New Scientist on evolution

[Anthony G Williams]

[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]"True religion is not about possessing the truth. No religion does that. It is rather an invitation into a journey that leads one toward the mystery of God. Idolatry is religion pretending that it has all the answers." Bishop J.S.[/FONT]

It would be nice if that were universally believed. Sadly, you're not likely to find the fundamentalists of any religion agreeing with it.

 

[The Procrastinator]

Truth, now there's a thing.

Anthony, you have hit the nail on the head with this:
What science does not do is address the possibility that there might be a non-material world.
It can't address this possibility. Non-material world aside, I don't think any of us would go so far as to think science can explain everything, because not everything is measurable, we have gaps in our knowledge, and our own limitations as a species mean that we will not be able to theorise about or measure everything there is in any case. I think where scientists can come across as "arrogant" is in claiming that science holds all the answers, or that science is the only truth. Science is a journey toward the truths of the material realm, a journey of discovery, a seeking for measurable answers; and a good scientist (as noted by many already) will discard a "truth" if it becomes superseded or disproven, and move on to the next theory, looking for ways to test it, seeking to deepen and widen our pool of knowledge and our understanding of the world in which we live. If scientists dismiss as valueless those things they cannot measure, I can understand why people who have a belief in or value the non-material world would get annoyed.

Religion is purportedly a seeking for the truths of the non-material world, including morals and values and the meaning of Liff, and what makes a person a person. What annoys me personally about religious people, though, is when they talk about truth while ignoring facts. Not all religious people do this thank goodness, but there's a large amount of ones who will and do. As noted by others above, there are many who are only interested in the facts that will bolster their own particular beliefs, and other facts can go hang. This is dishonest and self-deceiving, and no seeker of truth should be either of those things if they can help it.

Being human beings, there are those on both sides of this "spectrum" who tend to believe that in discovering a truth, they have discovered the truth. (Don't ask me who said that, someone literary, but its true in both science and religion all too often.)

I don't think there needs to be or can ever be a synthesis of science and religion, but there certainly should be a dialogue between them. Perhaps the resurgence in "mysticism" is part of the pendulum movement that always accompanies change, but I think science and those who accept it should always do what they can to diminish the influence and prevalence of "magical thinking". That will always be with us, its part of human nature it seems, and all of us possess it to some degree - I think we will never banish it entirely, nor should we let it run rampant - but after all, what's life without a little magic?

And now I have blurbled myself into aimless oblivion, I should probably go and get a bit of hunny...

 

[j d worthington]

The problem is that nearly all religions (I can't think of one that is an exception, off the top of my head) also emphasize how this "non-material" realm interacts with and effects changes in the material realm -- how it often supercedes the physical "laws" of the material realm. Once something purportedly enters that material realm, then it becomes the province of science to investigate and either confirm or invalidate it. So far, there hasn't been one iota of any of this stuff able to stand up to scientific scrutiny.

So I'm by no means inclined to accept this definition of religion. After all, every major religion also claims to have the story of the origins of everything -- yet they do not tend to agree, nor do they tend to match any aspect of scientifically verifiable evidence. Yet there is nothing more important to the genuine truth of a religion than some sort of proof that the deity of that religion exists and is able to affect the universe. Without that, what you are left with are a set of philosophical precepts and wonderings about realms the existence of which we have no worthwhile evidence whatsoever. (What "evidence" we do have on various levels can almost invariably be shown to have its origin in the psychological states of those presenting it as "proof".)

As long as religion claims to have some form of deity (and without such, it isn't a religion, it's a philosophy) which has an impact on the material realm, it cannot be separated from refutation by a study of said realm. When looked at honestly, without rationalizations or evasion, religion and reality simply do not (and cannot) mix that well....

 

[Parson]

Perhaps I misunderstand the idea of synthesis. When I said synthesis I meant that science and religion would eventually get to a point where they could be in a dialog of mutual respect, each understanding that the other pointed to truth in different and meaningful ways without the adversarial relationship so often seen today.

Speaking as a Christian, I might be the rare exception, I would certainly like to think I am not. But I believe the Bible is infallible in matters of faith and living, but as to history, science, etc. it paints with broad brush strokes that are seen more clearly as what can be tested by the scientific method is understood and applied. Where science is able to give us a clear picture, I accept that and look again at my Biblical interpretation to see how the two can be held together. The truth any Biblical commentator must admit if s/he is honest is that while the Bible might be infallible in matters of faith and life, our interpretation is far from infallible and we must like good scientists be willing to revise our understanding when new light comes to be seen.

Any honest scientist and any honest person of faith will say "We don't know it all..." Perhaps the willingness to say that separates the Bible of faith, from the fundamentalists of that same faith.

The basic concept of evolution is quite straightforward (whereas "chemistry" is a huge and diverse subject). I don't think that the militant creationists fail to understand evolution, they just refuse to accept it because it conflicts with their fixed beliefs.

AGW> I do not agree with much of this statement at all. First, I would say that evolution is also a huge and diverse subject, like Chemistry, and chemistry, like evolution, has a basic concept that is quite straight forward. Almost all of the creationists I know not only know little about evolution, they have no desire to understand it or study it. Some of this may come because they hear "theory" and hear "guess." They ask then: "Why guess when you can know?"

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Science is a journey toward the truths of the material realm, a journey of discovery, a seeking for measurable answers; and a good scientist (as noted by many already) will discard a "truth" if it becomes superseded or disproven, and move on to the next theory, looking for ways to test it, seeking to deepen and widen our pool of knowledge and our understanding of the world in which we live.

But they aren't all "good scientists" are they? The scientific establishment can hold on to a pet theory for a long, long time in the face of increasing evidence against, and come up with complicated rationalizations to fit the evidence to already existing theories. They can fight against something for decades, not because it is incredible, but because those who have built their work around a contrary theory would have to sacrifice reputation and begin again.

Science has many virtues; but these are not necessarily the virtues of the scientist, who can be as stubborn and egotistical and self-serving as anyone else.

 

[K. Riehl]

I would still take a scientist trying to hold onto a pet theory over a person holding onto religious dogma. Mainly due to the fact that I haven't read about scientists burning people at the stake or stoning people who act in a way different than their view.

Although global warming is starting to take on some of the aspects of religion. Any opposing view or point made is being shouted down or discarded without evaluation. And soon we will be tithing to the religion of global warming as our government takes more control over our lives or diverts more taxes to the religion.

As in California where the government seeks to regulate power usage in the home using monitored power meters which can be turned off at the governments discretion.
Won't that be fun in 100 degree weather with your Grandparents or children at home.
(google: San Francisco chronicle government power meter)

When I hear a scientist state that he/she knows what the climate will be in 10-20 years then I know they are lying. No one knows and, if they claim they do, then they have taken on the mantle of proselytizing rather than science.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Mainly due to the fact that I haven't read about scientists burning people at the stake or stoning people who act in a way different than their view.

On the other hand, I haven't read about any religious figures inventing weapons of mass destruction.

 

[Ursa major]

Some religious figures (the vast majority, I'd guess) would rather Mass was not even disrupted, let alone destroyed, Teresa.


Seriously, though....

Originally, the weapons were invented for one reason: the belief not only that these weapons could be built, but that the enemy (in this case Nazi Germany) was capable of doing it, would do it if they could and was, in fact, already doing it: hence the Manhattan Project. (As we've seen more recently, intelligence regarding WND production is not always perfect, but they could hardly take the risk that Hitler might develop the Bomb in the middle of the most destructive war this world has ever seen without arming themselves.)

 

[clovis-man]

So I'm by no means inclined to accept this definition of religion. After all, every major religion also claims to have the story of the origins of everything -- yet they do not tend to agree, nor do they tend to match any aspect of scientifically verifiable evidence. Yet there is nothing more important to the genuine truth of a religion than some sort of proof that the deity of that religion exists and is able to affect the universe. Without that, what you are left with are a set of philosophical precepts and wonderings about realms the existence of which we have no worthwhile evidence whatsoever.

Which is why it is often referred to as "religious faith". No proofs required or sought. I once knew a Methodist minister who I swore drove his car (an Edsel) on faith. We "of little faith" who had to ride with him weren't so convinced. The business we often get into about religion having an impact on the physical world slops over into "magic". Preliterate humankind would/will try to coerce the deity(s) to do something beneficial. Spell-casting, etc. Don't want to get the two concepts confused. Religious determinism comes much closer to magic and mysticism than it does to actual religion.

Quoth J.D. a few posts ago: "It isn't only the U.S. -- look at how religion and mysticism have made such a resurgence all around the world in recent decades; the more fundamentally superstitious and counter to scientifically observable reality, the better."

I would have to say that the U.S. goes it one better by having politics accommodate if not dictate religious expedients. Why else is it okay to reject the Kyoto accords and make big business and the oil empires untouchable?

While I agree that some sort of scientific-religious compromise/collaboration is neither likely nor desirable, I find myself harking back to the final scene in the film, Inherit the Wind, in which Spencer tracy as the Clarence Darrow character places The Bible and a copy of The Origin of Species together before walking out of the final scene. Perhaps no synthesis possible, but not altogether mutually exclusive either.

 

[Dave]

I think where scientists can come across as "arrogant" is in claiming that science holds all the answers, or that science is the only truth.

Science has many virtues; but these are not necessarily the virtues of the scientist, who can be as stubborn and egotistical and self-serving as anyone else.

I think this is spot on. Scientists can themselves be arrogant, of course, just as any human can be.

When I hear a scientist state that he/she knows what the climate will be in 10-20 years then I know they are lying. No one knows and, if they claim they do, then they have taken on the mantle of proselytizing rather than science.

I can give you better examples:

"X-rays will prove to be a hoax."
-- Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895


"Radio has no future."
-- Lord Kelvin


"Heavier than air flying machines are impossible."
-- Lord Kelvin

All were proved differently within 10-20 years.

 

[TorrnT]

On the other hand, I haven't read about any religious figures inventing weapons of mass destruction.

Torquemada was mass destruction.

Good job power was wrestled away from religious leaders, as nothing with power involved escapes corruption (as history testifies), neither could a proper democracy exist. If power had of remained with religious leaders I strongly believe we would still be in the dark ages.
Religious leaders love censorship.

Are we talking about the Minds behind science and religion, I believe anyone that is taught natural science, and then left to choose a religion/belief is better equipped to do so, at least they will have choice, opposed to being brain washed as a kid.
I know people that have veered away from religion due to disillusionment among other reasons, I don't know of anyone that has done so with science, from what ever background.

Arrogance is a human trait found in scientists, policemen and your next door neighbour (if your unlucky), But peers and ombudsmen keep them in check, however your neighbour can be ignored...hopefully

 

[Delvo]

Originally, the weapons were invented for one reason: the belief not only that these weapons could be built, but that the enemy (in this case Nazi Germany) was capable of doing it, would do it if they could and was, in fact, already doing it

And then the weapons from that program were used to much more efficiently end the war, save lives, and secure peace.

 

[Anthony G Williams]

The problem about discussing "religion" is that it means very different things to different people. Even ignoring the fact that there are numerous religions and cults (and have been many more in the past), all offering their own conflicting "certainties", there are currently various interpretations of Christianity. Not only in terms of formal organisations with different doctrines - Orthodox (x2), Catholic, Protestant (various) such as Methodist, Baptist, Seventh Day Adventist etc etc - but also within them. So you can get two people nominally of the same variety of Christian faith, one of whom firmly believes that every word of the Bible is true, 6,000 year old Earth and all, while another believes that the Old Testament is largely metaphor and that the true message is in the moral teaching of Jesus.

It is noticable that the debate within Christianity tends to polarise opinion. So the fundamentalists may claim it's a choice between "Darwin or Jesus", but of course there is no doctrinal support for such a statement, and the great majority of Christians have no problems with accepting evolution (including the last Pope, although the present one seems a bit wobbly...).

Another point to ponder concerning the Bible: not only do interpretations of it differ radically, but it was written by many different people, over a long period of time, and its contents were inevitably shaped by the individual interpretations of the writers. Even the contents of the New Testament were decided by a committee which rejected the majority of the works which were potentially eligible for inclusion. So what we have now has been translated, filtered and edited pretty drastically by error-prone people (with various agendas). To believe in its literal truth is indeed an act of faith, in rather more ways than the churches would probably prefer us to think about!

 

[clovis-man]

Even the contents of the New Testament were decided by a committee which rejected the majority of the works which were potentially eligible for inclusion.

I guess we just weren't deemed ready for the book of Judas.

 

[j d worthington]

Quoth J.D. a few posts ago: "It isn't only the U.S. -- look at how religion and mysticism have made such a resurgence all around the world in recent decades; the more fundamentally superstitious and counter to scientifically observable reality, the better."

I would have to say that the U.S. goes it one better by having politics accommodate if not dictate religious expedients. Why else is it okay to reject the Kyoto accords and make big business and the oil empires untouchable?

On that one, you have me. But then, even there, the U.S. isn't alone, by any means....

While I agree that some sort of scientific-religious compromise/collaboration is neither likely nor desirable, I find myself harking back to the final scene in the film, Inherit the Wind, in which Spencer tracy as the Clarence Darrow character places The Bible and a copy of The Origin of Species together before walking out of the final scene. Perhaps no synthesis possible, but not altogether mutually exclusive either.

I think that's more a wish-fulfillment (and concession) on the part of the playwright rather than a statement, frankly. I'm much more inclined to another statement from the same play/film: "The Bible is a book. It's a good book, but it is not the only book."

And I have to question you, Teresa, on your statement about "weapons of mass destruction". Perhaps not in the sense of an atomic bomb, or a weapon that spreads a bacteriological agent, no. But what about the sort of religious propaganda used to mobilize thousands upon thousands (over the years, millions upon millions) to horrific deeds of inhuman butchery? What were the Crusades, if not such a weapon? What of the Thirty Years' War? Or any other of the bloody conflicts between Catholic and Protestant (both Christian)? Suicide bombings? Kamikaze attacks? The list is nigh endless. And all very easily justified by reference to portions of religious texts or doctrine. (Yes, even the kamikazes, where it amounted to a religion surrounding the head of state.) Not to mention the Inquisition, witch-hunts (and let's not forget the Malleus Maleficarum, or Jamie's Demonology), and the like.

If religious figures haven't "invented weapons of mass destruction" in the usual sense, from the evidence, I'd say that's more a matter of simply not having the training in the particular fields necessary to design such, not a matter of inclination....

 

[clovis-man]

Not to trivialize the discussion, but if anyone caught the "Numbers" episode last Friday on U.S. network TV entitled "Atomic No. 33", there was actually some interesting discussion about the relationship of science & religion in between the chase scenes.

Now back to our previously scheduled program.

 

[TorrnT]

The Malleus Maleficarum... utter sadism...written by monks no less. (must of got tired of flaying themselves)

I had to check up on the creationist side of things.... so I ventured to
www.creationism.org and checked up on dinosaurs.
At first I thought it was a joke....these people must be terrified of realising there is no divine ultimate purpose to life. Dragons.... I wish.
Talk about "clutching at straws".
PS. upon further investigation through the site and links, I see quotes from leading scientists and recently released papers by leading scientists....yet where are the names of these credible scientists.
If any one reading that web site buys that bunkum, they do not deserve the technical piece of wizardry they are viewing it with.
(I will retract this statement if anyone can find a leading scientist that supports dragons lived 2,000 years ago)

 

[K. Riehl]

I think this is spot on. Scientists can themselves be arrogant, of course, just as any human can be.
I can give you better examples:

"X-rays will prove to be a hoax."
-- Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895


"Radio has no future."
-- Lord Kelvin


"Heavier than air flying machines are impossible."
-- Lord Kelvin

Hmmm.. quoting the same fool three times doesn't really apply. I differentiate between predicting the progress of invention and science and our understanding of nature, climate and the universe.

The climate is changing all the time. It never stays the same. We have been on a warming trend since the last ice age. Are we contributing to an accelerated warming? Probably.

A 0.5% change in the suns output will affect global temps. A medium sized Volcanic eruption will affect global temps for years.

My point is that we are sending kids home from school afraid and depressed about global warming and how we are all going to die, "We have only got 10 years"- Ted Danson 1988.

I agree that we should always conserve, develop new technologies to lessen our impact on the environment, and clean up after ourselves. But it is also true that we could do everything right, change our way of life completely, and still have global warming. Do we bankrupt ourselves to do it? Thats the question.

It approaches a religion when you cannot consider conflicting evidence and when you make decisions about things without fundamental understanding of possible real world effects.

 

[j d worthington]

Having read the Malleus Maleficarum, I'd say there's more to it than that; but I did have to grit my teeth to get through large chunks of it, and the rationalizations (even given the period) were amazing examples of cloud-architecture. The most interesting section of the book, for me, is the second, where it deals with the folklore beliefs and legendry -- that is some very interesting stuff. The religiolegalistic rigamarole simply made my head ache.... Believe me, in comparison, I'll take Cotton Mather any time!

Incidentally, for anyone interested, both of these little historical tomes are easily available these days; and they do give a great deal of insight into the mindset of the times....

 

[Dave]

It approaches a religion when you cannot consider conflicting evidence and when you make decisions about things without fundamental understanding of possible real world effects.

I don't really want to get into that old Global Warming argument again here, however for someone that does believe we are contributing heavily to this I would still agree with you on practically everything you say. For some people it does indeed approach something of a religious conviction, and also that anyone who says they can predict a future temperature rise, or what that means in terms of sea level rises or melting ice caps, cannot really have that evidence to hand. However, I don't think you will find any climatologists who actually say that. They have models but they are subject to unknown variables. The scientists produce research papers and are subject to peer review like any other research. It is the politicians and environmental lobbyists who overstate their case. There will be future economic costs that might be better if it is tackled sooner though.

The fact that there is disagreement among scientists is not a bad thing. It is how science works and progresses. I have noticed that those Creationist websites fail to understand this. They will pick up on the fact that some small elements of modern evolutionary theory are disputed and hold those up to say that since the scientists cannot agree, this is proof the Evolution itself is disputed.