Richard Dawkins

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

The odds that these initial conditions would just happen to fall into the life permitting range is 10^10^123 (ten raised to the power of ten raised to the power of 123)

No it isn't

This, getting some what back on topic, highlights the problem with people like Craig who do take that number to mean just as you said and then repeat this to people who really should know better.

The probability of our universe arising is unknown because we do not understand the process that caused our universe. Let me say that again, it is UNKNOWN

Penrose's figure is the upper limit of a possible phase space, that is if you take it that any of these values can have any number in any range you will come up with this number.

To put it simply we don't know if the universe came about from the roll of a 6 sided dice or a 6000000000000000 sided dice. Until we do it is impossible to assess the probability of any individual universe.

This is all actually explained in that article you linked to.

And of course is utterly ignored by people like Craig and other creationists and IDers who are not in any way interested in truth, just interested in giving the impression that their position is correct to people who should really know better but apparently don't.

Morbert

Soulwinner, are you deliberately ignoring me?

Roger Penrose talks about the probability of constants as an argument against the simple thermodynamic view of early cosmology and explicitly says in his book, "Road to Reality", that gravity is needed to have a better picture. In other words, the probabilities reflect the incompleteness of the standard model and the omission of a proper quantum treatment of gravity, not an incredulous testament to a knob tweaker.

Who stole the cookies from the cookie jar?
I don't know so it must be God.

robindch

Wicknight wrote: »

Penrose's figure is the upper limit of a possible phase space [...]

Not to sling mud at the guy who came up with the elegantly geeky Penrose Tesselation -- something I'm hoping to include in the tilework for my new kitchen, btw -- I should point out that not only does Penrose appear to have some sympathy towards the nonsensical "fine-tuning" argument, but he's also one of the most capable of the current opponents of Strong AI, his view being that consciousness is non-algorithmic and therefore, can never be implemented using a Turing machine (basically, any computer).

These two unfortunately suggest that he suffers from a strong intentionalist bias in his thinking. Which is a pity, since he's clearly a very smart chap.

vodafoneproblem

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The problem is basically this:
Link to the_flake_equation

No matter how outlandish an idea there is always something to support it, be it pixies, goblins, UFOs, bigfoot, scientology, 9/11 conspiracies, moon hoax conspiracies, global warming conspiracies etc etc etc. There is no such thing as "blind faith", there is always something for people to hold onto if they really really want to. Take for example Lourdes. According to skepdic.com it has a 0.0000335% success rate and significantly more people have died in fatal accidents on their way to Lourdes than have been "cured". I don't know how reliable those figures are but they sound about right to me, it's pretty much what I'd suspect from such a place. But true believers aren't bothered by such things, they focus only on the 56 "cures" since 1947 and not the 5 million people a year who don't get cured. Any objective observer would look at that and conclude that there is something going on other than divine intervention but a true believer isn't an objective observer. And honestly, I don't think the act of ignoring 5 million failures a year and focussing on 56 "successes" in 60 years will ever be proven scientifically to be a good indicator of anything

While the 'flake equation' (wonder what Mr. Drake thinks of it) is riotously funny an' all, it doesn't actually say anything actual occurences of miracles and personal religious experiences etc, just about the possibility of fake ones, so it's really avoiding the issue. (And this is without knowing whether the probability estimates in it are made up or not, though I suspect they are).

Also, there are pretty rigorous rules in place (which means the 'true believers' that judge these cures are worried about getting it right) for the Lourdes Medical Bureau to declare a cure to be medically inexplicable and put forward to the Church for consideration to be declared a miracle. The list of officially recognised miracles at Lourdes might be small, percentage-wise (which of course doesn't mean they weren't amazing), but it doesn't count the people who were cured afterwards, or didn't put their miracles forward for consideration, or didn't pass the strict testing procedure (which doesn't mean they weren't miracles, by the way. For example, if a cure is incomplete or not permanent, it doesn't pass, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a miracle) or had major and minor personal religious experiences there which led to huge boosts in their faith. I think this last one would include a sizeable percentage of visitors. Anyone I know who went there got something from it. But, anyway, Dawkins doesn't allow such things, and many (all?) of the other arguments for religion, to be factored in when making his judgement call on God, which was my original point. Whereas people who believe do factor in at least some of them.

Zombrex

vodafoneproblem wrote: »

But, anyway, Dawkins doesn't allow such things, and many (all?) of the other arguments for religion, to be factored in when making his judgement call on God, which was my original point. Whereas people who believe do factor in at least some of them.

It is not that Dawkins doesn't allow them, he doesn't allow the explanations because they are groundless. Two different things. To say a miracle happened you would have to rule out all possible natural explanations. And since we don't know all possible natural explanations we can't do that.

Unexplained phenomena != Explanation for unexplained phenomena.

Sam Vimes

vodafoneproblem wrote: »

While the 'flake equation' (wonder what Mr. Drake thinks of it) is riotously funny an' all, it doesn't actually say anything actual occurences of miracles and personal religious experiences etc, just about the possibility of fake ones, so it's really avoiding the issue. (And this is without knowing whether the probability estimates in it are made up or not, though I suspect they are).

Also, there are pretty rigorous rules in place (which means the 'true believers' that judge these cures are worried about getting it right) for the Lourdes Medical Bureau to declare a cure to be medically inexplicable and put forward to the Church for consideration to be declared a miracle. The list of officially recognised miracles at Lourdes might be small, percentage-wise (which of course doesn't mean they weren't amazing), but it doesn't count the people who were cured afterwards, or didn't put their miracles forward for consideration, or didn't pass the strict testing procedure (which doesn't mean they weren't miracles, by the way. For example, if a cure is incomplete or not permanent, it doesn't pass, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a miracle) or had major and minor personal religious experiences there which led to huge boosts in their faith. I think this last one would include a sizeable percentage of visitors. Anyone I know who went there got something from it. But, anyway, Dawkins doesn't allow such things, and many (all?) of the other arguments for religion, to be factored in when making his judgement call on God, which was my original point. Whereas people who believe do factor in at least some of them.

I highlighted the important bit of your post. All the miracle board and the church do is find that something is medically inexplicable and all that means is that it's medically inexplicable. If we knew every single thing that there is to know about medicine then pronouncing something to be medically inexplicable might actually mean something but until that day it's all one big exercise in "I don't know so it must be god". They're basically saying "I can't explain it, therefore I can explain it"

As for personal experience, the problem is that there are millions and millions of differing and often contradictory personal experiences supporting all manner of supernatural/paranormal/spooky/alien/conspiratorial phenomena. A post I wrote the other day in response to someone asking that atheists explain someone's story of havibng a scar healed by a healer of some kind:

Sam Vimes wrote: »

People often come onto this forum and give us a fantastical story and say "well can you explain it?". No of course we can't explain it, we weren't there. All we have is your version of events, we have no idea what you're leaving out, what you may have missed, what else may have been going on that neither you nor the healer knew about. All we have here is a story that is told in such a way as to confirm a claim of the supernatural. We don't even know if any of this happened. Had we been there with laboratory equipment studying the events our answer to the question might well be very different but with the information you're giving us there's no way we can explain what happened. One question I'd have is why this guy is not a millionaire, what with the James Randi foundation offering a million dollars to anyone who can demonstrate a supernatural ability under laboratory conditions (a prize that has yet to be won btw)

Personal experience alone cannot be taken to be a reliable indicator of anything because all the stories contradict each other. People have just as many stories about being beamed onto the mother ship as they have about Jesus appearing to them and if we are to accept the unsupported personal testimony of christians I see no reason why the unsupported personal testimony of abductees should be discounted. If, for example, early explorers had landed on remote Islands where no Western people had been before only to find the inhabitants already worshipping the Christian god because of the personal experiences that god had given them showing them the truth then that would be a big indicator that there is more going on than over active imaginations but that doesn't happen*


*Although I think I remember hearing a story where one guy had gone over and converted the inhabitants and no one else went there for a century and the first guy was forgotten about so they were a bit surprised to find that they were christians but that doesn't count of course.

equivariant

robindch wrote: »

Not to sling mud at the guy who came up with the elegantly geeky Penrose Tesselation -- something I'm hoping to include in the tilework for my new kitchen, btw -- I should point out that not only does Penrose appear to have some sympathy towards the nonsensical "fine-tuning" argument, but he's also one of the most capable of the current opponents of Strong AI, his view being that consciousness is non-algorithmic and therefore, can never be implemented using a Turing machine (basically, any computer).

These two unfortunately suggest that he suffers from a strong intentionalist bias in his thinking. Which is a pity, since he's clearly a very smart chap.

I think that Penrose is a good mathematician/physicist but he lost the run of himself with The Emperor's New Mind. I saw him give a public lecture on that stuff 15 years ago when I was a student and it came accross to me as waffle then and I still feel the same way. I think since he started on about the nature of conciousness, his star has fallen considerably in the scientific world

Soul Winner

monosharp wrote: »

I meant your lotto ticket rant.

No, I didn't get that from Craig either. In fact I forget where I read that. If I remember I'll let you know.

monosharp wrote: »

Nonsense.

There have been many simulations on this very subject which shows nothing of the sort. This 'fine-tuning' is not anywhere near as fine tuned as you are led to believe.

Hey, I'm quoting from eminent cosmologists here. If its wrong don't blame me.

monosharp wrote: »

Your aware that the Earth is very old right ? and has a long history right ?

Some geologists believe that giant arthropods evolved due to higher levels of oxygen in the atmosphere in the past, while others believe that they evolved in an ‘arms race’ alongside their likely prey - the early armoured fish.

I agree, that there must have been higher oxygen levels in the earth's early atmosphere. So what's with that Miller Urey experiment?

monosharp wrote: »

Oh ? So life cannot exist in amazing places ?

Read this.

When did I disagree with you?

monosharp wrote: »

As for the fine-tuned universe as an argument, its complete tosh.

Known life, that is, life as we know it, is fine tuned to the Universe and hence the conditions it finds itself in.

Is it now? So what's Mr. Tyson talking about in your vid below when he points out that most places in the universe will kill us? Life is fine tuned to the universe? So why aren't we made out of steal and can eat uranium for breakfast?

monosharp wrote: »

This is exactly what evolution does. Life can adapt to the most inhospitable of places.

Please see: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI301.html

or http://www.talkreason.org/articles/fined.cfm

or if your lazy a Neil Tyson video.

I never argued against that though did I? You're creating a strawman argument here. What has what you said above got to do with anything I said before?

monosharp wrote: »

of course wikipedia:

"The validity of fine tuning examples is sometimes questioned on the grounds that such reasoning is subjective anthropomorphism applied to natural physical constants. Critics also suggest that the fine-tuned universe assertion and the anthropic principle are essentially tautologies.The fine-tuned universe argument has also been criticized as an argument by lack of imagination because it assumes no other forms of life, sometimes referred to as carbon chauvinism. Conceptually, alternative biochemistry or other forms of life are possible. In addition, critics argue that humans are adapted to the universe through the process of evolution, rather than the universe being adapted to humans (see puddle thinking). They also see it as an example of the logical flaw of hubris or anthropocentrism in its assertion that humans are the purpose of the universe"

Now we are back on track. Again it is eminent scientists who came up with this concept not religious people. OK some religious people hijack it an say "see this is proof that there is a God", but there are others who simply use it to support their already professed theological/philosophical positions, and there's nothing wrong with that once they are not deliberately twisting the facts.

Soul Winner

Morbert wrote: »

Soulwinner, are you deliberately ignoring me?

Heck no. Too many people replying to my posts. I'm like Dawkins in a way, very busy

Morbert wrote: »

Roger Penrose talks about the probability of constants as an argument against the simple thermodynamic view of early cosmology and explicitly says in his book, "Road to Reality", that gravity is needed to have a better picture. In other words, the probabilities reflect the incompleteness of the standard model and the omission of a proper quantum treatment of gravity, not an incredulous testament to a knob tweaker.

OK so what's Rob talking about then? He seems to think that Sir Penrose's thinking is flawed as does equavariant.

Morbert wrote: »

Who stole the cookies from the cookie jar?

I don't know exactly who, I just know it wasn't me.

Armas22

Just read "The Ancestor's Tale". Found it to be an excellent book about science, absolutely fascinating. However, I found it a major pain to have to read through Dawkins' regular digressions to attack religious belief. The man seems obsessed about knocking religion and frankly it becomes tiresome after a very short while.

Zombrex

Armas22 wrote: »

Just read "The Ancestor's Tale". Found it to be an excellent book about science, absolutely fascinating. However, I found it a major pain to have to read through Dawkins' regular digressions to attack religious belief. The man seems obsessed about knocking religion and frankly it becomes tiresome after a very short while.

Are you religious?

monosharp

Soul Winner wrote: »

Hey, I'm quoting from eminent cosmologists here. If its wrong don't blame me.

Again, lotto ticket mathematical rant.

I agree, that there must have been higher oxygen levels in the earth's early atmosphere. So what's with that Miller Urey experiment?

The experiment your talking about is about abiogenesis, the origin of life. The time I'm talking about is millions of years later when life has had millions of years to evolve.

Is it now? So what's Mr. Tyson talking about in your vid below when he points out that most places in the universe will kill us? Life is fine tuned to the universe? So why aren't we made out of steal and can eat uranium for breakfast?

Life is fine tuned/evolved to exist/adapted to the conditions it finds itself it. Humans are adapted to live on this planet with this atmosphere in these temperatures in ... etc.

There are bacteria that have evolved to exist only near hot water vents in the ocean floor. There are creatures that have evolved to exist miles beneath the ocean.

Take these creatures out of their habitat, into another and they will die.

Armas22

Wicknight wrote: »

Are you religious?

Yes, I am a Roman Catholic. I'm not an evangelist though. I quite like it that there is a variety of beliefs, and none, because personally I believe there are many roads to salvation. I don't think God is a mechanical being who accepts one into His kingdom simply because of the label he or she wears. I believe in a God who can see into a person's soul. I don't see any conflict between science and religion, I don't like people ridiculing other people's beliefs, thus, I find Dawkins a bit of an airbag.

equivariant

I think for religious people that possibly "The Greatest Show On Earth" is a Dawkins book worth reading. There is not so much arguing about theism/religion (although there is still some) and he presents a readable account of some very fascinating examples of biological evolution. I think that if you are a religious person interested in reading about evolution, that this book is a good read.

Morbert

Soul Winner wrote: »

OK so what's Rob talking about then? He seems to think that Sir Penrose's thinking is flawed as does equavariant.

Well I can't speak for them, but Roger Penrose explicitly states that this apparent tuning is a testament to the need for quantum gravity, and that he would not "go down the path of postulating a fanciful knob tweaker" (See his chapters on the early universe and its thermodynamic legacy, as well as speculative theories on the early universe). Without quantum gravity, we have no description of the singularity, and without a description of the singularity, we have little more than these entropic mechanisms, which give us huge improbabilities. These improbabilities would disappear under a qantum gravity regime. So he is dead on in this regard. Claiming the Big Bang must have been a supernatural event because it's so improbable is like claiming the formation of the sun must have been a supernatural event because it seems so improbable.

As for Penrose's AI stuff, I don't think he's that radical. He argues against a classical, deterministic brain. Not a massively controversial stance even if it is in the minority.

vodafoneproblem

Wicknight wrote: »

It is not that Dawkins doesn't allow them, he doesn't allow the explanations because they are groundless. Two different things. To say a miracle happened you would have to rule out all possible natural explanations. And since we don't know all possible natural explanations we can't do that.

Unexplained phenomena != Explanation for unexplained phenomena.

Dawkins hasn't shown all the arguments for God's existence to be groundless. For example, he says Thomas Aquinas' 'Uncaused Cause' is 'at best unhelpful and at worst perniciously misleading'. That's his own judgement call and I think a lot would disagree with him there. He's also not saying the argument is groundless. His argument against personal experience and miracles is to give examples of how the mind (or strange birds that sound like the devil...) can trick you. That doesn't prove people don't have valid personal experiences of God or don't experience miracles. I think his attempt to dismiss the miracle of Fatima as mass delusion, collusion, lies or a mirage is really weak, when put against so many witnesses, and of course isn't a proof it didn't happen, or that lots of other miracles haven't happened. His argument against scripture is to conclude by calling it 'invented, made-up fiction' like the Da Vinci code. Another judgement call, and not one a lot of people would agree with. I don't know why he included Pascal's Wager because it never claimed to be an argument for the existence of God, but an argument for trying to push yourself towards believing, and also acting like it, because of the weight of the possibility of eternal damnation versus our short life. The clue is in the word wager, Dicky Boy! I laughed at his pathetic attempt to come up with an anti-Pascal's Wager before giving up with 'I won't pursue the question here.' Hmm! And he was just getting to the part about damnation in PW, too! I think he got scared when he realised he'd no good "anti-" part there and swiftly scurried on. ) Also, so much of his arguing is just ridiculing believers without actually having proven most of the reasons they believe wrong. His ultimate dismissal of all the serious arguments for God is nothing more than his own judgement call and not something he's proven to be valid. A leap of faith, if you like...

equivariant

vodafoneproblem wrote: »

Dawkins hasn't shown all the arguments for God's existence to be groundless. For example, he says Thomas Aquinas' 'Uncaused Cause' is 'at best unhelpful and at worst perniciously misleading'. That's his own judgement call and I think a lot would disagree with him there. He's also not saying the argument is groundless. His argument against personal experience and miracles is to give examples of how the mind (or strange birds that sound like the devil...) can trick you. That doesn't prove people don't have valid personal experiences of God or don't experience miracles. I think his attempt to dismiss the miracle of Fatima as mass delusion, collusion, lies or a mirage is really weak, when put against so many witnesses, and of course isn't a proof it didn't happen, or that lots of other miracles haven't happened. His argument against scripture is to conclude by calling it 'invented, made-up fiction' like the Da Vinci code. Another judgement call, and not one a lot of people would agree with. I don't know why he included Pascal's Wager because it never claimed to be an argument for the existence of God, but an argument for trying to push yourself towards believing, and also acting like it, because of the weight of the possibility of eternal damnation versus our short life. The clue is in the word wager, Dicky Boy! I laughed at his pathetic attempt to come up with an anti-Pascal's Wager before giving up with 'I won't pursue the question here.' Hmm! And he was just getting to the part about damnation in PW, too! I think he got scared when he realised he'd no good "anti-" part there and swiftly scurried on. ) Also, so much of his arguing is just ridiculing believers without actually having proven most of the reasons they believe wrong. His ultimate dismissal of all the serious arguments for God is nothing more than his own judgement call and not something he's proven to be valid. A leap of faith, if you like...

On the contrary, he gave an excellent explanation of why Pascal's wager is not a good reason for adopting religious beliefs. Indeed he explains wuite well why Pascal's wager is not a good reason for doing anything.

As usual in these anti Dawkins rants, you blather on about him "ridiculing believers" without providing ANY evidence for this assertion. Give some actual quotes (with context) where Dawkins unjustifiably "ridicules believers", otherwise your claims about this are just so much hot air.

vodafoneproblem

equivariant wrote: »

On the contrary, he gave an excellent explanation of why Pascal's wager is not a good reason for adopting religious beliefs. Indeed he explains wuite well why Pascal's wager is not a good reason for doing anything.

As usual in these anti Dawkins rants, you blather on about him "ridiculing believers" without providing ANY evidence for this assertion. Give some actual quotes (with context) where Dawkins unjustifiably "ridicules believers", otherwise your claims about this are just so much hot air.

WhaaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATTTTTT??? A RANT?? YOU CAN'T HANDLE A RA.. *choke*

Seriously, though. A rant? I think not! Cogito Nah! No meus rantius! Meus debatius contra Dickius Riddikulus! (Hmm. I think my Latinus may possibly be a bit rustius)

Re. Pascal: Dawkins missed at least half the point of the wager in that it mentions not just believing but also living your life as such, which he didn't properly address. "Now, what harm will befall you in taking this side? You will be faithful, honest, humble, grateful, generous, a sincere friend, truthful." And then there's the whole point about the Wager being made from a position of uncertainty of reason to begin with... But, as I said already, it didn't belong in that chapter as an argument for the existence of God, anyway. So, he's now also wrong as well as not being able come up with an anti-Pascal Wager!

Anyway, as well as his ridiculing comments and attitude towards the witnesses in Fatima that I already mentioned...in the section on the argument from personal experience "You say you have experienced God directly? Well, some people have experienced a pink elephant, but that probably doesn't impress you." And the rest of that section...rapists, people in asylums...ya can read it yerself. In the section on ontological arguments and other a priori arguments where he has the imaginary discussion in the playground and has the believer kid using silly language "Nur Nurny Nur Nur. All atheists are fools." and the atheist kid being the perfect little being. In the roots of religion chapter where he describes (what I assume are Jews) as 'nodding maniacally towards a wall'. There's four for ya. That's plenty to get you started on your re-read with more critical eyes as to his huffery-bluffery. It's less than enjoyable having to dig up and quote Dawkins' condescension, as I'm sure you'll understand, but I look forward to you finding plenty more on your re-read. (Or even just pick a few pages at random and you'll probably find some examples...) The dismissive language and examples he uses throughout the book is pretty insulting and inflammatory. There are examples all over the place of his condescending and ridiculing attitude.

equivariant

vodafoneproblem wrote: »

Anyway, as well as his ridiculing comments and attitude towards the witnesses in Fatima that I already mentioned...in the section on the argument from personal experience "You say you have experienced God directly? Well, some people have experienced a pink elephant, but that probably doesn't impress you." And the rest of that section...rapists, people in asylums...ya can read it yerself. In the section on ontological arguments and other a priori arguments where he has the imaginary discussion in the playground and has the believer kid using silly language "Nur Nurny Nur Nur. All atheists are fools." and the atheist kid being the perfect little being. In the roots of religion chapter where he describes (what I assume are Jews) as 'nodding maniacally towards a wall'. There's four for ya. That's plenty to get you started on your re-read with more critical eyes as to his huffery-bluffery. It's less than enjoyable having to dig up and quote Dawkins' condescension, as I'm sure you'll understand, but I look forward to you finding plenty more on your re-read. (Or even just pick a few pages at random and you'll probably find some examples...) The dismissive language and examples he uses throughout the book is pretty insulting and inflammatory. There are examples all over the place of his condescending and ridiculing attitude.

Is that it? Is that the best you can come up with. Some gentle mocking of religious behaviour. I mean imagine if it wasn't religion that he was talking about. Imagine he was making analagous comments about someones political views or their taste in music. Would this be considered intolerable 'ridicule'? Hardly. I mean what is he supposed to say? Is he supposed to express unbridled admiration for religious observance in a book devoted to explaining his reasons for believing that theism and religion are bad things?

Religious people get so sensitive when someone dares to make fun of their religion (why shouldn't we be allowed to make fun of religion?). The same people would often think nothing of (gently) mocking someone else's political views or taste in literature etc...

PDN

equivariant wrote: »

Some Religious people get so sensitive when someone dares to make fun of their religion (why shouldn't we be allowed to make fun of religion?). The same people would often think nothing of (gently) mocking someone else's political views or taste in literature etc...

Fixed that rather wild generalisation for you.

Morbert

vodafoneproblem wrote: »

Dawkins hasn't shown all the arguments for God's existence to be groundless. For example, he says Thomas Aquinas' 'Uncaused Cause' is 'at best unhelpful and at worst perniciously misleading'. That's his own judgement call and I think a lot would disagree with him there.

Philosophy, when done well, is a lot like mathematics. It's not a matter of personal credulity or opinion. So if people find the argument convinving then it is because they are smuggling in implicit assumptions to patch up the holes in the argument.

He's also not saying the argument is groundless. His argument against personal experience and miracles is to give examples of how the mind (or strange birds that sound like the devil...) can trick you. That doesn't prove people don't have valid personal experiences of God or don't experience miracles. I think his attempt to dismiss the miracle of Fatima as mass delusion, collusion, lies or a mirage is really weak, when put against so many witnesses, and of course isn't a proof it didn't happen, or that lots of other miracles haven't happened.

Actually, he makes very good points about the reputability of the personal experiences of others. A personal experience might be enough for a personal conviction, but to use it as an argument for the existence of God isn't productive at all.

Fatima has been addressed in other threads so I won't get into it here.

Another judgement call, and not one a lot of people would agree with. I don't know why he included Pascal's Wager because it never claimed to be an argument for the existence of God, but an argument for trying to push yourself towards believing, and also acting like it, because of the weight of the possibility of eternal damnation versus our short life. The clue is in the word wager, Dicky Boy! I laughed at his pathetic attempt to come up with an anti-Pascal's Wager before giving up with 'I won't pursue the question here.' Hmm! And he was just getting to the part about damnation in PW, too! I think he got scared when he realised he'd no good "anti-" part there and swiftly scurried on. )

Well Pascal's wager is a very silly notion, and useless to those who are honest with themselves. If you trick yourself into believe in something because the consequences of not believing might be horrific, then you don't actually believe.

equivariant

PDN wrote: »

Fixed that rather wild generalisation for you.

It was wild, wasn't it?

vodafoneproblem

Morbert wrote: »

Philosophy, when done well, is a lot like mathematics. It's not a matter of personal credulity or opinion. So if people find the argument convinving then it is because they are smuggling in implicit assumptions to patch up the holes in the argument.

You can find a philosophical line of arguing helpful and to some degree persuasive without it being rigorously proven. I think the 'Uncaused Cause' is certainly deserving of pondering upon.

Actually, he makes very good points about the reputability of the personal experiences of others. A personal experience might be enough for a personal conviction, but to use it as an argument for the existence of God isn't productive at all.

That's just a matter of opinion. I find it productive. For example, some of the biographies and autobiographies of the saints are very inspiring and have helped countless people with their faith over the years. Sometimes reading about the experiences of others can make something 'click' inside a person and help them come to a realisation. Not to mention experiences they have themselves, not all of which can be shown to be invalid.

Well Pascal's wager is a very silly notion, and useless to those who are honest with themselves. If you trick yourself into believe in something because the consequences of not believing might be horrific, then you don't actually believe.

Well, you either believe or you don't. No matter how you get to the state of belief, it doesn't mean you're not actually there. (We can't say no-one has ever come to a true state of belief with the help of PW. It doesn't really belong in that chapter, though.) Take people who believe there's no God. Is there any proof there's no God? No. Do they believe there's no God despite this? Apparently?

Morbert

vodafoneproblem wrote: »

You can find a philosophical line of arguing helpful and to some degree persuasive without it being rigorously proven. I think the 'Uncaused Cause' is certainly deserving of pondering upon.

A persuasive argument and a good argument are two different things. The latter stands on its own, while the former can be entirely false.

And it has been repeatedly pondered upon countless times, which is why the problems with the argument have been clearly and specifically documented.

That's just a matter of opinion. I find it productive. For example, some of the biographies and autobiographies of the saints are very inspiring and have helped countless people with their faith over the years. Sometimes reading about the experiences of others can make something 'click' inside a person and help them come to a realisation. Not to mention experiences they have themselves, not all of which can be shown to be invalid.

But you're talking about something other than an argument. You're talking about a sales pitch. If someone is inspired by someone else's personal experiences enough to attend church, and if they because a Christian as a consequence then that's all well and good. But similarly, if someone is not convinced by a personal experience of another then they can consistently and rationally reject the notion that God exists. That is the difference between an argument and a pitch. A good argument might not be inspiring, but when it is carefully and prudently considered, it is logically compelling.

So if people turn to Christianity due to the experiences of others then fine. But if personal experience is used as an argument against atheism then Richard Dawkins has every right to bat it down.

Well, you either believe or you don't. No matter how you get to the state of belief, it doesn't mean you're not actually there. (We can't say no-one has ever come to a true state of belief with the help of PW. It doesn't really belong in that chapter, though.) Take people who believe there's no God. Is there any proof there's no God? No. Do they believe there's no God despite this? Apparently?

You're conflating two issues here. It is obviously the case that people's beliefs are not necessarily true (Hence no 'proof' that there's no God). However, people still have confidence in their beliefs. With Pascal's wager, we are not talking about a belief which people have confidence in, but rather a belief which people have little confidence in, but are so scared by the prospects of being wrong that they adopt the belief anyway.

peccavi

"Not one crime is lacking from perjury through incest to sexual murder ... Behind the walls of monasteries and in the ranks of the Roman brotherhood what else may have been enacted that is not publically known and has not been expiated through this world's courts? What may not the church have succeeded in hushing up? All this is the expression and consequence of a system that has elevated unto a principle that which is against nature and of an organisation that has withdrawn itself from public control."
- Heinrich Himmler

"No, Pope Ratzinger should not resign. He should remain in charge of the whole rotten edifice – the whole profiteering, woman-fearing, guilt-gorging, truth-hating, child-raping institution – while it tumbles, amid a stench of incense and a rain of tourist-kitsch sacred hearts and preposterously crowned virgins, about his ears."
- Richard Dawkins

Morbert

peccavi wrote: »

So what's the difference?

<snip>

Himmler was a mass murderer. Dawkins is content with a rebuttal when Christians use bad arguments against him.

Turtwig

peccavi wrote: »

"Not one crime is lacking from perjury through incest to sexual murder ... Behind the walls of monasteries and in the ranks of the Roman brotherhood what else may have been enacted that is not publically known and has not been expiated through this world's courts? What may not the church have succeeded in hushing up? All this is the expression and consequence of a system that has elevated unto a principle that which is against nature and of an organisation that has withdrawn itself from public control."
- Heinrich Himmler

Just goes to show how low the RCC is gone when a Nazi is able to speak accurately about something and still deride it.

peccavi

Malty_T wrote: »

Just goes to show how low the RCC is gone when a Nazi is able to speak accurately about something and still deride it.

I am certain every member of this forum, and indeed every member of Irish society has very dark skeletons in their cupboards. It is not surprising that there are some skeletons in the Church. The Church is a hospital for sinners, not a club for the perfect.

Is it not ironic that the same people who are most hateful and vitrolic about the wicked Church and the plight of the poor children, are the same people who would have abortion wheeled into this country in the morning if they could? That speaks volumes. And before you say, 'oh but that is different' - it's not. The poor little innocent baby is equally the victim as a child that has been abused.

cypharius

peccavi wrote: »

I am certain every member of this forum, and indeed every member of Irish society has very dark skeletons in their cupboards. It is not surprising that there are some skeletons in the Church. The Church is a hospital for sinners, not a club for the perfect.

Is it not ironic that the same people who are most hateful and vitrolic about the wicked Church and the plight of the poor children, are the same people who would have abortion wheeled into this country in the morning if they could? That speaks volumes. And before you say, 'oh but that is different' - it's not. The poor little innocent baby is equally the victim as a child that has been abused.

A feutus isn't concious.

vodafoneproblem

Morbert wrote: »

A persuasive argument and a good argument are two different things. The latter stands on its own, while the former can be entirely false.

And it has been repeatedly pondered upon countless times, which is why the problems with the argument have been clearly and specifically documented.

While people may argue that a philosophical argument doesn't give definitive proof, if it can help lead us another step or two along the way, then it's worth keeping in mind. Like the 'Uncaused Cause' line of thinking.

But you're talking about something other than an argument. You're talking about a sales pitch. If someone is inspired by someone else's personal experiences enough to attend church, and if they because a Christian as a consequence then that's all well and good. But similarly, if someone is not convinced by a personal experience of another then they can consistently and rationally reject the notion that God exists. That is the difference between an argument and a pitch. A good argument might not be inspiring, but when it is carefully and prudently considered, it is logically compelling.

So if people turn to Christianity due to the experiences of others then fine. But if personal experience is used as an argument against atheism then Richard Dawkins has every right to bat it down.

No, I'm talking about something more than being convinced by a sales pitch. I'm talking about coming to a realization of something, which is why I mentioned something 'clicking' inside. Maybe you could look at it
as something being switched on inside a person. Perhaps the idea of resonance. Not being convinced by the experiences of others, and not having your own, does not mean these personal experiences aren't real and valid ways of becoming a believer in God, so I think Dawkins is wrong to dismiss them.

You're conflating two issues here. It is obviously the case that people's beliefs are not necessarily true (Hence no 'proof' that there's no God). However, people still have confidence in their beliefs. With Pascal's wager, we are not talking about a belief which people have confidence in, but rather a belief which people have little confidence in, but are so scared by the prospects of being wrong that they adopt the belief anyway.

Obviously PW isn't a proof in any way. But hey, even if people get to the right place by obscure trails, they're still in the right place.