Is religion guilty of moving the goalposts?

[Immanuel Can]

If they are gone, (and I have no reason to believe that), it would only be because the teachers of evolution got tired of hearing the Christian Fundamentalists whining about them. That and the political correctness of not offending anyone who is too ignorant to understand the subject at all.

Do I need to point out that this is facile and clearly untrue? If the lobby you claim may have caused this had any say at all, then how is it the silly thing ever got into the textbooks at all? And is it really your belief that the strength of this lobby has recently become sufficiently great that the textbooks of all the schools are being purged at their request?

Rhetorical questions, of course.

[Immanuel Can]

This is nonsense. If there is "no reason why a limited creature such as ourselves might be capable of understanding", we would have no way of telling whether "God has actually spoken on a given subject". Do you not see the contradiction there?

Actually, it would depend on the nature of the revelation in question. If it were sufficiently straightforward, the human mind would have no problem with it. To assume otherwise, we'd have to think ourselves incapable of any knowledge (which would itself be a contradiction).

There's all the difference between saying "We can't know everything about God," and saying "We can't know anything about God." The first is a plausible claim; but there's no reason to think the second is true.

So there's no contradiction in my claim at all.

I'd like to hear what you understand by 'naive verificationists' . What exactly is the scientific process that you talk about?

"Verificationism is usually associated with the philosophy of language. However we can also see it is a way to conduct science (since science aims at the truth, and verification is supposed to be evidence that a statement is true)" (OnPhilosophy, Wordpress, 2013)

In application to my claim, what it means is that people naively think science "verifies" truth, and everything that cannot be "verified" in the way they imagine science "verifies" must simply be bunk. In the Philosophy of Science, verificationism is generally held to be a problematic view, one not current since the 1960s, and one that has been significantly undermined by the work of philosophers like Quine, Popper and Kuhn.

But you can easily read up on all that, so I needn't say more.

The "scientific processes" to which I was referring was the basic "scientific method." You know, hypothesis, experimental design, procedure, observations, conclusions, hypothesis revision... -- the very basics, as we all learned them at the very start of our science education. I'm saying those don't produce absolute verities, only improvement of probabilities. Science is still a great thing, of course, since high probabilities are always better than low ones; but it's not some sort of infallible voice of absolute factuality, and it would be naive to suppose it is.

[Kurt]

I have no problems with religion moving goal posts after all it's simply a man made organisation or club they can change rules if they choose. Religion and spirituality are two different things, one has doctrine the other searches for the truth with the understanding that it's just an individuals best guess because anything else is just conjecture.
If we as a civilisation gathered all the best religious scholars from all the religions around the world gave them all the resources they needed to come up with an answer to the truth about the creator. Then after receiving the answer went down to the local school yard and asked the nearest 4 year old the same question I know how I would put my money on.

[uwot]

Actually, it would depend on the nature of the revelation in question. If it were sufficiently straightforward, the human mind would have no problem with it. To assume otherwise, we'd have to think ourselves incapable of any knowledge (which would itself be a contradiction).

There's all the difference between saying "We can't know everything about God," and saying "We can't know anything about God." The first is a plausible claim; but there's no reason to think the second is true.

So there's no contradiction in my claim at all.

You can only maintain that if you hold a nonsensical interpretation of 'revelation'. If an omniscient and omnipotent god 'reveals' something to humanity, but makes it incomprehensible, he is revealing nothing.

I'd like to hear what you understand by 'naive verificationists' . What exactly is the scientific process that you talk about?

"Verificationism is usually associated with the philosophy of language. However we can also see it is a way to conduct science (since science aims at the truth, and verification is supposed to be evidence that a statement is true)" (OnPhilosophy, Wordpress, 2013)

In application to my claim, what it means is that people naively think science "verifies" truth, and everything that cannot be "verified" in the way they imagine science "verifies" must simply be bunk. In the Philosophy of Science, verificationism is generally held to be a problematic view, one not current since the 1960s, and one that has been significantly undermined by the work of philosophers like Quine, Popper and Kuhn.

Very few people who have heard of verificationism think as you suggest, in my experience. What I think you are trying to say is that some people, realists, think that there are objectively true rules the world adheres to that we can discover and describe. Much as you appear to believe there are 'revelations' that only some people have the wit to interpret accurately. Some will go further and suggest that the aim of science is to discover these 'truths'. I am as agnostic about such realist revelation as I am religious revelation. I seriously doubt both, but that is no impediment to science.
Since you mention Kuhn, it was he who suggested an alternative view; that science operates within paradigms. This really is just making a career out of an observation by Max Planck, basically that new ideas don't replace old ones, it's just that the people holding the old paradigm die out. Paradigms are essentially metaphysical pictures that people use as a context for their science, they are not themselves science and needn't make any difference.

But you can easily read up on all that, so I needn't say more.

What do the words:

I'd like to hear what you understand by 'naive verificationists'.

mean to you?

The "scientific processes" to which I was referring was the basic "scientific method." You know, hypothesis, experimental design, procedure, observations, conclusions, hypothesis revision... -- the very basics, as we all learned them at the very start of our science education. I'm saying those don't produce absolute verities, only improvement of probabilities. Science is still a great thing, of course, since high probabilities are always better than low ones; but it's not some sort of infallible voice of absolute factuality, and it would be naive to suppose it is.

Indeed. Who do you believe is contributing such a view to this discussion?

[aiddon]

By the way, welcome back IC. Good to have you back.

Now, let's get a few things straight here: You said:

I don't think it's reasonable to rely on faith in other inhabitable planets so nearby that we could expect aliens to drop by or offer themselves for our discovery. I do think that suggestion is worthy of a little mirth, and a few jokes about it might not be entirely out of court. But my intention was not a personal attack. I apologize if I came across as insulting to you.

This is becoming a common strategy of yours - subtley modify what I say to make it sound ridiculous and then attack it. A convincing trick, but really one that makes for poor philosophical argument. I used the term life on other planets - to mean actual organic life, i.e microbial life - which is the widely understood meaning. You come along and use the word aliens. Now, what do you suppose a word like that conjures up? Little green men with six eyes and laser guns hopping out of a saucer-shaped spaceship? Yes, technically microbial life on another planet other than Earth can be known as alien life - i.e. not of this planet. You go further to say that it deserves some degree of mirth? Yes I see little green men as being funny - you may be taking a comic book definition of extra terrestrial life, whereas I am not. So please, refrain from this disengenuous twisting of language. I do see it as both derision and polemically unsound.

Secondly, your insistence on evolution as a theory. Actually, you don't even allow it to be a theory because you have outright dismissed it, so fo ryou it's actually closer to a myth.

There are only arguments from the best evidence available at a given time: it does not give absolute certainly in the way that, say, pure mathematics do. But then, Science never promises that. It promises only probability.

Now, I presume you 'believe' in electricity. Of course you do. Any right-minded person would. You cannot see it, but you know it's there, working the lights, spinning the motor in your washing machine etc. You don't demand proof of its existence - it is evidentally true. The physics of electricity is conducive to the observational results, and these results can be predicted. Now step back a hundred and fifty years, where this was not the case. Travelling showmen used to conduct electricity experiments on stage for the masses, showcasing this mysterious, magical property. In other words the actual physics of electricity was only known by a few experts - the general plebs were flabbergasted at this other-wordly phenomenon. Its discovery and application were arrived at through the scientific process of observation, hypothesis, testing, mathematical modelling and refinement. Could anyone say that this process was merely a belief? Did the theory of electricity set out to subvert any grand principle of the universe? A madman would only say yes.

Evolution by natural selection was arrived at using those same scientific processes - neutral, objective, unbiased, pure scientific method. Did Darwin wish to subvert the centuries and centuries of Christian dogma? No. It is well documented how much he kept his findings hidden for fear of being considered a heretic.

So on one hand, you have no problem with science arriving at explanations for electricity or gravity or X-rays or chemotherapy or wireless broadband - because none of these challenge your absolute unverifiable faith in God. But evolution, by these methods, does challenge that faith. And one can't have that, so one postulates fantastical arguments that cannot be proven, demand impossible evidence for evolution. The evidence is there - in abundance. Just ask - somebody will talk you through it, step-by-step. But the problem is you don't ask, and you never will - because you are afraid of the consequences.

[Immanuel Can]

You can only maintain that if you hold a nonsensical interpretation of 'revelation'. If an omniscient and omnipotent god 'reveals' something to humanity, but makes it incomprehensible, he is revealing nothing.

Of course. That was precisely what I was saying, so I fail to grasp what you find "nonsensical" about it. You just restated it, yet claimed it as a contrary idea. Apparently, you and I agree on that.

But I'm suggesting that a Supreme Being (assuming He's "supreme") would surely be capable of comprehensible speech. What's got you confused about that? It seems a straightforward claim.

[Immanuel Can]

This is becoming a common strategy of yours - subtley modify what I say to make it sound ridiculous and then attack it.

Well, maybe; but it's unintentional. I just find the idea that there are inevitably "life forms" of any kind within striking distance of Earth, and that their discovery is inevitable to be entertainting -- as well as a very clear declaration of unfounded belief. And yet you were suggesting it was some sort of show-stopper for Theism. That thought did occur to me to be a bit funny, and more than a little ironic. But I wasn't trying to be unkind.

Humour is always so dangerous by email. I shall attempt to refrain.

Evolution by natural selection was arrived at using those same scientific processes - neutral, objective, unbiased, pure scientific method. Did Darwin wish to subvert the centuries and centuries of Christian dogma? No. It is well documented how much he kept his findings hidden for fear of being considered a heretic.

But here I'm almost attempted to lapse into it again. You suggest science is "neutral, objective, unbiased, pure" when it does Darwinian evolution? It's never been that -- especially when it comes to Evolutionism. Evolutionism has always been about human control and the elimination of the idea of God. It's not about truth. If it were, it would not be so terrified of reasoned critiques.

And if you think Darwin was afraid of some sort of Inquisition, you're in the wrong century. On the other hand, today Evolutionists within the academy and the press have their own Inquisitorial methods -- derision, exclusion, denial of research dollars, career destruction and withholding of tenure -- which they use against anyone who questions their orthodoxies. A rational skeptic can get pilloried for even questioning Evolutionist dogma.

Whatever else you can say, it's a key battleground in a war driven by ideology, not "neurality" or "objectivity." After all, what kind of "science" is terrified of rational critiques? Look at how it's "true believers" demonize I.D. proponents. But rational critiques of evolutionary dogma have not just come from Theists, but also from Atheists like Nagel or Flew. And look what the establishment has said about Nagel, who is *one of their own*: that he's a "traitor". And Flew they accused of having gone "senile" which he clearly had not -- as his response in PN clearly revealed. These were cruel, stupid and untrue allegations which they used against their own people who dared to speak what they all knew to be true in their hearts.

So we must ask ourselves: why cannot Evolutionism be questioned? Is it the new Pope?

[aiddon]

So we must ask ourselves: why cannot Evolutionism be questioned? Is it the new Pope?

Evolution has been questioned. Repeatedly. But there comes a point when it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Do you still question gravity? Electricity? Why not? Because you know it to be reasonably true, experimentally true. There is no reason not to - because as I said, these do not undermine your faith. Evolution does. But the same tests can be applied to evolution. Irrefutable evidence. But still you refuse to listen. All you have is something for which there is no evidence at all. Just faith - handed down by an apocryphal book written by men. That is all. You have nothing else to go by? Surely this must have occurred to you? Why must you ascribe evolutionary theory to subversion, overthrow of God, men is dusty rooms rubbing their palms. You use terminology such as 'inquisition" borrowed from religion's heinous history to back up your argument. Evolutionary biology is open and transparent - anybody can view the evidence for themselves.
I still can't believe I am having this discussion.

I asked you one thing: explain how and when you and I popped all of a sudden into existence. Can you?

[mickthinks]

[Evolutionism is] not about truth. If it were, it would not be so terrified of reasoned critiques. ... After all, what kind of "science" is terrified of rational critiques?

Personifying Science as a terrified individual commits an ad-hominem-like fallacy. Are you suggesting that the advocates of Darwinian evolution are mostly terrified of debate? I don't think that is remotely true, IC, so I must ask you what evidence you have for that claim?

[thedoc]

If they are gone, (and I have no reason to believe that), it would only be because the teachers of evolution got tired of hearing the Christian Fundamentalists whining about them. That and the political correctness of not offending anyone who is too ignorant to understand the subject at all.

Do I need to point out that this is facile and clearly untrue? If the lobby you claim may have caused this had any say at all, then how is it the silly thing ever got into the textbooks at all? And is it really your belief that the strength of this lobby has recently become sufficiently great that the textbooks of all the schools are being purged at their request?

Rhetorical questions, of course.

Perhaps the practice is changing but in the recent past a very small group has had an inordinate influence on the content of textbooks nationwide. It is only newer more versatile printing methods that may reduce the influence of this small very biased group of people. FYI, there are no qualifications to being a member of the board, just a willingness to do the job and getting elected to the seat.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronom ... ience.html

http://www.nea.org/home/39060.htm

[uwot]

You can only maintain that if you hold a nonsensical interpretation of 'revelation'. If an omniscient and omnipotent god 'reveals' something to humanity, but makes it incomprehensible, he is revealing nothing.

Of course. That was precisely what I was saying, so I fail to grasp what you find "nonsensical" about it. You just restated it, yet claimed it as a contrary idea. Apparently, you and I agree on that.

Do me a favour; read through the original exchange and show me the bits where you and I agree as you suggest.

But I'm suggesting that a Supreme Being (assuming He's "supreme") would surely be capable of comprehensible speech.

So your god's revelations are in the form of speech. Your god talks to you. This is beginning to make sense.

[Immanuel Can]

Evolution has been questioned. Repeatedly. But there comes a point when it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Do you still question gravity? Electricity? Why not? Because you know it to be reasonably true, experimentally true.

These things have no analogy with Evolutionism, Aiddan. There are no "proof experiments" for Evolutionism. If "evolution" happened, then everyone on all sides admits it happened a very long time ago and has never even remotely been reproduced in a lab. The excuse for this failure is, of course, that "we don't have millions...er...billions of years." Very convenient, that. But to compare the "proof" record of Evolutionism to demonstrable principles like gravity and electricity is not apt at all. Evolutionism is better compared with things like alchemy and phrenology, for which proof has been repeatedly sought but never found.

There is no reason not to - because as I said, these do not undermine your faith. Evolution does. But the same tests can be applied to evolution. Irrefutable evidence.

I'd LOVE to hear about this "evidence." In fact, I think the National Academy would like to as well. They've been longing to get the "deal closer" on Evolutionism for about a century or so.

All you have is something for which there is no evidence at all. Just faith

...
Hey, there it is! You just proved my claim about the tendency of Atheists to opt for a reductional view of "faith" that no rational Theist would support. Thanks for winning my case for me. I hope others are reading this.

- handed down by an apocryphal book written by men. That is all. You have nothing else to go by?

Well, that's the vexed question, isn't it? Is what I have an "apocryphal book" or one that contains the revelation of the Supreme Being? Moreover, have I got anything in any of the conventional rational arguments that Theists raise against Atheism, such as the Cosmological Argument, the Argument from Good and Evil, the Design Argument, the Argument from Revelation, the Metaphysical Argument, the Ontological Argument...etc. I suspect, from what you are saying, that there's a great deal more here than you know.

You may, of course, choose to mock the idea that God has spoken and has any sort of revelation to mankind. Yet declaring a thing so does not make it so -- either for you or for me. If Evolutionism is true, it's true whether I like it or not; and if the Bible is true, then it's also true whether you like it or not. That's the nature of reality. But I can live with that, and with all the criticisms you can raise. On the other hand, why are you so fearful on behalf of your Evolutionism that you can no longer admit any questioning?

Evolutionary biology is open and transparent - anybody can view the evidence for themselves.

Oh stop it...you're killing me. Really, if you're going to float statements like this then you're really going to have to forgive me if I collapse into irony.

By the way, have you found that monkey-to-man chart yet? Or did you find the public retraction for all the false teaching it engendered from the scientific community? Have you checked into the Piltdown Man fraud?

I asked you one thing: explain how and when you and I popped all of a sudden into existence. Can you?

Well you didn't quite ask it that way. You supposed that "science" as you put it, has "proof" that my beliefs (you supposed) lacked. And I responded that you were not just wrong about me, you didn't know enough about "science" an the nature of what constitutes "proof" in the scientific realm. So I did answer, but I didn't buy into your faulty premises in order to do so. I contested the assumptions of the question, which I pointed out were prejudicial to your case.

And the short answer to this new, reworded version is that no one who was not present at the initial singularity that produced the universe has what you are asking for. However, I happen to have the word of the Initial Cause of that event for the fact that He did it. You, on the other hand, have nothing at all; because even Richard Dawkins publicly admits that science has no answer to that particular question (He thinks it has some answers *after* life appears, but for the existence of the universe, or even for the appearance of the first cell, he freely admits science has no answer to offer).

Consequently, if I've got anything at all, then that "anything" would have to be more than science has on that.

[uwot]

There are no "proof experiments" for Evolutionism.

No there aren't, but then science isn't about 'proof'. Fundamentally, science is about looking at the world and trying to understand how it works. There are many different branches of science and many different types of scientist, having different interests, working within different paradigms, believing different metaphysical models, telling different stories. What makes them scientists is that they are compelled to accept, sometimes very reluctantly, that what they think true might be shown otherwise; as Popper noted, you can only disprove theories, you can never prove them.
Science is not in opposition to theism, there are many scientists who believe they are uncovering the work of some god, what science challenges is the assertion that you can learn more about the world by reading very old books than by looking at it. Different sciences, physics, geology, archaeology, biology, cosmology all tell a different story to the bible, and all support the hypothesis that the world is very old and has changed radically over that time. The evidence is everywhere, can be read by anybody and makes no political demands. The world is the way it is; it is ours to discover, it is a great big tree of knowledge and eating from it is a bloody good thing; that way we are not subject to idiotic religious constraints. Religion knows this, which is why it is so opposed to eating the fruit.

[Ginkgo]

There are no "proof experiments" for Evolutionism.

No there aren't, but then science isn't about 'proof'. Fundamentally, science is about looking at the world and trying to understand how it works. There are many different branches of science and many different types of scientist, having different interests, working within different paradigms, believing different metaphysical models, telling different stories. What makes them scientists is that they are compelled to accept, sometimes very reluctantly, that what they think true might be shown otherwise; as Popper noted, you can only disprove theories, you can never prove them.
Science is not in opposition to theism, there are many scientists who believe they are uncovering the work of some god, what science challenges is the assertion that you can learn more about the world by reading very old books than by looking at it. Different sciences, physics, geology, archaeology, biology, cosmology all tell a different story to the bible, and all support the hypothesis that the world is very old and has changed radically over that time. The evidence is everywhere, can be read by anybody and makes no political demands. The world is the way it is; it is ours to discover, it is a great big tree of knowledge and eating from it is a bloody good thing; that way we are not subject to idiotic religious constraints. Religion knows this, which is why it is so opposed to eating the fruit.

I'd be happy to go along with this explanation of science. I think we need to get over the the idea that somehow science provides some type of absolute proof. The whole idea of science is that there is no absolutism. Science is always subject to revision. That's the whole idea. This is why we have steam trains, computers and people who landed on the moon.

It may well be the case that the marco world is similar to the micro world. In other words, we can 't get around the probability problem.

[aiddon]

There are no "proof experiments" for Evolutionism.

Yes there are. Experiments with guppies, experiments with bacteria. Go to the museum, see the fossils charting intermediate development of homo sapiens for yourselves. Genetic testing is able to tell us how closely we are related to other primates,a nd in turn to other branches of the animal kingdom. You want to know this for yourself, look it up. Be careful with the websites you look up though because it may be a Government-censored one, whereby they are sinisterly suppressing theism, all because of competition for research grants. Make sure you verify that God himself has not placed the fossils in the museum or tampered with the DNA samples just to test your faith. Now I'm being humourous.

Have you checked into the Piltdown Man fraud?

You pick a single example and this somehow blows away the fact of evolution? This is ridiculous. This is a strategy by evolution deniers - pick holes, little gaps, ignore the masses upon masses of fossil records, observational data in the natural world, the fact that natural selection is actually able to explain co-evolution, convergent evolution. How mant times must I say it - this is evience. Actual evidence. Why must you maintain that this is one big deliberate lie? A conspiracy? It works!

Moreover, have I got anything in any of the conventional rational arguments that Theists raise against Atheism, such as the Cosmological Argument, the Argument from Good and Evil, the Design Argument, the Argument from Revelation, the Metaphysical Argument, the Ontological Argument...etc. I suspect, from what you are saying, that there's a great deal more here than you know.

The Ontological Argument? You talk about mirth?

IC, this is philosophy. Philosophy has never solved anything. I am interested in philosophy from a cognitive point of view, but it never turned the lights on for me. Please, know philosophy's limitations, and where science excels. My analogy with electricity is perfectly sound. Here, you are happy to accept it though you cannot see it - you only see the consequences of it? Have you ever though the electricity is just one big conspiracy so that utility companies can make profit, or so that it pisses off the Amish? No, you're happy to go along with electricity because it doesn't interfere with your ancient, non-sensical, absurd notion of God. Get off the conspiracy bandwagon, and let's be rational here.

because even Richard Dawkins publicly admits that science has no answer to that particular question (He thinks it has some answers *after* life appears, but for the existence of the universe, or even for the appearance of the first cell, he freely admits science has no answer to offer)

Yes, Dawkins is right, science has no answer to offer in this respect. Doesn't mean there isn't an answer though. Religion doesn't even attempt an answer. It just happened - shrug of shoulders. But hey we're not talking about the universe here - we're talking about the reasons for life - 10 billion years after the formation of the universe.