Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

A review of Nicholas Spencer’s Magisteria: The Entangled Histories of Science and Religion

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Due May 16, 2023:

At UK Spectator:

So this is a profoundly puzzling book. Spencer knows his history of science. He recounts the set pieces of any such story – the trial of Galileo, Huxley vs Wilberforce, the Scopes monkey trial – with bravura. He has a good grasp of how science has changed over time, and he also understands that the word ‘religion’ meant very different things to Cicero, Augustine and the author of The Golden Bough. But he doesn’t seem to grasp that the pared down, purely ‘spiritual’ religion he defends has virtually nothing in common with that of Augustine, Calvin, Loyola and Newman.

What this book marks, in fact, is the quiet triumph of meta-science over faith, for faith in the Bible as history, in the great eschatological drama of redemption, has been replaced here by faith, not in a creator and redeemer God, but in the peculiar specialness of human beings. Perhaps we are special; but there’s more to religion than an insistence that, because we make our lives meaningful, the universe must have a meaning. Though Spencer finds the idea repugnant, maybe we are just peculiar machines whose functioning depends on producing, in endless succession, deepity after deepity. If there is one thing that is clear about human beings, after all, it is that we have a remark-able talent for self-deception – and what is religion but a trick we play on ourselves? – David Wootton (March 18, 2023)

Comments
Jerry: You haven’t a clue what you are talking about. Well can you explain how the genetic 'code' works? That is: how, physically, a sequence of DNA is interpreted as a protein works. IF the genetic 'code' is a code that is purely arbitrary (just made up with no relationship to biological processes) then something or someone would have to interpret it EVERY SINGLE TIME it's 'read' or processes. Every single time. This has nothing to do with epigenetics (which affects which genes are read and when) this has to do with the way the condones are translated into proteins. Every single time. If it's not a basic chemical process then how does it work? PS Jerry: your excerpt on epigenetic didn't actually explain what it is. Nor did it support ID in any way. Did you actually watch that particular 'course' or just copy-and-paste a bit of its introduction?JVL
March 20, 2023
March
03
Mar
20
20
2023
04:18 PM
4
04
18
PM
PDT
On the contrary, ID is simply pragmatic while ". . . simply won’t let go. Like a dog with a bone" is more fitting to the 19th century theory that's been acting as a pseudo-scientific rationale for racism, European colonialism, and eugenic genocides, which has frequently been surprised, embarrassed, and falsified. -QQuerius
March 20, 2023
March
03
Mar
20
20
2023
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT
In layman vernacular, “code” and “selection” are intentional acts by individuals with some level of intelligence. This is not how biologists use these terms, but IDists simply won’t let go. Like a dog with a bone.
You haven't a clue what you are talking about. First, the people here do not represent ID. They are at best a group of informed amateurs and do not speak for ID. Second, many of the ID writers, only one here is Denyse, are biologists or have studied some aspects of biology. Denyse is not a biologist but has written books on ID. From a course on Epigenetic by the Great Courses
WHAT IS EPIGENETICS? Epigenetics is the science of living DNA. Modern biology began with genes and genetics and the discovery that genes are made of DNA, the basic code for life. However, the famous Watson-Crick double helix was just a statue. And while the x-ray pictures that Rosalind Franklin took verified the double-helix structure, the DNA she photographed was dead. Indeed, to understand the science of living DNA, you have to go beyond genetics and into the realm of epigenetics, where epi- is from the Greek meaning “over” or “beyond.” Epigenetics is built around genetics—the pure DNA itself. At the center of your DNA is a series of As, Ts, Gs, and Cs—your base pair code. These letters spell out the basic code —the genetic code —as given by your genes.
I can guarantee that the author, Dr Charlotte Mykura, is not ID friendly and teaches biology.jerry
March 20, 2023
March
03
Mar
20
20
2023
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT
JVL@8, I would agree that IDists latch on to terms used by biologists, terms such as “code” and “selection” in a way not intended by biologists. In layman vernacular, “code” and “selection” are intentional acts by individuals with some level of intelligence. This is not how biologists use these terms, but IDists simply won’t let go. Like a dog with a bone.Ford Prefect
March 20, 2023
March
03
Mar
20
20
2023
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT
Relatd: Out to muddy the waters? Code means instructions. If the 'code' has nothing to do with the physical reactions of the constituent parts then does that not mean that EVERY SINGLE TIME the 'code' is read some higher function has to translate the code? That is my question. All of this requires a master programmer. A being who codes for all cellular functions. Do you think that every single time a bit of DNA is 'read' and 'decoded' some being has to do the translation? A purely arbitrary code would require that because a purely arbitrary code could not be processed by purely mechanical processes. We all agree that the genetic 'code' is a table showing what condones create what proteins. The question is: IF the code is NOT related to chemical reactions then who or what is doing the translation? EVERY SINGLE TIME the DNA is being 'read'. I just want to be clear on what people are saying happens.JVL
March 20, 2023
March
03
Mar
20
20
2023
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT
From the paper Relatd links to: Most proteins fold into specific three-dimensional conformations to carry out their unique biological roles (1).Alan Fox
March 20, 2023
March
03
Mar
20
20
2023
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT
Meaning what? In order to fold correctly, proteins require chaperones.
Nope. Proteins generally will fold into a specific confirmation spontaneously. Chaperones speed up the process.Alan Fox
March 20, 2023
March
03
Mar
20
20
2023
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT
"spontaneously"? Meaning what? In order to fold correctly, proteins require chaperones. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.add0922relatd
March 20, 2023
March
03
Mar
20
20
2023
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT
That portion of DNA that codes for proteins means a protein with a precise shape can be built using instructions. There is no other way to do it.
Proteins will fold into shapes with precise structure spontaneously in vivo and in vitro with the right environment, temperature, pH etc.Alan Fox
March 20, 2023
March
03
Mar
20
20
2023
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT
OR is the ‘code’ in question even partially determined by physical behaviour and chemical affinities?
The genetic code is indeed completely determined by physical behaviour, chemical and physical affinities, involving the inherent properties resulting in the iconic double helix conformation spontaneously achieved in aqueous solution within pH and temperature limits.Alan Fox
March 20, 2023
March
03
Mar
20
20
2023
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT
JVL at 8. Out to muddy the waters? Code means instructions. For a cell to function, and to reproduce, instructions are required. Further, the cell contains machinery and this machinery requires instructions. There are molecular switches inside cells that turn on and off when needed and other switches that stay open for a precise period to get water and nutrients to the cell. All of this requires a master programmer. A being who codes for all cellular functions. That portion of DNA that codes for proteins means a protein with a precise shape can be built using instructions. There is no other way to do it. A three-dimensonal image of a protein shows a precision at the sub-atomic level, the quantum level.relatd
March 20, 2023
March
03
Mar
20
20
2023
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT
Relatd: There is one poster here who denies genetic codes are codes even though the word code is used in the description. I think the disagreement comes down to what a 'code' is defined to be. Is the 'code' in question purely arbitrary, based on some criteria which has nothing to do with the natural physical behaviour of the objects in question? OR is the 'code' in question even partially determined by physical behaviour and chemical affinities? Mathematicians use the term differently from others. AND, I think, when the biologists called it the genetic 'code' they could have picked a better term. Just like with natural 'selection'. They both carry vestiges of definitions that might not be appropriate for the situation in question. If the 'code' in question is purely arbitrary, not based on physical constraints or chemical affinities then, the question must be, how is it implemented? That is: what process reads the encoded text and translates it and conveys that to the interpretive medium? That would have to happen every single time IF the code had no physical ties at all, if it was purely arbitrary.JVL
March 20, 2023
March
03
Mar
20
20
2023
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT
Querius: The bottom line is that humans don’t live by the scientific method and logic alone. Thankfully! These magisteria cannot deliver art and beauty, equity and justice, love and joy, athletic prowess, or personal qualities and transcendence to the majority of humanity. I suspect it is possible to 'breed' athletic prowess but otherwise I agree. Thus, it’s not unreasonable to anticipate that most people maintain a balance between physical, social, intellectual, and spiritual aspects of their lives. Sure . . . difference balance points for different people of course. In that case, art and beauty, equity and justice, love and joy, athletic prowess, or personal qualities and transcendence are also tricks we play on ourselves while waiting to reproduce and die. I don't think so, meaning I choose to believe otherwise. I think, when you're honest with yourself about what you like, what moves you, what speaks to you, you are responding to . . . things which 'speak' to you personally for some reason. I just love the works of Raphael. I also really like Michelangelo and Da Vinci but Raphael connects with me more deeply. I don't know why. I don't really care why. I just know I figured that out without being told who to appreciate. Same with Elizabeth Vigee Lebrun. (Interestingly enough, in some cases, I think I have figured out why some artists (meaning painter or musicians or writers) appeal to me more that others. But, the important thing was NOT to try and analyse it.) I think, when your honest, what you like and don't like somehow connects with parts of you that you may not be aware of. And that is at least interesting and, at best, enlightening. AND when you surround yourself with things that sing (to you), you life is more joyous and more up-lifting.JVL
March 20, 2023
March
03
Mar
20
20
2023
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT
Jery at 5, You mean the Marxist-Atheist-Darwinist Dictatorship? There is one poster here who denies genetic codes are codes even though the word code is used in the description.relatd
March 20, 2023
March
03
Mar
20
20
2023
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT
Aside: There is only one truth so correct science and one possible religion will always be in agreement with the truth. The problem is that there are a zillion religions and a almost as many versions of science. So maybe in one of each there is agreement. We do not know which. ID tries to do the science but most definitely stays away from the zillion religions. But we have those who want to do both and for them, religion is the motivating goal (both for and against) and science be damned if it conflicts with their ideology.jerry
March 20, 2023
March
03
Mar
20
20
2023
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT
Jerry at 1, Get a clue. The majority of the 'arguments' here are between atheists and theists. Science is part of it, but at the end of the day, that's the conflict.relatd
March 20, 2023
March
03
Mar
20
20
2023
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT
"... what is religion but a trick we play on ourselves? – David Wootton (March 18, 2023)" So, man's desire to run away from God is great. This is nothing new. I hope some here do not believe that ignoring God is a good thing - a worthy pursuit. It is strange to see the above message repeated over and over like a marketing slogan. Power and wealth are temporary, eternity is not. We prepare now, and work now, for what is to come.relatd
March 20, 2023
March
03
Mar
20
20
2023
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT
What this book marks, in fact, is the quiet triumph of meta-science over faith . . .
The bottom line is that humans don't live by the scientific method and logic alone. These magisteria cannot deliver art and beauty, equity and justice, love and joy, athletic prowess, or personal qualities and transcendence to the majority of humanity. Thus, it's not unreasonable to anticipate that most people maintain a balance between physical, social, intellectual, and spiritual aspects of their lives. Perhaps, a sequel will attempt to enlighten us about the tangled history of science and art, beaming about the quiet triumph of meta-science over artistic expression.
. . . . and what is religion but a trick we play on ourselves?
In that case, art and beauty, equity and justice, love and joy, athletic prowess, or personal qualities and transcendence are also tricks we play on ourselves while waiting to reproduce and die. Unless, of course, a Creator exists and has a purpose. But that would be a topic for a different forum. -QQuerius
March 20, 2023
March
03
Mar
20
20
2023
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT
I am going to leave this comment here because it is as good a place as any. I stumbled on a twitter remark and then a Substack post and found some great insight.
Why Smart People Believe Stupid Things Intelligence is not rationality
This could explain 80% of the comments on UD, some of which has gone on in full view this last 72 hours. https://gurwinder.substack.com/p/why-smart-people-hold-stupid-beliefs Some of the featured tweets in this essay
An absurd ideological belief is a form of tribal signalling. It signifies that one considers their ideology more important than truth, reason, sanity. To one's allies, this is an oath of unwavering loyalty. To one's enemies, it is a threat display When intelligent people affiliate themselves to ideology, their intellect ceases to guard against wishful thinking, and instead begins to fortify it, causing them to inadvertently mastermind their own delusion, and to very cleverly become stupid The greatest enemy of truth is the desire to win arguments
Also highly recommend by the same author
The 10 Best Ideas I Learned in 2022
I like
2. Cunningham's Law: The best way to get the right answer on the internet is not to ask a question, but to post the wrong answer, because people are more interested in criticizing others than helping them.
https://gurwinder.substack.com/p/the-10-best-ideas-i-learned-in-2022jerry
March 20, 2023
March
03
Mar
20
20
2023
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT
1 4 5 6

Leave a Reply