±«Óãtv

Doesn't this reiterate the point I was making in a recent thread: that it's possible (not only in theory but from the history of prominent scientists) to be a good or even brilliant scientist while holding to religious belief? And why not?

So they probably made a mistake.

Do you think we could run with that quote on the side of a bus?

There was never any mistake about confronting creationism in the classroom or anywhere else that it is raised. It is a view supported by many articulate advocates who hold infuential positions in the community and win sympathy from many powerful supporters, including politicians. The disgraceful Blair intervention giving succour to those who would even go so far as to create creationist sponsored schools is an alarming proof of that. When Professor Richard Dawkins was publicly drawn into the heart of this dispute it is no wonder that, given his subject of zoology and his total commitment to the profound Darwinian standpoint from which he views it, that he is a central target for creationists and their supporters. It is their purpose to draw this argument out into the public domain, therefore I cannot see how its airing in the open could have been avoided. Suffice it to say that in Professor Dawkins they have met an able and formidable adversary who has in my opinion been more than a match for what he has consistently proven to be groundless arguments in favour of creationism. Don't try to excuse it for the sake of any misguided toleration of freedom of expression of views. Confront it at every turn and discredit it for the spurious and dangerously anti - scientific ideology that it is.

So they probably made a mistake.
Do you think we could run with that quote on the side of a bus?

He means only on the matter of the resignation. Myself, I don`t think creationism should be taught in schools (I find it utterly fantastical myself and with absolutely no foundations), but given one of the largest religious groupings in the UK that believe in creationism are the Muslims it inevitably will come up in schools, teachers should be allowed to debate the issue with students, if it arises. I`m a teacher and I`ve never been afraid of open debate, and that includes sensitive subjects such as racial intolerance and misogyny. Suppression doesn`t change minds.

The bus thing?... was an attempt at a joke, pun, play on words... maybe not that successful, but certainly not a serious comment.

du Sautoy strikes me as a much better holder of the professor of the Public Understanding of Science than Dawkins was. I think Dawkins actually managed to decrease public understanding of science by pitching science into a pointless battle with religion.

du Sautoy seems a more thoughtful, less militant man, and I look forward to seeing how he takes things forward.

Don't worry Peter, I got it. ;-)

Man cannot serve mythology and science.

Mythology is based on tradition and faith.

Science is based on reason, evidence and experiment.

Decide which side you are on. They are mutually exclusive. But please do not girn that you want to have both. It is merely tedious.

Goodness me Les, that's almost a religious statement.

And there was me thinking that science, like any other academic pursuit, was a tool, fashioned and ruled by man to improved his knowledge and environment, not an 'other' to be served.

But there ya go.

Or maybe I should say, "good god!"

Oh, and I suppose Professor du Sautoy is a dipstick!

"compartmentalises things interestingly" Load of stuff buried in that inoffensive sounding little comment.
hi i'm Dr. Mengele, I compartmentalise my hyppocratic oath while I do interesting experiments on Jewish children.

I prefer people whose minds are integrated not segregated, because I think it helps to foster empathy for all human beings not just your tribal group, yet the religious, who are supposed to be so tolerant and loving nearly always prefer the compartmental approach to the human mind. Funny that!

nobledeebee

"...Dr. Mengele..."

You wouldn't be scare-mongering or anything, would you?

Marcus du Sautoy has a great book called "the music of the primes" which unlike his predecessors actually makes sense.

William will hopefully support him (like melvyn bragg does) by giving him a platform to explain the wonders of science, as brilliantly as he can, rather than seek to engage in narrow minded bickering about the politics of education.

Reiss was quite right to say that if a young person raises the issue of creationism in a science class, a teacher should be in a position to examine why it does not stand up to scientific investigation. You don't blunt inquiring minds by refusing to answer their questions.

I taught Politics and Economics for 36 years, but it didn't stop from talking about religion if a pupil raised the topic. I don't believe in rigid compartmentalisation of knowledge and teaching. I believed in dialogue and if there anything which exercised their minds that they wanted to talk about, I indulged them willingly, even it was a film or TV programme unrelated to the subject.

In any case, my attitude was that the kids received a surfeit of religion in school, so why shouldn't I counter it and promote the cause of disbelief, or at least scepticism?

So it can work both ways. I wouldn't have wanted any strict censorship of what I taught or discussed in class, and in return I would not presume to lay down strict boundaries for anyone else.

Brian

This may come as something of a shock, but in relation to your post 13 and your approach to teaching, I find that broadly agree.

Brian
As I've said before, I'm with you on your approach to teaching.

GV

Les
Got anything more than a few soundbites?

GV

Peter:

Nothing much shocks me, but I think I picked that up before anyway.

The best thing you can hope for as a teacher is that pupils leave school knowing how little they really know and realising that in the end they can only find truth and goodness themselves. These things cannot be imposed by others whether in a Science class or an RE class.

MdeS sounds like an ignostic - which is a slightly harder version of agnosticism.

I'm glad that he did not try to defend the indefensible w.r.t. Michael Reiss.

Obviously If someone can show me where his religious belief has led Prof Reiss to make unscientific claims or to dispute scientific theories that would be different – but I have not seen this cited anywhere as a reason for his dismissal.

Dawkins himself admits that the main reason he believed that the man should have been dismissed was due to his ordination (from a statement on RichardDawkins.net):

“Although I disagree with Michael Reiss, what he actually said at the British Association is not obviously silly like creationism itself, nor is it a self-evidently inappropriate stance for the Royal Society to take. Scientists divide into two camps over this issue: the accommodationists, who 'respect' creationists while disagreeing with them; and the rest of us, who see no reason to respect ignorance or stupidity. ...
...Michael Reiss could argue that he is simply following the standard accommodationist line, and therefore doesn't deserve the censure now being heaped upon him.
Unfortunately for him as a would-be spokesman for the Royal Society, Michael Reiss is also an ordained minister. …. Nevertheless -- it's regrettable but true -- the fact that he is a priest undermines him as an effective spokesman…..�

It is clear to me that this is just a kind of Ad Hominem attack. Replace "the fact that he is a priest" with "the fact that he is black/homosexual" and the response would be very different. Why? Can we honestly say that if Prof Reiss had not been ordained that he would have been forced to resign by the Royal Society?

Surely as followers of the scientific method we should be making a proper examination of the evidence without bias, and basing our analysis on that. Calls for his resignation should have been supported by evidence of what he said or did that was wrong specifically. If someone can point me to an article where I can see this evidence I will be happy to change my mind on this point.

I'm glad RDs successor seems more sensible - and is prepared to stand on his own two feet.

PeterMorrow, yes people who compartmentalise their minds scare me. In my life I have met religious people who for example, are polite, helpful, and who give to charity but who then confide to me that aids is of course Gods punishment on people who indulge in "unnatural acts".It does not seem to dawn on them how uncharitable and hurtful this might sound to the gay man who shares the office with them.This is because they have partitioned thier mind. One bit interacts reasonably with other human beings, but the other bit, behind the wall, is full of religious fantasy. A delusion.

Nobledebee

I understand your concern, but compartmentalised minds are not limited to the religious! For example it might be possible for someone to quite happily hand over a credit card to pay 80 pounds for a weekend meal and then step over a homeless person on the street. We all do it in some way or another, indeed to think that we don't might be a delusion.

And while the idea of aids being termed the judgement of God might be distasteful and hurtful, it's hardly in the same category as Mengele.

Decide which side you are on. They are mutually exclusive. But please do not girn that you want to have both. It is merely tedious

I beg to differ Les:





I think it perfectly logical to be someone of faith (i.e. a Christian in this case) and accept evolutionary science (i.e. modern science). It's a shame that some Atheists (and Humanists etc.) don't seem to see how this is possible, in effect merely giving the YECs ammunition

Hello petermorrow,

I don't think you make a valid comparison when you write

"I understand your concern, but compartmentalised minds are not limited to the religious! For example it might be possible for someone to quite happily hand over a credit card to pay 80 pounds for a weekend meal and then step over a homeless person on the street."

A geologist who spends his day working with models that involve billions of years time scales, yet to his friends professes YEC nonsense is a case of religion inspiring nonsense thinking. Nonsense because it involves holding in ones mind at the same time two ideas that are irreconcilable. Lacking sympathy for those less well off does not. The idea of treating yourself to a lavish meal and not giving to others are perfectly well reconcilable with a selfish attitude. There is no accommodation of mutually exclusive thoughts involved in that. So I think you are comparing things that are essentially different from each other.

But even if I hadn't thought of your example as flawed, what is the point it would have made? I hope you weren't suggesting that we should look less critical at the mind poisoning role that religion can play, just because other ideas can have a similar effect? That wouldn't have been a very good argument if that was your intention, would it?

greets,
Peter

A geologist who spends his day working with models that involve billions of years time scales, yet to his friends professes YEC nonsense is a case of religion inspiring nonsense thinking. Nonsense because it involves holding in ones mind at the same time two ideas that are irreconcilable.

Here's a very good example Peter:





is this who you were possibly thinking of ?

Hi Peter

I have been responding to a couple of comments on this thread. Mengele was a bit extreme, don't you think? And I also pointed you that calling aids the judgement of God was distasteful; but interesting too, I thought, how the example, regarding compartmentalisaton was moderated. Peter the initial comment was a general one about "tolerant and loving" religion. "the religious, who are supposed to be so tolerant and loving nearly always prefer the compartmental approach to the human mind." I was saying we all do it, one way or another.

Anyway what would make you think that I thought religion should be treated with kid gloves?

Regards the meal and the homeless 2 things. First, if you or I were the homeless person, then the idea might not seem so absurd, and secondly I suggest that the slotting of our moral conscience (for one example) into a separate compartments is exactly what happens in these and other circumstances.

As I said, I'm simply pointing out that to one degree or another we all live like this.

We're all more complex than we would like to imagine.

Hello peterJhenderson,

Yes, those pages are a good example. I knew those and in some emails I exchanged with Snelling a while ago, I brought them up. He doesn't like to be reminded of them. :)

Hello petermorrow,

While I don't think the Mengele example is technically wrong, I probably would have used another example to make the point if I had been trying to convey that message.

In what way does pampering yourself and not helping out a homeless person involve balancing multiple, irreconcilable ideas in a persons mind?

greets,
Peter

Peter

Please remember that I was replying the the charge already quoted, "the religious, who are supposed to be so tolerant and loving nearly always prefer the compartmental approach to the human mind." and by way of reply used an example where one might reasonably be expected to show compassion, or one in which one might find one's conscience pricked but doesn't actually do anything to help. In that context, and I wasn't thinking of your context because you hadn't raised it at that time, I suggested that a way of dealing with one's conscience might be to reinterpret the circumstances in a way which caused one less 'guilt'. (I use the word guilt in a casual way)

I am not against pampering oneself, indeed I particularly enjoy a well prepared meal myself (although 80 pounds is quite a substantial price), I am simply pointing out that compartmentalisation, is something all of us do. Obviously however there are greater or lesser degrees of this, but I suggest that we are all susceptible to it.

On the particular matter of the geologist, it would seem odd if someone was a 'millions of years man' Monday to Saturday and a 'six 24 hour day man' on Sunday. However the general charge, which I repeat again, "the religious, who are supposed to be so tolerant and loving nearly always prefer the compartmental approach to the human mind." is one which I think is unwarranted.

Anyway what about the other (almost biblical comment) in post 8, do you view Science as something to be served?

PeterMorrow, the example I gave of homophobic compartmentalisation was a real one and in my experience it is quite common. Of course people who are nonbelievers can be equally guilty, however, there is something about the religious mind and its enthusiasm for the irrational and incredible that seems to make it particularly prone to this weakness of the human mind. Just juxtapose in your mind for a minute the Suday school image of Jesus meek and mild and then imagine, the inquisition, witchfinding, heresy trials, homophobia, or even Dr. Mengele. If you start from an irrational standpoint eg snakes that talk to humans, then it is not going to be particulary difficult for you to believe crazy things about your fellow human beings.

PeterMorrow, did you see the fistfight between the Armenian Christians and the Greek Christians in the church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. WWE Raw would have been proud of their efforts. They had to be seperated by the(soon to burn in hell) Jewish policemen. Oh the irony of it.

Peter M:

Nobledeebee is essentially correct. Sure, we are all contradictory. We all from time to time say one thing and do another, apply different rules in different circumstances, fail to practise what we preach, are rational in some things and irrational in others.

Nevertheless, a non-believer doesn't have to fit stories of talking snakes, god-inflicted flood mayhem, slaughter of your enemies, like the unfortunate Amalakites or the inhabitants of Ai, Lachish and Jericho, walking on water, turning the other cheek and loving your enemies, raising people from the dead, saving everybody with a single sacrifice in a remote corner of Palestine, into his psyche.

Holding all those weird and contradictory notions in your mind, and trying to live a sane life at the same time must indeed be a bit of strain.

Brian
No more difficult than believing in Universes that cause themselves to exist, an infinite chaos surrounding a bubble of order (which leads to the very odd conclusion that everything possible happens), that we can have moral rules in a universe that consists only of atoms, that we can rule out the miraculous withou examining the evidence,that we can trust rational faculties that were not designed to tell the truth, and at the same time be passionately convinced that religion is immoral and irrational.
And apart from the Resurrection, I can abandon belief in all of the stories you list and still keep hold of my faith. The death of the Amalekites doesn't appear on any confession or creed that I'm aware of.

G Veale

Loving your enemies doesn't caount as a story - so it stays central.
What's so odd about that teaching anyway?

G Veale

NobleDee
Where exactly does the connection between Joseph Mengele, who absorbed Rosenberg's anti-Christian philososphy, and Jesus Christ lie? You group him with the Inquisition and the Witch trials, so I'm assuming there's a link that I've missed.

GV

It should also be pointed out that there are many articulate and intelligent defences of the compartmentalised mind.

I think they're all rubbish at bottom, but still, they exist. They seem to appeal to people who think we'll never get our heads around the whole of reality, so why try. Science should concentrate on what works, religion should concentrate on what helps us cope. Neither need worry too much about truth so long as they help us get by.
Personally if I'm not convinced that something is true I don't think it will help me cope. I don't think religion is comparable to therapy, and I think truth claims are essential to science and religion. (And a lot of literature and a lot of art).

Once again -

- should be read before we dismiss those who want to compartmentalise.

GV

Would outline my own view. I'm wuite keen to discuss these essays with those who want to posit that science makes religion irrational. Maybe someone will take me up on the offer.

Nobledebee, Brian

Brian, at least, should know that I'm not going to start a wholesale defense of religion. I've said it before and I'll say it again, believers in religion have done some terrible things.

The simple point I am making is that intolerance, insanity, contradiction and so on are not negative character traits which are exclusive to the religious mind. We are all complex. I was quite clear about the particular comment I was responding to. "the religious, who are supposed to be so tolerant and loving nearly always prefer the compartmental approach to the human mind."

I said I thought it was unwarranted, not because the religious are not like this, but because everyone is to one degree or another.

Nobledeebee, regarding the aids comment, I have said twice now that it is distasteful.

However, you seem to wish to persist with the idea that religious/supernatural beliefs automatically predispose a person to intolerant acts, and it is that, not simply the idea that you view religion to be irrational, which appears to be the thrust of your comments, and in doing so seem to make wickedness (or whatever word you choose) to be something carried out only by believers of some kind or another.

Surely there are perfectly wicked non-believers? No?

I didn't see the fist fight, is it on youtube? Might be good for a laugh. What are you expecting of christians, perfection? Are many of them hypocrites? Of course, I'm probably one too. Are you telling me that if christians were less hypocritical then you would be more inclined to believe in talking snakes? Nobledebee, I'm more than happy to accept that many who 'profess faith' may not actually be Christians at all, and I'm more than happy to accept that I might not actually be a real Christian at all either; I don't go around making assumptions about the authenticity of my life.

Brian, in relation to your comments, I note that you emphasise the relationship of, what you deem to be, irrational stories, to sanity. This is different, is it not, from the comments nobledebee is making? Maybe I'm wrong. Anyway, we have already had many conversations about biblical intrepretation, though I note that you declined my offer on the probably no god thread to continue these.

Put simply it is one thing to consider believers to be insane, and irrational, quite another to assume them to be inherently intolerant and violent. Comments like that are easy to throw around?

Please remember that all I said was that we all compartmentalise, nothing more; I was not starting, and I am not going to get sucked into, a slanging match.

But Brain I will say this, we may not all have to, as you put it, fit stories of 'talking snakes.... into his psyche', but we all do have to live with the pain, injustice, poverty, and contradiction of this world, and sometimes it starts with how we live our own personal lives, hence the homeless comment from me, and we all have to live with it whatever we believe, and often the only way we can cope it to compartmentalise.

Science has its roots deeply planted in the Christian faith one only has to read and listen to the words of Godly men like such as Bacon, Kelper, Pascal, Boyle, Newton, Linneaus, Faraday, Joules, Thomson and many more who believed in a creator God, the designer of the universe, instead of the those atheistic followers of scientism who seem to have free license of the media whereas the Christian believers have their Biblical views suppressed and ridiculed by the godless media, who are anti-Christian in their editorial control whilst pursuing their liberal anti-Christian agenda churning out evolutionary propaganda, the evolutionary rhetoric is prejudiced from the start it is formed with a closed mindset and is at odds with the evidence, it is erroneous for the likes of Dawkins and Atkins to circulate the view that science is in conflict with the Christian faith, they only have to read the history of science to have their blind minds opened up to the facts of history.

Evolution is a bankrupt theory which dropped as a fly many years ago, under the swat of God Word the Bible, but the atheistic followers of evolution have tried to resurrect this dead theory by trying to rubbish the Christians and their beliefs, whereas the governments bailed the banks out over the past few months evolution has no one to bail it out, the evolutionist falsely thinks that science and the science community bails the theory of evolution out but this is a phony belief, were the evolutionist tries to use science to back up its false claims really it is only using the empty rhetoric of scientism which is not science.

God has revealed Himself in creation, God has revealed Himself in His Word and finally God has revealed Himself through His only begotten Son who gives light to illuminate the dark sinful mind of fallen man of his need of a Saviour.

"Science has its roots deeply planted in the Christian faith..."

In that case why is science coming up with so many conclusions contrary to the Christian faith?

Like all fundamental evangelicals the puritan is living in the past and in blissful ignorance. The scientists he mentions range from the 13th to the 19th century. They are hardly at the cutting edge of knowledge. The most recent scientist he mentions is William Thomson aka Lord Kelvin(1824-1907) who was admittedly a great scientist of his time but the noble lord in the latter part of his career made some predictions which were rendered nonsensical by later advances in knowledge. To mention just a few:
He declared in 1895 that heavier than air flying machines are impossible ( how did I get to the costa del sol this summer) and in 1897 he predicted that radio had no future. Unfortunately he died in 1907 but I feel that he would have not have been too impressed by the chances of tv either.
The good Lord was a committed opponent of Darwinism on the grounds that the earth could not be of sufficient age to allow the processes of natural selection to do their thing. He estimated the age of the earth at 20 to 40 million years old based on his lifetime work on conduction of heat and cooling rates. Of course he had no knowledge of the internal heat generated in the earth’s interior by radioactivity which extends the cooling time greatly. He also thought that the sun could not possibly have burned long enough to permit an earth hundreds of millions of years old unless there is some other energy producing process we don’t know about : and actually there is ie. Nuclear fusion . so puritan the moral of the story is - ignorance is bliss

Puritan:

From a Christian who was an expert witness in the Dover trial:

Yawn:



That's a good answer to Puritan's nonsense donkeyoatey. It always strikes me as strange that when YECs look for scientists who support their view they always turn to well known figures of severeal hundred years ago. Lets just have a brief look at the science of several hundred years ago.

For example, there was no such thing as the periodic table. Alchemy was practised instead of chemistry (Newton spent many years devoted to it). The atom was yet to be discovered. Astronomy was in turmoil over Galileo, Kepler and the geocentrism/heloeocentrism debate. Distant galaxies were yet to be observed (not possible until the construction of the Mt Wilson obervatory in the 1920's). I think science has moved on since then Puritan.

Even the great Einstein got it wrong with his view of a static Universe.

Whilst I don't think we can move from Kepler to Young Earth Creationism, and the historical relationship between Christianity has been complex, I don't think that we can ignore that Christianity was important to the birth of Science.
At the same time, Pythagoras' metaphysics, Democritus' atomism, and Hermeticism all had an input as well.
I can't see how the advance of Science leads to the death of God. But I'm not sure how the birth of Science proves the existence of God. (Bernard and I have run an "argument from knowledge" on the blog, but that's not quite the same thing as the historical apologetic OT seems to be advocating. All the same, I wouldn't dismiss everything he's saying as irrelevant to the discussion).

GVeale

Joh Wright
What conclusions did you have in mind?
GV

Whilst I don't think we can move from Kepler to Young Earth Creationism

Modern geocentrism has everything to do with YECism Graham. It is in fact (along with flat Earthism) a branch of the creationist movement:





albeit a more extreme position than the YECs.

PeterJ

I picked Kepler's name at random - Faraday or Maxwell would have illustrated the same point. Christian influence the development of Science doesn't make for a great apologetic, to my mind at least.
But now that you've mentioned geo-centrism, I'm pretty sure that you've got the two positions mixed up. If you think about it, arguing for a
geo-centric universe is actually *easier* than arguing for a Young Earth - if by Young Earth you mean less than 1 000 000 years old.
Which does make me wonder what Young Earth Creationist have against geo-centrism.

GV

Actually, it may even be easier to argue for a geo-centric Solar System than a Young Earth. I may be pushing my luck on that one.
But stick in a couple of unobservables to save your theory, and Bob's your uncle. It seems more plausible than Flood Geology.

G Veale

It is worth noting that access to the Fixed- Earth website is denied by the "Classroom 2000 Northern Ireland" software. The reason?

"This website has been categorised as "Non-Traditional Religions and Occult and Folklore"."