![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
[Poll #1001244]
Today, I was reading an essay by one Scott Atran on edge.org, wherein he criticized the modern movement among atheists (particularly Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris) against religion, and was surprised to see the following as the header of the first section:
...I really need to break that habit. I keep getting surprised by things I should expect.
Atran doesn't get it. (I bet that's why he objects to what Harris and Dennett are saying – they're working on different premises.) What Atran is doing here, with a single phrase, is denying the foundation of all science. To wit, naturalism.
Science operates on the principle of methodological naturalism. This does not mean that science assumes God doesn't exist, or demons don't exist, or hypnotism doesn't work, or herbal remedies, or any particular facts at all. This means that science assumes that facts exist. Science assumes that there are actual laws to the universe, and those laws always hold.
Let me explain what I mean. Suppose one of the consequences of Einstein's special relativity – that nothing may travel faster than light – were actually true. (It might actually be true, or might already be proven false – I'm not up on my latest physics research.) If this were true, then nothing could travel faster than light. Not anything – not you, not that glass of water, not the Starship Enterprise, not God, nothing. It would be true in the utterly, mindlessly absolute sense that dogma is supposed to be true. It would be as true when I did an experiment as when you did, or John C. Mather did. Even if one of us came up with a test that made it look like something traveled faster than light, nothing would have.
Did you start at that bit with the "not God" up there? Well, you shouldn't have. God gets no bye, under naturalism. Even if, say, we're ones and zeros in a computer program (or negative-ones, zeros, and ones), there's a universe with the computer running our program, and that universe operates under laws that are absolutely true. And they get no byes, either. The world is what it is, and won't be bargained with.
Atran wants science to concede that maybe on some days the Earth is flat, but who really knows – or, at least, wants scientists (atheists, rather) to concede this. It's not the whole of his argument, but it's his very first point of attack. But if it were true – if there were no such thing as truth – there would be no reason to do science at all.
Today, I was reading an essay by one Scott Atran on edge.org, wherein he criticized the modern movement among atheists (particularly Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris) against religion, and was surprised to see the following as the header of the first section:
(1) The Basic Irrationality of Human Life and Society.
...I really need to break that habit. I keep getting surprised by things I should expect.
Atran doesn't get it. (I bet that's why he objects to what Harris and Dennett are saying – they're working on different premises.) What Atran is doing here, with a single phrase, is denying the foundation of all science. To wit, naturalism.
Science operates on the principle of methodological naturalism. This does not mean that science assumes God doesn't exist, or demons don't exist, or hypnotism doesn't work, or herbal remedies, or any particular facts at all. This means that science assumes that facts exist. Science assumes that there are actual laws to the universe, and those laws always hold.
Let me explain what I mean. Suppose one of the consequences of Einstein's special relativity – that nothing may travel faster than light – were actually true. (It might actually be true, or might already be proven false – I'm not up on my latest physics research.) If this were true, then nothing could travel faster than light. Not anything – not you, not that glass of water, not the Starship Enterprise, not God, nothing. It would be true in the utterly, mindlessly absolute sense that dogma is supposed to be true. It would be as true when I did an experiment as when you did, or John C. Mather did. Even if one of us came up with a test that made it look like something traveled faster than light, nothing would have.
Did you start at that bit with the "not God" up there? Well, you shouldn't have. God gets no bye, under naturalism. Even if, say, we're ones and zeros in a computer program (or negative-ones, zeros, and ones), there's a universe with the computer running our program, and that universe operates under laws that are absolutely true. And they get no byes, either. The world is what it is, and won't be bargained with.
Atran wants science to concede that maybe on some days the Earth is flat, but who really knows – or, at least, wants scientists (atheists, rather) to concede this. It's not the whole of his argument, but it's his very first point of attack. But if it were true – if there were no such thing as truth – there would be no reason to do science at all.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
(I love that comic.)