Print
Dawkins v. Collins Debate
by Gary J. Whittenberger, eSkeptic
Thanks to Martin Gill for the link.
Reposted from:
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-02-28.html
"God Vs. Science" was the featured debate in the November 13, 2006 issue of Time magazine between well-known scientists Dr. Francis Collins, who is a Christian, and Dr. Richard Dawkins, who is an atheist. The article reported a lively exchange between these two scientific heavyweights who answered questions from a moderator about various controversies involving religion and science. Skeptics and believers alike should read the original article ( http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132,00.html ). However, this essay will summarize the important points of the Time article and offer skeptical commentary.
In the first exchange, Dawkins and Collins apparently agreed that the proposition "God exists" is either true or false. Dawkins indicated that science is appropriate to the task of answering the question, but Collins disagreed: "From my perspective, God cannot be completely contained within nature, and therefore God's existence is outside of science's ability to really weigh in."
Collins started on the wrong foot by doing a little question begging; he assumed God's existence from the outset without presenting any evidence for the inference. But he also left the backdoor open for science to weigh in on God's existence. By saying that "God cannot be completely contained within nature," he implied that God can be partly contained within nature, which makes God open to scientific analysis. On the other hand, Collins implied that God is partly contained outside nature. Since we are part of nature, how could we ever get outside of it to see that there is anything on the other side? It is common for religious apologists like Collins to talk about things "outside nature" or "the supernatural," but they always seem to fall short in presenting any evidence that anything "supernatural" exists. By inventing a category called "supernatural" and relegating hypothetical things to it, they apparently hope to protect those things from the requirement of evidence.
Dawkins indicated that before the theory of evolution it was thought that the idea of God was required to explain the complexity, purpose, beauty, and elegance of living things. But the theory of evolution showed that the God hypothesis was unnecessary for the explanation. Collins responded by saying that a God, being "outside of nature" and therefore "outside of space and time," could have designed and activated evolution itself at the moment of his creation of the universe. Collins fails to consider all the consequences of inventing a realm or a being "outside of nature." One important feature of nature is its orderliness. If God were "outside of nature," wouldn't he be "outside of orderliness"? If so, then this would preclude him from having all the wonderful behavioral tendencies, such as perfect goodness, which are often ascribed to him. Collins is fond of saying that God is "outside of space and time." What does this mean? Does it make any sense to say that something exists outside space and time? When we apply the word "exists" to something, don't we mean that we can observe it or its effects in space and time? Have we ever observed anything outside space and time? Collins seems to be caught in the quicksand of contradiction. Even if one entertains for a moment the odd notion that God could exist "outside time," this seems to lead to a conclusion that he couldn't do anything, including the particularly spectacular act attributed to him, i.e. creating the universe.
Time is the measure of change. If there is no time, there is no change. If there is no change, there is no action. If there is no action, there is no creation. If God were to exist outside of time, he would be impotent to do anything at all! By insisting that God exists "outside of nature," Collins nearly makes his supernatural compartment so small that there isn't enough room for God.
In response, Dawkins indicated that it would be odd if God chose to create humans through a 14-billion-year process of evolution. Collins responded by saying that this roundabout way of producing humans would not be an odd course of action for a God not having the purpose of making "his intention absolutely obvious to us." Collins postulates a sort of subtle God who doesn't want to give us too much information about his existence. Responding further to Dawkins, Collins said "If it suits him to be a deity that we must seek without being forced to, would it not have been sensible for him to use the mechanism of evolution without posting obvious road signs to reveal his role in creation?" What would be so wrong with God's "posting obvious road signs"? Collins implies the answer, i.e. by doing so, God would simply be forcing us to believe in him!
Collins seems to endorse the dubious notion that giving clear unambiguous information to people would be forcing them to take a certain course of action. If we were to emulate the God whom Collins envisions, we would dispense with any "obvious road signs" and would withhold clear information from adolescents about the connection between smoking cigarettes and getting lung cancer so that they wouldn't be forced to forgo smoking. Rather than addressing the subtle God that Collins imagines, Dawkins challenges the traditional God. He is certainly correct that the inefficiency of evolution, not to mention its "errors of design," is inconsistent with the traditional idea of God as an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being. This traditional kind of God would be more likely to operate through Creationism, but this hypothesized mode of operation is not supported by the evidence of biology, genetics, geology, and cosmology.
Collins and Dawkins then offered their differing views on the "fine-tuning" of our universe. According to this idea, if any of a half dozen of the "physical constants" of our universe had been just slightly different in value from what it actually is, then life as we know it, including human life, would not exist. The terminology gets a little confusing here. How can something that is a constant be different from what it is? When physicists and cosmologists talk about a "physical constant," they mean a physical factor which has a certain value (represented by a particular number) which is constant throughout all times and places in our universe but which might possibly vary across different universes, if there were other universes. A physical constant would have the same value throughout any given universe, but might vary from one universe to another.
Dawkins proposed two possible explanations for the values of the physical constants we find in our universe. One is that these constants couldn't be any different from what they are; they simply are what they are. The other is that our universe is just one of a very large population of universes. Within this great mulitverse environment, there are bound to be some universes that have the physical constants at just the right values to support the development of life, and we find ourselves in one of them. Collins dealt with the improbability of the physical constants, life, and human life by suggesting that a super-being selected the physical constants to be what they are. God "tuned" the universe to make life possible. In supporting his own explanation, Collins ignored the first hypothesis mentioned by Dawkins and attempted to dismiss the second. He said that the application of Occam's razor leads him to favor the God-as-tuner hypothesis. Dawkins responded by saying that the God hypothesis, although not impossible, is actually more improbable than the universe which it is designed to explain. Nevertheless, he advocated keeping an open mind when he said "It's an honest scientific quest to discover where this apparent improbability comes from."
Although Dawkins seems to present the two best currently available alternatives to Collins' God hypothesis to explain the life-enabling values of the physical constants of our universe, he and Collins both seem to accept without any skepticism the proposition that our universe is improbable. But how can they just assume this? In my opinion, they do this through a misapplication of probability theory. In the debate they used the "gravitational constant" as an example. They correctly noted that if the gravitational constant (G) were different by one part in a hundred million million, then life, as we know it, would not be possible in our universe. One can imagine a range of values from X to Y, within which G is included (X?G?Y) and within which life is possible in our universe. Conversely, one can imagine a set of values outside the range of X to Y (i.e.Y) for which life is not possible in our universe. Dawkins and Collins jump to the conclusion that, since the former range of values is so small compared to the latter set of values, our universe must be really rare or improbable.
Not only do they ignore the idea that some other kind of life ("life as we do not know it") might be possible outside the X to Y range and the idea that there is an infinite number of values between X and Y for which life might be possible in our universe, more importantly, they also assume that they know something very important about a population of universes. In order to conclude that a particular item with some feature is improbable, one must know at least two facts about the population from which the item is drawn as a sample. One must know how many items with the feature are in the population and how many items without the feature are in that same population (or alternatively, how many items altogether are in the population). One can then draw valid inferences about the probabilities of different samples. The problem is that neither Dawkins nor Collins nor anyone else knows these facts about any possible population of universes from which our particular one might have been drawn as a sample.
In fact, we do not know that any other universes exist at all! Without knowledge of other universes, Dawkins and Collins misuse probability theory to conclude that our universe is rare. Because they start with an unwarranted assumption, their further speculations along these lines can't go very far. Even if we knew that a universe supportive of life was improbable, which we don't know, purposeful selection among possible universes (the God hypothesis) is a worse explanation of our particular universe than is random selection.
More must be said about Collins' contention that the application of Occam's razor supports the God hypothesis over the multiverse hypothesis. It doesn't. The God hypothesis is less parsimonious than the multiverse hypothesis for two reasons:
At one point in the debate Collins said that those who interpret Genesis in a literal way reach conclusions at odds with the findings of science, especially on the age of the Earth and the way in which species are related. Alluding to St. Augustine and commenting on the book of Genesis, Collins said "It was not intended as a science textbook. It was intended as a description of who God was, who we are and what our relationship is supposed to be with God." It is just as likely or more likely that the writer of Genesis intended his narrative to be an accurate account of what happened during creation than that he intended his narrative to be metaphorical, figurative, or allegorical. Collins is able to avoid the conclusion that the Bible is very likely not the "word of God" by adopting a nonliteral interpretation. Dawkins suggested that in defending evolution from his fundamentalist colleagues Collins was simply having an in-house quarrel, something he should just avoid.
The debate then turned to a discussion of miracles. The Time moderator asked: "Dr. Collins, the Resurrection is an essential argument of Christian faith, but doesn't it, along with the virgin birth and lesser miracles, fatally undermine the scientific method?" It would have been better had he phrased his questions the other way around and asked if the scientific method undermines or throws off the claims of the Resurrection, the virgin birth, and other miracles. Nevertheless, Collins responded that if one accepts God's existence, then it is not unreasonable to expect that God might occasionally intervene in the world in a miraculous way, and that if one accepts that Jesus was divine then the Resurrection is "not a great logical leap." But these are big "ifs," and although Collins tries to show that they are plausible, he offers no good evidence to show that they are probable.
The debaters expressed different views on the origin of altruistic feelings and behavior. Collins said that there is a good explanation for some altruism; it either involves helping family members who share our DNA or it involves helping others whom we expect to help us later in return. But he said that there is not a good naturalistic explanation for altruism of the type exhibited by people such as Oskar Schindler who provided safety to Jews during the reign of the Nazis. It appears that people sometimes risk their lives and in the process also their genes in order to help strangers from whom they have no expectations of help in return. Collins implied that this altruism is a sign of God's existence and a gift from him. Dawkins asserted that altruism in these cases is a kind of carry-over from ancient times when altruism had survival value for people living in small clans. Going beyond altruism, Collins then pointed to the existence of "moral law" or the "absolutes … of good and evil" within the human species as evidence for the existence of God. This morality among humans is supposed to show that beyond just being a creator of the universe, God cares about us. Dawkins responded that good and evil don't exist as independent entities but that good and bad things simply happen to people.
Collins' "moral law" argument is another variation on the "God of the Gaps" theme. If science doesn't yet have a complete description of a phenomenon, then there must be a super-being behind the scenes who is responsible for whatever is in the gaps. A big problem with this approach is that it tends to put a damper on further investigation. Besides that, Collins has an obligation to present a positive case for God's existence and not just rely on the current apparent weaknesses of rival hypotheses. Collins' idea of a "moral law" is premature and far too rigid when one considers the variability in moral rules across different geographic areas, cultures, ethnicities, and religions. There are moral principles because humans are constantly deciding on how they should behave, especially towards each other, and there are some commonalities in these moral principles, but there is hardly a "moral law." In fact, the absence of a "moral law," a universally agreed upon set of moral rules, is more compatible with God's nonexistence than with his existence. Wouldn't an all-knowing, all-powerful, perfectly good God have revealed a universal moral code to all peoples from the very beginning of our species and reinforced it with booster training sessions each generation?
When he tried to explain why he supports the opening of new stem cell lines, in contrast to a great many other religious people, Collins presented a confusing, almost incoherent discussion of the relationship of faith and reason: "Faith is not the opposite of reason. Faith rests squarely upon reason, but with the added component of revelation." Part of the difficulty here is that "faith" has several different meanings and unfortunately Collins isn't clear about which meaning he intends. "Faith" may refer to a religion or worldview, as in "My faith is Islam." It may refer to an attitude of trust or confidence, as in "I have faith in my physician." Or it may refer to believing propositions without evidence or out of proportion to the available evidence. It is this latter meaning that goes against Collins' platitude that "Faith is not the opposite of reason." Reason involves believing propositions on the basis of evidence or in proportion to the available evidence. Thus, if not strictly the opposite of one another, faith and reason are certainly incompatible. And how does adding revelation to the mix help at all? Revelation is not a separate way of knowing immune from the light of reason. One must still look at the evidence to evaluate a claim that a "holy book" contains "revelations" from a supreme being.
In his concluding remarks Collins indicated that he is interested in many "why" questions for which he believes answers may not come from science but from the "spiritual realm." In his concluding remarks Dawkins indicated his doubt that the future discoveries of science would support any of the beliefs of the traditional religions, beliefs that he regards as parochial, but nevertheless worthy of some respect. And on that conciliatory note, the debate was concluded.
Who won the debate? From the perspective of style or mode of expression, perhaps Collins won. At times, Dawkins seemed to come across as a bit testy and abrasive. He not only referred to fundamentalists as "clowns," but several times he accused Collins of presenting "cop outs." Collins, on the other hand, seemed more self-assured and gentlemanly in his interpersonal style. From the perspective of content or validity of argument, Dawkins won the debate hands-down. He made many points that Collins seemed helpless to rebut. Collins failed to show that he has found a satisfactory conciliation between religion and science, between faith and reason, or even that such a project is possible. Overall, the debate provided useful insights into the currently hot, but perennial issue of science versus religion.
Reposted from:
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-02-28.html
"God Vs. Science" was the featured debate in the November 13, 2006 issue of Time magazine between well-known scientists Dr. Francis Collins, who is a Christian, and Dr. Richard Dawkins, who is an atheist. The article reported a lively exchange between these two scientific heavyweights who answered questions from a moderator about various controversies involving religion and science. Skeptics and believers alike should read the original article ( http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132,00.html ). However, this essay will summarize the important points of the Time article and offer skeptical commentary.
In the first exchange, Dawkins and Collins apparently agreed that the proposition "God exists" is either true or false. Dawkins indicated that science is appropriate to the task of answering the question, but Collins disagreed: "From my perspective, God cannot be completely contained within nature, and therefore God's existence is outside of science's ability to really weigh in."
Collins started on the wrong foot by doing a little question begging; he assumed God's existence from the outset without presenting any evidence for the inference. But he also left the backdoor open for science to weigh in on God's existence. By saying that "God cannot be completely contained within nature," he implied that God can be partly contained within nature, which makes God open to scientific analysis. On the other hand, Collins implied that God is partly contained outside nature. Since we are part of nature, how could we ever get outside of it to see that there is anything on the other side? It is common for religious apologists like Collins to talk about things "outside nature" or "the supernatural," but they always seem to fall short in presenting any evidence that anything "supernatural" exists. By inventing a category called "supernatural" and relegating hypothetical things to it, they apparently hope to protect those things from the requirement of evidence.
Dawkins indicated that before the theory of evolution it was thought that the idea of God was required to explain the complexity, purpose, beauty, and elegance of living things. But the theory of evolution showed that the God hypothesis was unnecessary for the explanation. Collins responded by saying that a God, being "outside of nature" and therefore "outside of space and time," could have designed and activated evolution itself at the moment of his creation of the universe. Collins fails to consider all the consequences of inventing a realm or a being "outside of nature." One important feature of nature is its orderliness. If God were "outside of nature," wouldn't he be "outside of orderliness"? If so, then this would preclude him from having all the wonderful behavioral tendencies, such as perfect goodness, which are often ascribed to him. Collins is fond of saying that God is "outside of space and time." What does this mean? Does it make any sense to say that something exists outside space and time? When we apply the word "exists" to something, don't we mean that we can observe it or its effects in space and time? Have we ever observed anything outside space and time? Collins seems to be caught in the quicksand of contradiction. Even if one entertains for a moment the odd notion that God could exist "outside time," this seems to lead to a conclusion that he couldn't do anything, including the particularly spectacular act attributed to him, i.e. creating the universe.
Time is the measure of change. If there is no time, there is no change. If there is no change, there is no action. If there is no action, there is no creation. If God were to exist outside of time, he would be impotent to do anything at all! By insisting that God exists "outside of nature," Collins nearly makes his supernatural compartment so small that there isn't enough room for God.
In response, Dawkins indicated that it would be odd if God chose to create humans through a 14-billion-year process of evolution. Collins responded by saying that this roundabout way of producing humans would not be an odd course of action for a God not having the purpose of making "his intention absolutely obvious to us." Collins postulates a sort of subtle God who doesn't want to give us too much information about his existence. Responding further to Dawkins, Collins said "If it suits him to be a deity that we must seek without being forced to, would it not have been sensible for him to use the mechanism of evolution without posting obvious road signs to reveal his role in creation?" What would be so wrong with God's "posting obvious road signs"? Collins implies the answer, i.e. by doing so, God would simply be forcing us to believe in him!
Collins seems to endorse the dubious notion that giving clear unambiguous information to people would be forcing them to take a certain course of action. If we were to emulate the God whom Collins envisions, we would dispense with any "obvious road signs" and would withhold clear information from adolescents about the connection between smoking cigarettes and getting lung cancer so that they wouldn't be forced to forgo smoking. Rather than addressing the subtle God that Collins imagines, Dawkins challenges the traditional God. He is certainly correct that the inefficiency of evolution, not to mention its "errors of design," is inconsistent with the traditional idea of God as an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being. This traditional kind of God would be more likely to operate through Creationism, but this hypothesized mode of operation is not supported by the evidence of biology, genetics, geology, and cosmology.
Collins and Dawkins then offered their differing views on the "fine-tuning" of our universe. According to this idea, if any of a half dozen of the "physical constants" of our universe had been just slightly different in value from what it actually is, then life as we know it, including human life, would not exist. The terminology gets a little confusing here. How can something that is a constant be different from what it is? When physicists and cosmologists talk about a "physical constant," they mean a physical factor which has a certain value (represented by a particular number) which is constant throughout all times and places in our universe but which might possibly vary across different universes, if there were other universes. A physical constant would have the same value throughout any given universe, but might vary from one universe to another.
Dawkins proposed two possible explanations for the values of the physical constants we find in our universe. One is that these constants couldn't be any different from what they are; they simply are what they are. The other is that our universe is just one of a very large population of universes. Within this great mulitverse environment, there are bound to be some universes that have the physical constants at just the right values to support the development of life, and we find ourselves in one of them. Collins dealt with the improbability of the physical constants, life, and human life by suggesting that a super-being selected the physical constants to be what they are. God "tuned" the universe to make life possible. In supporting his own explanation, Collins ignored the first hypothesis mentioned by Dawkins and attempted to dismiss the second. He said that the application of Occam's razor leads him to favor the God-as-tuner hypothesis. Dawkins responded by saying that the God hypothesis, although not impossible, is actually more improbable than the universe which it is designed to explain. Nevertheless, he advocated keeping an open mind when he said "It's an honest scientific quest to discover where this apparent improbability comes from."
Although Dawkins seems to present the two best currently available alternatives to Collins' God hypothesis to explain the life-enabling values of the physical constants of our universe, he and Collins both seem to accept without any skepticism the proposition that our universe is improbable. But how can they just assume this? In my opinion, they do this through a misapplication of probability theory. In the debate they used the "gravitational constant" as an example. They correctly noted that if the gravitational constant (G) were different by one part in a hundred million million, then life, as we know it, would not be possible in our universe. One can imagine a range of values from X to Y, within which G is included (X?G?Y) and within which life is possible in our universe. Conversely, one can imagine a set of values outside the range of X to Y (i.e.
Not only do they ignore the idea that some other kind of life ("life as we do not know it") might be possible outside the X to Y range and the idea that there is an infinite number of values between X and Y for which life might be possible in our universe, more importantly, they also assume that they know something very important about a population of universes. In order to conclude that a particular item with some feature is improbable, one must know at least two facts about the population from which the item is drawn as a sample. One must know how many items with the feature are in the population and how many items without the feature are in that same population (or alternatively, how many items altogether are in the population). One can then draw valid inferences about the probabilities of different samples. The problem is that neither Dawkins nor Collins nor anyone else knows these facts about any possible population of universes from which our particular one might have been drawn as a sample.
In fact, we do not know that any other universes exist at all! Without knowledge of other universes, Dawkins and Collins misuse probability theory to conclude that our universe is rare. Because they start with an unwarranted assumption, their further speculations along these lines can't go very far. Even if we knew that a universe supportive of life was improbable, which we don't know, purposeful selection among possible universes (the God hypothesis) is a worse explanation of our particular universe than is random selection.
More must be said about Collins' contention that the application of Occam's razor supports the God hypothesis over the multiverse hypothesis. It doesn't. The God hypothesis is less parsimonious than the multiverse hypothesis for two reasons:
1. it invents a totally new type of entity, a supernatural being "outside time and space," which is not necessary with the latter hypothesis, and
2. it leads to the classic problem of infinite regress. If there must be something outside our universe, i.e. God, to explain the existence of our universe, then there must be something outside of God, i.e. "Z," to explain God. Then something is needed to explain "Z," ad infinitum.
At one point in the debate Collins said that those who interpret Genesis in a literal way reach conclusions at odds with the findings of science, especially on the age of the Earth and the way in which species are related. Alluding to St. Augustine and commenting on the book of Genesis, Collins said "It was not intended as a science textbook. It was intended as a description of who God was, who we are and what our relationship is supposed to be with God." It is just as likely or more likely that the writer of Genesis intended his narrative to be an accurate account of what happened during creation than that he intended his narrative to be metaphorical, figurative, or allegorical. Collins is able to avoid the conclusion that the Bible is very likely not the "word of God" by adopting a nonliteral interpretation. Dawkins suggested that in defending evolution from his fundamentalist colleagues Collins was simply having an in-house quarrel, something he should just avoid.
The debate then turned to a discussion of miracles. The Time moderator asked: "Dr. Collins, the Resurrection is an essential argument of Christian faith, but doesn't it, along with the virgin birth and lesser miracles, fatally undermine the scientific method?" It would have been better had he phrased his questions the other way around and asked if the scientific method undermines or throws off the claims of the Resurrection, the virgin birth, and other miracles. Nevertheless, Collins responded that if one accepts God's existence, then it is not unreasonable to expect that God might occasionally intervene in the world in a miraculous way, and that if one accepts that Jesus was divine then the Resurrection is "not a great logical leap." But these are big "ifs," and although Collins tries to show that they are plausible, he offers no good evidence to show that they are probable.
The debaters expressed different views on the origin of altruistic feelings and behavior. Collins said that there is a good explanation for some altruism; it either involves helping family members who share our DNA or it involves helping others whom we expect to help us later in return. But he said that there is not a good naturalistic explanation for altruism of the type exhibited by people such as Oskar Schindler who provided safety to Jews during the reign of the Nazis. It appears that people sometimes risk their lives and in the process also their genes in order to help strangers from whom they have no expectations of help in return. Collins implied that this altruism is a sign of God's existence and a gift from him. Dawkins asserted that altruism in these cases is a kind of carry-over from ancient times when altruism had survival value for people living in small clans. Going beyond altruism, Collins then pointed to the existence of "moral law" or the "absolutes … of good and evil" within the human species as evidence for the existence of God. This morality among humans is supposed to show that beyond just being a creator of the universe, God cares about us. Dawkins responded that good and evil don't exist as independent entities but that good and bad things simply happen to people.
Collins' "moral law" argument is another variation on the "God of the Gaps" theme. If science doesn't yet have a complete description of a phenomenon, then there must be a super-being behind the scenes who is responsible for whatever is in the gaps. A big problem with this approach is that it tends to put a damper on further investigation. Besides that, Collins has an obligation to present a positive case for God's existence and not just rely on the current apparent weaknesses of rival hypotheses. Collins' idea of a "moral law" is premature and far too rigid when one considers the variability in moral rules across different geographic areas, cultures, ethnicities, and religions. There are moral principles because humans are constantly deciding on how they should behave, especially towards each other, and there are some commonalities in these moral principles, but there is hardly a "moral law." In fact, the absence of a "moral law," a universally agreed upon set of moral rules, is more compatible with God's nonexistence than with his existence. Wouldn't an all-knowing, all-powerful, perfectly good God have revealed a universal moral code to all peoples from the very beginning of our species and reinforced it with booster training sessions each generation?
When he tried to explain why he supports the opening of new stem cell lines, in contrast to a great many other religious people, Collins presented a confusing, almost incoherent discussion of the relationship of faith and reason: "Faith is not the opposite of reason. Faith rests squarely upon reason, but with the added component of revelation." Part of the difficulty here is that "faith" has several different meanings and unfortunately Collins isn't clear about which meaning he intends. "Faith" may refer to a religion or worldview, as in "My faith is Islam." It may refer to an attitude of trust or confidence, as in "I have faith in my physician." Or it may refer to believing propositions without evidence or out of proportion to the available evidence. It is this latter meaning that goes against Collins' platitude that "Faith is not the opposite of reason." Reason involves believing propositions on the basis of evidence or in proportion to the available evidence. Thus, if not strictly the opposite of one another, faith and reason are certainly incompatible. And how does adding revelation to the mix help at all? Revelation is not a separate way of knowing immune from the light of reason. One must still look at the evidence to evaluate a claim that a "holy book" contains "revelations" from a supreme being.
In his concluding remarks Collins indicated that he is interested in many "why" questions for which he believes answers may not come from science but from the "spiritual realm." In his concluding remarks Dawkins indicated his doubt that the future discoveries of science would support any of the beliefs of the traditional religions, beliefs that he regards as parochial, but nevertheless worthy of some respect. And on that conciliatory note, the debate was concluded.
Who won the debate? From the perspective of style or mode of expression, perhaps Collins won. At times, Dawkins seemed to come across as a bit testy and abrasive. He not only referred to fundamentalists as "clowns," but several times he accused Collins of presenting "cop outs." Collins, on the other hand, seemed more self-assured and gentlemanly in his interpersonal style. From the perspective of content or validity of argument, Dawkins won the debate hands-down. He made many points that Collins seemed helpless to rebut. Collins failed to show that he has found a satisfactory conciliation between religion and science, between faith and reason, or even that such a project is possible. Overall, the debate provided useful insights into the currently hot, but perennial issue of science versus religion.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 67 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #23349 by MIND_REBEL on February 28, 2007 at 3:40 am
Francious Collins is a typical Christian, and i'm highly suspicious of any "science" he's involved in. I wish there was some sort of standard system to prevent theists from making it "in", or at least a disclaimer that went along with any research they've done so that normal people would know they're dealing with a memeset.Religion is a delusion, and us atheists, need to live our lives without supporting memes in any way shape or from.
Other Comments by MIND_REBEL
3. Comment #23353 by bitbutter on February 28, 2007 at 4:40 am
@ mindrebel: as i (mis?)understand it; memes are necessary, inevitable and not the problem here (some memes will be more representative of the truth than others). As Dennet points out, words are memes too.Dogmatic faith is what should be thrown out.
(edited to remove quote marks from around 'the truth' ;) )
Other Comments by bitbutter
4. Comment #23354 by SteveN on February 28, 2007 at 4:41 am
MIND-REBEL wrote:"Francious [sic] Collins is a typical Christian, and i'm highly suspicious of any "science" he's involved in."
As an atheist and professional biologist, I too have trouble understanding how one can do good science during the day and then abandon this way of thinking when it comes to pondering the existence of a magic sky fairy. I must say, however, that there are many very good scientists who are theists, so this lack of understanding appears to be a failure on my part. Unfortunately for my confusion, Collins is a very good scientist indeed. As head of the National Human Genome Research Institute at the NIH he contributed significantly to one of the greatest achievements of biology of the last decade or so, the sequencing of the human genome. His day-job "science" cannot be faulted, I'm afraid.
Other Comments by SteveN
5. Comment #23356 by Tom Day on February 28, 2007 at 5:25 am
MIND-REBEL: "I wish there was some sort of standard system to prevent theists from making it..."I share your frustrations at the familiar arguments trotted out by Collins, but as SteveN points out, Collins is an excellent scientist in his day job. We need to be measured in our approach I think and focus on attacking religious beliefs, not those who hold them - unless their intentions are dangerous, which is not the case with Collins I think.
Other Comments by Tom Day
6. Comment #23359 by Tom Day on February 28, 2007 at 5:48 am
BillySands wrote: "Dont you just love the way that theists invent properties for a god there is no direct evidence for".Actually this point is one that doesn't get so much attention in public debates, as most of the discussion tends to be around whether a God exists or not in the first place. However, the mental gymnastics theologians have to go through to defend their belief in God are nothing compared to those required to support their other beliefs about his properties or elements of doctrine like the resurrection, although lazy ones will often simply argue (as Collins does) that once the case for God's existence has been accepted, everything else is logically permissible i.e. once you've abandoned all reason, anything goes.
Other Comments by Tom Day
7. Comment #23360 by MIND_REBEL on February 28, 2007 at 5:52 am
I guess what i'm saying is that society might be better off if the scientific commununity were to somehow not allow theists like F. Collins to make it into the research world in the first place. It's unfortunate because he has given theism a certain degree of credibility, which it doesn't deserve. Maybe this could have been avoided if there was some sort of scientific oath or test, or even some sort of internal regulatory group that could make sure that "scientists" were really scientists in the day jobs and personal life. Other Comments by MIND_REBEL
8. Comment #23362 by savroD on February 28, 2007 at 6:06 am
I've read interviews with this dude Collins before. And although I cannot see anything negative in his Scientific work, I certainly think he is a religious nutcase! RD always wins the technical case. Who the hell really cares about style. Nobody, can build a case on style, except for hmmmm... maybe the naive, or more directly, the theists. Other Comments by savroD
9. Comment #23363 by madpatriot on February 28, 2007 at 6:23 am
Mind_Rebel, it sounds like you're advocating some sort of thought police guarding the gates to the scientific community. A big problem with this would be the ammunition it would provide to creationists. They already try to insinuate that scientists are all anti-Christian, and now you want to give them proof?Not to mention that you'd be elimininating large numbers of scientists who might make valuable contributions to their fields. Turning the scientific community into a perfect monoculture of rationalists and atheists would probably weaken it.
Besides, peer review exists for precisely this reason. If a scientist's work is invalid because of their irrational worldview, it shouldn't get very far. If the work is valid, it shouldn't matter if the scientist himself believes in nonsense.
Other Comments by madpatriot
10. Comment #23364 by BaronOchs on February 28, 2007 at 6:28 am
MIND_REBEL seems to want something like an atheist equivalent to the catholic "anti-modernist oath" which the church made its scholars swear until not so long ago. This is ridiculous, if someone wants to be a scientist there shoudl be only one condition: that they can do science!! The kind of policy you want is hardly new, for instance in the C19th you had to sign the 39 articles to get into oxford or cambridge university, but I think it is evident that in a free society any form of this is unacceptable.
Perhaps Science degrees should include study of the wider implications of science including those for religious faith which might be a more productive step forward.
Other Comments by BaronOchs
11. Comment #23365 by NormanDoering on February 28, 2007 at 6:29 am
MIND_REBEL wrote:"Francious Collins ... I wish there was some sort of standard system to prevent theists from making it 'in', ..."
That's being too bigotted in a way that's not smart for our minority situation.
Science is for those who can do it well no matter what their beliefs.
Other Comments by NormanDoering
12. Comment #23366 by BaronOchs on February 28, 2007 at 6:38 am
This reminds me though that I did once read at least some of C.S.Lewis' The Problem of Pain (yes I was not ever thus) and as I recall he accepted evolution in some form but in that book he claims that before the fall, which he sees as a specific event in history, biological functions like digestion were not involuntary like they are now. If anyone has the book do please have a look to clarify what I'm on about. How does Francis Collins as a champion of Lewis put up with such ridiculous and unscientific nonsense?
Other Comments by BaronOchs
13. Comment #23376 by padster1976 on February 28, 2007 at 8:35 am
I am reminded by Collins form of arguement being that of a child - in that he makes it up as he goes along.And he talks about
'Occam says you should choose the explanation that is most simple and straightforward--leads me more to believe in God than in the multiverse, which seems quite a stretch of the imagination.'
Stretch of the imagination? Has he heard himself?
No. Collins argument is based on a very simple, think of anything for an answer because under 'faith', it doesn't have to be proven.
Bollocks.
Sorry to be rude but everything he said he cannot know. It doesn't answer anything except if your forgo your ability to think at all.
I thought Dawkins to be restrained.
Other Comments by padster1976
14. Comment #23379 by an_arbitrary_name on February 28, 2007 at 8:51 am
In another post, MIND_REBEL stated that he has fallen out with his parents over their religious beliefs. I'm concerned that he's going a little too far with his atheism.MIND_REBEL, I know it's frustrating when people can't see the obvious—that the whole idea of a god is entirely unjustified, and, as someone here said, you have to jump through hoops just to keep it from being falsified— but people are people. For example, I was quite shocked recently when I found out that my father is a theist, because he is usually very sceptical. I guess that when it comes to theistic beliefs and the like, people just lose all sense of rationality, perhaps using some kind of compartmentalisation. I guess they just can't help it.
By all means invite them to debate religion, but, please, live and let live. Everyone has their crutches, and imperfections, no matter who they are.
Other Comments by an_arbitrary_name
15. Comment #23381 by scot on February 28, 2007 at 9:01 am
"But he said that there is not a good naturalistic explanation for altruism of the type exhibited by people such as Oskar Schindler who provided safety to Jews during the reign of the Nazis. It appears that people sometimes risk their lives and in the process also their genes in order to help strangers from whom they have no expectations of help in return. Collins implied that this altruism is a sign of God's existence and a gift from him. Dawkins asserted that altruism in these cases is a kind of carry-over from ancient times when altruism had survival value for people living in small clans. Going beyond altruism, Collins then pointed to the existence of "moral law" or the "absolutes … of good and evil" within the human species as evidence for the existence of God."The term altruism confuses the issue to begin with because people have different ideas of what the word means. In the above statement, it is implied that Oskar Schindler did a good thing selflessly, at a risk to his life, expecting nothing in return and that this altrism is a sign of the existence of God.
Human beings have volition and are capable of choosing between what their values deem right and wrong, or, good and evil. We don't act "absolutely" according to the fairy in the sky's law. Collins also points to moral law or the absolutes of good and evil within humans as evidence for the existence of God. These are more rationally explained by the choice humans have between life and death. A rational person values and chooses life and recognizes that they must act accordingly if they are to live.
So why would Schindler risk his own life for "strangers"? Perhaps because he valued not only his own life, but the lives of other innocent people and saw the threat to their lives as ultimately a threat to his own life and values and chose not to live in a world where human life was so grossly violated. Benevolence and justice toward other people is a recognition of the values we share and we lose our pride in ourselves and run the risk of ending up in the same unjustified situation ourselves if we don't do what we can to protect them.
Other Comments by scot
16. Comment #23384 by DerrickB on February 28, 2007 at 9:38 am
One of the major problems with debating any theist is that we can rarely be certain what it is that they actually believe, unless of couse they are a fundamentalist in their particular religion. All the 'moderates' seem able to slip around challenges by moving on to vaguer and vaguer claims to faith or the mysterious nature of their god.Maybe the best approach in any such discussion forum is to try to flush out first exactly where the theist is positioned on the spectrum of belief by a series of clear questions.
eg for Christians:
- Do you accept the literal truth of the Bible (completely, or just the New Testament?)
- Do you believe in Jesus's miracles, virgin birth, physical ascencion to Heaven?
- Do you believe that God regularly intervenes in the natural universe eg by answering prayers, or in the design of organisms?
etc
Then the debate can narrow down to the most ludicrous beliefs that the theist has admitted to, rather than get hung up on trying to challenge undefined notions of faith or god.
Other Comments by DerrickB
17. Comment #23389 by MorituriMax on February 28, 2007 at 10:53 am
Of course he (Collins) seemed more self-assured and gentlemanly in his interpersonal style. He didn't ever have to worry about providing any actual evidence for anything and could just make up anything as he went along to explain away any objections in the subject matter. Other Comments by MorituriMax
18. Comment #23390 by Roy_H on February 28, 2007 at 10:54 am
"From my perspective, God cannot be completely contained within nature, and therefore God's existence is outside of science's ability to really weigh in."Ah I see, God does exist but he does not exist anywhere.
Other Comments by Roy_H
19. Comment #23395 by L.Minnik on February 28, 2007 at 11:44 am
I agree with what has been said before.What I miss in many debates on this issue is a clear definition of "God" in the beginning. That would define what is actually discussed, because there are so many concepts.
If in this case God is outside time and space, then what is he/she/it? How do we know of this existence? (or why should we suppose he/she/it exists)
What are the characteristics of he/she/it? And how do we know that they are such?
If any, what is this God's "relationship" to humans and why would one assume that?
Maybe just giving a precise definition is so difficult that trying to do so in a discussion would be enough to show how vague this concept is, and especially how difficult it makes it to be certain of what humans should do because of this "God".
Other Comments by L.Minnik
20. Comment #23399 by L.Minnik on February 28, 2007 at 12:06 pm
psSometimes I have the impression that the definition of "God" is incoherent in a discussion, it changes to fit the issues raised.
If one claims "God" created the universe, that does not imply that "God" needs to give humans moral instructions directly. That is a separate claim and would need a separate explanation.
If the definition of "God" is based on the Bible, it still needs to be defined clearly because of possible differences of interpretation.
Other Comments by L.Minnik
21. Comment #23400 by epeeist on February 28, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Comment #23381 by scotCollins implied that this altruism is a sign of God's existence and a gift from him.
If goodness and a moral code the gift of god then, since the universe is his creation, evil and immorality must also be a gift.
Other Comments by epeeist
22. Comment #23407 by NJS on February 28, 2007 at 1:33 pm
The chrisian God of the bible is very much "of this space and time". For me everytime I read a theist doing this goalpost moving thing of starting to define a God "outside of space and time" I honestly think we're winning. This being may or not exist but if it does its not "their" God so why do they believe in the biblical version?Other Comments by NJS
23. Comment #23435 by Bremas on February 28, 2007 at 3:51 pm
Regarding Post 17 by DerrickBI agree with you and have been thinking about that approach a lot lately.
Begin with the assumption that they buy into the most outlandish religious beliefs and then work your way up.
I've been trying it from the other direction (assuming a rational person to begin with) and have had little success (moving goal posts).
Other Comments by Bremas
24. Comment #23438 by MelM on February 28, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Improbable constants?Although Dawkins seems to present the two best currently available alternatives to Collins' God hypothesis to explain the life-enabling values of the physical constants of our universe, he and Collins both seem to accept without any skepticism the proposition that our universe is improbable.I agree with the writer's analysis here; basically that improbability requires evidence. Has the whole mutliverse idea been invented to provide support for the "improbable" assertion? Seems that if one doesn't give away this assertion, then the theist hasn't got anything to play with and there's no need to invent a multiverse to answer the theist. Any questions about why the constants are the way they are can be answered with one explanation: "nature". "Gaps" should be filled with "nature" instead of "god" or nothing at all. And, there's really no validity to inventing things just to anticipate theists. Anyway, this is my take on what's happened here.
Other Comments by MelM
25. Comment #23440 by MelM on February 28, 2007 at 4:48 pm
escape-proof mental trapIn Paul's apologetics, he cleverly anticipated and headed off any objections or reservations that waverers might have; and once netted, sought to keep them that way. Paul's arguments have been the staple of proselytizers for two millennia now. Although the illogic of these arguments is apparent to the rational, they become more and more effective and compelling, the deeper one succumbs to the Christian line. In combination they make Christianity into a virtually escape-proof mental trap.
I found this on a Deist web site and don't know anything about the author but it's interesting. It dovetails with the attacks on reason that theists constantly use to keep people from attacking religion. A book about all these mind-screwing games would expose the whole scam: go for it.
http://www.deism.com/thinksam2.htm
Other Comments by MelM
26. Comment #23445 by mmurray on February 28, 2007 at 7:37 pm
The only test for admission to science should be can you do good sciennce. That's why we aren't a religion. Othewise you are off down a dangerous road of the Stalin/Lysenko kind.I don't understand why people get excited about the fundamental constants all being exactly right for life. The question isn't
"What is the probability of the constants all having these values"
it is
"Given that there is intelligent in the universe what is the probability of the constants having these values"
The answer to the later question is apparently around about one. It is interesting that it is so unstable in the sense that a small change in any constant and life won't exist. But that doesn't have anything to do with existence of a god.
Michael
Other Comments by mmurray
27. Comment #23447 by alovrin on February 28, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Well, Another I/v where Prof Dawkins is sort of playing devils advocate. I am getting weary of this kind of thing.All the Theist gasp OOOWWww he said God doesnt exist.
Sharp intake of breath... How dare he.
Of course the media love it, team an atheist with as theist and sit back. Its a silly game, and as long as there are theist's around atheist's will have to play it until we say no more.
In The God Delusion Prof Dawkins put forward the propostion that religion is a by product of some other mental process. In both Chapters 5 & 10 he, far too briefly, outlined some ideas and works in progress along these lines.
This is the kind of thing I want to see more of, more so than having to watch Prof Dawkins, Sam Harris, or D Dennett demeaning themselves anymore arguing with god botherers over f***ing fairies. STOP IT
Other Comments by alovrin
28. Comment #23448 by hoops mccann on February 28, 2007 at 7:46 pm
There's something that I don't understand about Dawkins' response to the "perfectly tuned constants" issue. When confronted, he responds by arguing either that the underlying structure of the universe makes the values inevitable or by invoking the anthropic principle/multiverse argument. Why not just point out that describing the constants as "perfectly tuned" for life is putting the cart before the horse? It was life that adapted to the conditions in the universe and not the universe that adapted itself (or was pre-determined) for life. If the conditions (constants) had been different, life would have been different (but still possible). This seems to be a simpler way to get around the design argument than resorting to esoteric and hypothetical theories. Am I missing something here? Other Comments by hoops mccann
29. Comment #23450 by savroD on February 28, 2007 at 7:49 pm
I find this whole compartmentalization thing disturbing. Let's all agree to dispell this Bantha poodoo now. Look, you can be a good scientist, and still believe in nonsense; however, you'll never be an excellent scientist. This is because as science advances, your theist nuthatch becomes smaller and smaller. Religion is analogous to a theoretical black hole. Science is sucked into it's clutches and can never escape long enough to make any sense. That is until it fades away............... Other Comments by savroD
30. Comment #23458 by Bizarro Dawkins on February 28, 2007 at 10:47 pm
"Collins started on the wrong foot by doing a little question begging; he assumed God's existence from the outset without presenting any evidence for the inference."I believe you're misinterpreting what Collins said and setting up something of a strawman. His statement does indeed assume the existence of God, but it does so in order to explain a particular attribute of God in order to serve as a premise on which to defend His existence. It was meant only as a proposition regarding the nature of God's existence, not as a proof of God's existence per se. I fail to see how this is improper.
"It is common for religious apologists like Collins to talk about things "outside nature" or "the supernatural," but they always seem to fall short in presenting any evidence that anything "supernatural" exists."
I beg to differ. The fact of our existence is evidence enough for me, and I'm not an easy person to convince. It becomes so tiresome to me when the atheists that I debate recoil in horror at the word "supernatural". It simply means that which exists outside the known confines of nature. The concept of the supernatural is supported primarily by the Principle of Universal Causation, being only one among a list of other supporting evidences. It is rather simple reasoning. If every event is caused, then there must be a cause for every event (of course, we could get into agency theory and the such, but I would assert that agency theory is logically invalid without invoking a supernatural agent). When this causal chain is traced back to the Universal origin, then we are led to a rather obvious inference: there must have been an un-caused cause to "start the chain" so to speak. Now we have never observed any phenomena in nature defy the Principle of Universal Causality, but the logical implication of said principle implies that the creation event did in fact disregard this principle. Therefore, since the creation event defied the principle of causality, then it was a supernatural event. Supernatural events require supernatural causation by their very nature. This seems like good evidence to me.
"Have we ever observed anything outside space and time?"
This is very shallow reasoning. It is not necessary that we observe something directly in order to believe it. We don't observe black holes, but we still accept their existence based on numerous plausible inferences. The supernatural may not be directly observable, but it is certainly not outside the realm of reasonable implication.
"2. it leads to the classic problem of infinite regress. If there must be something outside our universe, i.e. God, to explain the existence of our universe, then there must be something outside of God, i.e. "Z," to explain God. Then something is needed to explain "Z," ad infinitum."
This is presupposing however that God is restricted by natural laws, namely that of causation. This however would cause God to cease to be God. God by His very nature must exist as a supernatural entity or His Creator status, along with his general God status, would be compromised. It only logically follows that God, being defined as a supernatural entity, does not necessitate an explanation. In other words, God is His own cause, therefore His existence does not require further explanation.
"A big problem with this approach is that it tends to put a damper on further investigation."
This statement is highly ambiguous. The God explanation certainly has no bearing on empirical science. Most reasonable scientists, atheist or not, can affirm this. In the realm of historical science however, I would say that the God explanation is necessary to explain supernatural events, as I've stated before. This statement presupposes that every question worth asking can be answered by science using purely naturalistic methodology, which as we've observed is certainly not the case.
"Thus, if not strictly the opposite of one another, faith and reason are certainly incompatible."
Once again, this statement demonstrates very shallow reasoning. Faith and reason are not diametrically opposed concepts. In fact, faith is a necessary condition for belief. For instance, you cannot prove I exist. Your belief in my existence is based on sensory experience, which is not always reliable. People on cocaine feel bugs in their skin, and schizophrenics can see Joe even though everyone else can't, but this does not constitute the existence of either. There is therefore a level of uncertainty in even your most basic beliefs, including your belief that I exist. In order to hold even the most reasonable belief then, one must still involve the element of faith.
A mistake that Dawkins and many other atheists make is that they fail to draw a distinction between blind faith and reasonable faith. Blind faith is believing that for which there is no justification, such as a belief that there resides an indestructible candy bar in the center of the sun. Reasonable faith however involves evidence and logic, such as your belief that I exist. You cannot absolutely prove it, but it is a reasonable belief based on the general self-evident concept that our senses can be trusted most of the time. However, there still exists the element of faith.
You also take on faith that your senses are reliable, due to the lack of non-circular justification that can be provided for such a proposition. You take on faith that testimony and memory are reliable. Even though these basic assumptions seem reasonable, there is no supporting evidence that can be presented without resorting to circular reasoning. Of course, we can assert the rationality of such beliefs based on the principle of belief conservation, but they still remain essentially un-justified assumptions.
Other Comments by Bizarro Dawkins
31. Comment #23462 by IPV4 on February 28, 2007 at 11:13 pm
What I can't understand is the great lengths that people go through with theist to disprove God existence or just the basic argument against them. The burden of proof is not on the atheist but on the believer. If I propose that I have telepathic powers and can read someone else's mind, isn't it quite preposterous that I should expect people to just trust me that I have these powers or have faith in these powers because I believe them to be true with all mind ,body and soul. You need to prove empirically in a controlled environment that you have these abilities.( By the way , http://www.randi.org/ for those that don't know him, has put up one million dollars to anyone on earth that can prove they have any paranormal abilities. So far the biggest named psychics such as James van Prague, Sylvia brown have declined his challenge. Plenty of other nut jobs have made a stab at it with dismal results.) Other wise people would and should think you belong in an insane asylum. I think we spend too much time entertaining irrational arguments. To say that constants in our universe were to perfect to happen on their own and not by chance is just nonsense. How does this concept reveal the existence of God? In this case the Christian God. The constant rambling can be cut down to size by just saying WHERE IS YOUR PROOF. PROVE THAT JESUS WAS THE SON OF GOD THAT HE WAS DIVINE AND PERFORMED MIRACLES. MATTER OF FACT SHOW ME ANYTHING. Your proposing he(GOD) exist. okay I'll bite , where is he, can you call him for me, can you make him shoot out a bolt of lighting. How is your God anymore relevant then the Hindu Gods, Muslim god, Thor, Odin, Loki, Athena and so forth. Next time an you becomes embattled in an argument with a theist you should say no I'm not an atheist I'm a firm believer in Zeus. Can they honestly say well that's not a real God? And if they do they fall into a trap. Because they will be forced to use the bible as their source of evidence as to why they are valid and your not, and we all know how good that book was written.All this talk about universes, constants, Altruism, and life give no evidence of a deity. For Christ sake let stop over analyzing this crap and stop making it more then what it is. To argue a mute point for over a half hour almost gives validity to the theists perspective. In my mind this dry and cut. I should not have to go into defending "well your science makes some claims that can be empirically proven". Maybe I'm having a bad day and I'm just venting but it appears that were engaging in juvenile debates that should be more easily won.Other Comments by IPV4
32. Comment #23463 by epeeist on February 28, 2007 at 11:38 pm
Comment #23462 by IPV4
What I can't understand is the great lengths that people go through with theist to disprove God existence or just the basic argument against them.
What really needs to happen is for god to come down and have a public interview with James Randi (and then Jeremy Paxman in the UK). No hole in the corner private chats with people like Moses, Joseph Smith or Pat Robertson. It needs to be in public.
A quick demonstration would be good too, something like a moving finger writing on a tablet of stone would be sufficient.
I think that would constitute real evidence.
Other Comments by epeeist
33. Comment #23465 by Blue State Mike on March 1, 2007 at 12:21 am
At least as far as the published portions of the debate go, I remember after reading it in Time several months ago, that I felt Richard wasn't as aggressive as he could have been in refuting some of Collins' points. Sorry, but I'd have to re-read the piece to remember specifics. I suppose, the sake of this thread, that I should. Stay tuned.Other Comments by Blue State Mike
34. Comment #23466 by Russell Blackford on March 1, 2007 at 12:27 am
Yawheh could have demonstrated his existence with ridiculous ease back in the day. Imagine it: huge (say, 1000 feet tall) bearded man appears on battefield and hurls fire and brimstone - than hangs around interacting face to face with human beings for the ensuing hundreds and thousands of years. What's so hard about that, for a being of Yahweh's alleged resources? Admittedly, he would find it difficult to prove that he is literally omnipotent and omniscient, but he could demonstrate in thousands of ways that he possesses knowledge and power on a scale vastly greater than anything else we have ever seen. E.g. levitating cities and mountains, striking down sinners with a word, sending the moon's orbit into reverse, creating angels out of thin air. He could do all these things and far more easily.The problem is that, if he does it tomorrow, there will now be real doubt as to whether it's the same being who spoke to Moses, etc. - or another powerful (but mendacious) being. He could and should have put the matter beyond doubt a few thousand years ago.
Other Comments by Russell Blackford
35. Comment #23468 by Kergillian on March 1, 2007 at 12:34 am
What really needs to happen is for god to come down and have a public interview with James Randi
Oh! Then God could win the million dollars! Maybe then Pat Robertson, Robert Tilton, and Benny Hinn could stop begging!
Other Comments by Kergillian
36. Comment #23469 by Bremas on March 1, 2007 at 1:03 am
Heatnzl post 33I'm still laughing.
Maybe I'm just glad to know that I'm not the only one who feels that way.
Other Comments by Bremas
37. Comment #23471 by Bremas on March 1, 2007 at 1:41 am
Okay 30mins later and I've finally finished reading Bizarro's Post(32). I was either laughing too hard or reading the same sentence over and over and over and over.I still think Heatnzl summed up my thoughts on the subject pretty well, but I've got to highlight this gem.
"The fact of our existence is evidence enough for me, and I'm not an easy person to convince."
Is it possible too have an overwhelming urge to laugh and cry at the same time.
Other Comments by Bremas
38. Comment #23477 by BMMcArdle on March 1, 2007 at 2:59 am
My own view of the basis for morality or altruism is that being born completely dependent on other people for our very survival, coupled with our intellect, makes us hard-wired to be compassionate towards other creatures. Humans are head and shoulders above all the other animals when it comes to reasoning and compassion. Cruelty and compassion don't figure too highly in nature, as most animals are just not thought of as being intelligent enough to be emotional. Humans show the most capacity to be compassionate towards all types of creatures. I don't think small groups such as Nazi's and such compare to humanity as a whole.Other Comments by BMMcArdle
39. Comment #23480 by MouthAlmighty on March 1, 2007 at 3:21 am
This is from Collins in the debate…Certainly science should continue to see whether we can find evidence for multiverses that might explain why our own universe seems to be so finely tuned. But I do object to the assumption that anything that might be outside of nature is ruled out of the conversation. That's an impoverished view of the kinds of questions we humans can ask, such as "Why am I here?", "What happens after we die?", "Is there a God?" If you refuse to acknowledge their appropriateness, you end up with a zero probability of God after examining the natural world because it doesn't convince you on a proof basis. But if your mind is open about whether God might exist, you can point to aspects of the universe that are consistent with that conclusion.
…so is this version any less legitimate…?
Certainly the authorities should continue to see whether we can find evidence that might explain why things look so conspiratorial when in fact they are not. But I do object to the assumption that anything that might just be in my imagination is ruled out of the conversation. That's an impoverished view of the kinds of questions we humans can ask, such as "Why is life so unexciting and ordinary?", "What happens behind the scenes?", "Is there a conspiracy?" If you refuse to acknowledge their appropriateness, you end up with a zero probability of conspiracies after examining the facts because it doesn't convince you on a proof basis. But if your mind is open about whether there is a diabolical conspiracy, you can point to aspects of the universe that are consistent with that conclusion.
Just a bit of fun :)
Other Comments by MouthAlmighty
40. Comment #23486 by padster1976 on March 1, 2007 at 3:55 am
This bit annoyed me...'This is very shallow reasoning. It is not necessary that we observe something directly in order to believe it. We don't observe black holes, but we still accept their existence based on numerous plausible inferences. The supernatural may not be directly observable, but it is certainly not outside the realm of reasonable implication.'
Black Holes are so named after a star of sufficient mass has collapsed in on itself to produce a gravity well strong enough to prevent light itself from escaping. As we 'see' with light, it's fairly obvious that we cannot 'see' directly if there is no light.
Howver the 'numerous plausible inferences' are what? Gravity lenses, galactic jets, accretion disks. One direct observation has occured. It ws predicted that should a black hole find itself near enough to a star, the gravity would pull the stars matter in a relatively thin straight towards the hole. It would look like a thin glowing line suddenly ending. (in this instance the hole was not rotating that quickly so the accretion disk was not visible).This is predicted by Einstein.
The supernatural, to be anything like a correct theory would have to be observable. Without this particular verification act, you can make up anything and that's dangerous. Well, look at the mess we're in now.
Other Comments by padster1976
41. Comment #23488 by Logicel on March 1, 2007 at 3:57 am
Christians often balk at their particular religious superstition being compared to non-religious superstitions as the tooth fairy, pink unicorn, celestial teapot, etc. They consider such comparisons as being 'unreasonable' because their particular religious superstition is backed up with 'reasonable evidence.' Such 'reasonable evidence', such as holy books, the popularity and endurance of their particular brand of religious superstition, the begging need for a 'God of the Gaps', the existence of morality, the need for purpose, etc. do not constitute evidential proof.If such 'reasonable evidence' is to be taken seriously, then Christians need to embrace all the other religious superstitions with similar 'reasonable evidence' as Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Roman/Greek Gods, Norse Gods, and Eqyptian Gods. Why choose one religious superstition over others if they all are supported by similar bodies of 'reasonable' evidence?
Regarding embracing a particular religious superstition based on geographical contingency, in our global world and with our knowledge of history, there is no excuse not to embrace all of the religious superstitions that came before and are now present. If the others are deemed not to have 'reasonable evidence', then the believer's particular religious superstition does not either.
Believers of religious superstitions also balk at the implication that they are not reasonable and rational humans. Believers of religious superstition are rational in many aspects of their lives, and have the human potential of using rationality in all of the aspects of their lives.
Christians who think they are being reasonable when they truly are not, like David Robertson and Bizarro, are like tricky and cunning alcoholics (some wonderful poster here used that analogy) in the sense like 'dry' alcoholics they go through the motions, apply what they think is logical reasoning just like the 'dry' alcoholic refrains from drinking but still indulges in addictive thinking.
The addictive thinking that is still present in the 'dry' alcoholic will trip him/her up, causing relapses or even new addictions. The unreasonableness of religious beliefs are allowed to flourish because not only is the Christian not using critical thinking, but comforts him/herself that he/she has, and therefore can be assured in remaining a rational person and believing in religious superstitions at the same time.
Other Comments by Logicel
42. Comment #23490 by Orion on March 1, 2007 at 4:00 am
Bizzaro: "Dawkins... fails to draw a distinction between blind faith and reasonable faith. Blind faith is believing that for which there is no justification, such as a belief that there resides an indestructible candy bar in the center of the sun. Reasonable faith however involves evidence and logic, such as your belief that I exist."Dawkins addresses this directly in the Q&A he has on the "Randolph-Macon Woman's College" video on this site. He answers you point better than I can summarise it. Faith and reason are two separate things. They are virtually oxymorons. If it's reasoned, then it isn't faith.
Other Comments by Orion
43. Comment #23496 by mjwemdee on March 1, 2007 at 5:09 am
Dammit - Orion! You got there before me. I KNEW I couldn't be the only one to spot Bizarro's cavalier use of the oxymoron 'reasonable faith'. How can people debauch their own intelligence like this? Other Comments by mjwemdee
44. Comment #23500 by Tom Day on March 1, 2007 at 6:02 am
Bizzaro, in a nutshell you seem to be claiming that the 'everything has a cause' argument must stop somewhere, that the somewhere in question is the creation and that the 'un-caused cause' is something supernatural. This is a familiar argument. It is fine as a hypothesis (along with alternatives) but there is a big difference between an unsubstantiated hypothesis and one for which there is supporting evidence. Despite this, theists leap from their hypothesis to certain belief. Furthermore, they don't usually stop at expressing a belief in the existence of a deity: they usually claim specific knowledge about the nature of that deity as well as knowledge about how their deity expects us to conduct our lives - the latter being something they never tire of lecturing us about. You claim a distinction between 'blind faith' and 'reasonable faith' and you go on to say that 'Reasonable faith however involves evidence and logic...'. Surely, your theistic beliefs demonstrate the former: blind faith. If not, I look forward to hearing more about the evidence that supports your God hypothesis...Other Comments by Tom Day
45. Comment #23501 by fonex_86 on March 1, 2007 at 6:15 am
Bizzaro Dawkins:
Once again, this statement demonstrates very shallow reasoning. Faith and reason are not diametrically opposed concepts. In fact, faith is a necessary condition for belief. For instance, you cannot prove I exist. Your belief in my existence is based on sensory experience, which is not always reliable. People on cocaine feel bugs in their skin, and schizophrenics can see Joe even though everyone else can't, but this does not constitute the existence of either. There is therefore a level of uncertainty in even your most basic beliefs, including your belief that I exist. In order to hold even the most reasonable belief then, one must still involve the element of faith.
Of course, Bizzaro, our (that includes you, of course) sensory experience is not always reliable. For example, you may SEEM to be human, but you might, in reality, be a troll! Then what you thought was human-speak, human-write, and human-reasoning would actually be troll-speak, -write, and -reasoning -- which would actually explain why many of us find it difficult to make sense of your statements.
I propose his posts be promoted to the level they deserve: troll.
Other Comments by fonex_86
46. Comment #23507 by kkant on March 1, 2007 at 7:27 am
Mr. Bizarro is at it again, posting the same old arguments that have been refuted a hundred times over in other threads. Here of course we have the usual god of the gaps: we don't know yet if or how the universe was created, therefore it must be God. You can all expect that he will continue to willfully ignore our arguments again. I don't think the term "intellectually dishonest coward" is too uncharitable a description of his behavior. What a shame--he obviously has a lot of smarts, but he just can't let go of his parents' indoctrination.So a question for Bizarro: Do you believe with "reasonable faith" that your hypothetical "supernatural creator of the universe" is the perfect and truthful author of the Christian Bible and is exclusively described by the Christian religion? If so, what evidence do you have to support this claim?
Other Comments by kkant
47. Comment #23517 by Donald on March 1, 2007 at 11:54 am
In another thread Bizarro (comment #22759) wrote:
I honestly seek to broaden my own intellectual horizons, as well as to help others broaden theirs. Debating is a fantastic way to do it.
I made a polite and thoughtful reply:
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,658,Battle-for-Europes-secular-values,British-Humanist-Association,page2#22786
Bizarro didn't find the time to reply to that, but he did find the time to post a slew of new comments on Whittenberger's article. This is a poor kind of debate - flitting from one thread to another, and not following up replies.
Does Bizarro really seek the truth about God's existence?
For at least 2500 years highly intelligent intellectuals have declared their disbelief in religious beliefs, starting with the numerous gods before Christ. The intellectual argument has been won over and over again. The argument grew immeasurably stronger with Darwin and the tens of thousands of scientists since.
The biggest problem lies in an emotional commitment to beliefs. We sometimes think that intellectual debate is emotion-free. Not at all. The best and highest quality debates may be, and perhaps most of us strive for that. But people get emotionally attached to beliefs. Then objectivity is abandoned.
Perhaps Bizarro is a troll. Perhaps he is indoctrinated beyond recovery. Or perhaps there is an open-minded LU student within the Bizarro cloak. After all he is spending time here on a sceptics forum. I may be more charitable than some here - I am still willing to believe he is open-minded.
Bizarro: reply to my comment #22786 in a thoughtful manner, and I will give you some polite feedback on your comment #23458.
Other Comments by Donald
48. Comment #23518 by MouthAlmighty on March 1, 2007 at 11:56 am
I believe you're misinterpreting what Collins said and setting up something of a strawman. His statement does indeed assume the existence of God, but it does so in order to explain a particular attribute of God in order to serve as a premise on which to defend His existence. It was meant only as a proposition regarding the nature of God's existence, not as a proof of God's existence per se. I fail to see how this is improper.
This is circular nonsense. Collins merely states that god is beyond the tools of rational enquiry and hence cannot be reached by the tools of rational enquiry.
"It is common for religious apologists like Collins to talk about things "outside nature" or "the supernatural," but they always seem to fall short in presenting any evidence that anything "supernatural" exists."
I beg to differ. The fact of our existence is evidence enough for me, and I'm not an easy person to convince. It becomes so tiresome to me when the atheists that I debate recoil in horror at the word "supernatural". It simply means that which exists outside the known confines of nature.
No it doesn't. Supernatural means "something above/beyond/outside and certainly not 'confined' within the realm of the natural." It doesn't mean, "something entirely natural but only insofar as it is within the confines of nature which just happen to be as yet unknown confines."
Are the 'confines' of nature malleable? Moveable? Porous? Flexible? Is god a merely natural creature and all we have to do to examine him is somehow push the boundaries of nature out far enough to encompass him? Which scientific discipline should we be employing to achieve this? Cosmology? Astrophysics? Pharmacology?
Collins' conception of god is typical of contemporary theological thought. It makes all the right noises but is ultimately meaningless. Whilst it may be 'internally coherent' for him, all he has managed to do is shift god into an imaginary realm beyond rational enquiry – his own as well as ours.
The concept of the supernatural is supported primarily by the Principle of Universal Causation, being only one among a list of other supporting evidences. It is rather simple reasoning. If every event is caused, then there must be a cause for every event (of course, we could get into agency theory and the such, but I would assert that agency theory is logically invalid without invoking a supernatural agent). When this causal chain is traced back to the Universal origin, then we are led to a rather obvious inference: there must have been an un-caused cause to "start the chain" so to speak. Now we have never observed any phenomena in nature defy the Principle of Universal Causality, but the logical implication of said principle implies that the creation event did in fact disregard this principle. Therefore, since the creation event defied the principle of causality, then it was a supernatural event. Supernatural events require supernatural causation by their very nature. This seems like good evidence to me.
I'm not a cosmologist or astrophysicist so I won't pretend to fully comprehend the implications of current explanatory models. However, I am fairly confident that if the perceived beginning of the universe can be demonstrated to be an actuall beginning then it will be done so in the language of science which deals exclusively with the natural. As it stands, simply labelling the as yet unexplained elements of cosmology as 'supernatural' and the posited 'uncaused cause' as god is little more than a 'god of the gaps' argument. One that (your hero?) Polikinghorne is keen to avoid…
(Polkinghorne, CiS Lecture) Stephen Hawking supposes that if his highly speculative ideas about the very early universe are correct – so that time then had a very different nature and there was no dateable beginning to the cosmos – then God would be left with nothing to do. It is as if the only thing a Creator was needed for was to light the blue touch paper to set off the big bang. To think that way is to make a terrible theological mistake. God is as much the Creator today as God was fourteen billion years ago, for the real role of the Creator is to hold the world in being. Only the steadfast divine faithfulness rescues the universe from collapsing into nothingness. The doctrine of creation is not concerned with how things began but why things exist. It is the answer to the great question posed by Liebniz, 'Why is there something rather than nothing?'
"Have we ever observed anything outside space and time?"
This is very shallow reasoning...
Look at the question again – is it possible even in principle to observe something outside of space and time? If that's where you (or Collins) place god in what sense are you observing him? In what way does he impinge upon this drab, mundane ordinary natural world in which we find ourselves shackled to space and time?
This is presupposing however that God is restricted by natural laws, namely that of causation. This however would cause God to cease to be God. God by His very nature must exist as a supernatural entity or His Creator status, along with his general God status, would be compromised. It only logically follows that God, being defined as a supernatural entity, does not necessitate an explanation. In other words, God is His own cause, therefore His existence does not require further explanation.
You're begging the fuck outa that question! :)
"A big problem with this approach is that it tends to put a damper on further investigation."
This statement is highly ambiguous.
"Pot calling kettle! Pot calling kettle! Are we still black? …over." :)
"Thus, if not strictly the opposite of one another, faith and reason are certainly incompatible."
Once again, this statement demonstrates very shallow reasoning. Faith and reason are not diametrically opposed concepts. In fact, faith is a necessary condition for belief. For instance, you cannot prove I exist. Your belief in my existence is based on sensory experience, which is not always reliable. People on cocaine feel bugs in their skin, and schizophrenics can see Joe even though everyone else can't, but this does not constitute the existence of either. There is therefore a level of uncertainty in even your most basic beliefs, including your belief that I exist. In order to hold even the most reasonable belief then, one must still involve the element of faith.
I'm sick of this fallacious close reasoning. If there is indeed logically valid to say that there is a base level of uncertainty in any and all beliefs then in the vast, overwhelming majority of cases such is so vanishingly miniscule as to be virtually non existent and totally unconscious for all practical purposes. Dealing with such generic uncertainly does not in any way shape or form require faith in anything like the guise required for the gargantuan levels of uncertainty inherent in religious belief. Or are you really trying to tell me that you're belief that god exists is the same as my belief that my mother exists?
Biz; the fact that you are able to ameliorate the anxiety of holding unjustified beliefs by subjecting them to what looks and feels like sincere critical reasoning does nothing to alter the truth value of those propositions. When you examine your belief and find god wanting, you simply slide him off the empirical table into an imaginary realm where the same rules don't apply and he is therefore impervious to further scrutiny enabling all of your previous beliefs to persist. All you're actually doing is pulling off a series of intellectual back-flips to arrange your thoughts in a logically correct manner around the a priori existence of god.
Other Comments by MouthAlmighty
49. Comment #23520 by MouthAlmighty on March 1, 2007 at 12:09 pm
Just a quick word on the accusation of trolling directed at my good buddy, Bizarro - I for one am satisfied that he's genuine. Other Comments by MouthAlmighty
50. Comment #23624 by kkant on March 1, 2007 at 8:28 pm
Christians such as Bizarro are perfectly comfortable with muddying the waters, lions or no. I wouldn't be too concerned for his well being or his sensibilities. He knows what he's doing, and we've seen many times over that lying is perfectly acceptable when it is in a godly cause. Related topic, I'm sure you've encountered this phenomenon before, where someone will claim to have been an atheist and then converted to Christianity--only later it turns out they were lying about it. They might accidentally let slip that they've always believed in God. But lying is acceptable, if it might help you convert and be saved!Throwing crap into a thread and then refusing to answer any counter-arguments, and doing this repeatedly in multiple threads...if that isn't a troll, I'd like to know what a troll is.
Other Comments by kkant
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
1. Comment #23348 by BillySands on February 28, 2007 at 3:16 am
And whats all this about god not wanting to prove his existance. Is that not the reason that John wrote his gospel?
Like all theists, Collins seems to want to argue by his own rules, for which there is no evidence. This allows him (in his own mind at least) to "win"
Other Comments by BillySands