So many claims of this nature are based on negative evidence. That is, if science cannot explain X, then your explanation for X is necessarily true. Not so. In science, lots of mysteries are left unexplained until further evidence arises, and problems are often left unsolved until another day. I recall a mystery in cosmology in the early 1990s whereby it appeared that there were stars older than the universe itself—the daughter was older than the mother! Thinking that I might have a hot story to write about that would reveal something deeply wrong with current cosmological models, I first queried California Institute of Technology cosmologist Kip S. Thorne, who assured me that the discrepancy was merely a problem in the current estimates of the age of the universe and that it would resolve itself in time with more data and better dating techniques. It did, as so many problems in science eventually do. In the meantime, it is okay to say, “I don’t know,” “I’m not sure” and “Let’s wait and see.”
To be fair, not all claims are subject to laboratory experiments and statistical tests. Many historical and inferential sciences require nuanced analyses of data and a convergence of evidence from multiple lines of inquiry that point to an unmistakable conclusion. Just as detectives employ the convergence of evidence technique to deduce who most likely committed a crime, scientists employ the method to determine the likeliest explanation for a particular phenomenon. Cosmologists reconstruct the history of the universe by integrating data from cosmology, astronomy, astrophysics, spectroscopy, general relativity and quantum mechanics. Geologists reconstruct the history of Earth through a convergence of evidence from geology, geophysics and geochemistry. Archaeologists piece together the history of a civilization from pollen grains, kitchen middens, potshards, tools, works of art, written sources and other site-specific artifacts. Climate scientists prove anthropogenic global warming from the environmental sciences, planetary geology, geophysics, glaciology, meteorology, chemistry, biology, ecology, among other disciplines. Evolutionary biologists uncover the history of life on Earth from geology, paleontology, botany, zoology, biogeography, comparative anatomy and physiology, genetics, and so on.
Once an inferential or historical science is well established through the accumulation of positive evidence, however, it is just as sound as a laboratory or experimental science. For creationists to disprove evolution, for example, they need to unravel all these independent lines of evidence as well as construct a rival theory that can explain them better than the theory of evolution. They have not, instead employing only negative evidence in the form of “if evolutionary biologists cannot present a natural explanation of X, then a supernatural explanation of X must be true.”
The principle of positive evidence applies to all claims. Skeptics are from Missouri, the Show-Me state. Show me a Sasquatch body. Show me the archaeological artifacts from Atlantis. Show me a Ouija board that spells words with securely blindfolded participants. Show me a Nostradamus quatrain that predicted World War II or 9/11 before (not after) the fact (postdictions don’t count in science). Show me the evidence that alternative medicines work better than placebos. Show me an ET or take me to the Mothership. Show me the Intelligent Designer. Show me God. Show me, and I’ll believe.
Most people (scientists included) treat the God question separate from all these other claims. They are right to do so as long as the particular claim in question cannot—even in principle—be examined by science. But what might that include? Most religious claims are testable, such as prayer positively influencing healing. In this case, controlled experiments to date show no difference between prayed-for and not-prayed-for patients. And beyond such controlled research, why does God only seem to heal illnesses that often go away on their own? What would compel me to believe would be something unequivocal, such as if an amputee grew a new limb. Amphibians can do it. Surely an omnipotent deity could do it. Many Iraqi War vets eagerly await divine action.
See what we're tweeting about
71 Comments
Add CommentMoby Dick, last paragraph of Chapter 85;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"And how nobly it raises our conceit of the mighty, misty monster, to behold him solemnly sailing through a calm tropical sea; his vast, mild head overhung by a canopy of vapor, engendered by his incommunicable contemplations, and that vapor- as you will sometimes see it- glorified by a rainbow, as if Heaven itself had put its seal upon his thoughts. For d'ye see, rainbows do not visit the clear air; they only irradiate vapor. And so, through all the thick mists of the dim doubts in my mind, divine intuitions now and then shoot, enkindling my fog with a heavenly ray. And for this I thank God; for all have doubts; many deny; but doubts or denials, few along with them, have intuitions. Doubts of all things earthly, and intuitions of some things heavenly; this combination makes neither believer nor infidel, but makes a man who regards them both with equal eye."
Though I agree with the basic principle stated this month, is there not some profound vitality and mysterious intuition that quickens our contemplations.
Let me ask, doth both truth and provability necessarily coincide? Is science the only form of worthwhile knowledge? Shipmates, where doth intuition and inspiration come from? Is it only Evolution that has equipped us to contemplate it itself, and nothing greater?
And, and..., I'll cease...
Ishmael,Jr.
One more thing is necessary to prove anthropogenic global warming... that is a willingness to ignore the fact that the globe has been cooling for the past 10 years. I certainly do not deny that it did warm between 1975 and 1998. But, was it anthropogenic, caused by CO2? Call me a skeptic. CO2 has continued to increase the past 10 years, while even James Hansen of NASA, one of the most ardent anthropogenic global warming advocates, has admitted in his 2008 summation, "2008 was the COOLEST year of the new century" (emphasis mine). I would believe if only the claimed correlations were in fact real. Please don't forget the Roman Climate Optimum, either. It was WARMER than today. Two lessons here, 1) WARMER climate is BETTER. If this cooling trend continues, we will find out what the real disaster is. 2) Please tell me, if you can, how much of which fossil fuels those Roman chariots were burning?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've had my say about the issue presented here that I actually have some knowledge about. Hope it provides some food for thought.
Here are some quick thoughts on Michael Shermer's Opus 100, and the event he says would help him believe in the Judeo-Christian God.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJesus's first miracle as recorded in scripture was to turn water into wine. It reminds us that the water from rain helps to grow the grapes that ferment on the vine, and thus, Jesus imitates what God does through nature. Later, He cures the sick, controls the wind and sea, and raises the dead. Growing a limb on an amputee is not mentioned, probably because this event would violate and redo the reality God has already created. That is, by nature human and amphibian genomes are different with respect to regeneration.
There has been a slow convergence of evidence from history, philosophy, science and the personal testimony of countless individuals, and it all points to theism.
The intrinsic structure to the universe that we recognize as physical laws, mathematical equations and natural selection all imply intelligence; and therefore, it makes sense why random events acting within this underlying structure are able to imitate the intelligence and self-awareness that is already there.
This does inspire awe, but not of the unknown.
I've not once, not never (double negative for lay sake) asked a man or woman to abandon their faith, but I have not once, not never allowed anyone from getting away with claiming absolute truth in my presence while utterly unhindered with the burden of proof.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow, though I'm liberal enough to allow anyone the will to believe anything that they may choose, I tolerate poorly the choice to hijack a philosophical social relativism in order to secure for oneself a piece of truth like so much real estate.
You may feel better claiming that creation is equally valid as evolution in answer to the origin of life, but there is no equal validation here unless all evidence for evolution is ignored.
There can only be one valid cause. You can not have both.
You can spin poetic silk, and wax sentimental all you like, but in the end there is evidence in favour of just one.
And that, I am sure, is the gist of this essay.
Okay, but can't we also apply your scientific method and request for proof the moon landing? I never saw anyone walk on the moon, so show me the proof that it isn't all a hoax? What are you going to show me? A moon rock that can't be verified if it is really from the moon since no one has been there. Or how about some grainy photos that can be faked? Eyewitness accounts of those that "were really there?" If we apply your logic, then you can't prove that the moon landing really happened either.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience comes to an understanding of the observable world by observation. It is clearly the superior method by which understanding of the observable universe is derived.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience is limited in the same way that any system of mathematics is limited. It's validity can only be proven from outside the system. This is, by definition, an impossibility. Even if science comes to correctly describe ultimate reality, we can never know for sure that such success was achieved.
Historically, people have found God where science had not yet determined understanding. There are not many places left. What came before our present universe is one. The existence of consciousness is another.
Science is a flawed system just like any other. While I agree it is better than belief in only the supernatural or unobservable world, we still must realize that science is simply a creation of the western, mostly secular world. And like any system it has its share of flaws and of incorrect theories which are constantly being disproved as more information is gathered.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow did we or anyone prove global warming based on your criteria of starting with a null hypothesis? Because two things happen at the same time, you can't attribute cause and affect. I guess high CO2 levels therefore have caused my hair to start turning gray. Since when did we start with a null hypothesis and prove the earth was not the center of the solar system/universe. Making your argument credible by stating a fact (the null hypothesis) and making it a sine qua non of all things leads the reader to think you are applying it to all your arguments which you haven't done. Some things don't lend itself to experiment and since we don't have an identical earth with lower CO2 levels to compare, the argument is null. Global warming will always be an opinion and NEVER be a fact since we can't prove or disprove it. As to acupuncture and whatever else was naysayed in the first paragraph, maybe your vast experienc in dealing first hand with patient care can explain the benefit people get. REMEMBER 25% of a study group benefits from placebo. PERIOD. Be invalidating acupuncture, you would have to invalidate many mainstream therapies that haven't even been subjected to double blind studies (as best as can be done on a human) such as back surgeries. Skeptics or idiots, it is all in your take on things. Skeptics have been forever keeping science in the dark ages from Coperincus to Lister (germ theory), to Pasteur to the guy who suggested ulcers were caused by a bacteria, skeptics have hindered more discoveries and ridiculed the gifted for too many centuries to garner any respect. It doesn't take a gifted person to say I don't believe it, it takes someone special to recognize and accept that their beliefs are wrong and change them based on new evidence. I have only practiced medicine for 17 years and the number of things that were proven in medicine has changed tremendously. The coelacanth was unproven for years, that didn't mean it didn't exist, it's not that I don't believe in aliens (from space, not from down south), I just don't believe they have landed on earth yet. I guess arroganace is a trait needed by skeptics just as surgeons must be. I was the smartest doctor on earth when I graduated medical school and the longer I practiced the more I found that wasn't and had much to learn. And being a skeptic and reporting on other people's discoveries as facts (acupuncture, hypnosis, homeopathy, global warming, etc.) should be contrary to skeptics, how does a skeptic know who to trust? Gotcha
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy go so far? Our lost history will tell us everything if we will quit lying to ourselves. Facts about the pyramids prove we didn't build them. (1/4 off square, 2,300,000 block) Facts about the sphinx proove our estimate of its age is off by a huge amount(4'deep erosion lines. do the math) Ancient documents indicate the church is the moon, and we come from the church (genetic lab) Photo's of mars reveal lost civilizations ( why such poor photo's again? really. Start looking here on earth at those places that command excellence. We indeed are being decieved for the profit of others. quit being naive. Think, Observe, Explore, Learn. Our time is indeed running out. But then, I'm guessing you already know that if you really seek the truth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@phoongdan: It may be flawed but your supporting claims sound more like rhetoric from Rush Limbaugh than scientific evidence. Or perhaps you picked a poor topic for rebuttal; there exists ample evidence of man's visitation to the moon. In fact, man has left items there that will be visible for thousands of years. Lunar vehicles, foot prints, mirrors used for reflecting lasers - a little homework and you will find that the moon has been visited multiple times by mankind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you want to know the universe, you should study science. If you want to know yourself, you should study Philosophy or Religion. Although Science is quickly closing that gap.
I don't see a need for an ultimate answer, It's the quest for knowledge that is its own reward. The journey is more important than the destination. In fact, a destination isn't even needed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople invented gods to answer questions. Those answers fail because they stop serious exploration. but answering questions is what we're about.
Some day we may be at the point where we can look for answers to where the multiverse comes from. And we'll have to invent a megaverse, then an ultraverse... the quest goes on.
I don't see a need for an ultimate answer, It's the quest for knowledge that is its own reward. The journey is more important than the destination. In fact, a destination isn't even needed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople invented gods to answer questions. Those answers fail because they stop serious exploration. but answering questions is what we're about.
Some day we may be at the point where we can look for answers to where the multiverse comes from. And we'll have to invent a megaverse, then an ultraverse... the quest goes on.
I got a good chuckle out of this article. The skeptic is anything but. He's selective in his skepticism. He talks about the stars older than the universe and the response is: We'll figure out a way to make the universe older. And the skeptic says: OK, cool. And when they do he says: Wow, they were right.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe skeptic says that SOME climatologists cry out anthropogenic global warming. Other climatologists say. Nope, natural cycles. The skeptic embraces the anthropogenic crowd because, um because why? He doesn't give a reason other than citing all the various disciplines the AGW crowd uses, even though they are the same ones used by the non AGW crowd.
He's not a skeptic at all. He's just an ideologue.
What differentiates most religious claims about god from truly untestable notions (such as the flying spaghetti monster) is their reliance on historical details. If Mohamed didn't exist, write down the Qu'ran as angels spoke to him (the first claim easier to disprove than the latter, but neither impossible) the foundation for Islam is gone. Disproving the exodus from Egypt (not simply finding an absence of evidence) would undercut Judaism. Disproving the existence of Jesus and particularly his resurrection would undercut the Christian notion that he is God revealed (in the very way you claim God doesn't reveal himself). Positive evidence exists (the Qu'ran, the Torah, the New Testament) but very little negative evidence (other than speculation about the accuracy of these documents, based on the assumption of their inaccuracy).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGreat article! Sums up my beliefs in a nutshell.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Skeptics have been forever keeping science in the dark ages from Coperincus to Lister (germ theory), to Pasteur to the guy who suggested ulcers were caused by a bacteria, skeptics have hindered more discoveries and ridiculed the gifted for too many centuries to garner any respect. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou're not really talking about skeptics, though. You're talking about hidebound people who automatically reject anything that flies in the face of "accepted" belief or data. That's not what a skeptic does. As Mike points out, a skeptic says "show me."
If you assert people who automatically rejected Pasteur were skeptics doing a disservice to humanity, then you also have to accept that the Catholic Church did a similar disservice by rejecting Heliocentrism solely on the basis of its non-conformance to Scripture. And that fundamentalists are doing the same today by selectively ignoring (or twisting, etc.) evidence for evolution. But this doesn't just happen in science -- there are still people who insist Columbus came first, for instance.
Knee-jerk rejection of new ideas is not how skeptics work. You're confusing them (us?) with Deniers, who simply reject anything that fails to conform to existing canonical explanations.
"it takes someone special to recognize and accept that their beliefs are wrong and change them based on new evidence."
Yes. This is absolutely correct. And, in my experience, most people find accepting new ideas a terribly difficult process. The emotional investment many people make in a given idea makes disproof difficult to accept, no matter how much evidence is presented.
Last, being laughed at isn't evidence someone is right. Some people are simply cranks or very misguided -- witness N-Rays, Lysenko, Lamarck, hollow-earth theories, and dozens of other examples of cases where someone was simply wrong.
Well, for me, it just doesnt make sense that an elaborate universe such as ours spontaneously created itself. The only logical answer is that there is an omnipotent force that constructed it all. (Not a man in the clouds, just a force that resembles concious thought and a will to create)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI know religions can never be proven scientifically. The whole idea of faith is to beleive without facts or impenetrable theories. So proving a religion would immediately disprove it.
I beleive in asking questions, I beleive in a want for a total answer that has no need for solid explanation.
I am particularly disappointed that the author choose to write "Climate scientists prove anthropogenic global warming..". We do not "prove" things in science. As a physicists, I can state this with absolute certainty. Statements are "proved" by mathematicians. Scientists use mathematics as a way of logically deducing consequences of propositions, or hypothesis. I should note that I believe in anthropogenic global warming, but find the statement that such a thing can be "proven" by scientists to be counter to what science is and how it is done. The author should really know better.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for the authors attacks on religion (I can think of no better way of describing his statements), He completely misunderstands the purpose of prayer. Perhaps he should consider the end of Christ's prayer: "not my will, but Yours be done."
Its turtles all the way down
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf I were Al Gore I would respond this way.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShut up, its settled science. Now give me some money, My Jets been idling for hours and I'm tired of this damn snow!
In I Want To Believe , Michael Shermer asks the question But how can we tell the difference between what we would like to be true and what is actually true? . He then says The answer is science. A better answer would be critical thinking . Its critical thinking that begins with the null hypothesis, etc. Science is successful because it uses critical thinking. Scientists may have invented critical thinking, but critical thinking and science are different things. What difference does this make, you may ask. None, if youre talking to people who understand this. But a world of difference if youre talking to people who are afraid of science or think science is cold, uncaring, and against people and religion i.e., the vast majority of people in the U.S. For various reasons, which I wont go into here, we do a very poor job of teaching science in our schools (K-12). Science has gotten a very bad rap amongst non-scientists because it talks a different language than most people do, and too few scientists make an effort to describe complex things at a level that non-scientists can understand. And we use words in a different way a scientific theory is very different than a non-scientific theory. A non-scientific theory is roughly the same as a scientific hypothesis (at their best). If we want people to use critical thinking, we have to describe it in terms that they can understand and accept. There are many non-scientifically oriented people who can, and sometimes do, use critical thinking. At their best, lawyers, judges and jurors use it. At their best, politicians use it. At their best, historians use it. At their best, teachers use it. And so on. I know many people who accept bunk as truth because they cant think critically. Its important for us to talk to them in a way that they can understand and relate to. I think that referring to critical thinking rather than science will help everyone learn how to think. At least it wont turn them off.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe that Homer Simpson is a devoted consumer of "Duff" beer. Otherwise, an interesting read.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs I see it homo sapiens does not have a window to know any "truth", whatever that might be. What we humans, particularly scientists, can do is come up with "predictability". Predictability is our "truth". And before something is categorized as "truth" we may refer to as "intuition". There are no limits to the category of intuition.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWater into wine. You're not a religious scholar are you. Jesus was a radical within the Jewish religion that came to the view that they could export the religion to gentiles as well. Withing Jesus' movement, there was the faction that said yes, export the religion to the gentiles, but they can never be full members because they are not Jews, God's chosen people. Jesus lead the faction that said no, anyone and everyone can be a full member of this new version of Judaism. Much of the bible was an instruction manual for preachers to know what the favoured doctrine was. A little coded, but if you were in the know, you could interpret the word.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWater into wine is a parable about Jesus saying to his followers that Gentiles must be admitted to full membership. At the holy meal supported by the faction that said that gentiles couldn't be full members, the members were set out in their levels of initiation. The head table, the priests, his second and king. (Forerunner of the trinity). Tables one to five contained Jewish members in their various grades. Tables 6 to 9 contained mixed gentiles and Jews advancing in study. The Gentiles could only advance as far as table six. The serving of bread and wine was limited to the dais and tables one to five. Water and bread was served from tables six to nine. Along comes Jesus, the first socialists, everyone is equal and says, "No, everyone gets bread and wine." He turned water (Gentiles) into wine (Full initiates). Saving the best till last refers to the talent pool available to the new religion by accepting gentiles at the highest levels, and thus maximize its sell-ability. A parable of instruction for those on the inner to know what doctrine to administer. So no miracle. Just factional politics. Not so different from today's world.
Knowledge of universe through science, occult or supernatural will always put us into skepticism until we master the science of faith.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@phoongdan
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience is in no way a product of the Western Secular world. Arab religious scholars invented the foundation for mathematics and chemistry, the Chinese 1500 years ago were an advanced scientific society while Western Europe lingered through the uninformed dark ages, and various native people's of North and South America had advanced scientific societies too.
Aaww, but you missed the point entirely. SHOW ME that evidence. I'm not saying mankind didn't walk on the moon, I'm saying that you can not produce evidence that anyone did. How are you going to show me equipment on the moon as proof that someone landed there? How are you going to show me footprints? From doctored photos? The point is that if you argue (in the article) that UFOs can't be real because no one can produce tangible evidence, then I can likewise argue that you can't prove the moon landing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd where you got that Rush Limbaugh statement, I've no idea - I've never listened to the man and from what I know he's ultra right wing - what does that have to do with an argument about proving that mankind walked on the moon? It sounds like a struck a nerve with you. Good. Why is it that those that support the moon landing the loudest always seem the most insecure about it? Hmmm...
Yes, good. I was hoping someone would make that point. Because I think most people in the West believe they are the creators of science and logical thinking.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInterestingly, I had one guy tell me before (whom I had obviously rattled) that the American flag was visible on the moon and could easily be viewed with a child's telescope. Of course, no flag can be seen using such a telescope.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"And like any system it has its share of flaws and of incorrect theories which are constantly being disproved as more information is gathered."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut scientific theories are still disproved through the scientific method. If you have a system that is more accurate and self-correcting, I'd like to hear it.
"Most people (scientists included) treat the God question separate from all these other claims. They are right to do so as long as the particular claim in question cannot—even in principle—be examined by science."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReally? If I claim that the world is being run by little invisible pink leprechauns who can do anything at all, but you can't see them, is it "right" to treat this separately from science just because it cannot be examined? Is the weight of other evidence such as physics, biology, etc., not to be considered as worth more than such a completely basis-free claim? When there is a preponderance of evidence for case A, and none whatsoever for case B, is it really the job of science to throw its hands up and say "well, gee, sure, ok, cuz it's null!"
I don't think so. I think when someone hands you a load of baseless assertions, you owe it to yourself to say "this stuff is baseless and I have counter assertions (reality) that have very strong, overlapping and interweaving support... so I think you're full of it. Burden of proof is on you, and until then, nonsense."
As for the "historical evidence" for Christianity, the bible is not evidence. It is an assertion. Evidence would be something that backs up the supernatural assertions -- not the mundane history, such as such and such a city was here or there and the king was so-and-so, but the turning of persons into salt and walking on water -- and there is no such evidence. There is also no contemporaneous evidence for the existence of Jesus; Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus, Pliny the Younger and all the rest were born after AD 30, and so could not have known Jesus.
Consider Tom Clancy's "Hunt for Red October." The CIA exists. Some ships in the story exist. The cities and oceans exist. But neither Jack Ryan, the hero of the story, or the Red October, the sub at the center of the story, are real.
Take away from this: The fact that the bible contains true historical elements is not in any way able to stand as assurance that the supernatural elements, not to mention Jesus himself, are not entirely made-up out of whole cloth. In fact, since we have no evidence whatsoever of any kind of supernatural activity, science does have something to say, and that something is "nonsense." There is no more evidence for the Christian God than there is pink leprechauns.
Extraordinary claims? Then we need extraordinary evidence. No evidence? Really? Then you're dealing with what is certainly purest fiction. Religion is bunk until there is proof otherwise, and that is not the case.
“The answer is science”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes but the science is so complex, with so much depth, and controversy, and so many sceptics.
Many Scientists have said, we are only an illusion, the complexity start briefly with space and time, and with such things as “past, present, future”.
The author claimed that healing due to prayer is testable and can be in a controlled environment. How is this so? If there is such a God, why would we assume that we can control this God to always listen to our prayers? It is beyond scientific domain simply because God cannot be put into our controlled experiment. Nature behaves the way it is, human is more complicated, God is beyond our control. The claim that the author made is unfortunately betrays science and critical thinking which the author tries to promote.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWould Galileo pass peer review today?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2009/04/would-galileo-pass-peer-review-today.html
Would Galileo pass peer review today?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2009/04/would-galileo-pass-peer-review-today.html
Religion may be your gripe but God doesnt always have to be put in the bag with religion. Is God real? I dont consider that a religious question more a question we are unable to answer like what is time and how do you explain quantum mechanics?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI like this article. Arogant thinkers look at exolution and cosmology and say,' well that explains it all' but I think the unknown allows for a God and even the God of the monotheistic religions. It comes down to do you think the homo sapiens of 5 thousand years ago who had the same capacities as we do today simply without the ladder of knowledge, do you think these people made up all the stuff about YWHW? The monotheistic religions are not like the other man made ones and if you think they are then you need to do some reading.
It is arogance thats says there is no God. It is arogance that claims there is a God and I know what he wants of us. If science would stick to objectively looking at the world around us and presenting only the data and observations then I think many people would be more accepting of the discipline. It is a tool but it is not end of all knowledge. There are huge holes in the entire scientific world veiw and to say we have a enough knowledge to say there is no God or to say that the universe simply began from....nothing or even the multiverse...where did it come from? What is time? How do you explain non-locality? Quantum mechanics? So much to consider before just throwing in the towel and saying there is no God and the universe just is. There are strong philosophical arguments for God and even the God of the monotheistic tradition and there are arguments against but there is in no way a scientific argument that disproves God like so many atheist like to claim about evolution.
It is pretty funny to think that our random evolution would allow us to develope a mind that could correctly realize all that there is in the natural world. Science is a discipline and a tool but it not the end all of philosophical thinking. We cant even correctly understand many of the theories discovered by science by way of math. We know they work but we cant visualize or even fully comprehend them. Look on all that exist with humble awe and use science to find out more about our universe and our evolution. But dont think you got it all down, how many times in the past did arogant thinkers come to the conclusion that we now know it all, only to have quantum mechanics and relativity rock their world.
Sry for my terribad spelling in advance, no spell check on this work pc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRich, I'd be pleased to have a dialogue with you around "the existence of conciousness". You can reach me on woolalan at telia.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Skeptics July column raises the great questions about belief in God. (1) Why doesnt God provide compelling proof of His existence? and (2) If God is there, why doesnt He help amputee victims and, by implication, everyone else suffering the ills of mortal life? If God is all powerful, then He is all-responsible. Therefore, logic dictates, all of the ills of life can be laid at the door of a negligent God. Who would want to believe in Him?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGod sets the rules for learning the truth about Himself. He emphatically does not force anyone to believe. As the ancient prophet Joshua stated: . . . choose you this day whom ye will serve; . . . but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD. (Joshua 24:15) Similarly in the life of Christ there is no hint of His even attempting to compel adherence to His teachings. Unfortunately much of Christian religious history since then has been a display of merged religious and governmental power being used to compel religious orthodoxy in whatever flavor was most convenient for the then ruling elite. It has been a spiritual disaster.
An almost cursory review of the teachings of Christ would do much to answer the great questions raised by the Skeptic. Just one story, in John 9, is indicative of the answers. It is the story of Jesus and His disciples coming upon a man blind from birth. And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? They spoke the common belief that misfortunes must be due to either your own or someone elses fault. Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him. In other words, suffering is not proof of sin or Gods displeasure (although it may be), or even of His negligence. Somehow tragedies, even being born blind, are intended to permit God to work in the lives of men. As difficult as many lives may seem, Christ seemed confident that the works of God could be made manifest in them.
Jesus then healed the man. The story did not end there. It goes on to tell how this miraculous proof of Gods power was dealt with by the cultural elite and arbiters of orthodoxy of that day the Pharisees. When the now seeing man was brought before them they at first thought it was a fraud, not believing that the man had ever been blind. When it was clear he was born blind and had been healed, they interrogated him. His answers were simple and straight forward a model of what honest testimony should be: A man that is called Jesus made clay, and anointed mine eyes, and said unto me, Go to the pool of Siloam, and wash: and I went and washed, and I received sight.
Why couldnt the Pharisees accept this compelling evidence of the power of God? It was because accepting would require them to accept Christ, and surrender their self-assumed and self-aggrandizing role of being the source of truth. It was an impossible hurdle for them, as it has been for so many since then. Because the evidence of Gods power was irrefutable in this miraculous healing, the Pharisees fell back on saying despite the healing that Jesus could not be a prophet because He had violated the Pharisees own litmus test for truth: He had healed on the Sabbath. Other Pharisees, faced with similar proof of His miraculous power to deliver the sick and afflicted (both physically and spiritually), fell back on the ridiculous argument that He was doing it by the power of Satananything to avoid having to become believers. (See Luke 11:15, also 11:16).
The healed blind person gave the proper answer to their skepticism: Whether he be a sinner or no, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see. He also gave the proper answer to the Skeptic: Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth. Dont expect, or require, God to work miracles in your life or give answers to the great spiritual questions unless you are a worshipper of God and doeth His will. That process for finding out the truth about God was expressed so clearly by James that no one can misunderstand: If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord. (James 1:5-7). The resurrected Christ did not appear to the Pharisees and rulers, who continued to live in complete ignorance of the most important event in human history. An example of how not to obtain religious truth was Herod, who eagerly desired to see Christ perform some miracle, but not only saw no miracle but was the one person Christ refused to speak to. (Luke 23:7-9). Herod was the murderer of John the Baptist.
Whether or not God exists, and is willing to play a role in our lives, is a far more significant question than has ever been resolved by the scientific method and the Skeptics null hypotheses. God has made it clear He will force no one to believe, but there is a way provided for anyone to know who chooses to follow the procedure He has prescribed. I have done so. I know there is a God.
I generally like the authors comments, rationality and explanation of various scientific methods, but would appreciate references to the sources that support statements made, which were particularly absent regarding controlled experiments that have been made regarding testing prayed for vs not prayed for patients, and never like to presume a statement is fact without seeing the research. I attempted a google search and have not found any such studies, but get several hits of claims of studies finding positive results.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWant to see some molecules being moved around. Check out You Tube White Gasoline vapor. Proof is there.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDavid Hume posited not the relativity of truth, but the impossibility of truth for the human. The basis of the problem lies in the human belief that truth exists and that he can discern it. Science has only theory, which no matter how powerful or demonstrable, still awaits to be overturned.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat Skepticism Reveals About Science: Sometime back, SciAm published an article concerning a collection of Bigfoot tracks under investigation by a reputable scientist. I submitted a letter, unpublished by SciAm, voicing my skepticism of the activity and I attempted to point out that since hominoids tended to live in groups and that a group of this sort would require at least dozens of specimens for the the species to be viable, that it seemed unlikely that there is such a creature, since no specimen has ever been found. As with Shermer's UFO comment: "...keep searching and get back to us when you find something."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisphoongdan, are you serious? Prove to me china exists right now. If you don’t that’s proof it doesn’t. Are you really that simple minded? Prove to me you exist right now. Hurry up or you’re going to stop existing…Please show me where in the scientific method it says that proof of a hypothesis must be provided by any and everyone, at any and every time otherwise the hypothesis is false. Let’s try it the sane way. You question the validity of humanity’s numerous visits to the moon so why don’t you provide a valid logical rebuttal to all existing evidence? And not just the one or two pieces of evidence you seem to know about but ALL the evidence. Just like in a court of law. The prosecution has made their case. Now it’s your job to show that the evidence they presented is not evidence at all because it can be reasonably explained in other ways. What you seem to want to do is walk into the court room at the end and say, “I haven’t heard any evidence therefore there isn’t any. Case dismissed.” You clearly have nothing but a cursory understanding of the history of space flight. What that says is that you have no interest in the truth, because otherwise you would know more than you do now. Clearly you only have an interest in perpetuating your own delusions. A note to all those individuals out there who have a lot to say about things they clearly know nothing about, Read A Book! Chances are someone here has so you’re not fooling anyone. You’re just showing yourself to be a fool.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe power of the scientific method is that it has checks and balances. It removes subjectivity and replaces it with objectivity. Because of that I don’t have to conduct every scientific experiment that has ever been done in order to have confidence in scientific theories. I am certainly free to do so and as long as I follow appropriate methodologies my results are just as valid as any scientists. I can be confident in scientific results precisely because it is a formal process. Just as I can be confident getting into an airplane or building without having to know exactly how they were constructed and personally checking that every rivet is tight because I know there is a system, a process that does all that for me. Is it perfect? No. Planes crash, buildings burn. Still, relatively speaking, they are rather safe. A religious friend suggested that because of the few cases of scientific fraud that have occurred, science was untrustworthy. I pointed out that the people that showed those frauds for what they were were scientists. On the other hand when religious leaders are guilty of fraud; it is not their religion that reveals it. It is science. Checks and balances.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"In our analysis, 2008 is the ninth warmest year in the period of instrumental measurements, which extends back to 1880 (left panel of Fig. 1). The ten warmest years all occur within the 12-year period 1997-2008. The two-standard-deviation (95% confidence) uncertainty in comparing recent years is estimated as 0.05�C [ref. 2], so we can only conclude with confidence that 2008 was somewhere within the range from 7th to 10th warmest year in the record. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisreference:"GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
Global Temperature Trends: 2008 Annual Summation
Originally posted Dec. 16, 2008, with meteorological year data. Updated Jan. 13, 2009, with calendar year data."
One way to lie, is to say a half truth...
negationism and sketipticism are very diferent things.
Unfortunately, as many nonsensical claims are made on the basis of things that are true as are based on things that are false. Debunking the fallacies arising from any major premise therefore is neither a necessary nor sufficient approach to proving the truth of a premise. Shermer wastes too much time dealing with nonsense without getting down to the nitty gritty of what must be true.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe scientific method is a tool, nothing more, for establishing the reliability of our beliefs. It should not be treated as being exhaustive of the realms of possibility. Everything Shermer believes is based on his acceptance of the authority of his sources, even including the authority of the instrumentation which are the eyes and ears of science.
The authority of people who claim to have undergone a mystical experience which cannot be replicated by science has been accepted by many who claim to have corroborated such experiences by their own ongoing similar experiences. Sheremer's inability (to date) to share in these common experiences is NOT sufficient to disqualify them from serious consideration, thankfully.
katyjohn9, you have been afflicted with a physiological virus called religion. This virus has mutated many times over the millennia allowing it to adapt to the world in which it finds itself. To ensure its own survival it has evolved many intellectual traps that protect it from the weaker inquiring minds. These traps are fallacies. Anyone with a basic understanding of critical thought can see through them. But unfortunately, the illiterate and week minded are easily fooled by them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“God sets the rules for learning the truth about him. He emphatically does not force anyone to believe.” Of course he does not directly tell anyone these rules and if you don’t believe or you follow the wrong rules you will be tortured in hell for eternity.
Proof of god’s existence is in Jesus’ miracles. This is question begging. There is little to prove that the Jesus of the bible actually existed let alone performed miracles. Lots of miraculous things have been associated with Paul Bunyan but to date, no one has formed a religion around them.
While asserting the above, religious people state that god does not require proof he requires faith. Hard to believe that a great and powerful being that endowed his people with the power to reason would demand from them gullibility. That he would punish them for their failings yet also expect them to rely on one another to understand his plan for them. If I had a message and I entrusted it to established liars to pass that message on, should I be surprised if people question it or simply ignore it.
Question: Why does God permit the suffering of children who are truly innocent? Answer: “but that the works of God should be made manifest in him” or “no man can know the mind of god” in other words, “I know it makes no sense, stop asking so many questions!” How about I write a book and in it I’ll state that I am god, and then I will define the rules that determine how one proves that I am god and at the bottom I’ll put in a blanket statement that says, if anything I do or say seems to contradict my assertion that I am god, one must assume it is because of their inability to understand me and my greatness. Then, despite my great power I will do nothing to help those that need help. Yet, I will still demand absolute obedience. For those who do not comply there is the promise of eternal suffering.
If god did exist, he shouldn’t be worshipped. He should be hunted down and destroyed. That’s how you deal with terrorists.
yes...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHe had experimenetal data to suport his claims...
Regarding his thoughts on UFOs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat did I see trailing a four engined jet airplane at full cruise above the Florida Keys?
An umber globe. Golden on the sunward side. No markings or protuberances. Solid in it's appearance. No rambunctious movements, just a steady movement to the west.
It wasn't an imagining. It was large and maintaining pace with a large aircraft at a (near?) cruising altitude.
So tell me of a balloons that move along crisply a mile behind a commercial aircraft which are equal to/or greater than the aircraft's size.
It is the skeptics belief that the bizarre does not NEED explanation. They do not exist by their definitions. A scientist, who is not a poseur, wants to know why the bizarre exists. It is the next stage of evolving thought to do so.
I took no photos but I watched that aerial parade for fifteen minutes. Was I temporarily insane or did I see an unexplainable phenomena?
I've never been forcibly confined, held a crypto TS clearance in the USAF, managed a healthy set of careers, kids and educations.
I know the world extends beyond our common day experiences. I would like to think that serious folks do so too.
I know my ancestors did not see infra-red but I suspect it existed without their direct knowledge. Debunking can be as knee-jerk as free-floating belief. Measured responses are the hallmark of people who can be flexible enough to accept that the body of knowledge that we possess is as limited as we make it.
Peer review is certainly not the solution if they will not accept contrary notions, suitably supported, as potential explanations of the periphery's experiences.
As a profound example, see the alternate views of 9/11. You may not want to believe those folks but they make their case with the sources that are readily accessible.
@robert schmidt: I told my son that he had to go into a room where he would be strapped down by strangers, one of whom would cut open his belly with a knife and remove a portion of his intestines. He would then sew together his raw flesh with a needle and thread, or use staples, and then it would take several weeks for him to recover fully from this trauma. He didn't submit willingly to this torture because of any explanation I gave him, although I tried. Ultimately he submitted to these grievous injuries because he trusted me and believed that the suffering he was going to undergo would be best for him in the long run. Why then is a person "afflicted" when they believe that whatever suffering they may or may not undergo here on earth, may be better for them or their fellow sufferers in the long run? Why, also, would I let his brother suffer the scrapes and bruises he endures on the soccer field just to get a ball through the goal posts, when I could easily do it for him, with no injury to either of us?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBrerlou, those are idiotic examples. We all know that there are challenges in life that help us grow. We even choose forms of recreation and entertainment that may cause short term pain, fear and frustration that long term give us a thrill or sense of accomplishment. But tell me where is the benefit when a child is sexually, mentally and physically abused and then brutally murdered? Never knowing love in his/her short life. What benefit did that child receive in return? How about the child born with severe birth defects that allow her to live just long enough to be consciously aware of her suffering? How did god work through that child? How about the children born into famine? Living just long enough to know hunger and disease, but never being able to play or enjoy life the way all children should. How has god made those lives meaningful?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRecently my brother and sister both had children. These new additions to our family have brought us such tremendous joy. I keep thinking how lucky these kids are to have so many people around them who love them unconditionally and express their love for them at every opportunity. But they will have little memory of these times as they grow. What kind of god designs our brains in such a way that the memories of the greatest times of our life fade? Certainly not the “god of love”.
If god’s work requires that he tortures and murders innocent people, or even just stands by and watches while it happens then perhaps he should take his work elsewhere!
But of course this isn’t the case. This just illustrates how the existence of god can’t be reconciled with the realities of everyday life. On the other hand, natural processes have no intent and no responsibility. Evolution does not “try” to maximize happiness. It has no magic powers that it can use to “save” us. It is not responsible for its “creation”. Humanity must look out for itself. We must guarantee the quality of life for our children. We must strive to give meaning to every life. We are responsible for ourselves. Heaven can be right here on earth. It is up to us to make it so.
The scientific method brings us face to face with reality. Many don’t like what they see and choose to look elsewhere. But hiding your head in the sand does not change anything. Change comes from knowing the facts and then choosing to make a difference.
yes, skeptics have their own prejudices:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this- There's a lot of bias in science, which they ignore. Bias coming from what research is funded, and from what is easy to research. Science has its own religion, common beliefs that only very creative scientists question. There's bias coming from human psychology: what don't people want to know?
- They don't always appreciate how little we actually know. How quantum physics translates to the macroscopic realm, what dark matter is and how it interacts with the rest of the world ...
I used to be a lot more credulous about science than I am now. When I came down sick with (probably) celiac disease; but many different foods made me sick, not just gluten grains; and a gastroenterologist told me he'd never heard of my food reaction symptoms: that made my head spin. I was sick in bed with back pain so severe I couldn't sit up for more than a few seconds, from food reactions (probably adrenal pain, I've heard). You can be very, very sick with something that doctors know very little about and some doctors don't even believe exists. It debunks the calm authority that is projected about science and medicine.
And I found that gluten and other foods had been profoundly affecting me psychologically, causing a lot of anxiety, depression, quasi-hallucinatory experiences.
Now years later it looks like I have autoimmune thyroid disease. Since celiac disease is also an autoimmune disease, it tends to confirm that my life has been dominated by an autoimmune process that medicine understands very little.
But of course skeptical debunking is also very useful, and a lot of the "religion", the common beliefs, of scientists are probably true. Your UFO probably has an easy explanation. There might be someplace you can call to hear it - probably other people saw the same thing. There's a huge amount of self-deception and irrational credulity in the public. What skeptics don't understand is that scientists are very liable to that too!
Contrary to what has been written in this discussion, Arab religious scholars did not invent the foundation of mathematics just because they made contributions to algebra. The Chinese did not have science just because they discovered gunpowder. Neither did the early Greeks develop the scientific method merely because they had geniuses such as Archimedes, Pythagoras, and Euclid. Learning stagnated in these cultures, probably because of fundamental assumptions antithetical to science. In contrast, current historic scholarship recognizes that science came out of Christian Europe long before Europe became secular. The reasons for this might be in some doubt but science seems to be a natural outgrowth of Christian doctrine. Nature exists because it was created and is sustained by a rational God who gave us free will and liberty. When we use our powers of reason, observation and freedom, we are able to discover the principles that God gave to his creation. It is not surprising that the development of the heliocentric model of the solar system was the product of the universities, which were a Christian invention. Contrary to what has been written, medical technology based on science has given us the limbs that Shermer wants an amputee to grow so he can believe in God. Other readers also apparently want God to perform some kind of magic trick rather than acknowledging the universe the way it is and then working to better the condition of people. There are potentially 6.6 billion counter examples to an indifferent, pitiless world. Today individuals motivated by the theism that developed science continue to establish schools, hospitals, and charities that heal a broken and confused world. This work is not bunk nor is it being done by pink leprechauns. My experience is that is is mostly done by honest people who have grasped the message given to the women as they approached the tomb, "Why do you search for the Living One among the dead?" (Luke 24:5).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks, Robert Schmidt, for your comments. I'm glad Michael Shermer has been rather patient in explaining so many times why we need to be skeptical about claims. I imagine he is growing weary of the topic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPhoongdan, your statement about "Western science" was rebutted by another, and I'm glad you acknowledged it. But that argument was about the historical origins of scientific knowledge. Yes, many cultures have developed fine understanding of many principles of mathematics, physics, etc. (and let's not forget here the Greeks here, or the Egyptians, Persians, Romans, etc.).
But I think there is a deeper/better meaning to the rebuttal of the idea of Western science. For a scientific hypothesis to be accepted, it must truly be objective, and you can make that "globally true". A scientist in Japan or India or Ethiopica, if he/she carries out the same starting conditions and procedures, must be able to achieve the same results, or else it is not going to be scientific. At least, that is how controlled experiments must work: objective repeatability is a requirement. This is precisely what saves us from "the tyranny of the subjective."
And Phoongdan, your Moon visitation point is a very weak one. Robert Schmidt said it well. And Michael Shermer's original writing already said it well. When we're talking about historical matters, where we can't run controlled experiments, we look for, as he said, a "convergence of evidence" and the "likeliest explanation for a particular phenomenon." Are you really saying that the likeliest explanation regarding moon visitation is an elaborate hoax? That is a hypothesis, and it can be tested. For example, the location of various lunar lander platforms is supposedly known. While you're correct that a child's telescope doesn't have anywhere near the resolution to detect it, you can test the hypotheses by renting time at the world's largest telescopes (more than one, to be sure), and see if you can find/detect any evidence. And surely you are not saying that we cannot reach Earth orbit by our rockets? You can test that hypothesis even easier. If you're really a skeptic, you can try to reach orbit yourself. Millions of people saw quite a bit of evidence, such as rocket launches. That surely doesn't prove they went to the moon, but it is hard to create a credible hypothesis that they went in hiding for several days. Orbiting spacecraft can also be seen in telescopes. You can talk to rocket scientists in many different countries and try our your hypothesis and things out.
The article is very good as to describing the worth of Science as a method for approximately arriving at the truth of facts. But although witches have not been proved to exist, believe me there are a lot a them out there!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTheories, Beliefs, and Inconvenient Facts
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe prevailing economic theory that markets naturally adjust to market conditions has recently exploded. The ensuing re-evaluation suggests more general questions about how and why accepted ideas are challenged, qualified, or replaced. Why do people believe or not believe in opinions, ideas, or theories? A possible answer is that, in our scientific age, they take the evidence into account and then come to a decision. In common experience, however, individuals do not seem to reach conclusions this way. Most people apparently believe whatever they want to, whether they know a great deal, a bit, or almost nothing about the subject.
A friend of mine, for example, a hotshot engineer with a Ph.D. from the University of California, believes everything recorded in the Bible--literally. No amount of literary or scientific evidence has convinced him that the story, say, of Noah and the Ark is a physically impossible legend or that the earth is more than about six thousand years old. It doesn’t occur to him that Yahweh’s placing his weapon, the bow, in the sky as a promise that the earth will never again be destroyed by a flood is one of a plethora of etiological myths in Genesis, even though the same detail is depicted more colorfully in the Babylonian version of the story in which Ishtar’s necklace is thrown into the heavens as a rainbow. He prefers to believe that immediately after the Flood, atmospheric conditions changed, so that rainbows became possible for the first time. Although his sister is a geologist, he finds reasons to support the young-earth theory, which is, as she puts it, a very tough row to hoe scientifically. So there are a number of topics this family chooses not to dwell upon when they get together, in order to keep the peace.
With questions of religion--and politics as well--people tend to believe whatever they want to, regardless of the evidence. I have an old buddy from way back, about as far to the right politically as you can get, who insists the invasion of Iraq was a splendid idea and that now the U.S. should go nuclear with Iran. To him it’s a no-brainer. This is not a matter of ignorance; he’s fully aware of the faulty intelligence and the rash actions that characterized the American invasion, of the series of miscalculations and blunders since then, and of the complex politics in Iraq and the Mideast. He comes to this discussion with a particular mindset, which allows him to organize almost everything he learns about the situation to fit into his syndrome of political belief in a way that seems weird to anyone who does not share his cluster of ideas.
I am reminded of the Renaissance churchman who, it is said, refused to look at the moons of Jupiter through a telescope because they could not be there according to his conception of the cosmos. Everyone, it would seem, has galaxies of ideas about sciences, politics, and religion. To admit that a star in any of these galaxies is not there is perceived as a slippery slope, which could eventually undo the the entire syndrome. Such a view may explain why people refuse to accept evidence against their mindset in politics and religion, and why facts opposed to a current scientific paradigm appear to be brushed aside or ignored for decades. Similarly, newspapers and other media, and, more seriously, prosecutors, tend to immediately get a take on an event and stick to it long after facts to the contrary become known.
A more interesting question than why pundits, voters, or believers are extraordinarily reluctant to change their minds, is how and why they sometimes do. The most available examples of this change are in what Thomas Kuhn referred to as paradigm shifts in science, often a lengthy process, so much so that Max Planck in a telling exaggeration suggested that the new paradigm is not accepted because of logical argument or mounting evidence, but only when those holding the older paradigm die off. Among the most obvious paradigm shifts include the heliocentric theory, evolutionary biology, relativity physics, and plate tectonics. A fruitful approach might be to find examples, historical, contemporary, and personal experiences of individuals who were “converted” to a new paradigm.
Is the process involved in changing from one system to another gradual, instantaneous, or some combination of the two? Probably a scientist does not entirely ignore, deny, or forget an apparent exception to his paradigm, but rather files it away somewhere in his head with other inconvenient or inexplicable facts. A reasonable guess is that as these counter-paradigm exceptions begin to form a critical mass, a distressing state of confusion develops, to be relieved by a dramatic insight which tips the balance and results in a conversion to the new paradigm. It may also be that for some, one transforming experience is enough and for others a gradual build up will suffice without a sudden dramatic insight. It would be interesting to assemble accounts of such conversions in the sciences, politics, religion, or any other field that has central theories that have changed over time.
Jim Lacey
Robert Schmidt - thank you! The eloquence in which you express your ideas, MY ideas, is appreciated; I could not express them as well.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've always found it funny that there are "religious experts." For example, when the Jesus face was seen in the grilled cheese sandwich, cable news networks had on officials from the church to comment. The idea of being an official, or expert, in a fictional discipline is laughable... that would be much like having a "Harry Potter Official" on your panel. I know this doesn't directly relate to this discussion, but I felt like sharing.
I am hopeful and optimistic that over the coming decades thinkers will gain more ground in popular culture. I read today that in a recent survey only 32% of Americans believe that life evolved via natural selection/evolution (interestingly though, 87% of Scientists surveyed believe.) I find it terrifying that so many people choose to believe these baseless (and ridiculous) claims. I find it even more terrifying that these people are in positions of power and make policy that I must abide by.
(Source: http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=us-science-is-tops-but-most-america-2009-07-09).
Point a laser beam at one of the positions on the Moon, where laser reflectors have been placed. Your laser beam will be reflected in a way only an artificial laser reflector can. This is done every day to measure the distance to the Moon.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience is defined by knowledge, religion is defined by belief.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWisdom is knowing enough to know how much you don't know.
LNL
This is probably Shermer's finest piece.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is one issue that was not brought up. How does order arise from disorder? In this case, logic itself seems to break down. You would need a force in order to bring things together. Gravity, for example, created order in the stars. But what force on Earth caused us to be? I would say that, although obvisously God cannot be proven, This universe had to have come from somewhere, as it seems to have a beginning, and according to the laws of thermodynamics, energy cannot be created or destroyed. Not in this universe, anyways. And evolution itself, although a fact, should not be able to occur. It breaks logic. All this order cannot come from disorder. It just can't, without a guiding force. It makes no sense.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@falson46, "it makes no scense" because you have no idea what you are talking about. Trying actually looking into the issues rather than taking a Fox News science view of things. A simple internet search will turn up answers to your questions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article had my attention until it sidetracked into spewing political wrt to anthropogenic global warming. That topic should be front and center as to the breakdown of the scientific method. The author is no skeptic, merely a True Believer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"although obvisously God cannot be proven, This universe had to have come from somewhere" sounds like good logic, until you realize, that it only adds an infinite number of new layers to the problem.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the universe have to come from somewhere, then where did the deity come from?
From where the deity-creator?
... ad infinitum.
Your knockdown of belief in God is a knockdown of a straw man. A third-grade concept of God is OK so long as you are in the third grade. I suspect you know that, but its so much easier to paint all religious experience with the dimwitted Fundie paint brush. Sure, it's fun to poke the creationist Village Idiot in the eye, but it doesn't advance an thesis. And it doesn't reflect well on one's character.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour knockdown of belief in God is a knockdown of a straw man. A third-grade concept of God is OK so long as you are in the third grade. I suspect you know that, but its so much easier to paint all religious experience with the dimwitted Fundie paint brush. Sure, it's fun to poke the creationist Village Idiot in the eye, but it doesn't advance an thesis. And it doesn't reflect well on one's character.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismy questions to shermer, dawkins, et al...include: why are you so afraid of emotions?? why do you deem emotions to be 'irrational' or some how unscientific, or some kind of genetic flaw? is it because emotions can't be put in a petri dish and studied? or maybe you deem them too 'female'...personally, i fear a human race devoid of emotion...and lastly...why do you insist YOUR powers of observation are some how "better" than mine??
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismy questions to shermer, dawkins, et al...include: why are you so afraid of emotions?? why do you deem emotions to be 'irrational' or some how unscientific, or some kind of genetic flaw? is it because emotions can't be put in a petri dish and studied? or maybe you deem them too 'female'...personally, i fear a human race devoid of emotion...and lastly...why do you insist YOUR powers of observation are some how "better" than mine??
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis essay reminds me of my favorite saint, Doubting Thomas. Today he's the patron saint of architects, due mainly to a legend in which, given money by a king to build a great palace, he gives all the money to the poor and thereby builds the king a palace in Heaven. But I've always felt that Thomas' place among the saints was due just as much to the attitude that earned him his famous nickname. No architect can afford wishful thinking in his work. Every proposition that comes his way must be backed up by just the sort of unequivocal proof Thomas demanded when he refused to believe in Jesus' Resurrection without a chance to examine the Savior's wounds for himself. This makes Thomas, to my mind, the patron saint not just of architects, but of engineers, doctors, and indeed of scientists and science-workers in general.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReligious folks can believe in anything. I am a Hindu by birth and literally believed all the thousands of gods and their minions till late into my life. But now when I am 77, I believe only in scientific findings and not anything else like UFOs, etc. And I too believe we can never find the origin of our own Universe, because how can we find what happened before the Big Bang? Was there a God outside the Universe who lit the fuse?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this