Who are the religious equivalent of Dawkins and Randi?

[UndercoverElephant]

May seem like a strange question, I know...

I'm in the process of writing a book about the conflict between science and religion. I'm interested in people's opinion of who might best be used as an example of "defenders of religion".

I see two main components to the science/religion conflict as it stands today. One component is the battle between creationists and geologists/biologists/paleontologists about the age of the earth and the status of darwinism. The other is the battle between the Uri Geller's of this world and people like James Randi.

So if we have Dawkins and Randi in the blue corner defending science, who should be put in the red corner to defend religion and paranormalism? Who are considered to be the primary intellectual defenders of religion and paranormalism? Or is Geller the best they can manage?

I just want people's opinions so I get some new leads and don't leave anybody out who I really should be mentioning.

[ponderingturtle]

Well for the religion side, Dinesh D'Souza would be an example of someone who is specificaly extoling the virtues of christianity as a counter to Dawkins or Hitchens.

[volatile]

There have been a few rebuttals to Dawkins, specifically - "The Dawkins Deluision" is but one.

[Cavemonster]

I'd say that the spiritualist Semaj Idnar would have to be the woo equivalent of Randi

[JihadJane]

Gandalf and Louis Farrakhan

[thaiboxerken]

Deepak Chopra. That asshat has been corrupting minds of millions with is books for years.

[plumjam]

I don't think there are just one or two figures who stand out, more a big group of occasional participants. The opposition to Dawkins I'd say includes Alister Mcgrath, John Lennox, David Berlinski, Phillip Johnson, Keith Ward, Stephen Meyer, William Dembski, and Gerald Schroeder.
With Randi I don't think the academic world takes him seriously, though Rupert Sheldrake and Dean Radin have talked about him.

[Beerina]

I would hope the scientists at least take to heart his admonition to have a skilled magician help them design any tests of psychics and so on. Unlike the natural world, psychics may very well be out to trick you, and not just content to passively sit and have measurements taken.


It's the difference between decision theory and game theory.

In decision theory, you are trying to partition some group of objects based on measured properties. There may be some overlap. Consider trying to decide whether someone is male or female based on height. If that is all you know about the people, the best you can do is find the point above which, more are men, and below, more are female.

But in game theory, you throw in the monkey wrench that the universe is out to get you, lie to you, fool you, trick you. In the above example, the universe, say, someone out for profit, may try to feed you a statistically invalid initial pool of data, say, a bunch of tall women and short men.


In the science case, scientists think they're measureing a psychic effect or nothing. In fact, they're measuring a psychic effect, or nothing, or someone with the skill and desire to fake psychic abilities. The 3rd property is outside the realm of normal scientific investigation, to say nothing of scientists not being better than anyone else in detecting prestidigitation, cheating, and so on.

[ExMinister]

I would humbly point out that Uri Geller would not be a defender of religion but of paranormalism, and that religion and paranormalism do not necessarily share a corner.

To defend a mainstream religion like Christianity/Judaism/Islam you would look for a high-profile, well-spoken defender of such a religion - someone like a Ted Haggard (OK, not him, but that sort of person) if you want a fundamentalist viewpoint, or someone like Brian Mclaren for a much more moderate, liberal Christian view.

Uri Geller would be a defender of the paranormal. Better though would be someone like Wayne Dyer, or as already mentioned, Deepak Chopra, who shares similar views to Dyer. In fact they are pretty good representatives for what most New Agers/spiritualists/paranormalists believe. You could also go to a high-profile popular medium like John Edward, who teaches pretty much the same form of spirituality. Or Gary Schwartz or Dean Radin. None of these would be speaking in defense of religion, though, since most of them, in varying ways, believe their spirituality to be on a higher order than religion.

[UndercoverElephant]

I would humbly point out that Uri Geller would not be a defender of religion but of paranormalism, and that religion and paranormalism do not necessarily share a corner.


They are closely related. There is also a commonality because both cases cause some sort of conflict with science and the epistemological and metaphysical disputes in both cases are basically the same. It's all about what sorts of things are possible or impossible and how we could tell if they are actually true or not. The bits of religion that are considered to be in conflict with science are the ones which involve religiously-centred paranormal causality of some sort. Religious conflicts about ethics is bascially politics and I'm not writing about politics.

Thanks everybody for the suggestions. I have to go and look some of these people up.

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Vox Day has been touted by the religious right alot lately. I don't know if you want people as good as Dawkins or Randi, in that case I'd avoid Day. The Irrational Atheist doesn't make half as much sense as many of his supporters claim.

ETA: Don't mean to derail but have Dawkins et al responded to his book yet? And if they have can someone link me?

[Moochie]

Jesus.


M.

[JimBenArm]

Kurious Kathy and yrreg?

[paximperium]

Well for the religion side, Dinesh D'Souza would be an example of someone who is specificaly extoling the virtues of christianity as a counter to Dawkins or Hitchens.
Except for the complete and utter lack of any intelligent arguments.

[ponderingturtle]

Except for the complete and utter lack of any intelligent arguments.

Well sure, but look at what he has to work with. The religious seem to find him compelling.

[slingblade]

Kurious Kathy and yrreg?

Equivalent, hon, not polar opposite.

:p

[Mr Clingford]

I don't think there are just one or two figures who stand out, more a big group of occasional participants. The opposition to Dawkins I'd say includes Alister Mcgrath, John Lennox, David Berlinski, Phillip Johnson, Keith Ward, Stephen Meyer, William Dembski, and Gerald Schroeder.
With Randi I don't think the academic world takes him seriously, though Rupert Sheldrake and Dean Radin have talked about him.Alister McGrath and Keith Ward, being British (!), promote a Xtianity that sees little or no conflict between science and religion, with both men thinking creationism is bunk.

[kellyb]

He's dead, but CS Lewis made a valiant effort to intellectually defend Christianity.

James Dobson is a modern "ringleader", but "...and we know they've got the devil in them" is about as intellectual as his arguments get. Jerry Fallwell is a prominent figure, but his "defense" is similar to Dobson's.
There really aren't any famous, great Christian thinkers out there now. Just a bunch of people who blame everything on a vast Satanic conspiracy of the media and academia.

[UndercoverElephant]

He's dead, but CS Lewis made a valiant effort to intellectually defend Christianity.

Do you know that he died on the same day that Aldous Huxley died?

[UndercoverElephant]

None of these would be speaking in defense of religion, though, since most of them, in varying ways, believe their spirituality to be on a higher order than religion.

Are you familiar with Paul Tillich?

[Hokulele]

Are you familiar with Paul Tillich?


Although those gentlemen mentioned in ExMiniter's post display characteristics of people with an ultimate concern, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if it turns out their concern were financial rather than spiritual. I cannot see any of them heading for an existential disappointment any time in the near future.

Color me cynical.

[Ron_Tomkins]

I'm gonna say The Pope and Bin Laden

[Elizabeth I]

What about Rick Warren?

[Ron_Tomkins]

What about Rick Wakeman?

[vIQleS]

I don't know if he's well known anywhere else, but I used to be a big fan of Dr Steve Kumar. He's a big christian apologist in NZ...

I reread his book recently (or tried to). Not as impressive when you've heard the arguments from the rational side of the debate. :-D

http://www.amazon.com/Christianity-Skeptics-Understandable-Examination-Christian/dp/1565633466

What about Ray Comfort? He's just like Dawkins, but he believes in God... :-P

Is there anyone out there that has serious, well thought out arguments for the existance of God and / or the paranormal?

??

[Ron_Tomkins]

I don't know if he's well known anywhere else, but I used to be a big fan of Dr Steve Kumar. He's a big christian apologist in NZ...

I reread his book recently (or tried to). Not as impressive when you've heard the arguments from the rational side of the debate. :-D

http://www.amazon.com/Christianity-Skeptics-Understandable-Examination-Christian/dp/1565633466

What about Ray Comfort? He's just like Dawkins, but he believes in God... :-P

Is there anyone out there that has serious, well thought out arguments for the existance of God and / or the paranormal?

??

Actually Denys Turner is like a Theist Dawkins. He even sounds like Dawkins

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/c6KE-2NM-LM&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/c6KE-2NM-LM&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

[supercorgi]

I see two main components to the science/religion conflict as it stands today. One component is the battle between creationists and geologists/biologists/paleontologists about the age of the earth and the status of darwinism.

Ok, just a nit, but I wish people would stop using the word "darwinism." The proper term is the theory of evolution by natural selection. Creationists use the term "darwinism" to try to set it up as a religion/philosophy/cult of personality instead of sound science. We, who believe in scientific fact with a sound background, shouldn't be playing their game.

[Robin]

Alister McGrath and Keith Ward, being British (!), promote a Xtianity that sees little or no conflict between science and religion, with both men thinking creationism is bunk.

Ditto Francis Collins

[six7s]

So if we have Dawkins and Randi in the blue corner defending science, who should be put in the red corner to defend religion and paranormalism? Who are considered to be the primary intellectual defenders of religion and paranormalism?I'd like to think that, in the blue corner, we have - rather than a 'defence of science', we have an assertion of logic over and above belief.

I also like to think that this the essence of what Dawkins and Randi are doing, through education

Dawkins' focus is on exposing the woo in Christianity - a subject at the core of his culture - from a scientific perspective - his stock in trade

Randi's focus is on promoting critical thinking in order to further expose the inanities of the paranormal and magic - his stock in trade

spoilers used merely to minimise scrolling
The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (http://richarddawkinsfoundation.org/foundation,ourMission)Mission Statement for Both Charities
Richard Dawkins

I have just visited my local branch of Britain’s biggest bookshop chain, and this is what I found: six books on astronomy and nineteen books on astrology. The real science is outnumbered three to one by the pseudoscience.<snip/>

As a statistical generalization, the general public, as opposed to an academic readership, prefers irrational books over books that reflect what we know about the real world.

The enlightenment is under threat. So is reason. So is truth. So is science, especially in the schools of America. I am one of those scientists who feels that it is no longer enough just to get on and do science. We have to devote a significant proportion of our time and resources to defending it from deliberate attack from organized ignorance. <snip/>
James Randi Educational Foundation
(http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/about-the-foundation.html) About the Foundation
Written by Jeff Wagg
Tuesday, 10 July 2007 06:30


The James Randi Educational Foundation is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1996. Its aim is to promote critical thinking by reaching out to the public and media with reliable information about paranormal and supernatural ideas so widespread in our society today.

The Foundation's goals include:


Creating a new generation of critical thinkers through lively classroom demonstrations and by reaching out to the next generation in the form of scholarships and awards.
Demonstrating to the public and the media, through educational seminars, the consequences of accepting paranormal and supernatural claims without questioning.
Supporting and conducting research into paranormal claims through well-designed experiments utilizing "the scientific method" and by publishing the findings in the JREF official newsletter, Swift, and other periodicals. Also providing reliable information on paranormal and pseudoscientific claims by maintaining a comprehensive library of books, videos, journals, and archival resources open to the public.
Assisting those who are being attacked as a result of their investigations and criticism of people who make paranormal claims, by maintaining a legal defense fund available to assist these individuals.
So... who or what is in the red corner?

High-profile people aiming to promote belief over logic, through 'education'?

Alas, there are too many to name without creating a tl;dr wall of text

[Damien Evans]

What about Rick Wakeman?

8IHuB8TewO0


I wish I could do that....

[six7s]

8IHuB8TewO0


I wish I could do that....:confused:

What?

Wear a paisley shirt with white shoes?

[UnrepentantSinner]

He's dead, but CS Lewis made a valiant effort to intellectually defend Christianity.

James Dobson is a modern "ringleader", but "...and we know they've got the devil in them" is about as intellectual as his arguments get. Jerry Fallwell is a prominent figure, but his "defense" is similar to Dobson's.
There really aren't any famous, great Christian thinkers out there now. Just a bunch of people who blame everything on a vast Satanic conspiracy of the media and academia.

Falwell's dead too.

[six7s]

Falwell's dead too.Good


ETA

yz5T1EEo8ws
Bill Maher - Bye Jerry Falwell (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yz5T1EEo8ws)

[Mr Clingford]

Falwell's dead too.

GoodThat's not very nice - think what God has to put up with now (although it is his fault for creating a universe in the first place).

[six7s]

That's not very nice - think what God has to put up with now (although it is his fault for creating a universe in the first place).God's will be pissing himself:

Lucifer will now have one hell of a pain in the arse to contend with... forever!

[sphenisc]

Ok, just a nit, but I wish people would stop using the word "darwinism." The proper term is the theory of evolution by natural selection. Creationists use the term "darwinism" to try to set it up as a religion/philosophy/cult of personality instead of sound science. We, who believe in scientific fact with a sound background, shouldn't be playing their game.

Life is too short, 3 syllables < 15 syllables

[six7s]

ToEbNS: 6 chars < 9 chars

[UndercoverElephant]

I'd like to think that, in the blue corner, we have - rather than a 'defence of science', we have an assertion of logic over and above belief.


I don't think that washes. Both sides have belief systems that they don't think critically enough about. Both can suffer failures of logic when it is their own belief system that is on the line. The assertion of logic over belief is the referee - philosophy.

I realise that the people in the red corner have a considerably bigger problem freeing their belief systems of contradictions, but Randi and Dawkins are too focused on science and lack a deep enough understanding of philosophy to claim to be able to represent logic over belief. They over-simplify a lot of issues. The see philosophical problems through the eyes of scientists, not philosophers.


I also like to think that this the essence of what Dawkins and Randi are doing, through education


They might think that is what they are doing, but they should leave that job to the people who are actually trained to do it.

[westprog]

They are closely related. There is also a commonality because both cases cause some sort of conflict with science and the epistemological and metaphysical disputes in both cases are basically the same. It's all about what sorts of things are possible or impossible and how we could tell if they are actually true or not. The bits of religion that are considered to be in conflict with science are the ones which involve religiously-centred paranormal causality of some sort. Religious conflicts about ethics is bascially politics and I'm not writing about politics.

Thanks everybody for the suggestions. I have to go and look some of these people up.

As a counter to the mistaken view that there is some inherent conflict between science and religion - which is based on a mistaken view of both - the ideal person to comment would be Stephen Jay Gould, sadly no longer with us.

[paximperium]

They see philosophical problems through the eyes of scientists, not philosophers.
Corrected it for you.

They might think that is what they are doing, but they should leave that job to the people who are actually trained to do it.
You might "think" that philospher's know what they are doing when in fact they often don't. Philosophers still believe that things that was once thought to be realm of "philosphy" 100years ago is still theirs alone.

"Modern" philosphy is shrinking and will one day to be thought off as useful as the Aristotelian Natural Philosophy which is to say, amusingly quaint.

[sphenisc]

ToEbNS: 6 chars < 9 chars

:)

[six7s]

I don't think that washes. Both sides have belief systems that they don't think critically enough about. Both can suffer failures of logic when it is their own belief system that is on the line.Please describe one such failure from Dawkins and one from Randi

TYIA :)

The assertion of logic over belief is the referee - philosophy.
can't decipher that

...Randi and Dawkins are too focused on science and lack a deep enough understanding of philosophy to claim to be able to represent logic over belief. Please name one person who has the balance sorted

TYIA :)

They over-simplify a lot of issues.
Logically, you can't over simplify an issue

You can, however, forget to bundle it all up again... but that is rare for a scientist... science is all about repeatable experiments

The see philosophical problems through the eyes of scientists, not philosophers.
Huh?

Please, do explain this otherwise cryptic message

They might think that is what they are doing, but they should leave that job to the people who are actually trained to do it.Please name one person who is 'trained to do it'

Also, please describe what "it" is

TYIA :)

[JetLeg]

UndercoverElephant on Randi and Dawkins :


They might think that is what they are doing, but they should leave that job to the people who are actually trained to do it.

That's interesting. Who do you think are the people that are actually trained to do it?

And are there people that are both really trained to do it, and actually do it?


I personally think that both Randi and Dawkins have their scientific epistemology right. They are great in thinking critically about what exists in the physical world. Better than philosophers. They are mistaken in thinking that the physical world is the only thing that exists. Do you agree? (And by the way guys, not being a physicalist doesn't place you automatically in the woo camp... A very false dichotomy).

They are right in that science has proven religious beliefs to be false. I think that it is much easier to prove that religion is false using conceptual analysis, reflections on epistemology, and et cetera. Agree?

------

Perhaps you means the guys from butterfliesandwheels.com as those with the real training?

[six7s]

[Randi and Dawkins] are mistaken in thinking that the physical world is the only thing that exists. Do you agree? (And by the way guys, not being a physicalist doesn't place you automatically in the woo camp... A very false dichotomy).I'd like you to explain that, please

Perhaps you could provide an example of something that is not woo yet does exist 'outside' of the 'all inclusive' Universe of Randi and Dawkins

TYIA :)

[Mr Clingford]

UndercoverElephant on Randi and Dawkins :


They are right in that science has proven religious beliefs to be false.
Hmm, I'm not su sure that either of them would claim this (especially as it is not true).
I think that it is much easier to prove that religion is false using conceptual analysis, reflections on epistemology, and et cetera. Agree?This intrigues me - would you unpack it a bit?

[six7s]

Kurious Kathy and yrreg?Equivalent, hon, not polar opposite.

:pHas anyone ever seen the two of them in the same room at the same time?

[six7s]

I think that it is much easier to prove that religion is false using conceptual analysis, reflections on epistemology, and et cetera.Hmm, I'm not su sure that either of them would claim this (especially as it is not true).
This intrigues me - would you unpack it a bit?Smells like 'Miss Teen SC Spirit' to me

[Mr Clingford]

Smells like 'Miss Teen SC Spirit' to me
I don't follow - what is Kurt Cobain doing? Are you saying that Jetleg is shooting his mouth off?

[JetLeg]

This intrigues me - would you unpack it a bit?

Sure.

Before checking whether there is a god, we should investigate its meaning. The term is so ill-defined, that the proposition "god exists" is almost meaningless. Since we cannot understand god, the proposition "god exists" means "something that I do not understand exists".

The concept of miracle is very problematic, for two reasons. First, miracle is a violation of nature's laws. In order for us to establish that, we need to know all of nature's laws, which we don't. (And even if we would, we wouldn't know that we do). So we cannot establish a miracle.

The concept of the supernatural is very hard to define in a meaningful way. One of the problems is that the term "exists" is used in the context of a natural world. One cannot use a term in a context totally different from which it is always used. To say that something supernatural exists, is problematic since it is hard to understand what "exists" would mean if applied outside of its context.


Faith vs. Reason is an epistemological problem, _not_ a scientific one. By the way, scientific methodology is also _not_ a scientific question. We cannot use science to find out the scientific method. But of this, I think that Randi and Dawkins are well aware.

And I think that there are lots of euphemisms in religiouspeak, which are very important to the analysis of what a religion is. On this I will open a new thread.

[six7s]

I don't follow - what is Kurt Cobain doing? Are you saying that Jetleg is shooting his mouth off?I'm saying he is combining some big words into a pattern that seems to make little, if any, sense

Miss South Carolina Teen USA for 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caitlin_Upton#Famous_response)
As part of a question and answer portion of the 2007 Miss Teen USA pageant, Upton was asked by the questioner, Friday Night Lights actress Aimee Teegarden, "Recent polls have shown a fifth of Americans can't locate the U.S. on a world map. Why do you think this is?"

Upton responded:
I personally believe that U.S. Americans are unable to do so because, uh, some, people out there in our nation don't have maps and, uh, I believe that our, uh, education like such as, uh, South Africa and, uh, the Iraq, everywhere like such as, and, I believe that they should, our education over here in the U.S. should help the U.S., uh, or, uh, should help South Africa and should help the Iraq and the Asian countries, so we will be able to build up our future, for our [children].[8]

Kurt Cobain's Lyrical Talents
G51fr92GkDU
A mullato!
An albino!
A mosquito!
My libido!

A denial!

[UndercoverElephant]

As a counter to the mistaken view that there is some inherent conflict between science and religion - which is based on a mistaken view of both - the ideal person to comment would be Stephen Jay Gould, sadly no longer with us.

Yes. Although I think Gould got the means of distinguishing them slightly wrong, his views are closest to mine on the issue in question.

[UndercoverElephant]

Corrected it for you.

You might "think" that philospher's know what they are doing when in fact they often don't. Philosophers still believe that things that was once thought to be realm of "philosphy" 100years ago is still theirs alone.

"Modern" philosphy is shrinking and will one day to be thought off as useful as the Aristotelian Natural Philosophy which is to say, amusingly quaint.

All I can say in response to that is that you are demonstrating exactly what I mean. You are only interested in the science part of the equation, not the pure reasoning bit.

[UndercoverElephant]

Please describe one such failure from Dawkins and one from Randi


That will derail the thread. Check out my recent posting history if you want to know what I think is wrong with their analysis of the situation.


Please name one person who has the balance sorted


Steven Jay Gould comes quite close. So does B. Allan Wallace (see "The taboo of subjectivity").


You can, however, forget to bundle it all up again... but that is rare for a scientist... science is all about repeatable experiments


Indeed.


Huh?

Please, do explain this otherwise cryptic message


As you say, science is all about repeatable experiments. Philosophy is not. Many of the beliefs held to and claims made by Dawkins and Randi are actually not merely based on science but also on certain philosophical assumptions. They aren't very good at telling the difference between them or appreciating their relevance. When they do philosophy, they do it with the background knowledge and thought processes of scientists, not philosophers.



Please name one person who is 'trained to do it'


Anyone who has studied philosophy to degree level has an equivalent level of knowledge about that subject.



Also, please describe what "it" is


Philosophy.

[UndercoverElephant]

UndercoverElephant on Randi and Dawkins :



That's interesting. Who do you think are the people that are actually trained to do it?

And are there people that are both really trained to do it, and actually do it?


Yes, but not many people take any notice of them because they are academic philosophers and most people don't read academic philosophy.


I personally think that both Randi and Dawkins have their scientific epistemology right. They are great in thinking critically about what exists in the physical world. Better than philosophers. They are mistaken in thinking that the physical world is the only thing that exists. Do you agree? (And by the way guys, not being a physicalist doesn't place you automatically in the woo camp... A very false dichotomy).


Not exactly, but close enough. I don't think they've even sorted out what "physical" is supposed to mean.


They are right in that science has proven religious beliefs to be false. I think that it is much easier to prove that religion is false using conceptual analysis, reflections on epistemology, and et cetera. Agree?


To a certain extent, yes.

[paximperium]

All I can say in response to that is that you are demonstrating exactly what I mean. Of course it does. Would you care to expand on this unjustified assertion or is "reasoning" not your forte?

You are only interested in the science part of the equation, not the pure reasoning bit.
What makes you assert that philosophers are the sole experts at reasoning?

[UndercoverElephant]

What makes you assert that philosophers are the sole experts at reasoning?

Because the academic study of reason and reasoning IS philosophy. You might just as well have asked me why physicists are the sole experts at experimental physics.

[paximperium]

Because the academic study of reason and reasoning IS philosophy. Let me speak S-L-O-W-L-Y:
What makes you assert that philosophers are the sole experts at reasoning?

You might just as well have asked me why physicists are the sole experts at experimental physics. False Analogy

[UndercoverElephant]

Let me speak S-L-O-W-L-Y:
What makes you assert that philosophers are the sole experts at reasoning?


I am saying they are THE experts. They are trained to a higher standard than scientists are. Scientists have to use reason when doing science but they do not study reason itself. Philosophers do.


False analogy


You are turning into PixyMisa. It is no use just saying "false analogy". You have to explain WHY it is a false analogy.

[ponderingturtle]

As a counter to the mistaken view that there is some inherent conflict between science and religion - which is based on a mistaken view of both - the ideal person to comment would be Stephen Jay Gould, sadly no longer with us.

The problem here is that this requires a change in what religion is.

[ponderingturtle]

Sure.

Before checking whether there is a god, we should investigate its meaning. The term is so ill-defined, that the proposition "god exists" is almost meaningless. Since we cannot understand god, the proposition "god exists" means "something that I do not understand exists".

This is wrong. The problem is that god has many many definitions and many of those are contradictory, not that it is ill defined. It is really over defined, as you don't know what definition of god someone is useing.

The concept of miracle is very problematic, for two reasons. First, miracle is a violation of nature's laws. In order for us to establish that, we need to know all of nature's laws, which we don't. (And even if we would, we wouldn't know that we do). So we cannot establish a miracle.

Again this requires you to focus on a very small definition of miracle. A statue producing water and doing do continuously such that it produces a greater weight of water than the orrigional statue would be fine.

[ExMinister]

Are you familiar with Paul Tillich?

No.

Although those gentlemen mentioned in ExMiniter's post display characteristics of people with an ultimate concern, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if it turns out their concern were financial rather than spiritual. I cannot see any of them heading for an existential disappointment any time in the near future.

Color me cynical.

Color me the same color.

May seem like a strange question, I know...

I'm in the process of writing a book about the conflict between science and religion. I'm interested in people's opinion of who might best be used as an example of "defenders of religion".

I see two main components to the science/religion conflict as it stands today. One component is the battle between creationists and geologists/biologists/paleontologists about the age of the earth and the status of darwinism. The other is the battle between the Uri Geller's of this world and people like James Randi.

So if we have Dawkins and Randi in the blue corner defending science, who should be put in the red corner to defend religion and paranormalism? Who are considered to be the primary intellectual defenders of religion and paranormalism? Or is Geller the best they can manage?
I just want people's opinions so I get some new leads and don't leave anybody out who I really should be mentioning.

I interpreted this as a request for suggestions on defenders of religion as it ranges across the board between the fundamentalist/creationist types and the Uri Geller/usually spiritualist, New Age types.

[sphenisc]

As a counter to the mistaken view that there is some inherent conflict between science and religion - which is based on a mistaken view of both - the ideal person to comment would be Stephen Jay Gould, sadly no longer with us.



The problem here is that this requires a change in what religion is.


As well as a redefining of "ideal".

[paximperium]

I am saying they are THE experts. They are trained to a higher standard than scientists are. Scientists have to use reason when doing science but they do not study reason itself. Philosophers do. No. Philosophers are good at thinking and rationalizing. Reasoning, not so much hence all the moronic post-modernist out there.



You are turning into PixyMisa. It is no use just saying "false analogy". You have to explain WHY it is a false analogy.
See above.
Physicist study physics.
Philosophers study philosophy.

Reasoning is not solely the purview of philosophy. The vast majority of Computer programmers have better reasoning ability then philosophy grads.

[JetLeg]

Yes, but not many people take any notice of them because they are academic philosophers and most people don't read academic philosophy.



Well, it is the fault of academic philosophers that they do not try to popularize their subject. What is good about Dawkins is that he is a very good populariser. I do not know of such in philosophy. Therefore it is silly to say "Leave it to the professional ones", when they don't actually do it...


Are you familiar with butterfliesandwheels.com ? Take a look.

[slingblade]

Are you familiar with butterfliesandwheels.com ? Take a look.

I see you are. You took your most recent thread from there, and in fact copied it all in violation of Rule 4, but you misspelled "obfuscations."

[Ron_Tomkins]

8IHuB8TewO0


I wish I could do that....

You can. You just have to have Faith, my son! Have Faith and it will happen!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[six7s]

I am saying they are THE experts. They are trained to a higher standard than scientists are. Scientists have to use reason when doing science but they do not study reason itself. Philosophers do.This is, frankly, bollocks.

Consequently, I assume you are just making stuff up in order to appear clever

If you can prove me wrong, please do present a reasoned argument in favour of whatever it is you are asserting

[six7s]

The vast majority of Computer programmers have better reasoning ability then philosophy grads.As do, hopefully, Informations Systems analysts/designers

To my mind, philosophy is an impractical (as in not applied) art...

Whilst it is possible that the world is a better place because we have people contemplating their navel fluff, it is demonstrable that the world works the way it does today because other people look at the bigger picture and then proceed to actually create tangible stuff to influence it

[paximperium]

As do, hopefully, Informations Systems analysts/designers

To my mind, philosophy is an impractical (as in not applied) art...

Whilst it is possible that the world is a better place because we have people contemplating their navel fluff, it is demonstrable that the world works the way it does today because other people look at the bigger picture and then proceed to actually create tangible stuff to influence it
Philosophy had its uses when all humanity had was a mind as a tool. When we couldn't test the structure of the cosmos, reasoning helped figure out atoms or the "elements". When we could't study the brain or ethics, philosophy stepped in. But slowly even their sacred cow is being eaten away by science.

Since then, philosophy has slowly been chipped away just like religion as we discover just about everything in reality can be empirically tested. Ethics, epistemology and even reality itself can be tested. Sociology, psychology, cosmology and many sciences march ever forward.

What modern philosophers have left are semantics. Just like religion attempts to redefine "god", philosophers will define things such as "consciousness" or "existence" into virtual non-existence to prevent their sacred cow from being taken.

While science marches forward, philosophers use centuries old philosopher gurus to support their beliefs while ignoring modern knowledge.