Comment on Reuter's on Dawkins New Book

Poste on http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/10/05/facts-and-false-equivalence-reporting-on-evolution-disputes/#comment-17372.

The attack on intelligent design reminds me of that old saw about the guy who always asks if “you are still beating your wife?” The underlying purpose is not to right wrongs but to disparage.

Lets face it. Intelligent design is, if you allow a further mixing of metaphors, a dead horse. Why continue to flog it?

The answer, I think, is not about enlightenment, but to further castigate religion, sell books, and to feed the frenzy of the militant atheism faithful. If the idea were to enlighten, then dialogue and working towards an understanding would be called for.

Perhaps it is time to ask why Mr. Dawkins wants evolution to be a creation myth in a mano-i-mano competition against intelligent design. Don’t we deserve science, not sectarian combat?

- Posted by Stephen Friberg Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Polling numbers and rejection of evolution

Posted to http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2009/09/who_rejects_evolution.php.

Hi Jason, others:

Nice provocative posting that lays out the issues and - as it should - the biases as well: "Regular readers of this blog are aware that I think science in general, and evolution in particular, pose grave, even fatal, challenges to traditional notions of religious faith."

In my experience, biases readily lead to a misreading of polling results on religion and evolution. Here is why:

If you strongly believe that religion and science are incompatible, then you will reject the view of God creating us as compatible with evolution. But lets be clear: the idea that God created us and that evolution is the historical rendering of that creation is perfectly logical and completely consistent with both science and belief in God.

With respect to polling, when someone says that they believe God created us, it doesn't necessarily mean that they disbelieve in evolution. They may or they may not. What it primarily means is that they view the ultimate cause as God. Evolution - whether or not it took place - is in their view at best a secondary cause.

This is not how it looks to a diehard anti-religion evolutionist. For them, evolution is primary and religious ideas are an evolutionary heritage. Therefore, it is inconceivable that someone can legitimately have "meta-ideas" like belief in God and not be concerned about evolution. Thus, the misinterpretation of polling results that you argue for.

Interestingly, it is this reversal - the replacement of first causes - God - by a creation story - evolution - that makes a lot of people suspect and mistrust evolution as a quasi-religion.

Posted by: Stephen Friberg | September 29, 2009 4:06 PM

A continuation of this post:

Hi Eric:

You wrote: "I disagree that the statement 'evolution and religion are in conflict' is useful for discussion, because I think its an overbroad generalization. Sometimes there IS conflict between a person's belief in god and the TOE...but sometimes there isn't."

You also wrote: "There is no single set of beliefs that all religions subscribe to, so it is an overgeneralization to say religion is in conflict with empirical claim X (for any X). My second point was religions do not even share a single methodology for gaining religious truth. So it is also an overgeneralization to say that the religious "way of knowing" is in conflict with science. There isn't a single religious way of knowing; there are many. Some conflict with science, some don't."

I agree, and I think the implications are important and should be thought through.

The militant atheist point of view - and apparently Coyne's point of view as well - is that evolution and religion are like oil and water. They don't mix. If many people are perfectly fine with both of them - as I am - then the stance that they necessarily contradict is not in accord with the evidence.

What do proponents of the conflict model do when so many people disagree with them? What I see is arguments that are essentially emotional in appeal:

One is the "slippery slope" argument of Harris and Dawkins. From this point of view, moderate beliefs in religious are inherently unstable and either become extreme or they encourage extremism. The other is the "accommodationist" argument, which, as I understand it, is the claim that there is faulty reasoning on the part of people who claim to accommodate both points of view. Also, there appear to be frequent attacks based on a supposed weakness in holding the line on the part of those who, I'm presuming, are not thought "manly" enough to hold to the strict and narrow. I say that both are essentially emotional as both are based on the assumption that religion is inherently invalid, an emotional assumption.

For example, consider the posting by H.H. in #39: ".. . the idea that God created us and that evolution is the historical rendering of that creation is riddled with unsupportable assumptions, ad hoc excuses, twisted theology and bad reasoning. It's not a position that a sane, intellectually-honest person could endorse." He is basically saying that he strongly believes - an emotional act - that evolution and belief in God are inherently at odds. Also, in a traditional emotional appeal, he holds that those who see things differently are not "sane" or "intellectually honest". [Wow!]

My conclusion is that, yes there are the variations that you talk of, but they don't invalidate Padian's broad general conclusions (the conclusion that there is broad agreement about evolution and religion being in accord). This is so even if there are diverse groups of people who disagree. A further conclusion, hinted at in my post, is that there is as strong component of emotionalism and arbitrary assumptions about the integrity of opposing points of view that drives fundamentalist and militant atheist points of view that hold evolution and belief in God to be in conflict. In other words, yes, militant atheists and fundamentalists are strongly similar in these regards.

Posted by: Stephen Friberg | September 30, 2009 1:35 PM

Hi Eric, Kevin:

Eric: You are making sense, so let me try to explain myself better. Your comment is that I am making "essentially an argument from popularity: since most religious people think they are in accord, it is reasonable to say religion as a whole is in accord. I simply don't see what you gain by making that step."

More tightly phrased, I would say that a sizable number of well-educated and informed folk find no contradiction between evolution and the belief in God. Their conclusions in themselves don't resolve the issue, but the fact that a number of good and capable people familiar with both sides of the issue have concluded in this light means something.

It means something like the following: there is probable cause to consider the hypothesis that they are right. So, outright rejection of the hypothesis has to be examined closely. It is probably due to other causes, which can include all of the reasons that people entertain false beliefs - and build communities around them.

In particular, all the arguments that the militant atheists employ against religion have to be considered as well (i.e., it is due to tradition, hope, sectarianism, political persuasion, error, dogma, etc.). If religion is man-made and in error because of these things, it is equally likely that this is true for militant atheism and the view that science and religion are inherently in confict.

You ask "What public policy benefit do you expect to gain?". It is a good question, and the answer is multifold and hugely important. Science - and let me emphasize that I'm speaking of real problem-solving science - is both our way of understanding the physical world AND the teachings of religion (i.e., clearing out the underbrush of superstition, creationism, and the like). Let me leave it at this, although the advantages of science are manifold on the public policy front, especially in the harnessing of the spiritual aspects of our religious and biological heritages. Enough said, I hope.

Your posts are rich in many ways, and I wish I could find the time to address other things you bring up.

Kevin:

Kevin, you wrote: "First its not "clear" that your god can act in ANY physical capacity in this world, to effect ANYTHING, so it is very unclear that he should influence evolution, second, since your main source of knowledge of your god is the bible (if you are xtian) the evolutionary origin of man means that a) there is a mistake in the bible re genesis, and b) then there is no "original sin" and that leads to c) there is no need for a redeemer."

Any chance we could "discourse" more on this here? I have to run now, already having spent too much time writing. As the old joke goes, if I believed in the God you don't believe in, I would be crazy. Maybe, to make Eric happy, we could try to discover some of the common foundations of religion, not just some anti-science beliefs in this or that neck of the woods. BTW, I'm a Baha'i, not a Christian.

Posted by: Stephen Friberg | September 30, 2009 6:56 PM

Against Creation Myths

Hi Kevin:

You wrote "oh wow~ what's your creation myth? of course discourse!". Discourse, datcourse, of course, off course, Pebble Beach Golf Course, any will do for me.

I've got to say that this whole creation myth thing is kind of weird. I think people - especially the militant atheists - have been bamboozled by it. I know that the American Native Peoples have some absolutely wonderful creation myths and as part of an oral spiritual tradition, they are great.

But then I look at militant atheism - and Dawkins' writings especially - and I see that a major part of his thing is creation myths. He wants people to adhere to his creation myth - the story of evolution! Like a carpenter with a hammer who sees every problem as a nail, Dawkins sometimes seems to think everything can be set right if only people were to believe in the right creation story - his!

But of course science is not just about stories - what everybody who is not a scientist wants to call "facts" - it is about seeing for yourself, not just following some creation myth.

So, I think creation myths are at odds with what the modern world requires. It requires everybody thinking together, finding ways to solve problems together, living together, cooperating together, not just flaunting and fighting over creation myths, be it the creation myth of creationism or the creation myth of modern science writers.

Your turn.

Posted by: Stephen Friberg | October 1, 2009 3:47 PM

Characterizing religion universally

Hi Eric:

You write "I still don't see what discussing religion as an entity gains you, versus discussing specific claims."

Traditionally, science tends to look for universal principles underlying diversity. Yes, general claims as to universal principles can be wrong, as I think apparent to you in the current science vs. religion battles. It hilarious - and sad - to see folks zeroing in on some childhood belief as if it encompassed religion as a whole. So, yes, by all means, lets discuss specific issues. I'm certainly with you there.

But, the search for universal principles shouldn't be discarded because of botched efforts. Its still on!

In fact, the botched efforts are part of it, provided that you review those botched efforts and learn from them.

With that in mind, let me then propose the following as candidates for universal principles:

1. Religious belief sees reality as extending beyond material configurations.

2. Religious belief tends to model the universe using abstractions from experience with conscious beings - consciousness, creativity, intelligence, will and similar properties seen in ourselves, other people and animals. These are viewed as being part of reality, much in the same way that sensory experience leads to concepts of matter as extending throughout the universe (sorry for being verbose, I'll try to reduce it next time)

3. Thought and action throughout the ages and through-out the world today have been and are animated by religious views.

4. I expect some quibbles on this: humankind has a deep reservoir of behaviors and thinking patterns that are spiritual, meaning based on belief in what is right and true as opposed to self-interested and non-altruistic

Of course, we can come up with more, but you get the general idea.

Lets talk about discussing specific claims.

If we acknowledge that there might be universal principles, then we have to start to think about whether or not specific cases are anomalies, say, part of a tribal rites, or whether they are part of religion per se. Obviously, thinking this way starts to push and redefine categories as happens in all arenas involving serious thought.

For example, is creationism a religious phenomena or a universal non-religious human phenomena? To what extent does it inherently involve religion and to what extent does it involve politics and general human love of leadership and perversity? These are important questions, and questions that cannot be thought through without an attempt to create a universal framework.

The good point about militant atheism is that it is forcing this rethinking. Yes, it is still primitive - and frequently laughable - but the good part underlying it (and what will be preserved in the long run) is the push towards a more universal concept of religion.

Posted by: Stephen Friberg | October 1, 2009 4:43 PM

62

Hi Kevin:

Hold on there!

Posted by: Stephen Friberg | October 1, 2009 4:45 PM

Hi Eric:

You wrote: "Lastly, while evolutionary mechanisms may apply to both living and nonliving structures and even possibly explain how the latter became the former, it is not primarily "about" creation."

You are aware, aren't you, that there are differences between "just-so" stories, what I call evolutionary creation myths, and evolutionary theories (you correctly talk about speciation)? I'm talking about the former, not the later.

Think about it. The consumers of these stories, indeed some of their purveyors, hold that their creation stories show religion to be wrong. Clearly, they are jumping off the rails of science into claims of a larger and more grandiose type. This is why so many people see evolution as a quasi-religion.

Don't imagine for a moment that that this discounts the science.

Posted by: Stephen Friberg | October 1, 2009 6:08 PM

Fifth Post in the Dialogue

Hi Wowbagger (still a cool name):

I wrote that creationism is partly a response to social Darwinism. You replied “… an odd thing to say – since both creationism and social Darwinism stem from the refusal to accept reality because it interferes with beliefs.”

Some background on “the survival of the fittest”, i.e., social Darwinism. Like evolution, it predates Darwin, and it can be innocuous or even positive. Competition among start-up companies, for example, is a positive form of social Darwinism.

Where it got a bad name, and where it played a role in the beginnings of creationism, is its role in the development of late 19th century racism, most dramatically in Germany but more generally in northern Europe. Ernst Haeckel, an eminent German biologist and the popularizer of Darwin in Germany, played a central role in its development. He wrote that that “the Caucasian … has from time immemorial been placed at the head of all the races of men, as the most highly developed and perfect.”

Especially virulent was eugenics, the widespread practice of putting away those deemed inferior and thus harmful to the fitness of society. Eugenics was started by Francis Galton, Darwin’s son-in-law. Eugenics camps in Germany morphed into concentration camps in World War II.

The relationship between creationism and social Darwinism is most directly seen in the influence of William Jennings Bryant, the famous populist politician and one-time Secretary of State. He was the lawyer for the creationist side at the Scopes “monkey” trial and a powerful force in the creation of creationism. He strongly opposed Social Darwinism, seeing “Darwinism or Social Darwinism as a great evil force in the world promoting hatreds and conflicts, especially [in] the World War.” (Wikipedia, William Jennings Bryant, accessed Sept. 17, 2009).

The larger picture has been well-documented by Michael Ruse, the biology philosopher and supporter of evolution, and others. Evolution, before neo-Darwinism finally established its scientific bona fides, was very much of a grab-bag over the last 200 years. It was an all things to all people, quasi-religious, enlightenment-based movement used frequently as a battle axe against religion, especially by people like Thomas Huxley and similar-minded people in the US. Understanding this, while not excusing creationism, can certainly lead to a more complete understanding of where it comes from and what the battle lines are.

Fourth Intersection Post

89. Stephen Friberg Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
September 16th, 2009 at 10:05 pm

Hi Marion Delgado:

You kindly asked “How does a book like “Unscientific America” make you feel about cases like the Dover vs. Kitzmiller civil suit in Pennsylvania, or the current John Freshwater termination battle in Ohio? How does a book like “The God Delusion” make you feel? Or Jerry Coyne’s “Why Evolution is true?” You seem to be a believer, as many, probably most of us here are not, so it’s interesting to me to get your reaction.”

Yes, I’m believer, a Baha’i in fact, as well as a scientist. I’m probably overeducated on the relationship between science and religion, as it has been at the core of my interests for over 30 years. I’ve spent a lot of time in Japan and have read widely the history of science and religion, and I don’t share the usual prejudices against Islam, meaning that I know a bit more about the historical roots of the modern conflicts than most people do and I have had a chance to look at them from outside a typical western perspective.

My feelings about Dover vs. Kitzmiller are probably the same as yours. I was delighted by the way it turned out. But I also know that creationism is rooted in a hatred and distrust of Social Darwinism and the high-handedness of Dawkin’s 19th century predecessors.

Freshwater and others like him are not going to go away, no doubt about it, as long as contention and contempt continue to animate large numbers of people when it comes to the relationship between science and religion. A similar situation exists with respect to different religions or different sects in religion.

I’ve been struggling to understand the larger implications of Harris’s (and later Dawkins’) work. Neither wrote as scientists, but as impassioned believers. Because I’m a product of a secular upbringing and education, I know well their prejudices and their sense of superiority from a lifetime of experience.

My conclusions are several. On one hand, they are the reactionary furor in response to increasing acceptance of the validity of religion in academic and intellectual circles that has been underway the last 50 years. With the demise of logical positivism in the 50s, the sociological analyses of religion by Kuhn (the “paradigm shift” perspective) and others since the 60s, and with the failure of religion to disappear, such a reaction should be expected. It also explains much of the unfocused and uninformed anger of the new atheists and their followers – they are reacting to broad changes in society much as did the fundamentalists before them, and they are channeling it into very Protestant-like expressions of self-righteousness, this time sanctified by scientific — as opposed to Christian — concepts of self purity.

On the other hand, Dawkins’ especially has reanimated the discussion of the eternal theological questions – why do we exist, what is our purpose – and has done so in a modern way using modern concepts. The latter is potentially a hugely important contribution and will outlive the dogmatism and emotionalism that now characterizes new atheism. Of course, there are the very worrisome aspects to their thoughts that could lead to a revival of the massive cruelty and destructiveness of 19th and 20th century secularism.

I haven’t figured out Jerry Coyne yet. Unlike Harris and Dawkins, he is a scientist, but his “accomodationist” thing looks like a cold-blooded political calculation – a positioning tactic and a power play along the lines of what Hitchens has done. I’m having a hard time believing that a thoughtful, sincere, or reasonably well-read person would buy into such a purely political stance.

Hope this addresses your questions.

Stephen

Third Intersection Post

46. Stephen Friberg Says:
September 15th, 2009 at 9:57 pm

Hi Wowbagger (cool name):

You write “But he [Christ] could have done just that without needing a god at all. If the concepts themselves are the valuable aspect of Jesus’ existence, he didn’t need to be divine at all - just insightful. What do we need gods for?”

Obviously the right question. The answers are interesting. One compatible with the thinking of believers and non-believers alike is that if His words were to effect change - and we are talking about major change here - He has to connect with His listeners, and language of gods and God was current at the time.

Another answer is how people interpret and cloak some significant event with meaning. Consider, for example, the concept of Christ as the sacrificial lamb or as having a divine father and a human mother. Both invoke widespread traditions of Christ’s time.

But there is a deeper answer too. And that has to do with spiritual reality. Let me explain what I mean. I’ve got a 15 year old son, and I’m teaching him that service to humanity, not just service to his own needs or his own family’s status, leads to an understanding of spiritual reality and the spiritual world is the true world. High ideals and noble work are different than selfish pursuits.

And yes, it’s a reality. When a generation of Englishmen 200 years ago decided that profiteering by slaveholding was wrong and stopped the English involvement in the slave trade, it led to the freeing of the slaves and to civil rights movement. The result, so at odds with Social Darwinist understandings, speaks of a reality that is different than the material reality of a factory or a workshop or a physics laboratory. It is a reality of the world of men and women and of the mind and its power to affect change and modify society.

What does this mean about the existence - or lack thereof - of God? What it establishes, and incontrovertibly, I think, is that the world of the mind and its powers is as real as the world of material existence. Mind exists.

The next step is logical, but challenging to those raised on a strict diet of secularism. In the same way that I can draw inferences from my experience with lasers and atoms in my laboratory to a belief that there is a whole universe out there made out of atoms (and, yes, it turns out that there are interstellar lasers), I can draw by similar inference to the view that mind is real. In other words, the universe contains intelligence and all the creative potential that intelligence entails.

Sure, extrapolation from experience, you might say. It is logical in the case of science. We assume that star stuff in Andromeda is that the same as star stuff in the sun. And we can test it by spectroscopic signatures. So, how do we test it for the case of intelligence? I.e., yes I agree that intelligence is real, but how do I know it can be written BIG as the existence of God? The answer, of course, is needed and as I explained earlier it is found in nature and in revelation.

BTW, once you get the idea that it is logical for people to view reality as made from mind-stuff, rather than just material stuff, it explains the ideas of divine trees, sacred groves, gods, even God. Of course, it doesn’t say whether any particular idea is good or correct.

Stephen

Post in response to previous post

Hi Folks!

Thanks for the comments!

Benjamin Nelson, I don’t understand why theism is unstable by the same regards. Theism, usually described, is the idea that God created the world and then let it run by itself. It is agnostic, pretty much, with respect to religion. The evidence that the world is continuing to run seems to be an indicator of stability

Depth is an interesting concept. I understand quantum optics in depth, but not chemistry. So scientific depth is about specialization. Wisdom, how cultures thrive, the release of powerful new modes of considering the universe, moral issue, etc., have a different “metric” of depth. Offhand, I would say that new atheism mistakes a litany of scientific facts - evolution, etc - as depth whereas it is the scientific method - thinking through to understanding - that is deep. This is the “metric” of depth that religion has that is similar to that of science.

The questioning and doubting aspect of scientific investigation, I think obvious, apply to religion as well. Otherwise, how can any understanding of revelation be gained? The point is not that science and religion are opposed, i.e., it is not that science investigates to gain understanding but religion doesn’t, rather it is that valid religion in a positive and creative stage involves the same criticality as science. How could religion be said to be engaged with reality otherwise? How could it change the world?

Writings of the new atheists? Wish I had a lot of time for discussion. First of all, the positive. Dawkins, Harris, Dennett and others have, in my humble opinion, revitalized theology by rephrasing the time-honored theological questions - does God exist, what is the nature of good and evil, etc., - in modern languages, using modern and scientific ideas. Their questions and the language they have invented to ask them elbow aside the musty musings of much of modern theological language.

The negative? Basically, they download their answers from the intelligent design playbook. Dawkins, for example, argues that because intelligent design is obviously false, belief in God is false. Generalizing, both the intelligent design people and the new atheists are what we call literalists; they take spiritual terminology and descriptions to be literal truths. Dawkins wants God to be a literal entity. By the same token, the “light” of understanding should have a wavelength.

Rules writes “The central point of new atheism is not that God doesn’t exist. It’s that ideas should only be believed to the extent that reason and evidence support them - and the vast majority of religious beliefs are cartoonishly over the line on this point.” It is true that Harris is open to atheistic Buddhism, but that doesn’t mean that atheism involves an acceptance of God. But yes, the criticism that religious beliefs tend to not involve reason is, in many cases, true. Unfortunately Harris draws the conclusion (at least he hasn’t indicated that he thinks otherwise) that ALL religious beliefs are over the line. This is certainly not a conclusion compatible with the rules of scientific investigation, which says that you need to investigate before drawing your conclusion. Science hold that you need data points.

Cain, you write “Atheism makes no claims, it has no central point.” Probably, you mean agnosticism here, not atheism. You also say that revelation is relative. Not the type of revelation that Christ revealed, or Muhammad, or Buddha, or Baha’u'llah. Each, like the writings of Plato or the teaching of Confucius, has left a distinct and very real footprint in history and in our current thinking. Certainly, many people’s interpretations of them have been relative, but when civilizations are built on revelation, it means that there is something substantive there. It is not the same as material reality - Christ didn’t invent cell phones - but the concept of love and unity that he taught allowed many people to move behind the limits of purely tribal thinking. These kinds of results - the power of great ideas and concepts - are also real, and thus are rooted in reality, but in a reality that is rooted in people, not things.

Thanks, all.
Stephen

The Absence of Reason

It always is refreshing to read Mooney and Kirshenbaum.

To the point of the discussion: I do admire the passion of Harris. But, I don't think that reason is one of his strong points. Nor is it a strong point for new atheism in general, and I'm echoing a criticism of new atheism that is widely voiced.

Let me see if I can make my case (I can already hear the snarky comments in reply).

The central point of new atheism is that God doesn't exist, so religion is in error. If God does exist, then the whole project falls apart. So, atheism in general is unstable, resting as it does on a single central assumption. This may explain why atheists resist reasoned discussion on this point.

The evidence of the existence of God is, perhaps we can say, twofold. One is nature. The amazing fecundity of nature that Dawkins carries on so much about is a profound and deeply convincing demonstration of the underlying complexity of creation and shows that there must be something responsible for that creation. Scientists call it the laws of nature, and don't doubt that it exists. Religion calls it God. Neither understands it in considerable depth, rather both only know that it exists.

The other is revelation and, to a lesser extent, inspiration. Revelation - the creative word - is at the heart of modern great religions and probably of ancient religion as well. Revelation can shape and change the world, as any objective student of religion knows well. If revelation is understood as being historical - i.e., something that happens at a given time and place - them all the dynamics of religion become clear. Its growth and decay into superstitious practices alike become the object of study and understanding, not of contemptuous disregard.

The failure of the new atheists to bring a reasoned and objective lens to these two topics, as well as their failure to examine how our ideas of God are shaped by our experience with the powers of the mind (basically, our ideas of gods or of God are extrapolations from our experiences with the tremendous capabilities of the mind) is what - to my scientific mind - marks out much of the new atheism as a desert of reason.

Steve F.

Obama names evangelical Christian to run National Institutes of Health

Here is an extremely interesting post from an evangelical on Francis Collins.

Stephen

Obama names evangelical Christian to run National Institutes of Health

http://www.examiner.com/x-7462-Atlanta-Faith--Family-Examiner~y2009m8d16-Obama-names-evangelical-Christian-to-run-National-Institutes-of-Health

August 16, 12:15 PMAtlanta Faith & Family ExaminerPatricia Walston

Francis S. Collins’ science and religion clash?

Some say as a smart move on President Obama’s part, he named Francis S. Collins as the director of the National Institutes of Health who is being touted as an Evangelical Christian – or is he? Saying so don’t always make it so. For clarification, comment and educational purposes, I submit the excerpts from the following article written on a socialist web site.

World Socialist Web Site – Patrick Martin

http://wsws.org/articles/2009/jul2009/coll-j30.shtml

“….Francis S. Collins as the director of the National Institutes of Health. Collins, while an accomplished biologist and the leader of the groundbreaking Humane Genome Project, is an increasingly outspoken advocate of evangelical Christianity who has publicly declared that Darwin’s theory of evolution cannot explain the moral dimensions of humanity. (Who can explain the mind of God?)

In selecting Collins, Obama clearly bypassed many qualified scientists whose appointment would not have generated controversy over their outspoken religious views. The decision was intended as a deliberate accommodation to the religious right. (Remember this is a socialist newspaper. They would have preferred a devout atheist.)

While opposing the pseudo-scientific teaching of the creationists, known as “intelligent design,” Collins argued instead that there was no contradiction between evolution and religion. He claimed that *god created the world 13.7 billion years ago, set evolution in motion, and then intervened from time to time in human history, as in the Christ story. (Notice little “g” in the spelling of God.)

Collins claimed that there were aspects of human nature that could not be explained by Darwin’s theory. “Selfless altruism presents a major challenge for the evolutionist,” he argued. (Good thinking, Mr. Collins – but why stop there?) He reportedly had differences with the Bush administration’s suppression of certain areas of scientific research. He supported making use of the hundreds of thousands of human embryos discarded every year by in vitro fertilization clinics to conduct stem cell research.

Collins supported Obama in both the contest for the Democratic presidential nomination and in the general election.

As director of the National Institutes of Health, Collins will have a different role from his position as a scientist. He will head the most important and well-funded scientific organization on the planet. Over the next 14 months, NIH will spend $4 billion on research at its Bethesda, Maryland campus, while distributing $37 billion in research grants throughout the United States and around the world.

The selection of Collins was generally hailed in the corporate-controlled media as a clever maneuver by Obama, a way of paying tribute to religion while selecting an individual who defends evolution against creationism and opposes restrictions on abortion rights and stem cell research.

Both Christian fundamentalist and Catholic groups hailed the nomination, except for those devoted specifically to the promotion of the theory of “intelligent design.”

Over the past several years, Collins has become an increasingly vocal religious advocate. In his blog for BioLogos, entitled “Science and the Sacred,” Collins wrote: “Suppose God chose to use the mechanism of evolution to create animals like us, knowing this process would lead to big-brained creatures with the capacity to think, ask questions about our own origins, discover the truth about the universe and discover pointers toward the One who provides meaning to life. Who are we to say that’s not how we would have done it?” (Would this in his opinion make God also an animal? Evangelical Christian’s believe that we are created in the image of God.) . Mr. Collins looking at the baby to the left, how can you explain something so greater being created out of something so lesser? Perhaps if we stop teaching our children they descended from monkeys, they would stop acting like them.

British naturalist Richard Dawkins ridiculed this argument in a dialogue with Collins on science and religion published by Time magazine. He said: “I think that’s a tremendous cop-out. If God wanted to create life and create humans, it would be slightly odd that he should choose the extraordinarily roundabout way of waiting for 10 billion years before life got started and then waiting for another 4 billion years until you got human beings capable of worshiping and sinning and all the other things religious people are interested in.” Whatever the particular religious views of the nominee to head the NIH, however, the political significance of his selection by Obama is obvious.

Another article by writer Joe Kay for this socialist electronic newspaper sums up that they think, believe and wish for America and the world.

“Marxists too want to undermine the influence of religious movements, in the Middle East, in the United States, and around the world. Religion is inherently anti-scientific. It cloaks the real nature of society and repression, and it often serves as an ideological buttress for social reaction and militarism.

Since religion is conceived of only as an ideological phenomenon, it is ultimately the population itself that is to blame for belief in religion and whatever policies are justified in the name of religion. Not only does this often lead to right-wing political positions, it also fails utterly in offering a suggestion for how the influence of religion can be diminished.

In other words, the fight for scientific consciousness among masses of people, and with this a materialist world outlook, must be bound up with the attempt to explain to people the real nature of society and oppression. It must be bound up with a political struggle and a socialist movement”

The one thing that Mr. Collins does not seem to get in connection with Evangelical Christians is the Bible. Their faith and life choices are based on these Words. While Mr. Collins can call himself anything – that does not nullify the belief of Christians. He has the right to believe, claim, or espouse his interpretation of the creation story – which at least it not the “big bang” theory that there was an explosion in the universe and the world was created – that would be like throwing a huge blank book into the air and it coming down as the Atlanta phone book. There are just too many elements in the creation to be able to say they happened as a result of an explosion. Explosions tend to destroy not create. And while we are not the judge of each other – it would behoove Mr. Collins to realize that going to church does not make you any more a Christian that going into a garage makes you a car.

It seems that Mr. Collins through his own deductions is trying to put one foot on each side of the Grand Canyon. That stretches him a little too far. No matter what religious jargon, he might use – he is still an evolutionist. This seems just another ploy of those in our society who want to tear down and destroy the faith of others. If you can’t make something go away – just water it down – and make it less of what it was originally. Mr. Collins, you do not approach the Word and Love of God through science – you approach it through faith – faith is the substance of things not seen. as explained in Hebrews 11

By Faith

Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for. By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

Also in Revelations 3 – God’s Word says: “I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.”

Trying to combine the THEORY (something that has not been confirmed) and the Evangelical faith is like saying I believe the mother is a parent but not the father – believing only a half truth. May it be suggested that in the future scientist will try to put things like “love” under the microscope and explain it in scientific terms. For some things there is just no human explanation because they are of Holy God who is beyond man’s comprehension of all that He is.

We can all believe in science as God reveals to us those things which He has created – God is the epitome of scientists. He is something that science will never fully understand, prove or disprove – for God is Omniscient – knows all; God is Omnipotent – all powerful; God is Omnipresent – always present. Mr. Collins how can you put that in a test tube and explain those capabilities of God? God does not work through telescopes, microscopes, and test tubes to change the heart of man – but through His righteousness, faithfulness, and wisdom to touch his/her very soul.

Sir, an Evangelical is one who believes in the Gospel by life, explanation, and example of the Word of God. A scientist is only one who can study what God has created, discovering only what God allows. And how can one not believe in God when they study the intimate details of creation knowing what they see is beyond explanation to man.

Watering down the Word of God is just as ineffective as denying God. While men may scoff and try with all their might – they cannot prove that God does not exist and neither can they influence those who know that He does, not through science, but through faith that God is, has been, and will forever more be. And not for one minute will you convenience true Christian Evangelists that God has the form of a monkey – God is higher than anything He created – and we are created in the image of God – and therefore – the theory of Evolution is moot. And what a shame we have lived long enough in America to see the socialistic teaching of evolution as a fact – when it is not – when creationism is not even taught as a theory – give the facts of both sides – perhaps our students would decide that they have great worth being created in the image of God.

The New Atheists are Creating a New Theology

Just posted this to the LA Times:

Can I offer a new perspective? As a scientist and Baha'i who openheartedly embraces both science and religion, I can see that the New Atheists are-energizing and re-invigorating theology.

Yes, much of new atheism is profoundly unscientific, literalism often straight out of the creationist's playbook. But something else is going on: passion about the most basic questions of theology.

And much more, too. They are profoundly updating the language of theology, bringing it kicking and screaming out of its slumber of irrelevancy, putting modern concerns firmly on the table. The hate and rancor will die away, I predict.

This was in response to Chris and Sharil excellent op-ed:

Opinion

Must science declare a holy war on religion?

The so-called New Atheists are attacking the mantra of science and faith being compatible. Others in the science community question the value of confrontation.

By Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum
August 11, 2009

» Discuss Article (53 Comments)

This fall, evolutionary biologist and bestselling author Richard Dawkins -- most recently famous for his public exhortation to atheism, "The God Delusion" -- returns to writing about science. Dawkins' new book, "The Greatest Show on Earth," will inform and regale us with the stunning "evidence for evolution," as the subtitle says. It will surely be an impressive display, as Dawkins excels at making the case for evolution. But it's also fair to ask: Who in the United States will read Dawkins' new book (or ones like it) and have any sort of epiphany, or change his or her mind?

Surely not those who need it most: America's anti-evolutionists. These religious adherents often view science itself as an assault on their faith and doggedly refuse to accept evolution because they fear it so utterly denies God that it will lead them, and their children, straight into a world of moral depravity and meaninglessness. An in-your-face atheist touting evolution, like Dawkins, is probably the last messenger they'll heed.

Dawkins will, however, be championed by many scientists, especially the most secular -- those who were galvanized by "The God Delusion" and inspired by it to take a newly confrontational approach toward America's religious majority. They will help ensure Dawkins another literary success. It's certainly valuable to have the case for evolution articulated prominently and often, but what this unending polarization around evolution and religion does for the standing of science in the U.S. is a very different matter.

It often appears as though Dawkins and his followers -- often dubbed the New Atheists, though some object to the term -- want to change the country's science community in a lasting way. They'd have scientists and defenders of reason be far more confrontational and blunt: No more coddling the faithful, no tolerating nonscientific beliefs. Scientific institutions, in their view, ought to stop putting out politic PR about science and religion being compatible.

The New Atheists win the battle easily on the Internet. Their most prominent blogger, the University of Minnesota biologist P.Z. Myers, runs what is probably the Web's most popular science blog, Pharyngula, where he and his readers attack and belittle religious believers, sometimes using highly abrasive language. Or as Myers put it to fanatical Catholics at one point: "Don't confuse the fact that I find you and your church petty, foolish, twisted and hateful to be a testimonial to the existence of your petty, foolish, twisted, hateful god."

More moderate scientists, however -- let us call them the accommodationists -- still dominate the hallowed institutions of American science. Personally, these scientists may be atheists, agnostics or believers; whatever their views on the relationship between science and religion, politically, spiritually and practically they see no need to fight over it.

Thus the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science and the National Academy of Sciences take the stance that science and religion can be perfectly compatible -- and are regularly blasted for it by the New Atheists. Or as the National Academy of Sciences put it in a recent volume on evolution and creationism: "Today, many religious denominations accept that biological evolution has produced the diversity of living things over billions of years of Earth's history. ... Religious denominations that do not accept the occurrence of evolution tend to be those that believe in strictly literal interpretations of religious texts."

A smaller but highly regarded nonprofit organization called the National Center for Science Education has drawn at least as much of the New Atheists' ire, however. Based in Oakland, the center is the leading organization that promotes and defends the teaching of evolution in school districts across the country.

In this endeavor, it has, of necessity, made frequent alliances with religious believers who also support the teaching of evolution, seeking to forge a broad coalition capable of beating back the advances of fundamentalists who want to weaken textbooks or science standards. In the famous 2005 Dover, Pa., evolution trial, for instance, the NCSE contributed scientific advice to a legal team that put a theologian and a Catholic biologist on the stand.

Long under fire from the religious right, the NCSE now must protect its other flank from the New Atheist wing of science. The atheist biologist Jerry Coyne of the University of Chicago, for instance, has drawn much attention by assaulting the center's Faith Project, which seeks to spread awareness that between creationism on the one hand and the new atheism on the other lie many more moderate positions.

In this, Coyne is once again following the lead of Dawkins, who in "The God Delusion" denounces the NCSE as part of the "Neville Chamberlain school of evolutionists," those equivocators who defend the science but refuse to engage with what the New Atheists perceive as the real root of the problem -- namely, religious belief.

It all might sound like a petty internecine squabble, but the stakes are very high. The United States does not boast a very healthy relationship between its scientific community and its citizenry. The statistics on public scientific illiteracy are notorious -- and they're at their worst on contentious, politicized issues such as climate change and the teaching of evolution. About 46% of Americans in polls agree with this stunning statement: "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so."

In this context, the New Atheists have chosen their course: confrontation. And groups like the NCSE have chosen the opposite route: Work with all who support the teaching of evolution regardless of their beliefs, and attempt to sway those who are uncertain but perhaps convincible.

Despite the resultant bitterness, however, there is at least one figure both sides respect -- the man who started it all: Charles Darwin. What would he have done in this situation?

It turns out that late in life, when an atheist author asked permission to dedicate a book to Darwin, the great scientist wrote back his apologies and declined. For as Darwin put it, "Though I am a strong advocate for free thought on all subjects, yet it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against Christianity & theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds, which follows from the advance of science."

Darwin and Dawkins differ by much more than a few letters, then -- something the New Atheists ought to deeply consider.

Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum are coauthors of the new book, "Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future."

Posting to Russell Blackmore's blog of Sam Harris's Comments in NYT

I posted this in Russell Blackmore's blog.

Steve Friberg said...

Hi Russell:

About Francis Collins, you write:

"These are not the words of someone who embraces a liberal, non-literalist version of Christianity. Collins believes in a literal creator, in supernatural interference by the creator in evolutionary and human history, and in an objective, supernaturally-grounded moral law."

Given that Francis Collins has written extensively on what he believes, and given that many believe as he does, I can't say that your description rings true. You are, I think, offering a caricature. Sam Harris does much worse in his NYT piece. He misrepresents what Collins believes.

I suspect both of you are being sincere. You are reporting what you believe to be true. But, if we are to be true in a scientific manner, more than just belief is needed. Understanding, backed by verification is needed.

Which brings me to an interesting perspective: you, and the new atheists as well, are at the leading edge of developing a new theology, one more meaningful to the modern world. It is the back and forth of ideas that counts, not initial starting positions and labels.

I think that what is happening, and it is a process going on for the last fifty years, is that the old enlightenment consensus - maybe we could call the academic consensus - has been shown to be shot through with illogic. Religion and science are only opposed if you misrepresent the language of the other side. With the older language of theology, that was easy to do. What is happening now, I think, is that a new and better theological language, one more meaningful in these times, is being forged by the new atheist wars.

Sam Harris Trumps Both Science and Religion

In today's New York Times, Sam Harris - a man of no known scientific accomplishment - weighs in on the qualifications of Francis Collins - a man of tremendous scientific accomplishment - for the position of director of the National Institutes of Health. Apparently, Dr. Collins is not scientist enough for the redoubtable Mr. Harris.

Below is the article with my comments in blue.

Science Is in the Details

By SAM HARRIS

Published: July 26, 2009

PRESIDENT OBAMA has nominated Francis Collins to be the next director of the National Institutes of Health. It would seem a brilliant choice. Dr. Collins’s credentials are impeccable: he is a physical chemist, a medical geneticist and the former head of the Human Genome Project. He is also, by his own account, living proof that there is no conflict between science and religion. In 2006, he published “The Language of God,” in which he claimed to demonstrate “a consistent and profoundly satisfying harmony” between 21st-century science and evangelical Christianity.

Dr. Collins is regularly praised by secular scientists for what he is not: he is not a “young earth creationist,” nor is he a proponent of “intelligent design.” Given the state of the evidence for evolution, these are both very good things for a scientist not to be.

But as director of the institutes, Dr. Collins will have more responsibility for biomedical and health-related research than any person on earth, controlling an annual budget of more than $30 billion. He will also be one of the foremost representatives of science in the United States. For this reason, it is important that we understand Dr. Collins and his faith as they relate to scientific inquiry.

What follows are a series of slides, presented in order, from a lecture on science and belief that Dr. Collins gave at the University of California, Berkeley, in 2008:

Slide 1: “Almighty God, who is not limited in space or time, created a universe 13.7 billion years ago with its parameters precisely tuned to allow the development of complexity over long periods of time.” [Probably, Harris doesn't like the language. As a fact, we do exist, so it is incontestable that the parameters were precisely tuned. SRF]

Slide 2: “God’s plan included the mechanism of evolution to create the marvelous diversity of living things on our planet. Most especially, that creative plan included human beings.” [See comment above. Yes, we do exist, so whatever plan there was "included human beings." SRF]

Slide 3: “After evolution had prepared a sufficiently advanced ‘house’ (the human brain), God gifted humanity with the knowledge of good and evil (the moral law), with free will, and with an immortal soul.” [Only a idealogue could complain about this!. SRF]

Slide 4: “We humans used our free will to break the moral law, leading to our estrangement from God. For Christians, Jesus is the solution to that estrangement.” [Yes, children, there is a Christ! SRF]

Slide 5: “If the moral law is just a side effect of evolution, then there is no such thing as good or evil. It’s all an illusion. We’ve been hoodwinked. Are any of us, especially the strong atheists, really prepared to live our lives within that worldview?” [Collins strike paydirt! Harris must hate this! SRF]

Why should Dr. Collins’s beliefs be of concern?

There is an epidemic of scientific ignorance in the United States. This isn’t surprising, as very few scientific truths are self-evident, and many are counterintuitive. It is by no means obvious that empty space has structure or that we share a common ancestor with both the housefly and the banana. It can be difficult to think like a scientist. But few things make thinking like a scientist more difficult than religion. [How about self-anointed high priests of science with fanatical theological predispositions? SRF]

Dr. Collins has written that science makes belief in God “intensely plausible” — the Big Bang, the fine-tuning of nature’s constants, the emergence of complex life, the effectiveness of mathematics, all suggest the existence of a “loving, logical and consistent” God. [

But when challenged with alternative accounts of these phenomena — or with evidence that suggests that God might be unloving, illogical, inconsistent or, indeed, absent — Dr. Collins will say that God stands outside of Nature, and thus science cannot address the question of his existence at all. [Harris Truth #1: God must measurable. If he isn't measurable, he doesn't exist. SRF]

Similarly, Dr. Collins insists that our moral intuitions attest to God’s existence, to his perfectly moral character and to his desire to have fellowship with every member of our species. But when our moral intuitions recoil at the casual destruction of innocents by, say, a tidal wave or earthquake, Dr. Collins assures us that our time-bound notions of good and evil can’t be trusted and that God’s will is a mystery. [Harris Truth #2: Belief in God must NOT address the mysteries of good and evil, nor is belief in the afterlife allowed. SRF]

Most scientists who study the human mind are convinced that minds are the products of brains, and brains are the products of evolution. Dr. Collins takes a different approach: he insists that at some moment in the development of our species God inserted crucial components — including an immortal soul, free will, the moral law, spiritual hunger, genuine altruism, etc. [Harris Truth #3: Creation and evolution are necessarily incompatible. Anybody who believes differently is wrong and not trustable. SRF]

As someone who believes that our understanding of human nature can be derived from neuroscience, psychology, cognitive science and behavioral economics, among others, I am troubled by Dr. Collins’s line of thinking. I also believe it would seriously undercut fields like neuroscience and our growing understanding of the human mind. If we must look to religion to explain our moral sense, what should we make of the deficits of moral reasoning associated with conditions like frontal lobe syndrome and psychopathy? Are these disorders best addressed by theology? [This is a completely dishonest argument. Collins is not suggesting this. SRF]

Dr. Collins has written that “science offers no answers to the most pressing questions of human existence” and that “the claims of atheistic materialism must be steadfastly resisted.” [The most pressing questions of human existence are the purpose of our life and our responsibility to others. If science offers answers to these questions, let Mr. Harris offer them for our enlightment. SRF]

One can only hope that these convictions will not affect his judgment at the institutes of health. After all, understanding human well-being at the level of the brain might very well offer some “answers to the most pressing questions of human existence” — questions like, Why do we suffer? Or, indeed, is it possible to love one’s neighbor as oneself? And wouldn’t any effort to explain human nature without reference to a soul, and to explain morality without reference to God, necessarily constitute “atheistic materialism”? [But, not yet, eh? SRF]

Francis Collins is an accomplished scientist and a man who is sincere in his beliefs. And that is precisely what makes me so uncomfortable about his nomination. Must we really entrust the future of biomedical research in the United States to a man who sincerely believes that a scientific understanding of human nature is impossible? [Again, a very dishonest remark. There is no reason to believe that Collins holds this to be true. SRF]

Sam Harris is the author of “The End of Faith” and co-founder of the Reason Project, which promotes scientific knowledge and secular values.

Just posted to the Blackford Blog

Having just discovered the Russell Blackford blog (turns out Russ is a fellow SF writer and SFWA colleague) I felt compelled to jump into the dialogue with this comment:

I'm a fellow science fiction writer and SFWA member who also happens to be a member of the Baha'i Faith.

I'm in complete agreement that the "new atheists" have indeed done a public service by opening up the debate on the content of religious dogma.

While I wish they could do so without the sarcasm, vitriol and obfuscatory rhetoric, it is still of benefit to have the light of reason shed in the "'cause that's the way it is" room.

The rhetoric (such as Hitchens' derogatory comments on Christ's "primitive understanding of agriculture") only serves to inflame rather than communicate and just about guarantees an emotional response rather than a rational one. I am cynical enough to wonder if this is not actually the intent.

Here's to honest communication and a moratorium on demonization ... on both sides.

The “religion is bad, science is God” crowd.

I meant to say "religion is bad, science is good" crowd. This is in the excellent Chris Mooney website on Discover.

25. Stephen Friberg Says:
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:28 pm

Hi Ophelia:

Don’t know you, so I don’t know your politics yet. Are you in the “religion is bad, science is God” crowd or the “agnostic” crowd?

27. Stephen Friberg Says:
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:36 pm

Chris, might you be up for a new book project?

Something like “The Democratic War on Religion”, or probably much better (because a lot of Democrats are religious), “The New Atheist War on Religion.”

A New Post on the Russell Blackford Site

Hi Mark:

You write: "As our evolution progresses some features of past evolutionary necessity will be superseded by new adaptations required for the continued survival of the species. Rationality is one of these characteristics."

I agree, but I want to note that the time spans we are talking about - maybe ten thousand years - are too short for biological evolution to be at play. Rather, what is happening is learning, both individual and social.

Science typifies a modern high speed learning process. It powerfully combines both reasoned thought - theory, model building, conjecture - with empirical testing. The "wisdom of crowds" approach - the driving force behind Google - is another.

Very clearly, religion has some catching up to do, bit it too has evolved an important and powerful role to play, But, it is very big, and very slowly moving, except when a new prophet shows up every thousand years or so. That doesn't mean that it is inherently anti-rational, but it certainly can get that way at times.

Three more posts to Russell Blackford's site:

Stephen Friberg • Mountain View, CA, USA • Jun 21, 2009

Hi Russel:

You write:

"There is just a history of science not finding religion-based causes fruitful. ... preformationism of the kind that says God created an infinite set of individuals inside each other dating back to the Garden of Eden was not a fruitful hypothesis. ... Likewise, diluvian geology is now known to be false (this was well-established during the 19th century)."

Best be careful here. Neither of these are notably religious in origin, although I understand the temptation to see as them as such. The later, of course, was a specifically western European hypothesis inspired by the historical genius of Judaism which became a part of an extraordinarily fruitful iteration of thought that prefigured modern geology and of course evolution.

What is of religious origin, history shows, is science itself. The history of astronomy is a case in point. (The history of astronomy, to a surprising degree, IS the history of science).

Starting from Egyptian and Babylonian religious concerns, astronomy was merged into Greek number mysticism with its belief in the sacredness of pure geometrical form. Ptolemy's superb writings took this astronomy and made it into common currency in the Islamic world.

In Islam, the world was considered a sign of God, meaning that to study the world was to glorify God, an approach that encouraged the growth of empiricism and mathematics. For astronomy, extraordinary mathematical, engineering, and observational advances resulted from this empirical bent, leading to a full and rich scientific literature that became the foundation of European astronomy and its subsequent flowerings.

I think the broader thrust of all this may be the following:

The idea of unsophisticated and superstitious supernatural explanations as the religious perspective is pretty much a red herring. Yes, creationism and ID are such things, but delving into their history suggests that are due more to a "high church/low church" political struggle. The "high church" side has morphed into a science-based secular elitism.

In the 17th century, leading religious thinkers were NOT contemplating supernatural acts of God as explanations - that was the domain of the polemicists and fanatics of the war between religionists. Rather, they were doing the opposite. People like the Jesuit-trained Descartes who were setting up science as a truth-seeking way to create unity and an alternative to conflict.

Stephen Friberg • Mountain View, CA, USA • Jun 21, 2009

Hi Athena:

I would agree that most people have a simplified view of science, which is why the danger I warn of is so real.

The danger, and the evidence for it is increasing, is of individuals or groups taking simplistic interpretations of science and turning them into philosophical dogma and recruiting ideological followers. The "accommodationist" discussions on the internet which Russell describes are a skirmish in the ugly cultural war this has engendered. I think it is very dangerous to underestimate the appeal of being an authority.

For (2), you are probably thinking of a different century than I am. Western European slavery was not abolished until the 19th century - and yes, it didn't happen easily. Christianity - this time Protestantism - played a major role in its abolition. If you are a Marxist, I suppose you could say that the factory worker or the immigrant became a serf. Is this what you mean?

Stephen R. Friberg • Mountain View, CA • Jun 22, 2009

Hi Mark:

You write:

"Through the scientific method we have come to know that there is no supernatural. Even if we come to discover other dimensions or universes, these would be part of the natural order of things."

Let me propose a radically different way to think about the supernatural, one that turns your conclusion around 180 degrees. If you understand it, you can understand religion.

My observation, and yes, I'm a working scientist, is that the scientific method has demonstrated very clearly that there is a supernatural. We use it every day - or should - in our work and research.

It is, of course, that which enables to grasp the scientific method, that which enables us to use scientific methods, and that which enables us to understand things.

If you understand what it is, and keep in mind that "super" means above, not superman, and that natural means "nature", not organic, then you can figure out religion, and maybe even break free of all the imagery - the gods, the images - that so bedevils people who don't understand it.

This is a post that I made to Russell Blackford's Blog at IEET

COMMENTS

Stephen Friberg • United States • Jun 20, 2009

Publish Post

Hi Russell:

You are wading into contentious territory, and doing so carefully, and I commend you both for your boldness and your care.

A central claim you are making might be summarized as follows: science has an equal claim to moral authority as does religion, suggesting that NOMA is wrong.

I disagree with the moral authority claim for reasons that strike me as obvious. However, I agree with your distrust of the NOMA doctrine.

- First of all, science makes no claim to moral authority, nor should it be expected to.

- Second, when moral claims have been drawn from science, they have been often disastrously and dangerously wrong. Social Darwinism and the murderous uses it was put to is a case in point. Communism, with its claimed-for basis in scientific materialism, is another.

- Thirdly, a very small percentage of the population are scientists, so any system that ascribes - or attempts to ascribe - authority to science creates a priestly structure empowering "those who know", in this case the scientists. Others therefore have to follow, in this case everybody else.

Religion, which clearly has it failings in living up to its stated goals, is different.

- First of all, it directly focuses on moral issues as a central, if not the central, component of what it does. And, literally for billions of people, it focuses on moral issues such truthfulness, honesty, fairness, compassion, and the need for education as central to its teachings.

- Second, it is for everybody, and at least since Christianity, directly says so. It is phrased so it is accessible to everybody. It does not require a 4 years of undergraduate school and 5 years of graduate school and a Ph.D. thesis.

- Thirdly, it has, and continues to have a track record of tremendous success in achieving moral goals. The elimination of Western European slavery being but one of them. That record continues to expand.

However, there is an important sense in which science is an integral part of addressing moral issues, one which dovetails very well with the moral focus of religion and which suggests that NOMA is inadequate.

And that is that the principles of religion can neither be well-understood nor put into action without the empirical, rational, and pragmatic approaches that science - divorced of its theological trappings - brings to bear.

A case in point is the need to address ecological concerns for the world of our children and their future. Both science, which can supply accurate information and evaluation of various methods to address the problem, and the moral willpower of large numbers of people, mostly folks who are not scientists, are needed ingredients.

This, I think, shows NOMA to be wrong. Both science AND religion working together are needed.

My comment in the Wall Street Journal to Dr. Krauss:

• 15 minutes ago

Nonsubscriber comments are set to "Hide" Show this comment +

• Stephen Friberg wrote: (your comment)

Dr. Kraus weighs in less feverishly than some of his colleagues, notably Jerry Coyne who would cast out all believers from doing science. Certainly, his measured and moderate words are reassuring.

Nonetheless, it is bothersome, as well as inaccurate, to hear him say that "Harris and Dawkins are simply being honest when they point out the inconsistency of belief in an activist god with modern science."

More honesty - including intellectual honesty - would be welcome here. Professor Krauss, of course, is making a theological statement, not a factual statement or a scientific statement. (In the vernacular, these are known as "opinions.") What are his definitions of "activist God?" Is he at all familiar with the hugely vast religious literature on these issues?

I have to ask, how is it that atheists such as Professor Krauss have acquired a direct and innate knowledge of the nature of God, a knowledge unavailable to religious believers, such that they can answer these question so clearly and resolutely without thought? Is their knowledge of God, because of lack of belief, somehow more true and direct?

Be that as it may, a more reasoned and historically correct answer to the question about the relationship between an activist God and modern science is that an activist God is the Lawgiver, the Creator, and the Maintainer of the universe and everything within, and that understanding those laws by the scientific method is an act of worship just as much as is prayer. Note: the method that was evolved - most definitely first in the Islamic world - included something called "empiricism", an approach which better sidestepped worldly delusion and the false "idols" of ignorant and irrational superstition.

Or to put in another way, modern science came out of, and is a consequence of religion and reasoned faith through and through. And yes, its roots are Islamic as well as Hellenistic, a point that had consequences, first good, and then bad, in its struggle to put down roots in late medieval Europe.

In the Wall Street Journal on June 26th, 2009

LAWRENCE M. KRAUSS

My practice as a scientist is atheistic. That is to say, when I set up an experiment I assume that no god, angel or devil is going to interfere with its course; and this assumption has been justified by such success as I have achieved in my professional career. I should therefore be intellectually dishonest if I were not also atheistic in the affairs of the world.

-- J.B.S. Haldane

"Fact and Faith" (1934)

Last week, I had the opportunity to participate in several exciting panel discussions at the World Science Festival in New York City. But the most dramatic encounter took place at the panel strangely titled "Science, Faith and Religion." I had been conscripted to join the panel after telling one of the organizers that I saw no reason to have it. After all, there was no panel on science and astrology, or science and witchcraft. So why one on science and religion?

I ended up being one of two panelists labeled "atheists." The other was philosopher Colin McGinn. On the other side of the debate were two devoutly Catholic scientists, biologist Kenneth Miller and Vatican astronomer Guy Consolmagno. Mr. McGinn began by commenting that it was eminently rational to suppose that Santa Claus doesn't exist even if one cannot definitively prove that he doesn't. Likewise, he argued, we can apply the same logic to the supposed existence of God. The moderator of the session, Bill Brinkman, a reporter with some religious inclination, surprised me by bursting out in response, "Then I guess you are a rational atheist."

Our host was presumably responding to all those so-called fundamentalist atheists who have recently borne the brunt of intense attacks following the success of books like Sam Harris's "The End of Faith," and Richard Dawkins's "The God Delusion."

These scientists have been castigated by believers for claiming that science is incompatible with a belief in God. On the one hand, this is a claim that appears manifestly false -- witness the two Catholic scientists on my panel. And on the other hand, the argument that science suggests God is a delusion only bolsters the view of the of the fundamentalist religious right that science is an atheist enemy that must either be vanquished or assimilated into religion.

Coincidentally, I have appeared numerous times alongside Ken Miller to defend evolutionary biology from the efforts of those on various state school boards who view evolution as the poster child for "science as the enemy." These fundamentalists are unwilling to risk the possibility that science might undermine their faith, and so they work to shield children from this knowledge at all costs. To these audiences I have argued that one does not have to be an atheist to accept evolutionary biology as a reality. And I have pointed to my friend Ken as an example.

This statement of fact appears to separate me from my other friends, Messrs. Harris and Dawkins. Yet this separation is illusory. It reflects the misperception that the recent crop of vocal atheist-scientist-writers are somehow "atheist absolutists" who remain in a "cultural and historical vacuum" -- in the words of a recent Nature magazine editorial.

But this accusation is unfair. Messrs. Harris and Dawkins are simply being honest when they point out the inconsistency of belief in an activist god with modern science.

J.B.S. Haldane, an evolutionary biologist and a founder of population genetics, understood that science is by necessity an atheistic discipline. As Haldane so aptly described it, one cannot proceed with the process of scientific discovery if one assumes a "god, angel, or devil" will interfere with one's experiments. God is, of necessity, irrelevant in science.

Faced with the remarkable success of science to explain the workings of the physical world, many, indeed probably most, scientists understandably react as Haldane did. Namely, they extrapolate the atheism of science to a more general atheism.

While such a leap may not be unimpeachable it is certainly rational, as Mr. McGinn pointed out at the World Science Festival. Though the scientific process may be compatible with the vague idea of some relaxed deity who merely established the universe and let it proceed from there, it is in fact rationally incompatible with the detailed tenets of most of the world's organized religions. As Sam Harris recently wrote in a letter responding to the Nature editorial that called him an "atheist absolutist," a "reconciliation between science and Christianity would mean squaring physics, chemistry, biology, and a basic understanding of probabilistic reasoning with a raft of patently ridiculous, Iron Age convictions."

When I confronted my two Catholic colleagues on the panel with the apparent miracle of the virgin birth and asked how they could reconcile this with basic biology, I was ultimately told that perhaps this biblical claim merely meant to emphasize what an important event the birth was. Neither came to the explicit defense of what is undeniably one of the central tenets of Catholic theology.

Science is only truly consistent with an atheistic worldview with regards to the claimed miracles of the gods of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Moreover, the true believers in each of these faiths are atheists regarding the specific sacred tenets of all other faiths. Christianity rejects the proposition that the Quran contains the infallible words of the creator of the universe. Muslims and Jews reject the divinity of Jesus.

So while scientific rationality does not require atheism, it is by no means irrational to use it as the basis for arguing against the existence of God, and thus to conclude that claimed miracles like the virgin birth are incompatible with our scientific understanding of nature.

Finally, it is worth pointing out that these issues are not purely academic. The current crisis in Iran has laid bare the striking inconsistency between a world built on reason and a world built on religious dogma.

Perhaps the most important contribution an honest assessment of the incompatibility between science and religious doctrine can provide is to make it starkly clear that in human affairs -- as well as in the rest of the physical world -- reason is the better guide.

Mr. Krauss, a cosmologist, is director of the Origins Initiative at Arizona State University. His most recent book is "Hiding in the Mirror" (Viking, 2005).

If you have faith in science its no longer faith, its being superior or special

This a a post I made to Chris Mooney's excellent Intersections blog on Discover

127. Stephen Friberg Says:
June 25th, 2009 at 9:31 pm

Coyne writes:

“Instead of beefing about our “militancy,” why don’t accommodationists start addressing the question of whether faith can tell us anything that’s true?”

Neat trick, this accomodationist bit. Its like what the radical right did with the word liberal. First you label them, then you try to get rid of them.

Can faith tell us anything that’s true? I sincerely hope so. I believe in evolution because I have faith in the scientific community that thought it true. I certainly didn’t do all the legwork myself. The same holds true for anyone who believes in any scientific result whatsoever that they haven’t repeated (and not just repeated, but repeated several times).

So, Coyne has apparently made up his own definition of faith. If you have faith in science its no longer faith, its being superior, or special, or something higher than those who have faith in other things, like, say, democracy, truth, love, those kinds of things.

I don’t get it!

Claiming apples (allegories about spiritual truths) to be oranges (scientific fact statements)

Here is a post I made on Sean Carroll's Discover Magazine Blog (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/06/23/science-and-religion-are-not-compatible/) . There were a lot of good responses to Sean's post.

There was only one to mine which I include at the end along with my response.

44. Stephen Friberg Says:
June 23rd, 2009 at 1:12 pm

Hi Sean:

Yes, I happen to be a physicist. And I understand religion too, something which I’ve found many scientists don’t. (Hi e.pierce, ex-Baha’i).

You write:

“The reason why science and religion are actually incompatible is that, in the real world, they reach incompatible conclusions. It’s worth noting that this incompatibility is perfectly evident to any fair-minded person who cares to look.”

and

“Different religions make very different claims, but they typically end up saying things like “God made the universe in six days” or “Jesus died and was resurrected” or “Moses parted the red sea” or “dead souls are reincarnated in accordance with their karmic burden.” And science says: none of that is true. So there you go, incompatibility.”

I like to think I’m a fair-minded person, and as U of R trained physics Ph.D., I would like to think that I’ve got a reasonably good scientific education. So, do I think your claim makes any sense? To the analysis.

Point 1. Your claims about fact statements.

You are taking allegorical statements like “God made the universe in six days,” “Jesus died and was resurrected,” and “Moses parted the red sea” and conflating them with scientific fact statements.

I grade this as a D-, not quite an F. I don’t give you an F because I know that many religionists do as you just did, so I want to give you a little credit.

Another type of truth claim you discuss is “dead souls are reincarnated in accordance with their karmic burden”.

Given that neither you nor I have died, I’m not quite sure where you get your data on this. But still, I give you a C-. Here, you seem to inch in the direction of recognizing that religion might make truth claims that are different than scientific facts.

Conclusions:

Overall, as a “fair-minded person who cares to look”, I conclude that the incompatibility you suggest is not at all evident from the examples you present. Rather, they suggest you are claiming apples (allegories about spiritual truths) to be oranges (scientific fact statements) and skirting the real issues.

Point 2. Oh forget it. If you don’t get point 1, you are not going to get point 2.

82. Phillip Helbig Says:
June 24th, 2009 at 3:36 am

“You are taking allegorical statements like “God made the universe in six days,” “Jesus died and was resurrected,” and “Moses parted the red sea” and conflating them with scientific fact statements.”

The historical fact is that no-one considered these to be allegorical until science started making
them look very unlikely. YOU say they are allegorical. Why?

I answered Phillip on June 25th, 1:41 PM.

126. Stephen Friberg Says:
June 25th, 2009 at 1:36 pm

On June 24th, Phillip Helbig quoted me as saying:

>“You are taking allegorical statements like “God made the universe in six days,”
> “Jesus died and was resurrected,” and “Moses parted the red sea” and
> conflating them with scientific fact statements.”

He then made an interesting comment and asked an important question:

> The historical fact is that no-one considered these to be allegorical until
> science started making them look very unlikely. YOU say they are
> allegorical. Why?

Let me try to answer. This is an important issue because a very common argument against religion these days is that it is a kind of pre-scientific science and that it’s truth statements are primitive - and wrong - truth statements of a scientific type. Carroll is making this type of argument in saying that science and religion are incompatible.

Clearly, many religionists, including such distinguished early Christian church figures as Saint Augustine and medieval authorities such as Thomas Aquinas did not mistake allegorical truth for scientific fact. The historical record is very rich on the issue of the relationships between “natural philosophy” and religious allegory, and indeed it is one of the main topics of study in fields like medieval studies, Islamic studies, or late classical studies.

So it is simply a mistake to assume that religious allegory was always interpreted as science. However, it is highly probable that the poorly educated did so.

If you are interested in European history, you might consider looking into the emergence of modern science in the so-called scientific revolution in the 17th century. Galileo was a major figure in that scientific revolution.

Galileo’s fight was not with allegorical religious truth - he seems to have had no problem at all with it. Rather, his fight was with Aristotelian science and Aristotelian philosophy that had been absorbed into Catholicism as unassailable dogma. In other words, the big fight was between old science and new science, not science vs. religious allegory.

Another thing you might consider looking into was the relationship between religious allegory and Hellenistic science in the late classical age. Judaism and especially Christianity came of age in cultures permeated with Hellenistic rationalism, the precursor to modern science. What this means is that for classically educated Christian - and later Islamic - elites the difference between allegory and what then considered natural philosophy was no great mystery.