801. 'We Make Our Own Heaven'

Comment #151540 by Bonzai on March 29, 2008 at 12:32 am

So no dealing with schoolchildren, which is the issue here. Well, I have friends who DO teach kids at school, and I know what they achieve.

I have a friend who is an award winning highschool teacher,--in fact a friend of my highschool teacher,--he said very much the same thing about curricula, it is bull shit. He also said teacher's
college is a waste of time, Teacher's colleges are designed by the same arm chair "experts" in "education".

I have another friend who worked with very young children,--primary school students in the U.K system. He teachs them sophisticated mathematics using a novel, conceptual approach that he develops. He says the same thing about the factory schools that I said, only he is a polite sort of guy and doesn't use swear words. Why does he work with young children instead of highschoolers? He said, to work with them before they got ruined by the system.

Well, we just going to have to disagree about what teachers aims are and what they achieve

Well teachers don't call the shot. They get their orders from the ministry of education and they work under a lot of constraints, It is a wonder that some teachers can actually achieve what they do under the rigid restrictions imposed by the system. In Ontario, I was told by a teacher friend, a teacher spends the bulk of his time not on teaching, but doing paper work.

802. 'We Make Our Own Heaven'

Comment #151532 by Bonzai on March 29, 2008 at 12:14 am

Are you a course designer?

Do you mean am I an arm chair general? No, I loath the education consultants. I have been a student and I am a university instructor so I would know first hand what teaching and learning mean.

I should add that while the factory approach doesn't make educational sense it makes complete economical sense. Its goal is to produce a technically competent work force which on the other hand is docile enough not to ask too many questions. "Critical thinking" is not a primary goal for a system whose main function is to produce workers and consumers. Too much "critical thinking" is bad for the economy, you need just enough.

803. 'We Make Our Own Heaven'

Comment #151524 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 11:55 pm

I am beginning to lose track of what your point is. You started by claiming that children couldn't be taught "critical thinking". Then you moved to claiming that they weren't being taught critical thinking. Now you seem to be saying that they musn't be taught critical thinking!

You lost track because you didn't read my first post where I stated what I meant by it cannot be "taught" and how a genuine education should "nurture" children to develop those skills.

I am sorry, it seems that you do have the habit of cutting and pasting randomly from a post and ignoring the rest. Just an observation.

Socrates didn't "teach" critical thinking, he motivated people to ask questions, provoked them to think for themselves.

The reason you suddenly need "thinking skill development" is that the entire factory system is based on the "filling up vessels" approach, teaching answers rather than motivating questions. It is based on evaluation and testing, which is a game of meeting quotas based on the false premise that learning can be precisely quantified,--a prime example of modern numerology and pesudoscience.

To do more of the same, making students to take more exams and to undergo more evaluations are not going to get you critical thinking. Richard Morgan's description of the French system actually makes a lot of sense, that would be exactly what I would have expected.

804. 'We Make Our Own Heaven'

Comment #151519 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 11:37 pm

Teaching children according to a curriculum is not a factory approach.

Of course it is, with all the rigid prescriptions, goal setting and outcome evaluation spelt out as if it is a production plan.

My evidence is that this fellow taught me, and many others, about how to be critical and think for ourselves, illustrating that you were wrong to declare that this can't be taught.

You didn't answer my question, was he just a good teacher having something to share, or was he teaching according to some prescribed curriculum drawn up by some one else and test you and grade you in the end?

Are you seriously trying to say that the national curriculum of the UK is just a "mission statement"? Do you know anything about how this works? That critical thinking and reasoning ability are actually required in coursework, and are assessed?

Of course I know how it works. I didn't say it was a mission statement. I said it was a bureaucratic document with a mission statement. But how is that an evidence of anything?

Is critical thinking not required in doing course work before? Then what were they doing?

805. 'We Make Our Own Heaven'

Comment #151517 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 11:28 pm

The most basic premise in the current thinking skills movement is the notion that students CAN learn to think better if schools concentrate on teaching them HOW to do so

The "thinking skill movement"? My bull shit detector is in full alert mode whenever I hear buzz words like this, I can't help but think it is yet another atrocious invention of the consulting industry. Now think skill is a new "movement", you wonder what they have been doing all the while.

It is a sad testimony of the state of education if you need a separate course to teach "critical thinking". One wonders what the hell are people doing in other subjects.

806. 'We Make Our Own Heaven'

Comment #151513 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 11:17 pm

When I say that my memories of my childhood were clear, and I was indeed taught critical thinking, you declare, based on no evidence, that this must have been some kind of fluke.

Was he following some curriculum? Were you tested on that material? If not, then it is not any evidence for the factory approach that you are endorsing here.

Your opinion about what is and isn't taught in schools seems to be irrelevant when we can actually look at the evidence - the UK teaching guidelines snd curriculum.

How is a bureaucratic document with what amount to a mission statement an evidence of anything?

It is evidence that U.K's students would be writing one more exam, as if it is not enough already to have to do all the subjects already on O and A level.

Where does it stop? Do we need to teach common sense in school and test students on it?

807. 'We Make Our Own Heaven'

Comment #151494 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 8:56 pm

Frankus,

Sounds like you are a good teacher. There is a saying, I don't remember by whom (Yeats?) and the exact words, which basically says that teaching is not filling a vessel, but to light a fire. I am sure a good mentor, who takes an interest in the subject and the student, would be a great source of inspiration for young people. But I don't believe in syllabus with well set out goals, evaluations and expected outcome, this is bureaucratic bull shit. Teaching is not a factory operation.

Now it is all about teaching answers without the students even knowing what the questions are, like filling of the vessel and there is a huge obsession over grades and exams.

I taught mathematics (calculus) briefly in Ontario (a few years ago), It was painful to have to teach according to the curriculum, which was clearly drawn up by idiots. The is no internal cohesion, no central narrative, no clue. The material is chopped up into units to be covered according to a specific schedule so that students can be tested and evaluated.

It is no wonder Mitchell Gilks says he can't learn mathematics. Any intelligent student would be bored out of his skull and would ask the obvious question, "what is the fucking point?"

808. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #151485 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 8:25 pm

Besides, social Darwinism "selects" the guy who makes most money, not the person who have most kids, There you go, it is not natural selection.

809. 'We Make Our Own Heaven'

Comment #151479 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 8:09 pm

Steve,

I do remember being a child, and I remember a particular teacher, indeed a particular lesson that had a dramatic impact on me. When I was a young teenager an English teacher showed us a documentary that turned out to be an advert. We were introduced to the idea of being suspicious of things presented in easy soundbites, and of carefully packaged views. We were taught to think critically.

Well good for you. But I bet that was his special treat. He was not following some syllabus developed by the bureaucrats from the ministry of education so that you could be graded and tested on the material,

I can't say I remember any teacher or figure of authority who had "taught" me how to think critically and be an argumentative asshole,

As a child I always had a lot of questions. Adults usually ignored me so I was left thinking on my own. My mother told me that when I was 6 or 7, we went to Church and after the sermon, I asked, "how did the guy know all these stuffs, was he there with God?" Now after having lived in a house with small children I don't think I was that unique. Children question, they don't need to be "taught".

My parents' attitude towards my mental development was benign neglect. All they cared about was that I did well in school, other than that I was free to read whatever I could get my hands on, I never expected or received any advice from them, but they didn't force me to believe or think in any set way either. I was free to explore, more or less on my own. In retrospect they were very young and inexperienced and always too busy for work. But actually I am quite thankful for that.

When I went to highschool, I met some like minded friends, we greedily devoured books on philosophy, history and literature and would spend long hours on discussions and debates. We did that all by ourselves without any advice or guidance from adults.

What could the teachers have taught us anyway? They were all burnt out, comfortable with their habits and conventions. We were only too happy to be left alone. I would have hated it if we had to take courses on "critical thinking" and be graded by people who weren't that good in that themselves!

810. 'We Make Our Own Heaven'

Comment #151468 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 7:49 pm

Steve,

This goes against all the evidence that there is a trend of less religiousness with increasing education.

Just because things aren't 100% correlated does not mean there isn't a definite trend.

Do you have any evidence that formal education corresponds to originality of thought, capacity for critical thinking , independence of the mind and intellectual curiosity? If you do I would like to see it because it is quite at odd with my anecdotal experience.

811. 'We Make Our Own Heaven'

Comment #151451 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 6:10 pm

Steve,

Is this an argument from experience of being an educator, or is it an argument from personal incredulity?

As some one who has been a child, perhaps you have forgotten about that.

812. 'We Make Our Own Heaven'

Comment #151436 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 5:36 pm

Eight-year-old: "I Like To Think Freely…

Somehow I feel sick reading this. An eight year old who thinks freely would just do this instinctively. She wouldn't say, " I am a free thinker".

And what is with the "discuss not their faith, but the opposite of faith -- the idea that truth arises from reason, from science, from free thought." For eight years old?!

These kids all sound like tiny adults. Sorry, this sounds definitely like indoctrination. Not only do they copy all the Church trappings, they actually fashion themselves after some Puritan cult by the look of it.

813. 'We Make Our Own Heaven'

Comment #151432 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 5:15 pm

Having or not having religious belief is not a good yard stick to measure critical thinking skills and independent thinking.

There are highly original and critical thinkers who are religious and I have met enough atheists who are unreflective, unquestioning and just simply dull people.

814. 'We Make Our Own Heaven'

Comment #151428 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 5:09 pm

Teaching critical thinking is an important part of the National Curriculum in the UK. Good thing too, because kids may start off thinking freely, but soon find pressure from parents and peer groups.

It is like asking people to study from a manual to learn to be spontaneous.

Critical thinking skill cannot be "taught", it has to be nurtured.

You don't have a nurturing environment when "education" as a whole is like a fucking factory which follows charts and plans at every turn. Pupils are fed enough facts and answers so that they can write exams and get penalized if they don't meet some artificial standard. It is like quality control.

Answers are meaningless if you don't even care for or know the questions.

What is the point of "teaching" students to be independent thinkers while the message of the system is TO CONFORM?

Let kids be kids.

815. 'We Make Our Own Heaven'

Comment #151420 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 4:56 pm

Nail

Kids think freely anyway, so let them be kids.

Beautifully stated.

I always find the idea to "teach" critical thinking in the regimented, factory school setting ridiculous. This is especially true with the British system where students will just be burdened by another fucking exam. It will go a long way to encourage critical thinking if the schools are not so obsessed with evaluation, exams and grades, allow students to make mistakes, encourage them to ask questions instead of just force feeding them answers,

816. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #151255 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 10:36 am

The problem is not just that the "moderates" give cover for the "fundamentalists", it is that so many give cover for the "moderates", by assuming that "moderates" tend to have safe, nice views, because... well, they are "moderates

If you cannot show why opposition to ssm, abortion, euthanasia, stem cell etc cannot be raised in a secular context,--indeed they have,-- then you are just shooting blank.You are just highlighting one aspect of the opposition, namely religion and ignoring everything else to argue your pre reached conclusion. I ask you again, do you think atheist China would allow same sex marriage?

These issues should be controversial in any society because they are challenging in some fundamental ways. A society that allows cloning and stem cell without any proper debate would probably not mind harvesting organs from executed prisoners or aborting gay fetuses either (if they can screen them)

So it is natural for a reflective society to have these debates. As long as the moderates can contribute meaningfully in a secular discourse I don't mind that at all, and many are actually doing that. Just because you disagree with their position it doesn't mean it is illegitimate to raise their concerns, as long as they can frame it in secular terms.,

It is only the fundamentalists who "argue" by quoting the Bible. That is not legitimate.

Shit, must go.

817. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #151249 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 10:12 am

Ok, so I will step out of my mental prison, and realise that when a "moderate" campaigns strongly against gay rights, or stem cell research, they are actually only against "gay rights" and "stem cell research", which are part of a different reality.

Can't resist one more parting shot.

Which moderate strongly camgaign against gay rights and the reasons, rightly or wrongly, cannot be translated into secular terms? I am thinking of Margret Somerville who argued against Same sex marriage, I disagree with her but her arguments are secular ones, Stem cell research would be controversial even to many secular people who see it as going down a slippery slope, it has the same flavour as debate over euthanasia, I think their arguments against both stem cells and euthanasia are invalid but these arguments can be and has been made without resort to religion.

Religion may articulate some of the anxieties when societies undergo changes. It may not be the source of it,

Do you think atheist China would allow same sex marriage?

You are pushing hot buttons here and I don't think it is honest,

818. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #151245 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 10:01 am

You are trying to understand people here, people aren't machines, if they don't conform to what your linear models consider "reasonable' too bloody bad, It is not "scientific "to try to truncate reality to fit your preconceived idea of what religious people believe and what the nature of their beliefs are like.

I think Scott Atran was right on when he told Harris and Denette they had no idea what they were talking about when it came to religionand they demonstrated a complete disregard for science even when they were preaching it like some fundi evangelicals (OK, the last part are my words)

I'm out of here. Have a good weekend

819. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #151241 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 9:52 am

Start fudging the meaning of words and you cksh us aiish ammcss.

Well for someone who has studied Buddhism you should know better. :) Words are not reality, you put yourself in a mental prison if you confuse the two.

820. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #151235 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 9:46 am

epeeist,

You shouldn't be too literal in reading my posts. I am not a fundamentalist.

821. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #151231 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 9:44 am

I have to agree with Dr Benway A belief is just a claim about reality

Why am I not surprised. Ahhh,, the woman in a white coat, everything is so cut and dry and linear. You would find only fundamentalists characterize their beliefs as a "claim" in any definitive way. So there is a God, that is the extent to the claim. Everything else can be negotiable,

But the notion of God can be fluid, to some like Chris Hedges it is almost just a literary short hand,.

You understand "belief" too literally, perhaps there is no better word in English,

822. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #151227 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 9:33 am

The Solipsim label would apply only to fundamentalists.

You keep asking for corroborating evidence, but this is a meaningless question unless you agree on what should be considered admissible evidence, Most evidence that the religious people consider as admissible would not be admissible in science, it can be because it is too vague or not easily interpreted in a straight forward, third person way. But it is a kind of evidence nonetheless, for the person who see meanings in it, and is relevant to questions relating to first person experience to which science has no answer,

Whatever your criticism to this approach, it is methodical, it does seek to incorporate "evidence" and it is not solipsism .

823. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #151222 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 9:26 am

Let's just say that holding any belief strongly based on personal intiution and without corroboration in ways that we would expect for most things in life is a bad idea,

Holding a belief strongly doesn't mean you can't revise it. You have to first understand what a "belief" means to many moderates. You are using a fundamentalist mindset to understand moderates, so you are confused, no doubt.

824. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #151215 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 9:19 am

They are different problems but in some way the "methods" are similar, only in the religious case you
define "evidence" differently.

Riley summarized it better than I can. The moderates are Bayesians.

825. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #151211 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 9:15 am

Riley,

Of course there is more than one method that allows for uncertainty! Francis Collins (I would guess) is neither 100% certain of his beliefs derived the moderate Christian approach to faith nor his beliefs derived from the scientific approach. In both cases his methods allow for adaptation upon new evidence.

Good point.

The moderate believer is a Bayesian! Thomas Bayes was a minister, what a coincident.

826. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #151206 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 9:11 am

Unless you are saying that religious methods of acquiring "certainties" are the same as scientific methods of acquiring "certainties", then you are making my point.

But religion and science also define "certainty" differently. these are two different classes of questions and not surprisingly would have different standards for answers (to my mind religious questions are not questions but you're asking about Collins)

827. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #151198 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 9:03 am

I did answer your post. There is a question, he needs an answer. The scientific answer doesn't answer his question because science gives you third person answers, he wants first person ones, So he goes to religion, but in a methodical way, so he embrace moderate Christianity.

P.S. He couldn't have used the same method because the question he asks is ill posted in science. You can recast it in a form that is answerable by science, but that is no longer the answer to the same question.

828. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #151193 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 8:55 am

How does that fit with the example of Francis Collins, who is presumably as certain of his Christianity as he is of the existence of DNA, but these beliefs were arrived at by very different methods.

I don't know why you find it so difficult to understand, Some people go into science because they want answers and they are good at getting them,

Now they are confronted with questions of an emotional, first person nature that they have no answer and the methods of science don't give them any.

In Collins case he was overcome with the beauty and marvel of "creation" one day when he took a walk according to his own words. He couldn't explain or describe that intense emotion and the scientific method is of no avail, but he needs answers, being the kind of person that he is, so he gets religious, but it is crass fundamentalism because he is a sophisticated man after all, so it is a kind of methodical moderate Christianity, intense but methodic.

Now the alternative is to simply marvel at his experience and don't attach any metaphysical significance to it, "I am not afraid of living without knowing" as Feynman put it, But some people have to know, and that compulsive obsessiveness to seek answers is a quality that can make them great scientists, they just need more restraint.

829. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #151180 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 8:40 am

Well I think I misunderstood steve's comment, so I deleted the post.

830. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #151164 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 8:18 am

So, someone is 10% against homosexuality, but 100% against stem-cell research, and also 50% certain about hell.

Except for hell, it would be very simplistic to think that people take these position just because their priest or minister told them to as if people are just automatons. Many Catholics ignore the Church's teaching on contraceptions, but support its disapproval of homosexuals. Why?

I think you can find secular people who hate gays more than the average Church going Catholics, or atheists who oppose abortion (Hitchens) and non believers who oppose stem cell research. I think the Church has influence on these issues because it somehow tabs into public anxieties on these things, not just because of religious indoctrination per se,

One can argue that the general cultural attitude has been shaped by Christianity down through the years so we still have these hang ups even for people who are otherwise secular. But then to trace where ideas originated was probably a very convoluted process and it is difficult to say whether the chicken or the egg comes first,

If this comes off as letting religion off the hook because I want to get some balance here. I do agree with others that religion has a way to codify and entrench certain outdated practices.

831. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #151152 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 8:02 am

Podaar,

That is a really good question! Thinking about it, from my experience, I'd have to say "yes". Do you know of irreligious people that say they have anxiety about sexuality? I'm sure there must be, but I can't think of any.

Yes, I had. I was never religious except briefly,--three months and then got kicked out from Church for asking too many questions,-- but that didn't contribute to my anxiety.

832. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #151143 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 7:42 am

Here are my two cents.

I think what separates the moderate and the fundamentalist is not the intensity of belief.

People who are fundamentalists in their youth are probably more likely to abandon religion altogether when they get older and become disillusioned,--I don't have data but that is a hunch based on anecdotes, while you can have very committed moderates.

I am now leaning towards the idea that the apparent intensity of belief in fundamentalists is something artificially induced, perhaps as an over compensation to the awareness that deep down the faith is shaky, Mother Theresa was an instructive example. She appeared to be more fanatic as she was losing her faith,

I think what separates the moderates and the fundamentalists is the method of believing.

For the moderates faith is an ongoing, uncertain journey of constant rethinking and negotiation. They "grow" into their faith, This way of believing doesn't exclude common sense and other data outside the texts of the scripture.

"Revelation" is not just a book, but it unfolds slowly, privately and subtly through out a life time. So that comes back to my earlier point. They believe God is true perhaps because they do find it is a useful concept to organize their experience and express their emotional yearnings and passions.

On the other hand, the fundamentalists see revelation as just in the Book, they work themselves to a frenzy by prayers, rituals, Jesus camps and so on, fervently trying to kill their doubts by keeping reality at bay, They agree with atheists on the nature of faith, that it is believing without evidence and they think it is good so they try hard to attain that artificially induced state of gullibity.

But that probably cannot be kept up for long and it breaks at some point when there is too much cognitive dissonance. It is like you take some drugs to work yourself up to have sex, then unleash one big load and pass out, never able to get it up again for a month, (sorry for the family audience, but I don't do artistic compromise)

The difference in what they actually believe comes as a result of difference in methods. The moderate's method is just incompatible with certain literal interpretations which fragrantly at odd with their experience with life and people. Whereas the fundamentalists think that the more incredible and stupid the things they claim to believe, the more it is a proof of their faith and I think it is a kind of over compensation.

Well, better get off the computer to get some productive work done.

833. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #151122 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 7:20 am

I wouldn't call the Catholic Church moderate. But do you think that anxiety over one's sexuality is experienced only by religious people?

834. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #151115 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 7:10 am

Steve,

I disagree. Many people find themselves oppressed by their own religious beliefs. Those beliefs are hardly useful.

I am saying some people may think their beliefs are true because they find them useful, you are saying that not all believers find their beliefs useful.

So, I say all cows have four legs, you then tell me, no, dogs also have four legs.

I think something is amiss in your response.

Besides, I think it is mostly the fundamentalists who are "oppressed" by their own beliefs if you mean that by psychological coercions such as everlasting hell fire and so on. Most moderates don't believe in them, not in a literal way any how.

Much science is true without being even the slightest bit useful

By "useful" I didn't mean having practical applications, I meant allowing you to make predictions and organizing your data in a consistent conceptual framework. This is a usefulness that theology, for example, doesn't have.

So do you not think that science is true because it is useful?

Me, I don't know what is truth, It is meaningless,

835. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #151106 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 7:02 am

but if we want to change minds, or even just understand, we have to accept that people, even moderates, truly believe pretty weird stuff,

I don't know if any one "truly believe" in weird stuffs. Maybe we just don't know enough about the psychology of belief.

I wrote a post yesterday on another thread, I think it is relevant here.

have been thinking, to what extent self professed believers actually "believe" in the Gods they claim to believe.

It may not be as definitive as we atheists sometimes assume. I think to many it may be just some kind of working assumption, an inconsistent, murkey idea which helps them muddle through hardships from time to time. "Faith" in the sense we use here maybe too strong a word to describe that level of belief. It may be the desirable goal from the religious perspective, but I suspect few actually attain the state of being able to "believe without evidence". By "believe" I mean confidently and surely commiting to it without any doubt whatsoever.

Even fundamentalists have to use rituals, music and other motivational props to work themselves up to a frenzy. That suggests faith is not a natural state even for the most fanatical believers. Indeed fanaticism may be an over-compensation for lack of faith.

If doubt does not exist, they won't be always talking about faith. If no one commits murder, there won't be any law against it, people wouldn't have thought of needing a law.

Conclusion: no one can actually "believe without evidence", even though some may try very hard.

836. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #151099 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 6:53 am

My impression is that even moderates don't just believe in religion because they think it is useful - they believe in religion because they think it is true

If you find something useful, then you will be more likely to be persuaded that it is true.

Do you think science is true or just useful?

837. Fleabytes

Comment #151093 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 6:38 am

Clod,

It just seems to me that this sort of determinism might be something that theists would really rather prefer....God does not play dice etc etc. Anything in that? I don't know.

I think it can be argued either way. The determined theist can smuggle God into the picture under any theory, the old Newtonian model was deterministic but that didn't kill God. Some theologians actually think QM indeterminism is the perfect back door to bring in God.

Since Bohmian mechanics seems not to make any predictions that differ from ordinary quantum mechanics it is suggested that the theory is "observationally meaningless".. Which, in a curious way, brings us back to god.....or beer....whatever! :-)

I heard there are effects that in principle can tell them apart, but I can't remember what they are right now.

Besides the Bohm school, there are other people working on alternative models to QM because many physicists feel that at some level QM is not a satisfactory theory, It gives you algorithms to calculate things very accurately, but it doesn't really have much of a conceptual picture to speak of and a lot of concepts are decidedly murky (what does it mean even to speak of the wave function of the universe?) To some this may be actually worse than indeterminism or non-locality. Now there is no reason why reality must be representable as some kind of conceptual picture, but it would be nice if it could, that I think is the on going motivations for scientists who work on foundation of QM.

I think a scientific theory should be judged on its own merits, not based on what might have motivated the scientist. I don't know if Bohm had a religious agenda, which I doubt very much. But even if he had, I say so what. Newton had an unabashed religious motivation but that didn't diminish his work in any way.

Science can be used to justified almost anything by those who are willing to make far fetched associations and distortions based on selective understanding (kind of like religion in that sense)

QM is bastardized as the blanket escape clause from rationality by all kinds of New Age claims, so much so that you can find Quantum everything in New Age book stores.

Some years ago I was reading a QM textbook in a coffee shop, preparing for an exam. Then a group of women who looked like aging hippies came in. They had that stereotypical "New Age look" about them. One saw my book and came over, she said, "Wow, Quantum mechanics, I love it, it is so cool!" She asked me if she could borrow my book for a look, I told her to go ahead. She turned a few pages, saw a lot of equations then quietly put down the book and went away.

838. Fleabytes

Comment #151084 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 6:16 am

Hey Clod, what happens to your old avatar? Bring it back, I thought that was so cute.

839. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #151076 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 5:59 am

Mark Smith

I was thinking of some earlier comments Steve, not yours specifically. And perhaps I should have said 'try to bring a new perspective'.

I was thinking of posters that immediately challenged his credential as a scientist, I think that was uncalled for.

840. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #151074 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 5:53 am

If I were falsely accused of malpractice, would I want such a person on the jury? Hmm. I think not

Don't worry, he had been picked to sit on a jury before and somehow he got off with some really ridiculous excuses.

841. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #151072 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 5:46 am

I believe it can, but I'll discuss that on Fleabytes, as it is rather off-topic here!

I think it is off topic any where. Like I said, when that comes up IGBTD.

842. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #151069 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 5:36 am

Ronald F,

I get the impression more of an agnostic possibly with deist tendency not a real atheists,

I don't know what a real atheist is. My definition is simply someone who doesn't believe in any God. It can be because he thinks there is no evidence for any with a sufficiently specific description, or he thinks there is proof against the existence of God, or he just doesn't care or for no rational reason (like my brother, he doesn't believe in God, but he believes in ghosts; he thinks both evolution and creationism are wrong, perhaps he believe in aliens).

I think it is a broad camp. Agnosticism is often just a more polite way of calling a more nuanced version of atheism. So Dawkins would be an agnostic by some definition of atheism,--that we can prove God doesn't exist.

Like the statement "maybe God is moving the planets around the sun we can't disprove it". On this level I can have a proper discussion based on facts, where is the measurable force God is using to do influence it.

In a logical sense he is right. But it is not very useful. Logically there is no contradiction in saying that angels act in a way that mimics the law of nature, or that the laws of nature are actually angels in action,--they don't have free will apparently.

So yes, you can't disprove that just like you can't disprove aether.

But my position is that we don't accept everything that we can't disprove and we do have better answers. Now the tenacious would still argue that "better" is based on subjective criteria such as parsimony, and the argument goes on.

But I don't think criagk is trying to argue like that, he is just saying the (obvious) fact that science cannot refute ontological statements but he is not necessarily pushing for an ontological position like some people did on this site before,--Dianelos comes to mind, for those who still remember.

For me that means ontology is meaningless, just like it is meaningless to debate whether aether exists or not. My approach for that kind of debate is "IGBTD",--I got better things to do.

843. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #151066 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 5:19 am

steve,

I guess I just could not see a new perspective.

I did say both his points are obvious.

But I am not sure if the people who felt inclined to respond to criagk with several long and somewhat hostile posts didn't see any perspective they find a bit unsettling for some reasons, if not entirely new.

epeeist

I put "truth" in quotations because I just want to use it in the naive sense,-- something which "exists" out there, or some "process" in operation "out there". I don't think philosophers' word games are very fruitful so I'll just leave it at that, risking all the problems that may follow from this loose and naive way of using words.

844. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #151052 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 4:40 am

I just read some of the posts by craigyk.

Maybe I am not reading carefully enough but I really don't find him to be that unreasonable. His main points seem to be that 1)it is possible that there is "truth" inaccessible to the scientific method and logic and that 2) in practice science is influenced by human factors (peer reviewed may not be fool proof).

I think both are obvious.

To say that there may be things inaccessible to science and logic is not the same as saying there are other reliable means to access them, so that is not an endorsement of theology, --or philosophy for that matter. (I know Mphil tried to invoke something called "closure of causality"before against agents intervening outside spacetime (?), I had no clue what he was talking about and I bet neither did the people who came up with the dogma, word games by philosophers are hardly definitive proofs for or against anything when they don't even know what their words mean even though they think they do. That I call faith, faith in the human language)

To suggest the possibility that there are unknowable things is not the same as making any commitment to "believe" in any such thing. I don't detect there is such commitment in criagk's posts.

I feel that he is almost forced to argue from the position of a Deist because of the way his respondents frame the discussion. It is almost like "you are either with us or against us", since you are not with us all the way, you must be against us.

There is often a knee jerk reaction from some atheists here whenever they hear anyone suggesting there may be "mysteries" that science will never be able to answer. That doesn't have to be an assertion of belief, let alone the belief of some God, it may be just a suggestion of a possibility. On the other hand, the confident assertions I often hear here that science eventually will be able to answer x y z even though we don't have a clue right now are statements of faith.

Secondly, science practiced in the real world sometimes deviates from its ideal because it is a human enterprise and is therefore subjected to human fallibility, especially in some areas in the soft science and where there is big money and big ego at stake, Again this is not a very revolutionary observation.

"Peer review" is not an infallible process. Someone posted an article by a sociologist on this site around Christmas saying that the Royal Society was originally formed as a way for friends to endorse each others' work and keep out competitors and "cartelism" still survives in science to some extent. This is not very ground breaking news for anyone who knows someone who have sat on funding or hiring committees and have stories to tell,

Lee Smolin's "the trouble of physics" describes institutional biases such as fundings, peer review and hiring practices in physics departments that contribute to the unique prominence of string theory. It is a decidedly partisan shot at string theory and he may be exaggerating somewhat but it is certainly a thought provoking book.

I am an optimist in that I think overall science is self correcting and false claims and ideas will eventually be eliminated, but it is not unreasonable to point out like all enterprise, the practice of science is not freed from distortions, even while we can agree that it is more robust than any other human undertaking.

845. Religion and Politics

Comment #150951 by Bonzai on March 27, 2008 at 6:37 pm

I have been thinking, to what extent self professed believers actually "believe" in the Gods they claim to believe.

It may not be as definitive as we atheists sometimes assume. I think to many it may be just some kind of working assumption, an inconsistent, murkey idea which helps them muddle through hardships from time to time. "Faith" in the sense we use here maybe too strong a word to describe that level of belief. It may be the desirable goal from the religious perspective, but I suspect few actually attain the state of being able to "believe without evidence". By "believe" I mean confidently and surely commiting to it without any doubt whatsoever.

Even fundamentalists have to use rituals, music and other motivational props to work themselves up to a frenzy. That suggests faith is not a natural state even for the most fanatical believers. Indeed fanaticism may be an over-compensation for lack of faith.

If doubt does not exist, they won't be always talking about faith. If no one commits murder, there won't be any law against it, people wouldn't have thought of needing a law.

Conclusion: no one can actually "believe without evidence", even though some may try very hard.

846. Religion and Politics

Comment #150949 by Bonzai on March 27, 2008 at 6:20 pm

While I don't believe in reincarnation I think it is a cool idea, much more than going to heaven or hell for eternity based on the deeds in one life time, which is infinitesimal comparing to "eternity". I mean, don't you get bored kissing the big guy's arse for ETERNITY even if you end up in heaven? You sooner or later would get a swollen lip.

It is much more interesting to experience different lives.

847. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #150947 by Bonzai on March 27, 2008 at 6:15 pm

Riley,

The problem is that the "moderate" beliefs tend to be so ill defined that you can't really pin them down. But that's not a matter of dishonesty, it's just that their beliefs aren't as literal as the fundamentalist.

I think some atheists actually get mad because their "nail down and destroy" method doesn't work with moderates thus depriving them of an easy victory. The fundamentalists are way too easy a target.

clodhopper summarized the moderate believers' approach excellently in a post on Fleabytes, I would like to cut and paste it here:

I find nothing insincere or dishonest in this approach.

Can I bat for the b team?

Because god wants us to work to know him and to find out for ourselves what he wants of us. A meal laid out on a plate will keep the body going but food I have grown and cooked for myself is way more satisfying.

Many Christians/Muslims/Hindus etc are trying very hard to be very good people in the sense of loving one's neighbour, being kind, generous, reasonable, charitable and so on. Because there are so many questions to ask keeps us on our toes through having to explore what it means to be good in the way that god wants. He has given us free will to choose to act according to his commandments [or not], essentially about loving one's neighbour as oneself in compliance with the golden rule. This means working hard to interpret the teachings of Christ in the modern world.

*ducks*

Good post, Clod.

848. Wicked untruths from the Church

Comment #150942 by Bonzai on March 27, 2008 at 5:53 pm

An interesting way of putting it. You could believe in a interventionist god, hell and all that, but still think "screw it, I'll not live by his rules". Bet there aren't many who go down that route.

That is Jean Paul Sarte's approach. He thought even if God existed he had no business interfering with our autonomy so to hell with him. IIRC he expressed that in a play called "flies".

849. Fleabytes

Comment #150844 by Bonzai on March 27, 2008 at 1:14 pm

Upper Canada Dark is good.

850. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #150831 by Bonzai on March 27, 2008 at 1:04 pm

I don't know if you can effectively refute the charges made in the film by showing that the film maker has been an asshole and a liar in an incident at the screening.

The public can legitimately ask what does that have to do with the content of the film. In fact if we are too aggressive in blowing a trivial incident out of proportion we may be seen as trying to divert attentions or worse, to deflect criticism by discrediting the "whistle blower"

I think one should stick to the content of the film. If Richard feels that he has been conned into appearing in the film and/or has been misrepresented in it, he should hold a press conference, or make a press release, or sue their pants off if there is legal recourse. It is getting tedious to dwell on all the he says she says surrounding PZ's ejection.