951. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78541 by steve99 on October 13, 2007 at 2:19 pm

Question: Apart from a little more education is there any difference between Dianelos and revocort?

Answer: sadly, none at all. Dianelos is a fraud. He is no more here to test his beliefs that revcort was. Further discussion is waste.

952. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78539 by steve99 on October 13, 2007 at 2:16 pm

The way God objectively is, is our model of what is objectively good.

(Apologies to others, but for reasons explained earlier, I am losing my cool about this)

Most religious people's 'model' of what is 'objectively good' includes persecuting people like me. So God is objectively a homophobe. Wonderful.

953. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78527 by steve99 on October 13, 2007 at 1:03 pm

But when confronted with the argument (as well as with statistics) which say the obvious, namely that one cannot condemn an ontology's moral influence based on the worst things a very few of the people who hold this ontology commit, both Harris and Dawkins softened their position

First, Harris and Dawkins have never softened their position.

Secondly, I would like to explain a personal issue that illustrates that what you are talking here is dangerous nonsense. We are not talking about the worst things a very few people commit. We are talking about things the vast majority of religious believe, and widespread harmful prejudices and attitudes actively supported by religion. These beliefs affect me personally. I am gay. The majority of religions condemn me. So how does this affect me? Well, in certain countries I could be prosecuted, with a range unpleasant sentences likely. Even in good old England, mainstream (not 'a very few') religious leaders have been campaigning hard to restrict my rights.

So, Dianelos, I would be grateful if you stopped just making things up. It is all fine and dandy when you are talking about 'ontologies' or metaphysics, but when you claim that religion is harmful only in a few cases, and harm is only done by a few, that is just bullshit.

954. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78523 by steve99 on October 13, 2007 at 12:50 pm

And many people reach beyond "I dunno" and state their belief that one or the other ontology is more reasonable.

But if you personally judge that there is not sufficient evidence to decide one way or the other (i.e. you remain in the "I dunno" state) then you are declaring yourself agnostic in this issue, which is an entirely valid cognitive position.

Hold on there a minute. First you are talking about which point of view is more 'reasonable', and then you are talking about 'sufficient evidence'. There is no reason why the two criteria should be linked in any way. This seems to be a deep misunderstanding.

Something I have pointed out again and again is that there is no reason why a species of slightly more evolved ape's view of what is 'reasonable' should bear any relation to what is 'true' or 'real'.

We know that our view of what is 'reasonable' is a very poor judge of what is true or real. If we stuck to what was 'reasonable', we would never have discovered black holes, we would never have come up with quantum theory or relativity, we would never have explored the far reaches of mathematics and logic.

You seem to be basing your view of reality on what you personally consider 'reasonable', and consider what is seems not to be reasonable is merely an illusion created by God - the master of the Matrix-like reality you wish to believe you live in.

The rest of us are more humble, and base our view of reality on 'evidence'.

There seems to be an unbridgeable gap, and while you persist in this, we could be talking at cross-purposes indefinitely.

Unless you realise that reaching beyond "I dunno" using "What I want to consider reasonable" is deeply flawed, there is little point in continuing.

955. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #78467 by steve99 on October 13, 2007 at 2:38 am

What I really want to understand is why? What was it that you hoped to achieve? What was your aim within this 1700 comment post? These are the questions that I would like you to address.

My view is that when the religious post on forums like this it may be out of a sense of insecurity. They may be starting to have inner doubts - a worrying feeling that the framework of their beliefs is fragile. Testing their ideas in this way may help them convince themselves that they are more solid, especially if they can induce some doubt... get a supposed rationalist to say "I'll have to think about that".

956. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78466 by steve99 on October 13, 2007 at 2:17 am

Well, the founder of the idea that the world is amenable to objective study and indeed the paragon of that idea is Aristotle, who was a theist.
....
So it seems that the idea that naturalistic ontology is behind science's achievements or the idea that the world is amenable to objective study is just another naturalistic myth. What naturalism insists is that the world is only amenable to objective study which is trivially wrong and hence the opposite of a contribution.

It seems to me that you are really trying to see the world in simplistic black-and-white terms, and are setting up false dichotomies. What I claimed was that the idea of naturalism was the driving force behind amazing discoveries. That does not mean that only people who believe in pure naturalism are able to make such discoveries. It just means that the naturalistic aspect of their thinking was the part that helped in this area.

Well, if God exists then it's improbable that God has parted seas and burned bushes don't you think?

Yes, and that is precisely my point. We NOW think that it is improbable. We NOW think that it is improbable he influenced evolution. Do you sense a trend here? I have few doubts that at some point in the future we will have a good explanation for the origin of the universe too..

That's just mythology,

Just like the Trinity, the virgin birth, and the resurrection.

and it's understandable that ancient tribes would mix their ideas about God with lots of mythology as well as with superstition and nationalist nonsense, don't you agree?

Yes. What puzzles me is why you do it (apart from the nationalist bit, of course).

As for God hiding undetectably behind quantum events, I only proposed this idea as a counterexample for those who believe in the objective existence of the universe and insist that Darwinism proves that God has not designed or guided the evolution of the species.

It isn't a valid counterexample. Because if your God hides behind quantum events, then there is nothing to stop an infinite number of other gods hiding behind quantum events, so it is no evidence for your God.

All you have demonstrated is that something that can't be detected can't be detected - you have done nothing more than define the word 'undetectable'. It adds nothing to any argument one way or the other.

Well, again, suppose that God exists. Then God could easily arrange the state of affairs in such a way that His/Her existence were easily detectable by science (i.e. by objective observation). But clearly God has not done that (for some reason or other we can discuss later if you like). So, suppose that God does not want to be detectable by science. Do you see any particular logical or practical problem in God creating our experiential environment exactly as we actually have it while at the same time keeping Him/Herself beyond the reach of science?

Yes, I certainly do. It is that if the only way you can allow for the idea of a God is the special case that He does not want to be discovered by objective observation, this sounds just so suspicious. It is like a joke from Dilbert: "Dinosaurs are still around.. they are just hiding". To be honest, it sounds like a form of self-deception. It is rather sad, and I mean this honestly. When people report to special pleading like this, it is generally a sign that the cause they are defending is lost.

And don't forget that there a lot of extremely important facts that are beyond the reach of science, including the fact that we are all conscious beings, so it's not like the undetectability of God by science is some kind of unique case.

This is no argument at all. Even assuming that A is beyond the reach of science, it is no evidence that B or C or D is.

It is up to you show show that your propositions are true. Attempting to argue that you can't prove they are false is no way to go.

Also, you are merely proclaming that some things are beyond the reach of science. That seems somewhat presumptions. It reminds me of when Auguste Compte proclaimed that we could never know the nature of stars....

957. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78383 by steve99 on October 12, 2007 at 3:47 pm

True. And how much has the idea of naturalism contributed to these achievements? Zero also.

Nonsense. The idea of naturalism is the driving force behind these achievements. It is the idea that the world is amenable to objective study.

I am not sure what you mean by "reducing God to something beyond science".

It is very clear. It is a shy God that abandons the use of parting seas and burning bushes and tries hides undetectably behind quantum events. A God that is always supposed to be out of reach of scientific detection.

What I am saying is quite specific, namely that science cannot falsify God, because God is the very author of what science discovers (namely the order in the physical phenomena we observe),

Yes, it can falsify God. If we find that what science discovers does not need an author - and that is increasingly looking the case - then not only is specifying an author redundant, but you have no basis on which to describe any author. Any particular God you claim was the (redundant) author of the Universe gets diluted out by the infinitude of alternative possible authors, for which there is precisely the same evidence (zero). Therefore your God becomes homepathic... diluted in an infinite sea of equally daft ideas... and we all know that homeopathy is nonsense!

958. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78377 by steve99 on October 12, 2007 at 3:03 pm

Dennett is of late expounding the ontological theory that animals (as well as pre-linguistic children) are not conscious beings

Knowing your reputation for (in)accuracy, I checked this out. As usual, you have it wrong. What Dennett claims is that they aren't fully conscious of 'self'. It is the issue of a sense of selfhood that Dennett is talking about. He is not trying to claim (as you seem to be implying he is) that animals and pre-liguistic children are merely automatons. As usual the 'aren't atheists nasty' spin as been put on things.

959. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78363 by steve99 on October 12, 2007 at 2:04 pm

Sorry Steve,

No need to apologise. I did not pick up the sense of your post - my fault.

960. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78356 by steve99 on October 12, 2007 at 1:40 pm

So, have I got you right Steve99?
You are saying there are no absolute morals?

Yes.

All we ever do is what we think is right?

What we and others think is right, yes.

How does one come to terms with that?

How do we do what is 'right'? First, we have a feeling about it - our conscience. That is a how evolution has worked on us - to provide an inner feeling about what is 'right' and 'wrong'. However, we also have our intellect, which can, to some extent, override such feelings. This gives us an important flexibility. For example, it is common to have a fear of difference, and for some people this can lead to a tendency towards racism. A few generations ago, in Western society, racism was far more acceptable. However we know now that our sense of difference is mistaken, and there differences between supposed 'races' of people are significant. The Zeitgeist has changed, and we now realise that inner feelings of dislike and distrust based on race are wrong. This combination of feeling and intellect is what makes us human - we can moderate instinct with rationality.

The true danger of religion is it breaks this process of regulating senses of right and wrong. Groups of people make up Gods and Magic Books that match their inner feelings. What then happens is other people use these Magic Books to avoid questioning their feelings with intellect, and so religious groups on the whole tend to be a drag on moral progress.

There are many, many things we accept without having to have 'absolutes' for them. For example, we love people. Does this mean there has to be an 'absolute' standard of love, without which all love is meaningless? No, of course not.

Not having moral absolutes does not mean there is no morality. It just mean that things aren't as simple as many would like them to be.

961. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78335 by steve99 on October 12, 2007 at 12:52 pm

My argument here is that not even harebrained Biblical fundamentalism is as deficient as naturalism in that particular sense. I am afraid naturalists are accustomed to only notice the mote in other peoples' eyes and not the beam in theirs ;-)

Naturalist morality: I shall use my conscience, reason, and discussions with others to decide what is right and wrong.

Theist morality: I shall absolve myself from personal responsibility to decide what is right and wrong, and under the guise of trying to second-guess what some Big Magic Man In Sky wants me to do (because Big Magic Man In Sky is always right(*)) go look up what feels right to me in the Magic Man's Magic Book.

Talk about motes and beams....

[* Just because he is, OK? ]

962. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78311 by steve99 on October 12, 2007 at 12:03 pm

Maybe you are unaware of how often science has falsified older versions of naturalism too, from the belief that space is absolute, to the belief that physical phenomena are deterministic, to the belief that space and time are independent, to the belief that physical reality is local.

But isn't that simply wonderful? I think these falsifications count amongst the highest achievements of mankind. They show that humans can discover so much - that they can find out things that may be beyond the capability of their minds to deal with. We should be so proud of what our minds can achieve. And how much has the idea of theism contributed to these achievements? Zero.

And, as we have achieved so much, theist explanations have melted away until we are left with nothing more than word games. The problem that I have with this (and I believe Dawkins probably does too) is that this 'other versions of theism are naive' approach is deeply dishonest. Theism was supposed to be the true explanation for things; for the formation of the heavens, for the creatures of land, sea and air. To reduce God to something 'beyond science' is nothing less that cowardice from people afraid to deal with the idea of his absence, and its implications.

Theism is nothing more than a historical remnant, a story from the childhood of mankind that some won't grow out of.

963. A Revelation

Comment #78277 by steve99 on October 12, 2007 at 10:51 am

To anyone from the UK, 'Professor' holds significant meaning.

In the UK, 'Professor' is more like a job title than an academic qualitification, where as 'Doctor' is purely academic. It is possible to retire from a professorship, but 'Doctor' is life-long. I don't think addressing Dawkins as 'Doctor' is in any way impolite, but I guess what matters is how he feels.

964. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #78272 by steve99 on October 12, 2007 at 10:35 am

Because I cannot even conceive a way to explain the very fact of consciousness naturalistically,

Odd.... I can't conceive a way of explaining the very fact of consciousness supernaturally either.

I guess that means we just have to be honest and say "we don't know", eh?

965. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78246 by steve99 on October 12, 2007 at 8:54 am

Clearly adding just one more universe to one's model of reality adds many more facts to be explained and requires many more parameters to describe than just having reality consisting of only one universe.

No, it doesn't. Having to explain one special case requires more parameters than to assume all occurrences of a general case. You need some sort of filter to select the special case.

I cannot conceive how adding one universe to reality increases complexity but adding 10^100 universes decreases complexity – but no matter.

It does matter. What you have to realise is that what you can or can't conceive is no measure of truth or falseness. There are plenty of truths that we know about that we find it very hard to conceive of. Relativity is a good example.

It seems to be to be hugely arrogant to expect reality to fit into any of our minds.

First of all there obviously is no logical path from religion to wicked behavior in general. And even in the case of the most literal fundamentalism which does offer a logical path to wicked behavior

I have given a logical path from religion to wicket behaviour in my previous post. I suggest you re-read it. What I have was indeed a general case - most religions encourage homophobia and at least some oppression of women.

(For example in the case of suicide bombings some expert fundamentalists argue that's not what scripture teaches).

And other expert fundamentalists argue that it IS what scripture teaches. This is the problem - there is no way to independently judge what the true interpretation is. This is why, as Dr Benway so eloquently argues, we have to negotiate morality. Individual judgment can be very dangerous.

966. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #78190 by steve99 on October 12, 2007 at 5:04 am

How is that not equally true of you and your belief structure? What am I missing?

Because we are prepared to say how our belief structure could be shown to be false. You seem not to be.

967. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78186 by steve99 on October 12, 2007 at 4:45 am

Well, we have in the past only observed a subset of one universe, are still observing a subset of one universe, and will continue to observe a subset of one universe, so we shall never "see more of the set" – so where's the analogy? I mean in one case we have a large and increasing number of particles and explain them by postulating the existence of a small number of quarks; in the other case we have and always will have one universe and explain it by postulating a huge and increasing number of parallel universes – and that's analogous?

Just re-read what I said. I am not saying that there IS a multiverse, just that it is simpler than a Universe. You can criticise analogies all you like, but that does not make the point any less valid.

Yet again - simplicity in this case is a matter of how many parameters you need to describe the origin of something. Multiverses have fewer parameters than Universes - there is less to explain. If you want to invoke a creator, there is less for Him to do if he was making a Multiverse.

I see much smoke here but not any kind of answer to the question I asked.

You didn't ask a question. You made a statement, which was that you would expect people with belief in the transcendental to have a better sense of morals.

The question again is this: What logical path would keep somebody who really believes that reality is at bottom like Dawkins's kind of naturalism has it (see his quote in post 266) from violating any of the Zeitgeist's moral precepts if doing so was to their advantage?

Oh for goodness sake. How many times do we need to go over this? Dianelos - don't you have a conscience? Don't you 'feel bad' if you do wrong? Why do you need a 'logical path'? The point that Dawkins is making is not that there is a logical path from atheism to morality. It is that there is a logical path from religion to wickedness.

That logical path is very clear:

1. I believe something is wrong, but perhaps feel a bit guilty about it (like homophobia)
2. I can go to the Bible and find verses that support my belief.
3. Hey Presto! I no longer need feel guilty about my belief. I can bypass the warning signals of my conscience.

People use religion as props for their prejudices. They seem to think that the authority for their prejudices is external, but in reality it is their own cherry-picking.

968. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78127 by steve99 on October 12, 2007 at 1:01 am

So to postulate that reality consists of 10^100+ different universes of which one is ours is actually less complex than to postulate that reality consists of just one universe, namely ours. Amazing.

Yes, it is. It is also true.

Well, I completely fail to see the analogy.

Why does that not surprise me?

The example you give is appropriate: In the 60s we were confronted with a large number of elementary particles with different properties and we explained that complexity by postulating the existence of a much smaller number of even more fundamental particles, the quarks. But the situation at hand is the opposite of that: Here we are confronted with just one physical universe and its properties (including the values of the fundamental constants) and naturalists try to explain that by postulating the existence of a gargantuan number of parallel universes.

You misinterpret what I wrote.

At one point in the 60s we saw a subset of all possible particles (just as now we see a subset of the multiverse). As we saw more of the set, we saw the pattern and realised it was actually very simple.

Simplicity in this area is how many parameters you need to describe the situation. You need far fewer parameters to describe a multiverse than to describe a Universe. Indeed, for some multiverse theories, you need no parameters at all - things are as simple as they can possibly be.

Yes, but that's a red herring Steve. As I made clear in my post I am speaking of "the case of the 'scientific' kind of atheism that Dawkins expounds".

It is not a red herring, as that kind of atheism is about the existence or otherwise of a Creator. That is irrelevant to the issue or otherwise of a supernatural world.

And Dawkins is not a Buddhist and does not believe in the supernatural or in re-incarnation, and the same goes for the vast majority of atheists in the West. I don't see any problem with Buddhist ethics precisely because Buddhists believe that reality is transcendental.

You might as well say you have no problem with Buddhist ethics precisely because their monks wear orange. Unless you can specify a mechanism by which the existence of transcendental realist someone makes ethics absolute, this is an irrelevant factor. As philosophers since Plato have realised, there is no such mechanism. You are falsely assuming a connection between the existence and absense of objective ethics and the existence and absence of the transcendental.

The more convinced that atheism correctly describes reality and the more logical a person is the more probably this person is apt to flaunt the Zeitgeist's moral precepts when it suits them.

No, quite the reverse. The more convinced that theism correctly describes reality and the more easily this person is to be led by personal prejudices backed up by magic books and preachers. Non-theism gives someone the freedom to be persuaded by rational discussion with others. Just check out the differing degrees of morality in countries with different degrees of believe in God. The evidence is against you.

969. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #78070 by steve99 on October 11, 2007 at 6:00 pm

I suppose God could cut out the middle man (us) but that is not how He chooses to work. That is a pretty poor explanation, but that's the best I understand it at this moment.

Why not just admit that this is a problem, and you don't understand it at the moment? Let me further illustrate the problem.

You use phrases like 'free to act', but that makes no sense if there is an omniscient God. With true omniscience, free will is lost - there can be no 'inspiring' someone to do something, as that suggests there was the possibility of them doing something else. There is no mercy - just inevitability. There is no acting 'within a framework' - as there is no framework; just predestination.

970. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #78050 by steve99 on October 11, 2007 at 3:53 pm

No doubt, someone here will confidently tell me just how easily it could all have come about. No doubt I'll be mocked for my personal failure of imagination.

I would not mock you for failure of the imagination. We humble humans have enough trouble trying to imagine a thousand years, let alone 10,000 or 100,000 years. But that period is nothing much to evolution. We are talking about periods thousands of times longer. It has the same sort of effect on the human mind as astronomical distances. Imagine the Earth is the size of a grape. The moon would be about a foot away, and the sun would be 150 metres away and about 1.5 metres in diameter. This seems pretty reasonable. However, the nearest star would be over 40,000 km away! I am sure you accept this vastness of space, and realise it is mind-stretching. But then, why do you find it so hard to accept a similar vastness of time?

People have, for millenia, dealt with things on a human scale. It takes quite a mental effort to consider things that are orders of magnitude away from that. Richard Dawkins dealt with this matter in this talk:
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/98" target="_blank" >http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/98

(TED is a great site - I really recommend it).

But I need rather more than that to convince me.

Ah, but that is the real question - what would convince you?

971. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78040 by steve99 on October 11, 2007 at 3:13 pm

Why not? Because (as he says at about minute 16 of the second file) you can't use as the ultimate explanation something that is even more complex than what it explains, and a creator God, he believes, would be more complex than the universe. But isn't the multiverse humungously more complex than the fundamental constants of our universe it explains?

(Sorry, could not resist. This is a very common misunderstanding, and perhaps an explanation could go into some kind of repository of rebuttals that has been suggested elsewhere).

Multiverses are simpler than Universes. This is easily understood. It is an argument from symmetry. Let me repeat an earler explanation.

Suppose you found one dice sitting on the ground and it showed a 6. If you had never come across dice before, you might assume something special about the dice. You may assume that the opposite side is heavier, perhaps, so it is facing the ground. It looks like 6 is somehow special. However, later you happen to see more dice, all with different numbers. You now realise the truth - dices are simple and symmetrical. All you saw was one view of a larger set. It is often the case in science that an increased number of things is the clue to an underlying simpler situation. A good example of this is in particle physics, where at one point in the 60s there seemed to be a huge 'zoo' of all kinds of particles, with little relationship. However, as even more were found, this revealed a simple pattern - the particles were made of just a few quarks with simple properties.

It is far simpler situation to have a range of universes each with a randomly chosen set of constants than to have one universe where some explanation of the unique value of those constants may have to be discovered.

(And remember that we get the complexity within each of the universes for free - all you need is distributed matter and a long-range attractive force, and you get order and structure from randomness)

But atheism is not only characterized by non-belief in Zeus or in the Biblical God but in all transcendence

No. I have explained this to you many times. All atheism says is 'there are no God or Gods'. It is perfectly within the bounds of atheism to believe in the supernatural. Indeed, many Buddhists are atheist, yet believe in re-incarnation and karma.

You need to make sure you use the real definition of words, and not, like Humpty Dumpty, claim that a word 'means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'

972. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #78036 by steve99 on October 11, 2007 at 2:51 pm

Ya know, DG, with all the hundreds of tortured explanations you've had to make defending your beliefs in these blogs, in the name of intellectual honesty, have you ever once, even for a second, asked yourself if your single, unprovable, basic premise could be wrong?

Ah, but it doesn't matter, does it? Because as soon as you start to question if things are 'right' or 'wrong', things will switch to the question of them being 'useful' or 'consistent' or whatever - what is true or false 'does not matter'. Then, when you are looking away, things will move back again.

973. Fiction or prediction?

Comment #78031 by steve99 on October 11, 2007 at 2:43 pm

He's just reminded me of the Spike Milligan verse I always think of when looking upwards (do indulge me):

Twinkle, twinkle, little star
I've just found out what you are
A lump of rusting rocket-case
A rubbish-tip in outer space

Which reminds me of the wonderful lyrics of 'New England' by Billy Brag:

I saw two shooting stars last night
I wished on them but they were only satellites
Is it wrong to wish on space hardware
I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care

974. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #77999 by steve99 on October 11, 2007 at 12:31 pm

Certainly the recent flurry of responses to my comment aren't doing that, they are instead reinforcing my point...

Well, sooner or later, a precise discussion of the literary evidence of shape and size and aerodynamics of fairy wings gets to seem rather pointless.

I would be interested if you could respond to the second part of my post....

975. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #77980 by steve99 on October 11, 2007 at 12:00 pm

In fact, your responses have once more revealed the very clear tendency, in atheistic responses to the sort of arguments I am presenting, to quickly leave aside the basic issue and logic, and instead pick up on some small individual element or part of the argument, and focus on that. So far as I can see, people are seeking to take attention away from the primary points I make, because they don't want to tackle them head-on.

This form of attack of an argument is perfectly respectable. For example, if someone comes up with a new scientific theory or mathematical proposition, it is usual to go through the details to find flaws. This is because propositions like this generally rely on the fine details being true (this is particularly the case with maths).

The Devil (as they say) is in the detail...

Face it guys. The more you mock and riducule me for not accepting the (so far as you are concerned) blindingly obvious

What I don't understand is why any believer would have the attitude that God's message began and ended with a single book. What makes biology, cosmology, geology, chemistry, physics and the other sciences any less of a way to find out about creation than reading one book?

This reminds me of a story that was told in the TV series The West Wing. It goes something like this:

"A man was stuck in a flood. As the waters rose, he prayed to God to tell him what to do. People came by in a boat, and asked if he wanted help. The man said no, as he was waiting for God's message. The waters rose. The man was on the roof of his house. A helicopter flew over and offered to lift the man away. He said no, as he was waiting for God's message. The man drowned. In Heaven, he met God. 'Why didn't you tell me what to do?' he asked. God replied: 'I did - I sent the boat, I sent the helicopter'"

I can imagine a similar dialogue between a Creationist and God:

Creationist: "What did you mean, evolution is true - why didn't you tell me?"

God: "I did tell you. I showed you fossils, geology, radiocarbon dating. I even showed you species forming and changing within human history - why did you ignore this?"

976. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #77973 by steve99 on October 11, 2007 at 11:19 am

No she doesn't, your contributions outweigh the efforts of anyone else on this thread. You have held on to DG, despite his Protean twists and turns.

You see, I am English, and we don't take praise well. It causes some of us to blush and mumble in a Hugh Grant-ish kind of way.

As you say in an earlier comment, he is dangerous because he is plausible.

Fortunately, I think less so recently, as his arguments seem to be reducing to non-sequiturs and plain declarations of naturalism to be false. The 'complexity' argument showed a simple misunderstanding of a common scientific term, which was probably clear to any educated reader. Perhaps there is indeed less work to be done, with just the occasional reminder that DG isn't even a respectable idealist theist - he believes in Christian doctrine.

977. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #77966 by steve99 on October 11, 2007 at 10:36 am

I just wanted to say that on this thread, I think you have done it.

You flatter me...

The problem with many discussions is that some of the debaters on the theist side have a tendency to 'reset' after their views have been challenged, and you find them putting the same old arguments some time later, or on a different thread.

I am wondering if it might be useful to have on this site somewhere some standard rebuttals which can be referred to, rather than having to look through thousands of posts in a number of threads to refer to an argument that has been had before.

I have no idea how it work work, but I believe it would be so useful to have, for example, some of epeeist's logic, and Benway's points about naturalism and so on...

978. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #77949 by steve99 on October 11, 2007 at 8:33 am

At least for me, your concerns are unfounded. There is much here that takes some reading, but that just makes me want to go and learn more so that I can reject bad reasoning properly. I'm not about to switch sides under the weight of confusion.

I guess what concerns me is not people switching sides, but possibly some readers thinking that some matters are the subject of controversy when they really aren't, as a result of a drip-feed of FUD from people like Dianelos. Some recent examples were claims from him that physicists now realise that they aren't studying reality, or that science is only about models, or that Dawkins is misusing the term 'complexity'. It is this continual attempt to distort reality that gets to me. Still... I have other things to do. I'll let others deal with DG for a while.

979. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #77937 by steve99 on October 11, 2007 at 7:05 am

Because in the face of all the evidence that atheistic evolutionists throw at me day by day, and especially on this web site, I continue to stick with my (to you) peculiar beliefs. I believe that in fact this world was created, complete with complex lifeforms, by God, not over billions of years but in six days, and that only a few thousand years ago.

I think that is shameful and sad. It is one thing to believe that if you are ignorant of the scientific evidence, but to persist such beliefs when the scientific evidence has been shown and explained to you is a clear illustration of how poisonous to reason the religion virus is.

980. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #77815 by steve99 on October 10, 2007 at 5:07 pm

BAEOZ: Having been on internet discussion groups since they started, I think you may be wrong in this case. Dianelos posts pseudo-science that is potentially very convincing - it really is at least 99% correct. Furthermore, he is posting them on different threads. Perhaps if we could set up some kind of FAQ to counter his claims, I would be satisfied. But he is no troll, publishing trivial nonsense. If I am really wasting space here, I will shut up, and cease posting on this thread, but my impression is that many who have no idea what Dianelos is talking about don't realise that he could cause a lot of harm if not dealt with through reason. But that is just my view.

However, perhaps not responding to him for a while may have some effect.... I am prepared to give it a try. The problem is seeing such scientific gibberish in Dianelos' comments is positively painful..

981. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #77809 by steve99 on October 10, 2007 at 4:43 pm

I think you have your answer in the two previous posts. Ignore him. He'll go away.

No, he doesn't. He comes onto other threads, and posts more pseudo-science. If you don't like what he posts, then complain, mark him troll, or help show he is wrong. Insulting those who are trying to contradict him in rational debate is no way to proceed.

982. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #77806 by steve99 on October 10, 2007 at 4:17 pm

steve99, honestly, if you want to stop now, the previous posts are all still there and anyone can go back over them and read them as I have and understand that his claims only make sense to him and his idol plantinga.

What does troubles me is DG's pseudo-science. Just to give an example, he goes on and on about complexity, but it was not the complexity Dawkins mentions. Dianelos is attempting to pervert rationality and science. He gives explanations for his views which seem logical and rational, but it really does take degree-level understanding to realise that what DG discusses is actually total nonsense.

The problem is that he presents this level of nonsense in so many areas - philosophy, logic, physics, mathematics... in all these disciplines Dianelos has learned enough to confuse the casual reader.

I have dealt with Dianelos enough to think that he is either a seriously self-deluded nutcase, or a deliberate fraud. But either way, I think he is a problem, as he can be convincing. He can damage debates and discussions.

So how do we deal with this?

(Personally, I think Dianelos is in the 'self-deluted nutcase' category. This is clear in the effort he has recently put into to try and smear Dawkins, rather than support his own views, which have been repeatedly shown to be both inconsistent philosophy and ignorant science)

The fact that these inane exchanges continue only means that there are verbal w***ers on both sides of the debate.

How wonderfully relativist. Someone is trying to post theist nonsense under the cover of pseudo-science, and you insult those who work hard to try and counter this nonsense?

983. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #77539 by steve99 on October 9, 2007 at 3:10 pm

Gone is the belligerence and aggression that seems so dangerous in his books and talks.

belligerence? aggression? I must have been reading different books, watching different talks. I think the issue is that Dawkins has a certain directness. As we are not used to hearing such directness about religion, his tone can seem a lot more strident than it really is. If you want to hear belligerence and agression, check out Hitchens.

984. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #77519 by steve99 on October 9, 2007 at 1:35 pm

Sorry. Bit of Schadenfreude slipping in there. But go on, be honest - you feel it too, don't you?

Yes, I do.

985. In honour of Dan Dennett

Comment #77514 by steve99 on October 9, 2007 at 1:20 pm

So either he is trying to pull me to the dark side or Dawkins is really defending an "ultradarwinist" position that hardly any evolutionary biologist shares.

He is trying to pull you to the dark side :)

Dawkins views are widely held. He has published significant papers in some of the most repected journals in the world, including Nature. That would not be the case if his peers did not consider his views useful and mainstream.

986. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #77505 by steve99 on October 9, 2007 at 12:57 pm

Arguably there are non-theistic religions such as Buddhism, even though it's not clear to me how a Buddhist would answer the question of whether the universe is designed or not.

Well, firstly, most Buddhists assume that the Universe always was, so attempt to bypass the question like that.

Of course, the true Buddhish response is... "it doesn't matter"... does happiness and peace of mind depend knowledge of this? If not.. no need to worry about it.

987. If Muslim doctors are intolerant, let them go

Comment #77489 by steve99 on October 9, 2007 at 12:18 pm

Does a real estate agent who refuses to sell houses to gay couples on religious grounds have a right to a job with a real estate company?

Fortunately in Britain we now have laws against such discrimination.

988. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #77460 by steve99 on October 9, 2007 at 11:15 am

No, that's not what we are talking about. We are discussing Dawkins's TGD where he explicitly uses the concept of "organized complexity". Which is the same expression he consistently uses in several articles including the expression he several times uses in his recent debate with John Lennox. Dawkins is a scientist and the least one would expect is that he means "organized complexity" when he speaks of "organized complexity".

Look... Dawkins is NOT talking about what you are trying to claim he is talking about, which is Kolmogorov complexity. You are trying to play a word game where you can get away with an improbable God. It won't work.

On the positive side thinking about TGD maybe explains why so many intelligent and educated people do not believe in God: philosophy and specifically ontology is not something people study at school and popular culture is filled to the brim with fallacious naturalistic thinking (and unfortunately fallacious theistic thinking too).

No, it is because they are intelligent enough to not believe things without evidence. And as just about everything that used to be explained by God no longer requires him, then many intelligent and educated people realise that He has no explanatory power.

Just stop going on about how you think Dawkins is wrong, and start going on about why you are right, please. It is about time. There is too much talk here about why God can't be definitely proved not to exist, but you claim he DOES. Show us!

Not really. To control quantum events even below statistical relevance gives one the effective power to guide natural evolution.

No. You are not understanding. Controlling quantum events below statistical relevance is indistinguishable from not controlling them. That is what statistical relevance means.

989. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #77442 by steve99 on October 9, 2007 at 10:21 am

If YEC is a hypothesis then then there are consequences

To save you from having to go through a long series of posts, I believe what Dianelos is means by 'YEC' is that God could have created the entire Universe 6000 years ago as if it had already existed for 14 billion years.

990. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #77405 by steve99 on October 9, 2007 at 8:04 am

I don't understand why you're having so much difficulty with a simple concept. Compare a die with 6 sides to a coin. For one toss, heads will come up 50% of the time. Four will come up on the die 17% of the time. Four-up is more complex than heads-up.

I am not sure it is quite that simple. Frequency of occurrence is not always a good guide to complexity. In systems far from equilibrium, complexity can be common. Just consider convection cells in a heated liquid. Dianelos has tried to relate frequency of occurrence with complexity.... as in "there are fewer gold statues than people, so gold statues are more complex".

991. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #77365 by steve99 on October 9, 2007 at 6:14 am

Ah, so that's how it is. Organized complexity is improbable by definition, and organized complexity is simply the measure of how improbable the state of system is.

So let me suggest the "Ultra Super Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit", that shows that God almost certainly exists: Theistic nature IS probable, by definition. And, before you ask, "theistic nature" is the measure of how probable the state of a being is. Therefore, as God has maximal theistic nature, God is also maximally probable ;-)

I think this is a clear illustration of what we call 'reaching'. Why don't you actually look up the meaning of 'physical complexity'? (Which is what we are talking about). It is no siller to say that physical complexity is a measure of probability than to say that heat is a measure of the movement of particles.

Do you know of any serious books where naturalist professors of philosophy try to respond to the evidence that believers in the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster who has designed the species have put forward? If not then your analogy does not work very well. The very fact that serious naturalists do not write serious books trying to counter the evidence for the FSM evidence that the FSM is not comparable to God.

It was not an analogy. It was a direct explanation of the absurdity of your statement: YOU were the one who claimed that ALL possible explanations should be considered.

If you are going to insist that people discuss the possibility of YOUR God, because ALL explanations have to be considered, you are going to have to join the queue... the Poseidon believers have been waiting far longer.

Or God could massively interfere with quantum events, even quantum events under direct observation in a scientific experiment (God would only have to keep the interference bellow statistical relevance).

No, as below statistical relevance is effectively the same as 'not there'. That is what 'statistical relevance' means.

And, honestly, come off it. Why is God being so shy? Perhaps he is the instantiation of Perfect Shyness?

992. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #77350 by steve99 on October 9, 2007 at 5:40 am

Can you describe a model of physical objective reality that coherently accounts for Bell's test results? Because unless there is such a description it is not reasonable to believe in a naturalistic description of reality.

No, Dianelos. This does not follow.

Just as 'science doesn't know everything' does not imply 'there is a God', so 'we have not yet got a full description of objective physical reality' does not imply 'there is no objective physical reality'.

What you are doing here is confusing "we don't understand X" with "X does not exist".

993. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #77346 by steve99 on October 9, 2007 at 5:26 am

It seems the naturalistic syllogism goes like this:

1. Science has not detected God's interference with the natural order. (premise)
2. Anything that science has not detected has not happened. (premise)
3. Therefore God has not interfered with the natural order. (from 1 and 2)

and further:

4. Anything that God has not done God cannot do. (premise)
5. Therefore God cannot interfere with the natural order. (from 3 and 4)

Premises #2 and #4 are of course completely irrational. See how obviously fallacious popular naturalism becomes when one tries a little analytic philosophy?

All that has happened here is that you have made stuff up, commented on it, and then used it as an argument about something else!

In order to falsify 'popular naturalism', you have to get right what it claims. I don't claim to be an expert in terms of such definitions, but your premises bear no relation to anything I would recognise.

Let's go over your argument:

1. Science has not detected God's interference with the natural order. (premise)

Ok, this is fine.

2. Anything that science has not detected has not happened. (premise)

Come off it. You know that no-one claims this. We can confidently predict that there are all kinds of things we have not detected yet - we don't claim they don't exist until we have detected them.

3. Therefore God has not interfered with the natural order. (from 1 and 2)

We certainly don't draw this conclusion from 1 and 2, as 2 is nonsense and no-one claims it.

4. Anything that God has not done God cannot do. (premise)

Eh? Where have you got this from? I give up here.

OK, my turn.

It seems to me you are trying to reason like this:

1. Science hasn't discovered everything yet, and can't explain everything (premise)
2. Therefore, God.

You are basically claiming that absence of evidence is evidence for existence.

Sorry, but that just won't do. We naturalists we want is evidence, plain and simple.

You can argue in philosophical circles, misinterpret complexity and quote what you think about quantum physics forever, but that is not evidence.

994. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #77332 by steve99 on October 9, 2007 at 4:38 am

Dawkins in TGD claims that organized complexity is improbable, and you define "organized complexity" as "measure of the probability of the state vector of the particles constituting the object" (your post 464). And why is the state vector of a living body more improbable than a living body? Because a living body is more organized you now respond.
....
The first was that a system has organized complexity when it is in fact more improbable to be found in the universe.

How someone can read plain English and misunderstand so much!

Dawkins is not 'claiming that organised complexity is improbable'. Organised complexity IS improbable, in the same way that heat is the fast movement of molecules. That is THE DEFINITION. No-one has to claim anything. And, I did not make the second definition. I simply gave as an example of something that did not have complexity something that was also common. I explained that later.

There is nothing to stop organised complexity being common. The issue is how that organised complexity arose.

Dawkins's offhand claim that "a physical system with more organized complexity is more improbable" sounds intuitively reasonable.

It is not an offhand claim. It is by definition.

That's remarkable; I have just given you several concrete examples of how God could interfere with the natural order without science noticing (post 470 above). It seems you are so certain of your beliefs that you don't actually see the obvious counterexamples even if one gives them to you on a plate.

No, you haven't given any concrete example of God interfering with the natural order. You have said that God could interfere with our subjective experience. However, that would, according to your definition, be interfering with the supernatural order.

Not really Steve. I have asked you about which qualified reviewers in favor of TGD you knew of and you only came up with Dennett

And Weinberg. And Pinker.

Hey! That makes 3 - so now we are even! And I'll bet Pinker has more hair than all your supporters combined...

No I wouldn't. If God had created the physical universe including Earth and all species in it only 6000 years ago (as young Earth creationists claim) how exactly would this be noticeable by science?

But this is no argument for God at all. The Universe appearing spontaneously by itself 6000 years ago is indistinguishable from the universe being created by God 6000 years ago.

It's not the subjective experiences that correlate with brain states, but peoples' declarations of having subjective experiences that do.

No. We can examine our own brain states, and correlate our own subjective experiences with them. There is no need to rely on other's declarations.

I am not claiming that God interacts with nature in ways that are not detectable by science;

Good. We are slowly making progress.

If God chose to so violate the natural order a naturalist could still reasonably claim that naturalistic explanations are more probable and therefore such would still not count as evidence for God.

Not really. The issue here is about an all-powerful creator. God could easily interfere with the natural order so that even the most rational person would think 'something funny is going on here'.

But perhaps when Dawkins claims that the God hypothesis is a scientific hypothesis he is only using a hyperbole in order to impress his readers, and what he in fact means is something else: Perhaps he means that science has given us enough grounds to philosophically judge that the hypothesis that the species are the result of a blind evolutionary process is a better explanation than the hypothesis that they were designed by God. If that's his meaning then he once again is committing an epistemological error. For an evidential argument to work (i.e. for arguing that A is a better explanation than B) one must take into account all possible evidence in favor of A or of B and weight them all before deciding whether A or B is the better explanation. In other words it's not sufficient to find one reason why A works better than B as an explanation, because there may be many other reasons why B works better than A as an explanation.

You really are tying yourself into absurd knots here. This is all obvious nonsense. Following your reasoning, we would have to have a detailed discussion about how Flying Spaghetti Monster fiddled with life to get the appearance of evolution, or how fairies intelligently designed things. After all, that is the meaning of 'all possible evidence'.

I can, according to your argument, accuse you of committing an epistemological error, as you don't consider the possibility that instead of a single loving God, reality is actually run by a committee of elves.

Of course, to find out which reasons theists have for believing that the God hypothesis is a better explanation one has to first study serious books on theology. Which of course Dawkins did not deem essential to do before writing a book on theology himself.

Nonsense. You will, I am sure, claim that the Universe is not run by elves. But do you do require detailed research into serious books on elveology before claiming that?

Dianelos - God is basically a big Elf. Really.

995. We Few, We Happy Few, We Band of Brothers

Comment #77090 by steve99 on October 8, 2007 at 12:21 pm

I think his exasperation hit boiling point:-). But I don't like talking for someone else.

I know. I understand his kind of reaction. I am gay. I know about being oppressed, and campaigning against oppresssion. The problem is that his attitude is neither a mature attitude, or a useful approach. It can lead to a 'anyone who is not totally with is is against us', view, which is what I sensed from Yorker. My disagreements with him were minor; nothing more than a matter of degree, yet I got ranting abuse even for this disagreement. I tried again and again to engage him in reasonable discussion, and yet each time I got abuse. I am afraid I ended up with a low opinion of him.

996. In honour of Dan Dennett

Comment #77050 by steve99 on October 8, 2007 at 9:55 am

That wasn't really my point. He has been dead now for 5 years so anything he has written is clearly out of date in terms of what is current thinking. I am not personally that interested in arguments about the exact workings of evolutionary theory. But if people don't read Gould because of these controversies they are missing some wonderful science writing. I don't think he is wrong about: (a) the contingent nature of history, (b) the depth of geological time, (c) the myriad of examples of bad design that support evolution by natural selection, (d) the fact that creationism is a load of unscientific rubbish or (e) the fact that evolutionary theory does not support racism. If you want a book on science and racism and the `Bell Curve' farce his Mismeasure of Man is brilliant.

I agree. He was a fine writer, and I take your point about what Maynard Smith said about this. However, Gould's ideas are not just out of date - many of them were just plain wrong and misleading at the time he proposed them. The problem is that the superb writing can lure people into a belief that Gould was a superb biologist.

997. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #77044 by steve99 on October 8, 2007 at 9:31 am

In sum, "theism" vs "naturalism" is a misdirection.

It's ALL a misdirection. What this is really all about is a fear of death combined with a wish to believe in biblical fairy stories (the Trinity, the Resurrection). All this interest in philosophy and misunderstanding of physics, math, and just about everything else is a huge 'force field' protecting that absurd core.

998. Norway flourishes as secular nation

Comment #77014 by steve99 on October 8, 2007 at 7:20 am

So who created all those fjords ;-)

Slartibartfast

999. We Few, We Happy Few, We Band of Brothers

Comment #77012 by steve99 on October 8, 2007 at 7:03 am

I have realised that I am getting pissed off with the cappucino set. No wonder Yorker has gone. I loathe pussy footing pretend philosophy on the chaise longue.

I have a LOT of respect for your posts, but I don't agree here. As much of what I saw Yorker posting recently consisted of talk of "war", and arguments like "you are an asshole", and "Give it up, you have lost", claiming people's views were of no consequence because they were anonymous (and then still dismissing them when people gave their names), I don't think this contributed much. Ranting does not help any cause.

1000. We Few, We Happy Few, We Band of Brothers

Comment #77010 by steve99 on October 8, 2007 at 6:59 am

Thus to say "women can be just as prone to violence as men" seems patently absurd. There is no statistic that supports that claim.

It was very badly worded. What I should have said is that women have a capacity for violence as well. But the question of whether or not that is expressed due to primarily evolved factors or primarily cultural factors seems to me to be an interesting question.

That males tend to engage in a form (of violence (male coalitional) that is also favored in our closest cousins, the chimps, doesn't seem easy to ignore.

I certainly wasn't ignoring it. Indeed, I posted a link to some research that showed how easily supposedly fixed gender roles (including violence) could be changed in chimps.