Science, Evolution, and Atheism
by MikeGeneIf you consume a steady diet of rhetoric from anti-ID blogs and forums, you might be under the impression that Philip Johnson invented a bogeyman to rally the religious troops, arguing that acceptance of evolution leads to atheism. That sneaky lawyer. Everyone knows that Ken Miller goes to church! But y'see, in reality, Johnson did not make up this argument. He is simply passing on what some leading scientists and scholars have argued.
William Provine is the Charles A. Alexander Professor of Biological Sciences from the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at Cornell University. So what does this representative of the mainstream say? At a Darwin Day event, he laid out his views about the meaning of evolution:
"Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent."
Most ID critics, while posturing as if they are objective elsewhere, like to sweep such comments under the rug. Test it yourself. The experiment is simple. 1. Find an internet forum dominated by ID critics. 2. Post the Provine quote and simply ask for feedback. The result? Chances are very high that the quote will be either ignored, or will elicit a response that starts with a brief, mealy-mouthed dismissal followed by a significant effort to change the topic.
Our critics at TelicThoughts will have none of this. Here, at TelicThoughts, we will not censor their opinion. On the contrary, even those who argue that science leads to atheism have a right to speak their mind as it relates to this debate. So, below the fold, I will simply repost some comments from ID critic, DataDoc. DataDoc will elaborate on Provine's insights and help readers to better understand how many people view evolution as evidence for atheism. So without further delay, I introduce to you"¦..DataDoc:
[DataDoc will now respond to Provine's five consequences that follow from Darwin's understanding of evolution]
That's the message of science and accurate knowledge about the world in general, except for number 5.
1: It's almost certainly true that there are no gods worth having. You can call the universe god if you want to or invent some tiny little god who operates secretly, without ever being observed, but frankly, if you want a real god, you're going to have to be satisfied with a God who operates in such a way that it looks like he's not there and everything is being done by matter and the laws of the universe.
2: There is no real chance of life after death. Damn! I don't like that. Tough! The evidence indicates that there isn't.
3: No ultimate foundation for ethics exists. This isn't really a loss at all. It merely means that the Bible, which positively allows Southern style slavery and which claims that God Himself orders the murder of innocent women and children is not an ultimate foundation for ethics. That's fine with me. It also means that the Koran isn't the ultimate foundation for ethics either, which probably pleases you just as much as it pleases me. Ditto for all the other holy books and holy preachers. They're all just men and their opinions should be given no more weight than any other man's.
4: No ultimate meaning in life exists. Good! Here in Wisconsin, I'm familiar with lots of animals whose lives DO have an ultimate meaning. You see them grazing along the highway. Their purpose in life is to provide milk twice a day, to have their male babies taken away, killed and turned into veal and to have their daughters and themselves killed and turned into hamburgers when they get too old to give milk. I'm GLAD that I'm just here, without any cosmic meaning to my life, thank you, and I don't have a whole lot of respect with people who can't live with that knowledge.
5: "Human free will is nonexistent" is one of those shibboleths that the religiously (and philosophically) afflicted like to spread around as if they were saying something. The foundation of this belief appears to be defining "free will" as meaning "not influenced by anything in this universe". It's frequently accompanied by the belief that without "free will", every nuance of every thought and deed that we will ever have is somehow predetermined.
[DataDoc also weighs in on Provine's claim that many scientists would enjoy explaining how science leads to atheism, but refuse to do so because they fear funding will be withheld.]
And who says scientists are "hiding" the implications? Surely you've heard of Dawkins, who is a scientist. Is he hiding the implications of science regarding religion? You've given us two quotes from Provine "“ he's a professor of ecology and evolutionary ecology. Isn't he a scientist too?
As for the rest of the scientific pack, I wish they would start pushing the news a little harder, but in a world where religious fanatics put a price on the head of novelists, hijack airliners and fly them into skyscrapers, cut people's heads off for belonging to the "wrong" religion, blow up trains in Spain and England and dictate who can and can't be nominated to the Supreme Court, I can't say that I really blame them for laying low.
This is nothing new, of course. I read a biography of Darwin several years ago that mentioned that either while Darwin was a student or just a few years before (I can't remember which), a student at his college was hanged for giving a speech advocating atheism. No wonder he waited twenty years before publishing his theory!
October 29th, 2005 at 12:50 am
[...] 10.29.05 The Five Commandments Posted in Evolution at 12:50 am by nemo Telic Thoughts cites Provine's views on the meaning of evolution. William Provine is the Charles A. Alexa [...]
Pingback by Darwiniana » The Five Commandments — October 29, 2005 @ 12:50 am
October 29th, 2005 at 6:56 am
Mike, thanks for featuring this topic. I can't post much right now because it's a weekend, but I want to point out a few basics before the discussion starts.
First of all, note that I said, "That's the message of science and accurate knowledge about the world in general…", not just "evolution". Or, as you say, "science leads to atheism". Johnson is very myopic in singling out evolution and ignoring the rest of science. I also include accurate information that we don't normally think of as scientific, such as voyages of discovery. You've been talking about Provine's quote, which only discusses evolution's contribution to the question of whether a supernatural intelligence exists, but I think he made a mistake in singling evolution out from the rest of science.
In general, I'd say that just about all of science, to one degree or another, points to the same conclusion: supernatural intelligence isn't needed to create and run a universe such as the one we live in, there is no good evidence that supernatural intelligences are operating on the universe now or in the past, and, borrowing a page from the ID play book, such supernatural intelligences would have to be extraordinarily complex and thus extraordinarily unlikely and nobody on either side of the argument has even a ghost of an idea of how any intelligent entity, natural or supernatural, could come into existence, except through evolution.
A second point is a bit more delicate. Mike Gene seems to think that we demon scientists (I'm not a scientist, by the way) are trying to hide the fact that the vast increase in knowledge we've acquired over the last four or five centuries indicates that any religion which requires a supernatural intelligence has got some very serious problems. He uses words like "mealy-mouthed" and "change the topic" to make it look like we're ashamed of this knowledge.
The real situation is that science did not set out to test the existence of God. Newton wasn't trying to disprove God when he discovered that some very simple rules will account for the solar system's motions mechanically, without invoking a supernatural intelligence. In fact, he did invoke such a god, but only to jigger things once in a while to keep things orderly and it later turned out that he wasn't needed for that, either. Wohler didn't set out to disprove god when he synthesized the organic compound urea in 1828, but that was the first big step that led to the death of vitalism and the realization that life is chemical and informational in nature and not at all supernatural. Hubble didn't set out to disprove the supernatural when he observed that galaxies were all rushing away from us, as if the universe was expanding, but that was the first step towards our modern knowledge of cosmology. This hasn't exactly explained the creation of the universe, but it show that the universe was incredibly simple when it began and suggests strongly that whatever created it was probably pretty simple too. No need for supernatural intelligence there, either. I doubt if Darwin set out to disprove God when he stepped on board the Beagle. He was, by all accounts and his own admission, a believer when he set sail, but a few years after he came back, he'd worked out the basics of how a natural, material process, one that could be observed in operation, could create the life we see today from a very simple organism. No supernatural intelligence required.
It was only when people began to put everything we've learned together and started comparing notes that the stark realization dawned: There doesn't seem to be anything for a supernatural intelligence to do! Want to make a universe like this? Just cram a huge amount of energy into a very tiny spot, make it obey a very few rules (possibly only one) as it expands and wait fourteen or fifteen billion years. Stars and planets? They'll condense out. No intelligence needed. Life? It's chemistry and information. It looks like that will start on its own too. No supernatural intelligence needed. Intelligence? It's so ubiquitous on earth now (think of the apes and dolphins, who are close to human intelligence, but also think of the chipmunks (and even the flies), who are equipped to make a living on their own AND produce the next generation, on their own without needing supernatural intelligence. Human intelligence is at one end of a continuum. Evolution accounts for them all - no supernatural intelligence needed. There's a lot we don't know, but what we do know strongly indicates that no supernatural intelligence is needed, now or in the past, to explain what we see in the universe around us.
Which is not necessarily good news to your average scientist. Especially the substantial minority that already believes in a supernatural intelligence. Even to those who don't, it's a shock to realize, once and for all, that eternal life looks much more like a wish than a fact and divine intervention with it. It's scary to realize that we are on our own. A lot of scientists just don't think of it. You can work on the nuts and bolts of your own field for a life time, do lots of productive work, and never confront the existence of God. Few want to talk about it. None of them go out knocking on your door, trying to convert you over to their point of view. Who wants to tell somebody they love that their hopes of ever seeing Aunt Rhody again are in vain? But anytime you DO think about it, there it is: no evidence that a supernatural intelligence is needed, no evidence that a supernatural intelligence is working in the world now or in the past and plenty of evidence that any supernatural intelligence worth talking about is so incredibly complex that it's equally incredibly unlikely and no known way to generate one.
Comment by DataDoc — October 29, 2005 @ 6:56 am
October 29th, 2005 at 7:05 am
Ah, I see that you're moderating postings to this thread. That's good!
Since it's probably going to be me against four or five opposing posters, how about accepting an opposing post and then waited until I've posted in reply before letting the next opposing post through? If that's possible with this software, I think it will make for a more productive discussion. I like being outnumbered, but I don't like being out shouted and when it's four or five to one against you, you quickly run out of time to give adequate replies to more than a fraction of the posts. I hate that because I do enjoy explaining how things work. (I'm a former teacher.)
Thank you.
Comment by DataDoc — October 29, 2005 @ 7:05 am
October 29th, 2005 at 8:43 am
I'm not sure why anyone thinks scientists should be taken seriously when they start talking about theology. Its kind of like taking lawyers seriosuly when they start talking about science. Wait, I forgot, the IDist movement was founded by Phillip Johnson. My bad.
Comment by Aagcobb — October 29, 2005 @ 8:43 am
October 29th, 2005 at 8:56 am
Hi DataDoc,
Actually, we don't moderate comments as such. Based on criteria I've yet to figure out, the software sometimes keep comments in moderation, where they'll sit until one of us reviews them. I always approve non-spam comments as soon as I see them, as I've just done with yours.
Making comments "trickle in" is AFAIK not possible with this software, unless we put every poster on moderation, causing us to spend all of our time reading and approving comments. So the discussants will just have to display patience and understanding when participating in this thread.
Comment by Krauze — October 29, 2005 @ 8:56 am
October 29th, 2005 at 9:03 am
Aacobb:
I'm not sure why anyone thinks scientists should be taken seriously when they start talking about theology.
Are only theologians allowed to talk about theology?
Aacobb:
Its kind of like taking lawyers seriosuly when they start talking about science.
Are only scientists allowed to discuss science?
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein
People should be taken seriously not because who they are or what profession they are in, but by what data they present. That is the reason I do not take evolutionary scientists seriously when they tell me it is scientific to say that all of life's diversity owes it collective common ancestry, via some blindwatchmaker-type process, to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms (that just happened to have the ability to imperfectly reproduce). All lip-service, no data.
Comment by Joe G — October 29, 2005 @ 9:03 am
October 29th, 2005 at 9:15 am
Why look at that, DataDoc. Aagcobb just brushes your and Provine's view aside without consideration, because he says Provine, and presumably you, aren't qualified to even be taken seriously on the topic. I wouldn't take that sitting down!
Comment by Deuce — October 29, 2005 @ 9:15 am
October 29th, 2005 at 9:48 am
DataDoc:
Johnson is very myopic in singling out evolution and ignoring the rest of science.
It's called focus- ya know "one thing at a time." Next will be physics and chemistry opening with Max Plamck:
"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this minute solar system of the atom together . . . . We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind."
The Privileged Planet will join Of Pandas and People in public school libraries across the world and be used as reference in Earth science classes.
DataDoc:
You've been talking about Provine's quote, which only discusses evolution's contribution to the question of whether a supernatural intelligence exists, but I think he made a mistake in singling evolution out from the rest of science.
In its broadest sense evolution refers to everything coming into existence and changing via some blindwatchmaker-type process. Life and its subsequent diversity are only specified subsets of the set called evolution- (abiogenesis is chemical evolution; life's diversity is biological evolution; we also have stellar evolution, etc.)
DataDoc:
In general, I'd say that just about all of science, to one degree or another, points to the same conclusion: supernatural intelligence isn't needed to create and run a universe such as the one we live in, there is no good evidence that supernatural intelligences are operating on the universe now or in the past, and, borrowing a page from the ID play book, such supernatural intelligences would have to be extraordinarily complex and thus extraordinarily unlikely and nobody on either side of the argument has even a ghost of an idea of how any intelligent entity, natural or supernatural, could come into existence, except through evolution.
We understand the story. We also understand it is substance free, ie a non-scientific story. Scientists may tell that story but they do not have the data that would make it a scientific story.
Max Planck came to his inference (see quote above) via years of scientific research.
DataDoc:
The real situation is that science did not set out to test the existence of God.
Science set out trying to understand (figure out) God's handy-work. God's existence was accepted by scientists and non-scientists alike. No tests required. Just tests that would allow us to understand it.
DataDoc:
Newton wasn't trying to disprove God when he discovered that some very simple rules will account for the solar system's motions mechanically, without invoking a supernatural intelligence.
Newton was one of the main scientists doing what I just said- attempting to understand God's handy-work.
DataDoc:
I doubt if Darwin set out to disprove God when he stepped on board the Beagle. He was, by all accounts and his own admission, a believer when he set sail, but a few years after he came back, he'd worked out the basics of how a natural, material process, one that could be observed in operation, could create the life we see today from a very simple organism. No supernatural intelligence required.
Obviously no data required either. I doubt Darwin would have proposed his "theory" if he knew what we do today.
It should also be noted that every scenario, even DataDoc's, turtles down to something non or "super" natural. There is no avoiding it.
DataDoc:
It was only when people began to put everything we've learned together and started comparing notes that the stark realization dawned: There doesn't seem to be anything for a supernatural intelligence to do!
Close your eyes, click your heels together and keep repeating that. However it should be noted that you can't provide any criteria for making such a determination as well as avoiding the fact that such a determination isn't even logically possible. IOW the ONLY way to make such a determination is to live in denial-
According to Aacobb you are blind.
Comment by Joe G — October 29, 2005 @ 9:48 am
October 29th, 2005 at 10:43 am
DataDoc,
I said nothing about any "demon scientist." As a scientist, you should not be fraudulently generating data like this. I simply drew from my experience with ID critics in cyberspace (and an ID critic is not necessarily a scientist) "“ when confronted with sentiments such as those shared by Provine, critics tend to do as I say. On the other hand, if you quote someone like Johnson saying essentially the same thing, critics shout and pound the table. Their objectivity is stunning.
Anyway, I have a few questions for you.
1. Were you raised as an atheist?
2. If science has concluded that there is no God, why do Eugenie Scott and various contributors to Pandas Thumb (for example) tell us science cannot making any judgments about the existence of God?
3. If science has concluded there is no God, then why do 40% of scientists believe in God?
4. Many in the public would think your "science has shown there is no God" argument to be dishonest given that 40% of scientists believe in God. Since these scientists are giving the public a false impression about science, should the majority of scientists start up a petition that declares they have found there is no God?
5. Since science has shown there is no God, shouldn't science teachers be teaching this in the classroom?
Comment by MikeGene — October 29, 2005 @ 10:43 am
October 29th, 2005 at 11:47 am
Special mention goes to PZ Myers, who managed to offer mealy-mouthed dismissals of his own pronouncements.
Comment by Krauze — October 29, 2005 @ 11:47 am
October 29th, 2005 at 2:21 pm
DataDoc:
That's one.
That's two. Since there are about 500,000 scientists, that's a whopping 0.0004%.
On the other hand, perhaps you hold to a crackpot position that is propped up by some paranoid notions. As a scientist, are you saying that your colleagues share your views about this. Or are you the odd eccentric in the club?
Do you have something more solid that some book you barely remember to base this on?
Comment by MikeGene — October 29, 2005 @ 2:21 pm
October 29th, 2005 at 7:00 pm
I think there's a good reason why scientists generally say science cannot prove that God doesn't exist. It's because it's not possible. If one postulates an all-powerful, all knowing, all-seeing deity, then obviously such a deity can produce any conceivable observation, and certainly can do it in a way that's undetectable to humans if it so chooses. So how would one go about proving God doesn't exist, given those starting assumptions? Surely no one is claiming that humans could detect God if God didn't want to be detected. And if one assumes, as many seem to, that religion is largely a matter of faith, God has the requisite motivation to hide His existence. After all, if it could be proven that God exists, then there would be no place for faith in religion.
That said, there's a pretty clear trend in humanity's attempts to explain the cosmos. 5,000 years ago, an explanation for virtually any observable phenomenon would involve an appeal to a deity. Why do rocks fall when you let go of them? How is it that birds can fly? What causes thunder and lightning? What causes the annual flood of the river?
But as time has gone by, and as humans have developed more robust and sophisticated tools for investigating the nature of experience, the number of phenomena that can only be explained by appeal to supernatural forces has inexorably declined. My belief, based on straightforward inductive reasoning, is that as time goes on, the number of phenomena which require an appeal to supernatural explanation will continue to decrease. Larger and larger areas of experience will become subsumed in the set of phenomena that can be explained by recourse to natural law and theory. The practice of science isn't even a thousand years old yet. What phenomena will still resist scientific inquiry ten thousand years from now?
None of which, of course, will disprove the existence of God. Presumably the final fall-back position will be that although God does not actively intervene in the universe, He must have authored the laws of nature (which is basically Gonzales and Richards' position). However, it seems to be the gathering consensus in the cosmological community that the universe is in fact infinite, has always existed, and that different regions of the universe have different values for the physical constants, and may even have different natural laws. (Trust me, I don't even begin to have the mathematical background to understand the various supports for these theses, and I doubt anyone on this board does, but it does seem to be the way the wind is blowing these days.) But if the universe is in fact infinite, has existed for all time, and the laws of nature are entirely contingent on one's position in the universe, then at that point it's going to be pretty hard to argue that there's anything left for an all-powerful deity to do. That certainly wouldn't be proof that God doesn't exist, but His existence would be unnecessary to explain anything about the universe.
Comment by ericmurphy — October 29, 2005 @ 7:00 pm
October 29th, 2005 at 9:30 pm
That said, there's a pretty clear trend in humanity's attempts to explain the cosmos. 5,000 years ago, an explanation for virtually any observable phenomenon would involve an appeal to a deity. Why do rocks fall when you let go of them? How is it that birds can fly? What causes thunder and lightning? What causes the annual flood of the river?
But as time has gone by, and as humans have developed more robust and sophisticated tools for investigating the nature of experience, the number of phenomena that can only be explained by appeal to supernatural forces has inexorably declined.
Maybe the reason that ancient peoples believed that the gods were responsible for many things was because aliens from a region of the universe that doesn't "operate by the same laws" as our own were therefore capable of traveling to the earth and performing miracles, as the ancient gods. So eventually, most ancient peoples came to the conclusion that many things that pretty much everything was the work of the gods. Beings that didn't operate by the laws of our part of the universe explains the slowing in the increase of human knowledge, yet also the mysterious roots of civilization. You see, I can make up a story too.
I know that your own story seems very obvious to you but it is based on Enlightenment myths that may have nothing to do with an accurate understanding of origins or the nature of Nature, for that matter. With the notion that some parts of the universe are governed by different laws you have just broken one of the tenets of science as we know it no matter how you surround or encode the notion within the language of mathematics. You see how easy it is to make use of to tell a story unlike the story that you believe in.
Note that the notion of an inevitable and ever increasing smothering of the miraculous into matter in motion may be incorrect, e.g.:
"”Eugene P. Wignei Winner of Nobel Prize, Physics, 1963 cf. (The Quantum Brain, By Jeffrey Satinover :107)
Besides, science leads to the conclusion not only that human knowledge is limited, but that it will always be limited:
(The Hidden Face of God
By Gerald Schroeder :18-19)
Note Gödel's incompleteness theorem, knowledge that is already encoded in the language of mathematics. At any rate, it would probably be a long time before you broke out of believing in Enlightenment myths about knowledge, if you were of a mind to question them.
Comment by mynym — October 29, 2005 @ 9:30 pm
October 29th, 2005 at 10:06 pm
ericmurphy:
I think there's a good reason why scientists generally say science cannot prove that God doesn't exist.
Everyone knows that science doesn't try to show a negative. Do you have a point?
ericmurphy:
After all, if it could be proven that God exists, then there would be no place for faith in religion.
That is false. It isn't the existence of God that requires faith. And there is plenty left over to have faith about- afterlife; attainment of a good afterlife; worship (methods). Look at religions today- are they all the same? No. Which means in even the face of them accepting God's existence as more than a proven fact the way each worships, etc. is different- because of faith.
ericmurphy:
Presumably the final fall-back position will be that although God does not actively intervene in the universe, He must have authored the laws of nature (which is basically Gonzales and Richards' position).
That is not basically their position. Their position is that the universe was designed for discovery- therefore it required observers placed in the right place(s) to do so. Also those "right places" would have many necessary factors that not only allow for observers but also give the best overall conditions from which to make (scientific) discoveries.
ericmurphy:
However, it seems to be the gathering consensus in the cosmological community that the universe is in fact infinite, has always existed, and that different regions of the universe have different values for the physical constants, and may even have different natural laws.
How many cosmologists hold that view? Could you please give us a link to some webpage that even mentions that.
Comment by Joe G — October 29, 2005 @ 10:06 pm
October 29th, 2005 at 10:22 pm
Mynmym:
I'm not sure what "story" you're talking about. I'm basically stating what appears to me to be a simple fact: man knows more about the workings of the universe now than he did 5,000 years ago. Do you disagree? If you're taking issue with my statement that with time, the number of phenomena that have lent themselves to explanation without recourse to the supernatural is decreasing, I'm afraid you're going to have to demonstrate where I'm wrong. I think I'm on pretty firm ground when I claim that scientific knowledge is increasing, not decreasing or remaining constant.
You say this as if I'm breaking this tenet. It's not me who's doing the breaking. Numerous cosmologists have proposed that the physical constants as we know them may be only locally invariant, i.e., within the observable universe. Keep in mind that the evidence seems to demonstrate that the observable universe is only part of the entire universe. If it turns out to be true that physical constants (or physical laws) vary in regions inaccessible to observation, then one scientific tenet will definitely bite the dust.
Miracles may be hard to accept for scientists, but they seem to be easy to accept for everyone else. I'm sure we've all heard about the price obtained for a cheese sandwich purportedly bearing the likeness of the Virgin Mary (personally, I thought it looked more like Marlene Dietrich).
Godel's incompleteness theorem and Heisenberg indeterminacy definitely put limits on any knowledge (not just human knowledge), but I'm not sure that means much. After all, I've already said that science cannot, even in principle, disprove the existence of God. But it seems that with time, the list of things God must have done gets smaller and smaller.
It seems strange to me that people on this blog often accuse me of being unable to "break out of believing" in something, when it's pretty clear that faith is an integral part of most western religions, and what is faith other than belief without evidence? Clearly you believe I am too "close-minded" to accept the existence of God, but that's not where I'm coming from at all.
It's not a matter of me "believing" there is no god. It's a matter of me "believing" that the evidence is not particularly compelling. I personally believe that the only intellectually-honest stance to take vis a vis the existence of God is agnosticism. One thing I'm pretty sure about, when it comes to myths about knowledge, is that it is not possible to know that God exists.
Comment by ericmurphy — October 29, 2005 @ 10:22 pm
October 29th, 2005 at 10:34 pm
ericmurphy said:
However, it seems to be the gathering consensus in the cosmological community that the universe is in fact infinite, has always existed, …
Has always existed? If the past was infinite you'd never get to today. If you can't get from 0 to infinity what makes you think you can get from infinity to 0?
Time/space had a beginning there can be no doubt. Something is eternal there can be no doubt. Matter, with it's atomic motion can not be eternal because motion invokes time.
Comment by Lurker — October 29, 2005 @ 10:34 pm
October 29th, 2005 at 10:48 pm
Lurker:
Without agreeing with your premise that if the universe extends back infinitely in time, you can never get to the present (I'm not sure how that follows)…we're talking about two different things. The observable universe almost certainly had a beginning in time. That's what you're talking about: the observable universe. That's not what I'm talking about.
Comment by ericmurphy — October 29, 2005 @ 10:48 pm
October 30th, 2005 at 1:23 am
Joe G:
"Life in the Universe," Steven Weinberg, Scientific American, October 1994, pg. 47
"The Self-Reproducing Inflationary Universe," Andrei Linde, Scientific American November 1994, pg. 48
"The String Theory Landscape," Raphael Bousso and Joseph Polchinski, Scientific American, October 2004, pg. 79.
"Parallel Universes," Max Tegmark, Scientific American, May 2003, pg. 41
Comment by ericmurphy — October 30, 2005 @ 1:23 am
October 30th, 2005 at 2:24 am
Ericmurphy,
If there's anything about an infinite series that we know, its that you can't traverse it, nor can you add to it. So how is that we find ourselves at today?
Comment by Dane Parker — October 30, 2005 @ 2:24 am
October 30th, 2005 at 3:27 am
ericmurphy said:
That's what you're talking about: the observable universe. That's not what I'm talking about.
Doesn't matter if you're talking about this universe or any of the assumed universes that preceed this one. As Dane Parker said above, you can't traverse an infinite series because that would take an infinite amount of time and steps. Review your calculus.
How do you avoid an infinite past? Either violate known physics and math or get rid of the time dimension. All of these are messy.
Comment by Lurker — October 30, 2005 @ 3:27 am
October 30th, 2005 at 9:14 am
Thanks Eric. I just finished downloading the articles and even found a more recent Linde submission (it looks like it expands on the first).
Are these 5 scientists really indicative of a "gathering consensus" For if they are then ID is much more than a "gathering consensus".
Comment by Joe G — October 30, 2005 @ 9:14 am
October 30th, 2005 at 10:08 am
Eric:
Arguing that the human mind has found it unnecessary to explain anything about the universe by invoking God's existence is not a terribly impressive argument. One problem with the atheist argument is that it deals only with a watered-down, lowest-common-denominator version of God. Yet since practically no one really subscribes to such a watered-down version of theism, the atheist ends up arguing against a straw man. For example, if you were to try to convince a Christian that God does not exist, then you will have to admit the entirety of Christian theology and experience onto the table.
Comment by MikeGene — October 30, 2005 @ 10:08 am
October 30th, 2005 at 10:32 am
DataDoc:
What is "worth having" is a subjective value judgment. As such, you are simply telling us about yourself, not reality. In your mind, what would reality look like if there was a God who was "worth having?"
Really? What is this "evidence?"
Does this explain why the leading voices for infanticide and eugenics tend to be atheistic?
Since you are an insignificant, meaningless little entity, who cares whether you have respect for certain other people. BTW, do I detect an animal rights activist?
I borrow from Richard Dawkins when thinking about free will "“ we have the ability to rebel against our selfish genes.
Comment by MikeGene — October 30, 2005 @ 10:32 am
October 30th, 2005 at 5:47 pm
If you won't censor opinions, how about restoring my comments that have been deleted? Acting on your profession of no censorship would go a long way toward establishing credibility.
An Chinese parable: "I cannot hear what you say. Your actions speak so loudly."
Comment by edarrell — October 30, 2005 @ 5:47 pm
October 30th, 2005 at 6:49 pm
edarrell,
Your comments weren't deleted, they were just reclassified under a different genus.
Comment by Lurker — October 30, 2005 @ 6:49 pm
October 30th, 2005 at 7:03 pm
Dane:
You can't add a number to infinity? Why not?
But as I said before, there is almost certainly a beginning to time in the observable portion of this universe. Nothing I've said denies the likely reality of the Big Bang. My point was that if there are different values of the physical constants in different regions of the universe (not the observable universe), this dispenses with the problems of a) initial conditions and b) fine tuning.
Lurker:
For answers to these questions, I suggest you read the articles I referenced above.
Joe G:
I didn't get the impression from reading the articles I referenced that these five scientists are the only ones espousing these views. Obviously I didn't conduct a poll of the cosmological community, but here's a quote from the Tegmark article:
Who knows; maybe Tegmark is speaking out of turn. But this sounds like he's talking about a consensus opinion to me.
Mike Gene:
Argument for what? I've already stated that it's impossible even in principle to demonstrate that God does not exist. On the other hand, if, say, ten thousand years hence, there's virtually nothing left about experience that cannot be explained by reference to natural law, then there's no compelling reason to believe He does exist. This isn't an argument; it's an observation.
Am I talking about a "watered-down" version of God? I'm talking about an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-seeing version of God. The versions of God I'm familiar with from Christianity, Islam, and Judaism seem to me to be much more "watered-down" than the God I'm talking about.
I'm not sure how this follows. Using my argument, i.e., if everything about experience can be explained by reference to natural law, then there is no need for God to exist (which is far different from saying God cannot exist), I don't think I need to admit anything from any theology onto the table.
I hope you're not going to argue that theists are inherently morally superior to atheists. History (even recent history) is replete with atrocities committed in the name of one god or another.
I never understood why it should be necessary for me to think that I'm important to God in order for me to live a moral life. I don't live a moral life because I'm afraid God will smite me if I don't, or because He won't love me if I don't, or because I'll blow my chances on winning the lottery and going to heaven if I don't. I live a moral life because I feel better about myself that way, and so I can look at myself in the mirror in the morning without wincing. Why is a belief in God deemed to be necessary if humans are to behave themselves?
Comment by ericmurphy — October 30, 2005 @ 7:03 pm
October 30th, 2005 at 7:55 pm
ericmurphy:
I never understood why it should be necessary for me to think that I'm important to God in order for me to live a moral life.
What is a "moral life" How do you know?
ericmurphy:
Why is a belief in God deemed to be necessary if humans are to behave themselves?
What does that mean?
The point of my questions is that would there be a "right" and "wrong"; "moral" and "immoral"; "good" and "evil", if it wasn't for religions?
If NDE is correct wouldn't it be "right" to let the "weak" die? Wouldn't it be "correct" for men to impregnate as many women as possible, and as many times as possible?
And killing, that should be OK too…
Comment by Joe G — October 30, 2005 @ 7:55 pm
October 30th, 2005 at 8:31 pm
Joe G:
The implication being that I would need to read some sort of religious text in order to get guidance into what sort of life I should lead? I don't think so. The so-called "Golden Rule" probably says about 95% of what it is useful or necessary to say about how to live a moral life. If I treat people the way I would like to be treated, doesn't that get me just about all the way there?
Nope. Would I want to be put to death merely because I'm weak? If I were a woman, would I want to be raped or otherwise sexually abused? Do I want to live in world desperately overpopulated?
Why would that be okay? Would I want to be killed? If I don't want to be killed, I can rationally assume that other people don't want to be killed either. I don't need to read some thousand-page religious text to understand that simple truth.
Joe, I don't believe God exists, and I certainly don't subscribe to any sort of organized religion. Neither do most of my friends. Does that mean we're all out there murdering, raping, bearing false witness, cheating on our taxes? No, it doesn't.
Somehow, I think it's better to not do bad things because you want to be a good person, for the sake of being a good person, and not because you're seeking to avoid eternal damnation.
Comment by ericmurphy — October 30, 2005 @ 8:31 pm
October 31st, 2005 at 12:45 am
Hi Eric
I think the point being made is that without God there is no objective right and wrong. You don't kill, cheat e.t.c because it feels bad but what about the one for whom it feels good?
The truth is under NDE morality and ethics are purely subjective there is no getting around this. In fact because you are not willing to bow to the alter of survival of the fittest, in your own life, you are an evolutionary enigma - you believe in it but are unwilling to follow its rules (is this the darwinian equivalent of hypocrisy? Just a thought).
Let me leave you with a question if I had a baby with Downs Syndrome and wanted to kill it because I desired a 'normal' healthy child that would successfully pass on my genes would I be wrong? Could I be wrong under a materialistic paradigm?
Comment by willo — October 31, 2005 @ 12:45 am
October 31st, 2005 at 1:38 am
willo:
I think that even with God there is still no objective right and wrong. Is it "wrong" to be gay? Is it "right" to kill in defense of the faith? Think of all the things that you or I would probably consider to be "wrong" that many religions insist are right, and vice versa. Since no one can plausibly claim to know the mind of God, any ethical guidance we can get from religion is most likely from human minds anyway.
Furthermore, many religious texts seem custom-designed to be interpreted virtually any way one wants to interpret them. Is your interpretation of the Bible the same as Pat Robertson's? Or Jerry Falwell's? Different religions often take diametrically-opposed positions on what is "right" and what is "wrong." How do you know which one you should agree with? Even within a religion, there are often violent disagreements as to the meaning of scripture.
And there have been plenty of religious people for whom killing, cheating, etc., have felt good, and who have done so despite the strictures of their faith. The Catholic Church's current difficulties with many of its priests would be a good example. I see precious little evidence that religious beliefs are effective in enforcing civilized behavior among the religious.
NDE is not a prescription for a successful society, any more than global general relativity is. One of the advantages humans have over evolution is that humans can actually anticipate the future, and plan accordingly. Humans can take actions that do not make sense from an evolutionary standpoint because they have free will (or at least the illusion of free will). Merely because something makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint doesn't mean it makes sense from a societal standpoint. Sure, you can make an evolutionary case for eugenics. Can you make an ethical case for it?
We don't base our society on the rules of chemistry. Why would we base our society on the rules of random mutation and natural selection? You're not talking about Darwinian evolution; you're talking about Social Darwinism.
Of course you would be, and if you did so, you'd be guilty of premeditated murder. Think about what I said previously. Can we assume that a child with Down Syndrome does not wish to be killed?
Here's a question for you: a woman has been in a coma for fifteen years. She has no higher brain function. Virtually her entire cerebral cortex has been replaced with cerebro-spinal fluid. There is no evidence that she is conscious, or has any awareness of her surroundings. What does your religion say about whether her life should be artificially prolonged or not? And before you answer, bear in mind that many deeply-religious people had exactly opposite views on what should be done.
Comment by ericmurphy — October 31, 2005 @ 1:38 am
October 31st, 2005 at 4:47 am
Mike, I think DataDoc raises some interesting points. Interesting in the way that it shows his ignorance or prejudice towards religion, Biblical Christianity in particular. What I read in his statements is just good old atheist propaganda. What should we make out of statements like: "…the Bible, which positively allows Southern style slavery…" I would very much like to know how DataDoc understands Biblical Hermenautics, surely he owes us explanation. I suggest that we do indeed engage in discussion only after people like DataDoc get basic understanding of Biblical Christianity, religion and philosophy in general.
Comment by inunison — October 31, 2005 @ 4:47 am
October 31st, 2005 at 7:28 am
KRAUZE, darn! I had hopes for an orderly conversation. It looks like the "big idea" of blogging is to write BBS software, but to only allow the owners to start topics. Oh well, back to the fray:
DEUCE, I'd read Aagcobb's first posting over a second time if I were you. I think you missed a joke. Pay close attention to the second line from the end.
JOE G: Max Plank wrote that a century ago. We know today that atoms are not little solar systems and they're held together by electrostatic attraction as mediated by quantum mechanics. I agree that "Privileged Planet" will take its rightful place beside "Of Pandas and People" and some of Immanuel Velikovsky's works.
We're using "evolution" to mean Darwinian evolution here. You're running perilously close to the equivocaton fallacy by linking the term to stellar evolution. It does fit chemical evolution, however, if the chemicals are self-reproducing.
I don't think you do understand my story. I'm saying that we are now in a position to look at the world for traces of any supernatural intelligences and those indications aren't there. The world appears to operate just fine on purely natural laws. It also appears to have been simple enough at the beginning not to need an intelligent designer then either.
You do make an important point that I want to emphasize: "God's existence was accepted by scientists and non-scientists alike." That's right, it wasn't a bunch of atheists looking to shore up their philosophical position who destroyed the case for God, it was largely believers who went looking for signs of God's handiwork and instead found a world that ran itself just fine by natural, materialistic means, and had no need for any gods.
"It should also be noted that every scenario, even DataDoc's, turtles down to something non or "super" natural. There is no avoiding it."
I don't think you've thought this statement through. I'm not too worried about "turtling down" to anything. I'm pointing out that if you examine the world as it is, just the part we can examine, you'll notice that there's not much work for a supernatural intelligence to do. No turtling down necessary. You might need a turtle for the beginning of this universe, but the universe was so dirt simple at that time that a non-intelligent cause is much more likely than an SI. Actually, come to think of it, dirt is quite complex compared to the initial universe.
"Close your eyes, click your heels together and keep repeating that. However it should be noted that you can't provide any criteria for making such a determination as well as avoiding the fact that such a determination isn't even logically possible."
You're saying that science can't make a determination that the universe appears to run itself through natural processes? Then what in the world have those scientists been doing for the last four centuries? Back to the books with you!
MIKE GENE: If you're going to raise Big Questions, you should at least understand what you're asking. Science has NOT proven there is no God. As Eric Murphy says, that's impossible. Part of the definition of God is that he's undetectable unless he wants to be detected. What science HAS discovered is that there's no trace of any Supernatural Intelligence at work in the observable universe. There could still be one out there, carefully hiding himself and his actions from all observers, but 1:Who cares about a "god" like that? and 2:Why think there's a Supernatural Intelligence out there at all if there's no evidence for him? Why not posit the existence of a purple ape with arthritis if you want to speculate on undetectable creatures? A purple ape with arthritis is substantially less unlikely than a Supernatural Intelligence because he's less complex and therefore he's more likely to exist. Or are you just going on wishful thinking here? Do you say there IS a God because you WANT a God?
Comment by DataDoc — October 31, 2005 @ 7:28 am
October 31st, 2005 at 7:29 am
MIKE GENE: Answering some of your questions:
1: My father belonged to the General Association of Regular Baptists, a very tiny fundamentalist sect. I have a preacher and a preacher's wife amongst my cousins on that side of my family, as well as a passel of deacons and choir members. My mother was a Missouri Synod Lutheran. Sometime around first grade we stopped alternating between those two churches and joined the only other protestant church in our small town, which was Congregationalist. Sometime later, they merged with another church and became the United Church of Christ.
What's your religous background? I used to think that you were into ID for secular reasons, but after reading you for a while and seeing your hatred for certain well known and articulate scientists and your evident hatred for people who don't think we should torture animals, and now your outrage at anybody who thinks God might be MIA, I've changed my mind. I'm beginning to think that you see science as the most serious threat to your religion and you're probably right if you do.
2: Science has not concluded there is no God. Science HAS concluded that if there is a God, there should be some specific traces of him and after about four hundred years of looking, the results to date are zip. I doubt if Eugenie Scott or most of the PT contributers have thought all of this through. Or maybe they're being polite to you. Or maybe they read their newspapers and see what religious types do to those who threaten their faith. Or maybe she just doesn't want to tell her mother that she's never going to see Aunt Hattie again. Woud you tell us why don't you take out ads in the Weekly Reader telling schoolchildren that there is no Santa Claus? Is it just that you don't mind being condoning a lie? Or can you think of one or two better reasons than that to keep your silence.
3: See answer to 2.
4: See answer to 2, particularly this part: Science has not concluded there is no God.
5: I think it would be a very good idea if we started teaching the facts in the classroom: in the material universe that we can observe, we see no traces of God and what we do see does not look like it was the work of an intelligent anything. But I don't think we will ever have such honesty while the religious right is calling the shots in the White House.
Comment by DataDoc — October 31, 2005 @ 7:29 am
October 31st, 2005 at 7:29 am
ERICMURPHY: You got it right. I disagree about the faith, though. I think the average religious person would be delighted to find some objective proof of their god's existence. It's the fact that they've tried many, many times and failed every time that makes them disparage evidence and trumpet the need for faith. They have nothing else.
MYNYM: If aliens from a part of the universe with different laws moved here, their bodies wouldn't work under our laws and they would die. Also, I don't think that ericmurphy is relying on enlightenment thinking and neither am I. We're saying that some evidence that should point to God points instead to ordinary nature. In fact, I'm saying that ALL of the evidence that should point to God points to material processes. That's pretty much everyday science there, not enlightenment thinking.
This same LACK of evidence we point to means we don't have to have ALL concievable knowledge. To conclude that God is MIA, it's enough to look at the evidence that SHOULD be there if God really exists. The material evidence that we DO find instead accounts for the universe's operation without recourse to the supernatural and THAT leads to the conclusion that there is no God.
JOE G: Good point about religions being different. That's exactly what you would expect if there is no God and religions are entirely man made.
ERICMURPHY: "Numerous cosmologists have proposed that the physical constants as we know them may be only locally invariant, i.e., within the observable universe." Check! Also, it's not just cosmologists who say the physical constants are changing. Our own Salvador Cordova claims that C is decaying at an amazing rate.
JOE G: "What is a "moral life"? How do you know?"
Simple, I just looked in the Bible, where I saw that I can own slaves, so long as I purchase them from foreigners or captured them in war. I saw that I also owned the children produced by any slaves that I might own and that I could split up slave families at my pleasure. Then I noted that I could have multiple wives, which was nice at first, till they got old and started to nag. But then I learned that God had actually ordered the massacre of several tribes that weren't Jewish enough for His taste and that he also explictly ordered that ALL of those people be murdered, specifically including the women and children. Then I read the part of the Bible where Saul really, really, really displeased God by killing all the foreign tribesman, as God had commanded, but the reprobate kept the cattle for himself and his men when he was ordered to kill them too!!
Unfortunately, after putting these moral principles into practice, I am now writing from a maximum security prison, EVEN THOUGH I KILLED THE CATTLE TOO!! It just shows that the world is out to destroy decent, moral Christians who strive to do God's will as outlined in God's holy book!
JOE G: "If NDE is correct wouldn't it be "right" to let the "weak" die? Wouldn't it be "correct" for men to impregnate as many women as possible, and as many times as possible?"
You're making a double mistake here. The first mistake is called the "Naturalistic Fallacy" which assumes that whatever happens in nature must be moral. Since nature is a charnal house, this cannot be true.
Your second mistake is misunderstanding Darwin. He didn't say, "Survival of the strongest" or "Survival of the nastiest" or "Survival of those who have the most children." He said, "Survival of the fittest." If a woman is better at nursing and protecting her children than other woman, she's the fittest of the bunch. If a man is better at protecting his children from predators than the rest of the men, he's the fittest. Don't you agree that it would be "right" to let the better mothers and better fathers survive? If not, could you please justify your belief?
Comment by DataDoc — October 31, 2005 @ 7:29 am
October 31st, 2005 at 7:44 am
Eric:
"I think that even with God there is still no objective right and wrong".
I think you're mistaken here, you make an argument in the negative based on the assumption that we could never know what this right and wrong could be, thanks to disagreements different religions e.t.c.
This goes to our knowledge of God's law but not his existence, if there are to be objective morals then there has to be a God. Whether we can then know what God's will is, well we can argue about that till the cows come home.
So is it wrong to be gay, defend your faith e.t.c e.t.c? If there is a God oneday we will find out, that's the whole idea behind objective morals.
Now in the defence of your own moral position you said, "we don't base our society on the rules of chemistry why would we base our society on the rules of random mutation and natural selection".
Good question so let me ask you why have people tried (social darwinism)? Let me suggest the reason is because NDE speaks directly to what it means to be human. Theists say we have purpose significance accountability. NDE says bollocks we're a cosmic accident - glorified apes on the way to being something else, human significance is illusorary.
And because of this reality who cares about the feelings of my Downs Syndrome infant, taking into account others feelings is a nice idea of yours but why do I have to share it? As a new born he is to young to fear death anyway! Yes it would be premeditated murder but so is euthanasia and based on your last question I assume you're a supporter at some level. And sure its against the law but now's not the time to lean on a bunch of laws founded on an illusorary God.
To your question can you make an ethical case for eugenics under NDE? Of course you can because the greatest good under NDE switches from sanctity of life to quality of life.
This is demonstrated by your last question to me, is it wrong to prolong a person in such a terrible state? Certainly it is wrong if the greatest good is quality of life, but if the greatest good is sanctity of life well not so fast.
Comment by willo — October 31, 2005 @ 7:44 am
October 31st, 2005 at 9:30 am
I never understood why it should be necessary for me to think that I'm important to God in order for me to live a moral life.
What is a "moral life"? How do you know?
ericmurphy:
The implication being that I would need to read some sort of religious text in order to get guidance into what sort of life I should lead? I don't think so. The so-called "Golden Rule" probably says about 95% of what it is useful or necessary to say about how to live a moral life. If I treat people the way I would like to be treated, doesn't that get me just about all the way there?
What "golden rule" How did it become a "golden rule"
If NDE is correct wouldn't it be "right" to let the "weak" die? Wouldn't it be "correct" for men to impregnate as many women as possible, and as many times as possible?
ericmurphy:
Nope. Would I want to be put to death merely because I'm weak?
That is not the point. The point is that we should just let the weak die as opposed to offeribg them assistance. Offering assistance would mean that the weak could propogate and dilute the gene pool.
ericmurphy:
If I were a woman, would I want to be raped or otherwise sexually abused? Do I want to live in world desperately overpopulated?
That has nothing to do with what I posted. Also we know that population sizes remain in check due to resources.
And killing, that should be OK too"¦
ericmurphy:
Why would that be okay?
In the NDE scenario it wouldn't be "wrong" that's for sure.
ericmurphy:
Would I want to be killed? If I don't want to be killed, I can rationally assume that other people don't want to be killed either. I don't need to read some thousand-page religious text to understand that simple truth.
Did the cow on your plate want to be killed? How about the pig or bird? Ya see in the NDE scenario all are equal. Also it is not that you want to be killed, it is that it would be OK to killl someone, and consume them if you so chose.
ericmurphy:
Joe, I don't believe God exists, and I certainly don't subscribe to any sort of organized religion. Neither do most of my friends. Does that mean we're all out there murdering, raping, bearing false witness, cheating on our taxes? No, it doesn't.
That misses my point entirely. My point is all those things are OK under the NDE scenario. The ONLY reason people think those things are not OK is religion. And it doesn't matter if you are religious. It is a fact that religions have affected the general populations thinking and gave us "right" from "wrong".
ericmurphy:
Somehow, I think it's better to not do bad things because you want to be a good person, for the sake of being a good person, and not because you're seeking to avoid eternal damnation.
But who says what is "good" or "bad" To me it is bad to kill cows and consume them.
Comment by Joe G — October 31, 2005 @ 9:30 am
October 31st, 2005 at 9:47 am
DataDoc:
I'm pointing out that if you examine the world as it is, just the part we can examine, you'll notice that there's not much work for a supernatural intelligence to do.
That is because the work is already done.
DataDoc:
It also appears to have been simple enough at the beginning not to need an intelligent designer then either.
Really? Then tell us how the laws that govern nature came about via unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes. Then show us how life arose from non-living matter by similar blindwatchmaker processes.
If you can't do that you have more faith than religious people (in thinking that either could).
"If NDE is correct wouldn't it be "right" to let the "weak" die? Wouldn't it be "correct" for men to impregnate as many women as possible, and as many times as possible?"
DataDoc:
You're making a double mistake here.
That yopu say so tells me that I am correct.
DataDoc:
The first mistake is called the "Naturalistic Fallacy" which assumes that whatever happens in nature must be moral. Since nature is a charnal house, this cannot be true.
You wiffed on that one. My point is there isn't any morality- that is in the NDE scenario.
DataDoc:
Your second mistake is misunderstanding Darwin.
I have not done so in this life.
DataDoc:
He didn't say, "Survival of the strongest" or "Survival of the nastiest" or "Survival of those who have the most children." He said, "Survival of the fittest."
LoL!!! The "fittest" are those who produce the most offspring!
DataDoc:
If a woman is better at nursing and protecting her children than other woman, she's the fittest of the bunch.
That is false. The women who produces the most offspring would be the fittest in NDE terms.
One thing is for sure I will take my knowledge of NDE and Darwin over yours any and every day.
DataDoc:
Science HAS concluded that if there is a God, there should be some specific traces of him and after about four hundred years of looking, the results to date are zip.
That is false. Scientists and non-scientists have found plenty of evidence for "God". Newton understood that, as did Galieo, Copernicus, Pasteur, and many, many others.
What we haven't found evidemce for is blindwatchmaker type processes being able to account for what we do observe.
Comment by Joe G — October 31, 2005 @ 9:47 am
October 31st, 2005 at 10:57 am
ericmurphy says But if the universe is in fact infinite, has existed for all time, and the laws of nature are entirely contingent on one's position in the universe, then at that point it's going to be pretty hard to argue that there's anything left for an all-powerful deity to do. That certainly wouldn't be proof that God doesn't exist, but His existence would be unnecessary to explain anything about the universe.
Except why an infinite universe even exists, instead of nothing. Frankly, I'd expect an infinite God to created an infinite universe.
Comment by Aagcobb — October 31, 2005 @ 10:57 am
October 31st, 2005 at 1:43 pm
What evidence are we supposed to expect if there were a God? After all, I'm under the impression that there was evidence for the Resurrection of Christ. And then there is the virtually miraculous survival of early Christianity…. and then there is more of course. If I am a Christian, then perhaps DataDoc could explain what evidence I am lacking?
Comment by Dane Parker — October 31, 2005 @ 1:43 pm
October 31st, 2005 at 2:14 pm
willo:
Well, if we can't know what these "objective" rights and wrongs are, due to our inability to divine the mind of God, then how does the existence of God clarify right and wrong for us? Since the argument here seems to be that it's the existence of God that clarifies what is right and wrong, then our inability to determine what God thinks is right and wrong is kind of a major stumbling block to that argument, isn't it? And as for the existence of God, I've already stated that it's impossible to prove one way or another whether He exists.
What if we discover that God exists, and God says it's wrong to be gay? Should we kill all the gay people? What if God wants us to kill in defense of the faith? Should we go ahead and do it? What if God's ideas about right and wrong differ from what most people think? As DataDoc has pointed out, the Bible is replete with stories of God ordering hits on people who displeased him (I often wondered why God didn't just smite them himself). Should we go ahead and carry out God's will, even if it goes against everything we think we know? Speaking for myself, I don't care whether God thinks it's right or wrong for people to be gay. It's not going to change my attitude towards gay people. And if it is wrong for people to be gay, doesn't God have some explaining to do? It doesn't take long to get mired in theodicy if you believe God is the source of right and wrong.
People have used "social darwinism," i.e., their misinterpretation of Darwin, to justify behavior they were already engaged in. People we being cruel, evil, and antisocial long before the Theory of Evolution existed.
I believe human significance is illusory. The entire solar system could disappear in an instant, and no one would even notice. Does this belief on my part lead to antisocial behavior? No. Many people find solace in the idea that they are important in the universal scheme of things. I don't. Does that make me a bad person?
Well, this idea of yours that religion should keep people from doing bad things is nice, but it doesn't seem to work very well in practice. Frankly, I find it mildly appalling to think that the main reason people aren't killing each other is because they don't want to make God angry by doing so. It seems to me that if humans are going to live in large numbers, in close proximity to each other, the ability to not kill each other would seem to have a strong evolutionary selective advantage. So would feelings of compassion, empathy, etc. I have to say, I have more confidence in things like that working than in fear of divine retribution working, and I think history will bear me out as to which is a better way of avoiding bloodshed.
My question was not, can you make an ethical case for eugenics under NDE. My question was, can you make an ethical case for eugenics, period. As I pointed out, NDE is not a prescription for social interactions any more than general relativity or quantum physics is. As DataDoc pointed out, you can't appeal to the "naturalness" of a set of behaviors to justify them on ethical grounds. Nature is red in tooth and claw, and if society were based purely on natural law, we'd all be extinct by now. Which leads back to my point about the selective advantage conferred on empathy, compassion, etc.
But my point was that religious beliefs provide essentially no guidance as to what should have been done in a case like this. Plenty of religious people believed it was a cruelty to artificially prolong the life of someone in such a state, and plenty of other religious people believed exactly the opposite.
Comment by ericmurphy — October 31, 2005 @ 2:14 pm
October 31st, 2005 at 2:17 pm
Joe G:
Joe G:
But my point is that you can't use NDE as a prescription for society! And in my view, you can't use religion as a prescription for society either. Some of the most repressive regimes on the planet are religiously based.
Who cares if those things are okay under NDE? They're okay under general relativity, they're okay under statistical mechanics, they're okay under quantum physics, and they're okay under number theory too. So what exactly is your point? That NDE is not a good prescription for society? I've already said that.
And it's entirely untrue that people think those things are not okay solely because of religion. As I've pointed out numerous times, I'm not religious, I don't believe God exists, and I wasn't raised religiously. I personally think religion causes more harm than good. And yet I believe all of those things are not okay. What is your explanation for that?
You're proving my point to me. Religion is simply not a reliable source for information on what is objectively "right" and what is objectively "wrong." Some religions ban the eating of pigs, and some ban the eating of fish of Fridays. Does that make either of these things objectively right or wrong? It appears to me that, religion or not, it still boils down to a matter of subjective opinion.
Comment by ericmurphy — October 31, 2005 @ 2:17 pm
October 31st, 2005 at 2:19 pm
Aagcobb:
There are probably infinitely many ways for an infinite universe to exist. There's only one way for nothing to exist. Which is more probable? Do we need God to explain extremely probable events?
Comment by ericmurphy — October 31, 2005 @ 2:19 pm
October 31st, 2005 at 2:26 pm
Ericmurphy,
You can't add to an infinite, because you cannot to traverse it to add to it.
Comment by Dane Parker — October 31, 2005 @ 2:26 pm
October 31st, 2005 at 2:34 pm
ericmurphy:
But my point is that you can't use NDE as a prescription for society!
I wasn't doing that. But somehow human "society" has placed values on "right" and "wrong".
IOW saying you are a moral person is meaningless unless we have a valid reference.
ericmurphy:
And it's entirely untrue that people think those things are not okay solely because of religion. As I've pointed out numerous times, I'm not religious, I don't believe God exists, and I wasn't raised religiously. I personally think religion causes more harm than good. And yet I believe all of those things are not okay. What is your explanation for that?
You are the product of a society which was founded on religious tenets. IOW if the Earth never knew of religions we would live in a world in which what is now considered "wrong" wouldn't be.
IOW how do you know that it is wrong for someone to impregnate as many women as possible as many times as possible? How do you know it is wrong to take whatever you want?
Comment by Joe G — October 31, 2005 @ 2:34 pm
October 31st, 2005 at 2:39 pm
Dane:
You can't add to an infinite, because you cannot to traverse it to add to it.
You mean all this time I have been telling my wife that I love her infinity plus 1, it was meaningless?
Comment by Joe G — October 31, 2005 @ 2:39 pm
October 31st, 2005 at 2:53 pm
Joe G:
And my claim is that if human society hadn't found some way to constrain human behavior, it would have been a lot less successful as a species. In my view, there are evolutionary advantages to a belief in God (of course, there are disadvantages too, and in the long run it's probably close to a wash — but natural selection can work on very, very slight advantages). That certainly doesn't mean God actually exists.
We do have a valid reference. Treat others as you would want them to treat you. Such a reference does not depend in any way on any religious belief whatsoever. And surely such a simple moral code does not require all the extraneous material crufting up most religions. Application of such a simple rule does not require going to confession every Saturday, it doesn't require reading the Torah, and it doesn't require praying to Mecca.
I know it's wrong by applying a very simple, basic rule. It really is as simple as that. I don't need to read the Bible, I don't need to study Neodarwinian Evolution, and I don't need to look for the ultimate cause for the existence of the universe, just to learn how to live a moral life.
Comment by ericmurphy — October 31, 2005 @ 2:53 pm
October 31st, 2005 at 5:10 pm
Hi Eric:
"its impossible to prove one way or the other whether he (God) exists"
Its also impossible to know if we popped up from the slime with no help. So one makes a faith decision either way. Look I could make a case for God and objective morals but like I said we will argue about that till the cows come home based on our two different starting points. It's true things are messy and there is still evil but we've existed up until this point and done reasonably well not based on a belief in a materialistic universe. But the fact that you are morally outraged by our many slip ups is curious based on your reductionistic worldview.
You might call social darwinism a misinterpretation but isn't it merely taking it to its logical conclusion. It is "prescriptive" for the animal kingdom so why not us. "People were being cruel and evil and cruel long before the theory of evolution existed" Heh! get your own honey smacks, these are theistic categories - survival of the fittest my friend.
"I believe life is illusionary… does this make me a bad person"
I'm not sure you tell me what a bad person is and I'll let you know.
"nature is red in tooth and claw, and if society were based purely on natural law, we'd all be extinct by now".
Eric do you believe in NDE or not? If you do that is a ridiculous statement we wouldn't be extinct we would be more highly evolved!
"It seems to me that if humans are going to live in large numbers, in close proximity to each other, the ability to not kill each other would seem to have a strong evolutionary selective advantage".
Again did I hear you right? If that is true what about every other living thing on the planet that live in close proximity and kill their weak as well as having them popped off by other critters? What is the strong evolutionary selective advantage in allowing my DS child to live? There is none! Empathy, compassion and the like is unique to humanity and this is an argument for a human soul not NDE.
"Religious belief provides essentally no guidance as to what should have been done in a case like this".
"I'll give you this you chose your test case extremely carefully. If we were talking about voluntary active active euthanasia or abortion you'd have closer to the consensus your after. But this situation revolved around whether this was a case of involuntary passive euthanasia (turning off a life support) or involuntary active (putting down someone who is deemed not to have quality of life).
Which one was it? Religious people struggled mightly with this, which perplexed greatly the non religious folk because of their commitment to quality of life and a rejection of sanctity of life.
Comment by willo — October 31, 2005 @ 5:10 pm
October 31st, 2005 at 6:03 pm
willo:
Again, you're assuming that NDE is a prescription for human society. It is not, any more than any other scientific theory is. I cannot understand why it's so difficult to see this.
No they're not. They're human categories. I don't need to believe in god to know cruel and evil and antisocial when I see it. Just because the universe is impersonal doesn't mean I have to be impersonal. Are you claiming that because I don't believe in a supreme being, I'm incapable of love, or compassion, or empathy, just because I don't believe those concepts are not applicable to the universe at large?
I can tell you what a bad person is. It's someone who doesn't treat others the way he or she would like to be treated. And before you say, well, what if he or she likes to be tortured, or stolen from, or otherwise abused, I'll say that there's a consensus as to how people like to be treated, and such consenus is not dependent on a belief in God. I don't have to believe in God to have some concept of how people in general like to be treated.
The remainder of your argument is basically a restatement of what you've said before: NDE is not a good prescription for a just and compassionate society. I agree with you. But that doesn't make NDE wrong, or immoral, and it doesn't make a religiously-based society any better of an idea. The laws of physics allow for the existence of handguns. Does that mean the laws of physics lead one logically to the conclusion that people should be shot?
I didn't pick it carefully at all. What's the religious consensus on the death penalty? Abortion? There are plenty of ethical situations where religion is not an accurate guide to what is right and wrong. Plenty of religious people are okay with legalized abortion, and plenty of completely different religious people are okay with the death penalty. Same thing with euthanasia. You don't have to be an atheist to believe someone should have the right to decide when to end their own suffering from a terminal disease.
We'