251. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #129823 by Mark Smith on February 19, 2008 at 3:49 pm

Shmeezers
You're being ironic right?
This is a blog. If you want scientific proof, you'll need to go to the scientific journals etc. Here, people try (among other things), in more and less successful ways, to explain some of the science. If you don't find the explanations helpful and you aren't prepared to say why, as opposed to making pointless assertions about arrogance etc, then I suggest you go elsewhere to try to find whatever it is you are looking for.

252. Why Darwin matters

Comment #129790 by Mark Smith on February 19, 2008 at 3:19 pm

True, but this is a different case. This fellow has been on this Dawkins site for months, and has been presented with evidence repeatedly, both in the form of conversations, and threads in which these things have been discussed.

We ex-conservative evangelicals (which from memory I think is what Krisking is (might become?), have a lot to work through!

Seriously, though Steve: you shouldn't feel you have got to keep on answering if it is getting tiresome. You are very helpful to a lot of people, but don't let that put something too heavy on you. (Hope that doesn't sound silly/patronising etc, just ignore me if it does.)

(By the way Steve, I posted at number 354 of this thread, re your debate on your own site. I'm not sure if you saw it, because I think you were away at the time.)

253. Why Darwin matters

Comment #129777 by Mark Smith on February 19, 2008 at 3:05 pm

I am being slightly hard, because there is all the difference between saying you have a problem understanding an idea supported by the overwhelming majority of scientists, and saying that you are unsure that this idea is true. The former is honest, the latter is (in my view) arrogant, unless you are suitably qualified in that area.

My wife regularly has an 'I can't believe that!' reaction to various scientific theories, generally when they are counter-intuitive (which most of them are). It sometimes seems an arrogant reaction to me. But then I remember that I am 'on-side' with science. I really do think that if you aren't 'on-side', it really is very difficult to accept a lot of these things.

254. Why Darwin matters

Comment #129751 by Mark Smith on February 19, 2008 at 2:36 pm

Don't be too hard on Krisking. I think the paradigm shift thing is quite helpful. Once you have shifted, everything seems so obvious, but until then it doesn't!

255. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #129736 by Mark Smith on February 19, 2008 at 2:16 pm

I think this study is good news. Hopefully, the source of funding will not have much or any effect on the results, but it is an area well worth examining scientifically in any case. And if the results were skewed, hopefully that would be picked up on review.

256. Fleabytes

Comment #129699 by Mark Smith on February 19, 2008 at 1:27 pm

excellent stuff Paula, and thanks for the hard work

257. State Approves Evolution As 'Scientific Theory'

Comment #129683 by Mark Smith on February 19, 2008 at 1:06 pm

This is super annoying since it is re-affirming the misrepresentation of the meaning of the word "theory".

Only if you read into it the original compromise. But in fact it can be read as a simple statement that 'the scientific theory of evolution' is to be taught. I think the publicity could (and probably should) be used to assert that evolution is a scientific theory like gravity is a scientific theory.

258. The Search for Truth, God and Braver Scientists in 'Expelled'

Comment #128244 by Mark Smith on February 16, 2008 at 3:37 pm

jbacsa

It also seems to me that a notable exception are a wealthy, privileged minority who have no use for God.

Even if you are right, what is your point?

(I don't think you are right by the way - take a look at wealthy America, for example)

259. The Search for Truth, God and Braver Scientists in 'Expelled'

Comment #128233 by Mark Smith on February 16, 2008 at 3:28 pm

jbacsa

The comment by user Nails about so called faith-heads being ingnorant of science can be reversed, the comments by atheists on this website demonstrates ignorance of religious experience which most humans on this planet seem to share and be aware.

In fact a great many of us have plenty of firsthand knowledge of religious experience. I, for one, spent a number of years as a strongly-committed Christian. You should not make the mistake of confusing negative opinions about religion for a lack of experience of it.

260. Why Darwin matters

Comment #128115 by Mark Smith on February 16, 2008 at 8:25 am

Steve, I recently had a debate with somebody on the AtheismSucks site who was arguing that anybody who recognizes rationality (the laws of logic was his preferred phrase) must also recognize the Christian god in order not to be self-contradictory. He seemed to have a similar background (Reformed Christian, presuppositionalist etc) to the guy you are debating. In the end it seemed to boil down to him disliking my view that the laws of logic are human products and him preferring to think that they were grounded in a metaphysical being out of whom logic flowed in some way. I didnt feel he ever managed to show that the simple fact that we use the laws of logic must lead to belief either in a deist god or more particularly the Christian god, but he kept asserting it was obvious. However, in the end, when I suggested that if he was right, both me and every other thinker ought to come to god purely by virtue of the use of reason, he commented that

I don't actually believe that if someone merely goes through a thinking exercise that he would conclude Christianity is correct...proper thinking would lead to that, but i don't believe men think properly (we are born in sin). If you thought I was merely trying to argue you into Christianity, I apologize for giving you that impression. You actually need to repent of your sins and believe in Christ...proper thinking follows from that.

So you might want to ask your guy early on whether he thinks you are capable of correct thought, or whether you are inevitably blinded by sin.

261. Why Darwin matters

Comment #127847 by Mark Smith on February 15, 2008 at 4:41 pm

What would a good ‘working model’ of evolution consist of? Would you not just need something which could reproduce itself in a relatively enclosed but somewhat varying environment? If you could stop yourself from intervening (and thereby acting as a “designer�) it might cease to reproduce or it might succeed for some time. If it did the latter, and there were sufficient “generations�, you might well get evolution to some degree. It seems to me that what currently prevents this is our inability to make something that can reproduce itself sufficiently well. But I got the impression that the fields of robotics and AI might be making progress. Having said that, don’t certain computer viruses already reproduce themselves in their environments?

262. Why Darwin matters

Comment #127765 by Mark Smith on February 15, 2008 at 3:33 pm

See the computer simulation....but the problem for me is that the Darwin monkey is being compared to the target phrases until it hits a right letter. This means there is purpose, as Dawkins says "it has a distant target in mind which natural selection does not have". And yet he goes on to say that it does show us the key to the way out of mammoth improbability. I can't see how it does. He gives this (as he admits) faulty illustration, but then goes on to talk about smearing out the luck etc.

I think he has made a huge leap here.

It is interesting you raised this. I actually agree with you. I remember seeing this example in "The Blind Watchmaker", and thinking that it was open to misinterpretation!

I'll come up with a detailed response in another post in a short while.

Sorry for jumping in, but isn’t the problem that you can’t come up with an illustration of evolution that isn’t evolution without some element of purpose/design etc written in? By definition, if you come up with something that genuinely has the features of randomness and natural selection, you will be pointing to actual evolution, not some model of it. Any supposed model I have ever seen of evolution seems to me to have this ‘weakness’ (ie purpose written in somewhere). But on the other hand, you could criticize models of anything on a similar sort of basis.

263. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #127005 by Mark Smith on February 14, 2008 at 4:29 pm

Excellent points Cartomancer. I would add that some people seem more concerned with maintaining relationships (Bunting seemed to say as much herself) and loyalty to their group than arriving at conclusions as to the nature of things. If that is your concern, it may be better just not to let your mind commit itself on certain matters. There seem to be plenty of people who take this aproach and do so in good conscience.

264. The Pagan Christ

Comment #126187 by Mark Smith on February 12, 2008 at 2:57 pm

Albigondas

What, that pride has been and continues to be a prevalent characteristic of the human race? Historians also try to understand the context of a particular event.

You want to have it both ways: making an unwarranted assumption about some particular persons (presumably based on a theological conclusion about humanity in general, that we are all proud), and then claiming to understand the context of a particular event. I repeat my claim that this is not good history.

you dismiss these with a wave of the hand as if they were of no consequence and that they would give up these core values because of someone suggesting something new

Not so. I have claimed that we do not have sufficient evidence to be nearly so sure as you seem to be about what they believed, either before or after, or what might have caused changes of belief. But nevertheless it seems likely at least some of them really did believe some sort of resurrection had taken place (though not necessarily a bodily one at the beginning). I have claimed that, if there was a giving up of core values as you claim, then it was their coming to believe a resurrection which must have been what caused them to give up their core values. And I have pointed out that this is precisely the same cause as you must posit. Where we differ is the cause of that cause. You say it was an actual resurrection. I say there is no need for this hypothesis.

By the way, your core values point is supposed to be that the values were so important to Jews it would have required actual direct experience of a resurrected body to cause them to have given them up. This seems to go against the so-called biblical evidence of the 3000 Jews who also shared those core values and were prepared, according to Acts 2:41, to give them up merely on seeing some men they supposed were drunk (v 15) followed by a sermon from Peter.

If you are interested, you can Google 'resurrection accounts' and find that the accounts can be reconciled.

You can reconcile anything if you try hard enough. At some point the reconciliation will become incredible to most people and it is more credible to accept one or more of the accounts is incorrect. Though that will not be possible if you have a prior commitment to inerrancy/infallibility. So be it. But again, you rule yourself out of the realm of doing good history. The good historian must always be open to the possibility that a source is not correct.

Ok, but there is still the event that causes me to conceptualize the flying pig right? Say I'm watching a TV show about pigs and in the background I see an airplane fly by. That even't might cause me to conceptualize and wonder if pigs could fly. Or I might walk outside one morning and while talking to my neighbor, we both look up and see a flying pig. Both events could cause me to conceptualize flying pigs but which one would be the more likely to lead to the belief that pigs can fly? You see, the cause of the conceptualization itself plays a significant role in whether what is conceptualized becomes a belief or not. As it relates to the resurrection, the culture and the beliefs that the first disciples had carried significant amount of weight. My contention is that something weighty would need to be loaded into the scales to tip the balance away from those established beliefs in favor of a new belief.

You do realize your logic appears to be that if I meet someone who claims they have seen a flying pig and they are sufficiently credible etc, I should conclude that pigs can fly?

It seems to me that your faith really is preventing you from doing good science (eg evolution) and good history (eg the resurrection).

265. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #124179 by Mark Smith on February 8, 2008 at 3:25 pm

The previous page on this thread, there was mention of wave-functions and quantum theory. Can I take the chance to ask Steve et al something about this I’ve been wanting to ask for a while, specifically about Schrodinger’s Cat. With Schrodinger’s Cat, at the moment of opening the box, we observe the cat and the observation causes the wave-function to collapse. In other words, as I understand it, observation is the key thing. So (and I apologise for this, because I fear I’m asking something stupid: no need to be gentle with me), what if we re-imagine Schrodinger’s cat as follows? The box has a glass lid which switches between opaque and transparent if an electric current runs through it; the lid is wired up to the Geiger-counter, such that at the same moment as the Geiger-counter is triggered and releases the poison gas the lid also becomes transparent. Doesn’t this mean that, assuming someone is watching, the lid will be changed (and therefore the wave-function will have collapsed) before the cat has died and the cat will be seen to die? What I’m getting at with this amended thought experiment is that in this one the observer is not involved in the collapse, as the collapse has to happen first. I know I must be going wrong, but I can’t see where.

266. The Pagan Christ

Comment #123210 by Mark Smith on February 6, 2008 at 3:44 pm

Albondigas

The word evolution is commonly used in such a way that it refers to 2 different processes, one where an organism adapts to its environment and the other where an organism becomes a different kind or organism. Both are not the same and the same word should not be used to describe both processes.

I think you are mistaken here. There is only one ‘process’, which is adaptation by natural selection. (It seems from what you say that you accept this process does occur - I’ll come back to this in a moment.) As successive organisms adapt to their changing environments, they tend to become increasingly different from their ancestors. At some point, and with hindsight, they can be regarded as sufficiently different to be described as a new species. But there is not some ‘different process’ which comes into play at some arbitrary moment such that one organism gives birth to an organism of a different species. There simply is an ongoing process of adaptation, which considered over all its history we call evolution.

Returning to your acceptance of adaptation (presumably by natural selection), would it not be consistent with your worldview to say that, although God created each species distinct at the time of creation, since that time the species have been adapting and, in theory at least, could have turned into new species?

Or are you claiming that it is scientifically impossible for new species to have come about, even since creation? If you are claiming this, can you honestly say your claim is not made in order to protect your religious views?

You have to maintain that every mutation along the way was advantageous, but sexual reproduction wouldn't work until the last mutation had occurred. So how did the organism reproduce until the last piece was in place for sexual reproduction to work?

This is the same as the objection to the evolution of the eye, but shifted over to another case because the eye objection has been dealt with. Try reading Dawkins’s Climbing Mount Improbable which explains in detail how eyes evolved.

267. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #120884 by Mark Smith on February 2, 2008 at 5:58 pm

Blacknad
The sun is made of cheddar cheese. Last week I wrote a very good book proving this fact and setting out all the rational arguments. When you have read it we can get into a debate about the finer points of the sun's cheesiness if you like.

I appreciate it is possible that despite Vox's ridiculous assertions in the article above, he makes good arguments in the book. I have to say though that I find it extremely unlikely.

268. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #120867 by Mark Smith on February 2, 2008 at 5:43 pm

Blacknad
Could be that the two quotes I've given are aberrations.

Oh, but wait, then he says

Dawkins thinks humanity should follow Darwin just long enough to cast off Jesus Christ, then ditch Darwin in favor of following Richard Dawkins' opinion on life, the universe and everything. Just like philosophers, you can always count on a scientist to come around eventually to the concept of rule by scientist-king.

Perhaps the guy who said these things is his alter-ego, while in the book he leaves out this kind of rubbish?

269. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #120854 by Mark Smith on February 2, 2008 at 5:31 pm

Blacknad
Here is another reason to not read his book

Atheists have felt that science was on their side ever since the Enlightenment, and now they see it slipping away from them. So, this recent explosion of atheist books is not a sign of strength; it's a sign of desperation.

He's talking bollocks!

270. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #120848 by Mark Smith on February 2, 2008 at 5:19 pm

Blacknad
Here is a good reason not to read his book:

There is very little that Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens say that was not already said by Jean Meslier prior to his death in 1729.

He is talking bollocks. 1729 is rather a long time before the theory of evolution by natural selection, and that informs rather more than a 'very little' that Dawkins has to say.

271. The Pagan Christ

Comment #120843 by Mark Smith on February 2, 2008 at 5:01 pm

Albigondigas

I'd say that I'm relying on something that is very prevalent in humanity, and that is pride. Fred is not talking about some event in some far away land that he experienced and George didn't. The event is something they both experienced. George saw the man get beaten, he saw him crucified, and he saw him die. When Fred communicates something that contradicts George's experience and understanding, that's where pride comes in: 'No way man, I saw him die.' As they say, 'Seeing is believing'.

You are continuing to make the sort of assumptions a historian could not make. That is your choice, and I can understand why you make it for the sake of your faith. But don’t claim (or kid yourself in your own mind) that you are making a historical case for the resurrection. Neither you nor I can have any confidence about what Fred or George might have thought or done. Your faith relies on the unsubstantiated (and ‘unsubstantiatable’) claim that George would have thought and done what you wish he would have thought and done. What if he was actually a rather gullible fellow? It is possible that the religion of billions of people came about because George wasn’t too bright and didn’t see the need to check things out. I’ve met plenty of people just like that.

I seem to recall something about when a group of people witness an event, there will invariably be deviations in their perceptions of the event. In fact, it's expected and when there isn't, then it's actually an indication of someone not telling the truth. I have no reference for this so I'd have to look into this more.

If that is your line then I trust you recognize the doctrines of inerrancy and/or infallibility of the Bible are false and are happy to acknowledge that here.

Irrespective of that, your suggestion that inconsistency of detail supports the central event doesn’t stand up in this case in my opinion. The idea behind your ‘deviations in their perceptions’ point is that person A will perceive differently from person B and so A will report different details from person B. But if the details given are sufficiently contradictory and unbelievable, we conclude the reports as a whole cannot be trusted. We weigh the discrepancies up, and at some point conclude that they have arisen not because of differences in perspective but because A or B or both are incorrect in respect of their whole reports. Furthermore, it is clear that the Gospels are not simple collections of witness statements from persons A, B, C etc. Rather they are contradictory retellings. John’s Gospel has ‘the beloved disciple’ (ie John) going in the tomb first, while Mark, Luke and John have the women going in first. You might argue there are underlying witness statements containing deviations on the detail: the women said ‘We were first there’, while John said ‘No, I was’. But both can’t be right while both could be wrong. I would argue that such contradictory details are more consistent with the idea of different legends arising in different sections of the early Christian religion as the resurrection myth got ‘fleshed out’.

We both agree that they came to believe in the resurrection, but not that the new belief was the cause of giving up their old beliefs. The cause in your case is someone convincing someone else that Jesus was alive, the cause in my case is Jesus actually being raised from the dead and physically appearing to them.

This is simply wrong as a matter of fact. No event (excepting blows to the head and the like) can in and of itself cause a change of belief. If you see something happen, you must conceptualize it, interpret it etc, before you change your beliefs. If you were to see a four-legged pink, curly-tailed creature in the air above you, you would have to conceptualize it as a flying pig before your came to believe pigs could fly.

What I'm saying is that it would take an extraordinary event to overcome the ingrained cultural beliefs that were held at that time as well as the 'seeing is believing' element mentioned above.

And I am saying it would take belief that an extraordinary event had occurred to overcome the …

272. The Pagan Christ

Comment #119447 by Mark Smith on January 31, 2008 at 3:50 pm

Albondigas

Take a look at bacteria that can exchange DNA (i.e., have sex); one bacterium mutates to be resistant to a specific environmental threat (an antibiotic, say). It then aligns itself with another bacterium, they open up a channel between each other and the resistant bacterium injects the "how to be resistant" instructions to the other one.

Do you read what you write? You make this sound so simple, even trivial but it's not. As you indicated, these organisms are blind, uncaring, unpredictive, selfish, and I added, unaware. Why develop the ability to transfer DNA at all? Who should it transfer it to? It's not aware, remember? And why did the neighbor develop the ability to incorporate extraneous DNA into it's own? Pretty lucky for these 2 processes to develop independently and then one day just match up and work!

The way you responded to Galactor suggests you thought he was talking about a possible mechanism for things that may have taken place a long time ago, and you thought it was implausible because it would have had to be 'pretty lucky'. I read him as describing the kind of evolution of bacteria that takes place in hospitals now all the time. You do realize that bacteria unquestionably are evolving now, and by the sort of mechanisms Galactor described? And therefore they provide an excellent model as to how 'sex' may have got started.

The question was never whether it was an advantage. The question was why did it start?

Because if something is an advantage and it can be arrived at by (say) a mutation, then it will get started. That is the key step in evolution by natural selection.

273. The Pagan Christ

Comment #116031 by Mark Smith on January 25, 2008 at 10:30 am

Albondigas

Yes, we have been referring specifically to those who would have started it all. The operative word is 'convince'. Suppose Fred is this one person that believes Jesus is alive and he goes and tells George about it. How would George respond? Would he say 'Fred, that is amazingly good news! Terrific, let's tell the others.' Or would he say 'Fred, I think you're a bit stressed. Look, I know we all hoped he was the Messiah but he's dead now. In fact, why don't we take a walk over to the tomb where he was buried so you can see that he's still there and get a grip before you lose it.'

I think you are doing bad history here, and that is important because we are debating the question of whether there is good historical evidence for the resurrection. I'll come back to why it is bad history in a moment. But just supposing for now that your example with Fred and George is a good one, what is it saying? It is only saying that it is no more than quite (or even 'very', if you want) unlikely that George would have believed Fred. (George might have been more credulous than you suppose.) George believing Fred might be very unlikely, but it is orders of magnitude more likely than a dead body coming back to life.

But what do I mean by 'doing bad history'? I mean that you are imposing your own particular opinions about what ought to be believed onto a historical person. You think you would not have thought X if you had been in George's shoes, so George could not have thought X. I'd like to think that if I had been around the first followers of Muhammed, or of Joseph Smith, or of any of the other countless religions with strange beginnings, then I would not have believed their claims. But I don't extrapolate from that to say that because people did believe them they must be true. Or do you not accept one of the great truths of history: people will believe anything.

Don't forget there's more to the Paul story than just a waking apparition. There's this small issue of going blind that went along with it. As for John, what he believed appears to be ambiguous given the verses that follow the one you referenced … Nope, they all just went back to their homes.

I don't find the repeating of details culled from ancient and potentially highly fallible writings to be historically convincing. But if you want to add 'going blind' to the list of reasons people might have believed in the resurrection, be my guest.

And similarly, your assumption that the first Christians did claim a bodily resurrection from the start is not well founded.

Are there more reliable documents that would indicate otherwise? As far as I understand, some of Paul's writings were the earliest. He claimed a bodily resurrection.

We know that, say around AD50, Paul was probably claiming a bodily resurrection. This is a fairly well established historical fact, and I have suggested a mechanism as to how this could have come about if Jesus died and was not resurrected. It is not critical to my argument when a bodily resurrection was claimed. Paul might have been first, Peter might have been first, years earlier. You, on the other hand, are asserting as a key part of your argument that the very first Christians, say 15 to 20 years earlier claimed a bodily resurrection. I merely pointed out that this critical part of your argument has no direct evidence in support of it.

Do we automatically discard them as being unreliable?

Its not a question of automatically discarding things. Memories can be accurate, but can also be false, or somewhere in between. Similarly with written documents. It is a question of looking critically at the evidence and reaching a careful, well-thought out view.

On the Gospels, by the way, have you ever tried comparing the detail of their version of the resurrection stories? Try doing it with the first visits to the empty tomb. The discrepancies and contradictions are enormous. John has men going in the tomb first, the other 3 have the women. Matthew has an angel sitting on a stone outside the tomb, Mark has an angel inside, Luke has two standing inside and John has two sitting inside. Etc etc etc. To the historian, this suggests there were several (at least four and probably more) accounts circulating in the early church each with different mythical accretions as the story was retold. That doesn't prove the central supposed event didn't happen, but it does show that the stories are not the 'reliable recall' you might wish for.

You think they explain why they came to believe Jesus was raised but I do not. As stated earlier, I don't think that when the suggestions you have made are put in the balance and weighed against their very culture that they would even come close to tipping the scales in that direction.

You claimed that my suggestions were not credible because they couldn't explain why they gave up their strongly-held culturally-ingrained beliefs. My point was that they gave up those beliefs as a result of coming to believe in the resurrection. That is the case whether the resurrection actually happened or not. That is, both you and I agree that they came to believe in the resurrection and that new belief was the cause of giving up their old beliefs. Thus your objection on this basis is incorrect as a matter of logic.

274. This Week's Flea

Comment #114739 by Mark Smith on January 22, 2008 at 4:38 pm

Perhaps not necessarily irrationality. But certainly subjectivity.

I do regard it as irrational: the 'truths' which are being read in are propositions and are therefore in the realm of reason. Yet the 'inner witness' that supposedly guarantees these truths is not open to reason in any way. The people who have it simply 'know that they know that they know', even if all the evidence is to the contrary. That, in my view, can reasonably be described as irrational.

The criticism that it is subjective appears to be the reason why people like Malcom Muggeridge turn to Catholicism.

275. This Week's Flea

Comment #114726 by Mark Smith on January 22, 2008 at 4:07 pm

ADH

The Bible is not a guidebook. It's essentially God's revelation of His character and the unfolding of his purposes for his creation.

I can understand where you are coming from. It is much more appealing in modern times to think of the Bible as revealed narrative than as a manual of revelation. But it still falls prey to the criticism that I made earlier, namely that in order to reach that narrative you have to impose the constructs of the group you are loyal to onto a very large collection of words that many other people (presumably who you think do not 'have the Spirit') read in extraordinarily different ways. In other words, it is not a narrative which, as it were, spings out at you from the Bible and which thereby creates your faith. Instead, you have to read the narrative into it, based on the things your faith community tells you you ought to be seeing in it.

This means you need some guarantee that is separate from the Bible that your group has the truth. Otherwise you are just going to be reading in untruth. (Which supposedly is the great strength of Roman Catholicism, with its assertion of an unbroken line of authority going back to St Peter.) Evangelicals I have known have tended to try to appeal to some sort of inner witness – they just know that they know that they know … And that brings me back to my original claim: that an irrationality is at the heart of what you believe.

276. This Week's Flea

Comment #114202 by Mark Smith on January 21, 2008 at 2:24 pm

ADH

Then we'd all be sunk.

Why? Loads of people have done more good in their life than bad. Or are you referring to the Christian propaganda (which isn't very 'biblical' by the way, unless you are interpreting through Paul's eyes – the guy who could only see through a glass darkly!) that everybody has sinned against the Christian god, and that is much worse than anything they could ever do to any other person.

277. This Week's Flea

Comment #114199 by Mark Smith on January 21, 2008 at 2:15 pm

ADH

There is no mismatch. The OT can only be interpreted in the light of the incarnation because that was the event that it was intended to point forward to.

Excellent example of the arbitrary application of an interpretative method and the interpretation of some parts in the light of other parts you like better, which I referred to earlier. (And which you seemed to imply was incorrect assumption.)

278. This Week's Flea

Comment #114187 by Mark Smith on January 21, 2008 at 1:52 pm

ADH

Don't ask me how that's going to pan out.

You are claiming the human need for justice, and the lack of it in this life, proves that there must be justice in the next life. I am claiming that the Christian construct, according to which humans either go to heaven or hell according to whether they have faith not according to their acts such as murder, expressly denies the possibility of such justice. Murderers go to heaven if they have faith. If you believe as strongly as you say you do in the need for justice, I suggest you give up your Christian faith and start believing in some other judgmental god. One that ignores peoples' faith and instead scores them points purely on what they have done.

279. This Week's Flea

Comment #114166 by Mark Smith on January 21, 2008 at 1:27 pm

ADH

That is your assumption.

I was guessing about the inerrancy and evangelicalism (as I said), but the rest is certainly not assumption. It describes how 'Bible-believing Christians' approach 'the good book'. Perhaps you could say how you differ from them?

I'd also be interested to know if you aren't an inerrantist and/or an evangelical. You presumably are happy to be open about your position.

280. This Week's Flea

Comment #114156 by Mark Smith on January 21, 2008 at 1:10 pm

ADH
The guy in Matchpoint murdered and got away with it in 'this life'. Am I right in assuming you accept this happens, but that you think (if it were real) he would 'get justice' after death? What would this justice be? Assuming he didn't have faith, he would be going to hell anyway wouldn't he, regardless of the murder. Conversely, if he converts, he gets to go to heaven, and so again justice is not done.

281. This Week's Flea

Comment #114151 by Mark Smith on January 21, 2008 at 1:00 pm

ADH

Because I accept and have confidence in the Bible as a truthful reflection of the character of God.

Here is the centre of your irrationality. 'The Bible', let alone 'the Bible as a truthful reflection', is a mythical construct. There is the Bible in its original languages, the translated Hebrew Bible (Old Testament only), the Protestant Bible and the Catholic Bible, King James Bible, the NIV, RSV, etc etc. Once you have chosen one of these you need to impose an arbitrary interpretive method (I'm guessing inerrancy plus evangelicalism in your case) and then focus in on the bits you like and interpret the other bits in the light of them (and probably effectively ignore yet others).

This is not 'accepting and having confidence in', it is imposing the constructs of the group you are loyal to onto a very large collection of words that many other people (presumably who you think do not 'have the Spirit') read in extraordinarily different ways.

282. Dawkins: I'm a cultural Christian

Comment #113761 by Mark Smith on January 20, 2008 at 1:16 pm

djspideyspinster
I just followed the link to your blog and can't find anything about RD. Has it moved?

All I could see is one from December. It does have in it claims about the historicity of the resurrection, which interests me. If you go here: http://richarddawkins.net/article,1966,The-Pagan-Christ,CBC-Tom-Harpur and check out the debate between myself and Albondigas, you will see he takes the same line. I believe I have refuted the argument (though I would think that wouldn't I!) and if you are in the mood I would be delighted if you were to post there where you think I have gone wrong.

283. The Pagan Christ

Comment #112503 by Mark Smith on January 17, 2008 at 11:40 am

Albondigas
If you are planning to respond to my Post 224, please do so in priority to this one. But I just wanted to highlight a point on natural selection I think you have misunderstood. You said:

That is the name of the game right, pass on your genes and do it efficiently.
So let's see in asexual reproduction you get to pass on all your genes, you don't have to find a mate, and you don't have to carry around the expensive baggage of reproductive organs. For sexual reproduction you get to pass on 50% less of your genes, you have to find a mate, and you get to expend energy carrying around the baggage of sexual reproductive organs. Which one is the better one for the game?

This misunderstands the animal (or plant etc) as the unit of reproduction. Rather it is each gene (albeit acting in cohort with other genes and acting 'through' the animals they 'inhabit') which makes copies of itself. If sexual reproduction is an evolutionary advantage it is so for the genes which cause it to come about. So for sexual reproduction to become an ongoing feature, it has to cause more copies of those genes to be made than would be made without sexual reproduction.

As I understand it (and simplifying massively), sexual reproduction increases variety between offspring, and that will be an advantage in environments where variety is an advantage. So lets say Animal A produces 5 offspring by asexual reproduction. Its genes reproduce themselves 5 times. Animal B produces 5 offspring by sexual reproduction. That requires half B's genes to be passed on, so on average the genes have reproduced themselves 2.5 times. All you need for sexual reproduction to become a persistent feature is an environment with say a disease in it which is successful at attacking Animal A's offspring. If on average it kills 4, then A's genes will only reproduce themselves once. The disease might only kill say one of B's offspring if the variation between the offspring happens to be of the right type. So now B's genes are reproducing themselves 2 times and they are outproducing A.

284. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #110761 by Mark Smith on January 12, 2008 at 10:32 am

They seem to go through responses picking out perceived logical inconsistencies and category errors to fight small battles, completely bypassing the larger argument being made.

Absolutely. I'm trying to get the blog owner, William, to engage with me on content after he rejected my first post after he took exception to it being in the format of an explanation of what I believe! Yet to see whether he will though.

285. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #110629 by Mark Smith on January 11, 2008 at 4:33 pm

Fair enough, duely chastised.

Don't apologise. Why shouldn't you get the giggles? Or indeed tell us that you do? I didn't read you as disparaging or dismissing anybody.

286. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #110622 by Mark Smith on January 11, 2008 at 3:58 pm

Corylus
I don't think ADH is actually defending objective morality as such. He is criticising various people, and atheism in general, for not having objective morality themselves. But that doesn't mean he believes in it himself (though I suppose he might think he does). I know I'm speculating (and ADH please put me right if I am wrong), but I suspect he is hoping that if somebody agrees a need for objective morality he can get them to take on board something entirely different, namely 'Christian morality', which of course he thinks entails becoming a Christian. And he will thereby have done his evangelistic duty.

In terms of what the nature of Christian morality is, it seems to me he prevaricates, between something highly subjective – "Love God with all your heart soul and mind, and your neighbour as yourself", which he says is the core of Christian morality – and something 'objective' which will function as a 'yardstick'. He hasn't yet stated what this yardstick is and how we get access to it, but I am working on the hypothesis that it will turn out to be 'the Bible'.

But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe he will be perfectly happy if none of us become Christians, just as long as we convert to 'objective moralism'.

287. Two Ex-Jehovah Witnesses to Tell Why They Became Atheists

Comment #110598 by Mark Smith on January 11, 2008 at 3:06 pm

Styrer

How I wish I understood the movement from 'debunking' to 'finally realising'.

I'm not sure I'm properly understanding your question, and I can't generalise, but for myself I was part of a kind of Christianity which claimed to value truth and also was quite evangelistic in ethos (ie believed others need to be told about the gospel). I took both these things to mean that you should try to examine critically (within certain limits) your own beliefs and the false beliefs of others (ie debunking them). I found that once this process started I began to take seriously potential difficulties with my own (and my church's beliefs). And from there it is not far to 'finally realising'.

288. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #110579 by Mark Smith on January 11, 2008 at 2:06 pm

By the way, it would have been nice to see some of you hang in there a bit longer in the Atheism Sucks site. But there you go.

I don't know what ADH is talking about here. Hope he isn't spinning things for the sake of his cause! I've just been on the site (the thread set up for us in particular) and I would say it is the theists who are failing to respond. And my latest post hasn't been answered.

289. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #110510 by Mark Smith on January 11, 2008 at 12:12 pm

ADH
I know people are keeping you busy, but please please will you answer my question from earlier. I've copied it below to save you time! And it should be quick to answer if it's what it appears to be from your various posts, namely 'the Bible'.

Question:
You are suggesting that it would be really nice if there were a moral code or the like which is entirely apart from any human being's particular views and which can therefore be appealed to in order to arbitrate between what each human does, provide instructions as to what should and should not be done etc. The paradigm is probably the Ten Commandments, given by god and available for all (Hebrew reading?) people to consult.

I can see why you think it would be great if such a thing existed. But at the moment all you are doing is explaining why it would be great. I assume you also think that it does in fact exist. So please will you say what it is and how we can all get access to it. I know you've referred to 'love god and love your neighbour' above, but that doesn't even come close to being something that can be appealed to in order to arbitrate between what each human does, provide instructions as to what should and should not be done etc.

Thanks

290. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #110193 by Mark Smith on January 10, 2008 at 3:48 pm

Diacanu
Thanks for the link. An enjoyable watch.

291. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #110178 by Mark Smith on January 10, 2008 at 3:24 pm

ADH
You are suggesting that it would be really nice if there were a moral code or the like which is entirely apart from any human being's particular views and which can therefore be appealed to in order to arbitrate between what each human does, provide instructions as to what should and should not be done etc. The paradigm is probably the Ten Commandments, given by god and available for all (Hebrew reading?) people to consult.

I can see why you think it would be great if such a thing existed. But at the moment all you are doing is explaining why it would be great. I assume you also think that it does in fact exist. So please will you say what it is and how we can all get access to it. I know you've referred to 'love god and love your neighbour' above, but that doesn't even come close to being something that can be appealed to in order to arbitrate between what each human does, provide instructions as to what should and should not be done etc.

292. The Pagan Christ

Comment #109753 by Mark Smith on January 9, 2008 at 3:58 pm

Albondigas

I'm hoping that having agreed 1 to 3 above are a fair representation of your argument, you'll accept they are a fair refutation of it.

Actually I think they are weak.

I did suspect I might be hoping for a bit too much!

First of all most of them have nothing to do with providing a reasonable basis for why they would claim a bodily resurrection.

I'm assuming you mean by this that my suggestions don't explain why they claimed a bodily resurrection. I'm surprised you say this. May I recommend you have another look at the New Testament? If you take it seriously, as you appear to, it itself demonstrates that some of the reasons I gave did cause people to claim a bodily resurrection. It is full of people like my person A above, people who were told by other people that Jesus had been raised, and who presumably went on to 'claim a bodily resurrection': try Acts 2:41 for example. Then there is Paul, a good example of person D, who had a waking apparition on the road to Damascus. He certainly went on to claim a bodily resurrection. Or for person E try John 20:8. This verse asserts that John, the other disciple, 'believed' simply on seeing the empty tomb.

Perhaps you are you talking about the very first believers, the ones who weren't told by anyone else? How many of these would it have needed to get things going? Well actually just one. All you need is one person who came to believe (or even decided to lie), as a result of any of the experiences I described earlier, that Jesus had been raised, and to go on to convince some others.

What you also need to remember is that we are doing history here. We do not know that any of the claims in the New Testament about the days, week or even first years immediately after Jesus died are at all accurate. So you can't assume that the resurrection stories are accurate. And similarly, your assumption that the first Christians did claim a bodily resurrection from the start is not well founded. It could well be that they simply claimed he was alive, with no more content to it than that, and the bodily aspect only got filled in later, perhaps in response to those who were claiming it was purely 'spiritual', or indeed that there was no resurrection at all (th beliefs Paul is arguing against in 1 Cor 15 for example).

Secondly none of them do anything to provide good reason as to why these believers would be so quick to give up on their long-held cultural beliefs about Messiah and what he would do.

Yes they do. They explain why they came to believe Jesus was raised. Which must be precisely the reason why you think they were so quick to give up their long-held beliefs.

Cheers
Mark Smith (previously smithyboy)

293. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #108792 by Mark Smith on January 7, 2008 at 3:35 pm

Why is evidence that would be utterly convincing to you in any other area so easily dismissed?

It's because the Bible tells him so

294. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108770 by Mark Smith on January 7, 2008 at 2:49 pm

Wow. Now I'm getting nostalgia for relativity - seems so simple in comparison. I'm going to have to read up: has anything been written yet that's reasonably clear for dummies?

295. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #108764 by Mark Smith on January 7, 2008 at 2:42 pm

PlagioClase
You are still arguing for creationism, ostensibly from a scientific perspective, so I think the question I asked you a few days ago is still relevant. But you haven't answered. It just asks for a quick, but honest, answer. Here it is again:

You're a creationist because of the Bible, right?

Try to imagine yourself without a Bible but still think of yourself as religious: you look at the world around you, the stars and the amazing plants and animals etc, and you think, surely it is all here because of a greater power, because of the hand of God. But you have no preconceptions as to how he did it. So you go to an astronomer and he/she explains how the stars came about, and you go to a geologist who explains why the Earth is like it is. And then you go to a biologist, who explains how life developed into what it is today by evolution by natural selection.

Try to imagine yourself doing this, but with no prior knowledge and no preconceived ideas, and with enough time to get a good understanding of what these scientists are saying. Can you honestly say that having done this, the scientists' ideas would not be plausible, and that God couldn't have brought it all about the way they described?

296. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108752 by Mark Smith on January 7, 2008 at 2:17 pm

Sorry peacebeuponme, my fault.

Steve

They don't quite re-instate the conventional idea. The question is 'whether or not spacetime is continuous through the "Big Bang" (or, more accurately, the state at which the universe is at its smallest dimension).

I thought 'spacetime' *was* the idea that time is part of the fabric. So I'm not sure whether you are saying that these theories suggest space and time get ripped apart at the Big Bang, or that spacetime (or just time?) continues through (ie 'before') that moment? Do let me know if this is covered elsewhere and you'd rather just refer me there.

297. US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists

Comment #108733 by Mark Smith on January 7, 2008 at 1:41 pm

Yorkshire: best beer and best cricket, just a shame we can't produce a decent football team. I should know, I'm a Sheffield Wednesday fan.

298. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108722 by Mark Smith on January 7, 2008 at 1:22 pm

Steve and Epeeist
Thanks very much. Point taken on 'proven', a criminal lapse!

Einstein suggested that time is part of the fabric of the universe. I'm wondering if the other hypotheses reject this and sort of reinstate the conventional view of time. Or rather do they develop the 'part of the fabric' idea in some way?

Steve. Kaku might be simplistic but wacky, but at least (I think) I understand him so far! I think the wacky bits must be further on.

299. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108673 by Mark Smith on January 7, 2008 at 12:09 pm

The set "that which begins to exist" is a bit of linguistic trickery. Time, space, and causation have meaning within the universe, which is everything that exists. If you imagine you can step outside "the universe" somehow, you must concede that you can't say anything. Time, space, causation, and meaning itself, vanish beyond the boundary of "everything that exists."

I'm glad Doc Benway said this. I'm currently reading Michio Kaku's book Einstein's Cosmos and it has reminded me that Einstein apparently established that time is confined to this universe. That seems to imply that the first cause argument when applied to the god question is invalid when it attempts to step outside of the universe for that *first* cause. I wanted to ask the scientifically-trained among us if this is right. If so, it seems a reasonably straightforward and easily (relatively speaking) understood refutation, since it relies on proven science, Einstein's theory of relativity. Steve Zara and others, can you offer any help (or direct me to the appropriate thread if it has been covered before)? Have I misunderstood?

300. Six Reasons to be an Atheist

Comment #108359 by Mark Smith on January 6, 2008 at 2:41 pm

ADH
I don't care whether you cry off or not. I would just prefer that if you felt the need to repeat the assertions I highlighted earlier you did not give the impression that they had not already been strongly challenged. That is just my preference though, and you are free to do as you feel appropriate.