1151. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

Comment #71813 by steve99 on September 19, 2007 at 5:52 pm

Even something as extreme and as stupid as young Earth creationism would work, as science cannot possibly verify that a six day divine creation of our universe at about 4004 BCE did not take place.

No, that does not work. You see, even if the universe really is only a few thousand years old, I have a far simpler explanation, which requires no God. Just wait long enough, and an entire Universe with everything as it was a few thousand years ago will arise as a random statistical fluctuation of the matter and energy of the universe. No need for a God.

1152. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

Comment #71810 by steve99 on September 19, 2007 at 5:44 pm

Oh, God's meddling could be both non-detectable and effective. Here is one possible way: Take the physical state of the universe when the first self-replicating organism appeared so that natural evolution can start, and tabulate all possible random mutations that could possibly happen and what kind of species each series would produce. To increase the number of alternatives even more add the effect of plausible "random" environmental parameters, such as the impact of asteroids on Earth and whatnot. So we get a huge number of possible histories each producing different species. Now remove the relatively few histories that would appear to be statistically surprising, i.e. where God's meddling would be detectable. (Here is an analogy: suppose you tabulate all possible histories of 100 roulette runs; you would then remove all such runs which even though equally probable appear to be statistically surprising, for example those where you get the same number in all runs.) All remaining histories of possible evolutionary processes would appear to be a completely natural process even if science had minute access to all the details of evolutionary history.

No, this is in principle detectable. Suppose you found a particular roulette run that had the same number again and again. You would be entitled to ask questions, and assume that something odd was going on..... statistical flukes like that do indeed require explanation.

However, we know that evolution certainly does not show any 'flukes' like that. There is nothing that needs explanation by assuming either intervention or rejected alternatives.

If we do find 'flukes', such as inexplicable fine-tuning of physical constants, then there is a scientifically testable way of explaining those... we can look for suggestions of a multiverse with different values of those constants for each universe. If we find that there are no such universes, *then* there is a reason to look for design.

Also, you can't use the 'God has run multiple attempts at the Universe' argument anyway, as that is a 'multiverse' argument, which you have insisted all this time is absurd! If you are going to reject multiverse ideas that come from physics, it is inconsistent to introduce your own multiverse ideas that come from God.

You may now realise why multiverse ideas solve many problems. Just forget the God; assume that the many alternative Universes start up by themselves, and don't bother to delete the supposedly 'failed' ones (after all, why does it matter to us if those still exist or not?).... simple.

I know that Dawkins in his TGD argues that the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis and hence falsifiable by science, but this is one more case where Dawkins is wrong.

No, as you have backed his claim by specifying conditions that are certainly scientifically detectable.

In fact, you have contradicted yourself:

"Take the physical state of the universe when the first self-replicating organism appeared so that natural evolution can start"

What physical state? Are you trying to put forward an argument which implies an objective physical state of the universe? But, you can't do that, as you claim no such state exists.

You can't use an assumption of objective physical state to justify a theistic worldview in which there is no objective physical state....

1153. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71790 by steve99 on September 19, 2007 at 4:44 pm

if im not mistaken most plants in the wild actually have a fungi/root relationship.

I think that is turning out to be the case.

there are probably many, many plants that are common garden and house plants and do fine despite the lack of their 'intended' partners!! biology rules

Oh, definitely. One of the clearest examples are orchids. In the wild, just about all orchids are totally dependent on fungi. Their seeds have virtually no food storage, so remain dormant until a fungus attempts to invade their tissues. The orchid seed then fights back and uses the fungus as food. As the orchid develops leaves, the situation becomes more symbiotic and the orchid supplies the fungus with nutrients.

When we cultivate orchids, we can grow the seed in a culture medium with all the nutrients that the fungus would provide... we can break the symbiosis.

However, there is one orchid genus we know of with a very strange lifestyle. Rhizanthella is entirely subterranean, except when it flowers. It has no roots, only tubers or rhizomes, and it is parasitic on fungi... as not being photosynthetic, it can't contribute anything back.

It is very easy to see how this evolved; as the orchid+fungus moved into areas with rich leaf litter for the fungus to feed on the orchid would have less need to photosynthesize, as it could feed of the fungus which would thrive because of the organic material.

I find that awesome... we find so many examples of where fungi are disease organisms for plants, but we also know of cases where plants are effectively disease organisms for fungi!

1154. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71776 by steve99 on September 19, 2007 at 3:56 pm

funny how the faithful start throwing around the word 'faith' (ignoring its context here) like its a dirty word, a bit like when saying atheism is 'just' another type of religion.

Yes, it is funny, isn't it? It is as if they are saying 'if that is all you can come up with, your arguments are as hopeless as mine'.

1155. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #71773 by steve99 on September 19, 2007 at 3:53 pm

he missed the point. That only makes sense if there is eternal life.

No, I knew exactly what the point was. Goodness to others indeed makes more sense if there is 'eternal life', but that does not mean the enternal life of an individual. Doing good benefits others, and those some of those others will presumably have children who will benefit from the improved mood of the parents and so on, hopefully indefinitely in some form.

In fact, doing good makes no sense whatsoever if there was eternal life for an individual, as any individual act performed during a human lifetime is diluted to insignficance by the squintillion upon googleplex of years we will spend afterwards. In fact, such acts are quite literally of infinitesimal insignificance.

1156. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71765 by steve99 on September 19, 2007 at 3:41 pm

Now, I have no problem believing that Darwin saw 13 or 14 different types of finches on the Galapagos Islands, but what I still haven't seen is a half-lizard, half-bird in the fossil record.

Well, that is because birds didn't evolve from lizards. They evolved from therapod dinosaurs. There are wonderful fossils showing this, especially recent ones from China.

Saying that micro will produce macro over millions of years sounds great, but it is unprovable- requiring faith.

As you now know, you don't need lots of micro to produce macro. There are other mechanisms.

And what about symbiosis? Two organisms which live off of one another or two parts which work only in conjunction- how do you explain how they evolved this way? Which came first and how did it survive prior to the other?

You are assuming that the organisms will only work in conjunction. This is the case for many, however, we see plenty of examples of different stages of symbiosis where the organisms are less dependent. Perhaps you have a garden? Well, the soil is full of fungi, a large number of which are symbiotic with green plants. Some of these fungi act as an extended root system for the plants, increading water update. In return, the fungi get nutrients from the plant. However, in some conditions this symbiosis is not vital. For example, when the plants have access to plenty of water. But, when water is scarce, the symbiosis is vital (at least for the plants), as they need the water-uptake capabilities of the fungi.

So we can see just how such partnerships evolve.

You see, the best approach to science is this area is not to sit back and claim that things are impossible, never happen, or require 'faith'. All it takes is a little humility, enough to ask those who know about these subject to explain things, and you will get clear answers.

But as has been pointed out by others, you are probably not an expert in other fields, but don't feel the need to claim divine intervention where you can't see how things work.

1157. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71762 by steve99 on September 19, 2007 at 3:32 pm

Hybrids and mutations are not examples of regularly occurring macroevolution, and, most of the time, they result in something that dies quickly. These examples are the exception, not the rule.

This does not make sense. How can you speak about 'regularly occurring macroevolution' if you claim that macroevolution does not happen?

It matters not one jot if these are exceptions, or if this is a rare example of how macroevolution is supposed to work. The fact is you were wrong, and you now know it. You claimed that we could never find an example of macromutation, and I described in detail an example of a natural macromutation that has actually been observed in recent history.

Let us be sure of what we are talking about here: a sudden change that results in a new species with significantly different characteristics from the original one(s).

The argument that this mostly results in organisms that can't survive is bizzare. No-one is claiming otherwise ... the majority of mutations that effect phenotype are harmful.

And, the widespread occurrent of polyploidy in plants shows that this form of macromutation is very common indeed.

It is also a mechanism for macromutation in animals. In 1999 a polyploid variety of rat was found in Argentina.

Now, the things that I eat are an example of something that has been manufactured and is not naturally occurring.

No, that is not true. The micromutation (selecting different varieties and breeding) is artificial, whereas the macromutation that results in polyploids has almost always been natural. All we do is select from the results.

1158. VOTE on the 'Faith smackdown': Richard Dawkins vs Francis Collins

Comment #71735 by steve99 on September 19, 2007 at 2:49 pm

If god is outside nature, hence outside our universe, then what good is the existence of a god?

This is such a common idea, but is utterly bizarre. There is this infinite, all-powerful being who created everything and and is omnipotent, but as soon as anyone actually goes looking for Him he runs off and hides in some other dimension or reality like a timid faun. Maybe He is just incredibly shy...

1159. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71716 by steve99 on September 19, 2007 at 2:25 pm

I'm right there with you, but macro evolution is a whole different ballgame. There has never been any evidence of this, and there never will be.

Are you attempting to score some kind of record for getting the most misunderstandings of science in a single thread?

Not only is there undeniable evidence for macroevolution, but we have actually seen it happen. We have seen entirely new species of plants form. One of the neatest examples of this is salt marsh grasses of the genus Spartina. Sometime in the last 200 years or so the species Spartina alterniflora arrived in Europe. A combination of natural hybridization and change in chromosome number resulted in Spartina anglica. This is an entirely new species, which out-competes the existing ones.

This is a perfect example. We have a few individual events (hybridization, chromosome number change through mutation) that lead to a new species with different characteristics, which is precisely what macromutation is defined as. This then out-competes existing organisms, showing exactly how Natural Selection works. Even better, the process of polyploidy (genome duplication) at work here shows just how easy it is for Nature to 'add information' to the genome. With multiple copies of the same gene, one or more copies can potentially vary without having major deleterious effects, as the unchanged copy can continue to provide the original functionality.

Polyploidy, which is macromutation, is very common in Nature. Most food crops are polyploid. You almost certainly eat examples of what you claim there there can never be evidence for every day! (Still, that is one way to destroy evidence).

1160. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

Comment #71703 by steve99 on September 19, 2007 at 2:02 pm

That quantum mechanics in contrast to non-classical physics does challenge our intuitions about the very objectivity of physical reality is common knowledge; that's why people speak of quantum mechanics being paradoxical and mysterious and so on.

This is not common knowledge. Quantum mechanics does not challenge our intuitions about the very objectivity of physical reality; what it does is challenge our intuitions about the nature of physical reality. That is why quantum mechanics is claimed to be mysterious.

The only reason you claim that it challenges objective phsyical reality is because you refuse to accept the types of physical realities that Quantum Mechanics implies. You can't hand-wave away what you don't like about QM and then claim what is left is the true meaning of QM.

Anyway, to use QM for this sort of argument is logically flawed. I have had a growing suspicion that your arguments here were dodgy, and I have finally found the reason. It is so obvious I feel embarassed that I did not realise it before. (Of course, others may have pointed this out in ways too subtle for me to have followed).

You have been claiming all along that science does not probe reality, yet by drawing implications from QM that is precisely what you are doing - you are using the science of particle physics to make statements about the nature of reality.

If you don't accept that science can probe objective reality, then you are in no position to use QM to imply anything!

1161. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #71601 by steve99 on September 19, 2007 at 5:19 am

Many reasons. 'Love your neighbour as yourself' means you do good to others. Now, if they're going to die, and never remember what you did, what difference does it make to them, ultimately? In fact, what difference does any of it make, ultimately?

Good deeds, even minor ones, have effects that spread. Show love to a neighbour and this may make them show more love to others.

1162. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #71556 by steve99 on September 19, 2007 at 3:01 am

However, if I didn't believe in God, I would find myself in newatheist's position, trying to convince myself that what I know is right and wrong is nothing more than an opinion - either that or trying to hide from that fact and pretend it wasn't true.

But the interesting thing is that no matter what you believed, no matter what you were trying to convince yourself of, I am sure you would not suddenly turn evil. You would carry on trying to do the right thing....

Which is the whole point isn't it?

1163. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

Comment #71530 by steve99 on September 19, 2007 at 1:21 am

To my knowledge Newtonian mechanics does not in any way contradict our intuitions about the objective existence of the universe we observe around us.

It certainly does contradict our intuitions. Ideas like chaos are certainly not intuitive but are entirely based on Newtonian mechanics.

1164. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

Comment #71528 by steve99 on September 19, 2007 at 1:18 am

If God had interfered with these random mutations in a systematic albeit statistically undetectable manner then God could very well have designed the species including us without in any way contradicting what we know about natural evolution.

No. Because if it is statistically undetectable then it might as well not have occurred. You can either have detectable and effective, or not-detectable and ineffective.

This is the kind of nonsense one can come up with when one's view of the universe is based on nothing more than word-play.

1165. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71519 by steve99 on September 19, 2007 at 12:57 am

One of your own arguments against God's existence is the typical "well who created God?" argument. If you knew but a small fraction of basic theology then you would understand that part of what defines "God" as "God" is his self-existent nature. He is not a contingent being.

Of course we know about theological ideas like this. The problem with theology is that it is mostly just word-play. Simply defining God as "self-existent" is no form of explanation; it was simply an indication of ignorance.

1166. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #71214 by steve99 on September 18, 2007 at 3:54 am

Does it not require a genuine mental effort to give a response to Langham, once one has realised that morality is not objective?

Gosh Paul, you must really have a struggle in life because of this need to believe in objective things. I have not been following this thread in detail, so I don't know your situation, but let's assume you have a partner, or some children.

Do you go through mental gynmastics when you tell them you love them, because love is just a feeling and there is no objective standard?

Suppose you are eating a nice meal. Do you go through mental torture, because you can't say that the meal is tasty, because there is no objective standard of tastiness?

Suppose you trip and twist your ankle... do you feel you not qualified to say 'it hurts' because you don't know of any objective standard for pain?

Our feeling of morality is a feeling. We feel pangs of conscience (or we should do if we are mentally healthy) about doing certain things. That is life, and the way things are. You don't need a God to instantiate perfect objective morality to have an inner feeling that something is wrong.....

Unless you are going to tell us that God instantiates objective pain, tastiness etc..?

1167. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #71177 by steve99 on September 18, 2007 at 1:50 am

This is just a fact in physics.

Because it isn't a fact in the way you think it is.

It is well known that the vaccum is unstable and matter and energy are constantly being created and anihilated, the duration of such processes are limited by the uncertainty principle. This is standard knowledge in high energy physics and field theory.

And here you describe how things are conserved... because what is created is soon anihilated. Any lack of conservation both occurs randomly and is strictly short term, so is useless as a mechanism for any intervention by a creator.
.......................

Creation demands the existence of a Creator. The more we learn about science, the more the evidence demands that things were designed as they are.

Actually, we find the precise opposite. The more we learn about science, the more we find that complexity can arise by itself with no intervention.

The complexity of the creation demands intelligence in its design.

But here is the thing; the creation was not complex at all. It was a very simple state indeed. Complexity arose later, through the effects of forces like gravity.

Oh and....

He is infinite. He is timeless.

Even if He has revealed himself in some way, to claim these things seems a bit premature, unless you have some kind of infinitely long ruler to hand.

1168. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #70882 by steve99 on September 17, 2007 at 6:42 am

Sorry Steve but I would [call Newton Ignorant]. With quotes like, "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."

That is not what I assumed was being meant by 'ignorant'. The implication was that religion resulted in relative ignorance compared to others in the same society. That certainly can't be said of Newton. I think it is meaningless to use ignorance in the sense you using it, as we are all ignorant about so much about the universe....

1169. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #70866 by steve99 on September 17, 2007 at 5:28 am

Oh no! Not another 'God does not exist in the Universe' argument. Why can't they see how dumb this is? It is easily countered:

Even if God exists and has no contact with the Universe, and people have a belief that He exists, then this belief is still a form of delusion, as it cannot be based on any evidence, so can be nothing more than co-incidence.

1170. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #70854 by steve99 on September 17, 2007 at 4:49 am

I'm sure other people can think of more ...

Dawkins does not realise that because science doesn't know everything, therefore God exists.

God is beyond what we can imagine or understand, therefore Dawkins can't understand Him, so can't reject Him, so God exists.

Dawkins is rude, so God exists.

And... one of my favourites, from the cunning mind of the incomparable Madeline Bunting:

Because atheists don't believe in God, they aren't qualified to discuss Him, so God exists.

1171. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #70842 by steve99 on September 17, 2007 at 4:11 am

Let's see...

Wherever there is religion there is ignorance.

Ah. Much better =D

No, still a very poor generalisation. Isaac Newton was religious, but I would not call him ignorant... there are a lot of philosophies that are called 'religion'. Not all of them involve superstitions or Gods. Without those, what is there to object to?

The moral here is that all generalisation are wrong. even this one.

1172. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #70831 by steve99 on September 17, 2007 at 3:32 am

whereever religion is you will see division, poverty, ignorance and suffering.

This is the kind of generalisation that gives atheists a bad name. Many people have done and still do good things in the name of religion. Religion has led to some wonderful life-affirming creative endeavours - the ceiling of the Cistine Chapel, John Donne's poetry... there are even 'religions' (such as some forms of Buddhism) which encourage doubt and reason, without a belief in Gods.

What matters is that people are able to be creative and moral without religion, and that religion (if it involves faith) stifles reason in a potentially dangerous way.

But please, let's not generalise like this. It does our cause no good, as it is clearly false.

1173. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #70825 by steve99 on September 17, 2007 at 3:06 am

and extremely eager to state their case against Dawkins.

My view is that flea-ness is not just about marketing - it is because they are doing just this, rather than write a general book in which a discussion of Dawkins argument can be included as part of a larger case. I don't think it is the issue of quality of argument. It is the targetting and opportunism.

But I guess it is not worth arguing about to any degree...

1174. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #70647 by steve99 on September 16, 2007 at 12:48 pm

But imagine: a popular book by some respected, charismatic person regarding global warming takes off arguing we've nothing to worry about. I'd be happy if someone rapidly published any honest refutations of the points in the book.

Sure, but suppose the book was called...
"The Global Warming Delusion". I would have FAR more respect for someone who published a book called, say
"Global Warming, The Facts"
as against
"Why that Global Warming Book Everyone Has Heard of is Wrong" or
"Global Warming Really Isn't a Delusion"

That's what makes them parasites. Not their timing or cover art, IMHO.

No, I am afraid I disagree. I think it is specifically the timing, naming and/or cover art that does make them parasites, as they are trying to get improved publicity by explicitly referring to the original book.

1175. The Dawkins debate

Comment #70555 by steve99 on September 16, 2007 at 3:06 am

But how does an agnostic argue for particular moral certainties, like sexual mores? Using appeals to "nature"?

You are assuming too much use of intellect. Such people don't 'argue' for moral certainties... they simply have a strong feeling that something is right or wrong, and find it comforting that their Church backs these feelings.

1176. The Dawkins debate

Comment #70502 by steve99 on September 15, 2007 at 6:32 pm

Dr Benway: It is quite different here in the UK. I think a significant fraction of the population are really agnostics, but the cosy and unthreatening Church of England provides a comforting sense of community and ritual. Atheism seems to many to be mainly a matter of bad manners, as one does not really need to believe that much to be a Christian in the UK. The problem is that many are attracted to religion not so much because of any deep belief in God, but because it seems to provide moral certainties, and back their personal prejudices. This was clearly seen when the Church of England accepted the ordination of women, and many converted to Catholicism.

1177. The Dawkins debate

Comment #70493 by steve99 on September 15, 2007 at 6:00 pm

Dr Benway:

My feeling is that people feel more comfortable identifying with a definite point of view. I guess I have a problem with agnosticism because I live in the UK, where the Church of England is flexible enough to cope with such uncertainties. There have been bishops in this Church who have expressed disbelief in almost all the Christian doctrines, and who were pretty much agnostic. This gentle and welcoming organisation seems so innocuous, except that in recent times it was involved in a major political campaign to supress gay equality laws in the UK. Fortunately, it failed. This is why I personally would like to promote atheism... agnosticism does not provide sufficient distance from the machinations of religious organisations in my country,

1178. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #70489 by steve99 on September 15, 2007 at 5:46 pm

You jumped too keenly on the wrong boat I think.

You are correct. I foolishly jumped in and posted based on a quick scan of a post.

1179. The Dawkins debate

Comment #70485 by steve99 on September 15, 2007 at 5:37 pm

The focus of our argument must be against claims of an interventionist God. You know, the fag-hating, sex-phobic big Guy in the Sky who does magic.

I think the only argument against that is that there is no God at all. This may be extreme, but I think the details of agnosticism and deism are lost on most people. I honestly think people will find arguments against any god far simpler to follow that the subtle arguments against intervention.

1180. The Dawkins debate

Comment #70478 by steve99 on September 15, 2007 at 5:04 pm

I see a real problem in some of these posts, perhaps best described as 'the arrogance of the armchair scientist'. I see this often in discussions of science. The enthusiastic amateur decides that they have an insight into a scientific issue, and it never occurs to them that those who have been working in that field of research for decades have never had the same thought. I mean, obviously Professor Dawkins would never had heard of the cosmological work of Stephen Hawkins, not have considered the beliefs of Einstein, and merely being one of the top evolutionary biologists, how could Dawkins possibly understand the complexity of the cell? I mean, it is obvious to these people that Dawkins could not not know of these things, otherwise he would realise how flawed his atheism really was!

This 'infallible wisdom of the armchair expert' is a worrying aspect of western society - it is an abandonment of rationalism, and a rejection of the idea that expertise takes time and effort to obtain, that science is difficult and true understanding will always be limited to an expert elite.

1181. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #70402 by steve99 on September 15, 2007 at 10:47 am

Dreamer's Dilemma, Ann Coulter would be proud of you!

Being somewhat skeptical of Chomsky is hardly Coulterish.

1182. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #70386 by steve99 on September 15, 2007 at 8:14 am

Old Tyre is no longer a city in the slighest meaningful sense, whatever the map says. Ah, now. Actually, even the map is no help to your case... Can I therefore politely suggest you drop it?

You can suggest if you like, but I don't think it is going to happen. If you claim to have found a city, then there must still be some remnant or imprint that caused you to recognise the site. That is the way satellite imaging (be it visual, infrared or radar) works... it picks up traces and disturbances. The fact that we are having this discussion shows the ambiguity of the situation, and why trying to fit things to prophesies is a waste of time.

1183. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #70357 by steve99 on September 15, 2007 at 3:52 am

Steve, I know, from your various posts, that you have tremendous respect for Hitchens and even see virtues in his pro-Iraq war stance. But Herman has pointed out serious deficiencies in his political world-view

This is, I feel, a non-sequitur. Respect does not have to come from support of every view. I respect Hitchens' because of his wit, his writing style and his intelligence. I do not agree with all of his views.

I did misread what you wrote somewhat, and it was not a direct quote from the clearer statement in that article.

1184. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #70342 by steve99 on September 15, 2007 at 2:01 am

His value is enhanced by the fact that he is a "straddler," that is, a man in transition from an earlier left politics to apologetics for imperial wars... and a harsh critic of Kissinger and Pinochet.

What a hopelessly simplistic analysis. I don't see Hitchens any less critical of Kissinger and Pinochet these days...

1185. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

Comment #70337 by steve99 on September 15, 2007 at 1:34 am

In the upshot, he gives us a rather swift, impressionistic, and at times humorous, account of a variety of these "proofs" to show that there are obvious problems with them all. He makes it clear that his account is not meant to be the final word, but just enough to convey to a popular audience how problematic the whole exercise is. E.g., he does not try to tie down the ontological proof to show exactly where it goes wrong, or how someone like Plantinga might try to defend it - and why that, in turn, might be criticised.

Perfectly expressed, Russell.

1186. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

Comment #70334 by steve99 on September 15, 2007 at 1:31 am

Yes, Dawkins may be very readable, but that doesn't tell you anything about his accuracy.

Then, I am afraid, I still haven't been clear enough. I was not just talking about Dawkins' readability. It was the clarity of reasoning helps with such readability. It is a talent to get right to the heart of a particular point under discussion, even when he is occasionally wrong.

1187. Good News: Both our Foundations are now Officially Recognized as Charities

Comment #70268 by steve99 on September 14, 2007 at 4:07 pm

This is very good news. Congratulations.

1188. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

Comment #70267 by steve99 on September 14, 2007 at 4:05 pm

Haidt's point, again: readers may assume Dawkins applies the "harsh rigour of science" when in fact he often is merely stating opinions. TGD is after all a polemic, not a scientific work, and his harsher words reflect his particular interest and approach (ie, refusing to admit irrational thought is in some way valid or worthy of discussion).

I should have been clearer. Firstly, I was discussing Dawkins' approach in general and not just TGD; Secondly, the phrase 'harsh rigour of science' was not quite right. I can't think of a more appropriate phrase at the moment, but what I meant is that Dawkins (along with some other scientists who write on these matters) has a direct and incisive style that is informed by his scientific background - even when he isn't writing about science. Dawkins' deals with Aquinas' proofs of the existence of God in the same manner as he dealt with Punctuationism in the Blind Watchmaker - with a clarity that was a pleasure to read.

1189. Review of Darwin's Angel

Comment #70226 by steve99 on September 14, 2007 at 12:02 pm

It is interesting that you mention parallel universes, because I think they belong in the same category as religions: they can, in principle, never be tested, and so have no place in science.

Sorry to continue an off-topic discussion; parallel universes can be tested, at least in principle. David Deutch has some interesting ideas about this, and future observations of the cosmic microwave background can test the ekpyrotic hypothesis, which assumes a parallel universe in a different spatial dimension.....

1190. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #70223 by steve99 on September 14, 2007 at 11:53 am

Doesn't matter whether he's responding to something popular or not.

Perhaps not, but as I said it seems undignified; it seems hasty. It does not give an impression of a learned and considered response - indeed, it seems more like a worried defensive reaction, and actually emphasises the influence of these atheist books.

If I were an author who wanted to respond to a popular and controversial book, I would wait a year or so, then produce a book which did not mention the author or title of that book on the front cover! I would attempt to let my book stand or fall on its own merits. That seems to me to be the intellectually honourable way to proceed.

1191. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #70215 by steve99 on September 14, 2007 at 11:30 am

I see nothing wrong with a book about a book.

Not in principle, but there is something undignified about rushing out a 'me too' response to a book that is in the best-seller lists. Far better to let the dust settle and come up with book with broader scope than simply a response to Dawkins' views.

1192. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #70181 by steve99 on September 14, 2007 at 9:04 am

On Being a Flea:

My response:

The 'flea' label was chosen because of the usual nature of the books written by those who respond to Dawkins and fellow prominent atheists. Just look at some of the titles: "The Dawkins Delusion", "The Dawkins Letters", "The God Delusion Revisited", "Letter to a Christian Nation: Counter Point".

They are using the success of the original books to assist with marketing. If the authors don't see this, they are worryingly naive. This is where the parasitism comes in. Your own book is perhaps more subtle. It avoids words and instead shows a (hardly flattering) picture of Sam Harris on the cover.

Neither Harris or Dawkins (or Hichens or Dennet) cover a fraction of the arguments about religion. It would have shown more integrity (and less of a parasitic nature) for the 'fleas' to have written general books on the subject; to open up new areas of debate.

The moral of this is: don't be a flea. If you have good arguments for a point of view write a book that stands alone, and does not seem like you are merely reactive. You will be derided for that, and justifiably so.

Also, it is not useful to cherry-pick a few responses from what is a open forum (Dawkins' website) as evidence for anything. You will note a healthy diversity of views from atheists on that site; what they have in common is healthy skepticism, and an ability to see through the waffle and wordplay that seems commonplace in the writings of the 'fleas'; however this is usually combined with a willingness to debate with passion and vigour (and often considerable patience).

1193. Review of Darwin's Angel

Comment #70140 by steve99 on September 14, 2007 at 7:48 am

And religion is hard to fit in to that agenda, for it simply isn't about facts.

Of course it is. When I was a Catholic and we recited the Nicene Creed it was an expression of what we believed to be true, not a vague reference to myths we kind of liked.

1194. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #70130 by steve99 on September 14, 2007 at 7:33 am

What I am saying is that city is partly defined by its boundaries - just like the marks in the carpet define 'wardrobeville'. Boundaries include things like foundations of walls and buildings. These are structural. If they remain, then the city has not been completely destroyed - it is not 'non existent' if its boundaries can be located.

1195. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #70120 by steve99 on September 14, 2007 at 6:17 am

Old Tyre is truly not just an ex-city, but a non-city. Gone, removed, non-existent. Just as Ezekiel said it would be.

I happened to study satellite imaging as part of my Ph.D. research. if it was gone, remove, non-existent, then there would be no satellite imagery by definition, sorry.

1196. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

Comment #70115 by steve99 on September 14, 2007 at 5:49 am

What I meant above by "our common sense of truth" was "our common sense of what truth means", as should be abundantly clear from the context, and not "our common sense of what is true" as you understood, and what in any case does not make any sense in the context of our discussion of theism versus atheism. Perhaps you should take some time to try to comprehend what the other person means and not just reflexively react and point out that they are "clearly wrong" and what their "fatal flaw" is and whatnot. Take your time thinking, it's a good habit.

It was not clear from the context. We can only respond to what you write, not what you wish others to read into what you write.

Yes.

Good. I am glad that attitude is now on record.

And I am not sure Dawkins's qualifications as a scientist are any good outside of his field of expertise.

Well, I am glad that you aren't sure. But then I am confident you feel yourself more able to judge this than the Royal Society. You may wish to re-read what I wrote. Dawkins is Professor of Public Understanding of Science, not Public Understanding of Evolutionary Biology and Nothing Else Because that is All I Know About, Sorry.

As for Hitchens, you know, demagogues are fine essayists also, so I don't see that qualification as especially relevant either.

Ah.. a great straw man. Fine; ignore Hitchens as an internationally respected biographer, historian and intellectual.

I have always wondered about how often "new atheists" use the "we" pronoun. You do feel like belonging to a tribe, don't you?

"We" refers to readers of the site, not any atheist 'tribe'.

Ah... but perhaps it was not obvious from the context?

Anyway here are my qualifications: I have read what they write and have heard what the say, so I am certainly qualified to compare them to John Leslie Mackie and Michael Martin, who I have also read and who I find to be far more sophisticated and coolheaded atheist writers.

Dawkins writes primarily about the scientific aspects of atheism. Mackie and Martin write as philosophers. You may prefer the gentle playing with words of philosophers to the harsh rigour of science, but that has nothing to do with the truth or quality of the arguments.

Surely you don't mean that the readers of bestselling authors Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens should not judge them unless they are adequately qualified to do so (maybe by having won awards in science themselves), but should only unquestionably believe what they read?

Anyone is free to judge them, but if someone attempts to respond to their arguments, they should expect that response to be judged by the appropriate standards; in terms of Dawkins, that is usually high scientific standards. This is something critics often fail at badly - for example they use arguments related to design and chance that shows they haven't much idea what they are talking about.

Comparing them to McDonald's is shameful.

Indeed I am happy to see that several posters in this thread do judge them, so not all is lost for atheist free thought

I judge them too. I think Hitchens makes serious factual mistakes in the way he criticises several religions, and I think Dawkins' arguments based on the Anthropic Principle are weak. However, unlike you, I can argue against what they say from a factual basis because I have personal knowledge of these subjects.

1197. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #70104 by steve99 on September 14, 2007 at 4:49 am

Therefore it cannot rationally be considered a city now

Of course it can. Let me give an example. Pompeii is nothing but ruins. Nothing is functional. There is only the broken remains of what was once there. But what is it called? It is called 'a city'. It is not called 'an ex-city'. You are simply playing with words and facts Von Daniken-style to try and support an old story.

1198. Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacity

Comment #70094 by steve99 on September 14, 2007 at 4:12 am

Symbols might be said to be strong or weak, rather than true or false, in so far as they participate in that which they attempt to make intelligible. If I say, for example, that bread is the staff of life, I doubt whether you would claim that this is "a false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence." And yet you are likely to bring this claim against the ritual of Eucharistic bread, which involves a similar dynamic symbolism of real presence.

Stop! I can't take any more! This is utter drivel of the first rank. Maybe we need another Alan Sokal.... someone needs to write a parody 'refutation of Dawkins' to see if any of the Fleas can spot the nonsense (I doubt it).

And yet you are likely to bring this claim against the ritual of Eucharistic bread, which involves a similar dynamic symbolism of real presence.

On the other hand, perhaps I am sensing some meaning here:

"dynamic symbolism of real presence" = "not there".

I find it pretty depressing that anyone can right such self-indulgent nonsense and consider it meaningful.

1199. Honest Mistakes or Willful Mendacity

Comment #70090 by steve99 on September 14, 2007 at 3:39 am

Yet granting, as these reasonable scientists do, the evidence of at least analogies with "mind" and "thought" as the basic conditions of the universe

Eh?

Oh dear, Northern Bright. I feel the pain. This alone would be enough for me to bin the book.

1200. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

Comment #70071 by steve99 on September 14, 2007 at 1:35 am

I know that "new atheism" books are all bestsellers but I wonder what that says about their quality. McDonalds sells a lot of food too.

What an arrogant attitude. Are you seriously comparing Hitchens - one of the finest essayists and Dawkins - a many-time winner of awards for science and science writing, a member of the Royal Society and Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford, as equivalent to McDonalds.

Please, let us know of your qualifications to judge them.