Scientific method and the “supernatural”

This is a repeat of a post from over 2 years ago:

Richard Dawkins TV series Enemies of Reason has caused some discussion about the relationship of science to the supernatural. This also comes up in discussions of the nature of science, the science/religion conflict and the motivation behind intelligent design and creationism. Some of the terms used in this discussion can mean different things to different people, so it’s worth starting with some dictionary definitions.

Natural: existing in, produced by nature; not supernatural or strange; based on the principles and findings of human reason rather than on revelation.

Supernatural: of or relating to things that cannot be explained according to natural laws; of or caused as if by a god, miraculous.

Material: that which makes up reality; one of two modes of existence, the other being mind.

Materialist: the doctrine that matter is the only reality and that the mind, the emotions, etc., are merely functions of it.

Belief, knowledge and science

This is a repeat of a post from 18 months back:

A pernicious feature of current attacks on science is the promulgation of the idea that scientific knowledge is “just a belief.” That it has no more validity than any other belief. That non-scientific beliefs should be given the same status or legitimacy as scientific theory.

This idea is promulgated by “secular” new age, post-modernist and similar ideologies. It is also promoted by some religious groups advancing creationist ideas. For an example of the latter have a look at the documentary video “In Good Faith” showing a “science lesson” at the Australian Pacific Hills Christian School (see also Teaching science in faith schools). In this “lesson” students were offered a range of beliefs about biology and told they should consider them and choose which best fitted their religious views.

The Unconsidered Life

A short and to-the-point video. Here the philosopher and author AC Grayling comments thinking critically and being a well-informed citizen of the world.

Something to think about at this time for considering New Year’s resolutions.

YouTube – RDF TV – The Unconsidered Life – A.C. Grayling.

Permalink

Similar articles

“A plot to rule the world”

We should differentiate between those who are sceptical of current assessment in climate science and those who outright deny the science. There are sceptics and there are deniers.

It seems to me that a feature more or less common to deniers is conspiracy theory. This is probably inevitable. After all, if one is going to reject all the science and make charges of dishonesty against scientists, politicians and activists concerned about global warming you do need some sort of explanatory framework. It seems simpler to just put the whole thing down to a giant conspiracy, rather than bother dealing with the intricacies of the science, commerce and politics involved.

George Monbiot on ClimateGate & the climate denial industry

Lord Christopher Monckton, the 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

Public comments on the “climategate” emails have certainly been varied. From one extreme like Lord Monckton who uses it to justify his outlandish giant conspiracy theory, to the more rational discussion by science journalists.

George Monbiot, who writes for The Guardian, has made some of the more balanced comments. He is not dismissing the significance of the emails but at the same time puts them in a proper context. He is particularly warning that they are in no way evidence of a conspiracy, or that the current assessment of the threat of global warming is compromised.

Testimony of non-believers

Recently I reviewed the book 50 Voices of Disbelief: Why We Are Atheists by Russell Blackford and Udo Schuklenk (see Why We Are Atheists). An interesting follow-up to that book is a  talk back show (Talk back: the disbelievers) which played on ABC National radio a few days ago. This involved Russell Blackford (Co-editor, 50 Voices of Disbelief: Why We Are Atheists), and atuhors of some of the bpook’s essays Philip Kitcher (Professor of philosophy, Columbia University, New York), Tanveer Ahmed (Psychiatrist), Sean Williams (Speculative fiction author – including Star Wars: The Force Unleashed), Jack Dann (Author and editor of science fiction, including The Man Who Melted, The Memory Cathedral and The Rebel: An Imagined Life of James Dean) and Emma Tom (Journalist, author, columnist).

However, I was really  interested in the people who phoned in. These were a random collection of non-believers who were asked to describe how they came to their current disbelief. A sort of testimony if you like.

Just personal statements, no ideological dogma. I found them a very nice collection of thoughtful, honest people. And non-belligerent.

It may have helped that the host specifically requested non-believers. Pointing out that he wasn’t interested in believers having their say in this particular programme.

You can download the audio of this show. Or go to Talk back: the disbelievers for more details.

Thanks to Metamagician and the Hellfire Club: Radio show on “Life Matters” for the links.

Thanks to Jesus & Mo for cartoon.

Permalink

Similar articles

Becoming an atheist

Book Review: Why I became an Atheist: Personal Reflections and Additional Arguments by John W. Loftus

Price: US$15.95
Paperback: 180 pages
Publisher: Trafford Publishing (November 7, 2008)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 1425183794
ISBN-13: 978-1425183790

Hello there! If you are new here, you might want to subscribe to the RSS feed for updates on this topic

I think this book is for Christians, or recent Christians. Its discussion concentrates on the flaws in the Christian argument, rather than any substantial justification or expansion of atheist ideas. So, the arguments presented are of limited interest to a long-term infidel like me who is not interested in the details of Christian theology or their refutation.

To be fair, I have not yet read Loftus’s  “Why I Rejected Christianity: A Former Apologist Explains.” This current volume supplements that book in providing a collection of personal reflections and additional arguments. Some of these presumable originate from his popular blog “Debunking Christianity.”

He covers topics like his personal motivation for his blog, religious funerals, the plight of the preacher, advice for people leaving a faith, various arguments advanced fro Christianity, the problem of evil, virgin birth, reincarnation and Pascal’s wager. On the other hand he does deal with an atheistic ethic, freethinking and “new atheism.” However, my feeling is that even with these later subjects his perspective is still strongly influenced by his recently rejected theology. So I find his idea of “new atheism” more of the caricature normally presented by apologist opponents. He seems to accept their argument that “new atheism” is about evolution, not capitalising the word “God”, or referring to “God” with masculine pronouns. He appears to accept the argument the “new atheists” are militant and lack respect for the opponents. I think this is inadequate. Similarly I found his description of the scientific process inadequate.

But that’s my perspective. I grant there will be much here for the Christian or ex-Christian with an interest in theology.

The global warming debate summarised

The debates around climate change have hotted up of late. Obviously this is related to the Copenhagen Conference, the “climategate” theft and release of emails in the UK and the attacks on our NIWA scientists by the local “denier” groups the Climate Science Coalition, the Climate Conversation group and a number of local bloggers.

It amazes me how often the same arguments come up, how strongly proponents of these are so adamant about them, and how little they have actually researched the issues – except to confirm their own biases.

Often, but not always, those arguing most furiously have only a rudimentary understanding of the whole subject of climate change. So, they may benefit from exposure to even the most simplified counter arguments.
Recently the Information Is Beautiful blog produced a very effective summary of the arguments and counter arguments (see Climate Change Deniers vs The Consensus). This includes most of the arguments I have heard lately so I reproduce it below. I think it is very effective because it avoids the jargon and technical detail (although I think the simplification may be a bit misleading in parts).

Hopefully readers will find this summary useful. Click on each image to view a clearer version which is also suitable for printing.

Justifying child abuse

I have always thought that gods and holy scriptures are convenient. They can be used to justify anything. And they can prevent individuals from developing their own moral sense – always relying instead on the “authority” of holy scripture and/or religious leaders.

This can be particularly bad when it comes to how we treat children. That’s why many people are concerned at the role played by fundamental and conservative Christians in New Zealand’s debates on child discipline.

A friend sent me this today from the  Taranaki Daily News (Man cites Bible in child assault prosecution):

“An 80-year-old man believed he was following the Bible when he used an alkathene pipe to punish a child for stealing $1000 from him.

The man, who has interim named suppression, yesterday pleaded guilty in the New Plymouth District Court to two charges of assaulting a child and assault with a blunt instrument between November 1 and December 7.

When arrested, the man told police that he was frustrated by the child’s behaviour and had been “seeking to correct him in the manner described in the Bible”.

His lawyer, Paul Keegan, said the incident was out of character for the man.

“He is a Christian man and believes firmly in traditional methods of discipline,” he said.”

Well – we know what “traditional methods of discipline” can be “justified” by reference to holy scriptures and religious leaders, don’t we?

Permalink

Similar articles

Sack all those scientists? yeah, right!

Well, some of our local climate change denier bloggers have got it sussed! As a country we could solve all our problems. Just sack the scientists!

Now that would make all this talk about climate change and global warming go away, wouldn’t it?  And we would no longer have to worry about greenhouse gas emissions.

But who would do the science?