Comments on: The Interloper

By: Mike Haubrich

Mike Haubrich — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 13:40:42 +0000

It’s always hard to nail Alden down on these issues, He prefers slipperiness while declaring absolutes.

By: Theo Bromine

Theo Bromine — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 17:34:29 +0000

Quoth Alden: There is tons of evidence, you just narrow your definition to exclude it.

My standard for evidence is that those who present it are not allowed to retreat into question-begging arguments when that evidence is challenged.

Alden: according to Mike you are not a fan of Ehrman. Yet, he is very familiar with the conventional evidence for God and in favour of Christianity, and has come to his conclusions by studying that evidence. “God’s Problem” as articulated by Ehrman does present a real challenge, to which the only responses I have seen rely on the idea that
1) it is not acceptable or reasonable for humans to question God, since we are imperfect and fallen (I consider this to be begging the question), and/or
2) that because we are actually immortal souls that just happen to have bodies for a short time, all the awful things that happen in this life pale in comparison to our eternal reward (I see absolutely no evidence that there is such a thing as a soul or any form of consciousness independent of our physical existence.)

By: IBY

IBY — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:42:03 +0000

@alden
Yeah, Galileo pissed off the pope with his book, and generally, he was a very unpleasant man, but that doesn’t justify the pope’s attempt to censor his works. Nor is it a myth that Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for spreading ideas that were different from the status quo.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 06:11:51 +0000

science has still not come up with a reasonable theory of origins of either the universe or of life

Huh? What?

By: Alden

Alden — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 05:17:11 +0000

Peter, you’d better re-read your history. And, read a bit of theology while you’re at it. I am no supporter of the Roman Church – however, the Galileo-church story is mostly myth. A lot of people – including those considered scientists – were upset about any challenge to the Aristotelian order of things. Foolish, in my opinion, but there you have it. And, by the way, most religion does concern itself with origins.

Mike, once again I am talking about basic philosophy, which science depends upon whether anyone likes it or not. (lousy sentence structure, but you know what I mean.) I am not talking personal revelation. Science does have limitations, but unfortunately, many do not understand what they are.

You folks put a lot of faith in testable assumptions. However, your assumptions about the validity of science, etc., or as Loftus calls them, core beliefs, are themselves not testable. You must make the leap just like everyone else.

And, look up the definition of “evidence.” There is tons of evidence, you just narrow your definition to exclude it.

By: Mike Haubrich

Mike Haubrich — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 04:01:32 +0000

@Crudely Wrott – Well played.

@Peter – Smack Down!

By: peter

peter — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 01:53:45 +0000

“and much of the anti-science attitudes blamed on the historical church are mythological”

I wonder what Kepler, Giardono Bruna and Galileo among others would say to that bold statement.
The church, especially the catholic church, was always more concerned with dogma and the power of the holy sea than any truth to be arrived at from observation. The church for centuries despised and tried to throttle any attempts that were made to overcome the accepted usually non evidential Aristotelian “science”.

“science also has no authority to demand that religion conform to science.”

You are right, as long as religion does NOT make statements as to topics that clearly are statements as to the origin of the Universe, natural phenomena etc. If religion does that, then religion develops a hypothesis that clearly can be tested and falsified. Religion is an interloper into science and should be rudely put into its proper place.

“Philosophically, science fails”

I say philosophy fails, as it is quite often based on non-testable presumptions that have very little to do with what science can describe as reality.

“And, of course, science has no authority to claim there is nothing outside of the material world.”

Where is your evidence but some cobbled together books now called the bible. What about the claims of hinduism, daiosm, shamanism etc? What is the evidence that grants the exceptional status of christianity being “right” while all others are wrong? I see no evidence for any of the supernatural claims, nor do see I any evidence of a morality superior to one that could be arrived at by following Kant’s categorical imperative. I therefore conclude for myself that all religions make claims based not in observable reality but are asking to believe completely unfounded assumptions based on a supernatural world conflicting with each other.
As there is no evidence for anything supernatural but some statements in fusty old books, that proclaim the same “untruth” about the natural world for centuries without the chance of improving the word of god (who should have known better from the beginning when he dictated nonsense to his whoever “chosen” people), science can surely say:
As there is no evidence whatsoever for any of the claims thereof, we can with a high probability say that anything supernatural, as claimed by religions, does not exist.

By: Crudely Wrott

Crudely Wrott — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 00:43:09 +0000

Science, in the sense that it has existed over the last handful of centuries, probably is up to the task of explaining origins. This is predicated on two things. 1) That the example set by science in terms of explaining natural mystery, in elegant if not excruciating detail, is continuously supported by current and future discoveries and, 2) That sufficient evidence and experimental results prove as dependable as that which supports Ohm’s Law, Boyle’s Law and Murphy’s Law.

Should science pull of such a tour de force it would still be unable to address any notion of purpose or of some deeper, more inscrutable, origin. For lack of evidence, wouldn’t you know?

And that’s the name of that tune.

By: Mike Haubrich

Mike Haubrich — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 23:16:25 +0000

Sorry! I just liked your response at Thorny’s site. Thanks.

(Alden isn’t a fan of Ehrman.)

By: Lorax

Lorax — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 22:09:42 +0000

Just a quick note (Ill try to add a more substantive comment or my own post later). There is much flowing through the blogosphere regarding science faith compatibility and what not, now Mike goes and throws out “Original Sin” as a discussion point! Like I don’t have enough to have angry opinion about!

Anyway, I wanted to mention that Im currently reading Bart Ehrman’s “God’s Problem.” Its about the issue of suffering and the biblical explanations for it. Im about half-way through, but its a tremendous read which I highly recommend. (At least the first half, the second half may suck, which of course will just piss me off, but I doubt it.)