Wednesday, August 27, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version

Print | Comments |

Atheism could be science's contribution to religion

by Matthew Cobb, Jerry Conye

Reposted from:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v454/n7208/full/4541049d.html

A letter to Nature.

Nature 454, 1049. 28 Aug 2008

SIR — We were perplexed by your Editorial on the work of the Templeton Foundation ('Templeton's legacy' Nature 454, 253—254; 2008). Surely science is about finding material explanations of the world — explanations that can inspire those spooky feelings of awe, wonder and reverence in the hyper-evolved human brain. Religion, on the other hand, is about humans thinking that awe, wonder and reverence are the clue to understanding a God-built Universe. (The same is true of religion's poor cousin, 'spirituality', which you slip into your Editorial rather as a creationist uses 'intelligent design'.) There is a fundamental conflict here, one that can never be reconciled until all religions cease making claims about the nature of reality. The scientific study of religion is indeed full of big questions that need to be addressed, such as why belief in religion is negatively correlated with an acceptance of evolution. One could consider psychological studies of why humans are superstitious and believe impossible things, and comparative sociological studies of religion using materialist explanations of the rise and fall of the world's belief systems. Perhaps the Templeton Foundation is thinking of funding such research. The outcome of such work, we predict, will not bring science and religion (or 'spirituality') any closer to one another. You suggest that science may bring about "advances in theological thinking". In reality, the only contribution that science can make to the ideas of religion is atheism.

Matthew Cobb Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK e-mail: cobb@manchester.ac.uk

Jerry Coyne Department of Ecology and Evolution, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637, USA

Posted: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 105 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #238287 by Laurie Fraser on August 27, 2008 at 11:58 pm

More NOMA nonsense, and from Nature, of all places.

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

2. Comment #238290 by Ian on August 28, 2008 at 12:09 am

I read this the other way: That the Nature editorial was NOMA and this is a timely rebuttal.

I don't see why the Templeton Foundation has the slightest relevance to science or to scientists in their work.

In fact I don't see that the foundation has the slightest relevancy to spirituality either.

Can I have $100,000 now? ;-)

Other Comments by Ian

3. Comment #238292 by theantitheist on August 28, 2008 at 12:11 am

I'd disagree that this is NOMA , my understanding of that term is that Religion and Science do not 'overlap' and can be run in parrelel. This isn't saying that, it's saying that science is used to study religous effects i.e. belief in god and the wonder of the universe.

But it is saying that religion can offer nothing to the Sciences in terms of advancement. (SO Semi-NOMA??)

Hang on, now i've read Ian's and looked back at Lauries, i think i understand that Laurie was accusing Nature of the original NOMA text and that me and Ian simply read Lauries "More NOMA nonsense" as relating to the text about, which it wasn't.

My bag

Other Comments by theantitheist

4. Comment #238293 by SteveN on August 28, 2008 at 12:16 am

For those of you without access to Nature, here is the original editorial to which the letter above is replying:

When a wealthy individual seeks to leave a legacy through scientific philanthropy, researchers usually greet such generosity enthusiastically. But the death of investment mogul John Templeton marks an unusual, and notable, exception. At the time of his passing last week, Templeton had poured some US$1.5 billion into the John Templeton Foundation, which funds research at the intersection of science and spirituality. Critics have maintained that the foundation needlessly conflates science and faith, with some calling for an outright boycott of Templeton funding.

Templeton was a deeply spiritual, albeit unorthodox, individual (see page 290). He lived a life firmly rooted in the Christian traditions of modesty and charity. Yet he was also a great admirer of science, the undogmatic practice of which he believed led to intellectual humility. His love of science and his God led him to form his foundation in 1987 on the basis that a mutual dialogue might enrich the understanding of both.

This publication would turn away from religion in seeking explanations for how the world works, and believes that science is likely to go further in explaining human moral impulses than some religious people will welcome. Thus it shares a degree of suspicion with many in the scientific community at any attempt by religiously driven organizations to fund science. A chief concern is that the influential Templeton Foundation might be seeking to inject religion into the scientific world. And it is easy to understand that concern given the political activism of many American fundamentalists and their efforts to promote ideas such as intelligent design, which posits a divine hand in evolution. The foundation's most vigorous critics accuse it of attempting to lace science with spiritualism.

That claim is somewhat ironic, as Templeton himself seemed to have just the opposite in mind. He believed institutional religion to be antiquated, and hoped a dialogue with researchers might bring about advances in theological thinking. The foundation's substantial funding of science and religion departments around the world is directed towards those ends. Theologians have also used foundation money to develop and promote arguments that reconcile some of the apparent contradictions between science and religion. For those many scientists with a faith, promoting the compatibility of science with faith is a prudent and even necessary goal. Strict atheists may deplore such activities, but they can happily ignore them too.

The foundation's scientific agenda addresses 'big questions', which has sometimes resulted in work that many researchers regard as scientifically marginal. One field popular with the foundation is positive psychology, which seeks to gauge the effects of positive thinking on patients, and which critics argue has yielded little. Also heavily supported are cosmological studies into the existence of multiple universes -- a notion frequently criticized for lying at the edge of falsifiability. The concern is that such research has been unduly elevated by the foundation's backing. But whatever one thinks of positive psychology and the like, the foundation's support has not taken anything away from conventional funding. And in the field of cosmology at least, it has arguably yielded some new and interesting ideas.

The foundation's management now falls chiefly to Templeton's son, John M. Templeton Jr, whose Christian beliefs are reportedly much more conventional than his father's. A critical scrutiny of the foundation's scientific influence continues to be warranted, and no scientific organization should accept sums of money so large that its mission could be perceived as being swayed by religious or spiritual considerations. But critics' total opposition to the Templeton Foundation's unusual mix of science and spirituality is unwarranted.

Other Comments by SteveN

5. Comment #238294 by Richard Dawkins on August 28, 2008 at 12:22 am

I presume that Laurie Fraser's NOMA criticism was directed against the Nature Editorial, not against Cobb and Coyne's letter of response? It would be helpful if critics could make the target of their criticism clear, to avoid misunderstanding.

There's a lively and almost entirely positive discussion of this letter over at Pharyngula.

Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

6. Comment #238298 by Diacanu on August 28, 2008 at 12:32 am

*Smirking sardonically, arms crossed, leaning on the nearest door-frame*

Tch, tch, tch, scolded by the big boss, Laurie.

I'm quite possibly the foulest most offensive poster here, and I haven't managed that yet.

...wait, what am I even doing in this thread getting on the Dawk's radar?

*Runs like Hell*

Other Comments by Diacanu

7. Comment #238300 by SteveN on August 28, 2008 at 12:38 am

I personally have always disliked and distrusted the Templeton Foundation and I think that Nature did a disservice to science by publishing the editorial as it did. The TF's efforts to promote 'research at the intersection of science and spirituality' implies that spirituality is a real area of investigation distinct from science. Throwing money at religion/spirituality in an attempt to give it scientific credibility is, I feel, deluded at best. I was therefore disappointed by Nature's editorial when it first appeared and applaud Cobb and Coyne's direct and forthright letter.

Cheers

SteveN

Other Comments by SteveN

8. Comment #238301 by critica on August 28, 2008 at 12:39 am

Sigh..... The problem is that whenever religion plays on the arena of rationality it has to lose. Stay off the field and try not to get noticed would be the best advice I can give - then religion can NOMA to its heart's content (though hopefully reason won't...).

Other Comments by critica

9. Comment #238304 by Diacanu on August 28, 2008 at 12:41 am

Diacanu's mom-
*Lifts serving tray lid to reveal a turd*
Would you like some bullshit with your science, sweetie?

Diacanu- No, ma!

*Whole thread groans and boos*

Other Comments by Diacanu

10. Comment #238305 by Raiko on August 28, 2008 at 12:42 am

I would give neither of the letters any NOMA-label at all. Anything that involves speaking out for or against the Templeton Foundation can't possibly be in the "NOMA"-field.

Other Comments by Raiko

11. Comment #238307 by Diacanu on August 28, 2008 at 12:50 am

Raiko-

Didn't you used to be Mitchell Gilks or something?

Other Comments by Diacanu

12. Comment #238313 by Sargeist on August 28, 2008 at 1:28 am

I think Raiko and Mitchell are different people, who both happen to appreciate lady love.

In reality, the only contribution that science can make to the ideas of religion is atheism.

I find this sentence to be slightly ambiguous. I interpret it as meaning that science will lead people to atheism, and hence destroy religion. But it could also be read as being more like: "Science will only inform atheism, and it can say nothing about religion because science and religion are about different things."

In fact, I thought Laurie was referring to this sort of interpretation, which is not a hard thing to get from it. It is only because of the authors' names and Richard's approval of the article that I am confident that it is critical of NOMA.

Other Comments by Sargeist

13. Comment #238315 by Vaal on August 28, 2008 at 1:37 am

In reality, the only contribution that science can make to the ideas of religion is atheism

Absolutely! The whole point of science is to describe the world without invoking the supernatural.

Every new discovery is a death-knell to religion, with the religious back-tracking to try and find another gap to fill with a supernatural agent. Why do you think there is such bitter opposition to evolution from the more religiously credulous, as it topples mankind from their privileged position in the Universe.

How many times have we heard, "I am not an animal". Well, yes you ARE you credulous fool, whether you believe it, or not.

EDIT: Thanks Laurie. Fixed.

Other Comments by Vaal

14. Comment #238318 by Laurie Fraser on August 28, 2008 at 1:42 am

Comment #238294 by Richard Dawkins

Thanks, Richard - yes, my criticism was directed towards Nature. Sorry if I was ambiguous, other posters.

Edit - Vaal, you've left your bold on.

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

15. Comment #238322 by SteveN on August 28, 2008 at 1:48 am

Sargeist said:

It is only because of the authors' names and Richard's approval of the article that I am confident that it is critical of NOMA.

Don't forget that the Templeton foundation has been, in effect, trying to do away with the idea of NOMA, sponsoring as it has the scientific investigation of religious beliefs. I dislike both NOMA and 'research at the intersection of science and spirituality' because both assume that there is such a thing as spirituality/religion that is partly or wholly distinct from scientific investigation. As I have said before, science does indeed have the potential to explain everything, including those areas of human experience usually considered the domain of religion and spirituality. My Venn diagram would not have two distinct (NOMA) or partially overlapping (Templeton Foundation) circles but instead would be comprised of a (very small) circle (spirituality/religion) contained within one big one (science).

Other Comments by SteveN

16. Comment #238325 by Dhamma on August 28, 2008 at 2:03 am

Laurie, I assume you edited the post, because I can't see why one would misinterpret it.

I wish this forum would display if someone's edited their posts or not, as it would clear up a lot of confusion.

Anyway, the article was spot-on. They made it quite clear religion and science can never co-exist peacefully.

If the bible is supposedly HOLY, then how can any single aspect of it be incorrect? A book inspired by an omnipotent and omniscient God, would never allow a single flaw, yet Christians today need to "interpret" everything in it in order to comply with their deluded beliefs. The creation took six days, and the days can NOT be symbolic for the evolution.

Other Comments by Dhamma

17. Comment #238328 by Laurie Fraser on August 28, 2008 at 2:10 am

Hi Dhamma - no, I didn't edit it. I think some people thought I was accusing the letter-writers of endorsing NOMA, when I naturally assumed people would realise I was talking about the editorial itself.

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

18. Comment #238331 by Lucas on August 28, 2008 at 2:19 am

I thought your meaning was clear, Laurie.

Quite nice rebuttal. Succinct enough to just copy and paste anytime a NOMA argument comes up.

Other Comments by Lucas

19. Comment #238332 by Dhamma on August 28, 2008 at 2:24 am

Well, I'm with you Laurie :)

You guys did really well in the Olympics, by the way! Which is the least one could say about Sweden.

Other Comments by Dhamma

20. Comment #238333 by Peacebeuponme on August 28, 2008 at 2:28 am

There's a lively and almost entirely positive discussion of this letter over at Pharyngula.

Well, we best start one there then. Don't want to let the side down...

I must say I did like this quote

The same is true of religion's poor cousin, 'spirituality', which you slip into your Editorial rather as a creationist uses 'intelligent design'.

The Nature article paints a somewhat different picture of John Templeton and the Foundation from what I've read from Richard and others. Does the Foundation actively push a theist/christian agenda, or simply "fund research at the intersection of science and spirituality"? As the letter writers note, such research, if properly conceived and carried out, could be useful.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

21. Comment #238338 by Richard Dawkins on August 28, 2008 at 2:46 am

Well, we best start one there then. Don't want to let the side down...

Did you mean 'there' or 'here'?
Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

22. Comment #238347 by Angels On a Pin Head on August 28, 2008 at 3:00 am

I'm rather fond of NOMA myself. But then the question we have to ask is then "what are the magisteria of science and of religion?". I tentatively propose the following:

Science: REALITY.
Religion: Everything else.

Other Comments by Angels On a Pin Head

23. Comment #238349 by Peacebeuponme on August 28, 2008 at 3:04 am

Richard

Did you mean 'there' or 'here'?

Yes. A great start to fostering lively debate...

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

24. Comment #238350 by jaydon64 on August 28, 2008 at 3:05 am

a very impressive rebuttal, short and straight to the point, 'do not say a little in many words but a great deal in a few'- Pythagoras

Other Comments by jaydon64

25. Comment #238354 by JAMCAM87 on August 28, 2008 at 3:10 am

16. Comment #238325 by Dhamma

Anyway, the article was spot-on. They made it quite clear religion and science can never co-exist peacefully.

I took the opposite reading Dhamma. I think the article is clearly NOMA.

But critics' total opposition to the Templeton Foundation's unusual mix of science and spirituality is unwarranted.

I am disapponited in Nature.

Other Comments by JAMCAM87

26. Comment #238355 by JAMCAM87 on August 28, 2008 at 3:13 am

I'm rather fond of NOMA myself. But then the question we have to ask is then "what are the magisteria of science and of religion?". I tentatively propose the following:

Science: REALITY.
Religion: Everything else

I assume you are joking. There isn't an "everything else" I'm afraid.

Other Comments by JAMCAM87

27. Comment #238357 by JAMCAM87 on August 28, 2008 at 3:16 am

"Atheism could be science's contribution to religion"

This doesn't make any sense. Does it mean atheism is damaging religion? Like a negative contribution? Or does it mean that science is creating the religion of atheism ? What a terrible sentence.

Other Comments by JAMCAM87

28. Comment #238362 by Mark Till on August 28, 2008 at 3:29 am

Great letter.

There is a fundamental conflict here, one that can never be reconciled until all religions cease making claims about the nature of reality.

Direct hit. Give those men a coconut!

NOMA would only work if religions were the equivalent of The Lord of the Rings - stories about another hypothetical universe, far, far away...

But as soon as you make claims about this universe (that it was the work of an intelligent designer, that God intervenes in material affairs, that such-and-such a miracle happened in such-and-such year) then I'm afraid we have a big overlap.

Other Comments by Mark Till

29. Comment #238364 by Dhamma on August 28, 2008 at 3:31 am

Never seen a thread with such a magnitude of confusion.

Jamcam87: I don't want to be offensive, but if it's not me being very confused right now, I'm pretty certain you were wrong in all three of your posts.

When it comes to my post, I apparently need to make it clear I was referring to the rebuttal at the top of the page, and not the editorial in Nature. The rebuttal is not NOMA, at all.

Other Comments by Dhamma

30. Comment #238365 by Wosret on August 28, 2008 at 3:32 am

11. Comment #238307 by Diacanu

No, I used to be, Mitchell Gilks, I'm currently, Mitchell Gilks, and if all goes well, in the future I will continue to be, Mitchell Gilks. (Though technically I've actually only been "Mitchell Gilks" for about four years. I changed my name when I was twenty.) I did use that same picture as an avatar, minus the animation, at one point though. It was ages ago however, and I believe it was before Raiko was even a member. Personally I think she is crazy to cut out the rest of the picture. It is a beautiful picture. Natsuki and Shizuru, one of my favorite couples.

23. Comment #238349 by Peacebeuponme

Lol...dude, you can't answer a multiple choice question with "yes"...

Other Comments by Wosret

31. Comment #238367 by Tycho the Dog on August 28, 2008 at 3:38 am

The 'intersection' between science and religion is more like the front in an ongoing war, with religion ceding much ground, but still far from being defeated. And the Templeton Foundation is like the UN peacekeepers, a well-intentioned nuisance/distraction, with the hopeless mandate of reconciling two ultimately irreconcilable world views.

Other Comments by Tycho the Dog

32. Comment #238368 by decius on August 28, 2008 at 3:41 am

In Richard's immortal words directed at Horgan, a Templeton's muppet who co-attended Beyond Belief 2006:

Templeton's money corrupts science.

A concise, direct truism, that sums it up and could be extended to all organisations approaching science with an ideological agenda.

Does anyone know when and why Nature began its free-fall into the NOMA-friendly editorial line?

OT - Tuesday night, I had the great honour to meet Oystein Elgaroy, who happened to be visiting Finland. Here is a picture taken during our wine-fuelled dinner, when I had the privilege to sponge off Oystein's enormous knowledge and scholarship.

Other Comments by decius

33. Comment #238369 by Peacebeuponme on August 28, 2008 at 3:44 am

Mitchell Gilks

Lol...dude, you can't answer a multiple choice question with "yes"...

Fucking hell what's wrong with me!

My mind has been taken over by this person - Miss Teen USA South Carolina

I give up.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

34. Comment #238371 by Wosret on August 28, 2008 at 3:49 am

I personally think that this that this letter delivers a powerful left and right blow to the whole idea of NOMA. I completely concur that the idea is nonsense until religion retracts all of its claims about how reality operates, and the origins of reality. These are inherently scientific questions, and religion is very much infringing on science's domain when it makes its bald assertions.

When religion can resign itself to ritualistic, historical, and cultural gatherings and celebrations, then and only then will NOMA be viable. I suppose they can even have myth making as long as they are accompanied with a disclaimer that explicitly states that their stories are just that, stories, not to be taken as any more reflecting the workings of reality than "Star Wars".

(*Edit*) Changed "article" to "letter".

Other Comments by Wosret

35. Comment #238372 by Raiko on August 28, 2008 at 3:51 am

Diacanu -

coincidentally, Mitchell Gilks was the first person I really had any conversation with on here. He told me he liked my avatar picture, if I remember correctly. I either missed or wasn't told (or don't remember) he used the same picture in an icon, too, before I joined here.

Strange - I thought "same avatar pic = same person" is the kind of logic only creationists capable of? ;)

Angels On a Pin Head:

NOMA only works when religion doesn't make any scientific claims. I have yet to run into any religion that doesn't.

Other Comments by Raiko

36. Comment #238373 by Peacebeuponme on August 28, 2008 at 3:53 am

Mitchell

When religion can resign itself to ritualistic, historical, and cultural gatherings and celebrations, then and only then will NOMA be viable. I suppose they can even have myth making as long as them are accompanied with a disclaimer that explicitly states that their stories are just that, stories not to be taken as any more reflecting the workings of reality than "Star Wars".

I agree with you completely. Every claim made by religion is a scientific claim, which either stands or falls according to the evidence.

We should have no problem with the singing and dancing. However, I'm not sure people would much bother with ritual if it was explicitly known to everyone that they don't work as stated.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

37. Comment #238375 by Dhamma on August 28, 2008 at 4:01 am

Decius. Is this the first confirmed date among RD.net members? =)

Other Comments by Dhamma

38. Comment #238376 by Wosret on August 28, 2008 at 4:02 am

36. Comment #238372 by Raiko

I didn't bother to mention it to you because it doesn't really matter. I've used dozens of pictures and animations on here, I change my avatar frequently, so it only stands to reason that someone will use something similar to me, or I'll use something similar to someone else eventually.

Though even if that were not true, it isn't as if I own the rights to the picture, or have created it. I am in fact very happy to see any one appreciating yuri, which is my favorite thing in the world.

Of course the crack at homophobes is also quite pleasant.

Also, one good way to tell me and you apart, is that we definitely articulate ourselves quite differently, but most prominently (I hope I'm remembering correctly) you're German, and I'm sadly unilingual.

Other Comments by Wosret

39. Comment #238377 by decius on August 28, 2008 at 4:04 am

Comment #238375 by Dhamma

I don't think so, we even had a marriage in the past.

Other Comments by decius

40. Comment #238380 by physicist on August 28, 2008 at 4:12 am

I find the article in Nature well-balanced; it mentions both the goals of the Templeton Foundation and the criticism that has been raised against it. And we should not forget that it was written in connection with an obituary; it would have been distasteful if they had launched a right-out harsh criticism against the man one-and-a-half weeks after his death.

Other Comments by physicist

41. Comment #238383 by JAMCAM87 on August 28, 2008 at 4:16 am

Dhamma,

Yes the rebuttal is not NOMA, but it is not an article - it is a rebuttal. That's why I was confused. I would refer to the article as the one which appeared in nature.

Other Comments by JAMCAM87

42. Comment #238384 by decius on August 28, 2008 at 4:16 am

Comment #238380 by physicist

I find the article in Nature well-balanced

As if it were a journalistic virtue. This attitude disregards the very foundations of good information, which should be a quest for truth, rather than be giving equal weight to opposing views.

Other Comments by decius

43. Comment #238385 by Peacebeuponme on August 28, 2008 at 4:17 am

physicist

it would have been distasteful if they had launched a right-out harsh criticism against the man one-and-a-half weeks after his death.

You wouldn't have liked Christopher Hitchens' comments about Jerry Falwell immediately after his death then.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

44. Comment #238392 by Wosret on August 28, 2008 at 4:27 am

44. Comment #238385 by Peacebeuponme

I did.

Other Comments by Wosret

45. Comment #238394 by InfuriatedSciTeacher on August 28, 2008 at 4:31 am

The Nature article paints a somewhat different picture of John Templeton and the Foundation from what I've read from Richard and others. Does the Foundation actively push a theist/christian agenda, or simply "fund research at the intersection of science and spirituality"? As the letter writers note, such research, if properly conceived and carried out, could be useful.

Funding research at the intersection of science and spirituality in the manner Cobb and Conye propose would certainly be positive, although I'd have to say that falls more into psych and cognitice science than the topics where the Templeton Foundation currently throws its money. Have a look at the synopsis of the Giberson book on their website if you'd like an example of what I mean... I wouldn't say that nothing funded by them has value, but that some of the studies and publications they fund have a distinctly NOMA, if not religious apologist, air about them.

Other Comments by InfuriatedSciTeacher

46. Comment #238400 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 28, 2008 at 5:25 am

Before all of this I had been opposed to the idea of the Templeton Fund and it's challenge that seems to have brought out all the religious people to bend their faith to try and force it to fit in to the real world. Now that I've read this thread with a summarising quote "Templeton's money corrupts science", I still dislike the Templeton Fund, but am now more interested in what Templeton's unorthodox faith might be. What comes to mind is Blake. I have to say that I really like some of Blake's poetry. His criticism of the Church and organised religion is superb, and yet he himself was a "spiritual" man whom I respect.

Just wondered if it was possible to make sense of admiring such people when spirituality makes it so difficult to to make sense of our universe? Does anyone else admire a spiritual person?

It's a question. Not a statement.

Other Comments by ColdFusionLazarus

47. Comment #238404 by Wosret on August 28, 2008 at 5:36 am

47. Comment #238400 by ColdFusionLazarus

You don't have to agree with someone on every single point to admire them. I admire plenty of people that I either don't know what they believe when it comes to religion, or that are religious.

They will lose some of my respect if they start spouting anti-scientific rhetoric, or something of that nature, but when what they believe about reality is not relevant to why I respect them, then I don't even consider it.

Almost all of the people I do admire, I am ignorant of their views on religion. It isn't hugely important to me.

Other Comments by Wosret

48. Comment #238409 by NewEnglandBob on August 28, 2008 at 5:44 am

t would have been distasteful if they had launched a right-out harsh criticism against the man one-and-a-half weeks after his death.

I disagree. If the target warranted the criticism while alive then his/her demise is no reason to hold back. After all, he/she can no longer be affected by it. Only if the criticism was held off, waiting for the death, would it be wrong and cowardly.

Other Comments by NewEnglandBob

49. Comment #238410 by decius on August 28, 2008 at 5:49 am

Comment #238400 by ColdFusionLazarus

Does anyone else admire a spiritual person?

One can admire a person, while at the same time decrying their delusions.

The word "spiritual" implies acceptance of the existence of incorporeal entities like the soul. All available evidence favours monism over dualism, therefore I treat declarations of "spirituality" with the same contempt that I reserve to all unsubstantiated claims rooted in wishful thinking.

Other Comments by decius

50. Comment #238411 by bucketchemist on August 28, 2008 at 5:51 am

That Templeton's money corrupts science would certainly be true if it was viewed as an entirely valid source of funding for science research. My impression is that is not viewed in this way; scientists like Dawkins quite rightly view it as tainted and presumably would avoid contact with it. If viewed as a source of funding for 'theological research', which I think is more realistic, then it seems more positive. To the extent that theological ideas can be addressed empirically, (which admittedly is not much), such research can only bring religion more in line with mainstream scientific thought. Research into Positive Psychology and speculative cosmology might be pretty marginal from a scientific perspective, but it is a huge improvement on talking snakes and parthenogenesis.

Also, if the only contribution that science makes to religion is atheism, this does not necessarily mean the immediate abandonment of the whole of religious belief and doctrine. It may simply mean a shift from a religion which contains the idea of a personal god to one that doesn't, rather like Buddhism. A small step, but definately in the right direction if you ask me.

Other Comments by bucketchemist

Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 3 | Next | Last