151. Comment #80313 by Riley on October 21, 2007 at 9:43 am

.

Frankus, your post is enormously heartening.

phil rimmer: "So why has no Christian apologist responded as you have imagined? Because Hitchens is actually addressing a real theist MINDSET and no-one wants to unpick it."

The audience to "the straw-man challenge" is as much the target/victim of the trap as is the hapless sap who tries to answer the challenge. Hitchens is not doing anything unique or new - "the straw-man challenge" is a classic political game. The mechanics of it work generally like this:
---------------------------------------------
1) Bait someone into trying to answer a question that is irrelevant to any of their own arguments - but choose a question that sounds like it should be.

2) Either reject or make fun of their answer, whatever answer they give, in an endless attempt to frustrate the target. Of course this is a lot easier to do if the challenge question is well crafted to have only one obvious outcome.

3) The target will naturally seek a way out of this situation, but once they've agreed to engage in the challenge they can't help but be made to look weak if they later try to argue:
"it doesn't matter weather or not I can think of an answer to your challenge, none of my arguments rely on having an answer to your challenge"

"Well then", the audience thinks "why did you bother to participate in the first place? .. there must be something to this challenge."

4) Mock anyone who fails to take-up your challenge - and you're back to step 1.


It's a cheap tactic used to win a political non-sense games.

Other Comments by Riley

152. Comment #80314 by coretemprising on October 21, 2007 at 10:09 am

Riley: Keith, if you look back at the beginning of this thread it appears that I had already been profiled as a Christian Troll by some before I even mentioned that I take the Bible at its word. This entire off-topic conversation on quantum effects at the molecular level was started by someone who thought I was defending the Christian doctrine of free-will. It's very amusing.

Very amusing? Now you've lost my respect. Riley, I admit this is an inquiry of not much substance, but do you enjoy having people at a disadvantage? Right when the group misapprehension of your identity and motive was occuring, why didn't you speak up? For one who is protesting the "cheap tactics" of someone else, how is it you are taking pleasure in what, seems to me, has been the result of, well, a deliberate cheap tactic of your own? Heh, seems a bit immoral to me! You and Hitchens are two peas in a pod.

Other Comments by coretemprising

153. Comment #80316 by artemisa on October 21, 2007 at 10:19 am

I've only read a few of the postings but since the issue of freewill has come up several times and since it's so central to christian beliefs I like to give freewill a definition I've read somewhere.

Free Will: the explanation that when I choose to act in one way rather than another I make the choice, and no set of external or internal causes cause me to choose the act I choose.

Other Comments by artemisa

154. Comment #80318 by BaronOchs on October 21, 2007 at 10:28 am

artemisa that is a good definition. I'd say to someone who believed in that that if you extract out all the "external and internal causes" there'd simply be nothing of you left to do any choosing!

Other Comments by BaronOchs

155. Comment #80319 by Riley on October 21, 2007 at 10:29 am

coretemprising: Very amusing? Now you've lost my respect. Riley, I admit this is an inquiry of not much substance, but do you enjoy having people at a disadvantage? Right when the group misapprehension of your identity and motive was occuring, why didn't you speak up?

coretemprising, What I find amusing is that the topic of "quantum effects at the molectular level" is being hotly debated on this thread ... it seems a bit off topic and it really is very amusing to look back and wonder: How did that even get started? Even if I was a Christian, none of my arguments ever relied on the doctrine of free-will being true - and I said so - my arguments simply relied on "free-will" being, in fact, a Christian doctrine (i.e. Chrisitans believe a lot of things that aren't true, that doesn't mean they don't believe them).

Frankly, I was so shocked and overwhelmed by the passive aggressive comments being made and directed at me that I never had a reasonable chance to say "hey, I'm not a Christian" until a reasonable poster made a comment to me that I could respond to. I had also thought (for much the same reason that I don't respond to USA_Limey's passive aggressive comments on page 3): "well alright, there are a few unreasonable people on this thread. I can ignore them and direct my responses to the reasonable ones and this issue will naturally go away", but the unreasonable posts persisted and things just got out of hand; people apparently started taking their queues from the unreasonable posters.

Thanks for posting in the spirit of keeping me honest. I sincerely appreciate that spirit and if I had intentionally misled people, I hope that you'd accept my apology.

Other Comments by Riley

156. Comment #80320 by phil rimmer on October 21, 2007 at 10:30 am

Riley,

1) Why would any theist admit to being "Holier than Thou"? Why would they put this issue on the table? Arguing that religion makes you nicer and more sociable is one thing but... This question is an accusation that can only come from an atheist.

2)Hitchens would deride a sensible answer?? Then he must leave in disgrace! Has he done this?

3)But you already provided a good response with your fantasy Sharpton.

4)He mocks theists in general for not taking up the challenge.

If theists don't challenge him then why don't you? It can only reflect well on atheism to do so, whatever the outcome.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

157. Comment #80323 by steve99 on October 21, 2007 at 10:50 am

His challenge is used as part of a theatre that makes it appear as though he is actually addressing a real theist position - he's not.

Just a quick question. Why are many people so keen to send their children to 'faith schools'?

Other Comments by steve99

158. Comment #80324 by Riley on October 21, 2007 at 10:52 am

phil rimmer: Hitchens would deride a sensible answer?? Then he must leave in disgrace! Has he done this?

Yes. He rejects the "prayer" answer given to him and he mocks the "forgive your enemies" answer. Which is fine. I'm only pointing these steps out to communicate to the board how the game works.

phil rimmer: But you already provided a good response with your fantasy Sharpton.

Fantasy Sharpton was smart enough to answer "there are none" to the challenge. Doing so he immediately communicates that the outcome of the challenge is not important to any of his own arguments. He avoids the trap. But of course not entirely, because Hitchens will say "See-eee!!! not one of them can answer my challenge!" - as if to say that has any significance to any relevant argument.

If theists don't challenge him then why don't you? It can only reflect well on atheism to do so, whatever the outcome.

I thought I was challenging him.

steve99: Just a quick question. Why are many people so keen to send their children to 'faith schools'?

My guess would be because parents hope that the faith school will teach their children to make better moral decisions.


.

Other Comments by Riley

159. Comment #80327 by phil rimmer on October 21, 2007 at 10:57 am

artemisa

Free Will: the explanation that when I choose to act in one way rather than another I make the choice, and no set of external or internal causes cause me to choose the act I choose.

Which is precisely why a purist (spiritual) free will is nonsense. Information doesn't get magicked from nowhere.

The brain presents pre-imagined or pre-experienced choices. The emotional value (or other metric) of one prevails and you act. Your internal narrative is updated about your action, which is when the logic of that action is finally secured (or indeed even created for the first time!)

Interestingly the problem of complex brains is choosing between nearly matched alternatives. Precisely the randomness of Steve99's quantum level effects or even the effects of thermal noise may make all the difference in the outcome of that choice and in causing it to happen in the first place.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

160. Comment #80334 by artemisa on October 21, 2007 at 11:11 am

Dr Benway #80087

Please, please be gentle with your humor. My gut, head, and heart still hurt from so much laughing.

Okay on the serious side I'll take a slice of that wonderful blueberry pie (if you don't mind)

Other Comments by artemisa

161. Comment #80335 by phil rimmer on October 21, 2007 at 11:15 am

Riley

So Hitchens has not derided good answers? (We both agree on the feeble merits of the answers you quote? Re prayer- I introspect endlessly on my actions and my beliefs hoping to do better. Re forgiving enemies- I strive continually to do so and have been rewarded handsomely for it.)

Other Comments by phil rimmer

162. Comment #80342 by BMMcArdle on October 21, 2007 at 11:46 am

Riley #143:

This whole thread I think serves as a lesson in pack-minded profiling and the knee jerk emotional reaction people instinctively feel when their pack leader (e.g. Hitchens) gets attacked.

Now that's a straw man!

Riley #67

Why does the Hitchens Challenge bother me as much as it does? It's because I hate hypocrisy. Not only does the Hitchens Challenge misrepresent the position of others, it's the exact type of intellectual dishonesty for which we rightly condemn theists.

Real nice.

Other Comments by BMMcArdle

163. Comment #80343 by Dr Benway on October 21, 2007 at 11:46 am

phil rimmer:

Because Hitchens is actually addressing a real theist MINDSET and no-one wants to unpick it. Its part of what makes theists feel good.

That's how I understand the challenge as well. It's a counter to the deep, discriminatory attitude believers have toward atheists. It's analogous to asking a chauvinist, "why couldn't a woman make a good president?" Whether or not the chauvinist had said anything about female presidents prior to the question doesn't really matter. By making someone conjure a mental image contrary to his expectations, you hopefully soften his prejudice.

Perhaps if Riley had accepted Christ as his personal Lord and Savior, and had received the baptism of the Holy Spirit, he would understand how his fallen nature stands against the love and guidance of the Lord.

It's true that some atheists can behave in nice ways. But spend any time with them and you'll soon learn how arrogant and selfish they really are. Everything is an intellectual game with them. They'd rather be right than caring, because they have no heart. They reject God because they want to be God. You wouldn't want to get stuck on a deserted isle with any of them, I assure you.

Below is a typical Christian teaching contrasting the character of those who walk with the Holy Spirit and those who don't:

Question: "What is the fruit of the Holy Spirit?"

Answer: Galatians 5:22-23 tells us, "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control..." The fruit of the Holy Spirit are the results of the Holy Spirit taking a role in the life of a Christian. The Bible makes it clear that everyone receives the Holy Spirit the moment he or she believes in Jesus Christ (Romans 8:9; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Ephesians 1:13-14). One of the primary purposes of the Holy Spirit coming into a Christian's life is to change that life. It is the Holy Spirit's job to conform us to the image of Christ, making us more like Him.

The fruit of the Holy Spirit are in direct contrast with the acts of the sinful nature in Galatians 5:19-21, "The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God." Galatians 5:19-21 is what people are like, to varying degrees, when they do not know Christ and therefore are not under the influence of the Holy Spirit. Our sinful flesh produces types of fruit (Galatians 5:19-21), and the Holy Spirit produces types of fruit (Galatians 5:22-23).

The Christian life is a battle of the acts of the sinful nature with the fruit of the Holy Spirit. As fallen human beings, we are still trapped in a body that desires sinful things (Romans 7:14-25). As Christians, we have the Holy Spirit producing His fruit in us and the Holy Spirit's power available to us to conquer the acts of the sinful nature (2 Corinthians 5:17; Philippians 4:13). A Christian will never be completely victorious in always demonstrating the fruits of the Holy Spirit. It is one of the main purposes of the Christian life, though, to progressively allow the Holy Spirit to produce more and more of His fruit in our lives - and to allow the Holy Spirit to conquer the opposing sinful desires. The fruit of the Spirit is what God desires our lives to look like...and with the Holy Spirit's help, it is possible!

http://www.gotquestions.org/fruit-of-the-Holy-Spirit.html

Other Comments by Dr Benway

164. Comment #80349 by phil rimmer on October 21, 2007 at 11:59 am

They reject God because they want to be God.

Dammit, Benway. You've gone to far this time. Our plan is revealed!

Other Comments by phil rimmer

165. Comment #80351 by robotaholic on October 21, 2007 at 12:05 pm

I like how the corollary of The Hitchens Challenge demonstrates perfectly what he's saying.

Other Comments by robotaholic

166. Comment #80356 by denoir on October 21, 2007 at 12:25 pm

I disagree. As I have worked on statistical mechanics models of molecular interactions, I can confirm that all kinds of quantum effects occur above the level of molecules. Just to take one example everyone would have heard about, superconductors would not work if this were not the case. Another case is vibrations in macroscopic systems like crystals, which are described in quantised states called phonons. In that case quantum effects can influence macroscopic properties.

You should read again what I said. If quantum effects could not propagate to the macroscopic level, I wouldn't be typing this on a computer. Semiconductors are a trivial example.

But that's not what I said. I said that interactions on the molecular level are extremely unlikely to be affected by quantum effects. A crystal lattice is susceptible to normal modes (i.e phonons) because of its fixed rigid structure and lack of interaction at the molecular level. Exactly because there isn't anything happening on the higher levels, standing waves are possible and a transmission and small energy changes can propagate upwards. With the same molecules in a fluid state or gas state you won't get the same effects as then you'll actually have dynamic interaction between atoms and the quantum effects will be too small to influence anything.

The interactions in the brain are at a molecular level and we don't have any static atomic or molecular structures through which a quantum effect could pass. On the contrary, the brain is typically a wet and warm place making it ideal for dynamic interactions on the molecular level and terrible for any quantum effects.

Just to give a single dramatic example: a single cosmic ray can cause sufficient biological damage to be detected, and that damage can be sufficient to cause a tumour. Yet, the production of each cosmic ray is entirely a matter of quantum mechanics.

Ah, but that's a completely different thing due to the energy of the cosmic ray. If I radiate you with high-energy gamma rays then of course it is going to have effects on a higher level. But that's because the gamma ray has a higher energy than the molecular bonds. The elementary particles inside our brains tend to be quite well behaved and have many orders of magnitude smaller energy than what is required to break a molecular bond.

Sorry, but you are wrong. In general physical systems that are chaotic, effects on any scale are quickly amplified.

I am not saying that quantum effects directly effect general mental events. That is clearly nonsense. However there are plenty of physical systems where the non-linearity is such that even differences in quantum effects can cause differences at the macroscopic level. There is no barrier isolating these levels.

There is indeed a barrier because it is not a question of continuous interactions. The molecules involved are discrete units. An ionic bond is going to snap together in just one way regardless of how much low energy quantum noise you add. The neurons are semi-discrete. There is a threshold level below which they will output a zero signal. Although still a very active field of research it seems like the firing levels of a neuron also seem to be quantized.

Finally, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If quantum effects can influence the firing of the neurons then the quantum level would be relevant to brain function. In chaotic systems small changes can indeed produce massive effects. It's one or the other. Either there is no quantum influence on the molecular mechanics of the brain or it is a relevant influence.

Other Comments by denoir

167. Comment #80381 by Stew282 on October 21, 2007 at 2:47 pm

I just checked out the 'RDF@MySpace' link at the top of the page and rather amusingly, the site appears to have calculated that the RDF is an 'Aquarious'!

According to 'astrology-online.com' my being a 'Scorpio' means I am incompatible with the RDF, so I suppose I'll have to seek out a free-thinking site of a more suitable starsign!

Amusingly though, the site does claim that "Aquarius want to own the world [sic]" - is this a prediction for world-domination by science and reason?

Other Comments by Stew282

168. Comment #80383 by Riley on October 21, 2007 at 3:02 pm

robotaholic: "I like how the corollary of The Hitchens Challenge demonstrates perfectly what he's saying."

robotaholic,

If you see the "Hitchens Challenge" as a proof, and that proof is:
"believers don't make ethical statements or perform ethical actions that non-believers can not have uttered or done."

What do you see as the corollary of that proof?

.

Other Comments by Riley

169. Comment #80384 by steve99 on October 21, 2007 at 3:09 pm

Finally, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If quantum effects can influence the firing of the neurons then the quantum level would be relevant to brain function.

I am sorry, but you seem to have a persistent and stubborn misunderstanding of what I am saying. I am not talking about interactions in the brain, or brain function. I don't have a clue whether or not we have free will. I don't know whether or not this is due to quantum mechanics.

My only objection to what has been posted earlier is that we have no free will because things are deterministic. My objection was with the declaration of determinism. That is all.

But I have said this before, but apparently to no effect. However, feel free to continue to argue about quantum mechanics and the brain. I present you with this straw man to debate with.

(Meanwhile, I think your understanding of non-linear systems and quantum mechanics needs to be updated, otherwise you would not use the phrase "too small to influence anything")

Other Comments by steve99

170. Comment #80410 by denoir on October 21, 2007 at 5:17 pm

My only objection to what has been posted earlier is that we have no free will because things are deterministic. My objection was with the declaration of determinism. That is all.

But I have said this before, but apparently to no effect. However, feel free to continue to argue about quantum mechanics and the brain. I present you with this straw man to debate with.

Again, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either

1)In wetware such as the nervous system quantum effects are not relevant as they are too small to pass the threshold to the complex interactions of the systems.

2) Quantum effects influence the wetware and hence due to the complexity of the systems involved are an important factor in the brain and other systems.

There is no in-between as you agree that a brain is a complex system where chaos theory applies (small changes can have massive effects). Take your pick.

(Meanwhile, I think your understanding of non-linear systems and quantum mechanics needs to be updated, otherwise you would not use the phrase "too small to influence anything")

No, I think that you have misunderstood both, and I'll tell you why. Let me give you an example that you might understand - an analog digital converter. It's a small electronic component that converts an analog signal to a digital one:
A => B
0.9=>1
1.3=>1
0.4=>0
0.1=>0

Should you now build a complex system after the A/D converter, you could build a a very complex non-linear system that did something with the ones and zeroes from stage B. Would such a system be sensitive to small changes in stage A? No, it would certainly not. A->B could never be a chaotic system as one of the basic criteria could never be met (mixing of the pdfs). It's a threshold and you should be very happy that it is that way. In a molecular machine we can take the example of an ionic bond. It's binary as well. You have a bond or you don't - there is no in-between. No matter how much quantum fluctuations you have, you'll never have half a bond or 1.001 bond. That's a very good thing - if quantum effects always propagated upwards we would have a completely unpredictable universe.

Do you understand now what "too small to influence anything" means?

Other Comments by denoir

171. Comment #80415 by bayareadude on October 21, 2007 at 6:17 pm

Riley,

You asked for a "prominent" person's quote in which he states that believers are more moral than unbelievers? How about David himself?

Psalms 14:1 - The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

If you want a quote from a christian, I'm sure I could dig up a few of those as well.

- Sheldon

Other Comments by bayareadude

172. Comment #80436 by Riley on October 21, 2007 at 8:28 pm

bayareadude : "Riley, You asked for a "prominent" person's quote in which he states that believers are more moral than unbelievers?"

bayareadude, That's not what I asked for. Re-read the posts and pay attention to the distinction between "can" and "do" / "capable" and "incapable".

Great quote though.

Other Comments by Riley

173. Comment #80447 by Dr Benway on October 21, 2007 at 9:57 pm

Riley:

...pay attention to the distinction between "can" and "do" / "capable" and "incapable".

I think you're being too literal. Many atheists likely are capable of blowing up a busload of Jews in Gaza. Many are capable of shaming kids for masturbating. But those acts would be outside the expected character type.

Expected character type. Prejudice. That's the heart of it.

Note that the Hitchens challenge follows on the heels of the "How would you feel meeting a group of men on the street in a strange town? What if you knew the men had just come from a prayer meeting?" challenge.

That earlier challenge likewise concerned expected character type.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

174. Comment #80453 by Riley on October 21, 2007 at 10:15 pm

Dr Benway,
Unless you're willing to let the moderate theist off the hook with the argument: "you're taking the Bible too literally", then you should not let yourself off the hook with the arguemnt that I'm taking Hitchens too literally.

Fair? Can I enjoy some of that blueberry pie now? Or is it all gone?

Other Comments by Riley

175. Comment #80461 by Dr Benway on October 21, 2007 at 10:47 pm

The pie was quite good. I'm afraid you wouldn't much care for what it has since become.

Language is difficult, literally and otherwise. Some say language is a virus from outer space and we merely serve as its hosts.

I wonder: is missing the forest for the trees similar to missing the troll for the bridge?

Other Comments by Dr Benway

176. Comment #80479 by renegade on October 22, 2007 at 12:17 am

Riley,

I haven't seen this video of Hitchens but from what I have read of Hitchens he doesn't claim that Christians claim so, but he rather poses this challenge to prove that you can be moral without God.

But as for your challenge of producing one notable Christian who makes such a claim, do you want me to quote a notable Christian or the bible? I hope anyone would want the second one.

The fool says in his heart,"There is no God." They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good. [psa 14:1]

So there is none among the atheists who does good according to the bible.Any more question?

Other Comments by renegade

177. Comment #80483 by Pandemonium on October 22, 2007 at 12:40 am

Windweaver: Following on comments long ago, I knew that 1.2 million Iraqis have died since the invasion (in excess of normal), but the 200,000 was the estimate directly killed by US forces (as opposed to Iraqis killing each other, etc.). Also -- I always find the term "anti-semitic" amusing, as Arabs are Semites too!

Keith: The Golden Rule doesn't say "Do unto others before they get a chance to do unto you" -- that's the Rambo interpretation. It's "Treat others like you'd like to be treated yourself." So, Hitch, in his indiscriminate bloodlust, is wishing hell to be unleashed upon us.

Notice how aggressive and rude the usually smooth and courteous demeanor gets whenever he's asked this question about his fondness for war. IT seems to me to be a clear case of cognitive dissonance wherein he has to work overtime to justify such an insane position along with all his vaunted enlightenment and rational thinking.

I was raised by egalitarian anti-theists, and I was taught that life is precious and life is real, life is earnest. There is no afterlife -- this is the only life we ever get. Thus, no one has the right to take it away from anyone else except in self-defense.

Other Comments by Pandemonium

178. Comment #80495 by steve99 on October 22, 2007 at 1:47 am

There is no in-between as you agree that a brain is a complex system where chaos theory applies (small changes can have massive effects). Take your pick.

I really don't know how often I need to say this, but I am not talking specifically about brains.

Should you now build a complex system after the A/D converter, you could build a a very complex non-linear system that did something with the ones and zeroes from stage B. Would such a system be sensitive to small changes in stage A? No, it would certainly not. A->B could never be a chaotic system as one of the basic criteria could never be met (mixing of the pdfs). It's a threshold and you should be very happy that it is that way. In a molecular machine we can take the example of an ionic bond. It's binary as well.

No, it isn't, actually.

You have a bond or you don't - there is no in-between.

Sure there is. Have you ever studied the force vs. distance potential curve of an ionic interaction? It is not binary.

No matter how much quantum fluctuations you have, you'll never have half a bond or 1.001 bond. That's a very good thing - if quantum effects always propagated upwards we would have a completely unpredictable universe.

Of course not, as we get a range of processes which constrain things at high levels. We get systems which are linear, and non-linear systems which are forced and which have attractors. Things aren't completely unpredictable; we get patterns and trends.

Other Comments by steve99

179. Comment #80536 by windweaver on October 22, 2007 at 4:55 am

Denoir, could you please clear up a point which I find confusing in your post 166. You state the following:

"The interactions in the brain are at a molecular level and we don't have any static atomic or molecular structures through which a quantum effect could pass. On the contrary, the brain is typically a wet and warm place making it ideal for dynamic interactions on the molecular level and terrible for any quantum effects."

You then go on to state:
"Although still a very active field of research it seems like the firing levels of a neuron also seem to be quantized...If quantum effects can influence the firing of the neurons then the quantum level would be relevant to brain function."

Forgive me if I've misunderstood you but this seems to be a contradiction. Are you saying that the brain is subject to quantum effects or not? I note that the scientific consesus is that the brain is not subject to such effects.

Other Comments by windweaver

180. Comment #80549 by keith on October 22, 2007 at 6:19 am

Riley,

When I said I thought you had been misunderstood and falsely called a troll, I hope you didn't interpret this as meaning that I didn't think you were wrong. I do.

You were wrong in claiming that Hitchens' challenge is only valid if one of the people he has challenged has ever claimed that only a believer could perform certain ethical deeds. (I don't know why you insist on restricting this only to the people who have been physically in his presence when he uttered the challenge, though of course it improves your odds of such a quote not being found. I think that the challenge was offered to all people, the faithful and atheists alike. After all, an answer to the challenge would be valid regardless of whoever it came from). I think I have shown you that this stipulation, added by you, was not part of the Hitchens' challenge. The challenge was whether anybody could name such a deed, not whether anyone had actually claimed they could do so.

Although I pointed this out to you, not once have you admitted that you might have got this part wrong. You pride yourself on taking Hitchens at his word while putting words into his mouth. Rich.

And getting this bit wrong is actually quite important. You have written that you have been the victim of a pack mentality and that some people (possibly the same pack) worship Hitchens as a hero and follow him whether he's right or wrong. However, if it turns out that you were wrong all along about the challenge, this means that the people might not have been attacking you because they were part of a pack or because they were slavishly following Hitchens, but because you were simply wrong. Both Alfred Wegener (plate techtonics) and some crazy 19th century flat-Earther must both have felt that they were victims of a pack mentality. However, only Wegener really was; the reason being that he was right. Many religious people like to claim that we agree with anything that Richard Dawkins spouts, but this is only a reasonable observation if he is wrong and we agree with him. If he is right, we are also right to agree with him. The same goes for Hitchens.

Now on to the second part, which is a little more involved. I know you'll want to claim that the challenge, (even the real one that remains undoctored by you), isn't really a challenge because everybody, the religious and atheists alike, is equally capable of performing any ethical deed. Therefore it's a nonsense challenge and a straw man. However, all this really means is that it's not the challenge that you want. You think that whether or not the religious actually do more ethical deeds is more interesting, not whether or not they alone are capable of them. However, this can be another challenge for another day. First you have to clear the ground a little.

For you and me it's clear that everybody is equally capable of doing a good deed; the important thing is whether or not the religious really believe this to be the case. I know you have poured scorn on anyone who has suggested that the religious might actually believe that they are more moral than us atheists, but the truth is (and no, I don't have proof) that there are religious people who believe precisely that. Dr. Benway more or less professed to that belief during his 'believing' days. You'll probably want to answer (I'm turning into Alister McGrath!) that if these people believe such a thing then what they mean is that they do good deeds more often than atheists, not that only they are uniquely capable of doing them. And that's all Hitchens wants to hear from them, something so obvious that you suspect it might be a trick: that a belief in god isn't necessary for doing good. (The operative word here is 'necessary').

For you this might be stating the obvious. However, Hitchens might believe that it has cleared away one often-believed but unspoken obstacle. After this, a believer shouldn't really be able to say the words, "People don't need a belief in God to do good".

One more thing. In your vehemence in saying that Hitchens' challenge is a false one, a straw man, I think you might be on shaky ground. All it would need was for someone to find a single quote by a believer (or you might wish to include the rider 'not a believer but more specifically, one of the people directly challenged') and your whole argument falls apart, both the 'no one has ever claimed this' and the 'no one could ever claim this because it's so stupid' parts. (You perhaps have forgotten that stupidity is no obstacle to believers). And if someone actually takes up Hitchens' challenge then your argument also falls apart. By taking it up, they accept that the challenge is reasonable and therefore not a straw man. They actually believe that they have found a good deed that only a believer could have performed. You, of course, will claim they've been tricked. Please spell out, specifically, how the trick works. Hypnosis?

If that person succeeds in finding a good deed that only a believer could do, Hitchens loses. And if they rise to the challenge but don't pass muster, then Hitchens continues to win (for the time being). But either way you lose because the challenge has been accepted as meaningful. Indeed, if one of Dr. Benway's postings including two possible candidates for meeting Hitchens' challenge are to be believed, namely:
1) Only a believer can pray
2) Love thy enemy
then you have already lost. Notice again, that they don't have to pass the validity test. They just have to be offered since Hitchens' point is what religious people believe, not what is true. If someone believes that prayer is an ethical act and only believers pray, then you have been proved wrong, even if Hitchens hasn't.

The reason I've written all this is not to try to prove you wrong. I'd just like you to drop the accusations of pack behaviour and slavish hero-worshipping. Please.

Other Comments by keith

181. Comment #80553 by euthyphro on October 22, 2007 at 6:34 am

Dear All,

I am new to this discussion, and have read only the first and last of the four pages, since i am rather pressed for time. However, I am very surprised indeed to find that Riley's comments are still unaddressed from a strictly religious point of view. It is absolutely the case that all of the major Abrahamic religions consider that it is IMPOSSIBLE for non-believers to be as morally justified as it is for believers. The concept in question is that of "righteousness" and it is repeated again and again throughout the bible. Here's a useful example:

Romans 10:3-13 (21st Century King James Version)

3For they, being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.


4For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believeth.


5For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law: that "the man who doeth those things shall live by them."


6But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh in this manner: "Say not in thine heart, `Who shall ascend into Heaven?'" (that is, to bring Christ down from above)


7or, "`Who shall descend into the deep?'" (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead).


8But what saith it? "The Word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth and in thy heart," that is, the word of faith which we preach:


9that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.


10For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.


11For the Scripture saith, "Whosoever believeth in Him shall not be ashamed."


12For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich unto all who call upon Him.


13For "whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."

END QUOTE.

The point is that ULTIMATE GOOD, or Righteousness, which is SYNONYMOUS with moral action throughout the Bible, is only and uniquely available through a relationship with God, which in the case of the Christians MUST be mediated through the saviour, Christ.

Therefore it is extraordinarily easy to give an example of a moral action, as accounted so by a religion, which can ONLY be performed by a believer, since righteousness, by definition, requires a relationship with a being whose very existence is denied by athiests and non-believers.

QED. Can we move on, now, please?

Other Comments by euthyphro

182. Comment #80561 by euthyphro on October 22, 2007 at 6:58 am

Dear All,

For further reference consider the following from:
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=514

Which discusses the concept of righteousness in the Old Testament, specifically in context of Psalm 1:

The Way of the Righteous
(1:1-3)

1 Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked or stand in the way of sinners or sit in the seat of mockers. 2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law he meditates day and night. 3 He is like a tree planted by streams of water, which yields its fruit in season and whose leaf does not wither. Whatever he does prospers. (NIV)

The way of the righteous is depicted in verses 1-3, in terms of what it prohibits (v. 1), what it promotes (v. 2), and what it promises (v. 3). From the perspective of the righteous man these three verses describe his peril (v. 1), his priorities (v. 2), and his prosperity (v. 3). Let us consider each of these elements more carefully.

The Perils to Shun (v. 1)
The psalm begins by describing the way of the righteous in terms of three things which the godly will avoid. As I currently understand them, they build to a climax, showing a kind of backward progression, as the words walk, stand, and sit suggest.61

First, we are told that the man who is blessed of God does not "walk in the counsel of the wicked" (NIV). Counsel may not be the most desirable rendering here, for it generally brings to mind what would be more in the line of "advice." "Counsel" (Hebrew, `etsah) can mean specific advice (1 Kings 12:8, 13), or, more broadly, a plan (Ex. 18:19), but here it seems to refer to the principles which determine one's actions.62 If this is the case, the godly will not only reject the advice of the wicked, but they will also avoid the philosophical and moral principles which lead to such conclusions. In other words, the godly will not adopt a humanistic world view which is the source of ungodly actions.

Let me attempt to illustrate this. Humanism has manifested itself in a philosophy known as "situation ethics," which was popularized by Joseph Fletcher. This point of view has become an intellectual and moral foundation for a great variety of moral evils. To mention but one, situation ethics holds that it is possible, in certain situations, for a man or woman to commit adultery and be right in so doing. The humanistic philosophy of situation ethics condones and sometimes even "sanctifies" sin.

Second, the righteous do not "stand in the way of sinners" (NIV). If the "counsel" of the wicked is a humanistic view of life, the "way of sinners" is a worldly lifestyle. In the first instance our attention is drawn to the principles by which wicked men live; in the second, we take note of the practices which stem from worldly principles. If we should not think the way the wicked do, neither should we act as they do. The term "way" occurs frequently in both Psalms and Proverbs, and often it is a reference to a man's characteristic lifestyle, his habitual, predictable, pattern of behaving. The term "walk" has a similar connotation. So the righteous is not to walk in the way of the wicked. Our lifestyle must not imitate that of the wicked.

Third, the righteous do not "sit in the seat of mockers" (NIV). I understand the "seat of scoffers" (NASB) to be a reference to a forbidden fellowship with those who have rejected God.63 The word "seat" is one which can refer to an assembly.64 I personally believe that the "assembly" which is forbidden the righteous in verse 1 is the counterpart of the "assembly" of the righteous in verse 5, from which the wicked are excluded. The righteous refuse to fellowship with fools who are hardened in their unbelief and who can only be known as "mockers."

END QUOTE

You will see that the "wicked" are not only those who are immoral by the standards of men, but are ANYONE who does not adhere to the concept of the existence of God, and the God of Abraham in particular. That means pretty much all the contributors here, however "good" they may otherwise be by ANY other moral code or principle. So I think that Riley is simply and very clearly wrong.

Other Comments by euthyphro

183. Comment #80568 by Veronique on October 22, 2007 at 7:32 am

This is impossible.

Thanks Frankus post 58. You have just tipped me over the edge. When my Catholic friend smiles at me and says 'God moves in mysterious ways' she is actually saying that it doesn't matter that I am an atheist, because god has imbued in all of us, believer or not, the recognition of right and wrong; the ability to discern.

And, of course, that ability doesn't come from the bible. The bible is merely the explanation of this. Morality is god-given and immutable.

What a frustrating mind-set to have to deal with!! You can't win at all.

Thank you Frankus – it is an impossible task to talk reason with believers. I guess I won't stop trying, but the gigantic leap needed to discard the 'god has given it to you when he breathed life into you' is an impossible front on which to argue.

Your post provided me with a small, but important, Mazda moment. And a slightly better understanding of the religite mind-set:-). I am glad I went back and read your post again.

Goodnight all
V

Other Comments by Veronique

184. Comment #80574 by euthyphro on October 22, 2007 at 7:47 am

[When my Catholic friend smiles at me and says 'God moves in mysterious ways' she is actually saying that it doesn't matter that I am an atheist, because god has imbued in all of us, believer or not, the recognition of right and wrong; the ability to discern.]

-Um, actually Veronique, the whole idea of Original Sin is that it was for the SIN of stealing and eating of the fruit of knowledge OF GOOD AND EVIL that Mankind was condemned both to death, and to eternal punishment in the flames of hell. This is why we need redemption, at all, according to the believers. So it was not "god imbued", but "god forbidden" and for acting against that we became "god forsaken".

I agree with your other comments, though.

Other Comments by euthyphro

185. Comment #80587 by denoir on October 22, 2007 at 8:57 am

steve99:

I really don't know how often I need to say this, but I am not talking specifically about brains.

I know you are trying to avoid the issue, but I'm saying now for the third time that you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you claim that quantum effects affect molecular machinery then it has automatically implications for the brain. You can't declare that quantum effects inevitable trickle up and then claim not to have any opinion on the effects on the brain.

Sure there is. Have you ever studied the force vs. distance potential curve of an ionic interaction? It is not binary.

The bond is quite binary - it's the essence of quantum mechanics - electrons at fixed energy levels. A level or a band is either occupied or not with no in-between. The force on a charged particle in an electric field is relevant (and incidentally order of magnitudes larger than any quantum uncertainety) before the ionic bond is in place. It's what attracts the atoms to snap together in the first place. However before the electron is in its place there is no bond. Na+ and Cl- are free floating ions before the electron of Cl- jumps to the energy level (atomic orbital) available in Na+. The electrical forces between them do not change the end product NaCl in any way. It's a discrete qualitative jump and no amount of noise can change it. An electron can't partially occupy an atomic orbital.


windweaver:

Forgive me if I've misunderstood you but this seems to be a contradiction. Are you saying that the brain is subject to quantum effects or not? I note that the scientific consesus is that the brain is not subject to such effects

Sorry, I should have been clearer. When I spoke of the neuron firings being 'quantized' I did not mean quantum mechanical but simply that they can fire in discrete levels. They're not continuous all the way - for instance if the action potential is below a certain threshold they won't fire at all.

As for the question if there are quantum effects influencing in a relevant way the way the brain works, my answer is no. It would go against most of our knowledge of both brain function, chemistry and physics.

Other Comments by denoir

186. Comment #80588 by coretemprising on October 22, 2007 at 9:01 am

Veronique, I want a Mazda moment! Umm, what is it, anyway? :p

Other Comments by coretemprising

187. Comment #80590 by steveroot on October 22, 2007 at 9:23 am

181. Comment #80553 by euthyphro on October 22, 2007 at 6:34 am

Therefore it is extraordinarily easy to give an example of a moral action, as accounted so by a religion, which can ONLY be performed by a believer, since righteousness, by definition, requires a relationship with a being whose very existence is denied by athiests and non-believers.

QED. Can we move on, now, please?

By "Q.E.D." (quod erat demonstrandum, "that which was to be proven", more-or-less) you claim a well-demonstrated, logical thought process leading from a premise to the conclusion. This requires more than bible quotes.

Oh, I get it... you were just joking! Silly me.
Steve

Other Comments by steveroot

188. Comment #80610 by Riley on October 22, 2007 at 10:20 am

keith: "You have written that you have been the victim of a pack mentality and that some people (possibly the same pack) worship Hitchens as a hero and follow him whether he's right or wrong. However, if it turns out that you were wrong all along about the challenge, this means that the people might not have been attacking you because they were part of a pack or because they were slavishly following Hitchens, but because you were simply wrong. [...] The reason I've written all this is not to try to prove you wrong. I'd just like you to drop the accusations of pack behaviour and slavish hero-worshipping. Please."

Keith,

The reason that I say there was a pack mentality going on is that the comments being made on this thread were not targeted to the merit or lack of merit of my arguments themselves, rather "the pack" seemed to be targeting what they thought were my motives for making the arguments.

People had assumed, it appears, that if I am critical of the Hitchens Challenge and Hitchens personally, that I must therefore be a Christian and a troll. You are not doing it any more - you (you especially) and others for the most part are making a good faith effort to address my arguments and not my perceived motives. BTW, if you can demonstrate that my arguments have no merit, then i think it would be fair to speculate about my motives for making them - but you should address the arguments first, realize that my motives are irrelevant to the validity of the arguments I make, and then tread carefully when speculating about motive.

keith: "You were wrong in claiming that Hitchens' challenge is only valid if one of the people he has challenged has ever claimed that only a believer could perform certain ethical deeds."

I make a point to bring up the actual people Hitchens poses his challenge to directly "on stage" because "on stage" in front of the audience Hitchens seems to be trying to embarrass them. Individuals deserve to be judged on the individual merits of their arguments. In a debate, if you are confronting someone with a challenge, that challenge should be relevant to an argument being debated between you and that other person. You're absolutely right. It would also be valid for Hitchens to use the general lack of a valid response to the challenge to support one of his own arguments, but I explicitly acknowledge that the challenge has potentially broader applicability in Comment #80290. Please re-read the bottom section. But Hitchens neither uses his challenge to refute a theists claim, nor does he use it to support a claim of his own that is relevant to a contentious argument on the topic of morality. As I pointed out earlier: morality depends on the choices you make not the choices made available to you.

Veronique and euthyphro make other good points, if I'm right in the way I read them. Argument over who is more moral is itself a fools game. Professor Dawkins recognizes this and wisely chooses not to enter into debates over who is the more moral. How do you quantify morality? Sam Harris takes an even better tact I think by choosing to focus on the question (roughly): "Could you improve on the moral teachings of the Bible?" That's a brilliant tactic. It exposes the "Q.E.D." circular reasoning that steveroot has commented on, and drives home a great point to the moderate believers who could be potentially persuaded by the argument that the bible is a poor source to look for moral guidance.

keith: "I know you have poured scorn on anyone who has suggested that the religious might actually believe that they are more moral than us atheists"

Never. I absolutely agree that Christians consider themselves to be, in general, more moral than non-believers. Many Christians think that belief fills them with the grace of God. I have no doubt, as euthyphro has claimed, that other Christians think belief provides "moral justification". Most if not all believe that love and devotion to Jesus makes them holy - i.e. favored by God. I don't want to commit the error of sounding like I'm speaking for all Christians again, but I would also say that a consensus of them believe that if you successfully follow Jesus and his teachings that you will be more moral than if you do not. None of these Christian claims is refuted by the Hithcens Challenge. The Hithcens Challenge doesn't even begin to lay any groundwork toward addressing these claims concerning moral superiority.

The conclusion that: "believers and non-believers have the same ethical choices available to them" is a non-seqitur to the challenge that "believers are more moral than non-believers".

By taking it up, they accept that the challenge is reasonable and therefore not a straw man.

Those individuals who are silly enough to play along with the challenge lend the challenge credibility in much the same way that a man silly enough to answer the question: "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" lends apparent credibility to the notion that he actually beats his wife. read my post to Vendetta for an explanation of this. By responding to the challenge the challengee creates the appearance that they are conceding the implicit assertion. This is why it's important to find quotes of those individuals actually making arguments that in fact do rely on the outcome of the challenge.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
To sum up: the "straw-man challenge" is a classic political ploy that guys like Jerry Falwell and others have played for decades if not centuries. The Hitchens Challenge follows the rules of the "straw-man challenge" ploy to a tee (see above explanation of the classic "straw-man challenge" ploy). If walks like a duck. If quacks and flies and shares all the other features of a duck. Call it a duck.


Other Comments by Riley

189. Comment #80628 by phil rimmer on October 22, 2007 at 11:22 am

158. Comment #80324 by Riley on October 21

phil rimmer: Hitchens would deride a sensible answer??
riley: Yes. Waffle, waffle. No (sic)
phil rimmer: But you already provided a good response with your fantasy Sharpton.
riley: And fantasy Hitchens would go, "Nyaaa,na na nyaa na."

Riley, if he did you have my permission to throw rotten eggs at him, and I would gladly hand them to you.

But, none of your fantasy has happened. Somehow I think you underestimate the intelligence of Hitchens AND his opponents.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

190. Comment #80630 by Dr Benway on October 22, 2007 at 11:56 am

Natural languages are fraught with ambiguities. So we rely on context and experience to sort out what people mean. Words like "capable," "can," "do," and "would" can be used to convey nearly the same thing, or quite different things.

Riley, you seem to hear the challenge as a statement of physical and mental capacity. I hear it more like a statement of character.

If your interpretation is correct, it renders both parts of the challenge moot. Hypothetical people, whether believers or not, posesses the physical and intellectual capacity for all sorts of deeds, both noble and depraved.

Imagine you're a casting director for a movie. You're looking for an actor to play the part of a kind, generous, honest hero, who goes out of his way to help a number of poor orphans. You develop an image in your mind's eye - body type, mannerisms, tone of voice, age, family background, religion, and so on. You see him as devout but not showy about it.

One of your assistants says, "Well, couldn't an atheist work in that part?"

You think, Hmm. Is there anything this character might do that an atheist wouldn't do? Well, an atheist can be moved by compassion. An atheist can express awe and wonder. An atheist can enjoy giving for it's own sake. So maybe an atheist might fit the bill...

Then you remember the scene where the hero must punish a boy for blaspheme. "No," you say to your assistant, "he's got to be a believer."

Other Comments by Dr Benway

191. Comment #80632 by steve99 on October 22, 2007 at 11:59 am

I know you are trying to avoid the issue, but I'm saying now for the third time that you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you claim that quantum effects affect molecular machinery then it has automatically implications for the brain. You can't declare that quantum effects inevitable trickle up and then claim not to have any opinion on the effects on the brain.

I am not saying quantum effects inevitably trickle up. I am saying that quantum effects can trickle up in non-linear systems. Personally, I don't know if the brain is a non-linear system.

The bond is quite binary - it's the essence of quantum mechanics - electrons at fixed energy levels. A level or a band is either occupied or not with no in-between. The force on a charged particle in an electric field is relevant (and incidentally order of magnitudes larger than any quantum uncertainety) before the ionic bond is in place. It's what attracts the atoms to snap together in the first place. However before the electron is in its place there is no bond. Na+ and Cl- are free floating ions before the electron of Cl- jumps to the energy level (atomic orbital) available in Na+. The electrical forces between them do not change the end product NaCl in any way. It's a discrete qualitative jump and no amount of noise can change it. An electron can't partially occupy an atomic orbital.

Bonding is, of course, more complex than you describe here.

This is all very interesting, but irrelevant. We know full well that quantum effects can influence macroscopic systems. I gave the (extreme) example of a cosmic ray and cancer. A single quantum event can change someone's life.

Other Comments by steve99

192. Comment #80639 by denoir on October 22, 2007 at 1:08 pm

I am not saying quantum effects inevitably trickle up. I am saying that quantum effects can trickle up in non-linear systems. Personally, I don't know if the brain is a non-linear system.

You mean that you don't know if it chaotic or not. It is non-linear without a shadow of a doubt. Non-linear means simply not linear i.e can't be described by a linear equation (y=ax+b) or a sum of linear equations. Most things in the world are non-linear but not chaotic.

Chaotic is also a problematic expression as it implies a certain mathematical structure. Sensitivity to initial conditions is a necessary but not sufficient condition.

What can be said is that neural network wetware is complex and exhibits emergent properties. In short the interaction of a huge number of non-linear processing elements create effects that are difficult to derive or predict from studying an individual unit.

It's not really dependent on the quantum level or the atomic level as the system operates on a signal transmission basis with more general properties than the actual hardware it is implemented on. We know this because we can simulate it remarkably good today using computer models that pay little attention to the chemistry and none to the physics.

Some of the results are quite astonishing. Did you know for instance that we can reproduce the activation patterns in higher brain regions that occurs when a macaque monkey is shown a specific image? Yes, a computer model that takes a binary digital image as input can reproduce the patterns all the way from the retinal nerve cells via the visual cortex all the way to neocortex and thus actually simulate relevant parts of macaque monkey vision and visual cognition. We don't yet know what the signals mean, but we can reproduce them in software.

Current research strongly indicates that you can simulate brain function quite well without going into the physics. The evidence for it is strong so an agnostic position isn't really warranted with the data we have today.

Other Comments by denoir

193. Comment #80640 by phil rimmer on October 22, 2007 at 1:15 pm

Steve99, Denoir,

Whilst it seems somewhat marginal to suggest that Quantum randomness may actually intrude into brain processes, another random process exists that seemingly might.

Thermal noise.

Here's an abstract fro the June 1987 Quarterly Review of Biology.

"Thermal Noise and Biological Information"
Horton A. Johnson

"Thermal noise limits the efficiency of all information-handling systems. This principle, which is a routine consideration in electronics, is just as fundamental to the handling of highly specific information by living organisms. The rapid basal turnover rates of cells and intracellular proteins and the high energy consumption of regulatory organs, previously unaccounted for, can be explained to a large extent by the need to compensate for the steady loss of essential information due to thermal noise."

It would seem possible that other sorts of cell might also be affected.

Rather nice that Horton A, should write about Johnson noise...

Other Comments by phil rimmer

194. Comment #80641 by BMMcArdle on October 22, 2007 at 1:17 pm

Riley, reading your posts is like watching a child play army with toy soldiers of his own making, except in this case they are all straw men.

Other Comments by BMMcArdle

195. Comment #80643 by steve99 on October 22, 2007 at 1:28 pm

You mean that you don't know if it chaotic or not.

Not necessarily. Non-linear systems are inherently unpredictable, which was what I was talking about generally. Chaos is just a specific case of it.

Current research strongly indicates that you can simulate brain function quite well without going into the physics. The evidence for it is strong so an agnostic position isn't really warranted with the data we have today.

Again, this is way off what (I assumed) we were talking about. Scooternc was implying that the universe was deterministic in the context of a discussion of free will. I was simply trying to illustrate that the universe is far from deterministic, especially when one considers that quantum effects can without doubt propogate to the macroscopic level in some conditions - sensitivity to initial conditions can get down to the level of the uncertainty principle. All I was trying to say was that the universe is not deterministic.

Other Comments by steve99

196. Comment #80649 by Riley on October 22, 2007 at 1:47 pm

phil rimmer wrote:
phil rimmer: But you already provided a good response with your fantasy Sharpton.
riley: And fantasy Hitchens would go, "Nyaaa,na na nyaa na."
[note: just to be clear, that was rimmer's characterization, riley never actually wrote that]

Phil,
Fantasy Sharpton responded: "there is none", a response to which Hitchens in reality does in fact make a big deal about. He makes a very big deal of it. He does so by bringing it up seemingly at every opportunity afforded him: in print, on radio, on TV, and in his talk at AAI 07.

Wouldn't you think he should be making a much bigger deal about the implications of that lack of response rather than the lack of a response itself?

In stark contrast to the number of times he brings up those-he-has-challenged-and-who-can't-respond, it happens very seldom if ever that he uses the opportunity at one of his book tour appearances to make his case that: "there is no act that a believer can perform that a non-believers could not also perform, and therefore believers are not any more ethical than non-believers". As so many on this thread have noted, Hitchens certainly implies this conclusion within the context of when and how he brings the challenge up.

My guess, the reason he doesn't get around to explicitly making the argument he implies (and so many here have inferred he's making) with the challenge is that he's smart enough to recognize his argument is fatally flawed: morality depends on the choices you make not the choices made available to you. The result of stating his argument clearly would allow the flaw in his argument to be easily recognized and then Hitchens would no longer have this cheap device to stir-up controversy on his book tour.

I could be wrong about his motives, but I have too high an opinion of Hitchens' intelligence not to assume that he knows how to use such a device as this one effectively - and this is certainly the effect. And theists, for their part, have more often than not demonstrated enough intelligence to ignore the challenge entirely. Ignoring the challenge of course wont liberate them from having to endure Hitchens making a big deal of that fact (that's part of the corrupt beauty of the device), but ignoring the rabid challenger is the best they or anyone else can do when faced with the political tactic that Hitchens is employing. Hitchens has learned from the best: Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Carl Rove, etc.


.

Other Comments by Riley

197. Comment #80654 by Bonzai on October 22, 2007 at 1:59 pm

Not necessarily. Non-linear systems are inherently unpredictable, which was what I was talking about generally. Chaos is just a specific case of it.

If I may just butt in. I think you mean to say that non-linear systems typically exhibit chaotic behaviour for a wide range of values of the relevant parameters that control the systems.

Another thing which may or may not be relevant to your debate here is that, quantum unpredictability and unpredictability due to chaos are conceptually different phenomena. Quantum mechanics is genuinely non deterministic,--at least according to our current understanding,-- and this has nothing to do with non linearity. QM is a linear theory up to the collapse of the wave function. The collapse is not "non linear" because there is no theory describing it, linear or non linear. According to current theory the collapse is a genuinely random event.

Chaos, however, has to do with intractability. Chaotic systems are in principle completely deterministic. Quantum chaos refers to something that occurs in some kind of semi-classical approximation. Technically speaking it is a misnomer because QM doesn't exhibit chaos,--at least it is not well established that it does.

I don't know if QM is relevant in describing the brain, but there is a possibility that the brain may actually have features of a quantum computer. In that case computer simulation of brain functions will break down at some point. I think the jury is still out. AI people know a lot less about the brain than their hot air and extravagant statements indicate. Their program actually has very little to show for in terms of understanding higher cognitive functions, let alone modeling them. There is a tendency for AI to get a free pass on this site.

Other Comments by Bonzai

198. Comment #80656 by steve99 on October 22, 2007 at 2:05 pm

If I may just butt in. I think you mean to say that non-linear systems typically exhibit chaotic behaviour for a wide range of values of the relevant parameters that control the systems.

Yes, and the rest of your post makes things very clear.

Other Comments by steve99

199. Comment #80664 by Veronique on October 22, 2007 at 2:46 pm