1001. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76982 by steve99 on October 8, 2007 at 2:45 am

I read it. It's your opinion. That's fine but where's the evidence to support what you believe?

Its not 'my opinion'. It is a widely held view. I see you are now moving the goalposts. You wanted an explanation. You now want evidence. OK. I suggest you look up the books of Matt Ridley. Especially "The Origins of Virtue". You will find it is based on considerable research.

1002. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #76969 by steve99 on October 8, 2007 at 1:45 am

Maybe that's how you feel, but it seems to me you have changed your definition several times. And you still do not answer the counterexample I gave of the living body and rotting corpse, which falsifies all of them.

No. A corpse in a state of decay is not 'as improbable' as as living body. The state vector of the particles shows more disorder, with structures that were in certain organisations (such as membranes) no longer in that condition. The living body uses a considerable amount of energy to maintain itself in the more-complex (less probable) condition.

Dianelos - your corpse argument is trivially wrong. Surely you can see that? Are you SO desperate to avoid what Dawkins is arguing?

Scientific arguments use numbers, Steve.

Not always, Dianelos. Some of them use logic, some use math.

And, frankly, no well-known reviewer of TGD I know of thinks that Dawkins's argument is scientific like you do; they all attack it as a philosophical argument and indeed point out how naive Dawkins' philosophy is. I can't help but think you display too much faith in Dawkins here.

Translation: no well-known reviewer that I, Dianelos, am prepared to accept. The 'I know' is the key phrase here.

And, of course, it is irrelevant. If you want to classify the argument as non-scientific, then fine. But that does not help refute it.

We have discussed this already. A supernatural being could interact with our experience of life in a million different ways, but in such a manner that this interaction is invisible to science.

We have discussed this and you have been proved wrong.

For example God could interact with our subjective experience of life. But your point was about God interacting specifically with the natural order.

No, that is detectable as we know that subjective experiences are correlated with brain states, and we can detect brain states.

Here too God could massively interact without science noticing.

No, you are just making up the 'interation invisible to science'. You have not given a single example of how it could happen.

Secondly, I would claim that the creation of a universe or life is pretty noticeable, wouldn't you?

Look... let me make this clear. If you are claiming that God has interacted with nature in ways that are not detectable by science, then you are claiming that all of nature is, in principle, explainable by science alone. If not, then there must be something that is NOT explainable in nature, which would be evidence of God...

But the fact that you believe in God must mean that God has interacted with you. So you must claim that part of Dianelos' mind is supernatural and not detectable by science. So you are claiming that you have thoughts and ideas that no-one could detect with scientific instruments.

1003. In honour of Dan Dennett

Comment #76910 by steve99 on October 7, 2007 at 5:27 pm

I would encourage those of you who haven't read Gould to forget about punctuated equilibria and the argument with Dawkins over NOMA and go and read some of his essays or his books such as "Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History".

Personally, I would encourage considerable caution about accepting the interpretations Gould presents. To quote John Maynard Smith, Gould "is giving non-biologists a largely false picture of the state of evolutionary theory".

1004. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76908 by steve99 on October 7, 2007 at 5:16 pm

Notwithstanding that, it is still true that presented with the chance of doing wrong without being caught many people do experience a pang of conscience. My question is how does evolution explain that? Perhaps you can explain.

Please see comment 204.

1005. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76840 by steve99 on October 7, 2007 at 12:49 pm

When scientists do examine rocks, fossils etc they are working in the present and interpreting data according their framework of beliefs. One geologist looking at the Grand Canyon may conclude that it was the result of water erosion over a very long period of time, and another that it was created over a very short time span by water (of a different magnitude)

I agree - I mean, some meteorologists hear thunder and consider it to be Thor banging his hammer, and some astrophysicists think the Sun is big dragon in the sky. And all from the save evidence. Science is just such fun!

1006. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76827 by steve99 on October 7, 2007 at 11:47 am

But given the opportunity to commit the 'perfect crime' why do we still feel guilt? Why do we even regard it as a crime? If survival is the driving force doesn't it make sense to cooperate when its expedient and look after #1 when it isn't.

This is easy to answer. Our conscience has evolved based on what has been shown to work over millions of years of apes interacting with other apes. The opportunities for 'perfect crimes' in the small wandering groups we used to live in were not very likely. Also, it did not make genetic sense to significantly disadvangate other members of that group, as they were likely to be related in some way.

Much of our behaviour seems to be explained by the likelihood that we used to live in small related groups.

1007. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #76808 by steve99 on October 7, 2007 at 10:41 am

Georgoudis is just your common variety christian nut who likes to do a bit of philosophizing on the side.

He also 'does' science, although the results are a bit like "Unwinese"

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Unwin_%28comedian%29)

It sounds like it possibly contains meaning at first sight...

1008. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #76806 by steve99 on October 7, 2007 at 10:36 am

I see you chose not to counter my last example (the living body and the corpse) that falsifies your last intent to define "organized complexity" as used in TGD.

To be honest, Dianelos, I didn't notice your last example. Following your posts takes up so much time.

I also see that neither is any other poster suggesting a good definition for that concept. That's OK; as I said it's not easy to define the concept of "organized complexity" beyond what any reader understands, namely the intuitive and very vague "organized complexity characterizes a system that looks designed". But this is not how good science or good philosophy is done.

It has been defined for you again and again and again and again. The complexity we are talking about is a measure of the probability of the state vector of the particles constituting the object. The less probable the state vector, the higher the complexity. I must have posted this four times now. If you want some math, I can give it to you.

Incidentally Hoyle's scientific argument does not have this problem. Hoyle, under some explicit scientific assumptions (including the simplest model of, or rather some elements of simplest model of a biologically viable organism) computed that such a model would be extremely unlikely (read "impossibly") come about by chance. It was Dawkins's intent to counter Hoyle's scientific argument using confusing philosophy that is based on vague concepts.

No. It was Dawkins' intent to counter Hoyle's scientific argument using exactly the same kind of scientific argument to get a reductio ad absurdum. He achieved that. We have explained this to you countless time, but as I am patient I will do it again. If Hoyle claims that life can't have come about by chance, then that must imply a designer. A designer is a mentality. We can compute the likehood of a mentality that can be a designer arising by chance. It is far, far, far less than life arising by itself. Therefore, you can't use the probability argument to imply a designer - unless you are prepared to accept that the designer arose from a less improbable state.

As I said, you are welcome to suggest a designer, even a 'supernatural' one - providing you are willing to accept that the designer evolved in some way from a simpler state than the thing He is supposed to have designed.

You have misunderstood Dawkins' argument. It is not against a designer. It is against a designer that did not evolve.

Well, God is by definition a supernatural being, and it seems to me a supernatural being is supposed to be able to do supernatural stuff, no? God is supposed do be "Magic Man" :-) I mean that's why we call such a being "supernatural". If a being were limited by naturalistic principles we wouldn't call it "supernatural", would we?

If you want to proceed along this path, fine, but then you lose any ability to argue. If you want to just throw the rules away because you don't want to explain anything you lose the right to debate. Saying 'Magic Man did it' is such a throwing away of the rules, unless you can prove that he did it. You have provided no such evidence - not even the slightest hint of the tiniest fraction of any evidence. So you can't just bring in Magic Man.

Start bringing in Magic, and you can prove anything. Watch this:

1. Life is too complex to have arisen by chance.
2. There is a supernatural aspect to everything, so there is Magic.
3. Life happened by Magic.
4. The End.

Look at this... I have neatly side-stepped the 'God' step, using Magic!

If you are going to say the supernatural realm has no rules, then you can't use any arguments about anything to justify anything.

So it seems to me that it's rather Dawkins who tries to re-define what "supernatural" means by kind of dragging God into a naturalistic kind of world (where capable beings must be complex, and so on and so forth – his argument is based on three or four question-begging naturalistic assumptions) and then arguing that such a being cannot exist. Of course it can't. By definition nothing supernatural can exist in a naturalistic world. The "Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit" is really a complicated roundabout way of saying "Naturalism is true; therefore nothing super-naturalistic exists".

No. I think this must be coming up to the fourth time I have explained the following to you (I am losing count). The issue is not the bringing of naturalism into the supernatural - it is the reverse. There is no problem with supernatural things doing supernatural stuff to each other in a supernatural world. The problem is when people claim that supernatural things do supernatural stuff to things in the natural world. That means that supernatural things must interact with the natural world. When they do that, there is then a natural aspect to them which is subject to science.

There are an infinite number of ways to misunderstand what Dawkins is trying to say. Are you going to work through all of them?

1009. I am creating artificial life, declares US gene pioneer

Comment #76627 by steve99 on October 6, 2007 at 1:13 pm

It's all a bit scary really, this sort of power wouldn't mix too well with end-timer belief.

It is worth considering that there is probably not much that Venter could invent in the lab that has not been tried by evolution over billions of years.

The Andromeda strain was on telly last week (one of my favourites)

And I am afraid to say that like most work by Michael Chrichton it is very poor science.

1010. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #76623 by steve99 on October 6, 2007 at 1:07 pm

Why waste your time convincing yourself that everything means very little

That is what you have done. You have convinced yourself that everything means so little that you need to imagine a God to make up for this. Some of us don't need imaginary friends to make life seem meaningful and worthwhile.

1011. I am creating artificial life, declares US gene pioneer

Comment #76553 by steve99 on October 6, 2007 at 8:27 am

Goodbye, Nature. Hello, brave new world. Are we not on the threshold of redefining both our humanity and the natural world in which we live?

No, we aren't. The true shock was hundreds of years ago when a chemist made the biological substance urea in the laboratory. This showed that life was chemistry. What Venter is doing now is an inevitable consequence of that event.

1012. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76492 by steve99 on October 6, 2007 at 2:00 am

I've just heard RD say that people do terrible things "in the name of religion". I agree. But they do terrible things in the name of all sorts of causes including patriotism and science.

The problem is that religion allows people to do nasty things and feel good about it. For example, some people can feel a bit uncomfortable about having those odd gay people around. But hey, they can quote-mine the bible and find bits of the old testament and the odd phrase from the new testament that says 'gay sex is wrong' (of course, they ignore the fact that the bible also contains much about morality that is raving nonsense). So... thanks to religion their dislike of gayness becomes not just acceptable but 'god's will'. Isn't that nice?

1013. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #76326 by steve99 on October 5, 2007 at 1:45 pm

We just confronted eXcommunicate in our video chatroom. I hope his spine prevails and he chooses to retract some of what he said in this thread soon.

Not that I expect it, it would just be nice considering the time we spent. I won't say more in an attempt to be the bigger man.

The 'bigger man' does not use words like 'confront'. They use 'discuss'. Also, maybe it is just me, as I am gay, but I do have an innate problem with anyone who uses the phrase 'the bigger man' - suggesting a macho code for debate? A somewhat inept use of language. Even if unintentionally used, it does not indicate clear and rational thinking. This site is supposed to represent clear thinking. This suggests such comments may be more appropriate elsewhere.

1014. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #76308 by steve99 on October 5, 2007 at 12:29 pm

A competing theory is that the faked evidence was actually planted by Satan.

Isn't it more likely that the true evidence is the vast, possibly infinite cosmos, with all the galaxies, stars, worlds... planets and fossils, and all Satan managed was just one book (and evidence that it was him was he couldn't even manage to make it clear or consistent)? However, Satan knew the weaknesses of an intelligent species, so knew just what kind of book to get written, and when to get it written. With a single book he could delude most of that species to ignore everything else.

1015. 'Flying Spaghetti Monster' Religious Group Turning Heads at MSU

Comment #76300 by steve99 on October 5, 2007 at 11:58 am

I see a potential problem with the FSM. Maybe, in a century or so, a potential presidential candidate will proclaim his belief in Pastafarianism as a reason to be elected. This may sound ridiculous, but is the FSM really any more absurd than Mormonism?

No, I am not that serious... but then, was Joseph Smith Jr?

1016. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76292 by steve99 on October 5, 2007 at 11:16 am

Most people are religious not because of scientific arguments. They believe for emotional reasons. For most believers religion is not a metaphysical exercise or a counterfeit version of science, it has a completely different purpose. To them the value of religion is more therapeutic than philosophical.

Most everyday believers don't care about big questions like how the cosmos began, how the first self replicating molecule came into being or why fundamental constants have the specific values we observe. They care about the meaning of life, they want to be assured that death is not the end, they need to construct meanings out of tragedies, they need to hope.

From my limited experience of watching friends and family, all with religious upbringings, I really disagree with this.

I really think that most people are religious because of ignorance. They really do care about big questions, and for the ignorant, the big questions are answered by religion. I think that most people, once they are educated, work out their own ways to deal with the philosophical issues. I think people are, at heart, honest, and generally believe rational evidence. This is why (as the polls show) the best defence against religious belief is education.

1017. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #76285 by steve99 on October 5, 2007 at 10:59 am

Hey Mr DArcy- I have studied some of the science, but I'm still studying. I do intend to look further into the claims of evolution.

revcort: Please don't let me put you off; I am quite enjoying this thread, and I think it is really great that you are politely debating here.

But (and there is always a but!)...

I read this with utter astonishment. You are only now considering looking further into the claims of evolution?

I can understand much of the mindset of a believer, having been one for much of my life. But even so, this is what I don't understand: If God created everything, shouldn't His message be everywhere? Would it not be almost blasphemous to claim that all the information about His Creation began and ended in a book when there is all this amazing Creation around us? Surely that is as much part of His Scripture as words on a page?

Of course you should look further into evolution! And why stop there? You will find detailed study of the other sciences can tell you so much about what your God's Creation contains and how it works.

Not that this is my view at all, but one way of interpreting things is that the written words were a way of communicating things to people who did not have science. Now we have science, and can really find out about Creation, science should surely form a key part of your understanding.

1018. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #76246 by steve99 on October 5, 2007 at 8:05 am

but I was referring to educated circles. Maybe I'm wrong - I often am - but I felt that there was a distinct tightening up in the 1980s in terms of what was acceptable among secular academics and the like.

I think you are right. I was referring to more general social environments. But, being English and middle-class, one was encouraged to keep quiet about anything, and I guess religion was just part of that.

1019. We Few, We Happy Few, We Band of Brothers

Comment #76211 by steve99 on October 5, 2007 at 4:54 am

The other aspect I took exception with was when 2 women spoke to the nature of the female violence inherent in those women who would seek it. The speaker attempted to credential his own work and disregard the women's points, which was a mistake.

It certainly was. It seemed to be he was trying to draw general anthropological conclusions (or at least responding to general questions) from an analysis of suicide bombers, primarily in male-dominated cultures.

Women can be just as prone to violence, the fact that the speaker hasn't researched it doesn't mean it isn't worth exploring and doesn't negate the potential or the reality.

Indeed. Although it was an excellent talk, there seemed to me to be a considerable confusion between evolution and culture. There was, I believe, an incorrect emphasis on a supposed male tendency to violence coming from evolution.

A quick Google search came up with this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/6656661.stm

"Female chimps can become killers"

"Our research shows that, under the right socio-ecological circumstances, chimp gender stereotypes collapse completely"

This suggests that gender roles in violence are far more complex than implied in that talk.

1020. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76203 by steve99 on October 5, 2007 at 3:39 am

Is Atheism merely a negative, a denial of the existence of all gods/Gods (Zeus, Zoroaster, Thor, Yahweh, Jesus, Allah etc) or something positive, a worldview or "faith" through which people view the world and by which they live? Dawkins essentially claims the former and Lennox the latter. I'd like to hear them going head to head on that one.

Recently I read someone post a very neat statement about atheism. It is not a negative or a positive. If rationalism is your attitude, then atheism is going to most likely be your conclusion,

1021. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #76189 by steve99 on October 5, 2007 at 2:28 am

I propose a Turing test: We ask, "If claim X is widely accepted in society Y, what happens to Alan Turing?" If Alan Turing's life in society Y would suck, we reject the claim.

(hypothetical) Blessings on you for your wit and wisdom! This demolishes the 'my beliefs are useful' argument in two short sentences.....

1022. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #76182 by steve99 on October 5, 2007 at 1:57 am

They tried, at first unsuccessfully, to make an episode that would offend her, and only succeeded when an episode had Tim Brooke-Taylor dancing in underpants with a carrot motif.

They did a wonderful episode with the late great Beryl Reid as (basically) Mary Whitehouse.

1023. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #76161 by steve99 on October 5, 2007 at 12:07 am

Steve, I was pretty young back in the 1970s, and it's a long time ago, but I'm pretty sure that the taboo against criticising religion did not exist then, at least within educated circles.

As a teenager in the UK in the 1970s, I can remember that 'taboo', although I think it really was usually considered more a matter of good manners. However some people took it a bit further: Mary Whitehouse succeeded in a prosecution for blasphemy in 1977.

1024. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #76090 by steve99 on October 4, 2007 at 5:03 pm

But his view that such people somehow by virtue of their faith help reinforce the faith of literalists and fundamentalists – including those of non-Christians – is an intellectual conceit, an opinion not supported by evidence.

But as I have discussed, this is a straw man. I believe Dawkins' argument is this: such people don't cause problems because their faith reinforces the faith of others. They cause problems because they try and up a wall with a big notice on: "Thou shalt not question faith". This is why in many societies it is considered rather impolite, even rude, to discuss religion. It is certainly not a matter of being politically correct - this has been the case for a long time.

1025. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #76073 by steve99 on October 4, 2007 at 3:25 pm

After all a supernatural being may be both super-capable and also not complex.

No, that is nonsense. That is simply trying to re-define the problem away with supernaturalism. It is a "Magic Man Done It" argument.

And even if for discussion's sake we assume that God is super complex, how do you justify that God is therefore super improbable without, again, projecting physical knowledge into the supernatural realm?

I have explained this. It is not about projecting physical knowledge into the supernatural realm. It is because those who belief that the supernatural realm projects into the physical one. To do what would be required of a creator, that physical projection would have to be highly complex and organised.

Suppose you found a footprint. Someone said it was that of an invisible fairy. That footprint reveals some of the nature of the fairy even though it is supposedly a supernatural being. At least for the time it interacted with the physical world, it must have had something that fitted that footprint structure. If creation is God's Footprint, then it says something about the physical nature of God at the time of creation.

As I argued previously, the fact that physical beings must be complex (have a complex brain and do on) in order to be capable (intelligent and powerful and so on) does not imply that a supernatural being must be even more complex in order o be even more capable.

It certain does imply that - there is no way out of it if that being is to influence the natural world in an apparently intelligent way.

Anyway you cut it Steve, Dawkins's argument is completely without merit. No wonder well-known reviewers such as Orr, Nagel, and Plantinga have trashed it.

No, they haven't. It is a sound argument. You have yourself backed up precisely what Dawkins is saying with the following statement:

But then, who knows, God might have evolved from a simpler previous state too. (I know that's not what official Christianity teaches, but Dawkins's argument is supposed to work against all supernatural designers of the universe.)

No! Absolutely not! This shows how profoundly you have misunderstood both Dawkins' position and the "Ultimate 747" argument. Dawkins' argument is only intended to work againt designers of the universe that have not evolved from simpler states. If you are willing to concede that a designer could have evolved, you will get Dawkins backing (I don't mean to speak for him, but I am sure he would). He may have issue with the use of the supernatural realm, but that would be trivial by comparison.

Far from trashing Dawkins' argument, you have now 'come out' as a potential supporter!

1026. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #76066 by steve99 on October 4, 2007 at 3:14 pm

You see, your definition is missing the organized bit. You must find a good way to capture that characteristic. What's relevant in a complex organization is not the atom per atom structure, but rather the functional properties it has: that the atoms are structured together in a way that produces some kind of rare behavior. A necessary property of that behavior is surely to lower the system's internal entropy, but it's not sufficient.

It is sufficient. The entropy if the complex organisation is lower than that of (say) the gold statue, because it does not matter where any of the gold atoms are in the statue (you can swap any atom with any other), but it certainly does matter where the atoms are in the complex organisation.

But, you see, you are asking to be told someone that just about everybody in science already assumes when they come across the term 'complexity' in these contexts.

1027. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #76050 by steve99 on October 4, 2007 at 2:15 pm

Oh, I see, even though I wonder how do you know that there are more 1 kilo diamonds than cats in the universe :-)

Well, it has been suggested that the cores of some gas giants may contain huge diamonds.

But no matter, let me try another example: There are definitely fewer solid gold life-size statues of people in the universe than living bodies of people in the entire universe, correct? I mean there are now about 7 billion bodies of people, but certainly less than 7 thousand such statues. So the statues are much more improbable. Therefore, according to your definition a golden statue possesses much more organizational complexity than a living human body. Which, again, does not sound right.

No. Sorry, I may not have been clear. I was using the frequency of occurrence of large diamonds to indicate the ease of formation. The frequency of occurrence is not, in itself, a measure of physical complexity. Look at it this way. Melt a gold statute of a human down to the gold. If this molten gold was allowed to move around randomly, then cooled, what would be the probability of it forming a statute again? Not very much, but you could imagine it happening. Take a human down to their constituent molecules. Allow those to move around randomly. What would be the probability of those coalescing to form a human? I am sure you can see that this would be unimaginably less than for the gold statue. Therefore, the state of components found in a human is less probable, so it has a higher physical complexity.

Of course, what gold statues are is a good measure of physical complexity elsewhere (the statue maker). Note how the statue maker is more complex than the statue.

1028. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #76045 by steve99 on October 4, 2007 at 2:06 pm

But Hoyle's argument was a scientific argument that estimated the probability of an event that must have happened in the physical universe, an argument based on scientific premises that are valid in the physical universe. Dawkins, amazingly, commits the trivial fallacy of applying Hoyle's thinking to the supernatural realm, as if the supernatural realm is subject to the same kind of limitations and physical laws as the physical realm. You do see that you can't simply project what you know about the physical universe to God, don't you? It's not like the physical universe is a configuration of matter in 4-dimensinal spacetime, therefore God too must be a configuration of matter in 4-dimensional spacetime. Or maybe that the law of conservation of energy applies to God also. Or that brains in the physical universe are complex things with many parts working together, and therefore God too must have a brain that is complex and consists of many parts working together. And therefore, as complex things with many parts working together in the physical universe are improbable, so must God also be. – I mean, it cannot get much worse than that.

The error is not on Dawkins' side, extrapolating things from the natural to supernatural realm. The error is on the theists side claiming that natural phenomena require supernatural explanations. By doing that, they open up the interaction of the supernatural with the natural to scientific investigation. God is intended to be a first cause, or continuing cause, of the world and everything in it. And his existence is claimed to be necessary by many because of the complexity and nature of the natural world. A designer is more complicated than the thing they design, even in a supernatural world, as any mind of any nature, to be defined as a 'designer' would have to contemplate what they designed, and even a supernatural designer who was going to design natural things would have to interact with the natural ways in complex ways. Therefore, if anyone claims that God designed the natural world, then even a supernatural God must be more complex than the natural world, at least at the the time of its creation.

You yourself have indicated the complexity of God, in that he supposedly selects the world from which we exist from alternatives (so gets to avoid having to interfere with evolution). This requires that God observe and contemplates alternative possible worlds. That requires huge complexity and sophistication, even for a purely supernatural being.

This is not a case of extrapolating rules from a physical universe to a supernatural world. Even in a supernatural world, there would be degrees of complexity, and a creator would be more complex than anything else. You can't just leap into the supernatural world and hope to abandon requirements to discuss complexity. That is simply trying to define yourself out of any problem, and is equivalent to the argument put by the comedian Robin Ince in a great sketch: "Magic Man Done It"

1029. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #76036 by steve99 on October 4, 2007 at 1:01 pm

I fail to understand why you think that. Theism and naturalism are positive and opposing theories about how objective reality is, and hence directly comparable.

They are not in opposition, as you can have an objective natural world + a God. This is the belief of almost all people who are religious. As you have been told, there is a form of naturalism that does not reject the existence of supernatural entities; it simply considers them irrelevant to the explanation of observable events: this is called 'Methodological naturalism'. You are assuming that naturalism = 'Metaphysical naturalism' - the belief that the supernatural does not exist.

The issue here is whether or not there is a God. You are trying to divert this into a discussion about whether or not there is an objective physical reality. This is an irrelevant discussion, as even if there were no objective physical reality, this is no reason to propose an all-powerful God. In fact, an awful lot of Buddhist believe that reality has a supernatural aspect but they do not believe in an all-powerful creator or instantiator-of-everything God.

As so often, you are setting up false alternatives, and missing out other options.

1030. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #76024 by steve99 on October 4, 2007 at 11:52 am

Just to pick up on one thing to show what truly bizarre things can be believed once you let what you want to be true guide you:

1) Once one understands that God is not only the whole of reality but also a person then the Trinitarian nature of God is implicit, because all persons (including you and I) are Trinities. Indeed it's not like God has "3 parts" or consists of "3 persons".

This is called 'just making things up'. I discussed in another thread how one could just as easily (based on the same zero evidence) claim that all persons consist of four parts... or five. In fact, at one point I suggested 42 because at least then it agrees with the definition of meaning found in some book.

I also discussed how it is arrogant to claim any knowledge of what the 'personhood' of God is like. All Dianelos has done is projected his own understanding of how he personally considers his mind to work, and assumed God must be like that...

I would think it most unlikely that even if God were some kind of mind, his mind would be anything like that of a species of slightly more intelligent ape.

1031. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #75995 by steve99 on October 4, 2007 at 9:04 am

A big one kilo diamond is a very improbable thing, certainly much more improbable than a cat. Does this mean that a big diamond possesses much larger physical/organizational complexity than a cat? This doesn't sound right.

You are wrong. A big one kilo diamond is, in the universe as a whole, far, far more probable than a cat, and it possesses far less physical/organisational complexity. It has a more probable state vector. Crystalisation is simple. There are far, far more big crystals of things, even diamonds, than there are cats.

In general it's a fallacy to take a property of something and use that property to define it. Now Dawkins does not define what he means by "organized complexity" and only states that "organized complexity is improbable", but from this one cannot infer that "organized complexity is what is improbable". Consider an analogy: Suppose we did not know what "Earth" means but read "Earth is round"; from this we should not infer that "Earth is what is round"

I have been over this. Dawkins does not need to define what he means by organised complexity because the way he uses the term complexity is standard. The complexity he mentions is improbable because that is how the term is used throughout most science: it is directly linked to the probability of the state vector of a physical system. Dawkins could have discussed 'physical systems with less probable state vectors', but that would have been clumsy, and his book would have been as obscure and large as those of Roger Penrose. He used 'complex systems' and almost everyone (except you) understands what he means.

So it seems to me your definition does not work. Maybe you want to try again? Or maybe some other reader wants to suggest here what Dawkins means in TGD when he speaks of complexity? After all it's one of the main concepts of his book.

It is irrelevant whether or not it seems to be right to you. It is correct. Look it up. You should try again to understand it, and to research this.

I am sorry, but these arguments are simple. You seem to be trying (unintentionally?) to do your best to misunderstand. I realise your motivation - it contrasts with what you want to believe, but that is not an honest reason to disagree, is it?

1032. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #75982 by steve99 on October 4, 2007 at 8:00 am

(Excuse me for taking this up, Dr Benway)

He built his case seriously and meticulously as any scientist should and calculated his results using mathematics. His result (based on the scientific premises he used) is that the probability of a biologically viable organism coming about by chance is less that 1/10^40000.

Using the same sort of mathematics, it is possible to calculate the probability of a mentality coming about by chance. In fact, that has been the subject of much recent thinking in physics ('Boltzmann brain' arguments). The probability of a mentality coming about by chance is far, far, far, far less than 1/10^40000. A mentality which can simulate a universe is far, far, far less than that. So to use Hoyle's calculations as a justification for a designer just doesn't work. The designer is less probable than the improbable thing you are invoking a designer to explain. Hence reductio ad absurdum.

And of course, Hoyle's premise is flawed. We don't now believe that viable organisms came about by chance. They probably appeared from simple far-from-equilibrium systems in which physical and chemical complexity can arise spontaneously.

But that analogy has nothing to do with his argument.

Then Hoyle should not have made it.

1033. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #75974 by steve99 on October 4, 2007 at 7:29 am

Now Bell's theorem with a twist from special relativity appears to imply that physical reality is such that two observers can with equal reason arrive to contradictory ontological beliefs, which renders physical reality non-objective (because its truths would depend on the observer).

No, again you have made a false leap of logic. You can get contradictory beliefs from the same objective reality. This happens all the time.

It seems to me that the alternatives are: 1) reality is physical but not objective, 2) reality is objective but not physical, 3) reality is a computer simulation, which implies that whether it's physical or objective is unknowable.

No, you have missed 4: Reality is physical and objective, but might give inconsistent observations.

(Oh, and I forgot 5: We just don't know what is going on).

Sure, but I think to realize that reality can't be physical is a big step in the right direction.

It is no such thing. It is an arrogant assumption - that we know enough about all the possibilities of what physical reality could be to make that judgment.

What you need to realise is that objective does not necessarily mean observable. We know from mathematics that there are objective truths that we can never know.

You are making a huge leap from weak premises.

1034. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #75967 by steve99 on October 4, 2007 at 6:50 am

You don't really believe that this is a scientific site, do you?

Yes, I do.

Or maybe you believe that TGD is a scientific book, or that the "Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit" is science?

Yes, I believe both. The original argument was one based on probability, from Fred Hoyle, a scientist. The response, also based on probability, was from Richard Dawkings, also a scientist.

It's all philosophy, but very bad philosophy, that's the problem.

No, it is certainly not all philosophy. If it were, you would not be trying to attack these arguments using science.

As for me, sure, I use arguments based on scientific knowledge,

No, you use arguments on what you believe is scientific knowledge. We have shown you that much of what you believe to be scientific knowledge is no such thing.

There is much knowledge beyond scientific knowledge you know, and much reasoning beyond scientific reasoning. I mean anybody who studies even very little philosophy knows that.

Of course we know that. However, you use very poor reasoning even in terms of philosophy. For example, I am sure you now realise you have fallen in to several traps based on 'reification'. One of the most obvious ones was that mathematical truths required actual realities to be instantiated in.

You seem to know what a reasoned philosophical argument should consist of, and the appropriate procedures, but you aren't using good arguments either from a scientific or philosophical point of view.

For example, a premise can be rejected through formal 'reductio ad absurdum', but you often confuse that with 'I find something absurd', which is not any kind of formal argument.

1035. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #75953 by steve99 on October 4, 2007 at 6:24 am

So, you call "physical complexity" what Dawkins and Orr prefer to call "organized complexity".

Yes.

I don't see the point, and in fact I prefer Dawkins's expression, but fair enough. So how do you define "physical complexity" (aka "organized complexity")?

Physical complexity is well defined. It is defined as the probability of the state vector of a system. The lower the probability, the higher the complexity. With increasing entropy, more likely state vectors are seen, and the complexity is (overall) lowered. However, in systems far from thermodynamic equilibrium, localised apparent decreases in entropy (and increases in complexity) can be seen. Life is an example of such a system.

People are supposed to explain their terms when making an argument, especially when using concepts that can have various meanings, such as "complexity".

No. The concept of complexity as you have been using it (Kolmogorov complexity) is an obscure use, within information theory. Dawkins' use is widely understood and accepted in biology, chemistry and physics.

Anyway I am curious, what did you understand when Dawkins wrote about "organized complexity"? As you know that's a central concept in TGD.

The complexity of physical systems, as indicated by low probability state vectors. This is the common use of 'complexity' over most fields of science.

1036. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #75905 by steve99 on October 4, 2007 at 2:46 am

Anybody who thinks we should respect the views of a person (be they in the majority or not) who believes in cosmic, Jewish zombies, is part of the problem.

In that case, Dawkins is part of the problem, as he certain shows respect for his collaborator on several projects - the Bishop of Oxford.

1037. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #75903 by steve99 on October 4, 2007 at 2:39 am

I think, therfore there is no physical reality.

Excellent summary; although you have forgotten the main bit....

"I think, and I really, really want to believe in things like the Trinity because then I can sort of make myself believe in Jesus and resurrection and all that great stuff, but the only way I can possibly get away with this is to assume there is no physical reality."

I don't mean to sound too mocking. I know the attraction of such ideas.

1038. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #75898 by steve99 on October 4, 2007 at 2:13 am

I am not clear about the implications of Godel's solution of general relativity which allows loops through time[1], but if you are right about these implications it means that not only quantum mechanics but also general relativity implies that physical reality would violate the epistemological coherence principle.

Yes, although a better way is to say that it 'could' violate this principle.

Further please observe that I am not attacking the idea of "objective reality" but the idea that "objective reality is physical".

OK, but the problem is that many of your arguments DO attempt to attack the idea of ANY objective reality. The problem is that you keep making arbitrary physical/supernatural divisions that aren't actually there in many of your arguments. You can't get around many of your arguments by slipping into a 'supernatural' realm. For example, many of the conclusions about complexity and many discussions of the nature of observations are completely independent of the nature of reality.

Naturalists believe that scientific models not only describe phenomena but objective reality itself, and therefore believe that objective reality is physical.

No; only some naturalists.

But scientific results themselves appear to falsify one after the other naturalists' intuitions about a physical objective reality up to the point of now putting into doubt the very existence of it.

No. Yet again, you make a huge unjustified leap. Scientific results are only appearing to falsify what YOU consider to be requirements for a physical objective reality. It is entirely reasonable for a physical objective reality to be inconsistent in all kinds of ways. The appropriate response to the issues raised by the results is to say 'we may not yet understand the nature of physical reality', not 'there is no physical reality'.

Your reasoning is full of such leaps.

Even if there was no 'physical' reality, this is no evidence or justification for the existence of a God.

Even if there was a God, there is no evidence or justification for it being a personality of any kind.

Even if God was a personality, there is no reason to assume he is in three parts.

Even if he was in three parts, there is no reason to assume one of those was a member of a species of intelligent ape.

Even if one of those parts was a member of a species of intelligent ape, there is no reason to believe he rose from the dead.

1039. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #75882 by steve99 on October 4, 2007 at 12:15 am

You imply that for you only scientific hypotheses are worth debating.

I don't want to speak for him, but you are the one who has come onto a scientific site, and is trying to use scientific-sounding arguments to put your case.

1040. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #75881 by steve99 on October 4, 2007 at 12:13 am

On the contrary, organized complexity is what Dawkins in TGD is talking about.

So? I was saying that Dawkins was not discussing what you call 'organised complexity'.

In fact, the expression "organized complexity" is one I copied from him; Dawkins uses it in TGD albeit rarely (hence the confusion), for example in page 109: "A designer God cannot be used to explain organized complexity because any God capable of designing anything would have to be complex enough to demand the same kind of explanation in his own right." (my emphasis). So it's "organized complexity" it's all about.

And this kind of complexity is "physical complexity" - and the argument is sound.

Dawkins uses "organized complexity" in other sources too, see for example:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-dawkins/why-there-almost-certainl_b_32164.html
http://richarddawkins.net/mainPage.php?bodyPage=article_body.php&id=170
Eminent evolutionist Allen Orr also uses that expression in relation to the complexity that living organisms display, see:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19775

And they also are referring to what is called "physical complexity".

You are claiming that:

The definition I gave in post 327 is the only rigorous one I know, the one used in the context of information theory

This is, of course, utter nonsense. Just because it is the only rigorous one YOU know, does not mean it is the only rigorous one. I also does not mean that Dawkins has to use any formal definition of 'complexity' to make an argument. You are just trying to find some way to attack what he writes. However Dawkins writes in a way that is well-understood by scientists everywhere. They know of the kind of complexity that Dawkins means. You can't get rid of his argument that way.

I am afraid you have been caught out red-handed here. You have been trying to use Kolomorov (informational-based) complexity as if it were physical complexity. However, if you are saying that it is not the complexity that Dawkins and others are talking about (and it isn't), then you know that what you have said about complexity is irrelevant. It is not the complexity related to propabilities and the 'Ultimate 747' argument.

1041. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #75828 by steve99 on October 3, 2007 at 7:28 pm

I'm also unclear on what "enabling" means, on a level of faith.

It is about a general support in out societies that faith is a virtue. We see clear evidence of this here in the UK when the heir to the throne wishes to be known as 'defender of faiths'.

I really do think you have the wrong 'end of the stick'. It is not that moderates support extremists, or that extremists feel more secure because of moderates. It is that faith itself is seen as a virtue and it is considered at worst a taboo and at best highly ill-mannered to question someone's religious beliefs. This has led to a 'we had better just let them be' attitude to religious groups that has, until recently, allowed extremists to propogate their views unnoticed and unchallenged by mainstream society.

1042. A New Debate

Comment #75805 by steve99 on October 3, 2007 at 5:09 pm

So let me get this straight. The IPCC predicts +2 deg C in a century. Nonetheless its respectable to take seriously Al Gore's 20 deg C rise (what would be required to melt Antarctica)

Let's at least try and understand some science, can we? The +2 deg C in a century is a mean global value. That is entirely consistent with much higher rises at the poles (which we are actually observing happening right now), and rapid melting of polar ice (which we are actually observing happening right now).

1043. A New Debate

Comment #75781 by steve99 on October 3, 2007 at 4:02 pm

Around 2.4 billion years ago, weren't the species that belched out planet-changing amounts of oxygen acting as "a geophysical force" (and engaging in environmental degredation) to at least the same extent as homo sapiens is now?

Yes. If that was a true quote from E O Wilson, then he is wrong. Life has always been a geophysical force.

1044. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #75776 by steve99 on October 3, 2007 at 3:45 pm

I would ask if that makes sense, but it probably sounds freakish to you guys. :D

You think? The fact that you realise it really does sound freakish to some thinking people means there is hope :)

1045. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #75773 by steve99 on October 3, 2007 at 3:38 pm

It seems that Dianelos just enjoys hearing his own voice. Though I think it is a largely pointless exercise, I do have to admire steve009 at least for his patience to try to intrude into Dianelos' stream of consciousness like monologue.

The problem is, it could seem so close to being sensible to the causual reader.

But it is like one of those maths tricks where a division by zero is sneaked in half-way and you end up proving 1 = 2. The recent efforts to describe complexity were a good one. Get two definitions of 'complexity' from fundamentally different areas of science, do a quick bait-and-switch and you can end up with something that looks like God is actually probable, or that Dawkins' logic is faulty. The Bell's Inequality one is far more clearly fallacious: You can easily preserve objective physical reality, but only in ways that Dianelos does not like, so he therefore concludes that there is no objective physical reality (as if 'do not like' is any kind of justification).

1046. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #75763 by steve99 on October 3, 2007 at 3:07 pm

That's the beauty of analytic philosophy: it forces us to explicitly state our argument step by step which helps us notice its weaknesses.

If only it did.... let's try and count how many times people here have shown not just the weaknesses, but the absence of any validity of your arguments about entropy, naturalism, quantum mechanics, consciousness and so on. (It is a shame, as I am sure you have a fine mind, but you so deeply misunderstand so much about science in these areas). And you keep on quoting the same old arguments, ignoring any attempt to point out weaknesses.

1047. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #75762 by steve99 on October 3, 2007 at 3:06 pm

Authors of fiction and journalists, even if good ones, do not strike me as the kind of people knowledgeable in philosophy or science to authoritatively evaluate TGD's philosophical and scientific merit.

Ah.. so like your belief in God, it is based on what 'strikes you'? And you hand-wave Daniel Dennett away?

1048. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #75760 by steve99 on October 3, 2007 at 3:02 pm

Bell's test results appear to violate epistemological coherence and therefore to falsify all naturalistic ontologies (or at least all ontologies of scientific realism). The reason is that two observers in different frames of reference will observe different measurements first take place, and therefore will disagree about which measuring device superluminally affected the other. Which is analogous to two observers disagreeing about which tennis player first served the ball.

False conclusion. It does not falsify all natural ontologies. Why? Because the following is wrong:

A basic property of objective reality concerns what one might call "epistemological coherence", namely that two observers looking at the same experiment and using the same logic always arrive a the same ontological conclusion.

That is not a basic property of objective reality.

Just to give you an example; Godel came up with a model for objective reality using General Relativity that produced loops in time. This could definitely lead to contradictory observations, yet there is no doubt about the existence of an underlying reality, precisely described by Einstein's equations.

1049. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #75749 by steve99 on October 3, 2007 at 2:47 pm

In other words, the Bible teaches that all "unforgiven" sin is punishable by death. That is what I meant.

And some people wonder how fundamentalist views arise...

1050. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #75646 by steve99 on October 3, 2007 at 7:50 am

Or is it not more likely to be the result of imperfect interpretation and teaching that had become corrupted?

So hold on. Let me get it straight. When teachings agree with you, they are right, and when they don't, they have become corrupted?

Neat.