Print
Gods and earthlings
by Richard Dawkins
Reposted from:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-dawkins18apr18,0,2798612.story
If we were visited by aliens from a distant planet, would we fall on our knees and worship them as gods? The difficulty of getting here from even our nearest neighbor, the red dwarf star Proxima Centauri, constitutes a filter through which only beings with a technology so advanced as to be god-like (from our point of view) could pass. The capabilities and powers of our interstellar visitors would seem more magical to us than all the miracles of all the gods that have ever been imagined by priests or theologians, mullahs or rabbis, shamans or witch doctors.
Arthur C. Clarke, who died last month, said, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." If we could land a jumbo jet beside a medieval village, would we not be worshiped as gods? The technology of interstellar travel, and the scientific knowledge on which it would be based, are as far beyond us as our present-day knowledge surpasses that of Dark Age peasants. Parting the Red Sea -- or splitting the moon in two as Muhammad is alleged to have done -- would be child's play to those who command forces powerful enough to propel them from star to star.
But now the question arises: In what sense would the god-like aliens not be gods? Answer: In a very important sense. To deserve the name of God, a being would have to have designed more than just a jumbo jet or even a starship. He would have to have designed the universe. And therein lies a fundamental contradiction. Entities capable of designing anything, whether they be human engineers or interstellar aliens, must be complex -- and therefore, statistically improbable. And statistically improbable things don't just happen spontaneously by chance without an explanation trail. That is what "improbable" means, as creationists never tire of assuring us (they wrongly think Darwinian natural selection is a matter of chance).
In fact, natural selection is the very opposite of a chance process, and it is the only ultimate explanation we know for complex, improbable things. Even if our species was created by space alien designers, those designers themselves would have to have arisen from simpler antecedents -- so they can't be an ultimate explanation for anything. No matter how god-like our interstellar aliens may be, and no matter how vast and wonderful their starships, they cannot have designed the universe because, like human engineers and all complex things, they are late arrivals in it.
Intelligent design "theorists" (a misnomer, for they have no theory) often use the alien scenario to distance themselves from old-style creationists: "For all we know, the designer might be an alien from outer space." This attempt to fend off accusations of unconstitutionally importing religion into science classes is lame and disingenuous. All the leading intelligent design spokesmen are devout, and, when talking to the faithful, they drop the science-fiction fig leaf and expose themselves as the fundamentalist creationists they truly are.
Nevertheless, despite their notorious dishonesty, I sometimes hand an olive branch to these people by pretending to take their "space aliens" political ploy seriously. Unrealistic as the space alien theory is, it constitutes intelligent design's best shot.
The distinguished molecular biologists Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel advanced a version of the notion, probably tongue in cheek, called "Directed Panspermia." Life, they argued, could have been "seeded" on the early Earth by a spacecraft packed with bacteria. Maybe little cellular machines like the bacterial flagellar motor were designed by ingenious nano-technologists from Betelgeuse. But you still have to explain the prior existence of the Betelgeusians and how they became so advanced and god-like. Even if Betelgeusian life was, in turn, seeded by another rocket from Aldebaran 4 billion years earlier, eventually we have to terminate the regress.
We need a better explanation, such as evolution by natural selection or an equally workable account of the painstaking R&D that must underlie complex, statistically improbable things. Gods, if they are complex enough to be capable of designing anything, are, by virtue of their very complexity, not in a position to design themselves.
Theologians attempt two (mutually incompatible and pathetically inadequate) answers to this unanswerable point. Some say their God is not complex but simple. This obviously won't wash. No simple god could design bacterial flagellar motors or universes, let alone forgive sins or impregnate virgins. Presumably recognizing the justice of that, other theologians go to the opposite extreme. They admit that their god is complex but assert that he had no beginning: He was always there and always complex. But if you are going to resort to that facile cop-out, you might as well say flagellar motors were always there. You cannot have it both ways. Visitations from distant star systems are improbable enough to attract ridicule, not least from the advocates of intelligent design themselves. A creator god who had always existed would be far more improbable still.
This technique of arguing against a theory by setting up its most plausible version and dismissing it is commonly used in science and philosophy. The late, great evolutionist John Maynard Smith used it in his 1964 attack on the then-popular theory of "group selection." He set himself the task of devising the best possible argument for group selection. The details don't matter; he called it the Haystack Model. He then proceeded to show that the assumptions that the Haystack Model needed to make were highly unrealistic.
Everybody understood that this was an argument against group selection. Nobody twisted it to trumpet to the world, "See? Maynard Smith believes in Group Selection after all, and he thinks it happens in Haystacks, ho ho ho!" Creationists, by contrast, never miss a trick. When I have raised the science-fiction olive branch to try to argue against them, they have twisted it -- most recently in a movie scheduled to open this week -- in order to proclaim loudly, "Dawkins believes in intelligent design after all." Or "Dawkins believes in little green men in flying saucers." Or "Dawkins is a Raelian." It's called "lying for Jesus," and they are completely shameless.
Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist, is a professor at Oxford University. His most recent book is "The God Delusion."
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-dawkins18apr18,0,2798612.story
If we were visited by aliens from a distant planet, would we fall on our knees and worship them as gods? The difficulty of getting here from even our nearest neighbor, the red dwarf star Proxima Centauri, constitutes a filter through which only beings with a technology so advanced as to be god-like (from our point of view) could pass. The capabilities and powers of our interstellar visitors would seem more magical to us than all the miracles of all the gods that have ever been imagined by priests or theologians, mullahs or rabbis, shamans or witch doctors.
Arthur C. Clarke, who died last month, said, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." If we could land a jumbo jet beside a medieval village, would we not be worshiped as gods? The technology of interstellar travel, and the scientific knowledge on which it would be based, are as far beyond us as our present-day knowledge surpasses that of Dark Age peasants. Parting the Red Sea -- or splitting the moon in two as Muhammad is alleged to have done -- would be child's play to those who command forces powerful enough to propel them from star to star.
But now the question arises: In what sense would the god-like aliens not be gods? Answer: In a very important sense. To deserve the name of God, a being would have to have designed more than just a jumbo jet or even a starship. He would have to have designed the universe. And therein lies a fundamental contradiction. Entities capable of designing anything, whether they be human engineers or interstellar aliens, must be complex -- and therefore, statistically improbable. And statistically improbable things don't just happen spontaneously by chance without an explanation trail. That is what "improbable" means, as creationists never tire of assuring us (they wrongly think Darwinian natural selection is a matter of chance).
In fact, natural selection is the very opposite of a chance process, and it is the only ultimate explanation we know for complex, improbable things. Even if our species was created by space alien designers, those designers themselves would have to have arisen from simpler antecedents -- so they can't be an ultimate explanation for anything. No matter how god-like our interstellar aliens may be, and no matter how vast and wonderful their starships, they cannot have designed the universe because, like human engineers and all complex things, they are late arrivals in it.
Intelligent design "theorists" (a misnomer, for they have no theory) often use the alien scenario to distance themselves from old-style creationists: "For all we know, the designer might be an alien from outer space." This attempt to fend off accusations of unconstitutionally importing religion into science classes is lame and disingenuous. All the leading intelligent design spokesmen are devout, and, when talking to the faithful, they drop the science-fiction fig leaf and expose themselves as the fundamentalist creationists they truly are.
Nevertheless, despite their notorious dishonesty, I sometimes hand an olive branch to these people by pretending to take their "space aliens" political ploy seriously. Unrealistic as the space alien theory is, it constitutes intelligent design's best shot.
The distinguished molecular biologists Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel advanced a version of the notion, probably tongue in cheek, called "Directed Panspermia." Life, they argued, could have been "seeded" on the early Earth by a spacecraft packed with bacteria. Maybe little cellular machines like the bacterial flagellar motor were designed by ingenious nano-technologists from Betelgeuse. But you still have to explain the prior existence of the Betelgeusians and how they became so advanced and god-like. Even if Betelgeusian life was, in turn, seeded by another rocket from Aldebaran 4 billion years earlier, eventually we have to terminate the regress.
We need a better explanation, such as evolution by natural selection or an equally workable account of the painstaking R&D that must underlie complex, statistically improbable things. Gods, if they are complex enough to be capable of designing anything, are, by virtue of their very complexity, not in a position to design themselves.
Theologians attempt two (mutually incompatible and pathetically inadequate) answers to this unanswerable point. Some say their God is not complex but simple. This obviously won't wash. No simple god could design bacterial flagellar motors or universes, let alone forgive sins or impregnate virgins. Presumably recognizing the justice of that, other theologians go to the opposite extreme. They admit that their god is complex but assert that he had no beginning: He was always there and always complex. But if you are going to resort to that facile cop-out, you might as well say flagellar motors were always there. You cannot have it both ways. Visitations from distant star systems are improbable enough to attract ridicule, not least from the advocates of intelligent design themselves. A creator god who had always existed would be far more improbable still.
This technique of arguing against a theory by setting up its most plausible version and dismissing it is commonly used in science and philosophy. The late, great evolutionist John Maynard Smith used it in his 1964 attack on the then-popular theory of "group selection." He set himself the task of devising the best possible argument for group selection. The details don't matter; he called it the Haystack Model. He then proceeded to show that the assumptions that the Haystack Model needed to make were highly unrealistic.
Everybody understood that this was an argument against group selection. Nobody twisted it to trumpet to the world, "See? Maynard Smith believes in Group Selection after all, and he thinks it happens in Haystacks, ho ho ho!" Creationists, by contrast, never miss a trick. When I have raised the science-fiction olive branch to try to argue against them, they have twisted it -- most recently in a movie scheduled to open this week -- in order to proclaim loudly, "Dawkins believes in intelligent design after all." Or "Dawkins believes in little green men in flying saucers." Or "Dawkins is a Raelian." It's called "lying for Jesus," and they are completely shameless.
Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist, is a professor at Oxford University. His most recent book is "The God Delusion."
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Friday, April 18, 2008 | PermalinkComments 51 - 100 of 208 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers52. Comment #163572 by designsoda on April 18, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Thanks for the info, Teratornis. Other Comments by designsoda
53. Comment #163577 by Teratornis on April 18, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Comment #163532 by jonjermey:
The methods of probability can't be applied to incoherent statements. What's the probability that Tuesday is earthbound? What's the probability that I have a red car which is green all over? What's the probability that something exists which provides no evidence of its existence and is empirically indistinguishable from something which doesn't exist? The only appropriate response to statements like this is 'Huh?'.
I like how you put that. In addition I would point out that before we can apply the methods of probability to something, we must have data, preferably a large sample of data.
For example, to determine the probability of a coin flip turning up heads of tails, first we must have a coin, and then we must flip it, preferably many times. If we only flip the coin once, or even two or three times, our sample is so coarse as to preclude any meaningful statistics. Probability theory tells us something about how many times we need to flip the coin to feel confident (to a particular degree) that the frequency of heads or tails that we observe represents the true frequency.
Trying to do probability with God is like trying to probability on an imaginary coin. That's even worse than doing probability on an actual coin that we neglect to flip.
Basically, you can only do probability on things you already know a lot about. For example, weather forecasters can predict rain, and give a probability, and compare all their predictions with the outcomes and see if the probabilities they gave were correct. Without such a test, the stated probability is meaningless.
If God is something that can only exist within one universe, then we might be able to talk about the probability of Gods appearing in the various multiverses. But to say anything coherent, we would need a way to observe a statistically significant set of multiverses and determine which ones contain a God.
I don't think probability theory is a good way to get something for nothing on the God issue. It's like trying to get a house from a can of paint. Yes, if we have a house we can paint it, but that does not mean we can conjure a house out of paint.
Other Comments by Teratornis
54. Comment #163578 by moderndaythomas on April 18, 2008 at 2:48 pm
First of all, how hard is it to impregnate a virgin? Sadly I missed the boat on that, thay were all out when I got there, I've only my keen imagination.
In anycase, I'm holding out a little longer for some weightier evidence on this IDC thing.
The articles help clear out the swill.
Other Comments by moderndaythomas
55. Comment #163591 by decius on April 18, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Richard, just wait and see. They will quote-mine you from this article as well.Here is an easy one: "Dawkins finally admits that the flagellar motor is irreducibly complex: <<..you might as well say flagellar motors were always there.>> "
Other Comments by decius
56. Comment #163597 by Aradan on April 18, 2008 at 3:31 pm
I am also disgusted with the disingenuous and misleading tack the film takes in twisting the example Richard presented to illustrate that the Intelligent Designer train of thought is actually a circle into suggesting that Richard Dawkins believes in aliens. It is pathetic, and shame on them.If ID proponents attempt a naturalistic approach arguing the Intelligent Designer(s) could have been aliens (like the Raelians believe) the Intelligent Design argument still breaks down into a circular argument that runs afoul of a pesky problem with infinite regress. Following the circle of thought in the Intelligent Design argument, any alleged alien Intelligent Designers would have likewise required their own Intelligent Designer(s). And those Intelligent Designer(s) would have also required designers, and so on and so forth.
If Intelligent Design proponents contend special pleading that 'their' Intelligent Designer did not need to be created by another Intelligent Designer they've got a significant logical challenge. If they have to resort to special pleading to allow for their Intelligent Designer not having required its own Intelligent Designer(s), they've shot the ID argument straight through the foot. If their designer did not require a designer, then why did life on earth?
Other Comments by Aradan
57. Comment #163607 by clearmind on April 18, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist, is a professor at Oxford University. His most recent book is "The God Delusion."Trying to get back on the track with a very intense, article with a name card?
"WOW. The tone of that article was incredibly intense".
The atheists will never understand where to look at it. They always look;
The artist inside the art (like Russell trying to look for Leonardo inside Monalisa)
Computer designer inside the computer,
The architect inside the building, among the bricks and claming that bricks came out by an unexplained chance.
A car designer inside the car components' design
AND GOD INSIDE THE UNIVERSE
Creator and creation cannot be the same kind, that is why God is the creator and we are created.
If we see even a simple mini solar system model, we conclude instantly that somebody made it. For a real one needs a designer too. We cannot explain it with we cannot explain because evolution says it just evolved by the SKY SIEVE THROUGH EVOLUTION AND THERE YOU GO, sun is tilted earth is located perfectly so that we can have days and night, sun light, not to be frozen or burned?
Chance, evolution, sieve, blindwatcmaker?, or GOD!
I guess this is a one million dollar question.
Clearmind is not a biologist, nor professor. He is just a person WHO CAN THINK!
Other Comments by clearmind
58. Comment #163622 by Styrer- on April 18, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Extremely well done, Richard.A nutshell for the nutcases.
You missed a trick, though, by not mentioning the name of the 'movie scheduled to open this week'.
Name it and shame it. The more viewers it has, the more impact the ensuing global denunciation of it by rationalists everywhere will have.
I trust you will be leading from the front.
Best,
Styrer
Other Comments by Styrer-
59. Comment #163626 by OverUsedChewToy on April 18, 2008 at 4:29 pm
"Clearmind is not a biologist, nor professor. He is just a person WHO CAN THINK!"Yes...Very, very badly...
Other Comments by OverUsedChewToy
60. Comment #163644 by Zaphod on April 18, 2008 at 5:19 pm
It's called "lying for Jesus," and they are completely shameless.
Well said Richard.
Other Comments by Zaphod
61. Comment #163646 by Radesq on April 18, 2008 at 5:25 pm
"If we could land a jumbo jet beside a medieval village, would we not be worshiped as gods?"Perhaps, or maybe the villagers would be whipped into a xenophobic frenzy so that within a week they would kill us and destroy the jumbo jet with axes.
Other Comments by Radesq
62. Comment #163671 by ericv00 on April 18, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Did God create the universe? Did aliens create the universe? Did the universe just...exist, always?Nobody explores the best sci-fi option there is! Maybe WE will create the universe far in the future, when we have the technology to do so. We could go back in time to the first moment in time, and start the creation of the universe. Maybe complex things DID create the universe AND came late in its creation.
Feel free to use this for a sci-fi story, as long as it is GOOD for a change. And thank me in the credits. Ask me where to mail the royalty checks. :)
Other Comments by ericv00
63. Comment #163684 by thewhitepearl on April 18, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Count- Thank You, pleased to be here..That picture was hilarious, exactly what I had in mind. The underlining beauty in this article is that it was featured in a major newspaper. Something that people buy every day no matter what the material contains...
Shimp-It's under the profile option I believe. Just upload it from your computer!
Other Comments by thewhitepearl
64. Comment #163691 by Frankus1122 on April 18, 2008 at 7:25 pm
eric,We could go back in time to the first moment in time, and start the creation of the universe. Maybe complex things DID create the universe AND came late in its creation.
Feel free to use this for a sci-fi story, as long as it is GOOD for a change. And thank me in the credits. Ask me where to mail the royalty checks. :)
I am not sure if you are familiar with a poster called Kardashovel. You may have a lawsuit on your hands unless you are willing to share the royalty cheques.
His idea is that God is a time-traveling being from the future who is using random mutation and natural selection for the purpose of creating us because He wants and needs our love.
He also talks to Kardashovel and helps him with business problems.
P.S. To Kardashovel if you ever read this:
I don't want to insult you because I truly do enjoy your posts and like talking to you, (although you have indicated the feeling may not be reciprocal). But I do want you to understand that this is what your position can be boiled down to.
When I wrote it, it was with a mocking intention. I don't believe what you believe (at least how I have characterized it - but have I erred in any detail?).
I think your idea is fantastic. It truly is good fiction.
Why do you believe it is true?
How can I know the truth that you know?
Other Comments by Frankus1122
65. Comment #163692 by Styrer- on April 18, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Comment #163691 by Frankus1122 on April 18, 2008 at 7:25 pm
But I do want you to understand that this is what your position can be boiled down to. When I wrote it, it was with a mocking intention.
I would be quite interested in seeing how this boiled-down position looks when written without a mocking tone.
Best,
Styrer
Other Comments by Styrer-
66. Comment #163705 by Frankus1122 on April 18, 2008 at 8:20 pm
I would be quite interested in seeing how this boiled-down position looks when written without a mocking tone.
Yes. It would look the same.
Hitchens said sometimes you just need to underline a statement.
I was just trying to point this out to Kardashovel.
I really want to know by what path could I come to believe the same thing, because right now I cannot understand it at all.
Other Comments by Frankus1122
67. Comment #163709 by Styrer- on April 18, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Comment #163705 by Frankus1122 on April 18, 2008 at 8:20 pm
I really want to know by what path could I come to believe the same thing, because right now I cannot understand it at all.
Unless you're just about to do a Richard Morgan on us, I feel safe to say there is no such path.
For either of us!
Crack on.
Best,
Styrer
Other Comments by Styrer-
68. Comment #163711 by Greyman on April 18, 2008 at 8:43 pm
22. Comment #163460 by al-rawandi on April 18, 2008 at 11:31 am
mintcheerious,Wasn't that Doctor William Dembski's definition, as used as defense for ID in the Scopes Trial, 1926?Richard Dawkins is a Raelian.The Discovery Inst. really is a useless piece of trash. Flailing about in all directions, desperate to get hold of some item that could be the ad hominem to defeat Evolution. So they call Dawkins a Raelian, simply because he said it is "possible that advanced aliens could have seeded life".
So many people these days are confusing biblical creationism with intelligent design. "Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence" (Dr. William Dembski). That's it; it says nothing of who the creator is and how he/she/it/they did it. Intelligent Design encompasses every "creation" story, even aliens seeding life on this planet.
That's been the Discovery Institute's (public) stance for years. When did they change?
So, okay, ID has now stopped pretending that it's not Creationism, but it is rather disingenuous to ridicule Doctor Dawkins for restating their own old argument.
Other Comments by Greyman
69. Comment #163738 by Patrick McArdle on April 19, 2008 at 12:11 am
"What's the probability that something exists which provides no evidence of its existence and is empirically indistinguishable from something which doesn't exist?"And we have a winner for this thread! Well done, sir.
(However, I have it on very good information that Tuesday does not exist on Mars, due to mutual hostility between the two eponymous deities.)
Other Comments by Patrick McArdle
70. Comment #163741 by lievemebe on April 19, 2008 at 12:23 am
Comment #163671 by ericv00Nobody explores the best sci-fi option there is! Maybe WE will create the universe far in the future, when we have the technology to do so. We could go back in time to the first moment in time, and start the creation of the universe. Maybe complex things DID create the universe AND came late in its creation.
I like this crazy idea of being in a position of knowing how to manipulate the start of universes. Stem cell research is mundane by comparison, particularly in relation to ethical conundrums. We could leap ahead now and ask the really big ethical questions, essentially: To big bang or not to big bang. At least it would distract religious people from rigid notions of the sanctity of life.
Other Comments by lievemebe
71. Comment #163755 by Barry Pearson on April 19, 2008 at 1:41 am
jimbob: I'm a bit rusty on my holy books, so I'm not sure if the 10 commandments apply to jews and muslims?
Jews, Christians, and Muslims all have "10 commandments". But they are not exactly the same 10 commandments. Indeed Catholics and Protestants have slightly different commandments. All interpret them different ways, of course.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments
Other Comments by Barry Pearson
72. Comment #163759 by Steve Zara on April 19, 2008 at 2:03 am
When arguing an antecedent to the universe that created everything, are the intelligent designers not ignoring that astrophysicists agree that at the singularity that preceded the Big Bang, all physical laws break down and no longer apply?
Singularities don't exist. They are problems with models of the universe, not actual physical objects.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
73. Comment #163761 by Steve Zara on April 19, 2008 at 2:13 am
I am going to disagree with one statement that Richard made:The difficulty of getting here from even our nearest neighbor, the red dwarf star Proxima Centauri, constitutes a filter through which only beings with a technology so advanced as to be god-like (from our point of view) could pass.
I think this is exaggerating the difficulties of interstellar travel. A least a couple of methods have been suggested that are quite feasible in the near future. One is nuclear pulse propulsion, and the other is solar sail propulsion combined with the use of big lasers, so I doubt they really would appear to be god-like.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
74. Comment #163777 by Vaal on April 19, 2008 at 2:47 am
I agree Steve, I suspect that we will, in quite a short space of time, have the technology to get spacecraft up to an appreciable fraction of the speed of light, sail technology being one of them. At 10% the speed of light, we can get to Alpha Centauri in 40 years, if 50% then we shall get there in 8 years, which when you consider Pioneer 10 is now over 30 years old, is a time scale that is entirely workable.There is quite a good site that looks into these technologies with peer reviewed research into deep space exploration.
http://www.centauri-dreams.org/
I would love to see images from Alpha Centauri in my lifetime from a robotic probe, but unfortunately it is probably unlikely.
As an aside. Ah, Richard, so that is how a 747 got into the junk yard!
Other Comments by Vaal
75. Comment #163784 by bendigeidfran on April 19, 2008 at 3:01 am
It seems clear that there isn't a god worthy of worship, his finest created brains can't beat a 'non-thinking' computer, we can out-engineer some of his nasty disease efforts using 'unproven' 'Darwinist' techniques, he has underachieved within the constraints of the laws of physics - but why should he be constrained? With magic we could all do better:- Pick your most astounding godly creation, think of a number between 1 and 10, paint it backwards on each buttock, sit on a book of Genesiss and hey presto! it could be x times faster/stronger/more complex/objectively better. You could do better with your arse.Other Comments by bendigeidfran
76. Comment #163785 by Christopher Davis on April 19, 2008 at 3:02 am
"It's so hard to imagine all those discoveries occurring before evolution that one would have to posit some completely different type of thinking entities to do the discovering."---Teratornis, comment #44 in response to Janus, comment #39
If Islamic culture and religion had succeeded in dominating the world around 1600 or so...?
Other Comments by Christopher Davis
77. Comment #163790 by Geoff on April 19, 2008 at 3:13 am
73. Comment #163761 by Steve Zara ...solar sail propulsion combined with the use of big lasers...
Moties!
Other Comments by Geoff
78. Comment #163793 by Christopher Davis on April 19, 2008 at 3:16 am
"The reason the ID lovelies go to pre-big bang "cosmology" is because it is the only place science can't prove them wrong."---Duff, comment #48
Exactly! And the most mind-boggling aspect of it all it is how they can seamlessly infer from "science can't explain how the universe started" that "there is a bearded white-man who lives in the sky and loves me". THEN they bitch about "gaps" in the fossil record.
Other Comments by Christopher Davis
79. Comment #163810 by Crystal on April 19, 2008 at 5:02 am
If Dawkins could make a habit of filming himself during interviews it could clear up some problems with bad editing.I already guessed he didn’t really think aliens did it but people of Steins level will latch onto anything.
Other Comments by Crystal
80. Comment #163813 by Partisan on April 19, 2008 at 5:20 am
"If we could land a jumbo jet beside a medieval village, would we not be worshiped as gods?"John Frum comes to mind.
Other Comments by Partisan
81. Comment #163879 by SPS on April 19, 2008 at 8:40 am
The idea of life being seeded by aliens is also in an episode of Star Trek TNG:http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/series/TNG/episode/68598.html
The examples given by 'clearmind' show assemblage with intention of the pre-existing, not creation in the sense implied.
A rock falls down a hill, deforms the earth, chips its surface, disturbs the air around it, and lands on level ground killing an ant. What do you suppose the rock's intention was? Can we understand the rock by knowing its intention?
Can we understand why it happened? I think we can. Can we understand it by believing we know its intention? I don't think so. The meaning behind it comes from us.
Existence is the prerequisite, intention is not.
Other Comments by SPS
82. Comment #163915 by dawkinsfan on April 19, 2008 at 9:23 am
This year I met a scientist and he introduced me to raelian theory of life origins and I later discovered that raelian philosophy is very scientific and advanced.This kind of open minded thinking like in this article is very raelian indeed.
I'm reading again their book that I downloaded from their site, and here is what this extraterestrials say about evolution:
"First of all you must dispel from your minds all uncertainty about evolution. Your scientists who have elaborated theories of evolution are not completely wrong in saying that humanity is descended from the monkey and the monkey from the fish and so on. In truth, the first living organism created on Earth was unicellular, which then gave rise to more complex life forms.
But this did not happen by chance! When we came to Earth to create life, we started by making very simple creations and then improved our techniques of environmental adaptation. This enabled us to make in turn fish, amphibians, mammals, birds, primates and finally man himself, who is just an improved model of the monkey to which we added what makes use essentially human.
In this way, we made human beings in our image, as it is written in the Bible in Genesis. You could have realized for yourselves that there is little chance of a series of accidents producing such variety of life forms - the colors of birds and their elaborate mating rituals, or the shape of antelope horns.
What natural need could lead antelopes or wild goats to develop curled horns? Or birds to have blue or red feathers? And what about exotic fish?
All that is the work of our artists. Do not forget the artists when you create life. Imagine a world without them - no music, films, paintings or sculptures ... Life would be very boring and animals very ugly if their bodies corresponded only to their needs and functions.
Evolution of the various forms of life on Earth is really the evolution of techniques of creation and the increased sophistication of the creators' work. ...."
all the books can be downloaded here: http://rael.org/download.php?list.2
The book is very interesting to read and says that in original Hebrew bible you can't find a word God but Elohim wich is a plural and means "those who came from the sky".
It is interesting that many other ancient cultures(aborigini, sumerians...) around the world describe beings coming from the sky and creating life here on earth.
I also found their coment on Richard Dawkins http://www.raelianews.org/news.php?extend.268
.
Other Comments by dawkinsfan
83. Comment #163923 by RichardSRussell on April 19, 2008 at 9:37 am
Occasionally I am accused by religionists of being close-minded on the subject of gods. "Admit it," they challenge, "there's NO evidence we could possibly present to you that would convince you there's a god. If Jesus himself appeared before you and changed water into wine, you'd claim it was some kind of trick, wouldn't you?"And my standard response is that, yes, given the long history of human charlatanism, that would be the explanation I'd find most appealing. As we rationalists say, the race may not be always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet.
But that still leaves me with that challenge hanging: What WOULD it take to convince me that a god exists? So, of late, I've been leaving it at "OK, create me a universe. Then we'll talk."
Other Comments by RichardSRussell
84. Comment #163964 by flying goose on April 19, 2008 at 11:27 am
Intelligent Design,let me get this, the universe appears to be designed? Therefore there must be a designer? Why? Because my house appears to have been designed, I can look for a designer, well I know there is a designer I have seen the designs on paper with the architect's signature. Back to God. I haven't seen the blue print for the universe, nor the architect's signature. Doesn't mean there isn't one, but why should apparent design imply a designer? Any way why would God be a designer? That would make a God a kind of infinite human. The presence of human designers means that there must be an an infinite designer? Its just Pooh bear or Peter Rabbit in reverse.Its projecting our selves onto the transcendent, what arrogence> Other Comments by flying goose
85. Comment #163969 by ofir on April 19, 2008 at 11:41 am
The book is very interesting to read and says that in original Hebrew bible you can't find a word God but Elohim wich is a plural and means "those who came from the sky".
This is incorrect on several grounds. First the root for the Hebrew "El" (God) comes from earlier Canannite religion and doesn't seem to mean much more than "Father" although this is not 100% clear AFAIK.
Secondly, God has many names in the Hebrew bible, most are singular such as the well known "Jehova" or "Yahweh" which is a very interesting word, but does not imply plurality.
Thirdly, the Hebrew god insists that it is ONE god repeatedly in the Jewish bible. Monotheism is preached throughout with polytheist presented as the deniers of Yahweh.
Another possibility is that Elohim is a typo for Elokim which also appears in the Jewish bible and looks very similar. H & K chars are almost identical in Hebrew. Either way, it does not automatically imply plurality. In Hebrew the words Sky and Water also take this plural form.
Finally, the use of plural form for god in various religions (Allah is singular but talks in plural form - "We" for example, or "Elohim") is explained in terms of overwhelming presence. I have heard this explained away as poetic license.
All in all, it seems that the various names for God in the bible and probably in many other religious texts are just mutation of names and words already in use and don't contain any hint to some divine or extra terrestrial intervention.
Other Comments by ofir
86. Comment #163972 by D'Arcy on April 19, 2008 at 11:43 am
What WOULD it take to convince me that a god exists?
How about next week's racing results for all races and positions, published in all of today's papers and broadcast in the media and written in the sky a week ahead. That would take some explaining, but then it ain't gonna happen, anymore than Lazarus will rise from the dead again.
Other Comments by D'Arcy
87. Comment #163996 by flying goose on April 19, 2008 at 12:13 pm
I don't think that monotheism existed in Israel before the Babylonian exile. Would Moses or David for that matter have even understood the concept of monotheism? Other Comments by flying goose
88. Comment #164092 by ofir on April 19, 2008 at 1:58 pm
I don't think that monotheism existed in Israel before the Babylonian exile. Would Moses or David for that matter have even understood the concept of monotheism?
Moses is the messenger of monotheism according to jewish myth. Also monotheism existed in some form in Egypt, most likely predating Moses - Akhenaton and his followers who believed in one Sun God - Aton.
Interestingly, one of the Jewish names for God is Adonai and similar god names in other ancient religions suggest that the idea of monotheism has its own evolution rather than a clear point in time when it was invented.
As far as one can tell from the jewish bible, the key message is that of monotheism taking the place of polytheism. Of course, much of it was written after the 'event' so it's not conclusive by any means.
EDIT: In fact some have speculated that Akhenaton=Moses and the evidence is interesting, but far from conclusive. A bit like the Jesus=Horus speculations.
Other Comments by ofir
89. Comment #164118 by bachfiend on April 19, 2008 at 2:58 pm
I am impressed by "clearmind's" persistence (comment 57) in submitting so many dissenting comments in such a short time (over a hundred, many very long, in about a month, and I thought that I didn't have a life!). Personally, I think that the incredible fact about the Earth is that it has such a relatively large satellite (the Moon) to cause tides and to stabilise the Earth's rotation. From our experience, we know that 100% of planets bearing life have such a large satellite. So if "God" created life on the Earth, he must have also arranged for some Mars size planet to collide with the proto-Earth some 4 billion years ago, so not only is he a biochemist par excellence, but also no mean billiard player.Other Comments by bachfiend
90. Comment #164131 by ivellios on April 19, 2008 at 3:36 pm
TeratornisOne wonders how differently history might read, however, if someone in ancient Greece had thought to look through two convex glass lenses, and invented the spyglass. The Industrial Revolution might then have started 1000 years or more sooner, which would mean fossil fuels would have been exhausted for centuries by now. The population explosion and subsequent die-off might have already occurred, and instead of us there might only be scattered bands of miserable foragers, gazing with wonder at the decaying remains of shattered cities.
Doesn't matter exactly when some technologies were discovered. It also takes someone who can view the benefits of them and see the possibilities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolipile
2000 yrs before the industrial revolution which was brought on by the re-invention of the steam engine.
Second point to anyone who thinks an ET would not be viewed as godlike.
When Cortez entered the "New World" he was viewed as a god. All white men were. The Aztecs had knowledge of boats but they had not seen anything like the ones Cortez arrived on.
Must be great to be welcomed as a god just for showing up at an opportune time.
Other Comments by ivellios
91. Comment #164237 by paulwwww on April 19, 2008 at 7:24 pm
All that I can say is; I love you man...:-)Other Comments by paulwwww
92. Comment #164265 by ramiejae on April 19, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Dear Mr. Dawkins,With all due respect, I would like to comment on your assertion:
"They admit that their god is complex but assert that he had no beginning: He was always there and always complex. But if you are going to resort to that facile cop-out, you might as well say flagellar motors were always there."
You cannot prove that God has not been there infinetly, anymore than someone can prove it. Therefore, we, in our limited human minds (who have not been studying, researching, and discovering for very long, especially in light of the earth's alleged billions of years) cannot truly know if there is something infinite outside of our finite and limited thinking. Just because we did not know for thousands of years how complex the cell is... does not mean that there were no cells! Cells always existed, as did atoms. Simply because we, as humans (even the most intelligent, as yourself), do not see or perceive something, does not prove it does not exist. Therefore, the option for a finite God cannot be disproven, and even you yourself must acknowledge that it may exist.
Other Comments by ramiejae
93. Comment #164271 by irate_atheist on April 19, 2008 at 11:57 pm
92. Comment #164265 by ramiejae -
You clearly know nothing about evolutionary biology, elementary particle physics, cosmology or logical reasoning. KIndly go away until you are capable of intellectual discourse.
Therefore, we, in our limited human minds...Speak for yourself.
Other Comments by irate_atheist
94. Comment #164383 by Ewan D on April 20, 2008 at 6:59 am
Speaking of Earthlings, watch this.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhxKnys7Ryw
(It's called "Earthlings," so it's squarely on topic.)
Other Comments by Ewan D
95. Comment #164385 by Steve Zara on April 20, 2008 at 7:07 am
Comment #164265 by ramiejaeTherefore, we, in our limited human minds (who have not been studying, researching, and discovering for very long, especially in light of the earth's alleged billions of years) cannot truly know if there is something infinite outside of our finite and limited thinking.
I agree, so the best approach is just to shut up until we have some way of extending our finite minds.
But we do! It is called science. We collaborate to explore reality carefully, one simple step after the other, realising that our minds are flawed and everything needs to be checked. It's going to take some time to get to studying infinity and eternity, so probably best keep quiet about wild ideas like God, because you would not want it thought to be just a whacky idea of a finite flawed mind, would you?
Other Comments by Steve Zara
96. Comment #164390 by Peacebeuponme on April 20, 2008 at 7:24 am
ramiejaeYou cannot prove that God has not been there infinetly, anymore than someone can prove it.We can look at probabilities though.
Other Comments by Peacebeuponme
97. Comment #164396 by Corylus on April 20, 2008 at 7:41 am
ramiejae
You cannot prove that God has not been there infinetly, anymore than someone can prove it.
So you are an agnostic then?
Other Comments by Corylus
98. Comment #164400 by MPhil on April 20, 2008 at 7:59 am
And once again I have to point out that on the basis of our knowledge of science and logic - we can prove that certain concepts of deities (such as the Christian god) are logically impossible and therefore cannot have a real referent - and we can prove on the basis of our knowledge of logic and science that no interventionist deity can exist. We can also prove that the concept of a non-physical, personal god is contradictory, because being a person means being a thinker and potentially an agent, and the concepts necessitate that any potential referent is within time because action and thought is always also a change in state of affairs - which only makes sense in time.
That's philosophy for you - the beginning of philosophy was the beginning of investigation the world, thinking rationally about things and constructing hypotheses rationally - before that, there was only mythology... and, well - some people are so caught up in their mythology that they attempt to justify it retroactively through reason... doesn't work. See above.
Best,
-Mike
Other Comments by MPhil
99. Comment #164402 by Steve Zara on April 20, 2008 at 8:05 am
Comment #164400 by MPhilI am not sure I agree with "prove". There is the possibility that reality is nothing more than a series of isolated snapshots, each of which arises spontaneously from some random background, and each of which simply seems to succeed another in time (this is not too difference from some pretty weird multiverse theories). In that case, anything can appear to happen at any time.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
100. Comment #164406 by moderationsmuse on April 20, 2008 at 8:12 am
The question "If we were visited by aliens from a distant planet, would we fall on our knees and worship them as gods?" can be asked historically. When Europeans first encountered less technologically advanced peoples in Africa or other places, were they greeted "as Gods"? If so, for how long? While not a historian, I'm guessing that if they were so greeted, it was indeed a short greeting before the "primitive peoples" got wise. Perhaps Mr. Dawkins is suggesting it's a matter of degree. I'm thinking it's more a difference of kind.His question presupposes, interestingly, that God is worshiped because He is superior to human beings. But God is immaterial and hence no meeting of the kind Dawkins relates could explain the presence and durability of religion in human culture. People who believe in God find the religious landscape within. For which reason, I will hazard an answer to Mr. Dawkins's question and say, "No, the aliens would not be worshiped. They would be feared (wisely so) just as one would fear a newly discovered animal of great ferocity.
My question: what is the "scientific" relevance of Mr. Dawkins's question?
Other Comments by moderationsmuse
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Audio Books
The God Delusion
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
The Ancestor's Tale
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
On the Origin of Species
Read by
Richard Dawkins
Links:
Quote:
"The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also"
Mark Twain
Other Recommended Reading
The End of Faith
Sam Harris
Kluge
Gary Marcus
Why Darwin Matters
Michael Shermer
Read the 1st Chapter!
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'The Genius of Charles Darwin' DVD (PAL Region 2 ONLY)
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
51. Comment #163570 by Layla Nasreddin on April 18, 2008 at 2:27 pm
That HAS to be from Wesley J. Smith, who asked, "Is Richard Dawkins a Raelian?"
http://www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/2008/04/is-richard-dawkins-raelian.html
I happened to be looking at that site the other day (PLEASE don't ask why, for the love of all that is unholy!) and almost fell off my chair when I saw that entry!
Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin