Monday, May 31, 2010
His Own Judge
After preaching ad nauseam (which you can read about here, here, here and here) on proper religion Jerry Coyne now feigns innocence and asks the question "what on earth is 'proper' religion?" in response to the preaching of his fellow priest, Francisco Ayala. Coyne convicts Ayala of his own crime. What is proper religion? Read your own book.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It seems a common theme on this blog to assert that evolution has some kind of "religious" undertones. It seems to be CH's pet project. It is one thing to say that evolutionists have presuppositions, confirmation bias etc, but religion - no, I really don't think anybody is buying it (and what "religion" would this be anyway?). Sure, CH can impress us with sophisticated metaphysical arguments from the 17th and 18th century, but again as an argument it really is only making sense in his own head. Besides, why is it inappropriate for evolutionists to respond to creationists religious arguments? Given what we know about God from the Bible (and it's interesting to note it's usually the Christian God invoked), why not critique whether what we see in nature is in line with the character of this God as revealed in scripture?
ReplyDeleteInteresting to note that despite the numerous attacks CH makes on Jerry Coyne, Dr. Coyne has not yet even mentioned CH on his web site. What does that tell us? I suspect Dr. Coyne probably doesn't think that when it comes to proper science CH has much to offer.
Janfeld:
ReplyDelete"It is one thing to say that evolutionists have presuppositions, confirmation bias etc, but religion - no, I really don't think anybody is buying it "
Surely not. God would never create fundamentally different animals, on on different continents, that nevertheless look and act so much alike. That's not religion. That's religion only when other people say things like that.
"Besides, why is it inappropriate for evolutionists to respond to creationists religious arguments?"
Please name the creationist who said that God would never create fundamentally different animals, on on different continents, that nevertheless look and act so much alike. Or use any of the other religious beliefs of Coyne and evolutionists.
"Given what we know about God from the Bible (and it's interesting to note it's usually the Christian God invoked), why not critique whether what we see in nature is in line with the character of this God as revealed in scripture?"
Examples?
CH: "Examples?"
ReplyDeleteEmmm...how about the account that God created the entire Universe with all species intact in just 6 days? I assume you think it is just allergorical, mythological, symbolic, analogous or something like that? Either way, it is wildly inaccurate compared to what multiple lines of evidence now show us about the age and formation of the earth.
And if is just allergorical, in which chapter in Genesis, do the allergories stop and actual factual accounts begin? 12? 15? And how do we know and agree on this?
If a creationist such as Ken Ham claims that all species was created in 6 or less days, why is it a "religious" claim to point out that what we observe in nature does not seem to be in accordance with that?
If somebody makes a claim about a god, and if I then subsequently point out that the evidence for that god is weak or missing, am I then making a religious claim? I don't think so, do you?
Janfeld:
ReplyDelete"If somebody makes a claim about a god, and if I then subsequently point out that the evidence for that god is weak or missing, am I then making a religious claim? I don't think so, do you?"
The difference is I deal with reality. In reality evolutionists do, and always have, made religious claims. This is documented throughout the evolutionary genre. But that's reality.
I'm still waiting for which creationist said that God would never create fundamentally different animals, on different continents, that nevertheless look and act so much alike. Or use any of the other religious beliefs of Coyne and evolutionists.
Cornelius -
ReplyDeleteGod would never create fundamentally different animals, on on different continents, that nevertheless look and act so much alike.
This is simply not a part of the theory of evolution. It is not a guiding principle, a basic assumption, nor a supporting argument for it.
The theory of evolution is whole and complete without this assertion.
CH: "I'm still waiting for which creationist said that God would never create fundamentally different animals, on different continents, that nevertheless look and act so much alike. Or use any of the other religious beliefs of Coyne and evolutionists. "
ReplyDeleteI think what you are fundamentally trying to say is that fundamentally God can do whatever he/she/it wants when it comes to the creation of species - regardless of whether or not those methods seem to contradict what we know of origins from the Bible (again, what do you think of the Genesis account - allergory, mythology or what - or, are you going to simply the skirt the question as you usually do?).
In other words, you have formed an irrefutable argument - God's ways cannot be questioned or critiqued in any way - and if an evolutionist dares to (although as Ritchie has so eloquently pointed out, they don't actually need to), they are accused of dabbling in metaphysics/religion.
The original Hebrew name for the first five books of the Bible, is Torah, which means "law."
ReplyDeletethe Torah was meant to be a guide for living a good life. So the parts that deal with laws and guidelines for living a good life, where menat to be taken literally. Everyhing else may be parable.
"So the parts that deal with laws and guidelines for living a good life, where menat to be taken literally."
ReplyDeleteA good life, unless you were gay of course, in which case you were stoned to death.
natschuster -
ReplyDeleteThough perhaps historically interesting to study, why exactly should we care about, much less obey, the laws of a primitive society thousands of years in the past? Have we not moved on at all since then?
As Janfeld points out, our morality has developed. Some things, like being gay, are no longer considered wrong, while others things shich were considered fine, like slavery, are no longer consideted right.
So what is the point in clinging to outdated and unyielding relics of laws?
Of course it wasn't just the gays who couldn't participate in the "good life"; lots of other people couldn't either - and often for absurd reasons:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm
If this is "good living", I think I will stick to my heathen and pagan ways, thank you very much. Better for my health and overall well-being I think.
Janfeld said...
ReplyDelete====
I think what you are fundamentally trying to say is that fundamentally God can do whatever he/she/it wants when it comes to the creation of species - regardless of whether or not those methods seem to contradict what we know of origins from the Bible
====
Not exactly. My point was that evolutionists today, and evolution genre historically, is motivated by religious and philosophical thought. Just read what they are claiming.
===
(again, what do you think of the Genesis account - allergory, mythology or what - or, are you going to simply the skirt the question as you usually do?).
====
I don't hold strong views because I don't find the basis for holding strong views. Many Christians say that there are various interpretations that are legitimate, and I would agree. Historically Christian thought, unlike many other traditions, has supported a wide spectrum of origin interpretations, ranging from mostly law-like to mostly miracle-like.
=====
In other words, you have formed an irrefutable argument - God's ways cannot be questioned or critiqued in any way - and if an evolutionist dares to
=====
No, evolutionists do not question or critique God's ways. They begin with God's ways, that is their premise.
===
they are accused of dabbling in metaphysics/religion.
===
Of course they're dabbling in metaphysics/religion -- more than dabbling. Their religion drives their science every bit as much as a creationist's religion drives his science.
CH: "Not exactly. My point was that evolutionists today, and evolution genre historically, is motivated by religious and philosophical thought. Just read what they are claiming."
ReplyDeleteI find that as unlikely to be true as the claim by yourself that your own religious views do not influence your own scientific viewpoint. You of course will deny this, but anybody who understands even a little about the psychology of religion (and in particular fundamentalism) will know how persuasive religion can cloud a person's perspective.
CH: "I don't hold strong views because I don't find the basis for holding strong views. Many Christians say that there are various interpretations that are legitimate, and I would agree. Historically Christian thought, unlike many other traditions, has supported a wide spectrum of origin interpretations, ranging from mostly law-like to mostly miracle-like."
Does it ever bother you that the Bible is so ambiguous on such important matters? You admit yourself that there is no basis for strong opinions. Why is that? But look at you - you spend all your time discussing and arguing these matters that God could clear up in a few seconds if he wishes. But apparently he wishes us to remain in a state of ignorance.
Is it any wonder that some portray the Christian God as a God of confusion? Is it any wonder too that many people have good reason to think that because of the confusion that the Bible generates, a more parsimonious explanation is that it is simply a man-made document? (and that's even without mentioning the horrific acts of violence that this God apparently condones and even commands).
CH: "No, evolutionists do not question or critique God's ways. They begin with God's ways, that is their premise."
ReplyDeleteYou seem stuck on this point. The ONLY reason evolutionists even mention God at all (and of course the majority don't even acknowledge the existence of such a god) is purely IN RESPONSE to creationists and others who make faith claims about the origins. As Ritchie and others here have said so many times, evolutionary theory can stand quite well all on its own without any recourse to gods of any kind.
Your assertions to the contrary are just that - nothing but assertions and wishful thinking on your part. I guess you think if you keep on saying it is true it will magically become true. Even among the ID camp you seem quite alone in this "religion drives science" mantra. And if the only way you can explain this idea is by saying "read my book" or read my dense and arcane article on 18th century metaphysics -well, maybe your idea really isn't as clear and obvious to others as seems to be to you. Or prove us wrong - explain in 4-5 sentences why "religion drives science" with clear evidence and without resorting to assertions. If you can't, then from a critical thinking perspective I would say there's something fishy going on. Psychologists have a word for this phenomena that begins with a D...
Even smart intelligent people get things wrong. Even adjunct professors of fundamental Bible colleges. Or maybe you just need to find a better way of communicating your ideas, because what you're doing sure isn't working for anybody.
"They begin with God's ways, that is their premise."
ReplyDeleteAre you saying that atheists assume the existence of God?
second opinion:
ReplyDelete"Are you saying that atheists assume the existence of God?"
Good question. The way I would explain it is that atheists have beliefs about what God would/should do. Their rejection of God, and belief in atheism, does not preclude those beliefs *about* God.
second opinion: "Are you saying that atheists assume the existence of God?"
ReplyDeleteIt's quite amusing to think that in CH's mindset, evolutionists are all raving religionists, even thought the vast majority of them have no believe in gods. I suppose CH is using religion here in the idiomatic sense of somebody who has deep conviction about a set of beliefs. But since he really hasn't made compelling or comprehensible case for his hypothesis, who knows?
Of course in one sense probably everybody on the planet is "religious" about something or other. And "religion drives science" makes for a better and pithy sound bite; the other irony is that it paints a picture that religion is a very bad thing, yet CH and others who support this are nearly all deeply religious and that religion is the cornerstone of their value system.
CH: 'Good question. The way I would explain it is that atheists have beliefs about what God would/should do. Their rejection of God, and belief in atheism, does not preclude those beliefs *about* God."
ReplyDeleteI would agree with this. But why shouldn't have atheists have opinions about your God? By the standards of modern society, I think your God is immoral and horrifically violent, particularly as portrayed in the OT. THe God of the OT condoned and practiced genocide. Sure theologians try to hand-wave this way (and the explanations are torturous to say the least, forgive the pun). And why not extend this same line of argument to evolution - the only depiction of origins accounts we have is in Genesis and as I've said before it simply does not jive with what we know about in modern science. It is not an unreasonable question to ask and ponder why God on the one hand gave us a "story" about creation, yet the evidence in the natural world points to an entirely different and contradictory set of processes. But apparently in CH's playback that is a "metaphysical" argument. He's welcome to that opinion, but let's be clear, it really isn't anything more than an opinion.
What is your basis for saying that the Bible is immoral neyond your onw moral sense.
ReplyDeletenatschuster: "What is your basis for saying that the Bible is immoral neyond your onw moral sense."
ReplyDeleteWe are covering this in another thread too I think. But here's a different explanation. I could of course ask a similar question as to why you think it is a moralset of teachings (other than the circular argument that you believe it because it says it is).
We could debate for hours the origins of morality. Christians like to think it is their exclusive domain. But of course any study of a non-Christian society (and other atheists themselves) will quickly conclude that morality exists outside of religion, and especially outside of Christianity. Many would say that there is an innate moral sense in us that has nothing to do with the 10 commandments or the Bible (again, look at societies in Scandanavia, Japan, New Zealand - some of the most secular countries in the world, but also some have some of the lowest crime rates - and no thanks to Christianity).
Sure, there are differences because of culture and time. But certain fundamentals exist - especially the principle of doing no harm to others, particularly when those others are innocent people. The Bible violates this principle over and over again. Not only is harm dealt out to others, but frequently even children. It's one thing to say that because of "original sin" we are all guilty, but the immorality comes because apparently God could not see to do what he did any other way.
The sad reality is that if it were not for 2000 years of indoctrination and institutionalization of Christianity, if we were approaching the OT for the first time we would see it simply for what it really is - an interesting set of mythological tales (with very little historic underpinnings), of barbaric and warfaring people, who focused their barbarism into the form of an angry, violent and vengeful warlord-god. But of course, because it is such a foundational piece of Christianity (and therefore a threat) very few people want to approach it honestly, but instead make up all kinds of absurd and irrational tales to explain the violence away.
Of course Christians have NO problem dismissing the Koran because of its violent content!!!
But doing no harm is again, a subjective idea.
ReplyDeleteSome people say it is a good thing.
natschuster: "But doing no harm is again, a subjective idea.
ReplyDeleteSome people say it is a good thing."
I think most people would say it is a good thing actually. Doing no harm is good for everybody, it allows us all to survive, to grow, perhaps even prosper. Some would say it even provides an evolutionary advantage. I don't know about the ins and outs of evolutionary psychology (I'm skeptical of a lot of it), but it isn't hard to see that altruistic behavior is better than the opposite. It's a shame isn't it that god in the OT provided such a bad example...I suppose it's no wonder so many Christians in the US especially are so hawkish...who can blame them given their role model?
Janfeld -
ReplyDeleteDawkins, in The Selfish Gene, devots a chapter to selfishness. He cites studies which used computer algorithms pitted against each other in games of the prisoner's dilemma (I'm sure it should be spelt dilemna, but google assures me otherwise). The upshot was that, even though if you play a single game it is better to be selfish, when you play the game many times with a number of opponents, it is better to co-operate. Also, some algorithms were more 'forgiving' than others. This too turned out to be an advantage.
Of course, real animals are a lot more complex than computer algorithms, and the real world has many unpredictable components. But I found it rather heartening that, even with such a artificial agents, co-operation and forgiving attitudes conferred evolutionary advantages.
Evolution would have us ast like chimps, and kill and eat members of other troups. That way, we get the benefits of being part of a society, while competing to eliminate those less fit. And what abou tsomeone who doesn't care about society at all? Why is he wrong?
ReplyDeletenatschuster -
ReplyDeleteEvolution would have us ast like chimps, and kill and eat members of other troups.
When trying to find out what is true, is important not to confuse it with what we WANT to be true.
We should not draw any moral implications from evolution. It is not a model for social cohesion. I doubt very much whether anyone would want to live in a society based on the principles of survival of the fittest. What a nasty, cut-throat society that must be. But that has no bearing on whether nature ACTUALLY DOES behave according to these principles.
And what do we find when we look to nature? It is indeed red in tooth and claw. The lives of the vast majority of animals are painful, brutish and short. That is not to say nature is not beautiful in places, but the values we hold dear in society - altruism, generosity, forgiveness, charity, are rarely on display in the natural world around us.
And what abou tsomeone who doesn't care about society at all? Why is he wrong?
Wrong? As in, morally wrong? What has that got to do with anything? Who say he is wrong? Who says he isn't?
Ritchie:
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be agreeing with me. My point is that there is no basis for saying Biblical morality is wrong beyond ones own moral sense.
natschuster:
ReplyDeleteUmm, yes I guess so. And there is no basis for saying Biblical morality is right beyond our own moral sense either.
We judge everything through our own moral sense, surely?