Posted on 05/25/2005 3:41:22 AM PDT by billorites
Science feeds on mystery. As my colleague Matt Ridley has put it: “Most scientists are bored by what they have already discovered. It is ignorance that drives them on.” Science mines ignorance. Mystery — that which we don’t yet know; that which we don’t yet understand — is the mother lode that scientists seek out. Mystics exult in mystery and want it to stay mysterious. Scientists exult in mystery for a very different reason: it gives them something to do.
Admissions of ignorance and mystification are vital to good science. It is therefore galling, to say the least, when enemies of science turn those constructive admissions around and abuse them for political advantage. Worse, it threatens the enterprise of science itself. This is exactly the effect that creationism or “intelligent design theory” (ID) is having, especially because its propagandists are slick, superficially plausible and, above all, well financed. ID, by the way, is not a new form of creationism. It simply is creationism disguised, for political reasons, under a new name.
It isn’t even safe for a scientist to express temporary doubt as a rhetorical device before going on to dispel it.
“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” You will find this sentence of Charles Darwin quoted again and again by creationists. They never quote what follows. Darwin immediately went on to confound his initial incredulity. Others have built on his foundation, and the eye is today a showpiece of the gradual, cumulative evolution of an almost perfect illusion of design. The relevant chapter of my Climbing Mount Improbable is called “The fortyfold Path to Enlightenment” in honour of the fact that, far from being difficult to evolve, the eye has evolved at least 40 times independently around the animal kingdom.
The distinguished Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin is widely quoted as saying that organisms “appear to have been carefully and artfully designed”. Again, this was a rhetorical preliminary to explaining how the powerful illusion of design actually comes about by natural selection. The isolated quotation strips out the implied emphasis on “appear to”, leaving exactly what a simple-mindedly pious audience — in Kansas, for instance — wants to hear.
The deceitful misquoting of scientists to suit an anti-scientific agenda ranks among the many unchristian habits of fundamentalist authors. But such Telling Lies for God (the book title of the splendidly pugnacious Australian geologist Ian Plimer) is not the most serious problem. There is a more important point to be made, and it goes right to the philosophical heart of creationism.
The standard methodology of creationists is to find some phenomenon in nature which Darwinism cannot readily explain. Darwin said: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Creationists mine ignorance and uncertainty in order to abuse his challenge. “Bet you can’t tell me how the elbow joint of the lesser spotted weasel frog evolved by slow gradual degrees?” If the scientist fails to give an immediate and comprehensive answer, a default conclusion is drawn: “Right, then, the alternative theory; ‘intelligent design’ wins by default.”
Notice the biased logic: if theory A fails in some particular, theory B must be right! Notice, too, how the creationist ploy undermines the scientist’s rejoicing in uncertainty. Today’s scientist in America dare not say: “Hm, interesting point. I wonder how the weasel frog’s ancestors did evolve their elbow joint. I’ll have to go to the university library and take a look.” No, the moment a scientist said something like that the default conclusion would become a headline in a creationist pamphlet: “Weasel frog could only have been designed by God.”
I once introduced a chapter on the so-called Cambrian Explosion with the words: “It is as though the fossils were planted there without any evolutionary history.” Again, this was a rhetorical overture, intended to whet the reader’s appetite for the explanation. Inevitably, my remark was gleefully quoted out of context. Creationists adore “gaps” in the fossil record.
Many evolutionary transitions are elegantly documented by more or less continuous series of changing intermediate fossils. Some are not, and these are the famous “gaps”. Michael Shermer has wittily pointed out that if a new fossil discovery neatly bisects a “gap”, the creationist will declare that there are now two gaps! Note yet again the use of a default. If there are no fossils to document a postulated evolutionary transition, the assumption is that there was no evolutionary transition: God must have intervened.
The creationists’ fondness for “gaps” in the fossil record is a metaphor for their love of gaps in knowledge generally. Gaps, by default, are filled by God. You don’t know how the nerve impulse works? Good! You don’t understand how memories are laid down in the brain? Excellent! Is photosynthesis a bafflingly complex process? Wonderful! Please don’t go to work on the problem, just give up, and appeal to God. Dear scientist, don’t work on your mysteries. Bring us your mysteries for we can use them. Don’t squander precious ignorance by researching it away. Ignorance is God’s gift to Kansas.
Richard Dawkins, FRS, is the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science, at Oxford University. His latest book is The Ancestor’s Tale
This is troubling to many atheists I have known. They believe that theists tend to favor "Kill them all. God will know his own."
Of course, when two or more groups with differing ideas decide to kill thim all, it gets downright historical.
Additionally your logic sucks. Your hubris is fine but your logic is in the dumper. I provided evidence of Dawkins' bigotry, you've provided no such evidence of mine, nor can you.
Now you can be like others and claim that to "stamp out" something doesn't really mean stamp it out or you could take an objective look at it and say, yeah Walsh is right about this one.
However, after your false assertion regarding all my "fundie friends", that was good for a belly laugh, I'm not optimistic.
BTW, weren't you done with me about a thousand posts ago? :-}
It is telling that an atheist would even bother to seek a justification or excuse for his own disbelief.
My Spiritual discernment on such conduct is that they are more likely spiritually rebellious or doubtful than actually disbelieving. A "true" atheist, IMHO, is a metaphysical naturalist who doesn't believe but doesn't mind if you do - he seeks no justification and makes no excuses.
First post you made. You referred to 'Dawkins and his particular brand of Marxism. Despite your tortured logic, you can't prove Dawkins avows Marxism, which my dictionary defines as 'the system of political and economic thought developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels' (etc., with not a single mention of Marx's views on religion; maybe that's because a substantial fraction of the Catholic priests in South America are Marxists, eh?). Attaching noxious epithets to a person because you don't like his views on an unrelated subject is bigoted in my view.
By all means criticize outspoken atheists or promoters of Darwinian evolution. Be as harsh as you want; but when you step over the line and say things about them that are malicious and untrue, you're a bigot.
BTW, weren't you done with me about a thousand posts ago?
Yes, but you're still here.
I thought so, chicken. In fact a lying chicken. My daughter's got more character in her little toe than you have in your whole body.
So you actually think that rational arithmetic is closed under all the operations in that equation? Really?
I wonder what the general opinion of FR posters would be. My guess, based on opinions I've read here, is that a significant number would support that ban. It would be an interesting poll.
If not a ban, would you support stamping out that religious teaching by some other means, social for example?
Do you think a ban would stamp it out? Bans per se aren't very effective stamping out means I think.
Do you have any evidence that more than a tiny fraction of people who don't believe in a deity are 'metaphysical naturalists'. Most atheist I know are empirical naturalists; they see no useful reason to posit and no hard evidence for a Deity. Their naturalism does not have metaphysical underpinnings; rather, they've noticed naturalism is a useful way to view the world, and see no pressing reason to abandon it.
Why did the terminology change from atheist to metaphysucal naturalist between posts?
BTW, the single kindest, most effectively charitable person I know is self defined as an atheist.
Drives the church-going neighbor, a very fine person, absolutely nuts..."Why are you so nice?" "Why are your kids so good?" etc.
My conclusion, from this and other examples I know personally, is that the correlation between virtue and religion is low at best.
Here are a few “cuts” to get the definition process started (emphasis mine):
"Naturalism" refers to a number of different topics:
As defined by philosopher Paul Draper, naturalism is "the hypothesis that the physical world is a 'closed system' in the sense that nothing that is neither a part nor a product of it can affect it." More simply, it is the denial of the existence of supernatural causes. In rejecting the reality of supernatural events, forces, or entities, naturalism is the antithesis of supernaturalism.
As a substantial view about the nature of reality, it is often called metaphysical naturalism, philosophical naturalism, or ontological naturalism to distinguish it from a related methodological principle. Methodological naturalism, by contrast, is the principle that science and history should presume that all causes are natural causes solely for the purpose of promoting successful investigation. The idea behind this principle is that natural causes can be investigated directly through scientific method, whereas supernatural causes cannot, and hence presuming that an event has a supernatural cause for methodological purposes halts further investigation.
Drange: Atheism, Agnosticism, Noncognitivism (infidels.org) Suppose you are to answer the following two questions:
Neo Darwinism is a terrific meme. That's right. But that doesn't make it true and I care about what's true. Smallpox virus is a terrific virus. It does its job magnificently well. That doesn't mean that it's a good thing. It doesn't mean that I don't want to see it stamped out.
Or this:
Society, for no reason that I can discern, accepts that parents must have an automatic right to bring their children up with particular scientific opinions and can withdraw them from say, religion classes that teach creationism.
Catching on now Professor?
I see you didn't take my advice Ed. No surprise there. But Ed, here I am on a public forum taking on all comers. Mr. Dawkins is welcome to join in. In fact, I'm quite sure you sent him a link to this thread when you emailed him. I'm also quite sure that he would do a more able job than you at defending his atrocious opinions vis a vis stamping out religion. Don't you? :-}
In the discussion, where I changed the term from atheist to metaphysical naturalist, I was following up on an assertion concerning the mind being merely the epiphenomenon of the physical brain (a metaphysically naturalist deduction) and wondering how such an atheist could ever claim to be "fulfilled".
My original post at 2200 (referenced at 2233) needed the additional clarification in the following dialogue with Right Wing Professor.
I think a little analysis of metaphors is in order here. Smallpox was not stamped out by killing or imprisioning all the innocent little poxes. It was stopped from spreading by immunizing people.
This may seem like an irrelevant distinction to you, but it is not irrelevant. The people who were immunized were volunteers.
The implication of Dawkins statement is that he would spread his word with the same ferver that evangelicals spread theirs. There is no force implied.
You might argue that force is used in the public school system, but you would be wrong on several counts. No one requires kids to attend public schools; no one requires those who do to take courses in biology. The content of public school education is determined by politics, just like our laws. Some you approve of and some you don't. Your tax dollars support both. But you are not required by any law to send your kids to public schools.
ferver=feverish fervor
I must say though that the entire thread has been a learning experience.
How does feeling "fulfilled" relate to atheism?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.