Cosmo is being disengenuous. While we know conciousness must relate to some form of neural activity, we don’t really have any better understanding than that. There are philosophical theories on what would be required for conciousness. My person favorite is some version of the global workspace theory. However, that is a long long way from ‘proof’. In fact, with our current ethical guidelines it may be impossible for us to ever really determine what human conciousness is. Current studies on humans must (in almost all cases) use indirect methods such as fMRI and ERP to determine neural activity. While these methods can certainly give us a great insight into some of the processes which occur in the brain, I believe they are insufficent to gain a formal understanding of deep issues such as subjective qualia.

However, the basic idea of inalienable rights coincideing with conciousness

I’m not 100% sure this is what your advocating, but I do not think the “domain” of science and religion should not be codified at any one time point. To go back to the Zeus example, imagine the dificult situation we would be in if we set those domains with “lightening” firmly in the religous domain.

On the issue of animals and “consciousness,� that’s not really a scientific question, but a definitional one. Once we define “consciousness�, then it may, depending on the definition, be possible to scientifically determine whether an animal is conscious.

If anyone’s still reading this thread, I wanted to comment on this. I actually encountered this exact phenomena when discussing abortion with cosmo. He asserts that consciousness is the de facto principle in determining the start point for the right to life. By defining it in those terms, he then goes on to say that he can ‘prove’ that any human fetus before birth can’t be a human being with rights. This is the kind of definitional goal setting that I’m objecting to, and I agree with Pat that you could easily do the same in the discussion of ‘rights of animals’. Cosmo and his ilk want to put an end to any discussion about the beginning of an individual human life, so he sets the goal post in such a way that he can call on science to make his case for him.

Religion and science simply need to remain as two separate domains. People like Creationists or IDers are infringing on that principle, but there ARE those in the science camp who would also infringe on the domain of religion and we should be just as vigilant in calling them out on it.

I would argue that there is generally only scientific consensus when there is verifiable evidence. In the current political debate that puts most scientists at odd with most followers of the predominate modern flavors of faith.

The Dawkins reference also echoes some of the routine religion is good/ religion is evil back and forth. Its often quite odd to me for people who denounce a creator imbuing things with innate goodness or badness to talk about religion is evil to the core. I think history makes it clear that religion is powerful. It can create peace where there is war, or war where there was peace. It is a matter of how this force is used in day to day life which should be debated, not wither the net effects are slightly negative or slightly positive.

That certainly is not the same as “science” making a claim to metaphysical knowledge, but his arguments on behalf of science must be addressed by religious-minded people.

P.S. On the issue of animals and “consciousness,” that’s not really a scientific question, but a definitional one. Once we define “consciousness”, then it may, depending on the definition, be possible to scientifically determine whether an animal is conscious.

It seems to me most of your concerns about objective domination of the metaphysical occur in realms in which science has made no claim to knowledge.

Otherwise what is the basis of the natural rights of man?? On what concrete evidence can you say that man is different from other mammals?

My question, which I hope demonstrates the problem I outlined above, is ‘what if one day, we gain an objective understanding of these phenomenon?’

Let us look at the man/animal question as it’s resolution is a bit more foreseeable. Let us pretend that one day science is able to objectively show that mammals are fundamentally different than humans. We are able to quantify consciousness in a person, and can prove that such quality does not exist in any mammal. Then, the Hindu belief that the cow is a sacred animal with rights equal to (and in some cases exceeding) a human’s is unfounded. The fact that there are billions of Hindus should not change this fact, and the law should reflect the observable fact, not faith.

Conversely, what if one day science prove that animals have what we call consciousness? If scientists could show that they feel pain, suffering, love and hate in the same manner as humans, should we continue some to deny the rights of animals because of Christian convictions of man’s dominion over beasts? I think that in such a situation, acquiescing to religious conviction would be a grave lapse in moral judgment.

I have no problem with faith being a guiding light in the darkness. I see it as an honest attempt to answer the big questions which science may never be able to answer such as the meaning of life. However, I reiterate my previous assertion: when faith and evidence both propose to have the answer to the same question, evidence must not bend.

On this, Kevin, I have points of agreement and disagreement:

However I think there is a deeper issue here. I do not believe it is in our best intrest to allow faith to bend evidence. The basic underpinnings of our notion of justice require there to be an objective, concrete world. To allow for faith, even popularly held, to hold equal merit to such concreteness opens an ugly realm of posibilities which I believe the commenters assailing you from all sides feel.

First, I definitely agree personally with your sentiment about faith not bending evidence. That’s why I find the Catholic teaching compelling because after finally getting past that little Gallileo kerfuffle (which itself was not what most people make it out to be), our theology has sought to integrate faith and reason and to leave certain questions and answers in the scientific domain. Evolution doesn’t contradict my understanding of creation at all, it just contradicts a literal seven day creation story (and the Bible itself contradicts that by telling two separate versions with irreconcilably different details.)

My difference with your statements comes after that when you say that the underpinnings of our system of justice rely on a concrete objective reality. Not that I don’t agree that this is important, but I’d advance the idea that equally important is an understanding of a non-concrete, metaphysical reality. Otherwise what is the basis of the natural rights of man?? On what concrete evidence can you say that man is different from other mammals? Even intelligence would be arbitrary because of chimps, gorillas and cetaceans.

So, I disagree that only the concrete and objective world should be given merit. I would agree though, that some things should be left in the concrete, physical world of science- but I fail to see the harm to society if certain individuals press for their right to put faith over fact in an area such as creationism. People aren’t infringing on the rights of others when they hold these beliefs or wish to teach them to their children without being overruled by the information given to their children by govt schools, so I don’t see the looming crisis in that.

Let’s see who else is co-presenting

Thanks to our Co-Presenting Organizations:

Discovery Institute
Initiative for Global Development [Picture of Colin Powell, ID panderer on home page is especially interesting]
Leadership Eastside
Leadership Tomorrow
RESULTS Seattle
Seattle Works [This looks a bit like a dodgy creationist plot!]
Trade Development Alliance
University of Washington Jackson School of International Studies
Washington Policy Center

So just so long as we’re on the same page; you’re view is that University of Washingtion=Discovery Institute?

I find it hard to believe that being one organisation out of a group of co-presenters makes McCain “the keynote speaker for the most prominent creationism advocacy group.�

But maybe I misunderstood the connection you were making between the Discovery Institute and this presentation.

From the Discovery Institute:

Discovery Institute is pleased to co-present with CityClub of Seattle and the Seattle World Affairs Council a luncheon featuring U.S. Senator John McCain.

Then what’s that all about?

While ID is a product of anti-science, anti-humanist thinking cached in modernist prose – the premise of the original post by TP and Michael is wrong…

The event is being hosted by the World Affairs Council and not the Discovery Institute. This was like a two-click fact check.

*Sigh*

More at my blog. Sorry guys…but wrong is wrong.

You wrote:

But the violation of First Amendment part comes in when something is taught that is in direct contradiction with the faith beliefs of a particular community.

This is of course completely wrong. If the government was making a religious argument against their faith in school it would be true. But that’s not what they’re doing. They’re just teaching the best science they can.

The first abolitionists in the United States were Quakers

The Quakers are also against all wars, the are an example of a GOOD fringe group. The Amish families prayed and meet with the family of the nutcase who killed their children, how many mainstream groups would do this. The Pentagon is also monitoring anti-War Quacker groups.

You’re right and I’d hope you’d agree that both the extreme-secular and extreme-religious sides of the spectrum have done some very evil deeds over recorded history. Societies have risen and fallen by moving too far to one side. Sadly, a happy middle ground still eludes us today.

Again, that’s why I feel matters of faith should be taught within the family and church and not in public schools or dictated by the government.

Pat: I don’t point this out to deny that many slaveholders quoted scripture to justify their evils (as even the Devil may do), just to point out that it’s not “religionâ€? that’s bad…

Pat, you’re right and I did not mean to make the impression that religious beliefs are bad. I’m a born and raised Catholic but for personal reasons I go to the United Church of Christ in my area now.

My point is that some, against the better teachings from the Bible, have used it and religion in general to discriminate against others. You’re also right that even the Devil can quote scripture to try and confuse and support evil deeds. But that does not support those that way to push ID over Evolution.

In fact, my faith says that ID should be taught in church, Sunday School, private schools, or in your family as it’s a Faith issue not a science issue.

As Kim said, families of faith can teach their children about ID, just as my parents and 4 years at St Joseph’s Catholic school taught me about it. Of course it wasn’t called ID then. It’s a matter of Faith and that is why I don’t believe ID should be taught in public schools.

Or perhaps a different way to acheive my goal would be to have the statements I expressed taught at the beginning of the entire science textbook: that the information presented is only that which is based on scientific method, supported by physical fact, etc…but acknowledge that some people have beliefs based on faith that contradict certain things that are explained by science.

is extremely sound and should be taught as a matter of course in any good science education. I would probably phrase it in a slightly different way, but I’m sure a little work could get at a wording we’d both be comfortable with.

However, I think egrubs is onto something in #12, and that your dismissal of his secenario is premature. I apologize if I am confusing your views with others on this matter, but there are certainly some here who see Muslim groups as actively opposed to core ‘Fundamental American Values’ I believe is how you put it. This would seem to provoke exactly the type of conundrum egrubs proposes. If we truely wish religious conviction to be excused regardless of context then we will sooner or later butt heads with those who’s faith contradicts our constitution.

I think an incomplete answer to this problem is to say something along the lines of the declaration of indepedance + 14th amendment trumping the 1st admendment, so that no religion could force validation of inequality onto the rest of us. This part I think we could agree on.

However I think there is a deeper issue here. I do not believe it is in our best intrest to allow faith to bend evidence. The basic underpinnings of our notion of justice require there to be an objective, concrete world. To allow for faith, even popularly held, to hold equal merit to such concreteness opens an ugly realm of posibilities which I believe the commenters assailing you from all sides feel.

The point of such extreme examples such as the electromagnitism vs zeus thought experiment is not to propose viable, practical contingencies, but rather to test the theoretical underpinnings of your conclusions, for if an idea is right in principal it must be right in all circumstances, regardless of their probability.

I don’t doubt the practicality of your suggestions, I think they are an entirely reasonable compromise which meets the needs of todays world. I meerly find question with the underlying principal of the merit of faith in the face of objective reality.