5. Ian - January 7, 2009

Dace: Good points, and I agree with all of them. I'd also add that religion is increasing difficult to get rid of the more lucrative it becomes. I'd quite like to see what would happen if their tax-exempt status was removed.

A Pilgrim: Well most people claim the bible is the word of god which is effectively the same thing. Of course I don't think the bible was written by god because I don't think any gods exist.

6. entonces27 - January 7, 2009

Ian, my point is the word "religion" alone. It's up to you to extract the onomastic ideas of the word.

7. Ian - January 7, 2009

I'm still not sure I follow - are you trying to say I have misused the word religion in my post? If so, does this make the points I am making ambiguous in some way?

8. Damian - January 7, 2009

Onomasics are onanistic

(Happy New Year Ian and good to see you back up and blogging again fella)

9. Ian - January 7, 2009

Lmao - I love obscure words

Tis good to be a-blogging once more!

Ken on January 7th, 2009 1:09 pm

Bnonn - what scientific ground have you presented to refute a cosmos, composed of individual universes, which may stretch back eternally? I would love to see this as I certainly haven't come across anything myself.

Ken on January 7th, 2009 1:55 pm

I see that Stuart and Bnonn do disagree as Stuart still wants to "exclude the possibility of a beginning less universe / pre-universe / cosmos." He was wrong to provide references to Vilenken's papers for this because they specifically do not exclude those possibilities.

I think Stuart is confusing the concept of our current universe having a beginning with a cosmos composed of universes coming into existence over a much longer period - perhaps eternally. Your quote from Vilenkin indicates this because it clearly applies to our local universe. I think Stuart is wanting to carry over the beginning of our universe to a beginning of the cosmos in general - without evidence and therefore as an argument ploy. I am sorry, one should not distort evidence just because you want to use a specific position in an argument. One should at least be clear about, and state as assumptions, the provisional assumptions used and be clear about the limitations of any model that results.

I have clearly said I have no real philosophical preferences for either model - it's just that recent evidence does suggest a universe before ours and that opens up a whole can of worms - including an eternal cosmos possibility. Evidence (not "logical" propositions) to the contrary willingly accepted.

Science investigates reality - not nature (which people define in all sorts of ways) and the formation of the universe is a real event - therefore something that science can and does investigate. Stuart - do you find repugnant Vilenkin's summary: "The picture that emerged from this line of development that a small closed universe can spontaneously nucleate out of nothing, where by 'nothing' I mean a state with no classical space and time" And Bnonn - does your point 2 exclude that "nothing"? How do you define "nothing" - "matter", "energy," "space-time"?? How do you envisage including this "nothing" (obviously a very important "nothing") into you logical propositions?? (You probably can't conceive of this "nothing" - one reason I argue that "common sense" logic is useless on such questions). Perhaps your statement that "the cause of these things cannot be the things themselves" really can't be applied here? Doesn't Vilenkin's comment (and similar comments from other cosmologists and theoretical physicists) indicate that science is investigating this issue, making progress, and (importantly) all without taking your criticisms or "logic" into account?

Can you answer those questions as you seem strangely silent on Vilenkin's statement which I would have thought central to the whole argument.

Stuart - you and I are using "laws of nature" in entirely different ways. I think your use is inappropriate, but let's go with it. If you mean that the universe has no rationality before 10^-35 sec (or perhaps 10^-48 sec) - then where is your evidence for that? Surely you can't have any evidence when the best minds and researchers in theoretical physics and cosmology are still coming to grips with that area. This is one area we must say (if we are honest) "I don't know." And of course humanity (minus you, of course) insists that we add "But let's find out!"

Bnonn on January 7th, 2009 7:04 pm

Stuart said,

My own thought is that abstract numbers do not exist, but if they do exist, they exist in a mind.

Yeah, you've been reading too much Craig and not enough other Christian philosophers (: As far as I can tell, Craig's position is really rather odd, as Christian views on abstracta go. He seems to be a nominalist at both the divine and the created level. I'd recommend Greg Welty's examination of theistic conceptual realism, which places nominalism at the divine level but conceptual realism at the created level.

Then Ken said,

Bnonn - what scientific ground have you presented to refute a cosmos, composed of individual universes, which may stretch back eternally? I would love to see this as I certainly haven't come across anything myself.

See Vilenkin.

I think Stuart is confusing the concept of our current universe having a beginning with a cosmos composed of universes coming into existence over a much longer period - perhaps eternally. Your quote from Vilenkin indicates this because it clearly applies to our local universe.

No Ken, as Stuart has pointed out quite clearly, Vilenkin is addressing the notion of a past-eternal cosmos possibly prior to our local universe.

I have clearly said I have no real philosophical preferences for either model - it's just that recent evidence does suggest a universe before ours and that opens up a whole can of worms - including an eternal cosmos possibility. Evidence (not "logical" propositions) to the contrary willingly accepted.

The only reason you have no real philosophical preferences for either model (and let's be honest, you have a strong preference for a past-eternal model because of your ideological commitments), is that you are utterly unaware of the insurmountable problems with the idea of a past-eternal cosmos. If you even remotely understood the problem of an infinite past, or the principle of sufficient reason, or-apparently-even just the science, you would strongly favor a past-finite model. So stop trying to take the intellectual upper hand here; it's just embarrassing.

Science investigates reality - not nature

I suppose it's too much to expect a scientist to understand what science is for. Science investigates the physical world. It is empirical by definition. The fact that you seem to believe that science can investigate "reality", as if in some all-encompassing sense, is rather representative of your highly religious, ignorant, and naive scientism.

And Bnonn - does your point 2 exclude that "nothing"? How do you define "nothing" - "matter", "energy," "space-time"??

Well Ken, it's fairly simple. Nothing is the lack of anything. A lack of classical spacetime isn't necessarily nothing; and I would hope that we all recognize that the spontaneous appearance of something out of genuine nothing is impossible. Ex nihilo, nihil fit.

Perhaps your statement that "the cause of these things cannot be the things themselves" really can't be applied here?

Only if you're willing to give up rational discussion, Ken, which seems eminently and imminently likely.

Stuart on January 7th, 2009 8:15 pm

Ken,

Learn to read.

Stuart still wants to "exclude the possibility of a beginning less universe / pre-universe / cosmos." He was wrong to provide references to Vilenken's papers for this because they specifically do not exclude those possibilities.

That is not what I said. Here is what I did say,

However, even if there is a pre-universe, the best evidence, again I believe, for which the quotes I gave from that papers I referred to show, that no pre-universe or any amount of prior-universes extend back into the infinite past.

Stuart on January 7th, 2009 8:27 pm

Thank you Bnonn for bouncing back.

I think Stuart is confusing the concept of our current universe having a beginning with a cosmos composed of universes coming into existence over a much longer period - perhaps eternally.

An eternal universe cannot come into being. Vilenkin is clear, that there is no escaping a cosmic beginning, and his theorem, developed with Guth and Borde equally applies to inflationary models. So a pre-universe, and any amount of prior universes also had a beginning (if there were any, which I still think doubtful).

And so,

it's just that recent evidence does suggest a universe before ours and that opens up a whole can of worms - including an eternal cosmos possibility.

A universe preceding our current universe is for all purposes irrelevant to the KCA as a ultimate beginning is not averted. And the can of worms does not include the possibility of an eternal cosmos, as this is ruled out by the philosophical arguments for the beginning of the universe which are strong and firmly established, and the science which is admittedly provisional, but currently also strong when considering the work of Vilenkin and others.

As for "reality" which you say science investigate, and "nature" which you say science does not investigate, I fail to see any difference or distinction drawn.

As for the quote you gave of Vilenkin's

"The picture that emerged from this line of development that a small closed universe can spontaneously nucleate out of nothing, where by 'nothing' I mean a state with no classical space and time"

Without context it's difficult to know what point you are making. As you said it is a speculation, so you yourself have already undermined any credibility the quote could have had. But looking at it as it is, that is what I have been arguing for - the origin of the universe out of nothing. That is to say nothing of the way he has defined "nothing."

Stuart - you and I are using "laws of nature" in entirely different ways. I think your use is inappropriate,

When I use the term "the laws of nature" what else could I mean but what I mean? I mean, at least I gave a reason why I mean what I mean, and that went to show what you mean by "the laws of nature" is not what should be meant by "the laws of nature," you know what I mean?

If you mean that the universe has no rationality before 10^-35 sec (or perhaps 10^-48 sec) - then where is your evidence for that?

My argument is found above in what is meant by the singularity. You haven't yourself given any argument as to how a scientist can investigate a universe that literally had no being - did not exist at all? This is the foolishness of your scientism in this area.

Heraclides on January 6th, 2009 2:01 am

I haven't read past the first section as two simple points render Stuart's argument moot.

Firstly, gaps do not necessarily matter at all: Stuart's "exercise" assumes that they always do.

You do not need to know how every lineage has evolved to know evolution is the mechanism used, and you do not need to know every "step" in a lineage to know that evolution has occurred.

Secondly, the first of the three points Stuart lists is an assertion, not a statement of truth. It's accuracy depends on the word 'how', which can refer to different things, and the assertion is only true for some of them. If 'how' refers to "by evolution from common descent", then it is a false assertion. If 'how' refers to "the specific molecular changes that have occurred that distinguish and/or isolate two lineages", then it is false for some species, true for others. And so on, for other definitions of 'how'.

This statement confuses two common and very simple errors of creationists arguing against evolution: (1) that species have evolved by common descent (which is well established) with the details of how each specific lineage has evolved, and (2) that not knowing the details of how every lineage, or any particular lineage, has evolved does not make that species have evolved by common descent wrong.

It does this, in part, by leaving out what is meant by 'how' undefined. By leaving it undefined the person using this "logic" is now free to mix the different meanings of 'how' in nonsensical ways. As I pointed out, the assertion is only true for some cases; not defining has Stuart and others who use it mixing the cases for which it is not true with those for which it is only sometimes true which will have the inevitable result of a nonsensical argument.

Given these, the rest is moot and not worth time.

(In any event, in addition to defining precisely what he means by 'how', Stuart needs to define precisely what he means by a 'gap': he hasn't yet defined a sound starting point.)

I will close with this little thought: there are gaps in the bible. If you insist that gaps make something wrong, then you would have to conclude that the bible is wrong. (Of course, the answer is that it is not the gaps that matter, as I pointed out. This, however, makes Stuart's argument unsound either way he tries.)

A rational universe? « Open Parachute on January 7th, 2009 1:04 am

[...] elsewhere The "god-of-the-gaps" argument : Thinking Matters TalkGlobal Warming a New Religion : Thinking Matters TalkDawkins talks to Derren BrownGeologist coming [...]

Stuart on January 7th, 2009 1:28 am

Heraclides,

The discussion is on "the god-of-the-gaps argument" which is a variant of the argument from ignorance. Not on any specific gap. As I stated above,

As the argument from ignorance is an informal fallacy, there are some considerations that may render such an argument . . . justifiable.

The "how" I think you are referring to in the previous comment is merely an example of an argument where God is placed in the gap. I'm not advancing that argument at all. You should really read a bit more than the opening lines and consider what is written there before you make any comments, let alone judgements.

Heraclides on January 7th, 2009 11:09 am

You haven't actually addressed my points, but simply "defined" yours again, then implied mine is meaningless. I would remind you, as I have done before, that if the foundations of an argument are wrong, then anything that follows is moot, which is what you have done again.

I know it's a variant of the "argument from ignorance", that doesn't change the meaning of what I wrote. I wasn't ignorant of that: you said as much anyway in the first section, which I told you I had read. I don't need to read the remainder given the final sentence of the first section. Go on, think why: you have already laid down the foundation for your argument and I know it's wrong, so I deal with that rather than waste my time on things that are secondary to a false argument.

As I wrote, the gaps per se are irrelevant. You say gaps (or ignorance, missing information) make something false. If so, as the bible contains gaps, it must be false according to you. That's fine with me, except it is based on the wrong thing: it's not the gaps per se that matter, but the logic used to construct the conclusions.

That shouldn't be difficult for anyone to see or work out, it's almost common-sense.

But let me continue for a moment:

Not on any specific gap.

This says you have no argument. I could say "stories are false". People would (rightfully) point out it depends on what is meant by story and until I defined that, I wouldn't have anything useful to work from. Same for you.

Just as different meanings of 'how' alter the true of your statements, so do different meanings of 'gap', as they have different implications, just as in the simple(r) "story" example.

The "how" I think you are referring to in the previous comment is merely an example of an argument where God is placed in the gap.

You seem to be trying to foist this on me from thin air! Please show me where I have made this statement. I in fact gave possible explicit definitions 'how', none of them corresponding to this, but your (deliberately?) vague "in the previous comment" avoids specifying which if any instance of my use of the word "how" you are referring to. Wouldn't be trying to frame me with something I didn't say ;-)

an example of an argument where God is placed in the gap. I'm not advancing that argument at all.

You are, you said so explicitly yourself.

Stuart on January 7th, 2009 12:02 pm

The "how" I think you are referring to in the previous comment is merely an example of an argument where God is placed in the gap. I'm not advancing that argument at all.

You are, you said so explicitly yourself.

I'm trying to make heads or tails of what your are talking about. Can you provide a quote of mine that shows the 'how' you are referring to? Also, can you provide a quote where I say explicitly I am advancing this particular argument?

Can you also explain what you mean by "the Bible has gaps?"

Can you also clarify if you have read the entire article (I don't mean the comments) yet?

Ken on December 30th, 2008 3:08 pm

I may have pressed the wrong button.

I was objecting to your questioning of my integrity - and misrepresenting of my post. That post simply took issue with you claim: "the International Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) being chiefly composed of bureaucrats instead of scientists."

I listed the names of the many NZ connected scientists involved in preparing and reviewing the IPCC's scientific reports. I then invited you to list the names of the NZ connected "bureaucrats" involved in the scientific work of the IPCC. This is not "making a minor point into major and then exposing it as false" - the scientific conclusions of the IPCC are extremely important for mankind and are taken very seriously by governments. I welcome any challenge on the basis of science (and that goes on all the time in the scientific community). But it is dishonest to make the claim you have if you have no evidence - and hardly minor as it is aimed at discrediting the science. My suggestion is that you should either substantiate you claim by providing a list of the bureaucrats (that will certainly interest me) or admit your mistake and apologize to the scientists involved for misrepresenting them.

Further, you misrepresented my attitudes on the issue of the science behind climate change. I have several times said that I think that the existing consensus does not mean unanimity. That about 70% of climate change scientists support the IPCC's assessment, 15% think it exaggerates the contribution and effects of anthropogenic inputs and 15% think it underestimates these. Quite a normal sort of distribution for a scientific consensus around such a complicated subject.

I urge readers to ignore your assessment of my views and instead have a look at some of my articles - for example Climate change controversy, The real climate change swindle?, Climate change and New Zealand or Spreading doubt on climate change.

Stuart on December 30th, 2008 5:33 pm

Ken,

My pointing out that the IPCC was full of bureaucrats was not to support the conclusion that the human contribution to global warming is not true. If it had been your comments above would be justified.

My pointing out the IPCC was full of bureaucrats was to give one example of why I became and remain sceptical of the human contribution to global warming. Quite a different point.

Beyond the philosophical underpinning of the cultural movement I'm not really that interested. If you could show scientifically that the detractors of the anthropogenic cause of global warming are wrong that would be quirk my interest some and perhaps dull my scepticism.

Ken on December 31st, 2008 2:45 pm

I have pressed the wrong button again. So I repeat.

Simply - forget about whether climate change is, or isn't anthropogenic. Was the scientific assessment, its formulation and review, carried out by bureaucrats (as your article more than implies) or scientists?

I have given a long list of the scientist involved in the assessment and review. If you insist that this was carried out by bureaucrats - please give me the equivalent list.

Stuart on December 31st, 2008 3:48 pm

I don't believe that your assessment of what the article implies is accurate.

Certainly the scientific review was taken into account by the IPCC, but I don't believe a body of bureaucrats is a good mediator of what scientists discover and conclude and what the public is led to believe.

Ken on January 1st, 2009 12:03 pm

The scientific review is what the IPCC produces - together with 2 other reviews which included likely physical and social effects (also produced and reviewed by experts in those fields). This is what governments rely on in the development of their policies. Bureaucracy and commercial interests certainly come in at that stage (Rodney Hide is a classic example of these sorts of motivations) - but don't blame the science for that.

I guess you comment is the closest I will get to an admission that the IPCC scientific assessment is produced and reviewed by scientists rather than bureaucrats. But that certainly is not indicated by your article - quite the opposite.

Ken says:

December 21, 2008 at 2:27 pm

I have just watched this and the interview with Coyne. Enjoyed them both. It's interesting that despite the big ideological differences between Dawkins and Coyne the interview still brought out the basic approach of Coyne to his religious beliefs.

It's great that Dawkins is making these uncut interviews available - they are very useful.

Heraclides on December 11th, 2008 8:20 am

Could I point a discrepancy?

We have dozens of eminent scientists visit NZ every year, including Nobel Laureates and FSNZ members, etc. If you are going to hold him up as an important visitor on the basis of scientific credentials, you should also name all the others of equal stature, too.

Ken on December 17th, 2008 4:13 am

Good point Heraclides.

I would add that we have many eminent scientists actually resident in NZ as well. They can certainly hold their own in the field of geology - as in many other fields. In fact, many NZ geologists lead their field internationally.

And a proportion of these will be active in their church - if that is a key requirement (and why should it be?). Many of them also have children.

I can't see what the big fuss is about here.

Jason C on 06 Dec 2008 at 11:22 pm #

Firstly intelligent design is more scientific than evolution, it simply tries to follow the evidence where it leads. Secondly atheistic websites trying to "debunk" intelligent design invariably fail by falling back on crackpot hypotheses like Miller's claims that since 25% of the bacterium flagellum can be found in the type three secretory system an evolutionary sequence can be created. There are three main points of fail.

1/ It's only 25% of the required assembly. 75% still has to appear out of thin air.

2/ Stephen Minnich who is an expert, unlike Miller, observes that incubated above 37C the flagellum instead forms a secretory like organ, in other words the TTSS is probably a degenerate form of the flagellum.

3/ Evolutionary history claims that bacteria predated the multi-cellular creature. The TTSS is of no use without multi-cellular life to engage with. In other words Miller's "solution" contradicts the evolutionary history. That indicates that these people aren't interested in truth, they're certainly not interested in science, they just want to justify their moronic atheistic philosophy.

Diane, go read anything by Rodney Stark. Christianity did indeed save the world, and if atheists don't like it, who cares? Atheists have contributed nothing to the world except massive bloodshed. The word genocide had to be invented to describe their activities. Try Vox Day's The Irrational Atheist for some idea of how far the high priests of atheism are from rational thought.

Jason C on 06 Dec 2008 at 11:36 pm #

Also, the inability to distinguish between Biblical Creation and Intelligent Design is another thing that irritates me about atheists and their compromising hangers-on.

Biblical Creation starts with the Bible as the inspired, historically accurate, document past Christians have claimed it to be and seeks to understand scientific observations in light of that.

Intelligent Design starts with observations about the incredible complexity that is found in nature and looking at possible sources for it, finds that an intelligent causation is the most likely explanation.

The general term for the type of complexity they look for is "specified complexity". Writing on a page is specified complexity, crystals in a snowflake are specified but not complex, a jar of protein solution is complex but not specified.

In living systems DNA is much more like the written page than it is either of the other examples. The information it contains is independent of the chemical composition of its bases just as the words the ink forms on the paper is independent of its chemical composition. If it is reasonable to attribute a written page to a writer then it is reasonable to infer someone wrote the coding in the DNA.

CT on 06 Dec 2008 at 11:53 pm #

"Atheists have contributed nothing to the world except massive bloodshed."

So glad to see that Jason C hasn't lost his edge.

Here's what I most love about Christians: their winsome intellectual humility, their sensitivity to the limits of their own expertise, their awareness that they might be wrong.

Jason C on 07 Dec 2008 at 12:02 am #

I'm reminded of Winston Churchill's observation. "He is a humble man with much to be humble about."

So what have atheists contributed to the world CT? Did they invent science? No, that was Christians. Public hospitals, oh Christians again. Magna Carta and the rule of law… oh Christians yet again.

Contributed massively to the prison system, oh yes. In New Zealand atheists are 3 times as likely to be in prison as Christians. Genocide? In the twentieth century atheistic regimes killed about three times as many people in peacetime as all wars and individual crimes combined.

So show me that I am wrong. If I'm arrogant it seems I have good reason.

Ken on 07 Dec 2008 at 5:51 pm #

Jason C - as a Kiwi I am interested in your claim "New Zealand atheists are 3 times as likely to be in prison as Christians."

Can you provide a reference for this? (It seems to conflict with the US data and I would like to know if we really are that different). I have heard this comment before but never been able to find the data.

Stuart on December 6th, 2008 9:56 am

Nick,

And on your point that atheists (or anybody else for that matter) should not criticise Hitler, what's invalid about doing this from the basis of subjective morals anyway?

To answer the first half of the quote;

"Atheists should not criticise Hitler" is the title of the post on Thinking Matters. Its not the argument. The argument is clarified later on when I stated (near the beginning) that "I think you're confused on one of the finer points of the argument. The point is not that atheists cannot discern or know what is right and wrong. The point is that an atheist cannot be consistent with their view if they want to affirm the existence of objective morals. "

To answer the second half of the quote;

If the subjectivist wants to cry foul over something, they are free to. It just carries no meaning. On subjectivism moral statements are equivalent to personal preferences like taste. So I think that as an ethical theory it is worthless. If "What Hitler did was wrong," is equivalent in value to "Wearing clashing colour is wrong," then it really does fail. Objective morals are what is needed.

Where the argument I have been putting forward takes hold is that in a world without God, there just is not any valid explanation to how morals gain their objectivity. Ken says they arise naturally, but I think that's a category mistake and confuses objectivity with subjectivity. Objectivity means without involving feelings or personal opinions, which if the qualitative right and wrong somehow derive from the nature of sentience or because we're intelligent they are not objective after all but subjective opinions. Adding people quantitatively is still subjectivism and therefore insufficient, after all all Nazi Germany was objectively wrong and if he'd won over the whole world, he'd still be wrong. What is needed to explain our common moral intuitions is a qualitative standard, and that can only be found in the metaphysical realm as worth, value, rightness and wrongness are not physical (chemical, electrical, neurological, biological, sociological, cultural, or localised in any way) properties.

Saying our moral values derived from evolutionary social pressures is the genetic fallacy as their origin and our gradual subjective apprehension of them no more undermines their objectivity than our fallible apprehension of the physical realm undermines the objectivity of that realm.

Moreover objective moral values are properties that belong to persons. Ken's 'moral logic' is an underdeveloped theorem, which I requested more information on but he hasn't supplied. Thus far, I don't see any way the principle, say 'rightness' exists as the equation 1+1=2 exists, in the mind-independent universe. By definition arithmetic "is." But 'rightness' not only "is" but carries with it an "ought." Thus without a mind existing qualitatively above all people, objectivity in values cannot exist.

Rob on December 11th, 2008 9:31 am

Hi Ken.

You wrote above: "It's not enough to say "god did it" - we know it never is enough."

If it is NOT good enough to say "God did it", then it is not good enough if ANYONE says it Ken.

But this is precisely the argument. If God is NOT the source of morality, then that source must come from matter for what else is there, right Ken?

But since when did anyone feel they MUST obey complex arrangements of matter (e.g. other humans)? I certainly don't, unless it is to my personal benefit.

And this nicely brings us back to Hitler who did precisely that - he did what he thought benefited him. Other complex arrangements of atoms (like you and perhaps me) may not have agreed with him, but so what? What really is one bag of chemicals appealing to another bag of chemicals in the big scheme of things?

Rob on December 11th, 2008 9:47 am

Ken also wrote above: It's not enough to say "god did it"

Perhaps you could think of it like this Ken.

However far-fetched this is to you, just try to imagine that the Biblical God really does exist. Further, just imagine that He is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. Just imagine that this God is the ultimate reality, the source of all truth and the source of our existence - the perfect holy being, as per the Bible.

Given these premises, where is the inconsistency in believing that morality flows from the very nature of this being? Remember, He is the fullness of perfection, eternal and 100% sovereign.

Given this framework, why would it not be enough to say "God did it"? Even in principle?

Stuart on December 11th, 2008 10:05 am

I'm guessing Ken's angle was to try and elicit a "We know because the bible says…" or a "God said it so it must be true…' statement. Then he could go to say we are question begging and get on his hobby-horse and criticise all the "atrocities" found in the bible.

This is why I'm thinking about writing an article or two on scripture interpretation, and how the so-called atrocities in the Bible, such as war and slavery, do not constitute an unjust and immoral God.

What Ken doesn't understand is that the moral argument stands wholly apart from Biblical or any special revelation. It is based solely on our intuitions about the moral law and the impossibility of establishing on naturalism an adequate foundation for the objective right and wrong we all perceive.

Bill Vallicella on eliminative materialism : Thinking Matters Talk on December 27th, 2008 4:02 am

[...] atheist commenters here, and Stuart and myself. This discussion started with Samuel Skinner in 'Atheists Should Not Criticize Hitler', which prompted my reply post, 'Whence Cometh Value?', and most recently discussion has [...]

Dale Campbell Says:

November 24th, 2008 at 10:06 am

Surely I don't need (yet again) to say that I don't 100% support the approach reflected in the video. I hope that's clear…

I just don't see the cause for outrage. Yes, young children are easily persuaded and don't think as critically as educated adults, etc. This puts the 'teacher' (of whatever kind of content) in a place of much power. With great power comes great responsibility. Teachers have the responsibility to teach good things.

For me, it's not a matter of teach them or don't teach them (or 'target' them or don't 'target' them), but rather when you teach (or 'target') them - do it well, and with their best interest in mind.

So, the real beef you've got, methinks, is whether or not it's good for young children to be taught about Jesus (which, frustratingly for me, would of course depend on which kind of 'Jesus' was being taught - hopefully the 'love your enemies' kind!).

Please understand, I'm not for brain-washing kids or using guilt/fear/scare-tactics to get them to 'make a decision', etc. That's immensely angering to me. But teaching young children about Jesus is something I totally support - becaus I think the message about Jesus is good. Why wait?

Damian Says:

November 24th, 2008 at 12:51 pm

Dale, I have no issue whatsoever with teaching other people's children about Jesus. Just as I don't have an issue with teaching other people's children about Islam or capitalism or communism or atheism. Providing these children's parents or caregivers are in agreement.

Remember, we're not talking about our children here. We're talking about the 2/3rds of the world's children who don't have access to the gospel - i.e. in continents like Africa and Asia, etc.

I do have an issue with proselytising to other people's children throughout the world. This video does not suggest spreading education, its goal is the conversion of children (who lack discernment) to Christianity. You say you don't 100% support this approach but what percentage of it do you support? 80%? 10%?

I find it unethical to attempt to convert children to my political or religious views because I believe that we live richer lives when we are free to make our own decisions. Childhood indoctrination reduces these choices.

It seems I have misjudged your character. I'd thought you'd also see this as an underhanded way of spreading religion.

Dale Campbell Says:

November 24th, 2008 at 1:49 pm

It seems I have misjudged your character. I'd thought you'd also see this as an underhanded way of spreading religion.

perhaps yet more clarifications are necessary then…

I do have an issue with proselytising to other people's children throughout the world. This video does not suggest spreading education, its goal is the conversion of children (who lack discernment) to Christianity. You say you don't 100% support this approach but what percentage of it do you support? 80%? 10%?

Maybe we have different definitions of proselytisation? For me, 'conversion' is far deeper and more holistic than a change of boxes ticked for 'religious affiliation'. Jesus himself did not seem to have too high a view of the 'proselyte[convert]-making' strategy; he wanted disciples/followers. The main problem I have with the approach of this video, is that (and I admit this is reading in-between the lines, a bit) it appears to be a tad (to coin a phrase) 'box-tick-ish'. My problem (perhaps like you?) is not that they want to teach young children about Jesus, instead my problem would be the 'decision-getting', narrowed understanding of the gospel that may well be behind this video.

I find it unethical to attempt to convert children to my political or religious views because I believe that we live richer lives when we are free to make our own decisions. Childhood indoctrination reduces these choices.

Using this terminology, allow me to make a distinction between 'teaching' and 'indoctrination'.

I would see indoctrination as characterised by a forceful, manipulative approach/technique that takes away the free choice of the children (or anyone for that matter). It is forcefulness and manipulation that takes away -or drastically reduces- free choice.

I would see teaching as characterised by an approach where the free choice remains intact.

I think the main difference is that you appear to think that 'the conversion of children to Christianity' is a bad goal. I think it's perfectly fine to seek to share the life and teachings of Jesus with young children and to see them come to identify with this - as long as it's not done in a manipulative and choice-denying way (i.e. 'indoctrination'). From the video, we have no clear indication at all as to the amount of forcefulness the teaching is to be given with. In other words, we have no idea if the video is sponsoring 'indoctrination'. We have no reason for outrage.

Damian Says:

November 24th, 2008 at 2:16 pm

I think the main difference is that you appear to think that 'the conversion of children to Christianity' is a bad goal

I do. And so do I believe that 'the conversion of children to atheism' is a bad goal. Even though I truly believe it to be closer to the truth than Christianity and that people, on the whole, are better served by truth.

From the video, we have no clear indication at all as to the amount of forcefulness the teaching is to be given with. In other words, we have no idea if the video is sponsoring 'indoctrination'. We have no reason for outrage.

The video identifies a tendency for children to be more receptive in 'responding' (i.e. 60-80%). It also identifies the problem that they are less likely to become followers if not introduced as children. It then goes on to advocate a strategy to better fulfil what they call 'the great commission' and that is to target these children.

Like I said previously, I'm using the definition of 'indoctrination' as being "teaching someone to accept doctrines uncritically". This doesn't require forcefulness. All it requires is presenting belief as fact to children who are unable to think critically and to not present any of the valid arguments otherwise.

So, I find it hard not to see the intent of this video as indoctrination. Perhaps you should let me take some Sunday School classes at your church for a year or so? I'll use exactly the same methods as suggested in this video but with a slightly different message and we'll see how ethical you find it. I mean, there at least it would be almost fair game as the children would be regularly 'de-programmed' by their parents afterwards. In a third world country imagine the converts I could gain! Can I have some aid funding to go with that? (Disclaimer: my conscience wouldn't let me follow through with this generous offer.)

I'll give you the last word mate.

Dale Campbell Says:

November 24th, 2008 at 3:08 pm

Well, it feels a bit pre-mature to call for final statements, but both of us probably have better things to do with our time, so fair enough…

I'm not seeing how communicating "the life and teachings of Jesus with young children and to see them come to identify with this" (my words) equates to "teaching someone to accept doctrines uncritically" (your words). Nowhere in the video is the uncritical acceptance of doctrines mentioned. The video doesn't go there.

As for the example of you teaching Sunday School, as long as you weren't forceful (i.e. 'indoctrinating'), it would be a perfectly ethical form of communication/teaching, though -due to the content- ('a slightly different message') it would obviously not be respectful of the wishes of the parents (which is a concern you share with me).

The point here is that teaching/instruction becomes unethical (and then worthy of outrage) only when it is forceful/manipulative. And if we're not talking about the method of teaching, then we're talking content - and that's another conversation.

(as usual, i'm open to further discussion - conversations don't always end in mutual agreement, but it's always desirable to at least have mutual understanding, which I'm not sure we've achieved yet - this being [only] the 15th comment)

By Alison Campbell on November 21, 2008 2:38 PM

It seems there is a timeout - this from the IT wiz who does all the hard stuff for me: I've studied the source code and believe that the answer is 600seconds -

or 10mins.

By Alison Campbell on November 21, 2008 2:41 PM

I hadn't, but now I have - thanks for the link. Leroi would explain it in terms of the 'organiser' in very early embryonic development, wouldn't he? (One extreme on the conjoined twins continuum?)

By Number8Dave on November 22, 2008 8:55 AM

A few things:

My brother, who's a dairy farmer, had a stillborn two-headed calf a few years ago.

I've seen the Mutants TV mini-series, it's well worth a view if you can find it. Rather grisly in places, but engrossing.

As for bookshops, I do like Borders in Auckland, and usually manage to find several things I'd like to get. Although occasionally when I've gone in looking for something specific thay haven't had it. One of the best bookshops I've come across is Muirs in Gisborne - family-owned with a very good cafe, and more importantly jam-packed with all sorts of great books, including an excellent science/natural history section. Hamilton has nothing that comes close.

By Alison Campbell on November 22, 2008 4:02 PM

Oh yes, I forgot to include Muirs - haven't been to Gisborne for a few years. But I have fond memories of both their science section & their cafe :-)

By Matty Smith on November 22, 2008 6:05 PM

Unity books is great. Arty Bees is good as well, although I know from experience that its science sections are not altogether well-stocked (pop science, at least). There is a specialist Medical Bookshop in Newtown, Wellington, that looks like it might have interesting things in it. I walk past it every day and always mean to check it out.

Borders I always find a bit lacking, but then I'm usually looking for English lit, and they only ever seem to stock things that every English student has already read.

Dunedin has some great secondhand bookshops like Scribes, but the University Book Shop is also really well-stocked. Oddly enough, a good secondhand bookshop has cropped up in Thames of all places, I don't know how it thrives. If any of you are every passing through, check out ADDA Books on the Pollen Street.

On the topic of mutants, I grew up on a pork and dairy farm in the Waikato/Coromandel region. I saw quite a few mutant piglets as a kid, they tended to be stillborn, or to die very quickly. My father did keep a pig with small second forelimbs coming off its knee-joints, though, and it thrived very well for a few years.

I think Clark did the very best thing - she showed understanding and logic and avoided reacting emotionally to the election result. Clearly she was going to move on from the leadership of the Labour Party anyway - to hang on for personal emotional reasons would have not been good for the Party or country - unfortunately that is what many politicians do (remember Muldoon).

So good on her. She can feel proud of her achievements and has avoided any embarrassment or silliness which would have resulted from her hanging on or having to confront a coup later down the line.

There is not doubt that her skill and standing will lead to a job where they will be put to great use. If and when that happens there may well be a by-election - but so what. That's democracy.

Ken

11 Nov 08 at 10:15 am

"Because the Christian parties are led by plonkers.

Thats a technical political term. It means they are plonkers."

Come on Jonesboy - there wasnt much of an offering of reason there It's the teacher in me - can't have one kid being picked on in the blogroom, even if its not my room

Jack

11 Nov 08 at 11:38 am

Fair enough I explained my stance later in the thread:

"It might surprise some that I have a lot of time for Richard Lewis. He's a good bloke. If he was my electorate candidate I might well vote for him. (I may yet cast a candidate vote).

At the recent Vision Network Congress (March 08) he was the only person from any of the Christian parties who spoke with any humility and who distanced himself from some of the unsavoury events surrounding the failed launch of the Christian party formerly known as the Christian party.

I wish I could say Paul Adams made the same kind of impression. But frankly, he let his side down - he presented as bullish and arrogant - he ignored the question he was asked and presented a prepared statement. He was ridiculous. He wasn't alone however, and I say this to be even-handed: Taito Phillip Field compared his court case to the persecution suffered by Jesus. Larry Baldock took a swing at the Bishop (figuratively) which to my mind was inexcusable (despite his role in the debacle), while Gordon Copeland scurried around handing out political literature rather than fronting on the stage to defend his own ridiculousness in the media.

Now I don't have a problem with your view on the need for Christian political parties. That's not to say I agree with it. But I accept its a valid view which you have defended with balance.

But here's why my plonker comment stands: to pretend that the Family Party is the only Christian Party is disingenuous - oh I know the nuancing between the Family Party constitution on this issue and the Kiwi Party's Judeo Christian assertions. And I don't actually have an issue with you campaigning on this basis - it is a valid point of difference. But for the Family Party to make the assertion baldly as you have without clarifying the nuance: well its simply evidence that plonkerdom is alive and well in the small world of Christian politics."

Jonesboy

11 Nov 08 at 3:56 pm

Later eh …excuses excuses… you can still write 100 lines: "I will not be disrespectful to political party leaders on respectful Christian blogs"

Jack

11 Nov 08 at 4:34 pm

But I'm not disrespectful on RESPECTFUL Christian blogs Frank as much admitted it. I blame Frank.

Jonesboy

11 Nov 08 at 7:26 pm

lemmingz Says:

November 3rd, 2008 at 5:16 pm

Haha - I must say that training with an iPod really does help pass the time. Though having too many accessories brings about charges of "poser" from some people…

Jack Says:

November 3rd, 2008 at 10:00 pm

Congrats! Did anyone warn you running is addictive? As for the mp3 player, I guess in Auckland you may wish to drown out the noise of traffic, here in the beautiful South the sounds of the natural environment are quite enjoyable And I agree those training books are great when starting out and yes it is surprising and motivating to see how quick you improve. The down side is how quick you can lose fitness too.

Dale Campbell Says:

November 3rd, 2008 at 10:38 pm

Jack,

here in the beautiful South the sounds of the natural environment are quite enjoyable

We're pretty stoked with our view (Onepoto Domain is basically our 'back yard'), but that's hardly a match for a vineyard framed by a mountain range (as I saw on your blog)!!!

(Insert bitter jealous remark here)

-d-

Ken Says:

November 4th, 2008 at 4:26 pm

Running - that brings back memories. I agree it's addictive (I think like anything if your repeat an activity 20 or 30 times you start to feel guilty if you don't keep on doing it). I used to enjoy 1/2 marathons and even got up to running 32km most weekends but couldn't ever achieve a marathon. The started to find I couldn't maintain the activity and ended up walking instead.

Still, I found the psychological advantages of running and walking was the main benefit. (And now I listen to my mp3 which is another benefit).

It's good to have a physical activity/exercise which you can look forward to and find that it is not a chore.

But are you aiming for anything higher - a marathon perhaps?

Damian Says:

November 4th, 2008 at 4:36 pm

But are you aiming for anything higher - a marathon perhaps?

It would be nice to be able to complete a full marathon and is something I'd like to do before I die. But I'm also a realist and realise that if I attempt it at my current level of fitness it will actually be cause of my death. Who knows? Perhaps I'll be fit enough next year?

(As an aside - I see that the 1st place in the full marathon did it only quarter of an hour slower than it took for me to complete a half marathon! What a machine!)

Dale Campbell Says:

November 4th, 2008 at 12:06 pm

Cheers for the post, Damian. Always fun stuff to think about, but I think the most urgent/important thing is not debating the existence of free will (whether or not we are 'choosing' to do '1′ or '2′, or whether we 'do' '1′ or '2′ as emergent functions of a complex system). I think it's most urgent/important - in the light of the manifest awareness that we can [and cannot] do certain things - to discern which action(s) (i.e. '1′, '2′ or '3′) are best for a given circumstance (i.e. 'a', 'b', 'c' or 'z', etc.).

That we 'act' (i.e. that we are active agents) is certain (unless you're either 1) a crazy post-modernist materialist insisting we're cogs in a machine or 2) a hyper-hyper Calvinist leaving no room for human human freedom!!)…

How we should act is the real question…

Damian Says:

November 4th, 2008 at 12:30 pm

I agree that 'how we should act' is an important question. But this post was to put to bed one particular fallacious line of argument regarding what we call 'free will' and how that applies to those of us with a materialist worldview.

And as I mentioned on your blog, I really don't know how two people can ever see eye-to-eye on some issues when one starts their 'morality' with the belief that there is a supernatural component to the world and others who, like me, don't. And we see this played out all the time: the issue I raised of whether it is ethical to take the morning after pill (where a fertilised embryo is barred from adhering to the wall of the uterus) ends in very different conclusions depending on whether you believe there is a magical 'soul' created at the moment of conception as opposed to the belief that it is nothing more than two cells without plans, feelings or personality.

The materialistic view (mine, at least) sees that people gradually emerge and that there is a period of time where there is a balance of suffering/benefit is in favour of the mother and, gradually, where the child qualifies as a human with equivalent rights. But it's a grey area and up for debate. Whereas if you believe that all people are equal and have souls from the moment the first cells start dividing (which modern-day Christians often do) then you've got no choice but to see this as an act of murder.

So who's right? And how do we know? I've looked and looked at as much evidence as I can find and found nothing that suggests to me that there is a God or some kind of spiritual aspect to our world. What more can one do?

The best we can really hope for is compromise - which, on the whole, seems to be what happens anyway.

Dale Campbell Says:

November 4th, 2008 at 12:56 pm

On souls, I like C.S. Lewis' quote: "You don't have a soul, you are one… You have a body."

And I'd have severe concern at the 'Christian' logic behind the view that murder is only murder if a person has a 'soul'…

Moral/ethics linked to value-judgments, linked to worldview, linked to epistemology. If we wish to know 'how we should act' I think it starts there… (and this also relates to what kinds of 'evidence' you'll accept/consider when it comes to 'evidence' for God/spirituality)

But yes, I don't think 'free will' (at least the way it's often discussed) either proves or disproves God.

Damian Says:

November 4th, 2008 at 1:42 pm

While I think that epistemology is a very important discussion in itself it's not really relevant to this topic which is regarding a common fallacy about free will and materialism.

I'll address that topic over on your blog under the topic of the same name fella. (When I get a moment).

1

Damian:

November 4th, 2008 at 10:46 pm

Perhaps a good idea would be to jointly explore some of the various types of 'evidences' that lie at the margins of accepted knowledge to see if, in doing so, we can identify good or bad ways of gaining knowledge.

How about the following examples:

1. How can we be sure of the distance to the moon?

2. How can we know if Benny Hinn is really performing miracles as he claims?

3. Is the evidence provided by Hindus for reincarnation convincing? Why? Why not?

4. Lots of people claim to have been abducted by aliens. Is this true?

The best way I know of testing all of these claims is by using the scientific method.

Using this method I can fairly simply test both 1 and 2 and would have a reasonably high degree of confidence in the results.

Number 4 I have to be careful about because in theory every part of the claim is plausible, but I've looked into it and found that these claims can be better explained by a mixture of cultural memes and fantasy-prone personalities with perhaps a little deliberate trickery at times. But I'm technically open to the idea - more verification required.

Number 3 I have to admit I don't know much about but I understand that they believe that there is a continual chain of living things that are reborn as varying species depending on their behaviour in the previous life. The only evidence I've heard for this is people's occasional recollections of past lives. I personally haven't experienced this and so start out with dubiousness. The scientific method in this instance doesn't have much to work with; it seems that all the parameters are beyond examination or our ability to test. Other areas where the scientific method has been used can throw doubt on the claim - I'm thinking here of the evidence that points toward a common ancestor for all living things which doesn't appear to fit with the claim that souls are just being recycled each time they die (where do all the new ones come from?).

So, in summary, my method of knowing relies heavily on the scientific method combined with a requirement for stronger evidence proportional to the oddness of the claim.

How would you go about these four tasks? Perhaps you have an improved way when it comes to the question of reincarnation?

2

Dale Campbell:

November 5th, 2008 at 9:39 am

Cheers Damian,

Unfortunately, one thing that I know at the moment is that my essay is due in 2 days and I have to focus (i.e. stop reading/researching and actually write the thing!). But I will reply once it's done!

3

Damian:

November 5th, 2008 at 9:48 am

Ha! I know what you mean. I'll check back from time to time.

4

Dale:

November 7th, 2008 at 11:38 pm

Right - a quick comment before bed…

The most indicative part of your comment is this:

The best way I know of testing all of these claims is by using the scientific method.

It appears as though you think the scientific method is the way to really know anything…

I doubt you actually think (let alone live) this way, though - which is why I think it's helpful to come at it from the 'who', 'what', 'why', 'where' angle;

Or if not those specific words, at least talking about what different kinds of knowledge there are, and what value/use each has.

But to quickly go through your 4 things:

1. knowing 'distance' is either measuring or mathematics (or both?) :)

2. this is obviously more complex than 1. Even if we properly established criteria (i.e. what constitutes a miracle [healing], what constitutes 'sick', what constitutes 'performing' a miracle, etc.) the sheer number of cases is large. as you know, I'm openly critical of Hinn; but, prior to investigation, I have little way of knowing (with any degree of certainty) that at least some people have indeed been miraculously healed or not. Certainty without research surely can't be called 'scientific'.

3. this would be harder to test (in principle?) than miraculous healing, I think. The 'evidence' for reincarnation is tradition, and traditions are hard to test scientifically, per se (i think that makes sense!?). As for where new souls come from, I'd not be surprised if some Hindus are totally OK with evolutionary biology and have worked out a way of understanding their traditional view by way of reference to the generation of souls (perhaps) by way of emerging from the collective spirit/soul dimension/realm… ?

4. this one is a bit like #3 - the evidence is traditional, and hard to test.

(off to bed now)

-d-

Hi, it's Naon Tiotami from Homologous Legs (http://naontiotami.wordpress.com).

You, sir, have shamed me. I've removed the links to all the pro-creationist websites in my sidebar and I'll be adding the extra HTML to hyperlinks linking to such sites within my posts. Thank you for notifying me about my helping of the pseudo-scientific cause.

Cheers.

Comment by naontiotami - September 4, 2008 #

A plug for the NoDoFollow plugin for FireFox, which is handy to identify links w/o the tag.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/5687

Comment by reede - September 5, 2008 #

A request for more information on the nofollow tyhing:

I am now careful to include nofollow when a place a link in a post and also do not put such links in my sidebars.

However, what I do have is a list of sites where I follow discussions using co.mments. I think this is a web page (in my case http://co.mments.com/people/perrottk). These won't contain nofollow. So aren't I just providing links for search engines to follow whenever I use co.mments? Even if I don't include the widget on my sidebar.

Comment by Ken - October 25, 2008 #

Stuart on October 26th, 2008 1:08 pm

Addressing your Preliminary remarks:

A) It wasn't a straw man argument as I didn't say scientists claim evolution implies God does not exist. What I said was "it is a common taunt among combative-not theists (hence called atheists) that 'if evolution is true, God does not exist." Then I said, "If this is true, then we have an argument for atheism."

B) Your basically agreeing with me in the next few paragraphs.

Addressing 1. on being anti-evolution;

A) The 'subtle distinction drawn here' is dividing the science of evolution from the philosophical naturalism so often implied. You missed it. In refuting purely naturalistic evolution I do not have to discard the neo-Darwinian mechanisms, only supplement them with a intelligent designer.

B) The original article was structured to refute two premises. The first was asking 'is evolution true?' There were four problem areas for a purely naturalistic evolution pointed out, and so the conclusion was there is good reason to believe that purely naturalistic evolution is not true.

Addressing 2. 'Bullying' tactics.

A) Ken was claiming creationists claim bulling tactics from evolutionists as an excuse that their papers aren't published. I was saying I never claimed to do that.

B) I never did that in the original article.

C) See text under the title The 'Expelled' whopper

D) "Eventually it will (if it hasn't already) start to dominate the actions of people."

I give reasons as to why I think it is a negative thing where Ken does not give reasons as to why he thinks Christians are unjustified in thinking so. It's his move if he want to support his claim. Ken's Mistake #3 was a tangent to the project anyway.

Addressing 3. Quoting Gould

A) I think on this point I was the most to the point in the whole discourse. I've cut back the long-windedness.

Addressing 4. Probability calculations

A) You may be right that he is referring to other creationist and not to me specifically. I took it to mean that he was lumping me in with them though, so I dealt with it like he was addressing me. I agree that creationists sometimes argue with a straw man like he said.

B) The E. coli example was not to say 'look how long it is,' but to demonstrate specified complexity where the sequence matters. The instructions would have to be followed precisely.

C) I know its a current organism, but the point is (perhaps it could be clearer) that on the theory once a chemical reaction took place to form a self-replicating biological organism, perhaps like the E. coli, and its difficult to see how it could achieve non-triviality with chance alone.

Addressing 5. second law of thermodynamics

A) Its not talking about cells. Its still talking about the origin of life/cells, etc. So it is relevant. I should have been clearer - its talking about the configurational "coding" work.

B) I know work refers to energy. You just got to read Thaxton to see what I'm talking about. :-) He does a way better job then me explaining. In the end you'll see how the probabilities are calculated.

C) The second law of thermodynamics was only one of five reasons in The problem with soup. The other four remain.

Addressing 6.applying probabilities to special creation

A) I can't answer criticisms that aren't developed. I don't think it is straw man as I began (6i) with "It seems you are…" and (6ii) with "I think you are…" If it is a straw man, then let him give reasons why he thinks probabilities should be equally applied to acts of special creation. In the mean time I gave reasons as to why they should not in (6i) and (6ii).

B) on "provisional agnosticism-in-the-gaps": Its not a straw man because I was only heading off a potential criticism. It's also not a straw man after dealing with Joel Hilchey's comments.

Final Remarks

A) You've read the article with a scientists eye, which I appreciate, but the original article was chiefly philosophical and not scientific. I was arguing against an argument for atheism called "The Argument from Evolution." I refuted the second premise (evolution is true) by showing there are good reasons to think that purely naturalistic evolution is not true. I then went on to argue that the first premise (if evolution is true, then God does not exist) was false. It sounds like you agree with me on that point at least.

B) The errors of science you cite aside, I still don't think anyone yet has done significant damage to my original four problem areas in evolution. The rest of the 'scientific errors' (if they indeed are errors) you cite are really only supplementary points to the broader problem areas I pointed out.

C)

>Your sources seem predominantly from "bible studies" types, rather than scientists if you take a moment to look them up. My point here, is that they aren't speaking for scientists either."

I love to know who you are referring to exactly. Thaxton? Tipler? Yockey?

D)

>"This window is only 25 Million years, based on the presumption of a 5-6 billion yea[r] age of the earth, and the earliest fossilised life forms at 3.8 billion years ago."

>5 billion - 3.8 billion equals… 1.2 billion, not 25 million. (And 6 billion -3.8 billion = 2.2 billion.) Opps :-) . . . . which would leave you with 1.55 - 2.55 billion years to play with.

You forget the time constraint is also being crunched from the other end. You have to allow time for the earth to cool down and seas to form, etc. 25 million is the estimate given by Thaxton.

Heraclides on October 26th, 2008 10:29 pm

"A) It wasn't a straw man argument as I didn't say scientists claim evolution implies God does not exist. What I said was "it is a common taunt among combative-not theists (hence called atheists) that 'if evolution is true, God does not exist." T

Expand it to all people, then. The same argument applies, its illogical, literally. With that in mind, this is an excuse by saying "I wasn't addressing scientists" (when you were actually), but is moot anyway as the argument itself is illogical.

"Then I said, "If this is true, then we have an argument for atheism."

B) Your basically agreeing with me in the next few paragraphs."

No, I didn't: don't try speak for me, thank you.

Much of your reply isn't really not worth replying to, in particular as frequently you have not actually replied to much of what I wrote, but rather given empty "pointers" that say nothing or written about something else. In many you don't answer my points at all! In some of these cases you either side step it, or simply repeat your original position, which isn't addressing anything i wrote.

1A: No I didn't. Don't try speak for me, thank you. I can speak for myself.

1B: Doesn't address anything I wrote.

2B-C: Not clear what you are referring to; you need to give quotes or some leader.

2D: Doesn't address what I actually wrote, replies to something else instead.

3: No attempt to address what I wrote, so nothing to say, of course.

4B: It doesn't do that either. I would take it from this you really, really haven't a clue. ALL it says it long it is. Length says NOTHING about complexity. That you don't understand this just illustrates that you don't understand the science.

4C: It doesn't illustrate that either; what you're introducing in your reply is new (its not in the original). Replying to your new statement: you've chosen to take a very different "path" than life did: life did not take a huge leap from "chemicals" to "an organism like E. coli". As such it could not be a comparison of like with like. You've done this elsewhere too.

5A: Irrelevant & side-stepping. Proteins of any real length don't form outside cells. Shares the fault of what I addressed in 4C, too.

5B: You obviously didn't in your original post. Be a man and just accept you erred, eh? What you are really saying in the subtext is that you are copying things you don't understand.

5C: Point conceded for once, you still go on to try to excuse yourself!

6A: I was replying to "To head off the criticism…" You're writing about something else that what I was.

6B: That's a ridiculous excuse! :-) You're saying here that a straw man argument, isn't straw man argument if its used "heading off a potential criticism". It doesn't matter how its used, its still straw man argument! Subsequent comments won't change it either.

Final Remarks (FR):

FR-A: Side-stepping, my point stands: trying to make your argument "philosophical" doesn't change what I wrote. What "second premise"?; you need to make yourself clear. And AGAIN try to speak for me… don't. You are not right and I don't need to be spoken for. Putting words in others mouths is a very cheap way to argue. You certainly didn't refute "evolution is true" and asserting something by fiat doesn't make it right.

FR-B: A series of excuses, trying to brush aside valid criticism without addressing them. To me this reads as that you've given up and are resorting to dismissing out of hand.

FR-C: It doesn't really matter, my point is quite clear. A relevant issue is that while the citations might "look" like science, in practice these authors don't speak for the science community.

FR-D: This is plainly an excuse. I replied to what you did write: I don't presume to invent things you might have written. I can't possibly "forget" a thing you didn't write. My point about subtraction and age of rocks v. fossils stands, as does your not checking what you wrote. The new material in your reply doesn't work for you either, I'm afraid. The oldest rocks of today, are from substantially AFTER the earth cooled, so there is no scope for "crunching" the times, as you put it.

Stuart on October 27th, 2008 3:52 am

Hello Heraclides,

I want to first thank you for attacking my arguments and not attacking me. Your thoughts are spelled out clear (for the most part) and thoroughly, ensuing the conversation be a constructive one. Thank you also for leaving your comments.

A) It wasn't arguing a straw man as I wasn't misrepresenting anyone in the atheistic argument. The atheistic argument is logical. That is clear from the flow of the premises. The atheistic argument is not sound. That is clear because the premises are not true or more likely than their contradictories. On that point you do agree with me. You say in regard to premise 1 (that if evolution is true God does not exist):

B)

"Scientists might say that a literal interpretation of the bible's account of the origin of species is at odds with evolution, and, to be polite, seriously so…"

Look at what I say in the original article:

"It seems clear that it is not so. At most, if evolution is true, all it would mean is that a certain literal interpretation of Genesis 1 is incorrect."

Again you say:

"Some religious people who insist on taking the bible literally, might extend this to make out that this claims that G-d does not exist, as opposed to conflicting with a literal interpretation of the bible, but that's not a claim made by scientists, but a claim made by these religious people in response to their insistence/need that the bible be taken literally"

Look at what I say in the original article:

"Yet even if the Bible's creation account demands a literal interpretation, then all that would follow is that the Biblical doctrine of inerrancy is false. . . that God's existence is not something that is at stake."

I also quoted Howard Van Till in this regard.

1: The pertinent point I believe you haven't yet grasped is this: Refuting purely naturalistic evolution is not refuting evolution. I was refuting purely naturalistic evolution. Not evolution.

1A: I never spoke for you.

2B-C: refers to 2A

2D: It does address the paragraph you wrote. Its a side issue anyway, and Ken's move if he wants to take it.

3: I was addressing what you wrote in the parenthesis about being long-winded.

Ken's objection was about misquoting Gould on the fossil record. I showed that it was Ken that was misquoting Gould and not me. You have more to say on the fossil record I know, so when you do please do not assert by fiat 'complimentary science,' but deal with specifics.

4B: I just flat out disagree. Please explain what you think complexity means.

4C: You skirting around the real issue. How can anything achieve non-triviality naturally?

5A: Using the law of biogenesis to explain the origin of life is odd, if that's what you're doing.

5B: I did know work refers to energy, but that's not the real issue. I will be a man and say I had trouble writing that portion of the refutation, and not only because it was late when I did. I was going to quote Thaxton at length but he used symbols that would not transcribe into WordPress which this blog uses. I chose in the end to summarise. I'm willing to concede you think I did a shoddy job. You should really read Thaxton! I provided the web-site in the footnotes to the article.

5C: It wasn't a concession. I believe you misread it. It refers to the original section in the article "Argument from Evolution" where there are 5 problems with the chemical origin of life from a pre-biotic soup. If one falls, that doesn't matter as it was independent of the other four problems. In short, the general problem still stands.

6A: Sorry for the confusion. I think its Ken's move anyway.

6B: No. A straw man argument is a fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. In "heading off a potential criticism" I was not misrepresenting anyone's position. Ergo, its not a straw man.

FR-A:

"Side-stepping, my point stands: tying to make your argument "philosophical" doesn't change what I wrote."

Addressing scientific inaccuracies is valid, and everyone's welcome to do that. But you have to remember I didn't write a paper for a science journal or a dissertation on why people should reject evolution. I wrote an article about the atheistic argument, and the existence of God.

"What "second premise"?; you need to make yourself clear."

I believe I was clear. The "second premise" is in the parenthesis for your ease. It was "evolution is true."

"And AGAIN try to speak for me… don't. You are not right and I don't need to be spoken for. Putting words in others mouths is a very cheap way to argue."

I was talking about the first premise which was "if evolution is true, then God does not exist." I made it very clear that this premise was false. I certainly didn't put words in your mouth (you put the words in your own mouth), see the first point A) above in this comment.

"You certainly didn't refute "evolution is true" and asserting something by fiat doesn't make it right."

I agree that asserting something by fiat doesn't make it true. I don't believe I did though. I concluded that based on the four problem areas I expounded upon, there are good reasons to think that evolution is not true. That is not saying evolution is not true. I did try to argue that purely naturalistic evolution is not true. I'm willing to bet you disagree on that score.

FR-B: No, in putting your claims about scientific errors aside I was dealing with the issue you raised philosophically. Take for instance "The problem with soup" section. There were five independent problems raised. In pulling down one, you're still left with four. Pull down four your still left with one.

What you need to do is stop asserting by fiat (as you accused me of doing), and stop referring to 'complimentary science' offhandedly and cite specifics reasons why such-and-such is not the case.

FR-C: That is weak! I just can't convince myself that the likes of Thaxton and Tipler are not representative of the scientific community. Tell me who you are referring to when you say these people are "Bible study" types. In any case, discrediting the sources is using the genetic fallacy.

FR-D: "…which would leave you with 1.55 - 2.55 billion years to play with."

Plot out the 6 billion years of earth's history. To get the window of opportunity for life to arise you need to find the earliest life (we'll take your 3.5 billion), and you also need to allow for the earth to cool, seas to form, etc… We have two converging boundaries (not just one). One boundary is running backwards from the present to the first fossil, the other is running forwards from the formation of the earth to the conditions sufficient to produce life. There is significantly less than 1.55 - 2.55 billion year time period like you say. My original statement holds even if I didn't spell it out for you.

Heraclides on October 27th, 2008 6:47 am

Your opening statement ascribed to people an argument (position) that they don't hold.

Referring to later material doesn't change the statement: its still there saying the same thing. I said that whatever you say after that would be moot in my first reply ;-) You seem to think that you can "excuse away" straw man statements.

Several times you claimed that some things you wrote do address things I wrote, when told you they don't. That's getting very close to being disingenuous, as only I can be the judge of my intentions. In my experience, its common for creationists to "read their own meanings" in what others write, which may be your problem.

4B: You claimed its was about "length", not me: its your homework to do, really. I can certainly defend it, but why should I spend my time on something when its clear to me that you haven't tried to get it right yourself? Most people I know when pointed out that they got something wrong, go off and check for themselves. Its not hard to find the correct information on this, so I'll leave it as a homework exercise. (I've given you some useful leads already.) You really owe it to yourself to proper meanings first, not defend them after-fact-the-fact by "demanding of others" that they show otherwise, y'know ;-)

4C: Don't accuse me of what you are doing yourself, please :-) My statements were quite clear. I did not skirt around anything: I quite directly pointed out that your new take on it wasn't right either.

5A: I did nothing of the sort, which should be quite obvious. I wrote a short, simple statement that illustrated that you were (again) trying to compare with something that didn't happen, making the comparison moot, as in the earlier case (hence my reference back to it). I said nothing about wider issues, I just illustrated the error you were making.

6B: You have ignored what I wrote: all I can do is ask that you read what I wrote. (See the start of this reply, too.) If its straw man statement, its straw man statement. Preceding it with "just to head off", etc, will not "undo" it.

FR-D: Piling excuses on top of previous excuses ;-) Re-read my previous point on this, please. There is no way for you to "compress time" as you want to because the age of the rocks you referred to are from substantially AFTER the events you want to have happened after these rocks were formed.

I've ignored some points as I can't be bothered dealing with some: there is a limit to silliness that I can be bothered with… ;-)

Heraclides on October 27th, 2008 9:43 am

Just so you don't waste time, I might leave it at that. I think I've said what I need to anyway.

6

Dale:

October 24th, 2008 at 10:35 pm

Ken,

Cheers. Indeed, those are clumsy expressions; and just to be clear, I certainly wouldn't identify with them.

When it comes to labels (not to mention 'simple' ones!), I think they are kind of a double-edged sword; on one hand, they can be helpful for summarising a set of beliefs/assumptions/etc. and thus providing a foundation for dialogue and (at least) mutual understanding; but they can also be constricting and/or easily used to present a caricatured and easily mocked version of a differing view.

It is in this sense, and only with these qualifications and caveats that I'd want to use terms like 'materialist' or 'naturalist' to refer to your worldview.

As for a label for my worldview, there could be several that may be helpful? 'Christian Theist', or 'Creational, Ethical Monotheism'.

Jack,

Good points. In one sense, yes, I think we're (hopefully) always maturing, growing, refining, changing, progressing in terms of our views about things. In another sense, I do think we often do have 'fixed' points around other things turn (if that makes sense). These can (again, 'often') be summarised into a basic, 'simple' worldview 'label'.

7

Ken:

October 25th, 2008 at 8:54 am

It seems to me that labels like 'materialism' and 'naturalism' are quite useful - at least for people who identify with these world views. The problems come from use by opponents (like Dominic) who dogmatically wish to impose the wrong understanding of the terms.

I am looking for some term to describe a non-materialist world view - but a general term encompassing more than Christians, theists, atheist Buddhists, etc., etc.).

What , in your view, is unacceptable with the term I have been used to from my early days of learning philosophy - 'idealist.' Is it objectionable? Would it exclude your world view? If so - what general, abstract, term would suffice?

8

Dale:

October 25th, 2008 at 3:18 pm

Cheers Ken,

…the wrong understanding of the terms. ['materialism' and 'naturalism']

(((Just a quick distinction, I think 'wrong' (in this context of acknowledging - as opposed to agreeing with - other worldviews) is too strong. Now, it's certainly 'wrong' for someone to describe you as having views which you in fact don't have, but merely to have a different definition of 'materialist' than you isn't (a priori) 'wrong'…)))

Now, as for the 'materialist' and 'idealist' labels, I'm quite OK with them (of course, when used flexibly, etc.).

As for mutual understanding etc., I think it's helpful to agree on what questions a worldview seeks to answer. Here, I quite like Wright's 4-point approach.

9

Ken:

October 26th, 2008 at 12:07 pm

If it is wrong to ascribe inappropriate views to a person, and we are conscious that words like 'materialism' and 'naturalism' (and I guess idealism) mean different things to different people - doesn't this necessarily follow that we should avoid using those labels to describe the views of another? Particularly if we see that person's views as being wrong or mistake (ie. we see them as an opponent)?

I ask this because I find it interesting that I could go through my scientific career without these labels being used. Also, I find in discussions on my blog the only people using these terms do so as a form of attack - or at least from a position of seeing someone with that world view as 'wrong' - even evil. Those people in the discussion who are more or less 'on the same team' never use these terms. And interestingly (although everyone trades abuse from time to time) they never use 'world view' labels (eg. 'idealist') on an opponent.

I wonder if this is because there is a heightened consciousness of the 'materialist' and 'naturalist' labels among theist activists these day. Perhaps these concepts are being pushed more in theology classes? Or, perhaps, it reflects a heightened attack on science coming from ideologically motivated groups like the Wedge strategists who openly use these terms and attack scientific methodology.

Having said all that I think one can usefully use the naturalist-materialist/idealist models to differentiate two different starting points (objective reality vs belief/idea) which will be reflected in outcomes. And that doesn't reflect a science/religion differentiation.

For example - Marx had a materialist world view in his approach to analysing society - specifically capitalism. However (and despite all his protestations about scientific socialism vs utopian socialism) he was idealist in his approach to political transformation (he listened to his wishes more than accepting reality). Stalin and Mao were classic idealists in attempting to imposed their ideas of socialism on to reality and refusing to accept the evidence from reality.

In this sense science is basically materialist/naturalist because it starts with reality and tests its ideas/theories against reality (rather than idea or belief).

Disclaimer: my use of 'materialism' and 'naturalism' does not include the naive mechanical definition of (and reliance on) matter

10

Dale:

October 27th, 2008 at 10:42 am

Ken,

Thanks for the thoughts. I agree that the use of labels can be both unhelpful (i.e. 'attacks' and 'strawmen') and helpful (basis of dialogue and understanding).

Having thought more about this, I think the topic (and yes, yet another post!) of 'epistemology' ('the study of knowledge') is immediately relevant to all of this. Right through all of these conversations is the need to appreciate different kinds/modes/layers/strata/ways/etc. of 'knowing'.

I'll try to put something up soon…

I can't help but think what that money could achieve if it was put to GOOD use… whether the money comes from Christians or atheists, I think feeding those who can't feed themselves & doing it in a sustainable way far outranks billboards and posters any day.

flendolyn

24 Oct 08 at 11:54 am

[...] for God's sake, let people think « servant's thoughts The British Humanist Association has been running a fund raising drive to get the needed money to run an advertising campaign on buses in the U.K. The aim is to have the following slogan running on London buses: [...]

links for 2008-10-23 « earth is my favourite planet

24 Oct 08 at 3:30 pm

[...] for God's sake, let people think « servant's thoughts The British Humanist Association has been running a fund raising drive to get the needed money to run an advertising campaign on buses in the U.K. The aim is to have the following slogan running on London buses: [...]

RE: Freedom from industrial slavery? Don't worry, be happy « earth is my favourite planet

24 Oct 08 at 5:04 pm

Yeah, what a great idea Damian.

But somehow I don't think I'll be doing it. I don't support such a system in a way that I'm 'all for it', but rather try and look at the positive aspects of something that I actually find quite an amusing addition to the evolution/creation debate. Because that's what it all comes down to at the end of the day, obviously. I'm surprised though that enthusiastic Mr Dawkins has not dug deeper into his pockets for this one mind you. Doesn't want to let on to people how excited he is about the whole thing I'd imagine.

George

25 Oct 08 at 4:00 am

[...] and atheists throughout the world and also by some Christian groups (including in New Zealand - see for God's sake, let people think) who believe it will fuel a "continued interest in [...]

"Probably" no God - probably acceptable « Open Parachute

27 Oct 08 at 12:04 am