February 25, 2005

The troubles of creationism…

Filed under: Entries — arglor @ 12:59 pm

So last night i went to the philosophy discussion on, “What creationists wants.” and in short i think it was a very pleasant activity to spend time completing.

Her argument was, interestingly put, similar to Trey’s argument on his blog. Conceptually speaking, she argued, Creationism does not need to compete with Evolution. She said that Creationists answer the question “Why” and Evolutionists answer the question “How”. Then she went on to say that the Creationists argument that Evolution shouldn’t be included in biology text books because Creationist cannot are absurd such that biology is a science and creationism is a religion.

SO. She poses a thought-question to everyone at the meeting, but mostly to the creationists.

Invision a world where religious authority leads the realm’s moral decisions, and all practical decisions are made using religious moral understanding. (i.e. stem cell research would be immoral and banned) Then she said that evolution and naturalist interpretations of science would also be accepted.

Is there something wrong with this kind of world to a creationist?

I don’t know but i see serious difficulties arising from the scientific community. Why does the religious community get to dictate the moral decisions? What makes their appeals to a Godhead more morally sound then our appeals to logica and rationality. (our meaning ethical)

Her whole argument reeks of Stephen Jay Gould’s theory of NOMA. The belief that morality has no place in the scientific realm of understanding. It is absurd to make that claim. Just like it is absurd to make the claim that science cannot tell what is beyond the horizon, or in the depths of space. BTW his theory is in a book called the Rocks of Ages. He suggests Science is the language of how and Religion is the language of Why.

NOMA is Non-Overlapping Magesteria. The belief is that the two areas of explanation do not overlap in any fashion that their descriptions are segregated about the same object.

I asked her if her “thought-experiment” was supposed to be seriously considered by the scientific community. She said that she didn’t see why the scientific community would object. I claimed that there were an abundance of reasons the scientific community would deny NOMA and more so her argument itself. I said how about the crusades? This got a nice little chuckle out of a lot of people in the room, even her. She then remarked that secular goverment hasn’t really done well in history itself. I bawked but then launched into the following sequence of statements ignoring the comment about secular government.

Both NOMA and Dr. Figdor’s (visiting professor from Rutger’s university) ideas tend to destroy the foundations of Ethical Theory. If science can’t appeal to Ethics for their moral trends we will be reverting back to the dark ages in terms of moral treatment. Everyone would have to live their life afraid of going to hell, and then produce the moral choices they feel will keep them out of hell.

These beliefs also have huge ramefications on the scientific front. If someone makes moral decisions about life based on the existence of god, then wouldn’t that mean that scientific progression will be relegated to what we can percieve as not religious. Remember the stars and space were considered Heavens and under the domain of God. Had religion been in power, would we have launched a spaceship? Landed on the moon? Sent the hubble satelitte into space?

Of course not, what if god got angry and destroyed us for infringing on his land. I’m kidding of course.

4 Responses to “The troubles of creationism…”

  1. snaars Says:

    I agree completely. One of the problems with relying on religion to dictate morality is the fact that religion is semi-arbitrary. Religion is based on authority. The people at the top of the heirarchy (the peeples in the steeples – those closest to god ;-D) get to make all the moral decision-making. Whatever the authorities say, goes. That’s scary. I much prefer a system of checks and balances like we find in the professional scientific community. Or in the scholarly community in general, I should say – since the humanities and the arts seem to have the same kind of system.

  2. mayfly Says:

    I’m glad I didn’t say anything in the lecture, though I was dying to, because I’m just an English major. But I hope you won’t think me presumptuous for talking here. This is what I got from the presentation… I thought that slide about the thought-experiment was intended to be taken as solely hypothetical, that it wasn’t intended at all as a serious proposal regarding how society should proceed. But, um, I thought Dr. Figdor was introducing something which she knew to be unreasonable but which she was asking us to indulge her by considering, in an attempt to try to isolate exactly what it is creationists want. Like you said, for the “thought-experiment,” she asked us to imagine a world in which: 1- Religious authority dictates morality 2- All practical decisions are made using religious moral understanding. (i.e. stem cell research would be immoral and banned) 3- Evolution and naturalist interpretations of science would also be accepted. Then she asked us to consider whether creationists would be happy in this kind of world. If we agreed with her that creationists would be happy in this hypothetical world, then we were basically agreeing with her initial assumptions about what Creationists wanted. My initial reaction was that I disagreed with her assumptions, and the reason why is I think you are exactly right: Science is not limited to answering how and Religion is not limited to answering why. Each area, when taken to its logical conclusion, naturally progresses into the realm of the other. Limiting Science to how and Religion to why is an arbitrary delineation. In order to accept that Religion is solely in the business of answering why, we would have to choose to accept only part of Religion (to use Christianity, for example, that God says we are alive [b:15588d4754]because[/b:15588d4754]), without accepting the rest of it (that God created us and how). But like you said, that doesn’t make any sense because the fact that He created us is what gives Him the authority to tell us why we are alive in the first place. Furthermore, if we are to accept that Science is solely in the business of answering how, we would have to ignore some of the questions that inspired the roots of science in the first place. Say the roots of science were in the process of trial and error the caveman used to discover [b:15588d4754]how[/b:15588d4754] to start a fire. But you cannot say it stopped there. Other cavemen, who sat by watching the fire get started began to wonder [b:15588d4754]why[/b:15588d4754] it worked. When we finally learned to try to look for physical evidence to prove [b:15588d4754]why[/b:15588d4754] rubbing two sticks together started a fire, instead of, say, accepting that rubbing two sticks together was the Fire God’s required ritual, that is when what we now know of as Science began. Science is based on logic and physical evidence; religion is based on desire and speculation. Carried to its natural logical conclusion, Science threatens to destroy religion, or at least change it beyond all recognition. Science doesn’t stop at chemical engineering and applied physics; it naturally carries over into astronomy and cosmology. That is why that world of the thought-experiment is ridiculous: because Creationists want more than respect from the scientific community and to get their way in political matters. They want to be right about the whole shebang. It’s interesting to note that a religion professor later commented that Figdor’s thought-experiment was actually feasible if the religious community in control embraced theistic evolution – the idea that God created the universe, then set evolution into motion as a creation tool. Now, in my mind, that is only true if the scientists agree to stop asking questions at the point of the big bang – that is, they can ask what caused the expansion of the universe, but they can’t ask what caused the initial explosion. Maybe I’m “begging the question” since I’m assuming that God didn’t… But that isn’t the point… The point is, that was not Dr. Figdor’s response. Her response was that the hypothetical world of which she had conceived that would make her thought-experiment feasible was one in which the religious community in control did not believe God was a creator. Then, the world could exist as described logically. Which is just plain *weird.* I mean, sure, maybe she’s right… but who cares? Doesn’t that completely ignore – what’s that term you used? – the “first cause” of the religious question? If not to answer why we are here, then what’s the point? It’s like what you said when we talked in the car… about that diagram… the two circles overlapping… can’t remember what that kind of diagram is called… Though Science and Religion each have different assumptions and thought strategies, they seriously overlap, because they ask only slightly different questions: Science – What caused our existence? Religion – Who caused our existence? Because the assumptions of those two questions are contradictory, the two areas of inquiry are at odds. I think you’re right. She must’ve put that presentation together in a very short time. And that must not be her area of expertise. Nevertheless, it sparked very interesting dinner conversation. 🙂

  3. arglor Says:

    It is a venn diagram. Oh well i enjoyed it nonetheless, as i see you enjoyed our dinner conversation also.

  4. mayfly Says:

    [quote:a5d5217fb8=”Arglor”]It is a venn diagram. Oh well i enjoyed it nonetheless, as i see you enjoyed our dinner conversation also.[/quote:a5d5217fb8] i did indeed. yay! you’re alive! not being able to message you during the day is weird. sort of unpleasant. i hope you can find time call me this evening. as of forty five minutes ago (before the first student of the day showed up) my sanity was teetering on a thin rail. i am better now that i’ve actually taught someone something… but your voice would help. hope your today is better than your yesterday.