Let's continue with our dialogue about religion. I'll start:
Prove it.
That's usually where the dialogue about religion I had in mind stops. Discuss any issue of any importance regarding any topic other than religion, and that's the standard to which we hold the other conversant. But when it comes to religion, that standard is gone.
As I've mentioned here before, when it comes to the affairs of men (and women) on this planet, that should be the standard. If you can't provide solid, empirical evidence, wrapped in a logical argument for your plan, then why should men accept it?
The answer to that last question in every case except where religion is concerned is, "they shouldn't."
That's the dialogue we should have more of.
Now let's have some fun with this...
For instance, did you hear the one about the biologist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute who says he was fired because of his religion and is suing for a half a million? The research lab says they fired him because he refused to do the job. He even wrote that he didn't want to do it in a letter to his boss. Ok, that's a little nuanced... he didn't want to work on the "evolutionary aspects of the NIH grants" for which he was hired. He's a biologist. He studies evolution.
His lawyers argue that he was never asked if he believed in evolution when he was hired so that wasn't a job requirement and therefore it can't be used to fire him. (Wouldn't that be like asking doctor if he believes in the power of medicine? Does anyone really ask that?) His lawyer also says that believing in evolution requires as much "faith" as believing in creation.
It's true that believing in evolution requires faith, but not in the sense that the lawyer is trying to suggest by invoking the two defintions of the word. Scientific faith (not to be confused with Scientology) is the same faith required to drive on a two lane highway. You're separated by only a foot or two by oncoming traffic doing at least 55 miles per hour. If you and an oncoming driver sneeze at the wrong time, you both die. You have to have faith in that other driver's ability to not sneeze. But that kind of faith doesn't require belief in mythical beings or man's words describing what those beings think. It comes from repeated observations of other drivers on the road.
Science does in fact require that kind of faith. Faith that other researchers have done their work, that your data is solid and that the conclusions are true, repeatable under controlled conditions, etc. Faith in conclusions supported by observable evidence achieved over repeated testing is not the same as faith in a religion. The laywer knows this, but he won't point it out to the jury.
They won't have the dialogue about religion that they should. The lawyer, who knows why the biologist who refused to report on his research was fired, won't argue the merits of his case, he will argue the merits of firing someone because of his religion. He will paint the Insitute as devil-worshipping for this. The Insititute's lawyers will argue that they simply want complete reports supported by empricial evidence, but they won't dare mention that there's no empricial evidence of creation because the jury will then use the biologist's lawyer's paint brush to paint them as devil worshippers as well and the Insititue will lose their case based not on the merits of the case, but based on human insecurity and inability to look at the facts in a case involving religion.
Or here's another for instance: if I call Mike Huckabee's arrogance or campaign spending hypocritical in terms of the Christianity I studied, I can prove that with Bible verses that directly address it, but when he says abortion and same sex marriage are wrong because God says so, he can't prove that. I can provide evidence that God (if he exists) aborts more babies than anyone on Earth and I can provide evidence that the word "homosexual" is NEVER used in the Bible. But no one has shown me any evidence that God doesn't approve of or at least condone these things.
That's the kind of dialogue I'd like to have more of, but I'm never allowed. People always say, don't argue politics or religion. Or they get mad at my questions and tell me I just have to "believe."
And I do believe... what I see and what I know... and what is presented to me with evidence, in a logical argument. I also believe that there's a lot about human nature we don't know, especially when it comes to spiritual or conscious needs. I believe too that religion can provide a sense of comfort in lieu of further understanding about these needs, but that it can also prevent further understanding of these needs unless we're allowed to question it objectively as we do other biological, chemical and physical processes. Questioning it objectively means asking for proof of the answers.
Any belief beyond that should be left out of the conversation when it comes to the affairs of man. It would result in a lot less bloodshed and a lot more progress toward solving the other issues facing mankind.
I have to go watch the Buckeyes win another BCS National Championship... don't even get me started arguing about that!
Luth
Out
10 comments:
Yes Luth, religious belief is about faith. If it was testable under rules of science, then the faith factor would not be needed.
I know I won't be addressing your deeper issues, but want to give a different perspective on some of your details.
In reference to Nathaniel Abraham being fired by Woods Hole, I have found information that disputes what you have posted. This is from World Magazine reporting in this weeks issue. Abraham claims the firing did not originate from refusal to adhere to a policy of supporting evolutionary theory, but came as a result of a passing remark he made to his boss following a meeting.
At this point, Abraham sent his boss an email assuring him that if the issue of evolution did arise, he would willingly discuss implications of zebrafish behavior and anatomy according Darwinian theory. At no time did he refuse to perform tasks in a way that violated OH policy. Hahn, Abraham's boss, then wrote to Abraham telling him that if he could not accept the reality of evolution, then he should resign. Abraham refused to resign so they fired him. He was fired not for performance reasons nor for refusal to perform the essential duties of the job, he was fired for his religious beliefs.
Abraham contends that the matter never came up in the interview process nor during the course of his work because the project had nothing to do with evolution. Apparently, he received commendations for his work prior to his revelation that he was a creationist. Something smells fishy. And it ain't dead zebrafish.
As pertaining to evolution being established fact, let me ask one question, how has the scientific community tested that theory? It hasn't, it is a theory built on conjecture and assumptions rooted in faith. I contend that evolution takes as much faith as does religion. Let me refer you to the 1/08 issue of Smithsonian magazine. They published an article entitled "Thinking Like A Monkey" which tells the story of a primate researcher. The researcher is quoted as saying, "If you see something in a primate, you can use it as a window into the evolutionary past of human beings". Oh reeeeeaaaally now... What a monkey does today represents what humans did in the past? I would love to see the scientific test used to determine that "truth". Or is it merely a statement that fits neatly into a preconceived belief that evolution as we understand it today is absolute truth?
"Evolution is true because I want it to be true and fits neatly into my nice little view of the world box". Is that the way it really is?
I too gave up on the Buckeyes early 2nd half. I wanted so badly for them to win to rub it in the face of those who say the SEC is far superior to other conferences. Ohio let me down.
No more about the Bucks until the Spring game!
I heard the Woods Hole/Abraham story on the radio, then got this from a Boston Globe article as I was typing that post:
"In a 2004 letter to Abraham, his boss, Woods Hole senior scientist Mark E. Hahn, wrote that Abraham said he did not want to work on 'evolutionary aspects' of the National Institutes of Health grant for which he was hired, even though the project clearly required scientists to use the principles of evolution in their analyses and writing."
I mistakenly wrote that Abraham had written this letter. I was wrong. The excerpt does clarify what Abraham's boss submitted as the reason for firing him, namely: not doing scientific work at a scientific institution.
An open mind toward both the theory of evolution and the belief in creation would be acceptable. Abraham told his boss he couldn't have an open mind about evolution. That's not a matter of religion, it's a matter of not accepting one's job description.
I neither called the THEORY of evolution a fact, nor did I call it "true because it fits in my box" and no, that's not at all "how it is." In fact I took some time to explain how faith in the theory of evolution is developed through the scientific method of data collection and repeated and consistent results. Creation meets no such test. I noted only that the faith required of evolution is very different than the faith required of Creation.
By man's definition, one of those kinds of faith is rational, one is not. Or to put it another way, that which is "not testable under the rules of science" is irrational, ie, the faith factor is irrational. By definition, not by my opinion or my little box.
Science is very rational and Woods Hole is in the science business.
Were you, perhaps, confusing my post with some responses to the World Magazine article you read? You seem to have read things in my post I neither said nor implied.
One thing is for certain: although I completely understand and appreciate your rancor toward the SEC (do you have any idea how hard it was to root for Michigan to beat Florida?!) I'm done discussing the Bucks until the spring game.
We'll have to get back to the first line of your comment at some point. It's exactly what I meant about having more discussion about religion.
Typically, many scientists state emphatically that evolution is fact. I interpreted your negative comments concerning Abraham and the positive way you protrayed evolutionary thought as an acceptance of it as fact.
What I am asserting is that the faith required to accept evolution is no different than the faith to accept religious positions. Science is limited in the data they can collect and especially when it comes to first causes, the testing it can perform. The data is subject to assumptions, assumptions based often on preconceived opinions that are then accepted by the scientific community as fact then further theories are built upon it.
I contemplate that if the universe is as large as we believe it is and consider the speed of light, it makes it hard to believe the universe is no more than 4000 to 6000 years old since light from the furthest visible stars would not have reached us yet, but we can see them. How is that?
The Grand Canyon. Did that really happen over a matter of years vs. millenia?
We don't know for sure. The historical records are kind of incomplete. Kind of hard to perform viable tests, too.
If I am to believe that Evolution is fact and gives the answers we seek, then that belief will be rooted in the same faith I currently have in the biblical explanation of first causes.
Of course, the title of your previous post was "Look It Up" and you went on about those who take what they read at face value without digging deeper. I couldn't resist a little dig relative to Abraham.
I get the need for the dig... and you got me, but I'm a little confused on some of the rest. When you posit the 4000-6000 year age of the Earth question and the Grand Canyon question, are you suggesting our universe is older, as science suggests? Or younger as the Bible suggests?
I only wonder because, technically, those stars you mention fall squarely into that "hard to test viably" category, and yet, if I read you correctly, you seem pretty confident that they're older than faith documents allow.
As I'm sure you are aware, and seem to believe, there are methods of estimation supported by caluclations that offer pretty compelling and convincing evidence as to the age of those stars, but, alas we can't just go collect samples of them and prove beyond any question how old they are. If the theories are correct, many of them don't even exist anymore. We have only theory, available data, conclusions, and tests of those conclusions... science.
Similarly, evolution.
Perhaps a God set it all into motion, but perhaps not. The evidence we have leans more toward evolution from a physical/ chemical/biological event. An event that seems unlikely, but definitely possible. Occam's razor is often cited in favor of the God theory, but I don't think it works. After all, while it is simple to say God created the universe, it would require a rather complex undertaking. Thus the God Theory is actually the more complex of the two (God vs. chemical/physical/biological + evolution).
I'll stop there because, again, I'm not sure where you are going with that.
I'll move on to faith in science vs. faith in God. Let me try this: a long-time acquaintance and a perfect stranger apply at your company. You know the acquaintance was successful by many measures with his former employer (observation). He has produced letters of recommendation from that employer and you've had lunch with the HR director from that employer and have reason to believe he's a pretty straight shooter. During an interview, you asked performance based questions and the acquaintance seemed pretty prepared for what the new job will throw at him and he's passed a screening exam.
The non-acquaintance has turned in similar paperwork but all from a far away town, passed the screening exam and did equally well in the interview. You can't manage to catch the former employer or HR director though.
You're under a firm deadline to get the position filled and you can't afford to wait much longer to hear back from the non-acquaintance's former employer.
Who do you hire? Is your faith in them the same?
It's probably not the best analogy, but the point is this: the two faiths required to believe in scientific theory and religion may well be distant relatives, but they're far from the same.
Faith in a scientific theory comes from evidence, observation and repeated testing and failed attempts at disproving it. Faith in religion requires none of that.
Help me understand how you see these as the same thing. I hesitate to use the term, but I just can't see blind acceptance in the same light as the scientific method.
Luth, I don't have time to read your entire reply nor answer. But, to your initial questions, I'm just demonstrating that as someone who does not accept evolution as we understand it today, I do have questions about our surroundings and I'm not taking the position that just because the Bible appears to make a statement that I accept everything at face value. There's more to the story we don't see. Ostensibly, there are discrepancies that I cannot begin to explain. I used the distance of the furthest stars and the speed of light as an example.
I'm glad you conceded I got you. Good thing we aren't keeping score.
More later.
OK, now I have time for more.
There's the old say that goes something like this. "God said it, I believe it, that settles it." Typical of the old Fundamentalist, all fun and no mental. Or, something like that. The Bible is not a science book, though I don't believe it contradicts true science. Also it is not a history book, though it contains historical records. So, yes I am a creationist, but not a scientist so I cannot give good arguments for what appear to be discrepancies. Notice, I've used the word ostensibly and appear in reference now to what some call discrepancies.
So, yes being a Creationist I should believe in a young Earth, but I have a hard time reconciling that with other supposed facts. And, the Bible teaches that God is not constrained by time as we are, I can't think of the reference, but the Bible states that a 1000 years is like a day to God. OK, just how long were those 7 days of Creation in Genesis? 1000 years each? Well, that still doesn't square with current evolutionary thought. I've been taught those 7 days were literal days. OK. I don't know.
So, you can call me a dogmatist who questions. Whatever that means. Does that confuse you?
So, there is not confusion I will quote you directly, "Faith in a scientific theory comes from evidence, observation and repeated testing and failed attempts at disproving it.". Yes, I can agree with that statement. Science has determined the Earth is round - or nearly so. Science has determined that man truly can fly. Science has determined that some diseases can be cured. Science has determined that hearts can be transplanted and people can live longer and productive lives. Those were all proven through the scientific method you describe. I believe in it.
Evolutionary thought does not fit into the neat little scientific box that the examples above do. I have faith that science may someday cure the common cold because of what science has already accomplished. It is real. It is tangible. But, science cannot tangibly prove that modern monkeys demonstrate the human behavior of our ancestors, as this so-called scientist from Smithsonian asserts. Her assertion is based on assumptions, not scientific testing and positive proof. The subjects she is referring to are dead and may never have existed in the form she believes. Her assertion is based on her belief that evolution, as defined today, is true and factual. She is building on a base of assumptions, not theories proven through scientific testing. If A, then B. Or something like that. I am not a mathematician tautologist either. I'm a musician and all we need to do is count to 4 in each measure.
Going back to the Abraham incident at Woods Hole, I have an analogy for you. I love Shakespeare. Read all his plays at least once and some several times. Great stuff. Some learned scholars don't believe in Shakespeare. They say he never existed, he was merely a pen name for another playwrite, maybe Ben Johnson. Maybe someone else. Shakespeare was uneducated and someone like that could never have written something as complex as those plays. Would you hire a highly credentialed professor to teach Shakespeare who believed Shakespeare never existed as a man? Wouldn't his skepticism disqualify him from teaching about the man and his works? Or, is it justifiable to employ the skeptic as a matter of perspective? Same with Abraham?
OK, I'll get off the Abraham bandwagon now. I do appreciate the discussion and look forward to delving further into the concept of religious faith. You have raised valid questions in other posts, which religious faith is true? There are some similarities but significant differences, too. Do the Jews have it right? The Christians? The Muslims? How about Buddhists? I understand that an agnostic or skeptic could legitimately ask those questions.
That clears things up a little. Enough that I can at least ask better questions. Based on our history in this forum, this is how I interepreted your previous comment, I just wasn't sure.
In fact, it's a position with which I'm quite familiar as I too held a similar position at one point rather recently. I am not saying that to imply that I've "evovled" or "graduated" from it because I'm no more sure of the true underlying questions now than I was when I stood with you in that position, but I understand it even though it's no longer where I stand. In fact, I arrived at that position after a series of discussions with a science teacher, for whom I still have a great deal of respect, who also happens to be firmly catholic. Her reply after my unceasing questions about how she can teach science, including evolution - a topic in which she was a firm believer - and believe in her faith finally came down to, "Luth, even scientists don't believe science covers EVERYTHING." Before the scientists out there call for her head, and her teaching certificate, they should know that she felt strongly that the belief in creation should be discussed in Sunday School, NOT a science classroom. (This came after I asked her what she thought about intelligent design... "Sunday School," she said, "it's not science.") If I recall, she was also disappointed in the lack of reproductive health education taught in our largely catholic, though public school district, but that's another discussion.
It sounds as though you are awaiting more evidence on evolution, which is big step toward rational than allowing dogma to convince you it simply didn't happen. I can appreciate that. I can't help but wonder though if you might be waiting for it to come from the wrong place. The behavior of modern animals may be the result of their own evolution, but it bears little light on our evolution. In fact, I'd like to examine that on a couple of different fronts.
By a number of standards, modern monkeys exibit many of the behaviors of modern man, let alone past-era man. Depending on what you allow under the term "Science" there's a great argument for this in the book, THE APE IN THE CORNER OFFICE by Richard Conniff. It's right up your (HR) alley. It's about how the old so-called "jungle theory" of management that said "kill or be killed" in the board room isn't very consistent with the jungle - corporate or African. Rather, good leaders foster cooperation and try to leave a legacy rather than just eating their young in the boardroom... kind of like apes who remain the leader of their groups for long tenures.
Of course, there's plenty of more biological (and less sociological) text out there suggesting this in more biological (and less boardroom) ways too, but my point is, I'm just not sure you're looking under the right rock for your evidence by comparing modern monkey behavior with modern human behavior.
When you cite this woman's work for the Smithsonian, she's using the scientific method to try to disprove a theory in the absence of concrete evidence. Like the caluculations on the ages of stars, or the Earth for that matter, it's all we can do. That's how science works.
I will grant you that working with such theories will only lead us toward solid conclusions, rather than offering undeniable proof, but you must admit that it goes a lot farther in that effort than religious faith alone.
When it comes to the evidence for evolution, there's a lot out there. The majority of scientists (as you mention) accept it as a fact rather than as a theory precisley because of this massive body of evidence. Again, that doesn't make it true, but there is a lot of evidence to support it. Fossil evidence alone is something that even the layman can see with his own eyes.
This kind of evidence, combined with "faith" in carbon dating tells us the earth is probably many millions of years old. We can explain that away by assuming that the Bible's time periods are different than ours all we want, but that's hardly the point.
It's not that I don't want to continue with this path of our journey, but perhaps this is a good time to focus on the "why" of religious faith rather than the "how." We can come back to the science part when we see the headline about fossilized modern human remains next to dinosaurs on an ark. (OK, that was a little glib, but given the body of evidence out there to support evolution... and I'm not saying it's fact, but to support the theory, I don't think evidence alone is going to get us anywhere)
Yes, it seems the discussion really needs to get down to the roots of belief, whether religious or otherwise. Why do we have religious faith is a good question. It may take me a few days, but I'll come up with some ideas.
Too often the discussion of origins ends up being, "yes it is... no it isn't...." over and over. You won't accept my religious faith as valid, and my faith in science is not sufficient. By your own admission, there is still a degree of faith involved in the scientific process - else you wouldn't see constantly changing theories and ideas and new concepts.
I would say though, that I don't really agree with your Catholic school teacher friend. Relegating creation type theories strictly to the church realm and evolutionary theories to the school realm sets up a dichotomy of truth and creates confusion. It sounds like she is just ducking the reconciling of her two spheres of belief. But, that may be an unfair statement since all I know of her is what you said above.
I guess in my mind I want to reconcile biblical creation with current scientific thought by believing that God used longer periods of time and that maybe each day in Genesis was really an epoch. But, that goes against established biblical interpretation and creationist thinking. Bottom line, yes I believe God created the universe. How did He do it? Don't know, that information has not been revealed to us yet.
When I stood with you in your current position, I too was on a quest to reconcile the Bible with science. Even today, I won't rule that out, but there's no scientific way to approach it, or, as you say, it hasn't been revealed to us yet.
My science teacher friend, to borrow your phrase put the separation of the two "studies" like this: that which is not testable by the rules of science, is not science, and therefore should not be taught as science, in science class.
I'm reading a book right now called Think and it's got me kind of conflicted. The underlying agenda seems to almost justify the anti-elitism in our country, but the whole point of the book is that we've allowed our critical thinking skills to wane in favor of quick, easy answers. One quote about which I'm not conflicted is something like, "we let ideology and dogma think for us" rather than think for ourselves. The author even gives a quick review of a syllogism as well as some of the more common fallacies as defined by the strict rules of logic and...
Ok, why am I bringing this up here? I logged on tonight to post something about the Colts and the Titans getting what they deserve. I'm outta here.
Post a Comment