Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

NAS at 85% atheists — Let’s bump it up to 100%

William Dembski
December 7, 2006
Religion, Science
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The presentations of the Beyond Belief 2006 conference recently held in San Diego are available at http://beyondbelief2006.org/Watch. Here is an excerpt from Session 2, which begins with a presentation from Neil deGrasse Tyson, the director of the Hayden Planetarium. At the conclusion of his talk (beginning at the 40:47 mark in the clip) is the following exchange:

Tyson: I want to put on the table, not why 85% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences reject God, I want to know why 15% of the National Academy don’t. That’s really what we’ve got to address here. Otherwise the public is secondary to this. [Moderator then turns to the panel for responses.]

Larry Krauss: It’s hard to know how to respond to Neil, ever. But the question you asked about “Why 15%” disturbs me a little bit because of this other presumption that scientists are somehow not people and that they don’t have the same delusions — I mean, how many of them are pedophiles in the National Academy of Sciences? How many of them are Republicans? [laughter] And so, it would be amazing, of course, if it were zero. That would be the news story. But the point is I don’t think you’d expect them in general to view their religion as a bulwark against science or to view the need to fly into buildings or whatever. So the delusions or predilections are important to recognize, that scientists are people and are as full of delusions about every aspect of their life as everyone else. We all make up inventions so that we can rationalize our existence and why we are who we are.

Tyson: But Lawrence, if you can’t convert our colleagues, why do you have any hope that you’re going to convert the public?

Krauss: I don’t think we have to convert those people. They’re fine. That’s the point. They’re doing science. I don’t understand why you need to do that.

It’s rare for Larry Krauss to come across as the voice of reason in these debates. But that’s only because Tyson is by comparison so scary. Not only does Tyson want to “convert” his fellow scientists to atheism but he won’t be content with anything less than 100% conversion. I seem to recall past leaders who demanded that 100% of their subjects conform to the religion of the land on pain of death. Is this any different? But of course it is: that was religion, this is science!

Question: You think there might be some self-selection going on at the National Academy of Sciences?

Comments
kharley Please confine your comments to the topic of the thread. It isn't HIV or Dembski's opinion on HIV. If you want a soapbox for that topic find it somewhere else.DaveScot
December 9, 2006
December
12
Dec
9
09
2006
03:57 AM
3
03
57
AM
PDT
tribune7:Why not? How can life have no meaning, especially for artists/writers/dancers, who participate in life's meaning (as opposed to just having it handed to us)? Living creature are active members in life, just as humans are active participants in democracy. Maybe there's an intrinsic sense of purpose in creative people that is divorced from the need for authority (although I would argue that all people are in some way creative). Life is its own meaning. Unless, of course, your kid is dying of AIDS, and your government tells you that anyone who says it's because of HIV is a ghastly materialist and is lying. Unless you're a parent in Libya and your government tells you that five altruistic European nurses and a doctor awaiting execution "deliberately" infected your child in order to cover up the government's own abysmal health care system. (The victims are called the Tripoli Six and several of us have blogged about them.) With those nurses and doctor in mind I'm still waiting for an answer to my original question about Dembski's true attitude toward Wells' assertions about HIV and AIDS. sadly this is a perfect example of an atheist who has not used logic and reason to arrive at the inevitable conclusion that logic and reason are meaningless in the atheist’s world "Sadly?" I'm a dancer but I don't dance to any dirges. Logic and reason are fine, but life is to be lived, ultimately. If you're sad that I'm not sad then I think you should try some dance lessons.kharley471
December 8, 2006
December
12
Dec
8
08
2006
09:21 PM
9
09
21
PM
PDT
Furthermore, why should an atheist give a (beep) about what someone else believes? Where does this fit in a random mutation + natural selection evolutionary scenerio? Surely beliefs have an influence on a person's actions which can affect all of humanity. However, in the long run, humanity either changes into something else or becomes extinct or eventually dies with the universe. Big deal ... whatever. Even when it comes to science that truly enriches peoples lives and helps them become more productive and reproductive in their environment, why should an atheist push that on other people? After all, life has been evolving perfectly fine for billions of years without science, and since science seems to cause an increase in technology that manipulates ourselves and our environment it would seem that science is halting natural evolution, where the environment plays the key role. Why get mad at religion? There's so much religion around, it must have been selected by nature for some evolutionary reason. Maybe it's best for humanity and evolution in the long run that religion stays and science goes. It could make us tougher by evolving pemanent immunities and natural "in-body" technologies so that we won't have to wimp out and rely on science. But then who's says that evolution itself or the survival of the human race is even a "good" thing. Maybe only the survival of scientists is a "good" thing. Maybe, once the human race becomes extinct, then cows can move into our niche and evolve into something greater than we ever could, because they wouldn't get caught up in halting evolution through science. I tell 'ya, we're the only ones holding back them cows from evolving. Who's to know ... who's to tell ... Che sara saraCJYman
December 8, 2006
December
12
Dec
8
08
2006
09:19 PM
9
09
19
PM
PDT
It's important that one is able to distinguish the term "atheist" from the terms "philosophical naturalist" and "philosophical materialist". I believe all PM's would have to be atheists. PN's are generally considered to be atheists, but, of course, this depends on whether or not one considers a god to be "natural". Furthermore, I see not reason why an atheist could not embrace an ontology which includes both "natural" and "supernaural" categories and excludes any being classified as a "god". Naturalism is notoriously difficult to define because the line that seperates "natural" from "supernatural" tends to be arbitrary. The only person who it seems must necessarily exclude meaning from his ontology is the PM. If an atheist must be a PM, I have yet to see why.crandaddy
December 8, 2006
December
12
Dec
8
08
2006
08:57 PM
8
08
57
PM
PDT
“neither I nor any atheists I know believe that life is “utterly meaningless and random,” that it “ultimately means nothing.” How everlastingly weary I am of refuting this stereotype, and arguing with people who would tell me my own feelings.” That’s great, but sadly this is a perfect example of an atheist who has not used logic and reason to arrive at the inevitable conclusion that logic and reason are meaningless in the atheist’s world.shaner74
December 8, 2006
December
12
Dec
8
08
2006
07:52 PM
7
07
52
PM
PDT
neither I nor any atheists I know believe that life is “utterly meaningless and random,” that it “ultimately means nothing.” Why not?tribune7
December 8, 2006
December
12
Dec
8
08
2006
07:46 PM
7
07
46
PM
PDT
"It’s funny how he equates faith in god as something people make up in order to rationalize their lives. I wonder how he thinks that occurs? Can you decide to believe in something if you don’t believe in it?" This statement makes no sense from a materialistic view. Even if you espouse compatabilism the idea that you can physically decide something is not possible becuase your choice was determined from your brain neurology, chemistry and quantum stuff happening deep within your brain cells. But, don't worry its still your fault if you believe in religion.......?rpf_ID
December 8, 2006
December
12
Dec
8
08
2006
06:27 PM
6
06
27
PM
PDT
Levi, neither I nor any atheists I know believe that life is "utterly meaningless and random," that it "ultimately means nothing." How everlastingly weary I am of refuting this stereotype, and arguing with people who would tell me my own feelings. It's unfair and a cop-out to caricature someone else's experience as something shallow and dehumanized just to impress upon them that they are "wrong." "Purpose" is not the same thing to everyone, and my sense of purpose is not disturbed by mind arising from matter (which indicates how I view "matter" differently that you do). Please don't attribute qualities to me that I don't possess if you do not wish atheists to do the same to believers. I still await an answer to my original question.kharley471
December 8, 2006
December
12
Dec
8
08
2006
05:48 PM
5
05
48
PM
PDT
26. trystero57 // Dec 8th 2006 at 3:39 pm For myself, I “converted” to atheism partly because of science - it seemed to me there was no longer any need for a God concept once one understood the concepts behind “NDE” and the like. I respond with restraint, I hope. If atheism means materialism (belief that the physical universe is all there is) then, I “converted” to atheism partly because of science. is the same as saying: I stopped believing in non-physical reality partly because of the apparent results of methods which cannot investigate non-physical reality. which, by analogy becomes "I stopped believing in bacteria partly because I never saw any through my telescope." it seemed to me there was no longer any need for a God concept once one understood the concepts behind “NDE” and the like. Who does need a God concept any more than a single person needs a spouse concept. Many have been converted to Theism without previously having some sort of felt need (intellectual/explanatory or otherwise) to believe in God. According to the accounts of many it was quite the opposite. As far as "the concepts behind “NDE” and the like." The question seems to be whether the observed and measured facts fall in with these concepts as accomplice or as antagonists. Partly because of these facts, I believe in pre-biotic, pre-physical intelligence. And I am much more of a rationalist than I should like to admit. "It's all in Lewis, all in Lewis, Bless me, what do they teach them at these schools!"kvwells
December 8, 2006
December
12
Dec
8
08
2006
03:40 PM
3
03
40
PM
PDT
IMHO, science itself becomes utterly uncompelling from the atheist's view. What is so fascinating in learning about something that is utterly meaningless and random? Humans study music, not the noise coming from a factory. Why study science at all if it really is nothing more than listening to the random noises of the universe? But science as glimpses into the mind of God... that's where things get interesting! The only thing an atheist can claim after discovering something new is "it ultimately means nothing."levi
December 8, 2006
December
12
Dec
8
08
2006
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT
I think, for the purpose of argument, one probably shouldn't use the term "supernatural" very much at all. For the rationalist the word simply means "that which doesn't exist." I like to point out that many scientists interpret current cosmology to require much more than our humble set of dimensions in which we experience physical existence. Now the only access we can ever have on a purely rational level to these new (to us) axes of movement is through abstract mathematics. There is no hope of detecting any thing more than (quantum, say) effects in the here-and-now of anything "going on" in the outer out-there. Of course, no one can imagine what "before and after" or the conditions expressing cause and effect might be out there. But if the BBT is correct, there is or was (?) a condition within this "super-nature" at which or in which the poly-dimensional restriction or condensation which is our universe Was in some way not yet. (by Universe I use the functional meaning of the word: all that we can potentially detect using physical means.) Thus what one might call the Omniverse is demonstrably "there" and at least as real as our limited experience of it, what we grandiosely call the universe. Here we see Agency at work, for some kind of Agency produced our realm of existence out of or within(?) a higher, more extended existential potientiality. That which is by definition super-to-nature. Now the rationalist tries to rescue me from my slippery slope: "Now you'll have scientists investigating haunted houses and whatnot..." No, lets just see where poly-dimensinal reality impinges with scientifically detectable evidence upon our universe. the Big-Bang cosmology, Strong Anthropic Principle, IDin biological systems, and fine-tuning of physical laws are some potential fields of observation IMO.kvwells
December 8, 2006
December
12
Dec
8
08
2006
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT
Methodological naturalism does not automatically rule out intelligence, but it does rule out the supernatural, which I define as something that is not natural as opposed to just something we do not know about yet. So for example if a supernatural entity created life we may be able to infer intelligence but we are not able to attribute it to the supernatural, so it would be some unknown intlligent cause.Chris Hyland
December 8, 2006
December
12
Dec
8
08
2006
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT
But mike1962, what "just-so stories" are those? (Poor Rudyard Kipling, by the way.) That HIV causes AIDS? That in the absense of natural selection, neutral drift can efficiently produce protein binding sites alone? That the earth is 4.3 billion years old? And what is "empirical"? Wells' idea that "centrioles are turbans"? I have not read as much of Dr. Dembski’s works as I would like to (due to work and school), but I have seen his online appearances and interviews in which he states no opposition to the idea of an old earth and the recent appearance of human beings, or even to evolution itself. He has stated emphatically that he is "not a creationist. " I can understand why he, a Christian (and I was raised in a Christian home), would be alarmed at Tyson’s words. Speaking as an atheist, I don’t think that the entire human race will ever be converted to any one creed or philosophy and perhaps that is a good thing. But then, I’m not sure what to make of Dr. Dembski’s apparent tolerance of young earth creationism and his silence on the position of Jonathan Wells, who asserts that HIV does not cause AIDS. This position by Wells (and by others both left and right), if popularly adopted, could result in a health care disaster. We are seeing that in South Africa right now.kharley471
December 8, 2006
December
12
Dec
8
08
2006
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT
kharley471, "“If the courts can be used to oust ID, they can be used to oust the Darwin religion.” But then what? Where do we go from there? What model do we have for, say, fighting a global retrovirus like AIDS if not via a standard molecular phylogeny?" Nothing empirical should be ousted. Only the just-so stories and interpretations that are the evidence + atheistic (or anti-ID) materialism masquerading as science.mike1962
December 8, 2006
December
12
Dec
8
08
2006
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT
DI or somebody should define what Supernatural means in ID theory.Collin
December 8, 2006
December
12
Dec
8
08
2006
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT
JTG said, "If God is outside of nature, then Dawkins, Tyson, and others in their camp would have 2 choices [sic]. Conclude that God CAN be studied by science, or conlude that he cannot and then admit that it’s impossible, via science, to become an atheist this way. If science cannot study God, then you can hardly use science to say there is no God" If something doesn't exist, surely it cannot be studied. It sounds as though your belief in God is obfuscating your logic here! It's a trite comparison, of course, but substitute God for unicorns there and see if it still makes sense. For myself, I "converted" to atheism partly because of science - it seemed to me there was no longer any need for a God concept once one understood the concepts behind "NDE" and the like.trystero57
December 8, 2006
December
12
Dec
8
08
2006
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT
mjb2001 you wrote
I don’t see how science can contradict a materialistic ontology since by definition and practice science is materialistic.
Well you prove my point by your biased definition of science. Science comes from the latin scienta: having knowledge. The atheist dogmatists want to change the meaning of science into "having knowledge of physical phenomena". But even if we take that definition at face value and as a valid definition then still the evolutionist want to take that definition and put furthur restraints on it to mean "having knowledge of physical phenomena while rejecting all non physical causation". This is because by the study of physical phenomena it is easy to conlcude that there was some type of non physical causation. The famous examples are in the work of archeologists or in the work of SETI. They both look for non physical (i.e. intelligence, thought) causation in order to explain physical phenomena (i.e intelligently caused radio signals as opposed to naturally occuring ones, intelligently crafted things as opposed to naturally occuring things). Essentially the atheist dogmatists want to define what science is or isn't in order to push forward a materialistic ontology. Therefore they claim that even though ID may seemingly utilize the scientific method that in truth it is not science because the end result is non physical causation. Ironically their definition of science is in fact in direct contradiction to the actual defintion of the word. Science is supposed to be about discovering information, gaining knowledge about something. It is not supposed to be about repression of information if that information does not reinforce a previously held belief, if it does then it becomes the opposite of science; nescience. The materialistic agenda is to redefine the nature of what is rationally knowable. They want to eliminate non physical causation as part of the "scientific method" because they have an agenda to convert people to their belief system and to also keep people who believe as they do as part of the fold. They have a purely religious agenda. Just like Galileo was charged with heresy for advocating a heliocentric cosmology because it went against the views of the leaders of the church at that time, so also today and for some years now, the "official powers that be" that rule over public and most private education and science research have deemed non physical causation as something which cannot be explained and is therefore to be banished as heresy from the "scientific method". This is like pretending that a comet heading straight towards earth is not real because we cannot figure out where it came from. Is that really "science" of the "scientific method"? Or is it a materialistic agenda masquerading as the "scientifc method"?mentok
December 8, 2006
December
12
Dec
8
08
2006
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT
First off let me say that I think it hideous and immoral for anyone to call for the deaths of others because of what they think inside their heads (aren’t we all doing to die soon enough?). But what concerns me is that there are many ways of calling for people’s deaths, even unintentionally. “If the courts can be used to oust ID, they can be used to oust the Darwin religion.” But then what? Where do we go from there? What model do we have for, say, fighting a global retrovirus like AIDS if not via a standard molecular phylogeny? What do we replace what we already know about AIDS with—Jonathan Wells’ “alternative” view? I ask this in all respect, because I’m trying to understand what people are for, not just against—and I feel a sense of urgency about other subjects than this particular debate, though this debate touches upon them. How big can this “big tent” be without embracing ideas that negatively impact the lives of real people? mjb2001 has also raised some good points in my opinion.kharley471
December 8, 2006
December
12
Dec
8
08
2006
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT
JasonTheGreek: "Supernatural is a meaningless term in my view. It simply means ’something we don’t fully understand yet via science.’ Science isn’t the only way to gain knowledge as Tyson and his cohorts seem to think." I don't know. Supernatural seems more to me than merely thing unknown to science thus far. I seems to me that some things are eternally beyond science, ie, beyond human reason. Science has no explanation for the "hard problem" of consciousness, and it it impossible to see how it ever could because the gulf will always exist between what is detectable by instruments and the actual experience I'm having as an instance of consciousness. There may be a correlation, but certainly not an "explanation." Consciousness is "wholy other" than any rational concept about spacetime. To me, the states of consciousness are direct evidence that something "wholly other" than spacetime exists. Or else spacetime itself it so utterly and preposterously different than anything we can rationally process that it qualifies as a "wholly other" nature compared to the concepts we grapple with so far.mike1962
December 8, 2006
December
12
Dec
8
08
2006
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT
"Jason, I have to disagree. It means something we can never fully understand, something we have to take on faith." Like origins/ universe? What about light or quantum physics? This would included a lot that's call scienceSmidlee
December 8, 2006
December
12
Dec
8
08
2006
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT
"Science can tell us how and why we became homo sapiens and nothing more...." Really!? I fail to see where science can tell us either. All science is able to do is compare similarities between the human body(DNA) to other animals. It's a far cry from proving man is nothing but a glorified ape.Smidlee
December 8, 2006
December
12
Dec
8
08
2006
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT
Supernatural is a meaningless term in my view. It simply means ’something we don’t fully understand yet via science.’ Jason, I have to disagree. It means something we can never fully understand, something we have to take on faith.tribune7
December 8, 2006
December
12
Dec
8
08
2006
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT
mjb- here's how I see it. If God exists, he would surely be outside of nature. He would be supernatural. We run into our first problem here- what is supernatural? If nature encompasses the universe and everything in it, then wouldn't God be natural (as he would surely be partly in nature, even if he's also outside of nature at the same time.) ?? Supernatural is a meaningless term in my view. It simply means 'something we don't fully understand yet via science.' Science isn't the only way to gain knowledge as Tyson and his cohorts seem to think. If God is outside of nature, then Dawkins, Tyson, and others in their camp would have 2 choices. Conclude that God CAN be studied by science, or conlude that he cannot and then admit that it's impossible, via science, to become an atheist this way. If science cannot study God, then you can hardly use science to say there is no God (Dawkins and his intellectually fulfilled atheist comment comes to mind!) I'd say that most people want to keep things into nice neat boxes such as "natural" and "supernatural" when these terms mean very little. If a scientist studies a claim of ghosts- he's already concluded a priori that he cannot EVER possibly come up with thhe conclusion 'this is real, it is a ghost.' He can't possibly do that, because before he even starts he says that his method cannot even touch the "supernatural." So, we already know his conclusion will be "this is a natural phenomenon that can be explained through natural laws." Many problems arise from the a priori assumptions that come along with the terms and the claims of what science can and cannot study.JasonTheGreek
December 8, 2006
December
12
Dec
8
08
2006
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT
Andrea- I can't speak for Bill, but from his quote, I don't see him claiming that Tyson said as much. He merely said there have been socities that demanded 100% adherence to an idea, and added that this lead to the situation where some of them demanded this or death. I don't think anyone would conclude that Bill was saying Tyson or the other yahoos at the conference were threatening death or any type of violence unless we all convert to their atheism. The point, I think, was that there's no difference between demanding 100% conversion to a particular religion as what Tyson is saying. Afterall, the US Supreme Court has ruled atheism a religion, if I'm not mistaken- so there is really no difference as far as I can tell. Just a demand to adhere to atheist religion as opposed to, say, Islam.JasonTheGreek
December 8, 2006
December
12
Dec
8
08
2006
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT
The irony is of course that the so called “scientific method” which Krauss and others like to tout as rational and unbiased is in reality opposed to science if that science contradicts a materialistic ontology. I don't see how science can contradict a materialistic ontology since by definition and practice science is materialistic. The question is, if the scientific method cannot point to an intelligent designer are the religious required to reject science (ie, oppose scientific methodology as a valid way of viewing the world)? If the answer is yes, ID is not science but merely a critique of evolution and the scientific method. Now, it is valid to critique the atheists by pointing out that it is foolish to accept the scientific method as the only way of understanding the universe. God is not outside the realm of human knowledge but He may very well be outside the realm of science. There is an intense desire for human beings to give God a job other than being God. Quite frankly, God doesn't need us to help him spruce up His resume. The problem is, when you set yourself up either explicitly or implicitly to say that God is evident via the scientific method, the only loser is God. And I believe that that is what ID theory indeed sets up. Because if tomorrow morning we wake up and find out that science has proven William Dembski wrong, the faithful are either going to have to reject science or God. And of course the reason that evolution and not quantum mechanics is at the forefront of this debate is because evolution is intertwined with our humanity. But I say, bah. Science can tell us how and why we became homo sapiens and nothing more; religion tells us how and why we became human.mjb2001
December 8, 2006
December
12
Dec
8
08
2006
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT
Since Tyson, et.al., see this as a purely scientific question, then by all means lets press the science. This entire question can be settled easily. All Tyson and the 85% of the NAS membership that side with atheism have to do is explain how they know scientifically (not metaphysically or philosophically) that the properties of the cosmos are such that nature is a completely closed system of natural cause and effect and that no actions taken by any sort of diety whatsosever could ever have empirically detectable consequences in nature, even in principle. Tyson could save a lot of time in converting the remaining 15% if he could, perhaps, provide the citations for the scientific research studies that confirm this hypothesis. I'd especially like to know what might falsify these hypothesis. Of course, if Tyson can't provide any such scientific research studies, nor provide a way for such studies to be done, he might have to face the possibility that the 15% might have cause to try and "convert" the 85% the other way!!! That thought probably keeps him up nights!!DonaldM
December 8, 2006
December
12
Dec
8
08
2006
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT
"I seem to recall past leaders who demanded that 100% of their subjects conform to the religion of the land on pain of death. Is this any different? But of course it is: that was religion, this is science!" Well, another obvious difference is that deGrasse Tyson is obviously not advocating the death of the "unconverted", nor, as far as we know, any other kind of forcible conversion.Andrea
December 8, 2006
December
12
Dec
8
08
2006
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT
It is a good thing to see Tyson making the kinds of statements he does. The more the better. One day soon those words and other like them will be used in court showing the reality about the nature of Darwinism. If the courts can be used to oust ID, they can be used to oust the Darwin religion.mike1962
December 8, 2006
December
12
Dec
8
08
2006
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PDT
JasonTheGreek wrote: “Wow. You’re so pedophile-like! At least that’s the message I got from Krauss’ quotes!” Can’t blame my behavior on me - it’s just evolution at work preserving my selfish genes!shaner74
December 8, 2006
December
12
Dec
8
08
2006
04:42 AM
4
04
42
AM
PDT
Atheists are trying to get a revival going. Only problem is there is nothing to revive. These guys [Tyson, Dawkins, Provine, etc.] have completely lost touch with reality. They've lost it big time and now insist that everyone else loses it too! Probably so they won't feel so lonely. Incomparable rampallian quislings who have died - from the neck up. "It's only 99.9% of atheists that give such a bad reputation to the rest." In 40 years of debating with atheists, I've never met one who was honest and open, who did not smarten up and abandon atheism.Borne
December 7, 2006
December
12
Dec
7
07
2006
09:28 PM
9
09
28
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply