Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Disappointed with Shermer

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

From EXPELLED Dr Caroline Crocker.

“Recently I attended a lecture by Michael Shermer at the UCSD Biological Science Symposium (4/2/09). His title was, “Why Darwin Matters,” but his topic was mostly religion. He started by defining science as “looking for natural explanations for natural phenomena” and said that his purpose was to “debunk the junk and expose sloppy thinking.”

We were all subjected to an evening of slapstick comedy, cheap laughs, and the demolition of straw men.

His characterization of ID was that the theory says, 1) If something looks designed, 2) We can’t think how it was designed naturally, 3) Therefore we assert that it was designed supernaturally. (God of the gaps.) Okay everyone, laugh away at the stupid ID theorists.

I was astonished at how a convinced Darwinist, who complains about mixing science and religion, spent most of his time at the Biological Science Symposium talking about religion.”

Get the full text here.

Comments
to Diffaxial - good point, although Joseph did ask a question, not make a statement. And the answer to Joseph's question is "No, all belief systems are not religions."hazel
April 6, 2009
April
04
Apr
6
06
2009
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT
While I think it's good to share our own views with each other, it's not so helpful to lecture others on their alleged covert beliefs or practices.madsen
April 6, 2009
April
04
Apr
6
06
2009
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT
hazel:
I don’t believe in UFO’s - is that a belief system?
And yet there is more evidence for those than universal common descent.
I don’t believe in ghosts - is that a belief system?
And yet there is more evidence for those than universal common descent. Atheists do believe that everything is reducible to matter, energy, chance and necessity. They nworship Father Time and Mother nature. Just because they do it covertly does not mean they don't do it.Joseph
April 6, 2009
April
04
Apr
6
06
2009
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT
Diffaial, A system is a collection/ group of things working together.Joseph
April 6, 2009
April
04
Apr
6
06
2009
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT
Joseph:
38 Joseph 04/06/2009 3:13 pm Atheism is a belief system. Religions are belief systems. So the question is are all belief systems also religions?
Democracy is a system of government. Monarchy is a system of government. So the question is are all governments also monarchies?Diffaxial
April 6, 2009
April
04
Apr
6
06
2009
02:35 PM
2
02
35
PM
PDT
#46 ...because she believes after all.Upright BiPed
April 6, 2009
April
04
Apr
6
06
2009
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT
hazel What we do not believe in, results from what we do believe in. If we do not believe in God, then we do believe that there is no designer behind the cosmos or life. So we also believe that life can and did arise as the product of random, undirected material processes. If you are certain about this, please direct us to the facts that lead you to that certainty. If you are uncertain about that then why are you not agnostic?idnet.com.au
April 6, 2009
April
04
Apr
6
06
2009
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT
The connotation of religion is one of multiple people sharing a belief or the lack thereof. Take any crazy off-the-wall thing one person believes, and add a hundred more people. Now it's an eccentric but tolerated religion. The government, however, might be less able to make such a distinction. You can't deny someone their own personal religion just because no one else joins. Do I have to believe it, or just say that I do? Can it govern only my behavior and include no belief system at all? It's not like science where there are some rules. As soon as you define religion, someone can invent one that sits on the other side of the line.ScottAndrews
April 6, 2009
April
04
Apr
6
06
2009
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT
Hazel, thank you for your considered response. I’m glad we’re a little closer to agreeing. You wrote
Also, I note that in some cases the courts have held Secular Humanism (with capital letters) is a religion. However, I’ll also note that Secular Humanism is not the same as atheism.
True, but moot, as the courts have also defined Atheism, Freethinking and even “Unbelief” as “religions,” although not consistently. Calvert writes, “the Supreme Court in Seeger and Welsh recognized that the defining characteristic of a religion is belief about a matter of ultimate concern that occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to that of a belief in God. Hence, an Atheist’s belief that life is a natural cause occurrence is just as religious as a theistic belief that life is a creation.” One point I thought was especially noteworthy was that if the “free exercise” clause of the first amendment applies “to each of us, be he Jew or Agnostic, Christian or Atheist, Buddhist or Freethinker,” then so does the “establishment clause” of the same amendment. In other words, quoting a federal judge, those who “enjoy the preferred position guaranteed to them by the free exercise clause. …. are clearly not entitled to the advantages given by the first amendment while avoiding the apparent disadvantages. The rose cannot be had without the thorn.” [Malnak v. Yogi, 592 F.2d 197, 212-3 (3rd Cir 1979)]Lutepisc
April 6, 2009
April
04
Apr
6
06
2009
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT
One of my favorite hobbies is not collecting stamps. :)hazel
April 6, 2009
April
04
Apr
6
06
2009
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT
Oops messed up tags!Alan Fox
April 6, 2009
April
04
Apr
6
06
2009
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT
hazel 04/06/2009 3:25 pm How can lack of belief in something be a belief system? I guess in the same way not collecting stamps is a hobby, or bald is a hair colour.
Alan Fox
April 6, 2009
April
04
Apr
6
06
2009
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT
How can lack of belief in something be a belief system? I don't believe in UFO's - is that a belief system? I don't believe in ghosts - is that a belief system? I don't believe in reincarnation, levitation, leprechauns, Santa Claus, the healing powers of magentism, and dozens of other things. Do those, singularly or collectively, constitute a belief system? This doesn't make sense. Beliefs are what you do believe, not what you don't One might want to know what I do believe, and thus find out something about my belief system, but finding out what I don't believe in (God, UFO's, ghosts, etc.) does not tell you what my belief system is.hazel
April 6, 2009
April
04
Apr
6
06
2009
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT
Joseph @40
Atheism is a belief system.
So-called "strong" atheism ("There are no gods.") is a belief system. "Weak" atheism is simply lack of belief in gods, so it is lack of a belief system. JJJayM
April 6, 2009
April
04
Apr
6
06
2009
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT
Most talks on ID are like Shermer's and infer that there is no real intellectual substance to ID theory. Some anti evolution lectures imply the same of evolution. I hope that on this site we have more profound discussions about the intellectual substance of both ID and evolutionary theory.idnet.com.au
April 6, 2009
April
04
Apr
6
06
2009
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT
Atheism is a belief system. Religions are belief systems. So the question is are all belief systems also religions?Joseph
April 6, 2009
April
04
Apr
6
06
2009
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT
I've heard Ken Miller lecture...he does the same thing...*lots* of slapstick comedy...*very* little science. He's lecturing here in KS at Kansas State University again Wed and Thurs of this week. I'm passing this time around. I've heard his miscontrued nonsense one too many times. He never changes his tune even when he's corrected umpteen times. Disgusting...FtK
April 6, 2009
April
04
Apr
6
06
2009
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT
How about faith that: 1. There is no ultimate judgment for wrongdoing...
Doesn't this shift the question from a definition of religion to a definition of faith? Is everything I don't believe in an example of faith? This reminds me of the attempts to demarcate science to exclude ID. Is it possible to have a single definition of religion that keeps the right stuff in and leaves the rest out?ScottAndrews
April 6, 2009
April
04
Apr
6
06
2009
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT
Hi lutepisc. I don't have too much trouble with the idea that religion “includes sets of beliefs about the cause, nature and purpose of life rather than just belief in the supernatural.” That is very different than the overly broad definitions Joseph offered, such as a deeply held belief about anything. Also, I note that in some cases the courts have held Secular Humanism (with capital letters) is a religion. However, I'll also note that Secular Humanism is not the same as atheism. Atheism is not a "set of beliefs about the cause, nature and purpose of life." It's just a belief that whatever the cause, nature and purpose of life is, it doesn't come from a God. For instance, a Taoist is an atheist because Taoism does not believe in a personal God, but that doesn't make a Taoist a Secular Humanist. I liked the Wikipedia definition I quoted above:
A religion is an organized approach to human spirituality which usually encompasses a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices, often with a supernatural or transcendent quality, that give meaning to the practitioner’s experiences of life through reference to a higher power or truth.
Religions involve an organized approach, which implies a group of people, that share not only beliefs but also "narratives, symbols and practices." Also, the definition states that religion "often" refers to a "supernatural or transcendent" "higher power or truth." That is, a religion need not belief in supernatural beings - it might, as Taoism does, believe in a transcendent quality, or as some Neo-Platonisms do, a higher truth. So in this sense, a Unitarian Universalist group, which might have a lot of people who identity with the tenets of secular humanism, qualifies as a religion, I imagine. However, an individual who happens to accept many of the tenets of secular humanism but doesn't belong to any group is no more a Secular Humanist than I am a Christian because I believe in the Golden Rule. So in short, atheism is not a religion. Atheists may consider themselves members of a religion (UU or Taoism, for instance) or they may not consider themselves part of any religion. But whatever the case, atheism itself is not a "set of beliefs about the cause, nature and purpose of life." Atheists may, or may not, have beliefs about those things, but those beliefs are in addition to their atheism, which is merely a lack of belief, and atheists may, or may not, consider themselves, in belief and action, as members of a non-theistic religion.hazel
April 6, 2009
April
04
Apr
6
06
2009
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT
Hi russ, I should have clarified that I was talking particularly about a "weak atheist" position, perhaps even bordering on agnosticism. Concerning the propositions you enumerated, in fact I don't feel I have any strong evidence confirming any of them to a high degree of certainty, but by the same token, I don't know that they are false statements either. I'm referring to #1 and 2 especially; I don't take any position on #3, and don't see how it's connected to atheism.madsen
April 6, 2009
April
04
Apr
6
06
2009
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT
Hi Lutepise, Yes, I think definitions are very critical in this discussion. Regarding the statement of Martin Luther that you quoted, my wife and family are the only things that I can identify to which my "heart clings and entrusts itself", so I guess they would be my god(s) under this very broad definition.madsen
April 6, 2009
April
04
Apr
6
06
2009
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT
I don’t accept that an atheistic viewpoint necessarily involves any faith whatsoever.
How about faith that: 1. There is no ultimate judgment for wrongdoing, even though by nature we daily assume that there is some standard of good and evil to which we all have an obligation to adhere; 2. That natural processes can produce complex, purposeful systems that all our daily experience tells us should be the result of intelligence and will. Else why did Francis Crick say that scientists must constantly remind themselves that nature is not actually designed? 3. That matter is eternal, even though that makes no sense to our minds.russ
April 6, 2009
April
04
Apr
6
06
2009
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT
Madsen, a lot of what we're discussing here seems to hang on the definitions, doesn't it? Here are some 500-year-old words in response to the question, "What is it to have a god?" "A god is that to which we look for all good, and in which we find refuge in every time of need...As I have often said, the trust and faith of the heart alone make both God and an idol...That to which your heart clings and entrusts itself is, I say, really your God." (Martin Luther, Large Catechism (explanation of the first commandment). Certainly this is a very broad (and old) definition of "god." And note that it seems to be a functional definition...Lutepisc
April 6, 2009
April
04
Apr
6
06
2009
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT
eintown, The theory of evolution appeals to the unknown. And it is the unknown which gives the ToE its appeal. Nevermind. Jerry beat me to it.Joseph
April 6, 2009
April
04
Apr
6
06
2009
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT
There's been quite a bit of discussion of the definition of the word "religion" so far. It might be helpful if we elaborate about what we mean by "atheism". For me, it simply means lack of belief in a god. I don't accept that an atheistic viewpoint necessarily involves any faith whatsoever. Faith involves believing something about which there is a degree of uncertainty. Agnosticism is the beliefthat certainty is not possible. Atheism believes that there is no God. Even Dawkins says that this belief is uncertain, and thus it does involve faith. idnetmadsen
April 6, 2009
April
04
Apr
6
06
2009
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT
If you would like to post one of the main points of the article and discuss it, I’d be glad to.
Hazel, the document is only six pages long, and I doubt I could do a better job of condensing the argument than Calvert already has. Page seven is a synopsis of U.S. court findings. Maybe it wouldn't entail too much heavy lifting for you to peruse just that page. Even that progression, though, needs to be digested in the aggregate. I'm not a lawyer, but it looks to me like he's made a good case for a functional definition of "religion." Namely, that it "includes sets of beliefs about the cause, nature and purpose of life rather than just belief in the supernatural."Lutepisc
April 6, 2009
April
04
Apr
6
06
2009
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT
By the way a motorcycle is an automobile. It is auto controlled and mobile. I have seen three wheeled automobile and 18 wheeled automobiles.jerry
April 6, 2009
April
04
Apr
6
06
2009
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT
"Its appeals to the unknown," That what Darwinism does. The deity of Darwinism is "Deep Time." And no one has ever seen its hand in evolution but it "must" be there.jerry
April 6, 2009
April
04
Apr
6
06
2009
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT
Joeseph said:
religion: 3. personal beliefs or values: a set of strongly-held beliefs, values, and attitudes that somebody lives by religion: 4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith religion 4. single-minded devotion to or zealous conviction regarding anything. Atheism fits those three definitions.
Similarly, An automobile: 1. is a powered vehicle used to transport people. 2. Employs wheels, tires and brakes. 3. Can be steered, and employes signals and lighting to alert other drivers to changes in speed and direction. A motorcycle fits these definitions. Therefore a motorcycle is an automobile.Diffaxial
April 6, 2009
April
04
Apr
6
06
2009
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT
I despise Michael Shermer.AmerikanInKananaskis
April 6, 2009
April
04
Apr
6
06
2009
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT
1 22 23 24 25

Leave a Reply