In New Partnership, James Madison U. Offers Credit for Online Rosetta Stone Course

The “bottom line” of Mr Ruse’s argument, as he has it, “not that religion is true, but that science does not refute traditional religion–Christianity and so forth.” This statement does seem to refute the New Atheist claim that “science disproves religion,” as stated in goxewu’s unwarranted implication that Mr Ruse might not differ in principle from the New Atheist position, but he might only be refuting it for tactical reasons. From there comes goxewu’s bit where he takes it back and applies the sneering mockery often found in preemptory New Atheist dismissals of religion. I think Mr Ruse has made it clear that he finds the methodological naturalism of the scientist not incompatible with theism, though he himself is not a theist. Do I have it right?

Though interesting I will not discuss the issues about the debate over the first amendment and the questions they raise. I do, though, want to express thanks to Professor Ruse for his careful explanation of his view, and his continuing helpfulness in these discussions. Having visited some of the blogs to which he refers and followed the contours of the debate, I agree that he has been treated unfairly by (some of) the New Atheists and am myself surprised by the dogmatic, meanspirited, ideological, and often just poor arguments made against him. As an atheist I find this aspect of the issue rather frustrating. His critics don’t seem to realize that making the same arguments, but more loudly each time, does not make them any stronger. Ruse’s view of religion is surely the more sensible one in these discussions.

Mavprof does have it right regarding Prof. Ruse’s accommodationism. And I have it right as to the tactical reason for Prof. Ruse’s accommodationatism. We both have it right. There’s a first.

Prof. Ruse is undoubtedly a nice guy. He’s a nonbeliever, but he wants to let believers go their own way (Gee, I wish believers would let non-believers go their own way, too)–partly because he’s genuinely for let and let live, but partly as tactic: Tell them that believing is perfectly compatible with science and they’ll be mollified enough to quit pushing creationism in the public schools.

Religious belief is anything-goes because there are no standards, no agreed-upon methods of testing/prediction, etc. Science may have factions and scientists may disagree, but it’s nothing like the span from Mormonism (the fastest-growing religion in the country) through Orthodox Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism all the way over to wiccan and a bunch of others. Just as religions claim science can’t disprove their supernatural claims, one religion can’t disprove another religion’s supernatural claim, either. I used to say to the Mormon and Jehova’s Witnesses proselytizers on my doorstep, “You guys get together with the local rabbi and imam and whomever else, come up with common platform, and get back to me.”

The biggest trouble with the New Atheists for Old Religionists is that they’ve started to act like the Old Religionists. Next thing you know, they’ll be knocking on your door, handing out pamphlets, building tax-empt commercial empires, pleading that some kind of atheist canon law delays civil prosecution, holding national non-prayer breakfasts, and the like. Couldn’t have that. The turf is nicely divided up as it is. No newcomers.

To the wonderful list of oxymorons, which includes “military intelligence” and “gourmet delicatessen,” we can now add “metaphysical naturalism.”

There are obviously “no standards” or “agreed-upon methods” brought to bear on religious beliefs. Otherwise, some kind of consensus among admittedly highly intelligent, erudite, and erstwhile religious leaders of different stripes would exist regarding, oh, whether Jesus was indeed the savior of mankind, rose from the dead and now sits at the right hand of god, whether Mohammed was indeed the final messenger of god, whether Jesus actually walked upon the continent of North America, whether there’s a special covenant between the Jewish people and god, whether…., etc., etc., Hundreds, if not thousands of years, after the fact, it’s still a matter of, at bottom, one religion saying, “Is so!” and another saying “Is not!”

Prof. Ruse: “Here in America we are faced with many people who want to introduce evangelical Christianity into the science classes of state-supported schools. And I think that is wrong and that the way to fight it is by keeping religion out of schools period, and an important part of the strategy is by showing that teaching science does not refute or impinge on people’s faith, understood in a traditional way.” Sounds like mollifying to me. And politically, that’s fine with me. Whatever works on wannabe theocrats. But we’re not talking here about science’s manners, but science’s truth, which isn’t perfect or complete but it at least has standards and agree-upon methods by which to attempt to adjudicate differences.

“Moral commitment” may be common to religious believers and scientists, just like not wanting to go into debt or having a satisfying love life or rooting for the Boston Red Sox may be common to both. But that doesn’t make it common ground for religion and *science* (not “scientists”).

BTW, dank48′s comment below effectively summarizes what is unfair about most criticism of the New (Uppity) Atheists, even that of the faux-reasonable and faux-benign complementarians.

“Religious leaders of different faiths often share common beliefs pertaining to God, man, and nature, though they differ in many other aspects of belief. Believers and religious leaders often discuss these matters, and especially at interfaith conferences.”

My understanding is the various cultures that comprise the rich spectrum of human life on this planet hold extraordinarily diverse religious conceptions, from the spirit familiars of Eskimo hunters to the mountain deities of the Andean peoples, snake gods in Amazonia, and so on. It is also my understanding that few of these are represented at interfaith conferences.

And who is to say that the animism of a small band of hunters-gatherers in the Kalahari is not the Real Truth of supernatural religious belief? Is this is a variation on the story Bertrand Russell told in his autobiography – I’m remembering back 40 years – when, in response to a Biblical literalist, he rolled his eyes back for a second and then announced his New Revelation, that the whole universe had just been created a few seconds ago, with buildings, books, animals and plants, and humans – and their false memories – all ready made? They were all being tested by God, Russell said: believe me and you will be saved. Who could prove that he was wrong, Russell asked?

“The diversity of religious or spiritual beliefs presents several interesting philosophical questions, but is not ipso facto disproof of a divine or supernatural reality, for this diversity just as easily may be seen as a confirmation of free will to an exclusivist believer.”

I did not mention this as a form of disproof, simply to suggest that any implication that religions are essentially similar – your “Religious leaders of different faiths often share common beliefs pertaining to God, man, and nature…” – may not take into account the extraordinary variety of religious beliefs around the world.

“Some philosophers agree that if both the exclusivist believer and the nonbeliever are on the same serious epistemic footing the believer and nonbeliever are obligated at least to test the evidence for and against each other’s positions.”

And I take Goxewu’s point to be that it is at least difficult to conceive of tests of such “evidence”, when the positions are about supernatural phenomena. How many virgins does your religion promise you in heaven? Counting should be easy; all we have to do is get cell phone service in heaven. Did Jesus really bring dead people back to life? A tougher call – since they’re probably dead again, perhaps we could ask them in heaven, when they’re taking a break from all those virgins.

“Others like the epistemologist Alvin Plantinga doubt whether equal epistemic footing is possible for the Christian exclusivist who may believe him or herself touched by grace or witness to a revelation or who believes the Holy Spirit protects his or her faith from serious doctrinal error. Other views of course are proposed, but these seem the most strikingly divergent. Nevertheless, both views seem to cast some doubt on the efficacy of the Russell experiment.”

Sorry – I’m not a philosopher, just a dull scientist, so the suggestion that both views cast some doubt on the efficacy of “the Russell experiment” is opaque to me, unless by “efficacy” you mean that Russell didn’t change anyone’s mind. I’m happy to concede that he probably didn’t. But that doesn’t make his point about the impossibility of testing such claims any less valid. As The Life of Brian suggested, these problems of belief are sociological.

To be fair:

https://sites.google.com/site/interfaithdialoguebasics/interfaith-dialogue/international-interfaith-conferences-since-1893-3

But, seriously, are the real deals much less piously stretched thin than the hypothetical “Honoring the Creative Impulse: Blending Originality with Tradition in the Major Faiths”?

* There’s method in my mirth. I jest only to try to keep the thread from becoming as numbingly boring as an interfaith conference. But, for those (perhaps a crowd of one) who need it spelled out:

Monotheists religions are by their nature absolutist, e.g., Jesus is either the divine savior or he’s not. While scientists of different persuasions can get together at a conference and hash out their basic differences according to some agreed-upon rules of evidence (math, prediction, falsifiability, lab experiments, peer review of the data, etc.,), leaders of monotheistic religions cannot. While individual scientists may not be convinced to change their minds on, say, the human causes of climate change or a genetic cause of different sexual orientation, a tentative consensus can be arrived at, and a conference conclusion published (sort of like a SCOTUS decision with a published dissent, or not). But agreements and changed minds at interfaith conferences are limited to inconsequential issues or cloudily all-things-to-all-people ones or, even at intra-faith conferences, doctrinal minutae.

* As for caricatures (1), just click on the link I provided (which is an ecumenically theist link, not some “New Atheist” exposé), and compare my parody conference title with the recent ones on the link. Caricature, really? Aside: The religion column in the daily newspaper is more likely to “pad the recycle bin” than the comics pages.

* As for caricatures (2), the paragraph I quoted from mavprof looked to me at first glance like a premise for a Monty Python skit.

I’m starting to think that mavprof’s willful obliviousness is due to his being possessed by demons. In the spirit (pardon the pun) of Bertrand Russell, prove me wrong.

“Man, the species.” Got it. Sorry “humanity” was already taken. (Note: mavprof wasn’t quoting somebody from back in the day when humanity or humankind was usually referred to as “man” or “mankind.” Word choice says something. And, oh, “God” is a He.)

No, one can’t prove a negative of the sort that says unicorns or tooth fairies don’t exist. Even the scientific proof that phlogiston doesn’t exist is open to falsifiability when some of the fiery stuff actually shows up some day. But falsifiability on the basis of evidence is one of the differences between science and religion. In religion, one can make any ol’ claim regarding the supernatural (Jesus sits at the right hand of god, “God spoke directly to me last night as I was making dinner,” an actual Satan is the one who tempts us to do bad things, demons exist and can be exorcised, “I am the new anointed savior of [ahem!] mankind,” etc.) with absolutely no fear of being proven wrong by anything that could reasonably be considered evidence.

Nor can some newly minted religious assertion that seems totally wacko be refuted by the fact that only one person, or just a couple of nut cases, believe it. a) Most religions started that way* and b) the resemblance of any given religion to a giant, longstanding, prosperous multinational corporation with sumptuous and ornate world headquarters and fancy branches and uniformed employees all over the place is irrelevant to its basic supernatural assertions. (Ask a Shaker.)

Aside: “Other worlds, other beliefs” (and/or “other places, other customs,” “other countries, other ways”) are common expressions. There’s no need, except pretentiousness, to say it in French on a blog comment. Unless it’s a citation of the original by somebody famous (sigh).

* The cultural anthropology of religion is fascinating. The fact that religious beliefs spring up, continue, die out, thrive, spread, morph like any other human phenomenon (clothing, cuisine, language, art, music, etc.) leads one to suspect that religion is basically a grass-roots deal, and not a top-down one. That is, we humans make it up.

OK, it ain’t male hideboundism, it’s just tweaking the PCers. Right.

I haven’t abandoned anything. No, you can’t prove a negative. But in science you can come close, through an examination of the evidence. The conclusion is always tentative, though, because new evidence might show up. With religion, however, there’s no evidence to examine. (Anybody have a video or GPS of Jesus sitting at the right hand of God? Anybody have a phone tap of god speaking directly to me while I was making dinner? Anybody witness–in the police sense of the word–Satan tempting anybody? Anybody see those demons at work inside mavprof?) No, it’s all “faith.” That’s why major religious doctrine is unfalsifiable (yes, I know falsifiable doesn’t mean “false”). It’s absolutely certain, based on “faith,” that, say, Jesus sits at the right hand of God. No new evidence is going to show up to convince the faithful that some new, improved, proven (in the laboratory or on the blackboard or in the computer or applied in an experiment) religious belief should supplant what they already believe.

Science may have a limited role in what it can teach us about truth and reality, but that limit doesn’t bid one leap into religion. (As many have said before, the proponents of religion are almost never of the “Gee, there are some things that science can’t quite prove, so we ought to leave a little room for a noncommital maybe about there being something *else.*” They’re usually believers in some specific creation myth and attendant do’s and don’t's that sound fairly fairy-tale to rationalists. Which is why proponents of religion in the abstract don’t want to reveal their specific creeds on thread such as these. They use the “If a brilliant, scientific fellow such as Polanyi can believe, why can’t we all?” when it suits them, but assiduously avoid the “If somebody actually believes that Jesus rose from the dead to sit at the right hand of God, what kind of intellectual credibility can he really have?”

In the end, I’ll take my chances with science and the uncertainty principle over religion and the based-on-nothing-but-faith certainty principle.

* I (notice: first person, as usual) simply avoid the second person. That is, I don’t address my disputant directly. Why? Because “Brainstorm” threads are public forums and–hello?–there are other people out there beside mavprof and myself. I address them *about* mavprof, or whomever, and the issue(s) at hand. Third-person references to myself are not in the cards.

* “And after all, one can easily apply the term ‘belief’ or ‘faith’ to trust in one’s senses, reason, and memory as well as to trust in revelation, tradition, authority, and inspiration.” “Faith” in one’s senses, reason, memory is hardly the same as “faith” in revelation, tradition, authority and (religious) inspiration. If my “faith” in my vision’s telling me that the sliding glass door is open is contradicted by my running into a closed sliding glass door and getting my paper plate of patio dinner all over my shirt, I make an adjustment in that “faith,” telling myself not to trust it under certain circumstance, making sure I tap the space with my finger first to make sure the door is open, asking someone if the door is open, etc. Similarly with memory, if I’m wrong on a particular, or have a serious doubt, I can check it in various ways–asking other people, going to Google, looking in my files, etc. In other words, such “faith” is tested somewhat scientifically (i.e., common-sensically), and revised according to the results. Religious faith is of a different character. How many Christians quit being Christians because a prayer didn’t get results? (I suppose I have to look forward to a convenient fuzzying up of what prayer is–not a request, but a general “conversation with God,” a meditation with moving lips, etc.)

* Many scientists do accept, and practice, religious faith. But when they do, they’re sort of off-duty as scientists. Pascal’s Wager and all that. What mavprof has yet to furnish this discussion with is a synopsized example of a scientist’s particularly sophisticated and subtle thinking–something that a non-scientist couldn’t do–that leads him or her to the existence of god and–probably too much to hope for–that leads him or her to a particular faith. What we’ve been given so far are the equivalent of book-jacket blurbs for religion: “I’m certainly convinced that God exists” — Prof. Harley Butterfield, Ph.D., renowned professor of physics at The Famous Scientific Insitute.

“…rather than in part non-rational.” Interesting. What part? How big a part? Where does the difference show up? What separates the rational from the non-rational, or are they all sort of mooshed around together? What prevents the non-rational part, which is subject to no limits of reason, from taking over the entirety of religious faith? Can any edifice of thought that’s rational be securely built on a foundation of the non-rational? Why and how is one brand of partly non-rational religious faith determined (by, say, a prospective believer) to be better than another, e.g., Episcopaleanism or Scientology, Islam or Catholicism, wiccan or Buddhism, Mormonism or zoroastrianism, animism or Hinduism?

* “…the belief in or practice of evolutionary science doesn’t ipso facto exclude religious belief or practice as some New Atheists have unwarrantedly claimed.”

1. Obviously TBIOPOES doesn’t “ipso facto exclude religious belief” because examples abound of believing and practicing evolutionary scientists adhering to religious beliefs. That’s not the question. The questions are: Are those scientists being consistent with their science when they do adhere to any but the vaguest, “Well, maybe there could be something else out there,” religious beliefs? And how, exactly, do they reconcile the two? 2. There are athetists and then there are New Atheists and then there are “some New Atheists,” each segment getting, in turn, a little more dogmatic (“dogma,” hmmm; in what area of human endeavor is that word most used?). I can’t defend the manners of all atheists. But their transgressions pale in comparison to the bad rhetorical behavior of “some religionists,” maybe even most of them if you recognize the bottom-line condemnation of those, even other religionists, who believe otherwise.

* “To lay out extensive and subtly argued points usually requires essay or book-length space…”

A blog thread is a kind of conversation–perhaps not of the dinner-table variety, but it’s certainly not a seminar with reading assignments. “If you want to know what I’m talking about, go read this book,” doesn’t really cut it in a thread. (It doesn’t cut it when atheists do it, either.) If mavprof has read, digested, and internalized all this subtle and sophisticated thinking reconciling (evolutionary) science with a belief in a “God,” then perhaps he might provide a plain-English (i.e., more polysyllabic than a newspaper sports column but more intelligible than, say, Judith Butler) summary of some of it.

* “…the book-jacket praises of the book by the former president of the National Academy of Sciences and a Templeton Prize winning biologist”

Here we go again: more empty argument-by-authority. Even with that, while former NSA president impresses somewhat, “Templeton Prize-winning” doesn’t. A book reconciling Darwin with religious belief is praised by a scientist who won a prize from a foundation that gives a prize for reconciling science with religious belief. Quel surprise. Shorthand: We really ought to leave the Templeton Prize out of it. And a footnote: If mavprof has an objection to “the book-jacket blurb caricatures goxewu keeps invoking,” it might be more convincing if he didn’t invoke book-jacket blurbs in rebuttal. (Unless, of course, the blurb he cites is actually occupies that essay or book-length space” mavprof says is required to “lay out extensive and subtly argued points.” Some jacket!)

The use of the incorrect “quel surprise” was supposed to register as ironically pretentious. Sorry if it was off mavprof’s visible spectrum.

“He’s already got a book.” Cute. Lots of believers I know say they need only one book, too.

A link is fine. I’ll take a look, although I’d rather have had mavprof actually argue a position (as most of the a-religious comments on this and related “Brainstorm” threads do) instead of continually merely alluding to one that’s held by real smart people that mavprof knows about. Maybe some of them are, as they say in Las Vegas, “very close personal friends” of his.

A close personal friend of mine who’s a “Brainstorm” fan, says that there seem to be two topics that are practically flogged to death on its threads: “God” or not, and discrimination suffered by conservatives in academe. He’s a little bored with both, he says. So, in spite of all the issue-ettes that mavprof has left twitching on the table (e.g., the difference between “faith” in one’s senses and religious faith, the obvious lack of restraints on the superantural or magic once you let it in the door as an explanation of things, the absence of standards of evidence and proof to decide major religious issues, e.g., the alleged divinity and magical powers of certain long-ago individuals, etc.), it’s time for me–as walsh05, suomynona, dank48 and DavidT have wisely done–to leave this thread to others. I’ve only been providing, I realize, a goad for mavprof to keep wrapping superstition in faculty-tea language.

As an adie…oops! sign-off–my considered estimate is that 17,453 angels, plus or minus mavprof’s left foot, can dance on the head of a pin.

I know I said I was going, but…l’esprit de l’escalier (did I get that right?) plus, finally (finally!) the nut of the argument right out there in plain daylight:

“…the freedom to make uncoerced [sic] and unpredictable choices among alternative courses of action–simply does not exist. . . . There is no way that the evolutionary process as currently conceived can produce a being that is truly free to make moral choices.”

The *need* to think of ourselves as free to make moral choices, and, as per Prof. Miller, as having some kind of greater purpose to their existence, precedes and determines the thinking that discovers that freedom and that purpose. Since it’s painful and well nigh intolerable to think of ourselves as without “free will as it is traditionally conceived” and without a “purpose” to our existence, there *must* be such a free will** and such a (presumably benevolent) purpose. We see instances of this kind of thinking all the time in the news, e.g., the mother for whom it is intolerable to think of her son as guilty of a vicious crime, therefore he *must,* on faith, be innocent. Or certain groups of people for whom life is almost intolerable unless they can believe themselves to some kind of god-granted purpose that makes them inherently superior to other people. When the son is convicted, or the groups are confounded by evidence that they’re not inherently superior, the pain to the mother and to the groups is great.

Believers who are thinkers enough not to be fundamentalists ask, “What kind of world am I [are we] condemned to live in when there’s no external guidance toward morality and no greater purpose to our existence that to live and die biologically?” I don’t know. And I do part company with some atheists who think that finally getting out from under religious belief per se (as opposed to getting out from under the in-the-world clout of organized religion) will make us happier, or at least less tormented. Science (as opposed to technology) and philosophy (as opposed to political or social philosophy) are after some kind of let-the-chips-fall-where-they-may truth, not ways to make the human species feel better about itself. If human self-esteem and feeling better are by-products, fine, but if not, well, promises, rose gardens, never, etc.

I know it’s a bitter pill to swallow. It is for me; I’m not happy having come to the working conclusion that there really isn’t any externally mandated purpose to human existence. But I have to, as the kids say, “deal with it.”

Toot a lure.

I’ve had several students over the course of my teaching career who argued, begged, pleaded, demanded, stomped, fumed and even issued mild threats (“My Dad is a very influential member of the Alumni Association, you know”) concening an undesirable grade they got in a course of mine.

All of it boiled down to their *need* for a better grade. Without the better grade, they wouldn’t be able to graduate, they’d have to leave school, they’d lose scholarships, their prospective careers as lawyers or doctors or captains of industry would go up in smoke. Their needs–which weren’t frivolous; most of the students genuinely wanted the better grade in order to continue apace in school and, eventually, to become productive, eve praiseworthy citizens.

But their need for the better grade was so great that it translated, for them, into a truth: “I really, really, really need a B; so the quality of my work in this course *must* have been a B; yes, it really was B-level work; otherwise my little world–scholarship, graduation, medical school, becoming a doctor, doing society some good–will go all to hell.”

And, I had to admit in some cases, I was possibly, even probably, throwing a spanner in the works of the life of a generally upstanding student who might do the world some good in the long run.

But–and here’s the point–the student’s *need* for a B did not equal the *truth* about the quality of his/her work in the course.

Similarly–and here’s the other point–society’s overwhelming *need* to believe in some kind of god, some kind of externally mandated and presumably benevolent purpose to human existence, some kind of extra-evolutionary “free will” that leads inexorably to some kind of “individual responsibility” that, in turn, makes possible, among other things, an orderly system of justice that keeps people enough on the straight and narrow so that anarchy doesn’t reign, does *not,* I’m afraid equal the *truth* about whether a god who can provide all those things really exists.

In short: Our really, really, really needing something to be so does not equal it’s being so.

Note: I’m not a “New Atheist” in the sense that I’m absolutely 100 percent certain that something outside materialistic universe (“materialistic” including the various forms of energy, etc.) doesn’t exist. Convincing evidence could arrive tomorrow. But, philosophically, I rather regard religion to be the prosecution with a case (the existence of a god with palpable properties) to prove, and atheism as the defense, the acceptable default position until the prosecution proves its case. Socially, I realize, it’s the reverse: Religion, especially in this country among nations of the West, is the allegedly benign default position (e.g., almost all elected officials, when asked, have to attest to a religious belief), and atheism is the brash prosecution disturbing the social order.

Note: The problem of “free will” in a materialist universe is no less of a philosophical conundrum than the problem of “free will” under an *omnipotent* god.

Beyond toe.

Thanks to goxewu for his response. His anecdotes about his students pleading the need for a better grade I’ve no reason to doubt, though it’s conceivable several may in truth have had private reservations about their course performances being worth that better grade for which they pled. As goxewu describes some of their reactions to a less-than-hoped-for mark and beside-the-point pleading tactics, it’s quite possible some indeed may have realized their own relatively poor performances.

Nevertheless, a scientist-believer in free will like Professor Miller may not be an apt choice to illustrate goxewu’s apparent need to apply the “need to believe” motivation to scientist-believers like Miller (as I’ve argued above, an assertion that is presumptuous, condescending, and preemptory in addition to quite lacking in proof–rather unscientific and even sub-philosophical that) by comparing him with the cases of goxewu’s pleading students. Nor does such a proffered motivation explain the views of a scientist-atheist like Professor Tallis who defends free will against reductive mechanist accounts in a number of sophisticated philosophical works that nevertheless draw from his scientific expertise. Neither argues that, in general, science or the application of scientific method proves or disproves religion or free will as New Atheists like Professors Dawkins and Dennett argue in making what amount to philosophical rather than scientific claims. goxewu seems to acknowledge this in making his own case against religious belief “philosophically,” as he says.

And while religious belief seems the “default position” for US politicians as says goxewu, it surely is not for scientists and academics in their respective milieux, where belief in disbelief is more than quite acceptable and even promoted.

What kind of credit do they receive? If the program is  through continuing ed are the credits transferable or applicable to an undergraduate degree? I like the innovation of the model. I’ve used RS on my own, and have taught English as a Foreign Language. It’s pedagogically sound software. 
My concern arises around the issue of qualifications. If it’s true that everyone is rushing out to go back to school, upgrade their skills, get more credentials, etc., then the quality of the credentials one receives will become increasingly more important on the job market. Continuing ed credits are great, but I’m not sure they’ll have the clout, one might expect or want on the job market.