Good Science/religion Article By British Atheist

[Guest TheProudDuck]

http://www.spectator.co.uk/v3_entry_frames.htm

[Guest Starsky]

I would have to register to get on that site...sorry PD...it looked interesting.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Peace@Mar 18 2004, 02:46 PM

I would have to register to get on that site...sorry PD...it looked interesting.

Yeah, I forgot about the Speccie's new registration requirement. I'd just excerpt the whole thing and post it, but I don't know if that's kosher.

[Guest Starsky]

Darn...well I may just register if I have to.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Mar 18 2004, 02:58 PM

I'd just excerpt the whole thing and post it, but I don't know if that's kosher.

Who cares if it's kosher? Post that porkroast!

[Guest TheProudDuck]

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.

Return to top of page

[Guest Starsky]

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.

Got this far and had to stop and post something....

This is probably true....to some extent...but even the statement strays, or confines...too much.

I think if we really knew what God knows...science would be totally necessary to discuss God's hows and whys....

but because we don't have that knowledge...religion becomes an inspiration and science tells us how the world works..

It is right in stating that those who are scientist mostly miss the mark on religion and those who are religionists mostly miss the mark on science.

I was totally intriqued by Edgar Allen Poe's discription he received from a guy who was hypnotized as he passed away (died) into the next 'state of being' .

It is lengthy...but interesting so I am going to post it here... but on another thread so it won't ruin the consistency of this thread...

[Cal]

Originally posted by Peace@Mar 18 2004, 05:41 PM

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.

Got this far and had to stop and post something....

This is probably true....to some extent...but even the statement strays, or confines...too much.

I think if we really knew what God knows...science would be totally necessary to discuss God's hows and whys....

but because we don't have that knowledge...religion becomes an inspiration and science tells us how the world works..

It is right in stating that those who are scientist mostly miss the mark on religion and those who are religionists mostly miss the mark on science.

I was totally intriqued by Edgar Allen Poe's discription he received from a guy who was hypnotized as he passed away (died) into the next 'state of being' .

It is lengthy...but interesting so I am going to post it here... but on another thread so it won't ruin the consistency of this thread...

Unfortunately, it is usually the religionists that insist on sticking their feet in their mouths when it comes to science. While there may be a few scientists who are preoccupied with the encroachment of religion on science, I would speculate that there are a lot more religionists making claims that contradict science, than there are scientists contradicting religion. Most scientists recognize that religion, by its very nature has nothing in common with science.

At the foundation of science is the requirement that what you are testing be TESTABLE by human observation and REPEATABLE by others.

Religion is based on conclusions arived at WITH or WITHOUT evidence. Religion cares nothing for subsequent observations that may disprove it. Its conclusions are forgone. Proof to he contrary is dismissed outright, without critical analysis or skepticism.

Religion is inherently credulous. Science is inherently skeptical. Religion is conclusion based. Science is evidence driven. Religion is dogmatically rigid. Science (not necessarily all scientists) is open ended.

Whether science overlaps with religion is in the "court" of religion, not science. Religions, will , at times, attempt to be "scientific", but it is not a requirement. To the extent that science becomes "religious", it is no longer science by definition.

[Guest Starsky]

Unfortunately, it is usually the religionists that insist on sticking their feet in their mouths when it comes to science. While there may be a few scientists who are preoccupied with the encroachment of religion on science, I would speculate that there are a lot more religionists making claims that contradict science, than there are scientists contradicting religion. Most scientists recognize that religion, by its very nature has nothing in common with science.

At the foundation of science is the requirement that what you are testing be TESTABLE by human observation and REPEATABLE by others.

Religion is based on conclusions arived at WITH or WITHOUT evidence. Religion cares nothing for subsequent observations that may disprove it. Its conclusions are forgone. Proof to he contrary is dismissed outright, without critical analysis or skepticism.

Religion is inherently credulous. Science is inherently skeptical. Religion is conclusion based. Science is evidence driven. Religion is dogmatically rigid. Science (not necessarily all scientists) is open ended.

Whether science overlaps with religion is in the "court" of religion, not science. Religions, will , at times, attempt to be "scientific", but it is not a requirement. To the extent that science becomes "religious", it is no longer science by definition.

Very well stated...

But then...one must agree that the miracle of turning the water to wine would entail some pretty interesting science...

[Guest curvette]

I like George Bernard Shaw's quote, "All great truths begin as blasphemies." because I think it's so true. I almost completely agree with Richard Dawkins' thoughts on religion and science, except that I am not an atheist.

[Guest curvette]

Oh, I also take exception to one of his points on science. Ligers are not sterile. Tions are, and I don't know if a Liger and a Liger can breed, but Ligers have bred successfully with Lions and Tigers.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Cal@Mar 18 2004, 09:24 PM

Unfortunately, it is usually the religionists that insist on sticking their feet in their mouths when it comes to science. While there may be a few scientists who are preoccupied with the encroachment of religion on science, I would speculate that there are a lot more religionists making claims that contradict science, than there are scientists contradicting religion. Most scientists recognize that religion, by its very nature has nothing in common with science.

At the foundation of science is the requirement that what you are testing be TESTABLE by human observation and REPEATABLE by others.

Religion is based on conclusions arived at WITH or WITHOUT evidence. Religion cares nothing for subsequent observations that may disprove it. Its conclusions are forgone. Proof to he contrary is dismissed outright, without critical analysis or skepticism.

Religion is inherently credulous. Science is inherently skeptical. Religion is conclusion based. Science is evidence driven. Religion is dogmatically rigid. Science (not necessarily all scientists) is open ended.

Whether science overlaps with religion is in the "court" of religion, not science. Religions, will , at times, attempt to be "scientific", but it is not a requirement. To the extent that science becomes "religious", it is no longer science by definition.

Cal -- Science, when done right, depends on results being testable and repeatable. It doesn't always work that way. Max Planck said, "A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." As I mentioned in my earlier Moroni 10 post, emotion never gets entirely filtered out of the scientific process. Look at what happened to Bjorn Lomborg (see the posted article). True, he was ultimately vindicated, but the global warming debate in general is an example of the mixing of hard, verificable scientific research and emotion.

While there may be a few scientists who are preoccupied with the encroachment of religion on science, I would speculate that there are a lot more religionists making claims that contradict science, than there are scientists contradicting religion.

Speculation, Your Honor. I guess it depends what circles you move in. Out in the corn-fed red states, where the dark fields of the republic roll on under the night, you'll find plenty of people who think the earth is six thousand years old and was once totally flooded. My experience has more often been with people who've allowed what little scientific education they've had do far more than it should in convincing them that faith is unreasonable. Whether scientists actively push the position that they've rendered religion irrelevant (and there are plenty that do), there is a kind of elite-opinion conventional wisdom that this is the case.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by curvette@Mar 19 2004, 09:18 AM

Oh, I also take exception to one of his points on science. Ligers are not sterile. Tions are, and I don't know if a Liger and a Liger can breed, but Ligers have bred successfully with Lions and Tigers.

Bions and ligers and tears, oh my!

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck+Mar 19 2004, 11:19 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (TheProudDuck @ Mar 19 2004, 11:19 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--curvette@Mar 19 2004, 09:18 AM

Oh, I also take exception to one of his points on science.  Ligers are not sterile.  Tions are, and I don't know if a Liger and a Liger can breed, but Ligers have bred successfully with Lions and Tigers.

Bions and ligers and tears, oh my!

Yeah, it gets a little confusing doesn't it? Ligers are absolutely magnificent creatures. Have you ever seen one?

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by curvette+Mar 19 2004, 01:43 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Mar 19 2004, 01:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -TheProudDuck@Mar 19 2004, 11:19 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--curvette@Mar 19 2004, 09:18 AM

Oh, I also take exception to one of his points on science.  Ligers are not sterile.  Tions are, and I don't know if a Liger and a Liger can breed, but Ligers have bred successfully with Lions and Tigers.

Bions and ligers and tears, oh my!

Yeah, it gets a little confusing doesn't it? Ligers are absolutely magnificent creatures. Have you ever seen one?

Nope. Saw a Luger once, though. And I'd like to see Liguria.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Mar 19 2004, 02:08 PM

Nope. Saw a Luger once, though. And I'd like to see Liguria.

I don't think a luger or Liguria have ever successfully been bred. (even in captivity!)

[Snow]

Originally posted by curvette@Mar 19 2004, 01:43 PM

Ligers are absolutely magnificent creatures. Have you ever seen one?

Does anyone remeber Shasta, the Liger from the Hogel Zoo in SLC - the only half lion, half tiger born in captivity.

Bless her heart she is dead now, but you can see her stuffed carcass in the cat house at the zoo.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Cal@Mar 18 2004, 09:24 PM

Most scientists recognize that religion, by its very nature has nothing in common with science.

Could not agree less, and this is the great thing about being Mormon.

Religion is not a narrow thing. It is an attempt to understand theology - God and his workings. Under theology, all things fall. Science is a subset of religion or better said, of theology. If there is a disconnect between science and religion it is because one or the other has got it wrong or we are two dense to understand the connection.

Being Mormon, my only obligation is to truth (and to brush three times daily). I am not obligated to believe anything that turns out to not be true out of some sense of orthodoxy. And I disagree also with the part that religion is inspiring but science is not, it only informs. Look at one of those detailed new photos peering out into the deep recesses of the universe and try to fathom the countless galaxies each with their billion of stars and tell me that isn't inspiring and enriching:

http://www.ccastronomy.org/photo_tour_HST_..._DeepField2.jpg (the high defintion pictures come in up to 66 megs. This one is low res.

[sgallan]

Snow -

Your take on Mormonism is what it started out as and what it should be. You want to pass it along to your current leadership.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Snow+Mar 19 2004, 04:52 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Mar 19 2004, 04:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--curvette@Mar 19 2004, 01:43 PM

Ligers are absolutely magnificent creatures.  Have you ever seen one?

Does anyone remeber Shasta, the Liger from the Hogel Zoo in SLC - the only half lion, half tiger born in captivity.

Bless her heart she is dead now, but you can see her stuffed carcass in the cat house at the zoo.

What is it with Utah and thinking they always have the "one true" (fill in the blank)? There are lots of Lion/Tiger hybrids. They are almost always (if not always) born in captivity because they won't breed in the natural world. Or never get a chance to, whichever...

[Snow]

Take that curvette!

[Outshined]

Wow! Beautiful!

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by sgallan@Mar 19 2004, 06:19 PM

Snow -

Your take on Mormonism is what it started out as and what it should be. You want to pass it along to your current leadership.

LOL....President 'Snow' of the 21st century.

[Guest curvette]

Take that curvette!

Snow! You haven't changed a bit! Still gorgeous! (except your teeth have yellowed)

[Cal]

Originally posted by Peace@Mar 19 2004, 01:50 AM

Unfortunately, it is usually the religionists that insist on sticking their feet in their mouths when it comes to science. While there may be a few scientists who are preoccupied with the encroachment of religion on science, I would speculate that there are a lot more religionists making claims that contradict science, than there are scientists contradicting religion. Most scientists recognize that religion, by its very nature has nothing in common with science.

At the foundation of science is the requirement that what you are testing be TESTABLE by human observation and REPEATABLE by others.

Religion is based on conclusions arived at WITH or WITHOUT evidence. Religion cares nothing for subsequent observations that may disprove it. Its conclusions are forgone. Proof to he contrary is dismissed outright, without critical analysis or skepticism.

Religion is inherently credulous. Science is inherently skeptical. Religion is conclusion based. Science is evidence driven. Religion is dogmatically rigid. Science (not necessarily all scientists) is open ended.

Whether science overlaps with religion is in the "court" of religion, not science. Religions, will , at times, attempt to be "scientific", but it is not a requirement. To the extent that science becomes "religious", it is no longer science by definition.

Very well stated...

But then...one must agree that the miracle of turning the water to wine would entail some pretty interesting science...

It would involve no science I have ever heard of. In fact, if there is a scientific imposibility, taking that story LITERALLY, that is one of them. You would have to essentially have a massive FUSION reaction, turning light hydrogen and oxygen atoms into carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, calcium, magnesium and then have a series of chemical reaction unknown to occur in anything but living organisms. You might just as well believe that the universe is a chotic place with no physical rules at all, a proposition which has NOOOOOO evidence.

Jesus' turning water into wine could simply be metaphorical for "he wast he life of the party".