Print
Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath
Root of All Evil? Uncut Interviews
From "Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews" 3-DVD Set
Buy it now
This interview was filmed for the TV documentary "Root of All Evil?" but was left out of the final version. Time restrictions dictated that not all interviews filmed could be used. This was especially regrettable in the case of the McGrath interview, which is therefore offered here now, unedited.
Click here to play video
Old Google video version
Click here for the QuickTime version
Buy it now
This interview was filmed for the TV documentary "Root of All Evil?" but was left out of the final version. Time restrictions dictated that not all interviews filmed could be used. This was especially regrettable in the case of the McGrath interview, which is therefore offered here now, unedited.
Click here to play video
Old Google video version
Click here for the QuickTime version
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Thursday, May 31, 2007 | PermalinkComments 1101 - 1150 of 2523 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers1102. Comment #54395 by Dr Benway on July 6, 2007 at 7:54 pm
At least in part I do that, yes. Why shouldn't I? If it fits, it fits. People (be it in the context of math, or in the context of science, or in the context of searching for a mate) often make a hypothesis and then test it by working backwards to see how well it fits. Working backwards is a big part of reasoning. Come to think of it, working forwards into the unknown hardly ever works.Fallacy of affirming the consequent.
Other Comments by Dr Benway
1103. Comment #54405 by Downunder on July 6, 2007 at 11:14 pm
SharonMcT's, post 1099. Welcome to the site. It seems to me that you have got your self a fouled-up meter. I have followed DG's replies to all and sundry also for a month now and noticed his repeated statements that he has been seeking. He gradually found his "worldview" to provide him with satisfactory answers. He has not given me any impression of wanting to convert me. To the contrary he has presented his God system with his explanations and is subjecting it to vigorous testing by all comers. Many just criticise without presenting alternatives other than being negative, such as: no religion, no God, not for anyone. So much for a free world! You have noticed that DG has been no slouch in looking for science to back up some of his thoughts. How more fastidious would you like him to be in his research? How more open can he be than exposing his findings at this appropriate site for all to scrutinise? I may have my doubts about his concept of God but I respect his efforts and it contributes to my education. Simply stating: "I do not believe in God", or "I am an atheist", or "I believe in evolution" or "I know better" may sound very smart but provides no answers. It would be helpful if everyone on this site gave their individual reasons for our existence or at least for their own existence and from where that existence comes with every birth. This site hinges on RD's TGD. I may be wrong but I feel that RD's objective is to make it a more peaceful, nicer world. RD is stirring the world's conscience so that long established religions, having accepted that the world is not flat, will at long last revise some more "obviously" old-fashioned ideas which have caused and still are causing stupid warsSharon ,why did DG's "let slip" about 4 languages intimidate you? Have you learned to speak and write any other language? Should others not have" let slip" their science-stream? What would you have said if DG had made an offensive grammatical error? It strikes me as "damned if you do and damned if you don't.
I hope that RD disagrees with you and will not close this discussion until it self-destructs by running out of steam.
In your post1083 you would "much prefer to live in a world....". I suggest you do something about such a world, but you'll need to cater for a common good. Let us have your ideas.
Other Comments by Downunder
1104. Comment #54407 by steve99 on July 7, 2007 at 12:43 am
To the contrary he has presented his God system with his explanations and is subjecting it to vigorous testing by all comers.
I would hardly call repeatedly misunderstanding and ignoring criticism vigorous testing.
You have noticed that DG has been no slouch in looking for science to back up some of his thoughts.
But he then rejects science that he considers 'absurd', and basically ignores criticism of his often poor understanding of the science he quotes.
How more open can he be than exposing his findings at this appropriate site for all to scrutinise?
By putting more effort into understanding the nature of debate and discussion, which means responding and accepting criticism, and not repeatedly 'resetting' the conversation back as if certain criticisms had not been made and certain questions had not been asked.
I see no evidence of DG having changed his mind about anything, in spite of major flaws in his reasoning having been exposed.
Other Comments by steve99
1105. Comment #54434 by Dianelos Georgoudis on July 7, 2007 at 4:16 am
Phil rimmer (post 1063, or #53988):I really, really believe, in the strictest sense, I do not have free will. I believe that given enough of my brain state data, a comprehensive knowledge of my brain topology and functioning at the smallest level and a computer the size of a planet, my very thoughts and actions could be predicted with some accuracy. As with the weather, however, and all such complex systems with critical sensitivity at their inputs, the predictions will be less than 100% in the short term and hopelessly wrong by the mid term.
Yes, but still: if personal will does not exist then, according to naturalism, a person's actions can be fully explained by the previous state of the physical universe (plus maybe some randomness).
Also the belief that there is no such thing as personal will not only clashes with our everyday experience of life, but also with several basic concepts related to living in a society, such as the concept of "responsibility". Indeed, what does "responsibility" mean for you? If there is no will in what sense can a person be responsible for their actions?
Imagine the following line of defense in a court of law: "My client is not responsible for his actions so by law he must be absolved. Expert witnesses will prove beyond reasonable doubt that my client's actions were directly caused by the state of his physical brain. Also that my client cannot be held responsible for the state of his physical brain because this state was in turn caused by the state of the physical universe at large. So there was no way my client could have avoided committing the acts for which he is accused; to avoid them he would have to break the laws of nature, which is of course impossible. But if my client could not possibly have avoided these acts then clearly he cannot be held legally accountable for them either."
Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis
1106. Comment #54437 by Dianelos Georgoudis on July 7, 2007 at 4:46 am
Thinking about some recent posts, I get the impression that naturalists working backwards from the naturalistic hypothesis detect that what naturalism implies does not really fit with some beliefs and notions they used to hold as self-evident. But instead of then questioning the reasonableness of naturalism itself, they rather question the reasonableness of these previously held core beliefs. Hence the naturalist claims to the effect that we don't possess personal will, that the proposition "gratuitous torture is objectively wrong" is meaningless, and so on. Fine, but I for one am not willing to bend my mind into contortionist cognitive positions just because it fits naturalism - especially when there are other worldviews that fit perfectly well.The remaining question is: Why would a naturalist be willing to question and even reject these previously held core beliefs? I think the main reason is to be found in an even more strongly held core belief, namely that naturalism is connected to science, and that therefore to question naturalism's implications is tantamount to questioning science itself. But the belief that science and naturalism are connected is completely and trivially false, as naturalism is a hypothesis about how reality is and the issue of what kind of reality produces the phenomena that science studies is entirely irrelevant for science. I think that when people realize that the widely held belief about the connection between science and naturalism is mythological, then the most important (or maybe only) intellectual underpinning of naturalism will crumble away.
Now it's true that many scientists too believe in that myth, but I find it rather ironic that Dawkins of all people is working hard to propound it.
Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis
1107. Comment #54438 by steve99 on July 7, 2007 at 5:12 am
Fine, but I for one am not willing to bend my mind into contortionist cognitive positions just because it fits naturalism - especially when there are other worldviews that fit perfectly well.
Why do you keep ignoring repeated arguments that show that your worldview does NOT fit perfectly well? How many times do we have to post things before you take notice?
Yet again - your worldview requires that objective things need a deity to 'instantiate' them. It has been explained to you clearly over and over again that this contradicts what 'objective' means.
Your worldview requires that some things are objective. It has been explained to you clearly pver and over again that this is simply what you want to be the case, and not in any way 'true'.
All your worldview fits is your comfort zone of belief - a combination of what you want to be the case morally and what you are prepared to consider acceptable from science.
Setting up straw-men positions of imaginary naturalist as some counterpoint to your positions does not justify them.
I'll let you into a secret, Dianelos - I am not a naturalist, at least not the way you think of the term. However, I am certainly not a theist.
The reason I have been arguing so forcefully for naturalism is that you arguments against it are so poor, and I want to get you to either put up decent ones, or abandon your flawed ones.
Your view of what naturalism claims and the way science works, which includes huge misunderstandings of quantum mechanics, bears little relation to mainstream thought. That is why I posted the 'flat earth' analogy earlier.
Other Comments by steve99
1108. Comment #54441 by Dianelos Georgoudis on July 7, 2007 at 5:56 am
Steve99 (post 1107, or #54438):In general I think it would be better if you'd be more specific.
Why do you keep ignoring repeated arguments that show that your worldview does NOT fit perfectly well?
As I argued in post 1092: "Rather we must take all evidence we have, all data, be they objective and subjective and everything we know about these data (via science or whatever) and then consider which worldview fits the whole of evidence best." First of all do you agree with that?
Let me continue, assuming you do agree. I find that theistic idealism fits perfectly well with all data I have, both objective and subjective. You now claim that theistic idealism does not fit with my data. Fair enough. So, could you please point out exactly what of the data I have theistic idealism does not fit with?
your worldview requires that objective things need a deity to 'instantiate' them. It has been explained to you clearly over and over again that this contradicts what 'objective' means.
As I have explained before for me "objective" means "pertaining to reality, and hence independent of anybody's personal opinion". Further, according the idealistic theism all reality is exhausted in God, so, for example, objective goodness is objectively instantiated in how God objectively is. You are free not to agree with any of these of course, but I don't see what in my worldview does not fit, on the contrary everything fits very well.
Your worldview requires that some things are objective.
Of course, and indeed some things in my worldview are objective. So again, what is it that doesn't fit? Further, I must say am rather surprised: Doesn't your worldview require that some things be objective?
I'll let you into a secret, Dianelos - I am not a naturalist, at least not the way you think of the term. However, I am certainly not a theist.
That's good to know, as I find naturalism completely unsustainable in reason. Could you say some more about your worldview?
Your view of what naturalism claims and the way science works, which includes huge misunderstandings of quantum mechanics, bears little relation to mainstream thought.
Well, it's true that mainstream naturalism does not consider that all objective mathematical truths describe properties of the physical universe, as the strongest version of naturalism I can conceive affirms. But again, as I explained in post 858 when comparing idealistic theism with naturalism I wouldn't mind at all to use the weaker mainstream version of naturalism. In this context there is one point though I strongly disagree with you: For me it's irrational to claim that proposition X is both objectively true and completely divorced from reality. And that's why for me the objectivity of mathematical truths creates one more problem for mainstream naturalism.
As for my "huge misunderstandings of quantum mechanics" I have no idea what you are referring to. Could you explain what huge misunderstandings are these?
--
Incidentally I would also want to know what you think about my numbered propositions in post 1041. I claim these propositions are true even under the premise that theism is false.
Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis
1109. Comment #54445 by steve99 on July 7, 2007 at 6:34 am
As I have explained before for me "objective" means "pertaining to reality, and hence independent of anybody's personal opinion". Further, according the idealistic theism all reality is exhausted in God, so, for example, objective goodness is objectively instantiated in how God objectively is. You are free not to agree with any of these of course, but I don't see what in my worldview does not fit, on the contrary everything fits very well.
No, it doesn't. Let me try yet again to explain what does not fit. If something is objective it is objective. It does not need any kind of 'reality substance' to arise from. As I explained over, and over, it is nonsense to claim that God defines many things we know are objective, such as mathematical truths. Why is it nonsense - because we know that these truths could not be otherwise, God or not.
Of course, and indeed some things in my worldview are objective. So again, what is it that doesn't fit?
The facts don't fit. What you don't seem to get is that is that wanting something to be objective does not make it so.
Further, I must say am rather surprised: Doesn't your worldview require that some things be objective?
I actually don't know. I don't claim that kind of certainty, like you do. My mind is open.
Well, it's true that mainstream naturalism does not consider that all objective mathematical truths describe properties of the physical universe, as the strongest version of naturalism I can conceive affirms. But again, as I explained in post 858 when comparing idealistic theism with naturalism I wouldn't mind at all to use the weaker mainstream version of naturalism. In this context there is one point though I strongly disagree with you: For me it's irrational to claim that proposition X is both objectively true and completely divorced from reality. blocAnd that's why for me the objectivity of mathematical truths creates one more problem for mainstream naturalism.
This is a major problem with your understanding. As I have explained ad nauseam, there are kinds of reality (such as abstractions) that are not the same as the physical reality that for some strange reason you insist must form the basis of everything in naturalism. This is your reification fallacy.
As for my "huge misunderstandings of quantum mechanics" I have no idea what you are referring to. Could you explain what huge misunderstandings are these?
You just don't get the deep meaning of what is implied by the Bell Inequality and subsequent work. You flip back and forth between some sort of ultimate determinism defined by God, and some kind of lack of determinism that allows excercise of will. It is a mess of philosophical inconsistency.
Incidentally I would also want to know what you think about my numbered propositions in post 1041. I claim these propositions are true even under the premise that theism is false.
I think that many of them are wildly simplistic, and misuse terms like 'compatible'. For example
2. Theistic worldviews are trivially and entirely compatible with scientific knowledge, because God, being omnipotent and all, could produce all the phenomena that science studies.
A theist worldview which is trivially and entirely compatible with scientific phenomena may be compatible, but is redundant, as it can't be distinguished from an infinite number of alternative compatible worldviews.
I came up with an analogy in some other discussion elsewhere that may be useful. Imagine someone claimed that in addition to the normal mechanics, cars also worked by the intervention of small magic imps that pushed the pistons. Surely you would ask for some kind of proof? But if they they said "ah.. but the action of the imps is entirely compatible with the mechanical explanation, so can't be detected", wouldn't you immediately dismiss this as useless nonsense? Yet that one interpretation for what you claim for God. Of course, there is another interpretation - that God actually produces the phenomena. But that is philosophically redundant too, as we see no evidence for that, and if we assumed it anyway, it would block investigation, as research would be redundant.
What I am trying to say here is that it is not reasonable to expand a position like yours to cover areas over which even you claim it has no way of being distinguished from any alternative, and it has no way of being detected.
What you have is not a world-view, but a consciousness-view and a morality-view. Of course, I would dispute the validity of even those views, but what I find totally unreasonable is to to try and extrapolate those views to other areas where they are irrelevant. Sure, let's debate God and consciousness, but to try and expand the discussion to cover all of materialism and physical realism is not sensible.
What you are doing is spreading your God so thinly that he might as well not exist.
Other Comments by steve99
1110. Comment #54453 by Dr Benway on July 7, 2007 at 8:04 am
Dianelos:If there is no will in what sense can a person be responsible for their actions?Behavioral contingencies shape behavior. Coercion is in service to the future, never the past. There is no atonement.
As I have explained before for me "objective" means "pertaining to reality, and hence independent of anybody's personal opinion".I think that's too extreme. "Objective" is operationally defined as "that which has been independently corroborated." The more examples of corroboration, the greater the objectivity of those observations. Thus there are degrees of objectivity. Remove all subjects from the concept, and the concept becomes something I don't understand.
When you fly all the way off our collective map of reality, you'll find yourself in the center of a Rorshach test. If you go long enough without some corroboration of your experiences, fantasy or dreamlike material will intrude grossly into your feelings and perceptions of the world. If you're hoping for insights into various mental disorders, this is an invaluable experience.
Other Comments by Dr Benway
1111. Comment #54509 by SharonMcT on July 7, 2007 at 3:05 pm
Dr Benway:"Thus there are degrees of objectivity" - precisely. It's not just black or white. Could not agree with you more. Plus you're just damn funny.
Steve:
I am in awe of you. I have indeed learned so much already from you and other posters on this thread.
Downunder:
I think Steve has done a great job refuting some of your comments. I don't think DG has converted you because he's preaching to the choir as they say.
I disagree that the alternative is negative. "Nothing" is not negative. "Nothing" is zero. The world has been enslaved by religion for far too long. And I don't disagree that DG should have his god. He seems harmless enough. Would that all people's gods were so...invisible.
Atheism may not provide the answers you are looking for, but it depends what the question is. I feel very strongly that people can learn to live without being slaves to the next life. They need the freedom to be able to give it a try. In a lot of the world, that is not an option. People can help change that.
I did not say that DG's language capability intimidated me, I said it seemed like it was designed to impress or intimidate. I live in Canada and I have 2 languages. I am not as proficient in either as I would like to be, but I'm young and there is still time to learn more.
I'm quite sure I have let slip more than one grammatical error myself.
I think that I am helping to contribute to a better world. I do this in many ways, some of which I will tell you about. I try to learn and become a better person. For as long as I have worked full-time, I have continued part-time studies. I also read as much as I can about the subjects that I think will help me better contribute to society. I speak to my friends, my family and my co-workers about politics and religion. I speak out when I see injustices done to others. (Too many people choose not to) I belong to a political party in my country and try to be as active as I can be in the shaping of my society. I vote in every election. I have a great many friends who believe in god and I love them fiercely regardless. For those friends of mine who are atheist, I encourage them to speak out as well. The more voices, the better.
I believe that education is the key. Children need to be educated, not indoctrinated. It takes far too much time and effort to undo the damage that religion does to a child's mind. We have to remain vigilant in our efforts to be sure that children are learning "how" to think, not "what" to think.
I think the world will change so that someday people will be embarassed about holding beliefs that have no evidence (faith), and I hope it happens in my lifetime. I think that visiting this site and listening and learning from others here can help me be confident to continue to do my small part to change the "moral zeitgeist".
My society has changed its views on abortion, sufferage, racial prejudice and equal rights for gays, just in the last 100 years! These views changed because people spoke up and spoke out. I am inspired by their courage. I know that we can change the world for the better, and I will do my part.
Sharon
Other Comments by SharonMcT
1112. Comment #54565 by Dr Benway on July 7, 2007 at 8:15 pm
Dianelos, per your request, a more specific response to #1041 (some re-formatting of #5):1. There are many realities that could produce all the phenomena that science studies. (For example only within naturalism, if one counts all the combinations of naturalistic hypotheses related to quantum mechanics and to consciousness, there are dozens of different descriptions of reality.)I would say this: stuff happens. We develop causal hypotheses to describe this stuff. We seek ways to challenge the explanatory power of these hypotheses, and thus we sort them into two types: failed hypotheses and working hypotheses. Full stop. No "many realities," whatever that means.
2. Theistic worldviews are trivially and entirely compatible with scientific knowledge, because God, being omnipotent and all, could produce all the phenomena that science studies.Saying, "God is not incompatible with science" is a dishonest trick theists use to appropriate the level of public esteem science enjoys, without all the hard work that scientists must do.
Scientific work requires evidence. Produce evidence of God, and scientists will get busy studying that evidence. Until that time, you ought not seek any ruling from science regarding the truth value of your claims about God. Until that time, you must admit that the "truth" of religion is like the "truth" of art. It's a truth about how people feel. It's personal, existential, and expressive. It can help us understand our values, and it can help us experience life from another person's perspective. But it's not objective in the way science is objective.
3. As there are many worldviews about reality that are exactly equivalent from science's point of view, we can't use science to sort them out, but must find some other method to decide which worldview is more reasonable to adopt.It's perfectly reasonable to say you don't have all the answers. No one is required to develop a grand theory of everything. No one needs a "worldview."
4. Reason requires that this method specify a list of criteria, each one of them reasonable by itself and as far as possible objective.Without evidence that can be corroborated, there can be no "explanatory power," so "a" is moot.
5. The list of criteria (for testing a proposed worldview) I have suggested is basically this:
a. explanatory power (beyond the explanations of science and touching on our subjective data)
b. absence of conceptual problems
c. internal coherence,
d. experiential gains
e. ethical empowerment for those who adopt them
f. some subjective evaluation such as elegance/plausibility/economy
g. some meta-criterion such as degree of agreement between those who hold a particular worldview.
"b", "c", and "f" all boil down to mean the proposition is not gross horseshit (e.g., "dilithium crystals"). These are reasonable criteria for works of fiction as well as non-fiction.
"d" and "e" mean essentially that the proposition is pleasing as works of art can be pleasing. Important for fiction; less so for non-fiction.
"g" I don't understand. Without objective corroboration of some phenomenon, what does agreement mean?
6. When applying these criteria I personally find that in each case idealistic theism (my worldview) works better than any naturalistic worldview I know of.Unicorns are faster than dragons, fair enough. But could Darth Vader defeat Frodo, if Frodo had the Ring of Power?
In comparison to idealistic theism naturalism does have problems, is kind of incoherent (what with its explanations of nature here, ethics there, esthetics beyond that still, mathematics somewhere else, etc)...Again, you appear to demand the Grand Theory of Everything. You actually do not need this. You really can find your house on a map of your neighborhood, without that map including Alpha Centauri. Big maps take time. Be patient.
...cannot offer any explanation at all about why our subjective experiences are like they are, etc.We're learning more daily about how nature and nurture shape our feelings and perceptions. Neuroscience is in its infancy, but has already discovered tons of fascinating things. I recommend Ramachandran's talks at "Beyond Belief."
Even subjective criteria in my list, such as the experiential gains and ethical empowerment, are either widely accepted to be true (and hence all the talk of wishful thinking, feel-good factor, etc) or else in the case of ethical empowerment easily justified on really basic human psychology and, in some cases, evidenced in laboratory research (see post 929 or #53173).Ethical empowerment is probably a very bad thing. Doubt is good.
7. I am not claiming that any other reasonable person must find the same I do when applying the same criteria. After all, a naturalist may find that Dennett's arguments are valid and that the problem of consciousness is illusory. Or a naturalist may find, as you do, that all objective ethical precepts are meaningless...Your lack of response to my arguments against using the term "objective" in this context rankles. You can't claim something is "objective" on the basis of personal feelings, which are subjective.
Are you suggesting that I feel strongly held ethical precepts are meaningless? That would be a straw man, and straw men make the baby Jesus cry.
But my final and main claim is this: That's it's reasonable for me to believe in theism. That by itself is an important claim, because many naturalists believe that theistic belief must be irrational in all cases (to believe in God is like believing in fairies, and so on). And that's where I want to make my stand: my argument shows that this is not the case; theistic belief can be entirely reasonable.Einstein's God is reasonable. Paine's God is reasonable. Yahweh is not reasonable. Everything depends upon the specific claims being made about God.
Other Comments by Dr Benway
1113. Comment #54568 by LeeC on July 7, 2007 at 8:52 pm
Hi Dianelos,Still no reply to my post number 895 (Comment 53033)?
I know you have a lot of catching you to do, and maybe the debate has moved on a bit (not really, although I am sure you wish people like me and Steve99 moved on?)
However since I was replying directly to your belief (or "worldview") in which I feel you are in error in holding by choosing the more complex "worldview" over the simple without any explanation or reason why you have done this.
And since this is fundamental to your argument and whole debate you are having here it is odd you have ignored my point for over a week, yet still feel the need to debate around the edges.
Maybe my argument against you was too weak(?) but maybe you could be courteous enough to point out my errors and where it is weak.
I wish to learn.
However I do not feel you are able to ignore my point (however weakly made) and have anything to add to the debate. The very foundations of your argument are wrong, so anything built on them will also be in error.
This is a strong opinion that I have on your worldview, but am I wrong in having it? Please tell me if I am, this is the point of a debate. Just by ignoring a question does not mean it goes away.
My original post can be found here-
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,1212,Richard-Dawkins-and-Alister-McGrath,Root-of-All-Evil-Uncut-Interviews,page18#53033
(Wish I knew how to get this as a nice comment on the screen, rather than the whole link displayed - oh well, much to learn.)
Many thanks,
Waiting your reply.
Lee
Other Comments by LeeC
1114. Comment #54591 by Downunder on July 8, 2007 at 2:07 am
1112#54565, DrBenway had the spectators enthralled, scored good points for his side, while Dianelos considers the next move. Shear weight of the vociferous B supporters against D's 1-man team will require some magic from D to stay in play. Before we loose the ball altogether may I make a suggestion: let us deflate the ball. Let us deflate the God concept because we must get some answers for all religions and stop bashing our heads against many brick walls. I offer a different tack.
1.Generation after generation has been brainwashed (believers and also non-believers) into a concept of God, Allah or whatever deity.
2. That concept, although abstract, has been "dressed" with connotations to give God human traits. In the 3rd block of D's 1059 he writes <...God, S/He...> as if God needs a gender. I guess that D merely caters there for those who may ask.
3. Those human traits have served to teach assembled congregations (cross-sections of intelligence and ages) that we ought to behave ourselves.
4. The concept has worked well for those who are "of good will". They will be easy and not bother to question.
5. It has the opposite effect on those who did not attend the congregations. They feel to be missing-out on something. Then the arguments develop, leading to holy wars.
6. Questioning the teacher was not tolerated in previous generations, while now a teacher may get beaten-up.
7. The teachers will not dare to deviate from the set pattern for fear of loosing the job.
8. Meantime science advances, proved that the earth is not flat.
9. Science continues to build on what has been found, discovering more and more facts.
10. My high-school chemistry was complex but now videos and computer manipulation quickly present the basics enabling advanced science to make rapid progress.
11. We cannot expect religions to keep up with that progress because the teachers have to completely change their approach. That task is enormous because, unlike a Uni lecture room with an audience having a preselected above average intelligence, a church has to cater for all.
12. Science has left church audiences out in the cold.
13. Science now screams: don't believe in a God. What reaction do scientists expect?
14. RD is now using the media and by calm and polite public discussion things will change slowly.
15. As far as I am aware, no one has proven that God does not exist. Shouting it from the rooftops may attract missiles from some quarters.
16. Let us therefore first gradually change the human connotations of God by no longer using the word God. Shouldn't be too controversial using RD's discussion abilities if we offer something that we all know for a fact to exist, which is;
17. LIFE. What objections will this site produce?
For DrBenway, could you ask a suitably experienced GP who has attended at many births, about this scenario: a normal, routine birth is due, the baby comes out into this world, watch it closely, heart is beating.......but......nurses and doctor can see that LIFE has not entered yet, until after a moment all present can see and may hear that a new human individual is in their midst. If LIFE had not entered soon enough the heart will stop. (Unless other action is applied to prolong the opportunity for LIFE to enter as yet, but that is digressing). I would like you to evaluate the common scenario.
Other Comments by Downunder
1115. Comment #54597 by LeeC on July 8, 2007 at 3:33 am
Downunder,I was with you until your last 15, 16 and especially point 17... it is then you lost me altogether - sorry. I must not have been paying attention.
Point 15 : "no one has proven that God does not exist"
You know we do not have too; the theist (or god) needs to prove that god exists, not the other way around. God adds complexity to any equation/worldview. So unless the theist has strong evidence for god, it should be thrown away.
16 : "change the human connotations of God by no longer using the word God"
God is just a word to me, change the word to Allah, Yahweh, Jehovah, Superman or Spiderman, it is the meaning behind the word that will cause problems. The problem will already remain my superman is better than your Spiderman both teams not having any evidence for the fight they are willing to kill or die for
17. LIFE. What objections will this site produce?
Not sure what the debate here would be? What is life, how did it start, why did it start? All interesting stuff . But the debate will be short.
I will watch and see where it goes with interest.
Thanks
Lee
Other Comments by LeeC
1116. Comment #54605 by steve99 on July 8, 2007 at 5:12 am
15. As far as I am aware, no one has proven that God does not exist.
Well, actually, I think we have pretty much done that in a ways that should make sense to reasonable people. One of the main justifications for God was as an explanation for all kinds of things - goodness, badness, life, the cosmos and so on. When God is reduced to the level at which Dianelos describes him - an unnecessary sort of 'reality force', that is merely compatible with science and not required, then I see this as a last ditch attempt to try keep God around even though He has effectively no explanatory power.
When you get reasoning like... "OK, so you don't NEED God, but that doesn't prove He doesn't exist", then I think we have really won the argument.
Other Comments by steve99
1117. Comment #54663 by PaulEmecz on July 8, 2007 at 11:48 am
steve99Well, actually, I think we have pretty much done that [proven that God does not exist] in a ways that should make sense to reasonable people.
I'm reasonable. I heard about crop circles, and my friend Dave said "Aliens did that." He believes that a universe this big is bound to have led to intelligent life elsewhere - sometimes less evolved, but also in other places more evolved than us. Those more evolved than us are likely to seek us out, Dave reasons.
Well, the scientists came in, and they found conclusive evidence that it wasn't aliens, it was students. Dave said to me "I was gutted. Now I've stopped believing in aliens, because I'm a reasonable person..."
I have to say, I gave Dave a bit of a slap, and pointed out that scientists had done nothing to disprove the existence of aliens. "Dave, all they have done is to undermine one of the reasons you believe in aliens - who else would make crop circles? This doesn't answer your many other sensible points. You can continue to believe in intelligent, non-terrestial life without fear of being called unreasonable."
In fact, it is hard to imagine how scientists could get to the point of saying, with anything like certainty, that intelligent life does not exist elsewhere in the universe. And given that scientists usually limit themselves to the contents of this universe (though not always!) it's hard to see how they could ever make that assertion about the existence of intelligence outside this universe.
Other Comments by PaulEmecz
1118. Comment #54667 by _J_ on July 8, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Hi, PaulEmecz,Nice to see you on this thread.
I have to say, I gave Dave a bit of a slap,
Were I one of your friends, it wouldn't be long before people were asking concerned questions about why I seemed to keep falling down the stairs...
Scientists can't disprove 'Aliens Make Crop Circles', no. Nor can they show that crop circles aren't caused by mass circular movements of hedgehogs or artistically inclined whirlwinds - all speculative theories that were put forward some years ago before the folks with the ropes and the planks demonstrated what they'd actually been doing all these years.
Similarly, scientists can't prove that Nessie isn't just hiding every time people make a serious effort to spot her, they can't prove that all those old women in the middle ages were not actually witches, and they can't prove that, if you dig down deep enough in just the right spot, the moon is not in fact made out of nicely matured camembert.
What scientists (and anyone employing the scientific method or, more loosely, critical thinking) can do is show firstly that there are simple explanations within our realm of direct experience that can fully account for crop circles, and secondly that there isn't a jot of evidence for the aliens, or the whirlwinds, or the hedgehogs.
This doesn't mean that scientists have ruled out the possibility of intelligent life existing in the universe. Many are very keen on that possibility and eager to find out whether such life exists. It just means that, when they know that crop circles can be created by people with planks (and that many definitely have been), they consider this a far more likely explanation than highly advanced alien life forms who have carefully hidden from us their origins, their travel to our planet, their descent to the planet's surface and their subsequent departure, pausing only to draw a simple geometric pattern that could equally well have been knocked up by a couple of men on their way home from the pub.
Perhaps you don't find this kind of 'This seems a lot more likely than this, so we'll stick with it until new evidence changes our minds' attitude very convincing. If so, you are at odds with the methods that have doubled your life expectancy and vastly reduced infant mortality over the last four centuries. I also wonder how you can make any reasonable predictions in the course of your daily life. ('My car worked fine yesterday, but I guess the fuel could just explode at random, being inflammable. I'll walk today...')
Dave, if you're reading: chin up! Hopefully, when the aliens get here, they'll bring something more interesting than crop circles!
Other Comments by _J_
1119. Comment #54670 by steve99 on July 8, 2007 at 12:26 pm
In fact, it is hard to imagine how scientists could get to the point of saying, with anything like certainty, that intelligent life does not exist elsewhere in the universe. And given that scientists usually limit themselves to the contents of this universe (though not always!) it's hard to see how they could ever make that assertion about the existence of intelligence outside this universe.
I really don't think you have grasped the issues involved. Believers in God aren't making claims about the existence of intelligence outside of the universe in the same way that scientists are making claims about intelligence outside of this planet. These are fundamentally different matters.
The big difference is that we can understand that extra-terrestrial intelligence can exist without any visible evidence. We can look up at the stars, and wonder.
But that is not what is claimed for God. God is The Creator, the Prime Mover, who listens to prayers, forgives sins, sends offspring to planets.
Believers don't claim God is hidden away, skulking in other dimensions too distant for scientists to discover, they claim he influences our universe, and that is the basis of their belief.
Other Comments by steve99
1120. Comment #54675 by PaulEmecz on July 8, 2007 at 12:38 pm
_J_Perhaps you don't find this kind of 'This seems a lot more likely than this, so we'll stick with it until new evidence changes our minds' attitude very convincing.
Actually, I do. I believe whatever seems most likely to be the case, acknowledging that this is not the same as knowing things as FACT (a horrificly misused term, used recently on another thread by a 'scientist' who was totally unaware of the assumptions underlying his claims).
I think it is far more likely, and more satisfying an explanation, to say God is the author of the universe and its laws, including the moral law, than to give any other coherent explanation. What I often hear is people saying "Science this, science that, and God commited genocide with the flood - give me a break!"
My view is that, based on all the best science I can get my hands on, intelligent life should not exist in this universe. It is such an extremely unlikely occurence that I am disinclined to believe that it does exist. Yet it clearly does, so I then have to think "Well, it could be one of three things:
1. Very unlikely random chance
2. There are millions of universes, most of which do not have intelligent life
3. The universe, with all of its structure and laws, was designed this way"
In other words, to believe that these laws, which very precisely allowed the evolution of intelligent life, which would not have if the slightest tiny detail were changed, were just the result of hugely improbable chance, would be to accept the very unlikely in the face of a far better explanation.
Other Comments by PaulEmecz
1121. Comment #54676 by Dr Benway on July 8, 2007 at 12:41 pm
PaulEmecz:You can continue to believe in intelligent, non-terrestial life without fear of being called unreasonable.I make a distinction between private belief and mutual belief.
Private belief can be and ought to be free ranging. Collective belief must be limited by evidentiary rules.
Example: A man says he saw a ghost. I'd welcome his account, but I wouldn't take it at face value. I'd need some way to corroborate his story first. I'd expect the man to recognize my need, and if he were to insist I believe him without evidence, that would cause me to wonder about his character.
An individual is free to entertain any number of hypotheses about the world. But he can't take the rest of us along for a ride without evidence.
Other Comments by Dr Benway
1122. Comment #54682 by steve99 on July 8, 2007 at 1:04 pm
In other words, to believe that these laws, which very precisely allowed the evolution of intelligent life, which would not have if the slightest tiny detail were changed, were just the result of hugely improbable chance, would be to accept the very unlikely in the face of a far better explanation.
There are two explanations I have come across that seem to have some power to me.
The first is the multiverse one.
I am not talking about a multiverse of randomness and chance. I have recently thought of an analogy that might be useful.
I am sure you have heard of the Mandelbrot Set. It is a beautiful illustration of how infinite complexity can come from the simplest of origins. A trivial mathematical formula, combined with an iterative process produces the wonder that is all the images of the set that we see often published.
But, the complexity we see is the smallest fraction of the results of the iteration, yet an inevitable consequence of it.
I see the multiverse as the same - almost all barren, but with an apparently insignificant proportion suitable for life and complexity. But, that proportion is not really insignificant - it is as much an inevitable part of the multiverse as the rest.
The other explanation is one being explored by Paul Davies, based on ideas by the great physicist John Wheeler. This is that time is not what we think it is, and neither is causality. The past and future are the result of an on-going 'negotiation'. Conscious life arises in the universe because it selects past values of physical constants that allows it to arise, simply by observing. This sounds pretty wild, but it is interesting.
Other Comments by steve99
1123. Comment #54685 by phil rimmer on July 8, 2007 at 1:17 pm
1105. Comment #54434 by Dianelos Georgoudisif personal will does not exist then, according to naturalism, a person's actions can be fully explained by the previous state of the physical universe (plus maybe some randomness).
Yes, but I said free will EFFECTIVELY exists. In no current, practical sense is the future state of our mind predictable except in some limited sense, though theoretically it is predictable. The amazing thing is that humans have succeeded as much as they have by developing the singular skill of foreseeing the future behaviour of things and people. Spookily, they can predict with statistical usefulness, under certain circumstances, the (free-) willful acts of others.
So, by adopting the the concept of free will we have engineered a society of individuals that seems attractive to us, to whit, individuals possessing the attributes of responsibility and an enhanced (even foolhardy)impression of themselves as agents of change. The concept both stimulates the creative ability of the individual and holds her to account for too much independence of thought, a nice balance.
Your Spiritual free will requires an actual transfer of information from the spirit world to work. To direct the flow of thoughts in your brain your spirit self must somehow stop some thoughts and initiate others. The spirit self must transfer the direction to be followed. Or are you suggesting the something other???
Other Comments by phil rimmer
1124. Comment #54688 by PaulEmecz on July 8, 2007 at 1:23 pm
steve99The multiverse option is clearly better than mere chance. It doesn't give me morality, which makes the designer option more in line with my experience of there being right and wrong, but I do realise that my experience of there being right and wrong could be explained in other ways, so I can't rule out the multiverse!
Clearly, what Paul Davies is exploring shows how far away from FACT any of science is. I'm ignorant of this, but aware that reality is not as straightforward as theists or atheists often claim.
Other Comments by PaulEmecz
1125. Comment #54689 by steve99 on July 8, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Steve:
I am in awe of you. I have indeed learned so much already from you and other posters on this thread.
You flatter me. I have learned much too. That is why I get involved in these arguments, and why I am so persistent in them. I have had to research much, and to work to tidy up many of my own ideas and beliefs. I have got some things wrong, but at least I know why, and have learned from that.
What is so frustrating here is Dianelos' immunity from the reason he claims to support so much. We can hack away at one of the pillars of his beliefs (such as objectivity), yet even when it is gone, he carries on, like the Knight in Monty Python's Holy Grail, claiming it is a 'mere scratch'.
Other Comments by steve99
1126. Comment #54691 by steve99 on July 8, 2007 at 1:36 pm
It doesn't give me morality, which makes the designer option more in line with my experience of there being right and wrong,
I have never understood this argument. Even if there were a designer, why would this help us with morality? Suppose the designer did hard-wire some sense of morality into us - how do we know anything about the morality of the designer? I am afraid that going to a universe-designer for any sense of morality solves nothing.
Clearly, what Paul Davies is exploring shows how far away from FACT any of science is. I'm ignorant of this, but aware that reality is not as straightforward as theists or atheists often claim.
What Paul Davies is exploring is entirely based on science fact, and those facts are very strange indeed. What it is based on is John Wheeler's delayed choice experiment, and interpretations of quantum mechanics based on ideas from Richard Feynman.
There is no doubt now that what experimenters do in the present can influence the past. The delayed choice experiment shows that decisions made after a particle has been through some apparatus can influence what that particle does in the past, when it passes through that apparatus.
I think that those of us who aren't internationally respected physicists aren't in any position to criticise the work of those who are.
Other Comments by steve99
1127. Comment #54713 by SharonMcT on July 8, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Downunder:What I get from your last post is that you are suggesting we have to replace religion with something else. (Let me know if I am wrong in my understanding of what you wrote.) It seems as though the suggestion is that we will only get rid of the addiction if we replace it with some kind of placebo - kind of like giving methadone to a crack addict to help them kick the habit.
I don't think it can work that way. First of all, for me, giving a weaker god (or LIFE as you call it) as an option is unethical. It would still be lying, even if you could get them to believe it (which I highly doubt).
Why can't we provide them with science instead; a thorough understanding of the scientific method, of evolution and natural selection, rational thinking, and the history of philosophy and law should do the trick for most people. We need them to understand how a moral society works without faith (because not only can it work, it will work better). Education is the key. Religious indoctrination of children has to be eliminated. No tax money for faith-based schools for a start. Better pay for teachers. Teachers can have a profound effect on kids. I had some great science teachers that really inspired me and made me want to learn about this universe. Learning about science and philosophy (what little I have so far) is what cured me of my childhood agnostisism. I think if we concentrate on the next few generations of school kids we can really turn things around.
Sorry if that sounds sickeningly optimistic.
Sharon
Other Comments by SharonMcT
1128. Comment #54719 by SRWB on July 8, 2007 at 5:45 pm
Sharon,That's exactly the problem - too many people have "replaced" religion, as organized by their respective religious leaders, with their own versions, very often watered down and cherry picked. Hence the vast profusion of sects and churches, synagogues and mosques all believing their own "true" version of the faith. Many others, like some people I know, need to believe that this life we live now just can't be all there is - the bottom line is that faith is a security blanket for many.
Other Comments by SRWB
1129. Comment #54761 by Downunder on July 8, 2007 at 10:02 pm
1115LeeC's & 1116Steve's. My point 15 serves to remind that not all things can be proven or need proving, while others will trot out their bible to find some passage to best suit themselves. Let us find a different approach, to unite rather then oppose with the objective to gradually launder the polluted public brains. Your comment re my 16, that is the point: God is only a name for a concept which over the ages has been embellished with human traits and that is where the problem lies. That is where Dianelos is barking up his own tree, fine with me, so long as he keeps discussing it without starting wars. I am very impressed to find an individual who was not satisfied with his religious track, searched in depth, found his path and continues searching.1117Paul's. A nice example of lateral thinking.
1118 J's. That contained a newsy item for me. I had seen those crop circles on TV, but all it did for me was wonder how they (thinking of my student days) did that! Then wiped it of my field of interest. It was news to me that they eventually "proved" to be humans.
1119Steve. You hit the problem: God is "claimed" to have human attributes as a maker, mover, judge, executioner; human embellishments to facilitate being "good". I say don't blame (nor thank) God; he has not "done" it at all. If he exists, he would be humanely flat out looking after the whole of the universe in which we are a mere speck; we may not be as important as we may think.
1120Paul & 1127Sharon. I have been looking for a long time to find common ground for religions, politicians and scientists. God and whichever other deity are the controversial problem. It does not matter to me what an individual believes, solong as he/she does not willfully stamp on other people's toes. Let us forget on this site about God; the site is about "The God Delusion"! Why do I bring up the word LIFE? Let me backtrack briefly. I had a hobby stud-farm where my wife grew sheep by selective breeding (evolution!). As a side effect we regularly produced quads (apparently such events are rare for sheep and get in the newspaper) requiring attendance by a Vet. From several repeats of that annual event I observed some facts; not beliefs, FACTS. LIFE is a fact. (As an aside for Sharon: LIFE is not my placebo for God, not a new religion; to the contrary, forget about God for my thread). The word life is a label for something abstract but, if I am correct, something that we all know exists, a fact, no matter what creed or nationality. Dianelos has his God; I have my LIFE. Life is in everything alive on this world, from the smallest microbe to the largest animal. I am awaiting DrB's reply after he hopefully will come back with the outcome of my requested human-births-observations by some GP's. Don't let me stop anyone from asking their GP; but be precise; the point to be determined is or the common thread I am looking for is: can we agree on the fact that LIFE starts-off any new individual at its moment or shortly after its birth when it can be observed that life may or may not enter the foetus with its already beating heart. Don't get side-tracked by conception, stick to the point.
1121DrB. I like it.
1122Steve. Suits me fine.
1128SRWB. See my bracketed insert for Sharon hereabove.
Other Comments by Downunder
1130. Comment #54762 by PaulEmecz on July 8, 2007 at 10:10 pm
steve99What Paul Davies is exploring is entirely based on science fact... I think that those of us who aren't internationally respected physicists aren't in any position to criticise the work of those who are.
Steve, you entirely misunderstood what I meant when I said:
Clearly, what Paul Davies is exploring shows how far away from FACT any of science is.
This wasn't in any way at all a criticism of Paul Davies. It was merely a comment that from what little I know of quantum mechanics, the nature of reality is very different from the way it used to be (and clearly still is by many) perceived.
In school, I was brought up on universals, like Isaac Newton's theory of universal gravitation. Well, my teachers should have known at that point that the word 'universal' hardly applied, and that general relativity better described the situation at certain 'extremes'. Even when I did A level Physics, we never had a discussion about the 'speed of gravity'.
I am largely ignorant of quantum mechanics, and am worried about over-simplifying it in my ignorance, but from what I know of simple experiments, the world of quanta seems to behave differently when observed. I read a John Gribbin book about it many years ago, which included quotes like 'Nothing is real' from Lennon's Strawberry Fields.
My point is that the simplistic view of science, where scientists look at the world, form theories, find evidence to support these theories etc. is not right. At best, as Popper tells us, scientists can attempt to falsify theories, but scientific theories cannot be proven, they are not verifiable, and using terms like 'scientific fact' can be unhelpful.
Other Comments by PaulEmecz
1131. Comment #54771 by Dianelos Georgoudis on July 8, 2007 at 11:52 pm
Steve99 (post 1097, or #54329):You say that you take as evidence your feeling that gratuitous torture is objectively wrong. But what is this evidence of? It is nothing more than evidence that you have the feeling... it is NOT evidence that gratuitous torture IS objectively wrong.
To be precise, I am not saying that gratuitous torture is objectively wrong, only that the proposition "gratuitous torture is objective wrong" is meaningful. Now the context of our discussion is that (as I wrote in post 1092 #54194) in order to ascertain how reality is "we must take all evidence we have, all data, be they objective or subjective and everything we know about these data (via science or whatever) and then consider which worldview fits the whole evidence best." If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the only evidence that counts is the kind of objective observations that sciences uses; everything else are only "feelings" as you put it, and therefore not reliable.
By "evidence" I mean any proposition that is evidently true, i.e. any proposition I believe with a very high degree of confidence and therefore expect a worldview to conform with. There are several kinds of evidence: objective experience (such as seeing the moon, or feeling how hard walls are), subjective experience (how red looks like, how pain hurts), intuitions (there is an external reality that causes my experiences, the inductive method is reasonable, objective ethical precepts are meaningful, there are other minds, reality did not start 10 minutes ago, I have will, etc), knowledge (factual knowledge such as what my name is, scientific knowledge, mathematical knowledge, etc). Now there exists a general impression that any kind of evidence except the kind of evidence that science uses is unreliable, but this is a fallacy. For example all propositions I am absolutely certain about are subjective and not scientific at all (e.g. "I am a conscious being", "right now I am experiencing seeing my computer's monitor", and so on). Compared to other evidence I have, scientific observations have a lower level of reliability for me. For example a famous piece of scientific evidence is that when one measures the speed of light in different frames of reference the result is always the same. Even though I believe this is true with a high degree of confidence, such belief is strictly speaking based on hearsay.
You are completely free of course to rely only in the evidence that scientists use in their work. But doing so, I believe, is 1) unjustified in reason as there is other evidence that is more reliable still, and 2) self-defeating, because by allowing only for scientific evidence your understanding of reality can go only as far as science goes, namely to discover patters present in our objective observations of physical phenomena and therefore discover nothing about the reality that causes these observations.
A few more comments in this context:
1) Reasonable people believe in propositions not based in scientific evidence all the time (see for example the list of intuitions above) and also use non scientific evidence every day in their lives, indeed use it to make some major decisions (such as whom to marry), so it's not like it's irrational to use any evidence that does not fit the scientific method.
2) Even though one cannot use a scientific instrument to measure non-scientific data, but one can ask other people about their subjective experience or intuitions and confirm one's own. I am confident that most people agree with the two pieces of non-scientific evidence I have used here, namely that the proposition "gratuitous torture is objective wrong" is meaningful, and that people have personal will.
3). All evidence can be wrong, but this fact is far less relevant for my argument than what one may think, because the very fact that theistic idealism works so well on all fronts (even for science!) counts as evidence that the subjective data I am using are correct. Conversely, should I reject the two pieces of non-scientific evidence you (apparently) disagree with, theistic idealism would still fit the rest of the evidence better than naturalism.
Now what happens if all worldviews one can think of contradict some evidence one has? Well, if that happens it means either that none of these worldviews are correct, or else that some of one's evidence is wrong. In the case of my own evidence though there are many worldviews that do not contradict it, so I have to apply other criteria to decide which is more reasonable to adopt. But naturalism does contradict the evidence I have so I discard it right away.
For thousands of years in the history of humankind many people have thought about how reality is, and they have come up with basically three ideas: naturalism, i.e. the idea that reality consists basically of the mechanical universe we observe around us, the Eastern atheist religions, i.e. the idea that what we observe around us is not real and that the unseen reality and its laws govern our lives, and the Western theistic religions, i.e. the idea that reality is centered in an unseen and most powerful person. The difference between the Eastern atheistic religions and the Western theistic ones is far less than it might appear at first. They all affirm that fundamental reality is unseen and is good, that our life here has a deep meaning, that there is a way of life that agrees with that meaning, that there is life after death and that how we live here affects the afterlife, and, roughly, that people's destiny is in the end to be united with that fundamental reality. In fact in what really matters in the implications of these worldviews, namely how we should act in our lives, both theistic and atheistic religions teach the same thing: charity, non-violence, simplicity/poverty/humbleness, some kind of spiritual exercise to relate with the transcendental, etc. Sometimes it seems to me that these two major religious traditions describe the two sides of the same coin: You see, God is not only a person, but is also the whole of reality. God's will is personal but is also realized in the structure and lawful nature of the whole of reality. So the Western traditions stress the personal side and the Eastern traditions stress the reality side.
incidentally, I don't recall you ever having stated your position in relation to the two pieces of non-scientific data I am using:
Do you believe that to say "gratuitous torture is objectively wrong" is meaningless?
Do you believe that you don't have personal will?
The problem is that your ideas are not testable.
I think they are. See point 3 in post 532 (#49301), or post 849 (#52549).
But probably you don't like these tests, so let me turn the table on you. Naturalism claims that what causes our experience is the physical universe which exists objectively. In other words that the existence of the physical universe does not depend on anybody's opinion. How do you test this idea? What goes for the goose goes for the gander, so I am really curious about your answer.
such as your problems with abstraction and reification
Well, we have discussed this issue a lot (posts 773, 795, 827, 851, 858, 860, 873, 885, 887, 890, 891, 910, 957, 962). I think we have arrived at a dead end, because for me it's irrational to believe that a proposition can be objectively true and also be completely divorced from reality.
There is no relationship between truth and beauty at all. It is true that most animals in the world suffer from parasites. How beautiful is that?
It forms part of a beautiful whole :-) Not to mention that the evolutionary niche that parasites found for themselves will strike an evolutionist as quite beautiful. Also many parasites create a symbiotic and therefore useful relation with their hosts. This works on many levels; I understand parasite pruning plays a very useful role in societies of monkeys some ethologists see here the very beginnings of ethical behavior, which is surely a beautiful thing. But never mind all that, I see your point. My meaning was that that the relationship of beauty and truth works in a deeper (more abstract) level.
Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis
1132. Comment #54775 by alovrin on July 9, 2007 at 12:18 am
Hello Sharon and welcome, and I like sickeningly optimistic.We need them to understand how a moral society works without faith (because not only can it work, it will work better). Education is the key.
And Health Care. The basis is to have a society in which people feel cared for. But after a few decades of user pays, the market decides, and all manner of such euphemisms for making a buck and rolling back social welfares. There exists a societal basis in a lot of countries which is uncaring, and in which people can assume a facade of caring to just line their pockets. Just look at TV ads, mega corps that care Uh huh.
And the third world, that is a global disgrace and wars are still fought another disgrace.
We better start turning this around before its to late, just hope it happens soon. But with each "terrorist attack" the war footing gets ratcheted up a notch or two every time. And the polarisation becomes more entrenched its us against them, me against you, etc etc.
And fluffy versions of this god thingy ala DG are not helping.
Other Comments by alovrin
1133. Comment #54783 by Dianelos Georgoudis on July 9, 2007 at 1:04 am
Steve99 (post 1109, or #54445):You are free not to agree with any of these of course, but I don't see what in my worldview does not fit, on the contrary everything fits very well.No, it doesn't. Let me try yet again to explain what does not fit. If something is objective it is objective. It does not need any kind of 'reality substance' to arise from. As I explained over, and over, it is nonsense to claim that God defines many things we know are objective, such as mathematical truths.
We were discussing your claim that I have evidence with which my worldview does not fit. So what is the evidence I have with which my worldview does not fit?
Why is it nonsense - because we know that these truths could not be otherwise, God or not.
Let's see. We agree that the temperature of something is caused by the wiggling of the molecules in it. Now suppose I told you "We know that this truth could not be otherwise, the wiggling of molecules or not." What sense would that make?
I mean: For me it's self-evidently true that objective ethical precepts (such as that gratuitous torture is objectively wrong) are meaningful. And any meaningful objective proposition must express some property of objective reality (whether the proposition is true or false is irrelevant to the meaning of the propoisition). Naturalism has problems with that because in naturalism's understanding of reality there is nothing objectively real out there that is ethically good or bad, and that's why some naturalists claim that these propositions are not really meaningful. But theism does not have a problem with that because according to theism God is objectively real so there is an objective property of goodness in reality.
Now you keep repeating that "something objective does not need any kind of 'reality substance' to arise from". I understand you believe that (even though I find it irrational, and I have explained why I find it irrational). But in any case what you believe about these issues in no way affects me, does it now? You are free to believe whatever you like, including that objective truths can be completely divorced from reality. As far as what I find reasonable and as far as the evidence I have, idealistic theism fits perfectly. And that's what I am arguing.
Of course, and indeed some things in my worldview are objective. So again, what is it that doesn't fit?The facts don't fit.
What facts exactly? Can't you be a little more specific? Or maybe you mean that your own personal beliefs about "reality substance" and so on should be accepted as "facts" by me?
Further, I must say am rather surprised: Doesn't your worldview require that some things be objective?I actually don't know. I don't claim that kind of certainty, like you do. My mind is open.
So you don't know if there is something objectively real out there, something that does not depend on anybody's opinion? Your mind is open to the idea that maybe there is no objective reality at all?
As I have explained ad nauseam, there are kinds of reality (such as abstractions) that are not the same as the physical reality that for some strange reason you insist must form the basis of everything in naturalism.
But I agree with you that "there are kinds of reality that are not the same with physical reality". But most naturalists do not agree with that, so they ask for physical tests to confirm any objective claim. Which of course is begging the question: if the whole of reality is bigger than physical reality then to ask for physical confirmation is to assume the conclusion.
As for my "huge misunderstandings of quantum mechanics" I have no idea what you are referring to. Could you explain what huge misunderstandings are these?You just don't get the deep meaning of what is implied by the Bell Inequality and subsequent work.
So, what is my huge misunderstanding about the deep meaning of what is implied by the Bell Inequality and subsequent work? Could you be more specific? Maybe by quoting me saying something about the Bell Inequality that you think is a huge misunderstanding? Surely you are not saying that the Bell Inequality implies that physical reality is not deterministic, are you?
2. Theistic worldviews are trivially and entirely compatible with scientific knowledge, because God, being omnipotent and all, could produce all the phenomena that science studies.A theist worldview which is trivially and entirely compatible with scientific phenomena may be compatible, but is redundant, as it can't be distinguished from an infinite number of alternative compatible worldviews.
So you agree with proposition #2 (it does not make any claims about redundancy). So are there any numbered propositions in post 1041 you disagree with?
What you have is not a world-view, but a consciousness-view and a morality-view.
Well, it's all of that. After all, reality is all there is, so it must indeed account for consciousness and for morality and for physical phenomena and for how it feels when it hurts and so on. So all of that is subsumed in one's description of reality: one's worldview.
Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis
1134. Comment #54787 by bayareadude on July 9, 2007 at 1:19 am
It's only at marker 49:41 or so that things REALLY get interesting.Watch as McGrath COMPLETELY FALLS APART when caught in a hypocritical contradiction by Dawkins.
Beautiful! The rest is all gobble-dee-gook.
Other Comments by bayareadude
1135. Comment #54788 by lowell4068 on July 9, 2007 at 1:24 am
Absolutely wonderful article...Mr. Dawkins is brilliant. I, too am baffled by the seemingly contradictive claims that God does not directly interfere with his perfect creation, yet ocassionally he does by saving someone from death or some other undesirable circumstance. Mcgrath said little, if anything that qualifies as a satisfactory response to that in my opinion. He seems to dodge the obvious logical inconsistencies regarding the subject by rationalizing that it is psychologically and emotionally beneficial as well as being a natural reaction to be thankful and want to rejoice. I'm certain Mcgrath realizes that it is a blatant contradiction and chose to sugar coat or justify that type of illogical thinking by turning our attention to the psychological and emotional benefits of it. It appears to me that he is saying it's ok to be irrational or that it is irrelevant in light of the emotional benefits it may provide. While I would agree that, in this isolated situation, the only important thing may very well be that a life was spared, but the problem, to me, is that this contradiction, while it may be helpful to an individual in a crisis, is believed and taught, quite often among believers of God, to be truth in general. I suppose I have rattled on too much already, thanks for giving me an opportunity to say a little something.Other Comments by lowell4068
1136. Comment #54793 by Dianelos Georgoudis on July 9, 2007 at 1:42 am
Dr Benway (post 1110, or #54453):If there is no will in what sense can a person be responsible for their actions?Behavioral contingencies shape behavior. Coercion is in service to the future, never the past.
But if there is no will but rather peoples' behavior is caused by mechanical processes, then there can't be any coercion, can there? Actually, in human affairs punishment would only represent a mechanical reaction to a particular class of actions similar to the way that in Newton's mechanics an action causes a reaction. We can't even decide whether to apply or not coercion or punishment, because after all we don't have will to choose one way or the other.
What I am only saying here is this: The worldview that there is no personal will (beyond maybe some kind of illusion) implies that a huge part of the way people understand reality is in fact wrong and that a huge number of concepts people use in everyday life are in fact meaningless. We ourselves and society and culture are nothing more than parts or properties of a planet-wide chemical reaction that proceeds only according to mechanical laws. I am not here arguing that this ontological view is wrong; I am only arguing that such an ontological view has implications that are incredibly far-reaching and that most people would judge to be unacceptable if they actually thought about them. As far as I am concerned the premise itself "free will does not exist and your experience of free will is an illusion" is as unacceptable as the premise "the color red does not exist and your experience of the color red is an illusion". Not only I, but anybody who realizes that there are worldviews that do not imply any such absurdities (nor of course the different class of absurdities that religious fundamentalism implies ), must find these other worldviews much more reasonable.
As I have explained before for me "objective" means "pertaining to reality, and hence independent of anybody's personal opinion".I think that's too extreme. "Objective" is operationally defined as "that which has been independently corroborated."
Sounds good, but I don't see how you can corroborate any positive claim about the reality that causes the phenomena we observe (no matter for now independent corroboration). It's true that you can independently corroborate physical phenomena and the patterns of order that are present in them; that's what science does. But ontology is about the reality that produces these phenomena. We all agree about the phenomena and their implicit order. The big question that ontology discusses is what objectively reality out there causes these phenomena and their order; naturalism is one answer, theism is another. So, as there are various possible answers, the question is how we decide which answer is more reasonable.
Thus there are degrees of objectivity.
I would say that in ontology there is only one degree of objectivity: something either objectively exists or it doesn't. But I agree that there are degrees in our confidence about the truth of objective propositions. (Of course objective propositions are called objective because of the meaning they carry, and not because they are true. Objective propositions can very well be false. For example I believe that the proposition "The physical universe objectively exists" is false.)
Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis
1137. Comment #54801 by steve99 on July 9, 2007 at 2:11 am
We were discussing your claim that I have evidence with which my worldview does not fit. So what is the evidence I have with which my worldview does not fit?
Well, for one, the evidence that the world is not deterministic.
I mean: For me it's self-evidently true that objective ethical precepts (such as that gratuitous torture is objectively wrong) are meaningful.
And that is the problem. Because that is no proof or evidence for anything, as you know. You are an intelligent fellow, and so you know that millions of people have held 'self-evidently true' beliefs that we know are nonsense (such as the flatness of the Earth).
But in any case what you believe about these issues in no way affects me, does it now?
Yes, it does. Because it means that a major platform of your worldview is false.
Now you keep repeating that "something objective does not need any kind of 'reality substance' to arise from". I understand you believe that (even though I find it irrational, and I have explained why I find it irrational).
This is what is so infuriating. You supposedly find it irrational even though you have clearly been shown it is the case.
What facts exactly? Can't you be a little more specific? Or maybe you mean that your own personal beliefs about "reality substance" and so on should be accepted as "facts" by me?
They aren't my personal beliefs. They are the beliefs of just about every philosopher and scientist who has ever lived. Your personal beliefs about this are so widely recognised as being mistaken that there is even a classical logical fallacy that describes them - "reification".
So you don't know if there is something objectively real out there, something that does not depend on anybody's opinion? Your mind is open to the idea that maybe there is no objective reality at all?
Yes.
Surely you are not saying that the Bell Inequality implies that physical reality is not deterministic, are you?
Yes, of course I am. That is what it implies.
Well, it's all of that. After all, reality is all there is, so it must indeed account for consciousness and for morality and for physical phenomena and for how it feels when it hurts and so on. So all of that is subsumed in one's description of reality: one's worldview.
You don't get it. You can't just take something that supposedly deals with consciousness and morality, and spread it out to cover the no universe, with no evidence for that.
Other Comments by steve99
1138. Comment #54804 by Dianelos Georgoudis on July 9, 2007 at 2:52 am
SharonMcT (post 1111, or #54509):I believe that education is the key. Children need to be educated, not indoctrinated. It takes far too much time and effort to undo the damage that religion does to a child's mind. We have to remain vigilant in our efforts to be sure that children are learning "how" to think, not "what" to think.
I very much agree that education is the key. What's more I sometimes think that education is the only solution for all the problems of society. I also fully agree that education is about learning how to think and not what to think. But precisely for this reason, we should not hide ideas from people, that we should neither ridicule nor in any way keep people from studying the ideas or the books of those who disagree with us. I am sure we all agree on that. For this same reason then religious ideas should not be concealed and the study of religious ideas should not be discouraged in any way. I personally do not agree that religious ideas (of all traditions) should not be taught in school, for the same reason that I don't agree that political ideas (of all colors) should not be taught in school: these are very important ideas that help us understand human history, our own society, and our fellow people. But they should only be taught at an age that children are mature for critical thought, i.e. when they can judge for themselves. And I extremely strongly disagree with the idea that one part of society representing one particular worldview should be given the right to decide for all of society what should or shouldn't be taught at school; for me this amounts to fascism; freedoms of thought implies freedom of ideas.
There are some practical issues here. One cannot try to teach in school any one idea somebody has come up with, so one must choose those ideas that are more important or relevant for one's understanding, including one's understanding how many people think. There is also the practical issue of how much space to give to individual ideas. In that sense, and in that sense only, I would have so-called "creation science" taught in school along with the fact that according to virtually the entire scientific community it lacks any scientific grounds and along the fact that is has been pushed on the political arena as a means to further religious fundamentalism (one page of a textbook and one hour of a teacher's time would be quite sufficient for all that). Much more importantly, I would like children to learn about both religious and political ideas (including political nationalism), how these have been used for doing good and for doing evil, how these explain much of history and much of today's society and today's conflicts. I would like children to learn about ethics, and indeed about the ethics of science. I would like children to be exposed to different ontological worldviews about reality, including naturalism and theism, to be given the oportunity to study the best arguments for or against them, and to actually think about these issues for themselves. I'd rather have those dogmatic people who judge those who disagree with them as irrational or of being the root of all evil or of being deceived by the devil to stay out of the educational system. The last think I want is an educational system that is dogmatic, polarizing, or hate-mongering in any way, or that teaches children to be conformists and to think alike. I want an inclusive and transparent educational system that teaches understanding and tolerance and actively exposes all rationalizations for hating or despising others. This, incidentally, includes nationalism. In my own country, Greece, the history schoolbooks give a distorted view of reality in order to further the idea that Greece did everything well and that evil neighbors and even our lying allies have been responsible for everything that went wrong in our history. Which, come to think of it, is the same way of how even serious US magazines color their reporting of reality too.
Let me give you an example of "coloring reality" out of my own experience. I am a sometime editor of Wikipedia, which is a really marvelous educational tool (education does not stop at school what we are doing here is education too). Well, I once found a bit of factual data I thought was quite relevant: that in many Muslim countries Osama bin Laden is actually very popular, considered a hero by a large portion of the population, his tapes sold everywhere, and so on. So I inserted this piece of very relevant information in the respective Wikipedia article. Well, everybody jumped on me for that and they quickly first watered down that piece of information, and then completely deleted it. What's interesting is that no-one actually claimed this piece of information was wrong; rather some Americans thought I was justifying bin Laden, and some Muslims thought I was badmouthing their own countries. See, that's what I dislike: when people try to control or color the flow of ideas (including what is taught at school or is included in encyclopedias) in order to serve their own personal agendas or in order to stop people from thinking differently than they do.
Religious ideas are real and are serious; believing in God is really nothing like believing in fairies. The ideas of naturalism are real and serious too; believing in naturalism is really nothing like following the devil into perdition. So, let people decide for themselves how reasonable these ideas are.
1101. Comment #54393 by Dr Benway on July 6, 2007 at 7:36 pm
When God gets His ass in here to speak for Himself, we will all listen politely. Until that day, claims about who or what God is and what God likes or does not like are all hearsay.
Hearsay is the refuge of the scoundrel. I repeat: the scoundrel! Believe me, I've lived long enough to know.
I can forgive hearsay evidence if folks admit that's all they've got, and they're humble, uncertain, and not at all pushy. But when folks make a big fucking "worldview" deal out of hearsay, then I poop on their heads.
Thus is the noble code of the tufted titmouse.
Other Comments by Dr Benway