Print
Is religion a threat to rationality and science?
by Dan Dennett, Lord Winston
Reposted from:
http://education.guardian.co.uk/egweekly/story/0,,2275308,00.html
Prof Daniel Dennett and Lord Winston present their arguments ahead of tonight's public debate
Daniel Dennett and Robert Winston
Tuesday April 22, 2008
The Guardian
Yes, says Prof Daniel Dennett
If religion isn't the greatest threat to rationality and scientific progress, what is? Perhaps alcohol, or television, or addictive video games. But although each of these scourges - mixed blessings, in fact - has the power to overwhelm our best judgment and cloud our critical faculties, religion has a feature of that none of them can boast: it doesn't just disable, it honours the disability. People are revered for their capacity to live in a dream world, to shield their minds from factual knowledge and make the major decisions of their lives by consulting voices in their heads that they call forth by rituals designed to intoxicate them.
It used to be the case that we tended to excuse drunk drivers when they crashed because they weren't entirely in control of their faculties at the time, but now we have wisely inverted that judgment, holding drunk drivers doubly culpable for putting themselves in that irresponsible position in the first place. It is high time we inverted the public attitude about religion as well, finding all socially destructive acts of religious passion shameful, not honourable, and holding those who abet them - the preachers and other apologists for religious zeal - as culpable as the bartenders and negligent hosts who usher dangerous drivers on to the highways. Our motto should be: Friends don't let friends steer their lives by religion.
Right now, Sayed Parwez Kambakhsh, a young student, resides on death row in Afghanistan, sentenced to execution for committing blasphemy. Imagine! We're living in the 21st century, and in "liberated" Afghanistan (not Taliban Afghanistan) blasphemy is still a capital crime. Most of the rest of the world is tongue-tied, unwilling to tell those bent on carrying out this barbaric sentence that they are simply wrong, and should not thus humiliate themselves and their traditions. Where are the peaceful demonstrations of protest? Are people unwilling to hurt the feelings of Muslims? We are quick to condemn other outrages, but religious passion, genuine or feigned, shields people from the moral judgments of their fellow human beings, judgments to which we should all alike be subject.
There is an unbalance in the framing of this resolution, and Robert Winston has the worst of it. He must try to allay a host of concerns, an unending task, while - as everyone knows all too well - in a single cataclysmic day my side could be proven by one fanatical act, not that anyone would be left to cheer my victory. Not just rationality and scientific progress, but just about everything else we hold dear could be laid waste by a single massively deluded "sacramental" act. True, you don't have to be religious to be crazy, but it helps. Indeed, if you are religious, you don't have to be crazy in the medically certifiable sense in order to do massively crazy things. And - this is the worst of it - religious faith can give people a sort of hyperbolic confidence, an utter unconcern about whether they might be making a mistake, that enables acts of inhumanity that would otherwise be unthinkable.
This imperviousness to reason is, I think, the property that we should most fear in religion. Other institutions or traditions may encourage a certain amount of irrationality - think of the wild abandon that is often appreciated in sports or art - but only religion demands it as a sacred duty. This might not matter if the activities that composed religion were somewhat insulated from the rest of the world the way they are in sports and art. Then we could treat religious allegiances the way we treat differences in taste: if you have a taste for kick boxing or heavy metal bands, that's your business. Knock yourself out, as we say, it's only a game. Not so with religion. Its arena includes not just the participants but all of life on the planet. Given that, it's troubling to note how avidly some people engage in deliberate make-believe in order to execute the prescribed duties.
The better is enemy of the best: religion may make many people better, but it is preventing them from being as good as they could be. If only we could transfer all that respect, loyalty and intense devotion from an imaginary being - God - to something real: the wonderful world of goodness we and our ancestors have made, and of which we are now the stewards.
· Professor Daniel Dennett is director of the Centre for Cognitive Studies, Tufts University
No, says Lord Winston
Daniel Dennett would be unlikely to place a stake alongside Blaise Pascal, whose famous wager runs: "You cannot lose by professing belief in God - if He does not exist you lose nothing, and if He does exist, you will be rewarded in the afterlife." Dennett argues that it is better to live as if there is no God, attempting to make the world a rational and better place. He points out that it is costly building cathedrals and that churchgoing is a massive waste of time. An atheist will lose nothing if God does not exist - his or her memorial will be good deeds. And if there is a benevolent God, Dennett will find himself judged by the Almighty on his merits, not because of the disbelief he professes.
The problem with his interesting views of the possible evolutionary basis of religious belief is that he seems unable to treat the beliefs and feelings of believers seriously. Might not God disapprove of this much more? Like many evangelical preachers, he repeatedly seems to claim to be open to the sincerely held views of others. Yet, in Dennett's world, humans are divided into "brights" or believers - and if you are not a "bright", you disagree with his point of view because you are intellectually inferior, closed-minded or too scared.
To some extent, he falls into a similar trap to Dawkins. He feels he knows about religions but seems to have done too little research; a number of his points - for example, about Jewish attitudes or Muslim practices - seem to show a lack of serious scholarship.
Dennett, like Dawkins, is affronted by the "fact" that moderate religious people have done little to curb the excesses of the extremists of their own traditions. Who does he define as an extremist? If, as a Jew, I decide to adhere to totally irrational dietary laws or bizarrely not travel on a bus on Saturday, does that make me an extremist? If I go further and wear a kippa on my head and build an eruv around the part of London in which I live, is that an unacceptable excess? Or is he arguing against dangerous violence, which is condemned by every responsible religious Jew?
Religion is built into human consciousness and there is plentiful evidence of it being a cohesive force. Apart from the survival of our prehistoric ancestors, in recent times there are powerful examples of how a notion of the transcendental has spurred humans on in desperate situations. Viktor Frankl, in the midst of the extreme deprivation, dehumanisation and despair of Auschwitz observes how, in his assessment, only those with some spirituality - not necessarily a belief in God - survived the depravity of the camp.
Dennett seems to believe science is "the truth". Like many of my brilliant scientific colleagues, he conveys the notion that science is about a kind of certainty. For example, in his book Breaking the Spell, he quotes Eva Jablonka in support of his views on memes. He forgets that she challenges the very essence of Dawkins's view of evolution - a view Dennett obviously passionately supports.
Perhaps he might care to re-read the book of Job. Throughout most of this deeply mysterious and spiritual book, Job patiently suffers but essentially is steadfast in his faith in God's justice. But finally beyond provocation, he rails against the irrationality of God's punishment. At the very end of the story, God appears out of the whirlwind saying: "Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?" God asks Job where he was when He laid the foundations of the Earth? Do we understand where we come from, where we are going, or what lies beyond our planet?
The problem is that scientists now too frequently believe we have the answers to these questions, and hence the mysteries of life. But, oddly, the more we use science to explore nature, the more we find things we do not understand and cannot explain. In reality, both religion and science are expressions of man's uncertainty. Perhaps the paradox is that certainty, whether it be in science or religion, is dangerous. The danger of Dennett's relatively gentle brand of certainty is that it increases polarisation in our society. With inflexible positions on both sides, certainty surely is the biggest threat to rationality, and to science.
· Lord Winston is emeritus professor of fertility studies, Imperial College London
· The debate on religion versus science will take place tonight at the British Council. This is the finale in the Rethink education public debate series, hosted by the thinktank Agora and Education Guardian. For details go to www.agora-education.org
http://education.guardian.co.uk/egweekly/story/0,,2275308,00.html
Prof Daniel Dennett and Lord Winston present their arguments ahead of tonight's public debate
Daniel Dennett and Robert Winston
Tuesday April 22, 2008
The Guardian
Yes, says Prof Daniel Dennett
If religion isn't the greatest threat to rationality and scientific progress, what is? Perhaps alcohol, or television, or addictive video games. But although each of these scourges - mixed blessings, in fact - has the power to overwhelm our best judgment and cloud our critical faculties, religion has a feature of that none of them can boast: it doesn't just disable, it honours the disability. People are revered for their capacity to live in a dream world, to shield their minds from factual knowledge and make the major decisions of their lives by consulting voices in their heads that they call forth by rituals designed to intoxicate them.
It used to be the case that we tended to excuse drunk drivers when they crashed because they weren't entirely in control of their faculties at the time, but now we have wisely inverted that judgment, holding drunk drivers doubly culpable for putting themselves in that irresponsible position in the first place. It is high time we inverted the public attitude about religion as well, finding all socially destructive acts of religious passion shameful, not honourable, and holding those who abet them - the preachers and other apologists for religious zeal - as culpable as the bartenders and negligent hosts who usher dangerous drivers on to the highways. Our motto should be: Friends don't let friends steer their lives by religion.
Right now, Sayed Parwez Kambakhsh, a young student, resides on death row in Afghanistan, sentenced to execution for committing blasphemy. Imagine! We're living in the 21st century, and in "liberated" Afghanistan (not Taliban Afghanistan) blasphemy is still a capital crime. Most of the rest of the world is tongue-tied, unwilling to tell those bent on carrying out this barbaric sentence that they are simply wrong, and should not thus humiliate themselves and their traditions. Where are the peaceful demonstrations of protest? Are people unwilling to hurt the feelings of Muslims? We are quick to condemn other outrages, but religious passion, genuine or feigned, shields people from the moral judgments of their fellow human beings, judgments to which we should all alike be subject.
There is an unbalance in the framing of this resolution, and Robert Winston has the worst of it. He must try to allay a host of concerns, an unending task, while - as everyone knows all too well - in a single cataclysmic day my side could be proven by one fanatical act, not that anyone would be left to cheer my victory. Not just rationality and scientific progress, but just about everything else we hold dear could be laid waste by a single massively deluded "sacramental" act. True, you don't have to be religious to be crazy, but it helps. Indeed, if you are religious, you don't have to be crazy in the medically certifiable sense in order to do massively crazy things. And - this is the worst of it - religious faith can give people a sort of hyperbolic confidence, an utter unconcern about whether they might be making a mistake, that enables acts of inhumanity that would otherwise be unthinkable.
This imperviousness to reason is, I think, the property that we should most fear in religion. Other institutions or traditions may encourage a certain amount of irrationality - think of the wild abandon that is often appreciated in sports or art - but only religion demands it as a sacred duty. This might not matter if the activities that composed religion were somewhat insulated from the rest of the world the way they are in sports and art. Then we could treat religious allegiances the way we treat differences in taste: if you have a taste for kick boxing or heavy metal bands, that's your business. Knock yourself out, as we say, it's only a game. Not so with religion. Its arena includes not just the participants but all of life on the planet. Given that, it's troubling to note how avidly some people engage in deliberate make-believe in order to execute the prescribed duties.
The better is enemy of the best: religion may make many people better, but it is preventing them from being as good as they could be. If only we could transfer all that respect, loyalty and intense devotion from an imaginary being - God - to something real: the wonderful world of goodness we and our ancestors have made, and of which we are now the stewards.
· Professor Daniel Dennett is director of the Centre for Cognitive Studies, Tufts University
No, says Lord Winston
Daniel Dennett would be unlikely to place a stake alongside Blaise Pascal, whose famous wager runs: "You cannot lose by professing belief in God - if He does not exist you lose nothing, and if He does exist, you will be rewarded in the afterlife." Dennett argues that it is better to live as if there is no God, attempting to make the world a rational and better place. He points out that it is costly building cathedrals and that churchgoing is a massive waste of time. An atheist will lose nothing if God does not exist - his or her memorial will be good deeds. And if there is a benevolent God, Dennett will find himself judged by the Almighty on his merits, not because of the disbelief he professes.
The problem with his interesting views of the possible evolutionary basis of religious belief is that he seems unable to treat the beliefs and feelings of believers seriously. Might not God disapprove of this much more? Like many evangelical preachers, he repeatedly seems to claim to be open to the sincerely held views of others. Yet, in Dennett's world, humans are divided into "brights" or believers - and if you are not a "bright", you disagree with his point of view because you are intellectually inferior, closed-minded or too scared.
To some extent, he falls into a similar trap to Dawkins. He feels he knows about religions but seems to have done too little research; a number of his points - for example, about Jewish attitudes or Muslim practices - seem to show a lack of serious scholarship.
Dennett, like Dawkins, is affronted by the "fact" that moderate religious people have done little to curb the excesses of the extremists of their own traditions. Who does he define as an extremist? If, as a Jew, I decide to adhere to totally irrational dietary laws or bizarrely not travel on a bus on Saturday, does that make me an extremist? If I go further and wear a kippa on my head and build an eruv around the part of London in which I live, is that an unacceptable excess? Or is he arguing against dangerous violence, which is condemned by every responsible religious Jew?
Religion is built into human consciousness and there is plentiful evidence of it being a cohesive force. Apart from the survival of our prehistoric ancestors, in recent times there are powerful examples of how a notion of the transcendental has spurred humans on in desperate situations. Viktor Frankl, in the midst of the extreme deprivation, dehumanisation and despair of Auschwitz observes how, in his assessment, only those with some spirituality - not necessarily a belief in God - survived the depravity of the camp.
Dennett seems to believe science is "the truth". Like many of my brilliant scientific colleagues, he conveys the notion that science is about a kind of certainty. For example, in his book Breaking the Spell, he quotes Eva Jablonka in support of his views on memes. He forgets that she challenges the very essence of Dawkins's view of evolution - a view Dennett obviously passionately supports.
Perhaps he might care to re-read the book of Job. Throughout most of this deeply mysterious and spiritual book, Job patiently suffers but essentially is steadfast in his faith in God's justice. But finally beyond provocation, he rails against the irrationality of God's punishment. At the very end of the story, God appears out of the whirlwind saying: "Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?" God asks Job where he was when He laid the foundations of the Earth? Do we understand where we come from, where we are going, or what lies beyond our planet?
The problem is that scientists now too frequently believe we have the answers to these questions, and hence the mysteries of life. But, oddly, the more we use science to explore nature, the more we find things we do not understand and cannot explain. In reality, both religion and science are expressions of man's uncertainty. Perhaps the paradox is that certainty, whether it be in science or religion, is dangerous. The danger of Dennett's relatively gentle brand of certainty is that it increases polarisation in our society. With inflexible positions on both sides, certainty surely is the biggest threat to rationality, and to science.
· Lord Winston is emeritus professor of fertility studies, Imperial College London
· The debate on religion versus science will take place tonight at the British Council. This is the finale in the Rethink education public debate series, hosted by the thinktank Agora and Education Guardian. For details go to www.agora-education.org
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 | PermalinkComments 901 - 950 of 1070 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers902. Comment #175961 by The Reverend Dark on May 6, 2008 at 9:35 am
Seeker's question.
Please explain in your own words how you substantiate the above claim. In other words, why is C-14 valid under 50k and not over 50k?
Humans are great things; we have learned to store information outside of our bodies. Hence the excellent resources you were pointed to.
If you had read the information you claim to have, you would not be trying to apply C14 dating to inappropriate, imaginary, samples.
Therefore you are lying like a rug about actually reading the material in the first place.
If you had read the most recent paper I linked to, you would see how the upper limit of C14 dating is being pushed back by using a situation that limits interference of background variations through isolation of the testing environment. 62,000 years, with a theoretical limit of upwards of 100,000 years.
Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark
Other Comments by The Reverend Dark
903. Comment #175963 by Star Spangled Eagle on May 6, 2008 at 9:40 am
I googled "4000 year old dinosaur" and my computer laughed at me. is that normal? Other Comments by Star Spangled Eagle
904. Comment #175964 by seeker_of_truth on May 6, 2008 at 9:40 am
If you had read the most recent paper I linked to, you would see how the upper limit of C14 dating is being pushed back by using a situation that limits interference of background variations through isolation of the testing environment.
And this substantiates your following claim...
Testing an artifact over 50,000 years with C14 is a useless gesture. You will not get an accurate result.
... in what way exactly?
Other Comments by seeker_of_truth
905. Comment #175968 by seeker_of_truth on May 6, 2008 at 9:47 am
I googled "4000 year old dinosaur" and my computer laughed at me. is that normal?
I'm laughing at you as well but I'm not sure if that qualifies as the 'normal' response to you quite yet :)
Other Comments by seeker_of_truth
906. Comment #175969 by The Reverend Dark on May 6, 2008 at 9:48 am
Seeker, the new upward limit is a reflection of the increased technology we have the bring to bear of the this testing method. It has been steadily creeping upwards since the technology was discovered. This is the latest refinement, and while it is impressive, it is still a miniscule spread in terms of time, and does not get anywhere near to the effective time scale required to test dinosaur fossils.
If you had read the material you claim to have, you would already know this.
What it does not explain is why you are still trying to use it on fossil samples that are outside even the theoretical limit of the technique; or why you do not have any faith in the reproducible, peer reviewed, research on the matter.
Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark
Other Comments by The Reverend Dark
907. Comment #175975 by Star Spangled Eagle on May 6, 2008 at 9:59 am
thanks for the clarification seeker, I'm glad I was able to make you laugh. Other Comments by Star Spangled Eagle
908. Comment #175977 by seeker_of_truth on May 6, 2008 at 10:00 am
Seeker, the new upward limit is a reflection of the increased technology we have the bring to bear of the this testing method. It has been steadily creeping upwards since the technology was discovered. This is the latest refinement, and while it is impressive, it is still a miniscule spread in terms of time, and does not get anywhere near to the effective time scale required to test dinosaur fossils.
And what does an advancing technology that is yet unrefined have to do an explanation of the workings on the current limitations?
Other Comments by seeker_of_truth
909. Comment #175979 by The Reverend Dark on May 6, 2008 at 10:08 am
Seeker again
And what does an advancing technology that is yet unrefined have to do an explanation of the workings on the current limitations?
Unrefined is not the word to use laughing boy. It is highly refined, and growing more so.
The only person who does not understand the limitations is you; and you have already demonstrated a profound ignorance on the subject.
I see that you have still not taken Epeeist's advice and looked up consilience. This might help you.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrymple/radiometric_dating.html
Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark
Other Comments by The Reverend Dark
910. Comment #175983 by seeker_of_truth on May 6, 2008 at 10:15 am
The only person who does not understand the limitations is you; and you have already demonstrated a profound ignorance on the subject.
It might be claimed that I am the only one lacking understating but I know for a fact I am the only one thus far who can state the explanation for the limits of C-14 in my own words without having to resort to links that I claim an understanding of but... seemingly cannot demonstrate that same understanding.
Other Comments by seeker_of_truth
911. Comment #175988 by The Reverend Dark on May 6, 2008 at 10:24 am
Laughing boy.
You don't understand C14, otherwise you would not have written any of the following.
Now imagine you find dino-bone fossils in a geological column that we assume, yes assume, is 70 million years old - yet these bones test at 4,000 years average under C-14 with no known contamination of any kind. Do we go with the assumption [based on evolutionary theory] or the more scientifically verifiable process of C-14 dating?
Or this
What bothers me is that every dating method used is subject to a similar amount of variables and corrupting factors yet, according to naturalists, they all lead us to consistent ages plus/minus these small ranges. It's just all too neat for my liking. If we can't nail down C-14 much past 4000 years due to unknown and un-testable variables beyond that period, how the heck are we supposed to swallow millions and billions of years as accurate ages?
Or especially this one
I thought I was clear enough. However, my point is that two different dating techniques claim reliability and yet the results from the same sample date vastly different. Therefore, one of both must be unreliable.
That last one is the kicker, where you are comparing C14 and 40Ar
I offered C14 dating on fossils which result in ages of thousands of years vs. the same sample dating into the millions with 40Ar/39Ar/K-Ar. Same principle but both can't be correct. I believe I was presented with a link showing a possible freeze variation that would account for the lower date from C-14 being tossed out (e.g. delayed C-14 decay)
Isn't it nice to have your ignorance of the subject matter archived conveniently?
You try and compare artifacts dated with C-41, Argon dating\Potassium Argon and then complain when the results do not match.
Pull the other one laughing boy.
Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark
Other Comments by The Reverend Dark
912. Comment #175992 by seeker_of_truth on May 6, 2008 at 10:25 am
Going to lunch but here is a rather objective treatment on C-14 for those so interested.http://www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm
Other Comments by seeker_of_truth
913. Comment #175998 by Quetzalcoatl on May 6, 2008 at 10:35 am
The Reverend Dark-
What it does not explain is why you are still trying to use it on fossil samples that are outside even the theoretical limit of the technique
Seeker uses supernova remnants as a way to assess the age of the Universe. Should we really be surprised?
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
914. Comment #176005 by The Reverend Dark on May 6, 2008 at 10:43 am
Objective? I will paraphrase Morgentstern - you keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.
For the record, you will notice that Origins (the journal this was published in) is a great source of creationist douchbaggery.
From the Geoscience Research Institute's About page
Read the whole thing, it is a laugh riot.
http://www.grisda.org/about.htm
The Geoscience Research Institute, founded in 1958, was established to address this question by looking at the scientific evidence concerning origins. The Institute uses both science and revelation to study the question of origins because it considers the exclusive use of science as too narrow an approach. The Institute serves the Seventh-day Adventist church in two major areas: research and communication.
Laughing boy, this is not a peer reviewed journal, especially as there are some real winners published alongside it.
http://www.grisda.org/origins/01006.htm
http://www.grisda.org/origins/02064.htm
http://www.grisda.org/origins/61007.pdf
Funny that he hasn't submitted to actual peer review.
Something for you to think about.
Cheers,
Shayne
Other Comments by The Reverend Dark
915. Comment #176013 by seeker_of_truth on May 6, 2008 at 11:03 am
The Geoscience Research Institute, founded in 1958, was established to address this question by looking at the scientific evidence concerning origins. The Institute uses both science and revelation to study the question of origins because it considers the exclusive use of science as too narrow an approach. The Institute serves the Seventh-day Adventist church in two major areas: research and communication.
Back to this again? Why would a religious, political, gender, racial, or any other affiliation disqualify a paper from being good science?
Unless, of course, the reader was biased from the onset.
Other Comments by seeker_of_truth
916. Comment #176014 by The Reverend Dark on May 6, 2008 at 11:03 am
I just finished that paper.
I love where he tries to drag a global flood into it.
Objective? Stone cold nuts.
Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark
Other Comments by The Reverend Dark
917. Comment #176015 by The Reverend Dark on May 6, 2008 at 11:05 am
Back to this again? Why would a religious, political, gender, racial, or any other affiliation disqualify a paper from being good science?
Laughing boy, if it was good science, it would have been submitted to a real journal. I love how you labeled it objective, when it comes from a creationist site, in a creationist publication. Mr. Dictionary is not your friend is he? Then claiming the reader has bias - yes he does, he likes science to be science and conform to the methodologies of science and not mix it with bronze age inanity.
The fact that the mission statement of those collected heads of knuckle starts from the presupposition that science and revelation are required it is by the very definition - not good science, and not a scientific journal.
Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark
Other Comments by The Reverend Dark
918. Comment #176019 by seeker_of_truth on May 6, 2008 at 11:34 am
The fact that the mission statement of those collected heads of knuckle starts from the presupposition that science and revelation are required it is by the very definition - not good science, and not a scientific journal.
Add these 'knuckle starts' to your list then too;
Georgias Agricola (1494-1555)- Founder of metallurgy
Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)- Discoverer of the Laws of Planetary Motion
Johannes Baptistavan Helmont (1579-1644) - Founder of Pneumatic Chemistry and Chemical Physiology
Francesco Maria Grimaldi (1618-1663) - Discoverer of the Diffraction of Light
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) - Mathematical Prodigy and Universal Genius
Robert Boyle (1627-1691) - Founder of Modem Chemistry
John Ray (1627-1705) - Cataloger of British Flora and Fauna
Isaac Barrow (1630-1677) - Newton's Teacher
Antonie van Leeuwenhoek (1632-1723) - Discoverer of Bacteria
Niels Steno (1638-1686) - Founder of Geology
James Bradley (1693-1762) - Discoverer of the Aberration of Starlight
Ewald Georg von Kleist (c. 1700-1748) - Inventor of the Leyden Jar
Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778) - Classifier of all Living Things
Leonhard Euler (1707-1783) - The Prolific Mathematician
John Dalton (1766-1844) - Founder of Modem Atomic Theory
Thomas Young (1773-1829) - First to Conduct a Double-Slit Experiment with Light
David Brewster (1781-1868) - Researcher of Polarized Light
Adam Sedgwick (1785-1873) - Geologist of the Cambrian
Augustin-Jean Fresnel (1788-1827) - The Physicist of Light Waves
Augustin Louis Cauchy (1789-1857) - Soulwinning Mathematician
Michael Faraday (1791-1867) - Giant of Electrical Research
John Frederick William Herschel (1792-1871) - Cataloger of the Southern Skies
Matthew Fontaine Maury (1806-1873) - Pathfinder of the Seas
Philip Henry Gosse (1810-1888) - Popular Naturalist
Asa Gray (1810-1888) - Influential American Botanist
James Dwight Dana (1813-1895) - Systematizer of Mineralogy
George Boole (1815-1864) - Discoverer of Pure Mathematics
James Prescott Joule (1818-1889) - Originator of Joule's Law
John Couch Adams (1819-1892) - Codiscoverer of Neptune
George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) - Theorist for Fluorescence
Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) - Pioneer in Genetics
William Thomson, Lord Kelvin (1824-1907) - Physicist of Thermodynamics
Georg Friedrich Bernhard Riemann (1826-1866) - The Non-Euclidean Geometer Behind Relativity Theory
James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) - Father of Modem Physics
Edward William Morley (1838-1923) - Michelson's Partner in Measuring the Speed of Light
Pierre-Maurice-Marie Duhem (1861-1916) - The Physicist Who Recovered the Science of the Middle Ages
Georges Lemaitre (1894-1966) - The Priest Who Showed Us the Universe Is Expanding
George Washington Carver (c. 1864-1943) - Pioneer in Chemurgy
Arthur Stanley Eddington (1882-1944) - The Astronomer Who Ruled Stellar Theory
Other Comments by seeker_of_truth
919. Comment #176021 by Tezcatlipoca on May 6, 2008 at 11:39 am
Anybody that lived past 1950? Other Comments by Tezcatlipoca
920. Comment #176023 by seeker_of_truth on May 6, 2008 at 11:46 am
Anybody that lived past 1950?
The dates are all there, no? If you have a statement or opinion it would be preferred over an ambiguous, leading question and/or insinuation.
Also, these guys can't be in scientific journals to qualify under Reverend Dark's 'knuckle starts' list so we have to go back a ways.
Other Comments by seeker_of_truth
921. Comment #176029 by The Reverend Dark on May 6, 2008 at 11:55 am
Ahh Seeker,
You are trying to compare apples and oranges.
Many on your list were excellent scientists, making use of the scientific method. No supernatural agents cited or required. No false dichotomy, you can be an excellent scientist and still have faith, Dr. Ken Miller stands out as an excellent example, but that faith has no more place in science than a rhino has place in your backside (Your head is taking up all the space there anyway).
I will note that much of the list predates the publication of the Origin of the Species, which was the work that demonstrated that a creator was not actually required.
The GRISDA people, by their own admission, are not actually doing science. They are presupposing young earth creation and trying to shoehorn science into it.
Badly as that last paper demonstrates.
So, you still going on about c14 testing on dinosaur fossils (imaginary or not?)
Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark
Other Comments by The Reverend Dark
922. Comment #176030 by Quetzalcoatl on May 6, 2008 at 11:56 am
Tezcatlipoca-
Anybody that lived past 1950?
Ah. Past 1950, you start getting names like Michael Behe and William Dembski. Probably best not to go on.
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
923. Comment #176032 by Tezcatlipoca on May 6, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Lemaitre lived until 1966...the year I was born...I suppose I could edit...but...
Revelation...is it testable and falsifiable? Maybe good for a starting point but useless as far as science is concerned as an endpoint.
Other Comments by Tezcatlipoca
924. Comment #176034 by Tezcatlipoca on May 6, 2008 at 12:01 pm
just remember...if you don't know the answer then Tecatlipocadidit...hahaha. Other Comments by Tezcatlipoca
925. Comment #176035 by seeker_of_truth on May 6, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Many on your list were excellent scientists, making use of the scientific method. No supernatural agents cited or required.
The only three things the men on that list had in common was a claim that they began their search for truth with the assumption that God exists, the bible is true, and that God had created an orderly universe that reveals himself.
I'm not sure what your definition of a 'supernatural agent' is but it sure seems to describe the beliefs of this group.
Other Comments by seeker_of_truth
926. Comment #176038 by seeker_of_truth on May 6, 2008 at 12:13 pm
So, you still going on about c14 testing on dinosaur fossils (imaginary or not?)
Unless we can get past the basic philosophy of when C-14 applies and when it does not, apart from presuppositions such as geological strata/periods, any dinosaur fossil test evidence is as dead as the dinosaur it came from.
Other Comments by seeker_of_truth
927. Comment #176041 by The Reverend Dark on May 6, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Seeker warbled.
The only three things the men on that list had in common was a claim that they began their search for truth with the assumption that God exists, the bible is true, and that God had created an orderly universe that reveals himself.
That sir is a lie and a gross misrepresentation of the scientists you list. The second point in particular is a gross misrepresentation of the written works of many of those listed.
Ignorant and liar.
Tsk Tsk.
The Reverend Shayne Dark
Other Comments by The Reverend Dark
928. Comment #176042 by The Reverend Dark on May 6, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Unless we can get past the basic philosophy of when C-14 applies and when it does not, apart from presuppositions such as geological strata/periods, any dinosaur fossil test evidence is as dead as the dinosaur it came from.
If it was tested with C14 within the limits of what C14 can test, it is highly unlikely to be a dinosaur.
Am I to expect the Young Earth Creationist Canard to quack forth about circular dating methods next? It is the logical progression to your inanity.
Cheers,
Shayne
Other Comments by The Reverend Dark
929. Comment #176045 by seeker_of_truth on May 6, 2008 at 12:24 pm
At this point I can safely say we are done debating evidence and moving into spout-at-will, biased rhetoric.I have no real interest in the latter. Tomorrow is another day though.
Other Comments by seeker_of_truth
930. Comment #176121 by The Reverend Dark on May 6, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Laughing boy, you haven't even started debating evidence.
Do you have evidence?
You have not demonstrated any.
You have demonstrated baseless conjecture.
You have demonstrated no grasp of radiometric dating or the application of such.
You have demonstrated that your knowledge of astrophysics is pitiful.
You have demonstrated that the only thing that you can bring to the party is the argument from personal incredulity.
A young earth creationist without the bravery to admit such - but all the 'arguments' that you have put forth quote chapter and verse from YEC literature.
Rather pathetic.
Oh and I loved this line.
The only three things the men on that list had in common was a claim that they began their search for truth with the assumption that God exists, the bible is true, and that God had created an orderly universe that reveals himself.
Funny that not one of them was actually able to demonstrate the existence of their god nor has anyone since.
Funny that many of the list, defy the YEC interpretation of the bible (your spurious point 2), even Kelvin, after eating a great big shit sandwich, concluded a date well outside the typical YEC garbage.
You don't exactly bring much to a fight, do you laughing boy?
Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark
Other Comments by The Reverend Dark
931. Comment #176131 by mesomodel on May 6, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Been following this thread via my PDA while on travel today. Finally at a wireless hotspot...Reverend: This is the closest I've found to a 4K year old dinosaur.
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html
It's got the usual load of YEC garbage, plus a letter from Univ. of Arizona dating bones to thousands of years.
Seeker: I've done your work for you. Here's your evidence. But, it's still worthless for all the reasons previously stated.
Other Comments by mesomodel
932. Comment #176141 by The Reverend Dark on May 6, 2008 at 5:02 pm
So laughing boy,
I was pondering some of your earlier statements and catch a small hint of AFDave about them. The whole documentation thread running through your earlier posts seems very familiar.
So indulge me if you will.
Do you think there was a global flood as described in the bible?
If so, when?
How do you feel about the callibration of C14 in regards to ice core stratagraphy, varve counting, and dendrochronolgy?
Colour me curious.
And contemptuous of you.
Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark
Other Comments by The Reverend Dark
933. Comment #176243 by irate_atheist on May 7, 2008 at 1:51 am
898. Comment #175954 by seeker_of_truth -
Good morning.
Comment #175942 by irate_atheistSimple words for a simple person, then. Here we go. The half-life of C14 is such that after approx 50,000 years of decay, the radioactivity of a once organic object is low enough so as to be virtually indistinguishable from background radiation levels.
That was not a question for you and even if it were, what happened to "in your own words"?
I have read the Wiki page along with dozens of others over the years and given my explanation for the limits of C-14.
Seriously now, can no one here do the same?
The article epeeist referrred you to, shows a technique being pioneered to reduce the effect of background radiation, thus increasing by 20-35% the timespan that C14 dating can be used for.
If this is not simple enough for you, get a dictionary and look the words up.
Other Comments by irate_atheist
934. Comment #176245 by irate_atheist on May 7, 2008 at 1:55 am
918. Comment #176019 by seeker_of_truth -
This list has been destroyed by us already.
Personal opinion and belief are not evidence.
Other Comments by irate_atheist
935. Comment #176300 by seeker_of_truth on May 7, 2008 at 6:36 am
Simple words for a simple person, then. Here we go. The half-life of C14 is such that after approx 50,000 years of decay, the radioactivity of a once organic object is low enough so as to be virtually indistinguishable from background radiation levels.
So it only took three pages of posts to agree with me? No wonder I get tempted to just give up on you guys.
seeker_of_truth from three pages ago - The reason for this limit is that C-14, with a 5730 year half-life, would be in such miniscule amounts after 50,000 years that dating reliability would then become ineffectual.
Other Comments by seeker_of_truth
936. Comment #176304 by irate_atheist on May 7, 2008 at 6:44 am
935. Comment #176300 by seeker_of_truth -
I read that post of yours and then could not grasp why you carried on wittering about C14 dating. You even asked us to explain - in plain terms - why C14 dating for organic items of age approx 50,000 years plus is worse than useless.
I'm getting tired of wrestling an eel.
I'll ask you three straight questions that demand three straight answers.
1. How old do you acknowledge the Earth to be, and why?
2. How old do you acknowledge the Universe to be, and why?
3. What's your fucking point?
Other Comments by irate_atheist
937. Comment #176306 by Quetzalcoatl on May 7, 2008 at 6:47 am
Irate-
his answer will be: you tell me.
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
938. Comment #176308 by seeker_of_truth on May 7, 2008 at 6:50 am
Do you think there was a global flood as described in the bible?
If so, when?
Sometime in ancient history I believe there was a widespread flood, possibly global, and not localized as we know floods to occur today. It becomes difficult to deny the possibility when you consider such flood stories exist in almost every ancient culture of the world.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html
Not ice, not fire, not planetary collisions, not a shortage of oxygen, etc... but a flood.
Does one flood story that comes from the OT, among the many, somehow reflect poorly on the possibility of a global disaster of this type just because it is found in the OT and for no other good reason? If so, that would be a sad statement on your level of open-mindedness.
Other Comments by seeker_of_truth
939. Comment #176309 by epeeist on May 7, 2008 at 6:56 am
Comment #176308 by seeker_of_truth It might just possibly because people preferred to live near water rather than in places where there aren't any?Do you think there was a global flood as described in the bible?Sometime in ancient history I believe there was a widespread flood, possibly global, and not localized as we know floods to occur today. It becomes difficult to deny the possibility when you consider such flood stories exist in almost every ancient culture of the world.
If so, when?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html
And if you are going to reference talkorigins then you might want to include this one too - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html. An amount of it is relevant to any global flood.
Other Comments by epeeist
940. Comment #176310 by Quetzalcoatl on May 7, 2008 at 6:56 am
Sometime in ancient history I believe there was a widespread flood, possibly global, and not localized as we know floods to occur today. It becomes difficult to deny the possibility when you consider such flood stories exist in almost every ancient culture of the world.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html
Not ice, not fire, not planetary collisions, not a shortage of oxygen, etc... but a flood
No stories about PLANETARY COLLISIONS? There's a shock! And no stories about the shortage of oxygen either. How strange, given that ancient cultures all knew what oxygen is and how it fuels the body.
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
941. Comment #176311 by irate_atheist on May 7, 2008 at 6:56 am
938. Comment #176308 by seeker_of_truth -Sometime in ancient history I believe there was a widespread flood, possibly global, and not localized as we know floods to occur today. It becomes difficult to deny the possibility when you consider such flood stories exist in almost every ancient culture of the world.So there we have it. A self-confessed fool who can't understand evidence, has no comprehension of science, and thinks that seperate stories of separate floods at quite possibly different times (no date is ascribed to any of these events)- that may or may not have happened - can be classed as compelling evidence for a global flood.
Time of death: 13:50 GMT
Reason: Being a total fuckwit.
Other Comments by irate_atheist
942. Comment #176313 by seeker_of_truth on May 7, 2008 at 6:58 am
3. What's your fucking point?
I would have to say this much - if you people are any representation of the scientists that you rely on, the bias within these scientist's work would be difficult to offset in the attempt to arrive at truth. Not that it can't be done, just why make it so damn difficult?
Other Comments by seeker_of_truth
943. Comment #176314 by The Reverend Dark on May 7, 2008 at 6:59 am
Seeker notes
Does one flood story that comes from the OT, among the many, somehow reflect poorly on the possibility of a global disaster of this type just because it is found in the OT and for no other good reason? If so, that would be a sad statement on your level of open-mindedness.
A good reason for no global flood. No evidence to support the theory.
A good reason for multiple flood stories. Floods are commonplace, as living next to rivers in agrarian cultures is commonplace.
A good reason for floods in the Old Testament. The myths that predate the OT also feature floods and given the Nile and Euphrates rivers are subject to regular flooding, it is not a stretch to see these events entering the myths of the region.
All local disasters inflated by myth to more epic scale.
Be open minded, just don't let it fall out when pushed from behind by tales of gods and monsters.
Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark
Other Comments by The Reverend Dark
944. Comment #176315 by Quetzalcoatl on May 7, 2008 at 6:59 am
Seeker-
you didn't answer 1 and 2.
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
945. Comment #176316 by irate_atheist on May 7, 2008 at 7:03 am
942. Comment #176313 by seeker_of_truth -I would have to say this much - if you people are any representation of the scientists that you rely on, the bias within these scientist's work would be difficult to offset in the attempt to arrive at truth. Not that it can't be done, just why make it so difficult?Cards on the table time. What are your credentials in the scientific field?
Other Comments by irate_atheist
946. Comment #176317 by seeker_of_truth on May 7, 2008 at 7:04 am
you didn't answer 1 and 2.
Isn't that what we've been discussing for four days now?
If that's not some form of an answer then fuck it all.
Other Comments by seeker_of_truth
947. Comment #176318 by riandouglas on May 7, 2008 at 7:05 am
irate_atheist: Cards on the table time. What are your credentials in the scientific field?
He's read some ancient documents, as well as all of the creotard literature on how C-14 dating gives erroneous dates for dinasaur bones. Good enough?
Other Comments by riandouglas
948. Comment #176319 by Quetzalcoatl on May 7, 2008 at 7:06 am
Seeker-
your inability to give a straight answer to the questions is telling.
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
949. Comment #176320 by riandouglas on May 7, 2008 at 7:07 am
seeker_if_truth:
Isn't that what we've been discussing for four days now?
So, you're sticking to 6000 - infinity for the possible age for the earth and universe then? I've been away, but it doesn't look like your position has changed.
And now with the global flood. As Rev Dark said - any evidence for that?
Other Comments by riandouglas
950. Comment #176321 by seeker_of_truth on May 7, 2008 at 7:09 am
A good reason for no global flood. No evidence to support the theory.
Correction.
No evidence that your little scared-shitless-of a-deity that you don't believe exists brain can bear to consider.
Other Comments by seeker_of_truth
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
Links:
Quotes of Note:
"We admit that we are like apes, but we seldom realise that we are apes."
Richard Dawkins
"The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also"
Mark Twain
"I think it is not helpful to apply Darwinian language too widely. Conquest of nation by nation is too distant for Darwinian explanations to be helpful."
Richard Dawkins
"(Religion) With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion"
Steven Weinberg
"I doubt that religion can survive deep understanding. The shallows are its natural habitat. Cranks and fundamentalists are too often victimised as scapegoats for religion in general. It is only quite recently that Christianity reinvented itself in non-fundamentalist guise, and Islam has yet to do so (see Ibn Warraq's excellent book, Why I am not a Muslim). Moonies and scientologists get a bad press, but they just haven't been around as long as the accepted religions. Theology is a respectable discipline when it studies such subjects as moral philosophy, the psychology of religious belief and, above all, biblical history and literature. Like Bertie Wooster, my knowledge of the Bible is above average. I seem to know Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon almost by heart. I think that the Bible as literature should be a compulsory part of the national curriculum - you can't understand English literature and culture without it. But insofar as theology studies the nature of the divine, it will earn the right to be taken seriously when it provides the slightest, smallest smidgen of a reason for believing in the existence of the divine. Meanwhile, we should devote as much time to studying serious theology as we devote to studying serious fairies and serious unicorns. "
Richard Dawkins
Other Recommended Reading
Freedom Evolves
Daniel C. Dennett
Infidel
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Richard Dawkins
Alan Grafen, Mark Ridley
Under the Banner of Heaven
Jon Krakauer
Conciousness Explained
Daniel C. Dennett
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
'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
901. Comment #175960 by epeeist on May 6, 2008 at 9:34 am
Other Comments by epeeist