Part 2, an attack on creationism

[Autodidact]

Well then, I suggest you restate your argument. I actually agree with you, but it still reads as a classic appeal to popularity.

What is that reason? Is it a good one?

 

[Storm]

What is that reason? Is it a good one?

Well, Nick can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he was trying to point out that fairies and IPUs aren't really a valid comparison to God, not "God is real because lots of people think so".

 

[Autodidact]

Here's what I mean, Nick. In one of Daniel Dennett's books, he talks about some tribe somewhere who absolutely know as a matter of common sense that their dead ancestors affect what they do, for good or ill. They know that it is important to propitiate them, respect them, and consult them in all things. If you do not, bad things will happen. If a group goes gathering nuts, and one falls and injures himself, they will say, "See. He forgot to do the proper ancestor ritual that morning." If you say,

"Nonsense, sometimes people just fall," they will respond,
"But why did the third guy in line fall, not the first or second?" And you are stuck trying to persuade them that sometimes stuff just happens. You can no more persuade them that their dead ancestors aren't influencing the living than I can convince you there is no God.

If you subjected this hypothesis to the scientific method, and sent out a hundred teams of gatherers, and had half of each team propitiate their ancestors, and half not, and kept the resulting data blind, etc. you might be able to persuade them. I don't know. In much the same way, many Christians insist that "Prayer works!" although the results of similar experiments indicate that it does not, in any meaningful sense of the word "work." This does not seem to persuade anyone that prayer does not in fact work.

I think, and Dennett thinks, it's in part because of our natural human tendency to seek patterns and think in stories and in terms of actors, even when they are not present. When we trip on a rock, we look back at the rock accusingly. When I bring my umbrella, I feel sure that I prevented it from raining, even though I actually know that neither rocks nor clouds are intelligent beings who are out to get me.

So "common sense" has a tendency to lead us to think in terms of intelligent beings, even when none are present. We should try to be skeptical of this natural tendency, and subject our ideas to scientific testing. We have learned the hard way, over many centuries, that this is the best way to learn about reality.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

I don't understand what you mean here by criteria. The criteria is stated in the quote: something that could not have evolved by gradual modification, but can only have emerged fully formed. For example, say a partial form would be of no use to anything. Dembski thinks he has done this, but he has been shown wrong repeatedly.

What do you mean by "shown wrong repeatedly"? Do you mean someone has made up some way some complex machinary could have evolved in smaller steps (regardless of how improbable), or do you mean the smaller steps have some kind of evidence to them?

 

[Scuba Pete]

God is retreating, at least according to this belief, many religious people say things like “Well, we don’t know how the universe was made, or where the laws of Physics came from

Your drivel makes me glad that I am a theist! You have exchanged a "God of the Gaps" for a "Science of the Gaps" and there is just no denying the rabid FAITH you have in science. You have proven nothing except that your propensity for over simplification.

First before we get to this point, i would like to if you dont mind, ask you a few questions,

Unfortunately, your drivel makes me wish that I were an atheist. This embarrasses me more than anything I have ever read. That someone might think that I use the same logic that you use traumatizes me. Please learn about evolution and how it is not contrary to God before you continue.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

If there is a God, He seems to exist only in the supernatural realm. Now, a question for you: how do you figure out the truth of something that is only supernatural?

There is no proof and there is no evidence. I depend on my internal awareness, my intuition and reason.

 

[Autodidact]

What do you mean by "shown wrong repeatedly"? Do you mean someone has made up some way some complex machinary could have evolved in smaller steps (regardless of how improbable), or do you mean the smaller steps have some kind of evidence to them?

Remember, it's a "could have" statement, not a "did" statement. There is no need to demonstrate that it did happen any specific way, only that it could have. So Dembski and the ID people say a certain thing couldn't have evolved gradually, because of "specified complexity" or "irreducible complexity" or whatever. For example, they said this about a little doohicky called the "bacterial flagellum" Why I don't know. Now, I'm no biologist or scientist of any kind. But actual cellular biologists demonstrated to their satisfaction that the bacterial flagellum most certainly could have evolved gradually, and posited several evolutionary pathways, as well as existing examples of some of the steps involved.

Probability is misapplied here. Most things that actually happen would be wildly improbably, had they not happened. e.g. if I throw a handful of coins on a grid, it is incredibly improbably that they land where they end up landing. I couldn't have predicted it. Yet, they had to land somewhere, and they did. It might not have been necessary and predictable that bacterial flagella would evolve--it could have gone a different way--it just so happens that it didn't. So probability math stuff doesn't help. (which is good for me, since I can't do it.) The argument, as we saw from the beginning, is that it couldn't have evolved. Throwing in probability is just classic goal-post moving.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

The invisible and the non-existent bear a strange resemblance.

How about Xenu, is that foolish? No
How about jinns and angels?
The angel Moroni?
An ancient Nephite civilization that filled the Americas with cities and vanished
without a trace?

Not as foolish as the invisible creature, but not reasonable enought for me.

An invisible being that can make a woman pregnant?
A talking snake?
A family who put two of each animal on a boat and survived a worldwide flood?
A man who dies and comes back to life?

Each of these taken individually with no context, I would agree, they would be unreasonably to believe. However, taken in the context of the human story portraid in the Bible, they then make a lot more sense.

Here's the biggie: Once you leave the realm of evidence and reason, what you call our fishbowl, how do you tell? Because common sense usually means: what I've been raised to believe.

I didn't say we should leave reason; you added that in. I believe any worldview we have we should be logically consistent. Also, I was not raised Christian. I was raised with no religion in my life and spent a large majority of my adulthood as a materialist.

How do we tell? That is the big question we need to figure out for ourselves because it is not something that is handed to us as absolutely evident.

 

[Autodidact]

There is no proof and there is no evidence. I depend on my internal awareness, my intuition and reason.

And so does every theist, all of them believing things that are wildly opposite. They can't all be right. How do you figure out who is? Maybe you need to start tithing to the IPU now. Did you approach her Being with sincere prayer and ask to be filled with awareness of Her divine presence?

 

[Autodidact]

Not as foolish as the invisible creature, but not reasonable enought for me.

HOW DO YOU TELL? HOW DO YOU TELL?

Each of these taken individually with no context, I would agree, they would be unreasonably to believe. However, taken in the context of the human story portraid in the Bible, they then make a lot more sense.[/quote] What, you think the IPU doesn't have a back story? Wait till you hear it, it will all make sense to you in context. (As soon as I make it up, that is.)

I didn't say we should leave reason; you added that in. I believe any worldview we have we should be logically consistent. Also, I was not raised Christian. I was raised with no religion in my life and spent a large majority of my adulthood as a materialist.

Here's your problem. An entirely fictional world can be logically consistent with itself. The question is, is it consistent with reality? That's where you evidence comes in.
Somehow I think that had you been raised in Saudi Arabia, you'd be Muslim. Would that make you right?

How do we tell? That is the big question we need to figure out for ourselves because it is not something that is handed to us as absolutely evident.

So take a stab at it!

 

[Autodidact]

Not as foolish as the invisible creature, but not reasonable enought for me.

All reasonable enough for millions of others, though. So, how does common sense help? Do you think your common sense is better than theirs?

 

[Nick Soapdish]

What science has shown us over and over and over again is that when it comes to tiny things, like atoms, and huge things, like stars, common sense is almost always wrong. We're pretty good at things around our size, but lousy at things outside our normal scope.

I disagree common sense and intuition are a necessary part of scientific discovery. Yes, common sense can be wrong, but we should not ignore it unless we want to be booked into the looney bin. After all, subscribing inductive reason, which science depends on, relies on our common sense.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

So "common sense" has a tendency to lead us to think in terms of intelligent beings, even when none are present. We should try to be skeptical of this natural tendency, and subject our ideas to scientific testing. We have learned the hard way, over many centuries, that this is the best way to learn about reality.

I agree with your conclusion in that we should side with "evidence" over our previous notions from common sense.

It is funny that you brought up Danniel Dennett because I am no fan of his. I probably disagree with him more than any other modern day scientist.

Part of that is because of his theories in consciousness and part of it is because he openly discusses his moral imparative to turn Christians into atheists in the classroom setting.

 

[Autodidact]

I disagree common sense and intuition are a necessary part of scientific discovery. Yes, common sense can be wrong, but we should not ignore it unless we want to be booked into the looney bin. After all, subscribing inductive reason, which science depends on, relies on our common sense.

For hypotheses, yes. But for verification, no. Predictions confirmed, whether or not they comport with our common sense.

I can think of zillions of examples. Those crazy physicists are tying to convince me that these hard plastic keys my fingers are striking are actually 99.99% empty space, and only .01% matter. They're clearly nuts. Common sense tells me that they're made of matter. I can see and feel them.

Big bang!?! C'mon, pull the other one. The entire universe was compressed into a space smaller than that period back there?!? Now I know they're nuts. My common sense tells me so.

How about, gravity is a dent in the fabric of space-time. WTF?

Electricity: bajillions of tiny particles are zipping along in neat rows, bumping each other alone until they pour out the other end, or whatever it is?

Frankly it's all so counter-intuitive that I have to read popular science books to even understand it.

To tell the truth, I'm still pretty sure the earth is flat, and the sun passes over it each day. Tell the truth, aren't you? I am not spinning around and zooming through space at a perquillion miles an hour. I know it. How come when I jump, the earth doesn't move under my feet. (Actually my teenager explained the answer to me, but still. It just doesn't feel right.)

I actually see the history of science as one long story of un-learning our common sense. It only seems reasonable in retrospect, but when each of these things were discovered, they were rejected as outlandish speculation. It was the evidence--those predictions confirmed,--that told us they were right. It's the only thing that really works.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

And so does every theist, all of them believing things that are wildly opposite. They can't all be right. How do you figure out who is? Maybe you need to start tithing to the IPU now. Did you approach her Being with sincere prayer and ask to be filled with awareness of Her divine presence?

It is interesting that you first make an appeal to what people actually think, and then you resort to appealing to something that no one believes in (IPU). No one believes in IPUs because they don't make sense.

HOW DO YOU TELL? HOW DO YOU TELL?

If you want a formula, I can't give it to you. That is why we need to figure it out for ourselves.

What, you think the IPU doesn't have a back story? Wait till you hear it, it will all make sense to you in context. (As soon as I make it up, that is.)

Ok, its a deal. Let's hear it.

Here's your problem. An entirely fictional world can be logically consistent with itself. The question is, is it consistent with reality? That's where you evidence comes in.
Somehow I think that had you been raised in Saudi Arabia, you'd be Muslim. Would that make you right?

You don't know that I would be Muslim. Maybe I would run into Christian missionaries, or go to an American University and convert to Christianity.

But to your point, the popularity of a faith does not make it right. In the end some of us will be right, or none of us will.

All reasonable enough for millions of others, though. So, how does common sense help? Do you think your common sense is better than theirs?

I find it interesting that you don't think you are in the same boat as the rest of us.

You are clearly following your common sense that there is no special revelation, and no God. What makes your common sense better than theirs?

I have to follow my intuition and my awareness because they are the only ones I have fully integrated into my mind and way of thinking.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

For hypotheses, yes. But for verification, no. Predictions confirmed, whether or not they comport with our common sense.

I can think of zillions of examples. Those crazy physicists are tying to convince me that these hard plastic keys my fingers are striking are actually 99.99% empty space, and only .01% matter. They're clearly nuts. Common sense tells me that they're made of matter. I can see and feel them.

Big bang!?! C'mon, pull the other one. The entire universe was compressed into a space smaller than that period back there?!? Now I know they're nuts. My common sense tells me so.

How about, gravity is a dent in the fabric of space-time. WTF?

Electricity: bajillions of tiny particles are zipping along in neat rows, bumping each other alone until they pour out the other end, or whatever it is?

Frankly it's all so counter-intuitive that I have to read popular science books to even understand it.

To tell the truth, I'm still pretty sure the earth is flat, and the sun passes over it each day. Tell the truth, aren't you? I am not spinning around and zooming through space at a perquillion miles an hour. I know it. How come when I jump, the earth doesn't move under my feet. (Actually my teenager explained the answer to me, but still. It just doesn't feel right.)

I actually see the history of science as one long story of un-learning our common sense. It only seems reasonable in retrospect, but when each of these things were discovered, they were rejected as outlandish speculation. It was the evidence--those predictions confirmed,--that told us they were right. It's the only thing that really works.

I don't agree. Once we understand the details of how matter is mostly "empty space", the physics behind the big bang, how we perceive a round world, they work our way into our intuition/common sense. Undertanding how the physical world works changes the way we think about it.

I feel compelled to repost an expert in scientific discovery:

"There is no logical way to the discovery of these elemental laws. There is only the way of intuition, which is helped by a feeling for the order lying behind the appearance." -- Albert Einstein

 

[Valjean]

Yes, intuition and hunches can point the way, but the essence of science is testing and falsifiability.
Religion does not test and is not falsifiable.

 

[Autodidact]

It is interesting that you first make an appeal to what people actually think, and then you resort to appealing to something that no one believes in (IPU). No one believes in IPUs because they don't make sense.

Will you please stop saying IPUs as if there were more than One? I told you, she is One.

It's not because She doesn't make sense. She makes as much sense as Xenu, Moroni or Jesus. It's because She doesn't have a holy text, movement, etc. Like I said, if I were L. Ron Hubbard and pretended to take it seriously, I could be promoting IPUism and it would take off just like Mormonism and Scientology.

Surely you're not basing your argument on numbers of adherents?

If you think Jesus makes more sense than the IPU, show us, don't tell us. Remember, She's entirely spiritual. The only way you can know her is through your own inner voice.

If you want a formula, I can't give it to you. That is why we need to figure it out for ourselves.

That's my point, Nick. There isn't any. Once you leave the world of evidence, anything goes. Even Xenu. Even the IPU.

Ok, its a deal. Let's hear it.

Hang tight for a divine revelation. I expect one by tomorrow, next day at the latest.

You don't know that I would be Muslim. Maybe I would run into Christian missionaries, or go to an American University and convert to Christianity.

If so you'd be dead or in prison. It is illegal not to be Muslim in Saudi Arabia.

But to your point, the popularity of a faith does not make it right. In the end some of us will be right, or none of us will.

Right, and what is the best way to figure that out?

I find it interesting that you don't think you are in the same boat as the rest of us.

On the contrary. My common sense is not better than yours. That's why I don't rely on it re: the nature of reality. I rely on evidence, reason, and the scientific method. It's the best antidote to lousy common sense.

You are clearly following your common sense that there is no special revelation, and no God. What makes your common sense better than theirs?

No, I'm using the same method. I examined the evidence and found it lacking.

I have to follow my intuition and my awareness because they are the only ones I have fully integrated into my mind and way of thinking.

Change is possible.

 

[Autodidact]

I don't agree. Once we understand the details of how matter is mostly "empty space", the physics behind the big bang, how we perceive a round world, they work our way into our intuition/common sense. Undertanding how the physical world works changes the way we think about it.

Yes, but not the other way around. These findings completely confounded everyone's common sense--and turned out to be true.

I feel compelled to repost an expert in scientific discovery:

"There is no logical way to the discovery of these elemental laws. There is only the way of intuition, which is helped by a feeling for the order lying behind the appearance." -- Albert Einstein

1. Could you provide a context?
2. Einstein is not a divine authority, just another smart guy doing his best. He was massively wrong about the cosmological constant, and had the chutzpah to admit it.
3. This is not a scientific discovery. It's an opinion.
4. To the extent that I agree with this quote, I would apply it to hypotheses only, which you can get from a Ouija board if you like. How to test whether the intuition is correct? Scientific method. It's the only one that works.
5.Note what Einstein doesn't advocate: common sense. How could he? Gravity can bend light? Puhleaze!

 

[Autodidact]

Yes, intuition and hunches can point the way, but the essence of science is testing and falsifiability.
Religion does not test and is not falsifiable.

I wish I were as concise as you.