The religion of science

I find it both ridiculous and worthy of contempt to obfuscate the actual process that should be criticized directly. If science and its institutions are or are becoming a "religion", then both the Democratic and Republican parties have been equivalent to the Vatican for many decades. It's not that I think the latter is true, but the fact that both premises are equally false.

Science institutions are bureaucracies. Like all such structures, they have a flaw: individuals acquire and wield power to the detriment of others within and without the structure. If you want a label to put on it, politics is much more accurate than religion. Indeed, when religious institutions are criticized for exactly the same things being criticized in science (and other bureaucracies), those within the institutions who acknowledge the problem are also very quick to deny that religion per se is the source of the problem.

The first tenet of science is that there are no absolutes. Put that in your religious pipe and smoke it. I'll stand ready to help you get over the coughing fit. In the meantime, that there are scientists who declare absolutes is not a valid indictment of science.

I agree, Tim, that we could have much fun with that. I prefer to take it as a recursively limiting statement. It is either true or false depending on the level of detail at which it is applied. ;-)

I was thinking along those lines after I posted. Let us use what many view as an absolute in a hypothetical analysis.

The Golden Ratio, as it is observed in nature, could have an explanation based on the properties of our planet: force of gravity, speed of rotation and the passage of the seasons (remember, this is a hypothetical; forgive me if I offer things that would be arguable).

At our current scope of understanding -- there currently being no proof of life on other planets -- the Golden Ratio is an absolute. Consider for a moment discovering the first planet with life on it, and after a period of time this same relationship of proportion is found there.

If the ratio expressed numerically is identical to that found on Earth, then one could take that as evidence in favor of it being an absolute. If the numeric value is different, then one has proven that it is not an absolute, but an observation of the structure of biological life on a planet.

I believe anyone who read Hadot, Christian or non-Christian, would be amazed at the philosophical/spiritual possibilities his work opened up for them "like stout Cortez when with eagle eyes/He star’d at the Pacific".

His book on Marcus Aurelius is also a gem.

Sorry, that was me.

Perhaps we might consider that if the Bible, Koran, Gitas, etc. might be called God's private revelations, perhaps the universe itself, evolution, etc. are His public revelations.

And, as with the private ones, there is heated debate over interpreting exactly that it means.

I don’t think science can become a religion as the scientific worldview creates too many barriers.

The first is that there is no concept of transcendence which my comparative religions class claimed was a big part or perhaps even the point of religion. The transcendent beauty of a math equation is not the same thing. Plus most scientist use the term elegant rather than transcendent.

The second is that science views the universe as controlled by impersonal forces. There's no point in worshiping impersonal forces because they're indifferent to your existence. Also if you pray to them they’re certain not to help you. Good luck packing a house of worship with that point of view.

The third is that science doesn't express an ethical system. It is a method for discovering pragmatic knowledge and that's pretty much where it stops. So it would be really hard to develop a system of ethics out of it.

The fourth is that scientists are a nerdy non-social bunch. I don't think you could get them together into a house of science worship even if you paid them. I have a degree in science so I'm not being prejudiced; I just know what they're like from first hand experience.

I can understand this confusion between science and atheism because atheism is more common among scientists and several vocal proponents are scientists. However, it is not 100% of and most of the atheists are really conditional agnostics which is slightly different.

Having roundly condemned Myers in other threads for his desecration stunt, I have to turn around and defend him a bit here. As long as he's not stealing other peoples' things, he's perfectly right to point out that science is in conflict with a lot of religion's tenets when you have such conflicts. Religion all too often makes claims that can only be cashed on the other side of the grave, which makes these claims laughable once you dispense with special pleading about "human needs."

Let me give one example, I heard an orthodox priest say that sickness and wounds is just sin working in the body. Myers or any other scientist is perfectly right to say, no, it isn't. It's the action of a germ or a defective gene or some other physical explanation which should be fixed by a competent doctor, not prayer (psychosomatic benefits notwithstanding).

And, yes, I understand the Original Sin theology doesn't necessarily refer to immediate efficient causation. The point still remains that it's nothing more than a mythical explanation with no empirical backing.

I understand your objection, David, I really do. And I sincerely don't mean to seem dismissive, but it boils down to semantics.

As a general statement, "[t]he first tenet of science is that there are no absolutes" works as a logical starting point. That there are constants (an absolute value that theory requires to work, and/or is not capable of being changed by the theory) in theories is, from my POV and for the general case, simply a mechanical construction.

If it helps -- and I am truly glad for your contributions to this or any discussion topic -- may I suggest rephrasing it: The first tenet of science is that there are no absolute theories.

While writing this, I'm reminded of Einstein's difficulty with the cosmological constant. The idea of a static universe or "Einstein's universe" is one which demands that space is not expanding nor contracting but rather is dynamically stable. Albert Einstein proposed such a model as his preferred cosmology by adding a cosmological constant to his equations of general relativity to counteract the dynamical effects of gravity which in a universe of matter would cause the universe to collapse. This motivation evaporated after the discovery by Edwin Hubble that the universe is not static, but expanding; in particular, Hubble discovered a relationship between redshift and distance, which forms the basis for the modern expansion paradigm. This led Einstein to declare this cosmological model, and especially the introduction of the cosmological constant, his "biggest blunder".

I noticed Gilberson's article in Salon yesterday. Myers has responded to it in typical robust fashion on his Pharyngula blog, in a post called "Karl Giberson strikes back!" He thinks Gilberson has got the wrong end of the stick completely.

From his posting: "In the desecration post, I plainly said that nothing should be sacred. Giberson read those, apparently, and then decided that I really meant the opposite."

I realize that this is a bit tangential, but I found a good prayer for reparation in an old prayer booklet of mine which I would like to share with those who are interested. It strikes me as particularly appropriate regarding Myers, and though it is a specifically Catholic prayer, anyone who felt comfortable doing so could use it.

Act of Reparation

O Jesus, Son of the Living God, my Savior and Redeemer, behold us prostrate at thy feet. We beg pardon and make this act of reparation for all the basphemies uttered against Thy Holy Name; for all the outrages committed against Thee in the most Holy Sacrament of the Altar; for all irreverence shown to Thy most blessed and Immaculate Mother, and for all the calumnies spoken against Thy spouse, our holy Mother, the Catholic Church. O Jesus, Who said: "Whatsoever you shall ask the Father in My Name, that I will do," we pray and beseech Thee for our brethren who are living in danger of sin, that Thou preserve them from seductions of apostasy. Save them who stand over the abyss; give them light and knowledge of the truth, power and strength in the conflict against evil, and perseverance in faith and active charity. And therefore, most merciful Jesus, do we pray to the Father in Thy name, with Whom Thou livest and reignest, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, world without end. Amen.

Franklin and Allen are correct and this is an important facet of science.

Science uses methodological naturalism not metaphysical naturalism. So the scientific method yields pragmatic knowledge that works, but never claims ultimate truths. It is only how things behave that is important, not what they are. So it is completely irrelevant if we're all simulations in a game of cosmic Sims because the knowledge we obtain is useful within the simulation.

I'm pretty sure this is different from religions which would claim their truths are ultimate in nature.

Science has the ultimate advantage over religion. Its miracles are repeatable.

meh: It is true that many noble causes have been advanced by "rudeness" and "howling at injustice", at least by some promoters of the cause. Feminism, civil rights, and many nationalist movements spring to mind. That doesn't make rudeness good--just an unfortunate necessity at times, given human nature.

Having said that, I'd point out two things. One, many ignoble causes have also been pursued by rudeness and "howling at injustice"--Communism springs to mind. It did have good intentions, you know, but we know how it worked out. The point is that it is a logical fallacy to say, as Myers seems implicitly to be doing, "The noble cause X was advanced by rudeness and agitation, I advance my cause by rudeness and agitation, therefore I and my cause are noble." This is a non sequitur.

Second, I'm not sure which of Myers's "basic rights" are being trampled or not recognized. When he says atheists should "get more outraged and outrageous", toward what end is this? The extirpation of religion altogether? It is his right to work toward that by all peaceful, legal, non-coercive means; but then again, it is the right of a Jehovah's Witness to knock on people's doors (including that of P. Z. Myers) to seek converts, of Mormans to send missionaries worldwide, of Wahhabites to fund evangelistic Islam, and so forth. I would imagine that missionary activity of religious groups disgusts Myers, but in a pluralist society everyone has the right to evangelize, and Myer's rights to promote his own views are no less, but also no more, than those of Asatruar, Jains, Muslims, Buddhists, and, yes, Christians. He, of course, thinks his cause is nobler and superior and true--but don't all those who evangelize for anything think so, too?

One further thing, a strong disanalogy between Myer's cause and suffragism. Suffragism sought, successfuly in the end, to expand something; to wit, the right to vote from only men to women as well. Myers presumably seeks to restrict something, namely, religion. This can be done three ways: A. Getting government to pass laws to restrict religion; B. Forcing people to abjure religion; or C. Reasoning people out of belief. I think no one in a pluralist society believes A is a good idea--certainly Myers bridles (and rightly so) when religious groups try to influence public policy in ways that are negative to atheists and agnostics. Likewise, he has no right to agitate for restrictions against the faithful. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. B was practiced so memorably by the Soviet Union and is still the modus operandi of China. Admirable company to be in (sarcasm!). And C...well, acting like a sophomoric jackass is going to move that ahead, isn't it? (sarcasm again!)

I have posted very little regarding Myers (this'll probably be it) since the two sides, based on much of the posting on previous threads, seem at the point of total lack of any common ground, to say nothing of much nastiness, and because frankly I think the best way to deal with this is to ignore the man (who obviously feeds off attention) and pray for him (as well as for the idiots who sent death threats both to him and Cook), and then be about our business.

Turmarion | August 1, 2008 12:13 AM: I'm not sure which of Myers's "basic rights" are being trampled or not recognized. When he says atheists should "get more outraged and outrageous", toward what end is this? The extirpation of religion altogether?

Dawkins made an interesting and entertaining talk at TED last year, part of which was an amusing discussion of why an intelligent, honest person in American politics faces a severe handicap: intelligence correlates strongly with atheism, but atheism is electoral death in American politics.

So for PZ (but thankfully not for me and Richard, who live in England where Darwin is on our banknotes and hardly anybody goes to church anyway) there is a big hump to be gotten over: the battle for an equal playing field in the political sphere.

But for all of us (Dawkins included) there is also the sphere of ideas. Even in the UK, Dawkins argues, religious ideas are given a privileged position. Dawkins parodied this by rewriting a scientific paper using methods of religious argument: revealed truth, scripture, and anathema. Patently absurd ideas are treated seriously simply because a lot of people have been taught to believe them.

So this is what PZ Myers and co are snarling about. The other day a student was threatened with expulsion from his college and worse for handling, and retaining, a consecrated wafer. That kind of idea should be chased back into the nineteenth century and left there to rot. That's what the fuss is about. Real people harmed by stupid ideas.

I'm a scientist and I love scientist. But what makes science into a religion is when scientists state speculation as facts. Anthropologists and Paleontologists do that all the time on television. And in the average viewer's mind, an article of scientific faith becomes fact.

Just last week on television, a program on evolution blithely stated as fact how abiogenesis occurred. When their is absolutely no empirical evidence as to how it occurred. The scientists are effectively saying that you mix some chemicals in a pot, then a miracle occurs, then you have life. If that is not a religous act of faith, (believing without evidence) then nothing is.

Evolutionary Psychology - the god-gene, Darwinian explanation for altruism. All speculation stated as fact.

And what really drives me crazy is NASA with their Life in Space thing. Water -> Miracle Occurs -> Life. I realize that it's mostly hype to keep their pet rock programs funded. But the average person hears those pronouncements and thinks it must be true. Even if water were found on Mars, the chances of life forming there are effectively nil compared it forming on Earth. For one thing, Mars does not have a magnetic shield so anything organically complex would be cooked by gamma rays.

What would really lower the intensity of the argument between science and philosophy/theology would be the scientists dialing down down their conceit and identify speculations and conjectures as just that when they explain things to the public at large.

Atheists of the Dawkins ilk believe that theists are A) stupid, B) retarded, and/or C) delusional/irrational. Accepting only Enlightenment/positivist categories of knowledge and truth, they reject religion and metaphysics out of hand, as well as tradition and any other notion of inherited knowledge, and believe that anyone who accepts these things is a retrograde idiot.

This is why folks such as Michael Polanyi and Stanley Jaki are helpful. They are both scientists and metaphysicians, and are able to demonstrate that science and metaphysics need not be mutually exclusive. Of course, you have to get the atheists to read them, which is difficult (see Tony's reaction the other day when I suggested he read the conservative philosopher Roger Scruton -- he said he'd rather gargle with pig swill.)

"Of course, you have to get the atheists to read them, which is difficult (see Tony's reaction the other day when I suggested he read the conservative philosopher Roger Scruton -- he said he'd rather gargle with pig swill.)"

He only said that because it was tea time in Ponders End.

SteveM: "For one thing, Mars does not have a magnetic shield so anything organically complex would be cooked by gamma rays."

Total digression here but gamma rays are photons and are not effected by magnetic fields. The lack of a magnetic field would let the solar wind hit Mars' upper atmosphere and I'm not sure what effect that would have. At the very least it would have northern lights all over the planet.

God is a logical progression from the evidence of the Big Bang.

He's hardly a logical progression, just a possible explanation. Another explanation, that has explanatory power is the idea that this universe is merely one out an infinity.

Yes, Derek, at the risk of sounding impatient, that's what I referred to when I wrote "that's why some theoretical physicists have been tying themselves in knots trying to offer an alternative explanation for the beginning of the universe" - you've got oscillating universe, multiverse, all sort of theories, because of the theistic implications of the Big Bang. But the Big Bang is the most logical explanation we have for the evidence before us.

In fact, the original complaints and attacks against the Big Bang theory when it was first introduced were to the effect that it logically led to God. All the old "steady state" and eternal universe theoreticians didn't like it one bit for the very reason that it marked the beginning of time, not to mention the fact that the way the Big Bang occurred (light everywhere at the beginning) fits in tidily with the opening of Genesis:

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light."

Fiat lux, indeed.

"But then the plants showed up before the sun. If you're going to cite the amazing scientific accuracy of the Bible, you'll have to go beyond one verse."

As surely you know, Derek, belief in creation does not require accepting the Genesis account as literal. It's entirely possible, if the Big Bang is true, that the Genesis passage Houghton quoted is simply a poetic (but still accurate) rendering of it.

Yes, Derek, as Pascal put it, God allows us just enough light to see the truth and just enough darkness to obscure it. The choice is yours. So free will strikes again. By logical progression, I meant that one would not want to "avoid" the implications of the Big Bang if that's where the evidence led, as you implied with the telling word choice "unavoidable." No, nothing is "unavoidable" and one can choose to remain in the dark. There is no solid evidence for the other theories, and anyway they still, as in the case of an oscillating universe, lead us back to the point of a first cause. It does seem that many hardcore materialists will resort to increasingly exotic theories in order to avoid what the evidence is compelling them to see.

Also, if anything -- and I readily admit I am not a theoretical physicist, nor a biologist, nor any other kind of scientist, so I'm far out of my depth -- quantum physics seems to lend more credence to belief, not less. For instance, as Genesis describes it, the creation story is all over the map, with trees being created before the sun. How can this be? Certainly if an infinite Creator is in the ecstasy of artistic passion, flipping back and forth between pages of a draft like a grand novelist, or throwing bits of paint on the canvas here and there like a painter. And that is precisely the level of reality quantum physics suggests: "He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end."

On your last point about Darwin, though I do certainly believe in God, I am not a "people with pet dinosaurs creationist" as defined in media caricatures, and yet I have always been struck by the fact that (I think I'm correct here; if not, please correct me) Darwin developed his theory in the milieu of an assumed eternal universe and also without knowledge of cellular complexity.

As far as I know, no scientist has been able to postulate a solid explanation (under realistic conditions) for how life arose in the first place from inanimate matter, nor have they been able to replicate the process, which ought to be easy in a presupposed universe where life is "everywhere" and spontaneously arises and evolves.

So we have: 1. A credible theory backed by solid evidence for the origins of the universe with strong theistic implications, the beginning point of time and space and so on. 2. A huge "gap" between life itself and how life would have spontaneously arisen from inert matter. 3. A theory of evolution first espoused in the milieu of false assumptions about the universe and cellular structure.

Now, I do not discount evolution. All of the evidence seems to point strongly in the direction of life evolving over eons in complex ways we don't really understand. But that doesn't point one away from God; if anything, it should instill even more awe and reverence if one is willing to examine the entire picture (i.e. the Big Bang, etc.)

Fun debate. Have to go now.

Derek, how funny that you were bringing up the "plants before the sun" example at the same time I was typing it in as an example of quantum physics! Just saw that. Enjoy.

And yes, I have always taken Genesis to be a poetic, but still accurate, rendering of "how it happened." It's obviously meant as poetry. In the mind of an infinite God, 2,000 years is likely the fraction of an eye flutter. So what would one "day" be? It's easy for me to see that the human writer of Genesis was seeing things for which he had only human "frames" to describe, thus the reference to "days" and so on.

Derek, I think you can do better than steal from Dawkins on the whole "God is a fiend" excoriation. Better minds than me have obliterated this line of thought. But I really do have to go now! When you have time, though Derek, I'd like to hear your thoughts on the entire quantum physics and "trees before the sun" idea I laid out there.

Derek, that last is nonsense. Of course I can! That's true of any book I could take off my shelf: When the Bible is poetry, it's poetry. When it's metaphorical, it's metaphorical. When it's history, it's history. When it's a parable, it's a parable. And so on. But I'm not really trying to convince you. I think it would be wonderful for someone as obviously intelligent as you to take off the blinders, but that's up to you; I'm just making sure bad intellectual arguments don't hang out there.

"There is no need to be worried by facetious people who try to make the Christian hope of 'Heaven' ridiculous by saying that they do not want "to spend eternity playing harps." The answer to such people is that if they cannot understand books written for grown-ups, they should not talk about them. All the scriptural imagery (harps, crowns, gold, etc.) is, of course, a merely symbolic attempt to express the inexpressible. Musical instruments are mentioned because for many people (not all) music is the thing known in the present life which most strongly suggests ecstasy and infinity. Crowns are mentioned to suggest the fact that those who are united with God in eternity share his splendour and power and joy. Gold is mentioned to suggest the timelessness of Heaven (gold does not rust) and the preciousness of it. People who take these symbols literally might as well think that when Christ told us to be like doves, He meant that we were to lay eggs." ~C.S. Lewis

Now I really have to go!

Derek, that last is nonsense. Of course I can! That's true of any book I could take off my shelf:

That's exactly right. It's true of any book you can take off your shelf, which rather robs it of the Bible of its elevated dignity.

When the Bible is poetry, it's poetry. When it's metaphorical, it's metaphorical. When it's history, it's history. When it's a parable, it's a parable. And so on.

But how do we know this? The first chapters of Genesis don't really read like poetry to me. They are elegaic of course, and full of high-sounding prose, but they mean what they say. The only way you can designate them as "poetry" is to make a subjective choice to do so (something that almost always happens soon after science conclusively disproves a passage's literal truth). AND, when you do THAT you've vitiated any claim you may have to an objective source of morality.

Okay, I'm back.

Now Derek, you're just being intellectually dishonest here. You knew what I wrote applied to the context in which the book would be read, not to compare the *authority* of the Bible to other books. In other words, when I take a book of nonfiction off the shelf, I can and should read the metaphor in it as metaphor, etc. Surely you knew this is what I meant, and I think only an intellectually dishonest interpretation would attempt what you have.

Houghton,

I'm sorry if you felt misused by my statement, but I do stand by it. If you're telling me the book can be both metaphorical and literal, I have to ask by what standard you sort out the literal from the symbolic. If you say something like "You know when it is and when it isn't" (How do we know Genesis is mere "poetry", for example), well, that obliterates any sort of objective transcendence. And that makes it truly no different from any other book on your shelf, written by mere human beings trapped in their time.

I note, in passing, that you've not dealt with the morality of a God who doesn't make his presence indubitably known, but is still willing to send those who guess wrong to an eternity of torment.

Derek, I do have some thoughts on that and won't let it pass. However I have a low-grade fever and find myself running out of intellectual steam. I'll have to come back to it later. Be well.

SteveM | August 1, 2008 9:13 AM, you said And what really drives me crazy is NASA with their Life in Space thing. Water -> Miracle Occurs -> Life. I realize that it's mostly hype to keep their pet rock programs funded. But the average person hears those pronouncements and thinks it must be true.

I agree with your posting and only singled out the above quote because it's one of my own pet hates about NASA's magical thinking about liquid water and life. While we know to look for liquid water as a requirement for life as we know it, we don't know that liquid water on a rocky planet always leads to life. When scientists imply that it does, they're being sloppy (perhaps sometimes, as you imply, deliberately to exaggerate the potential benefits of their work).

The harm done by that kind of presentation is serious, and there should always be reasonable caveats. It's not possible to go into the caveats in depth, but people who present science for non-scientists should, for instance, feel free to quote numbers to quantify their certainty or state when a hypothesis is not yet quantifiable.

Rob G | August 1, 2008 9:34 AM you write This is why folks such as Michael Polanyi and Stanley Jaki are helpful. They are both scientists and metaphysicians, and are able to demonstrate that science and metaphysics need not be mutually exclusive. Of course, you have to get the atheists to read them, which is difficult (see Tony's reaction the other day when I suggested he read the conservative philosopher Roger Scruton -- he said he'd rather gargle with pig swill.)

That comment was based on my past attempts to make sense of Scruton's writing. Polanyi is now on my list of people to read. From his Wikipedia article, his ideas don't strike me as especially startling or new, but the nuances might well be hard to capture in an encyclopedia.

I wrote: The other day a student was threatened with expulsion from his college and worse for handling, and retaining, a consecrated wafer.

Derek Copold | August 1, 2008 9:56 AM wrote: This, OTOH, was stepping over the line, and if the student doesn't apologize for his trespass and theft, the school will be right to toss him out. If he wants to stand outside a service with placard, fine. If he wants to right nasty editorials and blogposts, fine. If he wants to burn bibles he purchases, fine. But entering someone else's service and taking items under false pretenses is wrong and should be disciplined.

I agree that disciplining him for any disruption he may have caused would be acceptable (the facts are not clear--from all the accounts I've seen the only actual disruption was caused by people who manhandled him and attempted to make him swallow the wafer). The people who assaulted the student should of course also be disciplined and, if they're not students of university staff, excluded from the university grounds.

But what I disagree with is the diocese's disproportionate response (and to some extent your misrepresentation of the incident above--for reasons I cannot know--as trespass and theft). There was no trespass. There was no theft. There were false and ridiculous claims of hate crime and kidnap. Webster Cook and another student who accompanied with him have been suspended, and may be expelled because Cook left a church service with a wafer in his pocket. That is unacceptable.

Houghton, your analogy to making a movie makes more sense than the quantum mechanics one. I think you are saying that a non-temporal being would give you a jumbled answer if you asked him what order he did things in. The issue here is that an omniscient being knows the order you see them in and might point out this discrepancy in his explanation.

I believe the lack of distinction of the past, present and future at the quantum scale has more do to with the lack of a discernable arrow of time then the order things happen in. Basically many interactions at that level are reversible and do not increase entropy which is consider the cause of the arrow of time.

The other strange things you mentioned are from more speculative interpretations of quantum mechanics and aren’t considered fully baked.

Derek Copold | August 1, 2008 4:50 PM, we're not going to agree to this and further, to my mind, you keep representing your speculations as to what happened as if they were known facts. I don't see any grounds to argue with you since you're not backing up your many statements of fact. I'll just leave it with the observation that you have repeatedly accused this fellow of committing crimes (trespass and theft) of which nobody else has seriously accused him. Even the diocese stopped short of accusing him of actual criminal acts, I believe.

Actually, Tony the Brilliant, he quoted a cbsnews.com story.

Really, if you can't tell the difference between that and Derek's own speculation, how credible a witness can you be, on anything?

Derek, if you'd like to discuss this matter in order to establish your claim that Cook "entered a service and took an item under false pretenses", we can continue it on one of the PZ Myers threads. But I have to say that I believe it's very unlikely that you could establish this. Cook's father is quite clear that he raised his son as a Catholic. We do not know whether Cook was in a state of grace when he received the eucharist, but that is a matter the church is happy to leave to the conscience of the individual. On the face of it, however, Cook was a Catholic attending a Catholic service during the course of which he was assaulted. It is false to claim that he trespassed or stole anything.

I should change my second paragraph above to read as follows:

Indeed, he persisted in keeping the stolen property for a week and used it as a "hostage" in an attempt to extort an apology from the people who tried to stop his theft.

"failing to consume something you've been given to eat is not theft."

Yes, it is. If I go to a restaurant that does not permit doggy bags, and take food home, that is theft. A friend of mine used to stay at hotels that provide buffet breakfasts, and used to sneak out bread, chees, ham, etc., for lunch. That was dishonest, and the same situation applies here. The monetary value of the wafer is close to zero, but courts do take into account the sentimental value of things stolen (admittedly, I'm not sure about US law).

Tony: Taking food off your own plate after it has been served is debatable - if the restaurant does not permit doggy bags, I would guess it is merely bad manners, rather than theft. However, if it is an eat-as-much-as=you-like place, or refill your coffee cup, etc., I don't see much doubt that it would be theft. Go to a restaurant that allows you to take as much bread with your meal as you like, and see how the waiter reacts to you emptying the tray into your shopping bag.

My point is that an institution can legitimately insist that something they provide is consumed on the premises. I think we could do with advice from a lawyer here, but my hunch is that there's something other than theft going on as well, to do with bringing the institution into disrepute - a bar can insist that patrons do not behave offensively immediately outside, so as to give the place a bad reputation. Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I think there's probably something to do with entering into a tacit contract when becoming a customer.

I'm not a Christian, so I don't really have much an axe to grind in this debate, but I feel sure that Myers has done something very different from, say, buying a crucifix or Koran and then disfiguring it.

The Myers case is entirely different. Myers advertised on his blog for a consecrated host and was apparently sent one from England (not, I might add, from me!)

I don't buy all this nonsense about setting conditions on how something is to be used. If a hotel gives me a bun in the morning it's none of their business where and when I eat it. The operation of my digestive system is my business, not theirs.

In an effort to get things back onto the topic of the intersection of religion and science. Have any of you heard of the technological singularity and Singularitarianism?

It is not science, but is a moral philosophy based upon the belief that a technological singularity will create a techno-utopia. However, it has a pseudo-science veneer and seems to appeal to science minded people. In particular they have this graph showing technological progress and extrapolate it forever in to the future and have it go vertical at the singularity point.

Singularitarianism does seem to have the potential to become a full blown religion and I could see people who think they're ushering in a utopia taking extreme actions. Particularly if they think some risky technology is the path to this brave new world.

Part of the reason I was getting picking about the singularity in the math of the big bang is that extrapolation really annoys me. I wasn't saying that the big bang didn't happen, just that we really don't know that much about it. Likewise I think that forward extrapolation is not valid since it is unlikely that a particular trend can continue to infinity.

"Writing in Salon, physicist Karl Giberson"

TR: Well there you go. The majority of physicists actually are atheists, but with the possible exemption of Weinberg they rarely seem to be the militant type you see in biology or neurology. Part of that is that they don't have to deal with Fundamentalists much, but the other part is physicists I think are a bit freer to think human beings are kind of okay. They also can see constants and laws in the Universe. Biologists are pretty much encouraged to be a bit misanthropic. It's pretty much biological dogma that humans are just another animal born to suffer, die, and a destroy what's around them. While nature is a cruel place without design or meaning where the only constant is adaptation.

"And if you choose wrongly with this toss up, your reward is an eternity of torment." Derek Copold

Even the Medieval mind recognized levels of Hell. Atheists could be left in a dark place where they regret not going to Heaven, but outside of that they could enjoy the company of other atheists and I don't know play word games or have sex or something. (You won't want to have sex in Heaven, by traditional Christian understanding, but I don't know if this applies to Hell or Limbo)

Granted Pascal was a Jansenist and they were a fairly austere lot. I'm pretty sure they felt all non-Catholics burned in Hell as they deemed themselves Catholic. Latter-day Jansenists though are, somehow, more liberal than Catholics.

"But how do we know this? The first chapters of Genesis don't really read like poetry to me. They are elegaic of course, and full of high-sounding prose, but they mean what they say." DC

TR: I don't think they're poetry, they're mythos or perhaps fable. Mythos is a way for primitive people to make sense of things and teach a lesson. It is not fantasy or fiction, it is seen as "true" just true about some element of human nature or being. (I don't care for Lewis, but this is largely based on him and I think he's more or less correct on this limited matter. I think he's just way too enraptured with mythos for my taste) Anyway a more primitive society disobedience among the young could be dangerous if they ended up eating something poisonous or what not. Although more important/lasting is the anti-pride element of the story and seeking short-cuts to ultimate answers.

"If you're telling me the book can be both metaphorical and literal, I have to ask by what standard you sort out the literal from the symbolic." DC

TR: For Catholics, Orthodox, and to an extent Anglicans the teaching authority of the Church has spelled this out to a great extent. Although in Judaism I believe there's also a division between which books of the Talmud are "wisdom stories" or "historical" or "prophetic."

Derek Copold | August 2, 2008 11:29 AM, as I said before I'm happy to end it there, because I think we both find one another's positions incomprehensible. I said before that we weren't going to agree on this, because you appear unwilling to accept the onus of establishing your extravagant claims of trespass, by a Catholic student on University grounds, and theft, of an item freely given to that Catholic for consumption. An individual, Catholic or not, has the right to determine what he eats or does not eat. An individual, Catholic or not, has the right to be safe from assault, in all places.

Thomas R, I'm glad you pointed out the Raelians as I forgot all about the UFO religions. All of them would definitely make my list of pseudo-science based religions and Scientology definitely fits in this group too. I once had a crazy thought that if aliens actually exist these guys must look like cargo cults look to us.

What I find interesting about the Raelians and the Singularitarians is that they have more male participation than female. Generally men have a lower level of religiosity than women, so this inversion seems like an important aspect of this phenomena.

In any case the Raelians strike me as harmless. However, the Heaven's Gate group shows how this can lead to fanaticism too.

Singulitarianism is closely related to transhumanism. Basically, I think it's nonsense. I think that God or the Cosmos present pretty strong barriers to exponential technological progress. The big one is the energy shortage. However, even if an almost unlimited source of energy were found, I guess there to be pretty strong barriers in other ways:

1. We are never going to have faster-than-light travel, which means humans will never go anywhere other than earth, Mars and perhaps some of the satellites of the gas giants. The space programme was not the beginning of Star Trek, but the tail end of a sequence of technological advance starting with the steam engine.

2. It doesn't look like genuine artificial intelligence is ever going to be achieved. Since the 1950s we've been told that it's just round the corner, but the results have been pitiful. Even linguistic translation software has run aground.

Given human inability to be morally godlike, our inability to be godlike in power is surely good news!

Thomas R: I think the distinction between belief in ghosts, etc., and belief in UFOs, etc., is more social than gender-based. At least in the UK, belief in ghosts is more socially respectable, whereas if you hear about someone who believes in UFOs you tend to think of a 19-year-old who doesn't wash, and can't get a girlfried.

"I think young British people believe in astrology and the paranormal more than American youths."
You may be right about this, but I'm not sure about the connection to Christianity. Germans are about as secular as English people, but they are astonished when they meet English people who believe in ghosts.

Another point is that one man's paranormal is another man's religion. Belief in fairies, etc., is a traditional folk belief, but is also part of some Neopagan belief, which often has a worked-out, fairly consistent doctrine.

rombald, I agree that it is likely humans will never go outside our solar system. However, automated probes to other stars seem possible for the extremely patient. Although building a machine that works for 1,000-10,000 years is a technical challenge beyond us right now.

"Given human inability to be morally godlike, our inability to be godlike in power is surely good news!"

Good point. I'm going to have to remember that one for some future point in time.