Science is wonderful at doing certain things, like popping warm toast out of my toaster and making heavy objects float and fly. Without science we wouldn't be able to do those things. No wonder that science enjoys a position of high prestige in our society.
But the achievements of science blind many people to the fact that science is a limited tool for understanding ourselves and the world. In some areas science has showed astounding progress, but in other areas science has taught us no more than we knew since the time of the Babylonians.
Consider some of the most important questions facing us as human beings: Why are we here? Where ultimately did we come from? Where are we going? Science can provide us with very limited answers. As the philosopher Wittgenstein once put it, one has the feeling that even if all possible scientific knowledge could been obtained, the biggest questions of life would remain largely untouched and unanswered.
Skepticism is of course a central tool of science, but many skeptics make the mistake of failing to apply skepticism to science itself. They are skeptical within science but they are not skeptical about science. They naively believe that science can answer all the questions that require answers. Thus they demand of science what science has never provided and is not likely to provide in the future.
I call this the "atheism of the gaps." The basic idea is that if science hasn't figured something out, just wait a few years, because the brilliant scientists are working on it. Have faith that they will come up with good answers in the future, just as they have in the past. In other words, we should assume that people who are smart enough to make toasters are also smart enough to figure out whether there is life after death.
Yes, it's laughable, and that's why I'm sorry to see smart fellows like my friend Michael Shermer succumbing to this science-worship. Shermer is the editor of Skeptic magazine and author of some fine books including most recently The Mind of the Market. We've done several God v. atheism debates, the most recent one before 2,500 people at Fresno State University. It was one of our liveliest, and you can watch that debate here.
Shermer used to be a Christian fundamentalist. He always gets off a funny line about how he used to go door to door handing out literature, and now as an atheist he wants to go back to those people and take back the stuff he gave them. In a way, though, Shermer remains a believer. He still places his faith in men in white robes. Only these men happen to work not in pulpits but in laboratories. Science is now Shermer's religion.
In a couple of my debates, I asked Shermer what kind of scientific evidence he would require to be convinced that God exists. I asked him, "What if we discovered a new planet tomorrow and emblazed on it were the words: YAHWEH MADE THIS. Would you then believe that there is a God?" Shermer said no. He would automatically conclude that some chance combination of chemicals must have generated those words. In short, he is closed to supernatural explanations, no matter what the data, and is only open to natural explanations.
This I consider a selective sort of skepticism that is actually a lamentable sort of dogmatism. I see it also in Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris and Dennett. In a way they are much narrower than religious believers. That's because the religious believer admits both natural and supernatural explanations. By contrast, these unbelievers have closed themselves off to all possibilities that don't fit their naturalistic outlook. One may say that science has blinded them to the things that science cannot possibly tell them.
Reader Comments ( Page 60 of 61)
886. Peter... it never ceases to amaze me that Renzo imagines that he has such a big brain because he is willing to cavil with Hays over the definition of 'Darwinian'.
Mike is trying hard to emulate Renzo. (shrug)
pretervisionist depends entirely on history, which is entirely 'authority' based, as is religion, yet he is willing to completely ignore scientific authority when that suits him.
Mr. "I can quote the Bible" MIW... doesn't seem to understand that he is appealing to authority.
And Jesse, well he's a Catholic, 'nuff said. Just teasin' Jesse.
not-pboyfloyd at 8:05PM on Jun 14th 2008
887. Mike
Best not to confuse "science" (an attempt to understand the principles behind physical phenomena) with "technology" (an attempt to use physical phenomena).
xxxx
lasers on cd and dvd players must employ quantum theory to work. quantum mechanics is integral to much of what is being done in biochemistry right now. It will soon figure in computing if it doesn't already
Yes, it is true that quantum mechanics and relativity appear to be mutually exclusive in some ways, yet gravitational lensing, relativistic time effects and phenomena such as lasers all exist, are easily demonstrated and have many commercial applications.
Similarly, an elephant's eye doesn't much resemble the tusk. Some other things are going on, and there's an abundance of work being done to tie things up.
These phenomena are results of applied scientific method. Your posts here seem to me to be an attempt to corrupt or occlude the process. Is there some personal factor that's driving you?
Clif Kuplen at 8:09PM on Jun 14th 2008
888. Pete
It sounds like you are ascribing supernatural aspects to evolution Mike. If that is the case you're out to lunch.
Mike
Where did I ascribe supernatural aspects to evolution?
Pete
It sounds like you are saying that inanimate objects are making conscious decisions as if they were sentient beings or living beings. If that is the case either provide a clear hypothesis for that along with your proofs and evidence OR you're out to lunch.
Mike
Where did I say that inanimate objects are making conscious decisions? Or that they were sentient beings or living beings? In fact, I added a proviso to try to forestall that usual sloppy reading.
Pete
Overall it sounds like you are out to lunch. If you think it is then you are a delusional god freak buddy.
Mike
Dang! Just when I thought there was someone who could debate with logic and reason, you have to go and revert to type.
Pete
Evolution is not a thing. There is no guiding process. No entity shaping anything.
Mike
Actually, natural selection does guide the process. Otherwise, there would be no tendency toward what Darwin called "favored races," i.e., those better fit to reproduce. As for any other "guidance," that is nothing that can be proven with science, restricted as it is to particular methods and particular subjects. One may as well try to prove Mozart's Clarinet Concerto with science.
Mike at 1:41AM on Jun 15th 2008
889. Pete
all that we see is mechanism not intelligence
Mike
A man whose only tool is a telescope will never discover a microbe. Similarly, one often does no more than recover one's own assumptions and mistake them for conclusions.
Mike at 1:42AM on Jun 15th 2008
890. Clif
Mike, you have not advanced your cause one iota. what's the point of blowing smoke? Did you convince anyone of anything?
Mike
Sometimes ignorance is invincible. All I pointed out was that folks often confuse the metaphysical abstraction with the physical reality. It is especially tragic when people who call themselves materialists go beyond what is strictly material and include concepts and categories of human thought as physically real.
The physical reality is material bodies in motion. The metaphysic is that this is due to something called "gravity."
When you say that "gravity exerts a force of 32 ft/sec^2" on Earth at sea level, what you really mean is that bodies in free fall at that location accelerate toward the center of gravity at the measured rate of 32 ft/sec^2.
To explain =why= this happens we imagine an entity called "gravity." But then, according to Einstein, there really is no such entity, but rather a warping of space-time. Bodies actually move in "straight" lines, meaning along their geodesics. It is space itself that is curved and the sun is not actually attracting the earth.
Naturally, it is still computationally convenient to use the "gravity force field" story to talk about motion; but that does not make gravity a material thing.
+ + +
Clif
I told you to look up gravitational lensing for an example of a distortion of spacetime that could be seen.
Mike
What can be seen is the dual image of a star. You can't actually see the "space-time." The warping of something called space-time is a story that makes sense of the lensing. As such, it is likely true, in the sense of "true to fact [so far]."
+ + +
Clif
Your excursions into self inflicted syllogistic full nelsons were obviated and mathematically quantized by Kurt Gödel's Incompleteness theorem many years ago.
Mike
"Mathematically quantized"? That makes no sense. I remember we spent a full week developing that proof in Number Theory class. And there was nothing there about mathematically quantizing excursions. The only thing that comes out is that it is possible to make statements in a mathematical system that are unprovable within that system and so must be accepted or rejected on faith. This makes math the only religion with a rigorous proof that it =is= a religion. [That's a joke, son.]
Now it does mean, as Jaki pointed out back in the 70s that a "Theory of Everything" in physics cannot be known with certainty, so long as physics is expressed in the language of mathematics. He much upset Gell-Mann with this. (It was at a Nobel symposium, and neither Gell-Mann, Weinberg, nor Hoyle, also on the panel, had heard of Goedel's Theorem!) Hawking has only recently awoken to this, but has misunderstood it to mean that a TOE is impossible. It's not the TOE that's impossible; it's the knowing whether you have found it that's impossible.
Clif
Hawking's work at one time reinforced this in a different way, but he's since reversed himself in light of newer mathematics.
Mike
This is too vague, unless you're talking about his Late Awakening, mentioned above.
+ + +
Clif
Even before that, syllogistic logic was run aground by pitting immovable objects against irresistable forces, e.g. if god is omnipotent can he build a rock so heavy he can't lift it.
Mike
You sound as if you've just discovered logical contradictions. But the medievals were well aware that the words themselves (the logoi) could create contradictions, and these contradictions did not say anything true about the real world. Cf. the Liar's Paradox, the Spanish Barber, etc.
Clif
You've written volumes and refuted nothing and changed nothing. Einstein's still einstein, still has been taught in all scientific disciplines for fifty years, quantum mechanics is still needed to make a CD and you're still snakebit.
Mike
Yes, and empirical facts are still empirical facts. Natural laws are still natural laws. And physical theories are still physical theories. And facts, math, and theories are still three different things that build one upon the other. Einstein knew the difference even if you do not. Dude, this is something that Voltaire, Hume, and the positivists got =right= even if it does break down at the margins.
Clif
I suppose that feels like a good defense mechanism,
Mike
Except you've never explained what I am supposed to be defending. The "three-layer cake" model is from the logical positivist school of hard-headed empiricists. But they seem to have been far more materialist than you.
Mike at 1:42AM on Jun 15th 2008
891. Clif
your grasp of science is no better than that of an african bushman of two centuries ago
Mike
Interesting that you cite a black man as the paragon of ignorance.
Clif
I'm not letting this go. Interesting in what way?
... their knowledge of 21st century science would be somewhat deficient in the nineteenth century.
Mike
Yes. But so would be Lord Kelvin's knowledge of 21st century science. So would an English country squire's, or Tallyrand's or Napoleon's, or... **Anyone at all** two hundred years ago.
Yet when you were groping for an image to express how very little you believe I know, and so were in need of one expressing the rock bottom of knowledge, you did not come up with John Adams or Benjamin Disraeli. Or even an Appalachian hillbilly or Polish peasant.
So why a Bushman and not a hillbilly -- or any other pre-Victorian?
Okay, your choice of image may not have been intentional, and perhaps I am too sensitive to things like that.
Mike at 1:42AM on Jun 15th 2008
892. floyd
Mike is trying hard to emulate Renzo.
Mike
????? And Renzo is....?
Mike at 1:42AM on Jun 15th 2008
893. Mike
Best not to confuse "science" (an attempt to understand the principles behind physical phenomena) with "technology" (an attempt to use physical phenomena).
Clif
lasers on cd and dvd players must employ quantum theory to work. quantum mechanics is integral to much of what is being done in biochemistry right now. It will soon figure in computing if it doesn't already
Mike
Quite right. But they would work even if there were a different quantum theory. Right now, I am told, there are five quantum theories. I am only familiar with three -- Copenhagen, many worlds, and transactional. This is what I mean when I emphasize the distinction Poincare, Mach, Einstein, and the others made between the actual physical facts and the theoretical models employed to conceptualize those facts. The facts remain the same (sort of), but we can always come up with a better story.
Similarly, my cosmologist friend gives a talk he calls "27 Different Cosmologies." He tells me there is no experimental way to distinguish between Einstein's relativity and Milne's kinematic theory of relativity. (I am told Whitehead's theory of relativity is disfavored, but I am not sure without checking that it is disproven.)
Through any finite set of stars one may draw innumerable constellations. Through any finite set of facts one may draw innumerable theories. (Craig's Theorem, iirc.) So long as the predictions of the theories correspond to the observed facts we say the theories are True (to the Facts), but there is still that difference between Truth and Fact.
Clif
Yes, it is true that quantum mechanics and relativity appear to be mutually exclusive in some ways, yet gravitational lensing, relativistic time effects and phenomena such as lasers all exist, are easily demonstrated and have many commercial applications.
Mike
Yes. But the mere fact that the theories are in contradiction while the facts chug along quite nicely is a sign that the theory is not the fact.
Clif
These phenomena are results of applied scientific method. Your posts here seem to me to be an attempt to corrupt or occlude the process. Is there some personal factor that's driving you?
Mike
A desire for clarity and careful thought. In an awful lot of cases, the applications were discovered before the science. I am not "occluding" the process. On the contrary, I'm trying to shed light on it by explaining the thoughts of some of the greatest of physicists, and historians and philosophers of science. There is plenty of room for disagreement. If no physical theory is absolute, surely not theory about the nature of science is either. Karl Popper "demolished" the positivists; but Duhem had demolished Popper even before Popper came along. And if you really want something that "occludes" the process of science, Popper is just your man. Yet, his principle of falsification is widely accepted today as being the =only= criterion for a theory to be scientific!
Duhem, who lived about a century ago, gave a pertinent example. I go by memory here. He wrote in "On the subject of physical theories" that in an experiment on an hypothesis involving pressure, the very same results would prove the proposition true OR prove the same proposition false, depending on whether one applied the idea of pressure of Laplace or Lagrange. The =fact= the outcome of the experiment is agreed; but the =meaning of the fact= depends on the theory employed. And in the case he cited, the very same hypothesis would be declared proven by a Laplacian and disproven by a Lagrangian.
Mike at 1:45AM on Jun 15th 2008
894. Mike says, "Dang! Just when I thought there was someone who could debate with logic and reason, you have to go and revert to type."
Y'see the rest of that comment was fine. You have to go and spoil it with this arrogant, pompous crap.
Mike says, "????? And Renzo is....?"
.. a pompous ass who, by way of explanation, will use logical fallacies while pretending to supreme intelligence and when 'caught' simply 'moves on' as if that is insignificant.
But, it is NOT insignificant if one is purporting 'logical superiority' and trying to pass off logical fallacies as a 'show' of that 'superiority' now, is it?
Renzo is prone to exalting himself, proclaiming his superior intellect then completely ignores when he is caught giving us a 'false dilemma' type argument, not even admitting to it.
When it is obvious to everyone that this is just a never-ending debate, saying that someone with an opposing POV is somehow 'inferior' is a disgusting 'ad homenim', attack, isn't it?
Time and again, Renzo has understood my POV enough to 'rebut' or 'denounce' it, then he 'refused' to understand any further clarification on my part.
This is simply snobbery.
The existence of God or the gods does NOT depend on who can out-bullshit whom.
not-pboyfloyd at 3:09AM on Jun 15th 2008
895. Mike says, "Naturally, it is still computationally convenient to use the "gravity force field" story to talk about motion; but that does not make gravity a material thing."
" In physics, the graviton is a hypothetical elementary particle that mediates the force of gravity in the framework of quantum field theory. If it exists, the graviton must be massless (because the gravitational force has unlimited range) and must have a spin of 2 (because gravity is a second-rank tensor field."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton
Stop those crazy physicists.. Behold! It came to pass that Mike has declared Gravitons to be non-existent.
I'm sure that physicists everywhere are taking note of your brilliance Mike, have you written your peer reviewed paper yet? I smell Nobel prize here!
not-pboyfloyd at 3:25AM on Jun 15th 2008
896. "Hannibal Lecter: You still wake up sometimes, don't you? You wake up in the dark and hear the screaming of the lambs. Clarice Starling: Yes. ..."
Mike, I was a fisherman for a while and slew thousands of fish. The horror.
I mercilously smashed their skulls with the back of a gaff. As an atheist, when I had time to contemplate this 'genocide' of my fellow living beings, recalling the glazed look on their innocent eye I felt like some monster clubbing an average unthinking Christian.
Who was I... who the fuck was I to snuff out the life of these beings for a dollar?
Did the fact that their lives are preprogrammed, much like a Christian's(or theist's) life(as is my understanding of how they think), make a difference? I had no theist 'right' to 'dominion' over them. I was like some Nazi, exterminating away, trying to get 'Olive' the fish.
But I believe you 'know' what I am 'driving at' here, even though I know that you will deny it. Could you refrain from shooting an attacking tiger?
Is it God's endangered creature or is it you or him, survival of the fittest(the one with the gun)?
Isn't it the height of hypocrisy for Neo-con-repuglies to metaphorically suck the seemingly-bottomless communist Chinese market's cock while denouncing communism as atheist?
Isn't it elitist snobbery to declare capitalism superior when Stalin, for all his totalitarian 'evil' and because of all his totalitarian 'evil' was demolishing Nazi capitalism before the U.S.A. 'bailed out' Britain?
Sure Stalin was an A-hole... Nazi Germany would have overran the U.S.S.R. if Stalin was a wussy, isn't THAT a fact?
I am a 'soft socialist' which is basically an atheist who would have us all practice the 'goodness' that Christ preached. We are amenable to 'soft-capitalism' which admits that price-fixing is practiced and controls corporations.(out of control corporations ARE Satan IMHO)
Soft socialism is amenable to soft religion. Hey, your 'thing' is your 'thing'.
Seems to me that neo-cons are willing to abuse the new Chinese 'soft Communism' for the cheap labor and demonize soft socialism as the ultimate enemy of religion on the principle of 'cash is king'.
This makes D'Souza and his ilk, Satan, the deciever, deception personified, in my book.(and if you read his crap realistically, in his books too)
not-pboyfloyd at 4:31AM on Jun 15th 2008
897. Floyd, you write:
::I think that if you intend to prove to yourself that the Cosmological Argument holds any water then you really have to be precise because it could mean the difference between proving something worthwhile and just fooling yourself because you 'proved' what you believed to be true to begin with.
I don't have to prove it to myself, floyd, I can answer the questions I asked you without hesitation.
To be sure, you cannot even know what a "dead acorn" is without knowing what a live acorn is, which includes what it's bound to be -- an oak. So yes, this "mental seeing of... future realities" IS "part of the scientific endeavor."
Likewise with "possibilities"; given different conditions water acts differently or is altogether substantially changed. So yes, this "mental seeing of possibilities" IS "part of the scientific endeavor."
I think the problem you have, floyd, in answering these (what are to me) simple questions is a fear of where it's going to lead you...
Boo!
:-)
Jesse at 8:39PM on Jun 15th 2008
898. notpb...Just want to make sure I understand the rules. It is not okay for someone to go off-topic if it is something I don't like. But it is okay if I go off-topic or if others do, so long as I like it. Got it. I used to play "rule-maker/rule-breaker" too.
Also, with all respect, I am not your baby...but I am flattered. (lol)
tbr at 8:56PM on Jun 15th 2008
899. I think the problem you have, floyd, in answering these (what are to me) simple questions is a fear of where it's going to lead you...
No.
If I boiled acorns, then took them to an island with no oaks and sold them to to the natives as pet food, the natives would have no knowledge of oaks, but they'd know what an acorn is.
I'm probably 'missing' your point, which seems simple to you, here.
:0) .... back at ya!
not-pboyfloyd at 11:17PM on Jun 15th 2008
900. No tbr...
I DID say that I WAS breaking the rules at times... we're off topic right now. Neither of us is trying to claim that this is a 'rule discussion' blog though, if you see what I mean.
not-pboyfloyd at 11:24PM on Jun 15th 2008