The Ontological Necessity of a God Thread?: Religion II

[The Marquis de Leech]

If they outright arrest him and prevent him from expressing his views? The church. Anytime you suppress dissenting views via censorship that is anti-science. Although a better analogy would be string theory, cause while geocentrism may have been the better supported theory, that doesn't make it well supported. After all for all that geocentrism was considered true many of Copernicus' ideas were used despite coming from a heliocentric framework.

Note though this is different from not allowing him to teach it that way in school.

If the expression of those dissenting views is based on defamation, one is running into issues of freedom of speech, not science. Science hinges on how testable hypotheses fit with observational data. The Church was willing to shift its position if the data required. Galileo wasn't - he was the one asserting (without foundation) that he was absolutely and completely right.

[Sci-2]

Psychedelic Christianity, Santo Daime and Ayahuasca

Interesting article though I'm not sure how much this guy really understands Christianity, Liberation Theology in particular.

Ayahuasca religion is a strange concept to get your head around, even before you drink ayahausca. At my first session about ten years ago, I was very keen to try the brew, but the shirts and ties and general Christian vibe made me feel instantly uneasy. A question arose: What does Christianity have to do with psychedelics?

Amongst anarchists, occultists and hedonists, there is much which is objectionable about Christianity. This article is about my induction into the Christian mythos; but fear not, you proud and proper transgressives, there will be no repentance for my old devilish ways. Much of modern Christianity smells as rotten as ever, but Daime is as fresh as a starry night in the rainforest...

[TrueMetis]

If the expression of those dissenting views is based on defamation, one is running into issues of freedom of speech, not science. Science hinges on how testable hypotheses fit with observational data. The Church was willing to shift its position if the data required. Galileo wasn't - he was the one asserting (without foundation) that he was absolutely and completely right.

Defamation is a different issue, and that Galileo's position wasn't scientifically founded doesn't make silencing him on either free speech or scientific grounds okay. By banning Galileo from so much as holding his position they prevent him from ever finding evidence for his position, how is that not anti-science?

Let's look at a modern example, creationists are wrong as fuck, as are climate deniers. But we don't ban them from pursuing their bullshit because there's always the chance, however remote, that they will find proof of their claims or otherwise expand scientific knowledge.

We do however generally say no to teaching that as fact in the classroom, and if the church had just done that and just taken him to task over defamation I probably wouldn't have an issue with the church over this. Then again if they had just done that we probably wouldn't even know about it.

[Gears of the Beast]

So you want to use Galileo to illustrate the Church being hostile to science. But you don't think the Church has had a general policy of being hostile to science, because an illustration of a Churchman (like Mendel) advancing science is supposedly irrelevant to what you're getting at. Except that I don't see you arguing that the Church has both advanced and inhibited science throughout its long history: you only want to focus on the (alleged) inhibitions, not the advancements. Which strikes me as a tad disingenuous.

This is getting very tiresome indeed because at this point you're just running around in circles.

That comment was with regard to my opinion on whether the church is anti-science, I answered not really with the caveat that throughout the history of the catholic church there have been times in which its actions/positions have been hostile towards science - Galileo is an example of a particular instance in which the catholic church was hostile towards science.

So for the absolute last time: it is not my position that it has a general policy of hostility towards science. If you honestly think someone like Mendel refutes the notion that 'throughout the history of the catholic church there have been times in which its actions/positions have been hostile towards science' then we have nothing more to discuss because that's ridiculous. Has the church itself advanced science in some way throughout history? Maybe (and that wouldn't mean they can't be hostile towards science in other instances too), Have catholic individuals made enormous contributions towards science? Of course. If that's all you want me to say than you could have ceased this nonsense like 4 pages ago.

You keep trying to rationalise what the church did to Galileo, calling him an attention seeking troll is ridiculous. But I don't really give a fuck, I've listened to enough biased drivel on the matter. You either agree or disagree with this:

For any institution to:

-force him to completely stop teaching, defending, discussing or writing about this position

-force him to not hold this position at all

-force him to recant this position

would be very hostile to science indeed.

if you disagree you're simply wrong. If you don't think that's what they did you're simply wrong.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

So for the absolute last time: it is not my position that it has a general policy of hostility towards science. If you honestly think someone like Mendel refutes the notion that 'throughout the history of the catholic church there have been times in which its actions/positions have been hostile towards science' then we have nothing more to discuss because that's ridiculous. Has the church itself advanced science in some way throughout history? Maybe (and that wouldn't mean they can't be hostile towards science in other instances too), Have catholic individuals made enormous contributions towards science? Of course. If that's all you want me to say than you could have ceased this nonsense like 4 pages ago.

Maybe? Have you actually bothered reading the link that I posted earlier in this thread? Enlightenment and Renaissance Humanities thinkers sought to portray the Middle Ages and the Church as being backwards thinkers, yet much of their scientific and mathematical developments were built squarely atop Church "proto-scientists."

You keep trying to rationalise what the church did to Galileo, calling him an attention seeking troll is ridiculous. But I don't really give a fuck, I've listened to enough biased drivel on the matter. You either agree or disagree with this:

For any institution to:

-force him to completely stop teaching, defending, discussing or writing about this position

-force him to not hold this position at all

-force him to recant this position

would be very hostile to science indeed.

if you disagree you're simply wrong. If you don't think that's what they did you're simply wrong.

That criteria would likely make a number of various universities and colleges throughout history just as guilty as the Roman Catholic Church. Are secular universities then anti-science throughout history?

[Gears of the Beast]

Maybe? Have you actually bothered reading the link that I posted earlier in this thread? Enlightenment and Renaissance Humanities thinkers sought to portray the Middle Ages and the Church as being backwards thinkers, yet much of their scientific and mathematical developments were built squarely atop Church "proto-scientists."

No. And the reason I say maybe is I'm not 100% sure where the distinction lies between what the church itself has done and what individuals who adhere to the doctrine of the church have done and because I don't really need to go into that because of what I note after that in the parenthesis. They probably did, I'm not arguing that they didn't. It doesn't mean they can't have been hostile towards science at times throughout their long history

That criteria would likely make a number of various universities and colleges throughout history just as guilty as the Roman Catholic Church. Are secular universities then anti-science throughout history?

Well obviously, that's why I said "for any institution to..." If you could find an instance in which any institution at all did that or something equivalent I would label them equally.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Defamation is a different issue, and that Galileo's position wasn't scientifically founded doesn't make silencing him on either free speech or scientific grounds okay. By banning Galileo from so much as holding his position they prevent him from ever finding evidence for his position, how is that not anti-science?

Let's look at a modern example, creationists are wrong as fuck, as are climate deniers. But we don't ban them from pursuing their bullshit because there's always the chance, however remote, that they will find proof of their claims or otherwise expand scientific knowledge.

We do however generally say no to teaching that as fact in the classroom, and if the church had just done that and just taken him to task over defamation I probably wouldn't have an issue with the church over this. Then again if they had just done that we probably wouldn't even know about it.

They didn't go after anyone else for heliocentric ideas. Just Galileo. Because only Galileo was being such an arsehole about it, and because this entire thing was about how Galileo was conducting himself.

This is what Rorshach and myself have been emphasising. The common myth, endorsed by yourself and GotB, paints this picture of an evil dogmatic Church, too hidebound to depart from literal scripture and antiquated teachings to realise that Galileo was right. The actual facts of the case are that Galileo was the dogmatic one (without any justification for his dogmatism), that the Church was perfectly willing to change its interpretation of scripture, and moreover that the Pope's emphasis on prediction as the test of a scientific theory predates Popper by centuries. The cherry on top is that Galileo decided to be really offensive about the whole thing, despite being wrong.

You and GotB don't however care that this is simply an example of the Church smacking down a defamatory arsehole in a society where defamation was a Big Thing. You prefer to focus on the act of smacking down itself, as if it can somehow be divorced from the contextual realities of history. It's as if all judges are monsters because they're taking away someone's liberty - who cares about the context of crime and trial?

[The Marquis de Leech]

So for the absolute last time: it is not my position that it has a general policy of hostility towards science. If you honestly think someone like Mendel refutes the notion that 'throughout the history of the catholic church there have been times in which its actions/positions have been hostile towards science' then we have nothing more to discuss because that's ridiculous. Has the church itself advanced science in some way throughout history? Maybe (and that wouldn't mean they can't be hostile towards science in other instances too), Have catholic individuals made enormous contributions towards science? Of course. If that's all you want me to say than you could have ceased this nonsense like 4 pages ago.

Again, pretending that the Galileo case supports your argument (it doesn't), your focus on the Church's alleged hostility to science comes down to simply excluding cases that don't support your argument. So you want to claim that at certain specified times and in certain specified instances the Church has been hostile to science (which isn't really what you were saying earlier, but I digress). Fine. Someone else can just as easily claim that the Church has been helpful to science at points too. The Church has been many things over the last two thousand years, because if nothing else, religion is a bloody complicated business, and that in talking history, context is everything.

[Rorshach]

My in-laws computer is acting up on me again.. so I'll apologize in advance for the editing of this post.

I wanted to go back to what TrueMetis said yesterday:

I linked the papal condemnation written by the Judges who sentenced Galileo. It explicitly states that one of the reasons it condemn him is going against holy scripture

Herein lies, I think, part of our disagreement. I wouldn't disagree that the judges wrote what they wrote, and I would be crestfallen if RBPL did. I have also read it before. So the text is not new to me. Why, then, do I claim that the church wasn't really that bothered about scripture?

Here, context is key. Both you and GotB present direct quotes from the time, and assume they speak for themselves. If you study history, however, one of the first things you'll learn is that no qoute speaks for itself. In this case, we have a 400 year lag between ourselves and the qoute, and though this may feel condecending: a lot of things have changed since then. So while the text look crystal clear to you, it isn't.

GotB has qouted cardinal Bellarmine's discussion from 1616 earlier, where he writes that Galileo's position was "foolish and absurd in philosophy and formally heretical" (I'll come back to this quote later). Later in those writings, however, he writes: "I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun is at the center of the world and the earth in the third heaven, and that the sun does not circle the earth, but the earth circles the sun, then one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary, and say rather that we do not understand them than what is demonstrated is false." This was the church's position on such matters. In the quote from Tim O'Neill on page 17, he explains that the church opreated (and, afaik, operates) with no less than four levels of exegesis: literal, allegorical, moral and eschatological, of which the literal is the least important. So the literal meaning did not really matter all that much, if one could demonstrate that the world (or the universe) did not act as was written.

Why, then, did the church include that point both in the 1616 judgement and in the 1633 judgement? Because it had 1500 years of history of reading these passages with a geocentric model in mind, and Galileo, bluster aside, hadn't presented any evidence that could change that view. Therefore, it wasn't really a problem tacking on a point that it was against scripture, because interpretation of scripture conicided nicely with what we anachronistically may call scientific evidence.

But doesn't the 1616 quote say that Galileo was "formally heretical"? How can we explain away that? Well, here we enter the metaphysical realm. Remember (or, if you aren't already aware, know) that at this point, the leading philosopher was Thomas Aquinas, whose philosophy was built on Aristotelian foundation. Aristotle operated with a divide between form and substance. Substance was the important thing - the essence of any given object. If Bellarmine had called Galileo's ideas "substantially heretical", then we would have the church being anti-science: locking itself to a given world-view and resisting whatever new ideas would come along. Since they were only deemed "formally" heretical, however, the problem wasn't the substance of the idea but the form they were given: Galileo's insistence on teaching it as fact.

But why oh why did the church then scilence Galileo in 1633? Probably many reasons, but short and simplified: he was told in 1616 that he should stop teaching his idea as fact when it wasn't demonstrated to be. He didn't. This hadn't been a problem for Galileo since then, he had happily trotted along as he pleased because he had friends in high places. What changed was Dialogo - where he expertly managed to alienate his friends in high places - the pope in particular. When his backers no longer had his back, those who opposed him got a free rein to try him. And since Galileo was certainly guilty of breaking the 1616 judgement, he was sentenced. Basically, then, this was a political judgement. That wouldn't do in writing a document sentencing him, however. So that would get the form it did.

Since you like the creationist allegory here, let me use it, albeit haltingly: Galileo here is the creationist insisting on teaching his model as fact, when evidence does not support him. He was told in 1616 that he could do as you wish - teach his model as a model. He refused, and continued to teach it as fact. And then, when he lost his support, that came back and bit him in the ass.

Basic point here, apart from rehashing the story: No qoute from history can speak on its own. If you let it, you will almost certainly draw the wrong conclusion.

[Galactus]

Again, pretending that the Galileo case supports your argument (it doesn't), your focus on the Church's alleged hostility to science comes down to simply excluding cases that don't support your argument. So you want to claim that at certain specified times and in certain specified instances the Church has been hostile to science (which isn't really what you were saying earlier, but I digress). Fine. Someone else can just as easily claim that the Church has been helpful to science at points too. The Church has been many things over the last two thousand years, because if nothing else, religion is a bloody complicated business, and that in talking history, context is everything.

I'd argue that you either have to go wider or more narrow: Either the church is essentially anti-science (in that it is a religious organization, and thus it has nothing to do with it's actual conduct but rather the kind of orgnaization it is and what that implies about their epistemological foundations) or the Church has not been anti-science (although it may have had beefs with specific scientists)

Or of course, the Church isn't a monolith. Galileo had his defenders as well as his detractors, some of which were clergymen.

[Sci-2]

God, Drugs And Lizard Aliens: Yep, It's Country Music

That personal paradigm shift is represented in the album's first track, "Turtles All The Way Down," the video for which debuts here. "There's a gateway in our mind that leads somewhere out there beyond this plane," Simpsons sings in his outlaw baritone as his band lays down a gentle arrangement reminiscent of 's "".

The next lyric might make you jump: "Where reptile aliens made of light cut you open and pull out all your pain."

Aliens? Simpson's having fun with a cosmic-scientific connected to an old myth that imagines the world perched upon an infinite stack of the green-shelled creatures. Simpson invokes the Turtle in connection to his own quest for meaning, which never does let up. The song's video, created using software artist 's distributed computing project , similarly blends a straightforward, intimate performance with synapse-stimulating, -generated effects.

The new album isn't exactly what people might have expected from a guy often called a honky-tonker — though those classic elements are present, too. Where did you begin with these songs?

I just reached a point where the thought of writing and singing any more songs about heartache and drinking made me feel incredibly bored with music. It's just not a headspace I occupy much these days. Nighttime reading about theology, cosmology, and breakthroughs in modern physics and their relationship to a few personal experiences I've had led to most of the songs on the album.

Dr. Rick Strassman's book was extremely inspirational,as were a few recent highly visionary indie films and a lot of audio lectures. The influences are all over the place but they culminated into a group of songs about love and the human experience, centered around the light and darkness within us all. There have been many socially conscious concept albums. I wanted to make a "social consciousness" concept album disguised as a country record.

[TrueMetis]

They didn't go after anyone else for heliocentric ideas. Just Galileo. Because only Galileo was being such an arsehole about it, and because this entire thing was about how Galileo was conducting himself.

This is what Rorshach and myself have been emphasising. The common myth, endorsed by yourself and GotB, paints this picture of an evil dogmatic Church, too hidebound to depart from literal scripture and antiquated teachings to realise that Galileo was right. The actual facts of the case are that Galileo was the dogmatic one (without any justification for his dogmatism), that the Church was perfectly willing to change its interpretation of scripture, and moreover that the Pope's emphasis on prediction as the test of a scientific theory predates Popper by centuries. The cherry on top is that Galileo decided to be really offensive about the whole thing, despite being wrong.

I'm not actually endorsing that myth, not matter how often you like to pretend I am. I have said repeatedly that scripture was only one of the reasons he was tried, i have acknowledged the defamation, and in the very post you are talking about I say Galileo's idea were not scientifically founded. So drop the "I'm painting the church as dogmatic assholes" bullshit.

You and GotB don't however care that this is simply an example of the Church smacking down a defamatory arsehole in a society where defamation was a Big Thing. You prefer to focus on the act of smacking down itself, as if it can somehow be divorced from the contextual realities of history. It's as if all judges are monsters because they're taking away someone's liberty - who cares about the context of crime and trial?

Your right, I don't care about the time or society it happened in. As it does not matter. Regardless if the time period banning someone from speaking about their ideas is anti-science. One wonders why you think it matters that it was an acceptable thing to do at the time?

My in-laws computer is acting up on me again.. so I'll apologize in advance for the editing of this post.

I wanted to go back to what TrueMetis said yesterday:

I'm aware of this it's why I compared the scripture thing to Al Capone's tax fraud. This whole thing started with you claiming the church didn't use scripture as support for Galileo's trial, but now you here acknowledging that fact... or did you think I meant support in a different way? Cause the would actually explain a lot.

Though Admittedly I was wrong about the re-interpretation bit.

[Rorshach]

I'm aware of this it's why I compared the scripture thing to Al Capone's tax fraud. This whole thing started with you claiming the church didn't use scripture as support for Galileo's trial, but not you here acknowledging that fact... or did you think I meant support in a different way? Cause the would actually explain a lot.

Though Admittedly I was wrong about the re-interpretation bit.

I think we may be talking past each other on scripture a bit. Basically, what it seems like, given all other available evidence is that it is tacked on. It doesn't make sense to judge him according to scripture when scripture isn't seen as something interpreted once and for all. So, to put it in modern talk, when his enemies made a move on Galileo and got him judged, they threw the scripture bit after him as well. May as well go all the way, right? But scripture wasn't important for him to be judged - his views were.

[TrueMetis]

I think we may be talking past each other on scripture a bit. Basically, what it seems like, given all other available evidence is that it is tacked on. It doesn't make sense to judge him according to scripture when scripture isn't seen as something interpreted once and for all. So, to put it in modern talk, when his enemies made a move on Galileo and got him judged, they threw the scripture bit after him as well. May as well go all the way, right? But scripture wasn't important for him to be judged - his views were.

I would agree with that.

[Sci-2]

Regardless if the time period banning someone from speaking about their ideas is anti-science.

Looking at Nagel's argument stating ID is legitimate scientific inquiry, and the accusations by IDers that scientists ascribing to the theory are unfairly treated (quoted below*), would you say the anti-IDers are guilty of religious persecution?

*Here's the list of claims:

Actually, I'd love to see a TV show aimed at helping the public to understand the dangers of hindering academic freedom for scientists. I suppose if you wanted to cover that topic, you'd want to talk about the evil things some members of the church did to persecute scientists hundreds of years ago. But why stop there? Why not also talk about how Lysenkoists in the USSR persecuted scientists who didn't support their atheist, Communist ideology during the 20th century? Or why not talk about the numerous well-documented examples of scientists who have faced persecution and discrimination for disagreeing with Darwinian evolution in just the last few years? For example:

In 2005, Smithsonian spokesman Randall Kremer objected to a private screening of the pro-ID film The Privileged Planet because it drew a "philosophical conclusion." The Smithsonian made no complaints when Sagan's original Cosmos in 1980 argued that "The cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be."

A congressional subcommittee staff investigation found that biologist Richard Sternberg experienced retaliation by his co-workers and superiors at the Smithsonian, including transfer to a hostile supervisor, removal of his name placard from his door, deprivation of workspace, subjection to work requirements not imposed on others, restriction of specimen access, and loss of his keys, because he allowed a pro-ID article to be published in a biology journal. The Congressional staff investigation concluded that the "Smithsonian's top officials permit[ed] the demotion and harassment of [a] scientist skeptical of Darwinian evolution" and "officials explicitly acknowledged in emails their intent to pressure Sternberg to resign because of his role in the publication of the [pro-ID] Meyer paper and his views on evolution."

In 2009 the state-funded California Science Center (CSC) museum cancelled the contract of a pro-ID group, American Freedom Alliance (AFA), to show a pro-ID film. The lawsuit was settled in August 2011, with the CSC agreeing to pay AFA $110,000 to avoid a public trial. However, documents disclosed during the course of litigation showed that employees of the CSC, the Smithsonian Institution, and the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, joined with other LA-area academics to suppress the expression of ID, most egregiously by pressing CSC decision-makers to hastily cancel AFA's event.

In 2005, over 120 faculty members at Iowa State University (ISU) signed a petition denouncing ID and calling on "all faculty members to ... reject efforts to portray Intelligent Design as science." These efforts were significant not just because they opposed academic freedom by demanding conformity among faculty to reject ID, but because they focused on creating a hostile environment for pro-ID astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez, co-author of The Privileged Planet, who was denied tenure at ISU in 2006 due to his support for ID. Both public and private statements exposed through public records requests revealed that members of ISU's department in physics and astronomy voted against Gonzalez's tenure due to his support for ID.

In 1993, San Francisco State University biology professor Dean Kenyon was forced to stop teaching introductory biology because he was informing students that scientists had doubts about materialist theories of the origin of life.

In a similar case five years later, Minnesota high school teacher Rodney LeVake was removed from teaching biology after expressing skepticism about Darwin's theory. LeVake, who holds a master's degree in biology, agreed to teach evolution as required in the district's curriculum, but said he wanted to "accompany that treatment of evolution with an honest look at the difficulties and inconsistencies of the theory."

Rogert DeHart, a public high school biology teacher in Washington State, was denied the right to have his students read articles from mainstream science publications that made scientific criticisms of certain pieces of evidence typically offered to support Darwinian theory. One of the forbidden articles was written by noted evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould. Although DeHart complied with this ban, he was later removed from teaching biology.

In Mississippi, chemistry professor Nancy Bryson was asked by Mississippi University for Women to resign as head of the Division of Science and Mathematics after she gave a lecture to honors students called "Critical Thinking on Evolution." She remarked, "Students at my college got the message very clearly[;] do not ask any questions about Darwinism."

In 1999, ID theorist William Dembski founded the Polanyi Center at Baylor University to allow scientists and scholars to conduct scientific research into intelligent design. The Center was later shut down largely due to intolerance of ID among Baylor faculty.

In 2005, the president of the University of Idaho instituted a campus-wide classroom speech-code, where "evolution" was "the only curriculum that is appropriate" for science classes. This was done in retaliation towards a professor at the university, Scott Minnich, who at the time was testifying in favor of intelligent design as an expert witness at the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial.

Also in 2005, Cornell's former interim president Hunter Rawlings devoted a State of the University Address "to denounce 'intelligent design,' arguing that it has no place in science classrooms and calling on faculty members in a range of disciplines" to similarly attack ID.

In 2005, top biology professors at Ohio State University derailed a doctoral student's thesis defense by writing a letter claiming "there are no valid scientific data challenging macroevolution" and therefore the student's teaching about problems with neo-Darwinism was "unethical" and "deliberate miseducation."

In 2005, pro-ID adjunct biology professor Caroline Crocker lost her job at George Mason University after teaching students about both the evidence for and against evolution in the classroom, and mentioning ID as a possible alternative to Darwinism. While her former employer maintains that it simply chose not to renew her contract, she was specifically told she would be "disciplined" for teaching students about the scientific controversy over evolution.

In 2007, Robert Marks, Distinguished Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Baylor, had established an Evolutionary Informatics Lab at Baylor University to study the ability of Darwinian processes to generate new information using computer simulations and evolutionary algorithms. However, after Dr. Marks was interviewed by ID the Future in 2007, he subsequently received a letter from his dean warning that the website was "associated" with "ID," and he was forced to take the lab's site down and move the lab itself off campus.

In 2006, a professor of biochemistry and leading biochemistry textbook author at the University of Toronto, Laurence A. Moran, stated that a major public research university "should never have admitted" students who support ID, and should "just flunk the lot of them and make room for smart students."

In 2011, a biology professor at the University of Waikato stated that "If, for example, a student were to use examples such as the bacterial flagellum to advance an ID view then they should expect to be marked down"

Likewise, that same year Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago, stated that "adherence to ID (which, after all, claims to be a nonreligious theory) should be absolute grounds for not hiring a science professor."

In January 2011, the University of Kentucky (UK) paid over $100,000 to settle astronomer Martin Gaskell's lawsuit claiming that he was wrongfully denied employment for doubting Darwinism. UK faculty admitted that Gaskell was the most qualified applicant for the position, but they hired a much less qualified candidate out of concerns about statements Gaskell had made that were critical of Darwinian evolution.

In June 2011, the journal Applied Mathematics Letters paid $10,000 and publicly apologized to avoid litigation after it wrongfully withdrew mathematician Granville Sewell's paper critiquing neo-Darwinism.

In 2009, David Coppedge was demoted and punished for sharing pro-ID videos with co-workers at Jet Propulsion Lab. Later, his employment was terminated.

In 2012, Springer-Verlag illegally breached a contract to publish the proceedings of an ID-friendly research conference at Cornell University after a pressure campaign was mounted by pro-Darwin activists to have the book scuttled.

In 2013, Ball State University (BSU) President Jo Ann Gora issued a speech code declaring that "intelligent design is not appropriate content for science courses" at BSU, after atheist activists from the Freedom from Religion Foundation charged that a "Boundaries of Science" course taught by a well-liked physics professor (Eric Hedin) was violating the Constitution by favorably discussing intelligent design.

Also in 2013, atheist activists forced Amarillo College to cancel an intelligent design course after they threatened disruption if it went forward.

True, ID-critics may not be burning people at the stake, but they have become so intolerant that in 2007, the Council of Europe, the leading European "human rights" organization, adopted a resolution calling ID a potential "threat to human rights"!

[TrueMetis]

Looking at Nagel's argument stating ID is legitimate scientific inquiry, and the accusations by IDers that scientists ascribing to the theory are unfairly treated (quoted below*), would you say the anti-IDers are guilty of religious persecution?

*Here's the list of claims:

If you've payed attention to the ID movement one of their big claims is ID "isn't religious" so no it's not religious persecution. Now with that said based on what I've already said in this thread you should be able to guess my answer to those claims.

Most of them I'm fine with, schools need to teach the facts so not allowing ID to be taught is fine. Nor is an organization not giving ID a platform the same as banning it.

Not that I trust the spin on those claims what with them using words like "neo-Darwinism" (or even just "Darwinism") and not even supporting them all that well.

[Gears of the Beast]

Yeah that's how they try to weasel their way into the classroom, they tout it is a "competing theory" not a religious idea. They try to remove intelligent design from creationism as much as possible.

[Sci-2]

It just doesn't seem clear to me what separates the claims of IDers from the varied speculative claims of other scientists.

Neil Tyson Degrasse seems happy to talk about multiple world, the neuroscientist Koch and physicist Penrose talk about consciousness as part of reality's firmament, and I've heard a good deal about the idea that we are living within a quantum computer. (Though my understanding is support for that last one is not empirical but rather a good way to shake out the math?)

There's plenty of room to chastise overly speculative, faith based claims like Multiple Worlds Interpretation that aren't grounded in evidence but it seems like IDers are - assuming the charges listed are true - more likely to be dismissed or curtailed in their research?

Seems like Nagel raises a valid concern. Personally I'd rather see Nagel's middle ground argument about teleological principles without God bridge the gap between forward causes and God just doing miraculous shit, but I'm not sure trying to look for evidence of design is any less scientific than at least some of the above listed claims.

I'm also wary of the only options being scriptural literalism and atheism, and where that'll place the billions of people from developing nations who'll be join[ing] the online landscape.

=-=-=

13 Grandmothers. 400 women. 4 Days of Prayer.

We are a sight, we four hundred women walking in silent procession along this windy, bumpy dirt road. We have been encouraged to wear long dresses for the ceremony – as is traditional - and we do, pairing dusty boots with loose, flowing frocks – woven, embroidered, well-worn and well-loved, tinged with whiffs of sage and Copal and Paolo Santo, for we are no strangers to ceremony, we who comprise this silent, solemn parade towards the sacred well, a half-mile away.

“Think about why you came here,” Grandmother Mona instructed us in the meadow, where we gathered early this morning before starting our pilgrimage. “Why you were called here. Why it meant so much that you left your homes and your families to travel so many miles to be with us…here…now...”

I turn my head towards a rustling to my right. A woman wearing a gauze skirt and lots of chunky silver rings crouches upon a rock partially hidden behind the thick, dry brush. She dips her hands into the creek, bows her head and whispers into them, and then rubs the water into her temples and her hairline. My heart smiles; my mouth follows.

Sister, I think, grateful to be here, in a high desert mountain forest, among the witches and the water whisperers.

[Rorshach]

Seems like Nagel raises a valid concern. Personally I'd rather see Nagel's middle ground argument about teleological principles without God bridge the gap between forward causes and God just doing miraculous shit, but I'm not sure trying to look for evidence of design is any less scientific than at least some of the above listed claims.

I'm also wary of the only options being scriptural literalism and atheism, and where that'll place the billions of people from developing nations who'll the join the online landscape.

I'm really under-read when it comes to the philosophy here, so I'm not going to comment extensively, other than to note that there are indeed options. As we covered in the Galileo-debate upthread, the catholic church doesn't do scriptural literalism, and I do know that there are still Thomists (who, by nature are teleologists, but theist) among them. In fact, I believe I've heard (but here again I'm under-read) that scolastisism, or more precisely, scholastic metaphysics is slightly on the rise.

An example I've heard of, and seen linked, is this guy. He's as conservative as they come, I think, so be warned :)

[Sci-2]

For the record, I'm not familiar with all that much philosophy either!

As we covered in the Galileo-debate upthread, the catholic church doesn't do scriptural literalism, and I do know that there are still Thomists (who, by nature are teleologists, but theist) among them.

Ah, good point. I guess what I wonder about is you see Christian Apologist videos on Youtube that take an idea like the Idealist interpretation of QM and try to make it proof of a very particular kind of God.

Even if there was a designer - and it's unclear to me why teleology necessarily needs such a being - there's no reason to think it's anything like the gods people worship.

An example I've heard of, and seen linked, is this guy. He's as conservative as they come, I think, so be warned :)

Oh, I know about Feser. He does some interesting stuff though I think there are logical leaps masquerading as logical conclusions in a lot of Christian Apologist philosophy.