Image: Illustration by Thomas Fuchs
-
Why Is the Penis Shaped Like That?
Why do testicles hang the way they do? Is there an adaptive function to the female orgasm? What does it feel like to want to kill yourself? Does “free will”...
Read More »
Science values data and statistics and champions the virtues of evidence and experimentation. Those of us “viewing the world with a rational eye” (as the new descriptor for this column reads) also have another, underutilized tool at our disposal: rapier logic like that of Christopher Hitchens, a practiced logician trained in rhetoric. Hitchens—who is “leaving the party a bit earlier than I’d like” because of esophageal cancer, as he lamented to Charlie Rose in a recent PBS interview—has something deeply important to offer on how to think about unscientific claims. Although he has no formal training in science, I would pit Hitchens against any of the purveyors of pseudoscientific claptrap because of his unique and enviable skill at peeling back the layers of an argument and cutting to its core.
We would all do well to observe and emulate his power to detect and dissect baloney through pure thought. To wit, after watching a quack medicine man fleecing India’s poor one Sunday afternoon, the belletrist scowled in a 2003 Slate column, “What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.” The observation is worthy of elevation to a dictum.
Of course, as scientists we prefer to tether evidence, when it is available, to logical analysis in support of a claim or to proffer counterevidence that disputes a claim. A radiant example of Hitchens’s insightful thinking, coupled to the effective employment of counterevidence, is his reaction to an episode of the television series Planet Earth. As he watched, he had a revelation of creationism’s profound flaws. The episode was on life underground, during which Hitchens noticed that the blind salamander had “eyes” that “were denoted only by little concavities or indentations,” as he recounted in a 2008 Slate commentary. “Even as I was grasping the implications of this, the fine voice of Sir David Attenborough was telling me how many millions of years it had taken for these denizens of the underworld to lose the eyes they had once possessed.”
Creationists make a big deal about the eye, insisting that the gradual stepwise process of natural selection could not have sculpted such a complex instrument because of “irreducible complexity,” meaning that the removal of any part would render it useless. Even Charles Darwin fretted about the eye in On the Origin of Species: “To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.”
If God created the eye, then how do creationists explain the blind salamander? “The most they can do is to intone that ‘the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away,’” Hitchens mused. “Whereas the likelihood that the postocular blindness of underground salamanders is another aspect of evolution by natural selection seems, when you think about it at all, so overwhelmingly probable as to constitute a near certainty.” To confirm his instincts, Hitchens queried evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, who agreed: “Why on earth would God create a salamander with vestiges of eyes? If he wanted to create blind salamanders, why not just create blind salamanders? Why give them dummy eyes that don’t work and that look as though they were inherited from sighted ancestors?”
Hitchens’s point is even deeper, however, when he applies the counterfactual argument of regression to the cosmos itself, noting that “there is a dialectical usefulness to considering the conventional arguments in reverse, as it were. For example, to the old theistic question, ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’ we can now counterpose the findings of Professor Lawrence Krauss and others, about the foreseeable heat death of the universe.... So, the question can and must be rephrased: ‘Why will our brief ‘something’ so soon be replaced with nothing?’ It’s only once we shake our own innate belief in linear progression and consider the many recessions we have undergone and will undergo that we can grasp the gross stupidity of those who repose their faith in divine providence and godly design.”
See what we're tweeting about
119 Comments
Add CommentThe subtitle for this article suggests that "In the battle for ideas, scientists could learn from Christopher Hitchens", who is described as a logician. These claims seem a little overblown. Hitchens is more prosaically described as a writer, and the article provides little evidence that scientists have anything to learn from him.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMichael Shermer gushes as he relates "A radiant example of Hitchens’s insightful thinking" concerning blind salamanders, but Hitchens in fact relies on "the fine voice of Sir David Attenborough" and then sensibly consults evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins.
Hitchens certainly addresses the root of the proposed creationism argument as the devolved characteristics of the blind salamander provide further evidence of evolution and natural selection, much like the history of the domestic dogs throughout recorded history has produced animals like the labradoodle. To propose that God created the universe as it is, like the illustrated creationist argument, may be hasty. However, there seems to be an incongruity with both the Hitchens and the proposed creationism argument. We use life as we understand it to address evidence for a creator. Well recognized is the unique probability of life, for without life there would not be the possibility of comprehending a God. If we adjust the creationism argument to focus on the rules of the universe, which are only understood and utilized by living organisms, then we can argue that there is no evidence of evolution in the mechanisms of the universe. There is only an evolution of our understanding for these rules as described with physics and chemistry, primarily. If creationism were to focus on the possibility that God created the "program" (so to speak) for how the universe functions, then creationism may not only include the possibility for natural selection, but creationism (in light of the rules of the universe) must result with the probability that evolution of life will occur. As we understand the rules of the universe and the matter which composes the universe, there is an infinite combination of interactions. Within these interactions, there is one known way for life to occur which completely obeys the rules of the universe. Within this one known way for life to occur, there is an equally vast combination of interactions which lead to diversity and natural selection of "life types". Thus, creationism is not easily refuted when we consider that a God may have created the rules of the universe, which have allowed for life and evolution to occur. To suggest that natural selection is counter-evidence for the proposed creationism argument, does not refute the possibility of a God or a godly design. There is no known evolution of the rules of the universe, in which the rules are presently suggested as evidence for a godly design. There is only a known evolution of our understanding for the rules of the universe. As we know it, these rules describe our entire understanding of the beginning of existence, until, and including the potential for the end of an existence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have no problem with the evolution of eyes. There is such an extreme survival advantage for species with good eyesight that the natural selection of various mechanisms to make eyesight as good as it can possibly be seems obvious to me. Time for evolution to take place is the key factor. The earliest form of "vision" employing only a few light sensitive cells that can distinguish light from dark was a huge evolutionary advantage for those creatures. This primitive level of vision allowed them to flee predators before being eaten simply because of the change of light above them. Evolutionarily, more light sensitive cells means greater sensitivity to changes in light, with a greater likelihood of survival. Better vision allows for the differentiation of predator and non-predator. Predators with better vision are able to find prey better than other predators with poorer vision.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is totally explainable through evolution. Today, we can see a high degree of variability in vision capability amongst various species of animals, ranging from simple light sensitivity to very complex vision systems. The present variety of vision complexity is a reflection of the evolutionary trends of the past.
My problem with debating Creationists about salamanders or anything else is that doing so concedes Creationism is a scientific theory, which it most certainly is not.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne of the key properties of a theory is that you can imagine evidence that would disprove it; i.e., you can describe how would the world be different if it were false rather than true.?
Another property is that is has predictive value; relativity predicted gravity bends light, and evolution suggested we could look at simpler animals for clues to the location of a particular gene in humans.
Creationism fails on both counts. It cannot be disproved because it is impossible to even imagine empirical evidence contrary to its assertion. All of creation is an expression of the Intelligent Designer's whim -- including blind salamanders.
Since it cannot be disproved, the world is no different whether it is true or false. This is because it does not actually say anything about the world. It is at most a poetic sentiment.
It is also good to recall Bertrand Russell's comment that "Logic can prove nothing of interest to the human heart." It is useful for balancing checkbooks or calculating how to get to the moon, but cannot tell us whether we want to go to the moon.
I have no idea what "logical behavior" would be like. People who speak of that usually means rational behavior, which is acting in ways that most likely to realize your desires. Irrational behavior is like the panicked rabbit that bolts into the grass fire it is trying to escape.
It is hard to save people from scam artists because they tell people things they wish to believe. Again, Russell observed that most people accept bad arguments for things they wish to believe, and reject good arguments for things they do not.
As usual with many of the articles by "The Skeptic's Skeptic", I enjoyed "In the battle for ideas, scientists could learn from Christopher Hitchens". However, I believe that we are much too frozen on the concept of creationism which prevents us from seeing beyond. I would be most interested in hearing what Christopher Hitchens may have to say about http://the-philosophy-of-science.blogspot.com/.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShermer is railing against unscientific claims, but offers nothing more than hype and circumstancial evidence in response. He attempts to show "the gross stupidity of those who repose their faith in divine providence and godly design". I do not believe creation came to be in an instant. Through our ongoing struggle to understand exactly how the universe is laid out, science should not, and cannot, dismiss the idea that God is the architect of creation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince Shermer offers no evidence, one can easily dismiss his arguments against divine providence and godly design. What can be asserted without evidence can also be so dismissed. My question is why is Scientific American wasting space on such self-defeating rationalizations?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf God is the architect of Creation, science then has to go forward and explain God. If there can be something that does not require an architect to exist, it might as well be the universe as God.
To say God "created the universe" is not a theory. If it were, what kind of discovery would be needed to prove or disprove it? How would the universe be different if He created it than if he didn't? If there is no difference, then you are not saying anything about the world.
Furthermore, what is the practical value of your statement? Does it predict something we can discover about the universe if we look where it tells us??
Relativity predicted gravity bends light. If it did not, that would be a blow against relativity because it predicted something untrue.
Our study of the universe is not idle speculation. It is a giant laboratory where we can study the results of "experiments" that cannot be performed on earth.
Physics, our study of the physical world, has given us non-intuitive wonders like wireless communication around the world, receiving TV signals, air travel, etc.
Einstein predicted a moving clock would slow down relative to a stationary one. If we did not know this, GPS satellites would not work and no man would know why. But we knew to adjust the clock in orbit to stay in sync with one on earth, and even how MUCH to adjust it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is for Xenon… I studied the link you suggested but do not find it helpful.This writer “assumes” most of what he says, starting with, “ “There are two fundamental attributes in man … the power of faith and the power of reason.”
He elaborates: “Traditionally, the power of faith has focused on what man didn't understand,, e.g., the eruption of a volcano, an eclipse, the afterworld, etc. […] due to science’s requirement that a given reasoning be confirmed, man's accumulated knowledge has developed and grown throughout the ages… the power of faith increasingly yielded to the power of reason, becoming mostly focused on only the afterworld.”
That faith yields to science is not my experience. Our previous president denied federal funding for stem cell research due to his ignorant belief that stem cells are human beings. Creationists continue to attack evolutionary biology. Anti-abortionists murder abortion doctors.
This writer continues… “The concept of God is not a product of faith but a product of reason. Irrational beings, i.e., those members of the animal kingdom which lack the power of reason, do not conceive the idea of God.”
Actually, animals apparently lack the power to conceive of ANYTHING. I seem to recall St. Thomas’ proofs for the existence of God, based on Aristotelian logic, were the first attempt to replace faith with reason. The New Testament frowns on seeking proof to replace faith. The Church’s first thought was to excommunicate Thomas for using pagan logic.
This writer continues… “of the attributes man ascribes to the word God there seem to be at least four that are definitely not subjective, […] "Omnipotent, "Absolute", "Eternal" and "Omnipresent". So if man… can find something that is omnipotent, absolute, eternal and that is omnipresent… man would be satisfied that God in fact exists. And as we know, man finds that energy meets the criteria.” (Because it can be neither created nor destroyed.) Personally I doubt "energy” can conceive of God any more than a dog or cat. To me this writer attempts to sound reasonable but is rambling nonsense.
A reader of SciAm for several years, I have consistently found Shermer an utterly laughable and self-contradictory character. This article is no exception. The examples are many, but here is one. Quote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this<A> What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
<B> The observation is worthy of elevation to a dictum.
One cannot conceivably provide evidence for claim A, and ergo one could dismiss it without evidence. That is, unless it were a statement of a special sort such that it did not bear empirical scrutiny.
In claim B we are told that claim A should be made a "dictum." A dictum is an authoritative statement, one which can be relied upon in each and every case. The truth of the dictum - its authority and reliability - lies in its self-evidence. It is true because it is obviously true. Who could or should doubt it given how thoroughly reasonable it sounds? Answer: anyone who calls themselves a skeptic and understands what that word means. Skepticism as such involves hostility toward dicta.
Why in God's name (irony intended) does Shermer have a column in SciAm? He does not inform anyone in this audience of new scientific discoveries, and his grasp of the philosophy of science is tenuous and uncritical. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that not too many "the earth is 5000 years old"-style creationists are subscribers. Shermer's job seems to be preaching to the choir, and the measure of his writing is its fervor and rhetorical flair rather than its capacity to reveal the unknown. Hell, keep him for laughs.
This is in response to carlofab. I understand what you are saying. And I seriously doubt that I can truly help. But, I know that hasty reading also gets me in trouble sometimes. So, if I may, the best that I can recommend is that you may want to consider to carefully re-read the link http://the-philosophy-of-science.blogspot.com/ a couple more times. Particularly because I was puzzled by your sixth paragraph which says "Personally I doubt 'energy' can conceive God any more than a dog or a cat. To me this writer attempts to sound reasonable but is rambling nonsense".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAfter much perusal of the link, I must confess that I failed to find any place in the link that says that "energy can conceive God" as you suggest. Come to think of it, perhaps both you and I would benefit from hearing what someone like Christopher Hitchens would have to say on the subject.
Hi Xenon,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHopefully I can clarify what my post intended….
My first impression was this writer tends to simply “make up” things without reason or explanation. For example his assertion that the four most common attributes assigned to God are: ”Omnipotent”, "Absolute", "Eternal" and "Omnipresent".
I’m vague on what he means by Absolute, but conspicuously missing from this list is “Omniscient” (all-knowing).
Elsewhere the writer confidently states, “the concept of God is not a product of faith but a product of reason”. His proof is that man is the only living creature that can conceive of God. I might find that more impressive if animals could conceive of other things. As far as we know they cannot conceive of anything, so an inability to conceive of God is not surprising. We, on the other hand, can conceive of many things -- including the existence and non-existence of God.
I also notice one of his attributes is that God is “Eternal”. If we can conceive of an eternal God, then we can surely conceive of an eternal universe.
Now to your question: If his attributes included “omniscience” – a traditional property of God – he would find it difficult to say God is energy. We do not normally think of energy as omniscient, or able to conceive of anything, including God. For most theologians this would be an imperfection unworthy of God.
I read something recently that struck a harmonious chord; something like: "Humanity is the organ the universe developed to perceive itself."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this...but of course, the LOSS of features (e.g., the salamander's "vestigial eyes", if indeed that is what they are) is exactly the OPPOSITE of what evolution proposes: Evolution is, by definition, the creation of complex features; loss of features is entropic and opposes the evolutionistic proposition that time produces greater complexity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFurther, if the cave salamanders' lack of eyes is proof of evolution, what does the EXISTENCE of eyes on some cave species indicate? And how do we interpret the existence of eyes on benthic creatures which also dwell in lightless depths? (But perhaps some evidence is too inconvenient to include in this discussion.)
Personally, I see the parsimony of such creatures as the cave salamander to be a strong argument for creationism. The lack of eyes on a creature which never uses them is, to me, a mark of thoughtful design - an indication of a degree of efficiency which evolution cannot explain. Seems to me that evolutionists are just eager to interpret the data according to their prejudices - not to mention pretty selective in the data they allow!
By the way, I see that Mr. Shermer has been promoted from "Skeptic" to "Skeptic's Skeptic". Who did the promoting, I wonder?
Humans have shown the impressive ability to convince themselves of the truth of various superstitions/religions since the beginning of the organization of their civilizations. Having at one time in my life also having believed in one of these superstitions, I understand the attraction, but it still does not make it reasonable or correct. The truth is--- there is no real evidence of anything beyond corporeal life. All religions are no more than superstition.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDr. Shermer,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgain you digress from science into the nontheist arguments that annoy and inflame sciam readers. Why? If you "teach the [theistic] controversy" here, then why not in the classroom? Sciam IS a science classroom! Hitchens' rhetoric obviously belongs elsewhere!!!
Any those who believe in a God look for it to explain anything they do not understand. Rather laughable really
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this...and, of course, for every creature which questions creationism, there are hundreds or thousands that confirm it: Today, my favorite is the Brazil nut, whose "reproduction depends on the presence of the orchid Coryanthes vasquezii, which does not grow on the Brazil nut tree itself. The orchids produce a scent that attracts small male long-tongued orchid bees (Euglossa spp), as the male bees need that scent to attract females. The large female long-tongued orchid bee pollinates the Brazil nut tree. Without the orchid, the bees do not mate, and therefore the lack of bees means the fruit does not get pollinated."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf fitness is defined as prowess in reproduction, then what must we think of the Brazil nut? It practically wears a chastity belt, and needs the right flowers before it will open up for reproduction! This is exactly the opposite of what evolution predicts.
Evidence against evolution is abundant and overwhelming, yet atheist proselytes like Shermer and Hitchen continue their blind adherence to this incredible idea. No surprise: Their religion obliges them to.
@carlofab: "If we can conceive of an eternal God, then we can surely conceive of an eternal universe."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile this is philosophically true, it is not a scientific proposition. Science rests on the principle of cause and effect, and thus cannot treat of eternal entities (since eternal entities are, by definition, uncaused). Further, as I am sure you are aware, the current state of cosmology does not propose an eternal universe.
In fact, you have pointed out an excellent connection between science, philosophy, and theology: Science must eventually admit the existence of an uncaused first cause, which of course draws us into the realm of natural philosophy and thus into theology. Thomas Aquinas was perhaps the most famous proponent of this argument, and it is still sound today. Science has its limits - the limits of the natural order, and by virtue of this, it points us to the supernatural order. That is ONE of perhaps dozens of evidential lines which point us to the existence of God.
OneEye,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWithout meaning to be disrespectful, you're a little confused about what evolution "is, by definition." It does not predict that "time produces greater complexity," but rather that the way an environment is structured prompts adaptive changes in imperfectly self-replicating systems. Those changes may lead to greater complexity in some cases, and less in others. Either way, this isn't at all different from entropy; it's very closely related. I don't have the space here to go deeper into the concepts of entropy and evolution and how they interrelate, but you might want to make sure you fully understand the arguments you're dismissing, before you do so.
So the major point of your position is: if it is too difficult for us to understand why something happens naturally, then it is evidence that there is some magical being making it happen.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@TuckerM: Thank you for your respectful disagreement - with which I respectfully disagree. Evolution does, indeed, predict increasing complexity over time. This is not only inherent in Darwin's original "tree of life" proposition, but also in the modern interpretation of ages, in which "less derived" creatures are assigned older origins, and less complex features are generally considered "more primitive". These are core biases of the evolutionistic interpretation of the biome. Surely you're not going to be so obscurantist as to deny THAT!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd with regards this salamander: If evolutionists can argue their case from this single data point (which is the limit of the substance of Hitchens' and Shermer's original argument), then so can I: The entropic decrease in complexity represented by this little salamander's lack of eyes is the opposite of what evolution as a whole predicts. The data point doesn't fit the evolutionist curve. Explain that how you will, that's the raw fact that you must deal with.
(Now, had the salamander's "eyes" evolved into some other elaboration, I would have a lot more difficulty coping with that fact. But they didn't. Instead, we see a creature which needs no eyes and... HAS no eyes. Looks like a good design to me!)
...and thank you for the effort to enlighten me, but it is perhaps not as necessary as you might have thought.
"So the major point of your position is: if it is too difficult for us to understand why something happens naturally, then it is evidence that there is some magical being making it happen."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo, Sisko, that is not my point. My point is that scientific investigation has a hard limit of what it can explore and explain, to wit, those things which are products of cause-and-effect relationships. Any other exploration is, by definition, not scientific.
Atheists usually take this as a license to deny the reality of anything which cannot be explored by science. However, this is narrow-minded in the extreme - especially since science itself points us to the question of the origin of cause-and-effect relationships. By definition, this origin cannot itself be caused - hence, is not a natural phenomenon in the scientific sense. So we see that science opens a door of investigation which science itself cannot pursue.
Any honest skeptic would naturally doubt the proposition that material reality is the only reality; that nature is all there is. Science underlines those doubts and reinforces them. Only natural philosophy, and specifically theology, can address those questions. It's merely a matter of using the right tool for the job.
For example, you say "Science rests on the principle of cause and effect, and thus cannot treat of eternal entities (since eternal entities are, by definition, uncaused)."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is simply untrue. There is no scientific consensus on the original "cause" of space, time, or even matter, but there is a vast amount of science related to all three. Absence of a scientific consensus, or even absence of any coherent scientific theory on a given topic, does not constitute evidence for something else.
"Scientists can't explain [x], therefore explanation [y] must be true" is not very persuasive as an argument; a good thing to keep in mind.
TuckerM: Your misunderstanding can be cleared up rather simply by this question: Can science possibly be done apart from the principle of cause and effect?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe answer, of course, is "No". Scientific exploration rests on the notion that cause leads to effect with exact precision.
The fact, then, that the origin of cause and effect (and thus, of "the original 'cause' of space, time, and even matter") is unexplainable by science does not damage my thesis. Rather, it establishes it.
Science is based on the inflexible, mathematical relationship between cause and effect. The fact that this relationship cannot explain the origin or persistence of the whole cause-effect shebang is thus a proof that scientific explanations are limited to a narrow domain which ultimately cannot explain our existence.
I realize that this is an unfamiliar concept to many people - especially to those who are immersed in a scientistic view of the universe - but if you continue to think it through and plumb it to its depths, you will find that this is, indeed, the only rational conclusion from the evidence.
One Eye...All life forms interact. Your mention of the Brazil nut reminds me of the symbiotic relationship that humans have with hundreds of different bacteria in order to process fuel for our bodies from the foods that we eat. Just once, without simply attacking science, I would like you to tell us exactly WHY you believe in the biblical creation story. Upon WHAT do you base your belief? Have you personally experienced God? Do you see His work in the birth of deformed babies? Do you see His compassion in the suffering of such a great part of humanity? Do you see His will when children get cancer? Do you follow ALL of His commandments to guarantee a place in Heaven? I could go on all day.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolution is the most tested theory in science and it is always confirmed, now at a genetic level. Religion fails every test that can be conceived except for the ability of men to convince people of the impossible through brainwashing. No one is born religious. It is something that you need to be taught.
God is simply Santa Claus for adults. The religious need to grow out of it.
Actually, that is incorrect. Atheist do not "take this as a license to deny the reality of anything which cannot be explored by science." Most atheists will just say they don't know, which is what both Dawkins and Hitchens repeatedly point out. It is a straw man argument to take the weak claim of maybe a few atheists and extend it to all atheists...or skeptics for that matter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFurthermore, Evolution does not require increased complexity. Increased complexity over time is a byproduct of evolution, but it is not a necessary condition for evolution. Evolution is principally about natural selection; i.e. the environment favors some forms over others. As species naturally diversify, the emergent traits that increase an individual's fitness will be selected for based on their usefulness in that individual's current environment. If the salamander changes its environment, say due to pressure from a new predator, the individuals best suited to that new environment will be selected for. There is no requirement, law, or rule in evolutionary theory that requires a species to become more complex. It is just the overall tendency of species over time to do so. An exception to this tendency in no way challenges the theory of evolution.
As a scientist - I would rather suggest the Salamanders situation begs a number of questions. Are the eyes only for seeing?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo they only receive light stimuli or are they involved in 'top -down processing?
What role does the eye's biological structure play in Synesthesis.
If synesthesia is fundamental to sight and sense and complex thought then perhaps the eye only needs enough of the right type of information to integrate with other sense modalities.
Indeed - the new eyes of the Salamander might be doing what our large brains have had to do at greater energy costs. Filtering out of particular information might have been accomplished by the 'blind' salamander.
Otherwise why put blinkers on a race horse?
After all we still see when we are asleep.
Could we do this without eyes?
Perhaps this is the danger of relying upon uninformed logic.
Hi, Jeff,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't have to attack science in order to support the Biblical creation account. For the record, I enjoy science, study it diligence, and train my children in it. I simply don't accept the atheism inherent in the modern scientific culture, or the atheist creation myths of evolution and unguided creation.
I could write a long list of reasons that I came to be a Christian (I was once an atheist). One of them is, indeed, that I have a personal experience of God. He transformed me and my life when I was 25, and I continue to live out the joy of that. Further, reason and the evidence of nature point me to God's existence (as you have seen in some of my comments). Finally, I completely accept what the Bible teaches, as it is the most sensible, rational book on the face of the earth - and the only one that offers any hope.
I appreciate your concerns about the evil and sickness in the world. No, these are not the hand of God. For the record, I have seen the compassion of God in HEALING people of various illnesses - including some very serious - and I have seen the compassion of God reflected by my fellow Christians in the face of these trials. God allows this present crumbling world to persist because this, by and large, is the kind of world that mankind wants. But it will not be so forever.
As far as evolution having been proven - well, I want to write very strongly about that, but I will restrain myself, and say: I am an avid student of science, reading on average two or three evolution articles every day. What I see is a chaotic shambles of a theory with virtually no evidence to back it up and thousands of data point that deny and even mock the theory (like Brazil nuts). Any honest skeptic ought to walk away from evolution laughing.
By contrast, God's existence is backed up by every reasonable line of argument, with the possible (though not necessary) exception of Occam's Razor, which I do not find satisfying or even applicable to the debate.
And once - just once - I would like to see an atheist who didn't have to make his case through insult, demeaning comments, or sarcasm.
So - why put blinkers on a race horse?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@wolfkiss: "There is no requirement, law, or rule in evolutionary theory that requires a species to become more complex. It is just the overall tendency of species over time to do so. An exception to this tendency in no way challenges the theory of evolution."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are disagreeing with someone other than me. My point is that the body of evolutionary theory posits exactly such an increase in complexity over time. If Hitchens and Shermer are allowed to make their case from one species which seems to dispute the creationist position, then I am at liberty to point out that this one species blows the "curve" of the current evolutionistic model, which argues for increasing complexity over time.
By the way, natural selection is probably on the way out, as it is failing rigorous testing (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827821.000-the-chaos-theory-of-evolution.html?full=true). You might want to look into neutral selection instead. Or maybe Richard Goldschmidt!
wolfkiss: One other point: An atheist, by definition, completely denies the existence of God or any gods. That's atheism. If you want to take a "don't know" position, then you are not an atheist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou may, instead, choose the term "agnostic", but the rigorous definition of "agnostic" is that God is not only unknown, but unknowable. So you might not want that one, either.
"Unbeliever" is a pretty serviceable term for what you are describing, as well as "irreligious". But "atheist" means what I said it means.
OneEye,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI hope I am an atheist who can make his points without insult or sarcasm! (I try, at least.)
Your point about the limits of scientific inquiry is absolutely correct, as far as it goes...and if that's all you're trying to say, I agree with you completely. But I take it you're trying to say something more: namely, that something about this limitation bears on the question of God's existence. Or more generally, that reason (not faith alone) leads you to believe in God. There, we firmly part company.
For example. Suppose I say, "the universe just exists; it is eternal (there must have been something before the big bang, right?), and uncaused." You say "hogwash; every effect must have a cause." I say "yeah, you're probably right, but I have no idea what could have caused the universe." You say "aha, that's exactly my point; that original cause of the universe, whatever it may be, is what I call God." I say "interesting word for it, but okay; so what caused God?" You say "don't be silly, that's the whole idea: whoever or whatever God is, God is eternal, and uncaused." I say "hogwash; every effect must have a cause." And you say...?
The point, to most atheists, isn't that we know anything about the ultimate mysteries; quite the opposite. It's that God as a theory doesn't add anything to the equation...and that God as a fact is a little short on supporting data.
But whether you agree with that or not, you should know that the fact that biological diversity and complexity on Earth has gradually increased is NOT a necessary consequence of the operation of evolution; it is a fascinating side-effect. No careful biologist would agree that less complex ("primitive") structures necessarily precede more complex structures in the fossil record...just that as a matter of observation, it frequently turns out to be true (there's such a thing as carbon dating, you know, among other techniques). Now, it is also true that the fact of evolution (it is frequently observed experimentally, in the lab and elsewhere) is one of the only things that has helped explain this side effect. And it's true that the general trend of increasing complexity can cause a mistaken assumption about causality or sequence, in cases where complexity has in fact decreased. But the underlying distinction is critical: evolution does NOT assume inevitably increasing complexity. (After all, it operates via entropy!) That's why I'm urging you to be more careful about how you articulate logic-based arguments against evolution; the points you raise above (which are good points, from an intuitive standpoint) have all been extensively addressed in the literature.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs you say, there are things logic and science cannot address. If you trust your faith to take you into realms where science has not (cannot?) tread, by all means: go in peace, to love and serve the Lord. But it is your faith alone that will take you there, not reason.
Why your dismissive presumption that a logician needs to invent ideas? A logician derives (and also derides) relations between ideas, and points them out.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA rhetorician convinces us by tuning in to OUR use of language. Which you did not do for me, and Mr. Hitchens does.
"...without life there would not be the possibility of comprehending a God."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou would be asking for agreement on this, I presume, since you base your entire argument on it. Unsuccessfully, I might add.
You say " "Logic can prove nothing of interest to the human heart." as if we all agreed how the "heart" gets "interested".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow about a little rigor in definition and care for the health of your argument?
will somebody tell me why anyone would want to put blinkers on a racehorse?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUh, you may have noticed the name of the blog?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSCIENTIFIC AMERICAN.
That may explain the bias.
We'll keep him, and you, for laughs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, it is a self-referential statement.
And Schermer didn't elevate it to a dictum, but suggested it might fit the class.
This is not a defensible assertion "Evolution is, by definition, the creation of complex features"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps you meant to say "Evolution is the change of characteristics of a genome in response to its niche"
Survival through adaptation, not necessarily addition of complexity, which uses energy, which must justify its expenditure. Even brains might be counter-adaptive, which leads to questions of the survival uses of teaparty thinking. Seriously.
but then the rest of your post wouldn't make sense.
You put blinkers on a racehorse to help him focus on the race. Horses are prey animals and tend to look all around them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@42: Cute, but not logical.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvidence of atrophying features are always remarkable, but not unusual. I suppose this one is further proof of genetics in action over the millennia. In my work I see systems change particularly as their environments change, but they do not necessarily become more complex, only more suitable and efficient. Sometimes they become bigger and more complex, and sometimes smaller and simpler. Evolution is about adapting. It’s not clever, it’s blind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDoes the universe itself also evolve as a set of process by trial and error? Do only the successful ones survive the ones that proved useful, the ones we call laws? I don’t know. As I am part of the universe, do my processes add to the universe? It would make sense from the Second Law of Thermodynamics and Black Body surface information.
How the universe came out of nothing begs the question that I need first to understand what is nothing. For example, in quantum electrodynamics, I was astonished, as a student, to discover that empty space is full of vacuum energy. Was the big bang the origin of the universe – possibly not? But I don’t know, and neither does anyone else. We can all fantasise, but not shout, or do anything much worse in defence of speculation. It is astonishing how evidence, reason, testing, and lots of patience have answered many questions already. Michael Shermer certainly makes me think about science, and others too - witness this discussion. More, please!
PS Some points about questions raised above:
As every schoolchild knows omnipotent and omniscient are mutually exclusive attributes.
And maybe eyes in the dark depths of the ocean enable creatures to see other luminescent creatures.
It does not surprise me that systems build symbiotic relationships, because I see people do the same over much sorter time-scales.
@TuckerM: "No careful biologist would agree that less complex ('primitive') structures necessarily precede more complex structures in the fossil record...just that as a matter of observation, it frequently turns out to be true (there's such a thing as carbon dating, you know, among other techniques)."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are arguing evolution from a PREscriptive perspective; I from a DEscriptive one. You are saying, "Nothing about evolutionary theory necessitates increase in biotic complexity." I agree with that statement. (Indeed, I would say that evolutionary theory would lead us to expect the opposite - which is a telling critique of evolutionist thinking.)
I, on the other hand, am saying, "Evolutionary theory is an attempt to explain the complexity of the modern biome as an elaboration from initial singular simplicity." This is also a true statement about evolution, and one which takes into account why anyone would bother with the theory in the first place.
Given this, then, it is plain that any data which disputes the progress from simplicity to complexity is data which disputes the essential motive of evolution - which damages the thematic basis of the theory. Aside from the fact that this line of thinking is distasteful to evolutionists, I doubt that many scientists would disagree with it.
An interesting offshoot of this is the fact that, though there seems to be almost a "Moore's law" inherent in evolutionary theory, no-one has yet even begun to try to identify the fundamental force driving the alleged 2.5 billion years or more of increasing complexity which characterizes the evolutionists' idea of life on earth. In fact, it seems that the most important piece of the model is an utter and abominable mystery. Which is another reason to doubt evolution!
(Oh, and by the way, carbon dating is useless to date fossils.)
So the blind salamander = when did you tell him to put blinkers on?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOr did it take a while for evolution do to the job for you?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWeren't creationism (1992) and intelligent design (2005) banned in the US schools as superstition when their pretensions to science proved false. I cannot imagine anything as having no cause and no effect, never mind having observed any such things. Is this fantasy? Is there any proof? Carl Sagan wrote an amusing story, The Dragon in my Garage, about a person inventing ever more fanciful attributes about an imagined creature as each argument was disproved - it's invisible, it can't be touched, it's fire is heatless, etc. As always: don't take anyone's word for it, show me the proof.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Cardigan - "Weren't creationism (1992) and intelligent design (2005) banned in the US schools as superstition when their pretensions to science proved false."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust because a bunch of activist atheists engaged in a bout of judge-shopping and found a jurist who was willing to back up their faulty reasoning does not mean that justice was done or that truth was served. Only that atheists are willing to use political manipulation to prohibit free thinking.
By the way, I never said anything about something which has no effects. In fact, what I have shown is that science provokes us to embrace the idea that there must be an uncaused first cause of all eventual effects.
@ormondotvos: "@42: Cute, but not logical."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you are willing to say that something is not logical, it's important that you demonstrate the logical fallacy. Otherwise, you come across as just making a pontifical pronouncement.
Moore's law has exceptions. We also make simpler chips. Similarly cell and biological systems accumulate genetic material, but some of it is switched off or lost. actually I have witnessed fruit flies evolving quite naturally in the lab,which is part of the universe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Cardigan: "actually I have witnessed fruit flies evolving quite naturally in the lab,which is part of the universe."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry, Cardigan, but I am a skeptic. You are going to have to do more than just claim that you have seen evolution happening.
Pony up! What are the facts?
What have you proved about something that has no effect. Did I miss a proof here, or was it fantasy? It is important to separate reason and emotion. If you don't like science why are you taking part in this discussion? are you troubled and looking for truth? I hope this is not part of some proselytizing chore.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOK We filmed it for BBC Horizon and broadcast it on television. Now your turn. Can you take a film of god and televise it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCardigan - What are you talking about? You seem to be lapsing into personal attack here. Did you have something substantial to add?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFilmed what? Evolution? Describe your findings.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Cardigan: "What have you proved about something that has no effect. Did I miss a proof here, or was it fantasy?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCardigan, I would like to respectfully ask you to read a particular discussion before responding to it. It is plain that you are making an effort to enter into the discussion between TuckerM and me. That's fine by me, but you are totally missing the point and repeatedly misconstruing what I am saying.
A little more research before posting, please!
OneEye,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo, science makes no distinction between "natural" and "unnatural" causes. Causes either are, or they aren't. You say that it's a rule of nature that all effects must have causes, and that science is impossible without it. That is flat-out false. (In fact, to the contrary, at the quantum level particles operate in ways that aggressively defy any ordinary notion of causality. There is some disagreement of interpretation on that point, but the scientific method does NOT presume absolute causality.)
Another example: you say the (supposed) history of evolution on Earth is one of increasing complexity, and that therefore examples of decreasing complexity are counter-examples to the theory. First, this mis-states the theory, as noted previously. Second, it does nothing of the sort; that's like saying a clean room is a counter-example to the law of entropy, or that eddies in a river are counter-examples of the law that water runs downhill. Again, you're introducing reasonable-sounding statements that just don't reflect what science is.
So God is not an "effect," and that exempts Him from needing a cause? Then what is it about the universe itself that makes it an effect, one that does need a cause?
"NO, evolution is not a fact, and NO, it is never observed in the lab...experiments are instances of DESIGN..."
Experiments are designed, yes. The results of them are not. If we could design the results of experiments, we would be God (we aren't). Experiments are nothing more than intelligent questions posed to reality; only nature (or God?) determines the results. Humans can't design experimental results, though they can of course misinterpret or lie about them. But to claim that experimentally observed evolution is a product of design is misleading in the extreme; experiments tinker with environmental conditions, which then produce non-designed (by humans, anyway) adaptations to those conditions. That's what evolution is; changes in the genome, in response to environmental pressures. It happens, and is observed, all the time.
Yes, one can always interpret the results in a creationist light: not only was the organism designed to be perfect, it was designed to adapt its genome in some of its offspring (not others) adaptively, in response to environmental pressures, such that more of those with the adapted feature survive than those without it. All part of God's plan, if you like. Doesn't change what's going on, though.
You stated:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"God is not an effect, and thus has no cause."
Confounded science, searching for causes for all those troubling effects!
Carlofab-You said: "Our previous president denied federal funding for stem cell research due to his ignorant belief that stem cells are human beings" Not quite true he actually stopped the funding because embryo's were destroyed to extract stem cell. There is a difference.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWilliam of Occam, a 14th century Dominican who also taught at Oxford, first formulated Occam's Razor as "Unknown entities cannot be introduced in order to explain other unknown entities".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIntroducing God (an unknown entity) to explain the ultimate unknown (why anything exists instead of nothing at all) is to introduce an unknown to explain an unknown and this has been a known no-no for seven hundred years. A simpler explanation which avoids infinite regress (i.e. "who created the creator?") is that, for some reason, nothing at all is unstable and that a creator is, therefore, just another theory and not a given.
The evidence seems to indicate that articles that precipitate science vs. religion debates among commentators draws far more commentators than any science article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI propose that either SA's readership has few opinions about scientific articles, or a large population of non-SA readers come to this site only to comment on articles that precipitate science vs. religion debates. If this is correct, the posting of such articles is a disservice to SA's readership.
jtdwyer, good point. I think it's likely that many people want to feel informed about the world, so browse the SA site. But they are only really looking to have their own world-view confirmed. Skepticism is bedrock to science, but anathema religious doctrine. Consequently, those people feel the need to reinforce their childhood indoctrination--usually in very wordy, convoluted assertions that magic is real.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, I can't agree that articles promoting skeptics are a disservice. Should we avoid skepticism out of fear of being shouted down? There would be no science, and no SA, if that were the case.
This is absolute nonsense Shermer! Hitchens cannot prove that there is a God, neither can he prove that there is no God. Let's take Hitchens logic further by saying that he cannot also prove history or events in the past. There are many things that he cannot prove or disprove using scientific evidence. Science as a method is limited to testable repeatable events, not spiritual events. There is nothing here to prove. Further, he cites Dawkins an apologist for atheism totally discrediting his argument. Of course Dawkins is going to give Hitchins the thumbs up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe blind salamander does not disprove God's creation at all. It may throw a question mark as to God's intention in creating a blind salamander. Also it may throw a monkey wrench into the view that God created everything in seven days, but it does nothing to the idea that God created the Universe through natural selection. The view that God and evolution are incompatible come from the far right who don't see a value in science at all, and the far left atheists who follow Dawkins.
Why indeed would we impose our view that there is a grand design? Because it is shown in nature. Yes, there are regressions and periods of extinctions as any one who studied geology knows, but the evidence is so much the greater for design than for its opposite. This is not stupid at all as Krauss would say. It is more elegant and logical than the atheist position.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, Dawkins is a quack. He is totally discredited as a shill for atheism. He has done no original work like Stephen Hawking or his opponent Steven Gould, but has this idea in his head that God cannot exist and so he must wage a one man crusade to extirpate His existence at all cost--even att he cost of truth and integrity. Just look at his book on the God Delusion. A total crackpot and propagandist.
Centaurus-A:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisName-calling, disparagment, and false claims (...Dawkins....is totally discredited...) do not constitute a valid argument. Rather they serve to suggest that you have no valid argument, and consequently must resort to bullying tactics.
Salamanders aside, there is a higher level of argument to be considered.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Science of Religion: put simply, there is no science of religion. Religion is based on faith without evidence.
The Religion of Science: scientists question everything. Current theories are best guesses, readily abandoned in favor of better ones. Absolute belief in scientific theories is religion.
To the Scientific Religious I ask: is it not possible for God to have created the universe with all the physical evidence supporting evolution?
To the Religious Scientists (and to paraphrase the author) I ask: can't you grasp the gross stupidity of reposing your faith in scientific theories?
BertL:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"....Absolute belief in scientific theories is religion."
It appears you are employing a logical fallacy called the "straw-man" tactic.
"Religion of Science" is your own invention, which you made up for the sole purpose of discrediting it. There is no "absolute belief in scientific theories."
Absolute belief is simply religious and has nothing whatever to due with scientific thinking.
Theories are generally accepted because they are supported by the great preponderance of evidence, and disproved by questionable or no evidence. Should credible disproving evidence arise, the theory must then be reconsidered.
This is the opposite of religion, not just another form of religion, as you claim. You may just as well assert that having food is just another form of not having food, or that being locked in a jail cell is just another form of being locked outside a jail cell.
Please excuse me for being unclear. I agree that "Absolute belief is simply religious and has nothing whatever to due with scientific thinking." Therefore, Religious Scientists (which doesn't include all scientists) are not thinking scientifically at all. Scientists can say that there exists no credible scientific theory supporting creationism. They cannot say, however, that no such theory could ever exist for that would require faith.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTherefore, it would not be contradictory for a scientist to say he believes in creationism as a matter of his religion and, at the same time, he endorses the theory of evolution since all the scientific evidence supports it. One is religion, the other is science and never should the two be confused.
Here's one take on it that resolves the obvious contradiction even though such resolution is unnecessary. Suppose God created the universe 5000 years ago with all the physical evidence exactly as we know it today. How? That would be a mystery of faith which is of little interest to scientists.
Logic can tell us nothing about the world as we know it. Aristotle and St. Thomas were both wrong to believe that it could.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt cannot prove that grass is green or the sky is blue, or that unicorns do or do not exist.
Logic, like mathematics, a powerful tool for keeping track of things, or exploring the relationships between theoretical "things". None of this addresses our fundamental human concerns, though it can be "handy" for balancing a checkbook -- or vectoring an aircraft onto its destination.
Here is a good example of a logical statement that is always true -- and indeed must be true:
"All black crows are black."
It is impossible for the statement to be false. And yet it tells us nothing about the world. It does not tell us what color crows are, nor what they are, nor if they even exist.
Information about the world comes only from observation, which never has the "proven" certainty of logic.
Einstein's relativity was a mathematically consistent model of a theoretical universe. Whether it described ours was unknown. Observation has suggested it does, and on that assumption things like GPS become possible. We are still not certain how well it describes our universe, but is definitely close enough to have some practical value.
Creationisn has no practical use or value at all. Anything we discover, it explains as the Designer's whim. It cannot, like evolution, tells us what we should expect to find if we look in certain places. Nor is it of use in advancing medicine, as evolution has been.
Of course David Hume forever demolished the certainty of cause and effect back in the 18th century --
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"When we say A causes B, we mean only that A and B are constantly conjoined in fact, not that there is some necessary connection between them. We have no other notion of cause and effect but that certain objects have been always conjoined together. We cannot penetrate into the reason of the conjunction." -- Russell, "History of Philosophy"
Russel clarified this with an anecdote:
Imagine a chicken in a hen house. It notices that each morning the rooster crows, after which the sun rises, and then the farmer comes over the hill with a bucket of corn and feeds the chicken.
One morning the rooster crowed, the sun rose, and the farmer came over the hill. The chicken reasoned, "Aha, now the farmer is going to feed me corn."
But on this morning the farmer wrung the chicken's neck instead, and ate it for dinner.
Cause and effect can never be certain. They are at best a product of correlation analysis with a high statistical probability.
I would disagree about Dawkins. Some atheists are perfectly rational in their arguments and we agree to disagree, but others have a deep seated hatred of God, so much so that it clouds their judgement because it really isn't about the argument, but really about why they have become so embittered towards God due to some kind of irreconcilable problem, or tragedy in their lives, or earlier disappointment with religion. It is no longer rational but emotional. Dawkins is one that even if God spoke to him from the clouds he would argue with Him.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do agree with carlofab. Logic in and of itself does not prove or disprove something and that is exactly why it has no empirical value. It is a good tool for creating internal consistency for statements in an argument.
My dad subscribed to SA so I was raised with it. He is a well known scientist. I am now a subscriber as well. I am into Paleontology and Astronomy and love science. But I am also a believer in God and don't see any contradiction between science and faith. I see the limitations of both kinds of knowledge. I know one thing and scientists better listen to me on this: if we don't build bridges between the two worlds science policy will become more irrelevant, perceived as being smug and arrogant by a lot of the public who are religious for the most part. Sadly some have turned their backs on scientific evidence as witnessed by the refusal to believe in global warming and climate change.
Shermer's naive praise of Hitchens exposes his own rational blind-spots. Blind salamanders as evidence for evolution and against creationism? You can't be serious. I accept evolution but who in their right mind would think to use this as evidence? Harmful and even neutral mutations are enormously more common than beneficial mutations, the stuff that runs the machinery of evolution. Any creationist will accept that with enough generations, a harmful mutation or set of mutations--blindness and even eye atrophy in this case--in a lighted environment could be at least neutral in a lightless environment. The genetically blind do not survive to reproduce in a lighted world but they do in a dark one. To argue for evolution, one must accumulate the rare beneficial mutations. Yet Hitchens seems to think that any old mutation supports evolution. And Dawkins thinks creationists can't believe life can mutate into slightly different new forms. I find it astonishing that Dawkins actually puts this out as an argument.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSecondly, it seems very strange that Lawrence Krauss thinks that his belief in universal cycles, of eons of "progressions" and "recessions," has anything to do with belief in "divine providence and … design." Is it really that difficult to think that God might create such a universe in order to come up with one like ours or even a large number of eventual life supporting universes? If God's goal is to produce intelligent conscious life that can respond to God and if this creator works in our world to achieve similar spiritual goals, how does this contradict creation via universal cycles? Krauss' strong language against teleological theism (calling it "gross stupidity") following such a weak argument suggests other than truly intellectual reasons behind his views. (Even admitting Krauss' speculative cyclic universe, the best current views still cannot get beyond the BVG theorems with an absolute beginning and thus a First Cause outside of the universe.)
But back to Hitchens: It is difficult to laud someone whose writings are so deficient of solid argumentation and so full of anger and vilification. Why do the intelligent theists run so roughshod over him? In his debate with William Lane Craig he appeared to give up near the end--why, he even waived off his last response. One atheist web site bemoaned the inequality calling it a debate between a formidable "analytical philosopher" and "a loud-mouthed journalist." Instead of praising mediocre minds like Hitchens, why not honor the truly great thinkers?
Creationists are not scientific. They will give a definition of God which they can never prove nor can anyone else disprove it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt just seems that some people feel insecure in fast changing scientific world and want to live in the old world that was somewhat more stable although less consistent in knowledge.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisrajnish, if it were this simple it would be a matter of jettisoning one position for another. It isn't so simple as conservative people who hold onto old world beliefs still. If there was absolutely no evidence of a Creator God then we would all eventually lose our faith. The problem is that there is evidence of God's existence all over the place, and people from all economic and social and ethnic backgrounds still hear from Him and He still answers prayers and interacts with us. It's scientists who try desperately to deny His existence through methods that do not address spiritual or historical knowledge. If God were just a philosophical position He would have been swept under the rug long ago. But He refused to leave because He exists and still interacts with people. Science has never developed any kind of ethic they could defend and certainly Darwinian evolution provides a terrible ethic that if we practiced genocide would be acceptable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, we are left with many questions that science as a philosophy has failed to address, and the big huge elephant in the room that they try and ignore--God is still in our midst.
@reimar - comment #6:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Through our ongoing struggle to understand exactly how the universe is laid out, science should not, and cannot, dismiss the idea that God is the architect of creation."
That is exactly what science must do. In fact it is nearly the definition of science. This does not mean one cannot have faith in God, but that we must acknowledge that it is just that, faith, and has nothing to do with reason.
Centaurus-A:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"If there was absolutely no evidence of a Creator God then we would all eventually lose our faith....."
Honestly, rajnish was just making a very astute observation. Your response just serves to illustrate his straight-forward point perfectly. It only works when you are huddled in a crowd of like-thinkers.
Claiming there is evidence of "a Creator God" everywhere does not substitute for demonstrating it. The concept would never even occur, and sound silly, to someone raised free of your religious milieu. Yet you keep repeating it as if repetition alone constitutes an argument.
People follow these beliefs NOT because the beliefs are self-evident, as you claim, but because they have no choice: firstly because they are indoctrinated as children with superstitions they cannot shake in adulthood; secondly, the beliefs are constantly re-enforced with a host of veiled, and outright, threats, ranging from social ostracism, to mobbing (on the web: relentlessly swamping with sophisms), to physical violence.
You should try to take an honest look at the history of messianic priests.
Before the Enlightenment, and even into the19th century, anyone who dared question the dogmas that you parrot was hunted down, tortured and murdered in the most gruesome way the priests could think up.
Since torture and murder for heresy are now contrary to civil law in most western countries, priests' advocates must resort to less criminal methods to keep the superstitions alive. You, and your fellow religionists posting here, provide a perfect example of the current methods: vilifying anyone who questions, fighting words ("...you hate God!"), and thinly veiled threats (if you don't stop, our mobs will close their minds to science). None of that makes "God" evident in the world. Quite the contrary.
BTW, science is not an ethic. Darwinism is not an ethic. They describe the physical world. That's it. If you want ethics you can look in plenty of other places. Most are historically less persecutional and vindictive than the self-serving fantasies of messianic priests.
I also must add, since my last comment seems a bit harsh, that I realize a big reason why people cling to theism is their fear of death and the unknown. It's comforting to imagine a "kingdom of heaven" with angels flapping about praising the father-figure for eternity (though you'd think that would get boring after the first billion years or so, even for the most enthusiastic angels...and not that the father-figure is vain or anything like that to want to be glorified--forever). Also, apparently, they find it comforting to imagine that everyone who disagrees will burn horribly forever in "purgatory" (though that, too, must get boring after a billion years or so, give-or-take...)--deplorable thinking, but to each his own.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's fine. Contemplating oblivion is disturbing for us homo sapiens. Of course, people are entitled to their treasured fantasies. And, frankly, who cares?
The problem is that whenever someone tries to be honest and rational about it, like Mr. Hitchens, these people all descend like a swarm of harpies to silence that person. It requires quite a bit of courage to face this relentless onslaught of intolerance.
My opinion is that Mr. Hitchens, Mr. Shermer, and, for that matter Mr. Dawkins, deserve our admiration for their courage, and their humanity. And SA deserves accolades for allowing a voice for reason.
Getting back to the column in SA, which referred to "the old theistic question, 'Why is there something rather than nothing?'": In a scientific context, the proper question is not WHY, but HOW there is something rather than nothing. "Why" (inquiring about the PURPOSE of the universe, if any) is properly a question for theologians or philosophers. "How" gets at the mechanisms, such as quantum fluctuations or whatever, which are what science properly studies. So when Hitchens asks "Why will our brief 'something' so soon be replaced with nothing?", he has blundered beyond science into theology or philosophy in his eagerness to accuse theists of "gross stupidity". And this is an example of his "rapier logic" and "power to detect and dissect baloney through pure thought"? Maybe even a logician would benefit from some formal training in science before presuming to pontificate about how to do it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't mind atheists being atheistic, but I'm consistently struck by how much they pride themselves on "clear logic" that on closer scrutiny so often proves to be rather sloppy. I guess theists have no monopoly on mental laziness.
Re EastwoodDC. Simply proclaiming that faith has nothing to do with reason will not make it so. Many people, myself included, have a faith that is based on reason and evidence. And I would claim this to be the basic biblical world view, whatever other religions might hold. So it simply will not do to sweep away faith as having "nothing to do with reason." If you want to critique religious fideists, I'll even join you. But if you attack people who claim to have evidence for their beliefs, you need to confront their arguments and evidence claims.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience definitely could give reason to disbelieve, but it could also give reason to believe in God. And, yes, as you say, "that is exactly what science must do." Science never gives hard proof, but it might give enough evidence to persuade one way or the other. (And with the evidence I mentioned earlier, I think it's clearly on the side of belief.)
The most compelling argument against religious belief is the fact that the religious texts that religious zealots so rely on do not appear to come from a deity of infinite knowledge and wisdom; rather they only reflect the state of human knowledge at the time they were written. One can only conclude that rather than man being created in the image of god, god was created in the image of man at that time – more a creature of ignorance than of knowledge. This point is nicely made in a cartoon in a recent issue of the New Yorker Magazine where god is depicted berating himself for having forgotten to mention dinosaurs in the bible.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are more ‘miracles’ in any one issue of Scientific American than there are in all the religious texts ever written – if only one had eyes to see.
@DJensen:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you for the comments. I might quibble a point or two, but I think we are mostly in agreement. I did not intent to attack, just to make a statement of fact in response to ...
#6> "Through our ongoing struggle to understand exactly how the universe is laid out, science should not, and cannot, dismiss the idea that God is the architect of creation."
And of course, it's not possible to have a scientific hypothesis about God one way or the other. You (we) may indeed have reason to believe, but it's not a scientific sort of reasoning. There is, I think, an difference between reasons to believe and rationalizing ones beliefs. The "science of Creationism" certainly does nothing to further reason, nor does it add any value or meaning to my beliefs.
Stem cells are clearly not human beings. However, embryonic stem cells are harvested from human embryos, which are clearly human but not mature. Bush funded stem cells but not embryonic stem cells research that required new sources which meant the destruction of human embryos.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAdult stem cells as the base to cure Parkinson’s or MS or … is highly preferable since the embryonic cells still carry the antigens of the embryo while the adult stem cells can be from the patient who requires the cure. Would rather have my cells cure me than some unborn kid whose cells require anti-rejection medication.
I’m not an embryo bigot. Tons of human sperm and eggs are flushed every day. But just want to be accurate on what and what not was funded by Bush.
Re SteveinOG. You praise Hitchens, Dawkins, and Shermer for expressing their views but denounce any criticism of their views as intolerance. But suppose SA had Hugh Ross give the monthly column? Ross certainly has better scientific and academic credentials than Shermer. (Does Shermer even have a doctorate? His Wikipedia bio doesn't mention any.) I'm pretty sure you would want the right to criticize Ross' views along with a lot of other people, yet you wouldn't see yourself as one of the harpies for doing so. So if one argues for a view you like they're courageous, but if they argue for one you don't like they're intolerant. Such impeccable logic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article of almost groveling admiration for Mr. Hitchens’ pointing out what most educated people , including Christians, know and accept already – that creatures are continually evolving, and re-evolving, to adapt to different conditions – is the least useful of the entire magazine. Neither is the exploitation of ignorance and superstition – present even in this enlightened country of politicians who are ‘not witches ‘ – something even worth commenting on in any serious discussion of what creation is about.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn contrast, it is inspiring to read other articles about advances in research and technology that continue to improve the human condition. I doubt whether these particular scientists would have time to consider Mr. Hitchen’s opinions, let alone benefit from them
Rhetoric and Logic sound quaintly out of place in this context.
(continued in next comment)
Julie Combes
Christopher Hitchens the non-scientist, and Stephen Hawking, the scientist, both lords of logic, have something else in common – the arrogance of the rich, educated and famous. Their contributions to the life of our race are certainly not the most important.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStephen Hawking has been lionized because of his extraordinary achievements in science (with considerable help from students and colleagues who have not always shared the credit), and unique survival of a debilitating disease. There are many who suffer from the same condition, in poverty and obscurity.
I am sorry to hear that Christopher Hitchens may not stay long enough in this world to outgrow his antipathy to God – perhaps he will learn wisdom elsewhere. In the meantime contributing some of his profits to education and research that may someday make life better for millions of fellow victims would be approperiate. On the other hand, he may have contributed to the disaster of an increasingly materialistic culture.
The beauty and mystery of creation is not susceptible to logic. There are an infinite number of things to be discovered – evolution, which mainstream believers accept as a fact (lamenting the stubbornness of those who fail to acknowledge and teach the whole truth) is only a start. At one time the ‘sum of all knowledge’ was declared to be available; the ‘theory of everything’ is now known to be still beyond our reach. However many arguments we may come up with for rejecting the Creator – the fact remains that our human powers of thought are limited. What is the Nothing that comes before Something? We have no way of knowing.
If we do not leave the earth a better, happier, healthier, more peaceful place, overcoming violence, poverty and prejudice, through our own efforts, whatever we have achieved in the realm of logic, and however stunning our rhetoric, is nothing.
Julie Combes
To my daily prayer list, I've added the names of Christopher Hitchens, Michael Shermer, and all those who view the world through atheistic eyes. My prayer is not that they abandon rational thought or empirical observations. On the contrary, the prayer is that they change an assumption in their reasoning and then begin anew in their observations, somewhat similar to what a mathematician does when he moves from a Euclidean world to a non-Euclidean world by adjusting the fifth postulate. The required change is to move from the "jiggle and wiggle" assumption that human reality can be completely explained by the movement of atoms or their equivalents to the assumption that the underlying structure of reality is mathematical and mathematics implies Intelligence. With this adjustment the marvels of life are observed not only as matter and energy in flux but also as a recognition of the divine as divine, as transcendent, and as the concurrent cause of all that is. Hitchen's question "Why will our brief something so soon be replaced with nothing?" is double edged. For me, it leads to the thought that the human race needs to be saved from eternal death; and the fact that we have written and oral testimony of Jews and Christians regarding I Am and Christ breaking into human history. With this understanding, the world is observed differently.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeace and blessings to all atheists of good will who do good works on earth; may they change their philosophy and bring their minds in line with their hearts.
@ Lorentz
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou claim (#82) that "the most compelling argument against religious belief" is that the holy books do not mention more than the general knowledge of ancient peoples. I think that it is rather your claim that is not very compelling for a couple of reasons. First, considering the Bible (I cannot speak for other holy books), it conveys only very general information concerning some topics; it does not intend to be an encyclopedia of knowledge but it seeks to focus on more spiritual issues. So it speaks of the creation of different categories like plants, animals, land, oceans, and atmosphere without a lot of detail. It leaves it for us to do the scientific investigations to search out the details. The biblical view is that it is to God's glory to hide information in order for it to be to our glory to find it out (cf. Proverbs 25:2).
The second point would be that there are some claims in the Bible that appear to be beyond the knowledge of the time. It speaks of an absolute beginning of the universe and the earth hanging on nothing. Some leading exegetes claim the passages that speak of God "stretching the heavens" best indicate an expansion of the universe. It would be difficult to assess how strong these points are without more discussion. But even if they are very weak, it would hardly matter. It might just be that God does not wish to provide evidence by this means. Should we complain that we only want a certain kind of evidence that God won't provide, and God only gives us evidence we don't want?
‘The Bible does not intend to be an encyclopedia of knowledge’ I could ask how you know what it intends to be – but I won’t.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have a theory that some people (even the majority) are susceptible to certain types of indoctrination, whether religious, political or commercial, that have the effect of inhibiting or even completely suppressing the normal mental maturation process whereby adults (of many species) come to accept the reality of the world they find themselves in and learn to work within it. A good salesperson can take a useless invention and convince a susceptible person, not only that he or she needs it, but also that he or she can’t possibly live without it. And it only gets worse.
Of course referring to those who take a contradictory view of the reality of God as "grossly stupid" without subscribing to Mr. Shermer's empiricist imperative is the way to advance, if not a reasonable debate according to his terms, at least a polite one.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWas equally offended by the "grossly stupid" comment of the article. I doubt name calling is a wise course for the Evolution vs. Creationism debate that seems to permeate Scientific American. The obvious bias should necessitate a name change to Evolutionist American. It seems to be the go to punt play when SA runs out of pure science to present. Now that I truly understand my gross stupidity I will fully embrace evolution and Shermer's techniques of persuasion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo here I go: There is no God and no life after death. Evolution created all species, no one more important than the other. Just because we have bigger and more complex brains does not make us better. In fact, we may be inferior since we will eventually extinct ourselves off the planet with wars, pollution and environmental disasters. However, now I see this is OK. My survival is of utmost importance and that of my family. We should use all the resources we can before the other homo-sapiens we compete with can get our share. Its the evolutionary way. It really does not matter if we fail to survive, since other more adaptable species will fill our void. It may be the cockroach, but who cares since it will certainly be the evolutionary winner. Extinction of any species no longer matters as it was meant to be in the evolutionary process. If these other species cannot cut it, away with them, us included. More importantly, who are we to prevent destruction of ozone, or other preservations of the earth. These measures only prevent our species from further adapting with co2 breathing lungs and specialized skin pigments that will protect the next evolutionary beings from the effects of our planetary changes. Move out of the way environmentalists and let evolution do its thing. I just cannot understand the gross stupidity of evolutionary thinking that is inconsistent with its basic premise that life will always survive, its a mathematical certainty. So who cares if we end our existence 100, 1,000 or even 10,000 years earlier? I no longer care. Thank you Shermer for the enlightenment and a fantastic new means of persuasion. Did it work?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor D. Jenson - #81
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is a fundamental difference between a believer (“faith”) and an empirical scientist. The latter will change his mind if confronted with compelling evidence to the contrary. A true believer will not; contrary evidence is merely a “test” of faith (often attributed to Satan). Dinosaur bones were once considered such.
The New Testament tells us this in the story of the doubting Thomas. He will not believe Jesus has arisen until he has seen and touched him. Jesus berates Thomas for this, and praises those who believed though they had not seen.
The Church seriously considered excommunicating St. Thomas for his “proofs” of Catholic doctrine. The implication was that faith was no longer necessary. One need merely follow a train of logical deductions from self-evident principles to prove beliefs such as the existence of God with mathematical certainty. If true it would become irrational to deny His existence.
Today we know logic can prove nothing about the world, and we’re pretty much stuck with empiricism. A “theory” is a hypothetical statement about the world. You look at the world to see if it is as it should be if what you have said is true.
Maybe it's worth repeating something said earlier….
If you are indeed saying something about the world, then you should be able to point to findings that would confirm it and others that would disconfirm it. Bottom line -- how would the world be different if what you say is true than if it is false.
Einstein predicted gravity bends light. Evolutionary biology predicts we can find certain genes in humans more quickly by first looking for them in simpler life forms from which we evolved.
Intelligent Design makes no such predictions and serves no useful purpose. If someone were to discover Centaurs thriving in some remote region, evolution would be seriously challenged. But it’s all the same, one way or the other, to Intelligent Design. Everything we see is the designer’s whim. This tells us nothing, serves no useful purpose, and is not a theory.
* * *
To Co2dog – #84
Thank you for correcting me about what was and wasn’t funded by Bush.
My point remains -- anyone watching a clip of him speaking on the issue will find it pure theology. His ignorance is astonishing, and I was appalled to see a president basing national health issues on such nonsense.
Reminds me of when Dan Quail was appointed head of NASA or some such. During the press conference he slipped a gear and started enthusing about the canals of Mars.
In response to The Skeptic's Skeptic (Scientific American, Nov. 2010)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI was delighted to see Christoper Hitchens be the topic in a scientific context. I have admired his independent thinking tremendously, for example, when he took a position pro-waging-war against "Islamofascism", which earned him a lot of flak from his comrades at The Nation. Ultimately, I don't care whether we agree on a given issue or not as long as the disagreement unfolds in a civil, rational, and thoughtful manner. I did agree with him on this one though.
His take on the creationists' argument that the eye is too complex to have evolved and not be created by God is brilliant: Why would God want the salamander to lose its eyes it once possessed? The only rational explanation is that evolution was at play. I agree with Hitchens on this one, too. But I wish it was that simple to convince Creationists with civil, rational, and thoughtful arguments. Let me play Devil's, oops, I mean, God's advocate: How about if God created the salamander with eyes but then leaned back to enjoy evolution take over (perhaps correcting imperfections that God Himself created)? Same could be true for all other species, including wo/man. From the Creationist's view, evolution is not necessarily mutually exclusive with the acts of an Almighty God, I don't think. Are there any arguments I could arm myself with against such assertion? I doubt it because scientists and religious folk play by different rules: Facts and logic vs. beliefs and leaps of faith. So, no matter what we as scientists say, we won't reach the others. It's like trying to score a home run in a basketball game.
I sincerely hope that Christopher Hitchens won't be leaving the party too soon. We need him.
Think Green Before You Print.
Reduce, Reuse, Recycle
Bertram O. Ploog, Ph.D
Dept. of Psychology
College of Staten Island
City University of New York
I wonder how much thought Mr Shermer gave to his comment that Hitchins' epigram
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"
is
"... worthy of elevation to a dictum."
If this were to be put into practice then it would encourage an immediate end to all significant progress. Because significant progress invariably involves thinking outside the proverbial box rather than simply oiling the hinges.
Could it be that the allegedly 'skeptical' Mr Shermer is, in reality, too much of a stuck in the mud 'cynic' to recognise this basic fact?
Dear Dr Ploog
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps it could be of benefit if you were to talk to creations now and again rather than setting up straw men and then congratulating yourself whenever you knock one over?
For example, you ask:
"Why would God want the salamander to lose its eyes it once possessed?"
I'm guessing here, but from discussions I've heard I think a creationist might simply point you to the Fall and argue that the entire world is becoming less well-ordered.
This may not be a concept with which you agree. But it IS internally consistent, isn't it.
S/he might go on to remind you that four-legged creatures called mesosaurs (a ancient form of lizard) are said to be the ancestors of modern snakes. A ridiculous idea, of course, which sounds as though it came straight out of the story of Adam and Eve in the Book of Genesis. Which is certainly NOT a biology textbook!
Re carlofab (#94)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can accept your claim that a "true believer" will never change his/her views no matter what the evidence, if that is how you want to define a true believer. But this believer could be an atheist, Christian, skeptic, or adhere to virtually any religious view. Ken Samples, a theologian/philosopher with an organization called Reasons to Believe, said he once did a public debate with an atheist who apparently proclaimed quite loudly that no evidence could ever make him change his mind.
However greatly some Christians might value blind faith, the biblical view is that one should not be a Christian without good evidence. For example, John's gospel mentions Jesus providing many proofs of his claims. Paul said emphatically that all things must be tested and Jesus said to believe because of the evidence.
The story of Jesus' disciple, Thomas, being reprimanded by Jesus for not believing in his resurrection before seeing him alive has nothing to do with blind faith. The context of the story is that this same Thomas had seen Jesus heal the blind, deaf, and lame, and even raise the dead. The point was that if Thomas saw all of this, he should have believed the testimonies of the other disciples who said they had seen Jesus alive without having to see Jesus for himself. Jesus told him, "Blessed are those who do not see and who yet believe." This "seeing" refers specifically to seeing evidence as powerful as a resurrection. That is, those who see a miracle or receive evidence of this magnitude are not to be commended for their belief over those who believe on lesser yet sufficient evidence. This statement corresponds with Jesus' earlier statements condemning certain cities who failed to believe when faced with similar overwhelming evidence. Those who "see" and believe should hardly be praised or considered blessed but those who "see" and disbelieve have no excuse.
Whatever contemporary opponents of Thomas Aquinas might have thought about his "proofs" of Christianity is irrelevant to my claim that the biblical view is that one should have adequate evidence to believe.
re: D Jensen #98
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe relevant definitions of “faith” in my Webster’s and Random House dictionaries are:
(1) Unquestioning belief in God, religion, etc.
(2) belief that is not based on proof; belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion.
By definition a “belief based on evidence” is no longer faith.
I haven't come across your interpretation of the doubting Thomas tale before. It’s certainly at variance with the traditional one, and I would think most Christians would find it offensive. Christianity’s history of suppressing evidence contrary to scripture is so notorious I assume no examples are necessary.
The atheist Ken Samples encountered was clearly an idiot.
Creationists have no evidence whatever for their “theory” -- which is not even a theory as it tells us nothing about the world. Simply put, Creationists find it “hard to imagine” the intricate designs of nature could have come about without a Designer. This, as Russell observed, is mere poverty of the imagination.
Re: carlofab #99
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOur contemporary dictionaries only tell us how a word is commonly used today. My point is that your use of the term, in this case "faith" (which is indeed now a common usage), is not the biblical meaning. Thus Christians and critics who assume your definition have twisted its meaning into something the biblical writers and speakers would never have accepted of the Greek and Hebrew equivalent.
My interpretation of the Thomas story (with possible minor variations) is not uncommon among biblical scholars. I certainly didn't think it up on my own and your interpretation is certainly not "the traditional one." And it does not matter in the slightest if some or even all Christians who don't know their Bible would be offended at my interpretation. I would claim that it is the better interpretation given the context, the best understanding of the meaning of the terms used, and the fuller context of Jesus' other teachings.
Concerning the evolution/creation debates, it is not an issue of poverty of imagination but probability of competing views. The evidence is overwhelming that evolution did occur. There are some questions about whether it could occur entirely without intelligent intervention. But if we could come up with good naturalistic explanations for every problematic facet of evolutionary history, the theist would loose nothing. We would simply say, "So that's how God did it." We can say that since we know on other grounds that God did do it.
We should rather look at the far stronger evidence for theism in cosmology. Some years ago when the Big Bang theory became pretty firmly established, NASA scientist Robert Jastrow suggested that the scientific quest may turn out to be like scientists climbing a mountain. They reach the top only to discover that the theologians have already been there for centuries. Much has happened since that writing but we still have not been able to get around an absolute beginning of time. Even Hawking in his new book does not deny this but instead he simply waves his magic wand and declares that the universe can create itself from nothing (see p.136). Much more reasonable is the theistic view that a timeless God caused the first created existence.
D. Jenson #100
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou say --
But if we could come up with good naturalistic explanations for every problematic facet of evolutionary history, the theist would loose nothing. We would simply say, "So that's how God did it." We can say that since we know on other grounds that God did do it.
-- and that is my point.
If a theory actually says something, you should be able to point out how the world would be different if it is true than if it is false. That difference is what the theory is taking sides about.
That Creationism says nothing is clear from the fact nothing can disprove it. No matter what we encounter in nature, he need merely say as you do, "So that's how God did it."
You say that we should search for evidence of God in cosmology. That is a vain hope because statements about God are are expressions of human sentiment. They predict nothing and serve no practical purpose.
You have criticized my adherence to the contemporary definition of "faith." This definition is what most people presently mean by it, and if that should change the dictionary would follow. Essentially what you assert is that scripture was mistranslated. Some scholar used "faith" where it was not the correct word to convey what was being said. If so, it is left to you to provide a correct translation to the satisfaction of scholars.
Meanwhile I was raised a Catholic and can assure you there was no question that that doubting the existence of God was offensive to him. And that the point of the parable of the doubting Thomas was that those who believe without evidence are awarded a higher place in heaven.
You allow yourself the privilege of interpreting things as you wish, which is a tremendous advantage allowing you to say whatever you wish. But many many other preachers and theologians do the same. Which makes you merely one of a multitude peddling their personal sentiments as fact.
This is not intended as personal attack, but a discussion of ideas.
Getting back to Christopher Hitchens, I should mention that he is due to debate the role of religion with Tony Blair in Toronto on 26 November. The motion is the motion: "Is religion a force for peace or conflict in the modern world?" It should be worth watching.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am surprised this commentary is still running. The saying, “Without data, you are just another guy with an opinion” is true. One side has data and reason the other is unreasonable. This discussion can run to the "end" of the universe.
Re carlofab #101
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt sounds as though our long discussions are starting to bore everyone so I'm sure this will have to come to an end soon. If SA allows me to print my email address, we can continue the discussion if you like. It's enc11@earthlink.net. But I think you're making such fundamental errors that I've got to say something here whether anyone is reading these anymore or not. It is disappointing that I will not be able to add much new to our discussion at this point. Most of what I have to say is intended merely to correct misunderstandings.
First of all, I claimed that if we could find a good naturalistic explanation for all of evolutionary history, the theist would lose nothing. The important word was "if." My view at present leans toward the belief that possible natural explanations have been exhausted and that intelligent intervention is the only viable alternative. The evidence on either side would show something in the world that would be so, one different from the other, if either were true. So, for example, if an interventional evolution is better evidenced, if I might call it that, we might find a lower probability that transitions could occur between the higher taxa because of a necessity of multiple, simultaneous, beneficial mutations. Likewise, this view could be relatively falsified by showing that and how such changes could more easily and naturally occur.
My point was that if an interventional evolution fails we still have not addressed the issue of whether there is a God who has created laws of evolution to work on their own to produce the progressive stages of life on earth. So if on other grounds we have evidence for God's existence, such as the evidence from cosmology that I suggested in the last response, then such evidence does, as you say, "actually say something," if by that you mean simply that it has evidential force. The arguments for an absolute origin of the universe, for example, just like the arguments that it had no such origin, indicate how the world would be different if either competing view were true.
(More shortly)
Re Carlofab #101
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConcerning your claim that faith means belief without evidence:
I don't have a Webster of Random House in front of me, but I doubt that what I call "blind faith" is the only appropriate definition for "faith" one will find in these books. You said the blind faith definitions were the relevant definitions, but in fact those definitions that indicate any belief, whether rationally supported or not, are also relevant. When someone says they believe something, unless we probe further we do not know whether they believe for good reason or not. That is the common meaning of the word belief. This unqualified use of the word "belief," as well as its noun form, "faith," are what the English translators were intending. They certainly did not say, "Oh, 'pistes,' that means 'faith' which means 'blind faith.' " Many people do read into the words "faith" and (specifically) "religious belief" a meaning of "blind faith" (thus it is one definition that is commonly accepted and found in English dictionaries) but it is not the only one and, as I said, it is not even "the traditional meaning" of these words. My point is simply that the English translators did not intend to imply a meaning of blind faith and a closer study of these words in scriptural context indicates that faith and belief are based on evidence.
Secondly, your particular Catholic upbringing does not reflect what all Christians or even what all Catholics believe. And as I have argued, concerning the issue of faith, it does not reflect what the scripture actually teaches.
Thirdly, I have claimed that I do not merely interpret the scripture as I wish. Biblical hermeneutics is a well developed science, if you will, that looks at context, syntax, original word usages and definitions, writing genre, even historical context, etc. to find the most likely original meaning of a passage. I've given evidence for my interpretation which you have not responded to and yet you can say that that I am "one of a multitude peddling their personal sentiments as fact." But if my interpretation of the Thomas passage is completely subjective and we are all just "peddling" our "personal sentiments," how is it that you were not doing the same thing when you claimed that your view of faith was what the Bible teaches?
re: Cardigan #102 and Jensen #103/4 above:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCardigan is right -- this discussion ran its course quite a few posts back. There's little further either of us can say here on by email.
I have to respectfully decline Jensen's invitation to do so, as it would surely be a waste of time for both of us.
If Christians can be thought of as whistling past the grave, then Michael Shermer is whistling from the grave. I share his atheism, but I see little reason behind his claim that “It is only when we shake our own innate belief in linear progression and consider the many recessions we have undergone and will undergo that we can grasp the gross stupidity of those who repose their faith in divine providence and godly design.” Those whose faiths so repose seem to have little trouble accepting recessions and even apocalypses as part of godly design. In fact, basing one’s disbelief on recessions alone seems equally unreasoned.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a postscript if anyone missed the debate, Christopher Hitchens won the debate. The audience of 2,700 voted 68 percent against the motion, according to Christianity Today.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence"...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince there seems to be a shortage of evidence that this particular salamander had normal functioning eyes at some point in the past, we can dismiss the suggestion that it once did. To assert that because it "looks" like the salamander's eyes were once like the above ground variety, should imply that this was once so, is at best un-scientific.
As a science-embracing "theist," I am still left with the questions, 1) "What was there before there was something?" (If the answer is "something always was," that's god enough for me), and 2) "What is nothing?" If someone can answer these questions definitively I will give up my faith.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNothing: n. something that has no existence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor jorgabcd #109
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“Nothing” is simply the absence of “something.” Before there was “something” there would have been an absence of “something”.
By “God” most people mean a conscious deity, who usually takes an interest in our affairs.
Our earth is an infinitesimal sample of a universe either unimaginably huge or infinite. Yet we find it difficult to imagine things being much different there because our instincts come from local experience. For Russell the questions you ask are examples of poverty of the imagination.
Personally I confess having wondered, given that there is something, why is it so specific? Out of an infinity of possibilities, why this desk and chair, where I sit reading this magazine?
The answer could again be there is no reason. Like the burglar climbing down a balcony with a TV set when a cop asked what he was doing there. “Everybody’s gotta be somewhere,” he said.
Quantum physics suggests a possible answer. It seems to imply everything that is possible must happen somewhere. And anything is possible except a logical contradiction. So… here we are.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think that all the argument about creationism and intelligent design may be obscuring real scientific issues with evolution theory.
I believe in evolution theory and evidence-based science. However, a web site at http://www.programmed-aging.org says that there is significant scientific disagreement about details of the way evolution works and that these details are critical to theories of aging and therefore to medical efforts to treat age-related diseases. The site criticizes creationism and intelligent design and is obviously not religiously motivated. It cites numerous journal articles, names some apparently prominent scientists, and provides evidence-based arguments. It claims that there are actually numerous scientific alternatives or modifications to strict Darwinism formulated in response to observed discrepancies. In particular see:
http://www.programmed-aging.org/theories/evolution_issues.html
My question: Is there any validity to these assertions? If not, why not? If so, what is your take on which "alternatives" are correct?
Igor 66,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI looked at the site and, while no expert, can offer a few comments.
The fundamental I was taught in college biology is that the purpose or "target" for each living thing is reproduction. Natural selection "hones" prospects for this because, obviously, only individuals who succeeded pass along their genes to the next generation.
As result nature is indifferent to the fate of an individual AFTER reproduction age. Natural selection has no effect on ailments of the elderly because they have already reproduced or not, and so their fate no longer affects their off-spring. Many ailments of old age are actually due to hormones or other elements that provide vigor in youth (and so increase chances of reproduction) but eventually over time, similar to a vice like heavy drinking, have long term negative effects. Such consequences are irrelevant if these substances provided the vigor to reproduce in youth.
Programmed aging as I understand it can mean a cell only divides a set number of times, after which it shuts down. There are also the "suicidal" animals cited. Again, the intent and purpose is reproduction. If it accomplishes that by death, it's as good a way as any to reproduce. In some species the female kills the male and leaves it as food for the offspring. Evolution has no interest in longevity unless it increases prospect for reproduction. Longevity in higher animals is believed necessary because the young take more time to mature and need adults.
"Programmed to die" would seem to be in some way an advantage in reproduction, or a specialized method of reproduction that for whatever the reason worked for a species that uses it.
The purpose of sex is a mystery because it is such a serious handicap -- only 50% of the population can reproduce. Some believe there must surely be a major advantage that makes the handicap "worth it". Others speculate it may be pure chance -- an early simple organism that was sexual survived. We are among the long line of decendents from it. If so, that is an example of another alternative to natural selection -- dumb luck.
But others believe sexual reproduction provides more genetic diversity for natural selection, or has other advantages. This is not clear.
Natural selection is not the only means of evolution. Mass extinctions due to catastrophic events like volcanoes or asteroid strikes leave a niche for surviving simpler organisms to exploit.
It's an awfully big subject....
I find it interesting that, in an issue of Scientific American bold enough to publish a thoughtful and even-handed article profiling Judith Curry's concerns about "groupthink" and a "fortress mentality" among climate scientists, two pages later we have Michael Shermer's boldest yet attack against all persons of faith.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShermer praises as "clear logic" and "elegant prose" a passage from Christopher Hitchens' recent book that essentially argues it is "gross stupidity" to apply divine providence to the philosophical question, “Why there is something rather than nothing?”
How would Scientific American's editors and columnists respond to a book correctly identifying the warrior mentality of Shermer, Hitchens and Krauss as “gross stupidity?” I doubt they would be impressed by any level of logic or prose.
In general I enjoy Michael Shermer's "Skeptic" column because am of a skeptical nature myself and I sympathize with his ability to analyze the flaws in the thought-processes of others. We all need to have our bubbles burst at one time or another. In the same sense I enjoyed most of Shermer's November article relating to Christopher Harkins, except for one fairly long and windy sentence in the next-to-the-last paragraph of the article, in which he uses the phrase "gross stupidity" when referring to a segment of the population who have faith in a divine providence. This phrase is a very harsh and emotionally charged phrase to use in the face of others who may not share his views.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI humbly request that such language not be used in the face of those with whom we disagree. Whether or not one believes in a divine providence is typically not based on objective evaluation of data and the use of logic, but on the much broader affective aspects of one's upbringing and acculturation into society. As adults sharing our society in common, we must treat each other with respect no matter how much or in what ways we disagree with each other. It is acceptable for Shermer to point out how he disagrees with the views of various others. But, it is not acceptable in an intelligent discussion to use harsh language regarding the sincerely-held views of others. If it were acceptable, we would never have a grasp on the concepts of peace and progress in our society, and we would never be able to talk reasonably with one another.
It is a characteristic of human nature that we are all delighted with an argument that supports our position, whether the argument itself has worth or not. The argument of the self pronounced skeptic, Michael Shermer, could only be applauded by those who agree. The argument itself is an example of the “gross stupidity” he decries.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHis argument for the improbable evolution of eyes is that eye-sight can be lost. It is the equivalent of two hillbillies arguing about the capacity of a hound dog to paint the Mona Lisa. “I’m positive my hound can do it,” says Moe. “I saw him tear an exact copy of one to shreds just last week.”
Those who do not believe in speciation by evolution still believe in devolution. Just because we think it is improbable that the computer can be built by an accident of nature does not mean that we don’t think a computer can quit working. Evidence that a blind salamander used to have sight is not evidence that the sight his ancestors had happened by accident.
There are two problems with your argument. First of all complex eyesight in trylobites means that eyesight was fully formed in the early stages of evolution. The stages of eyesight evolution is a fictional version of historic events that has no fossil evidence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe second fallacy is to think that something being an evolutionary advantage need be the ONLY argument for a process. That is like saying that people will certainly fly in the future because they would have an advantage over those who don't. There is no logical sequence there. Neither is it logical to apply that thinking to the past. The process has to be more than an advantage. It also has to be possible.
The reason creation matters is this:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“True or false?” I asked my wife. “If there were no God, then nothing much would matter.”
“Oh,” she replied. “You’re in one of your philosophical moods.” Yes, I am, so here goes.
If you killed a sparrow in defiance of God, you could pay eternally for that treason against the King of kings. It would matter a lot, in other words. On the other hand, without the existence of God, the entire universe could turn to dust and nobody would care.
“I’D CARE!” you say, but you wouldn’t. You would be dust along with all the rest of the universe. If there were no God and the universe dissolved into nothing, the most accurate thing that could be said of the process would be, “Matter changed from simple to complex and then changed back again, making no difference at all.” So I say that if there is no God, then nothing much matters. If there is a God, then everything about Him matters much.
LjSage, what you're proposing is called "Pascal's Wager," and it's a common cop-out.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat matters is what matters to you. If you are a well-adapted human being, then other humans and likely other life matters to you.
If you're a sociopath, then they won't.
In my experience, you'll find a hell of a lot more sociopaths (pun intended) thumping bibles than you will flipping through "The God Delusion."
Look at your own argument - you have *just written* that if there was no God, nothing would matter to you. So the logical conclusion to draw from this is that the only thing keeping you from being a murderous and rapacious thug interested in satisfying your own id, is the thought that God might be watching.
I find that utterly pathetic.