Hi, nice article and a lot to think about. You conclude by turning unbelief's critique against itself. Are you right to equate unbelief in God with amorality? I understand most atheists reject this charge.
It seems reasonable to doubt the existence of God while at the same time believing that there are objective standards of morality. Just as objectivity in science comes from testing our hypothesis against empirical evidence, objectivity in values comes from testing our values against an impartial spectator. It is a different kind of objectivity; but nevertheless not the same as relativism.
In fact, I wonder if our specific idea about God can be traced back to the broader idea that the rightness of our conduct has to be judged from the perspective of an impartial spectator. We could hold on to that broader idea without necessarily subscribing to a specific idea about who the impartial spectator is. The impartial spectator could be a third party arbiter, a judge, an external observer, someone external of our community, someone from a different time in the past (or future), etc. For the sophisticated, we could employ the Rawlsian device of a social contract entered into behind the veil of ignorance.
For Christians, we employ the Hebrew device of a transcendant, yet caring, God. Personally, I find this ancient Hebrew device very reasonable and think it has a lot going for it.
Very nice summary of Westphal. His work deserves more attention and a wider audience (as does that of Marx, Nietzsche and Freud amongst Christians).
BTW, you do know that the climate scientists have been exonerated of what you accused them of (by six different investigations, at last count)? You can't believe everything you read in the Australian.
I know that was your point, but in making it, you perpetuate a false accusation.
A comparable example might be the recent revelations of complex tax evasion schemes Michael Jensen has been employing for the last few years. This was bad behaviour, certainly; but it has precisely no bearing on whether his arguments are true or not.
Steady on: the report you cited on your blog did not endorse their emails and even criticised the behaviour of the scientists, right?
'Plotting to distort' is an overstatement perhaps, and no evidence shows that they did in fact distort their work: but you can admit that it was not a glorious episode, right?
From the report itself: "We do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA"
There is all the difference in the world between "plotting to distort" and refusing to give information to nuisance requests. The latter is wrong (though perhaps understandable, while not excusable, under the circumstances), but the former means the end for an academic.
My example is facetious, but your reaction demonstrates the problem: slander is slander. If you are going to accuse a scholar* of deliberate, co-ordinated falsification (even in passing), then you want to make sure you're not engaging in idle talk.
*Or anyone, really, though the consequences are more serious for a scholar.
Yes, they may well have broken the law in not responding to freedom of information requests as required, though to be fair, they did receive something like ten times the usual annual number of requests over a weekend, originating from a source known to be hostile. This shouldn't have been an excuse for them to obfuscate, but they did. Some of the reviews have also pointed out that the unit did not have adequate resources to be able to handle that kind of volume of FOI requests and recommended that more support staff be put on to deal with them.
But even so, not following regulations about disclosure of information is a different kettle of fish to deliberately falsifying their results.
I'm sorry if my initial comments came across as harsh, though I was concerned that your passing comment was quite distracting in an otherwise excellent piece (not to mention potentially libellous). Some of the figures involved have experienced suicidal feelings after the media scrum, and many still receive regular death threats.
I'm sure you could request that the editors put up a correction/apology/clarification.
On reading the article again, isn't there a categorical difference between truth in religion and truth in science? In science, you could indeed assert that motive & purpose having nothing to do with truth, since truth in science is based on observation and testing. In contrast, adherents of religion seem to claim that truth is independent of observation. No amount of falsification can shake the validity of truth in religion. If this is the claim of religion, motive and truth seem to be inextricable. Suspicion of motive could lead to legitimate doubts about religious truth. For example, the "truth" that man is the head of the woman isn't falsifiable by observation. Perhaps I've misunderstood the claims of religion. Anyway, just a thought.
Hmmm, looks like Blogger going down and losing 30 hours of posts and comments means we've lost an interesting interchange on this thread. People will just have to imagine it for themselves.
12 comments:
Hi, nice article and a lot to think about. You conclude by turning unbelief's critique against itself. Are you right to equate unbelief in God with amorality? I understand most atheists reject this charge.
It seems reasonable to doubt the existence of God while at the same time believing that there are objective standards of morality. Just as objectivity in science comes from testing our hypothesis against empirical evidence, objectivity in values comes from testing our values against an impartial spectator. It is a different kind of objectivity; but nevertheless not the same as relativism.
In fact, I wonder if our specific idea about God can be traced back to the broader idea that the rightness of our conduct has to be judged from the perspective of an impartial spectator. We could hold on to that broader idea without necessarily subscribing to a specific idea about who the impartial spectator is. The impartial spectator could be a third party arbiter, a judge, an external observer, someone external of our community, someone from a different time in the past (or future), etc. For the sophisticated, we could employ the Rawlsian device of a social contract entered into behind the veil of ignorance.
For Christians, we employ the Hebrew device of a transcendant, yet caring, God. Personally, I find this ancient Hebrew device very reasonable and think it has a lot going for it.
Just a thought.
An excellent piece.
Very nice summary of Westphal. His work deserves more attention and a wider audience (as does that of Marx, Nietzsche and Freud amongst Christians).
BTW, you do know that the climate scientists have been exonerated of what you accused them of (by six different investigations, at last count)? You can't believe everything you read in the Australian.
Maybe so, but my point was 'whatever'.
I know that was your point, but in making it, you perpetuate a false accusation.
A comparable example might be the recent revelations of complex tax evasion schemes Michael Jensen has been employing for the last few years. This was bad behaviour, certainly; but it has precisely no bearing on whether his arguments are true or not.
Steady on: the report you cited on your blog did not endorse their emails and even criticised the behaviour of the scientists, right?
'Plotting to distort' is an overstatement perhaps, and no evidence shows that they did in fact distort their work: but you can admit that it was not a glorious episode, right?
From the report itself:
"We do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA"
There is all the difference in the world between "plotting to distort" and refusing to give information to nuisance requests. The latter is wrong (though perhaps understandable, while not excusable, under the circumstances), but the former means the end for an academic.
My example is facetious, but your reaction demonstrates the problem: slander is slander. If you are going to accuse a scholar* of deliberate, co-ordinated falsification (even in passing), then you want to make sure you're not engaging in idle talk.
*Or anyone, really, though the consequences are more serious for a scholar.
Reading the report seems to indicate something more than just refusing to answer nuisance requests, though.
I was going to write a correction/clarification on the article, but comments have been closed.
Yes, they may well have broken the law in not responding to freedom of information requests as required, though to be fair, they did receive something like ten times the usual annual number of requests over a weekend, originating from a source known to be hostile. This shouldn't have been an excuse for them to obfuscate, but they did. Some of the reviews have also pointed out that the unit did not have adequate resources to be able to handle that kind of volume of FOI requests and recommended that more support staff be put on to deal with them.
But even so, not following regulations about disclosure of information is a different kettle of fish to deliberately falsifying their results.
I'm sorry if my initial comments came across as harsh, though I was concerned that your passing comment was quite distracting in an otherwise excellent piece (not to mention potentially libellous). Some of the figures involved have experienced suicidal feelings after the media scrum, and many still receive regular death threats.
I'm sure you could request that the editors put up a correction/apology/clarification.
On reading the article again, isn't there a categorical difference between truth in religion and truth in science? In science, you could indeed assert that motive & purpose having nothing to do with truth, since truth in science is based on observation and testing. In contrast, adherents of religion seem to claim that truth is independent of observation. No amount of falsification can shake the validity of truth in religion. If this is the claim of religion, motive and truth seem to be inextricable. Suspicion of motive could lead to legitimate doubts about religious truth. For example, the "truth" that man is the head of the woman isn't falsifiable by observation. Perhaps I've misunderstood the claims of religion. Anyway, just a thought.
Hmmm, looks like Blogger going down and losing 30 hours of posts and comments means we've lost an interesting interchange on this thread. People will just have to imagine it for themselves.
Post a Comment