Pope Looking For Western Chumps

All the sex scandal stuff has taken a huge toll on church finances.  The Pope is looking to bring in cash.  Here is the other biologist, Catholic Ken Miller, mentioned in Victor Stenger's piece (see my first post of today).


The topic is pretty much the same, "Does Evolution Imply Atheism?" from last May.  And of course the answer is no, because theism can be whatever someone makes it up to be.

But why can't someone as intelligent as Miller realize he's just making stuff up?  He starts out by quoting what other people think, which is just the argument from authority fallacy.  He doesn't provide any evidence.

And what about logic?  If you understand genetics, how could Jesus be born by a virgin?  If humans evolved,  there was no Adam & Eve and no original sin.  Yet, according to Catholic dogma, the whole Jesus story is about being saved from original sin.  And what about transubstantiation?  How does a wafer turn into the body of Jesus?  And on & on....

Ursula Goodenough just isn't good enough.  She's also a biologist, but she's a "religious naturalist".  Why not just drop the "religious" part?  She says that the difference is that she takes nature "to heart".  C'mon now, the reference "to heart" is actually based on ancient religious beliefs that the heart was the center of consciousness (because it could be felt outside the body, unlike the brain).

As a biologist she should do better.  Of course nature provokes all kinds of emotions in our brains...awe, majesty, mystery, sadness, etc.  That's just part of being a naturalist.

Later, Miller blabbers on about "Truth".  Science can answer if Mozart is a better composer than someone else if one defines what makes for a better composer.  Moral issues can be answered if they're defined.  Not necessarily all of them, just like there are more traditionally scientific questions that science can't answer (ie, how many Universes are there?).  But applying evidence and logic (science) is the best methodology we have.

Then he discusses whether or not science can tell whether or not life has purpose.  We can observe the purpose of life, it is to increase the entropy of the Universe.

Miller says he finds the stories of Jesus persuasive.  WOW!  A biologist who believes in zombies! And then he points out some aspects of Jesus he likes, but never mentions that Jesus said non-believers would spend eternity in hell!  What can be more immoral than that?

Miller says that all scientists have "faith" that there is an objective reality.  But it's a faith ("confidence") that is proven with evidence, which is totally different than "faith" (imagination) in something which is not.  If reality behaved differently, we'd draw different conclusions about it.