大象传媒

He's not impressed, huh? That's because he has a brain big enough to see beyond the philosophical amateurism of Dawkins book.

Dawkins wanted religious people to be atheists by the time they finish reading his book. To be honest, the only thing I really felt by the time I finished the book was a sense of superiority. Throughout the book Dawkins implicitly and explicitly characterises believers as idiotic. Perhaps why that's why he wrote the book he did - he assumes we're all so stupid that we'd buy into his shrill, sulkily presented, intellectual mush.

As it is I'm delighted to see Plantinga and others putting together an intelligent response - which is much kinder to Dawkins than he deserves. It seems that theists aren't as stupid after all.

Has anyone read a favourable review of the God Delusion? I haven't seen one. Perhaps this book might well spell the end of Dawkins credibility on these issues. Hopefully. Then the rest of us can get on with an intelligent discussion rather than be side-tracked by an interestingly, if highly irrelevant, side-show.

SG

Even if you believe in a god as the ultimate creator, that still doesn't give the Christian faith, or any other faith, any validity.
Whether god exists or not doesn鈥檛 particularly bother me. It鈥檚 the claims people make on his behalf that I have a problem with.

DP...

religious people often have a problem with that sort of thing too.

Perhaps what is needed is a bit of calm reflection on the matter - like Plantinga - and not the shrill bluster of folks like Dawkins.

SG

After listening to the Dawkins "debate" with McIntosh and seeing his video interview, I've concluded that he makes his case mostly at a very low level targeted at "the masses." He's also talking to a largely Christian audience. I'm not sure he doesn't waste too much time discussing religion as distinguished from god. Perhaps he feels that they are so intertwined in his audience's mind that he can't help it. I enjoyed Miller's presentation far more and it was very informative especially the explanation about chromosome fusing in the evolution from apes to humans and the dual functions of certain protiens in the flagella of some bacteria species explaining why they were present before the flagella state of evolution.

This weekend, BookTV (CSpan-2) had an interesting talk by Edward Hume who wrote "Monkey Girl" about the legal case in Dover Pennsylvania where the Supreme Court ruled that teaching "intelligent design" in the classrooms of US public schools as an alternative theory to evolution was illegal because it is a religion, not a science. Dawkins was mentioned in the talk.

I think the title was an allusion to what became known as "The Scopes Monkey Trial" which was fought early in the 20th century between the two famous attorneys William Jennings Brian and Clarence Darrow. BTW, the author was Edward Humes, not Hughes, the link has a misprint.

I found it alarming just how many people in America have rejected science when it conflicts with their religion. It seems society is moving backwards in the dumbing down process.

Dawkins is a bright guy, and I have no problem with the polemics of his style or the directness of his attitude (frankly we could do with more people who won't pander or fudge or apologise all the time). I also agree with Dawkins on many points, as many religious people would also.

But he's basically wrong in The God Delusion, by equating theism with the irrational mysticism of the pre-enlightenment days and equating science with rational modernism. A critical, skeptical atheism is not any more rational than a kind of critical, skeptical theism... and that's what Dawkins fails to acknowledge. I find no fault with Dawkins' criticism of dogmatic evangelicalism: on that he's most entirely correct and I share his sense of disapproval (and the vigour with which he attacks it). But he's thrown the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak... and that makes his targeting theism in general hard to defend.

Should i know who plantiga is?!

Kel:

Only if you're interested in philosophy of religion. If so, then you should be aware that he is recognised by fellow philosophers as one of the greatest modern philosophers of religion.

But if you'd rather remain ignorant of the philosophy of religion then you have no need to worry about Plantinga.

SG

Mark:

Dawkins is talking to a largely Christian audience? On the contrary he appears to be firing up the atheist masses. The only people I have spoken to who think Dawkins does a good job in the God Delsion are fundamentalist atheists with little interest in engaging theism at the intellectual level of people like Plantinga.

If I want to convince an atheist of the truth of theism, how many will convert if I write:

"Atheism is the philosophy of the deluded. Atheists are dangerous wackos who should be kept out of society as far as possible. If you seriously think atheism is true then you're a nutter. No self-respecting person these days would adopt such a intellectually stunted worldview."

I seriously doubt that I would be tolerated.

SG

ummmmmm..... where'd the comments go?

(Alvin Plantinga is a brilliant American philosopher at the University of Notre Dame, like his contemporary Richard Swinburne.)

Plantinga's response to Dawkins in the piece Will linked to here is very good... but I think his response on the 'fine-tuning' argument is a little inadequate. Plantinga says that Dawkins' appeal to the anthropic principle to explain why our universe is fine-tuned to life (the fact that we're here, discussing the question, is proof enough that at least this universe is life-friendly) explains nothing, because it's still very improbably that the universe would be fine-tuned. I see this argument as a little deficient. One may as well say to a lottery winner, "How come YOU won the lottery? It is highly, highly improbable!" All they'd need to reply is, "Well, the chances were one in 10 million, and I was the one. It had to be someone, and it was me. The fact that my bank balance has improved immensely is proof that I was the one who won the lottery!"

It may not explain how 'chance' works, but what does? The anthropic/multiverse response to the fine-tuning argument is a perfectly valid argument, if you ask me.

Any thoughts, anyone?

I have it on good authority that Will wrote a PhD dissertation about Alvin Plantinga ... is that right Will??

Stephen G #8; there is no such thing as a "fundimentalist atheist." If you don't believe in god, you are an atheist...period. (If you aren't sure you are an agnostic.) If you are an atheist intolerant of listening to people who are believers and want to sell their religion to you...well you are well within your rights not to have your time wasted. I for one generally fall into that category depending on my mood of the moment but I ususally have better things to do....like wash my socks.

John Write #5; I see no distinction between belief in any one doctrine for which there is no credible supporting evidence and belief in any other such doctrine. It is always irrational. As I said in another posting, the emotional safety blanket belief in god provides to the psyches of many people outweighs the power of their mind to form logical conclusions based on evidence and therefore, they are not entirely rational. Even someone who works as a scientist such as Andrew McIntosh will revert to being a primitive frightened of the prospect of eternal death when those thoughts come to mind and abandon all of his training and knowledge to protect his blanket. In this regard, Dawkins is right on the money and he isn't talking primarily to Moslems, Jews, or Hindus, he's talking to Christians. Where he errs is in not seeing that no appeal to logic or reason will reach them, their minds are made up and they will not be confused by the facts.

Mark:

There is indeed atheist fundamentalism. I use the word fundamentalism to describe a type of attitude - not a collection of beliefs. That attitude includes a certain closed mindedness - an unwillingness to take objections and criticisms seriously; a firm belief that one is right regardless of what anyone else might say; an attitude that writes off all dissenters as deluded or idiotic simply because they disagree, regardless of the content of that disagreement.

You don't believe in atheist fundamentalism? Have a look at Dawkins' web forum - it's full of it. In fact, it's full of much more than fundamentalism.

Your other comments are insulting at best. If this is your approach to rational debate, perhaps you really should stick to washing socks.

SG

JOHN: I disagree. I find Plantinga's response compelling. Furthermore, Richard Swinburne gives quite a devasting reply to Dawkins' argument. If I can find it in his writing I'll let you know. As for the whole "multiverse" thing - you should read the work of William Lane Craig (amongst others). Or, in the absense of any decent evidence for it, perhaps you should apply occam's razor to that hypothesis.

SG

Ok, neither of you answered my question. Stephen I agree that Plantinga was compelling (very); my question relates to fine-tuning only. Let's summarise the debate:

THEIST: There exist some physical constants which are so finely tuned for life that this fact substantiates the claim that intelligence was involved in setting them up. (fine-tuning argument)

ATHEIST: Quantum theories exist which postulate the existence of many (or an infinite number of) universes, in which the physical constants are all different; a tiny minority will therefore be likely to support life, and since we're talking about it, we are in one which supports life. (anthropic principle)

THEIST: Well, you still haven't proved that it's any more probable that THIS universe should be fine-tuned for life.

ME: Uhhh.... that's a curious argument that Platinga makes. Like I say above, it's like approaching a lottery winner and objecting to the fact that they won on the basis that it's improbable. It's not improbable that SOMEONE should have won the lottery: it's virtually guaranteed. The fact that it happened to this guy only illustrates the certainty that it happened.

A hypothetical multiverse does little to help us determine whether theism or atheism is correct, but I find it absolutely destructive to the fine-tuning argument.

Stephen G #13; You can make up any terminology you want calling atheists who won't give your or your arguments the time of day the pejorative term "fundimentalist" but that doesn't change the fact that there is no such thing as a fundamentalist atheist. At the moment I'm not interested in debating the existance of god. When I reached 50 years of age, it dawned on me that in all that time those who advocated it had failed to present me with even one single shred of evidence to suggest that such a thing exists and that I'd wasted far too much time already listening to them. Unless and until they have something new and compelling to offer which is not couched in their usual time consuming mumbo jumbo, I have no more time for them, I'd sooner spend it washing socks. At least when I'm done, I have clean socks to wear, when I'm done with bible belchers, I have to open the window or turn on an exhaust fan to let the hot air out.

Mark:

Re 13 and Stephen G's comments regarding fundamental atheism.

I'm happy to tell you that show all the symptoms of a typical fundamentalist atheist.

Be happy and accept it!

Regards,
Michael

Jim Write #14; The universe isn't "fine tuned" it simply is what it is. Probabilities, randomness, these are peculiarly human concepts having nothing to do with the actual physical universe. In this rational universe everything is the result of cause and effect. The entire history of every last electron from its origin in the big bang out to the furthest eon in the future was predetermined and cannot be changed. What came before the big bang? Nobody knows and it's possible nobody ever will. How will the universe end? Nobody knows and that may also never be answered. The question of a beginning or an end may be entirely absurd as the universe may not have had a beginning nor may it ever end but merely cycle exploding and imploding forever. Why does it exist? Now that is one question which is without a doubt absurd, there is no reason, and there is no reason to expect that there should be a reason except in the imagination of those who insist there also has to be a purpose to their own lives. I agree with Dawkins on this one, "tough." And as Art Bell says, when you die it's...."LIGHTS OUT."

As for "philosophers" like Planting-A with his theological landscape, they are the most self serving people who ever lived. Here's their eternal hew and cry;

Question: "Why do we study philosophy?"

Answer: "Because the unexamined life is not worth living."

Translated into English that means study with me, take my course or you might as well have never been born. With a philosophy of life like that, why would anyone pay any attention to anything else they have to say? And in the end which of their philosophies is the "true" explanation of the meaning of life? Why whichever one the philosophy instructor happens to belive in himself...at the moment you happen to ask him. And you'd better give him exactly the answer which comforts him most on his final exam or you flunk his course, and that ain't no bunk.

Michael Hull #16; contorting the English language to make up your own pejorative terminology doesn't change anything and it certainly doesn't bother me. I don't believe in the existance of god and I'm not wasting time listening to any more of the same tired old feeble arguments of those who do and insist everyone else in the world including me listen to them interminably until I say that I agree with them (out of sheer desparation to get away if nothing else.) Stick whatever name you like on it, I couldn't care less. A rose is a rose is a rose is a rose (someone once called that "poetry" but that doesn't make it so either.)

Mark:

For a guy that has no purpose, no reason to exist, and doesn't care about anything anyone says, you seem to have been predetermined to post a lot about it.

And I guess in your world I am predetermined to read all of it ;-)

Regards,
Michael

John:

You missed the point. Do you have a reason to accept a multiverse hypothesis? Plantinga and others don't believe we do. All Planginga was saying was that even if we do accept it there are still problems. He may not have given a knock-down argument in that book review but he and Swinburne both have in their academic works.

Why should a theist, or an atheist for that matter, accept a multiverse hypothesis? Is there good reason for it? Overwhelming evidence? Good grounds? What happens when you apply occams razor to it? Give it a go and see. Moreover, even if given a gazillion universes there are a few within the necessary band for life, the theory doesn't say why life developed, because even given these background conditions the evolution of life seems grotesquely improbable.

SG

My socks are dirty. Anyone available to wash them?

SG

John:

Pardon the double post, but I got side-tracked in post 19 into writing that many theists do not believe we have good reason for a multiverse hypothesis.

I neglected to mention why some theistic philosophers argue that even if it is true the multiverse hypothesis does not explain much. It's fundamentally very simple: The multiverse hypothesis, even if it explains why there is a universe with conditions for life and which actually does have life, fails to explain why any such universes exist at all.

SG

John: Pardon my rather clumsy expression at the end of that post - it should probably have read thus: "The multiverse hypothesis, even if it explains that there will be at least one universe with the conditions necessary for life and which actually also has life, fails to explain why any universes at all should exist."

Apologies.

SG

wasnt it quite fascinatiing how Richard Dawkins chicked out of debating this guy? why?

Will said he was going to try and set up the debate again on the 大象传媒.

It will be interesting to see if Dawkins chickens out again.

So much for the Rottweiler!

PB

Anyone else having problems where the comments are disappearing from this post? I can't see anything right now except the two short sentences William wrote.... yet it says there's 23 comments. Weird.

PB- Debating who? McIntosh? Don't make me laugh. How are you, by the way.

SG- Ok, I can see the point. My question related to the growing number of scientists who, based on some versions of some highly complex (and speculative) theories, postulate the existence of our universe like one bubble in an entire foam of universes. Someday it may become pertinent to answer the question, should these theories proceed to be established with perhaps quantum evidence or some other such means of proving it to be the case. Of course, it merely shifts the problem to the wider multiverse: how did it come about? Where I believe Plantinga has nailed Dawkins irrevocably is that Dawkins has no more answers in that regard than Plantinga (atheists have no more answers than theists do).

Ummmm...where did all the comments go?

SG

John:

I agree it is worth thinking about that scenario. However, it does seem difficult to see how us living in one universe could possibly get evidence of another universe. I'm not sure that could happen.

In any event, the question doesn't seriously weaken the fine-tuning argument, for two reasons:

(1) even given the certainty of a fine-tuned universe in multiverse theory there remains a massive improbability of life arising. The fine tuning only makes life "possible" - not "inevitable." Such fine-tuning is a necessary condition of life - not a sufficient one.

(2) ultimately we still lack an explanation since the multiverse theory cannot account for why any such universes exist at all.

It seems to me that even if the theory is proven there are massive problems to overcome. Add to that the lack of grounds to believe such a theory in the first place and I don't think the fine-tuning argument has much to worry about. It remains quite a compelling piece of natural theology.

Furthermore, isn't it strange how Dawkins babbles on about the need for scientific proof but when it comes to this he's happy with a speculative hypothesis? What happened to his strong evidentialism?

SG

Stephen- Yes I was going to say, this point of debate is strikingly similar to the one Dawkins uses against theists on the same grounds: you can't explain complexity by giving an answer that relies on a complex solution. Isn't a multiverse exactly that kind of complexity? As Dawkins himself would say, he has explained "precisely nothing."

On fine-tuning. I think we're ahead of ourselves to make vast claims about this either for or against the existence of God.

If the physical constants are, say, half a dozen values that can't be changed without destroying a hospitable environment for life, they may support life of a very different kind, a kind of which we have no comprehension. In that case, we're talking about a multitude of possible scenarios, of which ONE such scenario is the case in this universe. Isn't the fact that it supports OUR kind of life (and we're here, asking the question) very arbitrary? It's like asking "How did THIS very desk happen to get shipped to my office when it could have been any of hundreds of thousands of similar desks?" The answer is that it had to be one desk... why not that one?

By the way, for fans of the ABC show Lost: talk of these physical constants and the effects of changing those values with regards to supporting life is referenced by the six figures that are used by the DHARMA Initiative on the island..... in fact this could be one of the viable theories explaining lost: the DHARMA Initiative was set up to try and change one of the six values using electromagnetic forces on earth. :-)

John:

Re post 29 - true, you can speculate all day about different forms of life, other universes, variations in the physical constants and so on.

But, why not just stick to what we know? There are no good grounds to accept a multiverse hypothesis. There are good grounds to believe our own universe is the only one, or at least the only knowable one. Life is incredibly improbable. Yet life exists. Now, given the facts it is reasonable to suggest that the fine-tuning argument adds weight to the case for the existence of a creator. It doesn't prove God, certainly not in and of itself. But the fine-tuning argument is rarely presented as a deductive proof. It is normally used as one part of a cumulative case for God's existence, and there is no reason why theists should have their confidence in it dented by an unproven physical hypothesis with all sorts of associated problems.

SG

Greetings John, nice to hear from you too.

I'm still with you thanks, sinning, forgiving, suceeding, failing... still believing!

If I am not mistaken, this American chap said on Sunday Sequence last that he had asked Richard Dawkins to debate him but RD refused.

Will then said he would try to set it up again on the 大象传媒.

The American said that Dawkins' writings about Christianity would "not even pass muster" in any academic philsophy because they were so weak but that was understandable because they were only aimed at the popular market.

cheers
PB

ps isnt it great you can actually make postings here again. It feels like fresh air again!

The notion that the probability of a living cell evolving from inert matter is analagous to the spontaneous formation of a 747 is an absurd analogy. 747s didn't arise spontaneously either, they were the result of an evolutionary process tracing back to the Wright brothers plane with many experimental trials and failures at each stage along the way. The Wright brothers plane was itself the result of countless trials at flight in practice and in theory going back at least to Leonardo Da Vinci and even back to Icarus, the man who attached feathers to his arms with wax but crashed because he flew too close to the sun which melted the wax as recounted in Greek mythology.

As I said elsewhere, the universe doesn't work on probabilities, it works on certainties and is not tuned, it is what it is. But if it were a matter of probability, with a trillion galaxies, each have a trillion stars, and many stars having planets, over the course of 12 1/2 billion years, the spontaneous emergence of living matter from non living matter and its evolution into higher forms like apes and humans given the number of opportunities is not highly probable, it is virtually certain to happen.

Mark:

So, a 747 was designed? Isn't that the exact analogy that theists often go after? You sort of missed the point there didn't you?

Secondly, in your other comments you haven't addressed the issue at all. The universe, with whatever massive number of galaxies you can think of, has still not been explained, and nor have any of its laws. Your theory has no more explanatory power than the multiverse theory, and no more reason to believe it.

As I said to John above, why can't we stick to what we know to be the case and reason from there?

SG

Mark - I've noticed you saying something like this on a few ocassions now: "as I said elsewhere, the universe doesn't work on probabilities, it works on certainties and is not tuned, it is what it is."

No matter how many times you say this, or how many places you say it in, it does not amount to a valid, sound and rationally persuasive argument for your position. Nor is it a scientific statement, as you seem to think. It is, at best, a semi-plausible philosophical presupposition.

SG

Stephen G 24,25; If you had read everything I'd posted, you'd recall I said living organisms are not machines. Unlike a 747 they were not created for a specific purpose or function, they are merely states of organized matter which evolved over time spontaneously, originally from non living matter. They exhibit biochemical reactions which we call processes which in turn are sometimes referred to individually or collectively as functions but this is not the same as a machine which is created with a specific use or function in mind, the word "function" having a different meaning. These processes include the propensity within limits to react to both internal and external chemical changes and stimuli to stabalize within certain norms, the process being called "biostasis." They also reproduce themselves with offspring which are similar but often not perfect copies.

Creationists, in fact all theists would have us believe that the universe was created as though someone had sat down with a calculator and ciphered out the conditions which would have to exist for it to be the way it is including the possibility for life to exist. There is not one shred of hard evidence to support or suggest such an assumption, just the wishful thinking of those who insist that their god fantasies are the gospel truth.

Mark- The evolution of the plane by intelligent impetus is a direct analogy of what many theistic evolutionists claim: the evolution of the universe by intelligent impetus. I think you may have shot yourself in the foot a little with that analogy!

John Wright
Theistic evolutionists claim that "god" set the initial conditions, pushed the start time button and the rest happened the way scientists said it did. In other words god created the big bang and had the next 12 1/2 billion years of history and whatever comes in the future in mind all along. There is no evidence to support this theory...or to negate it. It is for the time being unknowable. This is where the non creationist non ID theists play it safe. I said in an earlier posting that one way to categorize thoughts is to put them in one of three categories, 1. what is known or believed to be known, 2. what is unknown but could become known, and 3. what is unknowable. Having been defeated as category 1 becomes greater at the expense of category 2, smart theists have retreated to category 3 because they will never come into conflict with scientists as their explanations for category 2 become exposed as false making them look stupid. So they will no longer have to face another revelation like the ones that the earth is not flat and it is not the center of the universe as their predecessors said it was, that area is no longer in their baliwick. But the creationist/ID advocates haven't given up, they are still fighting over categories 1 and 2 trying to negate what is known and insist on their own theories of what isn't. Will superstition and delusion win out over observation and rational deduction we call science? That is a political question, not a theological one and that is why the traditional theologists won't go near it. They know that if they don't win the politics and must fight that battle on purely intellectual grounds, they will lose again just like they always have.

So unless god decides to reveal himself in a way which is convincing to rational observation and deduction, the existance of the god of the theistic evolutionists is unknowable. I for one do not choose to believe it until I see some of that evidence. If there is a god and he wants me to believe in him, he knows what he has to do and he knows that unless he does it, I won't. After all, if the theists are right, he made me that way and he knows that too.

There's meant to be 38 comments, I don't see any????

t.

Mark:

To argue that living organisms are not machines created for a specific purpose and therefore the analogy doesn鈥檛 work is question-begging, because you are assuming the very issue that must be proven. In fact, most of your post 36 begs the question. As it is, I鈥檓 glad you brought up the analogy, because, as John says, by doing so you have performed a rather splendid self-inflicted shot to the foot.

In post 38 you did make me laugh with your Rumsfeldesque 鈥渒nowns and unknowns鈥� spiel. That was funny.

Amazingly you criticise theists for claiming the earth was flat and that it was the centre of the universe, but it was chiefly SCIENTISTS who propounded such theories. Anyhow, it's irrelevant to the current discussion.

It鈥檚 strange that you seem to suggest that you don鈥檛 believe in God because there is no convincing rational observation and deduction. That鈥檚 fine. But many people think there is "good evidence." In any event, do we really need a deductive proof for everything we believe? It seems clear to me that we believe all manner of things without a deductive proof - memory beliefs and beliefs in other minds being just two obvious examples.

But, what sort of evidence are you after? What would it take for you to believe in God? Just because certain arguments don鈥檛 work on you doesn鈥檛 mean the arguments themselves are faulty. Perhaps your standard of proof is faulty and irrational, so maybe spelling it out for analysis would be useful.

SG

I was getting really tired of Dawkins Debates on this blog but this latest exchange has been excellent.

Bravo John, Stephen and Mark!

Regards,
Michael

What is the purpose of living organisms? None discernable. They simply exist. Theists invent a mystical purpose which cannot be known. They say it's god's will and leave it at that. That may be good enough for them but it will never be good enough for me.

The creationists/ID advocates say the likelihood of a living cell evolving from inert matter is as likely as a 747 coming together spontaneously in a junkyard. The only reason I brought up the analogy was to point out that even a real 747 didn't come together spontaneously but was the result of evolution of a sort even though it was a different kind of evolution. That's all it means.

Scientists didn't propound the theory that the earth was flat or the center of the universe, theologians and philosophers did, there were no scientists. Galileo was among the first scientists and his discoveries caused a furor among the theologists of the time.

I don't know what type of evidence you are talking about, pseudoscientists like McIntosh who invents his own version of thermodynamics? Young earthers who reject everything physicists have learned about carbon and argon dating of ancient artifacts? Pseudobiologists who reject the age of dinosaurs or think dinosaurs were on Noah's ark? That's not good enough for me either. I don't accept the prattle of these fools. My standard of proof is the same as that of reputable scientists, testable, logical, and repeatable observations to explain theories and open to peer review. By that standard, the theists have nothing to offer at all.

I'm not sure if these comments are working. I've lost 2 replies so far. So, I'll keep this short.

Mark: Your reply doesn't really do much to defend yourself from the charge of question begging, and as far as I can see you are still limping from your rather splendid self-inflicted shot to the foot.

In any event, I'm prepared to let you off the hook on both counts because what really matters is your comments about proof.

Before I can proceed can you clarify something for me, because your comments are a tad vague.

Do you only believe something if it is a testable and logical and repeatable observation?

Or have I misunderstood? The only reason I ask is because if this is what you are saying then you're giving me quite an easy time, because there are a great many instances of common rational beliefs that simply do not meet with your standard.

Anyhow, before progressing I'll wait for your clarification - and hope that this damn comment actually makes it through the blackhole that occassionally separates William's Blog from those wish to comment.

SG

Do I believe in something only if it is a testable, logical, and repeatable observation? In all fairness, there are some events which happen only once or so rarely or unpredictably that they can't be repeated, at least not at will or even in one's lifetime. An example is the 1919 solar eclipse which offered a proof of Einstein's theory of general relativity by bending the path of light from a star due to the gravity well created by the sun. That can't be made to happen all the time. So I will accept those types of observations but with reservations. Within the limitations that observations have to be reported by reliable sources and repeatable, and that if given the opportunity I could perform the tests and observe them myself, I accept them and the notion that accepted scientific theory is the best explanation which can be offered for that observation and ALL other observations. That is why science can never lead to more than tentative conclusions, there is always the possibility that new observations or better explanations will come along which obsolete the existing ones or put them in a different context. Newton's laws were the best understanding until Einstein came along centuries later and showed Newton was only an approximation at relaitvely low velocities, a practical usable theory within limits of a larger truth. When scientists refuse to accept the invalidity of their most cherished theories in the face of new evidence, they cease to be scientists, they become politicians...or theologians. Even so, I do not blindly believe all scientifically accepted theories including those which I do not feel I understand, such as string theory. It is one thing to memorize a concept, another to understand it, and still another to believe it is true. I only believe what I believe as the best conclusions of observed evidence until it is proven wrong. And the observations themselves are always subject to question. The Amazing Randi is expert at debunking claims based on deliberately contrived situations resultin in misleading observatons. Harry Houdini did the same.

Do I believe what I've read in the bible? No, the observers were unreliable, too unskilled and ignorant to understand their obeservations, and the reporting of it is also second or third hand. It would be easy today to convince a primitive that he was looking at a burning bush which was not consumed any one of a number of ways. The ceramic oak logs in my gas fireplace is just one method. It would also be easy to convince a primative that a person had died and came back to life. Anesthesia is one method.

Mark- I agree that theists have been responsible for some horrendous ideas and certainly at least some untrue ones: that much is testified to by the fact that theists hold strongly to all sorts of conflicting views on everything and anything in every faith all around the globe. Such claims do little to improve the image of theism, particularly in discussion like this.

But I'm not defending the vast catalogue of dogmatic, contrived doctrines which clearly derived from church tradition; I'm instead defending a form of theism which comes about by means of reason and philosophy. In that case, where, for example, someone like Dawkins postulates the existence of multiple universes to explain away the fine-tuning argument (an argument which, BTW, deals with the science of statistics and probability and is based upon the observations of physics), as a theist I am making no more of a jump away from evidence as Dawkins; it is merely the case that the nature of our philosophical speculation is different (mine is God, his is a multiverse).

Ergo, I disagree with you that theists inherently rely upon things unproven more than atheists do.

There is no science of statistics or probability, it is a branch of mathematics. And like all mathematics, it is purely abstract. Its application in the real world is to explain away the inability of humans to distinguish among what appears to be many seemingly identical objects and describe their behavior in general terms. The motion of gas molecules in a container appears to be completely random...to humans but in reality, every last molecule follows a path which is individual, unique, and the result of cause and effect within the consistancies we call scientific laws or theories.

The notion that there are multiple universes is one which can probably never be proven, just hypothesized. It would seem unknowable because to find one, you'd have to somehow enter it and return or find an artifact that had gotten from another one into this and be able to identify it as such. There is no evidence yet to prove that such a thing is even possible. That is not necessary to explain the fact the the universe we live in just happens to have all the right conditions for life to exist. I have no difficulty in accepting the fact that it just happens to be that way and not some other. It didn't have to be tuned by an intelligence or happen to be a lucky one out of an infinite number of them. Perhaps one day when we understand the structure of the time space continuum, we'll understand how it comes to be that way but for the time being, it's in the category of things which are not known but could become known. Science is ultimately not concerned with why, only with how. The question of why is for philosophers and is an absurdity because there is no answer to it. I'll repeat that I agree with Dawkins in this regard, existance is what it is and if you don't like it, "tough," the universe is under no obligation to explain itself to anyone. For those too lazy to investigate and try to understand it for themselves but who must have an explanation, they can share the ignorance of others. That takes almost no effort at all, just a constant reading of fairy tales and listening to the insistance of the men of whole cloth.

What on earth is going on with then comments?

Mark:

There are a number of problems you face. Most of what we believe from day to day has little to do with what is observable and testable and peer reviewed. Belief in other minds, memory beliefs, beliefs in the truth-giving nature of our senses, beliefs about the external world and its "knowability" are all examples of categories of beliefs we hold that do not meet your criteria. In fact, I'm not convinced your criteria can meet its own demands. Is it observable and testable and peer reviewed? I'm not sure it is.

Moreover, I suspect that most of what you believe about science has little to do with research that you have carried out. It has much more to do with what other people tell you to believe, what they tell you is right. Moreover, I think I remember you propounding determinism in several other posts - but that is not a scientific theory that is observable, testable or peer reviewed. It's a philosophical presupposition, and in my view not a terribly good one.

So, I think your system of knowledge can't cope very well with the reality of our existence. Many things you rightly believe to be rational (such as memory beliefs) do not meet your criteria of rational belief and many other things you believe to be rational (for example determinism) are actually irrational given your own criteria.

One of the most important contributions made to current thought by Alvin Plantinga has been to apply modern theories of knowledge to religious belief. Why should I accept YOUR criteria of rational belief? You have not given me a reason. Why am I irrational if I do not accept it? To my mind your view of rational belief is much too narrow, as I mentioned above, and simply has little application to my life experiences. To take one rather banal example: I believe I had porridge for breakfast this morning. Am I irrational in that belief? According to your criteria I am because my belief is not testable or observable or peer reviewed. No one else saw me eat my porridge and all the physical evidence no longer exists. And yet I hold the belief quite firmly. The belief, for me, is a basic one - that is, not based on evidence or other beliefs I hold. The same can be said for beliefs I form on the basis of my life experiences - such as the belief that I am thinking about theories of knowledge at the present moment or the belief that I see a table in front of me. None of these beliefs meet you criteria of rationality and yet they are all surely rational. The same goes for beliefs that are self-evident, or beliefs about our inner mental states.

Doesn't that suggest that there is something seriously wrong with your criteria of what it is rational to believe?

I'd suggest your noetic structure is a mess.

SG

OK...I just posted a reply and it's gone again...

Is there much point trying...William, what's going on?

SG

Your response is showing now Stephen.... but there are certainly still some unresolved issues with comments on this blog...

Your response to Mark hits the nail on the head. I'm sorry Mark, but sidestepping the fine-tuning argument on the grounds that you have betrays the fact that you aren't very well acquainted with the critical process you claim to rely on. You don't gain points, either, for nitpicking about my use of the word 'science' to describe the job of statisticians, or how you brush side the entire field of statistics as irrelevant. Each and every one of us makes a multitude of confident decisions each and every day based on statistics, including you, making your position not only strange but downright inconsistent. Most airline passengers claim to be right to fly because it is statistically very safe, while most of them wouldn't strap themselves to a rocket like Johnny Knoxville in Jackass 2 because of the statistical probability of it ending in pain and possibly death. Probability is an ENTIRELY logical, reasonable and scientific means of establishing truth. I suggest it's up to you to prove that it's not.

"It just is" is a statement I'd expect from a creationist when confronted with something he can't explain, Mark... not from you who claims to base your opinion on reason. Your position is untenable.

Stephen G #48
"Most of what we observe from day to day has little to do with what is observable and testable and peer reviewed."

That's why we build electron microscopes, atom smashers, giant optical telescopes, radio telescopes, x-ray telescopes, and send probes into deep space. We can't trust the evidence of our naked eyes. All objects which appear to be solid are actually mostly empty space. Our scientific instruments multiply our ability to observe a million fold and our computers multiply our ability to analyze those observations a million fold. How can we trust people who lived their lives before any scientific instruments, even a rudimentary telescope was invented. Even their crudest observations were subject to serious error yet the stories handed down by people like these are what theists count on for their entire understanding of existance.

Actually almost everything we observe or do has been scientifically tested and analyzed subject to peer review. Every manufactured object we come in contact with from the paint on the wall to the fibers in our socks. Every scrap of food we eat has been tested and categorized in every way imaginable. Every medication. Every machine. Hundreds of thousands of chemical substances, millions of manufactured products. Even the chemistry of our emotions and the electrical activity in our brains is being analyzed, all the results of these scientific instruments. They are working at getting inside our thoughts which they've been trying to analyze for decades. They can already be influenced and to a degree controlled with drugs.

"I suspect that most of what you believe about science has little to do with research you have carried out."

Nobody can be an expert at everything. In fact it takes a lifetime committment to become an expert at any one thing. But like primitives who have never seen a building larger than a grass hut finding the Empire State Building incomprehensible except to say that it must have been created by gods not men, mental primitives like theists find even the ability to understand the physical universe through science incomprehensible. The electricians who wired the Empire State Building don't have to know plumbing to understand that it is just another trade which they could master if they wanted to and applied themselves. I was very fortunate to have had an excellent technical education had came in contact with many different kinds of scientific equipment as well as rubbed elbows with many excellent scientists. While I didn't do the research myself, when they explained it to me, much of it was comprehensible and when I'd go into their laboratories, they'd sometimes show me exactly how they carried on their research, obtained their data, and I'd even read some of their technical papers. You learn to tentatively trust that these kinds of people are at least usually honest in their efforts and reporting even if they are sometimes mistaken in their conclusions. On the other hand, there is nothing testable from the men of whole cloth, just their pronouncements about what they want you to believe and how they want you to live your life.

The validity and use of scientific knowledge is its ability to predict what will happen in a particular set of circumstances based on an understanding of what happened in comparable circumstances in the past. Conservative theologists restrict their predictions to what can never be tested, such as what will happen in the after life. Creationist/ID advocates on the other hand throw away or dismiss whatever evidence is observed that doesn't conform to their theories. Then they insist on their nonsense based on what is left over. That is why I put them in a separate category of habitual liars. McIntosh is a liar. He knows very well that creating DNA does not violate the second law of thermodynamics under ANY circumstances, not in the evolution of cells from inert matter, not in the reproduction of cells in vivo, and not in a forensics lab to create sufficient quantity from a small sample found at a crime scene to identify a suspect.

How can I find out if you ate porridge this morning for breakfast? I can induce you to vomit and by sampling the contents of your stomach and comparing it to what digestive juices would do to a known sample of porridge I could be fairly sure. In a forensics lab, they just cut the cadaver open to get at it (didn't you ever watch CSI?)

I have no problem with what to accept tentatively and what to reject out of hand.

Mark:

I'll keep this one short because there's no point in anything longer.

You have, quite simply, failed to address any of the problems your criteria of rational belief faces. There is a multitude of rational beliefs that don't meet your criteria, and many other things you think are rational but which don't meet your criteria either. This to me shows that there is something very wrong about your criteria for rational belief. You have failed to address the categories of belief in my previous post which are obviously rational but which aren't given your criteria.

The only defence you give is towards the end when you tell me you think my belief that I had porridge is testable. But, you've totally missed the point. You don't believe you had porridge on that basis. You simply believe it because you remember doing it. Are you saying I'm irrational in that belief unless I stick my fingers down my throat and analyse the contents? That's a ridiculous point of view. But, seemingly you get your information from CSI, so I guess that explains a lot.

Stephen G.

Let me see if I understand this fine tuning argument. The physical constants of the universe lie within the relatively narrow range that allows for the possibility for life to exist therefore only one of two explanations is possible; a) the universe was designed by an intelligence which knew this and took it into account in his construction of it or b) there are a very large number of universes, possibly an infinite number and we happen to live in one of the lucky few in which life is possible. I reject the notion that these are the only possibilities. But beyond that, since it is likely that the truth or falsity of either of these hypotheses is unknowable because no method could be devised to investigate them, the entire arguement is pointless and therefore absurd. Therefore, in all likelihood it will go on interminably.

By the way, the science in the television program CSI is very well researched. By sheer luck, I met one of the chemical engineers when I worked at Lockheed Commercial Satellite Division who acted as a technical consultant for the producers. And yes, DNA is routinely created in a laboratory and this process clearly does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. Did you read or remember the question I asked William Crawley to pose to Andy McIntosh when he said he would interview him but went unasked? It was; in the formation of which chemical bond in DNA is the second law of thermodynamics violated? The only answer of course is none of them. And no, DNA and cells are not machines and their spontaneous evolution from inert matter is not analogous to a 747 coming together spontaneously in a junk yard.

As scientists and philosophers see the world differently, they argue along different trains of thought as well. It does not surprise me when they find each others arguments just not credible, but don't even necessarily understand them. Philosophers argue about what is the meaning of truth. Scientists don't think about that very much, they just go out and try to find it.

Cool debate. But I don't think Mark understands Stephen's point.

Pete

I can't see the comments folks, so it looks like this discussion is over from my end. Sorry about that.

SG

I can't see the comments folks, so it looks like this discussion is over from my end. Sorry about that.

SG

As if by magic they appear again!

Anyhow, again there isn't much to say. Mark has failed, once more, to address by comments about proof and his criteria for rational belief. That's fairly telling in and of itself.

Mark you keep banging on about McIntosh. I couldn't give a toss what he says. His position is irrelevant to our current discussion about proof and rational belief.

SG

Comments gone again...**sigh**

SG

"Mark you keep banging on about McIntosh. I couldn't give a toss what he says."

Funny, McIntosh is religion's "great white hope," in its attempt to establish a foothold of legitimacy in a scientific debate about the existance of god and therefore what should be taught in the public schools about the origins of the universe, life, and man. What McIntosh forgot or failed to understand is that in science, the quality of who you are is judged by the quality of what you say and not the other way around. So when he spouted off on his nonsense about the second law of thermodynamics being violated by evolution, he may have won a lot of friends in the scientifically ignorant Sunday morning congregations but he largely lost his following in the technically savvy community which now regards him as a charlatan who turned his back on his training and knowlege in service of his superstitions. Only among those whose equally fraudulent practice of science leads them to the same recourse does he still carry any peer professional credibility.

This debate is about science, not philosophy. Science is the effort to understand the natural world on its own terms, by observation and deduction, not to fudge it the way primitives did and some theists do with supernatural explanations which don't stand up to scrutiny because they haven't been proved or are beyond the possibility of proof. These simplistic stories and pronouncements in bibles and korans may be comprehensible and comforting to those too intellectually feeble to embrace the enormous mental discipline and lifetime of committment required to seriously understand even one branch of science but it is of no value to those who will not simply take someone elses word for the explanation of everything on faith.

Stephen G., I've rejected your notion of multiverses, fine tuning, improbability of life, living organisms as machines. I've made a distinction between how science attempts to get at the truth with observation and deduction and therefore its perpetually tentative nature on the one hand and how religion tries to get at the truth by handing it down, regarding it as eternal and inflexible, and then arguing endlessly over interpreting what it means sometimes to the point of war on the other hand. You keep saying I haven't answered your question but I am at a complete loss to understand what your question is. Could you please restate it succinctly in a way that is comprehensible in plain English?

I agree with you about one thing, science has not offered an ultmiate explanation for anything in the natural universe yet but then it has only been around for a few hundred years and hasn't really gathered momentum until very recently in the last few centuries. Religion has been around for many thousands of years and never offered any reliable explanation for anything either. I think humanity should give science an equal opportunity to see what it can do. Then if it fails, whoever is still around can go back to ouija boards, voodoo incantations, and rosary beads to understand it all and if necessary the rack to teach it. For now, I'll stick with the scientific approach.

Mark:

I have already stated the problems with your criteria of rationality in plain English - as is evidenced by the fact that others above seem to understand the point. If you do not, then the problem lies with your ability to grasp basic philosophical concepts. Or understand plain English. Or both.

Moreover, given that you have so misrepresented my viewpoint above (for instance, saying you reject my view of multiverses - completely ignorant of the fact that I argued AGAINST that viewpoint), and given that you can't seem to discuss anything but McIntosh's pronouncements (even though they are irrelevant), I see no point in continuing this discussion with you.

SG

mark

philosophers "discovered" the atom long before scientists, if I am not mistaken.

PB

Oh dear Mark, you really didn't understand the point here did you?

Alphie