tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post4970300763071192464..comments2023-10-26T22:06:11.166+11:00Comments on Metamagician3000: Sam Harris on Francis CollinsRussell Blackfordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comBlogger55125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-3471155805602041302009-08-25T02:53:34.373+10:002009-08-25T02:53:34.373+10:00The selection of Collins to head the NIH is by far...The selection of Collins to head the NIH is by far the most grievous decision made by Obama's young administration.<br /><br />Mariano? The idea is to get people who are fully devoted to SCIENCE (and therefore the understanding of the natural world) into positions that require a thorough SCIENTIFIC understanding undiluted by religious or supernaturalist bunk. Even you may agree that religion and related fantasies have never once contributed to the storehouse of scientific knowledge thus far obtained, and are certainly not likely to contribute anything in the future, EXCEPT as a consistently contrarian voice which, if it does anything at all, impedes scientific progress through a constant program of misinformation. <br /><br />Why in flaming herbs do you imagine the NIH must have anybody of Collins' stripe to direct it? Can it possibly be because you suppose that religion is essential to health? Show us ONE example where religion or religious thinking has ever managed to increase our knowledge of medicine or the biological realm, let alone with physics or astronomy or anything else human beings have ever actually learned about their universe.<br /><br />Nope, sorry, you can't invoke, say, the monk Mendel for practicing anything other than science...as Collins cannot rest upon anything related to his religious beliefs in assisting him in his human genome research. In EVERY case where scientific advances have been made, those advances were accomplished on the solid foundation of science DESPITE any idiosyncratic belief systems held on the part of the investigators. The big problem with Collins - as Harris, Blackford, Myers and numerous others have plainly and exhaustively pointed out - is that he goes around inveigling his personal religious notions AS IF THEY WERE VALID SCIENTIFIC CONCLUSIONS.<br /><br />That is the behavior of an evangelist, not a scientist. I do not like the idea that an evangelist heads the NIH. The NIH needs sober science to operate properly, not religious fantasies.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-57495212104630215812009-08-05T13:11:33.199+10:002009-08-05T13:11:33.199+10:00Sam Harris has a one word answer to all of the wor...Sam Harris has a one word answer to all of the world’s ills: religion.<br /> <br />Thus, anyone who is religious is, a priori, part of the problem.<br /> <br />Moreover, as evidenced at the following link, Harris himself is becoming a scientist not in order to conduct unbiased research but in order to attempt to evidence atheism.<br /> <br />http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/05/atheism-new-emergent-atheists-part-2-of.html<br /> <br />Also, FYI: interesting info on Collins is found here:<br />http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/04/john-horgan-and-francis-collins.html<br /> <br />http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/05/new-atheists-on-francis-collins.htmlKenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16478151742674353783noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-45765848115838497012009-08-01T04:53:38.962+10:002009-08-01T04:53:38.962+10:00In fact there is no way to reconcile the line in t...<i>In fact there is no way to reconcile the line in the sand that has been drawn by Harris, Dawkins & Co. with the words of Thomas Jefferson: "All men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion."</i><br /><br />There is. People should be free to profess and maintain their opinions in matters of religion, but it should be acceptable to make religious views part of the qualification for a job.<br /><br />The idea of promoting a Raelist to head of NASA would be ludicrous.<br /><br />Collins only gets off, it seems to me, because his religion is mainstream.Steve Zarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16867968082532563442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-2803969619774440292009-08-01T04:41:20.689+10:002009-08-01T04:41:20.689+10:00I was very heartened to find this blog and this po...I was very heartened to find this blog and this post. It is reassuring to see someone critiquing Collins' religious ideas at length while still upholding the principle that it just plain wrong to oppose his nomination on the basis of his religious beliefs.<br /><br />In fact there is no way to reconcile the line in the sand that has been drawn by Harris, Dawkins & Co. with the words of Thomas Jefferson: "All men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion."Apuleius Platonicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11761230673724504084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-17206925541963105282009-07-31T10:38:22.203+10:002009-07-31T10:38:22.203+10:00slight editing by me,
Hypothetical: I discover a ...slight editing by me,<br /><br />Hypothetical: I discover a God. I cannot measure or examine it or touch it in any way. Thus any statement made about the God would be untestable and unfalsifiable.<br /><br />I claim that there is something to the God (what exactly that something may be is irrelelvant). You claim that my discovery of the God is unjustified because I cannot measure it, or examine it in any way. I cannot present any evidence supporting my claim and you point that out. <br /><br />The default claim in this situation should be ignored as epistemologically void.<br /><br />... I like this hypothetical better. :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-48192261080110194232009-07-31T10:16:37.519+10:002009-07-31T10:16:37.519+10:00with that. However, that does not rule out an obje...with that. However, that does not rule out an objective morality in the sense that the moral status of something is independent of any particular human or of human whim, etc (except in the bizarre self referential pathologies which I'll ignore).<br /><br />Consider a sports analogy: the sports we know and love would be annihilated with our species. But that does not change the fact that many of them have rules which do not depend on whim. (That their implementation (e.g. a strike zone) often does is another story, of course, but not what I'm talking about.)<br /><br /><br />I'm not sure what you mean by whim, but the rules are certainly the result of particular individual(s). There is nothing "objective" about the infield fly rule -- 'tis just a social agreement among the players... much like morality, I think :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-68286094065616423632009-07-31T10:01:54.068+10:002009-07-31T10:01:54.068+10:00Hypothetical: we discover a sealed box. We cannot ...Hypothetical: we discover a sealed box. We cannot open the box nor can we measure or examine it or touch it in any way.<br /><br />If you can't measure or examine it in any way, how did you discover that it was a sealed box? The same way you discovered God? - Maybe God is an unexamanable sealed box. :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-24887881801146595572009-07-29T12:50:34.896+10:002009-07-29T12:50:34.896+10:00Slide 1: "Almighty God, who is not limited in...Slide 1: "Almighty God, who is not limited in space or time, created a universe 13.7 billion years ago with its parameters precisely tuned to allow the development of complexity over long periods of time."<br /><br />Interesting but stooooopid! The world we see today, and it is this WORLD we are talking about not the universe, is the result of evolution of both the geological world and the biologic world. The geologic evolutionary state is what it is because of the way the planet was formed which determined the chemical composition and ultimately the geologic form of the planet. No magic here. No intelligent external fine-tuning; it simply is what it is. Different entry parameters and the planet might have been a gas giant or a small rock or a large chunk of frozen methane (all within the same set of rules). There are enough of them out there, after all!! No proof here of an intelligent direction. The biologic planet we see is the result of countless random genetic mutations. Again no fine tuning, no intelligent direction. It simply is what it is. Different parameters would have produced a different planet and different or NO species. We are the result, not a purpose! This is what we learn from science. If one wishes to make extraordinary claims which oppose the findings of science then surely some evidence, not just an unsupported opinion, is required. Note I do not ask for "extraordinary evidence" just 'some' evidence.sailor1031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-57877647417307713212009-07-29T10:56:01.708+10:002009-07-29T10:56:01.708+10:00From another anonymous... "Both theism and at...From another anonymous... "Both theism and atheism are unfalsifiable/ untestable faith statements and as such are equally valid (or invalid) from a scientific point of view."<br /><br />Wrong, atheism is falsifiable. If it exists, your god could prove it's existance and show that the athiests are wrong. I suppose you know why it chooses not to :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-2395857858170983742009-07-29T07:39:45.903+10:002009-07-29T07:39:45.903+10:00One quibble on some otherwise excellent remarks.
...One quibble on some otherwise excellent remarks.<br /><br />It is certainly contentious to claim that objective morality is implausible in the light of science. Now, if you mean simply that morality would disappear if there were no humans, etc. that's fine, I agree with that. However, that does not rule out an objective morality in the sense that the moral status of something is independent of any particular human or of human whim, etc (except in the bizarre self referential pathologies which I'll ignore).<br /><br />Consider a sports analogy: the sports we know and love would be annihilated with our species. But that does not change the fact that many of them have rules which do not depend on whim. (That their implementation (e.g. a strike zone) often does is another story, of course, but not what I'm talking about.)<br /><br />Moreover, this is is all compatible with ethics being relational in some deep sense. For example, in places and times of lack of vegetables (say, amongst the Inuit 500 years ago) vegetarianism might not be ethically required whereas now it might be. (The example doesn't particularly matter, but the idea is sound.)philosopher-animalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16505629919126188962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-4553338524107772642009-07-29T02:23:20.280+10:002009-07-29T02:23:20.280+10:00The fine-tuning argument seems like a shell-game p...The fine-tuning argument seems like a shell-game played with shifting definitions of 'God'.<br /><br />It's defended as, "I can prove that 'God' exists for some sense of the word," and then practiced as, "There's a single, male-ish, all-knowing, super-intelligent being out there who loves us and screws with the universe to make us happy, but only if we assert certain, very-specific fact claims about events in the desert 2000-ish years ago."<br /><br />One of these things is not like the other.Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16929722353413887802noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-60764738363413235432009-07-29T02:17:02.582+10:002009-07-29T02:17:02.582+10:00I'm not sure I'm understanding folk-metaet...I'm not sure I'm understanding folk-metaethics.<br /><br />"God told us to do X" is an issue of fact.<br /><br />"We should do what God says", is an ethical assertion. It doesn't seem like it can be derived from claims about god, either.<br /><br />They could take it as an axiom, but the claim seems to be that ethics are universal.<br /><br />So, are folk-metaethics be complete even given the existance of a law-giver?<br /><br />Also, are there good links to read about the antipodean error theory of metaethics? My google-foo seems to be failing me.Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16929722353413887802noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-55884348453042456092009-07-29T02:06:34.541+10:002009-07-29T02:06:34.541+10:00Anonymous the Evangelist wrote: Hypothetical: we d...Anonymous the Evangelist wrote: <i>Hypothetical: we discover a sealed box. We cannot open the box nor can we measure or examine it or touch it in any way. Thus any statement made about the box's contents would be untestable and unfalsifiable.</i><br /><br />If your god indeed lives permanently sealed inside a box, then you might be correct that we should all be properly agnostic about its contents. But this is a considerable bait & switch: the God you were preaching at us above is (allegedly) active in the world, revealing himself in his creation, through the Bible he inspired, (especially) through Jesus Christ the Incarnate Son, and through the Church. There damn well *ought* to be evidence of that, and in fact there is a whole industry of apologetics that constantly proffers claimed evidence. You, in fact, have attempted to do so on this thread, in the form of the Fine Tuning Argument.<br /><br />We say: we have seen the evidence presented, and consider it at best unpersuasive (and much of it is far worse than that); we consider that their is also significant negative evidence, eg. the Problem of Evil (against which you have done no more than to present the Standard Excuses); we conclude (for the present, and always revisable in the event of fresh evidence) that at any rate *your* god (and similar entities proposed by related sects) is very unlikely to exist. And as the sign on the bus says: we stop worrying and enjoy our lives.<br /><br />This is a rational conclusion on the evidence (mostly: lack thereof). Continued attempts to paint it as a "faith position" are simply disingenuous.Eamon Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04262012749524758120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-47159871186053387342009-07-29T01:18:20.089+10:002009-07-29T01:18:20.089+10:00I think there could be an argument that a reality ...I think there could be an argument that a reality that looks so dodgy that the question of fine tuning arises is a good indication that no omnipotent supernatural creator was involved.<br /><br />It is as daft as the single survivor of an air crash claiming that the plane was 'fine tuned' for them to be alive.<br /><br />But anyway, Collins should shut up making religious statements about areas of science. At least those that he isn't an expert in. I have no objection to him discussing the nature of angels, but he looks an idiot when he discusses fine tuning.Steve Zarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16867968082532563442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-5716638085765762122009-07-29T01:13:14.507+10:002009-07-29T01:13:14.507+10:00Fine tuning is superficially attractive as a point...Fine tuning is superficially attractive as a pointer to an intelligent creator, but it has far too many problems, IMO. <br /><br />It's very easy to imagine a universe which is 'tuned' more finely from the *macro* point of view. If one is talking about the fine tuning of the *constants* discovered by physics, one would have to show that the arrangements of these constants are *actually* in their maximally efficient configuration before one could accept that the universe is indeed fine-tuned. This is far from being evident. In other words, one would have to demonstrate that a better universe couldn't be created with different constants. Quite a tough assignment, that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-36637462315855268412009-07-29T00:51:11.162+10:002009-07-29T00:51:11.162+10:00Of course, the fine tuning argument runs into the ...Of course, the fine tuning argument runs into the problem of sterility much like the ontological proof runs into the problem of theodicy. If the universe was built for the purpose of creating life, and specifically, intelligent life, why is there so little of it, and why is nearly all of the universe so inhospitable to life? <br /><br />I think the problem of sterility is like theodicy but worse by several orders of magnitude, so I am always astounded when believers try for fine tuning.Elentarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01154655677150832098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-78619569283258959312009-07-28T23:53:27.363+10:002009-07-28T23:53:27.363+10:00But a great deal of latitude must be allowed befor...<i>But a great deal of latitude must be allowed before that point is reached. To act otherwise is totally unrealistic and politically unacceptable in any society that gives (even) lip service to ideas of social pluralism, freedom of religion, etc., let alone in the religiose United States of America.</i><br /><br />This is a statement I have a real problem with. I don't believe any latitude need be allowed at all. This is a scientific position. It requires a first-rate scientist. Not just a technician, but someone who understands how science works and makes sensible statements about that subject. Collins clearly fails that test. This is equivalent to appointing someone who believes (and has said in public statements) that Roswell was an alien visitation as the head of NASA.<br /><br />Collins has no business saying anything religious about fine tuning or the purpose of evolution, or the god-given nature of morality, in public. It is bad science, bad philosophy and it is also bad politics.Steve Zarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16867968082532563442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-27807541250863933982009-07-28T23:40:47.375+10:002009-07-28T23:40:47.375+10:00Only positive claims require evidence to be consid...<i>Only positive claims require evidence to be considered valid. Negative claims do not require any evidence to be considered valid. In fact, they are valid as the default condition, and are only invalidated by the discovery of evidence in support of the positive claim. They are the null hypothesis.</i><br /><br />Theistic and athesitic claims are not scientific claims (as neither can be tested or falsified). Instead, they are philosophical claims. The default philosophical claim is not the negative position but the neutral one, "I don't know". All other claims, positive or negative, would require evidence for validity.<br /><br />Hypothetical: we discover a sealed box. We cannot open the box nor can we measure or examine it or touch it in any way. Thus any statement made about the box's contents would be untestable and unfalsifiable.<br /><br />I claim that there is something in the box (what exactly that something may be is irrelelvant). You claim that the box is empty. Neither one of us can present the slightest evidence supporting our position. <br /><br />The default claim in this situation (and in all non-scientific situations) is "I don't know".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-91935024515087951242009-07-28T22:39:18.517+10:002009-07-28T22:39:18.517+10:00Collins most definitely is problematic, but I don&...Collins most definitely is problematic, but I don't think it is reasonable to automatically remove him from consideration for the post. Rather, when appointing him, it should be made clear that if he steps over certain boundaries (such as making decisions based on his faith alone), that his position will be in jeopardy - if he really is capable of maintaining the cognitive dissonance required, then there is no other objection to the guy holding the post.jennyxyzzynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-22302180931282593382009-07-28T15:57:39.421+10:002009-07-28T15:57:39.421+10:00Russell, I find myself between your position and t...Russell, I find myself between your position and that of Steve Zara, but probably closer to Steve. Obama made this appointment in view of both professional credentials and political considerations. I can only object to the low level of philosophic understanding shown by the comments Dr. Collins has made. As PZ also wrote today, I could only make it a little over 40 min into the Berkeley talk. All we can do at this point is to write to him (Dr. Collins) and let him know that we will be watching to make sure he keeps his religious delusion to himself and out of his work at the NIH.Quinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11849577057413011746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-40301635947101770052009-07-28T13:38:54.753+10:002009-07-28T13:38:54.753+10:00Oh and to Anonymous:
God wants you to shutup now!...Oh and to Anonymous:<br /><br />God wants you to shutup now!!sailor1031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-77860909026068564602009-07-28T13:33:31.157+10:002009-07-28T13:33:31.157+10:00Russell: this is I think the best explanation I...Russell: this is I think the best explanation I've seen as to why Collins is problematical. Thanks a lot for writing this. <br />I'm especially intrigued by this:<br />"Slide 4: "We humans used our free will to break the moral law, leading to our estrangement from God. For Christians, Jesus is the solution to that estrangement."<br />When precisely in human history did this event occur? under what circumstances? where is any even halfway reliable record of this planet-shaking event? and i don't mean the talking snake story which nobody, not even Coillins, believes.sailor1031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-45116710938909061002009-07-28T11:39:11.141+10:002009-07-28T11:39:11.141+10:00Collins' own words: Biologos, funded by the J...Collins' own words: <a href="http://biologos.org/" rel="nofollow"> Biologos</a>, funded by the John Templeton Foundation. He had to resign when chosen to head the NIH, because of the strict conflict-of-interest rules.Athena Andreadishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07650180659001228746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-70672666039069090312009-07-28T10:24:31.819+10:002009-07-28T10:24:31.819+10:00Steve Friberg said:
"Given that Francis Colli...Steve Friberg said:<br />"Given that Francis Collins has written extensively on what he believes, and given that many believe as he does, I can't say that your description rings true. You are, I think, offering a caricature. Sam Harris does much worse in his NYT piece. He misrepresents what Collins believes."<br /><br />Why don't you give some examples of this alleged misrepresentation? Given that Harris quotes extensively from Collins, how is he misrepresenting him? Collins believes in exactly what you seem to object to ascribing to him, a literal creator, supernatural interference in evolutionary history, and supernaturally-grounded moral law. His slide presentation, part of which is quoted by Harris, says exactly this, as do his other writings.tomhnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-36833090645974059082009-07-28T10:18:27.759+10:002009-07-28T10:18:27.759+10:00Steve Friberg
"What is happening now, I thin...Steve Friberg<br /><br />"What is happening now, I think, is that a new and better theological language, one more meaningful in these times, is being forged by the new atheist wars."<br /><br />When the dictionary's been published, give us a link to Amazon would you? If it's anything like Karen Armstrong's language, I for one can't discern anything meaningful in it, so translation services will be useful. It's almost like the new theologians are retreating into Nadsat to avoid being understood. But they wouldn't do that, would they?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com