Science and religion

[Bede]

1) The topic of the debate: Religion has not held back the rise of science.

2) The participants of the debate, and what positions they will argue: Bede will propose the motion.

3) The scope of the debate: the debate is intended to deal with historical rather than present day matters.

4) The length of the debate, in number of rounds: As agreed but I suggest 4.

5) Whether statements will be made concurrently or in turns, and if the latter, who goes first: In turns. I am willing to start.

6) The maximum length of each statement: 1000 words.

7) The maximum duration between statements: 1 week.

8) The extent to which quotes and references from outside sources will be allowed: references allowed and encouraged. Quotes kept short.

9) The starting date of the debate: TBA.

10) Any additional rules or a debate format that debate participants must observe: I would be willing to debate whether religion has helped science but only if we have common ground on the lack of inherent conflict. Otherwise we would be debating on conflict by proxi.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason (http://www.bede.org.uk)

[Celsus]

I'd like to see some takers for this. It's a pretty popular assertion here, I'll be happy to see it go down in flames once and for all.

Joel

[itsdatruth]

So would I. Anybody willing?

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

So would I. Anybody willing?

I would suggest that you start on another thread with your own debate proposal on this issue.

Thanks,

Jason

[Steven Carr]

The Times of London today has an opinion piece about 'medieval bigots' holding back 'science'.

[Toto]

Unfortunately, that article is not available to non-subscribers:

"Beware! It's the attack of the medieval bigots (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3284-1148007,00.html)" By Terence Kealey

Bede has proposed a very broad topic, but has carefully excluded the role of religion in current science policy, where it would be easy to argue that particular religious beliefs are holding back scientific progress.

[Bede]

Bede has proposed a very broad topic, but has carefully excluded the role of religion in current science policy, where it would be easy to argue that particular religious beliefs are holding back scientific progress.

I'm amused to see you say I have proposed a very broad topic and then in the same breathe claim I've deliberately made it too narrow. FWIW, I'm a historian so I like to do history.

Come on guys! The II library is full of books that say science was held back by religion. Is there no one who will defend that - I thought all atheists believed it (well, at least until I came along!). ;)

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason (http://www.bede.org.uk)

[Celsus]

I think it would also help if you define what you mean by the broad terms "religion" and "science". That is, "specific religious beliefs have led to the obstruction of certain scientific investigations" may be easily demonstrated, just as "the pursuit of certain scientific investigations has led to the obstruction of other scientific investigations" is just as easily demonstrable. What I'm assuming Bede is proposing is some ontological clash between the two, and I really would like to see someone take up this challenge.

Joel

[luvluv]

C'mon Bede, who do you think is a big enough glutton for punishment to debate with you on this topic?

[Celsus]

What I'm assuming Bede is proposing is some ontological clash between the two...
Someone cleverer than me pointed out I meant "epistemological" and not "ontological". He was right of course. :o

Joel

[Toto]

I'm amused to see you say I have proposed a very broad topic and then in the same breathe claim I've deliberately made it too narrow. FWIW, I'm a historian so I like to do history.

You proposed a very broad topic but left out the one area that most people here are concerned with - the current conflict between science and certain religious beliefs.

Come on guys! The II library is full of books that say science was held back by religion.

Example?

[JLK]

1) The topic of the debate: Religion has not held back the rise of science.
2) The participants of the debate, and what positions they will argue:

To expand on what Celsus said, precisely and comprehensively define:
Religion
Held back/rise
Science

[Bede]

Toto,

Andrew Dickson White and John Draper.

JLK,

Are you interested in the debate or just wasting time? If you want to define the terms, I'd probably go with them just to get this thing started.

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason (http://www.bede.org.uk)

[Bede]

So, can I assume that there is no one on these boards who still believes Christianity held back science? The conflict hypothesis is dead even here? Have I done my job so well?

Andrew Dickson White will be rolling in his grave... :p

B

[Toto]

Toto,

Andrew Dickson White and John Draper.

. . .

Andrew Dickson White (http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/andrew_white/Andrew_White.html) died in 1918. His book is online in the History section, but I have not read it; I skimmed the preface, and it appears to not be that far from your own thinking:

In all modern history, interfere with science in the supposed interest of religion, no matter how conscientious such interference may have been, has resulted in the direst evils both to religion and to science, and invariably; and, on the other hand, all untrammelled scientific investigation, no matter how dangerous to religion some of its stages may have seemed for the time to be, has invariably resulted in the highest good both of religion and of science.

The lecture was next day published in the New York Tribune at the request of Horace Greeley, its editor, who was also one of the Cornell University trustees. As a result of this widespread publication and of sundry attacks which it elicited, I was asked to maintain my thesis before various university associations and literary clubs; and I shall always remember with gratitude that among those who stood by me and presented me on the lecture platform with words of approval and cheer was my revered instructor, the Rev. Dr. Theodore Dwight Woolsey, at that time President of Yale College.

My lecture grew -- first into a couple of magazine articles, and then into a little book called The Warfare of Science, for which, when republished in England, Prof. John Tyndall wrote a preface.

Sundry translations of this little book were published, but the most curious thing in its history is the fact that a very friendly introduction to the Swedish translation was written by a Lutheran bishop.

Meanwhile Prof, John W. Draper published his book on The Conflict between Science and Religion, a work of great ability, which, as I then thought, ended the matter, So far as my giving it further attention was concerned.

But two things led me to keep on developing my own work in this field: First, I had become deeply interested in it, and could not refrain from directing my observation and study to it; secondly, much as I admired Draper's treatment of the questions involved, his point of view and mode of looking at history were different from mine.

He regarded the struggle as one between Science and Religion. I believed then, and am convinced now, that it was a struggle between Science and Dogmatic Theology.

. . .

I am sure that White is out of date and has been superceded in many areas. Perhaps you could point some of them out.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Hi folks,

I don't feel that this is really an appropriate venue to discuss the history of religion and science.

Toto, do wish you wish to accept Bede's challenge for a formal debate? If so, do you wish to suggest amendments to some of Bede's proposed parameters?

Jason

[Toto]

I do not want to engage in this formal debate right now for a variety of reasons, but I would like to see the topic clarified. Bede evidently wants to debate Andrew White's thesis, but it does not appear that White said what Bede implies that he said.

[Bede]

As I said, I'm happy to take other people's definitions if they are serious about the debate. Toto should read ADW's book. Its thesis is certainly that religion has held back science. What he means by true religion is a sort of meaningless deism/liberal Christianity.

Still no takers?

B

[Toto]

If I define religion = Stalinism, I can show that religion held back biological science in the 20th century.

I am sure that Bede would not accept this as serious. I think that if he is serious, he should define religion (I guess liberal Christianity doesn't count as religion) and pick a century.

But it would still take me some time to free the time for a formal debate.

[JLK]

A counter proposal – accepting/clarifying these 8 of Bede’s:

10) additional rules: “religion has helped science� may be proposed as a counter and rebutted. No inherent conflict.
9) starting date: Two to three weeks -- mid-late July
8) references allowed and encouraged. Quotes kept short. (But see below)
7) maximum duration between statements: 1 week.
6) maximum statement length: 1000 words (add: not including references, and not counting quotes of opponent in the rebuttals.)
4) length: initial statements plus 3 rounds if necessary.
2) Bede will propose this motion:
1) Religion has not held back the rise of science.

3) scope: all history prior to present day matters.
Obviously the “present day� began on January 21, 1983. I’d much prefer to accept that date if Bede is willing. If, as has been pointed out, a late date as that might put an historian at too big a disadvantage on this topic for several reasons, and since everyone agrees when the “modern day� began, I’d very reluctantly agree to agree to…

3’) scope: all history prior to May 29, 1919 CE. Reference can to made to modernity for illustrative or comparative purposes, but not as direct support/rebuttal for the proposition.

And the Big Suggestion...

5’) Initial statements + [More] simultaneously. Bede starts the weekly rebuttals in turns.

Where [More] =
Since, for a topic of this scope, it’s very difficult to make a serious case in 1000 words without wasting readers' time, I propose that we each signup for 2 freeblogs and each slap our more or less comprehensive arguments there. Bede has +1300 IIDB posts correcting pseudohistory and his work to draw on. It should not be too difficult for him to C&P together a more comprehensive argument than 1000 words if he feels he needs that. Perhaps he doesn't. I don’t know how long my blog argument will be, other than as short as possible and as long as necessary.

Then, for our initial simultaneous statements here at IIDB, we condense our arguments to 1000 words and post links to our blogs. Then back and forth for 3 1000word rounds.

[JLK]

Definitions:
Religion
1. a specific set and/or system of fundamental beliefs, worldview, frame of reference:
1a: concerning the cause, character, and purpose of humanity and nature,
1b: involving devotional, ritual and consolative observances, and
1c: often containing a moral code of behavior governing the conduct of human affairs, and judging the personal and social consequences of human actions.
2. General public shared agreement on the above by a number of persons or sects, and somewhat strictly and devotedly adhered to by them, by which they may relate to their group and their surroundings.
3. Methodology ("Getting religion"): acquiring a deep conviction of the validity of religious beliefs and practices, through a foundational human tradition and/or an ineffable foundational revelation.
4. Transcendental religions are concerned with that which transcends the known, the usual, or the expected; it often is an acknowledgment of the extraordinary, the mysterious, and the "supernatural." They consider nature and axiology the product of a "superhuman" agency or agencies. Someone with a "transcendent religious consciousness" generally recognizes a “sacred order� and elaborates a technique to deal with the inexplicable or unpredictable elements of human experience in the world or beyond it. Often this involves getting into the “right relationship� with the transcendent.

Ostensive definitions (current examples by type):
Fetishism, animism, ancestor worship; totemism; spiritism, mythological anthropomorphism, transcendental polytheism, trancendental dualism (ex. Zoroastrianism), transcendental monotheism (ex. Abrahamic’s), transcendental supratheism (ex. Hinduism), panentheism.
Non transcendental religions: some Buddhist Therav. sects, Brahmanism, Taoism, other Chinese metaphysical views, some secular totalitarianisms, secular humanism, pantheism.

Refer also to the definition of any word that is classified a theological term (e.g. eschatology, creation, angels, priests, shamans, etc.)


Held back/rise
Measurement of number of justified true beliefs about nature and their fertility in generating progessive research programs -aka- After-the-Fact-ism.
"Justified" implies coherent(istic)ally/pragmat(icist)ically/psychologically grounded justification.

Science:
Both a particular kind of activity and the results of that activity.
1. the organized body of knowledge or tentative knowledge under study dealing with a body of data gained through observation and experimentation, systematically arranged and describing the operation of nature, including humanity: the mathematical sciences.
2. the various methods, attitudes and values of individuals and communities of science, imbedded in larger societies, through which this body of knowledge is formed; thus,

2a: Methods include (in no necessary order and against a backdrop of previous scientific fallible explanations): cycles of observation, classification, creative imagination, induction, deduction, modeling, explanation, prediction, testing, qualifications of observations, and public dissemination, public evaluation, public revision among the various communities of knowers, etc.
(Mumble something about inadequacy of Ye Olde Fashioned Scientific Method):

2b: Necessary values of practitioners include (in no particular order):
1. Honesty
2. Fallibilism
3. Expansion of justified true beliefs - fertility of justified beliefs
4. Some strange admixture of criteria for judging theories based on explanatory power, simplicity, internal coherence, external consilience, predictive power, etc.
5. Adherence to the principle that all accepted theories, classification systems, and the reliablity of previous observations based on the justification of their character, can eventually/potentially-in-principle become non-accepted/"overthrown."
6. Commitment to as open as competition as possible between communites of knowing individuals/groups evaluting explanations/theories, and to the environment that makes such possible.

See:
Science as a Process, David Hull
The Advancement of Science: Science Without Legend, Objectivity Without Illusions, Philip Kitcher

Ostensive definitions (current examples by type):
Physics
Mechanics of particles and systems, Nonequilibrium and Classical Thermodynamics, Statistical mechanics, Mechanics of rigid/deformable solids, Fluid mechanics, Acoustics/Gases, Plasma, Rheology, Nuclear, Optics/Electromagnetics, Quantum Field Theories, Condensed Matter, Vacuum, Relativity and gravitational theory
Chemistry
Analytical, Biochemistry, Computational, Inorganic, Organic, Physical
Astronomy
Astrography, Stellarphysics/evolution, Galacticphysics/evolution, Cosmology
Planetary Sciences
Atmospheric Chemistry/Physics, Climatology/Paleoclimatology, Cometology, Geochemistry, Geochronology, Geography/Paleogeography, Geomatics, Geomorphology, Geophysics, Glaciology, Hydrogeology, Meteorology, Mineralogy, Oceanography, Sedimentology, Seismology, Stratigraphy, Tectonics, Volcanology
Biology
Bacteriology, Bioinformatics, Biophysics, Botanical and Zoological Taxonomy/Systematics/Cladistics, Cell Biology, Developmental Biology, Ecology, Evolution, Exobiology, Genetics, Histology, Genomics, Immunology, Microbiology, Mycology, Neurobiology, Paleontology, Parasitology, Physiology, Sociobiology, Theoretical Biology, Virology
Human Social Sciences:
Anthropology, Archaeology, Communication, Criminology, Economics, Ethnology, Comparative Language and Typology, Political Science, Religious Studies, Sexology, Sociology
Human Mind (to Brain) Science
Cognitive Pyschology, Developmental Psychology, Evolutionary Psychology, Neuropsychology, Neuroscience/NeuralNetworks, Axiology, Perception/Sensation
Logic and Linguistics
Category Theory, Computational Logic, Model Theory, Nonstandard Logics and Extensions, Operator theory, Proof Theory, Sematics, Semiotics, Onomastics, Psycholingistics, Set Theory, Measure and integration
Mathematical Objects
Number theory, Sequences, series, summability, Combinatorics, Commutative, Associative and NonAssociative rings, Group theory, Generalized Groups, Lie groups, Topological groups, Convex, discrete, differential and ordinary geometry, General and Algebraic topology, K-theory, Manifolds and cell complexes, Global analysis on manifolds
Mathematical Sentences
Algebra, (order, lattices, homological, structures, systems, geometries, linear, multilinear), Functions of a complex variable and analytic spaces, Field theory and polynomials, Real and Special functions, Approximations and expansions, Fourier analysis, Abstract harmonic/Potential analysis, Integral transforms, operational calculus, Integral equations, Functional analysis. Calculus of variations and optimal control, Ordinary/Partial differential equations, Finite differences and functional equations, matrix theory
Tools of Induction/Dynamical Inquiry
Computability, Dynamical systems and ergodic theory, Chaos/Fractals, Game theory, Operations research, Probability theory and stochastic processes, Statistics, Numerical analysis

[funinspace]

Did this die? Or am I just to blind to see the formal debate out there? To bad if it did, would be interesting. And no, I'm not up for it. I'm not even sure what my opinion is on the argument.

[lpetrich]

As I said, I'm happy to take other people's definitions if they are serious about the debate. Toto should read ADW's book. Its thesis is certainly that religion has held back science.
He argues that it's what he calls "theology" that has held back science, not what he calls "religion". A thesis somewhat like Bede's well-known thesis.

What he means by true religion is a sort of meaningless deism/liberal Christianity.
Bede, what makes it so "meaningless"?

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Hi JLK & Bede,

It's come to my attention that you've both agreed to parameters for a formal debate. Are they the same as what's been discussed so far in this thread?

Here's a summary. Where I need clarification is in red.

1) The topic of the debate.

Resolved: Religion has not held back the rise of science.

2) The participants of the debate, and what positions they will argue.

Bede will argue for the affirmative, and JLK will oppose.

3) The scope of the debate.

The debate can look at the history of religion and science up to Jan. 21, 1983. Religion, "held back/rise," and science are explicitly defined here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=1677217&postcount=21) for purposes of the debate.

4) The length of the debate, in number of rounds.

4 rounds.

5) Whether statements will be made concurrently or in turns, and if the latter, who goes first.

Round 1: concurrent
Rounds 2-4: in turns, with Bede going first

6) The maximum length of each statement.

1000 words (add: not including references, and not counting quotes of opponent in the rebuttals.)

I'll need to have an upper limit here, which includes quotes, references, etc....

Also, keep in mind that 1000 words can be rather short. As JLK said:

Since, for a topic of this scope, it’s very difficult to make a serious case in 1000 words without wasting readers' time, I propose that we each signup for 2 freeblogs and each slap our more or less comprehensive arguments there.

Instead of posting additional stuff on blogs, why not increase the word limit so everything could be included here?

7) The maximum duration between statements.

1 week.

8) The extent to which quotes and references from outside sources will be allowed.

References allowed and encouraged. Quotes kept short.

9) The starting date of the debate.

Immediately (concurrent opening statements due within 7 days).

10) Any additional rules or a debate format that debate participants must observe.

Standard format, with the exception of concurrent opening statements.

[JLK]

Hi JLK & Bede,
It's come to my attention that you've both agreed to parameters for a formal debate. Are they the same as what's been discussed so far in this thread? Here's a summary. Where I need clarification is in red.

Thanx Nightshade. We've a schedule problem. Bede is going to be living la dolce vita in Italia on August 23, so we either have to get in four rounds over in 3 weeks or we wait until October to start. My PM to Bede 3 wks ago did not go thru, Bede never rechecked this thread, I thought Bede had got my PM & the debate was not on, & thus I spent the last 3+ weeks not preparing for this.

5) Whether statements will be made concurrently or in turns, and if the latter, who goes first.
Round 1: concurrent
Rounds 2-4: in turns, with Bede going first
7) The maximum duration between statements.
1 week.

... so it looks like this is going to perhaps have to be:
All Rounds Concurrent - just responding to the previous round.
5 days between rounds.

6) The maximum length of each statement.
1000 words (add: not including references, and not counting quotes of opponent in the rebuttals.)
I'll need to have an upper limit here, which includes quotes, references, etc...

This only would apply to rebuttals so let's say 1,500 words max for you to wordcheck, and on our honor to keep our own rebuttal words to 1,000.

Also, keep in mind that 1000 words can be rather short. As JLK said:[...]
Instead of posting additional stuff on blogs, why not increase the word limit so everything could be included here?

Yeah. Thought you would not like "More Argument Elsewhere".
This is up to Bede as the proposer of the debate and he's agreed to the 1,000 Words Here Plus a Link to Elsewhere.

On the one hand I like the idea of a "executive summary" which gets to the points, and agree that a pointed case is stronger than a adipose one. On the other, you just can't do a decent initial statement this topic in 1,000 words, although rebuttals perhaps might be fine. Bede has been good enough to point me to a 3,500 word article on his website, which I gather he will trim down to 1,000. If Bede would be comfortable with a 3,000 wd opening just here at IIDB (including refs), we could do that, but I may not be able to make it as interesting. Or we wait until October and both of us gin up a really good 5,000 wd opening. Either of these other 2 options are fine if Bede wants to change.

Bede has the advantage of me that he has a site/references typed/etc. in part devoted to this topic. It's may be tough for me to pull everything together in as comprehensive a way as I'd want by July 29, so if I can update/flesh-out details in the opening argument in minor ways as needed at a site I can edit, it might be a bit more informative for readers, who can always pop over to read the larger argument.

[Bede]

My own preference is to go for the four concurrent thousand word statements (with link to elsewhere) and finish by 23 August. If we find we want to go into more detail later, then we can do that. I should say that at the moment I have a window of opportunity as it is tyhe long vacation here. Come October, it is unlikely I'd find time for 1,000 word statements let alone 5,000 ones.

So, I'll post my first ASAP which will be a summary of my elsewhere article. Then I'll reply to JLK's first statement as quickly as poosible after that and he will reply to mine. Then, in the third round, perhaps so new ideas might enter as well as continued rebuttals - we can see how it goes.

I'm all set!

Bede

[JLK]

Well, yes. One of us was All Set long before they proposed the debate. :)

My own preference is to go for the four concurrent thousand word statements (with link to elsewhere) and finish by 23 August. I'll post my first ASAP which will be a summary of my elsewhere article. Then I'll reply to JLK's first statement as quickly as poosible after that and he will reply to mine. Then, in the third round, perhaps so new ideas might enter as well as continued rebuttals - we can see how it goes.

OK. I'll try to have my 1000 opening & site address to Nightshade for posting here July 30, then my rebuttals Aug. 6, 13, 20.

Come October, it is unlikely I'd find time for 1,000 word statements let alone 5,000 ones.

Understood. But you could spend the next month doing the 5000 and have some stock refs/quote/answers ready for C&P into rebuttals. 1000 words is not much at all. We could also space out the rebuttal time to as long as necessary.

I'm quite sure neither of us cares about "winning", but rather informing our readers thru a dialogue. I just hope readers learn a few tidbits from the two of us and that 1000 words is not just enough to shout back and forth.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Just wanted to sum it up again. I'll start the debate thread now. This thread will now be closed.

1) The topic of the debate.

Resolved: Religion has not held back the rise of science.

2) The participants of the debate, and what positions they will argue.

Bede will argue for the affirmative, and JLK will oppose.

3) The scope of the debate.

The debate can look at the history of religion and science up to Jan. 21, 1983. Religion, "held back/rise," and science are explicitly defined here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=1677217&postcount=21) for purposes of the debate.

4) The length of the debate, in number of rounds.

4 rounds.

5) Whether statements will be made concurrently or in turns, and if the latter, who goes first.

Rounds are concurrent

6) The maximum length of each statement.

1500 words (including quotes, references, etc...); 1000 words maximum for the actual statement

7) The maximum duration between statements.

1 week.

8) The extent to which quotes and references from outside sources will be allowed.

References allowed and encouraged. Quotes kept short. Shall not exceed 500 words.

9) The starting date of the debate.

Immediately (concurrent opening statements due within 7 days).

10) Any additional rules or a debate format that debate participants must observe.

Concurrent rounds (otherwise, standard format)