Dawkins in Tubridy this morning

ronbyrne2005

Just caught a bit of this, you can listen later on the website. Some guy from indo claiming that matter is proof of god and aethism = determinism. Glad im agnostic as these defenders of religon and total atheism use concepts so remote to the average person as to make understanding of a debate difficult unless you've read widely on the subject. Better just to live life and forget about the origins of your existence as trying to discover it is futile.

Dades

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

Glad im agnostic as these defenders of religon and total atheism use concepts so remote to the average person as to make understanding of a debate difficult unless you've read widely on the subject.

Why would the fact that these people use difficult concepts make you glad you are agnostic?

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

Better just to live life and forget about the origins of your existence as trying to discover it is futile.

I would think atheism is less about discovering the origins of existence and more about rebuking the origins as purported by others.

8kvscdpglqnyr4

Here's a link:
http://www.rte.ie/radio1/thetubridyshow/rams/2006/9october.smil

From approx 8 mins onwards

guildofevil

Now I remember why I don't read the Indo. What an overbearing git. All he was interested in was the sound of his own voice.

Dades

Darwin Slow Hazel wrote:

Here's a link:
http://www.rte.ie/radio1/thetubridyshow/rams/2006/9october.smil

Thanks Darwin Slow Hazel,

Although I too have a vein busting in my head listening to that David Quinn chap. Some balls on him though, suggesting to Richard Dawkins he go off and do some research. Still wondering where the straw men got to.

IFX

The Atheist wrote:

Thanks divil_a_bit,

Although I too have a vein busting in my head listening to that David Quinn chap. Some balls on him though, suggesting to Richard Dawkins he go off and do some research. Still wondering where the straw men got to.

I actually think Quinn came off better, considering his case is much harder to argue.

pH

First, I never listen to Tubridy, but could someone who does let me know, is it usual that when an author is promoting a book and does an interview that he gets someone of an opposing point of view to argue against him?

For example if Gordon Ramsey was doing an interview to promote 'Sunday Lunch' would Ryan line up a food critic to say his food tastes like crap and he's an awful chef (as part of the interview).

If he does then fair enough, but if Dawkins was singled out for this kind of 'defend your work' interview and nobody else is then that, to be frank is complete bollox.

So is this usual procedure on Tubridy's show or was Dawkins singled out? Dawkins certainly didn't seem to be expecting this and seemed to get a little annoyed during the interview.

5uspect

Well i suppose RTE has to maintain a balance so any discussion of a book about atheism must be balanced by a beliver. Of course we don't have the opposite when RTE does its religious rubbish. I guess someone decided that to prevent complaints that they better get a christian is quick.

The thing that got me most about Quinn was that Dawkins started off by saying that he doesn't really have too much of a problem with the deist view (apart from it being atheism in wishy washy language) but his book deals with theism. So Tuberity asked Quinn for proof of this, i.e. proof that the christian theist god is real and the gobsh!te rants on about deist a idea of god being the creator. He never addressed any of the christian dogmas or any belief but tried to indirectly justify them by applying god to whatever it is the science can't explain. Which goes to show that he hasn't really read the book.

Maybe we should petition RTE to show Jonathan Millers Rough History of Disbelief in odrer to restore the stations independent balance.

bus77

The Atheist wrote:

Why would the fact that these people use difficult concepts make you glad you are agnostic?

I would think atheism is less about discovering the origins of existence and more about rebuking the origins as purported by others.

The Atheist, It may suprise you. But some people actually try and find a solution to what yous are rowing about.

Schuhart

Dawkins was crap, which is what happens when he gets cranky. If fairness, I’m not saying I’d do any better. But if religion is a virus, then applying a weak antidote only leaves the worst bits behind to grow strong again.

Saying free will is not a big issue to him is like the kind of dodging that theists do when they shrug nonchalantly about some piece of obtuse belief and say only God/Allah/Ganesha knows. The free will issue is not that hard to get your head around. If the world is purely material, operating to natural laws, then every moment that has happened since including me typing this post was determined at the start. The physical makeup of me and all of you determine what happens next in this thread. Any feeling that we are choosing out of free will to reply, ignore or just lose interest and watch a DVD is as much an illusion as theism.

If, on the other hand, we say there is free will, then it means that something can act outside of that physical determination. So if you want to keep that feeling of free will, you have to explain what that thing is. I think it’s an irony when you see theists arguing their corner on the basis of the order in the universe. If there is a deity, it’s to be found in freedom, disorder and illogic.

On the origins of the universe, he could have mentioned the reasonable success in developing theories that take the universe from a fraction of a second after creation. On the ‘unmoved mover’ I think the strongest counter argument is to point out the long distance between that and saying that same ‘unmoved mover’ gave Moses ten commandments, fathered a son who came back from the dead and/or sent Gabriel to whisper a book to Mohammed. The ‘unmoved mover’ could be some kind of free thinking entity that could be classed as a god – or could just be a physical process that we don’t understand. I think the wonder of why this unmoved mover would be interested in individual humans and their doings is well caught, ironically, by the conservative Catholic writer Hilaire Belloc in this story.

The Atheist wrote:

I would think atheism is less about discovering the origins of existence and more about rebuking the origins as purported by others.

Ultimately, it has to be more than that. People have to take that knowledge and sort out where it leaves them. I agree with Dawkins when he says it’s about a search for truth. Equally, I acknowledge that there is no reason why we should expect that we have the intellectual wherewithal to be able to find that truth.

(Pedant point – did you mean refuting or rebuking?)

nitrogen

A quote from the guy from the Indo:

"If you're an Atheist, logically you can't believe in objective morality. You can not believe in freewill.

An Atheist believes we are controlled by our genes and make no free actions at all."

What a load of bull****. Makes me glad I live here in the UK. You wouldn't get that kind of christian bullying on most radio/tv shows here.

Schuhart

nitrogen wrote:

"If you're an Atheist, logically you can't believe in objective morality.

We know that, in fact, its possible to have a discussion about whether God is moral or not, so indeed the man from the Indo is off beam.

nitrogen wrote:

You can not believe in freewill. An Atheist believes we are controlled by our genes and make no free actions at all."

Here he's on stronger ground - if we forgive his use of the word 'genes' and replace it with something like 'material laws' or Scotty's famous 'Ye Cannot Change the Laws of Physics'. In fairness to the man from the Indo, he does widen the scope of what he's saying when Dawkins points out that genes don't determine everything.

nitrogen wrote:

What a load of bull****. Makes me glad I live here in the UK. You wouldn't get that kind of christian bullying on most radio/tv shows here.

I don't think, ultimately, the guy from the Indo is arguing the right case. But I'd be bothered if I was living in an environment where his view was excluded from the media.

pH

Well it seems then that freewill is a dead duck, if there's an omniscient deity there's no free will ... and according to the Indo guy - if there is no God, then free will can't exist either.

It's strange, but ever since the first tick of the universe I have been destined to post this, In fact I can't help myself.

I'm being controlled by my molecules ...

nitrogen

Having listened to the full interview now, Dawkins only came off badly because NO OTHER AUTHOR would get bullied like that. A religious or philosophical author would not get that type of treatment on national airwaves if being interviewed about their latest book.

nitrogen

Schuhart wrote:

I don't think, ultimately, the guy from the Indo is arguing the right case. But I'd be bothered if I was living in an environment where his view was excluded from the media.

I agree. But, his Cosmological argument (First cause) was a bit old hat.

I think my point was, that I'm glad I live in a post christian country (Despite the UK officially being Christian); I don't have to listen to guys like Quinn regulary recite the obvious jargon, just because a balance may be needed as the Irish public are listening.

pH

Well, If Dawkins had been invited to a debate (or indeed been expecting one) and had read up on the opponent he may have done better. I've no idea what he expected, but when authors promote a book they to 1000's of radio/tv/newspaper 'interviews' one after another. Normally these are not debates, yes some hosts can sometimes be tougher than others but in general the author is questioned about their book.

Like I said before, I don't listen to RT so I'm not certain, but generally this doesn't happen (it may on his show, but until someone says it happens all the time I'll remain skeptical).

Dawkins point about morality was far too subtle for that Neanderthal, if you decide what parts of the bible to use for your 'morality' then you are not using the Bible for morality at all! You already 'know' right from wrong (as it were) and choose the 'right' bits from the Bible and automatically disregard the 'wrong' ones.

Scofflaw

Schuhart wrote:

Saying free will is not a big issue to him is like the kind of dodging that theists do when they shrug nonchalantly about some piece of obtuse belief and say only God/Allah/Ganesha knows. The free will issue is not that hard to get your head around. If the world is purely material, operating to natural laws, then every moment that has happened since including me typing this post was determined at the start. The physical makeup of me and all of you determine what happens next in this thread. Any feeling that we are choosing out of free will to reply, ignore or just lose interest and watch a DVD is as much an illusion as theism.

Surely that's only the case if there is no randomness? If there are any genuinely random events, the whole determined-in-advance idea goes out the window.

However, if you treat time simply as a dimension, then everything, even what is random, even what is free will, is still determined "in advance" - it is the term "in advance" that has no real meaning.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dades

The Atheist
I would think atheism is less about discovering the origins of existence and more about rebuking the origins as purported by others.

bus77 wrote:

The Atheist, It may suprise you. But some people actually try and find a solution to what yous are rowing about.

It may surprise you, bus77, that those people are actually called scientists, not atheists.

Schuhart

Scofflaw wrote:

Surely that's only the case if there is no randomness? If there are any genuinely random events, the whole determined-in-advance idea goes out the window.

However, if you treat time simply as a dimension, then everything, even what is random, even what is free will, is still determined "in advance" - it is the term "in advance" that has no real meaning.

For purposes of discussion, I’d say we’d have to initially take the option that at least allows the possibility for randomness.

It’s a question of what does randomness mean. Does it mean something is actually unpredictable – or just we haven’t the wherewithal in terms of perception or intellect to predict it?

Roll back the universe to the start, and roll it forward. Either all the events you see are determined by whatever processes are at work, or they are not. If not, we’re saying there is some property that insulates certain things/feelings whatever from those processes. It might be randomness, or it might be free will (and I’m not suggesting the two are identical – just subject to the same issue in this context).

Put another way, it’s obviously silly to ask what ‘causes’ randomness. But a legitimate query is what insulates randomness from the need for a cause. ‘It just is’ suggests that there is something outside the laws of the universe. It doesn’t mean that thing has a long white beard, sits on a throne and hurls thunderbolts at sinners. But it does head in that direction.

On the other hand, we might consider something like the idea of the Turing test. If we ever built a robot that was able to respond in every way like a human, would that computer not be a perfect simulation of the human mind. Yet, it would not have free will as it would simple be running its affairs in whatever way its programming determined.

Final thought is does our attachment to the idea of free will have its origins in us considering ourselves to independent thinkers. It’s all a little sad to have to admit that its all down to something that could be reproduced under laboratory conditions. Which should give some insight into what keeps theists hanging on in there.

bus77

The Atheist wrote:

It may surprise you, bus77, that those people are actually called scientists, not atheists.

Tell Dawkins that then.

pH

Schuhart wrote:

On the other hand, we might consider something like the idea of the Turing test. If we ever built a robot that was able to respond in every way like a human, would that computer not be a perfect simulation of the human mind. Yet, it would not have free will as it would simple be running its affairs in whatever way its programming determined.

There is a school of thought (Compatibilists - Thomas Hobbes was one) who would argue that determinism is compatible with free will, as long as the machine can (and does) make a decision on its own, from a number of (non-coerced) alternatives.

So when TGFTI (the guy from the indo) says that if you don't believe in God therefore you're a determinist therefore you don't believe in free will - Dawkins knows he's either dealing with an uneducated idiot or a liar. Many very clever and educated people have rejected that claim, and despite what TGFTI says it's not a proven point that belief in determinism means that you can't also believe in free will.

But what can he do?

He's got a few minutes to discuss the book, or he could be sidetracked into a pointless debate about determinsm, combatibilism and free will. It's not the central point that Dawkins is raising it's a side issue of little importance (to Dawkins)

He'd probably bore the listenership to death if he tried, and he knows he's dealing with either a deliberate liar or an uneducated fool, so whatever Dawkins said he could just make up more lies.

Or he can concede the point, let TGFTI seem to best Dawkins easily on a radio debate which isn't great a great outcome either - he knows he can't win it's lose/lose - no wonder he sounds annoyed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

Dades

bus77 wrote:

Tell Dawkins that then.

You tell him, if you can put into words the point you're trying to make.
Because I have no idea what it is.

Schuhart

pH wrote:

There is a school of thought (Compatibilists - Thomas Hobbes was one) who would argue that determinism is compatible with free will, as long as the machine can (and does) make a decision on its own, from a number of (non-coerced) alternatives.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

That's a useful link, and it will take a while to digest it all. My first reaction is just a wonder if the issue might be defined out existance.

I see the essence of free will as being the possibility that a person would react in different ways when presented with the same set of circumstances. An independent process that cannot change its course does not seem to be free will.

Scofflaw

Schuhart wrote:

That's a useful link, and it will take a while to digest it all. My first reaction is just a wonder if the issue might be defined out existance.

I see the essence of free will as being the possibility that a person would react in different ways when presented with the same set of circumstances. An independent process that cannot change its course does not seem to be free will.

It would be extremely difficult to test such a definition empirically, I think, since one absolutely cannot present the same set of circumstances twice if the time of presentation is a factor.

It is interesting to consider, however, that one can predict in advance with some certainly how given individuals will react to specified events - indeed, much of our brain appears to be concerned with making just such mental models of people.

If the universe is mechanically deterministic, it would seem impossible for there to be such a thing as "character", since the outcomes of any individual's choices would be determined in advance by mechanical factors external to that person.

cordially,
Scofflaw

pH

Schuhart wrote:

That's a useful link, and it will take a while to digest it all. My first reaction is just a wonder if the issue might be defined out existance.

I see the essence of free will as being the possibility that a person would react in different ways when presented with the same set of circumstances. An independent process that cannot change its course does not seem to be free will.

Yes, a lot of people (some of them quite smart) have spent considerable time and effort thinking about this.

Debates about free will, interesting as they are will eventually turn to defining exactly what free will is. My intention on this thread was not really to debate the existence of free will, but to point out that Dawkins was faced with a lose/lose situation when TGFTI made his assertion about NO God = No Free Will.

Schuhart

Scofflaw wrote:

It would be extremely difficult to test such a definition empirically, I think, since one absolutely cannot present the same set of circumstances twice if the time of presentation is a factor.

Absolutely. You wake up and its Groundhog Day again, but maybe the fact you remember how the last one turns out means you'll behave differently in the face of the same objective situation.

On the wider issue, I'm going to shut up for a bit until I've got my head around the wikipedia link. Its clear much the same concerns have been well chewed over by everyone from Hobbes to Hindus.

ronbyrne2005

The origins and nature of the universe could be/probably is completely incomprehendable to us and no amount of philosophy and logic and physics and theology etc can/could explain it to our brains/mind/perceptions. This is what annoys me about people who hold their views/beliefs as certainties. As someone famous said the universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine. Maybe a "creator" created the universe as a random system over which "he" has little control apart from setting the initial conditions in place, of course people will say that in creating initial conditions he set up a mechanically deterministic system but maybe he could create a completely random system if randomness is truly possible and not just a description of outcomes etc.

guildofevil

Either we have free will, or we have the illusion of free will, created by a system that, while deterministic, is so complex that events cannot, practically, be predicted.

Makes no difference really.

Let the philosophers and theologians debate free will until they have tied themselves up into mental knots. I don't care. It's no more relevant to our lives than the question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Dades

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

The origins and nature of the universe could be/probably is completely incomprehendable to us and no amount of philosophy and logic and physics and theology etc can/could explain it to our brains/mind/perceptions. This is what annoys me about people who hold their views/beliefs as certainties.

I agree. However it is my contention that the only people who hold such views as certainty are theists of immovable faith.

guildofevil wrote:

Let the philosophers and theologians debate free will until they have tied themselves up into mental knots. I don't care. It's no more relevant to our lives than the question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

What he said.

Schuhart

In one sense, you’re right. Even if we ultimately determine conclusively that we don’t have free will, however defined, it’s not as if we can then choose to change that. At the same time, these points do have a relevance – even if its just because these points will be raised by people seeking to find a flaw in an atheist outlook.

Perhaps, strictly speaking, there is no atheist outlook. On the other hand, if atheism simply consists of pointing out that claims like Moses got ten commandments on stone tablets, Jesus came back from the dead and Gabriel recited a book to Mohammed are bunk, it runs out of things to talk about pretty quickly.

It may well be that enquiry into the nature of the universe and how we function within it just fall to be dealt with by science, with no particular engagement with people in general. However, faced with that vacuum I think its time to lose the sense of wonder about why many retain a theist outlook.

Binomate

Sounded like a debate between a twat and C3-PO.

Dades

Nothing to see here.

Schuhart

The Atheist wrote:

Nothing to see here.

Is, indeed, pretty much where it leaves us.

Scofflaw

Schuhart wrote:

Atheist wrote:

Nothing to see here.

Is, indeed, pretty much where it leaves us.

Actually, I think that may have been in relation to use of the Smite key (see the note under binomate's name). It's incident tape, rather than a philosophical conclusion.


cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Schuhart wrote:

In one sense, you’re right. Even if we ultimately determine conclusively that we don’t have free will, however defined, it’s not as if we can then choose to change that. At the same time, these points do have a relevance – even if its just because these points will be raised by people seeking to find a flaw in an atheist outlook.

On the other hand, it isn't specifically a logical flaw in the atheist position. I must admit, I suspect that the question as to whether we have free will, or only the appearance of it, may not make any sense.

Schuhart wrote:

Perhaps, strictly speaking, there is no atheist outlook. On the other hand, if atheism simply consists of pointing out that claims like Moses got ten commandments on stone tablets, Jesus came back from the dead and Gabriel recited a book to Mohammed are bunk, it runs out of things to talk about pretty quickly.

Atheism, surely, is more like a starting point rather than either a journey or a destination.

Schuhart wrote:

It may well be that enquiry into the nature of the universe and how we function within it just fall to be dealt with by science, with no particular engagement with people in general. However, faced with that vacuum I think its time to lose the sense of wonder about why many retain a theist outlook.

I agree. Strictly speaking, neither Atheism nor Science answer the question "why are we here?" except with a shrug. Again, one is a starting point free of gods, and the other is a tool of physical enquiry.

Personally speaking, I never found the idea of being part of God's Great Plan satisfying or meaningful in any way - it just punts the question of meaning up a couple of levels. But then, I'm self-employed, so I suppose that's just part of my nature...

I do find the utter lack of "objective" (externally imposed) meaning very liberating. One is free to turn the whole question on its head, and impose one's own meaning on a blank canvas. I suspect I too would survive the Total Perspective Vortex.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dades

Scofflaw wrote:

Actually, I think that may have been in relation to use of the Smite key (see the note under binomate's name). It's incident tape, rather than a philosophical conclusion.

Heh, for the record Binomate isn't actually banned - just confusing the rest of us with his home-made monikor description.

Schuhart wrote:

Perhaps, strictly speaking, there is no atheist outlook. On the other hand, if atheism simply consists of pointing out that claims like Moses got ten commandments on stone tablets, Jesus came back from the dead and Gabriel recited a book to Mohammed are bunk, it runs out of things to talk about pretty quickly.

You could say atheists don't believe in nothing - they believe in anything. Maybe thats why having determined their own stance with respect to religion they never shut up talking about stuff that is not within the remit of their chosen pigeonhole.

ianmc38

Life is rigged.

Beruthiel

Scofflaw wrote:

Strictly speaking, neither Atheism nor Science answer the question "why are we here?"

Why does there have to be a reason for our existance?

robindch

> Why does there have to be a reason for our existance?

There doesn't have to be one -- humans are intrinsically motive-seeking and have a tendency to think that there must be some overall motive to life, the universe and everything, when their assumption that there is, might actually be wrong.

Anyhow, what happens is that religion turns up banging on the front door, says that there is a meaning (coincidentally, one which vastly inflates the importance of humans), which it then goes on to provide in incomprehensibe, contradictory and interminable terms, while slagging off horrible, boring old fact-based science for not being able to speak in as glowing terms as it. All a bit predictable, really!

Asiaprod

The Atheist wrote:

You could say atheists don't believe in nothing - they believe in anything.

That's an interesting idea.

Schuhart

Scofflaw wrote:

I do find the utter lack of "objective" (externally imposed) meaning very liberating. One is free to turn the whole question on its head, and impose one's own meaning on a blank canvas.

robindch wrote:

humans are intrinsically motive-seeking and have a tendency to think that there must be some overall motive to life, the universe and everything, when their assumption that there is, might actually be wrong.

Just to be clear, its not that I expect the universe to have some intrinsic meaning or purpose – why should it? And I’d agree the idea that humans are as clever a creature as we’re ever likely to come across is actually something that brings a lot of potential. What I find interesting is exploration of where that leads.

aidan24326

robindch wrote:

> Why does there have to be a reason for our existance?

There doesn't have to be one -- humans are intrinsically motive-seeking and have a tendency to think that there must be some overall motive to life, the universe and everything, when their assumption that there is, might actually be wrong.

We are inherently motive-seeking yes, I don't know if you could say we're intrinsically motive-seeking though. That's probably an argument for the philosophy forum.

But it is surely the case that there doesn't have to be a reason for our existence. In looking for a 'reason' for the universe being here (as a necessary precursor to our own existence) we are foisting a construct of the human mind onto a universe that in all likelihood does not concern itself with such matters. This is the problem we will always encounter when considering phenomena that are outside and beyond our own tangible experience. Our brain is conditioned into understanding what our own 5 senses 'ordinarily' encounter, with a bit left over for abstract reasoning. This may make the human quest for an ultimate 'reason' or 'purpose' largely futile. Either there isn't one, which is probably the case, or if there is it is likely to be something beyond the scope of what we can understand (that's not to necessarily say that we could never understand, just that we would still be a long way from any such ability).

Scofflaw

aidan24326 wrote:

We are inherently motive-seeking yes, I don't know if you could say we're intrinsically motive-seeking though. That's probably an argument for the philosophy forum.

But it is surely the case that there doesn't have to be a reason for our existence. In looking for a 'reason' for the universe being here (as a necessary precursor to our own existence) we are foisting a construct of the human mind onto a universe that in all likelihood does not concern itself with such matters. This is the problem we will always encounter when considering phenomena that are outside and beyond our own tangible experience. Our brain is conditioned into understanding what our own 5 senses 'ordinarily' encounter, with a bit left over for abstract reasoning. This may make the human quest for an ultimate 'reason' or 'purpose' largely futile. Either there isn't one, which is probably the case, or if there is it is likely to be something beyond the scope of what we can understand (that's not to necessarily say that we could never understand, just that we would still be a long way from any such ability).

Confusion is easy to generate. If I say "we need meaning", many will take this statement as being equivalent to "there has to be a meaning". The two are not equivalent.

1. We (us, humans, most of us) need (desire, would like to have, find important) meaning (some reason for our existence, some purpose to our lives). This, I think, is easily demonstrable, and I believe it to be the truth.

2. There has to be (it is necessary that there be, there cannot not be, universally necessary) a (one single, specific, universally applicable) meaning (some reason for our existence, some purpose to our lives). This is not easily demonstrated, and I think it's completely untrue.

Meaning is easy to provide, though. Consider the question - is art meaningful to the artist? Your life is a blank canvas, you are the artist. Splash out!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dave!

Isn't it great how a scientist isn't allowed to say "I don't know", or else the default alternative answer is god...? What is it with religious people that they don't realise the on-going, endless nature of science?

I would think that it's a relatively easy concept to grasp -- that we're still learning about the universe...

robindch

> We are inherently motive-seeking yes, I don't know if you could say we're
> intrinsically motive-seeking though. That's probably an argument for the
> philosophy forum.

Having just checked up the difference between intrinsic and inherent, I stand corrected on this point. And even if I'm not yet quite sure what the precise philosophical difference is between 'em, I'm completely sure that discussion of it is best left to our friends in the philosophy forum

> Our brain is conditioned into understanding what our own 5 senses
> 'ordinarily' encounter, with a bit left over for abstract reasoning. This may
> make the human quest for an ultimate 'reason' or 'purpose' largely futile.
> Either there isn't one, which is probably the case, or if there is it is likely to
> be something beyond the scope of what we can understand

It's not clear to me why you jump from saying that there isn't one, to saying that there might be one, but we can't understand it. What about the option that there is one and we can understand it?

But again, the question seems largely pointless anyway. What's the reason for the color red, or the moon? They just are. Same as we seem to be.

Scofflaw

In respect of the discussion about free will, and knowing that we have some physicists about the place, perhaps one of them would like to read this paper and comment:

THE FREE WILL THEOREM

As far as I can see (as a non-physicist), they are using entangled particles to show that the information-state of one of the entangled particles after an experimenter measures the state of the other is not directly dependent on the information available to the particle immediately prior to the experiment - that the state at time t1 does not flow directly from the state at time t0.

The authors conclude that this allows for free will rather than determinism, and I would tend to agree - but then I wouldn't spot flaws in the theory.

Actually, now I come to think about it, how does a completely deterministic universe operate as a single 'machine', when any particle in the universe can only be impacted by events occurring within its own past light cone?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Son Goku

Scofflaw wrote:

In respect of the discussion about free will, and knowing that we have some physicists about the place, perhaps one of them would like to read this paper and comment:

THE FREE WILL THEOREM

It caused quite a stir in when they released it, but it would appear that he is correct. If a human experimenter has the ability to act even slightly independently of what occurred in the past (i.e. can break determinism) then Quantum Mechanics forces you to accept that particles have free will as well.
Of course it is a "dumb" free will, the particles can't choose what to do, they can simply do things slightly independent of their past.
As people have said it is more like "Free whim". Regardless however it is a bizarre consequence of QM. My second favourite after the QM Zeno paradox (possibly the most confusing thing in QM).

Scofflaw wrote:

Actually, now I come to think about it, how does a completely deterministic universe operate as a single 'machine', when any particle in the universe can only be impacted by events occurring within its own past light cone?

It can't really, it's a consequence of General Relativity that the universe is really a collection of neighbourhoods. Particles in the Milky Way are only influenced by Andromeda particles in their, by now, 2 million year old state. Andromeda "now" is a completely untouchable independent system.
Add to this the fact that what makes up the machine is different to each part of the machine and you get more complications.
(e.g. If somebody is travelling at a constant speed in a vacuum, they see a vacuum. However somebody accelerating greatly will see dense swarm of particles.)

Zombrex

DaveMcG wrote:

Isn't it great how a scientist isn't allowed to say "I don't know", or else the default alternative answer is god...? What is it with religious people that they don't realise the on-going, endless nature of science?.

Someone interviewd on Penn and Tellers "Bullsh!t" series tackled this breifly.

She said that to a theist who believes in the literal Bible (for example) everything has to be correct. Any sign of uncertaintly is a sign that the Bible isn't the literal word of God, it isn't all know, and therefore cannot stand on its own.

Almost without thinking theists apply this same type of thought to science, and thing that is in doubt or is unknown is a sign that science isn't all knowing. What they don't realise is that science doesn't claim to be all knowing, unlike the Bible.

Zombrex

Schuhart wrote:

Dawkins was crap, which is what happens when he gets cranky. If fairness, I’m not saying I’d do any better. But if religion is a virus, then applying a weak antidote only leaves the worst bits behind to grow strong again.

Saying free will is not a big issue to him is like the kind of dodging that theists do when they shrug nonchalantly about some piece of obtuse belief and say only God/Allah/Ganesha knows.

I think Dawkins is just not very good at arguing on his feet or anticipating the type of questions theists ask, probably because Dawkins doesn't think like a theist

Quinn can quite bizzarely state that the existence of matter is the evidence for God, and when pressed just say that such a statement is simply obvious, cause and effect. I mean how do you argue that beyond "no it isn't" If Quinn won't accept that not only is his logic flawed but he actually doesn't have any logic there in the first place Dawkins might just as well be arguing with a brick wall.

Dawkins doesn't know how to argue that because its nonsense to start with. All Dawkins can do is point out that that is nonsense, and then looks like he is being dismissive.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

I think Dawkins is just not very good at arguing on his feet or anticipating the type of questions theists ask, probably because Dawkins doesn't think like a theist

Quinn can quite bizzarely state that the existence of matter is the evidence for God, and when pressed just say that such a statement is simply obvious, cause and effect. I mean how do you argue that beyond "no it isn't" If Quinn won't accept that not only is his logic flawed but he actually doesn't have any logic there in the first place Dawkins might just as well be arguing with a brick wall.

Dawkins doesn't know how to argue that because its nonsense to start with. All Dawkins can do is point out that that is nonsense, and then looks like he is being dismissive.

On the other hand, if he's going to set himself up as an evangelistic atheist, he needs to be able to predict/understand theistic thinking.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

On the other hand, if he's going to set himself up as an evangelistic atheist, he needs to be able to predict/understand theistic thinking.

True, and I don't think Dawkins is very good at that. If I had to pick one evangelistic atheists I wouldn't pick Dawkins.