DAwkins interviews creationist automaton

[blindsage]

There are so many assumptions about other people's opinions and ideas on here that it seems like quiet the a** convention.

 

[arnisador]

As for his interview with O'Reilly, we see what we want to see. He had to admit that he didn't know the true origin of the universe and because of that his atheistic belief is just as much blind faith as that of believers.

I think many would do well to realise that both theism and athiesm are ABSOLUTE positions therefore for the one side to label the other as dogmatic is hypocritical.

Asking for evidence isn't dogmatic...it's a proven method of generating knowledge. These are not mirror-image positions, as much as the superstitious would like to so paint science. Science is a method, not a dogmatic belief. One chooses whether to use science or to use faith as a basic method, but science has justified itself in unambiguous ways while the religious claim that religion has justified itself to them in personal ways. Those are quite different. To believe otherwise is to place penicillin and prayer on an equal footing as a means of treating disease.

 

[Jenny_in_Chico]

Celtic,

I've finally read the REAMS AND REAMS of back and forthishness between you and Bill, so I'll comment (although a page or two will probably be written while I formulate my response).

Bill is right with respect to mutation. It is the only true source of the genetic variability that natural selection acts upon to result in the evolution of species. With respect to populations, founder's effect can establish a new population with a different suite of gene frequencies than the founding population, but the origin of the genetic variation was mutation.

Mutations don't (generally) result from environmental pressure (let's disregard, fo the sake of argument, the effect of mutagenic substances or radiation). Mutation occurs all the time because many species don't have DNA repair mechanisms and so copies of the genome are rife with mistakes. If the genome is being copied in the process of meiosis, then those mistakes will end up in the germline. If those gametes are then reproduced, the mutation will be passed on. At this point natural selection will act upon it, to the advantage or disadvantage of the individual.

Darwin's finches are an example of adaptation to the environment, but the environment did not cause the adaptations. Those mutations in individuals which led to slight changes in beak morphology were positively selected, allowing the offspring of those individuals to survive and differentially reproduce. In time, the frequency of adapted to non-adapted beaks changed. Eventually, only those individuals with adapted beaks were left. The wide variety of beak shapes resulted from a wide variety of mutations in the genes that code for beak shape, which were then positively or negatively selected.

However, full props to you and Bill for maintaining a crazy long conversation while I slept, drank my morning coffee, got beautiful, ran errands, ate lunch...

 

[Andrew Green]

Has evolution become a "law" while I wasn't looking?

If it hadn't already been a law for a very long we wouldn't be here talking about it

 

[Jenny_in_Chico]

Heh, string theory may not be the best example of something for which there is evidence--more and more other physicists complain that it's just mathematical masturbation.

Thanks, arnisador. I would not want to be guilty of mathematical masturbation. I cannot think of anything more borning.

Agreed--strictly speaking, scientists should (in their professional roles) be agnostics, not atheists. Similarly, the same would be true of unicorns, vampires, Counter-Earth, and whether or not we're all just brains in vats--these aren't disproven, it's just that evidence to support such contentions are lacking. But there comes a point where one stops drawing such a strict distinction between lack of evidence and evidence of lack, at least when not speaking formally and carefully. After all this time without evidence of supernatural entities, serious doubt in their existence is justified.

This is why I qualify myself as an agnostic. No evidence for the existence of God, but no evidence for the non-existence of God. But frankly, I'm not interested in spirituality or metaphysical questions.

 

[Jenny_in_Chico]

Heh, string theory may not be the best example of something for which there is evidence--more and more other physicists complain that it's just mathematical masturbation.



Agreed--strictly speaking, scientists should (in their professional roles) be agnostics, not atheists. Similarly, the same would be true of unicorns, vampires, Counter-Earth, and whether or not we're all just brains in vats--these aren't disproven, it's just that evidence to support such contentions are lacking. But there comes a point where one stops drawing such a strict distinction between lack of evidence and evidence of lack, at least when not speaking formally and carefully. After all this time without evidence of supernatural entities, serious doubt in their existence is justified.

Thanks, arnisador. I would not want to be guilty of mathematical masturbation. I cannot think of anything more boring.

This is why I qualify myself as an agnostic. No evidence for the existence of God, but no evidence for the non-existence of God. But frankly, I'm not interested in spirituality or metaphysical questions.

 

[Xinglu]

Bill - I missed the Pascel's wager thank you for catching it!

The problem with Pascels wager and it's opposite the Atheist wager is that the entire argument is based in fallacy. Which fallacy? it is a false dichotomy relying on the assumption that the only possibilities are:

For the atheists wager:
a benevolent god exists and punishes or rewards according to one's actions, or a benevolent god does not exist.

Pascel's wager is similar but focuses on belief not actions:
a benevolent god exists and punishes or rewards according to one's belief, or a benevolent god does not exist.

Here is the fastest way to show the invalidity of the argument, give more options. God could either be malevolent or not reward actions.

The Atheist Wager implicitly assumes that a god who only rewards faith (and punishes disbelief) is not a benevolent god. In this view, a benevolent god, by definition, would give priority to the actual behavior choices made by the individual in determining rewards or punishments, rather than basing rewards on the basis of whether the individual believes in the god or not. A way of viewing the Atheist's Wager is that any all-powerful god who would decide outcomes based on faith rather than actions is not a benevolent god, and therefore not deserving of worship from a good, principled person. The opposing view, that a benevolent god could require exclusive faith in him through a particular "true" religion, leaves open the question of how it is possible to know which of the hundreds of faiths is the one that reaps reward instead of condemnation.

Furthermore, it assumes that one's legacy either for doing bad or doing good has value to a deceased individual. It could just as easily be argued that if no benevolent god exists the only value of doing evil or good is during life.

With Pascel's Wager, there have been many religions throughout history, and therefore many potential gods, some assert that all of them need to be factored into the wager, in an argument known as the argument from inconsistent revelations. This would lead to a high probability of believing in the wrong god, which destroys the mathematical advantage Pascal claimed with his Wager.

As said before: God could either be malevolent or not reward belief. But let us explore this further: In this view, a benevolent god, by definition, would give priority to the belief of the individual in determining rewards or punishments, rather than basing rewards on the basis of the individual's actions, such as rewarding kindness, generosity, humility or sincerity. Perhaps instead God rewards honest attempted reasoning and indeed might punish blind or feigned faith.

Pascal's Wager could only ever be an argument for feigning belief in God. Ultimately, an omniscient God would presumably see through the deception and not reward you for your feigned belief.

 

[Chris Parker]

(Just because I feel a little lightness is sometimes needed...)

Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy (Douglas Adams)

The Babel Fish is a creation of Adams' within his books. It is put into your ear, and feeds on brainwaves, excreting them into the hosts mind. This has the effect of translating any incoming language into a message the host understands.

From the book (and from memory, so hopefully it's close...)

"I refuse to prove I exist", says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But the Babel Fish is a dead giveaway" says Man. "It could not have possibly evolved by chance. It proves you exist, therefore by your own argument, you don't. QED"

"Oh" says God. "I hadn't thought of that", and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.

"That was easy!" exclaims Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white, and gets himself run over on the next zebra crossing.

* * *

Back to the topic.

The best evidence I can think of for people being born without an appendix (for the survival of the species) is more economy than anything else. By removing the appendix, you are not using valuable resources (blood, nutrients, etc) to keep it working. So the lack of an appendix could represent a new evolution.

That said, I am unfamiliar with any studies indicating that this is occuring, this is just my reasoning for how it could work.

Back to your regular thread.

 

[yorkshirelad]

He disliked being called an atheist for several reasons, including that "the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted ... by science, for [it] can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot", but he was not a religious man either--and most certainly not organized religion.

QFT, as a true scientist Einstein would never discount the possible.

 

[Jenny_in_Chico]

Celtic,

Mutation occurs all the time because many species don't have DNA repair mechanisms and so copies of the genome are rife with mistakes.

I should add that even species with DNA repair mechanisms (like mammals) often perpetuate mistakes.

 

[Jenny_in_Chico]

an omniscient God would presumably see through the deception and not reward you for your feigned belief.

Therefore, God CAN see through the bedcovers, and we are all destined for hell.

 

[yorkshirelad]

Asking for evidence isn't dogmatic...it's a proven method of generating knowledge. These are not mirror-image positions, as much as the superstitious would like to so paint science. Science is a method, not a dogmatic belief. One chooses whether to use science or to use faith as a basic method, but science has justified itself in unambiguous ways while the religious claim that religion has justified itself to them in personal ways. Those are quite different. To believe otherwise is to place penicillin and prayer on an equal footing as a means of treating disease.

I believe in the deity. I don't know what form the deity takes, but I have FAITH that it exists. I don't push my spiritual beliefs on others and I don't follow a specific churches dogma. I do not evangelize. Because of this I don't want or need to be preached to be atheists and I respet atheists who do not want to be preached to by those with religios beliefs.

Where does the burden of proof lie? It lies in the one who has to prove a point in this instance. I don't require proof that God exists because I have a personal understanding through faith and answered prayers. When oncologists said that my mother would die, we prayed and she lived. They can't explain it. When I have been at my lowest a prayed and pulled through. Now most of my prayers are prayers of thanks for the life, wife and health I have. I, personally need no further proof.

It seems to me that Dawkins is in need of proof that God does not exist, he yearns for it. In the O'Reilly interview, when O'Reilly points out that Dawkins still doesn't know how things came about, he replies, "We're working on it." He seems to have a deep need to disuade anyone from believing in God. It doesn't seem logical to me, but then again, I'm not Dawkins.

Atheists really seem to be the new evangelists. I was annoyed at all denominations who would try convert me to their particular religious ideology. Now I have to hear the same thing from atheists.

 

[arnisador]

What's the good of understanding evolution v creation when your home and family have been washed away?

Well, at the risk of appearing not to get your point, it's good that someone understands evolution as it's a major underpinning of modern medicine, which may well benefit those who are affected by such a disaster.

 

[arnisador]

http://firstchurchofatheism.com/I tend to put atheists like you in a similar bracket.

Atheists just don't have much in common...any more than people who don't believe in vampires do. Christians have something in common...athesists don't.

I'm reminded of the comment that talking about nonlinear functions in mathematics is like talking about non-elephant animals in biology. Non-Christian, and more generally non-religious, covers a lot of territory, organized only by what people are not.

On a somewhat related note, people keep talking about faith as though it leads one inexorably to believe in a god...where are the people whose faith leads them to believe in purple people-eaters? Science uses evidence to sift the possibilities...faith just accepts the locally prevalent mythology in most cases.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

On a somewhat related note, people keep talking about faith as though it leads one inexorably to believe in a god...where are the people whose faith leads them to believe in purple people-eaters?

That is why I say that faith is not tied to religion. Faith is belief without understanding.

Those of us who are religious say that we have faith in God, and for many, that has become the default meaning of the word 'faith'. But we have faith that many things are true (or not true) and if we have no true understanding of them, whether they are or not literally true is beside the point - our belief is faith.

During this Great Recession (as it is now being called), one is urged over and over to have 'faith in the economy'. That word is well-chosen. I do not understand the economy - few if anyone really understands everything about it (if they did, they'd be richer than Warren Buffett). But the government is urging me to believe in the underlying strength of the economy, to believe that it will recover, to continue spending and not hoarding what little money I can manage to hold on to. They are asking for belief without understanding, which is faith, and they use that exact word to ask for it.

We are asked to have 'faith in each other' and to 'have faith in the justice system' and to 'have faith that the Cubs will win the pennant this year' and so on. Every use of the word denotes not religion, but belief without understanding.

So when I say that my belief without understanding in religion is faith, and a person's belief without understanding in evolution is faith, I am not addressing the truth or falseness of religion, or the truth or falseness of evolution. For the purposes of belief without understanding it does not matter if they are true or false.

Faith is not just about religion. We just often behave as if it is tied to it.

Science uses evidence to sift the possibilities...faith just accepts the locally prevalent mythology in most cases.

Faith is not that at all. Faith is belief without understanding. In anything. Even things that are provably true.

 

[Chris Parker]

Again, Bill, much though I respect your point of view here, I have to disagree. Faith is not belief without understanding. That is gullibility. Faith is belief without the requirement of proof.

To (hopefully) make myself clearer here, I would hope that you would have a personal understanding of what is it you mean when you refer to God, which by your definition would not be "faith", but "belief". You may not have a scientific understanding, but you do have an understanding. Without it, you have nothing to have faith in. Understanding is integral.

With the baseball (?) team mentioned (I don't really have much to do with sports, and being Australian, my reference to the Cubs is old reruns of Cheers going through my head...), you can have faith in them winning, because you understand what winning entails, and how the team may feasibly achieve that. You may have little to no evidence of them being able to achieve it (losing the last 10 years in a row in little evidence that they will achieve success), but to have faith in this, you need to have some reference and understanding of what it is you are having faith in.

In regards to the economy, economists have understanding. You have understanding of the relative worth of money, how having a lack affects you, and how having more is better (from a certain point of view). Again, to have faith is to have an understanding of what you are having faith in (what "better" means for an economy).

In regards to religion, I am sure that if you asked the clergy if they had an understanding of God, the answer would be yes, they understand what is meant by the term God, even if only to themselves. And that understanding is one of the cornerstones that allows them (and yourself) to have faith.

Does that make sense? I know we're all just arguing semantics here, but the crossed-definitions seem to be hampering our conversation...

 

[Bill Mattocks]

The best evidence I can think of for people being born without an appendix (for the survival of the species) is more economy than anything else. By removing the appendix, you are not using valuable resources (blood, nutrients, etc) to keep it working. So the lack of an appendix could represent a new evolution.

That said, I am unfamiliar with any studies indicating that this is occuring, this is just my reasoning for how it could work.

The problem is that that human language is often too imprecise to contain the literal meaning within the words we tend to use. Many of our word choices appear to give intent to things which happen randomly.

It is correct to say that species mutate, and mutations which best compete and breed in changing environments represent evolutionary change.

It is not correct to say that species evolve to meet changing the changing environment.

Even if they sound the same, they are not. The second statement implies (although it does not explicitly state) that there is intent. In other words, it infers the notion that the species in question begins to throw off mutations in order to meet the changing environment. This would give the species (any species) intelligence to know that it is threatened, and the power to affect its own mutations.

We know that a tapeworm does think about these things. We know that a tapeworm does not have the power to choose its own mutations.

Evolution has no intent. It is simply mutations that are happy accidents. They succeed, by pure random chance. Most mutations, then, must not succeed and indeed that appears to be the case. Most mutations are either destructive to the organism or they simply do nothing at all for the organism one way or another with regard to survival and reproductive advantages. These mutations may persist and be passed on, or they may not, but evolution does not favor them specifically.

Evolution favors mutations that give an advantage in survival and/or reproduction.

Taking the example of the human appendix. We presume that the appendix today serves no function (which as others have pointed out in this thread, may not be true, even if most of us were raised believing it).

Must we then presume that the appendix served a purpose at one time? Well, we can't presume that from the standpoint of evolutionary change. That is because the appendix could be a random mutation that did not convey any particular survival or reproductive benefit, but also did not disappear (which could be due to any number of unknown non-evolutionary reasons).

So it might never have served a purpose (if we only look to evolution to explain it) and it may not serve one now. We do know that modern man appears to function as well without an appendix as with one. We know that some humans are born without an appendix (a random mutation, or it could even be a retro-mutation), and that those humans appear to suffer no ill effects from not having an appendix.

So from the point of view of humanity, we could well dispense with the appendix. Even if it turns out to have some purpose, it looks like we can get along pretty well without one.

But evolution says that not having an appendix does not increase our chances of survival or reproduction. So being born without one is not an advantage. If it is not an advantage, there is no evolutionary reason for this to take hold and become the dominant mutation.

It might become the dominant mutation, just as the appearance of the appendix in the first place might have become dominant, for non-evolutionary reasons. But evolution itself does not speak to that.

The most common example of evolutionary change seen today is the MRSA bacterial infection.

People have staph germs living on their skin most of the time. Some people get staph infections, although most people do not. In the past, doctors gave antibiotics to kill the staph infections, and that was that.

The problem was that staph, like all living things, mutates. And viruses and bacteria mutate a lot and often.

As it turns out, some of those mutations were, by chance, resistant to traditional antibiotics. This gave them a survival and reproduction advantage. They could continue to spread even when antibiotics were administered. As a result, MRSA is quickly becoming the dominant form of staph infection.

Doctors fight MRSA by using ever more exotic antibiotics that the MRSA strains have not been exposed to yet, which generally does kill them. But as staph bacteria continue to mutate, the chances are that at some point, another mutation will be resistant to the newer forms of antibiotics, and we'll be back to the same place again.

Staph bacteria did not know they were under attack. They did not respond to attack by mutating to meet their changing environment. They mutate all the time, but most of those mutations did not give a survival or reproductive advantage, so they either died out or did not out-compete the strains they mutated from. It was pure random chance - luck - that a mutation occurred in the presence of antibiotics that was resistant to those antibiotics. Whilst its brothers and sisters died off all around it, the MRSA mutation reproduced and had a grand old time, eventually killing its host and spreading to other victims.

This is evolutionary change in action. Random mutations that happen all the time, but seldom give and advantage, so they don't take over the joint. Once in awhile, a mutation comes along that really gets the job done, and that one gets all the girls. But it doesn't mutate because the environment changed, it mutated anyway and it just got lucky.

 

[Omar B]

Atheists just don't have much in common...any more than people who don't believe in vampires do. Christians have something in common...athesists don't.

I'm reminded of the comment that talking about nonlinear functions in mathematics is like talking about non-elephant animals in biology. Non-Christian, and more generally non-religious, covers a lot of territory, organized only by what people are not.

On a somewhat related note, people keep talking about faith as though it leads one inexorably to believe in a god...where are the people whose faith leads them to believe in purple people-eaters? Science uses evidence to sift the possibilities...faith just accepts the locally prevalent mythology in most cases.

It's what seems to happen, people seem to think atheists all belong to a club and get together to plan anti-secular things. Simply, my opinion is that there is no higher power, doesn't make me want to join up with one crew of people or another. Religion seems to depend on numbers and gatherings.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Again, Bill, much though I respect your point of view here, I have to disagree. Faith is not belief without understanding. That is gullibility. Faith is belief without the requirement of proof.

I can understand your point of view, but I can invalidate it.

We say that Christians have faith in the Christian concept of God, right? And they do so without proof, in your theory.

Now, we know that there is no proof of God today, so we feel pretty safe with that statement.

However, let's say that today, the Christian God appears and makes it clear to all and sundry that He exists and is real. Consider for the sake of argument that God has been proven to exist.

Now, one can say that people who continue to believe in God are no longer engaging in faith, but are instead choosing to believe in something that can be proven.

However, what was it when God had not proven Himself? Was it faith then? After all, God existed then too, He just had not proven Himself to exist.

Faith, then, is not belief without the requirement of proof. There was proof that God existed the day before He showed Himself, we just didn't know it. Faith yesterday was belief without understanding.

The facts didn't change in my hypothetical situation. God existed yesterday, but without proof. God exists today, but now with proof. Believers have not changed, the facts have not changed, only their understanding has changed.

To (hopefully) make myself clearer here, I would hope that you would have a personal understanding of what is it you mean when you refer to God, which by your definition would not be "faith", but "belief". You may not have a scientific understanding, but you do have an understanding. Without it, you have nothing to have faith in. Understanding is integral.

Understanding is a continuum. I know that 2+2=4 and can prove it. My understanding is based upon reality and is not a hypothesis and therefore it is not faith. However, I also know that God exists. I cannot prove it. My understanding may or may not be based on reality, and therefore it is faith.

My argument is that although evolution is real, many people who espouse belief in it cannot describe it correctly. They do not understand it, even though it can be understood. Their understanding is correct - it is true - but it is still faith, because of their tenuous grasp of it.

I can have faith that it will rain tomorrow, and it may. I can have faith it will not rain, but it might rain anyway. I am not a meteorologist, shaman, or precognitor, so my understanding is based on faith, whether it turns out I am right or not.

With the baseball (?) team mentioned (I don't really have much to do with sports, and being Australian, my reference to the Cubs is old reruns of Cheers going through my head...), you can have faith in them winning, because you understand what winning entails, and how the team may feasibly achieve that. You may have little to no evidence of them being able to achieve it (losing the last 10 years in a row in little evidence that they will achieve success), but to have faith in this, you need to have some reference and understanding of what it is you are having faith in.

You can also have faith in them winning just because you want that outcome very much, despite any odds against it. Faith does not care about odds. Faith is blind.

In regards to the economy, economists have understanding. You have understanding of the relative worth of money, how having a lack affects you, and how having more is better (from a certain point of view). Again, to have faith is to have an understanding of what you are having faith in (what "better" means for an economy).

I have no real understanding of how spending more money makes more money. Oh, I've read the theories, but I've read just as many competing theories, and I am no expert. I might just as well be throwing darts blindfolded and taking whatever financial advice is under whatever I happen to hit. Remember, while there are people urging me to have faith in the economy, there are also people telling me that the economy has not yet finished falling off the cliff yet.

In regards to religion, I am sure that if you asked the clergy if they had an understanding of God, the answer would be yes, they understand what is meant by the term God, even if only to themselves. And that understanding is one of the cornerstones that allows them (and yourself) to have faith.

That's an interesting argument, I'll give you that. So you're saying that belief in evolution is NOT faith, because even if a person has no personal understanding of evolution, they have a bulwark to lean against, the people who do understand evolution. I get it! Well done!

However...

If one uses another's more in-depth understanding of a subject to stand proxy for their own lack of understanding, they are by necessity having faith in that person's knowledge without personally understanding it themselves. Back to dot.

Does that make sense? I know we're all just arguing semantics here, but the crossed-definitions seem to be hampering our conversation...

No, I quite like what you say, and I get it even if I do not agree. It's ever so much better than repeatedly saying that I am not denying evolution, or that all belief in evolution is faith, nor am I demanding that God must in fact exist. Thank you.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

It's what seems to happen, people seem to think atheists all belong to a club and get together to plan anti-secular things.

I do not believe that all atheists believe the same thing, or that they all belong to a club.

However, I do believe that there are many atheists whom I would classify as being 'anti-religion'. These people do not simply not believe in a God, they seem to have a real need to try to make others not believe in one, either.

In this, they are very much like evangelical Christians, who do believe but share the desire to make others believe as they do too.

Both can be quite annoying to me, and for the same reasons.

However, there is yet a subgroup (IMHO) of the anti-religion sort of atheists, and that subgroup is the club (if you will) that gather around people like Dawkins (nice segueway, don't you think?) and watch in glee as he uses his superior intellect and calm clever tone to utterly destroy one of the other sort - the evangelicals. This is done, as I've said, for purposes of entertainment, not to prove or disprove a point.

Please understand that I am not accusing you of being a member of this last group. I am just pointing out my belief that such people exist within the greater realm of atheists.

Simply, my opinion is that there is no higher power, doesn't make me want to join up with one crew of people or another. Religion seems to depend on numbers and gatherings.

There are also Christians (among other faiths, I'm sure) who do not associate with other Christians. Most Americans, for example, profess Christianity, but do not attend church regularly. Estimates vary, but polls indicate that the number is never more than about 40% at the high end.

Like atheists who speak about their beliefs, we see Christians who speak about theirs, or who attend organized religious services. We do not see the onese who do believe, but neither attend services nor speak publicly about their beliefs.