Ep. 78: Norton in da house

[Lawrence]

I don't see how the two could ever be reconciled.

Really? I think you just answered it yourself, they're two completely different things.

For that matter I don't see how belief can have any place in objective scientific research.

Very easily. Scientific research is not completely objective because humans have to make subjective assessments of how it is defined, how it is conducted, how it is analyzed, and how it is to be disseminated and understood (importance etc.). There are massive debates in philosophy about the 1st, 2nd and 4th while the third is very commonly done wrong. In fact if this report is to be trusted:
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/57091/title/Odds_are,_its_wrong
which is consistent with what I've read and heard from professors, then the majority of available scientific research is plain wrong (or exaggerated). Belief in the correctness and importance of ones research is nearly universal but 3rd party analysis (from actual statisticians who most scientists have a poor relationship with) shows that this is just another case of the Lake Woebegone effect.

[Pseudonym]

Hi, Shans, and welcome. Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

First, I'm more than aware that the Christian world that Norton represents is not and does not flow from the larger historical positions of the Church in general.

Christianity is always in a state of change. It has been so since Paul of Tarsus adapted the beliefs of a Jewish sect for the Greek world, and it is a process that continues today. There is a more-or-less unbroken line of progression of thought from the Reformation through to today. And based on this podcast, Norton sounds to me like a fairly standard mainline Protestant. His beliefs don't appear to be the slightest bit unusual or uncommon as far as Protestantism in the developed world goes.

The Catholic church, for example, engaged the implications of Darwin's theory straight away and they quickly found antecedents from their past teachings. Mind you that was a very wide pool from which any and nearly all antecedents could be claimed.

Right. I have many gripes with the Catholic Church, but their willingness to support a wide diversity of thinking and engage with new ideas (even if they're sometimes a bit slow) is one of the things they seem to do well.

Be that as it may, I was interested in Norton's revelation itself and how he would deal with these rich ideas. He seemed to come to the evolution idea reluctantly precisely because it conflicted with his understanding of the interpretation of the scripture. I would have been interested to hear him face the implications of further 'truths' vis-à-vis his doctrine. The greater church may have a handle on all the ramifications of evolutionary biology, but I've yet to see the Baptist church work it out.

Right, I may have misread that. You were interested in Norton's journey, rather than the wider history of Christian thought on the topic. Fair enough.

As to the later point, it depends on which Baptist denomination we're talking about, I suspect.

Are you imagining that the church believed as a general principle that the Earth was millions of years old and did so before Lyell attempted to prove it?

What I'm saying is that the belief that Genesis is at least partly non-literal goes back before Christianity, and is the majority opinion amongst the great theologians of history who have expressed an opinion on the topic one way or another.

It's true that before there was hard evidence, Christians did tend to go with the Biblical narrative right up to the point where the facts contradicted it. In the absence of a better explanation, it's probably even understandable. But it's also true that it has been pretty much always recognised that Genesis 1-2 couldn't possibly be entirely literal.

Now that we have a pretty good scientific explanation for the origin of the universe, the Earth and of species, most theologians have adjusted their opinions accordingly. This is also something that the church has almost always done as a general principle, with a few notable exceptions.

No, it's not all sunshine and puppies. In particular, in the last hundred years or so, scientific knowledge has expanded faster than some churches have traditionally had to cope with. It will probably take a few decades to sort this out, but in the grand scheme of things, it's nothing really new.

Now you unjustly assume I do not find mythology to be a good thing – this is unfair. My undergrad is in anthropology and I fully appreciate the history, use, structure and ‘goodness’ mythology can bring to a society. Indeed all history retold is narrative used in cultures to instruct and reproduce society. At the same time mythology is used to control and restrict behavior – for the good? for the bad? Well that’s a whole other issue. [You will note that I have successfully resisted going off on a tangent.]

My apologies for misinterpreting you. And congratulations on avoiding the tangent.

If by mythology you mean that it did not happen much like that at all, that the story has a teaching point and the details are not meant to be taken as true history, science, etc., then we have an issue or two to work out. But I mean to keep this short. Sufficed to say, Pastor Norton does not carry this view as you do.

Hang on a moment, is Norton a Pastor? I didn't think he was...

Anyway, Norton clearly believes different things about the nature of mythology than I do, but I strongly suspect his opinion on Genesis 1 is almost exactly the same as mine.

My point was do you believe those who composed it and those who received it believed it to by non-history.

I believe you're drawing a line which those of the time wouldn't have recognised. In pre-Enlightenment times, the distinction between history and cultural mythology, just like the distinction between religion and art, wasn't as strict as it is today. Look at the modern equivalents, such the Australian Aborigines, and how they relate to their mythology. When they tell you a story about the rainbow serpent, they use the exact same phraseology that they would use if they were retelling literal history, even though it isn't and everyone knows it.

Somewhere along the line, we Christians lost that, but I think we still know it at a deep level. It's the same point I made in the Noah's Flood thread: The fact that we give Noah's Ark toys to children to play with is evidence that deep down we don't really believe that it's literal history. After all, we wouldn't give children toys of the Asian tsunami or the Haitian earthquake.

But you have side stepped my question regarding Jesus and Paul. It is not enough to say both employed poetry and symbolism when applying the Genesis text – I was asking did they also believe it was true? Did Jesus believe there was a literal Adam and Eve? Did Paul?

I don't think it matters. Everything that Jesus or Paul said is 100% consistent with them believing that it is entirely allegorical. Yes, even that bit. It is also, to be fair, 100% consistent with them believing that it is literal, but with strong symbolism. The point is that it is the symbolism which they found important, not the historicity.

I’m much more interested in understanding how the myths were used to control thought and behavior by the institution of the Church on both the general masses in Europe (and more recently in America) and higher learning.

I wish if the church had this all figured out before 1600 they would have let the rest of the world in on the notion. They could have saved a lot of strife and pain. Not to mention a lot of abuse of power.

That, indeed, is an interesting question, and it doesn't have an easy answer. When church and state aren't cleanly separated, both the church and the state end up doing things that sullies the reputations of both for centuries. For what it's worth, I blame Constantine.

On a personal note I come from a Christian back ground (Pentecostal and Catholic before that) and trained for the ministry but was ‘saved’ in my mid-twenties by reason.

For what it's worth, what I believe is pretty much what I was brought up to believe in my neo-Orthodox-to-liberal Christian church (which is, incidentally, the third-biggest Christian denomination in Australia). Christianity and reason are not inherently incompatible.

[humanguy]

I don't see how the two could ever be reconciled.

Really? I think you just answered it yourself, they're two completely different things.

For that matter I don't see how belief can have any place in objective scientific research.

Very easily. Scientific research is not completely objective because humans have to make subjective assessments of how it is defined, how it is conducted, how it is analyzed, and how it is to be disseminated and understood (importance etc.). There are massive debates in philosophy about the 1st, 2nd and 4th while the third is very commonly done wrong. In fact if this report is to be trusted:
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/57091/title/Odds_are,_its_wrong
which is consistent with what I've read and heard from professors, then the majority of available scientific research is plain wrong (or exaggerated). Belief in the correctness and importance of ones research is nearly universal but 3rd party analysis (from actual statisticians who most scientists have a poor relationship with) shows that this is just another case of the Lake Woebegone effect.

Um...okay.

[mitchellmckain]

For that matter I don't see how belief can have any place in objective scientific research.

Very easily. Scientific research is not completely objective because humans have to make subjective assessments of how it is defined, how it is conducted, how it is analyzed, and how it is to be disseminated and understood (importance etc.). There are massive debates in philosophy about the 1st, 2nd and 4th while the third is very commonly done wrong. In fact if this report is to be trusted:
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/57091/title/Odds_are,_its_wrong
which is consistent with what I've read and heard from professors, then the majority of available scientific research is plain wrong (or exaggerated). Belief in the correctness and importance of ones research is nearly universal but 3rd party analysis (from actual statisticians who most scientists have a poor relationship with) shows that this is just another case of the Lake Woebegone effect.

As a scientist I have immense respect for the scientific method, but maybe because of my practical understanding of it I am also looking at it from the other end so to speak. For me it is not some kind of magic (something beyond my understanding) that unlike anything else produces the one true answer to questions. Instead I see it as a rather remarkable way of indirectly getting around the basic fact that all of our primary access to reality is purely subjective.

There are two basic principles to it and they represents two different aspects to what we call "objectivity". The first is a basic honesty that keeps science question oriented rather than answer oriented -- in other words, it makes sure that it is not a particular answer that we are looking for. We accomplish this by testing an hypothesis rather than trying to prove an hypothesis. This is crucial because this more than anything defines the difference between what a scientist does and what a lawyer does. It also makes it rather clear why creationism is not science -- because that is all oriented around proving their hypothesis. So from this principle comes one meaning of the word objectivity that we show no favoritism but treat all possible answers with equal regard.

The second principle refers to a different meaning of objectivity as being independent of a particular persons point of view, and it uses a technique by which science can obtain answers which are independent of any particular person. This is the principle and consequent meaning of objectivity in science which I usually focus upon because it is the one which I find to be the most remarkable. The basic technique is that that we provide a written proceedure that any person can follow in order to obtain the same results.

In any case, I think that history has demonstrated beyond any doubt that this method is marvelously successful at finding new and unexpected things about the world around us. Yet one thing I think that many fail to understand is that a large part of this success that science has comes from a rather deliberate restriction of the subject matter which it will consider -- though this is somewhat obscured by the rhetoric of the metaphysical naturalist who chooses to simply restrict reality to those same limitations. Anyway, I think it is also a sign of the extra-ordinary reliability of science is that this method has actually been able to determine some of its own limitations. Therefore I always heartily agree that there simply is no comparision between science and any other human activity as far as it comes to getting at the truth -- let alone any comparison between science and religion in this regard.

But it is a good idea to touch base with the fundamental reality as Lawrence has done, that our subjectivity is not something that we can really escape from and that the objectivity that science aspires to remains to a very large extent an abstract ideal. It is perhaps an ironic thing for the metaphysical naturalists to consider that this is an ideal that scientists pursue with a great deal of faith and humility -- but I like the even greater irony that with all the lip service that religion often pays to faith and humility, these qualities of the scientists are examples which the religious should look up to.

[Exrev]

Wow did you open a can of worms with that.

Unfortunately, when it comes to those who have completly confused science with rhetoric, explaining the difference and explaining what science is really all about tends to be a waste of time. They usually just respond with more rhetoric. This of course is what happens when you talk to these creationists who think that creationism should be taught in public schools as if it were science. Attempts to explain why it isn't science will go nowhere.

I disagree that the claim actually has to claim that it’s science to make it pseudoscience, it just has to claim that it truth or it works.

Which, of course, leaves us with a definition of pseudoscience as any knowledge outside of science, or more likely what is really meant here is that it is whatever Exrev says so.

LOL So which is it? Chess teachers never tell you what works or chess is a new branch of modern science? Is it true that english teachers never tell you what works or is english is a branch of modern science also? Shall we go on, or just come to the conclusion that Exrev's "definition" forces upon us? The conclusion is that assuming these teachers are not teaching pseudoscience then either it is the case that ONLY science teacher EVER tell you what is true or what works, OR all teachers teach only science because all of it is science. The first of these is completely absurd, and the second would work very nicely for the creationists not to mention the theologians who look wistfully back at the middle ages when theology was called the "queen of the sciences". LOL

The truth is of course is that it is only natural that a pseudoscientist would come up with a definition of science vs. pseudoscience that would suit other pseudoscientists.

Yeah but a pseudoscientist wouldn't broaded the definition of pseudoscience they would try to narrow it to exclude there pseudoscience from the definition of pseudoscience.

I liked what Sam Harris said "Religion is failed science" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkTTCgECCoc

[Pseudonym]

I liked what Sam Harris said "Religion is failed science" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkTTCgECCoc

Except that, of course, it obviously isn't.

First off, it isn't just religion we're talking about here. Pretty much all of the humanities were put to the use of providing explanations about nature in the absence of anything better. If we wouldn't call philosophy "failed science", it makes no sense to call religion "failed science" either.

And just like philosophy, just because religion was put to the use of providing explanations which later turned out to be wrong, it doesn't follow that this is what religion "is". That religion has indulged in (and, of course, some religions still indulge in) "failed science" is obviously true. It would take a lot more evidence to make the case that religion is failed science.

My take on it: Religion is successful art. Very successful, in fact.

[Exrev]

I liked what Sam Harris said "Religion is failed science" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkTTCgECCoc

Except that, of course, it obviously isn't.

First off, it isn't just religion we're talking about here. Pretty much all of the humanities were put to the use of providing explanations about nature in the absence of anything better. If we wouldn't call philosophy "failed science", it makes no sense to call religion "failed science" either.

And just like philosophy, just because religion was put to the use of providing explanations which later turned out to be wrong, it doesn't follow that this is what religion "is". That religion has indulged in (and, of course, some religions still indulge in) "failed science" is obviously true. It would take a lot more evidence to make the case that religion is failed science.

My take on it: Religion is successful art. Very successful, in fact.

Did you watch the video?

The fact is religion makes claims about how the world works and I would even say that sure Religion is an ancient attempt at philosphy and science. In the sence that it attempted to explain how the world worked. But i wouldn't go to far into the statment obviouly religion isn't moderen science. But that is the point.

Religion is an art... thats a new one.

[Pseudonym]

Did you watch the video?

Of course. I didn't get annoyed with it until I did.

The fact is religion makes claims about how the world works and I would even say that sure Religion is an ancient attempt at philosphy and science.

I of course agree that many religions made (and some still do) claims about "how the world works", as did ancient philosophers, ancient historians and ancient artists. It's even understandable in an era when there was no better information. But the fact that they did this does not prove that this was what religion "is" or "was".

Much has been said here and in other places recently about how religion evolved. We've heard the theory that it helps organise societies, that it helps in enforcing a common moral code, and even that it's a side-effect of other adaptations. To my knowledge, exactly nobody has yet suggested that religion evolved to provide scientific explanations for things.

Religion is an art... thats a new one.

On the contrary, it's extremely old. The oldest non-tool artifacts that we have, what today we would call "works of art", were all objects with cultural/ritual/magical significance. The same goes for the oldest story-telling and the oldest music-making.

[Lawrence]

Um...okay.

I'm happy we had an intelligent conversation.

[Exrev]

Did you watch the video?

Of course. I didn't get annoyed with it until I did.

Instead of getting annoyed why not think about it... you know use your mind instead of your emotions.

The fact is religion makes claims about how the world works and I would even say that sure Religion is an ancient attempt at philosphy and science.

I of course agree that many religions made (and some still do) claims about "how the world works", as did ancient philosophers, ancient historians and ancient artists. It's even understandable in an era when there was no better information. But the fact that they did this does not prove that this was what religion "is" or "was".

Much has been said here and in other places recently about how religion evolved. We've heard the theory that it helps organise societies, that it helps in enforcing a common moral code, and even that it's a side-effect of other adaptations.

The problem was these thing werent' based on reality. MEH not so sure about that, killing virgins may have been common but it wasn't moral. Yeah enforceing a moral code, like killing all the heathans and keeping slaves in their place, burning "witches", appointing kings based on gods will. Well i'm thankful that I live in a secular based constitution that lets the people chose. Religion has hindered societies with the dark ages and burning libraries of valubale information. To think where we could be (scientifily and technology wise) without the control of the church. We lost so much time on the scientific front because of the church. Ruthless men used religion to keep in power. It may have benifited the ruler but i didn't benifient society at all.

To my knowledge, exactly nobody has yet suggested that religion evolved to provide scientific explanations for things.

Depends on how you used the word science, not moderen science, but anticent science, religion did attempt to explain the world they lived in. Not long ago if your kid suffered seziures you would take him or her to the church to have a demon cast out of him, not to a doctor. The fact is religion explains everything from how the earth was created to why someone gets sick.These are thankfully now areas of science and not religion. But there are still people who refuse to go to the doctor because of their religion. Not sure what country you are from, but here in the USA, we have huge debate of wheather or not evolution and creationism should be taught in schools. When the majority of people are denying a scientific fact, based on their religion then that religion is making scientific claims (not saying it is science) but they are offering an alternative explanation than what sceince has. So dont' tell me religion and science don't butt heads. Religion has failed to adaquetly explain our world that we live in. In other words Religion is failed science.

Religion is an art... thats a new one.

On the contrary, it's extremely old. The oldest non-tool artifacts that we have, what today we would call "works of art", were all objects with cultural/ritual/magical significance. The same goes for the oldest story-telling and the oldest music-making.

You said religion is an art... not contains art, big difference. But to define Religion as art is a mistake becuase its a lot more than just art. And while we may think of a temple as art, the vigrin behing sacrficed there at that time may have had other thoughts about the temple being art.

[mitchellmckain]

Um...okay.

I'm happy we had an intelligent conversation.

Remember why Socrates finally admitted that he was a wise man.

[Exrev]

But the dark ages were the best times for Christianity.

Actually, no it wasn't. Christianity was pretty much under siege during the Dark Age (roughly 476 to 1000 A.D.). To the east and south there was the belligerent new religion of Islam which conquered half of the Roman Empire along with most of Spain, to the north there were Germanic and Slavic tribes more concerned with raiding, raping, and pillaging than anything Christian pilgrims had to say, and within Christendom itself there were the secular princes more concerned with warring it up and having a grand ole time rather than anything we might charitably call civilization. Christianity had to spend the five centuries after the fall of Rome trying to maintain what little remained of the institutions and societal structures that survived the Empire's fall. With the increase in social stability and wealth throughout Europe during the High Middle Ages, Christianity made more inroads with nations seeking to work with their neighbors rather than boiling said neighbors alive, like the Poles, Hungarians, and Rus.

If any period can be considered the best time for Christianity, it was probably the height of European imperialism, or around 1850-1914. Despite the French revolutions and rise in new philosophies, the Western civilizations carved up most of the world and spread their religion throughout the world. The effect of this was that Christianity became the dominant religion of North America, South America, Oceania, and made significant inroads in Africa and elsewhere. New technologies were being created everyday, people (in the West) were freer than they had ever been before, and you could chalk it all up to Christianity, White people being super duper special awesome, and science.

Your talking numbers, I'm talking about the lack of education, the belief in fairtales and myths and magic being believed. The enlightenment actucally broke up the churches power in many ways. But religion thrives on ignorance, poverty and desperiation. People were very poor in those days mostly slaves. The church controled peoples beliefs and they couldn't read the bible for themselves, for one they could read period. But just like today, Christianity is growing fastest among 3rd world countries, where people are uneducated, poor and desprate. Nothing really changes.

[KomradRed]

Your talking numbers, I'm talking about the lack of education, the belief in fairtales and myths and magic being believed. The enlightenment actucally broke up the churches power in many ways. But religion thrives on ignorance, poverty and desperiation. People were very poor in those days mostly slaves. The church controled peoples beliefs and they couldn't read the bible for themselves, for one they could read period. But just like today, Christianity is growing fastest among 3rd world countries, where people are uneducated, poor and desprate. Nothing really changes.

So because the dark ages were a bad time economically and politically it was the best time for Christianity? I still don't understand. I take it you strongly feel that religion thrives on ignorance, poverty, and desperation and is most likely a wellspring of all three, but do you have anything to back up that the Dark Ages were the best time for Christianity beyond opinion?

[Pseudonym]

You said religion is an art... not contains art, big difference. But to define Religion as art is a mistake becuase its a lot more than just art. And while we may think of a temple as art, the vigrin behing sacrficed there at that time may have had other thoughts about the temple being art.

The way I'm using the word "art" here is not in the sense of "artist", but in the sense of "liberal arts". Religion is not, at its core, something that you believe, but rather something that you do. Indigenous animist religions previously mentioned, which is what the earliest religions looked like, are perfect examples. Australian Aborigines don't believe in a literal rainbow serpent, but they live it through song, dance, storytelling, painting and carving.

More modern religions often do contain beliefs, but it is still incorrect to define a religion as a collection of beliefs. And, to get back to the point, it's even more wrong to define religion as a set of explanations about the natural world.

Obligatory Bible quote:

Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.

Incidentally, if Harris had claimed that many religions contain failed science, I'd probably agree with him, though as noted on another thread, Harris has his own personal definition of "religion" that few would recognise.

[humanguy]

More modern religions often do contain beliefs, but it is still incorrect to define a religion as a collection of beliefs.

religion
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith