posted
Does this university have such a policy, then? If so, what exactly is the argument about? That the university should do what is in it's power to do?
quote:I don't see where vonk said anything of the sort. Could you show me where he said that?
quote:vonk is specifically talking about a hypothetical situation where the person is lying.
You said it yourself too, Mr. Squicky. These hypotheticals hinge on the certainty that he is lying beforehand.
quote:It may be his degree, but it is their name and reputation that he is using. They have a right to protect that.
Wouldn't it be equally well-protected if they issued a press release stating unequivocally, "We do not believe x things, and think he is mistaken."
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, You went a little beyond the lying aspect by saying:
quote:based not on some sort of confession, but because (in the case I quoted, 'definite evidence) his claims don't match up with scientific scrutiny
I'm asking where you got that from.
---
In this specific case, no one is saying that the guy should even be censured. It doesn't look like he has doen anything that fits into what was being said. vonk has gone out of his way to say that. We're talking about hypotheticals.
quote:Wouldn't it be equally well-protected if they issued a press release stating unequivocally, "We do not believe x things, and think he is mistaken."
Of course not, because, as I mentioned numerous times, in all of the cases I know of for this, the criteria for revoking a degree includes that the ethical violations be continuing as well as egregious. It is not a matter of a signle case.
When someone is continuously using your name and reputation to grant legitimacy to his ethically unsound actions and beliefs, officially withdrawing your association seems to me to be the only effective course.
You're going to miss refutations and even in the ones you catch, there is going to be a lag (and often lesser amounts of attention) between his ethical transgression and your response.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: The guy put an awful lot of time, effort, and possibly even money into achieving that degree. By what moral right (or even legal) does the university take away the reward of those efforts, unless he agrees to a lifelong code of conduct prior to starting work there, exactly?
He earned that degree. It's his now, not theirs.
I disagree, I think. The skill and experience he acquired are his, and cannot be taken away short of death. The knowledge he produced belongs to all humanity, in accordance with our code, which publishes all findings. But the degree is a recognition, by the university he attended, that he is worthy of entry into the guild of scientists; and such worth can be lost by misconduct. It's not easy to do so, it's true; I think genuine cheating is probably the only real way to get kicked out. Still, it can be done.
In this particular case, I don't think he should lose his degree, even if he does use it to support creation "science". Truth is truth, there's a limit to how much defense it needs. Even if he does preach his degree to the choir of YECs, who cares? The kind of person who points to "Doctor X, who has a degree in Y" as proof for a young earth will anyway not be convinced by anything short of their own investigation. Besides, there are, I suspect, plenty of people who use a degree in sociology to shore up their position on government intervention, or gun control, or whatever; are we going to censor them, too?
Another practical concern: Supposing he were stripped of his degree, wouldn't that just make him a martyr, and all the more effective for that? "I earned a degree, but when I found evidence of a Young Earth, I was kicked out!" The last thing we need is more people who believe in Science As Conspiracy Against God!
Leave the man be. Peer review what he publishes. Contradict whatever nonsense he spouts, making sure to point out that his papers all assume an old earth. (After all, the charge of 'liar' can cut two ways!) The truth will out.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I should make clear I don't think that people should be censured except for things they do within their professional capacity. When he is not specifically putting on the scientist mantle, I don't think anything he does or says is up for the college or whatever to take official action on.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
It seems inferred from 'definite evidence' to me is all. What else would 'definite evidence' mean? That's what I was thinking, anyway.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
vonk has made several statements detailing what he means by this. Here's an example:
quote:So there is no mechanism in place to protect against Dr Ross blatantly spreading misinformation to further any agenda he may have. (misinformation not being creationism or anything else he believes, misinformation being that his PhD validates those beliefs (assuming, of course, that it doesn't))
These statements have specifically noted that the theorteically lying person would be saying things about their education that just aren't true. vonk has preseneted a situation where the guy is knowingly saying things that aren't true in order to advance his agenda. From my perspective, and his confirmations of my perspective, he has been very clear about this, despite people's claims that he is saying some other, much more easily attackable things.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think what bugs me is the fact that its near IMPOSSIBLE to prove that what somebody proposes as true, they already know to be false.
But even if we could prove that a scientist or a theologian is lying, where would we go from there? Its true that there may be merit to revoking their license, perhaps even their degree, but as a practicality I don't think its possible to effectively prove any of this in the first place, so it is not worth the risk that human error IMO. Better 99 stupid theologians or scientists be allowed to spout their nonsense then one person unfairly have their life tarnished with an unreasonable revocation of their degree/license.
As such, we are obligated to let dishonest scientists or theologians go around doing as they please, and combat them by letting their honest constituents present their findings for rationale people to scrutinize.
The downside to this is we lose some simple minded people.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, well you're going to have to explain the difference between what I said-lack of scientific confirmation-and what vonk is saying, that his degree supports creationism...which would lack definite scientific evidence.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:vonk has preseneted a situation where the guy is knowingly saying things that aren't true in order to advance his agenda.
And how do we know he does not believe those things to be true? For example, if he were to say, "During my studies, I came to believe the following..." how are we going to say he's lying without using the criticism, "There's no definite scientific evidence to support your claim."?
That is what this boils down to, unless he starts to say, "The University believes xyz," when in fact they believe abc.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:For example, if he were to say, "During my studies, I came to believe the following..."
This is a poor example. What someone believes doesn't enter into this, only what they can validly show support for. You example is not described by what vonk has said.
Rather, it would be more like, "During my studies, I found a lot of evidence that validly supports, from a scientific perspective, X." when they were exposed to no evidence that could validly be said to support X. It would be even more clear if the person saying this went into specifics.
Scientific epistemology is very useful in that statements like the above are acutally available for semi-objective analysis. There are rules as to what evidence can and cannot be said to support.
This is actually one of the big areas where many Christian activists get themselves into trouble and get censured and even thrown out of professional organziations because they constantly violate the ethical boundaries of what they can claim and/or falsify evidence in order to support these claims.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rather, it would be more like, "During my studies, I found a lot of evidence that validly supports, from a scientific perspective, X." when they were exposed to no evidence that could validly be said to support X. It would be even more clear if the person saying this went into specifics.
That's basically what I was saying all along.
And as for rules...who makes them? I agree, there is no valid scientific evidence to support a young earth belief. In fact, I don't even believe in a young earth myself. I'm just very, very wary of universities getting (more, perhaps) into the business of saying that unless their graduates follow the 'rules of science' in their roles as scientists forever, they'll be losing their degree.
Yes, I know there are actually quite a lot of concrete rules of science for what is and isn't validly supported. No, I am not comfortable with anything except the weight of those rules themselves censuring scientists. I don't think the rules need help. I suppose I'm laissez-faire about this particular issue.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, I am not comfortable with anything except the weight of those rules themselves censuring scientists.
I don't understand how these rules would do this.
Let's take a concrete example that we talked about here before. One of the "scientists" in the anti-gay christian movement published results of studying molestation cases. He showed that a large majority of cases that he came across involved the adult male molesting a male child. He published his findings as saying that homosexual men molest children at a much higher rate. He also pushed this conclusion and others used this as justification for laws baning gays from adopting. This type of behavior characterizes a lot of the "research" that this guy does.
How would the rules censure him? Do you disagree with the decisions of the APA and ASA to first remonstrate with him, then censure, and then throw him out? Do you think they should have not done anything and let him continue to violate their ethical principles and use his status as a active member to legitimize what he was saying?
To me, these organazitions exist in lage part to enforce standards. Them failing to do so would effectively destroy their usefullness and desireability.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry, I spoke incorrectly. I only meant that as far as the specific university taking action...not that there should be no rules. Organizations such as the two you named are different, because he joined them and they had I imagine some very clear-cut, pre-explained rules and regulations and customs.
But to my knowledge, he wasn't issued a degree by either body.
My point is just this: to those who believe in science, and trust it, the rules of science and whether they're followed or not will win out...and those who don't are going to believe in 'findings' which support their own pre-existing conclusions.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:to those who believe in science, and trust it, the rules of science and whether they're followed or not will win out...and those who don't are going to believe in 'findings' which support their own pre-existing conclusions.
I think the current climate scientific "controversies" like Evolution/ID, global warming, or the things people claim about gay people demonstrates that this is somewhat naive. To me, there is a strong need for intellectual integrity and scientific rigor to be aggressively pursued and to a certain extent, enforced. (edit: In my own experience, this is something that even practicing scientists need. There have been many times where I've needed to tear into what a colleague was telling me because it lacked these. There have even been tiems where I've needed this done to me. They can be hard paths to follow exactly and many people don't seem to me to understand what they even are.)
---
I disagree with the college's rights, as does U.S. law. I think we're at an impasse there. I should again emphasize that the revokation of a degree is an extremely rare occurence and that I believe that this is the way it should be.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I find it utterly ludicrous that this man is being denied his degree. He did the work, it was solid work. He met the requirements. There is no justification that I can see for withholding his doctorate.
I am not a fan of lawsuits, but I hope this man sues and I hope he wins.
I didn't see any evidence in the article that this man's doctorate has been withheld. In fact, he is referred to throughout the articel as "Dr. Ross", indicating that he has received his doctorate
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
That point has been made multiple times. The question is now whether the university should have the power to revoke it if he does some hypothetical things that no one here is saying he has or will.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:For him, Dr. Ross said, the methods and theories of paleontology are one “paradigm” for studying the past, and Scripture is another. In the paleontological paradigm, he said, the dates in his dissertation are entirely appropriate. The fact that as a young earth creationist he has a different view just means, he said, “that I am separating the different paradigms.”
If this is truly his position, then I can't understand why his dissertation and degree are at all controversial.
I think most scientist hold some spiritual, religious or ethical beliefs that they know can not be verified by the scientific method. Most scientists would agree that there are different paradigms for knowing and understanding the world. This man is certainly a very extreme case since his religious beliefs are in such clear contradiction to his science, but scientists who accept non-scientific paradigms as a valid way to understand the world are widespread.
The difficulties arise when someone claims that young earth creationsim, intelligent design or yet some other religious/spiritual/ethical claim are verifiable within the scientific paradigm. I would consider it highly unethical if Dr. Ross were to change his tune once receiving a Ph.D. and claim that the methods he used for dating materials as a scientist were faulty and that the scientific data really suggest a 10,000 year old earth. If he continues the stance that science leads to the conclusion that the earth is billions of years old but that he considers the Bible a higher authority than science, I really can't see any objection.
As for whether or not the University should be able to rescind his degree if he uses it unethically, that's an obsurd suggestion. Countless numbers of people use their degrees in every field unethically. A degree isn't a professional license. It is awarded to those who have met the requirements and is not a contract for future compliance to a professional code. If a medical doctor violates medical ethics, he may loose his license but his degree is not rescinded. A degree should only be rescinded if there is evidence that the requirements for the degree had never been met.
[ February 14, 2007, 05:25 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Rabbit: That is actually a good point, the fact that a Ph.D. degree is just earned when the student has completed the requirements, it doesn't have any relationship with whether they have thought through what they have studied, or even whether they're going to be a good professor. For any student that has been through university, it is clear that simply being a professor does not make one good at teaching, let alone be a good professor.
It seems clear that a student that believes in young earth creationism and yet still manages to memorise enough material to get their degree has earned it. Much in the same way that a student that believes in a religion that states something absurd like 1=2, yet manages to memorise and apply arithmetic can pass kindergarten. Or using (BlackBlade? not sure) someone else's analogy, that someone who believes in Satanism (yet manages to learn the material) should be allowed to pass through a Christian seminary and gain the academic credentials to potentially become a priest.
The only question is whether they'd be *good* professors or priests. A professor that managed to get get a PhD yet teaches that the Earth was created 10,000 years ago should be respected just as much as a priest that has credentials from a Christian seminary, yet preaches Satanism. Which is to say, not a heck of a whole lot.
However, neither should lose their degrees (and neither should be sent to the Inquisition for that matter).
Another issue that I can think of is if their religious beliefs posed a danger to society. Say, you had a job open at a nuclear research facility, and one of the candidates was someone that believed that Armageddon was required for the Second Coming of Jesus, then I'd feel fully prepared to deny them a job in control of a nuclear reactor.
I cannot really think of a parallel for the religion-side of the analogy.
I guess that is the big problem with the parallel between scholars from universities and priests from seminaries. While the "right" creations of scientists are medicines that heal or technology that expands our minds, the "wrong" creations such as chemical warfare or napalm bombs still *do* something and should be monitored in some form. However, regardless of whether a theologians beliefs are "right" or "wrong", they do not really *do* anything at all. So there is no need to monitor them at all. *shrug*
Today I was offered the possibility of a better paying job with a company that sells advertisements in church directories.
Should I take this job? I would be working out of the churches themselves, though I am not a Christian. I believe that those who would purchase the advertisements are getting value for their money, just as I believe that the churches themselves are getting value for using my services. Yet, since I do not believe in their faith, am I a hypocrite? Should I be hired?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: That is actually a good point, the fact that a Ph.D. degree is just earned when the student has completed the requirements, it doesn't have any relationship with whether they have thought through what they have studied, or even whether they're going to be a good professor.
First, the requirements for receiving a Ph.D. are qualitatively different from those for any other degree. To obtain a Ph.D., a person must write a dissertation that is a substantial contribution to their field and (at least in the US system) they must defend this dissertation to a committee of experts in their field. If the Ph.D. candidate cannot quickly provide cogent answers to probing questions posed by the committee, they aren't going to get their Ph.D. It would be virtually impossible for anyone to meet this requirement without having thought through what they have studied.
Second, Getting a Ph.D. is not preparation for being a professor in the same sense that getting an M.D. is preparation for being a physician or getting a J.D. is preparation for being a lawyer. Only a very small fraction of Ph.Ds become professors. Getting a Ph.D. makes you a scholar, it doesn't make you a professor.
Finally, Analogies that compare the training for the priesthood with the training of scientists are fundamentally flawed. In science, one is trained to be objective. Ones personal beliefs are supposed to be irrelevant. Scientific conclusions should be independent of the biases and beliefs of the researchers and when one is trained in science, one is trained to be able to make conclusions that are objective. While scientists may not always achieve this goal of objectivity, objectivity is the ultimate goal. Within science, the personal beliefs of the researcher are supposed to be irrelevant. To ask a scientist whether they "believe" a particular theory is to leave the realm of science and enter the realm of philosophy.
In contrast, ones personal beliefs or faith are the core of most religions. Religion isn't supposed to be objective. It revolves around a persons inner commitment to a system of belief. In Chrisitanity in particular, faith not objective skepticism is the goal.
Scientist are supposed to doubt their findings. Priests are supposed to have faith in their religions.
[ February 14, 2007, 08:44 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:A professor that managed to get accredited yet teaches that the Earth was created 10,000 years ago.
Professors aren't accredited. Universities and degree programs are accredited. A paleotology department that tought that the earth was 10,000 years old, would and should loose its accreditation.
Once again, a Ph.D. is not preparation for becoming a Professor. It is not accreditation. It is not a license. It is a degree. It says that you have not only mastered your field but that you have made a significant contribution to it. Nothing more, nothing less.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
A) "Virtually impossible": Evidentially Dr. Ross managed to get his Ph.D. without thinking it through. I somehow doubt that he is the only one. Virtually impossible, maybe, but not impossible.
B) "Ph.D do not prepare for being profs": Sure, which is why I had the example of a PhD working at a nuclear research facility.
C) "Accredited" Sorry, typo. I think I read the term above and got mixed up. Substitute "their degree".
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:A) "Virtually impossible": Evidentially Dr. Ross managed to get his Ph.D. without thinking it through. I somehow doubt that he is the only one. Virtually impossible, maybe, but not impossible.
What make you think that Dr. Ross didn't think it through. The comments I've read of his indicate that he most certainly has thought it through. He very clearly understands that the results and conclusions of his scientific studies contradict his religious beliefs. The fact that he is able to live with that contradition is not proof that he hasn't thought about it.
I would say that the fact that he was able to produce a solid scientific thesis which contradicts his religious beliefs is evidence that he has become a competent objective scientist. A scientist's job is to report the conclusions which are best supported by experimental data while continueing to be skeptical of those conclusions.
The answer to the question posed in this thread's title, should be obvious to anyone properly trained in scientist. A scientist needs to be skeptical of his/her research for it to be valid. A scientist should be confident that his/her results are accurate and that his/her conclusions are supported by the best available scientific evidence. At the same time, a scientist should never believe that her/his conclusions are absolute truth and should continue to push the frontiers by challenging those conclusions.
Furthermore, I think that scientist's commonly live with cognitive dissonance even within the scientific paradigm. Take for example quantum mechanics and special relativity. There are regimes in which these two theories provide contradictory results. The search for a unified field theory has been described as an attempt to develope a theory that will reconcile these differences. Such a theory has not been found, yet scientist have continue to accepted these two theories as the best working theories while holding out faith that a theory will ultimately be found which is able to reconcile these two theories.
If scientists can thoroughly think things through and yet live with the contraditions inherent in the best scientific theories we've got, why can't a person thoroughly think things through and yet live with the contradictions between the science of paleontology and biblical creationism. Dr. Russ indicates that he has accepted this contradition exists and yet has not rejected either tradition. I would speculate that he has faith that some unified theory exists which would explane the contradictions between the two even though he cannot do so now. Accepting that he doesn't yet have the tools or knowledge to reconcile the two paradigms, does not indicate he hasn't thought it through.
I would have to know an awfull lot more about him to begin to conclude that he hasn't really thought about it.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
The end of your post indicates the problem with the beginning. Your example of quantum mechanics and special relativity being in conflict gives us the key. The two are contradictory, yet can be reconciled because both are scientific theories. Both are based in the scientific method and thus both can be modified or indeed removed in light of new evidence.
Paleontology and his version of creationism do not have the same relationship. To reiterate,
quote: He is a “young earth creationist” — he believes that the Bible is a literally true account of the creation of the universe, and that the earth is at most 10,000 years old.
Note that problem, the Bible is literally true. No escaping as "softer" Christians would do by saying that Genesis is an allegory. Even the Catholics have retreated from saying that the Bible is literally true. From their words:
quote: “We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision,” they say in The Gift of Scripture. ... But the first 11 chapters of Genesis, in which two different and at times conflicting stories of creation are told, are among those that this country’s Catholic bishops insist cannot be “historical”. At most, they say, they may contain “historical traces”.
Literally true means a seven day (each day 24 hours) creation, Eve springing from Adam's rib, and so forth. These are so wrong that even Catholics can no longer defend them.
These elements are fundamentally irreconcilable with paleontology. Quantum mechanics and special relativity can be reconciled since either can be modified or extended. The literal truth of the Bible cannot be reconciled with palaeontology since the literal truth cannot be modified.
Dr. Ross cannot possibly have thought it through (barring something like MPD) without noticing this fundamental contradiction. One cannot appeal to new discoveries in science to reconcile the two and the literal truth of the Bible does not allow for modification.
In fact, it is my belief that he is simply dishonest enough to pay lip service to paleontogy while truly believing in young earth creationism. That he was able to do this well enough to get a degree simply speaks to the ability of the mind to compartmentalise.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is what happens when one truly thinks about the contradiction through.
quote: ... Kurt Wise, who now directs the Center for Origins Research at Bryan College, Dayton, Tennessee. It is no accident that Bryan College is named after William Jennings Bryan, prosecutor of the science teacher John Scopes in the Dayton "Monkey Trial" of 1923. Wise could have fulfilled his boyhood ambition to become a professor of geology at a real university, a university whose motto might have been "Think critically" rather than the oxymoronic one displayed on the Bryan website: "Think critically and biblically." Indeed, he obtained a real degree in geology at the University of Chicago, followed by two higher degrees in geology and paleontology at Harvard (no less) where he studied under Stephen Jay Gould (no less). He was a highly qualified and genuinely promising young scientist, well on his way to achieving his dream of teaching science and doing research at a proper university.
Then tragedy struck. It came, not from outside but from within his own mind, a mind fatally subverted and weakened by a fundamentalist religious upbringing that required him to believe that the Earth--the subject of his Chicago and Harvard geological education--was less than ten thousand years old. He was too intelligent not to recognize the head-on collision between his religion and his science, and the conflict in his mind made him increasingly uneasy. One day, he could hear the strain no more, and he clinched the matter with a pair of scissors. He took a bible and went right through it, literally cutting out every verse that would have to go if the scientific world-view were true. At the end of this ruthlessly honest labor-intensive exercise, there was so little left of his bible that
quote: try as I might, and even with the benefit of intact margins throughout the pages of Scripture, I found it impossible pick up the Bible without it being rent in two. I had to make a decision between evolution and Scripture. Either the Scripture was true and evolution was wrong or evolution was true and I must toss out the Bible . . . It was there that night that I accepted the Word of God and rejected all that would ever counter it, including evolution. With that, in great sorrow, I tossed into the fire all my dreams and hopes in science.
I find that terribly sad; but whereas the Golgi Apparatus moved me to tears of admiration and exultation, the Kurt Wise story is just plain pathetic--pathetic and contemptible. The wound, to his career and his life’s happiness, was self-inflicted, so unnecessary, so easy to escape. All he had to do was toss out the bible. Or interpret it symbolically, or allegorically, as the theologians do. Instead, he did the fundamentalist thing and tossed out evidence and reason, along with all his dreams and hopes.
Perhaps uniquely among fundamentalists, Kurt Wise is honest--devastatingly, painfully, shockingly honest. Give him the Templeton Prize; he might be the first really sincere recipient. Wise brings to the surface what is secretly going on underneath, in the minds of fundamentalists generally, when they encounter scientific evidence that contradicts their beliefs.
posted
Indeed, which is why in the next sentence I said:
quote: In fact, it is my belief that he is simply dishonest enough to pay lip service to paleontogy while truly believing in young earth creationism. That he was able to do this well enough to get a degree simply speaks to the ability of the mind to compartmentalise.
That is to say, it is my belief that he has noticed the contradiction and has resolved it by fully believing in young earth creationism.
To elaborate, it is impossible to reconcile young earth creationism with paleontology without throwing out all of paleontology (with one exception, which I will explain later). The inevitable result of a collision between a compromising paleontology and a uncompromising creationism is well, just the uncompromising creationism.
Stuff he says like:
quote: For him, Dr. Ross said, the methods and theories of paleontology are one “paradigm” for studying the past, and Scripture is another... as a young earth creationist he has a different view just means, he said, “that I am separating the different paradigms.”
is just dishonest BS. Not in the sense that it is outright lying, but that it is a half-truth (with all the accompanying sayings about half-truths).
So I amend my previous statement. Either he has not thought it through (and honestly means what he is saying) or he has thought it through (and is very careful with the half-truths).
The exception: One could make the case that God went around planting false fossils, false evidence in space for the age of the universe, and so forth to "reconcile" paleontology with young earth creationism. But this is such an extreme view that I hesitate to use the term reconcile, which is why I put the quotes around it.
Edit to add: This in no way changes my original stance that he should not lose his degree or that we should respect him as much as a Satanist that managed to get through a seminary and preaches it at a "church".
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's not dishonest BS. It is entirely possible to view the world through different paradigms and operate within them. People do it all the time. I would be more worried about someone who was unable to adapt to a situation.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps you could give an example? Whether working in the scientific tradition or the Christian tradition, ideally one should be logically consistent in everything that they do in life.
Indeed, the early Catholic church was quite specific in its designated life (and afterlife) punishments for hypocrisy.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure. A Christian religion professor teaching about Islam who does not put "allegedly" in front of every sentence about Mohammed. A Mormon governor who does not enact anti-abortion laws in defiance of the legislature. A technical writer who uses Microsoft Word to create documents instead of Framemaker because that's the wish of the company. A crisis hotline counselor who gives information to a pregnant woman about both abortion and adoption, despite being opposed to one or the other. A visitor to an Islamic country who covers her hair out of respect for the local tradition despite being deeply opposed ona personal level to those local traditions. A guest at a Jewish potluck who refrains from bringing cheeseburgers and pork and beans.
People do it all the time, and it isn't dishonest. It is possible to hold religious beliefs that seem to contradict scientific findings, and to separate the truths into their respective spheres. I believe we have souls and there is a life after this one, but I still oppose disconecting life support for those who are not brain dead and I think there's no point in weighing a body at the moment the person dies in hopes of capturing the weight of a soul.
Do you think angostics should be forbidden from obtaining PhDs in religious history, for instance? Should no Protestants be allowed to study at Notre Dame?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Whether working in the scientific tradition or the Christian tradition, ideally one should be logically consistent in everything that they do in life.
Heh. As if that ever fully happens for anybody.
Out of all the not fully attainable virtues we can stive for, logical consistency is not at the top of my list. I'd much rather be good, kind, loving, happy, patient, and generous than logically consistent.
And honestly, the religious aspect of my life is much more helpful in attaining those virtues than is the scientific aspect of my life, which nevertheless is important to me.
----
Personally, I have similar conflicting paradigms as this guy. In many cases, the scriptures appear to say A while the physical evidence appears to say B, and A and B appear to be mutually exclusive.
I know that either the A isn't true (there are many possible reasons for this: because the scriptures are totally false, because they are mistaken on this specific point, because my interpretation of them is flawed, etc.) the prevailing scientific opinion B is not true (how many prevailing scientific opinions have drastically changed in the past? I don't know either, but it's a lot), or that A and B aren't quite so mutually exclusive as I thought.
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: [QB] Out of all the not fully attainable virtues we can stive for, logical consistency is not at the top of my list. I'd much rather be good, kind, loving, happy, patient, and generous than logically consistent.
They're not mutually exclusive. One can ideally try to attain all of them. Additionally, I believe that one *can* live logically and consistently without compromising the others.
Edit to add: Good for you? You do not have the same problem Dr. Ross does. Your "A" can change, it is modifiable, it can accept new evidence. The problem with Dr. Ross is that his "A" cannot be modified, it cannot accept new evidence.
katharina:
Christian religion professor: Thats not inconsistent. One can teach about beliefs that one believes are false without saying it *every* time.
Counsellor: Not inconsistent either. Just because one believes in something does not mean one has to push those beliefs onto others. It would be inconsistent if the counsellor said that she agreed with one of those courses of therapy. Ex: If the counsellor truly believed that abortion was murder, then I definitely would not respect them if they encouraged others to go through with it. However, providing information is not endorsement.
Guest: Thats not inconsistent either. Just because one *can* eat a cheeseburger does not mean that one is required to. Not bringing them in no way endorses the Jewish host or says that the guest agrees with their beliefs in any way. It simply means that they respect the host. An inconsistency would be if they somehow believed that they had to eat cheeseburgers only but then ate something else at the host's place.
Visitor: See above
Technical writer: See above
Mormon governor: Not sure about the Mormon stance on abortion. Assuming that Mormons think abortion is murder, this would be my response. A principled Mormon governor should do everything legally in his power to stop it. They should resign (and let someone else pass the law) rather than allow the law to go through. I would respect a Mormon governor that resigned rather than signing legislation promoting abortion, even if I disagreed with them. I would not respect a Mormon governor that signed against their own principles. I would respect and approve of a governor that could sign the law wholeheartedly without compromising their own beliefs.
As for the agnostics and protestants thing. If you read my previous posts, the answer would be clear. I have no objection to them studying or getting degrees.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are we actually disagreeing here? Someone who believes in a young earth can teach the scientific findings with the same honesty that a Christian can teach about Islam.
It would only be a contradiction if a Christian tried to BE an Muslim at the same time. Since science isn't actually a religion and you can be a scientist without your microscope saying "Thou shalt have no other gods before me.", then he's fine.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:They're not mutually exclusive. One can ideally try to attain all of them. Additionally, I believe that one *can* live logically and consistently without compromising the others.
They're not mutually exlusive, but nobody ever fully attains any of them. If I'm going to spend time and energy improving my virtues, I think my time will be better spent working on other failures of mine than imperfect logical self-consistency.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Are we actually disagreeing here? Someone who believes in a young earth can teach the scientific findings with the same honesty that a Christian can teach about Islam.
It would only be a contradiction if a Christian tried to BE an Muslim at the same time. Since science isn't actually a religion and you can be a scientist without your microscope saying "Thou shalt have no other gods before me.", then he's fine.
I can agree with all of that. Our disagreement is pretty small. My problem is when he says stuff like "they're two paradigms of looking at the world." Technically, as I said, its not lying. But it is a dangerous half-truth. The two are not compatible in any way, unless most of paleontology is thrown out the window (which begs the question, why bother?).
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
What if instead of throwing one or the other out the window, he believes they are compatible and that will be shown when more information comes to light? That doesn't require either to be tossed, allows each to be true in their spheres, and quiets if not removes the cognitive dissonance.
---
*muses* I wonder if it is BECAUSE I'm Mormon that I'm not having a problem with this at all. There's a passage in the Doctrine and Covenants that I think is fascinating. I don't know all that it means, but part of it is relevant, I think.
quote: 26 The Spirit of truth is of God. I am the Spirit of truth, and John bore record of me, saying: He received a fulness of truth, yea, even of all truth; 27 And no man receiveth a fulness unless he keepeth his commandments. 28 He that keepeth his commandments receiveth truth and light, until he is glorified in truth and knoweth all things. 29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be. 30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.
quote:Edit to add: Good for you? You do not have the same problem Dr. Ross does. Your "A" can change, it is modifiable, it can accept new evidence. The problem with Dr. Ross is that his "A" cannot be modified, it cannot accept new evidence.
You're setting aside the part where Porter has some logical inconsistencies, and yet manages to do so without being a half-honest BSer, Mucus.
I mean, on certain issues in scripture, I imagine Porter assigns certain relative possibilities to A and B. But on other issues, his relative possibilities for error might change...and on some issues especially, I imagine his relative possibilities might be approaching faith-level certainties.
In which case, the difference merely becomes one of degree...and on some issues, not so many degrees at all.
quote: Good for you? You do not have the same problem Dr. Ross does. Your "A" can change, it is modifiable, it can accept new evidence. The problem with Dr. Ross is that his "A" cannot be modified, it cannot accept new evidence.
No, in my example, A cannot change. A can be wrong, and there are many different reasons that A can be wrong, which I talked about earlier, but A is A.
If I become convinced that A is wrong, then I'll stop believing A. I may believe B fully, or I may believe C, which is somwhere between A and B.
Yes, I can change what I beleive. We have all done so many times. Including, I'd wager, Dr. Ross.
I don't really see how Dr. Ross and I are so different.
posted
mph: I think we're scratching at semantics. When I say "change", I mean (as you said) your A changes due to mistranslation or misinterpretation.
Dr. Ross cannot change his mind, if as I repeat, he is a young earth creationist as he said he is. No probability stuff either. From wiki:
quote: Young Earth creationists regard the Bible as both a mandatory moral guide and a historically accurate, factually inerrant record of natural history... As Henry Morris, a leading Young Earth creationist, explained it, Christians who flirt with less-than-literal readings of biblical texts are also flirting with theological disaster.
In Kurt Wise's words as a fellow young earth creationist:
quote: Creation isn't a theory', he says. 'The fact that God created the universe is not a theory—it's true. However, some of the details are not specifically nailed down in Scripture. Some issues—such as creation, a global Flood, and a young age for the earth—are determined by Scripture, so they are not theories. My understanding from Scripture is that the universe is in the order of 6,000 years old. Once that has been determined by Scripture, it is a starting point that we build theories upon. It is within those boundaries that we can construct new theories.' ... I cannot stand people who propagate non-truth', he says. 'In school, my hand never went up unless the teacher said something I knew was wrong. I didn't care who the teacher was, if they said something I knew was wrong, my hand went up. There's just this automatic reflex action. It's really an issue of integrity.' ... He is concerned that there are 'creationists' around who, because of their understanding of particular scientific issues, deviate from the scriptural foundation promoted so strongly by Dr Henry Morris, for example.
'The thing I hope above all else is that no matter what scientific models we play with and toss off the hill, so to speak, that the hill is always built on Scripture. That is one thing I am very concerned about.'
quote:Dr. Ross cannot change his mind, if as I repeat, he is a young earth creationist as he said he is.
Of course he can. He can't change his mind beyond certain perameters and remain a normal YEC, but he certainly can change his mind. Just because he hasn't done so doesn't mean he cannot.
In a similar fasion, I also cannot change my mind beyond certain parameters and remain a Latter-Day Saint. That doesn't mean I cannot change my mind.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I don't agree with that. Evidence that doesn't get through peer view because of methodological errors is one thing. Evidence that other people just don't find convincing but don't have a problem with the method you used to arrive at it is just fine.
I would have to agree, but I think your second case is quite entirely hypothetical, so I don't think it contradicts my point.
I don't think its hypothetical at all. Just last week Rabbit mentioned that the effect of global climate change on hurricane frequency and intensity is currently hotly debated. From what she said, it seems clear that several peer reviewed papers have been published in the last couple years that made markedly different conclusions on the matter. However, the reviewers obviously concluded the methodology was sound. Also, some scientists must find some of the conclusions more convincing than others in order to continue work in the field.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Literally true means a seven day (each day 24 hours) creation, Eve springing from Adam's rib, and so forth. These are so wrong that even Catholics can no longer defend them.
These elements are fundamentally irreconcilable with paleontology. Quantum mechanics and special relativity can be reconciled since either can be modified or extended. The literal truth of the Bible cannot be reconciled with palaeontology since the literal truth cannot be modified.
You are building a strawman.
First, when two theories contradict each other it isn't essential that both be modified in order to reconcile the two. Modification of one of the theories could be enough.
Second, Although the belief that the Bible is literally true precludes changing anything written in the Bible, it does not preclude extending or adding to what's written in the Bible. The Biblical account of creation is very short and doesn't really contain any detail at all. Certainly one can imagine God giving a far more detailed account of how the earth was created that wouldn't contradict anything in the Bible. Given more detail, it is imaginable that one could find an explanation for why the earth appears scientifically to be 4.5 billion years old even though its less than 10,000 years old. I personally don't believe such an explanation exists but I can imagine that is does.
Finally, the key feature in the analogy I was trying to make is that Scientists believe that a Unified field theory that would explain the contraditions between Quantum Theory and Special relativity exists even though they have not found it. They can only speculate about what this theory looks like and how it would change the way they understand either Quantum Theory or Special Relativity. Similarly, it is imaginable that someone could believe that young earth creationism can be reconciled with the science even though they don't know how. The can believe that a solution exists which would bring the two together even if they don't know what that solution would be and how it would alter their understanding of either Paleonology or the Bible. And they could continue working within the tow disparate paradigms for now trusting that a reconciliation does exist even though they don't know what it is.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:They can only speculate about what this theory looks like and how it would change the way they understand either Quantum Theory or Special Relativity.
It's worth noting, though, that a good number of such theories have been rejected as data came along which contradicted them. Where are the failed attempts to unify creationism with the real world?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ironic, since it is utterly incompatible with creationism. (And it's true: they have not rejected it.)
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
