Secular Societies are happier and more sustainable

[total issues]

A rather interesting exception there on the MMGW. Religion is where you find it. Which is pretty much everywhere, since few there be that grasp and have for instant recall scientific data on all points. That's why "believe in evolution" is the correct formulation for 90% of evolutionistas. They don't have the means to sort it out for themselves, so their faith is in science, scientists, what have you...

Well, if you don't trust science and scientists, give up the products of their work and thus modern life. If it is said that there are no atheists in foxholes, then everybody in the cancer ward seems to believe in science. The balance of evidence for evolution by natural selection is vastly greater than for MMGW .

I'm sure you know there is a whole class of evidence, which strictly speaking isn't scientific. Historical, for instance.

There are sciences, where you have to look for evidence in the field rather than be able to do lab experiments - astronomy, geology as well as paleontology.

Here's the thing about the TP / religious / fundies / et al. Other than its metaphysical implications, why should the average Joe Sixpack (beer or Coke--I'm partial to 24 packs of Pepsi Max myself) give a southern exposure of a northbound rat about scientific evidence for evolution? There are lots of reason to care about semiconductors, magnetic fields and computers. Sure, some can dork around with genetic modifications of plants and critters, but darn few--and strictly speaking that isn't evolution. Even fewer are in a position to construct environmental factors that will govern the controlled evolution of geckos into say, velociraptors. In other words, what is the dad gummed point of believing in evolution? Or universally acclaimed scientifical evidence for same? Why should most anyone, TP folk included, care?

Well, you care, because it contradicts the literal order in Genesis (the stars came first). Most Christian churches are not so literal and perfectly happy to accept evolution. Since when did all knowledge have to be useful? And are we so arrogant as to know when it will be useful? History is littered with scientists saying their discoveries would have no use - probably the most poignant was Rutherford saying that splitting the atom would have no practical consequences. Since you ask, though:

- drug resistance (those dratted bugs evolve in real time...)
- genetic sequencing
- do you use anything made of steel? The banded iron formations (BIFs) which comprise most of the world's iron ore were laid down around 2 billion years ago when bacteria giving off oxygen (chloroplasts) gradually oxidised the iron dissolved in the sea. Knowing that gives clues as to where to look for deposits.
- just knowing how our bodies evolved is immensely useful for medicine: evolution works by incremental steps so all sorts of suboptimal stuff is left behind (that annoying, useless and potentially lethal appendix is a relic of when our ancestors had double stomachs...). An intelligent designer would have done much better, surely.

There are probably other examples.

More to the point, evolution by natural selection is the central theory of biology, and without it biology would not have made the huge advances of the last century. It is the equivalent of the laws of mass-energy in physics.

I would recommend an excellent introduction, butyou may be put off by the author, so suggest you ask for it to be delivered under a plain cover.. Unfortunately, he is the best and clearest writer in lay terms on the subject, just ignore the egoism and the anti-religious diatribes (on which subject he a dork out of his depth) and look at the evidence.

Oh dear, I feel like a secular equivalent of a JW handing out the Watchtower...

[CognitiveDistoibance]

A rather interesting exception there on the MMGW. Religion is where you find it. Which is pretty much everywhere, since few there be that grasp and have for instant recall scientific data on all points. That's why "believe in evolution" is the correct formulation for 90% of evolutionistas. They don't have the means to sort it out for themselves, so their faith is in science, scientists, what have you...

Well, if you don't trust science and scientists, give up the products of their work and thus modern life. If it is said that there are no atheists in foxholes, then everybody in the cancer ward seems to believe in science. The balance of evidence for evolution by natural selection is vastly greater than for MMGW .

I prefer to pick and choose heuristically what I place my faith in, like everybody else. I'm just willing to admit it.

Here's the thing about the TP / religious / fundies / et al. Other than its metaphysical implications, why should the average Joe Sixpack (beer or Coke--I'm partial to 24 packs of Pepsi Max myself) give a southern exposure of a northbound rat about scientific evidence for evolution? There are lots of reason to care about semiconductors, magnetic fields and computers. Sure, some can dork around with genetic modifications of plants and critters, but darn few--and strictly speaking that isn't evolution. Even fewer are in a position to construct environmental factors that will govern the controlled evolution of geckos into say, velociraptors. In other words, what is the dad gummed point of believing in evolution? Or universally acclaimed scientifical evidence for same? Why should most anyone, TP folk included, care?

Well, you care, because it contradicts the literal order in Genesis (the stars came first). Most Christian churches are not so literal and perfectly happy to accept evolution.

I don't care, really, at least insofar as it relates to public policy, tea parties and so forth. Not to refer to the OP or anything, but I'm perfectly happy--in fact prefer--a secular public policy and not a religious one. Christians that wish to impose christianity on others aren't (at least in principle) any different than some other folk favoring the imposition of sharia. I've got more than my fair share of hang-ups with "political christianity"--probably more than "political islam" in some respects.

So the thing is, when I see '"believe in evolution" or "accept evidence for XYZ" (doesn't matter what XYZ is, it implies a tacit, if unconscious, exclusion of evidence), my little internal "religiousity meter" starts going off.

Since when did all knowledge have to be useful? And are we so arrogant as to know when it will be useful?

No, and ... Yes (probably, at least in our own minds). But when did a "take it all or leave it" false dilemma get adopted with respect to science?

History is littered with scientists saying their discoveries would have no use - probably the most poignant was Rutherford saying that splitting the atom would have no practical consequences. Since you ask, though:

- drug resistance (those dratted bugs evolve in real time...)

Wake me up when they start evolving into velociraptors. Then again ... don't wake me up.

...
There are probably other examples.

More to the point, evolution by natural selection is the central theory of biology, and without it biology would not have made the huge advances of the last century. It is the equivalent of the laws of mass-energy in physics.

And the tea party people should care about this, why? The people doing the huge advances in biology and need to "believe in evolution" to do their word are probably fewer in number than people that still have McCain/Palin bumper stickers still on their cars. Maybe even fewer that Kerry/Edwards.

I would recommend an excellent introduction, butyou may be put off by the author, so suggest you ask for it to be delivered under a plain cover.. Unfortunately, he is the best and clearest writer in lay terms on the subject, just ignore the egoism and the anti-religious diatribes (on which subject he a dork out of his depth) and look at the evidence.

Oh dear, I feel like a secular equivalent of a JW handing out the Watchtower...

You should feel like that. You are the equivalent (not so sure about the secular angle), essentially. Unless you can tell me why my belief or non-belief in evolution has a material bearing on how Iive my life or damage yours. And why I can't accept the benefits of any scientific advances unless I accept all scientific evidence for evolution.

[Simple Minded]

Interesting thread. Thanks for the recommended book TI, your are right about Dawkins showing his arse, or as they say in the south "Saying more than he knows!"

I'm probably going to expose my ignorance here, but what the hell, it happens all the time. Some things are truly self-evident! Why keep the lit (or unlit?) candle under a basket?

I've never understood why evolution and creation are mutually exclusive. Unless the person who believes in creation, takes the Bible literally, meaning the Earth was created in six 24 hour days, and is only a few thousand years old. My (limited) understanding is that, that interpretation is primarily limited to the Bible Belt of the US, and only originated about 175 years ago.

Who is to say that God did not use the process of evolution to create the different species? Different breeds of dogs or cows within a species are obvious examples of evolution on a micro scale. But does evolution really explain how the first flea or mouse or horse came into existance? If so, which came first? Aren't there gaps in the evolutionary record? If so, does not the evolutionist fill those gaps with faith?

And has that "which came first the chicken or the egg?" question ever been resolved? Enquiring minds want to know!

Science is merely "the best current" explanation of observed phenomena. As soon as a scientic fact is disproved, it is replaced with an updated version. Former theories that the Earth was flat and the sun revolved around the Earth were once accepted as fact.

We all seek a weltanschaung (sp?) that makes our lives worthwhile. To each his own as long as it does not harm another.

[Michael]

I have my own reservations about “Fundamentalist Christians,” but fear of their political influence is not one of them. They are the very last people to establish a successful theocracy and that for two reasons: -
1) Their whole tradition (mainly Anabaptist or Independent) is voluntarist and anti-Erastian and Erastianism and theocracy are, logically and historically, two sides of the same coin.
2) Their lack of a central authority makes them naturally fissiparous and a theocracy that speaks with a divided voice is unthinkable. A real theocracy requires something like the papal magisterium, the Byzantine συμφωνία or the Politburo.

Even, indeed, especially, amongst Christians, there is a deep suspicion of the more eccentric forms of belief. I recall Canon Demant, the former Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford, on being informed that a former pupil of his was writing a commentary on the Book of Revelation – “Oh, dear! Such a promising young man, and with a young family, too!” Think, too, of Cardinal Newman’s, “To pretend to a particular inspiration of the Holy Spirit is a horrid thing, Sir, a very horrid thing!”

As for scientific theories, I do not know that I am as sceptical as some Post-Modernist philosophers, who claim that

The objective features of a phenomenon so little constrain the ways it is classified and theorized that these features can be disregarded in trying to understand why a particular classification system or scientific theory has been adopted.

And few would accuse them of being Fundamentalists.

[total issues]

To CD:



Let's just stop this, it's going nowhere, have a Pepsi Max on me. I must admit there's something vaguely comic in proselytising " militantly" for sceptical empiricism, but I hold to my views - it is acceptance of the scientific method, and the results it produces for now that matters, not eternal verities which are unknowable. We are all conditioned by our backgrounds and culture, mine has been the sceptical agnosticism which is modern England (it even has a church, the Cof E, which no-one attends but which everyone wants to have around). CD's has doubtless been rather different.

To Michael:
It is the intellectual impact of the fundies I am concerned about, and that does eventually impact on everyday life - agreed they are not theocrats. Militant Islam is something else. My (partial) admiration for French culture does not extend to their silly philosophes.

Perhaps it is too much to expect people to be intellectually consistent, we don't always know enough to do so. After all, Michael Faraday, the discoverer of the laws of electromagnetism, was aSandemanian, a sect which makes most of the American Bible Belt look like raving moderates.

[Michael]

To CD:



Let's just stop this, it's going nowhere, have a Pepsi Max on me. I must admit there's something vaguely comic in proselytising " militantly" for sceptical empiricism, but I hold to my views - it is acceptance of the scientific method, and the results it produces for now that matters, not eternal verities which are unknowable. We are all conditioned by our backgrounds and culture, mine has been the sceptical agnosticism which is modern England (it even has a church, the Cof E, which no-one attends but which everyone wants to have around). CD's has doubtless been rather different.

To Michael:
It is the intellectual impact of the fundies I am concerned about, and that does eventually impact on everyday life - agreed they are not theocrats. Militant Islam is something else. My (partial) admiration for French culture does not extend to their silly philosophes.

Perhaps it is too much to expect people to be intellectually consistent, we don't always know enough to do so. After all, Michael Faraday, the discoverer of the laws of electromagnetism, was aSandemanian, a sect which makes most of the American Bible Belt look like raving moderates.

Pascal was both a physicist and a mystic; even stranger, he was both a mathematician and an inveterate gambler

[total issues]

Pascal was both a physicist and a mystic; even stranger, he was both a mathematician and an inveterate gambler

Oh if you are going back to the 17C, little was yet known as to what worked, and the boundaries between science and magic were still unclear. The person who did the most to separate them, Isaac Newton, spent more time writing a detailed topography of Hell than writing the Principia Mathematica .

Many great modern physicists have an affinity for mysticism : David Bohm and Roger Penrose come to mind. After all, it's less weird than modern cosmology. That's not the same as denying the reality of evolution, though, or the simple cut-and-dried atheism of the Dawkins/Dennett/Hawkins school, which I have equally little time for.

[Simple Minded]

To CD:



Let's just stop this.....

TI, Why stop now? You look like you are having fun....

- Sarah Palin seems to resonate with parts of Middle America which is incomprehensible and scary to the rest of us. If that ignorant hysteric is elected POTUS she would not have a bunch of sad pyjama wearers with AK47s, but the nuclear arsenal of the world's only superpower.

I share your concern with arming women. We let women carry guns long ago, and when people can project equal power, you have to give them equal rights. We should have followed the Swiss model ...... for a much longer period......

Imagine an American female president goes to England at the wrong time of the month and is served a warm beer!

As Airforce One takes off for home she will be demanding to know who is carrying the nuclear football!

[Simple Minded]

I have my own reservations about “Fundamentalist Christians,” but fear of their political influence is not one of them. They are the very last people to establish a successful theocracy and that for two reasons: -
1) Their whole tradition (mainly Anabaptist or Independent) is voluntarist and anti-Erastian and Erastianism and theocracy are, logically and historically, two sides of the same coin.
2) Their lack of a central authority makes them naturally fissiparous and a theocracy that speaks with a divided voice is unthinkable. A real theocracy requires something like the papal magisterium, the Byzantine συμφωνία or the Politburo.

Even, indeed, especially, amongst Christians, there is a deep suspicion of the more eccentric forms of belief. I recall Canon Demant, the former Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford, on being informed that a former pupil of his was writing a commentary on the Book of Revelation – “Oh, dear! Such a promising young man, and with a young family, too!” Think, too, of Cardinal Newman’s, “To pretend to a particular inspiration of the Holy Spirit is a horrid thing, Sir, a very horrid thing!”

As for scientific theories, I do not know that I am as sceptical as some Post-Modernist philosophers, who claim that

The objective features of a phenomenon so little constrain the ways it is classified and theorized that these features can be disregarded in trying to understand why a particular classification system or scientific theory has been adopted.

And few would accuse them of being Fundamentalists.

Excellent points Michael. I live in the Bible Belt and within a 25 mile radius is a population of perhaps 150,000. In the same area, I would not be surprised if there are over 1,200 churches.

[Pastaneta]

Pascal was both a physicist and a mystic; even stranger, he was both a mathematician and an inveterate gambler

As to Isaac Newton, he was both a physicist an an alchemist...

Einstein had his mystic moments too. He wrote:

he most beautiful emotion we can experience is the mystical. It is the power of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms- this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of true religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I belong to the rank of devoutly religious men.

[total issues]

To CD:



Let's just stop this.....

TI, Why stop now? You look like you are having fun....

No, no, I am turning into a militant agnostic, handing out pamphlets (well, a reading list), which is absurd!


Substitute something like Dennett's Darwin's Great Idea, which is an even heavier read, and not many doorsteps would be left open...

As Airforce One takes off for home she will be demanding to know who is carrying the nuclear football!

Precedents suggest that, if she were sexually distracted, she would have lost the codes anyway

[CognitiveDistoibance]

I have my own reservations about “Fundamentalist Christians,” but fear of their political influence is not one of them. They are the very last people to establish a successful theocracy and that for two reasons: -
1) Their whole tradition (mainly Anabaptist or Independent) is voluntarist and anti-Erastian and Erastianism and theocracy are, logically and historically, two sides of the same coin.
2) Their lack of a central authority makes them naturally fissiparous and a theocracy that speaks with a divided voice is unthinkable. A real theocracy requires something like the papal magisterium, the Byzantine συμφωνία or the Politburo.
...

Very true. And not that it's up to me, but I wouldn't have it any other way. Even in secular society government is imbued with monopoly and police power--which is proving more than difficult enough to constrain. Add the supposed authority of diety and presumed duty to same, and it swiftly becomes a terrible, terrible problem.

[CognitiveDistoibance]

To CD:



Let's just stop this, it's going nowhere, have a Pepsi Max on me.

I was drinking one when I read this...

I must admit there's something vaguely comic in proselytising " militantly" for sceptical empiricism, but I hold to my views - it is acceptance of the scientific method, and the results it produces for now that matters, not eternal verities which are unknowable. We are all conditioned by our backgrounds and culture, mine has been the sceptical agnosticism which is modern England (it even has a church, the Cof E, which no-one attends but which everyone wants to have around). CD's has doubtless been rather different.

I think the irony here is that we both prefer a secular government. I would not hold that acceptance of a literal reading of Genesis is required for participation in government, but neither would I require that it disqualifies whole swaths of the citizenry from participation. Any "eternal verities which are unknowable" are more or less ... unknowable. So requiring or proscribing any and all doesn't fit my definition of "secular." Your mileage may vary.

[total issues]

I would not hold that acceptance of a literal reading of Genesis is required for participation in government, but neither would I require that it disqualifies whole swaths of the citizenry from participation. Any "eternal verities which are unknowable" are more or less ... unknowable. So requiring or proscribing any and all doesn't fit my definition of "secular." Your mileage may vary.

No, it doesn't, by and large we agree. A decent society doesn't tell people what to think, or constrains their actions when they don't affect others. If you guys want to build a creationist museum, go ahead. Where it gets grey is wanting to teach so called "Intelligent Design" in schools on the basis that it is an alternative view of scientifically equal standing to evolution (which it is not, sorry to be illiberal here). If you want to teach kids (outside school) that the scientists are wrong and that it is what it says in the Bible, then yes, of course that is permissible, as long as they can make up their minds. It would be difficult to envisage in practice that any one institution would be able to present both views impartially.

There is of course the issue of differences in values on such issues as abortion and homosexuality, (not to mention owning guns ) but that is not germane to this argument - on both sides, these are social/ethical values where science is of limited value, although it can analyse the implications and origins of some values. Perhaps it can tell us if there is a hereditary component to homosexuality, that is about it.

[CognitiveDistoibance]

I would not hold that acceptance of a literal reading of Genesis is required for participation in government, but neither would I require that it disqualifies whole swaths of the citizenry from participation. Any "eternal verities which are unknowable" are more or less ... unknowable. So requiring or proscribing any and all doesn't fit my definition of "secular." Your mileage may vary.

No, it doesn't, by and large we agree. A decent society doesn't tell people what to think, or constrains their actions when they don't affect others. If you guys want to build a creationist museum, go ahead. Where it gets grey is wanting to teach so called "Intelligent Design" in schools on the basis that it is an alternative view of scientifically equal standing to evolution (which it is not, sorry to be illiberal here). If you want to teach kids (outside school) that the scientists are wrong and that it is what it says in the Bible, then yes, of course that is permissible, as long as they can make up their minds. It would be difficult to envisage in practice that any one institution would be able to present both views impartially.

Well, I would just note two things:

• Much of the education issue would be solved if education wasn't managed by government.
• I'm not sure any great harm would prevail if the ID and evolution dogmas were reserved for classes taken by the single digit percentage of the students who are actually headed for science careers.

There is of course the issue of differences in values on such issues as abortion and homosexuality, (not to mention owning guns ) but that is not germane to this argument - on both sides, these are social/ethical values where science is of limited value, although it can analyse the implications and origins of some values. Perhaps it can tell us if there is a hereditary component to homosexuality, that is about it.

And those debates need to take place on truly secular soil. But that doesn't happen, really. The hereditary question is fraught with PC and other overtones, for example.

But I'm sure I could find scientific evidence that the recidivism rate of home invaders who are shot and killed is very low.