1201. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

Comment #70070 by steve99 on September 14, 2007 at 1:29 am

Having said that my own position is that reality is such that there is no contradiction between pragmatism and our common sense of truth.

Well, that is clearly wrong. "Our common sense of truth" has been shown to be a very poor guide to reality. "Our common sense" has told us that the world is flat, that the Earth is at the centre of the Universe, that time and distance are absolute.

The fatal flaw in the reasoning reasoning you have used when you post on this site is your reliance on what you personally consider "common sense". The Universe does not have to take into account what humans are able to conceive of, or what they believe to be reasonable.

1202. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #70062 by steve99 on September 14, 2007 at 12:32 am

As promised, here's my response to your most recent post on the Tyre prophecy (1524).

Does anyone else remember the 'ancient astronaut' craze in the 70s fueled by authors such as Von Daniken? When all sorts of random facts were carefully massaged into the story that people wanted to hear?

If so, does anyone else get the same kind of feeling about the amazing creativity of the human mind reading this prophesy stuff?

1203. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #70059 by steve99 on September 14, 2007 at 12:12 am

If there exists "objective truth" it appears to me there can be only one origin for it, and that would be the supernatural being believers call "God," who, they believe, created everything that is and isn't, which surely would have to include all "objective truth."

No, this isn't true. That would reduce 'objective' to 'God's opinion'. If something is objectively true (be it maths, logic, morals or whatever), then it just is, and needs no backing or foundation from a supernatural being; indeed the idea that it might makes no sense.

1204. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #70057 by steve99 on September 14, 2007 at 12:12 am

God has made a universe that has evolved reasoning beings.

I do hope you aren't implying that God "designed" a Universe for that purpose, as we have already discussed this and I showed that this was a highly problematic point of view.

He has made the universe with an order and structure that reason can comprehend.

He did? I beg to differ. Richard Feynman said that anyone who thinks they understand quantum mechanics really does not understand quantum mechanics. I assume that if Richard Feynman found the order and structure of the Universe difficult then you do too... We simply don't understand the order and structure of the universe and there is no reason to believe we ever will.

1205. RELIGULOUS: A Conversation with Bill Maher and Larry Charles

Comment #69888 by steve99 on September 13, 2007 at 4:55 am

@Theocrapcy: Any reasonably long interview with him. Search YouTube. I have to agree with pewk. He can be funny, but his supposed rationality is highly selective.

1206. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69885 by steve99 on September 13, 2007 at 4:42 am

The strongest naturalistic response to the argument from morality I can come up is this:

You are completely missing the point. The argument about objective ethics is nothing whatsoever to do with naturalism. It is to do with psychology.

"I cannot concieve" has been shown to be one of the worst possible justifications for any belief, simply because we know from psychology that we are easily fooled, even by ourselves. I find it troubling that you won't or can't accept this. It is not a naturalistic argument - self-deception and delusion are a characterist of our minds no matter what model we have for reality.

Indeed I dare say the vast majority of people would agree that at least some ethical precepts are objectively true, i.e. true independently of personal opinion.

As you well know, what the vast majority of people think is in no way a measure of truth. That is pretty close as a bad a justification as "I cannot concieve".

There is no doubt in my mind that at least some ethical precepts are objective, in the sense that they are true independently of social convention or personal opinion. So I cannot doubt that some ethics is objective.

Sorry, but I CAN doubt that ethics are objective in the sense that you mean, and I DO doubt it, so your argument falls at the first hurdle here.

You really need to think more about this. "There is no doubt in my mind" is no basis for anything. In recently people were saying "There is no doubt in my mind that black people are inferior". So you should be ashamed of using it in any way.

1207. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69846 by steve99 on September 13, 2007 at 1:58 am

But he clearly did not dogmatically believe that science does describe reality as evidenced by the quote I posted. The problem is that most people today (most non-theists and most theists too, as well as most scientists) dogmatically believe that science does describe reality; this is such a broadly believed fallacy (certainly Dawkins believes in it) that I think it's fair to call it an example of modern mythology.

You are extrapolating unreasonably again.

Just because Einstein was probably not dogmatic about science actually describing reality (after all, is a good scientist dogmatic about anything?), you can't then claim that believing that science almost certainly does describe reality (which I am confident was Einstein's attitude, from reading his writings) is some kind of mythology.

As I have pointed out many times scientists and engineers need not know and should therefore not care about whether the reality that produces the phenomena relevant in their projects is a physical universe, or a computer simulation, or the mind of God, or whatever.

But, you see, I would classify all those as in some ways a 'physical universe'. In all of them there is some kind of reality 'out there', no matter what it is made of, and even if it is bits in a huge simulation or god-mind-particles.

The continuing problem with your reasoning about QM and other ideas is that you believe that by transferring the 'substance' of reality from 'phsyical particles' to 'god mind' you escape the implications of the observations of experiment. What science studies is what we share in terms of experiences (or rather what we tell each other we share).

1208. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #69841 by steve99 on September 13, 2007 at 1:43 am

I can certainly conceive of some uber-engineer putting the universe together (though like you I haven't seen any evidence for this), but it doesn't mean to say that such an entity would necessarily qualify as a "god".

I am not at ease with the term 'engineer', as it suggest a design aspect which is highly problematic given the nature of our universe, which is at the very least chaotic and more likely non-determinstic.

1209. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69837 by steve99 on September 13, 2007 at 1:35 am

God is essentially beyond our intelligence. We cannot comprehend God and it is probably the reason that a variety of religions have developed over the ages, 'dressing' God in a variety of images.

The idea that God is beyond our intelligence is nonsensical, because, by definition we can't know about anything that is beyond our intelligence. It is like discussing the colour of something you are declaring to be invisible.

1210. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69762 by steve99 on September 12, 2007 at 3:44 pm

Surely you find yourself treating morality as prescriptive and doing so whilst at the same time recognising that morality is subjective must cause some intellectual conflict. It must.

No, as you are setting up a false situation. Morals are to a degree objective in that we tend to share common morality with others, and we negotiate what they should be. It is a combinationof discussion, reasoning and feelings. From that we come up with proscriptive frameworks, such as rules and laws.

The problem with your position is that you have no better access to moral guidelines than atheists, as church doctrine in a range of moral issues has changed significantly over the centuries.

I would suggest you really think about where you get your morals from. I believe you get them just like every one else - from negotiation, reasoning and introspection. You clearly don't get them from religion as you sensibly reject some biblical teachings on the matter.

1211. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #69738 by steve99 on September 12, 2007 at 1:17 pm

the complexity, coherence and astonishing beauty of Creation

Which is precisely the kind of scientifically illiterate thinking I have been discussing. Don't you just love it when armchair scientists believe they are competent to discuss matters of complexity and coherence? Still, I guess 'God did it' saves an awful lot of time having to study non-equilibrium thermodynamics and such.

1212. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #69706 by steve99 on September 12, 2007 at 9:59 am

As for McGarth's[sic] PhD in biology, relevant I suppose so

I have been trying to put the case that it may not be relevant; it certainly need not be an indicator of an ability to respond reasonably to scientific arguments. To illustrate further, Michael Behe obtained a Ph.D. in Biochemistry from the very reputable University of Pennsylvania, but has subsequently more or less abandoned the scientific method to the point where his lack of respect for rational argument and evidence made him the subject of ridicule in the Dover case regarding the teaching of Intelligent Design.

1213. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69656 by steve99 on September 12, 2007 at 4:08 am

No, quite the contrary in fact. If there is something each one of us really knows, directly knows, and knows with absolute certainty, it is what a person is, because each one of us is a person

No, that is clearly false. All we know is what we experience instant by instant. We have very little knowledge about what goes on in our heads that gives us our self-knowledge and identity. Just a small bit of brain damage and people can lose their sense of identity, or what was once one personality can seem to have become two or more. The only thing we can be sure of is raw sensation.

If you are extrapolating from what you know about yourself to what God is you (like all humans) are extrapolating wildly from a point of profound ignorance.

1214. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #69645 by steve99 on September 12, 2007 at 2:52 am

So that means that RD is not fit to comment on geology, cosmology, theology, history, politics, philosophy. That kind of wipes out TGD! And you do not regard McGarth's PhD in biology from Oxford as being relevant?!

I am afraid this shows a lack of understanding how science works. OK; let me explain. As someone starts in a science career they start to learn how science works, from simple techniques, how to write scientific papers, statistical methods and so on. This takes a long time. The 'driving test' of science is the PhD, but that is only the start. PhDs can be of varying quality, and the attitude of those who take them can also vary considerably. For some it is the start of a lifetime of scientific investigation; for others it is an achievement in itself; and for some it is simply a career move. In itself, a PhD is not a useful indicator of the mindset and deep understanding of the student.

What matters is what happens from then on; the postdoctoral research where the student starts to become a true scientist, and the long-term quality of their work is judged by their peers, through meetings at conferences, through publications and so on. Some of that can start to happen before or during the PhD work of course, but that is not always the case.

As you go through this process you gain wider expertise. The spread of that expertise depends of course on what area you work in. In my postdoctoral work I changed from being a pure biochemist to gaining a wider understanding of simulation theory, chemistry, physics and thermodynamics. The area that Dawkins has worked in (evolutionary biology) has involved a very broad set of scientific discplines: molecular biology, geology, general biology, mathematics, statistics and so on. In addition he has become recognised by his peers (which is what matters in science) as a skilled educator, to the point where he now occupies the Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science, and has won many awards, including recognition from the Royal Society for his work in this area. You may wish to note that the Royal Society is multi-disciplinary.

David: If you are going to put forward McGrath's Oxford PhD as any kind of argument for listening to his views, then in order to be consistent, you have to rate Dawkins' Oxford Professorship and Royal Society membership somewhat more significant to say the least.

1215. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69563 by steve99 on September 11, 2007 at 5:59 pm

I find that the above quote by Einstein makes very clear that what quantum mechanics encompasses is physical phenomena and not the reality that produces them, and that the very existence of an objective physical reality is not required by quantum mechanics – exactly the point I have been making in this thread all along.

The above quote says nothing of the sort. All it is talking about is "the independent existence of physical reality present in different parts of space" and that is all. That is quite different from "the existence of any physical reality at all".

What Einstein is talking about is the matter of locality - hence the phrase "different parts of space".

The impression that science studies reality and that therefore scientific knowledge implies the truth of naturalism – well that impression is just an illusion, and is unfortunately an illusion that many less thoughtful scientists than Einstein dogmatically believe in.

This is a complete misreading of Einstein's position. Einstein certainly believed that science studies reality. In a long note to Max Born in 1949, Einstein wrote (my emphasis):

I just want to explain what I mean when I say that we should try to hold on to physical reality.

Einstein's objections to quantum mechanics were based on his belief that it was an incomplete representation of the physically real world that he, as a scientist, was studying. Just note the emphasis in the following paragraph from the same note:

If one adheres to this program, then one can hardly view the quantum-theoretical description as a complete representation of the physically real. If one attempts, nevertheless, so to view it, then one must assume that the physically real in B undergoes a sudden change because of a measurement in A. My physical instincts bristle at that suggestion.

Einstein's views were directly opposed to yours. He was strong in his belief that science was a tool for probing objective physical reality.

1216. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69559 by steve99 on September 11, 2007 at 5:40 pm

I believe that if that asteroid had not impacted then our planet would now be dominated by rather intelligent reptiles. I think there is an obvious reason for that: intelligent behavior imparts an important reproductive advantage and therefore, unless there is something in the environment that limits the evolution of complex organisms, once natural evolution starts it's a safe bet that intelligence will evolve too. My understanding is that that's the standard scientific view in this matter, but if you have any counterarguments or can quote any sources that hold the contrary view I am interested to know about them.

The counterargument is the evidence of the fossil record. The dinosaurs had far, far smaller and simpler brains (for a given body mass) than modern mammals. This was the situation for over 160 million years, with little sign of any progression. There was plenty of time for any inevitable intelligence to have appeared, but it did not. The dinosaurs are a clear indication that species can become dominant long-term without much between the ears.

It seems that humans have become intelligent because brain-power substitutes for physical power and agility.... we use tools as a substitute for teeth and claws, for example. That is a pretty weird situation for an organism to be in, and suggests that an unlikely set of circumstances gave rise to it.

1217. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #69501 by steve99 on September 11, 2007 at 1:50 pm

If you seriously think that someone having a PhD in biology from Oxford makes them scientifically illiterate then there is not much more I can say!

Talk about twisting words. You know full well that is not what I meant. I means that having a Ph.D. in science does not mean that someone is necessarily scientifically literate; especially not in areas they have not studied. Of course it does not make them scientifically illiterate - what a silly thing to say!

This kind of word twisting is illustrative of the kind of half-truth missing-the-point writings that we have been discussing in recent threads here.

1218. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #69457 by steve99 on September 11, 2007 at 10:12 am

3) 'The responses are ALWAYS from the scientifically illiterate'. Really? So McGarth's PhD in biology from Oxford counts as scientific illiteracy? Again ignorance and arrogance.

Oh come off it David. If you knew anything about science you would know that a PhD is only the start of a potential scientific career. It is the scientific equivalent of passing your driving test! And if things stop there you can indeed be left with someone who of limited experience. (I have a PhD in biology myself, so I know what I am talking about).

The point about scientific illiteracy is sound. It is positively painful to read the amount of nonsense 'armchair science' that is put forward by some of the faithful in defense of their faith. So many seem to think they are qualified in matters of maths, biology and physics, so that they can proclaim what is supposedly impossible so that their God has to step in. Theirs is the ignorance and arrogance.

1219. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69403 by steve99 on September 11, 2007 at 6:07 am

I think I understand your point about QM and determinism. But scale changes predictive power. The behavior of one water molecule may be unpredictable. Yet a glass full may be highly predictable, as random variation at the atomic level will average-out over a large number of particles.

I know, having worked on statistical thermodynamic
properties of water after my PhD :)

Chaotic systems are unpredictable at a fine level of resolution (e.g., weather conditions two weeks from today). However, at low resolution (climate trends) they may be predictable.

That is only when there are forcing effects that limit what trends can occur. There is evidence that some features of life are predictable (such as the evolution of eyes and wings of various forms, as these have happened many, many times). However, a 'moral intelligence' has happened only once, even though it could potentially have happened over hundreds of millions of years. If not for an asteroid impact 65 million years ago, there is no reason to believe that our planet would still not be dominated by rather dumb large reptiles. Not many people seem to realise that most of the period during which complex life can exist on Earth has past... in a billion years things will be too hot. There was no inevitability that high intelligence would arise. Indeed, reading some of the posts from theists on this site, leads me to doubt that it really has after all.

1220. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69385 by steve99 on September 11, 2007 at 3:44 am

An imperfectly good God would gravitate towards goodness, and being God would become perfectly good at the blink of an eye as it were.

I know, I know... but I could not resist replying. This post was so hilarious.

What you suggest raises an several important and rather interesting problems.... it implies there are meta-laws describing the evolution of morality over time of a God. He may start of A Bit Naughty but the lower 'energy of morality' state will be Good, so presumably quantum fluctuations of Morality will perturb his state until he reaches pure goodness.

However, this makes just about everything that Dianelos has said over the past few months (seems like years) fall apart. If God instantiates objective morality, how can that morality be objective if God changes? Is is right to be A Bit Naughty when God is like that?

Honestly - what a load of gibberish :) It is amazing what the unfettered human imagination can come up with, based on no evidence whatsoever.

I have ideas based on similar amounts of logic and supernatural thinking, and evidence. I have often been asked why fairies only have two wings. Well, I accept that there might have been fairies with different anatomy in the past, but they would have gravitated towards the two-winged form, in the blink of an eye.

1221. The Emptiness of Theology

Comment #69296 by steve99 on September 10, 2007 at 11:22 am

Guess that Shermer article didn't make a strong impression.

It would have been interesting indeed if it had influenced this article, as it was published some time ago.

1222. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69292 by steve99 on September 10, 2007 at 10:59 am

You know, accumulating complexity will yield smart enough life one day.

I am not convinced. I mean, it looks very much like we are alone in this galaxy, and it is not surprising if you look at how unlikely our sort of intelligence is. For 3 billion years or so, there was nothing but bacteria.

1223. The Emptiness of Theology

Comment #69274 by steve99 on September 10, 2007 at 9:32 am

If all the achievements of theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the smallest difference?

Priceless!

1224. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69260 by steve99 on September 10, 2007 at 8:06 am

So...(Metaphorically) God planted some Complexity seeds. The particular forms that would result were unknown and broadly irrelevant, but some broad characteristics (the critical ones) could be inferred from reading the side of the packet. If Paul accepts this can we move on?

I am very hesitant about this, and personally I am reluctant to move on about this point. The idea that a 'non-interventionist designer God' is even possible is perhaps the most common mistake that is made in theological discussions. It is profound mistake that, in my view, renders much subsequent discussion pointless. Regarding the 'complexity seeds' point... I am afraid all it might say on the side of the packet is 'well, who knows? Something might happen....but who knows what? You'll just have to wait and see.'

If Paul accepts that, then he has abandoned the idea of a designer God. I hope he does.

1225. The Rise of Atheist America

Comment #69216 by steve99 on September 10, 2007 at 3:13 am

Yeah, my avatar is an ape, a chimpanzee to be exact. It is happy tho :P

I am sorry to have to point this out, but that looks like a typical fear expression. Happiness is shown by a droopier mouth, and less exposure of the upper teeth.

1226. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69211 by steve99 on September 10, 2007 at 2:43 am

Unfortunately some of our posters get sucked into arguing back on purely logical grounds and that gives you the impetus to continue in arcane minutiae.

Personally, I think we are doing a bit more than that... at least for now. For example, Paul had the common but scientifically centuries-out-of-date viewpoint that the universe we inhabit could be the result of a detailed (or even relatively coarse) design at the 'time of creation'. He now knows this is false. It astonishes me how little religious people in debates like these know about the past 200 years of physics and maths... which is surprising considering how much of those fields they try and use in their arguments!

1227. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69196 by steve99 on September 10, 2007 at 1:09 am

I think you're confused. Just because the universe is not deterministic, this doesn't mean God couldn't have created the conditions suitable for the evolution of intelligent life and just waited.

No, I am not confused. Yes, that is precisely what it does mean. It does indeed means that you can't start with a Big Bang and sit back and wait for the evolution of intelligent life.

You know how difficult weather forecasting is? You know how it is probably beyond any computer we can conceive of to give an accurate prediction of local weather a month ahead? Well imagine something a trillion times worse. Well fine, you might say, God can work with infinite precision. Well, even that doesn't work even after a short while, as quantum effects add true uncertainties that are magnified by the effects of chaos will completely destroy any attempts to predict.

Given an initial state of a Universe, you can probably predict that you will get stars and planets and complexity of some kind, but even the broad distribution of those bodies will not be predictable. There is absolutely no way that you could predict where life would evolve, how complex it could get, or what forms it would take. Any idea that God could 'design' intelligent life or humans is nonsense.

If I want to breed rabbits, I can't know when a couple of rabbits will copulate, but if I put them in a hutch together, dim the lights and play romantic music, surely it's just a matter of time?

It is, of course, nothing like that at all - not even close. I am afraid the progression of the universe from an initial quantum fluctuation to its current complex state is not quite as simple as breeding rabbits.


And, could you please answer the question that Dr Benway has been putting - why should we follow moral guidelines that have been given to us by a creator?

1228. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69128 by steve99 on September 9, 2007 at 6:45 pm

Wow. Where'd you get that from?

Get *what* from?

Please, explain how that works...

Please explain how a sentient, intelligent, all-powerful God does not have choices. You claim he is a designer. A designer chooses designs.

My earlier answer was something along the lines of God having designed us with a specific purpose - find out what we're for, our uniquely human attributes, and BINGO!

And we know that is wrong, as it is not possible for God to have designed us unless He is a very interventionist God indeed. The universe is not determinstic and predictable, so God could not have just 'pushed the button' at the start and waited for humanity.

I wasn't so much claiming that reason and logic were created by God, as that the world was created by God, and laws of logic hold in this world. On what basis do you say that this is 'wrong'? It may be unlikely, but I don't see any alternative explanation.

It is not just unlikely, it is meaningless. As I now describe to you for the third time (I am used to repetition on this website!) it does not make sense to say "the laws of logic hold in this world". The laws of logic simply hold. That is all. They do not depend on any 'world'. The ratio Pi and the proof of the infinitude of primes and the liar paradox are there to be discovered by any sentient being in any world at any time. Even God can't change Pi. I am afraid that God is not 'in the loop' here at all.

Oh, and I would also be interested in the answer to Dr Benway's question... what has what we 'should' do to do with what God wants?

1229. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69095 by steve99 on September 9, 2007 at 5:38 pm

Please, look at the universe, it's structure and the beauty of it.

I have been doing exactly that for most of my life. It is why I have been a scientist for much of it.

Don't talk about 'whims' as though we're talking about a cartoon character.

Look - either God is sentient or not. If he is sentient then he has choices. If he is the source of mathematical laws, then he presumably can choose what those laws are. It would be presumptuous to know what mood he was in when he chose those laws, so why not 'a whim'?

I may be wrong about God, I accept that, but if you're responding to the possibility that I am right, don't try to discredit what I'm saying by imagining that I'm claiming something else.

I am not responding to the possibility that you are right. I am attempting to clear up some basic misunderstandings you have about philosophy and mathematics. I had hoped my attempts to do this with respect and good manners. If it has seemed otherwise, I apologise.

What I'm claiming is that before there was a universe, there was not. When there was not a universe, there were not patterns, such as Pi.

And this is precisely your 'reification' error. The laws of maths and logic are not patterns. They are abstractions. They have no form. They do not require a universe to 'exist in'.

The 'idea of a circle' had not yet been conceived. The circle did not exist.

That is not the point at all. The point is that whenever the idea of a circle arose, a calculation of the ratio of the circumference to the diameter will be the same number. Not even God can change that number, and that fact does not require God to be true.

This is not 'reification'. It's something else.

Reification is precisely what it is - the false interpretations of abstractions as having some sort of physical existence.

Now, I have to say I'm on shaky ground about what the world was like before there was a world, but let's be honest, we all are.

No, we aren't all on shaky ground. There are some very reasonable and simple ideas about what this situation was like.

1230. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #69085 by steve99 on September 9, 2007 at 5:12 pm

Firstly, the existence of life itself, in all its vast variety, very beautifully but delicately balanced in relation to the physical environment, strikes me as demanding far more careful consideration than (e.g.) RD gives it in TGD. He calmly appeals to one version of the anthropic principle, layering it with a handy factor of arbitrary myriads of universes, coming and going, either simultaneously (which I think is somewhat to reinterpret the "multiverse" notion, at least in how it is normally applied in quantum-level models), or sequentially, implying effectively infinite time (whereas cosmologists seem rather unclear about time and a "beginning" for it: could time even exist "before" the Big Bang?). This he does without batting an eyelid at the sheer scale of the unprovable assumptions he needs for that approach, whereas if a believer in creation posits instead a God of supreme power and understanding, he is waved away with the complaint that such a God is infinitely complex, hence infinitely improbable, and hence can't possibly exist.

Wow! Such a lot of misunderstandings. Hard to know where to begin.

Firstly, multiverse ideas are anything but arbitrary. The different ideas of multiverses are very well defined, as would be the distributions and types of multiverse. Also, your idea of 'time' is seriously off. Our understanding of what time is has changed beyond recognition in the past century. Ideas of 'a time of creation' or 'eternity' are naive and simplistic. We know of situations where time can arise spontaneously, with no need for a creator, and we know how time can be stretched or shrunk. We can also describe the properties of Universes with more than one time dimension. And contrary to what you say, the existence or otherwise of these parallel universe is indeed subject to experiment, including future studies of particle physics and the cosmic microwave background.

I find it really sad when people reject scientific options through seriously incomplete knowledge of them - when many religious people talk of physics, it can be positively painful - the equivalent of listening to someone claim that the flatness of the Earth can only be explained by God.

Secondly, you are confusing the complexity of life with the supposed complexity of the universe. We know full well how complexity can arise from simplicity, and it is entirely reasonable to reject out of hand a hypothetical complex being that is far more complex than a universe which, when left alone, could produce what we see unaided.

but it seems to me that evolutionary theory doesn't have any obvious place even to begin to discuss how or why we possess minds at all, far less minds capable of the staggeringly complex tasks we do without apparent effort, yet take so much for granted

Don't trust any argument that starts 'it seems to me' :) Evolutionary theory can explain in great detail why we have minds, and why we can do what we do. We can see all the stages of mind development reflected in creatures alive today, from the simple reactions of flatworms, to the largely instinctive behaviour of amphibians and reptiles, through to the ability to plan and predict the thoughts of others seen in mammals, apes, and even some birds. It is a beautiful story. I am sad for you if you can't or won't see it.

1231. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69078 by steve99 on September 9, 2007 at 4:54 pm

It's an ontological argument.

No, it isn't. It can't be. You are (wrongly) claiming that reason and logic were created by God. If this were the case, then you can't use reason and logic (as in an ontological argument) to declare that he exists. It is self-contradictory.

Just a quick question, before I get on with planning some lessons for tomorrow - who was it who gave you the idea of a circle?

My maths teacher.

Oh, no, I get it, the idea was out there, waiting for intelligent minds to evolve to conceive it

Do I detect an ironic tone here?

A bit like we discussed before, God is an absurd explanation to give of where mathematical laws originate.

There is a big difference between 'absurd' and 'meaningless'. This is meaningless. Mathematical laws don't originate anywhere. That is just the way reality is, and it is far simpler than having a complex intelligence (God) instantiate them (which makes no kind of sense at all).

You are falling into precisely the same trap with these as you have with morals. Simply throwing the word 'God' around does not help at all.

A much better explanation would be...

Mathematics are part of the foundation of reality.

1232. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69072 by steve99 on September 9, 2007 at 4:36 pm

Laws of logic and mathematics simply didn't exist before the universe began.

Now you are falling into precisely the same trap that Dianelos did. It is a philosophical trap called 'reification'.... assuming that certain things have an innapropriate form of reality. Laws of logic and mathematics aren't physical, and don't rely on any substance for their existence. They are abstractions. This does not make them any less true. Because they are abstract, this means they do not need any type of creation, and they are beyond the whim of any God.

If you don't believe me, try explaining how the digits of Pi could be different, or why they should depend on the existence of a Universe, or of God.

1233. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #69053 by steve99 on September 9, 2007 at 3:46 pm

No. When someone claims to be a 'representative of God', surely they have to be judged against some other standard.

Yes, it certainly is dangerous, because of what you say next...

When I hear Christians saying "If Harry Potter had been around in the Old Testament times, he'd have been stoned to death", that's how I know it is rubbish. I use reason to work out what is right and wrong.

I am sure you do; and that is precisely why using religion in any way to determine morality is pointless. Everyone uses their own version of reason to work out what is right and wrong anyway.

This is precisely why using the idea of God providing morality is dangerous: people seek out whatever religion, or specific interpretations of religion, that suit their already existing views. This allows some pretty nasty views (that might otherwise be changed or suppressed by peer pressure) to gain support. Are you a homophobe, and feel that women are getting somewhat out of control? Pick the right version of Islam, declare yourself a believer, and then retrospectively claim that God supports your views.

Does this sound silly? Well, it actually happens. A relatively recent example that made me wonder how bizarrely some people must think is the Anglican Churches acceptance of the ordination of Women. Did everyone accept this - did they accept that previous interpretations of the Word of God were wrong, and now women priests were acceptable? No! Some people decided that the Church was wrong, that they as individuals knew better, and joined the Catholic Church. What astonishing arrogance - don't challenge your own views - assume millions of others are wrong instead!

For good people to do bad things doesn't take religion. Look at the Holocaust. How many good people turned a blind eye to what was going on, not just in Nazi-occupied Europe either?

This is not relevant at all. I am sure those people did not feel that turning a blind eye was in any way 'good' or 'holy'.

Besides, I'm not takling about religion here. This is a philosophical point. For morality to do the job, it needs to be more than just mob rule.

And it always has been more than mob rule. In many countries we use representative democracy to manage morality. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't but in general it does a good job.

1234. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #69021 by steve99 on September 9, 2007 at 2:03 pm

who'se findings utterly destroy your claim of religion's lack of social worth

I am afraid I just can't see any social worth. There is clear evidence that people don't need religion to build moral and socially healthy societies. This is demonstrated by examining the state of countries with low religious belief.

Indeed, I would say that religion actively results in social damage. In recent years in the UK the established church has done its best to prevent laws improving the lives and rights of gay people being passed.

1235. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #68998 by steve99 on September 9, 2007 at 12:45 pm

My belief is that the laws of logic and reason themselves were created by God, and therefore when we discover moral laws by reason, and follow what reason dictates, we are acting as God intended.

This is a profound misunderstanding of what 'laws of logic and reason' means. This is not however intended as any kind of insult - many who have been considered good scientists and thinkers have shared this misunderstanding.

The laws of logic are not subject to the whim of a creator. If we have certain axioms, and follow certain rules and procedures (that WE decide on) we will get to certain conclusions, and so would a God. Just to give an example....

Even the great Carl Sagan misunderstood this. (By the way, if you have not read Contact, and don't want to know the ending, stop reading here!)....

At the end of Contact, the lead character discovers evidence that the universe was designed (although not necessarily by a God) because of the pattern of certain digits in Pi .. there is an encoded message. This is total nonsense. Given the idea of a circle, then once you choose a certain numeric base for representation, the digits of Pi are determined. Not even God has any say in the matter.

Even if this were possible, and a creator DID set up the laws of logic and reason, that STILL does not provide any foundation for morality. Why should we mindlessly follow the intentions of a creator? Just as a God is ineffective as a way of terminating the problem of casuality (just defining God as something that does not need to be created is arbitrary), so a God is ineffective as a way of terminating the problem of morality - just defining 'what God wants us to do' as moral is also arbitrary.

So, if absolute Right and Wrong exist, then they exist. God is irrelevant to the matter.

The idea that God determines morality is dangerous. This allows supposed representatives of God on Earth to dictate what morality is and to override people's natural inclinations. As Steven Weinberg says - for good people to do bad things takes religion.

1236. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #68979 by steve99 on September 9, 2007 at 11:29 am

that your central argument against religion (that it is the root of war and violence) doesn't stand up to scrutiny

Perhaps I missed something when I read The God Delusion, but my impression that the central argument against religion is that it is simply untrue, and that to believe in God is a delusion. This seemed pretty clear to me. This argument stands up whether or not religion is or is not a root of war and violence. Even if religion was commonly a source of charity and peace, it would still be an affront to human dignity.

1237. The Rise of Atheist America

Comment #68975 by steve99 on September 9, 2007 at 11:13 am

No question about it. America was founded by Christians. Its very purpose for being was the furtherance of biblical Christianity, according to the Pilgrims and succeeding generations.

OK, let's assume this highly questionable statement is true. So what? Is the author seriously suggesting that America should stand by the values of its settlers? So, is slavery something to be admired?

1238. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #68968 by steve99 on September 9, 2007 at 10:32 am

You say all that with confidence, but it doesn't seem quite so clear to me.

You talk about the details of the cosmic microwave background, which is fair enough. Inflation is also hardly controversial. We can discuss these in more detail if you like, but you are missing the main point .... I'll come on to this in a minute :)

The real flaw in your reasoning is to assume that because there are uncertainties in the models (and there are!), this is any reason whatsoever to bring a biblical God into things.

Suppose you were asked to solve a crime - a mystery. You discovered some evidence, pointing a certain way... there were witnesses, but there is no proof that they are reliable and they all give a different version of events. The evidence says something quite different. If there was some problems with the evidence would you wait for more, and see what else experts could bring to the matter, or would you throw it all away and claim someone was killed by invisible fairies? The latter seems to me to be a fair parallel to the situation when people invoke a biblical God.

Now, for the huge point you are missing. The Universe is not deterministic. It would not have mattered if the creation had been nice and planned - things would have got out of control very soon, and the plans lost in the heat of the Big Bang. Quantum theory erases any attempt at fine long-term prediction.

Even if the Universe were fully deterministic, there are so many interactions and there is so much chaos that it is unpredictable. The only way to know what happens is to wait and see. So, unless you can imagine God starting up Universe after Universe, and waiting billions of years to see what turns up before giving up and saying 'back to the drawing board'....

But that is hardly 'design'.

Any attempt to invoke an initial designer is simply incorrect science. To get deliberately from the Big Bang to mankind would involve an extremely interventionist God.

1239. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #68943 by steve99 on September 9, 2007 at 7:51 am

Maybe the two mindsets are not divided on a science arts basis, rather, some crave an assailable certainty, others can live with questions and doubt.

I think it is more a problem in understanding what terms like 'reality', 'truth' and 'reason' mean.

Science is usually rather strict about such things. To put things crudely you can consider yourself progressing towards 'reality' if you get repeated experimental results within certain confidence limits. In the end, it comes down to tests and experimentation. However, listening to educated non-scientists, you can hear talk about truths being dependent on points of view... worst of all are the cultural relativists (like Madeline Bunting). They simply aren't using terms the same way.

1240. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #68933 by steve99 on September 9, 2007 at 7:00 am

Besides that, the Bible speaks of how the form of the original natural creation (as described in early Genesis, and other places too) was not random, but designed in anticipation of a later spiritual creation - of people

.

The problem is that we now know for sure that the original creation (if you want to call it that) was indeed random. We have unquestionable evidence for that in the cosmic radiation background. The fluctuations we see there (from around 400,000 years after the Big Bang) are as would be expected from random fluctuations followed by inflation. And everything we know about the universe indicates that from that point on what happened is subject to the rules of quantum mechanics and chaos, and so even if an original plan had been 'built in', it would have been lost beyond retrieval....

1241. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #68914 by steve99 on September 9, 2007 at 4:55 am

But we seem to have moved into an era when only the last category counts for anything.

I am not quite that pessimistic. I just think that the BBC has gone sadly down-market.

1242. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #68908 by steve99 on September 9, 2007 at 4:20 am

Personally I gave up the will to live when BBC News 24 was giving more time to the Madeleine McCann affair as it did the "10th Anniversary of Princess Diana"

I don't know... one has to have pity on News 24. Having set themselves up as a full-time news channel, it must be so hard to find things to talk about all day. I mean, it is not like there is anything to report - I mean, who cares about famine in Afria, political issues in Russia, or long-term matters such as global warming, over-fishing and so on. Anyway, that stuff takes time and expertise to report, and probably costs quite a bit to research.

1243. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #68905 by steve99 on September 9, 2007 at 4:12 am

What a crock of shit the whole thing is. There are a few token atheists who are not very good at making their case and the religiots are allowed a lot of time to make their cases. I am losing the will to live at the moment.

I know just how you feel. But, I would disagree that the case is not being made well. The God Delusion is solid in its arguments (If it weren't, there would not be so many ad-hominem attacks on Dawkins; there would be solid counter-arguments.

When scientific arguments are attempted (as in the Wee Flea's book) they are simplistic arguments that could be counted by even an A-level student.

1244. The smallest signs of retreat

Comment #68871 by steve99 on September 9, 2007 at 1:48 am

It's a genuine question and I'd love to hear people's thoughts on this: if rational argument doesn't work, and irrationality goes against everything we stand for, what other options are there?

Well, I once remember someone writing that they were confident that the recent court cases about the teaching of Intelligent Design would go 'the right way' because people think a lot about money. If you want you are your children to be financially secure you want schools to be teaching what is useful rather than biblical. There could be many possible ways to keep religion under control. Faith schools could be forced to take in a quota of non-religious or those from other faiths. In the UK (where I live), Bishops could be removed from the having the ability to help make law (other countries must think we are crazy!). I think it is perhaps impossible in the short and medium term to win any battle of ideas, but religion could perhaps be contained and controlled.

1245. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #68862 by steve99 on September 9, 2007 at 1:20 am

Don't give up! Yes, there is a great deal of talking at cross purposes. Personally though, I don't think this because that science and arts types are 'in principle' incapable of talking to each other. I reckon a great deal of the problem is due to the fact that postmodern drivel has suffuced the arts (and is attempting to get into the sciences).

I think it is deeply entrenched. I mean, consider Madeline Bunting, from whom we have seen so much nonsense recently. She is not just an arbitrary ranting journalist - she is associate editor of The Guardian!

I feel that we are in for a very long and frustrating battle. Simply posting comments on journalists' blogs and writing letter to papers isn't going to get very far.

1246. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #68776 by steve99 on September 8, 2007 at 2:18 pm

Flying goose:

Of course there are scientists who are sure of their religious beliefs, and there are 'arts and humanities' people who are atheists. My point was that there seems to be a general (although obviously not universal) division, resulting in two groups who seem to find it almost impossible to sensibly debate each other, as they seem not to share any common ground about what reasonable and rational debate should consist of. A scientist says "This could be the truth" and an opponent responds "But that upsets me and lots of people", and actually considers that some kind of rational argument!

Only once can I recall a debate where progress was made and some mutual understanding was achieved. That was a discussion between Jonathan Miller and Denys Turner, from 'The Atheist Tapes'. Well worth watching.

However, I am starting to give up. I think that discussions on these matters will generally get nowhere. All that will happen is opinions will be expressed more vocally on both sides. Still, I guess the atheist viewpoint is at least being expressed. Perhaps that alone is something.

1247. The smallest signs of retreat

Comment #68743 by steve99 on September 8, 2007 at 11:34 am

Early on, debating contrary ideas about religion can illuminate and clarify but sooner or later, especially on a topic so sensitive and personal to so many people, the public discourse needs to move to engagement and seeking areas of agreement, not difference.

Bunting suggests Dawkins' approach is not helpful in moving in this direction. She may or may not be right about Dawkins, but the response here to her article suggests she has a point.

Dawkins' approach is certainly helpful. It has helped to clarify what the issues are, and it has opened up the debate. The problem with Bunting is that she seems not to want the debate to happen at all. Her views are well known - atheists aren't qualified to discuss religion.

1248. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #68629 by steve99 on September 8, 2007 at 12:49 am

I agree, heathen; these books (and most reviews of TGD) are tedious because they are so unoriginal. The recent 'Atheist Books' have each brought a new perspective; Dawkins mostly covers quite different ground from Hitchens and Harris and Dennet and so on. However, reading the responses is getting to be a chore, as the repetition is tedious. This suggests that they not only have not read (or misread) the God Delusion and other works of Dawkins et al, but apparently don't even read other responses. The authors seem to sit in splendid isolation, each thinking they are coming up with the same original arguments.

I think this illustrates the cultural divide described by C P Snow - the separation between arts and sciences: The clear thinking, calmness and rationality of the 'atheist side' is perhaps illustrative of the scientific background of most of the writers on that side. The responses are always from the scientifically illiterate, and the degree of woolly and unoriginal thinking, combined with a lack of understanding of what evidence-based argyment means is quite stunning.

1249. The smallest signs of retreat

Comment #68537 by steve99 on September 7, 2007 at 1:12 pm

What a shameful piece. As others have noted it is a cut+paste re-hash of half-truths and untruths about what Dawkins writes. I really can't believe I am reading the "My God is not a bearded man in the sky" and "Dawkins is only dealing with stupid, literal religion" straw men yet again; that is a sign of sloppiness and laziness from someone who is supposed to be a reasonably respectable journalist.

This is so bad it is almost a joke. A while back the superb satirist Craig Brown(*) used to write a column in the Guardian under the pseudonymn Bel Littlejohn. This column was a parody of achingly-politically-correct trendy liberal journalists like Bunting. We need Ms Littlejohn back, I feel.

[(*) Anyone with access to BBC Radio 4 should try and catch Brown's "1966 and all that" - simply superb.]

1250. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #68417 by steve99 on September 7, 2007 at 5:56 am

But the Bible claims for itself, and gives objective enquirers strong reasons to believe, that it is in fact a communication from God, bringing into our finite minds and intellectual framework God's own presentation of his infinite power and knowledge, couched in terms we can grasp if we choose to.

But that is what Dawkins discusses - the nature of the supposed communication from God.

If you want to participate in discussion, all you can discuss is the evidence or otherwise for that supposed infinite power and knowledge. You can't take the infinite power and knowledge as given as a matter for debate (even if you personally believe in it).

Your argument is as follows:

You: Dawkins... you fail to take into account the aspects of god that we can never understand.
Dawkins: What aspects? Describe them to me.
You: I can't, as we can never understand them. So there! I win!

If theists are going to claim that to dismiss God, atheists have to have a perfect understanding of God's supposed infinite power and knowledge, then that is intellectually dishonest. It is entirely fair for the atheist to respond that to justify God, a theist must also claim such understanding.