tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post8732486223576384389..comments2023-10-26T22:06:11.166+11:00Comments on Metamagician3000: Danger: Teleologist at work! Robert Wright's The Evolution of GodRussell Blackfordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-12256685530911874522010-01-26T02:50:19.112+11:002010-01-26T02:50:19.112+11:00"wtf luke? Up to your old tricks, eh?"
..."wtf luke? Up to your old tricks, eh?"<br /><br />WFT are you talking about? I've been trying for three years for Ophelia to give a straight answer. It's important. <br /><br />I saw an opportunity to address it again, ok, call me a troll, I just don't care. <br /><br />Your position and it's adoption by Coyne has been pernicious and awful part of discussions over such discourse.<br /><br />Look at the replies to me, Russell. One, by NEB, even repeats what I said about testing claims, almost word for word.<br /><br />"supernatural phenomena" are not part of science, easy as that. We are testing claims to the "supernatural", now go back and read my post starting at the first addressed to Ophelia.<br /><br />The only thing I can say for your part, Russell, is that you seemed to show at least a lose grip on understanding someone like Massimo Pigliucci's argument (if you read the comments there, we share agreement but fall away on his "scientism" argument, and you'll also notice I've done what I've done at the Intersection, which is defend Coyne tooth and nail for a wonderful review, Seeing and Believing, his efforts, his book etc. etc. However, a mistake has been made which has created a terrible situation which reverberates through comment threads on this site, Coyne's and Richard's. It is only because I actually give a shit that I keep at this, not to show anyone wrong or me right, in fact, you know damn well I've corrected errors in my own argument on this. <br /><br />Seriously, WTF is wrong with you? Clearly Coyne has danced around (his last reply to his "supernatural phenomena" nonsense was to support the idea of what would convince him - and by extension, others - that god "probably" exist if a 900 foot Jesus was confirmed by James Randi - now come on, WTF!), you simply have "apologized" and Ophelia is simply arguing the "ploy" about religious idiocy of "pushing" god outside of existence (though three years ago we even got into the historical context).<br /><br />Now, since you and Coyne seem to stand the way you do is that cloud, I would really like Ophelia (someone I deeply respect, honestly - she like Richard and Coyne are intellectual hero's of mine - though she gets extra credit which I won't get into here) to address *clearly* the issue, that's all.Luke Vogelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09658298504019203098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-82874766890237274062010-01-25T21:05:04.209+11:002010-01-25T21:05:04.209+11:00wtf luke? Up to your old tricks, eh?wtf luke? Up to your old tricks, eh?Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-91267653283906305612010-01-25T15:53:26.006+11:002010-01-25T15:53:26.006+11:00The most remarkable thing about this paid survey p...The most remarkable thing about this paid survey program is that anyone can make money with it. <br />It doesn't require any special skills, training, education or previous business experience. You only need access to the Internet and basic typing skills. <br />It is the perfect home business for stay at home moms, students, home makers, retirees or anyone that is in need of some extra cash.<br /><br /><br />www.onlineuniversalwork.comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-21702136180306934402010-01-23T16:37:23.927+11:002010-01-23T16:37:23.927+11:00If you say so, NEB, you're always right. Thank...If you say so, NEB, you're always right. Thanks you, again, for setting me straight.Luke Vogelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09658298504019203098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-74057590136695622872010-01-23T11:54:01.723+11:002010-01-23T11:54:01.723+11:00Luke keeps saying the same nonsense over and over ...Luke keeps saying the same nonsense over and over in long and short posts and he is still completely wrong.<br /><br />"How is saying "supernatural phenomena are within the realm of science" compatible with science?"<br /><br />Very simple. If someone claims supernatural phenomena then science can study those claims and devise experiments to test the validity of those claims. If the claimant then whines that there is nothing detectable then the claim is bogus.<br /><br />Luke, you are the one throwing out "what-ifs", particularly that foolishness of "how can we know relative from absolute omniscience". It is equivalent to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and equally as irrelevant.NewEnglandBobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07190715223856189053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-54885499126416881082010-01-23T11:13:25.292+11:002010-01-23T11:13:25.292+11:00Luke said:
Material in this sense I'm referrin...Luke said:<br /><i>Material in this sense I'm referring to materialism, matter etc. Seen in action answers your other part.</i><br /><br />You border on the incomprehensible. <br /><br /><i>How is saying "supernatural phenomena are within the realm of science" compatible with science?</i><br /><br />More accurately, one might say, investigation of <i>claims</i> of supernatural phenomena falls within the realm of science.tomhnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-60304105133946086492010-01-23T10:06:31.067+11:002010-01-23T10:06:31.067+11:00tomh,
No, what I said was:
"They had the a...tomh, <br /><br />No, what I said was:<br /><br />"They had the ability to go "unseen" in any material way.." Material in this sense I'm referring to materialism, matter etc. Seen in action answers your other part. <br /><br />The material way in which Bruce refereed is the material we actually do "see", the caused actions of what we recognize as material. <br /><br />I state "supernatural phenomena" because that is the phrasing Jerry Coyne has used, and returns in the idea of supposed definitional problems of defining something out of existence not telling us if that "thing" actually exist.Luke Vogelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09658298504019203098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-45749950330020994372010-01-23T09:39:49.219+11:002010-01-23T09:39:49.219+11:00Luke said:
Unseen in a material way is what I said...Luke said:<br /><i>Unseen in a material way is what I said.</i><br /><br />As opposed to what? Seen in a nonmaterial way? What are you even talking about? Same with your "supernatural phenomena". Supernatural is just a word that can encompass anything the imagination can conjure up. It has no relationship to the word phenomena, which are observable occurences. The phrase supernatural phenomena is an obvious oxymoron.tomhnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-9395219547802603562010-01-23T08:58:38.280+11:002010-01-23T08:58:38.280+11:00Let me pose another question.
How is saying "...Let me pose another question.<br /><br />How is saying "supernatural phenomena are within the realm of science" compatible with science?Luke Vogelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09658298504019203098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-575863349417299232010-01-23T08:47:58.450+11:002010-01-23T08:47:58.450+11:00To be provocative, I want to add something. The di...To be provocative, I want to add something. The dismissive type attitude just displayed strikes me as unnecessary since an opportunity for discussion is probably missed.<br /><br />If I react in way which I think is really needed here I will get called on being uncivil, because frankly I think Blackford's argument that was adopted by Coyne is nearly poisonous and has done great damage to basic understandings of what science, scientist, actually do. And Coyne should know better, but he was reacting against an argument, a good recipe to use hyperbole, but he has defended it to absurd degree's, it is an embarrassment.Luke Vogelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09658298504019203098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-57748556752900916052010-01-23T08:39:04.237+11:002010-01-23T08:39:04.237+11:00Unseen in a material way is what I said. It's ...Unseen in a material way is what I said. It's not hard to understand, the material substance I'm talking about his from the "being". You are talking the material of what is affected, like human action etc. <br /><br />"Now onto your real question: How we would distinguish a geniune God from a fake?"<br /><br />No, that's not the question, essentially. I'm not proposing a god in any way, as you probably know. The essential part given my scenario, which is old hat, is how can you decipher from relative to absolute omniscience? <br /><br />To your first reply, you are again misunderstanding the very basics. It's not a question of scientifically testing claims of the supernatural. I say you can, and proper skepticism says you should test such things. I am talking about what science is doing. <br /><br />Why is that so hard to understand? We simply have no scientifically valid reasons for saying something like "supernatural phenomena are within the realm of science", no matter how many "what ifs" you create that have no basis in reality, they are not useful counterfactuals at all. A verified 900 foot Jesus may be fun, but it's meaningless in any real sense. It may convince someone of a god, but then see my second post. What would convince Jerry Coyne or Russell Blackford of the existence of God does not take away their duty to verify their claim.Luke Vogelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09658298504019203098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-71703860904109589322010-01-23T07:16:50.081+11:002010-01-23T07:16:50.081+11:00"The had the ability to go "unseen"...<i>"The had the ability to go "unseen" in any material way, but create predictable, measurable actions on earth. "</i><br /><br />Then they wouldn't be going <i>"unseen" in any measurable way.</i><br /><br />The predictable, measurable actions on earth would class as indicators they were there. Further it would be evidence of them existing. That is far more than any god of myth has ever actually offered.<br /><br />Now onto your real question: How we would distinguish a geniune God from a fake? That comes down to good old Captain Kirk "What would God want with a spaceship?"<br /><br />In other words the second the aliens demanded worship or obedience we would know we were dealing with interstellar con-artists, not the real thing.<br /><br />After all, if they were the real thing <i>they wouldn't need us.</i><br /><br />Now if they didn't demand worship then we could breath safely in the fact that even if they are gods, they don't actually give a stuff about getting worshipped - leaving the point moot.Bruce Gortonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-67170544535446346582010-01-23T06:54:17.857+11:002010-01-23T06:54:17.857+11:00Luke
Do you recognize that's my problem with ...Luke<br /><br /><i>Do you recognize that's my problem with Coyne and Blackford arguing that "supernaturalism" is within the realm of science?</i><br /><br />That you think by putting things in a little box and saying "That's supernatural, you can't properly question whether its real you naughty scientist" you can get away with claiming whatever the hell you like?<br /><br />And then you think you can make lots of excuses when your claims don't pan out after scientists finally come up with a way to test them?<br /><br />You know the excuses "But its all a metaphor!" or "God is the latest oxymoron I ejaculated onto a page and those meany scientists just don't get it, waah, waah, whine, whinge."<br /><br />Seriously, that is all it winds down to.Bruce Gortonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-22222556796707692332010-01-23T05:46:52.141+11:002010-01-23T05:46:52.141+11:00Ophelia,
Let me pose an old question to you.
Let...Ophelia,<br /><br />Let me pose an old question to you.<br /><br />Lets say an intelligent being from another planet began to interact in human affairs. The had the ability to go "unseen" in any material way, but create predictable, measurable actions on earth. We soon discover that what they're doing transcends anything we know, the actions appear "miraculous". They not only knew more then we though possible, but could dictate course. <br /><br />How would we detect them not as a god? In other words, how can we know relative from absolute omniscience? <br /><br />The reason I ask, is because if we want useful "what ifs" besides simply pointing out definitional problems (such as defining something outside of existence doesn't tell us if that something exist), then we have to know what we are talking about relative to what we know of nature. To simply say, what if a 900 foot Jesus was verified in NY city is childish talk, don't you see that? It's absolutely meaningless in any real way, as much of religious garble is. For the sake of opposition of an argument, we don't create equally untenable positions.Luke Vogelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09658298504019203098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-22281325908927726152010-01-23T04:45:46.143+11:002010-01-23T04:45:46.143+11:00Ophelia,
Do you recognize that's my problem w...Ophelia,<br /><br />Do you recognize that's my problem with Coyne and Blackford arguing that "supernaturalism" is within the realm of science? What we end up doing is a lot of "what if" thinking that is not based in anything that is what we know reality to be, we have departed scientific realism. The "what ifs" that Coyne and Blackford provide do not offer useful scientifically based counter-factuals. <br /><br />You, Ophelia, hold arguments such as, well so what it's all a ploy anyway that believers believe in a 'God the person', yet push them outside of nature (in fact either defined as "nature" or a creator of nature). As I say, as right as you are (as I keep repeating, Blackford says "dogmatically", it is not science's doing to define "god" outside of nature or existence, it has only creating positions untenable by the understanding of nature, science deals with natural phenomena only), it doesn't matter when a rationalist scientist arguing against a position (in both cases, NOMA) suddenly positively asserts that "supernatural phenomena are within the realm of science", simply because of others claims. What science is doing has to do with nature, the claims are that of something outside acting within, do you not see this at all? And why, since I admire you so much, keep defending their irrational position (I'm not talking about this review, which seems ok, I gave up on the book, made me sick personally).Luke Vogelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09658298504019203098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-31911034210468330032010-01-21T18:26:44.159+11:002010-01-21T18:26:44.159+11:00Russell
I am just going to respond to the argumen...Russell<br /><br />I am just going to respond to the arguments that come before that post, because I take it you deleted the ones that you found objectionable.<br /><br /><i>That's only a problem if you take the bible literally like a fundy - or an atheist.</i><br /><br />If you are metaphysically masturbating to your metaphors, what are they metaphors <i>for</i> exactly?<br /><br /><i>Religion deals with teleos, it answers "why" questions. It makes a mistake when it tries to answer "how" questions. </i><br /><br />Rubbish. Religious creation myths describe "how" the universe was supposed to have been made, or at least what did it. Your basic contention is God did it, which is a definite who, and a what, which plays into how.<br /><br />Further, your religion does not actually say why the universe was created, only that your God wants certain things of us.<br /><br /><i>Accidents by definition are meaningless.</i><br /><br />Why? <br /><br /><i>A universe deliberately created for a reason would have meaning.</i><br /><br />Again, why? And further if we cannot divine this God's reason, how could we even say he has one?<br /><br /><i>I'm not sure how I can make this any clearer.</i><br /><br />You can't, because to put it politely, its bollocks. <br /><br /><i>"In an absurd world there are absolutely no guidelines, and any course of action is problematic. Passionate commitment, be it to conquest, creation, or whatever, is itself meaningless."</i><br /><br />Nice assertion, care to back any of that up? In the world we live in there are guidelines, which we can take from other people, further we can create our own guidelines as we go. <br /><br /><i>And again, "you indulge in solipsism where your "meaning" has no existence except between your ears. Tell me, if you have Walter Mitty fantasies of power and glory are you in fact powerful and glorious?"</i><br /><br />Your assumption is because reality has no meaning, it has no reality. As the two concepts are seperated by meaning being an abstract one I fail to see anything in your claims of solipism on my part.<br /><br /><i>"Finally, Hans Kung is a Catholic Priest"<br /><br />Ad hominem much? Kindly address his arguments on their own merits.</i><br /><br />First of all, it is an example of the argument from adverse consequences fallacy in action - his argument is that if we accept atheism, that leads to nihilism.<br /><br />Second, it isn't actually true. A simple look at history demonstrates this as atheist philosophers have been around a lot longer than Nihilism has.<br /><br />Third, and this is an important one, Hans Kung's basic argument simply is that nihilism is bad, but he fails to establish that nihilism is <i>wrong.</i><br /><br />Something doesn't have to make you feel good to be true, or tell me, do your fantasies of being glorious and powerful make you glorious and powerful? That is part of why the argument from adverse consequences you are trying to pull fails.<br /><br />Now, why you should rather read an atheist philosopher on atheist philosophy is because at least that way you have an atheist telling what he beleives rather than relying on someone whose stated beliefs are hostile to atheists shoving words into the atheist's mouth.Bruce Gortonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-527760573519947522010-01-21T18:08:12.068+11:002010-01-21T18:08:12.068+11:00Plenty of refreshments to go round. By the way, Jo...Plenty of refreshments to go round. By the way, John Wilkins puts it well over at his blog where he says something like "This is my living room; don't spit on the carpet." I like that. <br /><br />I'm open to disagreement with my views in the same way I'd be at a dinner party, but you are all my guests. If some folks really don't like the place or the company, then they can stay home. There's plenty of scope for people to create their own blogs.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-48850841533912035882010-01-21T17:01:23.362+11:002010-01-21T17:01:23.362+11:00Russell Blackford
Okay, I am just going to respon...Russell Blackford<br /><br />Okay, I am just going to respond to the one point Anon makes because I think theists think it is a valid one.<br /><br /><i>"Finally, Hans Kung is a Catholic Priest"<br /><br />Ad hominem much? Kindly address his arguments on their own merits.</i><br /><br />Okay, you want me to do that<br /><br />First of all, he commits the logical fallacy of the slippery slope - if we accept atheism, then it is just a hop, skip and a jump from nihilism.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-56896070805707525302010-01-21T11:54:52.261+11:002010-01-21T11:54:52.261+11:00This is my like living room.
Well, you look like ...<i>This is my like living room.</i><br /><br />Well, you look like an hospitable fellow, where are the refreshments?tomhnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-90578690281085033242010-01-21T09:56:42.398+11:002010-01-21T09:56:42.398+11:00Okay, that does it. I was being lenient and lettin...Okay, that does it. I was being lenient and letting posts stand. But when someone deliberately defies me I'm not happy.<br /><br />This is my like living room. What I say goes.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-34465824630270192572010-01-21T06:23:21.065+11:002010-01-21T06:23:21.065+11:00Anonymous, (and c'mon, the rest of us are usin...Anonymous, (and c'mon, the rest of us are using <i>our</i> names) one problem with 'not taking it literally' becomes deciding which parts are literal and which parts aren't. If we accept that Genesis didn't happen, why should we assume that God sent plauges against Egypt> Or maybe that was an allegory too...so why should I assume that Jesus ascended to Heaven? Or maybe that didn't happen either... It either hangs together or it doesn't. There's no way to make a clear delineation between what is meant to be allegory and what is meant to be literal truth. <br /><br />Now, on your comment that people's understanding of God would develop along with the civilization...I'm not sure why that would be true. I thought that part of the point of the Bible, and the rest of Christianity is to tell us what is and is not moral. The 10 Commandments and all that. God is telling us what is and isn't good to do. However as you go through the Bible chronologically, those things change... i.e. wiping out the Canaanites vs. turning the other cheek. If God does not change, and he always considered certain things right or wrong, why would those not be included in the bible? Why would a God that has no problem telling us 'Thou shalt not kill' have a problem telling 'Thou shall not have a slave?' insead Leviticus states:<br /><br /><i> "However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)" </i><br /><br />A God that exists, and has enough of a vested interest in humanity to tell us what to do would...well...<i>tell us what to do.</i> If God sets our morality, he doesn't need for our understanding of morality to catch up. However if the opposite is true, that we as a society use our contemporary morality to create the religion we believe in, it all makes sense.Annhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06075995532732877670noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-28479945325381169932010-01-21T05:30:18.412+11:002010-01-21T05:30:18.412+11:00one of the Anonymouses wrote:
The 6 days of creati...one of the Anonymouses wrote:<br /><i>The 6 days of creation in Genesis is merely a metaphor, ... It's not meant to be taken literally</i><br /><br />I see this assertion made quite often and I always wonder...how do you know this? Especially since, according to you, "the only rational stance where judgement on somehting that can't be proven either (God's existence)way is that of the agnostic."<br /><br />You don't sound very agnostic on this question, so I ask, how do you know that Genesis is "merely a metaphor"? You must be able to prove it, or else you would be agnostic on it. Please enlighten me.tomhnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-40994259269410713232010-01-21T02:43:42.722+11:002010-01-21T02:43:42.722+11:00I fail to see why anyone cannot comprehend that ci...I fail to see why anyone cannot comprehend that civilizations evolve in much the same manner as biological entities. Survival of the fittest/characteristics that favor survival long enough to reproduce describes the successful development of cultures, as well as species. Every culture we know of has seen fit to "create" God(s). If there were no human groupings (i.e. families, clans, tribes, states, etc.) there would be no need for any Deity, nor for that matter, morality, since this latter deals entirely with people's interpersonal relationships rather than with any individual's relationship with his/her deity of choice. It seems quite obvious to me that there may be an inherent "need" for people to "find God(s)", but I fail to see how this translates into evidence for actual existance of one. If one cannot abide the fact that the only "meaning" in human life is (as is true for all living creatures) to survive long enough to procreate and perhaps enough longer to nurture our offspring until they can do so in turn, then a deity or creator can certainly serve to provide added "meaning' to existance, but by no means everyone "needs" to create one.Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10797750710657979526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-66478250140614275942010-01-21T00:43:09.780+11:002010-01-21T00:43:09.780+11:00I never read the sophomoric nonsense posts from An...I never read the sophomoric nonsense posts from Anonymous.<br /><br />Russell, you have every right to delete his rants. If it were my blog, I would just delete every post from people who <i>cowardly</i> log in that way.NewEnglandBobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07190715223856189053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-61643228135572358522010-01-21T00:10:08.951+11:002010-01-21T00:10:08.951+11:00I've been listening to this as an audiobook, a...I've been listening to this as an audiobook, and though I'm by no means finished (still stuck somewhere in the Old Testament) I think you've hit the nail on the head. Wright's book is fascinating, and the wealth of research into the conditions that influenced the creation of Abrahamic religion is fantastic. But I cannot understand his inability to see the facts behind what he himself has written. How can you believe in a god that you can trace the development of? See where he went from one of a pantheon to one for a people to one and only? When you can see people's belief change the god, not the other way around. Man up Mr. Wright! You can do it! Take that step!Annhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06075995532732877670noreply@blogger.com