The God Delusion
discussion
agnostic: the way to go.
Daniel wrote: Master of the non-admission. You won't even acknowledge that it can reasonably be read that way. That would even allow you to pretend you didn't do it on purpose. But, no. It has to be just me, all me. I must just want to read it that way for no reason at all.It doesn't seem to have occurred to you that there's no reason I should prefer to interpret it that way if it did not read that way.
I don't understand why I would need to say: First off I understand what I wrote could be interpreted the way it was, but I am sorry you took that route. It was not meant to sound like that.
I assume too much?
Mike wrote: "That is only partly true. Those that do not understand my condition will always misinterpret me"So it's not even possible that you just communicate poorly? It has to be at least partly everyone else on earth's fault (except a few people very close you)?
Mike wrote: "Is still pretty much an Ad Hominem attack on me whether my bahavior or me personally, it doesn't have anything to do with the subject because it is an opinion of someone that doesn't know me at all. "
Not really. Ad Hominem is widely misunderstood so I don't blame you for it, but "Ad hominem arguments work via the halo effect, a human cognitive bias in which the perception of one trait is influenced by the perception of an unrelated trait."
At issue in her comment was your behavior and that's what she commented on. Ad Hominem would be if she said your arguments about the book were wrong because you were being an arrogant ass. It's a subtle difference, but an important one.
Mike wrote: "I also feel a certain "guilt by association" creeping in here."
Who is the guilty one? Guilty by what association? I'm not sure what you mean here.
Of course I communicate poorly, I've actually said this (pictures better then words, etc.).
Mike wrote: "I don't understand why I would need to say: First off I understand what I wrote could be interpreted the way it was, but I am sorry you took that route. It was not meant to sound like that."This is my point on this issue. If you know that it can be interpreted that way and you don't want it to be, then you should say it another way.
It is not my fault for interpreting what you said in a way that it is perfectly reasonable (by your own admission) to interpret in that way.
I'm not saying this to be a blame-monster. I'm trying to point out that maybe your communication issues stem from you not adjusting the way you say things based on how it will come across.
No one can be perfect about these things, of course, but you don't seem to even try and then you want everyone else to share the blame when you communicate poorly.
Daniel wrote: This is my point on this issue. If you know that it can be interpreted that way and you don't want it to be, then you should say it another way.Here is the problem, because of my "condition" I don't always see another way to interpret something except how I meant it. It isn't a matter of trying, it is a matter of not able to sometimes. I have blurted out things that friends and family have considered completely inappropriate not realizing they were inappropriate. If I "wear a sign" proclaiming certain things about myself ahead of time, no one else tries to understand either. I live in a world that is almost like another planet, to be honest. And I don't say THIS to be pitied, I don't want pity, just an understanding. If I could be viewed as one that doesn't "imply" things (not on purpose) then all my oomments could be understood better.
Mike wrote: "Here is the problem, because of my "condition" I don't always see another way to interpret something except how I meant it. It isn't a matter of trying, it is a matter of not able to sometimes. I have blurted out things that friends and family have considered completely inappropriate not realizing they were inappropriate. If I "wear a sign" proclaiming certain things about myself ahead of time, no one else tries to understand either. I live in a world that is almost like another planet, to be honest. And I don't say THIS to be pitied, I don't want pity, just an understanding. If I could be viewed as one that doesn't "imply" things (not on purpose) then all my oomments could be understood better."Unfortunately, I don't think that's really possible. Statements mean things and people are going to to take them for what they mean and for what they indicate. I wouldn't speak for anyone else, but I can try to limit how much I let it bother me and I'm willing to do that.
What is possible is for you to recognize that it is not the fault of others when they take the things you say to mean what they indicate.
So if you can accept that, then I'd just as soon move on. To be honest, I'd rather be discussing the actual issue. Conversations like this hold a limited appeal to me and become a little tiresome after a while.
I'm going to see if I can track things back to the beginning on your points.
Daniel wrote: "Unfortunately, I don't think that's really possible...."So, you are saying I don't exist.
I suppose there is no way for me to send a PM so I didn't have to publicize the condition that causes this (not as an excuse but as an explanation). And, later, I will look into things a bit closer when I get to re-reading the book parts I wanted to mention.
Mike wrote: "Shanna wrote: Oh poor you! having to deal with the stupid plebs who don't just take your word for it.We all rub all sorts of people the wrong way from time to time, it's not a difficulty, you alon..."
As to this condition, You seem to me to be quite capable of communicating when it suits you.
It's not an Ad hominem attack as Daniel already pointed out. I'm not trying to discredit your argument by discrediting you. I'm pointing out your behaviour and the fact you've not presented an argument. You made some statements and by virtue of you having used them to convince someone else, some place else, at some other time, we are supposed to accept them as correct and you as knowing better... And failure to do so confirms your point of view of superiority.
Shanna wrote: "As to this condition, You seem to me to be quite capable of communicating when it suits you...."Not when it suits me.
Mike wrote: "Dawkins, and a few others seem to feel they can do what other scientists clain you can not do. His position is impossible. One can #1: believe there is a God/god, be it nature (intelligent or otherwise) or whatever; #2: not believe there is a God, or #3: understand that, what can not be proven NOR disproven, is not knowable.
Dawkins needs to stick with biology, I've seen a LOT of his interviews with others, and he has difficulties outside his field at times, and religion is the thing he knows the least about (his views are more narrow then the Catholic church), IMHO."
This seems to be your first contention, Mike, so I'll start here. I'm not really sure what point you're making.
This is where I came to first suspect you hadn't read the book or at least don't remember it. Dawkins clearly says that his position is not absolute. This may shed some light on the issue: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum...)
I see people frequently make this error when they are not actually familiar with the work itself and instead have only the idea of the work.
Since he places himself in the 6-6.9 range, I am not sure what it is that you think makes his position impossible. He is essentially saying he is as certain as one can be without absolute proof.
I'm also not sure why you are saying his views are more narrow than the catholic church. Not only do I disagree, but I don't even think the two are playing in the same game. One side is arguing for greater attention to reason and evidence and the other is selling fairy tales at a high price.
Of course, even if you were right about the narrowness of views, that still would not in any way indicate that what he is saying is untrue. Narrowness might indicate that he's not very nice about it, but that's irrelevant to the truth value of what he's saying.
I'm also not sure that one really needs to study religion to reason out the issue of god's existence/non existence. Why makes them experts on the matter? The only thing we know for sure about theology is that it is the study of ancient works of literature and/or mythology and the associated commentaries on those stories. That's true whether there is a god or not. There is no reason to believe they have any special knowledge they have not gained from those studies.
That being the case, there is no reason to consider their opinions on the issue to be any more relevant than, say, an expert in norse mythology or a top notch plumber. Having a background in old stories (whether those stories are true or not) in no way adds to your qualifications to speak about whether or not there is a god. It can only add to your ability to talk about what people historically or currently believe.
Even so, I think he does try to consider their views some and address a few of their common arguments.
I confess I don't know what you mean by "Dawkins, and a few others seem to feel they can do what other scientists clain you can not do."
What is it he thinks he can do that other scientists say you cannot do?
Mike wrote: "Unknowable in SCIENCE means it can not be #1: tested, or/nor #2: it not falisifiabe. Any scientific stance on anything that meets these two criteria is impossible. This is the stance of all my colleagues."
This is a key point, so I want to be very clear on this one. Some you may very well already know, but I'll lay out a few basics just in case you don't.
What you are talking about is something called The Logic Of Scientific Discovery. This is a concept invented by Karl Popper. It is a contrast to the more common scientific approach called positivism (more on that later).
At it's most basic what it says is that no amount of evidence is ever enough to prove something but one piece of evidence can disprove it. Think rabbits in the precambrian. This is good because one can only, according to this theory, get closer to the truth by eliminating things and ideas, never by adding ideas. So all true discovery in science, according to Popper, is about discovering what is not true, as opposed to what is true. In this way, one can "narrow down" to the truth.
By this reasoning, Popper concluded that the only relevant questions for science (indeed what makes a question a scientific question) is that concept which can be disproven. I think this may be where you were going with the "not knowable" thing. Popper called the ability to disprove an idea "falsifiability" and he contended that it was the only standard that really mattered in science. Many still disagree with him, but we'll leave that for later.
Because in this view, science can only be interested in what is falsifiable, then those things which are falsifiable are also the most rational positions to hold because they are in the front of the line (so to speak) when it comes to being changed if they ever get falsified.
So, according to Popper:
1. If something is not falsifiable, it is not a scientific question.
2. Rationally, one should always prefer the simplest option.
3. The simplest option is the same thing as the most falsifiable statement.
This has led some to conclude (like Gould) that the question of god is not a scientific question, but the important thing to understand here is that often the approach one takes to the question itself can determine falsifiability. Here is what I mean: The statement "there is a god" is not falsifiable because one could always argue that the evidence was still out there. You could never fully disprove it.
But it gets fun when you realize that the opposite is not true. The statement "there is no god" is, in principle, absolutely falsifiable. All it would take is the appearance of a god for the contention to be proven false. Once we understand the question in this way, we understand that the question is knowable, is falsifiable, and that one should rationally prefer "there is no god" to "there is a god".
So, by Popperian thinking (which seems to be what you subscribe to based on your description of scientific knowability), the atheist position is more rational than either the theist position or agnosticism.
As I said earlier, his views are not universally accepted. His reductive approach to science is contrary to virtually all science up to that point and has a number of very serious flaws. It has many strengths, too, which is why I personally think a combination of the two approaches makes the most sense, each according to the situation. Each does what the other cannot.
The other view, which is still more commonly held in science, is called "positivism". It's essentially the opposite of the falsification idea. What it means (basically) is that you can gather evidence and put together a picture of the truth by information/data/evidence you gather. So instead of constantly removing things/concepts, you are constantly adding data until a picture of the reality emerges. Think Newton using the apple falling as his first piece of positivist evidence of gravity. Think skeletal remains being dug up in the african desert as positivist evidence.
[note: it seems to me personally that an "up and down" approach makes the most scientific sense in the long term. You use positivism to build a question, then try to falsify it.]
So from the positivist approach, the question of whether there is or is not a god is simply a matter of evidence. In this case, there is no evidence in favor of a god and ample evidence of other causes behind the things attributed to a god's deeds.
So from a purely positivist approach, one should rationally prefer atheism to theism because of the evidence, and from the Popperian approach, one should rationally prefer atheism because the statement "there is no god" is more falsifiable anyway.
Either of the two primary approaches to scientific endeavor both lead to atheism as the more rational concept.
I hope that clarifies your original questions. Let me know if anything doesn't make sense.
Mike wrote: "So, you are saying I don't exist. I suppose there is no way for me to send a PM so I didn't have to publicize the condition that causes this (not as an excuse but as an explanation). And, later, I will look into things a bit closer when I get to re-reading the book parts I wanted to mention."
You can send me mail if that's what you're asking and no one else would see it. I'm actually not sure how to do it. I've only ever responded to goodreads mail from people, never initiated it but I'm sure someone around here knows how to do it.
Mike wrote: "Daniel wrote: "Unfortunately, I don't think that's really possible...."So, you are saying I don't exist.
I suppose there is no way for me to send a PM so I didn't have to publicize the conditio..."
I'm not sure what you mean about me saying you don't exist. Please clarify.
Daniel wrote: "Mike wrote: "Daniel wrote: "Unfortunately, I don't think that's really possible...."So, you are saying I don't exist.
I'm not sure what you mean about me saying you don't exist. Please clarify. ..."
I mentioned some of my "symptoms" and you said you didn't think that was possible....
Daniel wrote: Dawkins clearly says that his position is not absolute.
Do you know "where" he states that in the book in question?
Daniel wrote: Even so, I think he does try to consider their views some and address a few of their common arguments.
Mostly the fringe however, the fundamentalists, the extreemists (and I would put many a catholic clergy in that class too).
Daniel wrote: So from the positivist approach, the question of whether there is or is not a god is simply a matter of evidence. In this case, there is no evidence in favor of a god and ample evidence of other causes behind the things attributed to a god's deeds.
I would only agree to that statement if the word "theistic" was added before "god". Since we have no evidence of what occurred at the moment of, nor before the big bang, we can not specify how, what, or if anything, contibuted to setting up things "just so", as Hawkings mentions in A Brief History of Time. He has since fallen into the trap of using the gambler's fallacy to explain how things may have not been so uncommon.
just an aside, what condition Mike? You keep saying people who don't understand your condition simply won't understand you (paraphrase), so what condition?(I know you don't want to make it public, but you can send me a message via my profile page, though personally, I feel its disingenuous to use it as a defence but then not let people know what it actually is. If you can publicly announce that you have a condition as a form of defence, then you should, in my opinion, publicly state what it is so everyone can take it into account when reading your posts. However, I wouldn't insist if it would make you uncomfortable)
Daniel wrote: "Mike wrote: "So, you are saying I don't exist. I suppose there is no way for me to send a PM so I didn't have to publicize the condition that causes this (not as an excuse but as an explanation)...."
All you need to do Mike, is go to Daniel's profile page (click on his name above his posts) and directly under the profile part in the "box" there, click on "send a message". Though you probably know this already :).
Mike wrote: "If I could be viewed as one that doesn't "imply" things (not on purpose) then all my oomments could be understood better.""Sorry for the confusion. The above quoted statement is what I was referring to when I said "I don't think it's possible". I was saying that I don't think people can ever not take meanings from what you actually say and draw conclusions from them. It's just part of what people do.
Mike wrote: "Do you know "where" he states that in the book in question?"
Sure. [ Dawkins, Richard (2006). The God Delusion. Bantam Books. pp. 50. ISBN 0-618-68000-4. ]
Mike wrote: "Mostly the fringe however, the fundamentalists, the extreemists (and I would put many a catholic clergy in that class too). "
I don't think people like Thomas Aquinas are fringe, but I suppose that's a matter of opinion. Though, if you're including fundamentalists (this is basically another name for evangelicals in christianity) and catholic clergy, then you're making the boat pretty large.
Even being pretty modest and assuming that mainline protestants don't count in that category and not counting any other religions outside of christianity at all, you end up with approximately 53% of the US population in that category.
I don't really think you can call half the US population "fringe" as it kind of misses the point of what fringe means to begin with.
Mike wrote: "I would only agree to that statement if the word "theistic" was added before "god"."
This is an important point. All useful god concepts are theistic. The only time you hear the term "god" used to describe something non-theistic, there is usually a better word for what they're talking about. That better word really should be used for clarity sake in those cases, which is why I reserve the term "god" only for those things which are quintessentially god concepts. Often, the word is used in this context in a kind of poetic sense. Examples of this are Einstein and Spinoza's god, which really just means nature and/or the laws of nature, and a lot of the so called new-age beliefs, which really tend to boil down to "the energy that makes up the universe" or "the universe" or "everything that is" and so on. Things like this are important to distinguish because they don't really mean "god" in any sense that isn't poetic.
And actually, using the term "god" in cases like that, though common, and some would argue that the word should be used there, is actually highly problematic because it creates a situation where two people are talking about two entirely different things but using the same word. It blocks all real communication on the issue.
By contrast, while the specific distinctions between, say, allah and YHWH are real, they are basically superficial. Not that they don't matter to the believers in each respective faith, but in a larger since, they are minor distinctions, the existence of, basic notions of, and the primary distinguishing characteristics of the gods are the same.
In fact, this is what Dawkins is referring to as well in TGD, as opposed to broader, more poetic senses of the term.
It seems that on this issue, you, me, and Dawkins all agree. (The God Delusion, page 13)
Mike wrote: "Since we have no evidence of what occurred at the moment of, nor before the big bang, we can not specify how, what, or if anything, contibuted to setting up things "just so", as Hawkings mentions in A Brief History of Time. He has since fallen into the trap of using the gambler's fallacy to explain how things may have not been so uncommon. "I wanted to comment on this too, because I sometimes feel like I'm missing something on this issue. It comes up a lot and it's never seemed a complicated problem to me.
When we say things like "setting things up 'just so'", what we mean is that our lives and bodies could not exist in conditions radically different from the ones we currently exist in. In other words, if it were 300 degrees hotter, we'd all be dead even though 300 degrees is a very tiny temperature change on the cosmic scale. It seems so perfect. "How could it be so perfect if not for a god?" goes the argument, but I think it's really only surface thinking on this issue that allows this question.
If conditions were different (not in what we think of now as "the goldilocks zones") then either we wouldn't have ever existed, or whatever form came into being would have matched perfectly the conditions in which it sprang to life. How could it possibly come into being amenable to conditions different from the conditions in which it evolved? Whatever conditions something evolved in would automatically be "the goldilocks zone" for that lifeform. No creature would evolve in any area that was not it's own specific "goldilocks zone". It would be impossible, I think, for it to do so.
It doesn't seem to me that the gambler's fallacy comes into play here at all, although I confess that I have not yet gotten around to reading
The Grand Design.
Or maybe I'm missing your point entirely.
It always irks me slightly when people use the "its just too perfect" argument, when it so patently isn't...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRXlIc...
It's just too perfect argument? No, Hawkings indicated that the probabilities were just so high nothing but some form of "arrangement (he used the word spiritual, I believe)" would have been more then obvious. His taking on "large numbers of universes" in order to change the odds, is much like seeing the roulette wheel come up a red number 20 times in a row and assuming that the numerous occurrences makes the unlikely more likely, that black HAS to come up next, thus the gambler's fallacy. The number of occurrences do not alter the odds. As for "The Grand Design"; I am still working on it myself....some of the math is a bit on the heady side.
Hazel wrote: "just an aside, what condition Mike? You keep saying people who don't understand your condition simply won't understand you (paraphrase), so what condition?(I know you don't want to make it public..."
Hazel, you are set as private and I can not send you a message.
Mike wrote: "Hazel wrote: "just an aside, what condition Mike? You keep saying people who don't understand your condition simply won't understand you (paraphrase), so what condition?(I know you don't want to ..."
ah, sorry, forgot about that. Yours is also private, so I can't forward an email address, and I don't want to put it on a public forum. Would you be ok with Daniel telling me?
Mike wrote: "Hawkings indicated that the probabilities were just so high nothing but some form of "arrangement (he used the word spiritual, I believe)" would have been more then obvious. His taking on "large numbers of universes" in order to change the odds, is much like seeing the roulette wheel come up a red number 20 times in a row and assuming that the numerous occurrences makes the unlikely more likely, that black HAS to come up next, thus the gambler's fallacy. The number of occurrences do not alter the odds. "I don't think so. Here's why. Understanding the odds for something (or coming up with various models for doing so), is not an inherent fallacy. Something can be virtually certain to happen given a large enough data set. In this case we're dealing on scale more vast than we can really properly imagine, which is why it tends to be considered largely in mathematic terms.
This differs from the Gamblers fallacy in that the fallacy comes into play when one determines the odds of a single "toss". In other words, were I to say, having flipped a coin and come up with heads 8 times in a row, that on the next individual flip, the odds were in favor of tails, I would be making the gambler's fallacy. If instead, I were to say that if I keep flipping an infinite number of times, I am almost certainly going to get tails at some point, then I would not be falling victim to the fallacy.
The odds of any individual throw are the same regardless of past performance, but on a big enough scale, it is not fallacious to assume that someone along the line (though I cannot obviously predict it for any one throw) I will probably hit tails at some point.
It's a delicate difference and I may not be explaining it well, but I don't think it applies to what you're describing. As I said though, I haven't read it so I can't say for sure.
I find it even less likely given that Leonard Mlodinow is the co-author of the book and has devoted a large part of his life to studying randomness and associated fallacies. It seems unlikely that he would miss such an obvious one.
Hazel wrote: "Mike wrote: "Hazel wrote: "just an aside, what condition Mike? You keep saying people who don't understand your condition simply won't understand you (paraphrase), so what condition?(I know you d..."
sure
thanks Mike, it will hopefully help me understand you better :)
First allow me to open with the understanding that I am writing this ahead of time, before I get in to see anyone's responses. Please, before making a judgment, read all the way through, I think you'll find the end of this discourse more to your liking then anything I have written so far. The one reference given me by Daniel (pg.50 I believe) does not move me much....but I will explain in a bit which one does.
First, on page 34, he makes the statement that the misuse of the general English term god (literally the middle English word for GOOD) saying that “It has led people to believe, mistakenly of course, that Hawking is a religious man.”
On page 138 of a Brief History of Time Hawking writes: Why did the universe start out with so nearly the critical rate of expansion that separates models that recollapse from those that go on expanding forever...”
Further, he states: “It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a god who intended to create beings like us.” (A Brief History of Time, pg. 144).
Even Darwin stated: “...and I deserve to be called a theist.” (Darwin, “Origin” 459).
I could go on to quote similar things from Freeman Dyson, and Arno Penzias, so in my humble opinion, in this respect, Dawkins “sees what he wants to see”.
NEVERTHELESS, back to the original problem of Dawkin's real intent for the book. It seems as though I have fallen into the same trap so many others do, and did not read “everything” critically as I feel I am an honourable skeptic. I also learn well.
Dawkin's The God Delusion: Pg. 36: “...bear in mind, I am calling supernatural gods delusional. “
I think this is the defining point and alters how I view the altogether. I don't hold as much animosity towards the book as I once still feel he is within his right to call a belief “delusion” but not to diagnose someone AS delusional.
Daniel wrote: "but on a big enough scale, it is not fallacious to assume that someone along the line (though I cannot obviously predict it for any one throw) I will probably hit tails at some point..."True, but again as you say the "odds" do not change.
I think perhaps you'll find these interesting, Mike:http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/201...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11161493
they both say essentially the same thing, but its always better to have more than one source.
I suspect you'll also find this interesting, though this is one to watch at home, as its over an hour long:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS...
Hazel wrote: "I think perhaps you'll find these interesting, Mike:http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/201...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11161493
they both say essentiall..."
I understand that this is his present position...just saying he stated quite the opposite at one time
it doesn't really matter what he said before, because as he's investigated further and collected more evidence and information, he's come to the newer conclusion. Unlike religious folk, I don't believe that the older the knowledge is the better it is, I don't put much stock in ancient wisdom, or the idea that if its been around longer it must be better. I think that newer knowledge is generally more accurate and correct, as its the result of more investigation and research. Hawkings newer conclusion will be based on better evidence and information.
Mike wrote: "This is rather cool too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9D05ej..."yes, love that one, Neil Tyson is one of my favourite people.
Mike wrote: "True, but again as you say the "odds" do not change."Yes, but they can be fulfilled, so to speak, and they always are on a large enough scale.
Say a person were to say that the chances of X happening in their life is only 1%. For them to carry that idea forward and say that "each day the odds are only 1% for it to happen so it's not ever going to happen because there is a 99% chance against it" is just bad thinking.
If there are 10 million chances, it will almost certainly happen sooner or later. As a matter of fact, it's more unlikely that X won't happen than it is that it will. This can seem odd since the odds are 99:1 against in any one case, but we aren't dealing with one case. We are dealing with 10 million cases and what's more, it can be any one or more out of any of those 10 million cases.
In this case, X should happen roughly 10 times for every 990 times that it doesn't (out of thousand total opportunities). So by the time you get to 10,000,000 chances, X should have happened, more or less, 10,000 times.
To think that X is unlikely to happen at all on that scale is either a mistake in thinking or a misunderstanding of probabilities.
What I'm saying is that the odds of life arising on one particular planet at one particular time are not the same as the odds of life appearing on any planet ever. It's two entirely different equations.
And I think that's the point he's trying to make.
Mike wrote: "I understand that this is his present position...just saying he stated quite the opposite at one time."When I was an infant, I used to poop in my pants. Now I know better. I hope I am not to be held to that infant standard forever.
People learn more over time, and maybe more importantly, time gives people a chance to think things through more thoroughly.
I'm a big believer that even very intelligent people have some things that they have not really thought through because no one can carefully think everything through. For that reason, often well respected people of intelligence can hold entirely irrational views because they've never really thought carefully about something. Of course, just because smart, well respected people hold that view doesn't make the view rational.
Hazel wrote: "it doesn't really matter what he said before, because as he's investigated further and collected more evidence and information, he's come to the newer conclusion. Unlike religious folk, I don't bel..."The one thing that bothers me is that "what he said before" was based on a mathematical principle. Math has not changed, it is relative only to the ruler or yardstick one uses. If he found more "mathematical data" and presented that, I would have more respect for his "change of heart". :-)
Mike wrote: "The one thing that bothers me is that "what he said before" was based on a mathematical principle. Math has not changed, it is relative only to the ruler or yardstick one uses. If he found more "mathematical data" and presented that, I would have more respect for his "change of heart""I don't want to speculate too much on how much he'd really thought about this specific issue, but what he said before looks to me more like his opinion based on whatever level of thought he had put into it up to that point. At least in the quote you show, I don't see anything mathematical. Maybe you only put up a clip and I'm only going on what you are showing.
More importantly though, why is it that whenever in people's lives they profess something like a belief in something that can be called "god", you consider that genuine, even mathematical, but when they don't believe, then you regard it as suspect?
Daniel wrote: Say a person were to say that the chances of X happening in their life is only 1%. For them to carry that idea forward and say that "each day the odds are only 1% for it to happen so it's not ever going to happen because there is a 99% chance against it" is just bad thinking.While this is true when speaking of what mathematicians would call a reasonable chance, but when you drop in a decimal point and enough zeros to fill a pamphlet, the quantitative amount is normally looked at as zero.
Let's take the famous monkey mistake. If an infinate number of monkeys pounded their fists on an infinate number of typewriters, eventually one would write a Shakespearian play. Hardly. It would never happen. I called that a mistake because the author of that big of illogic later recanted.
So, what do you understand of what I wrote concerning a "supernatural god"? As some friends of mine would say: how do you read? :-) (what's your interpretation).
Daniel wrote: What I'm saying is that the odds of life arising on one particular planet at one particular time are not the same as the odds of life appearing on any planet ever.
If so, I agree. I don't care for the inventing of untestable universes to demonstrate this point however :-)
My re-reading of parts of the book have given me a different outlook however. As I mentioned above, I don't see him as being as harsh as he once was, but I do still discount his diagnosis of individuals, by calling any one person dillusional. :-)
Daniel wrote: "Mike wrote: "Hawkings indicated that the probabilities were just so high nothing but some form of "arrangement (he used the word spiritual, I believe)" would have been more then obvious. His taking...concerning whether god is possibly a dillusion..."So in answer to Daniels question: yes a "super (above or beyond) natural" god is untenable. Intelligence can be found in places not formerly thought...note: http://www.radiolab.org/2007/aug/14/
Daniel wrote: "More importantly though, why is it that whenever in people's lives they profess something like a belief in something that can be called "god", you consider that genuine, even mathematical, but when they don't believe, then you regard it as suspect? ..."
I don't. I was (attempting to) illustrate something completely different.
Mike wrote: "I don't. I was (attempting to) illustrate something completely different. "Ah. Sorry about that. Please clarify. I obviously missed what you were saying.
Gods don't create people. People create gods.Those who believe the Bible teaches morals have never read it critically. Morals predate the Bible. Or any Bronze Age civilization.
Daniel wrote: "Mike wrote: "I don't. I was (attempting to) illustrate something completely different. "Ah. Sorry about that. Please clarify. I obviously missed what you were saying."
When one expresses a belief (whether it be that the chair one is about to sit on is going to hold up or not, or a religious one) is not my concern; it was the possible implication that Hawking hadn't thought along these lines. He puts him in the same boat as Einstein who didn't, rather than in the same company as Newton, at least for awhile. What I hold as "suspect" is not the belief nor lack thereof but this determining what others do or do not, did or did not believe. Maybe I am reading too critically.
My reference to Emergence and the radio lab link are interesting in themselves. They demonstrate the "lack" of organization in the few, and the greater amounts of intelligence in the group setting: ants for instance, having no "leader", and no real cognitive brain to speak of, are highly organized and demonstrate an "intelligence" no single ant can. Same with our brain cells, African fireflies, etc and Etc. So, how then do we "redefine" intelligence? From what does it spring, and why is it seemingly always the "corporate whole" that shows more intelligence then the single entity? Is matter "smart"?
Mike wrote: "When one expresses a belief (whether it be that the chair one is about to sit on is going to hold up or not, or a religious one) is not my concern; it was the possible implication that Hawking hadn't thought along these lines. He puts him in the same boat as Einstein who didn't, rather than in the same company as Newton, at least for awhile. What I hold as "suspect" is not the belief nor lack thereof but this determining what others do or do not, did or did not believe. Maybe I am reading too critically. "I agree that it can be pretty tricky to ascertain what people believed historically, especially when the church was so quick to kill people for not bowing to it.
In this particular case, though, I think Dawkins and Hawking are friends, so he may have just talked to him about it.
I agree that there's a lot of interesting work being done in Emergence right now. I also love radiolab.
Daniel wrote: I agree that there's a lot of interesting work being done in Emergence right now. I also love radiolabSo, my only contention left with Dawkins is his discounting "intelligence" within "organization". That, out of chaos, comes order. This in no way demonstrates any form of theistic god, but it can be thought of as a form of deux ex machina not as a solution so much as a direction to look into (intelligence that is). It is not something that would demand worship without question, or worship at all for that matter. Study, understanding, yes, worship and subservience, no.
I suspect that the brashness some feel towards my initial reaction to Dawkins book, believe they would have convinced me I might have been wrong, but they are just as wrong. I appreciate YOUR patience with me as I reread and reworked my thoughts on this subject, Daniel. You and Hazel are to be commended for your attitudes. The replies of those like Beu and Shanna would only serve to entrench my "former understanding" further as no "discussion" was taking place, just (what I felt as) animosity.
Jason, You have done nothing but prove you are conflicted and foolish. Am I being intolerant? Well, I have FAITH that you are conflicted and foolish, so you can never tell me I'm wrong.
"The Wikipedia entry for what Atheism is..."
Oh, wait, I have EVIDENCE that you are conflicted and foolish, so, no need for faith after all.
Mike wrote: "So, my only contention left with Dawkins is his discounting "intelligence" within "organization". That, out of chaos, comes order. This in no way demonstrates any form of theistic god, but it can be thought of as a form of deux ex machina not as a solution so much as a direction to look into (intelligence that is). It is not something that would demand worship without question, or worship at all for that matter. Study, understanding, yes, worship and subservience, no."He may avoid using a word like "intelligence" due to the social connotations it has ("intelligent design", anyone?), but he seems to be on board for everything involved in studying what's happening. In fact, studying how life on earth evolved is his life's work.
Maybe I don't really understand your disagreement.
It's probably not a disagreement but more like a left over residual
feeling
of his not wanting to deal with certain ideas. I would understand his not using "intelligence" to avoid the fundamentalists argument, but haven't really read anything he has written on this subject of late. Do you have a recommendation?
Mike wrote: "The replies of those like Beu and Shanna would only serve to entrench my "former understanding" further as no "discussion" was taking place, just (what I felt as) animosity. "
How could anything I posted in recent times contribute to to further entrenching your former understanding? I was commenting on the fact that no "discussion" was taking place, not, on your (or anyone's) as yet to presented argument.
And if I may inject a little of my own arrogant assery now. Look at where we are? discussing....
Mike wrote: "I would understand his not using "intelligence" to avoid the fundamentalists argument, but haven't really read anything he has written on this subject of late. Do you have a recommendation? "On which subject?
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Grand Design (other topics)
The God Delusion (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
Victor: A Novel Based on the Life of the Savage of Aveyron (other topics)The Grand Design (other topics)
The God Delusion (other topics)
And you also noted that I hadn't responded to your question "did I think god could be a delusion"; and I thought that was my response (part of last post, and the post I did further up).
I am not trying to insult anyone....really I know better then to start conversations like this. My means of communication sounds rough, sometimes caustic to some...it is not meant to be that way. I really haven't the means to say it "another way". The reason I need my source material is that I would quote the items I am referencing so as to make sure I am not mis-reading them. I am a bit of a stickler for my being as accurate as I can be, but honestly, I would rather be discussing theoretical physics then this. :-)
My "arguments" (I dislike the connotation of the word) aren't really arguments as much as....oh bother. I think so much better in pictures than words....ok....I will present some "thoughts" as I find time....and look forward to your thoughts on my thoughts (and quotes). I am really not trying to be difficult...some things are difficult for me to express however. And the inflamatory language I have heard from others doesn't help me out at all.