Wednesday, September 24, 2008

The Dawkins Confusion

By Dr. Alvin Plantinga

Richard Dawkins is not pleased with God:

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all of fiction. Jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic-cleanser; a misogynistic homophobic racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal...

Well, no need to finish the quotation; you get the idea. Dawkins seems to have chosen God as his sworn enemy. (Let's hope for Dawkins' sake God doesn't return the compliment.)

The God Delusion is an extended diatribe against religion in general and belief in God in particular; Dawkins and Daniel Dennett (whose recent Breaking the Spell is his contribution to this genre) are the touchdown twins of current academic atheism.[1] Dawkins has written his book, he says, partly to encourage timorous atheists to come out of the closet. He and Dennett both appear to think it requires considerable courage to attack religion these days; says Dennett, "I risk a fist to the face or worse. Yet I persist." Apparently atheism has its own heroes of the faith—at any rate its own self-styled heroes. Here it's not easy to take them seriously; religion-bashing in the current Western academy is about as dangerous as endorsing the party's candidate at a Republican rally.

Dawkins is perhaps the world's most popular science writer; he is also an extremely gifted science writer. (For example, his account of bats and their ways in his earlier book The Blind Watchmaker is a brilliant and fascinating tour de force.) The God Delusion, however, contains little science; it is mainly philosophy and theology (perhaps "atheology" would be a better term) and evolutionary psychology, along with a substantial dash of social commentary decrying religion and its allegedly baneful effects. As the above quotation suggests, one shouldn't look to this book for evenhanded and thoughtful commentary. In fact the proportion of insult, ridicule, mockery, spleen, and vitriol is astounding. (Could it be that his mother, while carrying him, was frightened by an Anglican clergyman on the rampage?) If Dawkins ever gets tired of his day job, a promising future awaits him as a writer of political attack ads.

Now despite the fact that this book is mainly philosophy, Dawkins is not a philosopher (he's a biologist). Even taking this into account, however, much of the philosophy he purveys is at best jejune. You might say that some of his forays into philosophy are at best sophomoric, but that would be unfair to sophomores; the fact is (grade inflation aside), many of his arguments would receive a failing grade in a sophomore philosophy class. This, combined with the arrogant, smarter-than-thou tone of the book, can be annoying. I shall put irritation aside, however and do my best to take Dawkins' main argument seriously.

Chapter 3, "Why There Almost Certainly is No God," is the heart of the book. Well, why does Dawkins think there almost certainly isn't any such person as God? It's because, he says, the existence of God is monumentally improbable. How improbable? The astronomer Fred Hoyle famously claimed that the probability of life arising on earth (by purely natural means, without special divine aid) is less than the probability that a flight-worthy Boeing 747 should be assembled by a hurricane roaring through a junkyard. Dawkins appears to think the probability of the existence of God is in that same neighborhood—so small as to be negligible for all practical (and most impractical) purposes. Why does he think so?

Here Dawkins doesn't appeal to the usual anti-theistic arguments—the argument from evil, for example, or the claim that it's impossible that there be a being with the attributes believers ascribe to God.[2] So why does he think theism is enormously improbable? The answer: if there were such a person as God, he would have to be enormously complex, and the more complex something is, the less probable it is: "However statistically improbable the entity you seek to explain by invoking a designer, the designer himself has got to be at least as improbable. God is the Ultimate Boeing 747." The basic idea is that anything that knows and can do what God knows and can do would have to be incredibly complex. In particular, anything that can create or design something must be at least as complex as the thing it can design or create. Putting it another way, Dawkins says a designer must contain at least as much information as what it creates or designs, and information is inversely related to probability. Therefore, he thinks, God would have to be monumentally complex, hence astronomically improbable; thus it is almost certain that God does not exist.

But why does Dawkins think God is complex? And why does he think that the more complex something is, the less probable it is? Before looking more closely into his reasoning, I'd like to digress for a moment; this claim of improbability can help us understand something otherwise very perplexing about Dawkins' argument in his earlier and influential book, The Blind Watchmaker. There he argues that the scientific theory of evolution shows that our world has not been designed—by God or anyone else. This thought is trumpeted by the subtitle of the book: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design.

How so? Suppose the evidence of evolution suggests that all living creatures have evolved from some elementary form of life: how does that show that the universe is without design? Well, if the universe has not been designed, then the process of evolution is unguided, unorchestrated, by any intelligent being; it is, as Dawkins suggests, blind. So his claim is that the evidence of evolution reveals that evolution is unplanned, unguided, unorchestrated by any intelligent being.

But how could the evidence of evolution reveal a thing like that? After all, couldn't it be that God has directed and overseen the process of evolution? What makes Dawkins think evolution is unguided? What he does in The Blind Watchmaker, fundamentally, is three things. First, he recounts in vivid and arresting detail some of the fascinating anatomical details of certain living creatures and their incredibly complex and ingenious ways of making a living; this is the sort of thing Dawkins does best. Second, he tries to refute arguments for the conclusion that blind, unguided evolution could not have produced certain of these wonders of the living world—the mammalian eye, for example, or the wing. Third, he makes suggestions as to how these and other organic systems could have developed by unguided evolution.

Suppose he's successful with these three things: how would that show that the universe is without design? How does the main argument go from there? His detailed arguments are all for the conclusion that it is biologically possible that these various organs and systems should have come to be by unguided Darwinian mechanisms (and some of what he says here is of considerable interest). What is truly remarkable, however, is the form of what seems to be the main argument. The premise he argues for is something like this:

1. We know of no irrefutable objections to its being biologically possible that all of life has come to be by way of unguided Darwinian processes;

and Dawkins supports that premise by trying to refute objections to its being biologically possible that life has come to be that way. His conclusion, however, is:

2. All of life has come to be by way of unguided Darwinian processes.

It's worth meditating, if only for a moment, on the striking distance, here, between premise and conclusion. The premise tells us, substantially, that there are no irrefutable objections to its being possible that unguided evolution has produced all of the wonders of the living world; the conclusion is that it is true that unguided evolution has indeed produced all of those wonders. The argument form seems to be something like

We know of no irrefutable objections to its being possible that p;
Therefore
p is true.

Philosophers sometimes propound invalid arguments (I've propounded a few myself); few of those arguments display the truly colossal distance between premise and conclusion sported by this one. I come into the departmental office and announce to the chairman that the dean has just authorized a $50,000 raise for me; naturally he wants to know why I think so. I tell him that we know of no irrefutable objections to its being possible that the dean has done that. My guess is he'd gently suggest that it is high time for me to retire.

Here is where that alleged massive improbability of theism is relevant. If theism is false, then (apart from certain weird suggestions we can safely ignore) evolution is unguided. But it is extremely likely, Dawkins thinks, that theism is false. Hence it is extremely likely that evolution is unguided—in which case to establish it as true, he seems to think, all that is needed is to refute those claims that it is impossible. So perhaps we can think about his Blind Watchmaker argument as follows: he is really employing as an additional if unexpressed premise his idea that the existence of God is enormously unlikely. If so, then the argument doesn't seem quite so magnificently invalid. (It is still invalid, however, even if not quite so magnificently—you can't establish something as a fact by showing that objections to its possibility fail, and adding that it is very probable.)

Now suppose we return to Dawkins' argument for the claim that theism is monumentally improbable. As you recall, the reason Dawkins gives is that God would have to be enormously complex, and hence enormously improbable ("God, or any intelligent, decision-making calculating agent, is complex, which is another way of saying improbable"). What can be said for this argument?

Not much. First, is God complex? According to much classical theology (Thomas Aquinas, for example) God is simple, and simple in a very strong sense, so that in him there is no distinction of thing and property, actuality and potentiality, essence and existence, and the like. Some of the discussions of divine simplicity get pretty complicated, not to say arcane.[3] (It isn't only Catholic theology that declares God simple; according to the Belgic Confession, a splendid expression of Reformed Christianity, God is "a single and simple spiritual being.") So first, according to classical theology, God is simple, not complex.[4] More remarkable, perhaps, is that according to Dawkins' own definition of complexity, God is not complex. According to his definition (set out in The Blind Watchmaker), something is complex if it has parts that are "arranged in a way that is unlikely to have arisen by chance alone." But of course God is a spirit, not a material object at all, and hence has no parts.[5] A fortiori (as philosophers like to say) God doesn't have parts arranged in ways unlikely to have arisen by chance. Therefore, given the definition of complexity Dawkins himself proposes, God is not complex.

So first, it is far from obvious that God is complex. But second, suppose we concede, at least for purposes of argument, that God is complex. Perhaps we think the more a being knows, the more complex it is; God, being omniscient, would then be highly complex. Perhaps so; still, why does Dawkins think it follows that God would be improbable? Given materialism and the idea that the ultimate objects in our universe are the elementary particles of physics, perhaps a being that knew a great deal would be improbable—how could those particles get arranged in such a way as to constitute a being with all that knowledge? Of course we aren't given materialism. Dawkins is arguing that theism is improbable; it would be dialectically deficient in excelsis to argue this by appealing to materialism as a premise. Of course it is unlikely that there is such a person as God if materialism is true; in fact materialism logically entails that there is no such person as God; but it would be obviously question-begging to argue that theism is improbable because materialism is true.

So why think God must be improbable? According to classical theism, God is a necessary being; it is not so much as possible that there should be no such person as God; he exists in all possible worlds. But if God is a necessary being, if he exists in all possible worlds, then the probability that he exists, of course, is 1, and the probability that he does not exist is 0. Far from its being improbable that he exists, his existence is maximally probable. So if Dawkins proposes that God's existence is improbable, he owes us an argument for the conclusion that there is no necessary being with the attributes of God—an argument that doesn't just start from the premise that materialism is true. Neither he nor anyone else has provided even a decent argument along these lines; Dawkins doesn't even seem to be aware that he needs an argument of that sort.

A second example of Dawkinsian-style argument. Recently a number of thinkers have proposed a new version of the argument from design, the so-called "Fine-Tuning Argument." Starting in the late Sixties and early Seventies, astrophysicists and others noted that several of the basic physical constants must fall within very narrow limits if there is to be the development of intelligent life—at any rate in a way anything like the way in which we think it actually happened. For example, if the force of gravity were even slightly stronger, all stars would be blue giants; if even slightly weaker, all would be red dwarfs; in neither case could life have developed. The same goes for the weak and strong nuclear forces; if either had been even slightly different, life, at any rate life of the sort we have, could probably not have developed. Equally interesting in this connection is the so-called flatness problem: the existence of life also seems to depend very delicately upon the rate at which the universe is expanding. Thus Stephen Hawking:

reduction of the rate of expansion by one part in 1012 at the time when the temperature of the Universe was 1010 K would have resulted in the Universe's starting to recollapse when its radius was only 1/3000 of the present value and the temperature was still 10,000 K.[6]

That would be much too warm for comfort. Hawking concludes that life is possible only because the universe is expanding at just the rate required to avoid recollapse. At an earlier time, he observes, the fine-tuning had to be even more remarkable:

we know that there has to have been a very close balance between the competing effect of explosive expansion and gravitational contraction which, at the very earliest epoch about which we can even pretend to speak (called the Planck time, 10-43 sec. after the big bang), would have corresponded to the incredible degree of accuracy represented by a deviation in their ratio from unity by only one part in 10 to the sixtieth.[7]

One reaction to these apparent enormous coincidences is to see them as substantiating the theistic claim that the universe has been created by a personal God and as offering the material for a properly restrained theistic argument—hence the fine-tuning argument.[8] It's as if there are a large number of dials that have to be tuned to within extremely narrow limits for life to be possible in our universe. It is extremely unlikely that this should happen by chance, but much more likely that this should happen if there is such a person as God.

Now in response to this kind of theistic argument, Dawkins, along with others, proposes that possibly there are very many (perhaps even infinitely many) universes, with very many different distributions of values over the physical constants. Given that there are so many, it is likely that some of them would display values that are life-friendly. So if there are an enormous number of universes displaying different sets of values of the fundamental constants, it's not at all improbable that some of them should be "fine-tuned." We might wonder how likely it is that there are all these other universes, and whether there is any real reason (apart from wanting to blunt the fine-tuning arguments) for supposing there are any such things.[9] But concede for the moment that indeed there are many universes and that it is likely that some are fine-tuned and life-friendly. That still leaves Dawkins with the following problem: even if it's likely that some universes should be fine-tuned, it is still improbable that this universe should be fine-tuned. Name our universe alpha: the odds that alpha should be fine-tuned are exceedingly, astronomically low, even if it's likely that some universe or other is fine-tuned.

What is Dawkins' reply? He appeals to "the anthropic principle," the thought that the only sort of universe in which we could be discussing this question is one which is fine-tuned for life:

the anthropic answer, in its most general form, is that we could only be discussing the question in the kind of universe that was capable of producing us. Our existence therefore determines that the fundamental constants of physics had to be in their respective Goldilocks [life-friendly] zones.

Well, of course our universe would have to be fine-tuned, given that we live in it. But how does that so much as begin to explain why it is that alpha is fine-tuned? One can't explain this by pointing out that we are indeed here—anymore than I can "explain" the fact that God decided to create me (instead of passing me over in favor of someone else) by pointing out that if God had not thus decided, I wouldn't be here to raise that question. It still seems striking that these constants should have just the values they do have; it is still monumentally improbable, given chance, that they should have just those values; and it is still much less improbable that they should have those values, if there is a God who wanted a life-friendly universe.

One more example of Dawkinsian thought. In The Blind Watchmaker, he considers the claim that since the self-replicating machinery of life is required for natural selection to work, God must have jumpstarted the whole evolutionary process by specially creating life in the first place—by specially creating the original replicating machinery of DNA and protein that makes natural selection possible. Dawkins retorts as follows:

This is a transparently feeble argument, indeed it is obviously self-defeating. Organized complexity is the thing that we are having difficulty in explaining. Once we are allowed simply to postulate organized complexity, if only the organized complexity of the DNA/protein replicating machine, it is relatively easy to invoke it as a generator of yet more organized complexity… . But of course any God capable of intelligently designing something as complex as the DNA/protein machine must have been at least as complex and organized as that machine itself… . To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer.

In Darwin's Dangerous Idea, Daniel Dennett approvingly quotes this passage from Dawkins and declares it an "unrebuttable refutation, as devastating today as when Philo used it to trounce Cleanthes in Hume's Dialogues two centuries earlier." Now here in The God Delusion Dawkins approvingly quotes Dennett approvingly quoting Dawkins, and adds that Dennett (i.e., Dawkins) is entirely correct.

Here there is much to say, but I'll say only a bit of it. First, suppose we land on an alien planet orbiting a distant star and discover machine-like objects that look and work just like tractors; our leader says "there must be intelligent beings on this planet who built those tractors." A first-year philosophy student on our expedition objects: "Hey, hold on a minute! You have explained nothing at all! Any intelligent life that designed those tractors would have to be at least as complex as they are." No doubt we'd tell him that a little learning is a dangerous thing and advise him to take the next rocket ship home and enroll in another philosophy course or two. For of course it is perfectly sensible, in that context, to explain the existence of those tractors in terms of intelligent life, even though (as we can concede for the moment) that intelligent life would have to be at least as complex as the tractors. The point is we aren't trying to give an ultimate explanation of organized complexity, and we aren't trying to explain organized complexity in general; we are only trying to explain one particular manifestation of it (those tractors). And (unless you are trying to give an ultimate explanation of organized complexity) it is perfectly proper to explain one manifestation of organized complexity in terms of another. Similarly, in invoking God as the original creator of life, we aren't trying to explain organized complexity in general, but only a particular kind of it, i.e., terrestrial life. So even if (contrary to fact, as I see it) God himself displays organized complexity, we would be perfectly sensible in explaining the existence of terrestrial life in terms of divine activity.

A second point: Dawkins (and again Dennett echoes him) argues that "the main thing we want to explain" is "organized complexity." He goes on to say that "The one thing that makes evolution such a neat theory is that it explains how organized complexity can arise out of primeval simplicity," and he faults theism for being unable to explain organized complexity. Now mind would be an outstanding example of organized complexity, according to Dawkins, and of course (unlike with organized complexity) it is uncontroversial that God is a being who thinks and knows; so suppose we take Dawkins to be complaining that theism doesn't offer an explanation of mind. It is obvious that theists won't be able to give an ultimate explanation of mind, because, naturally enough, there isn't any explanation of the existence of God. Still, how is that a point against theism? Explanations come to an end; for theism they come to an end in God. Of course the same goes for any other view; on any view explanations come to an end. The materialist or physicalist, for example, doesn't have an explanation for the existence of elementary particles: they just are. So to claim that what we want or what we need is an ultimate explanation of mind is, once more, just to beg the question against theism; the theist neither wants nor needs an ultimate explanation of personhood, or thinking, or mind.

Toward the end of the book, Dawkins endorses a certain limited skepticism. Since we have been cobbled together by (unguided) evolution, it is unlikely, he thinks, that our view of the world is overall accurate; natural selection is interested in adaptive behavior, not in true belief. But Dawkins fails to plumb the real depths of the skeptical implications of the view that we have come to be by way of unguided evolution. We can see this as follows. Like most naturalists, Dawkins is a materialist about human beings: human persons are material objects; they are not immaterial selves or souls or substances joined to a body, and they don't contain any immaterial substance as a part. From this point of view, our beliefs would be dependent on neurophysiology, and (no doubt) a belief would just be a neurological structure of some complex kind. Now the neurophysiology on which our beliefs depend will doubtless be adaptive; but why think for a moment that the beliefs dependent on or caused by that neurophysiology will be mostly true? Why think our cognitive faculties are reliable?

From a theistic point of view, we'd expect that our cognitive faculties would be (for the most part, and given certain qualifications and caveats) reliable. God has created us in his image, and an important part of our image bearing is our resembling him in being able to form true beliefs and achieve knowledge. But from a naturalist point of view the thought that our cognitive faculties are reliable (produce a preponderance of true beliefs) would be at best a naïve hope. The naturalist can be reasonably sure that the neurophysiology underlying belief formation is adaptive, but nothing follows about the truth of the beliefs depending on that neurophysiology. In fact he'd have to hold that it is unlikely, given unguided evolution, that our cognitive faculties are reliable. It's as likely, given unguided evolution, that we live in a sort of dream world as that we actually know something about ourselves and our world.

If this is so, the naturalist has a defeater for the natural assumption that his cognitive faculties are reliable—a reason for rejecting that belief, for no longer holding it. (Example of a defeater: suppose someone once told me that you were born in Michigan and I believed her; but now I ask you, and you tell me you were born in Brazil. That gives me a defeater for my belief that you were born in Michigan.) And if he has a defeater for that belief, he also has a defeater for any belief that is a product of his cognitive faculties. But of course that would be all of his beliefs—including naturalism itself. So the naturalist has a defeater for naturalism; natural- ism, therefore, is self-defeating and cannot be rationally believed.

The real problem here, obviously, is Dawkins' naturalism, his belief that there is no such person as God or anyone like God. That is because naturalism implies that evolution is unguided. So a broader conclusion is that one can't rationally accept both naturalism and evolution; naturalism, therefore, is in conflict with a premier doctrine of contemporary science. People like Dawkins hold that there is a conflict between science and religion because they think there is a conflict between evolution and theism; the truth of the matter, however, is that the conflict is between science and naturalism, not between science and belief in God.

The God Delusion is full of bluster and bombast, but it really doesn't give even the slightest reason for thinking belief in God mistaken, let alone a "delusion."

The naturalism that Dawkins embraces, furthermore, in addition to its intrinsic unloveliness and its dispiriting conclusions about human beings and their place in the universe, is in deep self-referential trouble. There is no reason to believe it; and there is excellent reason to reject it.

Alvin Plantinga is John A. O'Brien Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame.

  1. [1] A third book along these lines, The End of Faith, has recently been written by Sam Harris, and more recently still a sequel, Letter to a Christian Nation, so perhaps we should speak of the touchdown triplets—or, given that Harris is very much the junior partner in this enterprise (he's a grad student) maybe the "Three Bears of Atheism"?
  2. [2] Although Dawkins does bring up (p. 54), apparently approvingly, the argument that God can't be both omniscient and omnipotent: if he is omniscient, then he can't change his mind, in which case there is something he can't do, so that he isn't omnipotent(!).
  3. [3] See my Does God Have a Nature? Aquinas Lecture 44 (Marquette Univ. Press, 1980).
  4. [4] The distinguished Oxford philosopher (Dawkins calls him a theologian) Richard Swinburne has proposed some sophisticated arguments for the claim that God is simple. Dawkins mentions Swinburne's argument, but doesn't deign to come to grips with it; instead he resorts to ridicule (pp. 110-111).
  5. [5] What about the Trinity? Just how we are to think of the Trinity is of course not wholly clear; it is clear, however, that it is false that in addition to each of the three persons of the Trinity, there is also another being of which each of those persons is a part.
  6. [6] "The Anisotropy of the Universe at Large Times," in M. S. Longair, ed., Confrontation of Cosmological Theories with Observational Data (Springer, 2002), p. 285.
  7. [7] John Polkinghorne, Science and Creation: The Search for Understanding (Random House, 1989), p. 22.
  8. [8] One of the best versions of the fine-tuning argument is proposed by Robin Collins in "A Scientific Argument for the Existence of God: The Fine-Tuning Design Argument," in Michael J. Murray, ed., Reason for the Hope Within (Eerdmans, 1999), pp. 47-75.
  9. [9] See my review of Daniel Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea in Books & Culture, May/June 1996.

Source: ChristianityToday.com

23 comments:

  1. Plantiga - ick. Come on guys, some of your own content please.

    Just quickly,

    1. The first point about evolution is in fact a strawman. Dawkins does not say there is definitely no god (he is a "weak atheist"). He is merely pointing out that observed phenomenon such as evolution are contrary to the description given to the God in the Bible, thus, the God of the Bible does not exist. Of course, Im sure you would get an interesting answer if you asked Plantiga how old the universe was.

    2. Dawkins, in the Blind Watchmaker (my copy of which Ryan still has and hopefully he has now proceeded beyond the preface), Dawkins shows that the development of particular characteristics (arms, brains, hair etc) is the result of evolutionary processes - that is, a process of mutation and variation that is guided by natural selection to the next generation (standard evolutionary theory - not "unguided" as proposed by Plantiga, yet another strawman). Dawkins shows that the "designer" is the cumulation of natural selection and not the result of an additional intelligence or entity as supposed by theists. This answer, of course, is neater and far more simple that God because it does not require the extra parts. Furthermore, there is no evidence of a guiding hand in evolution - that remains something that we can say has not factual basis in the theory of evolution.

    3. Plantiga's point that, even if we evolved - God could have directed that process, runs counter natural selection in that natural selection does not have any cause other than environmental factors, in which case, plantiga is supposing that God controls the initial conditions - the problem with which is that he doesn't control these things from contempraneous events but rather an initial point - this requires faith in a deterministic universe (problem of evil and problem of hell would discount it).

    5. Plantiga's confusion about the argument comes from being too close to it. He states So perhaps we can think about his Blind Watchmaker argument as follows: he is really employing as an additional if unexpressed premise his idea that the existence of God is enormously unlikely. If so, then the argument doesn't seem quite so magnificently invalid. (It is still invalid, however, even if not quite so magnificently—you can't establish something as a fact by showing that objections to its possibility fail, and adding that it is very probable.). Plantiga ignores that these are competing explanations for the universe and considers they can be mixed into a single truth. That is, however, unsupported in fact because there is nothing in evolutionary theory to suggest a designer and nothing in theology to suggest a natural method of evolution. One cannot cross from theology to look at the results of a purely scientific conclusion and then apply a theological explanation because it would require crossing two separate types of reasoning to reach a mixed conclusion. In other words, plantiga cannot approach a scientific conclusion and then discount it on the basis of foreign reasoning as it does not change the result of the scientific investigation. In other words, science resolves evolution without a designer - for a theologian to then say that evolution is caused by God does not actually change or affect the merit of the scientific conclusion.

    6. But of course God is a spirit, not a material object at all, and hence has no parts.[5] A fortiori (as philosophers like to say) God doesn't have parts arranged in ways unlikely to have arisen by chance. Therefore, given the definition of complexity Dawkins himself proposes, God is not complex.

    This is completely false because God is supposed to be able to do things (ie design). Which is more complex, a tree or a human being - on plantiga's understand, the tree takes up more space therefore must be more complex(!?!). Thats totally flawed logic that was overcome by Russell 100 years ago. Now, a mathematical model of complexity could be expressed as

    complexity = power / parts

    So, for instance, a human is capable of complex thoughts (power) within a small space (parts) and therefore is more complex than say a mouse that is capable of simple thoughts, albeit within a smaller brain. Both of which are more complex than say, a tree which is only capable of standing there and absorbing nutrient within a larger space and consisting of more molecular parts. But God is expressed as infinite power within no space or

    Complexity = infinity / 0

    Do you see a problem there?

    Even if we are to ascribe God a small amount of space (say in Jesus or something ridiculous like that)

    Complexity = infinity / human brain

    The result, while not impossible, remains far more complex than anything else available. Thus, plantiga is just plain wrong on that point. God, on the most basic mathematical principles would be the "ultimate 747". Thus, evolution, beings something less complex than infinitiy divided by 0 (or a certain value > 0 but less than everything else seen in the universe) is more likely, from a scientific point of view.

    7. In fact he'd have to hold that it is unlikely, given unguided evolution, that our cognitive faculties are reliable.

    Russell said that he had heard that men were rational but he hadn't actually seen it. This is an old one going back to aristotle. The fact is that we have cognitive capacity that allows for survival - that requires us to have some connection with the universe around us, but it does not mean that our connection with that universe is perfect. Certainly, we can't see in infra-red, even though that information is existant all around us. That argument, particularly its extrapolation towards defeating naturalism is therefore flawed. In fact, evolution explains the irrational nature of man and his capacity for rational thought in far more detail than "an infinitely complex geing did it" - as proposed by plantiga.

    More of the same, plus, can you guys cut the length of articles down a bit - there were more points I wanted to make but couldnt due to lack of time.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I too have little time so I'll make this brief:

    2.particular characteristics (arms, brains, hair etc) is the result of evolutionary processes - that is, a process of mutation and variation that is guided by natural selection to the next generation....
    Furthermore, there is no evidence of a guiding hand in evolution - that remains something that we can say has not factual basis in the theory of evolution.


    Alex natural selection is the process of RANDOM mutations producing change in the direction that will allow an animal to adapt to environmental pressure. Unless you are claiming some sort of co-ordinated guiding hand in nature your argument fails. Also you are pointing to evolutionary theory as your support for no guiding hand in evolution - very poor! I'm disappointed.

    3. this requires faith in a deterministic universe (problem of evil and problem of hell would discount it)

    How on earth do evil and hell remove the possibility of God determining the course of this universe Alex? Also, how do you account for evil seeing you raised it?
    Evil points to the contravention of an absolute moral law, a moral law points to an absolute moral law giver. You not only do not believe in absolutes according to your public statements in Brisbane but you reject God the law giver. How do you even conceive of your objection?

    5. In other words, plantiga cannot approach a scientific conclusion and then discount it on the basis of foreign reasoning as it does not change the result of the scientific investigation.

    Oops, your presupposition is hanging out Alex. You bring 'foriegn reasoning' to your examination of science. In the words of one of your fellow athiestic bloggers you 'use evolution to proove evolution'. You begin your examination of science with the religious assumption that God could not have done this. Objective science does not lead enexorably to evolutionary theory, as the large numbers of ex-evolutionist and now intelligent design scientists points to (and no they aren't all Christians before you say it).

    6. Thats totally flawed logic that was overcome by Russell 100 years ago.....But God is expressed as infinite power within no space or
    Complexity = infinity / 0
    Do you see a problem there?


    The confusion you and Bertrand both have is that you believe that for something to be real it must be material. As Plantiga put it rightly the mind and personality has no parts as per a physical system. So lets try your theory on your mind Alex:

    Complexity = Some power/0
    Do we see a problem here?

    Your mind can act on the physical world also, unless you claim you don't have a physical body. On this point your argument flounders.

    In fact, evolution explains the irrational nature of man and his capacity for rational thought in far more detail than "an infinitely complex being did it" - as proposed by plantiga.

    You claim your beliefs are merely complex neurochemical reactions driven ultimately by environmental pressure (the drive behind natural selection and evolution yes?).
    So lets try this on for size - say one day your country is overun by extremist muslim people who tell you that you must believe that there is a god or you will die. You adapt to this extreme pressure and claim there is a god, the muslim god in fact. This continues for a couple of generations and then your children's children's children etc come out saying that there definitely is a god - in fact allah is their god and athiestic evolution is utterly false. The antithesis of what you currently hold and it happens all by the evolutionary theory 'book'.

    Through environmental pressure you have exactly what Plantiga is saying - no certainty that what you are claiming is actually true. Rather Alex if you are consistent you would cast doubt on your own theorising about evolution because it could be an advantage in your current setting to believe it rather than objectively true. While your objection is a good rhetoric it does very little to debunk what he claims, your rebutal fails.

    ReplyDelete
  3. David - I must also be brief

    Alex natural selection is the process of RANDOM mutations producing change in the direction that will allow an animal to adapt to environmental pressure.

    Yes, that last part is called natural selection and it is what results in genes to pass to the next generation - so far as "guiding" goes, thats the process. Thus, evolution is not random - but guided through natural selection. How is that not clear?

    How on earth do evil and hell remove the possibility of God determining the course of this universe Alex? Also, how do you account for evil seeing you raised it?

    If God can see the future and knows that a person he creates will spend eternity in Hell then why does he create the person? It does not fit with the concept of a loving God.

    I account for evil on the basis of my subjective point of view. Societies account for evil based on the collection of individual subjective points of view. Thus, one man's evil can be another man's good [ref Hitler etc]. We should be aware of that. In this instance, you believe christianity is good and I believe it is an evil and immoral theft of individuality. These are contradictory subjective view points.

    You begin your examination of science with the religious assumption that God could not have done this.

    Thats not true - science just doesnt ascribe the state of existence to things that aren't shown by evidence (ie God).

    As Plantiga put it rightly the mind and personality has no parts as per a physical system. So lets try your theory on your mind Alex:

    Complexity = Some power/0
    Do we see a problem here?

    Your mind can act on the physical world also, unless you claim you don't have a physical body. On this point your argument flounders.


    Huh? My mind is the physical operation of my brain. It is not some separate thing - or do you think that a computer has something separate to the operation of electrons through is processor? I suggest you read the works of Keppler and Chomsky in that regard. Thus, the actual mathematical consideration of my minds complexity is:-

    Complexity = some power/grey matter

    Thus, leading to a rational number - or do you think that you have had a thought without the operation of your brain?
    Interesting.

    This continues for a couple of generations and then your children's children's children etc come out saying that there definitely is a god - in fact allah is their god and athiestic evolution is utterly false. The antithesis of what you currently hold and it happens all by the evolutionary theory 'book'.

    Some of my ancestors were from England. Their ancestors were celtic pagans and druids - that is before christianity overran the people and over several generations caused them to be christian. How is that any different?

    The fact that a person's choices can be irrational is exactly explained by evolution. We are meant to survive, including by making irrational choices where it will help our genes (or our childrens or relative's genes) pass to the next generation. That same pressure in your example could lead to making an irrational decision that Allah was God, just as it led to the irrational decision in ancient england that the christian faith was so.

    The fact is that humans do not clamour for what is rational - that is something that we have only recently begun to do. Why? Because it works, it allows for predictions about the future and how things will work. This is seen as advantageous (and neccesary) for the continuation of technological development. But, if we were all farmers or hunter gatherers then there would be no evolutionary pressure for us to care about how things works - just so long as we could get food in our bellies. Now we have the food, we look to wider things.

    Plantiga's point does not make sense when set against a people that pursue truth rather than pursue happiness. If you pursue happiness then theology does provide comforting answers, albeit false happiness. If you pursue truth then you find religion has nought in explanation about the universe.

    If you can explain the physical process that God used to create the universe (for on your viewpoint such a process must have taken place) then we can talk about his existence. But, intelligent design provides no such information. That is why it is not logical nor science.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'll address your other points soon but first this:

    do you think that you have had a thought without the operation of your brain? Interesting.

    Don't be obsurd Alex, but there are others who have as reported scientifically. Ancephaly and Micrencephaly are clearly documented deseases where there is a distinct lack of brain tissue (none in the case of ancephaly). Despite this it does not always prevent normal function of the mind, in fact some people have quite high IQ's.

    Handbook of Clinical Child Neuropsychology By Cecil R. Reynolds, Elaine Fletcher-Janzen

    Roger Lewin "Is Your Brain Really Necessary?"Science 210 December 1980, page 1232

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1868778/posts

    http://www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/science/is_the_brain_really_necessary.htm

    Some cases are quite astonishing:

    "Andrew Vandal was born in Virginia, USA, in 1984 without a brain. Doctors attending the birth were convinced he would die, but he didn't. Andrew survived to be adopted by a nurse from Connecticut who describes him as a "glowing, outgoing
    bubbly personality". Mrs.Vandal has two other children with the same condition. One of them, a girl, was still going strong at the age of 12 without a brain. In 1982, ITV broadcast a program which included the case history of a boy named Stephen who managed five 'O' levels without a brain. (if you held a light against his head it would glow an empty pink). Later however, Stephen managed to regrow the missing organ,
    a medical mystery just as deep as how he got along for so long without it."

    Your machine mind model fails due to these cases. Plantiga's point stands.
    Again you have begun with an assumption and followed it through to your metaphysics.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thus, evolution is not random - but guided through natural selection.

    You are appealing to another random force to explain the guidance of evolution Alex. The very basis of evolution is that there is nothing outside the random fluctuations of the natural world and universe. Or are you claiming that random chance has some guiding power to it?

    The fact that a person's choices can be irrational is exactly explained by evolution.

    Plantiga's point was that if your rational mind is driven by randomly generated impulses it is intrinsically unreliable. What is truth Alex? And why should anyone believe you if firstly it is only your subjective opinion and secondly is randomly generated.

    In this instance, you believe christianity is good and I believe it is an evil and immoral theft of individuality

    What do you measure evil/immorallity against Alex? If all human life begins and ends with nothing and it is only your opinion that Christianity is evil... Who's to say that your point of view is more valid? If, as you believe, "man is the measure of all things then all is permitted" and you have no right to point to an equal and say "what you do/believe is evil". Without appealing to some higher authority you are reduced to saying I don't like it and all else is nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  6. You are appealing to another random force to explain the guidance of evolution Alex. The very basis of evolution is that there is nothing outside the random fluctuations of the natural world and universe. Or are you claiming that random chance has some guiding power to it?

    Perhaps you don't get it - there are random mutations and variations - which are then selected through the non-random means of "which everone passes on its genes". It is not per se a wholly random sequence but nor is there an "intelligent" guiding hand.

    Plantiga's point was that if your rational mind is driven by randomly generated impulses it is intrinsically unreliable. What is truth Alex? And why should anyone believe you if firstly it is only your subjective opinion and secondly is randomly generated.

    Randomly generated impulses?? What on earth are you talking about? The brain is a complex computing system in accordance with its evolution - it does not randomly generate eletrical pulses, when you see the colour red - the optic nerve sends the light to the brain receptor which generates an eletrical pulse on the basis of the wavelength of light that then travels through the brain to the recognition cortex. Where is there anything random in that operation?

    Furthermore, the brain is not reliable in a lot of cases - otherwise magicians would be out of a job and those magic eye books wouldn't sell at all. Or do you think the human brain can be deceived by vision and not in terms of logical thought?

    What do you measure evil/immorallity against Alex? If all human life begins and ends with nothing and it is only your opinion that Christianity is evil... Who's to say that your point of view is more valid? If, as you believe, "man is the measure of all things then all is permitted" and you have no right to point to an equal and say "what you do/believe is evil". Without appealing to some higher authority you are reduced to saying I don't like it and all else is nonsense.

    Yeah, this is an old fallacy. From whence comes morality? But the answer is simple, it comes from my capacity to empathise with others. I can put myself in the position, in the mind of another person and recognise how they would feel as a consequence of my actions. It is that awareness that underpins all morality at its heart. Since we are all capable of this (except for serial killers like gacy or dahmer which I have written about extensively - per Dr Morrison) it means that we can have a coherent discussion about morality from our relative empathic points of view.

    Now, we are all (minus serial killers whose specific personality type is literally a lack of empathy) capable of empathy to varying degrees. Women are more capable than men, in general, of understanding how others are feeling. Surely you have noticed that some people are caring and others less so. That is why our morality is subjective, because none of us are the same. Yet, your point of view does not take account of this individuality - I wonder why?

    In any event, if you and I witness a stabbing, I can say - that stabbing was wrong because the person who has been stabbed is now in pain and could die. If you put yourself into the stabbed persons shoes could you deny my statement? Wouldn't you also wish that person had not been stabbed?

    We evolved the sense of empathy because we are weak defencless beings that rely on each other to survive, hunt and pass on our genes in the wild. Its that simple. But the result of it is our empathy - which you mistakenly consider "comes from god", but that is a poor excuse for ignorance of the reality of the situation.

    Regards
    Alex

    PS: I'll look into that other stuff, I would counter with the experiments regarding epilepsy in particular where electrodes attached directly to the brain caused significant and measureable changes in the individual (such as an electrode making someone smell orange when there was no orange around - etc). Im sure there is a rational explanation for the "brainless boy" its just we haven't heard it yet.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Perhaps you don't get it...Randomly generated impulses?? What on earth are you talking about?

    In both these cases I am talking about regression Alex, look at your assertions and then see what is behind them. This I think is what you are saying:

    Who Alex is is limited to his brain - Alex's brain is arrose through the process of evolution (via mutations) - evolution is driven by natural selection - natural selection is driven by environmental forces - these forces are the product of local, global and universal fluctuations - these fluctuations are the result of random interactions in the universe ultimately at the sub-atomic level.

    You are saying Alex that there is nothing outside the material world and thus all of who you are, including your mind and brain are ultimately the result of random chance interactions. Thus if you are consistent with your world view all that is here is the product of random chance and no matter how you couch the terms this has huge implications for 1. who you are and 2. weather anyone should trust your subjective opinion over any other.

    Yeah, this is an old fallacy. From whence comes morality? But the answer is simple, it comes from my capacity to empathise with others.

    Again lets do a regression here Alex and ask were did your capacity for empathy came from, if as you say it arrose from the natural world. For it to come as you suppose from the natural world there would be many indicators of empathy for the helpless in our nearest "relatives" in the evolutionary tree. Looking at the "higher" mammals though you find none of this selfless alturism. In fact if you look at the chimps you find the most helpless - the babies, are often used by the larger males as a useful source of protein. You find similar in the lions, and hyenas. Nature Alex is "Red in tooth and claw", there is no true alturism in the animals.
    Also there is no biological advantage to helping the least fit, that was my point that you danced arround in another post some time back. Evolution requires the weeding out as such of the sick, disabled, weak and helpless, why could you develope empathy for them if you began from a species that grew "stronger" through the death of the less fit.
    You rhetorise very well but in reality there is little to support your theories. The Christian world view on the other hand is emensely rational. We are rational, personal, and moral people, distinct from the animals. This comes from God who is rational, personal and moral and gives us as a reflection of this a moral, personal and rational nature. The rebellion of mankind against God has resulted in all manner of irrationalities, the greatest of these show up when man in their conciet try to provide rational answers for who they are, why they are here and where they came from appart from God.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'll look into that other stuff, I would counter with the experiments regarding epilepsy in particular where electrodes attached directly to the brain caused significant and measureable changes in the individual

    I am not arguing that there is no interaction between the brain and the mind. I am saying that your and Russel's a=b mathmatics for the mind is defunct because the machine mind model would dictate that these people with micrencephaly or ancephaly would be retarded or dead. These cases show what most neurologists freely admit - science cannot measure or even locate the mind physically speaking. We can measure some of it's interactions with the brain but not define it.
    As I said your point fails and Plantiga's stands. God is a spirit, not a material object at all, and hence has no parts.... Therefore, given the definition of complexity Dawkins himself proposes, God is not complex.

    ReplyDelete
  9. 1. who you are and 2. weather anyone should trust your subjective opinion over any other

    1. I am who I am.
    2. People do not have to accept my views, that is their choice. I will choose whether to accept them too.

    How is this so hard? Where is the problem. That is how it is. I did not choose who I am, my sex, my species, the colour of my eyes. Those things are the result of natural forces as you rightly point out.

    In fact if you look at the chimps you find the most helpless - the babies, are often used by the larger males as a useful source of protein. You find similar in the lions, and hyenas. Nature Alex is "Red in tooth and claw", there is no true alturism in the animals.

    I strongly disagree on this point. Albeit in times of hunger cannabalism has been invoked - even in our own species (and as documented in the Bible- mind you), adults in most higher mammal species do take care of thier young and the young of their relatives. This is well documented and it is rather amazing that you suggest same does not occur. Higher mammals do put value in their kin - that is how pack instincts work.

    You rhetorise very well but in reality there is little to support your theories. The Christian world view on the other hand is emensely rational.

    I strongly disagree. The christian worldview implies that if there were no God then you would become immoral (albeit there is no god at present and it is merely the "fear" of the omnipotent that keeps you in check). That is a silly outlook on life - have you no self control?

    I have debated with various christians that state that atheists have no morality and my response is, "so if god did not exist you would act like a rabid beast? Perhaps I should halt now before you realise that there is no God". To consider that morality is predicated on an non-existent being, and fear of that beings authority shows the lack of true moral teachings in christianity (and all the abrahamic faiths for that matter).

    ReplyDelete
  10. 1. I am who I am.
    2. People do not have to accept my views, that is their choice. I will choose whether to accept them too.... How is this so hard? Where is the problem.


    We are talking in terms of objective truth here Alex, subjective opinion is of little value when you assert that you know as fact that what you hold is true. Plantiga is quite right to say that the Atheistic position (strong or weak) lacks support for it's assertions. If you are merely the matter you are made from then as I said earlier you have no right to assert one truth over another - for what or who is to say you are reliable?

    This is well documented and it is rather amazing that you suggest same does not occur. Higher mammals do put value in their kin - that is how pack instincts work.

    I am not refering to pack instinct I am referring to the assumed alturism that you project on the natural world. You raised a stabbing situation, there is significant risk of death if you intervene to save the helpless and yet you've said yourself you would desire to. In the case of hyenas which kill there many siblings until there is one or two left the risk to life is also present. Yet you do not see the larger pups defending the kin who are killed because they are weaker, indeed they are often the culprits. You invoke kin, yes that works but not in the equation I and you raised, that of risk for the sake of the helpless. Packs work well Alex but also you see the risk of death driving roughshod over this and kin killing kin for food or in competion for it. Your objection does not explain your sacrificial empathy.

    To consider that morality is predicated on an non-existent being, and fear of that beings authority shows the lack of true moral teachings in christianity (and all the abrahamic faiths for that matter).

    Firstly this is circular reasoning at its worst. "I believe there is no God, so therefore your belief that God gives you morality means you are weak, deluded and stupid!". Come on Alex this is very poor.
    Secondly I and the other Christians, the Muslims, and the Jews all object to your cultural imperialism. We affirm our differences and none of your rhetoric will remove them.

    ReplyDelete
  11. We are talking in terms of objective truth here Alex, subjective opinion is of little value when you assert that you know as fact that what you hold is true. Plantiga is quite right to say that the Atheistic position (strong or weak) lacks support for it's assertions. If you are merely the matter you are made from then as I said earlier you have no right to assert one truth over another - for what or who is to say you are reliable?

    I don't agree, I can still have my subjective opinion about the harm that religion does, I can put those points to the public and if they, in their own subjective analysis agree - then so be it. All discussion is agreement (and disagreement) in this regard.

    I agree that you should be skeptical, you should look for the answers yourself - but do not limit your skepticism to me alone - why should we believe Paul of Tarsus, or Jesus or Moses (who by the way, did not exist). If you applied the same critical thought to those sources as to me then you would no longer be a christian.

    Your objection does not explain your sacrificial empathy.

    Hyenas and humans are not the same, their kinships and empathy will not be the same. Hyenas live in tough pack conditions with high testosterone induced violence. That is something that has made the hyena successful, and yet, hyena mothers protect their children and by extension, the pack will aid its members. Humans are defenceless, we hunt and survive only through co-operation, that is why our empathy is enhanced over the empathy of a hyena.

    Firstly this is circular reasoning at its worst. "I believe there is no God, so therefore your belief that God gives you morality means you are weak, deluded and stupid!". Come on Alex this is very poor.

    Thats not how I put it. Simply put, to consider that morality comes solely from god and from no other sources is ignorance. Yet, you do not consider those other sources (empathy, intellect, foresight, etc) in favour of your god. I am merely pointing out that position is not tennable when we know how morality arose and how it has changed over time.

    True morality insists that right action is done for a reason of wanting to do good for the subject and not wanting to do good out of fear of god. That was my point.

    Furthermore, I do not see how it is circular to go from a premise that god does not exist to then insist that moral systems dependent on god are therefore lacking. It woulod only be circular if I then said on that basis God doesn't exist - but that wasn't my conclusion.

    Secondly I and the other Christians, the Muslims, and the Jews all object to your cultural imperialism. We affirm our differences and none of your rhetoric will remove them.

    Christians, Jews and Muslims have been responsible for more cultural imperialism than any other group in history - bar perhaps the post war united states. The simple fact is that christians burned the greek texts of aristotle, plato and socrates as well as countless others because they showed intellectual opposition to christianity. That is a fact. It was only the moderate muslims of cordoba that saved those texts from annihilation.

    This blog itself contains works almost (in the last few weeks) devoted to attacking dawkins for offering intellectual opposition to christianity. What do you think creation science is all about - its certainly not the truth. How come the Discovery institute thinks its better at determining science lessons than the scientific community? Cultural imperialism my foot.

    Your religions are slowly suffocating on their own irrelevance, we don't need to do anything to force that along.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I don't agree, I can still have my subjective opinion

    That you can have it is not my point Alex, the point is why should it be believed to be reliable? Your own world view undermines the reliability of your position, so why should your opinion count for anything? If something is true is what counts, not your opinion. A maniac driving down the road the wrong way has the right to hold the opinion that 'everyone else is going the wrong way', but that opinion clashes with the truth and reality of the situation.

    ...why should we believe Paul of Tarsus, or Jesus or Moses (who by the way, did not exist). If you applied the same critical thought to those sources as to me then you would no longer be a christian.

    Ok then lets make that comparison. The above group of men against you (your unfounded and unsupported comment on Mose's existance aside).
    They were eyewitnesses of the events they claimed to speak regarding; you claim to KNOW that there is no God there was evolution and that there is nothing more than the material world, all of these you have never 'seen'. They did their amazing feats in the public eye and their account of things were able to be refuted by their contemporaries if false; you are pointing to the far distant past as an explanation of all things current which neither you nor your contemporaries can examine first hand. Their teachings at a purely human level have impacted both the eastern and western world for the good of many millions for centuries; the teachings you espouse have been responsible for monsters such as Hilter, Stalin, Musolini, and Mao Tze Tung.
    If we use the same standard I have used for you critically speaking, these men come up looking light years ahead of yourself and provide a solid foundation to stand on, as apposed to subjective opinion and speculation about past events.

    Hyenas and humans are not the same, their kinships and empathy will not be the same.

    You've just disaggreed with me here Alex not added anything that supports your claim. If your empathy comes from the animal world there should be POSITIVE evidence for it.

    Cultural imperialism my foot.

    Your religions are slowly suffocating on their own irrelevance, we don't need to do anything to force that along.


    Nice bit of rhetoric again Alex but your coment was cultural imperialism. The history of Christians, Muslims, and Jews, good bad or indiferent does not change what you were doing.
    Secondly if you really believe your last comment then why do you make a point of spending so much of your time here and on the street, working so hard to refute Christianity?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Yet, you do not consider those other sources (empathy, intellect, foresight, etc) in favour of your god. I am merely pointing out that position is not tennable when we know how morality arose and how it has changed over time.

    I and other Christians are not arguing that internal sources are not related to morality. We do say that these sources are ultimately given by God. You claim to know the source of morality, stop sitting on your hands then and bring it forth! Thus far you have only said it comes from your empathy, yet you show no positive evidence to believe we recieved this self denying sacrificial empathy from the animal world.

    True morality insists that right action is done for a reason of wanting to do good for the subject and not wanting to do good out of fear of god. That was my point.

    Your understanding of Christianity is frighteningly basic Alex. We do good for people because of the exact reason you list as true morality above. That desire is given by and empowered by God though. We obey God because of reverence not craven fear. You do I hope know the difference between the two.

    As an aside Alex how much selfless empathetic desire do you have to do good to those strippers you visit on saturdays? (as per your earlier post to Josh) You are exploiting these women purely for your pleasure, and don't give us the 'they are consenting' line. The denegration of a person into a body only is degrading if its paid and consenting or not.

    ReplyDelete
  14. A maniac driving down the road the wrong way has the right to hold the opinion that 'everyone else is going the wrong way', but that opinion clashes with the truth and reality of the situation.

    Thats exactly the point. The maniac isn't wrong because it is against "Gods" divine plan, or that it breaches some rule of nature. It is wrong because it is not in concensus with the road rules as agreed to by the democracy in which he lives.

    I believe that murder is wrong. Ted Bundy, John Gacy and Adolph Hitler did not. Our opinions should be weighed against each other, then who is to agree with me and who is to agree with those people. The majority in the US agreed with me in relation to Bundy and Gacy, but the majority agreed with Hitler in Germany in relation to the Jews. I can now turn around and say that all three were wrong - but that is my opinion. Of course, if you do not agree with me then we can argue about that too. The whole point is that morality is a personal and subjective thing. Rules are created through shared bonds of morality.

    On the other hand, I believe that all killing is wrong. I do not believe that killing in self-defence is ever moral. Rather, I understand that self-defence is merely excused in our society (The Criminal Code states that self defence is an "excuse" and not a "defence" to murder). However, I think the majority would probably find that killing to defend oneself, or others, would be moral action - I do not agree with them though.

    if you really believe your last comment then why do you make a point of spending so much of your time here and on the street, working so hard to refute Christianity?

    I am not refuting anything, just putting a different point ov view. Of course, I do actually think, in my opinion, that your form of fundamentalist dogma is the new facism (this is not meant in an offensive way, I think you are unknowingly being drawn to it). I know what dogma, like facism and communism can do to a society, seen what it is already doing in the United States, and wish to oppose it here. After all, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

    I and other Christians are not arguing that internal sources are not related to morality. We do say that these sources are ultimately given by God.

    So you understand that empathy is correct and yet now wish to insert an additional stage of same resulting from God (Even though the evidence points to empathy resulting from evolution - in fact, it is necessary for weakly armed beings like humans). Prove it.


    We do good for people because of the exact reason you list as true morality above. That desire is given by and empowered by God though.

    Huh? My definition of true morality is purely being the result of helping others. That does not equate to wanting to help others and reverence to God. Leave the reverence at the door or it does not fit true morality. Merely people doing good things for a mix of true and bad reasons.

    As an aside Alex how much selfless empathetic desire do you have to do good to those strippers you visit on saturdays?

    I was being faceitious. I haven't been to a strip club since I was 18 - in fact, I think they are rather boring to tell you the truth. In fact, I find issues like strip clubs, sex between consenting adults in private (hetero or homo sexual), fetishists etc are neither moral nor immoral. To say that something must be one or the other is a falsehood. In any event, they are the same, if both parties aren't into it then the experience aint that good - think about it. Thats right - some women actually like stripping/sex or have you been led to believe that women are forced into it for money?

    ReplyDelete
  15. It is wrong because it is not in concensus with the road rules as agreed to by the democracy in which he lives.

    Aside from the irrational conclusions that follow from your subjective view Alex concensus was not what I was pointing to. Perhaps a better example would be the same maniac pitting himself against gravity? As far as concensus goes, haven't you ever thought it odd that there is such concensus throughout the world? There are basic tenents that any functioning societies the world wide hold in common. Even if there are exceptions (eg Nazi germany) they only serve to emphasise the rule. The concensus points to the absolute rather than defines it you are quite wrong.

    So you understand that empathy is correct and yet now wish to insert an additional stage of same resulting from God

    :) as opposed to your insertion of some magical stage resulting from a non-existant evolutionary cause. Where is your proof that you are so often refering to Alex? The evidence for morality coming from God is revealed in Holy Writ, and despite railing against it you (or anyone else) are yet to even chip it's authority and authenticity.

    I know what dogma, like facism and communism can do to a society, seen what it is already doing in the United States, and wish to oppose it here. After all, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

    LOL! I am suprised that you an atheist would trot out facism and communism as something bad! Or are you unaware that both facism and communism are based almost exclusively on atheistic doctrine? If these systems of government are so distructive Alex why are you propounding them in a free country that was founded, defended and protected by those espousing Christian faith? You make no sense on this one I must say.

    if both parties aren't into it then the experience aint that good - think about it. Thats right - some women actually like stripping/sex or have you been led to believe that women are forced into it for money?

    You are assuming that if something is enjoyable then it is good Alex -this is a fallacy. I've spoken to quite a few heroin adicts in my time and they say there is nothing better than being high. It doesn't take a great mind to see that doesn't cut it.

    ReplyDelete
  16. As far as concensus goes, haven't you ever thought it odd that there is such concensus throughout the world? There are basic tenents that any functioning societies the world wide hold in common. Even if there are exceptions (eg Nazi germany) they only serve to emphasise the rule. The concensus points to the absolute rather than defines it you are quite wrong.

    I think it points to empathy - something Ive noted a few times now, with, seemingly no comprehension by yourself.

    :) as opposed to your insertion of some magical stage resulting from a non-existant evolutionary cause. Where is your proof that you are so often refering to Alex? The evidence for morality coming from God is revealed in Holy Writ, and despite railing against it you (or anyone else) are yet to even chip it's authority and authenticity.

    Huh? Your God, Jesus and the holy books are just lifted from prior ancient texts. We have plenty of evidence of this. Jesus and Horus share the same birthday, birth story, ministry story, betrayal, death and ressurection story. Yet, I assume you do not believe in the authority of the Book of the Dead?

    This discussion isn't (or wasn't) about biblical authority at all.

    Furthermore, your assumption that just because something is written in a book somehow it has a physical or psychical interaction with all human beings is, to put it mildly, ridiculous. What, pray tell, is the mechanism by which the morality in the book filters through to the mind of men when they are not even aware of the book? Better still, what is the mechanism whereby it filters from God to Man? It seems to me that you are proposing many things without evidence under the guise of your holy book.

    Or are you unaware that both facism and communism are based almost exclusively on atheistic doctrine?

    You must be joking. Facists wore the words "Gott mit us" on their belts when they went into battle during the second world war. Stalin was trained in a seminary. The fact is that dogma, whether religious or political (such as facism and communism) are wrong - at least, in my opinion.

    If these systems of government are so distructive Alex why are you propounding them in a free country that was founded, defended and protected by those espousing Christian faith? You make no sense on this one I must say.

    I have never propounding facism or communism. I do not support either at all whatsoever.

    Furthermore, I find it offensive that you consider Australia to be defended and protected by those espousing the christian faith. I suspect you are not aware of section 116 of the Constitution. Are you also not aware that many of the founding fathers such as Griffiths, Isaac Isaacs or Burkin were Jewish or identified atheists? I think you will find that this country was founded on ideas of democracy and equality that were not christian, but resulted from throwing off christianity after the pain of the catholic/protestant wars in England which destroyed that country to 1688. Christianity cannot claim to be a defender of democracy and equality when its doctrines are only neutral to those values - not in aid of them.

    You are assuming that if something is enjoyable then it is good Alex -this is a fallacy. I've spoken to quite a few heroin adicts in my time and they say there is nothing better than being high. It doesn't take a great mind to see that doesn't cut it.

    Actually, I am not making that assumption whatsoever. I am pointing out that in an activity like stripping where there are two participants, and one of them is clearly not enjoying themself, then the activity is ruined. Heroin use, by the way, does not involve two participants.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Huh? Your God, Jesus and the holy books are just lifted from prior ancient texts. We have plenty of evidence of this. Jesus and Horus share the same birthday, birth story, ministry story, betrayal, death and ressurection story. Yet, I assume you do not believe in the authority of the Book of the Dead?

    I found this comment rather interesting. Could you please show me from primary source documents, the above mentioned details.

    Show me from the Book of the Dead, the details about date of birth, story of birth, ministry story, betrayal, death and resurrection story.

    Would be very interested to see that, also, could you please show me where the Bible actually talks about WHEN Jesus was born. Surely, if the Bible was "lifted" as you claim, a date must be found. Please show me where.

    I like evidence Alex, please provide some.

    ReplyDelete
  18. You must be joking. Facists wore the words "Gott mit us" on their belts when they went into battle during the second world war. Stalin was trained in a seminary. The fact is that dogma, whether religious or political (such as facism and communism) are wrong - at least, in my opinion.

    If I remember my military history correctly, I believe it was only the SS section of the Nazi party that had "God with us" on their belts. Which, I would freely confess is wrong, and in fact many wars have been caused by religious beliefs. But, is that grounds to dismiss Christianity?

    Again, you can try and make the case that Hitler and Nazi Germany were influenced by some for of Theism (to which I will not argue with you), however, in the interest of fairness would you conceded that much of that which influenced Adolf Hitler was in fact written by Nietzsche?

    And, Nietzsche as we know is famous for his quote "God is dead!" In fact, if you read "Mein Kampf" you can see much of Nietzsche's ideology presented.

    Let's move on to Stalin. Stalin was trained in a seminary, absolutely, it is a historical fact. However, the argument you are presenting is not a valid one. For as time and history has shown, at the time of Stalin's rise to power, and until his death, he was not a believer in God, but rather quite militant in his atheism.

    ReplyDelete
  19. This discussion isn't (or wasn't) about biblical authority at all.

    You're perfectly right there Alex and seeing Josh has answered you more than sufficiently I will ask you for what we were discussing and you keep avoiding. TELL ME WHERE YOUR PROOF IS. Your whole argument re ethics/morality and subjectivity of truth all hang on your evolutionary cause. Where is your positive evidence to support your claim? Give me the "all to obvious" cases where we can see consistent self sacrificial empathy in the natural world.
    Either bring out the proof you keep touting or quit claiming it as a support for your opinion and call it what it is - your own unsupported opinion!

    ReplyDelete
  20. I suspect you are not aware of section 116 of the Constitution... I think you will find that this country was founded on ideas of democracy and equality that were not christian

    Oh, do you mean this bit?

    "The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth."

    Come on Alex, this is called sepparation of church and state and has been the approach of much of the protestant church for 100s of years.
    Also can you please bring out primary documentary evidence that supports your above claim? Just because athiest were present at the begining of a democracy does not mean that democracy has anything to do with their faith. The democratic system has never been generated or even supported in an atheism dominated society, yet it has arrisen in Christian states consistently and has its origin in the same.
    The Christian ethic of the value of the individual and absolute laws needed to guide good governance have a lot of impact on the continuance of democracy. As opposed to the meaninglessness of individual worth and subjectivism that arrises from atheism.
    Also coming back to self sacrificial empathy empowered by God, you also have the urge in Christian men and women to protect others around them even at the cost of their own lives.
    So you do live in a country founded (democracy), protected (sacrifice) and supported (Christian ethic of individual worth and absolute laws) by the Christian world view. Whether you like it or not.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I dont want to inject more materials (as we are laden already) but I just ran across this too:-

    The vertebrae on the right are fossils from a theropod, Majungatholus atopus. Notice any similarity with the crane?

    What the investigators did in this study was analyze the location of these foramina in a specimen of Majungatholus and reconstruct the likely position of the air sacs (which were not preserved, unsurprisingly—they would consist of thin membranes in the living animal). What they found is diagrammed below: the animal had both an anterior set of air sacs (in green) and a posterior set (in blue), with the lungs (in orange) between them. In the absence of soft tissues, it is not a conclusive demonstration…but it is very suggestive that the theropods had a flow-through respiratory system like modern birds.


    http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/dino_lungs/

    ReplyDelete
  22. The vertebrae on the right are fossils from a theropod, Majungatholus atopus....not a conclusive demonstration

    I've already addressed this in both the original post and since Alex, why raise it here in another post?
    The evidence is inconclusive and largely irrelevant even if it supports theropods having avian breathing. The issue is how did the system arrise in the first place.
    That is what you consistantly dance around and refuse to answer, other than with just so stories that are contradicted by plain medical facts.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Also Alex you've reminded me of the content of our discussion again. You have not come up with even a plausible support from the natural world for your supposed "evolutionary empathy". I know you are busy, but either come up with a reason for what you believe by blind faith or realise that it is foundless.
    The only other option available to you is that you do have an externally imposed absolute moral standard. Which (as per the moral arguement post) implies very strongly a absolute moral law giver.
    Alex you are responsible before God and unless you repent and trust in Jesus' atoning death there is no hope for you. There will be justice, Hell and torment for your knowing rebellion and sin against God who has given you far more good than you deserve. I don't want to see you go down that road any furhter, repent Alex your time is short.

    ReplyDelete

Note: All comments that contain inappropriate or off-topic material will not be approved. Also, generally posts that contain links/URLs will not be approved.