Mark Laxer's Blog: The Monkey Bible, page 10
October 29, 2010
Jerry Coyne, fasten your seatbelt
You may not agree with him but he's a force to be reckoned with, Dr. Jerry Coyne, a professor at University of Chicago, Ecology and Evolution Department. Just read this by him in USA Today:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-10-11-column11_ST_N.htm
but I've not yet read his books, such as:
Why Evolution Is True
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/
(he's received some excellent reviews...)
Coyne, apparently, is not one to mince words and if you're looking for gentle and soothing kumbaya we can all accomodate one another's views and such, perhaps approach with caution.
I'm keen to learn science from Coyne, as I have from R Dawkins, and a bit less interested in his views regarding the unknown and unknowable, but what would I know?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-10-11-column11_ST_N.htm
but I've not yet read his books, such as:
Why Evolution Is True
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/
(he's received some excellent reviews...)
Coyne, apparently, is not one to mince words and if you're looking for gentle and soothing kumbaya we can all accomodate one another's views and such, perhaps approach with caution.
I'm keen to learn science from Coyne, as I have from R Dawkins, and a bit less interested in his views regarding the unknown and unknowable, but what would I know?
Statistics: Posted by marklaxer — Mon Oct 25, 2010 11:54 pm — Replies 0 — Views 1
Interesting fb thread
I posted the link to Jerry Coyne's essay in USA TODAY (Science and religion aren't friends - USATODAY.com)
on The Monkey Bible facebook wall and the following are a few comments...
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/fo ... 1_ST_N.htm
Do you agree with Professor Coyne?
Idris Ellis I tend to think that Faith in the Omnipotence of Science would have been shaken by such misadventures as DDT, Thalidomide, Mad Cow, & the intricate variety of medical opinion, over the past three hundred years, much less Hoping that It will find an Answer, before it is too late to something besides consume, be silent, & die? No amount of research has prevented us from dying, so what comes after that is of more long-term interest than merely delaying the inevitable.
Richard Fox No, he has set up a false dichotomy. History has shown it is a mistake to judge science using the rules of religion, it works both ways.
Danny Chapman I absolutely agree with the article.
Also "History has shown it is a mistake to judge science using the rules of religion" is right, but "it works both ways" is not. Religion has been making (incorrect) statements about how the world works, physically, for thousands of years, and every one of those statements is fair game to be proven wrong by science, which generally happens.
It's a pretty modern way of thinking (afaik) for religion to be confined purely to the non-factual realm, and it's a way of thinking that has come about only because it's been pushed there by science pulling the rug from under its feet.
I guess it's true that a religion that sits entirely within the non-factual realm is not at odds with science or rational thought, but that's hardly a meaningful religion (more of a woolly sense of hope that things might get better by magic). It's also not the kind of religion that's around us, which makes huge claims on reality through attempts to influence most areas of everyday life.
Finally (getting back to Mark's book!), I think it's a very dangerous game to encourage religious groups to use their religious motivations to do "good" things, because that gives them a very powerful, even if very flawed argument - that they are right because they are good. I think the short term benefit will be overshadowed by the long term harm (rather like paying hostage-taker's ransom demands).
Idris - the things you mention are not failing of science, but the failings of people to do good science, the failings of people driven by greed, and by the difficulty/impossibility of getting good data or complete understanding of complex systems.
The Monkey Bible One major woolly sense of hope I had in writing The Monkey Bible is that it would encourage people of faith to take a leadership role in protecting living things (and, thus biologically and ecologically speaking, protect themselves). Another woolly hope is to provide a fun accessible tool for science education. Some hardcore athiests and religious folks are okay with this (they have written to me!), others, less so. It's human nature for the most part to believe one is right because one is good, or is that more confined to the USA? History, methinks, suggests otherwise.
Danny Chapman It rather amused me that as I wrote "they are right because they are good", I nearly wrote "they are good because they are right".
It is indeed human nature to believe both statements - in fact they are pretty much fundamental to all influe...ntial religion. However, both (taken together) are illogical and totally anti-scientific.
And Mark - yes that's the message I read in your book, but it's a message I find deeply disturbing! Religions across the world are already scarily successful in infiltrating most areas of life, and the last thing they need is more encouragement and support, because their effects go beyond single issues/causes
Dave Rabinowitz Science and religion are very different things. Science is inherently uncertain, while religion offers absolute certainty. There's a big difference between certainty and truth; the men who flew the jets into the World Trade Center were certain they'd end up in paradise as a reward for their actions. Unfortunately, some people have a very hard time dealing with uncertainty, and there appears to be a genetic component to this. In other words, some people are genetically predisposed to be uncomfortable with the uncertainty of science, and cling to religion to find comfort. Since most religions, especially fundamentalist groups, resist intermarriage with people who do not practice their form of religion, and prevention of interbreeding is what leads to the development of new species, we may be seeing the beginning of the split of humanity into two new species, homo scientificans and homo religians.
Richard Fox Danny you are mistaken. A religious system's primary function is NOT to explain the world. Unfortunately, certain approaches to religion, the ones that offer certainty about everything, are doing a disservice to what faith has to offer. Science is concerned with material things, about evidence, about observation - it does not address spiritual things, it can not get to the heart of relationships, love, beauty, suffering, altruism, ethics, mystery, death . . . These concepts do not belong to science. That is why I said it is a mistake to judge religion by the rules of the science. Danny, your response to religion is an emotional one, why is that? Are you simply on the other side of a barrier and behaving in the same way as the religious people whom they despise. And never the twain shall meet. I love science, but it does not help understand why a woman dies in Afghanistan, murdered by the very people she is trying to help (for example). I see the world and the universe, I look through my telescope at the moons of Jupiter (last night, infact), I see evolution and the millions of years of it, and the ageless history of our world and its star. But everything I see, for me, is divine presence and the mystery of why one person might lay down their life to help another is also where I find God. It's hard to explain, but it does not follow the rules of science.
on The Monkey Bible facebook wall and the following are a few comments...
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/fo ... 1_ST_N.htm
Do you agree with Professor Coyne?
Idris Ellis I tend to think that Faith in the Omnipotence of Science would have been shaken by such misadventures as DDT, Thalidomide, Mad Cow, & the intricate variety of medical opinion, over the past three hundred years, much less Hoping that It will find an Answer, before it is too late to something besides consume, be silent, & die? No amount of research has prevented us from dying, so what comes after that is of more long-term interest than merely delaying the inevitable.
Richard Fox No, he has set up a false dichotomy. History has shown it is a mistake to judge science using the rules of religion, it works both ways.
Danny Chapman I absolutely agree with the article.
Also "History has shown it is a mistake to judge science using the rules of religion" is right, but "it works both ways" is not. Religion has been making (incorrect) statements about how the world works, physically, for thousands of years, and every one of those statements is fair game to be proven wrong by science, which generally happens.
It's a pretty modern way of thinking (afaik) for religion to be confined purely to the non-factual realm, and it's a way of thinking that has come about only because it's been pushed there by science pulling the rug from under its feet.
I guess it's true that a religion that sits entirely within the non-factual realm is not at odds with science or rational thought, but that's hardly a meaningful religion (more of a woolly sense of hope that things might get better by magic). It's also not the kind of religion that's around us, which makes huge claims on reality through attempts to influence most areas of everyday life.
Finally (getting back to Mark's book!), I think it's a very dangerous game to encourage religious groups to use their religious motivations to do "good" things, because that gives them a very powerful, even if very flawed argument - that they are right because they are good. I think the short term benefit will be overshadowed by the long term harm (rather like paying hostage-taker's ransom demands).
Idris - the things you mention are not failing of science, but the failings of people to do good science, the failings of people driven by greed, and by the difficulty/impossibility of getting good data or complete understanding of complex systems.
The Monkey Bible One major woolly sense of hope I had in writing The Monkey Bible is that it would encourage people of faith to take a leadership role in protecting living things (and, thus biologically and ecologically speaking, protect themselves). Another woolly hope is to provide a fun accessible tool for science education. Some hardcore athiests and religious folks are okay with this (they have written to me!), others, less so. It's human nature for the most part to believe one is right because one is good, or is that more confined to the USA? History, methinks, suggests otherwise.
Danny Chapman It rather amused me that as I wrote "they are right because they are good", I nearly wrote "they are good because they are right".
It is indeed human nature to believe both statements - in fact they are pretty much fundamental to all influe...ntial religion. However, both (taken together) are illogical and totally anti-scientific.
And Mark - yes that's the message I read in your book, but it's a message I find deeply disturbing! Religions across the world are already scarily successful in infiltrating most areas of life, and the last thing they need is more encouragement and support, because their effects go beyond single issues/causes
Dave Rabinowitz Science and religion are very different things. Science is inherently uncertain, while religion offers absolute certainty. There's a big difference between certainty and truth; the men who flew the jets into the World Trade Center were certain they'd end up in paradise as a reward for their actions. Unfortunately, some people have a very hard time dealing with uncertainty, and there appears to be a genetic component to this. In other words, some people are genetically predisposed to be uncomfortable with the uncertainty of science, and cling to religion to find comfort. Since most religions, especially fundamentalist groups, resist intermarriage with people who do not practice their form of religion, and prevention of interbreeding is what leads to the development of new species, we may be seeing the beginning of the split of humanity into two new species, homo scientificans and homo religians.
Richard Fox Danny you are mistaken. A religious system's primary function is NOT to explain the world. Unfortunately, certain approaches to religion, the ones that offer certainty about everything, are doing a disservice to what faith has to offer. Science is concerned with material things, about evidence, about observation - it does not address spiritual things, it can not get to the heart of relationships, love, beauty, suffering, altruism, ethics, mystery, death . . . These concepts do not belong to science. That is why I said it is a mistake to judge religion by the rules of the science. Danny, your response to religion is an emotional one, why is that? Are you simply on the other side of a barrier and behaving in the same way as the religious people whom they despise. And never the twain shall meet. I love science, but it does not help understand why a woman dies in Afghanistan, murdered by the very people she is trying to help (for example). I see the world and the universe, I look through my telescope at the moons of Jupiter (last night, infact), I see evolution and the millions of years of it, and the ageless history of our world and its star. But everything I see, for me, is divine presence and the mystery of why one person might lay down their life to help another is also where I find God. It's hard to explain, but it does not follow the rules of science.
Statistics: Posted by marklaxer — Tue Oct 26, 2010 11:05 pm — Replies 0 — Views 2
Think different
This just posted on amazon.com customer review for The Monkey Bible:
"This is a book that can be read by the whole family and it will open up discussions that are totally appropriate and in fact very important to have. You won't regret buying this book.
This book can be read on many levels and you need to be prepared to think-different. It is both a coming-of-age story, an adventure, a mystery, and a scientific exploration. If you want to read the same thing you read last week, don't buy this book. If you're in the mode for something different, that will make you think and feel, give the Monkey Bible a try.
Regarding the music...at first i thought that it was sorta silly, coupling music to a book... how do you pull that off? Well... they did an excellent job. The music is fun, beautifully done, and stands on its own but, when you listen to the lyrics and get into the moment it really does complement the book nicely..."
"This is a book that can be read by the whole family and it will open up discussions that are totally appropriate and in fact very important to have. You won't regret buying this book.
This book can be read on many levels and you need to be prepared to think-different. It is both a coming-of-age story, an adventure, a mystery, and a scientific exploration. If you want to read the same thing you read last week, don't buy this book. If you're in the mode for something different, that will make you think and feel, give the Monkey Bible a try.
Regarding the music...at first i thought that it was sorta silly, coupling music to a book... how do you pull that off? Well... they did an excellent job. The music is fun, beautifully done, and stands on its own but, when you listen to the lyrics and get into the moment it really does complement the book nicely..."
Statistics: Posted by marklaxer — Wed Oct 27, 2010 8:40 pm — Replies 0 — Views 2
The Monkey Bible
Dear friends, I'm just setting up GoodReads system now, and hope to participate in discussion about evolution, religion, wildlife conservation, storytelling and .....more soon.
best,
mark
...more
best,
mark
...more
- Mark Laxer's profile
- 7 followers
