Science and Religion in an Impersonal Universe, by Matt Young

I notice in this article that the author makes the statment

"The myriad of errors and inconsistencies
in the Hebrew Bible and in the Gospels ought to deliver a death blow to
that belief"

I know you have philisophical reasons for needing to belive this, but do you ever have a really convincing set of examples. I've looked high and low for a really good set of biblical contradictions, and the best i can ever find are a collection of out of context, and heavily twisted verses. Typically from people that only read an english translation, without knowing any relevant history of the era the stuff was written in, and then confidently asserting ERROR!! Is this the best you lot can do. I'm willing to consider the possibility of error, or contradiction, but i stop bothering to check through enormous lists when the first 30 or so items are just crap, and show the authors ignorance rather than biblical errors. I look forward to the day that i find an articel on this web site that actaully has a convincing attack on the christian faith, and isn't just a collection of unsubstantiated assertions parading as evidence. Please if i've missed an article such as this let me know.

Jason

[-DM-]

Thank you for your feedback regarding Science and Religion in an Impersonal Universe (http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=154) by Matt Young. E-mail notification has been sent to the author. Although there are no guarantees, you might want to check back from time to time for a further response following this post.

Pending Matt Young's response, I have a few comments.
1.) One of the marks of a freethinker is that he/she has no need to believe anything, let alone religious dogma. As an example, had I not remained open to knew knowledge I would still be a Christian.
2.) What constitutes a convincing set of biblical problems (not necessarily "contradictions," but problems) is largely a matter of opinion. As a former Christian myself (a Christian who was inclined toward fundamentalism), I find my own collection of Biblical Problems (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/) convincing. It was this very sort of thing which convinced me that Christian doctrine is full of holes. If you don't, that is OK with me.
3.) Unless you were omniscient, you would have no way of knowing (other than direct testimony from the authors) whether those who have compiled such lists used only an English translation, knew no history of the era, or anything else. If you want to talk about "crap," such assumptions on your part represent true crap.

My suggestion would be for you to become a registered user, if you are not already, and discuss your viewpoints in an appropriate forum such as Biblical Criticism & Archaeology (http://www.infidels.org/electronic/forum/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=6).

--Don--

[Vorkosigan]

Originally posted by <svensky>:
<STRONG>I notice in this article that the author makes the statment

"The myriad of errors and inconsistencies
in the Hebrew Bible and in the Gospels ought to deliver a death blow to
that belief"

I know you have philisophical reasons for needing to belive this, but do you ever have a really convincing set of examples. I've looked high and low for a really good set of biblical contradictions, and the best i can ever find are a collection of out of context, and heavily twisted verses. Typically from people that only read an english translation, without knowing any relevant history of the era the stuff was written in, and then confidently asserting ERROR!! Is this the best you lot can do. I'm willing to consider the possibility of error, or contradiction, but i stop bothering to check through enormous lists when the first 30 or so items are just crap, and show the authors ignorance rather than biblical errors. I look forward to the day that i find an articel on this web site that actaully has a convincing attack on the christian faith, and isn't just a collection of unsubstantiated assertions parading as evidence. Please if i've missed an article such as this let me know.

Jason</STRONG>

Well Jason, why don't you read Biblical Errancy (http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/) or The Skeptical Review (http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/). After that, you can pick out some of the problems they chose, put up your solutions, and we can discuss them.

The many errors in the Bible are of so glaringly obvious a nature that only a tiny minority of Christians are inerrantists. The vast majority make their peace with the errors of the Bible one way or another, and go right on believing. You'll find on our boards that nobody defends the inerrantist position, because it is so hopeless. If you doubt that, just start an "errors solved!" thread in the Bible Criticism forum.

Good luck in your quest, Jason.

Michael

[Matt Young]

Author's reply.

Jason has the cart before the horse. I have no a priori philosophical reason for wanting to believe anything about the Bible. To the contrary, I want to examine the Bible critically and figure out for myself what is true in it and about it.

More specifically, the Hebrew Bible is not a single book but an edited anthology. In the Book of Genesis, for example, a long, complicated story is told from two or more perspectives, all interwoven to form a more or less coherent whole. This fact is so apparent that the Anglican bishop John S. Spong has called it almost incontrovertible and thinks it is a tragedy that the typical worshipper does not know it.[1]

What about errors or inconsistencies? First, the Hebrew Bible is poorly edited. For example, the Hebrew word for "he" is transliterated HV', and the Hebrew word for "she" is HY'. There are many times where "he" appears even though "she" is clearly intended. These errors are reproduced faithfully in every Hebrew Bible printed today. An interesting sidelight: In Genesis 2:7, a verb is spelled VYYZR and in Genesis 2:19, VYZR. The physicist Gerald Schroeder [2] construes the extra Y to indicate that man was given a soul in 2:7 � an interpretation that no dispassionate observer could accept unless he or she was already convinced of the absolute truth of the Bible and was willing to say virtually anything to support that conviction.

Consistency? Compare the first two chapters of Genesis. In 1:27, God creates man in his own image: "Male and female he created them," in the translation of the Jewish Publication Society. But in 2:18, God deplores that man is alone and in 2:21-2 makes a woman from Adam's rib. One myth from one tradition; one from another. How can they be made into a single, consistent story?

Similarly, we are told (Genesis 6:19) that Noah took one pair of each kind of animal into the Ark. In 7:2-3, we learn, by contrast, that Noah took seven pairs of clean animals (animals that are ritually fit for sacrifice) and seven pairs of birds. In Genesis 7:8-9, however, we learn that Noah took one pair of all animals, including clean animals, and 7:14,16 reiterates one pair. Adonai tells Noah one thing; his alter ego Elohim, something else. What does Noah do? Both, if the account in Genesis is accurate. Did Noah build two arks?

Other books in the Bible, most particularly Jonah and Esther, are fictions, designed to make a political or religious point. Esther takes place well within historical times, very roughly at the time of Socrates. Yet there is not a single historical record of a rebellion by the Jewish community of Persia. Jason may read about these matters in greater detail in my book, No Sense of Obligation, if he is open-minded and wants to learn more. [3]

We do the Bible no honor by insisting that everything in it is true. Indeed, we dishonor the Bible when we intentionally misread it and twist logic and common sense in order to make it appear that this very human book was dictated by God. In one respect, at least, Spong is right: it is high time we rescued the Bible from the fundamentalists.

References.

[1] J. S. Spong, Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism, HarperCollins, San Francisco, 1991.

[2] G. L. Schroeder, The Science of God, Free Press, New York, 1997.

[3] M. Young, No Sense of Obligation: Science and Religion in an Impersonal Universe, 1stBooks Library, Bloomington, Indiana, 2001; www.1stBooks.com/bookview/5559. (http://www.1stBooks.com/bookview/5559.)

[Brent]

This is in response to the material entitled: Science and Religion in an Impersonal Universe by Matt Young

If ultimate truth is not discoverable by means of scientific observation and human reason, then all arguments against the Christian/Biblical concept of God must inevitably fail? as they are all based on the same false premise, that truth is only accessible by means of scientific observation and human reason.

The premise you argue from is that, because there is no discoverable evidence, by which you mean evidence of divine origin/causation of the universe that is accessible to the physical senses ( eyes, ears, nose, taste, and touch), or sufficient logical argument, then God's existence cannot be scientifically proved, and is therefore, inevitably and irreversibly, cast in doubt. And, if cast in doubt, a reasonable person must look to himself and to himself alone for the solution to life's problems, in a closed system such as the universe. I submit that your conclusion is too weighty to be supported by your argument.

If God has the power of bringing the universe into existence in the first place, then it would be possible for God to have created the universe and everything in it, leaving no trace of any physical evidence that could be used to prove or disprove divine origin and causation. Likewise, if God having brought the universe into existence, and solely for God's own reasons, left no physical evidence by which His creative activity could be proved, this fact would put each of us in the same position of having to discover God by means of something that can best be identified by the word? faith. Those who don't want to discover God by that means, simply because they do not want to acknowledge the existence of God for whatever personal reason (and there are obvious personal reasons for not wanting to acknowledge the existence of God), will not discover God, and some of these people will, predictably, find it a matter of interest to try to make out arguments that militate against the beliefs (faith) of those who do discover God. After all, these are going to be two diametrically opposed groups of people with clearly identifiable personal agendas, one group opposed to acknowledging the existence of God, the other in favor of doing so. This only serves to prove one fact, namely, that there are two distinctly different personal agendas and motivations at work within the hearts and minds of the individuals that make up the whole of mankind, nothing else.

Those who discover the existence of God by faith, make that discovery, not because they have to make that discovery, but because they want to make it. There is something within these individuals that impels them to seek to know and understand God and they will not rest until they discover the truth. But the fact that they want to make it, in no way diminishes the validity of the discovery, if in fact, God is real. And, if in fact, God is real and really did bring the universe into existence, then it is very reasonable to believe that He would have arranged things so that only those on earth who want to and seek to know Him will find Him by means of something called faith, and all others will be left to amuse themselves with the products of their own intellect. I do not say that to demean such products, but only to make the point.

To me, as well as to anyone who has discovered God by means of faith, no argument is necessary to validate the discovery and no argument is capable of destroying the knowledge gained by personal experience of God based on faith (faith is used here to mean believing in God without actually seeing God, but that is not to say there are not other, quite real physical evidences experienced which continually validate and confirm the truth and the reality of my experience and relationship with God). There is a profound difference in who I am now and who I was before I begin to know God and to experience God in my life by faith. The Christian word for this experience is salvation. There is no parallel to this experience in any other religion on earth, as you would reasonably expect if there is such a thing as ultimate truth. Truth is not amenable to change based on whether or not it is believed by anyone.

To give you some idea of the profound change that I have experienced as a result of this discovery of God, it is like a computer that runs on DOS alone as opposed to a computer that runs on Microsoft Windows. No one, who has ever had to operate a computer on DOS alone, would say that DOS was a better or more powerful operating system than Microsoft Windows. In the same way, no one, who has had the profound and exciting experience of discovering and experiencing God by faith, would ever say that his former life was superior. You could very well say that God has come to live within me, just as Microsoft Windows exists within a computer, and now I am a much improved version of a human being. Not because of anything I have done, but because of what God has done in me, I enjoy being myself as never before. This difference within me is so profound that it almost cannot be described in words, but there are many aspects of the change which can be described in words if space permitted.
Another comparison is between a man who has a wife and a man who lives alone. The man who has a wife needs no argument to prove that his life is profoundly different now that he is married. I could truthfully say that I am married to God and it is a wonderful experiential relationship that can only be known for what it is by actually entering into it.

I certainly enjoyed, however, reading what you have to say, because it confirms what I already know, that by physical evidence alone, no one can ever prove the existence God or that God is the creator of the universe. The physical evidence points in the direction of divine origin of the universe, but that alone is not sufficient as proof of such origin. The proof comes by the personal experience of one who enters into a personal relationship with God, and this is only possible by faith ( in the same way that the proof of superiority of the Windows operating system is only possible by actually, physically, installing the Windows operating system on the computer. Once it is installed, no one can deny that such an operating system exists and that it allows the computer to do tasks a lot more powerfully than before).

Science is wonderful and should be given hearty congratulations for all the things it has allowed us to do to improve our lives and human intellect (a creation of God) deserves credit. But, God is the profound author of all creation, without which there would be no science.

As for evolution, there is no evolutionary hypothesis that is adequate to explain the existence of the universe. Only the God whose existence is discoverable by faith alone is an adequate and sufficient explanation, and since it is unnecessary to hypothesize any evolutionary precept to account for all that we know and observe, all such hypothesizing is unnecessary and ultimately futile.

I would be happy to discuss this matter in greater detail, if you should find it interesting to do so. Brent

[Paul Dernavich]

Matt:

I have not read your book; perhaps I will because this issue is fascinating and essential. Your short piece seems to be clear and logical - until you reveal your belief in �complete� determinism, which means that you don�t believe in clear or logical thoughts, only thoughts that you either have or don�t have. And all of the other good ideas in your conclusions - the potential for human dignity, the power of rational thinking, an admiration for the structure of the universe - are similarly negated, because they all require more of a degree of free and independent thought than determinism can possibly allow. I�d like you to be able to reconcile these two thoughts - reason and determinism - or at least forward this email to the universe who made you think them, and maybe we can address these contradictions.

Paul Dernavich

[-DM-]

Matt Young responds:

---------

My major argument with you is your claim that you can "discover" God through faith. You can do no such thing. You can have faith in God, Santa Claus, or the tooth fairy, but that faith by no means proves the existence of any of those entities. God indeed could have arranged the world so that we could even in theory not find any evidence of his having done so; the tooth fairy could likewise have delivered a new quarter without leaving a trace. Believing either of those hypotheses does not make it true. Indeed, faith is a blind alley inasmuch as it prevents us from seeking objective truth for ourselves.
Neither is your "profound change" convincing. It could be attributed to God, the placebo effect resulting from your new belief system, the support of your new commmunity if you are a convert, or any number of causes.
I have sympathy for people who hypothesize a God and decide to act as if he were real, as long as they recognize that their hypothesis may be wrong. I cannot, on the other hand, understand why anyone would want to have faith in something that may not be objectively real.

[Matt Young]

Free will is a good approximation to human thought. It is the only approximation we have, so we have to use it. Compartmentalization, if you like, but not unhealthy. Dignity, emotions, indeed, consciousness are probably only epiphenomena, but that does not make them less real. If I think I feel pain, then I feel pain; if I think I'm in love, then I'm in love. Likewise, thoughts can be logical or illogical, clear or unclear, whether or not they are at some deep level determined.

The Skeptical Inquirer piece did not allow enough space for my argument in favor of determinism, which details a thought experiment involving a quantum-mechanical particle in a bowl. You may find the argument in my book. I have discussed it with a number of physicists, and they agree it is plausible, even convincing. I do not deny quantum mechanics, but rather suggest that there may be a theory that underlies quantum mechanics and is deterministic. If you accept my argument and still argue in favor of free will, then you may have to argue that something nonphysical underlies our minds.

The gently mocking tone of your letter suggests that you may reject my last step, at least in part, because you don't like the consequences -- what is sometimes called the genetic fallacy. I don't like a lot of the conclusions I drew; I'd much prefer blissful immortality at the right hand of God. But there is no evidence for either God or immortality, so I reject those concepts. As for free will, all I can do is behave as if I had it.

My wife asks me, if I do not believe in free will, then why do I hate shmucks? I answer, I can't help it. Why do I believe in determinism? Can't help it.

[BurgDE]

Dear Dr. Young,

You claim that objective truth exists -- contrary to postmodernism.

The best means we have of finding new "truth" or knowledge is the scientific method. But, the scientific method can only prove an idea wrong -- it can never establish absolute truth. If we cannot establish absolute truth with the best method that we have of finding new knowledge, then why BELIEVE in absolute truth?

Also, in outline, how can the dynamics of voltage-gated ion channels -- which can be modeled by Markovian kinetic models and which do not care about logical principles -- lead to the disciplined thought processes associated with logical reasoning -- which follow logical rules?

thank you,
don burgess

[Edited only to combine two posts into one. --Don--]

[ November 23, 2001: Message edited by: Donald Morgan ]

[Matt Young]

I don't know what passage you are referring to, but I doubt I ever said there was absolute truth, a term you seem to consider synonymous with objective truth. I do, however, say that there is objective reality.

I compare that reality to a newly discovered continent. The first maps may be very imprecise or even wrong. As the continent is explored, the maps become more and more accurate, until they become a good rendition of the geography of the continent. The maps are obviously not the continent and they do not map it perfectly, but they get better and better as our exploration and our metrology improve.

In precisely the same way, our physical models are not the same as the reality that underlies them, but with time they become better and better descriptions. Some physical models are so successful that we are justified in calling them correct, even though we know that they might be valid over only a finite domain and might be superseded by better models. Even then, the new model has to reduce to the old model in that domain where the old model is correct.

Postmodernism is simply wrong if it thinks that a well-established physical theory such as relativity is accepted only because a community of scientists accepts it. To the contrary, it is accepted because it has so far passed every test. If it ever fails a test, it will probably not be disproved, but rather limited in its range of validity.

By the way, the scientific method can't prove anything wrong either -- the proponents of a bad theory can always patch together an ad-hoc hypothesis that will save the theory, at least in their own minds.

As for you last question, I haven't the foggiest idea.

[Paul Dernavich]

Matt:

If I gently mock, it is due to the way you reached your conclusions and not necessarily the conclusions themselves. I am curious about the experiment from your book (maybe when my Christmas shopping is all done, of course). But your intent seems to be to try and frame an airtight argument based only on observable evidence, and I think you have exceeded the limits of what that scope would allow. When you say to me that we must act as if we have free will even though it is an illusion, and you write that there is no justification for unethical behaviors, you are arguing against your basic assumptions. You must agree that if the universe is strictly deterministic than there is plainly no such thing as an unethical behavior. There are only, as you say, things our minds are programmed to think or not think. To act as if we had true free will, and to hold anyone accountable to any sort of ethical standard, is acting in ways directly counter to your evidence, and I thought that was something that only mystics and mythologists did.

-Paul

[Matt Young]

Pain may be an epiphenomenon, but it is nonetheless real to the person in pain. To inflict pain without reason is unethical.

I have argued that free will is an approximation, not exactly an illusion. Maybe we can try this from the point of view of self-organizing systems (I don't know; I'm improvising!). At any rate, you may think of reality as consisting of layers more or less isolated from each other: atoms; molecules; condensed matter (solids, liquids); and so on. One or two water molecules are not wet. 100 water molecules may not be wet. But a glassful of water molecules is wet (at room temperature). Wetness is therefore not a property of water molecules or even of a few water molecules, but rather of a comparatively large ensemble of water molecules. That is, at the molecular level, water is not wet; it is wet only in the condensed-matter approximation. Wetness is an emergent property of water, and it appears only in the condensed-matter approximation. It does not exist apart from the water.

Likewise, maybe ethics is an emergent property that exists only at the societal level in the free will approximation. It certainly does not exist in a vacuum, and there is certainly no universal code, in case that's what you thought I meant.

Specifically, an isolated person may not (perhaps cannot) display the property of ethics. Ethics is an emergent property that appears only in an ensemble of people - that is, it appears only at the societal approximation. I call it an approximation because it is an approximation to describe an ensemble of people as a society, just as it is an approximation to describe an ensemble of water molecules as a liquid.

More to the point, a society cannot allow its members to be constantly at each other's throats, whether or not they have free will. Therefore society drafts a code of rules we call ethics. The code has the practical effect of keeping people from inflicting harm on each other. You may find a discussion of the biological origin of ethics in my book, No Sense of Obligation: Science and Religion in an Impersonal Universe, which is available from the Infidels' bookstore.

Finally, a disclaimer: I do not think I have made an airtight argument; I do not think airtight arguments exist. I claim only that we should not believe in anything without evidence, and that the evidence for a creator does not exist. Along the way, I speculated that what we call free will is an approximation. If it is not, then where is the mechanism that gives us free will? Are we not biological systems, and are not biological systems governed by physics and chemistry? It is hard to see how we can have free will if the laws that govern us are deterministic. Quantum mechanics does not help us get out of this jam, by the way, if only because the wavefunction of a complex system evolves with minimal uncertainty. I discuss this issue, too, in my book.

[Paul Dernavich]

I understand all of that. Go back, though, and look at what you wrote - that we are deterministic biological systems comprised of layers of matter - and then look at your first statement, that causing pain without reason is unethical. I would conclude that what you mean by "unethical" is that it is another epiphenomenon: you personally don't react well to it. To suggest that it means anything else (such as a deviation from a moral standard) is to move biological systems from being descriptive (what humans do) to being prescriptive (what humans should do), and that is what is beyond the bounds of your discipline. Observing how measurable quantities react to physical processes cannot tell me whether I should turn the other cheek or not. Physics must appropriate metaphysics in order to make ethical claims.

[Matt Young]

I'm sorry, but you are misconstruing what I wrote. Physics does not make ethical claims. Neither does science. But science can look for the origin of ethics, and it can study ethics. I have suggested that it is an emergent property, like wetness, and also (in my book) that it has its origin in animal behavior. Whatever ethics is, society has defined certain ethical principles. One of the foremost of these, it seems to me, is that we should not unnecessarily inflict pain on each other. That is an ethical statement, not a scientific claim. I did not mean to imply that it was a scientific claim.

[littlerockken]

I enjoyed two things this evening. One was reading Matt Young's "Science and Religion in an Impersonal Universe."
The second thing I enjoyed was the discovery of FREE THOUGHT.
It was the first time in weeks that I felt all warm and fuzzy about being a proud infidel in a world of religious insanity. I was impressed by Matt Young's article for a number of reasons and his book(s) may go into much detail, carefully researched and thoughtfully written. Most of what he wrote, it seemed to my mind, to be food for academics but I also discovered some down to earth practical advise. We do not need gods or voodoo to be ethical and civilized. In fact I think we would be a lot more civilized if ethics had evolved though scientific observation rather than hysterical "visions" that have been the bane of mankind.
I have no desire to do battle with Allah's flock and the like because I have concluded long ago that a civilized, secular world is impossible as long as humans are involved. I often feel like a mutant in a world filled with true believers in gods and ghosts.
It is still refreshing, and it was nice to feel good, that there are other mutants in this world of ours that have little use for spooks and see reality as worthy on its own merits. -K.P.

[Matt Young]

Hi Ken and thanks for the warm fuzzy!

I confess to being an academic, but I wasn't when wrote my book, No Sense of Obligation: Science and Religion in an Impersonal Universe. That book was intended for laypersons, and you may find it easier going than a necessarily very terse magazine article.

One clarification. I do not think that ethics evolved through religion but rather may be related to "reciprocal altruism," which evolved in the animal kingdom because it was often adaptive. There may have been some coevolution of ethics and religion, but mainly I think that religion hijacked ethics (at least in the West) and claimed ethics as its own. Ethics in a highly scientific society should in principle be no different from that in a religious society: ethics is not a subdiscipline of either science or religion. Additionally, I know of no evidence that scientists are any more ethical, say in their interpersonal relations, than religious nonscientists.

I think religion may originally have been adaptive (that is, religion has a biological underpinning), so we are going to be stuck with it for as long as we exist as a species. Our job as nonbelievers therefore may to side with liberal religion rather than to condemn all religion as "gods and voodoo."

Cheers!

Matt

[chillydogg]

you do know there are two types of morality, objective and subjective? which one were you discussing? there is also a universal objective morality. sentient beings are prohibited from initiating the use of force against others. this being commonly refered to as "evil". i was wondering if you have read julian jaynes and what your thoughts on the rise of religion as a hold over from the days of the bicarmal brain might be?

[Matt Young]

Hi!

you do know there are two types of morality, objective and subjective?

I assume that by objective morality you mean the view that there is an objective, universal moral code, and by subjective morality, the view that morality is a human construct. I do not know of any evidence to support the hypothesis that there is a universal moral code, so I do not believe in it.

Indeed, I think philosophizing on such matters is not fruitful, precisely because we cannot bring any evidence to bear. I am reminded of Lucretius, who is remembered today for his atomistic theory of matter. Lucretius was more or less right, though his atoms were more like what we today call molecules - but he clearly thought that he had proved his case. Nevertheless, he did not, simply because you cannot prove a case about the physical universe without recourse to experiment or observation, and Lucretius's observations, though keen, were not up to the task he had set himself. In the same way, you cannot prove a case about ethics or meta-ethics because you cannot support your theory with observation.

which one were you discussing? there is also a universal objective morality. sentient beings are prohibited from initiating the use of force against others.

Under no circumstances? How do you know?

I admit that I find rape, genocide, slavery, and torture morally repugnant, and I do not see how anyone can argue to the contrary. But I find eating shellfish repugnant, and I do not see how anyone can eat shellfish. Both positions are opinions, and neither can be proved. I do not understand why people think their opinions on morality are somehow privileged, whereas their opinions on dining are not.

But murder and torture are easy. There are also gray areas, where people of good will disagree. It is of course possible that one is right and the other wrong, but we have no way of knowing. The best hypothesis, it seems to me, is that ethics is situational; even if there is a universal code, we have no way of finding it and have to assume situational ethics anyway. (Please note that I am not arguing for moral relativism, the view that cultures do whatever they do, and it's all right - some cultures have practices that I think are wholly repugnant.) The view that ethics is black and white seems to me to be intellectually immature; a mature thinker has great tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty.

this being commonly refered to as "evil".

I agree: it is evil to unnecessarily harm someone else. Indeed, something is or is not moral according to its outcome, not according to some abstract rule. Many sexual practices, for example, have been declared immoral, but they are arguably not because they do not harm anyone.

i was wondering if you have read julian jaynes and what your thoughts on the rise of religion as a hold over from the days of the bicarmal brain might be?

Bicarmal?

[Tom Wanchick]

I want to address two mistakes (of many) that Matt Young makes in his article, "Science and Religion in an Impersonal Universe".

For one, his comment that "philosophers of religion seem as unwilling to incorporate the discoveries of modern science into their worldviews as are the Biblical literalists" is simply false.

Prominent Christian philosophers of religion in fact quite happily use the findings of science to bolster their apologetic efforts. It's odd that Young fails to recognize this since the work of such scholars (e.g., Richard Swinburne, William Lane Craig, Robert Koons, Michael Rea) is readily available and widely discussed. Young, for example, agrees that the Cosmological Argument is supported by the scientific evidence of the universe's beginning (i.e. Big Bang cosmology). But for some reason he fails to see that contemporary philosophers like W.L. Craig cite that very data in their own work?

This leads to my other point. Young agrees that the universe probably was caused to exist. But, he says, this is unimportant since that doesn't imply that God did the causing. I beg to differ. In admitting such a cause, Young admits to the reality of a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, being who can bring the universe into reality out of nothing. Now this is precisely what theists have said of God since ancient times. How is there no theistic implication here? At the very least we ought not shrug the issue off hastily like Young does in his article.

One parting point: When it comes to the evidence for theism, Mr. Young seems to be the one who can't come to grips. For example, of the Anthropic Design (Fine Tuning) argument he says this is circular. I can't think of any sophisticated philosopher who makes such an accusation of that argument. Young appears rather unfamiliar with the current philosophical discussions surrounding this issue. Thus, in the end, we find Young himself--much like the "biblical literalists" he denigrates--refusing to properly grapple with the evidence as it stands.

[Matt Young]

Mr. Wanchick needs to read more carefully. What I actually wrote was, "except for a few philosophically minded scientists, philosophers of religion seem as unwilling to incorporate the discoveries of modern science into their worldviews as are the Biblical literalists ." I have read Swinburne, Arthur Peacocke, John Polkinghorne, and others. I think of them as theologians writing Christian apologetics, not philosophers (just as I think of Paul Davies as a physicist, not a philosopher). But maybe the dichotomy between theologian and philosopher is a distinction without a difference. To avoid a pointless argument on who is a philosopher and who is not, I will concede that the remark was intemperate and perhaps I should not have written it.

I agree that the present universe probably began with the big bang. I have no idea what went on before the big bang. But "admitting" that the universe is the result of a causal process is a far cry from admitting that the cause was a purposeful being, let alone "a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, ([I]sic) being." I don't know what is meant by a spaceless, timeless, immaterial being, and neither does anyone else. Additionally, many physicists think that the big bang was not causal but the result of an uncaused quantum fluctuation; if they are right, there goes the argument from first cause.

I do not much care whether philosophers have noticed that the anthropic "principle" is circular. It certainly seems so to me: The universe is hospitable to life; we are here; therefore the universe was designed to be hospitable to life. How do we know? Because we are here.

Supporters of the anthropic principle sometimes try to buttress their argument with the fine-tuning argument: the fundamental constants are somehow fine-tuned so that life will be possible. Victor Stenger, who has written a lot about the anthropic principle, has dealt with this claim. Briefly, Stenger argues that long-lived stars are necessary for life. Rather than arbitrarily changing one fundamental constant and demonstrating that life will not be possible, Stenger varies four fundamental constants randomly over 10 orders of magnitude. Over half the universes he has examined will support stars with a lifetime over 1 billion years. Stenger concludes that the fundamental constants are not necessarily tuned for life, though he notes that the form of life that develops might not be anything like life as we know it [1, 2].

Indeed, one hidden assumption behind the anthropic principle is that only one kind of life is possible -- else its supporters would not be so quick to argue that the universe is fine-tuned. At this very moment, in another universe in our meta-universe, an intelligent green slime (whose life is based on element 14) is basking in soft X-rays at 80 degrees Celsius and marveling that the universe is so finely tuned to support life.

Finally, as for my "refusing to properly grapple with the evidence as it stands," I can only note that my article was necessarily brief. For detailed discussions, see Ref. 3.

Let us hope that my other purported errors are more substantive than these.


[1] Stenger, Victor J. 1995. The Unconscious Quantum: Metaphysics in Modern Physics and Cosmology. Buffalo, N. Y.: Prometheus Books.

[2] Stenger, Victor J. 2004. "Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Us?" Chapter 12 of Young, Matt, and Taner Edis. Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism. Piscataway, N. J.: Rutgers University Press (in press).

[3] Young, Matt. 2001. No Sense of Obligation: Science and Religion in an Impersonal Universe. Bloomington, Ind.:1stBooks Library.

[Tom Wanchick]

I know Dr. Young is busy so I won't belabor my points here. But I must say some things in response to his last post.

He accuses me of grossly misreading his comments about theistic philosophers and their ignorance of science. But he's the one with the misunderstanding. His article says that merely some philosophically oriented scientists utilize modern science in their philosophical arguments for theism. He implies there that there are virtually no theistic philosophers who do so. His latest comments don't help; now he merely grants that some theologians also use science in their apologetics. But what Dr. Young manages to overlook is the plethora of literature coming from theistic philosophers (who are neither scientists or theologians) in support of their religious stance, much of which is saturated with discussions of modern science and how its findings buttress theism. That Dr. Young fails to see this is especially strange since he has devoted a book to theism and its supporting evidence. How can he appear so ignorant of the work of such brilliant Christian philosophers as W.L. Craig, Robin Collins, and others who so extensively employ scientific evidence in their work?

Contrary to what Dr. Young says at the end of his last post, these misstatements on his part are not unimportant. In a culture (like ours) where science and scientists are often looked at (wrongly) as the sole providers of truth and rationality, one can conceive of many readers coming across Dr. Young's (a professional scientist) essay and concluding that theism and theistic scholars are somehow out of touch with the "hard facts" of science. Unfortunately, this is simply untrue and thus Dr. Young's article is apt to mislead sincere readers.

When it comes to the big bang and its implications for religion, Dr. Young appears to be the uninformed one. He says that possibly the big bang resulted from a quantam fluctuation. But even if that were so, the universe would not come from nothing since the substances underlying this event are in fact something. But then we must ask what caused those substances to exist. We're back to the cosmological argument. Dr. Young agrees that something can't come from nothing. Thus, if time and space came into existence then something nonspatial and nontemporal must've brought it into being. The probability of theism's truth raises substantially with that realization. Dr. Young says he can't conceive of a nonphysical, nontemporal being. But in admitting a cause of space of time, he admits to the existence of such a being.

Dr. Young also presents a version of the Design Argument which no serious theistic scholar even employs. Thus, he seems to be as uninformed on the arguments for theism, as are the "biblical fundamentalists" he finds so uninformed in things scientific.

[-DM-]

[Thank you for your further feedback regarding Science and Religion in an Impersonal Universe (http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=154) by Matt Young (http://www.secweb.org/bookstore/author.asp?AuthorID=447). E-mail notification has been sent to the author. Although there are no guarantees, you might want to check back from time to time for a further response following this post. -DM-]

[Matt Young]

Thank you for the thoughtful and polite response. I don't want to comment further on my remark about the philosophers; I have essentially withdrawn the offending comment and have no more to say about it.

I think I have described the anthropic principle and the fine-tuning argument (not the argument from design, which is different) accurately and fairly, and I will let my readers decide. Unless you can get more specific, I can add nothing.

The kalam argument seems to me to be no more than the argument from first cause of Thomas Aquinas, warmed over and attributed to medieval Islamist philosophers. It runs something like this:

If something has a beginning, then it had a cause.
The universe had a beginning.
Therefore it had a cause.
The cause was God.

Aquinas's version is a little more complex, but it boils down to the same thing.

1. It is a considerable leap to attribute the cause to an intelligence. Your repeating the attribution does not make it true, though constant repetition surely seems to have made it catch on.

2. It is not clear that the premise is correct.

(a) Maybe the universe is infinitely old. I generally do not accept the physical reality of infinity, but I could be wrong. Unless you can demonstrate that the universe had a beginning, then the argument fails. (Craig's argument has been disputed; additionally, see 2(b)(i) below.)

(i) The big bang suggests that the universe is 15 billion years or so old. But it is possible that our universe is one in a series of universes or one of an infinite number of parallel universes in a meta-universe. Unless you can disprove either of these claims, you cannot be certain that the meta-universe had a beginning, so the premise is possibly wrong.

(ii) Our clock began ticking with the big bang. There is no reason to believe that nothing happened before time 0 -- that is, in negative time. I suspect that the little green men who live in negative time see themselves as living in positive time and us as living in negative time.

(b) Quantum theory suggests that some events happen spontaneously, without a cause. I am skeptical of that claim, but maybe the universe started as an uncaused quantum fluctuation in a void. Maybe the void has existed for infinite time, whether or not it spawned any universes before now. If so, then the premise is wrong and the argument fails.

(i) Where did the void come from? I don't know. Where did God come from? I don't know. But the theist's answer is that God has always existed and had no beginning and therefore no cause. OK. The same could be said for the void, which the argument from first cause presumes could not be infinitely old. The argument, therefore, needs to have it both ways: The universe can't be infinitely old, but God can be -- else we'd have to ask where God came from.

(ii) What is a timeless, massless, immaterial being, anyway? My college philosophy professor asked what's an apple that has no mass, no taste, no shape, no smell, no texture, no color. It's nothing; it does not exist, because it has no properties. Neither does a timeless, massless, immaterial being.

3. An argument can be logical and still wrong if its premise does not correspond to physical reality. Unless you can establish the truth of the premise and the logic that leads to the last step, your argument has accomplished nothing of substance.

[-DM-]

[Moved to Evolution/Creation in order to facilitate open discussion. Note to mods: if this fits better in Science & Skepticism, for example, please feel free to move it again. -Don-]

[Oolon Colluphid]

Originally posted by Matt Young
(ii) Our clock began ticking with the big bang. There is no reason to believe that nothing happened before time 0 -- that is, in negative time. I suspect that the little green men who live in negative time see themselves as living in positive time and us as living in negative time.
There simply is no time before T=0. 'What happened before the Big Bang?' is meaningless, since there wasn't a before to be before anything. Time started when space started; that's why it's called spacetime! It's a difficult idea to get one's head around, but that's how it is.
(b) Quantum theory suggests that some events happen spontaneously, without a cause. I am skeptical of that claim
Then read up on it! :) Things happen uncaused all the time at the quantum level. I think it was Feynmann who said that if you think you understand the quantum world, then you don't understand it!
(i) Where did the void come from? I don't know. Where did God come from? I don't know. But the theist's answer is that God has always existed and had no beginning and therefore no cause. OK. The same could be said for the void, which the argument from first cause presumes could not be infinitely old. The argument, therefore, needs to have it both ways: The universe can't be infinitely old, but God can be -- else we'd have to ask where God came from.

And thus one can count the pin-head-dancing angels... What we need is evidence that gods exist at all, then we can start discussing their nature.

Cheers, Oolon

[Dean Anderson]

Originally posted by Oolon Colluphid
There simply is no time before T=0. 'What happened before the Big Bang?' is meaningless, since there wasn't a before to be before anything. Time started when space started; that's why it's called spacetime! It's a difficult idea to get one's head around, but that's how it is.

The best way I find to visualise this is to ask the question What is south of the South Pole?

Travelling back in time in the universe it like travelling south on the Earth.

As you look further back in time, the universe gets smaller and the rate of shrinking gets larger the further back you go until you get to the Big Bang.

Similarly, as you go south from the equator, the lines of latitude get smaller and this rate of shrinking increases the further south you go until you get to the South Pole.

However, once you are at the South Pole you cannot go any further south. South is a meaningless direction once you are there. There is no more 'South' beyond the South Pole.

In the same way, once you go back as far as the big bang you cannot go back any further. Time is a meaningless measurement once you get to the big bang. There is no more Time before the Big Bang.

This whole analogy may not be entirely accurate to a cosmologist, since the universe is more complicated than this, but it serves a layman like me well in my attempt to visualise how we can have a beginning but no 'Time' before that beginning...

[Oolon Colluphid]

Originally posted by Pervy Hobbit Fancier
This whole analogy may not be entirely accurate to a cosmologist, since the universe is more complicated than this, but it serves a layman like me well
Yup, and it serves cosmologists well enough too: Hawking used it similarly for his 'no boundary' hypothesis in Brief History. (Anyone know the current state of that idea?)

Cheers, Oolon

[pz]

Originally posted by Pervy Hobbit Fancier
The best way I find to visualise this is to ask the question What is south of the South Pole?

Travelling back in time in the universe it like travelling south on the Earth.

As you look further back in time, the universe gets smaller and the rate of shrinking gets larger the further back you go until you get to the Big Bang.

Similarly, as you go south from the equator, the lines of latitude get smaller and this rate of shrinking increases the further south you go until you get to the South Pole.

However, once you are at the South Pole you cannot go any further south. South is a meaningless direction once you are there. There is no more 'South' beyond the South Pole. This fact, however, is proof of the existence of a Great Penguin who started the world (or at least, that hemisphere (is there a Great Auk of the North? Avian theology is so Manichaean)).

By the way, the theological implications of the concepts of East and West are very canine: chasing their tails, endless circling, no beginning or end.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Originally posted by Tom Wanchick
In a culture (like ours) where science and scientists are often looked at (wrongly) as the sole providers of truth and rationality,
Hmmm, interesting. Well, not really, but I�ll ask anyway: what other sort of �truth� is there, and how can one tell if it is �true�?
one can conceive of many readers coming across Dr. Young's (a professional scientist) essay and concluding that theism and theistic scholars are somehow out of touch with the "hard facts" of science.
No, they are merely out of touch with any useful form of the word �fact�.
When it comes to the big bang and its implications for religion, Dr. Young appears to be the uninformed one.
It remains to be seen, but you could be right, given his scepticism over quantum fluctuational effects.
He says that possibly the big bang resulted from a quantam fluctuation. But even if that were so, the universe would not come from nothing since the substances underlying this event are in fact something.
Hah! And you accuse Matt Young of having an uninformed opinion about it! The pot is calling the, erm... something light grey... the pot is calling the stainless steel kettle black!

Start with A Brief History of Time. Move on to Feynman. Get a textbook or two. Cos you don�t seem to have a clue what you�re on about. There are no �substances underlying this event� -- that�s the sodding point! :rolleyes:
Dr. Young also presents a version of the Design Argument which no serious theistic scholar even employs.
Heehee.... a design argument, eh? Bring it on, pal, bring it on.

TTFN, Oolon

[Oolon Colluphid]

Originally posted by pz
This fact, however, is proof of the existence of a Great Penguin who started the world (or at least, that hemisphere (is there a Great Auk of the North? Avian theology is so Manichaean)). It's penguins all the way down.

[Dean Anderson]

Originally posted by pz
This fact, however, is proof of the existence of a Great Penguin who started the world (or at least, that hemisphere (is there a Great Auk of the North? Avian theology is so Manichaean)).

From the book of Navigation (the last book in the North Testament)...

Nav 9:16 And Lo! The Auk shall come!
Nav 9:17 And it shall have seventeen beaks and twenty three wings, and it shall have a fish in each beak, yea verily even a herring.
Nav 9:18 And by these signs shall ye know it.
Nav 9:19 It's squawking will be as loud a a herd of elephants and heard throughout the world,
Nav 9:21 And all the unbelievers shall perish in the Great Freeze and spend eternity in the Sea of Icebergs.
Nav 9:22 Since the Auk is the herald of the End Latitudes when the great North Pole shall be upon us!

[Oolon Colluphid]

Originally posted by Matt Young
If something has a beginning, then it had a cause.
The universe had a beginning.
Therefore it had a cause.
The cause was God.

[...]

3. An argument can be logical and still wrong if its premise does not correspond to physical reality. Unless you can establish the truth of the premise and the logic that leads to the last step, your argument has accomplished nothing of substance.
But we can put it more strongly. Even if the first three lines were correct, on what grounds should the cause be attributed to some deity? It could just as easily have been the sneeze of the Great Green Arkleseizure that started it. It takes rather more to establish that 'God' was the cause. Like demonstrating that there is such a thing as god.

One could easily say, okay, the universe has a cause. Show us why that cause was god. But I'm not prepared yet to say that there was a cause, so we'll let Tom Wankchick cross that bridge if he makes it that far.

Oolon

[pz]

Originally posted by Oolon Colluphid
It's penguins all the way down.

But it's auks and puffins all the way up. Do I detect the beginnings of a heresy here?

Seriously, though, whenever I see the 'first cause' argument used to justify belief in a super-being, it sounds just like this auk/penguin silliness.

[mahesh]

Excellent article by Matt Young. Upon reading it, I am thoroughly vindicated in my stance of agnosticism (slanting towards atheism).

Just to add to Young's impressive and compelling theses, I add the following comments:

If the scriptures were not discovered, there wouldn't be any religion. However, none of the things that is mentioned in any of the scriptures have recurred after the period they represented. This just goes to prove that the scriptures were just a recollection of what happened during and a little after Genesis. Nice reading, yes. But what effect do those happenings have on the world thereafter? In the world today? NIL! So what's the hullaboo all about? Why do we sing carols today? To appease the characters in the scriptures? Where are they now? They represented a bygone era and have no relevance in the scheme of things today.

I believe that if the printing press wasn't invented in 1440, or later in the late 19th century if the American Bible Society did not indulge in wide-spread printing and distribution of a 'translation' that would sell, there would be no Christianity today.

Except the discovery of the scriptures and Mohammed's Koran, what precious has happened in the 1975 years after Jesus died to justify the effect of all the holy acts of the Bible? Has there been any repeat occurrence of a single miracle of the sort explained in the Bible or Koran? Anywhere? Why do we give more credit than it is due to these texts? Due credit is to appreciate the chornicling of events that took place then.

Admittedly, credit is to be given to the Bible for giving the world history, a calendarial reference point. Period. Nothing more is to be said about the Bible. That would tantamount to corrupting the truth.

In the modern day, life goes on without the effect of the Bible or Koran or Gita or any other religious text. There is no floating halo on earth or the universe in which God rests and supervises the world. Bible, Koran and Gita are history like many literary masterpieces. Man lives on building on civilisation, making mistakes, killing one another, building again, killing again.. the juggernaut rolls on. Organic decay and survival of the fittest (like Darwin said) constitute the order of the day.

I wonder: Man may have evolved and civilised or created out of gas and dust by a divine creator, but can he stop doing the 4 things his fellow animals do? i.e., Eating, Sleeping, Excreting and Sex? No. He can't. If not anything else, this is proof that leans towards Evolution.

-Mahesh (Maheshkumar, M)
United Arab Emirates.
Personal website: www.mmahesh.com

[Edited in the interest of the security of the author to remove personal address, only. -DM-]

[Steven Carr]

Originally posted by Tom Wanchick
How can he appear so ignorant of the work of such brilliant Christian philosophers as W.L. Craig, Robin Collins, and others who so extensively employ scientific evidence in their work?


Dr. Young also presents a version of the Design Argument which no serious theistic scholar even employs. Thus, he seems to be as uninformed on the arguments for theism, as are the "biblical fundamentalists" he finds so uninformed in things scientific.

I emailed Robin Collins of Messiah University the following question about fine-tuning. I am interested in what his answer will be.

Dear Professor Collins,
I was looking at your fine tuning paper.

Could God fine-tune the human body to run 100 meters in 6 seconds? Or 1 second? Or 0.1 second?

Would there come a time when , no matter how much God made our legs strong enough to run fast, the problems of supplying oxygen to the legs would be insuperable? Or perhaps some other problem would occur?

Or would such a point never happen?

Suppose it was impossible for God to fine-tune the human body to run 100 meters faster than 0.33 seconds.

If I then challenged God to produce a human who could run in 0.35 seconds, God could do that, but he would be very lucky that I did not ask him to do it in 0.25 seconds, as that would be too much for even a God.

Suppose I challenged God to create a universe where the strength of gravity was enough to allow the Big Bang to expand , but strong enough to make stars and planets form, yet weak enough to allow us to move around.

God would say, I can do that, but he would be very lucky that I did not ask him to produce a universe which was so finely-tuned that problems fixing G would have led to insuperable problems fixing the electric charge or the capacitance of a vaccum or whatever.

So was God just lucky that a universe can be made which does not have to be fine-tuned very much more than ours, or was it always possible for God to find a combination of constants which allowed a universe to exist.

Surely if it is always possible to find a combination of constants which allow a universe to exist, this is just a brute, unexplainable fact - indeed the very fact that the fine-tuning universe is supposed to solve.

It means there was no luck involved in the project to create a universe, as there would be luck involved in having to meet the specification of creating a human to run in 0.35 seconds, when it could easily have been the impossible task of making a human to run 100 meters in 0.25 seconds.

So where does the fact that there is A solution to the universe building problem come from, when there could easily have been NO solution? (as , sooner or later for decreasing values of x, God could not create a human to run 100 metres in less time than x)

Was God just lucky he was not stymied, as he would be stymied by the task of making a human being run 100 metres in 0.0000000001 seconds?

The alternative, that it is a priori always possible, to find laws of physics which allow universe to exist, seems equally mysterious, as though it is always possible to create a human who can run at almost light speed.

To sum up, the fine-tuning in the universe is a mystery, but positing somebody who set up the laws of physics to satisfy these fine-tuning constraints just replaces one mystery with another, as we cannot explain how such a task is always possible.


Best wishes,
Steven Carr

[Rohitbd]

This is a very good article, and I agree with it. The concept of "God" was okay when people did not understand natural phenomena, and although we have learnt and understood nature as we have evolved, given up old practices, we still haven't given up the concept of "God" and it's inevitable side-effect - religion. Nothing has divided us humans more than God or religion - personal beliefs aside, God/religion are just tools to justify our (unjust and intolerant) actions towards other humans & animals, and excuses for not doing the things we should.

[Eternally Curious]

I did enjoy the article. It's another example of how simple things should be.

[Hrvoje Butkovic]

I’m curious why the article doesn’t mention any of the research from the field of parapsychology. I would have thought that the examination of mediums, near-death experiences and the like would be highly relevant to the subject. As it stands, there is quite a jump from considering the Bible and philosophical arguments to a firm conclusion that materialism constitutes an accurate description of reality.

[-DM-]

I’m curious why the article doesn’t mention any of the research from the field of parapsychology ...

As is mentioned in the description of the article, the article is an excerpt adapted from the author's book No Sense of Obligation: Science and Religion in an Impersonal Universe (http://www.secweb.org/index.aspx?action=viewBook&id=705). The focus of the book is on the merits of religious faith: "Rejecting belief without evidence, a scientist scrutinizes scientific, theological, and philosophical literature for a sign from God--and finds God to be an allegory ... This remarkable book, written in the layperson’s language, leaves no room for unproven ideas and instead seeks hard evidence for the existence of God."

In any case, Matt Young has been notified of your feedback. Although there are not guarantees, you might want to check back from time to time for a response from him, or perhaps from someone else who has read the book.

-DM-

[Matt Young]

First, thanks to Mr. Morgan for the pleasant surprise of seeing my article “in print” again.

Mr. Butkovic asks why I did not discuss parapsychology and mediums in my article. In my book, I discuss mysticism and near-death experiences. I know of no credible evidence that the experiences of mystics are in any sense objectively real. Mystics never “return” with any statement or observation that could in any way be verified. Their experiences, for example, invariably reflect the culture of the mystic: Christians see Jesus, Hindus see Krishna, and nonbelievers see nothing (or nothingness). Near-death experiences can likewise be attributed to hallucinations brought on, for example, by anoxia in the brain. Finally, parapsychology is to my mind a pseudoscience that has produced nothing worthy of our consideration. See, for example, Susan Blackmore, “The elusive open mind: Ten years of negative research in parapsychology,” Skeptical Inquirer 11, 244-255 (1987), or Professor Blackmore’s memoir, “The Adventures of a Parapsychologist” (Prometheus, Buffalo, 1986).

[Hrvoje Butkovic]

First, thanks to Mr. Morgan for the pleasant surprise of seeing my article “in print” again.

Mr. Butkovic asks why I did not discuss parapsychology and mediums in my article. In my book, I discuss mysticism and near-death experiences. I know of no credible evidence that the experiences of mystics are in any sense objectively real. Mystics never “return” with any statement or observation that could in any way be verified. Their experiences, for example, invariably reflect the culture of the mystic: Christians see Jesus, Hindus see Krishna, and nonbelievers see nothing (or nothingness). Near-death experiences can likewise be attributed to hallucinations brought on, for example, by anoxia in the brain. Finally, parapsychology is to my mind a pseudoscience that has produced nothing worthy of our consideration. See, for example, Susan Blackmore, “The elusive open mind: Ten years of negative research in parapsychology,” Skeptical Inquirer 11, 244-255 (1987), or Professor Blackmore’s memoir, “The Adventures of a Parapsychologist” (Prometheus, Buffalo, 1986).
To respond to the examples given above:
- Mystical experience of unity with the world (Samadhi) cuts across cultures and, to the best of my knowledge, remains unexplained by science.
- The hypothesis that anoxia in the brain is a trigger of near-death experiences has its problems, both because it often does not cause NDEs and because NDEs can occur in its absence. To the best of my knowledge, no single hypothesis accounts for all, or even most of the features commonly found in NDEs.
- Upon examining Susan Blackmore’s experiments, parapsychologist Rick Berger has found that, of the 21 experiments that were published, 7 have yielded statistically significant results. She subsequently discounted these due to flaws in the experiment, thereby applying a double standard to the quality requirements for her experiments based on their outcome.

Obviously I don’t agree with the conclusion that parapsychology has produced nothing worthy of our consideration. There are other interesting phenomena and findings as well, such as xenoglossy, children’s accounts of reincarnation that are supported by matching birthmarks and phobias, Rupert Sheldrake’s research into psychic pets, staring and precognition, and so on. Surely we are more likely to find “hard evidence” (according to the book’s description) here than in either theology or philosophy?

[-DM-]

Note: the Secular Web Library (http://www.infidels.org/library/index.shtml) includes an index page linking to information on Mysticism and the Paranormal (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paranormal/). I recommend Keith Augustine's article Hallucinatory Near-Death Experiences (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/HNDEs.html).

[lpetrich]

- Mystical experience of unity with the world (Samadhi) cuts across cultures and, to the best of my knowledge, remains unexplained by science.
There is good reason to think otherwise. Newberg and D'Aquili have scanned the brains of Tibetan Buddhist monks and other meditators. The researchers have found that a certain part of the meditators' brains goes quiet; a part that is involved in distinguishing self from nonself. Thus, it seems that All Reality Has Become One, when all that has happened is that we are not trying to distinguish different parts of reality.

- Upon examining Susan Blackmore’s experiments, parapsychologist Rick Berger has found that, of the 21 experiments that were published, 7 have yielded statistically significant results. She subsequently discounted these due to flaws in the experiment, thereby applying a double standard to the quality requirements for her experiments based on their outcome.
Martin Gardner has pointed out that parapsychology researchers' fascination with statistical effects is much like spiritualist mediums' fascination with things that happen in darkness. It's too easy to get misleading results that way. Furthermore, why aren't psi effects appearing at higher and higher statistical significance? That's what happens as science progresses; we get a better and better understanding of known phenomena, including more and more precise measurements of parameter values. And when phenomena are not seen, we get lower and lower upper limits for them.

There are other interesting phenomena and findings as well, such as xenoglossy, children’s accounts of reincarnation that are supported by matching birthmarks and phobias, ...
I'd like to see if that alleged past-like language competence is anything more than babbling or parroting. Like being able to translate to and from it.

[Hrvoje Butkovic]

There is good reason to think otherwise. Newberg and D'Aquili have scanned the brains of Tibetan Buddhist monks and other meditators. The researchers have found that a certain part of the meditators' brains goes quiet; a part that is involved in distinguishing self from nonself. Thus, it seems that All Reality Has Become One, when all that has happened is that we are not trying to distinguish different parts of reality.
How does inactivity in this part of the brain account for the person having access to information that lies outside of the brain and outside of the reach of the physical senses (taking Paramahansa Yogananda’s description from the Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samadhi), for example)?

Martin Gardner has pointed out that parapsychology researchers' fascination with statistical effects is much like spiritualist mediums' fascination with things that happen in darkness. It's too easy to get misleading results that way.
What should parapsychologists be using to analyse their experimental data if not statistics?

Furthermore, why aren't psi effects appearing at higher and higher statistical significance? That's what happens as science progresses; we get a better and better understanding of known phenomena, including more and more precise measurements of parameter values. And when phenomena are not seen, we get lower and lower upper limits for them.
I would have thought that consistently producing results that are statistically significant under increasingly stringent conditions is sufficient to establish the validity of a phenomenon. In any event, there is a great deal still left to explore, some of which may yield improved results. For example, in 1997, strong correlation has been found between success of various parapsychology experiments and local sidereal time, with a peak in the success rate at 12.9 hours. I don’t know whether these findings have been taken into account in subsequent research.

I'd like to see if that alleged past-like language competence is anything more than babbling or parroting. Like being able to translate to and from it.
Apparently it is. Some of the reported cases are listed here (http://www.victorzammit.com/book/chapter22.html).

[lpetrich]

(self/nonself tracker going quiet...)
How does inactivity in this part of the brain account for the person having access to information that lies outside of the brain and outside of the reach of the physical senses (taking Paramahansa Yogananda’s description from the Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samadhi), for example)?
I read his description, and I don't see anything that looks like such information.

What should parapsychologists be using to analyse their experimental data if not statistics?
The problem is not with statistics, it's with the continual failure to get increasingly high statistical significance.

So why aren't we bending spoons and doing other psi things on an everyday basis?

I would have thought that consistently producing results that are statistically significant under increasingly stringent conditions is sufficient to establish the validity of a phenomenon.
But it has not happened.

[Hrvoje Butkovic]

I read his description, and I don't see anything that looks like such information.
Perhaps the term information is misleading. I was referring to being able to sense the people moving on distant streets, the flow of sap within plants and trees, the white cow behind the brick wall, and so on.

So why aren't we bending spoons and doing other psi things on an everyday basis?
The effects that have been observed to date are quite small, hence the need for statistical analysis. My suspicion is that we are gradually losing touch with the kind of lifestyle that is needed to develop these abilities.

But it has not happened.
The protocols used in the testing of individuals for extra-sensory perception have become more stringent over the years, especially with the introduction of the ganzfeld technique, yet the results have remained statistically significant. The protocols used in the testing of mediums have also become more stringent (the January 2007 experiment at the University of Arizona utilised proxy sitters with whom the mediums interacted over the phone), with the results remaining statistically significant. Studies of the sense of being stared at have incorporated the measurement of galvanic skin response, with the results remaining statistically significant.

[lpetrich]

I read his description, and I don't see anything that looks like such information.
Perhaps the term information is misleading. I was referring to being able to sense the people moving on distant streets, the flow of sap within plants and trees, the white cow behind the brick wall, and so on.
Seems like it could just as well have been a vivid dream. I've had some of those, and they have seemed very real.
The effects that have been observed to date are quite small, hence the need for statistical analysis.
But why do such effects continue to remain borderline? Consider that the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Laboratory is now closed: A Princeton Lab on ESP Plans to Close Its Doors (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/10/science/10princeton.html?_r=1&oref=slogin). Would its operators have closed it if it was producing higher- and higher-quality results? They don't even bother to try to claim that.
My suspicion is that we are gradually losing touch with the kind of lifestyle that is needed to develop these abilities.
And how might that be the case? This seems like a shyness-effect sort of hypothesis, the sort of hypothesis that conveniently hides the phenomenon from rigorous testing.

[Hrvoje Butkovic]

Seems like it could just as well have been a vivid dream. I've had some of those, and they have seemed very real.
These experiences typically take place while the person is conscious. Ed Mitchell’s experience (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=3842618&postcount=29) is another example.

But why do such effects continue to remain borderline? Consider that the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Laboratory is now closed: A Princeton Lab on ESP Plans to Close Its Doors (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/10/science/10princeton.html?_r=1&oref=slogin). Would its operators have closed it if it was producing higher- and higher-quality results? They don't even bother to try to claim that.
I would again have to speculate to justify their decision. The article does say that funding was getting scarce and that the researchers have done what they had set out to do. If they had the funds to continue and ideally extend the research, then I’m baffled by the decision not to.

And how might that be the case? This seems like a shyness-effect sort of hypothesis, the sort of hypothesis that conveniently hides the phenomenon from rigorous testing.
Note that this is my suspicion and is in no way scientific or authoritative. It largely draws on what I’ve read about aborigine cultures. They frequently interact with plants and animals, including attempts to communicate with them or their spirits, while we have largely insulated ourselves from the natural world. They take dreams seriously and regularly analyse them for their meaning while we mostly disregard them. They rely on feelings and intuition to inform them about the world to a far greater extent than we do.

If paranormal abilities are real, they should be better developed among people who believe them to be real and use them in their daily lives than by people who don’t believe them to be real or consider themselves incapable of mastering them.

I know and have heard of a number of people who struggle to demonstrate their knowledge of a subject under exam conditions and tend to go blank when the pressure is on. It wouldn’t surprise me if paranormal abilities suffered from similar difficulties when subjected to rigorous testing. In this case, crying ‘foul’ would simply be a convenient way to avoid probing deeper into the subject.

[TOMMY]

I agree with the author's reasoning completely. It pretty much sums up where I'm at.
I do, however, find the following by the author not quite on the mark:

"science and technology have given us shorter working weeks, more abundant food and resources, and more leisure; and our political systems have given us more freedom and dignity."

Science and technology have given us the needed inventions so that we SHOULD be working less, but I don't think we are. But the reason is more in the realm of sociology and politics. I work two jobs: I know many who do also. As for our political system and freedom and dignity: gee, where to begin on that one. Touchy subject.

Great article though.

Tom Contolini

[Deleet]

Science and technology have given us the needed inventions so that we SHOULD be working less, but I don't think we are. But the reason is more in the realm of sociology and politics. I work two jobs: I know many who do also. As for our political system and freedom and dignity: gee, where to begin on that one. Touchy subject.

Don't you have holidays?

Compare your freedom to a citizen of a country under Rome domination @ 0 AD.

[staringatangels]

In response to Matt Young's article "Science and Religion in an Impersonal Universe," I found a concise and well thought-out examination of the issues that come up when trying to connect the threads of science, religion, and philosophy.

The assertions given to justify belief in God are so obviously circular or based on unjustified assumptions that I find it surprising that they are still being utilized.

I am intrigued and may decide to read the book one day. I especially like the concluding comments talking about finding meaning and improving society in absence of belief in God. I have found that this topic is woefully lacking in freethinking literature, overshadowed by criticizing religion. For those of us who have already reached an agnostic/atheist position, we need more of this kind of thing, because most likely we are already aware of the horrors or errors of religion. How much does this book touch on this subject, I wonder?

I also find one passage in the article I don't agree with (if I'm understanding it correctly).

"We find that, contrary to postmodernist assertion, there is objective reality or, if you prefer, objective truth that exists independently of the observer and the belief system of the observer. I argue further that the only way to get at that truth--more precisely, the only way to approximate it, as a map approximates a continent--is through empirical observation."

This looks to me like an essentially positivist position, which suffers from self-contradiction. If you are saying that truth can only be arrived at through empirical observation, what empirical observation can justify that?

[Matt Young]

Thanks to Staringatangels for the supportive comments! I haven’t the foggiest idea whether or not I am a positivist, but my wife sometimes assures me I am a negativist (which I naturally deny). My answer to the problem of induction is simple: I am an empiricist because it works. When it stops working, I’ll stop doing it.

I am never sure what people mean when they say truth or, for that matter, Truth. But I certainly claim that the only way to ascertain facts about the physical universe is empirically.

Your comments on freethinking are interesting also. If we are going to fight off the creationists, then we must have the support of liberal religious groups, and we cannot afford to alienate them by criticizing “religion” or lumping all religions together. I discuss the possible benefits of religion in the book, and in the chapter, “Questions theorists ask,” explain why I find meaning in observing certain religious rituals. I am sorry to tell you that a philosopher, in effect, told me I was a shmuck, and a publisher rejected the book because of a page or so in that chapter.

[-DM-]

Note: The Secular Web Bookstore carries Matt Young's book: No Sense of Obligation: Science and Religion in an Impersonal Universe (http://www.secweb.org/index.aspx?action=viewBook&id=705).

-DM-

[Matt Young]

Apologies, but the title of the chapter in comment 52 should have been, "Questions theists ask," not "Questions theorists ask." I naturally blame my voice-recognition software and not my general inability to proofread my own writing.

[itsstillamysteryhuh]

I especially like the concluding comments talking about finding meaning and improving society in absence of belief in God.


There is no meaning and no reason to attempt improving society if this is all we are. We simply pop up (are born), live for a mere 70-80 years (+/-), then die and that's it. Improving society is futile since society will eventually cease to exist. In other words, NOTHING matters without something more. To drive this idea a little deeper, consider the following:

Without something more, it would not matter...

1. if you love children or kill them.
2. if you waste all of your money (just steal more to gain your wealth back).
3. if you kill yourself and maybe take out a few others at the same time.
4. if you constantly lie to others.
5. if you write several 1,000-page novels.
6. if you work or choose not to work.
7. if you just lie in bed and wait to die.

Of course, the things above would matter to others, but would not matter when considering it in the general sense (ie, there's nothing more to this world so nothing really matters). Yes, reality bites.

[deadman_932]

For people without personal ethics and morals...you might have a point, itsamysterystillhuh...The truly amoral are much like people who depend on religions to TELL them how to be moral and ethical...while excusing their sins on every level.

If you can't find meaning in life without "something more" than basic morality and ethics that don't require gods...then you're simply an amoral, brainless drone.

[itsstillamysteryhuh]

The truly amoral are much like people who depend on religions to TELL them how to be moral and ethical...while excusing their sins on every level.

I'm sorry, but that is only your opinion based on your own personal bias towards religions, and it is not backed up by any proof whatsoever. Besides, if there is no purpose to this life, that which is moral or amoral is dependent on whatever each individual person believes it is during each specific moment in time that person is alive.


If you can't find meaning in life without "something more" than basic morality and ethics that don't require gods...then you're simply an amoral, brainless drone.

"If" there is no purpose other than for us to be born, live a mere 70-80 years (+/-), then die, then we really have no purpose except for wasting time trying to influence other people with the same purposelessness.

"If" there is no other purpose ("something more" to this life)...

1. it doesn't matter if one is utterly intellectual or utterly stupid (the very brief, 70-or-so-year period ends exactly the same... with death and decay).
2. basic morality and ethics can be defined however you wish them to be.
3. we are all (not just some of us) nothing more than "drones" drifting through space waiting to die.
4. you will never have anything more than an endless mystery, and any efforts you put forward in trying to solve that ever-elusive mystery will also have no purpose (other than to give you something to do until you die and decay).

:wave:

Additional Note for deadman_932 unrelated to the OP: I believe using this forum to "stalk" and/or "harass" other people is strictly prohibited by the forum rules. Please abide by these rules like everyone else is expected to. You may not like or agree with what I type (or what anyone else here types), but that does not give you the right to "stalk" posters or "harass" them with subtle, but inflammatory phrases such as "you're simply an amoral, brainless drone." Your cooperation is appreciated (and expected, according to this forum's rules).

[-DM-]

"If" there is no purpose other than for us to be born, live a mere 70-80 years (+/-), then die, then we really have no purpose except for wasting time trying to influence other people with the same purposelessness.
That is your opinion, based on your own personal bias, which you have not backed up with any convincing evidence and/or argument.

I believe using this forum to "stalk" and/or "harass" other people is strictly prohibited by the forum rules.
This forum is not considered an integral part of the Internet Infidels Discussion Board even though it is hosted on the same server and uses the same bulletin board software. This forum, the Secular Web Feedback Forum, goes by its own guidelines as set forth in the Feedback FAQ (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/announcement.php?s=&forumid=10).

Please abide by these rules like everyone else is expected to. You may not like or agree with what I type (or what anyone else here types), but that does not give you the right to "stalk" posters or "harass" them with subtle, but inflammatory phrases such as "you're simply an amoral, brainless drone." Your cooperation is appreciated (and expected, according to this forum's rules).
It is not your place to tell other participants in the Secular Web Feedback Forum what they can and cannot do. In any case, please note that the thing that made deadman_932's post acceptable was the same thing that made your previous post acceptable: like your assertions, his assertion was prefaced with "If."

In any case, you both should probably keep in mind that this thread is intended to pertain to the article Science and Religion in an Impersonal Universe, by Matt Young (http://www.secweb.org/index.aspx?action=viewAsset&id=154).

-DM-

[Matt Young]

The idea that morality comes from God is philosophically untenable. Is something moral because God said so? If that is so, then God could have said anything. Or did God say something is moral because it is? If that is so, then God had no choice, and the moral code supersedes God. Which is it?

There is good evidence that morality is an evolved trait. See the chapter, "The evil that men do," in my book, or read the recent article, "The moral instinct," by Steven Pinker, in The New York Times Magazine of January 13, 2008.

[staringatangels]

I haven’t the foggiest idea whether or not I am a positivist, but my wife sometimes assures me I am a negativist (which I naturally deny). My answer to the problem of induction is simple: I am an empiricist because it works. When it stops working, I’ll stop doing it.

Logical positivism is the idea that only statements framed in an empirical/scientific language can be true of false; all other types of statements (aesthetic, ethical, philosophical, or spiritual) are meaningless because they are unable to be verified by observation. Philosophers such as A. J. Ayer held this view, and it influenced psychologists like B. F. Skinner.

The problem is that this stance fails its own test; the conclusion of positivism cannot be empirically verified. Sure it "works" in a sense, but so does belief in God, for many people. It gives (some) believers meaning and happiness, and to them, it explains their existence more fully than science can.

I am never sure what people mean when they say truth or, for that matter, Truth. But I certainly claim that the only way to ascertain facts about the physical universe is empirically.

I guess that depends on what you mean by a "fact." If a fact is something that is defined as being verifiable by empirical observation, then sure, by the nature of its definition, a fact can only be empirically verified. But even if we take this as our definition, aren't there things that have meaning for us that aren't "facts" in this sense? "The sky is beautiful tonight." "The plays of Shakespeare are compelling literary works." "Torturing children is immoral." These statements can mean something even though you can't verify them with science.

Keep in mind I am not trying to argue for any spirituality here; I am an atheist. But I think there are ways of finding meaning and "truth" apart from science/empirical observation.

If we are going to fight off the creationists, then we must have the support of liberal religious groups, and we cannot afford to alienate them by criticizing “religion” or lumping all religions together.

Yes, there are a number of theists who have much in common with atheists, agnostics, and deists. They hold the same values. A good example is the group Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, a group run by Reverend Barry W. Lynn.

I discuss the possible benefits of religion in the book, and in the chapter, “Questions theorists ask,” explain why I find meaning in observing certain religious rituals. I am sorry to tell you that a philosopher, in effect, told me I was a shmuck, and a publisher rejected the book because of a page or so in that chapter.

Ah, good, I think more and more freethinkers are recognizing this kind of thing; there is something psychologically fulfilling about ritual. Sorry to hear about the philosopher and publisher; narrow-mindedness can occur just about anywhere. I will keep your book in mind for future reading. I also participate in a monthly atheist/agnostic/deist group and we plan on discussing your essay next month.

[staringatangels]

There is no meaning and no reason to attempt improving society if this is all we are.

If this life is all we have, why would we not have reason to improve it? That doesn't make any sense. All of the theoretical behaviors you are suggesting only matter in a societal context, so it seems to me the issue is beyond metaphysics. However, this is not the place to debate it; if you are interested, you could make a post in a board such as the Moral Foundations and Principles (http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?f=61) forum, and I'd be happy to discuss the subject further.

[Matt Young]

Negativism was a joke; I know what a positivist is.

I also recognize the philosophical problem with empiricism. But I think you are finessing the difference between a verifiable fact such as descent with modification and a widely shared opinion such as “Shakespeare was our greatest playwright.” The last statement is not meaningless, and I did not suggest that such statements are meaningless, but it is not an empirical fact. I think you can find meaning in the statement that torture is immoral, for example, but not verifiable truth.

I make a distinction between internal and external reality. If I think torture is immoral, then, for me, it is. But if I think humans did not descend from a common ancestor with some species of ape, then I am wrong.

[windigo]

I notice in this article that the author makes the statment

"The myriad of errors and inconsistencies
in the Hebrew Bible and in the Gospels ought to deliver a death blow to
that belief"

I know you have philisophical reasons for needing to belive this, but do you ever have a really convincing set of examples. I've looked high and low for a really good set of biblical contradictions, and the best i can ever find are a collection of out of context, and heavily twisted verses. Typically from people that only read an english translation, without knowing any relevant history of the era the stuff was written in, and then confidently asserting ERROR!! Is this the best you lot can do. I'm willing to consider the possibility of error, or contradiction, but i stop bothering to check through enormous lists when the first 30 or so items are just crap, and show the authors ignorance rather than biblical errors. I look forward to the day that i find an articel on this web site that actaully has a convincing attack on the christian faith, and isn't just a collection of unsubstantiated assertions parading as evidence. Please if i've missed an article such as this let me know.

Jason

They attack your faith because they FEAR what THEY believe so much, that it gives them peace of mind knowing that you MIGHT be wrong?

We are the sons and daughters of the Golden Bough.

[staringatangels]

Negativism was a joke; I know what a positivist is.

Haha, OK, sorry for being so serious.

I also recognize the philosophical problem with empiricism. But I think you are finessing the difference between a verifiable fact such as descent with modification and a widely shared opinion such as “Shakespeare was our greatest playwright.” The last statement is not meaningless, and I did not suggest that such statements are meaningless, but it is not an empirical fact. I think you can find meaning in the statement that torture is immoral, for example, but not verifiable truth.

First, I'd like to point out that non-empirical "truths" (and I used the word truth loosely, thus the quotes), do not need to be shared opinions. In fact, I would call a shared opinion a norm or more rather than a truth. I'm talking more about an assertion like "The works of Shakespeare are beautiful."

Second, you may see what I'm saying as finessing, but to me the issue is an important one. Perhaps you are not discounting the meaning of non-empirical statements, but it seems (and correct me if I'm wrong) that you are saying that empirical statements (particularly those verifiable by science) have more value. My point is that this itself is a non-empirical statement.

I make a distinction between internal and external reality. If I think torture is immoral, then, for me, it is. But if I think humans did not descend from a common ancestor with some species of ape, then I am wrong.

But I would argue that if you say that torture is not immoral, that you are just as wrong. And that your evaluation of the truth of that statement may be just as important--if not more so--than your ideas about evolution. Also, consider that there is more similarity between accepting evolution and accepting the value of Shakespeare than you might think. Both rely on observation (for evolution, looking at how traits are passed down and change with generations, for Shakespeare, looking at the language he uses and showing that it is unique), but both also rely on consensus (evolution on peer-reviewed research, Shakespeare on agreement between literary critics).

There is a difference between objective and internal reality, but, because perception must always be subject to internal interpretation, these two realities will always be mixed in the human mind. Empirical observation has misled scientists in the past--spontaneous generation is a good example.

Science and empirical verification works, but it has no value in and of itself. Science has been abused and made to justify morally questionable or horrible acts. So it would seem we need something outside of empirical facts to know how to use empirical facts wisely.

Now, there is a lot of interesting stuff out there about evolutionary ethics, for example from James Rachels and Sober and Wilson's "Unto Others." These ideas are still new, and I think more time and research is needed to evaluate their validity. But to me they do show ways in which behavior can have a grounding in scientific understanding. To me, like objective and subjective reality are inextricably linked, so too are empirical and non-empirical truth. You can't have one without the other.