大象传媒

Interesting call re. Anthony Flew. Anyone got any insights into the validity of Dawkins' explanation for his book? Certainly it's clutching at straws for creationists, but does the 'ghostwriter' explanation hold water?

By the way, the guy talking about the "Google van" is a stone cold f--- nut.

Unfortunately I rarely have the time to listen to day-time radio and so missed what sounds like a very interesting programme.

As someone who does not believe in a creator God I tend to think the biggest problems for creationists are not physical but moral. If this world is the product of intelligent design then we can only be characters in a game created by a spoiled, petulant, lonely, self-absorbed child.

An omniscient omnipotent being who brought this world into being with all its horrors so he could display his magnanimity by killing himself to redeem his mis-creation is in much greater need of the tender ministrations of Mrs Robinson's tame shrink than any poor homosexual denying himself in Castlereagh.

Portwyne:

Couldn't agree more. At one moment in the first programme we see an antelope as it bounds gracefully in a perfect arc, until suddenly a lioness shoots up in the long grass and grabs it in mid-flight. Dawkins says: "the total amount of suffering in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute it takes me to say this, millions of animals are running for their lives, whimpering with fear. Thousands are dying from starvation or disease or feeling a parasite rasping from within. For most animals the reality is struggling, suffering and death".

As Iris loves god as she loves gays, she should go on the Nolan Show when they both come back from holiday and offer her shrink up to the one who created this natural murder and mayhem.

Portwyne
1) You don't have to be an creationist to believe in Design
2) Strictly speaking, you don't have to predicate any moral properties of the designer at all.
3) But I'm not unaware of the suffering in the world. Belief in a Creator gives me grounds for hope.
4) Are you of the position that it would have been better for the world if it had remained as lifeless as the moon?
5) Belief in a Suffering creator gives me grounds for trust, even when I cannot explain many horrendous evils from within my worldview.
6) On the Judaeo-Christian view, we have not yet seen the finished product .
7) The best form of Design argument currently on the table proposes that "the appearance of Design" supports the hypothesis of a Designer, and provides no support for the hypothesis of a non-designed universe 8) Design need not be optimal. Nor do we need to have access to all the Designers motives and intentions to detect design. But these are essential to judge how successful and fitting the design is.
9) Dawkin's objections to the design argument are risible.
(Objection a) The designer would need to be more complex than the designed artefact.
Reply - no, the designer needs to be able to produce a complex plan. Minds in and of themselves are quite simple; the thoughts they generate can be very complex. What Dawkins needed to ague was that unembodied minds are impossible. Good luck to him on that one.
(Objection b) The appearance of Design is not surprising, if we are only one of a large number (or infinty) of other Universes.
Reply - you can explain anything using this method. Simply postulate enough universes, and you can guaruntee the possibility/probaility/certainty of any event. Any anomaly, any result can be explained as the outcome of multiple universes. The question is, is this the best explanation? But in the absence of competing explanations, Many Universes always wins.
10) I believe in a Triune, not an anthropomorhic God.
11) I may need to see a shrink for many reasons - being a Dad, a husband and a Teacher - but I don't think my belief in a designer puts me quite in that catergory.

Graham Veale

Brian
That's right - the lion murdered that antelope. Who's dying thoughts must have been about all her thwarted dreams and ambitions.
The lion obviously needs rehabilitation. I mean, hasn't it watched Bambi? Doesn't it know that animals suffer just like we do? How dare it take up a place in the eco-system?
Have you joined PETA and not mentioned this to anyone?

Graham Veale

Suffering angers me, it saddens and confuses me. I really am not that obtuse.
So I refuse to believe that there is no hope. I refuse to believe that death will have the final say. I believe human suffering is of eternal significance. I cannot believe that it is of no consequence to a blind indifferent universe. I know those who have experienced unspeakable tragedy, or who have suffered horrendous evils who believe the same. Some of these people are very close to me.
I think I have good reasons for my beliefs, and that they are grounded on good evidence.

Graham Veale

William
Nicely handeled Q and A however I do worry that the next Chair for the Public Understanding of Science will not be so polite and gracious after hearing the same old tired arguments being trotted out for the umpteenth time. Is it just me or is it a particular trait of Radio Ulster callers that insist on "please let me finish " even though you or certainly Prof. Dawkins can spot the logical fallacy coming from a mile away?

Dawkins was polite and gracious?! And I missed it!

How about a rematch between Dawkins and Andy McIntosh. Let's see just how far this time McIntosh can put both of his feet in his mouth at once and still manage to get words out. He went pretty far last time proving he didn't understand the second law of thermodynamics. Quite a "revelation" for a man who teaches thermodynamics at Leeds University...or at least his own confused version of it.

GV- You say:

"(Objection a) The designer would need to be more complex than the designed artefact.

"Reply - no, the designer needs to be able to produce a complex plan. Minds in and of themselves are quite simple; the thoughts they generate can be very complex."

This is silly. Any mind capable of designing the universe as we know it would have to be very complex, much more so than our own. I'm fairly sure you don't wish to describe God as "simple-minded". And even if I grant your point that the mind itself is "simple", it is still inherently more complex than a primordial soup, from where Dawkins is making this argument (that God explains nothing because he's complex; our job is to explain how the complex came to be).


"(Objection b) The appearance of Design is not surprising, if we are only one of a large number (or infinty) of other Universes.

"Reply - you can explain anything using this method. Simply postulate enough universes, and you can guaruntee the possibility/probaility/certainty of any event. Any anomaly, any result can be explained as the outcome of multiple universes. The question is, is this the best explanation? But in the absence of competing explanations, Many Universes always wins."

True, and there are problems with the multiverse hypothesis. But not as many problems, Dawkins would say, as the 'God' hypothesis, particularly the hypothesis "There is a God, he created everything and did the stuff attributed to him in the bible."

John_Wright

There is another possibility.... and that is that the universe is far simpler than it appears. For physicists, it's a case of not seeing the forest for the trees. Once they see it, they will wonder how they ever could have missed it. Right now they are so tied up in knots with their strings and now their membranes they are looking for the most convoluted explanation possible. It's hard to go back to square one and question everything including the most basic assumptions you've taken for granted as true all of your life but sometimes that is what is necessary to find the basic flaws in one's thinking and get to a logical answer.

If the universe were as complex as they now make it out to be, it is unlikely that it would be as consistant as it is in which case it could not exist at all. Something basic has been overlooked. One problem they have is that you can only really think in three dimensions at a time. That is all our minds are capable of visualizing which is the real key to thinking. For mathematical equations there are no limits to the number of dimension you can postulate but with a mind that visualizes in only three at a time, can those equations have substantive meaning?

Mark, a good question.

I missed Talk Back - is it still available on listen again? i'll have to check when i get home.
Gveale -
I think Dawkins does come across as polite and gracious. He always gives others time to speak and plays by the rules of debate. You may not agree with the content of what he says but that doesn't mean he isn't being polite.
The problem with the design argument is that it makes far too many assumptions with regard to a creator and the problem with religions is they make too many assumptions on behalf of that creator.
The design argument only gets you as far as Deism as far as i'm concerned. (and obviously you can be a Deist and not a creationist)
And it's a monumental leap from Deism to christianity - from a god that just created the world to a god that effects our daily lives and responds to our prayers.

dp

evolution vs creationism is a red herring.

A few questions for Dawkins;-

1 what was the first cause of the universe?
2 where did matter come from?
3 in a universe which emerged by chance why are scientific laws stable?
4 how did life begin?
5 why does every living thing die?
6 can science give an objective, credible definition for "supernatural"?

7 why did Oppenheimer, for example, say the scientific revolutuion could not have happened without the Christian faith/biblical worldview of the prime movers in it?

8 up until the enlightenment, science had always been the study of uniform causes in a supernatural world; in the scientific revolution God was a given. why was the enlightenment justified in requiring God to be proven, a position perhaps half modern scientists now hold to?

9 the God hypothesis has a dominating track record in explaining all the above - why reject it as a viable hypothesis?

pastorally yours

;-)

鈥hy reject it as a viable hypothesis?

Because it isn't evidence based.
You can't base a theory on criticizing other theories - you need some testable ideas of your own.

dp

dp

sorry but you failed to read my post properly.

my viewpoint is not based on criticising other theories.

my post is not even criticising evolution.

many people of faith have no problem with evolution.

my problem is with atheism.

suggesting that modern science requires "evidence" of God would have been laughable to all the prime movers of the scientific revolution, who developed modern science as an act of Christian worship.

to them God was a given and the inspriration of their work.

the "evidence" you require is in the answers to the questions I have posed.

the founders of modern science believed that God was the grand unifying theory that linked the answers to all the above questions.

as atheistic science has no answers to the questions posed. but modern theistic science offers the as\me grand unifying theory held by the founders of the scientific revolution to explain them; therefore the God hypothesis has good grounds to be considered a scientific hypothesis.

if you seriously believe the answer you previously gacve you have not even begun to seriously consider the questions posed.

try answering them.

the alternative is to suggest that the order of the universe and all life and the origin and stability of all scientific laws are purely based on chance and chaos.

I understand about half all scientists plump for the God hypothesis in the face of all this.

can you answers the questions DP?

cheers

Graham, Mark (B):

I heard the Talkback 20 minutes and Dawkins was indeed his usual polite and gentle self.

I sense a certain anger at Dawkins because he has a big influence, leading to a ferocious and desperate attempt to rubbish his arguments and those of other evolutionists.

On the complexity of God, a being that created love AND hate, that tells the Jews to slaughter the Midianites and later tells them to love their enemies, that created kindness AND cruelty, antelopes frolicking in the sunlight AND being chewed by lions, African drought AND an Ulster summer, people who can make paper planes AND an A380, is not that simple. But, then, it all depends what you meanb by 'simple' and 'complex'.

Mark B:

Too many questions, your pastorship, too many questions.
Answering 'God' to any any of them explains nothing.

DP

BTW the fact that *you* are not satisified with the amount of evidence currently available for an hypothesis does not render the hypothesis invalid.

In fact, the God hypothesis is most certainly the best current explanation for the first cause of the universe, the origin of matter, the stability and order of the universe and the nature and origin of life.

about half of all scientists already believe this regardless of their religion; ask a few and you will see that it is quite true.

the fact that it is officially forbidden from the science class is a philsophical trick of the enlightment.

secular science has not even the beginning of a unified theory to explain these matters, therefore the God hypothesis is highly valuable in scientific terms. even as a proto-hypothesis it is a very useful proposition.

does the passionate hatred poured on the hypothesis by some betray a seriously unscientific subjective prejudice?

historically in science the God hypothesis was always accepted as a given, right up until the enlightenment took hold.

to the founders of modern science, God was the fountain of their worship, worldview and scientific inspirations and assumptions; it is therefore something of an incrediblly retrograde step to take the tools so developed and turn them on their origin [God] in critism. you can do it but it is really the branches of modern science attacking its root.

even Oppenheimer said modern science could not have been developed without the Christian faith.

later on, the enlightenment introduced sceptcism of God into science but it was a philosophical assumption, not a scientific one; the Christians had by this time already used their faith to create modern science; eg Bacon, Boyle, Kepler, Newton, Faraday etc etc


Dawkins is therefore really taking mainstream science and twisting it to promote illegitimate science ie athiesm.

but can anyone produce a peer reviewed scientific paper which affirms athiesm; it is merely Dawkins' rather shallow personal opinions on religion that he is really promoting.

Brian

I think the questions scare you.

Do you understand modern science better than its founders?

I'll say it again;-


ask any scientists whether they believe God was the first cause of the universe, the origin of its matter, stability and order and the origin of life.


I suggest at least a half of all scientists will tell you they agree.


is anyone here going to tell me different?

to orthodox tradition etc
to whom are you referring as the founders of modern science?. Robert boyle, hooke of hooke's law, issac newton etc . undoubtly these were great minds of their times and their work took scientific knowledge forwards but also remember that in modern terms they were as good a collection of alchemists, mystics, occultists and oddballs as you would find anywhere. In light of discoveries since most their wider views would seem somewhat eccentric.
Why do the christian tendency always seem to hark back to some kind of ancient authority or better still, find some prominent scientist who believes in god. Come on folks - start thinking for yourselves!

Don

this is not harking back to esoteria.

this is today's science.

if you are truly thinking for yourself can you answer these questions;-


1 what was the first cause of the universe?

2 where did matter come from?

3 in a universe which emerged by chance why are scientific laws stable?

4 how did life begin?

5 Why do many if not most scientists TODAY today believe that God lies behind the answer of the above questions?

6 Do most scientists today therefore not think for themselves?

Orthodox tradition- I'd like to take this opportunity to welcome you to this blog, and secondly to tell you that scientists' not knowing the answer to your many questions does not mean you can simply insert 'God' as the answer for them. That's not how science works (for example, before Newton we didn't have a theory of gravity, and it's not that gravity didn't exist before we understood it). This is called the God-of-the-gaps fallacy: you simply insert God into any gap in our understanding. You are wrong, sir, but welcome nonetheless.

Professor John Wright
1) On the dualist conception of Mind, it is not comprised of material parts constructed in a complex manner. It would be a non-material substance that explains the minds unity. On such a conception of the mind, minds have thoughts. They are not made of thoughts.
2) If the non-materialist conception of mind is "silly", and you have an argument that shows this to be so, you don't need to bring complexity into the debate at all.
3) In any explanation, simplicity is only one virtue that we need to take into account. Comprehensiveness, explanatory power, coherence etc. all need to be considered. So even if your "primoridial soup" objection was sound (but being made of many complex parts, it is not) Dawkins would still not have proven his case.
4) Of course you can take the position of someone like Anthony Kenny, who finds that the Design argument is strong evidence for Theism, but that other factors dissuade him from being a Theist. On that we are agreed.
5) Oh, by the way, if Science depends on Scientific Laws to explain things, then it cannot explain Scientific Laws. That would be a circular argument. What sort of a Deist are you?

Brian
I am aware of the problem of evil, and take it very seriously. It is not related at all to the simplicity of mind given substance dualism. Minds have ideas, but are not ideas themselves.
And I'm not angry with Dawkins. I find him very entertaining. I'm told by Christian friends that "Blind Watchmaker" is an excellent book.

OliverBenen
1) I don't even think the Design argument need take us as far as Deism. Platonism, Stoicism, Aristotleianism, and many other worldviews could find support from the Design argument.
2) It does, as a matter of fact also support theism. It is more likely to find a universe that gives "the appearance of design" (Dawkin's terminology) given Theism than Naturalism.
3) Just as suffering seems more likely in a meaningless universe than one that has meaning.
4) Points #3,#4 and #5 in post 5 move me in the direction of Theism, along with arguments from Religious Experience, the nature of Morality, and much else besides. There's a lot of evidence to consider, and different people draw different conclusions.

Marky Aurelius
A wonderful piece of armchair physics. You should try to get it published in "Nature". Can we reject Quantum Physics because it just sounds silly?

Graham Veale

Graham

You don't have to be an atheist to believe that creationism and design are fallacies.

I simply cannot understand why Christians argue for Intelligent Design as, even if it could be proved, all it would show is that the Devil exists. I don't even need to go the African savannah, all I have to do is watch the behaviour of the birds I feed in my garden to see that the natural state of any non-domesticated animal is one of fear. Any being who designed this world with the possibility of its being as it is must be regarded as a monster. Belief in a Creator would, for me, be a cause for the most profound despair.

I fear I am not possessed of the kind of mind which has remotest chance of understanding the concerns and ideas of today's theoretical physicists - I would be like a child listening to his parents talking at table: sure to misunderstand especially when he thought he understood. To be honest I accept the world as it is and tend not to worry about unknowables such as the origin of life or matter and whether there is a first cause to the universe. I am not sure we will ever have satisfactory answers.

Much of physics has been about discovering so-called laws and PB makes much of their stability. I, however, think the term law is misleading as it only has a pro or pre-scriptive meaning in the legal system. There is no scientific or celestial court going to charge me with doing 299,792,459 m/s down the M1 (and the police would have little chance of catching me). The so-called laws of science are merely codified DEscriptions of observation of the material world from a human perspective. They are the product of our minds so it is hardly surprising that, to us, they cohere. We have no way of knowing that they relate in any substantive way to reality - whatever that is. But then anybody who has read any of my posts will know I have a 'seriously unscientific subjective prejudice' - big time!

I start with the premise of knowledge of the love of God and, on that premise, to ascribe creation of the Universe to my God is a vile and vicious slander.

I would like to make clear Graham that I did not suggest that you might require the services of a psychiatrist - my point was that the GOD of Biblical creationists (were he to exist) would be in urgent need of therapy.

The reason why Professor Dawkins objects to the teaching of the theory of 鈥榠ntelligent design鈥� is because he regards this explanation of the origin of life as 鈥榰nscientific鈥�. But what he fails to understand (or at least acknowledge) is that his philosophy of science is built on a circular argument.

Dawkins argues from an assumption, which states that 鈥渟cience does not allow the inference of non-natural causes from natural effects鈥�. But this assumption itself cannot be verified by empirical evidence. You will not find, as you gaze down a microscope or up through a telescope, the following injunction emblazoned on atoms or stars: 鈥淭hou shalt never infer a non-natural cause from a natural effect.鈥� Of course that would be absurd, but that is exactly the logical implication of Dawkins鈥� philosophy. If empiricism is true then that is exactly the kind of scientific proof one would need, since empiricism states that all knowledge derives from sense perception. But the axiom that 鈥渒nowledge derives from sense perception鈥� ITSELF DOES NOT derive from sense perception! It is an 鈥榓 priori鈥� presupposition by which sense data are interpreted. One could say that it is a principle of 鈥渇aith鈥�.

A good explanation of this is to be found in C.S. Lewis鈥� essay 鈥淒e Futilitate鈥� in the book 鈥淐hristian Reflections鈥�. It is a devastating critique of naturalism.

Atheists drag up all sorts of arguments to refute theistic apologetics, e.g. 鈥淔rom similar effects we infer similar causes鈥�, or, 鈥淥ne cannot explain particular effects by particular
causes which don鈥檛 need explanation themselves鈥�, but such arguments cannot be established by empirical evidence, on the basis of what I have argued above. There is nothing in the observation of nature which commands us to 鈥渙nly infer similar causes from similar effects鈥� or 鈥渘ever to infer a cause which itself doesn鈥檛 need explanation鈥�. These are both presuppositions which do not derive from empirical evidence, strictly speaking. This is because nature itself is not the source of logic. Philosophical arguments are read into nature, not derived from nature. It may be true that empirical evidence may confirm the truth of an axiom, but that is not the same as saying that that evidence is the source of the axiom. So I am afraid to say, that the moment an atheist opens his mouth to present an argument he is ipso facto denying the basis of his own epistemology.

So from the point of view of logic Dawkins is wrong, as I have argued. But that is not to say that I, as a Christian, am not able to understand why some people are attracted to atheism. Some of the doctrines of the character of God within the history of Christian theology are so disturbing and abhorrent, that if that is all people know of the idea of God, then it is hardly surprising that atheism appears to be something of a comfort and relief.

Perhaps the debate is not only about 鈥淒oes God exist?鈥� but also 鈥淲hat is God really like?鈥� Perhaps let鈥檚 start with the phrase: 鈥淕od is love鈥濃��?

Following my last post, sorry about the question marks, which are supposed to be inverted commas! The computer's having a bad day!

John

no need to welcome me, I had a Previously Boring moniker here so I changed it.

;-)

Anyway, the god of the gaps retort you provide does not really work.

it is an arbitrary response from scared athiests; a normal objective response to such an hypothesis would grant it due respect.

anyway, Aquinas correctly pointed out that God is at work through all the scientific processes that we understand; ergo he has never been squeezed into "gaps" in our knowledge.

is is over above and through all our knowledge.

it is quite normal in science to have rival hypotheses but seeing as secular science cannot even propose an hypothesis for the problems I posed, why on earth would you reject such a useful hypothesis with such a powerful track record out of hand.

I am not saying it is easy to prove the hypothesis by the standards of 21st century science; but an hypothesis can still be an hypothesis without being proven. if that doesnt satisy you it could even be a proto-hypothesis.

occams razor fits nicely with the complexities of the problems and the God hypothesis, which was the root inspiration for the giants of the scientific revolution.


as I said, I suggest many if not most scientists today hold to the God hypothesis.

come on John

think a bit and dont just repeat glib cliches.

OT

Mark B:

What a nerve you have in asking John to think a bit! All you seem to do is to string disjointed statements and questions together, spiced with constant name-dropping which proves nothing.

You say that the 'god of the gaps' doesn't work and is an arbitrary response from scared atheists'. What utter drivel! The 'arbitrary' response is to answer 'god' to any of your questions, especially when you haven't a single piece of evidence but think that calling Aquinas or whoever in aid proves a point.

"Aquinas correctly pointed out that God is at work..." What does this statement prove? Absolutely nothing. It merely repeats your own assertion.

As for God being an application of Ockham's (or Occam's) Razor, you really have to be kidding, surely? in fact, this shows your total ignorance of Ockham. He believed that if everything can be interpreted without assuming this or that hypothetical entity, then there is no ground for assuming it. The point is that the universe can be interpreted without the need for a God, so why assume it? As Laplace put it, we have no need of that hypothesis.

Ockham, who was a philosophical opponent of Aquinas, argued that reason and knowledge do not depend on metaphysics or theology. He was in fact an early empiricist, believing that knowledge was derived from sense-experience.

Aquinas believed in a synthesis of reason and faith. Ockham rejected it and was condemned and excommunicated by the Catholic Church. He rejected all the traditional arguments for a God's existence and maintained that God is a matter of faith rather than knowledge. In other words, he was a fideist.

So it was a bit of a mistake to call him in aid of your 'argument', such as it was.

Brian
I thought Ockham got kicked out because he thought the State could tax the Church, and Popes could get the sack - that sort of thing? My memories hazy on this, so point out if I'm wrong.
Difficult to dislike William of Ockham though.

Graham Veale

graham veale #25

Obviously I have a theory. I just haven't published it yet. I'm still thinking about it though. I've been refining it for about 32years and it needs to be vetted before I go any further with it. BTW, I am a former member of the American Institute of Physics. Might be time to reactivate my membership soon.

It will not be possible to prove conclusively that life arose spontaneously from inert matter because we cannot go back in time to witness it. The best that we can expect will come from the confluence of two sciences, molecular biology and geology. Molecular biologists will demonstrate that under very specific conditions, the constituents necessary to form living tissue in its most primitive form can arise spontaneously and that it will be sustainable. Geologists will demonstrate that just such conditions likely existed early in the earth's existance, probably about a billion years after it was created. The rest will just be a matter of filling in the details. We don't know how long this will take, 50 years, 100 years, 200 years but in the long run, the theological argument that a supreme being created life on earth doesn't stand a chance. One day people who held that notion will be regarded with the same ridicule we feel today for those who once thought the earth was flat.

Brian

I make no apology - John citing the cliche "God of the gaps" is refusing to acknowlegde that he is thereby bypassing the normal objective process for formulating and using hypotheses, IMHO.

This means he is actually using sectarian discrimination to judge a proposed scientific hypothesis before the evidence for it is discussed.
Not good.

And if you think I am kidding using Occam in this circumstance, all I will say is that if it is good enough for many of not most modern scientists on these issues (ask a few yourself) and good enough for the giants of the scientific revolution, I think you are the one that needs to feel exposed with your overconfident assertion, not me.

Who have you got backing you - Richard Dawkins????

chuckle chuckle. he is a heavyweight writer in paperback religion, I'll grant you that.

Occams razor fits my argument much better than yours because it has the heaviest of historical precendent in science and current scientific opinion.

Also, because you demonstrably cannot even propose a hypothesis to potentially fit the questions I am raising, Occam delcares my hypothesis ahead on points by default at this stage of the agrument.

Its logic.

Again, because an hypothesis requires no evidence to be proposed and investigated, Occam's razor can easily be applied to it.

You seem to be confusing an hypothesis with a scientific theory or even law which are developed from hypoptheses.



Think about it and give me a thoughtful response to the argument, rather than just blowing your top.


Christians believed that God designed and set in motion and hupholds every natural process centuries before anyone thought of the God of the gaps defense. This is crucial for you to understand and is fact.

The reason I quote Aquinas is that he said it and naming him verifies my point.

These are not arguments from authority, but demonstrated arguments WITH authority.


Furthermore, if you had read my previous post properly, you will see I already addressed your question about evidence; at this stage all I am saying is that an hypothesis stands independently without evidence.

It is not thereby proven, it is merely a proposal.

Scientific investigations work on hypotheses for many years without proving them.

The God hypothesis is very useful because it neatly explains the first cause of all scientific processes we understand, the stability of scientific laws and the universe the origins of life etc etc.

To reject the hypothesis out of hand purely because it mentions God, as you do, is prejudging the investigation of the hypothesis on a sectarian basis, of all grounds!

Over to you Brian.

Marky II shows just how speculative the purely secular view of these issues are; there is nothing wrong with the processes he proposes, just that he insists that there can be no teleology involved.

It is perfectly acceptable in science to have people proposing contrasting hypotheses on the same issues by the way.

So to reject one simply on the basis of your religious prejudice is strange to say the least.


OT

If Brian, John and Marky II attempted to answer the questions they would see why the god of the gaps defence is so weak.

It is obviously a very useful hypothesis which explains the first cause of the universe, the stability of a universe which arose from chaos and the origins and nature of life itself.

It is v difficult to attempt an explanation of these things without teleology - even Dawkins assumes teleology when he tries to explain creation.

OT

Brian, John, Marky II

what I meant to say in my previous post was that these questions I raise undermine the god of the gaps defence because the God of the gaps hypothesis acutally assumes that God is the origin of all knowlegde, design, processes and causation. ie


God is the first cause of all causes.

God is the origin of all matter

God is the cause of life

God designed and upholds all scientific laws

God upholds stability in the universe

(Nice and simple assumption, just as Occam requires).

The point is that the God hypothesis as briefly outlined above DOES NOT ALLOW FOR ANY GAPS in human knowledge. in other words which area of science are not subsets of the above hypothesis?


If God is the origin of all causation, matter, order, design, stability of the universe and scientific laws then all science and natural processes and their stability are from him and for him, even if secular science focuses too narrowly to see this.

ergo there are no gaps. this was the point made by Aquinas.

it is not sufficient to say "it is too easy" because that is the core point of the hypothesis ie that God is God.

to dismiss the nature of God because of His very definition is just Dawkins saying God is improbable; it doesnt prove or disprove anything.

You are falling back on the post scientific revolution enlightenment assumption that God must be proven which was heresy to the giants of the revolution.

so the apparent strentgh of your argument comes from a mere philsophical assumption that runs totally contrary to the root issue of the scientific revolution - and the views of many if not most scientists today.

incidentally, the questions I raised are of course already "supernatural" in a sense before God is added to the equation;-


All causes must have a previous cause

Life can only come from previous life

Matter cannot be made from nothing


As science cannot currently square these circules they are beyond our current understanding of nature and the problems are therefore by definition already super-natural (above nature).

Therefore to suggest a God hypothesis is well in keeping with the supernatural nature of the problems.

The fact that science has no objective definition of "supernatural" further underlines the subjectivity of many objections to a God hypothesis.

OT

Mark B:

Much of your last post is garbage.
Positing 'god' as an explanation of difficult questions is just laziness.
Let's just take one example.

"God is the first cause of all causes".

There is not necessarily any 'gap' here at all. If everything has a cause, then 'God' has a cause. If God is posited as an uncaused cause, then the the universe itself can be posited as an uncaused cause. No gap exists.

And, anyway, 'God' is a loaded concept. Which God? How many gods? The Aztec sun god Huitzilopochtli? The Mexican god Quetzalcoatl? The Greek gods Zeus, Poseidon, Hades and co?
I'm afraid that there are so many candidates for your 'god of the gaps' that you could make several TV elimination series on it. "Jupiter, you're fired. Allah, you're hired".
In other words, 'God' is not simple.

I could just as readily give simple answers to your questions (whether or not they are true is a different matter. Of course none of yours is).

1. There is no first cause.
2. The universe is the origin of all matter.
3. Certain chemical reactions caused life billions of years ago.
4. The universe upholds its own laws.
5. The universe is both stable and unstable.

Science does not have the arrogant simplicity of faith. It proceeds tentatively and provisionally.

Thank goodness.

orthodox tradition

"all causes must have previous causes"

What caused god?

(by the way, you misstated it, you should have said all effects must have previous causes.)

"life can only come from previous life."

That will be proven false in laboratories. If the world doesn't end and isn't ruled by people with an 11th century mentality, it will be done probably within the next fifty years, maybe a lot sooner. We can already manufacture many of its constituents from inert matter including DNA and we are becoming increasingly skilled at manipulating it at its most fundimental level. Isn't chemistry wonderful?

"Matter cannot be made from nothing."

Well there you have hit on the central question of existance. But your god theory has no supporting evidence. It only has credibility among the intellectually incompetent by rationalizing what they want to believe through reasoning that they can find no other explanation and therefore by process of elimination their god theory must be right. Sorry, where I come from that kind of reasoning is simply not even slightly persuasive. You'll have to do much better than that before I give your theory even the slightest degree of serious consideration.

"nice and simple assumption"

That's all the simple minded can handle, simple dogma that they don't question. Once upon a time, the punishment for questioning that kind of dogma was death. Would you like it to be that way again? Well then go to some Islamic countries where it still is, even if it's just the wrong god dogma. Try preaching Christianity in Saudi Arabia, Iran, some parts of Pakistan and Afghanistan or even in parts of Iraq and see what happens to you.

John Wright,

Orthodox Tradition is our old friend PB mild/original or as Brian calls him Mark B!

He has posted these "questions" before and received answers-especially from Peter Klaver but as ever...!

PB/OT/Mark B is a young earth creationist and all the long term posters here know the poor chap was reeling after being caught out telling so many lies in defense of his position-bless him! So much so that these "questions" are his new Mantra!

Oh and PB/OT/Mark B you have very naughtily ran away and left some questions unanswered here

/blogs/ni/2008/06/can_gay_people_be_straighened.html

I played by your rules and named the lies you told in defence of creationism and I see that we still not have moved off the first one on the list !?

I sincerely hope that your behaviour has improved and you are no longer going to put yourself in pre-mod anymore? and that you have learnt to reply with dignity and not hit the complain button when someone has the temerity to disagree with you.

Kindest regards

DD

PB/OT/Mark B

"think a bit and dont just repeat glib cliches."

Mwah ha ha ha coming from you PB that is priceless!

"400 Phd;s from AIG" anyone!

Mark
Really, get this stuff published. I don't mean in a peer reviewed Journal anymore. I mean in the popular science section of Waterstones. You'll be a millionaire!

Graham Veale

What is everyone's problem with PB/MarkB/OT?

This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain.

I have great affection for PB / OT and wish he'd post here more these days. And yes, GV, these discussions have been going on for a long time on this blog. He's wrong, of course, but it certainly is a fun process.

Its like watching repeats of your favourite soap opera, entertaining for a while but frustrating when you realise you've heard it all before.
whats with all the pseudonyms anyway? is he trying to make out there is a whole army of young earth creationists out there, when in fact its just him.

dp

Hi Graham (#31):
If you read my post, you will see that I did not state the reason why Ockham was excommunicated. The official 'reason' was that he had left Avignon without the pope's permission. But there was obviously more than that. It included his attack on the Aquinas synthesis of faith and reason, his views on papal poverty and his call for the separation of church and state.

But the point about Mark B referring to Ockham's razor is that it is a LOGICAL TOOL and that Ockham himself would never have used logic at all, however 'simple' and straightforward, to 'prove' the existence of God because he believed that belief in God was a matter, not reason.

So he is talking nonsense about 'Ockham's razor' (a term which of course Ockham never used himself).

His examples are also nonsense. Take 2 statements.

1. There is a universe.
2. There is a universe and a God which created the universe.

Which is more simple? The first, of course. The second introduces a complexity that, by his own reasoning, is unecessarily complex.

So mark B is wrong on both counts.

End of para 2 should read 'matter of faith, not reason'.

Brian
Thanks for the info. on Ockham. Once again, much appreciated.

GV

Brian
Point 45 wasn't an argument for atheism, was it?

GV

Graham:

No. It was merely an exercising in highlighting the nonsense of Mark B's allegedly 'simple' hypotheses, such as : "God is the first cause of all causes".

One statement that can be attributed to Ockham is:
"Plurality is not to be assumed without necessity". There are more concepts in the statement "God is the first cause of all causes" than in the statement: "There is a universe".

The statement "there is a universe and a God which created the universe" is not necessarily wrong in itself, but we should not assume that it is true. Indeed by the Ockham process, without a satisfactory reason, "the simple statement "there is a universe" is preferable.

However, as I pointed out, Ockham did not think that the existence of a God could be logically proved with arguments. To do so would require introducing all the extra complexities which he thought unnecessary and which he sought to eliminate.

Ockham thought that the theologians and scholastics of his day, like Aquinas, were simply wasting their time. For him religion was all based on revelation. Science, on the other hand, was a matter of discovery, and that is where sense experience and logic (and his 'Razor') became relevant.

Ockham's division between science and religion, reason and revelation, influenced later thinkers such as Francis Bacon, who held a similar view.


Mark B goes on and on about all these scientists being religious, but the facts are that although most of them were (as most people were), their religion in most cases had little or nothing to do with their scientific work, and many of them would agree with Ockham that science and religion should be kept separate.

Bacon wrote: :from the unwholesome mixture of things human and things divine there arises not only a fantastic philosophy but also a heretical religion. Very meet it is therefore that we be sober-minded, and give to faith only that which is faith's" (Novum Organum). In Bacon's view, theology should be drawn from the word and oracles of God, not from the light of nature or the dictates of reason".

Brian
I think Bacon would have been happy saying that nature demonstrates God's power - but that the book of nature would not reveal much more than that. That (Protestant) idea very much challenged the mediaeval Churches idea that the book of nature could teach us through allegory (for example, the Pelican cutting it's breast to feed it's young as a picture of Christ's love).
I also think (I'll need to check references) that Bacon drew inferences from the fall. Our senses, reason and nature herself were all effected by the fall. Therefore, they may, at times, deceive us. This is why he compared the experimental method to torture - a means of extrcting truth.
(Actually, thinking about it, it did occur to me that common sense and everyday experience would incline me to believe that heavier bodies fall at a faster rate. To experiment to check such ideas must have seemed like madness to the Scholastics.)
The early "natural philosophers" needed some reason to experiment - some reason to think that reason/experience are generally reliable, but that also fallible. Christian Theology seemed to help form this pre-scientific presupposition.
It also seems important to believe in Physical Laws, and a universe that conformed to Mathematics. So I don't know that it's safe to say that the first scientists just happened to be Christian, as most people were.
But of course many other social, philosophical and economic conditions were necessary to the rise of Science.

Graham Veale

Oddly enough, the book of Job would agree with Bacon. Nature and human experience point us to a creator - but for all that they can teach us, the creator could be a sadist, or insane.

Graham Veale

if anyone missed the programme I've stuck it on you tube so it will be available after the listen again expires. Hope the 大象传媒 don't mind. I've put a link to this blog at the end anyway. A search for Richard dawkins radio ulster should bring it up
Dp

This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain.

Peter
There have only been two women nobel prize winners in Physics, and three in Chemistry.
The vast majority of winners have been white.
Low intelligence also correlates to low wealth and social opportunity. (Oliver James "The Selfish Capitalist).

So men are more intelligent than women. Whites are more intelligent than Blacks. And the poor deserve it.

GV

Hello Graham,

Sorry, but I don't think your reasoning is correct. For a reason you already mentioned: social opportunity. Neither of us would at present expect Africa to produce many Nobel laureates. And given their lower average prosperity, I think we would both expect the number of laureates from the African American community in the US to be lower. But if you look at the data, you don't have the same excuse for believers. Something like 90% of the US population professes to be believers. So while in the case of blacks you can hold up a non-intelligence related reason for the low number of top scientists among them (on average they form a poorer part of the population), you can't roll out that reason for believers, as they cover almost the entire population.

Really? You correlated the data with income etc.?
You're sure the poor aren't poor because they're dumb? After all, there is a correlation.
Are religious believers more or less likely to come from socially deprived backgounds?
Are we talking about IQ or intelligence?
Are we talikng about extrinsic or intrinsic religiosity?
What definition of religiosity was used?
Does religiosity make you dumb or vice versa?
Or is atheism now fashionable among academic elites? For what reason?

Those are a few of the many, may questions that I wanted answers to, so I popped along to the site you recommended expecting an academic article. It seems to be missing, but the graphs are pretty.

GV

Hello Graham,

That's a somewhat PB'ish reply, isn't it? Mostly ignoring the argument made and posting a series of questions as substitute for counter arguments.

Sorry you were disappointed not to find an article. But then the data speaks for itself without too much text to go with them.

If you want to read articles about it, they are available. You could for instance read the article by Paul Bell in Mensa Magazine UK, February 2002, p12. It reviews 43 studies into the correlation between religiosity and intelligence and/or education level. In 39 out of 43, an inverse correlation was found.
The article is not available online as far as I know, but I can post you a copy of the Mensa article if you like.

greets,
Peter

Peter
I can't see why PB should have all the fun.
In any case, the questions were pointing out gaps in your argument.

I'll assume that you are arguning that as there is an inverse relationship between education levels/IQ and religiosity, we have some reason to be skeptical of religious claims.

I have some problems with your evidence, and serious problems with the argument.
Problems with the evidence -
1) Education levels/IQ and intelligence are not the same thing. Intelligence is notoriously difficult to measure in Psychology. Education levels depend on a motivation for academic achievement, and IQ scores can be increased with training and practice.
2) Furthermore, the results you provided have not been controlled for social income etc. And if nations like China are included in the data, religiosity is a social barrier to academic achievement. Was this controlled for?
3) "Religion" and "religiosity" are also notoriously difficult to define and measure. There is no attempt to distinguish between committed and nominal believers, for example.
4) Evangelicalism in the US and UK tends to be a sub-urban phenomenon. If families have "internalised" Evangelical values, they are more likely to be stable etc. (I am relying on Brad Wilcox's research here). So I could take one sub-group out of the data, and probably find a correlation with academic achievement and Evangelicalism. This would have nothing to do with Evangelical beliefs, but rather social opportunity.

Problems with your argument.
1) It (at the very least) suggests we should follow academic fashion.
2) It assumes that academic culture has not a strong secular bias against religion, and also assumes that those surveyed have studied the issues for themselves, and come to a reasoned conclusion. (Reading "The God Delusion" or "God is not Great" does NOT count).
3) You seem to assume, without argument, that Science is the measure of rationality.
4) You also assume, without argument, that the only rational foundation for religious belief is academic study.
5) You do not decide on the validity of an argument by taking a vote, or by polling randomly selected academics.

The data, if reliable, is interesting. It may tell us something about the nature of secular societies. It may tell us that we live in a religiously illiterate age (a criticism often made of the New Atheism is that it shows only a superficial familiarity with Religious teaching). The data raises many more questions than it answers, and in no way counts against the rationality of religious belief.
To do that, I'm afraid, you will need to engage the beliefs actually held by the different religious communities.

G Veale

Hello Graham,

Lots of points you make, and lots of errors or convenient implicit assumptions in them I think.

"2) Furthermore, the results you provided have not been controlled for social income etc. And if nations like China are included in the data, religiosity is a social barrier to academic achievement. Was this controlled for?"

Ah, masterfully trying to get around your same problem again, i.e. that practically all data was for the US (so hypothesizing about China as argument is rather unconvincing), and that 90% of the US is religious. Give it up Graham, you can't credibly hold up the excuse of bringing in social income, as 90% of the population can't all be poor and disadvantaged. That can't explain why at present US believers contribute so little to scientific advances.

"1) Education levels/IQ and intelligence are not the same thing. Intelligence is notoriously difficult to measure in Psychology. Education levels depend on a motivation for academic achievement, and IQ scores can be increased with training and practice.
3) "Religion" and "religiosity" are also notoriously difficult to define and measure. There is no attempt to distinguish between committed and nominal believers, for example."

Ah, when data presented is convenient -> try to attack the credibility of the data. How classy. And I suppose you'd like to suggest that if the data were corrected for the things you mention, believers wouldn't come out looking so dumb? Did you ever consider that things could work either way, and that believers could come out looking even worse than they already do?
I don't have any relevant information as to why the data would be skewed in either direction. I suspect the same goes for you. So I don't make assumptions. Probably best for you not to do so either and for the moment accept the data presented. Or if you want to argue against it, do so by something more than posing a mere suggestion as argument. Back up your stuff.

4) You also assume, without argument, that the only rational foundation for religious belief is academic study. "
"3) You seem to assume, without argument, that Science is the measure of rationality.

Huh? Was that in response to my recent posts in this thread? I never mentioned rationality, nor did the data I linked to. I get the impression you've confused things here.

"5) You do not decide on the validity of an argument by taking a vote, or by polling randomly selected academics."

Phhfffrt, that is the poorest argument of all I think. Randomly selected academics? Nobel laureates and members of the National Academy of Sciences are random?
And no, you don't decide on an argument by taking a vote, but then I never said that. Looking at the data, the poll appears not to have asked the scientists to pass verdict on the validity of religions, it merely inquired if they were religious or not.

"2) It assumes that academic culture has not a strong secular bias against religion, and also assumes that those surveyed have studied the issues for themselves, and come to a reasoned conclusion. (Reading "The God Delusion" or "God is not Great" does NOT count)."

Huh? You do seem to be way out there! The poll merely inquired into the beliefs of researchers. What issues must people study before merely answering if they hold any beliefs or not?

"1) It (at the very least) suggests we should follow academic fashion. "

I'm not sure I follow what you mean there. But given the rest of your points, never mind.

Peter

Peter
So you disagree with the conclusion of the website you pointed us to?

GV

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Sorry, wrong thread, this one should have gone somewhere else.