Craig v Dawkins – sort of

@The Atheist Missionary.

I have to disagree with you regarding Dawkins’ social skills. You see, plants generally don’t have grating personalities. At the worst they give you hayfever.

Looks like an interesting conference – a great range of speakers . Craig seems really out of place in such a line up and I had a hard time finding him.

However, the panel Craig refers to is:

Matt Ridley, Michael Shermer, Richard Dawkins
vs
Rabbi David Wolpe, William Lane Craig, Douglas Geivett

The video of the debate is at Debate – La Ciudad de las Ideas 2010 – Does the Universe have a purpose? I guess the speakers use English – but the running translation probably interferes.

I don’t know whether plants have great social skills or not but I have always been impressed by Dawkins honesty and fairness – not great skills for debaters. I met him at a book signing and he certainly does give his time willingly for those sort of things. Far more than I expected as it must be very demanding. The queue of people wanting signatures went back to the big bang.

No, Glenn, I can understand why he was dragged in for that panel. But he and Geivett are not listed on the programme – presumably because they are not giving separate talks. Ridley, Shermer, Dawkins and the Rabbi are. And many of the other speakers on the programme for the conference (the panel is only a tiny part) are first class. The quality usually found at TED conferences.

By the way the question of purpose is a philosophical question resolved in the scientific revolution. It’s actually central to Dawkins’ specialty and Darwins writings (where Dawkins has a lot if understanding a familiarity). It’s really a very old debate but I guess a central one in today’s culture wars.

The scientific revolution resovled the question of purpose in the universe? Not even close. Science can’t even put its hands on that question because it lays beyind the domain of the scientific. It’s like science attempting to answer the question of whether or not the universe was intended. It has nothing to say.

Well, the organizers of this conference and the panel discussion obviously don’t have such a hostile attitude or naive attitude towards science. It’s noticeable that the three panellists on one side have all written books on evolutionary science. The question of purpose is central here as the bias of the ancients had to be overcome to make any progress in understanding life. Dennett expressed it quite well in his contrast of sky hooks and cranes in his own book on Darwins contributions. So the organizers obviously saw these three could make an important contribution – as I said Dawkins seems an obvious choice having written so much on this subject.

As for “scientism” I like Russell Blackford’s recent article where he expresses the belief that peoe who use that word ate usually guilty of intellectual dishonesty.

Ron, you must lead a very sheltered life (and be new here) if you aren’t aware of examples of how this word is dishonestly used as a term of abuse (and avoidance of the real issues).

If you think Russell is intellectually dishonest why not go over to his blog and let him know. he is, after all, the one to discuss the issue with. I am sure Russell is more than capable of giving you examples.

How facile. Instead of giving a substantive response to what I said, you merely appeal to common sense and call me names. I especially like how you appeal to his un-argued assertion here, and when it’s challenged here, you tell me to leave and do it somewhere else.

You are intellectually dishonest Ken, and everybody here totally knows it! /sarcasm

I find it amusing when people who clearly think they’re something apparently don’t know how to craft a basic argument. Clearly it matters not, because their little sheep are usually right there cheering them on: “I like what you just said!”

You’re obnoxious. If you disagree you must be sheltered and new here.

Ken you are right. Science is how humans know things not religion i don’t know why u waste ur time with religious ppl. If scientism is the belief that only science gives us knowledge then all atheists are believers in scientism as we should be. Empirical proof or it’s not true.

Give them hell ken!

But the point is that it is almost always used inappropriately – to describe people who do not say that science should be used in areas which are clearly inappropriate. Usually the people using the word are actually trying to ring-fence reality to exclude science from what is a legitimate area of study – such as the formation of the universe, the origins and development of life, consciousness, origins and sources of morality, etc. And yes – usually the users are trying to claim those areas for their religion.

We all know you’ll never actually substantiate these claims.

Ken, substantiate your own claims. Stop attempting to shamelessly shift the burden in my direction, as if I’ve positively asserted anything here about scientism. I’m sure the word is used both correctly and incorrectly. I’m sure some people aren’t even sure what it means and have to check wikipedia to find out. I’m sure it’s been used in a dishonest way, and I’m sure it’s been used appropriately, but still objected to by dishonest people.

No, Ron, it was ropata who introduced “scientism”. He seems to have run off and I don’t know why you decided to have a go on the issue.

Ropata is continually accusing me of “scientism” – always inappropriately of course. His problem is that he can’t accept that my beliefs on religion are different to his and resorts to name calling to avoid the real issues being debated.

Yes, I agree most people don’t really understand the term. I think it’s really best in such situations to deal with real
Issues instead of name calling.

Properly basic belief? What a load of irrelevant twaddle you talk Ken.

Ken, I don’t believe in communist retrials. Eventually when someone is challenged for the hundredth time to back up a claim, he ill say no. I have done it before, and the tactic of trying to wear me down by asking me to back it up again is a bit weak. I am not the only one to have noticed what Dawkins has said. I’ve done it before, and I have no need to do it again.

And you weren’t convincing before either. And no you aren’t the only one making the “scientism” charge – but I do notice the common ideological comitments that these people have.

But Dawkins is big enough to look after himself (and I guess he doesn’t concern himself with s blog like yours) and he certainly has his support – overwhelming support.

There is no skin off my nose that some people have this hang up. mam not asking you to discuss it at all. I don’t give a stuff that you don’t like Dawkins – why should I?

I am prepared, however, to debate with anyone who uses such silly accusations against me. Ropata had done so and run away when I mentioned Russell’s observation about intellectual dishonesty. I certainly don’t know why you should have stepped in for him.

What does liking Dawkins have to do with anything? I was merely noting a knee jerk reaction to somebody’s use of the word scientism. It’s a helpful and clear word, and in Dawkins’ case it is accurate.

Whether I “like” Dawkins or not has no bearing on things. See Ken, you are the one who tries to steer these things into a war of personalities.

and he certainly has his support – overwhelming support.

The fact that this excites you makes me chuckle.

Ropata, you are in fine form tonight. What a load of theological bafflegab – rubbish.

I think Russell is perfectly correct. Most people who rely on the pejorative term “scientism” are intellectually dishonest. You are certainly demonstrating this.

I think Russell is perfectly correct. Most people who rely on the pejorative term “scientism” are intellectually dishonest. You are certainly demonstrating this.

Ken, in Russell’s poorly written and poorly argued blog post, he asserts very specifically that people who use the term “scientism” are often intellectually dishonest because they use the term equivocally. That is, he claims, they start with some general pejorative meaning in mind, but switch to a specific, non-pejorative technical meaning when challenged.

Ropata clearly hasn’t done this. You probably didn’t even read Russell’s silly little article and merely gleaned enough to be able to triumphantly state, “Russell says that people who say “scientism” are dishonest. HE IS RIGHT!”

Butt out, Ron.

It’s understandable that you don’t want me pointing out your blatant errors because you don’t have the tools to effective challenge anything I say. If you don’t like it, you can stop posting here. I guarantee you won’t be missed.

He is always misrepresenting and emotionally attacking me. I quite enjoy it – and especially like to provoke him. These sort of silly attacks really don’t worry me at all. It’s a sport.

Nobody cares. Nobody is impressed.

But of course he is using the word completely inappropriately and dishonestly.

But of course you are unable to actually present an argument and so resort to merely asserting that such is the case. You don’t seem to understand that making contentious claims while offering no evidence or argumentation is not persuasive. This is why I usually don’t take people whose academic or professional background is science very seriously (unless they are actually discussing science).

Lightweight. Go play with test tubes or something.

Interesting, CPE – you missed out “the application of scientific methods to fields unsuitable for it.” And this is the meaning that is commonly used and that ropata keeps using.

Covering up something?

There is also a completely unpejorative meaning – just the act of doing science. But we all understand in what sense the word is used here. Clearly pejorative. And considering the specific uses it is intellectually dishonest.

Ah, ropata – you have to say that, don’t you. Got to hate those atheists!

After all your god says ( Psalm 14:1:

“The fool says in his heart,
‘There is no God.’
They are corrupt, they do
Abominable deeds,
There is none who does good.”

So that settles it. You have got to hate them.

Mind you one could be more charitable and recognise that the internet brings out the worst in people (bit like like cars). How often do you find that lone individual who tries to make an honest point and the heavy mob moves in to surround her, kicking her in the guts.

But ropata – you are not one of them – you say some incredibly stupid and hostile things (I can understand Cedric as I agree sometimes the only way to treat fools is ridicule).

Perhaps I should put together a list of you gems in one place where people can see how silly you have been in your comments on my blog. Bit like Dawkins reading his hate mail – eh?

Ken, thank you for so elegantly demonstrating my point. 🙂

I admit I have made some intemperate comments on your blog, usually after a long discussion that has descended into farce despite my efforts to communicate using stuff called “evidence” and “logic”.

I hope Dawkins tries your tactics in the upcoming debate.

Alright, thanks for corroborating.

I suspect that one reason why people tend to use “scientism” mostly in a negative sense is that the neutral sense, well, has more common terms. Like, “doing science.”

These people who are supposedly “dishonest” in their use – when confronted on their pejorative use and asked for a definition, which definition do they use? If it’s the definition of simply “doing science,” then that’s silly of them. But if it’s the belief that “science is the only way to know, y’all” then there is no inconsistency, is there?

Ken, if it’s not “sensible” to ask whetgher or not there is purpose in the Universe, then why do you think Dawkins is well equipped to answer the question?

lol, thats not an avoidence, its a “good question” ™.

Your inability to answer it is “avoidence”

Ken – avoidance? I believe I am the one who first pointed out that is was strange for a zoologist to address questions of purpose in the universe.

You defended Dawkins for doing so, claiming (incorrectly) that the concept was integral to some of his work.

Now Ken v 2.0 suggests that the question isn’t even sensible. All I have done is remind you of what Ken v 1.0 said. How can you accuse me of avoidance?

If other people acted as confused (or duplicitous) as you are now, you’d immediately tell them that they were jelly wrestling and angaging in a “typical debate tactic.”

Get your version of the story straight: Is it sensible for a zoologist to claim expertise in this question or not? If so, then why do you now suggest that the question isn’t sensible? If not, then why did you earlier suggest that Dawkins was well qualified to answer the question?

i said something about scientism? heh

You’re irrational. Why would I waste my time on the insane? You need medical help, not internet debate.

“You have suggested that the question of purpose in the universe isn’t even a sensible one, and you’ve also said that Dawkins is ideal to answer it. You have done nothing to explain this conflict.”

There’s no conflict. The obvious answer is that people who are not sensible have the best competence to answer questions that are not sensible. Therefore, Dawkins is the ideal person to answer this question. 😉

My experience told me …

You’ve learned through experience then Ken?

Forgive me, but it doesn’t seem as though the fact that a legitimate way of knowing, such as by logical inference, can be embedded or form a necessary part of a separate way of knowing, such as inductive inference, should lead us to disqualify the former way of knowing as a way of knowing in its own right. The fact that I might make logical inferences in scientific investigation does not make it the case that I cannot use solely deductive inference to know that no one both exists and does not exist at one and the same time. Wasn’t that meant to be the strength of Dr. People’s claim that logical inference ‘doesn’t employ the sciences’?

So Glenn, you accept that science uses logical inference. We are on the same page.

But I am asking for a description of other ways of knowing which science doesn’t use. The argument that is used to justify the derogatory labeling of me and other scientists as guilty of “scientism” because (it is claimed) we don’t acknowledge them.

It really surprises me after all this criticism you guys are not prepared to describe these other ways. Obviously you are so used to justifying these “other ways” by default (by pointing to limitations of scientific method only) and are completely stumped when asked to front up with a description of these “other ways.”

I really thought someone would do better than this.

Glenn, you are attempting to create a conflict which doesn’t exist. We both accept that logical
Inference is part of the scientific process. It always has been but of course is integrated with empirical enquiry in much of science today . Certainly wherever possible .

But the charge has been made that I ignore “other ways of knowing.” CPE talks of “scientism” as the belief that “science is the only way to know, y’all”. That charge has been laid against me and other scientists like Dawkins.

Now I can think of ways we make decisions outside of science. These involve emotion, instinct and judgement. Scientific information helps but in the end the non-scientific processes are involved in the judgements. They must be. It’s the nature of our species.

So I want your examples of what you mean by claiming that I ignore “other ways of knowing”. You may be right but I want you to tell me what they are.

So far you mention only logical inference which clearly I don’t ignore or reject. I use it.

Perhaps you are arguing for pure logical inference divorced from reality, from any checking or validation. If that is the case I can understand why you might be supporting it as “a way of knowing”. But if you are then you are only going back to the time before the modern scientific revolution when the conflict between pure logic and empirical approaches raged. That is well settled now but I can appreciate that some do want to return to that time. That is certainly a strong factor in the Wedge Strategy.

But if that is your case, then I have presented reasons why pure logical inference has problems. I don’t reject it but only use it with an awareness of it’s limitations and in cases where it is not possible to check and verify against reality. I think that is the case with most scientists.

Actually Glenn my concept of science is not narrow and I have always understood that what we call philosophy has in the past been our science. And of course the human attempt to explain, understand and know go well back before philosophy was recognized.

But I think I get the message that you are promoting a pure logic as an alternative to science. In other words you are promoting a logical process divorced from reality – from checking and validation.

I think I have made clear the problems I see in this . Something I would only use in situations where checking and validation are not possible. Bit like M theory. So with those limitations I don’t see pure logic as an alternative to science.

But in the current disputes between science and religion I detect your argument as common on the religion side. Of course I can see why this is promoted, and why the Wedge Strategy promotes it. Reality is a bugger isn’t it? It can destroy the most passionately supported beliefs. Better to avoid it.

Still it’d been an interesting exercise. When these arguments by default get challenged one sees how fragile they are. Even the most vocal suddenly seem to want to hide away or divert the discussion.

As I said, Glenn, we are on the same page. Logic cannot be an alternative to science. – its a component of science.

But I have been asking for the alternative “other ways of knowing”. Neither you, ropata, zen tiger, Haecceitas, Geoff, Anon or Ron have been able to answer my question. None of you. Despite this common charge accusing me and other scientists of “scientism” – which implies a rejection of these other ways of “knowing.” You even repeat this by implication in your last comment suggesting it is painful for me to acknowledge “the sciences are not the exhaustive domain of knowledge.”

(You purposely ignore my comment “Now I can think of ways we make decisions outside of science. These involve emotion, instinct and judgement. Scientific information helps but in the end the non-scientific processes are involved in the judgements. They must be. It’s the nature of our species.” – I guess your way of knowing is to ignore evidence!!)

So a complete fail on your part guys. When push comes to shove you just shut up an run away.

Although I think, Glenn, there is something in what you say. While logic is certainly not an alternative to science, reliance on pure logic in the absence of evidence, and ignoring evidence, ends up to be an alternative – or at least an alternative that produces different answers, and convenient answers.

It’s really a “stripped down” version of science where the empirical aspects are rejected.

But actually its a return to more primitive “ways of knowing” and no-one in their right mind would surely advocate it as an alternative to today’s science. Except, of course, for the reasons I mentioned earlier it does have the advantage of producing answers which confirm one’s biases. Just as long as you keep them away from evidence.

Not worried, more amused!

So a complete fail on your part guys. When push comes to shove you just shut up an run away.

There is not one instance of you challenging me that I did not respond to. Prove me wrong you liar.

It is you who has refused to substantively respond* to a number of my posts (e.g. 13, 20, 36 and 38) where I shellacked you, and not just in this thread.

You are intentionally being dishonest. You are a bad person.

* Examples of responses that are not substantive are: calling me names (“sheltered”), telling me to post somewhere else, telling me to “butt out”, appealing to common sense, trying to shift the burden of proof to me and merely asserting your contentious claims with no evidence or argumentation (“but of course…”).

Hear that Ron? Your problem is that you’re angry. Here, lie down on this couch. 😉 Ken doesn’t recognise actual examples when they are handed to him and generously explained when he has difficulty, so I think it’s safe to say that his chest beating can be ignored.

I have been asking for examples of these “other ways of knowing” – alternatives to a scientific approach.

You never asked me. In fact, this never came up between us. I stopped responding to your posts when you conspicuously ignored a number of aforementioned shellackings.

So the fact that you included me in your list of people who have not been “able” to answer your question and that “run away” just shows what a bad person you are. Shame on you Ken.

This is basic to the charge of “scientism” and I think the fact that no-one has produced an alternative (with the possible confused exception of Glenn) Russells’ suggestion of intellectual dishonesty seems quite realistic.

Russell actually gave an example of this in his own article– you know, the one you never actually read? Here: I don’t think…that distinctively scientific techniques are much use in understanding or staging Macbeth, or that studying great literature is useless anyway.

There. We learn about and understand literature and art through methods that are not distinctively scientific.

Moreover, Glenn’s example is good enough on its own. So when he confronts you with “a way of knowing” that doesn’t use science, you just blatantly and dishonestly alter you challenge to: But I am asking for a description of other ways of knowing which science doesn’t use.

Hilarious. Well yes, Ken, science uses experience and observation through the senses and the various types of logical inference. For you to dismiss a persons answer to your challenge because their answers just are (or employ) experience, observation or inference is just beyond laughable. I can see right through your flimsy and dishonest little tactic, junior. You keep giving us reasons why we shouldn’t really take “scientists” seriously about anything but actual science. 🙂

However, perhaps you could overcome your silly anger long enough to give your own alternative “way of knowing.”?

1. You are blatantly lying about me. My anger is therefore justified and not “silly”.

2. This challenge of yours is eerily similar to this: http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/index.php/homosexuality-and-islam-two-unpopular-statistical-realities/comment-page-1/#comment-5302

You remember Ken, The Atheist Missionary kept begging someone to give one example of how the percentage of homosexuals in a population could be “relevant to anything”. You joined hands with TAM and blathered “As most people here seem to have accepted the survey numbers may be fairly correct they ask “so what?’ And surely that is the real interesting quesdtion. But Glenn, and the rest of you, have ignored TAM’s repeated question”

I then rattled off three examples off the top of my head. In response, TAM was not “able” to respond to me and “ran away”, and you summarily dismissed my examples as “minor”. To this, I gave a such a devastating response to you that you in turn “ran away”.

You know what it means if you can’t though? You should stop using the “scientism” word.

Don’t be silly. Even Russell, in his poorly written and poorly argued article, acknowledged that there is an appropriate use the of the term. Sorry, I keep forgetting that you never actually read it.

Yeah you better not respond to anything I said.

Run Ken, run!

Hear that Ron? Your problem is that you’re angry. Here, lie down on this couch. 😉

Ha! My problem is that Ken is a passive-aggressive, dishonest troll who just makes stuff up as he goes.

Ken doesn’t recognise actual examples when they are handed to him and generously explained when he has difficulty, so I think it’s safe to say that his chest beating can be ignored.

In all honesty, he should be ignored, but I just can’t help myself. It’s a major problem.

Just for the joy of it, here is a paraphrased version of Ken’s recent “challenge”, the responses to it, and his dishonest replies (with comment number references).

Ken (45): People who attack science as a way of understanding reality say nothing about “other way of obtaining knowledge” [me: right off the bat, Ken dishonestly sets up a straw man by claiming that people attack science as a way of understanding reality.]

Glenn (48): [responding to something else Ken said in (45)] If it’s not “sensible” to ask whether or not there is purpose in the Universe, then why do you think Dawkins is well equipped to answer the question?

Ken (49): [“runs away” from Glenn’s legitimate reply to (45) because he is not “able” to answer it] You’re avoiding my questions.

Ken (51): [responding to Geoff’s quip in (50)] You can’t answer my questions either. What other ways are there of gaining knowledge? [me: note right off the bat Ken’s bizarre implication that there are no ways other than “science” of gaining knowledge. In Russell’s article, he actually says that people who make these claims can legitimately be accused of scientism. Ken doesn’t know this because he still hasn’t actually read the article]

Glenn (52): [Dismantles Ken regarding the sensibility of asking about purpose– which was one of the original issues here before Ken went off on a ridiculous tangent regarding scientism and an article that he never read.]

Ken (53): [changes his mind again about the question of purpose not being sensible] You’re still avoiding my questions. Why are you ashamed to describe your other ways of knowing?

Glenn (55): [points out that Ken keeps flip-flopping on the sensibility of asking about purpose] You didn’t ask me the question, so you can’t say that I’m avoiding it [me: Ken has the tendency of asking specific people questions, and then then accusing everyone on the board of “avoiding” him when specific person doesn’t answer within a few hours. But when someone does reply to a post not addressed to him, Ken tells them to “butt out”. True story (37)] But if you want an answer, logical inference is a way of acquiring knowledge that doesn’t use science.

[me: right here an honest person would have just conceded that Glenn gave a perfectly reasonable and true answer to Ken’s silly challenge. But Ken isn’t about to go out like a punk!]

Ken (57): How can you say that logical inference doesn’t employ the sciences? Science uses logical inference! [me: yes, this is actually his response] You can’t use logical inference by itself. [rambles on for paragraphs about how science uses logical inference, then bizarrely concludes that since he and others (Hawkins) use logical inference, they should therefore not be charged with scientism. Me: Yes, this really is his argument]

ZenTiger (58): Experience is a way of knowing that doesn’t use science.

Ken (59): Experience is basically what science is. [me: at this point it should be obvious to any semi-intelligent person what Ken’s tactic is]

Glenn (61): [points out the obvious] You are not explaining how logical inference employs the sciences. You are describing the opposite: how the sciences employ logical inference.

Ken (62): But I am asking for a description of other ways of knowing which science doesn’t use. [me: Ken just blatantly changes his challenge. What can you even say to a person like this? No really. How can Ken live with himself after being this dishonest on a public forum?]

Glenn (63): [basically repeats what he said in (61), seeing that there isn’t much else he can do at this point]

Ken (64): [inexplicably accuses Glenn of “creating conflict where it doesn’t exist”. Me: I literally have to words to describe this canard] You can’t use bare logic by itself as an alternative to science. I’m am asking for an alternative to science. [me: Here Ken brazenly changes his challenge for the second time]

Glenn (65): [again just basically repeats unequivocally true statements made in (61) and (63)]

Ken (66): So a complete fail on your part guys. When push comes to shove you just shut up an run away! [then makes the bizarre claim that logical inference is a “stripped down version of science”– as readers of this blog sit in stunned silence and as I fantasize about how an in person debate with Ken would go down]

Ah, Jeremy.

Perhaps you could put your own view in the hat.

Specifically what “other ways of knowing” can you suggest as an alterative to science?

Pickings have been pretty lean here.

Glenn (67): “Ken, nobody is presenting logic as an alternative to science. You pulled that out of thin air.”

Ken (to Ron, referring to the fact that Ron agrees with Glenn): “I’ll put you down as another one for pure logic as an alternative to science then.”

My oh my. Some things never change. Ken, I suppose we are on the same page and I should put you down as agreeing that I am right and you are wrong. Heck, I had no idea we could just put people down as saying whatever we like.

Ken wins! And just when I thought I had the upper hand!

Glenn, why do you even allow this clown to post here? It’s like conversing with Baghdad Bob.

1 perception/observation
2 reason/logic
3 authority [ includes teaching / recorded knowledge ]
4 intuition/ inspiration/ revelation
5 experience

NB science does use some of these but that does not make any of them science.

Jeremy, you acknowledge that many of the suggestion in your list are used in scientific investigation. (Basically we can define the scientific method as doing everything possible to avoid being fooled by reality).

I suggest the odd ones out are “authority” (sure valid in teaching but not research) and revelation (never used in research).

So I take it you define revelation as “another way of knowing” and you would accuse scientists of “scientism” because they don’t see it as a valid method.

If that is the case I think you have a job to do to support such a claim. Why do you consider it a valid method? What is your evidence that it works? And how does one do it?

Otherwise you are going to be laughed at when you effectively use the derogatory label of “scientism” on all scientists.

@Ken
you asked someone to list “ways of knowing” other than “science”, i listed five [included quite a few synonyms].
You seem fixated on “research” as some kind of defining parameter with respect to “knowing”, its not.
So far to the best of my recollection i have not accused you “scientism” but given the level of trust and faith and evangelical fervour you so obviously display with respect to “science” it could well be an appropriate label.

While we are talking about “ways of knowing”, having gained knowledge, how using scientfic methods would you go about gaining “wisdom” in the use of that knowledge?

Yes, Ron. However I must acknowledge that its not original. I got that definition from Neil deGrasse Tyson. I like it because it is not algorithmic, accepts that the scientific process is a very human one.

Yes, I got the message, Jeremy. You think revelation is a valid alliterative to science as “another way of knowing.” obviously I, and most scientists, disagree so we are guilty of “scientism.”

I have noted your alternative – the only real one offered so far.

Jeremy, seeing that no one has claimed that science is the only way if knowing, especially in the areas you mention, your little rave is rather disingenuous. Where does the accusation “arrogant and condescending attitude that science is only way of knowing” come from?

I suggest there is something basically working within you to ignore what people say and to impose your own prejudices on them.

Far from scientists wanting to impose inappropriate methods in the areas you mention we have the direct opposite. Religionlists attempting to impose inappropriate methods in areas where science is actually successful. An example could be the use of revelation, prejudice, desire to attribute a specific history and purpose to the universe. When experience shows that the logical and empirical procedures of science are very successful in studying the universe.

These religionless actually want to expire science from commenting on things like the origin of matter and the possibilities of purpose which are empirical facts (or not), something science specializes in. And yet they cannot, or are unwilling to describe what alternative method they wish to replace science with in these cases.

Glenn – calm down and get a grip. You guys and the Sunday incense!

1: Typically when people want to put down science (rational logic and empirical investigation) they will talk about the things that science can’t do: Jeremy talks about “build character, develop good and meaningful relationships, love you wife and children, make a marriage work, appreciate art, music, literature. There is so much in life to learn and know that science cannot teach us.”

It’s not honest of course because its a diversion from the real point of discussion. But every scientist will acknowledge that they don’t use science in these areas – and they will look at you sideways for even having suggested such silliness. That should take the wind out of your sails.

But for some reason you guys choose to ignore those statements and attitudes and instead rant on about “scientism.” I don’t think you really can have missed my several comments making this point before. Nor can Jeremy have missed the specific comments I made to him.It’s a response I always give in such discussions (as you well know).

2: Glenn, you yourself acknowledged that there are areas where science is the chosen, only, method. Obviously not the areas Jeremy presented – and I agree with you there. However you clearly want to “ring fence” these areas – but refuse to give your criteria for doing so.

3: However in this discussion you have specifically declared science has no input into determining if the universe has a purpose, or what such a purpose is.

In a previous discussion (regarding your response to the recent book by Hawking and Mlodinow) you specifically excluded science from determining the mechanism of the formation of the universe.

4: Let me assert that when it comes to the nature and history of the universe human use of science (rational logic and empirical investigation) has been extremely successful. I think that if we ever can develop a verified mechanism for the formation of the universe it will be by using science. Similarly if the universe has “a purpose” this will be manifested in the material reality of the universe and will be discoverable by science.

5: You obviously disagree with me there – but still maintain you have ways of discovering if the universe has a purpose, what it is if it has one and how the universe formed. You don’t arrive at these through science – the use of logic and empirical investigate together.

6: So my question is what this alternative method is that you use? Especially as you have come up with answers well before scientific approaches have firmed up.

You refer to “pure logic” – which I assume means you are rejecting the empirical investigation aspect of science. (I have told you where I see problems with that – but it is an interesting conflict which goes back centuries and is basic to the science-religion conflict).

Jeremy has lumped for “revelation.” That is of course something that can be debated and tested in practice.

7: So Glenn, lets put aside those areas where we agree science does not play a role (eg “build character, develop good and meaningful relationships, love you wife and children, make a marriage work, appreciate art, music, literature. There is so much in life to learn and know that science cannot teach us.”) Lets concentrate on where we disagree.

When it comes to determining if the universe has a purpose and how it was formed I am asserting that science (use of rational logic and empirical investigation) has a legitimate role, and I can’t see any other way of answering such questions. I certainly reject any idea that religion can answer that sort of question any better the the waste disposal business.

But my understanding is that you and Jeremy suggest there are other ways of obtaining answers to these questions.

So when it comes to discovering of the universe has a purpose and how it formed what is your “other way of knowing.”? Is it just pure logic (stripped down science because the empirical investigation has been removed)? Is it revelation ? And how do you check if your conclusions are correct in either case?

No Glenn, not upset. More on a Sunday high. (My very religious brother used to attend 2 churches on Sunday, fast from Saturday night and raid the fridge on Sunday night so he was a bit delirious by then).

Still I have asked questions, they are straightforward and don’t require any snarky reply or avoidance. Like if you don’t reject empirical investigation in investigating purpose and origin (when you say “pure logic”) just say so.

Perhaps you should wait until the Sunday high disappears.

What’s with you guys? I have mentioned several times during this discussion the role of emotions in decision making by our species. This is extremely important and in fact it seems impossible for us to make choices or decisions based purely on objective information.

An obvious example is the issue of climate change. Clearly science can and does inform us on what is happening. It can also help us forecast likely effects for different economic scenarios. But the actual decisions about handling this problem are not scientific. They are political, sociological, even psychological. Judgements are made by humans with a range of ideas and requirements. Some will be more concerned about what their grandchildren will face than others. Some will be more concerned about investment choices in the present.

But in determining what is actually happening with the climate, the mechanisms of heat retention, emotion is an interferent. Science has methods to overcome prejudices and bias confirmation. It is the most successful way of getting an accurate (but never completely exact) picture of the objective reality invoked in heat retention.

Similarly it is by far the best way of understanding the history and nature of the universe. By far. If we want to determine mechanisms involved in formation of the universe or if there is a purpose in the universe we turn to science. Of course scientific investigation may not answer all the questions we have – but what other alternative is there on such specific, objective and material questions?

I have yet to hear any realistic alternative. Plenty of wishful thinking like revelation. But nothing realistic.

Ken, you want a list of ways of knowing that are not science.

1, Morality, known through moral intutions and a priori reasoning from them.

2. apriori knowledge of logic, concepts etc common in metaphysics

3. Knowledge that other people exist. Very difficult to prove this scientifically, but yet known immediately and instinctively by all properly functioning adults.

4. Memory, immediate knowledge of my past experiences and events

5. Testimony, knowledge of certain facts and events on the say so of others

6. introspection, knowledge of my own concious states and existence, again not something that can proven in a non circular fashion with science yet something all sensible people know. In fact this is probably the most certain knowledge people have.

7. direct experience of an existing external world.

8. Knowledge of causation, all we percieve is a constant conjuction of experiences ( ala Hume) yet we instinctively attribute causal relations between some of these conjunctions, science assumes this it does not show it.

9. Revelation, a version of testimony whereby one learns through the say so of God

10. Instinctive religious awareness, most people have been instinctively aware of a deity.

I could go on.

Good on you Matt. You have volunteered some answers (at least 10 – as you say you “could go on”) where your off-sider feared to tread.

Now tell us which of these methods was used to determine if the universe had a purpose and what this purpose is?

Also which of these methods was used to determine that one could not investigate such questions using scientific methodologies? That is – what method you guys use to locate the position ring fence you construct?

Glenn – I thought we had exhausted our discussion.

My questions are aimed at Matt – who produced a list of 10 methods. I want to see them applied.

Yes Nathan. You want to get your boot in too. I understand

But what relevance is all that drivel to the questions of:
Does the universe has a purpose?
If yes, what is it?
Where specifically do you place your ring fence to exclude science from investigating parts of reality?

And why not let Matt speak for himself?

Ken, I’ve little troll feed left in my bucket to give you. I’m hoping you’ll just answer the question, rather than shifting the goalposts. Matt has already spoken for himself, but you’ve yet to show why his examples (or Glenn’s example – perhaps do his first as he’s been waiting the longest) of ways to attaining knowledge require science.

And to reiterate what others have said already, many times, just so it is plain to you, and for the avoidance of any doubt: No one has ever, at any point during this thread, said that science should be excluded from investigating “parts of reality”. You really need to understand that, otherwise continuing is pointless. Really, why won’t you answer the question? And I bet you’ll accuse me of not answering a question or make some other silly attempt to draw attention away from yourself, but in the end you still won’t answer the question.

Come on Ken, have a go. If it helps, pretend you’re the little red caboose.

Nathan:

1: Glenn specifically claimed that there is factual knowledge not accessible to science. He has clearly stated that science cannot discover a purpose for the universe (hence his opposition to scientists presence on this panel).

2: The question you refer to is not clear. Glenn had advanced pure logic as “another way” of gaining knowledge. He acknowledges it is not an alternative to science (rather obvious as logic is a component of the scientific process). We have completed that discussion.

3: I have here (in this discussion) and elsewhere explained that most scientists do not claim all of reality is accessible to human investigation for reasons of technological and/or intellectual limitation.

4: I have also explained that it is defeatist, and against human nature, to declare beforehand that parts of reality are out of bounds, ring fenced from human investigation without reason. This contradicts Glenn’s assertions hence my question.

5: Therefore I assert that the question of the universe having a purpose is at least accessible to human investigation using science. This does not mean we will ever be able to finally answer that question. But I suggest to you that if science can’t we can be sure that religion can’t either. Nor can accountancy, street cleaning, etc.

6: However I have an open mind. I am prepared to be proved wrong. But that requires evidence. So I continue to ask what “other method of knowing” is Matt suggesting can answer that question and why?

7: This is not a idle question because current scientific ideas in cosmology, biology, etc., do not provide a purpose for the universe. In other words, we have not (yet?) seen any evidence for one and nothing suggesting one comes out of current theory.

So if Matt has better methods I am all ears and I am sure humanity would be grateful if he can substantiate such a claim. (Bloody he’ll, there would be a Nobel Prize in it).

It’s just that I don’t take such vague claims seriously. I ask what methods have been used and what results obtained.

Significantly that seems to produce around here a silence or angry attempts at diversion.

“The question you refer to is not clear. Glenn had advanced pure logic as “another way” of gaining knowledge. He acknowledges it is not an alternative to science (rather obvious as logic is a component of the scientific process). We have completed that discussion.”

Ken, I understand that you didn’t want to talk about it anymore. But the fact is, logic is independent of science. This is the bit that I think you were having problems with. You were saying (and you now say again) that since science uses it, it’s really just part of science.

This is a short cut out of the discussion, and it was a choice not to actually look at the issue raised. I provided a logical formula for you which is true and which has zero to do with science. The fact that science does indeed borrow from logic does not reduce the fact that logic doesn’t depend on science. It’s the other way around. Analytical reasoning can be done without any use of the sciences to obtain knowledge.

You basically walked away from the htorny issue and you now declare thatthe conversationw as “exhausted”! Well, you may have become exhausted with it, but the isse was simply left sitting there.

But in any event, the ball is in your court. If you think that really Matt’s list is a list of things within science and that he;s mistaken, you should say so. If you grant that those things are not dependent on science, then that concession would really be the honourable thing.

Curious minds are waiting!

Nathan, both you and Glenn are avoiding my question (and Matt seems to be avoidance mode again) which I will repeat:

“Does the universe have a purpose?
If yes, what is it?
Where specifically do you place your ring fence to exclude science from investigating parts of reality?
And why not let Matt speak for himself?”

I think I have made my position very clear. So what about you guys responding. And what about telling us which of Matt’s 10 methods you use to derive your answers. (Glenn has already acknowledged that pure logic doesn’t do it.)

Apart from that, and in the interests of clarity I will be posting within the next few days on Open Parachute with a summary of the scientific position and my responses to Matt’s (and Glenn’s) suggestions.

These comments are, after all, very relevant to the content of my blog. And I might get more sensible answers there.

Glenn – I had already responded to you point about pure logic. I thought we have a fair bit of agreement on this. Only thing is that why you should use that alone, avoiding all empirical evidence or testing, to determine if the unvierse has a purpose? Also, why you insist that science has no role in determining such things? You have not explained either.

As for Matt’s suggestions. Some of these boil down to your point about logic. Some appear irrelevant and my intention is to deal with any more meaningful ones in my post at Open Parachute. Some of these may well supply knowledge – but not in any exact way, and not about objective reality. And none of them provide a means of determining when one is wrong.

If you wish me to deal with any of Matt’s suggestions here – could you identify the one or more relevant to the question at hand (“Does the unvierse have a purpose?”) and tell me why it works in the place of science. With that information I will be only to happy to respo0nhd here.

Otherewise check out my blog in a few days time.

At what, Glenn? Honesty?

Neither you nor Matt have explained a “way of knowing” about the universe separate from science? Nor have you justified your rejection of science?

It’s a cop out on your part – and an obvious one. But typical of the theological jelly wrestling we have come to expect.

No skin off my nose – but does show you up, doesn’t it?

Glenn, I believe I replied extensively to your suggestion of pure logic. Pointing out that science includes logical reasoning but importantly also empirical evidence and validation. I included a description if some of the pigeons amd weakness of logic alone. For Christs sake don’t expect me to repeat all that again.

I also provided examples of how humanity aquires knowledge in the moral, political and social spheres which is not directly dependent on science. Although very often informed by science. I described the role of emotions in many human decisions in these spheres. I gave the example of political, economic and social decisions we face on climate change. Decisions science cannot make for us.

This example seemed to upset you – unpleasant associations, perhaps?

Neither you nor Matt have explained how your suggested methods should displace science in investigating the universe. I don’t believe you can. But I am willing to consider anything you suggest.

Now don’t expect me to accept any of your relevations or other alternatives to science in answering questions about the universe just because you have suggested them. I need more than that.

But, look. Why worry? I don’t think you expect to be able to justify your claims about science to yourself let alone others. This won’t change your beliefs though, will it?

So why bother?

A simple explanation of the requirement of modern science (logical reasoning plus empirical evidence and validation) in answering questions about the universe.

If there is a purpose to the universe this will be reflected in the way the universe operates, is organized and in it’s history. You can surely understand that with human manufactured artifacts. Just as with the universe or living beings.

Science (logical reasoning and empirical evidence and validation) is well accepted as the best way of understanding and gaining knowledge of the universe, it’s operation and history. It had been incredibly successful in this.
Surely you agree? Modern cosmology can provide an incredibly detailed and well validated history going back to fractions of a second from the beginning – and is continually pushing back further. Modern biology has been incredibly successful in describing the development of life. No sensible person relies on the special creation myth now.

Empirical evidence and validation are vital parts if this. Pure logic alone (as the ancients relied on) gets us nowhere. Worse, it is open to manipulation through choice of premises, poor logic and confirmation bias. Without empirical testing and validation it is most likely to produce the wrong conclusions (although admittedly ones the manipulator desires).

By the way it is childish to talk about science “borrowing” logic. It’s always been part of humanity’s attempts to understand reality. It’s an integral part of science. But no credible scientist  today would ignore or deny the role of empirical evidence and validation where this is at all possible. And we are always very worried about situations where we have to rely on logic alone for technological reasons. That’s why we say that “string theory” is not a scientific theory – more speculation.

So if there is a purpose in the universe it will be manifested in ways we can detect and science is the obvious way to do this. Pure logic alone is unreliable. Revelation has been shown wrong every time. Matt’s moral intuitions and memory are silly answers. And, very importantly, none of the suggested methods provide any mechanism for detecting mistakes, preventing bias or knowing when you are completely wrong.

Now thanks very much for providing me with a platform to describe the role of science in deciding such questions. Several times over at that. Much appreciated. 

But I thought you would be more interested in justifying your own claim that science has no role and describing how religion and philosophy can answer the question.

Strange that you have avoided doing so!. Perhaps you have just assumed such matters and haven’t really thought it out? How else can we explain your reluctance to justify your own claims?

“So Glenn you are proposing the creation of a universe with a purpose or intent.”

No, I am pointing out that you have not given any answers as to how the sciences might address that question.

Why is this so hard for you to understand, Ken?

sorry.. my wife tells me I always take it that one step too far

Were you talking to me Jeremy? I burbled on so long I’d forgotten I ‘d asked a question.

A better question is why do atheist invest so much energy in trying to undermine belief? Except on flat earth type issues there seems to be very little at stake for them. If they’re as rational as they claim to be why should it matter either way what somebody else believes?

Similarly on the other side. I know an honest attempt to spread the word is expected, but on rejection the advice is simply to shake the dust from one’s feet as one walks away to find somebody one can actually help is it not?

Glenn – your claim “No, I am pointing out that you have not given any answers as to how the sciences might address that question.” is not valid. I briefly justified the role of science in such questions above This is covered in more detail in “Other ways of knowing” purpose? and the discussion there.

I have yet to see your justification for the claim that science cannot address this question. Considering that theologians all the way from Craig to the Wedge people do use scientific claims (although poorly and opportunistically) to justify purpose your position seems a bit unique.

The question of “other ways of knowing anything” is not at issue. We both agree that there are many areas where we don’t use science. The only difference is whether we can use science to investigate and determine an answer to the question does the unvierse have a purpose?

That is our only difference. I claim it is a job for science (so does Craig and the Wedge people). You claim it is a job for religion. But you give no justification either for your rejection of a role for science or acceptance of a role for religion.

And you avoid completely the question of how do you determine if you are wrong when using religion?

Nicely put, Glenn, and dare I say…

PWNED.

The question must simply be beyond his Ken 😉