Why Waste My Breath?
[Note: Had written a looooooong spiel abuot why bacterial flagella aren't irreducibly complex, what natural selection is, why Behe is a dork, etc., but accidentally deleted it. There went my afternoon.]
There is almost no point arguing with ID proponents, as they are not going to change their minds, no matter how much evidence is laid before them. This is because their faith is immune to education.
They can't grasp that science - materialism, if you want, or empiricism - is fundamentally different from religious conviction. It's apples and oranges, but they think that materialism is a belief system akin to theism (albeit one that is immoral - a topic for another time). We can see this in the language that they use. "Dogma of Darwinism" - "orthodoxy of evolution" - "anyone who dares question it [natural selection] at all has to be 'whipped' and burned at the stake of so-called 'progress' and 'scientific fact'."
This is crusader language, not the language of natural science, nor even the language of philosophy.
There is almost no point arguing with ID proponents, as they are not going to change their minds, no matter how much evidence is laid before them. This is because their faith is immune to education.
They can't grasp that science - materialism, if you want, or empiricism - is fundamentally different from religious conviction. It's apples and oranges, but they think that materialism is a belief system akin to theism (albeit one that is immoral - a topic for another time). We can see this in the language that they use. "Dogma of Darwinism" - "orthodoxy of evolution" - "anyone who dares question it [natural selection] at all has to be 'whipped' and burned at the stake of so-called 'progress' and 'scientific fact'."
This is crusader language, not the language of natural science, nor even the language of philosophy.
posted by Joolya at
3:00 PM
12 Comments:
Meh, so you've hit THAT stage. Ah yes, I know it well.
Don't worry. All it takes is some time to not deal with them, to deal with your own work and learning and productivity instead, to recharge those batteries -- and before you know it, somebody somewhere will come out with a written statement so utterly ludicrous in its misunderstandings that your outrage will leap into white-hot life again and prompt you to re-enter the fray.
Or at least, that's how it works with me. :)
Theism is absurd from a scientific point of view. How can anyone who believes in reductionist science also believe in God? On the one hand, you have a discipline that believes only objects and processes tangible to human comprehension exist. On the other hand you have a habit of thought that argues from the existence of an intangible power - God - to natural processes. Can anyone explain this to me, without saying that they have received personal revelation from the divine?
Springy -- One can believe in God without believing that God is responsible for running all the processes of the universe. And, even reductionist science doesn't necessarily state that what is tangible to our comprehension is all that exists -- it merely states that this is what science should concern itself with. In fact, classical theism such as many of the American "Founding Fathers" believed held that God set things in motion, then stood back out of the way and let the universe run by itself.
~There are a series of very good articles on Wiki about theism, pantheism, and panentheism, by the way; you might find them illuminating as to how think.
Hi Luna,
Isn't the point of belief that beliefs should be true? What you are doing, like the enlightenment deists you admire, is starting from a point of cultural tradition ("there is a creator") and then arguing from those principles. There is nothing to suggest that particular cultural tradition is true.
What lies underneath your argument is the assumption that there should we can know things by other methods than empiricism. You accept that under the rules of empirical science we should reject the intangible from our enquiry. But outside of science - in the thoughts we have more generally - is it a good idea to reject empiricism?
Humbly,
Springy
A "belief" to me, is an active thing; it is a decision made in the face of incomplete evidence. I believe in God, as an act of faith, not through tradition (believe me, my experience of tradition is such that it is DEFINITELY not my motivation, and not something I am particularly fond of in general), but for my own reasons and according to my own views. I do not insist that my views are universally, objectively true and the only possible right answer; effectively they reflect my own best understanding in a situation which is, by its nature, beyond our ability to completely investigate.
I do not "believe in" evolution, any more than I "believe in" tables and chairs. Why waste the effort? All I have to do is simply accept the reality of what I deal with every day, and there is enough objective evidence of this reality that frankly, it doesn't matter whether I believe in it or not. It's there, end of story. If I were to choose "NOT to believe" in it, that would take an active effort (and would also make me delusional, but that is almost peripheral). I could say I "believe" that the sun rises in the east, but that is also not really accurate; I don't "believe", I *know*. I *expect*. I *accept*. Any of those words reflects the reality that I don't HAVE to "believe", because the evidence is so smack-you-in-the-face obvious, and belief is completely irrelevant.
What underlies my argument is the assumption that "belief" is formed whether or not we have adequate evidence to *know*, and that science operates in a different arena; we can "believe" in things in science, as well, with the understanding that this is because we have not yet performed adequate testing to *know*, and that adequate testing must be done before we can make an assertion as anything other than personal belief.
Do you follow what I'm saying? I hope I'm making it clear, but I'm coming down with a bad cold, and I'm uncertain if I'm as clear as I hope.
Hmm, interesting about the nature of belief. I can follow what you're saying, very clear. But you seem to see a neat dividing line between belief and knowledge that most non-scientists find hard to swallow. Even lots of scientists, too, I bet. Surely evolution is a theory that is the best interpretation of empirical evidence for explaining our origins? Intelligent design is worse. But facts and theories are not the same thing. We know fossils exist and suggest a very old earth and a very old universe, but the move from fact ("that fossils exist") to theory ("the earth is old") could be challenged by future discoveries: that, for instance, God suddenly appeared out of the heavens and told everyone he had put them there to fool us. The we might have to have a rethink.
we can "believe" in things in science, as well, with the understanding that this is because we have not yet performed adequate testing to *know*, and that adequate testing must be done before we can make an assertion as anything other than personal belief.
I agree - there are subtleties in the word "believe" as a person of religious faith versus a scientist would use the word. The scientist saying "I believe that paxillin is a critical mediator of directional cell motility" is actually saying, "Based on observations by me and other people, I hypothesize that paxillin is [blah blah blah]" In light of convincing experimental evidence, the scientist would have to change - or refine - their model. This happens all the bloody time.
The religious person, though, would say "I believe that God created life in the forms that exist now." They are saying "I hold the conviction that[blah blah blah]and this has nothing to do with evidence or observations, but rather is a tenet of my faith."
But you seem to see a neat dividing line between belief and knowledge that most non-scientists find hard to swallow.
So I don't think that is what Luna is saying (correct me if I'm wrong). Scientists are content (if not happy) to be unsure, whereas this is anathema to religious belief.
Which is where the language gets very confusing, as people are not using words to mean the same things, and do not know to explain themselves . . .
Well, possibly - I don't want to put words in Luna's mouth, but saying that she "knows" evolution exists because it is so "slap-in-the-face obvious" suggests that she thinks evolution is a fact. Which it is likely to be, hence we all support it against silly creationists. I am just saying that scientific theory - any theory of causes and effects, for that matter - rests on belief. But as you say, that belief is different from dogma, and unresistant to new evidence (ideally). There is a scale of knowledge/belief running from facts ("it's my birthday") to wacko theories ("God created the world").
No, I think the "it's obvious" thing is more pertinent to "knowing" that nature is "designed". Rather, accepting that evolution by natural selection is right-on has to do with many generations of observation and testable predictions. I think that e. by n.s. has safely moved into the realm of the factual.
OK, I bow to your (and Luna's) better knowledge, but you get my point.
Sorry to come back to this so late. I've spent the weekend cuddled up with the Creeping Crud, thanks to the Great Student Pathogen Swapmeet which is autumn semester.
I do actually distinguish between "evolution the fact" as descent of species with modification from a common ancestor, which I do actually consider slap-you-in-the-face obvious due to the number and quality of observations. The "theory of evolution" which is the explanatory framework of how and why that happens, is subject to revision in the face of incompleteness and uncertainty, which do exist in places.
If the famous "pre-Cambrian rabbit" were actually found, I would be prepared for a rethink -- after deliberate fraud or accidental misdating were ruled out. However, I am not expecting to ever have to do this, I have to admit. There are simply too many other things in the realm of biology which are pretty unequivocally evolution.
But yes, Joolya's right -- there are subtleties to the word "believe" which make it into a source of confusion rather than clarity. In religion, "believe" is all too often used as "Convinced I'm right, evidence irrelevant". And yes, I'm not using it that way. And yes, I am actually convinced that scientists use believe as Joolya described it, and that in general scientists are more comfortable with uncertainty.
Every scientist I've ever known has been more in love with what we don't know than what we know -- that's where the excitement is! The frontier! The coolness, the weirdness! Yeah, ok, you catch my drift. On the contrary, fundamentalists seem to have a deep need that everything be known; that there be no uncertainty. This basic mindset difference is probably the root of the different uses of "belief". I'm sorry to have contributed to that blurring.
"Great Student Pathogen Swapmeet"
that's awesome! :)
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home