The Stuff of Dreams – Predictions…from the other side
by chunkdz
Richard Dawkins, in an editorial for the secular humanist publication "Free Inquiry", once famously asked:
“What has 'theology' ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has 'theology' ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious?”
I’m sure he meant the question rhetorically, but I have an answer for him all the same.
The following is a true story.
Last year a good friend of our family, Donna, was awoken by three dreams in a single night. In each of the dreams God told her that she had cancer. She was only 35, in good health, no symptoms, and no family history. She was skeptical at first, but open minded to the idea of divine revelation. Three warnings in one night proved motivating, and she decided to get checked out. The doctors discovered a small, non-encapsulated, highly aggressive tumor in her breast. Being spidery rather than lumpy, the tumor was not detectable by manual exam, but could only be discovered by mammogram. The tumor was removed surgically, with precautionary radiation treatments. The doctors said that this was a particularly aggressive and deadly variety of breast cancer, (more common among younger patients) and would likely have spread to lethal proportions within a year. They agreed that had our friend not come in when she did, she might well have died, or at least been in the fight of her life.
Dreams provide an interesting playground for various worldviews to interact. Dreams are not physical – they are metaphysical. Materialism normally eschews the metaphysical. Yet science, predicated on materialism, devotes an entire branch (oneirology) to their study. Science is even able to make modest predictions about dreams. (Do you like to eat deep fried jalapeno poppers and watch scary movies before bedtime? You might have nightmares).
But what do you do when the prediction comes from within the metaphysical realm? Would a materialistic worldview entail that a subject should heed the warning of a metaphysical entity in a dream? Science becomes rather impotent when the experiment is not replicatable, not inducible, and the result is not measurable. Donna heeded the warning not because of any scientific study, or any empirical measurement, or any statistical data or material evidence. It was the worldview described under systematic theology – informed by theologians studying historical divine revelation through the millennia and every major civilization – that led her to overcome her skepticism.
So to the question,
“When has 'theology' ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious?”
professor Dawkins has his answer. Without a theological viewpoint, our friend Donna would have had no reason to heed the warning, and thus have her life saved. Her dream would otherwise just have been one more scary dream attributed, perhaps, to spicy beef tacos.
(And by the way, 18 months later, she is doing fine, thank God.)
December 1st, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Nice anecdote. And how often do people dream they have cancer and it turns out to be false? Did God lie to them?
Comment by Raevmo — December 1, 2008 @ 2:07 pm
December 1st, 2008 at 2:09 pm
This is not a good sign. I'm not sure what this means; I'm not sure how it's relevant; yet still, it's obviously nothing but a boldly stated yet entirely unjustified assertion.
Another way to put this is that if the cause and effect relation is not reliable, science cannot confirm it.
This is not really a good thing to bring up when you're presenting an anecdotal argument. Even if this one case supported a counter claim — and I'll discuss below why it doesn't seem to to me — it's still just one data point, not a demonstration.
First, I apologize for not being deeply religious, so you'll have to explain to me what theology says about dream interpretation. Most of us have dreams every night, some of them very scary, but I am unaware of how theology tells us which to take seriously or how to interpret them. If I had a dream that a doctor, rather than God, told me I had cancer, and it induced me to get checked out, would that also be attributed to theology?
I'm prepared to seriously consider your answer, but I'm afraid I cannot see from your anecdote exactly what you consider theology saying here that's demonstrably true yet not obvious. Could you state the theological statement in question explicitly?
Comment by don provan — December 1, 2008 @ 2:09 pm
December 1st, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Raevmo,
Don't know. Do you?
Comment by chunkdz — December 1, 2008 @ 2:33 pm
December 1st, 2008 at 3:04 pm
chunkdz:
No, I don't. Might be worth checking out.
Comment by Raevmo — December 1, 2008 @ 3:04 pm
December 1st, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Or more simply, there are limitations to empirical approaches.
Comment by Bradford — December 1, 2008 @ 3:26 pm
December 1st, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Very true. I apologize for not realizing we all didn't consider that obvious. In this context, of course, "demonstrably true" brings this conversation entirely within those limits.
Comment by don provan — December 1, 2008 @ 3:46 pm
December 1st, 2008 at 3:52 pm
I don't. It's starting to look like this isn't a good example for supporting a theological claim, then, since you do not know if there is a much simpler explanation such as coincidence.
Comment by don provan — December 1, 2008 @ 3:52 pm
December 1st, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Provan,
It just means dreams are not physical. They transcend physical observation.
Why? I am not making a scientific claim.
I think you are reading way more into this than necessary. I am simply presenting a single instance as an answer to a question.
It's not so much what theology teaches about dream interpretation as what theology teaches about divine revelation. Theology takes this subject seriously and cites many examples throughout history where divine revelation has proven true. Dawkins, on the other hand, dismisses the divine as some kind of delusion or 'mind virus' – not something to be taken seriously.
Interesting but irrelevant. Neither theologians nor Dawkins question the existence of doctors. But it would still be a heck of a lucky prediction, no?
Theology takes the subject of divine revelation seriously. My friend, informed by theology, took her divine revelation seriously and is alive to tell the story because of it. The theological viewpoint is vindicated by the fact that God made a prediction that is demonstrably true, and was not obvious.
Comment by chunkdz — December 1, 2008 @ 4:03 pm
December 1st, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Provan,
I never ruled out coincidence. But without statistical data I'd be reluctant to make that claim.
On it's face, however, it appears as if my friend was warned by God in a dream that she had cancer, and this, though not obvious, turned out to be demonstrably true.
Comment by chunkdz — December 1, 2008 @ 4:09 pm
December 1st, 2008 at 4:57 pm
OK. That makes it not a demonstration, so not an answer to Dawkins's question.
I'm very happy about that, of course, but Dawkins didn't ask for anything remotely like this, so the demonstration isn't particularly interesting in the context of answering Dawkins's question.
Comment by don provan — December 1, 2008 @ 4:57 pm
December 1st, 2008 at 5:10 pm
The question was, "When has 'theology' ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious?” I have to read into any answer that what is being presented is an example of something theology said and also something that is demonstrably true. You do understand that one example is not a demonstration, I hope.
If you are suggesting that theology says, "divine revelation is true", then it's demonstrably false: we both know this even before we locate someone that had a similar dream, but had no cancer. If you are suggesting that theology says, "divine revelation can sometimes be true," then it is obvious. Either way, it doesn't answer Dawkins's question.
Exactly as lucky as your friend's. But I don't use it as a demonstration of some theological claim involving doctors, because that wouldn't make any sense.
Comment by don provan — December 1, 2008 @ 5:10 pm
December 1st, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Lol! So it's "Dawkins of the Gaps" then? My example doesn't count unless I can disprove every other explanation?? Get real.
Comment by chunkdz — December 1, 2008 @ 5:14 pm
December 1st, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Provan,
I suggested that systematic theology takes the question of divine revelation seriously, whereas Dawkins does not. In my friend's case it was a life and death distinction.
Comment by chunkdz — December 1, 2008 @ 5:33 pm
December 1st, 2008 at 5:38 pm
So the standard for usefulness is 'demonstrably true and not obvious'? Down goes the lion's share of the philosophy departments, a fair chunk of cosmological discourse, quite a lot of the history departments (natural history as well), and so on.
Good God, Brights are entertaining.
Comment by nullasalus — December 1, 2008 @ 5:38 pm
December 1st, 2008 at 5:48 pm
I don't understand. Dawkins asked a question. You didn't answer it. What other standard are you expecting to be held to other than the one Dawkins required?
You said, "I have an answer for him all the same." I mistook that to mean that you had an answer for him. My bad.
When you say, "takes the question seriously", you really mean "takes the answer for granted." I'm sure Dawkins takes divine revelation quite seriously, he just considers it false because no one has shown it to be demonstrably true. And we might argue that he should be more neutral about it, except we both know that countless divine revelations have not panned out, so he has plenty of specific reasons to be somewhat skeptical.
Comment by don provan — December 1, 2008 @ 5:48 pm
December 1st, 2008 at 5:51 pm
nullasalus
Are you saying that a lot of history departments deal in that which is obvious, or in that which they cannot show is correct?
Comment by The Pixie Again — December 1, 2008 @ 5:51 pm
December 1st, 2008 at 5:56 pm
It's the standard Dawkins required, so apparently it's useful for him in this context. I'm afraid I'm not clear why you think anyone is suggesting it as some kind of universal standard good in all contexts.
Comment by don provan — December 1, 2008 @ 5:56 pm
December 1st, 2008 at 6:10 pm
The Pixie,
Where did 'correct' come from? 'Demonstrably true and not obvious' was the standard. Are you expressing doubt that many academics in history rely on or advance claims and understandings that are anything but 'demonstrably true' except in a tremendously watered-down and elastic sense of the term?
What religion did Shakespeare personally hold? Why did aztec technology not include the wheel when they apparently used it in toys? Did Il Principe reflect Machiavelli's views? You'll find books and academic papers written that strenuously argue these and a variety of other claims, some mainstream, some esoteric, some once esoteric and now mainstream, some once mainstream and now fringe. Plenty of theories and explanations are available – they're just not demonstrably true.
So apparently they're useless.
Comment by nullasalus — December 1, 2008 @ 6:10 pm
December 1st, 2008 at 6:11 pm
nullasalus:
Don't leave the political science department out.
Comment by Bradford — December 1, 2008 @ 6:11 pm
December 1st, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Don Provan,
Universal? Far from it, Don. I'm entirely open to the possibility that Dawkins' standard is utterly arbitrary and applied unevenly.
Comment by nullasalus — December 1, 2008 @ 6:12 pm
December 1st, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Provan,
When did Dawkins ever demand that coincidence be disproven? He was asking for an example.
No problem. I'll rephrase it for you.
The answer is that theology says that divine revelation is something to take seriously, and that it has historical precedent. The usefulness of this position was evident in that my friend took her divine revelation seriously and is alive as a result. The non-obvious truth of the theological position was later borne out by the mammogram.
Now, I don't have a problem with you if you want to claim coincidence. Just please have some statistical data to back up such an assertion.
Comment by chunkdz — December 1, 2008 @ 6:18 pm
December 1st, 2008 at 6:56 pm
I'm confused about what possible relationship a dream is supposed to have to some kind of supernatural message.
Comment by mitschlag — December 1, 2008 @ 6:56 pm
December 1st, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Why?
Comment by chunkdz — December 1, 2008 @ 7:11 pm
December 1st, 2008 at 7:35 pm
chunkdz:
Yeah right. I guess God couldn't have prevented the cancer in the first place.
Do you really expect us to take this nonsense seriously?
Comment by Raevmo — December 1, 2008 @ 7:35 pm
December 1st, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Raevmo:
I don't.
Comment by Bradford — December 1, 2008 @ 7:50 pm
December 1st, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Raevmo,
You're saying that if God were really omnipotent he would do things your way? You have a rather high opinion of yourself, don't you?
Look, it's just an answer to Dawkins' question, not a proof of the existence of God. Clearly, the most we can say about this phenomenon is that my friend was warned by God three times in one night that she had cancer. Since she was open to the theological idea of divine revelation, she is still alive today. Period.
Questioning God's methods does nothing for or against this. It just reinforces your prejudices.
Comment by chunkdz — December 1, 2008 @ 8:11 pm
December 1st, 2008 at 8:37 pm
When he said "demonstrably true". That requires ruling out that the theological statement was just a lucky guess.
Can I stop you right there get some clarification on what "take seriously" means? Specifically, can you explain how you would demonstrated "always act on" differently than "take seriously"? Or are they interchangeable?
These demands for clear definitions often annoy ID supporters, but I'm sure you'll recognize that it's impossible to demonstrate something unless we can recognize what is being demonstrated when it's demonstrated.
Comment by don provan — December 1, 2008 @ 8:37 pm
December 1st, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Provan,
No, it means the example must be demonstrated and true. It was. In Popperian terms, it was actually quite a risky prediction.
As for your hypothesis that this was blind chance, I say "prove it". Find data on the statistical probability of divine warning dreams occurring in triplicate at a propitious time, and their relative accuracy. Don't just believe it.
I don't know if revelation always need be acted upon. But my friend obviously thought it best to act upon this one. If it's some kind of rule you're looking for, I don't know of one. But we can examine the historical examples and make an inference from that.
What would you have done if you had those dreams?
Comment by chunkdz — December 1, 2008 @ 10:19 pm
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:10 am
Having been diagnosed with renal cell carcinoma myself last year, this example has some poignant direct relevance. My diagnosis came as the result of a "coincidence" as well. I have suffered from kidney stones for many years. About five years ago it became clear that my left kidney was almost completely filled with a "staghorn calculus" – that is, a kidney stone with multiple branches extending into the calyxes of the kidney. My urologist recommended that it be removed, lest it impair the function of the kidney. In preparation for this surgery, I was given a dye-contrast CT scan, which revealed a "hyperdense mass" in the lower right pole of my right kidney. This was diagnosed as a Stage I renal cell carcinoma by the radiologists in my home town.
Here's one coincidence: If I had not had the kidney stone in my left kidney, the mass in my right kidney would not have been discovered until it had progressed to a Stage 4 renal carcinoma (almost always fatal).
I was scheduled for surgery to remove the staghorn from the left kidney, followed by surgery (at a world-renowned out-of-state clinic) to remove the mass on my right kidney. After three arduous surgeries to remove the kidney stone, I traveled to the Clinic, where a pre-op dye-contrast CT scan (with much higher sensitivity than the first) revealed the "mass" to be a Bosniak Type II benign cyst. No surgery, no cancer.
Here's another coincidence: if I had not gone to the world-famous clinic (where the state-of-the-art CT scan was taken) I would most likely have had my right kidney removed to prevent the spread of the cancer that wasn't there.
So, a few questions:
1) Did I actually have cancer, but God(s) intervened between my first CT and my second to transform it into a benign cyst?
2) Does your answer change if I tell you that several of my friends (as well as some of my intellectual opponents) were "praying for me"?
3) How about if I tell you I'm most definitely NOT an atheist?
4) Does your answer change if I tell you that I'm an agnostic (according to both T. H. Huxley and Bertrand Russell's definition of that term)?
5) Does your answer change if I tell you that I had several vivid dreams about having "something wrong" with my kidney(s) during the past year?
6) Does your answer change if I tell you that I had no dreams about my kidneys at all during the past year?
As several commentators have pointed out, this is a classic example of what is known in the philosophy of science as "anecdotal evidence". Consider the following possible outcomes to the original story, and related questions:
1) The young woman in question was NOT eventually diagnosed with cancer. Would that have "proven" that God had incorrectly intervened in her life via her vivid dreams?
2) The young woman in question is currently fine, but at least one metastatic cell from the tumor was not removed or killed by the chemotherapy/radiation treatments (happened to a friend of mine). Would this have "proven" that God had only partially intervened, but was powerless to prevent the eventual recurrence of her cancer?
3) The young woman's cancer was the result of a "fragile oncogene" (these are well-known), and her cancer may eventually recur spontaneously (again, this happened to the same friend of mine). Would this have "proven" that God had intended her to die of cancer all along?
None of the questions I have posed here, nor any conceivable answer to them, could be considered to have any logical basis whatsoever. It is sometimes comforting for us to assume that "God has a plan for our life" and will intervene to prevent bad things from happening to us. However, such beliefs fly in the face of the simplest empirical inductive logic. True, we may wish to believe in such things because they make us feel less anxious, but as T. H. Huxley so famously said in similar (but more tragic) circumstances, "…what is this but in grand words asking me to believe a thing because I like it?" (http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/letters/60.html)
We tend to focus on those cases where our "feelings" are eventually "proven" right by observable circumstances, but ignore those cases when the opposite happens. Confirmation biases such as these are the root of almost all human superstitions. Such beliefs may be comforting; they may also be terrifying – witness the legions of people who believe they have cancer or other fatal diseases, and who base such beliefs on what they perceive to be "divine" intervention, but who have a mental rather than a physiological illness. Magical/wishful thinking cuts both ways.
What science, including of course medical science, does is to rely on logic and empirical investigation, rather than magical/wishful thinking. Sometimes this works (it did for me); sometimes it doesn't. In my opinion, that's the best we have, or ever will have. Given a choice between waiting for a "dream" diagnosis and a medical/scientific one, I'll take the latter every time. Along the way, I've learned to live with my mortality and to treasure every moment I have with my family and friends. And I've done that without relying on the comforting belief that some supernatural entity(s) has my fate in His/Her/Their hands. I recommend it highly; clears the head.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — December 2, 2008 @ 1:10 am
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:11 am
On a seperate note how about Florence Nightingale the pioneer of nursing who began her service based on a divine call?
Comment by willo — December 2, 2008 @ 1:11 am
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:15 am
Having been diagnosed with renal cell carcinoma myself last year, this example has some poignant direct relevance. My diagnosis came as the result of a "coincidence" as well. I have suffered from kidney stones for many years. About five years ago it became clear that my left kidney was almost completely filled with a "staghorn calculus" – that is, a kidney stone with multiple branches extending into the calyxes of the kidney. My urologist recommended that it be removed, lest it impair the function of the kidney. In preparation for this surgery, I was given a dye-contrast CT scan, which revealed a "hyperdense mass" in the lower right pole of my right kidney. This was diagnosed as a Stage I renal cell carcinoma by the radiologists in my home town.
Here's one coincidence: If I had not had the kidney stone in my left kidney, the mass in my right kidney would not have been discovered until it had progressed to a Stage 4 renal carcinoma (almost always fatal).
I was scheduled for surgery to remove the staghorn from the left kidney, followed by surgery (at a world-renowned out-of-state clinic) to remove the mass on my right kidney. After three arduous surgeries to remove the kidney stone, I traveled to the Clinic, where a pre-op dye-contrast CT scan (with much higher sensitivity than the first) revealed the "mass" to be a Bosniak Type II benign cyst. No surgery, no cancer.
Here's another coincidence: if I had not gone to the world-famous clinic (where the state-of-the-art CT scan was taken) I would most likely have had my right kidney removed to prevent the spread of the cancer that wasn't there.
So, a few questions:
1) Did I actually have cancer, but God(s) intervened between my first CT and my second to transform it into a benign cyst?
2) Does your answer change if I tell you that several of my friends (as well as some of my intellectual opponents) were "praying for me"?
3) How about if I tell you I'm most definitely NOT an atheist?
4) Does your answer change if I tell you that I'm an agnostic (according to both T. H. Huxley and Bertrand Russell's definition of that term)?
5) Does your answer change if I tell you that I had several vivid dreams about having "something wrong" with my kidney(s) during the past year?
6) Does your answer change if I tell you that I had no dreams about my kidneys at all during the past year?
As several commentators have pointed out, this is a classic example of what is known in the philosophy of science as "anecdotal evidence". Consider the following possible outcomes to the original story, and related questions:
1) The young woman in question was NOT eventually diagnosed with cancer. Would that have "proven" that God had incorrectly intervened in her life via her vivid dreams?
2) The young woman in question is currently fine, but at least one metastatic cell from the tumor was not removed or killed by the chemotherapy/radiation treatments (happened to a friend of mine). Would this have "proven" that God had only partially intervened, but was powerless to prevent the eventual recurrence of her cancer?
3) The young woman's cancer was the result of a "fragile oncogene" (these are well-known), and her cancer may eventually recur spontaneously (again, this happened to the same friend of mine). Would this have "proven" that God had intended her to die of cancer all along?
None of the questions I have posed here, nor any conceivable answer to them, could be considered to have any logical basis whatsoever. It is sometimes comforting for us to assume that "God has a plan for our life" and will intervene to prevent bad things from happening to us. However, such beliefs fly in the face of the simplest empirical inductive logic. True, we may wish to believe in such things because they make us feel less anxious, but as T. H. Huxley so famously said in similar (but more tragic) circumstances, "…what is this but in grand words asking me to believe a thing because I like it?" (http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/letters/60.html)
We tend to focus on those cases where our "feelings" are eventually "proven" right by observable circumstances, but ignore those cases when the opposite happens. Confirmation biases such as these are the root of almost all human superstitions. Such beliefs may be comforting; they may also be terrifying – witness the legions of people who believe they have cancer or other fatal diseases, and who base such beliefs on what they perceive to be "divine" intervention, but who have a mental rather than a physiological illness. Magical/wishful thinking cuts both ways.
What science, including of course medical science, does is to rely on logic and empirical investigation, rather than magical/wishful thinking. Sometimes this works (it did for me); sometimes it doesn't. In my opinion, that's the best we have, or ever will have. Given a choice between waiting for a "dream" diagnosis and a medical/scientific one, I'll take the latter every time. Along the way, I've learned to live with my mortality and to treasure every moment I have with my family and friends. And I've done that without relying on the comforting belief that some supernatural entity(s) has my fate in His/Her/Their hands. I recommend it highly; clears the head.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — December 2, 2008 @ 1:15 am
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:18 am
Sorry about the double post; the "edit" subroutine is not intuitive.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — December 2, 2008 @ 1:18 am
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:22 am
Further, how is any moral code derived from the scriptures i.e love thy neighbour as yourself, "demonstrably true" when there is no objective standard to test such a statement by?
If we are all the product of blind chance, "love thy neighbour" is no more true or right or good than, 'be cruel to thy neighbour'.
Comment by willo — December 2, 2008 @ 1:22 am
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:22 am
Personally, having slogged through most of Aquinas and Küng, as well as Kuhn and Popper (not to mention Huxley and Dawkins), I think all attempts to "prove" the existence or nonexistence of God(s) simply demonstrate the complete lack of understanding of basic logic and semantics by those doing the attempting.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — December 2, 2008 @ 1:22 am
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:15 am
Most of the "proving" does not get past the stage of proving to oneself. Surely it is simply a matter of faith, or belief without (other than anecdotal) evidence. Some of us humans seems to be bursting with faith that we want to share with others. Some are so certain of their faith that they feel obliged to attempt to impose it on others. Some of us appear unable to grasp the concept, considering that faith in the indemonstrable and un-knowable is a needless indulgence.
Personal anecdote:
Three years ago, complaining of some hearing loss in one ear, my doctor sent me to a hearing specialist. He ordered a plethora of investigations including blood tests to eliminate various possible causes. On a personal whim, as I am a middle-aged male, he included a PSA test (for prostate cancer) when ticking boxes on the blood test request. I turned out to have a tumour, advanced but asymptomatic, which was on the cusp of becoming metastatic. Immediate surgery, radiotherapy and hormone therapy followed. So far, touch wood, I am in remission.
Was God looking out for me when that specialist ordered the test? Could he not have arranged it sooner so the treatment would have been less aggressive with a higher chance of success? Was He giving me a fright to bring me back to the fold? (It hasn't worked so far) If he was looking out for me, why had he left it too late for some patients that I met when attending the radiotherapy unit, many of whom were getting palliative treatment?
Life is a lottery. Carpe diem.
Comment by Alan Fox — December 2, 2008 @ 5:15 am
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:39 am
Last year a good friend of our family, Donna, was awoken by three dreams in a single night. In each of the dreams God told her that she had cancer. She was only 35, in good health, no symptoms, and no family history.
I wonder why God chose to afflict her with cancer. Why did she oppose God's will and allow doctors to remove it?
Comment by The Pixie Again — December 2, 2008 @ 5:39 am
December 2nd, 2008 at 8:29 am
Allen:
You don't prove God existence any more than you prove your existence. God’s existence is a brute fact that everyone must assume in order to function. What the arguments for God’s existence do is cut through the BS and leave those who would pretend he does not exist with no excuse.
Faith is not belief with out evidence but the confidence to trust in the evidence you have. A person has faith in God the same way you have faith in medicine.
Many older country folks in my neck of the woods don’t believe that modern medicine really helps people. They think it’s a racket to take money from desperate sick folks. They are convinced that the odds of a long life are much better if you stay out of big city doctors offices. They would not be cought dead in a hospitial.
I pity them for their lack of faith and try to convince them of the evidence to the contrary when I can but alas in the end folks will believe what they want too. Despite the evidence
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — December 2, 2008 @ 8:29 am
December 2nd, 2008 at 8:37 am
Pixie:
Perhaps as a way to introduce one more piece of evidence of his existence on an internet form frequented by those who claim to doubt it. Who knows?
Did God tell her not to remove it?
God’s will has he has revealed it in his Word is for mankind to heal the sick and have dominion over nature so it seems that she was doing what God explicitly commanded.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — December 2, 2008 @ 8:37 am
December 2nd, 2008 at 9:17 am
Most daft response I've read today!
Comment by Jean — December 2, 2008 @ 9:17 am
December 2nd, 2008 at 10:12 am
The Pixie Again wrote:
Did He?
Did she?
Comment by angryoldfatman — December 2, 2008 @ 10:12 am
December 2nd, 2008 at 11:08 am
AOFM:
Why do you say "he"? Does God have a dick?
Comment by Raevmo — December 2, 2008 @ 11:08 am
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Allen & Alan – I'm sorry to hear about each of your issues, glad you're doing okay. In this country (Alan is a Brit, right?) there are currently more than 50 million citizens – including children – without real access to health care, and as the recession deepens that figure goes up every month. Predictions are for 10% or more unemployment before the worst is over, which is 35+ million people. More than half of the employed who DO have insurance are "underinsured," meaning they hold junk policies that don't start paying until $5-10 thousand dollars has already been paid out of pocket. As if the average American worker has $10,000 in pocket change at any given time. Then there is the fact (demonstrated by RICO lawsuits in the states filed by AGs against insurers) that for-profit insurance companies routinely deny coverage or simple don't pay after they've approved care. It's killing hospitals and the rest of the provider system.
What's happening is a version of 21st century eugenics – 'excess' population and us Baby Boomers getting ready to retire are being "thinned." We are told we can afford 3 or 4 trillion dollars to bail out Big Biz, insurance criminals and Wall Street gamblers, but we don't have $700 billion to provide universal health care (the other $300 billion coming from savings via not playing the for-profit insurance overhead game). We are supposed to roll over and die without complaint.
I am uninsured. So is everyone else in my household. Daughter and grandson qualify for public assistance, but can't get it because there's a cap on funding and the waiting list is years long. So we're careful and we keep our fingers crossed. If we get very sick we'll die. So if God were to come to us in a dream and warn that we've developed cancer, what good would it do? Our chances of spontaneous remission are better than our chances for treatment.
Maybe praying for that would work a miracle Dawkins would recognize, eh?
Comment by Joy — December 2, 2008 @ 12:27 pm
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Wow. The last two posts – the first has a crass term, 'dick', atypical because comments on this blog are, well, more elevated, I guess. The second leads with an ideological political statement, also not typical to this blog!
I complete a trifecta with a niggling complaint about back to back non sequiturs. (well, a niggling complaint about other posts isn't really THAT atypical!)
By the way Joy, since you brought it up, Universal Health Insurance Coverage is a terrible idea, unless you think the bureaucrats who administer resources in the VA system is good enough for the rest of us! Moreover, many of those 50 million without insurance (golly 40 million has been the number used for the last score years or so), are uninsured by choice, being young or Amish, etc.
Moreover, for UHIC to be cost effective, it has to be 'universal' and mandate full participation by EVERYONE. This strikes me as anti-individual to the core, which is why the proposal put forward in the 90s by Hillary Clinton was ultimately defeated – it made it illegal to seek medical treatment out of pocket – I think by penalizing Doctors taking money for services outside the system.
(edit: I could swear I hit the preview button and this post posted instead of previewed….)
Comment by todd — December 2, 2008 @ 12:56 pm
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Raevmo wrote:
Very crude, Raevmo, but expected. It would surprise me if anyone taught you anything about it, or if you had expended more thought than a typical teenager on the subject.
The personal pronoun used in referring to the Christian God has to do with the nature of the power wielded by this being, in particular creative power.
Goddesses historically (especially Earth Mothers) were understood to create passively, without conscious effort. A creation method that requires conscious effort is understood to be masculine in nature.
So your answer is no, Raevmo. A Supreme Being has no need of genitalia.
Comment by angryoldfatman — December 2, 2008 @ 1:11 pm
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Sorry, nice try. "Demonstrably true" means it must be demonstrated to be true.
Sorry, again, but no cigar. You asserted it was true, and you provided an example.
In Popperian terms, there is no prediction in sight.
It's called "Occam's Razor." I'm not surprised you haven't heard of it.
Me? I'm not the one trying to answer Dawkins's question. You said you had an answer, something theology said that was demonstrably true. What do I or my beliefs have to do with that?
Hint: This is exactly what Dawkins's "demonstrably true" requirement calls for: you have to do these things. I'm just pointing out that you haven't. I can do that even if I believe what you're claiming.
I'm sorry? You said you had something theology had said, but now you're saying you don't know what?
So your friend was right! Awesome! I don't see any reason to give theology any credit. Theology is the study of God, not just a belief in God.
What I'm looking for is the answer to Dawkins's question that you claimed to be presenting. But now we've seen that you didn't understand the question, you have no answer, and you reject the criteria Dawkins clearly laid out for identifying a valid answer. So stop pretending you aren't abusing your friend's happy outcome to dishonestly take a pathetic shot at Dawkins.
The problem Dawkins proposes is a serious one, one that Christians should be concerned about. Your mangy attempt to pretend to deal with it is an embarrassment that might very well lead people to think there is no serious response possible to Dawkins's challenge of theology.
Knock yourself out.
Dawkins has gone into much more detail exploring this area, including explaining he thinks this is an important problem, why he thinks the challenge can't be met, and even bringing up and engaging serious attempts to support theology, including some that bring up historical examples and make ingerences from that. So it's funny that you can't even get past his entirely trivial summary of the problem, yet you think you've bested him.
I'd immediately cast off all my material possessions and join a monastary. And then I'd continue to show what's wrong with your arguments from there.
Comment by don provan — December 2, 2008 @ 1:39 pm
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:44 pm
I'm very happy she did it.
Comment by don provan — December 2, 2008 @ 1:44 pm
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Thanks for the interesting comment, Joy. Yes I'm English, but I have lived in France for the last six years. I received all my treatment via French health insurance, which is universal (though insufficiently funded, so rates and benefits are under review) and very good value for money. The hospital food is also vastly better than in the UK
. It amazes me how anyone could be opposed to universal health insurance on ideological grounds, when it is so much more cost effective than the system operating in the States.
@ Todd
Yes, the preview facility is broken. I assume the mods are aware.
Comment by Alan Fox — December 2, 2008 @ 1:45 pm
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:50 pm
It isn't. That's the problem. If you only love thy neighbour because of scriptures, you have to have faith. If you lose faith, you no longer have any reason to love thy neighbour.
What we are the product of has nothing to do with it, of course. We live by that standard because we don't want to live by the other standard.
And I consider myself truly blessed that your scriptures didn't propose the other standard since you are suggesting you'd follow them no matter what standard they recommended.
Comment by don provan — December 2, 2008 @ 1:50 pm
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Wow, you must be new here.
As you know, religions anticipate this problem and fill the gap with faith, a perfectly reasonable and impenetrable metaphysical defense. For some reason, the ID movement (even when it calls itself "telic") rejects that defense and tries to prove "something like God, but not God mind you" to be "demonstrably true". We continually run into clear examples like this one you've just seen where they don't even know how to demonstrate that something is true. If they understood science, they'd realize how important and sacred that faith is they're trying so hard not to depend on.
Comment by don provan — December 2, 2008 @ 1:59 pm
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Hi Allen MacNeill,
Wow, what an ordeal you went through! 3 surgeries for one stone. Well, I'm glad everything came out ok. (Sorry, bad pun). Seriously, I love to hear success stories and hope you never have to go through that again.
My answer to all of your questions is "no", and one "I don't know". This is not to be glib – you ask some very good questions that deserve to be addressed. But the questions are impertinent to whether theology has something useful to say. No matter what contingencies surround the situation, no matter how my friend reacted, the fact is that it was the theological view of divine revelation that was most useful to my friend – and in this case it saved her life. And the prediction would still have been demonstrably true even if my friend had taken a more Dawkinsian view and decided that she should ignore the warning and simply stop eating fried habaneros before bedtime.
I'd like to expand on another point you brought up, but work calls. I'll get with you when I get a moment. Cheers.
Comment by chunkdz — December 2, 2008 @ 2:14 pm
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Dawkins would most likely ascribe any improvement to people actually doing something material to resolve the problem, whether they also prayed or not. It's unlikely he'd give much credit for such a success to someone sitting in a corner doing nothing but praying.
Comment by don provan — December 2, 2008 @ 2:14 pm
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Me:
FMM:
I'm not a theologian, but what does the bit in the Bible about doubting Thomas mean, then? see 2
As a matter of fact, I do not have faith in medicine. Medical intervention is best avoided by diet, exercise, avoidance of stress, nicotine, and other harmful substances. Over-enthusiastic treatment can be counter-productive. See Allen MacNeill's close call with a kidney. The incidence of diabetes (type 2), obesity, osteo-arthritis etc. could be much alleviated by diet and exercise.
I have a good deal of sympathy for this view. Urban living can be a killer.
Those pesky old folk. Allus thinkin' they knows better.
Comment by Alan Fox — December 2, 2008 @ 2:16 pm
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:17 pm
I actually agree with Todd- in part. Trash talk would get the hole treatment if this were my thread. Joy has identified a real problem that needs to be dealt with but I share your skepticism about government solutions based on experience. I've learned you need to see details before endorsing a program but would not want to get into this further on chunkdz's post. We have open threads.
That's a glitch that needs correcting.
Comment by Bradford — December 2, 2008 @ 2:17 pm
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Requirement: "The bridge plan has to be demonstrably safe before we will allow it to be built."
Your response: "The builder of this new bridge delivered materials to one bridge that was built, and it hasn't collapsed yet. Therefore it is demonstrably true that this bridge will be safe."
And it would have been demonstrably false if she had no cancer. You act as if you don't know that exactly that has happened to other people's friends.
But Dawkins wasn't asking for a single prediction that, as far as you know, just happened to be true. Dawkins was asking for a theological statement that would generate predictions contrary to what we would otherwise expect ("not obvious") that were reliably accurate ("demonstrably true").
Comment by don provan — December 2, 2008 @ 2:30 pm
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:31 pm
First, I wish you well in your health battles. My wife had cancer which looks like it is in remission. I admired the way she handled it. If you want to see grace and courage look at the way some people deal with these kinds of problems.
Concerning your remark, you have accurately labled the evidence as anecdotal. It matters to me who it is I'm discussing this with. Neither you not I have experienced the event described. We can both describe it as anecdotal and make our subjective evaluations of its likely realtionship to reality. I would hesitate to assert what I thought were I speaking directly to the individual. Informing her that I thought her experience was anything other than what she thought it was, strikes me as arrogant when it was her and not me that had the experience. Making public policies based on anecdotal evidence would be a different matter.
Comment by Bradford — December 2, 2008 @ 2:31 pm
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:31 pm
This might interest Todd and Bradford. An open thread would be good.
Comment by Alan Fox — December 2, 2008 @ 2:31 pm
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:38 pm
This is silly. When I discuss the likelihood that forces of nature would generate nucleic acids whose monomers were sequenced and translated according to an identifiable code, I don't need to reference faith in God. If there is any faith involved it is generally expressed by my opponents who assert what is not empirically sound doctrine about that matter.
Belief in what is unseen and undocumented by our sensory experiences is commonplace.
Comment by Bradford — December 2, 2008 @ 2:38 pm
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Why wouldn't she consider it anecdotal? I'm confident she's bright enough to recognize that her experience, while heartwarming and profoundly moving to us and personally critical and deeply faith affirming for her, is still just a single example supporting something (as yet unstated) that theology said. Even if she feels obliged to give witness to demonstrate this remarkable evidence to the power of faith, I'm sure she realizes that empirically this single event is merely anecdotal evidence.
Comment by don provan — December 2, 2008 @ 2:40 pm
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:44 pm
She could. It fits the definition. But my point was she is in a different position with respect to assessing the experience.
Comment by Bradford — December 2, 2008 @ 2:44 pm
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:49 pm
I didn't say that. In fact, I said the reverse: that your attempts to find some empirical evidence for an unnamed, unspecified intelligent designer are a rejection of Christianity's position that faith is all the supporting evidence you need for one specific, named Intelligent Designer. I don't object to you rejecting that position, I merely observe it.
Comment by don provan — December 2, 2008 @ 2:49 pm
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Agreed. But that just means her assessment would be irrelevant to our conversation. Right?
Comment by don provan — December 2, 2008 @ 2:50 pm
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:18 pm
To get back to the original query posed in this thread:
which was followed by an anecdote about a dream resulting in a person being medically treated for cancer.
I think it should be clear by now that it was medical science, not "theology" that made the difference in the lives of the people noted in the examples described in this thread. And while it is apparently the case that the young woman described in the first example might not have survived had she not heeded her "dreams", this is also clearly not a foregone conclusion. Indeed, since her cancer was detected using technological means, it is quite possible that this would have happened anyway, dreams or no dreams.
That was clearly the case with my own cancer diagnosis, and with its subsequent reversal. To take Dawkins' position on these examples, it is demonstrably the case that medical science, and not theology, has meant the difference between life and death in the overwhelming majority of cases. Indeed, this is even true for the young woman in the original example. "Theology" (by which I understand the original poster to mean "belief in God") made no difference in her ultimate survival; it only made a coincidental difference in her probability of diagnosis.
Bradford asserted that
Indeed it would. Substituting anecdotal evidence and belief in divine intervention is precisely what distinguishes Christian Scientists (i.e. members of the Church of Christ, Scientist) from rational people who trust their lives to practitioners of medical science and technology. The former rely on magical intervention and wishful thinking to diagnose and treat their infirmities. The latter rely on empirical science and objective/statistical analysis. The overwhelming majority of intelligent people (including me) side with the latter.
To quote Tom Lehrer, "…it has been a nervous year and people have begun to feel like a Christian Scientist with appendicitis."
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — December 2, 2008 @ 3:18 pm
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:27 pm
AOFM:
That's not true. The god Atum does.
Comment by Raevmo — December 2, 2008 @ 3:27 pm
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:28 pm
provan:
Yet spontaneous remission does occur, often enough to qualify as a genuine 'mystery'. In the olden days (pre-chemo and radiation), one's chances of spontaneous remission were quite a bit higher than any chance of remission or cure from medical treatment for many cancers, including leukemia caused by radiation (common by clusters in the days of atmospheric testing).
I myself enjoyed spontaneous remission from leukemia as a child exposed to way too much nasty radiation. If I claimed God did it, what could science say to disprove it? Answer: zip.
Bradford:
Skepticism is okay. But having spent the first few decades of my life with government provided 'universal' health care, I can tell you that being able to get your bones set and cuts stitched and treatment for illnesses is better than not being able to get any treatment at all. Since that's what tens of millions of us here in "the richest nation the world has ever known" have to deal with right now, your skepticism doesn't weigh a whole lot.
The OP is about a person who apparently did have good insurance, so God's warning actually meant something other than "put your affairs in order, you're gonna die." Such a warning to any of the millions in this country with no access would mean something completely different.
Comment by Joy — December 2, 2008 @ 4:28 pm
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Yes, it does. Even to atheists.
Comment by don provan — December 2, 2008 @ 4:39 pm
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:39 pm
I don't need empirical evidence for intelligent design to support my faith. Neither is a recognition of design in nature at odds with my faith. In fact it is consistent with the first chapter of the Epistle to the Romans found in the NT. Faith is tied not only to belief but actions that result from belief, a subtle point not grasped by some Christians let alone non-believers. Faith also is not demanded in the absence of evidence. The OT and NT are both narrative in nature, not only with reference to events, but in specifying geographical and historic details that can and have been verified by archeologists and historians.
Comment by Bradford — December 2, 2008 @ 4:39 pm
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Before anyone gets confused, "theology" is the study of God, and I think we'd all take it to include the study of religion in general and even the study of people's beliefs. I am quite confident that Dawkins was not asking for something "belief in God" said: in his writings, Dawkins is quite willing to acknowledge positive effects of believing in God, and might very well accept this dream case as an example. But he asks that, in return, his reader acknolwedges negative effects such as airplanes slamming into large office buildings killing thousands of innocent people.
Comment by don provan — December 2, 2008 @ 4:50 pm
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:03 pm
And what could theology say to prove it?
Answer: zip (again)
Conclusion: Any such assertions, either positive or negative, are not amenable to proof, and therefore outside of the realm of either science or logical analysis.
And (IMHO) a waste of precious time. As the Buddha asked, why waste time arguing about the identity of the archer, when the arrow is still sticking out of the wound?
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — December 2, 2008 @ 5:03 pm
December 2nd, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Hi Dp: My point is we follow many Biblical principals, lots of people agree it is good to love thy neighbour or do not steal, murder, commit adultery. Now these things ARE NOT "demonstrably true" or "obvious" if we are the product of blind chance, am I wrong?
Further, the study of the God of the Bible inspired Florence Nightingale and so Dawkins other question, “What has 'theology' ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody?" Is answered with – the Biblical principal to love sacrificially has inspired many people to do great things for mankind. Nightingale being one very good example!
Comment by willo — December 2, 2008 @ 6:04 pm
December 2nd, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Alan
Jesus did not rebuke Thomas for his skepticism but instead offered to give the evidence Thomas requested. Then He pronounced a blessing on those of us who believe (at least in part) because of Thomas’s empirical investigation.
See the end of the Thomas story in John 20 30-31. You will find no praise for Blind faith in the Bible.
I notice you need to appeal to the 2 (minor B) definition it find one you like. You need to realize this is never the meaning ascribed to the word in scripture. In scripture faith is closer to 1 or 2a.
I think you’ll find with a little research that the minor definition only came on the scene as a result of the enlightenment attempt to make a distinction between “faith” and “reason” and is almost never used in orthodox Christian circles.
Don
I don’t know where you went to Sunday school but believing in something with out evidence is not the position Of Christianity and is highly frowned on by the Fundy Christians Where I’m from.
The Prophets made a lot of fun of the pagan people because believed in their gods with out any evidence.
Raevmo
Of course you know that no one not even Atum worshipers think he is a Supreme being
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — December 2, 2008 @ 6:09 pm
December 2nd, 2008 at 6:26 pm
fmm:
No, I don't know that. From the link:
Sounds like a Supreme being to me.
Comment by Raevmo — December 2, 2008 @ 6:26 pm
December 2nd, 2008 at 6:36 pm
from the link
Another belief held that Shu and Tefnut were created by Atum having sexual intercourse with a goddess, referred to as Iusaaset (also spelt Juesaes, Ausaas, Iusas, and Jusas, and in Greek as Saosis), meaning the great one who comes forth. She was described as his shadow. Consequently, Iusaaset was seen as the mother and grandmother of the gods.
A god who needs a consort to create is not supreme now is he?
rather the Atum /Iusaaset pair would be a rough approximate of a supreme god. except since they were phyiscal beings It/they would be dependant on an unknown Supreme being to give them existance.
Peace
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — December 2, 2008 @ 6:36 pm
December 2nd, 2008 at 6:44 pm
As I said, FMM, I am not a theologian, and I think Allen MacNeill has already written my response here.
The problem is there is so little new happening in the realm of ID that I have seriously flouted my personal rule of not discussing personal beliefs.
On the semantic issue, it seems most exchanges here and elsewhere founder on the meaning of words.
Comment by Alan Fox — December 2, 2008 @ 6:44 pm
December 2nd, 2008 at 7:03 pm
provan:
I know. Seems like some medical researchers would know that too, maybe go looking for the particular expression suiting (no doubt epigenetic) that accomplishes such a miracle. Voila! Remission In A Bottle, worth all the gold on earth. Alas, too many of them shrug it off as just a miracle, while it's staring them right in the face begging to be known.
Is that because there's too much invested (and too much cash flow) over the last half-century in the "War on Cancer" in a too-similar vein to the "War on Drugs?"
Comment by Joy — December 2, 2008 @ 7:03 pm
December 2nd, 2008 at 7:33 pm
I think it's because "the war on cancer" involves exactly the effort you describe, but you fail to understand that "shrug off" is what avoids wasting resources on the ideas that don't actually end up producing reliable remission in a bottle.
The fact that you imagine the answer is so easy to find — all they have to do is look under this rock!, as if you would know — would explain why you complain about how much is invested, and happily ignore the unbelievably large advancements in cancer detection and treatment made over the last half-century at what most of us consider a relatively small cost.
Comment by don provan — December 2, 2008 @ 7:33 pm
December 2nd, 2008 at 7:41 pm
A. Yes, you are wrong.
B. Accepting those rules for no reason other than Christianity changes just one thing about it: it forbids us from demanding demonstration or even asking whether they're obvious.
Again, the issue here isn't "Is Christianity a good thing?" Dawkins does, in fact, address that question in other places such as The God Delusion, but that has nothing to do with this question about what theology — again, for the third time, the study of God, not a belief in God — can say that we can say for sure is true yet is not obvious from other considerations unrelated to theology.
Comment by don provan — December 2, 2008 @ 7:41 pm
December 2nd, 2008 at 7:50 pm
provan:
Oh give us a break, don! Obviously, people who experience spontaneous remission of advanced cancer (or other terminal diseases) while literally on their deathbeds have enjoyed a spontaneous implementation of an epigenetic expression suiting that serves to cure them – literally overnight – from that which was killing them. It sure isn't any medicine, poison, slash-and-burn cut'em-out or lethal doses of radiation that did it. So unless you want to talk about REAL miracles, you'd have to come to the same conclusion I have. It's natural, all we have to do is adjust our biochemistry accordingly.
Why you'd want to argue that point is beyond my ken. Here is a miracle that happens often enough to require some attention, yet no one seems to be doing so. At what point in time can we start actually expecting some real results for all the billions and trillions we've poured into research over the decades? When will they deliver something we can really use?
…because once again, for tens of millions of human beings in THIS country (the richest on earth) and hundreds of millions of human beings elsewhere, there is no health care at all. You're holding out for the most expensive we can possibly make it, reserved to the very few who can afford it. That doesn't seem like much return on the public dollar to me.
Comment by Joy — December 2, 2008 @ 7:50 pm
December 2nd, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Alan
If you’re talking about his contention that assertions beyond proof are a waste of time I completely agree with you.
If you’re talking about his implication that Christianity is such an assertion I think you’d agree that his claim is itself an “assertion beyond proof” and is therefore a waste of time.
I hope you will show enough consistency of thought not to waist anymore time in the future with this claim.
.
Funny I’ve yet to see a post from you that did not discuss your personal beliefs. It’s just you some how feel your personal beliefs constitute unbiased objective comentary on the evidence.
Alas It’s been that way from the very beginning (see Genesis 3:1)
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — December 2, 2008 @ 8:19 pm
December 2nd, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Jolly good!
He refers to theological assertions, not Christianity, specifically. I think Mr MacNeill has mentioned he is a quaker BTW. I think it is a waste of your time for you to try and convince me that faith is based on evidence and it would be a waste of time for me to convince you that belief in God was a waste of time. I don't think it is my business to influence what you wish to believe, which is why I do try not to get involved in such arguments. Unfortunately, I seem to have got sucked in somehow. Sorry.
A bold assertion. I guess most positive statements are expressions of personal opinion, so you could be right. If you mean religious beliefs, then, I doubt all or even many of my posts make reference to my religious beliefs.
Comment by Alan Fox — December 2, 2008 @ 8:48 pm
December 2nd, 2008 at 8:56 pm
Have at! You'll be both rich and famous. And you'll be able to say "I told you so!"
What are you waiting for?
I know! It seems inconceivable that no one's investigated such an obvious line of research! You go, girl!
Comment by don provan — December 2, 2008 @ 8:56 pm
December 2nd, 2008 at 9:05 pm
provan:
Alas, I am not a doctor, a biologist or a medical researcher. And I'm too old now to start over. My hope is that someone will. It's well past time.
You know, I've experienced some amazing things. I've seen some amazing things. The 'science' folks keep telling me – even in courts of law with a dozen "experts" testifying – that it's all just Miraculous, I should shut up and be thankful.
But I'm not. I think they're missing something extremely pertinent to their whole reason for being. I sure as heck don't know why, but I suspect fear.
Fear is the Mind-Killer, you know. I am not afraid.
P.S. I've opened an open thread.
Comment by Joy — December 2, 2008 @ 9:05 pm
December 2nd, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Alan:
Do you believe Christianity is a theological assertion? If not why not?
Perhaps but you need to understand that your position is held not only in opposition to me but the primary definition in the dictionary.
I guess I could not convince you that black is not white if You did not want to be convinced.
How so? All you’d have to do is show me that the evidence I base my belief on is faulty and provide an alternative grounding for reality. If God does not exist these things should be easy to do.
If belief in God is a waste of precious time then it would be a servise to mankind to make the attempt would it not?
I understand your position but your unwillingness to discuss such has real world implications as witnessed by marked decrease in charitable giving by people who believe as you do.
Perhaps that’s why you don’t care if other folks waste precious time
No need to apologize I think it’s better when folks are honest with themselves and others instead of hiding behind some fake neutrality
Perhaps it seems that way to you but every post is a statement of your religious beliefs (Matthew 12:34)
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — December 2, 2008 @ 9:16 pm
December 2nd, 2008 at 9:31 pm
Many people who are not Christians would disagree and say it is "obvious" we should not murder, thieve, or commit adultery.
Willo: "Further, the study of the God of the Bible inspired Florence Nightingale and so Dawkins other question, “What has 'theology' ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody?" Is answered with – the Biblical principal to love sacrificially has inspired many people to do great things for mankind. Nightingale being one very good example"!
Dp: "Again, the issue here isn't "Is Christianity a good thing?" Dawkins does, in fact, address that question in other places such as The God Delusion, but that has nothing to do with this question about what theology — again, for the third time, the study of God, not a belief in God — can say that we can say for sure is true yet is not obvious from other considerations unrelated to theology".
Comment by willo — December 2, 2008 @ 9:31 pm
December 2nd, 2008 at 9:31 pm
Meanwhile, I'll just re-post a story I told here long ago, can't find now. About dreams, and meaning.
I awoke one morning from a dream so vivid it made me cry. I was sobbing as I rose from my pillow. Since I very seldom dream (mind-training, due to disturbances past), those dreams I do have and remember are "important" in some way.
I dreamed I was back in Kensington, Maryland, where we lived when Dad was at the Pentagon and I was only 5. I was swinging on the swingset in the back yard, trying hard to get high enough to launch into flight – one of my favorite things as a child. While I was pumping hard to get high enough to launch, a china doll I'd been holding fell out of my grasp and crashed to the dirt below.
I skidded to a halt and ran to the doll, which I knew immediately was broken beyond repair. That knowledge broke my heart, and that's what set me sobbing inconsolably.
That's when I awakened in tears, sat on the edge of the bed and wondered why in the world I'd care at all about any doll (never liked them), much less a breakable china doll. I never owned one. Just then my hubby came downstairs to tell me my sister had called, my mother had fallen. She suffered awful osteoporosis due to too much prescription medications for COPD, for which she was "end stage" at the time. She'd broken her hip, her femur, her back in three places and both of her arms, just trying to put on her pajama bottoms for bed.
I knew the moment he finished the story that she was broken beyond repair and would die. THAT is what the dream told me, and that is precisely what happened. She had the living will and all sorts of orders for what we could or could not do for her, which she told me when I got there and she woke up I must make sure my little sisters abided. It was hard. She stopped eating, taking only liquids, her mind was as good as mine. In less than two months she was dead, of her own free will, because we did abide her wishes.
I figure there's a connection, innate in the fact that half of me is her, and we are entirely quantum connected. That it works to send me such a desperate message across 500 miles when she was in such dire shape (and in surgery for hip replacement and banding her femur) is just confirmation in my mind. I have/had the same sort of connection with the children that came from my own body. It's powerful beyond all scientific knowledge.
True story. A dream with meaning. There was nothing I could do to save her, just as if I got a dream about cancer right now – there is nothing I could do. Yes, that's political just as much as it is a problem with how we've spent our research money and who gets the benefits.
Comment by Joy — December 2, 2008 @ 9:31 pm
December 2nd, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Huh? Of course they do. We all do. You're the one that is suggesting that their presence in the scripture has something to do with why we follow them.
I'm sure that what people decide to do after reading the Bible is not what Dawkins was asking about. Do you seriously have any doubt abou that? If so, perhaps you can ask chunkdz for more context so we can see.
Comment by don provan — December 2, 2008 @ 9:40 pm
December 2nd, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Let's be clear. This is not a claim of scientific proof, but an example that answers Dawkins' question. I said that dreams were a "playground where various worldviews can interact." This is because dreams are metaphysical, yet universally experienced and studied by scientists and theologists alike. This makes them a perfect bridge with which to examine where materialism and theism intersect. Science and theology both have something to say about dreams, and both disciplines study dreams. Yet neither discipline is even close to proving what a dream is, or where dreams originate.
So if it's some repeatable experiment you are looking for you will be disappointed. Our knowledge of dreams is always historical because the accounts are always related from memory. Dreams come when and as they will. Especially ones that carry previously unknown divine revealed information. The best that can currently be hoped for is what Donna's dream provides – yet another example in a 5 millenium long history of divine revelation where humans received information they could not have known about, from a metaphysical source. Those of you who complain that science has a tough time verifying, repeating and measuring dreams are correct. But experiential data need not be disregarded simply because the example is not replicatable.
I urge everyone to look at this phenomenon in a different way. The materialistic view is predictable in that the null hypothesis becomes an uninformed appeal to chance, and that it was science that saved Donna's life. The theistic view is likewise predictable, in that it's null hypothesis is that God provided the warning and thus saved her life. But if we suspend our worldviews which tend to color our perceptions, and view this phenomenon through the lens of critical thinking, we are likely to come to a more meaningful and useful conclusion – one that seemed immediately evident to the doctors attending Donna's case. Our friend Donna owe's her life to both God and science.
Comment by chunkdz — December 2, 2008 @ 9:45 pm
December 2nd, 2008 at 9:52 pm
Don:
Don these axioms are neither true in any sense or obvious if we are the product of blind chance! Can't you see that?
Goddness me Don if Dawkins wasn't talking about "opening a Bible' and being informed from it about the nature of God, then he is not talking about theology!
Comment by willo — December 2, 2008 @ 9:52 pm
December 2nd, 2008 at 9:59 pm
I don't believe there are any supernatural entities such as gods, souls or an afterlife, and I don't, as far as I can tell, subjectively, wish for such things to be true. I am curious about what new findings may emerge about origins of life here and elsewhere. I doubt science can provide all the answers. Unfortunately I don't think any of the World's religions have or can provide any useful input. Does that answer your question?
Are you sure?
Well, I don't think you can separate charity from the total social security support system. Where there is a properly run social security system, paid for by taxes, the need for charitable giving is much reduced.
I get the impression that you are a committed Christian, and that your views are sincerely expressed. Subject to the obvious caveats (high rise buildings etc) I respect your right to hold them. I also suspect you would be immune to any suggestion from me that you are deluded. Ergo, I would be wasting my time.
Comment by Alan Fox — December 2, 2008 @ 9:59 pm
December 2nd, 2008 at 10:20 pm
Hi Joy,
Thank you for sharing that story. It's heartbreaking for me to read, so I can only glimpse what it must mean for you to relive it. I hope you don't mind if I attempt to make a point with it.
I don't pretend to know the "why". I just know that it happens. Here in this thread we focus on dreams, but revelation, from a systematic theology standpoint, is an ongoing universal process that occurs not only in dreams but in waking thoughts, examinations, meditations and observations. Revelation is not just messages, it is the connecting fabric between our material world and the metaphysical. Occasionally, some important information comes down the pipe like the knowledge about your mom and Donna's knowledge about her cancer. Why? Who knows. Donna has struggled with the fact that her life was saved, but several close friends have recently succumbed to cancer. For this reason she has shown quiet gratitude to God for saving her, but has never boasted about it as if it were some reflection on how great or valuable she is. She just accepted the gift.
Is God a mean jerk for withholding the information from all the others? Is He a fool for not simply preventing the cancer in the first place? These questions presume that an omnipotent God should follow human rationale -something I find to be rather foolish. Personally I find that it is the difficult times that make life worth living. It is through the trials that humans grow, it is through hardship that we are perfected. And any god who mirrors my judgement is really not much of a god at all.
I know life is a short dangerous game, and that we are all sure to get sidelined with an injury or get taken out altogether. But I'm just grateful to have played. Someday I'll probably get blind-side tackled by some 350 pound lineman and get pushed to the sidelines, but I'll have no regrets or complaints. I'd never imagine that the one who created the game must be some kind of sadist because he didn't bubblewrap all the players. I'm just glad I was in the game.
Comment by chunkdz — December 2, 2008 @ 10:20 pm
December 2nd, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Let's be really clear: Dawkins was asking for something that could be proved scientifically.
I understand that: you have no idea what "demonstrably true" means, and you're still arguing about it.
OK, so if we leave Dawkins's question and its clear and plainly stated scientific requirement behind, let's look at Donna's case.
OK, can we all agree with Allen's observation: for sure, Donna owes her life to science. If so, we're left with one remaining question: does she also owe her life to God. Same page?
If so, it's important to start out by stating the obvious: we can question whether Donna also owes her life to God, right? I mean, no matter how convincing it looks, there are some obvious issues that make it not "for sure". For example, if God doesn't exist, there's a big problem in us giving him credit, regardless of what Donna believes. Second, someone with powers we don't understand put those dreams in Donna's head, so we have to consider whether it was God or just someone pretending to be God. Third, we know Donna was religious, but we don't know whether or not if she weren't religious, she wouldn't have had similar dreams, but with something she believes in, like a doctor, telling her instead of God.
We can ask all those questions — none of which you can answer — even before we get to the most fundamental questions such as whether dreams about God warning of cancer do actually indicate cancer? And this one we could approach scientifically, although it's kinda hard because, of course, people that have dreams about cancer but don't do anything about it, or do do something but there's no cancer, don't go around telling all their friends about their negative results. But you haven't even done that.
It actually shouldn't be too hard: I'll bet there have already been studies that would give us some insight into the relation of dreams to maladies. Why didn't you present them instead of this anecdote? (Answer: You haven't looked, probably because you suspect, like the rest of us, that the results were negative, anyway.)
Now, look, I don't want to burst you bubble or make you feel less fortunate and loved by God than you are, but here's how I see it: Dawkins asked a serious, carefully structured question that provided you with a platform to present evidence in favor of theology. You could have argued about the premises behind the question, but you didn't. You could have argued the validity of the question, but you didn't. You could have offered an alternative justification for theology, but you didn't. You accepted the question and said, "I have an answer for him all the same." Then you presented a heartwrenching story about your friend that didn't answer the question.
Now at first, I thought this was just an innocent mistake, and I explained what was wrong with your answer. But now, after several pages of arguments, I've come to realize that you have no intention of engaging Dawkins in an honest exchange of ideas.
Yes, Dawkins disagrees and argues against everything you hold dear, but at least he's honest about it. But you present tripe nonsense and then try to argue that he isn't asking for what he's asking for. Embarrassing.
Comment by don provan — December 2, 2008 @ 10:23 pm
December 2nd, 2008 at 10:36 pm
chunkdz:
Ah, chunk. I believe much the same thing. What an adventure life is! And all adventures involve danger, confrontations with evil and battle and death, and in the end (often not noted, but assumed), everybody dies.
Mom was a wonderfully bright person, a fashion model Dad married when she was just 17 (and he was in his 30s) after a night of swing dancing on the pier in Jacksonville. He died first, choked on a ham sandwich during one of the bowl games on New Years Day, just the way he'd have chosen to go. She took longer, more thoughtful way out. Sharp as a tack to the very end.
Lord knows I've seen some shit, about as much as those great miracles I've seen and experienced. My only son bled to death in my arms in the middle of the night at the ripe old age of 21. So yeah, I've got some very pointed questions to ask if I ever get to meet The Man/God. I look at things with a healthy degree of skepticism, but I love my life. I love the world. I love my family and my friends and huge numbers of people I've never met. What a great adventure this is!
Comment by Joy — December 2, 2008 @ 10:36 pm
December 2nd, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Provan,
I give Dawkins more credit than that. He's not stupid enough to think that a limited discipline like science can prove a metaphysical entity. He was asking for an example. I gave him one. There's thousands more examples throughout history, but this one is particularly close to me.
Comment by chunkdz — December 2, 2008 @ 10:38 pm
December 2nd, 2008 at 10:42 pm
No, I can't. Really, really. In fact, they don't look any different to me at all regardless of whether I imagine myself the product of blind chance or of evolution or of God's divine will. No matter what, they look exactly the same: obvious. And I can't see why they would look less obvious even if the scriptures had something different.
I guess that means you should discuss it with him, then. Your definition doesn't agree with anything I know about the English language, including anything about theology I've heard Dawkins say, but it really doesn't matter what I think.
But in this context, the only thing that really matters is that there's no chance at all that Dawkins wasn't already aware when he asked that question of examples of individuals having dreams that helped them get medical treatment. So that couldn't possibly be what he was asking for.
Comment by don provan — December 2, 2008 @ 10:42 pm
December 2nd, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Provan,
Actually, Don, he asked two questions. The first was
Well, my friend Donna would say that listening to the theological perspective on revelation saved her life, whereas listening to your stupid and uninformed suggestion that this is probably just a coincidence would have landed her six feet under. I'd say that in this particular case theology was definitely way more useful than you are.
Comment by chunkdz — December 2, 2008 @ 10:49 pm
December 2nd, 2008 at 10:56 pm
That's becasue it is written on your heart Don, you are clearly not a product of blind chance, and survival of the fittest or you would agree that hate your neighbour is just as good (especially if it means winning the female to pass on your genes.
Theology is the study of God, we've already established that, if the study of God doesn't come from the place where you are informed about him then where do you go Don?
Comment by willo — December 2, 2008 @ 10:56 pm
December 2nd, 2008 at 10:58 pm
I'm sorry, I normally try not to argue from authority, but you have no clue about Dawkins's position. I can tell you, if you'll listen, that his question was, in fact, about what theology could offer that was on a par with what science offers. Yes, Dawkins is perfectly capable of dealing with metaphysical issues, but his point here is that theology and religions are nothing but metaphysics. (Well, actually, perhaps "at most" would be a better term: Dawkins considers religions much more dangerous than metaphysics, but that's another issue.)
Comment by don provan — December 2, 2008 @ 10:58 pm
December 2nd, 2008 at 11:05 pm
No, it's because I'm intelligent and think about things.
What?
Comment by don provan — December 2, 2008 @ 11:05 pm
December 2nd, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Provan,
Until the metaphysical starts making predictions about the physical.
Comment by chunkdz — December 2, 2008 @ 11:10 pm
December 2nd, 2008 at 11:19 pm
Intelligence does not provide a moral compass, if you thought about things a bit more you would see that if we are a product of blind chance, all decisions are morally neutral.
Weren't you aware of this? The study of God is done by going to scriptures and assessing what it says (whether you have positive conclusions or negative ones). Anything else falls into the realm of philosophy
Comment by willo — December 2, 2008 @ 11:19 pm
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:17 am
"Predictions", eh? Science is all about predictions, and uses a very specific method to formulate them, test them, and verify (or falsify) them. This process requires multiple similar tests and statistical analysis of the outcome of those tests. This is precisely the method about which Dawkins was speaking.
The "predictions about the physical" that flow from "theology" (which, as has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread, is not the same as "belief" in God(s) or His/Their predictions) are just the opposite, as demonstrated by the example at the top of this thread. There is no attempt at formulating alternative hypotheses, no attempt at replication, no attempt at statistical analysis, no attempt at verification/falsification, indeed no attempt at any kind of rational analysis whatsoever.
Let me be very clear about this: the medical science that saved the young woman's life was absolutely not developed or refined using the "methods" of theology. They were developed and refined using precisely the same mental attitudes and techniques about which Dawkins was speaking/writing.
We use science (including medical science), imperfect as it is, to save lives and make the world a better place to live. We use "theology", imperfect as it is, to make ourselves feel better about things we do not understand and cannot control. Dawkins' statement (and virtually all of his writing) has been about this crucial difference, which if ignored leads to no end of ignorance and hideousness.
Once again, had there been no science of oncology, of what earthly good would the young woman's dream have been, to her or anyone else?
Alternatively, if there were no "theology" (and the young woman had not had her warning dream), is it the case that she would definitely have died of cancer?
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — December 3, 2008 @ 11:17 am
December 3rd, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Allen,
I've already stated that this is not a scientific experiment. It can't be replicated.
Precisely? Dawkins was precisely unclear about what methodology should be used to answer his question. He was merely asking if theology was of any use to anyone. Since theology was useful to my friend, It answers Dawkins question.
If in fact Dawkins was saying that God cannot be proven using the scientific method then he would get no argument from me.
While the event cannot be scientifically replicated, you are wrong to say that it cannot be verified/falsified (it was verified), that it cannot be statistically analyzed (I've encouraged the skeptics to do this as dreams have been studied for many years), or rationally analyzed (it was rational analysis that convinced my friend to heed the warning).
I've said as much. But her theological viewpoint is what got her to the hospital.
Beautifully said. Naive, but beautifully said.
Actually my friend used theology to help her decide whether her dreams were just a coincidence or if they might possibly be conveying actual information.
Actually, if my friend had ignored the theological view of revelation, she'd likely be dead. Apparently listening to Dawkins can get you killed.
Don't know. That's what makes it all the more stupendous.
Don't know. The doctors said it was highly aggressive, deadly form of cancer and that she'd have been fighting for her life within a year.
What would you do if you had those three dreams?
Comment by chunkdz — December 3, 2008 @ 1:57 pm
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:12 pm
False.
If you though about things more, you'd realize that morals are a human invention, not something magical like pixie dust.
OK, now I know what you're talking: by "where" you meant "scriptures". Still no clue what the comment has to do with anything.
Comment by don provan — December 3, 2008 @ 9:12 pm
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Which he precisely clarified by adding, in the second part, the requirement of demonstration. You keep pretending that Dawkins could mean something less that scientific reliability in the phrase "demonstrably true" (and, more recently, that the two questions are independent), but that can only be because you know nothing about Dawkins.
Did you ever go look at the entire speech? That should make it clearer what his point was and what he was asking for so we can stop guessing. Can you give us the link?
Comment by don provan — December 3, 2008 @ 9:33 pm
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:38 pm
This is a very un-Christian claim. Christianity teaches that it is her personal relation with God that got her to the hospital, not some cerebral analysis of religious beliefs. There's no way you can claim that any Christian teaching includes a requirement to be smart enough to study theology in order to benefit from a relation with God.
Your friend would have ignored God's instructions to go to the hospital, not "the theological view of revelation". If anything, theology offered her the chance to make the wrong decision by turning it into a mental exercise.
I can't believe you're so willing to throw Christianity under the wheels to defend your silly exaggeration about the importance of this example to the point Dawkins was making.
Comment by don provan — December 3, 2008 @ 9:38 pm
December 4th, 2008 at 1:10 am
Provan,
A prediction was made by a metaphysical entity, it was documented (via a phone call to my wife and I), and the prediction was later tested and verified using a medical apparatus and witnessed by several oncologists and nurses.
This is how dreams are studied, Don. Oneirologists don't whine about the fact that they can't make the subject repeat the dream like some conditioned response. They document the results, take note of correlation, compile statistical data, etc. This is how revelation via a dream is demonstrated. If you think Dawkins is saying that the only useful information is that which comes from a repeatable scientific experiment, then both he and you are dumber than I thought. (I've been giving you both the benefit of the doubt, but I might be wrong)
Comment by chunkdz — December 4, 2008 @ 1:10 am
December 4th, 2008 at 1:23 am
The theological ABCs are simple enough that anyone can understand them. Personal relationships entail communication. Quoting from the blog entry:
She believed the warnings came from a God who has the capability to message her through dreams. She acted on this. Jesus said my sheep hear me. His sheep also act on his word. No heavy cerebral analysis needed. Simply walking in faith is sufficient.
Comment by Bradford — December 4, 2008 @ 1:23 am
December 4th, 2008 at 1:39 am
Provan,
Lol! You don't have to be a PhD to know that God reveals himself through dreams. You could begin by simply reading Genesis. Or for that matter, go see an off-broadway production of Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat and you'll hear of a few examples. And of course, you could always delve deeper and learn the systematic theology of revelation, but a child could study the scriptures and learn the basics of revelation.
Donna had a decision to make. Should she trust in the scientific view that this is probably just a coincidence? Or should she trust her theological knowledge that God has historically and still does reveal information through dreams? (incidentally, this is not the first time she has had a revelatory dream.)
In the end, theology won out over science, and she decided to trust what she had learned about God. Good thing too because this was an instance where science was of very little use and theology was eminently useful.
Nice try.
Comment by chunkdz — December 4, 2008 @ 1:39 am
December 4th, 2008 at 2:00 am
Some of the most intelligent people do wicked things! Intelligencwe has nothing to do with moral convictions. So often it is those who rise to power who manipulate the poor, underpriveledged and uneducated.
??, my point remains, if morals ARE a human invention then all decisions are morally neutral as they are completely subjective.
Up thread
When Dawkins says theology he means the study of God, the study of God is done by studying what he says in the Bible. If Dawkins means something else by his use of the term "theology" I'd like to know what that is.
Comment by willo — December 4, 2008 @ 2:00 am
December 4th, 2008 at 2:06 am
By the way, here's the full Dawkins piece.
Comment by chunkdz — December 4, 2008 @ 2:06 am
December 4th, 2008 at 3:23 am
Dawkins is not very impressed with the achievements of theologists, I note. In the ten years since he wrote this, has any theologist responded with a list of their achievements? Or are they ignoring him in the same way that Dawkins refuses to debate with creationists?
Comment by Alan Fox — December 4, 2008 @ 3:23 am
December 4th, 2008 at 4:24 am
OMG. Now you're saying theology is God. Is there no end?
What kind of Christian are you? She should trust what Jesus told her. For Heaven's sake!
Are you even a Christian? It's very clear: Christianity is simple enough for anyone to understand without theology.
I'm only saying this because it's so outrageous. You pontification about whether this example could be an answer to Dawkins's question is silly. Dawkins is one of the foremost authorities about arguments against and for religion. Even if you think he misunderstands or misrepresents every argument, surely you know he's heard the one about "my friend had three dreams…", so he couldn't possibly be asking for something so trivial.
If you want to argue about what theology is, start a thread. In this thread, the only interesting question is what Dawkins thinks theology is, because the whole point of the thread was (purportedly) to answer Dawkins's question.
Exactly.
Comment by don provan — December 4, 2008 @ 4:24 am
December 4th, 2008 at 4:37 am
Some Christians do wicked things. What's your point?
And so often they have done so using religion and in the name of Morality. Again, what's your point?
You've believed this since you were a child, but it isn't true. If I hit you, you might hit me. So we don't hit each other. Morality is born.
But let's consider another example: I write a book. I claim it is the font of all morals. You follow it. Better?
This again? No, that's not what he means by "theology".
Comment by don provan — December 4, 2008 @ 4:37 am
December 4th, 2008 at 4:50 am
Thanks for the link. The answer given now seems downright silly in the full context. Even I underestimated how pointless this anecdote was relative to the question being asked.
As important as Donna is, and as happy I am she got this message directly from God and is healthy and happy because of it, trying to diminish the success of her faith by claiming this case as a victory of theology is just ridiculous in the face of, "Science has eradicated smallpox, can immunize against most previously deadly viruses, can kill most previously deadly bacteria. Theology has done nothing but talk of pestilence as the wages of sin."
Comment by don provan — December 4, 2008 @ 4:50 am
December 4th, 2008 at 7:22 am
Dp
Simple intelligence clearly has nothing to do with morals, your moral convictions reside in the conscience, your intelligence has nothing to do with moral convictions.
Comment by willo — December 4, 2008 @ 7:22 am
December 4th, 2008 at 10:33 am
When I first read that, I thought I might have the pleasure of disagreeing with don provan. On second reading, we certainly can say that intelligence helps provide direction (or compass).
But intelligence is not enough to explain human morality. If humans only had intelligence but no passion or desire, they may not even bother to eat. But hunger impels all animals. If humans had intelligence but no passion, they would not bother to love their children. But they do mostly—just like other mammals—love their children. And like their primate relatives, humans like to belong to social groups and be thought well of by their friends, and even have a basic sense of fairness.
Intelligent insects would have a different type of morality. Working without song or dance or prayer to while away the evenings would be a good life. Eating your mate to nourish the children would be de rigueur. But among humans, tearing apart the flesh of an animal for the children to devour is a holiday tradition!
Intelligence can be used to guide human moral behavior. It can be used to develop systems of ethics, to handle the complexities of a complex society. But the roots of human morality are in human nature.
But I disagree with willo's reasons. Inheritance, not "blind chance" is the explanation. Humans are animals and ingest other organisms for sustenance. Humans are mammals and love their children; suckle them, educate them, and keep them from danger. They are primates that live in social groups that emphasize sharing and personal interrelationships. And their sins—pride and coveting and deception—are sins against the stability of the community.
Comment by Zachriel — December 4, 2008 @ 10:33 am
December 4th, 2008 at 10:56 am
Bradford: The theological ABCs are simple enough that anyone can understand them
True. You can be a Christian and not do the following:
I haven't mentioned Dawkins.
I'm not sure this is the case at least with respect to his familiarity with the ideas of the early church "fathers' from whom many core concepts were derived.
Comment by Bradford — December 4, 2008 @ 10:56 am
December 4th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
I hit you. You hit me back. Let me think about what might happen next time…
If you're stupid enough to keep hitting, I think I'm going to have to beat you to a pulp. Or organize everyone you hit into a community that has a police force to protect us from you.
Well, as I said, I think you're wrong. But never mind me: what does make it both true and obvious?
He means what everyone else means, not this bizarre concept you guys are presenting in a lame attempt to protect chuntdz from the silly mistake he made. But I've already covered all that, so this is the last I'll say about it; I've already learned that when a blogger runs out of arguments, it's the commenter that gets punished.
Comment by don provan — December 4, 2008 @ 1:18 pm
December 4th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Well, the fact is that only intelligent insects would have morals, not other insects, and I think there are other specific reasons we'd say the term "morals" itself only makes sense when applied to intelligent beings.
But that's for another thread. In this context, it's enough that we agree morals come from humans, and not from some external source. Perhaps I'm misreading willo since I can't get a straight answer about the alternative, but I've beeen guessing that the point is that something immaterial must be the direct source of morals, and you and I seem to agree that there's no basis for assuming that.
Comment by don provan — December 4, 2008 @ 1:27 pm
December 4th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
The thread is about an answer to Dawkins.
Comment by don provan — December 4, 2008 @ 1:30 pm
December 4th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Wrong. God made the prediction. Theology tells us that there is historical precedent for God making predictions. It's time for you to stop the obtuse act.
Comment by chunkdz — December 4, 2008 @ 2:21 pm
December 4th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Comment by nullasalus — December 4, 2008 @ 2:25 pm
December 4th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Have you no respect nullasalus?
Comment by Bradford — December 4, 2008 @ 2:46 pm
December 4th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
I would agree. We wouldn't say social insects have a sense of morality. Morality presumes the ability to make social judgments, and that requires some degree of intelligence. But while intelligence may be required, it is not sufficient to form the basis of a morality. Social judgments often depend on innate values, and different organisms might have differing moralities (though perhaps sharing some characteristics).
Comment by Zachriel — December 4, 2008 @ 2:59 pm
December 4th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
John Cornwell said it rather succinctly.
Face it Don, Dawkins is a great pop science writer but he is a lightweight when it comes to religion.
Comment by chunkdz — December 4, 2008 @ 3:54 pm
December 4th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Don you don't seem to understand that morals are fluid if there is no higher authority that human beings are ultimately accountable to. If there is no God then I can justify anything as good, as long as I get to pass my genes on, for I am being completely consistent with the laws that govern life on earth – survival of the fittest.
The fact that both you and I can step outside of this and demonstrate love for enemies or give up our life for someone, or in other ways demonstrate self sacrificial love, seems to go against the laws that govern life on earth.
How do we do that? I can also decide to defy the law of gravity but if I jump off a cliff I'll go splat!
I'm not saying that morals aren't obvious, they are, to both you and me. My argument is that if we are the product of blind chance and there is no God, why are morals obvious? (I'm sorry Zachriel but all documentaries that I have seen on apes demonstrate peace punctuated by violence as male members jostle for breeding rights! Basically Peace is governed by a dominant male – strength and fear, not a moral conviction to love thy neighbour, I've never seen an ape go the extra mile for a rival).
Theology on the other hand (sorry for my ignorance but I still don't know what term Dawkins means by this, please humour me) which by normal definition is the study of God found in the scriptures, does provide an explanation for our moral convictions, why we are as we are.
So in answer to Dawkins question, “What has 'theology' ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody?"
It provides a a completely coherant explanation of the human condition that his brand of atheism simply cannot!
Further in answer to his question, "When has 'theology' ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious?”
Dawkins reductionist world view (expressed in for example the 'Selfish gene') does not provide a rational explanation of human morality, or demonstrate in any way that it is obvious, but the exact opposite! Thus when say the Bible says something true and it is obvious to us, we should ask who is telling me this, he rather than Dawkins might be worth listening to.
Comment by willo — December 4, 2008 @ 4:15 pm
December 4th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
I'm sorry willo but all documentaries that I have seen on humans demonstrate peace punctuated by violence as male members jostle for breeding rights!
Mammals suckle their young, often protecting and educating them for long periods of time. Apes show altruism among their tribe or close relatives, exhibiting protection or sharing behaviors. And chimpanzees, the closest extant relative of humans, even demonstrate altruism towards unrelated individuals. They like to help.
Comment by Zachriel — December 4, 2008 @ 5:13 pm
December 4th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Yes, that is what we observe.
You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours. — General Sir Charles James Napier
Comment by Zachriel — December 4, 2008 @ 5:17 pm
December 4th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Name one
This doesn't address my example, which was going the extra mile for a rival, you already agreed in your response that this does not happen!
Comment by willo — December 4, 2008 @ 5:21 pm
December 4th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
I'm not very impressed by someone that describes "the God of the Gaps" as "the idea that there are bits missing in scientific theories that might adequately be filled by a creator." The problem, of course, isn't claiming there might be such gaps, but claiming that one god or another does fill some gap for no more reason than the fact that there's no other explanation filling.
At the same time, I agree I misspoke. I shouldn't have called Dawkins an "authority", foremost or otherwise. We might debate the issue, but it's clearly not facts in evidence, and I apologize for presenting it as if it were. My point was only that Dawkins knows a lot about religious arguments, so even if everything he knows is wrong, he's certainly heard plenty of anecdotes along these lines, so he's not going to ask for or be interested in more.
Comment by don provan — December 4, 2008 @ 5:27 pm
December 4th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Gee whiz. Peace punctuated by war is human history. Eight percent of Y-chromosomes in Central Asia trace to Genghis Khan and his male relatives. And from the dawn of history, the broken wall, the burning roof and tower and Agamemnon dead.
—
A sudden blow: the great wings beating still
Above the staggering girl, her thighs caressed
By the dark webs, her nape caught in his bill,
He holds her helpless breast upon his breast.
How can those terrified vague fingers push
The feathered glory from her loosening thighs?
And how can body, laid in that white rush,
But feel the strange heart beating where it lies?
A shudder in the loins engenders there
The broken wall, the burning roof and tower
And Agamemnon dead.
Being so caught up,
So mastered by the brute blood of the air
Did she put on his knowledge with his power
Before the indifferent beak could let her drop?
Comment by Zachriel — December 4, 2008 @ 5:32 pm
December 4th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Willo: Name one
Read the second half of your claim Zachriel, I don't have time for your foolishness. NAME ONE!
Comment by willo — December 4, 2008 @ 5:40 pm
December 4th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
I did. The Trojan War was fought over Helen.
Do you really think that Genghis Khan predominates the gene pool because of his gentile manners? The Mongols would often kill the men and keep the women. They put their descendents into positions of power and wealth that included large harems. Later in history, the Colonial powers pushed the Native Americans off their land so that they could populate the new continent. Hitler intended to depopulate much of Europe and repopulate it with the master race.
Or just a street fight over a girl.
Wars over land, over resources, over wealth, mean power. And for nearly all of human history, beautiful women have been considered a most valuable possession. Where have you been?
Comment by Zachriel — December 4, 2008 @ 5:53 pm
December 4th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Morals are fluid. Any study of Christianity will tell you that.
What you don't seem to understand is that religions grew out of morality, they didn't create morality.
You claim that our morals come from your higher authority. Other people claim it's from theirs. How do we decide which higher authority is right when they disagree?
That's actually a rhetorical question: here in the United States, at leat, the answer is to not allow invoking a higher authority to begin with in our legal system.
Christianity does that, not theology. Theology only explains Christianity's explanation.
Dawkins has perfectly good, detailed, rational explanations of human morality. You should read them sometime.
I think we're off topic, so I'm not going to go into any more detail in this thread.
Comment by don provan — December 4, 2008 @ 5:54 pm
December 4th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
I hate to break this to you Zachriel but the trojan war didn't happen, its a Greek myth.
Now please name at least one documentary of all these documentaries you've watched on human behaviour, that shows peace punctuated by violence as male members jostle for breeding rights.
I'd like to watch it
Comment by willo — December 4, 2008 @ 6:08 pm
December 4th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Look Zachriel if you want to argue for the complete continuity between human and ape behaviour, fine. I on the other hand disagree for the reasons I've already stated up thread.
Comment by willo — December 4, 2008 @ 7:11 pm
December 4th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
willo:
Yeah. Apart from forceable rape, guys just never seemed to figure out that women call the shots and make all the breeding choices. Odd, that. Big symptom of inferiority complex.
Comment by Joy — December 4, 2008 @ 7:12 pm
December 4th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
There were lots of Trojan and Greek wars, and wife-stealing a common cause of conflict.
Genghis Khan predominates in the gene pool of Central Asia—and not because of his genteel manners.
Comment by Zachriel — December 4, 2008 @ 7:25 pm
December 4th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
I'm not sure what you mean by "complete continuity", but humans exhibit many behaviors found in related organisms, while also having their own distinctive adaptations.
Comment by Zachriel — December 4, 2008 @ 7:35 pm
December 4th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
'I'm not sure what you mean by "complete continuity"
Every single doco I've watched on human behaviour presents our interaction, conflicts etc very differently than a wildlife film, you don't seem to think so. Please tell me what doco you've watched that reduces human behaviour down to the complexity of monkey interaction and I'll give it a look.
Comment by willo — December 4, 2008 @ 8:28 pm
December 4th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Apes have highly complex social behaviors. Humans vastly more complex.
Comment by Zachriel — December 4, 2008 @ 8:47 pm
December 4th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
Agreed, so why derail the thread with silly un-thought through comments? You haven't seen a single documentary to support your claim have you Zachriel?
My original comment stands up thread:
Comment by willo — December 4, 2008 @ 10:00 pm
December 4th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
In the context of a discussion of morality, you said "all documentaries that I have seen on apes demonstrate peace punctuated by violence as male members jostle for breeding rights!"
That your statement concerning apes could apply to humans is evident. Human history and culture can be characterized by peace punctuated with violence, with the power to control resources, including females, intrinsic to that struggle.
Here's a few headlines from modern times:
Fight over a woman leaves 2 men in jail.Two men, one woman, one fight.
Two men stabbed during fight over woman.
From ancient times:
Neolithic Men from Talheim, Germany fought for Women(Bentley et al., Isotopic signatures and hereditary traits: snapshot of a Neolithic community in Germany, Antiquity 2008.)From the middle ages:
Eight percent of Y-chromosomes in Central Asia trace to Genghis Khan.From the last century:
Hitler and lebensraum.In human society, where there is no law, there is no peace.
Your ignorance is not an argument. Many species of apes live in cooperative tribes. That means they help one another. They mourn the death of their children. They show sympathy for one another. They expect basic fairness. They tend not to help those not in their group, but chimpanzees will sometimes even help strangers.
Comment by Zachriel — December 4, 2008 @ 10:34 pm
December 4th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
So we are back to continuity with apes again, which one is it? Look I don't doubt we act very monkey like from time to time (although I'd still like to see that doco), and you have stated as much that we act differently too. There's continuity and discontinuity.
My argument is that the discontinuity including our awareness of a moral law, particularly our awareness that self sacrifice (which may include gving our life for someone), rather than selfishness is a virtue.
This just doesn't fit within an atelic, blind chance universe, where survival of the fittest is the only game in town. You disagree that's fine.
Comment by willo — December 4, 2008 @ 11:30 pm
December 4th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
Zach:
Yeah, and the estimated total population of Mongolia at the time was a million. Maybe. Or, according to National Geographic (which promotes your take), a whopping 8% of contemporary males in the region alive today are related to him or his male relatives, including father who was a tribal leader, grandfather, etc., etc. His son had 40 sons. His grandson Kublai had 22 legitimate sons and nobody knows how many that weren't counted, adding 30 virgins to his vast harem every year.
Ghengis had three brothers who became generals in his conquests. He had four legitimate sons and a host of others by his harem – wives from each important region of his conquests (none of whom had rights of succession). His legitimate and illegitimate sons, as well as the legitimate and illegitimate sons of his brothers and all their collective sons can readily account for 8% of the males in the region today. Even the lesser sons had multiple wives.
This cannot be attributed to rampant rape, as you would have it. The Khans were capable and intelligent rulers, dealt fairly well with conquered states so long as they submitted properly. If not, they were killed – all of them, including women and children. Most of Ghengis' extraneous wives were taken as political capital in the standard way – NOT by kidnap and/or rape. Same for his brothers and sons. He even had his mother adopt orphans from his campaigns from conquered realms, made them part of his family and tribe too. This earned him great loyalty.
So while the Khans (and kin) were obviously prolific, the Mongol empire was not built just because they wanted to fight every other male in their world for breeding rights like gorillas or chimps. By your reckoning at least half of the population of the Middle East, North Africa and Central Asia should be direct descendants of Solomon. He had 300 wives for political purposes and 700 concubines just so he could brag.
You may be a wannabe alpha ape. Most other men I've ever met do not, though some never seem to get over their teenage hormone problems. Usually they're not that popular after high school. Men may fight over women, but they generally don't win her that way unless she'd already made up HER mind before the fight ever started. You would be surprised (but no one else would) how often she runs off with the gardener (stable boy, chauffeur, gamekeeper, tennis coach) while the macho men are busy trying to kill each other off…
You never read Lysistrata?
Comment by Joy — December 4, 2008 @ 11:40 pm
December 5th, 2008 at 12:22 am
Just a thought about Dawkins, if he doesn't believe in God why is he so obsessed with him?
I don't believe in athiests
Comment by willo — December 5, 2008 @ 12:22 am
December 5th, 2008 at 8:52 am
That is correct. Humans share many behavioral patterns with their close relatives.
(I'm glad you parentheticalled your apparent belief that if you don't see it on the TV, it isn't true.)
Even if there were a perfect continuity (there's not), humans and other apes are hereditary stems and have diverged somewhat from their common ancestor. Language, in particular, has had profound effects on human social behavior.
Comment by Zachriel — December 5, 2008 @ 8:52 am
December 5th, 2008 at 9:07 am
Many other organisms will sacrifice for their family or social group, especially their dependent children. Most mammals love their children and will fight for them, or endanger themselves to protect them. Apes apparently feel compassion and a variety of other emotions similar to those held by humans. As I pointed out above, they tend to only help those in their own group (another feature shared by humans), but it's been shown that they will sometimes help strangers, as well.
With humans, the 'in-group' has been expanded over time. From just children, to family, to tribe, to town, to city-state, to nation-state. But humans have often shown a different, and frequently violent, behavior towards the 'out-group'.
Comment by Zachriel — December 5, 2008 @ 9:07 am
December 5th, 2008 at 9:13 am
Wealth and power, with young women being a coin of wealth.
Comment by Zachriel — December 5, 2008 @ 9:13 am
December 5th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Dawkins isn't obsessed with God, he's obsessed with Christians. His reasons are complex and varied, but I'd sum them up as being that Christianity is a negative influence on the advancement of human society.
Comment by don provan — December 5, 2008 @ 1:11 pm
December 5th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Oops, wrong thread!
Comment by Alan Fox — December 5, 2008 @ 1:19 pm
December 5th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
That's an irrational response from one having held an office for advancing public understanding of science. Science became established and then flourished to what it is today within a culture influenced by Judeo-Christian ideals and ancient Greek thinkers. The science and technology we enjoy today would not exist otherwise.
Comment by Bradford — December 5, 2008 @ 1:32 pm
December 5th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Don't forget the Arabs. Oh and the ancient Indians.
Comment by Alan Fox — December 5, 2008 @ 1:39 pm
December 5th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
So, umm, how about that dream that my friend had. Pretty amazing huh?
Comment by chunkdz — December 5, 2008 @ 1:44 pm
December 5th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Joy,
I've read enough of your CV to have guessed that about you.
You must know that I was talking not to you but the naysayers.
Comment by chunkdz — December 5, 2008 @ 1:48 pm
December 5th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Yeah, the Arabs et al. had their day in the sun, none of which detracts from the fact that modern science and technology is principally sourced to the west. Problematic for a critic and lauder of science who wishes to attribute problems to Christianity.
Comment by Bradford — December 5, 2008 @ 1:50 pm
December 5th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Feel free to address his extensive views on the matter and try to show that they are wrong, but don't waste my time pretending he irrationally ignores claims that science has religious roots.
Comment by don provan — December 5, 2008 @ 2:04 pm
December 5th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Again, I don't want to minimize the impact of that dream on her life and yours, and I rejoice in how amazing it is to the parties involved. But, no, in the scheme of things, it's really not that amazing at all. We learned long ago that anecdotal evidence is not reliable, and I'm pretty sure this kind of divine revelation, when carefully studied, will be found to be statistically as useful as random guesses and significantly less useful than regular check-ups where they are applicable. Sorry. But do come back when you can prove my suspicions wrong.
Comment by don provan — December 5, 2008 @ 2:14 pm
December 5th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Provan,
Lol! Just another run-of-the-mill warning dream from God containing information that the recipient didn't know which subsequently saved her life. Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.
Ahh, the scientismist's article of faith. Not a shred of evidence. Just a feeling of being "pretty sure".
Why? Everyone's entitled to their faith. Including you.
Comment by chunkdz — December 5, 2008 @ 3:38 pm
December 5th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
dp:
If Dawkins is stating anything meaningful then he must argue that Christianity is not just pernicious but more so than atheism, Buddhism, Islam, the occult… Worse than the rest. An extremely weak case. If he is claiming that all are bad influences then that is wasting my time.
Comment by Bradford — December 5, 2008 @ 3:45 pm
December 5th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
I'm still waiting for all that strong evidence lol
Of course its not Zach your whole world view is based on things going on outside of our gaze isn't it! Lets see:
The universe is the result of unstable nothingness
Life sprung from chemical non life
Humans have a common ancestor with apes
Human morality can be explained by ape behaviour, even when certain behaviours mentioned upthread have never been observed
But heh ignorance is not an argument, just use that imagine of yours and it will be
Comment by willo — December 5, 2008 @ 5:04 pm
December 5th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Generally Dawkins takes on religion as a whole. But I cannot deny he focuses mostly on Christianity in particular, and since the original comment was about God, I spoke of Christianity in my response by way of acknowledging that focus, calling it an obsession.
He doesn't so much argue for "worst", but only for good or bad as measured against various criteria he develops. I'd like to hear your evaluation of his criteria and his measurements, but only after you've looked at them.
Why wouldn't you want to know if they are bad influences? Anyway, you brought it up as if you could dismiss his points without knowing what they were. If you don't really want to know what they are, I don't mind, but please stop pretending you have a clue about their value if you've never looked at them.
Comment by don provan — December 5, 2008 @ 5:15 pm
December 5th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Nope. I've been instructed by God Himself not to have any faith, so I'm not entitled to any at all.
Comment by don provan — December 5, 2008 @ 5:20 pm
December 5th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
You do realize that there are libraries filled with this evidence, don't you? Have you looked at it and rejected it all? Or did someone tell you you should?
For all I know, it's all garbage, of course. But you have to wonder why so many people would go to so much trouble to put together so much garbage, don't you?
Besides, you're talking like you don't know about these mountains of evidence, or have some reason to think we can ignore them a priori. Does your world view not allow you to see them?
Comment by don provan — December 5, 2008 @ 5:25 pm
December 5th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Not sure what you mean by "sourced to the west". Rather than me guessing perhaps you could paraphrase.
Again, not sure what you are getting at. Do you have a particular lauder of science in mind or is that a category? Personally I don't attribute problems to Christianity. That people have created, adapted and used religions as tools of control and exploitation is the default position but the problem is people, really.
Comment by Alan Fox — December 5, 2008 @ 5:35 pm
December 5th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Its there somewhere isn't Don, just gotta keep reading.
Re Dawkins he's not an athiest he has a pathological hatred of the Christian God.
Comment by willo — December 5, 2008 @ 5:50 pm
December 5th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
There is no accepted cause of the origin of the universe, or even if 'cause' is an appropriate term.
Though there is no complete theory of abiogenesis, the evidence indicates that life arose naturally early in Earth's history.
Yes, that's a strongly supported scientific claim.
Human morality has many sources, but evidence suggests that humans have inherited aspects of their social nature from more primitive apes, including the common mammalian maternal instinct.
I note that instead of following an argument, you just pretend the evidence isn't there.
Comment by Zachriel — December 5, 2008 @ 6:00 pm
December 5th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
dp:
I do. But I rely on my own reading and analysis to derive conclusions about good and bad influences. I don't idolize Dawkins and rely on him as a source of wisdom.
His points were not detailed in your original comment which alluded to but did not specify Dawkinsian specifics. I was responding to your comment that Dawkins believes "Christianity is a negative influence on the advancement of human society."
Comment by Bradford — December 5, 2008 @ 6:06 pm
December 5th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Don't look at me. I don't agree with Dawkins. But I have read and analyzed his input instead of daemonizing him as irrational without knowing what he's said.
The point is that you jumped to the conclusion that he was being irrational instead of, even for an instant, considering that he might support such conclusions with entirely rational arguments, which he does.
Comment by don provan — December 5, 2008 @ 6:18 pm
December 5th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
He is more often referred to as an atheist. But how can you hate something that doesn't exist? That's just illogical.
Comment by Alan Fox — December 5, 2008 @ 7:20 pm
December 5th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
And yet…
Not just faith, but blind faith in the unknown. Fascinating.
Comment by chunkdz — December 5, 2008 @ 8:36 pm
December 5th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
What? You think I'm going to stake my life on it or something? I said I couldn't have any faith. I didn't say I wouldn't hazard a guess about anything.
Perhaps we should discuss the difference between having faith and guessing? Seriously. It might actually be useful: Christians, by definition, have faith in an intelligent designer. Scientists, by definition, have no faith in anything, but only guess. It may well be that the core of the ID-as-science mistake is people not understanding the difference.
Comment by don provan — December 5, 2008 @ 9:16 pm
December 5th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Provan,
Actually, scientists make educated guesses. You, on the other hand, made a guess without a shred of evidence and claimed to be pretty sure of the outcome. That's not science. That's faith.
Comment by chunkdz — December 5, 2008 @ 10:21 pm
December 6th, 2008 at 12:59 am
Well, apparently the purpose of theology was to save Donna and she's all better now, so God's work is done. You can all convert to atheism.
PS: Couldn't God have simply not given her cancer in the first place? Seems that would have been even nicer of him. "I'm going to give you three vague clues to guess what fatal illness I've inflicted on you, if you guess the right illness then you get to live! (limited time offer, offer may not apply to all breasts)"
Comment by Todd Berkebile — December 6, 2008 @ 12:59 am
December 6th, 2008 at 3:46 am
I didn't claim it was science, but it is an educated guess, and it's almost certainly correct.
I'm sorry you don't want to have a serious talk about the difference between guesses and faith, because the one thing it certainly isn't is faith. I'm not sure what to make of the idea that you'd think it was, so I'd like to hear more about why you say that. Even though I am fairly confident of the results, I'd change my mind in a second if you presented actual evidence showing the contrary. Can you even imagine doing that yourself?
Comment by don provan — December 6, 2008 @ 3:46 am
December 6th, 2008 at 6:53 am
I note you always mention evidence but never actually say what that scientific evidence is.
Why don't you enlighten us? What evidence is there that "life arose naturally"? Which I'm guessing by naturally you mean all by itself. As far as I'm aware we have NEVER observed life springing from non-life, but heh I'm ready to hear it if I've missed something.
Further, I 've already asked you repeatedly to list all the "strong evidence that humans evolved from more primitive hominoids" and you gave me cranial sizes. I then demonstrated that scientist don't view this as strong evidence and you fell silent.
Comment by willo — December 6, 2008 @ 6:53 am
December 6th, 2008 at 7:55 am
willo:
It's beyond reasonable doubt that humans evolved from more primitive hominids. Nearly all experts agree on that. Go to your library and check out the textbooks if you want evidence.
What's your empirical evidence for an alternative viewpoint?
Comment by Raevmo — December 6, 2008 @ 7:55 am
December 6th, 2008 at 10:12 am
Of course I have. For instance, on the claim concerning whether apes can exhibit altruism, I provided a recent scientific study.
Warneken et al., Spontaneous altruism by chimpanzees and young children. PLoS Biol 2007.
And this concerns helping strangers. Many apes live in cooperative tribes, so they clearly help those they know.
I provided a cite, but I can't make you read it. That you simply ignored this information rather than responding to it, or *adjusting your position accordingly*, is something that only you can be responsible for.
You can't isolate the evidence of human evolution from that of other organisms. So we start with the Theory of Common Descent. Do you understand the evidence that scientists consider important to this claim?
Comment by Zachriel — December 6, 2008 @ 10:12 am
December 6th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
willo:
You don't know that mice spontaneously generate from dirty underwear? Or that maggots spontaneously generate from rotting meat? C'mon, willo. Get modern!!! §;o)
Comment by Joy — December 6, 2008 @ 2:05 pm
December 6th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Zachriel:
Just as I thought, I ask for two specific, examples, you ignore one completely, and fail again to list anything for the second. Let's assume I know as much as you about the theory of common descent, most people here do you know! Now how about it?
willo:
As far as I'm aware we have NEVER observed life springing from non-life, but heh I'm ready to hear it if I've missed something.
You don't know that mice spontaneously generate from dirty underwear? Or that maggots spontaneously generate from rotting meat? C'mon, willo. Get modern!!! §;o)
Thankyou Joy, I've left my dirty clothes up stairs in a pile in the hope that a person might appear and clean up the rest of the room.
Comment by willo — December 6, 2008 @ 3:46 pm
December 6th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Try telling that to a Paleoanthropologist
Comment by willo — December 6, 2008 @ 4:08 pm
December 6th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Comment by Bradford — December 6, 2008 @ 4:39 pm
December 6th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Paleoanthropologists consider human evolutionary descent to be a subset of Common Descent.
Most scientists consider the evidence supporting the Theory of Common Descent to be extensive and convincing.
The evidence is extensive and convincing, leads to specific empirical predictions, unites disparate fields from geology to genomics, and has been a fruitful paradigm for scientific research. Do you disagree? If so, why?
Comment by Zachriel — December 6, 2008 @ 6:36 pm
December 6th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
"Extensive and convincing" but you cannot give me one little bit of this extensive and convincing evidence, with regards to humans evolving from more primitive hominids no matter how much I ask for it.
Nor can you give me a scrap of evidence that life evolved naturally (all by itself).
Comment by willo — December 6, 2008 @ 6:53 pm
December 6th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
But you *just said* you were familiar with the evidence, the same evidence that professional scientists in many different fields of science consider extensive and convincing. As you are already familiar with the evidence, then you might try to explain why you reject the conclusion of the vast majority of involved scientific specialists.
Comment by Zachriel — December 6, 2008 @ 7:04 pm
December 6th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Goodness me, I've already listed that those in the actually field (in the other thread) do not find the evidence strong or convincing with regards to humans evolving from Hominids. I'm agreeing with them.
But if you've got some new info I'm all ears, do tell!
While your at it I'm still waiting for the evidence that life begun naturally.
Comment by willo — December 6, 2008 @ 7:50 pm
December 6th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
Nothing you posted in the previous thread was evidence against common descent of humans with other hominids. That there is disagreement as to exactly where particular species fit in the phylogenetic tree does not call into question Common Descent.
In general, few fossil species can be considered certain as a direct ancestor of any extant species. But we can find fossils that are *stems* near the common ancestor.
As I said, you have to start with the Theory of Common Descent before trying to resolve issues concerning particular branches. You said you were aware of the evidence, but you haven't mentioned any reason why the vast majority of scientists are wrong about this basic biological theory.
No. You're trying to pretend that because they disagree where particular species fit in the phylogenetic tree that they are refuting Common Descent, that humans, hominids and other apes share a common ancestor.
Yoel Rak: Australopithicus afarensis "should be placed as the beginning of the branch that evolved in parallel to ours."
Charles Oxnard: The result sees the living African apes and humans as one product of evolutionary radiation (late divergence hypothesis). The lineage leading towards orang-utans must have been the early separate… Earliest of all, however, Darwin (1859) himself made it quite clear that he had glimpsed the possibility of molecular evolution
So, they clearly accept Common Descent. Be direct. Do you accept that humans, hominids and other apes have a common ancestor?
Comment by Zachriel — December 6, 2008 @ 11:23 pm
December 7th, 2008 at 4:19 am
Its funny you know, if you asked me for some strong evidence for gravity. I wouldn't ask you if you understood the theory of Newtons law, or point you to what all the scientists say or to a library. I'd say, "pick up a pen and drop it"!!
But when I ask for the "evidence" that "life arose naturally", as you claimed, you ignore the question completely.
And then when it comes to the "strong", "extensive and convincing" evidence that humans evolved from more primitive hominids. Rather than laying it out, you decide to twist my words from scientists "do not find the evidence strong or convincing" to scientist claiming what they've found as "evidence against common descent"??
I never said anything of the sort.
I know they are committed to common descent, problem is by their own admission they have no strong evidence to support this belief and they admit as much!
Henry Gee:
New fossil discoveries are fitted into this preexisting story. We call these new discoveries 'missing links', as if the chain of ancestry and descent were a real object for our contemplation, and not what it really is: a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices. In reality, the physical record of human evolution is more modest. Each fossil represents an isolated point, with no knowable connection to any other given fossil, and all float around in an overwhelming sea of gaps. In Search of Deep Time (2001) p. 32
Comment by willo — December 7, 2008 @ 4:19 am
December 7th, 2008 at 4:40 am
Nope. The methodology itself is also checked continuously. And personally confirmed by each one of us many times every day.
But not all of us realize we're confirming the scientific method every time we taste the soup we're making to see if the spicing is right.
Comment by don provan — December 7, 2008 @ 4:40 am
December 7th, 2008 at 5:27 am
Here is some more reading with regards to Australopithicus afarensis for those who are not up to speed:
Just to repeat from that last quote:
"The australopithecines are now irrevocably removed from a place in a group any closer to humans than to African apes and certainly from any place in a direct human lineage"
Comment by willo — December 7, 2008 @ 5:27 am
December 7th, 2008 at 5:39 am
That could only be said by someone that agrees that there is a relation and only argues that australopithecines is part of some other relation within the ape family.
Did you miss this part where they said chimpanzees and humans were relatives?
Have you considered the possibility that you don't really understand what they're arguing about?
Comment by don provan — December 7, 2008 @ 5:39 am
December 7th, 2008 at 6:18 am
Don:
What he's sayng Don is clear, australopithecines provide no more insights into common descent than African apes.
But we are discussing australopithecines which "unexpectedly" turned out to be a closer realtive to Gorillas than chimps.
All I'm doing is showing that australopithecines do not constitute "strong evidence" indeed nothing of the sort.
Comment by willo — December 7, 2008 @ 6:18 am
December 7th, 2008 at 8:36 am
Then we all agree that humans, hominids and apes share a common ancestor. That is sufficient for now.
Comment by Zachriel — December 7, 2008 @ 8:36 am
December 7th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
That has got to be one of the most juvenile responses I think I have ever seen on this thread, for the record:
Zachriel distorts things to suit his own ends, a fine example of how he does science. You ought to be ashamed of yourself!
Comment by willo — December 7, 2008 @ 6:04 pm
December 7th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
As they are making their arguments within the context of Common Descent, that is not correct. If you reject Common Descent, then you are not agreeing with them. Furthermore, Rak and Oxnard are discussing Australopithecus and not Homo. Please quit misrepresenting their view.
The evidence for evolution begins with Common Descent. You said you were familiar with this evidence, but you have been evasive about your objections. All you have done thus far is quote-mine some disagreements concerning the exact pattern of branching. I have asked several times.
Comment by Zachriel — December 7, 2008 @ 10:00 pm
December 8th, 2008 at 1:33 am
Questioning this one little detail doesn't erase the rest of the evidence. If you understand that, and are really only interested in discussion this one issue, you'll probably find more interesting and competent discussion among paleontologist. In the context of Telic Thoughts, people might get the mistaken impression that you are using the controversy over this one issue as a way to argue against there being a common ancestor of the ape family. I made that mistake, in fact, which is why I pointed out that the paper clearly takes the common ancestor for granted, which is not surprising given the strong evidence for it that doesn't depend on this one hominid.
If you really wanted to know about that evidence, have you considered checking out the references in this paper? Asking people here at Telic Thoughts about that evidence seems like a poor way to research the issue, if you were really interested in seeing the evidence instead of only interested in denying it.
Comment by don provan — December 8, 2008 @ 1:33 am
December 8th, 2008 at 1:35 am
Zachriel:
That is the biggest load of tripe I have ever heard, are you telling me I can only agree that the evidence is poor only if I believe in common descent?
You have got to be kidding Zachriel!
Comment by willo — December 8, 2008 @ 1:35 am
December 8th, 2008 at 1:42 am
Zachriel:
You introduced this as evidence remember, I'm only responding
Zachriel:
I except all things on evidence, now if that evidence is "strong, extensive and convincing", how about spilling the beans!!!
So far the only "strong, extensive and convincing evidence that we evolved from more primitive hominids", is your monkey business on this thread!
Comment by willo — December 8, 2008 @ 1:42 am
December 8th, 2008 at 4:03 am
Willo:
Zachriel:
Wikepedia:
A hominid is any member of the biological family Hominidae (the "great apes"), including the extinct and extant humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans.
???
Comment by willo — December 8, 2008 @ 4:03 am
December 8th, 2008 at 6:45 am
This was from Rak, I put both quotes up for people to have a look at, and to show that australopithecines does not provide "strong evidence". You are free to disagree
Comment by willo — December 8, 2008 @ 6:45 am
December 8th, 2008 at 10:30 am
I'm saying you can't agree with an argument that is based on what you consider to be false reasoning, even if you agree with the conclusion.
That is false. You just mentioned the "other thread", wherein *you* raised Lucy up as a 'straw hominid'.
And that is false. The authors, Rak and Oxnard do not disagree that humans evolved from primitive hominids, only that they did not evolve from the line that includes Lucy, Australopithecus afarensis.
You said you were already familiar with the evidence most scientists consider significant. As I have stated repeatedly, the phylogenetic tree is the most important evidence.
Homo is the genus that includes humans and their close relatives, such as Homo habilis and Homo erectus. Hominidae is the family that includes Homo, Pan and Gorilla.
No single specimen can be considered conclusive. You can't construct a phylogenetic tree from a single node.
Comment by Zachriel — December 8, 2008 @ 10:30 am
December 8th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Provan,
Let's see what you wrote:
•You think that you are "certainly correct" about this. Yet you admit that this hasn't been carefully studied yet. You've made a blind assertion.
•I have presented one example where a dream was accurate. There are many, many more documented throughout history. You have no data to support your "statistically as useful as random guesses" claim. Once again a blind assertion.
•As for your claim that dreams like my friend's are less useful than regular checkups, you ignored the fact that breast cancer screenings are not recommended until age 40. She'd have been dead by then. The facts in this case are contrary to your claim.
So what do you call it when a critic like yourself makes a series of blind, unsupported assertions that defy the facts, yet believes he is "certainly correct"?
Comment by chunkdz — December 8, 2008 @ 12:23 pm
December 8th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
WebMD: The following are the recommendations for breast cancer screening:
* Monthly breast breast self-examination starting at age 20.
* Breast examination by a health-care provider every three years starting at age 20; annual clinical breast exam starting at age 40.
* Annual screening mammography starting at age 40.
* Women in high-risk categories may want to consider starting screening at age 30.
Comment by Zachriel — December 8, 2008 @ 12:57 pm
December 8th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
As I stated in the original post, Donna's cancer was not detectable by standard breast examination or self exam. Her first recommended mammogram would have been scheduled after she was dead.
How is this "more useful" than a warning from God?
Comment by chunkdz — December 8, 2008 @ 1:13 pm
December 8th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
It is inarguable that more such warnings would be useful. I would have appreciated one myself. It would nonetheless appear that disease and premature death still decimate populations and the more so in poor and undeveloped countries around the globe. God needs to send out more warnings. Also he needs to provide more healthcare infrastructure. Maybe he could spread a few more faith healers into areas that need more healing. Maybe he could eradicate disease. Maybe he could let us all live forever.
Comment by Alan Fox — December 8, 2008 @ 1:20 pm
December 8th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
I posted that mostly for informational purposes. As to your point.
Her next scheduled breast exam was at age 35, the year the cancer was detected. However, every day counts with some cancers, so perhaps she rushed to an earlier appointment.
Comment by Zachriel — December 8, 2008 @ 1:39 pm
December 8th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Hi Alan,
I heard a story once about a father who had to take his 2 year old son to the doctor to have a painful procedure done on his ear. The father was asked to hold his son still while he scraped away. The son looked up at the father as if to say "How can you do this to me? Why are you helping that monster hurt me like this?!?" The son couldn't understand that the father was trying to help him – he only knew at that moment that his dad was causing him pain and suffering.
Such is the suffering of humanity. Yet if a two year old is of considerably less understanding than a father, how much more so are we humans unable to understand the actions of an omnipotent God? Pain seems to be an integral part of human experience – it is what makes us grow and mature. Who am I to request that it be taken away? For all we know, a human life without any pain or suffering is the most debilitating existence of all.
Comment by chunkdz — December 8, 2008 @ 2:16 pm
December 8th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Zach,
Huh?
Comment by chunkdz — December 8, 2008 @ 2:24 pm
December 8th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
20, 23, 26, 29, 32, 35 …
Comment by Zachriel — December 8, 2008 @ 2:31 pm
December 8th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
This is very close to one of Dawkins's points: if you believe in God, and you accept this idea that humans are less able to understand God's motives than a 2-year-old understanding an adult's motives, by what standard can you say theology is telling you anything useful?
Comment by don provan — December 8, 2008 @ 3:08 pm
December 8th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Chunkdz:
I read your comment and finished commenting elsewhere to find don has trumped me.
I envy you your certainty and belief. I can empathise to the point that I have certainly felt that overwhelming sense of undeserved unquestioning trust from one's own child. It can be frankly frightening. Times change, however, and my 26 year old daughter sensibly no longer imbues me with god-like abilities. Far from it!
Comment by Alan Fox — December 8, 2008 @ 3:28 pm
December 8th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Yeah, I watched Schoolhouse Rock too. But my friend still wasn't supposed to have a mammogram until she turns 40 by which time she'd probably be dead. Did you have another point to make?
Comment by chunkdz — December 8, 2008 @ 5:26 pm
December 8th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Provan,
When theology intersects with reality and Don Provan's advice does not, then clearly theology is more useful.
Comment by chunkdz — December 8, 2008 @ 5:53 pm
December 8th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Alan,
In what sense is the trust of the child undeserved?
Comment by chunkdz — December 8, 2008 @ 5:59 pm
December 8th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Let me know if you think of an actual answer to the problem of 2-year-olds studying adult behavior.
Comment by don provan — December 8, 2008 @ 6:03 pm
December 8th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
In the sense it is difficult to live up to the powers and abilities that a young child can bestow on a parent. Parents are human, not gods.
Comment by Alan Fox — December 8, 2008 @ 6:10 pm
December 8th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
You said she went to the doctors for "to get checked out". That would seem to mean she went to the doctor to get screened for cancer, and we can presume the doctors used the appropriate screening tests for their patient's situation. She was due for a cancer screening that year anyway. The doctor may have noticed something and decided on the mammogram.
In any case, I'm glad she discovered the cancer early and is doing well.
Comment by Zachriel — December 8, 2008 @ 6:25 pm
December 8th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
For the record, Hominid Species (from talk origins):
Sahelanthropus tchadensis
Orrorin tugenensis
Ardipithecus ramidus
Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus afarensis
Kenyanthropus platyops
Australopithecus africanus
Australopithecus garhi
Australopithecus aethiopicus
Australopithecus robustus
Australopithecus boisei
Homo habilis
Homo georgicus
Homo erectus
Homo ergaster
Homo antecessor
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo neanderthalensis
Homo floresiensis
Homo sapiens sapiens
Straw Hominid?? What on earth are you talking about Zachriel? LUCY IS A HOMINID! You've got no idea do you?
You couldn't lie straight in bed could you Zachriel! These two ARE NOT the only people I quoted re the lack of strong evidence that humans evolved from more primitive Hominids, eg
"New fossil discoveries are fitted into this preexisting story. We call these new discoveries 'missing links', as if the chain of ancestry and descent were a real object for our contemplation, and not what it really is: a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices. In reality, the physical record of human evolution is more modest. Each fossil represents an isolated point, with no knowable connection to any other given fossil, and all float around in an overwhelming sea of gaps". Henry Gee, In Search of Deep Time (2001) p. 32
Great title to the thread Chunkdz – the stuff of dreams
Comment by willo — December 8, 2008 @ 6:26 pm
December 8th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
…
Comment by Zachriel — December 8, 2008 @ 7:20 pm
December 8th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Not all hominids are in the genus Homo, but all Homo are hominids (family Hominidae).
What is expected is a bifurcating tree. Because of the difficulty of resolving the exact branch, a particular organism may be a cousin rather than a direct ancestor. I already made this precise response to you, but you continue to make the same irrelevant objection. Indeed, Gee says much the same thing.
You really should stop taking quotes out of their context in an attempt to misrepresent the views of scientists.
Comment by Zachriel — December 8, 2008 @ 7:27 pm
December 8th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Glad you've got up to speed, I never called Lucy anything other than a Hominid. Hilarious
Hypocrite, I have had to constantly fix how you quote me, what a lying fraud you are! Why don't you go and practice what you preach!
What Gee said is plain to see re strong evidence that we evolved from more proimitive Hominids, read again closely:
"New fossil discoveries are fitted into this preexisting story. We call these new discoveries 'missing links', as if the chain of ancestry and descent were a real object for our contemplation, and not what it really is: a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices"
Comment by willo — December 8, 2008 @ 7:47 pm
December 8th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Alan,
Granted, but irrelevant to my analogy. The father in my story was deserving of trust regardless of how the son felt about it.
Comment by chunkdz — December 8, 2008 @ 7:47 pm
December 8th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Provan,
You've not grasped the difference between understanding whether some piece of information is useful, and understanding someone's motives.
We don't need to know motives to know something is useful. Donna does not need to know God's motive to know that the information she received was useful.
Comment by chunkdz — December 8, 2008 @ 7:56 pm
December 8th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Notice he said "possibility"! Time will tell, but as for now there is no "strong evidence" to speak of!
Comment by willo — December 8, 2008 @ 8:07 pm
December 8th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Zach,
Actually the hospital decided on the mammogram not because of anything they found but because my friend had asked about getting one. The cancer was stage 0 asymptomatic when she walked in so the manual examination would have revealed nothing.
But congratulations on being the first critic to actually do some form of investigation. It's about time someone actually tried to do some critical thinking about this instead of the usual "it's just a coincidence – go back to sleep" approach we've been seeing.
Comment by chunkdz — December 8, 2008 @ 8:10 pm
December 8th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Chunk, I wasn't making a general point, really. I was saying I felt the level of trust was undeserved in my case. I didn't at the time my daughter was a toddler consider myself a perfect parent. But I think we are both playing in the rough. I am also a little piqued at some recent moderating decisions so I'll give this site a rest for a while at least. Unless there is some new development, of course.
Comment by Alan Fox — December 8, 2008 @ 8:11 pm
December 8th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
Just to summarize here is the state of play atm:
No common ancestor between chimps, apes and humans has ever been found
No direct lineage between this common ancestor and humans can be traced (Gee)
The fossils discovered are "possibly" (Gee) side branches from a common ancestor. Gee says possibly because of course that's all that can be said at this stage.
Comment by willo — December 8, 2008 @ 8:54 pm
December 8th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Alan,
The rough?!? I was just about to reach for my 3 wood.
I don't know what moderating decisions you're talking about but I, for one, hope you decide to stick around.
Comment by chunkdz — December 8, 2008 @ 9:26 pm
December 8th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
Which brings you right back to your original misstatement.
In fact, Rak, Oxnard and Gee all agree that humans evolved from some primitive hominid, including primitive Homo.
I agree with Gee that fossils only represent the tiniest fraction of the totality of biological history. Nevertheless, he agrees that humans evolved from primitive hominids and share ancestry with primates. Repeating your quote-mine doesn't change his views.
The possibilities he is considering is whether a particular fossil is a direct descendent or a close cousin. And I agree with Gee that it is not always possible to know with any certainty. That is different that saying that he does not find the scientific evidence for Common Descent convincing.
Common ancestry between humans and other mammals has been scientifically established, as Rak, Oxnard and Gee agree.
Comment by Zachriel — December 8, 2008 @ 11:03 pm
December 8th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
Thank you for the clarification.
Comment by Zachriel — December 8, 2008 @ 11:07 pm
December 9th, 2008 at 12:39 am
Which brings you right back to your original misstatement.
Zachriel Australopithecus IS a hominid, there was no misrepresentation whatsoever. I can't believe you would continue with this.
I never questioned his commitment, like I said before I know he believes humans evolved from more primitive hominids. It's just that they've got to keep digging till they find them.
What "scientific evidence" are you talking about? That is all I want to know?
Tell me which of these statements are wrong:
No common ancestor between chimps, apes and humans has ever been found.
No direct lineage between this unfound common ancestor and humans can be traced (Gee)
The fossils discovered are "possibly" (Gee) side branches to the human lineage, from this yet to be discovered common ancestor.
Comment by willo — December 9, 2008 @ 12:39 am
December 9th, 2008 at 4:41 am
And Donna didn't need theology to tell her that the information was useful or how to use it.
Comment by don provan — December 9, 2008 @ 4:41 am
December 9th, 2008 at 5:17 am
Parthian shot:
@ Chunkdz,
I am pleasantly surprised to read that, thanks. The moderation issue was Bradford closing this thread when there seemed plenty of life in it. I commented in another thread, but Bradford did not pick up on it.
@ willo
The first few chapters of "The Ancestor's Tale" by Dawkins cover the evidence for the relatedness of apes and humans in some detail, with plenty of references to the primary literature. Written in 2004, it is still reasonably up to date, and doesn't dodge the fact there is still much controversy over many points of detail. You don't even have to buy a copy, as chunkdz has one which I am sure he would lend you. I suggest it to "know your enemy", avoiding the otherwise likely charge that you are building and knocking down straw men.
Patton (after outmanoeuvring Rommel) : [referring to Rommel's book, 'Infantry Attacks' or 'Infanterie greift an'] Rommel… you magnificent bastard, *I read your book*!
Comment by Alan Fox — December 9, 2008 @ 5:17 am
December 9th, 2008 at 6:17 am
Nb: Although Australopithecus is a hominid and clearly was the hominid under discussion in the context of the thread. To avoid any confusion that I was suggesting humans evolved from humans I'll preface any further reference with 'primitive'
Comment by willo — December 9, 2008 @ 6:17 am
December 9th, 2008 at 6:31 am
Cheers Alan, I've done a bit of reading but haven't read that one as yet, so it'd be good to have a look.
I must say though I'm not building and knocking down anything really, I'm just asking for a clear answer to the claim that there is strong evidence that humans evolved from more primitive hominids.
The truth is as far as I've seen and read is that what we actually have is far from strong or exhaustive. As such the evidence before us is only convincing if one already is committed to this paradigm.
Comment by willo — December 9, 2008 @ 6:31 am
December 9th, 2008 at 7:01 am
willo:
The arrogance of the ignorant crackpot. As far as you have seen and read – and (mis)understood I might add. How should we weigh your opinion against the consensus resulting from millions of hours of study by expert scientists?
Comment by Raevmo — December 9, 2008 @ 7:01 am
December 9th, 2008 at 8:33 am
I thought I answered that already.
Zachriel: Humans clearly the fit within the phylogenetic tree which includes vertebrates, mammals and primates. There are a number of fossils of Homo erectus, so you might start there.
Zachriel: As I pointed out above, humans fit quite well within the phylogenetic tree with vertebrates, mammals and primates. Constructing a valid tree takes more than one data-point. Nor is Australopithecus afarensis the example I provided, but Homo erectus and Homo habilis.
Zachriel: Nothing you posted in the previous thread was evidence against common descent of humans with other hominids. That there is disagreement as to exactly where particular species fit in the phylogenetic tree does not call into question Common Descent.
Zachriel: As I have stated repeatedly, the phylogenetic tree is the most important evidence.
Zachriel: No single specimen can be considered conclusive. You can't construct a phylogenetic tree from a single node.
This is what you said.
That is a complete misrepresentation of their views. The scientific authorities you cited *do* find the evidence strong and convincing regarding the evolution from human from more primitive hominids. And you have continued with this misrepresentation even after it was pointed out to you.
Thank you for attempting a clarification, but you still haven't addressed the issue. They are disagreeing as to whether certain Australopitheci are in the direct human lineage, not "with regards to humans evolving from Hominids" which they do not dispute.
Comment by Zachriel — December 9, 2008 @ 8:33 am
December 9th, 2008 at 8:42 am
Fossils are remains of dead organisms. There is usually no way to even know if a particular specimen had surviving children. The question then is whether a particular specimen is representative of the species or closely related species to the common ancestor. Homo erectus is clearly such a species. Most scientists would even say it was an ancestor species.
Fossils are not the only evidence, of course.
We may not be able to find a representative fossil of every step in the evolutionary lineage. Nor would we necessarily expect to be able to do so.
Remember, you asked me what I considered the important evidence, weeks ago, and have continued to ignore it ever since, even while asking me again and again.
According to Gee, particular fossils may represent side-branches or ancestors, and it can be difficult to make the distinction with any certainty. As such, that means there is a common ancestor, because that is exactly what a branch on a phylogenetic tree means.
Comment by Zachriel — December 9, 2008 @ 8:42 am
December 9th, 2008 at 9:17 am
We have only a few scattered data-points in the phylogenetic tree. We have extant organisms, the precious few lineages that survived out of the countless that didn't; and even fewer fossils, with some lineages better represented that others. The key is that it can be difficult to distinguish between closely related fossil organisms, or discern the exact sequence of events in a geologically rapid radiation. And this is exactly what we expect from an evolutionary descent.
Comment by Zachriel — December 9, 2008 @ 9:17 am
December 9th, 2008 at 9:33 am
As a case in point, Homo erectus may have coexisted with Homo habilis and therefore may not be on the direct line to modern humans.
Spoor, Leakey, et al., Implications of new early Homo fossils from Ileret, east of Lake Turkana, Kenya, Nature 2007.
Comment by Zachriel — December 9, 2008 @ 9:33 am
December 9th, 2008 at 9:45 am
For clarity,
Zachriel: As a case in point, Homo erectus may have coexisted with Homo habilis and therefore Homo habilis may not be on the direct line to modern humans.
Comment by Zachriel — December 9, 2008 @ 9:45 am
December 9th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Alright lets get to the heart of the matter.
Ok the phylogenetic tree is the most important evidence. Now if evey fossil found so far is considered a side branch and there is no commom ancestor discovered, then that means there is actually NO evidence yet found (that is that can be observed) that humans evolved from more primitive hominids.
For not even one single step in the line between that yet to be discovered common ancestor and modern man can be traced.
Comment by willo — December 9, 2008 @ 2:11 pm
December 9th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
You guys feel free to continue discussing hominids, but to summarize the topic (which was dreams, you might remember):
1. Anecdotes are not evidence.
Bonny had the same dreams Donna had. But Bonny had an accident on the way to the doctor and was killed. So now we know that half the time dreams are useful and half the time they kill you.
By the way, if you're worried about the possibility of me making up Bonny, you should also be worried about the possibility of chunkdz making up Donna.
2. Christianity is not theology.
3. Something good happening because of something you believe does not constitute a prediction.
4. An omnicient being making a prediction is not very interesting.
5. When you make a claim, you are the one that needs to support it with evidence. When someone questions your claim, it makes no sense to insist they prove you wrong when no one has any reason to think you might be right.
6. It is naive to think that no one has tried to demonstrate the positive effects of religion scientifically.
Comment by don provan — December 9, 2008 @ 2:53 pm
December 9th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
…
Comment by Zachriel — December 9, 2008 @ 3:18 pm
December 9th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Provan,
Actually, feel free to stick to the original topic.
No, the topic was divine revelation. The example in question just happened to be a dream. Three dreams in one evening to be exact.
Yes they are. They're called "anecdotal evidence". The fact is we only know dreams exist anecdotally since they have never been seen, touched, smelled, tasted, or heard. One of the points of this blog was to point out that science still studies dreams even though they are metaphysical, and even though every dream is anecdotal evidence.
This is why critical thinking demands that you should actually find some kind of statistical study to support your notion that this is just a coincidence. As for me, I'm simply relating one example because it only takes one example to answer Dawkins question.
Never said it was. In fact, I never even said whether Donna was a Christian. Yet another example of bad critical thinking on your part.
This is a misrepresentation. What actually happened was that God, in a dream, told Donna that she had cancer. This prediction was verified using a medical apparatus.
Your subjective opinion is noted. Donna disagrees.
As is the case with all oneirology, the evidence is anecdotal.
So far no one has questioned Donna's claim, mostly because her claim was supported by the results of the mammogram and subsequent biopsy. But feel free. Donna has agreed to answer any questions that you might have.
Indeed. The positive effects of religion are well documented in the scientific literature. This example, however, is an example of the positive effects of taking a theological view of revelation.
Don, since you seem to be all over the place in your criticism of, well, everything, allow me to offer my own summary:
1. Donna had a 3 dreams in which God told her she had cancer.
2. Donna was young, asymptomatic, and had no family history – no reason to suspect that she had a deadly disease.
3. Donna had to choose – was this just a scary dream that she should ignore? Or does God actually reveal unknown information through dreams?
4. Donna decided to follow the theological view of revelation. Science told her to wait until she was 40.
5. Donna's cancer was caught before it became invasive.
6. Theology proved to be much more useful to Donna than Richard Dawkins. Apparently, listening to Richard Dawkins can get you killed.
(Darn, that would have been a much better title for this blog!
)
Comment by chunkdz — December 9, 2008 @ 3:55 pm
December 9th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
I don't see anything about revelations.
I'd laugh if this weren't so sad.
Brilliant point. I wish I'd made it myself. Oh, wait! That's exactly the point I've been making.
I'd list exactly what happened to Bonny, but obviously you'd still miss the point.
Comment by don provan — December 9, 2008 @ 8:09 pm
December 9th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Provan,
That would require actually reading the entire post.
Yet it's true. If you know a better way to study dreams other than through the hearsay of dreamers let me know.
Ummm, you were the only one who claimed to be "certainly correct" in your conclusions – even in the absence of any statistical data.
Time for you to back up your claim, Don.
What makes you so "certain" other than your faith that science will someday find an answer? Do you actually have a shred of evidence to support your feeling of being "certainly correct"? My guess is no.
Comment by chunkdz — December 9, 2008 @ 9:04 pm
December 9th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Not if all I want to know is what the post is about. That would be captured in the title.
The least of the problems with anecdotal evidence is that it's only as reliable as hearsay.
Only bloggers make claims. I'm just a commentator pointing out that this blogger's claims are unsupported. No one would be interested in my claims even if I made any.
Comment by don provan — December 9, 2008 @ 9:39 pm
December 9th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
DP,
That's obtuse even for you.
Yep, studying dreams is difficult.
That's a pretty dumb claim.
Comment by chunkdz — December 9, 2008 @ 10:19 pm