Science cannot be walled off from other forms of belief. That includes meaning and morality – reason connects them all. The same standards of evidence that rule out unparisimonious, unfalsifiable, or empirically refuted hypotheses in science also rule out crackpot conspiracy theories, totalizing ideologies, and toxic policy nostrums. Moral systems depend on factual beliefs, informed by psychology and biology, about what makes human beings suffer or prosper. They depend on standards of logical consistency that make it possible to apply the principle of fairness. And they depend on meta-ethical propositions about what morality is, and on how we can decide what is moral in particular cases. Just as coherent biological reasoning cannot proceed under the assumption that God can step in at any moment and push the molecules around, coherent moral reasoning cannot proceed under the assumption that the universe unfolds according a divine merciful plan, that humans have a free will that is independent of their neurobiology, or that people can behave morally only if they fear divine retribution in an afterlife.
~Steven Pinker

Rusty,
I don’t think your ‘tirade’ as you describe it was fair comment. You overstep the line by calling me a liar.

If you think such abuse is constructive to discussion, then you must have gone to a different school than mine (or perhaps Steven Pinker’s). I think the need to resort to such language reflects poorly on you and your position.

I don’t think I have a case to answer.

But just so that everyone else is clear what we’re talking about, here is my whole original comment, IN FULL and therefore in context:

---

[Dear Oliver,]
You say, "Mutation and natural selection in natural schemata infuse direction. Good or bad are arbitary terms in this context."

That's not how Sagan saw things. Would you like to disagree with him on this point?

"... mutations occur at random and are almost uniformly harmful - it is rare that a precision machine is improved by random change in the instructions for making it." (Carl Sagan, The Dragons of Eden, 1977)

Mutation [is] a process that brings genetic burden, it's not a creative agent.

Posted by Dan S de Merengue,
Thursday, 19 August 2010 1:07:52 PM

Dear Dan,

I was commenting on Rusty's content and experience. I tand to read over the more passionate tomes expressed in OLO and try to stay left-brained. As regard content, I would agree with Rusty that you read a good orthodox popular book on Evolution. I would recommend, "Almost Like a Whale" by Steve Jones.

While I do have some of Carl Sagan's books, I don't have a copy of Dragons of Eden and therefore cannot see the context of quote.

The important words in Sagan's quote as put is "almost" and "rare". Most mutations don't work, few will work. A successful mutation's success is relevant to its environment: A thick coat on a bear whilehelpful in the Artic is dangerous in the desert (insulation aside).

Those mutations that do work will selected for reproduction provided the ecology cum environment allows. Because we humans are smarter than an ant and can't hear like a bat does not make either one of humans, ants and bats superior (good) or inferior (bad) from the frame of reference of Nature. Each has been selected by said to perform in its niche.

If Sagan believed that mutation and natural selection did not provide direct to the evolution of Life, he is wrong, I would put. Yet, I do have other Sagan books of his and doubt vey much he would have disagreed with my posit in the conext of the copus his works.

Words have not only dictionary meanings. They carry overtones that condemn or praise. I understand the word, liar, to be a very condemning word. It is more than just one who seeks to make a favourable case. Every lawyer who defends his client and tries to put that clients and the client’s actions in the most favourable light possible is not a liar. He is doing what he is supposed to do.

‘Liar’ implies not only inaccuracy but a deliberate attempt to deceive. ‘Liar’ implies not only making the best argument to support one’s case but dishonesty.

I do not agree with Dan’s case. I think he is unable to look at the evidence against it because he subscribes to an irrational religious belief which prevents him from making reasonable judgments. I have stopped any discussion with him on the subject of evolution because I feel it is pointless.

However, I think it is wrong and insulting to call him a liar. I think he is a person of good will. If he were someone I knew personally I would accept his word if we had dealings. I think one can point out where he is in error or has selectively quoted without calling him a liar.

I feel Dan is justified in objecting to be called a liar.

Dear Dan,

As I replied previously, I feel you are the messager not the source of the quote. I don't think you made it up and therefore certainly not a liar. I think you have probably been fed some selective fundamenalist litature and run with it or, cut and pasted the quote from a fundamentalist website. That does not make you a liar.

Several of the OLO atheists and skeptics know their Bible quite well. They read both sidesa of an argument. Yet, I suspect that some OLO fundamentalists do not read books like the one I cited in my last post.

The fundemtalist authors appear to channel misinformation to others. In this sense, they misuse the people who, trust them. The best defense is to read confirm claims. Read the entire date from a moderate source. (Herein you will note, I never use Freethinker or Skeptics sites, to avoid bias, on the other side.) A good popular biology book on evolution is mainstream and balanced.

Back to an earlier question. How do you perceive Christians, who are not fundamentals? Those, who accept what science offers, yet, see God outside of it all?

from/david-the king..of quotations..<<..Science..cannot be/walled off..from other/forms..of belief*.>>.hey david[beloved/of god]..this guy..is good

<<That includes..meaning>>meaning relivance...applicatability...replicatability..methodology andaccountability..<< morality – reason connects them all>>

well/said

..<<The same/standards..of evidence/that rule-out..unparisimonious,>>Definition/of..PARSIMONIOUS:..frugal..to/the-point/of..stinginess ..2: sparing,restrained

Examples/of PARSIMONIOUS..<a parsimonious/woman..who insists that charity begins/and ends—at home>

Related/to PARSIMONIOUS
Synonyms:cheap,..chintzy,..close,..closefisted,..mean,..mingy, miserly,..niggard,..niggardly,..stingy,..penny-pinching,..penurious, pinching,..pinchpenny,..spare,..sparing,..stinting,..tight,..tightfisted,..uncharitable,..ungenerous

Antonyms:..bounteous,..bountiful,..charitable,..freehanded,..generous, liberal,..munificent,..openhanded,..unsparing,..unstinting

some great/refereances..using..this..word
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=unparisimonious&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

even..better/search..result
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=define+unparisimonious&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

<<..unfalsifiable,>>....falsifiability../The test..that a theory..is scientific..
but..UN_faulsifyable...only presented/../pages of faulsifyable...
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=definition%2F+unfalsifiable&btnG=Search&aq=0&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=definition%2F+&gs_rfai=

[is unfaulsifyable...a real word?]

<<or empirically/refuted..hypo-theses..in science/also rule-out crackpot/conspiracy-theories,..totalizing ideologies,..and toxic/policy-nostrums.>>..yes i could agree/except..faulsifyable...[as the link/abouve..reveals..is in the MAIN..applicable..to science

to be scientific..the..'principle'...MUST have its faulsifyables
or it aint..science...[only a theory..or principle/not science]

<<Moral-systems..depend on..factual-beliefs,..informed by psychology and biology,>>>sorry...i cant cop/that

im trying-hard..to be good[not god]...i dont need no phycologist..nor biology..telling/me..their idea..of morality

[at least religion..gives/me..freewill...
to be moral...or chose..not-to/be]

moral/systemised..by phicoligist/bioligists..creating..factual/deciets..on morality<<..about what/makes human beings..suffer or prosper.>>

or maybe..what/they deem..or believe...makes/em..suffer?

phycol/biol..<<They depend..on standards..of logical consistency..that make-it possible>>...lol..<<to apply..the principle of fairness.>>BY THEIR MEASURE

<<And they/depend on..meta-ethical/propositions..about what morality is,..and on how/we..can decide/what is moral..in particular cases.>>

now..there'is a buzz-word..meta-ethical...the theology...for/a-thiest's..lol[based on docter/proffesing/peer/re-vieuw..!]

<<Just/as..coherent..bio-logical-reasoning..can*not..proceed/under the assumption..that God can step-in..at any moment>>to-wit..olivers oft-asked/question..do we trust..the experiment/process

my reply..is god..allows/us..to test..his creation..without..any hinderances[its our life-gift..he gives...US..not his own...!]

thus he dont<<..and push/the molecules around,>>
yet he does..in/so-far...as sustaining..ALL the natural-lifes..process..sustaining us EACH/to live

<<..coherent*..moral-reasoning..cannot*..proceed under the/assumption..that the universe..unfolds..according a/divine-merciful..plan,>>>..quite/right
god allows..us each..to live as we chose
with..our/lives...works/deeds..this is totally assured..[ie in the little/personal..things]

but the big-picture..like..them nutters..terminating..gods..creation..via..bird-flue/sars..ozone-holes..global-warning..or armogedon..end-time

DONT BE TOO SURE

<<..that humans/have..a free-will..that..is/independent of their/neuro-biology,>>lol..is to assume..to think-

to..be able to prove..the mind..can act..
independantly..of logus[logic]god/natural

..when..at best..we are a transmitter/facilitating...
en-action..in this realm...from yet..other spiritual-realms[as per..sweden-berg]..our persons..represent..a spiritual/marrage..of oppisite/spirit's..

but/leave..that to another day

<<or that/people..can behave/morally..
only if/they fear divine-retribution..
in an..afterlife>>>

lol..thats just that one-step/too-far
god...is grace/mercy..

THERE IS NO..retribution..of/from...GOD

any/who say-so..reveal..they are ignorant
[of the true..all/loving]'s..true nature
[to wit..nurture]love/mercy/grace..etc

anyhow..we mostly agree/to disagree
thanks/david
thanks~Steven Pinker