101. Changing my Mind

Comment #106284 by sent2null on January 2, 2008 at 3:51 pm

Re. Post 30

Not so fast al-rawandi I neglected to include the mouth salivating relish with which I invite the JW's into my abode. I fear I am not as much the better man that you might think. ;)

102. Changing my Mind

Comment #106238 by sent2null on January 2, 2008 at 2:24 pm

Re: 12. Comment #106171 by artemisa on January 2, 2008 at 12:52 pm

I just wonder if anyone would give me some advice as to how to respond better in a fruitful way.

Simply engage them, if you have the time. I've invited JW's into my home just for the purpose of fleshing out debate over the matter. In all cases I exhaust the witnesses ability to properly respond to the points that I make. I genuinely feel that when they realize they can't counter your logic, rather than ponder if what you are stating is actually correct they first wonder if you are some sort of devil. So deeply ingrained in the world of magic they are, bringing enlightenment to the rapidly increasing population of the religiously indoctrinated is not going to be easy.

103. It is possible to be moral without God

Comment #105741 by sent2null on January 1, 2008 at 6:04 pm

I_am_a_7 wrote:

Running around naked in the streets of New York City would be considered as not being a moraly correct thing. But if I'm doing the same thing in the confines of my house, is that moraly incorrect?

Morality has a specific definition that contains two relevant characteristics that answer your question. First, morality implies a contract of some sort between a group of more than one individual. Secondly, it applies to individuals of any species, not just humans. Here is the first definition form dictionary.com for it:

"conformity to the rules of right conduct..."

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=morality

Note the generality of this definition. It only references rules of right conduct but it is obvious that if one is alone, what is right is arbitrarily determined by the observer (since there would be no one to object to violations of the rule or rules) The context of "right" only makes sense when you have another individual there to observe the rules with, who may say to you "hey you didn't follow this rule" when you choose to behave in opposition to them. This can occur between groups of humans, or groups of birds or groups of bonobos. Now your naked in the streets example does indicate relative morality because there is no external observer in one state (your home) and there are potentially many observers in the other (the streets). The "morality" disappears in your home because you are the rule observer but reappears in society, the difference alone proves the relativism of morality.

I think morality applies or doesn't apply and that depends on the circumstances. When there is a harm done to another individual of any species, for which the case of self defense doesn't apply, then morality applies.

I think we are agreement on this point. Morality implies rules agreed upon between individuals in some group and if it were possible to probe the mind of a chicken, I doubt it would agree to being killed for dinner tonight. Without the previous agreement I don't see how it can be seen as moral to kill the chicken but then the definition does imply the individuals are in the same group and that can be rationalized to exclude a chicken because it is not human. For the record I like to include other species into our moral framework and see killing chickens as immoral if sometimes considered necessary. Ironically, the fact someone can conclude the opposite from the same definition again underscores the relativity of morality.

More or less like gravitation. Does it really apply if there is no matter?

Well, short answer is yes, photons for example are massless particles but they still experience the effects of gravity. (distortions in space time as GR defines them) To clarify I was only using GR as an example so far as the use of a thought experiment probing the extremes of moral application can clearly reveal its relative nature just as Einstein's thought experiments at the universal speed limit c, revealed the relative nature of space and time.

104. What have you changed your mind about? Why?

Comment #105723 by sent2null on January 1, 2008 at 4:53 pm

Sits quietly in his tree watching over the flock as they engage in reasoned and civil discourse. *grin*

105. New journal to target education in evolution

Comment #105325 by sent2null on December 31, 2007 at 9:09 am

Annabanana,

Thank You for mentioning the HWE, I read the entire article and for the most part understood it on the first pass. (though with mathematics I tend to require two, three or more passes before I get total comprehension of every nuance) As a software engineer with a degree in electrical engineering I've been absolutely fascinated by the similarities between biological systems at the genetic level and similar structures employed in computer programming languages to build applications. I am seriously considering an advanced degree in biology or genetics as a result, so any information I can learn about the guts of these areas is pursued with voracious zeal.

Thanks for helping feed me!

106. It is possible to be moral without God

Comment #105049 by sent2null on December 30, 2007 at 1:01 pm

Dr. Benway,

I had a similar talk with a friend of a friend who happened to hear me talking one day during this summer. I provided the logic described in the previous post and he was actually convinced, though I must say he was not a bible thumping theist so that might have loosened his mind a bit to accepting the cold truth of the logic employed. I find that with bible thumpers, it is difficult to even establish the constraints of the thought experiment as they constantly interrupt!

107. It is possible to be moral without God

Comment #105033 by sent2null on December 30, 2007 at 12:22 pm

Oh boy more hand waving arguments in an attempt to show there is some underlying external or unique moral foundation to humanity.

A simple thought experiment smashes this idea. Imagine you are alone, hunting in the woods, you chance across a ready made table with a heaping plate of food ready to eat. There is no one around to stop you from sitting down and enjoying the meal and you are hungry from your trek. Do you sit and eat? Now, this may seem easy to answer until the rest of the story is filled in, that there is no one else on Earth, a plague has just recently killed them all and you are immune. The plate therefor could only possibly be enjoyed by you. Do you eat? If you answer "no" whatever reason it has nothing to do with a belief that you would be acting immorally since you know the plate belongs to no one alive. If you answer "yes" then you just admitted that morality has the implication of limited society in its definition. By this I mean that you would not eat the food because you feel that it would deprive someone else of it, with whom culture has defined that it is not acceptable to brake an unspoken rule with. In sitting to eat, you recognize there is no "rule" or culture with with to exercise the moral framework and implicitly tie morality to culture and the rules that define them. No culture no morality, now imagine that at the same moment a person on the other side of the world is faced with the same decision, though they are weighing the same pros and cons as you, both of you will make a judgment based on your limited knowledge of others in the world (both of you think you are the only one) Thus whether or not you act "morally" is entirely constrained by your knowledge of others with whom previously defined cultural rules can be mediated. Morality is entirely relative to the context of culture and intimately tied to number of individuals interacting under a given set of cultural rules. In the case of single individuals, or more specifically when people think they are alone, it does not exist in the case of multiple individuals it CAN exist but the difference between the two states is all we need to show that morality is relative.

This simple exercise is backed by reams of data on morality as expressed by non human societies and dozens of relevant theorems in the branch of mathematics called game theory. That said, I agree that for practical purposes morality in human cultures is pretty consistent but in absolute terms it is still a relative concept. (Interesting that like Einstein's special relativity thought experiments riding on a beam of light, it requires analysis of hypothetical situations to see the relativity of morality.)

108. Archbishop of Canterbury Praises Richard Dawkins

Comment #104551 by sent2null on December 28, 2007 at 6:31 pm

Don Quix wrote:

I just find it interesting to speculate about what the possibilities would be if a major root cause of the majority of strife in the world (the disparity of wealth and lack of access to basic material needs) were to suddenly not be an issue anymore.

This is a question I've contemplated in the past as well. One possible outcome is that the strife will come back the minute our physical world becomes a restriction on our ability to acquire more stuff. In other words when we run out of land or place to store all the crap. (assuming the power to create new planets is not involved in this hypothetical scenario)

Also, if the ability to produce biological organisms is left out, you'll still have envy and jealousy based on the amorous desires we have for those of the opposite or same sex. You'll still have love triangles gone bad and other types of personal envy and jealousy based crimes.

I agree getting rid of the idea of limited resources would reduce a great deal of strife between countries it will still however, leave the interpersonal nonsense over social perceived disparities to maintain a level of strife.

109. Carl Sagan's COSMOS begins airing on Jan 8th

Comment #104541 by sent2null on December 28, 2007 at 6:09 pm

Watching this series when I was 9 as it originally aired on PBS here in the states basically set me on a path toward a career in science. I can say this series is a major reason (Star Trek and the PC revolution being the other ones) I am an engineer today. It took me another 15 years to shake off the remnants of "faith" that a heavily religious upbringing had infected me with but it would probably have taken another 10 years to shed had I not experienced this series as a child nearly 3 decades ago.

It should be mandatory viewing in grade school science courses the world over.

110. 'Gospel of wealth' facing scrutiny

Comment #104525 by sent2null on December 28, 2007 at 5:39 pm

liddlefeesh wrote:

Calling her "stupid" is not appropriate.

I agree it is not appropriate. Having been a willing member of a church only 10 years ago and giving money as I did I can say the reasons are not necessarily because you don't know that the pastor is a thief. Members give in spite of knowing this because they feel there is a sense of righteousness in doing so, that "God" will reward your faith even if it is through an agent that is duplicitous. In my case, I had a surge of religiosity just around the time I broke up with an ex girlfriend, she introduced me to the church and I thought maybe I could use it to keep my mind off my feelings. It didn't work, I feel ashamed that I ever thought it could but it was all about the hope in God, not hope in the pastor. The funny thing is that all through this I would have these cathartic moments in church when I would look around and say to myself "what the hell are you doing here!" but still I attended. I didn't quit the church until after I realized that I had more influence on granting my desires than any God could. When I wanted something I worked hard for it to happen, I embraced the numbers, everything is a numbers game ultimately. I've been embracing the numbers now for 10 years and they always pay out, so much for a prayer answering God.

111. 'Gospel of wealth' facing scrutiny

Comment #104515 by sent2null on December 28, 2007 at 5:12 pm

It is the illusion of this prosperity gospel that has had the fundies aligned with the Republicans. Essentially, most of the people who voted for Bush ...twice, actually believed that if they weren't rich, comfortable and well off as the republican's and their friends are today they would be in the future if they only had enough faith. They were hoodwinked and deceived by their own gullibility. It is astonishing that our country (the US) lets these charlatans get away with the outright thievery they are perpetrating against people that really should no better, despite their ignorance. Maybe the answer is for rationalists to start their own church a church of reason, we'll hold meetings on Sunday and instead of swindling the members we provide them education. How to save money, how to avoid irrational conclusions, how to manage your finances, how to get a job, do well on an interview, get a date, how to avoid debt...etc. I think we'd do a heck of a lot better job enlightening folks than any religious church ever could. We probably could get tax exempt status too, the money taken in to be used to fund the programs. Unlike real religions which ask their members to "trust in God" we'll tell them to "trust in yourself, you are in charge of you." It would be the ultimate slap in the face of the idiots that still think you need religion to have morality and at the same time it would really help people.

112. New journal to target education in evolution

Comment #103916 by sent2null on December 27, 2007 at 10:10 am

serious wrote:

On the topic: What is the most accessible short explanation of evolution for a non-scientist?

A nice (it still has quite a few errors though) introduction with a good set of references for the layman.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/evolution.htm

113. Survey finds most Americans believe Jesus born of virgin

Comment #103902 by sent2null on December 27, 2007 at 9:41 am

ianmarc66 wrote:

these same christians would not believe that Jesus picked his nose or that he did'nt fart or did not have skid marks on his pants or did'nt fancy a few of the ladies.

So Jesus wore tighty whities? you learn something new every day. *grin*

114. The Pagan Christ

Comment #103688 by sent2null on December 26, 2007 at 1:58 pm

Zeitgeist,

I like to think myself quite a bit more knowledgeable than most on the pagan origins of Christianity but the opening of this video goes one step further and provides a beautiful, simple and elegant explanation for the commonality of creation stories all over the world. It is the most probable explanation that can explain the commonality of creation characters of all these independent cultures.

Thanks to the poster for bringing up this link.


Edit 9:10 EDT

The video went down the path of insanity the moment it started with the 9/11 conspiracy nonsense. Though the evidence for the first part I find far more compelling and internally consistent than the 9/11 conspiracy stuff of the second part or the global cabal stuff of the third part. I think the purpose of the video is to question dogma, even the well presented dogma of the film itself...pretty slick if so but not every viewer will see it at that level. Sort of like a video magic illusion told with bits and pieces of information. Some will believe without researching later and that is not good.

Regards,

115. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #103227 by sent2null on December 24, 2007 at 2:47 pm

smithyboy,

Sometimes I wonder if trying to get the view across that an appeal to the evidence will bring enlightenment is even worth it. It seems many of the defenders are not here to truly learn anything, they want to "defend" their already established position. As I stated previously, I relish the day I can find irrefutable evidence to shake the foundations of my understanding of various areas of science. I look forward to the journey of discovering that what I had accepted could be wrong, my mind is free, unlike these poor souls who trap themselves intellectually by willingly restricting the natural inquisitive aspects of their mind from positing certain, culturally or socially "taboo" questions. I can only hope that they are curious enough about the many seemingly disparate topics touched upon to go investigate them for themselves rather than accepting or refuting them out of hand as dogma. Until they learn to question dogma (even when it comes from the pulpit or whoever is seen as a "leader" or "expert") they will be trapped holding empirically devoid and defensive positions in all types of debates.

What a sad, self imposed limitation of ones potential eh?

116. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #103195 by sent2null on December 24, 2007 at 12:55 pm

dsouzaphile wrote:

The beginning came from nothing and is a macro system.

Huh? Sounds like a meaningless D'souzism to me. As I stated before, in mathematics and physics the use of "nothing" to reveal deep truths between numbers and relationships is old hat. If it is mathematically acceptable to play with infinity, unity and nothing(0), and mathematics has shown supreme ability to map or contain mappings to reality in so doing through the accuracy of our gm or qm theories to stunning levels of accuracy, why then would it be hard to imagine that reality just may be the same way? That the infinite before and after is just as real as an infinite number line, that matter/energy only has meaning when bound to interactions between space and time.

... Furthermore, every part of your hypothesis violates the second law of thermodynamics and modern cosmology.

No it doesn't, you just don't fully understand the second law. It applies to closed systems, though it appears that the Universe is closed from our vantage point, there are reasons in theory and now in empirical data to support the contention that maybe it is not (at the edges). If our universe exists simply as an expanding soap bubble in a foam of expanding universes "extending" to eternity as inflationary models suggest, all manner of interactions are possible at the edges that would preserve the second law. You can't claim violation of the second law until these possibilities are excluded, as of yet we lack the evidence to do so and in fact thanks to wmap data it seems inflation does have some basis in reality weakening your position.

Research done in the 80's predicted a discovery that was made in 1992. "Astronomers had been predicting based on the big bang that there would be certain tiny temperature fluctuations in the radiation left over from the creation event. When they found that radiation exactly at the level predicted by the big bang (theory) it's like it really added the strongest confirmation to that time for the big bang explanation of the universe."

Awesome! The discovery of the background anisotropy was wicked confirmation of the brilliance of theory tied to the creation of a way to test it. Many such confirmations of theory have been made, Mendeleev predicted several new elements after noticing patterns in his early periodic table and predicting there should be elements to fill the voids. Sure enough he was right. Einstein used his newly discovered GM equations to solve the 200 year old problem of the precession of Mercury's orbit. Madam Curie, PAM Dirac , Enrico Fermi all made brilliant predictions based on results they had gained from experiment or theory but we don't take those predictions as confirmation of supernatural alignment why should we do so for the WMAP anisotropy data?

This discovery confirms that there is a CAREFULLY controlled expansion of the universe from that point of the beginnings of all matter, energy, space, and time.

Controlled in the sense that the initial conditions of the universes expansion constrained the evolution, "carefully" NOT hardly because there simply is no other way THIS universe would have unfolded had those INITIAL CONDITIONS been different. I gather you are unfamiliar with differential equations. A short course, differential equations define relationships between a set of interrelated but independently varying parameters. They are solved by providing initial conditions which place constraints on the variations of the parameters and give rise to "solutions" coupled to those initial conditions. Any change to the initial conditions give rise to a unique solution in the differential equation. The evolution of our universe can be modeled by a complex differential equation (at least that is the theory) and by tweaking the parameters just right we should get the solution that defines OUR universe. We only have yet to figure out what all the parameters are but we've solved entire classes of parameters that govern the laws of the natural world. GM and QM form the apex of theory that define everything in the universe we can see and many things we can't, the complexity of these equations and their solutions (remember all those initial conditions) makes it extremely difficult for us to figure out which particular sets of solutions map to OUR universe but we are using observation and theory to tease out the nuances of the relationship. At no point should it be reasonable or necessary to assert a supernatural hand in the evolution of our universe. All of it falls out of the interaction of suitable initial conditions, if it works for problems in harmonic motion, for problems in electron momentum when confined to small regions or works for the interaction of various masses in a gravitational field it is a reasoned approach to hold that it applies to the universe as well than to suppose a cosmic puppet master. This is the level of absurdity that those of us who work or have worked in the sciences feel when we come across claims of the kind you are making. Why aren't you making a claim that God is guiding Earth around the sun? Because that assertion has been refuted by science ...it is no longer in vogue for religion to assert control over planetary motions since , well...Newton took it from them. The questions for which religion still claims solutions are now restricted to billionths of a second just after the big bang. How fitting that as we've discovered the laws of the world, the need for the hand of "God" in ALL this has been restricted to an irrelevant moment (other than that it led to us being here) 13.7 billion years ago. The only places religion has anything to say are those places where science has YET to say something. As the planets have fallen, so to will the big bang is the only rational position to hold. Then where will your "God" be, as overlord and creator of the infinite multi verse? Ya gotta enjoy the irony of that.

Astrophysicist Lawrence Kraus at Case Western University refers to this as the most extreme fine tuning problem known in physics and that it is design that is superior to 1 part in 10 to the 120th power.

Where does his quote begin and yours end? Secondly, are you sure what he meant by the word "design" Did he mean, design in the sense of a nautilus shell (which unfurls naturally from simple chemistry in abeyance to a beautiful mathematical rule not to any guiding sentient hand). It is disingenuous to paraphrase in this sloppy fashion.

Stephen Hawking of Cambridge u said "It is the discovery of the century, if not all time."

It was cool, but how does his excitement at this bolster your contention that there was sentient design behind the evolution of the universe?

Astronomer and project leader for the Colby satellite project George Smoot of the university of California at Berkeley said "what we have found is evidence for the birth of the universe. It is like looking at God."

Another disingenous quote. How do you know that here "God" is not used simply as a metaphor for "the act of creation" and not "the act of a sentient creator" ?? Einstein and several modern scientists used "God" in this way without holding an ounce of belief in a sentient diety.

Astrophysicist Michael Turner of the University of Chicago said "The significance of this cannot be overstated. They have found the holy grail of cosmology."

Again...in no way does this quote bolster your claim by supernatural sentient design.

Paul Davies Director of Beyond, a research institute at Arizona State University said "We are looking at overwhelming evidence for design."

Steve addressed this one, no need to rehash ...

And finally, Geoffrey Burbidge at the University of California at San Diego said "You know, my fellow astronomers are rushing off to join The First Church of Christ of the Big Bang."

Here you go again, using a quote out of context of the semantics of particular words. It reads to me like he is making a metaphor for the enthusiasm with which the results were taken by the astronomer community not any reference to their gaining actual religious clarity from the results. If you read that in this quote I suggest you read it again.

I understand that you have a PhD in science not astronomy, so you are either unaware of these things or you purposefully cloud your own mind (and therefore your poor unsuspecting students minds) to further knowledge because of the fear of where that will lead your life.

I am not Steve but as a staunch adherent to the use of the scientific method to tease out fact from reality, this charge is most egregious. No true scientist ever fears having their knowledge shaken or even over turned. It is in fact a driving motive to tease at the edges of theory in order to tempt just this type of revolution that scientific investigation proceeds. The goal is not to reveal some pre existing conclusion it is to tease out the pre existing truth, what ever that be, and if it aligns with our personal desires or not. I don't think you can make a more offensive gesture to a scientist than to claim that he/she is afraid of the consequences of their discovery and for that reason chooses to hide from them.

I highly suggest you consult the data on the many topics mentioned both here and by others in their responses. Your knowledge of the subtleties of these topics is clearly unsatisfactory. I admonish you again without any desire to insult you, to go and learn of these things before coming back. I suggest you start with a book on differential equations, if you don't see now why that would be a prudent first step then that explains precisely why you should be taking that step.

Regards,

117. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #102859 by sent2null on December 23, 2007 at 7:08 pm

dsouzaphile wrote:

As for the Joshua passage, I don't understand why this one story should stand out to a non believer. There are a lot of stories in the bible that are huge pills to swallow if you insist on having natural empirical explanations for.

If we insist? what type of explanation should any rational person be looking for if not for "empirical explanations" ?? You really hold that non empirically based supposition (faith) should be held above empirically determined hypothesis?

God parted the red sea before the fleeing Israelites in exodus,

You state that as if there is empirical data to support it, yet to this day there is no firm evidence coming from Egyptian sources to indicate that Isrealites (the totality of the people) were ever enslaved. The stories historical underpinnings are nebulous at best.

provided the world with his Son thorough an earthly mother Mary by Immaculate Conception.

I won't attack this statement directly, instead I'll simply ask what this all powerful and all seeing God was doing before he decided to bless us with his son/himself a mere 2,000 years ago. I mean we've been roaming the planet for long, long before Egypt even existed let alone the much younger Israel. What was your God of the Bible doing for example 30,000 years ago, when roaming bands of Human beings continued their move deep into Europe to replace the *still living* Homo Neanderthalensis that lived there until as recently as ~22,000 years ago? Speaking of God, did he bless the culture of these people as well, they were not homo sapiens as is easily verified by many examples of their bones...yet we know they buried their dead in rituals, what God did they pray too and why did this God forsake their entire species? Why doesn't your Bible mention them at all??? Let us not even talk of deeper time, say 100,000 years ago where the pervue of homo sapiens lay only inside Africa and would not touch the Levant for another 10,000 years. Was your God of the Bible still staking out his future "holy land"? You must realize that when you assert your belief you are doing it ignorant of so much history, so much archeology, so much paleoanthropology...knowledge that would change your view if you were exposed to it and have an objective mind. If you are the type of person however who falls back on faith when challenged to build their mind with the empirical data that thousands of researchers, historians and scientists all over the world have uncovered, then I truly feel sorry for you. You can enjoy being deluded, so long as your delusion doesn't intrude on how I or anyone else lives their life.

He allowed Methuselah to live 969 years on this earth, Christ raised Lazarus from the dead, and Joshua with his troops knocked down the walls of Jericho with a trumpet blast.

A string of claims without a shred of historical or archaeological backing. If I came to you with a book and stated that because the book stated that, all people with red hair should be killed would you accept it? Absurd yes? Well so is the idea that we should believe equally pointless statements written in the Bible, the only difference is the bullshit in my hypothetical latter day "holy book" is recent and the ones in the Bible are just over 2,500 years old, not including the stories and ideas that were obviously pilfered from older creation stories in related cultures (Egyptians, Zoroastrian, Sumerian, Assyrian..etc.) Did you even know that the idea of monotheism was not originally traced to the Israelites?(Judea) It comes from quite a bit to the east...from the Zoroastrian concepts of "one god" which were put together surprise surprise, not so long before. So which is more likely, that a few zealous Men with some personal agenda pieced together their God concept from ideas imported from neighboring cultures or that some how after a 150,000 year slumber, the "true" "one God" woke up, set up shop in Israel and made them (of all people on Earth mind you) his "chosen people" ?? You seriously can't see how ludicrous the latter option here is compared to the former??

... I believe that the sun literally stood still in the sky (or the earth stopped, whatever) just as the bible said. Why? Because of Christ. His existence on this earth and his work and life and its implication for the world are what brought me to Him. The bible is The Whole Story and I accept it as true.

Wow, sounding quite dogmatic there. It is funny I read that passage and it reminds me of myself, oh 15 years ago. I was willing to hold a belief in God that I did not challenge willingly. I however couldn't stave off my naturally inquisitive mind from asking serious questions about what it would mean for the all powerful God I believed in at the time to be real. He would have to be either a drunk a madman or a malicious prankster or dead. No amount of rationalizing using the scripture could get around this, either the supposed watching and caring all powerful God that you believe in is imperfect in power or he's imperfect in mind. Either one makes such a God not very useful to us here on Earth does it, even if it does exist. All this without even touching the question of, if it does exist and it is perfect, then what created it? And please...stay away from the stupid argument that our finite minds can't comprehend an infinite God. We can comprehend infinite numbers just fine and use them every day in our advanced mathematics and physics. Yes our finite minds can indeed comprehend and manipulate the infinite.

Hell is separation from God your father for eternity. Hell is not a threat from Christ; it is a linguistic representation for a real place that is a consequence of your own choice. If you choose to reject Gods gift to fallen and depraved mankind, His redemptive loving work for his cherished humanity, then that is what God reluctantly gives you to respect your own free will. God doesn't demand that you follow him.

Oceans of unsupportable supposition does not shore up the veracity of your position any more than constant references to the Elves in The Lord of the Rings trilogy would make them any more real. I could just as easily assert that those stories did in fact happen but if I bare no evidence on my claims, I do nothing more than mentally ejaculate.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch the question was if Christianity was a net good or a net evil for the world. The obvious answer is that it was a great thing for the world.

Obvious? First, we'd have to agree on a way to quantify the goodness or badness of Christianity. We'd then need to decided if we include collateral effects, for example do we exclude the indirect blame that Christianity (through the policies of the Catholic church) had on the spread of diseases during the middle ages? Before you can claim anything as "obvious" we'd have to engage in this semantic normalization exercise, and then we can start...say from the fall of the Roman Empire onwards to see where the chips fall, until such an analysis is done, there is nothing obvious at all about your claim given some rather glaring blights on the face of Christianity.

Like dinesh said, all of western civ rests upon Athens and Jerusalem. The frameworks that you think and exist in are all due to these two lines of human development of which Christianity is a subset.

Dinesh loves weaving together overly verbose truisms. Their purpose is to stun the listener momentarily as he/she contemplates the flowery phrasing, only to find that the statement either lacks substance or is simply a retelling of obvious fact. In this case, it is not even a truism as it is patently false, Athens didn't exist in a vacuum, neither did Jerusalem. Before Athens there was Assyria, Persia, Egypt..before Jerusalem there was Babylonia, Sumeria...human knowledge builds on previous human knowledge when the assimilation of the conquered is performed by the conquerers. If anything history shows this pattern over and again, no "two lines of human development" (whatever that means) constrain in any way the facts uncovered by patient analysis of multi disciplinary empirical data sources. All of which are open to YOUR investigation first hand (unlike the claims in your Bible or any other "holy" book) I admonish you not to dismiss what we say here as simple rebuttal of your view ignorant of your perspective, I can speak as one who was once in your shoes... but "God" cursed me with a fertile and inquisitive mind, and despite the religious fathoms into which I was born, I made my assent to the enlightenment that I hold today. I truly hope your investigations lead you to your enlightenment.

118. Borders Tags Atheist Book with 'O Come All Ye Faithless' Cards

Comment #101915 by sent2null on December 21, 2007 at 6:47 am

[sarcasm begins]

What was Borders thinking!

How could they promote in even the most subtle and facetious way the idea that to have "faith" may be be a foolish way of living? I mean, it is one thing to question the religious with the multiple God's problem, to point out that at best only one "faith" could possibly be right of all the tens of thousands that have sprung up since the dawn of man...but to outright imply that being faithless is a virtue. To champion empirically based facts over hallucinogen based suppositions... Of all the gall! I don't think Borders has a right to provide this card with the atheist book, it offends the sensibilities of those with "faith".

Down with Borders!
Down with Borders!

[sarcasm ends]


Happy Winter Solstice everyone!

119. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #99571 by sent2null on December 17, 2007 at 4:46 am

Physicist wrote:

On the Maxwell/Einstein thing: I disagree because Einstein's SPECIAL relativity wouldn't have been developed without Maxwell's equations and, contrary to popular belief, Einstein was not working in a vacuum, locked away in his tiny patent office in Bern. But as I said, these are subjective judgements.

A very good point, without the extraction of the constancy of c from Maxwell's equations it can be argued that Einstein wouldn't have had a theoretical leg to peg his ideas of relative space and time but he was unique in attaching any physical significance to the idea of an absolute speed limit on c in vacuum. Yes, he wasn't working in a vacuum, as I mentioned a few of the guys (Lorentz being the closest) doing work in non Euclidean geometries at the time were so close but they didn't take that bold leap, nor do we even know if they even imagined. That said, even if I weaken the level of achievement for special relativity there is still the GR which by comparison looks almost magical. In my leisure I've been studying the differential geometric approach to GR and I think about all the "components" required just to build up to the derivation of the summarizing equation, you wonder (at least I did) where the heck it (geodesics,maps..etc) is all leading up to and then boom, like a freight train it hits you. My admiration doesn't come from a "popular" appreciation it comes from actually working the equations, but I definitely agree that the breadth of Newton's achievements easily match that of Einstein if in my view they weren't as "non obvious".

120. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #99567 by sent2null on December 17, 2007 at 4:28 am

Cartomancer wrote:

Grr, in the spirit of the season I shall refrain from responding in my usual fashion to sent2null's misrepresentation of the days of Kepler and Copernicus (which was the early modern period, not even the middle ages, and certainly not the dark ages), and content myself with pleasant reverential thoughts about Newton Day.

Okay you got me Carto, as I typed "dark ages" I thought "watch a pedentic forum member correct me on this later" and sure enough you couldn't help yourself!! Well thanks for the mild censure all the same and happy season of joy to you! ;)

I'll be sure to get the history books out next time instead of just regurgitating data from my memory banks. sheesh! *wink*

Regards,

121. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #99076 by sent2null on December 15, 2007 at 12:48 pm

Physicist wrote:

I have always believed that Newton is the greatest personality in the history of scientific development (and one of the greatest thinkers of all times, for that matter), contrary to pop culture that promotes and trivializes some of his 20th century peers (e.g., Einstein or Feynman, who did great things but, admittedly, "they were standing on the shoulders of giants".)

Though I must kneel at the pew of Newton in glorious praise of his accomplishments, it should be mentioned that Newton made that quote referencing the people he considered giants! Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo and the Greeks. If Newton's time was religiously stifling by our standards imagine what it was like in the depth of the dark ages, that is what Copernicus and Kepler had to deal with. I have a periodic sense of awe when I consider what Kepler alone did in writing harmony of the worlds without getting burned at the stake. All that religious flowering speech and talk of celestial spheres certainly helped keep the dogmatic religious powers of his age from taking him to the cross!

Let us also not forget Maxwell and Boltzmann, the second one even being a tragic ...

Maxwell, another of my personal heroes indeed did foundational work but was it so surprising, not in my view. If he didn't synthesize electromagnetism I am sure Riemann, Stokes , Lorentz would have done it along their way to describing non Euclidean mathematical foundations. I still put Einstein way above Maxwell for that simple reason, his realizations were far away from obvious given the current state of the science...in fact they were completely out of left field even to the founders of the non euclidean maths that Einstein used (and extended!) to make his theory into a reality. Of course I am similarly left with my jaw on the floor when I consider Newton going from limit to integral and differentiation, or going from inclined planes to F = -Gm1,m2/r^2. Regarding your comment about Leibniz, I am sure Newton is turning in his grave every time an elementary Calculus text uses dv/dt to describe acceleration. ;)

I'd be a happy man ready to die with a smile if I could discover just one such non obvious truth about the world!

122. Creation vs. Reality

Comment #98782 by sent2null on December 14, 2007 at 9:54 am

ohhhhh that was trippy, I wonder what hallucinogen was used to aid its creation?

*grin*

123. A Designer Universe?

Comment #98769 by sent2null on December 14, 2007 at 8:37 am

With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion.

stick it to em' Steve.

124. Functional Neuroimaging of Belief, Disbelief, and Uncertainty

Comment #97477 by sent2null on December 12, 2007 at 6:53 am

<3

sideways cleavage?

That is one active imagination you have there steve. ;)

I see an ice cream cone with two lumps myself *grin*

125. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96589 by sent2null on December 10, 2007 at 6:28 pm

gr8hands wrote:

Bin Laden may have had other motives, but he didn't fly the planes into the towers. Those who did, did so for religious reasons. Period.

I wrote up a nice two part response to Riley's points that some how got lost. Good thing you went and summarized precisely the two points I was going to make ;)

Regards!

126. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96457 by sent2null on December 10, 2007 at 3:00 pm

Don_Quix

Heh yes. And if "atheism is a religion", as many theists claim it is, wouldn't it be absolutely correct and proper for atheist symbols and sentiments to be displayed right next to the symbols and sentiments of other religions?

Careful Don, that level of reasoning might fly way over the heads of some of the visiting theists. Of course, upholding rationalism would only be considered "religion" by only the most deeply proselytized of the various religious beliefs, it is easier for them to target the label "atheist". In the face of the lack of evidence, we should treat openly religious people with the same baffled wonderment that we treat those that claim to have been abducted by UFO's.

127. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96441 by sent2null on December 10, 2007 at 2:45 pm

Riley wrote:

A sign which associated brutal 20th century attempts to eradicate religion with all other attempts to promote a world without religion would be fair-play then. Right?

Care to elaborate, that sentence wasn't clear to me. I want to make sure I am responding to what you are saying and not what I *think* you are saying.

Thanks

128. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96436 by sent2null on December 10, 2007 at 2:27 pm

Riley wrote:

At a multicultural display which is intended to provide a community forum for people of diverse beliefs and cultures an opportunity to set aside their differences and enjoy one another's traditions and culture, yes. You should give it a rest.

In that forum it's inappropriate. That forum is for self-promotion, not mud slinging.

Nonsense,

Every forum is the right forum for truth. This world would be far better off if more people vociferously defended this fact. I am all for multi-culturalism but culture and religion are not tied at the hip, and should not be.

129. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96428 by sent2null on December 10, 2007 at 2:14 pm

Kudos to Houser for advocating reason this holiday season. As a traditional celebration throughout the world where ever seasons change, late year thanks in the form of ceremonies date to pagan times and much of the practices of "christmas" come from such rituals. That said, I didn't like the implication of the article that rationalists advocating divesting religious meaning from year end celebrations are opposed to such celebrations. We are only opposed to injecting religious significance to them. ;) I am not anti Christmas, I am anti "Jesus was born on this day" or "God spared the Jews" nonsense which has no historical backing behind it.

130. Fear of censure deflects The Golden Compas

Comment #95664 by sent2null on December 9, 2007 at 12:02 am

Saerain wrote:

I do wish people would stop using 'anorexic' as a physical descriptor.

So did you object to my use of that word as an insult to Ann or some other reason. It is used as a physical descriptor in the dictionary definition, a person who suffers from anorexia nervosa, obviously I don't know if she does but she sure *looks* like she does as she exhibits the extreme physical condition that mirrors individuals with that condition. I am curious to know the source of your disagreement.

I guess I shouldn't have used that as an attack of her political views which have nothing to do with how gaunt and unfed she appears, so for that irrelevant if visually applicable ad-hominem I do apologize.

Regards,

131. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95659 by sent2null on December 8, 2007 at 11:42 pm

steve99 wrote:

There is an interesting theory that human brains require certain fats that are present in seafood for full development, which is highly suggestive of an aquatic, or at least seaside phase in our ancestry. Of course, with our current knowledge of nutrition, vegetarians need not suffer from this deficiency.

There are actually several essential amino acids that are requirements of human health which of course includes brain health. The particular fatty acid that I think you are referring to is omega-3 fatty acid. It is found in some sea foods, not surprisingly the anthropological data shows that our ancestors subsisted on diets that included aquatic sources of protein as they evolved in the rift valley of East Africa.

Though in general I do agree that taking life, whether of a sentient or less sentient being is abhorrent I also do enjoy a good steak! As geneticists and molecular biologists continue to uncover the mechanisms of living organisms (just the past week has been astounding with the *curing* of sickle cell in mice) we will be able to artificially produce all the nutritional components needed to ensure perfect health without requiring that any animals die. We already can in supplemental form as you alluded to but people forget to take pills and pills don't taste like the meat! (Edit: Same goes for nuts which have some of these oils.)Already geneticists have produced GM pigs that naturally produce omega-3 fatty acids. The next step is to simply clone the flesh and grow it in vats.

I am pretty sure that in the not too distant future, our growing mastery of the ability to grow any cell type from genetic engineering (thank science for stem cell research!) we'll be able to grow required cells from first principles in vats! Imagine a factory that produced pound after pound of prime beef rib, chicken or fish meat without killing a single cow, chicken or fish, we are fast approaching these capabilities. I am sure though that even when such a time comes there will be the conservatives who will insist that there are differences in the taste or nutritional value (just as even today people tell me they swear that vinyl records sound better than cd's) who will insist on growing animals to slaughter.

But that too shall pass...here's to a slaughter-less future with lots of rib meat, chicken and fish on our plates! ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega-3_oil

132. Holy Nonsense

Comment #95310 by sent2null on December 8, 2007 at 1:19 am

I am prepared to move to Canada and become a naturalized citizen there should the dolt majority of my country again vote a Republican to the Presidency. It would take some miracle(rigged elections, more gerrymandering) or tragedy (assassination of leading Dem. candidates) for the republicans to win in my book, comparisons of incoming funding have the Dems. taking way more money every month from contributions than the Republicans, this is a very good sign that Republicans are aligning behind Democratic candidates at least with their pocket books. I also can't see a single republican who will provide anything different from what we already have in Bush. The existing democratic majority in the houses would simply ensure the existing lame duck status continues into the next few years as important issues go unaddressed. The next president MUST be a democrat just so that we can see some change, even if it may not be immediately fruitful change at first. Americans have hard choices to make and the candidate willing to tell them that "yes, for some of you I will raise taxes if it means funding programs to clean our environment or get us off fossil fuels sooner" is what we need. It is unfortunate that we don't have a candidate willing to stand boldly on the side of reason and reality over the religious madness that apparently is compulsory for anyone wishing to be elected president.

133. Fear of censure deflects The Golden Compas

Comment #93670 by sent2null on December 3, 2007 at 9:59 pm

Shuggy wrote:

Mrs Coulter, eh? That really is life imitating art.

I thought the same thing, now I wonder if that is the name of the actual character in the books or did the director/writer cleverly change it so that it had the similarity to the always charming , anorexic , christian right wing demon monster with an adam's apple we all know and despise.

134. Evolution Debate Led to Ouster, Official Says

Comment #93666 by sent2null on December 3, 2007 at 9:36 pm

Just when we American's thought that the Pennsylvania case put the nail in the coffin of ID. It raises it's mangled, ignorance filled head down in the lone star state. A state where not too long ago a Black man was chained to a truck bumper and dragged to pieces. We need to ensure that the outrage that emerges from this obvious attempt by the TEA to get rid of people who were pro reality (ie. pro science) ahead of their so called review. Allowing a climate that will no doubt favor texts and practices that mention ID next to science. This is truly sickening, I am off to leave my note of outrage on the TEA site.

135. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93287 by sent2null on December 2, 2007 at 3:27 pm

agg wrote:

sent2null, what do you mean by that? As a computer scientist, I am familiar with game theory, at least as it relates to computer science, but I don't see a direct link. I am sure it has application in ethics --- I just don't see a direct connection. Perhaps, you were trying to recommend a specific publication on game theory and morality? Also, did you mean moral decisions or behavior?

Morality can be generally defined as a set of rules that are followed by individuals(not just humans) in a group situation. A limited group situation, can be modeled as the two person game that is called the prisoner's dilemma. The addition of a type of resource and limitations on availability of that resource, along with reward or punishment outcomes for making choices that affect other members of the group lead to complex behavior patterns in the individuals. The emergence of morality can be seen as a direct out growth of individuals in conditions of limited resource competing in such "games". RD produced a video over 20 years ago that detailed an investigation of the choices made during the prisoner's dilemma game. It turns out that altruism (doing for others without hope of direct compensation) is mathematically more fruitful than non cooperation under such conditions. Thus the idea that we are "good"(which can be a definition of altruistic behavior) to one another is mutually exclusive to any religious system, it appears we are moral under these conditions not because any particular religion says it is better for us to be so, but because over time it pays to be good versus being bad when you'll be seeing the individuals in the group again. As bad individual behavior is punished by the group dynamic over time.

Read more about it:

Richard Dawkins video "Nice guys finish first." on googlevideo (5 parts, 1 linked)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFj0caNX1s0



Prisoner's dilemma
(very good examples here)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma


Nash equilibrium
(why it pays to help others when competing for limited resources)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_Equilibrium
Altruism and cooperation (foundations of moral behavior)
(goodness in biology)


http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=charity-taxes-whats-the-diff


(humans are not alone)


http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0008218C-6B99-1407-AB9983414B7F0000&sc=I100322


(articles from this used to be free to read online..oh well you can buy it!)


http://www.sciamdigital.com/index.cfm?fa=Products.ViewIssuePreview&ARTICLEID_CHAR=3D4A2B8D-2B35-221B-6025DBA293F56FF9

136. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93073 by sent2null on December 2, 2007 at 5:57 am

I agree Thor, though I found my eyes rolling so much I had a head ache while listening to him go on his tirades I did respect his ability to command bits of science, history and literature to support his views. The fact he was excited as he delivered his responses doesn't negate from the subtle veneer of veracity that they may have to those less knowledgeable in these areas. I think that Dennett could have done a better job in a forum where he and D'Souza are set on one another directly, rather than given set time limits to espouse/rebut views. The format used in this debate is not conducive to immediate interjection by the opposing debater once a logical fallacy or a factual error is made. The theists tend to use an argument from an avalanche of conflicting information in these long exchanges to muddle the issues and eliminate the oppositions ability to penetrate the many critical flaws of reason that lace the diatribe.

As I listen to video 13, I am astounded by how many times D'Souza references quotes from individuals who lived over 100 years ago , prior to the development and discovery of so much modern science and technology. Invoking Nietzsche? to try and support the view that morality is somehow tied to christianity? The proper response to this, is to tell him simply that philosophy has moved on quite a bit from the mistaken ideas of people like Nietzsche, which at the time may have been insightful but by modern standards are incredibly naive. For example, just because the Spartans may have engaged in a practice of fitness based infanticide doesn't mean they were without morals, they simply had a different code of rules to define their morals , and this is precisely what we are seeing confirmed by studies in animal sociology and as well by papers in mathematics (some over 60 years old) describing the behavior of members in environments of limited resource. It is the foolishness of these statements, made often one after another in machine gun fashion by D'Souza that require immediate censure in order to keep his avalanche of FUD from falling on the listener.

Anyone who'd like to read more about what mathematics has to say about moral decisions should read about Game Theory.

137. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93062 by sent2null on December 2, 2007 at 5:08 am

good point steve, inflation is definitely an important set of untested ideas ;) involving the idea of multiverse that I should have mentioned.

Regards,

138. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93056 by sent2null on December 2, 2007 at 4:34 am

steve99 wrote:

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

You are correct, in the strictest popular scientific sense they are as yet unfalsifiable and are technically not even theories. My point is simply that the embarrassment of choice for all these values makes them unique in being best candidates for saying something about why the fundamental values are what they are. Until that first experiment comes however, their just mathematically defined and related but untested ideas.

Regards,

139. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93055 by sent2null on December 2, 2007 at 4:28 am

agg wrote:

Fascinating stuff. Is there a concrete hypothesis formulated connecting the existence of a multiverse to expected patterns or is it all just a preliminary conjecture? Any pointers will be greatly appreciated.

There are several such hypothesis. Regarding gravity waves, some theorists think analysis of waves reverberating through the universe since the big bang may tell us a bit about the initial conditions that set our universe off to expansion. This may allow us a selection target in the various types of string theories that offer solutions that necessitate a multiverse.

First, I'd like to clarify some often mistaken ideas concerning what a multiverse is. The term multiverse was originally associated with the idea of determining the history of particle trajectories as studied in the QED (quantum electrodynamics) Richard Feynman was the first person to popularize the idea in physics that the trajectory and or energy state of a particle that IS measured, exists because all the other possibilities that are not have "collapsed". In terms of analysis of particle trajectories a mathematical object called the wave function is said to "collapse" to the measured trajectory from all the possible ones. Later, in popular descriptions and science fiction this mathematically useful tool was extrapolated to have physical significance for literary purposes.(search "multiverse" for details of this history)

If the possibilities of alternative paths are infinite then maybe they actually exist and collapse to a given result here because the attributes of our universe "tunes" them in that way. There is no physics behind this assertion, it is only a supposition that comes out of trying to ascribe a physical meaning to Feynman's "sum over histories" the math that describes collapsing wave functions. The newer idea of "multiverse" concerns mathematical solutions to extremely complex multidimensional models for describing not just particles, but all possible interactions of varyingly discrete entities of energy. Mathematical physics has evolved to the point that entire "algebras" can be judged for their merit in predicting all the phenomena we see in our universe in a consistent manner. The problem is that there are many possible solutions to the set of mathematical models that are being studied and we lack experiments to pin down which solution defines OUR universe. The concepts are complex but a rough over view can be had by reading on various topics.

I am an electrical engineer by degree and we have similar examples of mathematical structures that require the existence of infinite entities in order for us to make efficient real world calculations concerning signals, energy, power content, voltage, current...etc. In the EE realm these tools (Fourier, Laplacian and z transforms) are practically limited in how they can be applied by the need to realize a desired level of accuracy in the results in a given computation time, they also have prescience over a discrete set of attributes of electrical signals and make no predictions on particles as we understand them in the science of physics. I think this is the chief distinction that has kept a similar analogy being made between these structures and the possibility of "real" versions of the entities described in the tools. (For example in discrete and continuous signal theory we play with imaginary values freely but we don't assume that somewhere they actually exist, they are for us tools which have amazing ability to simplify real calculations without having any real analog) It is unfortunate that the nuance of mathematical physics are usually grossly mis characterized when prepared for public consumption since they necessarily cover a larger suite of entities, many of which map closely to physical entities that we have discovered to govern our existence in the real universe.

Read more on:

basics:
Richard Feynman
multiverse
"sum over history"
QED
infinite series
differential equations/non linear partial

advanced:
gauge theories
sum over histories /Feynman diagrams
QED (quantum electrodynamics)
E8 symmetry
Heterotic string theory
M theory

Wikipedia has several well written articles for general introductions to these concepts. As always don't use it as a "last word" consult the citations as well.

Regards,

140. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93034 by sent2null on December 2, 2007 at 3:20 am

xale66x wrote:

Perhaps the constants are no more free to vary than the proportion of a circle's radius is to its circumference.

I agree, and believe this is is precisely what the universe would look like if we are only seeing or existing in part of an over riding geometry. The funny thing is the proposed candidate theories (mostly string) that successfully integrate and explain the constants are precisely higher geometric (dimensional) systems. I don't see this as a coincidence. We lack experiments yet to pin down the veracity of the statement, but we just may in time.

141. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92972 by sent2null on December 1, 2007 at 9:01 pm

edejard wrote:

"Of course the universe -- or at least one small part of it -- is capable of supporting life, whatever the improbabilities, since, well duh, we're here to think about it" you've basically missed the point, because you haven't explained the improbability!

What improbability are you referring to? The improbability of their being sentient life able to ask the question? Who said that was improbable and has *accurately* quantified this "improbability"? We know there are at least 100 billion stars in our galaxy *alone* a large percentage of them similar in structure to our own star. We also know , just in the last 10 years, that there are over 200 extra solar planets revolving a smaller set of stars. It sounds like our probability of existence is quite high from these numbers but then there is the chance of planets in the habitable zone (and note assuming the life is OUR type in that it is carbon based), factoring in these variables can lead to widely diverging results of any estimate of "improbability". The estimates (The Drake equation being a famous one) that have been made to try to put a number on how probable it is that we are here are just that estimates. In fact they are very wild ones as certain variables we know little to nothing about at this time or leave out other ideas of what life can be. So though I am of the view that we will find more refined values to these variables and be able to make more accurate predictions of the probabilities of life or sentient life (and note again, it is always "life like us" the probabilities change when we entertain types of life which is hard for us to imagine), we aren't there yet. This works both ways mind you, we can't state accurately how probable it is , nor can we state how improbable it is. (since that guess also leaves out important variables for which we have little to no data)

The only other "improbability" I can think you are referring to is the one of a universe with the constants that make our type of life possible, again , since we have no idea how universes form or what minimum attributes define universe, we can't say squat about how probable it is for us to be here in this one, either for or against. We already know that there are an infinite number of mathematical possibilities for universes, just because ours is perfect for our type of life doesn't mean that one of the many others that may also exist don't have life which is similarly perfect for those universes even if that "life" is like nothing we can imagine. So again, our ability to define "improbability" goes out the window as we can't even limit what is possible let alone what is life. We shouldn't be surprised that if we apply every filter necessary to restrict life to our own type that the probability of such life will go down but that is a different question from determining the probability of sentient life, whatever form inside our universe or outside it. With the "improbability" misunderstanding explained, surely it should be clear that going from this state of uncertainty in even being able to guess the probabilities of our existence or our universes existence, to asserting "a magic man done it." is irrational. The scientific view is to keep acquiring data and forming hypothesis until we can refine our view and our calculations for these probabilities, giving up the game shouldn't enter into the equation.

142. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92938 by sent2null on December 1, 2007 at 7:37 pm

to Don_Quix:

You beat me to it. *wink*

143. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92936 by sent2null on December 1, 2007 at 7:35 pm

blaspheme wrote:

Rather flawed logic there.

I don't see how the quoted portion of Atlas' text was flawed logically. It seemed like a perfect paraphrase of the rebuttal to the theist invocation of the anthropic principle. The state of the universe is conducive to our life necessarily since we are here, we should not be surprised that it is so conducive to life because we are here is another way of saying it. The Universes state is a precondition of our existence, our existence is optional among many things that we could be, for example if this was 20 million years ago, life still exists but there is no sentient beings on earth to contemplate it. The fact the universe will (in the future) support sentient life in the form of us does not mean it was made for us (since 20 million years ago there was no "us" but there was all the things needed for us to survive.)

Where you attacking some other point he made?

144. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92926 by sent2null on December 1, 2007 at 7:13 pm

SebastianSylvan said:

It's as if he cares more about "winning", by intellectually dishonest persuation tactics, rather than actually furthering the debate by adressing the points made in an honest and reasoning manner.

Precisely! He seems to think that being convincing is the same as being "right" and that is not always the case.

145. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92925 by sent2null on December 1, 2007 at 7:08 pm

Dr. Benway wrote:

Perhaps those constants aren't independent. Perhaps if we understood more about the geometry of reality, we'd see how all the parts stand in relation to each other, and how each value couldn't be otherwise.

Or maybe God used a machine with dials and carefully rigged the game.

Either way, it's a long way from Big Bang to eat-my-body-drink-my-blood.

Well said, but the first statement brings an interesting idea. We know that the current known candidates (string theories mainly) for grand unified theories that do a job of integrating gravity in with the other forces of nature along with predicting the correct values for the fundamental constants all suffer from providing too many answers. Namely, they seem like over broad mathematical constructions that give us all the possible answers instead of just the one that fits our universe, employing unseen dimensions and entities beyond our universe to explain our universe. It may be the case that this is a requirement of explanation of our universe and the state of the various values. This could be true since lacking an ability to view the universe from the outside our logical constructions must necessarily be as generalized as possible, and from this generalization collapses the certainty that is our universe. It is unfortunate that we may be unable to determine "which universe is ours" while bound inside. I say "may be" since the work of an early 20th century mathematician, Kurt Godel essentially defined the limits of what questions can be asked using a logical /mathematical construction. In essence, it is possible for a system constructed to find answers to be unable to answer questions definable using its language. It may be the case that the mathematics foundation that we have created is unable to allow us to answer the question of why the constants seem "fine tuned" and of allowing us the ability to pose questions in the universe to determine the answer. The system itself may preclude our asking falsifiable questions about the universe that can tie one or another GUT to OUR universe and in the language of science that would make the conclusion only a hypothesis.

I am confident though that whatever is outside our universe communes with what is inside and has effects that we can test for and thus allow us to select from the embarrasment of theories that do explain the constants. All that said, there is absolutely no reason to jump from our current state of understanding back to saying "a magic man done it!" when scientific investigation has gotten us so splendidly to the very edge of the universe itself as D'Souza and other theists are always eager to do.

146. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92918 by sent2null on December 1, 2007 at 6:32 pm

Up to video 7 now, one thing I can say about D'Souza is he's a master at walking the fine line of an argument. Instead of attacking a point directly, he'll bring up some tangential and at first blush intriguing idea which ultimately is irrelevant to the discussion. He mentions Pascal's wager for example, which to the layman seems like a very compelling argument. To paraphrase, "If it cost me nothing to believe, then why shouldn't I?" However this means nothing as few believers use such a restricted description of faith, in fact those that do are known as deists at best rather than as theists. Once the trappings of dogma and ritual possessed by real world religions are added upon this kernel of zero loss belief, the recipe for destruction and conflict with other such systems is set. Further, when we analyze the contradictions these varying sets of dogma and ritual bring forth we see that if the God is there it is anything but a good or just one. So the best we can conclude, even giving D'Souza a bone by asserting that yes we agree there is a God, is that that God is either on vacation or crazy. Yes D'Souza is free to go with believing since it costs him nothing but that very choice damns him to also believe that his God is either dead (which is materially identical to non existent as atheists assert) or crazy. This latter option contradicts the thousands of lines of scripture and dogma created by religions to describe, supposedly through divine inspiration, what "God" wants for us. Well if "he" is giving every culture dichotomous commands every few hundred years then he is either malicious or crazy assuming he does exist, but he's definitely not good. I'd rather believe that God was dead than that he was a drunkard, and if he is dead , that is the same as the position that an atheist takes that he does not exist, so it does make more sense to NOT believe, as believing forces us to accept a contradiction of an at times sleeping, at times lightning throwing, at times capricious and malicious "God".

Again I commend D'Souza for bringing up the muddled issues that misdirect from the arguments at hand, ultimately he builds on a house of cards but his job is not to bring you the truth it is simply to *convince you* (ie. "win" the argument) and his style does work if the sales of his book are any indication.

147. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92871 by sent2null on December 1, 2007 at 4:03 pm

What is the purpose of having a course where children are taught the "history" of religion but where you leave out the FACT that they are all created by man and this is all easily verified by historical data? I can see the value of preserving some aspects of religion but those aspects are not unique to religion, they are precepts that make sense for people living in groups to adhere to, especially in a civil society. Children should be taught this, they should also however be taught that there is no correlation between moral actions on the part of people and any (sometimes contradictory regarding what is "moral")guide book as defined by religions. In my view Dennet is going a bit to light on the punching bag of religious belief. Ostensibly he does this in hopes of making inroads into existing entrenched religious modes of thought, though I commend this slow and steady technique it is a bit annoying especially when you know that the facts to offer a more complete refutation of divinely inspired religious belief can be employed in its stead.

148. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92141 by sent2null on November 30, 2007 at 12:04 am

Although I must say I squirmed in my chair a bit as I read the first few paragraphs wondering where Prof. Dawkins was going with this. I have to agree with the idea that vindictive jealousy serves no purpose. I have always been of the mind that if someone with whom I've developed a trust relationship, whether it be in love or any other area, violates that trust that they will not be given another opportunity to do it. Simple, though sadness and anger may be a part of my initial reaction it will never move to vindictive motives. I have reason to believe that a previous relationship of mine ended potentially due to my mates infidelity but I don't hate her for it. I was aware of her unhappiness in our relationship primarily due to my habit of professing the supremacy of my career goals over our relationship goals, but she knew this about me when we met and was hoping it would change in time, it did not. I Loved her in a very different way from how I loved my career but it didn't seem to matter to her. It was as if my work was a woman and I was cheating on her with it. It was a bizarre realization for me to have that she saw things this way but at least I know it is possible for the future. We should be thankful that we can get out of situations where our trust has been violated with our lives, amorous treachery often times is attended by the finality of death.

149. A New Flea in Town!

Comment #91983 by sent2null on November 29, 2007 at 4:43 pm

I find the choice of a hubble deep field image for this book's front cover to be particularly disgusting. Another example of the religious shamelessly stealing a great achievement of rationalism for their own parochial, insidious and rather selfish ends.

Yes that was annoying upon first glance at the book cover for me as well.

150. Sir David Attenborough on God

Comment #88296 by sent2null on November 15, 2007 at 9:34 pm

Indeed, the Carl Sagan of Ecology, I've been watching his shows since I was 10 along side other favorite shows of my youth. I think the reasons he gave for non belief are a bit weak though, I think it much more powerful to use an avalanche of data by presenting a massive tapestry of knowledge that integrates sociology, history, mathematics, biology, physics, geology, religious history and anthropology. I've found that the thing that creationists fear most is being told that they are ignorant of certain facts in science and having that proven to them through one long dissertation that touches on multiple disciplines of science facts that all support the truth that there is no sentient watcher of the Universe without actually really stating it outright. My goal is to make it simply be obvious given the amazing confluence of multi disciplinary data. I take great joy in doing this but not maliciously (which is the key) just as a person won't argue with their car mechanic if he tells them that their transmission is shot, I give creationists no choice but to accept that there is a great, huge chasm of knowledge that separates my understanding from theirs where they are the deficient ones in the equation. At worst it gets them to quit their attempts at trying to convince me, at best it ends with me suggesting reading material for them to build up their empirical knowledge base. It is an endeavor that requires patience and modesty but it can succeed and must if we are to ensure that reason champions over unreason as this planets human population continues to grow.