Tuesday, April 22, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version

Print | Comments |

Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

by LA Times, Letters to the editor

Thanks to Eddie Tabash for the link.

Reposted from:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/letters/la-le-tuesday22apr22,0,7279441.story

In response to Richard's article 'Gods and Earthlings':
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2480,Gods-and-earthlings,Richard-Dawkins

April 22, 2008

Searching for the big picture

Re "Gods and earthlings," Opinion, April 18

Atheism has its fundamentalists like Richard Dawkins. Everyone has faith in something that is beyond science to prove. Science itself is based on the assumption that the universe is rational and logical and not absurd. Dawkins has a similar problem to those who cannot explain where a complex God came from. Where did the Big Bang come from, and what existed before? If the anthropic principle (the laws of nature seem to have been crafted for the emergence and sustenance of life) was inherent in the Big Bang, then where did that complexity come from? If it was all random, that is a faith assumption also.

Ken Savage

Palm Desert

Dawkins' atheistic rants about creationism and God's existence are tiresome. Fundamentalist creationists are equally wrong. It is not logically contradictory to hold both that God is the author of all that exists and that the Big Bang and evolution are the ways God created and continues to create everything that exists. Neither statement can be proved nor disproved by science. Even Jesus didn't worry about proofs for God's existence.

James McDermott

Pasadena

Dawkins argues that if vastly superior beings from some distant planet did indeed seed life on Earth, they could not be considered gods because someone must have created them. Thus, the only true God must be the one who created the universe itself.

This is, of course, the position that is reflected in Christian teaching. During my Catholic upbringing, I was taught that God "is," meaning he always was and always will be. Defining God in that manner is another way of saying that no matter how sophisticated our theories become, ultimately we cannot explain how the universe got started from nothing and why the world exists. This notion embodies the ultimate mystery of life, which is beyond our power to penetrate from a purely logical and philosophical point of view, and which we must accept on that basis and learn to live with.

Paul Rosenberger

Manhattan Beach

Dawkins argues that "intelligent design" is not science. He is correct. But after that, he moves into less certain territory in which his reasoning inevitably moves to the problem of first causes. There he pretty much avoids the details. In the end, he, like everyone else, must confront one of two choices: Either the universe has always existed, or it was created by someone who has always existed. If the latter is improbable, as he claims, then why is not the former also? Without saying so explicitly, he clearly favors the former, which he is free to do. Nonetheless, it would be interesting to know why he favors one and not the other. Could it be that the latter might make moral claims on all of us, something that would threaten our desire to be morally autonomous?

William S. LaSor

Apple Valley, Calif.

How could natural selection create the first living cell? There is no advantage to non-living material becoming a living cell, so the process had to be pure chance, a result of random atoms forming thousands of extremely complex molecules within a few micrometers of each other at the same time. It is statistically a highly improbable probable event, and it bears all the earmarks of design.

As a former evolutionist, I have seen the results of following the data to the most logical conclusion in today's scientific community. Evolutionists control the scientific community, and any questioning of the current paradigm is cause for ridicule, harassment and sometimes destruction of careers. They should be ashamed, for they have created a totalitarian science community in which everyone must parrot the party line and independent thought is not allowed.

Elaine Fleeman

Bakersfield

Posted: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 171 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #165909 by 82abhilash on April 22, 2008 at 3:09 pm

I guess the la times where being 'fair and balanced' in their response section.

Other Comments by 82abhilash

2. Comment #165910 by Border Collie on April 22, 2008 at 3:12 pm

So, OK, "all" of the information isn't in yet. And, we don't have an answer for "everything" yet. Therefore, everything outside of "all" and "everything" must be the result of some sort of religious hocus pocus. Right? OK, whatever.

Other Comments by Border Collie

3. Comment #165911 by spacewaltzer on April 22, 2008 at 3:14 pm

n the end, he, like everyone else, must confront one of two choices: Either the universe has always existed, or it was created by someone who has always existed.

If you wanted an example of a bifurcation fallacy, could you ask for any better? The use of "someone" also cracks me up: it could have been any one of the crowd of people milling around before the universe began!

Of course the statement "the universe has always existed" can be taken two ways. I think what the author means is "the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time". If, however, time itself began with the creation of the universe, then the universe has existed for the whole of time, i.e. always, but not for an infinite amount of time.

The author gives no consideration to the possibility of multiple universes, either.

Other Comments by spacewaltzer

4. Comment #165912 by TuftedPuffin on April 22, 2008 at 3:14 pm

Eh, if this is a list of everyone who responded. I'm betting this is just a list of the article's critics, without the occasional "you go, Dawkins!" letter.

Other Comments by TuftedPuffin

5. Comment #165913 by Steve Zara on April 22, 2008 at 3:14 pm

Either the universe has always existed, or it was created by someone who has always existed.

I do wish people would leave speculation about the origin of the universe to those who have an understanding of cosmology and physics. "Folk wisdom" is totally inappropriate here.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

6. Comment #165914 by Naranja Mecanica on April 22, 2008 at 3:15 pm

I found William S. LaSor's letter mildly thought-provoking, whereas the others - and Elaine Fleeman's in particular - to be laugh-out-loud funny. Cheers for posting these, they're almost as humourous as Riise's own goal in tonight's Champions League match.

Other Comments by Naranja Mecanica

7. Comment #165919 by Styrer- on April 22, 2008 at 3:22 pm

Josh, I sometimes think that you toss out these utterly puerile, shit-filled pieces of nonsense masquerading as 'thought' in order to drag us away from a thread(s) where our teeth are getting rather too used to the ample amounts of fresh meat available here recently.

If so, for shame, sir. But I'll play along.

Richard, the above comments are entirely your doing and you must answer for them.

That you could ever have had the temerity, the audacity, the sheer brass balls to submit religion to the very same criticism that is applied to football, haute cuisine, fine art and politics says far more about you than it does about religion.

While you may be successfully 'raising consciousness' to entirely new and unexpected levels, I trust that you will take full responsibility for your utterings and be prepared to, er, well - say it all again as soon as you can.

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

8. Comment #165920 by ricey on April 22, 2008 at 3:23 pm

Just "god of the gaps" arguments; some good points made by the contributors though.

Where science ends god begins for many people. If there is a god what religion is he?

(edit: he/she/it I should have said)

Other Comments by ricey

9. Comment #165923 by theantitheist on April 22, 2008 at 3:31 pm

Naranja,

Not funny.

Grumble brumble bloody chealsea grumble grumble

(Oh and those letters can be referred to the appropriate discussions in this site)

Other Comments by theantitheist

10. Comment #165924 by MPhil on April 22, 2008 at 3:34 pm

To be fair, Steve, this is also a conceptual problem - concerning our notions of causality and especially necessity and contingency.

It was a possibility open for exploration by philosophers that a creator is a conceptual and metaphysical necessity. In that case we would be truly irrational and unjustified in denying the existence of "whatever entity x that terminates the infinite regress of causes".

A serious question.

Swinburne's cosmological argument was serious philosophy for the most part. Also consider modal logic. It is indispensable... and when Plantinga came up with his ontological "proof" that was a major advancement. Mackie and others have shot Plantinga and Swinburne in their cosmological and ontological arguments down, but it was certainly a serious advancement in the debate.

That is to say - if their premises and arguments were correct, they would indeed prove what they set out to do so... but they aren't - and we're back to science and real philosophy. :)

Other Comments by MPhil

11. Comment #165925 by Lucas on April 22, 2008 at 3:38 pm

That one could derive comments such as these from the article RD wrote is simply amazing. Some people you just can't reach, no matter how simple you make it.

In my view, based on considerable lay and academic, but not professional, study of astrophysics and the cosmos, the universe is most likely both finite and infinite, both eternal and bound by time. It all kind of depends on what you mean by universe.

The difference between me and the folks above is that I base my theories on, to the best of my understanding, the actual, scientifically observable data. I make no claim to absolute truth or knowledge of reality, just a good solid guess that is ever-changing. Add a little sci-fi imagination, and there are all kinds of possibilities that are far more probable than any God of any kind. There's more likely a Galactus.

Other Comments by Lucas

12. Comment #165928 by WilliamP on April 22, 2008 at 3:40 pm

Well, maybe these writers just haven't heard of Okham's Razor. Dawkins said:

They admit that their god is complex but assert that he had no beginning: He was always there and always complex...you might as well say flagellar motors were always there.

This deals with most of these responses- no god is still a better explanation even if you don't know the real answer.

Other Comments by WilliamP

13. Comment #165933 by MPhil on April 22, 2008 at 3:46 pm

I don't think the complexity-argument applies as Dawkins thinks it does to the traditional theistic dogma.

The laws of causality and the concept of "simply appearing by chance" apply only in spacetime. But most theists assert that god is not within spacetime, ie not a physical being. If true, this would mean he is not subject to the laws of causality and since metaphysical entities need no causal explanation of their being, the probability of such a complex "suddenly appearing" is a meaningless concept.

Of course the idea of god as metaphysical gets the theist out of this trap, but right into a more serious one - namely that of logical incoherence (not physical but present everywhere and always in the physical world; not physical but effecting events in spacetime) and category mistakes (a person, an agent outside time? Agency requires change, change requires being subject to time) etc.

Anyway - this is where I think Dawkins could do better, his arguments doesn't hit home. Others (like the one I have laid out above) do - and are fatal to theism.

Other Comments by MPhil

14. Comment #165935 by DamnDirtyApe on April 22, 2008 at 3:46 pm

I really just don't think they read it properly.

Other Comments by DamnDirtyApe

15. Comment #165937 by MPhil on April 22, 2008 at 3:47 pm

...and Occam's Razor still applies anyway - bloated ontology...

Other Comments by MPhil

16. Comment #165941 by Pilot22A on April 22, 2008 at 3:58 pm

Dawkins isn't trying to prove the "Big Bang" mysteriously sprang from nothingness, as are the religionists. (If I may speak for Dawkins.)

I don't need to believe in a benevolent heaven and/or scary hell of the theists, I chose to accept that which is not understood as simply that which we don't understand. I chose to think that in the future, if religion spares the human race, we will discover and explain things like the "Big Bang" and what occurred, if anything, before that singularity.

Other Comments by Pilot22A

17. Comment #165943 by huzonfurst on April 22, 2008 at 3:59 pm

The most economical way to refer to a deity whose gender is uncertain (never mind the question of existence) is to use the compound pronoun s/he/it - pronounced rapidly.

Other Comments by huzonfurst

18. Comment #165945 by Styrer- on April 22, 2008 at 4:01 pm

Comment #165913 by Steve Zara on April 22, 2008 at 3:14 pm

I do wish people would leave speculation about the origin of the universe to those who have an understanding of cosmology and physics. "Folk wisdom" is totally inappropriate here.

May I say that I think this is spectacularly unfair and arrogant. Even small children are fascinated by 'what's up there?' and 'where do we come from?' We all are, I think, similarly fascinated, regardless of our expertise in cosmology and physics.

To ask for such speculation to remain the sole domain of the cosmologists and of the physicists is to immediately preclude their findings access - a la Dawkins Professorship of the Public Understanding of Science - to those who want to know but who know next to nothing about the mechanisms which discovered such findings.

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

19. Comment #165946 by EvidenceOnly on April 22, 2008 at 4:01 pm

The common response to "we don't know yet" is "god-did-it".

The life of a scientist is to discover what we don't yet know and each time we learn something new, we also find new things we don't yet know.

Under the "god-did-it" philosophy, we scientists would have stopped long ago searching for answers:

- Computers and the internet would not exist

- Travel would still be with horses and sailboats

- Diseases would still kill millions/billions of people

- IDiots would not be able to create a movie full of lies in which they expelled any form of intelligence.

- Scientists would no longer say that they don't have an answer yet

- Everyone would be pious, pray and praise their favorite undefinable supernatural creator

- All would be well, at least if you define never ending religious wars of our history as "well".

I prefer the alternative: science in search of answers annoying the crap out of the "god-did-it" folks who are all too happy to use the results of science (electronics, transportation, healthcare, entertainment, ...).

Other Comments by EvidenceOnly

20. Comment #165957 by Steve Zara on April 22, 2008 at 4:12 pm

Comment #165945 by Styrer-

We all are, I think, similarly fascinated, regardless of our expertise in cosmology and physics.

I was not clear. I meant it was inappropriate to put forward such speculation as any kind of argument in public. Being fascinated is one thing. Feeling you have any kind of authority to question those with decades of experience in a subject is quite another. Someone writing to a newspaper to question Einstein's understanding of gravity would be considered a nutcase, yet for some reason people feel qualified to discuss the origin of the universe, or matters of evolution, or global warming, or stem cell research.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

21. Comment #165960 by atari_age on April 22, 2008 at 4:16 pm

"As a former evolutionist" ?!?

Sorry, only a creationist refers to people who accept the validity of evolution as "evolutionists". She might as well say, "as a former Biologist (as I now renounce all Biology)..."

Other Comments by atari_age

22. Comment #165974 by Styrer- on April 22, 2008 at 4:28 pm

Comment #165957 by Steve Zara on April 22, 2008 at 4:12 pm

I am still not quite sure.

Part of the problem seems to me to be people willing enough to proffer ideas - or 'any kind of argument in public' based on those ideas - which have inevitably been formed precisely because they think themselves excluded from participating in the cosmological and physics-based discourse which could stop their inane rantings.

As such, your elitist injunction that those without sufficient qualification be silent in this matter is a single and real manifestation of a perennial problem in the public education of science.

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

23. Comment #165982 by SPS on April 22, 2008 at 4:34 pm

Dinesh D'Souza misrepresents Dawkins' position on his blog;

http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2008/04/21/how-did-life-begin/

For the faithful the idea of 'no evidence is evidence' is the only evidence they've got...for that which they supposedly require no evidence in the first place.
We don't know 'x', therefore 'y' must be true.
How do they know this? Well, as they often remind us, we are limited in our ability to comprehend, therefore what they have to say about the unknown is the only truth possible. Makes perfect sense, no? No.

Other Comments by SPS

24. Comment #165983 by Steve Zara on April 22, 2008 at 4:34 pm

As such, your elite injunction that those without sufficient qualification be silent in this matter is a single and real manifestation of a perennial problem in the public education of science.

I am afraid I don't care about seeming elitist. There is much debate about the "framing" of science, that it needs to be pitched in the right way so as not to offend or discourage the public. I am on the side of PZ Myers and others who consider this a poor strategy.

Science is hard, and some of it is very tricky to understand. And yet, we hear people with little or no qualifications attempting to influence scientific discussions. This is a problem.

If people feel excluded, the answer is to get educated and to ask questions. Someone untrained would not seriously try and tell a pilot how to fly, or a surgeon how to operate. They feel no injustice about being excluded from those areas, yet somehow everyone is entitled to push their opinions on cosmology and biology.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

25. Comment #165992 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 22, 2008 at 4:41 pm

If people feel excluded, the answer is to get educated and to ask questions. Someone untrained would not seriously try and tell a pilot how to fly, or a surgeon how to operate. They feel no injustice about being excluded from those areas, yet somehow everyone is entitled to push their opinions on cosmology and biology.

Nail. Head.

(Although with poor Joinery skills and no qualifications in said area I feel I must qualify my comment with this disclaimer).

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

26. Comment #165996 by forksmuggler on April 22, 2008 at 4:45 pm

Love the shirt, Steve. And spot on, as always.

Other Comments by forksmuggler

27. Comment #166005 by Lucas on April 22, 2008 at 4:53 pm

Steve, you're taking a hard line, but you're essentially right. Stryer, you're essentially right as well. I think you guys are talking about different kinds of discussions, though, in different contexts.

I'll use myself as an example. Like I said, I'm no scientist, but I read or watch whatever the scientists put into a form my humanities-educated brain can understand. Many of my friends are scientists. I love positing ideas to them based on my lay understanding so that they can explain what's wrong with it. I don't pretend to have a detailed grasp of physics or biology, but I get the basics and have been educated on these subjects both formally and informally.

All of this allows me to make fairly good guesses about stuff like the structure of the cosmos, but I will of course always defer to the experts. I would never dare tell a physicist he was wrong unless I'd worked the problem out for myself using the same science.

So there are different catgories here. Yes, Steve, people with no science knowledge, or even those with some but not a lot like me, should not really be involved in serious discussions about objective reality. But less serious ones, like on this site, sure. We can all speculate, and we are free to ignore the speculations of those who are clearly unknowledgable.

I guess I would also just add that ya ain't gotta be a scientist, but its awful dumb to ignore and refute what they say. I for one am counting on those guys in labs and planetariums to provide me with a cyborg body and faster-than-light spaceship so that I may explore the universe (or multiverse) forever. Keep at it fellas! And ladies! (When I say guys, I mean gals, too.)

Other Comments by Lucas

28. Comment #166009 by Lil_Xunzian on April 22, 2008 at 4:57 pm

Have these people even read (and understood) atheists' arguments? How many times is someone going to say, "well you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God"? And how many time must we pull teapots out of our pockets and say: "teapot!"

Other Comments by Lil_Xunzian

29. Comment #166010 by mmurray on April 22, 2008 at 4:57 pm

Part of the problem seems to me to be people willing enough to proffer ideas - or 'any kind of argument in public' based on those ideas - which have inevitably been formed precisely because they think themselves excluded from participating in the cosmological and physics-based discourse which could stop their inane rantings.

I feel the same about flying 747's. Every time I get on one the secretive elist, cabal of pilots, aided by their stewards, steer me to a seat without controls. Why can't I fly the plane ? It's the same in hospitals -- I'm never allowed to have a go at the scalpel's. It's all a big conspiracy.

Seriously this isn't about elitism. If you don't have the right qualifications for the job you shouldn't do it. So if you want someone to comment when a differentiable manifold admits a spin structure I'm your man but if I'm at the controls when you get on a plane I would get off quickly.

Michael

EDIT: Oh bloody hell Steve has already posted this. Read the thread before posting. Read the thread before posting. Read the thread bef .... Sorry Steve.

Other Comments by mmurray

30. Comment #166016 by AmericanGodless on April 22, 2008 at 5:03 pm

Ken Savage: "the assumption that the universe is rational and logical and not absurd";
James McDermott : "the Big Bang and evolution are the ways God created";
Paul Rosenberger: "God 'is,' meaning he always was and always will be";
William S. LaSor: "Either the universe has always existed, or it was created by someone who has always existed";
Elaine Fleeman: "There is no advantage to non-living material becoming a living cell".

Five responses, all of which (with the possible exception of the last) simply assume the prior existence of an "intelligence" -- not just "complexity," but "intelligence." The only example of intelligence we have that could inspire such a conjecture is that of human beings; so human intelligence either (a) evolved here on earth and is being falsely projected by some onto a "creator god"; or (b) it is a product of a previously existing and inscrutable intelligence (the "creator god") that has implanted a small bit of itself into humans, some of whom are now foolishly trying to understand that tiny chip off the divine block.

What repeatedly strikes me as odd in this conflict of ideas is the lack of attention paid to the radical incompatibility of the two scenarios ("it's the way God did it" just won't work here).

If we are going to impute intelligence to something outside of human beings (or other biological entities), shouldn't we first have a definition of what it is? Science is telling us a lot about human intelligence (the necessary prototype for positing a "divine" intelligence), and the best story so far is that it evolved as an elaboration of brains, which evolved to make it possible for animals to move around in their environment. Is that what the divine intelligence does too? If not, then what does it do? Our biological intelligence is in service to the project of (ultimately) propagating our selfish genes. To what project is the divine intelligence in service? How does its definition differ from that of the intelligence we can really know something about? Is it at all fruitful to compare the two?

The impertinence of science seems to be in trying to understand intelligence (or anything) at all. If intelligence evolved, we have some hope of understanding how it got here and what it does. If it is an implant from a non-material, non-evolving entity, we may as well give up hope of ever understanding it.

But then, that's the major bone of contention, isn't it. What are humans, to try to understand their own material origins and workings? Better to just serve God (whatever that means) and admit that there is "no advantage to non-living material becoming a living cell" (or a living human).

Sorry, folks, but I don't think there is any way of doing science and not appearing to be elitist in the eyes of those who just don't WANT to understand who and what they are.

Other Comments by AmericanGodless

31. Comment #166017 by Hypoluxa on April 22, 2008 at 5:03 pm

The common response to "we don't know yet" is "god-did-it".

The life of a scientist is to discover what we don't yet know and each time we learn something new, we also find new things we don't yet know.

Under the "god-did-it" philosophy, we scientists would have stopped long ago searching for answers:

- Computers and the internet would not exist

- Travel would still be with horses and sailboats

- Diseases would still kill millions/billions of people

- IDiots would not be able to create a movie full of lies in which they expelled any form of intelligence.

- Scientists would no longer say that they don't have an answer yet

- Everyone would be pious, pray and praise their favorite undefinable supernatural creator

- All would be well, at least if you define never ending religious wars of our history as "well".

I prefer the alternative: science in search of answers annoying the crap out of the "god-did-it" folks who are all too happy to use the results of science (electronics, transportation, healthcare, entertainment, ...).

My thoughts exactly! Well said!

Other Comments by Hypoluxa

32. Comment #166018 by Styrer- on April 22, 2008 at 5:04 pm

Comment #165983 by Steve Zara on April 22, 2008 at 4:34 pm

Well argued. But nope.

I am not asking you to 'frame' science a la PZ so as to 'discourage' or 'not to offend'.

But the notion you insist on clinging to is a positive denial to those who do not understand the intricate mechanisms, by which maths, physics, biology etc. earn their findings, to even 'speculate' on the way this world and universe have come about.

This is not the same as one of my students saying to me 'I think the third conditional of modal verbs belongs to an idea harking back to the all but dead English subjunctive'; it is precisely the same as her statement: 'the English language was once the same as Italian, not German'. Teeth and evidence out. And so education begins to take place.

Your stance, Steve, provides not only no answer, but a retardation in the questioner's education, and an unnecessary extension of the distance between the public and its understanding, and fondness, of science.

Unhelpful and unproductive, at best, I suggest. Elitest and disenfranchising at worst.

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

33. Comment #166021 by Steve Zara on April 22, 2008 at 5:05 pm

Comment #166005 by Lucas

Yes, Steve, people with no science knowledge, or even those with some but not a lot like me, should not really be involved in serious discussions about objective reality.

I have not the slightest problem with people getting involved in discussions. What I have a problem with is armchair scientists ranting about global warming "because we can't even predict next week's weather", or saying homophobia is acceptable "because queers aren't natural", or, in this case, saying that "it is obvious that the universe must have either been created or lasted forever".

I apologise if I sound harsh, but I think there is a real problem with uninformed debate when it attempts to set policies. I also have a problem with people demanding that they be spoon-fed science in easily digestable portions, implying that everyone can understand some of the most complex issues.

We are very fortunate to have Richard Dawkins around, as he is one of those very rare writers who can make even complex ideas crystal clear to the average reader, but that is probably not possible in many areas of science.

I am a strong believer in science education. But, the first thing that has to be taught is what science actually is, and how hard and unintuitive much of it is. Almost everyone can understand what science is and how it is done, but not everyone can be a scientist and understand particular areas of scientific knowledge.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

34. Comment #166023 by mordacious1 on April 22, 2008 at 5:07 pm

Yes, we would not want some lowly patent clerk questioning the great Isaac Newton's theory of gravity. Or would we?

Other Comments by mordacious1

35. Comment #166028 by Steve Zara on April 22, 2008 at 5:10 pm

Comment #166023 by mordacious1

Yes, we would not want some lowly patent clerk questioning the great Isaac Newton's theory of gravity. Or would we?

Einstein was not a "lowly" patent clerk. He was thoroughly educated in the required subjects. And, contrary to urban myth, he did not do badly at school.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

36. Comment #166029 by Steve Zara on April 22, 2008 at 5:12 pm

But the notion you insist on clinging to is a positive denial to those who do not understand the intricate mechanisms, by which maths, physics, biology etc. earn their findings, to even 'speculate' on the way this world and universe have come about.

I don't know why you are writing this when I clearly stated this was not what I was saying.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

37. Comment #166034 by LaTomate on April 22, 2008 at 5:14 pm

Steve, you're absolutely right.

I'm no scientist (I'm only a pesky engineer) but am very interested in science and read a lot about it.

Despite that, I know I have a particularly weak understanding of most of science. But then, I suspect most scientists also have a weak understanding of most of science.

So, I tend to defer to the experts, some of whom, like Prof. Dawkins, take the time to explain their fields of expertise in ordinary terms to laypeople like myself. Most of the time I do research for myself when the subject intrigues me, or if there is a controversy, like for evolution.

Never would I take the ridiculous position of challenging the experts in their own field. These ignorant, wicked creationists do it all the time, which in my eyes simply weakens them further.

If they just shut up about it and kept their willing ignorance to themselves, maybe we wouldn't be so riled up against them...

Whoah, the post went from a "you're right" to a rant. Sorry for that :)

Other Comments by LaTomate

38. Comment #166037 by aquilacane on April 22, 2008 at 5:17 pm

"In the end, he, like everyone else, must confront one of two choices: Either the universe has always existed, or it was created by someone who has always existed."

I don't really agree with this statement, but if I were confronted with only two choices, I would probably chose eternal existence for the one that I actually know exists (universe). I don't see a need to create a second level of complexity based on nothing but opinion with an even less likely chance of it ever being explained.

Besides, if god's plan is so grand and beyond human contemplation, everyone (including theologians) should be hell bent on discovering what science can teach us about everything else we can know (that's only if god's will can not be known, of course).

Other Comments by aquilacane

39. Comment #166045 by Styrer- on April 22, 2008 at 5:22 pm

Comment #166029 by Steve Zara on April 22, 2008 at 5:12 pm

But the notion you insist on clinging to is a positive denial to those who do not understand the intricate mechanisms, by which maths, physics, biology etc. earn their findings, to even 'speculate' on the way this world and universe have come about.

I don't know why you are writing this when I clearly stated this was not what I was saying.

This is what you said in post 5 at the start of this thread and it is what you have been defending thoughout.

Your qualifications in post 21 and post 25 gave more emphasis to the 'I don't care seeming elitist' idea for which I have been trying to take you to task.

Is this not correct?

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

40. Comment #166049 by Steve Zara on April 22, 2008 at 5:26 pm

Comment #166045 by Styrer-

Is this not correct?

No:

I was not clear. I meant it was inappropriate to put forward such speculation as any kind of argument in public. Being fascinated is one thing. Feeling you have any kind of authority to question those with decades of experience in a subject is quite another.

I have not the slightest problem with people getting involved in discussions. What I have a problem with is armchair scientists ranting about global warming "because we can't even predict next week's weather", or saying homophobia is acceptable "because queers aren't natural", or, in this case, saying that "it is obvious that the universe must have either been created or lasted forever".

Other Comments by Steve Zara

41. Comment #166050 by AmericanGodless on April 22, 2008 at 5:27 pm

Comment #166037 by aquilacane:

Besides, if god's plan is so grand and beyond human contemplation, everyone (including theologians) should be hell bent on discovering what science can teach us about everything else we can know (that's only if god's will can not be known, of course).

Years ago I used to attend philosophy seminars at my university, just for fun. Some were fun; some were infuriating. Like the one by a tenured philosopher who carefully explained that since materialist biologists thought that their own bodies and their own thought-producing brains worked entirely by material means, they would, if correct, have no way of ensuring that their thoughts were correct. Therefore, they are either right (and humans can't think correctly), or they are wrong (and most humans can think, but biologists can't). In any case, materialist biology can safely be ignored.

Other Comments by AmericanGodless

42. Comment #166060 by Styrer- on April 22, 2008 at 5:35 pm

Comment #166049 by Steve Zara on April 22, 2008 at 5:26 pm

And so the mask of courtesy falls.

Eloquently rebutted.

Steve, remind me to throw blockquotes so courteously at you next time we're having a non-elitest, science-for-all love-in of a discussion.

I suspect I can be even more courteous than you have been here.

Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

43. Comment #166062 by HeathenPhysicist on April 22, 2008 at 5:37 pm

I actually have a cosmology exam tomorrow morning (I'm a 4th year astrophysics student at Edinburgh uni, if you were wondering). What I found most interesting is that the inflationary model for the Big Bang doesn't actually need there to have been a Big Bang. Can't really explain why without the use of lots of maths. Which is the problem with trying to explain physics to non-scientists really.

Other Comments by HeathenPhysicist

44. Comment #166064 by MrPickwick on April 22, 2008 at 5:37 pm

Wow! The LA Times has done a great job collecting ignoramuses (I pick just one stupidity from each one):

- Ken Savage: "If it was all random, that is a faith assumption also." = Evolution is random...
- James McDermott: "Even Jesus didn't worry about proofs for God's existence." = It's true cause the Bible says so...
- Paul Rosenberger: "This notion embodies the ultimate mystery of life, which is beyond our power to penetrate from a purely logical and philosophical point of view, and which we must accept on that basis and learn to live with." = I don't undersstand it, ergo nobody does or ever will.
- William S. LaSor: "Either the universe has always existed, or it was created by someone who has always existed." = The 50/50 thing...
- Elaine Fleeman: "How could natural selection create the first living cell?". My God!

But my favorite is this one from dear Elaine: "As a former evolutionist,..."

Other Comments by MrPickwick

45. Comment #166069 by Pieter on April 22, 2008 at 5:43 pm

Willam LaSor should learn a little about relativity. Time is a function of the universe: ie. spacetime. Time started with the universe, and there was therefore no time before it. If that means the universe has existed forever then so be it.

Other Comments by Pieter

46. Comment #166078 by Double Bass Atheist on April 22, 2008 at 6:02 pm

Comment #165983 by Steve Zara

Brilliant Steve!

Either the universe has always existed, or it was created by someone who has always existed. - William S. LaSor

This is simply a false dichotomy, ignoring the reality of perfectly natural explanations.
Bottom line: Science is working on these questions and one day we may have solid answers (not that it will matter to creationists). In the mean time, rather then make up stories, we can simply say, "I don't know."
After all, why is a made up answer better then no answer at all?!

Other Comments by Double Bass Atheist

47. Comment #166085 by Spinoza on April 22, 2008 at 6:13 pm

There is no advantage to non-living material becoming a living cell

Fail.

Other Comments by Spinoza

48. Comment #166089 by HappyPrimate on April 22, 2008 at 6:15 pm

I wish these responders to Richard's article would check out Stephen Hawkings recent talk on TED.com. He talks about the time before the Big Bang. Amazing stuff from Hawkings as usual.

Other Comments by HappyPrimate

49. Comment #166101 by Styrer- on April 22, 2008 at 6:36 pm

Comment #166078 by Double Bass Atheist on April 22, 2008 at 6:02 pm

Comment #165983 by Steve Zara

If people feel excluded, the answer is to get educated and to ask questions. Someone untrained would not seriously try and tell a pilot how to fly, or a surgeon how to operate. They feel no injustice about being excluded from those areas, yet somehow everyone is entitled to push their opinions on cosmology and biology.

Brilliant Steve!

Before you do yourself an injury in your ecstatic approbation of Steve's unashamed endorsement of elitism in the discussion of things scientific, do recall that the great Richard Feynman offered the same notion of elitism as Steve has done here. One qualification - Feynman said that it is impossible to reach a high level in understanding of what this world and universe are really about without understanding, to a very high degree, mathematics. He went on to clarify that only a mathematical understanding could possibly give an idea of what this universe is really about. He did, though, give a delightfully cheeky nod to the ideas of love and sex.

I wonder what Steve (biologist extraordinaire) would have to say about this apparently elitist concept?

I hope Steve's maths is up to par to agree with a posthumous Feynman to be able to maintain his dubious view of who should and should not indulge in 'speculation about the origin of the universe. '

By Feynman's reckoning, Steve must preclude himself from further scientific debate over the nature and origins of this universe. Perhaps Dawkins too, while we're at it.

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-