On Science, Faith and Religion
From: Jie Kai <kohfamey@pacific.net.sg>
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 13:19:43 GMT
Subject: [youngrepublic] Article from the The Spectator.co.uk
Reply-To: youngrepublic@yahoogroups.com
Visit The Spectator.co.uk at <http://www.spectator.co.uk/>
DOWN WITH SUPERSTITION
Andrew Kenny takes issue with uncritical believers and credulous non-believers
By Andrew Kenny
The thoughts of Richard Dawkins, the atheist, and Paul Johnson, the Christian, lie on my bookshelves. I love the writings of both men. Both have changed the way I view the world. I was already an atheist before reading him, but Dawkins convinced me that chance mutations and natural selection alone can explain not only the magnificent variety of life on Earth, including humans, but also the way living things behave.
My mother was a devout Catholic. One day, when she needed something to read, I thought I should present a challenge to her faith and so took one of these books from my shelves and gave it to her. She read it and was shocked. She told me that it was the most disturbing book she had ever come across. She was so upset that she went to her priest and read extracts to him. He told her that the author was probably anti-Catholic. The book in question was A History of Christianity by Paul Johnson.
What shocked my mother was Johnson’s cold-blooded examination of the scanty evidence about the life of Jesus and his pitilessly honest dissection of the disputes in the councils of the early Church that established the Christian faith we see now. My mother had no interest in science and so never read anything of Dawkins. But if she had, his scientific arguments would have rolled off her like water off a duck’s back, quite irrelevant to her belief. For her, science was science and religion was religion, the two occupying different realms.
The vast majority of religious people on Earth agree with her — quite rightly. Science explains, and does nothing else. Religion inspires, comforts and guides but cannot and should not try to explain the natural world. Indeed, I should say that it is impious for it to do so. Unfortunately, though, small groups from both sides stray out of their territory and make idiots of themselves. Certain religious people talk nonsense about science, especially the theory of evolution, and certain scientists, including Dawkins, make absurd attacks on religion.
The theory of evolution is the simplest ever devised. It says two things. First, there are chance mutations that can change an organism. Everybody, including the religious fundamentalists, agrees with that. Second, if the change improves the organism’s chance of survival and procreation, it is likely to have more descendants than its fellows that did not change. Again, everybody agrees with that. But that is all there is. That explains how humans, elephants and mushrooms evolved from one-celled organisms.
The greatest challenge ever to Darwin’s theory came early on when critics pointed out that any change would be blended away over successive generations. Darwin did not realise that the problem had already been solved by a priest, Gregor Mendel, who showed that inheritance comes in lumps of information. Modern DNA discoveries, which confirm Darwin’s theory in detail, show exactly how it is done.
Modern attacks on evolution, especially by ‘creationists’ or believers in ‘intelligent design’, are just silly. One such argument is that you can never get an increase in information by blind chance. Of course you can. The theory of thermodynamics says that entropy or disorder increases in total, but it is quite possible — and this happens all the time — that there can be a local increase in order at the expense of a net increase in disorder. A crystal forming in a cooling glass of salt water gains information as its surroundings lose more.
Another argument is over ‘irreducible complexity’: that some units of living things could not have been put together step by step as evolution requires. But the eye and the wing, two favourite examples, clearly point to step-by-step evolution. Remove bits from them and you still have an organ that is better than nothing. A crude light sensor that can do no more than sense a shadow is still a massive advantage for survival. In the case of, say, DNA itself, the likely explanation is scaffolding, now discarded. Take an arch of loose bricks. You are told that this has been built by a one-armed man moving one brick at a time. Impossible? No, easy. He builds a pile of sand first, places brick by brick on the sand to make his arch, and then removes the sand.
A particularly fatuous argument is that evolution can produce differences within a species but not a new species. As a species gets divided by migration or a change in geography, its two groups, isolated from each other, tend to change. After a while they change so much that they cannot breed with each other and become separate species. You can see this happening. Lions and tigers, once the same species, have drifted apart and are at an intermediate stage of separation. They can mate and produce children but not grandchildren. What do the creationists think God does here? Does He watch the groups drifting apart and then, just as they are about to form different species, leap in and make different species Himself?
Insistence on ‘intelligent design’ only demonstrates unintelligent human thinking. There are two entities that can never overlook anything: the first is an omniscient God; the second is a perfectly dumb universe, which cannot overlook anything because it never considers anything in the first place. The extraordinary power of dumb design, quite beyond the scope of human imagination, is something we need to ponder. The dumb designer of Darwin’s evolution blunders and trips into every nook and cranny of possibility and produces the world of marvels we see about us, including ourselves.
Unfortunately, the anti-religious side has quite as much ignorance and dogma as the creationists, and has painted a false and damaging picture of religion in civilisation. Let me give a spectacular example. In European history, the worst case of idiotic, wicked superstition was witch-burning. Its horrible zenith occurred not in the Dark Ages but in the 16th and 17th centuries, the ages of enlightenment and scientific discovery. Which agency in Europe did most to oppose the witch-craze? Which agency best promoted a rational and humane approach to this benighted horror? The scientific establishment of Newton and Descartes? The secular authorities? Neither of these. The leading voice of reason against the witch-burning came from the Spanish Inquisition.
Disturbed by the witch mania, the Spanish Inquisition in 1538 sent the inquisitor Valdeolitas to Navarre ‘with instructions to ignore the general demand of capital punishment for witches, and to explain to the population that phenomena such as the blighting of crops were not caused by witches but by the weather’.
In 1611, it sent Alonso de Salazar Frias to investigate claims and confessions of
witchcraft. After careful examination of the evidence, he said, ‘Considering the
above with all the Christian attention in my power, I have not found even indications from
which to infer that a single act of witchcraft has really occurred. Moreover, my
experience leads to the conviction that, of those availing themselves of the edict of
grace, three quarters and more have accused themselves and their accomplices
falsely.’
Dawkins and co., please read these words carefully. They were written in the century when Newton believed in alchemy and ghosts. Salazar’s ‘Christian attention’ led him to reason and decency, in the same way that Wilberforce’s Christian conscience led him to end slavery.
Contrary to anti-religious dogma, the Spanish Inquisition, which began with savage cruelty in the 15th century, reformed itself into a model of enlightened investigation. It was the first tribunal to limit torture, and in fact seldom if ever used it in the 18th century, unlike secular tribunals which used it freely and brutally. It became a pioneer of rational legal procedure.
The most famous clash of science and religion was the Galileo affair. Here is an
example of the stupendous nonsense written about it. The author is Thomas Jefferson:
‘Galileo was sent to the inquisition for affirming that the Earth was a sphere: the
government had declared it to be flat as a trencher.’
Now the trial of Galileo happened nearly a century after Magellan had sailed around the world. The Catholic Church had never denied the Earth was round (belief in a flat Earth is very modern). The anti-religious brigade seems to have trouble getting its facts right. But of course the Church’s attack on Galileo for saying that ‘the Earth moves’ was stupid and wrong and a prime example of what I am arguing against. Christian belief has got nothing to do with astronomy, and Pope Urban then should have recognised this — as Pope John-Paul does today.
The fundamental practical problem for atheists like Dawkins and me is that religious belief seems to be innate in man, part of our genetic make-up. There is an evolutionary explanation for this (as there is for the existence of morality). People naturally have religious belief and will form religions. That being so, it is far better that they belong to the great religions, which have accumulated a vast body of wisdom and experience over the centuries. If not, they will start new religions, and the slaughterhouse of the 20th century bears grim witness to the dangers in this.
Marxism is, of course, just a secular religion but a new and unstable one, founded not on tradition but on new ideas. It led to mass murder on a scale unprecedented in history. The crimes of the Christians Torquemada, Richelieu and Richard the First pale into insignificance compared with those of the atheists Lenin, Stalin and Mao. Only the pagan Hitler can rival them. (The ranking in terms of people killed is: 1. Mao; 2. Stalin; 3. Hitler; 4. Lenin.)
The green eco-doom movement is another new religion. The Fall in the Garden of Eden has been replaced by the naughtiness of industry and capitalism. The punishment of the Old Testament plagues has been replaced with global warming and ozone depletion. We must seek redemption not in forsaking evil and praying a lot but in forsaking motorcars and building a lot of windmills. When Bjorn Lomborg challenged the eco-doom church by publishing statistics to show that the Earth is doing fine, he was denounced as a heretic and attacked without any factual backing by members of the establishment, such as Scientific American. Here Lomborg played the role of Galileo and Scientific American that of Pope Urban.
Like Dawkins, I believe we are nothing but assemblies of chemicals in a cold universe put together by the blind workings of chance and selection. Life is short and we are dead for ever. As usual, the religious put it best: ‘dust unto dust’. Like Dawkins, I believe we must engage in a moral struggle against the dark side of our nature, which evolution has bequeathed us. For practical purposes, Christian and atheist views on Original Sin are identical. But, unlike Dawkins, I believe that the great religions have played a fundamental, perhaps essential, part in the development of all that is good in civilisation, including science, justice and decency. Long may they flourish.
I only know the religion I was born into, Christianity. I do not believe, but I accept Jesus as the supreme moral leader. If I had children, I should want them brought up as Christians. Throughout the centuries since His crucifixion, the greatest genius of Europe has built up a sublime edifice of art, literature and music to His name, expressing the most transcendental longings of the human spirit and the highest virtues of the human capacity. No atheist can stand against this majesty — nor should he want to.
(c)2001 The Spectator.co.uk
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 23:00:35 +0800
Subject: RE: [youngrepublic] Article from the The Spectator.co.uk
Reply-To: youngrepublic@yahoogroups.com
after reading all that, i didn't feel like posting the URL i originally
intended to.
thought-provoking, and probably somewhat familiar-sounding to those who read
up on evolution. do read it if you haven't.
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 21:56:17 +0800
Subject: RE: [youngrepublic] Digest Number 47
Reply-To: youngrepublic@yahoogroups.com
In the article, the writer makes a case for science and religion remaining
separate, and how the vilifications of each by the other aren't justified. I
have to take issue, however, with the politically correct views that he
espouses.
"Religion inspires, comforts and guides but cannot and should not try to
explain the natural
world."
In all religions which emerged before the modern age, there exist creations
myths and other attempts by our ancestors to explain the forces of nature
and why things were (though I'm sure nw.t will find some obscue voodoo cults
that don't). To hold that religion "cannot" and" should not" try to explain
the natural world is to take the New Age view of it. Creation myths may be
patently ludicrous, and contradicted by science, but hey - many
ethical/moral frameworks set up by religions are equally untenable. Why
should we then, at least in polite, reasonably learned company, demolish one
but not the other.
"certain scientists, including Dawkins, make absurd attacks on religion."
I should say that them being scientists has nothing to do with it, for
non-scientists also attack religion.
"Marxism is, of course, just a secular religion but a new and unstable
one, founded not on tradition but on new ideas... The crimes of the
Christians
Torquemada, Richelieu and Richard the First pale into insignificance
compared with those of the atheists Lenin, Stalin and Mao."
This common argument is sadly mistaken. The difference is that the 20th
Century dictators had the tools to do more damage. That does not make them
inherently more evil, only that they fulfilled their potential more readily
and fully.
The author's attempts to tar all idelogies and causes with the brush of
religion goes too far. If you choose to define "religion" so broadly, then
so be it, but I believe this to be disingeneous. Comparing the Eco-Doom
movement with the Catholic Church smacks of distortion and gross hyperbole.
Personally, I feel that while religion brings both good and evil, it is more
a catalyst and focus of existing human tendencies than a cause of them. That
said, it is contentious how the relative flaws of each religion cause their
followers to commit correspondingly hideous atrocities. It must be noted
too, that the human capacity for evil seems greater than that for good, so
religion seems to bring more ills than boons.
Perhaps religion has helped humanity along the way, but together with
superstition, prejudice, xenophobia et al, it has consistently hindered
technological and social progress, as it is rarely left a private affair, as
well it should.
I'd also like to add that not all theists hold rational views, as the author
seems to believe. He obviously hasn't seen fundie fever, even in the US.
Gabriel
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 16:15:49 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: RE: [youngrepublic] Digest Number 47
Reply-To: youngrepublic@yahoogroups.com
hi gabriel,
while i would agree with some of your views wrt essay, i found some of your claims rather unjustified and seemed to be sweeping stsatements. see below. =)
cheers,
claire
but hey - many
ethical/moral frameworks set up by religions are equally untenable
>> like?
That
said, it is contentious how the relative flaws of each religion cause their
followers to commit correspondingly hideous atrocities. It must be noted
too, that the human capacity for evil seems greater than that for good, so
religion seems to bring more ills than boons.
>> well it really depends on what you define as religion. if you're talking about the original context, then this may not have been the case. if you think about it, most of the time, it's a great pity that power in a religious institution is concentrated in the hands of the minority, or even one person. your church leader for example. or the Pope.
i would like to say that it's not so much of the religion itself that caused these atrocities to be committed in the holy name of religion. i would say that it's the PEOPLE behind the religion that twarp and twist religious texts to use it to their own gain, take things literally without a senstive understanding of something so deep and complex as a religious text. and given their influence (coupled with their 'i'm a representative of God' arrogance), and the beliefs of many staunch believers, how can things not go wrong?
and how, may i ask, does one measure the fact that human capacity for evil is greater than that of human capacity for good? and even if it is so, does this necessarily justify the fact that religion is the one and only cause in causing evil to happen? if that's the fact explain how religion has changed the lives of many for the better. or explain why the greatest atrocities in history were committed by atheists (acc to the author). nevemrind the fact that they had better weapons. they *still* did it anyway. going by your argument, all those monstrosities would not have happened since those guys were without religion.
but together with
superstition, prejudice, xenophobia et al, it has consistently hindered
technological and social progress, as it is rarely left a private affair, as
well it should.
>> so is this the fault of the religion itself? or is it the fault of the PEOPLE working behind the religion as i already pointed out. which religion (mind you: religion, not religious leader) advocates those? and how, pray tell, are techno and social progress hindered with religion?
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 10:15:48 +0000
Subject: RE: [youngrepublic] Digest Number 47
Reply-To: youngrepublic@yahoogroups.com
>and how, may i ask, does one measure the fact that human capacity for evil
>is greater than that of human capacity for good? and even if it is so, does
>this necessarily justify the fact that religion is the one and only cause
>in causing evil to happen? if that's the fact explain how religion has
>changed the lives of many for the better. or explain why the greatest
>atrocities in history were committed by atheists (acc to the author).
>nevemrind the fact that they had better weapons. they *still* did it
>anyway. going by your argument, all those monstrosities would not have
>happened since those guys were without religion.
Toe socks. William Hung. Jerry Springer. Furbies. Hello Kitty. Fiona Xie.
Blue blinking undercarriage lights. There are far too many signs that human
nature is fundamentally vile and depraved.
I think what Gabriel is saying is just that some people will be monstrously
murderous assholes, with or without religious justification. Although I
disagree with him that religion is a net cause of such ills (to me religion
is more of a symptom or conduit, as opposed to a causative agent)
>"Religion inspires, comforts and guides but cannot and should not try to
>explain the natural
>world."
>In all religions which emerged before the modern age, there exist creations
>myths and other attempts by our ancestors to explain the forces of nature
>and why things were (though I'm sure nw.t will find some obscue voodoo
>cults
>that don't). To hold that religion "cannot" and" should not" try to explain
>the natural world is to take the New Age view of it. Creation myths may be
>patently ludicrous, and contradicted by science, but hey - many
>ethical/moral frameworks set up by religions are equally untenable. Why
>should we then, at least in polite, reasonably learned company, demolish
>one
>but not the other.
I think the author is applying a thoroughly modern mindset in which religion
and science are viewed as essentially separate belief systems with different
metaphysical roles - unlike the old days when thinkers tended to lump
science, philosophy and religion hermetically into a one-size-fits-all
epistemological structure.
In his view, religion for the modern man can serve as a
moral/ethical/emotional guide of sorts, without usursping the rationalist
perspective of scientific thought (the latter itself can be subject to all
kinds of philosophical nitpickiness).
Or, to quote someone once, "science can tell you how to build a nuclear
bomb, but only God can tell you whether you should use one."
I'm not saying that ethical frameworks that derive from religious
imperatives are better or not (as a matter of record I think all morality is
largely bollock justifications of self-serving behaviour) - simply that it's
understandable why some people use religion as an emotional blanket/moral
compass, but not necessarily as a hand-me-down Guide to the Universe.
Assuming that they cannot co-exist is to dogmatically inferr the superiority
of rational thought - and the intuitive evidence is that rational thought
doesn't really take you THAT far in the world.
>This common argument is sadly mistaken. The difference is that the 20th
>Century dictators had the tools to do more damage. That does not make them
>inherently more evil, only that they fulfilled their potential more readily
>and fully.
At least we can agree that the nastier side of human nature transcends
religion:)
>Personally, I feel that while religion brings both good and evil, it is
>more
>a catalyst and focus of existing human tendencies than a cause of them.
>That
>said, it is contentious how the relative flaws of each religion cause their
>followers to commit correspondingly hideous atrocities. It must be noted
>too, that the human capacity for evil seems greater than that for good, so
>religion seems to bring more ills than boons.
I would agree with your assertion that humanity's capacity for evil (if we
take the man-on-the-street
interpretation: nastiness, brutality, sadism, self-righteousness, hypocrisy)
far exceeds our capacity for good, but I disagree that organized religion is
any more potent a catalyst in bringing out the dark side of humanity as
opposed to, say secular ideologies (communism) or economic hardship or war.
>Perhaps religion has helped humanity along the way, but together with
>superstition, prejudice, xenophobia et al, it has consistently hindered
>technological and social progress, as it is rarely left a private affair,
>as
>well it should.
On balance, religion represents anachronistic justifications for certain
types of rational behaviour that made sense a few thousand years ago. While
the modern manifestations of these pervasive memes are totally irrelevant
and irrational in the light of modern society, there are some universal
tenets in mainstream religious thought that still make some sense today:
like "do not kill" (although usually interpreted to mean "do not kill within
your immediate community of fellow believers, anyone else is fair game").
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 12:29:03 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: RE: [youngrepublic] Digest Number 47
Reply-To: youngrepublic@yahoogroups.com
i agree with most of your thoughts, nwt, and i personally believe that organized religion is just another conduit or symptom of the innate evil in human.
however, i dont know if i could agree on the part about we humans necessarily being more evil than good by nature. after all, just because human evil seems to be more pervasive, and that more evidence seems to point to it than human goodness, it does not necessarily make us more evil by nature.
this is my own belief, but i do subscribe to the Chinese saying that it takes you 3 days to learn evil, and 3 years to learn good (something like that). i guess Man seems to commit more evil (strictly speaking, self centeredness included even though it may not appear to be horribly sinful to some people) cos Man is by nature, weak, and unable to not succumb to temptations and stuff. that does not necessarily make Man an evil creature since birth. (i believe more the idea that man has had a blank slate since birth)
my own airy fairy philosophy. am not trying to create an argument out of this (after all we are talking about religion here in this post are we not?), just pointing out to you an alternative viewpoint here wrt human nature. =)
cheers,
claire
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 05:59:05 +0800
Subject: Re: [youngrepublic] Digest Number 47
Reply-To: youngrepublic@yahoogroups.com
I was wondering if anybody was going to represent the "religious" side of things to balance the discussion, but pretty much everyone has tried to push a "sensible and moderate" view of "religion" being largely a matter of subjective opinion and personal preference, utterly lacking in reality in the same way that science can factually prove that the earth is "really" round, and only "useful" insofar as it serves to prop up certain residual, anachronistic and hypocritically self-serving moral principles.
So perhaps I'll be the first. Let's do it in numbers so that things are divided into nice bite-sized chunks and easier to handle.
1. It seems fundamentally prejudiced, unfair and arrogant for the unreligious to tar all religions with the same brush, and make sweeping generalizations about "religion" as if all religions were one and the same. They are not, not anymore than all men are the same, or all women are the same, or all Chinese are the same etc. A little less condescension and more humility in approaching the various forms of religion would go a long way towards building some respect and understanding for the "other side" in this discussion.
I will give two examples just to make the point. Firstly, not all religions view God as a single unitary Being who is unequivocally Good. The Greek gods (as presented by Homer) are not only many in number, they behave in very fallible and human ways, demonstrating great capicity for infidelity, pettiness, capriciousness and cruelty in their treatment of their human subjects as well as each other. The Manichaean Zoroastrians believe in an eternal struggle between a perfectly balanced good deity and an evil one. Many "religions" are actually philosophies than espouse either pantheism (the belief that God is in everything and everything is a little bit of God) or deism (the idea that God is unreachable, unknowable and therefore irrelevant) - Therevada Buddhism would be a prime example. And there are many polytheistic religions both extant and extinct that, even if they believe in one supreme "chief God", in practice turn out as forms of veneration of multiple local demigods or patron deities eg Taoism or Mahayana Buddhism.
Secondly, religions differ markedly in terms of their injunctions to their devotees, even if their moral codes are superficially similar. Many religions advocate earning your way to paradise via good deeds, offerings at temples etc but Christianity is very different in that it presents salvation as a free gift from God contingent upon faith. Some religions eg that of the Aztecs call for human sacrifices; others (Christianity again, notably) abhor the practice. Some religions champion asceticism, others indulge in extensive Bacchanalia. Some like Heaven's Gate call for suicide; others are very much against the practice. And so on.
It is therefore very necessary, when presented with a statement that claims to say something about "religion" in general, to ask exactly which religions are being talked about. To take Islamic fundamentalism, for example, and use it to claim that all religion is inherently violent and irrational is supreme bigotry at its worst.
2. Andrew Kenny, author of the original article in the Spectator, ought to do his research better, name-drop less and stop trying to pass himself off as a scientist. His potted resume of Darwin's theory of evolution leaves much to be desired, including substantive evidence of the impressive-sounding modern DNA discoveries that supposedly "confirm" Darwin's theory. And how he manages to leap over the chasm between two massively oversimplified "principles of evolution" to the present-day distribution of species as if it were self-evident baffles belief. He conveniently fails to mention how it is practically impossible to distinguish from the fossil record whether new biological features are the result of mutations and additions to the gene pool, or the mere expressions of genes that were already present right from the beginning. Similarly his false definition of species boundaries as based on the ability to interbreed at the first generation is a chimaera - his own example defeats the point by demonstrating that a "species boundary" does exist between Lions and Tigers, even though it has to wait till the second generation to kick in. There is no reason to conclude from that example that the two animals "were once the same species" any more than there is reason to conclude that God created them as members of the cat family, close enough in the spectrum of the animal kingdom to breed at the first generation but not beyond that.
If Kenny were doing the Natural Science (Biology) Tripos at Cambridge like many of my friends, he would learn that "irreducible complexity" is a very respectable scientific concept indeed, applied primarily to the cell - the basic building block of life. My Physicist friends doing the other half of the same tripos would ask him exactly how the energy transfers from beyond our planet enable the continuous decreasing of entropy over the supposed gazillions of years required for evolution to get us to where we are now, and who designed such a nifty system given that their Professors struggle with much more simple energy transfer tasks. To parrot like a broken radio after Dawkins that it all boils down to "the extraodinary power of dumb design" isn't saying very much other than repeating the basic circularity of logic inherent in all of Dawkins's works. If you teleologically reason backwards from the present universe that the oxymoronic "dumb design" is the reason for the inherent design of what you see, having conveniently ruled out divine intervention by some convenient a priori assumption, you are highly likely to end up right where you began in the first place - a much easier task than applying your very intelligent designs to the attempted generation of spontaneous biopoeisis in a laboratory.
3. Worse yet, Kenny spoils his own case by claiming equal gounds for his Dawkinsian Darwinism as a belief in its own right, particularly his wonderfully pithy Creed: "I believe that we are nothing but assemblies of chemicals in a cold universe put together by the blind workings of chance and selection". Science has no way of "proving" this Dawkinsian Creed any more than it could prove the Apostles' Creed, but unfortunately for Kenny and his ilk, human experience gives the lie to such a blase formulation of the truth behind human nature, purpose and existence.
If one is to accept the Dawkinsian creed as the be-all and end-all of humanity as "proven" by Science, where does the very real fact that my mother and father love me enter the equation? You couldn't prove this "fact" by any sort of scientific observation or experimentation, but it remains a fact nonetheless. And it is completely irrational to argue that such realities are merely the unexpected side effects of certain chemical combinations and reactions, unless Dawkins and co. seriously intend to regress into the Theory of the Four Humours. Modern science has quite fortuitously aided us in concluding that there are realities that lie beyond the reach of the microscope, and to blatantly ignore the existence of such realities and stick to belief in only what the microscope shows and what Dawkins says to be so is superstition of the worst order. Kenny's mystical "evolutionary explanation" that "people naturally have religious belief and will form religions" is a prime example of such "science" at its tautological best.
4. And finally, to claim that religion is merely a residual set of "anachronistic justifications for certain types of rational behaviour that made sense a few thousand years ago" is arrogance of the highest order on two counts. Firstly, it assumes that the atheistic minority is somehow superior in its rationality to the vast majority of the rest of the world's inhabitants, not all of whom live in Amazon jungle. You'd be surprised at how many of them study at Cambridge, for instance. Secondly, with that "tremendous condescension of posterity" that infects so many, it whiggishly assumes that the present definitions of rational behaviour (held by a minority of humanity to boot) are the highest and truest pinnacle of the development of human rationality to which all past "primitive" definitions naturally tend. You'd think that modern "rational men" like Hitler and Stalin, with their thoroughly rational world-views (the one founded on biological experimentation, the other on modern economics, and both dismissive of morality and religion as "anachronisms"), could have put in a better showing on the side of rational atheism.
Lisheng
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 22:46:28 +0800
Subject: Re: [youngrepublic] Digest Number 49
Reply-To: youngrepublic@yahoogroups.com
> i found some
> of your claims rather unjustified and seemed to be sweeping
> stsatements. see below. =)
Ahh, the common refrain. Now it's time to go down to the nitty gritty
details :)
>> Creation myths may be
>> patently ludicrous, and contradicted by science,
>> but hey - many ethical/moral frameworks set up by religions are
>> equally untenable
> like?
To take an example from a religion familiar to us all:
- "Thou shalt not kill, unless a voice in your head claiming to be God
says so"
How about morality being defined with respect to a god? If you say that
your god is the arbiter of morality because your "God is Good", the
question arises: how do you know that god is good? If you assume that
whatever the god does is good, then what happens if the god condones, or
even actively encouratges acts that normal people would agree are evil
(eg infanticide, slavery, rape of conquered populations)? If you say
that the god is good because he does good things, then you will be
holding the god to an objective moral benchmark. Therefore,
> i would like to say that it's not so much of the religion itself that
> caused these atrocities to be committed in the holy name of religion.
> i would say that it's the PEOPLE behind the religion that twarp and
> twist religious texts to use it to their own gain
Of course people can pervert religious texts for their own benefit, but
objectively speaking, some religions are less pacific than others, more
explicit about spreading the faith by the sword, misogynistic,
xenophobic or what not.
For example, the Aztecs practiced ritual sacrifice to keep the Sun
rising every day. I'm sure everyone agrees that this is a religion which
encouraged atrocity.
>, take things
> literally without a senstive understanding of something so deep and
> complex as a religious text.
Actually, this is debatable. Many religious texts are products of
ancient people's attempts to make sense of the world around them. Would
you call them "deep" and "complex"? If you deride literalism, what then
of the other extreme - being so liberal with interpretation that you
manage to weasel any meaning you like from a religious text, and the
strictures thus having no meaning? For example: the prohibition on
alcohol drinking in Islam (though personally my jury is out on whether
it is allowed or prohibited)
> and how, may i ask, does one measure the fact that human capacity for
> evil is greater than that of human capacity for good?
I must admit that I cannot quantitatively prove this without rigorous
statistical analysis that I have not the heart for, but most people
would probably agree with me.
> does this necessarily justify the fact that religion is the
> one and only cause in causing evil to happen? if that's the fact
> explain how religion has changed the lives of many for the better.
I never said religion was the *one and only cause* of evil. And it has
also changed the lives of many people for the worse. If we can't reach a
conclusion on whether religion is positive or negative, we can at least
conclude that at least 53% of the world is spiritually misguided (% of
religious people in the world - 33% [the mind share of Christianity, the
most popular religious group in the world], statistics from
<http://www.adherents.com/)>
> or explain why the greatest atrocities in history were committed by
> atheists (acc to the author). nevemrind the fact that they had better
> weapons. they *still* did it anyway.
To quote everyone's favourite moral teacher:
"Luke, Chapter 21 Verse 1-3
And he looked up, and saw the rich men casting their gifts into the
treasury. And he saw also a certain poor widow casting in thither two
mites. And he said, Of a truth I say unto you, that this poor widow hath
cast in more than they all: For all these have of their abundance cast
in unto the offerings of God: but she of her penury hath cast in all the
living that she had."
Likewise were Hitler, Stalin, Mao and friends not necessarily more evil
than Torquemada, Richelieu and Richard the First. Having done more
"wrong" things because you could does not make you more "evil" than
someone who did fewer "wrong" things because he was more constrained.
>> but together with superstition, prejudice, xenophobia et al, it has
>> consistently hindered technological and social progress, as it is
>> rarely left a private affair, as well it should.
> so is this the fault of the religion itself?
Do you know why the Catholic Church endorsed the idea of a Gaia-centric
Solar System?
1 Chronicles 16:30: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable." is only
the most obvious of the bible verses supporting the Gaia-centric view.
How about how, according to some interpretations, the bible supports the
inferior status of women and upholds slavery? If you subscribe to the
apologist explanations of those verses, what about the account(s) of
creation, which have been shown to be patently false (age of the earth,
evolution et al)
> Assuming that they cannot co-exist is to dogmatically inferr the
> superiority of rational thought - and the intuitive evidence is that
> rational thought doesn't really take you THAT far in the world.
But the anecdotal evidence is that religious-ness (or to use the more
chic term, "spirituality") does not take you very far either.
> capacity for good, but I disagree that organized religion is any more
> potent a catalyst in bringing out the dark side of humanity as
> opposed to, say secular ideologies (communism) or economic hardship
> or war.
Eh, w.t, I never said that religion was a more potent catalyst. Fie, I
am misread again.
> this is my own belief, but i do subscribe to the Chinese saying that
> it takes you 3 days to learn evil, and 3 years to learn good
> (something like that). i guess Man seems to commit more evil
> (strictly speaking, self centeredness included even though it may not
> appear to be horribly sinful to some people) cos Man is by nature,
> weak, and unable to not succumb to temptations and stuff. that does
> not necessarily make Man an evil creature since birth. (i believe
> more the idea that man has had a blank slate since birth)
Observe young children at the playground (or 4 year old kids bullying
their 2 year old siblings) to be disabused of the notion that we are
born as blank slates. Young children can be the most vicious of all
human life forms.
> my own airy fairy philosophy. am not trying to create an argument out
> of this (after all we are talking about religion here in this post
> are we not?), just pointing out to you an alternative viewpoint here
> wrt human nature. =)
Going OT is a time-honoured practice, and one that leads to many
entertaining diversions along the way :)
> 1. It seems fundamentally prejudiced, unfair and arrogant for the
>unreligious to tar all religions with the same brush, and make
sweeping >generalizations about "religion" as if all religions were one
and the >same.
Sadly, most people, both theists and atheists, make that assumption.
Perhaps it is because most people are only familiar with the
Judeo-Christian-Islamic school of thought and religion. We *could*
branch out into extensive discussions of Animism, Rastafarianism and
Raelianism, but I comparative theology is not exactly everyone's cup of
tea. You can try nw.t, however. I'm sure you two can while away the
hours in metaphysical arguments.
>He conveniently fails to mention how it is practically impossible to
>distinguish from the fossil record whether new biological features are
>the result of mutations and additions to the gene pool, or the mere
>expressions of genes that were already present right from the >beginning.
If the genes were present right at the beginning, why they not be
expressed from the start?
>he would learn that "irreducible complexity" is a very respectable
>scientific concept indeed, applied primarily to the cell - the basic
>building block of life.
Irreducible design has been disputed by many, actually, and is not a
"very respectable scientific concept" in all circles. Take the cell for
example. The generally agreed-upon explanation for the cell arising out
of the primordial soup is the melding of various extant proteins and
amino acids, perhaps catalysed by electrical energy. Voila, you have a
cell. "Irreducible complexity" is not the only proferred explanation for
the origin of cells.
I am not conversant with most of the detailed biological arguments, but
an analogy from real life will also show how ridiculous "irreducible
complexity" is.
Take the supply chain of milk. Without one part of the chain (cow
farmer, truck driver, milk factory, supermarket etc), the chain would
break down and we wouldn't get our milk. Is this not an irreducibly
complex process, the delivery of milk? Does that mean that we have a
"Milk Commissar" who initiated and supervises this irreducibly complex
supply chain?
If the invisible hand of the market is sufficient to give us our milk,
why can not the invisible hand of evolution do likewise for "irreducibly
complex" structures?
More literature on IC available: <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html>
>My Physicist friends doing the other half of the same tripos would ask
>him exactly how the energy transfers from beyond our planet enable the
>continuous decreasing of entropy over the supposed gazillions of years
>required for evolution to get us to where we are now,
Erm. The sun? Foreign bodies crashing into the earth? The energy the
earth started with?
>If you teleologically reason backwards from the present universe that
>the oxymoronic "dumb design" is the reason for the inherent design of
>what you see, having conveniently ruled out divine intervention by
some >convenient a priori assumption,
"Dumb design" is a great deal more likely than "dumb creation", for
dumbness is evident in our present universe.
This reminds me of one of the favourite fallback arguments of Creation
"Scientists", that their god created the earth less than 10,000 years
ago, but made it look old to test our faith. This sort of argument is
unhelpful at best, and we might as well say that the universe was
created 2 minutes ago, all our memories were implanted by god, and that
the universe only seems billions of years old because god created it
that way.
>Science has no way of "proving" this Dawkinsian Creed any more than it
>could prove the Apostles' Creed,
No, but reason and objective reality show that even if there is a god,
he best behaves apathetically towards us.
>but unfortunately for Kenny and his ilk, human experience gives the
lie >to such a blase formulation of the truth behind human nature,
purpose >and existence.
Eh? I'm not sure I understand your point, Lisheng.
>If one is to accept the Dawkinsian creed as the be-all and end-all of
>humanity as "proven" by Science, where does the very real fact that my
>mother and father love me enter the equation? You couldn't prove this
>"fact" by any sort of scientific observation or experimentation, but
it >remains a fact nonetheless.
We can tell that our parents love us (most people, anyway) from their
actions. To take it a priori that all parents love their children would
be to ignore abandoned babies and abused children.
I reiterate that there is a different between confidence that something
will happen based on logic and experience on the one hand, and blind
faith on the other.
>Modern science has quite fortuitously aided us in concluding that
there >are realities that lie beyond the reach of the microscope, and to
>blatantly ignore the existence of such realities and stick to belief
in >only what the microscope shows and what Dawkins says to be so is
>superstition of the worst order.
If you are referring to string theory, there is at least evidence of
those eleven dimensions. Other things that many people believe in,
however, are based on wishful thinking and blind faith.
>Kenny's mystical "evolutionary explanation" that "people naturally
have >religious belief and will form religions" is a prime example of
such >"science" at its tautological best.
Actually, it is a sociological fact that peoples tend to form religions.
>4. And finally, to claim that religion is merely a residual set of
>"anachronistic justifications for certain types of rational behaviour
>that made sense a few thousand years ago" is arrogance of the highest
>order on two counts. Firstly, it assumes that the atheistic minority
is >somehow superior in its rationality to the vast majority of the rest
of >the world's inhabitants, not all of whom live in Amazon jungle.
You'd >be surprised at how many of them study at Cambridge, for instance.
Studies have shown, however, a definite inverse relationship between
religiousness and intelligence, and it is possible to find intelligent
people of *any* religion (even Scientology).
>Secondly, with that "tremendous condescension of posterity" that
>infects so many, it whiggishly assumes that the present definitions of
>rational behaviour (held by a minority of humanity to boot) are the
>highest and truest pinnacle of the development of human rationality to
>which all past "primitive" definitions naturally tend.
Is not the human race inching slowly towards enlightenment?
And it is interesting to note that the fastest growing religious
affiliation in the USA is "none".
>You'd think that modern "rational men" like Hitler and Stalin, with
>their thoroughly rational world-views (the one founded on biological
>experimentation, the other on modern economics, and both dismissive of
>morality and religion as "anachronisms"), could have put in a better
>showing on the side of rational atheism.
Rational atheism, however, is not what they championed. Frankly, I can't
see how the fact that they had no religion is any more significant than
the fact that they were not female, not black or not hermaphrodites.
Theists, by defining atheists by what they are -not- rather than what
they -are-, are guilty of "arrogance of the highest order". (Small
promo: "A bright is a person who has a naturalistic worldview. A
bright's worldview is free of supernatural and mystical elements" Check
out <http://the-brights.net/)>
"Many times in my recent years, I have been classified as a
'non-Christian.' At first, I objected to this on the grounds that this
did not describe anything about me. But nowadays, I’ve gotten used to
it, and I would like to tell you a few other things about myself.
First of all, a few basic things. My race is non-black. I have non-red
hair, and my height is non-five foot six. My favorite sport is
non-soccer. My favorite food is non-green beans. In case you’d like to
know more about me, I live in a non-house, I speak non-Japanese, I
majored in non-mathematics in college, and I love non-classical music. I
like long walks on the non-pavement, I enjoy traveling by non-train, I
prefer non-Baroque art, and my favorite thing to read is the
non-newspaper. I’m sure Christians also won’t mind my applying the same
technique when I talk about them, so instead of calling them
'Christians' from now on, I’m going to call them 'non-Muslims.'"
--
Gabriel Seah
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:19:35 +0000
Subject: Re: [youngrepublic] Digest Number 47
Reply-To: youngrepublic@yahoogroups.com
Lisheng:
Just a question...
You mention deism as 'the idea that God is unreachable, unknowable and
therefore irrelevant'. I always thought that that was the agnostic position?
Or am I confusing that with the idea that the question of God's existence is
'unreacheable, unknowable and therefore irrelevant'? (I apologise for the
very inelegant profusion of 'that's.)
Another point to consider: isn't it rather ironic that while you spend much
of your time establishing that one should not take a reductionist
perspective on religion, since religious belief is astonishingly complex and
varied, you should later argue that it is arrogant for an 'atheistic
minority' to belittle the beliefs of the presumably theistic majority? I
mean, you yourself have argued that this theistic majority is somewhat of a
myth, since it is not in fact a monolith.
Having said that though, your demolition of the Spectator article was very
satisfying. Most Spectator articles are rubbish anyway, and I deeply regret
having been subjected to many of them during my erstwhile GP classes.
Caleb.
(By the way, is it true though, that a thinking person can actually doubt
evolution as a theory of the origins of life? Plus I always thought that
intelligent design type theories are marginal and largely discredited.
Having no knowledge -- nor interest in -- science, I have gotten used to
merely taking what the scientific establishment tells me as a given. So it
would be interesting for me to revise my conception of what this
establishment *actually* thinks.)
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 01:53:28 +0800
Subject: Re: [youngrepublic] Digest Number 47
Reply-To: youngrepublic@yahoogroups.com
Hey Caleb, nice to hear from you after quite awhile...
1. In response to your question, deism and agnosticism are very similar in definitional terms, and quite indistinguishable in practice. Your second formulation of the difference between the two is correct, I think: deism = belief in the existence of some divine being/beings who for some unknown reason are too distant from our world to meddle in it, and therefore irrelevant, whereas agnosticism = belief that the question of whether a divine being/beings exist is fundamentally unanswerable by human beings and therefore irrelevant. The conclusions are pretty much the same although the means to the end are slightly different. In fact most of the time deists and agnostics end up living pretty much like atheists, except they (rather cowardly I think) insist on retaining their "escape hatch of ultimate ignorance" so as to be politically correct and avoid offending people. All this backside-covering is most reminiscent of the military, I might add... plus one wonders from where the deists gained such an extensive knowledge of a distant God to conclude that He is as distant as they make Him out to be, or how the agnostics managed to figure out conclusively that no human being is ever able to know God (sounds like a dangerously arrogant generalization to make!). Possibly they haven't tried hard enough, or could it be that they don't want to know God in the first place because of the unpleasant implications of there actually being a God who is interested in them?
2. I take your point regarding my use of the theistic majority, except that the contexts in which the atheists use the label "religion" and that in which I appeal to the theistic majority are quite different. In the first case, it is unfair for atheists to pick on the peculiarities of a particular religion eg the violence of Islamic Fundamentalism, or the extinct status of Greco-Roman paganism for example, and use it to argue that all religions are therefore dangerous and ridiculous - particularly when the specific faith that I believe in, i.e. Christianity, has fundamentally different teachings from both of these two examples.
In the second case, however, I was appealing to the fact that a majority of the world's people both at present and compared across the entire time-scale of human history have agreed that there is a dimension of reality beyond what is material, empirically testable and accessible to the five human senses that is not only accessible to human understanding, but also vitally important when it comes to answering questions about human nature, purpose and existence. Shouldn't these people at least deserve to be taken seriously rather than perfunctorily dismissed as "irrational" by the atheistic minority? Once we've established that, we can then go on to discriminate between the various forms of religious belief and establish criteria suitable to this dimension (not empirical ones, obviously) for determining which religion if any is the "true" one.
3. I make no pretensions to be a scientist, so I shan't jump into an extended debate on the theory of evolution, which frankly gets quite boring after awhile. Suffice to say that yes, thinking people can believe in special creation as a fact and not fanciful myth - I do, at least, and not without reason. Don't believe everything the scientific establishment says - after all, not too long ago it was claiming that blood was created by the spleen and the earth and planets were floating on a bed of "space ether" (the phlogiston theory which was just as widely accepted as Darwinism is now).
More importantly I think the whole creation debate is pretty much a red herring when it comes to evaluating various forms of religious belief, or the lack thereof. The point of Christianity, for example, is not to "prove" the existence of God or enforce common assent to a six-day creation of the world, but to address the fundamental problem of evil and injustice that seems endemic to humanity. Resolving the creation debate would make no practical difference to whether people accepted the central message of Christ, i.e. that repentance and faith in Him is the solution to this problem.
Regards,
Lisheng
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 07:46:21 -0000
Subject: Re: [youngrepublic] Digest Number 50
Reply-To: youngrepublic@yahoogroups.com
1. Having flirted with agnosticism at one point in the past but
subsequently rejected it, I feel that the maintaining of agnostics of
an "escape hatch" is not as craven as it might seem.
To agnostics, the evidence about gods is inconclusive, as some
evidence argues for gods, and some against. They "figure our
conclusively" that "no human being is ever able to know God" from the
simple fact that no religious group has even a simple majority of
mindshare, and that each has numerous bitter internecine squabbles. In
addition, there are no aspects of objective reality which can be used
to point to evidence of divine existence that do not have a more
mundane explanation.
Further, some have lingering doubts about the creation of the universe
and the "laying down" of the laws and constants of nature. Though I
have resolved these issues, I understand that some people may never do
likewise.
"Possibly they haven't tried hard enough, or could it be that they
don't want to know God in the first place because of the unpleasant
implications of there actually being a God who is interested in them?"
I think it is quite unfair to level this sort of accusations at
agnostics, for you open yourself to similar accusations.
2. Atheists/agnostics/secular humanists/free
thinkers/rationalists/secularists (now you see why I prefer the term
"brights"?) tend to pick on the peculiarities of particular religions
simply because they are most familiar with these. However, surely you
do not expect them to offer conclusive proof for why all 10,000+
religions ever created or practiced are false and untenable. Suffice
to say that a good, multi-purpose argument against religion is the
dearth of universal proof of the existence of a god.
"Shouldn't these people at least deserve to be taken seriously rather
than perfunctorily dismissed as "irrational" by the atheistic minority?"
Perhaps, but brights are similarly perfunctorily dismissed by theists
as being misguided/blind/arrogant etc
Besides, force of numbers doth not validate an argument. Just look at
how many people used to believe that the earth was flat/at the centre
of the universe.
The problem with establishing non-empirical criteria suitable to this
dimension for judging the veracity of religions is that what is not
empirical is not measurable. How can we judge the relative power of
the "visions" of competing Buddhist monks and Christian nuns
(especially if both have been fasting, which has been shown to result
in hallucinations)
Ah, for the good ole days when we could call on JHVH to set piles of
wet wood ablaze!
3. I submit that science has been wrong in the past, but the big
difference between science and religion is that when science is proven
to be wrong, it is changed and reaches a higher state of perfection,
and we move further along in our journey of discovery. However,
religion tends to hew to the old and doggedly refuse to change until
it absolutely has to (and sometimes, not even then - just see the Flat
Earth Society)
The account of Creation, beyond such matters as the creating of the
firmament, do have relevance to redemption, morals and ethics.
Examples:
- Mankind being the dominant race on the planet and thus not caring
about environmental degradation and the use and abuse of animals
- Whether we should rest on the Sabbath (Sabbathists can be quite
fanatical about their Seventh Day)
- Whether knowledge about Good and Evil is a good thing, whether
ignorance/naivety is a fundamentally good state to be in
- Whether because women were responsible for the Fall of Men, they
should be condemned (some people do make an issue out of this to
justify their misogyny) and made subject to women (Genesis is very
explicit about this)
- Whether YHWH is omniscient and unchanging (since he can repent)
The list goes on.
Besides, all things being equal, isn't the veracity of a religious
text a suitable criterion for evaluating the corresponding veracity of
the religion?
You wouldn't trust a religion based on the rantings of a lunatic,
would you?
If you want to venture into the NT, there's lots to talk about still :)
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 17:01:08 +0800
Subject: Re: [youngrepublic] Digest Number 47
Reply-To: youngrepublic@yahoogroups.com
3. I make no pretensions to be a scientist, so I shan't jump into an extended debate on the theory of evolution, which frankly gets quite boring after awhile. Suffice to say that yes, thinking people can believe in special creation as a fact and not fanciful myth - I do, at least, and not without reason. Don't believe everything the scientific establishment says - after all, not too long ago it was claiming that blood was created by the spleen and the earth and planets were floating on a bed of "space ether" (the phlogiston theory which was just as widely accepted as Darwinism is now).
I do not make any claims to be a scientist either, but from what I understand that reveals
a grave misunderstanding about science! Scientific hypotheses are formed out of the best
available evidence, unless there is sufficient evidence to the contrary to overturn them.
I want to point out that it was the scientific approach which scotched ideas like ' blood was created by the spleen and the earth and planets were
floating on a bed of "space ether" ', the Four Humours theory (which has never
been promoted by Evolutionists), and the not-that-ancient theory which suggested that
there was a mystical substance called protoplasm which made life work.
Dawkins, in "River Out Of Eden" noted that
"it is often thought clever to say that science is no more than our modern origin
myth....What is evolution, some smart people say, but our modern equivalent of gods and
epic heroes, neither better nor worse, neither truer nor falser?"
Well, the difference is that a faith would continue to accept a theory even if
there is much evidence to the contrary, but Science doesn't. A faith based theory, to
paraphrase a peculiarly popular S economics quote, uses evidence for support, not
illumination. This is why science, as opposed to faith has predictive qualities. As
Dawkins goes on to note:
"Show me a cultural relativist at thirty thousand feet
and I'll show you a hypocrite. Airplanes built according to scientific principles work.
They stay aloft, and they get you to a chosen destination. Airplanes built to tribal or
mythological specifications, such as dummy planes of the cargo cults in jungle clearings
or the beeswaxed wings of Icarus, don't."
The reason why Darwin's theory of evolution is considered scientific is because it
has the explanatory power for a very wide body of observable trends. The theory helps to
encompass things like the fossil record, the many plant and animal experiments which
proved that genetic traits are inherited, that minor and major mutations do occur, DNA
patterns across living beings, and so on.
Of course it is possible that God just plopped all this DNA
complexity in an instant a couple of thousand years ago, set some rules for mutation and
plenty of evidence which makes it seem like the earth is billions of years old, leading
into our current delusion that evolution happened. Possible. But.
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 11:25:10 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: Re: [youngrepublic] Digest Number 49
Reply-To: youngrepublic@yahoogroups.com
heh.
religion always gets you excited does it not, gabriel. =) can't promise a really brilliant argument here, but i'll just try to defend my own opnions/attack yours as best as my knowledge allows --
what you said : Actually, this is debatable. Many religious texts are products of
ancient people's attempts to make sense of the world around them. Would
you call them "deep" and "complex"? If you deride literalism, what
then
of the other extreme - being so liberal with interpretation that you
manage to weasel any meaning you like from a religious text, and the
strictures thus having no meaning? For example: the prohibition on
alcohol drinking in Islam (though personally my jury is out on whether
it is allowed or prohibited)
>> well yes religious texts COULD
have been written by men, but then again, just because an invisible hand from the sky did not pen His/Her/Its writings down on some scroll, does not mean that religious texts ought to be labelled as 'shallow' and nothing but Bronze Age myths and other gibberish. I do deride literalism, but it does not mean that I think we all should go for a totally liberal sort of reading of texts whereby we warp things up here and there. One should read critically, carefully and intelligently. Both extremes are not good.
I must admit that I cannot quantitatively prove this without rigorous
statistical analysis that I have not the heart for, but most people
would probably agree with me. >>
well yes that is true, nobody can prove anything like that, but then again this is becaus
we see more evil go around than good i suppose. but i guess this does not really
contribute to the argument so let's just stop here w this point shall we? =)
If we can't reach a
conclusion on whether religion is positive or negative, we can at least
conclude that at least 53% of the world is spiritually misguided (% of
religious people in the world - 33% [the mind share of Christianity, the
most popular religious group in the world], statistics from
<http://www.adherents.com/>)
>> well if you say someone is misguided, then you're saying that their beliefs are wrong, and that they are deluded. unless you prove beyond a shadow of doubt (or close, even) that religion is wrong, then we cannot draw this conclusion at all.
Having done more
"wrong" things because you could does not make you more "evil" than
someone who did fewer "wrong" things because he was more constrained.
>>
but this is my whole point exactly. you said in your 1st argument that religion caused people to do wrong, and i said that going by your logic, we can expect less wrong-ness to be done by the atheist lot. but what we see here is that human evil exists everywhere, in people who hold religious beliefs, and with people who dont. so therefore we cant say that religion makes people more evil because evil is not measured by how many people you kill (as you pointed out), or how many people you dont. evil is part and parcel of human nature.
But the anecdotal evidence is that religious-ness (or to use the more
chic term, "spirituality") does not take you very far either.
>> maybe i didnt read your arguments carefully (it's rather hard to do so when you copied and pasted everybody's arguments here) but could you substantiate this w more evidence?
well yes the Catholic church then was probably more dogmatic and fanatically obsessed with their idea of how astronomy went like, but if you think about it, that one example alone does not substantiate the fact that religious teachings (not teachers!) hinder technological progress does it.
No, but reason and objective reality show that even if there is a god,
he best behaves apathetically towards us
>> no hardcore scientific evidence/stats on my part but personally, my own reason and objective reality have shown me that there is a god who does not behave apathetically towards me. i'm quite curious to know why you think that a god behaves apathetically towards you and everyone else (whoever this category may include)
otherwise, having almost zilch knowledge about science, i regret to say that i cannot really contribute to the science-religion debate. hope my arguments made some sort of sense.
cheers,
claire
Subject: Re: [youngrepublic] Digest Number 47
Reply-To: youngrepublic@yahoogroups.com
Jie Kai and co:
Oh dear, I must have miscommunicated the idea that I was attacking the scientific approach! By no means. It is certainly very good at doing what it does, i.e. concocting explanations within the boundaries of the material world based on infinitely repeatable laboratory experiments and disproving theories about the spleen, the four humours and space ether. May it carry on producing useful things such as planes that can get us safely from Singapore to London and vice versa!
In this regard I was appealing to science and the scientific approach when I made the case for there being certain things beyond the purview of science eg how the universe was "wound up" by some external power (which had tremendous reserves of energy at its disposal) before the Big Bang and subsequent increase in entropy at a universal level - using very different laws of physics from those that apply in our present time, and which are therefore undiscoverable by the empirical method. Similarly the fact that certain realities, particularly in the cases of relationships between persons or the mental world of metaphysics, lie beyond empirical proof, is itself something that the scientific approach supports by defining its own limits.
I'm going to make the case therefore that the origins of the natural world are one such fact that lie beyond the boundaries of scientific empiricism, because they are essentially non-demonstrable either by infinitely repeatable laboratory experiments (i.e. natural science) or logical argument from axiomatic first principles (i.e. mathematics). They would more properly fall under the purview of "natural history", and as good historians know, a historical argument or interpretive explanation is particularly weak for "pre-history", i.e. past events that lack documentary evidence eg piecing together the details from archaeological or paleontological evidence (it's already difficult enough as it is given the limited documentary evidence from human sources that survives from the past!). Thus the supposed factuality of the theory of evolution is further weakened - firstly by your own very valid point that scientific "facts" are simply the best available hypotheses to date and easily overturnable. Secondly because evolution is not based on genuine empirical evidence (of the sort that say, Charles's Law is) but rather on subjective attempts to string together a few axiomatic principles of the survival of organisms such as those presented by Mr. Kenny into a full-blown explanative theory of the origin of species. In the process a lot of bad logic goes into the works eg the circularity of the Index Fossil method of dating, or the deliberate ignorance of evidence from the fossil record that doesn't fit into the theory, or all sorts of chicanery in an attempt to produce "proof" of a common ancestor for man and monkey.
The patchy "evidence" of the fossil record doesn't really "prove" evolution, all it proves is that at a certain period of time a certain organism of this sort existed (in many cases it proves even less than that, i.e. all those fanciful reconstructions of "life in the Devonian period" etc are great works of fiction and art in many cases). This is empirical evidence all right, but of a historical variety and not "scientific" in the true sense of the word that Jie Kai and Dawkins are using. To artfully paint the "evolutionary links" between bits of bones is very creative and imaginative indeed, but it is not science, any more than if I and Jie Kai were to die and be fossilized, we would provide "proof" for alien visitors in the future that two species of mammalian bipeds occupying the same ecological niche competed with each other during the 21st Century CE and the taller and thinner variety with the smaller brain (homo tanlishengus) was clearly losing the struggle for survival - or better yet provides example of a "missing link" between a 3rd fossil of say Goh Chok Tong (homo choktongus) and homo kohjiekaius.
In other words, what the evolution theorists are really doing is playing at being historians in trying to string together the fragmentary bits of evidence in a way that suits their pre-conceived theory (and throwing out the bits that don't suit them, which is a chronic bad habit of historians =P). They're just doing it really badly, and trying to pass it off as "science" to boot.
Lisheng
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 13:16:21 -0000
Subject: Re: [youngrepublic] Digest Number 51
Reply-To: youngrepublic@yahoogroups.com
tRe: Re: Digest Number 49
From: Claire <declaired_insane@yahoo.co.uk>
"well if you say someone is misguided, then you're saying that their
beliefs are wrong, and that they are deluded. unless you prove beyond
a shadow of doubt (or close, even) that religion is wrong, then we
cannot draw this conclusion at all. "
Many religions proclaim (explicitly or implicitly) that they espouse
the truth and that the rest are if not lying, then misguided. Those
that do not may accept that the others are slightly or generally
correct, but their line is the most correct.
And I cannot prove beyond a shadow of doubt that so-and-so religion is
wrong, because there will always be some fudge to foil me. It's like
the argument about whether there are pink bunnies in orbit around Saturn.
We don't know conclusively that they aren't there, but since there's
no evidence for them, we can assume they do not exist. Ditto for Santa
Claus, the Tooth Fairy and Mother Goose.
"what we see here is that human evil exists everywhere, in people who
hold religious beliefs, and with people who dont. so therefore we cant
say that religion makes people more evil because evil is not measured
by how many people you kill (as you pointed out), or how many people
you dont. evil is part and parcel of human nature."
That is true, but it would seem that some religions are more fervent
than others in urging their adherents to slaughter or convert
infidels. Would that not mean that those religions are "evil"?
"well yes the Catholic church then was probably more dogmatic and
fanatically obsessed with their idea of how astronomy went like, but
if you think about it, that one example alone does not substantiate
the fact that religious teachings (not teachers!) hinder technological
progress does it."
And how many more examples would you need? The truth is that you can
interpret religious texts to say almost anything you want (and if you
cannot, you can always write a new text - eg the Book of Mormon - or
start a new religion - eg L Ron Hubbard), but some texts are more
restrictive about the embracing of progress than others.
Just how do you want to differentiate between what a religion "really
says" and what religious leaders say they say? Aren't you then being
like the religious leaders you deride by proclaiming what religious
teachings actually say?
"no hardcore scientific evidence/stats on my part but personally, my
own reason and objective reality have shown me that there is a god who
does not behave apathetically towards me. i'm quite curious to know
why you think that a god behaves apathetically towards you and
everyone else (whoever this category may include)"
Reply: 'All events in our Universe, including its creation, can be
explained with or without the existence of a Supreme Being. Thus, if
there is indeed a God, then that god has had no more impact than no
god at all. To all appearances, any purported Supreme Being is
indifferent to our Universe and to its inhabitants.'
Re: Re: Digest Number 47
From: "Tan Li Sheng" <lst26@cam.ac.uk>
"In this regard I was appealing to science and the scientific approach
when I made the case for there being certain things beyond the purview
of science eg how the universe was "wound up" by some external power
(which had tremendous reserves of energy at its disposal) before the
Big Bang and subsequent increase in entropy at a universal level -
using very different laws of physics from those that apply in our
present time, and which are therefore undiscoverable by the empirical
method. Similarly the fact that certain realities, particularly in the
cases of relationships between persons or the mental world of
metaphysics, lie beyond empirical proof, is itself something that the
scientific approach supports by defining its own limits."
Before the discovery of Einsteinian physics, Newtonian physics had its
shortcomings and science recognised them. Who's to say that one day we
may extend the realms that empirical evidence can illuminate?
Appealing to a "God of the Gaps" does not make a very strong argument,
for as the gaps diminish, so does the god. (Aside: I found the short
story - The Last Question, by Isaac Asimov, amusing. You might wish to
read it - <http://www.maddad.org/asimov01.htm)>
"Thus the supposed factuality of the theory of evolution is further
weakened - firstly by your own very valid point that scientific
"facts" are simply the best available hypotheses to date and easily
overturnable."
But the fact is - the theory is the most correct one we have to date.
And until sufficient evidence emerges to overturn it, it shall stay as
the explanation of the Descent of Man.
"Secondly because evolution is not based on genuine empirical evidence
(of the sort that say, Charles's Law is) but rather on subjective
attempts to string together a few axiomatic principles of the survival
of organisms such as those presented by Mr. Kenny into a full-blown
explanative theory of the origin of species. In the process a lot of
bad logic goes into the works eg the circularity of the Index Fossil
method of dating, or the deliberate ignorance of evidence from the
fossil record that doesn't fit into the theory, or all sorts of
chicanery in an attempt to produce "proof" of a common ancestor for
man and monkey."
One could say the same of history, and how dating artefacts by looking
at the decorative style of pottery is similarly misguided. Since the
Theory of Evolution was first proposed, so much evidence has emerged
for it - it explains so many facts of biology, for instance, that for
any Biologist (note: Not doctor, or Creation "Scientist") to challenge
it would be akin to a doctor believing that the stork was responsible
for delivering children.
And if you disbelief transitional fossils between the common ancestor
of primates and Man, just see how even Creation "Scientists" are
totally in disagreement about whether the alleged transitional fossils
are of man or ape. "Creationists... assert that apes and humans are
separated by a wide gap. If this is true, deciding on which side of
that gap individual fossils lie should be trivially easy. Clearly,
that is not the case.)
(
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2a.html#primate <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html,http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2a.html>)
(Aside: You lot might be interested in the Evolutionary Tales
[<http://www.hobrad.com/et.htm>], an amusing meld of Chaucer's
Canterbury Tales and the concepts of Evolution)
"The patchy "evidence" of the fossil record doesn't really "prove"
evolution"
Not definitively, but I could argue that experiments do not "prove"
gravity and that what we see as gravity is really the work of the God
of Gravity who uses his powers to exert forces on us that we interpret
as being gravity.
What the fossil record shows:
- The older the rocks, the less complex the organisms. Ergo, they must
have developed over time.
- Geography affects what organisms are found where. When a location is
isolated (eg Australia, Galapagos Islands), it produces unique life.
When South America and Africa were joined, the same animals were found
on both continents but after they split, somehow the animals on both
sides became different. Ergo, the animals changed and developed
separately in isolation.
- Fossils that seem to bridge the gap between species have been found.
Eg from mammals to reptiles. The change from reptilian to mammal jaws
can be seen in fossils from Procynosuchus to Thrinaxodon to
Cynognathus to Diademodon to Probelesodon to Morgonucudon. (no I do
not know all this, I'm ripping it from somewhere :P)
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 05:47:26 -0000
Subject: [youngrepublic] Re: Digest Number 51
Reply-To: youngrepublic@yahoogroups.com
I'm an atheist too, so I'll endeavour to defend my position. =)
Cheers
Alex
> >> wrt evidence, sometimes it's there, but it depends on whether
or not you want to see it as evidence or mere crap. and secondly,
even if evidence is not present at that point in time, it does not
necessarily disprove its existence. we had no evidence for DNA back
then. does this mean that DNA does not exist?
WRT to your 1st argument, the existence of God is not so evident
that everyone who sees/experiences them must interpret it as
irrefutable evidence as against any "mundane" explanation; ie.
you're right, we may see evidence that's "there" as mere crap, or
explain it differently w/o the need to refer to divine intervention.
Your 2nd argument does not debate Gabriel's point, but in fact
rather reiterates his argument. Before DNA was discovered, it was
irrelevant to believe it's existence because it had no meaning! It's
like believing that pigs can fly, and just because they haven't flew
yet doesn't mean they can't. Maybe they really can, but it's
ridiculous not to believe they can't fly unless evidence shows they
start doing so. Alternately, an a priori hypothesis can be
established which can be used to predict something from happening
before it actually does, supported by a theory of why it is actually
so which makes sense.
In fact, if the "evidence" you were talking about refers to the the
existence of God, your 2nd argument implies that there is no
evidence of God's existence yet, and that we should all wait and see
because it's coming. This seems a strange argument coming from you,
so I must have misunderstood something, so please clarify your
point.
> and anyway this is not the fault of religion itself is it? if you
ask me it boils down alot to sordid politics and sinister
manipulation. it's just that religion is a very potent tool for
stirring up fundamentalist feelings to promote a leader's sinister
agenda (assuming the religious institution is being led by a demonic
spawn or something) because i think that it fundamentally deals with
some form of ideology some (or most, depending on which society u
come from) been entrenched in or taught since young possibly. anyhow
that's religion for you. cornerstone of many people's lives. so
anyone who seems to be anti their religion are anti the believers
too since they're threatening to wreck the foundations of these
ppl's lives.
>
> whose fault is it now?
I'm atheist. Alot of people are atheist. So if you have a religion,
it means you're anti-atheist. So anyone who seems to be anti-atheist
are anti believers too since they're threatening to wreck the
foundations of these people's lives. Whose fault is it now?
Actually I don't really make a stand about how religion affects
fundamental human nature, especially in terms of evil. In fact I
don't think religion is "at fault" here. But I just want to point
out that your argument is fallacious because you assumed one side is
right and the other side is attempting to destroy the "right" side.
And like Gabriel pointed out in an earlier post, we are atheists,
you are thiests (or Christians, or whatever you want to call
yourself based on whatever religion you subscribe to). So please
don't call us non-believers or non-Christians or non-Catholics. At
most you can call us non-theists. It's like me calling you non-
atheist just now. Please forgive me for that, it will be the first
and last time i hope.
> >> well let me put it this way. i'm just saying that one should
not mistake WHAT the religious teachers say about the religion and
what the religion actually said. imho, you dont need to blare out
how YOU think the bible or koran or whatever should be interpreted
like, as long as you know that what the teacher says is not
infallible, and you take the initiative to check stuff out yourself,
that's good enough isnt it? one should never take things at face
value after all.
>
> i have no knowledge about the koran or anything like that, only
the Bible so far (but with rather ltd knowledge sadly), so I shall
talk about the Bible. anybody serious about studying the bible
should know by now that it demands a deep and sensitive reading of
it...and yes you're right. it allows for alot of weird ass
misinterpretations by all sorts of people, done for all sorts of
reasons. now you just told me that some texts are more restrictive
on the progress of technology than others, like which ones for
example? and what other exampls other than the astronomy blunder can
you raise in defense of your argument?
>
I basically agree with you, except that, isn't the astronomy blunder
enough? I think that science and religion are meant to be seperate,
simply because science is better at explaining details about the
natural world and making accurate predictions (which may
subsequently lead to inventions) based on successful theories,
whereas religion is more like a philosophy on the large scale of
things. So if you trust science and still believe in religion as the
ultimate mover of things, fair enough, but if you buy my argument,
then you'd leave religion out of science because does not make a
priori theories which make predictions, and hence it does not
directly help in aiding scientific research; though I won't go so
far as to say it necessarily hinders science, except like in the
astronomy case when it supports one hypothesis while rejecting
others purely based on which one fits more nicely into "God's
universe", in their own opinions.
> My reply: isn't it rather arrogant to claim that just because you
dont seem/want to see an impact a divine being has made on your
life, this claim must apply to everybody else? if that's the case,
then how is it that so many people who are believers in a certain
religion claim that their lives have been transformed for the better
by the power of their deities? mass delusion? mass hallucination?
The important thing is whether there is irrefutable evidence which
cannot be interpreted in any other way than that God's existence
must have been necessary. There is no such evidence to date,
especially when you want to convince a skeptic such as me who will
always find mundane ways to explain so-called "evidence". This is
indeed an extremely high (maybe impossible) standard to judge the
basis of religion, but surely you also demand such high standards
for yourself! IF mass delusion or hallucination explains it well
enough, then so be it. (I'm not saying it does. I'm saying IF.)
Let's put it another way. People like me have no experience
of "transformation by the power of any deity", and trust me when I
say it's not without trying. I'm sure many others live their whole
lives without any experience with religion. Why then, should we
believe in a God because others have experiences we cannot share?
God either exists or doesn't, so if the experience of God is not
universal, then what's the point in believing in so-
called "experiences with God" if He is supposed to be the one and
only? Either I haven't had this experience, or I never will. Until
then, it is irrelevant to imagine that I ever will and start
believing in God.
To pre-empt a potential counter-argument, please do not tell me that
I do not have such "experiences with God" because I did not open
myself to Him. If that is a requirement, then why must it be so? If
it is so, I'm content to be an atheist all my life and never get the
chance to experience it. It's like believing all the infomercials on
TV and buying every product advertised because they claim to work
wonders and say "try it! you never know if you don't try it!".
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 07:50:24 +0100 (BST)
Subject: Re: [youngrepublic] Re: Digest Number 51
Reply-To: youngrepublic@yahoogroups.com
here we go again.
gabriel : will reply your email later. have to go offline to study for exams now. =(
claire.