These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
This entry was posted on Thursday, September 6th, 2007 at 11:07 pm and is filed under Humor.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. The trackback link is: http://telicthoughts.com/barney-teaches-a-scientific-fact/trackback/
47 Responses to “Barney Teaches a "Scientific Fact"”
That doesn't sound much like Sagan. Do you have the original quote?
The only similar Sagan quote I can recall is this one, with quite a different meaning:
In some respects, science has far surpassed religion in delivering awe. How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, "This is better than we thought! The universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant. God must be even greater than we dreamed" Instead they say, "No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way."
How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, "This is better than we thought! The universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant. God must be even greater than we dreamed" Instead they say, "No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way."
That's funny - can you provide a reference to what Sagan's talking about here? As a Catholic, this is alien to me. Big Bang and all that. Certainly he wasn't exaggerating just to back up his own personal worldview, right?
As for Sagan:
We succeeded in taking that picture [from deep space], and, if you look at it, you see a dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you know, everyone you love, everyone you've ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of all our joys and sufferings, thousands of confident religions, ideologies and economic doctrines. Every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilizations, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every hopeful child, every mother and father, every inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every superstar, every supreme leader, every saint and sinner in the history of our species, lived there - on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Poetic. Stirring. And so blind and inept by what he implies.
See, Sagan's problem is that he's ignoring something else: That pale blue dot happens to be the only place we know of with intelligent life. It's extraordinary, special, and harkens some incredible things for the future of the universe. But, to Sagan? It's tiny. So small. And therefore, we aren't really all that important.
The man was great in certain areas, and certainly poetic. But in this particular case, on this particular thought, he's a joke the moment you get past the poetry.
Comment by nullasalus — September 7, 2007 @ 1:48 am
That's funny - can you provide a reference to what Sagan's talking about here? As a Catholic, this is alien to me.
Um, how about the fact that the Vatican wouldn't allow heliocentric books to be printed in Rome until 1822, almost 300 years after Copernicus published De Revolutionibus? And that it took another 170 years for the Church to get around to admitting its mistake in condemning Galileo?
Poetic. Stirring. And so blind and inept by what he implies.
Okay. So he didn't say "obviously there is no God because the universe is huge!" I didn't think so.
Okay. So he didn't say "obviously there is no God because the universe is huge!" I didn't think so.
Read closer, keiths. I know you're trying desperately not to defend what Sagan is saying there - and who would want to defend what's so obviously indefensible when some thought is actually applied - but there it is, plain to see. Humanity is not special, not created by God, and there is no God. And what's the evidence?
The universe is very big.
Also: Elephants? Much larger than humans. One more strike against any idea that we hold a unique place in the universe.
Um, how about the fact that the Vatican wouldn't allow heliocentric books to be printed in Rome until 1822, almost 300 years after Copernicus published De Revolutionibus? And that it took another 170 years for the Church to get around to admitting its mistake in condemning Galileo?
Funny, keiths. We weren't talking about heliocentrism - we were talking about the quote you provided. Here we go again:
How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, "This is better than we thought! The universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant. God must be even greater than we dreamed" Instead they say, "No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way."
This has nothing to do with what particular position the earth inhabits with regards to the sun or the universe as a whole. We're talking about the expanse of the cosmos, the awe of the scope and size and sheer amazement of creation. And, as you've shown by trying to switch topics, it's baseless. Especially considering that the Catholic Church has had a keen interest in the sciences, particularly astronomy (ever hear of the Vatican Observatory, keiths? You may want to check out how old it is. :wink:)
Again, the lesson is this: Sagan employed poetry to mask weak philosophical claims. The weakness is evident the moment you actually ask yourself what the man is saying - but that's the weakness of the zealot, the whole 'thinking critically about an important argument' thing.
Comment by nullasalus — September 7, 2007 @ 3:42 am
And before I take off for the night, another personal favorite from the late Sagan's wife and fellow adherent, Ann Druyan:
I think the roots of this antagonism to science run very deep. They're ancient. We see them in Genesis, this first story, this founding myth of ours, in which the first humans are doomed and cursed eternally for asking a question, for partaking of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge.
..Except it wasn't the tree of knowledge, full stop. It was the tree of knowledge of good and evil - a particular type of knowledge, a tree of conscience. And they weren't doomed and cursed eternally, even by the fiercest literalist readings of the passage. Nor did asking a question result in any punishment.
I'd ask if it seems like Ann Druyan ever read Genesis, but I wouldn't want to give keiths an excuse to doom and curse me eternally.
Comment by nullasalus — September 7, 2007 @ 3:54 am
….But I was surprised to receive one e-mail, from a trained physicist and astronomer, who essentially said that I had been too easy on Galileo. His note prompted me to look more deeply into the relationship between Galileo and the Church. I since have read four books entirely or significantly devoted to the history of that relationship: Galileo in Rome, by William R. Shea and Mariano Artigas, Galileo's Mistake, by Wade Rowland, Galileo: Heretic, by Pietro Redondi, and Against Method, by Paul Feyerabend. As a result, I have learned that the "history" of Galileo and the Church that most of us learned in school, and that is conveyed in many popular science books, is largely a myth created in order to discredit, most specifically, the Catholic Church and, more generally, the religious approach in all its manifestations.
I recently wrote a review of the first two of those books, which will be published soon, where I discuss many of the general features of "the myth of Galileo." In this article, I will comment on just one representative instance of it.
The popular science writer John Gribbin has written a book entitled The Scientists: A History of Science Told Through the Lives of Its Greatest Inventors. In it, Gribbin (p. 95) describes the seventeenth-century dispute over the nature of comets, between Galileo and several prominent Jesuit astronomers, as follows:
"Three comets were seen in 1618, and when a group of Jesuits"¦ published a rather fanciful account of their significance, Galileo replied in withering terms, sarcastically suggesting that they seemed to think that 'philosophy is a book of fiction by some author, like the Iliad"¦" (When Galileo says "philosophy," he means what we would call science, which was referred to as natural philosophy in his day.)
Gribbin continues: "He had a point, and [respect for observed facts] is indeed a distinguishing feature of real science. Unfortunately, on this occasion, Galileo's explanation of comets was also wrong, and there is no point relating the details of the argument here"¦"
Gribbin is certainly correct in asserting that science must pay careful attention to human observations of reality. But he leaves the reader with the impression that, in the dispute in question, the Jesuits had merely concocted a "fanciful account" of the nature of comets, while Galileo, although not arriving at what we today would regard as the correct theory "“ after all, even the greatest scientists sometimes make mistakes "“ had at least followed the spirit of scientific procedure in developing his ideas. But just what were the respective theories of the two sides, and why is there "no point" in examining them?
Pietro Redondi, unlike Gribbin, does not think it pointless to examine these theories in Galileo: Heretic. He finds that the Jesuit astronomers' report on the comets, issued in 1619, won the approval of the prestigious Collegio Romano "because it documents the scientific quality of observational astronomy cultivated by the order." Their report, relying on the recent advances in astronomy made by Tyco Brahe, is summarized by Redondi as follows: "The exiguous size of the parallax [i.e., comets did not change their position against background stars very much, even when observed from widely separated places in Europe, indicating that they were fairly distant from the earth], the constant motion of a planetary type, the lack of telescopic enlargement, led [the Jesuits] to place the comet in a position between the moon and the sun: a celestial body in motion along a great circle, brilliant with reflected solar light, unlike what Aristotle had maintained. Once again, Jesuit astronomy gives the Collegio Romano an example of its open-minded freedom of research, as when it had officially recognized the discoveries of the Starry Messenger [Galileo's book in which he had described the findings he made by employing a telescope to explore the heavens]" (p. 41). The seventeenth-century Jesuit astronomers, based on their careful observations, had arrived at a theory of comets somewhat like the one that astronomers hold today. I have no doubt that modern scientists would find their theory unsatisfactory in some respects "“ but are there any astronomical theories that were current during the seventeenth century that would be completely acceptable today?
And what of Galileo? Redondi (p. 41) notes that the only comet Galileo had seen was when he was thirteen. (He was plagued by arthritis attacks during the appearances of the three comets in 1618, and so was unable to venture out to observe them.) However, he was aware that "a celestial body endowed with noncircular motion"¦ was a threat to the Copernican system. So, without observations and without calculations, Galileo"¦ took a position in the debate"¦" (Redondi, p. 31).
Just what was that position? Well, in order to avoid any potential embarrassment to Copernicanism, Galileo decided "to deny the physical reality of comets. They were not celestial bodies, but luminous appearances like rainbows or the sun's reflection on the sea at sunset" (Redondi, p. 32, emphasis mine). Comets, Galileo contended, were merely a visual phenomenon that did not correspond to any actual entities.
The Jesuits were stunned by Galileo's theory. They responded that "it is sufficient to have seen a comet 'only once,' with the naked eye or a telescope, to understand that it is not a matter of the play of light." Father Orazio Grassi, "an expert in the field of optics" (which Galileo was not), and other Jesuit astronomers, offered "a whole range of [scientific] refutations of Galileo's interpretive model" (Redondi, p. 43).
So, once we actually examine the arguments put forth by the Jesuits and by Galileo, which Gribbin claimed there was no point in discussing, it turns out that it was the Jesuit astronomers, and not Galileo, who based their conclusions on careful observation. Galileo, without having engaged in any scientific observation of comets whatsoever, was willing to dismiss them from physical reality because they were inconvenient for another theory he held. It was the Jesuit astronomers, and not Galileo, who had the more accurate theory of comets. And it was Galileo who was spinning a mere fancy, based on his faith in Copernicanism, while his Jesuit opponents explicitly contradicted the Catholic Church's favorite natural philosopher, Aristotle, based on their scientific studies.
So what was Gribbin thinking when he penned the lines I quoted above? I can only imagine two possibilities: either he was so sloppy in his research that he never bothered to look into what the competing theories of comets were, or he was so committed to the myth of Galileo that he was willing to deliberately deceive his readers in order to promote it. Since he acknowledges that Galileo's theory of comets was incorrect, the evidence, unfortunately, seems to suggest the latter conclusion. No wonder that Gribbin decided that "there is no point relating the details of the argument here," since doing so would have plainly contradicted the conclusion towards which he was steering his readers! In the interest of defending scientific objectivity, Gribbin ignored the objective facts about the historical events in question, instead choosing to promote an ideologically inspired myth.
If Gribbin's misrepresentation were unique, it would not be worth commenting upon. However, I believe that it typifies the historical distortions that are often used in order to elevate science and denigrate religious belief. The fact that such tactics are sometimes employed in the name of science does not, of course, condemn science itself, which, ideally, stands apart from any ideology. Nor does the fact that Galileo occasionally used similar methods of argumentation demote him from the ranks of great scientists. And, as a last caveat, with which I will attempt to deter another batch of angry e-mails, I herein declare that I do not believe that because Jesuit astronomers had a better theory of comets than Galileo, the Church was justified in prosecuting him.
But historical misrepresentations, such as Gribbin's, do expose the ideological nature of the program forwarded by those who desire science to have absolute hegemony over all of the other modes of experience through which humans attempt to understand their world.
January 17, 2004
Oh, this is interesting too….
…It is a matter of historical record that when the Jesuits taught astronomy in Japan and China a few decades later, they taught the heliocentric theory….
Lots more at that link well worth perusing. Such as this:
…The preface of Copernicus's book includes an enthusiastic letter of praise from one of the most influential cardinals of the time!
…Cardinal Schoenberg was not an astronomer, and he was writing from Rome — he was the right-hand man of three successive Popes. Indeed, there is reason to suspect that he wrote to Copernicus at the suggestion of the Pope. Schoenberg's letter praises Copernicus to the skies, briefly states Schoenberg's understanding of the heliocentric theory (which had been circulating by word of mouth for some years), and begs Copernicus to publish it as soon as possible.
… The Church, historically, had no objection to *theorizing*. Indeed, there was precedent for Church doctrine changing, when compelling evidence of error was presented. One of Galileo's crucial mistakes was to state the heliocentric theory as a *fact*, not a *theory*, when in fact he had no particularly convincing evidence….
And judging by other remarks he makes, the author is not exactly an apologist for the Catholic Church.
…Since 1645 selenographers had named at least 40 craters to honor Jesuits, but 5 have been renamed since then. Some of the craters ( arrow ) are on the far side of the moon. When looking at the moon these craters can be located by eye when noting their position relative to the large Copernicus (O) crater with the distinctive "crater steaks" radiating from it like the stem of an orange.
At the entrance to the Smithsonian's Moon exhibit is a large copy of one of the earliest and best known selenographs shown above. This map was composed by the Jesuit astronomers Riccioli and Grimaldi and across the top is written: "Neither do men inhabit the moon nor do souls migrate there". In 1922 the International Astronomical Union ( I. A. U.) codified all lunar objects: 35 of the 40 Jesuit names survived to be listed in the National Air and Space Museum (NASM) catalog. This is not surprising because of the impact Jesuits had on astronomy. For instance, by the year 1773, 30 of the world's 130 astronomy observatories were operated by Jesuits. Furthermore Jesuit names are still being added to the list by the I. A. U.
In the chart below I list the 35 Jesuit names as they are spelled in the NASM and Wilkins maps, along with the locations and diameters of the craters. I then put corresponding numbers on a lunar map to locate approximately these 35 craters. Some of the names on on the far side of the moon which we never see from earth because of the strange fact that the moon's spin on its own axis exactly matches one revolution around the earth. I could not find all the data on each of the men but more information can be found in the writings of the Belgian Jesuit Omar Van Der Vyver, former superior at the Specola Vaticana.
The Men
These men all taught and wrote books on astronomy, physics and mathematics. Many of the books they wrote are still extant. During the first two centuries of Jesuit history there were 631 Jesuit authors of geometry books alone! Some of these authors wrote many books: Kircher 39, Boscovich 151 - huge books bigger than lectionaries. Some of these men are much better remembered today than others.
Roger Boscovich developed the first coherent description of an atomic theory which is one of the great attempts to explain the universe in a single idea. His influence on modern atomic physics is undoubted and his many works are kept as the Boscovich Archives in the Bancroft library of rare books at Berkeley. He lived in a time when when mathematicians were expected to fix things so he was commissioned by popes and emperors to do such jobs as repair the fissures in cathedral domes and survey meridians of the Papal states. The Jesuit General Laurence Ricci made Boscovich a Visitor for the whole Society and it was Boscovich's influence that minimized the hostility of Catholic churchmen to the Copernican system. He did not suffer fools gladly so when shown the treasures of the Jesuit school at Sens which included a rib of the prophet Isaiah, he told the rector to throw it away in the interest of truth. After the Suppression of the Jesuits, Boscovich became a captain in the French navy and was able to travel through France using a salvus conductus given him by Louis XV.
Christopher Clavius was the most influential teacher of the Renaissance and numbered among his admirers Viete, Kepler and Galileo. It was Clavius' support for the heliocentric theory that was the predominant influence making it acceptable among the learned. Clavius encouraged a number of mathematical developments: the decimal point, parenthesis, use of logarithms and the vernier scale. It was Clavius who replaced the Julian calendar with the Gregorian calendar.
Later mathematicians such as Leibniz became interested in mathematics by reading his works. His Geometry book became the standard text in the 16th and l7th Century European schools and led to his being called the "Euclid of the l6th Century".
Francesco Grimaldi discovered diffraction and anticipated the invention of the diffraction grating. He was one of the earliest physicists to suggest that light was wave-like in nature. and he formulated a geometrical basis for a wave theory of light. His treatise attracted Isaac Newton to the study of optics.
Christopher Grienberger, Clavius' successor, verified Galileo's discovery of the four moons of Jupiter, then later in 1611 he organized a convocation honoring Galileo. At this gathering of cardinals, princes and scholars, the students of Clavius and Grienberger expounded Galileo's discoveries to the delight of Galileo. He said that if Galileo had heeded the advice of the Jesuits and proposed his teachings as hypotheses, he could have written on any subject he wished, including the rotation of the earth.
Maximilian Hell was director of the astronomy observatory in Vienna. After the Suppression of the Jesuits he continued working there as director, along with other members of the Society. He fell victim to the public defamation of Jesuits then in vogue when he was accused of altering his findings during a transit of Venus. His name was not cleared until a century later when in 1883 the famous astronomer Simon Newcomb found his readings to be correct, and his scholarship above suspicion.
Athanasius Kircher with his contributions to mathematics, astronomy, harmonics, acoustics, chemistry, microscopy and medicine played a significant part in the early scientific revolution. His Kircher Museum was considered one of the best science museums in the world. His discoveries include sea phosphorescence, microscopically small living organisms and the causes of transfer of epidemic diseases. It was in facilitating a wide diffusion of knowledge by his vast collections of scientific information, that Kircher deserves a place among the fathers of modern science, and the titles of "universal genius and master of a hundred arts".
Matteo Ricci made western developments in mathematics available to the Chinese and published in 1584 the first maps of China available to the west. For the first time the Chinese had an idea of the distribution of oceans and land masses. He introduced trigonometric and astronomical instruments and translated the first six books of Euclid into Chinese. He is remembered for his Chinese works on religious and moral topics as well as works on scientific topics. The Encyclopedia Britannica reports: "Probably no European name of past centuries is so well known in China as that of Li-ma-teu (Ricci Matteo)."
Christopher Scheiner discovered sunspots independently of Galileo but erroneously thought they were small planets. He explained the elliptical form of the sun near the horizon as the effect of refraction. He showed that the retina is the seat of vision. His invention for magnifying maps, the pantograph, can still be purchased in stationary stores. He gave one of his telescopes to the archduke of Tyrol who was more interested in the scenery than in stars and complained that the image was inverted. Scheiner inserted another lens to invert the image again and so created one of the first terrestrial telescopes.
Andre Tacquet was a brilliant mathematician of international repute whose books were frequently reprinted and translated. The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London refer to his Opera mathematica as "one of the best books ever written in mathematics". His use of the method of exhaustion pointed the way to the limit process and helped prepare for the discovery of calculus.
Nicolas Zucchi was held in such great esteem he was sent as a papal legate to the court of the Emperor Ferdinand II in part because of his invention of the reflecting telescope. In Zucchi's time this creative ability was expected of Jesuits whereas today educated people are surprised at the accomplishments of past Jesuits because we Jesuits are reluctant to engage in what seems to be unabashed triumphalism. It is simply considered bad form: so our students and fellow faculty members are kept in the dark about an important facet of Jesuit Tradition.
Two charts of the craters named to honor Jesuits:
One is taken from the National Air and Space Museum (N A S M) catalog, the other from Carl Sommervogel, S.J. Recently the International Astronomical Union (I A U) codified lunar nomenclature eliminating conflicts: 5 Jesuit names were deleted, bringing the present number to 35. There may have been other Jesuit names in the past and there will certainly be more Jesuit names in the future.
This has nothing to do with what particular position the earth inhabits with regards to the sun or the universe as a whole.
Sure it does. Most forms of Christianity are wedded to the idea that humanity is special, or even created in the image of God himself. The Church has a history of resisting scientific findings which undercut this hubristic assumption.
Heliocentrism was the first of many scientific discoveries that pushed us away from center stage and out toward the margins. Evolution was another, which is why John Paul II felt compelled to say this:
Theories of evolution which, because of the philosophies which inspire them, regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible with the truth about man.
nulla:
…ever hear of the Vatican Observatory, keiths? You may want to check out how old it is.
Yes. Imagine the cognitive dissonance afflicting the poor schmucks working there, who couldn't publish anything pro-heliocentric until 1822!
I know you're trying desperately not to defend what Sagan is saying there - and who would want to defend what's so obviously indefensible when some thought is actually applied - but there it is, plain to see. Humanity is not special, not created by God, and there is no God. And what's the evidence?
The universe is very big.
Null,
You really should read more Sagan before presuming to dictate his opinions to us. He was not stupid enough to argue "obviously there is no God because the universe is huge!", as you claim. His posthumous book, The Varieties of Scientific Experience — A Personal View of the Search for God, explains his actual reasons for disbelieving, as opposed to your strawman imaginings.
Keiths:
Heliocentrism was the first of many scientific discoveries that pushed us away from center stage and out toward the margins.
As stunney documents Jesuits had no small part in the development of heliocentrism. It did not look threaty to them.
Evolution was another, which is why John Paul II felt compelled to say this:
Theories of evolution which, because of the philosophies which inspire them, regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible with the truth about man.
The Pope was simply pointing out the limitations of science and attempts by some to conflate their philiosophies with empirical data.
The Church has a history of resisting scientific findings which undercut this hubristic assumption.
As do most materialists when scientific finding do indeed support biocentric assumptions.
So you're not really saying anything of significance. People have worldviews and when evidence runs contrary to those worldviews, the people push onward. But might this not be a wise thing today? Are you aware of the differences between maxi- and mini- theories in the philosophy of science?
You really should read more Sagan before presuming to dictate his opinions to us. He was not stupid enough to argue "obviously there is no God because the universe is huge!", as you claim.
I'm quoting Sagan himself, keiths. Your response to it has been to try desperately to change the subject to heliocentrism. Why? Because you know that Sagan's thoughts on our specialness, and on God, are downright embarassing. But they're a kind of death porn for a certain type of atheists who are downright enamored with the idea that humanity is an accident, so all that much-talked-about skepticism and rationality is punted out the window. After all, doesn't it sound so nice when set to the right music?
What I find funny is, I'm willing to give Sagan all kinds of credit. I went through lengths to point out how I'm not calling Sagan an idiot, but his particular arguments on this one subject were assinine. But you're petrified at the thought of admitting that an institution you revile may have contributed happily to science (I imagine you can't even read what stunney quotes - too many sacred cows being shattered there.) You don't want to talk about the 'argument from bigness' Sagan makes - you want to talk about heliocentrism. Oh wait, Ann Druyan's talking about Genesis and clearly either hasn't read it or is purposefully lying about what it says? Well, there's a good response to that: Heliocentrism.
Comment by nullasalus — September 7, 2007 @ 11:41 am
Sure it does. Most forms of Christianity are wedded to the idea that humanity is special, or even created in the image of God himself.
Science is wedded to the idea that humanity is special as well. Humans are the only creatures capable of scientific thought and reasoning.
Humanity being created in the image of God doesn't mean that God is a four-limbed almost-hairless ape. It means something else entirely. Michelangelo wasn't a photographer.
Yes. Imagine the cognitive dissonance afflicting the poor schmucks working there, who couldn't publish anything pro-heliocentric until 1822!
This restriction was exclusive to Rome, and even then it was unevenly enforced.
The passage from Sagan that you quote makes no reference to God or theology at all. All it says is the universe is large. It makes no deductions from that. How on earth do you make it mean:
"obviously there is no God because the universe is huge! "
??
Comment by Mark Frank — September 7, 2007 @ 2:11 pm
The passage from Sagan that you quote makes no reference to God or theology at all. All it says is the universe is large. It makes no deductions from that.
Are you saying that all Sagan is saying is that "the universe is large - isn't that interesting?" I think all it takes is reading the passage to come up with otherwise. He's arguing against the idea that humans are at all special or have an important place in the universe, which certainly ties in particularly with theology. And he's doing it on the grounds that the universe is very large.
Hey, go to Wikipedia and look up pale blue dot. Ann Druyan backs up as much (assuming wikipedia's accurate, always a chance game.)
Later in the book, Sagan's wife, Ann Druyan, challenges readers to pick one of the other planetary dots photographed and featured in the book, and imagine that there are inhabitants on that world who believe that the universe was created solely for themselves. She shared Sagan's belief that humans are not as important as they think they are.
So there we are again. "Humans are not special, because the universe is huge." But at least everyone seems to agree this is a pretty inane argument. Poetically put, by a guy who was certainly brilliant in other ways. Still doesn't make the argument more than nonsense though.
Comment by nullasalus — September 7, 2007 @ 2:58 pm
The passage from Sagan that you quote makes no reference to God or theology at all.
Carl Sagan once said: "The cosmos is all there is, or was, or ever will be." Sounds like theology to me. Its a play off the liturgical "The ever-living God who is, was and ever shall be."
Douglas Futuyma in Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, says:
"Some shrink from the conclusion that the human species was not designed, has no purpose, and is the product of mere mechanical mechanisms"”but this seems to be the message of evolution."
Anti-theology and very Flewhartish.
Richard Dawkins in The Blind Watchmaker:
"Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a mater watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning."`More Flewhart
Francis Crick in The Astonishing Hypothesis:
"The Astonishing Hypothesis is that you"”your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules" Flewhart again. Man he's everywhere!!
..Except it wasn't the tree of knowledge, full stop. It was the tree of knowledge of good and evil - a particular type of knowledge, a tree of conscience. And they weren't doomed and cursed eternally, even by the fiercest literalist readings of the passage. Nor did asking a question result in any punishment.
Blatant misrepresentation of the issues (and of the facts about those issues) is SOP. Makes it somewhat difficult at times to figure out whether this is a display of ignorance or deliberate dishonesty. I suspect a few of the most evangelical religion-haters are deliberately dishonest. I suspect a lot of their young recruits are merely ignorant - they've bought the talking points without question, never having learned enough about faith to see through the lies.
angryoldfatman:
So yes, if you wanted to do astronomy as a Roman Catholic priest, you had to do what your employer told you. I'm glad secularism has freed us of those restrictions now and you can completely ignore your employer's ideology when you do astronomy.
Ouch! §;o)
Matthew, I join Steve in thanking you for the link to the Sahtouris interview. Wow!
You misquoted Sagan, then when you did quote him correctly, you misunderstood his meaning.
nullasalus: Poetic. Stirring. And so blind and inept by what he implies.
See, Sagan's problem is that he's ignoring something else: That pale blue dot happens to be the only place we know of with intelligent life. It's extraordinary, special, and harkens some incredible things for the future of the universe. But, to Sagan? It's tiny. So small. And therefore, we aren't really all that important.
You really think that Sagan is ignoring that Earth is the only place we know of with intelligent life? In the same speech, he states "the Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life."
He goes on to say that there is no "hint" of help for the human condition from elsewhere, and that it is humanity's own responsibility to rise above their conceits. (This does not support your original claim. It is not the vastness that implies the lack of a god, but the lack of evidence in that vastness.) Nor does he state that Earth's inhabitants are unimportant. Humanity is of paramount importance to Sagan.
Sagan: "To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known. "
Theist: Humans are special
Atheist: Humans aren't special, they're just like other animals.
Theist: the Earth is special
Atheist: the Earth isn't special, it's just like other planets
Theist: the universe is special
Atheist: Uh-oh. Ummm. Oh, I know—the universe isn't special. It's, er, just, ummm, like, you know, other universes. I mean it's special, but not really. It's like, ah, other universes in, you know, being a universe. There's trillions of universes. Ours is just an ordinary universe in an ordinary multiverse.
Theist: the mathematics that describes our universe is special.
Atheist: the mathematics that describes our universe isn't special. I mean it's special, but not really. It's like, ah, the mathematics that describes other universes in, you know, being a universe-describing mathematics. There's trillions of mathematical structures constituting formal systems. Ours is just an ordinary mathematical structure in an ordinary multiverse of mathematical strucures, in an ordinary space of mathematical possibility. Max Tegmark says so. We're just part of the, you know, ultimate ensemble.
Theist: But then, mathematics as such is special.
Atheist: No, mathematics is not special. It's just one form of thought.
Theist: In which case mind itself is special—in particular the infinite mind that is God.
Atheist: No, miind is not special. When I said mathematics is just one form of thought, I didn't mean that thought as such was special.
Theist: But you said that our world isn't special because every possible mathematical structure exists. Why limit structures to ones that can be described mathematically? Why is mathematical describability special? Why not theological describability?
Atheist: Because it's not science.
Theist: Why is science special?
Atheist: It's, umm, not special. Nothing is special.
Theist: But then the claim that nothing is special is special—-special to atheists. And it's self-refuting.
Atheist: I'm not listening. Look, I've got my hands covering my ears and my eyes are shut. And I'm jumping up and down. Nananananana.
Theist: Humans are special
Atheist: A malignant tumor is special too.
Theist: the Earth is special
Atheist: and Venus is special too
Theist: the universe is special
Atheist: It is both special and not special since we only know of one universe.
Theist: the mathematics that describes our universe is special.
Atheist: that doesn't make sense. Math allows us to make models that helps us understand the universe.
Theist: But then, mathematics as such is special.
Atheist: It's a way of thinking about things. It's helpful, so I guess you could think of it as "special".
Theist: In which case mind itself is special"”in particular the infinite mind that is God.
Atheist: You are assuming your conclusions. Is it "mind" or is it "minds" You are also assuming mathematics, in the form of a wavefunction, isn't objective reality independent of conscious thought.
Theist: But you said that our world isn't special because every possible mathematical structure exists. Why limit structures to ones that can be described mathematically? Why is mathematical describability special? Why not theological describability?
Atheist: The Ultimate Truth is a philosophical concept. Science isn't equipped to answer philosophical questions.
Theist: Why is science special?
Atheist: It is useful. Granted, it is mostly useful to science. I wouldn't call it "special". It is just the way it is.
Theist: But then the claim that nothing is special is special"”-special to atheists. And it's self-refuting.
Atheist: Science is practical. It is something that works if approached honestly and openly (i.e. ethically). There are rules. Scientific hypotheses need to be consistent and testable. Scientific observations need to be made. Mathematical models can be used to formulate hypothesis, but even then, the model needs to be supported with real-world scientific observation. Overshadowing this is the understanding the science will never be able to find Truth, only knowledge.
Theist: You're being childish.
Atheist: And you think you know the Truth, don't you?
stunney has a new tactic of arguing with the imaginary atheists that live in his own head. Good idea, you do much better that way, and it keeps you from bothering us real ones. You constitute excellent evidence for atheism — if there was a God, he could come up with much better philosophers to defend his existence.
Theist: Humans are special
Atheist: A malignant tumor is special too.
So you're agreeing that humans are special. The word 'too' implies that you are.
Theist: the Earth is special
Atheist: and Venus is special too
See my previous remark.
Theist: the universe is special
Atheist: It is both special and not special since we only know of one universe.
Clear as mud. I anticipated such 'clarity' when I wrote:
Theist: the universe is special
Atheist: Uh-oh. Ummm. Oh, I know"”the universe isn't special. It's, er, just, ummm, like, you know, other universes. I mean it's special, but not really.
You guys are so predictable it would be boring if it wasn't so funny to watch you.
Theist: the mathematics that describes our universe is special.
Atheist: that doesn't make sense. Math allows us to make models that helps us understand the universe.
Well, that property of mathematics looks special to me. And it has looked special to others too…
The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible. — Albert Einstein
How can it be that mathematics, being after all product of human thought which is independent of experience, is so admirably appropriate to the objects of reality? — Albert Einstein
On we go:
Theist: But then, mathematics as such is special.
Atheist: It's a way of thinking about things. It's helpful, so I guess you could think of it as "special".
Yeah, I think that's a 'gimme' alright, TP. Especially for fans of Mandelbrot sets and stuff.
Theist: In which case mind itself is special"”in particular the infinite mind that is God.
Atheist: You are assuming your conclusions.
You are also assuming mathematics, in the form of a wavefunction, isn't objective reality independent of conscious thought.
No, I've argued it repeatedly, including with you. Remember the Hawking quote?
Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?
"¦The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?
On we go:
Theist: But you said that our world isn't special because every possible mathematical structure exists. Why limit structures to ones that can be described mathematically? Why is mathematical describability special? Why not theological describability?
Atheist: The Ultimate Truth is a philosophical concept. Science isn't equipped to answer philosophical questions.
As I've said before, your precious demarcation line gets too fuzzy when it comes to the concept of mind.
Theist: Why is science special?
Atheist: It is useful. Granted, it is mostly useful to science. I wouldn't call it "special". It is just the way it is.
What an intellectual cop-out.
Theist: But then the claim that nothing is special is special"”-special to atheists. And it's self-refuting.
Atheist: Science is practical. It is something that works if approached honestly and openly (i.e. ethically). There are rules. Scientific hypotheses need to be consistent and testable. Scientific observations need to be made. Mathematical models can be used to formulate hypothesis, but even then, the model needs to be supported with real-world scientific observation.
Mathematics informs the concept of scientific observation in multiple ways. It's needed for calibration of intruments used to collect data, for instance.
Overshadowing this is the understanding the science will never be able to find Truth, only knowledge.
Compared to what a mound of sand is capable of, science is special. It's burying one's head in a mound of sand to pretend otherwise.
Theist: You're being childish.
Atheist: And you think you know the Truth, don't you?
You're being childish.
mtraven wrote:
You constitute excellent evidence for atheism "” if there was a God, he could come up with much better philosophers to defend his existence.
Even God couldn't 'defend' his existence by means of philosophical argument to a sufficiently moronic dolt.
Also, the thought of someone as irrational and as idiotic as you being able to evaluate any philosopher, be it me, or Saul Kripke, is probably the most amusingly delusional idea you've managed to come up with to date. And that's with there being a very large pool of such deluded ideas of yours to choose from.
It's instructive to compare the rhetorical techniques of stunney and nullasalus.
Stunney continually hammers away at the "all atheists are stoopid" theme, in the vain hope that it will become more plausible through repetition. His imaginary dialogues between theists and atheists have all the subtlety of a Goofus and Gallant cartoon.
Nullasalus is a bit more sophisticated. He realizes that there are too many smart atheists in the world for a thinking person to buy Stunney's line. He therefore concedes Sagan's brilliance, and is careful to point out his own imagined generosity and fair-mindedness in doing so. Yet he insists that Sagan made the following stupid argument against theism: "obviously there is no God because the universe is huge!" Why? So he can say "See? If a smart guy like Sagan can't come up with a better argument against theism, then there really isn't any intellectual heft to atheism. It's just a prejudice."
Nullasalus is, of course, distorting Sagan's argument. As Zachriel put it,
It is not the vastness that implies the lack of a god, but the lack of evidence in that vastness.
Chapter 6 of Sagan's book closes with the following quote from Protagoras:
About the gods I have no means of knowing either that they exist or that they do not exist or what they are to look at. Many things prevent my knowing. Among others, the fact that they are never seen.
Many things prevent my knowing. Among others, the fact that they are never seen.
Er, minds aren't seen in general. Nor are mathematical ideas, or moral values, or reason. The invisibility of God is undoubtedly the stupidest argument against the existence of God. It reminds me of what the Soviet Union announced after Yuri Gargarin became the first man in space—that he had observed no God up there.
Then there's all the other supposed universes out there. If I may quote from the reviewer for Booklist of Stephen Barr's book, Modern Physics and Ancient Faith:
Barr indeed relishes the irony of a skeptical logic of random chance that forces unbelievers who balk at one unobservable God to accept, on doctrinal faith, a myriad of unobservable worlds on which the matter-motion lottery has not produced the winning ticket of conscious intelligence. The absurdity grows even more palpable among astrophysicists who avoid acknowledging the human-friendly pattern in subatomic and cosmic architecture found in the observable universe only by theorizing the existence of an infinite number of unobservable universes in which sovereign randomness has dictated other and more hostile architectures.
Quite so.
What is deliciously amusing, and yet more evidence for the stupidity of atheists, of course, is that someone who denies that humans are special should turn to Protagoras of all people, given that he also said:
"Man is the measure of all things: of things which are, that they are, and of things which are not, that they are not".
Atheism is the gift that just keeps on giving, I guess.:lol:
The invisibility of God is undoubtedly the stupidest argument against the existence of God. It reminds me of what the Soviet Union announced after Yuri Gargarin became the first man in space"”that he had observed no God up there.
Another strawman. You just can't resist, can you , Stunney?
What is deliciously amusing, and yet more evidence for the stupidity of atheists, of course, is that someone who denies that humans are special should turn to Protagoras of all people, given that he also said:
"Man is the measure of all things: of things which are, that they are, and of things which are not, that they are not".
In the black-and-white world of Stunneyland, does quoting someone automatically mean that you agree with everything that person ever said or wrote?
I feel really naive. I am doing a masters. When I write an essay and I claim that "X says Y" I spend time, sometimes hours, finding a quote where X says Y.
What a waste of time. I should follow nullasus and use some other more easily available quote - just as long as it was obvious to me that X really meant Y when he wrote it. Or even better follow DonaldM and use several quotes from other people on other subjects.
Comment by Mark Frank — September 8, 2007 @ 6:41 am
"Man is the measure of all things: of things which are, that they are, and of things which are not, that they are not".
That is true for us, because we are men. Men are special to us, because that's what we are. On the planet Snrgl, Snrglians are the measure of all things. "Specialness" is an observer selection effect.
Protagoras was a moral relativist and agnostic, so to hear stunney try and enlist him in his puerile argumentations is deliciously amusing. Stunney is indeed a gift that keeps on giving. He's special indeed.
Dawkins and I both indicate a willingness to consider the possibility of God's existence, we just don't feel the scientific evidence supports it. In Dawkin's case, that mean he feels God does not exist. In my case, it means God's existence is add to the list of other philosophical Truths I don't know.
I like it. Although the interconnectedness of quantum effects makes it probable that thought is more than a "brain event", especially if single-celled organisms are conscience.
So you're agreeing that humans are special. The word 'too' implies that you are.
Yes. The existence of humans on earth stand out like a sour thumb (or a malignant tumor). IMO, one of the strongest piece of evidence against Intelligent Design is Earth's global infection by destructive organisms with a tendency towards scurvy and bad backs.
Earth is special like Venus is special like diamonds are special. Each is unique in its own way.
Clear as mud. I anticipated such 'clarity' when I wrote:
"Atheist: Uh-oh. Ummm. Oh, I know"”the universe isn't special. It's, er, just, ummm, like, you know, other universes. I mean it's special, but not really."
I intentionally made my version similar to yours.
Well, that property of mathematics looks special to me. And it has looked special to others too"¦
Again I intentionally made my version similar to yours. There is a difference between general properties of mathematics and specifically "the mathematics that describes our universe". You provided quotes from Einstein to support your proposition. Does Einstein's brilliance in science automatically mean he was brilliant in philosophy too? Einstein was rendering his philosophical opinion and he didn't say the mathematics he used to describe our universe was "special". In fact, it looks to me like Einstein felt it was significant that the mathematics he used to describe the universe was NOT special.
At any rate, the response to the followup question clarified the position (again mimicking your version). To which you responded with…
Yeah, I think that's a 'gimme' alright, TP. Especially for fans of Mandelbrot sets and stuff.
"Stuff" including Minkowskian Geometry. The Mandelbrot Set is so fascinating to me because it demonstrates the infinite complexity packed into the very simple equation Z=Z^2+C. The mathematics doesn't look special. Minkowskian Geometry isn't much more complicated than Euclidean Geometry and would be dismissed as a useless mathematical curiosity except that it seems to match observable reality (it's held for nearly 100 years, it has become a given).
It's usefulness makes it special. Just like a long pole becomes special when it is used as a lever.
I said "You are assuming your conclusions."
You responded with…
I argued for it before in this thread and in this one. Remember?
I remembered the one. I was destracted with guest hosting the Third Choice when you posted the other one. Speaking of which, MikeGene has been asking for Guest Host candidates. Are you up for it? I find it a little challenging to be the polite host, I suspect you might too. However, I think you are capable of surprising quite a few people, maybe even yourself. At worse, I think it might be entertaining to watch (I would propably participate too).
That is true for us, because we are men. Men are special to us, because that's what we are. On the planet Snrgl, Snrglians are the measure of all things. "Specialness" is an observer selection effect.
Uh-huh. The trouble is that this argument pretends to be based on reason, and that its conclusion is rationally derived. But it is self-refuting. Like the trouble with relativism generally, it states its conclusion as a global cosmic truth while denying that there are any global cosmic truths, while also relying on the implicitly non-relativist notion of logically valid inference to derive the conclusion from the premises.
Protagoras was a moral relativist and agnostic, so to hear stunney try and enlist him in his puerile argumentations is deliciously amusing.
Hilarious! Yeah, I know he was a relativist and agnostic. And I know that, as he did for all such specimens, Plato ripped him a new one for precisely the type of reason stated in my previous remark. I simply rejoiced that keiths had decided to quote someone whose epistemological anthropocentrism was as extreme as that of Protagoras in a discussion about the alleged non-specialness of humanity, since it so nicely illustrated how atheism is always falling into incoherence. It just can't help it.
So, thank you, Mr Stupid, for yet again showing us all what an ignoramus you are.
The trouble is that this argument pretends to be based on reason, and that its conclusion is rationally derived. But it is self-refuting.
So, here's the argument this brilliant philosopher is trying to make.
- reason somehow requires theism.
- therefore, any argument for atheism is inherently self-refuting.
And then he accuses atheists of including their conclusions in the premises, and by the way, they are stupid.
And then he brags loudly about how his arguments, which have all the strength and integrity of wet tissue paper, have defeated his opponents, who are stupid.
I got bored with y'all's back and forth insults awhile back, though I do admit to some degree of humor at your honorifics. Do either of you have anything pertinent to say?
I suggest this demonstrates the significance of various people's feelings about Gould's NOMA.
Sure, and I can respect an honest agnostic. I just thought the words you had your 'atheist' speak were amusing, because it simply isn't a common tact. I'd go so far as to say that if 'science/evolution shows God/souls doesn't/don't exist!' didn't come up as often as it does, we'd see a lot more civility when discussing the subjects. It's one of the reasons I like to bring up Sagan, actually.
keiths,
Nullasalus is a bit more sophisticated. He realizes that there are too many smart atheists in the world for a thinking person to buy Stunney's line. He therefore concedes Sagan's brilliance, and is careful to point out his own imagined generosity and fair-mindedness in doing so. Yet he insists that Sagan made the following stupid argument against theism: "obviously there is no God because the universe is huge!" Why? So he can say "See? If a smart guy like Sagan can't come up with a better argument against theism, then there really isn't any intellectual heft to atheism. It's just a prejudice."
Good Lord, man. "Concedes Sagan's brilliance" I conceded nothing - I never placed his record as 'very smart' under dispute, and in fact made it clear that I was arguing with the inanity of a particular idea the man proposed, rather than arguing the man himself was inane. This, without prompting, though I said nothing about any 'fairmindedness'. Yet somehow, my compliment has turned into a concession. You'll find careful wordsmithing and spin don't work with me, keiths. Let's just say it's my forte.
What's more, when did I concentrate on atheism in general? Again: I stuck to a very specific argument he made, one that is obviously shallow and, frankly, bad. One that, it's worth noting, no one in this entire thread is willing to defend - even when I've pointed out that his argument against God in 'the universe is big, earth is small' is via the specialness of humans.
So let me ask outright: Who here is willing to back up the argument that 'The earth is small, the universe is huge, and this shows that humans are not special'? Keiths? Zach? Mtraven? Maybe even you, TP? Why is it everyone wants to either talk about my motivations (Something which keiths has yet to be correct about) or how Sagan didn't mean what his own wife said he meant?
Any takers? Anyone at all?
And finally…
Zach,
You misquoted Sagan, then when you did quote him correctly, you misunderstood his meaning.
If I misquoted Sagan, then I'm pulling out the wikipedia defense: It was pulled from there. But I have yet to see any misquote shown.
You really think that Sagan is ignoring that Earth is the only place we know of with intelligent life? In the same speech, he states "the Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life."
Yes, I do. That Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life means nothing to Sagan in his argument about our 'specialness'. Again, to argue that Sagan was not playing 'the universe is big, earth is small, and that shows humanity is not special' as an argument is to argue with both a fair reading of his words, as well as his wife. Well, then-wife. Widow, I suppose.
He goes on to say that there is no "hint" of help for the human condition from elsewhere, and that it is humanity's own responsibility to rise above their conceits. (This does not support your original claim. It is not the vastness that implies the lack of a god, but the lack of evidence in that vastness.) Nor does he state that Earth's inhabitants are unimportant. Humanity is of paramount importance to Sagan.
You're playing a shell-game with which 'importance' is being discussed. Yes, humanity is important to Sagan himself. But that does not mean that humanity is objectively special or important - which Sagan is arguing against. Again, Ann Druyan, via wikipedia:
Later in the book, Sagan's wife, Ann Druyan, challenges readers to pick one of the other planetary dots photographed and featured in the book, and imagine that there are inhabitants on that world who believe that the universe was created solely for themselves. She shared Sagan's belief that humans are not as important as they think they are.
And just for fun, since we're picking our favorite lines, Sagan again:
Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the universe, are challenged by this point of pale light.
Sorry, Zach. Sagan is clear on this. One more time: "The universe is huge, earth is small, and therefore…" Therefore, say it with me now: It shows we're not important.
I love bringing this up, because the reaction is always the same among science-minded atheists: Denial. No, no, you must be reading Sagan wrong. You must be *lying* about what Sagan is saying. And as for Ann Druyan let's… … let's not even acknowledge her.
At this point, it's not about getting anyone to admit Sagan was saying what he clearly did, or even about it being admitted that the argument was - while poetic, especially if you put it to the right music (Thanks, keiths! :razz:) - bad, lame, and/or rather silly. It's enough to show the cognitive dissonance in play among a certain type of atheist. To many, Sagan is a saint. Pointing out some of his silliness is heresy.
Comment by nullasalus — September 9, 2007 @ 12:24 am
Let's not forget Carl Sagan's "obviously there is no God because the universe is huge!" bit. That one's still getting some play.
Zachriel, Mark Frank and I called you on it. You could not provide a quote to back up your claim.
In the entire thread, this is the sum total of the "evidence" you've offered for your assertion:
1. In his "pale blue dot" passage, Sagan highlights the tininess of Earth and of humanity relative to the vastness of the cosmos.
2. Ann Druyan confirms that she and Sagan shared a belief that humans are not as important as they think they are.
Somehow you conclude, on the basis of those two premises, that Sagan disbelieved in God because the universe is vast and because humanity's entire history has unfolded, in Sagan's memorable phrase, "on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam."
But why would anyone, much less a person of Sagan's intelligence, think that God's mere existence would necessarily imply that humans are important?
I realize that your particular variety of theism holds that people are special, as do some other varieties of theism, and that your personal beliefs are threatened by indications that humans are not special on a cosmic scale. But your beliefs are not the alpha and omega of theism.
It is quite easy to conceive of a God to whom humans are a secondary concern — if they are a concern at all.
Sagan recognized that the vastness of the universe was not an argument against theism per se, which is why he wrote:
How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, "This is better than we thought! The universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant. God must be even greater than we dreamed" Instead they say, "No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way."
So again, you make a particular claim:
Let's not forget Carl Sagan's "obviously there is no God because the universe is huge!" bit. That one's still getting some play.
Where is your evidence that Sagan ever made this argument?
If you can't offer any, then why not have the grace to admit that you're wrong?
Zachriel, Mark Frank and I called you on it. You could not provide a quote to back up your claim.
In the entire thread, this is the sum total of the "evidence" you've offered for your assertion:
1. In his "pale blue dot" passage, Sagan highlights the tininess of Earth and of humanity relative to the vastness of the cosmos.
2. Ann Druyan confirms that she and Sagan shared a belief that humans are not as important as they think they are.
Somehow you conclude, on the basis of those two premises, that Sagan disbelieved in God because the universe is vast and because humanity's entire history has unfolded, in Sagan's memorable phrase, "on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam."
What did I tell you about the spin? It doesn't work with me - and here you'll see why.
I never said Sagan disbelieved in God based on that argument. I said that Sagan offered the vastness of the universe as an argument against God. When someone pointed out that Sagan didn't specifically mention God in the passage, I quite happily clarified that Sagan was arguing against the idea that humanity is special, which is central to the traditional concept of God. You can keep putting words in my mouth, but I'll keep chewing on them and spitting them out - it just shows you care more about perception than truth.
I realize that your particular variety of theism holds that people are special, as do some other varieties of theism, and that your personal beliefs are threatened by indications that humans are not special on a cosmic scale. But your beliefs are not the alpha and omega of theism.
The 'particular variety of theism' that views humans as special is, what - all of the abrahamic traditions and a large chunk of the varied eastern traditions? Sorry, keiths, but this is going from spin to ridiculous. When you're trying to argue that it's ludicrous to connect Sagan's argument about human specialness with thoughts of God because 'Hey there are probably some deists out there who think there's a God and that humans aren't all that important anyway', you're obviously scrambling. You say that Sagan was unbelievably brilliant - but when you're asking "But why would anyone, much less a person of Sagan's intelligence, think that God's mere existence would necessarily imply that humans are important?" - you may as well say "Are you forgetting the possibility that Carl Sagan may have been, in fact, an idiot? That he could not connect the specialness of humans with the western theistic view?"
And speaking of…
How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, "This is better than we thought! The universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant. God must be even greater than we dreamed" Instead they say, "No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way."
Remember: I asked you for examples of this 'small universe' the major religions supposedly loved. Your battlecry was 'geocentrism' - and amusingly, even Carl Sagan admitted that it was fairly recently that the arguments against geocentrism were able to be powerfully confirmed. You've got nothing, and you know it.
So, a few points.
When you're going to put words in someone's mouth, make sure they don't notice. So far now you've tried to make my compliment of Sagan seem like a concession, you've baselessly said that I thought Sagan became an atheist because 'the universe is big', you've quoted Sagan's 'the major religions don't like a large, elegant universe' line and provided no defense, you've tried to pin my focus on a single argument as my saying atheism as a whole has 'no intellectual heft to it'.
Now you're down to saying 'well Sagan probably didn't have the brain cells to connect humanity's specialness with western theism' (If Ann Druyan's apparent knowledge of the single most well-known OT book is any indication, you may be on to something there) and trying desperately to do anything but defend Carl Sagan's argument that 'the universe is huge, therefore humanity is obviously not special'.
And, just for the hell of it, let's throw in a curveball: Sagan's 'the universe is big, therefore humanity is not special' argument was not a direct argument against God. I believe it to be an indirect argument against God that he was consciously aware of when penning those words. But the entire focus of those lines is on arguing that humanity is obviously not special, because the universe is large.
So there we go - I've clarified myself, again. There is no mistake about what I'm talking about. So far, keiths refuses to provide any defense for Carl Sagan's argument, utterly abandoning the man to criticism. Zach tried his best to obfuscate the argument and make it seem like Sagan wasn't making the argument he is, but that failed miserably. Mark Frank just plain seems unaware of what theology is or touches upon.
With the issue cleared up, I need to know: Will anyone be defending the 'the universe is huge, therefore humanity is not special' argument? I'm actually looking to you, Zachriel, to do this. Keiths is clearly in some kind of odd atheist PR & damage control mode, and is having trouble keeping it together - it's too easy. But you seem to be in a kind of actual denial about Sagan, which promises to be a lot more fun.
My guess: No one will defend it, because they know the argument is ludicrous. It's like a propaganda poster - something that's supposed to evoke just the right emotion, just the right thought. But the moment it's looked upon critically and considered, it's exposed as garbage.
Comment by nullasalus — September 9, 2007 @ 6:22 am
nullasalus: If I misquoted Sagan, then I'm pulling out the wikipedia defense: It was pulled from there. But I have yet to see any misquote shown.
Please note the quotes when you said, "Let's not forget Carl Sagan's 'obviously there is no God because the universe is huge!' bit. That one's still getting some play." The only place this quote appears in Google is your own words. I assume you meant it as a paraphrase, but your use of quotes is confusing and inappropriate. More importantly, you misrepresent Sagan's position.
nullasalus: You're playing a shell-game with which 'importance' is being discussed. Yes, humanity is important to Sagan himself. But that does not mean that humanity is objectively special or important - which Sagan is arguing against.
You're conflating "special" and "importance". They do not mean the same thing. "Special" connotes uniqueness and being held in esteem. "Importance" implies significance or of consequence, in this case, to the universe as a whole.
nullasalus: Sorry, Zach. Sagan is clear on this. One more time: "The universe is huge, earth is small, and therefore"¦" Therefore, say it with me now: It shows we're not important.
Sagan claims that humans are not in any privileged position, or of significance to the universe as a whole (unimportant). However, Sagan holds humanity in high esteem and would agree that they are worthy of preservation (special).
nullasalus: Will anyone be defending the 'the universe is huge, therefore humanity is not special' argument?
You have conflated two words and want people to defend your strawman. Sagan knows humans are unique and clearly holds them in high regard (specialness). However, he finds no evidence that the universe cares one whit about them one way or the other. Hence, the accusation of the universe revolves around humanity self-importance.
If you read Sagan for content rather than for the sake of argument, it is a warning. Humans must fix their own problems and cannot expect help from outside. So if humanity is worth saving"”and Sagan says they are and believes that his audience does too"”"it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known."
And, just for the hell of it, let's throw in a curveball: Sagan's 'the universe is big, therefore humanity is not special' argument was not a direct argument against God. I believe it to be an indirect argument against God that he was consciously aware of when penning those words.
Null,
You've just conceded the entire point.
We have no evidence that Sagan ever made the argument you attributed to him. All we have, by your own admission, is your belief that he was "consciously aware of" an indirect argument against God when he wrote the passage you quoted.
The rest of your comment is an elaborate attempt to save face.
nullasalus: I said that Sagan offered the vastness of the universe as an argument against God.
You have again misrepresented Sagan's argument. As I previously stated, his argument is not that the vastness implies the lack of a god, but the lack of evidence that he finds in that vastness. His warning is that humanity can't hope for rescue from a cold and indifferent universe.
Sagan: "To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known."
It tended to go downhill thereafter. Badly, in fact.
me: The trouble is that this argument pretends to be based on reason, and that its conclusion is rationally derived. But it is self-refuting.
Mr Stupid: So, here's the argument this brilliant philosopher is trying to make.
- reason somehow requires theism.
- therefore, any argument for atheism is inherently self-refuting.
And then he accuses atheists of including their conclusions in the premises, and by the way, they are stupid.
And then he brags loudly about how his arguments, which have all the strength and integrity of wet tissue paper, have defeated his opponents, who are stupid.
.
You're in way over your head, Mr Stupid. As in, completely out of your depth.
First of all, the post of mine you're replying to did not even mention theism. Nor did my post accuse atheists of including their conclusions in their premises. So both of these charges are ones you simply fabricated. I merely tripped up keiths—never hard to do, admittedly—-regarding his use of a quotatation from Protagoras in the context of a discussion about humanity's specialness, and like a lap-dog automaton suffering from obsessive-compulsive disorder, you then leapt in, jumping up and down and yelping while displaying your usual hopeless incomprehension of all the relevant ideas at stake.
As regards substance, the claim that something is an observer selection effect either is, or is not, itself an observer selection effect. If it is, and if some claim's being an observer selection effect is sufficient to undermine its rational basis, then its own rational basis is undermined; and thus your claim that the perception of specialness is an observer selection effect undermines itself. But if it is not an observer selection effect, or if being such an effect is not sufficient to undermine its rational basis, then your assertion that the perception of specialness is merely an observer selection effect is irrelevant and moot.
As for your faux, wholly unsubstantiated mockery regarding the argument from reason, it suffices to note that, as with moral value, reason's normative and modal properties are not well explained by materialism or physicalism, as stacks of top philosophers from Plato to Putnam have argued. The argument from there to theism, however, is not deductive, as you misleadingly imply, but rather abductive, as I have said since I first started posting on TT. So that's another fabricated straw man of yours.
If you insist despite these admonitions on not getting a life, then I recommend that you read Jaegwon Kim's books, Supervenience and Mind, and Mind in a Physical World : Essays on the Mind-Body Problem and Mental Causation. Then think especially hard about Kim's 'Principle of Explanatory Exclusion' in relation to explaining the nature and significance of reason. Pondering the implications of Kim's ideas on the dilemma facing physicalist versions of naturalism won't help you become less stupid—in your case, such an outcome is probably impossible—-but it will keep you mentally frustrated and amusingly tied up in knots for the rest of your life. So there's that to be said in its favor. Hence my recommendation.
Fascinatingly pathological
You have a remarkable gift for projection. Have you informed your analyst about it?
The enormously impressed with himself stunney writes:
As regards substance, the claim that something is an observer selection effect either is, or is not, itself an observer selection effect. If it is, and if some claim's being an observer selection effect is sufficient to undermine its rational basis, then its own rational basis is undermined; and thus your claim that the perception of specialness is an observer selection effect undermines itself.
You've really only got one trick, haven't you? Too bad you use it so clumsily.
it suffices to note that, as with moral value, reason's normative and modal properties are not well explained by materialism or physicalism, as stacks of top philosophers from Plato to Putnam have argued.
Who cares? Other top philosophers have argued differently. The reasonable conclusion is that one can safely ignore philosophers until they get their act together and decide what they as a field believe. They've had a few thousand years, but apparently this thinking stuff they claim to be so good at is really hard and time-consuming.
Especially easy to ignore are those who are so incompetent at their chosen profession that they have to resort to puerile insults to get their points across, or try to foist off ridiculous caricatures of their opponent's arguments. I would have expected a professional philosopher, whatever conceptual confusions he was in thrall to, would at least have a higher standard of argumentation.
September 7th, 2007 at 12:53 am
Richard Dawkins: "Biology was once a mystery. Darwin solved that."
Sounds like Buzz Flewhart to me.
Comment by GilDodgen — September 7, 2007 @ 12:53 am
September 7th, 2007 at 1:19 am
William Dembski:
Now that sounds like Buzz Flewhart.
Comment by keiths — September 7, 2007 @ 1:19 am
September 7th, 2007 at 1:22 am
Let's not forget Carl Sagan's "obviously there is no God because the universe is huge! :shock:" bit. That one's still getting some play.
Comment by nullasalus — September 7, 2007 @ 1:22 am
September 7th, 2007 at 1:40 am
nullasalus,
That doesn't sound much like Sagan. Do you have the original quote?
The only similar Sagan quote I can recall is this one, with quite a different meaning:
Comment by keiths — September 7, 2007 @ 1:40 am
September 7th, 2007 at 1:48 am
That's funny - can you provide a reference to what Sagan's talking about here? As a Catholic, this is alien to me. Big Bang and all that. Certainly he wasn't exaggerating just to back up his own personal worldview, right?
As for Sagan:
Poetic. Stirring. And so blind and inept by what he implies.
See, Sagan's problem is that he's ignoring something else: That pale blue dot happens to be the only place we know of with intelligent life. It's extraordinary, special, and harkens some incredible things for the future of the universe. But, to Sagan? It's tiny. So small. And therefore, we aren't really all that important.
The man was great in certain areas, and certainly poetic. But in this particular case, on this particular thought, he's a joke the moment you get past the poetry.
Comment by nullasalus — September 7, 2007 @ 1:48 am
September 7th, 2007 at 2:55 am
Um, how about the fact that the Vatican wouldn't allow heliocentric books to be printed in Rome until 1822, almost 300 years after Copernicus published De Revolutionibus? And that it took another 170 years for the Church to get around to admitting its mistake in condemning Galileo?
Okay. So he didn't say "obviously there is no God because the universe is huge!" I didn't think so.
For those who haven't seen it, here's a nice video of Sagan's passage, set to music by the Irish artist icecorescientist.
Comment by keiths — September 7, 2007 @ 2:55 am
September 7th, 2007 at 3:42 am
Read closer, keiths. I know you're trying desperately not to defend what Sagan is saying there - and who would want to defend what's so obviously indefensible when some thought is actually applied - but there it is, plain to see. Humanity is not special, not created by God, and there is no God. And what's the evidence?
The universe is very big.
Also: Elephants? Much larger than humans. One more strike against any idea that we hold a unique place in the universe.
Funny, keiths. We weren't talking about heliocentrism - we were talking about the quote you provided. Here we go again:
This has nothing to do with what particular position the earth inhabits with regards to the sun or the universe as a whole. We're talking about the expanse of the cosmos, the awe of the scope and size and sheer amazement of creation. And, as you've shown by trying to switch topics, it's baseless. Especially considering that the Catholic Church has had a keen interest in the sciences, particularly astronomy (ever hear of the Vatican Observatory, keiths? You may want to check out how old it is. :wink:)
Again, the lesson is this: Sagan employed poetry to mask weak philosophical claims. The weakness is evident the moment you actually ask yourself what the man is saying - but that's the weakness of the zealot, the whole 'thinking critically about an important argument' thing.
Comment by nullasalus — September 7, 2007 @ 3:42 am
September 7th, 2007 at 3:54 am
And before I take off for the night, another personal favorite from the late Sagan's wife and fellow adherent, Ann Druyan:
..Except it wasn't the tree of knowledge, full stop. It was the tree of knowledge of good and evil - a particular type of knowledge, a tree of conscience. And they weren't doomed and cursed eternally, even by the fiercest literalist readings of the passage. Nor did asking a question result in any punishment.
I'd ask if it seems like Ann Druyan ever read Genesis, but I wouldn't want to give keiths an excuse to doom and curse me eternally.
Comment by nullasalus — September 7, 2007 @ 3:54 am
September 7th, 2007 at 4:48 am
Anatomy of an ideologically inspired myth
Oh, this is interesting too….
Lots more at that link well worth perusing. Such as this:
And judging by other remarks he makes, the author is not exactly an apologist for the Catholic Church.
And how many knew that no fewer than 35 lunar craters are named in honor of Jesuit scientists and mathematicians of centuries ago? I didn't.
[All emphases added]
Comment by stunney — September 7, 2007 @ 4:48 am
September 7th, 2007 at 5:25 am
nulla wrote:
Sure it does. Most forms of Christianity are wedded to the idea that humanity is special, or even created in the image of God himself. The Church has a history of resisting scientific findings which undercut this hubristic assumption.
Heliocentrism was the first of many scientific discoveries that pushed us away from center stage and out toward the margins. Evolution was another, which is why John Paul II felt compelled to say this:
nulla:
Yes. Imagine the cognitive dissonance afflicting the poor schmucks working there, who couldn't publish anything pro-heliocentric until 1822!
Null,
You really should read more Sagan before presuming to dictate his opinions to us. He was not stupid enough to argue "obviously there is no God because the universe is huge!", as you claim. His posthumous book, The Varieties of Scientific Experience — A Personal View of the Search for God, explains his actual reasons for disbelieving, as opposed to your strawman imaginings.
Comment by keiths — September 7, 2007 @ 5:25 am
September 7th, 2007 at 5:40 am
As stunney documents Jesuits had no small part in the development of heliocentrism. It did not look threaty to them.
The Pope was simply pointing out the limitations of science and attempts by some to conflate their philiosophies with empirical data.
Comment by Bradford — September 7, 2007 @ 5:40 am
September 7th, 2007 at 9:37 am
As do most materialists when scientific finding do indeed support biocentric assumptions.
So you're not really saying anything of significance. People have worldviews and when evidence runs contrary to those worldviews, the people push onward. But might this not be a wise thing today? Are you aware of the differences between maxi- and mini- theories in the philosophy of science?
Comment by Doug — September 7, 2007 @ 9:37 am
September 7th, 2007 at 11:41 am
keiths,
I'm quoting Sagan himself, keiths. Your response to it has been to try desperately to change the subject to heliocentrism. Why? Because you know that Sagan's thoughts on our specialness, and on God, are downright embarassing. But they're a kind of death porn for a certain type of atheists who are downright enamored with the idea that humanity is an accident, so all that much-talked-about skepticism and rationality is punted out the window. After all, doesn't it sound so nice when set to the right music?
What I find funny is, I'm willing to give Sagan all kinds of credit. I went through lengths to point out how I'm not calling Sagan an idiot, but his particular arguments on this one subject were assinine. But you're petrified at the thought of admitting that an institution you revile may have contributed happily to science (I imagine you can't even read what stunney quotes - too many sacred cows being shattered there.) You don't want to talk about the 'argument from bigness' Sagan makes - you want to talk about heliocentrism. Oh wait, Ann Druyan's talking about Genesis and clearly either hasn't read it or is purposefully lying about what it says? Well, there's a good response to that: Heliocentrism.
Comment by nullasalus — September 7, 2007 @ 11:41 am
September 7th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
A couple of bones to pick with keiths:
Science is wedded to the idea that humanity is special as well. Humans are the only creatures capable of scientific thought and reasoning.
Humanity being created in the image of God doesn't mean that God is a four-limbed almost-hairless ape. It means something else entirely. Michelangelo wasn't a photographer.
This restriction was exclusive to Rome, and even then it was unevenly enforced.
So yes, if you wanted to do astronomy as a Roman Catholic priest, you had to do what your employer told you. I'm glad secularism has freed us of those restrictions now and you can completely ignore your employer's ideology when you do astronomy.
Comment by angryoldfatman — September 7, 2007 @ 12:50 pm
September 7th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
nullasalus
The passage from Sagan that you quote makes no reference to God or theology at all. All it says is the universe is large. It makes no deductions from that. How on earth do you make it mean:
"obviously there is no God because the universe is huge! "
??
Comment by Mark Frank — September 7, 2007 @ 2:11 pm
September 7th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
This interview might be of interest to TT bloggers and commenters. . .
Comment by MatthewCromer — September 7, 2007 @ 2:56 pm
September 7th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Are you saying that all Sagan is saying is that "the universe is large - isn't that interesting?" I think all it takes is reading the passage to come up with otherwise. He's arguing against the idea that humans are at all special or have an important place in the universe, which certainly ties in particularly with theology. And he's doing it on the grounds that the universe is very large.
Hey, go to Wikipedia and look up pale blue dot. Ann Druyan backs up as much (assuming wikipedia's accurate, always a chance game.)
So there we are again. "Humans are not special, because the universe is huge." But at least everyone seems to agree this is a pretty inane argument. Poetically put, by a guy who was certainly brilliant in other ways. Still doesn't make the argument more than nonsense though.
Comment by nullasalus — September 7, 2007 @ 2:58 pm
September 7th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Thanks Matthew for the link. Wonderful interview!
Comment by Steve Petermann — September 7, 2007 @ 4:09 pm
September 7th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
Carl Sagan once said: "The cosmos is all there is, or was, or ever will be." Sounds like theology to me. Its a play off the liturgical "The ever-living God who is, was and ever shall be."
Douglas Futuyma in Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, says:
"Some shrink from the conclusion that the human species was not designed, has no purpose, and is the product of mere mechanical mechanisms"”but this seems to be the message of evolution."
Anti-theology and very Flewhartish.
Richard Dawkins in The Blind Watchmaker:
"Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a mater watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning."`More Flewhart
Francis Crick in The Astonishing Hypothesis:
"The Astonishing Hypothesis is that you"”your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules" Flewhart again. Man he's everywhere!!
Comment by DonaldM — September 7, 2007 @ 5:02 pm
September 7th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
nullasalus:
Blatant misrepresentation of the issues (and of the facts about those issues) is SOP. Makes it somewhat difficult at times to figure out whether this is a display of ignorance or deliberate dishonesty. I suspect a few of the most evangelical religion-haters are deliberately dishonest. I suspect a lot of their young recruits are merely ignorant - they've bought the talking points without question, never having learned enough about faith to see through the lies.
angryoldfatman:
Ouch! §;o)
Matthew, I join Steve in thanking you for the link to the Sahtouris interview. Wow!
Comment by Joy — September 7, 2007 @ 6:21 pm
September 7th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
You misquoted Sagan, then when you did quote him correctly, you misunderstood his meaning.
You really think that Sagan is ignoring that Earth is the only place we know of with intelligent life? In the same speech, he states "the Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life."
He goes on to say that there is no "hint" of help for the human condition from elsewhere, and that it is humanity's own responsibility to rise above their conceits. (This does not support your original claim. It is not the vastness that implies the lack of a god, but the lack of evidence in that vastness.) Nor does he state that Earth's inhabitants are unimportant. Humanity is of paramount importance to Sagan.
Sagan: "To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known. "
Comment by Zachriel — September 7, 2007 @ 6:43 pm
September 7th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
*tips hat to Joy*
Comment by angryoldfatman — September 7, 2007 @ 8:41 pm
September 7th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
The conversation goes like this:
Theist: Humans are special
Atheist: Humans aren't special, they're just like other animals.
Theist: the Earth is special
Atheist: the Earth isn't special, it's just like other planets
Theist: the universe is special
Atheist: Uh-oh. Ummm. Oh, I know—the universe isn't special. It's, er, just, ummm, like, you know, other universes. I mean it's special, but not really. It's like, ah, other universes in, you know, being a universe. There's trillions of universes. Ours is just an ordinary universe in an ordinary multiverse.
Theist: the mathematics that describes our universe is special.
Atheist: the mathematics that describes our universe isn't special. I mean it's special, but not really. It's like, ah, the mathematics that describes other universes in, you know, being a universe-describing mathematics. There's trillions of mathematical structures constituting formal systems. Ours is just an ordinary mathematical structure in an ordinary multiverse of mathematical strucures, in an ordinary space of mathematical possibility. Max Tegmark says so. We're just part of the, you know, ultimate ensemble.
Theist: But then, mathematics as such is special.
Atheist: No, mathematics is not special. It's just one form of thought.
Theist: In which case mind itself is special—in particular the infinite mind that is God.
Atheist: No, miind is not special. When I said mathematics is just one form of thought, I didn't mean that thought as such was special.
Theist: But you said that our world isn't special because every possible mathematical structure exists. Why limit structures to ones that can be described mathematically? Why is mathematical describability special? Why not theological describability?
Atheist: Because it's not science.
Theist: Why is science special?
Atheist: It's, umm, not special. Nothing is special.
Theist: But then the claim that nothing is special is special—-special to atheists. And it's self-refuting.
Atheist: I'm not listening. Look, I've got my hands covering my ears and my eyes are shut. And I'm jumping up and down. Nananananana.
Theist: You're being childish.
Atheist: Sagan! Sagan! Sagan! Dawkins! Dawkins! Dawkins! Darwin! Darwin! Darwin!
Comment by stunney — September 7, 2007 @ 8:50 pm
September 7th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
Hi Stunney,
Allow me…
The conversation goes like this:
Theist: Humans are special
Atheist: A malignant tumor is special too.
Theist: the Earth is special
Atheist: and Venus is special too
Theist: the universe is special
Atheist: It is both special and not special since we only know of one universe.
Theist: the mathematics that describes our universe is special.
Atheist: that doesn't make sense. Math allows us to make models that helps us understand the universe.
Theist: But then, mathematics as such is special.
Atheist: It's a way of thinking about things. It's helpful, so I guess you could think of it as "special".
Theist: In which case mind itself is special"”in particular the infinite mind that is God.
Atheist: You are assuming your conclusions. Is it "mind" or is it "minds" You are also assuming mathematics, in the form of a wavefunction, isn't objective reality independent of conscious thought.
Theist: But you said that our world isn't special because every possible mathematical structure exists. Why limit structures to ones that can be described mathematically? Why is mathematical describability special? Why not theological describability?
Atheist: The Ultimate Truth is a philosophical concept. Science isn't equipped to answer philosophical questions.
Theist: Why is science special?
Atheist: It is useful. Granted, it is mostly useful to science. I wouldn't call it "special". It is just the way it is.
Theist: But then the claim that nothing is special is special"”-special to atheists. And it's self-refuting.
Atheist: Science is practical. It is something that works if approached honestly and openly (i.e. ethically). There are rules. Scientific hypotheses need to be consistent and testable. Scientific observations need to be made. Mathematical models can be used to formulate hypothesis, but even then, the model needs to be supported with real-world scientific observation. Overshadowing this is the understanding the science will never be able to find Truth, only knowledge.
Theist: You're being childish.
Atheist: And you think you know the Truth, don't you?
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 7, 2007 @ 9:46 pm
September 7th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
Put Barney in charge for a day and look what happens!
Comment by MikeGene — September 7, 2007 @ 9:54 pm
September 7th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
TP,
If I had a dollar for every atheist who I heard say this, I could.. almost buy a #1 at McDonalds.
Comment by nullasalus — September 7, 2007 @ 10:09 pm
September 8th, 2007 at 1:34 am
stunney has a new tactic of arguing with the imaginary atheists that live in his own head. Good idea, you do much better that way, and it keeps you from bothering us real ones. You constitute excellent evidence for atheism — if there was a God, he could come up with much better philosophers to defend his existence.
Comment by mtraven — September 8, 2007 @ 1:34 am
September 8th, 2007 at 2:56 am
Brain Event Provoker wrote:
Be my guest.
So you're agreeing that humans are special. The word 'too' implies that you are.
See my previous remark.
Clear as mud. I anticipated such 'clarity' when I wrote:
Theist: the universe is special
Atheist: Uh-oh. Ummm. Oh, I know"”the universe isn't special. It's, er, just, ummm, like, you know, other universes. I mean it's special, but not really.
You guys are so predictable it would be boring if it wasn't so funny to watch you.
Well, that property of mathematics looks special to me. And it has looked special to others too…
The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible. — Albert Einstein
How can it be that mathematics, being after all product of human thought which is independent of experience, is so admirably appropriate to the objects of reality? — Albert Einstein
On we go:
Yeah, I think that's a 'gimme' alright, TP. Especially for fans of Mandelbrot sets and stuff.
I'm not. I argued for it before in this thread and in this one. Remember?
Both.
No, I've argued it repeatedly, including with you. Remember the Hawking quote?
Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?
"¦The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?
On we go:
As I've said before, your precious demarcation line gets too fuzzy when it comes to the concept of mind.
What an intellectual cop-out.
Mathematics informs the concept of scientific observation in multiple ways. It's needed for calibration of intruments used to collect data, for instance.
Compared to what a mound of sand is capable of, science is special. It's burying one's head in a mound of sand to pretend otherwise.
You're being childish.
mtraven wrote:
Even God couldn't 'defend' his existence by means of philosophical argument to a sufficiently moronic dolt.
Also, the thought of someone as irrational and as idiotic as you being able to evaluate any philosopher, be it me, or Saul Kripke, is probably the most amusingly delusional idea you've managed to come up with to date.
And that's with there being a very large pool of such deluded ideas of yours to choose from.
Comment by stunney — September 8, 2007 @ 2:56 am
September 8th, 2007 at 4:04 am
It's instructive to compare the rhetorical techniques of stunney and nullasalus.
Stunney continually hammers away at the "all atheists are stoopid" theme, in the vain hope that it will become more plausible through repetition. His imaginary dialogues between theists and atheists have all the subtlety of a Goofus and Gallant cartoon.
Nullasalus is a bit more sophisticated. He realizes that there are too many smart atheists in the world for a thinking person to buy Stunney's line. He therefore concedes Sagan's brilliance, and is careful to point out his own imagined generosity and fair-mindedness in doing so. Yet he insists that Sagan made the following stupid argument against theism: "obviously there is no God because the universe is huge!" Why? So he can say "See? If a smart guy like Sagan can't come up with a better argument against theism, then there really isn't any intellectual heft to atheism. It's just a prejudice."
Nullasalus is, of course, distorting Sagan's argument. As Zachriel put it,
Chapter 6 of Sagan's book closes with the following quote from Protagoras:
Comment by keiths — September 8, 2007 @ 4:04 am
September 8th, 2007 at 4:51 am
Protagoras wrote:
Er, minds aren't seen in general. Nor are mathematical ideas, or moral values, or reason. The invisibility of God is undoubtedly the stupidest argument against the existence of God. It reminds me of what the Soviet Union announced after Yuri Gargarin became the first man in space—that he had observed no God up there.
Then there's all the other supposed universes out there. If I may quote from the reviewer for Booklist of Stephen Barr's book, Modern Physics and Ancient Faith:
Quite so.
What is deliciously amusing, and yet more evidence for the stupidity of atheists, of course, is that someone who denies that humans are special should turn to Protagoras of all people, given that he also said:
"Man is the measure of all things: of things which are, that they are, and of things which are not, that they are not".
Atheism is the gift that just keeps on giving, I guess.:lol:
Comment by stunney — September 8, 2007 @ 4:51 am
September 8th, 2007 at 5:32 am
stunney wrote:
Another strawman. You just can't resist, can you , Stunney?
In the black-and-white world of Stunneyland, does quoting someone automatically mean that you agree with everything that person ever said or wrote?
Comment by keiths — September 8, 2007 @ 5:32 am
September 8th, 2007 at 6:41 am
I feel really naive. I am doing a masters. When I write an essay and I claim that "X says Y" I spend time, sometimes hours, finding a quote where X says Y.
What a waste of time. I should follow nullasus and use some other more easily available quote - just as long as it was obvious to me that X really meant Y when he wrote it. Or even better follow DonaldM and use several quotes from other people on other subjects.
Comment by Mark Frank — September 8, 2007 @ 6:41 am
September 8th, 2007 at 10:21 am
Hi MikeGene,
You wrote…
You have to admit, the thread is pretty entertaining regardless of whether or not the participants meant to be funny (myself included).
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 8, 2007 @ 10:21 am
September 8th, 2007 at 10:38 am
Protagoras said:
That is true for us, because we are men. Men are special to us, because that's what we are. On the planet Snrgl, Snrglians are the measure of all things. "Specialness" is an observer selection effect.
Protagoras was a moral relativist and agnostic, so to hear stunney try and enlist him in his puerile argumentations is deliciously amusing. Stunney is indeed a gift that keeps on giving. He's special indeed.
Comment by mtraven — September 8, 2007 @ 10:38 am
September 8th, 2007 at 10:43 am
Hi Nullasalus,
I wrote… "Atheist: The Ultimate Truth is a philosophical concept. Science isn't equipped to answer philosophical questions."
You responded with…
I suggest this demonstrates the significance of various people's feelings about Gould's NOMA.
Ken Miller and Dr. Walter Brown (http://www.creationscience.com) both call themselves "Theists".
Dawkins and I both call ourselves "Atheists".
Dawkins and I both indicate a willingness to consider the possibility of God's existence, we just don't feel the scientific evidence supports it. In Dawkin's case, that mean he feels God does not exist. In my case, it means God's existence is add to the list of other philosophical Truths I don't know.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 8, 2007 @ 10:43 am
September 8th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Hi Stunney,
You wrote…
I like it. Although the interconnectedness of quantum effects makes it probable that thought is more than a "brain event", especially if single-celled organisms are conscience.
Yes. The existence of humans on earth stand out like a sour thumb (or a malignant tumor). IMO, one of the strongest piece of evidence against Intelligent Design is Earth's global infection by destructive organisms with a tendency towards scurvy and bad backs.
Earth is special like Venus is special like diamonds are special. Each is unique in its own way.
I intentionally made my version similar to yours.
Again I intentionally made my version similar to yours. There is a difference between general properties of mathematics and specifically "the mathematics that describes our universe". You provided quotes from Einstein to support your proposition. Does Einstein's brilliance in science automatically mean he was brilliant in philosophy too? Einstein was rendering his philosophical opinion and he didn't say the mathematics he used to describe our universe was "special". In fact, it looks to me like Einstein felt it was significant that the mathematics he used to describe the universe was NOT special.
At any rate, the response to the followup question clarified the position (again mimicking your version). To which you responded with…
"Stuff" including Minkowskian Geometry. The Mandelbrot Set is so fascinating to me because it demonstrates the infinite complexity packed into the very simple equation Z=Z^2+C. The mathematics doesn't look special. Minkowskian Geometry isn't much more complicated than Euclidean Geometry and would be dismissed as a useless mathematical curiosity except that it seems to match observable reality (it's held for nearly 100 years, it has become a given).
It's usefulness makes it special. Just like a long pole becomes special when it is used as a lever.
I said "You are assuming your conclusions."
You responded with…
I remembered the one. I was destracted with guest hosting the Third Choice when you posted the other one. Speaking of which, MikeGene has been asking for Guest Host candidates. Are you up for it? I find it a little challenging to be the polite host, I suspect you might too. However, I think you are capable of surprising quite a few people, maybe even yourself. At worse, I think it might be entertaining to watch (I would propably participate too).
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 8, 2007 @ 12:07 pm
September 8th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
Mr Stupid wrote:
Uh-huh. The trouble is that this argument pretends to be based on reason, and that its conclusion is rationally derived. But it is self-refuting. Like the trouble with relativism generally, it states its conclusion as a global cosmic truth while denying that there are any global cosmic truths, while also relying on the implicitly non-relativist notion of logically valid inference to derive the conclusion from the premises.
Hilarious! Yeah, I know he was a relativist and agnostic. And I know that, as he did for all such specimens, Plato ripped him a new one for precisely the type of reason stated in my previous remark. I simply rejoiced that keiths had decided to quote someone whose epistemological anthropocentrism was as extreme as that of Protagoras in a discussion about the alleged non-specialness of humanity, since it so nicely illustrated how atheism is always falling into incoherence. It just can't help it.
So, thank you, Mr Stupid, for yet again showing us all what an ignoramus you are.
Comment by stunney — September 8, 2007 @ 3:59 pm
September 8th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Mr. Incredibly Witty and Intelligent writes:
So, here's the argument this brilliant philosopher is trying to make.
- reason somehow requires theism.
- therefore, any argument for atheism is inherently self-refuting.
And then he accuses atheists of including their conclusions in the premises, and by the way, they are stupid.
And then he brags loudly about how his arguments, which have all the strength and integrity of wet tissue paper, have defeated his opponents, who are stupid.
Fascinatingly pathological.
Comment by mtraven — September 8, 2007 @ 6:36 pm
September 8th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Huh.
I got bored with y'all's back and forth insults awhile back, though I do admit to some degree of humor at your honorifics. Do either of you have anything pertinent to say?
Comment by Joy — September 8, 2007 @ 6:53 pm
September 9th, 2007 at 12:24 am
And back to this thread I come! Lessee here…
TP,
Sure, and I can respect an honest agnostic. I just thought the words you had your 'atheist' speak were amusing, because it simply isn't a common tact. I'd go so far as to say that if 'science/evolution shows God/souls doesn't/don't exist!' didn't come up as often as it does, we'd see a lot more civility when discussing the subjects. It's one of the reasons I like to bring up Sagan, actually.
keiths,
Good Lord, man. "Concedes Sagan's brilliance" I conceded nothing - I never placed his record as 'very smart' under dispute, and in fact made it clear that I was arguing with the inanity of a particular idea the man proposed, rather than arguing the man himself was inane. This, without prompting, though I said nothing about any 'fairmindedness'. Yet somehow, my compliment has turned into a concession. You'll find careful wordsmithing and spin don't work with me, keiths. Let's just say it's my forte.
What's more, when did I concentrate on atheism in general? Again: I stuck to a very specific argument he made, one that is obviously shallow and, frankly, bad. One that, it's worth noting, no one in this entire thread is willing to defend - even when I've pointed out that his argument against God in 'the universe is big, earth is small' is via the specialness of humans.
So let me ask outright: Who here is willing to back up the argument that 'The earth is small, the universe is huge, and this shows that humans are not special'? Keiths? Zach? Mtraven? Maybe even you, TP? Why is it everyone wants to either talk about my motivations (Something which keiths has yet to be correct about) or how Sagan didn't mean what his own wife said he meant?
Any takers? Anyone at all?
And finally…
Zach,
If I misquoted Sagan, then I'm pulling out the wikipedia defense: It was pulled from there. But I have yet to see any misquote shown.
Yes, I do. That Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life means nothing to Sagan in his argument about our 'specialness'. Again, to argue that Sagan was not playing 'the universe is big, earth is small, and that shows humanity is not special' as an argument is to argue with both a fair reading of his words, as well as his wife. Well, then-wife. Widow, I suppose.
You're playing a shell-game with which 'importance' is being discussed. Yes, humanity is important to Sagan himself. But that does not mean that humanity is objectively special or important - which Sagan is arguing against. Again, Ann Druyan, via wikipedia:
And just for fun, since we're picking our favorite lines, Sagan again:
Sorry, Zach. Sagan is clear on this. One more time: "The universe is huge, earth is small, and therefore…" Therefore, say it with me now: It shows we're not important.
I love bringing this up, because the reaction is always the same among science-minded atheists: Denial. No, no, you must be reading Sagan wrong. You must be *lying* about what Sagan is saying. And as for Ann Druyan let's… … let's not even acknowledge her.
At this point, it's not about getting anyone to admit Sagan was saying what he clearly did, or even about it being admitted that the argument was - while poetic, especially if you put it to the right music (Thanks, keiths! :razz:) - bad, lame, and/or rather silly. It's enough to show the cognitive dissonance in play among a certain type of atheist. To many, Sagan is a saint. Pointing out some of his silliness is heresy.
Comment by nullasalus — September 9, 2007 @ 12:24 am
September 9th, 2007 at 2:44 am
Nullasalus,
Stop weaseling and face the issue head-on.
You claim that Sagan made a particular argument:
Zachriel, Mark Frank and I called you on it. You could not provide a quote to back up your claim.
In the entire thread, this is the sum total of the "evidence" you've offered for your assertion:
1. In his "pale blue dot" passage, Sagan highlights the tininess of Earth and of humanity relative to the vastness of the cosmos.
2. Ann Druyan confirms that she and Sagan shared a belief that humans are not as important as they think they are.
Somehow you conclude, on the basis of those two premises, that Sagan disbelieved in God because the universe is vast and because humanity's entire history has unfolded, in Sagan's memorable phrase, "on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam."
But why would anyone, much less a person of Sagan's intelligence, think that God's mere existence would necessarily imply that humans are important?
I realize that your particular variety of theism holds that people are special, as do some other varieties of theism, and that your personal beliefs are threatened by indications that humans are not special on a cosmic scale. But your beliefs are not the alpha and omega of theism.
It is quite easy to conceive of a God to whom humans are a secondary concern — if they are a concern at all.
Sagan recognized that the vastness of the universe was not an argument against theism per se, which is why he wrote:
So again, you make a particular claim:
Where is your evidence that Sagan ever made this argument?
If you can't offer any, then why not have the grace to admit that you're wrong?
Comment by keiths — September 9, 2007 @ 2:44 am
September 9th, 2007 at 6:22 am
keiths,
What did I tell you about the spin? It doesn't work with me - and here you'll see why.
I never said Sagan disbelieved in God based on that argument. I said that Sagan offered the vastness of the universe as an argument against God. When someone pointed out that Sagan didn't specifically mention God in the passage, I quite happily clarified that Sagan was arguing against the idea that humanity is special, which is central to the traditional concept of God. You can keep putting words in my mouth, but I'll keep chewing on them and spitting them out - it just shows you care more about perception than truth.
The 'particular variety of theism' that views humans as special is, what - all of the abrahamic traditions and a large chunk of the varied eastern traditions? Sorry, keiths, but this is going from spin to ridiculous. When you're trying to argue that it's ludicrous to connect Sagan's argument about human specialness with thoughts of God because 'Hey there are probably some deists out there who think there's a God and that humans aren't all that important anyway', you're obviously scrambling. You say that Sagan was unbelievably brilliant - but when you're asking "But why would anyone, much less a person of Sagan's intelligence, think that God's mere existence would necessarily imply that humans are important?" - you may as well say "Are you forgetting the possibility that Carl Sagan may have been, in fact, an idiot? That he could not connect the specialness of humans with the western theistic view?"
And speaking of…
Remember: I asked you for examples of this 'small universe' the major religions supposedly loved. Your battlecry was 'geocentrism' - and amusingly, even Carl Sagan admitted that it was fairly recently that the arguments against geocentrism were able to be powerfully confirmed. You've got nothing, and you know it.
So, a few points.
When you're going to put words in someone's mouth, make sure they don't notice. So far now you've tried to make my compliment of Sagan seem like a concession, you've baselessly said that I thought Sagan became an atheist because 'the universe is big', you've quoted Sagan's 'the major religions don't like a large, elegant universe' line and provided no defense, you've tried to pin my focus on a single argument as my saying atheism as a whole has 'no intellectual heft to it'.
Now you're down to saying 'well Sagan probably didn't have the brain cells to connect humanity's specialness with western theism' (If Ann Druyan's apparent knowledge of the single most well-known OT book is any indication, you may be on to something there) and trying desperately to do anything but defend Carl Sagan's argument that 'the universe is huge, therefore humanity is obviously not special'.
And, just for the hell of it, let's throw in a curveball: Sagan's 'the universe is big, therefore humanity is not special' argument was not a direct argument against God. I believe it to be an indirect argument against God that he was consciously aware of when penning those words. But the entire focus of those lines is on arguing that humanity is obviously not special, because the universe is large.
So there we go - I've clarified myself, again. There is no mistake about what I'm talking about. So far, keiths refuses to provide any defense for Carl Sagan's argument, utterly abandoning the man to criticism. Zach tried his best to obfuscate the argument and make it seem like Sagan wasn't making the argument he is, but that failed miserably. Mark Frank just plain seems unaware of what theology is or touches upon.
With the issue cleared up, I need to know: Will anyone be defending the 'the universe is huge, therefore humanity is not special' argument? I'm actually looking to you, Zachriel, to do this. Keiths is clearly in some kind of odd atheist PR & damage control mode, and is having trouble keeping it together - it's too easy. But you seem to be in a kind of actual denial about Sagan, which promises to be a lot more fun.
My guess: No one will defend it, because they know the argument is ludicrous. It's like a propaganda poster - something that's supposed to evoke just the right emotion, just the right thought. But the moment it's looked upon critically and considered, it's exposed as garbage.
Comment by nullasalus — September 9, 2007 @ 6:22 am
September 9th, 2007 at 9:02 am
Please note the quotes when you said, "Let's not forget Carl Sagan's 'obviously there is no God because the universe is huge!' bit. That one's still getting some play." The only place this quote appears in Google is your own words. I assume you meant it as a paraphrase, but your use of quotes is confusing and inappropriate. More importantly, you misrepresent Sagan's position.
You're conflating "special" and "importance". They do not mean the same thing. "Special" connotes uniqueness and being held in esteem. "Importance" implies significance or of consequence, in this case, to the universe as a whole.
Sagan claims that humans are not in any privileged position, or of significance to the universe as a whole (unimportant). However, Sagan holds humanity in high esteem and would agree that they are worthy of preservation (special).
You have conflated two words and want people to defend your strawman. Sagan knows humans are unique and clearly holds them in high regard (specialness). However, he finds no evidence that the universe cares one whit about them one way or the other. Hence, the accusation of the universe revolves around humanity self-importance.
If you read Sagan for content rather than for the sake of argument, it is a warning. Humans must fix their own problems and cannot expect help from outside. So if humanity is worth saving"”and Sagan says they are and believes that his audience does too"”"it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known."
Comment by Zachriel — September 9, 2007 @ 9:02 am
September 9th, 2007 at 10:01 am
nullasalus wrote:
Null,
You've just conceded the entire point.
We have no evidence that Sagan ever made the argument you attributed to him. All we have, by your own admission, is your belief that he was "consciously aware of" an indirect argument against God when he wrote the passage you quoted.
The rest of your comment is an elaborate attempt to save face.
Comment by keiths — September 9, 2007 @ 10:01 am
September 9th, 2007 at 10:22 am
You have again misrepresented Sagan's argument. As I previously stated, his argument is not that the vastness implies the lack of a god, but the lack of evidence that he finds in that vastness. His warning is that humanity can't hope for rescue from a cold and indifferent universe.
Sagan: "To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known."
Comment by Zachriel — September 9, 2007 @ 10:22 am
September 10th, 2007 at 5:50 am
Mr Stupid wrote:
Well, you got that part right.
It tended to go downhill thereafter. Badly, in fact.
You're in way over your head, Mr Stupid. As in, completely out of your depth.
First of all, the post of mine you're replying to did not even mention theism. Nor did my post accuse atheists of including their conclusions in their premises. So both of these charges are ones you simply fabricated. I merely tripped up keiths—never hard to do, admittedly—-regarding his use of a quotatation from Protagoras in the context of a discussion about humanity's specialness, and like a lap-dog automaton suffering from obsessive-compulsive disorder, you then leapt in, jumping up and down and yelping while displaying your usual hopeless incomprehension of all the relevant ideas at stake.
As regards substance, the claim that something is an observer selection effect either is, or is not, itself an observer selection effect. If it is, and if some claim's being an observer selection effect is sufficient to undermine its rational basis, then its own rational basis is undermined; and thus your claim that the perception of specialness is an observer selection effect undermines itself. But if it is not an observer selection effect, or if being such an effect is not sufficient to undermine its rational basis, then your assertion that the perception of specialness is merely an observer selection effect is irrelevant and moot.
As for your faux, wholly unsubstantiated mockery regarding the argument from reason, it suffices to note that, as with moral value, reason's normative and modal properties are not well explained by materialism or physicalism, as stacks of top philosophers from Plato to Putnam have argued. The argument from there to theism, however, is not deductive, as you misleadingly imply, but rather abductive, as I have said since I first started posting on TT. So that's another fabricated straw man of yours.
If you insist despite these admonitions on not getting a life, then I recommend that you read Jaegwon Kim's books, Supervenience and Mind, and Mind in a Physical World : Essays on the Mind-Body Problem and Mental Causation. Then think especially hard about Kim's 'Principle of Explanatory Exclusion' in relation to explaining the nature and significance of reason. Pondering the implications of Kim's ideas on the dilemma facing physicalist versions of naturalism won't help you become less stupid—in your case, such an outcome is probably impossible—-but it will keep you mentally frustrated and amusingly tied up in knots for the rest of your life. So there's that to be said in its favor. Hence my recommendation.
You have a remarkable gift for projection. Have you informed your analyst about it?
Comment by stunney — September 10, 2007 @ 5:50 am
September 11th, 2007 at 12:19 am
The enormously impressed with himself stunney writes:
You've really only got one trick, haven't you? Too bad you use it so clumsily.
Who cares? Other top philosophers have argued differently. The reasonable conclusion is that one can safely ignore philosophers until they get their act together and decide what they as a field believe. They've had a few thousand years, but apparently this thinking stuff they claim to be so good at is really hard and time-consuming.
Especially easy to ignore are those who are so incompetent at their chosen profession that they have to resort to puerile insults to get their points across, or try to foist off ridiculous caricatures of their opponent's arguments. I would have expected a professional philosopher, whatever conceptual confusions he was in thrall to, would at least have a higher standard of argumentation.
Comment by mtraven — September 11, 2007 @ 12:19 am