Sam Harris - Science must destroy religion article

[grannymh]

DCNBill,

Any more thoughts on this topic? Not a massive rush for this if you are busy at the moment but I thought the conversation was probably approaching it’s conclusion so was interested to see where you were heading.

TonyRey,

Any further questions you’d like to ask on this thread or are you happy you understand how this all works now?

Either way hope you are both well and everything.

small observation from the trenches

Don’t know about the “science must” business since I have not followed this thread. However, from the view point of religion in the trenches, some natural science disciplines have already destroyed for some, not all, people some time honored beliefs such as God’s existence and origin of human nature.

 

[LogisticsBranch]

small observation from the trenches

Don’t know about the “science must” business since I have not followed this thread. However, from the view point of religion in the trenches, some natural science disciplines have already destroyed for some, not all, people some time honored beliefs such as God’s existence and origin of human nature.

Grannymh, let’s see if I can help you by showing to you how wonderful science can be and if you like to think that human nature is philosophically and religiously linked to your belief then I don’t mind. Science isn’t out to destroy God. However, I wish you would move forward and find the beauty found in science too.
MedlinePlus has an article, Toddlers Are Happier to Give Than Receive:Study dated June 29, 2012 by Robert Preidt:

*- Giving treats to others makes toddlers happier than receiving treats, researchers report.

They also found that toddlers younger than 2 were happier when giving treats that belonged to them, rather than identical treats that didn’t.

The team of three psychologists at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, gave toddlers some treats and a few minutes later asked the toddlers to give one of their treats to a puppet. The children were also given an extra treat and asked to give this to the puppet too.

The toddlers’ reactions to these requests were videotaped and then rated for happiness. The researchers concluded that the toddlers showed greater happiness when they shared their own treat than when they shared the extra treat. This suggests that this behavior is emotionally rewarding for the children.

“People tend to assume that toddlers are naturally selfish,” study lead author Lara Aknin said in a university news release. “These findings show that children are actually happier giving than receiving.”

The study was published June 14 in the online journal PLoS One.*
nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_126798.html

Candide West, I’ll have to return to you later. Does my dog have morals as I earlier said. Yep! Darwin’s Dogs://www.thebark.com/content/darwin%E2%80%99s-dogs-0// I’ll have to get back to you later. It even talks about the supernatural in that article. Enjoy the read. I enjoy science because it is informative and more fun than I can begin to express.

I’d like to wish all young people I personally know that are heading to the University of Notre Dame in a few weeks the very best life has to offer and please remember to stay in contact with your mom. Mothers in my area are starting to miss there kids already even though they haven’t left home quite yet! Many blessings to those young minds.

 

[grannymh]

Grannymh, let’s see if I can help you by showing to you how wonderful science can be and if you like to think that human nature is philosophically and religiously linked to your belief then I don’t mind. Science isn’t out to destroy God. However, I wish you would move forward and find the beauty found in science too.

Before I move on to reading the rest of this post, would you kindly review what I said in post 100. – “However, from the view point of religion in the trenches, some natural science disciplines have already destroyed for some, not all, people some time honored beliefs such as God’s existence and origin of human nature.”

Note the careful nuance which avoided the idea of *all *science destroying God Himself and left open a large door to the beauty of science. One needs to be careful of assuming that I need to “move forward and find the beauty found in science too.” just because the beauty of
God-given natural science was not mentioned. However, since you mentioned what I should be doing, I will take that as a kindly reminder.

Thank you for your good thoughts.

 

[grannymh]

The previous thread on this article seems to have closed. I’m guessing there is some time limit or post limit on these threads?

In any case there were a few interesting discussions in progress at the time so here’s a new thread to continue them.

Thanks

Would it be possible to repost the link to Sam Harris’ article? I would like to read it for its philosophical position.
Thank you.

 

[grannymh]

I presented this before and will again:

The University of Science Berkeley has an online document entitled
“Misunderstandings of the limits of science”: undsciberkely.ed/article/science_religion
Here are three snippets from that online document:

1. “Science contradicts the existence of God. Because of some vocal individuals (both inside and outside of science) stridently declaring their beliefs, it’s easy to get the impression that science and religion are at war. In fact, people of many different faiths and levels of scientific expertise see no contradiction at all between science and religion. Because science deals only with natural phenomena and explanations, it cannot support or contradict the existence of supernatural entities — like God."

If this philosophical concept is correct, and I assume it is, than those “mountains of evidence” regarding human origin cannot universally exclude the possibility of two, sole founders of the human species.

In my humble opinion, this quote from above: “Because science deals only with natural phenomena and explanations, it cannot support or contradict the existence of supernatural entities — like God.” is a philosophical statement as to the purpose of natural science and its domain location. As such, it is proper for natural science to exclude the study of a supernatural entity.

For Catholics, there is the difficulty, according to the philosophy of natural science, of studying human nature itself. Once human nature is limited to the realm of natural science, then there will be the loss of purpose for a human being.

I am not quite sure what is meant by destroying religion; however, distorting belief in the whole human nature will have serious effects.

Please note:
Presenting the above observations does not automatically imply that I am automatically against natural science which is a gift from God.

 

[grannymh]

I presented this before and will again:

The University of Science Berkeley has an online document entitled
“Misunderstandings of the limits of science”: undsciberkely.ed/article/science_religion
Here are three snippets from that online document:

Please see post 104 for discussion of point 1.

1. “A 2005 survey of scientists at top research universities found that more than 48% had a religious affiliation and more than 75% believe that religions convey important truths.2 Some scientists — like Francis Collins, former director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, and George Coyne, astronomer and priest — have been outspoken about the satisfaction they find in viewing the world through both a scientific lens and one of personal faith.”

This is a hard paragraph to deal with since religions, of any and all kinds, convey important truths. And yes, there is a lot of satisfaction from viewing the world through both a scientific lens and one of personal faith.

I wonder what percentage of people realize that the “satisfaction” is based on the Catholic doctrine that human nature, itself, is an unique unification of *both *the material and spiritual worlds. In essence, this doctrine separates the human species from all other living organisms. This separation, when one really understands the basic purposes of both science *and * faith, is so dramatic that it calls for humanity to descend from one human couple.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Why must science destroy religion? Anyone got a link to the article?

 

[grannymh]

I presented this before and will again:

The University of Science Berkeley has an online document entitled
“Misunderstandings of the limits of science”: undsciberkely.ed/article/science_religion
Here are three snippets from that online document:

1. “Though such clashes may garner print, airwave, and bandwidth headlines, it’s important to remember that, behind the scenes and out of the spotlight, many cases exist in which religious and scientific perspectives present no conflict at all. Thousands of scientists busily carry out their research while maintaining personal spiritual beliefs, and an even larger number of everyday folks fruitfully view the natural world through an evidence-based, scientific lens and the supernatural world through a spiritual lens. Accepting a scientific worldview needn’t require giving up religious faith.”

Please see posts 104 and 105 for discussion of points 1 and 2.

The sound-bite from point 3 above – “Accepting a scientific worldview needn’t require giving up religious faith.” – is one of those very true slogans heard just about everywhere. No one, absolutely no one, should dare deny it.

Unfortunately, in some areas off CAF, there are some people who have adopted this slogan as an explanation for updating (change Divine Revelation) basic Catholic doctrines regarding human origin, human nature, and a real original sin. Adopting a secular view of theology, these people off CAF, propose the dilution of true Catholicism to fit personal preferences.

Links to off CAF activities are a good source of what is happening in the world off CAF.

My own reaction to point 3 is to applaud the sincerity of our scientists.

Still I have read enough material off CAF to recognize some of the problems today’s Catholics are dealing with in regard to how much of their Catholic Faith they can accept. While I cannot deny the various truths contained in point 3, I need to emphasize that “religious faith” is not automatically the same as Catholicism.

Fortunately, on CAF, the truth (Divine Revelation) of Catholicism is presented. No way can “science per se” destroy the Catholic Religion.

 

[grannymh]

The bottom line is -----

While natural science per se cannot destroy the Catholic Religion per se, misleading interpretations of individual research papers can weaken the faith of individual Catholics to the point where the Catholic Faith is abandoned.

 

[Candide_West]

Why must science destroy religion? Anyone got a link to the article?

It’s here:

huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/sam-harris/science-must-destroy-reli_b_13153.html

For clarity the article is now quite old, I didn’t start the discussion on it myself but was involved in a couple discussions when the thread got closed.*

Incidentally I personally disagree with the article.*Here’s my original post regarding the article if you’re interested.

While I found that I agreed with the article on a number of points I have to say that I disagree with the main thrust of what he was getting at. I don’t think there needs to be any active exersion on the part of scientists to attack religion. Science by it’s very nature slowly and steadily erodes away the “mysterious” by which I mean the things that we do not yet understand. The further it advances the less space there is to manouever in the “supernatural”.*

Once upon a time the weather, earthquakes, the apparant movements of celestial bodies, the origin of species, illnesses and virtually everything else was attributed to gods or other supernatural agency. Science has given us understanding of those things and in so doing has removed the “supernaturalness” from them. It has done this without trying to use it as a tool to destroy religion or anything else.*

My prediction is that science will keep on advancing steadily into the regions of the unknown and as it does so the supernatural explanations of those things will one by one simply lose their utility.*

I agree that religion will continue to present resistance to the advances of science, a resistance which will (as it always has) slowly yield. Attempts to accellerate this process will in all probability result in backlash, as I’m sure you know religions in general thrive under persecution. Firstly it gives them something to push against, to strive to overcome and thus creates a stronger in-group mentality and thus offers a higher retention and (due to our nature as a social species) a higher recruitment rate too. Indeed there is a substantial amount of effort amongst a number of religous groups around the world at the moment to create an artificial sense of religious persecution (with varying degree of success amongst their adherents).*

Secondly religions selling paradise in the next life do much better when people are miserable in this life. Because it means that many people NEED that belief in order to cope with their life on earth. This of course is another area where science and applied science has hurt religious recruitment. It on the whole makes people’s lives safer, longer and more enjoyable. People who live long, happy, healthy lives usually feel less need to look for another life somewhere else to make up for this one.*

So I think that scientists out there should ignore this and just carry right on with the real work of science - finding out the “what’s” and “how’s” and “why’s” so that we can use the answers to make the world a better place. If in the process religion becomes slowly less relevant to people then so be it.

 

[grannymh]

It’s here:

huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/sam-harris/science-must-destroy-reli_b_13153.html

For clarity the article is now quite old, I didn’t start the discussion on it myself but was involved in a couple discussions when the thread got closed.*

Incidentally I personally disagree with the article.*Here’s my original post regarding the article if you’re interested.

Thank you for both the link and your post. Both are very informative.

The uniqueness of Catholicism is emphasized by its omission in the Sam Harris article. It may come as a surprise, but Catholicism is an unique religion in “Christianity”. Thus, I find it very difficult to generalize it to fit into the science/religion discussions currently on CAF.

 

[Candide_West]

Thank you for both the link and your post. Both are very informative.
*
The uniqueness of Catholicism is emphasized by its omission in the Sam Harris article. It may come as a surprise, but Catholicism is an unique religion in “Christianity”. Thus, I find it very difficult to generalize it to fit into the science/religion discussions currently on CAF.

I think it’s safe to say that Sam Harris will have used the term Christianity as a blanket term to include Catholicism as well as all the other forms of Christianity. Just like he presumably included Sunni when he referred to Islam.*

There’s certainly nothing there to suggest he was excluding Catholicism and given the context of the article it’s hard to see how he would have been able to (even if he wanted to) without some appalling special pleading.*

 

[grannymh]

I think it’s safe to say that Sam Harris will have used the term Christianity as a blanket term to include Catholicism as well as all the other forms of Christianity. Just like he presumably included Sunni when he referred to Islam.*

There’s certainly nothing there to suggest he was excluding Catholicism and given the context of the article it’s hard to see how he would have been able to (even if he wanted to) without some appalling special pleading.*

Without pointing to Sam himself, there is this popular concept --let the poor and uneducated believe that Catholicism is just another Iron Age organization to be recognized as the “ludicrous obscenity” that it is along with all the other uneducated religions. As for Sam Harris’ use of the term “ludicrous obscenity” in his closing, I can hear the drum roll and blast of trumpets.

Of course I agree with you!
There is nothing in the article to indicate that Sam has a clue as to the uniqueness of Catholicism.

What I observed was this. The uniqueness of Catholicism is emphasized by its omission in the Sam Harris article. I simply pointed out the omission. If Sam is as old as I am which is older than dirt, maybe he forgot.

However, I do like your reasoning better. Thank you.

Sam and his friends in high places do make it difficult (intentionally or not) for a simple, cranky granny to generalize Catholicism so that it can squeeze into the science/religion discussions. My problem is my knowledge that some, not all, Catholics do not accept some of the basic doctrines of Catholicism. But that is a story for another time.

 

[Candide_West]

Without pointing to Sam himself, there is this popular concept --let the poor and uneducated believe that Catholicism is just another Iron Age organization to be recognized as the “ludicrous obscenity” that it is along with all the other uneducated religions. As for Sam Harris’ use of the term “ludicrous obscenity” in his closing, I can hear the drum roll and blast of trumpets.
*
Of course I agree with you!
There is nothing in the article to indicate that Sam has a clue as to the uniqueness of Catholicism.*
*
What I observed was this. The uniqueness of Catholicism is emphasized by its omission in the Sam Harris article. I simply pointed out the omission. If Sam is as old as I am which is older than dirt, maybe he forgot.*

Indeed, to paraphrase an old saying “Catholicism is unique - just like every other religion.”

I suppose that’s probably the only thing all religions have in common.*
*

However, I do like your reasoning better. Thank you.*

Thank you, kind of you to say so.
*

Sam and his friends in high places do make it difficult (intentionally or not) for a simple, cranky granny to generalize Catholicism so that it can squeeze into the science/religion discussions. My problem is my knowledge that some, not all, Catholics do not accept some of the basic doctrines of Catholicism. But that is a story for another time.

Fair enough.

 

[grannymh]

Indeed, to paraphrase an old saying “Catholicism is unique - just like every other religion.”

I suppose that’s probably the only thing all religions have in common.

Yes, that is a good observation. However, coming from a Catholic perspective, I see quite a bit of difference between Catholicism and other Christian religions. And I am sure that other religions can say about the same thing.

What I currently see happening is that some, not all, Catholics are giving away their uniqueness or are playing down their uniqueness to blend in with contemporary scientific theories or to blend in with a form of secular theology that is loosely based on cultural needs.

The more I think about the OP article, the more I realize that it is the personal battle cry of a group of people who are against any kind of religion. Natural science per se is not out to destroy; its goals are to explain what is evident in our natural environment. Natural science seeks improvements. It is when the interpretation of natural science intersects with a basic Catholic doctrine that there is major concern on the part of the Catholic Church.

 

[Candide_West]

I will sum up presently you may have to give me some time due to my current situation.

Thanks:thumbsup:

Hey Bill,

Just wondered if you have any time to write again as yet? I hate to pester but it seemed as though you had concluded your preparatory discussion and were ready to post your reasoning but just didn’t have time when you wrote the above. However I note that you’ve written over 50 posts over the past week alone so was wondering if you’d just forgotten about this discussion?*

To remind you, your original statement was that:

“Morality without a Creator could not, logically, exist.”

After all this time and preparatory conversation it would be nice to see and discuss your argument to support the above statement.