The National Academies? Or Gnu Atheists? Who Do You Trust?
Posted in Gnu Atheism, Religion, Science on | 4 minutes | 16 Comments →
As is often the case when challenging their sacred dogmas, I’ve been battling an entire gaggle of Gnu atheists, led by Richard Wade over at Hemant Mehta’s blog. It all began when Wade left the following comment that, to me, perfectly articulates the central pillar of Gnu atheism. When I challenged Wade’s assertion that there is “no evidence” for God and asked him to define “evidence” for me, he said:
I think it’s clear from my post what kind of evidence I would find convincing. The kind of evidence that would make apologists for gods unnecessary. The kind of evidence that does make apologists for the sun unnecessary. The kind of evidence that we use to understand the workings of the sun, and which allows us to put that understanding to work right here on Earth. The kind of evidence that you would want supporting your innocence if you stood accused of a serious crime. The kind of evidence you use to walk across a busy, dangerous street. The kind of evidence that you use and demand every day to make important decisions, with the exception of this one thing that you let pass.
You know what I’m talking about, don’t pretend that you don’t. Empirical, tangible, observable, recordable, confirmable, testable, reproducible, etc. Not a warm, fuzzy feeling, not a subjective conviction, not claimed “miracles” or “fulfilled prophesies” which are all hearsay scribbled in an old book with a very suspicious provenance, and certainly not arguments, which, without the kind of evidence I’m describing at their foundation instead of nothing but wishful thinking, can be used to argue for the existence of anything. Just plug in whatever whimsical assertion you want, and run the same empty arguments. If you really, really, really want that assertion to be so, you’ll convince yourself that the argument is somehow its own evidence for the truth of itself. (Richard Wade)
I replied something along the lines that Wade misunderstood the rudimentary principles of the very science he pays such lipservice to, and, as you can imagine, that set off a firestorm. This schtick comes up again and again in (a)theist circles and every time it does I find myself scratching my head, asking, “Now what did I do with those quotes I pulled from the NAS about this issue?” Until tonight, I was always to lazy to dig them out of the archives. Well, tonight, I’d had enough, so I rolled up my sleeves and found them. From the National Academies of Science:
Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science. [National Academies Press, Chapter 3, Creationist Perspectives]
Because they are not a part of nature, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science. [NAS, Evolution Resources]
Science is a way of knowing about the natural world. It is limited to explaining the natural world through natural causes. Science can say nothing about the supernatural. Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral. [National Academies Press]
Isn’t it ironic?
Gnu atheists claim to be all about science. They claim that science has “disproven” God. They insist that it is perfectly reasonable and rational to petulantly and boisterously demand “scientific” evidence for all things “supernatural,” but the National Academies of Science flatly disagrees with them! So who’s ignorant of science here? Why on God’s green Earth should we take the Gnus’ opinions over straightforward statements from the organization that can be rightly described as the penultimate ambassador of science? Do Gnus really have that much audacity? Are they really that ignorant? Oh, never mind, we already know the answer is affirmative on both counts.
Now, whenever some Gnu starts spouting this schtick, I have a handy-dandy reference to point them to, and I encourage you to do the same. Then, challenge them. Ask them for one good reason why any rational person should be compelled to take their opinions over the official policies of the NAS. Then grab your popcorn. I predict you’ll eat in silence.
Syllabus
says...Glorious, hilarious silence, I expect.
I went through this whole song-and-dance over at Reppert’s place with im-skeptical recently. He – or she, I have no idea – seemed to take a less dogmatic approach, and doea recognize the need for philosophy in addition to science in addressing these questions. Of course, when asked, he didn’t seem to be able to come up with a good definition of science. I think defining one’s terms is the first step in any discussion, and thus should be in this one. But I tell you what, it gets bloody tedious having to explain this over and over. I think it may be due to the overwhelming amount of rhetoric rather than substance that is in the favoured books of the Gnus (incidentally, that’s the name of a pack animal. Interesting, that.).
hoverfrog
says...What would you claim to be evidence for god or gods?
dale
says...hoverfrog,
i was checking out your blog, and you dismiss religious books (i.e.: the bible, among other books of faith) as sufficient evidence, though much of the new testament was written as first hand observations of the life and times of jesus christ. they believed, you don’t. ok, that’s fine, but does your disbelief, or lack or personal experience make what they claim untrue?
i guess i’m more so asking you a question than presenting evidence for you to yay or nay. so, what would it take for you to believe in god, gods or the supernatural?
for example, do you need jesus to knock on your door? does it need to be that literal and the experience and definitely personal for you to believe? would you believe the testimony of a contemporary observer? would they need to be a scientist? would they have to have it on camera?
if this is sincere inquiry and not mockery of faith on your behalf, what would it take, really?
cl
says...dale,
You’re embarking on a fool’s errand, but, knock yourself out. I just can’t call myself your friend and not give my honest opinion :)
Why do I say this? Well, my experiences with HF on another thread, for one. For two, this person actually thinks “what caused God?” is a legitimate response to A-T (Aristotleian-Thomistic) reasoning. Simply put, this person is pulling plays straight from Dawkins’ book.
hoverfrog
says...CL doesn’t like to engage which is fine so we can ignore him.
Dale, I have a list of what would constitute evidence of a god but unfortunately a definition of “god” is first required. Genuinely though something to support the assertions made about the gods. Assertions made about the real world generally that should be supported by evidence from the real world. That would need to be testable of course and depending on the claim repeatable. If the gods are going to toy with the laws of physics then they should be able to do it on demand.
cl
says...Dale,
The above comment is a shining example of the reasoning behind my admonition. Hoverfrog simply parrots the typical New Atheists tropes that any 14-year-old village atheist could see through. For example,
Right, things like the Resurrection, Ascension, Virgin Birth and Creation should be testable, reproducible, “on demand,” else this is solid grounds to assume a lack of veracity thereof. This type of “logic” is so flawed and so juvenile it merits nothing but ignorance.
Don’t take the bait, you have better things to do with your time.
hoverfrog
says...CL clearly has no interest in discussion despite demanding on the friendly atheist site that atheist come to his blog to discuss things. Oh well, I can’t say I’m surprised. Such an attitude is unfortunately what we expect from Christians these days.
I won’t bother coming back.
cl
says...Hoverfrog,
Cry me a river. The fact that I attempted a discussion with you, and only you, for well over 12 exchanges at the other blog, flatly falsifies your claim. Are you lying or just incredibly dense? I ask because only 1 of those 2 options could explain your misinformation here. Also, as I explained there, I said that if anyone wanted to have a *REASONABLE* discussion, to track me down here. As you’ve demonstrated at the other blog, you are incapable of reasonable discussion. The whole reason you came here was your smug comment about “I always like to see what kind of stuff passes for evidence with Christians these days.” IOW, you’re not hear to learn, you came here to tell me why you’re right and I’m wrong. And, like every other Gnu atheist I encounter, you don’t know a lick about the very science you use as a gris-gris.
Therefore, you get ignored, until one or more of the aforementioned changes.
That said, I’ll give you one last chance: either admit that you were lying, or retract your statement about me having “no interest in discussion” as inaccurate. If your reply contains the string, “Sorry, I was wrong to say that,” I’ll consider you a good faith interlocutor and move forward. If you can’t muster those simple words, then, we’re done. Your call.
dale
says...CL,
Foolish? I don’t think so.
Hoverfrog,
Then, why not just state it specifically?
From wikipedia: “god” is often conceived of as the supernatural creator and overseer of humans and the universe. I could have quoted the Bible or any other holy book, but you admit you dismiss them flat out.
But be honest, science hasn’t gotten us any further in understanding cosmological origins than religion has. There is no empirical evidence for, or from, the creation of the universe that rules out “god”. Anything that says otherwise is speculative.
First, an assertion is defined as a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason. That allows the Bible or any other holy book to be rightly considered. That works for theism, but from your pov, how do you see your request as being within the limits of science?
How can you demand a historical, one time event to be repeated on demand? Also, do you require an adherence to the laws of physics as qualification for all historical events? Demanding linear history to repeat itself sounds like an unrealistic requirement, much like demanding nature to act per our expectations. How is this request scientific?
This sounds like prejudice. If you had a problem with CL alone, that would be fair. But, are you saying that about me too? Also, who’s the “we” in that statement. CL and I are both Christians, and we most often agree than not, but he’s him and I’m me.
What I find curious is that when I asked if a personal religious experience would affect your opinion, you side stepped the issue completely. Per scientific method; it would be an observed phenomena, it would qualify as knowledge, and it would be empirical. The only thing that wouldn’t be demandable is that there are no guarantees that it could or would be repeatable. Wouldn’t you believe you own eyes or your own experience?
CL,
;-)
Syllabus
says...Dude, CL, what’s up with your site at the moment? One minute it’s available, the next it’s under maintenance.
cl
says...Dale,
Yeah, who knows? Maybe you two will hit it off. Although, I’m just saying… HF revealed her bad faith from the outset in the remark (paraphrased) “I’ll still stop by your blog because it’s fun to see what passes for evidence in Christian circles these days.” That says it all: this was for her entertainment value, not to be taken seriously. From that, I conclude we’re dealing with firm soil here. Although, I’m still willing to give a chance. If HF can admit the falseness of her claim that I’m “unwilling to have discussion,” I’ll give her another chance.
Syllabus,
I don’t know, but I suspect you must have visited in the middle of a plugin update. It was down for three days over the weekend because I was changing hosting companies. Now, it should be routinely up, except for the 5-10 seconds it takes for the occasional plugin update (the blog goes into maintenance mode when that’s happening, but it should be pretty rare).
Sorry for the inconvenience, if it’s any consolation it annoys me, too :)
Thinking Emotions
says...Does that mean they believed in the literal truth of Jesus Christ and his doings? Just because they wrote these things down does not mean they had any basis in reality. Outright lies or exaggerations get thrown into “historical” texts more often than you’d think. There are mythologies that predate Christianity by many years that are similar to the point of eeriness. As far as we know, Christianity has a lot of basis in mythology, and mythology has questionable degrees of basis in reality. Myths do tend to reflect the human condition at the time, and it’s no doubt that some things in them happened (e.g., catastrophic floods), but all of them?
dale
says...TE,
The context in which I originally wrote that was in reference to Hoverfrog’s flat out dismissal of any written word from any and all holy books as being worth no more consideration than JK Rowling writing about Voldemort, per statement’s that appear in other posts here and on her own blog. Doesn’t that seem short sided and narrow minded?
But to address your statement, I’m not without belief that people lied in the past. To assume otherwise would be unrealistic. There are and have been liars, libelers, slanderers and misleaders of all sorts, even religious one. Even that story you linked requires faith to be believed.
Per the Bible, Enoch ascended to heaven without dying and Lazarus was resurrected. Does that mean the Christ didn’t do both, based solely off similarity? That Dionysus, Horus and Christ share similarities in their stories, does that make any of them false due to the similarities alone?
Actually, in the Bible, Genesis says man was made “in our image” and the first commandment says “thou shalt have no gods before me” (KJV). Put these two together and it’s clear that the Bible admits that there is more than one god, though there is a separation of the true and false.
All in all, I agree with you that you can’t dive head first into anything without testing the waters first, and just because something is said or written doesn’t mean it’s necessarily true. But, I feel that where you were going with you train of thought, as I hope I am understand correctly(?), urges me to ask you this: Are you stating or implying that what the Bible says about Jesus Christ is a lie?
Thinking Emotions
says...Yes, absolutely. It’s fallacious. I don’t endorse HF’s reasoning because, as you’ve probably realized, I am not a “gnu atheist.” Atheism is an ideology, not a social revolution.
I appreciate your candor. A lot of Christians don’t have the balls to admit this. And yep, you’re right. Even science requires faith.
No, of course not. To argue that way would be a form of the genetic fallacy, methinks. It would look something like this:
1. Religion A was inspired/evolved from myths B and C.
2. Myths B and C are false.
3. Religion A is false.
That’s shoddy reasoning and not at all what I was trying to get at. My argument is more that these archetypes and symbols have occurred throughout history for a reason, and it’s way more complicated than, “they observed and recorded.” Indeed, that very line of thinking would probably be foreign to ancient peoples.
The problem is that in the west, we like to think myths are etiological, meaning they were used as explanatory devices. Many scholars who specialize in mythology do not buy into this.
Does “not literally true” or “not true in the sense you think” equate to falsehood? I don’t think so. And I do believe there were some exaggerations and maybe some lies about Jesus in the Bible, but I could not give you precise examples since I am not a Biblical scholar. This is especially likely if you think the Bible was just people writing down what they thought happened and giving their own poetic spin on it which is free to be misinterpreted and mistranslated.
cl
says...TE,
I’m hesitant to respond since you haven’t responded to me in quite some time, but you need to be called out, right here:
Isn’t that a concession to holding a belief with no evidence at all? If you could not give precise examples, then why do you believe as you do? You can’t say “just because others have lied” because that’s the same genetic fallacy you just criticized.
Also, how much of the Bible have you read?
dale
says...TE,
I’d agree with that, as I would call it a speculative, secular faith in society, just as much as I would say that it’s a lack of positive faith in “god” or “gods”.
Can you expand on what you mean by that?
Wouldn’t “observe and record” be a pretty natural and expected process, historically speaking, as that is what our society does today?
Is this an example of atheistic faith?