1. New Atheists Are Not Great

Comment #160733 by Aldebaran on April 14, 2008 at 10:30 am

In the debate between Dinesh D'Souza and Christopher Hitchens at King's College in Oktober 2007 Dinesh asked Hitchens the following question: "Could you name a scientific law whatsoever for which you have certain knowledge that there are no exceptions?". Hitchens responded by saying that it was not a claim he made about scientific knowledge and then made some comments on the view Einstein had on the matter. I feel this question of D'Souza needs some more elaboration. There is an essential diference between believing and accepting as a scientific fact.

This certainly was a red herring from D'Souza, for when did science ever claim absolute knowledge? If ever there is absolute certain knowledge available to humans. The rather arrogant use of the term 'absolute' is generally restricted to religious claims, not scientific ones.

What science claims is not certain knowledge, but only that the (scientific) model fits the data. Or more generally speaking that claims need evidence in order to gain any credulity. Although the scientific method in itself takes no epstemological stance per se, but strictly sticks with fitting the model to the data, one could argue that the inherent epistemic philosophy behind science is that only a tentative truth can be produced by the scientific method and that competing models can only be distinguished on basis of sufficient evidence. Claims with strong evidence are favoured by claims with poor evidence. And this in contrast to religion which discards evidence altogether, adopts assertions by faith, and favours strong claims on basis of poor evidence. Moreover science does all this in public and is open to questioning when new evidence is provided. In principle, anyone with evidence for his claims can join the scientific debate whereas religious claims are shut off from investigation and generally are to be understood as dogma's (usually formulated in an untestable way) designed not to question at all.

Where various religious proponents claim that their faith alone can cure the sick, science does all the work of testing, modeling, experimenting and remodeling in an cyclic approach to find cures the hard way. The most certain human knowledge available on the planet can be found in hospitals and not in anecdotal material of disputable origin.

2. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93588 by Aldebaran on December 3, 2007 at 2:56 pm

Science has come up with the Big Bang model and now theists see in it evidence for a first cause argument. They argue that from the fact that the universe has a beginning it follows that the universe has a special kind of cause: an intelligent first cause (preferably the christian kind in D'Souza's case). How should the philosophical and/or scientific community rebut? How should Dennett have rebutted? In my opinion there really is a host of arguments that is applicable.

The more or less implicit claims made by D'Souza are the following:

1) The Big Bang shows that the universe had a beginning.
2) 'Outside' the universe, there is a realm of existence (let's call it the realm of god) from which the universe is caused
3) The beginning of the universe is the beginning of everything with exception of the realm of god.
4) Although time is an intrinsic aspect of the universe alone there is a causal connection between the god realm and the universe (causal bridge).
5) The realm of god and god himself is static and uncaused.
6) The universe was caused intentionally and deliberately
7) God intended to create the universe as it is.

Some remarks on these assertions:

(2) The Big Bang model in its present form by no means requires a realm of existence outside the universe that is causally connected with the universe. Yet this causal connection and this outside realm both are necessary in D'Souza's argument.

(3) Why not allow (from the 'outside realm') for the unintentional causation of many universes (rebutting 3), or for unintentional triggers in which the same universe is created and destroyed over and over? Indeed, in buddhism there is no divine cause required to cause the universe. Then shouldn't D'Souza make perfectly clear on what grounds he can falsify buddhistic cosmogony over the christian one? Shouldn't D'Souza make perfectly clear from what solid fact it follows that we are in need for an intentional and deliberate causator? The blunt fact is that no religion can infer an intentional causation of the universe from the Big Bang.

(4) How can 'cause' have meaning without time to line up cause and consequence?

(5) This assertion allows for uncaused existence. Why not allow this for the universe itself? And why should this causator itself be uncaused. From what facts of the Big Bang model should this plug-in-the-bath-tub argument follow?

(6) If we allow for a causal connection between a realm of existence 'outside' the universe and the universe itself, then why not allow for an unintentional causation of our universe from that realm? There is no need for assertion intentional and deliberate causation. This is an unneccessary addition that further complicates the model. When Ockham's Razor is applied to it, it is clear that should be left out. Furthermore couldn't god have created a more clearly purposeful universe. There's a lot of waste about. His rolemodel as a good housekeeper in the universe lies in shambles. A holodek for mankind would have been enough.

(7) Wouldn't D'Souza shout the same argument in any universe that brought him about? And wouldn't he be silent in any other universe? Is the carbon base of life necessary for the existence of intelligent agents such as us? How does he know?

All in all D'Souza is in great need of filling the gaps. I see a strong analogy between Thor's thunder and god's Big Bang. Why doesn't D'Souza demand the full rehabilitation of Thor now we know he didn't cause thunder but a much bigger bang?

3. Response to Orr

Comment #23914 by Aldebaran on March 3, 2007 at 2:04 pm

Indeed it's great to be able to view this polemic by thinkers of this stature on the internet.

@Conrad
I suspect Dennett is referring to the tactics some atheist philosophers have used to create separate domains for science and religion. Dawkins describes the bad habit of bending over backwards in The God Delusion. Dennett, as I recall, also disagrees with Gould's NOMA as an example of such a double standard.