant Arguments from Religious Scientists
It continues to astonish me how low the bar for smart, sensible, brilliant, and profound is set by some when applied to religious statements. First up, William D. Phillips, participating in a Templeton Foundation survey, and answering the question: Does science make belief in God obsolete?
"[A] scientist can believe in God because such belief is not a scientific matter. Scientific statements must be 'falsifiable.' That is, there must be some outcome that at least in principle could show that the statement is false. I might say, 'Einstein's theory of relativity correctly describes the behavior of visible objects in our solar system.' So far, extremely careful measurements have failed to prove that statement false, but they could (and some people have invested careers in trying to see if they will). By contrast, religious statements are not necessarily falsifiable. I might say, 'God loves us and wants us to love one another.' I cannot think of anything that could prove that statement false. Some might argue that if I were more explicit about what I mean by God and the other concepts in my statement, it would become falsifiable. But such an argument misses the point. It is an attempt to turn a religious statement into a scientific one. There is no requirement that every statement be a scientific statement. Nor are non-scientific statements worthless or irrational simply because they are not scientific. 'She sings beautifully.' 'He is a good man.' 'I love you.' These are all non-scientific statements that can be of great value. Science is not the only useful way of looking at life."
His argument is just warmed over NOMA at its core, which is laughable (you can't be an alternate source of knowledge when you produce no knowledge), and his examples of "non-scientific statements" seem like the sort of things children and idiots say. Beauty, love, and goodness might be subjective human experiences, but they are still demonstrably real, and coherent. The same cannot be said for a disembodied consciousness that supposedly created the universe. And some wonder why the Courtier's Reply is trotted out so much.
Believe it or not, offline I'm one of those people you'd never know was an atheist unless you asked me, or noticed the lack of religious knick knacks around the house. I find the subject of God's existence boring, and avoid debates on it like the plague. I'm just amazed by the consistency with which brilliant people say things that strike me as idiotic on this one, and only, subject.
Here's another example, this time from Francisco Ayala:
"'Science and religion concern nonoverlapping realms of knowledge,' he writes in the new book. 'It is only when assertions are made beyond their legitimate boundaries that evolutionary theory and religious belief appear to be antithetical.'
Well that sounds nice and sweet and conciliatory, until one wonders just what knowledge religion claims, and what exactly are it's boundaries. Those promoting this pie-in-the-sky view are always rather negligent in fleshing out this part of the argument, and for good reason. There isn't anything in religion that can claim the mantle of "knowledge". Oh, there's lots of speculation about a wide range of issues, such as what happens when we die, what is moral, etc. But without any evidenciary backing, it deserves only the label we give to all other claims with the same traits: guesses, or worse, fiction.
I just do not understand that driving force so many intelligent people have to justify baseless, downright silly beliefs. So you have a little irrational, comfy idea you hold in your head that helps you not have nightmares about death, or gives your clear moral structure, or feeds your need for some overarching power and justice in the world, or WTF ever it does for you. So what? I can relate to a lot of that. Sure science makes that sort of thing obsolete, but who of us is scientific all the time? I'm afraid of heights, but I don't tie myself into semantic knots trying to justify it with idiotic comparisons to the taste of my sandwich or how much I love my mother. I just admit my weakness and move on. Why don't you? Martin Gardner nailed this one a long time ago, and I paraphrase from memory:
"I believe, by a completely irrational leap of faith, that there is a god I'll meet when I die"
Is that really so damned hard?
"[A] scientist can believe in God because such belief is not a scientific matter. Scientific statements must be 'falsifiable.' That is, there must be some outcome that at least in principle could show that the statement is false. I might say, 'Einstein's theory of relativity correctly describes the behavior of visible objects in our solar system.' So far, extremely careful measurements have failed to prove that statement false, but they could (and some people have invested careers in trying to see if they will). By contrast, religious statements are not necessarily falsifiable. I might say, 'God loves us and wants us to love one another.' I cannot think of anything that could prove that statement false. Some might argue that if I were more explicit about what I mean by God and the other concepts in my statement, it would become falsifiable. But such an argument misses the point. It is an attempt to turn a religious statement into a scientific one. There is no requirement that every statement be a scientific statement. Nor are non-scientific statements worthless or irrational simply because they are not scientific. 'She sings beautifully.' 'He is a good man.' 'I love you.' These are all non-scientific statements that can be of great value. Science is not the only useful way of looking at life."
His argument is just warmed over NOMA at its core, which is laughable (you can't be an alternate source of knowledge when you produce no knowledge), and his examples of "non-scientific statements" seem like the sort of things children and idiots say. Beauty, love, and goodness might be subjective human experiences, but they are still demonstrably real, and coherent. The same cannot be said for a disembodied consciousness that supposedly created the universe. And some wonder why the Courtier's Reply is trotted out so much.
Believe it or not, offline I'm one of those people you'd never know was an atheist unless you asked me, or noticed the lack of religious knick knacks around the house. I find the subject of God's existence boring, and avoid debates on it like the plague. I'm just amazed by the consistency with which brilliant people say things that strike me as idiotic on this one, and only, subject.
Here's another example, this time from Francisco Ayala:
"'Science and religion concern nonoverlapping realms of knowledge,' he writes in the new book. 'It is only when assertions are made beyond their legitimate boundaries that evolutionary theory and religious belief appear to be antithetical.'
Well that sounds nice and sweet and conciliatory, until one wonders just what knowledge religion claims, and what exactly are it's boundaries. Those promoting this pie-in-the-sky view are always rather negligent in fleshing out this part of the argument, and for good reason. There isn't anything in religion that can claim the mantle of "knowledge". Oh, there's lots of speculation about a wide range of issues, such as what happens when we die, what is moral, etc. But without any evidenciary backing, it deserves only the label we give to all other claims with the same traits: guesses, or worse, fiction.
I just do not understand that driving force so many intelligent people have to justify baseless, downright silly beliefs. So you have a little irrational, comfy idea you hold in your head that helps you not have nightmares about death, or gives your clear moral structure, or feeds your need for some overarching power and justice in the world, or WTF ever it does for you. So what? I can relate to a lot of that. Sure science makes that sort of thing obsolete, but who of us is scientific all the time? I'm afraid of heights, but I don't tie myself into semantic knots trying to justify it with idiotic comparisons to the taste of my sandwich or how much I love my mother. I just admit my weakness and move on. Why don't you? Martin Gardner nailed this one a long time ago, and I paraphrase from memory:
"I believe, by a completely irrational leap of faith, that there is a god I'll meet when I die"
Is that really so damned hard?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
