Welsh prelate backs Scottish abortion stance
The Roman Catholic Archbishop for Cardiff has backed the stance of Cardinal O’Brien on communion, abortion and politicians.
Comments (103)
Sam Hanna says: “You are right that it is philosophy as it cannot be demonstrated logically as that would be a tautology.
That sentence is just waffly nonsense that makes no sense. If not you’re going to have to explain what it means.”
This would take too long to explain but try this for a start:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html
Sam Hanna says: No I haven’t. Science is about observation and continuous self-improvement. Religion is about an irrefutable series of statements made by a person or persons that are deemed correct irrespective of the available evidence which contradicts them. This is our problem.
http://www.origins.org/articles/johnson_churchofdarwin.html
Sam Hanna says: “They don’t relate to the same field of inquiry as your cosmological argument concerns itself with, natural science does. I guess forensics must contain some hidden meaning of the universe that I just don’t know about.”
Why do you think the Scientific Method only applies to Natural Sciences?
Dread Cthulhu says: Sam Hanna: “Ever heard of the Great Flood – thought not”
Tsk tsk… getting a little testy, are we.
As for the Great Flood as a pancea to the lack of support, I think you have it completely backwards. I think you will find that floods are excellent sources of fossils, Sam — something about packing the item in silt and allowing it to become part of the sedimentary rocks that form when the waters recede. Were a world-wide flood a reality, there should be a plethora of fossilized artifacts all from about the same time.
Sam Hanna: “All the evidence of the fossil record points to a cataclysmic event that destroyes the animal world in an instant which would result in the species buried not in terms of their complexity but in respect of their ability to stay above the water the longest in their geographical regions. Which, amazingly, is what we find regular layers in the fossil record with may anomalies and gaps. ”
Ah, but these events are not floods, nor are they a singular event. The mass species die-offs are generally attached alternately more exotic sources (meteor strikes) and more mundane ones (the wobble in the earth’s orbit and in its axis).
Additionally, your own argument would suggest that the flood did not blot out the whole of life. A sudden crisis of faith, Sam?
As for your other assertations, I would point out that Christianity is precisely the sort of religion you complain about — one that took the a pre-existing faith and “builing a doctine onto it.” Oh, sure, there are some other influences — Eastern “mystery” religions and the like, but, in essence, Christianity is the bastard child of Judaism, peeling off over a watershed question of faith — whether or not the son of Mary was the foretold Messiah. Just another schismatic faith, borrowing items from other faiths to clothe itself.
lurker says: Sam hanna,
Some of the examples you cited are formal sciences, which primarily, or exclusively, use mathematics.
I confess I overstated my case by apparently indicating that *none* of the examples use the scientific method, which technically isn’t true, though of course many of them deal with fundamentally different types of data, both in terms of what qualifies as data and how it is collected.
This is a BIG topic to get into, and I can’t help but feel it’s a bit of a red-herring considering you haven’t even bothered responding to most of my points.
Sam Hanna says: As for your other assertations, I would point out that Christianity is precisely the sort of religion you complain about—one that took the a pre-existing faith and “builing a doctine onto it.†Oh, sure, there are some other influences—Eastern “mystery†religions and the like, but, in essence, Christianity is the bastard child of Judaism, peeling off over a watershed question of faith—whether or not the son of Mary was the foretold Messiah. Just another schismatic faith, borrowing items from other faiths to clothe itself.
You are right that Christianity and Judaism are from the same source – no great revelation there. Jesus Christ is a little bit more than the story of the virgin birth considering He is wrote more about than any other person in history and the Bible is the No 1 Bestseller since 1615 and has influenced the development of Science, Law, Justice and politics more than anything else in western civilisation. Eastern religions are a perversion of the one true faith and that is why when you dig deep enough you will find evidence for instance of a universal flood in all cultures and the Fall of Adam and Eve in the oldest civilisations of the world. This we would expect as, according to the Bible, we all came from the same parents.
Sam Hanna says: “I confess I overstated my case by apparently indicating that *none* of the examples use the scientific method, which technically isn’t true, though of course many of them deal with fundamentally different types of data, both in terms of what qualifies as data and how it is collected. ”
sorry, but this is the whole point. You and your mates have denied that ID can be considered a science and now you have to accept it does. That goes to the heart of this problem.
However, the root of the Scientific Method is predicated on the fact that its presuppositions cannot be proved but are assumed so retreating to it alone doesn’t help you either.
The point I am getting to is that all of us have faith. Mine happens to be in an objective source – yours in the hope that what man observes with his senses alone is all that is true. Both ultimately are a matter of faith.
Sam Hanna says: “Additionally, your own argument would suggest that the flood did not blot out the whole of life. A sudden crisis of faith, Sam?”
No, because the flood took 40 days to destroy the whole earth. I don’t want to get into the detail of this as there are more important issues to debate but the answers in genesis website have some excellent scientific and geological articles on this.
lurker says: You and your mates have denied that ID can be considered a science and now you have to accept it does.
I don’t accept that it does, for the reasons I already mentioned. Dividing science up into formal sciences, disciplines and sub disciplines with different methodologies and thereby trying to destroy any definition of science doesn’t change that.
This is because if ID wants to be a science, the only niche for it is within natural-science, because it’s in the same field of inquiry. It does not fall under cryptography, it’s not engineering, it’s not forensics, it would have to fall into some realm of natural science. Unfortunately, it doesn’t adhere to the natural-scientific method.
I have read Kuhn, and know that science has presuppositions, but science also justifies itself via utility. If the method is totally chimerical it’s strange that it yields ‘objective’ results, for instance by treatments and cures for diseases. We don’t need faith, we need results. What you are calling for is basically an anything-goes if you have faith in it type of nihilism.
Dread Cthulhu says: Sam Hanna: “Jesus Christ is a little bit more than the story of the virgin birth considering He is wrote more about than any other person in history and the Bible is the No 1 Bestseller since 1615 and has influenced the development of Science, Law, Justice and politics more than anything else in western civilisation.”
So you equate volume with veracity? Repition with righteousness? That logic smacks of the Goebbels and “the big lie” logic.
Throw in the fact that for centuries, the only folks who could reliably read and write were the clergy, one wonders how your statements above are any sort of revelation.
Sam Hanna: “(The Bible)has influenced the development of Science, Law, Justice and politics more than anything else in western civilisation.”
Let us examine this notion for a moment? Science? That has far deeper roots in Greek philosophy, Arab numbers and China than the Bible. Law? Mayhap, but most of the high-points of law have their roots in Judaism, while the world might be a great deal more civilized if they recalled Christ’s abjuration regarding the seperation of state and church. As for politics, if you honestly believe politicians act in a “christian” fashion, you haven’t been paying attention.
Sam Hanna: “Eastern religions are a perversion of the one true faith and that is why when you dig deep enough you will find evidence for instance of a universal flood in all cultures and the Fall of Adam and Eve in the oldest civilisations of the world. This we would expect as, according to the Bible, we all came from the same parents. ”
This, despite the fact that a great many of these cultures and their religions pre-date Christianity? Zoroaster’s prophecies and revealed scripture predates Christ by over a milennia. A more rational mind would have noted this, Sam. A greater liklihood exists that Christianity cribbed notes from the Zoroasterian faith.
lurker says: Urgh, to be honest, I’m going back to lurking.
My apologies if I was unduly brusque with you Sam hanna, but I guess this is an emotive topic. You can respond how you like, I will read it but won’t pursue it any further as I honestly don’t think we’re reaching each other’s ideas.
Anyway, cheerio.
Comrade Stalin says: Sam:
God is not subject to the Laws of Causality as He had no beginning.
How do you know ? Or did you just make that up ?
Your comment is meaningless – the Bible is an onjective source. 40-44 writers spanning a 2,500 year period in 4 different languages yet with a perfect unity of thought and revelation.
Sam, I couldn’t count how many translations of the Bible into English which exist. Christians and others fight and argue over which one is correct. If people cannot even agree about exactly what the words that were written down actually mean in their own language, how on earth can you describe the book as coherent ?
Even if you pick one particular translation the book is riddled with contradictions. In particular Christ quite expressly overrules several of the laws of the old testament. Aside from that, the teachings of the book are far out of date, but I won’t bore people any more than they are already by trawling through Deuteronomy for some classics.
Numerous scientific revelations that were 3-4,000 years before the discovery of these facts before modern science – what more do you want?
I saw that part in your advocacy book. What reason do you have for believing that these discoveries – which for the sake of argument I won’t contest that they were written in the bible long before modern science claimed them (although several of them are somewhat fanciful) – were first discovered by the authors of the bible ? It’s well known for example that Chinese, Egyptian, Greek and some civilizations in the Americas had scientific and medical knowledge that predated the time of the bible.
Dread:
And, what, pray tell, are the “available facts†in support of evolution that preclude any possibility of alternate theories?
I don’t believe I’ve said that anything precludes alternative theories. Just that the consensus remains that it is the best fit of the available facts.
Ah, but so is the Theory of Evolution. It does not fit all the facts
Nobody claims that evolution fits all the facts. I said “best fits the available facts”.
and excludes certain realities that are difficult to explain, particularly gaps in the fossil record.
Why do you have to set up straw men ? Nobody claims evolution is perfect, merely the best available fit. As I said in earlier contributions to this discussion, scientific theories are postulated with the full acceptance that one of two things will happen – either evidence will be found to substantiate an existing theory; or evidence will become available necessitating the formulation of a new theory. The search for truth and understanding is never over.
The alternative theory to evolution being proposed here is three words – “God did it”. To those of us trying to enhance our understanding of the world around us, this effort at an explanation is distinctly unsatisfactory.
And I still don’t understand why the God squad believe that evolution is hostile to them. It is no more hostile than the statement that the earth is flat, or that the earth revolves around the sun.
Sloppy thinking there, CS… No evidence has come to light ruling out that a great many things… that does not make them correct.
You’re still setting up straw men. I said clearly and directly earlier that science can never establish that anything is “correct”. There are merely theories and hypotheses – conjectures which make no more than an effort to explain phenomena (to a more or less credible extent) with the direct challenge to produce a better one that ties together what we have observed to date. I also at no point claimed that the absence of evidence was proof of anything.
I’d refer to Kopper who pointed out that the best scientific theories are the ones which are falsifiable. The greatest leaps forward in science come when people work frantically to find evidence which shows an existing theory to be wrong. Science is full of theories for which there is very little evidence. Dark matter for example, which was invented purely to plug a gap because our sums about the universe don’t add up. It’s there begging for someone to show that it is wrong. No existing scientific theory is deemed permanently satisfactory. However this is still infinitely superior the three-word effort.
And, yet, any criticism of Evolution brings out the same frightened shaved ape that screams “heretic!†at those who do not believe as they do…
When the criticism is coming from people who do not understand it, or who have an agenda (such as creationism) it’s quite reasonable to expect people to be indignant. I have seen all of the arguments that the creationists have put against evolution, and I’ve seen them all refuted.
Comrade Stalin says: Sam :
An intelligible communication via radio signal from some distant galaxy would be widely hailed as evidence of an intelligent source. Why then doesn’t the messagesequence on the DNA molecule also constitute prima facie evidence for an
intelligent source? After all, DNA information is not just analogous.
There is nothing unscientific about proposing that we were created. It sounds a bit like science fiction, but given that we’re not that far away from being able to produce custom DNA sequences, there’s nothing to say that we weren’t put here, or at least influenced along our course of evolution, by other intelligences.
The trouble with ID is that it is unsatisfactory because of it’s inherent contradiction. You are saying that the universe and life are too complex and too wonderful to have been created by accident. Yet at precisely the same time, you say that there must have been an entity which was not created, which in turn did the creating. How can you postulate that everything must have a creator, except that which was not created ?
To an enquiring mind eager to understand more about our origins, to argue for ID is to attempt to terminate the debate by saying “God did it”, even though there is no reason to do so. The truth is that we don’t know – we may never know – but that doesn’t mean we should stop looking.
Sam Hanna says: “I have read Kuhn, and know that science has presuppositions, but science also justifies itself via utility. If the method is totally chimerical it’s strange that it yields ‘objective’ results, for instance by treatments and cures for diseases. We don’t need faith, we need results. What you are calling for is basically an anything-goes if you have faith in it type of nihilism.”
You cannot yield “objective” results if you admit that the foundations they are derived from are purely pre-suppositional and subjective.
Now, the reality is that science can help explain some of things that we see now but before the initial first few minutes they have no more explanatory power than the Sphagetti Monster. I am glad we can now lay this myth to rest and turn to the only subject that can help us – theology!
Sam Hanna says: “There is nothing unscientific about proposing that we were created. It sounds a bit like science fiction, but given that we’re not that far away from being able to produce custom DNA sequences, there’s nothing to say that we weren’t put here, or at least influenced along our course of evolution, by other intelligences.”
I hope you realise the inherent contradiction in what you are espousing. You deny ID as superfluous by the evidence of “we” are “able to produce” – you have conceded the argument by admitting that it would take designer intelligence to replicate this process!
“The trouble with ID is that it is unsatisfactory because of it’s inherent contradiction. You are saying that the universe and life are too complex and too wonderful to have been created by accident. Yet at precisely the same time, you say that there must have been an entity which was not created, which in turn did the creating. How can you postulate that everything must have a creator, except that which was not created?”
I think all of us who think just a little could understand that the source of all creation (Whoever that is) could Himself not have ben created. There must be a FIRST CAUSE. I fail to see why you cannot understand this.
“To an enquiring mind eager to understand more about our origins, to argue for ID is to attempt to terminate the debate by saying “God did itâ€, even though there is no reason to do so.”
Why? If it is right then accept the conclusion. We don’t keep looking for evidence that gravity exists now we have established the fact of it. The wonderful thing about ID is that it does no inhibit science in any way as the more science uncovers about the world we are awed by the incredible complexity and design inherent. This is a straw man argument – theists and atheists continue to contribute to the development of science.
Sam Hanna says: “You’re still setting up straw men. I said clearly and directly earlier that science can never establish that anything is “correctâ€.”
This man lives in a frightening world!
Pete Baker (“However, the root of the Scientific Method is predicated on the fact that its presuppositions cannot be proved but are assumed so retreating to it alone doesn’t help you either.”
And
“The point I am getting to is that all of us have faith.”
Nope. Twice.
That was the point you started at – as evidenced by your capitalisation.
And as I called you on way back in comment 19. Which you conveniently ignored.
I’ll repeat myself, once again.. as you seem to be addicted to the sophistry that supernaturalists require to justify their beliefs.
You’re confusing method with hypotheses – and let’s drop the capitalisation, no-one beyond certain supernaturalists try to equate science with religions.
Methods don’t require [scientific] proofs to be adopted as the best way to find answers to questions posed – just repeated success in finding increasingly accurate answers to those questions. As those following the scientific methodology have done.
If a method of inquiring into the natural world emerges which is more successful was developed, unlikely but possible, then it would be adopted in the same manner.
But enough of this supernatural mumbo-jumbo.
Belief in an omnipotent supernatural being – the neo-creationism that is intelligent design – is not science and should not be taught as such [which is where you're heading]. That belief is an untestable hypothesis.
And.. to repeat myself again
Sam Hanna says: “Belief in an omnipotent supernatural being – the neo-creationism that is intelligent design – is not science and should not be taught as such [which is where you’re heading]. That belief is an untestable hypothesis.”
You should learn from the other twits who have been coming on here attacking ID as pseudo-science. As you are so confident of this assertion, let us test your hubris.
What evidence of design using the Laws of Evidence would you accept infers a designer? No straw men mumbo jumbo and blank denials that you specialise in – just lay the principles out for us all to test you by.
We are waiting………..
Sam
You’re missing, or rather ignoring, the point – see my previous comment.
As a proponent of the ‘designer’ hypothesis it is you who must provide the evidence in order to try to convince others – no assumptions.
At the very least you could try to contemplate some kind of testable hypothesis which might provide that evidence.
But, as I said, belief in a supernatural being is, ultimately, untestable. That’s why it should not be taught as science. And it’s why your sophistry remains distinctly unconvincing. No matter how much you repeat it.
Dawkins says: Pete,
Have you noticed Sam’s habit of using the royal “we”, as in “we are waiting”? I’m sick telling him that he’s alone in his delusions but will he listen?
I’m glad he’s calling you names as well. I was beginning to wonder if you and he had a thing going there, since he’s insulted everyone else whom he couldn’t argue with.
páid says: Erm…getting back to the thread.
I suspect the Welsh and Scottish Catholic bishops compare and contrast their own countries’ abortion laws with nationalist-dominated Ireland, the genetic home of much of the clergy and congregations.
They’re fed up of Labour secularism and the taking for granted of Catholic votes which went to Labour for help-the-poor-get-on reasons which are no longer an (Irish) Catholic priority.
So they are steering their flocks to the socially conservative but no longer bigoted Nationalists.
Sam Hanna says: “As a proponent of the ‘designer’ hypothesis it is you who must provide the evidence in order to try to convince others – no assumptions.”
Dawkins has taken his ball and gone home so ignore him as he has run out of steam. His only answer is to scream insults at the Bible.
Sorry, but it is not me who is dismissing ID as pseudo-science. An arrogant claim like this I am assuming is rooted in a proveable foundation that you actually KNOW what design is and how to test for it. Or where you just talking out of your hat like all the rest.
I make the assertion that the irreducible complexity can only be explained by a Designer as no other explanation has been proven to be realistic. Now it is up to you to overturn the overwhelming evidence.
Am waiting………
abucs says: You may be right paid.
Perhaps they realise that the Church is in danger there of being an irrelevance if they don’t speak up ?
Especially now with the gloss gone off ‘new labour’ (ahem), and argueably politics in general, as a force for necessarilly bringing peace and progress, there is more room now to speak out ?
I suppose an off topic thought would be – is politics in a holding pattern now for a society’s development ?
Have we lost our faith that politics will make any real difference anymore ?
That is that there’s always going to be a comparatively poor section of the electorate. In fact it might be needed for things to function. It’s simply a matter of managing it.
Is the population going to be continually in working competition for at least the medium term with the rest of the world via exports and imports ?
It looks like costs of everything from medicines for the aged to property for the young are going to keep going up and society is now locked into a rational economic working straight-jacket. That’s life so to speak.
That politics now is becoming an administrative clerical process rather than a hope for a better society, does this perception let other voices more easily into the fray ?
Just a thought … apologies.
abucs says: A recently released paper from Antoine Suarez for consideration.
“Classical Demons and Quantum Angels: On ‘t Hooft’s deterministic Quantum Mechanics.â€
Dealing with Quantum physics, causality, free will and the big man in the …..
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0705/0705.3974v1.pdf
Dawkins says: Abucs,
“..free will and the big man in the …..”
You mean this chap?
http://www.perpetualocean.com/tetherdcow/cowimage/godparis.jpg
Dawkins says: Good stuff that, Abucs.
I was particularly interested in what the mathematician John H Conway had to say regarding free will and society, and its rebuttal:
>>As Conway states, free will is a capability we daily use.
If free will is an illusion, societies relying on this capability
should go wrong.
Interestingly, History shows rather the opposite: disposing of the principle that humans are free to choose what to do, brings up dreadful societies.
In fact, inside the deterministic logic the following grave
implication seems inescapable: when someone purporting
determinism comes to political power, and has to take decisions concerning human activities in daily life, he will tend to identify himself with a determining “superior might†choosing the conditions for the evolving of society, and consider the others as beings without free will, who have no need to demand for more freedom than that of “the uncertainty about their futureâ€.
The others, if they think also deterministically, will agree in performing the decisions of the “superior might†without feeling
any responsibility for their deeds.<<
Sound eerily familiar?
abucs says: Surely a good case against cloning ?? 
)
I understand your point Dawkins but i would also suggest that free will has some serious inconsistances with a deterministic universe.
If we are simply tissue and electrical impulses running on brain circuits then the physical inputs to us (electrons, light, chemical smells etc )all converted to electrics would cause a necessary reaction precluding free will.
In essence, we don’t have a choice in how the electrics and tissue will react to make us think what we will think. In some regards the idea of free will is an illusion in a deterministic only universe.
If there is free will, its origin will lay outside of the physical make up of who we are.
Since i would say that ‘I AM’, i can go along with a physical deterministic universe, but only up to a point. There has to be something more in my humble opinion.
That is part of my logic and i respect that other people will have other logics.
Sam Hanna says: If there is no God and all our thoughts,desires, actions are just random chemical processes in our brain governed by the fixed laws of nature then there is NO FREE WILL! For if man is a
totally material entity, then any apparent freedom is illusory as the “fixed laws of nature†govern our actions.
So, why do we even waste time trying to punish criminals if their behaviour is fixed by the environment or genetics? Why do we make a
distinction in law from crimes committed with full mental faculties and those done by insane persons? Why do we blame ourselves and feel guilty when we make a bad choice?
Listen to Richard Dawkins make a complete fool of himself on this point,
http://ravingatheist.com/archives/2006/10/embarrassed.php
Dawkins says: Abucs,
I love your argument about those electrics precluding free will. However, isn’t it so that we ourselves have built the neural pathways that will respond to those outside stimuli? And done this over the course of many years?
Each time a synapse opens and closes represents a choice we’re making, on some level, be it of high or low consciousness. I suppose it’s a bit like a binary code.
I’m therefore satisfied that we are indeed masters of our own destinies.
Comrade Stalin says: Sam,
What’s the point in me spending time responding to your contributions if you ignore the points I’m making ? Are you here to have a debate, or are you here to just keep repeating things you’ve read in books ?
If there is no God and all our thoughts,desires, actions are just random chemical processes in our brain governed by the fixed laws of nature then there is NO FREE WILL!
Who says ?
The weather is governed by fixed laws of nature. We just don’t know what all the variables and all the rules are. That doesn’t mean that the weather possesses free will. It just means that we don’t have the capacity to predict it.
You’re getting into a very dangerous area by saying that our thoughts, desires and actions are the outcome of a grand scheme put in place by a higher power. What place do terrorism, murder, man-made disasters, or any other kind of evil you can think of all have in that plan ? If the universe is set in motion by divine orchestration, what is the purpose of evil in his plan ?
For if man is a totally material entity, then any apparent freedom is illusory as the “fixed laws of nature†govern our actions.
Who says ? You ?
If you are saying that free will may be restricted by parameters we can’t perceive, or can’t conceive, I have no problem accepting it aside from the fact that you’re making a conjecture which is untestable.
paid says: Michelin-starred food for thought from abucs.
Just one line for example…
“…… there’s always going to be a comparatively poor section of the electorate. In fact it might be needed for things to function. It’s simply a matter of managing it.”
This is related to what McDowell referred to a few months back.
We could have had a debate about Darwinian economic systems, inequality, how to minimize and mitigate it and a lot of other interesting stuff. For example, Denis O’Brien is slightly smarter, and more driven than normal, and this allows him outrageous wealth. Michael O’Leary is another one. But Ireland has to compete. So how do we allow wealth creation without enabling a select few to own half of Dublin?
But McD was shouted down by the PC brigade.
So it’s cheerio cheerio cheerio to any kind of intelligent public debate. 
Sam Hanna says: “I’m therefore satisfied that we are indeed masters of our own destinies.”
Five simple questions:
(1) Did you know when you would be born?
(2) Did you know who your parents would be?
(3) Did you know which country you would be born into?
(4) Did you know what IQ you would have before you were born?
(5) Do you know when you will die?
These 5 questions make up the factors that ultimately control your destiny. ALL OF THEM ARE OUTSIDE YOUR CONTROL.
In fact, you control very little by your limited freewill. So don’t play the silly game that you are the god of your life.
abucs says: So you’re advising me to stay out of politics paid ? ) I guess it’s not a popular election platform after all.
Dawkins. I agree we create our own neural pathways. That is, we use this physical universe (the pathways) to create who we are. Perhaps it HAS to be like that.
But the question remains. What is this ‘choice’ that we have to build them in the first place ? Is this too deterministic tissue and electronics ? If so, then we really don’t have a choice.
If not, then where is the essence of our choice coming from ?
Is our choice simply an illusion ? Are we kidded into thinking it is a free choice ? I think at the end of the day determinism has to support that, or else admit to their being something else beyond physical determinism.
Dawkins says: Abucs,
I guess we should look upon the vexed question of choice in a way similar to how a computer works.
Your otherwise trusty machine crashes at a most inappropriate time. Most often this is due to an infinitesimally small choice your processor must make, such as calculating the correct length of the ascender of a lowercase Times “h”. There always a choice involved: is it “0″ or is it “1″. If your processor makes the wrong choice, even at that level, it can crash your machine.
The brain works in a similar way. At birth it’s still largely unformed, true consciousness is still a long way off. So a baby must make millions if not billions of those “infinitesimally small” choices each day in order to lay down the neural pathways of the brain.
Some choices will be high-level: “Do I cry for food or not?” But most will be at low level: “Should this hair follicle remain sleeping or awaken?”
You probably were more aware of the smaller choices when a child than an adult, hence the illusion that time passes more slowly for a child, that a day can seem like a week. A child is observing more of those low-level choices than an adult would, simply because so many are novel.
So in the end it’s down to evolution. We evolve our brains in much the same way as our species evolved and continues to evolve: through constant choice (not by chance as the creationists “understand” evolution).
I wish I’d time to go into this fascinating stuff a little more, but duty calls :0)
abucs says: Well by profession i am a computer programmer. I wish i could write some code which says to the processor – you decide what to do.
Unfortunately every single process has to go through code and many a frustrating night is spent finding those bugs where the lines of code written are wrong. (Always my absent work colleagues fault though).
So if you forget about the design for a moment, the computer is just a hunk of metal wires and capacitors taking in a certain input and responding in a definite way in accordance with physics.
We know where it’s choices came from (us, or my work colleague). It’s choices are found outside of itself by something else. Where do our choices come from ?
In a physical deterministic viewpoint looking at neural connections as the essence of us; there can be no ‘us’ before the choices to be ‘us’ are made. But then isn’t there an ‘us’ that does the initial choosing ?
The only way out for a deterministic view IMHO, is to say they are not really our choices at all, but definite reactions, and thus, like the mechanical computer, there is no real us ?
To my mind, either we are wholly deterministic like a computer, or there is something else non physical and non deterministic happening. As you can guess i favour the latter as i believe in some essence, there is a me and i am in charge of how i think and not the other way round.
It may be that the neural patterns help us to be rather than define who we are. For example, if we learn a new instruement or language we actually break down neural pathways and forge new ones (very painfully and slowly for myself).
So what is deciding to first create and later to change these pathways ?
Anyway Dawkins, nice corresponding with you, i guess we have to agree to disagree.
Best wishes.
On The Fence says: Each to his own.
Sam Hanna says: “So in the end it’s down to evolution. We evolve our brains in much the same way as our species evolved and continues to evolve: through constant choice (not by chance as the creationists “understand†evolution).”
The hypothesis of absolute personality to explain the formation of the universe explains the data far better than the hypothesis of ultimate impersonality. An absolute personality can make a rational universe and his plan for creation and providence is therefore rational. The absolute personality is able to make man in
His image and to equip him to understand the universe as much as he needs to.Why should we prefer a hypothesis of ultimate impersonality when that creates such an enormous gap between the nature of the Creator (non-rational) and the
nature of the universe including human beings (rational)?
Dawkins says: OK, abucs. Talk to you later.
Dread Cthulhu says: CS: ” I said clearly and directly earlier that science can never establish that anything is “correctâ€. There are merely theories and hypotheses – conjectures which make no more than an effort to explain phenomena (to a more or less credible extent) with the direct challenge to produce a better one that ties together what we have observed to date. I also at no point claimed that the absence of evidence was proof of anything. ”
And if were taught as a theory, mayhap I would be less inclined to try and tweak noses, but Evolution is taught as fact, despite its utter inability to explain the platypus. However, evolution is as much an article of faith as transubstaniation is to Roman Catholics and eating each course with the right fork is amongst Episcopalians.
Comrade Stalin: “The alternative theory to evolution being proposed here is three words – “God did itâ€. To those of us trying to enhance our understanding of the world around us, this effort at an explanation is distinctly unsatisfactory. ”
However, by your own arguement, it should be the superior theory, since it explains all points, does it not? 
Comrade Stalin: “Dark matter for example, which was invented purely to plug a gap because our sums about the universe don’t add up. It’s there begging for someone to show that it is wrong. No existing scientific theory is deemed permanently satisfactory. However this is still infinitely superior the three-word effort. ”
Actually, it isn’t — its simply what we in finance call a “plug number,” an admission of ignorance fig-leafed over by a veneer of formality, as if by giving the fig-leaf a name, it is somehow improved. Whether or not it is “infinitely superior” is a matter of how large the fig-leaf happens to be. Likewise, given the abhorrence of some to *ANY* challenge to evolution, I would suggest that you are idealizing, if not wholly over-stating, the rigourousness of the scientific method when it comes to evolution.
Comrade Stalin: “When the criticism is coming from people who do not understand it, or who have an agenda (such as creationism) it’s quite reasonable to expect people to be indignant.”
Ah, but their reaction is not “indignant,” it is irrational. If Evolution, as you seem to suggest, is simply the best available hypothesis, why not throw a sop to the alternate theories and move along? That would at least be a show of confidence, as opposed to the screaming meemies we hear about.
Comrade Stalin: “I have seen all of the arguments that the creationists have put against evolution, and I’ve seen them all refuted.”
Dismissed, perhaps, but hardly refuted — one of the advantages of arguing from a position of omnipotence and omniscience, not to mention that whole “mysterious ways” angle — nothing is truly beyond the grasp of the Almighty. Sure, it comes down to a collection of pat answers, but they are, arguably, unassailable within its own internal logic and have a response for all questions, something science, by your own admission, is incapable of achieving.
Sam Hanna says: Good points “Dread Cthulhu” you appear to be getting there.
Be prepared for mountains of abuse and straw men arguments to be hurled at you but well done for at least being objective enough to see through the obsfucation and semantics of Comrade Stalin, Dawkins et al with their pseudo-intellectual cotton candy philosophy.
Dread Cthulhu says: Sam Hanna: “Be prepared for mountains of abuse and straw men arguments to be hurled at you but well done for at least being objective enough to see through the obsfucation and semantics of Comrade Stalin, Dawkins et al with their pseudo-intellectual cotton candy philosophy. ”
Don’t get too cocky, Sam… you have still to answer my last response.
And, sometimes, its just the argument that is the thing.
If anything, this “argument” is pointless, as the two positions — science and faith, are largely irreconcilable, your posturings notwithstanding. The Bible, while a great many things, even most of those being good things, is not a useful road-map to the physical sciences.
“You probably haven’t noticed that you’re the only one here promoting the conceit of intelligent design. It’s your baby so you run with it. No one here has to demonstrate design either exists or does not. I’ll repeat that in another way:
You may come with as many cock-eyed theories as you wish. That’s your prerogative. It isn’t up to anyone here to prove your cock-eyed theories wrong, but for you to prove them right.
OK, I’ve said this four or five times in several different ways. Anybody else wish to explain it to Sam, be my guest.”
DAWKINS chickens out again – talk is cheap my friend but it is axiomatic you are rubbishing ID out of prejudice not out of any logical basis. Why don’t you admit you hate God because you are a sinner and no matter what the evidence is you will reject it. Please don’t hide behind the cloak of “logic” or “science” – you do not have a leg to stand on.
Sam Hanna,
I think I’ve already replied to this, but I’ll break it down, here’s the key difference between our positions:
1. There is order in nature
2. This gives the possibility of designer(s), as although we do have processes such as evolution to explain complexity, we don’t know everything, especially about the ‘start’ (if that is the correct way to think about it) of the universe.
3. Alternatively, there may not have been a designer at all.
You are saying order necessitates a designer i.e. because of order, there *must* be a designer, I am saying there *might* be.
In other words, I am accepting your criteria of evidence but not how you’ve arrived at your conclusion.
I’m also saying that ID is not scientific, which you have not dealt with.
Comrade Stalin: “Science does not have pre-suppositions. It is based on theories which attempt to explain phenomena based on the available facts. ”
And, what, pray tell, are the “available facts” in support of evolution that preclude any possibility of alternate theories?
Comrade Stalin: “Creationism is about finding some facts, and excluding others, in an attempt to fit a theory. It is the complete opposite of scientific method. ”
Ah, but so is the Theory of Evolution. It does not fit all the facts and excludes certain realities that are difficult to explain, particularly gaps in the fossil record.
Comrade Stalin: “No evidence has come to light which rules it out;”
Sloppy thinking there, CS… No evidence has come to light ruling out that a great many things… that does not make them correct.
Comrade Stalin: “No I can’t. I cannot prove anything “correct†and I would not dare to be so arrogant.”
Oh, you’d dare… just not on this topic…
Comrade Stalin: “Science requires a constant process of self-criticism and self-improvement. ”
And, yet, any criticism of Evolution brings out the same frightened shaved ape that screams “heretic!” at those who do not believe as they do…
Now, in the name of equal time…
Sam Hanna: “It is good to see you cannot refute any of the scientific evidence in the book and are resorting to abuse because of the author’s use of quotations from atheist scientist. ”
Because it came for the lips of a scientist does not make it scientifically sound, Sam. Similarly, the Biblical depiction has its own discrepancies vis-a-vis the fossil record, for which I have yet to hear a rational accounting.
Sam Hanna: “I, by way of contrast, admit that my observations and testings are predicated in the belief in an objective power greater than me. But I least I have an objective source! ”
Tsk tsk… Sam, what you have is a blind spot the size of Rhode Island. Your “objective source” has been edited for political and editorial content on several occasions by individuals who did not have “objectivity” in their vocabulary, let alon foremost in their mind when doing their cut and paste work on the document in question. Books were added and deleted as necessary to fit the whims of those in power, initially in positions of religious influence, but later, for political purposes, such as to prop up the notion of the “Divine Right” of kings.
I would also point out that your “objective source” had issues with lended fabrics, thought slavery and polygamy an acceptable practice and ruined his credit rating with that temper tantrum in the Temple that one time. A great many things can be found in the Bible, Sam… I am fairly certain you’re cherry-picking ignores a great many of the low-points in the document.
Sam hanna,
I’ve read this a few times, but I’m still not clear on why this gives credence to God, or makes ID scientific:
“It is a fact that making design inferences is an established and a fundamental part of modern science. We see this in many disciplines, including archaeology, anthropology, forensics,
criminal jurisprudence, copyright law, patent law, reverse engineering, crypto-analysis, random number generation,”
All of which deal with demonstrable designers and sentients, i.e. humans. That might be why they make design inferences. Their method of inquiry is also not the same as natural science, as a well-informed mega-brain like yourself is already aware of I’m sure.
“Because it came for the lips of a scientist does not make it scientifically sound, Sam. Similarly, the Biblical depiction has its own discrepancies vis-a-vis the fossil record, for which I have yet to hear a rational accounting.”
Ever heard of the Great Flood – thought not
All the evidence of the fossil record points to a cataclysmic event that destroyes the animal world in an instant which would result in the species buried not in terms of their complexity but in respect of their ability to stay above the water the longest in their geographical regions. Which, amazingly, is what we find regular layers in the fossil record with may anomalies and gaps.
“I would also point out that your “objective source†had issues with lended fabrics, thought slavery and polygamy an acceptable practice and ruined his credit rating with that temper tantrum in the Temple that one time. A great many things can be found in the Bible, Sam… I am fairly certain you’re cherry-picking ignores a great many of the low-points in the document.”
Again, you fail to read it properly. Most false religions are derived from the same mentality of taking one verse and building a doctrine on it. There is not single verse in the Bible that approves of polygamy for instance.
“All of which deal with demonstrable designers and sentients, i.e. humans. That might be why they make design inferences. Their method of inquiry is also not the same as natural science, as a well-informed mega-brain like yourself is already aware of I’m sure.”
I am afraid you are in a minority of one here – all of these disciplines are in the field of Science. Maybe a quick glance at the Prospectus of any local university would help you here. Forensics is part of the Pathology Dept of Queens University – I once did a module there in the subject. Secondly, yoy are the first person to ever state that engineering is not a science. Don’t say it too loud as there are men in white coats waiting to take you and Dawkins for a long holiday.
Sam hanna,
I’m a patient guy, but come on. Did I really say none of those were sciences?
They don’t relate to the same field of inquiry as your cosmological argument concerns itself with, natural science does. I guess forensics must contain some hidden meaning of the universe that I just don’t know about.
It is good to see you cannot refute any of the scientific evidence in the book
The book, as far as I can tell, contains no documented observations which constitute evidence for the case that you are making. It merely contains interpretations of another book (the bible) interspersed with other widely-accepted theories from astronomy, physics and chemistry which I have no problem confirming. That is not evidence of anything.
If I have misunderstood this, then please direct me to the page containing evidence you would like me to address. I’m noting already that you have avoided my previous suggestion to point me to a specific part of the book that you’d like me to refute.
and are resorting to abuse because of the author’s use of quotations from atheist scientist.
The abuse I’ve seen is coming from you, and I see you’ve even managed to throw in that evil BBC as part of your anti-God conspiracy. It’s funny that the author of your book fails basic English comprehension. I also noted that the author’s argument largely seemed to consist of setting up strawmen in the form of out-of-context quotations from atheists, and then knocking them down. The book did not even try to honestly address the concerns expressed by non-theists.
That is strange because a few moments ago you were very confident that God did not exist.
No, I’m confident that the existence of God cannot be proven because there is no definition of what God is and no falsifiable test case for establishing his/her/its existence.
Besides, this is hardly a compelling argument. Say that I believe that the