Reconciliation? (Part Three)

Now that I've dealt with Giberson's questions, I want to turn to the question that started it all - can we reconcile science and faith?

In a word, no.

Science is the process of setting aside preconceptions and assumptions and getting to the actual data and evidence to figure out the world.

Faith is the process of holding onto preconceptions and assumptions against all evidence to cling to made up stories about the world.

Science deals with empirical data.

Faith is purely made up.

Science is about rationally studying the world.

Faith is about abandoning reason.

Science is a way of actually knowing something about the world, and it actually works.

Faith is purported to be a way of knowing about the world, but has yet to show any success.

I don't see any way to reconcile what looks, to me, like completely disparate things.

Reconciliation? (Part Two)

In my previous post (Reconciliation) I mentioned that Giberson had a couple questions in his response. I now want to focus on his other main question, which is as follows:

Empirical science does indeed trump revealed truth about the world as Galileo and Darwin showed only too clearly. But empirical science also trumps other empirical science. Einstein's dethronement of Newton was not the wholesale undermining of the scientific enterprise, even though it showed that science was clearly in error. It was, rather, a glorious and appropriately celebrated advance for science, albeit one not understood by most people. Why is this different than modern theology's near universal rejection of the tyrannical anthropomorphic deity of the Old Testament, so eloquently skewered by Dawkins? How is it that "science" is allowed to toss its historical baggage overboard when its best informed leaders decide to do so, even though the ideas continue to circulate on main street, but religion must forever be defined by the ancient baggage carried by its least informed?

First off, I want to point out that in his very first sentence, he explicitly admits that science is a better than revealed truth. Period. I'd also like to point out that his assertion of Einstein "dethroning" Newton is not quite correct. Newton's laws are correct, so long as one is within the correct regime for them to function properly. Once you leave that regime, quantum mechanics is needed to more accurately represent the natural world. It's a mistake, however, to claim "that science was clearly in error," in this instance. Never-the-less, science has been in error before, so we can proceed to his actual question.

So, why do we allow science to evolve and get better, but not extend the same "courtesy" to religion? Once again, the answer is really quite simple. Science is an iterative process, while religion is not. When scientists go through the process of the scientific method, they search for data, refine hypotheses, re-test, etc. As more and more data are gathered, science can better explain and predict natural events (more accurately). When god comes to you and gives you revealed "truth" about the world, however, what iterative process would one use? god has essentially come down from on high and given the final answer.

Further, when modern theologians reject the god of the OT for the sadistic, cruel beast that he is, they claim to have better theological knowledge, but from whence does it come? Did they do experiments to figure out that god is kind? Did they gather data of any kind? No, they simply proclaimed that this is what they believe. Once again, I'm left wondering how their beliefs are any more authoritative than the beliefs of those who still hold to the god of the OT.

This argument also leads to a certain kind of philosophical arrogance as well. Does Giberson think that he understood the revealed message of god better than the person that it was revealed to? What does this say about god that he can't put forth a message that the recipient can follow as well as someone thousands of years hence? Or, is Giberson saying that god put forth a message that was cruel and vindictive to those people because that's all they would understand (hence the extreme arrogance of this position, as it assumes all the people then were barbarians that could not be otherwise - and once again what kind of god forms people like that and then tries to give them a moral code?) Or, maybe Giberson is saying that god intended his message to evolve over the ages to the modern ideas we have now about morality. But, this suffers from (at least) two problems. The first is that if god's morality is dependent on our own evolved morality, then what do we need god's rules for? We are basically making our own morality in this situation. The second is that it puts god in the position of allowing immoral laws and practices.

So, we see that Giberson's complaints are both easily shot down and not very good arguments. Science and religion are very different things, and it's folly to complain that they receive different treatment because of those differences.

Creationist Mythbusters

Recently I've been masquerading as a creationist

http://www.thespoof.com/magazine/index.cfm?eID=3815

http://www.thespoof.com/magazine/index.cfm?eID=3819

http://www.thespoof.com/magazine/index.cfm?eID=3823

http://www.thespoof.com/magazine/index.cfm?eID=3828

Reconciliation?

Can science and religion be reconciled? That's the question that Jerry Coyne posed at The Edge recently. I do have thoughts on this question, but I wanted first to focus on one of the answers given.

Karl Giberson is one of the authors that was initially reviewed that brought up this question. In his response to the question, he brings up a couple questions that I thought I might address. The first of which follows:

Coyne, who affirms Dawkins's approach, speaks of "theologians with a deistic bent" who inappropriately presume to "speak for all the faithful." The implication is that the "faithful" are the more authentically religious and the theologians are an aberration. This seems unfair to me. The great unwashed masses of these "faithful" should be juxtaposed with the great masses of people who "believe" in science but are not professionals...What do you suppose "science" would look like, were it defined by these "believers"? The physics would be Aristotelian; astrology and aliens would accepted as real; General Relativity would be unknown; quantum mechanics would be perceived as a way to influence the world with your mind. And yet all of these people would have had far more education in science than the typical religious believer has in theology. Science as "lived and practiced by real people" is quite different than the science promoted by the intellectuals in this conversation.

So, why do we attribute real science to what science actually says and seemingly not do the same for religion when theologians disagree with the rank and file theist? The answer is actually quite simple, and it has to do with the fact that comparing science to theology is like comparing apples and oranges.

Science is the study of the natural world and relies on empirical facts. If two people get into an argument about what science says or what the empirical facts are, they can research the question, they can run experiments, they can empirically verify who is right and who is wrong (speaking simply). We don't equate what science is/says to the rank and file person who doesn't know science, because we can often find the empirical or "correct" answer.

Let's contrast this with theology, shall we? If two people get into an argument about some aspect of god's nature, how will we ever resolve it? What method will we use to figure out who is right and who is not? What measure can we use to elevate one person's opinion over the opinion of the other? The ramification of this is that there is no necessity to accept the proclamations of the theologian over the average person. Both of them are making proclamations based on their own interpretations and their own subjective opinions. So, the complaint holds no weight unless one makes the mistake of assuming that theologians hold some sort of advanced knowledge of god, which they don't. Theology is the study of making stuff up, and what average Joe makes up in his mind is just as good as what scholar Joe makes up.

Like Cattle to the Slaughter

I actually recently ran across an argument that god sent Jesus to us in order to save us and change the paradigm between the OT and the NT, and that he had to wait in order to allow the conditions to be correct, which is why we had an OT and a Jesus-less world up until the time of Jesus. When faced with arguments like this, it's hard not to ask, "Are you serious?"

The obvious objections are that god, being omnipotent, would not have to wait for any conditions to come true, especially not just to decide to forgive us for our supposed sins against him. What possible conditions are there that god could not overcome? This, once again, makes god somewhat less than omnipotent (which is easy to do since an omnipotent god is so hard to actually argue for). There's also the problem that this doesn't account for the bloodthirsty attributes of the god of the OT. If he was simply waiting for conditions to allow us to be "saved" by Jesus, it doesn't make sense that he would be as cruel, petty, vindictive, and evil as the OT shows him to be.

But, apart from all that, one problem really stands out to me, which is that this argument reduces all the people that came before Jesus into simple cattle playing out some part - being slaughtered until this god was satisfied in his blood lust and would allow us individuals (post Jesus) to live a life with the possibility of salvation. How arrogant (not that the normal Xian perspective isn't arrogant, but this is just piling on). When you can view all of pre-Jesus humanity as simply cattle that are playing a part to pave the way for your personal salvation, I'd say that you've lost all perspective of what it really means to be human.

Piltdown Man

Anti-evolutionists love to trot out the old Piltdown Man hoax as if it were some sort of proof against evolution, but if they understood what actually happened a bit better, they would not be so quick to do this.

Piltdown Man was a hoax. It was, however, never actually accepted by most of the scientific community. The reason for this was that it didn't quite fit the rest of the data that supported evolution. It was an outlier. Scientists were skeptical from the outset.

While the press was eating up this new find, scientists went to work testing the find, examining, trying to verify - in short, they did science. And, they soon discovered that their skepticism was well founded, the Piltdown Man was a fake. This was good news for evolutionary scientists, as the Piltdown Man was hard to reconcile with prevailing theory, so the realization that it was not real meant there was no more challenge. Further, it showed that science works. Scientists were able to police themselves by using further study, by using the process of science itself! This was not a black mark for science, it was a triumph!

In summary, when creationists trumpet Piltdown Man, they are effectively shooting themselves in the foot. It was never part of evolutionary theory, so the realization that it was a hoax presents no problem for evolution. Further, it wasn't creationists who even discovered the hoax, but real scientists doing real science that discovered it and set things right.

It's Not About the Love

I had another post that was going to go up today, but I decided that I had to write this post now. I just watched part of a program on gays and religion and something in me decided I had to write about it. The program was about the fight between religious peoples over gays, where some religious people call gays abominations and others are more tolerant and accepting. Actually, to be more specific, the show was about Xians and gays, as all the people featured were Xians.

Before I say any more, I think it's important to note one thing. I think it's a good thing that some Xians are becoming more tolerant; that they are setting aside the barbarisms of their holy book and learning to accept gays as people instead of seeing them as sinners/abominations/etc. That said, one of the people being interviewed for the show said something that I'll paraphrase below:

We need to teach our fellow Xians that the Bible isn't about hatred and intolerance, but that it's about love and acceptance. We need to extend this love and acceptance to gays.

What the hell book has this woman been reading? The Bible is not about love - it is about evil, hatred, damnation, etc. The OT is most certainly about destruction and intolerance as god routinely kills whole peoples and orders the deaths of whole societies. He lays down draconian rules with death as the only penalty, and being gay certainly goes against some of those rules! It seems that god really does hate fags.

The NT is not much better. Sure, Jesus talks about turning the other cheek and loving your neighbor (which was most likely defined in the narrow sense of other Jews) but there's also plenty of fire and brimstone and the damnation of others to eternal torment - a concept that came about in the NT and far outstrips the cruelty of the OT. I believe it was Dawkins that said something along the lines that at least the OT god left you alone after you died - the NT god will keep on torturing you for eternity. This book is about death, hatred, evil, intolerance, etc.

So, yeah, it's good that some Xians are changing their tune when it comes to gays, but it's a stretch to claim that the Bible is what is leading the charge. C'mon. Instead of using post-hoc reasoning to make the Bible fit with what we see as moral and good, why not look at the book that has brought about so much hatred and see it for what it really is and reject it?

Do You Have Faith in Science?

Some apologists try to set up a situation where they claim that atheists "have faith" in science, and then they wonder why that is any better than their faith in god. Both are unfounded beliefs, they claim. Problem is that they are making a very bad argument.

To say that one "has faith" in science is to misstate things a bit. Sure, we don't know for a fact that objects that are dropped will fall towards the Earth the next time we do it, so one could conceivably claim that one has to have faith that the findings of science will continue to hold true. But, it's not really a faith position, is it, since it is a tentative conclusion based on real data and empirical results. If one could call that faith, it is certainly justifiable due to the nature of science. To call religious faith justifiable or quibble over whether it truly is faith, however, is a long shot at best. Religion can not rely on the type and breadth of evidence that science brings to the table. Religion can not rely on its results the way science can. In short, to try to equate scientific "faith" to religious faith is to seriously understate one while overstating the other. It's just bad, sloppy, and or dishonest apologetics...but we're used to that, right?

Important Book?

Is the Bible the most important book ever written? I'm sure that the vast majority of Xians would answer in the affirmative to that question. So, why is it so easy to misinterpret? One would think that god would want his book to be easy to understand and difficult to get wrong, but that's clearly not the case. Xians often complain that non-Xians interpret the Bible incorrectly, but who can blame us? Xians themselves can't even agree on interpretations of the book? If the followers of this book can't even figure out what it is supposed to mean, who can?

If god is who he is supposed to be (perfect, omni-max, etc.) then the only conclusion we can come to is that god intentionally wanted this book to be confusing. In fact, Jesus even says that he speaks in parables in order to confuse the message. But, why would god do this if he wants us to come to him and be saved? The obvious answer is that he doesn't - leading us to conclude that god wants to send people to hell. It's just another absurdity of the Xian religion that they can assert that he does and ignore these very obvious conclusions based on the real world.

Who was he Talking to?

I speak about bad apologetic arguments from time to time, so here's another one. When a Bible verse is presented that contradicts what an apologist claims, the apologist will sometimes retreat to the following argument: "Jesus was talking to a specific person at a specific time, so it doesn't hold for us today and doesn't impact my argument." This is, however, a bad argument to make. Jesus was always speaking to specific people at a specific time, so by this argument, one invalidates the whole entire NT (as one can also note that the rest of the authors and speakers would fall into the same category). Congrats, you've just thrown our your entire holy book.

In some instances, it also doesn't make sense to make this argument, even if the above criticism did not work. If god is aspect X at all times due to his nature, and the Bible contradicts that due to what Jesus says, does it make sense to say that it's only true there for the person Jesus was speaking to? No, of course not, because it's an admission all the same that god really is not aspect X at all times due to his nature. His nature obviously allows for god to be Not X at times. Hence, any argument based on god's nature being aspect X is now invalidated. Again, congrats apologist on invalidating your own arguments.

Thoughts About Washington State

By now, we're all aware that the Washington State capitol building was host to a plethora of holiday displays, including a nativity scene and an atheist sign. Now that the hoopla has died down, I had some thoughts that I decided to share.

First off, I would like to thank Gov. Gregoire for sticking to her guns and not caving in to demands from Xian fundamentalists that the free speech of atheists be suppressed. This was courageous on her part. That said, she put herself into a tough situation by allowing the government to become entangled in religious speech in the first place. Once the government opens the doors to one religious viewpoint, it must open the doors to all. This creates an impossible burden, however, as it is simply not possible for everyone to get their say. Some one will always be left out, and this creates a de facto endorsement of some religious ideas over others. The only way to not create this situation is to not let it get started in the first place, which would also satisfy actual separation of church and state by not entangling the state with religion in the first place. This protects the rights of all of us.

Apparently, this stance is untenable for some Xians. For seeking to uphold the rights of all, I've been derided as an intolerant bigot. Yes, you read that right. I'm intolerant because I believe that church and state should be separate and that the state should not entangle itself with religion and should not open up fora for this purpose. Of course, what's really happening is that these Xians can not defend their position, so they resort to name-calling. It's a tried and true tactic to shout down your opponent with such labeling in an attempt to shame the person from the field of debate.

But, I think for some Xians this is just part one of a three pronged attack. If they get to speak out and the atheists don't show up, they win. The other two prongs are as follows: if they speak out and the atheists speak out as well, they get to denounce the atheists (no matter what message the atheists use) as a bunch of zealots that are seeking to take away everyone's religion. (See, it's not wrong to want to put up a nativity scene, that's normal - but wanting to criticize it is zealotry.) Heads I win, tails you lose, and if you don't flip the coin you're a bigot. I'm sure Jesus would be proud of such despicable tactics.

How Short is Short?

In the book of Revelation, it opens with the following line:

1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass...

This is followed up by 1:3 which claims that "The time is at hand."

The writers of the Bible seemed to think that the end was near. In fact, there's no shortage of end times warnings in the Bible. In fact, Jesus even says that the end is coming within one generation...

Yet, we are all still here. This is yet another instance of the Bible proving itself to be false.

Will You Get What You Ask For?

Luke 11:9-10 tells us that if we ask, we shall receive. If we seek, we shall find. I've seen two interpretations of this verse. The first is that when we pray, what we pray for will be provided. The second is that if we seek god, we shall find him. I'll deal with that one first.

If we seek god, we'll find him, right? Well, this is a rather easy assertion to deal with. The existence of atheists that have deconverted from Xianity is empirical evidence that this simply is not so, especially those atheists who were once fundamentalists - and they do exist. These people wanted to find god, they asked, but no god would present itself to them. If this is not enough, it's been reported that even Mother Theresa (a horrible woman no doubt, but none can deny that she truly wanted to see god) was even unable to find god.

As for the first interpretation, that our prayers will be answered, this is also easily dealt with. Simply pray for a million dollars. When it doesn't appear, you will have disproven this passage. But, the apologist might object that god could still answer your prayer, just on his own timeline! OK, then pray to receive one million dollars right now. Objection defeated. I honestly can't figure out why so many people take this book so seriously.

Make No Mistake

I've previously talked about god lying to us through his retelling of the creation of the universe, but I'd like to expand on that. Any instance of an error in the Bible is evidence that god is lying to you (provided that god exists and wrote the Bible, as some believe).

How can I make such a broad and sweeping statement? It's actually rather easy. god is providing information to us through the Bible. If that information is incorrect, then god is providing false information. Now, god could be mistaken, but then that would violate the tenet that god is infallible and perfect, so any "mistake" in the Bible must have been intentional. Therefore, all mistakes in the Bible are intentional mistatements by god, hence they are lies. Given the large number of Biblical mistakes, this means that god lies quite a bit.

Fear

Is it logically possible for god to be perfect and omni-max? If we think about it, the answer has to be, "No." There are certain things that we as humans can do that god can not do. For instance, humans can feel fear, while god can not. In order to be afraid, one has to be in a seemingly dangerous situation where one is powerless to act or feel that one is powerless to act. Yet, this can not be with god. god is omnipotent, so god always has the ability to act. Also, god is omniscient, so god will always be aware of his omnipotence and ability to act and will know that he can never be in any danger. Therefore, god can not be in a situation of danger to himself with an inability to act and set things the way he wants them or ignorant of his ability to do so. god can not feel fear.

There are others as well, like bravery, cowardice, etc. Bravery comes from facing long odds and overcoming them or at least attempting to, but the odds are always in god's favor due to his omnipotence, so god can never feel bravery. Etc. etc. etc.

Now, one may argue that the ability to feel fear would make god less than perfect as fear is a negative emotion/feeling, so there is no issue here. But, one should note that bravery is a positive emotion/feeling, which is inaccessible to god. It should also be noted that apologists like to say that pain is necessary because it has good uses, and the same can be said of fear, so fear is not always a negative feeling to have (nor is bravery always positive). So, we are left with god not being able to do things that humans can do, which is not omnipotence. What we are left with is yet another example of the attributes of god being logically contradictory.

Faith

Do we need faith? There are those, theists and non-theists alike who claim that we do. They claim that people need to believe in something; need to have hope in something. Some claim that people can't be good without big brother watching over their shoulder (ironically, many Xians also claim that we can't be good even with god watching over our shoulders!) I find all of these ideas to be condescending, however, and part of the larger problem that religion instills in us - that we should consider ourselves to be unworthy, lowly creatures, worthy of only disdain and scorn and eternal hellfire.

Do we really need some god looking over us to be good people? I don't think so. But, when we are conditioned from an early age to think that we are evil, sinners is it any surprise when people act that way? Yes, some people act badly, but do they do it because they think god isn't watching or because they don't believe in god? No. They do it in spite of the existence or non-existence of god. Similarly, most people do good not because they are constantly calculating what god wants, but because they have values instilled in them from their upbringing and their culture and most importantly from their evolutionary history. Sure, some people perform good acts simply because they believe god is watching them and will reward them, but this actually makes their actions less moral in that they are only doing good to gain a reward.

Anyway, I'm curious to see what other people think. Do we need faith? Do we need to believe in something?

Fools

Please open to the book of Proverbs:

26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

Um...WTF?

John 3:16

"3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

I'm sure we are all familiar with this passage. But, how many of us have thought about what it really means? An omni-max entity created beings that are fallible and therefore can't live up to the standards he set for them and do bad things (sometimes at his bidding no less) and the only way he can think of to forgive them is to father a child and have it be tortured....and somehow this makes sense?

What twisted mind decided that torturing one person for the "sins" of another would make everything OK? Why is god so keen on torture anyway? He creates hell to torture those that don't measure up, then makes sure that no one measures up. Then, he says, "Sorry that I have to torture you in hell for eternity, but I'll make it up to you by torturing my son." "Sorry that you aren't perfect, but I'll make it up to you by torturing my son." As if that makes anything better?

Of course, looking back we can see what was going on. The Jews had practiced ritual sacrifice of animals for a long time before this. It was believed that one could cleanse one's soul by offering up an animal to one's offended god. (Actually, this was not simply a Jewish custom, but was quite popular.) Xianity just took it one step further, by offering a sacrifice of a human and/or a living god. But we know that sin transference is not reality, so why do Xians still cling to these myths?

(Note: before anyone starts using the paid ticket example, fines are different from criminal activity or "sin." So, before you start to put that in the comments, think twice please.)

My Way or the Highway

If you read John 16:4, it clearly states that the only way that one can attain heaven is through Jesus Christ. We can debate as to whether this means that one must follow Jesus, believe in Jesus, etc, but what we can't debate is that the Bible states that one must go through Jesus. So, how does one do that if one has never heard of Jesus? In our modern world, it is difficult to find people who don't learn something about Jesus or at least hear of this idea of Jesus. But, what about people who lived before the age of mass communication? Well, those people are bound for hell, simply for being ignorant of Xianity. I think we can all agree that this is unjust and immoral.

What about children who are too young to believe in anything? Well, then those children are bound for hell as well. I think we can agree that this is unjust and immoral as well.

Some Xians might object that surely a good god would not do such things, and would allow those people to go to heaven. But, this would demonstrate an unjust attitude as well, as those people would be held to different standards than those of us who have heard of this Jesus fellow. Either way, it is god who must act unjustly and immorally.

Occam's Razor

Occam's Razor:

"One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything."

This is one of the various translations for Occam's famous saying. The more familiar phrasing that one usually sees is that the simplest explanation is usually the best explanation. What it means is that one should eliminate as many assumptions as possible in order to reach the best explanation. If two competing hypotheses are trying to explain the same phenomenon, and both work equally well, the one that has the least assumptions behind it would be preferred. Also, the one that adds the least amount of entities would be preferred, and adding complexity to the problem is not preferred.

It's ironic, then, that Occam was a friar, because his very simple argument is not at all beneficial to theism. Some theists claim that Occam's Razor is supportive of their faith, that evolution and science are complex and that positing a god is the more simple route, and therefore preferred. This is a gross misunderstanding of the idea, however, in that positing a new layer that is more complex than any other is not the preferred explanation for anything, and god is the most complex, unnecessary layer that one can add. (Note, I've also seen theists claim that goddidit seems like the simplest explanation to them, so therefore they use Occam's Razor to affirm their belief, but this falls into the same problem as above, and also adds an extra layer of subjective assumptions and hence is an even worse formulation.)