I think the problem here, Neil, is that of hidden agendas - at worst, conscious, maybe sometimes unconscious, or even just a muddling of different levels of (rational) discourse. On both sides, many are just asking and expecting too much from science. Science will not prove or disprove God, or religion. That's not its job. Science can examine the plausability of particular hypotheses and rate them according to probability. Thus, the argument that the "world" was created in 154 terrestrial hours 6,013 years ago can be judged as highly improbable on the basis of the evidence available to us as examined according to the scientific method. In terms of logical possibility, one cannot completely rule out the theoretical possibility that some kind of (from our point of view) completely crazy creator did, in fact, create the world 6,013 years ago, manically including all the evidence to mislead human science to posit evolution and cosmological development over billions of (non-existent) previous years. The qeustion of why he/ she/it would do such a thing remains, of course, completely open. Maybe when he/she/it emerges from his tea-pot hidden among the rings of Saturn he/she/it'll tell us.
It's also possible to posit the creator as a cosmic watchmaker, "designing" the irregularities in an ur-cosmic egg in such a way that everything would develop the way it has (or quantumly could) from a big bang (or bangs). So we are perfectly free to see "God's handiwork" in the universe if we want to. And many scientists do. But such standpoints are not scientific standpoints. In the end, I don't think such issues are really important, leading as they do only to relatively empty concepts of a God/creator/supreme being. The problems arise when religious points of view start to fill these concepts with content and then try to (ab)use science to back up this content. I identify myself as an atheist (or probably more strictly correctly, agnostic, since I don't make any claim to personal infallibility), a.) because I have never had any personal convincing experience of God and b.) because any of the models of God religions offer, which are known to me, fail to convince me and, indeed, lead me to reject them as causing more problems than they solve. Religiously inspired "intelligent designers" are dishonest, because they are trying to use science to make statements about things which are not - in this sense - the objects of scientific discourse. On the other hand, their statements, on a religious basis, about what God apparently wants, or does not want, for humanity or the world can be examined, criticised and rejected - on philosophical or, indeed, social scientific, bases. Because, in this sense, they are no longer talking about God, but about God and everything else. In this sense, we're back to Wittgenstein and his language games. A lot of what religious people are doing in science is concomitant to trying to play in the FA Cup final with Rugby rules (and, by the way, my commiserations to England on their defeat yesterday ;-)) and still claiming that it's cricket! Francis On 1 Mrz., 10:54, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > This is from this week's issue of New Scientist on spotting hidden > religious agendas. "As creationists in the US continue to lose court > battles over attempts to have intelligent design taught as science in > federally funded schools, their strategy has been forced to... well, > evolve. That means ensuring that references to pseudoscientific > concepts like ID are more heavily veiled. So I thought I'd share a few > tips for spotting what may be religion in science's clothing. Red > flag number one: the term "scientific materialism". "Materialism" is > most often used in contrast to something else - something non- > material, or supernatural. Proponents of ID frequently lament the > scientific claim that humans are the product of purely material > forces. At the same time, they never define how non-material forces > might work. I have yet to find a definition that characterises non- > materialism by what it is, rather than by what it is not. The > invocation of Cartesian dualism - where the brain and mind are viewed > as two distinct entities, one material and the other immaterial - is > also a red flag. And if an author describes the mind, or any > biological system for that matter, as "irreducibly complex", let the > alarm bells ring. Misguided interpretations of quantum physics are a > classic hallmark of pseudoscience, usually of the New Age variety, but > some religious groups are now appealing to aspects of quantum > weirdness to account for free will. Beware: this is nonsense. When > you come across the terms "Darwinism" or "Darwinists", take heed. True > scientists rarely use these terms, and instead opt for "evolution" and > "biologists", respectively. When evolution is described as a "blind, > random, undirected process", be warned. While genetic mutations may be > random, natural selection is not. When cells are described as > "astonishingly complex molecular machines", it is generally by > breathless supporters of ID who take the metaphor literally and assume > that such a "machine" requires an "engineer". If an author wishes for > "academic freedom", it is usually ID code for "the acceptance of > creationism" ." > > All the above is true, and yet there is something false about it in > terms of the role of speculative philosophising in science and a > determination not to be swamped by idiot common sense (as in Bacon's > Idols). I have a feeling that nothing I have learned forecloses on > something like a designer massively more complicated than we can yet > imagine AND that the best explanation of religion generally is that it > is mythical dross broadly designed for social control. I suspect > there are good reasons not to argue with idiots and for believing > there are idiots, but no reason to eliminate speculation on design > underlying our current limited sensing. The blind mechanisms of > evolution are a lot brighter than we are at the moment. > On 1 Mar, 07:14, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Einstein recommended impudence, and we might draw some ideas from > > certain polarities between which he worked and lived. I sense this > > would miss the point in some ways by individual focus. If common > > sense were reliable we wouldn't need science and I wonder whether most > > people even get the messages about just how hard observation is and so > > on. Current forensic science, as accepted in our courts, is highly > > unreliable, yet so totally reliable in CSI. Something is afoot in > > rationalising terms (Freudian) in public "science" - and this involves > > massive ignorance pretending it knows what science is about. > > Standards in our universities are now dismally low and based on > > massively outdated ideas of what might be good for and useful to > > students. We lie to them about job prospects and more or less > > everything. Incompetence and rigidity have turned to corruption. The > > kids I used to teach genuinely believed degrees from my third rate > > institution would buy them that BMW, yet their fate was as shelf- > > stackers and call-centre fodder. Yet even in more prestigious places > > the syllabus is the same sad dross. I don't want to elevate > > creativity to something only a few academically capable can do - thus > > I follow a sense that creativity must lie elsewhere in large part. My > > guess is we could start with jobs that could have meaning and develop > > productive skills - this is an essentially communal task. > > > On 28 Feb, 20:17, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Academia's rigid walls seemed designed to supress dissent, and thus, > > > originality. I wonder if I were an academic if I would have the courage > > > to publish at all. Some of my heroes were crucified for their ideas, > > > especially if any flaw at all was discovered in their proof. Hawking's 10 > > > dimension version of M theory comes to mind...sending him into seclusion > > > for ten years! Yet when he returned, he had 11 dimension M theory in > > > hand, problem neatly solved. > > > > Conformity always has been the enforced ideal. > > > > [ Attached Message ]From:archytas <[email protected]>To:"\"Minds > > > Eye\"" <[email protected]>Date:Sat, 28 Feb 2009 04:37:51 -0800 > > > (PST)Local:Sat 28 Feb 2009 12:37Subject:[Mind's Eye] critical consensus > > > > Academics generally hold that your average plonker is about as likely > > > to come up with anything original as a Pope is likely to be non- > > > Catholic (Francis will no doubt tell us some were!) - this actuality > > > runs somewhat in contrast with learning organisation myths and so on > > > that stress that we are all originals and it's just school that beats > > > it out of us. Quite why a bunch of inveterate plagiarists should hold > > > such views on other people's originality, I'm not sure. I seem to > > > have wasted much time discussing originality amongst people utterly > > > devoid of it. I have a sense of what it might be and that we ascribe > > > it to individuals falsely, as whatever we are as individuals is > > > clearly linked to culture and groups. The literature on creativity is > > > so boring and upitself as not to be widely accessible, but some facts > > > are about in it. In teaching I haven't been able to do much more than > > > offer people the chance to get into projects and self-expression and > > > not drop on them for re-inventing wheels and so on - along with some > > > nurture-criticism. I suspect something deeper than schooling (they > > > school horses don't they?) is afoot in our not trusting to community > > > creativity or allowing its greater expression. I find the notion of > > > innovatory entrepreneurialism particularly suspect here, but there are > > > no doubt babies and bathwaters. > > > > I wonder if we have any anecdotes or historical notions of innovation > > > and its role in a more creative consensus on human living and what we > > > are about or want to be about? I'd start by saying the powers that be > > > are so frightened by innovation that they have shown and used > > > instruments of torture. Descartes quipped somewhere that they had > > > done dreadful things to Galileo - and he was an Italian - what might > > > they do to a Frenchman? Locally, I have found that a range of > > > votaries and bureaucrats quickly try to humiliate dissenting voices, > > > rather than get at the real evidence of a situation. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
