A fascinating debate. I haven’t had time to read it yet, but I’m going to, and I’ll let my readers have at it anyway. I have great respect for Dennett as a scientist and philosopher, but I think that his (and Dawkins’ and others) war against religion quite misguided, even though I myself am a skeptic. Or perhaps because I am.
[Via Jonah]
I must admit, I have never found philosophers terribly interesting… they tend to “prove” there positions with very weak logics.
To an engineer, the most important question should be “is religion useful?” Truth may not be knowable, but what do engineers care about truth? There are twp possibilities, as I see it:
1) Religion is true – all the religions are man’s attempts to model religious truth, and all hold some elements of truth though some are more true than others; in this case, obviously religious belief is the best way forward.
2) Religion is not true, but was embedded into our brains by evolution; in this case, religion provides a huge survival/procreation benefit (due to its overwhelming ubiquity), most likely on social grounds – so again, religious belief is the best way forward.
In fact, combative atheism denies both theism and naturism – and I have a very low opinion of those I have met. (I can see the point of agnostics, but again, if I was agnostic I would still go to church and participate in religion.)
[Although from an engineering standpoint per this post my belief in God is irrelevant, I have to confirm that I do believe in God. I believe that you can prove the existence of God by the following: 1) Hypothesize that there is a knowable God. 2) Learn as much as possible about said God’s attributes. 3) Do what God recommends. 4) If you are happier, then your understanding of God is likely accurate. 5) Repeat steps 1-4 until you live an extremely happy life, with a veritable knowledge of God.]
You can argue with me that step 4 is not a valid scientific test, but I will just reply that I’m an engineer, and think scientists take life way too seriously…
Many of the most fundamental scientific advancements down through history were made by men and women who not only believed in God but engaged in religious practice — so I don’t think there’s any particular reason to argue that science and religion are incompatible.
That some people today seem convinced that they are, is disturbing.
David, the problem with your observation is that you didn’t complete it. The question you ask is whether religion is useful. Neither points 1) or 2) answer that. For example, in part 1), even if religion is “true”, there are various ways it can be true, and religion need not be a useful way to deal with those truths.
In part 2), just because we have a propensity to religion doesn’t automatically make it useful in any way. We have a propensity to a number of behaviors that most consider harmful. You have to explain why religion is helpful not harmful. For example, there are known religions without a survival benefit (for example, Shakers, Human Extinctionists).
Finally, your “proof” of God is absurd. Assume God exists, convince yourself that you are “happier”, assume even harder that God exists…
My take is that it doesn’t matter if you believe in or worship God or not. If God exists and he wanted you to know about him, he’d have made his presence more obvious for the slow among us (like me). Since he hasn’t, then either he doesn’t exist or he doesn’t care whether we believe in him or not.
Well Karl, to put it simply: If you assume that Naturalism results in non-useful traits then you are trapped by Dennett’s opponent’s claim that Naturalism cannot lead to truth, if you want to be philosophical.
And as for your statement, “Since he hasn’t, then either he doesn’t exist or he doesn’t care whether we believe in him or not” you are committing the fallacy of the excluded middle – there are other possibilities, such as his plan for us would not properly function in the presence of proof of his existence. The fact that the vast majority of humans believe in the divine would also undermine your statement – unless you believe that you are special somehow, and God must show himself to you personally.
As for my proof of God being absurd – I did say that I care neither for science or philosophy, as much as I care about results. If belief in God makes you happy, then you should believe in God.
And a related law is also true: If belief in God makes others happy and you fight against that belief, you are a villainous creep.
As for religious benefits, in my opinion religion primarily provides a method for imperfect people to attempt perfect social relations without getting depressed. Perhaps you do not need that, but most seem to.
Additionally, organized religion provides the social benefits inherent in a large diverse group of people coming together and celebrating their similarities. These benefits are discussed in any business networking class – essentially networking to a diverse group greatly increases your economic capabilities, no matter your prior standing.
You are on this site. You are probably a “techie”. Most “techies” do not do well in social situations naturally – they have to work hard at it. But this is a critical aspect of your ability to meet your goals, whatever they are; and I would exhort you to not ignore this critical tool.
unless you believe that you are special somehow, and God must show himself to you personally.
This is not an unreasonable thing to ask. A lot is being asked of me. It’s reasonable that someone provides proof.
You are on this site. You are probably a “techie”. Most “techies” do not do well in social situations naturally – they have to work hard at it. But this is a critical aspect of your ability to meet your goals, whatever they are; and I would exhort you to not ignore this critical tool.
While it is true that I have some difficulties in social situations, I really am not interested in feigning belief in religion merely to get some social contacts.
Well Karl, to put it simply: If you assume that Naturalism results in non-useful traits then you are trapped by Dennett’s opponent’s claim that Naturalism cannot lead to truth, if you want to be philosophical.
And I’m not trapped, if I don’t make the above assumption. If I postulate instead that Naturalism can result in useful traits, then where am I in the above argument?
And as for your statement, “Since he hasn’t, then either he doesn’t exist or he doesn’t care whether we believe in him or not” you are committing the fallacy of the excluded middle – there are other possibilities, such as his plan for us would not properly function in the presence of proof of his existence. The fact that the vast majority of humans believe in the divine would also undermine your statement
I believe that fallacy has some other name. I don’t consider your alternative to be serious. Any intelligent being can have obscure motives. But your argument seems to be based on the premise that we can’t know what God wants, but we somehow know that he wants us to worship in the current fashion even though that part of the Plan is only spelled out in human writings (which look to me chock full of error) and current worship practices differ greatly from what is described in these writings.
I really am not interested in feigning belief in religion merely to get some social contacts.
Well, let me just point out that all the successful politicians do, and leave it at that.
But your argument seems to be based on the premise that we can’t know what God wants
I have not said that, and I do not believe that. Personally, I believe that God (for the most part) gives us the option of knowing of him and what he wants, but does not force himself upon us – like a parent that may know better than the child, but still lets the child have his way.
I have merely said that if you create a God X and then prove to me that God X doesn’t exist, that is not helpful. You are just creating strawgods! ;-}
This is not an unreasonable thing to ask. A lot is being asked of me. It’s reasonable that someone provides proof.
Who’s asking a lot of you? Is letting others be happy a lot to ask? In my view, the only thing you could claim that is being asked of you is following a set of rules that have become the foundation of our society – and now that we have the tools to study these (game theory and such), we can prove and study why these rules are beneficial. I’m not saying you need to go out and join a convent, I’m just saying that there is a lot of value in religion.
And I’m not trapped, if I don’t make the above assumption.
Well, here we are just arguing philosophy – and I have to admit that I don’t really care that much for it. I was just arguing the point of whats-his-name in the post, since you brought it up. (In short, yeah, that’s what I think too, and I don’t see why philosophers get so caught up in this.)
current worship practices differ greatly from what is described in these writings.
That right there should tell you that you are barking up the wrong tree. We aren’t idiots, you know… we do read. The books were written by men, detailing what they have learned about God if you believe in it, or society if you don’t. The books have errors – men wrote and translated them, after all – but ancient works still have large value, and are a good place to start from.
All these discussions of science vs. religion have the effect of showing how isolated I am in my own beliefs. The framework required for understanding always seems to be missing.
It is claimed that god’s existence is not a falsifiable proposition. God’s claim, via the writing of men, is that his existence is proved by the things made and is undeniable.
The mention of straw god’s is very apt. Before life existed, before the universe existed, before the angels and heaven existed, before god’s only begotten son existed, perhaps even before time existed, there was god alone. It would take more than a few moments thought to understand the mind of god where a billion years was a blink of an eye. But he promises that we can have an understanding with ever lasting life the result.
Trinity is a concept that predates christianity, it’s not a biblical teaching. It’s a religious teaching that came into the church after the apostles were gone.
While god is the creator, he actually only created one thing… his ‘only begotten’ who in other places is described as his master worker… his son the word.
So that framework for understanding involves god and his son existing together for an unknown amount of time.
Before the universe, the son of god created the other son’s of god (actually grandson’s by his master worker) who went on to witness the creation of the universe (big bang or whatever.)
All were given free will; an example of god’s love. Among these angels was one given rulership of the Earth and who chose to oppose god. This liar and opposer is the father of religion which is designed to make it nearly impossible to know god.
The debate is not between science and religion. The debate is between the truth and the lie. Science is proof (to me at least) that god is a god of order and is telling the truth when he says he can be understood; not that the understanding comes easy (especially for those that do not want that understanding… preferring to topple straw gods.) I have a deep respect for those that choose understanding, where ever it may lead.
David, I guess what bothers me here is that religion seems not to be truth, but rather a coping mechanism for hardships and the fear of death. I can’t cope that way any more. I don’t have that connection with people who are religious. It is a sort of loneliness. Like childhood friends who grew apart.
I suppose it is why I support space travel, longevity research, the pursuit of knowledge, and similar endeavors. It is to build something of meaning in this life, the only one that I know I have.
Personally, I believe that God (for the most part) gives us the option of knowing of him and what he wants, but does not force himself upon us – like a parent that may know better than the child, but still lets the child have his way.
Here is an example. You’re basically saying some people know what God wants and the rest, God treats like a child. A very convenient way to discredit anyone with divergent beliefs. I see some pretense and condescension in this viewpoint though not unusually so.
If I were God, I would not favor people in this way. I’m not saying I’d “force myself” on people. Instead, I would see belief in me as undesirable in the long run. People act differently when they know you are watching. They would feel that they have obligations to the Old Fogey and would supply these reasons, if I failed to do so in a timely manner. Others would exploit those feelings for gain. Many people would not be free to make choices and to live. I would be invisible. If I interacted with my creation, it would be via agents of corresponding power and morality. I wouldn’t send forth “sinless” beings like Christ supposedly was, but rather via fellow humans with similar foibles and weaknesses.
Further, it just doesn’t make sense for a God who exists outside of space and time to be a babysitter. There couldn’t be a decision that couldn’t be reversed or harm unmade. As a result, there is no need to babysit.
In fact, we probably wouldn’t exist as we see ourselves, discrete, somewhat deterministic, and bound, but would be quantum blurred over a huge possibility space. As in the experiment of Schoedinger’s cat, both alive and dead.
@ Ken Anthony, I like your relation between God wanting to be understood, and science the way of understanding him. Thought about it many times…
@ David & Carl:
I believe that God is everything. Therefore it is then safe for me to presume that I am God *or at least a very small part of everything*…right?
But it seems many believe God to be a separate entity from everything, and also an entity that has absolute power over everything.
The irony is that God supposedly has this power but wants us to still believe in and pray for “Him”. If this God these religious preachers (of all kinds) talk about was so powerfull, then why not make all humans believe in “Him”. How about animals? Do they have the capasity to believe and worship God? How does God feel about that? Is this the reason that Animals are, intellectually “inferior” to Humans; God made them this way for not obeying? haha I wonder now…
Does God punish people for not obeying and not believing in “His Greatness”? It is shown in the Bible that yes you are/will be punished for not believing…If not, then why must we believe in what others tell me to believe.
Yeah, this topic is very touchy, and for me, especially hard to explain, but i do want to finish with one more thought of mine…
Why isn’t it possible for each and every one of us to be capable of believing in our own personal religion..? Mine is from experiencing Nature. I would be considerend a Naturalist in most ways, but to myself, I believe what has been shown to me. Others have seen what they have seen, and that is how their mind wants to explain existance….
Anyways its 4:01 am and this is probably why i cant explain exactly what I want to say, but to conclude this thing all together, i will say that religion is helpful to humanity when we believe it through what we have already established as right and wrong. It is what gives many a moral standard, a guideline if you will, and in turn making it easier for people to agree on something. But when taking a look at it from the other side, it can lead to much destruction and chaos…..I wont get into how, but History is full of priceless examples of Religious Wars, Genocides, Aparthides, etc.
Sorry i took so long to ramble in some parts non-sense. i WILL stop NOW.
Karl, “some people know what God wants and the rest, God treats like a child” – that’s not what I meant. I meant that God treats us all like children – because that’s what we are! As you no doubt know, every child is different – so he treats every child different.
You make a very good point about “God looking over your shoulder” – that is exactly why I believe that he doesn’t force himself on us at this point (though I do believe everyone sees God after this life). Some people, though, (like myself) do not mind someone looking over their shoulder and pointing out missteps – so to those, he shows himself just a bit.
If I interacted with my creation, it would be via agents of corresponding power and morality. I wouldn’t send forth “sinless” beings like Christ supposedly was
This is basically exactly what was done – none of the prophets are perfect. Some of them even said dumb things that got disproven! Christ was a special case – theologians say that Christ had to do something to fulfill justice but also allow mercy. For example, we came to Earth to learn how humans behave (how we behave if left to ourselves). We do really bad stuff! A society based on justice could not let us rejoin them after doing the stuff we get up to! So Christ did something to fulfill the demands of justice, and allow us to be forgiven and rejoin that society. Personally, I don’t know all the details, and believe a few things are missing from that explanation – but I am content to wait for an answer.
There couldn’t be a decision that couldn’t be reversed or harm unmade.
This is true – and it is why the “sin problem” goes away. There is nothing that someone else can do that will give us lasting harm, but the things we do ourselves can – by potentially limiting our future.
As for babysitting, I believe we are here to learn. As I have said, different people learn in different ways – and although having a teacher breathing down your neck all the time is not helpful, having a teacher is.
but would be quantum blurred over a huge possibility space
Yes, I have often considered that possibility. I don’t find it very compelling, though – I think quantum mechanics is easier explained as “optimizations of the universe running computer.”
> While it is true that I have some difficulties in social situations, I really am not interested in feigning belief in religion merely to get some social contacts.
I note that ties and suits almost certainly have nothing to do with success, if you ignore social factors. However, since success is largely determined by social factors ….
Yes – if I could give only one piece of advice to all my techie brethren, it would be to not discount the importance of social factors. It’s hard for us, yes. But oh so important!
My complaint is chiefly with religions whose practitioners that want to tell me what books I can and can’t read, what beliefs I can and can’t hold, what acts between consenting adults I can and can’t participate in, what I can teach my children, etc. Another worrying aspect of Christianity in particular is the attitude exemplified in the Crusades, i.e., kill them all and let God sort them out – how about making things as just as possible in this life just in case there’s no afterlife (which, as I get older, I find it more and more difficult to find any remotely scientific justification for…).
religion seems not to be truth
Exactly my point. Religion is anti-truth. Satan, a real self aware entity viewed today as a cartoon character, that knows the truth because he can see it directly; where we humans have to see it indirectly, has a self interest in using religion (the dwelling place of his associate demons) to deceive and keep truth hidden.
As an example: All of us have a sense within that we will never die because ‘time immemorial’ is part of the way we are made. The bible records that satan spoke to the first humans and used this feeling by saying “you will not die.” All religions today say variations on this theme… reincarnation, go to heaven, etc. Rather than the simple truth that when you die you are dead… your thoughts do perish and to dust you return.
Satan understand our motivations and uses them against us. Only a small percentage of humanity cares about truth; they prefer comfort and lies can be very comforting.
These transgressions are not unique to “religion”. Indeed, the only real argument of the aggressive atheists that would have any sway would be if they could demonstrate that irreligious societies were more benevolent and respectful of individual freedoms, and less prone to violence and suppression. That argument, however, would not even pass the laugh test.
Geez, get a fresh argument, willya? How long ago were the Crusades?
And, your evidence for this proposition would be… what?
Kurt Godel long ago demonstrated that there are secrets forever locked away beyond our comprehension. It is only hubris and blinkered vision which can lead to such categorical assertions of fundamentally unprovable “truths”.
For the record, I am neither religious nor anti-religious. I am not even agnostic, as this term suggests a balance on a knife’s edge which can be tilted one way or the other and come down on either side. Speculation about the existence or nonexistence of a God or gods or anything beyond the 4-dimensional realm of our senses and mundane logical faculties are pure folly, and I have the same general contempt for the militant atheists as I do for the fervently religious.
I believe your assertion regarding Godel is a bit overstated; however, to say that we’ll never reach the end of understanding is something I would accept.
…your evidence for this proposition would be… what?
Many and deep. Let’s start with Occam’s razer. Which is simpler, that when we see a dead person they are dead or that they remain conscious?
Next, you are demonstrating this ‘time immemorial’ thinking that I asserted.
I borrowed the phrase, ‘thoughts perishing and returning to dust’ from somewhere.
The man Jesus, referred to in the writings of the Roman Jewish historian Josephus as a magician, was witnessed by many on more than one occasion to bring back the dead. In the case of Lazarus, a friend of his, a several day old stinking corpse (which was the jewish tradition so they didn’t bury live people) who went on to live a normal life. Yes, it could be a case of mass hysteria or simply lies written down and repeated… but it remains a piece of evidence.
But I repeat this ‘time immemorial’ thinking exists in most if not all people… why?
My thought is it is because death is not natural… living is the natural state of man, but something caused this not to be and so we die, but this ‘time immemorial’ thinking remains and confuses.
“Death is not natural?”
The vast majority of things that have ever lived have died, and most things living today are highly likely to die.
On what basis do you claim that “death is not natural”? All the available evidence indicates exactly the opposite.
Occam’s razer [sic] is not a rigorous theoretical device but merely an heuristic. It is amazing to me that both sides of the debate try to coopt old Bill into arguing for their sides. Apparently, simplicity is in the eye of the beholder.
No, the reach of Godel’s incompleteness theorems is not overstated. All these questions can be put into a mathematical framework. The existence or non-existence of a deity cannot be proven within the closed system of our available senses and faculties. It’s not even a question worth arguing. I have no idea why so many people spend so much time doing so.
What is “dead”? What is consciousness? Are dreams real? How do you know you are not having one now, or when you see someone “die”?
On what basis do you claim that “death is not natural”? All the available evidence indicates exactly the opposite.
Sure. I understand that. As you may have guessed it’s a biblical teaching that leads me to this non-intuitive conclusion.
There’s really no reason for human aging and science is starting to figure that out. Cell replication doesn’t stop because cells wear out or because of copy errors. It stops because there’s a chemical chain that acts as a replication countdown. But initially it’s not turned on!!!
While that’s not proof of anything I do find it interesting. Belief vs. science. This is just one of those areas where I think science is playing catch-up with my beliefs.
You make a good observation. I’m hoping I’m right anyway. Death is an enemy in my world view.
The existence or non-existence of a deity cannot be proven within the closed system of our available senses and faculties.
Obviously not true, Bart. Just because god hasn’t chosen to stand in your face says nothing about his ability to do so.
What is “dead”? Not alive… sheesh.
What is consciousness? The ability to ask this question… ok, perhaps semi-conscience.
Are dreams real? Just like any other thoughts.
How do you know you are not having one now, or when you see someone “die”?
A wonderful question that touches on that falsifiability of god question. Prove that I exist. I dare ya. Proving that you exist not required, but go ahead and try that one as well if you like. Cognito ergo sum, doesn’t do it outside of your own self awareness.
David —
I am an engineer too, and I did steps 1-3 exactly like you did. Trouble is, it made me LESS happy, not more. My “step 4” was to accept that either God does not exist, or has no interest in human affairs (in which case he might as well not exist). I’ve been much happier since then.
Ken Anthony:
All of us have a sense within that we will never die because ‘time immemorial’ is part of the way we are made.
Please speak for yourself. I do not have such “sense within.” I am fully aware that some day I will cease to exist — fall into dreamless sleep and never wake up, — and I am okay with that. I’d like to exist forever, but I have absolutely no “sense” that I will or can.
Ken, just as you have a “sense within” that there is a God, you also have this “sense” that you will live forever. That doesn’t make the former true, or the latter “natural.” Your “sense” may or may not be accurate, but don’t project it on others, or imagine that all share it with you.
This is the same projectional fallacy that people fall into when they assume that everyone shares their sexual orientation, but simply won’t admit it.
And, if he chose to do so, how would you know it was he?
Really, it is not my intention to be insulting, but are you intentionally so shallow?
Okay, here’s my attempt to rework an old joke into this thread (disclaimer: I’m an engineer who thinks evolution is not the origin of species).
How do a mathematician, a physicist, and an engineer prove God exists?
Mathemetician:
“Well, there is something rather than nothing, and the probability that the complex information necessary for life and intelligent life could arise through sheer chance during any conceivable age of the universe makes it statistically impossible for there not to be God.”
Physicist:
“Well, let’s see. Law of gravity–check. Newton’s laws–check. Evolutionary evidence—umm—experimental error. Quantum mechanics–check. God must exist.”
Engineer:
“God exists. God exists. God exists. God exists. God exists.”
Jeff,
I am an engineer who thinks Evolution simply is not a full explanation for life as we know it.
– Evolution says nothing about the genesis of life, and this is a great gaping hole in the argument. Because, if you allow that the advent of life is effectively a miracle, and you have based your theory on the foundation that no miracles are allowed, then you have contradicted yourself. Evolutionists would claim that we simply do not know how life began yet, and it is a fair argument. But, until we do know, we can only posit that our theory for what came after is reasonable, not truth.
– Evolution of species definitely occurs for simple lifeforms whose numbers are effectively infinite, and whose reproductive cycle is short. I believe with all my heart that this has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt.
– Evoution of species for complex multicellular lifeforms whose reproductive cycle is long, however, does not add up. In this, I hew to your mathematician’s argument. Life on Earth simply has not been around long enough for this to happen by chance. I believe that Evolution in this instance is possible, but only if undergirded by a mathematical formality which, like the valleys and ridges that guide the path of a river, draw the paths of Evolution into particular directions, maintaining a stable flow which does not branch out into absurd freaks or degenerate into nothing. The Evolutionary tree of life is studded by strange attractors about which stable lifeforms orbit. Call that underlying mathematical formalism God or whatever you like, I am convinced it is there.
There, that is my philosophy of Evolution as it pertains to the origin of the species. If there is anyone left on this thread, have at me.
Evolutionists would claim that we simply do not know how life began yet, and it is a fair argument. But, until we do know, we can only posit that our theory for what came after is reasonable, not truth.
Well, I for one would never claim that any scientific theory is “truth.” The most you can say for it is that it is the best theory that fits the available evidence. That is the case for both evolution, and (say) gravity.
Life on Earth simply has not been around long enough for this to happen by chance.
Ah, here you display a misunderstanding of the theory, if by “chance,” you mean random changes resulting in increasing fitness to the existing environment.
“…random changes resulting in increasing fitness to the existing environment.”
I think we definitely see increasing fitness to the existing environment. However, changes tend to be a decrease rather than an increase in the overall organized genetic information in the species. For example consider the insects which adapted to a small windblown island by losing their wings. Being wingless made them more fit for their environment, since they were less likely to be blown to sea (and those not blown to sea survived to pass on their genes). But this actually constitutes a reduction in the genetic information, not increasing complexity. Microbes which develop resistance to antibiotics often do so in a similar way–by becoming less complex. I recently heard in a lecture about some (apparently noble prize winning) study where the researchers took fruit flies and forced the mutation of every gene and every possible combination of genes to see what would happen. Every possible mutation resulted in a dead or deformed fruit fly (deformed in ways that made them less fit). That is good evidence that fruit flies aren’t going to evolve into anything else. The fact that species adapt to their environment does not show that they adapt to their environment with increasing complexity–in fact, the opposite is (at least mostly) true. I could see how mutations might turn features “on” and “off” in species–the wingless insects, transported en masse back to the mainland, might have a mutation which brings back the wings which had been lost–but the creation of new, complex features by random chance and selection is something I think does not happen.
On the flip side, evolutionary biologists are well aware of the difficulty about the origin of a self-replication system. Rand pointed out something pretty interesting about a proposal that such a system might have started somehow in a mineral matrix of some sort, rather than in an organic soup. This theory apparently also would account for the number of amino acids that exist (is it 21?), the handedness of the biological molecules, and other things that are difficult to explain about life. I haven’t yet followed up and tried to understand what the heck they are talking about, but it sounds interesting.
I think we definitely see increasing fitness to the existing environment. However, changes tend to be a decrease rather than an increase in the overall organized genetic information in the species. For example consider the insects which adapted to a small windblown island by losing their wings. Being wingless made them more fit for their environment, since they were less likely to be blown to sea (and those not blown to sea survived to pass on their genes). But this actually constitutes a reduction in the genetic information, not increasing complexity.
I’m not sure what your point is, since I’m unaware of any proponent of evolution who claims that it leads to an increase in complexity. If any have done so, they are unacquainted with the concept.
That is precisely what I mean, or rather, that is orthodox Evolution in a nutshell. What exactly are you trying to say?
Evolutionists wave their hands and talk as if there were a recursive reinforcement of preceding accumulation of fitness characteristics with each generation. But, there isn’t. A member of a species which produces an offspring with an advantageous mutation does not have that offspring likely to produce two advantageous mutations, and his offspring four, and so on.
There is no quadratic convergence here of a Newton algorithm, or even super-linear of a secant algorithm. It is just a sifting algorithm, converging linearly (in a stochastic sense) with each generation. That’s not fast enough.
That is precisely what I mean, or rather, that is orthodox Evolution in a nutshell.
I am saying that you are sufficiently uninformed about evolution to think that that statement describes it “in a nutshell.”
If that is what you believe, then I think it is rather the converse. Lamarckianism was discredited eons ago.
If that is what you believe, then I think it is rather the converse. Lamarckianism was discredited eons ago.
I can’t imagine what mental defect could result in your interpreting anything I wrote as endorsing Lamarkianism.
Then, what are you saying? Standard Evolutionary theory is composed of two parts: 1) random mutation 2) natural selection. How does that conflict with your description of ‘if by “chance,” you mean random changes resulting in increasing fitness to the existing environment.’
Is Wiki an OK source? Do you have any problem with this description? They break it into three parts, but the first two are subsumed in my “random mutation” bullet.
That is the modern synthesis of Evolutionary theory as it stands today. You are barking up the wrong tree.
Standard Evolutionary theory is composed of two parts: 1) random mutation 2) natural selection. How does that conflict with your description of ‘if by “chance,” you mean random changes resulting in increasing fitness to the existing environment.
It doesn’t. I’m just trying to figure out what WTF it has to do with Lamarkianism. Because you attempted to make a connection to it.
Religion is a socially useful form of organization for many people. I don’t seem to have any need for it, but I can understand that many do. It’s useful.
But debates like this aren’t. Those of us with both a strictly rational world-view and no emotional need for religious belief will never be converted. We just don’t believe in magic and won’t compromise our beliefs for no tangible reward.
Conversely, we’re unlikely to make an irrational person rational, and the person who needs religion for emotional reasons will go to great lengths to defend that belief (for it is defense of the self, and self preservation is a very powerful instinct indeed). These two groups of people (the irrational and the needful) are pretty much beyond reach.
Further, it’s harmful to both the believer and the world to try to “convert” a person who needs religion to atheism. They really do need their faith, or they’ll collapse into despair. Most people psychologically need to believe in some “greater thing” in order to get out of bed in the morning, and belief in a generally benevolent and loving God (such as the Christian God) is certainly preferable to many of the alternative religions out there (both the mystical and secular).
Whenever I meet someone who seems to be “needing” something I recommend them to Catholic priest (’cause of they don’t find Catholicism the Marxists or Islamists mind find them). I figure this does both me and them a favor.
I couldn’t imagine whatever else you might have been trying to suggest. I figured you must not have been up to date, and had imbibed a popular misconception.
I’m not a biologist, and my scholarly record in that field is limited to high school disections. But I have had an awful lot of formal training in mathematics and I have read a number of popular books on Evolution, including several of Dawkins’ oeuvres. In fact, it was these that made me question the whole enterprise. Dawkins method of “proof” was to speculate on how something may have occurred under the Evolutionary paradigm, then suggest that this constituted proof that the detractors were wrong. It was very flaccid and left me wondering “That’s it? That’s all you’ve got?”
Life has been on this Earth for about 3.5 billion years. In that time, with many starts and stops and virtual extinctions between, we are asked to believe that the gazillions of mutations that were required to get from a trilobyte to a bear occured due to random chance combined with culling of the less robust offspring. 3.5 billion years sounds like a long time to lay people, but I work in large numbers all the time, and it does not appear to me to be a very large number at all. I could devise an algorithm that could not complete on the most modern supercomputer in 3.5 billion years practically in my sleep.
I do not discount the possiblity that I could be entirely off-base, that I simply have not delved deeply enough into the field to appreciate it. But, for the life of me, I cannot imagine any concrete consequence from my failure to do so, and I have far more interesting and important phenomena to investigate which do have concrete and immediate consequences.
So, I will continue to believe what I believe, while noting that there are a number of credentialed biologists who espouse similar views. That’s good enough for me. I just thought I’d share it with others and perhaps open up a stimulating new view for them if they previously had not explored it. If anyone doesn’t like it, I see no concrete consequence to me.
3.5 billion years sounds like a long time to lay people, but I work in large numbers all the time, and it does not appear to me to be a very large number at all. I could devise an algorithm that could not complete on the most modern supercomputer in 3.5 billion years practically in my sleep.
Whether 3.5 billion is a lot or not depends on context. What makes you think life is as complicated as the algorithm that cannot be completed in 3.5 billion years?
Life is extremely complicated. The number of possible combinations of nucleotides might as well be infinite. Personally, it strains my credulity that one can build up the incredible diversity of species we see with maybe a few random mutations one generation at a time, in finite populations, taking into account the fraction of those mutations which will be helpful as opposed to harmful for survival.
But hey, that’s just me and an assortment of better qualified cranks. Think whatever you want. It makes no difference.
The number of possible combinations of nucleotides might as well be infinite.
No, they are countable.
Personally, it strains my credulity that one can build up the incredible diversity of species we see with maybe a few random mutations one generation at a time, in finite populations, taking into account the fraction of those mutations which will be helpful as opposed to harmful for survival.
Such a limited viewpoint is your problem, not ours.
“Countable” and “infinite” are not mutually exclusive concepts. The set of integers is countable, but clearly infinite.
Au contraire, it is your viewpoint that is limited. You see trees, I see a forest.
But, in any case, I fail to see where it is a problem for me. The whole debate is a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
The set of integers is countable, but clearly infinite.
Computable, then, if that pleases you better. It is a finite number.
> The number of possible combinations of nucleotides might as well be infinite.
That’s not clear.
There are a lot of constraints. For example, a four pound DNA sequence probably isn’t workable.
It isn’t just “workable”, robust matters too. Viable sequences that are completely surrounded (mutation-wise) by unviable sequences don’t happen.
I’d bet that the space of reasonable sequences is actually fairly small. That said, I wouldn’t be surprised if there are plausible sequences that don’t happen because they didn’t happen early.
Sequences that are viable but not “close” to other viable sequences seem unlikely.
When you get to a googol, you might as well be talking infinity. That was my point. The number of years since life first appeared is also finite, so you have to factor that into your perspective.
I have forgotten some of the details so, the following may not be precisely right, but it should give an idea of the numbers involved. There are some 3 billion base pairs in the human genome. A base pair can be AT, TA, GC, or CG. I have forgotten the rules for building up the ladder – I do not recall if each successive link has four possibilities or three (something in the back of my mind says you can’t have TATA, but can have TAAT, but the memory is dim) but, let’s suppose each one has three possibilities. What is 3 to the 3 billionth power? 27 followed by a billion zeros, that’s what.
If you read over the thread, you will see that this is basically my point. I am suggesting there is an underlying mathematical structure which prevents Evolution from making too many false starts and divergences into non-viable forms. That is, Evolution, it appears to me, cannot be merely random mutation + SOTF but, in a strictly technical sense, must be a chaotic process with fractal geometry. It has structure. What I want to know is, what laws define that structure, and do they indeed favor viable lifeforms, and if so, why?
It should be obvious that knowledge of such an underlying structure could be of enormous benefit.
I am suggesting there is an underlying mathematical structure which prevents Evolution from making too many false starts and divergences into non-viable forms.
No, there’s an underlying history of evolution that does that.