The last post ended with this quote, and I’ll continue with it. Lennox says, “It is no part of the biblical view that things should be believed where there is no evidence” (16). I guess Lennox is correct to claim “no evidence” for the biblical view, but he certainly couldn’t claim sufficiently compelling evidence. The biblical view, which I’ll define as Christian, has garnered one in three adherents worldwide. This has taken a staggering 2000 years to achieve. Projections to 2050 have a similar percentage, as the Christian population growth happening in Asia and Africa is countered by the decrease that Europe and North America is undergoing. The reality is that without some kind of huge shift in consciousness worldwide, the big three religions are probably now as big as they are ever going to be. So with all the evidence available, and with two millennia to disseminate it, the best the biblical view has done and will likely ever do is convince 1/3 of the people that it is correct. It’s obvious that whatever the evidence is for the biblical view, most people find it less than convincing.
To put this failure by biblical evidence to provide real proof into perspective all you have to do is, as I said two days ago, is look around your room. Everything within arms reach is a product of scientific knowledge made into technology, and there must be tens, if not hundreds of different theories which have had to come together to manufacture all of this technology. The plastics in your keyboard, the chip in your computer and the rayon in your clothing are all evidence that those theories work. No one would doubt the theories which have gone into making any of those products, let alone two-thirds of the world. And none of them could have been created even a mere 200 years ago, let alone ten times that.
The other day I watched a news report about a quadriplegic woman who controlled a robot arm via 96 electrodes placed in her head. The arm could move in seven directions, and this mobility (the previous arm could move in only three directions) allowed her to feed herself a chocolate bar. Even a mere 50 years ago, what percentage of the world’s population would have believed that a machine can actually (as opposed to in fiction) be controlled by a human mind? Near zero I would suspect. Twenty years ago the percentage would be a few points higher, but still nowhere near Christianity’s approximate 33%. Something that was believed by almost no one when my parents were born will be believed by everyone in 2050 when Christianity is projected to have gained or lost a couple of percent, simply because the evidence is so compelling. That’s real evidence, and you’re surrounded by it. Whatever evidence Lennox believes there is for the biblical view is pale in comparison to it.
vex cathedra 
Young Marco has suggested (well, twisted my arm, really) that I link my review of ‘God’s Undertaker’. Here tis. Good to see you back in the blogosphere, winstoninabox~
Actually, this is probably the version Marco was referring to. 🙂
It’s good to be back. I’ll be playing here all week, so tell your friends.
The shiny allure of FB has tarnished, so I’m returning to blogging. I’m just not comfortable with how it’s trying to monetize its users and changing its ToS without any regard for personal privacy. I’ve removed as much of my own personal information as I can, switched off the ‘inform the steerers of capitalism wherever I go’ GPS features, and will use it now just for keeping in contact with friends and pictures of food.
I hope you’ll take the time to shiv me.
Your humble servant.
It was just Christmas Eve when my own family was using the look around you at the results of science. I asked myself how much of this stuff relies on evolutionary biology? How much of it requires theoretical physics? None of it requires theism or Christianity to be false. There is a false dichotomy here, and I reject it as comparing a belief in your “friends” to believing in a set of facts about your friends.
I’m sorry Marco, but I’m not sure why just because the things around you don’t rely on evolutionary biology or theoretical physics in particular, that that aids the theism view. There must be some other theories that you can think of that would be much more applicable (thermodynamics of plastics, maybe), and didn’t exist even 100 years ago. My point is that any of those theories already have more traction that the Christian worldview, and in a fraction of the time because the evidence for them is so compelling.
And as for evolutionary biology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_medicine
A lot of things are required other than “science” for technological products – especially good economic systems which doesn’t have much traction. The more important features of technology is that society allows and encourages good technology to be utilised to create even better technology in a feedback loop – science is but a small part of that process. The point is that science has been somewhat deified – and scientists that produce theories not required for technology are getting away with “bad” science that in my opinion is at least as bad as the theistic approaches that deal with those same aspects not relevant to technology. Dawkins gets away with pushing “selfish gene” dogma as a science ignoring/dismissing group selection and other emergent neo-Lamarckian theories despite reasonable evidence to the contrary – and he gets away with it due to the incumbency of the theory and because it has little to no relevance to any actual technologies like evolutionary medicine.
Well, your point is that science has been deified. Mine is that all this technology is proof that when an idea is correct, in this case scientific ideas, it is adopted at a rate much faster than religious ideas. You could make the same point about economic ideas I suppose. I know nothing about the history of economics though.
I think that “popularity” of an idea, or how fast it is adopted has nothing much to do with how correct it is. However it is a source of pride that my 10 year old son (then nine) declared to us and to his religion class at his school that he did not believe in God. He now reflects on the Universe during meditation.
I never said either of the things in your first sentence, so i guess I’d have to agree with you… unless you think I said those things. The evidence is the key feature, not the speed nor the ‘popularity’.
adopted at a rate much faster than religious ideas = speed. I was saying that an idea being adoped fast doesn’t mean it has better evidence ie. popularity not truth, is what makes ideas get adopted quickly. The deified meme is that science = technology = good stuff, and who could argue with good stuff? Zachary’s disbelief in God is an exception that proves the rule – he is an oddball because he sees trickery in the way religion is taught, and that is a very keen sense for a ten year old.
I think you’re missing the point about the cap. A religious idea will never convince more than a fairly small percentage of people (capped at about 33%?), whereas a scientific one will regularly reach all but 100%. A major factor is evidence. That the take up rate for scientific ideas is very high is just icing on the cake.
That is a way too simplistic view of the battle of ideas that has happened in the past or predicted in the future. Religions eventually ditch ideas which contradict reality directly. So does science. Global warming hysteria will take decades to settle. Is the idea that the world is at a tipping point a scientific one or a pseudo-religious one? I can imagine plenty of ways that 100% of the world could be convinced by a religious idea. Italy was virtually 100% Catholic at some stage.
This is a way too simplistic view? Yes. I’m one guy writing my daily impressions of a book that I didn’t like. I’m not attempting a Ph.D. on the subject. Sometimes I’ll be way wrong, sometimes I’ll make an interesting observation, and hopefully sometimes I’ll make a breakthrough to something that gives someone a new insight.
Religions ditch ideas which contradict reality, you say. I’d say that rather undermines the ‘revealed by God’ nature of the idea. Besides, when reality conflicts with a religous idea, the idea is reinterpreted to fit reality rather than ditched. Generally this occurs after suppression of the science and/or the demonization of the science/scientist didn’t work. Ditching would be tantamount to admitting the idea was wrong.
Science ditches ideas which contradict reality. Well, yes. That is the nature of science.
Is the idea that the world… one? I think your reasons for why it might be a pseudo-religious one would be most illuminating. I’m already intrigued that you don’t call it a pseudo-scientific one.
And Italy probably is almost 100% Catholic. I hear there are a whole lot of Mormons in Utah, too. That worldwide there are greater concentration of a religious group in some areas over others is hardly startling, and doesn’t in any way negate what I said. BTW, if you have a way to convince 7 billion people of a religious idea I’ve 2 suggestions. 1) start your own religion, or 2) sell your idea to the highest bidder, because none of the big 3 religions have even got close. If you do do one of those, please remember I was the one who gave you the idea.
I’d say the process by which people accept ideas is the same whether based on theism or science, because the common factor is people. Scientists can be just as prone to suppression or demonisation when it threatens the prevailing power / money base.
John Dickson who Winston’s read a couple of books I’ve gifted him has covered the ground on how to define historical evidence and whether to consider it trustworthy.
As he’s an associate professor, ordained Anglican minister and the head of an organisation that promotes Christianity in the public square (www.publicchristianity.org).
He might be worth going to next in vex cathedra.
I think one of the reasons why Lennox and others are compelled to write is because when people like Dawkins step outside their area of expertise to claim that there’s a serious historical case that can be made that Jesus never existed many blindly accept that.
Thankfully Dawkins retracted his position in a debate with Lennox.
But when Dickson makes the point in an article on the ABC website, look at how few of the comments which disagree actually respond to his central point but go after things he never claimed within the article. Much shouting on lots of different street corners, sadly.
http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/12/24/3660194.htm
This is why the the argument that you simply haven’t learned enough (or at least studied those who have learned enough) is valid.
While Lennox is not an evolutionary biologist he at least appears to have made an effort to understand the broader possibilities of scientific definition from outside his own discipline of mathematics.
A religious idea will never convince more than a fairly small percentage of people (capped at about 33%?), whereas a scientific one will regularly reach all but 100%. A major factor is evidence
And then
And Italy probably is almost 100% Catholic. I hear there are a whole lot of Mormons in Utah, too.
I suggest the main factor that you can 100% population participation at church is “evidence”
That people like being part of a group.
I suggest that globally a very small percentage of people study science to the level where they can understand a tiny proportion of the science necessary for the gadgets they take for granted. I suggest this tiny participation rate in the study of science is Evidence that people believe in their gadgets but have no idea about the science behind them nor how it relates to science overall nor whether their belief system is contrary to science.
I suggest that globally a very small percentage of people study their religion to the level where they can understand a tiny proportion of the dogma necessary for the social interaction they take for granted from the religion. I suggest this tiny participation rate in the study of religion is evidence that people believe in their religion but have no idea about the dogma behind it nor how it relates to their belief overall nor whether their belief system is contrary to observations of nature.
So, no I don’t believe that someone has to understand the intricacies of science to accept its worldview. Sick people tacitly do so every day. Not too many people put their life solely in the hands of their god when they find out they’ve got a dangerous ailment. They may pray for a miracle, and sure they probably don’t understand the medicine behind the cure they’re getting, but they still go to the hospital for treatment.
Medicine as practiced isn’t science. It is like engineering: a way to get to the desired outcomes following agreed-upon rules. These rules are (hopefully) derived from science, but a scientific worldview is a handicap when you got to the hospital. If you (I mean, me) raise a scientific objection to the way you are (I mean, me) are being treated medically, the doctor will usually say: “hmm, interesting point, but this is standard practice.” And if you treat the things the doctor tells you to do scientifically, as hypotheses to be evaluated on their merits rather than infallible ex cathedra commands, they get cranky with you.
You did read where I said sick people tacitly do everyday? Most of us don’t understand science, but we understand that it’s products such as medicine do work better than witch doctors, faith healers and prayers.
I think there is a big gap between going to a doctor, that may or may not prescribe medicine, and subscribing to a scientific world view relevant to our discussion of the book. People, every day, do things that may validate one aspect of scientific thought, yet other things that contradict a different aspect of scientific thought. Equally, they do things that might validate one religion and do others that contradict others. The figures you quote are meaningless in this context. I think barely 0.001 percent of people tacitly validate Cosmology with anything they do.
Marco, I’m sure we’ve had this conversation recently. It’s not the going to the doctor but the medicine. Technology is the child of science. It is the repeatable experiment that validates the science behind it. Every piece of technology that we use is a chose for science over another method. And we use a lot of technology.
It’s not the going to the doctor but the medicine.
Ok. I’ll use your words
(worldview). Sick people tacitly do so every day
The discretionary choice people make when they are sick is to go to the doctor or not – this, should not be taken as validating science.
Not too many people put their life solely in the hands of their god when they find out they’ve got a dangerous ailment
They go to a doctor first, to find out whether they have got a dangerous ailment. They are tacitly putting their life into the hands of the doctor first, before hospital or medicine gets involved.
They may pray for a miracle, and sure they probably don’t understand the medicine behind the cure they’re getting, but they still go to the hospital for treatment.
Once the doctor has told them they’ve got a dangerous ailment, the discretionary decision is out of the patients hands somewhat. Whether the doctor prescribes a placebo or a medicine or whatever the pharmaceutical company’s kickback policy is – perhaps not the medicine the doctor would prescribe for themselves in the same situation – The patient’s discretion is then only on whether to take the medicine or not – The validation is still much more in the decision to go to a doctor than taking the medicine.
You might say I don’t trust doctors as much as making my own (yeah ok. Scientific) research when I am sick. I vehemently disagree that science is validated any more than religion when they pray for a miracle, just because they go to the hospital and are given medicine.
You might say I don’t trust doctors as much as making my own (yeah ok. Scientific) research when I am sick. I vehemently disagree that science is validated any more than religion when they pray for a miracle, just because they go to the hospital and are given medicine.
So the disagreement is with my original wording, which I’m happy to amend or have you amend for me, or that people don’t trust science more than they trust religion?
Or is it the example of medicine? Then change it. How am I going to get to Magnetic Island? By ferry or pray that the waters part and allow me to walk there. How am I going to get my glass of wine over dinner? From the bottle I bought at the supermarket, or pray that the water in the faucet turns into wine. The acceptance of technology, and thus the science behind it because as I said technology is the proof that the science works, is so entrenched that people who think that religion has the same kind of power don’t even see the yawning gap between them. Every single piece of technology one uses is a choice over superstition.
If you don’t believe it then stop using the technology and start praying for the miracle to solve the problem for you. Let me know how the day goes. A few months back Nathanael was posting these ‘Can we really trust science?’ articles and I offered him the same challenge. He never went any further with it AFAIK.
Now I also suppose that one could argue that technology doesn’t validate science… I’d certainly consider arguments from that position.
Technology as we know it, including medicine, has very largely been created through trial and error. It need not have anything to do with science. In the area I know best (free radical polymerisation) industry ran off ahead and did lots of things before we scientists had the foggiest idea what was really going on.
Taking advantage of technology that is ultimately explicable in terms of science (e.g., taking a beta blocker) is no more a validation of science than taking advantage of culture that is ultimately explicable in terms of religion (e.g., assuming people will care if you quote ‘do unto others’ at them) is a validation of religion.
Technology as we know it, including medicine, has very largely been created through trial and error. It need not have anything to do with science. In the area I know best (free radical polymerisation) industry ran off ahead and did lots of things before we scientists had the foggiest idea what was really going on.
Trial and error is science. It might be inefficient science, but it is science. Try it, observe the outcome, make a guess as to what went right or wrong, modify, try again. Rinse and repeat. It may not be done in a lab and the ‘scientist’ doing it may not understand what’s happening in the background, but they are certainly doing science.
Taking advantage of technology that is ultimately explicable in terms of science (e.g., taking a beta blocker) is no more a validation of science than taking advantage of culture that is ultimately explicable in terms of religion (e.g., assuming people will care if you quote ‘do unto others’ at them) is a validation of religion.
Pish and tosh of course it is a validation, otherwise why make the choice to take advantage of the technology? Because the person believes A is more likely to work than B. People don’t roll a dice for these decisions.
And it doesn’t matter which comes first, the science or the technology, the point is that the technology validates the science.
A: Look at this new widget.
B: How’s it work?
A: No idea.
B: Another victory for magic!
A: Let’s start manufacturing it. The public likes to put their trust in magic widgets.
Trial and error is science. It might be inefficient science, but it is science.
Which implies the following dialogue:
A: Look at this new widget.
B: How’s it work?
A: No idea.
B: Another victory for science!
A: Let’s start manufacturing it. The public likes to put their trust in scientific widgets.
Pish and tosh of course it is a validation, otherwise why make the choice to take advantage of the technology? Because the person believes A is more likely to work than B.
So, ahem, every time some desperate person makes the choice to consult a homeopath, or an iridologist, or a Scientologist, about their problems, it is vindication of that rubbish?
Let me restate for clarity. I am talking about how we much more often we choose the scientific worldview over the theist worldview, even unconsciously. Here’s some T/F statements:
1. We overwhelmingly choose technology as the solution to our problems. People do sometimes choose other solutions, but even in these cases it is rarely in isolation to technology.
2. Technology validates the science behind it.
3. In the cases where the user does not understand the science behind the technology they are still tacitly accepting the scientific worldview by a) actively choosing the technology 2) actively not choosing another non-scienctific solution.
The scientific worldview is the predominate worldview, even by people who believe that it is not. The only people who could make the claim that *for them* it is not the most influential worldview is by choosing to use solutions other than technology in a much greater degree to the technological solutions. There are very few people like that.
I reject point 2. Again.
Unless, I guess you are willing to admit point 2a:
2a) Culture validates the religion behind it
As a scientist, I meet maybe one person in a hundred who understands the scientific worldview well enough to choose it in any meaningful way. For the rest of you, it might as well be magic…
2) Technology validates the science behind it.
Technology is a repeatable experimental result given function, and repetition of an experimental result is an important aspect of science. If someone were to say that there is no validity to a particular scientific theory, but there was a piece of technology based on or utilizing that theory, then that would be proof that the person was incorrect. And so if the person understands the science or not is irrelevent. That person just needs to see that the science has been applied to know that it is correct.
I don’t understand most of science, but I do understand that the lights in my apartment prove that the theories applicable to electricity are correct. If I thought that they weren’t true (despite the designer of the lights telling me that they are built on those theories) then I need some other reason for why my lights come on. Magic? Spiritual power? No, I don’t think so. When I look around the world I see a lot of lights. And all of them prove the science applied in lights work. Multiply that out for every piece of technology.
To answer Marco about technology not working, that doesn’t change a thing. When my lights stop working that doesn’t invalidate the science. It certainly doesn’t invalidate the science behind the metal that built the light’s casing (for the casing is still there) nor the science behind the globe (for it too still exists). I may think the science behind the electricity to be flawed, but heck, I can just turn on another light or replace the non-working one. In short, when technology fails, again we don’t resort to magic or spiritual power for the solution. We assume the science is still sound, but the technology in and of itself to have failed.
I really really *wish* people would believe in and validate science. I believe in the scientific method (give or take with the standard use of Ockham’s Razor). I think too few people use it, and the people who do use it use it too rarely. Just the other day I was experimenting with different foods to give to my 2 year old to see what effect they had on her. I used a variant of the scientific method. Should I be experimenting on my 2 year old – hell yeah – how else am I going to avoid her meltdowns and digestive issues.
We validate a gazillion things when we buy products – I think you are using a truism to make a point that does not follow from that. People do not buy things that they perceive to not work. That is the same before science existed as a thing. I don’t see how people not buying things that they perceive don’t work says anything about science. So often I see people buy inferior (clothing) products for a higher price because of marketing. Why? because people are stupid and believe things that are told to them for a number of reasons. People *SHOULD* use scientific methods but they (to a great degree) *DON’T*
Basically, what I am saying to tie back into your blog – If the failure to see this validation thing is a factor in you not liking the book, it is a crappy factor with poor logic (perhaps good for rhetoric). It is like when Christians tell me that the bible is still the all time best selling book – which validates Christianity *It does not* and you stating silly things similar to that Just opens the door to arguments (perhaps more cleverly done than mine) like that in regards to validating religions of all sorts.
Marco, in my last post I made 3 statements. Which are false and why.
1. We overwhelmingly choose religion as the solution to our problems that lend themselves to talking to a spiritual leader.
See how my statement is just as true as yours. Excercise for the reader – slightly modify 2 and three, firstly to make them true, and then to demonstrate that we all subconsciously validate religion.
Sure, but how many of those problems to you have compared to the ones where you employ a technological solution? Infinitesimal. Remember I said overwhelmingly. And it is.
I want to complain that winstoninabox’s idea is wrong. I’ll sit on a chair (tech) at a table (tech) turn on the lights (tech) and switch on the computer (tech). Actually, there’s so much different tech in the computer it’s not even fair to lump it all together. Going to write a note? Better get a pencil (tech) and paper (tech). Standing in a house? How much different tech is the floor made of, or even made by? Then there’s the walls.
Tech solves problems every second of every day of your life that you don’t even know you have simply because you’ve grown up surrounded by it. Compare that to talking to the priest now and again… well, you can’t. It’s just too big a gap. Technology is ubiquitous.
I want to complain that winstoninabox’s idea is wrong. I’ll sit on a chair (tech) at a table (tech) turn on the lights (tech) and switch on the computer (tech). Actually, there’s so much different tech in the computer it’s not even fair to lump it all together.
But this is not solving a problem, and may well be causing one. It doesn’t validate science. I validate science when I vouch for it. And it says nothing about a “science world view” vs any other world view, because science and tech lends itself to any world view that doesn’t contradict science equally as much.
No, you validate science when you choose technology over any other option. Which you do every day. Repeatedly. 100s of times a day, I’ll bet. Otherwise why don’t you choose the other options?
I’m just glad I got the last word in with that other thread. I think I have said why I think the statements represent a self reinforcing tautology. Most of the problems I perceive I have, are about being happy. Technology causes me a problem for every problem it solves. I was happier in the times of my life where I was attending church regularly. Correlation is not causation, but still…
I am particularly perturbed by technology that allows us to be more lazy and stupid, and thus less likely to be scientifically minded or fit.
Sure, technology is ubiquitous, but it doesn’t “validate science” in general.
1) Most technology has developed by an evolutionary process with little or no scientific input.
2) While ‘how technology works’ can be explained by science, most technology can be adequately explained by both right and wrong science. Since just because the model fits the data, it doesn’t mean the model is true.
A: This funky new astrolabe has enabled us to determine the positions of the planets and navigate successfully from Syracuse to Alexandria.
B: Another validation of Ptolemy’s cosmological model, hurrah!
That said, I am prepared to admit that using technology developed using the scientific worldview validates science, if you admit that using culture developed using the religious worldview validates religion to the same extent. Go on… compromise is fun!
1. We overwhelmingly choose technology as the solution to our problems
I have a large number of problems. For instance I don’t have enough money, my children stay up too late, my employees keep leaving etc. etc. I think you would have to add “that lend themselves to technological products” to make that true.
And when you solve those problems you’ll do it by technology. Print more money, get a clock so you can keep track of time and advertise in some media for a new employee. What I bet you won’t do is pray fro a solution, and leave it at that.
None
No. I’ll work harder. I’ll try to get my kids off their technology to do something physical so that they will be more tired, and I’ll ask my remaining employees to find solutions. Technology breeds dependence and is problem neutral. The problems need to lend themselves to technological products for your first statement to be true.
And as for number 3, the series becomes a tautology, as you say
2) actively not choosing another non-scienctific solution.
When your first statement is only true for problems that lend themselves to a technological product, of course one doesn’t choose another nonscientific solution.
Marco, I’m sorry that I’ve been unable to explain to you what I mean. I’ll have a think about how to make it clearer for you and try again later.
Sure, technology is ubiquitous, but it doesn’t “validate science” in general.
Sure it does. Once more…
1) Most technology has developed by an evolutionary process with little or no scientific input.
I’ll take your word for that. Compromise! But as I said, that is irrelevant. Just because something was developed by a developer who had no knowledge of the natural laws behind the invention, it doesn’t mean that science isn’t behind it. Every piece of technology we use is based on the laws of nature as we understand (or as you wish) don’t understand them. Edison did not invent (let’s just say it was him) the faith-powered light-bulb, the Wright brothers didn’t invent (again, let’s just say it was them) the magically powered flying machine. Science explains why these things work. The inventor of the ball-point pen more than likely had no idea about the physics of fluids, but that doesn’t mean those physics stop existing because of that person’s lack of knowledge about them. And if there is a scientist knowledgeable in the physics of fluids, that scientist can explain to the inventor why the pen works.
2) While ‘how technology works’ can be explained by science, most technology can be adequately explained by both right and wrong science. Since just because the model fits the data, it doesn’t mean the model is true.
Sure. Compromise! Irrelevant. The quality of the science matters not. When it is found the correct explanation for how this mysterious technology that no one understands works will be based on science. Present to me faith-based or magic-based technology and I’m willing to compromise even further. Until then…
That said, I am prepared to admit that using technology developed using the scientific worldview validates science, if you admit that using culture developed using the religious worldview validates religion to the same extent. Go on… compromise is fun!
I believe ALL technology validates science, If you believe ALL culture validates religion, clap hands and a bargain.
Okay, you’re on. Use of any technology validates science. Use of any culture validates the non-scientific worldviews constructing said culture to the same extent. Agreed.
I believe ALL technology validates science, If you believe ALL culture validates religion, clap hands and a bargain.
See what you have done? You have opened the door to similar arguments that validate religion. Don’t say you weren’t warned.
I’m sure Chris and I are more concerned about finding a nugget of truth in this dung heap of comments. I also doubt that he’d wantonly claim something he didn’t believe. And agreeing to a compromise on these points isn’t a blank slate to build unjustified claims based on them. Besides, I’m sure Chris isn’t satisfied with a compromise. Science isn’t about an opinion born of on a compromise. That’d just be a compromised opinion.