This Week In Science and Religion
Everyone is busy with Christmas, so the volume of blog posts and comments has dipped somewhat the last week or so. I expect it to drop even more the next few days. Even so, there has been a lot out there on science and religion front. Probably I should start with the ruling today on Intelligent Design in school that judged it unconstitutional. Lots of people are talking about this, although I think the decision was hardly surprising – especially considering some of the deception by school officials. Will it affect a certain lone state senator in Utah’s attempts here? One can but wish. For those interested, Forbes has up selected excerpts from the ruling.
Back to the LDS blogs. First up is a quasi-science issue of the permanency of spirits. Quasi, as it is more speculative philosophy than really science. Not a lot of empirical thinking here. But it’s been a slow week and a half so I thought I’d throw it in. The discussion started at M* with the question sent in by a reader over whether intelligences are infinite in number. This quickly turned to Joseph Smith’s ring analogy and poured into New Cool Thang with a discussion of the destruction of the soul and whether it was possible. Things have been raging ever since.
Over at Spinozist Mormon (who constantly has to keep reminding me that the blog name doesn’t imply endorsement of a Spinozist reading of Mormon theology) we had several interesting posts this last week. The first was about the issue of replicability and science with the obvious connections to religious knowing. How publicly repeatable does a phenomena have to be to be knowable by science? I threw in my own thoughts along with a brief discussion of Karl Popper. Next up were two in the “quasi-science” section of deterministic freedom and doctrinal modesty on free will. Free will is much more a classic philosophical debate, although issues of fundamental physics does pop up a lot. And the very meaning of “determinism” has been largely co-opted (and transformed) the past century by science. The discussion took much more of a speculative science vibe to it rather than a more traditional philosophical analysis.
Keeping to a more traditional science discussion we have the very interesting tying together of RSR, extreme anti-evolutionists and the constitution. Yes, it’s the debate of the difference between animals and men and how that affects the constitution. Is evolution what will undermine the constitution? I obviously have my doubts and think that those opposed to evolution are really reaching. But you read and be the judge.
Over at Issues in Mormon Doctrine Jeffrey brough up a discussion about exactly what role is left for the spirit given what we’re learning about the brain. Quite a few interesting comments developed.
An other post on the border of science and philosophy – probably more philosophy. However I think some might find my “repeat” of a discussion of the meaning of “natural man” interesting. I touch upon Paul’s anthropology.
Over at Mormanity is a post on infancy of mesoAmerican studies. He argues that things are really just getting off the ground and that there is a lot of things left to discover. A debate over some of Jeff’s claims ensues, with an “anonymous” mesoAmericanist arguing that studies are not in their infancy at all. Battles ensue.
Moving to non-Mormon blogs, the firestorm over superstring theory continues unabated. Some physicists really getting upset at how the Discovery Institute keeps trying to link Susskind’s thoughts on superstring theory with intelligent design. For a nice overview including links to a New Scientist interview, check out Not Even Wrong. Also up is a discussion of the same issues and the question of whether our universe is natural. It’s discussion that arose from the author’s Nature review. Lots of other links on this topic, but those two should get you started if you are interested.
Last up is a funny “gotcha” moment for Daniel Dennett discussing why evolution entails atheism. Check out the story at First Things. It offers some very thoughtful and good comments as well.
While I’m not surprised by Judge Jones’s ruling, I’m pleasantly surprised by his strong language.
I was thoroughly impressed with the plaintiffs’ attorney, Erich Rothschild, throughout the trial. It would be fun to see him up against Sen. Buttars and the Eagle Forum.
Comment by will — December 20, 2005 @ 2:06 pm
The problem is that I don’t think too many Utah law makers take Buttars seriously from what I can see. Indeed I know from internal comments that a lot of lawmakers in Utah really dislike the Eagle Forum and a few other shrill groups.
BTW – I neglected to include in the above list the BT science stories of the last week or so.
“Richard Dawkins on Religion”
“BYU professor touts the “Eat whatever you feel like eating†diet”
Let me know if I missed any. Normally I keep a list of science related stories and this time I didn’t.
Comment by Clark Goble — December 20, 2005 @ 2:17 pm
That Dennett link wasn’t so impressive in my opinion. For one, the author clearly has a strong bias. Second, the source for the story clearly had a strong bias as well. I would really like to hear a recording or a transcript of the event to get a better feel.
That said, however, if Dennett did say that evolution is atheistic then he was wrong. It is non-theistic however, just as the separation of church and state implies that the state should be. I also get nervous when people run around claiming that the denial of religion is itself religious. Not necessarily as any person should be able to see. The Darwinian arguments against ethical monotheism are very strong, though not entirely water-tight. This doesn’t make the Neo-Darwinian synthesis religious in any way.
It should also be kept in mind that he was speaking of the philosphical consequences of Darwinism, a discussion in which religion is more than willing to enter if its feeling up to such standards.
Comment by Jeffrey Giliam — December 20, 2005 @ 3:18 pm
How is the denial of religions not a religious claim? I don’t just mean debates about empirical facts. (i.e. the water level the last 10,000 years) I mean claims about whether there is a God.
Comment by Clark Goble — December 20, 2005 @ 3:24 pm
What happens is that the term “religion” and “religious” is so ambiguous that the argument can go all sorts of directions without ever really coming to a close. This is exactly what the religionists want.
This is the subtle and sometimes intentionally confused difference between agnosticism and atheism. Really what is the difference between a strong agnostic and an atheist? Not much in ideology as far as I can tell, only perhaps in practice.
Atheism can be followed quite religiously but this is not the kind of religion which concerns us. Being devoted to a cause or a world view is clearly not what Dennett is arguing against. Once this form of religion is out of the picture then I see no religion left at all in atheists. Sure, they make claims about religion, but these are usually not religious claims. They are not based in faith in anything supernatural but are instead rooted in reason, evidence and a rejection of supernaturalism. While this is a metaphysical claim, it is not a supernatural claim. It is not intrinsically beyond argument or refutation. These are the things which inspire the separation of church and state.
Comment by Jeffrey Giliam — December 20, 2005 @ 3:35 pm
Jeffrey, I’m not sure I buy your distinction between supernatural, metaphysics and religion. I just don’t follow how a claim about religion isn’t a religious claim. It seems undercut by your initial statement about the ambiguity of the term.
Comment by Clark Goble — December 20, 2005 @ 3:43 pm
I can see your skepticism about the fuzzy distinctions I’ve made. My main point is that the nature of a claim should not be confused with the nature of the thing which the claim is about. That is the equivocation which I see as being most problematic in the term “religious claim.” Lot’s of university classes make claims about religion, but this doesn’t make the classes or the claims made in them religious.
Comment by Jeffrey Giliam — December 20, 2005 @ 3:48 pm
Are you basically distinguishing between method and dogma?
Comment by Clark Goble — December 20, 2005 @ 11:18 pm
I’m listening to Chris Buttars on KSL right now. Is ignorance sufficient cause for impeachment?
Comment by will — December 21, 2005 @ 12:19 pm
I don’t know if I would phrase it like that. What I’m saying is that the phrase “religious claim” could be applied to two very different kinds of statements. Suppose I make the claim X about the subject Y. If Y is religious but X is not then these statements seems to be uncontroversially protected in being taught in state universities. Take for example the psychology of religion, anthro of rel., philo. of religion and so on. The claims made in these classes are “religious claims” but not in the worrisome way.
The worrisome “religious claims” come when the nature of X is religious. These kinds of claims can also be applied to a number of subjects such as astronomy (ptolomeic system), evolution (creationism), psychology (folk dualism), anthropology (mesoamerican studies), entymology (tower of babel) and so on. It is when X is of a religious nature that the separation between state and church should be upheld.
Now Dennett’s claim (thought not as strong as I think he thinks it is) was of the former kind. He was making a philosophical/scientific claim about religion, not a religious claim about philosophy or science.
Comment by Jeffrey Giliam — December 21, 2005 @ 12:56 pm
I know some people feel that way Jeffrey. The problem is that the distinction you insist upon is hard to manage in real life where things get blurry. I’ve certainly read people making that distinction over religion but I certainly don’t buy it. It also tends to try to raise a kind of scientism I find worrisome.
Comment by Clark Goble — December 22, 2005 @ 3:21 am
I don’t understand this issue like most of you, but I saw a picture in the news that showed a clearly triumphant woman with her hands in the air. She looked like she was about 20 or so. And I thought, “why is this issue so important to young people that they celebrate it so blatantly?” I don’t understand the battleground mentality of this issue. Nobody wins. And those who believe in God will teach their children. What is gained?
Comment by annegb — December 22, 2005 @ 10:11 am