1051. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #75579 by steve99 on October 3, 2007 at 3:58 am

It seems to me that it would be in the interest of the religious if we back down from describing ourselves as precisely what we are.

But what precisely are we? 'Atheism' is problematic, as we have seen in discussions on this site. It means only one thing... a lack of belief in a God or Gods. But that covers a very wide range of beliefs. Many schools of Buddhism have no belief in what we would call 'Gods' - certainly not in creators, so technically they are atheist. So, being atheist can even include a belief in the supernatural.

This links in with what Russell is saying ... how inclusive should we be? Who and what are we campagning against? Just suppose there WAS evidence for a God - would it not then be irrational to reject it? Perhaps what we should be labelling ourselves is 'rationalists' - a way of approaching beliefs, and not in terms of a specific belief - 'atheism'.

1052. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #75574 by steve99 on October 3, 2007 at 3:29 am

So, I'll let you believe that you won and leave you with your smug smile :-) There's nothing that can change your mind because you've closed it - totally and utterly. Sad as you seem to be a nice chap and I do find what you're doing as rather interesting.

It is worse than sad, it is positively frightening. The ability of ideas to get lodged into the brain so firmly that no amount of evidence and reasoning can remove them is the danger of religion.

1053. A New Debate

Comment #75564 by steve99 on October 3, 2007 at 2:37 am

This statement is as daft as anything the 3 creationist presedential hopefuls could come up with. No-one has ever come up with a scientifically credible mechanism wherby these could cause the destruction of " just about all life on earth." Managable regional problems, yes.

The deep green religion it represents is a greater threat to rationalism than theism. Creationism has been successfully excluded from all modern state curricula in developed nations. The most extreme environmentalist propaganda (e.g. Al Gore's sci-fi horror movie) permeates education, including teacher education.

I agree that the idea of humanity destroying life on earth is absurd, but so is any idea that global warming, if allowed to continue. may cause only 'Managable' regional problems, or that what Gore says is 'extreme propoganda'.

There seems to be a problem not just with people believing things without evidence, but also not believing things when there is substantial evidence (such as changed weather patters, sea level rises, recession of glaciers, shrinkage of the Arctic ice). Another version of faith and delusion.

Personally, I would be interested to know of any definition of 'manageable' and 'regional' could fit the consequences of sea level rises that have been predicted for this century, or the changes in weather patterns.

1054. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #75559 by steve99 on October 3, 2007 at 2:06 am

I also don't agree with Dawkins' point that moderates enable the fundamentalists because of their insistence that faith must be respected at all cost. I think that is a gross generalization. Very often the insistence of blind respect for religion comes not from the moderate religionists but from some misguided secularists.

I am not sure that is his point. I think his point is that in our societies we tend to respect faith. It is irrelevant to the argument who insists on this; what matters is that this is what we do.

1055. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #75553 by steve99 on October 3, 2007 at 1:44 am

But in any case I am not attacking Dawkins's premise that "irreducible organized complexity is improbable". I was only pointing out that a) that premise only holds in the physical realm and it's question begging to apply it to the supernatural, and b) "organized complexity" is a special kind of complexity not related to the (fine-grained) complexity which actually normally grows in thermodynamic processes and is therefore more probable.

I have told you twice before. You are getting confused by combining what you call 'organised complexity' (what is actually 'Kolmogorov Complexity') into discussions of thermodynamics. This is naughty. As it has already been pointed out you (and it is easy to verify in text books), I have to either assume that:

1. You simply haven't read the posts.
2. You are continuing to mention this to deliberately confuse the issue, and to trick people into somehow thinking that your worldview gives a free-ride to the type of complexity that a God would involve.

The issue of what you call 'organised complexity' has no bearing on this discussion.

The issue, you see, is not that you need a lot of information to describe states that you get as a result of thermodynamics. The issue is that you are talking about a particular state - a God.

If you are saying that all that matters is 'organised complexity', then you are, in effect, saying that there is no difference between a finding universal mind of great intelligence and a finding a random distribution. Now we both know that this is nonsense, don't we?

We also know that it is irrelevant to the matter of supernaturalness or not. We are just as free to discuss the statistics of fairies as of atoms.

1056. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #75415 by steve99 on October 2, 2007 at 3:04 pm

If your leader teaches you to love your neighbour as yourself and to love your enemy then it's hard to see any logical path.

The logical path is clear, as it is usually the same leader who even in supposedly moderate religions is teaching you that homosexual acts are evil, and that condom use is wrong, that girls should not be innoculated against HPV, and all because of what they think an invisible supreme being wants.

1057. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #75388 by steve99 on October 2, 2007 at 1:40 pm

Christianity, defined as rigorously following Christ's teachings, will not result in harming others.

If that was all Christianity was, it would have no supernatural aspect and would not be a religion, so would not be subject to Dawkins' criticism.

1058. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #75387 by steve99 on October 2, 2007 at 1:35 pm

Is there a nice, clean, simple word for 'something that generates strongly held beliefs independent of, or contrary to, the weight of evidence'?

Alcohol?

1059. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #75368 by steve99 on October 2, 2007 at 12:06 pm

Even so it should be clear that the range of values of position and momentum parameter of each atom in the ice is much more restricted than in the case of liquid water, therefore the information that describes the state of an ice cube can be compressed more than the information that describes the state of a cupful of water of equal mass, and therefore the former has less complexity than the later.

Let's go through this again. You are talking about complexity in terms of information, but this is not the same as physical complexity. The physical complexity of water is far less than that of ice. This can be easily seen as water has more symmetry than ice crystals.

For your argument, it does not matter if the information complexity of a particular state of water molecules is higher than the information complexity of those molecules when they were 'frozen' into ice. The argument is about probability. Systems which have higher physical complexity are rarer than those which lower physical complexity. A simple Universe which evolves into what we see now has unimaginably less physical complexity than everything we see now + a controlling super-intelligent miracle-working mind.

You are trying to treat Kolmogorov complexity as if it was related to entropy in physical systems. This is to confuse two entirely different concepts.

1060. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #75257 by steve99 on October 2, 2007 at 6:46 am

So do you know of any reviews by knowledgeable people who agreed with Dawkins's reasoning?

Yes.

Joan Bakewell, distinguished journalist.
Stephen Weinberg (who needs no introduction)
Michael Frayn (novelist)
The Economist

Well, what can I say, except for Pinker the rest look distinctly unimpressive to me, certainly much less qualified to judge TGD than Nagel, Orr, or Plantinga.

As he clearly states in the introduction to the paperback version of TGD, Dawkins did not intend to write a book for Nagel et al. He is, after all, Professor of Public Understanding of Science.

1061. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #75198 by steve99 on October 2, 2007 at 2:54 am

This site is a commercial site meant to improve the sale of Dawkins's products; just look at its home page.

No, it is not a commercial site. If you had been keeping up you would know that it is now a registered charity.

We all, by posting content to it, are actually adding value for free.

Well, I think that is debatable :)

1062. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #75184 by steve99 on October 2, 2007 at 2:04 am

Similarly most cases thermodynamic processes increase both the entropy and the complexity (as defined) of a system.

I really think it might be a good idea to read all the responses and try and understand them before you post things like this.

1063. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #75074 by steve99 on October 1, 2007 at 4:04 pm

Steve99

I like the story of your father:-).

Just call me Steve Zara... thanks to the rants of Sapient and Yorker, I am 'out' now... no need to use the login name :)

Yes, it was great. My father also found out and was totally accepting about my sexuality before he passed away. This is one of the reasons I am so angry about religions teaching hatred in dogma. It is also why I think those who claim that people can (in general) reach atheism without education are mistaken.

None of the above people ever needed to be 'educated' to understand the stupidity of religion. They know it's all crap. Don't underestimate them. It's a big, broad base out there.

I love your posts; I am sorry, but, politely, I disagree. I know of a lot of people who are hesitant about religion; who don't believe that much of it, but who still cling on and take comfort. What I am talking about real atheists. Those who are really confident about their disbelief. I think there is a big broad base of potential atheists. We need to lift them from agnosticism.

1064. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #75066 by steve99 on October 1, 2007 at 3:18 pm

Well done Yorker. People have responded to the challenge you have made... to be honest about who they are, and about their views. Well we have done that. You now know individually some of those who you have accused of being anonymous and irrelevant.

You know full well that Sapient was talking about a direct approach person to person, eye to eye

So now you change 'to be open about who you are' (which some of us have been) to 'walking up and speaking to members of the RSS face to face'.

Sorry mate, but I have been open and honest. I don't think you are. I think you are being a hypocritical. I know it may be hard, when you have set a challenge, to face the fact that some of us have met it. Well, perhaps you consider that views are only relevant for those who have the time and the plane tickets to confront people in person? That is not my idea of intelligent debate, and you are making yourself look foolish.

1065. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #75050 by steve99 on October 1, 2007 at 1:02 pm

I also believe education is important, especially for people who set themselves up as leaders.

That is my view also, and I have been utterly astonished that it has received such a negative response from some here.

1066. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #75040 by steve99 on October 1, 2007 at 12:31 pm

After all an ice tube melts without natural evolution playing any role, and a cup of liquid water has more entropy and is more complex than an ice cube of the same mass.

No.

You are confusing mathematical complexity with physical compexity. In a physical system, a lower probability state vector is equivalent to a higher complexity. Ice is in the lower probability state, so has higher complexity.

Dawkins is right. Evolution selects systems of lower probability state vector, so of higher physical complexity.

Even if you were to try and switch to mathematical complexity; that does not help your case. You are talking about arbitrary random states which, because of their high number of components, require a mathematical description of high information content, and supposed complexity. But almost all them have the same randomness, so have the same information content; the same complexity. But, you are talking about specific states of a system, which constitute a God. You are therefore selecting from an infinitesimally small subset of these random states, so have low probability, so the 'likelihood' argument applies.

1067. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74995 by steve99 on October 1, 2007 at 10:02 am

*whispers*
God, this is so stupid.

But kind of entertaining.

1068. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74991 by steve99 on October 1, 2007 at 9:52 am

The most important thing must be that nobody said anything bad in person, what they write here is irrelevant and won't change how people feel about the RRS. Some of us here think you're doing a great job, myself included.

My name is Steve Zara. You can take all I said as being 'in person'. I think that saying people who are anonymous are irrelevant is petulant and silly, but if giving my name is that important, I will give it. From my limited experience, I think the RRS are doing a generally good job, but I also don't think they are beyond criticism in some of the things they have done.

1069. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74979 by steve99 on October 1, 2007 at 9:11 am

Unlike Veronique, who has also noted your errors, I have no love at all for you, I think you're making an arse of yourself.

I really don't care what you think. I do care that you are posting simplistic and misleading statements. If you want to address the points I have made, that is fine. If you want to overreact and start calling people names, that is also fine. It does not bother me. I will hold no grudge against you.

Three years later my cousin was herself dead of cancer. I have mentioned her before on this site for sentimental reasons. I mention her again now to illustrate just how fucking inhumane your wilful, stupid elitism is.

Sorry, but I don't believe I am elitist. I believe in education for all, and I believe all are capable of being well educated. I don't see how much less elitist it is possible to be. I also can't see the connection between this terrible tragedy and the idea that people may need information to make informed decisions about what they believe.

You said that people can come to atheism with no reference to books or websites. I never disagreed. This can work for some people. My point is that it is clear that for many, having good arguments against the points made by the religious can help with their intellectual progress towards atheism. For some, it is necessary. This seems uncontroversial. I quoted Douglas Adams wonderful prose as evidence.

Do you know which books he found helped his final conversion to atheism? The Selfish Gene and the Blind Watchmaker. Is claiming that these books can really help people to understand the wonders of Nature and overcome the oppression of religion elitist?

I don't disagree with Veronique. I think people's bullshit detectors can work pretty well. But I would suggests that for a lot of people it merely takes them to the stage of uncertainty or agnosticism, and making the final break from the comfort of religion and its institutions can take more.

1070. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74964 by steve99 on October 1, 2007 at 8:19 am

I think you under estimate the smarts of the ordinary folk.

All I am trying to do is avoid simplistic statements, like Yorkers. For goodness sake, if a mind like Douglas Adams' requires information and education to get to atheism....

The problem with our culture is that we are swamped with religious ideas and explanations. It may not be a big step to start to doubt, but it is the step from agnosticism to atheism that is the really big one, as Adams indicates. To take that step people often need answers.

Just to give one small personal example, my late father used to believe in the Virgin Birth. He had no virtually no education in biology. When I explained that even if it were possible at all, Jesus should have been a girl, he started to realise the problems....

This is why I am passionate that education is so important for our future.

1071. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #74957 by steve99 on October 1, 2007 at 8:06 am

3. Proposition #3 does not follow from premises #1 and #2, because you can't directly go from "is" propositions to "ought" propositions.

All I am suggesting here is that this an argument for what it is reasonable to think, what follows from the way we discuss ideas, not what is definitely true or false.

It is reasonable to come to the conclusion stated in proposition #3, given premises #1 and #2.

If you enter into any form of discussion about the validity of an idea, then you have to follow certain rules about what is reasonable and what isn't. If you simply want to declare God as existing, then good for you - you are prepared to come to conclusions that don't require reason. But if you want to debate and discuss it, that is another matter. Bringing the 'is'/'ought' argument looks to me like a sign of desperation.

As for the 'complexity' argument, Robert handles it well - you are combining information, complexity and entropy in a horrendous mess of misunderstanding.

Dawkins analysis is correct. I suggest you read up on Boltzmann's work.

1072. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74925 by steve99 on October 1, 2007 at 6:32 am

It doesn't take much brain-power to be a religite, likewise, it doesn't take much brain-power to see that God is bullshit.

I think that is a pretty simplistic statement. Until the findings of Darwin, which provided an explanation for the complexity of life, many with even the highest brain power concluded that the Argument from Design was an argument for God. It took education for many to understand why this argument was flawed. Surveys clearly show that, these days, the more the education, the less the belief in religion.

Let me quote from Douglas Adams:

"So I became an Agnostic. And I thought and thought and thought. But I just did not have enough to go on, so I didn't really come to any resolution. I was extremely doubtful about the idea of god, but I just didn't know enough about anything to have a good working model of any other explanation for, well, life, the universe and everything to put in its place. But I kept at it, and I kept reading and I kept thinking. Sometime around my early thirties I stumbled upon evolutionary biology... making the move from Agnosticism to Atheism takes, I think, much more commitment to intellectual effort than most people are ready to put in..."

I think this illustrates how, for at least some people, even those with the finest minds, it certainly does take education to become an atheist, and can require reading a book.

1073. There Go The Dinosaurs

Comment #74905 by steve99 on October 1, 2007 at 4:49 am

You poor blighter – don't ever show your anxiety. Counter productive. Keep posting us, please.

Indeed.

Knowing the typical 16-year-old, you could immediately discourage them by saying 'what a cool idea - where and when are these services? I want to come too!'

1074. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #74891 by steve99 on October 1, 2007 at 2:29 am

I mean this much should be clear, and the fact that Dawkins thinks that God is a scientific issue only evidences how absurdly ignorant of serious theology Dawkins really is.

God is considered to be the origin of the universe. That is a scientific issue. You personally claim that God restored life to an individual called Jesus. That is in principle a scientific issue, as by definition there must have been a corpse that was medically dead yet at some future time showed biological activity.

So you are being hypocritical if you (1) claim that the existence of God is not a scientific issue, but (2) claim that God has had influences on the world that can be detected by science.

This is not surprising, as it is a common practise of theists - claim that God is out of reach of science... apart from the times when he sneaks in and does a little here and there.

(In the past you have tried to get around this by claiming that God simply selects one Universe from a series of possibilities, so does not actually interfere. However, this is nothing more than the anthropic principle applied to a multiverse, ideas which you claim are absurd, so you can't get around things this way).

And as you well know, the issue of individuals being conscious or not has no bearing at all on the issue of there being some independently existing mind called God. All you can conclude from your own consciousness is that you are conscious... nothing else.

1075. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74884 by steve99 on October 1, 2007 at 1:52 am

I no longer give any credence whatsoever (NONE) to random anonymous people online claiming to be atheist but have bad words to say about us. If they don't have the balls to say it to our face, I no longer give it time.

What a disappointing attitude. Not everyone wants to, or can be public about who they are, and anyway it is irrelevant. A rational response is to attack the message, not the messenger. If someone is making a point that is relevant, simply dismissing it because that person is anonymous is no way to counter the point.

1076. Religion as a Force for Good

Comment #74779 by steve99 on September 30, 2007 at 12:07 pm

"Romantics might say that Buddhism is unlike other religions, more a philosophy than a faith. But this would be untrue."

No, it really is true. It is possible to have no superstitious beliefs at all and still be a Buddhist. The problem is that we tend to impose our terms on complicated sets of ideas in different cultures.

1077. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #74693 by steve99 on September 30, 2007 at 2:09 am

But I personally find Dawkins's "Ultimate 747" to be trivially fallacious (as, by the way, do several notable naturalists such as Nagel and Orr) and therefore find it irrelevant for estimating probabilities one way or the other.

Well, your most recent post to me (307) before this one reveals that you don't seem to understand the argument at all. And far more naturalists find Dawkins' argument sound than don't. You should know that cherry-picking those who support your views is no way to argue.

On the contrary, after taking into account all evidence and comparing my own theistic worldview with naturalism one to one as for explanatory and predictive power, as well as for internal consistency and freedom from paradoxes, I find that the probability of God to be overwhelming.

But again and again, we have shown that this is because you simply don't understand the non-theistic worldviews you are comparing it with, and that you simply won't accept the clear paradoxes and inconsistencies in your worldview as you have described it.

When I further realize that theism is more ethically empowering and experientially valuable than naturalism I find theism even more attractive. So, obviously, we disagree.

And I find it ethically dangerous.

And that's ok. I mean if it turns out that you are right then it's ok with me. Let's only hope it's not so that we are both wrong and religious fundamentalists are right :-)

No, it really is not OK. It is very dangerous. You justify your morality based on your personal idea of God. That kind of thinking allows fundamentalists to justify their actions.

1078. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #74689 by steve99 on September 30, 2007 at 1:46 am

Now that's kind of an interesting result which I could use to argue that as this theistic world is much less complex than the even the simplest naturalistic world it is also much more probable,

No, you could not use it for such an argument. What this result neglects is what is required at the time of origin of the two models of the Universe. At time zero our Universe was very simple indeed. We get complexity, minds and so on as a result of physical processes, thermodynamics and evolution.

On the other hand, your universe, filled with minds, is very complex indeed at the time of origin.

1079. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #74586 by steve99 on September 29, 2007 at 4:03 pm

Nice answer steve but you never addressesd my main point. Namelijk " Boy George is the Moon"- do I sense you are runnung from a debate you know you can never win.

I know. But it is the way one runs that counts....

Incidentally, I am close to 'coming out' here.

Not that I am anyone of any consequence. Just a middle-aged gay fellow living with his civil
partner in the UK. But, somehow, hiding behind an avatar seems pretty pointless.

As a first stage, I will fill in the face in the icon.

1080. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #74576 by steve99 on September 29, 2007 at 3:24 pm

I posted a response to David, but it seems to have been lost. This was probably a good thing, as what I said was probably best not posted here.

I have had very close atheist friends lose babies due to problems with pregnancies in recent times. I can't forgive David for his comments here; trying to exploit such things for his pathetic beliefs.

Sorry, but I am angry. I have nothing but the deepest feelings to anyone who has lost a child. But David's use of this here is unforgivable.

1081. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #74571 by steve99 on September 29, 2007 at 3:00 pm

I may be missing something, Steve, but could you let me know which theists use the elephant in the fridge argument? I have never come across one yet.

Then you have not looked very far, or are being deliberately ignorant. All the time we see posts and comments from theists saying that 'god has interfered with evolution, but in ways that can't be detected'. Personally, I think you know this but are lying.

I certainly do not believe in an invisible God elephant.

Ok, then give us a single, clear, verifiable example of his 'footprint' in this Universe.

And are you really sure that you can explain morality and beauty from evolution?

Yes, I am really, deeply sure.

Is it not he case that you start off with the conclusion (there must be some evolutionary non-religious explanation) and lo and behold, you end up with the result you are looking for anyway.

No, this is not the case, as I can see examples of close-to-human morality and ideas of beauty in species that are evolutionarily close to us (the great apes). I am proud that I share my feelings of morality and beauty with chimps, gorillas and orang-utangs. I celebrate my ape ancestry. My morality has been selected and refined over millions of years. It does not come from a book (especially not your book, with its support of slavery and its strange obsession with homosexuality); it is deeper and more profound than that.

Our behaviour in terms of what we think of as beautiful and moral is precisely what we would expect from evolution.

Please provide even one example to the contrary.

I have just got back from hospital where I was visiting a 40 year old woman and her husband who had just had their first child. Got the phone call half an hour ago that the baby had just died. Somehow elephants in fridges seem somewhat trivial. At least for those of us who believe that we are more than 'throwaway survival machines'.

I find it hard to express how angry this comment makes me. That you would use this as some kind of attack on atheists. I have had dear atheist friends who have been recently through many miscarriages and they have deeply mourned and been traumatized by their losses. Shame on you, David. Just because we don't consider ourselves playthings of some higher being does not mean that we don't feel such losses deeply. Because we realise this is the only life have, it makes life even more precious to us, and NOT throwaway!

Shame on you, David. I hope some of your congregation read this and realise the kind of person you are.

1082. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #74565 by steve99 on September 29, 2007 at 2:40 pm

steve99
I really don't know why you bother with DG.

There are five reasons.

1. Because if someone posts ideas on a public forum, and those ideas are not challenged on that forum, then this somehow gives validity to those ideas.

2. Because I am utterly fascinated by the psychology of people like Dianelos. I find it amazing how someone who is obviously so intelligent can be so deluded, and believe such nutty ideas.

3. I have hope for humanity, and perhaps I feel that if Dianelos can be converted to rationality by intelligent debate, that there is some hope for our species.

4. I just love a good argument. One of the delights of becoming a student in the early 80s was sitting up all night debating things with friends. Since then, I have sought various forums where I can debate things that matter to me.

5. While Dianelos keeps posting, I get to read posts by people like Dr Benway, J, Epeeist and many, many others in response. I have learned so much from what they have written, and I feel humbled by their experience in debate, their understanding of philosophy, psychology and logic. Posting on this site and reading contributions to threads by such people has been a real intellectual delight.

1083. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #74544 by steve99 on September 29, 2007 at 12:36 pm

On some level he must know the whole package is daft. Perhaps until the final nail is actually in the coffin, engaging in debate makes his "worldview" seem nearly plausible.

The problem is that knowing deep down that an idea is daft (as a Trinitarian resurrecting God certainly is) does not help us to reject it. I suffer from mild OCD (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder). I find myself performing certain rituals (such as checking a door is closed a certain number of times). Even though I know that this is irrational, to not do this would require a considerable effort of will (especially if I am tired or stressed). I believe religion has a link to neuroses and compulsions. When I was a believer, I found the rituals of the Catholic mass to be a deep comfort, even though I knew they were meaningless.

I think religion and its beliefs and rituals often links to very deep parts of our minds; way below the rational level. People can then attempt to justify such deep feelings with all kinds of pseudo-rationalisations. A clear indication that this is happening is the rejection of rational argument. Dianelos has shown such symptoms when he repeatedly 'resets' his discussion as if past conversations had not happened, or when he struggles to use linguistic tricks to avoid criticism (typically... 'I am only putting this view forward as something that is useful, not something that is true').

I really see no hope of changing his core beliefs in what is basically Catholic Doctrine. His repeated use of phrases like 'I find that absurd' or 'I can't concieve' means that he has too much emotionally invested in these beliefs.

1084. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #74539 by steve99 on September 29, 2007 at 12:06 pm

Brother John. I hope you don't mind me commenting.

In short. Look for the reference books, texts that are the most reliable you can find.

I have a problem with this. If we are dealing with what is supposed to be a divine message, why should we have to search? Should not God be somewhat more obvious? As a comparison, I am something of an (atheist) Buddhist. I am keen to read the most reliable texts which report what the Buddha said. But I realise that this is a historical exercise, and not uncovering some deep truth.

It's a funny place this forum. You can write what amounts to a personal letter and there are maybe three, ten, twenty, a hundred others looking over your shoulder reading the correspondence!

Welcome to the internet :)

(I hope my habit of using caps doesn't bug you. I do it to make sure that where I put the stress comes across. Do you think it unnecessary?)

The problem is that it can seem rather eccentric. I would suggest instead the use of bold or italic, which can be obtained using the normal HTML tags.

1085. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #74535 by steve99 on September 29, 2007 at 11:25 am

WHY NO ONE SHOULD TAKE DIANELOS GEORGOUDIS SERIOUSLY

The reason why may not be obvious to those new to debating him. You may note a certain emphasis - a repeated theme - in my posts here. Dianelos may seem a reasonable fellow, who is simply trying to put forward a form of idealism... he seems to be merely subtly questioning science's idea of reality... perhaps with the occasional mention of a deistic God.

But no, there is another agenda. Dianelos believes in a Catholic-type Trinity God, who actually resurrected someone called Jesus on our planet. This is the grit in the centre of the apparently pure pearl of his reasoning. No matter how reasonable he seems in debate, no matter how carefully constructed his arguments; his subtle use (misuse?) of language, we should never forget this.

It is the difference between someone who believes in the possibility of alien life, and someone who believes that aliens have knocked on his door and offered him a flight to Venus.

1086. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #74531 by steve99 on September 29, 2007 at 11:02 am

Name one positive assertion about our shared reality that an atheist accepts a priori or without evidence that you don't likewise accept.

Beautifully put!

Channeling epeeist: The beliefs about shared reality of atheism form a proper subset of the beliefs about shared reality of most theists, and therefore need no additional justification.

1087. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #74522 by steve99 on September 29, 2007 at 9:14 am

I did not mean that necessarily all physicist today have outgrown the illusion that what they study is not just phenomenal reality but objective reality, but certainly most have and that's why they distinguish between theory and interpretation of theory.

No, that is not why they distinguish between theory and interpretation of theory. The reason why they do this is that they understand that interpretations of theory are tentative. They distinguish not because they reject ideas of reality, but because they are not yet sure which interpretations reflect reality.

As for Einstein, it's true he thought that science does (or rather should) study objective reality and therefore had his famous disagreement with Bohr - but as you know Einstein was proven wrong and Bohr was proven right.

You are missing the point. I was questioning your use of evidence and understanding of evidence. You posted quotes from Einstein which you claimed showed that he agreed with your point of view. I showed you were wrong. This throws doubt on any claim you make about the views of physicists.

There are? How come then there are a dozen or so mutually contradictory naturalistic descriptions of objective reality (and this just in relation with quantum phenomena) and none has ever been falsified by experiment?

You are missing the point. You were claiming that the descriptions of reality were in principle indistinguishable. I showed that they were potentially distinguishable. That is the way science advances. It puts forward ideas that are potentially subject to falsification. If the descriptions were fundamentally indistinguishable, then I would share some of your skepticism. However, please don't attempt to confuse the possibility that different views of reality are indistinguishable with the idea that there is no reality at all....

I don't see why a scientist having the attitude of mind that he or she is trying to descipher the mind of God is any less useful.

Perhaps not; but there is so much intellectual and emotional baggage with the phrase 'mind of God', that I can't see how it helps.

In other words I see that visualizing reality like many-worlds describes is useful because it makes it easier to think about quantum mechanics. Certainly easier than collapsing wave-functions.

Actually, I don't :)

I see the Many Worlds idea as solving nothing. My view (and many disagree with it) is that what science is ultimately about is explaining our experiences. In terms of experiences, there is a 'collapse' of the wave function, simply because *this* copy of me has *this* history of experiences. Saying that an uncountable number of 'me's' experience something else is not satisfying as an explanation.

If you want to see something really rather elegant (and far from absurd, even, I hope, to you) take a look at the Transactional Interpretation of QM.

1088. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #74513 by steve99 on September 29, 2007 at 7:50 am

Dr Benway:

I have to say thank you. I have learned so much from your posts, and you put my feeble efforts to shame.

1089. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #74498 by steve99 on September 29, 2007 at 6:55 am

Steve 99 – I know that atheists like to repeat the same arguments (and even illustrations – like some Christians!) but surely you can see the difference between proving whether there is an elephant in your fridge – and the chocolate teapot – and by the way I could prove that there is not a chocolate teapot. It is very difficult to discuss with people who think that it is impossible to prove that there is not an invisible elephant in their fridge. I was speaking at Dundee University last night to over 100 students and they were highly amused that some atheists think that their inability to disprove the elephant in their fridge, is somehow a reason for not believing in God.

I am glad they were amused. But the 'elephant in the fridge' argument is a good one, precisely because it is the one used by theists.

It used to be the case that theists claimed that the God-elephant was visible. After all, where did life come from? What about the stars, the world? There were reports of miracles. But.. we know where life comes from. We know about the stars, and how the world formed. There are a few unanswered questions, but that is to be expected - why should a species of ape with just a bit more intelligence than the rest be able to understand the entire basis of reality? (we have done pretty well to get where we have in terms of science)

The problem, you see, is that what seemed to be footprints of the God-elephant have turned out to be either nothing of the sort, or just illusions. After all, if James Randi can do what seems like a miracle, why believe anyone who claims to perform 'real' ones? Why claim that morality and beauty come from a God when we can explain them so well using evolution?

So what do the theists and theologists do to cling to their beliefs? They claim that the God-Elephant is invisible. He does untraceable work behind the scenes... work that is so untraceable he might as well not be there. Perhaps he hides in other dimensions or somehow outside of space and time, doing so little that science can't detect Him.

You claim that there is a God-Elephant, and you claim that He is invisible. So enjoy your laughter. You are laughing at yourselves.

1090. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74473 by steve99 on September 29, 2007 at 3:20 am

Don't get involved in creationism (or whatever they call it), it is a decoy away from the main issue, ie all religion is horse shit.

I agree. However, the RSS DO get involved in creationism.

1091. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #74472 by steve99 on September 29, 2007 at 3:03 am

As far as I am concerned TGD shows very well what happens when you publish a book outside your field of expertise without first checking with specialists.

Coming from someone who has shown a profound misunderstanding of thermodynamics, quantum physics (both interpretations and implications), mathematics, and philosophy (such ideas of truth and abstraction), I find any criticism from you of Dawkins 'going outside his area of expertise' a bit rich. You do this regularly here.

There is nothing wrong at all with going outside what you know in discussion; it is a great way to find things out and learn. What is problematic is doing this frequently and then claiming the moral high ground over others.

1092. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74468 by steve99 on September 29, 2007 at 2:22 am

If extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence then farcical theories (religion) only require farcical rebuttals (RRS).

No. For example, when someone presents a farcical idea about evolution in order to support creationism, the rebuttal should be to explain evolution accurately and clearly. The rebuttal should be about education, and education requires that you have your facts right.

1093. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #74463 by steve99 on September 29, 2007 at 2:06 am

So you imagine God like some Kind of king governing some kind of realm called Heaven, which is not that much unlike Earth (with coins one can toss, or at least with complicated arrangements of things to which statistical mechanics apply) and so on.

No, I don't. You do. You claim that our experiences are produced by God.

You may say "this is nothing to do with naturalism" but what you in fact do is to take your naturalistic intuitions you can't imagine doing without and hence believe are general, and apply them to theistic argument.

No. All I am assuming is that we have common experiences, and our memories of those experiences are real. None of the arguments I have put forward here rely on any particular framework for reality.

[1]: Actually the more complex something is the more probable it is (see the 2nd law of thermodynamics);

No, this is nonsense. The second law of thermodynamics discusses the increase in entropy. Far from claiming that more complex things are more probable, it discusses how complex things break down into disorder.

it's only in the special sense of "organized complexity" that it's reasonable (for a naturalist) to believe that the more complex something is the more improbable.

No, you are just making things up again.

"Organized complexity" is not easy to define (Dawkins in TGD doesn't) but its meaning is clear enough: it means something both complex and ordered in a smartly functional way.

And this definition has no relevance at all to the matter of statistics and likelihood.

Also one's language rather than simple should be clear, and I don't see why, for example, 100 heads in a row is more complicated then 5 heads in a row; I only see that the former is far more improbable than the latter.

The two issues are interconnected, as complicated things require more order (and hence are more improbable).

1. People tend to accept that if A is less complex than B then it is more reasonable to believe that A "just happened" than that B "just happened". (premise)

Not just that. Given a state of disorder and random fluctuations, B WILL just happen more often than A.

2. People tend to accept that the origin of the universe is less complex than God. (premise)

No. The origin of the universe as we know it IS less complex than God, or at least any kind of framework of any nature that would be required to support thought and intelligence. Even in a supernatural world, a small simple thing is less complex than a big less simple thing.

3. Therefore people tend to accept that it is more reasonable to believe that the origin of the universe "just happened" than that God "just happened".(from 1 and 2).
4. According to naturalism the origin of the universe "just happened". (premise)
5. According to theism God "just happened". (premise)
6. Therefore people tend to accept that naturalism is more reasonable than theism. (from 3, 4 and 5)

Is that it?

No. You have managed to fudge it up pretty well. This is nothing to do with naturalism at all. I carefully avoided any requirement for it.

Let's try yet again, using mostly your words.

1. People tend to accept that if A is less complex than B then it is more reasonable to believe that A "just happened" than that B "just happened". (premise)

2. People tend to accept that the origin of the universe is less complex than God. (premise)

3. Therefore people should accept that it is more reasonable to believe that the origin of the universe "just happened" than that God "just happened". (from 1 & 2)

That is it.

Now I can prove to you beyond doubt that this anti-creator argument has nothing whatsoever to do with general theism or naturalism. Most Buddhists believe in a supernatural world, populated by gods and spirits. But, this argument does not challenge their worldview at all. Why? They DO believe the Universe "just happened" and there as no intelligent creator.

You are trying to 'leverage' this argument to distinguish between naturalism and theism. That just won't work... all it is about is the presence or absence of a Creator.

1094. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74389 by steve99 on September 28, 2007 at 11:47 am

Well, perhaps there's hope for you yet as you now agree there's at least a revolution!

Not really, no.

Dawkins has made a very cautious start but the "coming out " idea was a step in the right direction. If he, Harris, Dennett etc. pooled their resources, funded and led a powerful movement, then they would probably do better than the RRS, and of course the RRS would probably just join them as I would since it would make me happy.

Sorry... I seem to have missed something. 'Do better than the RSS'. In what way? In terms of international visibility? In terms of generating controversy and articles and responses in the media?

In all these respects Dawkins and the others are way, way ahead of the RSS.

But somehow I don't see that happening in the near future if ever; we can't wait forever so in the meantime the RRS is all we've got and we need them badly.

We seem to inhabit different worlds. In my world I see major discussions about religion and atheism, and debate about these issues just about everywhere. The contribution of the RSS to these discussions and their presence in these debates is precisely zero. The talk is all of Dawkins and Hitchens.

1095. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #74378 by steve99 on September 28, 2007 at 10:50 am

Most naturalists repeat like mantra that there is no objective evidence for theism, but contrary to what they assume there is no objective evidence for naturalism either, simply because, given all objective evidence there is one can't really find out how the reality that produced that evidence really is. (Something that was known even to ancient Greek philosophers.) So reality may be naturalistic (you can pick any of the dozen or so interpretations of quantum mechanics for example), but it may be theistic also (many alternatives to pick from too). Unfortunately even harebrained "young Earth creationism" is compatible with all the objective evidence we have. It all comes down to probabilities again. So for a naturalist to simply cry "objective evidence" makes no sense.

Yes, it does. The reason is that it all comes down to probabilities. The naturalist explanation is less unlikely, as to call into existence a simple state of a universe which then proceeds by natural laws to generate what we experience is far, far, far more likely than to postulate a complex all-knowing mind that controls all thought and experience so as to emulate the experience of an objective Universe.

1096. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74375 by steve99 on September 28, 2007 at 10:40 am

If this revolution succeeds it will be like all others have been, those who decried the workers will be hypocrtical enough to partake of the fruits of their labour. I think you can bet on that.

Oh come off it. Those who are having the most impact are Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and so on. These are people who know how to debate, and how to put forward an argument clearly and in a well-mannered way (well, if one allows for Hitchens in some moods). If the revolution succeeds it will be because of them.

1097. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #74372 by steve99 on September 28, 2007 at 10:23 am

On the other hand, truth be told, any critical reading of TGD shows that the probability of God is not really comparable to fairies living at the bottom of the garden.

No, it isn't. You are right. The probability of God is orders of magnitude less. It is just about feasible that a small flying humanoid could have evolved, but a super-intelligent all-knowing chap who goes around making universes is quite a different matter.

Dawkins wildly overextended and it will boomerang.

Yes... I guess it is overextending to criticise the idea of God using the widely respected ideas of philosophers such as Russell, but not widly overextending to imagine an invisible superintelligent being that cares about each of us personally, and performs miracles...

I have read naturalist academic philosophers estimate the probability of God between 5% and 25%, but no, that was not good enough for Dawkins.

I should think not! I would expect FAR more accurate estimates of the existence of an invisible unprovable being than that... especially one that conforms to the Catholic idea of a Trinity and goes around resurrecting people...

1098. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #74362 by steve99 on September 28, 2007 at 8:41 am

But finding good models is I think science's goal because that's after all what's most useful and that's why we admire those scientists who managed to find such models from Newton to Darwin to Einstein to Heisenberg to Feynman.

It is not the 'goal' of science. It is simply the procedure that science uses. The reason why finding good models is part of the procedure is that models can be tested. But science is more than just finding models. It is about interpreting what the models mean, and how that changes our idea of reality.

Physicists have already outgrown that illusion and hence clearly distinguish between theory and interpretation, but scientists at less "hard" levels of science such as biologists still believe they observe and hence study reality itself

No, you are making things up again. We have been over this again and again. Physicists certainly do believe they are studying reality, and we recently had a discussion about the writings of Einstein that showed this.

No wonder, as nobody even knows how to find out which of these contradictory descriptions, if any, is actually true.

Sorry, making things up again. There are certainly tests for these descriptions. David Deutch has come up with a possible (albeit controversial) test for his Many Worlds interpretation, and there have been recent experiments which (again, controversially) appear to show evidence for the Transactional interprtation. You are wrong about this.

That naturalism is based on objective thought is one more naturalistic myth.

Nope, sorry. You keep trying to come up with justifications for that (as above), but they are clearly false.

But if you think that naturalism's study of reality (beyond science's study of phenomena) is a useful enterprise, please state what testable predictions that study makes. Because if naturalism does not make any testable predictions then it can't be very useful, can it?

All naturalism says is that there is a real physical world out there. It is an attitude of mind. But, it is a useful attitude as it encourages us to progress in our understanding. If we were to simply sit back and think that everything was just 'the mind of God', there would be little point.

1099. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74333 by steve99 on September 28, 2007 at 7:07 am

Steve99 et al, I'm afraid that it's your attitudes that are the problem. You don't like the RRS? Fine. YouTube atheists absolutely love 'em, and quite frankly that audience is a damn sight more important than all the coffee house philosopher atheists, which this site attracts.

I DON'T hate the RSS! I support much of what they do. I actually think that the Blasphemy Challenge was a rather clever scheme. All I am saying is that I don't unconditionally support everything that they do. I think they sometimes (and ONLY sometimes) hurt the cause of rationality by being somewhat unprepared for debates.

And also I think the personal site of Richard Dawkins is somewhat more than just a place for 'coffee house philosopher atheists'.

1100. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74316 by steve99 on September 28, 2007 at 5:31 am

Steve, I hate to say it but I think you're talking shit here, for some reason you just can't accept that people you don't like are standing up for a cause that you seem to want to be part of but won't actually do anything about.

The people that we are fighting against in the battle for rationality will do almost anything to resist. They will distort, they will corrupt, they will use anything to try and make our arguments seem mistaken. This is why we need to approach these things with the greatest care, and not simply enthusiasm. If we put forward a sloppy debating point, you can bet it will be picked up immediately and used against us, and, hey - we are the ones who are supposed to have the facts, we are the ones who claim to know what we are talking about. If you are going to argue against creationists, you had bloody well have all the right scientific arguments at your fingertips, and be prepared to know how to use them. In fact, it is possibly wiser to not even engage people in such debates (as Dawkins refuses to do).

Why do you think that is Steve? Could it be they're smart enough to see as I and Zamboro have, that ANY fucking effort is better than NONE!

Sorry, but I just don't think that this is smart at all, for the reasons I explain above.

Give it up! You lost on this one!

Great way to argue :)

I am not arguing generally against the RSS. All I am saying is that in some ways they have been sloppy, and in circumstances where it CAN be damaging to the cause.