God as a Superhuman: A (belated) Response to Jason Rosenhouse

Well, that was a tasty waffle.

I don’t know how the agency behind the laws of the universe did its creating.

Obviously on that scale we’re not really close to anything remotely human-like, so probably it didn’t have a “will” like you and I have.

What I do know is that we seem to be inside of its creation, the laws of which exist whether or not us humans are around to notice. But not only do we notice, we can actually understand some of them.

What is all this jazz about accommodationists???

It's once again trying to say "science" proves religious ideas are false.!
Science proves Genesis and God, or claims of evidence for a God, are false!

It's a false fight to say religion and science are in conflict.
There is just conflict about a few conclusions in a few subjects touching on issues of ancient origins.
Surely such origins is something difficult to get a hold of .

It is still all about the merits of the evidence for assertions by everybody.

On behalf of creationists and good guys everywhere just bring your best evidence and we will bring ours and let the public, who pay attention, decide what is more persuasive!

Let the truth prevail and no need for accommodationist concepts unrelated to real people or real investigation of nature.

It’s a false fight to say religion and science are in conflict.

Science proves Genesis and God, or claims of evidence for a God, are false!

Byers -- what is your goal here? Your posts are barely lucid, let alone convincing. If you want to impress scientists, do something meaningful like give substantial evidence that radiometric dating is wrong.

Addressing the reasoned comment above:

mandrellian, I don't think Asher is assuming the existence of such an agency. He has stated that he believes in one, and is defending the rationality of that belief. To do so, he must address Rosenhouse's question: "I'd also like to know more about the agency in which Asher believes. This agency, did it create the world through an act of its will or not? If it did, then I fail to see how it is importantly different from the anthropomorphic God he criticizes." Rosenhouse admits, arguendo, the existence of that agency, by enquiring about it. Any rejoinder to that query must define an important difference between the two, and hence must proceed from that stipulation, even though the stipulation was for the sake of argument only.

Asher is entitled to hold that belief in such a creator is rationally defensible, even if it is not demonstrable. It may not be attested by evidence acceptable to atheists, and from that atheists are equally entitled to hold that there is no such creator. What they cannot do is demonstrate that there is none, any more than Asher can demonstrate that there is such an agency.

As far as I can see, Asher is not arguing that there is, or must be, one. He is only arguing that one may hold that view and still be capable of rational thought and of science; that there is no essential incompatibility. The stated thrust of the essay is to persuade science educators to "acknowledge that science does not render religion untenable".

I agree with this idea. Personally, while I do not believe in any such agency, I am unable to account for the existence of the Universe, and can only shrug if asked for an explanation. I don't think it was God; I can't prove it wasn't. Asher thinks it was some sort of God, although he comes fairly close to deism in describing it. I can't prove it wasn't that, either. So long as Asher is not under the impression that he can't prove it was, merely that the idea is rationally defensible, we can certainly get on.

Whoops! Too many negators in that last sentence. Should read: "So long as Asher is not under the impression that he can prove it was..."

Dave - great comment. I wish I was that clear!

How little evidence is little enough?

The set of empirical evidence for the existence of gods like the one Asher postulates is like intergalactic vacuum. There simply is none. Unless there is another way of knowing, there is no rational reason to accept
his postulates. Rationally, the absence of evidence seems conclusive.

Is it rational to say that Harry Potter may have created the universe, simply because
we cannot disprove it? Simply because there is no evidence to the contrary?

[Asher] is only arguing that one may hold [the view that a creator exists] and still be capable of rational thought and of science

The stated thrust of the essay is to persuade science educators to “acknowledge that science does not render religion untenable”.

Personally, while I do not believe in any such agency, I am unable to account for the existence of the Universe, and can only shrug if asked for an explanation. I don’t think it was God; I can’t prove it wasn’t. Asher thinks it was some sort of God, although he comes fairly close to deism in describing it. I can’t prove it wasn’t that, either. So long as Asher is not under the impression that he [can] prove it was, merely that the idea is rationally defensible, we can certainly get on.

phhht | November 28, 2012 10:39 PM | Reply How little evidence is little enough? The set of empirical evidence for the existence of gods like the one Asher postulates is like intergalactic vacuum. There simply is none. Unless there is another way of knowing, there is no rational reason to accept his postulates. Rationally, the absence of evidence seems conclusive. Is it rational to say that Harry Potter may have created the universe, simply because we cannot disprove it? Simply because there is no evidence to the contrary?

But that should not be a concern of science. If someone is offended when a scientist says publicly “The world is not 6000 years old”, it is not the fault of the scientist. Noone has a right to not be offended and some facts, however softly phrased, will always offend someone. I simply find the current accommodation bent of chastising atheists or scientists for being unequivocal when discussing those areas of science that certain sects feel are their own domain to be counterproductive.

phhht said: How little evidence is little enough? The set of empirical evidence for the existence of gods like the one Asher postulates is like intergalactic vacuum. There simply is none.

Unless there is another way of knowing, there is no rational reason to accept his postulates. Rationally, the absence of evidence seems conclusive.

Is it rational to say that Harry Potter may have created the universe, simply because we cannot disprove it? Simply because there is no evidence to the contrary?

Nick Matzke said:

phhht | November 28, 2012 10:39 PM | Reply How little evidence is little enough? The set of empirical evidence for the existence of gods like the one Asher postulates is like intergalactic vacuum. There simply is none. Unless there is another way of knowing, there is no rational reason to accept his postulates. Rationally, the absence of evidence seems conclusive. Is it rational to say that Harry Potter may have created the universe, simply because we cannot disprove it? Simply because there is no evidence to the contrary?

The theist claim isn't that Harry Potter created the universe, it is that some mind-bogglingly stupendous eternal being did it. I don't find this idea particularly convincing. Like some have pointed out, the evidence is debatable at best. But is it wildly, clearly more rational to say that the universe just happened? If true, this would be equally mind-bogglingly stupendous, in my view. To me, it all looks like a matter of opinion where the evidence is insufficient to reach much of a resolution, and it is likely to always remain so. So I have never seen good grounds for high confidence, strident rhetoric, invocations of scientific authority, etc., on either side. If someone really wants to insist that the scientific method be dragged into such ultimate, cosmic questions, I think that the best scientific position on the theism vs. atheism question is agnosticism.

It is in fact the creationist lobby itself, in all its various indefatigable guises, that demands the kind of unequivocal response from scientists and science advocates that invariably upset either believers or those sympathetic to belief.

Dave Luckett said:

phhht said: How little evidence is little enough? The set of empirical evidence for the existence of gods like the one Asher postulates is like intergalactic vacuum. There simply is none.

The evidence is little, but it is still there. You don't accept it. I don't accept it. But it still exists. It is not intergalactic vacuum. It is anecdotal, occasional, cannot be empirically demonstrated, yadayadayada, but nevertheless some evidence exists, and it can only be said not to exist by defining it out of existence.

Unless there is another way of knowing, there is no rational reason to accept his postulates. Rationally, the absence of evidence seems conclusive.

I regret to differ. Even the absence of evidence would not be conclusive. Indicative, sure. Having some persuasive value, sure. Enough to persuade me, indeed. But not conclusive. I simply do not trust my opinions so much.

If Harry Potter were the agency that created the Universe, then "Harry Potter" is one of the nine billion names of God; and a god by any other name, etcetera.

The Universe exists. What caused that existence? There may be no cause. If so, the event of its existence would be the only causeless event. Therefore, I am unable to say there is no cause, any more than I can say what the cause is. If I cannot say either, then I cannot say that there is no agency that created the Universe. And neither can you.

This is also the difference between God and unicorns, etcetera. Unicorns can never explain anything, but if there were God, it would explain the Universe. If. It doesn't give God a special pass into existence, but it does into consideration, in my mind, anyway.

As for empirical evidence, there is none for the tart sweetness of an apple, no matter how closely measured its fructose content, nor for the artistic satisfaction of the balanced stripes of a zebra, no matter how precisely delineated. Every attempt to relate the form or amplitude of nervous signals of every aesthetic experience whatsoever, to the reaction of the mind, fails. To reduce all things to the empirical and to demand only that is to demand a miserable impoverishment of the things themselves. Demand that, if it satisfies you. It does not satisfy me.

Ocham's razor

Dave Luckett said: The Universe exists. What caused that existence? There may be no cause. If so, the event of its existence would be the only causeless event. Therefore, I am unable to say there is no cause, any more than I can say what the cause is. If I cannot say either, then I cannot say that there is no agency that created the Universe. And neither can you.

This is also the difference between God and unicorns, etcetera. Unicorns can never explain anything, but if there were God, it would explain the Universe.

As for empirical evidence, there is none for the tart sweetness of an apple, no matter how closely measured its fructose content, nor for the artistic satisfaction of the balanced stripes of a zebra, no matter how precisely delineated. Every attempt to relate the form or amplitude of nervous signals of every aesthetic experience whatsoever, to the reaction of the mind, fails. To reduce all things to the empirical and to demand only that is to demand a miserable impoverishment of the things themselves. Demand that, if it satisfies you. It does not satisfy me.

Dave Luckett said: Mandrellian:

It is in fact the creationist lobby itself, in all its various indefatigable guises, that demands the kind of unequivocal response from scientists and science advocates that invariably upset either believers or those sympathetic to belief.

Why, then, make exactly that "unequivocal response"? Why do the very thing that your worst enemy most bodaciously wants you to do?

Occam's razor is a method of deciding which hypothesis - ie, causal explanation - should be tentatively accepted. I never heard that it is an absolute rule. Further, any hypothesis is an explanation of a cause, and Occam's razor says nothing about the acceptance of no cause at all. While I can conceive of the Universe having no cause, I am not prepared to call that preferable.

Mandrellian, your original form of words was also correct: the creationists who crew the propaganda mills and the political lobbies desire above all things for scientists, or for anyone on the rational side, to assert that science is incompatible with religion, or with belief in God. They know that nothing else can so effectively help them. They most urgently want scientists to say something, anything, that can be so construed. They'll trumpet it to the skies, as we have seen right here.

Saying such a thing, or anything that sounds like it, aids them immeasurably. I say again, it may be an honest expression of reasoned opinion, and there may indeed be warrant for saying it. But if you're trying to drain the swamp, tootling on an alligator call appears to me to be something of a luxury.

Nick Matzke said:

But that should not be a concern of science. If someone is offended when a scientist says publicly “The world is not 6000 years old”, it is not the fault of the scientist. Noone has a right to not be offended and some facts, however softly phrased, will always offend someone. I simply find the current accommodation bent of chastising atheists or scientists for being unequivocal when discussing those areas of science that certain sects feel are their own domain to be counterproductive.

However, certain scientists are doing a bit more than just being strident about how the young-earth view is wrong. I think it would be pretty rare for "accommodationists" to criticize someone for saying unequivocally that the YEC view is wrong. What gets everyone riled up is that certain scientists are saying unequivocally that all religion is wrong, and not just wrong but evil, and applying this view to not just fundamentalists and creationists but moderates and liberals and evolutionists who happen to be religious. And some have said that successful-but-religious scientists like Francis Collins should be denied scientific jobs like the headship of the NIH. These are pretty ambitious positions to take, especially if the proper scientific position is agnosticism and therefore humility and tolerance about ultimate questions.

Dave Luckett said: Occam's razor is a method of deciding which hypothesis - ie, causal explanation - should be tentatively accepted. I never heard that it is an absolute rule. Further, any hypothesis is an explanation of a cause, and Occam's razor says nothing about the acceptance of no cause at all. While I can conceive of the Universe having no cause, I am not prepared to call that preferable. Mandrellian, your original form of words was also correct: the creationists who crew the propaganda mills and the political lobbies desire above all things for scientists, or for anyone on the rational side, to assert that science is incompatible with religion, or with belief in God. They know that nothing else can so effectively help them. They most urgently want scientists to say something, anything, that can be so construed. They'll trumpet it to the skies, as we have seen right here. Saying such a thing, or anything that sounds like it, aids them immeasurably. I say again, it may be an honest expression of reasoned opinion, and there may indeed be warrant for saying it. But if you're trying to drain the swamp, tootling on an alligator call appears to me to be something of a luxury.

Mandrellian, it is not strong words, sharp words, passion or unequivocation that I object to. It is specifically the straightforward assertion, made by Coyne and others, that science is incompatible with all religion and all theism. Not just with Biblical literalism, creationism, or the assertion of agency, purpose or divine cause to the physical Universe, but with all belief in God.

The creationist blat mill is not staffed by political dunces. They might be scientifically clueless, and they're certainly dishonest, usually on more than one level - but they know one thing for sure: if science can be made out to be in conflict with religion, science will be damaged by the conflict. They want that conflict. They're doing everything in their considerable power to promote it.

I ask again: why would you do the very thing your worst enemies most desperately want you to do?

Dave Luckett said: Occam's razor is a method of deciding which hypothesis - ie, causal explanation - should be tentatively accepted. I never heard that it is an absolute rule. Further, any hypothesis is an explanation of a cause, and Occam's razor says nothing about the acceptance of no cause at all. While I can conceive of the Universe having no cause, I am not prepared to call that preferable.

If you say that (1+1=2) and I say that (1+1=8), should we compromrise and say that (1+1=5)?

Perhaps, then, we are not doing science, but find ourselves in some other field, one where simple arithmetic does not yield obvious and absolute answers.

I remain convinced that in order to make a positive difference in science literacy, educators should distinguish between superstition and religion, understand that human identity can entail elements of both, and acknowledge that science does not render religion untenable. My particular focus in that essay was that believers need not attribute a human-like mode of creativity to their god.

Rosenhouse is right to point out that “no God at all” is a possibility that has to be dealt with by believers. I do so by arguing that his suspicion that “maybe there is no god” is no more justified than my suspicion that maybe God acts through nature.

Furthermore, my view has the advantage that the consistency across, and existence of, natural laws follows reasonably from positing an agency behind them.

Dave Luckett said: As far as I can see, Asher is not arguing that there is, or must be, one. He is only arguing that one may hold that view and still be capable of rational thought and of science; that there is no essential incompatibility.

The stated thrust of the essay is to persuade science educators to "acknowledge that science does not render religion untenable". I agree with this idea.

Nick Matzke said: What gets everyone riled up is that certain scientists are saying unequivocally that all religion is wrong, and not just wrong but evil, and applying this view to not just fundamentalists and creationists but moderates and liberals and evolutionists who happen to be religious.

And some have said that successful-but-religious scientists like Francis Collins should be denied scientific jobs like the headship of the NIH. These are pretty ambitious positions to take, especially if the proper scientific position is agnosticism and therefore humility and tolerance about ultimate questions.

Malcolm said:

Dave Luckett said: Occam's razor is a method of deciding which hypothesis - ie, causal explanation - should be tentatively accepted. I never heard that it is an absolute rule. Further, any hypothesis is an explanation of a cause, and Occam's razor says nothing about the acceptance of no cause at all. While I can conceive of the Universe having no cause, I am not prepared to call that preferable.

Occam's razor is a simple explanation of the concept of parsimony. Any scientist who ignores it without a valid reason is no longer doing science.

Then it should be pointed out that young-earth creationism is indeed contradicted by factual evidence, and I am not for a moment arguing otherwise.

But I am arguing, and will continue to argue, that young-earth creationism is not part of most theistic beliefs, nor most mainstream Christian beliefs. As has been pointed out over and over again here, none of the Christian creeds demands belief in a literal six-day creation by fiat in the recent past. I think the method of combatting the belief itself is to point that out strongly, not to imply - or, worse, directly assert - that all Christian beliefs are incompatible with empirical science.

Dave Luckett said: Then it should be pointed out that young-earth creationism is indeed contradicted by factual evidence, and I am not for a moment arguing otherwise. But I am arguing, and will continue to argue, that young-earth creationism is not part of most theistic beliefs, nor most mainstream Christian beliefs. As has been pointed out over and over again here, none of the Christian creeds demands belief in a literal six-day creation by fiat in the recent past. I think the method of combatting the belief itself is to point that out strongly, not to imply - or, worse, directly assert - that all Christian beliefs are incompatible with empirical science.

Dave Luckett said: But I am arguing, and will continue to argue, that young-earth creationism is not part of most theistic beliefs, nor most mainstream Christian beliefs.

As has been pointed out over and over again here, none of the Christian creeds demands belief in a literal six-day creation by fiat in the recent past. I think the method of combatting the belief itself is to point that out strongly, not to imply - or, worse, directly assert - that all Christian beliefs are incompatible with empirical science.

DS said: Exactly. Faith is believing something in the absence of evidence. It isn't believing something contrary to the evidence.

mandrellian said:

Dave Luckett said: Occam's razor is a method of deciding which hypothesis - ie, causal explanation - should be tentatively accepted. I never heard that it is an absolute rule. Further, any hypothesis is an explanation of a cause, and Occam's razor says nothing about the acceptance of no cause at all. While I can conceive of the Universe having no cause, I am not prepared to call that preferable. Mandrellian, your original form of words was also correct: the creationists who crew the propaganda mills and the political lobbies desire above all things for scientists, or for anyone on the rational side, to assert that science is incompatible with religion, or with belief in God. They know that nothing else can so effectively help them. They most urgently want scientists to say something, anything, that can be so construed. They'll trumpet it to the skies, as we have seen right here. Saying such a thing, or anything that sounds like it, aids them immeasurably. I say again, it may be an honest expression of reasoned opinion, and there may indeed be warrant for saying it. But if you're trying to drain the swamp, tootling on an alligator call appears to me to be something of a luxury.

My question is: are creationists actually being helped when a scientist responds unequivocally or without much regard to "tone"? It sounds like the "You're pushing people away from science with your "stridency" charge as popularised by people like Chris Mooney and not substantiated by anyone.

The dominant belief among Christians about the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is:

1. This event was scientifically impossible.

2. We like it that way. The Resurrection is supposed to be contradicted by science.

For this particular miracle, the laws of biology were temporarily suspended. This belief does not inhibit the professional work of Francis Collins or Ken Miller or Colin Humphreys.

eric said:

DS said: Exactly. Faith is believing something in the absence of evidence. It isn't believing something contrary to the evidence.

Believing some Joe Bob bodily ressurrected is pretty damn contrary to the evidence. If any other sect, religion, group or organization claimed that someone other than Jesus bodily ressurrected, you would probably say that was contradicted by science. If I say my great-aunt Sophie ressurrected, you'd say that was contradicted by science. So why do you not say that in the case of Jesus?

I strongly disagree with the idea that more voices are always better. Richard Dawkins is the best friend that creationists have ever had. Why do I say this? Because Richard Dawkins creates outrage by militarizing science in his fight against religion, and creationists thrive on that outrage.

As evidence, I offer the Ben Stein "Expelled" movie. Why do you think that Richard Dawkins got such a prominent role? Because he was great for the movie's agenda, that's why. Dawkins upheld the "Expelled" idea that evolution and Christian faith are not compatible. He's the guy that creationists love to hate, and quotations by Dawkins are very common in creationist presentations. Why were theistic evolutionists like Ken Miller not part of the Expelled movie? Because Miller would have "confused the viewers"; he would have directly contradicted the movie's message.

Part of the difficulty we have in trying to assess whether or not religion and science can be compatible lies in the politically motivated and grotesquely distorted war on science by the ID/creationists. These groups are bending and breaking science to justify and market their sectarian beliefs; and that simply distorts any possible dialog that could occur.

Every attack by the ID/creationist community is planned and carefully thought out in the offices of the Discovery Institute, the Institute for Creation Research, and Answers in Genesis. These are strategic jabs at science, the purpose of which is to elevate a narrow range of sectarian beliefs; and the strategy over the past 50 years is to lure the scientific community into “debates” that give the appearance of legitimacy and scientific support to those sectarian notions.

This political war muddies up the historical relationship between science and religion not only by its grotesque distortions of scientific concepts and scientific evidence, but by its deliberate distortions of history and philosophy by the likes of David Barton and the pseudo-philosophers at the DI, ICR, and AiG.

However, if we set aside those distortions by this politically aggressive, pseudo-intellectual movement, the real history of the relationship between science and religion is more nuanced and more understandable. The history of the human race is intricately tied up with the evolution of humans attempting to understand the world around them. It is probably not surprising that early humans projected human emotions and motives onto nature in the form of deities. But we have evolved.

We now understand a lot more about how the universe works; and we can clearly recognize the issues of obtaining evidence of the supernatural by translating that into natural phenomena. People who actually do science – and that certainly does NOT include ID/creationists – are more likely to appreciate those difficulties and thereby question the notion of supernatural deities.

But the average person going about life and trying to find tradition and community as templates for living is behaving quite rationally in accepting their religions institutions and traditions as part of that set of templates. Many people will not have the time, interest, or ability to take on all the rigors of scientific training that will get them to the point of having to consider the kinds of ontological and epistemological questions that enter into debates about the relationships between science and religion. They simply have to get on with their lives; and religious communities are often the means to that end.

The history of religion is a pretty mixed bag of good and horrendous evil; but during many eras in human history, it is what held groups of people together. From a pragmatic point of view, “good” religious communities don’t agonize over the attributes of deities and which humans are favored above all others. The bad religions are centered on personalities and concerns over who gets to determine the fates of others; and they justify their actions by claiming they have instructions from their deity to carry out the political agendas and atrocities that gain them power over others.

I am not religious; but I can understand the role that religion plays in the lives of others. There are thousands of religious beliefs and traditions in the world; and that in itself is a clear demonstration that humans – especially those politically motivated ID/creationists – don’t know anything about deities.

So the question seems to come down to the pragmatic details about why a given person belongs to a particular religious group, whether or not the person acknowledges those reasons to be pragmatic. I suspect that in a very large if not the majority of cases, people aren’t particularly concerned about the attributes of their deities but, instead, are deriving personal benefits from their social contracts with a religious community.

Nick you say that the evidence is debatable, I was wondering what evidence you are referring to, like do you find Conway Morris's arguments interesting, or fine tuning or something?

Carl Drews said: The dominant belief among Christians about the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is: 1. This event was scientifically impossible. 2. We like it that way. The Resurrection is supposed to be contradicted by science. For this particular miracle, the laws of biology were temporarily suspended. This belief does not inhibit the professional work of Francis Collins or Ken Miller or Colin Humphreys.

DS said:

eric said:

DS said: Exactly. Faith is believing something in the absence of evidence. It isn't believing something contrary to the evidence.

Believing some Joe Bob bodily ressurrected is pretty damn contrary to the evidence. [snip]

Didn't say you shouldn't.

eric said:

DS said: Exactly. Faith is believing something in the absence of evidence. It isn't believing something contrary to the evidence.

Believing some Joe Bob bodily resurrected is pretty damn contrary to the evidence.

eric said:

DS said:

eric said:

DS said: Exactly. Faith is believing something in the absence of evidence. It isn't believing something contrary to the evidence.

Believing some Joe Bob bodily ressurrected is pretty damn contrary to the evidence. [snip]

Didn't say you shouldn't.

My point was, your statement about faith is wrong: real faiths do regularly include 'believing something contrary to the evidence.' Do you agree or disagree?

Dave Luckett said: Addressing the reasoned comment above: mandrellian, I don't think Asher is assuming the existence of such an agency. He has stated that he believes in one, and is defending the rationality of that belief. To do so, he must address Rosenhouse's question:..." (snip)

Furthermore, my view has the advantage that the consistency across, and existence of, natural laws follows reasonably from positing an agency behind them. While such an assertion isn’t necessary to understand the mechanism(s) by which a given natural law functions, it does lead to the expectation that such laws should not only exist, but also make sense.

... “design” clearly does entail expectations of how the “designer” of the anti-Darwin movement operates— like a superhuman would.

There is a natural law that says the air-sea drag coefficient Cd increases with wind speed, then starts to drop again at wind speeds greater than about 32 meters per second. This law did not make sense to me until I went through a lot of observation and analysis of hurricane-force winds over the ocean. Now it does make sense.

It's more useful to think of humans discovering the natural laws and how they can be used to make successful predictions, rather than those laws "making sense".

eric said: IMO nobody is saying all Christian beliefs are incompatible. We say two things: that many of the core beliefs held by most Christians are incompatible. Like a bodily human ressurection. And second, that the Christian method of belief is incompatible with empirical science even in cases where both methods reach the same conclusion.

And what exactly is the Christian method of belief that I am allegedly using to determine the behavior of the drag coefficient at various wind speeds? Reading peer-reviewed scientific papers? Taking a leaf blower to my children's little swimming pool?

If you are referring to Henry Morris and Answers in Genesis' insistence that Bishop James Ussher's interpretation of Genesis 1 from 1650 overrides all scientific data and other parts of the Bible, then I cannot abide that either.

Robin said: I'm really enjoying this discussion and in particular this distinction you are making Eric.

I've never put it into words before, but I have to say that on reflection, this issue of the Christian method of believe is the most prominent reason for my leaving Christianity.

Carl Drews said: And what exactly is the Christian method of belief that I am allegedly using

...to determine the behavior of the drag coefficient at various wind speeds?

If you are referring to Henry Morris and Answers in Genesis' insistence that Bishop James Ussher's interpretation of Genesis 1 from 1650 overrides all scientific data and other parts of the Bible, then I cannot abide that either.

eric said: All scientific data also tells us there is no overarching intelligence guiding human history

We can go to Francis Collins and Ken Miller if you like, since their positions are better known than mine.

Collins and Miller both believe that Jesus of Nazareth rose bodily from the dead. They both believe that this event was a temporary suspension of biological laws, and that the Resurrection overrides science. They both acknowledge and embrace this contradiction, since they believe that the Resurrection of Jesus was a miracle enacted by God. They derive their belief in the Resurrection at least partly from the Bible.

Collins and Miller are both Christians. They are both nationally accomplished and respected biologists. They have written two books each refuting creationism. Ken Miller testified effectively in the Dover trial against Intelligent Design. They both believe in evolution based on the scientific evidence. They are both working hard to convince other Christians that evolution and science are okay. I hope and pray that someday their efforts and those of others will achieve a majority.

Will you visit a non-creationist Christian church when the number of American Christians who accept biological evolution rises above 50%?

Rosenhouse is right to point out that “no God at all” is a possibility that has to be dealt with by believers. I do so by arguing that his suspicion that “maybe there is no god” is no more justified than my suspicion that maybe God acts through nature.

Nick Matzke said: Byers -- what is your goal here? Your posts are barely lucid, let alone convincing. If you want to impress scientists, do something meaningful like give substantial evidence that radiometric dating is wrong.

But Byers has utterly failed to convince anyone of anything, due to his complete refusal to present or consider any evidence whatsoever. I say hes lying. I say hes only here to irritate. He knows what he has to do to convince and he isnt willing to do it. He cant, he wont, any more than he can learn proper grammar and punctuation.

I think what makes religion so very unique in the human sphere of culture is that religion, particularly deistic, supernatural religions, require absolutely no evidence, proof, what-have-you, for whatever claims are being put forth, but only require a set of believers. Furthermore, if such claims, however irrational, are asserted by anyone in an authorative fashion, though requiring no evidence as to the claims' source, they become more tenable, and the more believers, the greter the influence and power of of the asserter and set of beliefs. Whether such claims and beliefs are beneficial or not to the individual or the group, or they cause harm to another individual or group, is relative to the believer and/or non-adherent, as history has shown.

H.H. said:

Rosenhouse is right to point out that “no God at all” is a possibility that has to be dealt with by believers. I do so by arguing that his suspicion that “maybe there is no god” is no more justified than my suspicion that maybe God acts through nature.

But Rosenhouse's explanation, being the null hypothesis, doesn't require justification. It's the default position. Your position, on the other hand, which assumes that god "acts through nature," multiplies entities beyond necessity, i.e. it is the less parsimonious explanation and is therefore rejected. So, no, the two positions are definitely not equivalent. Your position is much weaker than you admit.

Robert Byers, why do you think your mission is to persuade us the "truth" of Young Earth Creationism when you repeatedly refuse to explain to us why we should believe you?

Sylvilagus said:

eric said: All scientific data also tells us there is no overarching intelligence guiding human history

Can you give me a quick summary of the data that tells us this. I'm not arguing with you. I'm an atheist. I agree that no data "demonstrates" the existence of an overarching intelligence, but I have trouble imagining what kind of data could "rule out" the guidance of a hypothetical being that transcends time, space, and the categories of human cognition. The latter seems to be the claim that you are making.

DS said: But Byers has utterly failed to convince anyone of anything, due to his complete refusal to present or consider any evidence whatsoever. I say hes lying. I say hes only here to irritate. He knows what he has to do to convince and he isnt willing to do it. He cant, he wont, any more than he can learn proper grammar and punctuation.

Carl Drews said: Will you visit a non-creationist Christian church when the number of American Christians who accept biological evolution rises above 50%?

eric said:

Carl Drews said: Will you visit a non-creationist Christian church when the number of American Christians who accept biological evolution rises above 50%?

I am not sure what your point is (or if its addressing me, so if it isn't, my apologies). I think they are both able scientists and don't question their scientific credibility. I've already said that if creationists are merely a large plurality of christians rather than a majority, they're still a big part of christianity. And, finally, I went to non-Creationist churches for 20+ year. What makes you think one more trip is going to change my opinion?

I’ve never put it into words before, but I have to say that on reflection, this issue of the Christian method of believe is the most prominent reason for my leaving Christianity. While it might be true that some forms of Christianity are compatible with science, the fact that the majority of those who embrace the group title “Christian” insist on embracing a methodology I cannot abide left me uncomfortable using the term at all.

This is the classic argument. However, the problem is that the null hypothesis in this case is that there was no cause for the Universe. Yet it is known that the Universe is an effect of an event - the expansion of the singularity. This hypothesis of a causeless event to which all other events can ultimately be traced, is difficult to reconcile with the underlying requirement of any hypothesis, even the null hypothesis - that it causally explain the event.

The problem of first cause remains no matter which hypothesis is selected.

Inventing a deity to account for the origin of the Universe only switches the problem to needing to account for the origin of the deity.

The addition of a deity to the problem doesn't solve or illuminate anything, and so for that reason fails to be the most parsimonious with the current evidence.

Whatever problems a non-supernatural origin hypothesis has explaining the data, the supernatural explanation will also have plus the additional problem of assuming facts not in evidence. Therefore, the non-supernatural hypothesis will always be the preferred explanation on strictly rational grounds.

Carl Drews said: I am guessing that the churches mentioned there were creationist, and that the "majority" is important to Robin. America has lots of Christian churches, and many of them are attended by people who think rationally. Find one.

I speak under correction, but I was not aware of any non-supernatural origin hypothesis that explains the data at all.

It appears that nobody knows where the singularity came from. To say it must have been naturally caused, therefore, is itself to assume facts not in evidence.

Until and unless there are hypotheses that causally explain the data, the idea of a deity can be rationally entertained, as much as hypotheses such as irruptions from other Universes, and so on. After all, there is no evidence for those, either.

Carl Drews said:

eric said:

Carl Drews said: Will you visit a non-creationist Christian church when the number of American Christians who accept biological evolution rises above 50%?

I am not sure what your point is (or if its addressing me, so if it isn't, my apologies). I think they are both able scientists and don't question their scientific credibility. I've already said that if creationists are merely a large plurality of christians rather than a majority, they're still a big part of christianity. And, finally, I went to non-Creationist churches for 20+ year. What makes you think one more trip is going to change my opinion?

Sorry, I should have specified who I was addressing. It was Robin's comment:

I’ve never put it into words before, but I have to say that on reflection, this issue of the Christian method of believe is the most prominent reason for my leaving Christianity. While it might be true that some forms of Christianity are compatible with science, the fact that the majority of those who embrace the group title “Christian” insist on embracing a methodology I cannot abide left me uncomfortable using the term at all.

I am guessing that the churches mentioned there were creationist, and that the "majority" is important to Robin. America has lots of Christian churches, and many of them are attended by people who think rationally. Find one.

Carl Drews said: I am guessing that the churches mentioned there were creationist, and that the "majority" is important to Robin. America has lots of Christian churches, and many of them are attended by people who think rationally. Find one.

Dave Luckett said: H.H. said:

The problem of first cause remains no matter which hypothesis is selected.

Agreed. But since the null hypothesis (There was no prime cause) does not provide an explanation, it is rational to choose among the hypotheses that do.

It is only rational to choose a hypothesis for which there is supporting evidence. If you do not insist on supporting evidence, you might as well argue that leprechauns did it.

H.H. said:

It is only rational to choose a hypothesis for which there is supporting evidence. If you do not insist on supporting evidence, you might as well argue that leprechauns did it.

That's only true if you consider all possibilities equally likely, something which is itself highly irrational.

How can one tell that the leprechaun hypothesis is less likely that a "deity" which "exists outside of space and time"? How is one more explanatory than the other?

H.H. said: My point was any hypothesis which invokes magical entities must be considered less likely than hypotheses or conjectures which do not. Whether that magical entities is a god or a leprechaun makes no actual difference.

Until and unless there are hypotheses that causally explain the data, the idea of a deity can be rationally entertained...

I cannot fathom exactly what Asher believes, but I take it that it is close to deism (yet another term that is found in the text but not in the index). I agree with Asher that is not irrational to believe in God, as long as your belief does not contradict known facts. But neither is it rational, so I prefer to think of a belief in God as nonrational. It would be substantially more rational, however, for a scientist such as Asher to take the approach that his belief in God is a hypothesis rather than a belief: I can see no reason for a good scientist, such as Asher, to believe in an entity that may not exist.

I suspect an honest scientist saddled with an untestable belief he can’t discard, works around this problem by making the belief increasingly abstract. Not exactly deism, but more like an appendix added to a good understanding of the world, which neither adds to any understanding nor conflicts with any. Ideally, such a god achieves the goal of being irrelevant to everything. Kind of like believing everything is covered by a coat of invisible paint, undetectible in any way. No matter how devout such a belief is, it remains harmless.

Some things I believe are essentially religous beliefs, and which generally are not true, but notice that most people, myself included, act as if they are.

Consciousness in the classical Western understanding of the term exists. (I believe it exists, but not in the extreme form we commonly accept).

Human beings are rational. (Except under certain very limited situations. Generally humans are anything but rational.

That there exists any objective ethical or moral systems. Any such ethical system is a construct of human culture and imagination. There are or will be evolutionary explanations which are variously codified by the state, by philosophy, or by religion. All are culturally limited, and any assertion that they are absolute, or even normative is somewhat of a religious statement. I am asserting that any search for Truth (capital T) is essentially religious, but would not object to someone using another term.

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, as well as Buddhism, Taoism, and some forms of Hinduism have been understood by many believers as non-theistic. The driving force for this is that common theistic understandings are largely derived from pagan religions. And even Socrates who likely would describe himself as religious, just wouldn't accept that we can say much about what that means.

HH said: We have mountains of evidence that material reality exists. We have zero evidence that anything like the supernatural exists.

And nobody is saying that the Universe *must* have a natural cause, only that based on all available data it is far, far, more likely.

Dave Luckett said: I know of no entity in that category except God.

As I remarked before, phhht, if leprechauns cause Universes, then "leprechaun" is one of the nine billion names of God.

Dave Luckett said: As I remarked before, phhht, if leprechauns cause Universes, then "leprechaun" is one of the nine billion names of God.

phhht said: I don’t find that the notions of “outside the universe” or “beyond space and time” make any sense. I certainly can’t read them as a rational reason to suppose the existence of creator gods.

Dave Luckett said:

phhht said: I don’t find that the notions of “outside the universe” or “beyond space and time” make any sense. I certainly can’t read them as a rational reason to suppose the existence of creator gods.

How is this different from the argument from personal incredulity so beloved of creationists?

Regarding trying to figure out plausible causes of the universe:

IMNSHO, to set up a hypothesis for a cause for an event, one must first have a way of inferring what was present before the event, what was present after the event, and some relationship between those.

In the case of the origin of space-time as we know it, and considering the implications of general relativity, asking what was "before" might be like asking what's north of the north pole. We might need to have discovered something analogous to a second time dimension (one separate from the one of which we are aware, maybe perpendicular to it), and find some way to measure position along that.

Oh, and as for whether a proposed explanation (hypothesis) is natural or supernatural: I say forget that distinction. What matters is whether the proposed explanation directly explains some consistently observed patterns of evidence. To do that, those patterns have to be direct logical consequences of the hypothesis, and not expected without it. Never mind whether the phenomena in question is traditionally labeled as supernatural or not.

After all, things like lightning, diseases, weather, etc., used to be regarded as supernatural, and if some phenomena now regarded as supernatural gets discovered and its existence verified, it would simply join that list.

Henry

You already know of something that is, or was (the tense is problematic) beyond space and time, phhht: the singularity itself. It existed without space and without time. Further, we hardly have a decent handle on what space and time are, at root. How is it reasonable to expect me, or anyone, to define what is beyond them?

You say I attribute other qualities to God. I don't. I don't say He lives, I say it is possible that He exists, and if so it must be independently of space and time, since He might be used to explain them.

The cause of the Universe need not be a wilful agency, as I have said many times. But there is no reason I can think of why that possibility cannot rationally be admitted.

Dave Luckett said: The cause of the Universe need not be a wilful agency, as I have said many times. But there is no reason I can think of why that possibility cannot rationally be admitted.

If the possibility may be rationally admitted, that is sufficient. It is therefore rational to proceed on that hypothesis. That makes perfect sense to me.

but we do not observe other singularities.

Dave Luckett said: You already know of something that is, or was (the tense is problematic) beyond space and time, phhht: the singularity itself. It existed without space and without time. Further, we hardly have a decent handle on what space and time are, at root. How is it reasonable to expect me, or anyone, to define what is beyond them? You say I attribute other qualities to God. I don't. I don't say He lives, I say it is possible that He exists, and if so it must be independently of space and time, since He might be used to explain them. The cause of the Universe need not be a wilful agency, as I have said many times. But there is no reason I can think of why that possibility cannot rationally be admitted.

Dave Luckett said: If the possibility may be rationally admitted, that is sufficient. It is therefore rational to proceed on that hypothesis. That makes perfect sense to me.

What you’re doing is just a slightly more complicated version of Pascal’s Wager.

phhht, I regret that I can't make myself plain to you. I'm afraid, in the face of the construction you place upon my remarks, and the rising tide of your obvious indignation, I will only make things worse by continuing.

eric, it is only as one of a number of competing hypotheses that I wish the idea of a creator to be admitted into rational discourse, not as the selected one. If it can be accepted that it is a rational hypothesis, and not irrational, that is sufficient to draw the fangs of those who wish to characterise the idea itself as 'irrational'.

The rest is opinion. If it is possible for atheists to accept that others are of a different opinion, and have a right to hold that opinion without calumny, or, worse, threats to their vocations (where that vocation is science), then we can live in peace with our theistic neighbours and hope to enlist their support for science against the manifestly irrational defiance of evidence that constitutes creationism.

But if we insist on calling them 'irrational', we make adversaries of them when they might well be allies. If anything's irrational, that is.

Matt Young said:

What you’re doing is just a slightly more complicated version of Pascal’s Wager.

I don't get that:

Oh, and I was guilty of a terminological inexactitude. I am aware that black holes are singularities. By "the singularity", definite article, I meant the singularity that contained, if that is the word, all the energy that presently exists in the Universe, (some of which condensed into matter) and which expanded to produce the Universe. What I meant, then, was that we do not observe singularities that produce new Universes, and therefore cannot observe what that process entails.

Dave Luckett said: eric, it is only as one of a number of competing hypotheses that I wish the idea of a creator to be admitted into rational discourse, not as the selected one. If it can be accepted that it is a rational hypothesis, and not irrational, that is sufficient to draw the fangs of those who wish to characterise the idea itself as 'irrational'. The rest is opinion.

But you are paying attention to it, eric, to the extent of calling people who hold to it "irrational". You have not said, but others have, that they shouldn't be doing science at all.

Certainly evidence is the test. It is evidence that renders the beliefs of creationists irrational. But for the causation of the Universe itself, the origin of the singularity, the cause of its initial expansion, there is no evidence. It can be said that it happened. Nobody knows how. In the absence of knowledge, we are reduced to opinion. It is your opinion that the Universe was naturally caused. That, as it happens, is mine also. But where we differ is that I recognise that as an opinion - and that in the absence of conclusive evidence, other opinions are admissable.

OK friends, help me out here.

As a scientist, I use the term "hypothesis" to mean something specific. A hypothesis is neither a hunch nor something I choose to believe because of a strictly subjective experience. A hypothesis is a tentative inference (a) with some explanatory power, (b) drawn from objective observations and/or theoretical considerations, that (c) can be further tested by gathering more objective observations.

Outside of creationists (including IDists) and fundamentalists, which theists have elevated their theism to the level of hypothesis and are attempting to use a deity as part of a scientific explanatory framework?

Dave Luckett said: But you are paying attention to it, eric, to the extent of calling people who hold to it "irrational". You have not said, but others have, that they shouldn't be doing science at all.

Dave Luckett said: phhht, I regret that I can't make myself plain to you...

phhht said: You simply assert that it is rational to take that position. I say, put up or shut up. Give a rationale based on empirical evidence, or concede that you have none.

Thank you, Sylvilagus. I think you have the nubbin of it there. I have nothing further to say.

I’m not trying to suggest that a belief in God is strictly analogous to my example, merely to question the leap you make from “rational” to “supported by empirical evidence.”

Dave Luckett said: By "the singularity", definite article, I meant the singularity that contained, if that is the word, all the energy that presently exists in the Universe, (some of which condensed into matter) and which expanded to produce the Universe. What I meant, then, was that we do not observe singularities that produce new Universes, and therefore cannot observe what that process entails.

Dave Luckett said: But you are paying attention to it, eric, to the extent of calling people who hold to it "irrational".

Dave Luckett said: This is the classic argument. However, the problem is that the null hypothesis in this case is that there was no cause for the Universe. Yet it is known that the Universe is an effect of an event - the expansion of the singularity. This hypothesis of a causeless event to which all other events can ultimately be traced, is difficult to reconcile with the underlying requirement of any hypothesis, even the null hypothesis - that it causally explain the event.

phhht said: ... What does "beyond space and time" mean? How can one be "beyond" space? The preposition rests semantically on the metaphor of a space enclosing a boundary to be exceeded. Do you intend to suggest an infinite series of enclosing Russian spacetime dolls, one for each new beyond? What does it mean to be beyond time? As far as I can tell, we can barely begin to say what it means to be within time, much less beyond it. ...

Scott F said: Actually, that may not be entirely "true". I am not a physicist, but I read something recently (perhaps even from a link here) (and Mike E. could probably explain this much better :-). At the quantum scale, both "events" and "objects" are actually probability distributions in both space and time. In particular, at the quantum level the probability distribution curves of the "cause" and the "effect" can actually overlap. I envision a set of multi-dimensional bell curves (with leading and trailing "tails") moving and interacting. In fact, my understanding is that it is even conceivable that an "effect" can precede the "cause" in some sense, and that the "effect" and "cause" can interact. If I understood correctly, the hypothesis is that the probability distribution of the singularity might even have "caused" itself. Is that likely? Of course not. But it's a probability distribution; the tails may be very small, but they are non-zero. Given an eternity, even a very unlikely event can have an overall probability of "1". So, it might be that a "causeless" event is conceivably plausible.

Matzke is right, of course, and it takes a busload of quibbling to make him out otherwise. His theological point, that one cannot rule God definitively either in or out by means of straightforward, muscular reasoning about how God must or must not act or think, is an old one; a well-known amateur theologian made it succinctly in 1859:

"Have we any right to assume that the Creator works by intellectual powers like those of man?" -- Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

If there is a transcendent God, She will be mousetrapped neither by ID advocates with their narrow terms and bad evidence nor by (some) atheists with their equivalent but neatly inverted terms, as displayed occasionally in huffy demands for a definite evidential trail to this supposed God of yours, etc. However coldly and carefully stated, the argument that absence of evidence is evidence of absence never really transcends Khruschev chortling that Gagarin saw no God in orbit. (God, if "real", may exist in a mode only analogically related to that of all other "reality" and may act in ways only analogically related to all modes of action we know or can imagine. Hard cheese for those want proof one way or another.)

A classic example of atheist-creationist theological mirroring is Rosenhouse's claim that "the mechanics of evolution are at odds with the attributes God is believed to possess." This is identical to what many creationists allege, e.g., Dembski. Rosenhouse and his most despised counterparts are as one on this point, except the two sides want to force opposite conclusions from it. But among the many weaknesses of Rosenhouse's version is the false claim of fact smuggled in under its passive "is believed to possess." Is believed by who, Kimosabe? Some theists, yes: others, manifestly, no -- which is a large part of what Matzke's saying. It is a plain fact that some persons who believe in God also _do_ believe in an informed way in evolution (start with Dobzhansky and work your way out). Any naïve claim that such believers _should_ not do both, advanced by critics who have not engaged seriously with the theologies of such believers, is uninteresting.

Larry_Gilman said: If there is a transcendent God...

Larry_Gilman said: God, if “real”, may exist in a mode only analogically related to that of all other “reality” and may act in ways only analogically related to all modes of action we know or can imagine.

He's trying to say God is inscrutable. In his next message he will then proceed to tell you what God wants, or he'll tell us that we can know what God wants by examining the bible/koran/ourselves/whatever.

God, it seems, has a form of quantum inscrutability. When an atheist is asking difficult questions, he's inscrutable. When not, God's message is clear.

eric said: He's trying to say God is inscrutable. In his next message he will then proceed to tell you what God wants, or he'll tell us that we can know what God wants by examining the bible/koran/ourselves/whatever. God, it seems, has a form of quantum inscrutability. When an atheist is asking difficult questions, he's inscrutable. When not, God's message is clear.

apokryltaros said: Beware of such quantum inscrutability, as further clarification inevitably tends to come at a steep price, payable in cash and checks made out to God's current messenger.

Does that include incompetent messengers? ;)

The inscrutability of deities is one of the sleazier forms of the god-of-the-gaps argument.

If we can’t know deities because they are, by definition, hidden or inscrutable, what is the point of speculating about them?

And what possible justification does anyone have in trying to impose his human desires on other humans in the name of such inscrutable and unknowable deities?

To say that a deity is unknowable while at the same time claiming oneself to be an enforcer of the deity’s will is nothing but raw chutzpa that needs to be cured by a quick kick in the teeth.

Mike Elzinga said: To say that a deity is unknowable while at the same time claiming oneself to be an enforcer of the deity’s will is nothing but raw chutzpa that needs to be cured by a quick kick in the teeth.

Phhht: "How little evidence is little enough?"

I don't see how what I said could be reasonably construed to mean that I think that less evidence is, uh, better. But, to try the point again:

Larry_Gilman said:

God, if "real‚" may exist in a mode only analogically
related to that of all other "reality" and may act in
ways only analogically related to all modes of action we
know or can imagine.

Phhht: What does this mean? I don't understand what you are trying to say.

Paraphrase: God might not be an object. Whatever an "object" is. It's not uncommon, in philosophy -- and in science, in some fields (viz. Heisenberg) -- to question what we mean by apparently straightforward terms like "evidence," "real," and "exist." I've presented no argument for God's reality here, gaps-based or otherwise; I've questioned a class of simplistic arguments for God's unreality, which is not the same thing.

Phhht: "Why suppose gods exist in the first place, given their utter irrelevance to reality? There is evidence for everything from apples to zebras, but not a single shred for gods. Why conclude they are real? Why NOT conclude they are fictional?"

Reasonable questions, apart from the question-begging of the first sentence. Partial response: religious human beings have never begun by "supposing gods to exist in the first place." A bare "supposal of existence" has never been the starting point of religious belief for any actual person or group. People seem -- there are no direct data, but one may generalize cautiously from what little there is -- to have begun, some tens of thousands of years ago, having a variety of religious experiences, and to have responded to those experiences in part by creating paintings, carvings, burial rites, sacrifice rituals, and the like. The early cave paintings were almost certainly "religious" but there is no evidence that their painters worshipped "gods." (The idea that religion began as an attempt to explain natural phenomena, like thunder, by attributing them to super-people or "gods" is a folk-theory having no standing, so far as I can tell, among anthropologists.) Religions with deities -- polytheisms and monotheisms -- seem to have arisen later. So religion has always been "in the first place" a complex of practices both shaped by religious experiences and generative of them, not a series of propositions or pseudo-scientific claims about whether "gods exist." Religions of the recent past, i.e., the last few millennia, are not only performative but propositional, as in Christianity's credal statements, but not "in the first place," not primarily so. People invent and participate in and perpetuate religions for many reasons: least often because they have followed a chain of pseudo-evidence to a state of propositional "belief", most often because they feel gripped, in some degree, by something beyond themselves, a "fearful yet compelling mystery." Religious faith is primarily experiential, not propositional.

None of what I've just said goes to the truth of any religious belief; please don't sprain yourself pointing that out. But if one really wanted to know -- as many scientists do -- why the phenomenon of religion exists and what it consists of, the actual nature and history of the thing would be relevant. Tendentious caricatures, not so much.

Eric: "He's trying to say God is inscrutable. In his next message he will then proceed to tell you [etc] . . . When an atheist is asking difficult questions, [God's]'s inscrutable. When not, God's message is clear."

Wow, the old Talk About Me As If I Wasn't Even There move . . . I haven't been hit with that one since third grade . . .

Actually, I wasn't going to say any of the things you so cleverly, and with such a perfect lack of information, put in my mouth. I was going to say --

No, wait. I've changed my mind. You win. I'm convinced. Plato, Bach, Newton -- the authors of the Gita, Odyssey, Greek tragedies, and Job -- 99% of the human race, from the Greeks to Shakespeare, Yeats, Dostoevsky, Tolkien and Martin Luther King -- the builders of the cathedrals, the gospel-music singers and civil-rights marchers, Mozart, Chaucer, Planck, every religious believer who has ever lived -- nothing but a bunch of contemptible simpletons, crutch-sucking idiots, compared to you guys. Blessed with a proper contempt for all religion they might have risen to the heights of civilization on display here, but the human race was not so lucky. Instead, we only got Lascaux, the Missa Solemnis, War and Peace, and the Parthenon.

Bye, guys. I yield you the sandbox.

Larry

Larry_Gilman said: Actually, I wasn't going to say any of the things you so cleverly, and with such a perfect lack of information, put in my mouth.

[some atheists'] huffy demands for a definite evidential trail to this supposed God of yours...

God, if “real”, may exist in a mode only analogically related to that of all other “reality” and may act in ways only analogically related to all modes of action we know or can imagine.

Plato, Bach, Newton -- the authors of the Gita, Odyssey, Greek tragedies, and Job -- 99% of the human race, from the Greeks to Shakespeare, Yeats, Dostoevsky, Tolkien and Martin Luther King -- the builders of the cathedrals, the gospel-music singers and civil-rights marchers, Mozart, Chaucer, Planck, every religious believer who has ever lived -- nothing but a bunch of contemptible simpletons, crutch-sucking idiots, compared to you guys.

I think some of you seriously misread Larry_Gilman. You appear to have kinda sorta read his initial post, jumped right by what he actually wrote (skipping the work of actually trying to understand what he meant^*), and assumed that he was yet another fundamentalist; some of you did put words to that effect in his mouth. Based on what he's actually posted so far (you know, the "evidence"), Larry_Gilman may well be closer to Dave Luckett than to our resident fundamentalists; this, of course, is a provisional conjecture subject to revision if new information becomes available.

_____

^*Of course, his writing style did make discerning his meaning a greater challenge than necessary.

Larry_Gilman said: God, if "real‚" may exist in a mode only analogically related to that of all other "reality" and may act in ways only analogically related to all modes of action we know or can imagine ... Paraphrase: God might not be an object. Whatever an "object" is. It's not uncommon, in philosophy -- and in science, in some fields (viz. Heisenberg) -- to question what we mean by apparently straightforward terms like "evidence," "real," and "exist." I've presented no argument for God's reality here, gaps-based or otherwise; I've questioned a class of simplistic arguments for God's unreality, which is not the same thing.

phhht said: Why suppose gods exist in the first place, given their utter irrelevance to reality? There is evidence for everything from apples to zebras, but not a single shred for gods. Why conclude they are real? Why NOT conclude they are fictional?"

SWT said:I think some of you seriously misread Larry_Gilman. You appear to have kinda sorta read his initial post, jumped right by what he actually wrote (skipping the work of actually trying to understand what he meant^*), and assumed that he was yet another fundamentalist;

Based on what he's actually posted so far (you know, the "evidence"), Larry_Gilman may well be closer to Dave Luckett than to our resident fundamentalists;

God, if “real”, may exist in a mode only analogically related to that of all other “reality” and may act in ways only analogically related to all modes of action we know or can imagine.

eric said:

SWT said:I think some of you seriously misread Larry_Gilman. You appear to have kinda sorta read his initial post, jumped right by what he actually wrote (skipping the work of actually trying to understand what he meant^*), and assumed that he was yet another fundamentalist;

Huh? Phhhht was posting quotes and responding to them right from the beginning.

My first response didn't, but I thought I did a pretty good job in my last post of explaining exactly what parts of Larry's argument I was using to reach my conclusion (that Larry is arguing for inscrutability).

I admit I got a bit snarky. He did not follow up the inscrutable thing with evangelism, which a fundamentalist would likely do. So for that, I'll apologize.

Based on what he's actually posted so far (you know, the "evidence"), Larry_Gilman may well be closer to Dave Luckett than to our resident fundamentalists;

I argue fairly robustly with Dave, too. But as much as I disagree with Dave's position, his arguments are very clear and he answers critiques directly. No ignoring another person's critcisim and certainly no flouncing away.

SWT said: I have to ask, though: why did you go straight to fundamentalism/evangelism? What in his post led you there?

Dave is an outstanding writer; Gilman's writing here is not nearly so clear as Dave's, but I think he might have had some interesting ideas.

eric said:

SWT said: I have to ask, though: why did you go straight to fundamentalism/evangelism? What in his post led you there?

Primarily the third paragraph of his original post (starting "If there is a transcendent God..."). Not only does it make a snarky comment about 'some atheists,' but it uses a lot of postmodernist-like language to make an argument that is regularly (ab)used by theists - that God is unscrutable.

I didn't and don't thing Larry_Gilman is a Christian fundamentalist.

I DO think he is an accommodationist, and one with no new arguments.

SWT said: Regarding your other points, it's hard to say exactly where he was going; you might well be right.

I'm appalled that such an accomplished paleontologist like Robert Asher is speaking nonsense. This doesn't augur well at all for the promotion of science amongst the general public.
He's asking why Darwin mentioned God in his book. Who doesn't know that that was out of pressure from the theistic environment he lived in? He even delayed publishing the book for many years out of fear of the consequences. This is no secret.

Asher further asks why God can't act through natural means. Dr. Asher, a God capable of producing this complex universe and setting universal laws is expected to create whatever he wants instantaneously. It doesn't make any sense to think that God would wait for billions of years after creating the universe for kickstarting life on a remote planet in an ordinary galaxy. This ordinary earth is the ONLY place we know of that has life. Why are there so many "useless" planets if they can't harbor life? For what purpose were they created? Coming to our planet, the earth was sterile for the first billion years after its formation. There were only microbes for the next 2 billion years. Complex animals didn't appear until about 500-600 million years ago. i.e 4 billion years after the earth initially formed! And humans didn't appear until the very very recent past. Along the way there were several mass extinctions that wiped out 99% of all species.

This is not what one would realistically expect of a supernatural power. Of course you can twist any scenario to fit your believes, but it makes no sense whatsoever to conclude that an all-conquering God will act in such a contorted and meaningless way, if he wanted to do what he did. It makes way more sense to conclude that all this happened entirely by natural means and by chance. That's why all this took such a long time and a long winding path with several obstacles.

Dr. Asher, as a scientist you should demand evidence rather than blindly believing in the supernatural that defies common sense and logic. After all that's what you do in your daily research. You don't conclude that mammals evolved from reptiles until and unless you can find evidence for it. If there's a supernatural being who created him? Where did he come from? How on earth did he manage to create this vast universe? What materials did he use? How does he exist?

You must ask yourself these questions and set out to seek answers before concluding God exists. That's what scientists do. I'm ashamed of having you in the scientific community.

Dear Masked Panda,

I noticed your post a couple days ago; here's a brief response. You attribute to me a lot of claims that I've never made; you take a variety of theistic and/or nominally Judeo-Christian views, attribute them all to me and say how ashamed they make you feel.

Not much I can do about that, other than hope you're feeling better and recommend that you have another look at my post---hey you could even read my book. One point I've made repeatedly is that "natural" and "random" don't equate to "absence of god". Jason (and many others) raised the legitimate point that adding a "god" into the mix isn't terribly parsimonious, and if one's goal is to understand mechanism for a natural phenomenon, he's right; it's not. However a parsimonious explanation is recognized as such depending on the question to be explained. At some point the question becomes (at least for me) "why do things make sense in the first place?" or relatedly "why are there natural laws"? Nothing as an explanation for something is not parsimonious. "Evidence" as a rubicon for Truth is fine as far as it goes, but at some point I (and maybe you too) want to know about more abstract things--- metaphysics for example. As far as I can tell our human scientific enterprise doesn't go that far, but philosophy and (gasp) theology do. This is not to denigrate science, but to recognize it's scope. Along these lines I'd recommend a short little book by Peter Medawar:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Limits-Science-Peter-Medawar/dp/0195052129

Robert Asher