In a recent op-ed in the New York Times, atheist writer Sam Harris challenges President Obama’s pick for the next National Institutes of Health director, Francis Collins.
His reasons for doing so reveal something important about the “new” atheism, of which Harris is a leading figure. Unlike the atheist academics I knew as I pursued my degrees in philosophy—atheists who were characterized at worst by a kind of quiet intellectual disdain for religion—the new atheists are driven by something more ideological. They see the world as divided between the children of light (the atheists) and the children of darkness (the religious). They do not see any ambiguity about the fundamental nature of reality; they are certain that they have the truth; and, finally, they insist those who are still benighted enough to fail to see this truth ought to be marginalized—they should certainly not be allowed to hold positions of power.
In short, the new atheism looks a lot like the kind of religion that progressives such as myself find so disturbing: religion that’s characterized by the cry of heresy, the marginalization of those who disagree with “us,” the sharp in-group/out-group dichotomies based on differences in fundamental worldviews, and the view that “salvation” depends upon the right beliefs.
If, like me, you think that this sort of ideological division based on fundamental worldviews is one of the forces that makes human conflicts intractable and drives cycles of hostility and violence, then Harris shows us that this sort of dangerous ideological thinking is not the sole purview of religion.
Failed Fundamentalists
But is Harris really guilty of this kind of thinking? Let us look a bit more closely at what he says. In this op-ed, Harris opposes Collins for NIH director; not because Collins’ scientific qualifications aren’t impeccable (they are), but because Collins believes in the transcendent God of Christianity and the existence of an immortal soul. That is, Collins believes in realities that transcend what science can study. And this, according to Harris, is enough to call into doubt his capacity to lead the NIH. In Harris’ words, “few things make thinking like a scientist more difficult than religion.”
One wouldn’t know this supposed truth by looking at Collins, who headed the Human Genome Project and is universally regarded as a stellar research scientist. Of course, there are religious communities that, out of unswerving allegiance to ancient dogmas or scriptures, treat scientific discoveries that challenge those teachings as an enemy. This kind of religion is often called fundamentalism. What religious scientists like Collins reveal to us, I think, is that what makes thinking like a scientist difficult isn’t religion as such, but fundamentalism.
But Harris doesn’t make this sort of distinction. In his book, The End of Faith, Harris treats moderate religious persons as “failed fundamentalists” who “betray faith and reason equally” by having neither the honesty to go where reason leads nor the boldness to be as irrational as religion demands. For him, religion is about blind allegiance to some religious text or other authority in defiance of all reason and evidence. When religious moderates fail to show such blind allegiance, this “is not some sign that faith has evolved” but is just “the product of the many hammer blows” of modern science and the Enlightenment.
In Harris’ view of things, religion and reason are at war, and there is no such thing as “rational religion.” There are only wishy-washy people who can’t get themselves to take sides; people who are, in his words, “on the wrong side of an escalating war of ideas.” There are atheists who have the truth, and religious people who are still gripped, more or less completely, by the lie.
What this view of religion fails to take seriously is the possibility that religion isn’t about blind allegiance to a text or institution, but can be about living in what I call “ethico-religious hope”: the hope that reality, in some essential way, is on the side of goodness. For the religious among us, this is a hope that is fueled by experiences of an astonishing kind, experiences which seem to bring us into contact with something extraordinary, something wondrous beneath the empirical surface of things. Faith is about the decision to follow the hope gestured toward in religious experience, rather than dismissing such experience as delusional, as nothing more than neural misfirings in the brain.
Living in such a hope is not incompatible with accepting the scientific facts as they are. After all, science doesn’t teach us that science is the final arbiter of all that is real and true. It can’t. To put it bluntly, science cannot discern whether there is more to reality than science can discern. And so, if there are those who say that the empirical world of science is all that there is, that there is nothing transcendent, they haven’t been taught this by science.
Nor does an allegiance to science preclude participating in a faith tradition that offers a portrait of the transcendent; in other words, a tradition that offers a holistic religious worldview in which the world of ordinary experience is interpreted and invested with meaning in the light of beliefs concerning what lies beyond it. Rather, what allegiance to science precludes is refusing to adjust one’s worldview in the light of what science teaches. A religious worldview is a holistic interpretation of the world we encounter in experience. It isn’t and shouldn’t be a holistic interpretation of some fantasy world.
But as I have argued in my work, there is plenty of room for interpretation; even when we all agree on the empirical facts. Human experience includes elements (such as the sense of objective goodness in the world) that are hard to fit into a reductively naturalistic worldview. And while the facts of science preclude some views about the transcendent, there are religious worldviews that not only fit with the facts but offer resources for making sense of our experience; resources unavailable in naturalism. And so religious worldviews are still in the game, so to speak, when it comes to worldviews that orient our lives.
As Alister McGrath has put it, there is a “conceptual malleability” to the world discovered by science, allowing for multiple interpretations. As such, when atheists express certainty that they have the truth and all those who live in the ethico-religious hope are living in the grip of delusion, they are expressing a false certainty. And it has every appearance of being the same sort of false certainty that, in the history of religion, has so often led to condemnation of dissenters. There have been times in which a professed disbelief in God has disqualified one from public leadership. And here we have Harris wishing that Collins’ belief would disqualify him. Were Harris to have his way, there’d be a new public orthodoxy according to which allegiance to a materialist worldview is a qualification for meriting positions of leadership and influence.
But, to be fair, Harris doesn’t just assert this without backup. He gives reasons why he thinks Collins, despite his credentials, should be excluded from a position of scientific leadership because of his faith. And there is a difference between the ideological marginalization of all people who have heretical beliefs and so don’t belong to the “chosen group,” and a legitimate exclusion of people whose specific beliefs are relevant for assessing their qualifications. A devout follower of a faith that rejects modern medicine is probably not the best choice to serve as chief administrator of a hospital.
So does Harris offer compelling reasons for thinking that being a Christian undermines Francis Collins’ capacity to lead the NIH? First, Harris suggests that Collins’ Christian views undermine his capacity to be a rationally consistent thinker. His evidence is twofold. First, Collins believes there’s scientific evidence that makes the existence of God “intensely plausible”—but in the face of challenges to this so-called evidence or contrary evidence, Harris insists that “Dr. Collins will say that God stands outside of Nature, and thus science cannot address the question of his existence at all.”
Would Collins say this? Perhaps so. But if he does, he might very well mean something along the following lines: A worldview is an interpretation of the meaning of the world of ‘experience.’ Insofar as a worldview includes postulates that transcend the limits of science (for example, that there might be more to reality than science can discern), the assessment of such worldviews falls outside of the scope of science. But this does not mean that some worldviews don’t “map” more easily onto our experience, including our scientific experience, than others. And science has uncovered things (such as the so-called “fine-tuning” of the universe) that are amenable to theistic interpretation, even if they can also be incorporated with some effort and argument into a nontheistic worldview.
Such a position is perfectly consistent, even though its subtleties are hard to capture in brief soundbites, and even though attempts to express this position are sometimes less precise than they should be, opening the door for uncharitable interpretations and caricatures.
The Problem of Evil
But Harris raises another charge of inconsistency: namely that Collins invokes a kind of moral argument for God’s existence, to the effect that “our moral intuitions attest to God’s existence,” while refusing to take seriously those moral intuitions which tell us that the world is riddled with moral evils.
This, of course, is a gesture towards the so-called “problem of evil”: how could an all-powerful and wholly good God permit all the evils that we experience in the world? And, of course, Harris is hardly the first to think of this problem. Nor is he the first to utterly ignore the rich tradition of subtle thinking about it that has gone on for thousands of years.
But I will say this: When you are dealing with whether there is far more to reality than meets the eye, you are dealing with the question of whether there is potential for the evils we encounter to be redeemed. Atheists look at the evils that afflict people in this lifetime and often think in the following terms: if this is the whole story, then these afflictions strip all meaning and positive value from the lives of those who endure them. And since this is the whole story (because, obviously, there is no God), it follows that these afflictions are decisively devastating in just this way. But God wouldn’t allow such devastating, life-crushing evils. Therefore, there is no God.
As should be clear, the force of this argument diminishes rapidly once you don’t assume the atheistic conclusion in advance;that is, once you consider the possibility that this world is but the surface of something far deeper, and that the evils of this world may therefore be situated within a broader reality that redeems them.
Evil is a problem, but is it really irrational for to choose to live in terms of a hopeful possibility when the alternative is despair? Perhaps Dr. Collins is so deeply empathetic to those who have suffered devastating evil that he is moved and inspired by the redemptive possibilities of a richer, vaster universe than the world of mechanism and quantum indeterminacy. Does such empathy and hope make him unqualified to oversee our National Institutes of Health?
The Hard Problem
Harris has other arguments. He points out that “most scientists who study the mind are convinced that minds are the products of brain, and brains are the products of evolution.” Collins, however, believes there is more to human consciousness and human nature than what can be discerned through a study of the brain and our evolutionary history. This troubles Harris, because he thinks that such a belief “would seriously undercut fields like neuroscience.”
But belief that there is more to the human person than what neuroscience can see does not mean that neuroscience is useless. It does not mean that what neuroscience can discover should be dismissed or ignored. It certainly doesn’t mean that someone like Collins “believes that a scientific understanding of human nature is impossible,” as Harris maintains.
Rather, it means that a purely scientific understanding of human nature will be part of a more complex puzzle, and that there is more to the human story than we can glean through neuroscience and evolutionary theory. Even if these disciplines can teach us a great deal of enormous value, Collins believes there will be more. And I wonder what lessons might never be learned about the human person if this possibility is denied in advance, in the way that Harris and others like him do.
The fact is that, while most brain scientists do operate on the assumption that the mind is a product of the brain, the evidence falls short. We know there are deep correlations between what happens in consciousness and what happens in the brain; we rely on the brain for our conscious experience. But while the image on my computer screen depends upon the operation of the computer’s hardware and software, that image is nothing more than an array of illuminated pixels without a consciousness to interpret them.
What the eminent philosopher of mind, David Chalmers, has called “the hard problem”—namely, the problem of explaining how neural firings and other physical phenomena can give rise to the subjective experiences of a self—remains entirely unsolved. That it can be solved is merely a sort of pious hope or faith among neuroscientists who have committed their careers to the endeavor. I don’t begrudge them their hopes, but it seems a mistake to dismiss as irrational and dangerous those who have pinned their hopes elsewhere.
And so it seems Harris’ accusations against Collins amount to this: Collins and Harris take opposing stances on a set complex philosophical questions about which reasonable people can and do disagree. This observation is hardly a basis for excluding Collins from the leadership of the NIH—unless, of course, one is ideologically aligned with Harris’ view in such a way that differences of opinion amount to intolerable heresy.
Tags: atheism, sam harris, science and religion
Your exposition of the way Harris thinks is very illuminating. It is a process which has led him to atheism in the first place, and now as it the basis of his evaluation of the elegibility of Francis Collins for his post with NIH it stands exposed. In doing so, Harris immediately makes one call in question his own capacity to think coherently, which in turn makes us very hesitant to trust his deductions when exploring the case for and against the existence of God. Strangely, it is reminiscent of James Dobson.
The article and the comment are amazing in that they misstate and mischaracterize nearly everything about Sam Harris' points, with the exception of things such as religious moderation.
If you read Collin's book, The Language of God, it briefly builds a premise that humanity's inherent knowledge of morality proves that God had a hand in our making, ignoring all manner of evolutionary and psychological explanations of morality. The rest of the book is well written argument, but it all rests on this imaginary premise. That a scientist would fall into this type of trap is really worrisome. His powerful ability to research and reason is clearly blinded when the issue of God is involved. As Sam Harris pointed out in his recent article, there are many science topics where belief may come into play, such as stem cell research or research that attempts to explain human nature that the faithful may regard as something only God can know.
Please quit paraphrasing Sam Harris and try quoting him.
Faith-based belief in Bronze Age myths is clearly irrational.
Concern about irrational people running the National Institutes of Health is clearly rational.
While I agree with Harris' attitudes towards religion; none-the-less his opposition to this appointment borders on bigotry. Collin's is a qualified and respectable scientists and I am personally pleased with his selection.
It is quite possible to hold different views on various ethical questions. This is clearly spelled out in Book 4 (On Human Values) of the free ebook series “And Gulliver Returns” (http://andgulliverreturns.info) We use quite different basic assumptions (self-centered, God based, or society based) and build upon that assumption with varying types of evidence (such as: historical, empirical, authoritative, etc.). So in the issue of abortion a fundamentalist Catholic, being God-based, might accept, from authority, the idea of recent popes that the soul enters the ovum with the sperm. He would therefore be anti-abortion. Another God based person might accept the traditional Jewish idea that human life starts at birth, so could be accepting of abortion.
A person can also hold different assumptions and use different sources of evidence in different ethical situations. For example, a religious athlete might use a self-centered assumption and empirical evidence to justify his use of steroids. What we want in an NIH chief is one who uses society based assumptions and empirical evidence to make policy. A God based person might, or might not, fill this bill.
Sam Harris has a one word answer to all of the world’s ills: religion.
Thus, anyone who is religious is, a priori, part of the problem.
Moreover, as evidenced at this link, Harris himself is becoming a scientist not in order to conduct unbiased research but in order to attempt to evidence atheism.
Also, FYI: interesting info on Collins is found here:
The New Atheists on Francis Collins - Soteriological Chain of Causation
John Horgan and Francis Collins - The Scientist as Believer
Your first statement is made up. Your second statement relies on your first statement and therefore is pointless. The link in the third statement does not support the point you make.
Any other points to make?
You should try reading some Harris; he even blames religion when atheist commit atrocities.
I am somewhat uncomfortable with anyone who has a strong belief in a God or Gods or leads heavily toward any religion. A religious belief may conflict with sound judgement. Religious superstitions or beliefs may subconsciously affect decision making. Let us hope that is not the case. I guess we should
We shoud attempt to transcend divisive parochial loyalties based on race, religion, gender, nationality, creed, class, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, and strive to work together for the common good of humanity.
"New Atheism"? All atheism is, is a lack of belief in a god or gods. I'm a "New Atheist" according to many, but I think people should be allowed to believe whatever they want, provided they do not directly affect me or mine.
In the case of the NIH position, it is quite possible that religious beliefs could affect me or mine. We have seen religious beliefs affect things on issues like abortion, euthanasia & right to die, access to contraceptives, stem cell research, views on things like AIDS, etc. In a country filled with various beliefs (or lack thereof), would a religious person be able to choose the best positions, using logic and reason?
Although I think that a religious person could, I have to admit to having reservations. I hope you can see and understand my point.
I agree completely. Some of the postings portray atheists as being sure of something. I'm not sure of much of anything, really, and I don't want someone else's unfounded certainty to hurt or deprive the rest of us.
...nor do the moderately religious want the unfounded certainty of someone like Billy Graham to "hurt or deprive the rest of us." Fair's fair.
This, of course, is a gesture towards the so-called “problem of evil”: how could an all-powerful and wholly good God permit all the evils that we experience in the world? And, of course, Harris is hardly the first to think of this problem. Nor is he the first to utterly ignore the rich tradition of subtle thinking about it that has gone on for thousands of years.
You know I hear this a lot. But no one seems to be able to direct me to this "rich tradition of subtle thinking". They always seem to direct me to simplistic poorly thougth-out crap.
Take your excuse for example, the problem of evil goes away because it can be redeemed in the afterlife. A child dies of starvation every 5 seconds in this world. The child dies through no fault of his own. How is this unnecessary suffering "redeemed" in the afterlife? What is it that the child needs to be redeemed from ... the poverty of his parents?
The fact is this "rich tradition of subtle thinking" is a pathetic myth which allows people who REALLY REALLY want to believe to dismiss the very real needless suffering that goes on in this world.
Cheers,
Angry Atheist
You know I hear this a lot. But no one seems to be able to direct me to this "rich tradition of subtle thinking". They always seem to direct me to simplistic poorly thought-out crap.
Thank you, thank you, thank you for saying this. There are "rich tradition[s] of subtle thinking" about astrology, alchemy, geocentrism and a host of other topics that we know to be merely irrationalist whistling in the wind: just because human beings have been deluding themselves with every greater sophistry for centuries does not mean that garbage becomes gold.
The reason atheists point to theological inconsistencies is that the theologians and philosophers, despite deep strata of academic obfuscation, have been unable to offer any convincing "fix" for those imbecilities.
This article as a whole strikes me as falling into the trap just mentioned of pretentious obfuscation and hopelessly muddled thinking.
Have you ever read Chesterton, or Lewis, or even any of Aldous Huxley's later work? Ever perused a philosophy of religion text, or attended any lectures on the subject?
You're angry (at least in this particular instance) because you see "needless suffering" all around you. Guess what? So does everyone else. Arguing that there may be some "redemption" of that suffering hardly negates its existence, as you seem to argue. People of a religious nature aren't trying to ignore or excuse suffering and evil - they're examining and subsequently tackling it from within a different context.
"Tackling" the problem of evil? What hubris!
What has religion ever done about human evil other than haughtily condemn it without analyzing it, rationalize it ("we're all sinners"), and then claim to forgive it?
Theologians add nothing to the conversation. Nothing. They are blowhards of the highest order. They pretend to add vast layers of sophistication to the nonexistent in a byzantine self-referential tangle. As Dawkins says, "what makes anyone think theology is a subject at all?"
your the one talking just to hear your own voice, there are alot of good religious people out there - E
1. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. As such, it has no leaders and no dogma against which any heresy can be claimed. I also have never heard any atheist, "new" or otherwise, portray atheists as the "children of light" and the religious as "children of darkness."
2. Francis Collins believes in a religion which transcends what science can study? Really? Isn't he the guy who wrote a book called "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief"? Now, I haven't actually read the book, but it sounds to me like he thinks science provides justification for religion-- which would mean that religion doesn't transcend it at all. Collins' magisteria are definitely overlapping, which is what I suspect is Harris' problem with him-- not the fact that he is religious to start with. And this concern is definitely justified.
3. The "hard problem" of human consciousness is hardly "entirely unsolved," and the hope that it will be solved is hardly "pious." I'm guessing you haven't read much Daniel Dennett lately. "Pinning one's hopes elsewhere" makes exactly as much sense as pinning one's hopes on Intelligent Design because scientists don't know absolutely everything about evolution.
You misunderstand atheism as it is related to scientific rationalism. You write:
"They do not see any ambiguity about the fundamental nature of reality; they are certain that they have the truth"
No they don't. It would be more accurate to say:
"They do not see any ambiguity about the application of the scientific method and rational modes of thought as a way to explore reality. Where there is mystery, they attempt to illuminate it. Where it cannot be illuminated, they accept that it cannot, for the present, and refuse to replace illumination with rampant fantasy. They not only _do not_ claim a monopoly on the truth, they are confident that no one can claim such a thing without employing fundamental delusions."
Watch out! Religion is bad! People who are religious are "irrational"! If you're not in you're out!
This string of comments merely serves to show what people already know - human beings have to be right.
There are comments for and against Collins, for and against Harris, and for and against Reitan (now let's see who has to scroll around the page trying to determine who Reitan is). The point is this: all of the people who commented (myself included) have some point to prove. But are you thinking carefully or thoroughly before you try to prove your point? Are you merely arguing for argument's sake? Have you read Collins' book or his research papers? Have you read anything on the current topic? Have you even read the entire article on which you're commenting, or did you just skim through it, picking out only those pieces which seemed important to you? Are you arguing against something which you know you've argued for in other circumstances?
I thought it was a fantastic article - well written, thoughtful and obviously provocative. I only wish the comments were the same.
Note to scrollers: Just do a Command + F and type in "Reitan."
To "Misunderstanding in deed": You're as guilty as those you chastise. Why don't you say something meaningful about why you thought it was a fantasist article to show you haven't just skimmed the article (something to which I freely admit).
Remember Collins isn't just being given any old position of authority. He's being given a scientific one. Our country has a problem with people in authority using their god-beliefs to dictate public policy.
I've read Collins' book and while well written, it is a perfect example of how God subverts Dr. Collins' obvious scientific talents. The whole book pivots on the premise that our innate sense of right and wrong proves that God made us. The rest is pointless because it all rests on this unsupported claim that totally ignores many evolutionary explanations.
First, Collins has stated that there are things - like fundamental parts of human nature - that science can't study. It's legitimate to ask how this will affect his funding choices. (It's also a historically bad bet - see this essay for why.)
I also have to ask why a "sense of objective goodness in the world" would be "hard to fit into a reductively naturalistic worldview"?
It's true you can't derive an 'ought' from an 'is' - but you can from an 'is' and a desire. There are a lot of 'is' facts about chess, like how the pieces move, etc. There's no rule that you can't trade your queen for a pawn at the start of the game... but you shouldn't do that if you want to win. The player's desire to win the game gives rise - in combination with the rules of chess - to a lot of strategic rules that are as objective as anything else in the world. (Go ahead, violate them - see if you win.)
Real life isn't a zero-sum game like chess... but there are some pretty iron-clad rules (like the law of conservation of energy), and there are human desires. Why can't strategic rules - morals - arise from the combination of human desires and the nature of the universe we inhabit? We know humans have inbuilt talents for understanding real-world physics and learning languages. Why can't our 'moral sense' be just like our language instinct?
"What this view of religion fails to take seriously is the possibility that religion isn’t about blind allegiance to a text or institution, but can be about living in what I call the 'ethico-religious hope': the hope that reality, in some essential way, is on the side of goodness."
Thanks for tipping your hand, Mr. Reitan; you have completely impeached your own judgement with that statement. You are willing to let your own infantile wishful thinking cloud your judgement, deliberately avoiding the painfully obvious, rational, objective fact that the universe doesn't give a damn about us.
Please learn to think like a grown-up.
Mr. Reitan is guilty here of the very thing of which he accuses Sam Harris: He is generalizing way beyond the relevant.
Reitan has responded to a very cogent op-ed by Harris arguing of the inappropriate nomination of a Christian evangelist like Francis Collins to a very powerful political post to take broad swings at Harris for daring to criticize religion in any way, even hinting that Harris is himself a “fundamentalist” for doing so.
Yes, there are perhaps religions that can incorporate science without problem. But that’s not Christianity, Collin’s self-declared religious preference. Christianity is based on a whole host (pardon the pun) of miracles that, placed in any other context, would completely destroy Collins’ credibility as a scientist. And it insists on its followers to promote its dogma as fact as a test of one’s faith. It is not an unbiased worldview.
The issue is not a matter of having “opposing stances on a set [of] complex philosophical questions.” It is a matter that a practitioner of such a belief-system being nominated to a position that controls the dissemination of billions of tax dollars that should be used towards expanding secular knowledge, not religious propaganda.
Americans should be as upset at a boldly religious evangelical being nominated to the very secular post of NIH Director as Catholics would likely be at an atheist being nominated to head up the Vatican’s Office for the Doctrine of the Faith. It’s just damn inappropriate, both in appearance and in substance, all other arguments be damned.
If Collins can’t bring a perception of neutrality to that position – and Harris rightly points out that he does not, given his choice of beliefs – then he doesn’t belong in that post.
Unfortunately your assessment of Christianity is nothing like that of myself or a sizeable number the people I know--especially the ones I attend church with. This shows your general ignorance and willingness to generalize about folks and traditions you know nothing about. And this goes for most of the people that troll this site as another excuse to bash "religion" as if the word means the same thing to all people at all times.
Thanks for trying to define our faith for us, but you've failed miserably.
Interestingly, a recent poll by the Pew Research Center indicated that 70% of Americans believe that "there are many paths to eternal life." A Barna Research Group poll determined that something like 90% of Americans believe in God, 76% identify themselves as Christian, but only about 5% of the US population counts as "evangelical, born-again Christian" (the group from which the fundamentalists who believe in literal translations, etc, come). It sounds like, statistically, Reitan's "generalization" of Christianity is reasonably accurate, while the vilification of all Christians as illogical and unwavering fundamentalists is quite far off the mark.
One quick comment, so as to avoid some possible sources of confusion. I think it's important to distinguish between atheism in general--which is simply non-belief in God--and the so-called "new atheism," which has come to refer to the brand of atheism promulgated by Harris and Dawkins and Hitchens.
What I say here about "new atheism," especially as characterized by Harris, should not be taken to be a blanket condemnation of atheism overall. I have many atheist friends who are characterized by fallibilism in relation to their own views, by an openness to people who do not believe as they do, etc. What distinguishes the "new" atheists is their propensity to vilify those who are religious, to treat them as morally or intellectually suspect based on the mere fact that they are religious and nothing else. It seems to me that Harris, in his op-ed piece, epitomizes this propensity.
In this respect, his version of atheism is a great deal like those religious orthodoxies that cannot tolerate differences in belief. And just as progressive religion distances itself from these intolerant forms of religion, so do many atheists distance themselves from Harris's brand of intolerance.
"to treat them as morally or intellectually suspect based on the mere fact that they are religious and nothing else"
How about if I rephrase that: "treat computers as technologically or operationally suspect based on the mere fact that they are infected with a virus and nothing else."
Does that make any sense? Does a person's inability to think critically about something as fundamental as the *nature of reality* not count as a mental defect? Should a scientist not be censured for demonstrating patently unsound reasoning?
As Harris pointed out in his follow-up, Watson, Collins' predecessor in the Human Genome Project, was thrown out of his job for daring to suggest there might be racial differences. That's far less of a breach than Collins' flights of fantasy about a creator and his purposeful universe. Especially when you read Collins' book and understand the flawed process by which he reached many, many of his conclusions.
Quoting Harris:
It is worth recalling in this context that it is, in fact, possible for a brilliant scientist to destroy his career by saying something stupid. James Watson, the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, a Nobel laureate, and the original head of the Human Genome Project, recently accomplished this feat by asserting in an interview that people of African descent appear to be innately less intelligent than white Europeans. A few sentences, spoken off the cuff, resulted in academic defenestration: lecture invitations were revoked, award ceremonies cancelled, and Watson was forced to immediately resign his post as chancellor of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.
Finally, is it not accuracy that is to be valued as a condition and prerequisite to open-mindedness? What is your fascination with being "open" to all points of view, regardless of their truth-value? Isn't it important that we establish a set of criteria for how we evaluate and rank information, even while we admit to being fallible? How did such shameless factual relativism as you seem to be professing become a virtue?
Science is a way of relating to the unknown. There are three types of questions: known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns. Science helps to separate the first two. But it can't say anything about the third. Neither can religion. The problem with Collins is that he has taken one of the unknown unknowns and embraced a clearly premature set of beliefs about it. Theists have no more knowledge about these unknown unknowns than scientists, yet they spell it out in great detail as though they had some kind of empirical awareness of the 'afterlife' and the 'creator.' This is the problem with Collins.
A true scientist says nothing at all about the unknown unknowns. They wait until at least the point where observation has brought a question or phenomenon into the realm of known unknowns. Then they start theorizing. This is how knowledge is expanded over time.
Collins' religious mindset causes him to short circuit the process, and makes him wholly unsuited for the job he's been offered.
Like all human endeavors, science is also based on faith--faith that the previous research done by others on which you build your work was done correctly and honestly (remember the Korean dog cloning scandal, Piltown man, etc), faith that the present understanding of your field will not be overturned in a few decades (remember when geologists fiercely denounced the idea of plate techtonics), and faith that your rational mind, which, according to Harris, is just the product of neurons firing, actually corresponds to external reality (in the way that the products of a schizophrenic's mind don't).
Another article of faith believed by many who think that science replaces religion is that science will someday explain everything. But there is no logical reason to believe that. There is no guarantee that all the knowledge of the universe be understood by the human mind.
Reason is not a position on anything. It is a technique for teasing out the implications of a premise. An atheist and a believer can both be logically consistent with their premises and yet contradict each other.
Finally, the existence and persistence of religion means, for the atheist, that it is a natural part of the world and must arise for some evolutionary function. And indeed religion is linked in numerous studies to good mental and physical health and longevity. Since it is the product of evolution and has beneficial effects for the individual, atheists should support it. But if it is a delusion then it is unique because, unlike other evolutionary mechanisms like good vision, good hearing, the ability to think clearly, etc, it works by giving us false perception of the world. Does that make any sense?
This line of thinking has been debunked a ridiculous number of times. 'Faith' in science is not the same as 'faith' in the supernatural. This is equivocation. There are ways of checking scientists' work. That's most of what other scientists do. You don't have faith that your mind corresponds to reality, you check it against the observations of others, and you use instrumentation.
Science has never claimed to explain everything. Any honest scientist will tell you that the unknown will always remain much larger than the known.
You need both reason and empirical observation, because of the problem you stated. The theist may use reason, but is barred from empiricism.
Dennett has fully discussed how religion could have evolved to be useful from an anthropological standpoint, and yet still be completely false. If you care to understand the process, read "Breaking the Spell."
Any more silly straw-man arguments you need me to destroy?
I am disgusted that such a man would be considered for such a post.
His belief that his god not yours is responsible for evolution is stupid.
His belief that an uncreated creator is responsible for the creation evolution is stupid.
Christianity teaches us that man was creates instantaneously. This 2,000 year old history is extremely well documented, understood and accepted. No one has uncovered recent or ancient message from his god or any supernatural being to suggest evolution gradually created life. We have enough books, text and ancient scripture to fill the most spacious modern day libraries which mention nothing of evolution or any other natural process. In fact they make claims which are in absolute disagreement with this. Science has demonstrated without question evolution is a fact. It has been demonstrated with such pin point accuracy that for a man of science to openly dismiss evolution would seriously impact their career in a negative fashion - rightly so. This sick man who clings to his worthless religion is forced into a corner to accept evolution.
Christianity clearly states humanity is gods most important and ultimate creation - we are his kids. Suggesting god made humans through evolution and not instant creation is religions last stand. What a lazy, impotent, pathetic fool such a god really is.
Did this god say to itself, "Let me create my children. I can do it any way I choose. Let me choose a method my children will come to know as evolution 1,800 years after the death of my son I transformed myself into. Although this method will take over 15 billion years, 99% of the universe they will be aware of will not sustain them & be hostile to them, 75% + of the planet they live on will be water and the majority of the deaths which happen to my beautiful children will come from natural disaster & flawed design... Or I could make a garden, I could seriously consider their design, I could do it instantly, I could make a universe which was more supportive to them, I could, I could I could - seems like a lotta work SCREW dat I am god this is how I will do it - let their be evolution, I need 15 billion years of sleep."
-Have you heard of anything more pathetic. For attempting to justify this Mr.Collins is stupid.
Rather than look at his pathetic religion and his weak god with a scientific mind he is forced to retreat to the shadows of the dark ages to claim, "Life is simply too complex so a god is necessary" "My god not your god did it." "yes yes every religion has used this trump card so shall I"
I look forward to the day we can burn the 'mental' safe houses(speaking figuratively) such ignorance thrives in. The time religion is recognized for what it truly is a mentally illness responsible for: homophobia, sexism, violence, social friction, frustration, fear, self doubt, delusions, psychosis, death & guilt. It is a serious sickness that discourages achievement and fosters dependency. An illness which causes the infected to suppress, deny, create or knowingly ignore knowledge/information(evidence).
I do not believe this day is too far off. The shadow modern science casts over these safe houses leaves little room for theism to breathe. The fires which sincere rational examination and criticism start are burning away the smallest corners and nooks of its mental safe house. 99% of religions are extinct - mission accomplished, almost.
This man has no right to be a lab assistant. His own spoken and written words conflict so painfully with the mission of open and sincere study I am disgusted he is being considered for such a position
One of the biggest problems I have with Fundamentalist Religion in its various incarnations is that their primary focus is that their central literature is not about a way to think about how you relate to the universe but a perfect encyclopedia that does not need updating, and miss the "Way to relate to the universe" part altogether.
My issue with (new?) Atheists is that they also presume that the book (especially the Christian Bible)is supposed to be an encyclopedia and has nothing deeper to be learned. Proving it a false encyclopedia is quite an easy exercise, and anything deeper not looked for will not be found, so the conclusion of worthlessness is also easily come by and rich in lazy thinking.
I know little of the proposed NIH director but I think that the encyclopedia concept is an excellent Occam's Razor for judging his ability to fairly lead the NIH. From the information I see here I see no reason to deny the post, though further information might point otherwise.
LOL!
anti-theist,
"His belief that an uncreated creator is responsible for the creation evolution is stupid."
Why?
"Christianity teaches us that man was creates instantaneously"
No it doesn't. You're thinking of a literal-historical interpretation of Genesis, which is not a tenet of Christianity.
"Science ... has been demonstrated with such pin point accuracy that for a man of science to openly dismiss evolution would seriously impact their career in a negative fashion - rightly so."
Collins does not "dismiss evolution" – openly or privately.
"This sick man who clings to his worthless religion is forced into a corner to accept evolution."
He embraces evolution and publicly opposes I.D. with vigor...
"Suggesting god made humans through evolution and not instant creation is religions last stand. What a lazy, impotent, pathetic fool such a god really is."
If creation via evolution makes God a "lazy, impotent, pathetic fool", then are you suggesting that evolution itself is "impotent" and "pathetic"? Also, as you know, evolution takes millions of years, so if God created humans via evolution, then it means that God did not take the short cut of instant creation. How is that lazy?
After your long-winded paraphrase of the Genesis creation narrative, you ask:
"Have you heard of anything more pathetic"
Your main objection appears to be that God's creation results in frequent death of humans. If God exists, and if God created human minds that exist indepenent of brains, and if people continue to exist in other "realms" after brain death, and if God can redeem earthly evils in those other forms of existence... then what exactly is so "stupid" about the idea of God?
tae care
- Pat
Don't confuse your own ignorance with reality. You could start with Eric Reitan's own book, "Is God a Delusion?", which gives a nice little introductions to some "subtle" theological and philosophical treatment of the problem of evil.
I'm deeply disappointed with the quality of the discussion on this board, which has largely descended into a series of statements epitomising the sentiment "You're stupid.... because you are!" The arrogance of some of these posts is staggering.
As a scientist, and also a 'religious' man, I see absolutely no conflict whatsoever between the two - a priori. In fact, I'd say they are completely orthogonal. However, I can also understand the concerns of Atheists, Agnostics (and, indeed, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Sikhs, and anyone else you'd care to mention) when it comes to the suitability of persons elected to positions of responsibility in the US in recent times - a very disturbing precedent has been set. Right-wing 'conservative' (was ever a less appropriate title bestowed?) Christians have done more damage to the popular image of religion than ever could a collective onslaught of atheists the world over. For now, the image conjured by the term 'Christian' (or indeed 'religious') is one of 'fundamentalism' (again, a most unsuitable title), characterised by ignornace and intollerance. But one steps beyond prejudice to utter folly by equating all those who have been moved by a religious experience with collection of nutcases, who use a brand of religion to add weight to their extremist political worldview.
There is no connection, a priori, between being religious and believing in anything contrary to science and the scientific mentality, as is evidenced by the vast number of highly respected scientists who happen to be religious. In fact, given a room at a conference, I'd challenge anyone to identify the personal beliefs of any of the attendees based upon their scientific work. Science is untouchable by religion (or anything else, for that matter). Those who would exclude someone from science (or a scientific post) because of his/her personal beliefs, rather than their scientific merit, are as willfully prejudiced, arrogant and contemptibly ignorant as those extremists who would have no atheist in office.
The only reason you're "disappointed" in the dialogue is that it's very unflattering to your position. The only people who try to insist religion and science are compatible are religious people--let's be honest. People who want to try to preserve some of the special status once accorded their belief system.
Science is a method for investigating claims about the universe. So it's not orthogonal to religion, which makes tons of conflicting claims about the same universe.
Religion has been on a four hundred year retreat as science has illuminated more and more dark corners of former conjecture and superstition. Any scientist who missed this trend needs to have their investigative qualifications (and their brain) examined.
"Moved by a religious experience." Give me a break. Get out the violins. It's not what you experience, it's how you act, and how those experiences influence your world view. Chief among the difference are your view of what constitutes valid evidence (subjective 'experience' vs. objective) and how you think and reason about such questions.
There's nothing more arrogant and foolhardy than trying to keep up the ridiculous shell game of religion-science compatibility. Wherever (in whatever mind) religious claims or methods exist, they taint and water down objectivity, the maintenance of which is the primary function of science.
Nice of you to elucidate my thought processes for me - I'd never know what I was thinking if it wasn't for such helpful people. I am, in fact, not remotely disappointed due to the discussion being "unflattering to my position." The kind of arrogance that can lead one person to tell someone else what they are thinking, or attempts to dismiss the personal experiences of generations of humans with "Give me a break. Get out the violins." is the kind of childish (and unobjective) dialogue that disappoints me, particularly as a scientist (being surrounded largely by the open-minded and courteous people that typically populate scientific circles, I naively expect better). Please make cohesive arguments about the subject matter, by all means, but I ask you not to presume to know the thoughts of others, or to arrogantly dismiss their experiences.
It would seem you know very few scientists, if you genuinely believe that only religious people insist religion and science are compatible. There may not be many scientists who will actively argue for religion, but you will find many will not argue against it either. It is simply irrelevant to science, and the majority of scientists don't claim to have the absolute answers to such an issue. I know scientists who are Atheist, Agnostic, Buddhist, Christian, Jewish, Muslim and Sikh. There is absolutely no correlation between their beliefs and their scientific merit, and not one of them (yes - even the atheists) cares remotely what the others believe in a 'religious' context - because science stands independently. Any attempt to judge scientific capacity on anything but scientific merit is, by definition, prejudice.
I was a scientist long before I was in any way 'religious' (I was once staunchly atheist, and equally adeist). One thing remains unchanged, as it does for all genuine scientists: any time that something masquerading as 'religion' (by this, I include such things as dogmatic interpretation of biblical verses as literal observational truths) lies in disagreement with science, then naturally science disproves it. This was the basis of my point, for it appears that you missed it - that "science is untouchable by religion." Science is, as you suggest, a method for making verifiable hypotheses about the observable universe, about constructing models and testing them for the benefit of their validation and refinement. However, where we appear to disagree is that religion (unless interpreted by a certain set of narrow minded and scientifically illiterate people, who bestow historical statements with an inflexible literalistic interpretation) makes no claim about the nature of the scientifically observable, materialist universe. Likewise, science itself has a limited scope of its realm of study. If you've not read it, you'd do well to refer to some of Schrodinger's popular work; "Mind and Matter" is a good starting point.
As for your statement that "Religion has been on a four hundred year retreat" and "Any scientist who missed this trend needs to have their investigative qualifications (and their brain) examined" - are you seriously suggesting that anyone is denying or overlooking the enlightenment about the physical world that has occurred over the centuries? Much of this progress, I might add, was driven by the insights of scientists who were also "religious." If anything, this simply supports my point - that scientific advance occurs independently of the scientists "religious" viewpoint.
I reiterate - no genuine scientist is scared or concerned over the religious beliefs of other scientists - because science stands simply on its own replicable merits.
The great Richard Feynman himself once said:
"I do not believe that science can disprove the existence of God; I think that is impossible. And if it is impossible, is not a belief in science and in a God – an ordinary God of religion — a consistent possibility? Yes, it is consistent."
You know why I use disparaging language about personal experiences? Because they have no place in any kind of public discussion about science. It's no more appropriate or relevant to talk about one's personal religious experiences than one's sexual conquests or masturbatory experiences. Too much information. I have no problem with meditation, contemplation or private worship. But those things should be kept private and personal. And, as Dennett says, don't confuse the numinous with the supernatural.
Collins makes both mistakes. He publicly injected his religion into science as Harris described in his column. He also used the numinous feeling he got when looking at a frozen waterfall to assume the "trinity" of God. These are not good things for a scientist to do. Yes he has free speech, but he has also been nominated for a public post. As such he is supposed to remain impartial and silent on religious topics.
I want to point out that if Collins had used hallucinatory drugs, he would be automatically disqualified. But since he had a hallucination of the "trinity" while looking at a waterfall, doesn't that kind of also disqualify him? I mean come on, director of the National Institutes of Health? Hearing voices and seeing visions are not things a public official should admit to.
I appreciate what you're saying about the ability of religious scientists to separate their two worldviews. But still it seems like a lot of work. Why not simply limit oneself to the observable? What is the need to conjecture or invent another non-physical world? You need all your brainpower to do the actual science. If you're spending a portion of your CPU cycles keeping two irreconcilable worlds apart, it's like a car not firing on all cylinders.
The limitations on the "scope of science" have been overblown. Science covers everything outside of our subjective perceptions--including the functioning of the human mind itself. When you say things like "the materialist universe" it implies something else exists. Well if the "something else" doesn't interact in any way with the "materialist" universe, to us it actually doesn't exist. It can't affect us, and we have no way of communicating with it. It might as well be on the other side of the event horizon of a black hole. But it's worse than that because, black holes actually allow some information to escape. The 'supernatural' allows no interaction whatsoever. If it did, on the other hand, interact with the "materialist" universe, then it must be testable by science.
But religious people claim to be able to observe and communicate with this untestable and likely non-existent world. This should not be tolerated when it involves anything to do with the public trust.
"I appreciate what you're saying about the ability of religious scientists to separate their two worldviews. But still it seems like a lot of work."
Boohoo! Heaven forbid (pun intended) you should have to do any work! A worthwhile life takes effort... have you not noticed?
"If you're spending a portion of your CPU cycles keeping two irreconcilable worlds apart, it's like a car not firing on all cylinders."
Nice mixed metaphor. But sorry! Wrong answer. The brain is a "muscle," not a chip or a car engine. The brain does not have a constantly limited capacity - the more you use it, the more it is capable of doing. Besides, I'm sure you wouldn't want people to think you're on the side of the Intelligent Designers by using images (like CPUs) that intrinsically invoke thoughts of design....
What I'm talking about is make-work. Not real work.
"The brain is a "muscle""
LOL
Maybe yours is. But most people's is an information processing organ composed of neurons. Equivalent computing power is about 100 teraflops. It's very finite and it degrades with age.
Just ask people who are trying to talk on their phones and drive. Or military pilots dealing with task overload.
"But most people's is an information processing organ composed of neurons."
Thanks for pointing this out. We'd all be quite lost without your insightful literalism.
"Equivalent computing power is about 100 teraflops. It's very finite and it degrades with age. Just ask people who are trying to talk on their phones and drive. Or military pilots dealing with task overload."
So, it takes no training to become an effective military pilot, because the brain has a fixed capacity, right? And there's no capability for the brain to become more efficient at a particular task by repeating it? You're seriously so naive as to think that the equivalent number of floating point operations the brain can peform is the most insightful metric for mental capacity? You really think the capacity of a military pilot to multitask is a relavant comparison to the capacity for Dirac to predict the positron, or to the composition of the Sibelius violin concerto?
Or, to write in a manner befitting your style: maybe you write based upon personal experience.
OK, genius, but learn to drop the straw men. I was responding to the ridiculous assertion that the brain was a muscle and had infinite capacity. Obviously training matters and creativity matters and both cause the brain to rewire in unique ways. But they all run on the same finite hardware (wetware). That was my point.
Most people don't appreciate either the vast potential nor accept the limitations of the brain. Nor do they understand how much like a massively parallel computer it is. Insight on both will come from simulation and reverse engineering, which are well underway.
There was no assertion that the brain was a muscle and had infinite capacity. Firstly, no one said the brain was a muscle - the brain was analogously likened to a muscle, to emphasise that its functionality improves with use. Secondly, there was no reference to infinite capacity. The brain does not have infinite capacity. Neither do muscles. Both are decidedly finite, but both become more effective with use. It seems a very reasonable analogy to me.
"does not have a constantly limited capacity"
This is the quote I was responding to. And that was a response to my statement that holding cognitive dissonance regarding religion and science was unnecessarily taxing to one's brainpower, which I likened to CPU cycles or car cylinders.
"You know why I use disparaging language about personal experiences? Because they have no place in any kind of public discussion about science."
Why not say this directly, in a mature and considerate manner, in the first place? Making dismissive and disparaging statements gives an impression of immaturity, and an arrogant lack of concern for the opinions of a vast number of people. This only acts to inhibit people from taking what you say seriously, and is a surprising action for someone who claims "It's not what you experience, it's how you act...". Furthermore, this is not "a public discussion about science." This is a discussion about humans in public office. If you want to talk about science, lets talk about superdeformed bands in the actinides, mutation rates of viral strains, or isotopic signatures of r-process nucleosynthesis. Let's even talk about Borromean nuclear halos (pun intended, I'm afraid). In that case, quite rightly, personal experiences are entirely irrelevant. But we are not having a discussion about science.
Personally, whilst I happen to agree that a public discussion of religious philosophy by a scientist is irrelevant, I don't believe that it should be in any way preclusive to their post. The only valid metric for their validity is their scientific record. The "religious scientist" who abandons scientific method to fit his personal views (eg the ID supporter) should indeed be avoided like the plague. However, the scientist who happens to talk openly about his/her religious views, or happens to draw philosophical arguments from genuine scientific results, does absolutely no harm to science.
"Collins makes both mistakes. He publicly injected his religion into science as Harris described in his column."
I read nothing in Harris' column which says that Collins has "injected his beliefs into science." Quite the opposite (whether valid or otherwise) - he has injected science into his beliefs.
"He also used the numinous feeling he got when looking at a frozen waterfall to assume the "trinity" of God." What the hell has this got to do with his scientific capability?
"Yes he has free speech, but he has also been nominated for a public post. As such he is supposed to remain impartial and silent on religious topics."
He is supposed to remain scientifically impartial in the capacity of directing public policy. He is still entitled to speak openly of such things outside of this capacity (and would you, I wonder, object if he talked openly of atheism?). Personally, I'd rather he was upfront about his beliefs than harbour them away from the public eye; ulterior motives silently and stealthily biasing policy from the shadows.
I read nothing in Harris' column which says that Collins has "injected his beliefs into science." Quite the opposite (whether valid or otherwise) - he has injected science into his beliefs.
non.negligible, I can't believe you're that dishonest, you'd make me go copy and paste the relevant material from the Times editorial. But here it is:
What follows are a series of slides, presented in order, from a lecture on science and belief that Dr. Collins gave at the University of California, Berkeley, in 2008:
Slide 1: “Almighty God, who is not limited in space or time, created a universe 13.7 billion years ago with its parameters precisely tuned to allow the development of complexity over long periods of time.”
Slide 2: “God’s plan included the mechanism of evolution to create the marvelous diversity of living things on our planet. Most especially, that creative plan included human beings.”
Slide 3: “After evolution had prepared a sufficiently advanced ‘house’ (the human brain), God gifted humanity with the knowledge of good and evil (the moral law), with free will, and with an immortal soul.”
Slide 4: “We humans used our free will to break the moral law, leading to our estrangement from God. For Christians, Jesus is the solution to that estrangement.”
Slide 5: “If the moral law is just a side effect of evolution, then there is no such thing as good or evil. It’s all an illusion. We’ve been hoodwinked. Are any of us, especially the strong atheists, really prepared to live our lives within that worldview?”
To sum up, non.negligible, this is something you could have figured out for yourself if you weren't so busy posturing. He claimed a divine creator exists outside of space and time. He claimed our moral sense comes from that same divine creator. He claimed the creator had a divine plan which included human beings. He claimed we had an immortal soul. Then he waded into the culture war debate by asking "are we prepared to live with that worldview?"
He also cited the "anthropic principle," while failing to acknowledge its self-refuting core: if the cosmological constants had not been so favorable to "complexity," as he puts it, there would be no one discussing it. That little logical lapse bears more on his science credentials than almost anything else.
"He also used the numinous feeling he got when looking at a frozen waterfall to assume the "trinity" of God." What the hell has this got to do with his scientific capability?
All I can say is "huh?" It has to do with appropriate levels of skepticism and critical thought for a scientist. It would be as if Collins was doing atmospheric research and came back with the conclusion "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds."
would you, I wonder, object if he talked openly of atheism?
Yes, I would. Atheism is only discussed as a response to theism, and is therefore irrelevant for a scientist. If he were directly asked at a news conference if he believed in a divine creator, I would expect him to answer honestly and say he didn't have sufficient evidence of it, or anything outside the natural universe.
But I would also expect him to refrain from engaging in "atheist" advocacy. It's not the job of a publicly funded scientist to go out of his way to comment on such matters.
It would be as if Collins was doing atmospheric research and came back with the conclusion "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds."
If Collins was an atmospheric physicist and went around singing Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, the media would love him. He'd make his way into stories on NPR and the BBC all the time, and the public would think he was a wonderful person. It would be great.
You should be careful, though: in arguing that "It's not the job of a publicly funded scientist to go out of his way to comment on such matters" you're saying that PZ Myers shouldn't blog about people passing laws regarding biology textbooks either.
PZ Myers is a professor, not a political appointee. That's the difference. Myers is not in charge of public funds nor is he tasked to set public policy about science. It's apples and oranges.
I should have been more clear and said "politically-appointed."
"non.negligible, I can't believe you're that dishonest" - why, because he/she read an editorial from a different point of view than you? If Collins believes that God endowed humans with morality, this doesn't mean he's opposed to discovering the scientific/natural basis of that morality. Just because you don't agree does not mean that everyone else is dishonest.
You're the one who's convinced of everything you say already. It doesn't matter what arguments are put forward, you already think you have th answer because you've been indoctrinated by those people you look up to; if you grew up in the Baptist church, surely you'd just spout the nonsensical arguments that you'd learned there instead. You bash others for using "straw man arguments" when you do it yourself, you bash others for making generalizations or using poor metaphors when you do so yourself, you bash others for their pride and their posturing when you're full of it yourself, and you turn in vehemence on anyone who has ever attempted to seek the slightest clue as to the true nature of the universe ("What has religion ever done about human evil other than haughtily condemn it without analyzing it, rationalize it, and then claim to forgive it? Theologians add nothing to the conversation. Nothing. They are blowhards of the highest order. They pretend to add vast layers of sophistication to the nonexistent in a byzantine self-referential tangle.").
I'm sure you feel pretty good about yourself right now - well, why not? You've probably posted the largest number of times on this page, which probably means you're the most right, right?
You're not even trying to contribute to a discussion, you're just trying to prove to all us poor little peons that you're right and we're wrong. As soon as you figure out that life doesn't work like that, come back and see us again.
"Never argue with a man who talks loud, you couldn't convince him in a thousand years." - old German proverb
Dare I drop this pedantic discussion and open up a can of worms that is vastly more pertinent to this discussion over Collins?
The great issue in making such an appointment has very little to do with science, but everything to do public policy, public image and education. A significant number of people in the US are 'religious' to the point of mistrusting science. I've personally met a number of people who, given conflict between a scientific statement and the Christian bible, will chose to believe the bible over scientific evidence (such as young-earth creationists, for example). It is these attitudes (when pervasive as they are), not those of religious and scientific compatibility, that are the most concerning, for there are losses to both religion (by fostering religious ideas on flawed tenets) and science (by potentially depriving the field of a subset of young people who are brought up considering science a "secular evil" that leads them astray). Increasing public exposure of people who find religion and science compatible, and who do not compromise their science, will hasten the progress toward dispelling such dangerous and unfortunate attitudes.
Aside from this religious extremism, any genuine and relevant conflict with organised religion is not concerning scientific fact. Whether or not we believe in a geocentric universe is not under threat from "religion." Whether or not we believe in a heliocentric universe is not under threat. Whether or not the universe is absolutely deterministic is not under "threat." Whether we evolved over millenia from simple life forms is not under threat. Such scientifically determinable facts cannot be overthrown. The pertinent and very real conflict, which lies at one of the most critical turning points in human history, is not a scientific question at all. It is a moral one: human genetic research, the most current and controversial aspect of which is stem cell research. It is not a scientific conflict; no one is arguing over its possibility. But, as a moral question, it is one which we all need to consider carefully. We have ceased to discuss what is or is not true, turning to a question of what we ought or ought not do. Science is not our guide in such matters. However morality is a field where religion has great interest indeed, and thus has much to say on the issue. Considering the number of people in the US who claim a religious perspective on life, it is imperative that we consider how they view scientists' outlook on such matters. Blantantly denying someone a scientific post because of their religion (aside from being discriminatory, and hence offensive to all reasonable people) does nothing but increase distrust for secular scientists, harming the scientific progress that you are so eager to foster.
Now, this is where Collins' appointment is highly strategic - a point that atheists might do well to consider, bearing in mind the current climate in the US. Collins is actually in favour of human embryonic stem cell research. To be precise, he advocates the use of "surplus" embryos (those which have been grown for other purposes - most commonly IVF - and are otherwise destined for destruction, as they are surplus to requirements). The appointment of someone who is a careful supporter of such research, is respected and welcomed to this post by the scientific medical profession (see The Lancet), and is also a Christian, may be a decisive move in forging progress in this field of research, providing a step toward dampening the reaction by many of the "conservative fundamentalists" (oh, how I love that term), who will inevitably react negatively to it.
Please stop making everyone's life harder by focusing on problems that are just not there, fuelled by your own prejudice.
To non.negligible: a fascinating comment indeed! I think, despite having quite enjoyed the debate thus far, that you've truly "hit the nail on the head" this time.
It is unfortunate that staunchly atheistic and outspoken people (of the "New Atheism" bent which Eric describes above - think Dawkins, PZ Myers, Dennett, or that ghastly author Victor Stenger, etc) class all religion as nonsense, and all religious people as nonsensical. It is also unfortunate that they use science - or what they perceive to be science - as proof. It is just as upsetting to see outspoken "religious zealots" (picture Ben Stein's movie or the man behind the Creation Museum) retaliate by calling science "immoral" and "atheistic." Both sides can be - and have been, as we all know - wrong. Both sides are capable of taking one step too far, even when they should not exist as "opposing sides" at all.
But the main point here is, to be precise, that a man who is reasonably well-versed in both science and religion has been appointed to a political post in a country where a tremendous rift between science and religion exists. This is an extremely strategic move, and one which, although it (obviously) stirs controversy, will hopefully allow for some kind of meaningful dialogue to arise. (And while I appreciate your arguments for the "orthogonality" of religion and science, being a religious scientist myself, I must admit that the penultimate issue is, and will always be, one of politics and nothing more.)
I realize that BlackSun will likely retort with some prefabricated argument about how modern anthropology and neuroscience have determined that morality can be derived from the functioning of the brain, or the functioning of individual members within a collaborative society, but surely he/she must admit that the argument is completely irrelevant. The question is whether or not a religious scientist like Collins is a good choice for a political post, and the answer is - from the point of view of politics, which is the only point of view that matters in this instance, whether you like it or not - unequivocally yes.
I applaud Eric Reitan for his editorial - an obvious success, given the attention it has stirred. It must be flattering to know what discussion you instigated, and it must be impressively difficult not to leap into the conversation to linguistically abuse the not-so-tactful commentators.
I also applaud the few of you who choose to post thoughtful and well-reasoned arguments: lists of authors who have tackled these issues in the past, statistics of religiosity in the United States, calls to "transcend divisive parochial loyalties," discussions about the unfairness of labelling an entire group based on one outspoken or ill-grounded proponent, or quotations taken from others who are more qualified to discuss the topics at hand.
Francis Collins is a man who is, in all senses, not only capable of taking on this post, but worthy of it. There is, however, one last thing which should be noted, and that is this. Surely, it is a great honor to be appointed the head of the NIH, just as it would be a great honor to be appointed head of the DOE, the DOD or the Department of State. But let's be honest - anyone who knows anything about "corporate hierarchies" knows that, the higher you go on the ladder, the less it is you actually do, so why such a fuss in the first place? ;-)
Sam Harris NEVER said that. It is taken out of context. He doesnt have a problem with scientists and leaders being religious, but he does have a problem, as do i, when those scientists and leaders implement their religious beliefs into their work that is suppose to apply to all, not just Christians, or Muslims, or ...you get the picture.
Blacksun,
In your previous post you put theology in the category of unknown unknowns. But that category is what we don't know that we don't know. In other words, what we don't even suspect exists. By definition, no human has that knowledge and it is not the category into which religion falls.
The next logical place to put religion is into the known unknowns. The category of God is known; you would probably claim the content is unknown (if not empty.) Most believers would claim that it falls into the known knowns because the category is known and so is the content. You probably are uncomfortable with this because evidently you feel only what science verifies is valid.
But you say that scientists can speculate about something in the known unknowns realm. I agree but that means that a good deal of cutting edge science exists in the realm of faith--hope that the hypothesis is correct or even verifiable. Trust that the current consensus on the interpretation of facts is correct. And all that Dennett has done has offered some interesting and reasonable-sounding speculations on the origins of religion, interpretations that, unless he can go back in time and talk to the early humans whom he assumes started it, he can't know in any real scientific sense. If you think his speculations have explained it, then that reflects your faith in him.
The sciences that rely least on faith are the ones most captive to mathematics, in which things can actually be said to be proved. (But remember that math begins with axioms, truths not proved but considered self-evident. That sounds close to faith.)
Most sciences accumulate evidence, not proof, propose, test, discard and propose new hypotheses. As you say, the unknown will dominate and so pushing into that realm requires faith. And not just for a short time until you check a few things out. The verification can take years or even decades. Einstein had to wait years for an eclipse to verify general relativity, and due to an series of unfortunate happenings that almost didn't happen. We are still just now getting confirmation on some of his ideas, proposed a century ago. If holding them up as scientific facts in the meantime is not some form of faith--acceptable of things for which the results are not in--then what is it?
Why do you find faith and science antithetical? Newton's totally precise and mechanical universe has been overthrown. At the quantum level things are very much in flux. The things we observe are changed by our observing them. And quite frankly, scientific orthodoxy retards the progress of science as much as religious orthodoxy, more so today. I remember when Alvarez first proposed that the dinosaurs were wiped out by a asteroid impact, based on some very solid evidence. The scientific community was very much opposed to the idea. Before anyone went out and did the research themselves, eminent geologists pooh-poohed the idea in the press and in scientific journals. Their basic thrust: these things don't happen because we discarded catastrophism long ago. This sounds like the kind of faith statement that would be jumped on in a second had it not come out of the scientific community.
The object(s) of faith is a primary difference between science and religion but it is all a matter of faith, of whom do you trust.
And, sorry, Dawkins is a scientist and yet claims that the existence of God, an unknown by your cosmology, positively doesn't exist. Do we therefore say that his work as a biologist is suspect? Or do we choose to believe him in his own specialty and not bring his personal beliefs into it? Why not grant Collins the same benefit of the doubt?
Conjecture or "suspecting" something exists is not enough to place it in the category of known unknowns. A known unknown is something like this list:
http://www.sciencemag.org/sciext/125th/
If you're talking about the nature of a theoretical God, that is definitely an unknown unknown. We don't know if a God exists, and we don't know how to investigate such a proposition if it did, or even where to start looking for evidence of it.
A hypothesis is not made on faith. It is based on a reasonable interpretation of the data. It is then checked out, and dropped if it doesn't hold water.
Dennett's book is based on anthropological evidence. If you don't understand the basis for anthropology, I suggest you do your homework.
What religious people seem to have a hard time with is provisional knowledge or uncertainty. Science can accept that something is likely and then later modify the position as new information becomes available. This is a strength of science, not a weakness.
You don't see any of that flexibility with faith, which does not change based on any new information. And please stop your equivocating use of that word. When science updates old theories, it's not a matter of faith, it's a matter of continuous improvement in knowledge.
Phrases like "scientific orthodoxy" have been invented by people who just can't get past their religious mindset. Science is done by humans, most of whom are stubborn and not all of whom are perfect critical thinkers. It is the job of the method to winnow out these distortions, and it does pretty damn well fighting any "orthodoxy" over time.
Again, you don't ever fight religious orthodoxy, you leave and start a new sect. This little game has been going on since the days of Martin Luther. And just now again with the Anglican-Episcopalian split over gay clergy.
Are you seriously going to compare competing scientific theories with that circus?
Two more points:
Quantum uncertainty cancels out at any real-world scale. It is only uncertain at the particle level. This has no bearing on the existence of the supernatural. It's more like a paradox.
Dawkins never said he had positive proof there was no God. Any scientist knows you can't prove a negative. Dawkins came up with a seven-point scale of belief, and claims to be a six.
1) Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
2) De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
3) Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
4) Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
5) Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
6) De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
7) Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.
You said "Any scientist knows you can't prove a negative." Ha ha ha, that's funny! Read my Ph.D. thesis. I wrote 200 pages on something that's not there.
Hey, Blacksun:
Remember that other buddy of yours, Bill Maher? You know, he too believes religion to be intrinsically evil and all that. Remember that movie he made, Religulous? Do you remember what he said at the end of the movie? Allow me to paraphrase: "we should all avoid unfounded certainty and uphold doubt. Doubt is inherently humble." So, here's another atheist saying that Dawkin's 7-point scale is, well... hopefully you get the idea. Oh, know what the best part is? Doubt is a religious virtue.
...no I don't get the idea. Maher supports doubt, which is a universal human response when you have insufficient evidence. Maher would, no doubt, be a six on the scale, as would any rationalist who knows you can't prove a negative.
I'm really having trouble with this. Because it seems really obvious to me how you could just prove a negative, like, it's just as easy for me to say that my cup is here as it is for me to say my cup is not there. One's positive and one's negative, and I could prove either one just as easily. So what do you mean?
Dawkins's scale is obvious and reasonable and misleading. Real-life religion consists not of belief, but of faith—a diverse, complex phenomenon that includes a belief component but is only caricatured as probabilistic assessment of the proposition "God exists." In fact, religious believers tend to live out a complex mixture of religious experiences, ritual performances, stubborn resistance to (or helpless pounding by) emotional ups and downs, intellectual doubts and defenses, and other aspects of religious life. Faith can -- in fact, almost always does -- coexist with doubt: not simply as points 2 or 3 on the Dawkins scale, but strong faith coexisting with strong doubt, active faith with active doubt. Faith is a many-sided relationship of the whole person, including (but only including) the doubting/believing aspect of intellect, to the divine. That is an anthropological fact, even if the divine is an illusion.
Christian writer Madeline L’Engle tells the story of being asked by one of her students, “Do you really, truly believe in God, with no doubts?” She replied: “Yes, I really, truly believe, with all kinds of doubts.”
-----------------------
Blogging on science and religion at http://www.theotherjournal.com/blog.php?id=227.
Larry - excellent point. Bishop J.A.T. Robinson once said, "The act of faith is a constant dialogue with doubt." William Temple, Augustine, Evagrius, Peter Abelard, and many more have all commented on the nature of doubt with respect to faith, and have all come to similar conclusions.
To the extent that faith co-exists with doubt, you are describing a tortured life of cognitive dissonance. It is also one lived in stubborn resistance to being bound by mortality. I think that's the real struggle. If you could simply admit to your mortality, that entire faith-doubt exercise would be moot.
I understand the anthropological rationale for religion very well. Rituals, group recitations and performances have been a part of human culture since the beginning. Maybe we can find a way to conduct our rituals and explore the numinous without the baggage of supernatural delusions. We've managed to update the way we grow food, the way we care for the sick, the way we educate ourselves. Why can't we do the same with our beliefs and rituals?
G.K. Chesterton once wrote, "when there is mystery, there is health." Mystery is the coexistence of faith and doubt, it is the wonder at life which need not have anything to do with superstition or myth; doubt in what comes next, but faith that something will. Without mystery, the human condition 'reverts' back to the condition of animal or worse, vegetable - our lives become meaningless.
To the extent that one lives one's life in absolute certitude, be it of one's mortality (as you suggest) or one's place in a literal heavenly kingdom of gold in the sky, one is lost.
Of course. Here's another old chestnut: "Puzzles can be solved, mysteries cannot." If religion were based on a puzzle, no matter how complex, the scam would be over as soon as the puzzle was solved. But long ago, the scammers realized *mystery* is a ticket to permanence. It's no coincidence Chesterton used that argument. But it's still just a baseless assertion.
The *unknown* is what I think is healthy. No we don't know what happens when we die or what was before the big bang. We just don't know. So I'd ask religious people to please stop making claims about it. Of any kind.
"Harris’ words, “few things make thinking like a scientist more difficult than religion.”" - but how would he know, not ever having been religious? Ah, but - think about it - isn't this an unintentional revelation that really he does know something about this area because - as most people realise - his "atheism" is a kind of (perverted) religion, or fundamentalism, and totally non-rational/irrational?
1 of 2
Reitan obviously hopes that Harris and the other three "horsemen" (Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett) are sufficiently well-branded as anti-religionists that his readers will not notice the discursive sleight-of-hand involved in his own self-serving definition of religion -- an exceedingly broad and vague "ethico-religious hope" that has little to do with what the "New Atheists" actually are opposing.
The fact is, Harris and his compatriots are not against everything that falls under the rubric of the so-called "religious" impulse. They are against "religion," which, for them, is a synonym for "organized supernaturalism." They may not prefer the term "religious experience," but there are not categorical "a-religious-experience-ists," they are atheists, as is clearly illustrated in this this illuminating exchange from 2007:
HARRIS: I still use words like “spiritual” and “mystical” without furrowing my brow too much and, I admit, to the consternation of many atheists. I think there is a range of experience that is rare and that is only talked about without obvious qualms in religious discourse. And because it’s only talked about in religious discourse, it is just riddled with superstition. And it’s used to cash out various metaphysical schemes which it can’t reasonably do.
But, clearly, people have extraordinary experiences. Whether they have them on LSD, or they have them because they were alone in a cave for a year, or they have them because just happen to have the neurology that is particularly labile that allows for it…people have self-transcending experiences. And people have the best day of their life where…they seemed at one with nature. And…because religion seems to be the only game in town in talking about those experiences and dignifying them, that’s one reason why I think it seems to be taboo to criticize it, because you are talking about the most important moments in people’s lives and trashing them, at least from their view.
DAWKINS: Well, I don’t have to agree with you, Sam, in order to say that it’s a very good thing you’re saying that sort of thing, because it shows that, as you say, religion is not the only game in town when it comes to being spiritual. It’s like it’s a good idea to have somebody from the political right who is an atheist, because otherwise there’s a confusion of values which doesn’t help us. And it’s much better to have this diversity in other areas. But I think I sort of do agree with you. But even if I didn’t, I think it was valuable to have that.
HITCHENS: If one could make one change, and only one, mine would be to distinguish the numinous from the supernatural […] I think it would clear up a lot of people’s confusion that what we have in our emotions are the surplus value of our personalities [and] don’t belong to the supernatural and are not to be conscripted or annexed by any priesthood.
DENNETT: Yes, it’s a sad fact that people, in a sense, won’t trust their own valuing of their numinous experiences. They think it isn’t really as good as it seems, unless it’s from God and some kind of a proof of religion. No, it’s just as wonderful as it seems, it’s just as important. It is the best moment in your life, and it’s the moment when you forget yourself and become better than you ever thought you could be, in some way, and see, in all humbleness, the wonderfulness of nature. That’s it! And that’s wonderful. But, it doesn’t add anything to say, golly, that has to have been given to me by somebody even more wonderful.
2 of 2
Reitan writes: "Human experience includes elements...that are hard to fit into a reductively naturalistic worldview. And while the facts of science preclude some views about the transcendent, there are religious worldviews that not only fit with the facts but offer resources for making sense of our experience; resources unavailable in naturalism."
This is itself a reductive view of naturalism. There is a rich American tradition of religious naturalism or, more correct to say, naturalisms -- with an "s."
After first being given voice by Thoreau and Whitman, the philosophical and theological vocabulary of religious naturalism was developed by a group of philosophers and theologians in the first half of the twentieth century, after which the tradition lay somewhat dormant for about 30 years.
But religious naturalism has been experiencing a reinvigoration over the last 20 years, with a steady stream of books, articles, and conferences which evidence a rich variety of physicalist / materialist and more open naturalist approaches.
A couple of excellent online introductions are here and here
For a detailed history of the development of religious naturalism, read Jerome A. Stone's excellent Religious Naturalism Today (SUNY Press, 2008).
Whether or not you agree with Eric's characterization of Harris' editorial, I think you've missed the point. Henry David Thoreau has very little pertinence to whether or not Francis Collins is appointed head of NIH. Additionally, what the "Four Horsemen" disagree with (what you describe as "organized supernaturalism") is, as pointed out in an earlier post, representative of only a tiny fraction of the US population:
"...only about 5% of the US population counts as "evangelical, born-again Christian".... It sounds like, statistically, Reitan's "generalization" of Christianity is reasonably accurate, while the vilification of all Christians as illogical and unwavering fundamentalists is quite far off the mark." (I looked up these numbers, and although I can't find the 90% belief in God, I did find that "88% of American adults say that “my religious faith is very important in my life”" and "75% say they sense that “God is motivating people to stay connected with Him, but in different ways and through different types of experiences than in the past.”")
So it seems to me that Eric is pretty vindicated in his "broad" definition of religion, and if Harris is opposed to Collins' appointment by nature of his "religious experience" (as Collins does not claim to be a "fundie" - would Harris have written his piece if Collins was an outspoken Buddhist?), then Eric's characterization of the op-ed is true to life as well.
Thoreau is indeed pertinent, inasmuch as he helps to illustrate that there is a variety of naturalisms, not just the dumbed-down version of materialism / physicalism that Reitan uses to try to pigeonhole Harris in exactly the same way that he accuses Harris of pigeonholing religious people.
Reitan's pigeonholing is especially off the mark, given that Harris is the "horseman" that often has made atheists the most uneasy, in his voiced openness to paranormal phenomena (ESP, telepathy, etc.)
And "organized supernaturalism" absolutely does not equate with "evangelical, born-again Christian[ity]."
"Supernaturalism" means simply the belief in a god or gods, or in mystical forces, that lie outside the natural world.
More than 5 percent of the U.S. population believes in that.
A lot more.
I reiterate: "Henry David Thoreau has very little pertinence to whether or not Francis Collins is appointed head of NIH."
And again: if Harris equates "organized supernaturalism" solely with belief in God, then Eric is also allowed to use his generalized definition of Christianity. On the other hand, if Harris equates "organized supernaturalism" with only "evangelical, born-again Christianity," then he is, in fact, "pigeonholing religious people," as the statistics would indicate. Either way, Harris is in this instance making an unfair generalization - that a general belief in God is enough to preclude you from doing an effective job in public office, or that all religious people are exactly like John Hagee.
I agree completely that, if Eric's editorial made similar claims - that either a general disbelief in God should preclude you from positions of power, or that all atheists are just like P.Z. Myers - then your point about unfair categorizations is valid. But he says himself that "what I say here about "new atheism," especially as characterized by Harris, should not be taken to be a blanket condemnation of atheism overall." Harris, however, pulls no such punches: "few things make thinking like a scientist more difficult than religion." What a terribly broad and assertive generalization! To which "religion" does he refer: strict Christian fundamentalists or those who consider themselves merely spiritual?
I must restate, one last time, the important point which I still believe you have overlooked. Even Harris states: Dr. Collins' appointment "would seem a brilliant choice." And - politically speaking - it is precisely that.
Of course, Thoreau has all the pertinence that I attach to him here -- no more, no less -- since I'm the one who brought him up. Alas, you are not in a position to gainsay that, unless you wish to try to argue either that (1) Thoreau was not a kind of naturalist, or that (2) Reitan cannot be said to have dumbed down naturalism, in order to try to score a point against Harris.
Inasmuch as Reitan's "ethico-religious hope" -- what you call his "generalized definition of Christianity" -- appears to include at least some sensibilities to which Harris is on record as not objecting to, Reitan is not allowed to use this as a bludgeon with which to hammer Harris.
[I apologize in advance to those commentators who are actually discussing the subject matter of the editorial for this minor digression, but I had to have a little fun!]
"Of course, Thoreau has all the pertinence that I attach to him here -- no more, no less -- since I'm the one who brought him up."
I like cheese. You know, cheese is kind of funny when you think about it, but I like it nonetheless. I enjoy soft cheeses, like brie, creamy and smooth and subtle, but I also enjoy a good sharp cheddar, especially melted over some toasted English muffins. Even scrambled eggs are better with cheese in them. I'm not really a fan of goat's cheese, but at least I was willing to try it. Some people would be put off from the start, I'd guess.
Ok, now: at what point during a discussion does something I say become magically imbued with relevance merely because I said it? I brought up cheese, and I personally attach to it quite a bit of pertinence, seeing as how my willingness to try goat's cheese, well, kind of makes me a better person than I would have been if I'd categorically refused. But even if everything I've said is true and logically consistent, it is not relevant just because "I brought it up." And you, as a participant in said discussion, have every right to point out to me that cheese has no place in the debate.
So, one last time: "Henry David Thoreau has very little pertinence to whether or not Francis Collins is appointed head of NIH." I do like cheese, though. That wasn't a lie. I had some with lunch today. :-)
Apologies. Should have said that "Thoreau has all the potential pertinence that I attach to him here."
Which should make your cheese riff impertinent.
Irrelevant, too.
im-pertinent and hilarious!
I blog on this subject over at The Other Journal:
www.theotherjournal.com/blog.php?id=227
Although I think that Harris et al.'s concern about Collins is exaggerated and that he is a good pick for the NIH directorship, I also think that the atheists are pointing to a real problem about his attitude toward human evolution.
"Well, let’s start by dismissing Harris’s and Collins’s groundless belief that the NIH director has supernatural powers."
Love it! If the director of our lab believed in aliens, I wouldn't care, precisely because it makes no difference to how many reams of printer paper I'm able to purchase from stores.
Whoops, I just realized that "Harris's and Collins's" is a typo for "Harris's and Jacoby's". Corrected. Thanks for checking out the link . . . my blushes . . .
Either way, it was the funniest thing I'd read all day!
To put it bluntly, science cannot discern whether there is more to reality than science can discern.
Reitan pops this ... from where, exactly? This is just the kind empty, mystical formulation that should make philosophers embarrassed.
Science is not different from looking at flowers, or car repair, or plumbing. Science is simply our regular methods of perception and analysis, extended in a systematic way to the far frontiers of where they can possibly go- near, far, and everywhere else.
"Science", then, is us, and we are science. To claim that there is "reality" that is somehow beyond the ken of "science" means that we can perceive things that we can not reliably, or systematically, or rigorously perceive, and that those things are "real". This may sound like a paradox, but it is much less than that- it is fatuous.
...we can perceive things that we can not reliably, or systematically, or rigorously perceive, and that those things are "real"
Of course! Were science to take on the notion of something like "religious experience" - for the sake of the other people listening, we'll refer to it as "the numinous" - what would it find? We take 1000 people and, under strict conditions, try to reproduce this experience of "the numinous." Perhaps we find that, given these specific conditions, one person reports feeling something. We have a test group as well, of course, who are under the same conditions but not asked to experience something, or who are under different conditions and asked to experience the same thing. We find, in the end, a whole load of statistics - there is statistically a 0.1% chance you would feel something, or whatever. We may even develop some theory to describe the framework within which we might expect to see these results. And... so? If we find it is statistically improbable, even highly improbable, does that mean it's not real? If it's not capable of being seen systematically (because we all know that human beings are all different, and thus we can't really perform a truly systematic study) or reliably (same thing, humans are unreliable) or rigorously (because human beings also have that undesirable trait of changing either while or once you've tested them) or (you forgot) predictably, does that mean it's not real? If that one person experienced something, regardless of the outcome of our scientific study, does that mean his or her experience wasn't real?
We may concur on the fact that the sunset we're both watching is just light refracting through differing densities of water vapor. But maybe I see it as imbued with deeper meaning, and you don't. Does that make my experience not "real," because you didn't also experience it? I can look at the world "scientifically" - and see statistics, and the theory of electromagnetism, and the neurological impulses that flash through my brain - and still say, "cool."
So to answer your question, Reitan probably "pops" his statement from his own personal experience, and the similar experiences of others. Just because you've not shared in this experience, or because you haven't seen a formulation of it in mathematical terms, doesn't mean it's not "real."
I think a quick read of William James' "The Varieties of Religious Experience" would be helpful here. Here is a link to the text (thanks to the University of Virginia).
Yes a great book. So where did James come down? Here is a sample quote:
Thus the divorce between scientist facts and religious facts may not necessarily be as eternal as it at first sight seems, nor the personalism and romanticism of the world, as they appeared to primitive thinking, be matters so irrevocably outgrown. The final human opinion may, in short, in some manner now impossible to foresee, revert to the more personal style, just as any path of progress may follow a spiral rather than a straight line. If this were so, the rigorously impersonal view of science might one day appear as having been a temporarily useful eccentricity rather than the definitively triumphant position which the sectarian scientist at present so confidently announces it to be.
You see now why I have been so individualistic throughout these lectures, and why I have seemed so bent on rehabilitating the element of feeling in religion and subordinating its intellectual part. Individuality is founded in feeling; and the recesses of feeling, the darker, blinder strata of character, are the only places in the world in which we catch real fact in the making, and directly perceive how events happen, and how work is actually done.
When this personal stratum perceives a subjective reality or feeling, that is surely real, subjectively. And science may yet obtain quite a full third-party account of such inner (brain) experiences as well.
It is only when such experiences are thought to imply some outer reality of cosmic dimension (theism, supernaturalism, psychic phenomena, etc.) that its method of logic can be impeached, since it is making claims over which more normal modes of perception have far, far better purchase. Yet we are driven by our natures and narcissism to make these kinds of claims all the time.
There's no reason to believe that such experiences don't imply some outer reality (nor is there really any reason to believe that these experiences are not based upon "normal modes of perception"). It is the narcissist who believes the experience pertains only to himself and not to something greater.
It is the narcissist who believes the experience pertains only to himself and not to something greater.
What an absolutely fascinating comment. Non-narcissism means taking my spiritual experiences to mean that the entire universe has been revealed to me, and absolute morality as well, which in turn means that those who have different, spiritual experiences and conclusions are wrong and perhaps should be killed (or burned, then killed) because their experiences don't agree with my experiences. Is that where we are going with this non-narcissism?
Why is it that you assume one extreme or the other? I knew a die-hard born-again Baptist who was guilty of the same thing: taking what someone said and assuming that only the two extremes of that opinion could possibly be valid. It had to be one or the other, us against them, black or white, yes or no; according to him, either you believed that life was sacred to the point of active remorse over every squished spider and disinfected microbe, or you believed that everyone could murder anyone at any time for any reason. There was no middle ground - at least, not in his head - only those two choices which he presented could possibly exist.
You're doing the same thing, though from the other end of the religious spectrum. People can be prideful and narcissistic over their religious experiences, or over their lack of religious experiences. A narcissist, based on the prevailing perception of reality in his head, would either believe that everything revolved around him (so the experience can't have any "outside" meaning), or believe that everything revolved around him (so the experience was so full of "outside" meaning that it must be infallible, immutable and insurmountable, precisely as it was given to him alone). Get it? The point is that a person's pride and boastfulness is what causes the problem, no matter on which side he believes himself to be.
By making the statement that narcissism is related to someone's selfish belief that an experience pertains only to himself, I do not (nor must I) assume the converse - that non-narcissism is related to revelation of "the entire universe... and absolute morality" which must then be taken as a metric to determine that "different... experiences and conclusions are wrong." So no. That's not where I'm going, though it may be (well, obviously is) the conclusion you've drawn.
In simpler terms, both an atheist and a Baptist can be haughty, self-absorbed, narcissistic, and believe they're right when everyone else is wrong. The rest of us, thank God, lay somewhere in the middle.
Hi, Kelly-
I was simply laying out the conclusions to which your reasoning leads. To infer any larger (non-personal) truths or realities from the personal inner experience, however powerful and moving it may be, (especially if it is powerful and moving, actually), however couched in middle-of the road sentiments (non-haughty, etc.), can not be valid as a reality for others unless they either directly share it (which is impossible), or unless it can also be shown in a public way susceptible to analysis and reason, which is to say, to science.
If we view the color green, we can conventionally all agree to label it green, even though, due to our various color-blindnesses and brain wirings, each person experiences it differently. Likewise with spiritual experiences- we all have them and their inner reality is not in question. What they signify or label is in this case indeed in question, and to presumptively take your own interpretation as signifying some outside "reality", as you advocate above, ("There's no reason to believe that such experiences don't imply some outer reality"), without the least outside and public validation (from miracles, god's favors, raining frogs, etc.), means that you claim knowledge that others don't share at all.
As you know, this "knowledge" is of the most momentous, cosmic, and meaningful sort. Thus, if taken seriously, it leads inexorably to conflict in this, our mundane, world. It does no good to not take it seriously, and to say- well, can't we sort of believe in the semi-reality of this outer "reality" if it makes us feel good? But why not take it seriously if is is really true? It is the lack of outer validation that makes it impossible to take these conclusions seriously, and you should just face up to that situation- that spiritual experiences are entirely inner-originated and inner-signifying affairs. God is within.
Burk~
I disagree, as I said, that having an opinion on something automatically means that I must assume the extreme position (one side or the other, "the conclusions to which your reasoning leads" being those extremes) - I am, as you are, allowed to have an opinion that does not lay fully on one end or the other of the spectrum. Sure enough, my Baptist acquaintance would argue just the same thing as you, but in slightly different terms: "I'm just taking your argument all the way to its logical conclusion." I find that funny, actually. It shows the universality of that tendency, whatever causes it. (The tendency is obviously quite ingrained, as you've done it again - in assuming that when I said "there's no reason to believe that such experiences don't imply some outer reality," what I meant was "that [I] claim knowledge that other's don't share at all.")
That said, I agree that the knowledge is important, meaningful, and should be taken seriously. But I also think it is part of the responsibility of the person whose experience it is to examine it and be able to separate the core of it from the context-dependent part (to determine, in other words, which part is "outer" and which part "inner," to the best of his or her ability). The "outer" portion need not come with "signs and wonders." Perhaps it just comes with the realization that someone else has had a similar experience. If I can perceive some flash of the divine and so, too, can a Buddhist practitioner, then perhaps there is more to it than merely "God is within." It's not proof, but it doesn't deny the possibility, either (and again, here's one of those situations where I don't need to assert that either "God is within" or "God is without" - both can have some level of validity). In theory, this shared experience (even if not precisely the same) should serve to bring us closer together, not divide us. It is an experiential reminder that "all men are equal before God," if you will.
PS - you are, I suppose, at liberty to point out that I referred to the "universality" of some trait, and yet am of the opinion that the "universality" of another trait is a possible sign of something outside of our nature, and therefore I am contradicting myself. I am fully aware that the psychology of humans indicates we will have shared (common) experiences because we have shared (common) tendencies. But my point is, as I said, that because we have shared tendencies is not proof that "God is within," nor is it proof that "God is without." I think our shared experiences are instead an indication that either view - or both - could be valid.
Hi, Kelly-
Yes, certainly, opinions are free. But if you are under the impression that your opinions are not a stochastic cloud of ideas, but a logical system, as a philosopher like Reitan would lay claim to, then you are open to critique using logical tools.
"In theory, this shared experience (even if not precisely the same) should serve to bring us closer together, not divide us. It is an experiential reminder that "all men are equal before God," if you will."
Yes, indeed, we are all human, and have similar experiences. If I had a gallstone and you had a gallstone, would that allow us to agree that god (a vengeful one, in this case) exists?
Not at all. We must search for the cause of our feelings. You say that "it is part of the responsibility of the person whose experience it is to examine it and be able to separate the core of it".
But how is that done? Spiritual feelings have no reliable external referent. The color green has a quantitative referent- no problem. A gallstone has a clear medical referent- no problem again. But spiritual experiences- the best we have done so far is to look into people's brains and see some areas light up that correlate with such experiences. Nothing else occurs- no spoons are bent, no signs and wonders, as you put it.
So if the only referents of the experience are internal, not external, it follows that no external referents exist, as the default hypothesis. This area has been so extremely abused through history with all sorts of hypotheses of wonders that have been fundamentally destroyed by a modern conception of reality that one should be extremely hesitant to give such "outer" hypotheses (in all their fabulous variety and conflicting aspects) any weight over psychological explanations of spiritual experiences.
I will give one experiential example of what I think should count as an "external referent." Emotions are funny things; I'm not saying one can't study them in a scientific way, but in the end that's merely classification. There can be two people who love one another, but it is merely that "I love you" and "you love me," and no more. There is no external referent, merely internal, as you say. But there can be two people who love one another, and above and beyond the particular emotions of those two individuals, the love takes on a life of its own. We tend to lack helpful descriptors when it comes to situations like this, which is why we are always forced to fall back on what words we have. In this instance of love - and I "know" it because I have "seen" it, just as real as the color green - the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. The "quality" of the relationship is different from others, not just in degree, but in kind, and this difference in quality is something that is apparent to "outsiders." This love, which is something more than just internal, creates an impression upon those who are close to it. Those who have been "touched" by proximity to such love become its "external referent." The same is true of all (true) spiritual leaders - there was just something about their very nature, above and beyond mere charisma or interest, which drew people to them. The fact that, say, Jesus was consistently followed by huge crowds (even to the current day) attests well enough to the fact that he had something greater than what he himself should be able to possess.
Nay-say it if you will. Bring up Hitler if you will (but note this: Hitler was said, by those who knew him, to have a certain "aura" about him that went beyond charisma, albeit in this instance an evil aura). But I think it boils down quite well to what James argued in his book - either you have experienced it, and you "know," or you haven't, and you don't. No amount of sophistry will allow you to truly understand an experience you've never had.
Hi, Kelly-
I think your proposition is highly speculative. Our feelings can be strong- we feel for others, empathize, and engage in social manias and movements. One classic book on this is Trotter's Instincts of the herd in peace and war. This is no reason to import new age theism, or old-age.
We are all looking for languages to express spiritual feelings high and low, but mixing them up with languages about "knowledge" and spiritual "realities" seems dangerous from an epistemological standpoint- it is pretty much untethered from serious evidence that we would usually require for 'knowledge". William James took the same approach, concluding that we are talking about feelings here, not intellect, let alone knowledge.
I'd view your desire to be middle of the road and socially accommodating on this issue as similar to saying ... why can't we mix in a little alchemy with our chemistry, a little astrology without astronomy, or a little creationism with our biology? Not only would this be intellectually unsound, but ultimately, not socially beneficial either.
"...a little creationism with our biology?" Ooh, that's harsh! There's a difference between hearing out all sides and seeking the truth, and being socially accommodating merely for the sake of avoiding conflict.
I think that, in the examples you've given (chemistry, astronomy, biology) there is a pretty well defined way to scientifically examine the phenomena. We can take them into a lab and study them under controlled circumstances. I'm not sure the same rule applies to human beings - statistically, we can be said to behave a certain way, but humans tend to behave like "black boxes" on an individual level. Knowing everything that went in is no guarantee you can predict what comes out. It's a bit like quantum mechanics, in that sense.
Don't mistake my "argument" - I am not trying to make concessions so that atheists and theists can agree. I'm trying to formulate into words my own personal experiences, which just happen to be neither fully atheistic or fully born-again. I myself have reason to believe that what I've experienced was not merely 'internal.' As I've said, that conclusion feels far too self-absorbed for my liking.
And just as I view a belief in the Bible as infallible, literal, etc, as being unfounded and dangerous, so too do I view a belief in the ultimate triumph of science to be unfounded and dangerous. Science it merely a tool, not an end in and of itself. This "worship" of science is akin to what happened during the Industrial Revolution - worship of new technology. And yet, we remain where we began on our most basic, fundamental, spiritual level.
Hi, Kelley-
"Ooh, that's harsh! "
Well, I'm not saying anything really that Francis Collins isn't saying, ironically enough. He claims that God has somehow implanted morals into humans when they reached the golden threshold of whatever stage it was- erectus, habilis, sapiens? I have no idea. And that God speaks through DNA, etc. It is all rather incoherent, but then coherence was never the strong suit of religion in any flavor.
I understand that you are not consciously trying to split the cultural difference in some cynical way. It is just that the cultural indoctrination is so strong, as witnessed by the unthinking mantra that atheists have no morals, that 'belief' is always good, even if god is the most inchoate and undefinable idea, whose face changes with the winds and tides ... etc., that the "new atheists" have realized the people need to be shaken up a bit to consider a different perspective. A perspective that is as old as the hills, but for all its intellectual rigor is literally inhumane- is not human-centered enough for the usual taste and temperament, and thus hounded out of society. Witness the trial of Socrates, for merely the suspicion of atheism.
The cultural template of spiritual expression and self-conception is so strong that many people, while cognizant of the absurdities of orthodox religion, still can not tear themselves away from the basic theorem that spiritual feelings are not personal, but show us ... a transpersonal reality of some version of supreme real-ness and importance. Perhaps not real enough anymore to be fought and died for, but still enough to moon over. I recognize their personal power and meaning, but that should not blind us to what is actually going on.
Jung had some pretty mystical approaches to all this, but basically, the collective unconscious is the common mental substrate we all share (via evolution and culture) and express in our individual ways, prompted by our individual experiences and makeup. Spiritual emotions, while strongly connecting us to each other and the world (re-ligio...) are nevertheless emotions like any other. To hypothesize beyond this, which is in keeping with all evidence physical and psychological, is a leap of faith, and as yet unjustified.
I've read Collins' book, and I can't say I agree with all of it. The important point regarding Collins' appointment was made earlier - politically speaking, it's a good idea.
I disagree that it's only the "new atheists" who are shaking people up to consider a new perspective - this has been the role of the prophet from time immemorial. Nor is the "personal power and meaning" of "spiritual feelings" to be considered something that "blind[s] us to what is actually going on;" that presumes that the power and meaning of the spiritual feelings is somehow not what is "actually going on." Merely because you can link those feelings to certain electrochemical impulses in the brain doesn't mean that those impulses are the only thing that's "actually going on" either.
I agree with a comment Eric made to you - that spiritual emotions speak to, and form the basis of, the "hope" of something more. Not the certainty of it, nor the certainty of the lack of it. To "hypothesize beyond this" is a perfectly reasonable - and probably necessary - action; something that makes us truly human.
PS - I win. Post #100!
Hi- Y'all might be interested in Jerry Coyne's latest review of the quasi-religionism of Francis Collins, Robert Wright, etc.
Comments closed
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.