AgnosticWeb.com

Back to the forum index

Linear

Open Letter to All - The argument I've run into most often in this site seems to be of the nature "life is too complex." - But this isn't really an argument. If we break it down, its more of a directed observation. - Life is incredibly complex. - No one can reasonably deny that. - But why do we have to consider a designer? That life is complex isn't enough for me. It seems like a cop-out answer, "It's too complex, we can't fathom it, so we have to invoke a creator." - It is a direct restatement of the old creationist "god of the gaps," and I haven't come across anything so compelling, largely because the writers in the field of Intelligent Design have been shown to have a purely political motivation. And in their science, they have been discredited--though science based on political ideology will nearly always be discredited. I've read Dembski and Behe, and can assure you that Dembski's math is baseless based on my experience in computer science. Biochemists have done the same thing to Behe's work. My true opinion on these authors is one that would be deleted were I to post it again. - Why--for you--is the idea of a designer actually valid? Tell me why invoking a supernatural deity is an acceptable alternative. My goal here is really to read and internalize, and my own posting will be limited to questions designed to reach a better understanding of your thinking. I don't plan on attacking your view--not in this thread at least. I want to collect the various arguments and see if they are based in ignorance, faith, or logic. (Or more categories should they surface.)

6657 views

Matt has opened this thread with various statements and questions, in response to the argument that life is too complex to have come about by chance. - For two reasons I doubt if you'll get many responses. One is that David is our only regular contributor who thinks a designer is "compelling". Perhaps you should have asked why "chance" is so compelling ... and perhaps you should also ask why you didn't ask that?! In my post of 12 July I challenged your statement that chance was less "unsatisfactory" than design, asked for your criteria, and asked why one should believe in an explanation one found unsatisfactory. You did not answer.*** - This leads me to the second reason, which I hesitate to mention because I don't want to cause offence. However, I would like to think that what I'm about to say may be helpful in the long run. You write: "My own posting will be limited to questions designed to reach a better understanding of your thinking...I want to collect the various arguments and see if they are based in ignorance, faith, or logic." I'm sure you don't mean to give this impression, but you sound like someone who thinks he knows all the answers, and is now testing his students. - This ties in with your last post on "Chance v Design", in which you wrote: "From your initial treatise, I really felt that you were arguing against chance from a position of ignorance. It's clear you're not, and I do hope I wasn't seen as insulting your intelligence." I appreciate the latter remark, and being asked to defend one's views is not an insult. The discussions have been informative and for the most part enjoyable. But ... and this is where I hope my comments may be useful to you ... perhaps as a possible future teacher of undergraduates and postgraduates, you might take a couple of tips from an old hand. Don't assume that your students are ignorant, and keep in mind that while you are assessing them, they are also assessing you. If, for instance, your logic comes under fire or you are asked a challenging question, it will not be enough to congratulate the student on having passed your intelligence test, and then announce that you are going to end the discussion because you're not really interested. - *** In your stimulating exchanges with David Turell under "The Difference of Man...", you have supplied part of an answer, and I will follow that up with some other points later today or tomorrow.

6496 views

Matt has opened this thread with various statements and questions, in response to the argument that life is too complex to have come about by chance.
> 
> For two reasons I doubt if you'll get many responses. One is that David is our only regular contributor who thinks a designer is "compelling". Perhaps you should have asked why "chance" is so compelling ... and perhaps you should also ask why you didn't ask that?! In my post of 12 July I challenged your statement that chance was less "unsatisfactory" than design, asked for your criteria, and asked why one should believe in an explanation one found unsatisfactory. You did not answer.***
> - I actually have answered that, in the post you had responded to. - If we invoke a creator, there isn't really anything we can say or do or study about it. We just invoke it. It's also unfalsifiable, which is one of my criterion for accepting something--anything--as truth. - You can attack this by asking, "Well then, why do you accept axioms, as axioms are tautologies?" - The answer is that axioms are assumptions that must be made in order to prove something true or false. To say that at this point a creator god is necessary for either life or human intelligence is to say that all possible avenues of exploration have been exhausted. We need only (and should only) invoke axioms or assumptions if and only if they are absolutely necessary, or if we're in the completely theoretical, such as when they played around with Euclid's 5th postulate to create a new mathematics--hyperbolic geometry. - However no new knowledge or theoretical mathematics would be created by taking on a creator axiom, because unlike say, Euclid's fifth postulate, there is nothing more you could actually concretely say or theorize using it as a construct. From a practical standpoint it's an entirely useless axiom. - Chance on the other hand, is an entire mathematical truth that is extensively well studied. That by itself makes it rationally superior, in my estimation. A creator if invoked is useful purely in a metaphysical framework... not in any practical problem. - Please keep in mind that I also only invoke chance insofar as to provide a general boundary to the problem at hand. We do not have enough information to be able to say what the chances really are for life to come about at all, let alone whether or not it was created. If scientific abiogenesis pans out, it still doesn't kill the idea of a designer. - >I'm sure you don't mean to give this impression, but you sound like someone who thinks he knows all the answers, and is now testing his students. 
> - That's where people like you will always be appreciated! If I could edit out the line I would. I'm a person that prefers brevity and am not easily offended, but I can see exactly what you mean in how it comes across awfully bad as most people don't have thick skin. Whereas, the wording wouldn't offend me, I recognize (now) that it would be arrogant in most contexts. - > This ties in with your last post on "Chance v Design", in which you wrote: "From your initial treatise, I really felt that you were arguing against chance from a position of ignorance. It's clear you're not, and I do hope I wasn't seen as insulting your intelligence." I appreciate the latter remark, and being asked to defend one's views is not an insult. The discussions have been informative and for the most part enjoyable. But ... and this is where I hope my comments may be useful to you ... perhaps as a possible future teacher of undergraduates and postgraduates, you might take a couple of tips from an old hand. Don't assume that your students are ignorant, and keep in mind that while you are assessing them, they are also assessing you. If, for instance, your logic comes under fire or you are asked a challenging question, it will not be enough to congratulate the student on having passed your intelligence test, and then announce that you are going to end the discussion because you're not really interested. 
> - My hope is that I'll get students who challenge me. I wish I knew a better word for ignorance because it has such negative connotations, as does naive, and other similar words I've played around with. I hope I've answered your challenge satisfactorily.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

6636 views

If we invoke a creator, there isn't really anything we can say or do or study about it. We just invoke it. It's also unfalsifiable, which is one of my criterion for accepting something--anything--as truth.
 
 
I have my own answer to your assertion. - 
From an earlier post:
> I prefer to call my line of reasoning rational philosophy, using findings in nature to decide whether there is a God on not. I am not a theologian by any means. - Adler, in "How to think about God", defines " 'rational philosophic inquiry' ...as a persistent effort to explain what needs to be explained and cannot be explained by scientific investigation, or by any other form of inquiry that employs as its means perceptual observations and reflective or analytic thought. (Pg. 148) He concludes his argument for God: "I am persuaded that God exists, either beyond reasonable doubt or by a preponderance of reasons in favor of that conclusions over reasons against it." (Pg. 150) - He then discusses the fact that philosophical theology can carry one only to the edge of a chasm, quoting Pascal, " that separates the 'God of the philosophers' from "the God of 'Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,' and of Moses, Jesus and Mohammed." To cross the chasm, there is no bridge, but a leap of faith, which leaves philosophy behind. - And here, for me, what is not needed is Karl Popper and falsification. That is full reductionism materialism science approach, and that is fine if the individual wants to proceed that way, but I haven't. I am an autodidact. I started my studies in this area over 50 years ago, with NO preconceived conclusion. I came to my current conclusion about twenty years ago based on the findings in cosmology and particle physics. Then I took on Darwin and evolution; Darwin starts when life is present. His theory does account for life itself, and there is still no evidence for macroevolution, only microevolution. And yes, no question, evolution occurred. As I have stated before, we are still uncovering the full mechanism. Natural selection IS passive. The competition IS active, but the opponents of the battle for survival arrive by chance, from a purposeless progression if one is to believe today's Darwin proponents. The driving force providing the players in the game of evolution is passive. - And so I am across the chasm, having faith in my ability to judge my conclusion and accept it. Only, I don't believe in Adler's God, who is 'a personage like no other person.' I don't think religions help. They don't know any more than I do. The sacred texts are somewhat historical and fanciful. I feel there is a universal consciousness and intelligence, of which I am a tiny part. And that is where I stand, with full faith that what I feel is correct, and faith that I can relate to that universal intelligence and gain support from it by believing in it. This is a paraphrase of "there is a world of difference in believing that God exists and believing in God." (Jose' Ortega y Gasset) This last sentence is from Adler.

6566 views

I must insert a correction in my previous post: - > Then I took on Darwin and evolution; Darwin starts AFTER life is present. His theory does NOT account for life itself, and there is still no evidence for macroevolution, only microevolution. And yes, no question, evolution occurred. As I have stated before, we are still uncovering the full mechanism. Natural selection IS passive. The competition IS active, but the opponents of the battle for survival arrive by chance, from a purposeless progression if one is to believe today's Darwin proponents. The driving force BY providing the players in the game of evolution RESULTS IN A passive PROCESS. 
 
I need to edit better.

6566 views

I must insert a correction in my previous post:
> 
> > Then I took on Darwin and evolution; Darwin starts AFTER life is present. His theory does NOT account for life itself, and there is still no evidence for macroevolution, only microevolution. And yes, no question, evolution occurred. As I have stated before, we are still uncovering the full mechanism. Natural selection IS passive. The competition IS active, but the opponents of the battle for survival arrive by chance, from a purposeless progression if one is to believe today's Darwin proponents. The driving force BY providing the players in the game of evolution RESULTS IN A passive PROCESS. 
> 
> I need to edit better. - It's alright. I find nothing wrong with what you say here, except that you do realize that in order to capture macroevolution you would have to capture one of every generation--as a calculus example every infinitesimal under the curve? What would suffice as evidence barring this?

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

6508 views

I find nothing wrong with what you say here, except that you do realize that in order to capture macroevolution you would have to capture one of every generation--as a calculus example every infinitesimal under the curve? What would suffice as evidence barring this? - What suffices as in my post to George is showing the tiny steps,if they exist, not each generation, or discovering the method as to why the jumps in form and chemistry are so large.

6592 views

Dr. Turell, - It seems at large, we really have little to quibble about. It is impossible to argue with any number of years of personal experience. I am happy though, that I've found netizens that don't feel that their experience is paramount in the debate. - I do appreciate the time you've invested and wonder how you did it working as a medical doctor! However there is a great deal I don't understand in terms of willingly taking unfalsifiable positions outside of theoretical discourse. I do not see how they can be any superior in regards to the forms of investigation open to us. - I do hate that you've called my position reductionist. I admit it is a very conservative approach but I'm satisfied to have "no answer" whilst the various details wheedle themselves out. I've met people who were unsatisfied with not having an answer and as such, accept one that is conveniently unassailable. (There is no arguing with faith.) This is my appraisal of Adler's summarized view on god. - I admit that out of this raw principle I have an aversion to faith of all forms. That is of course, why mathematics is so seductive. It is interesting that you mention Pascal on a couple of occasions. He is one of the theists I admire most, for he was a tortured soul--along with Dostoevsky and Nietzsche. I have more in common with those three thinkers than anyone else.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

6533 views

I do appreciate the time you've invested and wonder how you did it working as a medical doctor! - I like to read. I had books to read on the Grand Canyon, while rafting it, covering much of cosmology and particle physics. i worked in a clinic and had four weeks vacation and meetings time each year. - > (There is no arguing with faith.) This is my appraisal of Adler's summarized view on god. - And I am comforatble reaching my sort of faith, a religion of one person.

6521 views

I do appreciate the time you've invested and wonder how you did it working as a medical doctor! 
> 
> I like to read. I had books to read on the Grand Canyon, while rafting it, covering much of cosmology and particle physics. i worked in a clinic and had four weeks vacation and meetings time each year. 
> 
> > (There is no arguing with faith.) This is my appraisal of Adler's summarized view on god. 
> 
> And I am comforatble reaching my sort of faith, a religion of one person. - The only other guy I met who was like that was a process theologian who in many respects reminds me of you. And you both remind me of myself... I'd be interested in seeing what the respective MBTI types were.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

6487 views

Matt has raised several points under different threads, though they can all be related to this one. Thank you for yesterday's post, and for your gracious acceptance of my "tips". As frequently happens these days, I had drafted a reply to your previous posts, but you have been too quick for me! I have therefore added one final section in response to an additional point you have raised. - 1) Under Chance v. Design you wrote: "Process theology [...] offers a very comprehensive view that allows one to have a supernatural [see (2)] god without violating the scientific method." I need to know more about process theology (thank you for the website reference, which contains some interesting reviews), but generally I don't see why religious belief has to violate the scientific method. It's only when fundamentalists insist on the literal meaning of their dubious texts that there is a conflict. Charles Darwin said his theory of evolution was compatible with theism, and you are aware that in epistemological terms there is no way of knowing whether life is the result of chance or design. Every discovery science makes in this field can therefore be made to fit in with chance or with design ... hence the fact that not all scientists are atheists! - 2) You ask us to tell you why "a supernatural deity is an acceptable alternative" (presumably to chance). From my point of view it's not. And chance is not an acceptable alternative to a designer. But when you say a "supernatural deity", you are loading the question with a term which can be misinterpreted and which needs much closer scrutiny. As I tried to point out in my discussion with John Clinch, we do not know the bounds of nature. We are hamstrung here by language, because words like deity and God are loaded with associations. Design implies consciousness, i.e. some sort of unknown and probably unknowable conscious power. That's the design theory. It can and does lead to all kinds of speculation about the possible nature of a designer (and hence to the various religions), but these are not part of the theory itself. - 3) The invocation of a creator is "a direct statement of the old creationist 'god of the gaps'." I find this pejorative expression irritating. All theories are attempts to fill gaps. The theory of abiogenesis fills the gaps with chance or with unknown natural laws, so should we call that theory 'genesis of the gaps'? Every attempt to solve a mystery entails fixed points and filling the gaps between those points (see Gestalt theory). Why should the God theory be singled out? (For the falsifiability argument, see (5)). - 4) Under "The Difference of Man..." you wrote: "My REAL view ... I must distinguish this because I play devil's advocate so much that my real positions tend to be obfuscated ... is that we bring in outside assumptions (deities) if and only if all possible other alternatives have been completely exhausted." - Do you then REALLY believe there is the slightest possibility of other alternatives ever being completely exhausted? If you don't (and I don't see how you can), you know that you will never bring in outside assumptions, and therefore your REAL position is that you will never consider the possibility of a deity (or outside intelligence). This is tantamount to saying you have made up your mind that there can be no explanation of life other than chance. Is that a fair deduction? It's not a problem, of course ... you are in very good company! - 5) In your latest post (reiterating your framework post) you have written: "If we invoke a creator, there isn't really anything we can say or do or study about it. We just invoke it. It's also unfalsifiable, which is one of my criterion for accepting something ... anything ... as truth." - The statement that life came about through design is unfalsifiable. The statement that life came about by chance is equally unfalsifiable (as is the materialist belief that there is nothing beyond the material world - though see (2)). If falsifiability is indeed one of your criteria for accepting something ... anything ... as truth, you will have to discard both chance and design as your explanations. What can be studied is the process of how life came about, and that can be done without even mentioning an unknowable prime cause. The fact that you can discuss and study chance as a subject in itself is of course irrelevant, as is the fact that you can discuss and study "God".

6579 views

dhw, 
In answer to 1 only... we should write a book together when we get done with all of this... - > 1) Under Chance v. Design you wrote: "Process theology [...] offers a very comprehensive view that allows one to have a supernatural [see (2)] god without violating the scientific method." I need to know more about process theology (thank you for the website reference, which contains some interesting reviews), but generally I don't see why religious belief has to violate the scientific method. It's only when fundamentalists insist on the literal meaning of their dubious texts that there is a conflict. Charles Darwin said his theory of evolution was compatible with theism, and you are aware that in epistemological terms there is no way of knowing whether life is the result of chance or design. Every discovery science makes in this field can therefore be made to fit in with chance or with design ... hence the fact that not all scientists are atheists! 
> - My view here is both unique and controversial--because I would actually like to see more theistic scientists (much to the aghast of some of my peers.) - The problem here, is one of a terse logical nature. - One can assess science as only studying the natural world, and theology only studying the supernatural. This is the one I presume you to take, and the one that the majority of theistic scientists I've met make. - This view can work perfectly as long as the supernatural isn't invoked as a cause and/or as a phenomenon regularly interfacing with that of the natural. This violates the assumption that we cannot differentiate from the natural and supernatural. Asserting that the natural world has or is caused by a supernatural phenomenon ultimately places on the person holding the position the burden for being able to say exactly when the supernatural ends and where the natural begins. Since the scientific method excludes this possibility there remains no tool save for raw speculation, because the process at arriving at a final truth invariably recreates the scientific method and thus must adopt its assumptions. Asserting a supernatural cause for the universe is the definition of paradox. - Panentheism and process theology manages to avoid this quagmire by positing similar positions, the former that the universe is contained within God, and the latter asserting that God is an animating force in the universe that is neither cause and effect: essentially the universe is a process and God is part of the process... if you think of quantum mechanics, God is Schrodinger's cat. - This is both a gross oversimplification as well as my own take on the philosophy--Whitehead's take on process philosophy is about as dense as reading Nietzsche as it is filled with its own words (literally, Whitehead makes all sorts of new words up in order to accurately describe his philosophy.) - EDIT: Quick note here, panentheism can still fail if one attempts again to assert that the deity somehow interfaces with the world--by recreating the paradox.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

6584 views

Panentheism and process theology manages to avoid this quagmire by positing similar positions, the former that the universe is contained within God, and the latter asserting that God is an animating force in the universe that is neither cause and effect: essentially the universe is a process and God is part of the process... if you think of quantum mechanics, God is Schrodinger's cat. - I like your brief description of panentheism. And I love the comment that process theism is like Schrodinger's cat. 
 
> EDIT: Quick note here, panentheism can still fail if one attempts again to assert that the deity somehow interfaces with the world--by recreating the paradox. - However, the edit bothers me. If the universe is contained within God, I assume there is a boundry line within the universe that He can cross at any time, and therefore no paradox. In 'my' panentheism God is the unuiversal mind, and since I am a small part of that mind the boundry gets fuzzy.

6884 views

Panentheism and process theology manages to avoid this quagmire by positing similar positions, the former that the universe is contained within God, and the latter asserting that God is an animating force in the universe that is neither cause and effect: essentially the universe is a process and God is part of the process... if you think of quantum mechanics, God is Schrodinger's cat. 
> 
> I like your brief description of panentheism. And I love the comment that process theism is like Schrodinger's cat. 
> - Took me an EXTREMELY long time to think of a way to describe process theology in a layman's way without destroying the character of process theology... I appreciate being appreciated, lol. - > > EDIT: Quick note here, panentheism can still fail if one attempts again to assert that the deity somehow interfaces with the world--by recreating the paradox.
> 
> However, the edit bothers me. If the universe is contained within God, I assume there is a boundry line within the universe that He can cross at any time, and therefore no paradox. In 'my' panentheism God is the unuiversal mind, and since I am a small part of that mind the boundry gets fuzzy. - Well, in that you can blame my general ignorance in the area of panentheism. The only panentheism I'm familiar with is the one taught to me by a Sioux my mom was friends with when I was a kid.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

6509 views

Matt has responded to Point 1 of my post of 15 July at 16.37: "One can assess science as only studying the natural world, and theology only studying the supernatural...This view can work perfectly as long as the supernatural isn't invoked as a cause and/or as a phenomenon regularly interfacing with that of the natural. This violates the assumption that we cannot differentiate from the natural and the supernatural. Asserting that the natural world has or is caused by a supernatural phenomenon ultimately places on the person holding the position the burden for being able to say exactly when the supernatural ends and where the natural begins. Since the scientific method excludes this possibility there remains no tool save for raw speculation, because the process at arriving at a final truth invariably recreates the scientific method and thus must adopt its assumptions." - This is an interesting and complex argument, which centres on the distinction between the natural and the supernatural, but I can't figure out what you mean by "this violates the assumption that we cannot differentiate from the natural and the supernatural". I shall have to respond without that sentence, so I may have missed something vital in your reasoning. - As I see it, no-one knows where the so-called natural ends and the so-called supernatural begins, simply because we have scarcely begun to unravel the mysteries of Nature. There have, for instance, been long discussions on this forum about the "paranormal", and as I'm not willing to dismiss all such experiences as fraud, self-delusion etc. ... particularly when otherwise unknowable information has been obtained ... I keep an open mind. It may be that there are "natural" forms of communication and even forms of being that we know nothing about. The fascinating article David recommended in his post of 14 July at 02.01 under "Quantum Science" led him to ask: "Is there another level of reality out there?" Quantum Science is not a study of the supernatural. - I therefore see no reason for the constraints you are imposing. The theist and the atheist scientist can continue to investigate Nature, and so long as their religious or irreligious beliefs don't impinge on that investigation, their findings should coincide. I have no doubt that they will continue to come upon (and eventually unravel) more and more mysteries, and the borders between what we now call natural and supernatural may well change accordingly. Invoking a "supernatural" creator, and even believing that it interfaces with the "natural" world, again won't change the findings, since whatever is discovered can be attributed to Nature or to God. I also see no reason why a believer should be obliged to say where the supernatural ends and the natural begins, let alone "exactly" where. This brings us to the nub of the matter. Unless there is a God who manifests himself and announces, "OK, guys, this is how I did it!" we shall never know the prime cause or what you call the "final truth", i.e. we shall never be able to say for certain that the universe was an accident, or that it was the product of design. If we can't know it, scientists and non-scientists, and theists and atheists alike have no tool except what you call "raw speculation" with which to search for that final truth. - If you accept this argument, there is no paradox and there is no quagmire. Science will go on investigating as far as it possibly can, and all of us can go on speculating about the "final truth". This brings us back to your initial statement ... that science studies the natural world and theology studies the supernatural. I would prefer to say that theology studies various theories concerning the unknowable prime cause. Those theories include a god that is immanent, a god that is transcendent, a god that is both, multiple gods, indifferent gods etc. I'd also include no gods, even though that goes against the etymology! In my view, however, it's essential that none of these theories should be studied without due respect for the findings of science. Science must ignore theology, but theology should not ignore science.

6672 views

This is an interesting and complex argument, which centres on the distinction between the natural and the supernatural, but I can't figure out what you mean by "this violates the assumption that we cannot differentiate from the natural and the supernatural". I shall have to respond without that sentence, so I may have missed something vital in your reasoning.
> - The definition of supernatural is something that is key here. I use the definition of supernatural that says it is "above and beyond" the natural. This is the most generic definition that I think everyone would agree to. This necessitates a duality, where the "supernatural" is separated from the natural by some invisible line. This is the position of the majority of the theistic world. The claim is that the "supernatural" can then somehow bridge into the natural world, which it would have to do to create our universe or talk to us through "mediums," or any other sort of shenanigans. - The fault with this line of reasoning is that it destroys the duality created by using the word "supernatural." The supernatural cannot by definition "interface with the natural world" if it is in fact, "supernatural." - This then leaves a single alternative. God isn't supernatural at all, in the words of Joan Osbourne, "What if God is one of us?" - God is part of the natural universe in this sense, and I suspect is what David believes and what you suspect. Only the dilemma here is identical to the one above. How can a natural being of some kind create the universe? At least, that one is actually answerable. We just don't know enough about our universe yet. - > ...Quantum Science is not a study of the supernatural.
> - No... It tells us (thus far) that photons behave in a way that is inconsistent with what we predicted to happen--that there's a set of laws that govern photons that are not compatible with either intuitional reason nor relativistic laws. It informs theology little, if it does at all. - As for the paranormal, I spent four years studying Hermetic and Occult/Pagan theologies, and can tell you from firsthand experience that it is trickery of the highest caliber, relying heavily on probability and psychology. Modern Vegas magicians are good sources--Penn Gillette often discusses (broadly) that there are techniques for "pulling information from nowhere," but as you may be aware these are all trade secrets and not open to the public. This includes I suspect, your story about the Juju. Fire-walking has been explained by science, and might shed some light on your Juju fire tale. - There is also a mathematical formula behind "I know your card" card tricks and I've been spending what little free time I have left to discovering the law. When I discover it, I will put it online. If you wish I would be willing to share the specific trick I'm studying here--anyone can do it. The formula that works on this trick is key to designing other tricks because it works with other differing card formulasâon card tricks that don't rely on "sleight of hand." - EDIT: - Good I have enough room. As for the rest of your post, it is true as long as atheists/theologians don't try to blur the line. The problem is that they often do. Ultimately there ARE constraints on the "prime cause" if it is caused by a deity... namely the ones I used above.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

6620 views

Anser to 2:
> 2) You ask us to tell you why "a supernatural deity is an acceptable alternative" (presumably to chance). From my point of view it's not. And chance is not an acceptable alternative to a designer. But when you say a "supernatural deity", you are loading the question with a term which can be misinterpreted and which needs much closer scrutiny. As I tried to point out in my discussion with John Clinch, we do not know the bounds of nature. We are hamstrung here by language, because words like deity and God are loaded with associations. Design implies consciousness, i.e. some sort of unknown and probably unknowable conscious power. That's the design theory. It can and does lead to all kinds of speculation about the possible nature of a designer (and hence to the various religions), but these are not part of the theory itself. 
> - Then I attack the utility/necessity of invoking something that is unknowable. One of Nietzsche's metaphysical arguments that has gone unchallenged is this: - God is described as unknowable and unthinkable. Why then should we base our thought upon something that is unknowable and unthinkable? - God is unthinkable in the sense that no one can think out his/her boundaries, limits, consciousness, any of it. It is therefore folly to base human thought on that which is unthinkable. A human metaphysic should be based soley on what is thinkable. - 
Answer to 3:
> 3) The invocation of a creator is "a direct statement of the old creationist 'god of the gaps'." I find this pejorative expression irritating. All theories are attempts to fill gaps. The theory of abiogenesis fills the gaps with chance or with unknown natural laws, so should we call that theory 'genesis of the gaps'? Every attempt to solve a mystery entails fixed points and filling the gaps between those points (see Gestalt theory). Why should the God theory be singled out? (For the falsifiability argument, see (5)).
> - I know it irritates you but it also irritates me to hear "oh, we can't explain that. It must be supernatural!" Why can't we let investigation take its course? You don't see too much of that the other way around... I don't remember the last time I heard "The silence Abraham heard while walking with his son isn't explained by psychology, it is explained by the lack of aural stimuli in the environment!" You only see this kind of argumentation about natural phenomenon that doesn't have an adequate explanation. The scientific version of abiogenesis is the best we've got... invoking a creator serves no purpose and explains nothing. - Answer to 4:
>
Do you then REALLY believe there is the slightest possibility of other alternatives ever being completely exhausted? If you don't (and I don't see how you can), you know that you will never bring in outside assumptions, and therefore your REAL position is that you will never consider the possibility of a deity (or outside intelligence).
> - It should be pretty clear especially from my above Nietzsche metaphysic that I would much rather see our race's industry spent in studying things that can really TRULY be investigated. That's my normative position. To be clear: I am rather unlikely to accept a creator argument as the object of theology is unknowable. But because the one virtue I intend on holding fast to is truthfulness you will never see me say "God does not exist," without words such as "I feel," or "I think." I'm not a staunch materialist, just very aware of the constraints of our methods of study. If you want a formal statement, "We can't know whether or not god exists, but I suspect he/she/it doesn't." - My criteria for accepting a claim is incredibly high.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

6574 views

I need to bring just a little more fruit on this topic. When I bring up my normative claim, "A human metaphysic must be humanly thinkable," I realize that this creates some possible ambiguity. - We can think UP a creator, but everything about this creator is unknowable. We can't apply any known tool to its properties, we can't apply things such as parsimony and rigorous logic to such an extent that we can call it studyable. Therefore we can't really think about it... we can't bring tools of thought to bear in a manner that would be productive or truly useful, and though raw speculation has its place I would challenge to find an instance where a deity has done more than provide a psychological framework for a human being in terms of how we work in our world.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

6549 views

We can think UP a creator, but everything about this creator is unknowable. We can't apply any known tool to its properties, we can't apply things such as parsimony and rigorous logic to such an extent that we can call it studyable. - The reason for suggesting a designer is that so much of our reality looks designed. Is there absolute proof that all schemes and mechanisms are designed? No, but we all recognize design when we see it. There is the real dilemma. - As the famous quote from a justice of the Supreme court: I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it.

6609 views

We can think UP a creator, but everything about this creator is unknowable. We can't apply any known tool to its properties, we can't apply things such as parsimony and rigorous logic to such an extent that we can call it studyable. 
> 
> The reason for suggesting a designer is that so much of our reality looks designed. Is there absolute proof that all schemes and mechanisms are designed? No, but we all recognize design when we see it. There is the real dilemma. 
> 
> As the famous quote from a justice of the Supreme court: I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it. - Bah! - Sounds more like an argument from authority in that guy's case!

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

6551 views

5) In your latest post (reiterating your framework post) you have written: "If we invoke a creator, there isn't really anything we can say or do or study about it. We just invoke it. It's also unfalsifiable, which is one of my criterion for accepting something ... anything ... as truth." 
> 
> The statement that life came about through design is unfalsifiable. The statement that life came about by chance is equally unfalsifiable 
> - Incorrect. If the mechanism(s) that brought about life can be created AND we can understand the entire system, we can create a probability distribution that would allow us to ascertain the odds of the proper sequence occurring. If it turns out that the odds are infinitesimally low than we know that something else had to happen in order to the proper sequence to appear. In this case, you could say that life coming about by chance would be falsified. If however the converse were true, and the sequence repeatedly manifests--then you have a confirmation of chance. - - If falsifiability is indeed one of your criteria for accepting something ... anything ... as truth, you will have to discard both chance and design as your explanations. What can be studied is the process of how life came about, and that can be done without even mentioning an unknowable prime cause. The fact that you can discuss and study chance as a subject in itself is of course irrelevant, as is the fact that you can discuss and study "God".
> - No... not quite. You can speculate about God. But you can't study God. You can do both with chance.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

6613 views

Matt: The definition of supernatural is something that is key here. I use the definition of supernatural that says it is "above and beyond" the natural. - I have no problem understanding what is meant by supernatural. My point is that we don't know the boundaries of what constitutes natural. You have summed it up very succinctly yourself: "We just don't know enough about our universe yet." The concept of the supernatural has too many silly associations. I'd prefer to say that there may be forms of communication and existence beyond those that we are currently aware of. - You ask: "Why can't we let investigation take its course?" We do. Belief in God never stopped the Mendels and Newtons and Faradays, or even the young pre-agnostic Darwin from investigating, and there are plenty of theist scientists still investigating today. It makes no difference whether you try to find out how Nature did it, or how God did it (so long as neither belief influences the investigation). Only the prime cause remains unknowable (chance or design, unconscious or conscious, Nature or God, Nature = God). - In this context, I argued that theories of life coming about by design or by chance were unfalsifiable. Your response is: "Incorrect. If the mechanism(s) that brought about life can be created AND we can understand the entire system, we can create a probability distribution that would allow us to ascertain the odds of the proper sequence occurring." Creating the mechanisms will not prove that the mechanisms were not created, and if we understood the entire system, there would be no need to calculate odds. If we understood the entire system, we would have all the answers. But if by the entire system you mean everything excluding the prime cause, we're back where we started. Besides, calculating odds can't give you certainty. - As for the Nietzschean line, you "attack the utility/necessity of invoking something that is unknowable". The prime cause is unknowable, but it's human nature to speculate on mysteries, and what harm is there in speculating on possible solutions? If utility and necessity are your criteria for what humans should and shouldn't do, you can dispense with most of our activities. "Allow not nature more than nature needs, / Man's life is cheap as beast's." (King Lear) If you wish to argue that dogmatic adherence to religious texts is a hindrance to knowledge, and is the cause of much suffering and of much social evil, I will agree with you totally. But one can just as well argue that thought based on this unknowable something, while leading to much evil, has also led to much practical good: its ethical and social codes, comforts and charitable works can be as useful as they can be damaging, and as I said above, belief in a being beyond our cognizance doesn't stop scientific investigation.
(I've just read your post of 18 July at 19.39, in which you doubt if a "deity has done more than provide a psychological framework for a human being in terms of how we work in our world." That sounds pretty useful to me. Remember, it's you who brought up the criterion of utility!) - You wrote: "As for the paranormal, I spent four years studying Hermetic and Occult/Pagan theologies, and can tell you from firsthand experience that it is trickery of the highest caliber." This is one of those statements that make me inclined to give you an editorial slap on the rump. There are three of us on this site alone who have had experiences of inexplicable events that occurred spontaneously in the midst of real life (my "juju fire tale" was not staged as a demonstration. It actually occurred in the course of a terrifying episode in which the boy concerned attempted to kill a teacher.) Pim van Lommel (worth a Google), a cardiologist, spent many years studying NDEs and OBEs and published his findings. Were the patients all fooling, is the good doctor a liar, is someone going round wards planting visions in the patients' brains? I have no doubt whatsoever that many so-called "paranormal" experiences are the result of trickery, self-delusion, superstition, faulty perception etc. (why confine your research to "trickery"?) but there are vast numbers of cases that remain unexplained, and I would be most surprised if your four years of study had encompassed them all. However, let me make it clear once again that I'm not arguing for the "supernatural". Nor, so far as I'm aware, are David or BBella. We cannot explain our experiences in the light of current knowledge. As a result, we remain open-minded as to the cause, but ... I hope I'm not speaking out of turn here ... I don't think any of us would rely on your "firsthand experience that it is trickery". - I like your formal statement: "We can't know whether or not god exists, but I suspect he/she/it doesn't." Mine is rather more complex: "We can't know whether or not a god exists, I haven't a clue either way, but if he/she/it does, I'd be more inclined to believe in an impersonal god than a personal one." My own criteria for accepting a claim are also "incredibly high", which is why I'm likely to remain an agnostic for the rest of my life! - (Personal note: do please tell us how your interview went.)

6778 views

dhw, - Your answer here in regards to the supernatural events--especially NDE have been shown to be reproducible. I've mentioned this podcast a couple times, but check it out... - www.radiolab.org - They have a browser that has a podcast where they interview the researcher who did this work, the episode is called "Who am I?" - This podcast also discusses about 70-80% of what we discuss in these forums (mind, consciousness, science, ethics... all the stuff that I declare is "fun" about all of this.) - Actually the Easter podcast where the sermon on Abraham and Isaac was displayed was one of the most interesting literary analysis of the story I'm aware of. - A more thorough reply is coming... busy couple of weeks ahead...

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

6662 views

I have no problem understanding what is meant by supernatural. My point is that we don't know the boundaries of what constitutes natural. You have summed it up very succinctly yourself: "We just don't know enough about our universe yet." The concept of the supernatural has too many silly associations. I'd prefer to say that there may be forms of communication and existence beyond those that we are currently aware of. 
> - It would be nice for you to clarify a bit why you think we can't draw the border to what is natural. - > You ask: "Why can't we let investigation take its course?" We do. Belief in God never stopped the Mendels and Newtons and Faradays, or even the young pre-agnostic Darwin from investigating, and there are plenty of theist scientists still investigating today. It makes no difference whether you try to find out how Nature did it, or how God did it (so long as neither belief influences the investigation). Only the prime cause remains unknowable (chance or design, unconscious or conscious, Nature or God, Nature = God).
> 
> ...But if by the entire system you mean everything excluding the prime cause, we're back where we started. Besides, calculating odds can't give you certainty.
> - The goal isn't about certainty its about what's more likely than not. If, for example, it can be shown that your definition of abiogenesis can happen, and that system is well studied, we would be able to determine how likely the process is--if we study the system to completion. If its a system that produces life on its own more often than not, and without human interference, then it argues a little better for a lack of design. - 
> (I've just read your post of 18 July at 19.39, in which you doubt if a "deity has done more than provide a psychological framework for a human being in terms of how we work in our world." That sounds pretty useful to me. Remember, it's you who brought up the criterion of utility!)
> - I wasn't clear here. The scope of utility here is in an explanatory power that advances exoteric knowledge. The kind of knowledge discussed in your suggestion here is purely esoteric (in the internal sense). - I think perhaps you also take me as too anti-religion here... you also appear to have me stretch this again beyond the scope of learning about the world. - It is fully true that if nothing else each person seeks to fashion his/her own full understanding of the universe and their place in it, and we're all free to choose that path. However, some paths come with certain restrictions. Some choose to place the *entirety* of all things on the foot of that which is fully unknowable, thus directly asserting that anything is indeed possible--when we *know* in fact that this is false. However, the problem with this as a skeptic is that we must also realize that there is an inherent superiority in explanations that actually *are* knowable... thinkable. While I don't adhere to scientism the fact remains is that this model of the world we have built is metaphysically superior to anything that came before it. While you agree that science methodically destroys superstition... at what point can we say that a creator being *isn't* such a thing? This is why I continuously assert that invoking a creator is metaphysically pointless beyond making (some of us) feel better. At that same token I have to swing the axe back the other way to say that world we have created through science is a *model* and is not by nature *actual reality.* It is an abstraction through which we can make predictions about our world. It doesn't rule out a creator but at the same time, metaphysically speaking it places definite limits about the creator that only a few forms of theism can actually deal with. - It is... a consequentialist argument to assert that because some of these people created useful things that it should excuse the bad acts they had also done. Last I checked that kind of ethical argument was dismissed via Kant. (Though on questions of survival I'm positively consequentialist myself.) - As for the paranormal, you're not likely to find me able to appreciably shed light on the topic. I know the "paranormal" as espoused through tarot cards, new-age religion, and other assorted phenomenon. I tend to stay 100% completely out of paranormal discussions as all I've ever run into in the past is rabid conviction from people who just want me to justify their beliefs as a "man of science." The research done by the U.S. Air Force gives a valid explanation for NDE that is not by any means paranormal in experience, and the model proposed is elegant--and with some of the advances in neuroscience very plausible. But I won't touch your fire tale just like I won't touch my friend Bill's experience with "demons." I've never once in my life encountered something like what either of you talked about, and I stay away from discussions that contain *that* level of conviction. - > (Personal note: do please tell us how your interview went.) - Which one, heh? I haven't set up the AI one yet but my old philosophy prof said he'd back me if I did the semiotics route.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

6717 views

Matt: It would be nice for you to clarify a bit why you think we can't draw the border to what is natural. - You drew it yourself when you said "We just don't know enough about our universe yet." Unless you think you know everything about the universe, the Earth and life on Earth, how do you know what Nature can and can't achieve? Atheists assure us that Nature is capable of assembling the elements of life without intelligent guidance. Maybe it is. Maybe Nature itself contains forms of intelligence, forms of existence, forms of communication we don't know about. How can you draw borders if you don't know the territory? - Matt: The goal isn't about certainty its about what's more likely than not. - That is precisely my point. You have forgotten what we were discussing, which was "falsifiability". In your post of 14 July at 19.41 you stated that the creator theory was "unfalsifiable, which is one of my criterion for accepting something ... anything ... as truth." I pointed out that the chance theory was equally unfalsifiable, and you dismissed this as "incorrect". In the context of abiogenesis, as in that of theism v. atheism generally, it may be shown to your satisfaction that the chance theory is likely to be true, but no-one can prove that it is false. If you can't falsify the creator theory, how can you possibly falsify the chance theory (unless the creator arrives and announces "I dunnit.")? - You attacked "the utility/necessity of invoking something that is unknowable", and I pointed out that belief in God has resulted in useful "ethical and social codes, comforts and charitable works" (see later). You have responded: "I wasn't clear here. The scope of utility here is in an explanatory power that advances exoteric knowledge. The kind of knowledge in your suggestion here is purely esoteric (in the internal sense)." 
This is not my idea of clarity. I haven't a clue what you mean by esoteric in the internal sense. Nor for that matter do I understand your distinction between exoteric and esoteric knowledge in the context of utility or in that of a prime cause. Most people, I suspect, if asked to say what they 'know' about 1) 'the probability of the spontaneous generation of self-replicating RNA molecules', and 2) 'God', would have rather more 'knowledge' of 2), and I doubt if they'd find much utility in 1). Perhaps you are using the terms esoteric and exoteric esoterically! - Matt: "...the fact remains is that this model of the world we have built is metaphysically superior to anything that came before it...This is why I continuously assert that invoking a creator is metaphysically pointless beyond making (some of us) feel better." - Invoking chance is equally pointless. My personal criterion for evaluating theories is likelihood/credibility/truth/. I cannot believe in the ability of chance to assemble the pieces necessary to generate life and evolution. A metaphysics that wants me to accept such a hypothesis is not going to convince me. It's not a question of pointlessness ... and the idea of an all-seeing or an impersonal God does not make me "feel better" ... but a question of logic: if one explanation seems to me unsatisfactory, I must consider alternatives. But let me emphasize that I accept all the reservations you have about designer figures too. That's why I'm an agnostic and see no superiority of one unbelievable theory over another. I think we travel part of this route together, because you stop short of atheism. The difference between us is simply one of degree ... you are not as sceptical as I am about the chance theory, and you are more sceptical than I am about the possibility that there are elements of life and the universe that we know nothing about. But I see no relevance to truth (or even to likelihood) in your talk of utility/ pointlessness/esoteric/exoteric ... and truth is what I'm interested in. - You wrote: "It is...a consequentialist argument to assert that because some of these people created useful things that it should excuse the bad acts they had also done."
 
Matt, this is unworthy of you. You know perfectly well that I did not make such an assertion. You attacked the "utility" of invoking something unknowable, and I pointed out (see above) that religion "while leading to much evil, has also led to much practical good" (ethical and social codes etc.). This was evidence of utility, not a defence of "bad acts". - You wrote: "As for the paranormal, you're not likely to find me able to appreciably shed light on the topic." No problem. But perhaps, in that case, it might be advisable not to tell us "from firsthand experience that it is trickery of the highest caliber".
 
Sorry about my confusion over your interviews. Just tell me when to keep my fingers crossed for you. (I'm sure you set great store by such gestures, even if the claims made for them are all too falsifiable!)

6690 views

dhw, - Whew... we write books together, I'll give you that! - First I need to spend some more time clarifying. Then maybe we can separate out the wheat from the chaff as it were. First point of clarification: my very very first question to you was "In what sense are you using the word 'chance.'" The problem with using that specific word when applied to an atheistic position, is that it is far too broad. George's comment about "naturally occuring" would be better phrased "can happen without intelligent interference." The atheist position as I would see it is that there is a process--presently unknown--by which matter can become self-replicating with all of the features we attribute to life if not life itself. Teleologically, this is the side of the coin that would to me, represent what it is that you call "chance," with the words "happens without intelligent interference" meaning "spontaneous" in a chemical sense; that if the components are present, the reaction(s) will occur unless somehow inhibited or stopped. The only part chance plays into this, is in determining the likelihood in a given time and a given place, this event would occur. When you take into consideration that our universe is *expanding,* that means that it truly is infinite, and as such the probability of this event is 100% *somewhere* even if its not here on earth. (This argument is synthesized from memory... don't really remember who said it or where it was I read it.) In either case, your reduction of the atheist position to chance as a sort of "replacement god" completely dodges the above argument without addressing it. In this particular instance, we know enough about chance to be able to say "yeah, if you have infinite time you will eventually exhaust all possibilities." As our universe is expanding, we do indeed have infinite time. This is the argument for "chance" that I find compelling, not the chance that you have constructed. In this light, it doesn't tell us a creator doesn't exist, only that it is not necessary to posit one to explain the origin of life. - The type of utility when I was originally bringing in the utility of basing human thought on that which is unthinkable, is in the sense of knowledge, i.e. epistemological. I left it too implicit. One of the definitions of "esoteric" means "of an internal nature." Exoteric knowledge would be "knowledge of the outside world," and that is what we are talking about with abiogenesis/design/creation, etc. - The psychological frameworks we discussed have merit, but are 1) Esoteric and 2) they do not give us knowledge about anything other than ourselves. I would say however that although you attribute those ethics to religious systems, I would say that those systems would be developed sans deities in the first place. Virtually all religions recreate the ethical systems under consideration, which means to me that the religions themselves are independent of the origin of these ethical principles. Religions are used to justify these rules, not create them. The "social contract" does more to inform us about ethics and man's place concerning them. - Religion's root words mean that religion by nature is a means with which a person synthesizes everything they know. As such, it is a meta-narrative that allows the person to put "things in their place." However, in terms of exoteric knowledge, I have only seen religions attempt to place artificial limits on what it is that humans can and can't question. - As for my uncharacteristic comment, I retract it fully. Sometimes I read things wrongly, and that's exactly what it was that I was doing. I hope you'll forgive the offense! - Your argument that since much about the universe is unknowable we can't know what's natural needs some qualification, I will address it with a later post.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

6696 views

The only part chance plays into this, is in determining the likelihood in a given time and a given place, this event would occur. When you take into consideration that our universe is *expanding,* that means that it truly is infinite, and as such the probability of this event is 100% *somewhere* even if its not here on earth. - Hate to break into such a long-winded discourse between you two, but the above makes no sense to me. The universe started with the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Life started here about 3.6 billion years go. The finite time for life to appear here was 10.1 billion years. There was no 'infinity' of time for chance to cause the event. There were 10.1 billion years, not an open-ended stretch of time. - By the way, expansion of the universe is theoretically not infinite. It is predicted by most theorists with infinite expansion, space-time will rip and the universe be destroyed. We will be gone long before then in 'heat death', if we survive the expansion of our sun in 5 billion years, by moving to another solar system with a friendly planet like ours.

6634 views

David Turell, - What the heck! I replied to this post already! Here goes again... - > Hate to break into such a long-winded discourse between you two, but the above makes no sense to me. The universe started with the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Life started here about 3.6 billion years go. The finite time for life to appear here was 10.1 billion years. There was no 'infinity' of time for chance to cause the event. There were 10.1 billion years, not an open-ended stretch of time.
> - The compelling part lies in the estimates for how many earth-like planets there are in our galaxy alone. The most conservative estimate I've heard is 10k. In our early solar system alone there is 3 planets (including our own) that could have harbored life, and the discovery of the broad range of extremophiles on earth means that life might have gotten started in extremely violent conditions in places we wouldn't even think to search. Life could be a helluva lot older than earth! - In this view, in that 10.1Bn years, each earth-like planet is a machine attempting to start life. (But it doesn't have to be limited to planets....) Every planet you add decreases the amount of time for life to start, and you really only need one successful attempt. Your argument doesn't seem to take this into consideration. 10100000000years/10000planets decreases that "time to life" by a magnitude of 4. The total number of years needed to exhaust the possibilities (if the estimates are correct) is more like 1.01million. And that's just for OUR galaxy, and not considering the extremophile possibilities of genesis. I admit this is raw speculation but it is certainly more believable than some creator being. - 
> By the way, expansion of the universe is theoretically not infinite. It is predicted by most theorists with infinite expansion, space-time will rip and the universe be destroyed. We will be gone long before then in 'heat death', if we survive the expansion of our sun in 5 billion years, by moving to another solar system with a friendly planet like ours. :-) - The cosmos tearing apart is new... there was a sciam article last year that talked about the "death of cosmology" and it was saying that we would expect an empty black void. Nothing at all about cosmic tearing, just a black so black that even the microwave background will be destroyed.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

6666 views

Life could be a helluva lot older than earth!
 
> Every planet you add decreases the amount of time for life to start, and you really only need one successful attempt. Your argument doesn't seem to take this into consideration. 10100000000years/10000planets decreases that "time to life" by a magnitude of 4. The total number of years needed to exhaust the possibilities (if the estimates are correct) is more like 1.01million. And that's just for OUR galaxy, and not considering the extremophile possibilities of genesis. I admit this is raw speculation but it is certainly more believable than some creator being. - Matt, you have switched from an infinite time to make life to calculations that it ought to be easy. Which is it? Certainly we know that this universe is capable of producing life and consciousness, but guesstimates don't tell us how easy, and what you are citing is guesswork. And one could argue that if it is so easy, a creator might have set it up that way. Our scientists have found it very hard to even find a starting process of any sort.
 
 
> > By the way, expansion of the universe is theoretically not infinite. It is predicted by most theorists with infinite expansion, space-time will rip and the universe be destroyed. We will be gone long before then in 'heat death', if we survive the expansion of our sun in 5 billion years, by moving to another solar system with a friendly planet like ours. 
 
> The cosmos tearing apart is new... there was a sciam article last year that talked about the "death of cosmology" and it was saying that we would expect an empty black void. - No, a big-rip is not a new thought, but an old one. I read the same sciam article on heat death. By the way, the last issue is a great improvement over the garbage the last editor was allowing. Having read SciAm for over 25 years, I have the background to complain a litle about the junk that has been present in the recent past years.

6624 views

Life could be a helluva lot older than earth!
> 
> > Every planet you add decreases the amount of time for life to start, and you really only need one successful attempt. Your argument doesn't seem to take this into consideration. 10100000000years/10000planets decreases that "time to life" by a magnitude of 4. The total number of years needed to exhaust the possibilities (if the estimates are correct) is more like 1.01million. And that's just for OUR galaxy, and not considering the extremophile possibilities of genesis. I admit this is raw speculation but it is certainly more believable than some creator being. 
> 
> Matt, you have switched from an infinite time to make life to calculations that it ought to be easy. Which is it? Certainly we know that this universe is capable of producing life and consciousness, but guesstimates don't tell us how easy, and what you are citing is guesswork. And one could argue that if it is so easy, a creator might have set it up that way. Our scientists have found it very hard to even find a starting process of any sort.
> - The infinity argument is of specious origin (old memory) in the first place. Kill it. (It was never part of my original argument anyway.) - The time for life to form in the cosmos is essentially from when organic compounds appear in the cosmos, until the present. I think I'm going to have to read Shapiro while in MX next month. My guess is he's already talked about all of this (and probably killed my ideas here.) - You correctly point out (and I admitted) that these numbers are conjecture--but frankly so is any imperceptible creator, only epistemologically one has the benefit of actually being an object of study and generating knowledge. At some point we do have to make a decision about what makes an argument better, and I'll always side with those that relate to what we *can* know. (Even when I know they're provisional explanations, but then, in science--what isn't?)

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

6706 views

Matt: We know enough about chance to be able to say "yeah, if you have infinite time you will eventually exhaust all possibilities." - David points out that we don't have infinite time.*** As for "all possibilities", you say yeah and I say nope. Where are the limits to credulity? Given countless billions of years and stars, explosions, implosions, protons and photons, chemicals and particles, gases and masses, collisions, divisions, I still don't believe Nature would accidentally come up with a perfectly functioning computer. And yet that's the equivalent of what I'm expected to believe. But I fear we are going round in circles. - Utility: psychological frameworks that "do not give us knowledge about anything other than ourselves" are probably more useful to most people than your "exoteric" knowledge of abiogenesis (which most people would call esoteric in the normal sense of the word). However, I agree that belief in God does not advance our scientific knowledge of the outside world, although I'm not convinced by this definition of utility. I also agree that society does not need religion to set up ethical systems, and that religion often imposes "artificial limits on what it is that humans can and can't question". I'm not a defender of religion, but am merely pointing out that it does have practical uses. It's a shame that Mark has left us, but I have no doubt that his pastoral care plays a very real and beneficial role in the community. - You (and Nietzsche) have asked why we should "base our thought upon something unknowable and unthinkable". Who are "we", and what thought have we "based" on it? If this is an attack on painstaking interpretation of and dogmatic adherence to religious texts written by humans, I share your scepticism. But if your question simply means: 'Why should anyone bother to waste their time thinking about a possible unknowable prime cause?', I can only answer that if I'm confronted by a mystery, it's my nature to think about possible solutions. This seems to be a common human trait. It doesn't stop scientists or philosophers or any other kind of truth-seekers from pursuing their investigations. In short, and in relation to you, me, and the advancement of knowledge, your (Nietzsche's) question seems to me as irrelevant as your criterion of exoteric utility. The question is what is the truth, and it may lie within the various god theories. - Thank you for your gracious apology regarding your consequentialist misinterpretation. Happily accepted. - *** I've just read your reply to David. Dawkins uses a similar argument. As I've said before, I base my (non-)beliefs on what is known, not on what people think they might possibly find.

6611 views

You (and Nietzsche) have asked why we should "base our thought upon something unknowable and unthinkable". Who are "we", and what thought have we "based" on it? If this is an attack on painstaking interpretation of and dogmatic adherence to religious texts written by humans, I share your scepticism. But if your question simply means: 'Why should anyone bother to waste their time thinking about a possible unknowable prime cause?', I can only answer that if I'm confronted by a mystery, it's my nature to think about possible solutions. This seems to be a common human trait. It doesn't stop scientists or philosophers or any other kind of truth-seekers from pursuing their investigations. In short, and in relation to you, me, and the advancement of knowledge, your (Nietzsche's) question seems to me as irrelevant as your criterion of exoteric utility. The question is what is the truth, and it may lie within the various god theories. 
> 
(Next two paragraphs are Nietzsche commentary. Ignore if you wish, it mainly just supplies background.) - I suck at communication sometimes. I'm going to explain alot of Nietzsche here (referred from here on as simply "N." N's comments (in full context) pertain to how western civilization had even into his age completely centered its thought (its philosophy) on God and the Bible. Mythos WAS Logos. N was alive during a turbulent time as the industrial revolution took over from the enlightenment and intelligentsia was firmly establishing itself as separated from the philosophical underpinnings of the dogmatic church. N was primarily concerned with what would happen to the masses when they realized "god is dead." Just as the earth was no longer the center of the universe, no longer was thought centered around God. This is how humans killed God. N recognized that man is a religious creature, and saw a power vacuum in the mind of the masses, that might be filled with a great despair. (Nihilism) Something was needed to fill this void. - N saw this as a time to create a new and human metaphysic, but how to create one that won't become dogma? The goal for man (and for people) should be something reachable... we can't "think" a God, but we can think ourselves better men. His argument here seems influenced by Adam Smith and Hobbes when he says that each person must pick one virtue and be true to THAT virtue. Christ was held up as such a high standard that meeting it created a psychological inferiority complex in Western thought. N was suggesting that western civilization focus on bettering the self as a replacement for god. So when N talks about metaphysics it is to focus oneself on that which is achievable, which according to N is only hindered by your own ability. "Do not think beyond your creating will" is an admonishment to stick to things that are humanly thinkable and doable. - N didn't say that our philosophical questions were pointless as I seem to have expressed, but that the answers to them are not going to come from looking within--which is invariably where the language of the mystics always goes. Although I'm fairly certain he denied the existence of a prime cause. - 
> Thank you for your gracious apology regarding your consequentialist misinterpretation. Happily accepted.
> 
> *** I've just read your reply to David. Dawkins uses a similar argument. As I've said before, I base my (non-)beliefs on what is known, not on what people think they might possibly find. - I think you're mistaking my ideas of "believable" with belief itself. Even if inconclusive there are some explanations that are more believable than others. I know I probably seem like quicksilver in these issues, but I'm in a suspended state of belief on the ultimate question. - I do find it interesting however, that you bring up "prime cause" more than once. - Does there have to be a "prime cause?" Buddhism would laugh at the suggestion, saying that our tendency to think in "cause and effect" distorts the reality of what we perceive. Have you considered their position?

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

6812 views

Matt has kindly given us a potted version of Nietzsche's "human metaphysic". - I wrestled with Nietzsche in my student days, and lost rather heavily. The background is familiar enough, but the problem with poet-philosophers is that poetry doesn't always make for clarity of ideas. Come to think of it, nor does philosophy, and especially German philosophy! Whether your own version reflects Nietzsche's obscurity or yours I'll have to leave you to decide. - Your post offers an interesting parallel, which I'll come to in a minute. First, though, some Nietzschean points: "N. was suggesting that western civilization focus on bettering the self as a replacement for god...focus oneself on that which is achievable, which according to N. is only hindered by your own ability...Do not think beyond your creating will." Then you go on: "He didn't say that our philosophical questions were pointless as I seem to have expressed, but that the answers to them are not going to come from looking within." - If the self is the new god, and the creating will is the driving force, this suggests to me a great deal of looking within. Even the Christianity to which N was so opposed is not based on looking within (apart perhaps from Puritanism). If you don't look up to God, or across at your fellow humans with charitable feelings (and especially in the old days with a view to converting them!), you can kiss goodbye to your harp. The glorification of the self seems to me to be considerably less outward-looking than the glorification of God and helping one's fellow humans. That's not a plea for Christianity, by the way. It's a complaint about the general woolliness of the argument. - This all ties in very neatly with your reference to Buddhism, which counts as a religion, though I see it more as a philosophy. Buddha's eightfold path (right views, right aspirations, right speech, right conduct, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right contemplation) is designed to lead the individual to Enlightenment and hence to Nirvana. Once again, the emphasis is on perfecting the self. It has to be trained to renounce just about everything that we humans enjoy most! Not much outward-looking there either. - In relation to our own discussion, however, I can only repeat that I don't find any of this relevant to your quest or mine for the truth about how we got here. Both Nietzsche and Buddha are focusing on how we can best live our lives. Nothing wrong with that, but I get the impression that most of us on this forum have already worked it out for ourselves. - And so to the "prime cause", which is just a convenient way of referring to whatever started things off. I'm not sure that Buddha would have laughed at it. His concern was to help us achieve perfect peace rather than with how we got landed in the otherwise endless cycle of birth-death-rebirth. (I could never swallow that aspect of Buddhism. If I don't remember what or who I was last time round, I might just as well not have been here.) - On the subject of belief, you write: "Even if inconclusive there are some explanations that are more believable than others." That's obviously true. The problem is that there's no consensus as to which ones they are. But you are "in a suspended state of belief on the ultimate question", and that is what I mean by the "prime cause". We have crossed the non-finishing line together!

6664 views

dhw,
> - I can understand where you're coming from, but allow me to nudge you to my perspective. Particular passages escape me save for one. In "On Apostates" in TSZ, there is a scene where God is among gods and declares himself "the only god." N implies that he is an ass for doing this. God has his place but it isn't to be first in the world. This is one of several passages that to me suggest that we're not replacing God as much as displacing him. The two words lead to radically different meanings. If God is one among several, then so too, is the ubermensch. His argument definitely appeals to American mythos, the idea of a world where each individual is "uncapped" and allowed to freely develop, is really little more than a restatement of Locke, and a precursor to Rand. I see very little glorification in N's writing, especially of the self. Life, most assuredly, but not the self. - > This all ties in very neatly with your reference to Buddhism, which counts as a religion, though I see it more as a philosophy. Buddha's eightfold path (right views, right aspirations, right speech, right conduct, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right contemplation) is designed to lead the individual to Enlightenment and hence to Nirvana. Once again, the emphasis is on perfecting the self. It has to be trained to renounce just about everything that we humans enjoy most! Not much outward-looking there either. 
> - Moderation would be a better explanation of Buddhism... the same for Epicurus actually, though in our day and age "Epicurean" has a completely different meaning. - > In relation to our own discussion, however, I can only repeat that I don't find any of this relevant to your quest or mine for the truth about how we got here. Both Nietzsche and Buddha are focusing on how we can best live our lives. Nothing wrong with that, but I get the impression that most of us on this forum have already worked it out for ourselves. 
> - This is true--utterly--but in order to understand how I think I thought it would be important to share with you. I'm a "between the lines" reader, I'm usually more interested in the framework that went into what someone said than necessarily what they say. It's the frameworks and the perspectives they cause that creates confusion. - > And so to the "prime cause", which is just a convenient way of referring to whatever started things off. I'm not sure that Buddha would have laughed at it. His concern was to help us achieve perfect peace rather than with how we got landed in the otherwise endless cycle of birth-death-rebirth. (I could never swallow that aspect of Buddhism. If I don't remember what or who I was last time round, I might just as well not have been here.)
> - Reincarnation is an artifact of Hinduism... I learned that it is simply something that those cultures added to the teaching so that it would be assimilated. It is one of the many "rafts" Shakyamuni gave more as a parable that was taken literally. You will find very few non-lay Buddhists adhering to this principle. (Willing to give references if so wished.) - > On the subject of belief, you write: "Even if inconclusive there are some explanations that are more believable than others." That's obviously true. The problem is that there's no consensus as to which ones they are. - This line jumps out at me. I've thought alot about this. How could one possibly build a consensus about such an issue? Considering that so much of this issue is specifically built upon personal philosophical frameworks... it smacks of me to be the stuff of aesthetic art. Considering that the question has been open at least for 2500 years, at what point should we consider it intractable? Mathematically we have shown that there can be no "proof." That means to me that the pious are right and only "faith can set you free." Not that I like that idea. Tiresome, and unyielding--is doubt. - >But you are "in a suspended state of belief on the ultimate question", and that is what I mean by the "prime cause". We have crossed the non-finishing line together! - At least once a week you say something to make me shoot milk out of my nose. Congrats, my dog is now happy...

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

6720 views

I'm afraid I'm going to leave you and Nietzsche to battle it out together. Although you are clearly one of his Ãbermenschen, I am a mere Mensch (though I hope in more than one sense of the word). - Thank you for correcting me on matters pertaining to Buddhism (I will try to forget the last of the Ariya-Sacca) . It seems rather to have changed direction since my youth, but then so have many other things, including our Labour Party (now Conservative), national security (= protect the government), public servant (= screw the public), Right Honourable (= Downright Dishonourable)....hm, better not go down that line. - You wrote: I'm a "between the lines" reader, I'm usually more interested in the framework that went into what someone said than necessarily what they say.
We are all "between the lines" readers, though few people realize it. And the less clear the text, the more we read into it. You say it's "the frameworks and the perspectives they cause that create confusion". Sometimes. And sometimes it's our imposition of our own frameworks and perspectives that create confusion. - As for consensus on "prime causes" or "ultimate questions", no, I don't think we shall ever reach one. If we did, it would probably signify that the fundamentalists had taken over, perish the thought. - Finally, and most importantly, let me join David in wishing you the very best of luck with your GRE on Wednesday. I hope this website has been a relaxing diversion rather than a dangerous distraction!

6591 views

I'm afraid I'm going to leave you and Nietzsche to battle it out together. Although you are clearly one of his Ãbermenschen, I am a mere Mensch (though I hope in more than one sense of the word). 
> - Heh. No, no one is or ever will be the Ubermensch. My thought is that N viewed that ideal similar to how Homer served as a heroic template for people like Themistocles and Leonidas. I *think* that it is also the thought of N scholars though I'd have to get a hold of my old prof to verify that. - > Thank you for correcting me on matters pertaining to Buddhism (I will try to forget the last of the Ariya-Sacca) . It seems rather to have changed direction since my youth, but then so have many other things, including our Labour Party (now Conservative), national security (= protect the government), public servant (= screw the public), Right Honourable (= Downright Dishonourable)....hm, better not go down that line.
> - As with all religions... "correction" would be too strong a word. I know for a fact that Tibetan and Sri Lankan Buddhists treat reincarnation essentially as the hindus do. I learned Zen Buddhism (Soto, to be specific) and Zen tends to be quite a bit more austere. I did learn however that the message of Buddhism is incredibly (and deliberately) plastic. You are correct in that the modern meaning is probably quite different from what the early Bhikkus really believed, but this we can never truly know. Either way, I found the ultimate logical conclusions in Buddhism to be a bit more than I was willing to accept. - > You wrote: I'm a "between the lines" reader, I'm usually more interested in the framework that went into what someone said than necessarily what they say.
> We are all "between the lines" readers, though few people realize it. And the less clear the text, the more we read into it. You say it's "the frameworks and the perspectives they cause that create confusion". Sometimes. And sometimes it's our imposition of our own frameworks and perspectives that create confusion.
> - I think that's more what I meant, because by understanding the framework of another's ideas, I can understand how they derived their thought. That leads to understanding and it helps to keep my ego *out* of the picture as I can concentrate on the logic. (Fails sometimes, mind you.) - > As for consensus on "prime causes" or "ultimate questions", no, I don't think we shall ever reach one. If we did, it would probably signify that the fundamentalists had taken over, perish the thought.
> 
> Finally, and most importantly, let me join David in wishing you the very best of luck with your GRE on Wednesday. I hope this website has been a relaxing diversion rather than a dangerous distraction! - Actually I attribute the strength of my verbal scores to the exercises in argumentation you guys put me through. I just wish the verbal scores were weighed as heavily, heh.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

6589 views

For what it's worth, I completely agree with the thrust behind your question. The argument "life is too complex therefore there must have been a designer" is a breathtaking non-sequitur. dhw woud doubtless retort that he is not saying that it must have had a designer, merely that it may have, but this doesn't get him off the hook. - As Dawkins and others have pointed out, this means that a designer must be at least as complex as what he designed and then you get into infinite regress: "who designed the designer?" and so on. It's turtles all the way down! - In the early days of this site, I was fond of making the "god-of-the-gaps" argument which was, in my 'umble opinion, never rebutted adeqautely. The gist of the response was that this gap is really, really special. This time, it's different. Oh-oh! Those seeking to shoe-horn a designer (ok, dwh, the possibility of one) into the ever-shrinking gaps in biology will come unstuck, of that we can be reasonably confident. They may be happy making their religion such a hostage to fortune but, if I were a theist, I'd want something a lot less vulnerable to explanation, something far grander and more ineffable - if only from an aesthetic point of view.

6561 views

John Clinch to Matt: I completely agree with the thrust behind your question. - John, would you please in future give us the relevant quote. Otherwise, we have to hunt for the original post and then read it through in order to find out what you're talking about. - There is another reason for my request ... namely, that it might possibly stop you from setting up easy targets of your own that do not correspond to what has actually been said. Your post continues: The argument "life is too complex therefore there must have been a designer" is a breathtaking non-sequitur. dhw would doubtless retort that he is not saying that it must have had a designer, merely that it may have, but this doesn't get him off the hook." - There is no hook. You are trying the same trick as with your previous made-up "logical fallacy", but have now switched to manufacturing your own non sequitur. Substitute "life is so complex that I can't believe it came about by chance", and your non sequitur disappears. Add to this: "therefore I believe in a designer" and you get theism; or add "but I can't believe in a designer either", and you have agnosticism. - In order to illustrate how false your "logical fallacy" argument was, I asked you ('James le Fanu', 22 July at 09.10) to apply your formula to your own beliefs. I wrote: "Now apply the "personal incredulity" argument to your own views: you find the concept of a transcendent God "preposterous", and NDEs and OBEs "nonsense", and therefore they can't exist. Would you accept that as a fair representation? Of course you wouldn't." - In your response to this (in the 'Le Fanu' thread 07 August at 10.31) you have written: "No, I don't find your representation of my position fair. I don't think (that is a metaphysical think) that God 'can't' exist." Of course you don't. The whole point of my post was to show you the unfairness of your phrasing by applying it to your own beliefs. Perhaps such distortions are unintentional, and it will certainly help you to avoid them if you reproduce the text you are commenting on. (I will respond to the rest of your Le Fanu post on that thread.) - Your next made-up argument concerns "god-of-the-gaps", which you say was never rebutted adequately: "The gist of the response was that this gap is really, really special. This time, it's different. Oh-oh! Those seeking to shoe-horn a designer (ok, dhw, the possibility of one) into the ever-shrinking gaps in biology will come unstuck, of that we can be reasonably confident." You will find no such response anywhere on this website. On at least three occasions I have explained my objection to the gaps argument and the need for openness to new evidence, the last being on 28 June (on the Le Fanu thread) when I reminded you of my reply in March to your attack on "agnosticism-of-the gaps". I wrote: "All beliefs (and many disbeliefs) entail filling in the gaps [...], and it's only non-beliefs that leave the gaps open. So if future science fills some in, beliefs/disbeliefs/ non-beliefs may have to change. Nothing wrong with that. Agnosticism [...] isn't something you fight to defend. Its whole essence is that it's open." - Since you are clearly enamoured of the gaps argument, however, let me explain in a little more detail. All theories fill in the gaps between known information. In this case, you and I probably agree that the Earth had a beginning, initially there was no life, and then there was life. The gap is between non-life and life. One theory is an intelligent force that some folk call God. Another theory is that the process was triggered by chance. Both theories are attempts to fill the gaps between the items of information that are known, and as it happens neither theory has any scientific backing. You are of course at liberty to be "reasonably confident" that one gap-filling theory will prove to be the more likely, but until there is enough evidence, the "of-the-gaps" argument applies equally to both theories and gets you nowhere. Furthermore, I do not know of anyone on this website who is not prepared to adjust his/her beliefs if science comes up with convincing evidence, so whose "gist" are you referring to? - You conclude: "If I were a theist, I'd want something a lot less vulnerable to explanation, something far grander and more ineffable ... if only from an aesthetic point of view." I think you will find that most committed theists do indeed base their religion on something far grander. As an agnostic, however, I am searching for explanations, not looking to justify a belief. The importance of abiogenesis in this search is something I will try to explain on the James Le Fanu thread.

6713 views


> Life is incredibly complex.
> 
> No one can reasonably deny that. 
> 
> But why do we have to consider a designer? That life is complex isn't enough for me. It seems like a cop-out answer, "It's too complex, we can't fathom it, so we have to invoke a creator." -
Atheists love to point out the upside down backward human retina. There is a logical reason for it, and it appeared long before it was really needed, an exaptation. This essay explains it beautifully researched, not the typical Darwin/ atheist just-so story.-http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od192/invertedretina192.htm

6440 views

Atheists love to point out the upside down backward human retina. There is a logical reason for it, and it appeared long before it was really needed, an exaptation. This essay explains it beautifully researched, not the typical Darwin/ atheist just-so story.
> 
> http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od192/invertedretina192.htm-Here is a newer discussion of a paper showing why humans have such magnificent vision:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110210164155.htm-An Abstract of the paper:-http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(11)00036-4?switch=standard

6162 views

RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum