The journalistic backlash continues in both the UK and US against Richard Dawkins and his Foundation’s “Christianity poll.” After accusing Dawkins of profiting from slavery, the newspapers have yet another card up their sleeve.
This week Dawkins debated the Archbishop of Canterbury at Oxford. During that debate, Dawkins reiterated what he stated clearly in The God Delusion: he couldn’t be 100% sure that God doesn’t exist, but as a scientist felt that the odds are very much against it.
He then proposed a 7 point spectrum of theistic probability in which 1 represented complete assurance (“I know God exists”) and 7 represented complete atheistic certainty (“I know there is no God”). As I recall, Dawkins put himself at 6.5 on that scale (Wikipedia reports a 6, but I’m not sure as I don’t have the book at hand), for no scientist can know with absolute conviction that anything doesn’t exist. (I’d put myself at 6.995 on that scale.)
In the debate, Dawkins reiterated that ranking explicitly, placing himself at a 6.9. This was reported by several newspapers, including the two below. But what headlines did they choose to use when reporting the debate? Wait for it:
From the Washington Post:
And the Daily Telegraph:
More dreadful journalism: hyped headlines, the revelation of something that’s been known for years, and a misunderstanding of how science operates.
I wonder what how the Archbishop would rank himself on that scale. Would he put himself at 1?
UPDATE: I missed the HuffPo article, which, though identical to the Washington Post article, has a slightly different headline:
h/t: Diane G., Andrew Hackett
I think Dawkins has always said 6.9 from memory but has always used it in this way based upon his “scale”.
I would like Christians to propose their own scale of belief with regards to the other gods in “existence” both present and forgotten.
He said 6.5 in a video interview that I linked to in a comment a few days ago…
/@
Is that the IQ2 debate against Richard Harries and the whiner guy whose name I never bothered to know? The one with the lovely AC Grayling too?
No, this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQ5QG3MUTtg
/@
Ahh. I haven’t seen this one. “I wouldn’t call myself a Christian”.
“What are you then?”
“Festive at Christmas”.
That’s quite possibly the best answer I’ve ever seen.
Thanks for the link.
I don’t know what he has said, but I have the book in front of me. He labeled himself a 6.
In TGD (p51 in the Bantam paperback) he says
“I count myself in category 6, but leaning towards 7 – I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden.”)
BREAKING: Man still believes the same thing as something he wrote in a book six years ago.
Film at 11:00
It’s the same old double standard BS again. To say you believe in God even though you have doubts and are only 33.3`% sure he exists is laudable and virtuous. If you say you do not believe in God, but you’re not 100% sure he doesn’t exist, you’re a vile hypocrite.
It’s Morton’s Fork. If he’s 100% certain there are no god/dess/es, his atheism is a faith and he’s a True Believer. (Shame!) If he admits that it’s not impossible, they’re set to baptise him tomorroe.
And I believe Wikipedia is correct; I remember Dawkins saying (I listened to the audiobook of The God Delusion) that he was a flat 6, and me thinking, “What? Not a 6.5 or a 6.9 or something?” My interpretation was that a) it was not a linear scale, and b) he was not allowing decimals. Therefore, the difference in probability between a 5 and a 6 would be much greater than between a 6 and a 7.
I have heard Dawkins say this on at least two other occassions, and there is nothing shocking or new about his statements.
Ah hah! What he said exactly was, “I count myself in category 6, but leaning towards 7…”
http://books.google.com/books?id=yq1xDpicghkC&lpg=PP1&dq=the%20god%20delusion&pg=PA74#v=onepage&q=6%207&f=false
The Telegraph is a right-wing “establishment” paper. They are a broadsheet version of the Daily Fail which is aimed at a more popular market.
I don’t think the press is used to honesty and people speaking truthfully about their beliefs.
After all, when you have heard the Discovery Institute saying they are open to the idea that the Intelligent Designer might not be God, you learn to be cynical.
Well, either the authors and editors involved here aren’t used to unadulterated honesty (and can’t comprehend the point about knowledge Dawkins was making), OR,
they know this is the kind of crap their hard-of-thinking patrons want to read.
“Aha! Even Dawkins is coming around. Knew I wuz right all along! That settles that! *smug smirk*”
Personally I’m about 8.5
I’m an ascaleist.
Now that’s dash cunning of you. Say, how would you grade your devotion to ascaleism, if you had to quantify that is?
About a fish.
/@
Oh, good old Wanda . . . How I miss her.
I think it’s 47, or is that a different scale?
I ment 42
(short clip linked at the bottom; how these ‘reporters’ can’t know Dawkins’ thoughts is truly amazing)
I remember Dawkins being derided by Richard Harries (the bishop guy in the House of Lords) about his absolute certitude there’s no god. This was in response to Dawkins asking when was the last time someone heard a preacher say: on the balance of probability . . . but we’re waiting for more information. So, Harries decided to throw that at Dawkins asking him why he doesn’t say the same about there being no god, and that if Dawkins could point to where he’s said it Harries would eat his words.
Dawkins responded: bus campaign. And Chapter 4 in the God Delusion is titled ‘why there almost certainly is no god’. And then he explains his 1 – 7 scale putting himself between a 6 and a 7, maybe a 6.5. (correction, Dawkins definitely lists himself as a 6.5).
Let me see if I can find a short clip of it, if not, I’ll just edit one down and upload it. Okay. I can’t find one of just that exchange, so I’m uploading it now; please carry one while I do so. Can’t find a short one, so here’s an edit of it:
6.9999999….
Anything that’s not exactly = to 1 on that scale seems to be insufficient, and (as I left in the clip on purpose) a sign that those who believe in Zeus are being persecuted. Not to breach the civility on Jerry’s non-blog website here, but these motherfuckers can kiss my ass.
Calling them Motherfuckers is good, but perhaps we should start referring to them as Childfuckers, seems more apropos
6.9 with a dot over the 9. Rounded off.
Turns out you don’t even need to round it off.
6.9 with a dot over the 9 exactly equals 7.
(sometimes that kind of freaks people out… they go “nuh u-u-uh… it’s less than 7” – but for the doubters, try this little exercise:
1/9 = 0.11111… right?
2/9 = 0.22222…
3/9 = 0.33333… etc.,etc…
…
9/9 = 0.99999… = 1 )
ergo: 6.9999… = 7. Infinite series, what a concept. 🙂
7. When the definition of “God” is logically incoherent, you can say with certainty that it doesn’t exist (like a square circle, for example).
I like that. May I use it, sometime?
It’s something Ben Goren has said many, many times…
Although usually he mentions married bachelors as well. 😉
/@
Yes, to the extent that we KNOW ANYthing we KNOW that NO object (or being) simultaneously possessing logically contradictory properties or attributes exists.
… no matter what those “married bachelors” say, right?
Married bachelors? I’ve heard men say, “No, I’m not married, but my wife is.” You mean them?
Why quibble about “near certainty”?? How about “Zero Uncertainty”? I have zero uncertainty (though I have not been to even .01% places on planet Earth) that anywhere I go on Earth, on the surface at sea-level, the acceleration of gravity, “g” is equal to 9.8m/per second*per second. Zero uncertainty. I’d rather not play that “Zeno’s Conundrum” game, where Dawkins allows a tiny fraction, just to appear without hubris. Let him say, “Zero Uncertainty” and let the antagonist say, “So, Seven then!??”
“Well, that may be how you interpret Zero Uncertainty…I leave the listeners to work out their own interpretation.”
Ooops. Careful there.
To what precision? Ever calculate your centripetal acceleration due to the earth’s rotation? You have that at the equator, but not at the poles. (turns out your acceleration at the equator will be something like 0.03m/s^2 less due to this effect, so to two sig figs you’re still good. 😉
Maybe I am inexpertly staunch about it, but to me 7 is an asymptote. Every day I get closer and closer.
NdGT might appreciate your asymptote idea.
I’m impressed Dawkins has such a unified and coherent concept of “God” that he can put Him on a probability scale.
He must not read very sophisticated theologians.
+1. Err, I mean +1.5 (don’t want to be fundamentalist about it).
My concept of “God” IS as coherent as that if a very sophisticated theologian. If Richard’s was too he might well come out as an 8.5 like me.
Ah, so you don’t believe in the metaphysical substrate of the expressive aspect within man’s yearning toward the hypostasis of a post-analytical approach to our shared culture of myriad infinities?
Well then, where do you get your morals? 🙂
If I’m not mistaken you’re describing my yellow teapot; I believe in that!
My understanding of High Tea scripture is that Mr. Teapot is apricot. Not yellow. You know that schisms like this form when people like you start attributing to Mr. Teapot attributes based on your personal feelings.
That would be *Ms* Teapot, thank you very much!
I do believe it has to stand up and lean forward to have a proper tea. It cannot just sit there. Therefore, man, not woman, is made in His image. And I think he may be gay given how he insists on having doilies spread all over the place. Plus, look at the British who swoon at his Silver Platter. ‘Nuff said.
But I can prove using Modal Logic that my teapot is a necessary being. Since it is yellow, it must necessarily be yellow. You must be confusing my teapot’s colour with the apricot that the Holy Marzipan Man (Almonds be upon Him) must ate for the redemption of sins.
Don’t get me started on modal logic. I can rant about that for hours (and necessarily do since it’s only logically possible that I necessarily could; therefore, I do). Plus, HMM is only a servant (in the original tongue, server), and not part of the dogma. I bet you’re one of those heretical whores of Bolognan who thinks that the Almonds actually become ‘celestial’ at the moment of transublimation!
proposed a 7 point spectrum of theistic probability … Dawkins reiterated that ranking explicitly, placing himself at a 6.9.
These attacks will mostly be seen as the propaganda they are.
A minor point: Dawkins knows better than to dabble in meaningless quantification.
Dawkins is open to attack as atheism’s most prominent spokesman now that Hitchens is dead, and I expect that he’s perceived as a weaker target than Hitchens. I hope Dawkins illustrates the dangers of underestimating an opponent.
Why anyone would think for a moment that Dawkins is a ‘weaker’ target than Hitchens makes no sense to me. Dawkins is a first rate thinker, and he’s been bludgeoning the religious flights of fancy before anyone really knew who Hitchens was.
Sadly, being a first rate thinker is not the same as being cunning. When he was asked to give the subtitle of the Origins, a better answer (I have hindsight) would be:
“Your best place to find the exact wording would be on the title page of the book. The Origin of Species is not a holy book to me; the Bible is to Christians. And you didn’t give me a choice of four.”
Yes, I’m sure that Richard has, with hindsight, thought of several much better answers himself.
I don’t think he thought it important at the time; it didn’t faze him appreciably. But had he foreseen the scrutiny that his momentary hubris would attract …
/@
Right, he’s not cunning, and this is a good thing . . . Cunning: Having or showing skill in achieving one’s ends by deceit or evasion.
Imagine that, in the same thread where people are taking to task the media for putting spin on things (not honestly representing things), some of the responses seem to indicate that we, or at least Dawkins, should play their game with their tactics (not being honest).
Whether he’s perceived as a weaker target or not, atheism as a whole is certainly perceived as weakened.
He is under scrutinity and the slightest faux pas will be punished in ludicrous ways.
I’m afraid I cannot make sense of this. The arguments that were sufficiently rigorous to give to atheism some degree of strength stopped being at all useful or rigorous in the same way because Hitchens, who didn’t come up with them, and certainly isn’t the only one capable of arguing a point, died? How does that work?
Did Shakespeare start become poor literature because Shakespeare died? Was it diminished in someway?
If it’s weakened in the sense that Hitchens was well-known, consider that he’s never been as known as Dawkins is. Dawkins is and has been ‘the’ atheist for a long while now. I guess I just fail to see how his loss, profound as it was emotionally, bears one jot on the ‘weakness’ of atheism – particularly since nothing has ever turned on the existence, capacity or death of any given atheist.
Consider Dr. Dawkins the gentleman of atheism, arguing rather politely, while Hitch was a boxer, a downright bruiser of a bully, when it came to defending atheist, verbally knockng the competition out, rather than down a gentle notch or two. It’s a matter of style. Hence, the very physical sounding Hitchslap in contrast with the Dawkins dispute.
If the people who are attacking atheism were logical, they’d be atheists.
That’s why I said “perceived” (twice). And I didn’ t say anything about “the weakness of atheism”, but “perceived as weakened”. It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not objectively.
This has bothered me, too. Of course, reading the corresponding text in TGD makes it perfectly clear, but obviously his critics are not going to bother to do that.
When it comes to every conception of a deity that humanity has ever come up with, I’m squarely at 7.
For the idea of a cosmic creator in general, I have to be realistic and admit that I don’t comprehend the entire universe, so it would be foolish to say 7.
However, this really comes back to the whole “what would be evidence for a god” question, to which I can conceive of no answer. If I can’t even imagine what would convince me that a god exists (and if you think you have an answer, you haven’t thought sufficiently deeply about it), in what sense am I not sure?
Yes, I like to take the example, “We know the Earth has the seven continents, Africa, Asia, Europe, Antarctica, Australia, etc. existing on the planet…”
“What would it take, to convince you that there are NINE continents, in actuality??!! C’mon!! There MUST be some idea, some test, some scenario, where you’d finally say, “Gosh, it’s true…there ARE nine continents!!””
…it’d probably take a head injury..or other..
How about a rating of 2Pi?
Would have been interesting if Richard had said, “Archbishop, on that scale my belief that there are no gods is the same as your belief that there is one.”
Actions speak louder than words. Dawkins at least seems consistent with his declared level of (non)belief – he acts as if he really believed there was no God. Now compare this to a lot of faithiests who very vocally declare absolute belief in God and yet hedge their bets by sending their kids to a doctor when they’re sick (tragically, some are indeed crazy enough to believe that prayer only works and end up killing their children). The most laughable are those who declared absolute certaintly the world would end last May 21 (or Oct 21, I forget) and yet continued to pay their mortgage, show up at work, and bring their cars for an oil-change.
As someone who was associated with the Washington Post as a “paper boy” in the 1950s and who has continued to read E. J. Dionne and Eugene Robinson, I am ashamed of my old newspaper.
Slightly OT, but Dionne did not cover himself in glory over the recent contraception brouhaha. Scratch Dionne, and I’m afraid, you’ll find a Catholic, through and through, whatever else show on the surface.
Damn, that’s disappointing. I generally enjoy reading these two, too.
What Dawkins’ opponents are really interested in is not some supernatural being that may have pressed a button and set the big bang in motion.
No, what they are talking about is the god of the Abrahamic religions. And there we can be quite definite – there is no chance that this being portrayed in the Bible and the Koran, this Jehovah/Allah/God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost could possibly exist. None at all.
And for exactly the same reason that we know that Batman doesn’t exist. These are fictional figures, full of contradictions, woven out of stories written by different people at different times. They portray a being that is impossible.
That’s why I think it is a mistake for Dawkins to say he is only 99 per cent, or whatever, certain that there is no God.
For he is talking of God as some mysterious creative force that scientists haven’t yet discovered, have no reason to believe exists, but might just possibly be out there somewhere.
His opponents on the other hand use the term god to mean the being who is centre stage in the sacred texts, the being who works miracles, who tells us who we can have sex with, who promises eternal bliss and threatens eternal damnation.
Such a being makes no sense, and can be ruled out with 100 per cent certainty.
Note that theists used to consider the deist conception of God tantamount to atheism and heresy; it’s only now they embrace deism as usably equivalent to “Yahweh exists”.
Yes. How the tables have turned.
As Jerry wrote a while back: “faith is on the run.”
You can see this in the attempts to show that science and religion are compatible by pointing to all sorts of scientists who were *theists*, eliding the fact that many were not Christians (e.g. Descartes, Galileo, likely Kepler). The argument is bad even if they were, but it is still a dishonest or misleading tactic.
Now, be fair. How else do you expect the weasles to win, unless they cheat? (My apologies to all actual animals in the weasel line.)
Descartes is an interesting case. He was nominally Roman Catholic, but where he lived it was a burning offense to be anything else. The Vatican put his works on the index of forbidden books, but that doesn’t stop Catholic apologists referring to him in support of their opinions.
There is nothing sillier than a “I am more certain than you” pissing contest about something that is not subject to evidence or even clearly defined.
Nothing sillier? I’m not so sure . . .
Okay, you’re right. I am 6.9 sure there is nothing sillier.
I just saw this one. Quite witty riposte. /tipo’thehat
What kind of person makes up an arbitrary scale and then uses numbers 1 to 7 instead of 1 to 10? Maybe that’s why the press is so confused by all of this.
The press is always confused about this — they have to be. Clarity is simply not an option, because of who’d come out looking better.
The same kind of person that made up the scale for our wine society; we rate the wines from 1 to 7 at our tastings.
/@
Don’t you need an odd-numbered scale to have a whole-numbered mid-point?
What kind of person? 1.1666…. Kinseys.
The Kinsey Scale is a seven point scale as well, it just starts at 0 instead of 1.
Well, how convenient. There’s a complete pdf file of TGD online:
http://www.debsh.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Richard.Dawkins.-.The_.God_.Delusion.2006.pdf
(Advance apologies if my attempts to improve readability with blockquoting and bolding go awry…)
As I put in the video description I linked above: here in 2012 there simply is no efficient way to discover what Dawkins’ views on a subject are. Better to just guess and publish an article quickly.
I had no idea this PDF existed – now I can stop having to quote from memory! It’s a miracle!
🙂
Rensis Likert
Although 5-point scales are more common, a 7-point scale is also pretty common (as is 10). The choice is quite arbitrary.
except 10 kind-of sucks, being even… unless you go from 0 to 10.
corrections, corrections…
“Chance” and probability or likelihood are terms that refer to the possible outcomes of future experiments. They cannot be properly applied to the question of the existence of universe-creating deities.
I propose two separate scales, one scoring the amount of evidence for universe-creating deities, and the other, at least equally relevant, the amount of explanatory power in postulating the existence of universe-creating deities.
On a scale from 0 to seven, where 0 is an utter lack of evidence/explanatory power, and 7 is enough, well seems to me we are at zero on both scales.
To help clarify his position for the nit-wits, Dawkins might mention that he also is a 6.9 (or whatever) on pink unicorns, leprechauns, and fire-breathing dragons.
Yeah, that doesn’t work either. You’ll get more special pleading and Courtier’s Replies than you can shake a funny-shaped Pope stick at.
Re Jerry’s 6.995 thing: This tells us little about God, but a lot about Jerry [that we already knew]. If there is no God, then Jerry is impressively perceptive; if there is a God, then he seems to have thoroughly bound himself up in his preconceived Materialistic world view. Might it be more useful to ask what science itself tells us about the chances? Dawkins and others have admitted that, scientifically. God can neither be proved nor disproved. I am not so sure. The fine-tuning discovery is not easily ignored as it has reduced Materialists to positing a multi-verse explanation [more recently needing an infinite multi-verse], each with different properties. Not an impressive defense, since even Dawkins has belittled the argument as being not scientific but forever only speculative. The naturalistic explanation for the origin of life is a problem as the possibilities seem increasingly remote as we learn more. Evolution’s ability to explain life’s diversity and complexity, certainly gives one for the gipper, but irreducible complexity, to the extent that it exists, becomes a problem, as Darwin himself admitted. The definition of God also complicates things. Are we talking about a creator God or a personal God? Are we talking about a revealed God or one who might have chosen to remain hidden? All these things come into play. If a personal God, then for the one has experienced Him, all counter-arguments only reveal the ignorance of those making the arguments. In conclusion, I would postulate a wimpy scientific 3.5, as science has come forth with some impressive naturalistic explanations, but has a long way to go — that road becoming a little rockier as we increase in knowledge. Bring on the abuse, but discover that civility tends to reinforce your stated position.
Sorry my post about the silliness of fine-tuning ‘arguments’ went in the wrong place.
“if there is a God, then he seems to have thoroughly bound himself up in his preconceived Materialistic world view.”
I wonder how the Materialist world view differs from the materialistic world view.
“The fine-tuning discovery is not easily ignored as it has reduced Materialists to positing a multi-verse explanation [more recently needing an infinite multi-verse], each with different properties.”
The fine-tuning argument is rot because our universe is not fine-tuned for life. It is horrifically, overwhelmingly hostile to life. As far as we know, life exists in a few-miles vertical expanse on a single planet (of 600 and counting) on a single star (of zillions).
Draw a sphere around your current location ten miles in diameter. Now, move to the edge of that sphere in a random direction. You are now probably dead.
From that perspective, the universe seems fine-tuned to kill you. But like with the “unreasonable effectiveness” of mathematics, we have no way of determining how “fine-tuned” the universe is, since the words in quotes are badly defined.
“…but irreducible complexity, to the extent that it exists, becomes a problem, as Darwin himself admitted.”
Irreducible complexity is a problem for evolution to the extent that it exists in the same way time-traveling dinosaur-thieves are a problem for evolution to the extent that they exist.
But please, quote Darwin on the subject. I enjoy a good quote-mine.
“If a personal God, then for the one has experienced Him, all counter-arguments only reveal the ignorance of those making the arguments.”
You know how anecdotes are not data? Well, hallucinations aren’t anecdotes. People who insist that they speak with God are exactly as persuasive as people who insist that they’re abducted by aliens. If someone told you they have a deep personal experience with God, and she thinks the Earth is flat, would you take that person seriously?
“In conclusion, I would postulate a wimpy scientific 3.5,”
A…what? Is that where science nerfs the ranger and paladins get Pokémon mounts?
Clarification: I was speaking of Jerry’s world view, not God’s, as it regarded materialism.
Re: Fine tuning: If you really learn the issues implied by the argument, you will discover that most of what they are astounded by is the fine tuning required for galaxies and planets to even exist over 13.7 billion years, not the rarity of planet earth’s goldilocks privileged place within the scheme of things. Much is implied and books have been written on the complexities of the subject. The entire subject is a challenge to the materialist assumption; hence the recent flurry of proposals concerning the multi-verse, without which intelligent design would seem strongly implied if not inescapable.
Re the Darwin quote: from Origin [contact Dawkins to learn the precise title] sixth edition [1988] page 154:
“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”
Innumerable examples of such exist, and the evolutionist stock answer is that in time we will be able to put the pieces in place, and perhaps that will be true; but in the meantime, it is an irreducibly complex problem to the materialist. As an aside, it is instructive to note that after 16 years, Behe’s argument from the flagellum has not been touched [protests to the contrary notwithstanding].
In reference to those who might have had a personal experience with a personal God: His belief in God might be compared directly to those who imply with 6.995 /7 certainty that God does not exist. One, understandably, affirms that God exists, the other does not since His existence would threaten his preconceived materialist world view. Either might be questioned concerning his objectivity. The hallucination comment is a cheap shot, since you are accusing billions of people over thousands of years of hallucinating because their belief and experiences differ from your own.
Thanks [otherwise] for your civility.
If you have really learned the issues implied by this “argument” you will be able to explain them to me.
The issues surrounding “fine tuning” which on its face would compel the belief in an intelligent designer are discussed in great detail under the topic “Anthropic Principle [strong].” The properties of the universe are exactly those needed for stars, galaxies, and planets to come into being, and the chance that these properties are just what they need to be is improbable to the point of being statistically impossible. Wikipedia should give you all the details you need. The existence of a multi-verse [infinite] with each one having differing properties is the only argument that seems able to deny that purpose was involved in this one being constructed as it is, and that, as you will see is quite a stretch. Dawkins has rebuffed the use of this argument stating that it is not science, but only wild speculation, while also admitting that it was one of the two issues that he had most difficulty dealing with in justifying his atheism.
I am not interested in anthropic principles or crap like that and I am not interested in what Dawkins or anyone else says about it. I don’t care what his opinions are about this so-called argument or whether they are right or wrong. What I am want to know is why any remotely intelligent person would take this inane twaddle seriously.
Once you say that you are prepared to change the laws of physics, all bets are off. Ptolemy’s or Anaximander’s cosmologies become just as good as any modern cosmologist’s as do billions of others I could invent at the drop of a hat. Why don’t you include them in your calculation of so-called probabilities?
Now, since you have learned the issues implied by this so-called argument, please explain them to me without coming out with a load of irrelevant guff.
Well, after four months of silence since you asked, you can probably expect a finely calibrated, perfectly worded, profoundly cogent response to spring forth any day now.
In any case the “multiverse” is not the main argument against fine tuning. A standard answer is if it was not fine tuned nobody would be here to make the argument. Wouldn’t it be a more spectacular proof of god if the universe was NOT fine tuned for life, and yet somehow life existed? You can’t have it both ways!
“Re: Fine tuning: If you really learn the issues implied by the argument, you will discover that most of what they are astounded by is the fine tuning required for galaxies and planets to even exist over 13.7 billion years, not the rarity of planet earth’s goldilocks privileged place within the scheme of things.”
You’ve already changed the subject. We were were discussing a universe fine-turned for life, not a universe fine-tuned for stars and planets. And since we see only one universe, and only one type of life, we cannot say with any meaningful degree of certainty whether stars and planets are necessary for life. Your idea–that an Intelligence fine-tuned the laws of the universe to bring about life–has no explanatory power. If it’s true, how does it explain what we see? If it were false, how would what we see change? Until you can answer those questions, you’re engaged in baseless speculation, not serious argument.
Darwin: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”
“Innumerable examples of such exist, ”
Name one. For bonus points, name one that survives contact with a Google search.
And keep in mind that demonstrating *irreducible* complexity is harder than you’d think–you have to demonstrate not only that we don’t *know* how something has evolved, but that it’s impossible for something to have evolved. Otherwise you’re just arguing from ignorance, asserting that anything we don’t understand is tantamount to positive evidence for your claims of irreducible complexity.
“As an aside, it is instructive to note that after 16 years, Behe’s argument from the flagellum has not been touched [protests to the contrary notwithstanding].”
Bad aside, Iago. Typing “behe flagellum” into Google turns up at least a dozen links to explanations on the evolution of the flagellum, including at least one helpful video. You’re welcome to employ the magic of Google yourself, or you can start here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html
But ignoring the specifics of the flagellum (or blood clotting, or any of Behe’s other specific claims), Behe’s “irreducible complexity” argument falls flat because of the definitions he uses. To Behe, an organ is irreducibly complex if you can remove one piece and the whole system stops functioning. But of course, that’s not exactly how evolution works. As just one example that shows the limits of Behe’s definitions, one organ can have multiple functions. A bird’s feathers keep it warm, but they also help it fly. Remove a bird’s feathers and it cannot fly. So, you might ask, how did birds simultaneously evolve feathers *and* all the other anatomical modifications necessary for flight, at the same time? After all, if you remove any one element of the flight system, the bird cannot fly–the system appears irreducibly complex.
The answer should be obvious: it’s not necessary for the bird (or the flagellum-bearing micro-organism) to evolve every component simultaneously. Sometimes, one part of the system, while not as good as the “final version,” is still useful–a light-sensitive cell isn’t an eye, but it can be better than no light-sensitivity. Other times, one part of the system is useful for something entirely different: a bird cannot fly with only feathers, but feathers are insulating.
Behe’s arguments only make sense if you have a very blinkered vision of evolution as proceeding all at once, in a kind of lockstep, toward a “complete” organ. But in evolution there is no “complete”–that’s teleological thinking. So Behe’s argument applies to a theory of evolution that scientists do not subscribe to. In other words, it’s an elaborate version of “If evolution were true, we would see cats turning into dogs.”
“In reference to those who might have had a personal experience with a personal God: His belief in God might be compared directly to those who imply with 6.995 /7 certainty that God does not exist. One, understandably, affirms that God exists, the other does not since His existence would threaten his preconceived materialist world view.”
You’re poisoning the well, which is both a logical fallacy and much ruder than if I were to call you a creationist liar.
“Either might be questioned concerning his objectivity. The hallucination comment is a cheap shot, since you are accusing billions of people over thousands of years of hallucinating because their belief and experiences differ from your own.”
Well some of them *must* be hallucinating. (Or lying.) If there is no God but God, and Muhammed is his Prophet, and I *really* have a “personal experience” of Allah, then the personal experiences of the Christians, Hindus, Shintoists, Rastafarians, and neopagans must be false. Likewise if I have a personal experience of Jesus Christ as the First-Begotten Son of God, then the Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and Yazini are all wrong.
Everyone seems to have personal experiences that contradicts everyone else’s personal experiences. I see no way to distinguish one from another, and they cannot all be true.
No the subject has not been changed. The fine tuning argument has always been about how this platform for life [earth] came into existence to begin with, its chance likelihood being infinitely improbable. Become familiar with the strong “Anthropic Principle,:” that’s where most of the give and take can be found. The “baseless speculation” lies in the counter suggestion that an infinite number of universes exist to resolve the improbability problem. Also see the other answer above.
Irreducible Complexity will be with us going forward. It has been discussed in every possible way, with those opposing Behe’s argument usually ending up calling him a fool and his arguments invalid, only raised to promote creationism. The flagellum is the most talked about, so lets start there. It is an outboard motor going 100,000 rpm driven through a rotor and stator by a rotating ion, the shaft supported by a bearing in the cell wall and having a universal joint to cause the whipping action. It is a real problem to explain naturalistically requiring a real stretch to position the sequences of development that Darwin demanded. Dawkins in “God Delusion” passed on dealing with it directly, by deferring to Ken Miller’s analysis. Ken Miller, who is credited with having killed the argument completely, apparently did not even read Behe, or if he did, found it necessary to reconstruct his own straw man to demolish instead, apparently not able to deal with the real issues directly. Ian Musgrave has given the most impressive argument, but it also falls short. Thanks very much for your referenced post. I had not seen it but will find it valuable in keeping up with arguments in this area. It is broadly impressive, and I agree with many of their positions as I have skimmed it. But it parrots the standard objections to IC, presumably leaning a lot on Musgrave. Each one uses the T3SS mechanism [used in other bacteria to shoot poison at predators], as the springboard leading to the flagellum. It, after all, has 13 of the 20 proteins [the numbers vary depending on who is evaluating] needed to construct the flagellum motor. Problem is you still have seven to go to bridge that gap. Scenarios are presented to fill the gaps and, being no molecular biologist, I find the presumptions a little hard to follow, though some in the field have, and are not impressed. Additionally, it is now pretty clear that evolution worked the other way around [as was always presumed before Behe] with flagellum proteins being older than their T3SS counterparts, and locomotion being far more essential to survival than poison darts.
There are many other examples. One of my own personal favorites is the jawbone and two other bones which move through the body and assemble themselves to make the most impressive and complex three bone assemblage of the middle ear, for amplifying the vibration of the eardrum. I admit to guilt by incredulity, but will pit my incredulity against their gullibility any day.
I agree with your position that proteins can and are used in alternating ways and that those can be a path in explaining the many wonders wrought by evolutionary processes. It is just that the argument can be used with the presumption that it explains whatever you want it to affirm, and for whatever the reason. It most assuredly doesn’t in many cases, including the ones above. So it boils down to: if you have a materialist world view, this explanation trumps all arguments, for it’s the only game in town. If you are not bound by that necessity, then these explanations can fall flat of their own inadequacy. But let’s have the debate, not shout the detractors down. Science is the worse for not allowing falsification arguments. If evolution claims are not allowed to be falsified, then it is not science. Jerry presumes that evolution is both necessary and sufficient to explain life in all its complexity. I consider it necessary, but not sufficient. For that I am an idiot!
Relative to your objections to my pairing the belief of one who has sought God and believes in Him, with one who rejects God because of his Atheistic world view, I am not sure that I understand your problem. I did not say that one was right and the other wrong, and I certainly understand that most theologies are incompatible, I was just pointing out that each has his own reason for believing, and I personally don’t give especial credit to a belief that science, being “rational,” trumps all others. Is it “rational” that science demands that we have no free will, against all our perceptions? As Physicist, I have a strong regard for science! I just come against those things attributed to science even though they are beyond its discovery or even its scope. There is much to life that science cannot deal with, and life in all its nuances is far more interesting than a materialist can ever discern.
I am not always able to read and follow longer passages like yours (disabling disease, cause under investigation). This morning, I was able to read yours. Please let me know if I understand correctly: You don’t believe anything without evidence, and that goes for science as well as religion, so until science solves complex issues such as how flagella developed, you simply do not assume that it will. You are giving credit where it is currently due and not where it is assumed to go in the future. Did I understand correctly?
Claiming the flagellum represents impossible magic that science just can’t explain is an argument from personal ignorance that misrepresents our actual state of knowledge. There’s even enough work on it to make a reasonably substantial Wikipedia overview.
I’m guessing, then, that he made that religious claim in a previous, very long passage that I wasn’t able to follow. Simply put, God of the gaps makes far less sense than science. As George Carlin put it, God has the same running streak as flipping a coin. Might as well count on Joe Pesci. At least, he gets something done.
In England there are structures called Saxon Churches. These have walls held up by round arches. Now the thing about the arches is that if you remove any one stone it collapses. Of course, once the church is built you can remove a stone because the wall is cemented to the arch, but without the arches in place you can’t build the walls. So how did this “irreducibly complex” structure come into being. Actually nobody knows. Some people speculate that the arches were built over mounds of soil; others that wooden scaffolding was used, but no sane person thinks it was done by magic.
Yes, the keystone…
Thanks for your interest. Not all evidence is scientific. Some of what you asked is dealt with in my answer to Moochava below. I am sorry for my long windedness, its genetic. This one is somwhat shorter and hope that it is within your tolerance. I hope that your problem will be cured [would have said “pray” but didn’t wnat to offend].
You’re right: Suggesting prayer would offend. As for evidence which is not scientific, evidence is that which can be objectively documented. Science is the aggregation of evidence so as to better understand it. Science doesn’t create evidence. So, how could evidence not be scientific?
“No the subject has not been changed. The fine tuning argument has always been about how this platform for life [earth] came into existence to begin with, its chance likelihood being infinitely improbable.”
You have yet to give one iota of evidence for this claim–that the chance likelihood of the laws of physics coming into being as-is are infinitely improbable.
And like with irreducible complexity, you’ll find that not only *have* you given no evidence in support of the claim, you *cannot*. After all, how can you claim, even, that the odds of our laws of physics coming into being are low–let’s say, ten million to one? Have we looked at ten million universes and found only one with our laws?
No. Science has discovered certain apparent universal constants, the origins of which it has yet to explain, and you stuff a god in the present-day limits of our comprehension. This is a god-of-the-gaps argument.
“Become familiar with the strong “Anthropic Principle,:” ”
Let’s dispense with the notion right now that I don’t understand your arguments better than you do. I’m sufficiently familiar with the ontology of the universe to understand–unlike you, apparently–that our ignorance is so impressive that conjecture cannot presently rise above the level of making guesses. We do not know how many universes there are. We do not understand what, if anything, causes our universe’s fundamental constants. We do not know how common life is in the universe, or intelligence. All we know is that the universe features at least one instance of intelligent life, that it’s about fourteen billion years old, and that no explanation that invoked a non-human intelligence has ever, ever been correct.
And from that, you want to extrapolate God? That’s like extracting Hogwarts from the Drake Equation.
“Irreducible Complexity will be with us going forward.”
Irreducible complexity fails the “If evolution were true, monkeys would give birth to people” test, as I’ve already outlined. I’ve already broken out the wing example, and the eye example, and someone else has the church-buttress example, to explain the deficiencies of IC. Were we unclear?
In that case, again: irreducible complexity is so defined as to ignore how evolution actually works, such as by frequently modifying an existing (useful) structure for some other function, increasingly the usefulness of an already-slightly-useful structure, or piggybacking on an existing structure that, in time, becomes vestigial or vanishes more-or-less totally. IC places the supporter in the unenviable position of having to demonstrate thoroughly that any given organ not just features components we do not understand, but features components that we cannot possibly explain. It’s a bad position to put yourself in.
Behe’s “irreducible complexity” has not added to our understanding of the world. It has not been developed by other biologists or biochemists, it has not helped us understand bacteriological immunity or been useful in understanding our common descent through the genetic techniques that now work alongside the fossil record to help us understand evolution. It’s worse than wrong–it’s a scientific dead-end, telling us nothing.
“So it boils down to: if you have a materialist world view, this explanation trumps all arguments, for it’s the only game in town.”
Let’s nip this tortured line of reasoning in the bud: “materialist explanation” is redundant. There are explanations, and then there are supernatural assertions with no explanatory power. When, in the history of knowledge, have the gods helped us understand anything? Lightning? Whence come the winds? Fetal development? The origin of species? Disease? The motions of the heavens? Why the grass is green and the sky is blue?
Never–not once–has “a god did it” ever proven either satisfactory or correct. You can try to stuff a god in those few remaining areas that we genuinely do not understand–the origin of life, the origin of the universe, how subjective experience arises. You can even try to cram gods into fields teeming with powerful explanatory theories, like quantum mechanics or evolution. But you’re not making “explanations.” You’re telling stories.
“But let’s have the debate, not shout the detractors down. Science is the worse for not allowing falsification arguments. If evolution claims are not allowed to be falsified, then it is not science. Jerry presumes that evolution is both necessary and sufficient to explain life in all its complexity. I consider it necessary, but not sufficient. For that I am an idiot!”
We had “the debate” before any of us were born, and the matter settled out in, I think, the 20s or 30s. Keep in mind that evolution predates special and general relativity, and the modern version of evolution+genetics predates the Standard Model of physics. Darwin himself listed probably a dozen ways his work could be falsified, but the best his handful of remaining religiously-motivated detractors can manage is that, if we do not understand a step in the evolution of an organ, it must be impossible.
“Relative to your objections to my pairing the belief of one who has sought God and believes in Him, with one who rejects God because of his Atheistic world view,”
More poisoning the well. Tsk. I don’t reject Jehova, Amaterasu, or Jupiter Dolichenus because of my “worldview,” “Atheistic” or “atheistic” or otherwise. I reject them because there’s nothing to recommend them. Just because you twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts, doesn’t mean we all do.
“I am not sure that I understand your problem. I did not say that one was right and the other wrong, and I certainly understand that most theologies are incompatible, I was just pointing out that each has his own reason for believing, and I personally don’t give especial credit to a belief that science, being “rational,” trumps all others.”
You see, it’s hard to take this kind of argument seriously on the Internet. Could you try praying your argument to me, instead? Or using your telepathy?
You’re blundering toward “science is a faith too,” that old nuclear option of the factually disenfranchised. Let me assure you it will not work as long as the satellites that use relativity keep relaying my signal, the microprocessors that use the various electromagnetic theories keep allowing me to type, and the antibiotics that use evolution keep the bacteria from killing me.
This is getting a little out of hand. I appreciate your thinking enough of my post to spend a like amount of time in rebuttal. We are from two different worlds so reconciliation is difficult. We almost don’t understand our common language the same way. Briefly to respond generally to your position:
Your response shows that you really don’t understand the Anthropic Principle. Spend some time looking at the details, for there is little debate about its essentials. The fine tuning is easily subject to probability assessments and the chance probability of them all lining up to render this a habitable universe is beyond possibility.[generally accepted as being anything beyond one to ten to the eightieth power, and these improbabilities being many times that]. Dawkins has not disputed this, nor have I heard others disputing it; hence the intense interest in the multi-verse, for otherwise it is a powerful argument for design.
Surely you know that probably the greatest debate of importance to man is whether or not there is a creator, or are we in a purely materialist world. The answer to this question can be fundamental to how we live our lives. You have come to the point that for you there is no debate [7]. Dawkins is less dogmatic with 6.5, and, yes, that perfectly justifies the headline, given the position that he has taken in “The God Delusion” [among others]. Evolution as being a necessary and sufficient explanation for the diversity and complexity of life is falsifiable! The theory has great weaknesses that may or may not be overcome. There are huge gaps which may or may not be plugged. But to explore those areas of biology is to be fired from your position or to lose tenure. Explain to me if you can why almost everything you have posited in rebuttal to IC, or AP or other arguments questioning the adequacy of evolutionary explanations is not a “Darwin of the Gaps,” being equal or greater than any “God of the Gaps” position taken by 24 hour creationists! I have been into this for years and have heard that reply a thousand times, “we don’t yet know just how, but in time we will fill in the blanks.” I am not in the least threatened by whether evolution does or does not account for all, I just don’t see it being sufficient and am more convinced as I learn more about the extreme complexity necessary for life. Life for me is way beyond anything science can even deal with, my interest in science being mostly professional. I am saddened when I hear that materialistic explanations is all there is [as you have said], for as Dr. Coyne has emphasized a deterministic universe robs me of free will, what I perceive as consciousness is just an illusion, and the word “purpose” has no real meaning, I am revolted by those who want to overhaul the court system to take into account that the criminal really was not responsible for his actions, those having been imposed on him by determinism. If this is the world you want to live in, feel free [oops]. Another aside: Quantum Physics has pretty well killed determinism showing the universe to be probabilistic instead, and with sentience impacting its operation. Believe me, you don’t want to get on the other side of that argument –you will not win it. That for another day.
It’s been a fun ride, thanks.
“This is getting a little out of hand. I appreciate your thinking enough of my post to spend a like amount of time in rebuttal. We are from two different worlds so reconciliation is difficult.”
This is not a matter of different worlds, Phoenix. From the elaborate fantasy you appear to have constructed–with people getting fired for questioning evolution, scientists proposing theories to avoid admitting there are gods, and quantum mechanics, through a sequence of dreamlike connections, overthrowing materialism–it’s clear that you live in the same world as the rest of us, you’re just not paying attention. We’re not starting from two different axiom-sets; we’re looking at the same information, yet you make logical error after logical error in your defense of the untenable. Let’s look at some of those mistakes now!
“Your response shows that you really don’t understand the Anthropic Principle. Spend some time looking at the details, for there is little debate about its essentials. The fine tuning is easily subject to probability assessments and the chance probability of them all lining up to render this a habitable universe is beyond possibility.”
Three times now you’ve insisted you have an argument without actually making the argument, all the while insisting that I don’t understand. So please, explain how you know that the chance of a habitable universe is ‘beyond all possibility.’ Surely you can do that, in the same way I have–twice–walked you through the problem with Behe’s definition of irreducible complexity.
“hence the intense interest in the multi-verse, for otherwise it is a powerful argument for design.”
You’re poisoning the well, again. Stop impugning people’s motives; it’s dishonest.
“Surely you know that probably the greatest debate of importance to man is whether or not there is a creator, or are we in a purely materialist world.”
Surely I know this is a false dichotomy.
“The answer to this question can be fundamental to how we live our lives. You have come to the point that for you there is no debate [7].”
Strawman. You’re racking them up today.
“Evolution as being a necessary and sufficient explanation for the diversity and complexity of life is falsifiable!”
The statement “Boston is the capital of Massachusetts” is also falsifiable; that does not mean it is false.
“The theory has great weaknesses that may or may not be overcome. There are huge gaps which may or may not be plugged.”
An assertion without support–or really, even adequate definition. “Huge” gaps indeed. Maybe we can propose a 1-7 gap scale to help creationists.
“But to explore those areas of biology is to be fired from your position or to lose tenure.”
Another assertion without support. (Oh, and like with the anthropic principle, I’m already familiar with these accusations. They’ve actually been examined, and found wanting–on this very site, I think.)
“Explain to me if you can why almost everything you have posited in rebuttal to IC, or AP or other arguments questioning the adequacy of evolutionary explanations is not a “Darwin of the Gaps,” being equal or greater than any “God of the Gaps” position taken by 24 hour creationists!”
Finally, an honest argument!
Because evolutionary biology, unlike “God did it,” has already demonstrated vast explanatory power that increases every time you open the newspaper. Even in the time since Behe published his book, we’ve learned more about his supposedly irreducible systems, such as blood clotting; every other day Jerry posts new discoveries in evolution *right here for everyone to see*. If the choice is between modern biology, which explains more daily, and “God did it,” which has never explained a single thing, there’s no contest. I mean, yes, tomorrow we might find an organ that defies all our knowledge of biology, and tomorrow we might find a planet that defies all our knowledge of gravity–but I won’t bet that way.
Also, if something were wrong with biology, we would *have ways to know it*. It’s not “Darwin of the gaps” because Darwin’s theory has changed since it was first proposed, as new data rolled in. By contrast, the “God of the gaps” is completely unfalsifiable, in whole and in part. So the choice is between a robust, repeatedly confirmed, self-correcting system–what you simplistically call “Darwin”–and a frail, unsupported, unfalsifiable assertion–“God.”
“I am saddened…”
Oh, now you’ve just gone completely off the rails. One coherent argument, amidst all this? That’s all you can manage?
Your sadness is not an argument. Arguments from the alleged moral consequences of a fact are also fallacious. You have totally broken down here, confusing evolution, materialism, and philosophical determinism in an inconsistent straw-man slurry, and–hilariously–you seem to expect quantum physics to rescue you.
Look at yourself, Phoenix: you’ve piled fallacy on top of fallacy, hinted at a vast scientific conspiracy against your position, hidden behind claims of relative and personal truth and multiple realities, and now you’re trying to argue against facts based upon their apparent moral content.
Now, you are apparently intelligent enough to form full sentences and write coherently, so ask yourself: why are your arguments full of faulty reasoning, unsupported assertions, and bizarre claims about the subjectivity of knowledge that, frankly, I doubt either of us believe? Is it because you’re stupid? I doubt you’re stupid, Phoenix. I think your arguments are terrible because there are no good arguments for your position. Ask yourself why you’re willing to prop up untenable arguments with flawed logic, and what that says about you.
Re: fine tuning
It is not clear that fine tuning is all that fine. Not all the constants are completely orthogonal in any case and wide ranges in the values of independent constants appear to give rise to a stable, ordered universes capable of sustaining some form of life. See Victor Stenger.
/@
Sorry Moochave, if you are still there, I have been diverted, but will give a few responses. You have been a good sparring partner and hold your end up well. But, you have confirmed in your last response, my contention that indeed we are from two different worlds and talk different languages.
Quickly, people do get fired. I know Sternberg who was summarily dismissed for publishing a peer-reviewed paper that was scientifically tenable, but politically incorrect. Lehigh U. put a disclaimer on their web site after Behe published stating complete disagreement with him and regretted that tenure prohibited them from going further. I know another who was denied tenure for having discussed ID in his class. Multi-verse proposals are routinely promoted as a way around the fine tuning argument, this is standard with no apologies on there part – no presumption of hidden motives on mine.
.
Anthropic principle/fine tuning argument: It was evident in your first response that you were unaware of what it was all about so I suggested you look it up. There are many books written to cover the breath and depth of the subject. It is complicated and highly mathematical, and beyond this forum. Specific books: Hoyle’s “Intelligent Universe” Ree’s “Cosmic Coincidence” among forty others. There are degrees of buy-in and some untenable rejections [Stenger], but very wide agreement within cosmological science with its fundamental status.
“Surely you know that probably the greatest debate of importance to man is whether or not there is a creator, or are we in a purely materialist world.” False dichotomy? What world do you live in? Certainly not in the same one as Dr. Coyne.
A huge gap – Cambrian, by anyone’s estimation – especially Darwin’s [do you require page and edition here too?]
God/Darwin of the Gaps: You make a good argument here since we are dealing with the spiritual on the one hand and science on the other, and since you reject anything spiritual – your answer stands! However if there is a creator God, and he can be recognized in the gaps, then an appeal can be warranted [though more often not]. If there is a limit to what Darwin can tell us [and there certainly is, as is admitted routinely], then it is possible to attribute Darwinian answers where none exist, but much presumed. So the two appeals can be equivalent. Each appeal ends the argument, often prematurely on both sides.
I will make a prediction that you may live to see, I probably won’t. Science is increasingly revealing problems for materialism. These problems will get worse, not better. Science cannot disprove God, but it has every ability to disprove materialism. It has done so, is doing so, will do so, and ultimately its revelation will be too powerful to be ignored. I am not in the least threatened by science, but you should be. Quantum Physics has already disproved deterministic classical physics, and not just on the quantum level. We live in a probabilistic universe where things can become strange and mystic. Matter, really can be in two places at once, can go from point A to B without ever being in between, and observation changes things. Whether or not this has spiritual ramifications is debatable, but possible. It certainly makes things interesting – enjoy. Please, no argument here; just a prediction from one whose opinion you may not respect for many years.
Your ending attacks, I understand, are reasonable to you, because you broach no disagreement with your “superior” rationalism and certainty of materialistic answers. I cannot breach such a fortress, so we will have to part with the hope that each has sharpened the other’s quest for truth. I greatly appreciate your irreducible complexity link, it will help me a lot. Have a good life. I will leave you with any final words.
No one has ever shown me a fine-tuning argument that is even remotely plausible. What it seems to be saying is that God is restricted to making a universe that is in certain important respects like the one we see. It then goes on to say that given that restriction, universes which would allow for life are far more improbable than universes that do not.
There are a number of problems here:
First: If you are going to put restrictions on how God can create a universe, what is the nature of these restrictions? It is clearly not a logical restriction, since, surely we can describe universes with a radically different but coherent physics. Or are you trying to put some sort of probability on these possible universes? In that case you must describe the rationale for this distribution. Otherwise why shouldn’t it peak at the universe we observe?
Second: What is your rationale for putting restrictions on what sort of cosmology God could create? The obvious answer is because this is needed to make fine tuning arguments look remotely plausible. Once you are allowed to change the laws of physics, all bets are off as to what the universe could be like.
I regard the fine tuning argument as silly and the talk of mutiverses as a refutation of it as equally silly. To use Russell’s phrase it is nonsense refuted by nonsense.
If I understand what you are saying, I believe that you have the fine tuning argument backwards. It comes out of cosmological physics that shows that the existing universal constants [bringing into play a low of 6 and high of 29 constants] are of a nature that the universe can evolve into what we see. Not surprising, but what is almost beyond belief is that if any one or several were different by very small amounts, sometimes infinitesimal, the universe would be quite different and stars, planets and galaxies would not exist, or not for long. Elements would not have built up beyond Helium, would have collapsed before getting going and a host of other things. The fine tuning being so precise renders the likelihood of such precision beyond any reasonable naturalistic probability so that they call the problem the Anthropic Principle. One physicist [forgot which one] posited that it looks like the universe “knew we were coming.” This has been a considerable argument in favor of design and a problem for materialism. The only defense against “design” has been the suggestion [without evidence] that there are an infinite number of universes each with different properties, and this one, of course, is it. You are correct about the number of postulated multi-verses, but the splitting of universes due to quantum demands, does not fit since those universes that split are each identical with the exception that the 50-50 split renders each of the two possibilities to be in a separate universe, but each otherwise having identical properties. I know of few that take this proposition seriously. Most of the other projections come out of the math associated with string or M theory. Neither of which is testable or falsifiable, so most [non-string] scientists consider that it falls into the category of being non-science. Hope this helps a little. Wikipedia has a pretty good overview with lots of threads. The two books mentioned above are quite good. Thanks for your input.
Why can’t you address my objections? Can I take it that you have no answer to them?
The details of the cosmology are irrelevant to my objections.
A physicist can rebutt this if I’m wrong, but as far as I know the multiverse is not postulated to avoid a creator but because the functioning theoretical models predict it.
Can a mathematician say something? As far as I am aware there are 3 notions of multiverse around. There is the idea of a sort of froth of bubbles of universes, there is the idea that because De Sitter space is unstable, a region may become causally isolated and then in effect be a different universe, and then there is the idea of parallel universe arising from the universe constantly splitting to account for quantum effects. The third of these strikes me as bat-shit crazy, but I don’t see any evidence for the other two either. This is an area of genuine controversy.
One problem is how justified you are in assuming that your mathematical rules can be projected beyond a boundary or a singularity of some sort. It is interesting to speculate that there might be other universes with different laws. However no one is going to go to the trouble of tweaking the maths just to answer some silly fine-tuning ‘argument.’
Actually, re #3, rather than thinking of the universe constantly splitting, the more elegant interpretation, according to David Deutsch, is that you start with an infinite number of identical universes that become increasingly differentiated over time.
/@
Except that from a mathematical point of view that is the same thing.
Well, necessarily so. But it is a more physical interpretation, and, I think, overcomes some of the objections that, for example, Ben Goren has with many-worlds.
/@
The multiverse theory is usually posed as a “model” for explaining the probabilistic nature of Quantum Mechanics. In most of its versions, it is just meant as an explanatory device, and I think most versions preclude the possibility of experimental verification by design.
But then, all the quantum physics I know was learnt working on quantum computation from the Math/Computer Science side, so I might be wrong on the last point.
In my last reply to you in an earlier thread, I mentioned:
/@
* Every time I try to post the URL for the Everett FAQ, WordPress “eats” the comment. Just Google “the everett faq”.
So-called fine tuning ‘arguments’ are just silly, they doesn’t need to be answered.
See answer to Moochavia above.
#14 “sophisticated theology” comments are cracking me up this morning!
Sophisticated theology is such great fun!
I prefer the term ‘sophistry-cated theology’, myself.
+2 on the sophistry-cated!
It is turning out to be funner and funner. It’s making more sense how Dr. Coyne can read it every night…he’s having fun!
If it were sophistry-catered, Dr. Coyne could have his theology and eat it, too.
I see now an error of my way…should have said comments at #15
The 7-point-scale is more about agnosticism than atheism, that is knowing vs believing. So Dawkins doesn’t know for sure. However asking him how much he believes in god would be a different question. Just a guess but I think the answer would be: not even a little bit in any one of them.
The point of Dawkins’ scale is to show that even if you agree that we can’t know for absolutely certain, you can still look at the evidence and come away with a highly likely result.
Good point. This Qualia Soup video is related
Or maybe ‘sophistry-crated theology’ since it’s trapped in a box.
And ‘sophist-castrated theology’ would enable us to avoid having to read this drivel for generations.
If hiding somewhere in the infinite possible decimals between 6 and 7 there is a thing that could be called “God” and was somehow the trigger for the initial expansion of our universe, then I could probably place myself on that scale. Where is a philosophical deist on this scale compared to an evangelical Christian? Where is John Haught’s far-out tea-wanting reverse deist idea of God?
For a loving personal God that blesses affluent Americans over poverty stricken Africans I’m a 7
For a grand consciousness that is the mind of everything and connects us all in the blahdy-blahdy woo-sphere, I’m probably a 6
For the intropersonal God that is the will of life driving towards a better understanding of itself through the interconnected minds of all living things, I’d have to be a 5.6
For the first cause God that may have kicked the winning field-goal of existence, I’m about a 5.5
For Spinoza’s God, I’m about a 1 on very special occasions.
That’s why I was never really keen on Dawkin’s scale. It assumed a very particular God when “God” as a term is so amorphous that it can mean whatever the hell I want it to. From a label standpoint, I prefer Dan Finke’s Gnostic Atheist, Agnostic Deist. Meaning I’m pretty sure there is no personal God, but I’m not sure, and not sure I can be surely sure, that there is no deist God. Any other idea is best left for those Delerium/incense moments.
Actually you’ve just given a pretty powerful argument in favour of Dawkin’s scale.
I suppose because most atheists know what Dawkins is talking about, but apparently many theists don’t, even sophisticated ones. They all seem to think we’re talking about their God. An evangelical would take a 6.9 on that scale and use it as the starting point for witnessing the Gospels. Jumping from first-cause to Jesus is typical in this regard so I prefer to be specific so, when being “witnessed” to, I stump the living crap out of them and force them to realize that I’ve probably thought about this a lot more than they have.
You can’t expect them to have thought much about it!
Let us hope this publicity will convince intelligent and educated theists that Atheists are thoughtful people after all. Hard core believers will hopefully be confused enough to read further and some may even be impressed with Dawkins’ honesty and openness.
I personally rank myself higher. Copernicus, Galileo and Darwin may be wrong also depending upon the cleverness, power, and deceptiveness of an almighty being, if he exists.
Can someone point out to me where is the flaw in the following argument (that would avoid the open interval problem):
“On the basis of all the evidence I have, the only rational conclusion is that there is no god. Should new evidence become available, I will update my beliefs.”
The argument is OK as it stands, but it should also be borne in mind that it is difficult to see what would count as an argument for the supernatural as opposed to something natural that we had not come across before.
I admit to being agnostic and that is in part because I don’t think we will ever be able to prove God does not exist. Each of us can choose not to believe in a God because there are no founded arguments for his/its existence that are acceptable to us and our logic but the lack of an argument for something does not prove the opposite; only that we haven’t proved the positive. In a similar fashion, my not being able to prove that God does not exist, does not justify believers in using that as proof that God does exist.
You can’t prove the tooth fairy exists. You can’t prove there is no tooth fairy. Does that mean the likelihood is 50%? Pretty similar likelihood about some sort of god.
But there’s more evidence for the thooth fairy!
Sorry, my tooth fairy has a lisp!
“All probabilities are 50%. Either a thing happens or it doesn’t”. – old tagline
I’ve always thought the 1 to 7 scale rather odd. Why not 1-10?
Anyway, it seems that many god botherers see it as a virtue to be certain. I suppose preachers have to be like that with their sheep. It annoys me somewhat though when someone who has some rational awareness leaves a small probability that gods exist, and the fundies jump on this as if it is a bad thing. It is only good logic that because a god does not appear, you cant prove they do not exist. Then they label you agnostic as if all agnostics are the same.
The 1-7 scale proposed by Richard Dawkins is not a linear scale but a set categories or milestones (as explained in the God Delusion). Referring back to the original we get (in an abbreviated form):-
1. Strong theist, “I do not believe I know”
2. De facto theist-“I am not absolutely certain but I strongly believe
3. My belief is more than 50% but not strong, inclined to believe
4. Belief is exactly 50%-strong agnostic
5. My belief is less than 50% but not a strong disbelief-agnostic bordering on atheist
6. Very low probability of God existing but not certain-De facto atheist
7. I know there is no god and am certain-strong atheist.
In The God Delusion RD said he identified with category 6 (PZ on the other hand would be in category 7). Given these definitions it is arguably incorrect to say “my belief is a 6.5”(however as RD proposed the scale I assume he can modify it at will). This is also why the scale is 1-7 not 1-10,although it could be refined to a decadal scale.
I agree that the critics of RD should read the book!
Should be a comma in “I do not believe, I know” 😉
See “Likert scales” (I posted wiki links above).
The amazing thing is that these newspaper articles are blatant admissions that the people who have been viciously attacking Dawkins haven’t read ‘The God Delusion’.
Yes, but the newspaper subscribers probably haven’t either, so they’ll be just as shocked about this “revelation.”
And all the people who are jumping on this ‘admission’ are revealing themselves to be people who attack Dawkins , but don’t care too much to find out what he says before they denigrate him.
Christians – even the ones who’ve actually read the Bible and know something of its history – actually warn each other off it. A series of talking points circulates.
They probably think it could endanger their faith, and they’re probably right!
I don’t know why anyone would use a decimal point. The scale isn’t set up that way.
Well, I wouldn’t say the scale isn’t set up that way. In particular, I wouldn’t tell the guy who invented what it ‘really’ means. After all, he knows better than anyone else knows (except Ceiling Cat of course) how he intends the scale to function.
So, 6.5 would something like: very, very low probability that god exists, but I can’t say that it’s absolutely, positively 100% impossible that a god exists. Strong-ish atheist.
It’s a valid shorthand way of indicating intermediate shades between the defined points on the scale.
However, it’s highly likely the Pest and the Torygraph don’t understand decimal points and regard them as one of those suspicious sciencey things. Dr Dawkins is just too scrupulous and honest; the hack media and/or the Goddists will just reduce everything to a quotemine anyway.
Dawkins and others should refuse to assign a figure to such a matter. The question is utterly meaningless, therefore any answer is meaningless whether it be 1 or 7. As Wittgenstein said – “Of that which we cannot speak, we must remain silent”.
Are you saying it’s nonsense to assign a figure to how strongly one believes something? Don’t confuse his scale which quantifies what someone thinks or believes with a scale that quantifies the probability that a god exists. I fail to see how distinguishing someone who thinks it’s likely a god exists from someone who thinks it’s unlikely a god exists is meaningless. Add to that then some scale that distinguishes someone who is highly confident it’s highly likely versus someone who’s somewhat confident that it’s highly unlikely seems like a useful distinction to be drawn.
Yes, I am saying belief or non belief in such a matter is completely meaningless. The question whether I believe there is a God is different in nature from questions such as which horse will win a race or whether it may rain tomorrow. It is even different from the question “Will the Sun rise tomorrow?” The word God has only a grammatical meaning.
The backlash against Dawkins for this demonstrates exactly how important religion still is to the ruling class for keeping people in line. His exposing them for lying about the extent to which people believe has obviously really irritated them.
WB – It also demonstrates that a great majority of folks neither understand science nor how scientists describe and make conclusions about reality.
The Telegraph is a tabloid, and all they are interested in are headlines that will sell. We aren’t going to win them all, and a great part in raising your head above the parapet is that you are a target for everyone who has a toy gun. However, Dawkins is getting through, with many people reading and thinking about his books. I think we need not to give any more oxygen to the beatup. Again, I think some of our best comics eg Tim Minchin, should show it for its absurdity. I’m 6.9999999 sure that unicorns don’t exist.
PS
A song which sends up the linguistic games – John Cleese could still write one……we need to talk to their inner narratives, rather than meet them head on. George Carlin probably already has a spiel somewhere on YouTube. So as well as the 7 words you can’t say on television, there are …..7 pieces of logic which won’t work about, god, fairies and unicorns. I still tell people that my god this week is Thor or Hecate; or harking back to a previous discussion, that this week, I don’t believe in Nike or Aphrodite.
The Telegraph isn’t a tabloid, it’s a broadsheet. Perhaps you are confusing it with the Australian Telegraph which, as far as I know, is a tabloid.
The Telegraph has gone down the drain in the last 10 years. It has always been right wing but it but the news reports used to be honest and accurate and it had a wider news coverage than other papers.
I wasn’t commenting on the quality of it, it is indeed a shitty, right wing rag. It just isn’t a tabloid.
It’s a tabloid in all but size!
/@
Really; I think we have jsut another semantic quibble going on here, this time involving a couple of valid defintions of “tabloid.”
+1
As mentioned in many of the comments here, putting a number on a non-precise definition like God is actually impossible.
If Dawkins says he is 6.9, actually 6.9 on which god? Islam? catholics? protestants? mormons? zeus? deism? buddhism? manitou? average of all of them (how do we average them?)
Some of them definitely 7.0, some others (esp deism) might warrant 6.7 , plus they might vary by time (as shown by St. Dawks’ statements ranging from 6.o to 6.9). So what is the one number? Average? running average? mean?
Moreover, all of these are incomprehensible for the theists.
… on any scale, 42 seems to be a good conversational number …
Richard actually address this in his comments on the recent press coverage.
He also notes that he’s moving towards the “Steve Zara / PZ Myers” position regarding the possibility of evidence for [a] god…
/@
Nice link, thanks.
Seems to me this whole “6 on a 7 point scale” dust-up is largely a matter of ignoring the original composition. RD’s 7 was a list, not a scale; a list of plausible positions on the existence of God, from absolutely positive to absolutely negative. This is really more qualitative than quantitative. But our scientifically trained minds immediately jumped to realms of calculable probabilities…
Really, I’m a bit surprised he was able to stretch a descriptive list of postions between strict belief & unbelief to seven; can’t imagine how he or anyone else could have stretched it much beyond that many.
Thanks for the reminder, I had forgotten the reason for the seven point scale.
I found an online pdf of TGD & copied the relevant part in a subcomment at # 25 above. Should be here:
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/02/25/more-ludicrous-misrepresentations-of-dawkins/#comment-189121
Then I noticed that someone previously, but in a subsequent comment, had posted a shorter summary…