Tuesday, May 8, 2012
Evolution and Fred
For a rational, non-religious, skeptical-pragmatist look at evolution, you can’t do better than Fred Reed. Fred is skeptical of lots of stuff and not shy about what makes sense and what doesn’t. Even if you don’t care what he thinks about evolution, it’s good to get to know Fred. But then again, once you know a little about Fred, I think you’ll be curious about what he thinks of evolution. Well, I was anyway. It turns out that he’s said some things better than I have in the past. So I liked that part.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
30 comments:
You had made this comment a few years ago, concerning the "just so" stories of evolution.
One sentence in that comment stands out: "Finally, so many of these fertility centers have been found, that it is no longer possible to question the inferred conclusion."
But that is a disanalogy. What actually happens is something more like this: "If this is a fertility worship arena, then we should find X when we look over yonder." And, they do. And then they say: "If this is a fertility worship arena, then we should find Y when we look over here." And they do again.
You are correct that at no point is it ever confirmed as truth, but each little success like that adds a tick-mark to the inductive probability of the theory. Eventually, the theory passes so many of these tests, and is so good at predicting what we will find in the ground when we look in certain places, that lazy colloquial speech begins to include the word "truth" when speaking of the theory, even though it is technically bad wording.
THAT is how evolution works. It isn't just guesses. It is guesses confirmed via affirming of the consequent: bad deductive reasoning, good inductive reasoning.
Also, Fred manages to mix up evolution and abiogenesis. The former passes all it's inductive tests spectacularly well, and the latter has hardly improved in 50 years. The former concerns species splitting into groups, the latter concerns how life can arise at all in the first place. The former involves digging, the latter involves chemicals in the lab.
A better criticism of abiogenesis comes from Aristotelianism: final causality is anathema to modern science, but it can be argued that the appearance of life from non-living matter requires final causality as an explanation. Therefore, modern science will NEVER be able to explain the rise of life from non-living matter in the purely mechanical terms it restricts itself to.
Hi Martin,
I had completely forgotten about the ballpark - fertility center analogy. It really doesn't make it past a first approximation analogy, because it is not a theory of everything like evolution pretends to be. i.e. it can't cover all finds with something as ambiguous as "deep time" and unpredictable and undemonstratable but positive and cumulative mutations which occur all of a sudden, and thus can't be seen in the fossil record and can't actually verified in the least rational manner.
Somewhere along the line I have commented on the brown bird vs brilliant bird bs that was in a Nature show, just like Fred observed. And Fred's comments on pupation are just like many observations which go contrary to the theory in terms of plausibility which are ignored in favor of these: (a) deep time; (b) "you got a better [Materialist] idea?"
And of course the separation of abiogenesis out of the discussion of the Materialist Theory of Sources is merely a dodge, because asserting Materialism as a rule for mutation/selection also presupposes abiogenesis as the first mutation, as does the idea of Common Descent. They are all part of the same origins package, but one of those things in the package is not rationally feasible, so it is ejected from the package so as not to disturb the belief system regarding the others. With this type of intellectual dis-integrity in place (as well as other instances) credibility of the whole enterprise suffers.
So the many competing problems which stack logically and are quite damaging to evolution are not ever subtracted from the induction which stacks in its favor. But if there is one, even one, falsifier which stands against it, it fails.
One such likely falsifier is the complexity of the creatures which sprang up in the Cambrian age.
If evolutionistas are allowed credulousness without actual proof, then incredulousness must also be allowed, especially if it has a basis in evidence other than mere skepticism. In fact it is mere skepticism which is fired back at the falsifiers: there is no proof; the theory is too beautiful to be disqualified by that, it takes actual evidence to disqualify it.
I enjoyed your idea that evolution is engaged in affirming the consequent as a means of producing more inductive data. And also the final cause issue with abiogenesis - but that one is denied under Materialism, so you won't convince the paleobiologists, I suspect.
2009, sheesh.
Why I don't believe in the God of the Bible.
A lot of little things piled up.
God never interacts with me in any way. No matter how much I pray, how good I am or how bad I am, the response from God is... nothing. In fact many of my God-fearing relatives had or have cancer, while I'm just fine. Bad things happen to very devout people, and evil bastards and atheists thrive. Sleeping on the job much?
There are conundrums that call his omni- attributes into question. For example, could he create a rock so heavy he could not lift it? It's a bullshit argument and there are some valid responses, but I must admit this is the question that probably started me on my way to atheism, way back when.
God's chosen people are the Jews. So what good did he do them when 6 million of them marched into the ovens?
God as per the Bible is horribly evil. A genocidal psychopath. Anyone who claims this god is loving and merciful is full of shit or badly needs medication.
God is unnecessary. Everything that happens has a scientific, natural explanation The universe behaves exactly in the chaotic, inhumane and random ways you'd expect it to behave in the absence of a god.
Look at all the religions worldwide. It's pretty damn obvious that nobody has a clue about God or the "right" religion, or they wouldn't all be disagreeing about everything. For every theological question, you get a different answer depending on whom you ask. It's not like people haven't had thousands of years to figure this shit out, so it's a safe bet they're simply making this shit up. They cannot all be right but they certainly can all be wrong!
The "theory of made-up shit" is backed by anthropology. All over the world (and all over history), primitive people make up religions that match their world views and lifestyle. Eskimos have whales and polar bears for gods. The warriors of Northern Europe had warmongering gods wrapped in furs. The pygmies of the Kalahari have locust gods and lions and tigers and stuff. On some South Sea island, they think god is a turtle.
No religion comes with knowledge that was ahead of its time. If the Bible told us that man has 23 chromosomes, or the Koran told us how long light needs to travel from the sun to us, or if the Baghitva (?) told us that there's a mineral which, if you pile up enough of it, will cause a devastating explosion, or if the Book of Mormon told us that in 2008 we'd have a black President - that would be proof of divine, superhuman insight and knowledge. But no, they're full of stuff that's wrong, and match -at best- the state of science at whatever time they were written.
most religions are considered ancient, silly and wrong. Ra is no longer pushing the sun across the sky, Zeus is no longer casting lightning bolts off Mt. Olympus. But wait, so the ancient Sumerians and Canaanites were wrong too, right? Then how about Judaism, which developed and extended those religions? At what point did false become true? How about Christianity, which developed from Judaism? If Christianity (and/or Islam) were true, then Judaism would have to be true. And Judaism rests on the pantheon of the Sumerians, the OT even still mentions some of their gods... but wait, the Sumerians were wrong, right?
None of this makes a lot of sense. The one way to get everything to click is to say, "oh look, it's all made up! Men make gods in their image." Those two sentences explain everything that seems mysterious about every religion.
So, like, God who? Real men don't need imaginary friends.
Rasing 286,
Regarding the Judeo-Christian Religions, I have two words you may need to understand something:
Biblical Hermeneutics
Regarding the rest mentioned (incluiding judeo-cristian religions) I have one word many atheists irrationally dislike:
Mysticism
With hermeneutics, there should be enough room to begin from somewhere...
Don't bother spouting more fact-twisted information around here. Frankly no more zeitgeist-movement-like propaganda is needed.
So narrow-minded this fact-twisted prose is, that only pretends to attack in a "straw-manish" way what spiritually-driven religions are?
Kind Regards.
“God never interacts with me in any way. No matter how much I pray, how good I am or how bad I am, the response from God is... nothing.”
Why would it be expected that a creating deity would perform to an Atheist's requirements, on his command?
”In fact many of my God-fearing relatives had or have cancer, while I'm just fine. Bad things happen to very devout people, and evil bastards and atheists thrive. Sleeping on the job much?
This is not a bible blog, and is not intended to “justify the bible” to the requirements of Atheists. But we can certainly look at the logic behind the Atheist complaint.
In this case the Atheist is under the impression that the Biblical deity has promised to prevent “God-fearing” people from the physical and moral hazards found on earth. The Bible does not say that, it says the opposite of that. The Atheist is rejecting a deity based on ignorance of what the Bible actually says, but claiming to reject the “Biblical God”. So the Atheist is either quite ignorant, or is transparently pulling a scam.
”There are conundrums that call his omni- attributes into question. For example, could he create a rock so heavy he could not lift it? It's a bullshit argument and there are some valid responses, but I must admit this is the question that probably started me on my way to atheism, way back when.”
Then this Atheist is susceptible to irrational arguments, by his own admission. The omni-arguments are not explicit in the Bible; the Atheist here has not read or studied the Bible.
”God's chosen people are the Jews. So what good did he do them when 6 million of them marched into the ovens?
God as per the Bible is horribly evil. A genocidal psychopath. Anyone who claims this god is loving and merciful is full of shit or badly needs medication.”
The Bible does not claim “omni-merciful”. The Atheist is not familiar with the Bible, except for the out of context quotations which are omni-found on Atheist websites and blogs. In fact this particular set of Atheist complaints resembles someone who drove through an Atheist bumpersticker store, and came out with every bumpersticker stuck to himself.
In a more humorous vein, the Atheist is presuming that he has the moral authority to place judgment on an actual deity (a completely ludicrous idea), or else he is placing moral judgment on a fictional character (another completely ludicrous idea). In fact, there is no Atheist morality under which to make moral judgments, so no actual moral judgment can be made by any Atheist, unless he is either stealing a morality or making one up for himself (both intellectually dishonest acts). So the moral judgment of an Atheist upon an actual or fictional deity is just empty of any meaning: ludicrous and absurd.
(continued below)
”God is unnecessary. Everything that happens has a scientific, natural explanation The universe behaves exactly in the chaotic, inhumane and random ways you'd expect it to behave in the absence of a god.”
This is perhaps the second most ignorant statement being made here. It reveals a gross ignorance of evidentiary theory as it is applied to empirical investigation, and the relation of that to knowledge in general. The most ignorant statement is coming up.
”Look at all the religions worldwide. It's pretty damn obvious that nobody has a clue about God or the "right" religion, or they wouldn't all be disagreeing about everything. For every theological question, you get a different answer depending on whom you ask. It's not like people haven't had thousands of years to figure this shit out, so it's a safe bet they're simply making this shit up. They cannot all be right but they certainly can all be wrong!”
The actual concept of Theism is lost on this individual, who is attempting to equate non-equals. Moreover, he pretends to know how “every theological question” is dealt with in every situation. Further, he has not read any of the arguments on this blog (nor has he read the Bible he rejects), and has not addressed any rational arguments at all. His concept of “made up shit” because of disagreements (let’s just take those within the theists of Christianity) is absolutely false: here’s an analogy: Science is false because scientists disagree on the composition of dark matter and can’t prove their statements in any way. This Atheist is asserting Asymmetrical Radical Skepticism as if that proves something. It does not.
(continued below)
”The "theory of made-up shit" is backed by anthropology. All over the world (and all over history), primitive people make up religions that match their world views and lifestyle. Eskimos have whales and polar bears for gods. The warriors of Northern Europe had warmongering gods wrapped in furs. The pygmies of the Kalahari have locust gods and lions and tigers and stuff. On some South Sea island, they think god is a turtle.”
Fallacy of Guilt by Association: A is false because B, C, D, etc. are false.
”No religion comes with knowledge that was ahead of its time. If the Bible told us that man has 23 chromosomes, or the Koran told us how long light needs to travel from the sun to us, or if the Baghitva (?) told us that there's a mineral which, if you pile up enough of it, will cause a devastating explosion, or if the Book of Mormon told us that in 2008 we'd have a black President - that would be proof of divine, superhuman insight and knowledge. But no, they're full of stuff that's wrong, and match -at best- the state of science at whatever time they were written.”
Category Error: Religion is not intended to be a source of physical science. This is a gross misunderstanding of that which the Atheist rejects. Or more likely it is a charge made in the attempt to influence the unthoughtful, as was he influenced.
”most religions are considered ancient, silly and wrong. Ra is no longer pushing the sun across the sky, Zeus is no longer casting lightning bolts off Mt. Olympus. But wait, so the ancient Sumerians and Canaanites were wrong too, right? Then how about Judaism, which developed and extended those religions? At what point did false become true? How about Christianity, which developed from Judaism? If Christianity (and/or Islam) were true, then Judaism would have to be true. And Judaism rests on the pantheon of the Sumerians, the OT even still mentions some of their gods... but wait, the Sumerians were wrong, right?”
False claims, made with the assurance of religious fervor in their truth, but made without evidence. The Bible mentions many cultures and religions; that in no way means that the Hebrew deity was based on them. What evidence does he present that Judaism is actually warmed-over Sumerianism? None.
(continued below)
”None of this makes a lot of sense.”
The reason it doesn’t make a lot of sense is because what the Atheist has promoted as truth is not actually true; much of it is based on demonstrable logic fallacies, and more of it is opinion presented as fact but without any material evidence.
” The one way to get everything to click is to say, "oh look, it's all made up! Men make gods in their image." Those two sentences explain everything that seems mysterious about every religion.”
That sort of Radical Skepticism is common amongst those who choose to try to destroy that which they cannot actually provide logic or evidence against. This type of declaration serves primarily to show that Atheism is not based on logic or evidence, because it is made in total absence of any logic other than known fallacies, and without any material evidence.
”So, like, God who? Real men don't need imaginary friends.”
The unfounded delusion of personal superiority of the Atheist becomes apparent. Considering oneself to have the sole claim to being “real men” renders Atheists both not trustworthy and irrational. It is yet another reason that Atheists are considered below rapists and child molesters regarding their trustworthiness. Along with that reason is the irrationality of their claims to logic and evidence, and the complete lack of moral theory attached to Atheism. Top that irrationality off with the claim of personal moral authority to determine right and wrong, if any, and the Atheist can clearly be seen as someone not to trust.
This claim takes the prize for the most ignorant statement made by this Atheist. It is a judgment call made based on the series of irrational and false claims which precede it. So it has accumulated the falseness into a statement of arrogant superiority.
The unraveling of the the atomic and general-relativistic levels of reality have revealed phenomena so deeply weird (and yet powerfully predictive) that the Philosophy has been rendered largely moot as a discipline for making inferences about the natural world.
In general, the weight of science has fallen heavily on the side of statistical inference over logical rigor. The ways in which our world has been completely transformed by a probabilistic and statistical approach cannot be understated, and they dramatically alter the standards of evidence. Not that statistics aren't routinely abused and misunderstood; they just encourage different kinds of abuses than rhetoric.
Speaking of logic, the implications of the Incompleteness Theorems to philosophy's most rigorous and quantitative subfields also cannot be understated. Even in the sterile reaches of basic arithmetic, the dream of a systematic, clockwork universe has died.
Scientific examination of the human mind has revealed how completely untrustworthy intuition is as a metric of measurable truth, even among "trained" experts. This means that the "one argument at a time" approach to familiar in philosophical discourse is deeply suspect.
The theory of evolution, and (as Dan Dennett has eloquently argued) the resulting broad understanding of algorithms, has dramatically decoupled the notion of "complexity" from the notions of "meaning" and "purpose." All this is why Fred has no idea what he's talkin' 'bout.
”The unraveling of the the atomic and general-relativistic levels of reality have revealed phenomena so deeply weird (and yet powerfully predictive) that the Philosophy has been rendered largely moot as a discipline for making inferences about the natural world.”
And yet a desk is a desk is a desk.
There is no “powerfully predictive” portion of Quantum Mechanics. And Relativity is valid at a macro-level and does not make moot any inferences about the macro natural world. This is a misunderstanding of actual science, being stated as if it were true, yet without references or other evidence in its support. There is certainly no threat to any search for valid thinking from particle science, and to make such a claim is actually a philosophical failure.
To claim that valid deductive thinking is undermined by Quantum Mechanics, one must make the case that if QM is true (or Relativity for that matter), then the fundamentals of human thinking and intellectual validation based on First Principles are non-valid. But this, itself, is a declaration that a specific human intellectual conclusion negates all human intellectual conclusions, including the specific negating intellectual conclusion. This sort of statement is non-coherent, and false. It cannot be reasoned that all reasoning is false.
” In general, the weight of science has fallen heavily on the side of statistical inference over logical rigor. The ways in which our world has been completely transformed by a probabilistic and statistical approach cannot be understated, and they dramatically alter the standards of evidence. Not that statistics aren't routinely abused and misunderstood; they just encourage different kinds of abuses than rhetoric.”
This is not true. The focus of science has gone toward particle physics, but that does not invalidate Newtonian physics which carries the weight of actual, known, useful science; in fact, while the two physics do relate at some levels, they are still separate sciences and there is a call for a third science – probably not string theory – which will unify them. The idea that logical rigor has been abandoned is false. If that were true, then the science of particle physics would not exist: it is still thought that cause and effect must apply at some level, and that understanding can be had, and deductive processes are still in place for determining that.
”Speaking of logic, the implications of the Incompleteness Theorems to philosophy's most rigorous and quantitative subfields also cannot be understated. Even in the sterile reaches of basic arithmetic, the dream of a systematic, clockwork universe has died.”
“Sterile reaches?” The only incompleteness theorem which applies to thought is Godel’s, which says that it cannot be known if a system contains all/only true propositions, without a higher order system to validate that. It does not declare that human thought is false or cannot possibly be true. That is the purpose of axioms.
(continued below)
”Scientific examination of the human mind has revealed how completely untrustworthy intuition is as a metric of measurable truth, even among "trained" experts. This means that the "one argument at a time" approach to familiar in philosophical discourse is deeply suspect.”
Another attempt to falsify thought via false thoughts; First, “measurable truths” means material factoids; second, intuition (not defined here) is likely to be confused with guessing when given incomplete information to work from. So that process – guessing about material factoids when presented with incomplete information - is being conflated with disciplined logical processes grounded in empirical observation: deductive reasoning. The conflation here is false.
”The theory of evolution, and (as Dan Dennett has eloquently argued) the resulting broad understanding of algorithms, has dramatically decoupled the notion of "complexity" from the notions of "meaning" and "purpose." All this is why Fred has no idea what he's talkin' 'bout.”
The "broad understanding of algorithms" concept is a prop for a theory of every-nothing, which is what evolution is; there is no explanation for pupation because "evolution did it". So the algorithm covers all and no eventualities. No need to think a single thought beyond that. Evolution can do anything or nothing; it can create and it can annihilate: evolution is a Materialist’s god, an invisible enabler which cannot be held to any particular standard, so the algorithm is “broad” enough to encompass everything. It is so malleable and undefinable (where is the repository for the official Theory of Evolution?) that it is the will-o-the-wisp of “science”, proving everything and nothing.
And the idea that complexity is decoupled from meaning and purpose merely because of a theory of every-nothing, is absurd. If evolution is a science, then it is subject to scientific rigors and the requirements of empirical, experimental investigation. That it actually is not, makes it a religion, a belief system, one which the likes of Dennett worships mindlessly, while creating all sorts of rationalizations to prop it up.
The single concept of agency, alone, defeats the Materialist conception of life. That has been the focus of the Evolution True Believers for the past few decades: deny agency in the service of evolution, Materialism and Atheism. Deny the obvious in the service of Materialist dogma. Dennett has focused on denying agency while also denying total determinism except while preserving it, an anti-intellectual convolution in the service of Atheism and evolution. And, of course, the failure of Materialism to produce evidence of its own truth value makes it false on its face.
As far as falsifying Fred, the above has no bearing on the origin of the process of pupation. None. Skepticism, as always in the hands of the dogmatists, is asymmetrical.
The obvious first problem is that of consciousness. Your brain is a complex structure undergoing complex reactions, but all of these reactions follow the laws of physics. Yet nonetheless you are conscious.
The brain is complex, reactions in the brain are complex and can be described with physics. I am conscious and I can't see Fred's problem. Fred not understanding how it works is not an argument.
If I give you a large injection of Demerol, you will lose consciousness, and the biochemical mechanism can be given—but that doesn't explain what consciousness is.
Using the brake of my car doesn't explain what a car is but nevertheless Pethidine (Demerol) inhibits the transportation of dopamine and norepinephrine (by filling transporters) and slows interactions via sodium ion channels and so implies that consciousness is maintained by the biochemical mechanisms that Fred doesn't understand.
Consider morality... have asked such people why I should not make a hobby of torturing to death the genetically feeble-minded. In evolutionary terms, killing them is a good idea, as it reduces the diversion of resources in maintaining them and raises the average intelligence of the group.
Besides being a simply a Naturalistic Fallacy, this rests on false premises. The long-term survival of a species is strongly linked with its genetic variability. Who said intelligence was a necessary criteria?
The other place where evolutionism breaks down is in human reproduction. All through evolutionism runs the idea of maximizing reproduction...
Yet now we have whole societies which by choice are not having babies. Japan, Italy, Spain, Russia, Germany and so on are breeding at below replacement...
There is no evolutionary explanation. When I ask, I encounter silence or vague mumblings about how there must be some mutation or, well, something.
I have to wonder who Fred asked. There are seven billion humans alive, the greatest population of humans ever. And I'd disagree in part with the idea that maximizing reproduction is the essence of evolution. It is simply a side effect of an imperfectly self replicating system (such as amino acid chemistry) in an environment that is non homogeneous. It is not rushing towards a goal. In other animals, populations increase and decrease as many factors (such as available resources and competition, etc) change... but er, some mutation or well, something... Are you sure Fred means his writings to be taken seriously?
”The obvious first problem is that of consciousness. Your brain is a complex structure undergoing complex reactions, but all of these reactions follow the laws of physics. Yet nonetheless you are conscious.
The brain is complex, reactions in the brain are complex and can be described with physics. I am conscious and I can't see Fred's problem. Fred not understanding how it works is not an argument.”
Agency is not explained or explainable by physics; it is non-deterministic and a function of being conscious. So the first part is incorrect.
The second part is true: you do not see the problem Fred is discussing, which is that evolution has no specific explanation for pretty much anything which it is claimed to cover. Evolution-dun-it is not explanatory; it is a generalization without power except when it ceases to be “evolution” and becomes geology instead, or genetics, or some other respectable, actual science.
”If I give you a large injection of Demerol, you will lose consciousness, and the biochemical mechanism can be given—but that doesn't explain what consciousness is.
Using the brake of my car doesn't explain what a car is but nevertheless Pethidine (Demerol) inhibits the transportation of dopamine and norepinephrine (by filling transporters) and slows interactions via sodium ion channels and so implies that consciousness is maintained by the biochemical mechanisms that Fred doesn't understand.”
So you think that killing the machine somehow explains it? If you sedate a dog, that explains why it has life?
”Consider morality... have asked such people why I should not make a hobby of torturing to death the genetically feeble-minded. In evolutionary terms, killing them is a good idea, as it reduces the diversion of resources in maintaining them and raises the average intelligence of the group.
Besides being a simply a Naturalistic Fallacy, this rests on false premises. The long-term survival of a species is strongly linked with its genetic variability. Who said intelligence was a necessary criteria?”
So you maintain that stupidity is necessary to balance intelligence so that the genetic variability will provide long term survival? The concept, aside from being ridiculous, has no bearing on what Fred said, which was that it (a) saves resources (can you deny that?) and (b) it raises the average intelligence (can you deny that?).
”The other place where evolutionism breaks down is in human reproduction. All through evolutionism runs the idea of maximizing reproduction...
Yet now we have whole societies which by choice are not having babies. Japan, Italy, Spain, Russia, Germany and so on are breeding at below replacement...
There is no evolutionary explanation. When I ask, I encounter silence or vague mumblings about how there must be some mutation or, well, something.
I have to wonder who Fred asked. There are seven billion humans alive, the greatest population of humans ever. And I'd disagree in part with the idea that maximizing reproduction is the essence of evolution. It is simply a side effect of an imperfectly self replicating system (such as amino acid chemistry) in an environment that is non homogeneous. It is not rushing towards a goal. In other animals, populations increase and decrease as many factors (such as available resources and competition, etc) change... but er, some mutation or well, something... Are you sure Fred means his writings to be taken seriously?”
Fred is talking about western populations which decrease fecundity with both prosperity and education, a known fact. According to natural selection, those with the greatest niche advantage should fill the niche faster than those with less advantage. The data goes counter to the theory. So your comments don’t even apply.
You’ll have to ask Fred what he intends regarding his writings, but take care to keep near the door to the cantina.
So you think that killing the machine somehow explains it? If you sedate a dog, that explains why it has life?
Not what I'm saying. If a chemical causes certain neurotransmitters to be blocked and when these neurotransmitters are blocked you are lose consciousness then there is a possibility that these neurotransmitters have something to do with consciousness. But all this doesn't matter because Fred is making an argument from ignorance. Fred says it can't be physical BECAUSE he can't understand it. I'm saying this is not a good argument.
So you maintain that stupidity is necessary to balance intelligence so that the genetic variability will provide long term survival?
The term "naturalistic fallacy" is also sometimes used to describe the deduction of an "ought" from an "is". Fred is making this fallacy. Reduce genetic variability and you'll soon see what the human equivalent of the Irish Potato Famine looks like. Without variability, it becomes difficult for a population to adapt to environmental changes and therefore makes it more prone to extinction. Fred and your argument assumes that intelligence and only intelligence is necessary for the survival of the human race. But this fact doesn't matter because the discussion is sunk before it begins with Fred's Naturalistic Fallacy.
Fred is talking about western populations which decrease fecundity with both prosperity and education, a known fact.
I know this is hard for you to understand but try and wrap you head around this. I'll capitalize it for you.
PEOPLE IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES ARE HUMAN TOO. Got that? Even people from non-western societies. Now re-read my comment.
"Fred says it can't be physical BECAUSE he can't understand it. I'm saying this is not a good argument."
If Fred said that you would be correct. But Fred did not say that. What Fred says throughout is that things which are not understood are "explained" by the mystery of evolution, not with specific data. In other words, he doesn't know, and neither do the evolution promoters.
To wit:
Fred:
"Well, I thought, sophomore chemistry major that I then was: If we don’t know what conditions existed, or what conditions are necessary, and can’t reproduce the event in the laboratory, and can’t show it to be statistically probable—why are we so very sure that it happened? Would you hang a man on such evidence?
My point was not that evolutionists were necessarily wrong. They simply had not shown that they were right. While they couldn’t demonstrate that life had begun by chemical accident, I couldn’t show that it hadn’t. An inability to prove that something is statistically possible is not the same as proving that it is not statistically possible. Not being able to reproduce an event in the laboratory does not establish that it didn’t happen in nature. Etc.
I just didn’t know how life came about. I still don’t. Neither do evolutionists."
This is not the fallacy of claiming non-existence due to not understanding as you claim. It is a statement of fact regarding the level of actual incorrigible knowledge that exists in the possession of evolutionistas (very little, regarding actual cause -effect of ordinary things like pupation).
"The term "naturalistic fallacy" is also sometimes used to describe the deduction of an "ought" from an "is". Fred is making this fallacy."
You'll have to be more specific; what did Fred say that asserted that fallacy?
"I know this is hard for you to understand but try and wrap you head around this."
Rudeness is especially intellectually unbecoming, especially when you are wrong. And if it continues, you will have to comment somewhere else, because this behavior is not allowed here.
The data refers to western countries as compared to emerging and third world countries, as well as subpopulations. There is no prejudice in the data, so your inference, which is based apparently only on your ignorance of the data, is both incorrect and inappropriately stated.
I can't believe I'm turning into an atheist.
Stan want do you think of Fred's idea of the superiority of the white race?
There's a factory.
There's a theory that the factory can turn out different kinds of balls.
Frank thinks the goal of the factory is to make as many balls as possible.
Frank notices that even though there are more balls than ever before that there are more balls with stripes than balls with dots.
Frank considers balls with dots to be obviously superior.
Frank thinks the factory can't possibly make different types of balls because there are too many balls he considers inferior.
Can you see the error in Frank's thinking?
Rob,
Fred is taking the idea of evolution and its effect on teleology to the extreme; he is demonstrating that evolution is a moral disaster by using Reductio Ad Absurdum. Fred doesn't present that as his belief, he presents it as something which is an outcome of evolution.
Nietsche, the only honest Atheist, took Atheism to its extremes, and developed the Will To Power (ubermenchen) philosophy; the idea of racism is very much present in Atheist philosophy and in the original evolutionary works which led to Social Darwinism, which is what Fred writes about. Even Dawkins has admitted to Social Darwinism when he says that Hitler cannot necessarily be said to be "wrong" under Dawkins' Atheist theory.
JC Birthner,
Perhaps you would share how you think that your analogy fits what Fred said? Because Fred's opinion is not represented by Frank's opinion in the analogy.
Or better still, attack Fred's actual statement head-on, instead of obliquely.
Please keep in mind that my comment was about why I don't believe in the god of the Bible.
“God never interacts with me in any way. No matter how much I pray, how good I am or how bad I am, the response from God is... nothing.”
Why would it be expected that a creating deity would perform to an Atheist's requirements, on his command?
Simple answer: because the Bible says He would.
the Atheist here has not read or studied the Bible.
This is funny. I've read the Bible and I led Bible studies for teenagers for years.
"Real men don't need imaginary friends.”
The unfounded delusion of personal superiority of the Atheist becomes apparent. Considering oneself to have the sole claim to being “real men” renders Atheists both not trustworthy and irrational. It is yet another reason that Atheists are considered below rapists and child molesters regarding their trustworthiness.
You'd rather rapists and child molesters look after your grandchildren instead of atheists?
I'm really interested seeing a study that says people trust child molesters more than atheists or is it just another thing you made up?
”Why would it be expected that a creating deity would perform to an Atheist's requirements, on his command?
Simple answer: because the Bible says He would.”
Please quote the verse that says that God is committed to performing whatever act any human demands, upon that demand. In other words, God is subservient to each and every human. Any verse to that effect.
” the Atheist here has not read or studied the Bible.
This is funny. I've read the Bible and I led Bible studies for teenagers for years.”
Did you teach them that God is like a candy machine – put your demand in, and you get out exactly what you demand commanded?
” You'd rather rapists and child molesters look after your grandchildren instead of atheists?
I'm really interested seeing a study that says people trust child molesters more than atheists or is it just another thing you made up?”
The study is real. You are behind the news. start here. Apparently the study demonstrates that rapists and Atheists are equated in trustworthiness.
And based on the Atheists that I have met here, yes, I think rapists and child molesters would be on the same undesirability scale as Atheists. Care to know why?
Please quote the verse that says that God is committed to performing whatever act any human demands, upon that demand.
You've slowly changed what I said from "God never interacts" to "God doesn't bend to my whims". (Which is what I expected from you.)
But let's see
Matthew 18:19
"I promise that when any two of you on earth agree about something you are praying for, my Father in heaven will do it for you."
Mark 11:24
"Everything you ask for in prayer will be yours, if you only have faith."
John 16:23
"I tell you for certain that the Father will give you whatever you ask for in my name."
John 14:13-14
"Ask me, and I will do whatever you ask. This way the Son will bring honor to the Father. I will do whatever you ask me to do."
Matthew 7:7
"Ask, and you will receive. Search, and you will find. Knock, and the door will be opened for you."
I think rapists and child molesters would be on the same undesirability scale as Atheists. Care to know why?
Go for it.
"start here"
Sorry, the page you were looking for in this blog does not exist.
Everything you say slowly changes.
First it's:
"It is yet another reason that Atheists are considered below rapists and child molesters regarding their trustworthiness"
Below rapists and child molesters
"Apparently the study demonstrates that rapists and Atheists are equated in trustworthiness"
Now it's changed to "equated". Is this more reasons why you shouldn't be trusted?
Rasing 286,
If that is your biggest complaint, then you actually don't have any. If you are an Atheist, a rapist or child molester, then you are equally untrustworthy. Don't like what you read so you pick at nits? What a waste of time.
Rasing 286,
This will be a twofer, in the sense that the attack on prayer is an example of why Atheists are not trusted:
Matthew 18:19 Talking to the Disciples. No one else.
Mark 11:24 Talking to Peter. No one else.
John 16:23 Talking to his Disciples. No one else.
John 14:13-14 Talking to Phillip. No one else.
Matthew 7:7 Speaking about wisdom obtainable from God via the Holy Spirit, the “good gift” from God. Not talking about opening actual doors. Using hyperbole, as he frequently did. Nor did he really mean that there is a log in anybody’s eyes, or that the eye is the “lamp” of the body burning olive oil, nor to go naked like the “lilies of the field”, or that false prophets really wore sheep’s clothing, or that there is an actual “wide road” to destruction, etc. etc. These all are metaphorical, and in the same speech.
This is willful misunderstanding which is presented in the form of single verses excerpted gratuitously from the context, a context which shows the intent of the excerption to be false. In other words, a deliberate false representation in the attempt to bolster a non-existent case for Atheism (by trying to puke on the Bible). BTW, falsifying the Bible has no bearing on basic Theism and the existence of a non-physical agent capable of creating the universe. Trashing the Bible is without any intellectual value at all, and is just a ruse to avoid the necessity of addressing the actual issue.
The actual issue is whether Atheists have any logic or empirical experimental proof which validates their belief system. They do not, and they cannot logically claim to be logic and evidence based. But they do make that dishonest claim along with others, and that alone is seen as fundamental dishonesty, even if only intellectual dishonesty. But that type of dishonesty is the worst, because it breeds all the other types, which flourish in the character void which has been created.
Further, Atheists start with a disciplinary void which they think is freedom, allowing them to create their own Freethought (which is actually logically ungrounded, undisciplined thought), and to create morals for themselves which match their personal proclivities, allowing them to declare themselves to be tautologically good, better in fact than the Other. Even better, they are at liberty (freedom again) to change their moral position at will and on a moment’s notice as is convenient. Their perceived freedom is actually (a) a void of disciplined axiom-based logic, (b) totally plastic morality, and (c) absence of any striving for positive character traits.
Beginning with a void, Atheists can wind up believing anything, nothing, or everything; there is no intellectual discrimination inherent in Atheism. Whatever an Atheist believes comes not from Atheism, but from the Atheist himself subjectively derived, or co-opted from other Atheists who subjectively derived their morality and beliefs.
So encountering an Atheist gives no clue to what subjective moral system he claims for himself, and certainly no clue as to what it might be tonight or tomorrow (while baby sitting).
There is nothing there to trust, and plenty to give one pause. There is no reason for an Atheist to trust another Atheist either, since there is no common base except self-developed and chameleon beliefs.
Trust requires consistent honesty; honesty requires voluntary, disciplined self-subordination to accepted moral code; Atheism is the opposite, rejecting all moral authority except for the self and thereby all moral codes except the self-derived. While he might claim moral correspondence with Theist moral theories, that correspondence would be stolen and volatile. Honesty is seen to be not a part of Atheism, and thus Atheists are not trusted.
Whether Atheists accept this is of no concern; it is part of their Atheism.
Rob,
None of those things were part of the article on evolution. The evolution article mentions "blacks", never. It mentions "black" twice, quoting studies each time. If you are disqualifying his evolution issues based on racism, that's not valid because his evolution comments were not based on those racial statements. If you want to address his other article on the basis of racism, then that is valid, but all you actually did is imply that it is racist, not that it is incorrect. If you wish to show that it is incorrect, then go ahead, but that is not the topic of this thread.
Regarding loss of faith, I am actually all for it with the caveat that that decision be made in conjuction with a determination to find truth, the intellectual path to disciplined logical thinking and the consequences of disciplined, logical thinking.
The path might be guided, but the individual has to take it himself. My experience is that very few actually question their own axioms clear down to the point of determining what "rational" really means in terms of evidentiary theory, deduction, empiricism, truth value and justifiable knowldge. But those things are essential to building a valid worldview. And no one can do them for anyone else.
Conclusions made in ignorance are highly unlikely to be valid.
I think the faith is already lost and no matter how hard I try to will myself to believe I can't do it but I can't be an atheist because I hate them so much. I've always hated them. I can't even say why. Just growing up they arew the people you hate. They are the people I told my kids to hate. That's why I come to blogs like this. I try so hard. I want to beleive and I'm asking to believe and I can't. It's not working. I can't find any good Christian sites that have anything.
Rob, would you care to contact me on my email?
I would like to discuss some things with you, just things to consider regarding belief.
In the meantime, please consider this letter to another person in a similar situation to yours.
I'm usually a slug at getting around to viewing email, but I will start checking it frequently, in case you wish to chat.
Matthew 18:19 Talking to the Disciples. No one else.
Mark 11:24 Talking to Peter. No one else.
John 16:23 Talking to his Disciples. No one else.
John 14:13-14 Talking to Phillip. No one else.
Man! You can eliminate huge chunks of Christianity using this method!
"Believe in me, and ye shall not come in judgment but have life"? Talking to his disciples. No one else.
"For God demonstrates His love for us, in that while we are sinners, Christ died for us"? Talking to the church in Rome. No one else.
Great Commission? Save it, he's only talking to his disciples.
Great going!
Post a Comment