Thoughts in a Haystack

Philosophy:

I've come to suspect that you humans are misled by an unconscious desire to tie uniquely human traits with those qualities you most value and desire to cultivate in yourselves. That's a false connection. Your best human traits may very well be ones you share with other species. Many of you, for example, value the ability to give and receive love as one of the loftiest capacities of the human soul. This is not only within my ability but the essence of my job description.  

My love was hard-earned and required months of patience because my roots are feral and human beings once terrified me. Now, however, I have opened my heart to a once alien species and I bring joy and delight to all who touch me.  

Don't get me wrong. I see big differences between the human and cat psyches. But I don't see one as superior to the other. Some of you humans use up much of your short time on this Earth agonizing about the meaning of life, for example. I just live.

Once it is understood that atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes evident that agnosticism is not, as many assume, a "third way" between atheism and theism. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god exhaust all of the possibilities. Agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge—it was coined originally to describe the position of a person who could not claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not.

Thus, it is clear that agnosticism is compatible with both theism and atheism. A person can believe in a god (theism) without claiming to know for sure if that god exists; the result is agnostic theism. On the other hand, a person can disbelieve in gods (atheism) without claiming to know for sure that no gods can or do exist; the result is agnostic atheism.

These emails are geared towards people that are predisposed to non-evidentiary thinking. These christens are not in a debate with us or even talking to us. Their one and only mission is to repair the cracks in the bubble they live in. It's duct tape for faith. It is only a temporary fix, but the cracks are spreading faster than they can properly repair them. When you are reduced to using duct tape to hold back a deluge, you know the end times are near.

Not long ago the prestige of science was nastily contested by American politics, as conservatism’s war on evolution, environmental science, and other forms of empirical research threatened to confound the American sense of reality. ... [I]t was necessary to offer a ferocious defense of the premises, and the blessings, of scientific inquiry. Unfortunately, the defense of science became corrupted in certain quarters into a defense of scientism, which is the expansion of scientific methods and concepts into realms of human life in which they do not belong. Or rather, it is the view that there is no realm of human life in which they do not belong. ...

In this way science is transformed into a superstition. For there can be no scientific answer to the question of what is the position of science in life. It is not a scientific question. It is a philosophical question. The idea that physical facts fix all the facts is not an idea proven, or even posited, by physics. Rosenberg does not translate non-scientific facts into scientific facts; he denies that non-scientific facts exist at all.

The old science saw the world in an organic mode — things were living in a sense — and that is why, for instance, it was appropriate to ask about final causes and meanings. The new science sees the world in a machine mode — the mechanistic philosophy — and that, among other things, is why it is inappropriate to ask about final causes and meanings and so forth.

Notice however what using metaphors entails. As Thomas Kuhn taught us — and remember how he identified his paradigms with metaphors in some wise — metaphors are powerful tools for focusing on nature and giving us ways of understanding it. But they come at a cost, namely that they are limited and do not (and do not pretend to) answer all questions. To use a metaphor to talk about metaphors, metaphors are like the blinkers you put on race horses to make them focus on the track and not be distracted by the spectators. ...

But as historians of the Scientific Revolution have stressed, very quickly the metaphor of a machine was truncated to simply the sense of something working according to law, nothing further. The world goes through the motions, as it were. Of course the early workers in the new mode did think there were meanings — meanings given by God. But very quickly they dropped these from their science as of no value qua science. In the words of one of the great historians of the Revolution (Eduard Jan Dijksterhuis), God became "a retired engineer."

So here I do part company with Rosenberg. I think his insensitivity to history blinds him to the fact that science does not ask certain questions and so it is no surprise that it does not give answers — at least, not answers of a form that the theist finds adequate. As I have said, I am not at all sure that the theist’s own answers are correct, but they are not shown incorrect or inappropriate by modern science. Science is limited in scope and since, even if in the future you get rid of the metaphors of today’s science, you will have to find other metaphors to replace them, I would argue that science by its very nature is destined forever to be limited. History shows that! ...

This conviction that science can resolve all questions is known as "scientism" — a label typically used pejoratively (as by Wieseltier), but one Rosenberg seizes as a badge of honor.

The evangelical scientism of "The Atheist’s Guide" rests on three principal ideas. The facts of microphysics determine everything under the sun (beyond it, too); Darwinian natural selection explains human behavior; and brilliant work in the still-young brain sciences shows us as we really are. Physics, in other words, is "the whole truth about reality"; we should achieve "a thoroughly Darwinian understanding of humans"; and neuroscience makes the abandonment of illusions "inescapable." Morality, purpose and the quaint conceit of an enduring self all have to go.

The conclusions are premature. Although microphysics can help illuminate the chemical bond and the periodic table, very little physics and chemistry can actually be done with its fundamental concepts and methods, and using it to explain life, human behavior or human society is a greater challenge still. Many informed scholars doubt the possibility, even in principle, of understanding, say, economic transactions as complex interactions of subatomic particles. Rosenberg’s cheerful Darwinizing is no more convincing than his imperialist physics, and his tales about the evolutionary origins of everything from our penchant for narratives to our supposed dispositions to be nice to one another are throwbacks to the sociobiology of an earlier era, unfettered by methodological cautions that students of human evolution have learned: much of Rosenberg’s book is evolutionary psychology on stilts. Similarly, the neuroscientific discussions serenely extrapolate from what has been carefully demonstrated for the sea slug to conclusions about Homo sapiens. ...

Scientism rejects dialogue: the sciences provide the answers; the lesser provinces of the intellectual and cultural world should take instruction. To be sure, well-supported messages from the sciences are sometimes foolishly ignored — think of the warnings from climate scientists about our planet’s future. Yet scientism can easily prove counterproductive. However worthy the impulse to trumpet urgent news, smugness, arrogance and delight in shattering entrenched beliefs are as apt to alienate as to convert. The challenge is not to decide who has the Most Important Insights, but to comprehend the knowledge we have, finite, fallible and fragmentary as it is. We should make the most of it.

Under current Tennessee state curriculum standards, students have to know evolutionary theory and supporting evidence and no other explanation is considered, said Mr. Fowler of the Family Council. He said his group, with "roots in a Judeo-Christian worldview," wants teachers to be allowed to counter the view that "evolution explains everything."

"Natural selection and descent does not explain the degree of complexity that exists out there," he said.

Thinking about WSJ reporters' business expertise caused me to ask a question about Tennessee's law (similar to laws adopted in six other infra-red states) and the WSJ's reporters approach to a faith-based series of "propositions" advanced by another discipline that calls itself a "science." If Tennessee wants to protect its students from "controversial" theories why doesn't it ban the study of neoclassical economics? Economics is the only field pretending to science whose predictive ability has fallen dramatically over the last 75 years. It is a field that clings to dogma that has been repeatedly falsified by reality. Neoclassical economics is not "controversial" – it is has been repeatedly falsified. Sciences are supposed to abandon theories that are falsified. Neoclassical economics is not "controversial." Its most important theories are false and the financial policies it recommends cause widespread elite financial fraud and unprecedented harm. The consequences of its errors have been catastrophic for much of the world.

Haslam claimed to have looked into the potential effects of the legislation and had determined that opponents' worries about the broader impacts on the state's public school curriculum were unwarranted. But on Tuesday, Haslam expressed "concern" about potential "confusion" stemming from the measure in a statement regarding his inaction:

I have reviewed the final language of HB 368/SB 893 and assessed the legislation's impact. I have also evaluated the concerns that have been raised by the bill. I do not believe that this legislation changes the scientific standards that are taught in our schools or the curriculum that is used by our teachers. However, I also don't believe that it accomplishes anything that isn't already acceptable in our schools.

The bill received strong bipartisan support, passing the House and Senate by a three-to-one margin, but good legislation should bring clarity and not confusion. My concern is that this bill has not met this objective. For that reason, I will not sign the bill but will allow it to become law without my signature.

[I]f it is the case that the theory of evolution (it's the Modern Synthesis, by the way, not neo-Darwinism, get your history of biology straight) has little heuristic value this is in the same sense in which quantum mechanics ain't particularly useful for building bridges. In neither case does it follow that the theory is somehow wrong or deficient. But, again, logic (even at the 101 level) isn't these people's forte.

Complementarity. In much the same way that light is both a particle and a wave, Mitt Romney is both a moderate and a conservative, depending on the situation (Fig. 1). It is not that he is one or the other; it is not that he is one and then the other. He is both at the same time.

Probability. Mitt Romney's political viewpoints can be expressed only in terms of likelihood, not certainty. While some views are obviously far less likely than others, no view can be thought of as absolutely impossible. Thus, for instance, there is at any given moment a nonzero chance that Mitt Romney supports child slavery.

Uncertainty. Frustrating as it may be, the rules of quantum campaigning dictate that no human being can ever simultaneously know both what Mitt Romney's current position is and where that position will be at some future date. This is known as the "principle uncertainty principle."

Entanglement. It doesn't matter whether it's a proton, neutron or Mormon: the act of observing cannot be separated from the outcome of the observation. By asking Mitt Romney how he feels about an issue, you unavoidably affect how he feels about it. More precisely, Mitt Romney will feel every possible way about an issue until the moment he is asked about it, at which point the many feelings decohere into the single answer most likely to please the asker.

The most striking contrast? With the exception of Collins and Rana, who had been asked to address theological concerns in the context of human origins, the ID speakers used nearly all of their time to talk about scientific issues. The BioLogos speakers, on the other hand, tended to focus much more on theology.

Christian theism is committed to the idea that God intends certain things to come out a certain way in history. He intended human beings, for instance. He knew you before he knit you together in your mother's womb. So theism will be incompatible with any view, including any evolutionary theory, that denies that life and its history were purposively guided to accomplish God's ends.

... Contrary to some contemporary theistic evolutionists, he [Plantinga] understands that an event can't be both guided and unguided, both purposeful and purposeless. Far too many discussions of "God and evolution" appeal to God's mystery or his transcendence or his majesty or the fact that he's "not a Cosmic Tinkerer," to disguise a contradiction.

... Certainly, given theism, it's logically possible that an event such as a genetic mutation could be guided directly by God and independently of any physical mechanism.

Sen. Bo Watson (R-Hixson), says SB 893 encourages the discussion of challenges to current scientific thought, such as global warming and the theory of evolution. It does not, however, replace the state-approved curriculum for science classes or mandate the teaching of creation science.

"It makes the small caveat that says ... teachers should be comfortable having these discussions, but they need to be sure that they are directing the discussions back towards the curriculum established by the state board of education," Watson details.

The lawmaker says he does not know of any specific incidents in the past in which Tennessee teachers have had problems discussing creation and intelligent design when students asked.

"But there has been a[n] underlying tone that when these issues come up in the classroom, where students are challenging conventional scientific theories, that teachers aren't really sure how to respond to that," the senator explains.

Neither the state board of education, nor any public elementary or secondary school governing authority, director of schools, school system administrator, or any public elementary or secondary school principal or administrator shall prohibit any teacher in a public school system of this state from helping students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught.

This section only protects the teaching of scientific information ...

While many people have written interesting blog posts, here, here, here and here about the ape-hood of Richard Dawkins, I humbly suggest there's one more important point to be made. This episode has helped confirm my suspicion that you humans are embarrassed by your relatives. You don't like other apes very much. You think they're ugly and you imagine they're smelly even though most of you have never sniffed a gorilla.

HB 3616 - SB 3632
February 29, 2012

SUMMARY OF BILL: Requires local education agencies (LEAs) to treat a student's voluntary expression of a religious viewpoint in the same manner that the LEA treats a student's voluntary expression of a secular viewpoint on an otherwise permissible subject. Prohibits LEAs from discriminating against a student on the basis of the expression of a religious viewpoint.

Requires LEAs to adopt a policy that includes the establishment of a limited public forum for student speakers at all school events where a student will speak publicly. This disclaimer shall be provided at all events where the LEA feels there is a need to dispel confusion over the LEA's sponsorship of a student's speech. Prohibits student expression on an otherwise permissible subject from being excluded from the limited public forum because the expression is based on a religious viewpoint.

Authorizes students to express their beliefs about religion in assignments and requires such expression to be free from discrimination based on the religious content of their submission. Requires homework and classroom assignments to be judged by ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance and against other legitimate pedagogical concerns identified by the LEA. Prohibits students from being rewarded or penalized on the basis of the religious content of their work.

Authorizes students to organize prayer groups, religious clubs, or other such gatherings before, during, and after school to the same extent that students are permitted to organize other noncurricular student activities and groups. Requires religious student groups to be given equal access to the school facilities for assembling as those given to other non-curricular groups. Requires religious student groups that meet for prayer or other religious speech to be allowed to advertise or announce their meetings in the same manner that the LEA authorizes other nonreligious student groups. Authorizes LEAs to disclaim school sponsorship of non-curricular groups and events in a manner that does not favor or disfavors groups that meet to engage in prayer or other religious speech.

Model Policy Articles I and II: Sets forth a model policy that LEAs may use and adopt in order to implement a policy establishing a limited public forum and voluntary student expression of religious viewpoints. Requires any LEA that voluntarily adopts the model policy to be in compliance with it. The model policy establishes the limited public forum for the voluntary student expression of religious viewpoints applicable to certain students.

The model policy also requires the LEA to create a limited public forum for certain other speakers and to treat a student's voluntary expression of a religious viewpoint on an otherwise permissible subject in the same manner that it treats a student's voluntary expression of a secular or other viewpoint.

Model Policy Article III: The model policy sets forth requirements for student speakers at graduation events.

Model Policy Article IV: The model policy that is adopted by the LEA shall authorize a student to express their belief in homework, artwork, and other assignments and requires such expression to be free from discrimination based on the religious content of their submission.

Model Policy V: The model policy that is adopted by the LEA shall authorize students to organize prayer groups, religious clubs, or other religious gatherings before, during, or after school to the same extent that students are permitted to organize other non-curricular student activities and groups.

The model policy authorizes school authorities to disclaim sponsorship of non-curricular groups and events; as long as they administer the disclaimer in a manner that does not favor or disfavor groups that meet to engage in prayer or other religious activity.

God's humility appears to us as modesty or shyness, almost. I've tried to explain this to my kids in terms they can understand, referring them to the deer that sometimes browse in the blackberry bushes at the edge of our driveway. If we want to enjoy watching them, we have to be careful not to scare away our silent, beautiful deer with loud voices or sudden movements.

This observation about God's personality may explain why the evidence of design in the world is elusive to many people. What my colleague Dr. Stephen Meyer calls the "signature in the cell" in the genetic code, in protein synthesis, in what biochemist Michael Behe calls irreducibly complex features of biology, in the Cambrian explosion and the rest of the fossil record, in cosmology, in individual types of creatures—from butterfly metamorphosis to the history of whale evolution—whatever piece of the argument for intelligent design that you think of, it is all very lightly imprinted. It takes patience and study to see.

I construe free will the way I think most people do: At the moment when you have to decide among alternatives, you have free will if you could have chosen otherwise. To put it more technically, if you could rerun the tape of your life up to the moment you make a choice, with every aspect of the universe configured identically, free will means that your choice could have been different.

In the sense that any of these thinkers agree that our will is "free," they mean that some of our decisions appear to be made after conscious processes of deliberation—after thinking about them. Of course, that's a result of evolution, and many animals probably do the same thing. Perhaps these folks will agree that humans aren't unique in having this form of "free will," for all beasts are evolved to absorb and process input before producing a behavioral output. But where is the "freedom" in all this? What, exactly, are we free to do? We're not free to think—that's a result of evolution—and we're not free in how our thought processes operate, or in what "decision" they produce.