851. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #151215 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 9:19 am

They are different problems but in some way the "methods" are similar, only in the religious case you
define "evidence" differently.

Riley summarized it better than I can. The moderates are Bayesians.

852. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #151211 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 9:15 am

Riley,

Of course there is more than one method that allows for uncertainty! Francis Collins (I would guess) is neither 100% certain of his beliefs derived the moderate Christian approach to faith nor his beliefs derived from the scientific approach. In both cases his methods allow for adaptation upon new evidence.

Good point.

The moderate believer is a Bayesian! Thomas Bayes was a minister, what a coincident.

853. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #151206 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 9:11 am

Unless you are saying that religious methods of acquiring "certainties" are the same as scientific methods of acquiring "certainties", then you are making my point.

But religion and science also define "certainty" differently. these are two different classes of questions and not surprisingly would have different standards for answers (to my mind religious questions are not questions but you're asking about Collins)

854. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #151198 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 9:03 am

I did answer your post. There is a question, he needs an answer. The scientific answer doesn't answer his question because science gives you third person answers, he wants first person ones, So he goes to religion, but in a methodical way, so he embrace moderate Christianity.

P.S. He couldn't have used the same method because the question he asks is ill posted in science. You can recast it in a form that is answerable by science, but that is no longer the answer to the same question.

855. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #151193 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 8:55 am

How does that fit with the example of Francis Collins, who is presumably as certain of his Christianity as he is of the existence of DNA, but these beliefs were arrived at by very different methods.

I don't know why you find it so difficult to understand, Some people go into science because they want answers and they are good at getting them,

Now they are confronted with questions of an emotional, first person nature that they have no answer and the methods of science don't give them any.

In Collins case he was overcome with the beauty and marvel of "creation" one day when he took a walk according to his own words. He couldn't explain or describe that intense emotion and the scientific method is of no avail, but he needs answers, being the kind of person that he is, so he gets religious, but it is crass fundamentalism because he is a sophisticated man after all, so it is a kind of methodical moderate Christianity, intense but methodic.

Now the alternative is to simply marvel at his experience and don't attach any metaphysical significance to it, "I am not afraid of living without knowing" as Feynman put it, But some people have to know, and that compulsive obsessiveness to seek answers is a quality that can make them great scientists, they just need more restraint.

856. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #151180 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 8:40 am

Well I think I misunderstood steve's comment, so I deleted the post.

857. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #151164 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 8:18 am

So, someone is 10% against homosexuality, but 100% against stem-cell research, and also 50% certain about hell.

Except for hell, it would be very simplistic to think that people take these position just because their priest or minister told them to as if people are just automatons. Many Catholics ignore the Church's teaching on contraceptions, but support its disapproval of homosexuals. Why?

I think you can find secular people who hate gays more than the average Church going Catholics, or atheists who oppose abortion (Hitchens) and non believers who oppose stem cell research. I think the Church has influence on these issues because it somehow tabs into public anxieties on these things, not just because of religious indoctrination per se,

One can argue that the general cultural attitude has been shaped by Christianity down through the years so we still have these hang ups even for people who are otherwise secular. But then to trace where ideas originated was probably a very convoluted process and it is difficult to say whether the chicken or the egg comes first,

If this comes off as letting religion off the hook because I want to get some balance here. I do agree with others that religion has a way to codify and entrench certain outdated practices.

858. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #151152 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 8:02 am

Podaar,

That is a really good question! Thinking about it, from my experience, I'd have to say "yes". Do you know of irreligious people that say they have anxiety about sexuality? I'm sure there must be, but I can't think of any.

Yes, I had. I was never religious except briefly,--three months and then got kicked out from Church for asking too many questions,-- but that didn't contribute to my anxiety.

859. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #151143 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 7:42 am

Here are my two cents.

I think what separates the moderate and the fundamentalist is not the intensity of belief.

People who are fundamentalists in their youth are probably more likely to abandon religion altogether when they get older and become disillusioned,--I don't have data but that is a hunch based on anecdotes, while you can have very committed moderates.

I am now leaning towards the idea that the apparent intensity of belief in fundamentalists is something artificially induced, perhaps as an over compensation to the awareness that deep down the faith is shaky, Mother Theresa was an instructive example. She appeared to be more fanatic as she was losing her faith,

I think what separates the moderates and the fundamentalists is the method of believing.

For the moderates faith is an ongoing, uncertain journey of constant rethinking and negotiation. They "grow" into their faith, This way of believing doesn't exclude common sense and other data outside the texts of the scripture.

"Revelation" is not just a book, but it unfolds slowly, privately and subtly through out a life time. So that comes back to my earlier point. They believe God is true perhaps because they do find it is a useful concept to organize their experience and express their emotional yearnings and passions.

On the other hand, the fundamentalists see revelation as just in the Book, they work themselves to a frenzy by prayers, rituals, Jesus camps and so on, fervently trying to kill their doubts by keeping reality at bay, They agree with atheists on the nature of faith, that it is believing without evidence and they think it is good so they try hard to attain that artificially induced state of gullibity.

But that probably cannot be kept up for long and it breaks at some point when there is too much cognitive dissonance. It is like you take some drugs to work yourself up to have sex, then unleash one big load and pass out, never able to get it up again for a month, (sorry for the family audience, but I don't do artistic compromise)

The difference in what they actually believe comes as a result of difference in methods. The moderate's method is just incompatible with certain literal interpretations which fragrantly at odd with their experience with life and people. Whereas the fundamentalists think that the more incredible and stupid the things they claim to believe, the more it is a proof of their faith and I think it is a kind of over compensation.

Well, better get off the computer to get some productive work done.

860. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #151122 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 7:20 am

I wouldn't call the Catholic Church moderate. But do you think that anxiety over one's sexuality is experienced only by religious people?

861. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #151115 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 7:10 am

Steve,

I disagree. Many people find themselves oppressed by their own religious beliefs. Those beliefs are hardly useful.

I am saying some people may think their beliefs are true because they find them useful, you are saying that not all believers find their beliefs useful.

So, I say all cows have four legs, you then tell me, no, dogs also have four legs.

I think something is amiss in your response.

Besides, I think it is mostly the fundamentalists who are "oppressed" by their own beliefs if you mean that by psychological coercions such as everlasting hell fire and so on. Most moderates don't believe in them, not in a literal way any how.

Much science is true without being even the slightest bit useful

By "useful" I didn't mean having practical applications, I meant allowing you to make predictions and organizing your data in a consistent conceptual framework. This is a usefulness that theology, for example, doesn't have.

So do you not think that science is true because it is useful?

Me, I don't know what is truth, It is meaningless,

862. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #151106 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 7:02 am

but if we want to change minds, or even just understand, we have to accept that people, even moderates, truly believe pretty weird stuff,

I don't know if any one "truly believe" in weird stuffs. Maybe we just don't know enough about the psychology of belief.

I wrote a post yesterday on another thread, I think it is relevant here.

have been thinking, to what extent self professed believers actually "believe" in the Gods they claim to believe.

It may not be as definitive as we atheists sometimes assume. I think to many it may be just some kind of working assumption, an inconsistent, murkey idea which helps them muddle through hardships from time to time. "Faith" in the sense we use here maybe too strong a word to describe that level of belief. It may be the desirable goal from the religious perspective, but I suspect few actually attain the state of being able to "believe without evidence". By "believe" I mean confidently and surely commiting to it without any doubt whatsoever.

Even fundamentalists have to use rituals, music and other motivational props to work themselves up to a frenzy. That suggests faith is not a natural state even for the most fanatical believers. Indeed fanaticism may be an over-compensation for lack of faith.

If doubt does not exist, they won't be always talking about faith. If no one commits murder, there won't be any law against it, people wouldn't have thought of needing a law.

Conclusion: no one can actually "believe without evidence", even though some may try very hard.

863. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #151099 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 6:53 am

My impression is that even moderates don't just believe in religion because they think it is useful - they believe in religion because they think it is true

If you find something useful, then you will be more likely to be persuaded that it is true.

Do you think science is true or just useful?

864. Fleabytes

Comment #151093 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 6:38 am

Clod,

It just seems to me that this sort of determinism might be something that theists would really rather prefer....God does not play dice etc etc. Anything in that? I don't know.

I think it can be argued either way. The determined theist can smuggle God into the picture under any theory, the old Newtonian model was deterministic but that didn't kill God. Some theologians actually think QM indeterminism is the perfect back door to bring in God.

Since Bohmian mechanics seems not to make any predictions that differ from ordinary quantum mechanics it is suggested that the theory is "observationally meaningless".. Which, in a curious way, brings us back to god.....or beer....whatever! :-)

I heard there are effects that in principle can tell them apart, but I can't remember what they are right now.

Besides the Bohm school, there are other people working on alternative models to QM because many physicists feel that at some level QM is not a satisfactory theory, It gives you algorithms to calculate things very accurately, but it doesn't really have much of a conceptual picture to speak of and a lot of concepts are decidedly murky (what does it mean even to speak of the wave function of the universe?) To some this may be actually worse than indeterminism or non-locality. Now there is no reason why reality must be representable as some kind of conceptual picture, but it would be nice if it could, that I think is the on going motivations for scientists who work on foundation of QM.

I think a scientific theory should be judged on its own merits, not based on what might have motivated the scientist. I don't know if Bohm had a religious agenda, which I doubt very much. But even if he had, I say so what. Newton had an unabashed religious motivation but that didn't diminish his work in any way.

Science can be used to justified almost anything by those who are willing to make far fetched associations and distortions based on selective understanding (kind of like religion in that sense)

QM is bastardized as the blanket escape clause from rationality by all kinds of New Age claims, so much so that you can find Quantum everything in New Age book stores.

Some years ago I was reading a QM textbook in a coffee shop, preparing for an exam. Then a group of women who looked like aging hippies came in. They had that stereotypical "New Age look" about them. One saw my book and came over, she said, "Wow, Quantum mechanics, I love it, it is so cool!" She asked me if she could borrow my book for a look, I told her to go ahead. She turned a few pages, saw a lot of equations then quietly put down the book and went away.

865. Fleabytes

Comment #151084 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 6:16 am

Hey Clod, what happens to your old avatar? Bring it back, I thought that was so cute.

866. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #151076 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 5:59 am

Mark Smith

I was thinking of some earlier comments Steve, not yours specifically. And perhaps I should have said 'try to bring a new perspective'.

I was thinking of posters that immediately challenged his credential as a scientist, I think that was uncalled for.

867. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #151074 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 5:53 am

If I were falsely accused of malpractice, would I want such a person on the jury? Hmm. I think not

Don't worry, he had been picked to sit on a jury before and somehow he got off with some really ridiculous excuses.

868. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #151072 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 5:46 am

I believe it can, but I'll discuss that on Fleabytes, as it is rather off-topic here!

I think it is off topic any where. Like I said, when that comes up IGBTD.

869. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #151069 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 5:36 am

Ronald F,

I get the impression more of an agnostic possibly with deist tendency not a real atheists,

I don't know what a real atheist is. My definition is simply someone who doesn't believe in any God. It can be because he thinks there is no evidence for any with a sufficiently specific description, or he thinks there is proof against the existence of God, or he just doesn't care or for no rational reason (like my brother, he doesn't believe in God, but he believes in ghosts; he thinks both evolution and creationism are wrong, perhaps he believe in aliens).

I think it is a broad camp. Agnosticism is often just a more polite way of calling a more nuanced version of atheism. So Dawkins would be an agnostic by some definition of atheism,--that we can prove God doesn't exist.

Like the statement "maybe God is moving the planets around the sun we can't disprove it". On this level I can have a proper discussion based on facts, where is the measurable force God is using to do influence it.

In a logical sense he is right. But it is not very useful. Logically there is no contradiction in saying that angels act in a way that mimics the law of nature, or that the laws of nature are actually angels in action,--they don't have free will apparently.

So yes, you can't disprove that just like you can't disprove aether.

But my position is that we don't accept everything that we can't disprove and we do have better answers. Now the tenacious would still argue that "better" is based on subjective criteria such as parsimony, and the argument goes on.

But I don't think criagk is trying to argue like that, he is just saying the (obvious) fact that science cannot refute ontological statements but he is not necessarily pushing for an ontological position like some people did on this site before,--Dianelos comes to mind, for those who still remember.

For me that means ontology is meaningless, just like it is meaningless to debate whether aether exists or not. My approach for that kind of debate is "IGBTD",--I got better things to do.

870. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #151066 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 5:19 am

steve,

I guess I just could not see a new perspective.

I did say both his points are obvious.

But I am not sure if the people who felt inclined to respond to criagk with several long and somewhat hostile posts didn't see any perspective they find a bit unsettling for some reasons, if not entirely new.

epeeist

I put "truth" in quotations because I just want to use it in the naive sense,-- something which "exists" out there, or some "process" in operation "out there". I don't think philosophers' word games are very fruitful so I'll just leave it at that, risking all the problems that may follow from this loose and naive way of using words.

871. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #151052 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 4:40 am

I just read some of the posts by craigyk.

Maybe I am not reading carefully enough but I really don't find him to be that unreasonable. His main points seem to be that 1)it is possible that there is "truth" inaccessible to the scientific method and logic and that 2) in practice science is influenced by human factors (peer reviewed may not be fool proof).

I think both are obvious.

To say that there may be things inaccessible to science and logic is not the same as saying there are other reliable means to access them, so that is not an endorsement of theology, --or philosophy for that matter. (I know Mphil tried to invoke something called "closure of causality"before against agents intervening outside spacetime (?), I had no clue what he was talking about and I bet neither did the people who came up with the dogma, word games by philosophers are hardly definitive proofs for or against anything when they don't even know what their words mean even though they think they do. That I call faith, faith in the human language)

To suggest the possibility that there are unknowable things is not the same as making any commitment to "believe" in any such thing. I don't detect there is such commitment in criagk's posts.

I feel that he is almost forced to argue from the position of a Deist because of the way his respondents frame the discussion. It is almost like "you are either with us or against us", since you are not with us all the way, you must be against us.

There is often a knee jerk reaction from some atheists here whenever they hear anyone suggesting there may be "mysteries" that science will never be able to answer. That doesn't have to be an assertion of belief, let alone the belief of some God, it may be just a suggestion of a possibility. On the other hand, the confident assertions I often hear here that science eventually will be able to answer x y z even though we don't have a clue right now are statements of faith.

Secondly, science practiced in the real world sometimes deviates from its ideal because it is a human enterprise and is therefore subjected to human fallibility, especially in some areas in the soft science and where there is big money and big ego at stake, Again this is not a very revolutionary observation.

"Peer review" is not an infallible process. Someone posted an article by a sociologist on this site around Christmas saying that the Royal Society was originally formed as a way for friends to endorse each others' work and keep out competitors and "cartelism" still survives in science to some extent. This is not very ground breaking news for anyone who knows someone who have sat on funding or hiring committees and have stories to tell,

Lee Smolin's "the trouble of physics" describes institutional biases such as fundings, peer review and hiring practices in physics departments that contribute to the unique prominence of string theory. It is a decidedly partisan shot at string theory and he may be exaggerating somewhat but it is certainly a thought provoking book.

I am an optimist in that I think overall science is self correcting and false claims and ideas will eventually be eliminated, but it is not unreasonable to point out like all enterprise, the practice of science is not freed from distortions, even while we can agree that it is more robust than any other human undertaking.

872. Religion and Politics

Comment #150951 by Bonzai on March 27, 2008 at 6:37 pm

I have been thinking, to what extent self professed believers actually "believe" in the Gods they claim to believe.

It may not be as definitive as we atheists sometimes assume. I think to many it may be just some kind of working assumption, an inconsistent, murkey idea which helps them muddle through hardships from time to time. "Faith" in the sense we use here maybe too strong a word to describe that level of belief. It may be the desirable goal from the religious perspective, but I suspect few actually attain the state of being able to "believe without evidence". By "believe" I mean confidently and surely commiting to it without any doubt whatsoever.

Even fundamentalists have to use rituals, music and other motivational props to work themselves up to a frenzy. That suggests faith is not a natural state even for the most fanatical believers. Indeed fanaticism may be an over-compensation for lack of faith.

If doubt does not exist, they won't be always talking about faith. If no one commits murder, there won't be any law against it, people wouldn't have thought of needing a law.

Conclusion: no one can actually "believe without evidence", even though some may try very hard.

873. Religion and Politics

Comment #150949 by Bonzai on March 27, 2008 at 6:20 pm

While I don't believe in reincarnation I think it is a cool idea, much more than going to heaven or hell for eternity based on the deeds in one life time, which is infinitesimal comparing to "eternity". I mean, don't you get bored kissing the big guy's arse for ETERNITY even if you end up in heaven? You sooner or later would get a swollen lip.

It is much more interesting to experience different lives.

874. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #150947 by Bonzai on March 27, 2008 at 6:15 pm

Riley,

The problem is that the "moderate" beliefs tend to be so ill defined that you can't really pin them down. But that's not a matter of dishonesty, it's just that their beliefs aren't as literal as the fundamentalist.

I think some atheists actually get mad because their "nail down and destroy" method doesn't work with moderates thus depriving them of an easy victory. The fundamentalists are way too easy a target.

clodhopper summarized the moderate believers' approach excellently in a post on Fleabytes, I would like to cut and paste it here:

I find nothing insincere or dishonest in this approach.

Can I bat for the b team?

Because god wants us to work to know him and to find out for ourselves what he wants of us. A meal laid out on a plate will keep the body going but food I have grown and cooked for myself is way more satisfying.

Many Christians/Muslims/Hindus etc are trying very hard to be very good people in the sense of loving one's neighbour, being kind, generous, reasonable, charitable and so on. Because there are so many questions to ask keeps us on our toes through having to explore what it means to be good in the way that god wants. He has given us free will to choose to act according to his commandments [or not], essentially about loving one's neighbour as oneself in compliance with the golden rule. This means working hard to interpret the teachings of Christ in the modern world.

*ducks*

Good post, Clod.

875. Wicked untruths from the Church

Comment #150942 by Bonzai on March 27, 2008 at 5:53 pm

An interesting way of putting it. You could believe in a interventionist god, hell and all that, but still think "screw it, I'll not live by his rules". Bet there aren't many who go down that route.

That is Jean Paul Sarte's approach. He thought even if God existed he had no business interfering with our autonomy so to hell with him. IIRC he expressed that in a play called "flies".

876. Fleabytes

Comment #150844 by Bonzai on March 27, 2008 at 1:14 pm

Upper Canada Dark is good.

877. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #150831 by Bonzai on March 27, 2008 at 1:04 pm

I don't know if you can effectively refute the charges made in the film by showing that the film maker has been an asshole and a liar in an incident at the screening.

The public can legitimately ask what does that have to do with the content of the film. In fact if we are too aggressive in blowing a trivial incident out of proportion we may be seen as trying to divert attentions or worse, to deflect criticism by discrediting the "whistle blower"

I think one should stick to the content of the film. If Richard feels that he has been conned into appearing in the film and/or has been misrepresented in it, he should hold a press conference, or make a press release, or sue their pants off if there is legal recourse. It is getting tedious to dwell on all the he says she says surrounding PZ's ejection.

878. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #150803 by Bonzai on March 27, 2008 at 12:37 pm

When science leaves the lab or the scientists' blackboard and becomes a part of the general culture, it is bounded to be distorted and corrupted.

Einstein's theory of relativity somehow got bastardized to become the justification for Post Modernism in the form of the dreadful slogan "Everything is relative." Quantum mechanics has become a fixture of the New Age lexicon, supposedly providing an escape clause from rationality for all sorts of absurdities.

Darwinian theory of evolution is distored by the social Darwinists and racists, among others.

We shouldn't be surprised that people with agendas would misrepresnt science to their own ends, since scientific jargons and numbers do confer an aura of legitimacy, especially in circles which, on the one hand, hold science in awe, while on the other hand not terribly educated about it.

So it is not surprising that Darwinism would be used to justify pre existing prejudice and bigotry.

But slavery existed long before Darwin was born and its justification was that some people were inferior, in fact they are barely humans.

The clergies preached that in the pulpits every sunday citing verses from the Bible, not the origin of species.

The Southern U.S. was simultaneously the heartland of creationism and slavery, as well as other forms of racism. It proves that there is no necessary link between Dawrinism and the theory of inferior races. In fact evolutionary theory, understood properly, would be devastating to any notion of a master race. After all we have the same shared ancestry. So in a sense the racist preachers in the Southern U.S. were right in seeing evolutionary theory as a subversion. Indeed it was.

879. Fleabytes

Comment #150648 by Bonzai on March 27, 2008 at 8:04 am

Reverend

All faiths display schisms; again demonstrating that religion is man made and man interpreted, and reinterpreted.

So Scientology is the one true faith? :)

880. Fleabytes

Comment #150647 by Bonzai on March 27, 2008 at 8:00 am

Polygamy doesn't have to involve more than one mother in law. You can marry sisters. :(

I know that is sick.

881. Fleabytes

Comment #150599 by Bonzai on March 27, 2008 at 6:49 am

But the average believer hears very little about this.

Well the average believer probably doesn't read the Bible.

882. Fleabytes

Comment #150590 by Bonzai on March 27, 2008 at 6:31 am

Richard Dawkins has been heavily criticised for not knowing enough about theological thought, and his reply to that criticism is perfectly satisfactory for me

In RD's case, probably yes, but that depends on what you want to accomplish. If you stay at a very high level like he does to question the fundamental premises of theism then indeed you don't need to be very knowledgeable about religious texts.

But if you want to make the case that the "intellectually honest" Christians or Muslims "must" believe in whatever you want to ascribe to their beliefs in a "nail down and destroy" strategy, like some people try to do here, then you are in a different territory. In that case you'd better be able to hold your ground on a verse by verse debate, To do this you'd better know your theology, scholarly interpretations and exegesis.

I will stay away from this mode of argument since I am not a theologian, it is better just ask questions and let your opponent tell you what he actually believes and take the debate from there. I think RD would agree too.

883. Expelled from Expelled: PZ story goes global

Comment #150530 by Bonzai on March 27, 2008 at 4:18 am

So was Einstein.

Well Einstein didn't lead any movement and hated being a "leader" of any sort. He was much of a scientific loner. Maybe I am naive and idealistic, but sometimes I do wish RD would just stick to science and writing beautiful pop science books. Too much polemics and fighting words from the man, even with fellow scientists such as Gould and Slone Wilson (Why can't one just do his own thing and let the science speaks for itself?).

And yes, I much prefer the style of another Richard, Feynman.

884. Expelled from Expelled: PZ story goes global

Comment #150519 by Bonzai on March 27, 2008 at 3:59 am

Steve,

Campaigns need charismatic leaders.Sometimes hero worship is needed,nd it is even better when you have someone who deserves it.

My alarm bell goes off like crazy when I hear something like this. This sounds too much like the Maoists who argued that a charismatic leader was necessary for the revolution. That was before my time, but many participants are still around and the literature is still available.

Religion makes silly truth claims, but that in itself is no worse than believing in the Easter Bunny. Much worse is the promotion of conformity, the herd mentality and fanaticism, without which religious beliefs would be just private fantasies, stupid perhaps, but wouldn't be able to cause much harm.

I hate words such as "campaign" or "movement" because they convey a kind of lack of reflection and self knowledge. You don't try to fight an enemy by turning into it, even just a little bit. That's why I positively loath the RRS.

885. Expelled from Expelled: PZ story goes global

Comment #150496 by Bonzai on March 27, 2008 at 2:19 am

And them tossing out someone who happened to be in the film (under false pretenses) toots a big horn for the whopper-tude of their lie.

How about actually debunking the film say by having educators making a rebuttal in the media instead of keep banging on PZ being booted out?

There is just so much whining one can take. For people who are open to creationist persuasions this would do nothing to educate or persuade them, it just comes across as a story of gossips and a battle of inflated egos (both PZ's and those responsible for the decision to kick him out) This is just juvenile.

Focus on the message, not the personalities.

EDIT

Heard that they are going to put up an hour long discussion between RD and PZ over the incident here. More he says she says and for a whole bloody hour! The fan boys and girls no doubt are salivating for it.

Oh, brother, spare me.

886. Expelled from Expelled: PZ story goes global

Comment #150485 by Bonzai on March 27, 2008 at 1:55 am

WE ARE A POSITIVE FORCE FOR HUMANITY, BECAUSE WE ARE NOT RELIGIOUS.

I am beginning to doubt the second statement.

887. Expelled from Expelled: PZ story goes global

Comment #150482 by Bonzai on March 27, 2008 at 1:45 am

Holy Mary virgin mother of Christ, how many threads do they want to create out of a non story? No one likes being kicked out of a movie, but c'mon now, isn't it a bit narcissistic to keep talking about it forever? Get a grip.

Sorry for being so negative, just can't stand the herd mentality being on displayed on these threads lately.

P.S. Can't stand PZ either, what an egomaniac.

888. Saudi Arabia Leader Calls for Interfaith Dialogue

Comment #150293 by Bonzai on March 26, 2008 at 4:59 pm

Rod the farmer,

Some months ago I sold a car I had owned for years. The person who purchased it, possibly a muslim, came to pick it up and brought several young children. One of them was a girl of perhaps seven. She wore a headscarf. I was uncomfortable seeing her, and only after the deal was done did I consider that I might have refused to sell him the car, based on his treatment of his daughter.

Comments please. I was thinking at the time that I perhaps should have "stood up/come out" and made it clear I thought it was reprehensible to force his child into a faith before she was even mature enough to understand what he had signed her up for.

If you "stood up to the father" and refused to sell him the car, you might have been dragged to a human right tribunal and be tarred and feathered as a racist and Islamophobe. You picture might be all over the newspapers too.

889. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #149553 by Bonzai on March 25, 2008 at 10:55 pm

whatever pattern or phenomenon only appears at higher levels is thus interest relative - like value-judgements of art or meaning. Which means it is not intrinsic, not objective - there is no "objective matter of fact" about it

I disagree.

Would you say genes are not objective and only a description at the level of quarks is "objective"? How do you understand a vortex in fluid systems by looking at molecules? How about pattern formations in biological and chemical systems in terms of kinetic theory of atoms? Relationships and patterns may emerge only at a higher level of descriptions. The whole is more than the sum total of the parts.

But interestingly - it wouldn't be that hard to program software that can identify a pointilist painting as a pointilist painting by analyzing a digital picture of it - or a cubist painting etc.

Because the programmer does realize there is a higher level of description, and you, the person who read the output, do realize they are not just random splashes of dots!

You cannot derive an appreciation of the quality - since that is interest relative, not objective.

What is "objective"? Is a tornado objective enough? It is just molecular movement at a low level and so is a can of hot gas. You lose information by looking at something at the wrong level. There are different questions to be asked at different levels and they are all valid.

Because of that, "my" theory need not be concerned with how "good" the painting "is", because "good" in this case doesn't refer to functional adequacy, but to subjective or intersubjective judgement.

Then your theory is inappropriate for valid questions that can be raised at that level, just like it is not the fault of biology that looking at quarks doesn't help in understanding evolution.

Particle physics, while in some sense more "fundamental", is the "wrong" theory to answer questions at the level of biological evolution. Not that the theory is wrong, but the particle physicist who tries to use it on biology is wrong, and the guy would be even more wrong to insist that biology is just an illusion with no "objective" existence.

Edit I think you are trying to define a problem away by declaring it "not objective" simply because your theory doesn't yield answers. All the fancy words basically are brutal attempts to collapse and flatten all levels into one and then declare all the information that has been lost in the process "un objective", I am afraid that is kind of a cheap way to get answers.

890. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #149549 by Bonzai on March 25, 2008 at 10:28 pm

Mphil,

If you mean classical "uncaused, spontaneous causation" free will - I don't agree... but I have stated so in another post ... I think.

Do we know what these words mean? I don't think we do.

Uncaused things do exist, wave function collapse. I know that indeterminism in itself doesn't produce willful behaviour.

But what is the connection between random and non random? Are they mutually exclusive categories?

Here is an idea you may find interesting. Classical physics appears to be orderly exactly because quantum mechanics is genuinely random. Individual random events obey no rule, but in aggregate they are describable by the simple rules of probability, Classical mechanics obeys orderly laws exactly because the quantum world underneath is random, genuine randomness produces simple probability distributions. It wouldn't be the case if the dice are loaded, so to speak.

have also stated that I think there is no inherent, intrinsic "meaning

Meaning is what we ascribe to the world. I never says otherwise. But it is important to us.

Also, I think you've got it somehow backwards. I think intentionality is more basic than "meaning", since the latter depends on the former. But maybe I have misread you and you did state this.

I did say meaning depends on intentionality.

Anyway - my point: incompatibilistic "uncaused spontaneous causation"-free will is not required for intentionality, in fact it would make it impossible, since a system of whose states none is caused by the "outside world" cannot have representations, since they have to have a causal connection to what is being represented.

What if the systems are coupled to the environment in a way which is not completely deterministic, yet not completely uncaused? There is no reason why it has to be one way or the other all the way.

891. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #149542 by Bonzai on March 25, 2008 at 9:58 pm

Mphil,

I'd say that depends what you mean by it. Our phenomenological experience is evident - but evidence for nothing beyond that. The (pre)theoretical notions, "explanations" and inferences many many people draw from this are at best extremely underdetermined by the fact that we have phenomenological experience, at worst they are deluded.

If you read my whole post you would know that I didn't use that to make any truth claim. But as a way to show that jac's parallelism between "God" and free will doesn't hold up.

My own opinion is that "the truth" doesn't matter. "Deluded" may be, but there is no way you can persuade yourself to give up the "delusion" of having free will even if you try. You can live without God, but you can't live like a zombie and be aware of it. It is a contradiction,

"Truth" is overrated sometimes. If the truth says that meanings is a delusion,--as it would follow if agency and intentions are all delusions, then truth itself would have no meaning either.

When people talk about "Truth" with a big T they seem to forget that we process the world through our subjective mind ultimately, We are not some objective, data processing machines hovering "out there" working only on logic and disembodied "reason". Such a thing would not have any need for meaning, and science would be irrelevant to it as well.

P.S. Another point, subjective data may be delusions, but you are trying to argue that they must be and therefore should be dismissed if they don't fit into your theories. I think this is overstating your case,--if I understand you correctly. Just because your theory cannot handle such data it doesn't mean it is not valid. It is possible that you can't derive higher level descriptions from theories that address lower level phenomena, just as you cannot develop a theory of art by looking at the arrangement of painted dots on a canvas, The picture only "exists" at a higher level of description,

892. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #149533 by Bonzai on March 25, 2008 at 9:12 pm

Jac,

BTW, if there is no free will, there will be no agency, no sense of talking about intension, hence no meanings because meanings is only meaningful to intentional agents that can ascribe it and grasp it.

So in that event "truth", science, beauty and everything that Dawkins and indeed humanity hold dear would lose their meanings as well.

Rejecting God will not lead to nihilism, but rejecting freewill will definitely do that, So what is a truth that has no meaning to us? If we need the "illusion" of dualism in order to maintain this fiction I will go for it, though I don't think it will necessarily come to that.

So, yes, I am very unDawkinian on this, Believe in beliefs is not always a dirty word, not in this instance. But it wouldn't be necessary to invent any "belief" consciously, it is our default mode to act as if free will exists anyway no matter what philosophies say. We cannot be persuaded by "reason" to give up the "illusion" of free will any more than we can be persuaded to stop breathing.

Again your parallel with God breaks down here, You can give up God, but you cannot give up that feeling of having free will even if you try

893. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #149528 by Bonzai on March 25, 2008 at 8:49 pm

Jac,

I don't think whether it is "true" that we have free will is of any relevance to how we live, see point 2. And just by way of clarification, I am not a Dawkinian, so I am fine with not agreeing with his line of argument.

However, my main point was simply that the parallel you draw between God and free will doesn't quite hold up. This is regardless of what I think whether free will exists or not,

Also, I didn't use a majority argument, There maybe a Christian majority, but it doesn't mean that all of them experience some God's presence in a visceral level, in fact I would say they don't. See point 1 above. On the other hand, feeling you have free will is not a matter of choice, it is like you don't choose to experience consciousness.The feeling of free will is intrinsic, while that of God's presence is not, hence no parallelism regardless of what one may make of the intrinsic feelings of free will.

EDIT For God, the reality question can in principle be assessed depending on the precise conception of your God and its reality or not would make a difference. But for "free will" it is probably like qualia and the answer doesn't matter one whit as to how you would live.

894. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #149525 by Bonzai on March 25, 2008 at 8:37 pm

Goldy,

I just edited my post. Maybe that answers you a bit better? I don't know.

895. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #149520 by Bonzai on March 25, 2008 at 8:05 pm

Goldy,

Chinese of course do believe they have free will, without it they'll be zombies. The question of how to exercise it under a situation may be different among cultures. For example, if your clan elder harasses you, do you exercise your free will to beat the shit out of him and risk being ostracized later, or exercise your free will to swallow it? That sort of things.

EDIT I think I see what you are getting at, being fatalistic, as in believing in destiny or astrology, is different from saying that free will doesn't exist, in context it seems to mean we are just some kind of automatons and agency of any kind is an illusion. So you may think you choose to pick up the cup and take a sip of the coffee, but that is actually pre-programmed at the body level, it is an illusion that you have made a choice. That is how I understand it anyway,

896. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #149510 by Bonzai on March 25, 2008 at 7:22 pm

Jac

Interesting posts,

I see what you're getting at. However, there are a few problems in your attempt to paint a parallel between free will and god.

1) The feeling of having free will is universal, indeed one cannot imagine not having it anymore than one can pretend that he is not conscious,

But the "God feeling" is not, In fact it is a fleeting thing even for many believers, "Faith" is not just "believing without evidence" , but the ongoing process to convince, persuade and negotiate with oneself to believe in spite of the absence of evidence or the presence of apparently contradicting evidence,-- that includes the subjective feeling of disbelief. Mother Theresa was a case in point,

All religions have rituals to "arouse" or enhance that feeling of God's presence in believers and that include prayers, music and sacrements, So the belief in God while "natural" in a certain sense,--I know some would disagree so I have to qualify it,-- it is not visceral like free will, it needs to be enhanced and reinforced artificially, both for individuals and societies.

We cannot say "scientifically" whether free will truly exists or not, but we live with the feeling that it does every waking moment. It is not like God. "Sacred moments" are rare, some religious people spend their whole life in search of it. The onus of proof would be different in the two cases.

2) What difference does it make to you whether in some abstract sense free will exists or not as you experience life? None! There is, hence, a good reason to ignore philosophy and even science and live as though you are a free agent. I believe this was Jean Paul Sarte's point.

Philosophies come and go but our experience would be exactly the same as it is, we will act and have to act as though we have free will no matter what the philosophers say.Theories are always tentative, the phenomenological data is compelling and even more, we cannot detach from it, it is our very being!

The same cannot be said about God.

If there is a God, it has to have some kind of external reality apart from ourselves, it is not a phantom glued to us like a shadow. Most theists would think that their Gods do leave some kind of footprint in the world, That means we can indeed try to ask for evidence and "objective",third person kind questions that science is able to answer in principle, But whether free will or qualia exist, is a bit like trying to look into one's own eyes, without a mirror.

Both theists and atheists agree that believing is an act of decision,--perhaps based on free will,-- and it does have an effect on how you live your life, for better or for worse. The parallelism with free will doesn't hold up.

P.S.

The conceptions of God vary across cultures and civilizations. I think a closer parallel with free will can indeed be made for a kind of mystical God, which is not external to us. For example, some beliefs hold that our consciousness is actually a bit of God's mind trapped in our bodies and we are a part of a cosmic consciousness, We can only "know" God through introspections because in a sense we are it even though without realizing, just like we instinctively act as though we have free will.

897. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149402 by Bonzai on March 25, 2008 at 3:04 pm

I think you can make the case that the entire goal of science is to explain phenomena in terms that are more basic than that which is being explained.

I make the case that science is not always relevant because it is not "explanation" that you seek. Do you have to mentally go through your digestive process in order to enjoy a good meal? I suggest that exercise would ruin your appetite pretty quickly.

To take the opposite viewpoint is not tenable

Oh, really? How do you explain global pattern formation entirely in terms of its constituents? The sum is more than the parts. How do you explain the vortices in a fluid by looking at molecues? At each level there are new emergent phenomena whose descriptions may not be reducible to lower levels except in a rather trivial sense,

I still want to read your response as to why science can't speak to such things as literature and poetry.

Your answers would miss the point for the kind of questions that a poet or a literary critic would ask. Your "explanations" answer the wrong questions, To presume that there is only the kind of questions and science always has the appropriate answers is "vulgar".

Life is not just about getting "explanations" and your explanations may turn out to be totally wrong (speculations by Churchland Dennett et al)

898. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149391 by Bonzai on March 25, 2008 at 2:39 pm

roboholic

Poetry is composed of complex patterns of literary structure designed so as to evoke emotional responses. The fact that individuals have emotional responses and that the poet shares the same emotional propositions is also scientifically verifiable. Patricia Churchland and Zoltán Kövecses both have great papers that pretty much make the case that emotions are biologically derived and thus explainable in scientific terms.

It was a trick question. I expect such a stupid answer from the vulgar reductionists.

People who read poetry and listen to music want the experience, not your "explanations". Explanation is not always what people seek, that was the point of my post.

Telling you TV images are formed by electrons hitting the screen and showing you complicated diagrams aren't going to replace the experience of watching your favourite show, and is quite irrelevant to it,

899. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149383 by Bonzai on March 25, 2008 at 2:27 pm

Roboholic

2 Timothy 3:16- All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness...

Well who wrote this? That guy wasn't Jesus was he?

:)

900. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149374 by Bonzai on March 25, 2008 at 2:17 pm

TCT

Everything else that claims knowledge of the world without submitting itself to interrogation by the scientific method of inquiry can safely be ignored.

Not all religious people claim "knowledge of the world". Some have an almost literary belief in God (Bunting, Hedges), which strictly is just a poetic shorthand of their subjective experience and feelings, it is not a "theory" to explain anything in the physical world, "God is a verb", as Chris Hedges said. These believers can be at most accused of reification, If you believe in the Denett-Churcland school of cognitive science it is probably a sin on a par with people who believe in qualia. Not a major sin IMO.

What does the scientific method have to say about literature and poetry?