Print
God and Science Collide in Nation's Capital
by Robin Lloyd, LiveScience
By Robin Lloyd, LiveScience Senior Editor
WASHINGTON — Scientists hate God. Or find God very disturbing. In fact, modern science has found no evidence of God and so it's stupid anymore to think God exists.
The above statements are often presented as conventional wisdom, but are they true?
A new collection of short essays, discussed here Thursday at an event at the American Enterprise Institute, responds to that question with a more diverse set of voices than is usually offered. Edited by "Skeptic" magazine publisher Michael Shermer and backed by the John Templeton Foundation, the booklet features replies by 13 scholars and thinkers to the question "Does science make belief in God obsolete?"
The practical answer is, "Of course not." Many people worldwide believe. In the United States, the percentage of the population without a religious affiliation is increasing but the majority still have one, according to American Religious Identification Survey 2001. The faithful aren't going away despite a golden age of scientific descriptions of the mysteries of life and the secularizing, culture-draining force of consumerism.
The answers offered by the booklet's two theologians, eight scientists, two cultural commentators and one philosopher are more creative and sophisticated than the mind-numbing "culture wars" portrayed on television. Some of the thinkers even find ways to synthesize or reconcile God and science without throwing up their hands.
The standard line
The standard scientific line on God is well-represented in the booklet by several of the writers:
Shermer, who describes himself as spiritual and agnostic, adds a cosmic twist, casting doubt on our ability to recognize God. He claims that any encounter with extraterrestrial intelligence, should we go looking, is statistically likely to turn up civilizations that are far more medically advanced than ours and would have the ability to create life, so they will be indistinguishable from God.
"Science does not make belief in God obsolete, but it may make obsolete the reality of God, depending on how far we are able to push the science," Shermer writes in the booklet.
Yet many scientists — 40 percent according to a 1997 poll cited by Shermer — believe in God. This isn't big news to scientists, but might surprise people who rely on mainstream views of science. A handful of those folks — including Jerome Groopman, a professor of medicine at Harvard, and William D. Phillips, Nobel laureate in physics and a fellow of the Joint Quantum Institute of the University of Maryland and the National Institute of Standards and Technology — are also represented in the booklet, arguing that the natural world and the world of faith are relatively separate, yet personally reconcilable domains.
"I think that we are all comfortable with the idea there are plenty of things in our lives that we will deal with outside of the scientific paradigm," Phillips told about 70 members of the public who attended the discussion of these issues between himself, Shermer and AEI theologian Michael Novak. "And while I think faith is a particularly important part of our lives that we should deal with outside of the scientific paradigm, it is certainly not the only one."
Reconciling God and science
Phillips, a Methodist, also drew from science to make his argument in favor of God's relevance, saying physicists know there are things that are "really, really improbable, but they are not really impossible according to the laws of physics ... From what I know about physics, it's not impossible to imagine a world in which God acts but we never can prove it."
In the booklet, philosopher Mary Midgley, who was not at the AEI event, states that science is just one worldview that has come to prevail. Science and religion need not be at odds.
"What is now seen as a universal cold war between science and religion is, I think, really a more local clash between a particular scientistic worldview, much favored recently in the West, and most other people's worldviews at most other times," she writes.
"Scientism ... by contrast, cuts [the setting of human life in] context off altogether and looks for the meaning of life in Science itself. It is this claim to a monopoly of meaning ... that makes science and religion look like competitors today."
Worldviews that transcend that competition or dichotomy are offered in the booklet by Kenneth Miller, Pervez Amirali Hoodbhoy and Stuart Kauffman.
Miller, the lead witness for the plaintiffs in the Dover trial of 2005 (in which Judge John E. Jones III barred intelligent design from being taught in a Pennsylvania public school district's science classes), takes the classic Darwinian "grandeur in this view of life" approach. God is behind it all.
He rejects claims that the God hypothesis makes no sense, stating that "... to reject God because of the admitted self-contradictions and logical failings of organized religion would be like rejecting physics because of the inherent contradictions of quantum theory and general relativity."
Healing the schism
Kauffman, director of the Institute for Biocomplexity and Informatics at the University of Calgary, takes a slightly New Age tack, saying we must "heal" the schism between science and religion by "reinventing the sacred" and evolving from a supernatural God to a "new sense of a fully natural God as our chosen symbol for the ceaseless creativity in the natural universe."
In other words, he suggests that we can get around the divide between science and God if we come up with a new concept for God that focuses on the wonders of nature , among other things.
This new concept is a global cultural imperative, Kauffman writes, if we are to overcome fundamentalist fears and reunite reason with humanity and the mysteries of life.
A middle ground that incorporates science more than the other God-friendly writers is offered by Hoodbhoy, a physicist at Quaid-e-Azam University in Pakistan.
Science hasn't necessarily made belief obsolete, "but you must find a science-friendly, science-compatible God," he writes. And that is possible, he claims, calling this entity a "scientific Creator."
Hoodbhoy thinks that God can be seen as operating within the laws of physics, tweaking outcomes in small ways that have big impacts by relying on phenomena we have observed already in the universe, such as the butterfly effect (in which the flapping of a butterfly's wings alters the atmosphere in a way that ultimately alters the path of a tornado).
In his own words, here are some things She (yes, Hoodbhoy uses the female pronoun) could do, Hoodbhoy writes:
"Extraordinary, but legitimate, interventions in the physical world permit quantum tunneling through cosmic wormholes or certain symmetries to snap spontaneously. It would be perfectly fair for a science-savvy God to use nonlinear dynamics so that tiny fluctuations quickly build up to earthshaking results — the famous 'butterfly effect' of deterministic chaos theory."
Hoodbhoy ends by saying that God is neither dead nor about to die. There is still plenty of "space for a science-friendly God as well as for 'deeply religious non-believers' like Einstein ... Unsure of why they happen to exist, humans are likely to scour the heavens forever in search of meaning."
A total of 5,000 copies of the booklet became available on May 2. Free copies can be obtained at www.templeton.org.
WASHINGTON — Scientists hate God. Or find God very disturbing. In fact, modern science has found no evidence of God and so it's stupid anymore to think God exists.
The above statements are often presented as conventional wisdom, but are they true?
A new collection of short essays, discussed here Thursday at an event at the American Enterprise Institute, responds to that question with a more diverse set of voices than is usually offered. Edited by "Skeptic" magazine publisher Michael Shermer and backed by the John Templeton Foundation, the booklet features replies by 13 scholars and thinkers to the question "Does science make belief in God obsolete?"
The practical answer is, "Of course not." Many people worldwide believe. In the United States, the percentage of the population without a religious affiliation is increasing but the majority still have one, according to American Religious Identification Survey 2001. The faithful aren't going away despite a golden age of scientific descriptions of the mysteries of life and the secularizing, culture-draining force of consumerism.
The answers offered by the booklet's two theologians, eight scientists, two cultural commentators and one philosopher are more creative and sophisticated than the mind-numbing "culture wars" portrayed on television. Some of the thinkers even find ways to synthesize or reconcile God and science without throwing up their hands.
The standard line
The standard scientific line on God is well-represented in the booklet by several of the writers:
- Science has failed to find natural evidence of God. Natural evidence is all there is. No God. Case closed.
- Slightly softer is this line of reasoning: Science erases the "need" for God as an explanation of our experiences, and God either doesn't exist or is at best a hypothesis (to the agnostic).
- And then there's the view expressed in the title of University of Hawaii physicist and astronomer Victor Stenger's new book, "God: The Failed Hypothesis — How Science Shows that God Does Not Exist." Stenger also contributed to the new booklet.
Shermer, who describes himself as spiritual and agnostic, adds a cosmic twist, casting doubt on our ability to recognize God. He claims that any encounter with extraterrestrial intelligence, should we go looking, is statistically likely to turn up civilizations that are far more medically advanced than ours and would have the ability to create life, so they will be indistinguishable from God.
"Science does not make belief in God obsolete, but it may make obsolete the reality of God, depending on how far we are able to push the science," Shermer writes in the booklet.
Yet many scientists — 40 percent according to a 1997 poll cited by Shermer — believe in God. This isn't big news to scientists, but might surprise people who rely on mainstream views of science. A handful of those folks — including Jerome Groopman, a professor of medicine at Harvard, and William D. Phillips, Nobel laureate in physics and a fellow of the Joint Quantum Institute of the University of Maryland and the National Institute of Standards and Technology — are also represented in the booklet, arguing that the natural world and the world of faith are relatively separate, yet personally reconcilable domains.
"I think that we are all comfortable with the idea there are plenty of things in our lives that we will deal with outside of the scientific paradigm," Phillips told about 70 members of the public who attended the discussion of these issues between himself, Shermer and AEI theologian Michael Novak. "And while I think faith is a particularly important part of our lives that we should deal with outside of the scientific paradigm, it is certainly not the only one."
Reconciling God and science
Phillips, a Methodist, also drew from science to make his argument in favor of God's relevance, saying physicists know there are things that are "really, really improbable, but they are not really impossible according to the laws of physics ... From what I know about physics, it's not impossible to imagine a world in which God acts but we never can prove it."
In the booklet, philosopher Mary Midgley, who was not at the AEI event, states that science is just one worldview that has come to prevail. Science and religion need not be at odds.
"What is now seen as a universal cold war between science and religion is, I think, really a more local clash between a particular scientistic worldview, much favored recently in the West, and most other people's worldviews at most other times," she writes.
"Scientism ... by contrast, cuts [the setting of human life in] context off altogether and looks for the meaning of life in Science itself. It is this claim to a monopoly of meaning ... that makes science and religion look like competitors today."
Worldviews that transcend that competition or dichotomy are offered in the booklet by Kenneth Miller, Pervez Amirali Hoodbhoy and Stuart Kauffman.
Miller, the lead witness for the plaintiffs in the Dover trial of 2005 (in which Judge John E. Jones III barred intelligent design from being taught in a Pennsylvania public school district's science classes), takes the classic Darwinian "grandeur in this view of life" approach. God is behind it all.
He rejects claims that the God hypothesis makes no sense, stating that "... to reject God because of the admitted self-contradictions and logical failings of organized religion would be like rejecting physics because of the inherent contradictions of quantum theory and general relativity."
Healing the schism
Kauffman, director of the Institute for Biocomplexity and Informatics at the University of Calgary, takes a slightly New Age tack, saying we must "heal" the schism between science and religion by "reinventing the sacred" and evolving from a supernatural God to a "new sense of a fully natural God as our chosen symbol for the ceaseless creativity in the natural universe."
In other words, he suggests that we can get around the divide between science and God if we come up with a new concept for God that focuses on the wonders of nature , among other things.
This new concept is a global cultural imperative, Kauffman writes, if we are to overcome fundamentalist fears and reunite reason with humanity and the mysteries of life.
A middle ground that incorporates science more than the other God-friendly writers is offered by Hoodbhoy, a physicist at Quaid-e-Azam University in Pakistan.
Science hasn't necessarily made belief obsolete, "but you must find a science-friendly, science-compatible God," he writes. And that is possible, he claims, calling this entity a "scientific Creator."
Hoodbhoy thinks that God can be seen as operating within the laws of physics, tweaking outcomes in small ways that have big impacts by relying on phenomena we have observed already in the universe, such as the butterfly effect (in which the flapping of a butterfly's wings alters the atmosphere in a way that ultimately alters the path of a tornado).
In his own words, here are some things She (yes, Hoodbhoy uses the female pronoun) could do, Hoodbhoy writes:
"Extraordinary, but legitimate, interventions in the physical world permit quantum tunneling through cosmic wormholes or certain symmetries to snap spontaneously. It would be perfectly fair for a science-savvy God to use nonlinear dynamics so that tiny fluctuations quickly build up to earthshaking results — the famous 'butterfly effect' of deterministic chaos theory."
Hoodbhoy ends by saying that God is neither dead nor about to die. There is still plenty of "space for a science-friendly God as well as for 'deeply religious non-believers' like Einstein ... Unsure of why they happen to exist, humans are likely to scour the heavens forever in search of meaning."
A total of 5,000 copies of the booklet became available on May 2. Free copies can be obtained at www.templeton.org.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Sunday, May 16, 2008 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 101 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #181710 by Demotruk on May 18, 2008 at 3:06 am
What a fantastic misrepresentation of the "standard line". Why bother with the phrase "natural evidence is all there is"? Evidence is evidence, I don't see a difference between natural and supernatural evidence. If either could prove to me that God existed, I'd be happy with it.Other Comments by Demotruk
3. Comment #181713 by Duff on May 18, 2008 at 3:25 am
If science is a method to keep us from fooling ourselves, these religious scientist take a pass and insist that, where god is concerned, its ok to be fooled. They should be ashamed of themselves.Other Comments by Duff
4. Comment #181715 by rnewson on May 18, 2008 at 3:28 am
I suppose, begrudgingly, one has to admire the commitment to the now redundant belief in the supernatural. The kind of god people believed in even a few hundred years ago was much more in line with the so-called sacred writings. As science demolishes every large and small claim therein, the apologists back off further to the point, as above, where they consider simply renaming the natural world, "God".
Aren't they tired yet? Surely it's easier, and more parsimonious, to just drop the idea. It was wrong, it didn't work, we know better now. It's almost a parody of domestic violence, they keep going back for more, hoping, this time, that it'll all be all right.
It's always amused me that the field of Christian explanation is called "apologetics", says it all really.
The worst tactic displayed in the this text, and indeed in the two page ad for it in the Economist, is to constantly flit between quite different definitions of God. As soon as they can raise even a glimmer of possibility in one definition, it's transformed into confirmation of their preferred one. Feeble.
Other Comments by rnewson
5. Comment #181717 by Colwyn Abernathy on May 18, 2008 at 3:44 am
WASHINGTON: Scientists hate God. Or find God very disturbing. In fact, modern science has found no evidence of God and so it's stupid anymore to think God exists.
Ah, I'll see your Strawman and raise you an Ignoratio Velenchi. ;)
The above statements are often presented as conventional wisdom, but are they true?
PPFFF...dinnae you see what I wrote?
...wait...
EDIT:
and God either doesn't exist or is at best a hypothesis (to the agnostic).
If a hypothesis isn't testable...is it still a hypothesis? Oh...the philospher's head just 'sploded. SRY!
Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy
6. Comment #181719 by Szymanowski on May 18, 2008 at 3:48 am
What a fantastic misrepresentation of the "standard line".
Yes - what do you expect from the Templeton Foundation?
Other Comments by Szymanowski
7. Comment #181720 by alexmzk on May 18, 2008 at 4:03 am
Hoodbhoy thinks that God can be seen as operating within the laws of physics, tweaking outcomes in small ways that have big impacts by relying on phenomena we have observed already in the universe, such as the butterfly effect (in which the flapping of a butterfly's wings alters the atmosphere in a way that ultimately alters the path of a tornado).
is it just me, or is the butterfly flapping its wings scenario just a philosophical thought-experiment? has anyone observed a butterfly altering the course of a tornado?
Other Comments by alexmzk
8. Comment #181721 by Colwyn Abernathy on May 18, 2008 at 4:08 am
In other words, he suggests that we can get around the divide between science and God if we come up with a new concept for God that focuses on the wonders of nature , among other things.
The concept of The Matrix is fascinating, disturbing....and imaginary. SRSLY, do we NEED to "recreate the sacred" even though it's solely IMAGINARY? Doesn't make sense, then again, I'm a reader.
Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy
9. Comment #181722 by infidel_michael on May 18, 2008 at 4:11 am
"new sense of a fully natural God as our chosen symbol for the ceaseless creativity in the natural universe."
This doesn't make any sense. People need God which gives them afterlife, punishes evil and rewards goodness. Natural universe doesn't give a shit. Such meme has very low fitness, it's only an intellectual fetish, nothing for the masses.
Science hasn't necessarily made belief obsolete, "but you must find a science-friendly, science-compatible God,"
Yes, everything non-scientific (untestable, unfalsifiable) is science-friendly, because science cannot disprove it. You can make god science-compatible the same way as you can do it with unicorns and celestial teapots. Not a big deal.
It would be perfectly fair for a science-savvy God to use nonlinear dynamics so that tiny fluctuations quickly build up to earthshaking results â€" the famous 'butterfly effect' of deterministic chaos theory.
Wow, god-of-the-very-very-very-tiny-gaps: god-of-the-fluctuations :)
God is omnipotent - he can create everything fully-formed in a moment, but he wants to be hidden, so he plays with the fluctuations. He makes himself to be outside of scientific inquiry intentionally, bastard.
Other Comments by infidel_michael
10. Comment #181725 by blu on May 18, 2008 at 4:31 am
Many scientists believe in god because religion is becomming "thinner". Where once religious belief affected everything in ones life, today few believers really understand the tenents and requirements of their own affiliations. As long as their field of study doesn't smack them right in the face with the contradictions, they just don't think about it and keep going through the motions of what they learned in childhood.Other Comments by blu
11. Comment #181726 by bujin on May 18, 2008 at 4:37 am
"From what I know about physics, it's not impossible to imagine a world in which God acts but we never can prove it."Ah, of course.
And all you people who have stopped believing in fairies and unicorns should have a rethink, because from what I know about physics, it's just possible that observing fairies and unicorns actually makes them invisible, so they can never be observed directly. But they DO exist.
Other Comments by bujin
12. Comment #181735 by mmurray on May 18, 2008 at 5:43 am
AEI and Templeton. What an excellent combination.All those cats seem to be in the same eigenstate of the aliveness operator.
Michael
Other Comments by mmurray
13. Comment #181737 by colluvial on May 18, 2008 at 5:45 am
". . . philosopher Mary Midgley . . . states that science is just one worldview that has come to prevail."
There are many worldviews. Some, like religion, are based on making things up for dramatic effect. Others, like science, are compelled to refer back to observable phenomena.
The reason that science prevails is simple . . . it works.
Other Comments by colluvial
14. Comment #181741 by Colwyn Abernathy on May 18, 2008 at 5:59 am
The reason that science prevails is simple . . . it works.
Aaaaawwww...you forgot the 'bitches.' ;)
STAND BACK! I'M GOING TO TRY SCIENCE!
Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy
15. Comment #181742 by mmurray on May 18, 2008 at 6:10 am
Ah Mary Midgeley famous for not understanding the Selfish Gene and being very rude to Richard Dawkinshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Midgley
Can it just be a coincidence that a midge is an annoying little biting fly with an irritating high pitched whine ?
Michael
Other Comments by mmurray
16. Comment #181745 by RobDinsmore on May 18, 2008 at 6:17 am
from LeeCIf the question about God doesn't interfere with your work, then there is no problem believing in God I suppose.
As far as I can tell this is true. In my physics dept there are many xtans and some are actually creationists. Even some of those do astrophysics, but most are condensed matter people. They all just work around their beliefs because the bible says nothing about cooper pairs or Fermi levels. They do pretty good science, but they are in no way good scientists as they reject the scientific method when it suits their own personal bias.
Other Comments by RobDinsmore
17. Comment #181747 by entheogensmurf on May 18, 2008 at 6:22 am
Scientists hate God.
Which scientists hate god?
Or find God very disturbing.
Which scientists find god disturbing?
In fact, modern science has found no evidence of God and so it's stupid anymore to think God exists.
This almost made me laugh.
In other words, he suggests that we can get around the divide between science and God if we come up with a new concept for God that focuses on the wonders of nature , among other things.
And if you don't Believe in this God u r ignranta!
This article makes me mad and sick at the same time. Such tripe.
Other Comments by entheogensmurf
18. Comment #181752 by mmurray on May 18, 2008 at 6:46 am
These essays were also commented on in Bob Park's What's New this week
1. BIG QUESTION: DOES SCIENCE MAKE BELIEF IN GOD OBSOLETE?
Yesterday at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, DC, William Phillips, 1997 Nobel Prize for Physics, answered "Absolutely not!," while Michael Shermer, well known skeptic and author, said "It depends." Their stimulating debate was co-sponsored by the Templeton Foundation, created in 1987 to act as a "catalyst" for scientific studies into the "Big Questions." Shermer noted that "belief in God," cannot be obsolete since most people, including many scientists, are believers. Science, by contrast, begins with causality; supernatural causes don't count. To Phillips, however, that simply means that belief in God is not a scientific belief. Like most religious scientists, Phillips keeps science and religion separate. The God/Creator doesn't do much these days. He must be emeritus. Or perhaps quantum-indeterminacy exists to allow God to do stuff without being detected. You may recall that Templeton once went directly to the American Association for the Advancement of Science with a million dollars to create the AAAS Dialogue between Science and Religion. What Templeton bought was elaborate sound effects supporting his conviction that science and religion will find common ground. Many scientists found this relationship inappropriate and it was ended. For the American Enterprise Institute it seems perfect.
Michael
Other Comments by mmurray
19. Comment #181756 by plastictowel on May 18, 2008 at 7:00 am
Wait so now Shermers "spiritual and agnostic?" Uh the man was an atheist last time I checked...what happened there? Other Comments by plastictowel
20. Comment #181759 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 18, 2008 at 7:09 am
In other words, he suggests that we can get around the divide between science and God if we come up with a new concept for God that focuses on the wonders of nature , among other things.
This new concept is a global cultural imperative, Kauffman writes, if we are to overcome fundamentalist fears and reunite reason with humanity and the mysteries of life.
Hardly a new concept for God but I would bet the way most poeple feel about Nature, it's so beautiful as to deserve such a grand title, god seems too dirty a word for it however.
'deeply religious non-believers' like EinsteinBelief in god is obsolete. A deeply religious non-believer is the perfect replacement, a progression.
Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad
21. Comment #181773 by mordacious1 on May 18, 2008 at 7:53 am
I knew that once these non-believers got involved with the TF it would lead to something like this.Where to begin? Well, 40% of "scientists" who believe, include medical doctors, who, since they deal with death alot, still like to claim they believe in god. Also probably psychologists, sociologis, etc
"Does science make belief in god obsolete? Of course not." What? Yes it does. Just because millions still cling to it does not mean it's not obsolete. I like to use my bow and arrows. I do not want to fight North Korea using them.
TF is giving these pamphlets away free. Hmmm. I wonder why they would do that? I'm embarrassed that real scientists like Stenger would get involved in this.
Other Comments by mordacious1
22. Comment #181777 by mordacious1 on May 18, 2008 at 8:32 am
RobDinsmoreYour co-workers' beliefs may or may not affect their work. That is their supervisor's problem. What it does affect is how the ignorant believers view them as scientists who believe, therefor it's "smart" to believe in god. In the long run, the more believers, the less science can advance. They are contributing to this problem.
Other Comments by mordacious1
23. Comment #181783 by eclampusvitus on May 18, 2008 at 8:53 am
I only hope the "d" in Hoodboy's name is silent.ECV
Other Comments by eclampusvitus
24. Comment #181788 by Ascaphus on May 18, 2008 at 9:11 am
So we can keep god from being obsolete if we create the strawman, reinvent god, and grasp at straws. I see.I agree, the insistence that scientists 'hate' god is intentional deception to make people think that there are no valid reasons for any conflict. I have noticed before that people with traditional views of the creator and redeemer like to do a bait and switch where they redefine god for the argument, using Einstein's god, weird combinations of Cartesian and Kantian philosophy, etc., thinking that after they've 'proven' that at least some kinds of gods are possible to defend, that this must mean that their god can exist, too. And by the way, doesn't the offer to 'reinvent' god admit that he's a human creation after all? How many traditional religions are going to accept that?
In this new form of apologetics the real cause of conflict is always carefully avoided: that science works because everything is questioned whereas religion defends its sacred principles from questioning. As long as science keeps questioning those principles, and the religious keep demanding that their revelations be considered as equivalent to scientific insight, there is indeed conflict. The 'obsolete' is merely an historical perspective on this relationship.
My take on it,
Matt
Other Comments by Ascaphus
25. Comment #181791 by Jin on May 18, 2008 at 9:18 am
It's not so much Göd but his fan club that's disturbing, to be honest, both in practice and to the mind.Here's a summary of the article:
"Look, people with credentials are stupid so you can be stupid, too!"
Other Comments by Jin
26. Comment #181801 by The Schuermannator on May 18, 2008 at 9:31 am
Kauffman, director of the Institute for Biocomplexity and Informatics at the University of Calgary, takes a slightly New Age tack, saying we must "heal" the schism between science and religion by "reinventing the sacred" and evolving from a supernatural God to a "new sense of a fully natural God as our chosen symbol for the ceaseless creativity in the natural universe."
In other words, he suggests that we can get around the divide between science and God if we come up with a new concept for God that focuses on the wonders of nature , among other things
Strong evidence to support the hypothesis that God is manmade.
Other Comments by The Schuermannator
27. Comment #181811 by Border Collie on May 18, 2008 at 9:48 am
"Science is just one world view that has come to prevail." What? This is the typical societal discounting that goes on regarding those who actually seek and or have evidence before they open their little mouths. Yea, with our human brains we can probably come up with infinitely many "world views". So what? World views based on F.A.R.T, etc., in my view, really don't have the substance to be recognized as "world views". Oh, damn, I forgot ... If a whole bunch of people have believed it for a long time, it must be true.I really hate it when science is pigeonholed along with "other world views" ... It is not up to us to "overcome fundamentalist fears". It is up to the fundamentalists to grow up, become educated, develop a larger view of reality and overcome their own fears. Leave 'em behind.
Other Comments by Border Collie
28. Comment #181839 by mada2002 on May 18, 2008 at 11:09 am
"In other words, he suggests that we can get around the divide between science and God if we come up with a new concept for God that focuses on the wonders of nature "
The fact that these people think we are against their belief in god is troubling. If all their belief in god did was make them appreciate the wonders of nature I don't think any of us would have a problem. But when they start using god as their reason to stifle needed change (abortion rights, civil liberties, stem cell research, etc..., etc....) then we have problem!
Other Comments by mada2002
29. Comment #181847 by Nova on May 18, 2008 at 11:42 am
Shermer, who describes himself as spiritual and agnosticThis is just completely untrue - here he says:
I do not believe in Godso he's not an agnostic he's an atheist.
Other Comments by Nova
30. Comment #181861 by SteveO on May 18, 2008 at 1:42 pm
I don't think anybody who considers themselves religious in the sense of the Abrahamic traditions would agree with the kind of god these people are talking about.It sounds like the way in which they are so easily able to reconcile god and science is by envoking an Einsteinian god.
This article is a nice gesture, but it doesn't really approach the reality of the debate.
Other Comments by SteveO
31. Comment #181863 by hopeful on May 18, 2008 at 1:44 pm
I can imagine how certain fields of science might be conducted effectively while having a separate, compartmentalised, religious belief. To count these as indication of the compatibility of religion and science would be misleading.In other fields, such as psychology, anthropology, evolution, and philosophy, I suspect it would be more difficult to simultaneously hold religious beliefs since there is too much inherent conflict, or because the particular field of science or philosophy actually explains or relegates religion and belief (or at least important aspects of it).
Other Comments by hopeful
32. Comment #181867 by Lagoliath on May 18, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Why should we create a new concept for God?.. If the God of the old and new religions can't come along with science , then he's certainly not there. If we're looking for "a" God then it's different , why should we bring both the God of religion and maybe the real God together ( if there's one )?If science finds a god, I think it'd be very improbable for that God to be of a certain religion.Seeing how the scripture has been made into metaphors and stories instead of sacred beliefs. Personally , I think a God would find a much better way than send writings over and over again , knowing that each time , they're corrupted. Or so people say.
Other Comments by Lagoliath
33. Comment #181923 by dragonfirematrix on May 18, 2008 at 7:40 pm
This whole religion/science debate could be rendered mute in five minutes if Christians were forbidden any help that comes from (or may have come from) science.
Lets name a few things Christians should be forbidden because these are the result of science:
1) Clean safe water
2) Clean healthly (and safe) food
3) Cures for deseases
4) Environmentally confortable homes
5) Electricy, electronics and techical devices
6) Communication
7) Transportation
8) Safety
9) Truthful education
10) Doctors
This is enough for a start. You can certainly add more. Religion provides none of these things to humanity.
We will not resolve the debate with, and the problems caused by, religion until the religious are forced to live the way they believe.
Tolerance is a good thing, but tolerance of the religious must end before the religious destroy the quality of life on Earth.
Debate with the religious is pointless.
Other Comments by dragonfirematrix
34. Comment #181925 by Double Bass Atheist on May 18, 2008 at 8:06 pm
dragonfirematrix -
How about a couple examples of the victory of science over religion...
Lightening rods on church steeples
The Pope riding about in the 'Pope Mobile' because the bullets are real, but his god is not.
Other Comments by Double Bass Atheist
35. Comment #181930 by acs on May 18, 2008 at 8:25 pm
"Shermer, who describes himself as spiritual and agnosticThis is just completely untrue - here he says:
I do not believe in God
so he's not an agnostic he's an atheist. "
The definiton of atheist is "person without God" at its most base form. Surely an agnostic, who does not support or deny the existence of God, still falls within the definiton of atheist?
I dont think you can cover your bets on this one.
Anyway, the point of contradition is being "spiritual" and "agnostic". How can you have belief in the spiritual but be neither able to confirm or deny it?
Other Comments by acs
36. Comment #181938 by Theo on May 18, 2008 at 9:15 pm
*yawn* Its been a while. Whats that? Science makes you "not believe in God"? Strange, seeing that I am both a Theist and a lover of Science.Hey Lee whats up?
Other Comments by Theo
37. Comment #181940 by GordonYKWong on May 18, 2008 at 9:27 pm
A middle ground that incorporates science more than the other God-friendly writers is offered by Hoodbhoy, a physicist at Quaid-e-Azam University in Pakistan.What a load of bollocky.
Science hasn't necessarily made belief obsolete, "but you must find a science-friendly, science-compatible God," he writes. And that is possible, he claims, calling this entity a "scientific Creator."
I have read Prof. Hoodbhoy reply to the question of "Does science make belief in God obsolete?" and his answer is an excellent satorical piece, and I believe it is quite clear about his opinion of the ridicule ridden notion that is theism.
Go and read the templeton website for yourself to decide:
"Does science make belief in God obsolete?"This article by Robin Lloyd is either willfully or ignorantly twisting the words of the contributors of Hoodbhoy and Shermer and possibly others.
Prof. Hoodbhoy -
Not necessarily.
But you must find a science-friendly, science-compatible God. First, try the pantheon of available Creators. Inspect thoroughly. If none fits the bill, invent one....
Other Comments by GordonYKWong
38. Comment #181944 by LeeC on May 18, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Hi Theo,
In reverse order...
Hey Lee whats up?
Hello there... long time no speak. Hope all is well.
Quiet at work at the moment.
How did the exams go... you took a break so many months ago to revise for petroleum engineering wasn't it?
EDIT: Just noticed your last comment was way back in Sept '07, it has been a while hasn't it?
Not been in a good debate here at RD.net since you are Mark left the scene.
Whats that? Science makes you "not believe in God"? Strange, seeing that I am both a Theist and a lover of Science.
Would you like to discuss this further, or are you happy just to make a throw away comment?
I have friends with PhD in physics who believe in God, so I don' t think anyone is saying "Science makes you not believe in God" - or if they are it would be rather weak.
My statement on the matter is that you cannot be true to both the scientific method AND the traditional theistic God described in the bible.
Care to discuss?
Lee
Other Comments by LeeC
39. Comment #182017 by Johnny O on May 19, 2008 at 5:49 am
Yet many scientists â€" 40 percent according to a 1997 poll cited by Shermer â€" believe in GodI wish this statistic was followed by the words, In America. The number of of non-religious scientists in Europe is much higher
Other Comments by Johnny O
40. Comment #182026 by nalfeshnee on May 19, 2008 at 6:11 am
In the booklet, philosopher Mary Midgley, who was not at the AEI event, states that science is just one worldview that has come to prevail.
Ah yes, the argument from "worldview". Much like the argument from "science-is-just-a-culture-like-any-other".
Or the idea that science is a religion, because it, well, writes things down in books, and religions have books, so ergo science is a religion, too.
What vacant nonsense.
Other Comments by nalfeshnee
41. Comment #182036 by irate_atheist on May 19, 2008 at 6:27 am
What a pair of self-serving cretins. Other Comments by irate_atheist
42. Comment #182054 by squinky on May 19, 2008 at 6:53 am
Phillips, a Methodist, also drew from science to make his argument in favor of God's relevance, saying physicists know there are things that are "really, really improbable, but they are not really impossible according to the laws of physics ... From what I know about physics, it's not impossible to imagine a world in which God acts but we never can prove it."
Bullshit. If God intervenes, we will observe evidence of it e.g.: whether or not he answers prayers. If God only intervened (past tense) then we're faced with Deism. Case closed.
Mary Midgley, who was not at the AEI event, states that science is just one worldview that has come to prevail.
Sorry Mary, because science can predict outcomes before they happen, it has changed the world. Religion is deaf and mute on this account. Science is NOT a worldview. It is true (idiot).
Miller: "... to reject God because of the admitted self-contradictions and logical failings of organized religion would be like rejecting physics because of the inherent contradictions of quantum theory and general relativity."
Ugh! God is a failure because of theodicy, he is impotent and immoral and kills humans wholesale via natural disasters.
Kauffman fancies: "reinventing the sacred" and evolving from a supernatural God to a "new sense of a fully natural God as our chosen symbol for the ceaseless creativity in the natural universe."
I can adore nature but forget replacing that with the Earth Goddess: "Nature"-supernatural bullshit.
Hoodbhoy ends by saying that God is neither dead nor about to die. There is still plenty of "space for a science-friendly God as well as for 'deeply religious non-believers' like Einstein."
NO, NO, NO! I am sick of this 'ratio ad Einsteinium' where he is paraded out by theists as some God-inspired scientist. Read his recently found letter:
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish ... No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."
January 3, 1954
Furthermore, Einstein ain't all that. He died before: DNA was discovered, human genome sequenced, the computer age, the internet age, molecular biology revolution, genetics revolution, all space missions including the Hubble and interferometry, chemistry, and of course (wait for it) high energy physics.
Einstein is a scientific luminary much like Galileo or Newtown but he's also sooooo 1950s!
Other Comments by squinky
43. Comment #182078 by Theo on May 19, 2008 at 7:41 am
Hey Lee, glad to see everything's OK. How did the exams go... you took a break so many months ago to revise for petroleum engineering wasn't it?
Exams went well and of course the break was not for exams alone. Let's just say that when investigating ones biblical belief, one may encounter evidence that may seem to be against it and later, evidence for it. For a while, even now, I reside in the previous.
My statement on the matter is that you cannot be true to both the scientific method AND the traditional theistic God described in the bible.
Care to discuss?
Yes I am willing to discuss. Are you saying that, putting aside the biblical God, science and theism (not religion) are compatible?
P.S. Are Billy and J.C. still around?
Other Comments by Theo
44. Comment #182091 by 3legcat on May 19, 2008 at 8:06 am
listen to it herehttp://app2.capitalreach.com/esp1204/servlet/tc?cn=aei&c=10162&s=20271&e=9464&&espmt=2
listening to the Q&A first
shermer "i do not believe in god" & "i am a militant agnostic, i can't know and you can't know"
i like shermer a lot.
Other Comments by 3legcat
45. Comment #182143 by severalspeciesof on May 19, 2008 at 9:15 am
Lloyd (author of the article) says: Shermer, who describes himself as spiritual and agnostic,
Me thinks Lloyd may have confused skeptic with 'agnostic' which many people do. As far as spiritual, I believe Shermer has alluded to that idea in many of his books.
An aside: I believe that all agnostics are atheists, but not all atheists are agnostic.
edit: I take back what I said about Loyd's "confusion"...Thanks 3legcat for the link, it should clear things up a bit
Other Comments by severalspeciesof
46. Comment #182202 by Steven Mading on May 19, 2008 at 11:26 am
Ah yes, the Templeton Foundation's bait and switch between generic deistic belief and their specific religious belief. The Templeton Foundation's goal is to make Christianity look scientific. Their arguments can best be summed up as this: "Christianity is not at odds with science because look there's lots of scientists who believe in a generic fuzzy god of some sort."If you looked at how many of that 40% actually believe in the version of Christianity the Templeton Foundation wants to push, it would be a hell of a lot smaller.
Other Comments by Steven Mading
47. Comment #182229 by SurfDude on May 19, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Kenneth Miller:"... to reject God because of the admitted self-contradictions and logical failings of organized religion would be like rejecting physics because of the inherent contradictions of quantum theory and general relativity."
Anyone else spot the rather glaring error in this reasoning?
Miller is the poster-child for cognitive dissonance.
Other Comments by SurfDude
48. Comment #182235 by gr8hands on May 19, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Substitute the word "god" with "astrology" and you could get just about the same results, have the same article (except Shermer firmly denies astrology), and only shows how erroneous the article's conclusions are.Other Comments by gr8hands
49. Comment #182238 by Neuro on May 19, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Question to all:Where is a poll that says 'X' amount of scientists believe in god and 'Y' do not. In 'X', the break down of types of scientists is....
Where's that poll that Dawkins sometimes refers to in his talks? Was it by the Pew Foundation?
Any link to where the/any poll is would be appreciated! Thanks.
Other Comments by Neuro
50. Comment #182259 by robotaholic on May 19, 2008 at 2:27 pm
I think science is all there is. There are NOT other ways of knowing. In fact, I'll believe in other ways of knowning once it's shown to me that they exist -and I will subject them to the scientific method :)) Other Comments by robotaholic
This article is reposted from a website that accepts comments.
Why not share your comment on the article there as well? CLICK HERE
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Audio Books
The God Delusion
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
The Ancestor's Tale
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
On the Origin of Species
Read by
Richard Dawkins
Links:
Quotes of Note:
"The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also"
Mark Twain
"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration--courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and, above all, love of the truth."
H.L. Mencken
"Scientific truth is too beautiful to be sacrificed for the sake of light entertainment or money. Astrology is an aesthetic affront. It cheapens astronomy, like using Beethoven for commercial jingles."
Richard Dawkins
"A universe with a God would look quite different from a universe without one. A physics, a biology where there is a God is bound to look different."
Richard Dawkins
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike."
Delos B. McKown
Other Recommended Reading
The Blank Slate
Steven Pinker
Infidel
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Conciousness Explained
Daniel C. Dennett
Letter to a Christian Nation
Sam Harris
The Varieties of Scientific Experience
Carl Sagan, Ann Druyan (Editor)
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'Voices of Science' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'AAI 2007 Conference' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #181705 by LeeC on May 18, 2008 at 2:57 am
Plenty of space behind the sofa - God could be hiding there.
I wonder how many of them are, say, evolution biologists or cosmologists?
Think the numbers will be a little different asking just these two groups for some reason.
If the question about God doesn't interfere with your work, then there is no problem believing in God I suppose.
It is a little more difficult to follow the scientific method, be a theist AND be a scientist at the cutting edge in physics or biology (no idea about chemistry - they don't seem to talk about God much).
Oh course, some like Ken Miller and Paul Davis are able to do the mind gymnastics - but there God's don't sound too much like the traditional Christian belief the bible talks about.
Lee
Other Comments by LeeC