101. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #98322 by Riley on December 13, 2007 at 1:23 pm

gr8hands wrote:
Riley, please provide the Comment # in this thread where I've used the word 'stupid'. [...]
You will not find any such examples -- and that is not an 'opinion' but a fact.

That, by the way, is what I would call 'evidence'.

This is a perfect example of the kind of disagreements we've had on this thread.

gr8hands wrote comment 431#:
"Aren't you people supposed to be able to use reason? It appears to be in short supply"

You did not actually use the word "stupid", you used words that describe people as being stupid. Or don't you think "an inability to use reason" is an apt definition for the term "stupid"?

This is what you call evidence, and that's one reason why we have a problem reaching an understanding.

102. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #98288 by Riley on December 13, 2007 at 12:31 pm

Riley wrote:
Imagine an Internet where people don't assume that the only explanation for a disagreement is that the other person must be stupid and as such deserving of personal attacks and insults.

gr8hands wrote:
is that what you assume? Not me. I just wait for the evidence to make itself known.

And that evidence is based on what? Your own opinion and ability to follow what you think my argument is. You trust yourself as the final arbiter of what is logical in a very complex argument. Certainly, you can bet I had the same thoughts about you and your ability to follow my logical argument, but for the sake of keeping this post to a higher standard, I refrain and force myself to acknowledge that I might be missing, or misunderstanding your points. For the record, I actually think I understand your points, and I understand where the disagreement between us lies, but it would get so far off the track of the topic of this thread and likely mired in unecessary details that I don't go there.

103. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #98256 by Riley on December 13, 2007 at 11:36 am

Imagine an Internet where people don't assume that the only explanation for a disagreement is that the other person must be stupid and as such deserving of personal attacks and insults.

104. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97681 by Riley on December 12, 2007 at 2:05 pm

gr8hands wrote:
Riley, is there a problem with your ability to make logical conclusions? I'm not being snarky, I'm just asking -- has anyone else noticed you have problems with this?

Your right. I just lack basic intelligence! There's no basis for my arguments, I'm just stupid!

gr8hands wrote:
Better, show me a single example where delusion is better for the whole world than reality. (Not an isolated temporary individual example.)

Riley wrote:
If a person is about to die, it might ease their suffering to believe that they will join previously deceased loved ones in heaven. That comfort of course doesn't make it true, but there does appear to be less suffering in the world as a result of that delusion.

gr8hands wrote:
thank you for quoting my request for an example and then supplying an example that ignores what I wrote in your very next sentence -- that demonstrates . . . well, perhaps you can fill in the blank.

What does it demonstrate? That I'm stupid of course. I clearly lack the ability to reason. You know, all I was ever really good at was making personal attacks anyway, all the better that I just give up rational debate in favor of ad hominem. I promise to not question your authority on what's reasonable ever again.

Death is a universal reality for all people, not an individual isolated case. Is it OK if I claim that a world with less suffering is a better world? Oh, please say that you'll allow it.

gr8hands wrote:
you appear confused that this was not about ALL terrorist attacks from any group, but about the specific twin towers attack by a religious group. Please stick to the point

Please forgive me again for being confused about your demands and mistakingly making my own points.

If the only point you are trying to make is that those specific terrorists who hijacked planes on that particular day believed that their particular actions were justified based on their select brand of religious belief, then I don't disagree.

But in that case, the "Imagine No Religion" poster does not communicate your point. "Imagine No People Who Believed For Certain That Murdering Innocents Would Earn Them Rewards In An Afterlife" would be a more defensible poster.

Additionally, if you think it's logical to connect all religion to that one event and/or that being a correlate of an event is reason enough to imply decisive cause, then I suggest you have an even greater problem with statistics and logic than I do.

Like I said, an attack on the U.S. from the Middle East was a long time coming. It's surprising that it took as long as it did. To jump-on any one particular motivational circumstance of the attack and claim that without that single circumstance it definitely would not have happened, is too much.

gr8hands wrote:
Riley, please show me a single example of a war fought without a single reference to god as part of the justification.

You seem to be making my point for me, but maybe that's because I'm having trouble keeping up with your superior intellect. So, I give up. You got me, I can't prove a negative. you win! Does that mean that all war is religious?!? Please don't leave me out in the dark, shine your powerful light of reason my way so that I might see.

105. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97585 by Riley on December 12, 2007 at 11:58 am

Bonzai wrote:
How about a banner showing the mushroom cloud of the atomic bomb dropped on Japan with the caption "Imagine without science".

Best example yet.

gr8hands wrote:
if the tower suicide bombings were anything other than religiously motivated why don't you ever see the videotaped last statements of the bombers talk about expressing political frustration?

Why do Catholics who haven't been to church in years, suddenly start going to church when they near death? Because that's what religious people do when they near death - they call out to god in the hopes that there is life after death. I don't doubt that these particular men found religious justification for their actions, but this is not evidence that without religion we would not have suffered an attack from the Middle East. Maybe not on that day and maybe not by those men, but it was a long time coming. It's more exceptional that it took so long.

Like I said, terrorist attacks are neither a universal part of religion, nor are they limited to religion. So, apparently, another factor besides religion is necessary.

My guess is that people and governments decide they want to kill the other in order to gain political power and control over resources. Injustice however, does not sit well with people, so a collective cognitive dissonance forces communities to look for excuses that they feel justify their actions. Religion is just one of many justifications to chose from. The cause of "freedom and democracy" is another. Before the enlightenment we saw religion was the justification of common choice because religion and government authority were linked. Today religious justification is less frequent because religious and government authority are less linked. Non-religious excuses are now more common. The fact that a religious excuse was used by people who originated from a religious authority, should not be surprising by itself.

Clearly, people are able to rationalize a justification for their murderous actions, with or without religion.

Riley: "Do we know for a fact that the world we imagine without Janism in it, would be a better world? That's quite an assumption."

gr8hands: "It is not an assumption but a valid and logical conclusion."

The burden of proof here is entirely on you. It's not at all a logical conclusion to make that the world would necessarily be a better place without Janism.

If Janism brings more good to the world than bad, then the world would be worse off if you got rid of it. simple.

gr8hands wrote:
Better, show me a single example where delusion is better for the whole world than reality. (Not an isolated temporary individual example.)

If a person is about to die, it might ease their suffering to believe that they will join previously deceased loved ones in heaven. That comfort of course doesn't make it true, but there does appear to be less suffering in the world as a result of that delusion.

106. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97509 by Riley on December 12, 2007 at 8:10 am

Steve99,

The exact same arguments that you make to defend masculinity can be made to defend religion.

1) Not all the world's mass killers are religious and "not all the worlds serial killers are male".

2) "I am religious, therefore I should kill" is no more true than "I am male, therefore I should kill" - even though maleness like religion, have been linked to violence and killing.

Terrorist attacks are neither a universal part of religion, nor are they limited to religion. By a long shot on both accounts. Clearly, obviously, another factor is necessary. It feels good to blame it on religion, but it isn't true, it's too simplistic.

It's self-indulgent and presumptuous to claim that the United States and other Western powers would not have suffered an attack emanating from the Middle East at some point given the history of our involvement in the region: fomenting war, propping-up dictators, privatizing oil reserves, and the countless other types of treacherous meddling we've engaged in for over a century. How convenient it is now to dismissively say: "oh, this attack is just mostly about religion - without religion we would never have been attacked". What a wonderful dreamworld you're imagining.

And what should this have to do with atheism? If atheism is simply a non-belief, why are atheists asserting this "world without religion" utopian belief under the banner of atheism? Do we know for a fact that the world we imagine without Janism in it, would be a better world? That's quite an assumption.

107. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were atheists, and they were terrible! Answer that!

Comment #97462 by Riley on December 12, 2007 at 6:17 am

No wars, hunger, lots of carefree sex. Great world, right? But is Aphrodite real? A lower body count doesn't make anything more true.

Total agreement here. It's a solid argument. Although, I have to say, your example sure does expose those "Imagine No Religion" posters as presumptuous and stuffy. Maybe life with a little religion is better than life without any religion?

Stalin and Mao did not kill for atheism. That's ridiculous.

Again, I agree.

The Soviets and Chinese killed, not for a lack of belief, but because they believed passionately that the world would be a better place if religion were not in it. It was a formally stated part of their utopian dream and the rationalization they used to "justify" the killing and abuse of a great many religious people.

There is now, under the banner of atheism, a prominent movement of atheists proclaiming passionately that the world would be a better place if religion were not in it - just like the Stalinists did. That's the connection I can't deny to the theists. There's a particularly close likeness between many atheist groups today and the Soviet's "Society of Militant Godless" - which were not themselves violent, but whom encouraged the ridicule and harassment of religious people.

By definition, atheism is as you say it is: just a non-belief,
but atheist activists aren't apparently satisfied to leave it at that.

108. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97456 by Riley on December 12, 2007 at 5:58 am

What would you think if a women's group put up a poster like this:
"Imagine No Men" and on it were the worlds worst serial killers. (all of which are male, of course)

Such a poster would be as true, but:

1) would it be politically wise?
2) would the implication of the poster be rationally defensible? (the implication being that the world would necessarily be better if only there were no men in it)

(save the criticism about there being a difference between a belief and a people for the moment, it's not relevant at this point.)

109. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97296 by Riley on December 11, 2007 at 9:21 pm

Bonzai wrote: I think in having discussions or debates with theists it is best to let them tell you what they actually believe without assuming what they believe, or worse, telling them what they should believe based on the way we interpret their holy books.

worth repeating I think. Good point Bonzai.

110. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were atheists, and they were terrible! Answer that!

Comment #97120 by Riley on December 11, 2007 at 1:04 pm

Converse02,

I'd just add one caveat to your otherwise perfectly reasonable post.

People don't kill in the name of "no God", true, but they do kill to defend their strongly held beliefs, and they definitely kill in order to eradicate society of something they consider to be a "virus", especially when they rabidly assert this virus is poisoning everything. And now, under the banner of atheism, people are claiming just that.

There's a movement led by atheists caught-up in the cause of fighting for atheism which is making claims in the name of atheism that go way beyond the simple statement that there is no god. Declarations that "religion poisons everything" and atheism's poster child "imagine no religion" suggestively linked to the World Trade Center towers (implying a causal link between religion in general and that attack). These slogans are used to promote the idea that religion causes more bad than good in the world and that the world would necessarily be a better place if only it had no religion in it. It's a fine opinion to have and one that I share as a hunch, but as of yet we have no proof of this. Anyone who asserts this opinion about religion as if it were fact is promoting dogma. It's justifiably characterized as an atheist dogma. This moving away from a simple definition of atheism, into an "Atheism", gives theists a reasonable basis to argue that atheism is more than a simple statement about the non-existence of gods.

This expansion of atheism from a simple non-belief in gods to a larger assertions about religion in general, burdens "atheism" with the need to defend the claim that the world would necessarily be a better place if only it had no religion in it. Worse, once this claim is made, it makes it impossible for atheists to distance themselves from Russian and Chinese atrocities. It can't be easily denied that it was explicitly in the name of that same claim that the Soviets and the Chinese murdered and abused a great number of religious people. As Sam Harris would say: It's as though our opponents draw the chalk-outline of a dead man on the sidewalk, and we just walk up and lie down in it.

The focus on religion and god-belief in particular is I think misguided. A belief in god by itself is not a problem. You need to add something else to that belief to make it a problem. Dogmatic belief and a lack of respect for basic human rights is the real problem. While it's true that most religions perpetuate dogma and undermine human rights, these problems are neither a universal part of religion, nor are they limited to religion. We're all sufficiently susceptible to dogma and readily-enough inclined to participate in acts that depersonalize out-groups.

I think the focus should be on exposing dogmas (i.e. opinions expressed as facts) wherever we find them and on defending human rights. The unbalanced focus on religion and god-belief is a distraction.

111. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97088 by Riley on December 11, 2007 at 11:43 am

nice post gr8hands.

112. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96988 by Riley on December 11, 2007 at 8:05 am

rustylix: "Imagine making a proportional fuss, in terms of square footage, over the monstrosities they erect."

when they erect such monstrosities on public land, no doubt.

113. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96515 by Riley on December 10, 2007 at 4:50 pm

steve99, my post was being written apparently at the same time that yours was, that being said, I think my post was a perfect response to yours.

A logo is not an argument. It's a logo.

I've read many of your posts, and I feel my own posts are perfect retorts to your own.

114. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96510 by Riley on December 10, 2007 at 4:41 pm

Diacanu wrote: They have "just cause", to be offended no matter how soft we sell it.

A poster full of famous American Atheists would not provide a just cause to be offended. I don't think so. Especially if it was just the faces and the names. We could even leave out the controversial figures ... there are so many famous figures from just the 20th century, it'd be an overwhelming display.

Those who tried to make such an argument would look especially stupid. It'd be a win-win for atheism.

115. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96505 by Riley on December 10, 2007 at 4:36 pm

walk, I agree, I don't think you can communicate a negative message in a positive way. The best you can do is promote reason: a positive that tends to lead to less religious thinking. Regardless, you're not going to convert anybody on the spot.

And for the same reason that the Jewish display does not have a message explicitly aimed at the Christians saying: "don't believe that crap" and vice-versa for the Christians against the Jews (it's implicit, not explicit), the atheist display should not aim an explicit attack against the other participants. This is not a special respect paid to them, these are the rules that everyone is expected to play by in this limited holiday forum.

116. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96492 by Riley on December 10, 2007 at 4:04 pm

walk wrote: Riley, It's difficult to understand your "kid gloves" approach. I'm with Diacanu, could you offer some examples of what message you would put on a sign that would promote atheism but wouldn't "offend" the believers

I don't claim that you should not offend. If making a reasonable argument about evidence is offensive to someone, then so be it. Let them be offended. Sam Harris is a perfect example of someone who lets it fly, without personally attacking anyone, but at the same time and probably without exception, offending a great many. No problems with that from me. I love that.

In this particular case of a holiday display area, however, it is inappropriate for ANY participant to be taking pot-shots at any of the other participants. Say something positive about yourself and leave the fight for another time/place.

Like I said before: put a big image of Thomas Paine on a poster, add some generally positive statement about "reason" to that image and I think you have a poster that fits the occasion. Someone can think of something better along those same lines no doubt.

How about a poster with pictures of hundreds of noteworthy atheists in American history? That would be a very positive and powerful message.

117. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96485 by Riley on December 10, 2007 at 3:53 pm

Diacanu, Calling me "self loathing" and trying to make that derogatory generalization stick to all those who like me disagree with your approach to the problem of religion is in my opinion a bigoted personal attack. You disagree?

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

118. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96480 by Riley on December 10, 2007 at 3:47 pm

Diacanu wrote: Wishy-washy atheists like Riley are quite frustrating.

They're wishy-washy and self loathing enough not to want to offend religionists in any way, but they're not quite wishy-washy enough to curl up and go to sleep.

More irritating still, they mistake this "just enough energy to be awake, and just awake enough to flap my gob", state for a backbone.

Oh good, I'm one of "them" now. Thank you.

I l-o-v-e to offend theists Diacanu. I'm just unwilling to be dogmatic, bigoted, and as such hypocritical when I do it. Name calling and generalizations (like those you've tried pegging on me) are the problem with religion and religious thinking. Tit for tat is not a victory, it's just a fight.

119. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96476 by Riley on December 10, 2007 at 3:30 pm

gr8hands, Stalinst Russian ideology held that the world would be a better place without religion. That ideology directly motivated Russians to brutally oppress the practice of religion.

I've made no mention of atheism. Being an atheist is not a subscription to an ideology. Believing that the world would be a better place without religion, or that religion poisons everything, IS an ideology, and that ideology was shared by many leaders in Stalinist Russia.

120. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96462 by Riley on December 10, 2007 at 3:08 pm

sent2null wrote :
Care to elaborate, that sentence wasn't clear to me. I want to make sure I am responding to what you are saying and not what I *think* you are saying.

I guess I have two points:

1) In the same way that it's not reasonable to link the brutal attempts to eradicate religion during the 20th century with all attempts to promote a world without religion, it's not reasonable to link the brutal mass murders of 9/11 with all forms of religion.

2) The above is a topic for reasonable debate. You may or may not agree with me on my take, but the holiday display area is not the appropriate area for us to resolve our disagreement on the matter.

Promote the symbols and symbolism of your group affiliation ... and leave the arguments over whose group is the most righteous for another place.

121. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96439 by Riley on December 10, 2007 at 2:41 pm

wouldn't it be absolutely correct and proper for atheist symbols and sentiments to be displayed right next to the symbols and sentiments of other religions?

Absolutely, positive statements and symbols about atheists should be there. That's only fair. Maybe someone should make a poster honoring Thomas Paine.

sent2null wrote: Every forum is the right forum for truth. This world would be far better off if more people vociferously defended this fact.

So then, a sign which associated brutal 20th century attempts to eradicate religion with all other attempts to promote a world without religion would be fair-play then. Right?

122. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96434 by Riley on December 10, 2007 at 2:24 pm

Riley: But in this case the people who are being attacked have good reason to say: "hey, that's in bad taste. We're being attacked".

Diacanu: "What good reason? Their imaginary friend is being slighted?"

Nooo, now you're being thick. Theists are as a group being associated with mass murder -- that's an attack.

If a sign were posted associating Russia's attempt to eradicate religion with the atheists who now promote a world without religion, it would be perceived as an attack on atheists. Does anyone deny this? Does anyone deny that atheists would cite such an attack as more reason to condemn theists, much like the theists are now using this sign to condemn atheists.

123. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96423 by Riley on December 10, 2007 at 2:10 pm

But can you think of ANY unmistakeably atheist sign that WOULDN'T have had those people jumping up and down in anger and agitation?

Of course there will be someone who will always complain. If they are jumping around in anger without good reason, then that's their problem. But in this case the people who are complaining of being attacked have good reason to say: "hey, that's in bad taste. We're being attacked".

They are being attacked.

124. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96412 by Riley on December 10, 2007 at 1:45 pm

Northern Bright wrote: A group of people whose thought-processes have been corrupted by religion deliberately fly 2 planes into 2 skyscrapers, thereby causing the deaths of thousands of people ... and we shouldn't point out the role that religion played in this because to do so is to be uncivil?

At a multicultural display which is intended to provide a community forum for people of diverse beliefs and cultures an opportunity to set aside their differences and enjoy one another's traditions and culture, yes. You should give it a rest.

In that forum it's inappropriate. That forum is for self-promotion, not mud slinging.

125. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96401 by Riley on December 10, 2007 at 1:31 pm

No more respect than I give anyone or anything else.

I'm not afraid of offending anybody, obviously.

126. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96398 by Riley on December 10, 2007 at 1:26 pm

Riley:
"The point is that in certain forums, for the sake of civility, you should give it a rest."

Diacanu :
"Um...*thinks about it really hard*....mmm...no."

You'd make a great neighbor.

127. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96393 by Riley on December 10, 2007 at 1:20 pm

thirdchimpanzee wrote: Riley, "imagine" is not the same as "eradicate". Even if we concede this was poor taste - it most definitely is not an attack.

Similarly, being religious is not the same as flying planes into the World Trade Center.

It is reasonable for someone who considers themselves to be religious to feel personally attacked by the connection being made between religion and 9/11. I think there are good arguments to be made that connect 9/11 and religion ... that's not the point. The point is that in certain forums, for the sake of civility, you should give it a rest.

128. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96381 by Riley on December 10, 2007 at 1:08 pm

"Imagine No Judaism" is more correct, sure.

The point still being that a reasonable person would take such a sign to be an attack against Judaism.

129. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96374 by Riley on December 10, 2007 at 1:02 pm

They are people based on the ideas they hold - but they are free to change those ideas, and when they do, so too do they change demographics. It's the ideas they hold and pracitce that matters. Diacanu seems to be suggesting that there is no choice. I don't consider a child born to a Jewish mother to be a Jew until he or she decides they want to be a Jew.

You can believe what you want, of course.

130. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96367 by Riley on December 10, 2007 at 12:55 pm

This stuff about Stalin himself are mostly irrelevant details. The point is, there WAS an ideology in Russia during that period and that ideology sought to eradicate religion within the Soviet Union. It's an undeniable fact of history.

More to the point is the question: is it appropriate to use a holiday display space to make attacks against political opponents? If a sign were displayed in that space linking "Stalinists" with "atheists who promote a world without religion" that sign would no doubt be perceived by us as an attack against atheists. And no doubt there would be many on this thread who would cite such an attack as more reason to condemn theists for their bad behavior.

Also, I don't consider "Jews" to be a people any more so than I consider "Catholics" to be a people. But again, weather or not you do is not the point.

131. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96361 by Riley on December 10, 2007 at 12:50 pm

No, Stalin was crusading for his own power and deification. Period.

The Stalinist ideology formally called-for the eradication of religion.

132. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96355 by Riley on December 10, 2007 at 12:40 pm

tybowen,

Yes, Stalin wasn't crusading for atheism. Stalin was crusading for the eradication of god-fearing religions. "imagine no religion" seems to promote the same political view-point that Stalin had. At least it arguably does.



If there was a Muslim display stating:
"imagine no Jews" and on it were a picture of rubble in Palestine, such a display would be as inappropriate as the "imagine no religion" display. Weather or not it's a fair attack is not the point. The point is that it's an attack, and in that forum (e.g. celebrating the multi-cultural holidays) such attacks are inappropriate.

133. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96335 by Riley on December 10, 2007 at 11:50 am

I'm trying to imagine how I would react if a group of Bible thumpers sponsored a sign that read: "Imagine no atheism" and on it was a picture of Stalin and his army.

I would consider it to be at a minimum a political attack against me and I might even take it as a personal threat.

The point of these equal-opportunity holiday display areas is to unite a community regardless of belief or culture; not to give people of different political view-points an opportunity to throw crap at each other.

The Connecticut Valley Atheists' display in this case, in this forum, is inappropriate. They should limit their message to something positive or else they should not participate in the holiday display area.

(note: "imagine no religion" also makes atheism out to be more than a simple statement about the non-existence of a god. It burdens "atheism" with the additional need to defend the claim that the world would necessarily be a better place if only it had no religion in it. I'm personally not willing to assert that claim as true without evidence (to do so would be dogmatic) and worse I can't deny that it was in the name of that claim that the soviets murdered and abused a great number of religious people. In the words of Sam Harris: It's as though our opponents draw the chalk-outline of a dead man on the sidewalk, and we just walk up and lie down in it. )

134. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95292 by Riley on December 7, 2007 at 10:18 pm

Also check out the Point of Inquiry interview with Neil deGrasse Tyson:
http://www.pointofinquiry.org/?p=137

It includes some comments about Richard Dawkins and the "New Atheists" movement in general near the end of the interview.

135. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #95239 by Riley on December 7, 2007 at 4:40 pm

Not really. All current universe-origin models (at least those I know of) not only allow for more than one "big bang", but imply others. ... And "it happened just this once" is a constraint. It needs to be justified [...]

The question of weather or not there's a singularity event associated with the "big bang" is one of many questions still being debated. Did the universe really have a beginning? We don't know. If there's no beginning, then there's no special event (i.e. no unique event) that needs special justification.

136. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #95204 by Riley on December 7, 2007 at 2:59 pm

Not really. Given the nature of quantum mechanics, there would have to be some kind of constraint to allow a fluctuation to happen only once.

Well, first off, it is feasible (for all we know) that one fluctuation could engulf the entire "quantum substrate" eliminating the possibility for other such quantum fluctuations, but I'll grant you that if the Hawking-Hartle model involving a timeless substrate of quantum fluctuations is true, then it would seem likely that there is something outside of our universe including probably other universes.

But the Hawking-Hartle model's assumptions have still yet to be proven. And they need to be proven before you can shift the burden onto the multi-universe skeptic.

137. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #95195 by Riley on December 7, 2007 at 2:42 pm

sorry, I edited my comment above before seeing your latest reply. Yep, Hawking-Hartle present a viable model for the existence of a multi-verse. The burden of proof however still remains on those making that case that such a multi-verse exists. That's my point.

138. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #95186 by Riley on December 7, 2007 at 2:21 pm

But to assume otherwise is to add additional constraints.

Borderless, timeless, existence. It doesn't get any more unconstrained than that.

But, you see, the 'container' of the universe that you have invoked (such as the framework that Hawking uses) automatically implies other universes. If you invoke the Hawking-Hartle model of a quantum fluctuation of spacetime, then you have to accept the possibility of countless other fluctuations.

I didn't invoke the container universe, I denounced it as an assumption that as of yet, lacks evidence. The Hawking-Hartle model proposes a timeless, borderless, unconstrained universe.

It is also hugely premature to know that we can't test for the presence of other universes.

By definition, they are outside of knowable existence ... but I grant you what is knowable could change.

139. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #95171 by Riley on December 7, 2007 at 1:50 pm

when a scientist shifts from science to a statement like 'extreme probability means the physical constants appear as if they were fine tuned for complexity and life', it seems to me they have shifted from science to philosophy.

yep.

riley: "You could be right, but the burden of proof is on you, not me."

steve99: No. Uniqueness is the special case. The view that this is the only universe is something like solipsism.

This final point of disagreement seems to be at the heart of all the others. The term "uniqueness" only applies after you've assumed a container, the existence of something outside the universe 'container' and a variability of constants within it (it's not that there's nothing else like it, it is everything that there is). You seem to be saying that the burden of proof is on me to demonstrate that there does not exist other "universes" outside of knowable existence, and that without proof we must assume the existence of other universes.

I don't have an answer to that. I just disagree.

140. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #95159 by Riley on December 7, 2007 at 1:16 pm

Parsimony. If you say there is only one, you are applying a constraint that you have to justify.

There's no reason (yet) to believe that the unbounded self-contained universe is not all that there is. Classifying all of existence as being "unique" is nonsensical; it's everything!

It's not me that needs to specially justify myself. If you are postulating that all of known existence is just a "universe" in a cosmos full of other universes outside of knowable existence, then it's you that has a need to justify yourself.

You could be right, but the burden of proof is on you, not me.

141. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #95146 by Riley on December 7, 2007 at 12:45 pm

It's the lack of evidence for the existence of other possible physical constants that I'm speaking about. We don't know weather or not the universe had the option to be anything other than the way it is.

Unique is not an apt word. Why is it not philosophically reasonable to postulate that this is an unbounded and self-contained universe, as is theorized by Stephen Hawking. I wouldn't assume that there couldn't be more, but let's not assume that there is a basis to say that there probably is more either.

142. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #95137 by Riley on December 7, 2007 at 12:26 pm

you are pre-loading any model of things with your assumption that our universe is one of the more likely ones. You have no justification for assuming that.

On what basis do you place any one of the possible states of the universe into the the equation?

You're assuming that there are, or could possibly be, other variants of the universes without much evidence to support that claim. Parsimony would be best served, without evidence to the contrary, by just assuming that there are no other variants. I hate parsimony ... it's not really an argument.

143. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #95128 by Riley on December 7, 2007 at 12:06 pm

steve99: If you are going to assume a convenient distribution, you have to say why you are assuming that distribution. If you assume non-uniformity, you are imposing additional structure, and that has to be justified.

Creating a non-uniform probability model is justified because of what we know about the universe. We are 100% certain that the current state of the universe is a state that can exist, but we're uncertain weather or not any other particular state of the universe could exist, therefore without some other knowledge about the causes, it's reasonable to guess that these other hypothisised states are less likely to be possible than this state that we know for certain is possible.

I don't place much confidence in this assumption based on a single sample, but it's at least as justified a place to start and arguably a better place to start than the assumption that all possibilities are equal.

The simple fact is, we don't yet know what the probabilities are because we can't reliably test them, and until we can, you're not going to produce scientifically valid findings from a model based on any chosen distribution (e.g. the finely tuned universe model).

144. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #95081 by Riley on December 7, 2007 at 10:24 am

steve99 wrote: It's not silly at all. It is science. As you say above, it is the first step in the process.

It's silly because unless your process of inquiry can be used to test the assumption that "all possible values are equally likely", it can't be the first step in a scientific inquiry seeking an answer to that assumption. The improbably "fine tuned universe" argument can't and doesn't even attempt to test that assumption, it simply uses it as the basis to calculate probability parameters from which it reaches the conclusion that our universe is improbably "fine tuned".

Unless you consider mathematical models to be the only requirement of science, you have to conclude that this is not science. Like Strings, this internally consistent model is potentially useful to science and it might one day be integrated into an argument that is scientific, but it isn't science yet and it may never be. As such, any attempt to use its findings as a supporting argument to another claim, should be shot-down as non-scientific. For example, neither the case being made for a multi-verse nor the case being made for an intelligent designer are strengthened by the findings of the "fine tuned universe" argument, because the case for the improbably "fine tuned universe" is itself still not made.

I enjoy the discussion too. It helps me to break-down the issue and gives me motivation to go back and read Penrose again.

145. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #95058 by Riley on December 7, 2007 at 9:13 am

Riley: "I can't think of any high profile cosmologist handling this issue the way you do. Maybe you could point us to some examples."

steve99: "Sure - Martin Rees, Roger Penrose."

Roger Penrose has estimated probability parameters based on the assumption that all states are equally likely. It's a fine hypothetical exercise to engage in, but he does not assert that his initial assumption is correct.

Riley:In science when we don't know, we conclude: "we don't know".

steve99: No, that is not true. If we wish to investigate new areas, perhaps where information is sparse, we take the case with the least parameters.[...] The fact is that if we want to start to think about why the constants of the universe have their values, we should not think "we don't know, we can't say anything".

How do you justify this logical leap from my simple statement that:
"when we don't know, we conclude: 'we don't know' "

to your retort that:
"we should not think 'we don't know, we can't say anything' "

!?!?

The process of seeking answers to unanswered questions must begin with identifying and acknowledging first that we currently don't know the answer. This process may then proceed from the acknowledgment that 'we don't know' to a hypothesis that limits parameters and includes perhaps a few assumptions, but these assumptions are not claims to knowledge, they're simply the first step in the process used to test the parameters and assumptions.

Stating that: "When we don't know the constraints on a value, we assume all possible values are equally likely" is not only a gross generalization, it's especially silly when the very question that we seek an answer to IS weather or not all possible values are equally likely.

steve99 All I am saying is that the physical constants appear as if they were fine tuned for complexity and life.

What I hear you saying is that the assumption on which the "fine tuned" argument is based, for example the assumption used by Penrose in his calculations, is a well founded assumption. I'm saying (as I did above) that Penrose himself would acknowledge that there is an underlying assumption being made that is not based on science. He's just exploring a hypothetical.

You can't draw a scientifically valid conclusion from an argument that relies on an assumption that is itself not supported by science.

146. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #95029 by Riley on December 7, 2007 at 7:38 am

Dr Benway wrote:When we don't know the constraints on a value, we assume all possible values are equally likely.

In science when we don't know, we conclude: "we don't know".

147. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #95019 by Riley on December 7, 2007 at 7:19 am

Steve99 wrote:We know that it appears finely balanced.

"balanced" is a loaded term and a "begging the question" logical fallacy.

Steve99 wrote:If you see a pencil balanced on its point, that would look odd even if you see only one.

It would be odd to see a pencil balanced on its point only because we know from experience that state to be a precarious position for a pencil. A U.S. quarter has 121 possible states (heads, tails, and 119 ridges on its edge), that doesn't mean that there's only a 1 in 121 chance of finding a quarter in it's "heads" state. You're making the unfounded (and un-parsimonious) assumption that the universe is more like the pencil on it's point than the quarter on it's side.

In fact, if parsimony by itself were a good argument, then parsimony would dictate that the more fine-tuned our universe appears to be, the more like the quarter on its side we should expect it is. (read: http://quasar.as.utexas.edu/anthropic.html)

Steve99 wrote:I am sorry to keep pressing the point, but the fine tuning issue is considered to be a real one by most cosmologists. I am not putting a personal viewpoint.

I can't think of any high profile cosmologist handling this issue the way you do. Maybe you could point us to some examples. The "fine tuning" issue is an interesting question that is discussed, yes, but you're pushing a conclusion stemming from that issue like no other cosmologist I'm aware of does.

Steve99 wrote: This is not just about distributions. It is about any area of reasoned debate. Always start with the fewest assumptions.

Yes, and in this case, you're adding the assumption that the tightly restricted values we see in the universe are unlikely (like a pencil balanced on its point).

You're also adding the assumption that the possible states are equally distributed probabilities. No where else in the quantum-based universe do possibilities get equally distributed. And yet you assume they do here.

148. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #94861 by Riley on December 6, 2007 at 9:19 pm

steve9 wrote:Suppose you were about to be executed by a vast firing squad. Say, a thousand rifles. And all the rifles either jam or miss you. It would not be a reasonable response to say "well, that was simply an unlikely occurence, nothing more" - you should certainly be suspicious that something else was going on. Same with the finely tuned constants. There must be something else going on.

Steve! What evidence is there to support your assumption that the physical constants necessary to support complexity in the universe were unlikely?!?

Space-time forms a finite, four-dimensional surface with no boundaries or singularities. This continuum is similar to that of a sphere, on which one can travel without ever finding an edge -- a feature Stephen Hawking calls "self-containedness," meaning that the universe is nowhere open for any intervention coming from outside. This, he says, "has profound implications for the role of God as Creator."

In Stephen Hawking's opinion, the proper time for "God" to act would be the beginning of the universe, when, by setting the rate of expansion and other initial conditions, he could determine the general structure and evolution of the cosmos. But if there are no boundaries and no singularities, there is no beginning at which God could act. Hawking writes: "Einstein once asked the question: 'How much choice did God have in constructing the universe?' If the no-boundary proposal is correct, he had no freedom at all to choose the initial conditions."

149. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #94363 by Riley on December 5, 2007 at 1:18 pm

steve99 wrote: But in that case you are in no position to set the probability of the current values of the physical constants as high.

I'm not! I'm saying that the probability is not knowable.

And because it's not knowable, an argument is necessarily weak when it relies on knowing (one way or the other).

steve99 wrote: Whether or not this is the case, it is undeniable that a considerable number of physicists consider that [string theory] will have scientific validity.

And a considerable number of physicists (probably more than 10%) also believe in a personal god. Such arguments from authority are not evidence. It could be a belief held by 80% of physicists and still, the belief itself would not be evidence. I'll grant you however, that it's far more reasonable to believe that one day "String Theory" (the mathematical theory) might yet become a scientific theory; but today it's not, and can not be used as evidence.

steve99 wrote: It appears that if some constants change even an unimaginably small amount, then the universe would contain no structure at all, let alone anything like life.

But that unimaginably small change might still be unimaginably difficult and unlikely. Neither you nor I know if it is or isn't. It's simply wrong to assume that because it's an unimaginably small change (at our scale of thinking) that therefore it was more or less likely to end up the way it did. We just don't know.

steve99 wrote: It is unscientific to claim that "this is not a matter that need be discussed", just because theists are discussing it.

I completely agree. I don't think anything I've said or argued is incompatible with that principle.

The "fine-tuned universe" argument for an intelligent creator, relies on three premises:

1. The fundamental laws of nature could not be changed the slightest bit without destroying its ability to support complexity as we know it.


2. Because the slightest change to the fundamental laws of nature would make life impossible, therefore it is highly unlikely that the universe should be suitable for life.


3. It is so unlikely, that an "intelligent designer" is a reasonable hypothesis.

I grant premise 1 (I don't reject it). It's premise 2 that I'm rejecting on the basis that we don't know if it's highly unlikely or not. And of course, I also reject premise 3 for that and other reasons.

150. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #94291 by Riley on December 5, 2007 at 6:59 am

Riley wrote:"The other non-complexity supporting states that are hypothetically modeled, might not be possibilities at all, or maybe they were possible, but less likely. We simply don't know."

steve99 wrote:"And because we don't know, we are in no position to assume that they are not possible."

And that's exactly my point. We don't know.

We don't know weather or not our apparently "fine tuned" state is an unlikely state for the universe to be in or not, and yet theists making the finely tuned universe argument rely on the assumption that it must be exceedingly unlikely. That's an unfounded assumption.

steve99 wrote:"In some of the most popular models of physics being worked on right now (String Theory), the other possibilities are considered to exist, and are considered to be just as likely."

String theorists are still struggling to even demonstrate that their mathematical theory has scientific validity. String mathematics are not yet part of science. And no other science has yet (to my knowledge) been able to assess the probabilities which the "fined-tuned" argument relies upon. It might turn out to be highly improbable, but right now we don't know one way or the other.

Regardless, it's still a very good and short retort to say that the odds of the existence of a fine-tuned intelligent creator of a fine-tuned universe must be even greater than the odds of the existence of a fine-tuned universe by itself, no matter what the odds of either turn out to be.