Again I have run into the character limit that Blogger has in place for comments while responding to someone’s comments. Here is an exchange that I have been having with someone who commented on the excerpts I posted from Mike Murray’s essay, “Intelligent Dishonesty (by design).” This exchange may provide you with a deeper insight into what Murray was saying in his essay. Some of the earlier comments may also be from the same person, but since he or she has chosen to remain anonymous I cannot tell, so I have only included the last two comments which hold a common thread.
Anonymous said…
The author seems very confused about how science works. It is not like theological scholarship. No scientist (not even the "Greats") is treated like some infallible prophet whose every view is correct purely by virtue of their authority. Their writings are not treated as scripture, to be believed in toto. Each idea is accepted or rejected individually, on the basis of its utility in providing a coherent framework for the interpretation of observations and its success in prediction. For example, science rejects alchemical theory, even though Newton was a great believer of it who wrote extensively on the topic (and many other rather kooky things, for that matter). Also, Einstein's attempted refutation of nonlocal interpretations of quantum mechanics (the EPR "paradox") has itself been refuted by the theoretical work of Bell and experimental results of Aspect. The views of the "Greats" on creator-spirits will similarly be accepted or rejected as part of science on the basis of their concordance with observation, not on the authority of their advocates.
My response:
You seem to be implying by your contrast that theological scholarship entails theologians being treated like infallible prophets or their writings being treated as scripture. Could you explain why you think that is the case? Or perhaps I have misunderstood your comparison.
I'm also not sure why you think the author is confused about how science works. He never says that science is like theological scholarship. Rather, he is asking the reader to imagine what it would be like if scientists were required to uphold the same standard that some seem to expect that theologians must adhere to, the point being that if it is absurd to expect scientists to be infallible, it is equally wrong for people to expect the same of theologians.
You misunderstood. I did not mean to liken theologians to prophets. I took issue with the "sins of omission" part of the article and meant to point out that you can't apply the practices of theological scholarship to scientific questions.
The scriptures - Biblical writings of / about prophets, apostles, etc - are treated by theologians as divinely inspired, i.e. as having an enormous level of authority, in some cases as the literal word of God. So the message is treated as important in large part because of the esteem in which the messenger is held, e.g. anything that Jesus is recorded as having said or done is regarded as significant purely because it was Jesus doing/saying it. Therefore in theological scholarship it is indeed a "grievous intellectual sin" to selectively quote from such sources. This is because theology recognizes no independent criterion for judging truth - for example it is not possible to say "Jesus was right about this, but wrong about that". One must take an approach akin to historical biography in which the whole person must be represented in a balanced way.
The author seems to have a misguided belief that the same approach should be applied to science. But this theological approach to scholarship is not relevant to science, because science is not a personality cult. (Relative) "truth" is judged not on the authority of the messenger but on the usefulness of the message. It doesn't matter who said it, but whether it makes sense. It is not a "sin of omission" to ignore the parts of a scientist's world view which do not stand up to scientific scrutiny or for which there is no evidence (e.g. the examples in my last post). In particular, the author is simply wrong to suggest that belief in a creator was somehow a part of the "evolution of physics theory". It may have been part of the belief system of some of the key players, but does not appear in any way as part of the theory that was developed - for example, Einstein's comments on religion are not part of his scientific writing, and none of his scientific work depends on this belief or involves it in any way. The theories of physics are logically independent of the existence or otherwise of a creator. I challenge you to find one university-level physics textbook that invokes a creator as part of the logical structure of physics.
My response:
It seems that you may be conflating two separate points that the author is making. This is the section from Murray's essay that you are taking issue with:But those making the argument for "matter evolving to consciousness" -- without any help at all from any kind of Creator -- commit a grievous intellectual sin: the sin of omission. For, while they faithfully report some facts relating to the evolution of physics theory, they studiously edit out that which fails to serve their postulates (or, worse, that has the potential of undermining them altogether).But in calling out this "grievous intellectual sin," the author is not applying some standard specific to theological scholarship. Rather, he is pointing out a general fallacy that applies in all areas of scholarship: the fallacy of using someone's statements to support a position contrary to that which they actually hold. The point the author is making is that it is fallacious to cite Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton as part of the argument "against a Supreme Being's hand in the creation of the universe" while omitting the fact that, in Murray's words, "they were all seeking to reveal the hand of God, not to disprove it. They were all believers in a Supreme Being, one who they (devoutly) reckoned created the universe." This is the "intellectual dishonesty" that Murray describes in his concluding paragraph.
The author seems to have a misguided belief that the same approach should be applied to science.I believe you are misreading Murray here. Nowhere does he imply that the standards used in theological scholarship should be applied to science. What he actually says is, "Too many scientists hold theologians to standards to which they, themselves, do not adhere." His point is that many scientists seem to have a double standard: theological claims must be proven wholly correct in every regard, else they can be dismissed entirely, whereas scientific claims can be subject to correction and revision without prejudice. Murray asks what I consider to be a very valid question to make this point:
"If members of society now said to scientists (as many of them are saying to theologians): "Sorry, if you're wrong even a little, you're wrong completely ...and you have nothing to say to us," would they deem it reasonable?"Of course this would be unreasonable, and Murray's point is that it is therefore invalid for these scientists to hold theologians to this absurd standard. So Murray is not applying the standards of theological scholarship to science; if anything he is saying that the standards for scientific scholarship should be extended to theology.
In particular, the author is simply wrong to suggest that belief in a creator was somehow a part of the "evolution of physics theory". It may have been part of the belief system of some of the key players, but does not appear in any way as part of the theory that was developed - for example, Einstein's comments on religion are not part of his scientific writing, and none of his scientific work depends on this belief or involves it in any way.While I would agree with you that Einstein was not an appropriate example for the author to use, I believe that you are mistaken in claiming that the scientific work of Kepler, Newton, Galileo, Bacon, and many of the other "fathers" of the scientific revolution did not involve their theological beliefs. This post addresses in a simplified manner how the faith of these scientists was integrally tied with the theories and physical laws that they discovered. There are links at the bottom to references that provide more information.
The theories of physics are logically independent of the existence or otherwise of a creator. I challenge you to find one university-level physics textbook that invokes a creator as part of the logical structure of physics.
This depends on what you mean by "logically independent" and "part of the logical structure of physics." If you are only saying that a person does not need to acknowledge the existence of God to apply Newton's law of universal gravitation or Kepler's laws of orbital mechanics, then I acknowledge your point. But if you are claiming that on a deeper level the theories of physics themselves can exist apart from a creator, then I would strongly disagree. For the theories of physics do not explain their own existence. Newton's law of gravitation does not provide an explanation for why masses behave in this manner. Science can observe and define mechanisms, but it cannot provide ultimate causation. These founding fathers of science openly acknowledged God's essential role in the foundational workings of the universe.
Some statements to that effect:
“The chief aim of all investigations of the external world should be to discover the rational order and harmony which has been imposed on it by God and which He revealed to us in the language of mathematics.” (Johannes Kepler, Defundamentis Astrologiae Certioribus, Thesis XX, 1601)
“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.... This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God…. In him are all things contained and moved.” Isaac Newton, Principia
C.S. Lewis commented in his book, Miracles: “Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator.”
Writes Morris Kline in Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty: “The search for the mathematical laws of nature was an act of devotion which would reveal the glory and grandeur of His handiwork.... Each discovery of a law of nature was hailed as evidence of God's brilliance rather than the investigator's.”
To these scientists of the Revolution, these laws would not exist nor would they be ascertainable were it not for God having created the universe to be this way.
Since physics textbooks are concerned about the mechanics and applications of these laws rather than the fundamental cause for their existence, this is why you will not find a creator being invoked in these textbooks. But that does not mean that God's handiwork is not entwined within the fabric of physics itself.
Logging you in...
Kendalf 12p · 793 weeks ago
Andrew · 791 weeks ago
You say "Rather, he is pointing out a general fallacy that applies in all areas of scholarship: the fallacy of using someone's statements to support a position contrary to that which they actually hold."
As I said in my last post, this "fallacy" does NOT apply to scientific scholarship. Science is not like biography and "truth" in science is not based on the authority of the originator of an idea.
The body of knowledge & understanding we call "science" consists of those ideas which have stood up to the rigors of scientific scrutiny and proven themselves to be useful, regardless of whose ideas they are and regardless of whether any other ideas of the originator are regarded as scientifically credible.
As I said in my last post,
"It is not a "sin of omission" to ignore the parts of a scientist's world view which do not stand up to scientific scrutiny or for which there is no evidence (e.g. the examples in my last post)."
In my experience as a professional scientist, I can tell you that this happens all the time. Most scientists contribute a fair proportion of ideas which turn out to be either wrong, not useful, or less useful than another idea. The power of the scientific method is that the ideas are tested for their agreement with empirical evidence and/or their internal logical coherence, allowing useless ideas to be identified and eliminated. It does not matter who contributed the idea - each idea is individually retained or eliminated on the basis of its usefulness. So the fact that Newton's gravitational theory is useful does not imply we should also believe Newton's ideas about alchemy. And conversely, the fact that Newton had some alchemical beliefs does not undermine the scientific value of his theory of gravitation.
I have plenty of other complaints about the original article. For example, the author either has very little understanding of the "big bang" theory or is deliberately misrepresenting it in order to support a rhetorical point. The theory contends that space and time originated in the "big bang" singularity, i.e. it was not an "explosion" INTO space-time but and "explosion" OF space-time. It is therefore as meaningless to ask what happened "before the big bang" as to ask someone to walk north of the north pole.
Kendalf 12p · 791 weeks ago
Where I disagree with you is your contention that Mike Murray is saying anything that is in opposition to this point, or that he is levying any kind of criticism against the scientific method or the workings of science. Murray's criticism of the particular scientists that are the object of his essay is reserved for when they go beyond science; when they get "off the subject," as he put it at the beginning of his essay.
When these scientists cite Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and Newton as supporters of the view that God had no hand in the creation of the universe, they are engaging in historical scholarship, not science; thus the fallacy that I described fully applies to these statements, and Murray is justified in calling this a "sin of omission." Murray specifically targets scientists in his essay, but non-scientists make these same claims as well, and the statements are just as fallacious whether a scientist or a non-scientist makes them.
For example, would you consider it valid for someone to say that Richard Dawkins is a proponent of Intelligent Design, citing that he is on the record for saying that life on earth could have been designed by some advanced alien civilization, and that evidence for a designer could be found in the details of molecular biology? Wouldn't you say that this is a distortion of what Dawkins really believes, and that it is fallacious to imply that Dawkins is a supporter of ID by omitting what he has said against it? In the same way, it is dishonest to imply that the giants of physics past would agree with the idea of disproving God's hand in the creation of the universe.
It is valid to say that Newton's laws of motion are not predicated on a belief in the natural states of certain elements. But it would be false to say that Aristotle did not believe that motion was the result of matter returning to its natural state of affairs. It may be valid to say that our application of gravitational theory today is not contingent upon a belief in God. But it is indeed wrong to say that Newton did not see God as a necessary cause for gravity. Murray's point is that it is intellectually dishonest to imply that Newton believed otherwise.
What is being omitted is not some particular scientific aspects of a theory, what is being omitted are key aspects of the contextual history of a particular scientific theory. Murray is not trying to point out a fallacy within science; he is pointing out a fallaciously incomplete representation of history. This is what I documented at the end of this current post.
Scientists may be fully proficient in their understanding of current scientific theories, but many are also sadly deficient in their knowledge of the history of science. I submit that it is dishonest to present a revisionist view of the history of physics that tries to omit the belief in the role of a Creator.
In regard to your complaint about Murray's use of the Big Bang, what exactly are the statements that you find to be in error? I don't see Murray asking what happened "before the big bang," as you seem to imply.
Andrew · 791 weeks ago
I'm not sure where Murray gets these ideas from. I've never heard a scientist make a statement like that. As a scientist, my problem with religious belief is not that it is wrong about some things, but that some religious types refuse to learn from this and instead try to twist evidence around to support their beliefs.
In my experience, scientists largely ignore religion, but where they do not, they see religion as having some validity in the realm of interpersonal relations and ethics (if they think it has any worth at all), and science as the way to find out about the natural world. It's only when religion strays onto the "turf" of science that things get acrimonious.
It's true that the accepted view of science is something which evolves in large and small ways all the time. This is not a weakness of science but its greatest strength. The changes are not random but are improvements which make scientific understanding ever more closely consistent with observational evidence. It's like evolution, with scientific creativity (ie coming up with new ideas) playing the role of natural variations and scientific rigor (culling the bad ideas on the basis of evidence) playing the role of natural selection. So scientific "evolution" is like "survival of the fittest ideas", and produces ideas which become increasing better "adapted" (useful & consistent with observations). Science has the humility to learn from its mistakes, and this is how scientific progress is made.
In contrast, religions are often highly dogmatic (particularly the Abrahamic traditions) and in some cases have maintained a dogmatic position for hundreds of years in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence (and have a long history of persecuting or executing dissenters, persisting even to today in some countries). So from my point of view, the problem with dogmatic religion is not that it is demonstrably wrong in part, but that religious orthodoxy is so deeply resistant to admitting this fact and learning from it. As I see it, the key problem is that religion does not accept any independent arbiter of "truth" or "usefulness". The thinking often goes "it was written in the holy book, so it is true by definition", end of argument. Over time, as contradictory evidence builds up, it leaves the dogmatic religious types looking increasingly silly. I would have much more sympathy for religions which have the humility to admit that their understanding is incomplete and a work in progress (and therefore wrong, at least in part) and which honestly work towards a deeper, more complete understanding in a way that discards the components of the faith which are discovered not to make sense.
Science has made tremendous strides by refusing to cling to the past. If we continued to revere Aristotle we'd still be in the middle ages. Perhaps religious thinkers could learn something from that, and develop a more honest, openminded, evidence-based approach to understanding? I mean, why should anyone expect the writing of some bronze-age peasants to be the final word on all things?
(This has become a bit of an anti-dogmatic manifesto - I'd like to point out that Murray does not seem to be a dogmatic Biblical literalist himself, but has only "a vague, conceptual belief in some kind of "supreme being."")
Kendalf 12p · 791 weeks ago
I can't speak for Murray's sources, but even in the last two weeks I've had a discussion with a trained scientist who made the statement to the effect that since there was no evidence for Noah's flood, that the rest of Scripture can simply be rejected.
It's only when religion strays onto the "turf" of science that things get acrimonious.
What are some of the ways that you feel that religion has strayed onto the turf of science?
In contrast, religions are often highly dogmatic (particularly the Abrahamic traditions) and in some cases have maintained a dogmatic position for hundreds of years in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence (and have a long history of persecuting or executing dissenters, persisting even to today in some countries).
I will restrict the scope of my comments here to Christianity, as that is what I am most familiar with. I readily acknowledge that there are currently and historically many examples of religious people who chose to hold dogmatically to tradition against the evidence, although I would argue that many of the most popular examples of this (such as the trial of Galileo) are often grossly oversimplified and misrepresented. And I would also submit that scientists are not immune to holding dogmatically to their preferred theories, even when the evidence seems stacked against them (the example of Fred Hoyle and his insistence on a steady state cosmology). And paradigm shifts in science are also fraught with conflict and resistance from the "old school". I am reminded of Max Planck's quote, "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
As I see it, the key problem is that religion does not accept any independent arbiter of "truth" or "usefulness". The thinking often goes "it was written in the holy book, so it is true by definition", end of argument. Over time, as contradictory evidence builds up, it leaves the dogmatic religious types looking increasingly silly.
Perhaps you may have heard the expression, "All truth is God's truth"? I believe that Christians who resist discernible truth from sources other than Scripture are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I find myself in agreement with the position that God is the author of both Nature and Scripture, and that therefore there is no conflict between the revelation (or record) of Nature and the revelation of Scripture. This does not mean that there will not be disagreements about how Nature and Scripture agree, because both are subject to the interpretations of human beings who do not see all things clearly. The evidences from one can help affirm or correct the interpretations of the other. With humility, reason, and a desire for truth, both scientists and theologians can arrive at a truer understanding of the universe.
Kendalf 12p · 791 weeks ago
I am in complete agreement with you here. And I believe that there are already positive examples of Christians who would fit that description. Also, if you look at the writings of the historic giants of Christian thought, such as Thomas Aquinas and Augustine, I believe that you will indeed find just such a vibrant, open-minded, evidence-based approach to understanding. For example, take these excerpts from St. Augustine's De Genesi ad Litteram libri duodecim (trans: The Literal Meaning of Genesis):
"In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search for truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it" (St. Augustine De Genesi ad Litteram I, xxxxi)
"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion." (St. Augustine De Genesi ad Litteram II, xix)
For a contemporary example of such a thinker, I would highly recommend the book, God's Undertaker, Has Science Buried God? by John Lennox, professor of mathematics at Oxford University. You may be interested in this short talk from his website on, "Is Christian Faith against Reason?"
Andrew · 791 weeks ago
However, I'd also put creation "science" / intelligent design into that same category - clinging to a few pages of folklore from thousands of years ago in spite of truly overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Darwin was a Christian, so why do so many Christians see his ideas to be in conflict with their faith?
Andrew · 791 weeks ago
Well that's just silly, sloppy thinking. However, the presence of factually incorrect passages in the Bible obviously *does* undermine the position of those who claim that all of it is literally true.
It's interesting - I've never heard something like that from a non-religious person, but I have heard it from fundamentalists, to the effect of "I believe that every word of the Bible is literally true, and disbelieving any small part of it would undermine my belief in all of it". This seems a quite untenable way to think, unless one resorts to deliberate ignorance & doublethink.
Andrew · 791 weeks ago
People are people and even those trained to question their own beliefs find it difficult. Plus, of course, there is politics and reputations involved. However, I think this picture is an exaggeration - it may be true in a few cases (though I can't think of any) but I don't believe this is the way many scientific revolutions have occurred. Take plate tectonics, quantum theory and relativity for example. These became accepted "canon" in a matter of decades (much sooner in the case of plate tectonics, once good evidence was available). I know of no example in which a religious "truth" has changed this rapidly in the face of contrary evidence, and I see this rigidity as a great weakness of religious thought.
I would also point out that unlike many religions, science has never resorted to war or executions to enforce and promulgate its view of the world.
Kendalf 12p · 791 weeks ago
I think you may be the one who is painting too rosy a picture of what a scientific revolution (as opposed to the Scientific Revolution) involves. Historian of science Thomas Kuhn described in depth how the paradigm shift involved in a number of scientific revolutions occurred, and it was hardly a peaceful process. Though I am loath to cite Wikipedia, it does offer an easy to reference list of classic Kuhnian paradigm shifts in the sciences, which includes all three of the cases that you cited. We need to realize that Max Planck was speaking from personal experience when he gave the quote I cited earlier.
I know of no example in which a religious "truth" has changed this rapidly in the face of contrary evidence, and I see this rigidity as a great weakness of religious thought.
Were there particular examples of this reluctance to change that you had in mind?
I would also point out that unlike many religions, science has never resorted to war or executions to enforce and promulgate its view of the world.
You speak of religion and science as if they are personal agents, but they do not have a life of their own. It is people who use (and abuse) both religion and science. And like you said, people will be people. Certainly great evils have been done in the name of religion, but great evils have also been done in the name of science, such as the research conducted by Nazi scientists during the Holocaust or the Tuskegee Syphilis Study. Throughout history, science has been drafted to concoct deadlier and more destructive weaponry, culminating in atomic weapons, biological agents, and other weapons of mass destruction. At the same time, science has resulted in advances in healing and medicine. I would argue that it is not "science" in itself that drove these changes, but the people who were applying science. And this includes both theists and atheists.
Now, if you say that religious beliefs can motivate or drive people to do certain things, I would agree with you. But which specific goals and actions are to be pursued obviously depends on the content of these beliefs. What needs to be evaluated then is not "religion" itself, but the actual teachings and essential beliefs that are foundational to that religion. Again I can only speak for Christianity, but I would daresay that the great evils (such as the Crusades and the Inquisition) that have historically been done in the name of Christianity have certainly not been in keeping with the teachings of Christ.
I think that it is important to avoid the error of people like Richard Dawkins when they lump all "religions" together with one fell swoop. I make no effort to defend religion in general. It is the Christian faith alone that I uphold here. Yes, even among Christians there are disagreements on various aspects of belief, but this is no different than what you find among scientists. I would recommend that which C.S. Lewis presents as "Mere Christianity" as a good point from which to start in understanding and evaluating the basics of the Christian faith.