Is Religion the Root of All Evil, and if so, Does Science Offer the Alternative?

The Secular Philosophy Blog is doing a weekly Root of All Evil series of blogs on this question and has invited a number of thinkers to address it, including me. Here is Michael Shermer's contribution. The contribution of Christian de Duve, the 1977 Nobel Prize winner in physiology and medicine can be found here. Others will appear on a weekly basis.

37 comments:

Charlie said...

As if the pseudo-skeptical Secular "Philosophy" blog, committed on the whole to staunch atheist apologetics, can be trusted to deliver open-minded, reflective, and logically sound answers to such a question.

"Other respondents include Susan Jacoby, Michael Shermer, John Haught and John Loftus, to name a few. Additional insights from Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Colin McGinn, Denys Turner, Steven Weinberg"

Yup. Nearly all atheists.

Evan said...

Wow Charlie. You got them there. They are all atheists. By your logic, we can discount all arguments made by websites whose contributors are all Christians or Muslims then, huh?

Charlie said...

Surprising, isn't it, how credulous a "skeptic" like you becomes when a bunch of pop-atheist-philosophers decide to unleash soundbites, Evan. The blog is committed to atheist apologetics, and as such is interested in defending a particular pseudo-skeptical ideology rather than truth for its own sake. This doesn't mean that anything they say is false. However, it may well influence rational thinkers to be pretty cautious before trusting their claims, given their agenda.

Anonymous said...

Charlie, Charlie, of course we are all biased toward secular thinking. It should be obvious from what perspective we write (John Haught being one notable exception). There's no attempt to hide what we think.

Just deal with what is said okay? Stop complaining about what is as obvious as the nose on your face!

Philip R Kreyche said...

Charlie,

So you think that Christian apologetics blogs are less biased, more trustworthy, more objective about things?

I trust skeptic apologetics more because they're not willing to go with just any evidence (or anti-evidence) for their position (while Christians go with non-sequiturs, bad archaeology and misrepresentations of opponents' positions), and skeptics also have the virtue of not having the "faith" thing to get in the way. I know it makes Christians feel better to make themselves think that atheism is something someone has to force themselves to believe contrary to all evidence, but that doesn't make it true.

On the other hand, even William Lane Craig stated that even if he didn't think there were any evidence for Christianity, he'd believe it anyway because it feels right.

Conversely, I'm convinced that if there were impressive, undeniable evidence for Christianity, no skeptic would hesitate to convert immediately. As it stands, the "evidence" is simply not persuasive to anyone without prior ideological or emotional committment.

Charlie said...

Ewwww John's here.

Charlie said...

Philip,

"So you think that Christian apologetics blogs are less biased, more trustworthy, more objective about things?"

On the whole, no, I don't. My advice with the Secular "Philosophy" blog: don't be credulous and do exercise caution.

As an aside, you're wrong about Craig.

"William Lane Craig stated that even if he didn't think there were any evidence for Christianity, he'd believe it anyway because it feels right."

You're mischaracterizing him. He has said in his debates that he'd give up his beliefs if someone gave him a good reason to.

T said...

Charlie & Philip,

I just read that W.L. Craig "quote" the other day. I don't think there is a way to verify that he said this, other than to trust the author. However, saying that his author got Craig's position right or not when he quotes him is another issue entirely and given this author's views on Craig, its debatable. But he does provide some evidence to show that he did have a conversation with Craig.


Here is a link to the author and the story (look for a quote in red scrolling down about 25%): http://www.jcnot4me.com/Items/contra_craig/contra_craig.htm#Is%20Craig%20Coming%20Out%20of%20The%20Closet...%20%20in%20Magic%20Underwear

The question was put to him like something like this:

Hypothetically, let's say you we could go back in a time machine to when Jesus was put in his tomb. Let's further hypothesize that many days go by with no resurrection. Days turn into months, etc. How would this affect your beliefs?"

To which Craig basically responded(paraphrased for brevity),"I wouldn't trust my eyes or what I was witnessing. I would still believe in Jesus and the resurrection because of the witness of the Holy Spirit in my life."

Maybe that is what Philip is referring to, but its a sketchy source.

Charlie said...

its a sketchy source.

Understatement of the year.

Freidenker85 said...

Hardly the root of all evil. I found about atheism through a guy who's a real jerk. At least I can tell that he was a jerk because that's how he is and not because someone indoctrinated him into it. A world without religion will be a world with less evil because of all those good people who'll stop killing in the name of good intentions coupled with dogma - but evil can only be diluted, not exterminated.

As nasty as that may sound - it's kinda more fun that way. A world without evil is also a world without evil-fighting heroes.

Happy Hatemonger said...

Hello,

Can we agree that for anything to be empirically scientific it must be observable, repeatable and demonstratable?

BahramtheRed said...

No. An event could be the act of an intellect that might refuse to do it again. Person, god, or dolphin for that matter (notorious for getting bored with something and refusing to do it again).

This wouldn't invalidate the first test it just makes the testing harder and less verifiable without a much higher burden of proof.

That's why god and ghosts "events" have such a hard time being proved or disproved.

Charlie said...

"Can we agree that for anything to be empirically scientific it must be observable, repeatable and demonstratable?"

An entity doesn't have to meet those conditions to count as empirically scientific, regardless of whether the entity is personal or nonpersonal. The zero-dimensional big bang singularity, for example, is neither observable nor repeatable in controlled environments. Its existence is only indirectly 'demonstratable' given that we can infer it from other observable phenomena.

BahramtheRed said...

That's assuming a lot too. You seem to be assuming that there was an enity involved.

If an event happens you have to figure out if an intellect was involved, espically if it's an rare type that all variables might not expose themselves.

Here's an example: Warriors of a certain indian tribe climbed a sacred mountain on a certain day of the year. They had to make it to the top to see if the gods would appear to them and dance with them. Well they didn't waste the trip. But the thing was it had to have certain atmopsheric conditions, light levels (time of day), and time of the year.

What was appearing to them? If everything was perfect their shadows on the clouds. They danced an gods danced back. This was only possible a few days a year and you had to be there in the right conditions. So a lot of years they failed and the gods with held their favor.

It took researchers decades to figure this out (they where litterally testing mold on the mountain for halugenic effects when they found this). Could it have been gods? If they hadn't found the answer wouldn't it still be gods? How did the indians even discover this? Obviously they couldn't test this in a lab.


And isn't the Haydon going to check the big bang in a directly observable way?

Charlie said...

If you're an anti-realist about the singularity, you can simply pick a different example, such as dark matter or perhaps black holes. Scientists accept the existence of unobservable entities all the time.

This is why, when you encounter a pseudo-skeptic who objects, "ah, but we can't directly observe a God or enroll a God in any repeatable experiments," you can be sure that he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. The existence of unobservable phenomena can be inferred from observable phenomena. It is perfectly scientific.

Charlie said...

"And isn't the Haydon going to check the big bang in a directly observable way?"

Wtf? No.

T said...

Bahramthered & Charlie,

Yes, Bahramthered is right. Anyone whose done any research on this knows what he's referring to, considering it one of the most exciting scientific pursuits ever! He is referring to the Large "Hadron" Collider (quotes are mine, but this is the correct spelling).

The specific experiment he is referring to is discussed here:
http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/LHC/ALICE-en.html

I cannot wait for some of the testing results to be published.

BahramtheRed said...

charlie said:

"If you're an anti-realist about the singularity, you can simply pick a different example, such as dark matter or perhaps black holes. Scientists accept the existence of unobservable entities all the time."

That is a singularly stupid statement. Do you actually read any kind of science or just recite fundie talking points?

Dark Matter is being studied in a number of galaxies right now. Seems when they crash elements of it's exsistence are exposed.

Every know galaxy is either know or suspected of having a black hole. While they might be invsible themselves they are are obseravble in their effect on their surroundings. They've be observed since my junior year in high school, I made a hell of a enemy in science class teacher by telling him his theory was wrong and bringning the evidence.

This is way off topic but there is little that is truly unobservable. And most of this is just things that havn't been found or retrieved to examine.

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Freidenker85 said...

"
This is way off topic but there is little that is truly unobservable. And most of this is just things that havn't been found or retrieved to examine."

I always thought that there's a lot more that we can't examine than what we can!

Charlie said...

Bahram,

You don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about, do you?

First, what the fuck do you mean by "Haydon"?

Are you trying to refer to the LHC? Don't come here and pretend you know about contemporary science when you don't even know how to spell the name of a subatomic particle that has been receiving very wide attention. I wouldn't be surprised if you're a creationist.

Your ignorance is confirmed even more when you try to speak about the big bang. If you've been keeping up with the live-blogging at CV and if you had actually bothered to learn about the LHC even a little bit, you would know that it's not going to produce the big bang in a "directly observable way". That's just as crazy as saying it's going to cause the end of the world.

You continue with your inanity:


Every know galaxy is either know or suspected of having a black hole.


Well that made no fucking sense. Learn to type, will you?

While they might be invsible themselves they are are obseravble in their effect on their surroundings.

No shit, sherlock. As I already said in my earlier comment, "The existence of unobservable phenomena can be inferred from observable phenomena. It is perfectly scientific." Don't you read the comments you respond to?

They've be observed since my junior year in high school, I made a hell of a enemy in science class teacher by telling him his theory was wrong and bringning the evidence.

Yeah I'm sure.


Keep "bringning" that evidence and making "a enemy" out of people, you scientist, you. After all, we know of the every know galaxies that they either suspected as or know that they know of black holeZ!!! LoLLz!!!111one

Charlie said...

Bahram,

You don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about, do you?

First, what the fuck do you mean by "Haydon"?

Are you trying to refer to the LHC? Don't come here and pretend you know about contemporary science when you don't even know how to spell the name of a subatomic particle that has been receiving very wide attention. I wouldn't be surprised if you're a creationist.

Your ignorance is confirmed even more when you try to speak about the big bang. If you've been keeping up with the live-blogging at CV and if you had actually bothered to learn about the LHC even a little bit, you would know that it's not going to produce the big bang in a "directly observable way". That's just as crazy as saying it's going to cause the end of the world.

You continue with your inanity:


Every know galaxy is either know or suspected of having a black hole.


Well that made no fucking sense. Learn to type, will you?

While they might be invsible themselves they are are obseravble in their effect on their surroundings.

No shit, sherlock. As I already said in my earlier comment, "The existence of unobservable phenomena can be inferred from observable phenomena. It is perfectly scientific." Don't you read the comments you respond to?

They've be observed since my junior year in high school, I made a hell of a enemy in science class teacher by telling him his theory was wrong and bringning the evidence.

Yeah I'm sure.


Keep "bringning" that evidence and making "a enemy" out of people, you scientist, you. After all, we know of the every know galaxies that they either suspected as or know that they know of black holeZ!!! LoLLz!!!111one

Freidenker85 said...

What's with being an obnoxious blow-tard? Ugh. No one listens to filthy-mouthed arrogant bullies. As if a well-spelled treatise on geocentricity gives it any credibility. Even if there is any point in criticism, or that someone has immaturely expressed his view, being demeaning and obnoxious does little other than reduce your own credibility.

I would admit, though, that the grammar was too jumbled up to make any coherent argument out of what was written - so I'm curious to know what that guy meant.

Charlie said...

You accuse me of being obnoxious and in the same breath refer to me as a "blow-tard"?

The irony speaks for itself.

Philip R Kreyche said...

I know Charlie's going to bitch me out for this, but doesn't his sort of offensive, unconstructive bullying qualify him for banning? He's really just being a nuisance, and the comment policy clearly condemns "disrespectful" and "harrassing" comments.

Not that I want his opinions censored because I don't agree with them, I just thought this blog was supposed to have standards that Charlie seems incapable of adhering to.

Touchstone said...

Let me reiterate what John said above -- let's deal with the ideas. I encourage the skeptics and debunkers here to show grace and patience with commenters spoiling for a fight when that happens (I encourage Christians and theists to do the same, btw). If Charlie or someone else is spoiling for a fight, don't take the bait, and keep it on the ideas, the philosophies and facts involved. This shows the strength and confidence of your ideas, and the poverty of theirs when they carry on that way. It's another way to debunk Christianity.

-TS

Charlie said...

Philip, the reason I became a bit abrasive with what's-his-name above is because he treated me disrespectfully. And even then, I did not call him any derogatory names.

I have had productive dialog with smarter, calmer, more rational people here and regrettably that leaves you out, Philip. You are bitter toward me because I called you out on some errors, and now you follow me around, monitoring my discussions with others, and calling for me to be banned. That's a bit over the top.

When people treat me disrespectfully, all I can say is, I'm not perfect. I too can be provoked. It's just part of these debates, unfortunately.

Oh, and do continue to make baseless assumptions about me -- that's very kind and non-hypocritical of you.

BahramtheRed said...

Charlie: Other than calling the Hardon, Haydon where exactly was I wrong? I think I confused the spelling with a newscasters name, who did a story on the thing. I'll just stick to calling it the cern.

You say black holes and dark matter are not obserable. Yet the air in this room is not obseervable with my eyes. With a little creativity I can experiment and "observe" it. That means while invisible it is definatly observable.

The way you posted I thought you where dismissing their exsientece because they couldn't be seen.

You seem to be more concerned with semantics, how people say things than what they say.


I'm not even going to debate the cern with you. I watched an interview with one of the lead researchers on this thing. He compared it to observing the beginging on the universe and the guy has enough doctorates to cover a wall.

I'm with Philip, on your behavior.

Charlie said...

I would have been kinder to you had you not tried to insult me earlier. Treat me respectfully and you will get the same in return.

Other than calling the Hardon, Haydon where exactly was I wrong? I think I confused the spelling with a newscasters name,

Omg that's twice now! If you really knew the details, you'd be able to get the name right: HADRON.

And for fucks sake, they're not reproducing the big bang itself. You are clearly nuts.

T said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Freidenker85 said...

"You accuse me of being obnoxious and in the same breath refer to me as a "blow-tard"?

The irony speaks for itself."

What, are you like 3, or something? Just forget it. Apparently, over-spoilt well-articulated babies can have an internet connection. "The irony speaks for itself". Pah! This isn't ironic, it's just sad. I try and tell you that you're being obnoxious and you simply project it right back at me.

Fucking yawn.

Charlie said...

Freidenker please stop crying now. Thnx.

BahramtheRed said...

Like I said. Big shot sceintist involved with the thing says they are. Good enough for me.

Charlie said...

No. They didn't. Like I said, you're clearly nuts.

RealisticCynic said...

Isn't religion the same thing as Government? A set of rules/laws and values that govern how we should live our lives? So, if religion is evil, then so is society. All of us walk to the beat of one of three drums: 1)Religion, 2) Society, or some type of 3)Counter-culture. Science has rules also, and just like religion and society, those rules can be changed to fit whatever the argument of the day is.

Anonymous said...

Hey Realisticcynic, science is no where near that arbitrary. Scientists can't just appeal the law of gravity or decide that Drano is an effective cure for bad breath just on a whim.

The real culprits are the corporate spin doctors and advertising statisticians. The people who pull numbers and endorsements out of thin air and make it look "scientific".

Actually changes in science are always the results of new data and/or more accurate theories.