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
Btw, thinking it doesn’t make it fact.
I think therefore I am.
I always had difficulty with René Descarte’s explanation for it all. In many ways it is a better explanation of an all mighty, I have faith therefore there is. For me religion belongs in the realm of philosophy.
For myself I prefer the 2+2 = 4 approach but it is surprising just how esoteric the concepts have become.
Posted by on Sep 24, 2006 @ 01:10 PMCrataegus,
i also prefer the 2 + 2 approach.
I also come up with an answer of 4.
Posted by on Sep 24, 2006 @ 01:21 PMAbusc
No Abucs somewhere along the line you take a leap of faith and there is nothing wrong with that. In my opinion we will never be able to prove or disprove a God. Some have belief some don’t fine.
With regards proving the laws of the Universe, I think we are really only beginning that journey and the question of the number of dimensions is an interesting one. For how does a 3 dimensional creature rationalise an 11 dimensional Universe and are some of those fields more important than others and are some folded in on themselves. I’m not sure that the tools we are using are sufficiently subtle and suit the investigation. I have also real difficulties with the concept of time. There is a mass that we really don’t properly understand but that is no reason to say its God and stop asking how.
If God drops in for Sunday lunch then I will believe. He has an invite any Sunday anywhere. Roast Pork today, hope he’s not a Jew or Muslim.
Posted by on Sep 24, 2006 @ 02:05 PMCrat
The line was a reference to an assertion abucs had previously made in-thread - “If you think it is real, then it must be based in fact and so can be explained once we know.”
abucs
As for your further assertion that - “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.”
Except you haven’t provided evidence that that is the case. However, your attempt to replicate the creationists’ argument - that because some fossils haven’t been discovered that proves evolution is false - is noted.
But as crat has indicated there are not equally competing hypotheses here. There is one - that a supernatural being, ie not subject to natural laws exists. The null hypothesis is that no such supernatural being exists. In the absence of any way to even test your hypothesis, never mind prove it, I am left with the null hypothesis.
And while the referencing of other hypotheses such as the dimensional elements of the string hypothesis is interesting, it’s only a hypothesis, not a theory nor a law, just a hypothesis - albeit one that might be tested.
Posted by on Sep 24, 2006 @ 02:06 PMPete,
as i have said before, if consciousness is simply a brain wired to a memory in a certain fashion placed in an environment, then our level of knowledge should progress to make life in a computer environment.
We have all the ingredients there. A computer/brain, memory/memory, programming/wiring and virtual reality/environment.
Would that then make us supernatural beings at odds with our own creation ? Of course not. If it is rational to suggest we should be able to create life given the correct brain / computer wiring it is obvious that it is a rational POSSIBILITY that that has been done for us. Hence it is not a blind ‘hail mary’ but a proposition based on the rationality that we will be able to create intelligent life one day. Hence it must be taken seriously and is not at odds at all with the rationality that we observe.
Of course you could argue that among all creation, in this universe and any that went before it that we are the first ones who will be able to engineer life. That is quite a special position you are putting man into. IT IS BY NO MEANS THE DEFAULT POSITION.
HENCE, YOU MUST MAKE YOUR CASE.
Pete, scientifically what is it that you would like the evidence for ?
That matter is affected by consciousness / knowledge ?
That matter does not behave in a cause and effect way ?
I can point you to many scientific experiments that will strongly suggest either.
Crat,
‘somewhere along the line you take a leap of faith’
Well yes. I have said before. To not take a leap is to remain an agnistic and ‘not know’.
If you want to try and explain then you have to take a jump one way or the other based on evidence.
What you are not understanding is that a natural explanation without any evidence that contradicts modern science is also a jump of faith.
It is obvious.
Posted by on Sep 24, 2006 @ 02:28 PMDawkins is as much a zealot as Buchanan or Hamza, he just happens to be of the atheist variety, he is just as bigoted and blinkered as the rest of them.
Posted by on Sep 24, 2006 @ 02:42 PM‘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. ‘
Now if man were an entirely ‘rational ‘ animal that would be the end of it but he /she isn’t.
‘thinking it doesn’t make it fact.’
True . Cogito ergo sum .
Why do we believe what we believe about whatever it is that makes us believe it ?
Perhaps believing in a God/personal God is just a lot easier and gives a lot of comfort to a lot of people even though it’s true that some ‘religions’ at certain periods in history are led by zealots/nutters/falt earthers for whom science and rationalism are perceived as ‘enemies’ .
Posted by on Sep 24, 2006 @ 02:42 PMabucs
I’ve spent more than enough time on this thread and we’re getting nowhere.
In scientific terms, the hypothesis of a supernatural being is at the core of religious faith. That hypothesis is neither testable nor proveable.
The thrust of Dawkins’ argument, which I agree with, is that religion is not science. Benedict has been trying to maintain that somehow it is like science. It is not.
You appear to be demanding a Grand Unified Theory of Everything. Well, I don’t have one for you. At which point you jump to asserting the existance of a supernatural being.. Good for you.
Joan Bakewell made a couple of pertinent points on this-
1. “They are swayed by feelings, moved by loyalties, willing to set logic aside for the sake of psychic comfort.”
2. “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.”
Posted by on Sep 24, 2006 @ 02:45 PMOK Pete i have to go now.
I disagree with your analysis but good for you. There is an open invitation for the orthodox widespread evidence for the things listed above or for atheists to make their case one day.
I know we are not getting anywhere but can’t you see that your arguements like those listed by Joan boil down to interpreting that religious people are not ‘right thinking’.
This is not science Pete, its childish slander that is a smokescreen for not having to make a case.
ok i’ll not reply again, but my invitation stays open.
Thanks for the posting and (God Bless) take care.
Posted by on Sep 24, 2006 @ 02:59 PMAbucs
God missed a good lunch today
Posted by on Sep 24, 2006 @ 03:21 PM:o) Crataegus.
Posted by on Sep 24, 2006 @ 03:27 PMHave a good day, abucs
You miss the point, not unsurprisingly, and possibly not unintentionally.
Dawkins isn’t presenting a scientific paper here, he’s arguing the case for a completely rational approach - which belief in a supernatural being is not.
One more time, it is not for atheists to prove the non-existence of a supernatural being - an impossibility - but for theists to, at least attempt to, prove one exists - also impossible btw.
Which brings us back to the non-testable hypothesis… and religious faith - not science - that’s what Dawkins is ultimately saying, in his provocatively rational way, in The God Delusion.
I realise you don’t agree, but so it goes.
Posted by on Sep 24, 2006 @ 04:06 PM“I am attacking Gods, all gods, anything and everything supernatural..”
This man sounds quite irrational to me, a little hysterical even. I would not wish to place my belief in him. But I will pray that he does get well soon and finds a balance in life.
Posted by on Sep 24, 2006 @ 04:16 PMIts a papish plot...it’ll never wash in ballymena.
Posted by on Sep 24, 2006 @ 11:48 PMAll Hail Dawkins - an intellectual and not some dumb ass person slagging off anything ‘difficult’ And Mr Dawkins’s theories and philosophies can be tested and argued about against empirical evidence, whereas religions are in the business of belief and faith; and the ability of priests, prelates, mad mullahs and illiterate imans to decide what interpretation they wish to place on that religion. But abive all, you have love Dawkins’ books titles! Wonder was he listening to Slayer’s Christ Illusion when he decided on the title God Delusion. Dawkins a secret thrash metal fan? Now there’s a story!
Posted by on Sep 25, 2006 @ 09:37 AMAs a life long atheist, I am continually being subjected to religion in everyday life in Government, in Royalty, in education in fact much of what I am forced to adhere to is founded in religious beliefs.
I have no difficulty in other people having their beliefs but I think that religion sould be confined to churches and related institutions and it should be banned from having an influenence on all other walks of life.
Posted by on Sep 25, 2006 @ 11:00 AMJames Orr,
what do you mean by evolution being “mathematically incomprehensible”?Posted by on Oct 03, 2006 @ 04:29 PMSince I’m an atheist, you might expect that I’d agree with Dawkins on a lot - not so. When he writes about evolution and biology he writes very well and shows his learning and intelligence. But deary me - whenever he writes about religion he flies off the handle. The older I get the less patience I have with ranting, so I usually avoid him on that topic.
I did try to watch his documentary _The Root of All Evil?_ but turned off during the second part - more because of ignorant comments from a Hassidic rabbi than Dawkins. (Admittely, I was surprised - I assume rabbis to be learned.)
However, Dawkins seemed to have picked the three representatives of faith to be as extreme as possible: a Christian fundamentalist, the aforementioned rabbi and a Muslim who had converted from Judaism to the most radical form of his new faith.
Imagine if Ian Paisley or Pat Robertson had produced a documentary about atheism where the three representatives were a Stalinist, a Maoist and a Trotskyite - Dawkins would have a fit!
Posted by on Oct 03, 2006 @ 08:13 PMMMm- reading the book and enjoying it. But then I would as a committed atheist for most of my life. Crat makes a good point earlier about the cultural value of religion which I think there is a lot of evidence for. Two things I noticd recently come to mind.
Te=he first wa sthat I was at the wedidng of a friend-- a mixed marriage between a catholic and a protestant form one of the smaller evangelical groups. The service was co celebrated. One side of the church was filled with catholics from the bride’s side, the other side with protestants from the groom’s side. As the service went on it becale very clear to me that most catholics probably don’t actually believe in god at all—it’s all about habit and ritual and belonging and even more ingrained from childhood the fact that not to believe or involve onself in the ritual is wrong. Where as the evelgelical protstants-- god they believed all the stuff the pastor was coming out with , the like of which I had never heard before in my life The other thing recently which troubled me greatly was an advert in a local paper from one of the health and social service strust looking for protestant foster parents for two small children both I thinik under 10 years of age. Knowing that foster parenrs are in such short reply here and believing that where children in need their ability to receive resources to meet that need shouldn’t be defined by their religion—I was shocked and surprised , I suppose of course that what the ad was dishonestly stating was not that they wanted foster parents that believed in god and practised a Protestant faith-- but that the protestant and catholic communities here are ethnically and culturally different and that these children could not receive proper foster care from the “ other”. Shocking really.
Posted by on Oct 03, 2006 @ 08:37 PMDarwinism and intelligent design are compatible if you consider the possibility that time is a construct of man and not God. For his creation to know time would be to know God and that per se is a breach of the Commandments. Our measure of time was taken from the Sumerian civilization of approximately 2000 BCE and as we all now the Earth is older than that! Therefore, who is to argue that a God day spans an epoch or more – if it does then it may be argued that evolution can fits the gaps. An Atheist who knows his subject can brow beat a Christian any day of the week for the Bible is full of political motives but at the end of the day we both come to the same conclusion: i.e. in the beginning…
Posted by on Oct 03, 2006 @ 10:39 PMJackeen,
The mathematical probability is spectacularly impossible. Here is just one Google:
“...Harold Morowitz, a Yale University physicist, has made a more realistic estimate for spontaneous generation. Morowitz imagined a broth of living bacteria that were super-heated so that all the complex chemicals were broken down into their basic building blocks. After cooling the mixture, he concluded that the odds of a single bacterium re-assembling by chance are one in 10 to the 100 billionth power. This number is so large that it would require several thousand blank books just to write it out. To put this number into perspective, it is more likely that you and your entire extended family would win the state lottery every week for a million years than for a bacterium to form by chance...”
The laws of probability just don’t allow this to happen. Evolution is a quaint Victorian idea destroyed by 21st century knowledge. I see it as ideology first and science very much second.
Posted by on Oct 03, 2006 @ 11:16 PMJames Orr-- I do think you are missing the point. As Dawkins and others have pointed out the issue is not one of either intelligent design or chance —it is one of intelligent design or natural selection. I do suspect that you neither understand the chance that you are talking about nor the theory of natural selection. I don’t ever recall in my study of biology anyone claiming that bacteria form by chance—rather they have evolved. Your opinion in terms of “ I see it as ideology first and science very much second “ is neither here nor there. Clearly you are speaking form an ideological view point whereas natural selection is a scientific theory with evidence.
Posted by on Oct 03, 2006 @ 11:35 PMRapunsel
This was the subject of my degree thesis. Ok, that was 16 years ago, but I have studied this stuff. I have read “The Blind Watchmaker” more than a few times. (William Paley’s original is much better - “When crossing a heath” and all that)Natural selection depends upon progressive mutations, billions of mutually beneficial mutations over billions of years. However before any mutations can ever take place, there must be an original life form.
Feel free to delete “by chance” from the Morowitz quote in my 11.16 - the issue of mathematical impossibility for the spontaneous generation of the first original life form remains.
Posted by on Oct 03, 2006 @ 11:52 PM‘in the beginning… ‘
There was a ‘singularity’ and everything in the known universe stems from that instant . The Americans who have just won the Nobel Prize for Physics have done so due to their confirmation of the ‘big bang ‘ theory and their explanation of the reasons as to why the universe is not evenly spaced out .
That’s the how . Whether this is the only universe that ever existed or is just one in an never endeing eternal sequence of universes which come in and out of existence without any connection between them other than the original matter in the singularity is something that we do not know and probably never will.
As to the ‘why’ of the universe ? Good question - Maybe it does’nt have to have a why -It just is ?
The more scientists learn about the micro universe and the more we learn about the macro universe the more we should all just appreciate that we actually managed to get here and manage to live out a brief three score and ten plus if we’re lucky .
Posted by on Oct 04, 2006 @ 12:10 AMjames
For someone who claims to have studied this, I find it strange that claim Morowitz’s statistical calculation actually addresses “the issue of mathematical impossibility for the spontaneous generation of the first original life form”.
In fact, his calculation is about entropy and depended on conditions of thermal equilibrium - a state which the early Earth, and indeed the present Earth, was/is not in.
The Morowitz calculation was about the energy required for all the chemical bonds in a living cell.
He calculated [because he had too much time on his hands] the statistical likelihood of random chemical fluctuations creating sufficient energy to form those bonds from scratch, in conditions of thermal equilibrium - ie no solar energy, and no geothermal energy, adding to the system.
In other words, without energy input from beyond those chemical buildings blocks, life cannot exist.
More importantly, the calculation has nothing to do with - “there must be an original life-form”
For once and for all.. Intelligent Design, ie belief in a supernatural being, is not science.. it’s theology.
Posted by on Oct 04, 2006 @ 12:31 AM
