...
What Science Cannot Tell Us
Posted Jun 8th 2008 2:10PM by Dinesh D'Souza
Filed under: Science, Christianity, Atheism
Science is wonderful at doing certain things, like popping warm toast out of my toaster and making heavy objects float and fly. Without science we wouldn't be able to do those things. No wonder that science enjoys a position of high prestige in our society.
But the achievements of science blind many people to the fact that science is a limited tool for understanding ourselves and the world. In some areas science has showed astounding progress, but in other areas science has taught us no more than we knew since the time of the Babylonians.
Consider some of the most important questions facing us as human beings: Why are we here? Where ultimately did we come from? Where are we going? Science can provide us with very limited answers. As the philosopher Wittgenstein once put it, one has the feeling that even if all possible scientific knowledge could been obtained, the biggest questions of life would remain largely untouched and unanswered.
Skepticism is of course a central tool of science, but many skeptics make the mistake of failing to apply skepticism to science itself. They are skeptical within science but they are not skeptical about science. They naively believe that science can answer all the questions that require answers. Thus they demand of science what science has never provided and is not likely to provide in the future.
I call this the "atheism of the gaps." The basic idea is that if science hasn't figured something out, just wait a few years, because the brilliant scientists are working on it. Have faith that they will come up with good answers in the future, just as they have in the past. In other words, we should assume that people who are smart enough to make toasters are also smart enough to figure out whether there is life after death.
Yes, it's laughable, and that's why I'm sorry to see smart fellows like my friend Michael Shermer succumbing to this science-worship. Shermer is the editor of Skeptic magazine and author of some fine books including most recently The Mind of the Market. We've done several God v. atheism debates, the most recent one before 2,500 people at Fresno State University. It was one of our liveliest, and you can watch that debate here.
Shermer used to be a Christian fundamentalist. He always gets off a funny line about how he used to go door to door handing out literature, and now as an atheist he wants to go back to those people and take back the stuff he gave them. In a way, though, Shermer remains a believer. He still places his faith in men in white robes. Only these men happen to work not in pulpits but in laboratories. Science is now Shermer's religion.
In a couple of my debates, I asked Shermer what kind of scientific evidence he would require to be convinced that God exists. I asked him, "What if we discovered a new planet tomorrow and emblazed on it were the words: YAHWEH MADE THIS. Would you then believe that there is a God?" Shermer said no. He would automatically conclude that some chance combination of chemicals must have generated those words. In short, he is closed to supernatural explanations, no matter what the data, and is only open to natural explanations.
This I consider a selective sort of skepticism that is actually a lamentable sort of dogmatism. I see it also in Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris and Dennett. In a way they are much narrower than religious believers. That's because the religious believer admits both natural and supernatural explanations. By contrast, these unbelievers have closed themselves off to all possibilities that don't fit their naturalistic outlook. One may say that science has blinded them to the things that science cannot possibly tell them.
Interestingly, this article has about as much substance as your posts, Piccolo - exactly none.
And the part I highlighted is actually true, no matter how much D'Souza calls it laughable (without even giving any reason for why it should be so). Over the past centuries science has explained most of the things that people earlier described to divine acts. Admittedly there are still some things science has not discovered yet, but after all the religious myths that have been debunked, what makes you think the rest will prove to be impossible to explain for all times?
As to the other nonsense you wrote - show me scientific evidence that speaks for the existence of a God, show me where Dawkins said all human actions are involuntary because they are programmed by our DNA, explain to me why when someone claims something without any empiric evidence his opinion should count as much as those who deny that claim, and show me that when earlier scientists claimed there are germs they had no reasonable evidence for this claim.
Until you can, I will feel at liberty to believe that you are just a stupid forum troll and ignore you accordingly.
<table class="luna-Ent"><tbody><tr><td class="dnindex">.</td> <td>a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.</td> </tr> </tbody></table> <table class="luna-Ent"> <tbody><tr> <td class="dnindex">2.</td> <td>an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult. </td> </tr> </tbody></table> <table class="luna-Ent"> <tbody><tr> <td class="dnindex">3.</td> <td>the object of such devotion.</td> </tr> </tbody></table> <table class="luna-Ent"> <tbody><tr> <td class="dnindex">4.</td> <td>a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.</td> </tr> </tbody></table> <table class="luna-Ent"> <tbody><tr> <td class="dnindex">5.</td> <td>Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.</td> </tr> </tbody></table> <table class="luna-Ent"> <tbody><tr> <td class="dnindex">6.</td> <td>a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.</td> </tr> </tbody></table> <table class="luna-Ent"> <tbody><tr> <td class="dnindex">7.</td> <td>the members of such a religion or sect.</td> </tr> </tbody></table> <table class="luna-Ent"><tbody><tr><td class="dnindex">8.</td> <td>any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific.</td></tr></tbody></table>
Those are the definitions of a "cult". sounds like every organized religion fits the bill, does it not?
<table class="luna-Ent"><tbody><tr><td class="dnindex">.</td> <td>a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.</td> </tr> </tbody></table> <table class="luna-Ent"> <tbody><tr> <td class="dnindex">2.</td> <td>an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult. </td> </tr> </tbody></table> <table class="luna-Ent"> <tbody><tr> <td class="dnindex">3.</td> <td>the object of such devotion.</td> </tr> </tbody></table> <table class="luna-Ent"> <tbody><tr> <td class="dnindex">4.</td> <td>a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.</td> </tr> </tbody></table> <table class="luna-Ent"> <tbody><tr> <td class="dnindex">5.</td> <td>Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.</td> </tr> </tbody></table> <table class="luna-Ent"> <tbody><tr> <td class="dnindex">6.</td> <td>a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.</td> </tr> </tbody></table> <table class="luna-Ent"> <tbody><tr> <td class="dnindex">7.</td> <td>the members of such a religion or sect.</td> </tr> </tbody></table> <table class="luna-Ent"><tbody><tr><td class="dnindex">8.</td> <td>any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific.</td></tr></tbody></table>
Those are the definitions of a "cult". sounds like every organized religion fits the bill, does it not?
Fletch,
The cult label for Barman's group is not my choice or words, it's
considered that by EVERY cult watch organization. If you don't
know the difference between a church and a cult, well then, let's
just agree to not have this discussion, as you are clearly very
ignorant and uninformed on the issue.
Barman's "Unity Church" cult is considered a cult for at least the
following:
a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.
any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific.
Barman's cult's treatment of sickness? Deny it exists. Can't get
any more fucked up than that.
Ok, but lets just examine what the word cult means, since we are using the word, lets get the real meaning from Webster. Ill give a thumbs up for each definition so in hopes maybe you can convince me otherwise, being im pretty ignorant quite honestly to the inter workings of any set religion.
particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
<table class="luna-Ent"><tbody><tr><td class="dnindex">
</td> <td>a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
Check</td> </tr> </tbody></table> <table class="luna-Ent"> <tbody><tr> <td class="dnindex">
</td> <td>an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
Check</td> </tr> </tbody></table> <table class="luna-Ent"> <tbody><tr> <td class="dnindex">
</td> <td>the object of such devotion.
Check</td> </tr> </tbody></table> <table class="luna-Ent"> <tbody><tr> <td class="dnindex">
</td> <td>a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
Check</td> </tr> </tbody></table> <table class="luna-Ent"> <tbody><tr> <td class="dnindex">
</td> <td>Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.
Check</td> </tr> </tbody></table> <table class="luna-Ent"> <tbody><tr> <td class="dnindex">
</td> <td>a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.
:discuss: Considering you have to reject science to believe in such, i would check this, but most here are Christians. So no check.
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> <table class="luna-Ent"> <tbody><tr> <td class="dnindex">
</td> <td>the members of such a religion or sect.
Check</td> </tr> </tbody></table> <table class="luna-Ent"><tbody><tr><td class="dnindex">
</td> <td>any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific.
:think2:
So, what exactly dont you agree with here?
</td></tr></tbody></table>
Ok, but lets just examine what the word cult means, since we are using the word, lets get the real meaning from Webster. Ill give a thumbs up for each definition so in hopes maybe you can convince me otherwise, being im pretty ignorant quite honestly to the inter workings of any set religion.
particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
<table class="luna-Ent"><tbody><tr><td class="dnindex">
</td> <td>a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> <table class="luna-Ent"> <tbody><tr> <td class="dnindex">
</td> <td>an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> <table class="luna-Ent"> <tbody><tr> <td class="dnindex">
</td> <td>the object of such devotion.
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> <table class="luna-Ent"> <tbody><tr> <td class="dnindex">
</td> <td>a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> <table class="luna-Ent"> <tbody><tr> <td class="dnindex">
</td> <td>Sociology. a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> <table class="luna-Ent"> <tbody><tr> <td class="dnindex">
</td> <td>a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.
:discuss: Considering you have to reject science to believe in such, i would check this, but most here are Christians. So no check.
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> <table class="luna-Ent"> <tbody><tr> <td class="dnindex">
</td> <td>the members of such a religion or sect.
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> <table class="luna-Ent"><tbody><tr><td class="dnindex">
</td> <td>any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific.
:think2:
So, what exactly dont you agree with here?
</td></tr></tbody></table>
I stand by my previous post. By far the most common usage of the cult
is described by the previous definitions I highlighted. To say that a cult
refers in general to a religious system is not an accurate description of
the word. We'll have to agree to disagree, because that Webster's
list paints the word in way too broad terms IMHO.
It seems to me, that you're trying to say that any person who is a member
of a religion is a cult member. That is not an accurate usage of the
word.
It would be fair to say that the cat raking in the $$ at ZIT's church of choice was just some dude who told his big haired wife, "Hey, if we just buy up a bunch of Bibles and start telling people that God spoke to us and told us to open a Church, we can tap into the greatest 20th century gravy train EVER!"
Interestingly, this article has about as much substance as your posts, Piccolo - exactly none.
And the part I highlighted is actually true, no matter how much D'Souza calls it laughable (without even giving any reason for why it should be so). Over the past centuries science has explained most of the things that people earlier described to divine acts. Admittedly there are still some things science has not discovered yet, but after all the religious myths that have been debunked, what makes you think the rest will prove to be impossible to explain for all times?
As to the other nonsense you wrote - show me scientific evidence that speaks for the existence of a God, show me where Dawkins said all human actions are involuntary because they are programmed by our DNA, explain to me why when someone claims something without any empiric evidence his opinion should count as much as those who deny that claim, and show me that when earlier scientists claimed there are germs they had no reasonable evidence for this claim.
Until you can, I will feel at liberty to believe that you are just a stupid forum troll and ignore you accordingly.
Oh so you seem to think that in due time science will provide answers to these life questions? The meaning of life, existence of god, allah buddha etc, or lack there of?
Its only a matter of time? This is the best freakin answer you can come up with? No wonder you are too dumb to see why D'souza was laughing at you imbeciles! You think you sound any different from some religious zealot screaming about the return of Christ, its all a matter of time, or the return of the 12th imam, its all a matter of time, or the resetting of the aztec calender calling for the world to end, its all a matter of time?
How stupid can you be to think you are any different from these people?
:missingte:missingte
This buffoon just gets dumber and dumber by the post! Hey bozo, have you provided us with any evidence that god doesnt exist, or any evidence that human life has no higher purpose?
Have you even posted any evidence to back up even one iota of the nonsense that is running through your mouth?
Or may be you simply thought that by quoting some idiot we wouldnt question you and his superflous empty fact void gibberish. (whom you obviously dont understand and that is still why you are confused about his own quotes that you posted that you said you believed)
Why should any one be held to a higher standard yet you are crawling around on your belly dodging the glaring fact that you dont have any evidence whatsoever to back up your crap?
I now know for a fact that you are a complete friggin moron! You are too stupid to understand that i for one dont care about where you stand in this argument! I can argue the very same things with a person who believes in ID!
My whole point is that you all dont have proof. So dont go posting bogus lies about how your beliefs are rooted in fact, Facts which you havent provided as of yet and that you are any different from some fool worshipping a dead toad for creating him!!!!
GEt this in your thick head you freakin retard, you dont have evidence or facts to back up a damn thing you believe in, you arent any different from any other person with any other faith!!!
