Comments on: Pigliucci on accomodationism http://www.uncrediblehallq.net/2010/02/22/pigliucci-on-accomodationism/ Best blog name ever Wed, 18 Jan 2012 07:27:09 -0500 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.2 By: Massimo Pigliucci is a childish, raging, foaming at the mouth fundamentalist with a cavalier attitude toward the substance, rationality and coherence of his arguments : The Uncredible Hallq http://www.uncrediblehallq.net/2010/02/22/pigliucci-on-accomodationism/comment-page-1/#comment-6086 Massimo Pigliucci is a childish, raging, foaming at the mouth fundamentalist with a cavalier attitude toward the substance, rationality and coherence of his arguments : The Uncredible Hallq Fri, 16 Apr 2010 20:36:27 +0000 http://www.uncrediblehallq.net/?p=1068#comment-6086 [...] it. He seems to be taking his cues from Pigliucci, whose ideas about this I’ve criticized here, but he takes Pigliucci’s merely misguided nitpicking and draws the seriously absurd [...] [...] it. He seems to be taking his cues from Pigliucci, whose ideas about this I’ve criticized here, but he takes Pigliucci’s merely misguided nitpicking and draws the seriously absurd [...]

]]> By: Jim Lippard http://www.uncrediblehallq.net/2010/02/22/pigliucci-on-accomodationism/comment-page-1/#comment-6057 Jim Lippard Wed, 07 Apr 2010 14:15:18 +0000 http://www.uncrediblehallq.net/?p=1068#comment-6057 Another way of putting the point in your last paragraph--accomodationism privileges religion, but Pigliucci's point seems to be that the metaphysical trump card is available to anything. Accomodationists say "science has nothing to say about religion," but they don't say "science has nothing to say about homeopathy" or "science has nothing to say about UFOs." Pigliucci's argument doesn't explain that asymmetry. He also thinks that Coyne's argument for how a divine being that wanted to be known could make himself known is not a good argument, but I'm not sure I heard an actual counter-argument. It seems to me that divine hiddenness is a genuine problem that demands an explanation, just as evil demands a theodicy. Both are cases where empirical evidence bears upon the plausibility of religious claims. Another way of putting the point in your last paragraph–accomodationism privileges religion, but Pigliucci’s point seems to be that the metaphysical trump card is available to anything. Accomodationists say “science has nothing to say about religion,” but they don’t say “science has nothing to say about homeopathy” or “science has nothing to say about UFOs.” Pigliucci’s argument doesn’t explain that asymmetry.

He also thinks that Coyne’s argument for how a divine being that wanted to be known could make himself known is not a good argument, but I’m not sure I heard an actual counter-argument. It seems to me that divine hiddenness is a genuine problem that demands an explanation, just as evil demands a theodicy. Both are cases where empirical evidence bears upon the plausibility of religious claims.

]]> By: Jim Lippard http://www.uncrediblehallq.net/2010/02/22/pigliucci-on-accomodationism/comment-page-1/#comment-6055 Jim Lippard Tue, 06 Apr 2010 19:06:29 +0000 http://www.uncrediblehallq.net/?p=1068#comment-6055 I had the same reaction you did--the way Massimo Pigliucci has formulated his position, the metaphysical trump card is available to anyone and can always be played, it's not unique to religion. But I think his suggested trump card regarding intercessory prayer is just as much a straw man as deism (and I do know a few deists, BTW)--that's simply not the common move. Rather, those who believe in intercessory prayer often believe that it can, in fact, be proven, and cite studies to that effect, just as young-earth creationists think there is empirical evidence to support their positions, rather than falling back on "Last Tuesdayism." Further, there are philosophical and theological constraints on the kinds of trump cards available to the religious believer--for instance, most of them do not believe in a malicious or deceptive God. I also don't think he gets to the root of many people's objections to accomodationism. For example, I object to NOMA because I think it's clear that religion and science *do* overlap in the scope of their respective claims. And I also think it's a mistake to claim that *any* religious view can be made compatible with science--if a religious view requires significant revision from its traditional conception in order to be made compatible, e.g., by withdrawing empirical claims, then you end up with a different religious view rather than making the traditional view compatible with science. I had the same reaction you did–the way Massimo Pigliucci has formulated his position, the metaphysical trump card is available to anyone and can always be played, it’s not unique to religion. But I think his suggested trump card regarding intercessory prayer is just as much a straw man as deism (and I do know a few deists, BTW)–that’s simply not the common move. Rather, those who believe in intercessory prayer often believe that it can, in fact, be proven, and cite studies to that effect, just as young-earth creationists think there is empirical evidence to support their positions, rather than falling back on “Last Tuesdayism.” Further, there are philosophical and theological constraints on the kinds of trump cards available to the religious believer–for instance, most of them do not believe in a malicious or deceptive God.

I also don’t think he gets to the root of many people’s objections to accomodationism. For example, I object to NOMA because I think it’s clear that religion and science *do* overlap in the scope of their respective claims. And I also think it’s a mistake to claim that *any* religious view can be made compatible with science–if a religious view requires significant revision from its traditional conception in order to be made compatible, e.g., by withdrawing empirical claims, then you end up with a different religious view rather than making the traditional view compatible with science.

]]>