Print
The art of the soluble
by Guardian
Reposted from:
http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,2223783,00.html
Colin Tudge is full of praise for God's Undertaker, a sharp riposte to scientists from John Lennox
God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?
by John Lennox
192pp, Lion Hudson, £14.99
Well - has science buried God? Of course not. John Lennox answers his own question decisively. No one who understands what science really is and is not could suppose that such interment was ever on the cards. No one who understands what religion really is, beneath its sometimes ugly face, could suppose that it would be good to bury it.
Why then does Lennox, reader in maths at Oxford and outstanding Christian scholar, feel it is necessary to ask the question at all? Because the notion that the two must be at loggerheads has of late been trumpeted by many a pundit, including American philosopher Dan Dennett, Oxford professor of chemistry Peter Atkins and, most eloquently, Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins. Atkins and Dawkins are prominent scientists - Dawkins one of the most original theorists of our age. But on matters of theology their arguments are a disgrace: assertive without substance; demanding evidence while offering none; staggeringly unscholarly.
For all the great founders of modern science - Galileo, Newton, Descartes, Robert Boyle, John Ray and their Muslim predecessors - their research was itself an act of reverence. The list continues through the 19th century, with Faraday, Babbage and Kelvin. From our present age, Lennox quotes Sir Ghillean Prance, former director of Kew: "All my studies have confirmed my faith."
Contrast this with Atkins, more hardline even than Dawkins: "There is no reason to suppose that science cannot deal with every aspect of existence. Only the religious - among whom I include not only the prejudiced but the underinformed - hope that there is a dark corner of the universe that science can never hope to illuminate." And: "Humanity should accept that science has eliminated the justification for believing in cosmic purpose."
Yet Atkins, as a professor of science, must be aware of Sir Peter Medawar's famous adage, adapted from Bismarck, "Science is the art of the soluble". Scientists study only those aspects of the universe that it is within their gift to study: what is observable; what is measurable and amenable to statistical analysis; and, indeed, what they can afford to study within the means and time available. Science thus emerges as a giant tautology, a "closed system". It can present us with robust answers only because its practitioners take very great care to tailor the questions.
Religion, by contrast, accepts the limitations of our senses and brains and posits at least the possibility that there is more going on than meets the eye - a meta-dimension that might be called transcendental. Dawkins talks of religion not simply as "faith" but as "blind faith" - yet this, as Lennox points out, is a simple calumny. The greatest theologians, beginning at least as early as St Paul and continuing through Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas and Newman and again into modern times, have never been "blind". All have stressed the need to take account of the facts of the case (the thing that science is good at) and to engage the intellect: absolutely not to believe things blindly.
Taking seriously the idea of transcendence is very reasonable indeed. As many modern physicists have pointed out, the universe simply could not function - the Big Bang would never have happened, or if it did would simply have made a mess - if all the physical constants, from the magnitude of gravity to the mass of the proton, had not been exactly right. Of course, we can explain such consistency without invoking intelligence and purpose, but as Lennox shows, the arguments needed to do this are extraordinarily contrived. Ironically, these arguments break the rule of parsimony - always opt for the simplest explanation - which lies at the heart of science itself.
It is perfectly rational to propose that the universe is indeed without purpose - that what we see is all there is. But to assert that this is so, as Dawkins and Atkins do, is not at all "rational". It is merely a piece of dogma. Indeed, atheism - when you boil it down - is little more than dogma: simple denial, a refusal to take seriously the proposition that there could be more to the universe than meets the eye. To use science to justify such dogma, as these professors do, is a gross misuse of their own trade.
More specifically, Dawkins famously showed that it is possible to build a computer model that could generate huge complexity - analogous in an arm-waving way to the complexity of nature - just by applying an all-purpose rule, an algorithm, that simulated natural selection. Indeed, says Lennox. But the algorithm works only because it has been very carefully designed - by Dawkins. Yet Dawkins argues that the complexity of nature - many orders of magnitude greater than anything that a computer can simulate - has been achieved by an analogous algorithm that does not, apparently, require intelligence. If Dawkins could show how the algorithm that has produced the living world could arise spontaneously, then he would have gone a long way to making his point. As things stand, he has not begun even to address it. He is taken seriously in this not because his arguments are sound but because he is an outstanding rhetorician. It is the art of bamboozlement.
There is no more important debate than this - science versus religion. But it needs to begin again, with a clear understanding of what science and religion actually are. Lennox has done this wonderfully.
· Colin Tudge's Feeding People Is Easy is published by Pari Books
http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,2223783,00.html
Colin Tudge is full of praise for God's Undertaker, a sharp riposte to scientists from John Lennox
God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?
by John Lennox
192pp, Lion Hudson, £14.99
Well - has science buried God? Of course not. John Lennox answers his own question decisively. No one who understands what science really is and is not could suppose that such interment was ever on the cards. No one who understands what religion really is, beneath its sometimes ugly face, could suppose that it would be good to bury it.
Why then does Lennox, reader in maths at Oxford and outstanding Christian scholar, feel it is necessary to ask the question at all? Because the notion that the two must be at loggerheads has of late been trumpeted by many a pundit, including American philosopher Dan Dennett, Oxford professor of chemistry Peter Atkins and, most eloquently, Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins. Atkins and Dawkins are prominent scientists - Dawkins one of the most original theorists of our age. But on matters of theology their arguments are a disgrace: assertive without substance; demanding evidence while offering none; staggeringly unscholarly.
For all the great founders of modern science - Galileo, Newton, Descartes, Robert Boyle, John Ray and their Muslim predecessors - their research was itself an act of reverence. The list continues through the 19th century, with Faraday, Babbage and Kelvin. From our present age, Lennox quotes Sir Ghillean Prance, former director of Kew: "All my studies have confirmed my faith."
Contrast this with Atkins, more hardline even than Dawkins: "There is no reason to suppose that science cannot deal with every aspect of existence. Only the religious - among whom I include not only the prejudiced but the underinformed - hope that there is a dark corner of the universe that science can never hope to illuminate." And: "Humanity should accept that science has eliminated the justification for believing in cosmic purpose."
Yet Atkins, as a professor of science, must be aware of Sir Peter Medawar's famous adage, adapted from Bismarck, "Science is the art of the soluble". Scientists study only those aspects of the universe that it is within their gift to study: what is observable; what is measurable and amenable to statistical analysis; and, indeed, what they can afford to study within the means and time available. Science thus emerges as a giant tautology, a "closed system". It can present us with robust answers only because its practitioners take very great care to tailor the questions.
Religion, by contrast, accepts the limitations of our senses and brains and posits at least the possibility that there is more going on than meets the eye - a meta-dimension that might be called transcendental. Dawkins talks of religion not simply as "faith" but as "blind faith" - yet this, as Lennox points out, is a simple calumny. The greatest theologians, beginning at least as early as St Paul and continuing through Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas and Newman and again into modern times, have never been "blind". All have stressed the need to take account of the facts of the case (the thing that science is good at) and to engage the intellect: absolutely not to believe things blindly.
Taking seriously the idea of transcendence is very reasonable indeed. As many modern physicists have pointed out, the universe simply could not function - the Big Bang would never have happened, or if it did would simply have made a mess - if all the physical constants, from the magnitude of gravity to the mass of the proton, had not been exactly right. Of course, we can explain such consistency without invoking intelligence and purpose, but as Lennox shows, the arguments needed to do this are extraordinarily contrived. Ironically, these arguments break the rule of parsimony - always opt for the simplest explanation - which lies at the heart of science itself.
It is perfectly rational to propose that the universe is indeed without purpose - that what we see is all there is. But to assert that this is so, as Dawkins and Atkins do, is not at all "rational". It is merely a piece of dogma. Indeed, atheism - when you boil it down - is little more than dogma: simple denial, a refusal to take seriously the proposition that there could be more to the universe than meets the eye. To use science to justify such dogma, as these professors do, is a gross misuse of their own trade.
More specifically, Dawkins famously showed that it is possible to build a computer model that could generate huge complexity - analogous in an arm-waving way to the complexity of nature - just by applying an all-purpose rule, an algorithm, that simulated natural selection. Indeed, says Lennox. But the algorithm works only because it has been very carefully designed - by Dawkins. Yet Dawkins argues that the complexity of nature - many orders of magnitude greater than anything that a computer can simulate - has been achieved by an analogous algorithm that does not, apparently, require intelligence. If Dawkins could show how the algorithm that has produced the living world could arise spontaneously, then he would have gone a long way to making his point. As things stand, he has not begun even to address it. He is taken seriously in this not because his arguments are sound but because he is an outstanding rhetorician. It is the art of bamboozlement.
There is no more important debate than this - science versus religion. But it needs to begin again, with a clear understanding of what science and religion actually are. Lennox has done this wonderfully.
· Colin Tudge's Feeding People Is Easy is published by Pari Books
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Saturday, December 8, 2007 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 84 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #95644 by Ducklike on December 8, 2007 at 10:48 pm
What is this... yet another flea?That thumping sound must be Galileo taking a few more rotations in the tomb.
Other Comments by Ducklike
3. Comment #95646 by Russell's Teapot on December 8, 2007 at 10:51 pm
It's like they all just pick their arguments out of a hat full of little paper slips; I must have read a thousand of these and not a single one of them seems to have an original thought. Other Comments by Russell's Teapot
4. Comment #95648 by Theocrapcy on December 8, 2007 at 10:54 pm
Put simply, science cannot disprove god so it is therefore not qualified to make the assertion of his existence or otherwise. BUt, as well all know, Richard states that the existence of god IS a scientific question. How is it that a religious person knows what cannot be proven? They claim to know what they possibly cannot know. How arrogant! Teapots and spaghetti monsters shoot down this silly book in a minute.
Other Comments by Theocrapcy
5. Comment #95653 by ferfuracious on December 8, 2007 at 11:10 pm
This article is self-reviewing:"arguments are a disgrace: assertive without substance; demanding evidence while offering none; staggeringly unscholarly."
I am unsure who is the greater moron, Lennox or Tudge:
"if all the physical constants, from the magnitude of gravity to the mass of the proton, had not been exactly right. Of course, we can explain such consistency without invoking intelligence and purpose, but as Lennox shows, the arguments needed to do this are extraordinarily contrived."
Other Comments by ferfuracious
6. Comment #95654 by dutchb0y on December 8, 2007 at 11:12 pm
The "closed system" of sciences' tautology is not closed because the questions are carefully considered, to my mind, or closed at all. Science asks careful questions to make sure the answers (for or against) hold a precise meaning about a precise hypothesis, they need to be rather narrow and definitely testable. What science does right is *keep asking questions*.Religion asks questions, but do they really shed much new light? Do the conclusions reached often become accepted? In some cases, yes. What is the basis for such decision? Fiat? Focus Groups? Charisma of a religious leader? What is the basis for rejection? Blasphemy?
Science can't "bury" God conclusively, but it doesn't have to. Science is intellectually honest enough to admit that you can't disprove something by it's mere lack of proof of existence. That doesn't mean that it exists, it's much closer to 99.999999% improbable than probable. If people want to live in that 0.000001% it's a personal decision, of course, but I surely hope they don't choose to kill each other over it.
Other Comments by dutchb0y
7. Comment #95695 by ADH on December 9, 2007 at 1:37 am
Excellent review, excellent book. I wonder when Lennox and Dawkins will cross swords again on British soil. Keep me posted if you get wind of anything.Other Comments by ADH
8. Comment #95697 by Conrad on December 9, 2007 at 1:50 am
Horrible review and from what I've seen of Lennox I can easily assume it is a horrible book.Everyone here knows sophistry of this kind as it has become old hat and has already answered it in six posts. Is this writer supremely ignorant or willingly dense?
The existence of a god who has any role in our physical universe is a scientific question. A god who by definition has no basis in our universe can be said to not exist. Either way the review is tired and boring for all the same old reasons. It's as if none of these people READ.
Other Comments by Conrad
9. Comment #95698 by jbblack on December 9, 2007 at 2:09 am
The existence of a god who has any role in our physical universe is a scientific question. A god who by definition has no basis in our universe can be said to not exist. Either way the review is tired and boring for all the same old reasons. It's as if none of these people READ.
Maybe that's the problem. Perhaps we should start presenting our arguments in a form they'll readily understand. Maybe a book with LOTS of pictures and very few big words.
Or perhaps a movie. With lots of car chases and exploding things.
Other Comments by jbblack
10. Comment #95711 by The Energist on December 9, 2007 at 2:57 am
How irritating. As Conrad says, do these people read? Every one of these arguments has been comprehensively dealt with, not least in The God Delusion but many times elsewhere too.The thing that gets me is that even if the 'transcendental' were required to explain the universe, or the origin of life for example, this in no way indicates the existence of the Abrahamic God, which is what they are not-so-subtly insinuating.
Of course the universe could not function 'properly' if the physical constraints had not been 'right' but is it possible for them to be any other way? They are in balance with one another, keeping each other in check. And of course, suggesting a god of some sort carefully balanced them all at the beginning of the universe does nothing but push the question back onto this god.
As a scientist-in-training, it's the fact that there is still so much left to understand that drives me. We can only see such a small part of the electromagnetic spectrum with our eyes, and then you have the postulated dark matter and energy. In time and with effort these things will be better understood, and I expect they are more astounding than we can imagine, but there is no need to invoke the supernatural to explain them.
Maybe these apologists would get together and actually think up a novel argument instead of restating the same old stuff time and time again.
Other Comments by The Energist
11. Comment #95721 by drive1 on December 9, 2007 at 3:31 am
It is perfectly rational to propose that the universe is indeed without purpose - that what we see is all there is.
There's your problem, Mr Tudge. You carelessly inserted the term 'purpose' and gave it a bizarre definition. This is how strawmen are created.
Other Comments by drive1
12. Comment #95723 by celestialtea on December 9, 2007 at 3:37 am
*yawns* It would save a lot of time if these people just used a number system for their arguments. Something like 1=argument from complexity, 2=non-overlapping magisteria, 3=personal revelation, etc. Instead of wasting our time and theirs, they could simply say, "1, 3, 7, 2, 1" (Maybe 7 is going too far), we could point them to the relevant chapters of TGD and leave them to it.
Other Comments by celestialtea
13. Comment #95724 by Diacanu on December 9, 2007 at 3:43 am
The religites have no arguments left, and they know it.So, I think they're going for a coordinated relay bombardment tactic.
Other Comments by Diacanu
14. Comment #95726 by steve99 on December 9, 2007 at 3:51 am
They are in balance with one another, keeping each other in check
Sorry... are they? Does the charge on the proton somehow influence the strength of gravity?
Other Comments by steve99
15. Comment #95727 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 9, 2007 at 3:52 am
7. Comment #95695 by ADH on December 9, 2007 at 1:37 amExcellent review, excellent book. I wonder when Lennox and Dawkins will cross swords again on British soil. Keep me posted if you get wind of anything.
You liked the review? I found it simply to be more of the same. I must confess to never having read the book, but based on the review I can't say I'm particularly motivated to.
What about this review impressed you? Perhaps you can help me to see what I'm missing:-)
Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen
16. Comment #95728 by alexmzk on December 9, 2007 at 3:56 am
ouch, where to start?Ironically, these arguments break the rule of parsimony - always opt for the simplest explanation - which lies at the heart of science itself.
it is simpler to assume that the laws of nature are responsible for themselves, which is what we see everyday, than to assume that an extra-physical dimension exists which we are unable to witness, yet which managed to (somehow) order our very normal realm of existence to an extremely specific degree. don't even start on how that extra-physical dimension started.
Other Comments by alexmzk
17. Comment #95732 by stereoroid on December 9, 2007 at 4:06 am
Yet Atkins, as a professor of science, must be aware of Sir Peter Medawar's famous adage, adapted from Bismarck, "Science is the art of the soluble". Scientists study only those aspects of the universe that it is within their gift to study: what is observable; what is measurable and amenable to statistical analysis; and, indeed, what they can afford to study within the means and time available. Science thus emerges as a giant tautology, a "closed system". It can present us with robust answers only because its practitioners take very great care to tailor the questions.
Non-sequitur, anyone? Because we have practical limits on the amount of science we can do in a year, or a decade, that makes it a closed system? Does the author imagine that scientists actually wanted quantum theory, or Big Bang theory? They caused more problems than they resolved - even giving these fleas the gaps they try to exploit - but we have to work with them because they sprung directly from available evidence. This must be some new definition of "closed" that I was not previously aware of.
Other Comments by stereoroid
18. Comment #95735 by PrimeNumbers on December 9, 2007 at 4:14 am
Science, the process, can investigate any phenomena we can perceive. Are there things science can't tell us - yes. But does it matter? No, because religion and faith can't tell us anything at all useful. Religion mixes truth, if it has any, with human desires, in such a way that one cannot tell one from the other.Any religious answer to a problem basically boils down to "godditit", and that is not an answer, but merely begs the question of "god?", and that is not answered by "godditit" unless you're postulating an infinite regress of gods.
Other Comments by PrimeNumbers
19. Comment #95736 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 9, 2007 at 4:16 am
More specifically, Dawkins famously showed that it is possible to build a computer model that could generate huge complexity - analogous in an arm-waving way to the complexity of nature - just by applying an all-purpose rule, an algorithm, that simulated natural selection. Indeed, says Lennox. But the algorithm works only because it has been very carefully designed - by Dawkins.Is this not the most breathtakingly inane comment? How else would Dawkins or anyone conduct experiments? The very nature of experiment is design, every single naturally occurring process we have determined with certainty as "natural" was determined by "designed" experiments.
This commentary implies that every incident of weather, lightening, earthquakes etc., etc. are "designed" too, when we know that this is nonsense.
It's just the same infinite regress as usual. Am I missing something here?
Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen
20. Comment #95737 by Diacanu on December 9, 2007 at 4:23 am
PrimeNumbers-Religion mixes truth, if it has any, with human desires,
And what a sad sorry bunch of desires they are.
Misogyny, patriarchy, dictatorship, conquest, subordination, repression, the desire for immortality, sadism, masochism, revenge, jealousy, sexual repression, conformity, out-group violence, out-group covetousness, solipsism, scapegoating, etc, etc.
Other Comments by Diacanu
21. Comment #95740 by mmurray on December 9, 2007 at 4:47 am
Indeed, atheism - when you boil it down - is little more than dogma: simple denial, a refusal to take seriously the proposition that there could be more to the universe than meets the eye.
This is such utter crap. Atheism is about refusing to take seriously the proposition that there could be more to the universe than meets the eye unless someone produces some evidence.
You have to figure these people type these kinds of reviews with only one hand on the keyboard.
Michael
Other Comments by mmurray
22. Comment #95741 by smithyboy on December 9, 2007 at 4:56 am
mmurray, are you sure it is their hand?Other Comments by smithyboy
23. Comment #95742 by steve99 on December 9, 2007 at 4:56 am
This is such utter crap. Atheism is about refusing to take seriously the proposition that there could be more to the universe than meets the eye unless someone produces some evidence.
Well, I am perfectly open to there being more to the universe than meets the eye, just that I am just rather suspicious when someone claims to not know what that 'more' is, but that they speak to it.
Other Comments by steve99
24. Comment #95743 by steve99 on December 9, 2007 at 5:05 am
Is this not the most breathtakingly inane comment?
I would say it not just that - it is an astonishingly ignorant comment. We don't just assume some finely-tailored algorithm can produce complexity - we see it all the time in nature, and not just in living systems. The writer seems to want us to believe that life is a special case; too complex to have arisen from the laws of physics and chemistry. That is shameful for someone who is supposed to be a science writer.
Other Comments by steve99
25. Comment #95744 by smithyboy on December 9, 2007 at 5:08 am
Who is Colin Tudge? He can't possibly be a scientist can he? Sounds like he has virtually no understanding of the 'algorithm' of natural selection.If Dawkins could show how the algorithm that has produced the living world could arise spontaneously, then he would have gone a long way to making his point. As things stand, he has not begun even to address it.
What an extraordinary claim. All that is needed is things making imperfect copies of themselves, ie replicating. Once doing that, the living world eventually arises. This has clearly been shown again and again.
Other Comments by smithyboy
26. Comment #95746 by steve99 on December 9, 2007 at 5:13 am
Who is Colin Tudge? He can't possibly be a scientist can he?
I am afraid so. Hard to believe, but he was trained as a biologist, and has been writing science books all his life. I can't see this review helping with that career.
Other Comments by steve99
27. Comment #95749 by IanG on December 9, 2007 at 5:23 am
Sam Harris has this wonderful phrase in "The End of Faith":....the Bible and the Koran both contain mountains of life-destroying gibberish....Ditto this article.
I really do think sometimes that best thing is just to let this stuff slide past into oblivion.
It's not realistically possible to argue with such gibberish. This whole subject of "faith" has been intentionally put beyond the realms of question and intelligent discourse.
Churchill once said that "Russia is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma."
R-u-s-s-i-a is an alternative spelling of r-e-l-i-g-i-o-n.
The whole gibberish meme process has evolved over the centuries in order to make it as infective as possible to the susceptible population and as resistant as possible to vaccination efforts.
The first thing it does it turn its hosts mad so that, as their health deteriorates, they become increasingly convinced that they have never felt better.
Attempts at treatment through counter-argument simply promote an enhanced sensitivity reaction in the sufferer which has the effect of reinforcing their conviction that they have been right all along and that the nasty doctors are really here to kill them.
Other Comments by IanG
28. Comment #95751 by Northern Bright on December 9, 2007 at 5:29 am
So scientists can't bottom out the mysteries of the universe by empirical experiment and investigation, but the religious can do it by closing eyes, lighting candles and singing Kum By Ya? Who wouldn't be convinced by such a strong argument? Other Comments by Northern Bright
29. Comment #95752 by IanG on December 9, 2007 at 5:33 am
I quite like Kumbaya.The Seekers wasn't it?
Great voice, Judith Durham.
Other Comments by IanG
30. Comment #95759 by scottishgeologist on December 9, 2007 at 6:31 am
First came across reviews of this book on Amazon. You all might like to see what your old chum David "Wee Flea" Robertson (banned from this site I believe?) has to say about it- (its on this Amazon page, second one down):http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A17G1ZDVI3CXE1?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview
But just one point on that review above:
Religion, by contrast, accepts the limitations of our senses and brains and posits at least the possibility that there is more going on than meets the eye - a meta-dimension that might be called transcendental. Dawkins talks of religion not simply as "faith" but as "blind faith" - yet this, as Lennox points out, is a simple calumny. The greatest theologians, beginning at least as early as St Paul and continuing through Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas and Newman and again into modern times, have never been "blind". All have stressed the need to take account of the facts of the case (the thing that science is good at) and to engage the intellect: absolutely not to believe things blindly
This is rubbish. The story of Doubting Thomas makes it abundantly clear that "blind" faith is commendable. Thomas wanted to SEE the wounds in Christs hands and side. In other words to use his ocular sensors to empirically determine that what he was seeing was what he was getting!
If there is absolutely no way of measuring or evaluating something, how on earth are we meant to know that what we are being presented with is the "truth" and not some made up fairy-pish?
FFS, give me a hard surface, i need to bang my head....
Other Comments by scottishgeologist
31. Comment #95760 by Dr Benway on December 9, 2007 at 6:38 am
For all the great founders of modern science - Galileo, Newton, Descartes, Robert Boyle, John Ray and their Muslim predecessors - their research was itself an act of reverence.This argument always annoys me. It suggests a failure to appreciate the scientific ethos. What is science if not a method for transcending subjectivity, for seeing the world from the vantage point of a generic everyman? The sex, race, or religion of the scientist may be of historical or social interest. But such particulars are meaningless from a scientific vantage point.
Boxers or briefs? Not relevant.
Pizza topping favorites? Not relevant.
Trinity or unity? Not relevant.
Honesty? Ah! Yes, relevant to replication and corroboration.
...if all the physical constants, from the magnitude of gravity to the mass of the proton, had not been exactly right.Again with the fucking fine tuning. Yes, reason allows you a deist god-of-the-gaps for now, if you like.
But the algorithm works only because it has been very carefully designed - by Dawkins.A second violation of the scientific ethos, I'm afraid. All equations, algorithms, and maps are man-made. Why the special pleading for natural selection? Why not: "Boyle's law only works because it has been very carefully designed - by Boyle."
If Dawkins could show how the algorithm that has produced the living world could arise spontaneously, then he would have gone a long way to making his point.If Newton could show how the equation that governs planetary motion could arise spontaneously..."
Other Comments by Dr Benway
32. Comment #95761 by scottishgeologist on December 9, 2007 at 6:41 am
More Tudge stuff here:http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/sciences/story/0,,1042375,00.html
This guy sounds liek some sort of liberal. Cant imagine his POV going down to well amongst the evangies...
Other Comments by scottishgeologist
33. Comment #95762 by Harko on December 9, 2007 at 6:47 am
Anyone who describes the work of Daniel Dennett as "staggeringly unscholarly" obviously hasn't read a word of it!It's so scholarly sometimes, it's painful :-)
Other Comments by Harko
34. Comment #95764 by Northern Bright on December 9, 2007 at 7:01 am
First came across reviews of this book on Amazon. You all might like to see what your old chum David "Wee Flea" Robertson (banned from this site I believe?) has to say about it- (its on this Amazon page, second one down):
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A17G1ZDVI3CXE1?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview
Has he been banned? I thought I hadn't seen him around recently, but wasn't aware he'd been banned. Any particular reason or just trolling in general?
By the way, I found his 3rd Amazon review much more entertaining - the one where he's responding to what atheists have written in reviews of his own book. Something about how people should review what's actually written and should take a more balanced and thoughtful approach. Which, as we all know, is EXACTLY how he always approached what RD wrote in TGD. Oh no, wait ...
Other Comments by Northern Bright
35. Comment #95765 by Dr Benway on December 9, 2007 at 7:02 am
ADH: Excellent review, excellent book. I wonder when Lennox and Dawkins will cross swords again on British soil. Keep me posted if you get wind of anything.You break my heart, ADH. I had such high hopes for you.
Some pointers for your team - but just this once:
1. Reification. The map is not the territory.
2. Waffling between evolution and the fine tuning problem smells of desperation. A good PR company would advise modern creationists to focus on fine tuning and let the other thing go.
Other Comments by Dr Benway
36. Comment #95767 by IanG on December 9, 2007 at 7:12 am
What is science if not a method for transcending subjectivity, for seeing the world from the vantage point of a generic everyman?Nice. You've made my Sunday with that, Dr.B!
All I need now is for West Ham to win and I will be in Heaven.
(non-ecclesiastically significant Sunday, of course).
Other Comments by IanG
37. Comment #95768 by prettygoodformonkeys on December 9, 2007 at 7:15 am
"It happened by itself" is more parsimonious than "an all-knowing, all-powerful God who cares about the way mammals treat each other, and even what they think, created an elaborate maze to test us".And there's that old "law" argument again; semantics that suggest a law-giver. Things don't follow laws, we simply notice that certain events always happen a certain way - that's all. This is true right from "that plant will make you sick" to noticing that "apples always fall from trees" all the way to noticing that "fundamental constants exist that influence the universe to "big bang" in a certain way".
So as to cause, 14.5 billion years later, a certain mammal to exist for less than the blink of an eye. What a stretch, that this suggests purpose.
We need another word for "law" and "rule".
Other Comments by prettygoodformonkeys
38. Comment #95769 by Northern Bright on December 9, 2007 at 7:24 am
From our present age, Lennox quotes Sir Ghillean Prance, former director of Kew: "All my studies have confirmed my faith."
I've heard this kind of claim a number of times, but normally from people who haven't pursued much study in the area of science, or who have done so from the premise that what lies behind it all is God and a determination not to be swayed from that view. I have yet to encounter anyone - though they might exist, I suppose – who started as a genuine agnostic, looked at the scientific evidence on its own merits and decided on the basis of the science that there must be a god.
Let's explore this remarkable claim, that scientific studies confirm the Christian faith.
Science has shown us that …
… the universe contains about a billion trillion stars in addition to our own, the Sun, dotted through an vast expanse which, because it is expanding, is currently something like 46.5 billion light years across. For those who prefer their distances in something more tangible, that's roughly 43,990,000,000,000,000,000,000 kms, give or take a few centimetres here or there ;-)
It is likely that a large proportion – quite possibly more than half - of those stars will have at least one planet. There is no reason to suppose that intelligent life could not have evolved on some of those trillions of planets, though equally, there is no reason to suppose that such life would in any way resemble us.
How exactly does that confirm the Christian view that the universe was made with a view to human existence?
Science has shown us that …
… it is possible to perform a laboratory experiment in which the kind of energy that would be found in a lightning strike is added to a mixture of gases such as are believed to have formed the Earth's atmosphere in the very earliest years of its existence, and for very basic proteins, such as would be the basis of life, to be created as a result.
How exactly does that confirm the Christian view that life required God in order to get started?
Science has shown us that …
… the Earth and the universe are about 4.5 bn and 14.5 bn years old, respectively.
How exactly does that confirm the Christian view that God created everything less than 10,000 years ago?
Science has shown us that …
… the Earth orbits the Sun, and is itself an orb. And that the Earth, far from being at the centre of the universe, is nowhere near even the centre of our own galaxy.
How exactly does that confirm the (original) Christian view that the Earth was at the centre of the universe, that the Sun orbited the Earth, and that the Earth was flat?
Science has shown us that …
… all living organisms – whether plant or animal – have evolved through a process of natural selection that spans billions of years. It shows that every living organism is ultimately, at the genetic level, related to every other living organism. It shows that humans are no different from any other organism in this.
How exactly does that confirm that Christian view that everything was created in its finished state in a single act of creation less than 10,000 years ago? And that humans occupy a very special place in creation? Made in God's image, in fact?
Science has shown us that …
… because of the long, slow, drawn-out process of evolution, there are all sorts of flaws in organisms of various kinds. These are some of the "design" flaws in humans, as suggested by Victor Stenger in God, The Failed Hypothesis: "Our bones lose minerals after age thirty, making them susceptible to fracture and osteoporosis. Our rib cage does not fully enclose and protect most internal organs. Our muscles atrophy. Our leg veins become enlarged and twisted, leading to varicose veins. Our joints wear out as their lubricants thin. Our retinas are prone to detachment. The male prostate enlarges, squeezing and obstructing urine flow. " A better design, he suggests (quoting Olshanky, Carnes and Butler) would be if we had "bigger ears, rewired eyes, a curved neck, a forward-tilting torso, shorter limbs and stature, extra padding around the joints, extra muscles and fat, thicker spinal disks, a reversed knee joint, and more."
How exactly does this confirm the Christian view that God made everything perfectly? How does it even confirm the modern, liberal Christian view that a perfect, omniscient, omnipotent god chose evolution as his means of creating us?
Science has shown us that ...
... prayer does not work and miracles do not happen. That dead people do not return to life. That humans do not ascend bodily into the heavens. That there is no evidence whatsoever for a non-material soul that survives us at the death of our bodies.
How exactly does that confirm the Christian faith, which asserts the contrary of all these findings?
Science has shown us that …
… no matter where we look, we simply find no evidence of a god. We clearly don't have all the answers as yet, but so far there is absolutely nothing to support the God hypothesis.
How exactly does this confirm that Christian view that there is a god? Let alone a god with the very specific characteristics of the Christian god?
Stenger also makes a strong case against the "fine tuning" argument, but too detailed and too complex for me to be able to condense it here: but science shows that even this stronghold for Christian apologists does not stand up to scrutiny.
To say that science confirms the Christian faith is to say something very silly indeed.
Other Comments by Northern Bright
39. Comment #95770 by steveroot on December 9, 2007 at 7:24 am
30. Comment #95759 by scottishgeologist on December 9, 2007 at 6:31 am
You all might like to see what your old chum David "Wee Flea" Robertson has to say about it:
From his review:
I now realise that maths is the foundation of everything!
They is? Personally, I don't know math from a hole in the ground. ;-)
Steve
Other Comments by steveroot
40. Comment #95771 by Rational_G on December 9, 2007 at 7:27 am
Dr. Benway: "Again with the fucking fine tuning"Good one! Cracked me up.
The anthropic principle explains nothing.
Other Comments by Rational_G
41. Comment #95773 by ADH on December 9, 2007 at 7:27 am
I must say I confess to being a bit baffled at how all of you can so conidently review (aka write off) the review of a book without haing read the book that is being reviewed! If I were to slam one of your glowing reviews of TGD without having read TGD myself you would verbally lynch me, and with good reason!Yes Dr. B ******* fine tuning again. Has it occurred to you that the reason might be because the fine tuning argument has not been laid to rest - and until it does, ******* fine tuning is ging to keep rearing its head. You can't keep a good man (argument) down!
Other Comments by ADH
42. Comment #95776 by Northern Bright on December 9, 2007 at 7:32 am
ADH - The review makes claims that of themselves (regardless of the claims of the book it purports to be reviewing) are risible.No one has suggested that it's not an acurate review of the book.
What we are pointing out is that the claims the review is making about the inter-relation of science and religion are silly and ill-founded. Whether or not they accurately reflect the contents of the book is another matter.
Other Comments by Northern Bright
43. Comment #95778 by steve99 on December 9, 2007 at 7:33 am
I must say I confess to being a bit baffled at how all of you can so conidently review (aka write off) the review of a book without haing read the book that is being reviewed!
It is kind of like this. Suppose someone was writing a review of a book on ancient Egyptian architecture, and the review started as follows....
"Given that the pyramids were too large and complex to have been built by humans...."
See?
Other Comments by steve99
44. Comment #95780 by steve99 on December 9, 2007 at 7:37 am
You can't keep a good man (argument) down!
It is only used as an argument by those who don't (or won't) understand that a supernatural mind is an infinitely more complex thing than a finely tuned big bang. There could be many explanations for such fine tuning (assuming that it needs explaining). An infinite supermind that also happens to be a nice chap is a very silly non-explanation.
Other Comments by steve99
45. Comment #95781 by prettygoodformonkeys on December 9, 2007 at 7:39 am
ADH:...conidently (sic) review (aka write off) the review of a book without haing (sic) read the book that is being reviewed...as you said, the review is being reviewed, not the book. The comments are all based on the article, not the book.
Other Comments by prettygoodformonkeys
46. Comment #95782 by steveroot on December 9, 2007 at 7:39 am
41. Comment #95773 by ADH on December 9, 2007 at 7:27 am
I must say I confess to being a bit baffled at how all of you can so conidently review (aka write off) the review of a book without haing read the book that is being reviewed! If I were to slam one of your glowing reviews of TGD without having read TGD myself you would verbally lynch me, and with good reason!
It's OK- the golden plates I found under my bed this morning make it clear that books like this need not be read to be written off. I'd show them to you, but some Italian guy with wings came and got them.
Steve
Other Comments by steveroot
47. Comment #95786 by smithyboy on December 9, 2007 at 7:55 am
ADHI 'confess to being baffled' as to why you haven't come back on my critique (Post 107) of your resurrection argument in the Pagan Christ thread.
Other Comments by smithyboy
48. Comment #95793 by Dr Benway on December 9, 2007 at 8:13 am
Of course, we can explain such consistency without invoking intelligence and purpose, but as Lennox shows, the arguments needed to do this are extraordinarily contrived. Ironically, these arguments break the rule of parsimony - always opt for the simplest explanation - which lies at the heart of science itself.I grant that "God" is only three letters long and "did it" merely six. But again, why the special pleading for fine tuning? Couldn't we apply this same simple - I mean, simplicity - argument to QM? "God did it" takes up far less space on the page than the Schrodinger equation.
Silly git.
ADH: Has it occurred to you that the reason might be because the fine tuning argument has not been laid to rest - and until it does, ******* fine tuning is ging to keep rearing its head.A gap in understanding means scientists have work to do. "God did it" is not compatible with the impetus to solve the problem. "God did it" is anti-science.
The anti-science crowd threatens our very survival. Everyone here has a moral duty to shit on ADH's head until he shuts up or catches on.
Other Comments by Dr Benway
49. Comment #95799 by Matt7895 on December 9, 2007 at 8:23 am
"But on matters of theology their arguments are a disgrace: assertive without substance; demanding evidence while offering none; staggeringly unscholarly."What the hell?
Other Comments by Matt7895
50. Comment #95800 by steve99 on December 9, 2007 at 8:28 am
What the hell?
Indeed. It would be interesting to know what constitutes "substance" and "evidence" for theologists.
Other Comments by steve99
Over 1.5 million copies sold
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #95641 by Diacanu on December 8, 2007 at 10:15 pm
No, that proposition is merely spirituality.
Religion claims to know the mind of God, and codifies it into laws, and threatens rather nasty punishments for breaking them.
Yet another pundit who can't distinguish deism from theism.
Man, does this crap get tiresome.
Other Comments by Diacanu