tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post4367842738255903956..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Francis Collins on CompatibilityLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-56766943518241682014-03-20T14:37:38.768-04:002014-03-20T14:37:38.768-04:00If you dont have freewill then your opinion means ...If you dont have freewill then your opinion means nothing. How many other self refuting beliefs do yo hold? Maybe the world just magically designed itself. You believe in the eternal block universe as most atheists use? Then fine tuning means nothing-- as the nothing caused anything. Your opinion is an eternal accident frozen in reality and your consciousness just magically move along the fake timeline.<br /><br />Have you guys ever considered the price you have to pay to spew out this nonsense week after week. Oh yeah..there are no weeks. Its almost like you think you can talk the truth out of existence.<br /><br />Do you really believe all your incoherent ramblings are actually gonna carry any weight on the day(there are no days BTW) when you meet up with your worst fear? This ends very badly for you and all of you sense that. There is simply no other reason to pretend you actually have free opinions, actually believe you can change fixed frozen minds.<br /><br />I say make a list of all the things you Must believe to uphold your beliefs and see if they are not just a boatload of crazy. Just picture the eternal block universe with your 4 dimensionally extended person-hood, with all its fixed thoughts imprinted on reality with no cause, no reason for it to be there---just you following some magical script written for you by nothingness and somewhere on that squiggly line you making grandiose proclamations about how absurd everyone else is but you and your atheist friends who believe your not even real.<br /><br />After you have done that, after you have seen the price you must pay to accept such an incoherent mess, may be you can join the rest of humanity who are looking at you guys through the monkey bars, for the spectacle you are, as you throw poop at usJohn Burgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06021462296956618398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-71674323308830537972010-05-12T19:24:19.746-04:002010-05-12T19:24:19.746-04:00The claim is not that those four slides *prove* Go...<i>The claim is not that those four slides *prove* God or anything. Only that believing that will *not* prevent you from doing sound science.</i><br /><br />What if a biologist believes that<br />everything was created by God and that everything has a purpose. Might he not be wary of such concepts as junk DNA to the point of rejecting them--after all, if God created our genome, why would it contained useless DNA?<br /><br />Let's not forget Einstein's big blunder, which was due to his philosophical belief that the universe must be eternal, and so it could not be expanding or contracting.<br /><br />Personally, I doubt very much that god belief has no impact on one's ability to do good science.Robert Moranehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00706576618914923528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-38037268712974529192010-04-26T16:51:47.830-04:002010-04-26T16:51:47.830-04:00@ Lippard: Your response to my last comment, and y...@ Lippard: Your response to my last comment, and your comment to Larry, gave me a good chuckle.<br /><br />"The proposition that "God does not exist" (positive atheism) has a burden of proof just as theism does. [...] All scientists start by believing things without evidence, that's part of the human experience of initial learning."<br /><br />If i believe that the pythagorean theorem is true, i don't go around telling everyone "oh well, you know, believing the theorem isn't true has a burden of proof just as my belief does." Scientist do NOT, EVER, use the fact that they believe something as part of the evidence in support of that something. You're very confused to equate intuition with knowledge.<br /><br />Look, i'm sorry that my previous comment went over your head. The proposition that god doesn't exist is _your_ starting point to a scientific proof that god does exist. You must show that there are effects that "God exists" explains compared to god not existing. Of course your theory will yield testable predictions.<br /><br />Realize that what you're asking for is that after examining lightening, the charge difference, the work it can do, its magnetism, how it can be stored, and so forth, you think people should still be chanting "Thor! Thor!" until we've disproven Thor exists.Pausaniashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03729249155189095319noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-40929690937149895632010-04-23T18:33:01.556-04:002010-04-23T18:33:01.556-04:00Pausanius: The proposition that "God does not...Pausanius: The proposition that "God does not exist" (positive atheism) has a burden of proof just as theism does. Nonbelief (negative atheism) doesn't have a burden of proof. I agree with you that even if one could prove the existence of God, that wouldn't prove Christianity, though none of what you say seems to me to have anything to do with what I said.<br /><br />caynazzo: "The fact that all knowledge in science is tenuous and core religious beliefs are written in stone as it were is plenty of conflict right there." That doesn't demonstrate any conflict between science and religious belief. I can accurately say that there are logical and mathematical truths that are deductively proven but science doesn't deal in that kind of certainty; that doesn't establish a conflict between logic/math and science.<br /><br />You also write: "There are truths we may never hit upon because the universe may be infinite, and that's reasonable, but you don't go from that to saying therefore anything goes" -- I agree, good thing I didn't make that argument. By the way, the specific point I was making is that we *know* that there are truths that we cannot prove, not just because we haven't hit upon them. (Cf. Goedel's incompleteness theorems.)<br /><br />Larry: All scientists start by believing things without evidence, that's part of the human experience of initial learning.<br /><br />I'm not sure I understand your notion of "compatibility"--you seem to be saying that no one can believe anything except on the basis of science and thereby be "compatible" with science, even if nothing that they believe on a basis other than science contradicts anything that science has established. Am I misreading you?Lippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-17493777213493115912010-04-23T12:03:50.414-04:002010-04-23T12:03:50.414-04:00Jim Lippard says,
But such answers don't demo...Jim Lippard says,<br /><br /><i>But such answers don't demonstrate "incompatibility" of those propositions with the propositions of well-established science, as opposed to an incompatibility with an epistemic norm that says you should only believe propositions that are well-established by science.</i><br /><br />Science, as a way of knowing, is characterized by basing your knowledge on evidence, rationality, and skepticism. The skepticism part is as essential to science as the others.<br /><br />You don't start believing in something without evidence and you especially don't start basing your interpretation of the natural world on such acts of faith. That's not how science works. If you behave like then you are behaving in a manner that is incompatible with how science searches for knowledge. <br /><br />Nobody is saying that you should only accept propositions that are "well-established" by science. There's plenty of opportunity within science to develop hypotheses and to speculate.<br /><br />And nobody is saying that you are obliged to behave in a manner that's compatible with science. People can do whatever they want. They can believe in the tooth fairly, for all I care. What they can't do is claim that what they're doing is compatible with science. They should be honest enough to admit that. <br /><br>Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-51552280664622415172010-04-23T12:01:13.783-04:002010-04-23T12:01:13.783-04:00There is conflict when billions of people insist t...<i>There is conflict when billions of people insist that despite lack of scientific evidence for divine fine tuning, in addition to evidence to the contrary, fine tuning nonetheless remains central to their beliefs.</i><br /><br />The vast majority of those billions of people have never even heard of "fine tuning". They simply believe what their holy book tells them, that is, if they happen to both A) know how to read, B) have bothered to open it if they know how to readGeorgi Marinovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12226357993389417752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-17789051136713125282010-04-23T12:00:24.440-04:002010-04-23T12:00:24.440-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Georgi Marinovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12226357993389417752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-87409350299288640042010-04-23T11:55:16.237-04:002010-04-23T11:55:16.237-04:00Jim Lippard: "lack of evidence doesn't by...Jim Lippard: "lack of evidence doesn't by itself entail a "conflict" or contradiction."<br /><br />You are taking what was said out of context to make a general and trivial point. There is conflict when billions of people insist that despite lack of scientific evidence for divine fine tuning, in addition to evidence to the contrary, fine tuning nonetheless remains central to their beliefs. <br /><br />The fact that all knowledge in science is tenuous and core religious beliefs are written in stone as it were is plenty of conflict right there. <br /><br /><br />Jim Lippard: "We shouldn't expect that we have the ability to know all truths or even all truths that are provable--though we do know that the latter set doesn't include all of the former set."<br /><br />There are truths we may never hit upon because the universe may be infinite, and that's reasonable, but you don't go from that to saying therefore anything goes...from saying therefore this particular religious assertion is probable. It is not probable that humans were inevitable because God loves us.caynazzohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11263280738905977688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-64202017879513269582010-04-23T11:38:54.786-04:002010-04-23T11:38:54.786-04:00@ Pausanias
Very good point, however, what the ot...@ Pausanias<br /><br />Very good point, however, what the other side is going to tell you is that you are thinking like a scientists there, that it is faith that you need to have, and that siency stuff like null hypotheses does not apply to faith. <br /><br />Which is an explicitly anti-science position when you think about it, yet if you dress it up with sufficient amount of fancy language, it somehow passes as credible.Georgi Marinovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12226357993389417752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-2279622407735819482010-04-23T11:26:47.768-04:002010-04-23T11:26:47.768-04:00@ Lippard: does no one understand the null hypothe...@ Lippard: does no one understand the null hypothesis? If your hypothesis is that "god did it", then your null hypothesis is that god didn't do it. And the burden of proof is to show god. Atheists don't have to prove god doesn't exist, they just have to keep deists honest. (And as an addendum, showing god did it doesn't entail Jesus did--just statistically speaking, the odds that one specific religion's dogmas are all true is... beyond remote.)Pausaniashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03729249155189095319noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-24484328091614272732010-04-23T10:38:13.501-04:002010-04-23T10:38:13.501-04:00Larry: In the comments above, you wrote: "Wh...Larry: In the comments above, you wrote: "What I do claim is that believing in things without any supporting evidence whatsoever—and much contrary evidence—is not compatible with science." But your original post left out the "and much contrary evidence" part.Lippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-31458307622493779052010-04-23T10:30:11.186-04:002010-04-23T10:30:11.186-04:00I'd like to second Jean-Denis's point.
&q...I'd like to second Jean-Denis's point.<br /><br />"I think the answer to all six question is 'no,' therefore, believing those things conflicts with science."<br /><br />The inference here is a non sequitur without additional premises; lack of evidence doesn't by itself entail a "conflict" or contradiction. The further statement that "They are supposed to part of the natural, observable, universe and they should all be detectable, if they exist" is also not sufficient to produce a contradiction, nor is it clearly axiomatic. We shouldn't expect that we have the ability to know all truths or even all truths that are provable--though we do know that the latter set doesn't include all of the former set.<br /><br />This doesn't detract from your six questions--I think they are all important questions to ask, and "no" answers do give us reason to question why one should believe those things. But such answers don't demonstrate "incompatibility" of those propositions with the propositions of well-established science, as opposed to an incompatibility with an epistemic norm that says you should only believe propositions that are well-established by science. Such a norm faces the problem of its own justification, among others.Lippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-32409377094837201852010-04-22T19:20:48.709-04:002010-04-22T19:20:48.709-04:00Georgi Marinov: "They have been and they don&...Georgi Marinov: "They have been and they don't hold up to scientific scrutiny. So how so "miracles" support religion then?"<br /><br />I said they are an integral part of religion. Don't confuse an ought with an is.caynazzohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11263280738905977688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-83261660893333113582010-04-22T18:43:21.985-04:002010-04-22T18:43:21.985-04:00Collins goes on to describe this view as "The...<i>Collins goes on to describe this view as "Theistic Evolution." It could also be called the "New Creationism."</i><br /><br />holy crap, that's it!<br /><br />since people like Collins and Miller label their atheist detractors "New Atheists", isn't it time we start calling them...<br /><br />"New Creationists"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-72393744488287778262010-04-22T18:28:25.000-04:002010-04-22T18:28:25.000-04:00For believers, miracles are real-world occurrences...<i>For believers, miracles are real-world occurrences and as such can be subjected to scientific scrutiny, whereas a deistic god probably cannot.</i><br /><br />They have been and they don't hold up to scientific scrutiny. So how so "miracles" support religion then? <br /><br /><i>The distinction I'm trying to make is that when apologists and accommodationists insist that religion and science are different ways of knowing, they do so by intentionally ignoring a large part of religious belief. <br /><br />Just as these same people would attempt to restrict science to lab coats and pipettes, there is more to religion than faith assertions. Miracles are a vital and inseparable part.</i><br /><br />And a vital and inseparable part of why we think religion is nonsenseGeorgi Marinovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12226357993389417752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-18240858978796611962010-04-22T17:32:25.319-04:002010-04-22T17:32:25.319-04:00The theropod dinosaurs were only able to walk in t...<i>The theropod dinosaurs were only able to walk in their bent over position because of their large tails which provided balance. If, for some reason, the tails grew smaller as the brains became larger, continuing in the bent over position becomes untenable.</i><br /><br />Thats just the thing though, if their heads/brains grew larger, as a functional constraint their tails would probably be selected for greater length anyway. I think this is a much more likely scenario than convergence to humanoid-form.<br /><br />Look at crows too. They can use proto-tools (e.g. twigs) and are very intelligent. Not quite apelike in IQ, but it should be noted that they display no trending toward primate-like morphology.<br /><br />I'm sure Larry is loving all this adaptive story-telling.Ford Prefectnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-60051904698263749882010-04-22T16:28:46.397-04:002010-04-22T16:28:46.397-04:00Compatibility is a weak test and perhaps Collin...Compatibility is a weak test and perhaps Collin's beliefs pass this test. My question is to think of the space off all possible belief systems that are just as compatible, then ask "why is your story the true one, and not any of the others?" The bottom line is that there is no way of knowing. So there is clearly a lot more than compatibility going on here.<br /><br />Memes are the key to understanding why some "compatible belief systems are preferred over others, IMHO.theNaturalisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03409376022584034924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-45203966888690211912010-04-22T15:56:28.425-04:002010-04-22T15:56:28.425-04:00The distinction I'm trying to make is that whe...The distinction I'm trying to make is that when apologists and accommodationists insist that religion and science are different ways of knowing, they do so by intentionally ignoring a large part of religious belief. <br /><br />Just as these same people would attempt to restrict science to lab coats and pipettes, there is more to religion than faith assertions. Miracles are a vital and inseparable part.caynazzohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11263280738905977688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-11532677575245973342010-04-22T15:48:03.701-04:002010-04-22T15:48:03.701-04:00Georgi Marinov: "If someone wrote 2000 years ...Georgi Marinov: "If someone wrote 2000 years ago (actually later than that) that a miracle happened and nobody has ever seen one since then, then how is this evidence for miracles?"<br /><br />Faith in the religious sense, as I understand it, is applied to untestable claims, not testable ones, such as miracles. For believers, miracles are real-world occurrences and as such can be subjected to scientific scrutiny, whereas a deistic god probably cannot.caynazzohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11263280738905977688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-2515642960772276002010-04-22T14:48:44.986-04:002010-04-22T14:48:44.986-04:00Re Lewelly
The theropod dinosaurs were only able ...Re Lewelly<br /><br />The theropod dinosaurs were only able to walk in their bent over position because of their large tails which provided balance. If, for some reason, the tails grew smaller as the brains became larger, continuing in the bent over position becomes untenable.SLCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-12110473202204084072010-04-22T13:36:25.367-04:002010-04-22T13:36:25.367-04:001. An evolved Troodon might or might not bear some...<i>1. An evolved Troodon might or might not bear some resemblance to humanoids but, having only three fingers and three toes per appendage, they would, at least in that regard look different. I would think that they might have to bear at least some resemblance in order to support a human sized brain.<br /></i><br />There is also no reason to think an evolved Troodon would have an upright humanoid stance. The traditional raptor stance does just as well at freeing the hands for tool-work, it is more efficient for both walking and running (but especially running), and it is more stable (for running, walking, and standing). It worked very well for a huge variety of dinosaurs, (including modern birds), living in all sorts of different environments. (My apologies for this off-topic bit, but an "evolved Troodon" or other dinosaur is often depicted or assumed to have a humanoid stance, when in fact that is neither likely nor advantageous.)<br /><br><br />Since there are hundreds of billions of stars in the galaxy, and at least one science-doing species evolved, I can see why people think the evolution of a science-doing species is likely (but strictly speaking, humans have the ability to test that notion only in the weakest ways), but the "more-or-less like humans" depictions of science-doing species are a big leap from there. They remain widely used in part due to anthropocentrism, but also due to desperation; we have no other examples. (But other earth creatures, such as cephalopods, appear to provide some basis for extrapolating nonhuman intellects, though it seems unlikely that they represent genuine aliens any better than humans do.)llewellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16001213921499191213noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-85619229810893263022010-04-22T13:30:44.331-04:002010-04-22T13:30:44.331-04:00Miracles are a class of phenomena supported not on...<i>Miracles are a class of phenomena supported not on faith but evidence.</i><br /><br />Miracles are supported by evidence????<br /><br />Where is that evidence?<br /><br />If someone wrote 2000 years ago (actually later than that) that a miracle happened and nobody has ever seen one since then, then how is this evidence for miracles?Georgi Marinovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12226357993389417752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-67515830062545003872010-04-22T13:30:08.396-04:002010-04-22T13:30:08.396-04:00ERV: "However I was specifically instructed n...ERV: "However I was specifically instructed not to start shit with Collins (seeing/meeting him in June)."<br /><br />I've met him in person once. He's a charismatic, quirky man and was an excellent scientist. <br /><br />I'm embarrassed to say his charm took the fight out of me. Stay strong!caynazzohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11263280738905977688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-10282119023423227722010-04-22T13:22:10.176-04:002010-04-22T13:22:10.176-04:00Georgi Marinov: "There is no common ground be...Georgi Marinov: "There is no common ground between "I am sure X is true because I have faith in it" and "I think that the evidence in support of X being true is quite compelling so I will consider X true until shown otherwise"<br /><br />That's only half of it. Religion, any religion, doesn't limit itself only to faith as a way of knowing.<br /><br />Miracles are a class of phenomena supported not on faith but evidence. Faith is required for things unseen and unknown, miracles are neither. They actually happen(ed), or so it is said.caynazzohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11263280738905977688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-77286567598039769502010-04-22T13:15:53.135-04:002010-04-22T13:15:53.135-04:00He has also probably saved millions of lives...and...<i>He has also probably saved millions of lives...and has certainly contributed more to the advancement of knowledge than most scientists ever will...</i><br />LOL, wut? Name one life Collins has 'saved'. Theres no cure for CF. Theres no cure for Huntingtons. And what precisely, did he personally contribute to 'the advancement of knowledge'? The human genome? Which Venter also did (cheaper and faster)?<br /><br />I can name hundreds of scientists I respect <i>for their scientific accomplishments</i> more than Collins.<br /><br /><i>Anyone would be intimidated by that, students in particular.</i><br />'Intimidation' is not a word I would use for my approach to Collins. 'Annoyed'. 'Irritated'. '*eyeroll* inducing'. 'Unimpressed'. Not 'intimidated'.<br /><br />However I was specifically instructed not to start shit with Collins (seeing/meeting him in June).ERVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02070086354372691880noreply@blogger.com