Angel's Advocate?

Not really, as I said in this ongoing back and forth, I don’t believe in the literal truth of the traditional Christian belief in the Virgin Birth of Jesus. I do think it has allegorical truth but that’s got nothing to do with whether or not it literally happened and it is most definitely not a question that could be dealt with by science.

I am advocating honesty by people who set themselves up as the champions of reason and science. It all started when I pointed out that Jason Rosenhouse had made a big mistake in his post about what Jerry Coyne has said about whether or not science refutes religious beliefs. Of course Coyne has, and, as I’ve come to see, he’s tried to give himself cover for it as he asserts it.
This started when “Divalent” brought up the Virgin Birth. Something I wrote on when Richard Dawkins made some remark about it being a question that could be settled with science. Here’s the record as copied from Jason Rosenhouses’ blog. Not the end where I have challenged him to come clean and settle the mathematical issue raised by one of the new atheists about subjecting the claim to probability.


80

"How do they come to be "at odds" if there is no point of refutation by science, ..."

They are at odds because the scientific process by which one arrives at an understanding of the formation of, say, the blood clotting system is fundamentally *incompatible* with the theological process one uses to arrive at the conclusion that Jesus was the product of a Virgin birth.

If someone uses both processes, they must compartmentalize. Using one process in the other's arena would produce a different outcome: an incorrect understanding of the origin of the blood clotting mechanism (and age of the earth, structure of the universe, etc), and (at best) agnosticism regarding such questions as Jesus's virgin birth and the supremacy of the God Zeus.

Posted by: Divalent | June 7, 2009 4:26 PM
81

They are at odds because the scientific process by which one arrives at an understanding of the formation of, say, the blood clotting system is fundamentally *incompatible* with the theological process one uses to arrive at the conclusion that Jesus was the product of a Virgin birth.

I'm glad you used th Virgin birth, which I don't happen to believe in, because it's such a good example of why you can't subject it to science.

1. There is no physical evidence to examine
2. It is held to have happened miraculously
3. It is held to have happened once in history

No evidence means no evidence that could identify a human father.
It happened miraculously, which means there is no way to explain how it couldn't have happened.
It is held to have happened once in history. As a unique event you could not debunk it by pointing to another or even every other human birth in history.

There is absolutely no reason you should believe it, as I said I don't, but any statement that you can subject the actual assertion to science only shows that you lack any real understanding of science.

And, as is evident as this futile salvage operation goes on, no understanding of honesty.

Coyne's meaning couldn't have been plainer, as the rest of his relevant writing on the subject shows.

Posted by: Anthony McCarthy | June 7, 2009 5:27 PM
82

No evidence means no evidence that could identify a human father. It happened miraculously, which means there is no way to explain how it couldn't have happened. It is held to have happened once in history. As a unique event you could not debunk it

By that standard, science has nothing to say about my belief that all government officials have been secretly and undetectably replaced by clones who are controlled by undetectable mind rays from undetectable aliens in undetectable spaceships.

Does your definition of science really involve an inability to reject delusions?

Posted by: Tulse | June 7, 2009 10:13 PM
83

"It is held to have happened once in history. "


by whom? by you? this is the worst of your ill-informed mishmashed ideas. The whole christ-redeemer story is copied from many many earlier myths.

and the point is that when people make claims that cannot be measured or disproved, Science can still say "that we have, say, five ways of measuring displacement in time and space, and three ways of measuring heredity and parental relationships... and some experience in telling lies and derived stories from truth...

and all of this sounds like crap...."


"There is absolutely no reason you should believe it, as I said I don't, but any statement that you can subject the actual assertion to science only shows that you lack any real understanding of science. "

and you lack any understanding at all. real or imagined...

Posted by: Kevin (nyc) | June 7, 2009 11:26 PM
84

"Coyne's meaning couldn't have been plainer, as the rest of his relevant writing on the subject shows. "

I see. So, when Coyne goes to great lengths in one passage to explain precisely what he means by a phrase, the correct way to interpret the meaning of the phrase is to go to other passages that are relevant (in your opinion) and glean the answer you want from them, with you magic meaning finder!

You study literature, don't you? Reconstructionalism, or possible post-modernisn?

Posted by: Seth Manapio | June 8, 2009 12:30 AM
85

Tulse,

"By that standard, science has nothing to say about my belief that all government officials have been secretly and undetectably replaced by clones who are controlled by undetectable mind rays from undetectable aliens in undetectable spaceships."

You forgot to say one of the magic words, "supernatural" or "miracle". Those are the words that exempt any claim from scientific scrutiny. Insert the word "supernatural" somewhere in that claim and you'll be right.

Presumably, if a scientist gets an experimental result that appears to falsify the hypothesis he was hoping to establish, he can just say, "I'll assume that was a supernatural event (or miracle), so it doesn't conflict with my hypothesis. My hypothesis remains unfalsified." Great way to do science!

Posted by: Richard Wein | June 8, 2009 3:18 AM
86

"It is held to have happened once in history. "by whom? by you?

By the people who believe that "Jeusus Christ is the only begotten Son of the Father", in other words people who believe in the Virgin Birth. Of whom I am NOT one as I said twice in that comment. I'm beginning to think the new atheism is a product of faulty reading and science education in the English speaking world.

Tulse, if you really believe that you might be able to find out by examining the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE if you could get some. I'd like to ask any REAL SCIENTISTS who might read this if this basic misunderstanding of the absolute basis of science by the new atheism isn't in some way troubling to you. Because it's pretty disturbing to witness it even up into those who have held endowed chairs for the "public understanding of science".

Seth Manapio, you do realize that if Coyne has said different, and conflicting things in this one review, he's guilty of one or more of a range of breeches of scholarship, inconsistency, incoherence, duplicity, ..... And I'll ask any scholars who might be reading this to look at the blogs to see that this problem is rampant among the new atheists there and is not seen as a problem when the stars of new atheism are revealed to have done it. As this thread shows.

Doesn't it trouble any of you that the new atheism is so shallow, so dishonest and so bigoted?

Posted by: Anthony McCarthy | June 8, 2009 3:51 AM
87

Anthony McCarthy

Virgin Birth has only happened once? Really? Christianity is the only religion that has a claim on virgin birth?

Posted by: ken adler | June 8, 2009 4:00 AM
88

Richard Wein, what would happen if a scientist published a paper that said or contained reasoning to the effect: I'll assume that was a supernatural event (or miracle), so it doesn't conflict with my hypothesis. My hypothesis remains unfalsified."

Of course, you were being factitious, but there isn't anything to keep someone from publishing a paper that does that now. Of course it would be a paper with one author, of very few, because no one would join on to a paper that said that, or if they found their name had been put on they'd threaten legal action to have it removed and a retraction published. And it would be a vanity publication because no reputable reviewed journal would accept it. And I'm certain that any real scientist who happened to read it would make it a laughing stock in the field it purported to cover.

It's remarkable that Gregor Mendel, or any of a host of other well known scientists who believed in the Virgin Birth or miracles in general seems to not have used the miraculous in a science paper in the modern era.

And, of course the reason they haven't done that is because they realize, as all real scientists do that science is about the normal, typical, non-miraculous phenomena of the material universe without recourse to explanations of supernatural intervention. If they didn't realize that, they wouldn't be scientists. And that works in the other direction too.

If the peer review and other normal mechanisms of the scientific community can't be relied on to maintain the integrity of science when religion is widely believed in it would have not only ceased to exist long ago, it never would have begun in the first place.

I guess I'm guilty of faith in the normal mechanisms of science which are in the hands of scientists and the editors of their journals. It seems to have worked relatively well.

Posted by: Anthony McCarthy | June 8, 2009 4:04 AM
89

Virgin Birth has only happened once? Really? Christianity is the only religion that has a claim on virgin birth?

Ken adler, the topic, which was introduced by Divalent and which I responded to was specifically "that Jesus was the product of a Virgin birth." in comment 80. That was the only claim of a virgin birth, which was under discussion here. That is the one which is held by its believers to have happened only once in history, by its believers.

And there's another common error of new atheists, they don't realize that in order to discuss a proposition, you have to discuss what it is that is proposed. If you don't you can't test that proposition for its coherence and certainly not find out if it could be refuted by science.

You can, however, look at something like the claim "that Jesus was the product of a Virgin birth" as a proposition of history or theology and then you could compare it to other stories of virgin births because the standards of evidence in those methods of investigation would be able to take that into consideration. That part of the belief that it had happened only once, might be mistaken or the entire thing could be the result of the adoption of another culture's myth to make a cultural point or to make a moral point. Which is what I happen to believe is the reason for the story of the Virgin Birth of Jesus based on having read Crossan. But, that ain't science.

Serious history is another discipline that is dismissed as unimportant by the new atheism.

Posted by: Anthony McCarthy | June 8, 2009 4:16 AM
90

"Serious history is another discipline that is dismissed as unimportant by the new atheism."

That's quite a brush stroke you have there.

Isn't evolution and geology a search for the true history of the earth? Since the "new atheists" are largely scientists, how can your statement possible be true?

But your basically saying that just because someone says something totally crazy is true and there is no way to disprove it, I still have to take their position under consideration? Excuse me while I look for a flying teapot.

Posted by: ken adler | June 8, 2009 5:45 AM
91

That's quite a brush stroke you have there.

I haven't seen anyone in the new atheism bothered by the absurdly ahistorical writings of Dawkins, Harris and other new atheist bright lights. I'd talk about broad brushes there but it's more like spray cans and bigoted graffiti with them. You show me an influential new atheist critique of the pathetic handling of history by its favorite authors and I'll reconsider.

Oh the blogs, among their acolytes, history, as accuracy, is considered beneath those who have "science" on their side.

Isn't evolution and geology a search for the true history of the earth?

No, they are physical sciences studying physical phenomena that don't have an historical record of the kind that the academic study of the history of human culture. Which is what I was clearly talking about as anyone who took history seriously would know.

Conflation is another habit of the new atheism, no doubt a custom that was borrowed from the social sciences in which that is the usual manner of doing things.

Posted by: Anthony McCarthy | June 8, 2009 6:01 AM
92

Sorry, I cut that sentence off in editing.

No, they are physical sciences studying physical phenomena that don't have an historical record of the kind that the academic study of the history of human culture is based in.

Posted by: Anthony McCarthy | June 8, 2009 6:04 AM
93

Jason wrote: Notice that [Coyne] says only that science suggests the impossibility of human asexual reproduction or life after death, not the absolute impossibility of those things.

I think this wording confuses a bit some things you expressed more clearly in your original post:

- Some of the things believed by most religious adherents in the U.S. today conflict with scientific/naturalistic explanations, i.e., they are miraculous in nature (and are central tenets of their faiths precisely because of that miraculous nature).

- One can accommodate at one and the same time both a "scientific" way of thinking that demands factual and logical support for one's conclusions, and on the other hand a "religious" or "faith-based" way of thinking that believes in the possibility, indeed the past occurrence of, supernatural events. Those who think of themselves as religious but allow for the factual and logical truth of evolution fall into this category.

- Such accommodation, though possible, ain't easy.

Posted by: Jud | June 8, 2009 7:22 AM
94

Jud, I did read the post, and I've read Coyne. If I was a new atheist I'd talk about moving goal posts at this point.

Thinking about the comments left here since last night.
The only thing this discussion is proving is that the new atheism is anti-scientific and illogical.

If want to debunk the belief that " Jesus was the only begotten Son of God The Father, Born of the Virgin Mary" you have to deal with what is believed, which includes that it was a miraculous event that happened once in the entire history of, at least, the world.

I've gone into why science couldn't do refute that, specific belief, without having any physical evidence.

Now you want to talk about other stories of virgin births in history to try to wriggle out of the unscientific claim that you can debunk the traditional Christian belief in the Virgin Birth of Jesus.

OK. What part of the Virgin Birth of Jesus could be debunked scientifically. There is one part that could be debunked but I don't think the new atheists would care for how that could be done.

You would have to find one or more verifiable, natural, virgin human births to refute the claim that A virgin birth happened once in history. Which would mean that the one Christians believe in was not the only virgin birth.

But that still leaves the birth of Jesus untouched because there is no way to prove that Jesus was not "the only begotten Son of God the Father" conceived miraculously by a virgin. His birth could still be the only one that fulfills all of the points in the traditional description. Science could only refute part of it by finding another miraculous, unnatural, virgin birth, which science can't do.
Well, there could be a way to test a modern claim like that, but not without a court order and a lot of tabloid style research.

You can't scientifically refute what a belief by changing the proposition you attempt to debunk or you're not debunking the proposition. That's a fundamental requirement of logic and science depends on logic. You have to discuss the proposition as it is claimed. And, unless you can show how it could be done without altering the proposed miracle in this case, I'm afraid, you're not going to be able to touch that with science, not without violating the requirements of science.
The only possible way to do it with science would be to have actual, physical specimens from Jesus and his mother and, perhaps, the real human father or a very close relative of his.

It's scandalous that the new atheists on a ScienceBlog aren't bothered by such an obvious and clear cut call by their own for the violation of the requirements of science and logic. It's scandalous that scientists wouldn't point out that they want to. ,

These are called "ScienceBlogs" for some reason, aren't they?

Posted by: Anthony McCarthy | June 8, 2009 7:46 AM
95

Tulse, if you really believe that you might be able to find out by examining the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE if you could get some.

No, Anthony, you clearly don't understand -- the aliens running this conspiracy are so powerful (indeed, from our puny perspective they might be called "omnipotent") that they have wiped out all physical evidence. Don't you get it, man? Don't you see?! Our world is being manipulated by omnipotent beings and YOU CAN'T TELL!!!

I'd like to ask any REAL SCIENTISTS who might read this if this basic misunderstanding of the absolute basis of science by the new atheism isn't in some way troubling to you.

While you're at it, ask some REAL SCIENTISTS to explain the notion of probabilistic nature of truth claims, and how science has moved away from the notion of certainty.

But that still leaves the birth of Jesus untouched because there is no way to prove that Jesus was not "the only begotten Son of God the Father" conceived miraculously by a virgin.

And there's no way to prove that Jesus was not King of the Leprechauns, or Mr. Bojangles, or the shooter on the grassy knoll. Should we take all of those claims equally seriously?

Posted by: Tulse | June 8, 2009 8:04 AM
96

Tulse, you, like some of the biggest names in the new atheism, are in serious need of studying a basic, college levelm text book on probability. Do yourself a favor and do that.

As I implied the first time I talked to you, the rest of this is too silly to respond to. Though I'm not unhappy to have a specimen of typical blog thread new atheist reasoning for people might want to contrast with what I said.

Posted by: Anthony McCarthy | June 8, 2009 8:48 AM
97

bah! you have no arguments you just go on and on with your insults.

We've heard the same virgin birth stories in all sorts of mythologies. Yet science has no evidence of parthenogenesis in mammals... unlike gila monsters for instance.

and you say science can't provide an opinion on this issue.

Well I think you are wrong. Science tells us about things that happen and why. In this case there is a birth and science can tell us exactly ONE method for this to happen (with a few variants).

Seems like a sound scientific basis for rejecting a non-sperm origin for this described person.


Posted by: Kevin (NYC) | June 8, 2009 1:06 PM
98

bah! you have no arguments you just go on and on with your insults.

And they said that irony died. But they never heard new atheists whine when someone held them to their own standards.

We've heard the same virgin birth stories in all sorts of mythologies. Yet science has no evidence of parthenogenesis in mammals... unlike gila monsters for instance.

Talk about your moving goal posts. And not getting the most basic fact of logic, that you've got to deal with the proposition as it is.

Why not go to the hymenoptera too while you're at it sci-boy.

Science tells us about things that happen and why.

Yeah, I can see that in your brilliant refutation above.

If there are any real scientists in the audience, here you go. This is where the new atheism is going to bring science. Right back to Aristotle and the scholastics. And those are the clued in ones.

I should confess. I came back here to copy this exchange to post on the new blog I've started to document this pure brilliance. I didn't expect this bonus.

Posted by: Anthony McCarthy | June 8, 2009 1:20 PM
99

Anthony wrote: Jud, I did read the post, and I've read Coyne. If I was a new atheist I'd talk about moving goal posts at this point.

Anthony, if you got the impression somewhere in my comment to Jason that I was referring to anything you wrote, that would be incorrect. I was simply telling Jason that I thought the portion of one of his comments from which I quoted was better explained in his original post. Nothing to do with you, I'm afraid.

Posted by: Jud | June 8, 2009 1:38 PM
100

"Talk about your moving goal posts"

ha ha ha guess you don't know what the word means and have to resort to insults!

how the weather under that bridge?

Posted by: kevin (NYC) | June 8, 2009 2:27 PM
101

Jud, I'm sorry about that. If you look at the time stamps it was at the end of an insomniac night.

Kevin, maybe I'm just taking Richard Dawkins briliant advice, now that he and Coyne are even going after their fellow atheists like E. Scott.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,3767,Truckling-to-the-Faithful-A-Spoonful-of-Jesus-Helps-Darwin-Go-Down,Jerry-Coyne#368197

I'm wondering, for the true faithful-faithless. Jason Rosenhouse, tell us how to apply probability mathematics to the odds of there being an only begotten Son of God the Father miraculously conceived and born of a Virgin. Now that the assertion by your fans has been made, I want to know what the math would look like. Remember, it's a miraculous birth that happened once in the history of the world.

Posted by: Anthony McCarthy | June 8, 2009 2:43 PM
102

Jason Rosenhouse, I really was serious about asking about applying probability to the question of the Virgin Birth of Jesus as it is believed in. I think it's a rather important question to settle as some of the new atheists seem to think it can be done.

Can probability be applied to this assertion and how would it be done? Or are they mistaken?

Posted by: Anthony McCarthy | June 8, 2009 6:07 PM
103

"Remember, it's a miraculous birth that happened once in the history of the world"

you're wierd. why do you keep saying that? People say it happened many times. go list the gods that had virgin births..

I'll start

"Athena leaped from Zeus's head, fully grown and armed - with a shout!"

or

"According to Graves, Hesiod (c. 700 BC) relates that Athena was a parthenogenous daughter of Metis, wisdom or knowledge, a Titan who ruled the fourth day and the planet Mercury."

oh there's that word again!!

Posted by: Kevin (nyc) | June 8, 2009 9:32 PM
104

Jason Rosenhouse, I really think as a mathematician you owe it to your readers to clear this point up. Can the Virgin Birth, as it is laid out in traditional Christian belief be the subject of mathematical probability. Would you be willing to put your name on an attempt to do so. Either you should say how it could be done or you owe it to your readers to say it's not possible.

You wouldn't want them to linger in logical error would you? Or isn't that the goal of the new atheists? To dispel error?

More generally, are you proud of the non-science converts to the new atheism as they express themselves on the blogs? Is their understanding of science and logic the one which is the goal of the new atheists? I will be posting this on my blog. It's not a challenge yet but it could be.

Posted by: Anthony McCArthy | June 9, 2009 4:52 AM
105

Kevin (nyc) I've already addressed that point in one of the recent comments, where you can review it if you didn't understand it. I don't have time for you guys to waste with bringing up points already covered.

Posted by: Anthony McCarthy | June 9, 2009 4:54 AM