Darwin... naturalism...

i'm not sure there's a charitable reading of that passage that doesn't leave me in strong disagreement

blech.

"Placing aside stereotypes about "anti-science fundamentalists" . . . Intelligent Design reminds us that intellectual inquiry does not have to begin and end with naturalism . . . Refusing to do scholarship that might cross conventional borders strikes me as unfruitful and cowardly."

This is just really, really unfortunate. In fact intelligent design reminds us exactly the opposite, that no "scholarship" comes out of so-called science that implies 'methodological supernaturalism' at its base - even despite being as well funded as the Discovery Institute. These assumptions have proved entirely unfruitful for science, and in fact they have undermined it with an arsenal of typical - 'cowardly' - Creationist lies about evolution. Intelligent design was never science, just a political movement to get god in the schools. "Anti-science fundamentalists" is an entirely apt description of Dembski and school. To imply otherwise is to discredit oneself; which is not to say this necessarily reflects on Berrett's cognitive science anymore than it does Behe's bio-chem.

let me point out that that was a sincere and thoughtful blech.

I haven't read the book, but isn't it true that the concept "belief" is as undefined and conveniently flexible as the concept "God"? Isn't it true that one cannot "disbelieve" any more than one can "believe" in some concept if that concept is irrational and self-contradictory? So there are not atheists and believers. There are merely wise men and fools.

" that concept is irrational and self-contradictory"

how is the concept of god self-contradicting?

I dont belive in god becase i need proof not faith to believe in something. However i cant see how the concept of god contadicts itself.

Until this person figures out that a-theism is not the same thing as a-religionism and that it's perfectly possible to be deeply and devotedly religious without a "theos," he should be assigned to reading about Daoism and Buddhism.

The first rule of thinking is to get one's definitions corresponding to reality. We've already got enough straw gods.

Prairie Mary

bob,

There are problems with the concept of god, e.g., could god destroy itself; who/what created god, & if god was not caused, how did it create itself; it would have to be outside time, whatever that means? Believers just say that god is an/the uncaused cause, but don't allow for any analysis of their position.

There are many others.

I'm with P. Mary on this, and I'll had a small touch too. It's that the "god" who's disucssed in these postings/commentsfests always or at least most often seems to be the god of the Abrahamic traditions. There are other ways to conceive of the whole "god" thing. Here's an example. Let's say you have a feeling that it ain't ever going to be fully explained -- that the Theory of Everything that finally gets it all just ain't going to happen. There will always be something -- perhaps even a large and significant amount of something that eludes and escapes us. How about using "god" as a name for for this fact/quality -- as a shorthand, convenient way of labeling the final overwhelming unexplainability of it all.

Michael Blowhard: “There will always be something -- perhaps even a large and significant amount of something that eludes and escapes us. How about using "god" as a name for for this fact/quality -- as a shorthand, convenient way of labeling the final overwhelming unexplainability of it all.”

The word “god” carries with it the baggage of creation, divine intervention, afterlife, revealed wisdom, priests, shamans, code of behavior, etc. I prefer to label the unknown as “unknown” and leave it at that. Doing so also leaves open the possibility that what is now unknown may some day become known.

(My “unknown” box does contain interesting stuff that isn’t presently explained by any scientific model.)

michael, mary, you are speaking to issues that justin wasn't addressing. michael specifically is talking about "essences" (from what i can tell) which crop up in non-abrahamic traditions as an impersonal sort of "godhead" (heaven, the one, etc.). but in any case, cognitively what people believe in is basically a supernatural agent, that's what they can imagine. the monotheistic god is much more, but that "much more" is more definitial and idealistic than real. though religions like buddhism, confucianism and even hinduism exhibit non-theistic tendences, on the ground practioners almost always tend to be theists. elite religious sensibilities are a separate issue, and they get a lot of play in intellectual discourse because these are the sort of ideas that appeal to intellectuals. but, what cognitive scientists have found is that 99% of religionists believe in basically a powerful-some-what-weird-dude(s)(ette)(s)-in-the- sky, no matter what creed they affirm (whether it be non-theistic therevada buddhism or athanasian christianity).

Fly, Razib -- Apologies for veering a bit off topic. But I enjoy bringing up this point: that the "god" idea can, in addition to being a name for the Big Guy, also be a good label, and it can be a good metaphor too. Religions can be understood, enjoyed, and even gotten something out of metaphorically. The Abrahamic religions, for instance, have never spoken to me. I understand them intellectually, but I don't "get" them on an instinctive level. I don't know, without doing too much intellectual puzzling, what they're really talking about, or what processes or experiences they're metaphors for. Buddhism and Hinduism? I get them instantly. Do they "explain" anything? Certainly not in a scientific sense. Do I buy the mythology? Maybe, maybe not. But I find them helpful models (for the mind and the comos), and I find them so useful as metaphors that there are times when I find myself not thinking of them as metaphors at all. I know on an instinctual level what forces and experiences are being modeled and discussed, as well as what the gods and stories represent. They have a utility in this sense (or at least they can be thought of as having this kind of utility): they make certain aspects of life more discussable than they'd be otherwise.

michael, i think my response would be that you are cognitively atypical. i am in the same boat as you, i don't really "get" the abrahamic religions. but, 95% of humanity seems to (remember that "folk" hinduism, buddhism, etc. don't really differ much mentally from "folk" christian, islam and judaism).

Razib, I wonder how much monotheism in 'natural' to people in that they are willing to accept just one god. It strikes me that when you impose just one god on people, all sorts of other supernatural agents pop up - saints, demons, spirits, etc. This indicates to me that paganism in the sense of a multiplicity of supernatural agents is more 'natural' to the human psyche than monotheism.

Also, those critical of Barrett should distinguish between methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism.

This indicates to me that paganism in the sense of a multiplicity of supernatural agents is more 'natural' to the human psyche than monotheism.

yes. folk islam has "saints" from what i recall (one of my ancestors was a pir whose tomb is a local site of pilgrimage for prayer). there is a reason that salafism arose.

best site
http://www.pregnancy.net.in/

good site
http://www.pokkers.org/

nice site
http://www.flowers-shop.org/