Comments on: Pigeon Theology http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/2009/03/17/pigeon-theology/ Blogging on Philosophy and Politics Wed, 21 Dec 2011 09:09:48 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: El Sordo http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/2009/03/17/pigeon-theology/comment-page-1/#comment-750 El Sordo Fri, 20 Mar 2009 01:37:43 +0000 http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/?p=610#comment-750 Should just reiterate of course that Consolmagno includes this very tongue in cheek. It is an interesting thought experiment - but nothing more - he has already with reference to logic (which as a scientist he has great respect for) cast doubt upon this form of reasoning. He is not proposing that this is a valid proof of the existence of God... In truth there are parts of his book where he makes it clear that proofs (in the scientific and mainstream logical philosophical sense) are not available in religion. (Or perhaps useful ... await further mini-reviews). One theme that seems to be recurring througout the book as I read it is that religion has two specific things going for it: 1) It may in some circumstances be useful (admittedly this may be no more than a placebo argument) and 2) It may be a reasonble response to a certain number of generic and broad existential questions (note he is clear that it is one of many responses to such questions - he also acknowledges that the questions may not seem to relevent to everyone). The book is as he describes it an amateur ethnography about how (though mostly using american examples - which I consider dubious for its limited scale - but i'll forgive him as he admits it is an amateur work) the scientifically and engineering minded (what he calls Techies) are able to reconcile metaphysical beliefs with an empirical worldview. It is interesting, fun, informative, and I think a pretty worthy tome on the science/religion debate - mostly because it is not preachy (not bad coming from a priest). I have read some online reviews of the book from atheist-interest sites that have been (no condecension intended) mildly positive about the book. Should just reiterate of course that Consolmagno includes this very tongue in cheek. It is an interesting thought experiment – but nothing more – he has already with reference to logic (which as a scientist he has great respect for) cast doubt upon this form of reasoning. He is not proposing that this is a valid proof of the existence of God…

In truth there are parts of his book where he makes it clear that proofs (in the scientific and mainstream logical philosophical sense) are not available in religion. (Or perhaps useful … await further mini-reviews).

One theme that seems to be recurring througout the book as I read it is that religion has two specific things going for it: 1) It may in some circumstances be useful (admittedly this may be no more than a placebo argument) and 2) It may be a reasonble response to a certain number of generic and broad existential questions (note he is clear that it is one of many responses to such questions – he also acknowledges that the questions may not seem to relevent to everyone).

The book is as he describes it an amateur ethnography about how (though mostly using american examples – which I consider dubious for its limited scale – but i’ll forgive him as he admits it is an amateur work) the scientifically and engineering minded (what he calls Techies) are able to reconcile metaphysical beliefs with an empirical worldview.

It is interesting, fun, informative, and I think a pretty worthy tome on the science/religion debate – mostly because it is not preachy (not bad coming from a priest). I have read some online reviews of the book from atheist-interest sites that have been (no condecension intended) mildly positive about the book.

]]> By: El Sordo http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/2009/03/17/pigeon-theology/comment-page-1/#comment-749 El Sordo Thu, 19 Mar 2009 13:33:22 +0000 http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/?p=610#comment-749 Indeed... to paraphrase my usual Wittgensteinian/Cartesian Mantra "belief, knowledge and certainty are three very different cognitive categories." There is of course a substantial overlap with all three (I like to mentally picture them as chain-links). Of course at the extreme fringes - which are the most interesting and discussed ones, the type of knowledge and certainty (truth?) that comes with belief, is vastly different from the kind of belief and certainty that comes with knowledge. Indeed… to paraphrase my usual Wittgensteinian/Cartesian Mantra “belief, knowledge and certainty are three very different cognitive categories.” There is of course a substantial overlap with all three (I like to mentally picture them as chain-links). Of course at the extreme fringes – which are the most interesting and discussed ones, the type of knowledge and certainty (truth?) that comes with belief, is vastly different from the kind of belief and certainty that comes with knowledge.

]]> By: Anti Citizen One http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/2009/03/17/pigeon-theology/comment-page-1/#comment-748 Anti Citizen One Wed, 18 Mar 2009 18:57:30 +0000 http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/?p=610#comment-748 Scientists should consider superstition as a guess that may or may not be correct. Some herbal cures have had positive or mixed results in clinical trials. I am begining to preface may debates by saying "I don't disagree with your conclusion but your argument is flawed because of..." for respect to the "argument from fallacy". This discussion of pigeons raises interesting epistemological issues. If we can meaningfully discuss the existence of foobar but can say nothing of causal relations to foobar, I would say existence of foobar is useless knowledge! But of course, the purpose of knowledge is not to be useful! :) AC1 Scientists should consider superstition as a guess that may or may not be correct. Some herbal cures have had positive or mixed results in clinical trials. I am begining to preface may debates by saying “I don’t disagree with your conclusion but your argument is flawed because of…” for respect to the “argument from fallacy”.

This discussion of pigeons raises interesting epistemological issues. If we can meaningfully discuss the existence of foobar but can say nothing of causal relations to foobar, I would say existence of foobar is useless knowledge! But of course, the purpose of knowledge is not to be useful! :)

AC1

]]>