Calculating God 389
| Calculating God | |
| author | Robert J. Sawyer |
| pages | 336 |
| publisher | St. Martin's Press |
| rating | 8 |
| reviewer | Michael Huang |
| ISBN | 0-312-86713-1 |
| summary | Systems of philosophy and belief clash when alien civilizations visit Earth and encounter scientist Thomas Jericho, while an apocalyptic explosion threatens to settle the argument. |
The Scenario
In a nutshell, Calculating God is the story of paleontologist Thomas Jericho's encounter with two alien species which visit earth, and which reveal that the cataclysmic events that shaped Earth's evolution (meteor impact, mass extinctions, etc.) all happened simultaneously on their home planets as well. Both aliens have come to the conclusion that the universe is intelligently designed to support life, and that God the Creator is the direct cause of all these cataclysms. Those shattering events, they believe, led to the development of intelligence. Jericho, an atheist, is forced to come to grips with the aliens' undoubtedly superior scientific knowledge and their theistic conclusions at the same time he is diagnosed with cancer which the aliens are unable to cure despite their technology. Meanwhile, the imminent death of a nearby star threatens to wipe out all life on Earth and all the aliens' home-worlds in a supernova. Will it take a miracle to save them all, or is this a divinely ordered cataclysm?
What's Bad?
Most of the touchy issues concerning evolution and intelligent design were handled very fairly. However, I still believe that the two extreme fundamentalists (from Arkansas, no less) are caricatures and stereotypes rather than genuine religious extremists. Being a somewhat liberal evangelical Christian, I personally know quite a few people who can be fairly characterized as religious extremists -- and they definitely would not take the actions that the book's characters take. So the subplot concerning them is weak.
I was also somewhat put off by the breezy, colloquial writing style, which included numerous pop-culture references. While this style made the book fun and easy to read, it will also date this book considerably in the years to come, and books with ideas of the high caliber presented here ought not to date themselves so quickly. Other religiously themed SF books, like Mary Doria Russell's The Sparrow and Walter M. Miller Jr.'s A Canticle For Leibowitz will stand better through time than this novel, filled with Twilight Zone, South Park, and Star Trek references. That's a shame. Sawyer has a unique take on these issues, and this book ought to stand for a long time to come as a great contribution to both SF and the intelligent-design debate.
Neither of these flaws takes too much away from the enjoyment of the book, however.
What's Good?
Plenty. First and foremost, this book is a novel of ideas, and the ideas are potentially explosive. Sawyer handles them fairly, though those committed to a naturalistic viewpoint may think he concedes too much to the intelligent design side, while young-earth creationists and others will not like his somewhat unorthodox views of what the Creator is like. He explains arguments on both sides very clearly and completely, usually through the debates that Thomas Jericho (the unbeliever) and Hollus (the alien believer) constantly have over the existence of God. Those of you who are interested in the arguments developed in the book would do well to check out not only Dawkins and Gould but also Michael Behe, whom I believe is the main source for the intelligent-design material; Sawyer even cites his book by name inside the novel.
This book would be boring, however, if it contained nothing more than debates between two characters about science and religion, which is why Sawyer adds a personal, tragic element to the story in the form of Thomas's terminal lung cancer, contracted from breathing in dust during his paleontological studies. The ideas he debates about God, the meaning of life, and morality thus take on a brutally personal dimension and are not merely abstract mind-games; one chapter that describes his anguish over his impending death is particularly convincing (though the mood does spill over into sheer melodrama at times). Thomas has a wife and a young adopted son, and to leave them behind in death is almost more than he can bear. What happens to his beliefs and his outlook in life by the novel's end is probably the most realistic outcome I've seen in books of this sort. (No, I'm not telling you what it is. It's a major spoiler ...)
So What's In It For Me?
This book, though it is by one of Canada's foremost science fiction writers (Sawyer also wrote the Hugo-nominated novel Factoring Humanity) with impeccable hard SF credentials, is sure to cause some controversy here on Slashdot -- but you should read it as an example of how even explosive issues can be handled in a civil, fair and enlightening way. This book may not be destined to be a classic of the genre, but it still stands a chance to help Sawyer finally earn his well-deserved Hugo.
Purchase this book at Fatbrain.
The Equation for God (Score:3)
Hmmm.... (Score:1)
I wonder if this book (I haven't read it) will turn out to be one of those "closet" successes. I'll have to give it a try.
sounds good (Score:1)
Hmm... (Score:2)
There's a couple of problems with this:
Hey! *I* just read this book (Score:3)
I also thought the "fundies" were a little overdone, especially since they didn't really contribute to the climax. On the other hand, the author is from Canada: if all you know of these whackos is what you read in the papers, the characters seem realistic.
I thought the biggest flaw in the book was the ending which was a little...overused. Personally I liked the pop-culture references, especially since they are VERY recent (some of them from late 1999).
Based on "Calculating God", I also read "Illegal Alien" by the same author. His previous work as a crime novelist (which I haven't read) really shows through: An alien is accused of murder. The book reads like Perry Mason meets E.T. Highly recommended although again, the ending is slightly weak.
--
Re:Hmm... (Score:1)
Actually, he said that "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
--
If it doesn't say PURINA, bury it in the yard!
Landover Baptist Church [landoverbaptist.org]
Betty Bowers' Answers [bettybowers.com]
Re:Hmm... (Score:1)
Which is exactly what Thomas Jericho thinks, too. But how unlikely do things have to get before you start believing in God? Read the book to find out.
--
heh (Score:2)
caricatures and stereotypes rather than genuine
religious extremists.
The really great thing about most of the fundies I've met is that they ARE charicatures of an Xtian fundamentalist.
Being a fundamentalist Xtian, in the cases I'm familiar with, involves adherance to doctrine - and the sterotype of a fundie is someone who blindly obeys said doctrines.
I haven't read the book, but I don't see any problems at all with that particular characterization.
Being a somewhat liberal evangelical Christian, I personally know quite a few people who can be fairly characterized as religious extremists -- and they definitely would not take the actions that the book's characters take. So the subplot concerning them is weak.
Heh.. this just makes me giggle.
--
blue, slashdotting for spirituality without religion.
Re:Hmm... (Score:1)
Why, Why, Why, Why.... (Score:1)
Define God? (Score:1)
What I mean is this: if God exists (and yes, I mean the "Christian" God of the Bible), then he is going to be quite different form any sufficiently advanced technology. OK - they may be able to perform signs and wonders that appear divine to us, but there is more to God than that. You'll find out one day - I hope for your sake you are happy with the outcome!
ac.uk.
Addressing Important Themes (Score:2)
It's nice to see SF that DOESN'T play it safe. I'd like to see more hard-bitten, go-for-the-gut, what's-it-all-about SF, hard or light.
Buy it at elgrande.com for 13.65$ (Score:3)
God Vs. Science (Score:2)
I don't think the concepts of science and God need to be mutually exclusive. The Sentiment that God created everything does not have to mean that he waved his hand and POOF, we had life. All things need a way of working out and a way of developing. The concept of God setting the wheels in motion, defining the rules to it all (science), and guiding the progress is just as likely as life just spontaneously formulating out of a bunch of amino acids hanging out together on the lava rock.
Many things are difficult to explain. Try being a guy and explaining women, or vice versa. Personally, I think only God could do it!
doubt it would effect my philosophy.... (Score:2)
While I like reading sci fi with intelectual charecters, I rarely get any philosophical insights out of them that aren't better enjoyed as raw philosophical discussion.
IMHO of course, and it could be a fun read just for the plot.
-Kahuna Burger
Re:The Equation for God (Score:2)
Re:Hmm... (Score:2)
If I gather correctly from the review, both alien civs and of course our own developed in largle similar ways. Large catyclysmic events gave birth to intellect and consciouness, the question becomes was that contrived by a higher power.
If there are enough similarities in how that came to be in enough different places, I can see where it could be consrued that A higher power was at work.
Oh well, I can't seem to put together a coherent thought, but the wheels sure are grinding. Looks like a book I will have to read now!
#include caffiene.c
Simultaneity (Score:2)
Re:Somebody refresh my memory (Score:2)
Here's a quote from Douglas Adams, On god, By the way:
"I don't beleive there is a God. I don't say 'I dont beleive in God' because that implies there is a God for me not to beleive in."
He said it on a TV interview on the canadian Space Channel, during a special called "Originals from Space"
----
Oh my god, Bear is driving! How can this be?
God, root, what's the difference? (Score:2)
We are near to become God. Except for one thing. God is good, or at least so it is said. And we are by no means good.
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
Re:Hmm... (Score:2)
I explicitly said "paraphrase" - what's so hard about understanding that? I knew I was misquoting him. I was deliberately misquoting him. That's what paraphrase means!
Language and Logic (Score:5)
One hurdle that must be cleared when discussing these issues is the language barrier. While I cannot speak for everyone, my experiences involve this:
Logic places strict definitions and requirements on words in the English language, elements which may not be as stringent in everyday life. The concepts of knowledge, truth, reasoning are good examples.
I, as a person who views religion through the glasses of a scientist evaluating a theory, see no compelling evidence for any of the major religions. This is not the say there is no God; there very we may be. I just have no knowledge of his existence, and therefor do not assume it. I draw my fundimentals about the universe through logic and science, methods which have long proven histories of successfully uncovering mysteries of our universe. Because of this, when I speak I speak according to the rules of the system; mainly I talk under the stringent definition of logic.
When discussing (using the strict definitions) complex issues with individuals of a less logistic background, I make concessions required by logic such as "yes, we don't know everything about the universe and therefor cannot disprove your 'theory' when your 'theory' does not make any measurable claims about the universe." These "concessions," while valid in the extreme, are then canabilized and used to "explain" why science in whole should be scraped and we should all take a literal view of King James.
This lack of common definitions eventually boils down even the best discussions to a game of semantics, and is one reason why I am not as inclined as I used to be to talk about religion.
So my question is this:
How does the book deal with the issue of logic? Do both characters obey the strict definitions? Do they both avoid them? Does man A become annoyed at man B because he's not playing fair logic? Are the differences exploited by the author to advance his own viewpoint?
Are there any books that fairly deal with this issue?
What do you think?
Defining God (Score:2)
Label that being as "God."
QED
--
Re:God is Pi (Score:2)
numbers explaining god... (Score:3)
He says that the order and design behind nature points to a sentient force creating it with a structure in mind.
This structure can be expressed in mathematics. (Mathematics is the language of nature... nature... 1.. 1.. 2... 3.... 5... 8...)
Viewed in this context, "unexplainable" things detract from the "proof" of existence of god. Unless of course you believe that the abnormalities are either
1) actually part of the pattern created, and we just cant see how yet.
2) Intervention by god (miracles)
However, if the chaotic events are just random, with no order or meaning, and you use this to dispell the notion of God, then you have fallen into Descarte's world, and cant prove anything outside of your own mind, because there is no certainty of anything.
Cool (Score:3)
David Hume, a Scot philosopher who lived in the 18th century, basically said that "no matter what I see or what you tell me, I could never believe in a miracle, because it is totally contrary to my normal experience". This idea has been picked up by a lot of people who avow a pseudo-scientific "faith" that requires atheism. The best you can do with this is a kind of deism. (Deism is the belief in a "clockmaker God", who created the world and then left it to run its course.)
But what if you did see such complete evidence for the miraculous that you MUST suppose it actually happened? Would Hume or his successors suppose that they had lost their mind before they conceeded a miracle?
Anyway, it sounds like these are the topics that this book explores. I look forward to reading it.
--
Re:Simultaneity (Score:3)
If you weren't just trying to pick knits, you would realize that this question does not require /true/ simultaneity in the physical sense, but simply thinks that happened within the same time frame according to each group's reference frames.
For what it's worth, the prohibition of simultaneity does not necessarily apply in all circumstances. Anything that exceeds the speed of light would break it (and such things appear to exist even in our limited scientific knowledge).
--
Behe's tired old argument from design (Score:4)
Re:Simultaneity (Score:2)
But seriously, while 'simultaneous' does not have any absolute meaning outside a light cone, there are obvious 'subjective' meanings which make perfect sense in the context.
For example, the events could be simultaneous when obsered by and observer at the centre of mass of the galaxy, or at the centre of mass of the affected stars. Either of these uses would have useful 'local' significance.
Indeed, by comparing the times of the three events and postulating that they were initiated simultaneously by a single entity, you could calculate the intertial frame of that observer.
Re:Tell me all your thoughts on god... (Score:2)
//rdj
Re:Simultaneity (Score:2)
The simile of the websites (Score:2)
I think there are too many people who probably wouldn't admit to being religeous, yet come up with this stuff whenever they have a problem. The sad part is that it's usually a deep and serious problem, like a death in the family, that brings back the god thing.
Gods are *not* the only solution to what you don't know! There is a whole world out there on the horizon that we don't know about, and yes, it is confusing, and it can look like magic, but even magic isn't everything, or to paraphrase as you have done: whatever it is you don't understand is not reason for a god. If I were a god I would probably be offended to be seen in such a limited way: the thing you don't understand is just one small part of all of this world.
To try and explain better, look at the example of a web page: you might have a designer, who might write the site in a certain way, and plan the site's ending for a certain date, but that designer also has a life, and a home to go to, and a host of other things, each of which *also* make that person unique.
Similarly, the designer might one day decide to shut down the web site, but the users will just go on and make another, if the content is good enough, so even the designer loses control over it all.
GOd based stuff is like microsoft.com: they decide what goes up & down and you can't change it. I'd rather be like slashdot.org: you can change anything you want about the site (or even more in themes.org!), and if they one day sadly close, you can make your own!
It's the same with all this. If you really believe in god then understand that gods need all the help they can get, so please go out and do your bit for the world: be strong and creative and believe in what you can contribute, but it's *not* about gods! They are just designers.
You, the observer are the person who is responsible for the things you see and can't explain, or for the problems and good things in your life: not someone else! I wish all these people who turn to god in hard moments could understand this. Even christianity teaches something like this: help to those who help themselves. Well, it's more than that. You won't get help from anyone BUT yourself. It's when you take responsibility for your world that you become like a god yourself!
With this responsibility comes a good side though: you decide where to go to from here.
Any serious comments on this, please write me directly: I feel very strongly about this, but there's not enough space to explain it all here.
Re:Simultaneity (Score:2)
--
Re:Simultaneity (Score:2)
Look up "relative" and "absolute" - they're opposites. When Einstein said that space and time are relative, he meant exactly that there is no absolute measure of space or time.
--
Re:p0.00001 means I believe in God? (Score:2)
...phil
Behe (Score:2)
I went to a Behe lecture at U of Delaware a while back. Very interesting.
For those of you interested Behe is a biochemist who examined basic cellular functions. His belief and book on intelligent design (called Darwin's Black Box) was derived from his research.
The basic idea is that while macroscopic evolution works, biochemical evolution is a lot sketchier. This is a problem since you need biochemical evolution before you can even get to the standard evolution we've all grow up with. I.e. for the eye to evolve you need a cell sensitive to light which is not an easy thing biochemically.
Basically his conclusion is that many biochemical functions require a lot of unique biochemical parts (lets say more than ten different complex molecules). If one part is removed (which is done in lab rats by playing with their genes) the process stops working completely. This means that these functions cannot gradually evolve from a less functional form (as Darwin postulated but did not prove) but have to simply appear at much higher improbability.
He then compares biology to a mouse trap. A mouse trap needs all its parts to work and was made not evolved. Likewise blood clotting needs all its biochemical parts to work, so it was most likely made not evolved.
Anyway thats the gist of his work. I hope this is on topic an not treated like flame bait.
Re:What is omnipotence? (Score:3)
What he meant by implying that god was interchangable with magic in this quote is this: In a world with primitive technology, a person with sufficiently advanced technology will be godlike. Think about it! What would people in the stone-age say about you if you had a paraglider, a rifle (with ammo, to shoot animals with) and a box of matches? You would be godlike to them, because you can kill things at a distance by pointing at them with a stick and go 'boom' (Sounds a lot like Zeus striking people down with lightning, doesn't it?). You can fly (on a good day
You would probably be seen more as a great sorcerer with a special connection to that society's existing gods than as a god yourself. Think about it again. You carry around this powerful staff made of an unkown material that is unlike any other, cold and smooth to the touch. Why the god's must have forged it and given it to you as a sign of their favor! They have also given you wings of cloth and tiny fire sticks. If we make you our king, the god's will bestow more of these goodies upon all of us.
Re:God is Pi (Score:2)
Wrong! According to the Bible God Himself defines pi to be exactly 3.0... a whole, positive integer. Don't believe me? Check out 2 Chr.4:2 and 1 Kg.7:23 and do the "math"
Re:Language and Logic (Score:2)
Not to be rude, but aren't you missing the whole point of religion/spirituality? Trying to apply logic to spirituality just isn't going to work. Sprirituality is based on faith, science is based on logic, and they are two separate (but complimentary?) paradigms, and each is certainly useful within its own realm.
Just my opinion here.
LL
Re:Why, Why, Why, Why.... (Score:2)
But as I mentioned in a previous post it's not only about unlikely events. It is also about design parameters, what makes x a designed object and y not a random object. For example, the light-sensitive structure of the eye is irreducibly complex, it could not have come about via small single steps or it would not function. Behe uses the illustration of a mouse trap. Take one piece away and you don't have a mouse trap anymore. So we have future usefulness rather then past usefulness. Very intriguing.
Sorry, but you are wrong about the eye. There are examples of creatures with "eyes" of all sorts from single light-sensitive cells, right up to complex eyes and all the steps in between. The eye is clearly not "irreducibly complex" because all the intermediate steps also exist in nature.
This is a very old saw that the "Intelligent Design" community persist in trotting out. The fact that it is demonstrably false only shows that you ID folks really ought to try to understand scientific rationality if you want to argue against it.
Re:What *evidence* for a miracle would be sufficie (Score:2)
The point I was trying to make is that naturalism IS an assumption. Ultimately, given enough evidence "God spoke and BANG it happened" is an adequate explanation. The problem people face is that they have not SEEN that mode of operation in a direct, tangible way.
The successors of David Hume would deny that such proof is ever possible. I think it is possible, and have even seen it on a small scale.
--
Be careful what you wish to calculate (Score:2)
Re:God Vs. Science (Score:2)
I don't think the concepts of science and God need to be mutually exclusive. The Sentiment that God created everything does not have to mean that he waved his hand and POOF, we had life. All things need a way of working out and a way of developing. The concept of God setting the wheels in motion, defining the rules to it all (science), and guiding the progress is just as likely as life just spontaneously formulating out of a bunch of amino acids hanging out together on the lava rock.
Of course this is an arguable point of view. What is interesting is that no major religion (that I'm aware of, please feel free to correct me) has the concept of a creator God/Gods who just sets things in motion and then sits back. All religions with a creator have an interventionist God - and that starts to get very hard to reconcile with the notions of science.
The reason we don't see the "hands off" God is that such a being would be completely irrelevant to everything. You can't have judgement days or afterlives or all the other imaginary things that organized religions like to use as threats to enable their power. A hands off God who started the Big Bang then never intervened in the world would be exactly the same as no God at all, except for the act of creation. Would you worship that?
Re:God Vs. Science (Score:2)
People always forget the human element though. In the bible we have verbally-reported accounts passed orally through several translations by people who, by the sheer dint of their occupation (bible writer) have demonstrated that they are willing to believe some pretty outrageous things. Add to that the human tendency to hyperbolize for sake of a good story plus the (at that time) very valid concept of rhetoric (whereby hyperbole was completely acceptable if it furthered your argument) and you have a formula for massive distortion. So, first we have to establish some pedigree of fact for these ocurrences.
Not only do science and God not have to be mutually exclusive, they shouldn't be mutually exclusive.
So, basically go with science and then just tack on a footnote saying "As set up by God". Why bother? Violates Occam's Razor [2think.org].
Re:Defining God (Score:2)
Imagine the chair you are sitting in right now. Now look at the chair in which you are sitting. These are two separate things; one is an idea and one is a physical object. Aquinas claimed that the physical chair is "greater" than the idea chair because it actually exists.
Now use your definition of God. God is the greatest thing that ever existed. But if God is the greatest thing that ever existed, and I can imagine God, then surely the God that truely exists is greater than the God in my mind, and therefore God exists!
(If I've explained that clearly enough...)
Unfortuneately the proof rests on the assumption that something that exists in the physical world is "greater" than an idea, which is pretty baseless.
Someone please correct this, but it is an interesting argument.
LL
Exactly. As Heinlein would say... (Score:2)
Nobody can talk about God because nobody can point to a thing and say "There! That's God, that's exactly what God is! That's what I'm talking about."
Instead you get a lot of self-contradictory and logically flawed babble.
To make it worse, terribly few people seem equipped to argue semantics.
Most people think questions like "Can God make a rock so heavy he can't lift it?" are facetious, when they get to the heart of what "God" means.
For example, the above question is about the definition of omnipotent. Would a thing you call "God" have absolute power over himself, the power to abandon omnipotence by making a thing greater than himself, or just absolute power over the physical universe we observe, him not being in or of the "universe" proper.
If what you speak of as "God" is of the physical universe, could an extremely powerful alien with advanced technology be "God"? How about an extremely powerful alien who created the universe and holds it in a container on his "shelf", like we might keep an ant farm?
Is "God" the anthromorphisation of the effects of religion?
There are a whole pile of these questions, and if you can't answer them, even you don't know what you're referring to when you say "God". Devout believers of different religions, agnostics, and atheists arguing with each other might all hold the same view, but just be talking about completely different things.
Re:Hmm... (Score:2)
I didn't say that - I said I can argue both sides of a discussion
Re:while I'm not familiar with Behe's work... (Score:4)
I do think that two important pieces of the argument from design are being left out in your summary. The first is that objects that appear to be designed do imply some sort of designer.
Nonsense. What about the "face on Mars" picture? This was an image from the Viking orbiter that looked remarkably like a carved face on the surface of Mare. To some, it even looked like the face of Christ! It had to be designed, right? It sure looked like it - even to me. By your argument, it therefore must have been designed.
Of course, when the Mars pathfinder probe flew over the same spot a few years later, and photographed the same region, it became clear that the particular angle of the light that had caused a random jumble of rocks to look like a face.
The second is whether that designer needs to be some sort of deity. The complexity of life does imply that there is some sort of design process at work.
Again, no. There are lots of examples of extremley complex systems that arise out of random formation processes, without any form of designer. I strongly suggest you study Chaos Theory, and Emergent Systems Theory, especially how Neural Nets work. A complex system does not imply a designer.
Which isn't to say all complex systems lack designers, just that complexity is not in itself any indication of the process that formed the system.
Re:God Vs. Science (Score:2)
Yeah, like the details of if it happened at all. There are LOTS of details which say it didn't. Not a good topic for furthering a discussion pro bible.
...phil
Re:Tell me all your thoughts on god... (Score:2)
On the evolution front, I'm curious as to what would be considered "conclusive evidence"? It seems to me that anti-evolution forces have skewed our definition of that to serve their own ends.
1. Evolution is different than natural selection. We see evolution all around us as a result of livestock husbandry. That is not natural selection however (unless we consider a farmer a force of nature...) Evolution is demonstrable, repeatable and falsifiable and is demonstrated every damn day.
2. Natural selection is pretty much conclusively proved. Fossil records, genetic diversity between populations of the same species yatta yatta. It's massively documented. The "missing link" argument of creationists is specious (no pun intended) at best. There will always be a missing link. The missing link in the set {1,2,3} is 2.5... in {1,2,2.5,3} it's 2.75... ad infinitum. There is more evidence for natural selection than there is for black holes...
3. The bible makes a lot of claims about the natural world that are patently false. I would gladly let creationists teach in classrooms if they can show my an insect that has four feet (Leviticus 11:22-23).
Ultimately, if you have enough faith you can believe anything you want... it just doesn't necessarily make it true. If you're really doing the "working through" thing, I would suggest Sagan's Demon Haunted Wordl [2think.org] and, of course, the bible... although I'd keep a copy of Isaac Asimov's Guide to the Bible [california.com] handy while reading it.
Re:Why, Why, Why, Why.... (Score:2)
You are response has absolutely nothing to do with my post. You saw the word "eye" in my post and assumed I was talking about the fully formed eye creationist argument. That is not the ID contention.
Yes, you are right, I did misread the original post. Please accept my apologies for that. By the way, if you don't believe that the fully-formed eye is an ID contention, you perhaps ought to read more ID literature. Its the most common ID contention I can find (try searching for it on google.com)
My post centered on the light sensitive spot which is irreducibly complex and has no precursor, but even the fully formed eyes of all kinds do not have not one precursor as well, but that is a different topic.
Sorry, but I disagree with that last statement. Fully formed eyes have many thousands of precursors. This is actually the heart of the matter, not a "different topic". You make the claim that the light-sensing structures in the eye are "irreducibly complex" but I am explaining that there are many examples of related but simpler light-sensing structures in other creatures.
When light strikes the retina a photon is absorbed by an organic molecule called 11-cis-retinal, causing it to rearrange within picoseconds to trans-retinal. The change in shape of retinal forces a corresponding change in shape of the protein, rhodopsin, to which it is tightly bound. As a consequence of the protein's metamorphosis, the behavior of the protein changes in a very specific way. It goes on and on like this. It fulfills the definition of irreducible complexity, and a challenge from Darwin himself:
I am not arguing that the eye is not an amazing and complex structure. But if you want to argue this is an example of "irreducible complexity" you had better define that term, because there is no reason to believe that the eye is irreducibly complex. In fact, all the evidence points the other way, that there is a clear chain of increasing complexity in the formation of eye cell structures.
From everything you have said here (I'm sure you actually have better arguments), you are confusing "complex" with "irreducibly complex".
Re:Simultaneity (Score:2)
Yes but. Is it not true that all the support for a universal "speed limit" (of c) is dependent on a traditional, smooth function approach to physics? That is, the problem comes in because there is an asymptotic condition around speed c in all the acceleration (etc.) equations. Thus, to reach speed C, you would have to reach infinite mass, infinitesimal (spelling?) speed, etc.
We have no reason to think this objection would apply in a quantum model, where nothing is a smooth function. I suspect that the "universal speed limit" will eventually be regarded as just another useful approximation, applying to sheef of circumstances, just as Newtonian physics are now regarded.
Remember too that all these functions allow for velocities in excess of the speed of light (but not equal to it). They will just have an imaginary component.
--
Re:Language and Logic (Score:2)
spirituality =! religion
Are you going to tell me that morals/religon are linked too? Please. This type of thinking is deeply insulting. As a former Christian, I've become more spiritual after dropping the religion and any pretext to it.
Awe, wonder, facination -- even a spiritual 'experience' -- can most definately come from logic, science, and rigorous thought. Religion and faith is a poor way to get there, as it involves the un-necessary step of believing a fiction. I'll stick to what I know, as reality tends to be more inspiring and reliable.
Re:The Failure of the Intelligent Design Argument (Score:2)
First part yes, second part no. The argument against is called the Strong Anthropic Principle, which basically states if the 'settings' of the universe were not such as to be able to support life, we wouldn't be here to observe it. Thus, since we ARE here to observe it, the 'settings' are within those to support life. If you have an infinitely repeating series of universes, each with different settings, you will have one universe in which our kind of life can exist, so we are here to observe it. No designer necessary.
A that a creator can not be inside or part of His creation, it logically stands to reason that He is outside of it.
This argument completely obliterates the possiblity of an interventionist god.
...phil
I tried calculating God once ... (Score:4)
1. Mathematics is the language of nature
2. Everything in nature can be understood through numbers.
3. If you graph the numbers of any system, patterns emerge.
4. Therefore, there are patterns, everywhere in nature
Oh crap, I've got another headache coming on
Re:Borg (Score:2)
Man, this irks me when I see it. When I tell people that I'm an atheist, I sometimes get the reaction, "So, you could go on a killing spree anytime, right?"
It always makes me wonder about the people who ask such questions. Do they really wake up in the morning and think, "Gosh, what a beautiful day! I think I'll go out and fire a machine gun into a crowd! Oops... God says I can't do that. Darn. Oh, well, guess I'll go fishing instead."
I enjoy playing with this computer that I could never have produced from raw materials, and living in a house I could not have built by myself, listening to music I could not have performed myself, eating food I couldn't have gathered and prepared myself, etc.
Cooperation is in our best interest. I am ethical and moral, people are ethical and moral, because the alternative is running naked in the woods fighting over scraps of food.
Sure, there are people who cheat and lie and steal and kill. But the benefits of cooperation are so obvious that we've managed to hold it together and even improve our understanding of morality anyway.
Needless to say, I don't agree that society would never have progressed without "the morality imposed by Christianity."
Re:Defining God (Score:2)
Label that being as "God."
Imagine a actual conscious aardvark who is so green that you cannot imagine a being any more green than Him existing.
Label that being as "Gunther."
Re:Cool (Score:2)
I believe Carl Sagen once pointed out that if you believe you have seen something impossible, there are two possibilities : laws of science have been broken, or you are hallucinating. He reminded us that though scientific law has been very durable, there is a great deal of evidence for the fact that people do indeed hallucinate. Objectivly speaking, it would be far more likely that some interactions of my medications would cause a visual or auditory hallucination (losing my mind, at least for a time) than that a mythical omnipotent being would contact me.
Just clarifying here, do you lump all atheists into this "successor of Hume" so called faith?
The other question of course, is whether a "miracle" actually means g/God(s)? Or to ask another way, how can beings as non-powerful as ourselves tell the difference between omnipotence and power that merely dwarfs our imagination. In a STNG episode, Q claimed to be God and Picard angrily rejected him. But what test could he possibly have proposed that could tell the difference? At sufficient power and skill, Q could just "flip" the little chemical switches in his head and make him believe.
So what would it take to say "only a god could do that" as opposed to "only a being much more powerful than myself could do that"? Since it take far less power to warp our petty minds beyond repair than to create a universe, I don't think we can ever know.
Of course, this is all philosophy that I have never and likely will never need. Here in the real world, I hve expereinced nothing that required either a god or an examination of my own sanity, and it is that (amoung other things) and not any "faith" against miracles that has shaped my atheism.
-Kahuna Burger
Re:Why, Why, Why, Why.... (Score:2)
Secular non-profits don't pay taxes either
Greenpeace had their tax status removed in '87. Just one example. Furthermore, I find it curious as to why Churches are granted such status...
Also from the I'm-too-lazy-to-go-look-for-more-than-one-example file is this bit [cnn.com]about the recent baptist convention and their decision to not hire women as pastors. If I publicly announced on cnn that I refused to hire women for my business (or nonprofit) just because they were women... well, that wouldn't go over too well. This example is by denomonation, however it is the largest protestent denomination in the US and the Catholics have a similar stand (ms. O'Connor is involved with a splinter group, unrecognized by the vatican)
You sound like an athiest (see the problem?) (Score:2)
Or maybe you've just been watching too much Star Wars ("'God'...is defined...as...THE force..."). ^_^
Re:Language and Logic (Score:2)
I certainly agree with you that (organized) religion has many, many flaws, and that it has historically been used by the powers that be to control the masses.
But just because most people's need for some sort of spiritual experience can be used and abused doesn't mean that the need itself is useless.
>Also, please explain the "point" of religion/spirituality.
This is an unanswerable question for several reasons, first of which is that if you have to ask then I can't explain to you at all.
And like one poster said, you can certainly have a spiritual experience within the realm of science. Read the account of how Heisenburg "discovered" the uncertainty principle while listening to a violin solo.
>And while you're at it, explain in which realm it has proven itself useful.
Ask anyone who considers themselves spiritual if they think that it is useless. Just because you haven't experienced it yourself doesn't mean that other people don't all the time, and find it incredibly useful.
This is an incredibly broad topic, and to really discuss it fully would take more than this simple
LL
Rejoyce! I've found Hank! (Score:5)
So be it, it's still on topic, and the heathens here who will still get it.
This morning there was a knock at my door. When I answered the door I found a well groomed, nicely dressed couple. The man spoke first:
John: "Hi! I'm John, and this is Mary."
Mary: "Hi! We're here to invite you to come kiss Hank's ass with us."
Me: "Pardon me?! What are you talking about? Who's Hank, and why would I want to kiss His ass?"
John: "If you kiss Hank's ass, He'll give you a million dollars; and if you don't, He'll kick the shit out of you."
Me: "What? Is this some sort of bizarre mob shake-down?"
John: "Hank is a billionaire philanthropists. Hank built this town. Hank owns this town. He can do whatever he wants, and what He wants is to give you a million dollars, but He can't until you kiss his ass."
Me: "That doesn't make any sense. Why..."
Mary: "Who are you to question Hank's gift? Don't you want a million dollars? Isn't it worth a little kiss on the ass?"
Me: "Well maybe, if it's legit, but..."
John: "Then come kiss Hank's ass with us."
Me: "Do you kiss Hank's ass often?"
Mary: "Oh yes, all the time..."
Me: "And has He given you a million dollars?"
John: "Well no. You don't actually get the money until you leave town."
Me: "So why don't you just leave town now?"
Mary: "You can't leave until Hank tells you to, or you don't get the money, and He kicks the shit out of you."
Me: "Do you know anyone who kissed Hank's ass, left town, and got the million dollars?"
John: "My mother kissed Hank's ass for years. She left town last year, and I'm sure she got the money."
Me: "Haven't you talked to her since then?"
John: "Of course not, Hank doesn't allow it."
Me: "So what makes you think He'll actually give you the money if you've never talked to anyone who got the money?"
Mary: "Well, he gives you a little bit before you leave. Maybe you'll get a raise, maybe you'll win a small lotto, maybe you'll just find a twenty-dollar bill on the street."
Me: "What's that got to do with Hank?"
John: "Hank has certain 'connections.'"
Me: "I'm sorry, but this sounds like some sort of bizarre con game."
John: "But it's a million dollars, can you really take the chance? And remember, if you don't kiss Hank's ass He'll kick the shit of you."
Me: "Maybe if I could see Hank, talk to Him, get the details straight from him..."
Mary: "No one sees Hank, no one talks to Hank."
Me: "Then how do you kiss His ass?"
John: "Sometimes we just blow Him a kiss, and think of His ass. Other times we kiss Karl's ass, and he passes it on."
Me: "Who's Karl?"
Mary: "A friend of ours. He's the one who taught us all about kissing Hank's ass. All we had to do was take him out to dinner a few times."
Me: "And you just took his word for it when he said there was a Hank, that Hank wanted you to kiss His ass, and that Hank would reward you?"
John: "Oh no! Karl has a letter he got from Hank years ago explaining the whole thing. Here's a copy; see for yourself."
Me: "This appears to be written on Karl's letterhead."
Mary: "Hank didn't have any paper."
Me: "I have a hunch that if we checked we'd find this is Karl's handwriting."
John: "Of course, Hank dictated it."
Me: "I thought you said no one gets to see Hank?"
Mary: "Not now, but years ago He would talk to some people."
Me: "I thought you said He was a philanthropist. What sort of philanthropist kicks the shit out of people just because they're different?"
Mary: "It's what Hank wants, and Hank's always right."
Me: "How do you figure that?"
Mary: "Item 7 says 'Everything Hank says is right.' That's good enough for me!"
Me: "Maybe your friend Karl just made the whole thing up."
John: "No way! Item 5 says 'Hank dictated this list himself.' Besides, item 2 says 'Use alcohol in moderation,' Item 4 says 'Eat right,' and item 8 says 'Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.' Everyone knows those things are right, so the rest must be true, too."
Me: "But 9 says 'Don't use alcohol.' which doesn't quite go with item 2, and 6 says 'The moon is made of green cheese,' which is just plain wrong."
John: "There's no contradiction between 9 and 2, 9 just clarifies 2. As far as 6 goes, you've never been to the moon, so you can't say for sure."
Me: "Scientists have pretty firmly established that the moon is made of rock..."
Mary: "But they don't know if the rock came from the Earth, or from out of space, so it could just as easily be green cheese."
Me: "I'm not really an expert, but I think the theory that the Moon was somehow 'captured' by the Earth has been discounted*. Besides, not knowing where the rock came from doesn't make it cheese."
John: "Ha! You just admitted that scientists make mistakes, but we know Hank is always right!"
Me: "We do?"
Mary: "Of course we do, Item 5 says so."
Me: "You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated it because the list says so. That's circular logic, no different than saying 'Hank's right because He says He's right.'"
John: "Now you're getting it! It's so rewarding to see someone come around to Hank's way of thinking."
Me: "But...oh, never mind. What's the deal with wieners?"
Mary: She blushes.
John: "Wieners, in buns, no condiments. It's Hank's way. Anything else is wrong."
Me: "What if I don't have a bun?"
John: "No bun, no wiener. A wiener without a bun is wrong."
Me: "No relish? No Mustard?"
Mary: She looks positively stricken.
John: He's shouting. "There's no need for such language! Condiments of any kind are wrong!"
Me: "So a big pile of sauerkraut with some wieners chopped up in it would be out of the question?"
Mary: Sticks her fingers in her ears."I am not listening to this. La la la, la la, la la la."
John: "That's disgusting. Only some sort of evil deviant would eat that..."
Me: "It's good! I eat it all the time."
Mary: She faints.
John: He catches Mary. "Well, if I'd known you where one of those I wouldn't have wasted my time. When Hank kicks the shit out of you I'll be there, counting my money and laughing. I'll kiss Hank's ass for you, you bunless cut-wienered kraut-eater."
With this, John dragged Mary to their waiting car, and sped off.
Question.. (Score:2)
A technical point of bad research on the authors part: I think some palentologists believe that extinction of the dinosaurs slowed the development of intelegent life since some of the small dinosaurs were well on their way to becomming intelegent.
Finally, the coolest lets thing about god books were the ons writen by Frank Herbert. There were several of these books where people created a god for some purpose or another. There was a god one about an AI becoming god and another good one about the psychological effects that a person when through as he became a god.
Re:Cool (Score:3)
The quote you're referencing:
"That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish."
Unassailable. It is a maxim of jurisprudence. When a logical argument has achieved valid form, it is used to evaluate a posteriori the truth-bearing claims of the deductive syllogism and the inductive argument alike. It is absurd to marginalize Hume as if he were not one of the many similarly rigorous epistemologists, from the pre-Socrates onward, by which a formal predicate calculus has been developed for deduction and statistical methods generally for induction.
By 'pseudo-scientific "faith"' I assume you're trying that old cant: empiricism, humanism, communism etc. are all religions? This was part of the tack used by Bryan in 1925 Scopes "Monkey Trial" to win another three decades of superstition at the expense of science education until the rude wake-up call that was Sputnik I.
Mencken summarized the trial and Bryan nicely:
"Once he had one leg in the White House and the nation trembled under his roars. Now he is a tinpot pope in the Coca-Cola belt and a brother to the forlorn pastors who belabor half-wits in galvanized iron tabernacles behind the railroad yards . . . It is a tragedy, indeed, to begin life as a hero and to end it as a buffoon."
Re:That's only one definition (Score:2)
"Sweet creeping zombie Jesus!"
Re:Language and Logic (Score:2)
As for the morals and religion linked comment, yeah, they are linked. There are a great many moral systems that are informed at some level by religious thought. There are general schemes of morality that are not explicitly based on a specific religious ethic, but in the fundamental assumptions that guide them, many of them are shaped by their religious environment. Is religion the sole arbiter of morality, and the sole source of moral wisdom and thought? Hell no. But morality is intimately linked to the ideals of almost every religious system, and there are a number of moral systems based almost exclusively on religion.
I am also curious why you find the association of religion with morality insulting. Can you elaborate on that?
"Sweet creeping zombie Jesus!"
Limits of Science and Life's Questions (Score:2)
Logic is good. Science is good. I use and respect both. Both are very good at what they do. What neither do is answer (or even try to answer) all of the questions that need to be addressed in order to live "the good life".
For example, there is a whole field of study called "ethics": dealing with "right" and "wrong", what people should do, what choices they should make, etc. The answers to these questions are quite important in living our daily life and living it well. Science doesn't address these questions. It doesn't attempt to. I'm not saying it should. But that doesn't make them any less important. We shouldn't go through our lives saying "I don't know if what I'm doing is right or wrong and I don't care. I have no scientific method of answering the question, so I'll just ignore it." (At least I don't think we should - it's an ethical judgement I'm making. :->)
Similarly, there is more to a good life than logic (as Spock and Data remind us). We don't use logic to love or enjoy a beautiful sunset. That doesn't lessen the worth of love or of the enjoyment of a beautiful sunset.
Theology may be a study, like ethics, for which the scientific method is not the most appropriate tool. If so, to judge a theological book on how well it used the scientific method would not be logical. Similarly, for many people religion is (like love) something that they don't pursue logically. It doesn't make it any less valuable a part of their life.
Personally. I love getting into long philosophical debates about theology and ethics, debates where logic and empirical evidence play a large role. I know I won't end up with provable answers but the process is intellectually stimulating and helps me to understand and refine my position on some of life's most important questions. I'm glad Science isn't my only tool for answering questions because then I wouldn't even see some of the most important ones.
Or so it seems to me. YMMV, of course.
Re:Language and Logic (Score:2)
Sawyer doesn't cheat on the logic in this one (or any of his books, for that matter). That's one of the reasons I buy his books the minute they're published.
Re:I think you're being more than fair (Score:3)
>A tenet of Christainity is that "proof denies faith" and Pope JPII recently called apon young people to follow the Path of Faith, rather than the path of Reason, because it was deceptive.
I find it disturbing that many christians unfortunately do believe this. I'm a Christian, and I most certainly do not. A few weeks ago while googling around, I found this orginization [reasons.org] and was plesently suprised to see that I'm not alone. From their mission statement [reasons.org] (please forgive me for quoting a stinkin' mission statement :-) :
The mission of Reasons To Believe is to show that science and faith are, and always will be, allies, not enemies.
Interstingly enough, their founder [reasons.org] became a Christian from studying science.
Be sure to check out this group's interesting article on string theory and Christianity [reasons.org].
It isn't necessary to "...surrender [your] personality to the political and social programs fostered by churches..." in order to be a Christian. To the contrary, my faith is frequently stregenthened by science, and in some cases "pseudo-science" that jumps through hoops in order to get around the idea of an intelligent creator. Faith does indeed require belief in things that can't be proven, but then again, the same is required to believe that the universe "just happened" (which is why many quantum physicsts at least believe in some sort of pantheistic notion of god.)
Message from the creator to the Universe (Score:2)
According to Douglas Adams it should read : "We are sorry for the inconvenience
Seriously, history shows that mixing theology and science is not a good idea ... as finally even Catholic Church is admitting (600 years later).
Re:What is omnipotence? (Score:2)
First of all, you mean all-powerful.
Now that the semantic issue is done, God can't lift a stone. "He" doesn't exist in a form capable of lifting the stone. Indeed, to modify a famous quote by the late great St. Augestine, weight is a property of the universe God created.
The actual quote is in response to the question, "What was God doing before he created the Universe?" His answer was that time is a property of the universe God created, and has no meaning outside of it. (According to physics, that's true.)
Re:God defined (Score:2)
Thiesm == God interferes with the universe
Diesm == God created the universe but cannot/does not interfere with it
The correct statement is "this is more diestic than I would have exected from Sagan". Sagan did not preclude Diesm, he just felt that there was no proof of a Diestic god. That's why he was an agnostic.
Re:The Failure of the Intelligent Design Argument (Score:2)
A rational conclusion, not the only rational conclusion. Another rational conclusion could be that life is very robust, and that it can appear and survive to self-awareness in much harsher conditions than you are willing to give credit.
Further, the strong anthropic principle still stands. Your contrived firing squad example does nothing to discount it.
...phil
Re:God is Pi (Score:2)
This isn't religion, this is basic engineering. A circle's circumference is three times its diameter.
Welcome to rough numbers. It's not expected to be precise. For crying out loud, it was in *cubits* last I checked.
I'm not saying everything there is literally true, but you have to be pretty wacky to ignore the decimal points.
Re:Language and Logic (Score:2)
Admitedly, much of what I said is a defensive posture. Take it as that, and not as a challenge to your own conclusions.
For example, I'm not saying religon=immoral/not-spiritual. I am saying that if morals and/or spirituality are associated with a specific religion, it doesn't make that religion or any other one necessary...or even the best way to gain insight.
If someone said that thier religon has some unique claim to morals and/or spirituality, they'd have to offer some proof since I see it differently. Unfortunately, this is often turned on it's head, showing bigotry toward those who don't 'believe' or 'have faith' in exactly the same way.
I'll put it this way. Being religous or not has little to do with being moral. Yet, more then once I've had people assume that because I'm not religous I can't be moral...and some of these people have known me since childhood and have relied on me without question. Thankfully, what they know of me is enough for them to get over it and accept that I haven't taking up raping and pillaging as a profession!
In one case, I had a girlfriend who -- months into the relationship -- found out that I wasn't religous. It took weeks for her to realize that I wasn't going to go on a rampage and start killing people.
She was deeply confused, since she had been told all her life that to be moral/spiritual, you had to be religous. She even went as far as to insist that I was indeed religous for a while...but finally and without argument said that she understood. That I was 'one of the nicest people' she had ever met (newsgroups not included!) only added to her confusion. The implication that not being religous=immoral is what's insulting. It is biggotry taken as fact by most people raised in a religon.
In summary: The reasons why you don't do immoral things are exactly the same as my reasons. These are automatic, and are part of our characters. Books -- even religous texts -- can be instructive, but they don't make us moral.
Sidebar: Asian philosophy: Art of War & the Tao Te Ching (Dao De Jing) [ufl.edu] are two examples that have been highly instructive. Note that in some of the translations there are references to a capital G God, while in others there aren't. Guess which one is more likely to be an accurate translation?
Re:Language and Logic (Score:2)
From your initial question it sounds like you're saying: in my experience talking to people about religion, it is irrational. Does the author how does the author get around this?
Science is based on the belief that the world can be understood by humanity.
From this belief come certain axioms about the world. And from these, when apply the laws of logic, one draws certain conclusions about how the world works.
Religion is a set of beliefs. These usually tie in some superior power, but as in science this is just another set of beliefs [ducks]. When logic is applied to these beliefs a set of rational conculsions is reached. So both science and religion can be perfectly rational, and can co-exist in one persons world view as long as the beliefies and thier conclusions don't conflict.
Now all this being said. From a false premise it is possible to conclude anything.
This lack of common definitions eventually boils down even the best discussions to a game of semantics, and is one reason why I am not as inclined as I used to be to talk about religion.
I think your problem is lower level than one of semantics. It ends up on the level of beliefs. The semantics stem from the beliefs. The argument has to be moved to the level of beliefs where its really taking place. The best you can do, I think, is to show somebody who professes to believe something that: a) thier own beliefs is selfcontradictory, or b) contradicts another of thier held beliefs. Then they must chose which set they prefer, or logically infer the next step.
Not the answer you're looking for, but I hope it leaves you less frustrated.
--locust
Re:Rejoyce! I've found Hank! (Score:2)
So, your point is ...
(Sounds like sour grapes to me.)
Re:Simultaneity (Score:2)
Re:while I'm not familiar with Behe's work... (Score:2)
I cannot speak for Christian theology. I am specialized in Indian philosophy.
There was certain period in the history of Indian philosophy when the existence of God was a popular topic. Each school was devided into two major schools--One posits the existence of God, and the other who denies.
The Behe's argument sounds almost like one famous proof of God. The proof goes like this: Everything that has a design implies an existence of intelligent being. The universe has a design. Therefore the universe has an intelligent creator.
Although the formal proof in Indian philosophy is not quite the same as that of the West (it requires examples as a part of syllogism.), the above should represent what it is expected to prove. (Also there are variations of the logic.)
Interesting part in relation to your last question is that Indian theologists, at least some, including Sankara, did not think it necessary to distinguish ``intelligent'' from ``deity.''
In a nutshell, the philosophy of Sankara claims that God is pure intellignece (Brahman/Isvara/Cinmatra). He did not even distinguish individual intelligence (Atman/Antaryamin) found in us (if we have any) from the intelligence that is the source/cause of the universe.
There is a text ascribed to Sankara although some think it is not authentic. I think it is quite likely that the text was his own for various reasons. The text contains about 50 syllogisms to prove an intelligent and personal cause of the universe. Some of them and the presentation, I think, is flawed, but still interesting and powerful.
Furthermore, there is another text written by a Sankara's contemporary that argues aginst those proofs. One argument is that the intelligence that created things that seem to imply a designer does not have to be one. Each thing can have different intelligence behind it. At this point it becomes to seem the problem of faith. If one wants to be theistic, that person will say it has to be one.
I find it interesting that the arguments already recorded something like 1300 years ago keep coming back with new clothes. There are more in Indian philosophy than just Nirvana and Karma.
--
kengo
Re:Rejoyce! I've found Hank! (Score:2)
OK. You win.
Re:The Failure of the Intelligent Design Argument (Score:3)
Unfortunately, the 'god' hypothesis doesn't provide any hard data either. It's a handwaving argument, ultimately rooted in proof by incredulity. You cannot present any verifiable evidence for a god, particularly that as described in the christian bible.
Argument from Intelligent Design mostly shows that the person putting forth the argument has reached a point where they can no longer believe that mechanical answers are sufficient, and they are unwilling to accept 'I don't know' as a temporary answer. It doesn't matter that more facts are still being uncovered, or that the line between knowledge and 'I don't know' has shifted dramatically over time, meaning that the locations where the answer 'god did it' worked have shifted as well. For a philosophy that claims to have an absolute answer, this shift is not good evidence for a particular claim of enlightenment.
All proposals for a god wind up either being loaded with self-contradictions or so weak that it can be safely ignored. One example: the proposal earlier in this thread that god is completely and utterly outside the universe. In that case, as I pointed out earlier, this by definition is a completely non-interventionist god, which cannot interact with anything inside our universe. Prayers are abosolutely useless, and miracles are impossible by the very definition of your god. You've conveniently ignored that aspect of the argument.
...phil
Re:God Vs. Science (Score:2)
Actually, Christianity and Judaism are two great examples of this. Just because the bible tells a story in a particular manner doesn't mean that the story isn't wrought entirely of symbolism.
So I'll admit to enough ignorance of Judaism to leave that alone. But the entire basis of Christianity is that God manifested himself on earth as Jesus Christ and directly intervened in all sorts of ways. The majority of the New Testament is taken up with accounts of what Jesus did, ranging from teaching up through miracles. If you don't believe any oif that, I fail to see how you could describe yourself as Christian.
In short - the Christian God is clearly a highly interventionist God. And let's not even start on prayer, saints, miracles, the voice of god etc.
Religions throughout time have used metaphors to get their points across. Look through ancient greek mythology, or norse mythology and you will find tons of it.
Understood, but they also claim that their Gods directly intervene in the world. None more so than the Ancient Greeks or the Norse Gods. If all those stories are nothing more than fables and metaphors, then they aren't really religions...
Re:Behe (Score:3)
That doesn't help you; in fact it hurts you immensely. Now these even more complicated things need to spring into existance spontaneously, and then find a pathway back to a simpler configuration.
You're better off jumping straight to the correct answer. Probabilities get exponentially worse the more things you need to get correct at once, and by jumping straight there you are following a 'shorter' pathway.
Anyway, take a look at Tierra, for example.
Tierra isn't even close to the complexity of real life, by multiple factors of magnitude. If it was as easy in real life as it is to randomly create a viable Tierra entity, we'd be able to throw chems together in the laboratory and see life emerge without too much effort... and we don't. All we get are random amino acids (and I mean "random" in the mathematical sense, not the colloquial sense). Tierra is unutterably simplistic compared to the real world. After all, it can run on your computer... meanwhile, simulating the first millisecond of a nucleor explosion takes three months on a machine that wouldn't even notice your computer if it was added to it.
I don't think you've read the original argument (call it the Slashdot argument syndrome). While you may or may not find Behe convincing, the summary you are responding to is not enough to make a decision.
Personally, I find Behe's arguments extremely compelling, especially in light of the fact that I have never seen a rebuttal that even addresses the issues he raises, let along begin to counter them; the rebuttals generally take the form of "I declare Behe to be stupid, therefore his arguments are wrong." which is a stunningly effective rhetorical device, but not convincing scientifically. (Seriously, I've seen several, even from those who are normally more sensible then that.)
The strangest part of all is that his argument are disprovable in the scientific sense (hypothetically, evidence can be produced that would disprove his ideas, though by the very nature of the theory, it would take a huge amount of this evidence, as the points he raises cut across damn near every process that ever occurs in any organism anywhere, and most ever combination of those processes as well), far more so then most arguments of this kind. As a result of the disprovability of his arguments, Behe doesn't deserve to be 'lumped' in with the 'rest' of the people arguing against evolution.
(BTW, a better, though imperfect and still too short, summary of Behe's argument is "There exists no pathway by which a lot of critically importent molecular structures could have arisen gradually." Several simple concrete examples are given, and by their very nature one does not need to be a biochemist to see that the only things stopping him from producing hundreds of examples was time, space, and reader interest. To disprove this as a theory (as it obviously cannot be "proven" in a positive manner), one must generate example pathways that these complicated structures can follow to get where they are. It is not sufficient to handwave, which, as I said before, is all I've ever seen anyone do in response to Behe. Pointers to someone providing said legitimate pathways (i.e., solid evidence rather then personal attacks) would be appreciated.
One might simplify even further and boil his argument down as "Give an example of a biochemical structure, such as a flaggela, evolving in steps. You can't." Again, this is oversimplified and intended for informational purposes only... attacking this statement doesn't gain you anything. Read his book. Attack that... there's actual meat there. This is just the skeleton of the skeleton.)
straying from the theological... (Score:2)
For information about Robert Sawyer and his works, including samples (several short stories and selections from novels), visit his site [sfwriter.com].
I'd strongly recommend his work to anyone looking for intelligently written SF. He really seems to take the time to understand the science he writes about; a refreshing change from the usual treknology and handwaving.
You do realize you're spouting gibberish, right? (Score:2)
A scientist and a Christian ... (Score:2)
You cannot be a scientist and a Christian at the same time. The "scientist" is not a scientist unless he applies the scientific method to his subject matter, which cannot be done to religious subjects, and the "Christian" deals in faith, which is not within the realm of discourse of science. The two cannot meet and apply validly at the same time.
When they do meet in one person (and you're definitely not on your own in that), then it is because both the scientist and the Christian have sacrificed strict consistency within their respective disciplines in order to be able to live together at the same address. It's a very common human compromise, but hopelessly invalid in any strong sense.
Re:What is omnipotence? (Score:2)
Why would they believe that this person recieved this item from the Gods? Why would they not believe he made it himself?
Two words: graven images, the people you visit might have some strong ideas about how their gods are supposed to look. And they might not look like you. But if you show up toting all these magical items, they will probably accept that you were chosen by them to carry all of these goodies.
I simply believe that my alternate view is more likely given the way it was framed. You look less like a god and more like a wizard if you are wielding magical objects. Now if we had the technology to embed an anti-gravity generator in your abdomen and a taser in your wrist, you would appear truly god-like since your powers are not linked to any external object.
Correlate to Clarke's Law... (Score:2)
>transcendentally powerful being exists
Which wouldn't proove the existance of God in any event.
It's a simple correlation of Clarke's Law, which states:
"Any sufficently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"
to apply it to read:
"Any being wielding sufficently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a god"
We've all seen that episode where the crew of the Enterprise meets "Apollo". yes?
Or perhaps the episode of TNG where Picard foils "The Devil"?
But, okay, let's get away from science fiction. There *ARE* examples from "real life".
Wasn't it Columbus who claimed to some of the carribe islanders that he could talk to God? I read a story somewhere where Columbus was trying to bully the natives into giving up supplies for the trip home. They, of course, told him to get stuffed. Well, Chris just went back to his ship and found that there would just HAPPEN to be a solar eclipse the next day. So he went back to the natives and told him that if they didn't cough up the supplies, he'd have God take away the sun. They laughed. Along came the moon, blocking the sun, which convinced the locals to give in to Columbus' demands. And he promptly went back to the ship, told "God" to bring back the sun, and lo and behold.... here comes the sun, in it's full former glory.
Cortez, too, posed as a God. This time, when he contacted the Aztecs. Seems that they had a ledgend about an albino, four-legged god. Well, Cortez, by lucky coincidence, just HAPPENED to have horses (which were not native (and thus, unknown) to the americas) back on the ship... Couple that with European armour, and gunpowder "lightning sticks" and Cortez made a pretty good four legged albino god... long enough to concur the Aztecs anyway.
Or how about the south pacific "Cargo Cults" of post-WWII fame?
Those are just from the yop of my head. Anyone know more?
john
Resistance is NOT futile!!!
Haiku:
I am not a drone.
Remove the collective if
Science and the nature of reality (Score:2)
You're totally wrong. Science doesn't make any attempt whatsoever to understand the world, because it does not have the tools to do so. All it does is to create models that yield testable predictions, and then to test the behaviour of reality by direct physical probing to see if the provoked response is anywhere close to the predicted one. If there is a good match then the model is said to be consistent with reality, but that does not mean that reality is anything like the model at all. We have no means of determining that, because we have no way of looking inside reality, but only of testing her behaviour from the outside.
And that's why the scientific method is so powerful. A model can look like X at one point in time and like Y at another, and no scientist cares a damn as long as the models yielded predictions that were usefully close to how reality responded to the test probes at each point in time. That's why progress is so rapid in Science: old dogma can be thrown away with impunity. We could never do that if we thought for an instant that the structure of a model truly depicts the actual structure of reality --- we couldn't throw away The Truth! Not a cat's chance in hell of that happening though, especially considering that a lot of Science's models are riddled with holes. But that doesn't matter --- as long as the predictions are close enough then we can make use of them and get reality to work for us in our TVs and microwave ovens. But that doesn't mean that we have any idea at all what reality really looks like inside.
Admittedly sometimes we talk about what goes on in models as if we're talking about reality herself, but that's just shorthand. No genuine scientist that is true to the scientific method would claim otherwise. Unfortunately there are a few quacks around, and a few that have forgotten the fundamental premises of their discipline, but that's true in any sphere of endeavour.
Re:Why, Why, Why, Why.... (Score:2)
If you don't like this, then you need to get into the debate of freedom of religion. Should Christians be allowed the free exercise of religion?
I, of course, agree with the free practice of religion. But that doesn't mean the practice of religion for free. I'm free to leave the country, but I have to pay for my plane ticket, and pay airport tax on it as well. NB. it is only because of the separation of church and state that freedom of religion exists at all.... a fast look at history has shown that when Xian theology has dominated the political sphere the freedom to be anything but a Xian (usually of a certain denomination) was severely curtailed. Usually with violence. The only way to ensure that all religions and denominations have freedom is to ensure that none have direct sway with the gov't. Tax exemption treads very close to that line. Support the Letter to the Danbury Baptists (for Americans) as the only way to ensur the 1st ammdmt.
Re:A scientist and a Christian ... (Score:2)
Furthermore, the scientist's own thoughts and beliefs as a human being are not relevant in the slightest in this process, and if he does apply them to argue otherwise then he is corrupting the scientific model that he supposedly supports.
Having said that, it is not uncommon to find the two areas coming together in one man, humans being human. The important thing is to recognize when this happens, accept it as a product of the human condition, and treat it as one would any other inconsistent position.
Re:Rejoyce! I've found Hank! (Score:2)
SNIP
They start by arguing that since its said to be thought up by some mystery guy who dictated it, we just bring in to question his existance. Many are tricked by this.
Their thoughts follow: "Well, if he didn't exist, and I don't think he did, than all this preaching peace must be worthless--and I already know that preaching peace is deadly."
[Rant on; Bruce Campbell mode]
Well hello Mr. Fancy Pants! What is it with all this seriousness? Bang two rocks together, and listen up bucko...It's a JOKE! A joke for heathens, and, well, probably most non-Christians!
A Joke. You know..."Funny".
Ha.
Ha. ?
In the first place, I told you jar heads that religious people wouldn't like the story -- but you had to go and re-lig-ous-ly read it anyway. Like an itch that must be scratched.
Then you humorless louts come and complain -- indignant that you're part of someone else's JOKE. Well, I've had enough of it. It's like you primates have never heard of a religious joke.
Some you just had to jump in as if your favorite puppy was getting beaten...to a JOKE! No harm, no foul, no puppy!
A JOKE that you were told up-front you wouldn't like because you weren't in the 'in' crowd. Yet, you didn't believe me, and thinking there's nothing but religious people listening, you drag out tired stories as if they were gold. Gasp! Horror! Surprise!
Take this one, full of vigor, responding with a pedantic and unconvincingly humorless counter story as if I'm just going to say 'eureka' and join in with the Choir.
Just tell the ignorant heathens what they really think...as if we didn't know better. Remember: JOKE.
[Rant off]
If you want a serious response, take a look here [infidels.org]
Re:Language and Logic (Score:2)
"Sweet creeping zombie Jesus!"
Re:Cool (Score:2)
Yes Plebe, I do. At about this time, Cold War panic had set itself firmly in our government. There was a frenzy to contrast our society against the "godless" menace of communism.
On June 14, 1954, Congress unanimously ordered the inclusion of the words "Under God" into the nation's Pledge of Allegiance. On July 11, 1955, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed Public Law 140 making it mandatory that all coinage and paper currency display the motto "In God We Trust" in some cases replacing Jefferson's beautiful 'E Pluribus Unum'. It was enacted October 1, 1957.
It's funny you should mention Madalyn Murray O'Hair as she has written on the motivating influence of these legislative acts.
These actions took a backseat after the launch of Sputnik. The Sputnik scare prompted a renaissance in American science education, during which evolution worked its way back into the mainstream. In 1961, the National Science Foundation, in conjunction with the Biological Science Curriculum Study, outlined a basic program for teaching the theory of evolution and published a series of biology books in which the organizing principle was evolution.
You will find the Executive Directive, with mention of Sputnik and the United State's emerging space program in the National Archives; Records of the National Science Foundation (Record Group 307.4.2).
Or look at this. [csuchico.edu]
The equation for God (Score:2)
but I'll believe in God when 1 + 1 = 5"
-Bad Religion
Re:Science and the nature of reality (Score:2)
Re:Rejoyce! I've found Hank! (Score:2)
Re:Cool (Score:2)
You, like a lot of people, seem to be misunderstanding the purpose and significance of the scientific method. The idea (as best stated by Francis Bacon) is simply this:
- Make a lot of observations.
- Draw a conclusion (inductively) from all these observations.
Notice something here: you don't start out with a conclusion, and try to prove it! Notice something else: you have to first make many observations!And, you will notice, all the scientific "progress" that we have enjoyed has resulted from applying science in this way. Science is misapplied when it attempts to determine the reality of past events, especially based on the absence of evidence. Why? Because this kind of study always ends up boiling down to the presuppositions of whoever enquires.
--
Re:Science and the nature of reality (Score:2)
This aside, you state that (and I'm paraphrasing) science constructs models that are consistent with reality. You believe that it is possible to construct models that consistently represent reality. You have to throw away old models when logic shows that they no longer support your belief. That science, like religion, is based on belief, was the central point of my argument. What the belief happens to be for you is irrelevant. You must be aware, however that it is a belief.
Finaly you state that: no scientist cares a damn as long as the models yielded predictions that were usefully close to how reality responded to the test probes at each point in time. That's why progress is so rapid in Science: old dogma can be thrown away with impunity.
Scientist care a damn. They care a whole damn load. people have made there reputations on the old model and would have to admit they were wrong to take the new one. The adoption of a new model is, then, inherently a political process. To protect themselves from new models scientist build a power structure that preserves thier model. This is embodied in the peer review. Of course peer review is brought to us under the guise of protecting us from nut cases (heretics). In some case it does, but it also entrenches the part line.
--locust
Re:What is omnipotence? (Score:2)
If God is all powerful, could he must be able to create an animal capable of beating him at chess. In that case, is he omnipotent if he can't beat an animal at chess?
This discussion is dead, but we don't know if chess is solvable at this point. God may very well know the perfect game of chess - give him the opportunity to go first, and he will win. He then can't create a being capable of beating him at chess, because that defies the implication of the definition of chess (which would be a game that one can always win of one goes first.) You contradict yourself.