351. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93042 by steve99 on December 2, 2007 at 3:45 am

The funny thing is the proposed candidate theories (mostly string) that successfully integrate and explain the constants

This is perhaps going a bit far, as these theories haven't really explained anything yet, as they aren't really what we could sensibly call 'theories'. Anyway, String Theory seems to suggest a phenomenal number of possible universe with widely differing values of the physical constants, so it hardly pins them down.

352. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93029 by steve99 on December 2, 2007 at 2:59 am

As a real scientific hypothesis, the multi-verse hypothesis, should be (is?) actually testable. You seem to dig physics better than I do; perhaps you can shed some light on that.

Some forms of multiverse should be testable. Future observations of the cosmic microwave background may reveal patterns due to gravity waves, and if they do, that has the potential to tell us a lot about the nature of things at the time of the big bang, including several multiverse ideas.

It may become mind-bogglingly absurd but the only chance you would have to logically disprove such a thing would be for it to be self-contradictory

Well, I think that 'knowing the unknowable' is self-contradictory. And you are certainly doing that if you label the unknowable 'God'.

But what I wanted to say is that even if somebody comes up with a logically consistent bullshit explanation, they would still need to overcome the burden of proof and show some evidence. And that's often forgotten in debates like this.

I agree.

353. Why debate dogma?

Comment #93024 by steve99 on December 2, 2007 at 2:26 am

Keith:

Don't worry.. there will always be the Wee Fleas who deserve the full-blooded Hitchens approach.

354. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93021 by steve99 on December 2, 2007 at 1:57 am

But if we soon happen to reach the point where an intelligent program, operating in its own programmed environment, meets all criteria for life (which don't seem to be well defined), then in essence we'll have created also an entity called God (i.e. us) and then RD's point will seem moot.

Dawkins is not against 'Gods' in principle. What he is against is Gods that have not arisen by evolution.

I think, he even defined God as the thing beyond what we can know.

I am afraid that this is not logically consistent. If something is beyond what we can know, then, by definition, it is unknowable, and so to label it 'God' is absurd.

This is a suprising common argument used by the religious, which is strange, as even a little thought shows that it is actually rather dumb!

Also, it is telling how God has changed from an interfering and vengeful busybody, who parts seas, burns bushes and smites a lot of people, into something skulking in the 'unknowable'.

I believe that the 'God is unknowable' argument can easily be shown to be ridiculous.

355. Why debate dogma?

Comment #93016 by steve99 on December 2, 2007 at 1:24 am

Steve, this is a very good point, and it is obvious that I need to look into it a bit more.

Excellent. And I would like to use this as an illustration of how entering into polite debate with religious people can actually be productive.

I'm not arguing biology (or cosmology) from Scripture. I'm not really in a position to argue biology at all. I take Scripture as an authority when it comes to the definition to personhood, the nature and basis of our relationship whith our Creator and the place of humankind in the cosmos.

I see problems with using it in this way, as the writers of scripture had very little idea what "personhood" meant, or what "humankind" meant, or what the nature of the cosmos is. They invoked the idea of a creator because things looked created and there was, for them, no adequate explanation. We now have a very clear explanation of why most things are as they are, even the apparently created things. We know far more about the workings of the mind (what a "person" is) and the cosmos than those scripture writers - we know things that they could probably not even have imagined.

356. Why debate dogma?

Comment #93015 by steve99 on December 2, 2007 at 1:15 am

Can you imagine how dull the video would have been had Pat Condell simply said, "Well, I think we need to work together with Christians, despite our differences...etc." In fact, so dull that it wouldn't have been worth making - which is perhaps how you feel about it anyway.

I think he could have put forward a different message: He could have said...

"If you want me to believe what you do from no evidence, you don't stand a chance. You can preach at me all you like, and I will listen, because unlike the religious I actually listen to ideas. If you want debate, you will get it, but you are not like what I have to say."

What is dull about that? But also, it emphasises rationality and strong debate. Not mockery and ridicule.

I'm not sure how your view sits with the general consencus that there is more than one way to skin a cat in regards to the problem of religion.

I think it sits pretty well. I think the issue here is about how you deal with people and not just ideas. I think you can attack ideas in all kinds of ways, and a broad approach is useful. But I think there is a difference between attacking ideas and attacking people.

Not necessarily mocked, but given a verbal slap around the face until I came to my senses.

But would you come to your senses? And if not, what do you think all that verbal slapping would achieve, other than to convince you that these atheists are rather rude, and you would not want your son/daughter to marry one?

Actually, this all seems to come down to whether or not you think Pat Condell mocks or not. If he is just being strident, fine. If he is mocking, not fine. I really don't know if I would call his style 'mocking'.

Ah no. You see, mockery and ridicule is what he suggests should be the response to attempts to preach.

Do you think RD had a go at the Bishop of Oxford or do you think he persuaded him? I suspect neither. And what does this tell us? No idea.

Well to me it suggests that Richard does not consider all religious people, even those who life's work is to preach and convert, as requiring a good telling off face-to-face in the way that Condell seems to.

357. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93007 by steve99 on December 2, 2007 at 12:00 am

The fine-tuning argument is based on the same fallacy that so many theistic arguments are based on: special pleading.

If the coincidence of the universe being what it is demands an explanation, then the coincidence of God being what It is demands the same kind of explanation. And if God doesn't demand an explanation, neither does the universe. As always, God is superfluous.

Well, God is superfluous, but it does not mean that the fine tuning argument is, in general, a fallacy.

We are probably in the same situation regarding the settings of the constants of the universe as we were in terms of trying to explain the compexity of life before Darwin and Huxley. There really was something that needed explaining, and we found that explanation.

It is as misguided, in my view, to casually dismiss the apparent fine tuning of the universe as 'not a problem' as it would have been to dismiss the complexity of life as 'not a problem'. We should admit that it does need explaining while making it clear that God is not the answer.

358. Why debate dogma?

Comment #93004 by steve99 on December 1, 2007 at 11:43 pm

As far as I know, Condell hasn't insulted anyone personally either, except Osama. Making general statements is exactly what he does.

What he has done personally and what he says in this video may well be different. But to me there is little doubt that in this video he is encouraging insult and mockery as the response to individuals who, even in the most mild and polite way, attempt to convince people of their faith. Or at least that is a possible interpretation of what he is saying. I find that crass and rude. I also think it is counterproductive.

359. Why debate dogma?

Comment #93002 by steve99 on December 1, 2007 at 11:29 pm

Allying with theistic evolutionists to fight creationism, or allying with moderates to fight fundamentalism, or allying with Christian fundamentalists to fight Islamism doesn't preclude criticizing the ones we're allying with in the most strident terms.

I think it does.

I'm pretty sure the Bishop of Oxford knows that Dawkins has called all religious believers "deluded". Has this destroyed their alliance?

I am sure he knows this. But does this mean that Dawkins would personally insult and mock the Bishop? I doubt it.

There is a big difference between a general statement and how you deal with people face-to-face.

360. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93001 by steve99 on December 1, 2007 at 11:25 pm

Steve, do you have a reference for this? I find it very hard to believe given that we don't have the capability to take any physical measurement to past about 12 decimal places of resolution.

I have probably phrased things clumsily. This does mean that we can measure anything to that accuracy, it is more about the possible range of the constant.

For example, in String Theory there are a phenomenal amount of possible universes, most of which have cosmological constants which would result in a rapidly expanding universe with no structure.

361. Why debate dogma?

Comment #92997 by steve99 on December 1, 2007 at 11:08 pm

Clearly it is not possible for me on this forum to establish to everyone's satisfaction that human life begins with conception.

I am not sure what you mean by 'human life' in this context. At conception you end up with a cell containing a full set of chromosomes. But just about every cell in an adult human body has that set. Does a new human life begin when I grow a new skin cell?

We are surely more than just a set of DNA molecules. What makes us who we are is our minds. I can't see how it is reasonable to consider that there is a 'person' until there is a mind, and that can't can be present if there is not a sufficiently developed brain. Clearly a fertilized egg is a potential person, but so is almost any cell in the body given the right cloning technology.

And I find it rather odd that you would consider the Bible an authority on biology; after all it has proved to be a pretty unreliable authority on cosmology and geology.

362. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #92995 by steve99 on December 1, 2007 at 10:57 pm

mmurray:

I don't think it is a good reply, as it does not address the theme of Davies' article.

Instead of a knee-jerk reaction to the word "faith", a response to Davies' article should address the following points:

1. Is it reasonable to believe that laws of physics we discover by experiment within this universe are somehow enternal, unchanging and inevitable? Would any universe be guided by such laws?

2. Does a universe with 'living observers' in it somehow guide its own evolution?

These are the questions that Davies asks, and they are interesting questions.

I am afraid that the response of so many scientists to Davies' article - to run around yelling "how dare he accuse me of being a faith-head!" is to miss the point.

363. Why debate dogma?

Comment #92992 by steve99 on December 1, 2007 at 10:25 pm

think RD very slightly tones down his rhetoric so as not to intimidate the person he's debating and to ensure that the debate doesn't escalate into a slanging match.

If you read my post in more detail, you will see that RD was not just toning down his rhetoric, he was actually allying with at least one religious preacher (the Bishop of Oxford) in order to promote good teaching of science.

I am afraid I honestly feel Pat Condell's approach as expressed in this video is counter-productive. We claim that we are rational and eager to promote understanding, but he discourages friendly debate. We claim we follow the Golden Rule, but he wants us to respond to even mild preaching with mockery.

364. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92990 by steve99 on December 1, 2007 at 10:11 pm

How much does one of the constants have to vary to make things as we know blow up or not appear at all?

Well, my understanding is that the cosmological constant has to be tuned within 1 part in 10 to the 50th power to prevent the universe blowing up.

365. Why debate dogma?

Comment #92821 by steve99 on December 1, 2007 at 2:20 pm

Sorry if you find my sneering tone offensive Bonzai.

Sorry to step in, but I think that on this site you will find that what we are after is responses to arguments.

Bonzai asked you direct questions. This is a well-known public site, promoted by Richard Dawkins, not Pat Condell. I suggest that to maintain some credibility on this public site you respond to Bonzais questions. Many here are interested in your answers.

366. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92817 by steve99 on December 1, 2007 at 2:07 pm

Hello again. It is nice to know that I have raised an argument of sufficient interest to raise the undead of the regular religious commentator from the coffins.

Secondly, Why does complexity necessarily mean improbability, it doesn't.

Well not quite. We scientifically literate don't confuse complexity of outcome with complexity of cause. The complexity of the fine tuning of the universe is a complexity of the cause of the universe. It led to far more complex things within that universe... like life. If you don't understand, a reading of recent work by Stephen Wolfram may help.

When you are talking about complexity of cause, then you are certainly relating to probability, as the life's work of Ludwig Boltzmann revealed.

Thirdly, Dawkins himself helps us to see that improbability doesn't mean non-existence. He's stated that the existence of humanity is very, very improbable. One of his colleagues has said that, 'it is virtually impossible to quantify how improbable the existence of humanity is.' But exist we do. Improbability then does not entail, nor has it ever entailed non-existence.

That is dealing with improbability of outcome, not improbability of origin.

If humans are indeed improbable, then how much more improbable is an intelligent entity capable of designing a universe that resulted in humans? I am afraid that theists shoot themselves in the foot with this argument.

Just to push this to an extreme. Are you a semi-solipsist? Do you think that your personal existence means that God designed the universe so that you would exist?

367. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #92799 by steve99 on December 1, 2007 at 1:40 pm

well what can i say to that? naive, deluded, mentally ill, a troll or teenage angst? i dont know.

I don't know either. But I am still not sure about troll. What I am trying to say here is that would we not look better if we don't ban him? If we contrast his irrationality with calm and rational responses?

I guess this links in to what I have been posting on other threads and sites. Surely we can only promote rationality by a polite and calm approach to those who would want to provoke us? The less we react, the more extreme it makes the ranters and fundamentalists appear.

368. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92795 by steve99 on December 1, 2007 at 1:34 pm

Someone needs to ram home "how" he knows this if he is constrained by the Universe and the "lens" of his own senses.

Well argued. However, I think you find that consistency is not one of D'Souza's virtues.

369. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92787 by steve99 on December 1, 2007 at 1:17 pm

The rarity of life in our own solar system seems to suggest that life managed to come about inspite of the physical constants. They maybe fine tuned for the universe to exist in the way it does but this universe seems to do a bad job in supporting life as we know it.

I think the opposite is true. Our solar system is probably wonderfully adapted to life. There is liquid water everywhere.. in the atmosphere of Jupiter, almost certainly in the oceans of Europa and Callisto, and it looks likely that underground seas exist on Enceladus, a moon of Saturn. The old idea of a 'Goldilocks zone' - a narrow band around a Sun where life could exists as a result of the heat of the Sun - looks very out of date.

Also, we have hardly explored our Universe. Who knows where life could exist? There have been suggestions that life could even be most abundant between the stars, on numerous extra-solar planets, using radioactive heating as a source of energy.

But anyway. The real issue with the physical constants is that until we know why they are as they are, we have no reason to pin them down to values friendly to life, or even to allow complexity. If you look at the cosmological constant, unless it is extraordinarily fine tuned, the universe would not even allow atoms, let alone complex chemicals or life.

At least that is my understanding of things. I have yet to read Stenger's writings on this matter, and the contrary views of Martin Rees and others.

EDIT:

2) Your statment assumes that life as it exists on earth is the only possible form life can take.

You make a good point. However, if I understand things right, the issue of fine tuning is primarily not about whether or not life can exist in a universe, but whether or not anything like atoms can exist.

370. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92774 by steve99 on December 1, 2007 at 12:38 pm

He feeds on events like these, he needs them.

Agreed. Which is why I feel such debates should stop. There is no winning debates with those who won't play by the rules of rational discourse, and if he can present himself as 'winning' against each of the supposed 'New Atheists', this would be regrettable.

371. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92764 by steve99 on December 1, 2007 at 12:17 pm

Hey, Dinesh, the Universe is just how it is. Life evolved according to the conditions in which it found itself, not the other way around.

I see your point, but I think this is the wrong way to deal with this.

I believe there is an issue about why the universe seems so suitable to life (and, despite what so many have argued, this really is the case, or so I believe). I don't think this issue can be easily dismissed.

However, what can be easily dismissed is the idea that a universe suitable for life could be the result of an enternal first-cause creator called God.

Whatever the fine-tuning we may currently think is needed for a universe which allows sufficient physical complexity to permit life to appear, that is unimaginable orders of magnitude less 'fine-tuning' than that needed to allow a God-like creator to exist.

This was expressed very well by Dawkins in TGD.

I believe that this is the argument we should use. If you want to declare the universe unlikely, fine. But then you have to accept the vastly greater unlikeliness of an infinite and omnipotent mind, so your argument fails.

372. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #92721 by steve99 on December 1, 2007 at 10:13 am

This site is for reasoned discussion, the troll we have here isnt providing that, i have flagged the posts already i suggest others do so, i would like to see this troll banned, anybody feel im being unreasonable?

Well, I would not want to accuse you of being unreasonable, but I am not sure I agree with banning. I think it if we can show that we are prepared to respond rationally and calmly to even the most literal fundamentalist, it might do some good. Also, I am not sure he is truly a troll. My understanding of 'troll' is someone who intentionally posts material that is controversial with the intention of baiting others. Whereas I have little doubt that this applies to people like Wee Flea, this fellow seems more like someone who is desperate to get his views validated. He seems to naive to be a real troll. So, I am uncertain what the right approach is.

373. Why debate dogma?

Comment #92706 by steve99 on December 1, 2007 at 9:14 am

For better or worse, the Bishops of the Church of England cut very little ice with the general public.

But they don't have to. That is my point. They have a direct line to government. That has to go.

After all, who are they to tell us when human life begins? or if it ever really begins at all? or what bloody difference there is between human life and bacteria life anyway?

Personally, I think the answer to those questions are more likely to come from a biologist than a bishop, don't you?

The hugely positive influence (in terms of the definition and defense of human personhood and in the preservation of human dignity) that the Christian faith has had over the centuries is in free fall.

I am afraid that the Christian faith has not had a particularly good positive influence. It has simply moved with the times, albeit slowly.

Christianity has supported slavery, oppressed women and homosexuals. It has led to wars, and tortured heretics. It has had some positive effects, such as providing comfort and support for the poor. But it simply tends to amplify human nature, not direct it.

We can see today how it can act as a drag on ethical progress, providing support for those with distateful views.

Watch this space!

We don't need to wait. We have seen major advances in rights and equality in the UK in recent years against campaigns by Christians.

374. Why debate dogma?

Comment #92698 by steve99 on December 1, 2007 at 8:47 am

Call me a fundamentalist atheist if you wish, but I do feel that the time spent putting kids through compulsory religious services could be better spent on other things.

Well, it worked for me. Just not the intended way. Nothing like a good long latin mass (yes, I am that old) for putting a kid off religion.

375. Why debate dogma?

Comment #92689 by steve99 on December 1, 2007 at 8:25 am

Fortunately for all of us, Christians are (still) just as free as atheists to do what they can to persuade people to get on board.

What country do you live in? I am in the UK. Christians don't have to resort to actually talking to the public in order to persuade people. We have Bishops as part of our legislature. We have an established church, with the Queen as head. And you can bet that those Bishops don't just sit around quietly. They use those positions to campaign on issues of 'family matters' and gay rights (a strange obsession which was recently strongly criticised by the admirable Desmond Tutu).

Any attempt by Christians to claim that they are being oppressed by atheists is, I have to say, just a bit silly. What is slowly happening is that the rights of the religious are being equalised with others.

376. Why debate dogma?

Comment #92674 by steve99 on December 1, 2007 at 7:17 am

There is a very useful discussion here, in my view.

Let me say first of all that I am in no way suggesting that politeness should always be the approach... perhaps only at first. I can't help feeling a warm glow when I see Hitchens go for someone who is clearly resistant to reasonable debate.

Russell summarises just what I feel... what would be the message if what Pat says here was taken literally?

It was pointed out to me elsewhere that I needed to understand the context of the video, and who Pat Condell was. Well, I had a good idea. But when someone throws something like this out on YouTube or wherever, I think they can't assume people know the context. Condell is not that famous.

I can only contrast this with the way Richard Dawkins behaves. In process of making 'The Root of all Evil?' there were some interviews which were not shown, but were available later, and linked to here. One of those included a discussion with the Bishop of Oxford. It was a perfectly polite debate, indeed Richard and the Bishop had worked together before, campaigning on matters of science teaching in the UK. But the Bishop is certainly one of those targetted by Condell - he expects people to believe things without what we could consider evidence. Yet would mockery have been the correct approach? Richard did not think so, and gained a useful ally against the teaching of Intelligent Design/Creationism. Mind you, this does not stop Richard having a go at those who aren't initially persuaded by calm discussion.

Me, I go for the Dawkins approach.

377. Why debate dogma?

Comment #92633 by steve99 on December 1, 2007 at 2:13 am

And Pat really does target precisely the pro-active.

I know he does in general; I just did not see such targetting in this particular video.

Polite with private faith.
Robust with intrusion into secular matters.

Yes, I can certainly agree with that.

378. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #92625 by steve99 on December 1, 2007 at 1:38 am

It's not an "hallucination" or anything else you wish to excuse it away with. It is real, God is real, and the Bible is a supernatural book that can only be properly interpreted through the Spirit of the author who wrote it - God.

But there is a bit of a problem here, as there are so many different interpretations.

You know, it really doesn't matter if the Bible is a supernatural book, or if it can only properly be interpreted through God, unless someone can point out how we actually and independently do that.

And unless someone can do that, and provide a reason for people to believe that they have found the true way, it is all pointless.

You can laugh and scoff all you like, but it is all in vain, and someday you will regret having done so.

I don't think it is in vain. I think rejecting the Bible as being the word of God (or at least starting that process) has been a major step forward. It frees many of us to live happier and more fulfilled lives, able to express ourselves (especially if, like me, you are gay), able to explore nature without preconceptions and realise what an amazing universe we live in - a universe infinitely more than that described in the Bible.

And, I am really not laughing. In fact, I find it tragic that there are people like you, stuck in a deep hole of delusion, in which interpretations of a single contradictory book limit what you can think and feel and understand. No-one should live like that. It is a waste of human potential.

A bit of friendly advice (and it is friendly, as I have no reason to believe you are not a good person).

Simply repeating the same statements on a forum is going going to get your message across. Well, not here at least. Unless you can actually provide reason and evidence (and your intepretation of the Bible isn't enough), there really isn't any point.

379. Debate: Ayaan Hirsi Ali vs Ed Husain

Comment #92618 by steve99 on December 1, 2007 at 12:40 am

The attacks on DSW and Davies were perfectly warranted. The half dozen scientists who posted replies to Davies' article on Edge were pretty much in full agreement with our criticisms of him, you know. Not that I'm arguing from authority,

Don't worry if you are - I often do :)

However, I don't think that most of the attacks were warranted at all. I believe there was some problematic language in both articles, but I have been concerned that there was a considerable 'knee-jerk' reaction simply to a few phrases and not to the general message of either article.

For example, with Davies, I though the response was in many cases astonishingly off-base. Davies was putting forward the view that science should make fewer assumptions, should try and move away from the belief in eternal laws.

And how was he attacked? Well, the majority of criticism was that 'we don't have faith in laws, we find them out by trial and error'. Which was not the point at all - Davies was not criticising how laws were discovered, but the belief that laws, once found, are some kind of eternal and universal (or in some cases, meta-universal) truth. That was the gentler criticism. But others went to far as to claim he 'was encouraging faith', and 'being an apologist for religion'. It was truly bizarre, when that was precisely the opposite of the message of his article.

Along with my recent experience on another site, I am afraid that this does make me think that there might be some increasingly strident atheist dogmatic movement. Step out of line, by using the word 'faith' in perhaps the 'wrong' context (Davies), or by not considering religion as harmful in all contexts (DSW), or by any suggestion that the RRS or Pat Condell may be talking things too far, and you are considered in some quarters as a 'traitor to the cause', and obviously a 'religious sympathizer'.

We should be better than that.

380. This Friday: Debate between Dan Dennett and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92614 by steve99 on December 1, 2007 at 12:18 am

In the case of this debate I expect a thought-provoking intellectual encounter between two very competent and articulate debaters.

And may I add my mirth at this statement too?

I believe I may have missed something. I assumed "competent" and "thought-provoking" generally required some kind of integrity in the speaker, like not lying about history and the influence of Christianity, as D'Souza clearly does.

381. Why debate dogma?

Comment #92612 by steve99 on December 1, 2007 at 12:13 am

monkey2:

I see what he is saying, but I just think it is wrong, and for a good reason. As Dawkins and others have pointed out, there is has been something of a taboo about criticising religion. This is something that books by Dawkins, Harris and others is definitely starting to change.

I think we should make use of that change, and we should make use of it by taking the chance to debate and discuss these beliefs. My view, for what it is worth, is that encouraging people to proceed straight to mockery and ridicule is to dismiss this opportunity.

It also encourages a false sense of superiority, I believe. I mean, it is part of human nature to suffer from delusions in one way or another. We are all fallible in this way, I believe. The difference with religion is the way that the delusion is formalised and supported by preachers and religions institutions. The typical religious person is simply a 'victim' of birth or circumstance.

I would have been happier of Pat had specifically targeted preachers, bishops etc.

382. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #92455 by steve99 on November 30, 2007 at 2:29 pm

All religions, especially the evangelical and fundamentalist varieties, encourage their credulous adherents to breed like rabbits, thereby propagating their particular brand of nonsense.

Not all. There is an interesting exception: The Shakers. This is a christian sect that encourages celibacy for all members. It gains new members only by converts. Not surprisingly, there are only a few members left!

383. Why debate dogma?

Comment #92439 by steve99 on November 30, 2007 at 1:49 pm

Actions speak louder than words, these kind of fanatical behaviour of atheists will only damage their own cause.

I know. It is depressing. I only hope the civility and reason shown here most time helps to counter it.

384. Why debate dogma?

Comment #92425 by steve99 on November 30, 2007 at 1:18 pm

My Goodness, now they were rude.

One thing that did unsettle me was PZ starting a new thread, supposedly based on an argument of mine.

Here is what he wrote:

Here's how it works. An atheist says something assertive about religion; religious sympathizer retorts, "Would you say that to your dying grandmother? You atheists can't give any consolation to the dying or grieving, and all you can do is flip a finger at believers." There is usually a tone of high moral indignation, as well, and a smug expression of superiority that the faithful have over the godless.

I struggle to find any resemblance to what I posted, or any reason I gave for appearing to be either a religious sympathizer or 'faithful', or claiming that atheists could not give consolation.

Maybe it was not based on what I posted, even if others claim it was. Who knows?

All I can say is that I have a somewhat reduced level of respect for the site, even if the cephalopod posts are a lot of fun...

385. Why debate dogma?

Comment #92423 by steve99 on November 30, 2007 at 1:10 pm

This is a man Pat Condell himself would treat with respect.

Actually, I am sure he would. Which is why I find this 'in yer face' video irritating... it is putting on a front for provocative (and comic?) effect, while giving the appearance of sincerity. Or maybe I am wrong.

386. Why debate dogma?

Comment #92390 by steve99 on November 30, 2007 at 12:08 pm

In what way were yours effective? I am curious.

I managed to make some progress in changing minds. I have one friend who seems to be on the path from theism to agnosticism.

He scorns when others push un-evidenced belief in his face. It is their behaviour he seeks to comment upon.

Well, I know it is only a matter of tone, but he did not suggest commenting on their behaviour - he suggested mockery and ridicule. Just a little to 'in your face' for my tastes.

387. Why debate dogma?

Comment #92363 by steve99 on November 30, 2007 at 10:56 am

Bonzai. Yes, it was a little bizarre.

My real objection to this video is that it seems to me to be just a touch ... rude. My reaction to someone who is good mannered to me, even if deluded, is to be good mannered back, well at least at first.

Pat sets too high a standard for others. For example, I would imagine that most people think that 'first person' experiences, such as feelings, dreams etc. can be evidence for God, or the supernatural or whatever. They think they are being reasonable when they try and explain their faith to others. To simply mock them, which is my reading of this video, is inappropriate I think. I think it is inconsiderate.

388. Why debate dogma?

Comment #92343 by steve99 on November 30, 2007 at 10:17 am

I have to say that I didn't much like this video, and I have to agree with Vinelectric.

However, perhaps I should be careful what I say, as I got seriously flamed on PZ Myers' site by putting forward this point of view :)

I will simply say that I have had some very interesting and effective debates with theists.

389. Papal encyclical attacks atheism, lauds hope

Comment #92340 by steve99 on November 30, 2007 at 10:11 am

If technical progress is not matched by corresponding progress in man's ethical formation, in man's inner growth, then it is not progress at all, but a threat for man and for the world," he said.

Indeed. Which is why need need to get rid of the oppression of women, calling homosexuality wicked, forbidding useful contraception... I could go on.

390. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #92246 by steve99 on November 30, 2007 at 6:03 am

Creational evolution is IMPOSSIBLE, just as I pointed out in my numerous other posts but which were never answered by you so-called "clear thinkers."

Look mate, if you are going to deny the existence of something that you can actually go out see for yourself, you are going to look a bit silly.

You DO NOT observe 'evolution' in the field, in the lab, or anywhere else. All you're observing is CREATED LIFE and the numerous abilities that its CREATOR CREATED within it to do. You have sophistically and diabolically 'stolen' that which God created - the life processYou DO NOT observe 'evolution' in the field, in the lab, or anywhere else. All you're observing is CREATED LIFE and the numerous abilities that its CREATOR CREATED within it to do. You have sophistically and diabolically 'stolen' that which God created - the life process - and have labeled it "evolution." - and have labeled it "evolution."

Well OK. So if we have seen new species arise through understood mechanisms, such as mutation (and we have), then these mechanisms are part of the life process designed by God?

Well, that is a possible viewpoint for someone religious. But it does not disprove evolution, it simply states that evolution is the method God uses to make new species. You can call it what you like: "evolution", or "GodMethod", but it is still the same process - variation, combined with selection.

But then you run into a problem. Because if you concede (as you have) that mutation and natural selection does exist, then there is no reason why it should not work over long periods of time to generate the range of life we see now. We have seen new species of higher organisms arise within recent history - over tens and hundreds of years. Extrapolate that rate of change over hundreds of thousands of years, over hundreds of millions of years, and we can easily explain all the variety of life. It is not diabolical, it is simple mathematics.

Just imagine, for the sake of argument, a very simple cell billions of years ago. It has this "GodMagic" you don't want to call "evolution". All we need to do is wait...

Many, many people deny evolution out of ignorance. They don't understand the mechanisms of evolution, or that don't realise we have seen it happen.

You have no such excuse now.

I can, in a way, understand why some things (like evolution over billions of years) can seem impossible. I mean, I have a real problem accepting that hundreds of tons of metal can fly through the air. But on a clear day, all I need do is look up into the sky, and the proof is there.

Same with evolution. There is no need for 'faith' in it, because we can actually see it.

So you can keep shouting "impossible", or you can start to research evolution, and find out what an amazing process it is - far more wonderful and awe-inspiring than if God just magiced things into existence.

391. A New Flea in Town!

Comment #92239 by steve99 on November 30, 2007 at 5:54 am

It is entirely reasonable to call these authors 'fleas', for reasons pointed out by phil. It easy to detect the fleas - check for similarities of cover style and title, or a reference to a New Atheist in the title or subtitle.

ridelo: My experience is that they tend not to have even read each other, let alone TGD. It is embarassing to read the same arguments put again and again by different authors, each presumably thinking they are putting forward original contributions.

392. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #92202 by steve99 on November 30, 2007 at 3:38 am

Comets. Thank you. I am not particularly concerned about being flamed as such. What I was surprised by was that it happened on that site. It is not a good advert for the site. (I was tempted to use the phrase "atheist values" there, but I would be justifiably slapped down for such sloppy language!)

393. GOD VS. SCIENCE: A Debate Between Natalie Angier and David Sloan Wilson

Comment #92198 by steve99 on November 30, 2007 at 3:31 am

I am not the only one who sees that. Steve099 and Spinoza say as much.

I guess it is only to be expected for some kind of 'cultishness' to build up around an important idea put forward by good and clever people like Dawkins. However, we are supposed to be the rationalists; we are supposed to be a bit better, to step back and take a more considered look at things.

Anyway, regarding the discussion. I think Sloan Wilson makes interesting points. However, I am not sure I understand why studying the behavioral effects of religion would remove the necessity to criticise its factual incorrectness.

I think we are increasingly living in a world where factual correctness is important; where people need to understand issues such as climate change, evolution, stem cell research, nuclear power and so on.

394. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #92150 by steve99 on November 30, 2007 at 1:12 am

So the sort of lucky event we are looking at could be so wildly improbable that the chances of its happening, somewhere in the universe, could be as low as one in a billion billion billion in any one year. If it did happen on only one planet, anywhere in the universe, that planet has to be our planet—because here we are talking about it .." - Dawkins inadvertantly admitting that so far, the chances for evolution are 1 in infinity.

I really think you need to re-read what he said, as you have things wrong in all kinds of ways. Firstly, he was talking about the origin of life, not evolution. Secondly, he was showing that the chances of it where not '1 in infinity', but that even if they were very, very, very small, the vast size of the universe would allow it to happen. This is why the 'origin of life is very improbable' argument does not work as an argument for a creator.

The theory of evolution is absurd, and is proven wrong to anyone who has the true intelligence to see it or admit it.

I don't know where you are from, but next time you are in Europe I suggest you visit some salt marshes. They are an interesting, but somewhat delicate, ecology. A lot of the grass you see is of the genus Spartina. Well, it has been evolving and we have seen a new species appear within the last few hundred years. This is not theoretical, and it is not in the laboratory; it is out there in Nature, and we know exactly how the species arose. No God was involved.

(Oh, by the way, I am back. After having attempted debate elsewhere, and been flamed to a cinder, it made me realise how civilized this site is, at least by comparison)

395. A New Flea in Town!

Comment #91801 by steve99 on November 29, 2007 at 10:59 am

Well, I think Richard should be proud for several reasons. First, he that has spawned a whole new category of publication - "no, honestly, don't be scared of these new atheists", secondly, that authors feel they can at least attempt to get book sales by mentioning his name on the front cover.

396. This Friday: Debate between Dan Dennett and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #91787 by steve99 on November 29, 2007 at 9:42 am

You feel D'Souza is a bumbling fool who is not worthy of debating Dennett.

My impression is not so much that he is a bumbling fool, but a fast talker who knows how to play the 'debate' game.

397. This Friday: Debate between Dan Dennett and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #91631 by steve99 on November 28, 2007 at 6:26 pm

Dennett do not stand a chance, because he is sane. That's a huge disadvantage against Dinesh D'Souza.

Oh dear. I step away from the site for only a few days, and then I look at what has happened. Dianelos on yet another thread, someone posting something irrelevant about Paul Davies on another (preceded by something embarassngly awful by the RSS on that topic), a teacher prosecuted for naming a teddy bear, and someone we all respect going up against the dreadful D'Souza.

OK, so it was too boring not posting here...

I think Dennett is making a big mistake here. D'Souza is not about rational argument, it is about who can rant best for longest.

398. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90935 by steve99 on November 26, 2007 at 5:49 pm

Just because scientists as individuals have all sort of speculative ideas or no idea on topics where current science has nothing concrete to say is not indicative that science as a whole is having some deep problem.

I think it is something of a problem, and has been a problem for some time. This problem used to be nothing more than some simplifications of science in popular science books years ago, with Hawking using phrases like "knowing the mind of God". But now science is deeply under attack by the religious, and I think these attacks require science to be more rigorous and honest in the way things are described and discussed. This should involve less "gee whizz" speculation, and more admission of what science is.

Examples of absurd speculation has been not just Paul Davies' "magic can come out of singularities", but recently some ridiculous articles in the UK Telegraph claiming that Everett's ideas of Many Worlds Parallel Universes have been "proved", by a supposedly respectable science journalist called Roger Highfield. Such nonsense has not been helped by prominent scientists such as David Deutch making somewhat outlandish claims for quantum mechanics.

On the other hand, scientists need to be less defensive and more honest about what science is. In a very clumsy way, in his article, Paul Davies was admitting the assumptions of science, and that science (especially physics) may contain dogma, even without realising it. And just look at the reaction! Ad-hominem and straw-man attacks on Davies, more blog entries than I can count using the "Davies may be attacking science, but it's not the science I practice" argument (sound familiar?), and so on.

To be honest, I have been deeply unsettled by the number of people who have not dealt with the actual issues Davies has raised in discussions, but at their own straw-man issues.

I happen to think that Davies is wrong, but I have been rather depressed at so many of the confused reactions to his article.

Like this:

Okay, I've been out of this thread for a while so apologies if this has been linked already but this is a lovely debunking of Davies' central position here using only elementary logic.

It would be a lovely debunking, if it was actually addressed at what Davies' position was. It isn't.

As I said, it is depressing, and makes me wonder what the point of such discussions are....

Anyway, having now made myself probably hugely unpopular (at least in some quarters), I really am taking a break from this site for at least a while... it is too interesting and distracting!

Back sometime in the future.

399. 2006 Charles Simonyi Lecture: 'Can the Internet Save The Enlightenment?'

Comment #90899 by steve99 on November 26, 2007 at 4:03 pm

Oh dear. I have been deeply shocked. I did not realise the deeply poisonous nature of the Templeton Foundation. The distance between my John Barrow and Paul Davies books and my rubbish bin shall be considerably reduced tomorrow.

400. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90892 by steve99 on November 26, 2007 at 3:33 pm

It is true that a map is merely print on paper, but for the map to be useful it has to tell us something about the terrain it supposedly describes.

Sure, but I think stringbean is making a serious point. To relate to this thread, Davies (along with many others) is guilty in of over-interpreting the map that is physical theory and assuming it relates to reality. An example of this when it comes to singularities. Once Hawking and Penrose had revealed that gravitational singularities were inevitable in relativity, Davies and others reveled in this idea as if it was a way to introduce magic into physics, with phrases like 'where a singularity exists, anything can happen'. Of course, what singularities meant was that our physical theories broke down; it did not mean that reality broke down, as we now know as we try and formulate theories of quantum gravity. The confusion of the currently fashionable map with the territory seems to be common practice in physics.