A Sunday Science Sermon

74 Responses to “A Sunday Science Sermon”

1. Peter Rock writes:
   No. 1 — May 4th, 2008 at 1:26 pm

   Interesting story about your mother in-law and the science behind her care. Even when science can’t literally reverse the conditions for death, it still provides a beneficial role. As my father who passed away in January would have testified, the science behind the drugs he took and surgery he underwent was important to his quality of life from the time he was diagnosed to his inevitable death.

   Peter Rocks last blog post..Vicki Davis on Science and Intelligent Design

   Reply

2. Tim Bray writes:
   No. 2 — May 4th, 2008 at 4:00 pm

   Clay, Clay, Clay, poor naive Clay… Do you still believe that schools are about education? Please, you are an intelligent human being, so you must understand that schools are about maintaining the status quo. If schools were truly about learning and developing students’ minds, the elite could never hold on to power for longer than a generation or two. This will not do! Those in power will always choose to hold on to power. Schools are built by the establishment, why would they be designed to change the establishment in a meaningful way? Critical thinking and problem solving are buzz words, but we aren’t actually meant to teaching those things. I’m sorry, do I sound pessimistic?… I think on today’s hike I realized that you are correct about leaving “organized education.”

   Reply

3. Clay Burell writes:
   No. 3 — May 4th, 2008 at 4:36 pm

   Peter – yes. And before death, all the daily blessings we take for granted in our classrooms (if they’re not madrassas, as so many classrooms, by virtue of their cowed silence, may as well be) – the computers, the heat, the light, the bread – all thanks to scientists. But no Thanksgiving for them.

   @Tim,

   You really can’t leave it at that. You know I expect to hear the full scoop, off the record, the next time I talk to you.

   As for the naivete, “You may say I’m a dreamer. . . .”

   I wonder: There are so many overt, self-declared religious schools worldwide. Are there any self-declared secular ones? If not, why not? If so, where?

   Reply

4. Soojin writes:
   No. 4 — May 4th, 2008 at 4:48 pm

   Guess this controversial issue between religion and science seems to last forever. This post reminds me how I was supposed to write about conversational dialects with Bishop Spong

   I think I have an answer to help you understand the Christians situation in the first story, I go to church. Your relatives probably thought that power of God ‘helped’ the doctors to do the right job, because everything is in God’s hands to them. So instead of thanking the doctors, they probably thought they were supposed to thank god who listened to their prayers and ‘guided’ the doctor to success.

   and for number two, “that the students aren’t thinking about learning all these years, but about making grades.” I think you forgot you were teaching in Korea

   Reply

5. Adrienne writes:
   No. 5 — May 4th, 2008 at 7:20 pm

   What’s wrong with some balance? While the stats you present are alarming (evolution should be taught in every school, IMO), your interpretation seems to suggest that *not* knowing about evolution absolutely results in being a believer in Nostradamus or prayer. And this is not always true. Further, many people both know about / understand evolution AND believe in prayer or a higher being (myself included). Why can’t a person be part of both groups? And further, why can’t both concepts be taught in school?

   There are studies indicating that prayer can aid healing, for example. I know you weren’t attacking the act of prayer, as you state. But isn’t it possible to thank both “God” and the doctor simultaneously for saving your mother-in-law? Speaking only for myself here — I see the two as “working together” and would never thank one without thanking the other; in my mind they are not mutually exclusive. Is this bad? Does it mean I am scientifically illiterate?

   Incidentally, the school I currently teach at does “brand” itself as a secular school. And really — aren’t all the public schools in the states (and France!) self-declared secular? Personally, I think trumpeting: “We are a secular school” is not a good idea. Why? It can be seen as insensitive to people from various backgrounds and cultures where spiritual beliefs are important. (Which is ironic when you consider that I work at a U.N. school, specifically founded on the philosophy of inclusion and diplomacy of people from different nations.)

   I think I’d rather be part of an organization that acknowledges and is sensitive to a wide variety of religious / spiritual beliefs — including none at all — than be part of one that declares, “We have no room for spirituality here! It has nothing to do with what we do!” To be part of the latter… well, that sounds elitist and ignorant of how spiritual beliefs *can* positively impact society — just as much so as those who might trumpet: “We are only Christian / Muslim / Hindu here! It has everything to do with what we do and we have no room for science!”

   Reply

6. John Larkin writes:
   No. 6 — May 4th, 2008 at 7:34 pm

   Clay, what answers do I have? Share the data and the arguments and allow the audience, whoever they be, to make up their own minds.

   I am intrigued by those who discount evolutionary theory and have a firm belief in Intelligent Design and Creationism. I have never mixed in those circles.

   Regarding prayer. I do not mind prayer all that much. I sometimes wonder if it has a scientific outcome/rationale deep in our brains ~ that part of our brain that ‘safeguards’ us… the part of the brain that makes us halt at the edge of the footpath just before that speeding truck would have knocked us over. When we ‘pray’, whatever form it takes, we just may unconsciously tap into that part of our brain. Is it the Ascending Reticular Activating System? Anyone knows more about the brain?

   I think Soojin is quite correct in his analysis of the prayers at your Mother-in-laws bed-side. I have heard similar explanations in other situations.

   Coincidentally, a documentary series called the Enemies of Reason featuring Richard Dawkins opens on the ABC here in Australia tonight. I shall watch it.

   http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/E/enemies_of_reason/

   Cheers, John.

   John Larkins last blog post..Keep Twitter Free! [of rules]

   Reply

7. Intrepidteacher writes:
   No. 7 — May 4th, 2008 at 7:42 pm

   Wow! Clay, let me start by thanking you for broaching such big topic on your blog. Having said that why is discussing religion always such a taboo topic. It is one of the things teachers much always be leery about approaching even when we are teaching it. For some reason, people who are religious have no qualms preaching their beliefs to anyone who will listen, but ask for a discussion and suddenly their beliefs are too sacred for discussion.

   I consider myself an atheist Buddhist, because I don’t see Zen so much as a religion, but a way of life and a life long practice. It is a personal journey I have chosen to take. I only mention this because I often feel that I am looked down upon in the school community for being an atheist. It is like some dirty secret.

   @Tim Schools are built by the establishment, why would they be designed to change the establishment in a meaningful way? I totally agree.

   So I guess now, we need to think about how we can educate the largest number of people despite of these obstacles. I think that political thoughts can be lumped into this discussion as well.

   We live in a time where it is easier to be religious, right-wing, and conservative. And acting and saying things outside this framework could get you fired….

   I am curious to see where this discussion goes….

   Intrepidteachers last blog post..Comment Challenge: Day Two

   Reply

8. Teacher writes:
   No. 8 — May 4th, 2008 at 8:53 pm

   It is not the school’s job to try to get people not to believe in God. In the USA we have rights and those rights include having religious beliefs.

   However chools today have been hijacked by the UNESCO arm of the UN who imposes a secular humanist view on everything in the curriculum that is enforced by the Federal Department of Education. Their purpose is to get students ready for world government and allegiance to the totalitarian socialist state, so there must be no allegiance to God and thus religion must be wiped out.

   The fact that the USA still believes in God is encouraging. You don’t have to be religious to appreciate that.

   And I disagree with the comment that NOT acting conservative could get you fired.
   I was a marked person from the time I let on that I did not go along with the Delphi Technique used to brainwash me into the new order of things, and I also refused to sign a similar mission statement. Had I not retired, I WOULD have been fired for being conservative. I was a very dedicated hard working teacher, but you see, in a communist society, if your attitudes are wrong, you are to be denied.

   Reply

9. Clay Burell writes:
   No. 9 — May 4th, 2008 at 8:59 pm

   @Adrian, the main thrust of the post is the confusion between “knowledge” and “belief” (or “faith”) so clear in the statistics. Belief in a “higher power” is different from both “knowledge” of it, and more to the point, “knowledge” of that power’s name and the book(s) It is variously alleged to have authored or inspired. That confusion results in Iron Age tribalism that just strikes me as glaringly out of place in the digital 21st century.

   Intellectual (“academic”? “critical”) humility and honesty should keep all of us from claiming “knowledge” of the unknowable – it certainly does me. I can’t assert the non-existence of any divinity when there is no compelling evidence to justify that belief, just as there is no compelling evidence to the contrary.

   The evidence for evolution, though, is compelling. As I say in the post, this crusade is not against religion so much as it is against the detractors of science. The well-funded and devious global campaigns to confuse the world, in the name of Creationism/I.D., about the meaning of “theory” as used by scientists do more than just harm the public’s understanding of evolutionary theory’s overwhelming body of evidence and lack of compelling alternatives; it also poisons the well of science and undercuts the world’s reception of its findings on other crucial issues. Think of global warming, and how often we hear people say “It’s just a theory.”

   “It’s just a theory” is a meme started by Creationists that is now infecting the public mind about any and all pronouncements by science. That’s a fatal slippery slope at exactly the wrong point in history.

   Again, Adrian, I’m not attacking prayer. I’m not sure what sort of “balance” you’re advocating, though. If the scientific evidence is lacking, I don’t believe allowing faith to be taught as science as a proper “balance” – but again, I’m unclear on what you mean.

   And for the record, I’ve had three experiences in my life – “peak moments” – that I don’t hesitate to call, in the strictest sense, “mystical.” I have no doubt they’re in the same psycho-spiritual neighborhood as that of mystics from all times and places on this planet. I could call those experiences of unity with what felt like “the Source” experiences of “God,” but by naming it thus, I would be limiting it in ways that don’t do it justice.

   So “higher power”? Been there, share that belief. I just don’t want to cheapen it by relating to it on a first-name basis. And It didn’t tell me about any books it wrote, by the way (It did make me trust that death was not to be feared, though, and that Goodness is good, and existence is sublime.)

   @Jabiz, it’s a good question and it does seem unfair: proselytizing pre-modern unjustified “truths” is seen as permissible, while openly airing post-modern evidence of their untruth sets off cries of boorishness or worse. Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, and Dennett are changing the rules by refusing to play by the old ones. It’s an interesting moment in the history of modernity: Women have fought for their rights, racial minorities and gay/lesbian/bisexual/transsexual too. Free-thinkers like “the Four Horseman” (Harris and co., above) are carrying the torch further. It’s ironic that rational skepticism is more taboo than trans-sexuality, but there it is.

   Reply

10. Adrienne writes:
    No. 10 — May 4th, 2008 at 9:30 pm

    Clay,
    I understand better now what you mean about the confusion between “knowing” and “belief.” And I understand what you mean about claiming knowledge of the “unknowable” when clearly it is just a belief. I get that. And, I am not someone who would claim to “know” it, based on any evidence. But there are people, I think, who have more compelling evidence than any book inspired by the belief (I’m thinking here of people who have survived near-death experiences, or other “direct” encounters with that higher power — and I do not fall into this category nor does anyone I know personally). I would say those people have compelling evidence, but that it’s of a personal kind and not that which can be shared…

    … unlike the evidence for evolution, which is obvious and public.

    I wasn’t advocating for faith to be taught as a science (interesting concept!). What I meant by balance was simply that we should not discredit faith by saying it’s a load of hogwash because we have no evidence. Yes, the evidence may not be compelling, but faith still plays an important role in the lives of many and therefore deserves to have a place somewhere in any group — including school. In fact, I wasn’t really advocating for faith to be taught at all, but now that I’m thinking about it, maybe it’s not such a bad idea for it to be offered as an “option”?

    I think it’s interesting that you don’t want to “cheapen” the higher power by relating to it on a first-name basis. Some might argue that by not naming it, you’re not respecting it. Then there are those who feel that not naming it gives it more power (reminds me of He Who Must Not Be Named in Harry Potter.. haha). I, personally, don’t really care what “it” is named, or not, or whether someone even thinks it exists, period. But I do think the fact that so many believe in “it” means we need to respect and not forget about its “role” in the lives of the believers…. which is why I would wince at any organization that doesn’t at least recognize spiritual beliefs as being important. So, perhaps the “concept” of faith should be taught — but not any particular faith. Not even sure if that is possible…?

    (Basically, I’m rarely in favor of the all-or-nothing philosophy.)

    Adriennes last blog post..Commenting Self-Audit

    Reply

11. Eric Hoefler writes:
    No. 11 — May 4th, 2008 at 10:02 pm

    Just to be picky: the existence of a moth with a 12-inch proboscis that can suck the nectar from a flower with a 12-inch style does nothing to “prove” Darwin (or Intelligent Design, for that matter), though it’s easy to see how both sides could claim it as a victory. We have to always be vigilant with the assumptions we draw from the facts we observe, much like the caution we have to take when interpreting causality from a set of statistics placed side-by-side.

    What concerns me in these debates is that the “science” side will become too confident in its “knowledge” and end up crossing the very line it intends to uphold: the line dividing knowledge from belief. We (all of us) place far too much on the “knowledge” side of that line, and to me, that’s the most dangerous deception.

    Reply

12. Charlie A. Roy writes:
    No. 12 — May 4th, 2008 at 10:44 pm

    @Clay
    Certainly a thought provoking post. I am confused by the constant push that faith and science must always be at odds with each other? Must they? Or is it uniquely American to draw a line in the sand and divide humanity between the cliques of faith and science?

    The core questions of who we are, why we are here, and where did it all come from cannot be answered by science. As a believer I have no problem accepting the conclusions of science, medicine, etc. I’d readily agree that biblical fundamentalism and literalism do nothing to forward religion or science. A minimal understanding of Church history shows Biblical literalism to be a local and relatively recent American phenomenon.

    A brief look at the history of science makes the method possible only because of a world view that accepts the reality of matter. Why did this method flourish in the West? Is there something intrinsic in the Christian world view about the fact that the world is real and worth studying that promotes science?

    Part of the difficulty is lumping all Christians into a fundamentalist literalist boat and declaring them ignorant. Not all Christians fit this description.

    It is often easy to trash religion as an origin for certain social evils but science without a conscience doesn’t have a remarkable track record. One might remember that most of the eugenic Nazi holocaust inducing efforts were supposedly predicated upon science. Godless dictatorships of Stalin, Polpot, Mao and others don’t exactly promote the world without God is a better place agenda. But then again I would never put every hard core science lover into this boat. But we see the dangers of extremism on both sides.

    As the head of a religious school we firmly encourage our students to think critically through every issue and claim the Church makes. If it is true then we should not be afraid of open dialogue and criticism. One could conceivably argue that there is no such thing as objective truth in religion but then again that in itself would be a dogmatic truth claim for the religion of secularism or relativism.

    An interesting situation we are all in. Personally I don’t believe the two need to be squared off against each other when both are correctly understood.

    Charlie A. Roys last blog post..Cell Phones in the Classroom?

    Reply

13. Teacher writes:
    No. 13 — May 4th, 2008 at 10:58 pm

    I agree with Eric.

    Since neither position is abled to be proven or disproven, both remain theoretical and thus are equally able of being the belief of any individual.

    In this country we hold dear the right to personal belief and the only places I know of that seek to wipe out all religion are totalitarian regimes that seek to make the ‘state’ the only place to turn one’s allegiance.

    When you look up ‘what is TOK’ you will be taken to a Marxist website.

    http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/en/russell1.htm

    Reply

14. Lucia writes:
    No. 14 — May 4th, 2008 at 11:22 pm

    I have, for some years now, had to accept that the students in my classes are more concerned with getting a passing grade than in learning critical thinking. Despite my best efforts to encourage them to discover answers for themselves and to find solutions to challenges through problem solving, the majority of my students will quickly give up and beg me to tell them the “right” answer. Too many of my students will completely disengage in learning when they perceive that an activity requires the use of independent thought. It’s much easier for students to fail my class and take the “condensed” version of it through our credit recovery program.

    I’m not certain that the religious beliefs of my students cause their inability to think for themselves. I feel it is safe to say that it greatly contributes to the problem. Most of them are more likely to attribute their personal successes to God’s will than to their own efforts. They are also more likely to blame outside forces that they believe cannot be controlled for their misfortunes and failures. Many of the students I teach are struggling to deal with addictions, abuse and neglect. Many also live in gang infested communities with relatives who are underemployed and barely making ends meet. Most will admit that they believe in God, but few will admit that they attend church or pray regularly. The behavior they exhibit at school certainly doesn’t suggest that they fear the wrath of God and the possibility of eternal damnation. It’s as if they pretend to practice a faith that they don’t fully understand, but for what reason? Is it that they have not developed an internal locus of control? Does living such chaotic lives force them to find order anywhere they can?

    Both Christian fundamentalists and Baptists have a strong presence in our community, and that presence is evident at the school where I teach. Faculty and staff regularly encourage students to turn to God for guidance and strength. They share their stories about their personal relationships with God. They wear t-shirts and buttons and jewelry that proclaim the glory of God. And I’m reminded, time and again, at meetings that “God is with us” and “God will help us do the right thing for our students.” We don’t, however, teach a course in comparative religion where students might actually learn about the many gods that exist and the many ways in which faith can manifest itself.

    It is evident to me that my students have no deep understanding of the word of the Christian God as related in the Bible. Most have a scant recollection of the stories of Adam and Eve, Moses, Noah, and Jesus, but that’s the extent of their knowledge of the Good Book. In my attempts to teach them the history of universal literary themes and symbolism, I find that I, a nonbeliever, am often the first person to introduce them to the stories of Job, Jonah, Abraham, David, the Good Samaritan, and a host of other Biblical characters. It makes sense to me that their knowledge of Greek and Roman mythology is lacking since they don’t believe in these ancient gods. It makes no sense for these children to have faith in a God who’s words they’ve barely heard. How does this happen?

    All of this leaves me with these thoughts. If we allow children to have faith in a God they know little about, than we encourage them to abandon reason for faith. If we encourage them to abandon reason, then we teach them that they don’t have to learn to think for themselves. If we encourage them to invest all of their faith in an invisible entity, then we deny them the chance to learn to have faith in their own abilities. If they have no faith in their own ability to change the world around them, then they will have little chance to escape the chaos in which they live.

    If adults are going to encourage children to embrace spirituality, then they need to do so responsibly. I’ve begun to believe that too many children have faith in God for the wrong reasons. I believe that misguided faith confounds children more than it enlightens them. It gives them a false sense of comfort and security. I agree with Clay, that this is not a time when we should “cede the battle for scientific literacy to the forces of medievalism out a sense of social niceness.”

    Reply

15. Peter Rock writes:
    No. 15 — May 4th, 2008 at 11:26 pm

    Adrienne, you state -

    “There are studies indicating that prayer can aid healing, for example.”

    Could you tell us of these studies? The largest study I’ve heard of doesn’t appear to back that claim up.

    Peter Rocks last blog post..Vicki Davis on Science and Intelligent Design

    Reply

16. Teacher writes:
    No. 16 — May 5th, 2008 at 12:17 am

    It is a fact that when you know people care about you, you heal faster.

    Anyone who’s been home alone sick knows it’s a lot worse than if you have for example, a partner to fetch your soup or just to be there.

    So perhaps it’s the human element and the praying is just one activity that demonstrates caring and caring HAS shown to advance healing.

    How is this different than the new age ‘power of positive thinking’?

    Reply

17. Adrienne writes:
    No. 17 — May 5th, 2008 at 12:45 am

    @Peter
    Here are a couple links: This article references one of the “best known” (?) studies on the topic, done in 1999 (it is referenced in several other places online, though I don’t have access to the actual journal it was published in, Archives in Internal Medicine). Another one discusses the 1988 study done at San Fran general. You can find the abstract to that study here. (See the related articles links on the right, too.)

    And more general info from a 2005 newsletter of The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, and a NYT article from 2004 which sums up several studies.

    I should note that *all* of the studies are controversial and hotly debated (even the ones that show some evidence that prayer can aid healing), and for good reason. And, we shouldn’t be looking at any *one* particular study, should we? We should look at a body of research, then draw our own conclusions. The way I see it, a person could find reasonable evidence to support a viewpoint in either direction over this issue.

    Adriennes last blog post..Commenting Self-Audit

    Reply

18. Peter Rock writes:
    No. 18 — May 5th, 2008 at 1:33 am

    Teacher says:

    “It is a fact that when you know people care about you, you heal faster.”

    I’ve never seen a study but I would assume this to be true. In general, I would think that feeling happier can help. That only makes sense.

    However, we are talking about the attempt to petition (what one believes to exist supernaturally) for intervention that will result in the improvement of the patient’s health. That is entirely different than studying depressed versus happy patients.

    Don’t confuse the act of prayer with the loving interaction of the patient and loved ones.

    Peter Rocks last blog post..Vicki Davis on Science and Intelligent Design

    Reply

19. Louise Maine writes:
    No. 19 — May 5th, 2008 at 2:16 am

    Lucia says, All of this leaves me with these thoughts. If we allow children to have faith in a God they know little about, than we encourage them to abandon reason for faith. If we encourage them to abandon reason, then we teach them that they don’t have to learn to think for themselves. If we encourage them to invest all of their faith in an invisible entity, then we deny them the chance to learn to have faith in their own abilities. If they have no faith in their own ability to change the world around them, then they will have little chance to escape the chaos in which they live.

    I love what has been said. Personally, I do not attend church. My spirituality is a personal reflective journey towards being the best person I can be. Many believe you are absolved by attending church (please do not attack me here, that is not true of everyone). I believe in a higher power – it is in all of us.

    All of that aside, students are lacking in critical thinking. As a science teacher, I see how woefully inadequate the students are in this skill and have blogged about it here. Given the current state of world problems, it is needed more than ever just to survive in the world. This skill needs to be cultivated by all teachers but many topics (not just religion/evolution) in the un-schooliness nature Clay would like to see can definitely cause problems within our institutions (recently for me: climate change). Here it is hard to get students to stop remembering information for grades and to start to actually THINK.

    Louise Maines last blog post..Action research: Writing skills

    Reply

20. Benjamin Baxter writes:
    No. 20 — May 5th, 2008 at 6:14 am

    Tangentially, I wish Americans would cut it out with the “God-and-science-can’t-mix” crap. Science cannot disprove God, and God does not necessarily disprove science. God and science can co-exist. I wish more of us would take the position that science is humanity’s way of expressing God’s works, and that the creation story is true, but in the matter of Animal Farm — as an allegory.

    I hate people. Really, I do.

    Benjamin Baxters last blog post..FoxNews on Lincoln-Douglass Debates

    Reply

21. Benjamin Baxter writes:
    No. 21 — May 5th, 2008 at 6:26 am

    … in the *manner* of Animal Farm …

    Benjamin Baxters last blog post..FoxNews on Lincoln-Douglass Debates

    Reply

22. Teacher writes:
    No. 22 — May 5th, 2008 at 8:46 am

    By the way, IB turns the school over to the World Court.
    This is treasonous.

    Reply

23. Peter Rock writes:
    No. 23 — May 5th, 2008 at 8:55 am

    Benjamin,

    You brought up two relationships between science and religious belief -

    1) Science and religious belief “mixing”.
    2) Science and religious belief “co-existing”.

    To me it is clear that #1 is impossible and dangerous to even try. This is what the ID movement is all about.

    To me it is clear that #2 is possible so long as #1 isn’t being pushed.

    See the difference?

    Peter Rocks last blog post..Vicki Davis on Science and Intelligent Design

    Reply

24. Benjamin Baxter writes:
    No. 24 — May 5th, 2008 at 9:11 am

    To most Americans — as the above statistics show — God is much more important and reliable than science. To most Americans, what they know of science is from the evening newscasts from their local news station: namely, science proves that some foodstuff will kill them, only to prove a year later that it’ll save them.

    God is immutable, reliable and trustworthy, unlike the demon science. For practical reasons, it is clear to me that #1 is possible so long as #2 isn’t being pushed, either.

    Benjamin Baxters last blog post..FoxNews on Lincoln-Douglass Debates

    Reply

25. Teacher writes:
    No. 25 — May 5th, 2008 at 9:17 am

    I agree. But above all, freedom of speech and thought need to prevail (although under Goals 2000 it did not and I doubt it will under IB either)

    Reply

26. Peter Rock writes:
    No. 26 — May 5th, 2008 at 9:23 am

    I certainly won’t dispute that to many Americans, “God” is more important than any other conception. However, what do you mean by “reliable”? How is the “reliability” of “God” measured?

    As well, did I miss something? What “above statistics” are you referring to?

    Peter Rocks last blog post..Vicki Davis on Science and Intelligent Design

    Reply

27. Benjamin Baxter writes:
    No. 27 — May 5th, 2008 at 9:36 am

    We’re digressing again, but until Clay intervenes I’ll keep at it.

    What is religion but a form of freedom of speech, thought and assembly? If you’re a Jehovah’s Witness, we could even throw “press” on that list. It’s shallow to support religion against science, and equally shallow vice versa.

    Benjamin Baxters last blog post..FoxNews on Lincoln-Douglass Debates

    Reply

28. Benjamin Baxter writes:
    No. 28 — May 5th, 2008 at 9:57 am

    Statistics are in the post, and God’s reliability is directly proportional to how faith you have in Him. In America, people apparently have a lot of faith in God.

    Benjamin Baxters last blog post..FoxNews on Lincoln-Douglass Debates

    Reply

29. Clay Burell writes:
    No. 29 — May 5th, 2008 at 10:26 am

    @Benjamin,

    That is one of the most provincial arguments I’ve ever heard.

    News flash: other parts of the world have other creation beliefs, so you’ll credit them all equally, right? If not, please explain to me how that’s not provincial and culturally ethnocentric.

    Which God does science express the power of, by the way? If you’re an educator who is going to make that claim (and who believes it yourself), you should be able to explain it clearly. So which God do you mean? Allah? Brahman? Jehovah? The Trinity?

    Sorry, the rest of you, for the slight incivility here. Benjamin is almost trollish on this blog sometimes with his categorical and way-too-easy pronouncements – and his tone.

    Reply

30. Peter Rock writes:
    No. 30 — May 5th, 2008 at 10:27 am

    “God’s reliability is directly proportional to how faith you have in Him.”

    This is what I mean by “mixing”. You are making a claim that is not verifiable. And of course, fellow believers will back you up and nod their heads in agreement because they wish it to be true. But that’s the difference between religious belief and science. Prove the reliability of something scientifically, and fellow scientists will all nod their head in agreement – not because they wish to promote their beliefs, but because the measurable evidence says so. Because to argue otherwise would be foolish in the face of the measurable results.

    What is the evidence for “reliability” in God? Can you answer this question without going in circles? “God is more reliable the more you believe in Him.” is totally avoiding the question.

    Peter Rocks last blog post..Vicki Davis on Science and Intelligent Design

    Reply

31. Benjamin Baxter writes:
    No. 31 — May 5th, 2008 at 10:28 am

    Sorry you feel that way, Clay. I’ll leave.

    Benjamin Baxters last blog post..FoxNews on Lincoln-Douglass Debates

    Reply

32. Teacher writes:
    No. 32 — May 5th, 2008 at 10:34 am

    Comments like ‘if we allow’ by Lucia concern me. You should not ‘allow’ nor ‘disallow’ the thoughts of children when it comes to faith, science, whatever.

    This is why I recommend home schooling.
    I think Benjamin’s posts are quite reasonable.

    Reply

33. Clay Burell writes:
    No. 33 — May 5th, 2008 at 10:50 am

    @Benjamin, I’m not asking you to leave, but to avoid unhelpful comments like “I hate people” (who think differently, implicitly) and “[points of view I disagree with are] crap.” Up your game. Or leave. Your choice.

    I’m going out for the day. It’s my birthday. But before I do,

    @Eric: the “proof” I alluded to was, as I stated in the intro to the post, proof of “a hypothesis” – the existence of this moth, based on the evidence of that flower and the theoretical framework that informed the inference that such a moth must exist. How is the discovery of that moth not proof the hypothesis was true?

    Gotta run.

    Reply

34. Charlie A. Roy writes:
    No. 34 — May 5th, 2008 at 12:49 pm

    @Clay
    Happy Birthday!

    Charlie A. Roys last blog post..Grades, grades, and more grades!

    Reply

35. Lucia writes:
    No. 35 — May 5th, 2008 at 6:44 pm

    Teacher,

    Would you be less concerned if I’d said, “If we admit that it’s acceptable for children to have faith in a God they know little about, than we encourage them to abandon reason for faith.”?

    The “allow” wasn’t intended to imply controlling the thoughts of children by keeping them from exploring ideas. On the contrary, I want more thought from my students; I want them to examine and question everything.

    Reply

36. Teacher writes:
    No. 36 — May 5th, 2008 at 8:18 pm

    I am not comfortable with a school trying to get kids to question their family’s values.

    But then again, when you allow the UN in to control the schools as we have here in the US, you have given control over to a very sinister agenda.

    Reply

37. Teacher writes:
    No. 37 — May 5th, 2008 at 8:20 pm

    By the way, you are asking them also to have ‘faith’ in the science we know little about as well… so…. the same could be said for that.

    Reply

38. Eric Hoefler writes:
    No. 38 — May 5th, 2008 at 8:29 pm

    Apparently, a Happy Birthday is in order, so: Happy Birthday.

    As to your question: I realize the moth example was presented as justification of Darwin’s hypothesis, not “proof” of evolution. I’m simply pointing out that the justification of that hypothesis does little to further the argument on either side of the evolution/ID debate. That’s also why I prefaced the comment with “just to be picky.” Sorry for being picky.

    Reply

39. on “God” and reason « GNUosphere writes:
    No. 39 — May 5th, 2008 at 11:28 pm

    [...] “God” and reason Comments on Clay Burell’s “sermon” got me [...]

40. Jeff Plaman writes:
    No. 40 — May 5th, 2008 at 11:51 pm

    @clay: Thanks so much for this post. I think it bears repeating that the most important issue raised here is one of intellectual honesty. If we operate under the premise that all ideas have equal value we are not really being honest. For example, Dawkins famously refers to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which no one can really take seriously. But, if we are going to operate rules of equal value then how can anyone really say that this invented belief has any less validity than the Christian deity for example?
    The real difference between evolution by natural selection and special creation or intelligent design are that only one of them has observable evidence supporting it.
    Too often I think people who don’t agree with the Bible literalists support them out of hand by not challenging them. Too often we are accused of not supporting “free speech” or not being willing to engage in dialog.
    There is no room for dialog since these ideas come from two different worlds: one the world where evidence and observation are be basis for understanding and the other the world where belief and tradition are the basis for understanding.
    @Benjamin and Peter: God and Science can coexist as long as we recognize that they are two completely different ways of thinking.

    @Clay: I too am constantly shocked by most students blind faith in what they see on TV, read, get on the internet, and even get from me. This is my greatest disappointment as a teacher in a these elite international schools (again… the hype?). The problem here, I suspect, has a lot to do with the fact that our current students have still not completely caught the digital wave they are riding. Many of them can use the technology they have available, but far fewer use it well, create with it, and think deeply about the media they consume. It’s easy to be lazy when you have thousands of googleable facts at your fingertips and many students don’t differentiate between having information about a subject and understanding it.

    Reply

41. Peter Rock writes:
    No. 41 — May 6th, 2008 at 1:00 am

    Clay says:

    “But no Thanksgiving for [Science].”

    True, but you and I both know that every time we devour a tasty dish of pasta, we give thanks to His science. He knows science. It His research upon the evidence that we now understand how to control global warming.

    RAmen.

    Peter Rocks last blog post..on “God” and reason

    Reply

42. Peter Rock writes:
    No. 42 — May 6th, 2008 at 1:07 am

    Eric says:

    “I’m simply pointing out that the justification of that hypothesis does little to further the argument on either side of the evolution/ID debate.”

    ??

    Peter Rocks last blog post..on “God” and reason

    Reply

43. Eric Hoefler writes:
    No. 43 — May 6th, 2008 at 2:11 am

    Peter: is that a question I’m supposed to respond to?

    Reply

44. Peter Rock writes:
    No. 44 — May 6th, 2008 at 7:50 am

    Well, yeah. How does justifying a hypothesis *not* further the argument that evolution is a fact?

    Peter Rocks last blog post..on “God” and reason

    Reply

45. Eric Hoefler writes:
    No. 45 — May 6th, 2008 at 9:51 am

    Because I.D. proponents can claim that “of course a flower with a 12-inch style would have a corresponding moth somewhere with a 12-inch proboscis: that’s in God’s perfect design.”

    Those facts (12-inch style, 12-inch proboscis) do not “mean” anything except within the context of a larger theory. I was just pointing that out.

    Reply

46. Peter Rock writes:
    No. 46 — May 6th, 2008 at 10:59 am

    Well of course the apple falls to the ground. Just because it does doesn’t further the gravity argument. The apple falling is just a part of God’s perfect design.

    At what point does this “defense” start to sound silly?

    Keep in mind that ID is proposed not as a alternative description of evolution, but as a “scientific alternative” *to* evolution. If it’s a scientific alternative but all it ever does is appropriate evolutionary observations by encapsulating them as its own, then that absurdity itself advances the evolution argument.

    Peter Rocks last blog post..on “God” and reason

    Reply

47. Dennis Harter writes:
    No. 47 — May 6th, 2008 at 11:06 am

    @Eric
    The problem I have with an ID explanation like that is that the “of course” defense can be used with anything. Just as Darwin said, if the flower exists, then evolution dictates that of course, a moth would exist that could get the nectar.

    What evolution has on its side is actually based on evidence. ID only offers us the “of course” argument. Hardly seems intelligent to me.

    Reply

48. Peter Rock writes:
    No. 48 — May 6th, 2008 at 11:20 am

    Yes, what Dennis said. The difference between “Of course” versus “Of course, because…” is immense and destroys any notion of equal footing.

    Peter Rocks last blog post..on “God” and reason

    Reply

49. Lucia writes:
    No. 49 — May 6th, 2008 at 6:05 pm

    Teacher,

    I would not ask a child to have “faith” in anything they didn’t understand. I, instead, teach them to be curious about things they don’t understand, use reasoning skills to examine the evidence, and then to make up their own minds based on what they’ve learned.

    If that leads to children questioning their “family’s values”, then that’s a good thing when those values include elevating drug sales to a reputable occupation, regarding the desire to be come educated as a failing, or promoting the use of violence as a means of settling minor disputes.

    Reply

50. Eric Hoefler writes:
    No. 50 — May 6th, 2008 at 6:34 pm

    I’m not arguing in support of I.D., I’m merely pointing out that this specific example, on its own, isn’t a “proof” for anyone without a larger theory in which to interpret it. An already-admitted picky point, but important to me nonetheless because we can’t afford sloppy logic.

    Reply

51. Clay Burell writes:
    No. 51 — May 6th, 2008 at 7:34 pm

    Eric, Help me understand your point. Here’s mine:

    A man observes nature, looks for patterns, finds some, develops a theory based on them.

    He finds something in nature that forces him, on the basis of his theory, to hypothesize that something ridiculous must exist, or else his theory is falsified. (I’m talking about that real flower, and that hypthesized moth.)

    A century and a half later (the blink of an eye compared to religious prophecies about hypothesized beings, which haven’t materialized after two millennia), that hypothesized being – the moth – is independently observed, recorded, documented.

    Are we tangled over the semantics of the word “proof”? Would “validated” serve better here? It seems beyond argument that the theory gains credibility, whatever word we choose. So what am I missing?

    @Soojin and John, It’s not pleasant to say this, but if any deity gets credit for saving the life of my mother-in-law through his responsibility for science, then what do we say about the infant on a deathbed a few feet away in that ICU? And all the other people science couldn’t help? And the apparent divine decision to withhold science from the world for all but the last century or so – when it could have saved so many from all the plagues and diseases (attributed to demons, not germs, until very recently) over thousands of years?

    I’m not even being blasphemous here, since theologians have wrestled with theodicy – explaining “the problem of evil” when God is claimed to be “omnipotent” and “good,” thus theoretically able to prevent evil – throughout religious history. Yes, we can say “God’s will is inscrutable,” or “The Devil did it,” or “God has a better plan for those whose lives were cut short,” but those are claims impossible to both know and demonstrate beyond doubt.

    @Charlie, That question about Christianity’s “Will to Truth” is one Nietzsche asks and probes at length in many of his works – most powerfully, if I recall correctly, in The Genealogy of Morals (it may have been Beyond Good and Evil or The Gay Science – it’s been years since I read his complete works in a year I took off from college for that purpose).

    Nietzsche follows you in your claim that Christianity is responsible, with its elevation of literal Truth (as opposed to symbolic, metaphorical, and other types of truth), for the rise of science in the modern West. But Fritz posits that this was an ironic tragedy for the faith – because the Will to Truth falsified most of what the Church taught, from Creation to miracles to metaphysics to astronomy, physics, geography, history, on and on. A dialectical tragedy of sorts, to be precious and all philosophical about it.

    This post aimed to point out the confusion between knowledge and belief in many thinkers in and outside of education – and the dangers that poses to the advancement and efficacy of science in an age which fatefully needs it.

    Eric, something in one of your comments disturbed me a bit by implying that scientific knowledge is something we have faith in. Maybe lay people have faith in science. But scientists themselves understand that all scientific “truth” is provisional – one falsification is enough to cause any truth to be amended or rejected.

    Evolution hasn’t suffered any fatal falsifications. On the contrary, that moth is one of thousands of confirmations of the theory’s soundness so far. We don’t have any other explanatory frameworks for the history of speciation on this planet that come anywhere close to this level of corroboration.

    Does Darwin (or any scientist worth the name) claim “knowledge” of presence or absence of a creator in setting the whole cosmos, and this blue-green ball, in motion? Not as far as I know. I don’t see how they can, with any sort of intellectual integrity, claim to know. It only gets harder, even if we grant I.D., to argue rationally that it wasn’t Zeus or Ahura Mazda.

    It’s the claims by those who say they do know the answers to such questions that lead us down the slippery slope to confusing belief and knowledge, and muddying the understanding of what the word “know” means, when applied to scientific questions.

    In the third millennium – the space age – it seems incongruous that we would urge critical thinking about everything but the biggest questions, and answers that come from pre-historic tribes. I sincerely don’t get it.

    @Benjamin’s remark that the only thing people see of science is TV reports that what killed you last year doesn’t kill you this year sort of mirrors the irony I pointed at in the ICU, when I was seeing the science all around these people – life-support systems, medical personnel, etc – but everybody else seemed blind to them.

    By that I mean that Benjamin seems blind to the fact that we are surrounded by science every moment of the day, from the light switch we flick in the morning to the refrigerator we open when we eat – to the computer Benjamin was typing his comment on. Science made our modern lives possible.

    That’s why they deserve better than what they get.

    I wonder how many of you read Dennett’s essay, linked above. It’s one of the most memorable paeans to science I’ve ever read. It’s so much more important than anything I could say here. So good, so moral, and so sensible.

    Reply

52. Brian Lockwood writes:
    No. 52 — May 6th, 2008 at 8:10 pm

    Thanks for sharing your experience , it put a smile on my face. It’s an interesting scene as I can relate with your experience. Every time I visit my in laws in Korea I bring my trusty iPod and load it up with all sorts of audio books and when the family goes into their hour long prayer rituals, I’m able to mediate through these long sessions, quite patiently.

    Reply

53. Eric Hoefler writes:
    No. 53 — May 6th, 2008 at 8:42 pm

    Would “validated” serve better here? It seems beyond argument that the theory gains credibility, whatever word we choose.

    Validated would serve better, yes. And I agree that the theory gains credibility.

    So what am I missing?

    I think what you’re missing is simply that my point is a small point, and it has carried over more comments than it’s worth. Also, it seems some people are assuming I’m arguing for a certain position, but I haven’t been. (Mainly because I’m not technically qualified to make the argument, not being a trained scientist, though what I understand puts me solidly in the evolution camp.)

    More specifically, you say:

    [A man] finds something in nature that forces him, on the basis of his theory, to hypothesize that something ridiculous must exist, or else his theory is falsified.

    My initial, little, qualified, and admittedly picky point was that the same could be true of someone coming at this from the I.D. position, namely: “Look at this ridiculous flower. If God created this flower, surely he must have created an insect to go with this flower. I’ll camp out with my camera to ‘prove’ my theory correct. Wait. Yawn. My leg’s falling asleep. Yawn. Hey look! There’s the insect! My theory’s correct!”

    It’s the preponderance of evidence, not the single instance, that validates the theory of evolution over that of intelligent design. I was merely steering us away from placing too much significance on any one piece of evidence.

    …implying that scientific knowledge is something we have faith in

    A critical, well-informed person should know that scientific knowledge is not something to “have faith in.” Varying degrees of certainty are always in play (as you point out), but that’s not the same. I didn’t intend to imply that we “have faith in” scientific knowledge. However …

    Maybe lay people have faith in science.

    I worry about this possibility. If our aim is to build critical thinkers, but all we succeed in doing is moving unthinking acceptance from religion over to science, then we’ve failed. Agreed?

    And to be clear: I think science and the scientific method is great, organized religion is dangerous, and evolution, as the theory is currently expressed, is pretty darn solid.

    Reply

54. Clay Burell writes:
    No. 54 — May 6th, 2008 at 8:55 pm

    Eric – ah, dialog. I’m with you.

    Except: I’ll put more faith in international scientific consensus – the case of Global Warming is a good example – than in anything else.

    Since science is peer reviewed, and we lay people can’t be experts in every field of science, I can’t see any alternative to trusting the consensus of specialists in any field. That means I place my faith in reason, I guess, and the honesty of most scientists as they seek knowledge.

    To me, we risk undercutting science if we caution people against believing what the qualified community of scientists find (always provisionally) true. We have no brighter light to guide us. (And neuroscience today promises interesting insights into the noumenal realms previously the domain of priests. Makes me want to live long just to learn what they discover.)

    Reply

55. Eric Hoefler writes:
    No. 55 — May 6th, 2008 at 9:06 pm

    I agree entirely with your last comment, Clay.

    None of us can actually verify all the things we accept to be true, but we can appreciate more and less-qualified sources of information.

    I’ve been in dialog with Peter Rock over on his blog, and the point I left there seems relevant here, as well:

    “My concern is that we will limit our thinking based on the surety of our present knowledge, rather than recognize the limits of our present knowledge and the possibilities those limitations open for our thinking.”

    But I agree we must balance that with this comment of yours:
    we risk undercutting science if we caution people against believing what the qualified community of scientists find (always provisionally) true.

    Thanks for the verbal/intellectual fun.

    Reply

56. Teacher writes:
    No. 56 — May 6th, 2008 at 9:50 pm

    @Lucia, I doubt anyone’s ‘family values’ include “elevating drug sales to a reputable occupation, regarding the desire to be come educated as a failing, or promoting the use of violence as a means of settling minor disputes.”

    But I have seen religious values shunned, spurned and denigrated, and even attempts to get children out of homes of the religious. This is just not acceptable in a ‘free’ (supposedly) country.

    Reply

57. Clay Burell writes:
    No. 57 — May 6th, 2008 at 10:33 pm

    @”Teacher” – A scenario for you: A child has a life-threatening influenza for which there is a known medical cure. His religious family does not believe in modern medical care, and instead, as their literalist reading of their scripture tells them to, they take their child to a priest for healing instead.

    The child dies.

    The child has a younger sibling that has caught this influenza from him. The younger sibling has a fever. The cheap, known cure is down the street, readily available at the hospital. But the cure is against the family’s religion.

    Would you take the second child away from its religious parents, or watch as they take him to the same faith healer who presided over the first child’s death? Apparently you’d do the second – in the name of freedom (and child slavery to parents instead of children’s rights).

    Have you never heard of cases like this in the States? They’re not infrequent.

    Coming from the American South myself, I can vouch for traditionalists and anti-intellectuals denigrating my study of philosophy, comparative religion, and all the other fields I was curious about in my desire to make sense of this life. They rolled their eyes, insinuated I was too big for my britches, and learning from a bunch of somehow sinister educated types.

    So I know from experience that Lucia’s characterization of the family values of many Americans is not uncommon.

    And a relative of mine works for the pharmaceutical industry, and is filthy rich as a result – and honored. Pharmaceuticals are drugs. Most of them are obscenely over-priced. Many of them are unnecessary. (And yes, this is ironic in this thread about science, but when science and the profit motive mix – HMO, anyone? – all sorts of perversions happen.)

    “Teacher,” you really can’t think of any instances in which Lucia makes a point?

    Reply

58. Teacher writes:
    No. 58 — May 6th, 2008 at 11:20 pm

    I would lay out the choices and then after that it’s up to them. Children do not belong to the “state” or the elitists that think they know better. Period. This is an extreme case and I’ve rarely heard of anything like this happening in this country.

    Unfortunately it is not situations like this that bring parents under attack, but parents are singled out if they have ‘religion’. I know because it’s happening to friends of mine now. It’s truly Orwellian.

    I knew this conversation would deteriorate into anti-capitalism. “And a relative of mine works for the pharmaceutical industry, and is filthy rich as a result”.

    So be it. This is called the free market.
    If you don’t want to use the drugs, then don’t.

    I recently cured an ailment without them.

    HMOs killed my spouse so I have no love for any sort of socialized medicine.

    Reply

59. Clay Burell writes:
    No. 59 — May 6th, 2008 at 11:31 pm

    @Teacher: Tell us the story of your friends. Why are they being singled out? That’s rare too, isn’t it?

    HMO’s are “socialized” medicine? They’re corporate businesses.

    So you’d let those hypothetical parents deprive their child of life-saving medical treatment out of deference to their religious beliefs, even in this case? Just to confirm.

    And as you yourself (subtly) acknowledge, since you’ve ‘rarely’ heard of such a case, that it does happen. So Lucia’s point stands, and your denial of it crumbles, at least a wee bit.

    I’m being this way because I can’t recall you granting a single point when people have replied with reasoned arguments in these pages. To me, that implies a sort of dialogical deafness. Sorry if I’m wrong – it’s an impression.

    Reply

60. Teacher writes:
    No. 60 — May 6th, 2008 at 11:42 pm

    What I am saying is, in rare cases where a child might be denied medical help, medical help can be given. In my state, an 11 year old can get an abortion without parental knowledge so why not an anti-biotic etc?

    And yes, parents AND TEACHERS who are known to be religious, or pro-American, or in support of the Constitution and Bill of Rights as opposed to all this UN nonsense, have been singled out for harassment and even have been fired just for being ‘conservative’.

    Reply

61. Adrienne writes:
    No. 61 — May 7th, 2008 at 12:06 am

    @Teacher
    Umm.. HMOs are not socialized medicine. Your tax dollars are not paying for that HMO. Clearly you have not lived anywhere or read enough about places where actual socialized medicine exists, for that was truly an ignorant comment. (Sorry, but.. c’mon… really!)

    And I too want to know more about the parents and teachers who are being singled out for harassment or being fired. Please share more details. Perhaps a link to a local news story? I have never heard of this.

    Btw, what is “all this UN nonsense”? (Curious, of course, because you know I work at a UN school which, although not faultless, is not “nonsense.”)

    Adriennes last blog post..Commenting Self-Audit

    Reply

62. Teacher writes:
    No. 62 — May 7th, 2008 at 12:51 am

    Anyone who works for the UN ought to hang their heads in shame.
    That’s all I have to say about this issue…

    Reply

63. Penelope writes:
    No. 63 — May 7th, 2008 at 4:38 am

    Teacher:

    So, anyone who works for an organization created to maintain world peace and improve the lives of humans everywhere ought to hang their head in shame? Why?

    ——–
    I remember reading about some psych research where people tend to overestimate the number of minorities in any group of people. One of the weird parts of it is that when the number of a minority approaches about 1/3 of the total, people start to claim that it has reached equality or is becoming the majority.

    I often think that claims by Christians in America of oppression are related to this. The fact is that Christianity (in all its many variants) is still the majority religion in this nation. Its ideals are privileged in our national discourse, in our laws, in our entertainment. This is the country where you can be criticized for not wearing a flag pin if you’re a politician, where people can say that atheists cannot be moral and shouldn’t be citizens with impunity, where “centrist” politics are what most of the rest of the world defines as solidly conservative, and where conservative Christians are a respected voting bloc with strong influence on elections.

    Yet, because people have started to recognize that other religious beliefs deserve some attention, and that we have a ways to go before we achieve real separation of church and state, suddenly Christians are oppressed?

    You all need to follow Fred Clark at Slacktivist (http://slacktivist.typepad.com/). He says everything I want to say about the problems with this attitude and the representation of Christianity in the media, and better. Plus, unlike me, he’s an evangelical Christian so he’s speaking from the perspective of an actual member of a faith that I’ve only studied as a matter of interest.

    Penelopes last blog post..Brief Hiatus

    Reply

64. Lucia writes:
    No. 64 — May 7th, 2008 at 7:26 am

    Clay – Thank you for arguing my point with much more eloquence than I could muster.

    I think much of this conversation supports the idea that people can’t seem to come to an agreement as to what it means to “know” something.

    As for my own experience as a public school teacher in Central Florida, the schools in our district fully respect a student’s right to practice his/her faith during school hours. We have strict policies about not planning tests or “important” instructional periods on days that would interfere with religious observances. The majority of our school board also believes that ID should be taught along side evolution. As a non-believer, I’m in the minority and I dare not share my views with my students. I’ve learned to respond to their questions about my “faith” with a patient, “How I practice my faith is a private matter.” It’s sad really; it’s the only thing about who I am that I keep from my students (and the rest of the faculty as well).

    Adrienne – I think, maybe, the reference to the UN is a stab at their support for IB programs. That’s how I interpreted it.

    Reply

65. Adrienne writes:
    No. 65 — May 7th, 2008 at 10:12 am

    Teacher, whoever you are, I am growing rather tired of your unsubstantiated comments. And I have decided I will no longer respond to them, because they’re not worth my time. If you make a statement, please support it. Otherwise, we cannot seriously engage in meaningful dialogue with you.

    Reply

66. Clay Burell writes:
    No. 66 — May 7th, 2008 at 2:36 pm

    @ Penelope: That Slacktivist link you shared is high quality stuff. While I personally don’t get how people can be half-and-half credulous (either it’s basd on an ultimate truth or it isn’t, in my book), I’m still thankful for people who can think critically about how much of their old creed seems credible today.

    My favorite link in return is Bishop John Shelby Spong. This hour-long lecture (video) he gave a few years back is as riveting in its honesty as it is perplexing in its claim that there’s still something godly there. And his Call for a New Reformation is Martin Luther meets the Enlightenment. I’m not exaggerating. It’s the most piercing critique from a man of the cloth about the challenges of science to the credibility of the creed. Luther didn’t challenge the basic dogma on scientific grounds. Spong does. Historical stuff.

    Reply

67. Ken Allan writes:
    No. 67 — May 7th, 2008 at 5:47 pm

    Clay, before you read much further I’m going to apologise to you that this is going to be a long comment; perhaps it should really be a blog post. I have a copy – feel free to delete it from your blog.

    Knowledge is a very complex entity. Recently I have had a conversation with some of the leading lights in how civilised humans presently regard knowledge. I was amazed at the conceptualisation that had to arise so that a parallel could be drawn between the wave-particle duality (paradox) in physics and the way that knowledge is currently viewed (as a thing or a flow). The third ‘thing’ that was brought into the conversation alluded to the possible existence of knowledge being of a form that paralleled a quantum (these are my words). At first I could not believe it (not the paradox, but that the parallel was drawn). Sadly, I have to admit to you here, I found it to be true.

    Another consideration I’d like to broach is that of ‘the problem’. I use this expression to describe any entity that we may have bother with, misunderstanding over or just puzzlement about. Problem solvers tell us that before a problem can be solved it must first be recognised as a problem. I have no problem with that idea. Others who differ with that opinion may find it problematic – get my drift? I sleep at nights while they continue discussing.

    It comes down to belief. Mrs Credo believes the problem exists. Mr Faith does not.

    I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow at some predictable time, given my location and pending the weather allowing a clear observation to be made so that this belief can be verified. Others may claim that it doesn’t need any verification; that is simply not scientific of course. Argue as another may, there is no way that it can be proved (or disproved) until that point in time occurs. For some, belief is implicit.

    I believe that Jesus Christ walked this earth. I introduced the last sentence that way for, frankly, the statement that Christ walked this earth is scientifically verifiable whether I am religious or not.

    What we (you and me perhaps) understand about the ‘scientific’ way is based entirely on what we may agree to call a ‘scientific method’. It’s like the discussion going on at the moment about whether kids should have a few print based verifications rather than what may amount to a thousand and one citations on the Internet in support of their assignment. It is a premise about verification, a hypothesis that’s based entirely on belief.

    Even the scientific method cannot prove or disprove things with any surety without having belief. A high-school child who tosses a coin in the air 6 times and records 6 heads may be misled into thinking that a pattern has arisen that makes it almost certain that the seventh toss will also be a head. If the same child decides to take the experiment further by using a verification method, the same result may be obtained the exact same probability exists that another six heads can be thrown consecutively. And it is the same for the third set of six throws (not so all three sets one after the other

    Given that a finite probability exists that the child may succeed in tossing 18 heads in a row, such results could seriously be construed as being definite proof that the 19th throw shall return a head like all the rest. The child may well believe that this is a true and correct scientific way of going about verifying it, and after proving it, may see no reason to attempt to verify it again.

    Will the sun rise tomorrow?

    Reply

68. Clay Burell writes:
    No. 68 — May 7th, 2008 at 10:04 pm

    @Ken, I have no problems at all, at all, with long comments. (Responding to them with equal length can be problematic, though!)

    I’m having a hard time following your points, though. Help me out.

    1. What is the “it” referring to in the last line of your first long paragraph? And which, if any, of the three metaphors are you suggesting is the (most?) correct one?

    2. What is the point of your exposition of the word “problem”? I define it, in this context at least, as a situation in which the confusion between knowledge and belief causes less than optimal consequences in society’s attempts to effectively handle problems (social, environmental, political, more).

    To expand on that, as responses to global warming, scientific answers seem preferable to faith-based shoulder shrugs that “it won’t matter when we’re in heaven” (and yes, thank Goodness, some green types from the Abrahamic traditions interpret “dominion” as a call for “stewardship” of Nature and earth, and even the Pope recently decreed energy waste a “sin”); as a response to hurricane defense, science and engineering are more reliable than prayer; similarly, in the case of illness and disease, a trip to the physician is a more reliable solution than a trip to the faith healer.

    Climate change, poor public works, and disease and illness qualify as “problems” to me. Are you suggesting otherwise?

    The question of whether Jesus the Christ – important, that “the” – ever walked the earth is a “problem” of a lower order, though belief in it has secondary effects in problems of a higher order, like the examples I just named.

    (By the way, historians have long been aware that there is very little compelling evidence that the Jesus of the Gospels, who performed miracles and rose from the dead, ever did exist. Priest, theologian, and New Testament professor Tom Harpur’s The Pagan Christ extensively catalogs all the evidence and arguments of historians and theologians against the existence of an historical Jesus, and Earl Doherty’s The Jesus Puzzle includes much of this online.

    For the record, there are counter-arguments such as the “argument from embarrassment,” so I’m not saying the question is closed. Most people, though, don’t seem to realize it’s open.)

    My point, though, is that I can’t see how your response helps us with pragmatic questions of historical and natural “fact.” Did Jesus walk the earth? Do I? Does Ronald McDonald? We can seek evidence to “know” the answer. “Belief” contrary to the evidence is no argument. If you’re suggesting otherwise, how is that not sophistry of the least helpful sort?

    Given that a finite probability exists that the child may succeed in tossing 18 heads in a row, such results could seriously be construed as being definite proof that the 19th throw shall return a head like all the rest. The child may well believe that this is a true and correct scientific way of going about verifying it, and after proving it, may see no reason to attempt to verify it again.

    I’m a humanities specialist with a background in the history of ideas, not a scientist, and that preface is necessary before I respond to this last argument. Maybe a more qualified specialist in science can weigh in here.

    My response is this: The case of a child tossing 18 heads in a row could by no means be “seriously construed as … a definite proof” of anything. That’s naive pseudo-science that omits the most vital elements of any real scientific verification, namely: peer review, duplication of the experiment, and falsifiability. The species-wide community of scientist would repeat the experiment, get different results, and put that child’s theory to rest.

    (I’m talking about the coin-toss, not the sun “rising” – two wildly different examples that don’t belong in the same argument, but interestingly, if the earth ever DID stop spinning, thereby giving evidence that the sun does NOT always rise, scientists would be the first to say, “Back to the drawing board, boys. There’s more to this rotation and momentum of the earth thing than we ever knew, so we have to study it afresh.” We may as well add that as soon as evidence surfaces that Jesus definitely existed or the fossil evidence has been misinterpreted, true scientists – humble and respectful before evidence, wherever it leads and whatever sacred cows, scientific or otherwise, it flattens in its course – true scientists, as I say, would go back to the drawing board to improve their understanding of everything they thought they “knew” in light of this new evidence.)

    –

    That’s about as much as I have in me right now. Please let me know if I’ve misunderstood you, and thanks for taking the trouble to weigh in.

    Clay

    Reply

69. Aggregators as Couches, Comments as Salons | Beyond School writes:
    No. 69 — May 8th, 2008 at 11:01 am

    [...] four days, I’ve been busy reading and replying to the conversations in three recent posts – A Sunday Science Sermon (68 comments about what “knowing” means), Muhammad Ali: D- Student? Or F- School? (90 [...]

70. Ken Allan writes:
    No. 70 — May 8th, 2008 at 7:43 pm

    @Clay, thank you for weighing in.

    You said that you “have no problems at all, at all, with long comments”. Do I detect an Irish dialect? Or does your keyboard have a stammer?

    I acknowledge that a civilised question deserves a civilised answer. Your question was anything but uncivilised.

    The ‘it’ you refer to is ‘the idea that a parallel could be drawn between the wave-particle duality in physics and the concept of knowledge being either a thing or a flow’. I took the trouble to insert the explanatory parenthesis “(not the paradox, but that the parallel was drawn)” in order to clarify this. I apologise for not being explicit enough.

    In your 2nd bulleted argument, the point of my exposition of the word ‘problem’ was an attempt to convey the relationship between the belief that a problem may exist and the problem as defined by the person who thinks that it is a problem.

    I have no disagreement with your contextual definition “as a situation in which the confusion between knowledge and belief causes less than optimal consequences in society’s attempts to effectively handle problems (social, environmental, political, more)”.

    I must admit that the way you express this tends to verify what I’d assume about your use of an Irish dialect and possible related idiosyncrasies – that you would not say something in 100 words if you could express it in 101.

    I also agree with your expanded elucidation, though I feel that it is expedient to stay nearer the point rather than explore sinuous ramifications of it.

    You said that in your belief “(c)limate change, poor public works, and disease and illness” qualify as problems. At the same time you raised the point that perhaps I meant otherwise.

    No Clay. I certainly do not suggest that any problem you perceive could be anything other than your problem. Nor would I dispute the ownership of such a perceived problem. The problem belongs entirely to you, as does the air you breath.

    I did not use the description “Jesus the Christ”. But I do recognise that by using it in your discourse to exemplify the existence of a hierarchy of orders of belief, you needed to draw some distinction between Jesus the Christ and my less specific description. I believe that you and I are taking about the same person here.

    Your commentary in parenthesis which immediately follows, seems to confirm what I said about verifiability, whether from the standpoint of religion or not. In this regard I wonder at your need to clarify what I meant by “Jesus Christ”.

    I am not suggesting otherwise that “(b)elief contrary to the evidence is no argument.” In fact, you have underlined my conviction that belief could indeed be construed as sophistry.

    Your point about the need for me to clarify the ‘science’ is well taken. You say you are a humanities specialist with a background in the history of ideas, not a scientist. I am a specialist in philosophy with a background in science. It seems that the overlap of our respective backgrounds and understanding is considerable.

    And so I agree with you. The child’s belief, that it is scientific to use the result of 18 tosses yielding 18 consecutive heads, would be naive. I would not go so far as to describe it as pseudo-science. I’d reserve that description for someone who had more knowledge and experience than a child and who believed it was scientific to use that sort of result as certain proof of the outcome of the next toss being a head.

    In essence, the scientific method is simply one where a hypothesis is put to the test. This is done by drawing together as much reproducible observational evidence as possible in support of that hypothesis.

    But it does not finish there. There also has to be some way the hypothesis can then be used to predict some hitherto unobserved, but nevertheless observable phenomenon (or outcome).

    Verification of the hypothesis becomes strengthened when observations are made that show the prediction to be correct. This is an iterative and exhaustive process which, in fairness to those who dispute the scientific method, can never provide certain, unequivocal proof. Good scientists know this.

    That the sun rises tomorrow is implicit in all that is known and understood about the sun, the earth and how these bodies appear to behave with respect to each other. The knowledge of this can be, and usually is, diverse in the extreme and can originate from a wide variety of seemingly unrelated disciplines. That this is so simply shows the verifiability of the hypothesis that the sun rises tomorrow – nothing more.

    As you say, true scientists go back to the drawing board to improve their understanding of everything they thought they knew. They do this when they are confronted with new evidence that puts their original and seemingly verifiable hypothesis into dispute.

    I’d say we were well matched on the weigh-ins. I look forward to the next bout.

    Ka kite
    from Middle-earth

    Reply

71. Clay Burell writes:
    No. 71 — May 8th, 2008 at 10:38 pm

    @Ken, At the risk of making you feel short-changed, from what I can see in your response, there’s not much disagreement going on between us.

    I could challenge the somewhat solipsistic-sounding “your problem is your problem entirely, like the air you breathe” (I paraphrase) comment, and counter that the air I breathe, if toxic, is not only my problem in any pragmatic sense.

    But I sense you’re talking on a more abstract level?

    As for talking about the same Jesus, I’m not sure. “The” Christ is a title applicable to anyone who has achieved the same insights Jesus allegedly did, and thus have “the Christ” in them. Jesus “the” Christ is in this view not part of any holy Trinity, not a god, but simply one of many other philosophical types throughout history that realized that “the Kingdom of Heaven is within us.” So that Jesus is a person, and a teacher of Good News that has nothing to do with believing he’s God and died so the rest of us could die and go to heaven.

    Anyway, not too many words in me tonight. (And being an American mongrel, I have the blood of the Irish and probably just about every other race you can imagine in me. We Americans are mutts. But I am a lover of words, for sure, as you are.)

    ‘Til next time.

    Reply

72. Ken Allan writes:
    No. 72 — May 9th, 2008 at 3:51 am

    @Clay, the metaphor of “the air you breathe (sic)” is that ownership of the problem does not necessarily exclude sharing it.

    But given that agreement spells death for discussion, it may appear complacent and possibly even defeatist to say I’m glad we agree on most things. The fact is I believe we do.

    It remains for me to thank you for the weight and quality of your contribution, for now and to close with the indelible words of Dave Allen.

    “And may your god go with you.”

    Ken Allans last blog post..Reflecting on what I’ve learnt so far

    Reply

73. Blogger in Middle-earth: The Day 28 task - My Commenting Strategy writes:
    No. 73 — May 29th, 2008 at 10:52 am

    [...] which returned a feeble reaction added as an after-thought to a list of beefy replies, with this more antagonistic approach to another post by Clay that seemed to generate more energy in discussion.Does the topic have real [...]

74. coComment - Group writes:
    No. 74 — September 12th, 2008 at 6:19 pm

    [...] [...]

Leave a Reply