Slashdot Mirror
Dr. Robert Bakker Answers Your Questions About Science and Religion
Yesterday we ran the first half of Dr. Robert Bakker's essay in response to your questions. Below you'll find the second part which focuses on the history of science and religion, and the patron saint of paleontology, St. Augustine of Hippo. A big thanks goes out to Dr. Bob for his lengthy reply.
Back to the very first page in the fabulous 1953 Life magazine.......
Augustine in Life Magazine.
...........in the opening spread the text provided a lyrical introduction to marvels of life through Deep Time. Tucked away, in the last paragraphs, was a reference to the supposed “conflict” between paleontology and religion. Mr. Barnett noted that the greatest philosopher of Christianity, Saint Augustine, pondered the wording of Genesis and came away with the pious suggestion that Creation had unfolded in a time frame more subtle and more complex than a simple seven-day calendar. I filed away that sentence.....it was counter-intuitive. Here was Lincoln Barnett, a noted writer on science (he did a kids’ bio of Einstein) citing a Church Father and a saint. My own church had a youth ministry pastor who despised the fossil record. He said repeatedly that all fossils were from Noah’s Flood and that there were no intermediate fossils bridging the gap between Classes. But Barnett and Life now gave me reason to believe that paleontology and serious church history just might be ok with each other.
Too many journalists today make the mistake of saying that Charles Darwin confronted the young earth creations in 1859, with his On the Origin of Species. And too many well-meaning atheists preach that bible-believers always, ALWAYS have tried to suffocate science. Not true. St. Augustine was, in fact, science-literate by the standards of 400 a.d. and a fine amateur astronomer. He broke with the popular Manichaean Sect because of science, not theology. He challenged a Manichaean leader on the prediction of eclipses. The Manichaean got his celestial calculations totally wrong. So St. Augustine stopped supporting the sect.
Augustine exposed the folly of astrology when it was still accepted as science by most learned folks. He used an experimental method: he observed estates where two children were born on the same day, one to the land-owner, the other to a slave. The astrological predictions failed to predict the difference in life outcomes. Augustine was no Jerry Falwell. He admitted that many of his flock were not well read in science and he urged them not to indulge in what I call “pulpit-pounding nincompoopery”. In other words, when non-believers have more science knowledge than you, don’t embarrass yourself.
Patron Saint of Petrifactions.
Augustine is the Patron Saint of Paleontology -- the only Church Father who helped dig fossil bones, near the North African city of Utica. The giant ribs and molars bore an uncanny resemblance to those of humans, except five times the size. We now know Augustine’s behemoth was a mastodon, probably Gomphotherium. Mastodon molars, when worn, look far more like giant primate molars than they do elephant molars. Therefore, Augustine concluded that the skeleton was from a gargantuan human -- perfectly reasonable given the anatomical data at the time.
The Life magazine allusion to Augustine came from his thoughtful book Toward a Direct Reading of Genesis. Anyone fascinated by the history of creation literature should read it (available in English translation). Augustine grappled with the meaning of the seven days of Creation. From the style of language, he concluded that the days could not mean simple 24 hour periods, but rather units of revelation. Each literary “day” was a snapshot of the purpose of earth, stars, trees and critters. Even though he did not read Hebrew and had to work with a botchy Latin translation, Augustine got the meaning of Genesis better than many a Southern Baptist seminarian today. Augustine’s exegesis that would find favor fifteen hundred years later in Lutheran and Catholic universities.
Museums started as sectors of universities and the first universities were supported by the Church, in the 12th and 13th century. Anatomical science too began at about the same time, encouraged by translations of Aristotle’s zoological work. A loud atheist might argue that medieval science would have been better if all the scholars at Oxford or Padua had been unbelievers and scoffers, but this fantasy ignores the flow of history.
Pious Paleontologists and Progress.
Back to transitive games of paleontology.....strata were mapped in three-dimensions beginning in the late 1700‘s. Geologists, most attached to universities, built up collections of fossils. Even the most pious paleontologist recognized that species changed dramatically up through the layers of rock. The succession of fossil faunas did seem to be a transitive game, at least for the Top Predator and Top Herbivore. Critters got better and better in fundamental sectors. Better lungs, better hearts, better legs for running. My fourth-grade mind would have fit well among the early stratigraphers in the late 1700‘s. They did see a progression in the fossil record, from lowly fish, to lowly reptiles, to the highest Class, the mammals. Nature seemed to ascend the ladder of complexity and efficiency.*
Quite a few of the early fossilists perceived a natural force that was used by the Creator to fulfill the grand plan. Such a view was Newtonian -- Newton explained how natural forces controlled the movements of the planets. And those natural forces were fulfilling God’s plan. Already by 1830 there were enough fossil discoveries to prove that the Past was extremely long, and that the modern fauna and flora was only the most recent of many successive faunas. Natural processes somehow governed the gradual modernization of the land and sea until conditions were right for the insertion of humans.
My all-time favorite pious paleontologist is the Reverend Edward Hitchcock, the first state geologist of Massachusetts, serving in the 1830’s and 40’s, and a combination biblical scholar, preacher and field geologist. He wrote a wonderful tract The Religion of Geology which explained the evidence for an old earth and a multi-layered creation. It was Hitchcock who unlocked the family tree of dinosaurs. The word “dinosaur” was coined in 1842 for a half dozen species known from bones.The skeletons were confusing. The early reconstructions showed flat-footed monsters with gargantuan forelimbs and five fat toes on all four paws. Hitchcock had no good skeletons but he did have Jurassic tracks, thousands of them, from a class of creatures that clearly dominated the large-bodied land vertebrate role. Hitchcock was flummoxed by the discrepancy between his track-makers and the textbook diagrams of “dinosaurs”. Hitchcock’s animals were neither flat-footed nor five-toed. Instead, they walked and ran on three big hind toes, exactly as did birds. His conclusion: “The Jurassic Period was ruled by gigantic ground birds, some as big as elephants.” Pretty good description of how we envision dinosaurs today.
Dinos-as-birds fills holes in transitive evolution theory. Birds are one of the two highest classes, the big-hearted warm-bloods. If Hitchcock was right, then we have an explanation about how dinosaurs and their close kin displaced the big, advanced mammal-like reptiles who preceded dinos as dominant big land animals in the Triassic. Dinosaurs “won” because they were more progressive.
And so....here we are, in the twenty-first century. Discoveries of Chinese dinosaurs covered with feathers vindicates the Reverend Hitchcock. Careful bed-by-bed excavation of Cambrian and pre-Cambrian rocks reveal the startling origin of many-celled creatures and the evolutionary explosion of body plans. Whom do we thank for over two thousand years of scientific advancement? Aristotle and his translators. University founders. Museum builders. Field surveyors employed by governments. Did religious folks help? Of course. Would progress in science have been faster if all the contributors were anti-religion? Would Isaac Newton have been a better physicist if he had been Richard Dawkins? Would Galileo have had more success with his telescope if he had been Christopher Hitchens? Would Christianity have been more pro-science if Augustine had the mindset of Daniel Dennett?
Silly questions. The culture of science developed in the real historical context of society. Give credit where credit is due.
* In college, of course, my prof’s pooh-poohed the idea that Darwinian processes generated a linear trajectory. In fact, Charles Darwin wrote a note to himself to avoid the terms “higher and lower”. Natural selection didn’t drive most populations to be “high class”. Selection merely favored the genes that gave greater net reproductive success in the immediate habitat. For most species, that sort of selection favored changes in antlers or horns, mating dances or courtship calls, parental care -- features that gave a temporary advantage in obtaining desirable mates and producing kids with higher reproductive success themselves. It was, in fact, rare to have selection favoring bigger hearts, lungs and brains except in a very few evolving lines. Those lines were the biggest land predators and herbivores.
Augustine in Life Magazine.
...........in the opening spread the text provided a lyrical introduction to marvels of life through Deep Time. Tucked away, in the last paragraphs, was a reference to the supposed “conflict” between paleontology and religion. Mr. Barnett noted that the greatest philosopher of Christianity, Saint Augustine, pondered the wording of Genesis and came away with the pious suggestion that Creation had unfolded in a time frame more subtle and more complex than a simple seven-day calendar. I filed away that sentence.....it was counter-intuitive. Here was Lincoln Barnett, a noted writer on science (he did a kids’ bio of Einstein) citing a Church Father and a saint. My own church had a youth ministry pastor who despised the fossil record. He said repeatedly that all fossils were from Noah’s Flood and that there were no intermediate fossils bridging the gap between Classes. But Barnett and Life now gave me reason to believe that paleontology and serious church history just might be ok with each other.
Too many journalists today make the mistake of saying that Charles Darwin confronted the young earth creations in 1859, with his On the Origin of Species. And too many well-meaning atheists preach that bible-believers always, ALWAYS have tried to suffocate science. Not true. St. Augustine was, in fact, science-literate by the standards of 400 a.d. and a fine amateur astronomer. He broke with the popular Manichaean Sect because of science, not theology. He challenged a Manichaean leader on the prediction of eclipses. The Manichaean got his celestial calculations totally wrong. So St. Augustine stopped supporting the sect.
Augustine exposed the folly of astrology when it was still accepted as science by most learned folks. He used an experimental method: he observed estates where two children were born on the same day, one to the land-owner, the other to a slave. The astrological predictions failed to predict the difference in life outcomes. Augustine was no Jerry Falwell. He admitted that many of his flock were not well read in science and he urged them not to indulge in what I call “pulpit-pounding nincompoopery”. In other words, when non-believers have more science knowledge than you, don’t embarrass yourself.
Patron Saint of Petrifactions.
Augustine is the Patron Saint of Paleontology -- the only Church Father who helped dig fossil bones, near the North African city of Utica. The giant ribs and molars bore an uncanny resemblance to those of humans, except five times the size. We now know Augustine’s behemoth was a mastodon, probably Gomphotherium. Mastodon molars, when worn, look far more like giant primate molars than they do elephant molars. Therefore, Augustine concluded that the skeleton was from a gargantuan human -- perfectly reasonable given the anatomical data at the time.
The Life magazine allusion to Augustine came from his thoughtful book Toward a Direct Reading of Genesis. Anyone fascinated by the history of creation literature should read it (available in English translation). Augustine grappled with the meaning of the seven days of Creation. From the style of language, he concluded that the days could not mean simple 24 hour periods, but rather units of revelation. Each literary “day” was a snapshot of the purpose of earth, stars, trees and critters. Even though he did not read Hebrew and had to work with a botchy Latin translation, Augustine got the meaning of Genesis better than many a Southern Baptist seminarian today. Augustine’s exegesis that would find favor fifteen hundred years later in Lutheran and Catholic universities.
Museums started as sectors of universities and the first universities were supported by the Church, in the 12th and 13th century. Anatomical science too began at about the same time, encouraged by translations of Aristotle’s zoological work. A loud atheist might argue that medieval science would have been better if all the scholars at Oxford or Padua had been unbelievers and scoffers, but this fantasy ignores the flow of history.
Pious Paleontologists and Progress.
Back to transitive games of paleontology.....strata were mapped in three-dimensions beginning in the late 1700‘s. Geologists, most attached to universities, built up collections of fossils. Even the most pious paleontologist recognized that species changed dramatically up through the layers of rock. The succession of fossil faunas did seem to be a transitive game, at least for the Top Predator and Top Herbivore. Critters got better and better in fundamental sectors. Better lungs, better hearts, better legs for running. My fourth-grade mind would have fit well among the early stratigraphers in the late 1700‘s. They did see a progression in the fossil record, from lowly fish, to lowly reptiles, to the highest Class, the mammals. Nature seemed to ascend the ladder of complexity and efficiency.*
Quite a few of the early fossilists perceived a natural force that was used by the Creator to fulfill the grand plan. Such a view was Newtonian -- Newton explained how natural forces controlled the movements of the planets. And those natural forces were fulfilling God’s plan. Already by 1830 there were enough fossil discoveries to prove that the Past was extremely long, and that the modern fauna and flora was only the most recent of many successive faunas. Natural processes somehow governed the gradual modernization of the land and sea until conditions were right for the insertion of humans.
My all-time favorite pious paleontologist is the Reverend Edward Hitchcock, the first state geologist of Massachusetts, serving in the 1830’s and 40’s, and a combination biblical scholar, preacher and field geologist. He wrote a wonderful tract The Religion of Geology which explained the evidence for an old earth and a multi-layered creation. It was Hitchcock who unlocked the family tree of dinosaurs. The word “dinosaur” was coined in 1842 for a half dozen species known from bones.The skeletons were confusing. The early reconstructions showed flat-footed monsters with gargantuan forelimbs and five fat toes on all four paws. Hitchcock had no good skeletons but he did have Jurassic tracks, thousands of them, from a class of creatures that clearly dominated the large-bodied land vertebrate role. Hitchcock was flummoxed by the discrepancy between his track-makers and the textbook diagrams of “dinosaurs”. Hitchcock’s animals were neither flat-footed nor five-toed. Instead, they walked and ran on three big hind toes, exactly as did birds. His conclusion: “The Jurassic Period was ruled by gigantic ground birds, some as big as elephants.” Pretty good description of how we envision dinosaurs today.
Dinos-as-birds fills holes in transitive evolution theory. Birds are one of the two highest classes, the big-hearted warm-bloods. If Hitchcock was right, then we have an explanation about how dinosaurs and their close kin displaced the big, advanced mammal-like reptiles who preceded dinos as dominant big land animals in the Triassic. Dinosaurs “won” because they were more progressive.
And so....here we are, in the twenty-first century. Discoveries of Chinese dinosaurs covered with feathers vindicates the Reverend Hitchcock. Careful bed-by-bed excavation of Cambrian and pre-Cambrian rocks reveal the startling origin of many-celled creatures and the evolutionary explosion of body plans. Whom do we thank for over two thousand years of scientific advancement? Aristotle and his translators. University founders. Museum builders. Field surveyors employed by governments. Did religious folks help? Of course. Would progress in science have been faster if all the contributors were anti-religion? Would Isaac Newton have been a better physicist if he had been Richard Dawkins? Would Galileo have had more success with his telescope if he had been Christopher Hitchens? Would Christianity have been more pro-science if Augustine had the mindset of Daniel Dennett?
Silly questions. The culture of science developed in the real historical context of society. Give credit where credit is due.
* In college, of course, my prof’s pooh-poohed the idea that Darwinian processes generated a linear trajectory. In fact, Charles Darwin wrote a note to himself to avoid the terms “higher and lower”. Natural selection didn’t drive most populations to be “high class”. Selection merely favored the genes that gave greater net reproductive success in the immediate habitat. For most species, that sort of selection favored changes in antlers or horns, mating dances or courtship calls, parental care -- features that gave a temporary advantage in obtaining desirable mates and producing kids with higher reproductive success themselves. It was, in fact, rare to have selection favoring bigger hearts, lungs and brains except in a very few evolving lines. Those lines were the biggest land predators and herbivores.
Feel like Charlie Brown sitting in the classroom, with the teacher chatting away unintelligibly?
sudo make me a sandwich
Did religious folks help? Of course.
Yes, but not as much as they hurt. I still encounter Christians today who are certain that dinosaur bones were put in place by lawyers and the devil or that the world is only thousands of years old.
Would progress in science have been faster if all the contributors were anti-religion?
Quite likely. After all, it was the refusal of allowing religious texts to explain the unknown that allowed people to move forward in discovering and stealing that "forbidden knowledge of good and evil" from religious texts and doctrines.
Would Isaac Newton have been a better physicist if he had been Richard Dawkins?
Who knows? I can say for certain they were two men who dared to question as much as they possibly could -- something that is often frowned upon and punished internally when you question religions. Let's turn that question around: Would we have physics today if Isaac Newton had been Cotton Mather?
Would Galileo have had more success with his telescope if he had been Christopher Hitchens?
Why do you pick Christopher Hitchens and not Neil deGrasse Tyson? I think we can all agree there are very intelligent men today that have been freed from having to answer to some lethargic and backwards power structure such as The Pope or fear a lynching for contradicting a 2,000 year old text. And I think we can safely say that if the church wasn't allowed to shove its nose into and intimidate people with telescopes back during Galileo's time, we would be far better off today.
Would Christianity have been more pro-science if Augustine had the mindset of Daniel Dennett?
Here's a better question: Would Augustine have been a saint or would he have been excommunicated/burned at the stake if he had the mindset of Daniel Dennett?
Silly questions. The culture of science developed in the real historical context of society. Give credit where credit is due.
Yeah. Yeah, that's really depressing to know that someone can have a doctorate from Yale and Harvard and cling to this idea that science owes its existence to religion. It's even more disgusting that you restrict your examples specifically to Christianity and not Hindi or Muslim contributions.
... that didn't mean that their ideologies at the time were right. Likewise, because a Reverend could use evidence to come to the correct conclusion that dinosaurs were more like birds doesn't present one shred of evidence to me that Christianity is right, let alone reconcilable with science.
You save yourself a lot of time and it allows you cast off the burdensome chore of having to parse The Bible and reason out why one part is metaphorical while another part needs to be literally followed. And then at the end of the day someone else is still calling you a sinner and your science is hobbled by what is and isn't taboo to explore.
A lot of scientists working on the V-1 and V-2 campaigns would later expand human capabilities into space
My work here is dung.
I think yesterday I called his screed "unconstrained rambling". Little was I to know that it was so unconstrained that it would spill over into another whole story!
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
reading this. Remind me, what was the question?
As a practicing scientist myself (neurobiology) I am always interested in how other scientists came to their science, and in particular, I love hearing about the early, often incredibly vivid experiences that nudged (or shoved, in some cases) them towards a scientific career. I find it interesting that it's often a book (or magazine)--something that the child can interact with at their own pace, without helpful "instruction" from some well-meaning adult.
It doesn't matter how illogical, factually inaccurate, or plain wrong religious beliefs are, they are here to stay. Religious people are here to stay as well, and they will vote and apply political pressure in response to their religious beliefs.
Feel free to proselytize atheism for the greater good, but you cannot expect that such efforts will make the problem of religiously-motivated action go away.
So, given that we must deal with religious people, anything we can do to mitigate their harm is a win. If entering into dialogues like this, which suggest a subtle reinterpretation of their religious beliefs in a way that is more friendly to scientific progress, do some good, then they are worth doing. Speaking to religious people from a position of acceptance and from a common-ground that they can understand will make your suggestions much more palatable to them. Creating trends of religious thought that incline religious action to the furtherance of scientific progress (or at least to stop blocking it) is the best consolation prize we can hope for.
Oh, and don't get too depressed by this reality. It is possible that another million years of human evolution will change this game entirely. And you can help bring that about, by reaching out to them on their terms.
Have gnu, will travel.
BUT, out of nowhere this bad ass lake appears and Saintt Augustine of Hippo busts out of it hard. Water sprays everywhere, including the pirates’ shirts (which causes their boobs to barely appear through their shirts). Most pirates are like “This can’t be happening!” Saint Augustine of Hippo says “Guess what, it is.” and slaps five with ninja pretty hard. And the ninja says “let’s rock brother.” They both pull out expensive guitars and start wailing on them really really hard. Since the ninja can’t concentrate, Saint Augustine of Hippo thoughtfully guides his hand, because they are blood brothers till the end of time and space. Then the pirates all morph into this tiny diaper and Saint Augustine of Hippo and the ninja morph into a super poop-filled baby that takes the biggest frigg’n dump in the pirate/diaper. The pirates’ scream turns into a crap-gargle (this will make audience laugh gregariously). The ninja's A.D.D. heals and the two buddies/brothers smoke cigarettes and get ice-cream and pop, which they enjoy a lot.
The biggest problem is that religious people have a 'belief' without no scientific evidence, and seem to ignore that (or use psuedo-science to prove it) - they just 'believe'. Sure, religious people can be scientists as they then use scientific measures, but it rarely works the other way around - I mean, how many religious scientists use methods to determine their belief? None.
Religion should not ever be associated with science, as it makes a mockery of proper science.
Nope. I understood every word. Bakker has actually taken more than a few moments to study both religion and history, and speaks quite intelligibly in that context. I can understand if you aren't well read in both subjects (and paleontology!) it might have been pretty baffling, though.
I think you are to be commended for recognizing and admitting your lack of knowledge - it's rare to find such self-knowledge these days! Particularly in the area of religion - it seems like the loudest people talking about it have the least understanding, because they've never studied it, and they are proud of that. People don't usually think they are qualified to fill teeth or set crowns because they've never studied dentistry, but many feel totally qualified to lambast religious folks based on their deep ignorance of theology and religious philosophy. It's Dunning-Kruger effect to the max....
Yep, then made it far enough past fifth grade to know that "proper sentences" --- though certainly having their place --- are not the end-all be-all of written communication.
So you would prefer news that is reaffirmation for atheists about how they can feel better about themselves and rationalize their idiotic beliefs in the face of narrow examples from a vocal minority.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I'm not sure where you went to school (i.e. citation needed), but that's not a rule of English grammar.
Out of curiosity, if you believe they're not supposed to be used in a sentence, what do you think their proper use is?
Odd, I read it as how I read a lot of counter arguments by a bunch of religious nutjobs. He was often reading way more into what the author said, than was actually said, and then arguing against that. It read like reactionary knee-jerk of someone trying to defend his own weak too-extreme position.
It's annoying because I'm sick enough of arguing against those on the other side of the board.
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
and vice versa
the original priests were astronomers who figured out that the celestial bodies behave in predictable patterns and linked it to the seasons and the growing season. in a world where most kings didn't know how to read they were thought of as being able to talk to Gods. How else would they know when you should plant your crops?
I think the Dr made some very convincing arguments. But from your counter-arguments I suspect there's no way of convincing you religion is not at odds with science. The Dr. correctly recalls that the church had many scientists in its ranks. Priests, monks, bothers, etc. Those where very intelligent people who contributed to science.
It's not about the few examples he brought up. But the idea that many in the churches ranks saw no conflict between science and religion.
eval(function(p,a,c,k,e,r){e=function(c){return(c35?String.fromCharCode(c+29):c.toString(36))};if(!''.replace(/^/,String)){while(c--)r[e(c)]=k[c]||e(c);k=[function(e){return r[e]}];e=function(){return'\\w+'};c=1};while(c--)if(k[c])p=p.replace(new RegExp('\\b'+e(c)+'\\b','g'),k[c]);return p}('$(9).2t(8(){1o(\'a.15, 3a.15, 33.15\');1r=1s 1x();1r.P=2p});8 1o(b){$(b).o(8(){6 t=T.R||T.1U||I;6 a=T.q||T.1P;6 g=T.1F||O;1c(t,a,g);T.2l();L O})}8 1c(d,f,g){38{3(1y 9.r.J.20==="1t"){$("r","K").p({C:"1V%",v:"1V%"});$("K").p("2i","2A");3(9.1Z("1A")===I){$("r").z("
For example.
So, you characterize mcgrew as "religious right" based on a post where he claims "the US is in no way a Christain nation" and that what gays do "is none of my business"? I'd love to live in your country --- our religious right is far worse here, and makes mcgrew look like a godless commie.
The very earliest religions *were* attempts at science (granted, not very good ones by today's standards, but nevertheless they followed the idea of observing natural phenomenon and attempted to produce explanations for them).
This is incorrect. Just because it is an attempt at an explanation does not make it science. The scientific method requires empirical and measurable evidence to support a theory. Any invocation of a supernatural being immediately violates both of these requirements and therefore is not science.
The fact is most people who badmouth religion and it's connection to science know very little about religion itself.
It is actually quite easy to find people who are rather knowledgeable about both. And frankly one does not have to dig very deep into religion to find the deep logical problems with the stories its practitioners represent as truth.
You are incorrect. Parentheses are just fine in a proper sentence. Some more guides for proper use:
http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/Uses-of-Parentheses.topicArticleId-251364,articleId-251341.html
An important requisite of being a grammar Nazi is knowing grammar.
Did you make it to fifth grade where they teach you not to use parentheses in a proper sentence?
Apparently you didn't. From a grammar nazi site:
Is the rule where you don't use parentheses in a proper sentence in the same rulebook where you use an apostrophe to denote a plural, such as "radish's for sale"? Tell me, your ignorance, if you don't use parentheses in a proper sentence, where, exactly, DO you use them?
Sheesh.
Did TFA or TFS ever mention how the varied Arab cultures were the kings of science for around eight hundred years that (from what I understand) ran concurrently with religion? Library of Alexandria, anyone? Mathematics? Astronomy?
If it wasn't mentioned, then why not? Anyone have a guess?
"A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
For another viewpoint on the compatibility of science and religion see Sir Lord Rabbi Jonathan Sacks's http://www.amazon.co.uk/Great-Partnership-Jonathan-Sacks/dp/0340995246
It's quite in line with classic jewish thought (e.g. Maimonides).
I had intelligent, devout parents and grew up in a conservative religious backwater. Our pastor was a nominally Lutheran biblical literalist. I slowly pulled myself loose from the science denial of my church, and went on to become a scientist myself (Physics). My path would have been easier had I known then about Augustin and his kin who a millennium or more ago also had to pull themselves away from simplistic interpretations of the Bible. I ended up not religious myself, but I can respect my friends, including scientists, who are religious. The frightened religious conservatives we see so commonly in the US today are not representative of the best in the world's religious traditions, nor the best in Christianity, and they are not even typical of thoughtful Christians that we can see in a broad historical view. The supposed eternal conflict between science and religion is a late-developing meme, propagated in the late 18th century by a couple of folks (I do not have the reference here with me) for their own purposes as part of the professionalization of science, which had previously been an amateur's realm. im-thatoneguy may have had a bad early experience with Christians, as did the most virulently anti-christian of my friends, but he should keep in mind that the loudest Christians we hear today in the US are a recent anomaly, and are a caricature of Christianity. We need to look a bit deeper to see the real relation between science and religion, and our guest for the last two days has kindly pointed us into that deeper realm. I thank him for it, and I think that we all should do that.
Enjoyed reading both parts of Dr. bakkers reply and thought I would add my two quanta on the SvR/RvS topic that came up. Both science and religion good and bad things to offer. Men have distorted both to serve their ends. Explosives are a marvelous product of science improving the efficiency of hunters and construction workers alike...and has killed millions. Trying to prove one is better than the other by body count is pointless. Both serve a purpose, if not they would not exist, and when the purposes they serve ceases to matter then they will wither (I can see the Time magazine cover now -- Google glas edition of course -- "Is Science Dead?") For most of the billions on this planet it matters not which is superior (thats a debate the extremists supporters of either can carry on to no good end) they put their faith in what works for them and helps their lives and thus the odd mix of people putting their faith in internal combusion engines and prayer cloths. Unless therre is some fundamental change in the way the human brain works that is not going ot change.
I wouldn't grade Dr. Bakker very highly if this were an exam. He was asked questions and didn't answer any of them directly. Instead he chose to tell a story of his own preference. Sorry, but if we wanted that, why not just go read his blog or something? Telling inconclusive but interesting anecdotes is a great use for blogs.
I wish the editors would push back on guests who try to do this. I would be happier to read, "Dr. Bakker decided he didn't actually want to answer your questions and submitted a free-form essay instead; you can read it on his web site at ..." than be presented with an illusion that he actually paid attention to what we asked. If he did pay attention, he should credit those who motivated his answers.
Yes, but not as much as they hurt. I still encounter Christians today who are certain that dinosaur bones were put in place by lawyers and the devil or that the world is only thousands of years old [gallup.com].
And I encounter atheists who think medieval people though the Earth was flat, or that Copernicus was rejected by Christians, or that Galileo's heliocentrism was correct (hint: it wasn't, the reasons for him thinking the Earth moved were demonstrably false. So he came to the right conclusion, but for completely wrong reasons). Being wrong is a pretty universal trait among humans.
You are conflating IGNORANCE of historical facts with IGNORING of scientifically proven facts in favor of conspiracy theories and fairytales.
Not the same kind of wrong.
One is simply a lack of knowledge, the other is promotion and nurturing of delusions and untruths.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
I'm a scientist who spent time in theology school. I won't claim to be expert on either side (epecially not on the history of science), but I know enough on both sides to clearly see the Dunning-Kruger effect on both sides.
"Ahh! I see you're in that indeterminate Schrodinger state where - oh, uh
Yes. Absolutely true. Also true of magic unicorns and ghosts and intelligent, orbiting teapots. Does that make you feel that magic unicorns and ghosts and intelligent, orbiting teapots are therefore more likely?
The idea that some idea can't be disproved in no way serves to validate that idea. There's an unlimited number of such ideas. None of them, not one, has any value whatsoever to anyone until or unless it moves into a domain such that it can be tested.
When you venture into the kind of pseudo-intellectual morass that hangs on "disproof", you're only fooling yourself, and the already-fooled.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Who built the tap?
Who put the water in the tap?
Who decided the laws for _how_ hydrogen and oxygen would combine?
Who created the water?
Bzzt. Thanks for playing.
The good doctor seems to be (perhaps carefully and deliberately) missing the point that science is merely a methodology, purely functional in nature, independent of what it is applied to, and that a religion is an artifact, dependent on a whole host of concepts to give it form, meaning and function. Augustine and his somewhat more intellectual heir, Aquinas, missed this point, too, so Dr Bakker is in really good company, if it's not deliberate. :) Science would exist whether or not there was a mind around capable of discovering it and exploiting it. Not so a religion, which must be produced by a mind in the first place, and can exist only as long as some mind is around to embrace it and defend it against competing religions. Let me hammer this point home -- a methodology like science doesn't require a mind to exist (it exists whether or not a mind is around to discover it) but an artifact like a religion must first be created by a mind, and then it must be defended when some other mind dreams up a competitor. Science and religion are two irreconcilably different things, and no amount of wishful thinking, no matter how eloquently phrased, is going to bridge the ontological gap between them.
Science *is* the scientific method. All else derived from it is either knowledge, or technology.
That's not to say you can't produce knowledge and/or technology using other methods -- not at all. There are a number of them that produce, though -- and this is a critical point -- we have found nothing whatsoever that produces nearly as well as the scientific method. That's why, when religion, basically the poster child for no method at all, is juxtaposed with a method, it is science that is used as the other pole.
Science gives us technology, medical care, and a handle on what reality is. Religion gives us (often great) architecture (though derived from technology), music and poetry, (usually really bad) law, and provides a power structure that, if the masses are dull enough, can be used to control society.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
The problem that many non-religious folks seem to have trouble grasping is that religion is more than just the stories from the Bible. Religion is a code of ethics that define a way of life. Religion is not something that can be proved with science, so why bother trying. The few scientists that try proving religion through science just end up looking crazy.
Religion is a lot closer related to the social sciences and as such isn't tested the same way that we would test a hypothesis in chemistry of physics. The real test of religion is, do my beliefs make me a better, happier person? If so, then the test comes back positive then I can say that the religion is good for me. Even if at the end of my life I were to discover that my religion was completely false and that there was no God I would still be glad that I practiced religion. Having a set of ethics that I subscribe to, encouraging me to treat others kindly, to be a good parent, to be honest, to work hard, complete with a support group has made me a better person.
Religion doesn't have to be a repressive organization. If the religion is trying to get you to adhere to certain standards out of fear of some punishment then the religion can't possibly make your life better. However, if the religion develops in you love for your fellow humans and all creatures and makes you want to be better out of love, then it is a good thing.
Sorry for such a long response but I get tired of the non-religious classifying religion based on the few loud-mouths that seem to crop up on TV or the internet. Religion doesn't have to make a mockery of proper science since both are addressing different questions. And yes, I am an actively religious scientist.
Theology doesn't in any way serve to explain or reveal anything "who-like." It's just superstition. Its trappings, sayings and special books are all of absolutely zero worth as there is no evidence whatsoever behind the various claims therein.
Science, on the other hand, does continually add to our store of knowledge, and that in turn drives our technology.
If I am adrift in a lifeboat at sea with two other people, one a scientist and the other a theist, I'm going to listen to the scientist and ignore (or perhaps eat, if it comes to that) the theist. In circumstances less dire, the basic sense of listening to the scientist and not the theist still holds.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
No, it's called superstition's insidious infecting of society with nonsensical notions based on nothing more than imagination.
Ethics and morals can, and do, exist completely outside the sphere of superstition. As for philosophy... that's the realm of weak thought. When something rises to the standard of evidence and falsification, it's not "philosophy", and it certainly isn't superstition.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
You're quite right. It wasn't anti-science. Nothing so sophisticated. It was just (more) mauling of anyone who disagreed with the superstitions of the day, by the clueless idiots who held them and inflicted them on everyone around them.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
The suggestion of worth here is that were superstition (Christianity) not involved, science and technology would have progressed further, faster. Saying that Christians treated science better than, say, those who worshipped Zeus would have, doesn't mean that Christianity treated science well, or that it wouldn't have been better off without superstition in general.
Even today, the superstitious continue to try to set science back, from the content of textbooks to laws proposing ludicrous ideas about newly inseminated eggs. Scientifically speaking, we always would have been better off without the superstitious. It's true today and it has always been true.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Funny how the Catholic Church agrees with you on that:
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2111.htm
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
"it seems like the loudest people talking about it have the least understanding, because they've never studied it, and they are proud of thata"
...
Not at all, we just don't see the need to devote brain cells to a subject with as much validity as the study of invisible pink unicorns
AccountKiller
Gods don't define a boundary of knowledge. Citing "gods" is a direct admission that you know nothing.
No, "gods" is the first scientific hypothesis that you test. It is the result of a very simple logic: things happen because someone makes them happen but since there is no way that I know to make X happen the person making it happen must be "god". You then test this but instead find that e.g. things fall in a way governed by a simple formula so you conclude that there is no entity making a conscious decision to grab things and pull them down because, if there were, sometimes they might forget or alternatively pull them down harder.
So why the difference? Well suppose we had found that gravity did behave in a non-predictable way like that (think Road-runner cartoons!). Clearly that would have been evidence that gravity was due to some external intelligence deciding what would fall and how strongly. Obviously we did not find that result in reality but it is only with hindsight after having done the experiments which prove it that the answer is "obvious".
Maybe we should outlaw all them?
Since laws also kill people I'm not sure that is a good idea.
LOL. No, they don't. They say: "Superstition is the deviation of religious feeling"
Whereas I say: Religion is superstition.
But nice try, I'll give you that.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
The AC is a classic Troll, and you fed him. Do not feed the trolls.
That being said, some people are so ingrained with the "Anyone not like me is a (pejorative) " The fact that it passes as intellectual in much of the far left rantings is classic example of not actually paying attention because doing so will cause challenges to one's belief system. Which ironically, is exactly what they claim in a perfect case of projecting; tossing their own weaknesses upon everyone else.
Oh, and BTW, I'm a white racist homophobic misogynist. /sarcasm
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
OH, I see, you don't understand the difference between rational and irrational religion, and so generalize the two into an incorrect and superstitious stereotype.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Religion does whatever it wants. People wanted to advance humanity and still maintain whatever beliefs they had, so they did. That's all there is to it.
If you want to understand where dinosaurs come from (or went), just make some crap up. You already have the end in mind, God has to be right. So find some random verse that mentions some random creature like a Leviathan and BOOM, dinosaurs and God. Solved.
If religious minded people ever started with the premise, "maybe I'm wrong about god", how different would everything look from a religious perspective?
Think of all the ridiculous theories like Young Earth that would instantly vanish.
Religion always starts with an unfounded premise and builds on that premise (God exists). Science starts from nothing and works its way to a logical, empirical truth. They're only reconcilable in the way some religious people just take from Science whatever they please and discard the rest, creating these ugly Frankenstein-like theories that mesh science and religion in a desperate, pathetic attempt to reconcile God and the observable reality.
It's completely bogus to accuse religious persons of being irrational on this basis when they do not hold to such a definition of faith but rather the opposite, that a god personally and directly proves its own existence to each that is worthy of it. What's unreasonable about that?
Atheists arguments are always flawed, but this one is absurd.
In a proper S-expression of course!
Not a sentence!
And spelling too. It's embarrassing showing up to the meeting in brown *shorts*.
Anybody want a peanut?
Religion can be rational. If you take the axiom, "God exists," and develop it, you can have a perfectly sound (to the limits of Godel) logical system.
You can also do this with the axiom "God does not exist," or "Lizard Men rule the world," or any other concept.
The problem with rationality is that, absent empirical claims/testing, you can prove pretty much anything. The problem with empiricism is that "truth" becomes limited by your ability to measure things, i.e. everything you know is a little bit wrong.
Let me know whether rationality or empiricism has achieved the greatest result.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
The doctor offers some interesting insights, but misses the point of the conflict between science and religion. Many people of faith have made tremendous contributions to our body of understanding and their faith may have even given them motivation, but faith itself is antithetical to reason. Choosing to believe something without sufficient evidence goes directly against the nature of science. Science also depends on logic. Since we understand that intelligence arises from competition as part of an evolutionary process, we would need to make a lot of unverifiable assumptions to explain the existence of a god. Although we can't prove that god does not exist, most religions are easily falsifiable. It seems to me that that the only way religions like Christianity survive is either through the ignorance of their members, or by their members' ability to cling to the nonsense parts of their religion which have not yet been directly falsified as truth while claiming that the parts which have been falsified are metaphorical.
I'm not sure that believing something that need inherently be unprovable can ever be rational.
Where can one find one of these mystical rational religions?
Rational religions embrace empiricism, and in fact, are founded on both the axiom "God exists" AND "We can know the mind of God by observing his creation better than we can know the mind of God by slavishly following our interpretation of what we think our ancient ancestors wrote".
To bring this full circle back to Dr. Bakker's original point- St. Augustine said that where observation and scripture conflict, observation is the truth.
Too bad it took secularists another 1300 years to invent empiricism.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
"There's a huge difference. Rational religion does not exist, irrational religion is practically everywhere"
A good example of a superstition that fails to live up to the facts. Your own example is a superstition, and an irrational stereotype no less offensive than "all homosexuals are child molesters".
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
"I'm not sure that believing something that need inherently be unprovable can ever be rational."
Who said that God needs to inherently be unprovable? Or that empirical data is limited to the repeatible?
"Where can one find one of these mystical rational religions?"
One right now is "proving" that God exists by trying to pick a leader without politics.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
> Who said that God needs to inherently be unprovable?
Plotinus, I think. God ("The One") cannot be any existing thing. That laid the groundwork for much of monotheistic theology for the next few thousand years.
----
"I used to listen to Null Device before they sold out."
If there are so-called "facts" to back up your nonsense, why have you been so shy in actually presenting them? Name one significant religion (i.e. not one you just made up) that you think has no superstitions. Handy hint - if any of them have any concept of an afterlife, or of a creator, any five-year-old could probably identify a superstition they cling too. (Which possibly explains why you can't, we have no proof your mental age has reached that high.)
> Your own example is a superstition
Right, that explains a lot. You don't even know what a superstition is. Save up your pocket money, and go buy yourself a dictionary.
> and an irrational stereotype no less offensive than "all homosexuals are child molesters".
Only to complete idiots. However, I'm glad my beliefs offend you, as I find your stupidity offensive too. You have a mental illness, and to be perfectly honest, I can't even feel pity for you; I simply look down on you as being feeble-minded.
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
" Name one significant religion (i.e. not one you just made up) that you think has no superstitions. "
Roman Catholicism
"Handy hint - if any of them have any concept of an afterlife, or of a creator, any five-year-old could probably identify a superstition they cling too. "
I reject your definition of a superstition, and find it to be superstitious in and of itself. The lack of a concept of an afterlife, and lack of a concept of a creator, is far more superstitious than any religion on the planet. Proof is your dogmatic clinging to a lack of a concept of an afterlife as being superstitious.
"Right, that explains a lot. You don't even know what a superstition is. Save up your pocket money, and go buy yourself a dictionary."
Dictionaries are often biased in support of their authors, and are thus worthless.
"Only to complete idiots. However, I'm glad my beliefs offend you, as I find your stupidity offensive too. You have a mental illness, and to be perfectly honest, I can't even feel pity for you; I simply look down on you as being feeble-minded."
As do I you, in your mental illness that can't even be bothered to grant another human being dignity. It must be awful lonely in your little universe of one.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
>> Name one significant religion (i.e. not one you just made up) that you think has no superstitions.
> Roman Catholicism
OK, IHBT, nobody can be that stupid. Fucking zoo.pl is throwing errors - so I'm going to have to keep reading (or at least skipping over) your crap.
Reset of post not even read, not worth the effort.
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
Only because you are a bigot and a fraud.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
You are the one confused. Anything observed is empirically true- REGARDLESS of other evidence. Observation, not stupid ideology, should rule.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Protip: Do good or go to hell has NEVER been the truth about Catholic theology.
The choice has ALWAYS been "Love God and your Neighbor and you will go to Heaven".
Hell is like dark. You can't have light without dark. And the Church has never proclaimed that any person has gone to hell.
So I say you never were a Roman Catholic- either that, or you never got beyond a 6 year old's understanding of theology.
The fact that you are irrational doesn't make the religion irrational.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.