1. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90962 by kellym78 on November 26, 2007 at 8:15 pm

No Faith in Science
Kelly O'Connor

Response to Paul Davies' "Taking Science on Faith"
NY Times Op-Ed
11/24/07

I have faith (pun intended) that at some point in his studies, Paul Davies has held a dictionary in his hands, and possibly even opened it. These days, it's even less cumbersome with the advent of online dictionaries and the added benefit of providing multiple sources from which one can gain a better understanding of a particular word. In order to correct the compilation of fallacies presented in this piece, we need to start at the beginning—definitions.

From the Compact Oxford English Dictionary, "faith" is defined as: complete trust or confidence, strong belief in a religion, or a system of religious belief. From Dictionary.com, it is defined as: confidence or trust in a person or thing; belief that is not based on proof; belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion; belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.; a system of religious belief; the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.; the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.

Looking at these definitions, one can see that every definition is antithetical to the foundational principles of science. A scientist who tests a hypothesis with "complete trust and confidence" in the outcome is doing a disservice to all of those who adhere to the principles of logical and rational inquiry, and who expect the scientific community to do so as well. Does Mr. Davies really believe that science is "belief not based on proof?" If so, perhaps a refresher course in the scientific method is the solution to that problem. Even the least innocuous definitions include words like "obligation", "allegiance", and "fidelity." An honest rationalist would be made a hypocrite by maintaining any of the above qualities in their quest to discover the nature of reality.

Davies' assertion that science assumes that nature is "ordered in a rational and intelligible way" is simply not accurate. Most scientists understand that while we can use inductive logic to predict with reasonable certainty that what has occurred with regularity in the past will continue to do so, such as the earth continuing to orbit the sun in 365 twenty-four hour days. Any scientist worth his salt would admit, though, that there is no absolute certainty—just reasonable expectations based on past observations. The fact that we have not seen any major variations in this supposed order is solely because our life spans are just not long enough. All of our anthropological history is not long enough to observe these kinds of massive changes. Davies' statement that the scientists' "faith has been justified" betrays his ignorance of the nature of this argument. "Justified faith" isn't faith. It's reason. Replace the word "faith" with "hypothesis." Now we're talking science.

Davies' insistence that there must be a "why" for this is a reasonable question with no easy answers. From where do these laws come? What Davies is doing here is using the concept of "law" as a human invention imposed upon society and conflating that to mean something similar to what the "laws" of nature are. There is no intergalactic judicial system that hands these "laws" down and forces our planet to obey them. These laws are merely discovered by humans and arranged into a coherent explanation given the evidence available—not created.

His allusion to the dogmatic training he endured during college may very well be true, but more than likely he just resents the fact that in scientific studies, one makes the assumption that those theories that have been supported by numerous experiments and other evidences are true until proven otherwise. The alternative would be a type of mental paralysis. We must work with the information that is available to us, and even Descartes agrees with me there.

Davies further caricatures the standpoint of the scientific community with an allusion that these laws exist "reasonlessly", and in a sense that is true because there is no external reason that governs them, but his intent with that statement was much more insidious. There are "reasons" for the laws of physics and their manifestation in the universe. Gravity exists because the motion of the earth keeps us firmly rooted to the ground, or at least fighting against that force if we momentarily leave it. In one of his next statements, he tunes into the reason for the apparent logical order of these phenomena—perception.

We are a species heavily inclined, possibly even driven, to fit these things into a coherent framework. Before scientific inquiry of the type we have today was possible, people made up stories to attempt to explain that which could not be understood. These days, we no longer need the sun god Ra to drive his chariot of fire across the sky because we understand the reason why the sun appears to rise and set. Davies' issue with this is that he wants to believe that this reason comes from something more than just the natural functions of the universe. The fact that he wishes that was the case does not make it so.

Life exists on this planet, and possibly more that we are incapable of reaching in this vast universe, not because of "laws" handed down by a supernatural being, but because of the mechanics and function of the universe. We are a product of that process, and any scientific laws are mere discoveries about the way the universe operates that we have observed, recorded, and tested over millennia. Nevertheless, the millennia in which our race has existed is but a speck on the timeline of the universe, and to suggest that any of these occurrences are immutable is extremely ignorant. He claims we selected this, but nothing could be further from the truth. We are here because earth happened to develop the right conditions to support carbon-based life forms.

I couldn't imagine any reasonable scientist claiming that the physical laws of the universe come from some outside source as Davies claims they believe. This is a blatant attempt to disparage the work of credible researchers who realize that the laws of the universe are a result of an infinite number of unknown occurrences, not a cause. The laws exist only because we have labeled them so, much like the phylogenetic tree that labels and categorizes all living creatures. The fact that an accurate account detailing the reasons for this existence cannot be made is because we either can't know how the universe operated before we were here to observe it, or because we just don't know yet.

The attempt to equate physical laws with theological doctrine demonstrates Davies' desperation to make this connection between physical laws and some "outside force", because he is clearly grasping at straws with this one. Everybody before Isaac Newton thought that there was some kind of order and rational explanation for the operation of the universe, what little they knew of it, and resorted to gods as a result of the absolute penury of other explanations. Mental illnesses were attributed to demon possession and that made perfect sense to them. People still attribute natural disasters to an angry god, much like Jonathan Edwards in his infamous sermon, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." That does not give his theory (and I mean idea here, not scientific theory) any more credibility, and as far as I can see, it actually reduces it. It's time that we start holding people accountable for their underhanded attempts to discredit science by equating it with religion. Davies should be embarrassed to feel the need to resort to such inane excuses for his own inability to say, "I don't know."

------------------------------------------
Reposted from:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/blog/kellym78
Feed:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/blog/428/feed

2. The New Atheists on Organized Freethought

Comment #82827 by kellym78 on October 28, 2007 at 1:10 am

edit : not worth the time

3. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #82343 by kellym78 on October 26, 2007 at 5:39 am

I'm slightly perturbed about the videos being taken down as well (particularly since they were hosted on our youtube account). We'll be talking to Margaret Downey at some point today, but it's possible that the decision came from somebody else and she may have no control over it. *shrugs*

AAI did not retain exclusive rights and in fact expressly permitted RDF and RRS (yeah! acronyms! LOL) to record material and use it as we see fit. They're probably just concerned about their DVD sales being negatively impacted, but I don't understand why they would have allowed that kind of agreement in the first place if profit was their primary concern. RDF doesn't seem to be concerned about putting the videos online despite the fact that they will also be releasing a DVD of material. Meh.

4. The New Atheists on Organized Freethought

Comment #82043 by kellym78 on October 25, 2007 at 3:28 pm

Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion. I don't really feel like getting into it again on these forums, but we have supporters and haters, just like everybody else.
The vast majority of people with such strong opinions of our character (as amanda marie apparently does) that I have encountered actually know very little about us and are running with the caricature that has been handed to them by somebody else. Whatever.
When it gets down to brass tacks, it doesn't matter that much whether they hate us or love us--the people who are responsible for catapulting atheism into the public sphere unanimously support us and recognize that some of that notoriety is due to our efforts. Some random internet haters aren't going to stop that, and I'm honestly sick of wasting my time trying to convince people to like me.

5. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.

Comment #71860 by kellym78 on September 19, 2007 at 7:39 pm

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/miscellanous_forums/trollville/7477

Go here for more info on the Todd Friel incident.

6. Open letter to YouTube video

Comment #71847 by kellym78 on September 19, 2007 at 6:51 pm

William - obviously, Brian is already aware of that considering the fact that he's been through this once before and in fact did (and is) suing Uri Geller.
The one making the fool of himself here is you, since you clearly know nothing of attorney/client privilege and the fact that one cannot give out that kind of info publicly.
I'm sorry if you can't stand that our group is the one that got this issue out there and into the media by using "childish" tactics, but then you would probably have done nothing and allowed these kinds of egregious abuses to occur.

7. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.

Comment #71839 by kellym78 on September 19, 2007 at 6:42 pm

169. Comment #71695 by Bonzai on September 19, 2007 at 1:31 pm

I fail to see how Sapient's method encourages thinking. Quite the opposite, I suspect many thinking people would be turned off.

His appeals are probably to very young people who need a reason to rebel against their upbringing and think it is "cool" to join an "alternative" group like "Atheists" with a big A. In other words he works on people's emotion and appeals to their herd instinct instead of their intellect. To his supporters he is probably just like a charismatic preacher.

First of all, many "thinking people" don't need to be shocked out of their delusions. So, that isn't our primary target demographic. What good will preaching to the choir do?

Secondly, didn't Richard Dawkins start this whole "OUT Campaign" with...a big "A"? Hmmm...maybe he's in on the same kind of conspiracy, relying on charisma and in-your-face tactics to get attention for his cause?

8. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.

Comment #71659 by kellym78 on September 19, 2007 at 12:30 pm

Blargh. I never got back to posting the rest of my responses since I've been dealing with all the other nonsense going on right now, but I had to respond to the previous comment here.

First of all, "Joe Sixpack" is the same person who voted for Bush instead of Gore or Kerry because Bush seems like a better guy to sit down and have a beer with. You must not understand that the average person actually dislikes intellectual people and considers them pompous and arrogant.

Secondly, you have no idea what our history is with Todd Friel and therefore cannot know why that went down the way it did.

The more you times you say that we represent all atheists will not make it any more true. I disagree with many atheists, particularly the more passive appeaser types, but I don't berate them for making me look bad.

So, in short, get a grip.

9. Youtube hater, I respect your right to free speech.

Comment #70779 by kellym78 on September 16, 2007 at 10:17 pm

Since I haven't weighed in here yet, this will be long. Sorry. :-/

23. Comment #70594 by Spinoza on September 16, 2007 at 8:02 am:

Idiots annoy me, and I really wish no atheists were idiots.

So then you have no interest in seeing the influence of dogmatic religious beliefs on society be eradicated, or, at the very least, minimized? If that is not your position, then I suggest you reconsider this statement since the majority of the population, and therefore a sizeable amount of the power in a democracy, are what you would refer to as "idiots".

But it seems more and more likely that there is a phenomenon of bandwagon atheism that The God Delusion has started... and it's not even clear that some of the "converted" even know what concepts they're disbelieving in.

As much as I admire Dawkins and his work, I would hesitate to say that TGD is what started all of this "bandwagon atheism." (disclaimer: I realize that Dawkins' atheism was clear to readers of his previous works, but that was not the raison d'etre for those publications.) If anybody could be credited, it would probably be Harris since The End of Faith preceded TGD. Also, the RRS was already formed prior to the release of TGD.

35. Comment #70614 by Spinoza on September 16, 2007 at 10:01 am: You are exactly the sort of moron that makes large parts of the "Atheist Movement" (whatever the hell that is) look completely ridiculous in the eyes of most people (and it does, especially to intelligent atheists).

You are exactly the sort of uber-intellectual that makes large parts of the average population think that atheists are all egotistical snobs into whose exclusive group they would never find company. (Not to mention that "intelligent atheists" are not the ones that we are seeking to impact. It's the "idiots", as you so kindly put it, who desperately need this message.)

To make atheism a "cause" rather than simply a fact is to marginalize it a priori.

The "cause" is not atheism per se; rather, it is to reduce the influence of religious idealogies on society and to interject a supposedly taboo subject into public discourse in order to effect the trajectory of the current socio-political atmosphere while simultaneously reducing the amount of psychological, or possibly physical, harm being caused by dogmatic belief.

And yes, the truth matters, and we should make people aware of the fact that their beliefs are false...The truth does not need salesmen, it provides its own vindication.

Am I the only one who sees the contradiction here? How do we make people "aware of the fact that their beliefs are false" without what you have termed "proselytizing"? If the truth is so self-evident, why isn't every human being an atheist already? Atheism will be vindicated; unfortunately, it will be after the dissenting individuals die. Not too much help for those of us left on this planet.

36. Comment #70620 by Mitchell Gilks on September 16, 2007 at 10:29 am
After seeing the RRS for the first time on tv arguing with those fundy nuts I went to their site right afterward to complain about all the mistakes they made, but on their homepage it asked people not to send in corrections, because they had enough. They had already been fully informed of all their mistakes. Are these people really qualified to argue something that they made so many noticable mistakes on that they have to ask people to stop sending in corrections?

Brian already answered this, but I just wanted to add my own thoughts here: when was the last time you were not only in front of an audience, but being broadcast on national television? Was it comfortable for you? Was your performance utterly perfect? If not, then you should probably take that into consideration before being so quick to criticize.

37. Comment #70623 by okmichigan on September 16, 2007 at 10:48 am:
im glad im not the only one annoyed with sapient and the rrs. enough with the youtube melodrama.

If it wasn't for youtube, atheism wouldn't be getting anywhere near the attention that it has gotten (in large part due to us, but you can refuse to acknowledge that, if you like.)

45. Comment #70643 by robotaholic on September 16, 2007 at 12:29 pm:
Her attitude, voice, and face were irritating.

I hope having these videos on here doesn't degrade the reputation of this website. I'm glad Professor Richard Dawkins didn't take the blasphemy challenge.

Thank Zeus that Professor Richard Dawkins doesn't have an annoying attitude, face, or voice, because that would clearly invalidate his argumentation. It's also a relief to know that he doesn't support this group at all.

...to be continued...

10. Open letter to Michael Shermer in response to his letter...

Comment #65304 by kellym78 on August 23, 2007 at 2:29 pm

Apparently, some missed the sarcasm in my post. Whatever. It is the internets, ya' know?

Roach, thanks for the post. I got his point and was just trying to be absolutely ridiculous.

And, yes, that was us in the debate. Thanks. It's nice to hear something positive about it considering the fact that we are still taking heat for not being the perfect representatives for every single atheist on the interweb.

11. Open letter to Michael Shermer in response to his letter...

Comment #65288 by kellym78 on August 23, 2007 at 1:26 pm

Richard Morgan -
"entirely too....?"
Oh dear : I'm sure there must be a more perfect way of using the English language. And I'm not suggesting that my perception of the correct use of grammar is the most unique in the world.
"entirely too..."
There are some linguistic memes up with which I will NOT put.

Please explain how "entirely" cannot modify "too" and how "too" cannot modify "sensitive"? Technically, it's grammatically correct, but as Brian stated a colloquialism or possibly used for...*drum roll please*...emphasis.

And how about "more perfect" and "most unique"? Let me guess, you were being facetious? *pats you on head* Good job not ending your final sentence with a preposition--that would be very entirely too absolutely horrendous for Bertrand Russell to have dealt with!!

(edit: People weren't getting the joke--I was "asking" what the words were because I obviously don't know.)

12. Open letter to Michael Shermer in response to his letter...

Comment #65012 by kellym78 on August 22, 2007 at 4:08 pm

Just an FYI, I wrote the little blurb about the "totally cool atheist chick" and I am proud to be one myself. Some people are entirely too sensitive.