Comments for ASA Voices http://www.asa3online.org/Voices A group blog of ASA members Tue, 20 Dec 2011 03:24:54 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 Comment on EINSTEIN’S BLUNDER – SCIENTIFIC OR RELIGIOUS? by George Murphy http://www.asa3online.org/Voices/2011/12/08/einsteins-blunder-scientific-or-religious-george-l-murphy/comment-page-1/#comment-722 George Murphy Tue, 20 Dec 2011 03:24:54 +0000 http://www.asa3online.org/Voices/?p=690#comment-722 Randy - It's not surprising for one's ideology - or theology, or anti-theology, or worldview, or whatever one wants to call it - to play some role in the way one proceeds in scientific investigation.   It should, however, be only one factor in the development of a research program.  It seems pretty clear, e.g., that one of the motives behind the steady state cosmology was a desire on the part of some of its developers to get rid of what seemed to them unpleasantly like a "creation moment" in what would come to be called big bang cosmologies.  But there were other good reasons to develop such a theory - in particular, the fact that in the mid 40s the earth seemed to be older than the age of the universe implied by standard relativistic models and the then accepted value of the Hubble parameter.   & there was a certain elegance about the steady state model. & you're right that the failure of a theory doesn't necessarily refute an ideology that helped to inspire it.  The successes of big bang cosmology do not prove divine creation, and models like that of Steinhardt and Turok are in a rough sense "oscillatory steady state" models.  However, the repeated failures of an ideology in such a role should lead to suspicions about its value.   An ideological insistence on an age of the universe on the order of Bp. Ussher's is, I think, an example.  & the failure of attempts to develop a "scientific creationism" on this basis fail, in part, because they don't observe my first caveat - the ideology is pretty much the only thing driving them.     Randy – It’s not surprising for one’s ideology – or theology, or anti-theology, or worldview, or whatever one wants to call it – to play some role in the way one proceeds in scientific investigation.   It should, however, be only one factor in the development of a research program.  It seems pretty clear, e.g., that one of the motives behind the steady state cosmology was a desire on the part of some of its developers to get rid of what seemed to them unpleasantly like a “creation moment” in what would come to be called big bang cosmologies.  But there were other good reasons to develop such a theory – in particular, the fact that in the mid 40s the earth seemed to be older than the age of the universe implied by standard relativistic models and the then accepted value of the Hubble parameter.   & there was a certain elegance about the steady state model.

& you’re right that the failure of a theory doesn’t necessarily refute an ideology that helped to inspire it.  The successes of big bang cosmology do not prove divine creation, and models like that of Steinhardt and Turok are in a rough sense “oscillatory steady state” models.  However, the repeated failures of an ideology in such a role should lead to suspicions about its value.   An ideological insistence on an age of the universe on the order of Bp. Ussher’s is, I think, an example.  & the failure of attempts to develop a “scientific creationism” on this basis fail, in part, because they don’t observe my first caveat – the ideology is pretty much the only thing driving them.
 
 

]]> Comment on EINSTEIN’S BLUNDER – SCIENTIFIC OR RELIGIOUS? by Randy Isaac http://www.asa3online.org/Voices/2011/12/08/einsteins-blunder-scientific-or-religious-george-l-murphy/comment-page-1/#comment-713 Randy Isaac Sun, 18 Dec 2011 03:58:45 +0000 http://www.asa3online.org/Voices/?p=690#comment-713 <p>George,   Thank you for your insightful post. It seems to be a useful reminder of how ideologies and philosophical perspectives do influence our scientific work. Ultimately, the validity of the work derived from those views may or may not prove to be correct. Either way, the pertinent ideology is not affirmed or denied by the result.    For example, you stated "And if, as Spinoza believed, God is immutable, so is the natural world.</p> <p>So it’s possible that Einstein’s belief in a static universe was an expression of his religious faith."   The perceived "blunder" of the cosmological constant did not deny the immutability of God. Neither does its reinstatement as a possible explanation for dark energy affirm the immutability of God. My point is that ideology may lead us to insight about the physical world, even if that ideology is not correct or is not translated correctly into its implications. Randy</p> George,
  Thank you for your insightful post. It seems to be a useful reminder of how ideologies and philosophical perspectives do influence our scientific work. Ultimately, the validity of the work derived from those views may or may not prove to be correct. Either way, the pertinent ideology is not affirmed or denied by the result. 
  For example, you stated “And if, as Spinoza believed, God is immutable, so is the natural world.

So it’s possible that Einstein’s belief in a static universe was an expression of his religious faith.”

  The perceived “blunder” of the cosmological constant did not deny the immutability of God. Neither does its reinstatement as a possible explanation for dark energy affirm the immutability of God. My point is that ideology may lead us to insight about the physical world, even if that ideology is not correct or is not translated correctly into its implications.

Randy

]]> Comment on General Comments and Discussion – November 2011 by David Roemer http://www.asa3online.org/Voices/2011/11/21/general-comments-and-discussion-november-2011/comment-page-1/#comment-711 David Roemer Thu, 15 Dec 2011 08:52:34 +0000 http://www.asa3online.org/Voices/?p=688#comment-711 A few days ago, I posted a topic  with Christians in Science website in the philosophy section titled, "The Mind-Body Problem." I made the same point as above: Liberals and atheists have a blind spot about the mind-body problem. There were two respondents, but after about 22 exchanges they gave up trying to understand what I was attempting to communicate to them. My response to this withdrawal was a final post where I related the mind-body problem to the cosmological argument for God's existence. What happened next shows, I think, a lack of integrity in the leadership of Christians in Science. My last post was deleted, but their penultimate post is still there.  I don't see the difference between this action and book burning. In that last post, I told about my posting on this blog. I suggested that the lack of responses to my post about the mind and body is that many scientists are afraid to discuss whether the author of a major biology textbook is unintelligent. Such an idea implies that evolutionary biology is unintelligent, which could cost someone his job.   A few days ago, I posted a topic  with Christians in Science website in the philosophy section titled, “The Mind-Body Problem.” I made the same point as above: Liberals and atheists have a blind spot about the mind-body problem. There were two respondents, but after about 22 exchanges they gave up trying to understand what I was attempting to communicate to them.

My response to this withdrawal was a final post where I related the mind-body problem to the cosmological argument for God’s existence. What happened next shows, I think, a lack of integrity in the leadership of Christians in Science. My last post was deleted, but their penultimate post is still there.  I don’t see the difference between this action and book burning.

In that last post, I told about my posting on this blog. I suggested that the lack of responses to my post about the mind and body is that many scientists are afraid to discuss whether the author of a major biology textbook is unintelligent. Such an idea implies that evolutionary biology is unintelligent, which could cost someone his job.
 

]]> Comment on EINSTEIN’S BLUNDER – SCIENTIFIC OR RELIGIOUS? by George Murphy http://www.asa3online.org/Voices/2011/12/08/einsteins-blunder-scientific-or-religious-george-l-murphy/comment-page-1/#comment-710 George Murphy Sat, 10 Dec 2011 15:16:54 +0000 http://www.asa3online.org/Voices/?p=690#comment-710 Yes, some have argued that Spinoza should be classified as a panentheist rather than a pantheist.  Whether or not that is the case, it is certainly not the way Einstein, who had great admiration for Spinoza, understood him.  & my original comments were concerned primarily with Einstein's religious views, not those of the philosopher who influenced him. Yes, some have argued that Spinoza should be classified as a panentheist rather than a pantheist.  Whether or not that is the case, it is certainly not the way Einstein, who had great admiration for Spinoza, understood him.  & my original comments were concerned primarily with Einstein’s religious views, not those of the philosopher who influenced him.

]]> Comment on EINSTEIN’S BLUNDER – SCIENTIFIC OR RELIGIOUS? by David Roemer http://www.asa3online.org/Voices/2011/12/08/einsteins-blunder-scientific-or-religious-george-l-murphy/comment-page-1/#comment-709 David Roemer Sat, 10 Dec 2011 00:55:29 +0000 http://www.asa3online.org/Voices/?p=690#comment-709 The important point is that it is wrong to attribute to Spinoza the idea that God is not a transcendent being. Spinoza was making the point that the anthropomorphic God of a lot of uneducated believers was not the God of reason and revelation. There is also no reason to think Spinoza was excommunicated because of his metaphysics. I think the first atheist in modern history is Machiavelli, correct me if I am wrong. The important point is that it is wrong to attribute to Spinoza the idea that God is not a transcendent being. Spinoza was making the point that the anthropomorphic God of a lot of uneducated believers was not the God of reason and revelation. There is also no reason to think Spinoza was excommunicated because of his metaphysics.
I think the first atheist in modern history is Machiavelli, correct me if I am wrong.

]]> Comment on EINSTEIN’S BLUNDER – SCIENTIFIC OR RELIGIOUS? by George Murphy http://www.asa3online.org/Voices/2011/12/08/einsteins-blunder-scientific-or-religious-george-l-murphy/comment-page-1/#comment-708 George Murphy Fri, 09 Dec 2011 16:27:53 +0000 http://www.asa3online.org/Voices/?p=690#comment-708 I'll leave it to philosophers to decide whether or not that argument for Spinoza's view is valid.  The equation of God and nature is, however, bad theology.   God freely creates that which is not God: "For God is good, or rather is essentially the source of goodness: nor could one that is good be niggardly of anything: whence, grudging existence to none, He has made all things out of nothing by His own Word, Jesus Christ our Lord." (Athanasius) & according to Paul, the fundamental sin is that  "they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped  and served the creatures rather than the Creator" (Romans 1:25), which makes no sense if Spinoza is right. Speaking about "the religion/science conflict today" is somewhat misleading, buying in as it does to the old "warfare" model of the relationship.  There are some who hold to that view but while some of them are quite vocal they are generally dwellers in the fever swamps rather than those engaged in serious discussion. The Galileo affair was, of course, more complex than its popular portrayal.  I would say, however, that it's a mistake to regard stellar parallax as a make or break test of the heliocentric/geocentric debate.  That's shown by the fact that virtually all astronomers had come down on the Copernican side well before such a parallax was actually measured in the 1830s.  & in light of general relativity even observation of such parallaxes doesn't prove that the earth "really moves".  See my article "Does the Earth Move?" in the June 2011 Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith. I’ll leave it to philosophers to decide whether or not that argument for Spinoza’s view is valid.  The equation of God and nature is, however, bad theology.   God freely creates that which is not God: “For God is good, or rather is essentially the source of goodness: nor could one that is good be niggardly of anything: whence, grudging existence to none, He has made all things out of nothing by His own Word, Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Athanasius) & according to Paul, the fundamental sin is that  “they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped  and served the creatures rather than the Creator” (Romans 1:25), which makes no sense if Spinoza is right.

Speaking about “the religion/science conflict today” is somewhat misleading, buying in as it does to the old “warfare” model of the relationship.  There are some who hold to that view but while some of them are quite vocal they are generally dwellers in the fever swamps rather than those engaged in serious discussion.

The Galileo affair was, of course, more complex than its popular portrayal.  I would say, however, that it’s a mistake to regard stellar parallax as a make or break test of the heliocentric/geocentric debate.  That’s shown by the fact that virtually all astronomers had come down on the Copernican side well before such a parallax was actually measured in the 1830s.  & in light of general relativity even observation of such parallaxes doesn’t prove that the earth “really moves”.  See my article “Does the Earth Move?” in the June 2011 Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith.

]]> Comment on EINSTEIN’S BLUNDER – SCIENTIFIC OR RELIGIOUS? by David Roemer http://www.asa3online.org/Voices/2011/12/08/einsteins-blunder-scientific-or-religious-george-l-murphy/comment-page-1/#comment-707 David Roemer Fri, 09 Dec 2011 12:45:06 +0000 http://www.asa3online.org/Voices/?p=690#comment-707 I don’t think there is anything in the philosophy of Spinoza that is metaphysically or theologically inconsistent with the Christian faith. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia:   “Yet the axiom "God=Nature" is valid because the things necessarily following from the Being of God belong in some way to God. Only the Being of God is independent; Spinoza calls this Being alone substance. All things (modi) must be founded in the attributes of God. This is one approach to Spinozism.” (<a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14217a.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14217a.htm</a>)   The discovery of the Big Bang in the 1960s is a reason to believe God inspired the human authors of the Bible. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God..” (John 1:1) can be interpreted to mean that the universe was an idea in God’s mind before God created the universe.   There is a difference between the religion/science conflict today and when the Catholic Church clashed with Galileo. That was not a conflict, but a rational disagreement between intelligent people over two theories: geocentricism and heliocentricism. The Catholic Church exercised better judgment, in my opinion, because the parallax motion of the stars had not yet been observed. The conflict today is not rational because the combatants are unintelligent about the mind-body problem, ignorant of the proof of God’s existence, and irrational about the meaning of life. I don’t think there is anything in the philosophy of Spinoza that is metaphysically or theologically inconsistent with the Christian faith. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia:
 
“Yet the axiom “God=Nature” is valid because the things necessarily following from the Being of God belong in some way to God. Only the Being of God is independent; Spinoza calls this Being alone substance. All things (modi) must be founded in the attributes of God. This is one approach to Spinozism.” (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14217a.htm)
 
The discovery of the Big Bang in the 1960s is a reason to believe God inspired the human authors of the Bible. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God..” (John 1:1) can be interpreted to mean that the universe was an idea in God’s mind before God created the universe.
 
There is a difference between the religion/science conflict today and when the Catholic Church clashed with Galileo. That was not a conflict, but a rational disagreement between intelligent people over two theories: geocentricism and heliocentricism. The Catholic Church exercised better judgment, in my opinion, because the parallax motion of the stars had not yet been observed.

The conflict today is not rational because the combatants are unintelligent about the mind-body problem, ignorant of the proof of God’s existence, and irrational about the meaning of life.

]]> Comment on Limits of Academic Freedom? by Scot Sutherland http://www.asa3online.org/Voices/2011/08/16/limits-of-academic-freedom/comment-page-1/#comment-706 Scot Sutherland Wed, 30 Nov 2011 18:40:05 +0000 http://www.asa3online.org/Voices/?p=679#comment-706 I find it hard to separate the Judeo-Christian tradition from any kind of science or academia.  The idea that nature is headed in any particular direction or can be reduced to any kind of fundamental properties comes distinctly out of the Judeo-Christian system of beliefs.  Without it we would have no science or academia.  Even atheism or humanism or any kind of -ism that arises out of western thought presupposes the assumptions of a world that began and continues forward, one of the chief contributions of Judeo-Christian thought.   Jesus himself proposes something that was revolutionary in his time.  He said, "If you don't believe the words I say, believe the works I do."  That sound quite a bit like supporting a theoretical position with empirical evidence.  So I would argue that the definition of academia and scientific inquiry itself depends upon a system of beliefs that grew out of Judeo-Christian thought.   Disagreement seem to be rooted in which of these assumptions can be challenged, and which are essential.  In the interests of rigor, all academic institutions establish what will be permissible and what will be encouraged.  One of those fundamental tenets seems to be integrity and honesty of inquiry.  It seems that some faculty members follow honest inquiry into territory not supported by the institution.  They can take the path of Galileo and find themselves in jeopardy, or they can follow Bacon and keep their more controversial thoughts to themselves.  I'm not advocating one or the other, but I think the tension is inherent in the very process of learning and inquiry, part of living in the world.   My father used to say in regards to controversial issues, "Don't take a position unless you have to make a decision."  I have found this piece of advice to be quite helpful.     I find it hard to separate the Judeo-Christian tradition from any kind of science or academia.  The idea that nature is headed in any particular direction or can be reduced to any kind of fundamental properties comes distinctly out of the Judeo-Christian system of beliefs.  Without it we would have no science or academia.  Even atheism or humanism or any kind of -ism that arises out of western thought presupposes the assumptions of a world that began and continues forward, one of the chief contributions of Judeo-Christian thought.
 
Jesus himself proposes something that was revolutionary in his time.  He said, “If you don’t believe the words I say, believe the works I do.”  That sound quite a bit like supporting a theoretical position with empirical evidence.  So I would argue that the definition of academia and scientific inquiry itself depends upon a system of beliefs that grew out of Judeo-Christian thought.
 
Disagreement seem to be rooted in which of these assumptions can be challenged, and which are essential.  In the interests of rigor, all academic institutions establish what will be permissible and what will be encouraged.  One of those fundamental tenets seems to be integrity and honesty of inquiry.  It seems that some faculty members follow honest inquiry into territory not supported by the institution.  They can take the path of Galileo and find themselves in jeopardy, or they can follow Bacon and keep their more controversial thoughts to themselves.  I’m not advocating one or the other, but I think the tension is inherent in the very process of learning and inquiry, part of living in the world.
 
My father used to say in regards to controversial issues, “Don’t take a position unless you have to make a decision.”  I have found this piece of advice to be quite helpful.
 
 

]]> Comment on General Comments and Discussion – November 2011 by David Roemer http://www.asa3online.org/Voices/2011/11/21/general-comments-and-discussion-november-2011/comment-page-1/#comment-705 David Roemer Mon, 28 Nov 2011 22:08:26 +0000 http://www.asa3online.org/Voices/?p=688#comment-705 When animals have nothing to do, they go to sleep. Humans will ask questions and they will ask questions about <em>doing</em>, <em>knowing</em>, <em>understanding</em>, and <em>observing</em> itself. These questions are known as the<em> mind-body problem</em>. Ordinarily,  intelligence is a measure of how quickly someone grasps a solution to a problem or answer to a question that an extremely intelligent person came up with. But in the case of religion, there is so much anxiety, inhibition, and bias that ordinarily intelligent  people can't even grasp hypotheses, solutions, answers, concepts, etc.  The following quote is from a biology textbook used by 65% of biology majors in the U.S:   "And certain properties of the human brain distinguish our species from all other animals. The human brain is, after all, the only known collection of matter that tries to understand itself. To most biologists, the brain and the mind are one and the same; understand how the brain is organized and how it works, and we’ll understand such mindful functions as abstract thought and feelings. Some philosophers are less comfortable with this mechanistic view of mind, finding Descartes’ concept of a mind-body duality more attractive. ( Niel Campbell, <em>Biology</em>, 4th edition, p. 776 )" The author of the quote only grasps two solutions to the mind-body problem: materialism, and dualism. There is no evidence for either of these bright ideas. Intelligence test: What is the solution to the mind-body problem judged to be true by rational people? When animals have nothing to do, they go to sleep. Humans will ask questions and they will ask questions about doing, knowing, understanding, and observing itself. These questions are known as the mind-body problem. Ordinarily,  intelligence is a measure of how quickly someone grasps a solution to a problem or answer to a question that an extremely intelligent person came up with. But in the case of religion, there is so much anxiety, inhibition, and bias that ordinarily intelligent  people can’t even grasp hypotheses, solutions, answers, concepts, etc.  The following quote is from a biology textbook used by 65% of biology majors in the U.S:
 
“And certain properties of the human brain distinguish our species from all other animals. The human brain is, after all, the only known collection of matter that tries to understand itself. To most biologists, the brain and the mind are one and the same; understand how the brain is organized and how it works, and we’ll understand such mindful functions as abstract thought and feelings. Some philosophers are less comfortable with this mechanistic view of mind, finding Descartes’ concept of a mind-body duality more attractive. ( Niel Campbell, Biology, 4th edition, p. 776 )”

The author of the quote only grasps two solutions to the mind-body problem: materialism, and dualism. There is no evidence for either of these bright ideas. Intelligence test: What is the solution to the mind-body problem judged to be true by rational people?

]]> Comment on Limits of Academic Freedom? by Daniel Lioy http://www.asa3online.org/Voices/2011/08/16/limits-of-academic-freedom/comment-page-1/#comment-704 Daniel Lioy Sun, 20 Nov 2011 15:58:15 +0000 http://www.asa3online.org/Voices/?p=679#comment-704 This is an interesting post and set of exchanges. The sorts of tension points put forward, including those between science and theology, literal vs. historical Adam, the veracity of evolutionary science, and so forth, are ones I’ve been wrestling with for a number of years. In fact, this is one reason why I decided to research and write more at length on the topic, leading to the recent release of my book dealing with the biblical and theological aspects of evolutionary creation (<a href="http://www.peterlang.com/index.cfm?event=cmp.cst.ebooks.datasheet&id=62205" rel="nofollow">http://www.peterlang.com/index.cfm?event=cmp.cst.ebooks.datasheet&id=62205</a>). So far, two of my part-time employers, Southwestern College (a UMC liberal arts college) and Marylhurst University (a Roman Catholic liberal arts university), have been supportive of my efforts. This is an interesting post and set of exchanges. The sorts of tension points put forward, including those between science and theology, literal vs. historical Adam, the veracity of evolutionary science, and so forth, are ones I’ve been wrestling with for a number of years. In fact, this is one reason why I decided to research and write more at length on the topic, leading to the recent release of my book dealing with the biblical and theological aspects of evolutionary creation (http://www.peterlang.com/index.cfm?event=cmp.cst.ebooks.datasheet&id=62205).

So far, two of my part-time employers, Southwestern College (a UMC liberal arts college) and Marylhurst University (a Roman Catholic liberal arts university), have been supportive of my efforts.

]]>