tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post3207907558001131991..comments2023-10-14T09:40:06.690-05:00Comments on Jean Kazez: Atheism, Loud and Quiet (part 2)Jean Kazezhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00592593002719828153noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-62701050505990512009-07-17T02:18:18.991-05:002009-07-17T02:18:18.991-05:00If you believe in god you
could say that science ...If you believe in god you <br />could say that science creates<br />models/mechanisms to explain how the STUFF god made<br />--the particulars-- works, based on the assumption that sensual evidence can confirm a theory. This is science's realm and no more.<br /> But scientism says this is the only way to understand what existence is, which I find absurd.<br />Assumes what it must prove --<br Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-6272586718662748232009-07-15T17:05:27.811-05:002009-07-15T17:05:27.811-05:00Well on this issue I think you and I are in pretty...Well on this issue I think you and I are in pretty close alignment.<br /><br />My quibbling about the analogies (once I got over my sophistry) was more about exploring the structure of the analogies--seeing if it shed light on what kinds of compatablity we might be talking about. Presumably the fact that all three analogies offered as examples of incompatability had the same structure seems Faustnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-46244886761173278452009-07-14T21:18:11.310-05:002009-07-14T21:18:11.310-05:00Can't type much on tiny keyboard....
Hey, you...Can't type much on tiny keyboard....<br /><br />Hey, you need an occasional break from all the extreme beauty. <br /><br />I agree it's suggestive that smart people can be both scientist and religious....it forces you to take compatibility as a real possibility. But Mooney & Co seem to think it shows more than that, and that seems wrong.<br /><br />That's all I can manage.Jean Kazezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00592593002719828153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-17330039944176165212009-07-14T17:15:20.035-05:002009-07-14T17:15:20.035-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-3308243892936660832009-07-14T13:19:37.898-05:002009-07-14T13:19:37.898-05:00Oh and this is good:
http://todayinreligion.blogs...Oh and this is good:<br /><br />http://todayinreligion.blogspot.com/2009/04/phil-zuckerman-on-denmark-and-sweden.htmlFaustnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-57785383972807178022009-07-14T13:11:36.244-05:002009-07-14T13:11:36.244-05:00Aloha! Do I owe you a medal?
No I get it. But I ...Aloha! Do I owe you a medal? <br /><br />No I get it. But I find the analogies themselves to be a bit facile--that was the point of my first post. The fact that there are skilled productive scientists that are also religious is not something that should be casually dismissed, though it is not, in and of itself conclusive proof of "compatibility" depending on what we mean by "Faustnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-60326746761206533532009-07-14T12:39:05.910-05:002009-07-14T12:39:05.910-05:00Must be brief...
Faust, I don't think these a...Must be brief...<br /><br />Faust, I don't think these analogies prove that science and religion are incompatible, but challenge the facile attempt to show they are compatible just by giving examples of religious scientists.<br /><br />aloha...Jeannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-90891423819299279362009-07-13T23:38:06.922-05:002009-07-13T23:38:06.922-05:00When I made the arguments offered in my previous c...When I made the arguments offered in my previous comment I was interested in exploring the semantics of the analogies being used to critique the notion that the existence of religious scientists serve as evidence for the compatibility of science and religion. In a sense I was suggesting that the analogies seemed like sophistry to me, and so I used a bit of sophistry to twist them around and showFaustnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-63055019459757416422009-07-13T02:10:30.752-05:002009-07-13T02:10:30.752-05:00With this post I've seen 3 people disparage th...With this post I've seen 3 people disparage the notion that "because there are religious people that are also scientists we have evidence that the two are compatible." <br /><br />The examples given as to why this is an underwhelming justification for the claim of compatability are:<br /><br />Coyne: It's like saying marriage and adultery are compatible because there are marriedFaustnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-66915111995199636162009-07-12T19:10:42.608-05:002009-07-12T19:10:42.608-05:00Tea: The majority of people are never going to le...Tea: The majority of people are never going to learn how theories come to be. To tell you the truth, I would have a hard time explaining how natural selection works or Einstein's theory of relativity or Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. I suspect that most educated people whom I know, none of them scientists, would also find it difficult and yet all of us accept that state of s. wallersteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17448905469871566228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-11254331690651495072009-07-12T18:22:16.202-05:002009-07-12T18:22:16.202-05:00Maybe. Or maybe the fact that we want the kids to ...Maybe. Or maybe the fact that we want the kids to memorize theories (instead of explaining to them how those and other theories came to be in the first place) enables the religionists and post-modernists alike to make smug comments about "how unreliable scientific thinking is" whenever a certain theory is shown to be false. <br /><br />The inability to distinguish between scientific *Tea Logarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12988083093668660064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-73046573862604146312009-07-12T17:15:18.058-05:002009-07-12T17:15:18.058-05:00When we debate how to teach science, we're no...When we debate how to teach science, we're not talking about MIT. We're talking about what goes on in a secondary school with a bunch of students who in general will never study science again nor read a book on science in their lives and who often are not particularly intelligent. Sorry. The average IQ is 100. Half the population has an IQ of less than 100. So we want them to s. wallersteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17448905469871566228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-62697230174912060352009-07-12T12:00:11.020-05:002009-07-12T12:00:11.020-05:00"If you see science in this way, than you are..."If you see science in this way, than you are right that science and religion are compatible. But this is only because you don't understand what teaching science is about."<br /><br />But wait. I didn't say science and religion were compatible. I said this is a very hard question, a question of philosophy, not science proper. I said I think science educators should simply teach Jean Kazezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00592593002719828153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-61398040256881237352009-07-12T06:39:34.588-05:002009-07-12T06:39:34.588-05:00"Science educators should stick to transmitti..."Science educators should stick to transmitting science--evolution, climate scientists, neuroscience, etc. etc."<br /><br />This seems to me a very odd view of what science is, and this might also help explain why people like Mooney on one hand and people like PZ on the other might be talking past each other. <br /><br />Mooney and you seem to think of teaching science in terms of Tea Logarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12988083093668660064noreply@blogger.com