How Accommodationism and NOMA self-destruct.
Following on from my suggestion that if religion was true, we would not need religion..
The columnist Andrew Brown has a rather strange article in the Guardian that suggests scientists should attempt to understand the mindset of creationists more. Pushing evolution too much will be counter-productive.
There have been excellent responses from Jerry Coyne and PZ Myers. I think I can add something to those with a look at things from a different perspective. This is the inconsistency of the accommodationists, those who believe that science and faith should be promoted as compatible.
Let's start with the conflict between accommodationism and NOMA (Non-Overlapping Magisteria), the idea that religion handles different aspects of reality than science. If NOMA were true, then there would be nothing to discuss with regards to accommodationism. If religious ideas did not deal with some of the same issues as science, there would be no source of conflict. There would still be the possibility of conflict with other rational areas of investigation such as philosophy, but that would be a different matter.
So, the pressure for accommodationism illustrates the failings of NOMA. Claims that NOMA are valid should mean that accommodationism isn't necessary.
There are other interesting contradictions:
It is often claimed that science can't deal with religious issues. But then accommodationism requires that scientists do precisely that, by agreeing on matters of compatibility.
There are demands that scientists are tolerant of religious views within scientific contexts, but where are the balancing demands? Would Andrew Brown and those who share his opinions be happy for science teachers to present views which challenge faith in religious classes?
I would suggest that the accommodationists need to make their minds up. If they want to support NOMA, then they can't insist on toleration by scientists of religious claims about physical reality, such as acceptance in any way of the creationist mindset in a scientific context. If they don't want to support NOMA, then they have to accept that religion and science conflict. Then this becomes a political matter of the toleration of conflicting ideas. That should be fine, providing religion is kept out of science classes (which is all that most non-accommodationists ask for).
The columnist Andrew Brown has a rather strange article in the Guardian that suggests scientists should attempt to understand the mindset of creationists more. Pushing evolution too much will be counter-productive.
There have been excellent responses from Jerry Coyne and PZ Myers. I think I can add something to those with a look at things from a different perspective. This is the inconsistency of the accommodationists, those who believe that science and faith should be promoted as compatible.
Let's start with the conflict between accommodationism and NOMA (Non-Overlapping Magisteria), the idea that religion handles different aspects of reality than science. If NOMA were true, then there would be nothing to discuss with regards to accommodationism. If religious ideas did not deal with some of the same issues as science, there would be no source of conflict. There would still be the possibility of conflict with other rational areas of investigation such as philosophy, but that would be a different matter.
So, the pressure for accommodationism illustrates the failings of NOMA. Claims that NOMA are valid should mean that accommodationism isn't necessary.
There are other interesting contradictions:
It is often claimed that science can't deal with religious issues. But then accommodationism requires that scientists do precisely that, by agreeing on matters of compatibility.
There are demands that scientists are tolerant of religious views within scientific contexts, but where are the balancing demands? Would Andrew Brown and those who share his opinions be happy for science teachers to present views which challenge faith in religious classes?
I would suggest that the accommodationists need to make their minds up. If they want to support NOMA, then they can't insist on toleration by scientists of religious claims about physical reality, such as acceptance in any way of the creationist mindset in a scientific context. If they don't want to support NOMA, then they have to accept that religion and science conflict. Then this becomes a political matter of the toleration of conflicting ideas. That should be fine, providing religion is kept out of science classes (which is all that most non-accommodationists ask for).
Scepticism - down the rabbit hole
How sceptical are you? We all have limits. I find it fun to explore them.
Let's start off easy.
Santa Claus? Yes or no? No (sorry!), as there are major logistical problems with present delivery, let alone levitating reindeers.
Alien abductions? These are scientifically possible, but the evidence just doesn't seem to work. Everything is hearsay, or rumour. Or conspiracy theory.
God? Somewhat harder. But most reasonable people will agree that the question is still open.
I have a particular view about this. If religion were true, we would not need religion. God would be an obvious fact of the universe, and we would not need preachers to keep insisting to us that he really does exist.
So, let's now make things a bit more personal. Can we trust our own feelings? What does it mean when we think something has 'meaning', or 'purpose'? Do we think these things really exist as attributes of objects, or are they just what we feel? Are they just emotions? Are emotions real?
Now let's go deep down the rabbit-hole.
Should we believe in a 'self'? That there is a unified thing that we can label as 'me'. The core teachings of Buddhism say that this does not exist. Can we conceive of this? This leads to apparently paradoxical questions like "who is it who is believing that they don't exist", but there is only a paradox if one accepts the 'who'.
Is this the level at which scepticism fails? After all, what justification do we have for believing that a 'self' exists? It has to be more that a linguistic trick ('who is it..'). It has to be more than just a feeling, as feelings are unreliable...
The next step is even stranger:
Does anything really exist?
See how fun this can be?
Let's start off easy.
Santa Claus? Yes or no? No (sorry!), as there are major logistical problems with present delivery, let alone levitating reindeers.
Alien abductions? These are scientifically possible, but the evidence just doesn't seem to work. Everything is hearsay, or rumour. Or conspiracy theory.
God? Somewhat harder. But most reasonable people will agree that the question is still open.
I have a particular view about this. If religion were true, we would not need religion. God would be an obvious fact of the universe, and we would not need preachers to keep insisting to us that he really does exist.
So, let's now make things a bit more personal. Can we trust our own feelings? What does it mean when we think something has 'meaning', or 'purpose'? Do we think these things really exist as attributes of objects, or are they just what we feel? Are they just emotions? Are emotions real?
Now let's go deep down the rabbit-hole.
Should we believe in a 'self'? That there is a unified thing that we can label as 'me'. The core teachings of Buddhism say that this does not exist. Can we conceive of this? This leads to apparently paradoxical questions like "who is it who is believing that they don't exist", but there is only a paradox if one accepts the 'who'.
Is this the level at which scepticism fails? After all, what justification do we have for believing that a 'self' exists? It has to be more that a linguistic trick ('who is it..'). It has to be more than just a feeling, as feelings are unreliable...
The next step is even stranger:
Does anything really exist?
See how fun this can be?
Star Trek - a review
Was it good? Yes, it certainly was. It was one of the best Trek films, perhaps even better than Voyage Home. It managed to re-start the franchise but without any loss of the feeling of the old Trek.
It was a visually stunning film, and directed at a fast pace. The designs of the federation craft were interesting. There was quite a separation between the sleek and gleaming bridge and the pipe-filled engineering sections, which did seem more realistic than in previous representations. There was much more grime, with shuttlecraft looking like they had seen action. The warp effect was much more what you would expect - no just a few stars sailing by. I think all this worked. There was a real feel of a working starship.
The plot worked well, even though there was some distinctly dodgy science ('red matter'? 'planet drills?').
What really stood out was the scripts and the acting. The acting was outstanding. Chris Pine was a better Kirk than Shatner ever was; a convincing and (just) likable mix of stubbornness, womanising and bravado, but a fierce intelligence that Shatner never really managed to convey.
McCoy, Scottie, Sulu, Checkov and Uhura were all played well, with no sense of any corny attempts to impersonate the original series characters.
The undoubted star though is Zachary Quinto as Spock. This is really Spock's story. Quinto does an amazing job. Spock becomes a deep and interesting character, and not what he started off as in the original series - a strange alien plot device.
This film really has the feel of the original series, but with so much more - really first-rate acting, and the best special effects.
Thoroughly recommended.
It was a visually stunning film, and directed at a fast pace. The designs of the federation craft were interesting. There was quite a separation between the sleek and gleaming bridge and the pipe-filled engineering sections, which did seem more realistic than in previous representations. There was much more grime, with shuttlecraft looking like they had seen action. The warp effect was much more what you would expect - no just a few stars sailing by. I think all this worked. There was a real feel of a working starship.
The plot worked well, even though there was some distinctly dodgy science ('red matter'? 'planet drills?').
What really stood out was the scripts and the acting. The acting was outstanding. Chris Pine was a better Kirk than Shatner ever was; a convincing and (just) likable mix of stubbornness, womanising and bravado, but a fierce intelligence that Shatner never really managed to convey.
McCoy, Scottie, Sulu, Checkov and Uhura were all played well, with no sense of any corny attempts to impersonate the original series characters.
The undoubted star though is Zachary Quinto as Spock. This is really Spock's story. Quinto does an amazing job. Spock becomes a deep and interesting character, and not what he started off as in the original series - a strange alien plot device.
This film really has the feel of the original series, but with so much more - really first-rate acting, and the best special effects.
Thoroughly recommended.
The Accommodationism Debate
I have started to read through the debate, and I have found the poor level of discussion from some contributors quite astonishing. Guess which side of the debate I am talking about?
The attempts to defend accommodationism seem so very vacuous. They are a bodge-up of poor philosophy, politics, hand-waving, straw men and recursion.
The philosophy involves the tired old matter of metaphysical/methodological naturalism (or to simplify: 'hands off my supernatural toys').
The politics is 'stop or you will frighten the religious horses'.
The hand-waving is 'look, I am really just going to give you a good argument, just wait until my next blog post'.
The straw men are arguments claiming that non-accommodationists want to kick religious people out of science. Absolute nonsense.
The most astonishing is the 'recursion', where an attempt is made to support accommodationism by describing yet more accommodationism. This seems to be Ken Miller's approach: He says that because he manages to allow religion and science to co-exist in his own mind, then that should be fine. The problem is that the way he describes how he accommodates religion and science sounds quite bizarre. When Ken has his lab coat on as scientist his religion seems to shrink to a semi-deism, but when he takes his lab coat off that same religion allows him to say "Amen" when a priest hands him a wafer and says "this is the body of Christ".
If I were Coyne, I would despair at how little his clear message has been understood, and how it has perhaps deliberately been distorted.
The attempts to defend accommodationism seem so very vacuous. They are a bodge-up of poor philosophy, politics, hand-waving, straw men and recursion.
The philosophy involves the tired old matter of metaphysical/methodological naturalism (or to simplify: 'hands off my supernatural toys').
The politics is 'stop or you will frighten the religious horses'.
The hand-waving is 'look, I am really just going to give you a good argument, just wait until my next blog post'.
The straw men are arguments claiming that non-accommodationists want to kick religious people out of science. Absolute nonsense.
The most astonishing is the 'recursion', where an attempt is made to support accommodationism by describing yet more accommodationism. This seems to be Ken Miller's approach: He says that because he manages to allow religion and science to co-exist in his own mind, then that should be fine. The problem is that the way he describes how he accommodates religion and science sounds quite bizarre. When Ken has his lab coat on as scientist his religion seems to shrink to a semi-deism, but when he takes his lab coat off that same religion allows him to say "Amen" when a priest hands him a wafer and says "this is the body of Christ".
If I were Coyne, I would despair at how little his clear message has been understood, and how it has perhaps deliberately been distorted.
Accommodationism is false
Why my opinion is hardening: accommodationists are like climate change deniers.
The problem with abortion
I have a problem. I believe that in a secular society we should all agree that religious beliefs are a personal matter, and that arguments about public policy should involve rational debate and evidence.
But I see a real problem with abortion. If you honestly believe that a zygote is a person, then you believe that hundreds of thousands of murders are happening in the USA every year. Surely it is immoral for you not to act to prevent these 'murders'?
I have no idea how the conflict between religion and secularism can be dealt with regarding abortion.
But I see a real problem with abortion. If you honestly believe that a zygote is a person, then you believe that hundreds of thousands of murders are happening in the USA every year. Surely it is immoral for you not to act to prevent these 'murders'?
I have no idea how the conflict between religion and secularism can be dealt with regarding abortion.