Perhaps it may turn out a sang,
Perhaps turn out a sermon.

-- R. Burns Epistle to a Young Friend

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Arguing the Absurd

Over on the Mighty One Cosmos, they have been having a pretty intense debate on ID and God versus brain-dead-darwin-explains-everything.

In the course of that I posted that Richard Dawkins is an idiot preaching a reductionist darwinian "gospel". I fail to see how meaninglessness is good news, but whatever.

Ray Ingles said that I should be specific about what I object to in Dawkins' writings or words.

So, I quote from Dawkins in his own words from his own website -- nothing out of context unless he took it out of context himself --

"Most people, I believe, think that you need a God to explain the existence of the world, and especially the existence of life. They are wrong, but our education system is such that many people don't know it."

Aside from the assertion about not needing God, and by implication, having an explanation for everything, the second statement indicates that Dawkins is at best a second-rate thinker. Nothing is taught in our government schools except darwinism. How is it that people don't know it?

"It's been suggested that if the supernaturalists really had the powers they claim, they'd win the lottery every week. I prefer to point out that they could also win a Nobel Prize for discovering fundamental physical forces hitherto unknown to science."

In the face of such a devastating argument what is a “supernaturalist” to say. Kind of like quoting the great physicist Mark Twain to support your position. It’s rather juvenile and indicative of the shallow thinking of materialistic atheists. Aside from the fact that no one who really knows God gives a rip about the lottery, I would guess that if a person did win who claimed to get the numbers from God, Dawkins would say he was delusional. As far as Nobel prizes, since the physical cosmos is a closed system, what “unknown” forces would those be? Oh, wait, like "gravity waves" maybe? Again, if a “supernaturalist” did discover some truth, where would he or she get it published?

Supernatural is, by definition, above nature. We think nature is a valid subject of study, and we respect those who chose to devote themselves to it. The natural world is derived (as Gagdad Bob said on OC) from the Real. The only reason we can understand it is because humans alone on this planet have a mind in touch with the Creator. We can recognize the patterns that exist in nature. We call them laws.

"Certainly I see the scientific view of the world as incompatible with religion, but that is not what is interesting about it. It is also incompatible with magic, but that also is not worth stressing. What is interesting about the scientific world view is that it is true, inspiring, remarkable and that it unites a whole lot of phenomena under a single heading."

Dawkin’s scientism misrepresents religion. Religion per se does not purport to explain what goes on in the natural world except as it is a metaphor for something God does in the human heart. Science is limited exclusively to the natural world by definition. It deals with God's creation in a reductionist, sometime useful way, but not with God. And, contrary to Dawkins worthless, groundless assertion elsewhere, the existence of God is not a scientific question. I don't need to present an argument to the contrary since any gratuitous assertion can be gratuitously refuted.

"What are all of us but self-reproducing robots? We have been put together by our genes and what we do is roam the world looking for a way to sustain ourselves and ultimately produce another robot child."

But Dawkins, et al, are not reductionists? "We are put together by our genes." Right. That is a very cheap, disingenuous out. Oh, sure, if pressed they would explain that they really meant something else, but they will never specify what that is. In effect, the reductionist removes God and replaces Him with genes. But, of course, the genes do not have a will so it is misleading to say “put together by”. They are really trying to get around the awful chasm of chance and the obvious non-directional nature of randomness.

Dawkins calls us robots. We are all animals -- to put it another way (“we are apes,” he says in another quote) -- living meaningless, pointless lives whose sole purpose is to spread our individual DNA. All the "higher" (I put it in quotes in deference to the reductionists) elements of human life can be explained as enhancements to survival and reproduction.

Then I say, "Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die." I suppose the argument is that spreading DNA would be a "meaning", but we all know in a few million years, more or less, the sun is going to flare up and wipe out all higher life and eventually earth will be nothing but a charred ball. Even if we evolved to escape that, there is the inevitable heat death of the whole cosmos. In the end Dawkins' life has counted for nothing, but he will be long dead and senseless, so he doesn't care. In fact, at his age, I would suggest he has nothing further to contribute in terms of DNA so ...

According to Dawkins, God is completely unnecessary as an explanation. Obviously, then, Dawkins can explain in detail, not only the origins of life, but the origins of the universe, the origins of consciousness and the "software" that runs the brain, and everything else.

Pardon me, but where I come from we have a word for that: bullshit.

To the extent that Dawkins is an expert in his field -- zoology, I respect his insights. Beyond that, it's just idle ramblings. The truth is that science gets itself a lot of good press as it claims to discover the secrets of existence. Science has documented many of patterns and mechanisms in nature. For most of the twentieth century men thought they could create artificial life. They have not. There have certainly been advances in the understanding of genetics and DNA and the techniques for manipulating existing genetic material and there may be more. That is not the same as creating life. They split the atom but they can't control fusion. Drugs have adverse reactions. Artificial Intelligence is still a long way off. Subatomic physics and astrophysics becomes increasingly bizarre -- one might even say meaningless. Climate change is now a joke. Science knows how to market and promote in order to keep the grant money rolling in, but actually producing anything of value is different. Almost every new, highly-touted technology either fails to pan out or creates more problems than it solves. I don't hear "better living through chemistry" much any more. I will go so far as to predict that in ten years (2018), we will have discovered that gene-splicing was probably a bad idea and that cloned humans cannot survive.

There are a number of quotes that denigrate and misrepresent religion and people like me. We are ignorant, uneducated, uncritical in our thinking, etc. A couple of years ago, Dawkins did an interview with salon in which he says that there is evidence suggesting the more intelligent someone is, the more likely they are to be atheist.

Doesn't sound like Gagdad Bob or any of the regular coons on One Cosmos.

For that matter, I am perhaps more intelligent than the average person. I solve difficult, high-level problems for a living. I am also smart enough to know that even Dawkins has to make a living. He does so by popularizing some scientific and more pseudo-scientific theories, and the more controversy and interest he can stir up, the more money he makes. It appears to me that it is Dawkins' own intellect that is fairly narrow. He may be a glib, clever and entertaining writer but that is not the same as having a great mind. Much of his work is simply pandering to the atheist audience in England and Europe -- so much more advanced than Americans. Only about 50% of Americans are really very intelligent, according to Dawkins.

9 comments:

Ray Ingles said...

Mushroom, you don't have to have a complete alternate explanation for something to assert that some other explanation doesn't work. After all, back on OneCosmos, Van confidently assured me that matter couldn't give rise to consciousness, even though he didn't have an explanation for how consciousness actually works or how it interfaces with matter. And if one can show that another explanation is possible, even if it can't be determined which explanation (if any) actually applies, then the other explanation isn't strictly necessary, though it may actually be the true explanation. (You find someone dead. Murder is one explanation, but if you can show that it's reasonable to assume that it was an accident, then a murderer is not needed in that logical sense.)

And you're wrong about 'nothing is taught in our government schools except darwinism'. With respect to biology, quite often everything scientific is taught except evolution. Classification schemes for life are taught, but not related to common descent as to why (multicellular) life is organized as a nested hierarchy. DNA is discussed, but not how comparative genetics illustrates a second nested hierarchy, which matches the phylogenetic hierarchy with startling - and unnecessary - precision. Evolution is the central organizing principle of biology, and - because some people don't like it - explicit coverage of it is reserved for a few classes at the end of the term, as if an astronomy class covered ephemerides for most of the term and then, at the end, mentioned heliocentrism and this 'gravity' stuff.

As to the 'lottery' thing - not everyone is quite as 'enlightened' as you. Or, to put it in your terms, there are a whole lot of religious people who do not 'really know God' the way you do. And they quite definitely do take positions that are effectively addressed by such an argument. Perhaps you find it 'juvenile' because it's aimed at the juvenile.

Even your 'guess' misses the point. Note the words you yourself quoted: "win the lottery every week" (emphasis added). If a person won the lottery once and claimed the numbers came from God, that could be dismissed as a fluke. Doing it repeatedly, every week? Not so much.

There are other tests. Imagine if we came across someone who could reliably, instantly, come up with the prime factors for any 8192-bit number? That's easy to check, but Very Hard to do - more than any human believes is possible in this universe. It would be prima facie evidence of communication with something way beyond human capabilities.

Talking with the designer of a system will often - usually - reveal aspects of it not apparent to even those who've used the system for years. (Sometimes that's deliberate - you've heard of 'Easter eggs', I presume.)

Two of our best physical theories - general relativity and quantum mechanics - are very fleshed out, and make solid predictions accurate to many decimal places. But they give very different predictions about some things - black holes, for example. At least one and probably both are wrong to some extent. God would be able to reconcile them - indeed, would have to have already done so, building the universe and all - and someone in touch with God could, presumably, be given the theory that unites them and gives accurate predictions about black holes and such. That's what Dawkins is talking about wrt the Nobel.

As to the 'religion vs. science' thing... well, just as you have your own special definition for 'Darwinist', which doesn't match the usage of most of the people who actually study evolution, I think Dawkins uses 'religion' in a way similar to the way I do. As soon as you start thinking there's a specific something humans can't comprehend, you're dealing with religion. That is the opposite of science. They can coexist in areas where we don't understand things, but once we do, religion has to retreat.

I can't find the context of the "robots" quote - but I think he may have a different notion of what 'robots' are capable of than you do. You also come perilously close to the usual anti-evolution misunderstanding with your "obvious non-directional nature of randomness" bit. As I've repeatedly pointed out, snowflakes grow randomly in many senses - in a very non-directed sense - but their hexagonal symmetry is not random. Natural selection is the very opposite of randomness, actually. So many people have such a hard time understanding that - I think it's the key reason they oppose the idea of evolution, and seek alternatives. As I've said, "I don't believe in the evolution you disbelieve in."

As to your problems with science - no, despite the fact that the problems are hard, biology really does do well. Why have childhood cancer survival rates skyrocketed since we took organized prayer out of schools? ;->

And the thing is, intelligence and, separately, education, are both correlated with decreasing religiosity. That doesn't mean that every smart person must therefore be an atheist - you're a smart person, you should understand that.

And, yes, kind of be definition, only about 50% of any population can be above average, no? If you're working off a quote from Dawkins that says something different, can you indicate what it was?

mushroom said...

Dawkins quote about the 50% is in the Salon article. Linked in my comments.

mushroom said...

No, Dawkins is the one claiming murder is the only explanation. Not only is murder the only explanation for the dead body, but it's the only explanation for any dead body.

I will have to give you the benefit of the doubt on what is taught these days. It has been a very long time since I was in school and I was taught evolution -- complete with all the missing links and extrapolations.

As I said the lottery thing is juvenile. I understand randomness very well. The Easter Egg is an interesting point. You see, we say there are Easter Eggs. The very fact that you find mathematical equations that match reality, that the cosmos appears to be know-able at all, is an Easter Egg.

God, relativity and quantum mechanics. I could give a rip about this stuff myself, but because I like you ...

Christ is in me and I am in Christ. Man is made in the likeness and image of God. I hate to say it like this, I really hate to. Man is God interacting with the "playing field" of the derived cosmos. I really hate to say that.

The reason we use statistics (seek ye not the truth, be satisfied with .05) is that we are not dealing with the "platonic ideal", we are working with a one-off, or maybe more. Quantum theory and relativity can never be reconciled in a 4-dimensional space. It will require probably at least seven dimensions, probably more like eleven.

The trouble is that the human brain, developed as it was for chucking rocks and spears, is limited to really visualizing in three dimensions plus time. Everything beyond that becomes metaphoric. You may be able to do the math for it if you have a sufficient number of constants, but you cannot really grasp it.

Humans are good at understanding stuff they can manipulate. We are hands-on creatures. You may flatter yourself that you are not like that, but you are. Einstein was a genius because he was so good at thought experiments that accurately translated equations into pictures and vice-versa. Mental pictures are still hands-on, they are just more convenient and they generally require some experience.

Sorry, that's all half-assed. I have to go -- film at 11.

Ray Ingles said...

Mushroom - Not a lot of time now either, but I think that this is the kind of thing Dawkins' "supernaturalists" comment was referring to.

Oh, and because humans are only really good at understanding things they can manipulate - if that - why should we trust things that are 'obvious' and 'intuitive' to everyone? Those have proven to be just plain wrong before...

mushroom said...

You know, I wish that were right about that, but you're not. Dawkins hates people like me as much if not more that he does $1.99 psychics or TV faith healers who call out diseases over the air waves.

On the other hand, I'm sure you will admit that science has had its share of frauds. From Arthur Eddington's proofs of general relativity, to peppered moths, to cold fusion, to global warming. Science runs on a buck like everything else and scientists are no more above fraud than Elmer Gantry.

So, show me a robot that can run without software, or better yet, one that can write its own software.

I allow for the possibility of miracles. I certainly don’t expect them. By definition a miracle is not statistically significant, but then neither it the fact of life on this planet. The lack of statistical significance does not bother us in one case. Why should it in the other? I am not one of those who argue life could not have happened by “chance”. The point is moot. Life has happened. That a series of statistically improbable, nigh onto impossible events came together does not convince me of a Designer, although that is certainly one possibility.

In any case your Nobel prize winner or lottery winner would be a miracle, a local violation of a natural law. Jesus said people would not believe even if they saw the dead raised.

One of the temptations of Christ in the wilderness was to turn stones into bread. He did not do it. Yet, He later multiplied fishes and loaves. What was the difference? His Father multiplies fishes and grains every day.

When He appeared before King Herod prior to the crucifixion, Herod requested a miracle. Jesus did not oblige him.

It is a basic misunderstanding of God to demand that He perform for you. God is not testable ("Do not test the Lord your God"). Or, since you are fond of quoting Lewis, He is not a tame Lion. But He is Good.

Ray Ingles said...

At least two of the "frauds" you list, aren't. The peppered moths population really did vary, and it wasn't presented at the time as the creation of a new species. The only thing that was even remotely misleading was the pictures that were 'staged', which was for an illustration, not as data in the scientific papers.

As to 'cold fusion' - that wasn't a fraud, that was poor experiments and results announced prematurely, outside of peer review. And in all the cases you listed, it was scientists who detected the problems because they were testing and trying to reproduce the results.

That's not to say fraud doesn't happen, you just didn't pick particularly good examples. Here's a much better one. But, again, it's scientists doing science who caught it.

As to writing your own software, well, I've done something like that, but there's also things like this.

Ray Ingles said...

Oh, another random self-programming robot.

Asking to actually talk with someone who allegedly wants a relationship with you doesn't sound like a 'test' as such. But I have to say that 'do not test' sounds so much like this, that, well, it bothers me. "What's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating lion who emits silent roars and no lion at all," one might ask.

mushroom said...

The self-programming robot is an example of good tech marketing. Sounds like good programming but hardly all that innovative. "Am I getting free back from x1?" "No." "Take that off the model.", etc.

We do that all the time for some of our automated devices in the field. It would be simple enough to create a graphic model of that and have the central system black it out. But you knew that.

The fact that "scientists" discovered, or admitted, their own frauds does not make it less fraudulent. If you do a Google search, you will find that frauds are increasing. Science is just another human endeavor. It is not peopled by saints any more than the Catholic Church during the Inquisition. Neither is science self-correcting. Eddington's doctored proofs of GR are still cited.

God reveals Himself to us. In the process of that, He may do something "miraculous". He does not jump through hoops like a trained seal. That's just the way it is. Proving God's existence is certainly not my job. If a bunch of geeks want to deny His existence and mock Him with the FSM, they can do that. He's seen worse.

Ray Ingles said...

Mushroom - Since Dawkins specifically was talking about the "powers" that "supernaturalists" "claim", I think we can conclude that that remark was about psychics and other such con men.

We may have different reasons for suspecting that they are dishonest or deluded, but I can't see how it's controversial for Dawkins to point out that they are.

I didn't say that scientists were saints. I, um, granted that they weren't and specifically pointed out a case where a scientist was quite fraudulent. Not that the Eddington case is quite as open-and-shut as you seem to believe.

But as to self-correcting, I gotta disagree with you there. Famous frauds like the Piltdown man were found by scientists doing science, despite their biases. It's that habit of testing predictions. That's markedly absent in the religious sphere... by design, apparently.