NationStates Jolt Archive

I saw this in New Scientist. Seems the Discovery Institute are giving up on attacking Richard Dawkins and are now going after Francis Collins, who is a former head of the human genome project, a proponent of evolution whilst also being an evangelical Christian.

Francis Collins' website
http://www.biologos.org/

Discovery Institute's rebuttal site
http://www.faithandevolution.org/

Let battle commence.

Is Collins' approach actually any better?

It sounds like Francis Collins is trying to reconcile his need to separate science from faith while maintaining his faith. I'm okay with that.

The rebuttal on the other hand sounds like the same old song and dance from Intelligent Design.

Edit: I'd like both to delve a little more deeply into astrophysics because that's where the absurd really shows itself the clearest.

Collins appears to be making a perfectly reasonable attempt to reconcile his beliefs with his knowledge of science. From his website (http://biologos.org/questions/science-and-religion/):
Although there is clearly an overlap between science and religion, neither is an exhaustive source of truth. That is, there are still certain questions that should only be addressed by science or religion. In the same way that science cannot answer a question about life’s purpose or the existence of God, one should be wary of using religious scriptures as a scientific textbook. While science and religion do interact and inform one another, one should always keep in mind the appropriate boundaries for each source of knowledge.

Sounds fine to me.

I dunno, I think I have to disagree with Ifreann and LG on this one.

Collins expresses an idea I hear all the time:

"Although there is clearly an overlap between science and religion, neither is an exhaustive source of truth. That is, there are still certain questions that should only be addressed by science or religion."

But I've gotta ask...what questions? People always say there are "some questions" that religion can answer but science cannot, yet nobody ever provides examples of these.

Keep in mind that I'm not going to simply accept the assertion that religion is good at answering moral questions; I don't think it is, so if you do then you will need to make some case for that.

Personally, I think that when people say "there are questions better left to religion," what they're saying is that "there are questions to which religion provides the answers I want to hear." Which is fine, but I wish folks would admit that instead of claiming that religion is actually providing information that is objectively superior.

I dunno, I think I have to disagree with Ifreann and LG on this one.

Collins expresses an idea I hear all the time:

"Although there is clearly an overlap between science and religion, neither is an exhaustive source of truth. That is, there are still certain questions that should only be addressed by science or religion."

But I've gotta ask...what questions? People always say there are "some questions" that religion can answer but science cannot, yet nobody ever provides examples of these.

Keep in mind that I'm not going to simply accept the assertion that religion is good at answering moral questions; I don't think it is, so if you do then you will need to make some case for that.

Personally, I think that when people say "there are questions better left to religion," what they're saying is that "there are questions to which religion provides the answers I want to hear." Which is fine, but I wish folks would admit that instead of claiming that religion is actually providing information that is objectively superior.

Things like the nature of good and evil, whether humans in inherently one or the other, how one goes about entering the right afterlife. Such things are effectively the reason that religion has come about. Of course, each religion will have a different answer to whatever question you care to ask, but nobody expects the entirety of religion to eventually reach a consensus on a given question the way we expect science to.

Sounds fine to me.

it's just a rehash of non-overlapping magisteria, which dawkins has dismantled several times. This is probably just one of the reasons Collins has stopped trying to go toe-to-toe with dawkins with that viewpoint. Scientists are perfectly capable of answering questions such as 'why are we here', certainly as capable as any religious leader. Why aren't they? Many people consider philosophy and ultimately the answer is personal. If some christian leader tells me that the meaning of life is to be true to god or whatever, I'm going to tell him to shove it, I'll be true to myself. If some scientist tells me that the meaning of life is to reproduce, I'll tell him to shove it, I'm not interested. Both are equally capable of answering that question to -themselves- and providing their own viewpoint to others, however. Religion just likes to claim all the cards on philosophy and 'deep questions' because the opposite doesn't hold true. There's nothing in any holy book that answers questions about dark energy, for example.

it's just a rehash of non-overlapping magisteria, which dawkins has dismantled several times. This is probably just one of the reasons Collins has stopped trying to go toe-to-toe with dawkins with that viewpoint. Scientists are perfectly capable of answering questions such as 'why are we here', certainly as capable as any religious leader. Why aren't they? Many people consider philosophy and ultimately the answer is personal. If some christian leader tells me that the meaning of life is to be true to god or whatever, I'm going to tell him to shove it, I'll be true to myself. If some scientist tells me that the meaning of life is to reproduce, I'll tell him to shove it, I'm not interested. Both are equally capable of answering that question to -themselves- and providing their own viewpoint to others, however. Religion just likes to claim all the cards on philosophy and 'deep questions' because the opposite doesn't hold true. There's nothing in any holy book that answers questions about dark energy, for example.

Scientists can obviously try to decide why we are here, but science can't. Just like how lawyers can answer questions about physics, but the law can't.

Things like the nature of good and evil, whether humans in inherently one or the other, how one goes about entering the right afterlife.

None of which are questions that any religion has answered.

Sure, each religion has a different GUESS, but no religion has ever answered those questions, and indeed most religions can't even agree within themselves about the answers!

Furthermore, science answers those questions at least as well if not better. Science says, "we can define 'good' and 'evil' in any of the following ways, all of which include detailed features against which we could compare any given thing, so which definition would you prefer?" and then Science can permit you to check whether any given thing is consistent with your selected definition of "good" or "evil." This includes humans and humanity. Science also provides MORE information about what occurs upon and following death than any religion ever has, and all the information science provides can be personally checked and examined by the individual.


Such things are effectively the reason that religion has come about. Of course, each religion will have a different answer to whatever question you care to ask, but nobody expects the entirety of religion to eventually reach a consensus on a given question the way we expect science to.
It's not about the consensus, as far as I'm concerned. It's just about the answers. I don't see how religion's guesses about the nature of good and evil are any more helpful than the ones science can provide.

Just by way of experiment, I'm going to try bringing this tangent to the new Forum. I want to see what happens. :P

I dunno, I think I have to disagree with Ifreann and LG on this one.

Collins expresses an idea I hear all the time:

"Although there is clearly an overlap between science and religion, neither is an exhaustive source of truth. That is, there are still certain questions that should only be addressed by science or religion."

But I've gotta ask...what questions? People always say there are "some questions" that religion can answer but science cannot, yet nobody ever provides examples of these.

Keep in mind that I'm not going to simply accept the assertion that religion is good at answering moral questions; I don't think it is, so if you do then you will need to make some case for that.

Personally, I think that when people say "there are questions better left to religion," what they're saying is that "there are questions to which religion provides the answers I want to hear." Which is fine, but I wish folks would admit that instead of claiming that religion is actually providing information that is objectively superior.

Wow I am supprised by this Bottle! A woman with your intelect has not worked this one out.

As I'm sure will be said if it hs not aleady, scientce is good for how, how does this work? How did that happen?

Spirtuality is good for the why. Why are we here?

It's like philosophy really, how good is science in answering philosophical qustions?

Personaly I agree with LG and Ifreann on this one. My understanding of science helps me understand how I am here, what process happend to make me, I can understand why I am like I am, I can understand how my head works and why the thoughts I have, I have.

I can't use science to help me understand why I am here, what porpose is there to Life(all life not just mine), a belife in God whether it be correct or incorrect helps me to understand these things.

Spirtuality is good for the why. Why are we here?


But how is it good? It doesn't answer any 'why' questions at all.

Furthermore, science answers those questions at least as well if not better. Science says, "we can define 'good' and 'evil' in any of the following ways

Utter nonsense. If any scientist ever attempted to scientifically 'define' good, I would immediately disregard him as a lunatic. Moral questions are pretty much by definition, inherently unscientific. An ought statement is not a statement about observable physical reality. There are no 'good' particles that can be observed and tested. You cannot empirically test ethics or morals, and therefore there cannot be any scientific answer to moral questions.


I don't see how religion's guesses about the nature of good and evil are any more helpful than the ones science can provide.


Sciences cannot provide any guesses or answers to that question either.

None of which are questions that any religion has answered.

Sure, each religion has a different GUESS, but no religion has ever answered those questions, and indeed most religions can't even agree within themselves about the answers!

Furthermore, science answers those questions at least as well if not better. Science says, "we can define 'good' and 'evil' in any of the following ways, all of which include detailed features against which we could compare any given thing, so which definition would you prefer?" and then Science can permit you to check whether any given thing is consistent with your selected definition of "good" or "evil." This includes humans and humanity. Science also provides MORE information about what occurs upon and following death than any religion ever has, and all the information science provides can be personally checked and examined by the individual.


It's not about the consensus, as far as I'm concerned. It's just about the answers. I don't see how religion's guesses about the nature of good and evil are any more helpful than the ones science can provide.

Just by way of experiment, I'm going to try bringing this tangent to the new Forum. I want to see what happens. :P

I'm not trying to suggest that religion is the authority for these things, but that science has nothing really to do with them. I can't go into the lab and test for the presence of evil, nor examine a soul under a microscope, if indeed such a thing exists. Instead people go to religion for answers about these things. How useful these answers are depends on the individual.

Scientists are perfectly capable of answering questions such as 'why are we here',

Only if (and people regularly do this) you completely obnoxiously redefine the meaning of the question to a question about a linear timeline from the big bang to the present, asking what HAS happened. That's answering a completely different question.

Why aren't they? Many people consider philosophy and ultimately the answer is personal. If some christian leader tells me that the meaning of life is to be true to god or whatever, I'm going to tell him to shove it, I'll be true to myself. If some scientist tells me that the meaning of life is to reproduce, I'll tell him to shove it, I'm not interested. Both are equally capable of answering that question to -themselves- and providing their own viewpoint to others, however. Religion just likes to claim all the cards on philosophy and 'deep questions' because the opposite doesn't hold true. There's nothing in any holy book that answers questions about dark energy, for example.

I agree vaguely, but science is inherently and pretty much definitionally limited to answer only certain questions, about physical phenomena that can be tested by empirical scientific methods. Many questions do not relate at all to an observed physical phenomena, such as moral questions. I don't think religion is any more suited, of course. However (not saying you do), many people use this same reasoning to attack philosophy (of which science is a branch of, technically). Philosophy does not have a limit to a certain technique, that's why often something is better studied in a philosophy class. I mean you wouldn't expect to study something like the problem of evil in a science class. It would be much more appropriate to learn about something like that in a philosophy class.

....
Personally, I think that when people say "there are questions better left to religion," what they're saying is that "there are questions to which religion provides the answers I want to hear." Which is fine, but I wish folks would admit that instead of claiming that religion is actually providing information that is objectively superior.

Science will always provide answers that are objectively superior because science has been specifically designed to find the best answer about objective things.

For example, one of the most important themes for me in my spiritual life is the constant awareness of communion with the universe. It is an ongoing experience, much like meditation. This experience can not be brought about scientifically. There are parallels in science like the unified field theory that all subatomic particles are more or less 'knots' of an all-pervasive energy of which all things are made. But at best, this is an intellectual understanding, a model to be apprehended by the conscious mind and objectively analysed, not an ongoing experience that illuminates my life.

But how is it good? It doesn't answer any 'why' questions at all.

Errrr yes it does?

Errrr yes it does?

Give me an example of a question and the answer - as I really don't understand what you mean. where are these answers coming from except as things people have made up?

Give me an example of a question and the answer - as I really don't understand what you mean. where are these answers coming from except as things people have made up?

Gladly.
Take for example the age old question 'Why are we here?'

That is specificly why, not how, or to put it another way. What is the porpose of human life on this planet?

How would science answer this question?

A Muslim my answer it thusly:

To submit to the will of Allah.

A Christian may answer it:

To gloryify almighty God.

Gladly.
Take for example the age old question 'Why are we here?'

That is specificly why, not how, or to put it another way. What is the porpose of human life on this planet?

How would science answer this question?

A Muslim my answer it thusly:

To submit to the will of Allah.

A Christian may answer it:

To gloryify almighty God.

I don't think science would even ask the question. I certainly wouldn't - why assume there would even be a reason?

Gladly.
Take for example the age old question 'Why are we here?'

That is specificly why, not how, or to put it another way. What is the porpose of human life on this planet?

How would science answer this question?

A Muslim my answer it thusly:

To submit to the will of Allah.

A Christian may answer it:

To gloryify almighty God.

A Galloism may answer it:

To set a Guinness world record for largest number of women fucked in 24 hours by one man.

I don't think science would even ask the question. I certainly wouldn't - why assume there would even be a reason?

Why assume there wouldn't be?

Its a great illustration of the differant midsets. You are right somebody would not even be interested in asking that question, and I would hazzard a guess (and indeed it has been my experiance) that many such people have no use for religon or spirtuality.

However some people, myself included have an overwhelming need to ask and have this question answered.

Does that make either mindest less valid than the other?

I don't look to science to answer my religious questions and I don't look to religion for science. For how the world around me works, I look to science. I can't really explain what religion does for me besides to say I have a need and a desire for spirituality in my life.

None of which are questions that any religion has answered.

Sure, each religion has a different GUESS, but no religion has ever answered those questions, and indeed most religions can't even agree within themselves about the answers!
A "guess" is indeed an answer. Religion does not work on the same epistemology as science; the question is answered not via appeal to empirical evidence of the world, but appeal to their own authority, to emotional completeness, and - ultimately - to faith.

Errrr yes it does?

No, it doesn't. It guesses. It presumes. But it doesn't answer. Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, all have very different ideas of god(s). How can religion be a good way of answering a question, if so many religions have different answers?

A "guess" is indeed an answer. Religion does not work on the same epistemology as science; the question is answered not via appeal to empirical evidence of the world, but appeal to their own authority, to emotional completeness, and - ultimately - to faith.

sure, it's an answer. It's an answer in the same way that "purple" is an answer to the question "what time is it?".

It's AN answer, sure. It's just not a very good one, in that it doesn't actually provide concrete satisfaction to the question. Religion only "answers" the question to people who like that answer.

But it doesn't mean that it's in any way TRUE.

It's AN answer, sure. It's just not a very good one, in that it doesn't actually provide concrete satisfaction to the question. Religion only "answers" the question to people who like that answer.

But it doesn't mean that it's in any way TRUE.

The point isn't that it's true. The point is that it's an answer. It's not that science cannot provide GOOD answers, it's that it can't provide any answer at all, as it's outside its scope. Science can only empirically test and provide hypothesis about observable physical phenomena. Unless you're going to claim that all questions relate to observable physical phenomena that can be tested (which obviously isn't the case, ethical questions are an easy example of this), then science cannot answer EVERY question, only questions it is designed to answer.

sure, it's an answer. It's an answer in the same way that "purple" is an answer to the question "what time is it?".

It's AN answer, sure. It's just not a very good one, in that it doesn't actually provide concrete satisfaction to the question. Religion only "answers" the question to people who like that answer.

But it doesn't mean that it's in any way TRUE.

It also doesn't mean it's in any way false.

We really can't use the same terms when talking about scientific answers and religious ones. We can't test for God, or souls, or the Meaning Of It All. Demanding that religious answers conform to scientific expectations is just about as silly as demanding that scientific answers conform to someone's faith - or, perhaps, wanting to know the legal answer to "Which brand of soda pop is the tastiest?" The fact that there is no sane legal answer to that question - and the fact that people will certainly disagree about the answer to that question - hardly makes any answer to that question worthless or a lie.

The point isn't that it's true. The point is that it's an answer.

So if you don't want true answers couldn't all your spiritual needs be fulfilled by some software that just generates Yoda style pseudo-philosophy?

So if you don't want true answers couldn't all your spiritual needs be fulfilled by some software that just generates Yoda style pseudo-philosophy?

I didn't say I don't want true answers. Read the rest of my post.

Man that's a tough one. Whom to believe? The famous scientist or the moonie? Hmmmmmm?

I didn't say I don't want true answers. Read the rest of my post.

Well the part I quoted is part of your post - and to me that seems to say that you don't if the answers are true as long as there is an answer. The rest of your post is about there are some things that science doesn't have answers to - I don't disagree with that.

One of my own coined sayings is this:
"Theology is the study of what G-d said. Science is the study of what G-d did."

If you can't figure out my opinion on the subject, there is no hope for you.

No, it doesn't. It guesses. It presumes. But it doesn't answer. Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, all have very different ideas of god(s). How can religion be a good way of answering a question, if so many religions have different answers?

Well an answer may be correct or incorrect but it still counts as an answer does it not?

Religoin is totaly subjective anyway so you would expext differing faiths to give differing answers, the point is finding the ones that you are happy beliving.