Dawkins and ID
by MikeGeneRichard Dawkins writes:
Arthur C. Clarke, who died last month, said, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." If we could land a jumbo jet beside a medieval village, would we not be worshiped as gods? The technology of interstellar travel, and the scientific knowledge on which it would be based, are as far beyond us as our present-day knowledge surpasses that of Dark Age peasants.
Indeed. This is why it is significant that looking at the cell is like looking into the future of our own designs. But it also undersores the limitations of Analogy, as we could be using a much more primitive technology (ours) to help us grasp a much more sophisticated technology (life).
Dawkins adds:
Even if our species was created by space alien designers, those designers themselves would have to have arisen from simpler antecedents — so they can't be an ultimate explanation for anything.
Here it becomes clear that Dawkins is not thinking as an investigator, but instead, is focused on metaphysics and the "ultimate explanation." From the investigative point of view, this is not a serious objection, as there is no reason to think all explanations must be an utimate explanation. For example, how do we explain the existence of The God Delusion? Answer "“ author Richard Dawkins. But is our answer a non-explanation without having the ability to further explain the ultimate origin of Dawkins and his consciousness? Sorry, but proximate causes can be completely adequate in an investigation that is trying to account for a piece of history. Those who lean more toward the philsophical or metaphysical perspective are free to incorporate the findings of an investigation into their metaphysics, but I fail to see why they should dictate the direction of all investigations.
Dawkins adds:
The distinguished molecular biologists Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel advanced a version of the notion, probably tongue in cheek, called "Directed Panspermia." Life, they argued, could have been "seeded" on the early Earth by a spacecraft packed with bacteria. Maybe little cellular machines like the bacterial flagellar motor were designed by ingenious nano-technologists from Betelgeuse. But you still have to explain the prior existence of the Betelgeusians and how they became so advanced and god-like. Even if Betelgeusian life was, in turn, seeded by another rocket from Aldebaran 4 billion years earlier, eventually we have to terminate the regress.
Fine. Ultimately speaking, we can credit the blind watchmaker for Betelgeusian life. But it would then be erroneous to insist that this must mean Earth-based life originated likewise, especially if the Betelgeuse did indeed seed the planet. What's strange here is that Dawkins seems more obsessed with maintaining a place at the table for the blind watchmaker than in pondering the radical implications of Earth-based life being a form of technology.
April 24th, 2008 at 9:22 am
Speaking as a pilot, if you could land a boeing 747 by a village today (without the help of a handy airport) you'd probably be worshipped as a god as well.
Comment by Exile From Groggs — April 24, 2008 @ 9:22 am
April 24th, 2008 at 10:04 am
Dawkins may be baffled by (and even worshipful of) the advanced technology of biology, but biologists and engineers are discovering that many of the basic principles are quite familiar.
"A number of the design principles of biological systems are familiar to engineers"¦ Designs such as these are common in biology."
http://sysbio.harvard.edu/csb/...
We've come a long way from Darwin's perspective, "as a savage looks at a ship." (Or at least some of us have.)
(Exile From Groggs: A computer scientist once told me that landing an aircraft was provably an NP-hard problem. After I recovered, I suggested to him that landing an aircraft is utterly unproblematic. Getting off the ground (and surviving the landing) are the real problems. I remembered that after all these years because it illustrates the strange detachment from reality that sometimes affects scientists.)
Comment by Rock — April 24, 2008 @ 10:04 am
April 24th, 2008 at 10:52 am
I think you might be missing the point: Science is not a historian, rather science wants to explain how life might have come to exist in the first place. Making assumptions about ID cannot be shown to help to advance that desire or answer that curiosity for an "ultimate explanation." Perhaps these questions are fundamentally unanswerable but so far the scientific method is our only tool for trying to find out. Dawkins is arguing against the dishonest claims of the DI that ID is legitimate science. Since you do not make those claims it seems obvious that his statements would not apply to you.
Of course this also highlights a problem that has been discussed before. ID is a religious political movement that uses pseudoscience to confuse the public in order to advance its agenda, but what you do is very different. And yet you continue to embrace the term ID even though it arguably doesn't apply to your position due to all of that connotation baggage. When people like Dawkins argue against ID they are not arguing against your version of it, they are arguing against the creationist version of it.
As for not wanting to "pondering the radical implications of Earth-based life being a form of technology," since that theory is nothing more than science fiction at this point why would any of us spend more time pondering that idea than we spend pondering any other cool sci-fi idea? Its a cool idea, boy would that be nifty, that would certainly shatter the foundation of Christian mythology to discover that we aren't really God's special little pets but rather space alien litter. There, now that we've pondered that what's next?
Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 24, 2008 @ 10:52 am
April 24th, 2008 at 11:13 am
"Thirty years into biotechnology, despite all of the successes and attention and hype, we still are inept when it comes to engineering the living world."
- Drew Endy of MIT
http://www.edge.org/3rd_cultur...
Comment by nobody — April 24, 2008 @ 11:13 am
April 24th, 2008 at 11:33 am
These emotional outbursts from you are very telling.
Shows what stock you really have in these issues.
Comment by Doug — April 24, 2008 @ 11:33 am
April 24th, 2008 at 11:43 am
How so? ID certainly can help point us in the direction of finding an "ultimate explanation"…. but let me guess, we can't have a valid explanation unless we have an explanation for the explanation.
Thankfully ID can be one of the tools in that scientific method tool kid.
You broken record. An assertion is not a proof.
What is legitimate science, Todd?
That which appeals to the most reductive explanation?
Science rests on metaphysical assumptions about the nature of the reality, of the universe, of our ability to perceive and our minds ability to apprehend.
So, in doing science you're already accepting metaphysical claims that can't be supported by the scientific method - so your complaints become arbitrary.
Wow, that reads like propaganda to advance a religious/political agenda. Nice work, Todd.
Comment by Doug — April 24, 2008 @ 11:43 am
April 24th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Hi MikeGene,
Why contemplate something that is nothing more than a hobby, unless you are an aficionado? I would no more expect Dawkins to show an interest in your hobby than I would expect you to be interested in a discourse on my draft strategy in my fantasy baseball league.
Comment by Aagcobb — April 24, 2008 @ 12:49 pm
April 24th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Todd B:
Science also is not chartered to seek "ultimate explanation." It seeks proximate causes for observable effects. Final causation is a philosophical matter, not a scientific one. Sort of like pondering sci-fi space aliens, as Dawkins does. Which, in case you didn't read this thread either, happens to be the subject right there in the OP.
Comment by Joy — April 24, 2008 @ 1:35 pm
April 24th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Mike:
I think Dawkins is making a valid point. We want to know how life originated, not just on earth but anywhere else in the universe, if it exists there at all. So to say that life on earth originated with aliens doesn't answer that question.
Theists often insist that the universe must have a cause (what caused the Big Bang?), and say the cause is God. But when asked what caused God, they are happy to say they don't know or that the question isn't meaningful. In that case, why not be happy with the answer that we don't know what caused the Big Bang or that it isn't meaningful to ask that?
Comment by Raevmo — April 24, 2008 @ 4:36 pm
April 24th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Hey Raevmo,
Actually the theists I know say that nothing caused God because he is a necessary being and necessary beings have no cause by definition.
Because the big bang (or the Universe) is not a necessary being necessary beings have no beginning by definition.
Come on use your brain this is simple stuff
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 24, 2008 @ 5:46 pm
April 24th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
fmm:
Aren't your parents necessary beings for your existence? They have no cause?
You are just defining the problem away. I might as well say that the Big Bang was a necessary event, and therefore having no cause by (some weird) definition. Why should I prefer your version?
Comment by Raevmo — April 24, 2008 @ 5:58 pm
April 24th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
5thMM:
Yes, but philosophers of religion aren't happy leaving it with saying God is a necessary being. They prefer being able to show that God is a necessary being. Thus the Ontological Argument. At first, Alvin Plantinga thought that the Ontological Argument was unsound. Then he came across a version of it that he accepted, and published in his book, which if I remember is called, On Necessity. I tried reading it once. Way over my head.
Comment by Bilbo — April 24, 2008 @ 5:59 pm
April 24th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Raevmo
It would be weird because it would be contradictory the big bang can't happen and be a necessary being at the same time. Simple logic
Bilbo
I find the Ontological Argument compelling but have yet to be able to explain it to anyone who is not already convinced so I don't rely on it.
You don't however have to appeal to the Ontological Argument to know that God if he exists must be a necessary being, a dictionary will do for that.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 24, 2008 @ 6:13 pm
April 24th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
fmm:
Why can't the BB be a necessary being, but God can? At least there's some evidence for the BB.
Comment by Raevmo — April 24, 2008 @ 6:26 pm
April 24th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Do you really not know this? Here is a link to get you up to speed http://plato.stanford.edu/entr...
There is no evidence that the Big bang is necessary nor can there be
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 24, 2008 @ 6:42 pm
April 24th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
fmm:
But at least there's some evidence the BB existed in the first place. Not so for God. Why *can't* there be evidence that the BB is necessary? It really puzzles me why you would say that.
Comment by Raevmo — April 24, 2008 @ 6:48 pm
April 24th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Wow, I really hope the blazing logic of fmm's argument is more of his dry sardonic wit and that he is not trying to be serious here. I'll just assume all of his posts above end with ":lol:" or ":wink:" symbols.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 24, 2008 @ 6:59 pm
April 24th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
I'm not sure if we can prove that God is a necessary being. Someday I'll try reading Plantinga's book again. However, I think most people who think reality must make some kind of rational sense think the ultimate answer will be of the "Must be" kind. In other words, we hope eventually to understand why something exists, instead of nothing, and why this something, instead of some other something. Giving us an ultimate answer that is contingent just won't do. We'll just ask, "Why?" So I think we all — at bottom — accept what is known as the Cosmological Argument — that not everything is contingent. There must be something that must be — something that is necessary.
Now it is logically possible that the Big Bang was necessary. But it doesn't seem to be the right kind of something. It seems to be contingent. And the physical constants and laws that sprang from it seem to be contingent, also.
Most people who believe in God believe that God is a necessary being: There was no logical possibility of God's not existing. Hard to prove. But if God exists, then we are talking about a being that would — once seen — inspire worship. And it's difficult to imagine worshipping something that is only contingent. God just seems to fit the bill for an ultimate answer, if God exists. This isn't an attempt to prove God. Just an attempt to explain why one would think God was a necessary being, even without a philosophical "proof".
Comment by Bilbo — April 24, 2008 @ 7:20 pm
April 24th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Raevmo: Why can't the BB be a necessary being, but God can?
Comment by Bradford — April 24, 2008 @ 7:39 pm
April 24th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
If there were evidence that the BB was caused by x factors one would then have to ask what caused them.
Comment by Bradford — April 24, 2008 @ 7:41 pm
April 24th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Is there any choice other than an infinite series of causal regresses, an assumption that matter and energy have an eternal quality with no initial cause or a first cause existing outside time and space which is the cause for a finite existence of matter and energy?
Comment by Bradford — April 24, 2008 @ 7:47 pm
April 24th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Bradford,
I'm actually of the mind that even the first options aren't sufficient to get someone out of the God dilemma. An infinite series of causal regresses means the likelihood of an intelligence(s) existing in the past is a certainty. Then we end up having to ask what the maximum knowledge and causal power of intelligence is within a system like that. Or whether you can still have God outside of time with an eternal universe - I think Michel Heller got into that.
Comment by nullasalus — April 24, 2008 @ 8:15 pm
April 24th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
What is the evidence for life on Earth being a form of technology? The concept is not even well-defined, insofar as how you've used it here. What is the test for it?
Since Dawkins, being a scientist, thinks in terms of well-defined and testable claims, it isn't strange that he would spend little energy on ideas which are not well-defined and not testable.
Aha, but I am already ahead of you. You are thinking, "But what is the evidence for organic molecular bootstrapping processes behind the OOL?" If you are genuinely interested, then I would suggest spending a few months reading scientific papers on the subject. The difference is, for fear of repeating myself, that the hypotheses on the table are well-defined and testable.
Comment by JackT — April 24, 2008 @ 11:08 pm
April 24th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Hi Todd,
Sure. I do not advocate that science give up looking for ways life might have ultimately come into existence. But my focus is on the origin of our Earth-based life and what this means to subsequent evolution.
So basically Dawkins is reacting to popular claims instead of thinking through these issues on his own. Yes, people who rely on stereotypes and superficial analysis will be tripped up on the term ID, but it should be not be a problem for those who value independent and critical thinking.
I don't think I effectively communicated my point. I'm not saying that Dawkins should now be focusing on one sci-fi idea (directed panspermy) in place of another (the original Self-Replicator). I'm just noticing how quickly he moves to the "˜but': "Maybe little cellular machines like the bacterial flagellar motor were designed by ingenious nano-technologists from Betelgeuse. But you still have to explain the prior existence of the Betelgeusians and how they became so advanced and god-like." As I explained, we don't need to explain the origin of Dawkins and his consciousness to explain the origin of his book. So rather than pause to consider what it might mean if life was indeed designed, Dawkins quickly changes the topic.
Look, Dawkins has admitted that something like directed panspermy is plausible. So why not take the next step and ponder how we might detect whether this happened? Or do we simply ignore it because we are preoccupied with giving a scientific stamp of approval to someone's Ultimate Explanation?
What's next? Might such a design have shaped evolution? If so, how? What might the design objectives have been?
Comment by MikeGene — April 24, 2008 @ 11:31 pm
April 24th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
Hi Rock,
Nice find! Thanks much.
Comment by MikeGene — April 24, 2008 @ 11:34 pm
April 24th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
Hi Jack,
See the link Rock provided.
So you are criticizing something that is not science for not being science? We're not at the science stage yet. In fact, we may never get there. But in the meantime, there is plenty to chew on.
I see the problem - I should not have used the word "strange," as I don't expect Dawkins to spend much energy or time on thinking about the design of the first life forms. He is looking for Ultimate Explanations.
In your mind, you are.
Comment by MikeGene — April 24, 2008 @ 11:42 pm
April 25th, 2008 at 1:12 am
So you are criticizing Dawkins, a scientist, for not speaking further about something which is not science? I don't get it.
This goes back to my first post on this blog, in which I said that if we agree ID is not science, then what's all the hubbub about? I suspect most or all of the pro-ID members of this blog disagree with you on this point.
Comment by JackT — April 25, 2008 @ 1:12 am
April 25th, 2008 at 4:03 am
A necessary existence is an existence that cannot not exist in fact has no possibility of not existing. As FMM points out our universe need not exist and gives all the evidence of an existence that has not always existed.
Rather than ridicule FMM why dont you point out the illogic of FMM's position?
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — April 25, 2008 @ 4:03 am
April 25th, 2008 at 7:15 am
Hi Jack,
Apart from my misuse of the word "˜strange,' I think all my points in the OP are solid and worth making. Are you playing chess?
I understand that for most people, this is about Ultimate Explanations and whether we can secure the authoritative endorsement from Science for such Ultimate Explanations. After all, we are all part of a culture that places great value on science. I'm just pointing out, in many ways, that there is no need for that way of viewing things.
Comment by MikeGene — April 25, 2008 @ 7:15 am
April 25th, 2008 at 7:23 am
The evidence is that the universe is of finite age. Origins matters are inherently abstruse. Fmm took a position favorable to a theological interpretation. That explains the ridicule. As Mike pointed out in a prior comment "for most people, this is about Ultimate Explanations." For some, not liking your Ultimate Belief is a sufficient basis for ridicule.
Comment by Bradford — April 25, 2008 @ 7:23 am
April 25th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
I provided a non-flattering definition of ID, but that is an accurate definition as seen by many people, Dawkins included I suspect. You can try to dismiss it as a stereotype, but similarly you could say that any term meant to categorize entities into two groups is just a stereotype. Liberal, plumber, theist, Aquarius, atheist, all of these words could be said to be stereotypes but they all still have a useful meaning. At some point some word needs to be chosen to describe the group he's talking about and it seems unreasonable to list every member of that group by proper noun. Typically a person framing an argument is free to define the terms they use however they choose so long as they are clear and consistent in their usage. Simply calling a definition a stereotype, however, doesn't effect the validity of the arguement unless you can further show that the stereotype is meaningless (i.e. defines a non-existent or irrelevant group thus making a straw-man argument) or, as in your case, simply doesn't apply to a specific sample.
If there was logic to ridicule perhaps I could. I always thought it was interesting that of all the "Necessary Beings" that are commonly proposed only God is claimed to be non-abstract. By the way Bradford, the phase "Necessary Beings" is often applied to abstract entities, in fact God is the only proposed necessary being that really fits our normal definition of "being." Raevmo's conjecture that the Big Bang might be a necessary being fits just fine into my understanding of this philosophical concept and does not imply any personification that isn't inherent in the "necessary being" concept to being with. Anyway, back to the point. This philosophy begins from one of a number of fairytale assumptions. To accept this philosophy you need to first accept one or more of the following baseless assumptions: 1) God exists, 2) God is perfect, 3) Being necessary is somehow more perfect than not being necessary, 4) Ontological Arguments (which fmm claims above are not required) are true. Fmm is correct when he says, "You don't however have to appeal to the Ontological Argument to know that God if he exists must be a necessary being [emphasis added]," simply because necessary being is effectively part of his definition of God based on apparent assumptions that human notions of "perfection" somehow apply to God. I am also correct when I say, "The Invisible Pink Unicorn is pink," but for equally trivial reasons that have nothing to do with logic.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 25, 2008 @ 2:14 pm
April 25th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
I've never heard of the term necessary being applied to a physical event before. I suppose you have references documenting the use of this term in that way?
Comment by Bradford — April 25, 2008 @ 3:10 pm
April 25th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Hey Todd:
I can't believe we are even having this discussion you guys are all intelligent educated folks and I'm just a uneducated hillbilly fundamentalist Jesus freak I can't believe you don't know this. It's so simple
Let me help you out
Ask yourself if you can imagine a world where the big bang did not happen. It does not have to be an actual universe or a likely one; it only has to be logically possible. If you can think of such a world then the big bang is not necessary, it's contingent. Right off the top of my head I can think of four logically possible universes with out a big bang.
1) An eternal universe with no beginning and no expansion
2) A steady state universe with no beginning and constant expansion
3) A YEC universe that is 6000 years old and which creation was accomplished by Yahweh imposing order on the primordial deep in 6 days.
4) A "last Thursday" universe in which God created the universe last Thursday but with the appearance of age.
If you think about it I'll bet you can come up with many more. Therefore we must say the Big Bang is a contingent event it did not logically have to happen.
God on the other hand if he exists is defined as the creator of every thing. If he exists there can be no creation (a universe for example) with out his having created it by definition. If God exists he exists in all possible universes. That is what we mean by a necessary being, a being that is present in all possible worlds.
Necessary things don't have a cause.
Contingent things must have a cause.
If a cause is itself contingent it must have a cause in turn etc etc etc until you come to a final necessary cause.
The final necessary cause for the universe doesn't have to be the Christian God it might be an infinite metaverse, an eternal cyclical cosmos or a self existant quantum fluctuation.
Or a pink unicorn
However a final necessary cause will by definition be outside the realm of empirical investigation.
Out of nothing, nothing comes
This is not rocket science
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 25, 2008 @ 4:30 pm
April 25th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
I can imagine a universe where God does not exist, so I guess that proves God is not necessary. Of course I'm not the one who is claiming that our imagination somehow defines the boundaries of reality.
Once again you need to stress the "if he exists" part, a large and baseless assumption. You define God as existing and having created the universe, therefore by that definition he is necessary. Its nothing more than word games. You arbitrarily define God as necessary, Raevmo is just as free to arbitrarily define a "Big Bang" as being necessary. Neither of these definitions does ANYTHING to suggest that either God or the Big Bang actually exist or actually fit those definitions.
Your chain of causation has at its core assumptions about a never ending unidirectional progression of time. If time itself started at the big bang it means nothing to say the big bang has a cause earlier in time. So even the idea of a final necessary cause being required can be challenged.
Here I can agree with you, but I fail to see how this supports the idea God is necessary.
Here I agree again, there's a lot less fairytale and make-believe in the average rocket ;).
Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 25, 2008 @ 5:11 pm
April 25th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
fmm:
This, it appears, is what the study with no subject teaches people. I wonder what it means for some scenario to be logically possible. That it is self-consistent? It seems to me that nearly everything that is logically possible is physically impossible, so quite irrelevant (although possibly interesting).
And if he doesn't exist, he is not defined that way? Why not a god who created only part of the universe, or some of the universes? It's all "logically possible", isn't it?
But nothing doesn't exist, nor has it ever, nor can it exist.
Comment by Raevmo — April 25, 2008 @ 6:30 pm
April 25th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Todd:
No because the claim is that "if God exists he is necessary" not "God is necessary because he is necessary"
I never defined God as existing I said "if he exists he is necessary" stay focused
My chain has says nothing about time. A cause might be after it's effect in time. I only say contingent things must have causes. TP believes that conscious observation is the necessary cause of the universe I have no problem with that logically at least.
God if he exists is necessary by definition this idea needs no support it is self evident.
Raevmo
It's not irrelevant when we are discussing what is contingent and what is necessary in fact it is a prerequisite for such a discussion.
If he does not exist he is not necessary is this not obvious stay focused
Such a being is not God because he is not necessary in all possible worlds but I already said that didn't I
exactly!!!!
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 25, 2008 @ 7:28 pm
April 25th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
fmm:
Is God capable of imagining a world wherein he is not necessary?
Comment by Raevmo — April 25, 2008 @ 7:48 pm
April 25th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
no that is the point. There is no such world even in God's imagination if God exists. That is what necessary means.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 25, 2008 @ 8:45 pm
April 25th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Again, this is nothing more than sophistry. One can imagine that our universe was created by a being that all of us would describe as God which still does not contain this additional "necessary" property. All you have done is added to the baseless assumption that God exists another baseless assumption that he is perfect and the further baseless assumption that being necessary is more perfect than not being necessary so therefore God is necessary. Dawkins would likely say that God is already extremely improbable but the more baseless attributes you assign to him the more improbable he becomes.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 25, 2008 @ 9:33 pm
April 25th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Hi Todd,
Well, it is a stereotype.
Sure. I fully understand that we humans rely on stereotypes to navigate our social reality. Nevertheless, I can still point out when a stereotype is being peddled, just as all members of those groups would do when they see their group being stereotyped. For example, if a public person were to publicly claim that atheists have no morality, Dawkins would be first in line to point out this was a stereotype of atheists.
The key is not so much in the use of a stereotype, but in the clinging to stereotype when confronted by a reality that does not conform to it. You yourself have shown an ability to let go of the stereotype when confronted by people who don't conform to it and that makes you atypical. But are you sure we could say the same for Dawkins?
Comment by MikeGene — April 25, 2008 @ 10:03 pm
April 25th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
This would fit into the meaningless stereotype category I described above since the group of atheists who are also immoral can be shown to be small, irrelevant, or uncorrelated. As I hinted above in such a case you would be justified to cry foul. If, on the other hand, it could be shown that all atheists are immoral or even that all immoral people are atheist then it might be valid to use that term despite it not being 100% accurate. If this were true then moral people who were otherwise atheistic would certainly want a more accurate label to describe themselves in order to avoid being unjustly labeled as immoral. Even if there is a prevalent but completely unjustified connotation that atheist == immoral then atheists might want another name (hence the Brights movement).
I can understand wanting to "hold the line" to defend against what you see as unjust connotations being adding to words you otherwise associate yourself with, but individuals on one side of a debate don't get to define the connotations of words. It becomes a question of what you're fighting for, are you trying to clear ID's tarnished name or advocate the ideas put forth in your book. Fighting to clear ID's tarnished name sounds a lot like politics.
PS: Obviously I can't speak for Dawkins. I found The God Delusion to be needlessly confrontational. I think Dawkins should stick to science myself, but I suspect Culture Warrior pays a hell of a lot better than Scientist.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 25, 2008 @ 11:33 pm
April 25th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
Hi Todd,
I wasn't fighting for anything. I simply offered up a valid observation "“ "So basically Dawkins is reacting to popular claims instead of thinking through these issues on his own. Yes, people who rely on stereotypes and superficial analysis will be tripped up on the term ID, but it should be not be a problem for those who value independent and critical thinking."
Comment by MikeGene — April 25, 2008 @ 11:44 pm
April 26th, 2008 at 2:30 am
Actually ridicule is the argument of a fool. Perhaps you could show the illogic of FMM's position however so far you have failed to do so.
I understand FMM's position to be that if something exists now something has to have existed always without the possibility of this existence to not exist. This existence could be God, "the universe, it might be an infinite metaverse, an eternal cyclical cosmos or a self existant quantum fluctuation. " However whatever it is its existence cannot be a contingent existence.
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — April 26, 2008 @ 2:30 am
April 26th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Todd B:
Your comment makes no sense. All assumptions are logical contingencies. The term baseless is meaningless in this respect.
That's part of a descriptive definition of God. Definitions are not assumptions.
Vividbleau's comment is appropos:
If God exists now he has always existed. That is the argument.
Comment by Bradford — April 26, 2008 @ 5:39 pm
April 27th, 2008 at 8:54 am
Hey Bradford
There are several obvious implications to this truth
1) The atheist owes us a an answer to the question "what caused the Big Bang?"
2) The atheist also owes us an explanation of why the Big Bang happened.
3) If the atheist says he does not know the answers he reveals himself to be an agnostic and not truly an atheist.
4) If the atheist counters with "Who made God?" he reveals himself to be foolish and juvenile.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 27, 2008 @ 8:54 am
April 27th, 2008 at 10:04 am
You could point to any Gap in human knowledge and make the same argument. And there are always Gaps. Gaps are reasonably explained as a consequence of feeble humans existing in a vast universe.
Did you ever see fairies dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that's no proof that they are not there.
Comment by Zachriel — April 27, 2008 @ 10:04 am
April 27th, 2008 at 10:58 am
I never said otherwise but the point is this "gap" will never be filled by empirical investigation it will always be there mocking you
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 27, 2008 @ 10:58 am
April 27th, 2008 at 11:05 am
You said atheists owe you an answer, and that lacking such an answer, they would be agnostics, not atheists. That is a fallacious argument. An atheist would argue that Gaps are reasonably explained as due to well-known human limitations.
And no one will ever know what stars are made of.
Comment by Zachriel — April 27, 2008 @ 11:05 am
April 27th, 2008 at 11:10 am
fmm:
Not knowing the causes of the BB (assuming asking about them is a meaningful question) is not evidence in favor of gods. Or is it? You tell me. Besides, the universe as we know it has been expanding a lot in the last century. First we discovered the milky way, then it turned out there are other galaxies. It would be foolish to assume that we now know the true boundaries of the universe (i.e. all there is). It might well be that we will discover that our "universe" is only part of an even larger structure.
Comment by Raevmo — April 27, 2008 @ 11:10 am
April 27th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Zach:
Admitting that a question is too difficult for you does not make it go away
Why not and what does that have to do with the price of tea in China ?
Raevmo:
It only means that unlike the theist you can't answer the most important question in the universe.
That will not make the question go away it will only push it back one place. What caused this larger structure and why is it here?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 27, 2008 @ 2:10 pm
April 27th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
fmm:
Is a wrong answer better than no answer? Is there more than one correct answer? Most theists would probably disagree with your answer. I don't envy your false sense of security.
Fair enough. It's hard to tell if there is such a thing as a first cause. You ask why is it here. Why should it not be here? We know it's here, and we don't know if it's even possible for it not to have been here. So there.
Comment by Raevmo — April 27, 2008 @ 2:56 pm
April 27th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Raevmo,
I suppose you can always argue the necessary 'being' is something mindless. Of course, at that point, the atheist believes in God. It just happens to be a Cthulhu-like monstrosity.
I get what fmm is driving at actually. I'd argue it differently, but here's one more theist who things it points towards something worth taking seriously, at least.
Comment by nullasalus — April 27, 2008 @ 3:05 pm
April 27th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
There are Gaps in human knowledge. There will always be Gaps in human knowledge. If it wasn't the Big Bang, I am certain you would just point to another Gap. Yet more is known about the Big Bang today than yesterday.
You made a claim, that lacking an answer to whatever strawman Gap of the Day, purported atheists would be agnostics, not atheists. This is just not a supportable claim.
The reason people thought we could never know what stars were made of is because of their great distance prohibiting anybody actually collecting a sample. Indeed, at one time, they were thought to be made of quintessence. It was a Gap, and your argument is logically equivalent for any Gap in human knowledge.
The Big Bang is a scientific theory. Importance is a human valuation. Why you would want to worship a God that lives in the ever-shrinking Gaps in human knowledge, I wouldn't know.
Comment by Zachriel — April 27, 2008 @ 3:29 pm
April 27th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Raevmo,
As Darwinists are always quick to point out you don't have a right to call my answer wrong until you have an answer of your own
No you can only have one necessary first cause
A theist would agree with my answer by definition
If something is contingent it must have a cause. I thought we covered that
Because it is not necessary it must have a reason to be here stay focused
Sure we do. Remember all the possible worlds with out a Big Bang. Stay focused.
Zach:
Sure it is. If you do not know what caused the big bang you are by definition an agnostic because it might have been God. This is not hard to understand.
No my "Gap" unlike your star example is impossible to fill with empirical investigation ever. You can never know if a Cause is Necessary that way.
This discussion is not about worship it's about answers to questions. I have one you don't and you never will it's that simple
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 27, 2008 @ 4:01 pm
April 27th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Hell, Zach. I know the 'God of the gaps' claim is an empty one. But I've never seen someone blow it so completely in a single comment.
Fmm's not attempting to fill scientific gaps with magic. He's highlighting a reasonable philosophical answer to a penultimate question, and one way to get at it. It's no more of a 'gap-filler' than 'it was all meaningless chance' is. Except fmm's take has more justification than that.
Comment by nullasalus — April 27, 2008 @ 4:04 pm
April 27th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Hey Nullasalus,
thanks for the support
actually "meaningless chance" is not a cause so that answer has no justification at all
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 27, 2008 @ 4:16 pm
April 27th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Since your answer to the question is simply to make something up and then claim that's the answer then I guess we are just as free to make up some other answer. So far every axiom of your theory has been challenged and your only response is quips like "pay attention" and "stay focused." Since the core of the position is a self righteous assertion that you are simply correct by matter of definition I guess that's not surprising.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 27, 2008 @ 4:34 pm
April 27th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Todd:
I wish you would. Then we could have an open honest discussion so far all I've seen is your side ridiculing my answer with out offering one of your own. That is not the way to have fruitful dialogue. I know from experience that you would not like it if I did such a thing
It's not a "theory" it's simple logic 101
Contingent things require causes
Necessary things do not
Out of nothing nothing comes
There has been no valid challenge to these "axioms" in the history of the world. If there ever was science and even rational thought itself would be impossible
Words have meanings and you can't nullify them simply because you don't like the implications. I'm sorry if you find adherence to definitions self righteous but I can't help how the truth makes you feel.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 27, 2008 @ 4:53 pm
April 27th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
fmm:
I'm trying but you make it so hard. How do you know worlds without a Bing Bang are possible? Did you imagine them? Maybe you can describe such a world for us. Take your time.
Comment by Raevmo — April 27, 2008 @ 4:54 pm
April 27th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
no need
http://telicthoughts.com/dawki...
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 27, 2008 @ 4:57 pm
April 27th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
This has been challenged and ignored before, but this is based on an axiom that what we can imagine somehow defines the boundaries of reality. Just because you can say, "I can imagine a universe without a big bang" doesn't even mean you can truly imagine the implications of that statement and it certainly doesn't prove that its possible to have a universe without a big bang. That axiom is nothing more than a fairy tale. Now perhaps if an omnipotent being was able to imagine in absolute detail a universe without a big bang then we might have evidence that it is contingent and not necessary, but you are far from qualifying.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 27, 2008 @ 5:34 pm
April 27th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
If you do not know what causes thunderstorms you are by definition an agnostic because it might have been God. This is not hard to understand.
If you do not know how the Earth was formed you are by definition an agnostic because it might have been God. This is not hard to understand.
If you do not know what keeps the planets in their orbits you are by definition an agnostic because it might have been God. This is not hard to understand.
That is incorrect. There is no a priori reason why the Big Bang could be not be a result of other processes. (And people had once said the same about the composition of stars.)
No, it's about your unsupported claim that no one can logically be an atheist. Once you retract your unsupported claim, I'll leave you to enjoy your particular brand of metaphysical paste.
That is not fifth monarchy man's position that I have contested. He is welcome to whatever metaphysical filler he chooses. But he insists that others must adopt his view saying, "If the atheist says he does not know the answers he reveals himself to be an agnostic and not truly an atheist." He is specifically pointing to a Gap and then claiming that an atheist must abandon his position because of the Gap.
Except nullasalus did not support your claim.
That is incorrect. Quantum particles appear out of nothingness all the time. This 'quantum vacuum' has specific, distinguishing and *verifiable* empirical consequences.
Comment by Zachriel — April 27, 2008 @ 5:44 pm
April 27th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
I supported Fmm's argument, which to me comes down to considerations of a necessary being and what it means for one to exist. I don't think fmm is providing an undeniable proof of God - instead he's providing a philosophical argument that demands one think about the nature of existence, what could support it, etc.
In other words, when it comes to a necessary being, fmm is highlighting an argument that indicates there was/is an 'ultimate creator'. The question becomes whether said creator had/has intention, mind, purpose, etc or not. Or, put another way, 'Atheists have to answer the same questions theists do, and when they do, it tends to sound vastly less believable - and considering Vishnu, that's saying something.'
Oh Zachriel. Do you really want to walk down the road of relying on quantum theory to prove or disprove religious claims? Especially when it involves reference to things that can never be directly observed, only inferred, and which many physicists consider to be artifacts of calculations?
The only question is whether to wield Bohm, Penrose, Stapp, or delayed choice quantum eraser to aggravate matters.
Comment by nullasalus — April 27, 2008 @ 6:13 pm
April 27th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Todd:
If my possible universes are logically inconsistent please point out where my error is. Keep in mind that theists have been trying to do that with the eternal universe for 4000 years to no effect.
If you are claiming that the Big Bang is Necessary lets see your evidence. Merely claiming something does not make it so. Talk about fairy tales
Zach:
The difference is that each of these things is subject to empirical investigation so someone could legitimitly claim to be a default atheist but say he is withholding final judgment until all the facts are in.
The identity of the first cause on the other hand will never be determined by empirical investigation so there are no facts of this nature forthcoming therefore to claim to be an atheist while having no answer for what caused the universe is either inconsistent or dishonest. You're right this is not hard to understand.
It might but those causes must in turn have causes (unless they are necessary)
Correct me if I wrong but Quantum particles don't appear out on nothing they appear out of the background wave function not out of a true vacuum because as Raevmo pointed out no such thing can exist.
Peace.
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 27, 2008 @ 6:59 pm
April 27th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
That would be a reasonable position, but that is not what fifth monarchy man had claimed. I've quoted it more than once. "If the atheist says he does not know the answers he reveals himself to be an agnostic and not truly an atheist."
The typical atheist answer would be that it's an area of ignorance (and of active scientific interest).
Oh nullasalus. Why do you have such trouble following a thread, especially when I take pains to quote the relevant passages? The reference to the quantum vacuum was introduced to refute the claim that there is no valid challenge in the history of the world to "out of nothing nothing comes".
You may as well reject quantum mechanics as being "only inferred". The quantum vacuum has specific, distinguishing and empirically verifiable consequences. Empty space is full of virtual particles, a result of quantum uncertainty.
Comment by Zachriel — April 27, 2008 @ 7:18 pm
April 27th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Sounds reasonable to me. What's wrong with being an agnostic? They have the most powerful position in any debate, and you can't attack them because they're skeptical of everything anyway.
The typical atheist is apparently an agnostic.
And it's still not valid. C'mon, Zach, you're pinning your riposte here on virtual particles, a mathematical perturbation where even if you regard them as really existing you still have no evidence they're 'popping out of nothingness' because there's no way to verify such a claim? Have atheists now reduced themselves, once again, to the atheism of the gaps?
I can grant you all of that and more and you're still not riding the science train to where it needs to take you. Even putting aside the fact that there's no true vacuum.
Comment by nullasalus — April 27, 2008 @ 7:35 pm
April 27th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
So is the Big Bang.
I agree. Nearly all atheists are willing to consider the possibilities of gods, just like they are willing to consider fairies in the garden pond or orbiting teapots. But they're called atheists because they think the possibility of gods, fairies and orbiting teapots to be negligible. I'm sure there are many gradations of belief. But that doesn't make them agnostics by any reasonable measure.
Your claim hinged on the Big Bang being unexplainable as a consequence of other processes. This may or may not be so. The Big Bang could be a huge virtual particle. Nor is there proof that there must be a first cause. And even causation itself may be an artifact of the human viewpoint, and there may be a greater symmetry underlying it. An atheist can honestly shrug her shoulders and point out that ignorance is part of the human condition.
You have enough to suggest. To persuade. Even to awe. But you don't have a decisive argument.
That's the point. If it's full of virtual particles, then it can't be a "true vacuum". Think of it this way. What is a vacuum? A space with zero energy. But energy is a quantity subject to quantum uncertainty. It turns out that 'nothingness' may be unstable.
Comment by Zachriel — April 27, 2008 @ 7:39 pm
April 27th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Actually, it turns out that 'nothingness' isn't 'nothingness', so talk of it not being empty isn't all that exciting. The bigger surprise is the lack of nothingness.
In which case an atheist's only recourse is to either city a fairy in the garden of her own, or admit she's got nothing to replace the theist's proposition with. Not exactly a position of strength.
Comment by nullasalus — April 27, 2008 @ 7:46 pm
April 27th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
I'm using the usual definitions. A person might be agnostic about politics, but have a definite opinion about gods and fairies.
atheism, disbelief in the existence of deity, the doctrine that there is no deity.
agnostic, a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable.
I'm not sure why you keep making that claim. Virtual particles are as real as anything in quantum mechanics, a highly successful scientific theory. Are you actually rejecting basic physical theory?
Comment by Zachriel — April 27, 2008 @ 7:50 pm
April 27th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
And you're attempting to combine atheism and agnosticism into one creature - where ignorance is the human condition and thus atheists are agnostic about ultimate reality, but they assert the non-existence of God(s) (aka, a view on ultimate reality) and thus have a definite view about ultimate reality.
There's two choices - make a claim about ultimate reality (propose a fairy) or make no claims (admit ignorance - and cede the fairies are possible, and you've got no competing fairy.)
http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/...
Particle physicists talk about these processes as if the particles exchanged in the intermediate stages of a diagram are actually there, but they are really only part of a quantum probability calculation. It is meaningless to argue whether they are or are not there, as they cannot be observed. Any attempt to observe them changes the outcome of the process.
Are you really ignorant of the particular debates and uncertainties in basic physical theory?
Comment by nullasalus — April 27, 2008 @ 7:59 pm
April 27th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Zach:
That is not my claim at all. My claim is if the Big Bang is explained by other contingent processes these processes in turn will need to be explained by other processes until finally we reach a necessary cause. This cause will be beyond the scope of empirical investigation.
Contingent things must have causes
Out of nothing nothing comes. If something could indeed come from nothing science would be impossible because anything could be expected to happen at any time.
Yea it could all be a magical mist that surrounds the universe and makes it appear that contingent effects require causes. Talk about fairy tales
Ignorance about the creation that can't be overcome even in principle is agnosticism not atheism
So it's not "nothing" Qm is just a dodge in this discussion
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 27, 2008 @ 8:41 pm
April 27th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
There's a continuum of belief. But I think many people would think that a claim of a monster under the bed is just so much poppycock. That is, they would point to what they consider to be a more reasonable explanation"”childish imagination.
Except when you can.
PVLAS, Exploring the Quantum Vacuum and its Structure
Comment by Zachriel — April 27, 2008 @ 8:54 pm
April 27th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Then your statement "out of nothing nothing comes" is gibberish.
Comment by Zachriel — April 27, 2008 @ 8:58 pm
April 27th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
And when asked what all those noises under the bed are, they talk about randomness, chance, spontaneous generation of universes that have extraordinary order -