251. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #95039 by steve99 on December 7, 2007 at 8:05 am

The medically trained may disagree with me but I think that Dan is displaying this lack of lucidity and also exhibiting the signs of distress that it induces as one realize the loss of facalty.

Perhaps this was just temporary. In Beyond Belief this year, Dan seemed highly lucid and on good form.

252. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #95034 by steve99 on December 7, 2007 at 7:55 am

I can't think of any high profile cosmologist handling this issue the way you do. Maybe you could point us to some examples.

Sure - Martin Rees, Roger Penrose.

The "fine tuning" issue is an interesting question that is discussed, yes, but you're pushing a conclusion stemming from that issue like no other cosmologist does.

I really don't get your point here. All I am saying is that the physical constants appear as if they were fine tuned for complexity and life. That is an uncontroversial statement. It is also uncontroversial to claim that unless we have a particular reason to constrain the physical constants, then we should not assume that there is some kind of framework that does so.

It would be odd to see a pencil balanced on its point only because we know from experience that state to be a precarious position for a pencil.

This is just wrong. It is not because of past experience of pencils, it is because of our understanding of physics.

Yes, and in this case, you're adding the assumption that the tightly restricted values we see in the universe are in a precariously arrived at state (like a pencil balanced on its point).

That is not an unreasonable assumption, given the above statements.

Look, there are at least three possible ways to explain things:

1. A vast range of values for the constants exist, so it is not surprising that our universe, with its values, exists. This happens to be supported by String Theory; it may be supported by other multiverse ideas.

2. The constants can vary, and there is just this universe, and we have been phenomenally lucky.

3. The value the constants have in this universe is the only values they could have had.

Well, OK, there is also a 4th:

4. Something funny happens with quantum mechanics and observers. That is the Paul Davies approach.

Now, unless you can come up with a specific reason to pin down the constants, that really only leaves (realistically) 1 or 2. But either way, there IS something to be explained. That is really all I am saying. It does not seem that controversial.

253. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #95015 by steve99 on December 7, 2007 at 7:11 am

Such arguments from authority are not evidence. It could be a belief held by 80% of physicists and still, the belief itself would not be evidence.

To dismiss such arguments, you would have to able to research and understand physics at the same level as those 80%.

I think that there is a slight danger of double standards here. Not from you in particular, but in the general way that this argument goes. We justifiably claim that creationists are being arrogant because they dismiss the views of highly trained and experienced biologists. But if we do that, we are not in a position to dismiss the views of highly trained and experienced physicists.

I have never really understood the problem of argument from authority anyway. In science it is a pretty good way to find out what is going on.

Because the slightest change to the fundamental laws of nature would make life impossible, therefore it is highly unlikely that the universe should be suitable for life.

No, this isn't right. Dr B. covers this well.

We just don't know.

We know that it appears finely balanced.

As an argument for God, "Fine Tuning of the Universe" is a non-starter,

Absolutely.

254. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #94953 by steve99 on December 7, 2007 at 3:38 am

We do it all the time in Bayesian modeling. You need your prior distributions to be flexible enough that when you update it using some kind of iterative process (say Monte Carlo Markov chains) it will explore a large enough area of parameter space. If you have too few parameters you'll get stuck in some small region in parameter space forever.

I know - I have been doing simulation modelling on and off (too much 'off') since the 80s (I am in an 'off' period now, and miss it hugely).

But the argument still applies - what assumptions are you going to make about the parameters?

Ah, in a sense they are quite arbitrary in the sense that they are ad hoc, there is no real physical or conceptual reasons why they should be there. They are there just because string theorists need to carry through certain calculations.

True, but the point is that they are not 'tweakable'. You can't say 'today I shall decide to do string theory in 9 dimensions'.

255. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #94946 by steve99 on December 7, 2007 at 3:13 am

Not if you cannot update or check your distribution.

This is not just about distributions. It is about any area of reasoned debate. Always start with the fewest assumptions.

As I said, the reason you assume a convenient prior in statistical inference is that you want to learn something about the distribution, pending new data, not as a way to make assertions that cannot be tested. Here you cannot get new data to update or test the prior distribution because we can only access one universe.

We hope to test some of the assertions soon with increased resolution observations of the cosmic microwave background, especially if we see the influence of gravity waves.

Also, you mention string theory. In string theory ad hoc dimensions are introduced just for calculations to go through so parsimony should not be a main concern for string theorists anyway.

A good point, but String Theory itself is considered parsimonious from some viewpoints, as once you fix the number of dimensions, there are no variable physical paremeters, unlike all those required for the Standard Model.

However, this does not alter my point, which is that physical models like String Theory don't impose a distribution on the values of the physical constants which would make our Universe highly probable (in some senses of the word).

One can also argue for a less parsimonious distribution because it has more parameters and more degrees of freedom and therefore more room to fiddle with like the extra dimensions in string theory.

I really disagree with this. You can't add parameters unless have some justification for doing so. Secondly, you can't fiddle with the extra dimensions in string theory - the number of dimensions is not arbitrary.

256. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #94934 by steve99 on December 7, 2007 at 2:49 am

You cannot assume any distribution if you have no way to update it. Parsimony is not used this way.

Yes, it is. You assume the distribution with fewest parameters.

257. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #94928 by steve99 on December 7, 2007 at 2:36 am

In other words, because the analogy is flawed, it says nothing about the original claim.

The analogy is sound. It is to do with situations that have the appearance of being "rigged". It is about things that make you think "that seemed a bit odd!"

But, again: we don't know if these constants can change, by how much and with what probability.

No, this is begging the question. Until you have a good reason to say why the constants can't change, you can't put forward them not being able to change as a useful proposition. And putting constraints on change is less parsimonious that allowing freedom.

It would only look odd, because we have seen many pencils in many situations and we have a pretty good statistical sample in our heads to know what the probability distribution is and this is the reason we will find this situation very improbable. If we've never seen anything ever remotely resembling a pencil and this is the first and only time we do, then why should we be surprised at its pose? We may be interested in it, but no reason for surprise? Again, false analogy.

I think you are missing the point. I am not saying that the situation necessarily IS odd, just that it LOOKS odd! This is not necessarily a matter for surprise, but it is certainly a matter for investigation. To claim that it will not turn out to be surprising at this stage is premature.

I can't see the logic: If you have a single sample of an event, and you have no a priori reason to assume any probability distribution, then I think the only logical conclusion is that you can't say anything about how likely this event is.

No, this is not the case. You see, we have at least some models of how the physical constants might arise, and they suggest a probability distribution. When work started on String Theory, it was hoped by some that this would lead to a fixing of the physical constants to values something like what we see in this universe. Instead, it has led to the 'String Landscape' - a vast number of possible settings for the constants. We have no idea if String Theory is true, but it is a plausible idea.

It only has the potential to be evidence for god, if we ever find that the these constants are indeed very improbable.

Not really, as the "fine tuning of reality" to allow for the assumption of a creator God is vastly more than the "fine tuning" for improbable constants.

258. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #94908 by steve99 on December 7, 2007 at 1:48 am

More crucially, what exactly is your null hypothesis?

I support DB in this. Until you have some indication that there is some non-uniform distribution of probabilities of values of the physical constants, the most parsimonious point of view is to assume no constraints or factors which divert from a uniform distribution, especially when such a distribution seems to be the implication of many models of particle physics (see below).

How do you put a uniform distribution on an infinite domain?

It may not be an infinite domain. String Theory seems to suggest a very large (of the order of 10^500) possible universes.

Physicists are looking for explanatory theories, not just some phenomenological models through ad hoc data fitting like in biology, that is not how physics works.

That is certainly not how biology works either.

259. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #94896 by steve99 on December 7, 2007 at 1:18 am

, let alone the entire life forms working in harmony and PURPOSEFUL DESIGN on this planet.

So malaria, which kills millions each year, is an example of harmony and design?

Keep going mate, you are giving religion a bad name with reasoning like this.

260. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #94890 by steve99 on December 7, 2007 at 1:02 am

I hope you see now that he comparison with the constants in our universe is invalid.

No, I am afraid I don't. All you have said is that you don't like the form of the analogy, you have come up with no reason as to why it is incorrect.

The analogy is appropriate because if the constants were the slightly different, there would be no complexity of any kind, let alone life.

We have no idea of the probability distribution.

I agree, but that does not help. See the pencil analogy below.

We can not speak of any probabilities here because we only have a single sample.

If you see a pencil balanced on its point, that would look odd even if you see only one.

I am sorry to keep pressing the point, but the fine tuning issue is considered to be a real one by most cosmologists. I am not putting a personal viewpoint. This is standard physics. What I believe I am seeing here (and I am happy to be proved wrong) is well-intentioned and perhaps even unconscious special pleading. "Let's try and hand-wave the problem away, as it is used (wrongly) by theists", and "We don't know enough, so let's try and claim it is not a matter for debate". I have been disappointed that whenever this matter is raised, such efforts to dismiss it are made, or people quote from Stenger on this issue - he tends to dismiss fine tuning, but he also expresses a controversial, minority view.

You must realise that what I am talking about is not actual design, it is not certain fine tuning. It is the appearance of fine tuning. It is the same situation as with the appearance of design in biology.

261. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #94822 by steve99 on December 6, 2007 at 5:19 pm

viz there is (or very probably is) a fine-tuner.

No, it really doesn't - this is the whole point of the 'Ultimate 747' argument that Dawkins makes in The God Delusion. Just because you see something that looks designed, that is not a justification for involving a designer which would be something more complex than the designed object. The supposed explanation of the design simply makes the problem worse. This is why the appearance of design in living things should not have led people to involve God, even before Natural Selection was discovered by Darwin.

The same thing applies here. An unlikely, and apparently tuned, set of physical constants should not be thought to imply the existence of a designer. Well, at least not a 'God' designer.

Getting speculative now: Taking the argument itself, it asserts that it is 'extremely improbable' that the constants should be what they are. But why should such a statement mean anything more than what it says in itself, ie that the particular values are improbable?

Well, there is an old analogy that is often used here. Suppose you were about to be executed by a vast firing squad. Say, a thousand rifles. And all the rifles either jam or miss you. It would not be a reasonable response to say "well, that was simply an unlikely occurence, nothing more" - you should certainly be suspicious that something else was going on. Same with the finely tuned constants. There must be something else going on. That is not to involve a God; but there is something that needs explaining.

It is extremely improbable that the H20 molecules in a glass of water at a particular instant in time be configured as they are, but that improbability does not tell us anything metaphysical as it were. If they all were at one instant to move to the centre of the glass, say, and leave the edges dry, that would have the same 'extreme improbability' as any other configuration. So if it were to happen could you say that it 'meant' anything or indeed proved anything, other than that something improbable had happened?

This example involves entropy. If you have a state such as all particles moved to the centre of the glass, then you could obtain energy from the system as it settled back to the more distributed state. The 'all in the centre' state is not equivalent to more distributed states.

I am not suggesting that the fine tuning is unlikely in that kind of way.

My view is that a good possible explanation of fine tuning is that there are countless other universes (not necessarily due to quantum mechanics... there are many other ways that multiverses could arise), and the constants perhaps vary randomly. Sooner or later you will find universes with values of the constants that allow complexity and therefore life. It is inevitable. A problem only arises if you think our universe is unique.

262. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #94784 by steve99 on December 6, 2007 at 2:22 pm

I wonder where all that anger comes from.

Being told you are wrong in a way that is hard to contradict.

I believe that his ranting is sufficient for him to be labelled troll. We have shown considerable patience.

263. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #94644 by steve99 on December 6, 2007 at 6:35 am

I, like others, am fed up of the free ride religious claims get by not having to go through the same sanity check everything else has to in order to be accepted as valid.

That is not the half of it. The thing I find utterly bizarre is the claim that virtually all of modern biology is wrong and evolution "does not happen". It is odd that in some western societies someone is allowed to get away with that. If some unknown individual said "Einstein was wrong, I know better" then we would consider them possibly a little bit deluded or deranged, but when they say "Darwin was wrong, I know better" they get support from the public and from religion.

264. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #94568 by steve99 on December 6, 2007 at 1:55 am

Seriously, how can you darwinists ever truly expect to be taken seriously by anyone who is interested in truth and reason.

Because we can go out and point to hard solid evidence that shows anyone with a brain and the desire to think for themselves that evolution happens.

You are simply asking us to trust your feelings. Well, sorry, that isn't good enough.

You don't get truth from an inner feeling, and telling someone else to believe that feeling without hard evidence is not reason.

265. Highway to hysteria

Comment #94480 by steve99 on December 5, 2007 at 6:20 pm

We need another Brit-pop invasion to straighten us out.

Only if that means we don't have to experience Brit-pop again here! We have suffered through enough badly-produced amateurish guitar-rock. Thank goodness for the Take That revival, I say!

266. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #94476 by steve99 on December 5, 2007 at 6:01 pm

Still, until we find a way to test the multiverse hypothesis, in fairness I feel I can't judge its relative probability in comparison to the deist god, whatever that might be.

Oh, you really can. No matter how diverse the multiverse may be, and even if that diversity can't be explained in terms of reduced parameters, it is vastly less complex than a mind that could concieve of that deversity and manufacture it.

X is simpler than X + something that designed X.

Did you read about that physicist-surfer dude's geometric model of gravity-space-time that epeeist posted?

Yes. I have not the slightest idea what its foundation is. Even if it appears to work, I am not sure what that actually means in terms of what is 'really going on'. However it does make some predictions of particles that can acually be tested.

On the other hand, I may not be the best person to discuss this, as I tend to annoy particle physicists, especially those involved in String Theory. Conversations usually go something like this:

"You are attempting to explain something macroscopic and complex like a vibrating violin string, and all its properties like tension and frequency using virtually undetectable microscopic "strings" which have "tension" and which "vibrate" at certain "frequencies"? And you are trying to get away with this by defining "string", "tension", "vibrate" and "frequency" as "fundamental"? Don't you see a problem here?"

I am afraid that conversations usually stop at that point.

267. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #94464 by steve99 on December 5, 2007 at 5:31 pm

Would a cup of God be more or less parsimonious than a cup of infinite universes?

Far less parsimonious, my good Doctor.

For the contents of an infinite number of universes containing all posibilities has zero parameters to describe it(*), but the contents of an all-knowing God that can understand and make decisions on that knowledge requires a more than infinite number of parameters to describe it...

* Unfortunately, having read an article on probabilities and the Everett Many World interpretation this evening, I am less sure of this. This situation may require an infinite number of parameters, but perhaps not a particularly high level of inifinity.

268. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #94461 by steve99 on December 5, 2007 at 5:26 pm

As usual, Dr B. sums things up so well.

We will look silly if we dismiss the fine tuning argument. It is a real problem based on our current knowledge. The way we deal with theists is not to try and dismiss fine tunining, but to point out that if we have no answer to the fine tuning problem; that we are a 1 in ten to the power 1000 chance, that is absolutely nothing to the fine tuning of reality that would allow a vast omnipotent supermind to exist, out of nothing. That is a chance of 1 in ten to the power 1000,000,000,000,0000 ... and on, and on, and on beyond any number imaginable. And that number is not just the probability. It is the exponent to which ten is raised to give the probability (just to sound impressive).

If the creationists are going to say that the universe being fine tuned is a bit unlikely in terms of probability, then we need to point out that God is "quite a bit" more unlikely, so does not solve the problem.

I think that is the approach - not to deny there is a problem at all.

269. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #94455 by steve99 on December 5, 2007 at 5:12 pm

ADH:

Bye for now

I hope you have a good night's sleep. As I approach the middle of middle age, I find that is something that increasingly eludes me.

However, I feel you have evaded my question.

How do you know what is right? Why is your reading of the bible and scripture to be rated above anyone elses?

This is surely a simple question.

Walk: I agree, but I think there are deeper issues to be dealt with first :)

270. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #94450 by steve99 on December 5, 2007 at 5:07 pm

Steve, thankfully those of us with high moral values, and a genuine love for our fellow man, realize the bible got this one TOTALLY wrong. A loving, repectful relationship between ANY two people is a wonderful thing. It's the true epitome of our lives on earth.

Thank you for saying this. I just wish that more people who tried to promote the virtues of "moderate" religion realised the political battles that we gay and lesbian couples had to fight against the wishes of the "moderate" Christian churches. They are still campagining, against our right to be recognised as couples by businesses, and against our rights in adoption. While there are wars, and while there is so much injustice in the world, the Christian churches focuses on these issues. Hitchens is right. Religion really does poison everything.

271. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #94439 by steve99 on December 5, 2007 at 4:46 pm

The gospels by the way are not a rule book, as I said earlier, but a story - our story. They are not a list of what we have to get right in order to make it in.

The problem is that I, in my personal life, have to deal with people who DO think that the contents of the bible ARE a list of what we have to get right. These people mean I have to call my partner by the irritating term 'civil partner' as against 'husband'. Why does the Bible say that?

So why should I believe you about the Bible as against them? What link do you have to the truth?

But I believe that God is the embodiment of Justice, the source of our very conception of justice.

But, this does not matter. It has no relevance to anything unless we have some way to have a direct line to God's justice. We clearly don't, as no-one can say what God's justice is!

I am sorry to press this point again and agsin, but having some universal spiritual guide to truth and justice and morality is of absolutely no conseqence unless we can all get our hands on it and read it.

There is a lesson here, and I hope you are ready to learn it. I hinted at this lesson in previous postings to you regarding Buddhism. The existence of God or Gods has no consequence for our understanding or choices about morality, as we have to find for ourselves some ultimate guide to these things. There is not the slightest evidence that the belief in the existence of gods has helped us with this one way or the other. If you have any evidence to the contrary, please, show it!

There is, of course, the theological question of why and how God should be the embodiment of anything. For all we know, a creator of the Universe could be the ultimate embodiment of apathy. I find the idea of automatically linking a creator with "virtues" such as "justice" and "love" a bit bizarre. If he is the creator of everything, should he not also be the embodiment of "hatred" and "unfairness" as well?

272. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #94428 by steve99 on December 5, 2007 at 4:23 pm

God will obviously bring all the others you mention, and many more besides, face to face with himself on different terms. I have no idea how that happens.

Sorry, I am puzzled. If you don't know how it happens, then why are you in any position to claim that it does?

Suppose you had a problem with your car, and you took it to the garage. They said 'it is a problem with the electrics'. That sounds fine, but when you asked 'what will you do to fix it', they replied "We don't know how it happens, but your car will magically be repaired next tuesday", would you honestly have any confidence in them? Can I pre-empt your answer and assume you would think there were either trying to fool you, or they were deluded?

So why don't we apply the everyday sense of reason and justification to areas of religion?

273. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #94424 by steve99 on December 5, 2007 at 4:15 pm

I may be wrong.

And that is why I have respect for you, and I think you should continue to post whatever the challenges here. Because "I may be wrong" is the foundation of rationality. It allows us to escape dogma.

Having said all that, I still think you need to start to face the consequences of your honesty.

If you are wrong, how can you be sure what any of us needs to do to interpret the gospels?

What I am trying to persuade you is that what we rely on is our inner feelings of right and wrong, combined with our discussions with others. And we could manage that without the gospels.

He actually liberates us

I wish that this where true, but it really isn't. Right now, in the country where I live, people are trying to use the idea and supposed word of God to limit my rights and freedoms as a Gay man. I have personally found religion to be far from liberating.

274. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #94395 by steve99 on December 5, 2007 at 3:21 pm

But that does not mean there is anything slavish about the Christian faith. I know there are a lot of people here who see "following Christ" as moronic personality-cramping, uniformity. Quite the opposite! It is true that some Christian churches and leaders insist on the kind of conformity that Christ never demanded.

The problem is that it really doesn't matter what your opinion is of what Christ wanted. Because no-one knows what Christ wanted. I listened to an interesting radio programme that was broadcast in the UK recently about the Churches' views on issues such as homosexuality and politics. The views of Desmond Tutu where in direct contrast to the views of other African bishops, and of past Archbishops of Cantebury and of (why she was included, I don't know) the UK politician Anne Widdicombe.

I have used an analogy often on this site. It is people stranded and lost, wondering what the right moral direction is. The fact that there may be somewhere some true moral map is of absolutely no use whatsoever unless we can actually find that map. If we can't find that map, then people will simply squabble amongst themselves about what the true morality is, and what Christ's message actually is, and those squabbles are completely pointless.

You are welcome to give us ADH's view of what Christ wanted, but why should we believe you? What authority and evidence can you provide that you have the true measure of Christ's intentions?

275. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #94294 by steve99 on December 5, 2007 at 7:22 am

We don't know weather or not our apparently "fine tuned" state is an unlikely state for the universe to be in or not, and yet theists making the finely tuned universe argument rely on the assumption that it must be exceedingly unlikely. That's an unfounded assumption.

But it is a reasonable assumption given current ideas in physics.

String theorists are still struggling to even demonstrate that their mathematical theory has scientific validity. String mathematics are not yet part of science.

Whether or not this is the case, it is undeniable that a considerable number of physicists consider that it will have scientific validity.

And no other science has yet (to my knowledge) been able to assess the probabilities which the "fined-tuned" argument relies upon.

But in that case you are in no position to set the probability of the current values of the physical constants as high.

It appears that if some constants change even an unimaginably small amount, then the universe would contain no structure at all, let alone anything like life. It is unscientific to claim that "this is not a matter that need be discussed", just because theists are discussing it. To do that would be to reject the concerns of the majority of cosmologists.

Life looks designed. And that raises questions. We know the answer to that appearance of design - Natural Selection. However the correct response to the appearance of design is not to say there is no question at all.

276. Beyond Belief 07: Enlightenment 2.0

Comment #94281 by steve99 on December 5, 2007 at 6:40 am

We seem to be arguing from to different places... you are talking philosophy and I am trying yo look at it from a scientific perspective...

Actually, I was trying to look scientifically. You see, I think the phrase that Atkins used has no useful scientific content. If you are simply going to label everything as equivalent to nothing, there seems to me to be no falsifiable aspect to that. My view at the moment is that it is just word-play.

Well, for me personally it was brilliant in the sense that it got me thinking about the universe in a way I had never thought before... So perhaps I should of said personally brilliant.

I can understand that. The real 'wow' aspect of what Atkins presented was something that has been known for a while, but not widely known - that the total energy of the universe is probably zero.

So the universe could have come from nothing. But that does not mean that everything IS nothing now...

277. Beyond Belief 07: Enlightenment 2.0

Comment #94274 by steve99 on December 5, 2007 at 6:27 am

Nobody has claimed it is nothing more than a hypothesis... not even me... so what?

You claimed it brilliant; I was attempting to explain why I disagreed. I think it is the kind of thing Terry Pratchett's philsopher Didactylos would say... "Everything is made of nothing, but nothing can feel pretty hard sometimes"

278. Beyond Belief 07: Enlightenment 2.0

Comment #94271 by steve99 on December 5, 2007 at 6:16 am

Surely that would be a noble scientific persuit and I don't see in what sense that is glib.

Because it tries to hand-wave away the fact that there is something to explain.

We don't need to hunt around for what needs explaining it is the difference between a housebrick and empty space.

279. Beyond Belief 07: Enlightenment 2.0

Comment #94269 by steve99 on December 5, 2007 at 5:58 am

Surely the point Atkins was making is that if you 'kick a brick' and kick nothing you are essentially kicking the same thing... It was a scientific statement about a possible state of the universe and not a philosophical point... In other words nothingness is really stuff.

I think what Atkins said was a bit glib. "Nothingness" and "stuff" may be fundamentally the same thing, but when we deal with with "stuff" we are in that case dealing with structured and organised "nothingness". It is reasonable to wonder how that structure (which is not nothing) arose.

280. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #94262 by steve99 on December 5, 2007 at 5:48 am

It's scientists who are the first to come with something that sometimes seems absolutely insane to explore and describe it.

Very perceptive. We have seen this on this site, when theists have rubbished Quantum Mechanics as 'absurd'.

281. Nurses Told to Turn Muslims' Beds to Mecca

Comment #94258 by steve99 on December 5, 2007 at 5:39 am

it seems most of us would be ready to accept this sorry tale - as reported in the Express - as truth.

Not me. It is a nastly little rag. It makes the Daily Mail seem almost sane. Its ideal storyline would be "Gay immigrants in Diana conspiracy".

282. Beyond Belief 07: Enlightenment 2.0

Comment #94256 by steve99 on December 5, 2007 at 5:29 am

I'm amazed at how aggressive Shermer was toward Harold Kroto... Whatever a person thinks of the Templeton Foundation... Kroto should get his facts right before throwing such accusations around... You'd think a Nobel Prize winner would know better.

Yes, Kroto did not do well in that exchange. His point is subtle - that Templeton blurs the line between religion and science. The prayer study that they funded achieved this no matter that the result was negative - they showed that prayer was a valid subject for research.

The most brilliant comment at the conference: "Nothing and something are the same" Peter Atkins

Well, provocative, but I am not sure it is brilliant. Following Dr Johnson's refutation of solipsism, I shall now find a brick, and kick it hard. The pain I now feel is somewhat different from the experience of kicking nothing.

283. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #94226 by steve99 on December 5, 2007 at 3:53 am

And this is only Cinatown in NYC. Imagine what it must be like in the average neighbourhood in any Chinese city where Buddhism happens to prevail.

ADH: I have been researching Buddhism for years. Buddhism is often combined with local religious beliefs into a compound system.

If you want to find out what Buddhism is, ask Buddhists. Go to Buddhist websites. This research is not hard to do.

What Christians say to this is that if theism is true, then that is what really matters, whether or not it is useful. Buddhism's fous and its appeal for Westerners lies in its usefulness. For many punters it is a chic and sophisticated form of stress-relief. On that basis, it does not take long for the "meme" to propagate itself.

It is irrelevant. It is unquestionable that a vast number of Buddhists are atheists. They don't believe in a personal god or gods who intervene in human affairs. The fact that they may believe in a supernatural aspect to reality simply illustrates how broad the term 'atheist' is. It shows how silly any claims of "atheist thinking" or "atheist morality" are. You can't generalise.

And why does it matter if Buddhism is chic? Much of it is a sensible philosophical approach to life. You can be a Buddhist while avoiding the baggage of belief in the supernatural, miracles and so on. Surely that makes more sense than Christianity, with all its magic? You get the moral guidelines with out all the heaven and hell :)

For many punters it is a chic and sophisticated form of stress-relief.

Good :)

284. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #94198 by steve99 on December 5, 2007 at 2:30 am

People throng into and around shrines and temples and pray to the deities that happen to be enshined there.

Actually no; if Buddhists pray it is a form of contemplation, it is not to petition external forces or beings.

Buddhism is primarily about how to live a contended life. Buddhist writings claim that belief in Gods is not an effective way to do that. I find this interesting because there are many who claim that even if theism is false, it is still useful as a way to keep people happy and comforted. Buddhism says a resounding "no" to that.

I find it an amusing constrast to Western ideas. Whereas many here say that theism is useful even if false, Buddhism says theism is useless even if true!

285. Chimps beat humans in memory test

Comment #94189 by steve99 on December 5, 2007 at 1:42 am

I don't see what all the fuss is about. Bats can see in the dark, and we can't. Dolphins can echoloct, and we can't, dogs can ind their way home over miles of uncharted territory, and we can't. So what's the big deal?

Bats show altruism, Dolphins show intelligence and a sense of fun, and dogs show love and loyalty.

We are animals, and that is not in any way demeaning. Animals are not the dumb 'soulless' creatures we thought they were many years ago.

Humans are the first species on earth to have the ability to pass information down through the generations.

I would not say that is true. Apes and monkeys have culture, and pass on behaviour and knowledge. (such as tool making skills)

286. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #94182 by steve99 on December 5, 2007 at 1:18 am

The other non-complexity supporting states that are hypothetically modeled, might not be possibilities at all, or maybe they were possible, but less likely. We simply don't know.

And because we don't know, we are in no position to assume that they are not possible.

In some of the most popular models of physics being worked on right now (String Theory), the other possibilities are considered to exist, and are considered to be just as likely.

287. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #94180 by steve99 on December 5, 2007 at 1:16 am

Agreeing with you somewhat steve99, I believe the fine-tuning argument is a very good argument for God, one of very few that I take really seriously.

No, this is to misunderstand the argument. Even if the universe was phenomenally fine tuned, this would not be a reason to believe in God, as the existence of a fine-tuned universe is unimaginably less unlikely than the existence of a highly complex all-knowing mind.

288. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #94024 by steve99 on December 4, 2007 at 3:40 pm

Actually, I have to point out that atheists are a tiny minority when it comes to "the rest of mankind".

No, they aren't. Buddhists either don't believe in God or Gods, or believe that Gods are irrelevant. They number over a billion.

However, even if they where, how is that relevant? The number of people who understand nuclear physics is small, but there is little doubt that what they understand is true, and has implications for all of mankind.

289. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #94020 by steve99 on December 4, 2007 at 3:34 pm

It hit a lot of people pretty hard. Read the posts. I think I've explained enough why it hit me.

Well it should not have hit you. Richard Dawkins is just a guy who writes about evolution, and who has written a book about religious belief. If you have expected any more of him, then I am afraid that is your problem. Why should you follow his views on anything other than evolutionary theory? In fact, you should not follow Dawkins ideas about anything without your own personal research. If you want some great philosophical leader who will guide your thinking, you have come to the wrong place.

290. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #93938 by steve99 on December 4, 2007 at 1:28 pm

Second: I have somehow established an emotional and intellectual bond-at-a-distance with Dawkins.

I think that is the issue. This is a site for encouraging reason and discussion. It is not a fan site.

291. Beyond Belief 07: Enlightenment 2.0

Comment #93923 by steve99 on December 4, 2007 at 1:11 pm

All he is saying is that it is naive to think that religion is the main cause of terrorism.

Religion does not have to be the factor that takes you most of the way to terrorism. It only has to be the final enabler. And it works so well at that. We can see this when people are oppressed, or invaded. This has happened all over the world. But only in the context of certain religions have those situations progressed to terrorism.

292. Beyond Belief 07: Enlightenment 2.0

Comment #93922 by steve99 on December 4, 2007 at 1:00 pm

P.S. I looked up Harris' bio. He was an English and philosophy major then somehow got into a Ph.D. program in neuroscience after being mostly stoned for 11 years. How does that work??

I have no idea. When I was doing my Ph.D. I had only three years of funding to complete it.

293. Beyond Belief 07: Enlightenment 2.0

Comment #93902 by steve99 on December 4, 2007 at 12:33 pm

and Harris merely philosophizes based on newspaper clippings

I am not sure that is entirely fair. Harris is a scientist too, and, I would expect, understands data and how to interpret it.

However, I would agree that there is a debate to be had.

294. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93893 by steve99 on December 4, 2007 at 12:11 pm

surely if there were different laws then it stands to reason that life maybe not as we know it, (Sorry Spock :oP) could surely exist within it anyway?

Not really. I have just been watching the excellent videos of Beyond Belief 2, and there was a great presentation by Peter Atkins. One of his messages was that if there was any purpose to the universe it was to go from total nothingness to basically empty flat spacetime (probably the eventual fate of our universe).

Tune the laws of the universe even the slighest bit, and you simply end up with a more or less direct progression from nothing to flat empty spacetime, with none of that complex fiddly 'matter and atoms and structure' bit on the way.

To dismiss the 'fine tuning' argument is as fallacious as to dismiss the 'life is complex' argument. Life IS complex, but we know how that complexity arose (natural selection). Sooner or later we will solve the fine tuning problem too. But to say it does not exist is dishonest.

The 'universe is fit for life' is not the real question at all. The fact that the universe has any complex structure at all within it is pretty astonishing in terms of fine tuning.

295. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #93891 by steve99 on December 4, 2007 at 12:04 pm

Well then, you don't know much about human nature, I'm sorry to say. Most people have "cultish minds". People will often idealize the very person who tells them to rise up and burn their idols. Psychology 101, my scientist-genius-arrogant friend. Religion 101.

Dawkins has not suggested burning anything. Simply questioning, politely, long held beliefs. He is not a leader or prophet. He is simply a respected scientist and educator expressing some ideas. His views on sexual jealousy have as little connection with his views on religion as which football team he supports. If you have deluded yourself to think otherwise, that is something you have to deal with. But to come on this forum and post about 'Priesthoods' and 'devoted followers' won't help you.

296. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #93882 by steve99 on December 4, 2007 at 11:42 am

LOL!
ADH is a christian, I'm calling him on motive (again, based on the interaction I've had with him previously and his zoo cages comment), and I'm the troll? That's rich!
ADH must be SO amused!

http://www.studiodog.com/web-jargon.html

Troll: A troll is a user of a newsgroup, forum or message board that posts messages with the intent of inciting an argument or flame-war.

297. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #93881 by steve99 on December 4, 2007 at 11:39 am

Mango:

But I do think some people devour everything Dr. Dawkins writes and his opinions, uncritically, become their own, and this ought to be acknowledged and discouraged.

Sorry if I seemed a bit dismissive, but anyone who reads the work of Dawkins and understands what he is trying to say is hardly going to end up being uncritical; of Dawkins or anything.

etny:

In any case, your contempt speaks for itself.

What am I supposed to think of someone who posts that they had a naive idealization of someone who all through his career has discouraged that idealization about anything (so obviously has little understanding of science, rationality, or Dawkins) and then starts using religious terminology?

298. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #93873 by steve99 on December 4, 2007 at 11:15 am

I concur, agreement with someone certainly doesn't equal 'cultishness.' But when Dr. Dawkins writes a rambling, contentious piece and after 300+ posts about it someone merely writes, "I agree with every word" it does send to my nose a whiff of something worrying. Call it cultishness or don't, but it's something to be aware of.

Relax. This is the Internet! On forums about everything from Fly Fishing to Britney Spears you are going to get such posts. That is the nature of open forums.

299. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #93870 by steve99 on December 4, 2007 at 11:04 am

Obviously not everyone who posts here is in the same state of mind, but some do exhibit hero-worship tendencies. Maybe this article has drawn the distinction among them.

Perhaps the article has simply drawn the distinction between those who agree with Dawkins, and those who don't. Agreeing with someone is not always an indication of 'cultishness'.

I tend to agree with Dawkins in this issue. I happen to disagree with Dawkins in some of the things he has said in the context of politics. It may suit some opponents to invent the idea of a 'cult', but that is ridiculous.

Oh, and by the way, etny, don't make yourself look like an idiot. Anyone who has read the content of this site for more that a few days knows that what you are saying is ranting nonsense. Begone, troll.

300. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #93867 by steve99 on December 4, 2007 at 11:00 am

what's the matter, ADH?
Lacking enough negative attention in the real world these days?

I am sorry, but I consider this trolling, and I have marked it so.