Print
Is religion a threat to rationality and science?
by Dan Dennett, Lord Winston
Reposted from:
http://education.guardian.co.uk/egweekly/story/0,,2275308,00.html
Prof Daniel Dennett and Lord Winston present their arguments ahead of tonight's public debate
Daniel Dennett and Robert Winston
Tuesday April 22, 2008
The Guardian
Yes, says Prof Daniel Dennett
If religion isn't the greatest threat to rationality and scientific progress, what is? Perhaps alcohol, or television, or addictive video games. But although each of these scourges - mixed blessings, in fact - has the power to overwhelm our best judgment and cloud our critical faculties, religion has a feature of that none of them can boast: it doesn't just disable, it honours the disability. People are revered for their capacity to live in a dream world, to shield their minds from factual knowledge and make the major decisions of their lives by consulting voices in their heads that they call forth by rituals designed to intoxicate them.
It used to be the case that we tended to excuse drunk drivers when they crashed because they weren't entirely in control of their faculties at the time, but now we have wisely inverted that judgment, holding drunk drivers doubly culpable for putting themselves in that irresponsible position in the first place. It is high time we inverted the public attitude about religion as well, finding all socially destructive acts of religious passion shameful, not honourable, and holding those who abet them - the preachers and other apologists for religious zeal - as culpable as the bartenders and negligent hosts who usher dangerous drivers on to the highways. Our motto should be: Friends don't let friends steer their lives by religion.
Right now, Sayed Parwez Kambakhsh, a young student, resides on death row in Afghanistan, sentenced to execution for committing blasphemy. Imagine! We're living in the 21st century, and in "liberated" Afghanistan (not Taliban Afghanistan) blasphemy is still a capital crime. Most of the rest of the world is tongue-tied, unwilling to tell those bent on carrying out this barbaric sentence that they are simply wrong, and should not thus humiliate themselves and their traditions. Where are the peaceful demonstrations of protest? Are people unwilling to hurt the feelings of Muslims? We are quick to condemn other outrages, but religious passion, genuine or feigned, shields people from the moral judgments of their fellow human beings, judgments to which we should all alike be subject.
There is an unbalance in the framing of this resolution, and Robert Winston has the worst of it. He must try to allay a host of concerns, an unending task, while - as everyone knows all too well - in a single cataclysmic day my side could be proven by one fanatical act, not that anyone would be left to cheer my victory. Not just rationality and scientific progress, but just about everything else we hold dear could be laid waste by a single massively deluded "sacramental" act. True, you don't have to be religious to be crazy, but it helps. Indeed, if you are religious, you don't have to be crazy in the medically certifiable sense in order to do massively crazy things. And - this is the worst of it - religious faith can give people a sort of hyperbolic confidence, an utter unconcern about whether they might be making a mistake, that enables acts of inhumanity that would otherwise be unthinkable.
This imperviousness to reason is, I think, the property that we should most fear in religion. Other institutions or traditions may encourage a certain amount of irrationality - think of the wild abandon that is often appreciated in sports or art - but only religion demands it as a sacred duty. This might not matter if the activities that composed religion were somewhat insulated from the rest of the world the way they are in sports and art. Then we could treat religious allegiances the way we treat differences in taste: if you have a taste for kick boxing or heavy metal bands, that's your business. Knock yourself out, as we say, it's only a game. Not so with religion. Its arena includes not just the participants but all of life on the planet. Given that, it's troubling to note how avidly some people engage in deliberate make-believe in order to execute the prescribed duties.
The better is enemy of the best: religion may make many people better, but it is preventing them from being as good as they could be. If only we could transfer all that respect, loyalty and intense devotion from an imaginary being - God - to something real: the wonderful world of goodness we and our ancestors have made, and of which we are now the stewards.
· Professor Daniel Dennett is director of the Centre for Cognitive Studies, Tufts University
No, says Lord Winston
Daniel Dennett would be unlikely to place a stake alongside Blaise Pascal, whose famous wager runs: "You cannot lose by professing belief in God - if He does not exist you lose nothing, and if He does exist, you will be rewarded in the afterlife." Dennett argues that it is better to live as if there is no God, attempting to make the world a rational and better place. He points out that it is costly building cathedrals and that churchgoing is a massive waste of time. An atheist will lose nothing if God does not exist - his or her memorial will be good deeds. And if there is a benevolent God, Dennett will find himself judged by the Almighty on his merits, not because of the disbelief he professes.
The problem with his interesting views of the possible evolutionary basis of religious belief is that he seems unable to treat the beliefs and feelings of believers seriously. Might not God disapprove of this much more? Like many evangelical preachers, he repeatedly seems to claim to be open to the sincerely held views of others. Yet, in Dennett's world, humans are divided into "brights" or believers - and if you are not a "bright", you disagree with his point of view because you are intellectually inferior, closed-minded or too scared.
To some extent, he falls into a similar trap to Dawkins. He feels he knows about religions but seems to have done too little research; a number of his points - for example, about Jewish attitudes or Muslim practices - seem to show a lack of serious scholarship.
Dennett, like Dawkins, is affronted by the "fact" that moderate religious people have done little to curb the excesses of the extremists of their own traditions. Who does he define as an extremist? If, as a Jew, I decide to adhere to totally irrational dietary laws or bizarrely not travel on a bus on Saturday, does that make me an extremist? If I go further and wear a kippa on my head and build an eruv around the part of London in which I live, is that an unacceptable excess? Or is he arguing against dangerous violence, which is condemned by every responsible religious Jew?
Religion is built into human consciousness and there is plentiful evidence of it being a cohesive force. Apart from the survival of our prehistoric ancestors, in recent times there are powerful examples of how a notion of the transcendental has spurred humans on in desperate situations. Viktor Frankl, in the midst of the extreme deprivation, dehumanisation and despair of Auschwitz observes how, in his assessment, only those with some spirituality - not necessarily a belief in God - survived the depravity of the camp.
Dennett seems to believe science is "the truth". Like many of my brilliant scientific colleagues, he conveys the notion that science is about a kind of certainty. For example, in his book Breaking the Spell, he quotes Eva Jablonka in support of his views on memes. He forgets that she challenges the very essence of Dawkins's view of evolution - a view Dennett obviously passionately supports.
Perhaps he might care to re-read the book of Job. Throughout most of this deeply mysterious and spiritual book, Job patiently suffers but essentially is steadfast in his faith in God's justice. But finally beyond provocation, he rails against the irrationality of God's punishment. At the very end of the story, God appears out of the whirlwind saying: "Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?" God asks Job where he was when He laid the foundations of the Earth? Do we understand where we come from, where we are going, or what lies beyond our planet?
The problem is that scientists now too frequently believe we have the answers to these questions, and hence the mysteries of life. But, oddly, the more we use science to explore nature, the more we find things we do not understand and cannot explain. In reality, both religion and science are expressions of man's uncertainty. Perhaps the paradox is that certainty, whether it be in science or religion, is dangerous. The danger of Dennett's relatively gentle brand of certainty is that it increases polarisation in our society. With inflexible positions on both sides, certainty surely is the biggest threat to rationality, and to science.
· Lord Winston is emeritus professor of fertility studies, Imperial College London
· The debate on religion versus science will take place tonight at the British Council. This is the finale in the Rethink education public debate series, hosted by the thinktank Agora and Education Guardian. For details go to www.agora-education.org
http://education.guardian.co.uk/egweekly/story/0,,2275308,00.html
Prof Daniel Dennett and Lord Winston present their arguments ahead of tonight's public debate
Daniel Dennett and Robert Winston
Tuesday April 22, 2008
The Guardian
Yes, says Prof Daniel Dennett
If religion isn't the greatest threat to rationality and scientific progress, what is? Perhaps alcohol, or television, or addictive video games. But although each of these scourges - mixed blessings, in fact - has the power to overwhelm our best judgment and cloud our critical faculties, religion has a feature of that none of them can boast: it doesn't just disable, it honours the disability. People are revered for their capacity to live in a dream world, to shield their minds from factual knowledge and make the major decisions of their lives by consulting voices in their heads that they call forth by rituals designed to intoxicate them.
It used to be the case that we tended to excuse drunk drivers when they crashed because they weren't entirely in control of their faculties at the time, but now we have wisely inverted that judgment, holding drunk drivers doubly culpable for putting themselves in that irresponsible position in the first place. It is high time we inverted the public attitude about religion as well, finding all socially destructive acts of religious passion shameful, not honourable, and holding those who abet them - the preachers and other apologists for religious zeal - as culpable as the bartenders and negligent hosts who usher dangerous drivers on to the highways. Our motto should be: Friends don't let friends steer their lives by religion.
Right now, Sayed Parwez Kambakhsh, a young student, resides on death row in Afghanistan, sentenced to execution for committing blasphemy. Imagine! We're living in the 21st century, and in "liberated" Afghanistan (not Taliban Afghanistan) blasphemy is still a capital crime. Most of the rest of the world is tongue-tied, unwilling to tell those bent on carrying out this barbaric sentence that they are simply wrong, and should not thus humiliate themselves and their traditions. Where are the peaceful demonstrations of protest? Are people unwilling to hurt the feelings of Muslims? We are quick to condemn other outrages, but religious passion, genuine or feigned, shields people from the moral judgments of their fellow human beings, judgments to which we should all alike be subject.
There is an unbalance in the framing of this resolution, and Robert Winston has the worst of it. He must try to allay a host of concerns, an unending task, while - as everyone knows all too well - in a single cataclysmic day my side could be proven by one fanatical act, not that anyone would be left to cheer my victory. Not just rationality and scientific progress, but just about everything else we hold dear could be laid waste by a single massively deluded "sacramental" act. True, you don't have to be religious to be crazy, but it helps. Indeed, if you are religious, you don't have to be crazy in the medically certifiable sense in order to do massively crazy things. And - this is the worst of it - religious faith can give people a sort of hyperbolic confidence, an utter unconcern about whether they might be making a mistake, that enables acts of inhumanity that would otherwise be unthinkable.
This imperviousness to reason is, I think, the property that we should most fear in religion. Other institutions or traditions may encourage a certain amount of irrationality - think of the wild abandon that is often appreciated in sports or art - but only religion demands it as a sacred duty. This might not matter if the activities that composed religion were somewhat insulated from the rest of the world the way they are in sports and art. Then we could treat religious allegiances the way we treat differences in taste: if you have a taste for kick boxing or heavy metal bands, that's your business. Knock yourself out, as we say, it's only a game. Not so with religion. Its arena includes not just the participants but all of life on the planet. Given that, it's troubling to note how avidly some people engage in deliberate make-believe in order to execute the prescribed duties.
The better is enemy of the best: religion may make many people better, but it is preventing them from being as good as they could be. If only we could transfer all that respect, loyalty and intense devotion from an imaginary being - God - to something real: the wonderful world of goodness we and our ancestors have made, and of which we are now the stewards.
· Professor Daniel Dennett is director of the Centre for Cognitive Studies, Tufts University
No, says Lord Winston
Daniel Dennett would be unlikely to place a stake alongside Blaise Pascal, whose famous wager runs: "You cannot lose by professing belief in God - if He does not exist you lose nothing, and if He does exist, you will be rewarded in the afterlife." Dennett argues that it is better to live as if there is no God, attempting to make the world a rational and better place. He points out that it is costly building cathedrals and that churchgoing is a massive waste of time. An atheist will lose nothing if God does not exist - his or her memorial will be good deeds. And if there is a benevolent God, Dennett will find himself judged by the Almighty on his merits, not because of the disbelief he professes.
The problem with his interesting views of the possible evolutionary basis of religious belief is that he seems unable to treat the beliefs and feelings of believers seriously. Might not God disapprove of this much more? Like many evangelical preachers, he repeatedly seems to claim to be open to the sincerely held views of others. Yet, in Dennett's world, humans are divided into "brights" or believers - and if you are not a "bright", you disagree with his point of view because you are intellectually inferior, closed-minded or too scared.
To some extent, he falls into a similar trap to Dawkins. He feels he knows about religions but seems to have done too little research; a number of his points - for example, about Jewish attitudes or Muslim practices - seem to show a lack of serious scholarship.
Dennett, like Dawkins, is affronted by the "fact" that moderate religious people have done little to curb the excesses of the extremists of their own traditions. Who does he define as an extremist? If, as a Jew, I decide to adhere to totally irrational dietary laws or bizarrely not travel on a bus on Saturday, does that make me an extremist? If I go further and wear a kippa on my head and build an eruv around the part of London in which I live, is that an unacceptable excess? Or is he arguing against dangerous violence, which is condemned by every responsible religious Jew?
Religion is built into human consciousness and there is plentiful evidence of it being a cohesive force. Apart from the survival of our prehistoric ancestors, in recent times there are powerful examples of how a notion of the transcendental has spurred humans on in desperate situations. Viktor Frankl, in the midst of the extreme deprivation, dehumanisation and despair of Auschwitz observes how, in his assessment, only those with some spirituality - not necessarily a belief in God - survived the depravity of the camp.
Dennett seems to believe science is "the truth". Like many of my brilliant scientific colleagues, he conveys the notion that science is about a kind of certainty. For example, in his book Breaking the Spell, he quotes Eva Jablonka in support of his views on memes. He forgets that she challenges the very essence of Dawkins's view of evolution - a view Dennett obviously passionately supports.
Perhaps he might care to re-read the book of Job. Throughout most of this deeply mysterious and spiritual book, Job patiently suffers but essentially is steadfast in his faith in God's justice. But finally beyond provocation, he rails against the irrationality of God's punishment. At the very end of the story, God appears out of the whirlwind saying: "Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?" God asks Job where he was when He laid the foundations of the Earth? Do we understand where we come from, where we are going, or what lies beyond our planet?
The problem is that scientists now too frequently believe we have the answers to these questions, and hence the mysteries of life. But, oddly, the more we use science to explore nature, the more we find things we do not understand and cannot explain. In reality, both religion and science are expressions of man's uncertainty. Perhaps the paradox is that certainty, whether it be in science or religion, is dangerous. The danger of Dennett's relatively gentle brand of certainty is that it increases polarisation in our society. With inflexible positions on both sides, certainty surely is the biggest threat to rationality, and to science.
· Lord Winston is emeritus professor of fertility studies, Imperial College London
· The debate on religion versus science will take place tonight at the British Council. This is the finale in the Rethink education public debate series, hosted by the thinktank Agora and Education Guardian. For details go to www.agora-education.org
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 | PermalinkComments 801 - 850 of 1070 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers802. Comment #174307 by Tyler Durden on May 2, 2008 at 5:01 am
Quetz: funny how it was "revealed" that Jesus was white.Wait, Jesus wasn't white?? Bloody hell, now how am I supposed to shift 100,000 framed Sacred Heart pictures next month in Lourdes???
How so? Are you claiming that Jesus wasn't European? Guess you think he looked like an Arab or something. Pffft :-)
Oh yeah, gullible Catholics. Guess I've answered my own question :-)
Other Comments by Tyler Durden
803. Comment #174315 by John Desclin on May 2, 2008 at 5:44 am
Yes, religions (all!) hamper progress, of psychiatry, among other common everyday examples, because they all claim the afterlife, which per se implies the separate existence of the "soul" which would be independent of the physical body.Other Comments by John Desclin
804. Comment #174331 by severalspeciesof on May 2, 2008 at 7:21 am
How so? Are you claiming that Jesus wasn't European? Guess you think he looked like an Arab or something. Pffft :-)I've heard that not only Jesus wasn't European, but he wasn't fully human, just look at his daddy!
Other Comments by severalspeciesof
805. Comment #174334 by riandouglas on May 2, 2008 at 7:32 am
severalspeciesof: I've heard that not only Jesus wasn't European, but he wasn't fully human, just look at his daddy!
Which features did Jesus inherit from his dad?
Was it just non-existence, or did he have his fathers eyes too?
Other Comments by riandouglas
806. Comment #174336 by Verylee on May 2, 2008 at 7:41 am
Which features did Jesus inherit from his dad?
The holey parts?
I'll get me coat....! ; )
Edit: And a penchant for strong alcoholic beverages
Other Comments by Verylee
807. Comment #174337 by riandouglas on May 2, 2008 at 7:44 am
Verylee: The holey parts?
I'll get me coat....! ;)
Wrists and ankles then?
Other Comments by riandouglas
808. Comment #174342 by severalspeciesof on May 2, 2008 at 7:50 am
riandouglas: Which features did Jesus inherit from his dad?
Was it just non-existence, or did he have his fathers eyes too?
I've asked the same questions, and all I ever get is: "It's a Mystery!" Maybe that means his eyes are misty like his daddy (because of all that incense stuff) and there was a mis-translation of misty to mystery. One can never tell with these things.
The holey parts?
Nah, those were a gift from his daddy.
Other Comments by severalspeciesof
809. Comment #174362 by seeker_of_truth on May 2, 2008 at 9:48 am
I was thinking before my morning break how incredibly bored I would be participating in ridicule on any extended basis. It's not that I don't do it, just that I would find no meaning in it for long and usually regret the majority of it after the fact. WOT kind of thing. I even found a site that seems to serve this purpose alone that I would have never guessed existed until my search.http://publicridicule.com/
When on my break, I asked my wife [a psychologist] exactly what purpose ridicule serves in the individual who perpetuates it and society as a whole. She told me that each of us deals with internal conflict in varies ways, which tend to depend on two factors; the level of conflict and our ability to cope with it in a productive manner. Ridicule is a form of humor which is usually reserved for internal conflicts on the mid-to-high end of the scale, which also lack healthy and productive coping mechanisms.
In society, ridicule helps brings uniformity to the whole, by defining what is acceptable and what is not. A healthier society will use the less personal forms of humorous persuasion, satire and sarcasm, over direct ridicule of individuals or groups.
Both on an individual and societal basis, extreme forms of ridicule, especially habitual and/or 'mean-spirited attacks,' are a form of abuse that is an attempt at non-consenting control over the targeted party/parties.
All that and I'm still contemplating why I find it boring instead of some other adjective.
Other Comments by seeker_of_truth
810. Comment #174368 by severalspeciesof on May 2, 2008 at 10:17 am
SOT,You do seem to get easily distracted. Forget about ridicule, that rarely happens when questions are answered in any meaningful way, which is plain to everyone here, 'cept you of course. Which means you haven't answered much of anything important in regards to dating processes which have been put forth to you. answer mesomodel in #173889, and maybe ridicule won't be such an issue. What about it? This should be interesting to see how this plays out, but I've got to go, as my life is calling me.
Other Comments by severalspeciesof
811. Comment #174370 by Quetzalcoatl on May 2, 2008 at 10:25 am
Seeker-
When on my break, I asked my wife [a psychologist] exactly what purpose ridicule serves in the individual who perpetuates it and society as a whole. She told me that each of us deals with internal conflict in varies ways, which tend to depend on two factors; the level of conflict and our ability to cope with it in a productive manner. Ridicule is a form of humor which is usually reserved for internal conflicts on the mid-to-high end of the scale, which also lack healthy and productive coping mechanisms
Do you ever have a normal conversation with your wife? Almost every day there's a post from you along the lines of "I asked my wife the psychologist" blah blah blah.
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
812. Comment #174372 by Bonzai on May 2, 2008 at 10:28 am
QuetzMaybe he has mistaken his shrink to be his wife. :)
Other Comments by Bonzai
813. Comment #174374 by Dr Benway on May 2, 2008 at 10:30 am
seeker_of_truth: I was thinking before my morning break how incredibly bored I would be participating in ridicule on any extended basis...When on my break, I asked my wife [a psychologist] exactly what purpose ridicule serves in the individual who perpetuates it and society as a whole. She told me that each of us deals with internal conflict in varies ways...snipOf course you don't like ridicule. You are often the brunt of it.
That will be $200 please.
Other Comments by Dr Benway
814. Comment #174376 by seeker_of_truth on May 2, 2008 at 10:35 am
answer mesomodel in #173889, and maybe ridicule won't be such an issue.
I wasn't really relating my post on ridicule with anything directed at me.
173889 states that I was given evidence against the parsimonious interpretation of using SNR's to date our galaxy younger than traditional naturalism (14 billion years).
I scanned all links provided and didn't find direct refutation of my evidence, but found the 'dust blocking a clear view of SRN's' an uncompelling response as dust and other light detractors in space are used to determine red-shift measurements and various other processes with a theory of consistent distribution, etc.
Other Comments by seeker_of_truth
815. Comment #174378 by mesomodel on May 2, 2008 at 10:37 am
Let's not forget the outstanding issue on the table here. Seeker listed the trouble he had with supernova and the age of the universe (and which he clearly cut and pasted from a YEC website somewhere). These were based on the average lifetime of three stages of life of SN and the number actually observed. Rev. Dark provided a link:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/supernova/#BM10
That responded point by point (and then some) to his concerns. These included references and actual verifiable evidence.
Seeker was then asked, by me and others, to either concede the point, or to refute the statements in the talkorigins FAQ with real evidence.
He has failed to do so.
We're still waiting.
[Edit: a few typo corrections]
Other Comments by mesomodel
816. Comment #174379 by annabanana on May 2, 2008 at 10:37 am
huzonfurst,More and more I think we should have let the South secede and saved ourselves not only the trouble of the Civil War but also the troubles brought on by these blinkered bible-beaters ever since. By now those states would be a pathetic third-world quagmire, and who knows how much farther advanced the rest of us would be!
I really hope you're joking. Gross over-generalizations=bad. Mmkay?
Other Comments by annabanana
817. Comment #174381 by annabanana on May 2, 2008 at 10:41 am
I thought seeker struck out a couple of days ago already? Other Comments by annabanana
818. Comment #174382 by Quetzalcoatl on May 2, 2008 at 10:45 am
Seeker-
I scanned all links provided and didn't find direct refutation of my evidence
Why would we bother directly refuting evidence that is of no use to the purpose for which you are attempting to use it?
If I provided evidence regarding the spawning patterns of carp as evidence against the existence of God, would you "directly refute" it, or would you say that it was irrelevant? Exactly.
Now, I'm off to play some more Bible Fight.
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
819. Comment #174392 by The Reverend Dark on May 2, 2008 at 11:18 am
Seeker closed his eyes tightly and said.
but found the 'dust blocking a clear view of SRN's' an uncompelling response as dust and other light detractors in space are used to determine red-shift measurements and various other processes with a theory of consistent distribution, etc.
That sir, is the argument from personal incredulity. You found it uncompelling.
What you need to do is put your money where your uncompelling is. This is not mockery (yet) - as I am uncertain where your uncompelling is located and will not ask your wife the psychologist to pony up the location. I would ask my lovely wife the chef, but I don't think any of her butchery courses covered long pig.
What you need to do is provide evidence, with the appropriate peer reviewed papers explaining why the presense of dust/detractors does not affect the ability of scientists to observe these phenomenons. Noting of course that stage three has been observed under ideal circumstances.
Until you do so, your assertion remains an argument from personal incredulity; which is not particularly compelling and about as welcome as a fart in a bathysphere.
There. That's the calm and rational bit out of the way.
Now to the light mockery.
Laughing boy, you are still trying to use the wrong measurement criteria in determining the age of the earth/universe.
Have you pushed back the minimum age to to 30-40,000 year mark on the basis of cave painting yet? Given the criteria that you have stated concerning written history? I am still not sure how you wrap your mind around this criteria as a minimum age, it has the feel of a wierd twist on post modernism. Anything prior to writing is open to personal interpretation?
Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark
Other Comments by The Reverend Dark
820. Comment #174395 by mesomodel on May 2, 2008 at 11:23 am
Annabanana,I thought seeker struck out a couple of days ago already?
I had appealed to the invisible umpire to have him ejected from the game.
Other Comments by mesomodel
821. Comment #174407 by seeker_of_truth on May 2, 2008 at 11:42 am
Seeker listed the trouble he had with supernova and the age of the universe (and which he clearly cut and pasted from a YEC website somewhere). These were based on the average lifetime of three stages of life of SN and the number actually observed. Rev. Dark provided a link:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/supernova/#BM10
That responded point by point (and then some) to his concerns. These included references and actual verifiable evidence.
My original post allowed for halving and/or doubling numbers at will and I also stated that we could arrive at millions of years, just not billions. From the link you provided, I will paste the estimates that I found based on their own SNR evidence. Please feel free to review and correct my reading where incorrect or incomplete.
Interestingly, there is a possibility that a supernova exploded close to earth (within 100 light years) about five million years ago.
There is also some evidence of another supernova occurring within 600 light years of the Sun within the last couple of million years and which was responsible for the nearby shell of gas known as the North Polar.
For example, one of the most famous SNRs, the celebrated Veil Nebula in the constellation of Cygnus is approximately 14,000 years old (Levenson et al. 1998). G89.0 4.7 is 19,000 years old (Leahy & Aschenbach 1996); G6.4 - 0.1 is 58,000-110,000 years old (Kaspi et al. 1993). The remnant G69.0 2.7 is at least 77,000 years old (Koo et al. 1990) and G166.2 2.5 is 150,000 years old (Kim et al. 1988). There are many other ancient remnants (Woltjer 1972; Fich 1986; Storey et al. 1992). Duncan et al. (1995) report on G279.0 1.1, which they estimate could be half a million years old (it is an extremely large and faint remnant). And older SNRs are not confined to our own Galaxy. The remnant SNR 0450-709 in the Large Magellanic Cloud, which is 340 x 245 light years in size, is several hundred thousand years old (Jones et al. 1998). And with newer and improved equipment and detection techniques, astronomers are finding more and more ancient SNRs. It has even been suggested that the large-scale structure known as the Origem Loop is an ancient SNR in a very advanced stage of evolution, and which is approximately a million years old (Hanbury Brown et al. 1960; Berkhuijsen 1974; Kahn 1976).
Maciejewski et al. (1996) describe a structure they have named the "Aquila" supershell, which lies about 8,500 light years from Earth, with a radius of over 520 light years, which they calculate is about ten million years old, and the result of 10-100 supernovae. It contains several star-forming regions. Incidentally, there is one SNR associated with this structure, G34.7 - 0.4, with a calculated age of approximately 20,000 years (Wolszczan et al. 1991; Shelton et al. 1999).
Then a claim about the age of stars which would cause us to assume from the specific references on the age of noted SNR's that no star went supernova for the first 13-14 plus billion years from big-bang, except the mention of high mass stars turning into supernova in tens of millions? Taking from this site alone, I'm confused.
However, the life cycle of stars which turn into supernovae is of the order of a few tens of millions of years for high mass stars (Type II supernovae) and at least a billion years (and usually much, much more) for lower mass stars (Type I supernovae).
Other Comments by seeker_of_truth
822. Comment #174414 by seeker_of_truth on May 2, 2008 at 11:51 am
Comment #174381 by annabananaI thought seeker struck out a couple of days ago already?
I trust this is no reflection on your thinking in the general sense.
I'll probably regret I said that :-)
Other Comments by seeker_of_truth
823. Comment #174421 by seeker_of_truth on May 2, 2008 at 11:59 am
Have you pushed back the minimum age to to 30-40,000 year mark on the basis of cave painting yet? Given the criteria that you have stated concerning written history.
For some reason I have in mind that when I make a claim, I should be able to back it up in a court of law with the applicable requirements for evidence. I would willingly represent the collection of my ancient writings for the minimum age of earth.
I could not take your cave painting on as a client on retainer. But I'm sure a reasonable payment plan could be arranged.
Other Comments by seeker_of_truth
824. Comment #174430 by The Reverend Dark on May 2, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Seeker stated
For some reason I have in mind that when I make a claim, I should be able to back it up in a court of law with the applicable requirements for evidence.
Excellent. Yes, that is a pretty good analogy, but remember that it is your data and interpretation that are more important than rhetoric. Treat is like peer review. Expect people to thow spears at it; and if it is still standing at the end, it is worth considering.
Well done Seeker. Well done.
I would willingly represent the collection of my ancient writings for the minimum age of earth.
I could not take your cave painting on as a client on retainer. But I'm sure a reasonable payment plan could be arranged.
Now using a variety of methods we can fix the date of these primative written histories some 25,000 years (I will take the minimum here) prior to your date. We can date them radioactively, we can date them zoologically (on the beasts illustrated and the independent evidence we have on them.) We can date them of the artifacts found around them.
All of these methods are also used in dating the later written histories that you have cited.
So why the ones and not the others? Language vrs Illustration. I find your claim a little barmy (I will not go as far as to say out there like sodding Pluto, but close), but I am interested in your justification for it.
Cheers,
Shayne
Other Comments by The Reverend Dark
825. Comment #174434 by seeker_of_truth on May 2, 2008 at 12:25 pm
The Reverend Dark, I'll make you a deal.You represent your client and I'll represent mine. If we both win our cases, we'll celebrate at the local pub and I'll even buy the first pitcher.
Cheers as well.
Other Comments by seeker_of_truth
826. Comment #174438 by seeker_of_truth on May 2, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Do you ever have a normal conversation with your wife? Almost every day there's a post from you along the lines of "I asked my wife the psychologist" blah blah blah.
Nope. It's psycho-babble or wild, speechless sex. Nothing in between. ;-)
Other Comments by seeker_of_truth
827. Comment #174442 by epeeist on May 2, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Comment #174434 by seeker_of_truthYou represent your client and I'll represent mine. If we both win our cases, we'll celebrate at the local pub and I'll even buy the first pitcher.Displacement activity.
Since you have yet to provide any evidence that falsifies either 40Ar dating or the Rev. Dark's paper why don't you get on with that.
I don't know about the pitcher, but the burden is definitely on you.
Other Comments by epeeist
828. Comment #174457 by Lord Zero on May 2, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Since people start believing they are lost... There always must be proof, that the core issue
that they cant understand...
We can only feel pity of them...
Other Comments by Lord Zero
829. Comment #174463 by mesomodel on May 2, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Seeker,Your first blockquote:
You seem to have copied it correctly. It provides a list of SN with ages. We agree on that. But, note that this section starts with "For example", which means not inclusive. There's lot's of information before this paragraph. Can I take your glossing over this prior information as acceptance of its veracity?
If not, let's back up to the beginning. Do you concur that the FAQ has restated your objections correctly? If so, do you then agree with all the calculations done in section 10.1? If not, please state your objections and back them up with credible evidence and reasoning. If you are ok with section 10.1, then let's move on to section 10.2. Any objections to 10.2? And so on.
If you have an objection, please do more than cut and paste paragraphs of the FAQ followed by a few sentences. Instead, may I suggest the following example statement, using information in 10.1:
"The assertion that Davies' use of the SNR percentages of 19%, 47%, and 14% is wrong is not true. The sigma-D method can in fact be used for all SNRs as discussed in Bullshiticus (2004) and Hogwash and Horsepucky (1998), whereas the FAQ claims is is only valid for certain types. Furthermore, in the next paragraph, a list of problems with Davies' are provided. None of these are a problem at all. Yaweh and Allah (1997) clearly demonstrate that external factors are irrelevant. [And then you go on to refute the other points in the list]."
This is how you make your point.
Please proceed.
Other Comments by mesomodel
830. Comment #174464 by seeker_of_truth on May 2, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Since you have yet to provide any evidence that falsifies either 40Ar dating...
I offered C14 dating on fossils which result in ages of thousands of years vs. the same sample dating into the millions with 40Ar/39Ar/K-Ar. Same principle but both can't be correct. I believe I was presented with a link showing a possible freeze variation that would account for the lower date from C-14 being tossed out (e.g. delayed C-14 decay)
11. Reimer, Paula J.; et al. (2004). "INTCAL04 Terrestrial Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 0-26 Cal Kyr BP". Radiocarbon 46: 1029-1058.
The 2004 version of the calibration curve extends back quite accurately to 26,000 years BP. Any errors in the calibration curve do not contribute more than Β±16 years to the measurement error during the historic and late prehistoric periods (0 - 6,000 yrs BP) and no more than Β±163 years over the entire 26,000 years of the curve, although its shape can reduce the accuracy as mentioned above.
If I provided you with recent examples of dinosaur fossils being tested with C-14 and resulting in thousands of year-type ages, would you be lacking confidence in at least one component of the dating system as much as I am?
Other Comments by seeker_of_truth
831. Comment #174466 by mesomodel on May 2, 2008 at 1:08 pm
FYI. For anyone interested:List of supernovae:
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/iau/lists/Supernovae.html
Other Comments by mesomodel
832. Comment #174468 by seeker_of_truth on May 2, 2008 at 1:20 pm
If not, let's back up to the beginning. Do you concur that the FAQ has restated your objections correctly? If so, do you then agree with all the calculations done in section 10.1? If not, please state your objections and back them up with credible evidence and reasoning. If you are ok with section 10.1, then let's move on to section 10.2. Any objections to 10.2? And so on.
This is too general for me to know what you are asking. Please state where my assumptions in this link are flawed/misrepresented or what I am specifically supposed to be looking at.
The assertion that Davies' use of the SNR percentages of 19%, 47%, and 14% is wrong is not true.
Is the point here that there is no disagreement?
The sigma-D method can in fact be used for all SNRs as discussed in Bullshiticus (2004) and Hogwash and Horsepucky (1998), whereas the FAQ claims is is only valid for certain types. Furthermore, in the next paragraph, a list of problems with Davies' are provided. None of these are a problem at all. Yaweh and Allah (1997) clearly demonstrate that external factors are irrelevant. [And then you go on to refute the other points in the list].
I'm afraid you will need to take this to a theist for an adequate response.
Other Comments by seeker_of_truth
833. Comment #174471 by epeeist on May 2, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Comment #174464 by seeker_of_truthReimer, Paula J.; et al. (2004). "INTCAL04 Terrestrial Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 0â€"26 Cal Kyr BP". Radiocarbon 46: 1029â€"1058.So they took simple count data from tree rings, varves, coral growth and the like to calibrate 14C. Your point is?
This would be documented in peer-reviewed papers in a reputable journal I presume.
If I provided you with recent examples of dinosaur fossils being tested with C-14 and resulting in thousands of year-type ages, would you be lacking confidence in at least one component of the dating system as much as I am?
Other Comments by epeeist
834. Comment #174485 by mesomodel on May 2, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Comment #174468 by seeker_of_truth
This is too general for me to know what you are asking. Please state where my assumptions in this link are flawed/misrepresented or what I am specifically supposed to be looking at.
OK. One last time, then I give up (again). The FAQ is divided into sections. The first 9 sections are introductory material. Section 10 deals with YEC and the points you raised in particular. In the introduction to this section it restates your concerns. Do you agree with what is written?
Section 10.1 restates some of the simple mathematical (back of the envelope) concepts that your forwarded related to the lifetime and frequency of SNRs. It then goes on to show why the assumed numbers by you (and YEC) are wrong. And wrong in many different ways. I'm guessing you would take issue with this. If so, you need to specifically explain why the information provided by, for example, Green (1991), Kodaira 1974, Vettolani & Zamorani 1977, Leahy & Wu 1989, are wrong. In other words, the numbers and assumptions you provided in your back of the envelope calculation are wrong. If you still feel you are correct, then you need to state where all these scientists have gone wrong, and you need to provide evidence, and ideally, you should provide peer-reviewed papers to support your point. After you have done that, we'll move to section 10.2. I can't make this any clearer, but I can say that this is how normal scientific discourse takes place.
As to the rest of your post: No, we are not in agreement. Not even close. Please read my earlier post. I provided the text you quoted back to me as an example of what you might say to support your side of the argument. I did this, because you didn't quite seem to comprehend how to construct a scientific argument backed by evidence. [Edit: It is purely an example, and is not meant to be taken literally!]
My exact words were:
If you have an objection, please do more than cut and paste paragraphs of the FAQ followed by a few sentences. Instead, may I suggest the following example statement, using information in 10.1:
Other Comments by mesomodel
835. Comment #174487 by seeker_of_truth on May 2, 2008 at 1:50 pm
So they took simple count data from tree rings, varves, coral growth and the like to calibrate 14C. Your point is?
I thought I was clear enough. However, my point is that two different dating techniques claim reliability and yet the results from the same sample date vastly different. Therefore, one of both must be unreliable.
This would be documented in peer-reviewed papers in a reputable journal I presume.
With much the same results as the dispute going on with SNR's and how to interpret the data I'm sure.
Other Comments by seeker_of_truth
836. Comment #174488 by seeker_of_truth on May 2, 2008 at 1:54 pm
OK. One last time, then I give up (again).
I highly recommend you just give up. We're so mired in different readings of each other's posts and the link content that I fear a return to sanity is now impossible.
And, it's time for me to go home. I'll look for you on Monday.
Other Comments by seeker_of_truth
837. Comment #174493 by MaxD on May 2, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Mesmomodel, Tha tis a lot of damn super novae. A lot of damn supernovae Other Comments by MaxD
838. Comment #174495 by mesomodel on May 2, 2008 at 2:01 pm
MaxD:Indeed. And that's just the ones we see! No matter how or where you look, the data always shows how absolutely insignificant we are in the grand scheme of the cosmos. Just a little chunk of dirt around an ordinary star. One out of zillions.
Other Comments by mesomodel
839. Comment #174503 by MaxD on May 2, 2008 at 2:10 pm
SeekerofTruth,
You still have yet to address the issue of your original science quote. You know the one, that had you read on (or was it not present on the site you lifted it from?) explained the problems with your style of interpretation.
Why is that? I mean this would be a simple matter for you to address.
Simple.
Why continue to ignore it?
Other Comments by MaxD
840. Comment #174505 by mesomodel on May 2, 2008 at 2:10 pm
In anyone was unsure about the answer to the question posed in the thread topic, just read the last 17 pages of posts. It's a threat. Big time. Other Comments by mesomodel
841. Comment #174516 by Dr Benway on May 2, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Perhaps this has already been posted:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRmJbP25m-Y
Creationists and the Speed of Light
Short slide show reviewing supernova, speed of light, and age of the universe.
Other Comments by Dr Benway
842. Comment #174520 by mesomodel on May 2, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Comment #174516 by Dr BenwayHadn't seen it before. Nice. I like the use of the geometric argument, which I hadn't seen presented like this before.
Other Comments by mesomodel
843. Comment #174523 by Verylee on May 2, 2008 at 2:54 pm
OK. One last time, then I give up (again).
"I highly recommend you just give up as well."
It's so much christinsanity that I fear a return to sanity is now impossible.
Smug, struck out, or what?
Other Comments by Verylee
844. Comment #174528 by The Reverend Dark on May 2, 2008 at 3:09 pm
I was willing to give Seeker the benefit of the doubt, but he is pissing in the wind, possibly deliberately, possibly out of a profound ignorance.
Seeker thus posted.
offered C14 dating on fossils which result in ages of thousands of years vs. the same sample dating into the millions with 40Ar/39Ar/K-Ar. Same principle but both can't be correct. I believe I was presented with a link showing a possible freeze variation that would account for the lower date from C-14 being tossed out (e.g. delayed C-14 decay)
Okay laughing boy. You are comparing apples and oranges here. C14 dating has a limitation in dating material. The 5,600 year half life was the theoretical limit, which has been stretched by new research to approximately 12,400 years based on newly understood rates of decay. That was the recent work of Paula Reimer, whose paper you cite rather badly out of context. The upward limit in carbon dating is approximately 60,000 years.
I have said this once, I will repeat it. Educate yourself.
http://www.c14dating.com/agecalc.html
Needless to say, if you test a fossil older than the limit, your results are going to be inaccurate.
Potassium argon dating, for rocks over 100,000 years old.
In argon dating (40/39) you have to be very aware of the nature of the sample, as it is not the age of the material; it is the last time the material cooled down below the closure temperature.
The same principle, but totally different time scales and applicability.
If I provided you with recent examples of dinosaur fossils being tested with C-14 and resulting in thousands of year-type ages, would you be lacking confidence in at least one component of the dating system as much as I am?
You are lacking in confidence because you are lacking in fundamental knowledge of the science involved.
As explained above, Carbon 14 dating cannot give an accurate reading for a sample older than 60,000 years, and therefore your whole conjecture is flawed from the very inception. You cannot date a dinosaur fossil accurately with carbon 14.
You are either being fed, or parroting back a creationist lie.
You just pissed away any good will I was beginning to feel towards you.
Twat.
The Reverend Shayne Dark
Other Comments by The Reverend Dark
845. Comment #174529 by Mark Smith on May 2, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Of course the 'real' answer to the problems posed by Dr Benway's video is that the supernova in question did not exist and instead God 'started' the light off in mid-space in the right places and time (ie 6000 years ago) so as give the appearance of the supernova. This is similar to the reason for the fossils: they aren't fossils of creatures that actually existed millions of years ago, rather God created them in situ.Other Comments by Mark Smith
846. Comment #174538 by Donald on May 2, 2008 at 3:53 pm
I offered C14 dating on fossils which result in ages of thousands of years vs. the same sample dating into the millions with 40Ar/39Ar/K-Ar. Same principle but both can't be correct. I believe I was presented with a link showing a possible freeze variation that would account for the lower date from C-14 being tossed out (e.g. delayed C-14 decay) - seeker_of_truthAs Rev Dark has already posted, the range of accuracy of C14 dating is limited to 10K years or so. This limit basically arises because the number of atoms of C14 becomes too small to count reliably. However, there is another source of inaccuracy in C14 dating. This is the effect of neutron irradiation on C13 (1% of all carbon). If the sample (e.g. fossil) has been close to rock or mineral that contains uranium or other radioactive material, there will be a few C13 atoms that get converted to C14. The effect of this is that the count of C14 atoms will increase and make the sample appear younger than its real age. Just thought I'd mention that, because I once saw an absurd claim on a YEC site that was based on not understanding the possibility that C14 could be produced within ancient rocks by radioactivity, as well as within the biosphere by cosmic rays.
So, Seeker, C14 ages can be inaccurate in the too-young direction if researchers did not test for (or did not have any information about) nearby radioactivity associated with the sample. That is the most likely explanation for the discrepancy you report.
Other Comments by Donald
847. Comment #174595 by clearmind on May 2, 2008 at 10:02 pm
Monalisa: Any chance? Any colours mixed up by itself and made the painting?Colorious: Not yet. be patient!
Monalisa: Way beyon patience. You have been waiting almost for 14.6 billion years. Give it up man, you make yourself look silly while you still wait in front of the colours and ASSUME THAT SOME DAY, they will come together by themselves.
Colorious: I can't. I can't lose my face.It;s gotta be that way because I assume that way.
Monalisa: Then you are going to lose your mind?
Seeking the truth is not away for this web page. But Seeker of truth's attempts are quite appreciated. And I need a very good proof about human history, and relatively earth's age. Be patient.
Reverend, how are you doing? So much into discussion ha? Take it easy pal, Your heathy comes first. I still pray for you.
Other Comments by clearmind
848. Comment #174818 by alan baylis on May 3, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Clearmind, aka as wooter,Wooter,
Judging from the content of every one of your posts, it would seem that you hold in contempt those many millions of your co-religionists who accept what the convergence of scientific facts teaches us. This would definitely include Lord Winston, the person in this debate who is defending religious belief.
Lord Winston is a renowned surgeon and fertility expert. Also, he has made many science-based documentaries for the BBC, including one about human evolution. Look him up on wiki. Despite his religious beliefs, he has the same high regard for scientific knowledge and truth as RD and most of the posters on this site.
So Wooter, in light of this, tell us what you think of Lord Winston? Also what do you imagine Lord Winston would think of you?
I have pointed out to you in earlier posts some of the scientists who support evolution; yet still retain their religious faith. For a long list of others, see here.
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/evolution/christian_evolutionists.html#christian_evolutionists.
Also, that most conservative of institutions, the Catholic church now accepts evolution, albeit reluctantly. In catholic schools they teach evolution in the science class.
From Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church
*Catholic schools and evolution
Catholic schools teach evolution, not theistic evolution, as part of their science curriculum. They teach the fact of evolution and the theory of its mechanisms. This is the same evolution curriculum that secular schools teach.*
Of course there are many other denominations and individuals that fall into this "intelligent theist" category, not to mention the many non-Christian " intelligent theists".
Doesn't all this show very clearly that it is not just atheists who accept the scientific ToE.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/religion/faith/index.html
In many of your posts you stupidly crow that you have disproved evolution by the power of your own "logic". Wooter, this is just hubris, -pride; the deadliest of the seven deadly ones!
Also, much of what you claim is so daft, you can only be lying when you state it, (unless you are mentally ill). Bad as this is, it is even worse when it is taught to the young, as you say you do. How do you square all this with your Christian beliefs? Please tell us.
All a bit more serious than some of my fellow atheists swearing at you in frustration, one would think!
So Wooter, tell us your view on all these millions of intelligent theists.
What is it that makes you so right and all of them so wrong?
To all of you id/creationists :- just do as catholic schools do; teach evolution in the science class where it belongs and id/creationism in the religious class where it belongs!
Other Comments by alan baylis
849. Comment #174989 by tba93968 on May 4, 2008 at 3:31 am
I thought this was a debate? Lord Winton who I have admired due to the high quality of many presentations in the past fails to refute any of the arguments presented to him. He seems to take a standard religious stance by retreating into the Bible to quote from what is probably a work of fiction. He may as well quote from Harry Potter.Then Lord Winston describes some very weird behaviours adopted by Jewish people and asks if this is extremest? Perhaps to a sane person it would be, but to religious people is would seem quite normal as would talking in tongues, self flagelation,Stoning, mysogyny etc.
I am sad that Lord Winston raised Auschwitz as it has always caused anxiety for me as if there was a God how could he alow so many inocent die so horrible. Surely this is an arugument for No God
It seems we are giving every chance to the religious to convince us but with each one I listen to I become less convinced of their claims.
Other Comments by tba93968
850. Comment #174990 by irate_atheist on May 4, 2008 at 3:42 am
849. Comment #174989 by tba93968 -It seems we are giving every chance to the religious to convince us but with each one I listen to I become less convinced of their claims.This is because, in the words of Gerald Ratner, "It is total crap."
Other Comments by irate_atheist
More Comments: First | Previous | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 | Next | Last
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
Links:
Quotes of Note:
"Who will say with confidence that sexual abuse is more permanently damaging to children than threatening them with the eternal and unquenchable fires of hell?"
Richard Dawkins
"Hot on the heels of its magnanimous pardoning of Galileo, the Vatican has now moved with even more lightning speed to recognise the truth of Darwinism."
Richard Dawkins
"There's this thing called being so open-minded your brains drop out."
Richard Dawkins
"I don't believe in God because I don't believe in Mother Goose."
Clarence Darrow
"Who needs Satan when you have a God like this?"
Robert M. Price
Other Recommended Reading
Why Darwin Matters
Michael Shermer
Read the 1st Chapter!
God: The Failed Hypothesis
Victor J Stenger
The Future of Life
Edward O. Wilson
Freedom Evolves
Daniel C. Dennett
The Blank Slate
Steven Pinker
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
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'AAI 2007 Conference' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
801. Comment #174302 by irate_atheist on May 2, 2008 at 3:45 am
Other Comments by irate_atheist