Showing posts with label Peter Atkins. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Peter Atkins. Show all posts
Monday, December 01, 2014
Peter Atkins - On Being - The limitless powers of science - SBHA Conference 2011
Scientific Method - took 1000s of years to be discovered.
,,,
Wednesday, August 27, 2014
Peter Atkins talks post World Humanist Congress
 |
| Peter Atkins |
Peter Atkins on ...
Energy of the Universe (2 mins)
"hardly anything happened at the Creation" (2 mins)Using E=mc2, taking the mass of of all galaxies and multiplying them by c2 (speed of light2) means the Universe has an enormous energy! Where did all the energy come from? When galaxies attract each other gravitationally, their energy falls. As a result the the energy of the galaxies overall is "reduced by an almost equal amount". When all the interactions of all the galaxies are taken into account the energy is reduced to zero (it is tempting to think!).
At the creation there was nothing with no energy and after the creation there is still no energy so need to worry about where the energy came from.
Where do the laws of nature come from? (4 mins)
The sources of the laws of nature are 1) indolence and 2) anarchy.Indolence: Before creation you had absolutely nothing (no space and no time), so there must have been absolute uniformity. After creation you have also have uniformity. The theorem of Emmy Noether ('the most important woman in the history of mathematics' according to Einstein) states "every conservation law has an underlying symmetry" ie. Conservation Laws mean nothing changes. Uniformity of time: time ticks on at a uniform rate. Uniform Nothing turned into uniform time giving Conservation of Energy. If absolutely nothing turns itself into uniform space you get another Conservation Law viz. Conservation of Linear Momentum (think of billiard balls bouncing off each other).
Anarchy: (a.k.a. unconstrained freedom) - Light travels in straight line is a law of nature. Why? All the paths that are not straight lines have neighbours that annihilate (aka interfere with each other) one another.
Incipience (definition) is a better word than Creation: How did absolutely nothing turn into more interesting nothing?
What is Consciousness?
If a computer were self aware would it be ethical to experiment upon it? (26 mins)What is the nature of Faith?
"Faith is a medicine really" (35 mins)"Preying 5 times a day is a pretty good way of insuring that your Faith is so firmly embedded in your brain that there is no escape from it". (36 mins)
"Just as you can't forget how to ride a bicycle, you can't forget your Faith". (37 mins)
"the brain has been pre-conditioned by environment, by cultural upbringing, by practise. You can't forget how to ride a bicycle, so you can't discard your Faith".
Science and Ethics
more to come...Saturday, November 29, 2008
Beyond Belief: Candles in the Dark - Peter Atkins
Peter Atkins 25 minute talk.
Pride in Prejudice
October 5, 2008
My Notes
Candle - one end gives out light - the other end darkness. Prejudice is represented by the candle.
Rotten bad prejudice - spreads darkness - eg religion presumes any explanation will necessarily be beyond our comprehension - despises human understanding
Good prejudice - good light - scientific method is the only road to true comprehension (4'0"), flexible not rigid prejudice, we discard our prejudice when the publically available evidence is overwelming (unlike religion); experiment is the only true way of understanding and the rest is imagination (Max Planck). Science does not consist of little warring tribes - but is a great river
New models or paradigms are an approximation. Science works, many springs are supportive not at each others throats, detached from sentiment, open to public scrutiny, verifiable predictions.
bad/good prejudices - Aristotle (world is explicable - observations - rest is natural state of motion - thought) , Galileo, Newton, Copernicas.
Atkins Foundational Prejudices - science is a uniquely reliable way of illuminating the world and discovering its prejudices (11'58")
Atkins Operational Prejudices - scientific method can illuminate every real question and incidently can reveal the emptiness of vacuuous questions and musings of theology (purpose of universe / nature of afterlife).
Three Eternal True Paradigmatic prejudices (book: Galileos Finger)
1) Energy is conserved - conservation of energy underlies causality
2) Energy degrades - 2nd law of thermodynamics - things get worse! Can tap into degradation eg sun collected on earth by photosynthesis or metabolism in body giving amino acids or organs. Evolution by Natural Selection is a manner of degrading energy
3) Mathematics works - supreme language of the illuciadation and description of the world
Good Prejudices
1) No validity in question that begins in 'Why' (eg why was the universe created, why evil in the world, why are plants green): can it be deconstructed into 'How' questions (how is it that the world exists, . If it cannot be deconstructed it is not a real question and not worthy of further consideration
2) Reductionism is really assembalism
3) the world is nothing more than Mathematics
Friday, July 04, 2008
NSS Honorary Associate: Prof. Peter Atkins
Peter Atkins is a Fellow and professor of chemistry at Lincoln College in the University of Oxford. He is the author of several successful chemistry textbooks, among them Atkins’ Physical Chemistry and Inorganic Chemistry. With Why Chemical Reactions Happen, Galileo’s Finger and Atkins’ Molecules, he established himself also as a popular science writer. Like Richard Dawkins, he regularly speaks and writes on atheism and the incompatibility of science and religion, regarding it as his mission to banish ignorance and to advance scientific understanding.
“I regard teaching religion as purveying lies.”
“To assert "God did it" is no more than an admission of ignorance dressed deceitfully as an explanation.”
“To say that 'God made the world' is simply a more or less sophisticated way of saying that we don't understand how the universe originated. A god, in so far as it is anything, is an admission of ignorance."
“Religion's inwardly directed sentimental glow reflects on issues privately, exchanges information by assurance and assertion, discusses awkward points by warfare, terror, and coercion, and builds up a network of conflicting ideas that conceal ignorance under a cloak of high-flown yet empty prose.”
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
An Interview with Prof. Richard Dawkins
by Nicholas Newman, Oxford Prospect
Interviewed by Nicholas Newman at Dawkins' Oxford home 24 June 2008
Reposted from:
http://www.oxfordprospect.co.uk/richarddawkins.htm
Richard Dawkins is the well known advocate of atheism and rationalism and for his criticism of religion. He holds the Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. I interviewed Richard Dawkins at his Oxford home recently.
Nicholas Newman
As a life long atheist, I find myself almost entirely in agreement with the views expressed in your writings, but nevertheless, it is still possible to see the utility of certain physiological aspects in some religious beliefs or customs. I'm thinking of: Comfort to a soldier about to die, or succour for a mother on the death of her child or belief in the after life of a husband who is mourning the death of his wife? Such comfort or succour would be called upon particularly in cases where no human aid would be available?
Richard Dawkins
Yes, I do see psychological value, if it does have a real value, and I would not wish to be the person who destroys that person's psychological succour. But I would not, however, compromise with my public speaking out in the public forum and writing, but if I was visiting someone who was recently bereaved, I might dissemble somewhat in what I said, but would not do so in when writing a newspaper article.
Nicholas Newman
Cannot religion, however misguided, also provide a useful social mechanism, irrespective of people's beliefs by reinforcing social discipline by using the power of religious sin to gain reinforce adherence to man made laws? E.g. Thou shall not kill? Of course such beliefs have, throughout history, been used by rulers to enforce their particular forms of governance, or lack of governance.
Richard Dawkins
Yes, the first thing I say about that is that
Nicholas Newman
Oh you mean when police officers staged a 16-hour strike in Montreal, which led to a wave of rioting and looting, which was only ended when the army was brought in, because nobody had anything to fear from the Police?
Richard Dawkins
So you might say if God was suddenly abolished, it would be like a police strike; people would go on a rampage of immorality. Yet, it does make me wonder how sincere many of these rioters were; I suspect many would say they were religious. It looks like the real flesh and blood Police acted as a real deterrent. I find that impressive, as a Darwinian I think many of us, do have a built in morality, just like we have sexual desire built into us, from our Darwinian past, we do feel a sense of justice, fairness, empathy and sympathy for people in trouble or suffering.
These are all very powerful emotions, which I am almost sure have nothing to do with religion. Like the grief you feel vicariously when consoling someone who is bereaved or the sense of monstrous injustice one feels for a person who has been framed for a crime that he did not commit. These are all emotions that a naive interpretation that humans are selfish should not be expected and yet it is there, in all of us, whether or not we are religious.
Nicholas Newman
I was asking about the role of religion in reinforcing the laws of society. In respect of your answer it is hard to draw such conclusions from such a short event which took place against a background of serious industrial disputes prior to the Montreal police strike. Surely such rioting would not have continued indefinitely, before the population would have restored order, to ensure the continuation of civil life?
Turning to the next question.
Richard Dawkins
I am not sure that this is true today. For me the great watershed would have come with Darwin and I am utterly unmoved by the fact that Newton was religious. Anyone living before Darwin, one might expect to be religious. As for today,
Einstein liked to use the word of God to explain his reverence, while I don't. I think today to use God in this sense is confusing, but was less confusing in Einstein's time. But nevertheless, there are a few scientists who are full blown religious in their beliefs and believe in the sense of the Trinity, transubstantiation etc, and I think they are rather few. I think such scientists are an anomaly, I think it must be possible for the human mind to compartmentalize in a way I would find difficult in my head. Though, if I really try, I suspect I would find other ways of compartmentalizing such idea in my brain.
Nicholas Newman
I could not agree more. Though, when I recently interviewed Bjorn Lomborg, Bjorn accepts the reality of climate change, but he questions the proposals put forward by environmentalists with a scientific background, who put forward their solutions as if they were religious dogma, and thereby not subject to vigorous scientific analysis.
At your recent talk at the Oxford Literary Festival,
Richard Dawkins
I fully agree there are such people, though I am not sure that the popularity of pseudo science like homeopathy and UFO's can be blamed on them. Are those people interested in pseudo science really influenced by the influential people and writers who dominate the media?
Nicholas Newman
I was thinking of people like Prince Charles, as an exponent of homeopathy for instance.
Richard Dawkins
I certainly believe that if those people who love pseudo science needed an intellectual justification they could find it amongst the literati. Though, I am not sure, but they no doubt foster a kind of climate where such opinion is favoured, and where your opinion is as good as mine. Where questioning of pseudo science is frowned upon.
Nicholas Newman
Why are there so few good communicators of science like you, Jacob Bronowski, Bjorn Lomborg, Carl Sagan and Peter Atkins who have the gift to express clearly the joys of science?
Richard Dawkins
I love there to be more – there are more probably – but many don't bother to leave the comfort of their labatories to express themselves. I wish more would. Perhaps we should think of an inducement to do so. Perhaps the scientific culture should value those who express themselves to lay people.
Nicholas Newman
The trouble is science, unlike the media, has not attracted the people to join the scientific world that are clever persuasive communicators?
Your wife has played an important role in your academic life?
Richard Dawkins
Yes, my wife, Lalla Ward does play an important part in my work. She participates in the production of audio books, and the public talks I give about my work, in fact we act as a double act. I think the audiences like the double act, at least it prevents them going to sleep. She has taught me how to speak in public, read out aloud, and talks to the public. At home she acts as a copy editor who proof reads my work, checks when I repeat myself and makes it a more readable read.
Nicholas Newman
And finally. What is your next book about?
Richard Dawkins
It will be about the evidence for evolution.
Reposted from:
http://www.oxfordprospect.co.uk/richarddawkins.htm
Richard Dawkins is the well known advocate of atheism and rationalism and for his criticism of religion. He holds the Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. I interviewed Richard Dawkins at his Oxford home recently.
Nicholas Newman
As a life long atheist, I find myself almost entirely in agreement with the views expressed in your writings, but nevertheless, it is still possible to see the utility of certain physiological aspects in some religious beliefs or customs. I'm thinking of: Comfort to a soldier about to die, or succour for a mother on the death of her child or belief in the after life of a husband who is mourning the death of his wife? Such comfort or succour would be called upon particularly in cases where no human aid would be available?
Richard Dawkins
Yes, I do see psychological value, if it does have a real value, and I would not wish to be the person who destroys that person's psychological succour. But I would not, however, compromise with my public speaking out in the public forum and writing, but if I was visiting someone who was recently bereaved, I might dissemble somewhat in what I said, but would not do so in when writing a newspaper article.
It is also I think disputable whether it is that comforting, given that people are brought up to fear hell for example.They might actually be comforted by the lack of religion, depending on their upbringing. Although many of us fear death, I think there is something illogical about it.
As Mark Twain once said "I was dead before I was born without the slightest inconvenience."
Nicholas Newman
Cannot religion, however misguided, also provide a useful social mechanism, irrespective of people's beliefs by reinforcing social discipline by using the power of religious sin to gain reinforce adherence to man made laws? E.g. Thou shall not kill? Of course such beliefs have, throughout history, been used by rulers to enforce their particular forms of governance, or lack of governance.
The best example of this aspect has, perhaps been emperors, kings, and popes claiming they have been appointed by a god?
Richard Dawkins
Yes, the first thing I say about that is that
the religious carrot or stick argument for being good i.e. god will punish you, or reward you, is not a very, in fact, is an ignoble reason for being good.A moral philosopher could write down a better set of reasons for being good. Being cynical, one could say, people need the carrot and the stick to be good. I told – retold in my book 'The God Delusion' the anecdote by Steven Pinker, when, in 1969, police went on strike in Montreal.
Nicholas Newman
Oh you mean when police officers staged a 16-hour strike in Montreal, which led to a wave of rioting and looting, which was only ended when the army was brought in, because nobody had anything to fear from the Police?
Richard Dawkins
So you might say if God was suddenly abolished, it would be like a police strike; people would go on a rampage of immorality. Yet, it does make me wonder how sincere many of these rioters were; I suspect many would say they were religious. It looks like the real flesh and blood Police acted as a real deterrent. I find that impressive, as a Darwinian I think many of us, do have a built in morality, just like we have sexual desire built into us, from our Darwinian past, we do feel a sense of justice, fairness, empathy and sympathy for people in trouble or suffering.
These are all very powerful emotions, which I am almost sure have nothing to do with religion. Like the grief you feel vicariously when consoling someone who is bereaved or the sense of monstrous injustice one feels for a person who has been framed for a crime that he did not commit. These are all emotions that a naive interpretation that humans are selfish should not be expected and yet it is there, in all of us, whether or not we are religious.
Nicholas Newman
I was asking about the role of religion in reinforcing the laws of society. In respect of your answer it is hard to draw such conclusions from such a short event which took place against a background of serious industrial disputes prior to the Montreal police strike. Surely such rioting would not have continued indefinitely, before the population would have restored order, to ensure the continuation of civil life?
Turning to the next question.
Do you not find it ironic, that many great scientists, well versed in the 'scientific method' still find it possible to maintain their religious beliefs?
Richard Dawkins
I am not sure that this is true today. For me the great watershed would have come with Darwin and I am utterly unmoved by the fact that Newton was religious. Anyone living before Darwin, one might expect to be religious. As for today,
if you find a great scientist who is religious, cross question him and ask if he actually believes in a supernatural intelligence that listens to your prayers and reads your thoughts and forgives your sins. Or whether he is like Einstein, who believed in using quasi religious language to express his feelings for his reverence for the wonders and mysteries of the universe.
Einstein liked to use the word of God to explain his reverence, while I don't. I think today to use God in this sense is confusing, but was less confusing in Einstein's time. But nevertheless, there are a few scientists who are full blown religious in their beliefs and believe in the sense of the Trinity, transubstantiation etc, and I think they are rather few. I think such scientists are an anomaly, I think it must be possible for the human mind to compartmentalize in a way I would find difficult in my head. Though, if I really try, I suspect I would find other ways of compartmentalizing such idea in my brain.
Nicholas Newman
I could not agree more. Though, when I recently interviewed Bjorn Lomborg, Bjorn accepts the reality of climate change, but he questions the proposals put forward by environmentalists with a scientific background, who put forward their solutions as if they were religious dogma, and thereby not subject to vigorous scientific analysis.
At your recent talk at the Oxford Literary Festival,
you expressed your sorrow at the popularity of pseudo science at the expense of real science. Would you not agree that much of the blame can be laid at the influential people and writers who dominate the media, and seem even proud that they can boast that they are ignorant of science?
Richard Dawkins
I fully agree there are such people, though I am not sure that the popularity of pseudo science like homeopathy and UFO's can be blamed on them. Are those people interested in pseudo science really influenced by the influential people and writers who dominate the media?
Nicholas Newman
I was thinking of people like Prince Charles, as an exponent of homeopathy for instance.
Richard Dawkins
I certainly believe that if those people who love pseudo science needed an intellectual justification they could find it amongst the literati. Though, I am not sure, but they no doubt foster a kind of climate where such opinion is favoured, and where your opinion is as good as mine. Where questioning of pseudo science is frowned upon.
Nicholas Newman
Why are there so few good communicators of science like you, Jacob Bronowski, Bjorn Lomborg, Carl Sagan and Peter Atkins who have the gift to express clearly the joys of science?
Richard Dawkins
I love there to be more – there are more probably – but many don't bother to leave the comfort of their labatories to express themselves. I wish more would. Perhaps we should think of an inducement to do so. Perhaps the scientific culture should value those who express themselves to lay people.
Nicholas Newman
The trouble is science, unlike the media, has not attracted the people to join the scientific world that are clever persuasive communicators?
Your wife has played an important role in your academic life?
Richard Dawkins
Yes, my wife, Lalla Ward does play an important part in my work. She participates in the production of audio books, and the public talks I give about my work, in fact we act as a double act. I think the audiences like the double act, at least it prevents them going to sleep. She has taught me how to speak in public, read out aloud, and talks to the public. At home she acts as a copy editor who proof reads my work, checks when I repeat myself and makes it a more readable read.
Nicholas Newman
And finally. What is your next book about?
Richard Dawkins
It will be about the evidence for evolution.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Alister McGrath and Peter Atkins debate on whether or not we should rid the mind of God
Should We Rid The Mind of God? A Debate
Peter Atkins, Alister McGrath
Thanks to HourglassMemory for the link.
Professor Alister McGrath and Professor Peter Atkins debate on whether or not we should rid the mind of God
Part1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSM1ymBx7GI
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsFv6fr1xWo
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iWg4eY5iQk
Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7wAv_8cd4o
Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1bACyxlYx0
Part 6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQZqfiDjfFQ
Part 7: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o1M1H_clI0
Part 8: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-ImC1iN0ts
Professor Alister McGrath and Professor Peter Atkins debate on whether or not we should rid the mind of God
Part1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSM1ymBx7GI
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsFv6fr1xWo
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iWg4eY5iQk
Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7wAv_8cd4o
Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1bACyxlYx0
Part 6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQZqfiDjfFQ
Part 7: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o1M1H_clI0
Part 8: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-ImC1iN0ts
Sunday, June 15, 2008
God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?
The art of the soluble
Colin Tudge is full of praise for God's Undertaker, a sharp riposte to scientists from John Lennox
Saturday December 8, 2007
The Guardian
God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?
by John Lennox
192pp, Lion Hudson, £14.99
by John Lennox
192pp, Lion Hudson, £14.99
Well - has science buried God? Of course not. John Lennox answers his own question decisively. No one who understands what science really is and is not could suppose that such interment was ever on the cards. No one who understands what religion really is, beneath its sometimes ugly face, could suppose that it would be good to bury it.
Why then does Lennox, reader in maths at Oxford and outstanding Christian scholar, feel it is necessary to ask the question at all? Because the notion that the two must be at loggerheads has of late been trumpeted by many a pundit, including American philosopher Dan Dennett, Oxford professor of chemistry Peter Atkins and, most eloquently, Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins. Atkins and Dawkins are prominent scientists - Dawkins one of the most original theorists of our age. But on matters of theology their arguments are a disgrace: assertive without substance; demanding evidence while offering none; staggeringly unscholarly.
For all the great founders of modern science - Galileo, Newton, Descartes, Robert Boyle, John Ray and their Muslim predecessors - their research was itself an act of reverence. The list continues through the 19th century, with Faraday, Babbage and Kelvin. From our present age, Lennox quotes Sir Ghillean Prance, former director of Kew: "All my studies have confirmed my faith."
Contrast this with
Atkins, more hardline even than Dawkins: "There is no reason to suppose that science cannot deal with every aspect of existence. Only the religious - among whom I include not only the prejudiced but the underinformed - hope that there is a dark corner of the universe that science can never hope to illuminate." And: "Humanity should accept that science has eliminated the justification for believing in cosmic purpose."
Yet Atkins, as a professor of science, must be aware of Sir Peter Medawar's famous adage, adapted from Bismarck, "Science is the art of the soluble". Scientists study only those aspects of the universe that it is within their gift to study: what is observable; what is measurable and amenable to statistical analysis; and, indeed, what they can afford to study within the means and time available.
Science thus emerges as a giant tautology, a "closed system". It can present us with robust answers only because its practitioners take very great care to tailor the questions.
Religion, by contrast, accepts the limitations of our senses and brains and posits at least the possibility that there is more going on than meets the eye - a meta-dimension that might be called transcendental. Dawkins talks of religion not simply as "faith" but as "blind faith" - yet this, as Lennox points out, is a simple calumny. The greatest theologians, beginning at least as early as St Paul and continuing through Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas and Newman and again into modern times, have never been "blind". All have stressed the need to take account of the facts of the case (the thing that science is good at) and to engage the intellect: absolutely not to believe things blindly.
Taking seriously the idea of transcendence is very reasonable indeed. As many modern physicists have pointed out, the universe simply could not function - the Big Bang would never have happened, or if it did would simply have made a mess - if all the physical constants, from the magnitude of gravity to the mass of the proton, had not been exactly right. Of course, we can explain such consistency without invoking intelligence and purpose, but as Lennox shows, the arguments needed to do this are extraordinarily contrived. Ironically, these arguments break the rule of parsimony - always opt for the simplest explanation - which lies at the heart of science itself.
It is perfectly rational to propose that the universe is indeed without purpose - that what we see is all there is. But to assert that this is so, as Dawkins and Atkins do, is not at all "rational". It is merely a piece of dogma. Indeed, atheism - when you boil it down - is little more than dogma: simple denial, a refusal to take seriously the proposition that there could be more to the universe than meets the eye. To use science to justify such dogma, as these professors do, is a gross misuse of their own trade.
More specifically, Dawkins famously showed that it is possible to build a computer model that could generate huge complexity - analogous in an arm-waving way to the complexity of nature - just by applying an all-purpose rule, an algorithm, that simulated natural selection. Indeed, says Lennox. But the algorithm works only because it has been very carefully designed - by Dawkins. Yet Dawkins argues that the complexity of nature - many orders of magnitude greater than anything that a computer can simulate - has been achieved by an analogous algorithm that does not, apparently, require intelligence. If Dawkins could show how the algorithm that has produced the living world could arise spontaneously, then he would have gone a long way to making his point. As things stand, he has not begun even to address it. He is taken seriously in this not because his arguments are sound but because he is an outstanding rhetorician. It is the art of bamboozlement.
There is no more important debate than this - science versus religion. But it needs to begin again, with a clear understanding of what science and religion actually are. Lennox has done this wonderfully.
Who Really Works Hardest to Banish Ignorance? by Peter Atkins
Awesome Versus Adipose
Who Really Works Hardest to Banish Ignorance?
by Peter Atkins
The following article is from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 18, Number 2.
Science is almost totally incompatible with religion.I say "almost," but I do not wish that weasel word to be construed as weakness. The only point of compatibility is that there are well-meaning, honest people on both sides who are genuinely and deeply concerned with discovering the truth about this wonderful world. That having been said, there is no actual compatibility between science and religion.
Science's dispassionate stare examines issues publicly, exchanges information openly, discusses awkward points objectively, and builds up a network of interdependent ideas and theories that progressively expose the complex as an outcome of the simple.
Religion's inwardly directed sentimental glow reflects on issues privately, exchanges information by assurance and assertion, discusses awkward points by warfare, terror, and coercion, and builds up a network of conflicting ideas that conceal ignorance under a cloak of high-flown yet empty prose.
Science reveals where religion conceals. Where religion purports to explain, it actually resorts to tautology. To assert that "God did it" is no more than an admission of ignorance dressed deceitfully as an explanation.
Science, with its publicly accessible corpus of information and its open, scrutable arguments, can lead the wondering to an understanding of the entire physical world. (Below, of course, I shall have to argue that that is the entire world.)
Science respects the power of the human intellect; religion belittles it. Science gives us the prospect of full understanding, for it continues to show that, given time, there is no aspect of the world that is closed to its scrutiny and explanation. Religion disarmingly avers that human brains are too puny to achieve full comprehension. Yet science is progressively advancing toward complete knowledge, leaving religions bobbing about in its wake.
Science is hard work, but the answers it hews from the rock face of ignorance are reliable. Religion is armchair speculation well fitted to adipose brains. Science cannot answer deep questions by words alone: it draws on the perspiration of countless experimenters and the struggles of theoreticians to make sense of the data. Religion can speculate wildly, and therefore uselessly, from flabby, personal opinion and never be put to the test, except perhaps beyond the grave.
There is, of course, no beyond the grave except in the minds of those who cannot come to terms with the prospect of their own annihilation.
Science searches for the underlying simplicity from which springs the astounding complexity that surrounds and delights us. Science is quarrying observations and seeking the ultimate simplicity of existence. Ultimate truth will be of awesome simplicity; tracing that simplicity up into the world of phenomena may well prove to be more demanding than the exposure of the simplicity. But that difficulty will not mean that the discovery of the simplicity is a false foundation.Religion searches for the all-embracing complexity - God - that somehow, and in an intrinsically inscrutable way, accounts for all that there is.
The explanation of a lesser entity in terms of a greater one is a perversion of what it means to explain.
But the crux of the argument is not wholly the superiority of science as a mode of understanding the physical world: it is whether that physical world is the entire world, and whether there is any aspect of existence that necessarily lies outside the kingdom of science. If there is, then science cannot claim to be anything more than a partial contributor to global understanding. If there is not, then science is at least potentially capable of providing complete understanding of all there is.
Here, though,
we must be very careful to distinguish between questions that have been invented and questions that at least seem to be real.
Only the latter are likely to lead to true understanding of the world; the former merely expose the psychological condition of individuals and societies who invent them. I am afraid that, in my view, most of the questions that so exercise the religious are of the former, empty kind. Thus, whereas it may seem to be a perfectly legitimate question to ask, What is the purpose of this universe?, in fact that question is a transposition from everyday life.
There is no need for this universe to have a purpose: it could be a wholly purposeless accidental entity.
Because religion implicitly asserts that science cannot divine the purpose of the universe, the religious conclude that science's orb is incomplete. That, of course is illogical, for religion cannot be allowed to invent illusory hoops for its adversaries to leap through: hoops, yes; illusory hoops, no. There are several examples of the invention of such hoops, including life after death (not a jot of evidence, if wishful thinking is excluded), the soul (ditto), and the existence of evil in a world created by an infinitely loving God (a trivial problem if there is no such God).
Somewhere on the borderline between the invented and the real lies the question of the human spirit and its associated qualities, such as love and aesthetic appreciation. I grant that these qualities, or at least their physiological appurtenances, exist. The question, then, is whether science can elucidate them.
There is no evidence that it cannot, and it is not unreasonable to suppose that it can without resorting to supernatural importations.
Love is a complex emotion, involving genetically controlled responses, hormonal excretions, and intellectual reflections and considerations. Science can elucidate such a condition,even though it will probably never purport to be able to predict whether one individual will fall in love with another (although even dating agencies have some success in that field). Mysterious and complex love may be, but it certainly holds open the prospect of elucidation. Aesthetics, too, is not inconceivably comprehensible. Acts of valor, heroism, creativity, grandeur, and criminality all lie within the domain of psychology, and
psychology is at least a twig if not a full-blown branch of science.Complex, agreed; unpredictable, maybe; but not closed to science.
There is of course one big, cosmically big, seemingly real question: Where did it all come from?
Here we see most sharply the distinction between the methods. Religion adopts the adipose answer: God made it - for reasons that will forever remain inscrutable until, perhaps, we become one with Him (that is, until we are dead). Such an answer, while intrinsically absurd and evil in its implications, appears to satisfy those for whom God is a significant part of their existence.
Science, in contrast, is steadily and strenuously working toward a comprehensible explanation. Witness the extraordinary progress that has been made since the development of general relativity at the beginning of the twentieth century. Though difficult, and still incomplete, there is no reason to believe that the great problem, how the universe came into being, and what it is, will not be solved; we can safely presume that the solution will be comprehensible to human minds. Moreover, that understanding will be achieved this side of the grave.
In short, whereas religion scorns the power of human comprehension, science, the nobler pursuit, respects it.
Peter Atkins is Professor of Chemistry at the University of Oxford and a Fellow of Lincoln College. His books include Creation Revisited (W. H. Freeman, 1992)
Review - Creation Revisited by Peter Atkins
Peter Atkins was a week ago on the Moral Maze expounding his extreme reductionism and scientism. I'm not sure I can fully agree with his brand of scientism - knowledge about everything will someday be explained by science. I bought The Creation by Peter Atkins in 1981 and in 1993 he updated with Creation Revisited (available in HASSERS bookstore).
All blogs about Peter Atkins on HASSERS and at Wikipedia.
There can be few sights sadder than seeing a distinguished professional making a complete fool of himself by trying to do something that he is simply incapable of. Professor Atkins is justly famous and wealthy as a result of his text book on Physical Chemistry but unfortunately he insists on dappling in matters he does not seem to understand. In fact I am being charitable here because I would hate to doubt his honesty and that would be the only alternative if he really did know what he was talking about in this book.
All blogs about Peter Atkins on HASSERS and at Wikipedia.
There can be few sights sadder than seeing a distinguished professional making a complete fool of himself by trying to do something that he is simply incapable of. Professor Atkins is justly famous and wealthy as a result of his text book on Physical Chemistry but unfortunately he insists on dappling in matters he does not seem to understand. In fact I am being charitable here because I would hate to doubt his honesty and that would be the only alternative if he really did know what he was talking about in this book.
Atkins is a militant atheist like his colleague Richard Dawkins and this book is a feeble attempt to delineate an atheist cosmogony - i.e. to explain where the universe came from if there is no God. It is written in a style that is supposed to be poetic but in fact is merely annoying. Although now deservedly out of print and I am reviewing it here because Dawkins foolishly praises it in The Blind Watchmaker and Keith Ward debunks it in God, Chance and Necessity (still in print).
The big fallacy is in the first chapter when Atkins tells us that "The only faith that we need... is the belief that everything can be understood and, ultimately, that there is nothing to explain". So that's all right then. Needless to say, from such a start point you could get anywhere and Atkins proceeds to demonstrate that the universe is elegantly reorganised nothing that can be reduced to mathematics and that the laws of mathematics can be reduced to the laws of logic. This last point really disturbs me because it has been proven by Kurt Godel to be false and Atkins must know this. Such an oversight should, at least, have been picked up by his editors. Indeed, they should have politely but firmly have told Atkins to stick to his chemistry set.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Moral Maze - Radio 4 - Science v Religion - 8pm Wednesday 11th June
 |  Michael Buerk chairs a special edition recorded at the Cheltenham Science Festival. Melanie Phillips, Claire Fox, Michael Portillo and Clifford Longley cross-examine witnesses. If you witnessed the battles between the godly and the godless over the creation of hybrid embryos recently you might think science and religion are unavoidably at odds. Listen (45 mins) Why do so many of our foremost scientists see religion as a threat to their work and why do so many in the church worry that modern science is endangering our most basic respect for shared humanity? As knowledge increases and new technologies abound - especially in the field of medical research - just who is setting the moral agenda? Can science and religion ever have a meaningful dialogue? That's the question for a special edition of the Moral Maze from the Cheltenham Science Festival. Prof Peter Atkins (author: creation revisited) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Atkins Michael Buerk: Peter Atkins I know you are an atheist. You take the view that religion and science are utterly at odds. What do you make of people who believe in God? Peter Atkins: "They are slightly mad - well, almost completely mad! Science is the only way to true knowledge. Religion is a way of discovering what one thinks internally. Science is the way to truth. The sooner we discard religion from this world and particularly from the government of ourselves - the better it will be. " Clifford Longley: I'm a Roman Catholic - so I'm mad? What scientific evidence is there for that? Peter Atkins: You believe in superstition - I believe in facts; I believe you should decide whether there is a god by starting at the bottom ... is their any evidence for the existence of God? If their is evidence we should admit their is a god, so far I've not seen any evidence whatsoever for the existence of god, therefore I do not believe their is a god. Clifford Longley: What can science tell us about love, self sacrifice, heroism, laying down ones life for ones friends? It was sciences exact inability to throw any light on these things - which explains my own journey from atheism to Catholicism! Peter Atkins: science can deal with every reasonable question - I think their is nothing it cannot elucidate, provided you are patient and provided you break the questions down into smaller components. Love, self sacrifice, heroism, laying down ones life for ones friends - Love and these other things is about pychology - Love is about physiology, love is about the workings of the human brain - all reduced to brain chemistry. The brain is a physical object - it works on physical principles. There is nothing beyond the brain and therefore presumably everything that the brain puts out into the world can be subject to analysis. I'm not saying that science can answer these things at the moment but because it is a physical entity it is open to scientific investigation. Science is theoretically able, in principle, to answer all questions. Clifford Longley: So as a scientist - speaking strictly as a scientist - is capital punishment right or wrong? Peter Atkins: Yes I think one can. In a very broad sense now - we need to understand the basis about what is good in the world - and I believe what the nature of goodness has been moulded by our evolutionary inheritance - from ape to human living in a socitey. Also being able to reflect on the consequences of our actions which moulds our view of good. Melanie Philips: there are many scientists that do not share your view that there is nothing that science cannot elucidate eg Sir Martin Rees (Pres. Royal Soc), Sir Peter Medaware, cosmologist Alan Sandage ('I find it quite improbable that order came out of chaos'). Are they all mad? Peter Atkins: Well they are all incomplete scientists. A complete scientist should be an optimist. That the extraordinary tool that mankind has discovered, namely the scientific method, is capable in principle of answering every conceivable real question. If a scientist presents himself as a pessimist then he is betraying his skill. Science is the only way to knowledge and truth. Melanie Philips: science is not about certainty - its about probability - it weighs evidence. The claim that science can know that there is nothing it cannot know is itself unknowable and is therefore unscientific by your own test? What is your scientific evidence for your claim that science knows that there is nothing that science cannot know? Peter Atkins: I did not say I know it but it is my belief! Melanie Philips: Are belief! You mean faith!! Peter Atkins: I think the distinction between a philosopher and a scientist is that a philosopher is a pessimist and a scientist is an optimist. Because of the extraordinary tool that mankind has discovered, namely the scientific method, we are optimistic that this method is is capable in principle of answering every conceivable real question (it might take 100 or 10,00 years). We need to understand what is good; what all of us think of good is moulded by evolution from ape to human; being able to reflect on consequences of actions; Martin Rees - is an incomplete scientist - scientific method is capable of answering every reasonable question; science is only way to knowledge and truth. A philosopher is a pessimist - a scientist is an optimist! Prof. Raymond Tallis Genes for religion is a category unlikely. Science cannot explain consciousness. Prof Robert Winston you can be moral without religion. Religion and Science are both about mans uncertainty. | |
Monday, May 05, 2008
Does the Universe Have a Purpose? No.. by Peter Atkins
No.
Download PDF In the absence of evidence, the only reason to suppose that it does is sentimental wishful thinking and sentimental wishful thinking, which underlies all religion, is an unreliable tool for the discovery of truth of any kind.
The extension of analogies is another tool that accompanies wishful thinking in the toolboxes of the credulous. That an intricate mechanism, such as an engine or even a spoon, is commonly associated with a purpose cannot be taken to be evidence that the universe as a whole is associated with a purpose, any more than the existence of a cheetah implies that it has been designed with a purpose in mind. Cheetahs have evolved by the bloody, directionless, unguided processes of evolution: they have not been provided for the purpose of killing antelopes. Similarly,
the universe has evolved over its 14 billion years of current existence by the directionless, unguided processes that are manifestations of the working out of physical laws:it has not been made for the purpose of providing platforms to enable cheetahs to stalk their prey or humans to generate great art or to entertain delusions.
That we do not yet understand anything about the inception of the universe should not mean that we need to ascribe to its inception a supernatural cause, a creator, and therefore to associate with that creator's inscrutable mind a purpose, whether it be divine, malign, or even whimsically capricious.
Theologians typically focus on questions that they have invented for their own puzzlement. Some theologians are perplexed by the nature of life after death, a notion they have invented without a scrap of evidence.
Some are mystified by the existence of evil in a world created by an infinitely loving God, another notion that theologians have invented but which dissolves into nothing once it is realized that there is no God.
The question of cosmic purpose is likewise an invented notion, wholly without evidential foundation, and equally dismissible as patently absurd. We should not regard as great the questions that have been invented solely for the sake of eliciting puzzlement.
I regard the existence of this extraordinary universe as having a wonderful, awesome grandeur. It hangs there in all its glory, wholly and completely useless. To project onto it our human-inspired notion of purpose would, to my mind, sully and diminish it.
Peter William Atkins is a Fellow and professor of chemistry at Lincoln College, Oxford.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Beyond Belief - Enlightenment 2.0 - Peter Atkins
reposted from: http://thesciencenetwork.org/BeyondBelief2/Beyond Belief 2 was held in Autumn 2007. Speakers (full list) included 20+ scientists and philosophers.
Peter Atkins, Professor of Chemistry (30 minute video of talk)
I'm a fan of Peter Atkins! He is a wonderful ambassador for the supremacy of science as the best means of understanding the Universe. In his 20 minute talk he debunks both Theology AND Philosophy! Having said that I have hunted in vein to find a lengthy article or book on his views. Without further explanation of the reasoning behind his views, I find him to be just too dogmatic.
Prof. Peter Atkins said:-
I'm a reductionist - you can study the universe, take it apart, discover its simple components and then put it back together again.
Our universe may have emerged from a mother universe which emerged from a grandmother universe ad infinitum. But is it impossible to explain where the first universe came from? Not necessarily! It is conceivable that there was never a beginning to the Universe - but we should not admit that yet otherwise we lose the fight for understanding and comprehension. 
What are the properties of 'Absolutely Nothing'? How can you go from 'Absolutely Nothing' to 'dead flat spacetime'?
The Pre Enlightenment admiration was for Theology and Philosophy.
Enlightenment 1.0: was the Destruction of Theology. Philosophy & Science are the twins pillars of knowledge.
Enlightenment 2.0: Philosophy destruction. Science is the pillar of knowledge.Philosophy is such a ball & chain on progress and interferes with our true understanding. Philosophy has nothing to say about the fabric of reality and has nothing to say about ethical behaviour.
Enlightenment 3: Science is the pillar & 'Another' pillar, currently unknown, may arise.
Theology - the red traffic light - obfuscates; Philosophy - the orange traffic light - interferes with understanding and confuses; Science - the green traffic light - illuminates.
The flag for Enlightenment 2 and Science is the fractal diagram - art without end - get same pattern - do that forever - science is of boundless richness - there will never be an end to science - infinite complexity emerges from astonishing simplicity. Science is the only method of discovering the real truth about the universe.There is no real question that begins with the word 'Why'. Every 'Why' question should be deconstructed into 'How' questions. You only make progress with 'How' questions - you never make progress with 'why' questions.
eg. Why is their something rather than no
thing?
++++++++++++++++++
Is science superior to philosophy?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071213082202AAQUuBLhttp://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_thread/thread/0d54c420b3de9fbf
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Darwin and humanity: Should we rid the mind of God? (2007) - Peter Atkins & Alister McGrath
This is a really excellent talk by Peter Atkins. WASP love his point about "ALL Why questions are nonsensical and actually can be transformed to HOW questions that science could answer"
Atkins Highlights: "why shouldn't the Universe be wholly without Purpose. There is no evidence at all that the Universe has a purpose." (7 min)
Alister McGrath is a theologist. Mostly nonsensical!
A special debate between Alister McGrath, Professor of Historical Theology at Oxford University, author of "Dawkins' God" and "The Dawkins Delusion" and Peter Atkins, Professor of Chemistry at Oxford University, well-known atheist and supporter of Richard Dawkins. As seen on Channel 4's "The trouble with atheism".
View the Video (1 hour 20 mins - half that if you skip Alister McGrath's nonsense)
Link to Comments at: http://richarddawkins.net
Out of the 145 comments at 17th May 2007 (phew!) WASP thinks the following are interesting although some are way "off topic":-
1. Comment #27038 by James Carroll on March 23, 2007 at 1:56 am
Professor Atkins is amazing, and he was phenomenal in the debate. He made many great points and had a counterpoint to everything that Mr. McGrath said.My confidence in my own atheism has risen ten-fold after listening to Mr. Peter Atkins talk.
Thanks for posting this, and thanks Professor Atkins for brilliantly defending atheism. It's a pleasure to listen to.
3. Comment #27051 by bitbutter on March 23, 2007 at 3:36 am
I enjoyed this. In particular i was happy to be reminded of this piece of wisdom:"Why are we here?" : 'why' questions presuppose an underlying intentionality, a creator. This is an unjustified supposition. Hence, it's the wrong question.
4. Comment #27053 by Cineaste on March 23, 2007 at 3:43 am
Once the exchanges started, Atkins dominated this debate.5. Comment #27056 by Rtambree on March 23, 2007 at 3:50 am
A useful debating trick would be to ask the audience to just insert "Zeus" for whenever your theist opponent argues for God. The absurdity should immediately become self evident for the fence-sitters.15. Comment #27094 by Quine on March 23, 2007 at 6:08 am
I would have asked McGrath,"if Santa Clause does not exist, why do so many children believe in him?"30. Comment #27168 by davyB on March 23, 2007 at 10:37 am
The sound gets better at about 15 minutes.There's not much in this debate because McGrath's arguments are almost totally vacuuous. He once hinted at the design argument, but mostly he just says he believes because he "thinks it is true," or "it is what's good."
Atkins fumbled when he was asked why simple explanations are generally to be preferred to complicated ones.
35. Comment #27196 by Ricky Ramirez on March 23, 2007 at 1:40 pm
davyB said:"Atkins fumbled when he was asked why simple explanations are generally to be preferred to complicated ones."
I agree. I didn't watch the whole debate, but this would have been a perfect opportunity to explain Occam's Razor (or parsimony) and its use in the scientific method.
I love Occam's Razor; it really allows one to "slice" through the nonsensical arguments for the existence of supernatural gods.
36. Comment #27205 by Jenin on March 23, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Maybe McGrath thinks his ridiculously dramatic gestures and tone of voice cover up the fact he has absolutely nothing to say.38. Comment #27211 by keith on March 23, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Can someone explain this to me?"I knew just enough astronomy to know that the light from some of those stars wouldn't hit earth for hundreds of years"
How could he be looking at light arriving from stars yet think that it wouldn't arrive until hundreds of years later?
41. Comment #27214 by CaptainShiny on March 23, 2007 at 3:12 pm
My favorite part:"We see a world so infinitely complex--"
"So we should just cop out?"
42. Comment #27215 by gimlibengloin on March 23, 2007 at 3:14 pm
Rickt Ramirez (35)"I love Occam's Razor; it really allows one to "slice" through the nonsensical arguments for the existence of supernatural gods."
Hmmm! The problem is that Occam's razor isn't the objective test that many people like to think that it is. Both the theist and the atheist can use it with equal facility and conviction.
For example, in The Blind Watchmaker Richard dawkins argues that although the origin of life by chance is extremely improbable it is made much more probable if we allow for the existence of billions of other planets (or universes) - the argument being that out of all the billions and billions of planets it was bound to happen somewhere. Of course, the theist would have a 'field day' with this since a theory that requires the exuistence of billions and billions of unobservable planets (and universes?) to explain life is clearly at loggerheads with Occam's razor.
44. Comment #27220 by BaronOchs on March 23, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Interesting thoughts gimli. Is postulating -even infinitely many- other universes as big a leap as postulating a divine being?Hardly I think. Universes are things we know a little about, thanks to centuries of enquiry. We know they can exist and we know more than a little about how they do so. On the other hand we have no clue as to how an omnipotent-omniscient-eternal-being might exist, and as I have remarked in another post, we cannot in principle understand.
The bottom line is when cosmologists talk about a multiverse or other universe than our own, these are not just speculations but parts of theories than can ultimately offer testable predictions, even if we can't do so at this stage in science. That is more than can be said for any belief in a designer.
45. Comment #27222 by Janus on March 23, 2007 at 3:27 pm
That billions of planets exist is a fact. Occam's razor tells us not to posit the existence of superfluous entities. Things that we know exist aren't superfluous, by definition.As for multiple universes, while it's not an entirely stupid argument that they're just as superfluous as God, the multiverse hypothesis has the advantage of actually solving the problem of the universe's initial complexity. It has "explanatory power", as Atkins says. God has none whatsoever.
46. Comment #27223 by JJoe on March 23, 2007 at 3:31 pm
While I thought Prof. Atkins did a fine job I couldn't help thinking how much I would have preferred seeing Dawkins debate McGrath instead. I think Richard would have surely shredded some of McGrath's silly statements about science.Particularly McGrath's point about how Darwin might be usurped in 150 years by something else (and I'm paraphrasing his point) and how that somehow was a negative of science. On the contrary, I think that's one of the beauties of the scientific method. It's self-correcting mechanism of further refinement towards a more accurate understanding of the natural world. If something comes along that better explains our rise than evolution, then fine. If it's to be accepted it'll have to withstand rigorous debate and examination.
Can religion make the same claim? Since when did religion ever alter it's explanations of the world except when there was overwhelming social pressure or the rare papal epiphany?
56. Comment #27241 by RickM on March 23, 2007 at 4:03 pm
It's seems to be clearing up; I'm at 15 min. in. Also it's a bit better at:http://atheistdebate.org
Can I prove it?
67. Comment #27270 by Janus on March 23, 2007 at 4:51 pm
gimlibengloin wrote:"Its not clear as to how the multiverse theory solves the problem becuase they're exists no causal relation between myriads of other universes and our own universe. Ultimately the multiverse theory says that the universe is the result of chance but considering the number of trial runs it could conceivably happen. But chance is still the absense of an explanation.
On the other hand God does explain because as acknowledged by Dawkins living organisms give every appearance of having been designed by an intelligence. Therefore the creator hypothesis is a perfect fit with the facts."
The multiverse solves the problem of initial complexity because our universe, at its "beginning", was relatively simple; in fact, if some theoretical physicists are correct, it was fundamentally simple. Therefore all that still needs to be explained is why our universe has the kind of complexity it does, why the laws that govern it are those described by our theories (as opposed to other, imaginary theories). The multiverse hypothesis answers that last question. So complexity in general is explained, as is our universe's so-called fine-tuning.
On the other hand, God, defined as the uncaused designer and creator of Everything That Exists except itself, doesn't explain anything. Explaining something means describing the behavior of an entity in terms of simpler entities. Explaining a complex entity (the universe) by saying it was made by another complex entity (God) is an intermediate explanation at best, not an ultimate one. Let's say, for example, that we want to explain the origin of the first proto-cells on Earth. What would you think of someone who explains them by saying they were created by alien bio-engineers who came to Earth in their space-ships billions of years ago? That person may be right, but he hasn't explained much. He may have explained the origin of life on Earth, but he obviously hasn't explained the origin of life, period.
Likewise, saying God made our universe universe may explain the complexity of our universe, but it doesn't explain complexity, period. By appealing to the God hypothesis you're only pushing back the real problem, just as the person who appealed to alien bio-engineers did. It doesn't solve anything. The only way to truly explain complexity, to truly explain _everything_ is to come up with a real explanation: An explanation that describes the origin and behavior of everything in terms of fundamentally simple entities. Theories like those of Paul Davies (Google him) combined with the multiverse hypothesis do just that.
And by the way, chance isn't the absence of an explanation. Chance is a perfectly good explanation for why I got a '6' three times in a row when throwing a six-sided dice. Chance can be a _bad_ explanation when the odds are astronomically bad against a certain outcome, certainly, like it is in the case of lifeforms more complex than relatively simple self-replicating molecules, hence why natural selection is necessary.
An absence of an explanation (i.e. a hypothesis with no explanatory power) amounts to saying that complexity "just is", or "simply exists". For example, saying that the human species and all animals on Earth "just exist" would be a cop-out, obviously. Complexity begs for an explanation. Likewise, saying that God "just exists" is a cop-out, because God, by definition, has designed the universe, and must therefore be very intelligent indeed, and intelligence must be complex, again by definition.
Design cannot be the ultimate explanation for Everything That Exists, because it's explaining complexity by appealing to complexity. Chance might be the ultimate explanation, if the odds are good enough. If they aren't good enough, a complexity-generating process such as natural selection must be involved. It's the only true solution to the problem of complexity.
And now, after reading your latest post, I see that you're a creationist, which makes me very sorry I wasted my time replying to you. Ah well.
68. Comment #27273 by diquea on March 23, 2007 at 5:07 pm
I'm so glad Atkins called McGrath out on preaching with his opening 'argument.' Not only was it a sermon, but totally irrelevant to the topic being discussed. "SHOULD we rid our minds of religion," not "WILL we."I was also glad to see Atkins point out the idiocy of "why" questions, once one has a firm grasp of evolutionary theory
69. Comment #27275 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 23, 2007 at 5:08 pm
The brave men you mention, and I have to say you have some gall indeed to bring them up in this context, were the vangaurd that shattered the hold the church had on mens minds.Why else do we see such a fierce backlash against science in fundamentalist circles? Because they realise, belatedly thank goodness, that reason is their enemy. Of course the church has always been basically aware of this, hence the meme of "faith" and Luthers injunction to "put out the eyes of reason".
So that old carnard gets trotted out as usual:-) Where do our fancy morals come from? What is the meaning of life? WHY???
Grow up already, find your own meaning and stop trying to pin your existence to a foundation which is simply absent. We'll find our own way, with the ethical grammer evolution has built into us, and the application of these handy brains to overcome our baser instincts. Or maybe we won't. It's a crapshoot. In any event a book that encourages murder for non existent "crimes", genocide and slavery is not going to be much use to us.
Interesting choice of scripture, you really are whipped and spineless aren'tcha?
2:11 Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
Why? Because he'll kill me if I don't? Or he'll kill my family? Or torture me in hell for eternity? Gee ... I see the light now Jesus.
Here are a few other choice cuts of biblical morality.
Leviticus 21:9 And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.
24:16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.
14:18 The LORD is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.
(Shit! Can you say Orwell?)
Deuteronomy 2:34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain:
1 Samuel 6:19 And he smote the men of Bethshemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the LORD, even he smote of the people fifty thousand and threescore and ten men: and the people lamented, because the LORD had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter.
(Really, the whole alien technology run amok idea makes waaaay more sense)
2 Samuel 24:14 And David said unto Gad, I am in a great strait: let us fall now into the hand of the LORD; for his mercies are great: and let me not fall into the hand of man.
24:15 So the LORD sent a pestilence upon Israel from the morning even to the time appointed: and there died of the people from Dan even to Beersheba seventy thousand men.
Care to refer me to some more scripture? I've got lots of fun verses to share. Want to take a stab at justifying any of this toxic stuff? I could really use a laugh.
70. Comment #27277 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 23, 2007 at 5:20 pm
And now, after reading your latest post, I see that you're a creationist, which makes me very sorry I wasted my time replying to you. Ah well.Me too:-( GG let me refer you to http://www.talkorigins.org/ where all your bullshit (there really is no kinder way to describe this stuff) questions have long been answered and in excruciating detail.
Still, though I'd be happy to hear your defence of Gods behaviour in the scriptures I've pointed you to in His awesome majesties holy word. You certainly deserve every square inch of your ass kicked for using the utterly discredited macro/micro evolution distinction. It's just dishonest, tsk, tsk and you a Christian!!!
71. Comment #27278 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 23, 2007 at 5:41 pm
Let me close with this particularly senseless piece of drivel.2 Kings
2:22 So the waters were healed unto this day, according to the saying of Elisha which he spake.
2:23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
2:24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.
Wow!!! Mr. Grumpy, sensitive or what?
How can this possibly square with a loving God? Would 40 children really have hung about while the bears ate the first 2 kids? I mean really, would you?
Logistically how would this work? Lets assume the kids scatter in all directions, and it takes each bear 30 seconds to kill one child, and each running child can cover 100 metres in 30 seconds. Given the motivation, I consider this a modest understatement of their likely speed.
Then 90 seconds in we have 6 dead kids, and the bears in the middle (or perhaps off the centre) of a rapidly expanding circle of children at least 600 metres in diameter, and growing by 200 metres every 30 seconds. For goodness sake after 5 minutes, some of these kids will be 2 kilometres away from the damn bears, and surely the bears would stop and eat some of the kids whole? Which brings me on to my next question, how many 40 kilogram children can a bear actually eat?
Lets assume each bear weighs 500 kilos. Once again, 24 kids in, each bear has eaten their own body weight in kids ... likely?
Unless it was another of Gods miracles.
72. Comment #27279 by diquea on March 23, 2007 at 5:42 pm
"Positing the existence of a Designer/Creator for the universe and life isn't a 'cop-out' though, is it? Why does prof dawkins acknowledge that organisms look designed? BECAUSE THEY DO, BRIAN. And why do they look designed? BECAUSE THEY WERE, BRIAN. Can I prove it? Of course not. But its a better explanation than time, chance, and natural selection."Who cares if it fits the definition of the term "cop-out." I mean, in my opinion it is sort of an excuse, or an evasion of the responsibility of using the scientific mode of reasoning and seeking truth, so I'd say it is. But that doesn't matter. No one cares. The god-concept is meaningless; it is here to explain the design of complex systems which "appear to be designed" (I don't think they necessarily do), but is arbitrarily excluded from having to answer to this same 'problem.' As Dawkins also says, that thing which designs things which looks designed, must be equally complex. If you disagree with this, you do so [again] only arbitrarily.
Do they look designed? I don't know, were those 99% of all species which are now extinct designed? Did god just have a little trouble with designing, so he ended their line? Was it a hit-or-miss thing, or trial and error? Does the fact that thousands of people a year choke due to our breathing and eating through the same orifice seem designed?
A better explanation than time, chance and natural selection?! What a claim!! A better explanation because it takes less thought, work, and research? What makes it a better explanation? Because you can [once again] arbitrarily claim that every single fact is compatible with your god, because it works in mysterious ways? It is all powerful?
And by the way, there is NO better explanation than natural selection. It is an undeniable fact that natural selection is a MUST, given environmental conditions that make a specific gene more suitable for survival. It is only logical that natural selection is true, given environmental adaptation.
This is how it goes: There is nothing in the natural world that is SUGGESTIVE of a god. More importantly, there is no thing suggestive of any specific god, and definitely not of his opinions on homosexuality, and whether a woman ought to be stoned for not screaming loud enough while being raped. EVERYTHING is COMPATIBLE with a god-concept, if you allow him to be all-powerful and above logic, thereby giving him the ability to do anything.
73. Comment #27280 by Luthien on March 23, 2007 at 5:44 pm
69. Comment #27275 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 23, 2007 at 5:08 pmBrian, often these people try to claim that this is all Old Testament stuff, and Jesus bcame to correct all this (yeh, I know how weak that is). So I like to use the following quote from the New Testament:
"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." 1 Timothy 2:11-12
74. Comment #27282 by diquea on March 23, 2007 at 5:50 pm
"Brian, often these people try to claim that this is all Old Testament stuff, and Jesus bcame to correct all this (yeh, I know how weak that is)."I know exactly what you mean Luthien. I find it so incredibly odd, though, that they seek comfort in knowing that their god is no longer like this. Hey, sure... in the OLD Testament he was a disgusting personality. But he's different now, Jesus came and corrected all of it. As if it seems reasonable that Jesus (God himself) came to correct God's (Jesus himself) ludicrous demands and commands of the Old Testament. Even if God no longer desires those Old Testament laws still be followed, he DID, at one point in time. How does one seek solace in this?
75. Comment #27284 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 23, 2007 at 5:54 pm
I find it so incredibly odd, though, that they seek comfort in knowing that their god is no longer like this. Hey, sure... in the OLD Testament he was a disgusting personality. But he's different nowExactly. It is an indefensible position. Either God is all powerful and all loving, or he's not, and the Old Testament is proof positive that he's not. Hence the whole thing evaporates.
76. Comment #27285 by mmurray on March 23, 2007 at 6:07 pm
And why do they look designed? BECAUSE THEY WERE, BRIAN.
BOLLOCKS - Why do testicles hang outside the body -- it's a pretty silly place for equipment so vital to reproduction. Why are lower backs so prone to causing trouble in old age. Why can't we regrow our teeth -- lots of people in less advanced societies end up eating with their gums. What is the point of the appendix? Why don't we have voluntary control over conception -- that would save untold amounts of grief. Why run the windpipe and the foodpipe down the same tube making it very likely that people will choke.
And of course there is also the old joke: `How do we know god is a civil engineer' `Only a civil engineer would run a sewer through a recreation area'. [Apologies to the civil engineers :-)]
For every example of apparent good design there are lots of examples of botched patch up jobs which are what you would expect if natural selection was active because it can only make small incremental changes without any overview of the whole structure.
Stephen J Gould wrote some great essays on this. Try for example:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_panda's-thumb.html
Michael
78. Comment #27289 by diquea on March 23, 2007 at 6:37 pm
I have heard that testicles need to be at a slightly cooler temperature to keep sperm alive, than they would be were they inside the body. I'm not sure if that is correct, but just what I've heard.81. Comment #27293 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 23, 2007 at 6:52 pm
Earth, Mars, Venus -- which is the fourth ? Surely Mercury is too hot? I am not sure `thrive' is the right word for Mars.Certainly Mercury is quite hopeless. Mars is pretty good though, caves, weather and liquid water in the recent past.
The satellites of the gas giants provide a range of possible habitats. Europa probably has a liquid ocean beneath a thick crust of ice, and if this is the case it would be a brilliant environment for life. Titan, looks a lot like the primordial Earth.
Venus I'd have written off 5 years ago, but the discovery of organisims living in sulphur and boiling water next to deep sea vents here on Earth makes one wonder. This probably means we ought to give Io a shot as well.
So actually 4 mainstream, and 2 marginal life supporting environments in our solar system alone.
82. Comment #27294 by Bremas on March 23, 2007 at 7:07 pm
post 60. by briancoughlanworldcitizen"If the tyrannical christian God existed, we should kill him for attempting to enslave the human race."
That one hit my funnybone...If you don't mind, I'm going to steal it and use it later.
Also, for all those here trying to debate a fundie, I'm going to plagiarize from Dr. Atkins…The idea of god is just an insecure person looking for love. I say don't try to debate with them. Give them a lollipop to suck on instead. It might be more effective.
85. Comment #27300 by Zaphod on March 23, 2007 at 7:54 pm
McGrath just annoyed me when he kept saying and inferring atheism requires faith. He says he was an atheist. I am sorry but Mr McGrath doesn't know what the word means. How can you have faith in the lack of a belief, that is madness. His atheism is certainly not mine or the atheism of anyone I know. I have a lack of a belief in many things. Santa, Fairies, Zeus, Apollo, Allah, Yahweh, Bigfoot, zombies, ghosts etc. Does the lack of belief in these things require faith. State what faith in your opinion means Mr McGrath.Mr McGrath talks about meaning, good, evil, purpose, why? I am sorry but the universe doesn't owe you anything. It exists, it is here, and it is humans alone on this planet at least, that see things through purpose coloured spectacles. Just because we make things for a purpose doesn't mean life the universe and everything also has a purpose.
The fact that all life on this plant has a genetic origin in the primordials soup and even farther than that all matter in the solar system more or less was once at the heart of a star, this I think is an amazingly and fantastically mesmerising view. It is splendid in the extreme.
And on a final thought. The universe and the world don't revolve around you, the universe existed 10 billion years before the earth even arose and another 4.5998 billion years went by on earth without humanity. The universe and the earth and most of life that we know of doesn't need humanity. We are the first species to understand our surroundings at least on this planet. This is an amazing thing.
The fact that people don't see this as enough baffles me. You and I are lucky to be alive. Be grateful that you have the ability to understand the world at all.
89. Comment #27316 by DistrictSelectman on March 23, 2007 at 11:34 pm
Thank you for allowing me to see this McGrath twit in the flesh. He truly is a circus barker appealing to the recently born sucker.Also, around 45':
"I came here for an argument!"
"No you didn't!"
Hilarious.
90. Comment #27323 by thinkwiturhead on March 24, 2007 at 1:46 am
to me these types of debates should procede a lot differently.this guy says he was an atheist and then converted to christianity. the first question that should be thrown at this guy is why do you believe the proposition of christianity and what life expierence caused this belief rather than belief in another religion.
apart from purpose of existence...he should from the very beginning have to explain why he thinks God's son/one in the same with God was on Earth at one point and for some reason this figure only made himself known to a small jewish/roman community that represented a tiny portion of the world population...and from this all the other absurd claims christianity makes
if he addresed these question-- at least i could listen and try to understand where he is coming from. instead his debate is left to the small portion of knowledge science has yet completly explain...although all that are open minded can see what direction these questions are headed
92. Comment #27326 by epeeist on March 24, 2007 at 2:41 am
Comment #27261 by gimlibengloinI'm not sure the onus is on me since the Argument to Design is clearly the most reasonable explanation of the data. I'm not sure of the point you're making about 'religious retreat'. Firstly, the scientific method is an outgrowth of the biblical worldview - Bacon, Boyle, Descartes, Newton, Galileo, Pascal, Pasteur, maxwell ever heard of these guys? however, again I'm not sure of your point so I can't really respond to it.
Total ballocks as usual.
Science (note the Greek root) was an outgrowth of Greek civilisation. The underlying mathematics came from Babylon and Egypt. Without the contribution of Arabic numbers and the concept of zero (which seems to have originally come from India) it would have been difficult for science to get where it is today.
The progenitators of Jesus couldn't even get within spitting distance of the value of pi.
Your argument also fails in that the above scientists were not doing science Ad maiorem Dei gloriam. Bacon's formulation of scientific reason was in direct contradiction to the accepted, scholastic view.
95. Comment #27376 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 24, 2007 at 9:27 am
You may have the good grace to recognize that the problem is with humanity - not just religion.I think this is rather obvious frankly. If there is no God, no Devil etc., clearly our problems are self inflicted. In that context though, religion is not part of the solution, but part of the problem.
The relentless self deception required to believe the absurdities of religion, corrode and undermine cognition generally, and does nothing to assist the critical process of self analysis required to plumb the worst excesses of human nature.
The sooner we divest a significant proportion of the populace of the delusion of religious faith, the sooner we'll make faster progress.
97. Comment #27403 by Ricky Ramirez on March 24, 2007 at 11:54 am
gimlibengloin said:"living organisms give every appearance of having been designed by an intelligence."
By that logic the Sun gives every appearance of revolving around the Earth. Have you ever been in space?
"the scientific method is an outgrowth of the biblical worldview - Bacon, Boyle, Descartes, Newton, Galileo, Pascal, Pasteur, maxwell "
You are talking as if the scientific method was derived exclusively from the Bible...I hope you are not suggesting that pagan ancient Greeks like Thales of Miletus, Theodorus, Empedocles, Democritus, Anaxagoras, Euclid, Aristotle, Plato et al, were Bible readers!
100. Comment #27414 by Blacknad on March 24, 2007 at 12:58 pm
"The relentless self deception required to believe the absurdities of religion, corrode and undermine cognition generally, and does nothing to assist the critical process of self analysis required to plumb the worst excesses of human nature."So over half of the world's population have corroded cognition? Surely this is a generalization. It must feel good to be one of the intelligent ones able to look down from your lofty heights upon us lowly retards ;)
Is it every religious person who falls into that bracket?
Are there perhaps one or two who manage to have faith but can also maintain a proper critical analysis when it comes to science?
Maybe someone like Professor John Polkinghorne? Maybe one of the 10,000 members of the UK 'Christians in Science' (nothing to do with creationists – just people actually doing science)?
If it is possible that one religious person does not have corroded cognition but does have the 'critical process of self analysis required to plumb the worst excesses of human nature' then your argument falls, because there is then no definite link between cause and effect.
I would suggest that there are probably an equal number of people, both religious and non-religious who have corroded cognition, and this has little to do with the 'relentless self deception required to believe the absurdities of religion'. The UK is hardly religious, but half the population does not believe in evolution. This has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with ignorance. You may as well target your ire upon everyone who idles their life away in front of the TV and blindly accepts everything it chucks at them.
Or are you maybe looking at the US fundamentalists and painting us all with the same brush? If any system of thought or belief is judged by its worst excesses then we all fall. It is also not sound science to understand anything by its extremes.
The big difference between fundamentalists and moderates is nothing but an astounding degree of ignorance. Virtually every Christian I personally know accepts evolution as a sound theory and will agree that the evidence clearly supports it.
101. Comment #27418 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on March 24, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Virtually every Christian I personally know accepts evolution as a sound theory and will agree that the evidence clearly supports it.Thats super, but you still believe, that Jesus died for your sins, rose from the dead and listens to your prayers. You insist that God is three yet one. If you're catholic, you believe that the wafer turns into the literal flesh of Christ in the mass. Can you motivate these extreme beliefs? Do you have evidence for them? If you reject some, and accept others, on what basis do you do that?
C'mon Blacknad, if this is not impaired cognition, what is?
Look, I accept that we are all irrational from time to time, that we beleive things without evidence, and occasionally operate on faith. The critical difference is that the atheist/agnostic does not claim that their belief systems are endorsed by the creator of the universe. My irrationality must stand on its own, but the religious shore theirs up with "God", and there the conversation must end.
For the record, I was a fundamentalist, so I've got a really good idea what it's like in the inside. Now that I'm out, I can really see the whole mechanisim of obfuscation and doublespeak used to enslave me. A relentlessly honest analysis of the foundations of your faith is beneficial, read some (previously) banned books, Thomas Paine is a good place to start. Good luck.
103. Comment #27450 by Blacknad on March 24, 2007 at 5:29 pm
briancoughlanworldcitizen said:"My irrationality must stand on its own, but the religious shore theirs up with "God", and there the conversation must end.."
Hiya Brian,
Ex smokers are said to be the most likely to be anti-smoking. It seems to be the same with ex-fundamentalists.
You have experienced one form of Christianity, its worst form, and this will surely colour your perspective. It's just that as a Christian for 22 years my experience is that (outside the US) those types are in a minority, but obviously the most vocal and newsworthy. Those who just take Jesus' words at face value and try to go about doing good in their community are just not noteworthy. Moderate Christianity is massive and, in the main, is much less black and white than those who think they have a monopoly on truth and assume they have a literal, inerrant scripture.
For me and many others, the conversation does not end with "God".
I have a tenuous grip on the truth and do not allow my understanding of it stand in the way of what science tells me.
I don't really understand why the non religious have such a problem with people like me. I'm happy to let you get on with things as you wish and respect your choice to believe or disbelieve whatever you want.
I am in broad agreement with many of your criticisms of religion.
If no one objects I'll hang around. I'm interested in debate to futher understanding, especially my own. I have no interest in proselytising.
104. Comment #27452 by BaronOchs on March 24, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Well Blacknad you seem a nice bloke who enjoys churchgoing and having his balls stroked. So I'm interested to know, do you believe christianity is true and other religions are false? Or do you believe all religions express the same basic truths? What about Heaven and Hell? do you believe someone's fate after death depends on their acceptance of some specific metaphysical claims?105. Comment #27467 by Kervinator on March 24, 2007 at 6:40 pm
McGrath states that we are not born atheists but agnostics. This is just plain wrong. Atheism is the absence of belief in a deity whereas agnosticism is the argument that there is not enough evidence for or against the existence of a deity. Since when is a child born with the knowledge of the "possibility" of there being a god? I'm surprised Atkins didn't jump all over that one.110. Comment #27519 by k1mgy on March 25, 2007 at 6:16 am
Atkins remark on arrogance was downright funny and well put. I shall have many occasions to use it myself.The sound was not from a camera microphone but appeared to be snagged from a microphone on a stand to the front of Professor McGrath. Might say something as to a possibility of the technician's leaning, or lack of thought. Had it been placed front and centre of the table, we would then have heard both speakers equally poorly.
116. Comment #27817 by Rick777 on March 27, 2007 at 12:03 am
This was a classic debate of this type . The basic issue being epistemology, which was touched on several times by Prof Atkins but was not responded to in any meaningful way whatsoever by McGrath. When pushed by an audience question to clarify , McGrath went straight to the New Testament, I think this pretty much answered that question.Prof McGrath loves the argument from 'meaning and purpose",but never once explained how belief in a ubiquitous disembodied entity gave meaning to ones life that would not be there if there wasn`t one? I think Ian McGinn might have been a good match for McGraths` codswollop on that point.
Faith can transform your life ? Well, I just watched a documentary on the Discovery channel here in Canada regarding the "Heavens Gate " cult and subsequent mass suicide. Every person interviewed in that cult prior to their group demise found ultimate meaning and purpose that transformed their lives . Right down to gleefully showing off their Star Trek like uniforms emblazened with "Heavens Gate AWAY TEAM" patches !
117. Comment #28036 by Priapus on March 27, 2007 at 4:42 pm
That McGrath character is a bloody monomaniac; monomaniacally obsessed with Dawkins. Throughout this debate, McGrath's monomaniacal proclivity manifests itself numerously and arbitrarily and without provocation; he simply conjures Dawkins out of nowhere, almost foaming at the mouth. McGrath needs to learn that, in endeavouring to negate the arguments put forward by Richard Dawkins, he is not providing any evidence or argument of his own. Dawkins, brilliant as he is, is just one man amongst billions who have lived and billions who will live; all of whom may have been given over to the occasional bout of fallibility...Why is he so obsessed with and fixated on Richard Dawkins? There are plenty of 'infidels' out there putting forth a multifarious welter of arguments against God and indeed against the ludicrious manifestions of belief in God, the miasmatic ooze of which is plaguing the potential for progressive 21st century discourse; c'mon now McGrath... I am waiting with fervid anticipation for The Pinker Delusion, The Harris Delusion, The Dennett Delusion, The Sagan Delusion, The Hitchens Delusion, The Russell Delusion, The Priapus Delusion etc etc etc etc etc etc etc.......
119. Comment #28512 by jamesstephenbrown on March 29, 2007 at 2:08 pm
I don't know how I would perform in front of a crowded auditorium, but it did strike me that McGrath missed a few simple points...Why is Atheism simpler?
Because it doesn't posit a God (the most complex thing in the universe, apparently).
If something is outside the field of science, then it is not unscientific to deny it, it is unscientific to assert it.
And finally, there is a very good reason that the concept of God exists despite God's actual non-existence. It's called organised religion. If God's existence was so self-evident, why would we need churches?
121. Comment #28518 by Rtambree on March 29, 2007 at 2:29 pm
Question to Alister McGrath: Would you like a glass of water?Alister McGrath: Before I undertake to enter into a dialogue about the probabilities and significance of the issues surrounding the underlying tension inherent to the parameters of the question, I think we need to engage in a different investigation altogether, one of epistemological and ontological necessity, or as Quine wrote, the matrices that derive from resolving the contingencies arising from a theological and ecumenical reconciliation between whether the water or the glass are framed in the same meta-space as my thirst, without the holistic prism that the scriptures illuminate through their transcendence, and this is, in my mind, something that we can address further.
140. Comment #29808 by Bonzai on April 4, 2007 at 10:58 pm
I don't think there is much to be debated, I don't think there is much that can be debated.There are two seperate questions
1) Whether there is a God?
2) Whether a belief in a God is meaningful in people's life?
Atkins mainly tried to argue that the answer to 1) is "no". He seemed to take for granted that a negative answer to 2) automatically (or easily) followed from a negative answer to 1).
McGrath on the other hand attempted clumsily and in vain to deduce "yes" to 1) based on his "yes" answer to 2). For him an affirmative answer to 2) is not difficult to establish as it is about his subjective experience.
But it is entirely possible that the answer to 1) is negative but still the answer to 2) is affirmative. I think this is indeed the way it is. I agree with Dawkins that there is little evidence to support that there is a God; indeed evidence that we do have strongly suggests the absence of such a being. But for many people the belief of God does have a transformative effect on their lives, for better or for worse.
Thus the two speakers were basically talking over each other's head.
I do not agree with atheists such as Dawkins and Harris who insist on exorcising God out of people's belief system.
First, I don't see the necessity of it. So what if it is not real? If placebo works for you who am I to take it away?
In terms of social effects the issue should be what people do with their religious beliefs, not whether such beliefs are absent or present. Some people become suicide bombers because of religion, but faith also motivates others to dedicate their lives for the betterment of others. I am aware of Weinberg's famous quote and I think there is some truth to it. But if you blame religion for people who do horrible things in the name of God like Dawkins argues, you cannot dismiss the believers who claim that they become better people because of their faith.
In arguing that religion should die simply because it is irrational is tentamount of turning rationality itself to a virtue. It is not self evident, at least not to me. For example, it may be that self sacrifice is irrational while cheating and lying to gain benefits is eminantly rational( at least according to the system of cost benefit analysis adopted by a lot of economists, there are other ways to do these calculi, but the point is deciding what is "rational" may not be as easy as it seems) With the proper framework one can probably argue that rationality is "desirable" for most instances but an argument is required and I have the feeling that it is not so easy. But Dawkins and his supporters simply take this as an axiom.
Secondly, most people won't be persuaded to give up religion simply because of rational arguments. Afterall, few people become religious because they are convinced by alledged proof of God's existence by theologians. For most believers religion appeals at a more primal, emotional level. Dawkins may have an explanation for this primal yearn from biology, but having an explanation doesn't make the feeling less real. We know from biology that "love" is just a chemical trick but I don't think even the author of the selfish genes sees his children as just meat bags that carry his DNAs. I sure hope not.
That being the case, hitting people over the head, telling them that they are stupid for believing in imaginary beings is not going to change many hearts and minds. You may actually turn people off by acting like secular evangelicals.
145. Comment #30692 by maton100 on April 9, 2007 at 11:06 am
Why doesn't God himself come down and debate. Why does God always need an attorney?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)