thecountryshrink
dwilli58It is a mistake to believe that a science consists in nothing but conclusively proved propositions, and it is unjust to demand that it should. It is a demand only made by those who feel a craving for authority in some form and a need to replace the religious catechism by something else, even if it be a scientific one. Science in its catechism has but few apodictic precepts; it consists mainly of statements which it has developed to varying degrees of probability. The capacity to be content with these approximations to certainty and the ability to carry on constructive work despite the lack of final confirmation are actually a mark of the scientific habit of mind. — Freud
Although he was an atheist, I think he had a good point here. Many atheistic scientists today, elevate science to the level of a religion. It is to be worshiped. It is the ONLY source of absolute ‘truth’ in the world. It’s the only true religion for it’s advocates and believers.
Scientists often tend not to know that their theories are psychological constructs. They believe that certain things are ‘proven’ scientifically. The ‘Theory of Evolution,’ is one such psychological construct. I’ll demonstrate a psychological construct here.
We all believe that a real thing such as a chair exists in reality. However, the problem comes in when we try to develop an objective definition of a chair.
Example 1: A chair has 4 legs and a flat surface for sitting on.
But wait, what about this…
Oops, that’s not a chair by the definition. So we’ll revise it a bit.
2. A chair has one or more legs and a surface for sitting.
Well, there’s a problem here too.
Okay… Let’s try again.
3. A chair is an object which is used for sitting on.
Well… There’s a problem with this too…
Okay… That didn’t work either. So how to we get an objective definition of a chair. Is it possible?? We know chairs exist. We ‘know them when we see them.’ But how do we define them?!
Actually the notion of design gets us probably as close as we can get to an objective definition.
5. A chair is a designed object in which the designer had the purpose in mind of designing a chair.
So, considering the purpose of the ‘designer’ gets us a lot closer to objectively defining things in our environment. Considering purpose and design helps to avoid many of the problems with our system of cognitive constructs. So, evolution is a construct, and my question is, “How do you objectively define evolution?”
Filed under: Intelligent Design, evolution | Tagged: construct, evolution, Freud, Intelligent Design, psychological construct
A chair is a thing and evolution is an idea. Also, evolution has many different meanings depending on the context. The evolution of the universe has nothing to do with the evolution of life. If you narrow down the context, a perfectly reasonable and concrete definition of evolution is not only possible but easy. Look in any dictionary.
I’m sorry but arguments like the ones I’m reading here read like so much intellectual slight of hand meant to cast doubt and confusion in the readers mind. In that moment of doubt and confusion, people like to try to slip in their own ideas.
Back to your chair example; it is certainly reasonable to define a chair as something that was designed to be used for a single person to sit on. Just because a person can sit on something doesn’t make it a chair. You can use it as a chair but it isn’t a chair.
But the representation of a chair in our minds is also an idea.
I think the definition of idea in this case that is most relevant is: “a formulated thought or opinion.”
The relevant definition of a construct is: “create by organizing and linking ideas, arguments, or concepts.”
I think the notion of a construct fits a little better, but an idea also fits (though not as well).
And yes, people will indeed slip in their own ideas as they do with evolution all the time. I’ll come back to the notion of the dictionary definition of evolution when I have more time and we’ll see how well that works.
Wonderful example! I have struggled to explain what troubles me with evolution, and you put into a visual and verbal example that clarifies! Thanks for your insight!
Thanks DB Williams. I also very much enjoyed your most recent post on your blog.
I’m sorry, but this simply won’t do — not at all. The definition you end up with simply a tautology, since the concept of a chair figures in the predicate phrase which is attached to the thing being defined.
On the other hand, the fact that you face such difficulty formulating a correct definition does illustrate something important about our everyday concepts: that they have fuzzy boundaries and can often resist clear definition in peculiar ways. (For example, the man who is using a concrete border as if it were a chair.)
But this in turn misses out on an important feature of how science works: namely, that the procedures and techniques of science are simplifications and extrapolations which serve to introduce more clarity (or remove ambiguity) than can be found in our everyday conceptual grapplings with the world of lived experience.
Don’t you see you’ve done exactly what Freud said?
“. . . replace the religious catechism by something else, even if it be a scientific one” ?
You’re reducing scientific thought to the level of religious catechism in an attempt to set one off against the other. But even you must see this is just a semantic exercise on your part.
Science isn’t a religion, and it certainly isn’t treated as one by scientists.
And here’s the difference:
Every scientist knows that every scientific “belief” (for want of a better word), and this includes evolution, is subject to being overthrown at any given moment, if new evidence emerges that contradicts it.
That’s certainly not the case with religious belief.
Carl, I agree with you to some extent. A better way of stating my final definition might have been.
5. A chair is an object that was designed to be viewed by others as being a “chair” and is used by one or more people, generally for sitting on.
Yes, with science you have to operationally define your variables. This is also a place where personal bias can creep in. With extrapolation, bias can become rampant.
Do you assert that there are not many atheists who have elevated science to a status of religion? I have a hard time believing that one. I’ve read the blogs of ‘imminent’ atheistic scientists. I see a whole lot of vitriol and bias. Although I don’t see a whole lot of that in your blog, which is rare in my opinion.
Matt, you make some unfounded assertions. Science is necessarily an adversarial process. There are always competing theories. Just because a theory is impuned by many, doesn’t mean that it should not be given merit and attention. I disagree with you completely that ALL scientists do not elevate science to the status of religion. In general there are a great many scientists who will NEVER allow for the theory of purely naturalistic evolution to be challenged or overthrown. It goes against their fundamental worldview.
Matt, you said,
“You’re reducing scientific thought to the level of religious catechism in an attempt to set one off against the other. But even you must see this is just a semantic exercise on your part. Science isn’t a religion, and it certainly isn’t treated as one by scientists.”
I don’t believe ALL scientists treat their research in a religious way. However, as thecountryshrink pointed out, evolutionists seem to hold to their theory in very much the same way a fundamentalist holds to Genesis 1 as literal: “there are a great many scientists who will NEVER allow for the theory of purely naturalistic evolution to be challenged or overthrown. It goes against their fundamental worldview.” It goes against what they believe to be true without having enough evidence. Isn’t this what fundamentalsts do with Genesis 1 and their fundamental world view?
I certainly won’t deny that there’s a good deal of polemic among some atheist bloggers. I suspect that this has more to do with the very phenomenon of blogging itself than with the positions people actually hold. It can be hard to remember that there are other people on the far side of your words who will read them, who will interpret them through the lens of their own experiences, desires, and fears, and react accordingly.
As for me, what I can say? Maybe I’m just a nice guy!
As to whether anyone has turned “science” into a “religion,” that’s another set of issues. I’ll want to think about that more carefully before replying.
Carl Sachs,
Just wanted to clarify, I never said that science has become a religion, I said that some, in particular, evolutionists, seem to have more of a tendency to guard their scientific views in a somewhat religious manner, or, at least, that’s what I intended to say. Your point on the internet and blogging is well taken. It’s hard to express everything through a few sentences or paragraphs.
thecountryshrink,
Thanks for your comment on my blog, it was appreciated!
DB, I think that was my point as well. I wouldn’t even qualify it with “somewhat religious manner,” however.
I think the fact that scientists are more free to express themselves in their blogs gives you a good feel for the biases operating under the surface in their scientific work. If not on a conscious level, then on an unconscious level.
Do we really believe that when PZ Myers or Dick Dawkins teach their classes that they keep theology out of it? I don’t believe it for a second. The educational system is extremely infused with theology (most often anti-theology), the latter of which I saw in blazing detail throughout my years of education. So, many will asert the separation of church and state, but the goal of many professors is to undermine religious belief (and sometimes I think it’s unconscious).
I have no idea whether or not Myers or Dawkins keep theology or anti-theology out of the classroom or not. (For that matter, I have no idea when was the last time Dawkins taught in a classroom!)
Myers claims that he does keep his atheism out of the classroom, and that he in fact has recommend Miller to his religious students who are troubled by the putative conflict between evolutionary theory and religion. I’m willing to take his word for it unless it can be shown that his students have complained about his biases in the classroom.
Barring that, the remark “I don’t believe it for a second” doesn’t hold any more water with me than similar remarks I hear about communists in literature departments. In other words, I’ll believe it when there’s evidence, and not before.
All I can tell you for now is that there are no complaints about his atheism on “Rate My Professors”!
I should add, by the way, that when I teach 17th century metaphysics, I teach many different arguments for the existence of God. I show them the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments, but the final evaluation of the cogency of the argument is left up to them.
I keep forgetting I’m having a discussion with a philosopher!!
So, lets hear about PZ’s motivations from PZ. These comments are from an audio MP3 interview that I listened to. He doesn’t comment directly on what he does in class, but I think the experpts will show you some of his motivation.
“They are inseperable.. [atheism and science]. In general, most people when they get training in the scientific method … find themselves questioning religion a lot more … I’m pushing at the edges. I think of myself as more representative of people who haven’t had a long voice in this country for a long time … I think we are getting new recruits. I get compliments all the time …. I’ve gotten a number of conversion stories [to atheism] … We are not going to convert the diehard Christian’s. But I think there is a much larger population of people in this country who have a casual religion … those people we can reach. There’s that huge middle ground we are fighting over. Yeah, I think we can gain recruits from there. … We’re not trying to spread our faith, we’re trying to spread critical thinking. …. We want people to be converted to that great big house of skepticism and inquiry. … The argument that we sound like evangelical Christians is bad, I think is incorrect. We do want to get out there and spread our ideas, and we do want to speak our ideas loudly. … I came to atheism through science. … I don’t see how anyone can find the book of Genesis satisfying. It says, ‘God did it’ seven times and nothing more. …. Ken Miller is a great guy … but he’s religious. … He’s immediately biasing the argument. … What’s happening is conservative church’s are forcefeeding children nonsense. … The professor is not forcefeeding atheism.”
I really could not find a single thing about what takes place in his classroom on the net. So, you may have a point, but do you think that his motivations would not at least be implicit in his teaching style?
I try to stay away from dogmatic statements, in an open conversation, or statements that will lead to arguments, but I agree that people of faith are shunned while the popular culture and scientific idealists are free to speak as they please.
On the excerpt above, I would find it hard to believe that his position on religion wouldn’t, in some way, affect his teaching. I was a teacher and remaining unbiased can be very difficult, at points, in the classroom.
Countryshrink, you seem to think that it is difficult for some people to separate their beliefs from their work. Does that mean . . .
You advise your patients to pray for devine interventions to solve their problems?
You treat atheist patients differently than Christian patients?
You believe that someone/something designed us to have so many psychological problems?
Your success with patients is due to your faith?
Muslims, Jews, Jains, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, etc are delusional because they fervently believe in something that you think is not true?
Are atheists crazy?
Yes. I do think it is difficult for people to separate their beliefs from their work. If not on an unconscious level, then on a conscious level.
On very rare occasions yes.
This is a theological issue. One persepective is the “fall of man.”
Absolutely not! I assume psychological factors play a role in the religious conflicts of believers and non-believers. I am extremely careful with both. Often, non-believers work through their conflicts with their beliefs. I watch it unfold.
In part, yes. I wouldn’t be a psychologist if I didn’t have faith. What’s the point?
See Jesus Amoung Other Gods by Ravi Zacharias
No. But that doesn’t mean that there are not psychological factors involved in their atheism. In rare occasions, yes, they are crazy, as are some believers.
Thank you for answering my questions. I wish I could see the design in the universe you grasp but it all looks like unfeeling natural processes to me.
Jerad, I will assume you are being honest about wishing you could see the design in the universe. What keeps you from being able to do so?