"It is quite clear that explicit religious belief requires a suspension of the sound rules according to which most scientists evaluate evidence."

Well, it's a good thing that that's "clear", so that it removes the need to "prove" such nonsense.

Brian:

I think he is noting that the thought processes people use in scientific endeavors are not the same as those used in religious endeavors. It is important to keep in mind that many people engage in both the former and the latter.

If he had written the sentence as "... requires a suspension of the material rules ..." I doubt you would have found it in the least offensive, or counterintuitive.

For an article I thought to be pretty even handed, that is an unfortunate case of poor word choice, but I think the sentence's meaning is far less debatable than you make it out to be.

OJ:
Of course religion is natural. It is common to all known humans. That makes it just as natural as gender differences.

Using science to explain religion is no more nonsensical than using science to explain vision. Those elements of religion that have a material basis are amenable to scientific investigation. The answer at the end of the day could be religion has no, some, or complete material foundation. But even if the answer turns out there is utterly no material basis to religion, using the scientific method to investigate the question is completely appropriate.

Yes, you get lost when you invoke a material basis.

Science is, then, unreasonably effective. If the world really is controlled by an active intervenor who is antiscientific, why doesn't science fail more than it does? Why, in fact, doesn't it always fail?

Because each of the premises of your questions is wrong?

OJ:

No, your position is hopelessly blinkered.

First, I wasn't invoking a material basis, any more than you. If you presume religious belief is completely immaterial, you are, like it or not, making a material argument. That, in turn, begs a material question, the answer to which might very well not contradict your material assertion.

Let's take as given your entering argument regarding materialism (never mind I have yet to find a better argument for nihilism). It just doesn't matter whether it is true or not.

Science is still effective at discriminating truth value between competing material theories.

Steve den Beste has had several very interesting articles on just this point over the last couple weeks. You could do far worse than to read an acutely analytical mind at work.

Jeff:

Yes, once you assume a material world you're home free, you just can't demonstrate the material world scientifically. So you're left with a faith and then you're trying to use that immaterial faith to demonstrate the materiality of other faiths. I've got no problem with it if that's the religion you choose.

OJ:

You simply don't get it. It just doesn't matter whether the existence of reality can be proven. I neither assume nor deny the material world--it just doesn't matter.

Even if this is all a charade, the way the charade has played out so far is that some claims about the charade can be distinguished from other claims about the charade.

As opposed to religion. It has made a host of claims either about the material world, or the charade, your choice. Regardless, it is impossible to distinguish the truth value of, say, Hinduism, from Islam, from Judaism, from Christianity, from ....

...Materialism

Jeff--The article seems to have this strange vision of "science" that one makes a bunch of observations, applies "science" and gets an answer out the back. Of course, this is not how "science" works at all. It's a dirty business, because most of the time there are multiple models that fit the data equally well. Heck, there are perfectly legitimate astrophysicists who reject the Big Bang model. They're in the minority, but they're using "the sound rules according to which most scientists evaluate evidence."

Now switching to religion, the statement I objected to seems to makes no sense unless one begins with the assumption that religious belief is invalid. If you wish to stack the deck in such a way from the beginning and call it "science", don't expect your "proof" to mean anything.

Either the world operates according to rule, or the Big Spook interferes.

All the evidence isn't in yet, but the part of the world that does not operate according to rule keeps shrinking.

There's less and less room for the Big Spook every day.

Who set the rules?

"Who set the rules?"

If he never deviates from the rules, does it matter who set the rules?

Brian:

It isn't clear to me where you got that idea, either from the article, or what I have written.

My takeaways from the article were several: first, the commonly assumed characteristics of religious belief are very simplistic; secondly, that there was no claim that belief itself was invalid--in fact, many claims to that extent are themselves invalid; third, some aspects of religious belief may be amenable to scientific analysis.

Except for the unfortunate use of the word "sound," I can't remember anything in that article debunking religion or believers.

Robert:

Thanks for help making my point above. This worrying about whether it is possible to prove our existence stops worrying philosophy students midway through their sophomore year, and the rest of us far sooner.

OJ:

Once again, you miss the point I clearly made. Within the realm of materialism, it is possible to distinguish the truth value between competing material claims, including those religion makes.

Within the realm of religion, it is not possible to distinguish the truth value between competing theological claims.

Robert:

No.

Jeff:

I understand perfectly. But materialism's realm is a subset of the religious realm, not vice versa.

Mutually exclusive sets.

Each can attempt to describe the other.

No question which does a better job.

To the contrary, reason demonstrates itself to be a subset of faith--that's its fatal weakness.

OJ:

Clearly, you don't understand, or refuse to. One belief system is baroque and monarchic, the other spartan and meritrocratic. Not a heck of a lot of overlap there.

As Harry says, they are mutually exclusive sets.

That materialism is not a subset of religion should be clear from the nearly perfect paucity of theologians in the realm of science.

One may as well try teaching Sanskrit to a pony. (That goes equally well for scientists in the realm of theology, BTW.)

Jeff:

I know it's necessary for you to beliueve that--it's your faith--but no non true believer fails to acknowledge that reason/materialism.sciencism disproves its own foundations and reduces to faith.

Scientists are generally religious. As physicist Robert Griffiths said: “If we need an atheist for a debate, I go to the philosophy department. The physics department isn’t much use.”

Of course, you aren't talking about real scientists...

OJ:

I never mentioned atheistic scientists. In fact, right at the top I clearly stated that frequently scientists and religious believers are the same people.

Religious belief is baroque and monarchic, materialism--I'll accept as stipulated that it is a faith--is spartan and meritocratic. Not a heck of a lot of overlap there.

Faith doesn't overlap faith?

Apples don't overlap oranges. They are both fruit.

Exactly.