What Dichotomy?
by BradfordA Telic Thoughts member introduced some quotes of Sean Carroll echoing a familiar theme that pits science against religion. It's an old knee-jerk tactic about which even some atheists have had second thoughts. As Michael Shermer notes in his article Rational Atheism Anti-something movements by themselves will fail. That incidentally also accounts for some negative reactions toward intelligent design. As long as criticism of mainstream evolution and abiogenesis was "anti" in nature there was an instinctive feel that it was eventually doomed. ID puts forth positve inferences and for that reason alone has a different impact.
Carroll is quoted as stating:
Similarly, I can't prove that the early universe was in a hot, dense state billions of years ago, nor that human beings evolved from precursor species under the pressures of natural selection.
Carroll is correct that he cannot prove or even provide strong evidence for precursors if those precursors are pre-cellular, molecular ones. Yet he believes anyway. It's never all about science even for atheists like Carroll.
Like Carroll, Mike Godfrey believes science is compatible with the belief that the universe had an origin. He also provides this quote at his blog asking some rational questions:
"Suppose you hear a loud bang"¦and you ask me, "˜What made that bang?' and I reply, "˜Nothing, it just happened.' You would not accept that."
What answer do atheists give for the cause of the biggest bang, the creation of the universe?
If the answer atheists would give is there is no prior cause, should they accept that?
Do they believe that the universe had a cause, in accordance with the cause and effect premise of logic ?
If so what is it?
If not, then did the universe just pop into being like magic?
Where is the alleged dichotomy between science and a metaphysical framework that attributes ultimate causality to God?
August 20th, 2007 at 1:35 am
He doesn't believe in this like people believe in God. Carroll believes in science since this is the only framework we have for making discoveries about the universe as opposed to those who believe in God despite all the contradicting evidence, just because "something cannot simply arise out of nothing" which is their last attempt to somehow preserve the specimen of God in their mental chambers.If we would have stayed with the prehistoric idea of a supreme being, we would still be in the stone-age and not near the advent of the technological singularity.
Bradford, why are you cherry-picking specific parts of the quote and then warping it around to formulate your question? Carroll addresses the "belief" part a bit after the part you quoted and the metaphysical dichotomy is addressed as well.
I think you should have focused on the more important observation he made - that God doesn't solve anything, but instead, garbles up the picture so much that one has to wonder whether he is needed at all. I think that the seemingly unsolvable enigma of "why is there something rather than nothing?" and the attempts to bridge the gap by introducing god are more than futile even compared with the initial goal, since that shifts the onus on answering "why should there be a God that created the universe out of nothing and not say nothing at all including God?". The metaphysical grounds are shaky due to their foundations, but they are also shaky because God doesn't fix them but makes them even more paradoxical.
Did God just pop into being like magic?
Comment by dimasok — August 20, 2007 @ 1:35 am
August 20th, 2007 at 1:46 am
Dimasok- Science is not the only framework through which we can make discoveries. The distinguishing feature about science is its connection to experimentation. We can learn without experimenting. Toddlers do it every day. So do adults.
The subject matter for the blog entry is of my own choosing. The theme being there is no contradiction between science and a belief in God and no support for atheism from science. I don't need Carroll to support that.
Comment by Bradford — August 20, 2007 @ 1:46 am
August 20th, 2007 at 1:52 am
There IS a contradiction between science and a belief in God, a HUGE and irreconcilable (at least for the time being) contradiction and science DOES lead to atheism, at least in it's CURRENT state (do you happen to recall when it did NOT lead to atheism?) - now, it can all change of course and I hope it does, but for now, it's the status-quo.
Whether you support God as a deistic prime-mover or a theistic intervener - it's too metaphysical to be considered science and thus, you can only argue your point as a personal belief.
Yes, but we know pretty much everything by the age of what, 10? 15? After that, it's all scientific and not personal discovery (otherwise, we would have made all our discoveries shortly after evolving into full-fledged homo-sapiens).
Comment by dimasok — August 20, 2007 @ 1:52 am
August 20th, 2007 at 1:57 am
You stopped learning at age 10 or 15?:shock: You can assert all you wish and capitalize words too but that does nothing to support the contention that science and a belief in God are contradictoy or that science leads to atheism. You need to employ logic and evidence at Telic Thoughts.
Comment by Bradford — August 20, 2007 @ 1:57 am
August 20th, 2007 at 2:00 am
I think you can Google any piece of logic or evidence you need, do you really need me to gather all the evidence here for the umpteenth time?
On your part, you can argue all you want that there isn't a contradiction between science & God or that science does not lead to atheism, but the majority of the scientific community in the theoretical and experimental high-energy physics field would disagree with you and thanks god that there are still rational people left in the world.
Oh and it's funny that you're asking ME to employ logic and evidence when you're the one who makes illogical and utterly absurd claims that not many would accept.
Comment by dimasok — August 20, 2007 @ 2:00 am
August 20th, 2007 at 2:12 am
You've demonstrated an unrelenting hostility to theism and a belief in atheism. Your personal beliefs are noted. If you wish to contribute to this thread you are going to have to stick to the topic and make something more than repetetive remarks.
Comment by Bradford — August 20, 2007 @ 2:12 am
August 20th, 2007 at 2:21 am
I'm a transhumanist & a panpsychist to an extent (my personal speculations inferred from the data which I don't purport to claim truly represent reality), so it's much better than atheism after all.
About staying on-topic - the dichotomy is in the fact that it doesn't follow that if it appears that the universe came out of nothing, then God should have been the creator. There is absolutely zero, zilch evidence for that and as you may know, the notion of casuality is frequently absent in quantum mechanics so why even presuppose that there are missing pieces, let alone that the piece is super-intelligence?
Comment by dimasok — August 20, 2007 @ 2:21 am
August 20th, 2007 at 2:26 am
You misunderstand quantum mechanics if you believe causality is absent. Where the universe ultimately came from is a matter beyond the purview of science. It's a metaphysical issue.
Comment by Bradford — August 20, 2007 @ 2:26 am
August 20th, 2007 at 2:33 am
Just to add in a couple quick points.
1) It always surprises and saddens me that so many transhumanists have such a nasty attitude towards theism. If nothing else, there is a very strong point of agreement between general transhumanist philosophy and the western religious tradition: Both look to the future for a kind of salvation for humanity, and see great hope and a joyous future in store. If I die and wake up one day, whether I find myself resurrected by means beyond my understanding, or by mind-bendingly advanced technology, I am going to thank God regardless. Transhumanists and theists both should attempt to bridge-build on the common ground they share.
2) Regarding the wall between science and religion - there is none. There may be a wall between science and some very specific religious claims (YEC comes to mind), but the desperate rush to try and extend this to all religion or concepts of God has more to do with politics and social aims than the evidence itself.
Comment by nullasalus — August 20, 2007 @ 2:33 am
August 20th, 2007 at 3:56 am
The huge difference between theism & transhumanism is that transhumanism offers some viable ways of actually getting to that bright and joyous future, whilst theism offers nothing but empty promises and a progressively anti-science stance (I put this here to address your second paragraph about the wall). Transhumanism relies wholly on science, whilst theism doesn't rely on anything really but gut-feelings lmao
So if the idea of salvation intrinsic to both transhumanism & theism is the only thing resonating through your mind, you do have a point, although that's not saying much other than the fact that all people want to see a future devoid of the issues that had been plaguing us since the beginning (death, diseases, eternal bliss, etc), religious or not, and so it is not surprising that theists & transhumanists are on the same wavelength. The difference is that theism had always been stuck since it was first invented (i already mentioned previously that if all we had to fall back on was theism, we'd all be living in a stone-age still), whilst transhumanism is a direct result of past, present and future advances in science.
So it shouldn't surprise you or sadden you - theists would be better off stripping themselves clean of their beliefs and changing them to something that actually has hope of delivering on most if not all of the promises of their scriptures without involving God or other realms (although the eventual Omega Point might be just that).
Atheism is doomed because it offers no way out and no hope - this is not a way to live, knowing you are destined to fail (i mean the complacency atheists approach their fate), whilst theism is outdated and overrun with the same demons, sugarcoated by very primitive yarns passed on from generation to generation that have as much in common with reality as homeless people have with fat Hollywood paychecks.
Comment by dimasok — August 20, 2007 @ 3:56 am
August 20th, 2007 at 4:04 am
On the Planck scale, chaos rules and the casual chain of events dictated by past, present, future breaks down, so no, I have a pretty good idea what goes on there.
CURRENTLY it seems to be beyond the purview of science but that doesn't mean that in will forever remain so! For the time being, it is indeed more of a metaphysical issue outside of the scientific realm, but make no mistake, religion is just as ignorant about it as science is, and as opposed to it, will forever remain so.
Comment by dimasok — August 20, 2007 @ 4:04 am
August 20th, 2007 at 7:57 am
Interesting, as the ID movement seems to be mostly anti-evolution (IC is the claim evolution could not do it, CSI is the claim evolution cannot produce CSI, the "teach the controversy" tactic).
Science does not prove anything. All science can do is to offer the most likely explanation or model, given current knowledge. No one can prove relativity, but physicists still accept it as the best model to date.
Here is the full quote - you accidently forgot to give the source by the way:
http://cosmicvariance.com/2007...
The only reasonable answer is "we do not know".
The "cause and effect premise of logic" is more of a guiding principle. Certainly at the quantum level, it does not apply too much.
Comment by The Pixie — August 20, 2007 @ 7:57 am
August 20th, 2007 at 11:17 am
dimasok,
Theism offers plenty of ways to get at that bright and joyous future, because there's no way for it to be 'bright and joyous' without addressing human behavior, morality, and day to day living. Even if you reject all talk of miracles and remain unconvinced about God, the value of that focus remains - Have a look at Thomas Jefferson's take on Christ, for starters.
As for anti-science - the fact is that theism, even Christianity, are headers for schools of thought so broad that dismissing either as 'anti-science' is ignorant. You said in another thread that '90% of theists' are ignorant of science. Even if I were to grant that - and I don't for a moment believe it's true - who's to say it can't change? That it isn't changing? Look up Nikolai Fyodorovich Fyodorov in the wikipedia and tell me that theism must be anti-science.
Well, on that much we're in complete agreement. At the same time, I remain a theist, and I see no value in picking fights with theists OR atheists based on broad misconceptions about those terms. Theists don't just pray to God when it comes to the poor - they build shelters and schools. They don't just pray and hope spirits come heal sick people - they build hospitals and support research. And they're not going to just pray and hope answers to problems magic their way into existence - they're going to work on solutions in the here and now, and thank God for their progress. Rejecting this emphasis is a mistake on the part of transhumanists.
Comment by nullasalus — August 20, 2007 @ 11:17 am
August 20th, 2007 at 11:25 am
This is why I prefer the Modal Argument.
Dimasok,
You're faulting a necessary for not having characteristics of a contingent.
Similar to faulting a universal for not having characteristics of a particular.
This is a category error. When a theist is arguing for the existence of God or postulating His existence; she is doing it under the assumption that what she is postulating is a necessary and not a contingent.
Comment by Doug — August 20, 2007 @ 11:25 am
August 20th, 2007 at 11:53 am
At Telic Thoughts there is attention devoted to the front loading concept. Design, teleology and intelligence are positive inferences. Negations are legitimate as well when consistent with the evidence.
Comment by Bradford — August 20, 2007 @ 11:53 am
August 20th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
In the words of another TT member:
God does not play dice with the universe.
Determinism roughly means that things are the way they are because of what they once were, and the way they will be later is because of the way things are now. Scientists tend to like to explain why things are the way they are, and predict what they will be later. Scientists have a long history of this. Bad habit I suppose.
There are deterministic quantum interpretations, e.g. Bohmian Mechanics (de Broglie-Bohm Theory), but Bohmian Mechanics has not been shown to be consistent with Special Relativity.
Comment by Bradford — August 20, 2007 @ 12:03 pm
August 20th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
So what causes a specific cobalt-60 atom to fall apart at that time? As far as we know, it is random and although the atom has a propensity to fall apart, we know of nothing causing it to happen to that atom at that time, and indeed, we can build predictions based on the assumption of randomness.
There is certainly good reason for doubt about how absolute the law of cause-and-effect really is.
Comment by The Pixie — August 20, 2007 @ 12:56 pm
August 20th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
This might be helpful:
"Randomness is defined in statistics as the lack of bias or correlation. The roll of a die is deterministic, but exhibits randomness. It's not that there isn't a physical cause, but that there is no correlation between the player and the result, or between results."
Randomness is not necessarily an indicator of an absence of causality. You're right that we can base predictions on the lack of a statistical bias.
Comment by Bradford — August 20, 2007 @ 1:07 pm
August 20th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Hi Bradford. Thanks for the plug. Let me clarify a couple of things. The quote, "God does not play dice with the universe," is obviously Einstein's view. Also, my dry drollery is often misconstrued. My point will be found in "Scientists have a long history of this. Bad habit I suppose."
There is more to the quantum world than mere randomness. For instance, quanta apparently just pop in and out of existence willy-nilly. This is not just conjecture, but has specific empirical implications that are at the heart of quantum mechanics. Bell's Inequality raises important questions about local realism and counterfactual definiteness.
Most scientists still ascribe to causality, but it is quite different from that of classical physics.
Comment by Zachriel — August 20, 2007 @ 1:52 pm
August 20th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Bradford wrote:
My guess is that these are dimasok's two red-letter ages. At 10 he probably learned there was no Santa and at 15 he stopped believing in God.
As far as the topic of dichotomies go, the false dichotomy of science vs. religion in its modern form began with the blatant lies published by John Draper and A. D. White in the 1800s. Unfortunately these untruths were published in many school books long afterwards, much like Ernst Haeckel's distorted embryo drawings and Washington Irving's colorful tales of Columbus.
I imagine John Dewey and his philosophical forebears would be very proud of the results as illustrated by the dispositions of dimasok and his generation.
As for the more specific dichotomy in the blog entry, atheism was easily supported by Occam's Razor when the Steady State was the dominant cosmological model. After all, who needs an Eternal Creator when the thing supposedly created is eternal? Whip out the Razor and swish! no further entities needed to explain how the universe got here because hey, it's always been here.
When evidence trickled in that supported a beginning for the universe, it became clear that the Razor had sliced away too much. We had to put an entity back into place, because in our experience everything that has a beginning has a cause.
Theists had a ready-made entity to put into that place; atheists have had to start grasping at straws to do the same, even going so far as to dull the sharp edge on their blessed Razor.
Comment by angryoldfatman — August 20, 2007 @ 3:57 pm
August 20th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Theists had as much as they have nowadays - nothing. Replacing the cause of the the universe that supposedly existed here forever (according to the atheists) with some sort of creator that created it (according to the theists) begs the question - where the hell did the creator come from? This question is unanswerable according to theistic beliefs.
At least QM demonstrated that virtual particles can pop in and out of existence from nothing (i.e. vacuum space) or the simulation argument, at the very least, supposes that there might be an infinite chain of simulations of which we are only a single strand (in which case the theistic God is nothing more but a very complex simulation).
But we all know that arguing with theists is pointless, so if you want to believe in your fairy-tales, be my guest. Thanks god that the truly serious scientists sneer at such unwarranted foolishness.
If you want to speculate, theorize about the simulation argument which has inexhaustible potential and at least makes much more sense as a thought experiment than any theistic belief ever could.
Comment by dimasok — August 20, 2007 @ 4:39 pm
August 20th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
It no more begs the question than the alternative assumption that matter and energy existed forever and owe their existence to no cause. In fact the attributes of God- being outside time and space- better accord with science than an uncaused event.
Virtual particles do not violate conservation laws. There is a rationality to the explanations for them. There is no rationale to forever existing matter.
As is the reverse. Why are you obsessed with the metaphysical positions of others? Why would you argue with them anyway?
Comment by Bradford — August 20, 2007 @ 6:42 pm
August 20th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
angryoldfatman wrote:
Nancy Pearcey and Charles Thaxton authored a book entitled 'The Soul of Science' which documents the history behind the rise of science. It contains real history not the propaganda of those with an anti-religion agenda. It is no accident that of the many varied and different cultures throughout the world science was born in and came to prominence within a Judeo-Christian culture dominated by values that facilitated the acceptance of scientific norms.
Comment by Bradford — August 20, 2007 @ 6:58 pm
August 20th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
Being outside of space & time is a meaningless concept, same as "south of the south pole" or "before the big bang", I think Kant debunked this nonsense a long time ago,
Well, forever existing matter is not a surefire result of science, but just one of the assumptions. Similarly however, there is no rationale whatsoever to a God existing outside of space & time that jump-started the universe.
Arguing brings results. Arguing about science channels lots of controversy and eventually culminates in useful findings that get inculcated into the standard picture of science. Arguing about God vs Science is an empty debate rooted in metaphysical speculation which can take a billion of different forms (yes, the universe might be a bug of some larger program run on a massive cluster of supercomputers in a supercivilization). I argue because every metaphysical position except God makes sense and because there is no reason whatsoever, based on on the current scientific data to surmise that God is behind it, let alone a God of any particular religion (i sure hope you were referring to God as a cosmic super-intelligence at least, not ascribing preposterously anthropomorphic qualities to it other than the prime-mover).
Comment by dimasok — August 20, 2007 @ 7:05 pm
August 20th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
Tell that to proponents of many universes; all of which would be outside the space and time of our universe.
I was under the impression that advances in science had to do with the work and efforts of trained scientists rather than your polemics.
Then draw a reasonable inference from your own words and cease trying to use science to debunk God.
Your own personal views, as to what metaphysical positions make sense, have already been acknowledged. Metaphysical views are not empirical results. Enjoy your own metaphysical viewpoints and I wish others the same.
Comment by Bradford — August 20, 2007 @ 7:24 pm
August 20th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
dimasok wrote:
Is this itself a scientific statement? Or is it simply a statement of scientism?
Scientism is not itself science, and it's not proven or provable by science. It's essentially a faith-based philosophical worldview. Scientism says, "Science is the only way of obtaining true knowledge of reality." This statement, however, cannot itself be verified by the methods of science. So the first problem is scientism's self-referential incoherence. The claim that the only way to arrive at true knowledge is through empirically verifiable procedures involving sensory perception cannot itself be verified through empirically verifiable procedures involving sensory perception.
The empirical method is one method of rational inquiry. Gathering empirical data, theory construction, prediction, experimental testing, theory revision, further testing, replication, refinement, etc. There's nothing wrong with that. But, it involves a certain kind of limit. The method requires that observational results be generated and compared with observational predictions. This is crucial. At some point, one requires observation. Science is a continually revised predictive theory about sense-perceptions under controlled conditions.
Fine. But, to conclude from this that the whole of reality must be detectable or inferrable on the basis of experimentally controlled sense-perceptions is logically unwarranted.
One doesn't prove that numbers are not real by showing that they emit no electromagnetic energy, or have no detectable mass, etc. One doesn't prove that free will is not real because it has no shape in space. One doesn't prove that ideas and thoughts and the meanings of propositions are not real because we can't see them. One doesn't prove that moral obligations or moral goodness are not real because they have no repeatable, experimentally controlled, predicted observational consequences. One doesn't prove that the property of logical validity is not real because it's not empirically testable. One doesn't prove that other people's conscious minds don't exist because there's no good scientific theory of consciousness, and (quite possibly) none available even in principle (as many philosophers have strongly argued).
None of this is to say there's anything wrong with science. It just says that not being detectable, provable, inferrable, explainable etc in physical terms may well be compatible with still being real, and that to use physical science as a sole criterion of reality or knowledge is, to date, rationally unwarranted. There are, in fact, many experiential data—especially the non-sensory phenomena associated with reason and value–which appear strongly resistant to understanding and explanation by empirical method:
1. mathematics
2. logic
3. rationality in general
4. the intentionality of thought
5. the phenomenal properties of perception
6. the phenomenal properties of sensation
7. knowledge
8. meaning
9. free will
10. morality
11. aesthetic value
12. consciousness in general
13. the 'laws' of nature
14. material objects themselves.
The relevance of the items is that they are all pre-conditions for the scientific enterprise, yet they themselves are phenomena for which it is very difficult, if not impossible, to give a complete naturalistic reduction. Even the last on the list, namely material objects, since it is very hard to naturalize their modal and temporal properties.
My tee-shirt is flammable but not actually on fire. However it would be on fire if I had thrown it into a pit of fire. This 'would' conveys something which is not actual. It seems you need a mind to know the truth-values of counterfactual propositions, propositions about possible but non-actual states of affairs. And one can ask too, where in the universe do such propositions, indeed any propositions, reside? Propositions and possible worlds are not physically detectable entities, and yet both are required by scientific reasoning itself.
All of these considerations point to mindhood in one way or another as being ineliminable. Even 'laws of nature' suggests lawful, predictable, order�all of which in turn suggest design and purpose, not chaos.
It is for these reasons, as well as the 'why does anything exist at all?' question, that a theory that sees mind rather than matter as basic, or foundational is at least reasonable to believe in, if not indeed fully worthy of rational assent.
Theism is such a theory.
This does not mean that science is wrong. But it is a reason not to make science the be-all and end-all of rational inquiry. In other words, we have reason to believe that there are aspects of reality which are not amenable, even in principle, to scientific investigation. There are data available within human consciousness which do not satisfy the scientistic criterion, and there are reasons for thinking that they couldn't satisfy that criterion, and yet that they are still indicative of something real. There are some very smart people (e.g. Colin McGinn, David Chalmers) who have provided very powerful, very serious arguments as to why consciousness is not even a possible object of natural scientific understanding. And yet, as Descartes famously argued, nothing is more indubitably real than our own consciousness. So if science can't even cope with that, there are good reasons indeed not to adopt scientism as a philosophical worldview.
Of course, that doesn't mean that one shouldn't do science, or that science isn't a Good Thing, or that science is invalid. It just means that science may well be limited to knowledge-in-principle of something less than the whole of reality, because the observational criterion it employs is inherently limiting.
Comment by stunney — August 20, 2007 @ 7:37 pm
August 20th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
Bradford wrote:
Indeed. This is from Modern Physics and Ancient Faith by Stephen M. Barr's fine book, published in 2003, (which I'm re-reading at present):
[Ibid., pp. 65-67].
Barr is a physics professor at the University of Delaware's Bartol Research Institute.
Let me add that this notion of a rational creator is equally relevant to the moral realm as to the natural realm. Once one takes the rational concepts of universality, consistency, and purposeful order seriously, it becomes much harder to justify in any rational sense things like nationalism, racism, sexism, and oppressive social orders based on permanent caste or class divisions. Democracy, not merely science, has its roots in Judaeo-Christian thought. As that Jewish Christian Paul wrote to the Galatians:
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free person, there is not male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
Compare this with Eastern religion. Social position is fixed. The world is also fixed, like an illusive wheel, slowly turning, just an eternal cycle of shitty maya, etc. Cosmic dualism and quietism discourage the quest for freedom and justice, in essence saying that suffering and evil aren't real, the material world isn't real, and we should simply wait for the wheel to turn. Individual acts of compassion are encouraged, but not social liberation and tranformation. Ghandi was a major exception, but he lived his formative years in British Christian cultural environment. Which is itself an ultimately Jewish, Biblical one. It goes back to their belief that God had called them out of Egyptian slavery, to liberate them, and to treat themselves and others accordingly, righteously, and with loving kindness, hesed, and to look after the anawim.
I exposed dimasok's incoherence regarding anthropocentrism and an insistence on science in this post.
He might benefit from reading this article too.
Comment by stunney — August 20, 2007 @ 7:55 pm
August 20th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
Can you compare Max Tegmark to any theist?! QM does suggest, in certain not widely accepted circles that the multiverse theory is true (what's with the different Levels, etc), but again, why does God have to sneak out there? God is not motivated by any empirical result whilst the multiverse theory at last has some tentative empirical backing behind it (and by the way, even if all of these spaces are separate, so what? how is it the same as proclaiming that "God exists OUTSIDE of space & time?". I don't think you will ever be out of straws to hold on to to secure the vaunted spot for God. *sigh*.
Comment by dimasok — August 20, 2007 @ 8:17 pm
August 20th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
I don't need to secure God's position but you have not answered my question of why my view on this (or anyone else's) is worth you trying to dissuade us from it?
Comment by Bradford — August 20, 2007 @ 8:21 pm
August 20th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
Thanks for this stunney. It's good to get the truth out front and center.
Comment by Bradford — August 20, 2007 @ 8:28 pm
August 20th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
It's not about dissuading you. It's about letting you see that God is not necessary to the overall picture of reality. Let me ask you a question - is your God the God of religion or someone who set everything (any and all multiverses) is motion and then wafted away? I would like science to be cured of any and all religious implications and if you indeed refer to God as more of cosmic prime-mover, then I'd certainly have less issues with your position, particularly because I don't necessarily count that option out, even if we never find that out. Religion bugs me as a whole. Not as a comforting mechanism that is fine and dandy for whoever relishes in it, but the unreasonable connotations it attempts to impart on science in general.
Religion IS the source of all evil, not Dawkins/Hitchens type of evil (except Islam), but the evil of cracking it up to be something it is not - a veridical picture of reality which is, truthfully, completely devoid of human input (i.e. religion) as a whole.
Actually, Hitchens said it well "all religious belief is sinister and infantile", but I take it we've been arguing about something else entirely, so maybe we're not that far apart with our views as we thought.
Comment by dimasok — August 20, 2007 @ 8:32 pm
August 20th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
No. My God was crucified and resurrected 2,000 years ago. Before that occurred he revealed a remarkable set of moral standards by which to live by. This impacts the study and practice of science gar nichts.
Comment by Bradford — August 20, 2007 @ 8:40 pm
August 20th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Only in a video game. I can take the concept of God to be a prime mover which we can say nothing about, nor even call him God, but merely "unfathomable cosmic intelligence" but that's a huge stretch for me, since I have no reason to postulate such intelligence is even reasonable given the data we possess. But since you supplement it with religious (doesn't matter which branch, but in your case christianity) and others with new-age, paranormal, science-fictiony or what have you bunkum, it's not a serious conversation but a very badly-written script of a movie that flopped before the idea was devised.
Religion makes no sense at all. At least now I see why Hitchens & Dawkins want to kill it so desperately. It wouldn't even lull me to sleep as a baby lmao
I can accept your views only if it turns out that the universe you describe is one of the simulations of some higher-intelligence (why not do it for a belly-laugh?), but since, even if we're living in a simulation, it is nothing like the one you describe, accepting them is schizophrenic.
Comment by dimasok — August 20, 2007 @ 8:55 pm
August 20th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
dimasok wrote:
String theory suggests that space and time are not real at the most fundamental level of ontology.
The theistic hypothesis explains the remarkable degree of order and rational intelligibility of the physical world, its contingency, its finely tuned anthropic parameters, and the existence within it of consciousness, intentionality, meaning, as well as profound moral, aesthetic, and religious experience. Materialism cannot explain why the universe is so ordered and predictable, and stumbles badly with conscious rationality and morality.
Scientifically informed people who wish to remain naturalists don't really have much by way of a rational option but to hypothesize a multiverse (with either parallel or cyclic universes), because: 1) the fine tuned anthropic values are not metaphysically or logically necessary–"”many other values are perfectly conceivable, coherent, and are actually modeled; and 2) the odds against all these parameters (many of which are mutually independent) having the values they do by chance, given only one or a few universes, are astronomical.
And so, we observe the naturalist, in a desperate and amusingly ironic attempt to explain the empirical data, positing an infinite number of physically unobservable entities as part of an untestable hypothesis, so as to avoid positing one unobservable transcendent rationally conscious reality.
Comment by stunney — August 20, 2007 @ 9:25 pm
August 20th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
Not precisely. In Loop Quantum Gravity indeed spin-graphs weave the space-time in a background-independent fashion as you noted, but not in string theory that is still background-dependent and still integrated within the space & time continuum (hopefully it will change since the theory itself is very attractive).
The theistic hypothesis explains how people are gullible enough to accept anything as long as they come in with the DEMAND for reality to abide by their oh so rational and exclusively correct views of reality.
I've got to say, I do find your theistic picture very attractive, IF it would be true. But since it's a load of crap, why bother? It's aesthetically pleasing, but it explains as much as astrology does - nothing, so did it help you now that you wrote it? Did it remove a heavy burden from you? Universe keeps on being the way it is, whether you find it "transcendently conscious" or not.
Even for someone like me, who likes the idea of "panpsychism" (or milder forms of it) which converges, by the way, with Paula Ziza's conjecture of primordial consciousness (which was mentioned on this blog already), the Big Wow, the idea of a supreme creator still isn't required or necessary!
Anyway, I have a good idea who i'm dealing with here - reminds me of the people in Dawkins latest "Enemies of reason" 3-part documentary
Comment by dimasok — August 20, 2007 @ 9:43 pm
August 20th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
It would not even lull you to sleep but it leads you to spend virtually all your time at this website posting about it.:roll: Hitchens and Dawkins are unbalanced head cases over the beliefs of others. Live and let live.
Comment by Bradford — August 20, 2007 @ 10:03 pm
August 20th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
dimasok,
Did he pay you for starring in it, or was it a freebie?
Really though, if you truly are a self-described transhumanist, I hate to tell you but… Dawkins likely looks upon the 'I plan on uploading my consciousness to a quantum brain-puter after the post-singularity robotic researchers invent a way to do that' club as a hair removed from the Raelians. And panpsychism? Dennett and Harris would be laughing hysterically by now - and the 'that's just what I infer and believe but I admit I'm probably wrong but I believe it anyway' line isn't going to make them go "Oh, well with that caveat your ridiculous belief is actually downright reasonable."
All you're dealing with here are people with a love for science who have come to different theological and philosophical conclusions than you. When all you can do is call it all crap and rant about how evil it is that people don't agree with you, well. Maybe that whole 'atheists can be very religious too' bit has some truth to it.
Comment by nullasalus — August 20, 2007 @ 10:13 pm
August 20th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
nullasalus writes:
Good point. The collective scientific knowledge of TT members would be impressive indeed and would include a number of PhDs in major fields. It takes no small amount of arrogance to maintain that the metaphysical views of many others are as described based on one's personal understanding of science.
Comment by Bradford — August 20, 2007 @ 10:27 pm
August 20th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
Dawkins does expect something like the singularity to eventually happen, but yeah, he is not a big supporter on uploading his brain anywhere, but so what? I'm not a Dawkins fan nor am I merely an atheist like he is, even though we share the same views on the world.
And Dennett? Gimme a break. The problem of consciousness is much deeper than his gross oversimplification. I'm a fan of Chalmers, so no Dennett or Harris for me who I sometimes read for amusement only. Denying the hard problems of consciousness is the same as some books published recently proudly proclaiming that all the mysteries of the universe are solved - a way to get you noticed among a promenade of thinkers who justly repeat themselves in accordance with the evidence.
Sure. But science fiction writers could also come to any conclusion they wish and so can anybody, but then the universe would be an incomprehensible porridge of fantasy which it is clearly not.
Think of the difference between someone like Ray Kurzweil and oh, I donno, Jerry Falwell? that's the difference between theism & transhumanism.
Comment by dimasok — August 20, 2007 @ 10:34 pm
August 20th, 2007 at 11:00 pm
dimasok,
Hey, I'm a Chalmers fan as well, and I agree about Dennett. But then, that's pretty telling isn't it? There's Dennett, would-be champion of big-r Reason, and he's off denying that there's any hard problem of consciousness whatsoever. Intelligent people can disagree about big topics, of course. But what's clearly obvious to you is nonsense to Dennett.
First, if the universe were incomprehensible, Christian theists in particular would have seen a major blow done to their philosophy and conception of God. Far in advance of the deist thinkers, Christians were reasoning that since the universe was the creation of a rational mind, it must be capable of being understood through study. That doesn't prove theism, but it was a happy development.
Second, I'm not so quick to cast off the universe as being unfanciful. We now entertain possibilities that would have been dismissed as madness not long ago. MWI proposers aren't laughed out of the universities? All of creation was once compressed into a point smaller than a grain of sand? Retrocausality is taken seriously in some quarters? And that's just in the domain of physics.
That doesn't mean theism is true. But at least for me, the moment 'The Tenth Dimension' style metaphysics was considered somewhat reasonable, the argument that theism is just too silly shriveled up like a stack of dimes. Why should I utterly rule out thoughts of an organizing, conscious force behind (or at work throughout) creation? "To make Dawkins happy" is as high on my list as yours.
Comment by nullasalus — August 20, 2007 @ 11:00 pm
August 20th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
If we would have stayed with the prehistoric idea of a supreme being, we would still be in the and not near the advent of the technological singularity.
Anyone who knows the history of science as we in the West know scientia/knowledge knows that a belief in Logos resulted in science, it's a relatively recent development for the charlatans typical to immanence based "reasoning" to claim once again science as their own. It's ironic that the word magic is used as such a stigma word by modern scientists now, given that the illusion of "magic" brought about by a mix of technology and charlatanism was how they used to make their living as alchemists, etc. Will wonders never cease?
Now here you are, apparently silly enough to believe that man will achieve technology containing the magic necessary to be born again and transfigured and so on. But why would any alien race or higher form of sentience in the "multiple universes" that already reached a "technological singularity" allow man to be like gods? Maybe they wouldn't allow it, even if you would like such a likeness.* At any rate, we might be in the so-called "stone-age" if not for scientists like Bacon and Newton structuring their search for knowledge in a logical way based on a philosophy in which a singular Logos is foundational from the beginning, not a philosophy based on some "technological singularity" in the end.
*"The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." After all, it would be better not to live forever with a knowledge of evil if evil isn't good to have a knowledge of.
Comment by mynym — August 20, 2007 @ 11:03 pm
August 20th, 2007 at 11:27 pm
I've got to say, I do find your theistic picture very attractive, IF it would be true. But since it's a load of crap, why bother?
Compare it to the hypothetical goo typical to biologists/Darwinists or others who work in historical sciences. Theism has been fairly well defined in religious texts for millenia, which is more than can be said for Darwinian reasoning which includes arguments of this structure: "If I can't imagine anything then my theory absolutely breaks down, yet see how I have imagined something!" or "If I can imagine a story about the past which seems natural to me, then my imaginary evidence ought to be treated like empirical evidence or the theory of gravity or something." Popularizers are still back on defining the term evolution itself and equivocating about it. Theism has generally been more defined than Darwinism, ironically some of the negative theology typical to Darwinian reasoning assumes that.
"It's aesthetically pleasing, but it explains as much as astrology does…"
Why is it that astronomy generally emerged from astrology among those who reasoned based on Logos? Why do ancient Chinese texts show that they believed the earth was flat? It seems that you attribute all progress and technology to atheism or science as methodological atheism, yet you cite no historical evidence.
"…so did it help you now that you wrote it? Did it remove a heavy burden from you? Universe keeps on being the way it is, whether you find it 'transcendently conscious' or not."
It seems to me that you believe in the Darwinian creation myth, so I think you'll keep on being the way you are whether or not I find you "transcendentally conscious" or not. If you believe the mythological narratives of naturalism that some imagine then all that you can say here is an artifact of natural selection operating on a population of worms, so why read your words when I should study worms?
Comment by mynym — August 20, 2007 @ 11:27 pm
August 20th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
If it's a hypothetical goo, then so be it, but that's what the data shows, not something scientists deliberately snookered up to subvert religious institutions.
Your hypothetical super-intelligent goo makes even less sense than the data we have at the moment, so how exactly are your views superior to mine? I'm not really sure where you stand on the God question, but if it's anything like Bradford, then it's hysterical and not even worthy of attention.
And your clever story of what emerged out of what and when is completely missing the point. Do you really think I care that astronomy emerged out of astrology? The point is that astronomy is science and astrology is pseudoscience of the lowest kind, so again, what's your point?
This is for you:
http://video.google.com/videop...
Comment by dimasok — August 20, 2007 @ 11:37 pm
August 20th, 2007 at 11:57 pm
If my comment was the worst insult you've seen, you've lived a sheltered life. Clean up your language or post elsewhere.
Comment by Bradford — August 20, 2007 @ 11:57 pm
August 21st, 2007 at 12:14 am
dimasok,
No PhD here.
And, it depends on what you mean by religious hogwash, I suppose. What's the nonsense in Bradford's quote? Believing in the resurrection? If you discount that out of hand, that's that - there's nothing to even argue there, because if you don't accept something miraculous (or 'damn unusual and singular', put another way) as possible, the argument will go nowhere. Otherwise, 'a remarkable set of moral standards to live by' that impact science? You'll find a decent number of outright atheists who'd agree with that much. So to me the quoted bit seems rather reserved.
For me, I'm not a big fan of superstition - even though I'm a fairly orthodox catholic, I also try to be skeptical and level-headed. The problem is that the lines where that's drawn tend to be arbitrary. Look at how Dennett approaches Chalmers. Or, my personal favorite, if it turns out that belief and prayer can positively impact an individual's health or life - so long as you can say 'Aha! Placebo effect!' it's supposed to somehow "not count". Nevermind that the placebo effect is its own mystery, or that prayer doesn't need Beetlejuice showing up in order to 'work'.
Either way, I've just been illustrating why I don't see any big war-by-necessity between religion and science. The whole fight seems to have a lot more to do with personal or political/social vendettas than impartial views of either science or faith. The usual stupid human tricks.
Comment by nullasalus — August 21, 2007 @ 12:14 am
August 21st, 2007 at 12:36 am
God (in this case, the J character) crucified and resurrected 2,000 years ago? God revealing remarkable set of moral standards?
First of all, no one was resurrected cause the kind of God religion speaks of is a fairy-tale. Secondly, morality is not derived from religion so the point is moot yet again. And I want to stress one very important detail - even if God did exist, don't you tell him what to do! Not only are we demanding from the universe, we also demand from the Gods we invented! Humans are a truly pitiful species.
As I said, it's either God as a higher cosmic intelligence that in some currently unfathomable to science fashion created the world with no relation whatsoever to humans, or nothing, since religion in general is a misleading story written as a prank a long time ago. I wish they would have taken something else as their point of reference, such as Isaac Asimov's work and not just blabber out of the blue with their primitive monkey brains.
The universe is a huge infinite space that is not here for humans, where we are more than insignificant, devoid of any higher meaning (other than the one we give it), and the more we spin our religious stories on the little speck of dust call earth, the more intense the feelings of frustration will become.
Comment by dimasok — August 21, 2007 @ 12:36 am
August 21st, 2007 at 1:44 am
dimasok,
Maybe it's just me, but the idea of someone being crucified and coming back from the dead once in human history just doesn't seem all that crazy to me. It doesn't mean it's true - Bigfoot is a pretty tame idea, and he's not necessarily out there. But I don't even see the basic thrust of why it should stir someone into anger. Something may have happened in the past that was pretty amazing and we can't explain how it went down if it's true? Somehow, I can cope with the idea.
As for God revealing that remarkable set of moral standards - well, Christ didn't even need to be resurrected for anyone to think that. Again, Thomas Jefferson didn't believe in the miracles of the bible, yet he wrote considerable praise of Christ's teachings. If the teachings really are correct, it doesn't matter if they come from Christ or Moses or PZ Myers - they're correct. And if God or something God-like is behind the universe, that truth comes from God. Again, I'm just not seeing the giant glowing letters that read 'insanity' here.
First off, the kind of God religion speaks of is not singular. Even within any given branch of faith there are a multitude of views - everything from near-deism to process theology to natural theology to downright transhumanist concepts.
As for the rest, well, if you reject it out of hand, that's that. Nothing to talk about there. Morality is not derived from religion? Depends on what you mean. Even the most ardent Catholics don't believe the Pope - or Catholicism - determines morality. If anything, it's discovered by the Church however it's revealed (and it can be revealed through good old-fashioned reason). And if it's true, who created it? So hey, religion doesn't determine morality, but as you said, moot point.
As for truly pitiful species - eh. You say pitiful, Christians say fallen. Whatever the case, we try.
Asimov's work, when dealing with the concept of God, typically approached the concept from the western idea anyway - more mootness, even if he was an atheist and largely apathetic or otherwise to religion. As for the other bolded parts, when you have to fling feces at an idol whenever you pass it by, you're pretty much on the same wavelength as the people who have to utter a prayer whenever they do the same.
Frustrated? If there's one thing theists tend not to be (especially when compared to atheists), it's that. There's even statistics floating around out there showing as much, though I think such things tend not to tell the whole story.
But you're whipping out the Carl Sagan 'Humans are insignificant because the universe is real, real big' argument, probably the weakest thing the guy ever wrote. Worse, transhumanism - we're talking about people who look forward to the ideas of Dyson spheres, humans colonizing our (and even other!) solar systems. Go as far as Frank Tipler and the whole universe may one day be under the dominion of this pitiful species. So you're balancing the Carl Sagan 'humans are on a tiny tiny planet surrounded by vast cosmos that prove we are nothing' attitude against the transhumanist 'we will overcome every problem we face and make the universe ours' attitude. You end up with..
Humans are insignificant specks who exist in a hostile universe with no purpose or point or hope and also they're going to master one natural law after the other, spread to the stars, and achieve every desire religion ever dreamed up and then some.
If the latter part is fulfilled, don't be surprised if some serious form of theism or strong deism (and, of course, teleology) is taken for granted by the newly omnipotent.
Comment by nullasalus — August 21, 2007 @ 1:44 am
August 21st, 2007 at 2:00 am
Pretty much. What's contradictory about that? They can call it theism as much as they want, I don't believe in religious crap (whether it's theistic or anti-theistic) but transhumanism is rooted in science in which I do trust, so whether you want to compare it to the religious ideas is up to you - it doesn't alter my main contention that if that goal of spreading our intelligence across the entire universe is met within the next couple of centuries, it wouldn't be thanks to religion or their preposterous beliefs, but due to science and only science. Theists can be a part of it or can stay away - it will happen either way.
Really? Religion is a opium for the masses against the inevitabilities of death, old age and the meaningless universe. In fact, if you remove the afterlife and leave only God with no promises of postmortem survival, theists will become atheists
What I meant to say here is that anyone can come up any story they like, whether it's Anissimov's science-fiction, the Bible, the Koran, the Upanishads, or what have you. You can choose to believe in any one of them, although I would take Anissimov's book over the other bunkum any day since at least it's interesting to read and doesn't sound like a collection fo moronic essays by 8-year olds.
I mean what it sounds I mean. Religion has nothing to do with us being moral, and if it does, then I hope that people like Jerry Falwell burn in hell for all eternity.
A Cathulu monster might have created the universe and then retreated together with the ancients back into their world, never to reappear again, and I can't disprove that it didn't happen. But I have reasonable grounds to believe that it didn't, and same goes for Christ, Muhamad or any other run-of-the-mill ridicule figure. Did I get my point across? And it's certainly easier for me to cope with the idea of the Cathulu monster than with the religious characters. In fact, just for amusements sake, if it turned out indeed that God chose Christ or what have you as the spectacular event to occur in the distant past over Cathulu, I would then say that God has a bad taste and is an idiot
Comment by dimasok — August 21, 2007 @ 2:00 am
August 21st, 2007 at 2:28 am
dimasok,
Because it's along the lines of telling a child he's a worthless, meaningless mistake with no hope or purpose, and that child ends up becoming an immortal god-equivalent. The two don't wash. In our universe, the mere existence of our life presents an interesting puzzle of fine-tuning. If we don't merely exist, but become what you believe we will, what will the explanation be? We got really^googleplex lucky? Intelligent life just happens to be destined for such ends? Teleology is a tricky debate now - in the terms you're imagining, it'd be near undeniable.
But who's going to remove the afterlife? You? It'd be tantamount to saying resurrection is impossible for science, and transhumanists aren't really in the business of giving up a scientific challenge.
Even going with the idea, the declaration is far from clear. Anthony Flew comes to mind first and foremost - an atheist who went deist and actively hopes (or at least thinks he does) that there's no everlasting life. Pantheists, some deists, some of the eastern faiths..
Actually, that's a good question for you. If you had to choose, which would you rather - theists chugging away, believing there's purposefulness, hope, and destiny in the universe? Or the more 'death cult' like atheists, who not only think there's no such thing, but are ambivalent to actively resentful of human progress and existence?
And with that, I sleep. By the way, it's Cthulhu. Don't upset Lovecraft, he'll be cross with you when science resurrects him.
Comment by nullasalus — August 21, 2007 @ 2:28 am
August 21st, 2007 at 2:59 am
What is there to remove? First prove to me that there is an afterlife before accepting it as a given. Science shows there is no afterlife, so don't expect me to believe there is one just because religion says there is, let alone that it is ANYTHING like they make it out to be.
I'll take it as you have nothing to say, which is perfectly in line with what I expected.
The existence of life presents an interesting puzzle only insofar as it shows that we're a mistake with no purpose and no hope beyond the ones we set for ourselves and if we manage to reach the singularity with the AI taking over from that point on, we should be grateful we were alive in the first place to allow something like that to happen. I don't see immediate connection between us existing and fine-tuning of life, especially since even so, it's still pointless and hopeless without the transhumanistic tools addressing the human condition.
I would choose atheists who turned transhumanists chugging away, believing there's purposefulness, hope and destiny, all self-made in order to remove the obstacles to a happy, eternal existence. Your two options are unsatisfactory to me - the first one pits humans against a hostile universe with nothing but their belief - might as well sit on their asses and do nothing, the result is the same. The second one are the usual atheists, those who do not oppose science or progress (where did you take this from?), but do not believe there is any hope for humans or that the universe has any meaning - they accepted their dire fate, and that I find unacceptable and self-defeating too. If you're an atheist, you should also be a transhumanist. Otherwise, sitting on your ass all day believing there is no afterlife and no god or sitting on your ass old day believing there is afterlife and god is the same thing which leaves atheist theists in the same pickle.
Comment by dimasok — August 21, 2007 @ 2:59 am
August 21st, 2007 at 4:03 am
dimasok wrote:
I've already slaughtered your 'argument'. Though admittedly, it was stillborn.
But thanks for the laugh anyway. Being called 'gullible' by a transhumanist is like being called overweight by the 800-pound baby gorilla in the room.
I've got to say, I do find your transhumanism to be quackery of the most pathetic kind.
That's what I love about delusional people. They're so funny to watch being delusional.
It explains why explaining is even possible.
If it's help you're looking for, there are better places than TT to find it. Such as psychiatrists' offices.
No, it didn't. But then again, I wasn't carrying a heavy burden. You were. The heavy burden of proving that you have a clue.
Er, are you sitting down? Yes? Good.
Now, I know this may come as a tremendous shock to you, but only one of the two of us may be a closet panpsychist.
And it's not me.
Paula Ziza? The Big Wow?
Holy Primordiality!
Does Batman know? You must get word to him as soon as you can.
You know Batman, surely—he's the guy who wears his shorts on the outside.
Sorry to have to be the one to tell you, but only God exists of metaphysical necessity.
Everything else is contingent. Even you.
Even Batman.
I take it he had a starring role, and you were a walk-on 'extra'. No?
Hey Batman! Hey Robin! Eat your hearts out, fellas! You're both ex-heroes now.
Dimsock and Duhkins are Gotham's new reason-fighting cartoon characters.
Comment by stunney — August 21, 2007 @ 4:03 am
August 21st, 2007 at 9:59 am
dimasok,
You do realize that 'resurrection' is an afterlife, yes? And in fact it's pretty much the core concept of the afterlife in the Christian tradition? So it stands - a transhumanist can't remove the concept, because they look to a future that may (or if you want to get strong with the claim, definitely will) provide it.
Well, yeah. Did you see what I quoted? There's no argument there.
But you believe in those transhumanistic tools. So.. it's not pointless and hopeless, even on your own terms. You're trying to reconcile two exclusive views here. You don't