Kenneth Miller through a magnifying glass

Has the possibility been considered of asking Miller to do a guest post for PT?

Rossow's essay is interesting, in that he holds Miller's yin (religious faith) to the identical scientific standards as the yang (the evidence-based rational portion) and (hold your breath!) finds it unscientific! Imagine that. It makes arbitrary assumptions, it fails to rectify clear inconsistencies, it filters evidence through foregone conclusions. Rossow finds all this something there is "no reason to take seriously."

I find this conclusion astonishingly self-serving. Rossow is saying that if religious faith fails to follow scientific rules when (inappropriately) subjected to them, it is useless.

Let's grant that Miller has engaged in flagrant compartmentalization. He's convinced his faith is true, and equally convinced that evidence matters. So what does he do when evidence refutes his faith? He looks in another direction. If neither of these deeply-held convictions can be dismissed, then contradictions between them must be tuned out and ignored.

But if anything comes through here, it's that religious faith must be taken seriously. Miller is a very competent, intelligent, and thoughtful scientist. In order to perform as such, he has had to structure his thoughts so that evidence celebrates rather than insults a faith inconsistent with that evidence - without that inconsistency ever rising up to be confronted directly. This is Orwellian doublethink at the most profound level. And Rossow thinks something capable of inducing this should not be taken seriously?

What strikes me is that Rossow's villian, Philip Johnson, comes across as someone with a good deal more intellectual consistency. Johnson recognizes straight out that the evidence violates his faith, and makes no attempt to doublethink his way around this conflict. Johnson simply rejects the evidence (the tactic adopted by creationists generally).

And this is why Miller's yin must be taken seriously. It is the only immovable object here. Evidence can either be finessed through intellectual legerdemain, or outright dismissed. But the yin, the religious faith, does not budge. It's always the evidence reinterpreted to fit, never the "arbitrary assumptions". This is important.

Good post, Lenny.

On a simplistic level perhaps,while reading Rossow's review I made a notation - God of THE Gap.

The slowly but steadily shrinking "bottomless pit" of gaps in the post-Bang physical record can never be a safe or comfortable or sensible place in which to search for God, but I tend to accept the notion that Science will never bridge the gap between after and before(the Big Bang.) It seems obvious that that unreachable place is His abode.

That empirical evidence for His existence or His role cannot be produced is as it should be - God would not be God if He existed within a natural physical framework, cheek and jowl with the diverse and perishable results of His Grand Handiwork.

As Rumsfeld observed on another subject, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." That which Science can neither prove nor disprove cannot be held to Science's standards, as Flint observed - so why waste the time trying?

By all accounts, Miller's Science is near impeccable - why begrudge him his Faith?

Let's grant that Miller has engaged in flagrant compartmentalization. He's convinced his faith is true, and equally convinced that evidence matters. So what does he do when evidence refutes his faith? He looks in another direction. If neither of these deeply-held convictions can be dismissed, then contradictions between them must be tuned out and ignored.

— Flint

The Greek word behind "faith" in the NT is pistis. As a noun, pistis is a word that was used as a technical rhetorical term for forensic proof.

Re: Flint's comment 128148. I respect Flint and his often very interesting comments, so I am reluctant to use the term "a strawman argument." It seems to me, however, that in this case, while Flint's comment contains fine points, he shoots past the target. Rossow's thesis is not that Miller's faith is not to be taken seriously. I don't think Rossow makes such a statement. He rather states that Miller's "scintific" arguments in favor of his faith cannot be taken seriously, not his faith. As I see it, Rossow's thesis is that, unlike Miller's brilliant defense of evolution, his attempts to rationalize his faith by means of supposedly scientific arguments fails because these arguments are often factually incorrect and therefore unconvincing. Flint's critique (wherein he justifiably rejects approaching faith with the same measures as science) therefore should be aimed at Miller rather than at Rossow. If Flints (or anybody else) wishes to dispute Rossow's actual analysis, he has to show that Miller's "scientific" arguments favoring his faith are indeed scientifically sound. To my mind, such a position would be hard to sustain.

I respect Flint and his often very interesting comments, so I am reluctant to use the term "a strawman argument." It seems to me, however, that in this case, while Flint's comment contains fine points, he shoots past the target. Rossow's thesis is not that Miller's faith is not to be taken seriously. I don't think Rossow makes such a statement. He rather states that Miller's "scintific" arguments in favor of his faith cannot be taken seriously, not his faith. As I see it, Rossow's thesis is that, unlike Miller's brilliant defense of evolution, his attempts to rationalize his faith by means of supposedly scientific arguments fails because these arguments are often factually incorrect and therefore unconvincing.

I did read both Miller's book and Rossow's review, and I have to agree with Pehnec that it was Miller's intent to establish that Darwinian evolution is thoroughly compatible with faith in God (which is a non-controversial thesis, as Rossow points out), yet that it was not at all his intent to try to establish some kind of "scientific evidence" for God's existence. In this sense, Rossow's review is based on a substantial misunderstanding, one which I would not have thought possible until I read the review. I do not see how Rossow supposedly is able to infer from the cited passages from page 17 of Miller's book that the author wants to establish evidence for God from evolution. However, unlike Pehnec, I do not think that Rossow's review is entirely without merit, since it raises some interesting and well-researched points and, misunderstanding aside, tries to be fair in an admirable way. I certainly cannot see it as a "strawman attack". The length of the "yin part" (as Rossow calls it) of Miller's book is due to the fact that it not only expounds on the compatibility of Darwinian evolution with faith, but also on the reasons why it enriches faith and elevates the concept of God. I think Miller overall does an admirable job in showing this, even though I have some philosophical disagreements with him. As I see it, the "yin part" is entirely written by Miller from a believer for other believers, without the intent to "convince" skeptics. If Rossow misunderstands it as having such an intent, it necessarily appears weak from his perspective, but this is not Miller's fault. About the strengths of the "yang part" of the book of course there is little disagreement.

I believe the above example suffices to show that a detailed discussion of Miller's effort to substantiate his thesis of complete harmony between his Catholic faith and his scientific views would be hopelessly fruitless...Miller is certainly entitled to his beliefs, whatever they may be. There is no reason to doubt his sincerity. There is a good reason to admire the larger, yang part of his book. There seems to be no reason to take seriously the smaller, yin part.

"It is faith that gives scientists a reason to pursue science."

Neither the philosophical or theological interpretations of the nature of existence, its purpose, meaning, or lack of it, are scientific, said Miller, because they are not testable.

Mr. Moritz's comment 128188 rather self-confidently asserts that he "pointed out...." that "Rossow misunderstood..." Apparently it does not occur to Mr. Moritz that having "pointed out" is not the same as having proved a notion. IMHO, it is Moritz who "misunderstood" both Miller's thesis and Rossow's essay. Repeating here the same words that were already rebuffed on Talk Reason, hardly makes them more convincing. Miller's book contains quite unambiguous attempts to prove that his religion is "the best friend of science," all Moritz's protestations notwithstanding. The recent discussion on PT started by the entries of PZ and Jack Krebs is just one more illustration of that statement.

Dr. Miller's point, which he made clearly, was that Darwinian Evolution, or any discipline in genuine science for that matter, can not rule out the possibility that God exists. He goes even further to suggest how quantum indeterminacy would allow a personal God to act in the world without need of miracles. It was clearly not Dr. Miller's intent to try to establish some kind of "scientific evidence" for God's existence.

In my opinion, the article by Amiel Rossow is without merit and nothing more than a classic "strawman attack" of no consequence.

In his comment 128204 Mr. Moritz at least seems to be a little more cautious in his assertions, albeit still stating his views in a quite categorical manner. I certainly agree with Moritz that everybody who wants to form an opinion of Miller's book, should read it rather than to only rely on reviews of that book. LIkewise, if anyone wants to know what exactly transpired in the discussion on Talk Reason, should go there and read all comments there rather than only the ones selected by Mr.Moritz. To my mind letters by Eterman and Gourant there debunk Pehnec's letter in a rather convincing way, while Rossow's reply to Moritz equally convincingly demonstrates the inadequacy of Moritz's assertions. As Moritz wrote in his previous comment, "rounds and rounds it goes." True. Therefore any further discussion of Moritz vs. Rossow exchange, instead of a direct discussion of Rossow's essay and Miller's book, will be moved to the Bathroom Wall.

Those who ask from science a final argument, an ultimate proof, an unassailable position from which the issue of God may be decided will always be disappointed. As a scientist I claim no new proofs, no revolutionary data, no stunning insight into nature that can tip the balance in one direction or another. But I do claim that to a believer, even in the most traditional sense, evolutionary biology is not at all the obstacle we often believe it to be. In many respects, evolution is the key to understanding our relationship with God.

Let's grant that Miller has engaged in flagrant compartmentalization. He's convinced his faith is true, and equally convinced that evidence matters. So what does he do when evidence refutes his faith? He looks in another direction. If neither of these deeply-held convictions can be dismissed, then contradictions between them must be tuned out and ignored.

Syntax Error: mismatched tag 'cheerleading'

When I read "Finding Darwin's God", I came away impressed by his defence of Darwin, but also impressed by his attempt to reconcile his faith with science. It seemed quite clear that Miller was not attempting to prove his faith through science. On the contrary, he eschews any such intention, or any possibility of it being carried through. It appears to me that not only does he largely accept a Gouldian view of the history of evolution, but that he also accepts NOMA as espoused by Gould as well.

Rather than trying to prove his religion by science, Miller is trying that a particular theological view that he holds is concordant with the way science has shown the world to work. Specifically, he views God as a loving being who from love grants as much freedom to his creatures as is consistent with there mode of existence. He then finds in quantum mechanics, and in Darwinian evolution evidence of freedom at different levels of creation.

Although he thinks his theological view and his scientific views are concordant, I do not think, and he never says that one provides evidence for the other. This is not an evidentiary connection. If you read it as one, it will obviosly strike you as non-existent - but you will also have entirely misunderstood what Miller was saying.

Despite the warning, Moritz posted a comment continuing what he himself characterized as going in rounds. Therefore his new comment has been moved to the Bathroom Wall where it can be further discussed ad infinitum.

Following Moritz, Glen Davidson (partially) and Tom Curtis insist that Miller's thesis does not include the notion that science supports his faith. Well, everybody sees in the same text whatever one wishes to see. Unlike Curtis, I was not impressed at all by Miller's ruminations wherein he appealed to science for a support of his faith. It seems to me that Miller quite unequivocally promoted the notion that science supports faith, so I am puzzled by Moritz's, and Curtis's (and to a lesser extent Davidson's) assertions which, I think, take the desired for the actual and don't see something that is plainly obvious in Miller's text.

Since the fire in my home I have no access to my books (some of them burned, and some others sit in boxes in a storage) so I can't provide direct quotes at this time, but I remember that such quotations abound in his book, where he directly asserts that science leads to faith. Some of such statements have been even quoted in the threads started by PZ and Krebs, and in this thread as well, but unexplicably ignored by my opponents. For example, what about this quotation provided by Davidson (unfortunately without a reference to the source) which, I guess, is from Miller's writing?

"In many respects, evolution is the key to understanding our relationship with God."

Isn't this citation a direct statement confirming my assertion that in Miller's view science is a "key" to faith?

Since the fire in my home I have no access to my books (some of them burned, and some others sit in boxes in a storage)

I would go a step further than Moritz. Rossow's review is actually quite silly, untenable and contradictory. He is guilty in spades of committing the errors he loudly and repeatedly accuses Miller of doing.

To cite one or two examples, which is all I have time for right now, Rossow takes Miller to task for proposing that Quantum Mechanics' indeterminacy provides opportunity for God to perform miracles without violating the laws of nature. Rossow argues that this view of indeterminacy is still subject to dispute in the physics community. He cites Bohm in this regard, who believed that nature does really know the outcome. Well, since when does a scientist's personal philosophical interpretation constitute science or evidence? Bohm neither observed nor presents any evidence whatsoever in his favor. Such evidence would constitute evidence against Quantum Mechanics which insists that the observer sees no determinacy. Rossow then has the chutzpah to accuse Miller of confusing mere assertion with evidence. Miller's thesis is based on the empirical evidence supporting the idea that observers see no determinacy and his point seems quite logical.

A similar sense of twisted logic permeates Rossow's discussion of the Big Bang. All the alternative theories to the Big Bang he mentions have not a shred of empirical evidence to back them. But we do see an expanding universe today with too little mass for it to close, ever. So the evidence we have today points to the Big Bang as a singular event, which suggests that it was a true beginning. Again, Rossow attacks hard science with mere speculation than accuses Miller of doing just that! Of course, there is no empirical evidence for God either, as Rossow claims, and Miller never argues otherwise. But Miller's point is that God follows plausibly from the empirical evidence and thus the genuine science. In this he is absolutely correct.

I would also argue that kicking comments with which one does not agree to the bathroom wall is not the "mark" of one who is confident in one own position.

I would also argue that kicking comments with which one does not agree to the bathroom wall is not the "mark" of one who is confident in one own position.

. Miller's thesis is based on the empirical evidence supporting the idea that observers see no determinacy and his point seems quite logical.

"In many respects, evolution is the key to understanding our relationship with God." Isn't this citation a direct statement confirming my assertion that in Miller's view science is a "key" to faith?

Ah, Carol Clouser appears again. After she was caught in unethical behavior - posting a rave review of Landa's book of which she was an editor and pretending it was posted by an unbiased reader, she has a zero credibility here. Indeed, assaulting Rossow's essay, she conveniently (as seems to be her habit) fails to mention that it was Amiel Rossow who was the first to catch her in the unethical behavior and posted a comment here to that effect. So, is her spiteful pouncing upon Rossow's essay a revenge for Rossow's unmasking her shenanigans?

Whatever disagreements Moritz may have with Rossow, I would be surpized if he were glad to get such an ally as Carol (although I know nothing about Moritz besides his recent posts here).

As to moving certain comments to the Bathroom Wall, it is a part of PT's policy to move there discussions deviating from the topic and the initiators of a thread have the privilege to decide which comment to move. It is not the same as deleting comments, as the BW is freely available for everybody and many discussions continue there after being removed from this page. Moritz's latest comment was not deleted - it is accessible at BW.

Glen, my apology for stating that you did not provide a reference. I was in a hurry (not that it jusifies an incorrect statement). So, it is indeed Millers' statement, which, to my mind, is one of his many similar statements asserting that science supports faith (which has been vigorously disputed by Moritz). Regarding your deeper interpretation of the meaning of Miller's words, I don't see there anything contradicting my view that Miller indeed asserts that "science is the best friend of faith." I in fact agree with most of what you have written in that post (128279) and, again, do not see there a denial of my thesis.

Well, I agree with Glen Davidson's post 128279 as well, even though apparently I read it a bit differently than ag.

I have great respect when an atheist writes with finely nuanced thinking. When genuine knowledge of the position of people of faith is added, it is the icing on the cake.

As far as my last post being on the BW, I could care less. I find it rather amusing, actually, that this was deemed necessary.

ag,

First, I do not fail to notice that you make no comment on the substance of my post or this thread.

Second, by your own criteria, your post ought to go to the BW.

Third, I catagorically deny having done anything unethical pertaining to the matter you brought up. Amazon makes no claim that its readers are unbiased, nor do the readers pretend that is the case, not did I. There is no such thing as an unbiased reader, just as there is no such thing as an unbiased PT poster, such as yourself. I did these things in full view of all, using my name in both forums, here and on Amazon, unlike you hiding behind the mysterious "ag". What are you covering up?

I really, really would like to suggest to Toejam, ag et al that engaging Clouser would be a bad idea in this particular thread. Playing games with trolls can sometimes be fun, I'm sure, but these are actually kind of serious subjects that these posts about Kenneth Miller's talk cover and turning any of them into Carol Clouser Talks About Herself Thread #924 would really not help anyone.

I see that my comment related to Glen Davidson's comment 128279 has not appeared in this thread, so my next comment (128287) is puzzling, as it refers to the disappearing preceding comment. Was my comment deleted or moved to the BW? I am not going to repost it, as its contents were discused in other comments.
As to my using "ag" instead of a full name, in fact I used to post here under my full name which is Alan Gourant, so "ag" is just an abbreviation. Since my email address is posted with the comment, the PT crew knows that "ag" is Alan Gourant.
Carol's attempts to exonerate herself would not deceive anybody familiar with her behavior. On Amazon, editorial comments are posted in a separate frame and do not allow for assigning to the reviewed books any ranks. Readers' comments have a special box for ranks. By posting a rave review of Landa's book in the readers' section, and giving it five stars, while being in fact the book's editor and promoter, was deceiving both Amazon and readers. Rossow noticed that and made it known to PT visitors. Therefore Carol's spiteful atack upon Rossow has no merits as it is a repetition of a shenanigan used with Landa's book, just this time hurling mud on Rossow instead of praise given to Landa.

Ag's disapppearing comment was neither deleted nor moved to BW. We experience some technical problems with PT at this time (as other commenters could have noticed) so some comments do not appear on PT. On behalf of PT crew, I apologize to our commenters (BTW, moving Moritz's comment to BW in no way limits his privilege to post other comments; we only request to stay close to the topic, otherwise there is always a chance a comment may be moved to BW (and in extreme cases completely deleted). This relates as well to the entire exchange between Carol Clouser and ag. I let it stay at this time, but if this off-topic exchange will go on, perhaps I'll be forced to send it to the BW. Thanks for adhering to the rules.

... Miller was a theist talking to theists, and as such he seems to have been portraying the only reasonable option open to theists, which is to create an area of exception for their religion wherein the usual rules do not apply. I can tolerate that.

"If we lived in Galileo's time we'd learn how to tolerate living with the Inquisition and their thought police."

Speak for yourself. Nothing to be proud of in that. I would be contemplating revolution or insurrection.

I suggest that if God is real, we should be able to find Him somewhere else [other than in the shadows of understanding]--in the bright light of human knowledge, spiritual and scientific.

These Folks are supposed to be scientists, and one might think that science--dealing with the material--should have nothing to say about religion--which deals with the spiritual.

In other words, to a religious person, science can be a pathway towards God, not away from Him, an additional and sometimes even an amazing source of grace.

It almost seems, not to put too fine an edge on it, that the details of the physical universe have been chosen in such a way as to make life possible.

It would be foolish to pretend that any of this rigorously proves the existence of God".

...They [religionists] should also, at the very least, demand that nonbelievers carry the heavy logical burden of their absolute materialism all the way to its conclusion...

The concept of purpose, my colleagues would be quick to remind me, stands outside of science. I agree. But if it does, then so does its exact opposite, that the human species has no purpose, which is the claim made by Futuyma.

"If we lived in Galileo's time we'd learn how to tolerate living with the Inquisition and their thought police."

I do maintain that Miller wrote and spoke the proper caveats in his book and in his speech.

Moritz' comment 128629 sounds, to my mind, rather odd. While I agree that Glen Davidson's comment 128539 is a fine piece (which perhaps can be referred to as an essay rather than a mere comment) it seems to me being much more in tune with Rossow's thesis than with Moritz's rejection of the latter. While Moritz mentions his disagreement only with some (undefinded) details of Davidson's discourse, as I see it, Davidson's analysis in no way supports Moritz's rather uncompromizing position; on the other hand, it seems to only clarify some points in Rossow's review, without really contradicting Rossow's general conclusion. BTW, reading Moritz's letter to Talk Reason, I found there, along with a rather categorical assertion about Rossow's "miunderstanding" of Miller, also some flattering remarks about Rossow's "well-researched" and "being fair in an admirable way" review. Why has Moritz's attitude to Rossow changed so abruptly - was it as a result of the debates on this blog?

as I see it, Davidson's analysis in no way supports Moritz's rather uncompromizing position; on the other hand, it seems to only clarify some points in Rossow's review, without really contradicting Rossow's general conclusion.

BTW, reading Moritz's letter to Talk Reason, I found there, along with a rather categorical assertion about Rossow's "miunderstanding" of Miller, also some flattering remarks about Rossow's "well-researched" and "being fair in an admirable way" review. Why has Moritz's attitude to Rossow changed so abruptly - was it as a result of the debates on this blog?

. . . yet that it was not at all his intent to try to establish some kind of "scientific evidence" for God's existence. In this sense, Rossow's review is based on a substantial misunderstanding, one which I would not have thought possible until I read the review. I do not see how Rossow supposedly is able to infer from the cited passages from page 17 of Miller's book that the author wants to establish evidence for God from evolution. However, unlike Pehnec, I do not think that Rossow's review is entirely without merit, since it raises some interesting and well-researched points and, misunderstanding aside, tries to be fair in an admirable way.

I think your analysis of this particular issue is far more balanced and well-researched than the one in Rossow's review.

...he seems most at sea is when he is trying to explain why God made us by detouring through the age of the dinosaurs, ....

Re: comment 128744 by Al Moritz:
It looks like you are fond of quoting yourself time and time again. Repeating a disputed notion hardly makes it true, while your apparent newly-developed animosity to Rossow (although far less intensive than Carol's hysterical tantrum) is not conducive to taking your argument as "admirably fair." I quoted your exact words so there was hardly a need to provide again the entire paragraph from your letter to Talk Reason. It has not convinced me, although I certainly may be wrong. All the exchange on this thread has become boring, in particuar due to your persistent reproduction of your previous statements. Anyway, it was nice to meet you. Best wishes.

Ladies and gentlemen: The off-topic posts seem to be a habit of some commenters. Again, please avoid personal remarks and stick to the topic. Please! It is not a pleasure to move comments to the BW and even less pleasant to delete them. We want a good conversation not a street fight. Please don't respond to this appeal with a comment, just keep its gist in mind. Thank you.

(If this is a double post, my apologies, there seem to be some server problems.)

Alec:

I do not like to requote myself at all, however, I think it is fair that I should be given the opportunity to defend myself when I am obviously quoted out of context.

I hated to have to put the time and effort into my last post. It should have not been necessary if I had been read correctly.

Mark:

If you judge this post as off-topic and want to move it to the BW, please keep in mind that Alec's 128757 would be off-topic to the same degree and should be moved to the BW as well. I do think I have the right to defend myself. Again, it should not have been necessary.

So do we have any consensus here as to whether:

1) Miller thinks his faith is actively supported by science, or

2) Miller thinks science does not restrict his faith/offers opportunities for his god to exercise His Will (i.e. passive support), or

3) Miller thinks science and his faith are non-overlapping magisteria, with neither informing the other in any meaningful way.

What Rossow rejects as "not to be taken seriously" as I read it, is Miller's argument (if indeed he makes it) that science in fact supports, and possibly even points toward, Miller's religious beliefs. Rossow makes the case the Miller has NOT made this case; Miller has instead rationalized his faith so as not to conflict with his science, if you don't look too closely. In other words, someone not of Miller's faith but armed with the same knowledge and understanding of science, will find Miller's faith no more compelling than before reading this book.

What does need to be taken seriously, in my opinion, is that those like Miller, saddled with a faith largely incompatible with their professional understanding, need to find some way to reconcile this faith with their scientific knowledge if they are to advance the cause of science. The Kurt Wise approach of explicitly rejecting the relevance of evidence might solve the science/religion conflicts, but does so at the cost of rendering Wise useless as a scientist.

I think the issue needs to be addressed, as to whether Miller's set of rationalizations are entirely personal and internalized, or whether readers of his book with similar problems can adopt Miller's solution as their own. I see that Miller's solutions are useless for Rossow, but Rossow surely never faced Miller's dilemma. And any faith we don't share is sure to strike us as somewhat silly and amusing. The temptation is always there to tell Miller to just Snap Out Of It. You know better, right? Drop the god schtick. Wake up.

But we understand that the Millers of the world can't do that, and to be good scientists must finesse their way around it. So will Miller's finesses work for anyone else? I can only ask the People Of Faith who post here.

So will Miller's finesses work for anyone else? I can only ask the People Of Faith who post here.

I do hope nobody takes Miller's rationalizations and tries to make them dogma.

Miller, saddled with a faith largely incompatible with their professional understanding, need to find some way to reconcile this faith with their scientific knowledge if they are to advance the cause of science.

I should clarify and say again that how Miller manages to reconcile two different worldviews seems to work just fine for him. However, trying to stretch that to thinking it could work as some sort of "manual" might backfire, as often the issues ARE personal and far more complex than a single method could address.

this might sound a bit preachy, but I would highly suggest that someone facing these kinds of issues seek professional help, rather that some quick-fix solution, or someone else's solution.

... I would highly suggest that someone facing these kinds of issues seek professional help, rather that some quick-fix solution, or someone else's solution.

interesting, you see pychology as a pseudoscience?

what about the medical profession?

interesting, you see pychology as a pseudoscience?

what about the medical profession?

This isn't a well known area with certainties.

interesting, you see pychology as a pseudoscience?

— Sir Toejam

...did you have a point?

or will you next claim I'm no Kennedy?

You don't know the history of psychology. I do.

Flint,

If I were Miller I would be deeply offended by your comments.

You treat him as a brainless character who is "saddled" by his faith (presumably imposed by childhood brainwashing, rather than self inflicted) and incapable of reasoning his way out of his "dilemma". I am not surprised by this attitude of yours, for it is typical of the atheist's attitude toward people of faith. Rossow's review of Miller's book reeks of this condescending "smarter than thou" approach.

For your information, people ARE capable of rising above and going beyond long held beliefs and opinions. I have seen it happen many times. And so must you, unless you lead the life of a hermit. True, it is easier and more comforting to just sit on one's laurels and not re-examine one's cherished beliefs on a daily basis. But it does happen.

What is really bugging you, deep down, is that this seemingly accomplished individual and respected scientist persists in his faith. How could this be? It bothers you and perplexes you. No semi-intelligent person should find reason for religious opinions! So you concoct this theory that Miller and all faith-raised individuals are incapable of extricating themselves intellectually from the "dilemma" with which they are emotionally "saddled".

Being raised in an anti-religious or areligious environment leaves its imprint just as the religious environment does. It all depends on the intensity of the atmosphere in which one is raised. Most of us try to be as objective as we can, without inflicting too much pain, knowing full well that none can achieve perfect objectivity. So my message to you is, paraphrasing your own words, "just Snap Out Of It. You know better, right? Drop the schtick. Wake up."

If I were Miller I would be deeply offended by your comments.

Sir TJ, what is a "concern troll"? One who trolls for concerns? All concerns?

how is your interpretation of Miller's persona any more authoritative than Flint's?

Wow, norm, you actually made Carol look intelligent and on-the-ball. It must be a miracle!

Oh wait, norm's an atheist...maybe this miracle means he's the Antichrist?

Wow, norm, you actually made Carol look intelligent and on-the-ball. It must be a miracle!

David, wrt your question...

A concern troll is someone who makes a position statement based on perceived victimhood of a real or even an imagined poster in a particular thread, but has no real issue to debate.

It happens on Pharyngula on a daily basis. like those who pop in to a given thread to claim that the big bad atheist PZ is victimizing Christianity, and he should lay off, rather than actually addressing the topic of whatever thread they popped into.

in other words, they are using false concern as bait to troll a thread.

the clouserbot is nothing if not good at baiting.

that said, I don't see any further contribution i can make at this point being relevant to Flint's question, which is where the thread really is at this point.

You treat him as a brainless character who is "saddled" by his faith (presumably imposed by childhood brainwashing, rather than self inflicted) and incapable of reasoning his way out of his "dilemma".

I am not surprised by this attitude of yours, for it is typical of the atheist's attitude toward people of faith. Rossow's review of Miller's book reeks of this condescending "smarter than thou" approach.

For your information, people ARE capable of rising above and going beyond long held beliefs and opinions. I have seen it happen many times

True, it is easier and more comforting to just sit on one's laurels and not re-examine one's cherished beliefs on a daily basis.

What is really bugging you, deep down, is that this seemingly accomplished individual and respected scientist persists in his faith. How could this be?

No semi-intelligent person should find reason for religious opinions!

So you concoct this theory that Miller and all faith-raised individuals are incapable of extricating themselves intellectually from the "dilemma" with which they are emotionally "saddled".

Most of us try to be as objective as we can, without inflicting too much pain, knowing full well that none can achieve perfect objectivity.

Yes, such faiths do not take root unless planted early.

And yes, I am indeed disturbed that such an intelligent and knowledgeable person is flat-out unable to set aside childish things, and must force himself through hoops trying to rectify them with a reality he understands so well.

normdoering:

I'm not a neurologist; I have no deep understanding of the organic basis of religious faith. I kind of model it as the neurological equivalent of an addiction, in the sense that you never break an addiction, you can only break the implementation. The hardwiring is still there. And I've also observed that orientations developed early in childhood tend to persist throughout life, though perhaps in slightly altered form (is there any real organic difference between a devout creationist and a devout vegetarian? How would we test this?)

As I wrote, I don't know what to make of apparent conversions to and from irrational convictions later in life. There has been some research lately suggesting that the propensity for an individual to shut his mind off and *believe* just any old crap has a genetic basis, and some people are inherently more resistant than others.

But the observation that strokes can drastically alter someone's orientation toward belief-without-evidence is very suggestive. Maybe some strokes DO interfere with the belief circuitry.

I've also heard of things like an evangelical Christian having a stroke and right afterwards, becoming an atheist. Was his stroke in that "god spot"? Figure out what happened to his brain and you might cure theism.

Yeah, sure, let's damage people's brains so we all end up thinking like norm. (Maybe those former KGB mental-health professionals can offer some tips?) Because theism destroys freedom of thought and people must therefore not be allowed to think about it.

Yeah, sure, let's damage people's brains so we all end up thinking like norm.

I think a pill that would cripple or kill Morton's Demon would be one of the most important breakthroughs in human history since the origin of language.

Flint,

Thank you for taking the time to respond so thoroughly.

I think you are being very unscientific when issues pertaining to religion are concerned. You simply choose to ignore evidence that contradicts your assumptions. You hand-wave them away with some flippant reaction such as "it was superficial".

The fact is that millions of adults undergo conversions every year, away from and into various religions and from one religion to another. We don't of course know what goes on in another person's heart or mind, but if an atheist becomes a devoutly practicing Christian in deed and word there is nothing superficial about that and we ought to take that at face value. For a champion of basing things on evidence, such as you, your losing sight of your own standards when matters of faith are concerned reveals a brain "saddled" with anti-religion dogma.

Also, you seem to believe that all reason and evidence supports the atheist position. That is demonstrably false. I have debated many a strong atheist in my lifetime and remain standing. Sure, God is not detectable. But that has absolutely no bearing on whether it actually exists. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There are multiple ways of arriving at the truth, and science is just one very limited approach.

What we all need, and you can use a heavy dose of, is humility. Real scientists appreciate how little we know and understanding of thr workings of the universe, despite all the strides that have been made. To paraphrase Newton three hundred years ago, we have turned over a few more pebbles but the great ocean of truth STILL remains undiscovered (or something like that). You are approaching the subject of God and faith with a limited set of tools and with a limited and saddled brain. Have some respect for other people's efforts and abilities.

I think you are being very unscientific when issues pertaining to religion are concerned. You simply choose to ignore evidence that contradicts your assumptions.

The fact is that millions of adults undergo conversions every year, away from and into various religions and from one religion to another.

You simply choose to ignore evidence that contradicts your assumptions. You hand-wave them away with some flippant reaction such as "it was superficial".

The fact is that millions of adults undergo conversions every year, away from and into various religions and from one religion to another.

if an atheist becomes a devoutly practicing Christian in deed and word there is nothing superficial about that and we ought to take that at face value.

Also, you seem to believe that all reason and evidence supports the atheist position. That is demonstrably false. I have debated many a strong atheist in my lifetime and remain standing.

Sure, God is not detectable. But that has absolutely no bearing on whether it actually exists.

ere are multiple ways of arriving at the truth, and science is just one very limited approach.

You are approaching the subject of God and faith with a limited set of tools and with a limited and saddled brain. Have some respect for other people's efforts and abilities.

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

We don't of course know what goes on in another person's heart or mind, but if an atheist becomes a devoutly practicing Christian in deed and word there is nothing superficial about that and we ought to take that at face value.

I think it was Carl Sagan who told the cautionary tale about intercessory prayer. He wrote that despite trillions of prayers over thousands of years (without success), the Believers continued to plead insufficient evidence.

Comes the Age of Science, and studies are constructed to do a scientific test of intercessory prayer. Most studies come up empty, but one of the kinda sorta suggests that maybe such prayer actually works sometimes.

Overnight, the Believers latched onto this single study as "scientific proof" that (their) god acts through intercessory prayer. Equally quickly, skeptics looked at the methodology of this study, and found it constructed with confirmation bias at the core. The bias was corrected in many different ways, and the study replicated. Nope, no more positive results.

Now, says Sagan, do you suppose the Believers retreated back to their prior position of insufficient evidence? Not on your life! Instead, they simply ignored any and all corrections, tuned out everything but the one faulty study, and continue to trumpet "scientific proof" to this very day.

So Carol is quite correct in saying there are different ways to knowledge. There's the honest way, and there's lying.

You simply choose to ignore evidence that contradicts your assumptions.

... fact is that millions of adults undergo conversions every year,...

...away from and into various religions and from one religion to another.

We don't of course know what goes on in another person's heart or mind, but if an atheist becomes a devoutly practicing Christian in deed and word there is nothing superficial about that and we ought to take that at face value.

... you seem to believe that all reason and evidence supports the atheist position. That is demonstrably false. I have debated many a strong atheist in my lifetime and remain standing.

Sure, God is not detectable. But that has absolutely no bearing on whether it actually exists.

There are multiple ways of arriving at the truth, and science is just one very limited approach.

There is a marked shift in American belief patterns, but atheists are not losing ground, it's those liberal churches that are losing their audience to evangelicals and fundamentalists.

How do you know that's not due to an effect similar to what you observed re: the Billy Graham "conversions?" Evangelical churches are happy to count new converts, but not so eager to count how many of those converts drift off (or run) elsewhere later on.

Of course, if you're (chortle) basing your statements on (giggle) polls conducted by WorldNutDaily, you're bound to get mired in more fallacies than you'll ever be able to count (HAWHAWHAWHAWHAW...)

Flint,

"But hey, if you know of some unscientific way of arriving at truth that arrives at things that are, you know, TRUE, why not apply your method and gin up a Truth or two? Something useful, that actually advances human understanding of the universe we live in. Be the very first to do so! I promise you I would be impressed."

Well, I promise you I have never actually measured the angles of a triangle to see if they always add up to any one particular amount. But I know the truth of the matter is that the sum (in two dimensions, of course) is 180 degrees. I imagine others may have conducted the experiments, but I do not need nor care for their effort or input. I KNOW, without a shred of empirical evidence, the TRUTH of the matter.

I can add a few more thousand such statements, all known to me without a shred of empirical evidence. Just by sheer brain power! I hope you deem these to be "useful".

Looking into other domains of knowledge, do we have any empirical evidence that the mind, your mind for example (as opposed to the brain),
indeed exists? As far as recall, the existance of the mind can be established only philosophically.

I shall return in a few hours with many other examples.

Last year I had the fortune to sit in a small class with an adviser for students in the College of Science at my university who said that incoming science students are going to have a hard time. He said, "They are going to wonder if they are as smart as they think they. They'll start to really question if there is a god. They'll wonder what their meaning on the planet is. They'll come to an answer. But that answer won't necessarily be scientific."

But I know the truth of the matter is that the sum (in two dimensions, of course) is 180 degrees. I imagine others may have conducted the experiments, but I do not need nor care for their effort or input. I KNOW, without a shred of empirical evidence, the TRUTH of the matter.

I imagine others may have conducted the experiments, but I do not need nor care for their effort or input. I KNOW, without a shred of empirical evidence, the TRUTH of the matter. I can add a few more thousand such statements, all known to me without a shred of empirical evidence. Just by sheer brain power! I hope you deem these to be "useful".

Well, I promise you I have never actually measured the angles of a triangle to see if they always add up to any one particular amount. But I know the truth of the matter is that the sum (in two dimensions, of course) is 180 degrees. I imagine others may have conducted the experiments, but I do not need nor care for their effort or input. I KNOW, without a shred of empirical evidence, the TRUTH of the matter.

Evangelical churches are happy to count new converts, but not so eager to count how many of those converts drift off (or run) elsewhere later on.

Of course, if you're (chortle) basing your statements on (giggle) polls conducted by WorldNutDaily, you're bound to get mired in more fallacies than you'll ever be able to count (HAWHAWHAWHAWHAW...)

Carol said; Well, I promise you I have never actually measured the angles of a triangle to see if they always add up to any one particular amount.

... you had no special way of "knowing" then, and you don't now.

Sir TJ -- Thank you.

Regarding a notion of "faith": In rational decision theory one is expected to attempt to maximize the utility of outcomes based on experience. For example, in situation A doing X maximizes utility, as opposed to doing Y or Z. However, these are actually probability statements, as we live in an uncertain world. Thus one has "faith" that in situation A doing X will work out. But with some, hopefully small, probability doing X actually turns out quite badly.

Assuming there is something to this, with regard to actual human beings, having "faith" is being ready to take the actions given by the internalized rules such as "In situation A, do X".

Hoping this helps a bit...

do we have any empirical evidence that the mind, your mind for example (as opposed to the brain), indeed exists? As far as recall, the existance of the mind can be established only philosophically.

Assuming there is something to this, with regard to actual human beings, having "faith" is being ready to take the actions given by the internalized rules such as "In situation A, do X".

Fine, except "playing the odds based on experience" is rather long, unwieldy. Furthermore "experience" is then going to have to include all those rules you were told were correct, not just those you work out yourself.

Anyway, my copyright 1936 desk Webster's gives four meanings for "faith": number 4 is "Complete confidence, esp. in someone or something open to question or suspicion". That's close to what I am suggesting...

I think, therefore I am.

I think, therefore I am.

Flint,

I think you miss my point.

Sure, the theorems of mathematics are based on axioms and their truthfulness is dependent on the correctness of the axioms. But I would KNOW that the angles of a triangle add up to 180 even if I NEVER saw and never could see a real (perfect) triangle. I know this from deductive reasoning (the various proofs) which are based, certainly in the case of Euclidean Geometry, on axioms that I accept because they are based on observation. (I know there are alternative geometries, folks, that are not so based, so keep your insults.)

The bottom line is that we go from observation to conclusion via deductive reasoning. The intelligent people who believe in God think they are doing exactly the same thing. They observe the universe and deduce the existence of God. You may think you can find fault with the "proof" but then we are in the realm of an intellectual contest, as opposed to "dementia" or "childish nonsense", terms you used earlier.

Also, you cannot escape from the "based on axioms" issue even in science. I refer not so much to the raw data, but the conclusions (really working assumptions) that science derives from the data. Certainly any extrapolations based on data obtained at a particular place, time and circumstances are based on axioms that CANNOT be proven.

Indeed, we live our lives based on axioms. We expect certain actions to have certain consequences based on previous experience. That assumes, among others, that the laws of nature have not changed in the interim.

Your comments pertaining to prayer are totally irrelevant here. We are discussing the existence of God, not what God does or does not do. That is an altogether different matter. We can discuss that if you wish, but we need to avoid confusion.

To say nothing of the problem that any statement of the form "a therefore b" is slightly useless in the absence of some proof as to the truth value of a.

... I would KNOW that the angles of a triangle add up to 180 even if I NEVER saw and never could see a real (perfect) triangle.

I know this from deductive reasoning (the various proofs) which are based, certainly in the case of Euclidean Geometry, on axioms that I accept because they are based on observation.

(I know there are alternative geometries, folks, that are not so based, so keep your insults.)

... we go from observation to conclusion via deductive reasoning.

The intelligent people who believe in God think they are doing exactly the same thing. They observe the universe and deduce the existence of God.

... you cannot escape from the "based on axioms" issue even in science. I refer not so much to the raw data, but the conclusions (really working assumptions) that science derives from the data. Certainly any extrapolations based on data obtained at a particular place, time and circumstances are based on axioms that CANNOT be proven.

We are discussing the existence of God, not what God does or does not do.

Carol wrote The intelligent people who believe in God think they are doing exactly the same thing. They observe the universe and deduce the existence of God.

It has only been in the last one hundred years or so that the so-called Law of the Excluded Middle (LEM) has been shown to be not universally valid. LEJ Brower questioned, rather seriously, Hilbert's use of LEM in a famous proof, the last line of which read

not not B, therefore B.

It is this line, formally equivalent to LEM, that Brower questioned under the heading of 'intutionism'. Brower's student Heyting put this on a formal footing, and it is now known as intutionistic logic. It is also known as constructive logic or topos logic.

In constructive logic, there are all the usual means of reasoning, including an form of material implication, but no LEM. One has to actually construct a B in order to conclude B. It is not sufficient to construct (not not B). That is just a proof of (not not B).

In the current setting, let B stand for "God exists". If someone somehow comes up with a proof of (not not B), then that is all you've got.

The lesson is that you have to apply the ruls of deductive logic with some good sense. Some other time maybe I'll post on "fallacies of relevance"...

Well, I promise you I have never actually measured the angles of a triangle to see if they always add up to any one particular amount. But I know the truth of the matter is that the sum (in two dimensions, of course) is 180 degrees. I imagine others may have conducted the experiments, but I do not need nor care for their effort or input. I KNOW, without a shred of empirical evidence, the TRUTH of the matter.

So what you're saying is that God is, uh, dis-degreeable?

The intelligent people who believe in God...observe the universe and deduce the existence of God.

We are discussing the existence of God, not what God does or does not do

I think, therefore I am.

— normdoering

This is one of my favorite non-sequiturs.

Flint,

Come on! You can read what I write with a bit more care. I didn't say that God does or does not do anything or that the deduction is based on God doing or not doing anything in particular. I said the subject of what God presently does or does not do, such as responding to prayer (the subject of your post that elicited my comment), is a subject distinct from the mere existence of God.

I know some folks base their belief in God on the perception that prayers lead to miracles. But the vast majority of intelligent people of faith know that this is a weak reed indeed upon which to base one's faith. The data is just not there to establish either view. Rather, they base it primarily on observations pertaining to cosmological considerations and what they are convinced God must have already done, in the past. Once the existence of God is agreed upon, the distinct issue of the efficacy of prayer arises. Surely you know that there are intelligent God believers who do not subscribe to the view that God responds to prayer, or that it intervenes in any manner, such as Deists and others.

As far as proposing tests are concerned, I will make two observations. One, while I concede that the burden of proof is on the God believers, why don't you extend yourself a bit here, for the sake of settling this age-old argument, and propose a test yourself. Your goal will be to establish that God does nothing. Second, there is a problem here. We, that is all of us, do not know enough about nature and its behavior to be able to make sense of the data. It is too complicated and mysterious. Stating this differently, it is very difficult to set up a "controlled experiment".

For example, if doctors proclaim a patient to be hopeless, then people pray and the patient recovers. This happens quite frequently. So? What does that show? Who knows enough about the minute particulars of the patient, on a molecular level, to determine whether it was a miracle (an unnatural event) or the doctors were mistaken (and it was perfectly natural)?

The FSM is not even a serious contender, despite the fact that you and others are so enamored of it. Your bringing it up shows how clueless you are of the key arguments for the existence of God. As a physical being with specific characteristics, the FSM can only be just another component of the universe. It solves nothing!

(on the FSM) Your bringing it up shows how clueless you are of the key arguments for the existence of God.

I think, therefore I think I am something that thinks. I suppose the problem is that a rock thinks not, but still is, so thinking simply isn't relevant to being.

If not thinking meant they weren't, the world would have a vastly lower population.

I'll throw in some Ambrose Bierce: "Brain: An apparatus with which we think we think."

I think therefore I am.

— Descartes

Are you going to argue that you don't exist?

If you don't exist, how did your words get on my computer monitor?

The problem with this statement is that it makes use of an artifact of language, namely that an action (verb) must have an actor (the subject). More precisely, an action implies a non-empty Universe; this is the non-sequitur.

... for can't we imagine a world where actions have no actors? In which case experiencing thought would not preclude a Universe free of thinkers.

Okay, "what" could be acting in an empty universe?

Can color exist without the electromagnetic spectrum of light? Without photons?

What would a non-actor in an empty universe even think about?

I didn't say that God does or does not do anything or that the deduction is based on God doing or not doing anything in particular...they base it primarily on observations pertaining to what they are convinced God must have already done, in the past.

As far as proposing tests are concerned, I will make two observations. One, while I concede that the burden of proof is on the God believers

Your goal will be to establish that God does nothing.

For example, if doctors proclaim a patient to be hopeless, then people pray and the patient recovers. This happens quite frequently. So? What does that show?

The FSM is not even a serious contender

Re "Wait, how do you know a rock doesn't think? Can you read its non-mind?"

Rocks can't think because they're always stoned.

So, norm, if it's a reputable poll that appears in reputable publications, why did you quote WorldNutDaily? Probably because you're reading stupid trash when you should be reading reputable publications. That would also explain why the tone of your "arguments" ("You don't know the bible!") echoes that of the WND fundies so closely.

While you're reading WND, can you tell us how Hal "The Late Great Planet Earth" Lindsey predicts the Iraq war will end?

Can color exist without the electromagnetic spectrum of light? Without photons?

Flint,

Your increasingly shrill and hysterical distortions of my comments only serve to accentuate the fact that your original position has not a shred of merit to it. And you now realize that is the case.

Consider the following:

"Uh, no kidding? This has nothing to do with whether your god does anything, and everything to do with what your god does. I think I've got it now."

I said it has everything to do with what God DID, not does, and explained what I meant. Why do you make believe that you cannot read?

"But the test you propose is...well, you don't even suggest one. Imagine that. Do you even realize that you simply tuned out this request with a wave of your hand? I asked again: Produce the damn test! Or admit you are Making Stuff Up. Be honest for once."

I never claimed that God can be detected empirically, indeed I argued just the opposite. I said God is deduced via other means of obtaining knowledge. You challenged me to provide examples of such other means and I did so. I wish I could think of a decisive test. Whatever the outcome, "the absence of alternatives clears the mind marvelously". (Who said that?)
But unfortunately my imagination has not produced one. Neither has yours or, so far, anyone else's (that I am aware of).

"I might also point out that as science learns more and more, things that were credited to the gods have continuously been explained without any."

Science has not explained to my satisfaction the cosmological issues that play a big role in the deduction of God's existence. So this comment of yours is altogether irrelevant.

"I understand that this is not "proof" that the gods don't exist or don't do anything. Only that their existence (if "real") can be completely ignored and not one iota of understanding of anything in the universe is diminished. I consider this suggestive."

Incorrect, see above.

"Incredible. So well-constructed double-blind tests constructed with significantly large sample sizes fail to show any correlations, but these are "irrelevant". But anecdotal unattributed tales? Golly, now THESE are relevant! Carol, this is called "cherry-picking" and it's entirely self-serving."

I didn't say or even hint or imply that they are irrelevant. I clearly stated that the data is difficult to come by, because too many unknowns interfere with the process. There is a huge difference between no data and data that shows no correlation.

And I never attached ANY significance to anecdotal tales. I clearly stated earlier that they are a "week reed" upon which to base anything. If you continue to blatantly ignore what I say, there is no point in continuing this conversation, is there?

"You "know" the answer, so if responsible tests fail to produce the right answer, they don't count. If Making Stuff Up produces the right answer, then suddenly it's meaningful! Can we say "lying", boys and girls?"

Irrelevant, hysterical clap-trap.

"And this (about the FSM) is true because you SAY it's true, right? I asked for a distinguishing test. You know, something a non-believer could perform. You simply ignore this request, but you state the conclusion that you know perfectly well any conceivable test would flat refute. This is called Making Stuff Up."

And I told you that the existence of God is a deduction based on observation of cosmological issues. The FSM fails this test. End of story.

At this point I consider your position (belief in God is "dementia" and "childish nonsense") to have been utterly and unmitigatingly destroyed.

And this (about the FSM) is true because you SAY it's true, right? I asked for a distinguishing test.... You simply ignore this request, but you state the conclusion that you know perfectly well any conceivable test would flat refute. This is called Making Stuff Up.

And I told you that the existence of God is a deduction based on observation of cosmological issues. The FSM fails this test. End of story.

There was some recent thread in which Carol's comments actually made sense.

One datum point does not make for a trend, obviously.

Ugh.

Can color exist without the electromagnetic spectrum of light? Without photons?

There's some confusion being expressed here between optical receptors (two in many mammals, three in humans and some other primates, and four in birds and some other lineages, IIRC) and the perceptions of color in the brain.

The receptors have non-symmetrical curves of sensitivity across sectors of the optical spectrum, with peaks of sensitivity at various wavelengths. Just because the peak sensitivity is at a given value ("color") doesn't mean the critter sporting the receptors can only "see" (picture in the brain, whatever) those precise colors. By comparing the information from the receptors across their sensitivity ranges, the critter can "see/sense/obtain meaningful info about" a broader range of colors than just the peak sensitivities.

Thus, having "only" two receptors--with peak values of, say, yellow (but with sensitivity extending from reds into greens) and blue-green (but with sensitivities from purple-violet down into the more intense greens)--can, for example, provide adequate coverage across much of the visual spectrum in good lighting conditions.

(Having three or four receptors with peaks spread across the spectrum, obviously, can provide still more accurate information at lower intensities, etc.)

Nor am I sure that it's really meaningful to talk--except in a rather artificial, evolutionary context-free way--about being able to "see" colors in the absence of photons and an electromagnetic spectrum. The colors that we see during dreams presumably result from the activation of visual-processing neurons that have been selected (over the course of evolution) and pruned/trained (over the course of individual development and experience) to respond to incoming information from the color receptors in the organs of sight.

And we have those eyes, color receptors, and visual-processing neurons only because there are--and have been, for the last several billion years--incoming photons that convey information about the environment, photons that transfer enough energy to kink or unkink certain light-sensitive biomolecules.

If the sun and all light sources were to wink out tomorrow (FSM forfend!)--that is, if we were all relegated to the existence of cave-dwelling fish or cave shrimp--then, sure, we might transitorily continue to dream in color (for a relatively "few" generations).

But would we still be doing so once the eyes, and their associated color receptors and visual-processing neurons, atrophied?

Thus, while it may not be meaningless to talk about "color" in the temporary absence of light, it's difficult to imagine the bio-ware for color ever having evolved in the first place--much less the existence of dream color or color concepts/percepts/thoughts/qualia generally--absent a photon-lit environment.

Whether there are free-floating "color-like" qualia in sufficiently complex neural centers that would be somehow be "available" to attach to some other neural input, in the absence of light-sensing bioware, I don't know.

Nor am I convinced that--again, in the hypothetical absence of an evolutionary basis for light sensitivity--that the phemomenon of synesthesia is really informative on this point. Could the different "sensory" processing neurons "cross-talk" (could we hear colors or see sounds?) if we'd never had (or had lost) sight receptor/processors?

There may be some general sense in which there's a "spectrum" of less to more intense sensory inputs of whatever kind--such that, in some sense, greater pressure (sound wave or touch), greater heat, greater cold, more intense light, etc., are all "perceived" as hotter/brighter/more painful, just MORE! Yow! While less-intense stimuli are "sensed" as cooler, dimmer, calmer, softer, and so on.

(But would louder or more painful then be redder, whiter, or purpler? My, ahem, dim recollection is that those with synesthesia don't necesarily agree whether A-sharp is green, the letter B is red, or the word "dog" is purple...)

I suspect that, when a new "sense" is stumbled upon by evolution--let's say via gene duplication which "frees up" a means to construct a new receptor or new type of neuron--that wpre-existing "qualia" could then get co-opted/hijacked to serve the new sensory inputs. (Which might explain the "ability" to "interpret"/"conflate" qualia between senses in cases of synesthesia.)

But wouldn't evolution tend, over time, to differentiate the new-input qualia from the those associated with the old inputs? So that our hypothetical he-bird in our newly sight-endowed lineage doesn't wind up jerking away from the pretty red-winged female as if she were (thermally) hot, instead of (reproductively) "hot"?

And we have those eyes, color receptors, and visual-processing neurons only because there are---and have been, for the last several billion years---incoming photons that convey information about the environment, photons that transfer enough energy to kink or unkink certain light-sensitive biomolecules.

I suspect that, when a new "sense" is stumbled upon by evolution---let's say via gene duplication which "frees up" a means to construct a new receptor or new type of neuron---that wpre-existing "qualia" could then get co-opted/hijacked to serve the new sensory inputs. (Which might explain the "ability" to "interpret"/"conflate" qualia between senses in cases of synesthesia.)

how do we aquire qualia to go with the new sensory recptors?

Another evolutionary question regarding qualia is how do we aquire qualia to go with the new sensory recptors? What if we were to take an infared camera and hook it up to a device, a hardshell backpack, that draws the images on your back with rubber tipped needles. We'd be using the touch sense to interpret visual information from another color spectrum --- would we develop a qualia for infared after awhile? Is our brain plastic enough to invent new qualia?

— normdoering

At this point I consider your position (belief in God is "dementia" and "childish nonsense") to have been utterly and unmitigatingly destroyed.

Your comments pertaining to prayer are totally irrelevant here.

I didn't say or even hint or imply that they [the studies] are irrelevant.

Flint,

"In the matter of intercessory prayer studies, you wrote earlier:

"Your comments pertaining to prayer are totally irrelevant here.

"Now you write:

"I didn't say or even hint or imply that they [the studies] are irrelevant.

"Do you see why talking to you is a waste of time?"

No, I do not. But talking to you definately IS a waste of time.

My former comment refers to your bringing up the issue of prayer. That was irrelevant to our discussion here. The latter comment refers to studies conducted pertaining to prayer. They are not irrelevent to the issue of whether God responds to prayer but they are useless, as explained earlier.

You see, relevancy is a relative quantity.

Another evolutionary question regarding qualia is how do we aquire qualia to go with the new sensory recptors?

What if we were to take an infared camera and hook it up to a device, a hardshell backpack, that draws the images on your back with rubber tipped needles. We'd be using the touch sense to interpret visual information from another color spectrum --- would we develop a qualia for infared after awhile? Is our brain plastic enough to invent new qualia?

Not sure where that fits into the argument about whether the idea "I think, therefore I am" is a legit assumption. It seems tautological but not a non-sequitur.

It seems tautological but not a non-sequitur.

— norm