Science and Religious Belief

[elguanteloko]

I disagree with this. Science can and does use instrumentalities, reason, inference and whatever other reliable tools it can get its hands on and the conclusions often do disagree with what our senses seem to be telling us (at first blush).

As for faith being a path to truth, well all I can say is look around at the ever growing diversity of mutually religions. Faith (as it is understood in religion) is not reliable and there is no reason to think that it would be.

Science is exactly the full on, straightforward, and self correcting project of finding the truth about our world while systematically attempting to avoid the pitfalls of the approaches to truth that we find in faith based religion.

Science has already been proven to work. The diversity of religious and supernatural beliefs that exist shows that if there is any method in religion, it is completely unreliable.

I can't think of a single thing that I know to be true soley thanks to religion as such (although that doesn't stop religion from taking credit).

Good grief! You have fallen into a vulgar Scientism!

[MistahStokes]

There is a distinction that needs to be made here Tao.

The "Logical Positivism" that is so often remarked as "dead" is merely the beating of a dead horse. Anyone who has actually bothered to study modern Anglophone (sometimes called Analytic) Philosophy knows that philosophical systems change with criticism, and they move on. What sloppy and hasty readers like to do is point out a snap-shot from the past and make a general remark from that. Again, using WalkerW as an example:

Also, the logical positivism or scientism that has been prevalent on this board is not only self-refuting, but also declining in the circles of philosophy and social sciences. See Tyler Burge, "Philosophy of Language and Mind: 1950-1990," The Philosophical Review 101:1 (Jan. 1992).

1- Logical positivism wasn't/isn't self refuting. This is one of those awesome myths and over simplifications that float around

2- Scientism is not a label people give themselves, it's a term crafted to be a derogatory to either scientists, or those who mimic them.

3- The citation is a little odd. I assume Walker linked it because of the short survey for the layman is provided, but it's narrow and only focuses on certain topic(s) in Philosophy of Language/Mind that were of interest in the 90s. It certainly does not accomplish the bolded sentence that precedes it. (Much love for JSTOR Remote)

Large parts of Logical Positivism still exists and is used quite often (just not under that name), it's failings were tossed aside and it's those failings that people like to hone in on and pretend they are making a profound observation.

It's like someone attacking modern Cosmologists for a steady state theory that happened years ago.

[Aka_me]

As for science, it is limited to what can be determined by the eyes, ears, nose, mouth, and sense of touch. Considering that these haven't been proved to work, without using the senses themselves, that's why I distrust 'scientism'.

it is about repeatability.

as opposed to say... Brigham Young explaining about the nature of the people living on the sun and moon (Journal of Discourses Volume 13, Pg 271).

a man who doesn't have any clue what he is talking about... can never know for sure "where anything is coming from" that he speaks.

[Tarski]

Good grief! You have fallen into a vulgar Scientism!

I don't think so. (sarcasm?)

Science works-sometimes poorly but it works. To deny it is madness. Some things that claim to be science are not and the social sciences are really in their infancy and the goal of objectity is really hard to come by.

It would be scientism if I thought that science was up to the task of dictating question of morality, musical taste or who I should associate with. I don't think this.

If you or anyone wants to get an inkling of what I think after all of these years of wading through everything from Kant to Heidegger to Rorty to Dennett while at the same time being immersed in science itself, I would ask that you read this simple little essay:

http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/faithint.htm

I agree with 99% of it.

[Ralph Man]

Good grief! You have fallen into a vulgar Scientism!

See, there's nothing about that that is "scientism." Yet here you are, accusing Tarksi of scientism. That's for making my point for me above.

Tarski -

I don't think anyone asserted that naturalism was dead. I don't think the word naturalism connotes any particular philosophical viewpoint we can coherently nail down, so I hestitate to use it. It is true though that most of what logical positivists thought is still dominant in philosophy. It's logical positivism itself that is dead. V.W. Quine was still a committed empiricist even as he stuck his sword in the positivist dragon. Ultimately the truth or falsity of things like positivism has precisely nothing to do with the truth or falsity of particular observation based arguments or their bearing on religious beliefs. Accusing someone of positivism is generally just a defensive maneuver to shift focus away from the quality of the empirical argument in question.

[TAO]

I disagree with this. Science can and does use instrumentalities, reason, inference and whatever other reliable tools it can get its hands on and the conclusions often do disagree with what our senses seem to be telling us (at first blush).

As for faith being a path to truth, well all I can say is look around at the ever growing diversity of mutually contradictory religions. Faith (as it is understood in religion) is not reliable and there is no reason to think that it would be.

Science is exactly the full on, straightforward, and self correcting project of finding the truth about our world while systematically attempting to avoid the pitfalls of the approaches to truth that we find in faith based religion.

Science has already been proven to work. The diversity of religious and supernatural beliefs that exist shows that if there is any method in religion, it is completely unreliable.

I can't think of a single thing that I know to be true soley thanks to religion as such (although that doesn't stop religion from taking credit).

Ah, that is true, however, reason, inference, and other reliable tools need input - input that can only be provided by senses. Thus, senses must be trusted without proof. We could be sitting in a black room, and all this is a dream put on by a neuro-transmitting-capable machine for all we know (though I kinda doubt it)

As for different religions, to be honest, it truly doesn't matter to me. My goal is not to prove religion to anybody - it's to help guide them if they ask for that, but not to prove. I base my religion on what has happened to me in my life - and only I know what I feel, so only I can hold myself up to the true degree of honesty. I cannot feel what others feel, therefore, I cannot determine why they joined the religion they joined - all I can determine is that I know that I truly put my trust in God when I asked him the question "What is faith?". And I discovered - faith is only reliable under two conditions. The first is, you put it in God, not in a religious organization. You let God lead you to the organization you should trust. The second is, faith is only reliable for those who truly seek it.

Science has only been proven to work using some assumptions and trust - the same way faith has.

Perhaps the reason that you can't find a thing to credit, is because you haven't truly tried faith (I don't know, I'm not you, I've never lived your life). And if that is the case, well I'll tell you, in my life, faith has lead me to some very interesting things, that known science doesn't touch.

*Reply to MistahStokes*

I think we're talking about different positivism, that I do Mistah. Mine is... a sort of look that the world can't be mundane, but must be put there for an orderly good reason. It IS an assumption, but it's one that I must make if I don't want to despise living.

EDIT: More responses in a bit.

[Aka_me]

science is pretty sure about the reality of evolution.

evolution COMPLETELY destroys the church's explanation for the fall of Adam and Eve a few thousand years ago.

there is no way possible, to accept science and believe in the church.

anyone believing in Adam and Eve young earth theor should turn their computer off because they don't believe in the science required to have created it.

[Tarski]

See, there's nothing about that that is "scientism." Yet here you are, accusing Tarksi of scientism. That's for making my point for me above.

Tarski -

I don't think anyone asserted that naturalism was dead. I don't think the word naturalism connotes any particular philosophical viewpoint we can coherently nail down, so I hestitate to use it. It is true though that most of what logical positivists thought is still dominant in philosophy. It's logical positivism itself that is dead. V.W. Quine was still a committed empiricist even as he stuck his sword in the positivist dragon. Ultimately the truth or falsity of things like positivism has precisely nothing to do with the truth or falsity of particular observation based arguments or their bearing on religious beliefs. Accusing someone of positivism is generally just a defensive maneuver to shift focus away from the quality of the empirical argument in question.

I agree with the bolded part above.

I also somewhat agree with the rest of it but I allow myself to use the term naturalism unless push comes to shove on someone's interpretation of what they think it means. Basically, I would tentatively accept anything that clearly had explanatory power of the kind I have become used to and under the stipulation that it can be and has been tested and shown to have predictive power of some sort (I am somewhat flexible about what that could mean).

[Aka_me]

He observed, "I find it very hypocritical for us as members of the church to sift through the concepts of science selectively, identifying friends and enemies as best fits our narrow purposes. . . . For me," he admitted, "there are no notions in biological science which violate the principles, both spiritual and practical, which I hold dear as a committed Latter-day Saint." The following April, former dean Lester Allen was asked to submit to the church an informed, albeit unofficial response to criticisms that the church was anti-science.

it is so very sad... that the church couldn't find it within themselves to "turn to God" expecting clarity, leadership, and insights from God Himself.

I guess if God had that kind of clarity, leadership, and insight... He would have provided it a LONG TIME AGO.

[TAO]

Reply to aka_me

it is about repeatability.

as opposed to say... Brigham Young explaining about the nature of the people living on the sun and moon (Journal of Discourses Volume 13, Pg 271).

a man who doesn't have any clue what he is talking about... can never know for sure "where anything is coming from" that he speaks.

aka, reliability is based on the person themselves. People aren't reliable sometimes, which is why you see different religions.

hmmm... aka, you should probably read the thread "The Done-Deal Doctrine"

Reply to aka_me again

science is pretty sure about the reality of evolution.

evolution COMPLETELY destroys the church's explanation for the fall of Adam and Eve a few thousand years ago.

there is no way possible, to accept science and believe in the church.

anyone believing in Adam and Eve young earth theor should turn their computer off because they don't believe in the science required to have created it.

Erm... I think I already answered this.... okzzz... =P

Reply to aka_me another time

He observed, "I find it very hypocritical for us as members of the church to sift through the concepts of science selectively, identifying friends and enemies as best fits our narrow purposes. . . . For me," he admitted, "there are no notions in biological science which violate the principles, both spiritual and practical, which I hold dear as a committed Latter-day Saint." The following April, former dean Lester Allen was asked to submit to the church an informed, albeit unofficial response to criticisms that the church was anti-science.

it is so very sad... that the church couldn't find it within themselves to "turn to God" expecting clarity, leadership, and insights from God Himself.

I guess if God had that kind of clarity, leadership, and insight... He would have provided it a LONG TIME AGO.

You know your getting kinda clost to trolling, ya' know... and trolls tend to get starved, so do be careful, please.

Actually, that's one thing I am careful about, I do try and look at all stuff in science if possible. However, one of the 'scientific' things I dismiss is chaos. Chaos cannot exist in my mind (Us who are Autistic are opposed to chaos because it ruins the point of everything). I have good reasons for opposing it. Does this mean I selected used science? No. It just means I disagree with some of the conclusions scientists came up with. And I recognize the weaknesses of science, for it does have them. Just as I recognize the weaknesses of faith. Overall, I have found that the weaknesses of faith can oftentimes be overcome by trusting in God. Therefore, I trust God more than I do trust science. However, that doesn't limit me to looking at science anyways, I find learning just as interesting even if I disagree.

[Ralph Man]

The idea that our senses, taken in totality, are a reliable guide to reality cannot be established with science. That would beg the question, so it must be true. It's also commonplace to think this is a metaphysical premise we must take as a given. So because we must have faith, of a sort, in this idea it follows that I can have faith in whatever proposition I want to. Therefore, my belief that aliens are secretly reading my thoughts in order to devise a superior microwave popcorn is just as rational as believing that the Mississippi river has water in it.

[TAO]

The idea that our senses, taken in totality, are a reliable guide to reality cannot be established with science. That would beg the question, so it must be true. It's also commonplace to think this is a metaphysical premise we must take as a given. So because we must have faith, of a sort, in this idea it follows that I can have faith in whatever proposition I want to. Therefore, my belief that aliens are secretly reading my thoughts in order to devise a superior microwave popcorn is just as rational as believing that the Mississippi river has water in it.

Well it really depends. Having faith in aliens that are developing a microwave popcorn, if it's so important to you, I guess that's fine. On the other hand, having faith in God is important to me. And since it requires faith in order to find him, I decided to test it from the bottom of my heart, that I did. And since I tested it with true honesty and no intent to deceive, I figure that I can use the answer I got.

[WalkerW]

Logical positivism has been effectively dead for almost 60 years in philosophy. How much more do you think it can decline?

Quite true. It has been dead in academic philosophical circles for decades. What I've really seen is a spike of its usage among laymen in the wake of the New Atheism. Forgive the slight inaccuracy of my post. The evidence against similar thinking in social sciences has also been around for quite some time. Its application (in business, for example), however, is only relatively recent.

You mentioned Quine: if anyone is interested, see his "Two Dogmas of Empiricism," The Philosophical Review 60 (1951). Despite his criticisms of logical positivism, Quine's roots were still in positivism. See Daniel Isaacson, "Quine and Logical Positivism," The Cambridge Companion to Quine, ed. Roger Gibson (Cambridge University Press: 2004).

[Daniel Peterson]

I have no desire to cozy up to "Mormon Scholars Testify"

Very prudent. Those "scholars" are an unsavory bunch, and "Mormon Scholars Testify" is a thoroughly unsavory enterprise.

I noticed that in the last five entries, that four of them were born in the church and attended BYU.

When I checked a couple of months ago, the site was running at about 20%-22% converts. I don't think that the ratio has changed much since then, and you seem to agree.

I'm making absolutely no effort at especially recruiting converts.

Micheal Shermer argues that many educated people believe in weird things

And he's undoubtedly correct in that.

"Perhaps the most interesting observation Shermer makes is with regard to the similarity in the flawed methodology that all the proponents of weird things use. His two main examples are creationists and Holocaust deniers.

I have no doubt whatever that the Holocaust occurred and that the earth is several billion years old.

I think, though, that you're intent upon slandering me and many of my friends:

From my own experience, I know that Mormon apologetics also rely on this same methodology. The methodology includes these elements:

1. They concentrate on their opponents' weak points, while rarely saying anything definitive about their own position.

2. They exploit errors made by scholars who are making opposing arguments, implying that because a few of their opponents' conclusions were wrong, all of their opponents' conclusions must be wrong.

3. They use quotations, usually taken out of context to buttress their own position.

4. They mistake genuine, honest debates between scholars about certain points within a field for a dispute about the existence of the entire field.

5. They focus on what is not known and ignore what is known, emphasize data that fit (their distorted world view) and discount data that do not fit."

Uh huh.

I would be interested to see you actually present evidence demonstrating that any or all of these elements are characteristic of the work of, say, John Welch, Blake Ostler, John Sorenson, David Paulsen, Gregory Smith, Richard Lloyd Anderson, Kevin Barney, John Gee, Noel Reynolds, and William Hamblin.

For that matter, feel free to demonstrate that these five elements are typical of my Mormon-related writing. I suggest the following as suitable places to find me committing all of the above-enumerated sins. They're long enough, and substantial enough, to provide you with plenty of rope with which to hang me:

"Mormonism and the Trinity." Element 3:1-2 (Spring and Fall 2007).

[Ralph Man]

I have no doubt whatever... that the earth is several billion years old.

Lots of creationists think this too, so this is an odd way to express a view contrary to creationism.

The important thing here is there are well-educated, highly credentialed scholars who think it is a few thousand years old. So the small group of idiots I found by scouring message boards clearly wrong. Triumph! Oh glorious triumph. Those old earth critics sure don't know what they're talking about, claiming that no educated person can believe in a young earth.

[Daniel Peterson]

Lots of creationists think this too, so this is an odd way to express a view contrary to creationism.

Ah. You've caught me. I'm very, very cunning. Obviously, I was intending to deceive. (Stalker, call your office!)

I tend to use the term creationism/creationist to refer to young earth creationists/creationism. I suspect that that is how most people use it.

In that sense, I'm plainly not a creationist.

If, however, you expand the meaning of the term to include theistic evolutionists and such folk, and accuse me of believing that God had a role in the origin of this planet and of the life upon it, then I cheerfully plead guilty. In that quite broad sense, I suppose I'm a kind of creationist.

The important thing here is there are well-educated, highly credentialed scholars who think it is a few thousand years old. So the small group of idiots I found by scouring message boards clearly wrong. Triumph! Oh glorious triumph. Those old earth critics sure don't know what they're talking about, claiming that no educated person can believe in a young earth.

I'm not sure to whom you're speaking, or what you're talking about.

.

[cdowis]

the number of issues where the church conflicts with science is too significant to ever begin to be reconcilable...

1. location of Adam-ondi-Ahman

no archeological evidence to support it.

What specific archeological evidence are you looking for? Please cite specific scriptures, and give us the specific evidence you are looking for. Then give us the excavations on the nearby sites down several thousands of years to show that this evidence is missing.

You are making an assertion, so back it up.

2. Adam and Eve as full language skills and abstract reasoning

not at all how science explains human development.

Science is a state of flux when explaining human development. Like lips, every scientist has an opinion.

3. creating grass (11) before there was such thing as day or night (14)

no branch of science can support the sequence.

Please describe the specific details of the creation events, and we'll see what we can do to answer your question. I personallyh do not claim to have those details.

4. where was Heavenly Father standing before the big bang?

a corporeal god has a boot strapping problem, someone must create a planet for him to live on.

Tell us the details of the nature of deity. He has a body of flesh and bones, but, for example, how does He move across the universe virtually instantly? Obviously this body does not have the same constraints that our bodies have.

You clearly pretend to have those details, so give them to us and we will do our best to answer your question.

5. why not make a rocket ship and to travel to the celestial kingdom?

given an eternity in the terrestial or telestial kingdom, you put einstein and hawking and the rest of the brainy-acks together and they'll simply fly to the celestial kingdom.

Where would I point the rocket ship. You clearly know the location by the nature of your question, so please tell us and when you get to your particular kingdom, you can try it.

6. no such thing as upgrading kingdoms.

there is no such thing as the finest mineral (ie diamond) ever progressing to the vegetable kingdom. there is no such thing as the biggest vegetable (ie sequoia) ever progressing to the animal kingdom. there is no such thing as the smartest animal (ie chimp) ever progressing to the human kingdom. and as such there can never be any such thing as the human progressing to the divine kingdom.

Thanks for giving us your personal opinion on matters that you know all the details.

7. genetic diversity renders Noah's flood as impossible.

there is no way the human diversity of populating the entire earth, with different skin colors and languages could have happened post Noah's flood.

"Impossible" is an interesting word. It has alot to do with your assumptions. Scientists have often looked very foolish by stating that something is impossible.

[elguanteloko]

I don't think so. (sarcasm?)

Science works-sometimes poorly but it works. To deny it is madness. Some things that claim to be science are not and the social sciences are really in their infancy and the goal of objectity is really hard to come by.

It would be scientism if I thought that science was up to the task of dictating question of morality, musical taste or who I should associate with. I don't think this.

Well, you betray your thoughts from time to time here. I say you fall into scientism to the extent that you make statements such as "Science is exactly the full on, straightforward, and self correcting project of finding the truth about our world" since you seem to imply our world consists of nothing other than what science can assess successfully AND you presupose (I don't know how) that science actually gets us to "The Truth" about the world. Then you say "Science has already been proven to work" and you turn around to mention that it works "sometimes poorly" and that it can't assess morality, aesthetics, and is not as successful in the social sciences. I probably should have said that you portray the spirit of scientism; that's more graphic.

BTW, I have a question for you: what do you understand "religious faith" to be?

If you or anyone wants to get an inkling of what I think after all of these years of wading through everything from Kant to Heidegger to Rorty to Dennett while at the same time being immersed in science itself, I would ask that you read this simple little essay:

http://ase.tufts.edu...rs/faithint.htm

I agree with 99% of it.

I'll read it and we'll come back to it.

[changed]

science is pretty sure about the reality of evolution.

evolution COMPLETELY destroys the church's explanation for the fall of Adam and Eve a few thousand years ago..

There are many scenerios for which both can co-exist. I personally believe that we are not the only world which has been placed on this planet.

Moses 1:33 And worlds without number have I created;

new worlds get built on the top of older worlds...

Ether 13:9 And there shall be a new heaven and a new earth; and they shall be like unto the old save the old have passed away, and all things have become new.

there is the gap theory...

As Adam and Eve were perfect celestial beings, and usually perfect celestial beings show up in the form of something like:

2 Kings 6:17 And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

ie - were are constantly surrounded by a celestial sphere, but we do not have eyes to see... When they ate the fruit, their "eyes were opened", they realized they had bodies, God said "where are you?" It was as if they had passed through a veil into a different existence...

so an old earth works for me...

as for evolution... personally, I'm more of a fan of panspermia and HGT than the Darwinian version of events, but to each their own.

see for example:

http://www.panspermia.com/whatsnew56.htm#090723

Primate-specific genes were inserted de novo, not generated by gradual divergence from non-primate genes.

etc. etc.

it is so very sad... that the church couldn't find it within themselves to "turn to God" expecting clarity, leadership, and insights from God Himself.

I guess if God had that kind of clarity, leadership, and insight... He would have provided it a LONG TIME AGO.

Perhaps God wants us to learn how to think for ourselves on some things? The best teachers don't provide answers... they let the students discover them for themselves. On non-essential issues, I think it is fun to have the freedom to play around with ideas, and figure out the puzzle.

[Tarski]

Well, you betray your thoughts from time to time here. I say you fall into scientism to the extent that you make statements such as "Science is exactly the full on, straightforward, and self correcting project of finding the truth about our world"

So to you scientism is the acknowledgment that science works? Color me guilty.

There was a day when humans thought that disease was caused by spirits, sorcery, voodoo or the displeasure of gods.

Now we know about not only germs but the detailed workings of cells and DNA. We know about antibiotics, hygiene, hormones, ADP, ADP, neurology. We do not seek to cast demons out of people with mental illness.

We have been to moon and broken beyond the bounds of our intuitions in the development of relativity with its profound insights into space matter and energy and quantum electrodynamics (accurate to ten parts in a billion). We have developed the standard model of particle physics which elucidates the fundamental structures of physical reality which give rise to the laws we see at higher levels (the chemical, the biological and neurological). We have developed profound conceptual tools regarding information processing and computation that are beginning to show how to understand the human brain and the behavior it produces. We have unlocked the secret of the tree of life and the principle of evolution that places us squarely in the animal kingdom and gives us the first broadly correct view of our own origins.

On the other hand, until science bullied religion into accepting some of this stuff, religion has given us things like Adams rib and the demon possession theory of mental illness-- not to mention dubious moral notions such as atonement for "sin" by animal sacrifice (all given an artificially sophisticated spin these days). It will not do to point out that science has been wrong because it is part of science that it knows it can be wrong and questioning is a virtue. It seems a stretch to say the same about religion which is full of dogmas and doctrine we are asked to accept on faith and a good feeling inside.

since you seem to imply our world consists of nothing other than what science can assess successfully AND you presuppose (I don't know how) that science actually gets us to "The Truth" about the world.

You capitalized the word truth. Read the essay.

I do not imply that our world consists of nothing other than what science can assess. But, counter examples are harder to come by than one might think especially if you think there is a superior method around. How broadly shall we construe science? Are we talking about what we can do now or can we include what can in principle do done given time, luck and hard work? We do not yet know the limits of science but there is reason to be enthusiastic. Looking at the track record of world religions I cannot say the same for religion.

But what of the human soul? What of love, empathy, fairness and human solidarity? What about beauty and the human spirit? What about lessons of living and courage?

Well, there exist more than science for sure. (I told you I don't deserve to be saddled with the accusation of scientism--which in practice is a word with little content and functions mainly as a defensive insult thrown out by religionists or the postmodernist academic left).

So, again, what about love, empathy, beauty, the human spirit and lessons for living?

Well, here I will take basically what Rorty recomends. Give me poets over prophets, artists over popes, give me great literature over scripture, give me quantum cosmology or good sci-fi over the Book of Abraham, give me human autonomy and moral self determination over theocracy.

Give me questioning skepticism over comforting faith.

Religion typically limits what we are expected to value.

In fact, let me have the space to value the comic, the dark and haunting, the erotic, the funky, the psychedelic, the numinous, the rebellious, the thrilling and plenty of the things that make nuns and matronly church ladies glower in anger or faint with embarrassment. Give me screaming blasphemous electric guitars, miniskirts, comedy clubs, beer, rock concerts and loud laughter.

Back to science: It works well though sometimes slowly or haltingly as a method of uncovering what is real and how things really work. I do not assume this, I observe it and I understand it.

Science is constantly threatened and sometimes undermined by politics, ideology, bias and human error. It takes time and some things are only cleared up over the long haul (yes there are atoms and germs--that's settled).

There is plenty still out of its reach and some things that always will be perhaps because of sheer complexity (but these are not within reach of something else as far as I can see).

Science cannot grant us wisdom about how to use what we learn but I wouldn't trust that to any religion I have seen yet.

Science cannot tell us how to live but it helps and that's simply because it is better to know science when making such decisions (How do I know not to accuse my neighbor of being a witch and how do I know not to blame demons or my strange neighbor for my illness? To what kind of doctor should I take my child? Should I touch that wire or let my children play with that substance?)

Make accusations of scientism all you want. I will not apologize for being impressed with science or for observing that it is in an epistemic class of its own. Thank goodness for science--it is a candle in the dark.

[WalkerW]

"Mormonism and the Trinity." Element 3:1-2 (Spring and Fall 2007).

Speaking of which, is there anyway that I could get my hands on this? I'm not a subscriber, but I'd be very interested in reading this.

Also (a bit off subject), I'd appreciate being pointed in the direction of some excellent books on Islam. I asked this elsewhere, but it got buried underneath other comments. I've already read your book. Could you make some other suggestions? Thank you.

[WalkerW]

WalkerW's use of Rodney Stark's historical writings is atrocious

Well, who can argue with that? Anyone interested can read it for themselves and make up their own mind. I also just recently picked up Thomas E. Woods, Jr., How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization (Regnery Publishing, Inc.: 2005). He has a chapter dedicated to the Church's influence on science.

For some useful criticisms of Stark's (and Jaki's) work, see Noah J. Efron, "Myth 9 - That Christianity Gave Birth to Modern Science," Galileo Goes to Jail: And Other Myths About Science and Religion, ed. Ronald L. Numbers (Harvard University Press: 2009). If you have any others, feel free to list them.

[Tarski]

Well, who can argue with that? Anyone interested can read it for themselves and make up their own mind. I also just recently picked up Thomas E. Woods, Jr., How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization (Regnery Publishing, Inc.: 2005). He has a chapter dedicated to the Church's influence on science.

For some useful criticisms of Stark's (and Jaki's) work, see Noah J. Efron, "Myth 9 - That Christianity Gave Birth to Modern Science," Galileo Goes to Jail: And Other Myths About Science and Religion, ed. Ronald L. Numbers (Harvard University Press: 2009). If you have any others, feel free to list them.

For those who want to hear the very strong other side, I suggest "The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason" by Charles Freeman

[Daniel Peterson]

Speaking of which, is there anyway that I could get my hands on this? I'm not a subscriber, but I'd be very interested in reading this.

Unfortunately, it's not on-line. You could contact the secretary of the Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology, Dr. Benjamin Huff, through the Society's website or via Randolph-Macon College (where he teaches), or the editor of Element, Dr. Brian Birch, through Utah Valley University. Or, if I can find it, I could send you an electronic file of a slightly earlier version of the paper; I don't think I have the final version. But I would need your e-mail address for that.

Also (a bit off subject), I'd appreciate being pointed in the direction of some excellent books on Islam. I asked this elsewhere, but it got buried underneath other comments. I've already read your book. Could you make some other suggestions? Thank you.

My favorite living author on Islam in English is Bernard Lewis, of Princeton. Anything by him is worth reading. Other good writers, representing various (sometimes clashing) viewpoints include John Esposito, Fouad Ajami, and Frederick Denny, and, from an earlier generation, A. J. Arberry, H. A. R. Gibb, Marshall G. S. Hodgson, etc.

[elguanteloko]

So to you scientism is the acknowledgment that science works? Color me guilty.

No, man, you are misunderstanding me. I am saying such type of statements definitely reflect the spirit of scientism. Let's put it like this, you sound like a science-worshipper (but I am sure you are not). Stuff like "science is the method for finding truth about our world" are kind of going over the top and giving science a place it does not hold.

On the other hand, until science bullied religion into accepting some of this stuff, religion has given us things like Adams rib and the demon possession theory of mental illness-- not to mention dubious moral notions such as atonement for "sin" by animal sacrifice (all given an artificially sophisticated spin these days).

Why don't you mention obvious plus points for religion? Man, I am not really all that against your position but you at least have to show some balance.

You capitalized the word truth. Read the essay.

I do not imply that our world consists of nothing other than what science can assess.

I realize this. All I am saying is that in the first post to which I replied DID indeed reflect a strong scientism on your part. Sure, you did not meant it probably, but that is how it seemed. Go back and re-read your own post and tell me it does not sound like scientism.

But, counter examples are harder to come by than one might think especially if you think there is a superior method around. How broadly shall we construe science? Are we talking about what we can do now or can we include what can in principle do done given time, luck and hard work? We do not yet know the limits of science but there is reason to be enthusiastic.

...

Looking at the track record of world religions I cannot say the same for religion.

And you shouldn't say that since religion is an issue of faith, not of science.

But what of the human soul? What of love, empathy, fairness and human solidarity? What about beauty and the human spirit? What about lessons of living and courage?

Well, there exist more than science for sure. (I told you I don't deserve to be saddled with the accusation of scientism--which in practice is a word with little content and functions mainly as a defensive insult thrown out by religionists or the postmodernist academic left).

So, again, what about love, empathy, beauty, the human spirit and lessons for living?

...

Well, here I will take basically what Rorty recomends. Give me poets over prophets, artists over popes, give me great literature over scripture, give me quantum cosmology or good sci-fi over the Book of Abraham, give me human autonomy and moral self determination over theocracy.

Give me questioning skepticism over comforting faith.

The problem with this is that neither poets, popes, scripture, etc are issues of religious faith. The value in scripture, Tarski, is for those that believe in faith and foolishness to those that don't.

Religion typically limits what we are expected to value.

Dear goodness! Please elaborate on this one! From all that is mentioned in this post, this is the most interesting thing I would appreciate if you expanded on.

In fact, let me have the space to value the comic, the dark and haunting, the erotic, the funky, the psychedelic, the numinous, the rebellious, the thrilling and plenty of the things that make nuns and matronly church ladies glower in anger or faint with embarrassment. Give me screaming blasphemous electric guitars, miniskirts, comedy clubs, beer, rock concerts and loud laughter.

so.. how does religion limit what the beauty of any of these?

Back to science: It works well though sometimes slowly or haltingly as a method of uncovering what is real and how things really work. I do not assume this, I observe it and I understand it.

Science is constantly threatened and sometimes undermined by politics, ideology, bias and human error. It takes time and some things are only cleared up over the long haul (yes there are atoms and germs--that's settled).

There is plenty still out of its reach and some things that always will be perhaps because of sheer complexity (but these are not within reach of something else as far as I can see).

Science cannot grant us wisdom about how to use what we learn but I wouldn't trust that to any religion I have seen yet.

Where do you place your faith, Tarski?

Science cannot tell us how to live but it helps and that's simply because it is better to know science when making such decisions (How do I know not to accuse my neighbor of being a witch and how do I know not to blame demons or my strange neighbor for my illness? To what kind of doctor should I take my child? Should I touch that wire or let my children play with that substance?)

Agree.

Make accusations of scientism all you want.

I think I clarified what I meant.

I will not apologize for being impressed with science or for observing that it is in an epistemic class of its own. Thank goodness for science--it is a candle in the dark.

We agree.