If you’re fascinated by irrational beliefs and the people who hold them, HBO’s new Scientology documentary is a must-see:
It premieres on HBO Sunday, March 29th, at 8 pm. For more airtimes, go here and mouse over “Schedule” in the lower right corner.
(I saw it yesterday in a San Francisco theater. They’re doing a very limited theatrical release so that the film will be eligible for Oscar nominations.)
I don’t “believe” in evolution. It simply explains the observed facts better then any alternative. Hence it is the prefered theory.
Unless, of course, you have an alternative that explains the observed facts better? In which case I’ll start to “believe” that instead.
Just one problem – you’ve never been able to say what that alternative is.
So while it’s the case that currently “evolution” cannot explain all the facts, it explains much more than your alternative which currently explains precisely nothing
If you could bring yourself to detail what the alternative is you might be surprised at the response.
Phoodoo has a rather 19th century notion of cause and effect.
That’s even more charitable than I would be. 17th and 18th century philosophers (e.g. Hume and Kant) recognized the importance of reciprocal synchronic causality. Which element is the “cause” and which is the “effect” depends on which is being held invariant and which is being manipulated, and that in turn depends on what one is trying to explain. Causation is much more complicated than the domino picture.
I also don’t believe in evolution — I accept as true, based on the preponderance of evidence. There are some things that I do believe, of course — but scientific theories are not among them. My main complaint with ID is, and always has been, that it’s not specific enough to be testable. Evolutionary theory is specific enough to be testable, and in some cases it’s pretty clear that evolutionary theory needs significant overhauling.
Personally I think that the need for an “extended synthesis” — something that takes into account evo-devo, niche construction, and even autopoiesis — is pretty overwhelming. Alas, since I don’t work in theoretical biology, I can’t contribute to those discussions.
I also don’t believe in evolution — I accept as true, based on the preponderance of evidence.
Personally I think that the need for an “extended synthesis” — something that takes into account evo-devo, niche construction, and even autopoiesis — is pretty overwhelming.
Kantian Naturalist,
And yet, in all of your great philosophical wisdom, you can’t even see the contradiction of these two simple points.
Evolution is specific enough to be tested, and YET you want a different theory. But you don’t know enough about the topic to know what that different theory should be. “But don’t worry I still believe (oh no wait, accept as true, that’s different ??) in evolution”
I think its charitable calling you a philosopher.
Neither do you, it seems. Yet you seem content with that.
Hi Phoodoo! How old is the Universe | Earth | First life and how do you know these things? As you’re ruling the roost on all things philosophical..
Richardthughes,
Where did atoms come from? Where did they law of gravity come from? Do molecules come from chemical bonds, which comes from molecules?
phoodoo,
Where did atoms come from? Where did they law of gravity come from? Do molecules come from chemical bonds, which comes from molecules?
OMagain,
I believe ( um, I mean, I accept,through the preponderance of scientific evidence) that an intelligence outside of the universe must have created them.
I see. And what created that intelligence?
OMagain,
No idea. Now what do you think?
phoodoo,
Ill be happy to answer these questions right after you answer mine.
Richardthughes,
You have already answered them, you have no idea.
No, I haven’t answered them. If you think I have, link to them. Or you can retract your statement. Or you can be another obvious liar for Jesus who asks questions and answers none.
You will no doubt pick the last option.
One can think that the preponderance of evidence supports evolutionary theory in broad strokes, while still thinking that there are important details left out of specific versions of evolutionary theory. The entire point of the extended synthesis is to build on the modern synthesis, but without rejecting what the modern synthesis got right.
And I think it is charitable to call you a reasonable interpreter of perspectives that differ from your own.
Kantian Naturalist,
How do you know what the modern synthesis got right and what it gets wrong?
You don’t. You simply realize that what exists now is not adequate to explain the new evidence in evo-devo, which completely blows the lid off of evolution, but which atheists need to cling to to confirm their worldview.
I’d like to see that chain of evidence to a cause outside of the universe.
Somehow, we never get a full exposition of said “scientific process.”
Glen Davidson
Kantian Naturalist,
Are you able to articulate where you believe the laws of the universe, and the organization of matter came from?
Well, let me help you out. Perhaps in that intelligence’s reality it came about via evolution?
I think that as an answer “intelligence outside of the universe” is unsatisfying.
You can answer any question with that “answer”. So it’s not much of an answer at all is it?
Why is my tea cold?
An intelligence outside of the universe wanted it that way.
Why are atoms?
An intelligence outside of the universe wanted it that way.
Why does the universe exist?
Why do bad things happen to good people?
etc etc.
So personally I think I’ll stick with “I don’t know” as at least there is a place to go from there, to knowledge.
Why are there physical laws? I don’t know.
Why are the physical laws like they are? I don’t know.
You on the other hand have nowhere left to go.
Allow me to demonstrate:
phoodoo,
Was Jesus the son of the intelligence outside the universe?
GlenDavidson,
You mean compared to where atheists believe these organizational laws came from?
Are you a believer in the Robin theory that atoms made atoms, and mass made gravity, and gravity made mass, but not the same gravity?
Yes, that sounds like a great OP.
phoodoo, will you oblige? Go from an experiment to “evidence” of intelligence outside the universe?
So personally I think I’ll stick with “I don’t know” as at least there is a place to go from there, to knowledge.
Why are there physical laws? I don’t know.
Why are the physical laws like they are? I don’t know.
OMagain,
Thus, I would suggest you live in a world of denial.
OMagain,
Your philosophy is that you have no idea, but it couldn’t possibly be an intelligence, so how in the world do you think your position is scientific?
How old is the universe | world | life – and how do we know this? Is anyone other than Phoodoo afraid to answer this?
Who cares? They are here, so we need to deal with them.
It came from physics (or physicists).
That doesn’t even make sense.
So, no evidence, no science.
Oh well, no one expected any. Just mindless complaints about those who do work with the evidence.
Glen Davidson
Next week on ‘questions with Phoodoo’: why is red not blue and who made it?
Who cares? They are here so we need to deal with them.
Neil Rickert,
I think this is the mindset of most atheists. Better to not think about it, or just say who cares. It makes maintaining your needed worldview so much easier.
Unlike you, Phoodoo, they seem quite open to talking about their views and what grounds them. But then again, their views are not dogmatic, ridiculous and at odds with reality.
On the contrary; it’s pretty clear that the modern synthesis can’t explain how mutations generate novel phenotypes, because the modern synthesis is based on population genetics and ignores embryology. Fortunately I was inoculated against the modern synthesis at an early age by discovering Oyama’s magisterial The Ontogeny of Information, so by the time I was being told in my classes that
genes mutate –> organisms are selected for –> populations evolve
It was quite clear to me that the neglect of developmental biology made the first arrow seem like magic. Likewise, in paleontology — my first love, long before philosophy — the fossil record reveals macroevolutionary patterns that are hard to make sense of in microevolutionary processes. Clearly much more would need to be said there, as well.
My background in biology is, in fact, quite strong through the late 1990s (when I graduated college). I just haven’t kept up with the literature since then, except for the odd reading here and there of Brian Goodwin, Sean Carroll, and Massimo Pigliucci.
In any event, I don’t think that evolutionary theory entails atheism or that atheism requires evolutionary theory. Dawkins remarks that Darwinism makes it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist, and that’s clearly absurd. The idea that there’s some deep link between atheism and evolution is just one more creationist canard.
I have no idea whatsoever. Which is to say, I have no idea about the origins of the universe. The question is not without interest to me; I simply don’t have the requisite mathematical skills to understand the cosmology.
However, it does seem to me that the distinction between scientific theory and mere speculation lies in whether or not some putative hypothesis is testable. Since I see no way that either theism or the multiverse is testable, I consider both to me mere speculation. I simply have no interest in idle speculation, which is why I prefer to call myself an agnostic rather than an atheist.
I know that there are some philosophers who consider such speculation to be the very essence of philosophy. But I consider that attitude to be the vestige of an age when philosophical contemplation was the privilege of affluent men, when all genuine work was performed by women and by slaves, and when technology was too rudimentary to pose the risk of mass extinction. I’m much more interested in contributing to society and helping make things even slightly more just and reasonable than I am in wondering where the universe came from. That’s not to disparage cosmologists — or even theologians — just to say that that’s not where I put my efforts.
GlenDavidson,
The evidence is their existence.
You fall into the same category as the others, you have no idea, but you are willing to ignore the implications. Fair enough, it brings you comfort.
It could be. I just see no evidence for that. Got some?
Its a creationist canard? That you just finished quoting Dawkins as saying.
How very funny. Those crazy creationist always making things up.
Phoodoo still too scared to offer his views? Duane Gish, the legacy.
It brings me comfort not to fall for the first baseless claim that convinces the gullible.
Glen Davidson
Ask Hawking about that.
Of course the origin of the universe, why it exists (as opposed to nothing) and similar questions are of great interest to “atheist” me. Some days it’s the only thing of significance I think about.
But your misunderstanding is this: Ignorant fools like you have no answers to give.
You’ve already given your sole answer – an intelligence outside of the universe did *it* where *it* is anything at all. They thought of that one thousands of years ago already!
So now you’ve shot your bolt do you have anything of substance to say, or are you going to clutch your “cargo-cult” answer of “An Old Man Outside of the Universe Did it”? That answer appears to be solid now to you, but I can only imagine over time it’ll become empty and taste like dust in your mouth as you realize how pointlessly you’ve wasted your only life as every person you meet challenges your “evidence” and you simply can’t defend your answer from those cuts.
Simple question then phoodoo. How do you know it’s only one intelligence? Could they be, say, two? A evil one and a good one? How do you know it was the good one what done it?
Dawkins does not speak for atheism. Also, there are no holy atheist books.
That’s the sad thing. They’ve no need! It’s already all written down in a single book, the source of all facts. If they did sometimes make something up they might find it conflicts with something someone else made up and they might resolve that somehow and end up with a better, more accurate thing. Or not…
Today I found my copy of “The Bible Code”. That proves it, it’s all in there, predicted thousands of years ago!
Oh? What “implications”? Like unknowingly transgressing some “objective” moral standard?
phoodoo, simple question. Do you believe homesexuals have the same rights as everyone else with regard to marriage etc? Or are they, as the bible claims, immoral deviants?
Does your “intelligence outside of the universe” have an opinion on this?
Fixed that for you.
It is foolish to spend too much time pondering an unanswerable question. It is better to just move on to the next question.
Does Phoodoo spend as much time challenging his beliefs as he does ours?
If it’s done at the same level of intellection, he may as well not bother.
Glen Davidson
Is that why you are so angry at a God? Homosexual frustration? I am afraid I can’t help you there.
I only go with the evidence. There is intelligently organized rules and laws for the universe, that only an organizer can account for.
The facts are the facts, it exists.
Neil says its best to ignore the question (and he also says the laws are all in our heads).
O’Magain ponders the question but can’t get the answer he wants, but he wants to know why Jesus is so mean.
Kantian Naturalist says that thus far there is no named philosophical movement which explains it, so he is waiting. But Dawkins is inexplicably promoting crazy creationist canards.
Glenn Davidson says its a baseless claim that the question is asked. But he wants a scientific explanation for the question that wasn’t asked.
Robin says the answer is easy, “That which was made was made by that which made it, which is itself.” But not THOSE atoms!
Richard Hughes says, “I can’t understand the question. How old is the Earth. If I am annoying enough will anyone notice?”
More misrepresentation by Phoodoo. I wonder if the designer told anyone not to do that? Phoodoo perpetually writes what he wants to have happened, not what did. I wonder if this mental deficiency also affects his understanding of origins?
But can we have more sophisticated ID proponents, please? The bottom of the creationist barrel helps neither side.
Edit to say. I used the word “misrepresentation” but I should have simply pointed out: Phoodoo is a liar. This is just a simple, easily corroborated statement of fact.
Ah, do you don’t have access to the objective morality as if you did you’d not be afraid to answer that simple question. You’d be proud to answer. But you are not. And so you must know that your answer is not going to reflect well on you. But it’s ok. I won’t judge you.
Jesus, from what I’ve read and if he were actually as described, would have had the courage to answer the question. In my experience bigots are often afraid to come clean and admit their bigotry. Instead they deflect instead of giving the simple yes/no answer that they could give.
Let’s try again.
phoodoo, do you think that men and women are equal? Or, as the Bible notes, a woman should submit to her husbands will?
Then, what is the purpose of the universe? And what is the purpose of your life?
I.E. Now you have determined there is an “organiser” how does that change your life? What will you do now with that knowledge? What have you done?
Fuck with people on the internet?
Your organizer I’m sure is very proud of what you’ve done with the life it’s organized for you.
Or is it that armed with this knowledge that you are just so sure is correct, you just feel it must be so, you are left wondering why there is no follow up – you know there is a organizer but you don’t know what the plan contains for you?
Sort of a hollow victory I think. You know there is purpose, you just don’t know what that purpose is!
I take it this is you confirming that your “organizer” or “intelligent designer” is in fact the god of the bible. If I’m wrong, do say.
I’m quite aware of the thousands of years of speculation about why the universe is highly ordered. Confining ourselves to the “Western” philosophical tradition, there’s Anaxagoras, Empedocles, Democritus, Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, Epictetus, Lucretius, Plotinus, Aquinas, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Hume, Kant, Hegel, and so on and so on . . . all of which is fascinating, and worthy of taking time to understand, but I do not see how either (a) any of this goes any further than mere speculation or (b) why speculation should matter.
It’s not that I’m waiting for some future explanation to come along; it’s that I’m skeptical of whether there is any explanation that would make any difference whatsoever. The question, “why is the universe the way that it is?” does not seem to have any answer that makes any difference. It’s a nice question for inspiring poetry, but poetry (and art, and literature) is what we do when explanations have come to an end. It is not another kind of explanation.
I do think that Dawkins makes the same mistake as creationists do, which is precisely why he is their favorite representative of Darwinism. The mistake is to see some scientific theory as implying some metaphysical position. On the contrary, I think that evolutionary theory is equally consistent with theism and with atheism. So, for that matter, is ID. My objections to ID have nothing to do with whether ID entails theism (since it obviously does not!) but with the failures of ID as a scientific theory.
Out of interest, how do you know they are intelligently designed rules? There may be an infinite number of universes each with it’s own ruleset.
You sound like you *know* when all you are doing is fooling yourself. You don’t “know” anything about the laws of the universe.
Nobody in the active ID camp seems to take seriously the possibility it was anything other than a deity. So perhaps it does not in theory but it ends up being that way in practice. They only remember that ID could be from space aliens when it’s time to go to court.