Saturday, September 23, 2006
“I am attacking Gods, all gods, anything and everything supernatural..”
I may have to take some time out from diving into the fascinating archives of the Royal Society [free until December - Ed] to read this, Richard Dawkins’ latest book, The God Delusion, and it couldn’t have appeared at a bettter time. Joan Bakewell applauds loudly in her review in the Guardian, “Primed by anger, redeemed by humour, it will, I trust, offend many”, where you can read an extract from the first chapter. Dawkins was also interviewed on Newsnight last night, hopefully they’ll put it online, and there are more extracts there too. And he makes a prescient point in the first chapter that is worth highlighting.
As I attempted to point out at the time, Pope Benedict’s speech at his old University at a Meeting with The Representatives of Science was intended to be an “attempt to equate, or entwine, religion and science..”
That attempt is also highlighted by Breda O’Brien in today’s Irish Times, although she is in favour of such a move[subs req]
It seems to have been overlooked in most of the commentary that he was speaking in a university about the role of universities, and challenging the idea that only research based on observable, empirical, measurable evidence can be considered reasonable or scientific. When he taught at Regensburg decades ago, the university was proud of its two faculties of theology and it was accepted even by unbelievers that it is reasonable to explore the question of God.[added emphasis]
Richard Dawkins anticipated the argument put forward by Benedict - from the extract from the first chapter of his book
In greater numbers since his death, religious apologists understandably try to claim Einstein as one of their own. Some of his religious contemporaries saw him very differently. In 1940 Einstein wrote a famous paper justifying his statement “I do not believe in a personal God”. This and similar statements provoked a storm of letters from the religiously orthodox, many of them alluding to Einstein’s Jewish origins. The extracts that follow are taken from Max Jammer’s book Einstein and Religion (which is also my main source of quotations from Einstein himself on religious matters). The Roman Catholic Bishop of Kansas City said: “It is sad to see a man, who comes from the race of the Old Testament and its teaching, deny the great tradition of that race.” Other Catholic clergymen chimed in: “There is no other God but a personal God ... Einstein does not know what he is talking about. He is all wrong. Some men think that because they have achieved a high degree of learning in some field, they are qualified to express opinions in all.” The notion that religion is a proper field, in which one might claim expertise, is one that should not go unquestioned. That clergyman presumably would not have deferred to the expertise of a claimed “fairyologist” on the exact shape and colour of fairy wings. Both he and the bishop thought that Einstein, being theologically untrained, had misunderstood the nature of God. On the contrary, Einstein understood very well exactly what he was denying.[added emphasis]
Dawkins is keen to get the terminology clear before any debate
Let’s remind ourselves of the terminology. A theist believes in a supernatural intelligence who, in addition to his main work of creating the universe in the first place, is still around to oversee and influence the subsequent fate of his initial creation. In many theistic belief systems, the deity is intimately involved in human affairs. He answers prayers; forgives or punishes sins; intervenes in the world by performing miracles; frets about good and bad deeds, and knows when we do them (or even think of doing them). A deist, too, believes in a supernatural intelligence, but one whose activities were confined to setting up the laws that govern the universe in the first place. The deist God never intervenes thereafter, and certainly has no specific interest in human affairs. Pantheists don’t believe in a supernatural God at all, but use the word God as a nonsupernatural synonym for Nature, or for the Universe, or for the lawfulness that governs its workings. Deists differ from theists in that their God does not answer prayers, is not interested in sins or confessions, does not read our thoughts and does not intervene with capricious miracles. Deists differ from pantheists in that the deist God is some kind of cosmic intelligence, rather than the pantheist’s metaphoric or poetic synonym for the laws of the universe. Pantheism is sexed-up atheism. Deism is watered-down theism.[added emphasis]
An aside, the 2006 Science and Engineering Visualization Challenge winners have been announced, a competition run by the American National Science Foundation and Science, a publication of the American Association for the Advancement of Science
As the introduction to the challenge on the National Science Foundation’s website states
Some of science�s most powerful statements are not made in words. From the diagrams of DaVinci to Hooke�s microscopic bestiary, the beaks of Darwin�s finches, Rosalind Franklin�s x-rays or the latest photographic marvels retrieved from the remotest galactic outback, visualization of research has a long and literally illustrious history. To illustrate is, etymologically and actually, to enlighten.
That would be Leonardo’s Laboratory of the Mind and Robert Hooke’s Micrographia - further details of that in the Royal Society archives
ANYway.. The winners of the 2006 Science and Engineering Visualization Challenge include this wondrous image from an non-interactive animation, Body Code
And this image, from the Photopgraphy section, an Egyptian child mummy
And, to end, a final reminder of Dawkins’, self-declared, ambitious intention, summed up neatly in this quote from Newsnight
“I am not attacking any particular version of God or gods. I am attacking Gods, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented.”
Pete Baker @ 11:49 AM
Pete,
Dawkings rallying has been coming for sometime. But i see lots of opinions and personal interpretations with little absolute science to back it up.
Einstein’s idea of a God was not a personal one. He had a different idea of God. But it was a God and not Mother Nature. That is fairly well understood.
Of course he argued with quantum mechanics for most of his life and came out the loser as he thought ‘it didn’t make sense’.
His famous quote ‘God does not play dice with the universe’ was in reaction to quantum mechanics claims back when it was a earlier branch of science. He didn’t like it because the fundamental rules of the universe were calculated probabilities (hence dice) and not eternal unchangeable laws (that fit in with his absent God idea).
Most of his very intelligent experiments that he believed would find against quantum mechanics were completed after his death when technology had progressed enough to do them. He came out the loser in all those experiments. So that today quantum mechanics is the orthodox view of how the universe works.
1. Bells Theorem
2. Quantum Zeno Effect
3. Measurement effect - Particule behaviour at near absolute freezing (position vs speed).I know it is self serving to decide what Einstein would have thought after all of these experiments went against him, but none the less i do think he would have decided on a God that had a much closer relationship to man than he had previously thought and argued for.
As far as Dawkins contributions, well, I’m sure he’ll sell lots of books.
Posted by on Sep 23, 2006 @ 02:04 PMDawkins still thinks that religion and science are necessarily in conflict, but he’s wrong. There are so many things that he’s wrong about - he should just stick to his area of expertise, i.e. evolution, because he’s no philosopher. I’m an atheist, a scientist and a firm believer of evolution by natural selection, but Dawkins doesn’t speak for me.
Posted by on Sep 23, 2006 @ 02:07 PMabucs
If you read the linked extracts, in particular the guardian piece from the book’s first chapter, Einstein’s views are discussed in some detail, with quotes to back them up.
Posted by on Sep 23, 2006 @ 02:09 PMPete, like all of us, he said many things at many times. One of the ones that is relevant to my point is:
I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. [He was speaking of Quantum Mechanics and the breaking down of determinism.] My religiosity consists in a humble admiratation of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance—but for us, not for God.”
[Albert Einstein, from “Albert Einstein: The Human Side”, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press]As mentioned above. Quantum mechanics has only got stronger and more validated after his death.
This does not change my main point though that as i have said many times here - Cause and effect (in this universe) has been broken. To borrow another quote - “all has changed, changed utterly”.
How Einstein would react to Physics development of the last couple of generations is of course up for grabs. Dawkings makes his claim without mentioning the fundamental scientific progress since Einsteins death.
I think to be fair, the below probably summed up his thinking at the time of his death. Other Einstein quotes (suiting me) follow.
I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being. (Albert Einstein)
“The finest emotion of which we are capable is the mystic emotion. Herein lies the germ of all art and all true science. Anyone to whom this feeling is alien, who is no longer capable of wonderment and lives in a state of fear is a dead man. To know that what is impenatrable for us really exists and manifests itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, whose gross forms alone are intelligible to our poor faculties - this knowledge, this feeling ... that is the core of the true religious sentiment. In this sense, and in this sense alone, I rank myself amoung profoundly religious men.”
Posted by on Sep 23, 2006 @ 03:08 PMOther Einstein quotes (that suit me) made while Albert was at the height of his mental powers :
“I want to know God’s thoughts, the rest are details.” Albert Einstein.
True Religion is real living. Living with all ones soul. With all ones goodness and rightousness. Albert Einstein.
When the solution is simple. God is answering. Albert Einstein.
Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.”
“What Life Means to Einstein: An Interview by George Sylvester Viereck,” for the October 26, 1929 issue of The Saturday Evening Post.“The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed.”
Quoted on pg. 289 of Adventures of a Mathematician, by S. M. Ulam(Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1976).“I maintain that cosmic religiousness is the strongest and most noble driving force of scientific research.”
“Why does this applied science, which saves work and makes life easier, bring us so little happiness? The simple answer runs: Because we have not yet learned to make sensible use of it.”
“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium (1941) ch. 13“As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. “
“The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking.”
“If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?”
“I think that a particle must have a separate reality independent of the measurements. That is an electron has spin, location and so forth even when it is not being measured. I like to think that the moon is there even if I am not looking at it.” - when referrring to quantum mechanics.
“All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed toward ennobling man’s life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards freedom.”
“When I examine myself and my methods of thought, I come to the conclusion that the gift of fantasy has meant more to me than my talent for absorbing positive knowledge.”
“I cannot believe that God would choose to play dice with the universe.” or sometimes quoted as “God does not play dice with the universe.”
“We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality.”
“The highest principles for our aspirations and judgements are given to us in the Jewish-Christian religious tradition. It is a very high goal which, with our weak powers, we can reach only very inadequately, but which gives a sure foundation to our aspirations and valuations. If one were to take that goal out of out of its religious form and look merely at its purely human side, one might state it perhaps thus: free and responsible development of the individual, so that he may place his powers freely and gladly in the service of all mankind. ... it is only to the individual that a soul is given. And the high destiny of the individual is to serve rather than to rule, or to impose himself in any otherway.”
“Intelligence makes clear to us the interrelationship of means and ends. But mere thinking cannot give us a sense of the ultimate and fundamental ends. To make clear these fundamental ends and valuations and to set them fast in the emotional life of the individual, seems to me precisely the most important function which religion has to form in the social life of man.”
“All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed toward ennobling man’s life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards freedom.”
Posted by on Sep 23, 2006 @ 03:12 PMabucs
Your point on selecting quotes is well made, but to be honest, the debate about whose side Einstein would be on is a sidetrack.
Dawkins argument appears, to me, to be that nothing is beyond the natural - which for him, and I must confess for me too, rules out a supernatural being of any kind.
Interestingly in the Newsnight interview, he qualifies his argument to, as he acknowledges, allow for the possibility that, as a scientist, he could be wrong. Not that he thinks he is.
Posted by on Sep 23, 2006 @ 03:23 PMI am a Catholic, but as live an dlet live kind f guy. I’ll happily discuss science ot theology woithj you if you want the conversation, but I won’t try to shove it down your throat. Even if you believe there is no god, religion can still have a positive effect on people. It can have a negative effect too, but that’s the same with everything.
Dawkins is the strain of atheist who just won’t SHUT THE FUICK UP anout religion. On and on and on and and on and on, a million times worse than the worst craziest Christian. It is honestly off putting and it’s mostly opinion.
Posted by on Sep 23, 2006 @ 03:31 PMGod has declared that he doesn’t believe in Richard Dawkins.
In an interview with BBC current affairs program Newsnight, the Almighty said he believed the concept of Mr Dawkins was too far fetched and that it sprung from a deep human need to believe in myths, such as the one in which a tiny little human man can claim to know the mind of the universe and everything which springs from it.
“Once one begins to contemplate a universe without Richard Dawkins,” said God, “one starts to realise that the whole idea of such an entity actually existing is an absolute absurdity.”
Posted by on Sep 23, 2006 @ 03:48 PMFair enough Pete.
About the ‘natural’ thing. For me it depends what you mean by natural.
I think everything can be explained too, and i put God in that category. If you think it is real, then it must be based in fact and so can be explained once we know.
The comments i make (and Einstein alluded to) about science and cause and effect (and Dawkings with his 11 dimensions etc ) is that there is something fundamentally outside of our universe.
This is what science says, so for me, if natural means ‘in this universe’ then science (and Dawkins himself with his 11 dimensions) comes out against a natural explanation.
So it becomes an arguement about what is contained outside our natural universe.
Dawkins says 11 dimensions is the basis for our reality. How can he definately come out against a creator when he has no idea what his supposed other 7/8 dimensions contain ?
I agree with Kensei. It is all opinion. Or should i say a deliberate aggressive opinion based on something that he doesn’t know about.
If Dawkins wants to talk about reality, he needs to talk Physics, not borrow certain Einstein quotes on religion IMHO.
Posted by on Sep 23, 2006 @ 03:50 PM“If you think it is real, then it must be based in fact and so can be explained once we know.”
You might want to think about the implications of that statement.
Because it actually goes to the core of the difference between a scientific approach and a faith-based approach.
Also worth looking at how Dawkins focuses in on the dilution of what the word ‘God’ has come to mean for some.
Posted by on Sep 23, 2006 @ 03:57 PMPete,
i look at faith in a similar way (to my mind) Newton looked at gravity. He didn’t know what the rules were but he believed there were rules and went looking for them.
Posted by on Sep 23, 2006 @ 04:08 PMI think the inspiration usually comes first and then the scientific method comes after once an experiment is devised to validate the inspiration.
The problem with our existance is that no-one has come up with an experiment to prove where it came from. In order to find out we have to have the inspiration first and then try and build a logical ladder to it.
I think science is a method but not a way of life and i think the (off track) quotes above by Einstein suggest this too.
Anyway, i’m off now, thanks for the link.
Posted by on Sep 23, 2006 @ 04:13 PMGravity, abucs, is observable and laws describing it testable.
sign-in word - ‘doubt95’ - heh
Posted by on Sep 23, 2006 @ 04:14 PMabucs, great posts but still a sideshow to the main attraction. This is a full frontal attack on organised religion and the continued obscenity of its place as child abuser at the heart of societies throughout the world.
Posted by on Sep 23, 2006 @ 08:18 PMRe: origin of life, if we’re faced with a choice between:
a) the mathematically-incomprehensible notion that all forms of life have evolved through tetragillions of successive, mutually beneficial stages - all of which inexplicably happened by chance and without any agent directing them - over billions of years, and
b) a deliberate creative act by a intelligent Being
I’ll take Option B any time. Option A requires way too much faith.
Posted by on Sep 23, 2006 @ 09:25 PMDawkins is one of those extremely intelligent people, like Bertrand Russell or the Webbs, who possess not an ounce of common sense.
How could he have imagined that e-mailing US voters slagging off President Bush would have encouraged them to do anything other than vote for Bush, last time?
He’s never learnt that outarguing people is not the same as convincing them
Posted by on Sep 23, 2006 @ 09:52 PMIt is interesting how people will place faith simply in faith itself rather than accept the cold and chilling reality of probability. Such belief will be with us for ever for how do you prove or disprove entities based on faith and if one could to what point? Faith for some faith fills a need, a vacuum, and to be able to prove folly achieves just what? Indeed the need for meaning would probably overrule whatever rationale was produced.
Posted by on Sep 23, 2006 @ 10:23 PMCrat
In the slight criticism of Dawkins that Joan Bakewell includes in her excellent review, she touches on that point - as well as arguing that there is a need for a forthright rational position to be put..
He doesn’t comprehend that for many people reasoned argument is not the final arbiter of how they choose to live their lives. They are swayed by feelings, moved by loyalties, willing to set logic aside for the sake of psychic comfort. Tell them that all this is the product of chemical and electrical activity in the brain and they will at best assert that God made it thus. For decades now we have been willing to let such diversity of unverifiable beliefs exist among a democratic tolerance of ideas. But this, the assumption of the secular outlook, can no longer be taken for granted. The clouds are darkening around tolerance.
But Dawkins’ point, and I agree with him again, is that the reality is neither cold nor chilling.. but bracing and exhilarating.
Posted by on Sep 23, 2006 @ 10:33 PMPete
reality is neither cold nor chilling.. but bracing and exhilarating.
It depends on your perspective. Neither you nor I would have difficulty, but others would. It would challenge a need that is deep for many. It is like the need for identity, a need to belong, or have some ‘rational’ reason for existence, a place in the scheme of things. A place where there is hope rather than logic. Similar needs apply to National identities and for me also very hard to comprehend properly.
Posted by on Sep 23, 2006 @ 11:17 PMCrat
I don’t disagree that some will find such an argument challenging - indeed, the discussion in-thread so far would evidence that - but that shouldn’t be used as an excuse to prevent a straightforward, rational, argument on this issue being presented or discussed.
As Joan Bakewell says,
For decades now we have been willing to let such diversity of unverifiable beliefs exist among a democratic tolerance of ideas. But this, the assumption of the secular outlook, can no longer be taken for granted. The clouds are darkening around tolerance.
The idea that religion offers hope rather than logic I would also disagree with… it offers a comforting, for some, delusion rather than reality. The understanding of that reality offers a hope in its own right.
Posted by on Sep 23, 2006 @ 11:41 PMPete
I agree and am not for one minute going to try to defend any religious faith but it is a strange matter. In itself religion is really quite an abstract concept, which can be used as a tool for good. Many of our values and standards of conduct are reinforced and underpinned by religious belief, but also alas it can be used to excuse utter mayhem. Strange really, but I think the abuse of religion points clearly to the importance it has in the role of identity rather than belief.
I shall sleep on this one. Long day.
Posted by on Sep 24, 2006 @ 12:28 AMCrat
I accept your argument, on the belief in religion having good points, but as I think Dawkins said in the Newsnight interview, in itself that’s not enough to justifiy its continuation.
As an evolutionary strategy it does make sense.
But an understanding of religion in that evolutionary context also places belief in a different category than theologians would have it.
What that understanding also allows is the possibility of a more realistic, and hopeful, approach to the future.
Posted by on Sep 24, 2006 @ 01:14 AMPete and Crat,
i disagree with both of you. It seems a self serving belief in itself that others who disagree with you are doing it because they are deluded.
Let’s talk science and logic.
There are two possibilities. Lets hear the science and logic for both and make a rational decision.
We are not at the point yet where we know which of the two options is reality but we can use science and logic to look to see which one is more probable.
If you think that a natural explanation has more science and logic regarding the creation of the universe - then lets hear that science and logic.
We of course live in a natural universe and that’s what we proscribe to the processes we see around us. You have to argue that the processes themselves come from some ‘natural’ origin. That is all forms of matter and the laws on how they interact with eachother to make our universe.
Lets not assume that science and logic is on one side without hearing that science and logic.
You have to make your case, scientifically and logically.
Posted by on Sep 24, 2006 @ 03:05 AMabucs
Your challenge amounts to - “Prove my God doesn’t exist!”
Thanks, but no thanks. You can believe whatever you like.
But Dawkins argument is, to me, that the options are either the universe, ie everything, is subject to natural laws… or there exists a supernatural being who is not subject to those laws - hence the quote in the post title.
It’s up to the theists to prove that such a supernatural being exists - which they can’t, such faith being an unproveable hypothesis - and so, until otherwise, I’ll continue with the scientific method of exploring and examining the universe to try to understand those laws.
Btw, thinking it doesn’t make it fact.
Posted by on Sep 24, 2006 @ 12:02 PMPete,
the short answer is you can’t.
It is a cop out to say that i am saying ‘prove my God doesn’t exist’. I make no claims on who
God is through science but i believe i can make a good claim that there is one (or many) creators for it.You can tell by my above posts that i am deliberately asking you to prove that the universe has come into creation by natural means.
I think it is self evident that atheists have / and will always turn the question around to say ‘you do all the proving’. This is mental cowardice because they either cannot or do not want to make their case.
I am not having a go at you personally because very view atheists try and make their case. As i’ve said before - Dawkins has retreated to saying our universe is based on 11 dimensions. Why would he say such a crazy unprovable thing. It is because the ‘this is all there is’ universe concept is deficient in explaining the way it works. This is common knowledge among physicists. He is FORCED to postulate such arguements. He is not in the position of being able to sit back and say ‘you prove your God’. And what is more, deep down he knows he has to make an arguement. He is COMPELLED to because of what we know about science and in particular quantum physics.
It is rational to suppose there are two explanations.
It is rational to ask for evidence of both of those hypothesis.
It is irrational to say that one side has to prove how the universe got here and until then the other side holds true without any scientific or logic produced.
It is not just irrational to hold this view, it is unscientific of the highest order.
Does not classical science say that energy / matter cannot be created.
Doesn’t science say that matter at the smallest level does not behave in a ‘cause and effect’ way.
Doesn’t science say, as crazy as it seems, that matters behaviour is shown to be affected by the observer - measurement effect. That is matter somehow ‘knows’ when it is being observed and will act differently - hence the light acting as a particle or a wave.
Doesn’t science say that the more you know about a particles position, the less you know about its velocity. Why is that ? Surely matter doesn’t care what you know about its velocity, it will still have position. Quantum mechanics says no, it will only have a definite value for one or the other and will behave according to probabilities until observed.
The truth is science says yes to all of these things and more which as Einstein above and other physicists have said - it doesn’t make sense in a reductionist ‘this is all there is’ universe.
So we have a universe that is not working under cause and effect at the smallest quantum level but somehow the consciousness of man effects the matters behaviour. I think it is a quite rational thing to say that is evidence for a created universe for consciousness.
A universe that does not have its explanations contained within it but is somehow programmed to act in a certain way due to consciousness is a problem that reductionists have to answer.
They just don’t want to address it.
Its much easier to pick on a priest with his pants down, or a battle fought 1000 years ago or someone praying to their God.
But none of that is science.
Pete, very view are arguing the ‘natural’ case on scientific grounds because there is very precious science behind it that supports that case.
Regards.
Posted by on Sep 24, 2006 @ 12:57 PM
